Loading...
Minutes-PC 1979/03/26r City Hall Anahalm~ Callfornls March 26~ t979 REGULAR MEETING Of TH ~ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CQMMISSION REGULAR - The reqular meettng of the Anahetm City Planning Commis~tan was c~lled to MEETING o~der by Chatrn-e~n Nerbst at 1; 0 Chamber~ a quorum beln 3 p.m.~ Merch 26~ 1g79~ tn the CAUncil g present. PRESENT - ChAlrmen; Herbst Commtssfoners; Barnes~ 8usho~e~ Devid~ Jahns~n, Ktng Commtssioner Tolar arrlved at 1:35 p.m. ABSENT - Commissloners; None AL50 PRESENT - Jack White J~y Titus Jamea Kawamura Annika Santalahtt Robert Henninger Edlth Harris Deputy C1ty Attorn~y OfPtce E~gl~eer Traffic Enginaertng Asststant Assfstant Dlrector for loning ~4aaistant Plenner Planning Conxn~ssion Stcretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ~ The Pledge of Alle~tence to the Flag was led by ~ommisstoner Ktng. APPROVAL OF - Ca~nissioner King offered a motio~, seconded b C TNE MINUTES MOTION CARRIEp (Commisslo~er Tol~r being absent)~~etsth~~R~nutes ofdth~ meeting of Ma~cF~ 12~ 1979 be appro~ed as submitted. ITEM N0. 1 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERs ARDELL q. ~~A~7iaRICAL EXEMPTIOM-GLASSES 1 b 5 WHITWER~ ~i19 Jeanfne Drive~ Unit B Anahel ~ CA 92806. Petttioner requests WAIVER OF m~ MIi~IMUM NUMB~R ANQ YYPE OF PARKiN6 SP~~ES TO p~operty described aa an irre ularl RE7AIN A R00l1 ADDITION IN AN EXIS7ING GARAGE on acres located at the southeast corne~sofpJackso~eAvenue~andcBethsSt~eetfandpthetsoue~y 3 6 cul-~de-sac termlr;us of Jeanine Drive havtng approximate frontages of 205 feet on tFeerly south side of .;ecks~n Avenun~ ~t~9 feet on the e~st stde of Beth Street~ end 274 feet on the west stde of Jeanlne D~iv~~ and further described as 419 North Jeanln~ Orive, U~it B. Property presently cl~ss(fied RM-1200 (RESiDENTtAL~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY) ZONE. Sut~JecC petltian w~s cantinued fram thG meeting of Feb~uary 26~ 1979~ at thp request of the petitloner. ft was noted the p~,tttioner had requested this ttem b~ wtthdrawn. ACTION; Commisstoner Davtd offCred a nattnn second~ ~~0 (Commtssione~ Tolar being absentj~ that PetitionYfor~Y~srtance rNo~3b77 bed M07fON withdrawn at the request of the pet~tioner. 79-222 3/26/79 ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CqMMISSION~ MARCH 26~ 1919 ITEM N0. VE DBCLARATION • ~~I~/0 79•123 CONTIMUEO PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERSt ALAN R. AND MARJORIE S. TALT~ WINSTON G. AND L015 L. WALKkR~ 615 5outh Fla~+er Street~ los Angeles~ CA 9~017• AGENTt NOMCE GILLETT. Phillp A. Momns Co.~ 5545 East Tslegr~ph Noad. Los Angeles~ ~A 90040. Petitioner ~equests ~eclassificat:lon ot ~roeirhavtngcapproxinwt~ trontsg~siofs613nfeet o~) of land consistl~g of epproximatnly 7.1 tha south sid~ of Omega Ava~ue~ 75~ feet on the west slda of Sunkist Street~ ~nd 278 feet on the north slde of Winsto~ Roa~i~ ~nd bei~g located epproximatelr h55 teet south of the centerllne oP Ball Road. from the Cou~ty A1 (GENERAL AGRICULTUItAL} OISTRICT to the ML (INDUSTRlNL~ LIMITED) ZONE. Sub]ect petition was continued from the March 12~ 1~79 meeting at the request of tha~ petitione~. it was noted the petitioncr hed re~u~sted th~t thls item be conttnued for twa weeks. ACTION: Commissioner sarness nffered a motion~ seconded by Canmisalo~er Oavld and MOTION. ~p (Commlssfoner Toler baing ab~cheduledameeting of~thenPlanningaCsanmtsstonnon~Ap~1~1 79'3~ be at~~hcu~eq~sthofrthe,petltloner. 9~ 1979~ ITEM N0. PUBLIC HEARING. DEVELOPER: BURNETY pEVELOPMEN7 ~VE DECLARATION CO.~ 1849 2 N111crest Avenue~ Vt11r Park~ CA 92667. ~NGINEER: NORRIS ENGINEERING~ 1129~ ~r~i~ertyulevsrd~ Suite 31z. Tustin. CA 92650. Sub~act p op N0. S 4 REYISION N6_. 1~ described as an irregularly•shaped percel of lend consisttn9 of approximately 11.9 acres havl~g a h-.vi~ a maxlmum depth froneage of approximately 5y0 feet on the east side of Henning waY. 9 of approximetely 1170 feet~ and balnq located approxtmately 350 feet south of the Ce~te~llne of Arboe'etum RoadC CORRIDOR OVEaLAY)~ZONETSU6D{VISION.~~~SC) (RESIDENYIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY NILLSIDE.-SCENI It was noted the petitioner had ksquested thst Tentattve Map of 7~act No. 959~+ ~Revisio~~ No~ Z} be continued for four wee There was one person in the audlen~c'e~ i~dwaat~~nt~d outttheaPlanning,Cnomms sion~aouldknot ~ f he could presenc inforn+ation, hnld a public hearing without the applicant present snd the i~formetion should be presented at the rneeting of Apri) 23rd. ACTION: Commisstaner Bushore inf~~bSe^t~ tt at co~sideration ofiTent~ativeaMap~ofnTract'ON ~p (Cvmmissione~ Tolar be g - No. 953~+ ~Revision No. 2) be GO~tthe recuesteotethaapetitioner1ed ~eting ot the Plsnntng Commission on April 2~~ 1979~ aC q 3/2b/79 MINUTES~ /WJWEIM CITY PI.ANNINR COMMISSION, MARCH 26~ 1979 79•~ZW ITEM N0. 10 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: EMKAY BUSINESS CCNTER~ ~~~1~E OECLARATION 1201 Oove SRre~t~ Sulte 200~ P.O. Box 239A. N~wport ln~~NT 9~ach~ CA 92663. AGENT: SUNSET CQNSTRUCTION, INC.. '~'a~~~( .~ 1y53 541 No~th Brookhurst Street~ X308~ An~heim~ CA 92801. Pstitloner requests pe~missian to CONSTRUCT THREE COMMERCIAL OFFICE BUIIDINGS WITH WAIVER OF MINIMUM NUMBF.R OF PARKIN G SPACES o~ property describ~d as Port(on A- a ~ectangularly•shaped pa~cel of land conttisting of approxtmataly 1.07 acre~ havt~g a frontage ot spproximately 240 feec o~ Che north aid~ ot Orengewocd Avenue~ havt~g a maximuM A~pth of ~pproxtn-~tely 218 feet~ end b eing locsted approximataly 632 feet wsst of the centarllne of State College Boulevard; end P ortio~ B• e~ (rrogularly-shaped parce) of land uo~nistl~g of approxt~ mately 1.6 acres lacatad at the northeast corner of Orangewood Avnnue •nd Sant• Cruz St~eet~ havl~g approximete f~ontages of 372 feet on tl~e na~th ~i~k oP Orangewoad Avenua and 141 feet on the cost side of Senta Cruz Stre~t. Property p~esnntly classlfted Ml (INDUSTRiAL, I.IMiTEO) ZONE. It wss noted the petltianer had requested a twe-week cnntinuance. ACTION: Commiss ~~ner King offered a motton~ ~econded by Cormitsstoner Devtd and MOTION ~0 (Commiss ioner Tolar being ebsent). khat consideration of Cenditlonal Use Permlt No. 1y53 be c.ont inued to the re~ulnrly-acheduled meetin9 of tF~e Planntng Commt~sion on Aprl 1 9. 1979, at the request ~f the peti tioner. ITEH N0. 11 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: EMKAY BUSINESS CENTER, EI NE T E DE C LARATI0~1 17~0 E~st Garry Avenue, Santa Ana, CA 92704. ND ONAL USE ER 1 N0. 1960 AGEN7: E. 0. RODEFFER, 1720 Esst Garry Avenue~ Santa Ma~ CA 92704. PeCittoner requests permisston TO ESTABLiSH A RACQU~TBALL AND BOWLING FACILITY IN THE ML ZONE on praperty described as an irregularly-shaped parc~l of land co~sisting of approximately 6. 1 ac~es located north and east of the ~ortheast corner of Orsngewood Avenue and Sant a C~uz Street~ having approximate frontages of 60 feet on the north stde of Orangewcwd flvenue and 70 feet on the east side of Santa C~uz Strect~ and having a maximum depth of approximately 741 feet, P~operty presently classified ML (INDUSTRIAI. LIMITEO) ZONE. It wes noted the petitioner hed reguested a continuance. ACTIAN: Commissloner King offered a motion, seconded by Commiss(oner Davld and MOTION t~EO (Cummissloner Tolar bei~g absent) ~ thet consideration ~f Conditio~sl Use Permit No. 1960 be con t(nued to the regularly-stheduled meeting of the Planning Commission on Apri 1 9~ 1979. at the request nf the petittoner. 3/26/79 ~,• ~~ ~- MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING GOMMISSION~ MARCFI 26~ 1979 79-~z5 (TEM N0. 2 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: FRANY. AND MARION MALAV4RSIC~ ~T1~"~'QI~1~1E DECLARATION 102 Norch Evergreen Street~ Anehelm. CA ~2805. AGENT: DE E U NTS TOM CAMPBELL, 1425 E~st Li~coln Avenu~~ "H"~ Anaheim, ~~'~3~ M ~, 19fi3 CA 9Z805. Patitianer requests permis~lon to ESTABLISH ~- --~ ~FFICE l;SES IN AN EXISTING RESIDEN7IAL STRUCTURE WITH WAIVER OF (A) MINIMUM LANDSCAPED FRONT SETBACK AND (B) MAXIHUM FEN~E HEI GI~T an propertr desc~ibed ss ~ ~ectangularly-shsped p~rcel of land consisttng of epproxim~tely 6804 square feot located et the northeast corner ot Li~cnl~ Avenue and Evergrecn Street, having dpproxime~te trontsges of 108 feet nn the north side of Lincoln Avenue and 63 feet on the east stdo of Evargreen St~~et~ and further described as 1Q2 North Evergreen Str~et. Pr~perty presently classifted RS-j200 (RESIdENTIAI~ SIkGLE- FAMILY) ZONE. The~e was no one i nd i ceting the~ r presen~-e In oppos i tion to subJect request ~ and al thnugh the staff report to the Pl~nning Commisslon ~•ted March 26~ 1979 was not read at the public hearing~ it is roFer~ed to end made e part of thc minutes. Tom Campbel i, Sr. ~ agent, was present to enswer any questions. TNE PU~LI C~~EAR{ NG MIAS CLOSED. Chatrmen Herbst poin ted out this appllcation is the result of a request hy th~ Plunning Commission; thbt a p ~evlous appllcation for reclasslficatton was submitted, and tt was felt a conditional use permit should be requested rether than rec:lassifying sub.)ecC site to a co~ame rc t a I xone . Commissioner Ktng tn diceted his conce rn regardtng the drlveway b~cking out onto Lincoln Avenue. COMMISSIONER TOLAR ARRIVED AT 1:35 P.H. Mr. Campb~l) potnte d outthe Mo parking spaces In thG rear wil) be utllized by h~m snd his son and that there wi 1) be a gate preventlny customer parking. A~TION: Gommissio~er Johnson offcred a nation, seconded by Commlssio~e~ King an~ MOTiON ~:~D (Commissione~ Tolar t+bsteining), that the Plenning Cc~nmisslon has reviewed the proposa~ to permlt afflce uses in an existing residenttal structure ~+ith waiver of mtnimum landscaped front se tback e~d maxirnum Pence hei9ht on a rectangularly-shaped pb~cel of land consiating of approximetely 6804 square feet located at the northeast co rner of Ltncoln Avenue end ~ve~green 5treat~ having approximate frontages of 108 feet on the north stde of lincoln Avenue and 6 3 feet on ehe sast side ot Ever~reen Street; and ~oas he~eby app rove the Pkgative Decla~atlon f~om the requt~ment to prepar~ an environmenta) impact report on the basis that there wnuld be no signtfic~nt indivtdual or cumulative adverse environmental impac t due to the approval of thl~ Negative Declaration si~ce the Mahetm General Plan desig~atrs the subJect property fnr commercial professional land uses cammensurate wlth the proposal; that no senattive environmenta) impa~cts are involved in the proposal; that thelnitial Study submttted by the petitiane~ indicates no significa~t indivldual or cumuiative edverse envt~onmental irnpacts; snd that the Negative Declaration substantiattng the foregoing findtngs is ~n file In the ~City of Meheim Planntng Department. Commtssio~er Johnson askad (f there vtss any desire by the other Commisstoners to place a Cime limit on this use~en d it was noted a condttional use pe nnit would limit the use of the property to thi s perttcular use ond that the property could be sold and the same use could continue. 3/26/79 MINUTES~ IWANEiM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MARCN 26~ 19 73 79~2Z6 Elk NEOATIVE OECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1963 ~~ntinued) _.,._ ... _..__ ._~~~ Commissioner Busho~~ indicated his concarn that the~e would be a parkiny problem. Chalrma~ Merbst polnted out wtth a conditional use pennit if parking becomes a p~oblem o~ • nultence+ and the conditlons ~f the candttionei use pe~mit are nat cornplied with~ thn permtt can be revoked. Canmtsatoner Johnsu-~ offered a motlon~ seco~dad by Commissioner Bushore a~d MOTION CARRIEO (Commtsstoner Tolar abstalning) ~ that the request for watvers (a) and (b) be ~rsnted o~ tha besi~ chat the structu~e and fence are existtng snd dentel would be depriving subJact property of privi leges enjoyed by other property tn the sarnc vtctnity end zone. Commissioner JohRSOn offered Rasalution No. PC7~-56 and m~ved for its passage ~nd adoption~ that the Mahctm City Plenning Conx~issinn does hereby grant Pecitlon f~ Cot~dltlonal Use Permlt No. 1963, suhJect to the ~tlpuletlo~ thot the pa~king aree un the west property llne wt I I be used by the lenants of the p~apercy only and no custome~s wl l l be allowod to pa~k in that area and that the gate wlll ~emaln closed et ell times and that the property wi ll be develaped substant ial ly In accordance with p~ecise plans presenten; and subJect to ~nterdepartnxntal Commlttee recamiendatlons. On ro) l cal l~ the foregoing resolutlon w~s passed by the fol lowing vote: AYES : C~MMI SS I OIJERS: BARN~S ~ k3USHORE ~ DAV I D~ NERaST , JOHNSON ~ KI NG NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NON~ ABSENY: COMMiSSIONERS: NONE ABSTAIt~: COhWI5510NERS: TOLAR ITCM N0. 4 PUBIiC HEARING. OWNER: KENNETH KAILhWN~ 1741 ~T1~ITTVE DECLARATiON West Lincoln Ave~ue~ Sufte A, Maheim~ CA 92801. RECLA S FIC TION NQ. 7-79-36 Petiiion~r requests rzclassiflcati~n of property ~ described as an irregularly-shaped parce) aF land consistiny of approxtmately 0.9 acres hrving a frontage of app roximately 212 feet on the s o uth slde nf Llncoln Avenue~ havTng a ma~imum depth of approxtmately 228 feet~ being located approximately 50; f~cc east of the ce~terllne of Loara Street~ and furthar deserfbed a~ t~30 Wesc I.inccln Ave•.u~~ fran the Ml (INDUSTRIAL~ LIMITED) ZON~ to the CL (CQMMERCIAL~ LI!~ITED) Z6NE. There was no ane Indicattng thelr presence tn opQosltion to subJe:t request~ and although the staff report to the Planning Commissior~ dated March 26~ 1979 was not re~d st the publlc h~erfng~ it (s referred to and made a part of the mtnutes. Kenneth Kal lrrtan, vwner~ was p~esent to a~swer any ques tions. TNE PUBLIC HEARIh1G WAS CLOSEO. ACTION: Commissioner King offered a motion , setonded by Commissioner Busho~e and MOTION t~D. th~t the ~4naheim City Ptanning Canmtssion has reviewed the proposal to reclassify from the ML (Industrial. Limited) 2one to the CL (Cam~erctal. Limtted) Zone propert~j described aa an irregularly-shaped parcel o f land conststing of approximately 0.9 acre having a frontage of approximately 212 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, having a maximum depth of app roximately 228 feet. b eing loceted approximately 509 feex east of the canterltne of ~.oara Street; and does he~eb y~pprove the Negative Oeclaration from the requirement ta prepare an environmental imp~ct repurt on the basis t~•at there aould be no significant individual ar cumutetiv~+ adverse environmental impact d~ee to the approval of this Negative Declaration since the Anaheim Ge~eral P~an deslgnates the subJect property 3/26/79 3 ti MINUTF.S~ ANAHEIM CITY P~ANNING COMMISSION~ MARCN 26~ 1~7s 19-227 EIR NEGATIYE DECLARATION AND RECLASSIFICATION N0. 78•79-36 (continued) for general conxn~+rcla) land uses c~mmensu~ate with the proposal; thst no sensft(ve anvlronmental impaccs aro involved in the propossl; that che Inttial Study ~ubmitted by the petittoner indicate• no ~ig~11'ic~nt IndtvlduAl or cumulative adverae environmental imp~cts; and thot the Negative Daclaratton aubstantlattng th~ foregoing findings (s or~ file tn the City of Anahelm Plan~ing Dep~~tment. Comml~slo~er King offered Resolutlan No. PC79-57 ++nd moved for its p~ssage and adoptlon~ that the Msheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Patitlo~ for Reclas~itic~tion No. 78-79-36~ subject to the conditlon that the p~opurty shail be developed substantiaily tn accordance wi th pracfse pl+~ns presanted an~l subJect to Interdepartmentel Commitcee racommcndattons. On roll cali, tne f4regoing resolutton was passed by thc fol lowing vote: AYES = CONS11 SS I ONERS ; BARNkS ~ BUSHORE ~ DAV 1 U~ NERdST ~ JOHNSON ~ KI NG, TOLAR NOES: CfiMMISSI0NER5: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIuNERS: NONE ITEM N0. S PUBIIC HEARING. OWNER; FIRST CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH ~1~;L71TT11E DECLARATION OF ANAIiEIM~ 515 North State College Bouleverd, N . -79-3R Anaheim, CA 92$06. AGENT: CASTI LLC BUI LDERS ~ LTD. ~ ' ^ 1669 Easc Lfncoin Avenue~ Orenge~ CA 92665. Petitlone~ requests ~eclassif~cation of property described as a rectanguiar!y-shaped pa, :el of lend consisting of approximately 1.9 acres havinq a frontage ~f appr~ '.~ately 206 feet on the north si de of Sytamare Street~ having a maximum depth of ,~prrY .~y 431 feet~ and being lo~ated approximately 471 feet west of the centerline of 5t4 . . ~~ Boulevard~ fron~ the RS-A-43~000 (RESIDENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL) ZO'IE to :he F-1200 (RES~ '• ~ MULTIPLE-FAMII.Y) ZONE. The~e wc~re ap~:~oxlmately eight persons Indicating their presence in oppositian to sub,ject raques t~ end a l thougl~ the s t~f f report to the P i ann i ng Cortrr+i ss i on datcd March 26 ~ 1979 was not read at the public heertng~ It is referred to and made a part of the minutas. Dave Lcvinson~ designer~ stated attertpts have bean made to n+eet al) code requlren~nts. He ststed they reallze the homeowners are concerned about the increase in traffic a~d explatned Sy~amo~e is a collector str~ei having appraxfmate ly 3.300 cars currently and is capable of han.~111ng f~rom 5~004 to 9~000 vehicles per day and ehe in~crease in traffic flow wi 11 not be dntrTmental to the nei4hborhood. He stated the~e was slso a concern regarding the parking araa a~d the posslbility of headlights cAUStng problems across the street. and expialned deeper than requi red landscaped areas wi t l be provided aa~d the area wl { 1 be bermed to screen the parking ~r~~ from the res(denttal area and also to add to the attractiveness of the project. He stated Kn!s wi I1 not be a low-cost project and will provide enclosed garages wi th s2ora~e areas . Ceo~~e Cunningham~ tE4o Esst Sycamore Street~ Maheim~ sta+ted he has 1(ved at this address ~inte 1952 and sxplalned there are na sidnwalks on the south sicie of the street. He fett even though parking 6s prov~ded inside the proposed pro]ect, there will be s signtftcant incraase t~ the on-street parking in th~ area. Ne refsrred Co the church and park on La Palma and the parking problems that axist~ and felt the inc~ease in trafftc would Increase the deli~quency and drug traffic and otha~ problems thr>. r~i 11 have an effect on the Ju~ior high schoot children~ and he did ~ot faei thts type ~:~ I~ct wouid best serve the interest of the oommun i ty . 3/26/79 MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMlSSION~ MARCH 26~ 1979 7!~-228 EIlt NEGATIYE DECLARATION AND RECLASSIFIGATION N0. 78-J~-38 (continued) Joen Wllltans, 1324 Sycamo~~ Street~ Anahaim~ stated she was Goncerned ~bout the drelna9e on the north side of the street; th~t even in ~ rain that ta not heavy, the street Is flooded slmost to the centerltne~ and felt storm drain facllttlcs should be instelled. She at~ted the children can~ot w~ik along that slde of the street. She steted they wauld ilke to s~e n wall constructed between the parkl~g area and the landsceped borm eres. H~r-nen Jelsma, 18~0 E~~t Syc~more Strret~ Anahelm~ referred ta the Generel Plan m+~p on rhe wall end strted It shows the er~e desiqneted for low-medtum density which does not Include apartment complexes. He felt tt~e church ta trying to dispose c-f the ;~ro~e~ty ln order to ralse money to 'butld a new butldtng and fGlt a new church would be lerqe~ and attract more peoWle~ whlch would create addltlonal pa~king problems. Chairman Herbst explatned thc Gommission must discuss the devel~~ment of the apartment complcx and any church c:xpension would hrve t~ be heard at a Ister datc. Mr. Jelsma felt that issue should be cons(dered because (t wll) have an effect on thls proposal. 11e felt there wlll be a signiflcant increase (n trafffc and estimated there would bc an (ncrease ~f at '.east 1;0 people ltving the~e and that most of them would be edults and would drive a c»r, fle stated eve:n if :hs proJect conforms to cade raquirements~ he did not think there would be sufficie~t parking~ especially If these peop~e havc guests. Nc pointed out if cars are parked on both sldes of the street~ It will signtf~cantly reduce the capacity of the street. He stAted when tt rains~ the northern half of Sycamore (s flooded and cars drtve in the middle lane~ and that there are junior high school chlldren walktng on that si~e of tl~e st~eet and they wtll heve te cross the entra~ce and exit to tlie epartment cornplex. Ne dtd not llke the Idea of having an apartment complex built b~tween the church and the Junior high school and itlt his property value would be aecreaSed~ pnlnting out this is a typical single-fa~mily~ low- density resideniiat area. Virglnla aenner, i~0~i Eost Sycamore Str~ ~. Anaheim~ was concerned that che existing block wall will p~obably be taken dcri ~ and th~ ~r.rm vr111 be dtrectly acr~ss from her property. Sl~e asked hew high the berm wo~ld be~ in~(cating conccrn that she would be looking Inta the parking area f~cxn her property and that the residents of the apartinent complex would bt out working an their vehicles. cleanin~ them, etc.~ and in the evenings heaolights would be an invaclon of th~tr prlvacy. She stated she wouid like to se~ the wal~ ~ematn or a new wall constructed. She statrd she was als~ disturbed about the single entrance to the pro}ect whlch e~npties directly across the stra,~t from he~ driv~way and felt it would be a hazard. She felt there would !~~ tremendous increase in trafflc on Sycamore, and she wanted to go on record as beln4 '>~ed tu the apartment camplex and felt so~nething more suitsble could be dev~loped on . property. Richard Oa:y~ represcnting thc Flrst Congregatlanal Church~ s*~+ced there sccros to be ~ common thread thraugh this oppositton~ and that is the t~~ff` ~,n Sycamore. He expiained traffic studies will show that street is presentfy below cepacity and no evidence has been prgsented which indicaf.es there will bG a stgnlftcant traffic increase~ and staff '~od not felt it would be s?gnificant enough to me~tton. Conce rning the dralnage problem~ !~~ exp°ainec Sycamore becomes a coilector to the drainage facil~ties tn State College and felt the apartmenL camplex will have less covered lan~ than with the present asphalt parking lot~ and felt the drainage situatlon would be enhanced with more open space. He felt the conments ~egarding the school were irrelevant because the school dtstrict was not conce~nec~ and had not offered any comment. Mf. Levinson explai~ed the existing wall is 42 inches high and could remain, and that they had ortgi~a~~y proposcd a 6-goot high Nall, but found aut a variance wr~~~' be necessary~ and also that the landscaped area wauld only be beneficial t~ tho apar:~w ,:. coa~lex and 3/26/79 NINUTES~ ANAHCIM CITY PLANNING COMM15510N~ MARCM 26~ 1979 79•229 EI_R NEGATIVE QECLARATION AND RECLASSIFICATION N0. 78-79-}8 (co~tinued) .~....__.._ the neighbors would be looking at the wall. He stated they felt by removtng the existtng wall~ the nelghbofs alll hev~ s more stt~active view with the landscaped area. Ne explained the minimum hei~ht ot the be~m would be 4 feet ~+nd that tree~ and other landtc~ping sre planned~ and felt this wlll be adequate. He stated they wili ba willing to provtde a speed burr~ at the entrance to slow the traffic dawn coming tn and out of the proJect which should ellmtnet~ some fea rs of the children walking pdst the c~mplex. Con u:rning the drainage~ he oxplained presently there Is approximately 40~000 square feet of psved parking lot are~ whlch will be decreasod to approxtmately 30~00~ square feet~ and felt thet shouid take ce~c of most of th~ drainage p rob 1 enn . THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSEQ. Commissioner 8arnes asked if sidewalks sre proposed in front of this proJect~ and Mr. Levinson replied currantly there ts s public sidewalk at that locatlon~ end Chalrman He~bst clariP(ed there are no sidewalks on the other ~ide of the st~eet. Mr. l,evl~san stated they hsd consldered a security•type proJect, but that the Engt~ ~e~1ng Deportment had wantecf the security gate set back about 5Q feet on the property~ whi.,n would nat provide se~urlty for the front perking area. He stated they feel the speed bumps at the entrance would preven[ speeding in and around the proJect. Gommtssloner Barnes asked if the proJect is related to the church a~d if because of security aspects certaln types ot tenants wouid be sought. Mr. I.evinson esxplained because of the type of proJect~ it wrill be far adults and will dama~d hlgher rents~ anJ expla(ned they havc tried to provide amenlties withtn the units. Chairman Harbst asked how far the units will be from the parktng areas, and Robert Henntnger~ Assistent Planner~ replled the plans were checked and found to be in conformance with code. Commtssloner David asked for clarification regarding the General Pian designstlon~ and Robert Henninger replied that the property is designated for mediun de~sity residcntlal, which cbes allow apartment complexes. Commissloner JQhnson polnted out the proJect Is being proposed with no v~rlances and felt the Corm~ission is pawerless except to support the p~oJect wtth one exception~ and that is the reclassification~ and felt tt should be looked at ve ry carefully stnce there is no othe~ RM-1200 zoning near this property. Co~^missioner Sarnes felt this is a good proJect; howeve~~ the Commission has been trying not to create spot z~ning. She also aa concerned that expansion of the church would create additional trafftc and was concerned about the intrusion of this type proJect into the residentia) ncighbo~hood. Nr. Levtnson stated th~y had investiga~ed traffic problenLS on this street and found tt carrles only 3~300 csrs per day and the Traffic Department has indicated it could ca~ry from 5~000 to 9.000 vehicles per day and that this tnformatton could be verlfied with the Traffic Department. He did not feel expanslon of the church and constructlon of this proJect would bring the atreet to its capacity. Ne stated the property fs already desig~ated on the 6ane~al Plan ~or apartments and did nat feel that should be considored at thfs time. 3/26/79 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PU-NNING CAMMISSIOH~ MARCH 26~ 1919 7'9-230 EIa NEGATIWE DECIARATION AND RECLASSIFtCAT10N N0. 78-79-38 (continued) Chalrman Harbst esked ebout the drainage praDlem~ ~nd J~y Titus. Offlce E~gineer~ ~tated the~a is a m~)or dreinsge tec(Itty (n State College and d~ainage to Sycamore should only start ot State College~ but ha did not hava a specific ansWa~ to the problem. He refer~ed to e coriment by Lhe petlttoner thet the paved e~aa would be reduced~ and osked (f the roafs hsd been considered, expla(n(ng water off the rcofs is quita conce~t~ated~ but did not thlnk tha qroJect would warsen the situeti^~. Chalrm~~ Nerbst stAted thix Is a long, narrow parcel wlth very llttle straot fro~tage In comparison to the number of unitR and felt mcare on-slte pr~kt~g should be provided because ~t is typica) f~~~ spartme~t dwdllers t~ park in the street. He stated with 50 u~tts therr cc,u 1 d be 100 ears . Mr. Levins~x, resplied that Cl~e project cioea meet the c~de requirements. Chalrman Herbst stated the cocie sets the minimum requiremcsnts~ but thAt the dPveloper does not hav~s t~ rt~eet minimums~ (~Uintlr~y c~ut agai~ the narrawnesa of the pr~Ject. fle f~it even though the church has adequate perk(ng~ a problam t~uld be created when the project is sold. tir. l.evinson st~tcd pres~ntly Sycamorc is ~osted with "no parking" so tl~ere will be no pArkinc~ an the strest~ and there was a ~esponsc fr~m ti~e audience that this wAS not true. Chafrm~n llerbst stated the opposition Is concer~+ed about rarking in front af thelr houses and it bccomes a proble~n whr_n apartment dwellers park o~ resldential streets. He indlsatad this is a problem all over Anal-e4m and the Commisslon has been looking ve ry hard et perktnc,~ requirements. HG fel~ thi, proJect~ whlch abuts a schoot and a commercial site~ wau~d be rnore suitable for tf~is stte than single-family hort~y~ but sttll felt b~cause af the minimum st~eet fro~itaqe~ more off-strtet parking should be provlded. Comm(ssioner King stAteG it is tmposslbl~ to force people ta put their cars tn garages and furthef stated if Anahcim is t,~ grow r~~d prosper~ obvlously there will be an lncrease in trafFic.. and to stop the groNth of traffic rneans M aheim must stop the building of homes~ apartments~ sto~es, f~~tvrfes, etc. He stated housing Is need~d and the oaner of the property wiii be payiny tax~s, so he and his tenants have the ~Ight [o use the streets. He indicated he wauid be voting in favor of this proJect. Gc~nmissioner Bushv~e stated he loaks at apartments in a reside~tial area as spot zoning. He Nas concerned with parking ~nd pointbd out the pettttone~ had n~t the minimums, but nothing is added ta the area. He was distressed to h~er thet these wtif be hlgh rent units. He felt this rfiole arca is a tynical single•famlly res~dential area And he was bothered because Ci~ere is e shortage of ulaces where a church Hould be suitable and the Comm{sston is constantly having rtciuests for conditionat use permits fo~ chu~ches. The futu~e exp~nsian af thiS cMurch cf.~cerned htm because he did not want to see e va~tance requested for parking tn tha future because they have sold off part of their property. He staCed he covld not support the proJect without seeing the pians fo~ the future expansion of t.he church. Richa••d Daly stated they hsd dQne an extensive site plan of the ent~re area and will be able ta prov9dc parktng in cxcess on the remaining laild for the needs of the proposed senctuary rvhi ch wi 11 be bui 1 t on the southeast corn~:~ of SyGemora a~nd State Col lege and is presently being desl~ned. Ne pointed out ~n appfic,atton hss been msde to buiid the church and are well satisfied that sufftclent parking is ~vailabla for th~ church and its proposed ultimste configuratlan. He stated tha dectsion to sell the westerly 200 feet ~-ss not mada haphazardly a~d the future expansfon ~f tha church facilt~ies was considered, and he did not think the church would be seeking a waiver of the parking requirements. 3/26/79 '~,_ M~NUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MARCH 26~ 19~9 79•231 EIR NEGATiVE DECLAfWT10N AND RECLASSIFICATION N0. 78-7~-38 (wntinued) _. ~.... ... .._. - Commisstoner Johnsan stated a tat of congregations are searching for land for th~ir churches and this church see~ms to have :u~plus land~ which Is unusual. Ile was concerned because It w~s polnted out the property ls designated on ~he Genera) Plen for l~w-medlum donsity. He noted the property is located adJecent to canmerclal us~s~ however~ he could not su~port the req uest for RM-1200 In the RS-A•43~~00 Zone. Robert Nenntnger explained tha subJect prope~ty was daslgnated on the General Pian in 1961 fo~ medtum density residential land uses and the RM-12Q0 Zone Implen~~ts that deslgnatton. Gommtssloner King stated he thought this use wauld be the highest and best use for thc p~ope~ty becau~c t t(~ locelr.~1 between a school ond e church. Comnlsslo~er Bernes stat~d she was bothered because thls erea Is a typica~ single-family residential area wtth nothing clse llke thia aroun~i it~ and felt tt would be st~anqe to put this proJect in a residential area between a schAal and a church. She thought. hawevar~ this is a good proJect. Mr. Levinson rebutted to comments made t-bout street perktng and stated almest all residentla) developmenCS are dcsigned with two-car garages end attract young couples and thelr families grow~ and that older single-farnily developments have two•c~r gar~ges but usually have three or four cars and do park on the streets. Ne felt thls proJect would not be as cluttered as others he has seen In Anahetm. He explatned thts proJect wtl) pravide mostly one-bedroom u~its for adults only (with nnly 16 two-bedroom units)~ and a lat of the occupants will not be married end that nok all wlll have cars. He fe{t havtng the guest parking in the front will encou~age gucst parking off th~ streets. He stated he cauld have provided some extra parking spaces, but felt parktng was adequete And the greenbelt aress Nould be more importanC and would provlde a more attrettlv~ proJect. He stated they will provide prtvat+c areas and storage. He felt residential areas hav~ bigger parking problems than the p~o~osed project would generete. Commtssioner Bushcre referred to the three extra parktng spaces proposed in this v~oJect and ~eminded the Cortmissl~n af a h~aring two weeks ego for ten fourplexes and the fact that the Commfssion had requested that proJect be redestgned to provid~ more parkt~g. Ke stated typically there Is single-family developmant around this pro)ect. He pointed out the developer has said he could cut ou~ some cf the land:captng and provtde more parking~ and indicaCed t~e had never heard a developer sa~ he .c>~~ld cut out one or more of the units to provide more parking. M~. levinson stated land costs a~re a lot higher and if units are cut, the rents would be higher. Camnissloner Bushare p~inted out it has already been indicated this wouid be a high-rent proJect. Ne stated he would like to see what Is across the street and that maybe this is a law-cost rental area. He stated the Commissian keeps talking about low-cost housing~ but as long as they keep allowing this type of devr.lopment~ there wil) n4t be any low-cost hous(ng. Mr. Levinson stated they had had a meeting with the homeowne~s and they do not want low- cost housing because that would decr~ase the value of thefr property because it brings in a lower cless of people. Commtssio~er Davtd asked how low-cost housing wauld decrease their property values and indicated he took o~fense to the cumment that poor pe~r~le are a lower class of people. Commissloner Bushore asked where thess low-rent people can go in the City~; that the high- density p roJects are constantly being approved which do not seil for any less and nowhere 3/26/79 M MINUTFS, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MAaCN 26~ 1979 7y~232 EIR ~~EGATIVE DECLARATION AND RECLASSIFICATiON N0. 78-~ (tontinued) i~~~~~ ~~ does a de.voloper went to provtdn a quality proJdct that would bo compa~t and have, low ~e~ ts . Chairmsn Herbst atated the property owner has the prerogative to build what he wants to build and the reason he hed made th~ atetement regarding the parking is because this Is directly across the street from an R-i area and could be consldered spot zoning~ but polntod out It is abutting a~choal and commerclel~ which does not meke It as sultable for R-1 dovelopment. Ne steted the praJect ftts es far as the z~ning is concarned according to the Gone~al Plan, but he sti11 felt the proJect does not shew enough off-street p~rking for the type of devnlopment tn this area. Ne felt in looking at other prnJects in Anshelm~ coda mintm~uma are not sultabie; tl~el they would be tn certaln e~~AS~ but thts area only has 200 feet of frontagc rnd Is tn the R-1 area. Ne felt the two can be ccxnpettble providfng the builder designs the pr~Ject to keep the people off the street. He potnted out the proJect would have B5 p~rking stalls and 50 units~ and (t is possible cvery~a could have two cars and there Is no place for guests to pa rk. He fe~t this p~oJect would bc tekino the right of other peoples' park(ng ptaces in front of their hcusc-a in the street. Commissloner Darnes askcd how many parking spaces per unit are proposed~ and Mr. levinson replied they propose 1.7 spaces per untt. Commissto~er Johnson stated he could suppert the proJect if there ls enough narking. He felt recreattona) vehicles must be constdered and stated there are apartn~ nt complexes where RV parking ts provtded. He i~dlcated he would not like for tony of the la~dscaptng to be deleted ta provide p~rking, and stated he thought this proJect waa Just a 1lttle too dense. Commissioner Barnes polnted out the Planning Comnission is aware of the problems ss mentioned by the petitioner conce rning parking and naw requtre 5 spaces for single-family reside~tial; plus, the parking rcquireme~ts for the planned unft developments in the Anahcim Hills a~ea have bean revised end 3.5 spaces are now requlred and the Commisslon is looktng at other developments. She pointed out the Commission had recen;ly requested another developer to bring in a plan providing approximately 3•5 sPaces per untt and (ndicated this would show that the Commission is concerned about thG pa~ktng and treftlc. She stated she ~ould like to see the proJect developed and still thinks it ts a good proJect, but she is worried about the area. She stat~d It ts on the General Plan for medit~m density and it wouid be dlfflcult not to approve the project~ but that she could not vate for it unlass it had much nare parking, end referred to othe~ proJects with the s ame k i n d o f p rob 1 cros . Comm(ssioner King felt this would be the highest and best use of this property and pointed out this property is less than 600 feet from s commercial area which aould make it convenient for young people to get to their places of employnrent. He pofnted out there are ali kinds of commercisl devetopment on the east side of State College Boulevard and believed tt~is wouid be a good spot for thts proJect. Chairn+a~ Hnrbst and Commissioner Johnson indtcated they a~reed~ but would ltke to see more pafking. Chairnian Herbst referred to the recreational vehicles and pointed out there is no place to parlc them on this pro,ject~ and felt some place shnuld be provlded at the ~ea~ of the proJect. Commissioner 7o1ar tndicaited he felt the Cortmission should discou~age RV parking on small developments a~d there should be deed restrictions not allowtng RV parking~ and 3!26/7° MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLIINNING COMMISSION~ MAtICM 26, 1979 ~g-Zg3 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND RECIASSIFIC~TION N0. 78- -38 (continued) - ~_-- Commissioner Barnes telt Lhat would force peopie ta p~rk their recreattonal vehicles tn front of nther peopl4s' housns on the st~eet and there should be apeciftc plsces set aside. She referred to the Anehetm Hills area whe~e perkfng of recreationel vehlclea is prohtbited •nd tndicated th~y are parked In front of the golf cr~urae beceuae there is ~o place for them. Mr. Levinson stated he was stil! conca~ned about parki~~ on the proJect. He stated ha was aware the~e was restdenttal development ec~ota the str~et~ but there is slso conn~arclal development sur~aunaing this p roperty. Ne pointed oui the General Plan doea shvw medtum denalty for thi: p mperty and thi~ proJect has met the requiremonts of that density. He asked if tho p~oJect Is betng used to set a p~QCedent for the area~ aolntlno out they were give~ the standa~ds by the Planning Department~ and felt thc Plannfng Commisston is looktng for ways of defeating the proJect to set a precedent. He refer~ed to thQ RV parking within th~ proJect and tndicated thbt nowhere In the code does It state thts must be p-^ovlded. Commissioner Barnes tndicated the mtnutcs of the past meetings would ver(fy that the Planning Commt~sion hes been concern~d about th(s (n the past. Commtssloner aushore pointed out again that the proJect cfAes meet the mintmums~ but that they could have prov(ded more~ and referred to Mr. Daly's comments ~egarding plans for future expansion of tlie cl~urch and asked if there would be any excess perking speces wlth the church use or associated use~ and tf there were~ suggested that an (rrevocable ag~eement be entered into between the church and the apartment complex. Hn suggested atso thet parktng could be made available for the RV's or extra guest pdrking on the church parktng lot. Mr. Daly stated they would hesitate to create an Gasement on their church parking lot t~nd would certal~ly demand money for such an easement. He stated they would not wtsh to create an easement for the office butldiny or the bank tn the back~ but that they have entered (nto an trre.vocabie license with the bank to share their parking lot durtng their unused hours and the bank could use their church parking lot ~uring the week. He stated he felt this pa~ktng situation ts a"red herrtng" and felt the type of apartment complex being p roposed would draw the middle class and there would not be people ltvtng thcre who are ear'ning $500 a month or are on Social Securlty and did not anticlpate they would own four or five vehtclGS. Ne stated he lives on a residentfal st~eet and appreciates the problems. He stated when the church hed ortglnally looked at thts project and the developrnent of the land~ not necessarily the 200-foot parcel but the entire land~ that they did have an obligation to the canmunity and had lo~ked at a proJect for low-cost housing o~ stnior citizen t~ousing because it is part of the church's mission. He stated they had explo~ed these possibtlittes wtth the Housing and Urban Development Department and with dtff~rent developers. He stated the matter actually comes ciow~ to the economic reality. He Indicated this is a 200-foot parcei of prop~rty and t[ would be nice to have 400 parking spaces. fle stated they are going to put land which has been, unttl no~n~ Essent(ally tax free back on the tax rolls and it will be gotng from a welfare exemptton to no exemptian and wi11 put muney Into the City. He stated they would be provtding a service for 50 fam111es; that maybe these are not 50 poor or ald families~ but 50 famtltes who do need housing. He did not f~~l ths ~e Is anything wrcm g with mlddie class people being housed and that they ar~ building ehe proJect for a market that is thert. He felt this pe•ojact ts the economic use for this p~aperty. Commtsatoner Bushore stated this (s the economtc use for the church and for the develope r and it could be debated back and forth. He indicated the Pla~ning Commissi,~n cauld go ahead and act on thts proJect~ or permit the develope~ to take another look at th~ proJect after hearing the Pl~nning Commisslon's conccrns. 3Iz6~79 , MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PIANNI~~G COMMISSION~ MAItCH 26~ 1979 79-234 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION IWD RECLASSIFICATION N0. 7A-79-38 {continued) Commisstone~.• Tola~ stated he recognlzos thia is an economic situatton. but h~e hes never seen a plece of propo~ty more competibie end more in tune wtth the use than this proJect. He potnted out the developer fs asktng for RM-1200 density and that there is a schc~o) tocated on ona slde with comme~cial tn tho north. Ha stated he is not conce~ned w(th the particula~ use of th~ prop~rty; that the Planning Commisslon In most cass nevor asked a developer to go back a~d p~ovide more parking than requlred. He Indicsted recentty the Commisslon has asked for mnre guest p~rking and maybe Lhls could be do~e; and thst he was concerned wtth psrking on xhe st~eet for tha protection of the residents and the nofse, but balleved the earthen berm and landscaping could be handled to ellminate that problem. Ne t~dlcated he belleved there is room for mr~re on-site parking and felt thts I~ a good development and stated h~ would like to see some sort of provtsion m~+de in relationship to parking off the street to protect the resldents from thc nnlse~ etc. Commissioner Oavid indicated iie wss concerned that we dc~ have codes and the requirements are given to the developers and then when they reach this point, the Plan~tng Commtsston interJect~ othe~ Items which they wou1J llke to h~ave. He suggested that ehis Inforn-e~tlon should be given to the developers end felt th(s catches them by surprise. Fle poi~ted out they cc,uld have b ullt the proJect with a ciansity of up to 36 untts pe~ e~re and have proposed 31 un(ts per acre~ and havP provided m~re par{cing spaces than requlred by code. He stated he would have been happy in this case with low-to-moderate Income hausing. Chalrman Nerbst indlcated ho Is not opposing the project a~d would agree it would be the best use for this property because of the comme,ctal and the schoc~l siCe~ but felt because of the InJectlon of multiple•family units into the resldenttal area, this ls a unique sit~ation~ more so then ather apartments which are normally seen by the Planning Commlssio~; that this ts 50 units with only 2Q0 feet of fro~tage~ and he knew that ca ~s would be perked In the street. Commisstoner David pointed out the petitlon~r had indicated he could ~ravide more parking and that he would havc provided it if he had known what the Commisslon would lik.e~ and that he could give away some of the landscaping. Chairman H~rbst pointed out In apertment housing. most relate to dbout 26 units per acrc xo meet the landscapin~ and setback requlrements~ and Commissioner Esarnes pointed out thts is s very dense proJect compared to mcst. She feit staff is eware c~f the Commisston's concerns and falt sure they had tndicated those concerr,s to the dev~~lopers~ but there is no way of Gnforctng this. Commissioner David thought this is putlin9 a big monkey o~ staff's bsck and that the code should be amended. and Commtssioner Ba rnts stated she agreed and pointed out a study is u~de nvay to change the coCe. Mr. Levinson stated thcy~ as designers. hsd gone to the Planning Department a~d were givGn the atandards e:~d it was nok discussed at that time; that the project went through Interdepartmental Committee revl~w last Monday and nothing wss said about parking. He stated he had visited the Planning Oe.partment twice himsetP end had gonc over the stte plan and they met all the requirements and a lox of money has been spent In the designinq of this pmject. Cmm~issioner Barnes asked lf the psrking had bee~ discussed with the Planning staff~ and Mr. levinson replied that the project met the perking requirements and there was no need to discuss the parking, and thaL nathing had been said about the parking. Ha lndtcated they could provide three more spaces or they could drop a two~•bedroom unit and add mare spaces~ but he needcd to know what the Commission wtll ~eyutre. Ha stated there is 3/26/79 MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMiSSION~ MAaCH 26~ 1979 EIR NEGATIVC DECLARATION AND RECLASSIFICATION N0. 18-19-38 nnthing ln the code that statos what tt~e Commission wsnts zontng requlrementa. 79-235 (continued) and the) r proJect does rr~et the Commissloner King Indicated some af the Commissloners are sattsfled rnd that he would like to move ahead a~d offer a motton. Chalrman Herbst felt there we~e enough Commisafoners in oppositlon to the parking that a motlon would hurt the applicnnt~ and rether then having the pro,~ect denied~ he may wish t~ request a tontinuance. Commtssloner Bushore stated this Commisston doe~s not make the codes for the Ctty; that the Commtasto~ (s seven tndependent thinkers who are here to protect the nethhbors and thc petitlr~ner and felt the petitionrr sliuuld not expcct staff ta enlighten them on the Commission's thinking. He su~gestecl ~ motton tn Inst~uct staff to glve the developers tlie current thlnktng of the Planning Commisslon or to gu ahead and meke possibl~ tode~ changes. He steted et the present ttme wc arc looking at perking ~equirements on such developments. Ro~ert Henntnyer explained chat tl~e staff informs developers of current informatton and that currently there Is a stuciy going on for condominlums 1~ the RM-40~0 Zone which was rocently ~mendeJ to RM-30~0. He stated prevlou~ly the Planning Commisslon's concerns mostly regarded condominium-type proJetts and whe~ developers came in with that type development~ staff has bee~ telling thrm that the parking as indicated in the code was maybe belaw what the Conmisslon would like to see. Ne thought the first tlme the Planning Commisston had any real concern regarding parking in an RM-1200 development was at the last meeting wlth the Pear) and Ularnond Street project~ and that these gentl~me!n have been developing this proJect for quite a lor;g ttme and would not have been advised of what went on at the last Planning Commission meetfng. He stated the Commission could make a Planning Commission puticy that wo~ald direct ztaff to advise developers to provide more perktng a~~d that they would then go ahead and advise them. Cortanissioner King pointed out that the t~end is towards srn~l ier cars. Mr. Daly statcd he has heard some of the Comnissioncrs talktng about more parking, but not once has he heard an obJective indicat(on of how much more parking. He stated he felt basically it is unfa(r to change the ~ules when developers come in to talk about the proJect and then to deny tt without givtng them some obJectlve criteria. 4e stated they have a park.ing ratio of 1.7 spaces per unit end asked what the Comntssion felt would be a proper ratto for a development of this type and indtcated he felt they could make a relatively quick determination as to whether or not it is posstble~ but dtd not know whether or not the Commissfaners themselves were of enough unanimity to know what that number would be. Cammissioner Barnes stated she thought the Commisstan was unanimeusly for parking over 2.0 and t~~at some Commissione~s would prefe~ more. She stated she could ~m de~stand the argurnents and could actually sympathtze with the ~avelopers and realized It seemed very unfair~ but felt they could p rovide 2.0 parking spaces fairly easy and maybe wlth Just the additiun of those 3 to 5 parking spaces. Ga ry Jones~ C~stille Builders~ Ltd., the develope~~ did not think the ratio of 1.7 to 2.0 is relevant when you have a situation with one°bed~oom to two-bedroom units because a lawer ratio is requi~nd with a ane-bed~oom unit and did not feel a fixed retlo could be applied cansistently throughout each proJect. Chairman Herbst pointed out in some of the aingl~s proJects ahich have been approved parking is heavle~ there than in some uf the other apa~tment complexcs. 3/Z6/79 ~ MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING CANMISSIAN~ MARCH 26~ 1979 79-236 EIR NE~iATIVE DECLARATION 11ND RECLASSIFICATION NQ. 78-79•38 (co~tinued) Commisslo~e~ David esked if som~ specific datr~ could be p~ovided rega~dtng the parking problemt at these type units. Rebe~t Hanninger polnted out that could be rese~~ched and it fs a possibility that some other c(ty has researched it a~d e copy af thsP. report could be made avallable. Chalrman Nerbat stated thls project is unique and ts betng leposed upon s stngle~femtly area and recogntsl~g ;he s(te Itself does abut a achonl a~d commercta) d~velopment~ he felt the type of prc~Ject would fit, but that the Commisslon muat look st the proJact end the fact that the nelghbora will be draatlcally affected by the parktng a~ound the complex~ pointtng out th~t it only ha~s 200 feet of curb parking. lie felt it is untque and that thc Commission can rcquirc morc off-street perktng becausr. there Is not en~~x~h Q~- st~eet perking. Commissloner Johnson felt Cheirmen He~bst was r,orrect a~d polnted out another ~eason thts haa not coma up at prior hearings is beca~~se there has usw+lly been a trede-off wf th va~i~ncea or waivers ahich left the Commt~~ton with e Itttle bit af an arm; thet tn this c~se the only a~gurtient Is that there Is 20a feet of frontage~ which ts not ve ry much off- st~eet parktng placas~ and felt the Commisslon does have good grounds for asktng Por more parking. Chelrman Nerbst Indlcated he wos~ld like to see 2.A spaces since there are m~re onc-bedroom units. Commisslo~er Barnes asked the petitloner If he would like a contlnuance for two weeks to aubmit ~evlsed plans~ pointi~g out ths plans would have to be submitted to staff by Friday In order to be heard in two weeks, or whether or not thoy would prefer a vote at thts time. She pointed out a prevtous project had eome tn wtth 2.• and they were required ta provide 3.5 spaces. She stated she personally wouid like to see 3.5 spaces from past expe~tente~ but slnce these are single-bedroom u~its and thc develope~ has been w~orking on the plans for a long time, could agree with 2.0~ whlch Is only two cars per un(t. Commissioner Ktng pointed out th(s would not keep people from parktng their ca~s o~ the street. Commissioner Ba~ncs felt if parking is providcd at the rear of the compl~x. tt will encoursge people to park close to where they live. Chatrman Herbst explalned the purpasc of having a Planning Commissian meeti~g and a public hearing is so that the Planning Commission may hear from the people in the area~ polnting out they have their rlgh ts, and it is up to the Pl~nning ConMnisslon to determtne what etfects the proJcct wtll have on them; that the Planning Commisston Iistens to the argumencs~ for and against, and then makes the determination whether or not the use should be allowed. He stated this is Hhy there is a putrltc hearing and stated he fclt this proJect is fnfringing on others' ~tghts because of the size of the pro)ect and with minimum Sycamore fro~tage, and that it is up to the applicant to redesign the pro)~sct so that (t wi11 not infringe on thase rights. Mr. Daly asked tf the Infrin~ement of cheir ~ights is a possibiltty of o~-street parktng, and Chairn~n Herbst replied that is the only probiem he hes with the proJect. M~. Dt~ly stated the Planning Cor~nission mu~~ mske findings and that ik is qulte clear thet thosn findings must ba supported by substant~al evldence and indlcated he has i~ot hea~d anythfng that leads htm to believe this is snything but a group of optntons on haw people park in the street. Ne ~equest~d a two-week conttnua~ce. 3l26/79 ~ t MINUTES~ ANAIIEIM CITY PLhNNING COMMISSION~ MARCH 26~ 1979 ~'z37 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND RtCLAS5IFIGATiON N0. 78"79-3~ ~continued) .. -------- - ACTION: Commisalonar B~rnes offered ~ rtotion~ s~cor+d~d by Commisslon~r Johnson snd MOTION ~D, th~t co~slderat(on of Reclsssiflc~t~o~ I~o• 7g'79~~f~ ba continued'noo'~~f for the regularly-scheduled meeting nf the Pianninc .o~miscion on Aprll ~, 19 79~ petlttone~ ta ~ubmlt revised plens providin.,~nore psrking (epproximstety 2.0 spates per unlt). It was n~ted ti~ere wlil be no furthnr notices end that the public hea~ing will be held on O:pril q~ 1979~ a~ci the Item w) ll be acheduled et the beginning of the maeting. A person in the audiance a~ked how many units ten be d~velope~' (n medium denslty zoning~ and I t~ was repl i ed 3~ ~~n~ ts to th~ acre. 1 TEM N0. 6 PUBL I C H EAR I NG. OWNER: C I lY 0~ I1NA1tE 1 M~ P.0. Box '~'~~VE DECIARAT I 0~1 3122 - AneFrel m~ CA y2803• AGE~~T : ANANE I M H I LLS ~ ON N. -7 - INC.~ 380 Anaheim Hills Road~ Anehelm. CA 92 &17. t ~ ;'~ Prope~ty descrtbed as en ( ~regularly-shaped pa~ce) of land cons!sting oP approximately 14.7 acres h~ving e frontage of approximately 469 faet on the south- west stde of Nohl Itanch Roed~ having e maxtmum depth ~f ,~oroximetely 1529 feet~ bel~g loc~ted app~oximately 1920 fe~st southeest of the ce~~terl ine of Canyon Rim Road~ and further desc~ibed as E3~2 East No~-1 Ranch Road. Propercy presently clasgQfted PR (PUBLIC RECREATIONAL) ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATIOt~: RS-A•43,~00(SC) (RESIDENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL- SCENIC CORRiDOR OVERIAY) ZONE. REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: T0~ ESTNBLISN A COMMEaCItiL EQUES, iIAN CENTER. There was no one Indicating thel~ presence in opposition to subJect raquest, ~nd althouqh the staff repo~t to the: Planndng Comnission datcd March 26~ 1919 was not read at the public hea~ing~ {t is reftrred ta and mede a part of the minutes. Oan Salceda, ~epresenttng Anaheim Hills~ Inc.~ stated p~esently they are the sole occupants of a 5-acre pa~cel abutting Nohl Ranch Rosd ahich they are p~eseRtly ustng for an equestrtan center; that they have neyfltiated to purchese the property trom the City and it is thetr intentlon to expand the faciiity fo~ equeatrian usas. Ha further explained the condittonai use pennl~t I~ to permtt b oo~merclal equest~lan center and that It wili remain open for public use at all times. He presented a plan sMwing the proposed expansion~ including an unlit work ring, open peddock ~rras that wili house 20 to 30 horses~ permanent barn facilittes~ hot Nalker area, and additional parktng. He stated they would llke a conxnitment from ehe Pla~ning Cannission as to vfiether or ~ot thls axpanslon is consiste~t with the goais of the Plan~ing Commtssion snd Ctty Council. TNE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSE~. Commissloner Barnms asked if any furthe~ expanslor+ will be considorad in the future~ and ~1r. 5aicede replied they would need more flat land in arder ta fu~ther expand the a~ea~ and that they heve no pians for future expanslon. ACTION: Commissione~ Barnes offered a motlon, seconded by Commissioner King and MOTION ~D, thst the M aheim Ctty Planning Commission haa reviewad the proposal to reclassiFy s~~bJect property from tha PR(SC) (Pubitc Recreation-Scanic Corrtdor Overiay) Zone to the RS•A-43,000(5) (Residential/Agricultu~el•Scenic Carrido~ Overlay) Zone to perrAtt a 3/26/79 _ ..,,,e;~y . MINUTCS~ ANAHEIM CITY PLIWNING COMMIISSION, MARCN 26, 1979 79'238 EIR NEGATIVE OECLAMTION, RECLASSIFIGTIO_N N0..7 8-~9~ 39 AND CONGIT~____IO_,NAL_USE PERMIT N0. 19~9 comma~ct~l equestrlan ce~ter on an l~r~gularly-shoped ~arcel af ls~d consisting of approximat~ly 14.7 acres having • tro~tage of epproxtmetely k69 feet on the •cuthwest side of Nohl Ranch Road~ havinq a mexl-nun dapth af ~pproxtmately 1529 feet, being louted •pproxlnw~t~ly 1920 feet souchuest ot the centerline of C~nyon Rim Road; and do~s hereby ~pprove the Nagatlve Dsclsratlon trom ths requ~reme~t to p~epere ~n environmental Impact rsport un the b~sis that there would be no significant individu~l or cumulativa adverso envtro~mental tmpact due to the approvai of thl; Negetive Oeclaration si~cn the Anaheim G~ne~al Plen dealgnates the subject property for ~eneral apen space land usas comme~surate with the proposal; that no seiislttve environmental Impacts are involved in the p roposal; that tha Initlal Study suhmitted by the petltl~~er InditatES ~e signlticent individual or cumulative sdverse environmc+ntal inp acts; snd that tf~e Negative Deciaration substantisting the }oregoing findfngs Is on file in :he Clty of Anat~elm Planning Dcpertmcnt. Commls~tonor Johnson asked the esttmeted percentage of the e~a~+ which wtll be developed in the immediate futu~m~ a~d Mr. Salccda rcplled tt would probebly be iess than one-seventh of the tota) prope~ty; thet a good maJority of the 15 acres is ve ry hi11y~ polnting out the 15 acres are not totally depicted on the plans presented. Comm~ssto~e~ Oavid asked haw many horses couid be housed dt this faclltty~ snd Mr. Salceda replied probably 100~ and that presr.ntiy th~re ~re ~pproxlmately 60. Commissloner Barnes offered ResoluLton No. PC79~58 a~d moved for its passage and edoption~ thet the Anaheim City Plenning Commission does hereby grent Fetition for Reclassffication No. 78•79~3:•, s~)ect to Interdepartmental Commitcee recanme~dations. A~ roll call ~ th~ fora}oing resolutl~n r~es psssad by the fal lowing vc,te: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES. B~SNORE~ DAVID~ HERtiST, JOHNSON~ KING~ TOLAR NOES: COMMISSI~N~RS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Commisslone~r Barnes offered Resolutlon No. PG79-59 a~d moved for its passage and adoptian~ that the A~ahetm City Planning Comm(ssion does hereby grant Petition for Conditionel Use Permit No. 1959~ s~bJect to Interdepartmiental Committee recommendations. On roll call~ the fareyotng resolution was passed by the follow(~g vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, BUSHORE~ OAVID~ HEaBST~ J~NNSAN. KING~ TOLAR NOES: CAMMISSIOMERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ITEM N0. 8 PUBLiC HEARING. DEVELOPER: YOUNG F. AND LUCINDA EIR' NEGATIIl~ DECLA MTIQN J. HAMMATT, 1~48 ~~angewood Avenue~ Anaheim~ CA. N~~ A 92802. ENGINEER: ANACAL ENGINEERING CO.~ 222 East TRACT N0. 10627 linooln Avenue, Mahei+n~ LA 92805. SubJect property~ conststlnq of approxfmately 1.6 scres having a frontage of approximetely 224 feet on the so~Lh side of Orangewood Avenue~ having a maximum depth of approximately 303 feet~ being located app roxtmstely S29 feet west of the centerline of Ninth Street~ and Pu~ther described as 1548 West Orangewuod Avenue~ is proposed as a 7-LOT~ RS-720D {RESIDENTIAL~ SINGLE-FAMILY) tOtJE SUBQIViSION. 3/26/79 l MINU7~S~ ANAHEiM GITY PI.ANNIN(~ LOMMISSION~ MARCN 26~ 1919 79'239 EIR NEGATIVE DELLAitATION AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 10627 (c~ntfnued) Th~re was no one I~dlcetl^g thnl~ preacsnce (n opposttlon to suhJec~ requhat~ and ~lthough the st~ff report to tl~e Plannl~g Commission dated March 2G~ 197~ was not ~ead at the public hear(n~~~ It is ref~ rred to and made a part of the mtnut~~s. Wsyne Jolly~ reprnsentiny Anecal Enginecring Co.~ was rresent to answer any questions. TNE PUBLIC NEARING WAS CLOSEU. ACTION: Cammisslone~ Devid offered a motinn~ seconded by Cammissioner Ktng and MOTION CA-RRIEU~ thet thc M aheim City Plonning Commisslon hes rcviewed thc propasa) tu establlsh a 7-l~t~ RS-770~~ sin~le-famtly sut,divist~an ~+n ~-n Irrc~ulAriy-sh+~~+~d ~~rcel of l~nd consisting of appraximately I.G acres having a frontege o!` ~pproximately 224 fcet on the south side of Orangewood Avenu~, having ~ maxlmum depth of approximately 3~3 feet~ and betng lor,ated appr~ximately 529 feet west af ehe cente~llnN of Ninth Street; ~+nd does horeby approve the Negatlve Declarati~n fram the requ(rement to preparG an envtronmental Impact report on ths basis that there would te no significent indfvtdual or cumulattve adverse esnvironmental (mpact due to the approvat of this Negatlve Declaratton stnce the Anahetm General Plar designates the subJect pr~pcrty fo~ low density residentlal tand uses commansurate with Che propossl; tt~at ~o sensltlve environmentel impacts ~re Involved ln the proposal; that the Inltfel Study submittad by the petittoner IndOcates no signtficant indivtdua) or cumulative advorse environrnental impacts; and that the NAgative Qeclaratfon substentiating th~ foregning findings Is on file in the Ctty of Anahelm Planning Departmenc. Commissto~er ~avid offere~+ a motion~ secc•r~'*~ by Commis~ioner Tolar an~ MOTIQN CARRIED~ that the Anahelm City Planning Commisslon .~~~ ~~reby find that tP~e proposed subdivistor~~ tog~ther with its design and Improvement~ Is ~.isistent wtth the City of Anaheim Genert+l Plan~ pursuant to Gove~nment Code Section 66~E73.5 t~~d does~ therefore:~ approve Tentatlve Map of Tract No. 10627 for a 7•lot~ RS-7200~ single-famtly subdtvlslon~ sub)ect to t~~e following condltions: 1. That should this subdivisfon be developed as mc~re th~n one s~d(vision. each subdivlsion thereof shall be submitted i~ *.entative form for app~oval. 2. 7hat prtor to the introductlon of an o~dinance~ a final t~act map of subJa~t property shall be submltted to and approved by ~he City Council and then be reco~ded in the office of the b~anye Gounty Recorder. 3. That the covenants. conditions. and restrictions shal! be submitted to and approved tiy the Clty Attorney's Office and Ctty Engineer prlor to C(ty ~ounc(I approva) of the final traGt map and~ further, that the approvad cove~ants~ conditions~ and restrtctions shall be recorded concur~entiy wlth the final tract map. 4. That street names shall be approved by the City Plann~ng OapartnMnt prior to approval of ~ final tract map. 5. That ali private streets shall be developed in eccordance with the City of Anaheim~s standard for privste streets, inGluding the installation of street llghts as required by the standard. 6. IF permanent st~aet name slgns heve not been instalted~ temporary street name styns shail be installed prior to any occupancy. 7. Th at ftre hydrant~ sh all be installed and cha~ged as req uired and determined to ba necessary by the Chief of the Ffre Depe~tment prior to cortmencement of structural framing. 8. That all tots wtthtn this tract shall be served by underground utiltties. 9. That dralnaga of subJect property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfacto ry to the City Enginee~. RECESS A ten-minute recess was declared at 3:1~ p.m. REC~ p_ N~ The meettng reconvened at 3:20 p.m. 3~26~~9 ~ ~. t MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSION~ MARCN 2G~ 1979 19'240 I TEM N0. PU 6L1 C NEAR I NG. 041NER; ROMAN CA1'IiOL I C B I SHOP OF ~~~~VC DECLAMTION ORANGE~ 440 South Netavte Strnet~ Qrdnge~ CA 92G68. ODE__ QU_ NTS AGENT: JOHN BARTLETT ASSOCIATES~ ;7 West Nuntington ~6 . 19;9 Dr ive~ Arcadis~ CA 910Q6. Petitfoner requests '-"' pe rmisslo~ to ESTAf3LI5H A CNURCN WITH ACCESSOAY SCNOOL FACILITIES WIT~1 WAIVER OF MAXIMUM STRUCTURAL HEIPNT on pmpe~ty describ~d as e~ irregularly•s~aped psrce) of land conelsting of a~proxtmately 6.~ acres locate~! a~ the southwest corner of S~nta Ana Canyon Road and Solom~n Drive. havl~g appror.imate f rontage,s of 32~ feot cn the souf.h s( de of 5~nta Ana Canyon Roed~ 101y feet on the west ~ide of Solomon Orlve~ ancl 118 feet on the north slde of Cicero Roed. PropertY presontly classiFled RS-A-43~OOQ(5C) (RESIDENTIIIL/AGRICULTURAL-SCENIC CORRIDOR OVERLAY) tONE. There wes no o~e indicetiny tl~eir p~esence in opposltlon to subJect request~ and althaugh thc ~taff repo~t ta the planning Commissi on deted March 26~ 1979 was not read ~t the pub 1) c heari ng. I t 1 s referred t~ and made a part of the m{ nutcs. Joh~ Bartlact~ agent~ Indlcated the first increment of the propa~ed church would be 13,~00 squarc fr~et. He referred to the hefght ~estrlction and explatned the bulld(ng is 28 feet hic~h a~d the tawer Is 43 feet htgh. Ne stoted the plans wlll shaw thot the buildin,q and towr.r da not overb~lance tlx si x-acre pa~cPl ; that tha proposed tuwer is only 32 feet above 2he hlgh polnt of the property whi eh is to tha south of Clcer~. He Indicated he understands there (s a tower at tho Rink~r Cr_nter which Is 51 feet high r,nd that a churcti two blocks to the wost als4 has a taw~r. Ile ~tated propercy awners do net have any obJectlons to the church or the towe~. He felt the developmen~ will be attractive end tl~ought thc netghbors would find tt attractive. Mary Dlnndorf, 131 La Paz. Anaheim~ Pres i dent of thie Santa Ana Csnyon Improvament Assoctation. stated they are in favor ~f tl~i s tc~wer; that thcy have known f~r a lonc~ time the c.hu~ch will be at this location and that higher tawers have been ~llowed In the Arca; that the taver is en erchitectural ameni ty and that it wiil definitely be an asset to the communtty. TNE PUIiLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chalrman Herbst asked about the landscap ing propased adJacen[ ta the single••family residential area and the storm drain easement area. and Mr. Bartlett repl (ed that detai led ptans for landscaping have not been fina~llzed and explained they would plant some trees In that arca. Chairman Herbst indicated he felt there should be some t~ees to provide a buffer to the homeowners and felt they may have to be set back because of tl~e plpel6ne. Jay Titus~ Office Engineer~ explained there is a 51'inch ptpelin~ in thaC area and that therr ere certain types of trees whicii eould ba planted which do not have extensive rcaot systems. He stated there a~e manholes t n thls area and that vehlcular acces~ for maintenance Nould be requir~d. Mr, Bartlett stated they could work thi s out and Indicated they would like to have the trees plented tn clusters rather than evenly spaced and Ind(cated they would provide ampla planting. Commissloner Barnes asked if the chu~ch across the stre~t had been granted the height of the towe~ requestcd, and Robert Henning~r replied they had r~quested a 37•f~t high tower which was grant~d. 3/26119 MINUTES. ANAHCIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MARCN 26~ 1979 EIR NEGATIYE DECLAR_AT_ION AND CONDITIONAL uSE Pf.RMIT N0. 1939 (continued) 79-241 ACTION: Cammfssionor Tola~ offered e motlon~ seco~ded by Commissloner King and M0710N CAR~ED. that tha A~nhelm Clty Plenning Commisst~n had revlewed the r~quest to permit a chureh with accessory school facllitles with ~ walver ot maximum structu~al he~i,yht on an Irregula rly-ahaped parcel of I~~d con~isttng of epproximatoly 6.0 acres located at the southwest cornor of S~nta Ana Canyu~ Ro~d and Solomen Urive~ having a apprc+xfnuate f~ontsg~ s of 326 feet an the south side of S~nta Ana Canyon Road~ 1015 feet c~n the west side of Solomon Orlve~ and 118 feet on tho north side af CScero Roed; and does hereby epp~ove the Negetive Uecleratiar- from the requirement to prepere en environmenta) impact report on the bssis th,~t there would bo no sic~niflcant Individual or cumulative adverse environ mental impact du~ to the epprava) of this Negetlve Ueclarati~n slnce the Anaheim Ganersl Plen designates the s ubJect praperty for low density r~sldentlA) land uses commensurate with the proposal; thnt no sensitivic envtronmental impects are Involved in th~ prop osal; that the Initial Study subm{tted hy the petitloner Indlcetes no signiflcant indlvidual ~r cumulatVve a~verSe environmental fmpACts; a~d t~~+t the Neg~tlvr Qeclsratton subst+antl~tinn thc fareyoing ftndt~~c~~ is an fl te in che C) ty of Anahelm Planning pepartment. Commissloner Tolar offered a motion~ seGOndad by Commisstoner Johnson and MaTION C~RRICD. that wai ver of code requl rement for rr~xlmum structural height be granted on the basis that slmi ler requcsr.s have been granted in tha Imn-edlete arsa ~nd denial ~rould bc deprivinq subiec t property Af privtleqes being sn)oyed by othe rs (n the same viclnity and zone. and o~ the ~asis that the prop~sed Cower is only 32 fe~t ah~ve the highest point of thc property. Commissioner tolar offered Resolution No. PC79-60 and rn~ved for its passage and adoptio~~ tliat the Anaheim City Flanninn Commissi~n does I~ereby grant Petition for Conditlonal Use Permit No. 19Jq, subJect to the pet(tioner's stipulat~on to provid~ landsceping wtth approp riate trees ln the storm draln easement arca to provide a buffe~ to the single- famtly homes, and subJect to Interdepertmer~tal Committee rec~mmendatio~s, On rol l cAll. tf~e foregoing resolutlon was pa~,s~d by the following vote: AYES : CQMMI SS I ONkRS : BARNES. BUSHORE ~ DAVI D~ iIERBST. JO;iNSON ~ KI NG, TOLIIR NOES: G011!iI SS I 0NER5: NONE AaSENT: COMMISSIOMERSt NONE I?EM N0. 12 PUBLIC NEARIN~. 01~INER: BEACON BAY ~NTERPRISES, INC. ~ EIR NE GATIVE DECLARATION 260 Newport Center nrive~ ~520~ Newport BeoGh~ CA p U M 0. 19~5 92~~0. AGENT: NATIQNAL CONVENIENCE STORES, INC.~ 138~~ Knol lwood Ci rcle, NB, Anaheim. CA 92ii01. Petitionef requests permission to ESTABLISH RETAIL SAlES OF RlCARUS AI~D 'tAPES IN THE ML ZONE o~ property described as an irregulerly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximateiy 3.~ ~~:res having a frontage of approximately 87 feet a t th~ northerly cul-de-sac terminus nf Knollwood Circle~ having a maximum depth of app~oxirtuately S13 feet~ beiny locai.ed approximately 260n feet north of the centerline of Woodland Oriwe. and further described as 1385 Knollwood Circle. Property presently classi fied ML (INUUSTRIAL. LIMITEU) ZO~~E. There wes no ane ~ndi cat tng tiiei r ptes~nce in opros t tton to subJect request ~ and al thouqh the s t aff report tn the Planning Commission dated March 26~ 1979 was not read at the public heartng. it Is ref~ ~red to and made a part of the minutes. Commissior~er King indtcatec+ he had a conflict of interest ~s defined by Anaheim City Plannina Lommiysion R~~c+lution Wo. PC76-1$7~ adopting a Conflict of Interest Code 'for the 3/26/79 ~..,.. ,~,~.~~,.~. :~ ~° ' MII~UTES~ ANANf.IM C17Y PLANNING COWiISSIAN~ MARCH 26~ 197g 7~'2~2 EIR NEGATIVE DECLAaATION AND CONDITIONAI USE PERMIT N~. 1~55 (c~ntinued) P1enRinq Commission~ end Government Code Section 3~25 et seq., tn that the he owns i'aclftc lightlnc~ Corporatlon stock dnd Paclfic Llghttng owr~s Du~n Propertles end Dunn Propertles i~ the Jeveloper vf tf~is p~ope~ty~ aiid~ pursuant to tl~e provislonY of the ebove eodes~ he declared to the Chairmnn that he wa~ withdrawing frc>m the hearing in connactton wlth Condlttanel Une Permit t~o. 19~5 and would n~t take part in either the dtscusslon o~ the voting thoreon and he hAd n~~t dlscussed this metter with s~y member of the Plenning Commission. TIIEi~EUPON~ COMM15510NER KINf, LEfT TIIE COUNCIL CIIANBLR AT 3:32 P.M. Rtchc~rd McClo~d, lil~ Sou~h Meyflaver. llrcadta~ stated they propose t~ ~artlt(on a portton of thwir wArphnuSR arPa (g4~ square feet) f~r the sale of elbums ~nd tapes because they have had qutte a few people In the Immedlate area who wish to purchase them. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CL'JSED. Commiss(oncr Tolar stated he was not particularly opp~~sed to the request b~cause he thnught the main drawing would be frnm the (mrn~:dlate area, but wes concerned thet the permit would b~ for the ent(re property and did not know how to ltmit the retail seles to a certaln portion of the b utlding. Jack White, Ueputy City Attorr~ey, explained the permit would be for the property~ but by co~ditlons the use would be limited to a certaln Area and they could not expand the use. Robert Nan~Inger, Assiscant Planner~ reported that one of the c.onditions of approval statas that the praperty shell be developed substantially in accordance with plans submitteJ end those plans tndicate an arca of 940 square feet. Chairman Herbst stated he has some dlscomfort wlth this request because thts property does not really lend itself to retail sales; that it is purely a wArehouse facility and access is very lt~n(ted. He felt it would be a foot in the door for retail sales in the industrial areA. He felt the peti:ioner would be doin9 extensive advertising Of dfsplaying signs In order to identify the location. Commissioner Bushore askad how the people in the complex know these tapes a~e for sale in the warehouse~ and Mr. McCtoud explained that they could see the tapes through a large. 18-fc~ot wide truck door which is usually kept open with a gate acrass it when they are walking a~ound the area during their breaks and lunch time. Commtssioner Bushore asked if they are proposing any sic~ning~ and Mr. McCl~ud replted they are ~ot proposing any signing and would request permission if they decided a sign was desired at a later date. Gommfssloner Bushore stated he could not see why a warchouse operation would want to go for such a little business t~ sell maybe one tape per ~ve~k, and M~. McCloud statecl they would anticipate s~lling to more than one pe~son a week b~cause they have had numerous requests and that people tell oti~er peo~le about the availability of the tapes. Commissloner Bushore stated he had to drlve around the building three times to determine the location and felt this would be an i6ea1 place to have freeway signs~ and dld not ' 3 this type operation would go to this expense without some future intent. fle he could be wrong and that if the permit cauld be limited to a certain small area ~~ ~estricttons and cond(tlons~ t~e could support It, but indicated he was co~cerned beca~~e the •rea is already heavily impactad with ;raffic. 3/26/79 ._-- _~ C " 7q-~43 MINUTES~ ANAt1E1M CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MI~RCN Z6~ »~;~ 5(contlnued) Ellt NEGATIVE DECLARATIQN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. In to a~y great ~xpense bacausa the topes and Mr, McCioud steted they would not be go 9 ~lbums sre alraady there and thet they w;n~cr~ ~~~hrouqhoutkthe werehouseta~eaet tlie arge doo r~ wh i ch wou l d p roh i b i t peOP 1 ~ f rcxn Commissloner Bushore was concerned abaut parki~g. and Mr. McCloud ~e~lied that there {s ample parking with 140 speces and only 9a required. N~ explh1nid the les;o ees and hehdid portlon of the b uildtng (Stanley Door) has app roximately cfg t o ten emp Y not think thore would be a parking problem. Conmissioncr ToIA~ clarifl~d thAt ~gt haCtwt~s`trucmeend ('^~^ted outi thc~e areiotherth' e complex~ ~~d Nr. McCloud replied that t industrlal users in the areo who have smell outlets for retail sules and are open to t~ general p~~b 1 i ~. Chairma~ ~lerbst clarlfied that the Planniny G~mmission has g~anted approval for restauranta and other uses in the lndustrial area which would servlce the ~rea. Gommissione~ Bushore askeci 1 f the petH'IuMcG1aud~d~P~ 1e~~ CF1ai he WouPd~ate that there wn~~'d be no outdoor advertisfng~ and Gommissio~er Johnson polnted out a certai~epnedeatcertainrpercentagesissa~loweddwhencthe industrlal zone~ and Robnrt NAnninge~ cxp roduct is manufactured on the slte~ but thls use ts szrlctly for warehousinq with retai P sales. Commisslnner Barnes stated as much as she Wafod a~k~klndbofi retal lr~aleshin theuinelustrial could not support i t because uf tF~e concern Y area; that the Com~nission has ~elented tn sonK cases and allcywed some uses near ar~;ala It reteil sales would be appropriate~ but that htghways and near corners where i t was fe tfils appears to be a commercial vent~ih traffic~ evrnathoughhtheipetitlo~er indicates they araa. She stated there is concern w ~N111 not be tryin9 to draw trafficLe~~msalesr areas. Sh~ teit this is one af the wors locatlons she has evPr seen for rc Commissioner Johnson asked how vioble this Industrfal complex is bn~ p°~^~dssioner i~ very condensed. (Chairman Her~st p~inted out thts is a new complex.) Johnson stated an individual such as tl~is has as much rights as a furniture store with their high-pavered attorney. difficult fer her to oppose this request, and shc Commissioner Barnes stated it is ~erY resents the did nut think other requests have beer•~ gagnio ~~keatethe project~andyn~tuWhoepause ° eve circumstances, and felt the ConmEsslo~ h p~oJaCt. She felt if Ctie petitioner wnot a tooda~oca~tionrfo~tretail~salesna,t the end of a any difficulty in determining this is 9 cul-de-sac in an industrial area. beca~se Commisstoner 7olar stated he would support tt~e request because he did not think~ of the locatian~ any business could ever be hi~useff He`ind(catedehe wastwillingsto'offer more compatible becsuse it is incidental to ear on the basjs a resolutlon in favor of com atibleiwith the surroundingaareatod of one y thac he felt it would be p Chain'nan Nerbst stated he thought this wouldhe~Wants~a little bitfofiretai~nsalesiandtwill aitowed. the next-door nelghbor will decidc cause a totai broakdown of the industrlal area~ and felt thls is a place where 3~26/7g sales do not belong. ti MINUTES~ ANAFIElM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOf~~ MAaCII 26~ 1~79 79~z41~ EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT' N0. 1955 (continued) Commissioner Tolar~ t~ted he found IC r~freshing that this ep~licant hss been honest while prnbvbly ~Ux have n~t been; thnt the stzo is ve ry small end he dtd ~at think there wovld be a trafflc prablem; and th~t he did not think spproval ot this request would meke or braak thla business. Chstrman Ilerbst Indlcated he felt It would set a precedont of retail sales in en Indust~lal erea. Commissloner Tolar stPted ho dld not thl~l~ It would bc eny mare prece~ent-satting then many other things wh(ch have been allc~wed. AGTION: Cor~misslonc+~ Tolar offered a motlon~ seconded by Commtssioner Devid and MOTIQN C RRIEO (Comm{ss(oner Ktng being ebsent). lhat tlie Anaheim Clty Planning Commisslon has reviewed the propesal to permit th~ rptril sales of records and tapes tn the ML (Industrial. Limited) Zone on a~ irregule~ly-shdped psrcel of land conslsting of spproxtmately 3.0 acres ~sving a front+~ge of approxirtu~t~ty t~7 feet at the northerly cul- de-sac terminus of Knollwood Cl~cle~ hnving a maximum depth of approxlmately 513 feet~ and being loceted aprroxirn~+tely 2(~08 feec north of the centerline of Woodland Orive; and does hereby approve the Negatlve Declarat(on from tht rcquireme~t to prcpare an env{ronmental impacc report on the basis that th~re would be na sign(ficant Individual or cumulat~ve adverse anvironn~ental impact due to the approval di thts Negattv~ Declaratlon slnce the Anaheim Gen~ral Plan deslgnatas the sub)ect property for gcne~al Industrtal lend uses comrnensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are Invoived in thie proposal; that the Initlal Study submttted by the petitloner indicates no significant indlvidual or cumuletive adverse envlranmental impacts; and that the Negatlve Decla~ation sub~tantlating tl~e for~going findings ls on file in the City of Anahelm PlannYng Department. Comrnissioner Tolar offered a resolution cAlling for apprnvdi of Gondition~~l Use Permit N4. 13~5 for a specific area of 9~+0 square feet as shcnvn on the plans presented and the stlpuletion of the appllcant that the~e would be no outdoor sf~ning for a time pertod of one year, Chairman tierhst indlcuted he still would disegrer. with approval of the request~ indicating no nrially app roval of a condttional use permit Is with the intentlons of se rving the industrial are~~, and belisved this is a~e nf the lnstances where the use does not fit. On roll call~ the foregoing resalutt~n FAILEO TO LARRY by the follawing vote: AYES : GOI~MI SS I OtJERS : DAV I D, TOLAR t~OCS : COMM 1 SS I OItERS : BARNES ~ BUSIiORE ~ t1ER85T ~ JOIINSON ABSENT: CONM15510t~ER5: KING Cortmisstoner Barnes offered Resolution No. PC73-Gi and moved for its passage and adoption, that the Anaheim Clty Planning Comnission does he~eby deny Petition for Conditional Usc Permit No. 1955 on the bas(s thaC it is not cornpatible wtth the industrial area. On roll call~ the foregoing ~esolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: CONNISSIONERS: BARNES, BUSNORE~ HERdST~ JOHNSON NOES: COMHISS ONERS: DAVlD, TQLAR AQSENT: CONMISSIONERS: KIt~G Jack White~ Deputy City qttorneyo p~esented the petitioner witli the w~itten right tA appeal ttie Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. COMMISSIONER lCING RETURNED TO THE COUNClL CHAMBER. 3/26/79 ~ , 79-24 ; MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINC COMMISSION~ MAflCll 2f~~ 1979 ITEM~~,1~0. ~i PU6LIC IIEARIN~. OWN~R: fOQDMAKFR~ INC.~ P.O. Sox ~' •~(CTATIVE DECLARATIAN 7a3r s~~ p~ego~ CA 92112. AGENT: LYLE GUSTAVESON AI~IER CODE RE UIR MENTS OR DILL CILSON~ 5~~n South Lastcrn llvenue~ Sult~ 15G~ ~a~-~,-A~~~'~; »~7 City of Commerco, CA 9n0~+o. Petitioner requ~sts pa~mission 4a EXPANO A~1 EXISTINr, DRIVE-TNROUGH RE5TAURANT 411T11 WAI VER OF (A) MI N 111UM NUMBCR OF PARK- ING SPACES AND (B) MINIMUN ORIVE-TtiR0UG1~ ~ANE LENRT-1 on property descritied as a rectdngularly-shaped parce) of land consisting of approximritely ~.9 ecre l~cated at the nortl~esst corner ~f 9a11 Road end Dele Avanue~ h~vinq t~pProxlmete fronteges of 9Q feet on the north side of Ball Ro~d and 13~ feet on the oast side of Dale Avenue~ end furth~r described as ?7`~3 west Ball Road. Property presently clASSifie~f CL (C~MHERCIAL. LIMITED) 7.ONE. Tliere was no one Indic~ting tt~eir presence in oppositlon to ;~~,~eW~grn~~~~eadeAt th~h~ugh the stAff re~~ort to thc Plenn{n~ Commisst~n dated March 7.h~ puhltc hearing~ it is referred ta and made a p~rt of the minutes. 8111 Gilson~ age~iL. stated the rroposal hesically is to enclosc the exi~tinc~ seat(ng araa In their effort to upgrade the Jack-in•the-I3ax imaqe thrcugheut Southern Caltf~rnla and thc~t this slruc~fed to „ hf~toqraphsnofrsimflar~establishmr.nts And1the Commissi~n~reviewed32 seats. tie refe P . the photoqrophs presented. TH~ PUIiLIC HEARINf WAS CLOSCD. Commission~r Tolar stated tt~is same t~roposal was before the Commission three yer~rs ac~o and the maJor problem then was the weste~~Y drtveway fating Bell Road closest to the He Inte~section~ ~nd it was st~ongly suggested at that time that that driveway be closed. stated the nnly way he could su~+~ort this request wfurther ithaceedressWbe forCrlyht~turn because of the traffic. situatton on Ball Road and~ • 9 only. Nr. Gilson stated he would support that req~est~ but they hed had a probiem iiving with the dne driveway becaus~ of the existing storm drain between the two drlveways. Canmissioner Tolar stated he felt the frontage on Ball Road is tcx~ s!na11 to hav~: two driveways and indicAted he could not support the request with tHO driveways. Mr. Gilson stated he had checked the records at tht Potice Department fnr eraffic accldents at this lntersection and in four ye~rs there had been only one accident which involved a Jack-i~-the-Qox customer and that was a iadY traveling south an Dale Avenue meking a left turn into the rear driv~ray ~nd a motorcycle broadsidr.d her. He st~ted they had been operating there f~r ten ycars and had had no probtems. Commissioner Toiar stated good planning is not mr_asured by the numb~r of accidents and pointed nut the business witl be Increa ed which will mean ndditionel traffic. Mr. ~~~usins~th~~driveithrough exithe+~ndsCommissionerb7olarsstat dnthatclncreasedw~uld be peop 9 creatl~9 additional parking problems. Chai rma~ llerbst asked ha~r nM~ch the 1 ~isiness wi 11 be increased wi th the outdc~or seating enclosed~ polnting out ther~!iari °nwith';thera~ea encl sed,~cre~tinq~morretraffic o~tan weather~ customers would be ~s de eve ryday basis. 3/26/79 ~.. ~ MI NUTES ~ ANA11E I M C I TY PLANN I Nr, COMM t SS I ~N ~ MARCII ~6 ~ 1979 79-Zr~h EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION ANO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0, 1957 ~Ganttnued) CammisslonQr 8ushorc ~skod h~w meny perking s~~ces ara presently existing on the site, potntinq out ho h~d ~:ounted two speces riqht in front of the ordorlnq slgn on the far north portlon of the property which were d~stqnated for no ~~rklnq, nnd a~4~~d if it was their tntentinn to keA~ that erea clesr since It ADAeared the nurp~se tor ~~~ p~+rking was to ellow people to be ab1G to rend the menu stgn. Mr. Gilson ~tated it wss thelr intentlon to moke those emplc~yee parking spaces and to r~smove that menu sign~ end Commissioner Bushore clerif~~d th~t tF~tre would be one less sl~n on thc nroperty. Commissioner Jol~nson st+~tcd ha was not goiny to worry al~out the pnrklnq becnusp this Is A small coPner ~roperty And woul~ not innect the n~l~~hhors, ~~n~f that tf the~P is n~t enouc~h parkln~~ th~ custnmr.rs wlll go someplace else. Ne stated~ however~ he does n~t like the second drivaway onto bell Road, The Comm(ssi~n discussed widening Clie driveway~ anu ?! was pointed out the st~rm dratn is l~cated br_tween tf-e two drlveweys; and d~stgn~itin~ onc driveway inqress-only off Dall Road with a curb or some type of device beln~ constructed to direct traffic hACk around to qet out~ and It was pointed out that •~ould creatP ~roblcros with st~~ckinc~; and it w~s s~~n~ested one driveway b~ design~~tPd for Ingress-only and the otlier driveway for egress-only. Mr. Gilson stai~d ti~ey have had no pr~,blems in ten years ancl felt they shnuld be alluwed to continue. Ne stated t`ie Police Department ~ecords are for four years only and that the aecldeiit ~cferred t~ was the only one involving a Jack-In-the-Box custom.cr, Chalrman Herbst referred to tl~e staff report and the Traffic Engineer's recommendati~n that additional expanston may worsen the alrcady exlstlnq problems with re~~ard to circulation and parking. He stated tt seems to be an inherent nrnblem wlth Jack-in-the- Box restaurants to I-ave cur~~ access close +to the corncrs~ and felt the only way this proJect should be approved is to combine this driv~w~ay with the other driveway to allcsw more right-turn area, Mr. Gtlson stated he I~as baen around a lot of Jack-in-the-B~x resteurants and felt if the vet~icles are already angled to the east~ they wlll keep on qoing thrt way and when 8 1~0- degree turn ts made, the vehicles will be ssickinc~ out into the second lene of trafflc. Commissioner Tol~r pointed aut the petitioner is already violattng the stacking lane requirement and if two vehicles are le~ving tfie facility and have to wait for traffic oc~ Ball Road~ the la~e to the fast-food facility wfli be blocked~ which wlll further constitute a problem if they have alrc~ndy been eround the build(ng. tle stated wtth the current codes. the Commission is already trad(ng off wtth the petitioner rrith the 60-foot stacking lane; that it has been learned from experience that a lo~ger statking lant is requtred; that he realizes the cogt af mov(ng the driveway is great; o~d that he would like to ~ee the f~cility impraved~ but could not aupport creating an edditional problem. He felt regardless of what the records sey~ he has seen people in and out of this restaurant cut across the tr~ffic on Ball Road going east and that maybe there have not been any acciderits, ~~~t he could not try and measure that to see how many there would be before the problem is corrected. He stated he could suppo~t the re~uest if the petiti~ner would stipulat~ to correcting that problem; that he wa~nted to see one drivewey there and right-turn-only out of th~ drivew ay. Conxn(ssioners John~on and Barrzes felt the drtveway~ as proposed by Commissianer Tolar, would worsen the situation. 3/26/19 MiNUTES~ AI~ANEIN CITY PLANIIINt; COMMI5S10~1~ MARCN 2f>~ 197'~ ~q~Z~~~ EIR NEGATIVE UECLA MTION AI~Q CONDITIONAL USE PEiiMIT N0. 1957 ~c~ntlnucd) ~hei an ~~e felt by h~~vin~ the vehicle~ exlting as sun~~st~d by Gcammisstoner Tolnr~ thcre W~~~`~eoltni.~r.deltffs thenCommis~{on,sntheoryrt~~get the 1~rivewoYs offmth~IG~~~e~shns~n stetrd he r Commissla~er 8arnes st~ted she would n~t be arnuinq If th~ storm draln w++s n~t th~re~ but that the City hed devlsed a storm dra(n At that locotion and sh~ felt it ~~-(~~enrs the st~rm draln w~s put there efter the exlstPncP ~f thr two driveways~ nnd ti`~e was c~ncerned tha~t we arP asb.inh s~meone tn relocate tlie st~rm drain. (Commisstc,nr.r Toler stAted the restaurent t~ad ~~~~~sen thet locatlon.) Commissf~~ner Davld indic.~ted he understond thet the ~r~posal is mercly to encl~sP thP outdo~r seating area~ and Mr. Gllson re~lled ttiat waR cnrrect. Chairman IIe~Ust p~inted out encl~slnq the saating would create a different tyf-e of buqiness. Jlm Y.awamura~ Assistant Trnfflc Engineer~ statPd Pau1 Singer~ TrAff(c F.nqineer~ he~1 rec~mn~nded denial of tl~~ csntire parking waiver anA the minimum lrlve-throuc~h lane length; that e study wAS clone by a recent appllcant f~~ the addition of a drtve-through lane far MacDonald's on Lincoln near Wcst Street and the fiqur~s were presented which included thls Jack-in-the-aox restaurant~ and looking et the distances and comt~arin~ it with other slmilar facilities, Intluding the Jack-in-the~Box at Llnc~ln on Statp Col~~qve-inetyp~vc- through lane is substentially less than the average for other fast-food, facllitles. Ne exnlnined the Jack-In-the-(3ox on State Collc~e has 130 to ?~f) feet tn thely drlve-through lr~ne fr~m the polnt of e~try to the servlce w~ndow~ an~1 thls ft~cility has only approxfmately 6~ f~et. He stated lt has be~n t~~e cxperience with fast-fo~d~ drlve-up wlndow~ ~heirt`food and~,~f~r~that reas ne fe~ls~thl~dlocAtlontshouldpbe~r~duced driv~ in end g lnsteAd of expanded. ~4r. Gtlson c11d not fee) the figures reported warr. correct and stated if :he total dlstance as counted at the faci~itY un State College anci Lincoln ls 1R0 to 2~~ feet from the drivs- through window. wrapping around the bui ldinc~ and out to tl~e frant~ then doing the s~me thing at this ~~~~V~°feas~nableuon sitedstorageuso,thatftrafficdcbes notaobstructto~ the fecility has to h lnterf~re with the traffic on the surface street. Chairman Nerbst stated the Cornnission is (nterested in the locatlon of the driverray; that on the plan previously approved, thc two driveways wGre comt~ined, allowing more exitinq space to make a right turn out of the property, and with the storm drain bPt~veen the driveHays~ (t would be difficult to combine them into one driveway. M~. Gilson stated if it were not for the sto~m drain, thcy would agree and tlie driveway would be put ln the middle. Mr. Y.awamur~~ asked the width of the driveway, and lt wes notesi the width wes 2~ feet. He stated a 2~-foot drivewaY is ve ry sme11 and it shouid be widened to provide better access, but ciosing the driveway ciosest to the intersection would permit the relocation of the drlve-through fACility and would p rovide more area~ and it would h~ their o~+inion that if the drtveway were closed~ the problems would be mltigated. Commissioner Johnson stated the normal procadure would ba to allaw the petitioner to request a Gor.tinuance in order to redeslgn the plens~ o~ e nqtion could b~icatlon~with the a~pproval and if the resolutian fails~ the petitloner can resubmit the app storm drain rem~ve~ or wlth t'~e driveway relacated. 3/26/79 #.. N MINl1TE5~ ANAHEIM CiTf PLANNING COMNISSION~ MARCH 2(~~ 1~17'1 79'248 EIR NEGATIVE DECLAMTION ANU CANOITIONAL USE PERMIT NA. lqy7 (continued) aobert Henninger explained appr~val could be condittoned up~n a singl~ drlvew~y befn~ centered on the property or the petiti~ner could appe~) the declsion to the Clty Council. Cortmissioner Johns~~n stated he would Ilke to see the driveway chan~ed and wanted to qiv~ the pettttnner the oppo~tunity to r~deslgn It or move the st~rm dr~ln. Mr, t;ils~n stated he fe~lt If he chanc~ed thc shoe to the othPr foot and asked the City to relocate the storm drdin~ lie would bo laughed out of the room~ and th~t thP only thlnq he could say Is that tf~ey have beon ~rerAtln~ At this locatlon for ten ycars and hr+ve hnd vgry f~w pr~blems. and suggested a ttme period could he imposed on the permtt to ~cee whether or n~t it (s working out as proposed and~ if it is n~t worklnq out~ they could elther ch+~nge to one A~iveway or c~o into the skarm ~rain. Cammfgsl~ner Johns~n scAted he coul~ not make a motion with a tlme limtt because of the dan~er Involved and stateJ I~e is wl 11 (nq to say that thc ophration is c~~rrrntly th~:re end the prop~sal Is to Improve the pronerty and w~uld be an Imrrovemc:nt for the Clty of Anaheim~ and if there are not enaugli parkin~ sp~ccs~ tf~ere ~aill not be enough business and thc drtveways should have been lo~ked at tcsn years aq~. Mr. Gils~n stated ten ye~rs ago Daie Avenuc was not as w(de As it is today, Comm(ssioner Johnson stat~d a bettr.r facility could be desl~lned if the space were bigye~, but that the facility Is ~xisting and there is no way to Ghanq~ it and the proposal Is t~ improve the prorerty. AC'flnN; Cor~imissioner Johnson offered a m~tion, seconded by Commiss(~ner King and MOTION ~D~ that the Anflhe~m Clty Plannir.g Commisslon has reviewed thr ~roposal to expand an extsting drive-thr~ugf~ restaurant Nittr watver of minimum number af parkin~ spaces and minimum drive-through lane len4tf~ on a ~ectongularly-shaped parcel of land c~nsisting of approximately ~.3 acre located at the nnrtheast corner of aall Road and Qaie Avenue, having approximate frnntages of ',~~ feet on the nc~rth side oi Ball Road and 13S feet on the eASt side of Dale Avenue; and does hereby approve thP ~legative Declar~ti~n from the requlrement to prepare an environmental im~act report on the basis that there would be no si~~niffc~nt indlv(dual or• cumulative adverse a~vironmenc~l impact due to the anproval of tt~is Neyative Geclaration stnce tFie Anaheim General Plan designates the sublect property for general cammerclal l~nd uses comme~surate with the proposal; that no sensitive envlronmental in~acts are involved in the proposal; tl~at the Initial Study subn,ttted by the petitioner indicates na stgnificant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and that tlie Negative Declarat(on substantlating the foregoing flndings 1s on file in the City of Anaheim Planning Departrrx~nt. Cc~mmissioner Johnson ~ffered a matlon. seconded by Commissi~ner Davtd and MOTION CARRIED (Commissi~ner5 Bushore and Tolar voting no)~ that the request for waiver of code requ(rements be granxed on the basls [hat the structurP Is existing. Commissioner .:ohnson offered Resoluiion No. PC79-62 and mc~ved for its pass~ge and adnptian, that the Anaheim Clty Planning Commission does hereby grant Petltion for Cunditional Use Permit No. 1957, subJect to thc stipulation of the petitianer to designate the driveway closest to the ~~11 Road/Qele Avenue intersection for right-turn.only~ and subJect to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. R~bert Henninger sta~ted staff wouid like to add a c~ndition that a letter bt submtited requesting terminatlon of Conditionel Use Permlt No. 1G46. On rotl cell, the foregoing resalution was passed by the following vote: 3/?.6/ 79 rlr r # ~ MINUT~S, ANA~IEIM GITY PI.ANNING COMMISSION~ MnacN 2G~ 19%~ 19'2~~~ EIR NEGATIVE QECLARAT{ON AND CONDITtONAL USE PERMIT N0. 19 7(cantinund) AYES: CONMIS~If)NERS: DARNES. DAVID~ ,lON1~SON, KINR N0~5: CQMMISSIOIdERS: ~USHORE. HERBST~ TOIAR ABSENT: COMMISSI~NERS: NONE Cha(nna~ Herbst stat~d he could nat suppc~rt the resolutt~n even th~ugh he realized It is an existOng restaurant and It could ba (mproved, but felt im~ mving it t~ an encl~sed ~estaurant would be increesln~ tha trAffic and~ ther~fore~ the need fer Che driveway is mare lnhe~ent and he could n~t support somekhing to increase traffic where it is already a hazard. Mr. Glison expl~lned the sit-down ci~stomers will not be able to exit out c~nto Bell R~r~d~ but wili be exiting on Dale~ anci 1.1~~~ t~~ey will I~e expectlnca ~ decrease in trnffic thrnugh tf~e drtve-throu~~h l~ne. ITEM N0. 1~~ PUl~LIC IIEARING. 04lNER: FOOUMIIKER COMMlSSARY~ 11~C. ~ E NGG~ VE DECLARl1~ri~ri P.O. dox 783- San Dieg~, CA 92112. A~ENT: LYLF WAIVER_OF C~DE REQU_I~EMENTS GUSTAVESON OR HILL GILS011~ ;9n~ South Eascern~ Suite 0 D N SE E M 7 N0. t~yf, 15f~• Clty of Comr+ierce, CA 90nh~, Petitl~ner requests permission to ESTA9LISN A ORIYE-TNR~URH RESTAURANT WITH WAIVER OF (A) MItJiMUM NUMBER OF PARK~NG SPACES nir~ (D) MiNIMUM DRIVE•THRQU~N LAME LEN~TH on property described ss e r~ctangularly-shapec parcel of tand consisting of approxlmately 1,14 ecres located at the northe~st corner nf Katella AvPnue and Harbar Bou~evard~ having approximate frontages of 2~~ feet on the north side of Katella Avenue and 25~ feet an thr. east slde of Harhor Boulevard. Pr~perty presently classifted C-R (COMMCRCIAL-R~CREATION) ZON~. There was no one indicating their ~resPnce tn opposltlon to suhJect re~ur.st, and although the staft rep~rt to tt~e Plenning Commission dated March 2~~~ 197Q was not re~d at the public hearing~ it is referred to and m.~d~ a part of the minutes. Bill f,ilsan~ agent, presented the proposal for a Jack-in-the-Oox restaurant At the northeast corner of Katella Avenue and Flart~or ~aulevnrd to the east of the existing Hamburger Nouse restaurant. He felt they coulci provide a restaurant for people staying in the motels and visiting in the Dtsneyland area. TNE PUBLI (. HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Tolar stated the only discomfo~t he has is with the distance between the ordering device and the pick-up window, and Mr. Gilson st~ted thts request me~ts the mtnimum of lOQ feet and they have ample spt~ce coming from two directions. Chairman Nerbst felt there would be a problem with only one driveway entering the nrea, which blocks the parking, dnd Commi~sio~er Tolar asked if the parking a~ea wilt be re- striped~ etc.~ pointing out this appears to be the only problem. Chairman Herbst suggested that they have ~+5-degree or ~~-degree parking rather than 9~- degree as proposed~ angled to force the traffic to go the p ro~e~ way, even thaugh a few parking speces woulcl be lost but more room wou~d be provided; that the building could be shtfted a foot or two to allow two driveways. Mr. Gilson stated the oriqi~~l architectural plan came tn with the parking angled and with the building as fAr to the east as possible; hr~wever, more parking stalls would be lost and he had felt the Cartmicsian would pref~r to have more parking. 3/26/79 ~ ~ b MINUT~S~ ANAHEIN CITY PLANNINf; COMNISSI~N~ NARr,~~ zF~~ ~q]q 79-75~ EIR NEGATIVE UECLARATION ANp COIIDiT10NAL USE PERMtT N0~ (continued) Cho) rmen Ilerbst stated tfie change would rtu~ke the faci I f ty mn~e fu~ctlonal and thet probebly three narking sp~ces would be lost and he felt It would be e better development. I~a suq~ested app~oving walver (a) Anc1 de~~Ylnq walver (b)~ theroby re~ulring tw~ lanes of traffic. Mr. Gilsnh stated if si~meone wanteJ to qo west on KatellA~ they would llke to be able t~ have them circle the b~alldinq ond exit~ otherwtse th~y wou1J have to q~ north on N~rbor snd make a U-turn. He stotad they hed ~rlglnally proposed two drivewr~ys on each street~ but staff ht~d r~comr+~ende~f they el'rtinate ane ~n e~~ch street'. Comm(ssloner Eiarnes sugqest~d tl~at a condttlan be added tl~nt revised ~lans shAll be b~~ught back before the Pldnnlnc~ Commission. Commissioner Tolar p~l~ted ~ut the C~mmisslon cannot a~+~rove n project wtthout An exnct nu~nber~ ond Mr. f,llson six~nested the number of perpendiculsr stalls on the east line t~ the re,~r of thP building bQ ramnved a~d there was a~uestlon ns to whether or not there wnuld bc r~nou~h r~nm for thc drtveway. Robcr~ 1lennin~er~ Assistant Planncr, stated the lane has to be t~ feet. wfda and the. parktng would i~ave to 5e angled to allow the full hay dcpth plus a beck-out area. ~~nd still have enouyh room for a separate drtve-thr~u~h lAn~. Hr. f,ils~n suggested changing the walvPr by five parkinq stalls~ and Jack White, De~uty Clty Attorney, indlcated that would br_ pr~per unless thc Corrmisslon wanted to see t~~~ revtsed plnns. Comnissloner Tol~~r statec! he would offer a motion for ~ipproval t~ allow 71 snaces and requt re that the revtsed plans be br~uyht back i~nder reports and r~commend.iti~ns. Jack Nhite cxplalned Lhat would be proper ns lon~ as the petittuncr did not submit a p)an For less then 71 spac~s. AC~T~IOtI: Commtssioner Tolar off~red a mc~t(on~ seconded by Commissloner Oavid and MOTI0~1 CARRIED~ that the Anaheim C(ty Planninq Cortmission has reviewed the proposal to permtt a drlve-throuqh restaurant wi th watver of minimum number of parklnq spaGes and mir~imum drive-through lane Isngth on a rectangula~ly-shaped p~rcel of land consisting of approxtmately 1.14 acres lucated at the northeast corner of Kate~la Avenue ~nd Harbor Boulevard~ having approximate frontages of Z00 fect on the n~rth side of Katclla Avenue and 250 feat o~ the east side of Harbar t3oulevard; a~d does hereby approve the Negative Daclaratton from the requirerr~ent ta prepare an environmental impact report on the basis that there would be no stgnificant indlvidual or cumulative ad~erse environmental impact due Co tl~e approva) of this Negative Declaratlon stnce the Anaheim Goneral Plan designates the su~Ject property for commerclal-recreational land uses comr~ensurate with the proposal; that na sensittve enviranmental impacts are tnvolved in th~ proposal; that the Initta) Study subm!tted by the petitioner tndicates no significant individual or cumutative advsrse environmental impacts; and that thp Negative Declarat(on substantiatinc thr foregoing findtngs is on file in the City of Anahelm Planning Departrt~nt. Lornmissioner Tolar offe red a motion, seconded by Commtssioner Devid and MOTION CARRIED~ th-at xhe Anaheim Ctcy Plannin~~ Cammisslan daes hGrcby grant waiver (a) for mi.,imum number of parking spaces for ?1 spaces as opposed to 76 speces submitted~ ar+d xh~+t revised plans be submitted ta the Planning Commisston for their r::vi~,r and approval. and denying waiver (b) . 3/2b/79 " 74-z51 MINlJTES~ A~IANEIM CITY PlA1~NING l:(NIMISSIAN~ MARCN 26~ 1~1~1 195G ~~ntinu~d) EIR NEGATIVE OEC6AMTIf1N AN~ C~NQI?IONAI. USE PEItMIT H0. Commlssi~~er TolAr off~r~d Retolu~;s~i~n ~~c~ hdrel~y ~ant Petitlon~~f~r~f.ondltie alrUse~ that the Anahe i~+ C i ty P 1~nn i ng Go permit 110~ 19>6, sub)ect to tha conditlon that revised plens be suhmitt~d for review an epprova) bY the Plannlna Commis~lon and sub~cct to Int~rdepnrtmental Committe~ recomn+endetlons. On roll eali~ tf~e f~re!g~ :ng resolutl~n was ~essed by the following vot~. AYES : COMMI SS I ONERS : ~ARNES~ I3USNORE . OAVI D~ HERQST ~ JAHNSOt~ ~ KING ~~ ~LAP NQES: CnNMISSIO-IERS: NOt~t ADSENT: CONhIISSI~NEfiS: NONE ITCM NQ. 1S PUBLIC IICARINP. 01JNER5; fRNEST AND ELISA STEPIIFHS~ E I R NEGA I V[: DECLARAT 10-1 ~05 North Ilarbor D~ul r.vard ~ Anahc i m~ :A 92Ff05. W IVER AF CQDF: E~UIREMENTS Petitlo~cr request~ permissldn to RETAIN A CNILD Dl1V '~p ~'~~~~"~~ ~~,I~ CARE CENTER Itl AN EXISTINf, RESIDENC~ 1dIT~1 WAIVER OF (A) MINIMl1M SIL~E. YARD ANb (Ui PE.RltITTEO TYPE A~Ib SIZE OF SIG1~ on property descrihed as a rectangulerly- shaped ~++rcel of lend c~~sistin~ of ep~~~x"a~borYBoulevrrd~,rhnvlnq a~nu+ximumf depth~of~f spproxlmately '1~ feet on the west slde of approxlmAtely 119 feet~ betnq l~catod a~~raximat~ly 4~8 feet n~rth of th~ c~ntGr~~~e ~f Sycamore Str~et, and fu~th~r described as f~~5 North Ilarbor D~ulevard. Pro~erty presently clnssi fie~{ RS-1':.n0~ (itE51 ~FNTIAI~ SiNG1.E-FAMILY) ZOt~E. ltfon to s-abi~ct There wero approxlmAtely 1?. persons Indicati~g their presence in op~s request~ and elthough the staff iL~~St~~f~f`fcc~PtOnan~~~nA~~ASPArf ofttheMminutes. t97~ WAg not rcad at the publ ic h~arln~~ Doris Selbert~ mother of thc petitloner, stated ~hednforcthisrusensince itvisal~c~teddon care center and that she felt the pronerty Is ault Harbor B~ulevarci. Chairtnan lierbst polnted oi^ S~1ea~~~masl:eduwh+~t~hsdCpromPtGdctf~~,a~~~'taken1by thea2oning approved on Novpmber 2, 7~ Enforcament Officer~ and t~rc. Seibert replled shc w,~s not sure; that her daughte~ wanted to be sble to keep more ~h~adv~u~a~donhere was als a probleM with the s19n which her daughter was nvt eware was Davfd Ruen, 611 North Harhor lioulevard~ Anaheim, stated ~~~helmin~cdHsrbarianldtitronf and 24 years. Ile referrea to the area bounded by Sycamore~ stated thls is a neighhorhoad °f anmf c`oawne~clal) ventu~~e.~ tnto`therenti reaarea?,~flehstated tl-e first attempted intruslon o Y his property is adjacent to sub}~has~inpress andteg~esst~n Narborhethat~there) isg~o ed by one semi-ci rc~~lar dri veway which 9 parkina on either side ~f ~~a~d that~there5haveaben~two'accidentsain thei irmiediate area~ hls drivcway is a p~ob~em; a for thls venture; that the that there ls absolutely no parking t%rovidcd on the property driveway t~ the garage is hlocked off immedlately abuttinq the face of thHErfeltethis because that is the areifuthe semlecircularidriveaisaleft freeCfordcustomers~ the lie state~i he also as results in a situetlon . residents and employces wfil park on thc alley, which Is unstght y a personat obJection and that ~h~ ldren~rb t~his~p tma~ryt~urposein contesting thr, request considerabte noise froR- these c . 3/26/79 i ti MII~UTES~ ANAfICIM C1TY PLA~J~II~~G COMMISSION~ MARCH 2~~ 1~171 74'~5~ EIR NEGATIVE DCCI.ARATION AND CONO_ ITIONAL USE,F~RMIT N0. 19~N (continued) Is that It ls the tir~t Intrulln~ in +~~ estebltshed~ sinql~-femily nelqhbarho~d. He pointed out ~pproximately one-half of the residents 1~ the block ore~ oriqinel owners. Mexine Rc-w~, G18 North Pine Way. Anal~eim~ steted sl~e is one ot the original owners. She pre~e~ted a petitl~n which sl~e had circulatcd contalning 179 s19n~tures from the Immedl~te a~e~ of owners who sre ++~etn~t the re~uest. She stated she was told the prnperty was bouqht on January 5~ 1A78~ specificelly for a cl~ild day cere cente~ and presented the reel estote llstinq whtch shc~ws thP pr~perty listed es R-1~ end felt the buyers ~new it was zoned R-1. She felt they are trytnq to break dc~wn r,h~ ~xistlnq resld~ntlal statu, of the area. Sh~ stated there Is ~ Montessorl Scho~l In the 40~~ block ~~hich should take care of the needs of tlie areo. Sl~e stated most of the ~enolc who live in the neiqhh~rh~od sre elderly ar mlddle-age and there are very few chi id~en ~r ~.I~~ I~rr.n who requi re day cr+re (n this e~er~. Shc SL.~CP.t~ th~y would Ilke to 1~ave th~ permtt ci~n(ed and thP siqn removed. Raymcmd Ileinz~ G28 North Plne place. Anafielm~ stated he felt thls permtt w~u1d h~ ++ fec~t in th4 door to other u~mmercial acttvities end he dld not want ttu areA to he enether Brookhurst Street. He tt++ted he doubted any chlldr~n presentlY being taken care of ere from this Imme~ilate area. Mary Ference~ 424 West Loanora Srreet~ A~ahelm~ stat~d sh~ liv~s .~cross liarbar~ n~t In the immedtate nelghb~rhood, and explalntd that the nolse from the traftlc on Harbor cbes noc eliminata ~1) the nolse that comes from sub,ject property~~nd pe~ple quite a~istance dcnvn the street had t-lso heard the nolse. She did not feel th~ use is compatihlP with the netghborhood and to have a day care center would reduce thetr propcrty valuc and opcn the do~r for acGldents. She stated she has watched cars c~me intn the semi-circular driv~ and try tnn~dl~tcly to get out onto Harbor with almost disastrous results. She stated tt,e property olsn has a swimming pool whir.h uses up a lot of tl~e rr.creatlonal aree. She hoped the Planntng Commisslon would dcny the permit. Annika Santalahti~ AssistanC Direccor for Zoriing~ presented a cony of the home dccupation permit for the Planning Gommissian to review so that they could see whr~t the pers~~n fills out and slyns in order t~ obtain their permlt~ and that thc intent of the permit is that while the awner recognizes he can run a business~ there Are restricticx~s and~if violated, they are sub,ject to aoprop~late actlon by the City. She explalned the re rmit explalns that siyning and traffic nre discouraged~ and that six or fewer chtldren are allarred. She stated they are warned ahead of time that they must look for another site if they wAnt to havc rrbre chi ldren. M~s. Seibert stated her d~~ughter had bought the property in order to have a ~hild day care ce~tisr because It was on a ve ry busy street, and maybe at one time the street was ve~y qutec, but now there is a lot of traffic; that they dc~ not wish to heve a large child day care ccnter~ but they are a young cauple trying to p++y largr. house payments and t~er daughter has worked in child ce~e centers since she was a teenager. and ~he felt she could do a qood service for tF~e area. She stated when they bou~ht thc property they were not aware that must of thc residents were eldsrty. TIiE PUEiLIC NEARING WAS CLOSED. Chatrman Herbst scated when the petitione~ had bought the ~roperty they had filed an application for a home accupation permit to allow stx chtldre~ and that they are Iiv~ng i~ the r~stden~e. Ne asked why t~-ey h~ve blocked off th~ driveway and eliminated the u_e of the garage~ polnting o~~t this is a restdence and they have to have access to their garagG. Mrs. Seibe~t stated the gate can be opened~ but that it is closed when the child~en Are out tf~erp and the children play on that side because it ts easy to supe~vise them. She 3/26/79 MINUTES~ ANAHEIN CITY PIANNING COMMISStON~ MAPCH 26~ 1979 19'2~3 EI R NECATIUE OECLARATION ANQ COHDITIONAI USE PEitMMll T N0. 195~+ (cont i~ued) stated the swimminq pcx-) is C~mpletely fenced off ~nd ln the eumnxr thr.y tAke ane or two chtldre~ out tn usc the p~l. Cha) rmen Ilerbst asked hc~w m++ny chl Idren they heve at th~ p~eeent t(me~ and M~s. Selbert stated she dtd not know~ but she wes sure they hsvc whr~tt~ve~ la Al lowecf. Chalrman fierhst exnlalned the home occupatio~ permit ellows by rtqht c~re of up to six chi ldren wi th a nne-squsre-f~c~t Siqn en~ th~t they cnn cont i nu~ ~~ that besl s~ and Jeck White~ Ue~-uty City Attorney. further exploineJ tl~t~t they cr+n coniinue to have the six children as lonq as they dn not v(nlate any of the u~~ies. Commtssioner 8ushorc referred t~ the swimmin~ nool and askpd if ther~ Is any vlolati~n because of the p~ol and stated I~e wauld n~t want to h~ve that Ilabillty, And Jack White st~~ted the City has n~ c~ntr~l over that s(tuatlon. Commissioner Tolar stated hP could not su~pc~rt Allowinq six rr~re chtldren with th~ innress and egress nnto Ilarhor. Ile fclt they are alrendy In violr~ti~n of the hc~me occupatl~n permlt with the slx children bec~use the permlt has a restrictlon that there will be no signiffcant tncroase in pedestrlan or vehicular tr~fftc. Jack uhite explalned thc permit oll~~s el~ht vcht~:le crl~s ~-er day, but that the hor~e occupation permit (s really not bef~re the C~mmissiun~ but the Corxnis~ion could ask the Z~nlnq Cnforcement Offtcer to chec~. ~ut any violation. Chairman flerhst stated the Traff(c Engtneer h.is rec~rtxncnded tf~at the nermit not be c~rAnted because of inedequate parking~ Iimited access and hlyh tr~~fflc volume on Narbor Boulevard. ACTIOFI: Commisstoner Tolar offered e mation~ seconded hy C~mmissioner Kinq and MOT10~1 '~tR D~ tti~t t-~e Anaheim Ci ty Planning Commissinn ~as revi ewed ehc proposal to r~taln a chtld day care center In an existin~ resldence with walver of minimum stde yard and permltt~i type and size of siqn on a rectanqularly-shsped pAPCr,.I of land cnnsisting of approximatcly 70~~ squarc feet, having a frontage of approximately 7F feet on the west sldc of Harbor Boulevard~ having a maximum depth of appr~ximatelv 119 fect, and being located ap~roximately 4~1~; f~ct north ~f the centerl(ne of Sycamc~~e Street; and ~1oe~ her~by approve the I~egative Decl :ratian from the requiremPnt to p~epare an e~vironmenta) (mp~~ct report on the basis that there would be no significant indivtdual or cun~ulative adverse environmental irr~act due to the app~oval of this Negative ~ecla~atto~ slnce the Anel~eim General Plan designat~s the subJect p~operty for low density residenttal land uses cannensurate with the prorosal; that no sensitlve environmental impacts are Invalved ln the pro~~sal; that the Initial Study submitted by the peti ttone~ Indicates no signiflcant indivldual ~r cumufative adverse envtronmental irr~acts; and that the Negative Declaration substantiating the foregoing findings Is on ftie in the Ct ty of Anaheim Pianning Depertme~t. Commissioner Tolar offcred a motlon seconded by Cortrnlssioner David and MOT101! CAaRIED' that the Anai.e i m C f ty P 1 an~ i ng Commi ss i on does he reby deny the ~eci ues t f or wa i ve r of code requiremen[s on the basls that no hardship was demo~strated by the pe[itio~er. Ccmmissio~er Tolzr offered Resolution No. PC)9-6G and moved for its passage and adoptton~ that the Mahetm Clty Planniny Commission dees hereby deny Petttion for Conditiona) Use Permit t~o. 1)5~ because of the limlted access. and inade~uate parking and htgh traffic volume on Herbor Boulevard. On roll call~ Lhe foregoing resolution was Rassed by the following vote: 3/z6/79 MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISStON~ MARCN 2~~ 1979 7q~25~~ ~IR+ N~Tt ;E DECLNaA~ION A_ND CONOITIONAL USE PEf~11T NA. 195~~ (c~ntlnued) AYES : COMMI SS i ~NE RS : BARNES ~ BUSHORE ~ DA111 D, IIER65T ~ J011NSOPJ ~ K I Nf, ~ TALAR NOESs COMMISSION~RS: fl~1NE At3SENT: COMMI SS I ANERS : NONE Jack 1lhite~ qeputy Ctty Attnrney, prescnted the petltioner wlth the Nrltten r iqht to dppea) the Ptanning Commissl~n's decision Nithtn 22 Jays to the City Council. (TEM NO. 16 PUBLIC NEARINr. OWNER; GEORGC A, f~AD E, Rancho La ~R C G ICAL EXEhpTI0t1-CLASS ~; P~z~ Inc.~ ~-(1f1 Ilewp~rt f.~nter Dr(ve~ Nr,w~nrt t~e~ch~ R ANCE N0. 30 ~ CA ~2f~60. AGENT: A. G. RICHTER~ 30~A 1 Crown Val ley Perkway~ Laguna Niguel~ CA 92b77. PetitToner requests bIAIVER OF MINIHUM STRUCTURAL SETBACK TO COtJSTRUC7 AN ADDITIQN YO A~~ EXISTING RESTAURANT on prope~[y descrlbed es a rectanqulerly- s haped parcel of land conststtng of approxlmatcly ~.8 acre havlnq a frontaqp of ~ppraximate ly 31I~ feet on the north side of Orangethorpe Avenue~ havtng e maxlmum depth of e~proxlma tely 174 feet~ betng located approximately 143~ feet wGSt of th~ centerltne of Rayman a Avenue, and further descrlbed as 601 East Orangethorp~~ Avenue. Propertv presently class i fled ML (I~iousTRln~~ LIMITEO) ZONC. There was na one tndicating their presence in opposition to suhJ~ct request~ and althouqh t~p stAff report to the Pl~nninq Commission datcd March 26, 1~7~ was not rea d et the public hearing~ tC Is reftrred to and made a part of Lhe mtnutes. Joe lane~ 1110-11 Orangefalr Lane~ Anahclm~ stated this is a sirr~le request fc~r enclosurc and the addition of a fasC•fnod lane at an extsttn~ restaurant. 11~ stetcd tt~is restaurant has been in eKistence since 1hG3 and that they are proposinq to enclose the existln5 wa kwsy an~i ~io snme facellfting to t!~e exterior and general clean-up of the arta and try to make a good business of It~ pointing ~ut it has been up-and-down for a lo~e~ tlme. TI~E PUOLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. I t was note:d the P I ann i ng D1 rector or h( s author I zed rep rese!ntat t ve h~s dete rm( ned that the proposed p~o)ect falls within the definitlon of CategUrtcnl ExemptlAns~ Class 5, as defined in paragraph 2 of the Ctty of Anaheim Cnvtronmental Impact Repc~rt G u ideli~es snd Is~ therefore~ categorically exempt from the requirernent to prepare an EIR. ACTION: Commissioner 8ushore offr,red ~esolution No. PC79-6; end moved for i ts passage and ad pt~on, tf~at the An~heim Clty Planning Comnisston daes hereby grant Petition for Variance t~o. 3~F>4 on the basts that the structure Is exiSttng and the propos ed addltion wt il improve the property and subJect to Interdepartmental Committee recomme~dotions, On rol) call, the foregotng res~lutf~n was pessed by the followinq vote: AYES : COMMI SS I~NERS ; t3ARNES ~ BUSHORE ~ DAVI D, HERBST ~ JOF~NSO~~, KI NG ~ TOLAFt IIOES: CUMNISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE 3/26/79 ~ MINUTES, ANAl1EIM CITY PLANNIt~G COMMISSION~ MARCN 26~ 1A)~ 79•255 ITCM N0. 17 PUBLIC HEARINt. AWNF.R~.: WILLIAM S. AND SANDftA L, ~('I~Z~. .~, ICALLY EXCMPT• GAIA~ 1~38j ~lorth Coronec Pl~ce~ Anahlm, CA 92AA1. CLASSES 1 ANf~ ' Petttloner requests WAIVf.R OF MINIMUM NUMBER I1Np TYPE ~]j'~J ~, ~ ~-' QF f ARKING SPACES 7Q RETAIN A ROOM ADbiTI~N IN AN EXISTiN~ CARAf;E on pro~erty de5crtbed Aa a rectanqularly- shaped perce) of land conststtnq of approxtmataly 5110 squA~e fect havln9 a frontage of enrr~xt~,c~iy 6; feet on the n~rth side of Valdina Avenue~ havtng a mnxtmum depth of apprc-xtmat~ly q~i feek. betng located app~oxtm~tely 8R7 feet west of the c~nterl ine ~f G) Ihert Street~ end further desCrihed as ?.hG1 West Valdin~ Avenue. Property pr~sently cl~sstfied RS-720~~ (RESIDfNT1Al~ ~INGLE-FAMILY) 7.ONE. Ther~ wes ~o one (n~iicAtin~~ thelr rrCSr.ncr li7 oppo~ltlnn to suhJect re~~u~st~ nnd although the st~ff re~+nrt tn thr PlAnnin~ ConKnissinn dated Mt~rch ?.G~ 1~7^ wes n~t read at thP publ ic tiear(nq~ It Is referred to and rt~de n ~art of tf~e minutes. Mr. Durkholter, 16~~5 Nhtspertng Spur~ ftlverslde~ bustness partner of thc ~etitloncr, stated the petitlonPr Is re~uestfng a v~~rlance for an axlstin9 ~nclosed garaqe wh(ch was convertod when he bouc~ht the ~r~perty; that he had hought the pr~pertv with a cc>nventionel loan end wishes t~ seil lt with a gc~v~rnment loan an~1 tt was disclr~sed that no varl~~nce had been issueJ. TIIE: PUlil.l C H~/1R1 h~G WA~ CLO`>E~. Commissioner Busliore ctariflP~ t-~at the ~ICeration was not d~ne by tt~e petitioncr~ and Mr. Burl:holter replied tl~at It was alreacly dor,e and the petttlonr.~ had done some Insidc work such es panpl ing after he purchased the pr~perty. Commisstoner Dushore statr_d he did not Ilke tt~e ldc~ ~f approving this rec~uest and could a~P no reason to appr~ve i t. Ile stated he di d not know ( f the convers ion coul d be brou9ht ~,. to code and he did n~t think th~ Corxnfsston could leg~lly aporove someone's violation. Jack l1FiEte~ Deputy City Attorney~ stated the property would I~ave to be inspected by the Butldlnc~ Divtsi~n to determine whether or m~t it compitas witl~ existinq code requirements. C~xnmissioner Bushara stated the Cornmission could not arpr~ve It unless it was brought up to codc. He stated (f the re~uest (s denied. the qarAge would have to be reconverted. Mr. 6urkholter statr.d this was brought to ligflt bec+~u~e the c~wner ls tryi~g to sell the house to his brather-in-law and if th~ request (s dcnt~d~ the house would have to be sold conventlonally. Chairman Nerbst asked if there is any room for a garaye to he constructed on th~ property~ and Mr. Burkholter replied he did not belleve there would be room. Chairman Herbst stated the problem is that the Commission has these illeqal convr.rsions before them all the time ~nd approval of thts requc~st would be setting a precedent. Wtlllam Gala~ a~ner, stnted th~ City uf Anaheim had allowed him to pu~chase the hort~e in thEs condltfan. Jack White asked ,iaw the City had allawed him to purchase the praperty, and M~. Gala explnined they had had inspectors come out an d inspect the house befo~a t~e purcnased it. Chairman Herbst asked what kind of 3nspector had inspected the hause~ and Mr. Gala repl6ed the Inspector had come aut and given him the information that the te rnnite inspection~ 3/26/79 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLMINIMG COMMISSION~ MARCH 7G~ 1979 EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASSES 1 6 5 AND VARIANC~ N0. 3085 (cnntinued) 7q-2Sr~ etc.~ were up to code; that the lady who w~s selling the hause to F~~rn was c~otng throuc~h a divorce end the real estete agent knew tho yarage had been co~verted end there was a stateme+nt from the real estate compa~y that e variance had been qrant~d on the property whtch never ha~Pened~ and they automatlGally tet hlm buy ll~o house an~ now he was betnq penelized. Commisstoner Toler indicatad Ik was conc~rned that n real estate compeny would tell e buyer this~ but it Is not th~ City's prc~blem and the real est~tc compeny was in violAtion by not letting ihe buyer know the room dld not hsve a vr~rlance and the ~roblem should have been corrccted bnfore the property was sold~ and he fclt thc petlttoner shnuld hAVe rncoursn oc~ninst the real estatP c~m~+any. He stated tl~e petitloner is not being penalized by the City Any rtnre than anybody else would bCCause tf~~re are cades which have ta be adl~ered tv. one being thet a two-car garaqe is r~quired. Mr. Burkholter stated e~prvximately 3~~ of the hduses on this particular st~eet have been converted In th(s same manner end some of them hAVe dAne away wtth the garaqc doo~s. Commisslaner Bushore steted he had viewed the property and there were several other placcs which appeared to hava bee~ converted whlch sttll h~d g+~rage doors~ and the statement made by the petikioner that 3~~ of thc houses on this street have been convertecl is probably truc. Commissioner Tolr~r asked lf the petltloner had considered putting the qarage door back on the p roperty~ and Mr. Burkhc~lter replied It would be very costly because part of the garage ts now an extension of tha kl~chen. Commissioner Bushore referred to the Chtirmsn's statement that the Cammission h~s never app roved a similar req uest and (ndicated h~ thou~ht they had appraved some reque3ts when tha awne~ had purchased the property slre~dy converted and later needed r variance, but they have been rfttty hsrd o~ a+ners who have u~nvertcd gar~~ges themselves. Annike Santalal~ti~ Assistant Dtrector f~r Zon(ng~ stated s~me of the con~versions are such that they do not have walls orRArtitlons which would have to he rem~ved and it is Just a matter of putting the gPrage door back In operating condttion~ and she thouc~ht one o~ tw~ have been app r~ved wh i c:~ had na ~e on-s t t~ park 1 ng. Chairman Nerbst referred to a recent request wh~re the petiti~ner is going to make the garage door operable and potnted out the Comnission t~as no control over what the garage ls used for as long as it can be r~conve~ted when they are ready to sell the property. Commissioner Tolar pointed out that even if the veriance is approvcd~ the room will have to be brought up to City codes~ and Mr. Gala tndicated he understood. Commissianer Dushore asked what (s behind the fence to the east~ and Mr. ~ala explained his brother-in-law had ~ut in a new drtveway and patio area and also had put on a~ew roof. Commissioner Bushore stated he hsd a lot of empathy for the petitioner becausc the garages he had observed with the dc~ors open we~e not being used for parking. He asked if there ls room for e carport in front of the house~ and Mr. Gala replied he thought there would be. Commisstoner Tola~ stated he was concer~ed as to whether or not the room was built close to code~ and felt the netitianer coutd have a bigger prehlem than approval of the variance. 3/26/19 ~ ~ MIHUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMiSSI~N, MARC11 2fi, 1975 79-257 E I R CATEGORI CAL EXEMPT IOiN CLASSES 9 b~ AN~D VAR IANCE N0. 3085 (c~nt 1 ~ued) Commfsst~ner Buah~re suggested the ~et(tioner ch~ck Into the cades to determine whether or not the converslon meatsthAm ai~d to determtns whether ~r nat the drivewsy could be expanded •nd the cnrport added. Ha stated he would be ln favor of e car~ort because nobody parka in thcir g~r~ges anywsy. Cammissione~ Tolar suggested a continuance In order for the petittoner to eveluete the situetl~n and to detCrmine wh~ther the rc~om should be reconverted or a cerport should be added~ and whether or nnC the room cnuld meet City codes if tt ts r~,t reconverted. Cominisslonar aushc~re su~gesied if t!~e garngc Is reco~vcrted~ tt will not be used es ~ garaga but that an open carpnrt w~uld be used for parktnq the vehicles. After dtscussian~ tt was thc gc~crel fcr.ling that ~! COf1~If1UAf1CP w~uid h~ ~he nnswer In order for the Building Dtvislon to mako an insp~ctl~~ of the property to determine whether or nat the ~oom c~uid meet City codes ~~~d tn ord~r f~r the petitlaner to determ(ne whether or nat a Gerp~rt could be construcced. The Conmtssion requestecl that the Building Dtvlsien make an inspecti~n right away ACTION: Cornnlssioner Barnes offered a mntlon~ secnnded by Conxnissione~ David and MOTION ~D~ tl~at consideration of Varfance Ho, 3~~~ be conttnueJ to the reg~~lArly-scheduled meettng af tlic Plar~ning Commisslon on Aprll 23~ 1~7~. 3/26/79 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CI'fY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MARCH 26~ 1979 ~A~zSII ITEM N0. 18 S f~p RECOMMENDATIONS A. AB MIUOI~MENT N0. 7a-21A - Request to aband~n thc Clty's road and public utllity ea es ~nt over a po~•t on of the easterly 2A feet of Old J~ffersnn aosd, 173 feet long~ beginning spproximately 114G feet ~outh of the centerline of La Palma Avenue. The staff ~aport to the Planntng Commisslon dated March ?..6~ 197~ was presentad~ noti~g the raquost by Albert J. Etchandy~ et al~ to abandon the City's rnrd and public utility easement over a portion of the easterly 20 feet of Old Jefferso~ Road~ 173 feet long. beglnning approxfinetely 1146 feet south of the c~nterllne of La Palma Avenue; that the Departmant of Public Works. Engineertng Division~ has recomnended that the Plenning Commisslon dpprove this req uest and recomrnenJ approval by the City Counctl wlth the following condltions: i) to rnserve a pubilc ut111ty easement for electrical power poles anci ilnes~ t~nd a 3G-inch w+~ter main~ and '2) to reserve an eascment fo~ dralnage ~ver and ~hrough the arca; that thls request has been reviewed by all derartments of the City and affectod outside agencles and approval ts ~ecomrt~ended subJect to the above conditlons; that the easement rlghts were obtained by th~ City by M nexation No. 4 end this particular portlon of Old Jefferson Road Is no longer in uxe because of the realignment caused by the Riverside Freeway constructlon; and that an environmental review of thr request for abandonment Indtcates It is categorlcally exempt from the req utrement of filing an EIR. ACTION: Commisslo~er Tolar offerecl a motion~ seconded by Commissianer Uavid and MOTiON C P.lED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend ta the Cfty Council that Abandonment No. 78-21A be approved, subJect to the following conditlons: i) reserve a public utility easement for electrical power poles and lines~ and a 36-inch weter main, and 2) reserve ~n easement for dreinage over and through the area. B. GENEML PLAN AMENDMENT NQ. 1y4 - Requcst for General Plan Amendment on two parcels tonsisting o 17.2 acres tocated ors the east side of Harbor Boulevard, approximately 870 feet north of the centerllne of Chapman Avenu~. Jay Tashiro~ Assoclate Planner, presented the staff report ta the Planning Cortwniss~lon dated March 2G, 1979. noting this is a property awner inittated General Plan amendment to change the current general commercial and {ow and medium density residenCial designatlo~ to general commercial and low-medium residentiat; that the current designation on the subJect property was a pa~t of Genpral Plan Amendment No. 145 which encompassed approximetc~ly 40 acres on the northeast corner of Chapman Avenue and Ilarbor Bouleva~d; that the subJect property is predominantly zoned CG (Commercial, G~ne~al) w(th a small strip of PLD-M (Parking/Landscape Oistr(ct-Manufacturtng) fronting on Narbor Boulevard and CH (Cc-mnxrclal~ Heavy) on the southeast corner of Niiken Way and Ilarbor Boulevard; and that said property is currently developed with commerc6ai uses (T~ys-R-Us~ service station~ vacant store and vacant tommer~tal building). The staff report further noted that It Is the intent of the property owner to seek the recently-adopted RN-3000 (Resldentfel. Multiple-Family) 2one and construct a condominium complex on approximately 1Q acres of subject property. and a density of 14.5 units per net acre would be permitted for condominium subdivision shauld the General Plan be amended to reflect law-medium density; that a vacant "1Jhlte Front" store hes existed on subject property for several years and the Chlef Building Inspector indtcatzs that on several. occesions tn rccent years the building has been vandalized and security ts a problem. 3/26/79 "~ ~ r~INUTES. MIAHEIM CITY P1.ANNING COMMISSION~ MARCH 2G~ 1979 ~~~2'~ REPORTS Ar~D RECUMMENDATIONS - ITEM H(continuad) .~....r.~ ACTION: Commisaioner Tolar offered e motlon~ seconded by Commisaioner King end MOTION ~CR1~D~ thet tt~e Anahelm Clty Planning Commtsslon h~a de+tormined that Genera) Plan proceedings are nppraprlate et this tirr~ and recr~mmends thet a pub) ie: heering dato of Ap~il 23~ 1979 be sct fo~ Ganeral Plan Amcndment No. 15~• C. ~~~NDMLNT TO TITLE 1a - At~A1~EIM MUNICIPAL CODE - Secttc,ns 18.27.Oy0.080~ 1,31.t15~.~ 0~ 1.3~.OSO.n 0 to inc ude mob ehome parks; 1$.2?.n5~.Q90~ t~.31.~~Q.~So~ 1~.32.0,o.09A, 18•3~~•~50.105. 1a.~~1.050.125~ 1n.42.050.095~ 18.44.c15~.205~ 18~~~5.05~.2~5~ 18.~iG.050.1~5~ 1&.~,"•~5~.155 t~ (nclude mobllehome~ park subdlvislons. The staff re~art ta the Planning Commiss(on dated March ?.G~ 1!)79 was presented, nottng that subsequcnt to Planning Commis5tc~n recomnendation of ~ebruary 12, 197g~ tlin C(ty Councll on Februa ry 20, 1979 dlrected staff to emend the Zoning Code to ~ermit mob(lehome parks In low•mcdium denslty residentE~l zo~es and to pcrmi[ the development of rrabtlchome park subdivlstons 1~ medlum density reStdent(al, low-medium density resldentiel nnd commorcl~l zones; thot the proposed code art-endmm~nts wera cons(dered in conJunction with a three-pert program initlated by the Gity Council ~nd desthned as an alternatlve 2a rent contro) end as parc of an Incenttve program to cncourage develapmr.nt of rental hou~ing. The above referenced pro~~r~m included an evaluatlan of the pe~mlt process~ an investigation of rtntal credit benefits and corresponding Sta[e legislation~ and an amendment of ep~+roprlate Clty ordinences to permit development of mobllehome subdivlsions; and that an Init(al Study of environmental impact was filed and was found to have no signtficant environme~tal Impact and It was recommended that the Plennlnr~ Commisslon recorm~nd to the CitY Gnuncil that a Negetive Decla~ation be adopted. ACTION; Commiss(oner David offered a mation~ seconded by Commissioner King and MOTIOIJ C RR CD, that the Anahetm City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that tl~e draft ordlnance be aciopted a~id(ng Sections 18.27.OSQ•08~, 18.31.Qi0.040, 18.32.050.~80 pe~mitciny mobilehome parks ln the RS-50~0~ RM-3~~~ and RM-~~+~~1 Zones; that Che following wording be addcd to S~ection 1tS,27.050.090 (RS-5~OQ) to perm(t mobtlch~mc subdlvisions: "Mobilehume park subdivlstons; provided that~ except for maximum permitted dwelling unit density, the site development standards otherwise specifled in thls Chapter shall not be applicable t~ such subdivis(ons."; and that thr. followtng wording be added to sectt~ns t8.3~.050.050. ~~.3z.~5~.03~~ t0.~4.050.105. ~~i.4t.n5n.t25, i8.42.050.09 , 18.44.Qy4.205. lE.~tiy.050.205~ 1$.46.~5U.19S and 18.~~B.Oa0.155 (RM-3on~~ RM-2A00~ h'1-1200, C0~ CL-HS~ CL~ CG~ CH and CR) and to permit mobilehors~ subdtvlsio~s: "Mobylehome park subdlvisions; provided that the slte development standerds otherwlse specifled In this Chapter shall not be applicable to such subdivisio~s." p. ABANDUNMEtJT N0. 78r8A - Request to abandon a portio~ of unused roadway commonly navn ~s anta na Canyon Road~ located along the south stde of Santa Ana Canyon Zoad from 1~7~ feet to approximately 2$0 fcet, west of Fairmont Boulevard. The staff report to the Planning Comnissio~ dated March 26~ 1979 was presented, noting thc request (s from Mr. Bill Asawa~ Ric Developn-ent Lompany, to abendon a pertion of unused rnadway commonly knawn a~ Old Santa Ana Canyon Road, located ~along the south side of Santa Ana Ganyon Raad from 475 feet to approximately 280 feet~ west of Fairmont Boulevard; that it Is the recomme:~datlon of the Public Works Department~ Engineerl~g Divlsion, that the Planning Cammisstun approve tt~is request anci recarrnend approval to the City Council sub,ject to reserving unto the Ci~ty all vehitular ~ccess rights to Santa Ana Canyon Road 3/26/79 ~ fi w • ~~J . MINUTES, ANAIIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MARCH 26, 1yy9 ~q_2Gd aEPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM D(conttnued) axcapt at approved destgneted acceas points~ if eny~ alon,y Santa Ana Canyon Rosd; that the requ~st has been raviewed by all dep~rtments of tl~e Clty and effected outaYde age~cles and approv~l 1~ recommsnded subJect to the above-mr.ntloned reservatlon of vehicular access rlghts; th~t on Janua ry 1~~ 1979~ ths Ctty Counctl approved the axecution of u qultclatm dead for whatever rlght, tttle and interest the City may posaess In the subJect property upan recsipt of paym~nt af 56~7~q.Op and autharized ths Ctty En,ytnenr to inttiate abandonment of the public roedway~ •nd thet the applicant hes paid the above-mentioned 56~750.Q0; that the subJect roadway was ortginelly acquired by the State and relinqutahed to the City vta Relinqutshmenc Noa. 820 and 821 tn 1972 and Is no lon9er used as a part of Santa Ana Canyon Road right-of-way as aaid roadway h~s bee~ relocated; and that an envi~o~mental revlew of this request tndicetes the abandonme~t of thts rortlon of publlc right-of-way to be categorical ly ex~npt from tfie reyui rement of the fi l tng of an CiR. ACTION: Commtssiane~ David ~ffered a motion~ seconded by Commissio~er Kinq and MOTION ~ t~l"Et~~ that thc Anahoim City Plenntng Commtsslon does hercby rccommend to thc City Councll that Abandonment No. 78-8A be epproved. ADJOURNM~NT There being no further buslness. Conmissloner David offered a motion~ seconded by Comm(ssione~ Ktng and MOTIO~i CARRIED. that the meeting be edJourned. The mceting wos a~journed at ;:2y p.m. Respactf~lly submltted~ ~e~..~. .~ i~~l~•~•- Edith L. Hrrris. SeGretT-y Anahe~m City Planning Cammtsston ELH:hm 3/26/79 ~ ,. L.. ~ ..,: c i ;;; ; , _ .. .. . .,~... , . , , . . . . ,a:..,.. .,-.. :;..:. ,.. . _ -