The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1979/04/09Ctcy Hell Anahelm~ Cslifornla Apri 1 ~~ 197~ REGULAR MkETING OF THf ANNIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOt~ REGULAR - The rcc~ular meet(ng of the Annheim City Plenning Commissian was called to MEETING order by Cha(rmnn Ilerbst at 1:35 p.m,~ Aprll ~3~ 1~379~ in the Councll Chen~ber~ a yuc~~um bring present. PRESENT - Chairman: Herhst Commisstor,ers: Bust~orc, Uavld~ Johnson~ King AaSENT - Commissinners: Barnes~ Tolar ALSO PRESENT - Jack WhiCe Deputy City Attorney Paul Singer Traffic Engineer Jay Titus Office Enginecr Mnika Santalohtl Asslstant Director for Zonin~3 Robert Nenninyer Asslstant Planner Edlth Harris Planning Commission Secretary PLERGE OF - The Pledge of Aliegiance to the Flag was led by Comnissioner Bushore. ALLEGIANCE APPROVAI OF - Commissioner King offered a motion~ seco~~ded by Commissloner Johnson and TNE MIMUTES MOTlON CARRIEU (Gomrnissioners Barnes and Tolar belny absent)~ that the minutes of the meeting of March 26 be approved A5 submi[ted. ITEM tJO. 1 CONTINUED PUBLiC FIEARING. OuNER: FIRST CONGREGATIQNAL E r N°, VE DECLARATION CHURCIi OF ANAHEIM, 515 North 5t~te College Bouleva~d, y_~ W . -J9-3fi Anaheim~ CA 92~306. AGENT: CASTILLE BUfLDERS~ LTD.~ 166g East Lincoln Avenue~ Orange~ CA 926F5. Petitioner requests reclassfflcation of property dascrtbed as a rectangularly-sha~~ parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.9 acres having a frontage of approxtmately 2Q6 feet on the north side of Sycamore Street~ having a maximum dept~- of app~oximately 431 feet~ and bei~g located approximatcly 471 feet west of the centerli~e of StAte Colleye Bo~levard~ from the RS-A-43~A40 (RESIDENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL~ ZONE to the RM-12G0 (RESIUENTIAI., MULTIPLE-FAMILY) zONE. SubJect petlt(an wa~ continued from the meeting~of Ha~ch 26~ 1979 for revised pla~s to provida more parking. There were approximately etght persons Indicating their presance in opposition to sub,ject ~equest~ and although the st~ff report ta the Pianning Corr~nission dated April 9, tg79 was not read st the publlc hearing. it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Dave Levinson, desiyner~ presented the revtsed plans which shc~wed additional parking at 98 spaces or 2.0 spaces per unit as suggested by the Commission at the p~evious hearing~ and a total of 49 units rather than the previously-submttted 50. He expl~ined that the apen~ guest pa~king has been dfsertbuted thraugho~t the proJect. 79-261 4/9/79 1 ! MINUTCS~ ANAf1EiM f.ITY PLANNIhf, f,OMMISSION~ APRIL ~~ 1979 EIR NCGIITIVE DECLARATION ANC REGLASSIFICATION N0. 78-79-38 (conttnued) 79•262 Nermen Jelsma~ t~i5u East Sytamore StrNet. Anahrslm, felt the~c hed been e del(berate misrepresentAtiar. at the previous hearing rcgarding tt~e drain.~ge when it wes stated by the petltlonGr thAt tl~e proJect would (mprove tl~e exlsting drAinag~ becausc of the plantod areos ~nd Cl~at it would n~t contribute slgntficantly to the dralnage ~roblem. He exnlalncJ thc parcel is not cJr~l~~iny on Sycarn~re and p~inted out therc is a wall dlviding the tot and It is d~ainin~~ ~nt~ the .~d.j~cent A~IIII'L~C fteld~ and he felt two acres af eddltlonal watershed wlll Jeffnitely a,yyravate thr drainage problem. ~Ir. Jelsma referred to Conditlonal Use Pprmlt ~~o. 1875 which was approved to axpand the existing church, and felt developrnent of th(s church is the mAln re~son this lat is being sold. Ht stated lie had reviewed the fil~~s on this pPrmit and the le~~al description omits 100 f~et of property in tl~e mid~le of the lot and stated therc Is nn re~.r~d that the church had actually purch~isPd Cf~at complete lot. Commissioner Johnson was concerned that that portion af the property is {nvolved in the subJect proposal, and Jack Whltc~ Ueruty CitY ~ttorney~ indicated he dld not see any p t'~b 1 em, Robert Henninyer~ Asslstant Planner, stated 1-e believed the plans fo~ Conditional Use Permir No, 1ti75 sfiowe~i this area as exi~tinh perking and pr~posed r~c~vtnc~ that parkin•~ to another loc~tior~ anJ this portfnn was left vacant~ and indicated iie did not see a problern. Mr. Jelsma stated they are proposlny to expancJ the existing 2'1~-seat church t4 500-7Q0 seats wlth anly li0 p~~rkinq spaces~ and was r.oncerned that thrre will be a parking p rob 1 em. Nrs. Cou~tney Ilackle~~ 1930 East Sycamore, Anaheim~ stated she wtshed to oppose the propos~d zone chanye and felt it would be spot zoning anc! would be setttng a precedent in tl~e area. and she did not feel this ~partment complex sl~ould ~e allowed in a netghborhood of custor-r hu(It homes which ranye in value fr~m 575~~00 to $125~0~0 because it would downgrade thei r property value. She stateJ h~er lot is approxlmately on~-quarter acre. She st~ted the plans she~w a ve ry attractive proJect, but was concerned that ~t would not stay that way~ indicatiny khe proposed renters will be law-Income tenanis, She suggested the churct~ sell the property for the development of a nursing home or convalescent hospltal which will be more In keepiny wtth tlie area and th~ tncrr.ast in traffic and noise would be mintinal. She stated tf,e need for these type facilities is great and indicated they had learnec! a senior cittzens complex or co~valescent hospita) was considered far this property. and felt either ~ne of these uses would be ~rore in ke~ping wtth their residential area. She lndicated the facility would have to be one story and would eliminate conyestion from apartment traffic and also noise, She urged the Commission to consider tlie residents in the area~ mast of whom have lived in tl~eir homes for 20 years or more~ and asked that they vote no on this proJect. Yio~a Dale, ig16 East Sycarrwre Stre~t, Anaheim, stated she has traveled around the Anaheim-Fullerton•Placentia-Yorba L(nda area an~ has nat seen any apartment complexes (n a residentiei area. She ~sked hrnv the figures were calculated that Sycamo~e Street could handle 9~Q00 ca~s per day. Jay Ti~tus, Office Engineer, explained the calculations are based on the width af the street and the number of lanes~ but tl~at specific questions would have to be answer~d by the T~affic Engin~er. M~s. Dale stated sk~e was also concerned about the dralnage problem, pointing out the parents have e difficult time bringing or picking up their ch~ldren at the school du~ing 4/9/79 MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ APitIL 9~ 1~79 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION ANU RECI.ASSIFICIlTION N0. 7~-7~~~ ~ainy woatlier~ and felt wlth cdrs parked nn both sides of trafflc hazerd. 79~2G3 (co~ti nuad) the str~et. there would bc d Virglnia Denner~ 19~)4 East Sycarno~a Street~ An~~helm~ stated siie is strtctly ogalnst this proJect arid did not think the use is compatlble wlth the school and church on elcher side, and that there wll) be considerably more trafflc an the street. She referred ~to the fence wfi 1 ch w 1 1 1 be removed and stated 1 f th 1 s proJ e:ct f s approvad ~ sl~e woul d 1 I ke to see a fence between the par~iny lot ana the bcrm because if the berm Is a rolliny berm~ It could be less then 1~ feet. She stated tl~e City Council had required the fence b~cause of thc Invaslon (n th~ evening of headlights fron thc cars. She steteJ~ again, she is st~ictly against the camplex. Chetrman Ilerbst asked Paul Singer~ Trafftc E:n~~ineer~ how the traffic flgures presented were calculated~ and Mr. Singer stated that capacity calculations are rather complicated and depend upan the level of servlce; that the normal rule c~f thumb ts i0Q cerS per lane per hour for a cornf~rtable Ievel of service; that that is the highest hour ancf represents between 8-1/2~ ta 9$ of the ?~+-hour volume and is generolly the top capacity that Is tolera~le on a residential street; that Syc~more h~s two lanes of traffic~ or 1,400 cars per hour~ which represents abaut 4,20~ trips (n a 2r+-hour pertod mast likely feasible an that street; that the figure varic~s because there is a school in the area; and that '0~~ cars at the highest hour represent ~b of peak-hour tr~~ffic and is an acceptable level. Chairran Nerbst asked what tmpact ~+a ap~~rtments will h~ve on the area along with the school~ and Mr. Singer stated if Sycamore Street curren[ly carrles 3~~+~~ cars per day~ the addition of 49 units would add approxlmately ~-16 trips per ~iay~ c~f which 52 wil) be during the peak hour, whict~ (s a i-1/2b increase and is well within the talerable 1(mit Co maintaln a comfortable leve) of service. (Mr. Jelsma ~~uestinned the fiqure gtven by Mr. Singer.) Commissioner Johnson stated those were the same conclus~o~s reached at the meeting two weeks ago~ but there were same questions raised by the citizens whtr.h needed to be cl~rified. Gary J~nes, ~+0~1 Odessa Drive~ Yorba LinJa~ ayent~ explained M~. Daly~ attorney, could not be present. He stated he cou1J 7ot speak to the le~al vesting~ but that they rre ecqu(ring the property and the prelimina ry title repo~t does show vesting in the name of the church; that concerning the drainage problems~ they have had a topog~aphy map prep~red by an engineer ~vhi~h shows the prc~perty slopes tavard the driveway access going out into th~ street; that a lot of the runoff watsr is kept on the rear portion of tl~e property through percolation and a small portlon does drain into the school prc-perty~ and that will be picked up as additional drainage if it is not compensated for In thP planting areas; and that the parking and asphalted areas presently there wtl! be incr~ased by ths tlme the parking requirements are met for the project. He stated ~egarding the traffic~ they have dlscussed it with the Traffic Oepartment and were given the input that this type stree+t would carry a maximum of fram 6~000 to 9,(~00 vehicles ~er day. and that it currentty carries 3~40o vehicies per day and, based on those estimates, felt they would not be creating any traFfic problems. Ne stated Mr. LtvinSOn had spent considerAblc time during the past two weeks redesigning the proJect to rneet all the requirements of the City and the additional parking which is well beyond the requlrements~ and that tf~ey have met the criterfa tmposed by the Plan~ing Commission and havo eliminated the problem fegarding off-street pa~king. He stated they will include, if the Commisslon wishes~ a condttlon :o install the block wall to the back of the parking area, as well as landscape that area. He stated they propose lmprovements that will make the proJecC a substantial attraction to the area, and pointed ~ut in many 4/9/79 ~ MINU7CS. l1NANEIM f;TY PLANNIN~ C~MMISSI(1N, APRIL 9~ 1~17`? ~~~2~'~ EIR NEGATIVE ~ECLAMTION A~If~ RECLA5SIFICATION N0. 7~'79'3a (continued) cttles thare a~e ~reas Letween r~mm~rclel end residentlal ereas whlch sre typically developed with multiple-femlly residentlal ckvelc~pments tu oct es ~ buffer zone batwoen the carixnerclal and r~slcientlal areas~ and that this property is well sltunted and well l~cated for that type of developn~nt. He stateci the City Council is aware of th~ crltical needs of the Clty f~r addltlonal a~n~tment factlitles and have i~~~•trucied thn Bullding Dlvislon to p1ACe an expediency on dovelopments that came In because ~f the vacancy r~te so that more ,nits cAn be built eg qutckbe aSvdossatLrr~cLHvGs levelo~mentf and wi l l provicie~~ltf~mi ~Y~ur~~tstor placesl forn49 will Y famtlles to reside. TIiE: PUBLI C HEARI tIG WAS CLOSED. Cummissla~cr Bushore StAtC.1 the pctitlaner had referrecf to the "super stamp" procedur~ of the Hullding Dlvision wnich is su~posed t~ kecp ~levelopment casts cfown~ And pointed ~~t this preJect Is not being ~fevcloped for low~ta-rr~der~te incc~r~e p~c~le• Mr. Jones statnd hr, was referriny ta an article In the Ornnge Gounty Rec~istar and that he did not recal) t`~at it r~latPd to only law-lo-rroder~tP Income units. Cortmissioner (tusl~ure stated the petiCioner I~ad referred tu thcse as familv ~Its and he did not think 3G one-bedroom units would be considered family ,~nits. Mr. Jo~es stated he was referring to a household~ whethe~ it be o~e ar two Neople• Commisslcner tiushore stated he di~ not feel ',n RN-1?.0~ de:velopment in ~ residential/ayricultural area wiiere mnst of the lots are a minlmum or ona-~uarter acre would be appropriate~ and statec! he ~.:uld not support the proJect because he felt it vcas Just too dense. Wmmissloner King stated he would su~port the pro)ect and had sxated his reaaans at the provious heariny which are in the minutes~ but in addition to th~se reasons~ I~e felt the canplex would enable the occupants (tt~e teachers~ clerks and worke~s) to r~a1k to thefr places of ernployment nearby and there wouid be no need to d~ive their c~rs. creating rn~ra smog and using precious yasoline~ and th~ publtc's general welfare and Interests should be considered in that housirg Is needed for retirees on fixsd incomes, as wel~ as for the hune~reds of youny couples who cannot afford to buy homes. He thought this is an ide~l locatinn and is the highest and best use f~~ the p~oa~~tY. Commissioner Johnson stated these sarns arguments could be used for any apartment in any location~ (n any ctty~ and he w~s concerned about supporting a proJect Just on general principies because in that case the f,ortanissi~n is not really needed. Commissioner King stated he ~as conaic+ering this'particula~ locaclon an~ felt this is an ldsal spot. Commissioner Bushore s~ated he had ag~eed wlth the opposition reya~rding the fence and the headltghts across the stree.t~ and stated if Che pro)ect is approve~, hp would like to see thp fence repleced to eliminate that problPm~ and it was pointed aut the petitioner had sttpulatad to provide the fer-c~ if the Conunisston desired. Comm;eXtwith sinnlenfamilydresidentialnacroSSSthecstreet,cevennthoughsthereitsaa scnc~ol~nt comp 9 4/9/79 i MIt~UTCS, AHIINEIM CITY PVIHNING COMMISSION, APRII 9. 19)~ "~'7f~5 EIR NEGATIVE DECLAItATION AND RECIASSIFICATION N0. 7$-7j-~H (cc~ntlnued) and church edjacent ta th~ property and vacant pr~~pFrty to th~ nurth whlch wi i l prubal~ly bc developed as tommerciel eventunlly. Gary Jones stated a two-story ~rofesslcm~l uffiee: bulldinq bac~~ up to thnt property. Chairmar~ ~IeM~st staked he wauld d1sa~~ree witli thc op~osltion's statement that there are no apartment con~plexes ~butting residenti~+l areas as s~n~e hnve been approved and~ nor-nelly~ a 20-foot buffer ls re~ulred between sln~~le-famlly resldentl~l and r~~~rtment units; th~~t some apartn~ent camplexes were Jcveloped i n Anal~eim durin~t the war and no garages werc allaved ond tl~cy dld cre~~tc qulte A downgraJe on r~sl~ential areAS Abutting thpm~ hawever~ the ar~rtnu-nts hcinc~ huilt to~ay lr~ meny an~as heve upqreded the orea rAth~r than dvwngrad(nc~ it; ~n~J that they are not bei nc~ created for A Ic~w class of people ~ but wi 11 house flne resldentlal familles who pr~hat~ly cannot afford a hUn~e, Ne felt thls locetiun wh~re (t (s abutting a schc~ol ~ cvm~~ercial and a church is apnropriAte~ pointing out the parktng has been increaseo t~ Z.0 s~aces per unit and the ci~culAtion wlll deter strezt parking. N~ felt thc applicant haa done eve ythln~~ he was nsl:ed Co do and has stipulatcd to providir.g a fe~~ce to eliminnte the he~~cili;hts shln(ny tnto the homes ~cross the street. Ne stated variablc Ilfestyles are a must t~~~f~;~ r,nd housing is n~eded for the yaun~ couplcs and retired pPrsons on Fixe~l incomes~ and It !s u~ to the Planning Commisslon tu help furnish th~+t housing. Cortmissloncr Johnson st~~ted he had felt at the last mcetin~3 ( little blt In thc cilrectinn whlch he has done, fie would a~ree stated he had to be cautious bec~use there are s~ rnany peo~-le the comments re~~ardtn~~ Che draina~~e and stated the City tries to the street and whatever is clFValoped on this property~ t-,e He stated tl~e pro.ject does r~x:et the minirnum co~i requi rements protection for thc resi~ential .irca across thc strect. the pc t t t 1 onc ~ wou 1 d mc~ve a tc supp~rt the pro)ect. 1~e d(ssenting, He referred to ta f~ave all properties droin situatton wuuld b~ [he s~me. and as~.ed ahout ~he 15~-foot Robcrt Nenninger expl~ined that that 1>^-fa~t buffer zonc is reGuired and Is provided; that the plans shuw al I h~~o-story unl ~s. hur. lhat th~y ~re cornpietely bchlnd the 15~-foot radi us . ACTI01l: Conxn(ssiuner Ktng c~ffered ~ rrx~i ian, second~e~ by Commtssioner Davld and M~T10~! CARRIED (Commissi~ners Qarnes and Tolar heiny absnnt) ~ thet the Anaheirn City f'lanning Commissiun has reviewed the proposat to reclassify the zoninc7 from t'~e RS-A-4;.000 (Restdentlal/Agricultural) to the RM-1200 (Residenttal, Multiple-~amily) 1.one ~n a rectangularly-shapea parcel of lan~ cons istiny of approximately 1.~ acre~. havinc~ a frontage af appre,ximately 2~;6 feet on th~ n~rth s i cfe of Sycamore Street~ having a rnaximum ~epth of approximately -~31 feet~ and being located approxiR-ately -~71 fect west of '.he centerl ine of Stat~ i.:.~ lege Boulevarcl; ar+d does her~by approve the Negatlve Declaration from the requi rement to prepare an ~;nvi ronmental impact revort on the b~~sls thar, ther~ woul d be no s) ~n i f i cant 1 nd( vi dual or cumulati ve adverse ~nvi ranmental (rnpact due to the approval of this ~Js~a~ive ~eclaration si nce the Anaheim General Pian designates the subJect property for med( um dens i ty res i dentiai I an-~ uses corsmensurate w(tl~ the proposal ; that no sens i t i ve env i ronmen ta 1 1 mpacts are I nv~ 1 ved i n the p r~•- ~s ~) ; that the I n t t i a 1 Study submit=ed by the pettttoner indicates no si~nif~cant ind~via~al or cumulatlve adve~se enviro:~mental impaccs. and that the Negative Declaratiun substantlating the faregoing findinys is on filr iii the City of Anaheim Plannin; Depa;t~+ent. Commiss(oner Kin~ ~ffared Resolution No. PC7~a-6Fi ard r-x~ved for its passage and adoption, that the Maheim City Planning Commission does he ~hy grant Petitton for Reclassification Na. 78-7q-3~~ subject to the oetitioner's sllpul _ to provide a l~8-inch high~ concrete (~lock wall betrv~cn the parking area and la~dscaped setback proposed on the s~uth pr~perty 1 ine, a~d subJect to Interdepartmer;al Gommittee retomrr+endattons. 4/9/79 MINUTF.S~ ANAHEIM C1TY PLAI~NING GOMMIaSION~ APRIL ~~ 1~7~1 7'1'2G6 EIR NEGATIVE DECIARATION AND RECIASSiFICAi'10N N0. 78-79•38 ~~~t~nued) Prlor to voting~ C~mmtssloner Johnsan esked about the legal ck xcrEptian referred to In connectlon witli ConJltiona) Use Permit No. 1875~ and Asked if t~~ ch~ircli would be abla t~ proceed and double its alxe next yea~ with~ut comine~ before th~ ~mmissto~• Robert NEnninger cxplained that CondtClonal Use Pe nnlt No. 187; allawed expansion of the church mnd pravided 8c1Ef~UA~~ parkin~ for that expenslo~~ and that parktn~ w~s not on the percel In questlpn and any further ex~+ension would requtre addltionAl publlc hearlnq. Gary Jones cxplalned tl~c churcli docs hevN a~ adcSitlonal unpaved area at the rea~ of thelr property And they havc incorporated that into thcir desl~n to Add more parking. Conxntssion~r aushare asked about an agroemrnt whicl~ was mentloned carl ter betwcen the chu~ch and the bank to use the parking lot~ and Mr. Levinson repliCd tl~at he thought there was same xype of agreAmrnt ~llowing the bank to utillze th~ ct~urcl~ parking lot and the church to usn ttie banF. parking lot. I: was pointed out the Gcncral Plan .ieilynates subJoct pro~erty for medlum density residentlal land us~s. On rol{ cal1~ the foreyoiny resolutl~m was passed by the folla~ing vote: AYES; Co11MISSIONERS: UAVID~ N[kBST~ JO~+N50~t~ KIIdG NUE5: COMMISSIONCRS: BUSNORE ADSENT: COMMISSIONERS: B ARNES, TOLAR Jsck Whlte presented ;he oppasitlon with the writtcn ric~fit to appeal the Planning C~.,mmission's decisian within 2?. days tu the Ci-y Counctl, i TEt~ N0. 2 CONT ~ NUED PUBLI C HEARI I~G. 01Jt~ERS : ALAN R. ANO ET'~1~,`I~i~VE DECLARATION MARJORIE S, TALT, WIriS70r1 G. AND L015 L. WAIKER~ RECLASSIFIC T ON N0~79„~ 61~ South Flower Strept~ Los Angeles, CA ~OA17. "' AGENT: HORACE GILLETT~ Phllip A. Hort~ Co., 55~+5 East Telegraph Road~ los M oelcs, CA 900A0. Petitianer requ~•sts rr.classification af property d~scrlbed as an irregularty-shaped parce ~ of la~d consisting of ~pproximataly 7.1 ac res having approximate frontages of 613 feet on the south stde of Omcga Avenue, 7S~ feet on the west slde of Sunkist Street~ and 278 feet on the north s1Je of Winst~n Road~ anJ being located approximately 6~5 feet south of th~ centerline of Ball Road~ from the County A1 (G~NEhAL AGRICULTURIIL) DISTRICT to the ML (INDUS7RIAL~ LIMlTI:G) ZONE. Subject petition w as continued from the meetings of March t2 and 26~ ~979~ at the reques t of the petitioner. There was no one indicating their presence in opposir,ton to subJect ~equest~ and althoug h the s taf f rep~rt to the P 1 ann i n~, Cummi s~ ion dated Apri 1 9~ 19?9 was not read at the pub 1 t c hearing, it is referred to and made a pa rt of the minutes. Lee Phelos. ~. tl. Miiler Constru~ tion Company~ 90 Brookhoilow Drive, Santa Ana, was present to answer any questions. TIiE PUiiLIC NEARI~~G WAS CLOSED. 4/9/79 MIt1UTES~ ANAIIEIM CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSION~ APRtI 9~ 1A7~ 79-257 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATI0~1 ANO RECLASSIFICATION N0. 78_79__3~ ~~nttnued) Commissioner Johnso~ puinted out adsquAte rarkinc~ t~as Geen provide:d nceordi~h to the plans~ however~ the~e fs na eutdoar stora~a pr~vided and he felt most industrlal bulidings neod an nrc;a for oucdoor storage. Mr. Phelps ste~ted bulldir.~,~ !~o. 1 has already been sold t~ a cllent involved in th~ nroduce busln~ss end there wi I1 n~t ~r. any exterior s~ora,ye nnd he needs secur ity for his trucks; th~t but ld{ngs Nos. 2 ancl 3 do nat lrnd tl~emselves to exterlo~ storac~e~ because they are front-load~rs and a~e vislble t~~ tlie street; that the nnly bullding that readily lends itself to exterlor stora,ye is buildii~,y tJo. 4 ln tt~c rcAr b'cr~isp It has ah~ttinq Industrial ; end that the ~ther bui ~~11ngs wi l l c.c~mplet ly bui fer thc area. 11e steted they hav~ becn cunstr~cting bulldings In 5oi~thern Colifc,rni a for m~ny yeers and are specificatlon buliders anJ unc of cf~e bioycst problems ls tenants wontinq to add more square footsge for offlces after tr~e plans have bcen appr~ve~l~ thereby c~eatiny e parking sii~rtage~ so they feel lt ~S'nLP ~r~utothcy'1~~vcmnot askednfor~anytvar iancc~s~~ hel~ them markat thc bulldEnc~s. Ne ;~u Commissioner Johnsun stated build{ny No. ~+ with '~ row of parking praposed woulclPho~;^ allow latgererlled~tlei~~ieyspec builders~anuafiave9m dP,thenbuiidingscflexibler~ agreed anc. p Y ACTI011; Commissioner Johnson offered a motlon~ seconded by Commiss ~ ~,cr King and PIOTIO~~ ~D (Commiss luners Barnes bnd Tolar being absent? , that th~e Ana~~e im Ci ty Planning Car~rmission has revtewe~f the prop~sal to reclassify the zonln~~ frum the Oran~,~e County A1 (General Agricultural) Oistrlct to the ML (In~tustrlal, Lirr,it<~d) Zone on an irre~ularly- shAped parcel of land consisting af approximatrly 7.1 acres having approximate frontages of 61 j feet ~n Che Sout!~ side of Omeua AvF~nue~ 7,~ feec on tt~e west slde of 5 ~xtmatel St~eet~ and 27a feet on tl~e n~rth side of Winston Road~ and being loented app Y 655 feet soutt~ of the centerl ine of ~al l Roa~'; and dces hereby app~ove the Negative Declaration from the requlren~ent to prepare an envlronmertal impact ~aport on the b,3sis that there would be no significant 6ndividual or c-~mulative ~dverse environmental tmpact due to the approval of tl~is Ne9ative Decla~ation since tF~e 0.naheim General Rlan drslgnates the subJect property for general inJustrial land uses commensurate witt~ the proposal; that no sensittve environmental impacts are involve~l in the proposal; that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates rw slgnificant individual or r umulative adverse envt ~o~mental impacts; and that the 12eyative Declaration sut~stanttat iny thr. for~going findings is on file in tt~e Ciiy of Anahelm Plannin~ Depa~rtment. Commissioner Johnson offered Resolution No. PC79'67 and moved for i ts passaqe and adoption~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commission dc~ea hereby grant Petition for Reclassification No. 78-7~-30, s~~bJett to the property being cleveloped substantially ~n accordance with plans as presentcd and subject to Interdepartmental Corrmittee recornnendat ions . On roil call~ the foregoing resolution was passed by the following ~ote: AYES : COMMI SS I C' E RS : BUSIIOP,C ~ DAV I D. NERBST ~ JOHNSON, K! NG NOES : COMMI551 UNERS ~ HOtlE ABSEN': COMMISS I Ot~ERS : BARt~ES ~ 70LAR 1y I, ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINC COMMISSION, APltIL y, 1979 73'2~~ ITEM N0. 3 CONTINUEO PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: RICFIAR~ HYDE IR~NEG~A~VE OECLARATION AND ROBERTA NYDE BOTTEMILLER~ S76 South Flfth ~~~.- 0~~ Streot~ Apt. 1S. San Jose~ CA 9y112. A~ENT: ~~N' 1~17k'-M~TRACT N0. 14669 SNITLEY b ASSOCIATES. 1415 East Callins f.ollins~ Orange~ CA 92667. P~operty desGribed as ar~ trfegularly-shsped parcel ~f lend consisting of approximetely 3.9 flcres located at the northeast ~orner of Ll~coln Avenue and 4ltlshire Avenue, I~aving approximatr. frontages of 191 feet on the north slde of Llncoln Avenue~ 190 feet on the eest side of Wllshire Avenue~ 7Q9 feet on the east and north stdes of Pearl Street and 2J1 feet on the west cul•de-sac terminus of Dtamond ~treet. P roperty presently classlfled RM-1200 (RESIDE!~TIAL~ MULTINLE-FAMILY) AFID C1. (COMMERCIl1L~ IIMITE~) ZONES. REQUE~TED VARIANCE:: W!+'VER OF MINIMUM lOT WIDTII. TENTAT I VE TR/1CT ItEQUEST : 10-L~T ~ AO-UI~ I 7~ RM-12b0 APARTMENT SUEiD I V 1 S I ON AND A 3-LOT~ CL SUBOIVISI~N. SubJect petttlon was continued from the meetin~ of March 12~ 197y, at the reqaest of the petitlo~er. There was no one in~llcating their presence in opposition ta sub_~ect r~Guest~ a~d althAUgh the staff report to the Plenninc; Commisston dated Aprll q, 1979 was not read at the public heari~g~ (t is referred to and made a part of tlie minutes. Robert Henninger~ Assistant Planner~ stateci twa letters of orposttion had been recetved since thc previaus hearing. Jack Oavls, 151~5 Northi 6rand AvenuN~ Santa Ana~ stated they hed listene:d to the apposition end reallzed there is a pa~~ing proble:m in the arca and hed met with the nelghbars and have redesigned the proJect~ prov(ding 13 more spac~s; that they had taken a couple wha saemed to be the spokesmen for thc ,raup to a project they had built in Tustin which include~ 14 fourplexes and that they had discussed the p roJect wtth the manager. H~ stated they had agreed that the project lnoked ilke the ;endering prtsented at the previous hearin~ and there had been concern that (t would be different. He stated the f~cY that there is no opposition present would indicate tt,e additional parkinq will alleviate the prablem. He stated there are a number of homes in the area which do not have garages and they have to park in thc str~ets~ and he understood their concern. He stated the opposition did not want a largc apartment complex~ but seemed ta likc the idea of four separate lots with separate fourplexes on each lot and felt it would be mure tn kee~ing with their residential area, end they liked the lendscap(ng propoced because it provide~ a flowing effect and gave the appearance of large hnmes with similar front yards. Mr. DAV(s stated that special conditions which meke the property difficult to develop ar~ ceus~d by the fact that the praperty already has str~ets~ curhs and gutters, and sidewalks and they have worked with that fi~ced Identity and have had to adJust to it. He stated even though they have narrowed some af the lots to helow thc 7G-foot wtdth~ they arP quitc deep and average at least 1~~0 feet in depth a~d the s~ze avGrages 9~tA s~uare feet, which is about 22A0 square eet larger than code requiras~ and the depth of the lots has allowed them to orovide more pdrking. He refe r~ed to the northwest corne~ of the property and pointed out the o~igina) property Iine from which the street dedication was made, whtch normally would have been divtded one-half beCween the property to the north and onc-half ta the subje.ct property~ indlcating there was a house on thet corner. THE PliBLiC HEARING WAS CLOSED. 4/9/79 r~ ~ MINUiES~ At~AHEIM CITY PLA~:NING COMh11:SI0N~ APRIL 9~ ~919 79-'h9 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATIO~, VAR~AN~E N0. 3082 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 1066~ (cant(n~.~ed) Chairma~ Herbst esked if the private streets wlll be develnped accor~linn to City sta~dArds~ and Mr. Davis repli d th8t they would. Commtssloner Busho~e complimentcd Mr. Davls for taktng care of the itietghbors' concerns a~d falt the r.hanges would eliminate any p+arklnq problems (n the area. He indtc~ted concern regerdtnq the trash beiny pulled out to the curb~ and esked how that would be handlad. Mr. Davls replied that the Sanit~tlon Depa~tment had reviewed and epproved the plans and palnted out I~e has used thts concept at other proJects. Commissloner 9ushore indlcateJ he was still conce rned about the tresh not getting pulled ouC to the street~ buk d(d not see haw the prohlem could be alleviated. He asked the appllca~t to give h(m addresses of a couple uf I~is proJects in other areas so tl~nt he could see how the problem is worke~ out on trash collect~on day. Ne felt the app)icant had done eve rythiny rPquested in connection wltt~ this project. Commiss(oner Johnson asked about the driveway ln the center nf the plan~ Indlcating there is a possibility that traffic could Ga scraighi through from the cul-de-sac to Pearl Struet~ and Mr. Davis indlcate~l ttierP would be a G-foot high black wall at that Incatton. ACTION: Commissioner King cffered a motfon~ seconded by Commissloner David end MO1'ION CARR ED (Commissfoners Barnes and Tolar being absent)~ that tt~e Anahe(m City Planntny Commisslon has reviewed the proposal t~ e~tabl(sh a 1~-lot~ ~+0-unit apartment subdiv(sion and a 3-lot, CL subdivision with waiver of min~mum 'ot widtli on an irregularly-shaped par~el of land consisttng of approximately ).g acres locatr.d at the northeast corner of Ltncoln Avenue and Wilsl~lre Avenue~ haviny approximate frontayes of 191 fect ~n the north `lde of Lincoln Avenue~ 19~ feet on the east stde of Wllshire Avenue~ 70y feet un the east and north sides of Pearl Street, and 271 feet on the west cul-dE-sac termtnus of Dlamond Street; and does hereby approve the Ne~ativ~ Declaratlon ~rom the requirement to prepare an environmental irnpact report on the basts thAt there wo+~ld be no significant lndividuai or cumulative adverse environmental i~npact due to the epproval of chis Negative Daclaration slnce the Ana~heim General Plan deslynates the subJect property for general commerclal and medlur~~ denslty r~~sldential land uses commensurate witli the proposal; that no aensitive env(ronmental impacts t*e involved in the praposal; that the Initial Study submitted by the ~-etitioner indicatec no significant indlvtdual o~ cumulative adverse envtronn~ntal !rr~acts; and tt~at the t~egattve Declaration substantiating the foregaing find(ngs is on file i~ the City of Anaheim Planning Department. Commissioner K~n~ offered Resolution No. PC79-68 and n~ved for its passage and adoptinn~ that the Anaheim City Pla~ning Gommission does hereby grant Petition for Variance No. 3082 on the basis of the unusua) shape of the p~operty and the existing cul-de-sac~ and on the basls that similar waivers ~~ave been granted a~d dental would be depriving subJect property of privileges enJoyed by other pr~perties in thc: same vicinlty and z~ne, and sub,~ect to Interdep~rtmental Committee recomnendatlons. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the followin~ aote: AYE5: COMMI SS IOtdEFiS : BUSHORE, NOES: ~OMMISSIONERS: NQNE ABSENT: COMMISSIQNERS: BARNES, QAVIQ, HERBST, JONN50N~ KING TOLAR Cortmissionar King offered a motion~ secor.ded by Commisstoner Johnson and MOTION CARRIED (Commtssioners Barnes ~nd Tolar betng absent)~ that the Anahelm City Pla~ning Commission does hereby find that the proposed subdivision~ Cogether wtth its design and improvanent, is consistent with the City oF Ar.aheim General Pian, pursuant to Gave mment Code Sect(on 4/~/79 MINUTFS~ AhAHEIM CITY PLANNING COW4iSSI0N. APRIL 9~ 1979 79-~270 ~IR NF.GATIVE ~ECLARATI~QN VqRIANCE N0. 3082 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 1_ 669 (cc~ntlnued) 66473.5 s~d doe~~ therefore~ epp rovc Tentatlvc M~p c;f T~act No. 1066~ fur a 10-lot, 40- untt~ RM-1200 (Re:l~iential. Multiple-Family) Zone suAdivtston end a 3-lot~ CL (Commer~c~c~ Limited) Zone subd~v~slon~ sub,ject tu the follaitng co~dittons: 1. Thet the appr~va) of Tsntatlve Mi, of Troct Ne. 1t~669 Is gr~nted subJect to the approval of Variance No, 3U87. 2. That sl~ould this subdivislon be developed as rtare than one subdlvisi~n~ each subdivist~n therecf shall ~e submttted ir tnntattve form for epprovel. 3. Tha*. eil lots wittiin thls tract shall be served by und~erqround uttlitles. 4. That prlor Cp the int m duc.tion of a~ o~dtnance~ a fina) tract map of siibJect property sha) l t;P :,ubmitted to a~d approved by tf~e Ct~y Counci l end then be recorded tn the •~Ff f cc of ~. Orangc County R,ncorde r. 5. That ~he o~~ner(s) of subJect p roperty shall pay t~ the Clty of Anehetm the eppropriate park and recrcation (n-lteu fees as detcrmtned to ! appropriate by the Clty Counctl, said fees eo be p~id at the ttme the butldiny permtt issued. E. That drafnage of sub,~ect property shell be disposed of in e m~nner sattsfacto ry to thc C(ty En~tneer. 7. Thet tr~sh storage areas shall be provlded in accordance with appr~ved plans on flle with the office of the Olrector of Public ~~orks. 8. That the vwne~(s) of subJect property :~hall pay the traff(c signAl essessment fee (OrdlnanGe No, 389G). iri an amount as deiermined by tlie City Council~ for each new ~r4111ng unit prtor to Che tssuan~,e of a bufldtng uermit. 9. That prior to filtng the fir~al trac[ map~ mutual access easements for all thos~ parcels whlch share access shall be submitted Lo and .epproved by the Ctty Attorney's Offtte and then be filed and recorded in t~~e affice of tl~e Orange County Recorder. 10. That Gondttion Nos. 3, o and 7~ abave nenflo~ed~ shall be camplie, with prinr ta final building and zoning tnspections, ITEM N0. 4 PUBLIC HEAR~NG. GWNER~: RUNALO U. ANO AUDREY E. EIR NE VE DFCLARATION VASEY~ 3630 Savanna Strect. Anaheim~ CA 92801. REGL SIFICATION N0. 7-79-41 AGENT: KEN KALLMR-~~ 1741 iJest l.incotn Avenue, V~NCE Nb. 30 ~ Anaheim~ CA 928A1. Property descrtbed as an tr~egulerly-shaped parcel af iand consisting of appraxfmately 1.0 acre havtng s frontage of app~oxl- mately 136 feet on the ~outh sidr of ~ava~ina Street, having a maxtmum depth of approxt- mately 371 feet, being located approximately 1000 feet west of the centerline of Knott Street~ and furthe~ d..scrlbed as 3630 West Sevanna Street. P~operty presently classified RS-A-43~000 (RESIDENTIAL/A6RICULTURAL) ZANE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: RM-240Q (RESIDENTIAL~ MUL'fIPLE-FANILY) ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF (A} ~lINIMUM BUILDING SITE AREA PER DWELLING UNIT AttD (B) MAXIMUM STRU~Tt;,SAL HEtGHT 70 COMSTRUCT AN 18-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX. 7htre were approxtmately seve~ persons indicating their presence in oppositlon to subJect request, and although the staff report to the Planning Commission dated April 9, 1979 was not read at the p~lic hearing~ it is referred to and made e part of the minutes. Ken Kellman~ agent~ was ~resent to answer any questions a~d refer~ed to ths ratlroad tracks at the rear of subJect property and the difftculty developing a plan for tt~is p~operty. 4/3/79 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ APRIL 9, 1979 79-271 EIR NE4ATIVE DECLARA7I~N. aECLASSIFICATION N0. 7~»7~-4) AND YARIANCE N0~3083 (continued) Jaan Todd~ 3620 Savanna Street, M ahelm~ st~tcd she ltves next do~r to subJect property in a single-femily restdenca. She presente~l e pe*.Ition signed by approxtmately 20 persons opposed to the proJact end read the following stetement fram the petttion: "We the Poliowing residents of Sevanna Strcet and Marion Way feel the pr•oposed reclasslftcetioR frorn RS-A-43~000 to ItM-24~0 with the variances requested attached ere not (n keeping with the precedents set for recent constructton proJects established on this street. While the zone change is a necess+~ry ~equlrement for the development ~f thts 1 acre parcel~ we feel that i~i units (s wey bayond whet has been pessed by this ciCy as a safe and equsl number of unlts per acre. It wes estsbll~~ied by the City Council that a safe yrowth rate fnr this street~ with only one way to enter and exit, that a maximum of 1Q unlts pcr acr~ should be a limitation placed on futurc developmants on this street. In additton projects previously epproved were bounded by RA zoned parcels on both sides. Thls projcct is bounded on th~ west by an RA zoned parct) on the east by a RS-7200 for a portion of ~he lot and by singln sto ry duplexes zoned ttM-2400 for the remalnder of the lat. On the RS-J200 lot a SINCLE FAMILY RCSIDENCE EXISTS. We therefore feel that a 2 story apartment proJect would serlously decrease property values as weii as (nfringe on the privacy of the ~esfdence on the er~st side of thts one acre lot. Mle th~refure fe~l that to al Ic~w a wetver of the minimum bui Idtng stte ar:a per dwelling unit and maxtmum structurai helght should not be gra~~tad. Two projects very recently approved were a 9 unit co~domtntum and an $ untt apartment c~mplex. both o:~ 1 acre parGels." Ms. Todd ststeri Chey have not seen any plans and have ndt met wlth the developer of the project~ but sie was concerned because the staff report Indicated the building wtl) ba placed 15 feet `~om her property lfne and felt a two-sto ry building wlll be laoking right Into her back yara •~nd wlll block her view oF the sunset and sunltght to her back yerd~ as wel) as all the otner resldents on Msrian Way, because thetr back yards alsc: back up to the cast property iine. She stated they felt two-story units wtll infringe on thelr privacy. She was alsu conce rned about trash~ pointing out another iB~untt proJect at the end of the street which puts the trash on the street eve ry Monday mornl~g which thc dogs spread all over the are~. She stated she had brought plctures 1~ previousiy to show the trash situatio~. Ns. Todd stated there wa~ a General Plan change on their street and there was a~e parcel be~een two existtng apartmen~- which th~y had asked to be ~lfminated from the Ge~era) Pla,: change beca~se they had felt there would not be artythin~ else buildable on khat particular p roperty. She stated the rest of the street is low-medi~im, which they feit would help keep the density down since the street ~mly has ane way -~- and out. She referred to the fire hazard with the fire t~ucks hav(ng a difficult time getting through~ and steted there are a lot of children playing in the arca and rtght now there is a lot of constructlon go(ng on and that ts creating additional trafftc problems. She stated that single-story condominlum proJects recently approved were required to have addttt~nal parking p~ovlded for visitors~ end polnted out this prUJect ~1oes not hade any addttlonal parking places provided for visito~s. She st~ted previously the proJetts approved on the street were adja~ent to larger parce~s, but rhat sh~ has a single-family lot which ~s small and fett dEVelopment of this project would decreese her prnperty value, and stated Chc rest of the residents could seli their proRerties io ~e developed as apartments, but wi:h a two-sio ry proJect ad,lacent to her property, she did not have a chance of selling her property. Bernice W. Bennett, ~4; South Marian Way~ Anahelm, stated she owns one of the single-3tory duplexes; that if a two-sto ry building ts develcped right behind them, it will certainly 4/9f 19 a FiiNUTES, ANA~IEIM CITY PLANNING COFWi551QN, AI'Rll 9~ 1~79 13-=72 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION. RECLASSIFICATION N0. 78-79-41 ANO VARIANCE N0. 3083 (cont(nu~d) -~ - -~ - --- ----- -- - --.....~.. ~_~ .__..._...~ bA ~n invaslon of privacy and thsy wil) have uninvtted quests all the tlme looking right into their windawa~ end thc only thtng they Gan do is keep thei~ r,urtafns closed sll day long. She was alsn conce rned abo~t nolse. She stated no one would obJect to sinqle- famtly dwellings being developad on this property because they ~~elize it has to be develaped. She stated they hav~- a ve ry bad traffic problem and thts proJect would add to that existln~ problem. Mr. Kallm +~ stated the plans show they have given the t~ash sttuatlon constderatl~n and (ndicatc~ he would be heppy to try and work out the other p roblems. He stated there Is a lot of ~o~structton going on In the erea and indl~ated tt was hls opinlon the area is somew'at old and ~undown end he bellevnd this QroJect would enhence the area. He stated the' p~oblem Is the cost of property today and thetr need for the n~~mber of untts rec~ested within re~son~ and stated again the blggest prablem with the property I~ the railroad trecks at the sauth end. TNE rUBLIC HEARING WAS G.~SED. Chatrmen Herbst stated he has been in on the hearings on Savanna Street and he did not fee) the applicant had done l~Is homework dnd stated he would not vot~ for this proJect; that the devef~pment cannot be two-sto ry~ and as far as he is concerned~ the proJect would have to be garden-type apartments because tt would be infrinhing upon other peoples' rights and he dtd not believe the economics of the applicant should infringe upon the economics of others, Ne stated there are problems with the traffic and with dratnage~ and that thny are being gradually ca~rected~ but titits many unlts with only ane way in and out is not feasibie. Ne suggested the petition~r request a continuance and redesign the p~~Ject wlth ~ne-sco ry buiidings. He stated in ~evlewing che histo ry of the area~ one- story units must be considered because of the traffic flow in the area and the density must be kept dawn~ and aslced if staff fad discussed the Commisston's stand regardtng this area. Mr. Kaliman stAted ortginally he had submitt~d a plot plan o~ a larger parcel, but the piablem they had encou~tered ~n thi~ proJect was the railroad t~++cks. Chalrma~ Herbst stated the Commission must look at each site as it stands on its awn. M~. Kallman stated he would be happy ta redes;~n the pro)ect a~d adj~st th~ selitng price. Commtssfoner Bushore stated he agreed with the Chairman and also pointed out the Cammission i~ redirecting itself on the parktng require~nents~ realtzing people tn generai ~do not accept thst there is a gas shortage and are sttll buytng cars and still buying recreational vehicles and they do have guests~ and the Commission is not lcoking favorably on prt~Je:ts wlth min(mum parking because they realize parking pioblems wiil be caused for the out ~yi ng property owners . Gammissioner Johnson stated the spplicant should not b~ expected to int~rpret whet the othe~ Conmissloners feel end wantcd the petitiorter to know that the~e is quite a histo ry of the proJects on this strett~ and he would support anyt!~ing that does not have variances, but felt !t would he aut of order tA support the va~iance because of the history of the area. He felt the p roJect has tu be the garden-type~ one-sto ry apartments a~d the 150-foo~ setback pretty well covers the entire property. Chr~-maR F{erbst sta~ld research can be made on what other aenslttes have been allowed in t~ -ea~ and Commissioner .lohnson stated this is a transition a~et~, Kallman statad he would like to request a fcur-week continuance. 4/9/79 MINUTES~ ANAHE.IM CITY PLANNING GQMMISSIQN~ APRIL 9~ 1979 79-z73 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION. RECLASSIFICATION N0.__78-79-41 AND VARt1NCE N0. 3083 (continued) ACTION: Commissioner Divid offered a nqtion~ seconded by Commtssioner King and MOTtON ~t~D (c'~mr~issioners Barnes and Tolar betng absent) ~ ch~t oonsideration of Raclasstficetton No. 78-7g-41 end Varlsnce Na. 3083 b~ co~tinued to the regularly- scheduled meattng of the Planning C~mmisslan on May 7- 1~'9. at the ~equest of the pecltloner, Chairm+nn Herbst po(nted out that no further notic~s will ba sent regerJing this hearing. I TEM N0. ~ READVERT I SED FI1Bl1 C F1EAR1 NG. Q1~MER ; EMKAY BUS 1 NESS ~~~~E D~CLARATION CENTFR~ 17~0 East Gsrry Avenue~ Santa Ana~ CA 9270~~. D ON L USE ~MI N0. 1960 AGENT; E. 0. RODEFFER~ 1720 East Garry Avenue~ Sante Ans~ CA 92704. Petitione- requests permission to ESTABLISH A SPORTS A-~D FN1'~RTAINMENT CAMPLEX WITH DANCIN~ AND Ti~E ON-SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES on property des ibed as an (rregula~ly- shaped parcel of land consisting of ~pproximately 6.1 „ ~es located north ~nd east ot tn~ northeast corner of Orangewood Avenue and Santa C~uz Street. heving approxtmate frontages of 60 feet on the norkh s i de of Orangewood A~~enue an~' 70 feet on ti~e eas t s i de of Santa C~uz Street~ and having a maxtmum depth of approximately 7~~1 feet. Property presently clessif{ed ML (INUUSTRIAL, LIMITED) ZONE. There w as no one ind(cating the(r presence in opposttlan to subJect roquest~ anA although the staff report to the Ptanning Commission dated P.pril 9~ 1979 w as not read at the public hearing~ it Is referred to and mac~e a part of the minutes. Charles L. liohl~ Ganeral Mana9er, KI^q's Rscquetball, 1JestmSnster. possed out an outli~e describing the p~oposa) as a family recreattonal fa~cility and stated thelr marketing studles haves shown tren~s taward p~tting more than one type recreattonai acttvity into one facility. and referred to other clubs whlch have three ar four multiple-purpose activities such as a racquetball/bow~tng centnr simila~ to th4 one proposed or racquetball end clnema together. Ne presented a rendering ano explained this quality facflity wtll have 65 racquetball/handbal) ~~~~~~s~ men's and ladies' locker rooms and health club, shallcyw lap pool and warm-u~ track~ sr,ack bar anu viewing area. loungA sren~ stadtum court and a 46- lene bowl ing center. Mr. Hohl stated they presently havP a facility in Westminster (Kinn's R~cquetba~il Courts). He further scated the praposed facility will be a seml-private/publtc club and expiatned these Lype facllities are basically broken do~m tnto categortes of prTvate~ semt-private. public and pure public. He stated in an effort to keep a constant rotetion, they will stagger reservations: one-third of the courts reserved for onc hou~~ on-the-hour; on~- third reserved for one haur~ 20 minutes afr~r-the-haur; and one-third reserv~d for onc hour, 20 minutes to-the•hour. He explainc ~he locker ~ooms consist of lockers~ showers~ Jacuzz( and sauna; that they have found after extenstve studies that ~2~ af the players will not use locker rooms; that the health club has Naut;las weight Pquipment whic.h ts based an a 24-minute workout rather than one and o~e~half hours of a regular program; that the exercise room ts a m~~lti-pu~pose room where players can work out before going on the wurt and also they use that room for daytime slim-nastic classes; that they w~ll have a ghaliow lap pool which is a four-lane conditio~.ing pooi~ 45 feet in length~ with no divingboard; and also a warm-up track where play~~rs can loosen up before playi~~g racquet~ali. Ne stated the snack bar and viewing area ts a place where a piayer can grab a sandwich or a drlnk after playing and Jus~t sit back and relax~ and is not designed to bri~g additional people to the facility~ and that service wlll be Ru~ely seif-service; that the lounge area 4/9/79 ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CIT/ PLANNING CONMISSION~ APilil q~ 197~ ?3-274 EIR NEGATIVE DECL~RATION ANO COI~DITIONAL USE PEkMIT N0. ~60 (continued) .,,...,, ..~ _~ . (s offered because husineasmen use the facility and Ilke to ston rtor a drink and discuss busl~e:s after ch~y huve playea. Ne stdted people Ilke to coo) otf and have a drink after ~laying ta discuss the game~ gnd that AMF Volt advises all their recreatlonal fec(Ilties to serve alcoholic beve~ages and sandwiches becauso that Is r+hAt the pPOple want. He presented a list of competitor; In Orang~ County whlch s4rve alcnhollc drlnks. He explained many n~w tacllttiea Include a stadium court and there is one at thelr present club in Westminster, and thAt they h~ve had celebrity metches, club plays~ de,~ces. club ~artles~ etc.~ et thet facil~ty. He stated tfiese type facllitles ar~ costty~ s~ they try to use them for different purposes. He steteJ [1-e b~.,wliny lanns N111 be brought ln by cither AMF Voit or ~r~answic.k An~f wlll have Automatlc scoring whlch allaws faster turnover. Thc proJccted liours o{` operation were ra~x,rted t~ ba ~i;OQ a,m, to 2:OA a.m, on weekddys, and weekends 7:00 a.m. to 2:Of, a.m, Mr. ~iohl st~ted, agaln~ the~ are a famtly racreatlonal fecility ancf ~•~~tend to promc~te thc use of the faciltty threugh OlsneylAnd~ Knott's Berry Farm, ttc.~ whtch cater to vacatton peoplP. Ile stated there Is a slmllar setup in Las Vegas and SAn Dlego which sands a tram t~us to tne hotels to service those guests~ and that they wil) attempt th3: same type servir_e here. Mr. Hohl presented An ~dividual facillty use chart +hawing the use of thelr present facility and explalned the p roposed facllity wlli have 6;00 a.m. ieagues and open alay a~d 9:00 to 10:00 e.m. leagues ~or ra~quetball and bawling~ and from apDroximately 4:00 to 5:00 p.m.~ people who work wlll begin using the fac(Iity. Nr explalned thls faclllty will be considered a.rlddle-class club and most users would work until ~:0~ or 5:00 p.m. ~ unllke prlvate clubs wherc rr~mbers can t~ke off work during the day. He stated basical' they start to get busy arcaund 4:00 p.m. and from 5:00 p.m unti) mldnlght arc their heavlest hours, and that their bowling alley per.-. hours are baslca~ly the same and th._ s~ack bar and lounge area coincide with those hours. I~e sta:eo he hAS been ln the area on weekends and there Is ve ry Itttle use ~f th~~ industrlal erea, He steted the courts ~rt used on weekends more in the winte~~ than In the s~:nx++er. He gave the backaround on three indivlduals in the company ~~nd indfcated they have baen guest speakera at racquetball ~onventtons in Anahelm to discuss the bustness and are leaders in professional racquetba;l on th~s West Coast. He a1sU listed several cortQnuniCy involvements (n wh~ch cheir 41C~.Cmif15~C~ club has participated~ and stated he is very proud of tf~~+ fact that they ha~r. cut energy consuirQ;ion by 28~: last year wtth the help of 5outhern California Edisen enc: indicated they dc~ provide park and recreatlon classes during the day far the cities of Westntns:c•~ Garden Grove and fluntington Beach. Ne painted out 12 c:~er Orange Gounty factlities which are devcloped in industrlal/busine~ centers and stated Cliey ltke to establish in an industrlal/business area because that ~s where the people are. He sr.~ted there (s a lot of interest currently tn good health and regular ~xercise to irrprove productivity and preven~'ve maintenance. and stated 'erox end many other corporations hare their own In-ho~~s~ f~cillt~_:s similar to thts. He presented an average ~eservaZion sheet showing when the facility Is the busiest. Ne ~ompared tF~ts club with the Sports~ Gsllery and explained the Sports Galiery is rtferred to as a social club a~nd t~~e proposed facility is called a recreattonal club and potnted out tha dtfferences~ stating a ~atro~ of a social club stays longer and more parking is required. 4/9/79 ~ ,. MINUTES~ ANANEIM CIZY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 9~ ~979 EIR NEGATIYE DECLAFtAT10N AND CONOITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1960 (contlnued) 79-275 He p~~sented a cl~+~rt shnwing p~~king co-relatlons~ explatntng they have used the figure of 2.8 stalls pcr court~ not Including arry ~ther supporttve arcas. Ne statrd they have no parki~g p~obiems at their present facilftv using this ratlo. Ne statad he has discussed the parking requt~ements with the Clty af M ahelm and would say th~t o~e etall per 35 squero feet Is unrealistic In this business ustny successful cluhs in the area for comperison. TIIE PUBLIC HEARINf, WAS CIOSED. Commtsslo~er Dushc~re asked what ot~ ~m facilitt~s were used fer com~artson~ and Mr. Hahi repl (ed that he tiad con~arcd i~ e Sports Gal lery on Kate) la ~md Annheim Ra~yuelball which I,e thouqht we~s on rta, ~li~. Commtssloner Bush~re asked if Kin9's Racquetball Courts in Nestmtnster has a cockt~il lounge and baaaling a~lcy~ and Mr, Hohl replted it cioes not have a ucw+ling alley. but does serve alcoholic beverages. Chalrman fierbst stated staff t~as indicated the Spo~ts Gallery has 123 p~'+rktng spaces~ ~nd Mr. Hohl repl(ed that he had gone to tt~e site and pl~ysically counted 116 parking spaces. Commissioner Johnson stated he felt epproval of thls permi[ htnges upun the parking s~tuatlon~ and stated he did not know whether the staff or the p~titioner Is correct~ but the figures worked out by the C(ty have been calculated aver the years after much study and research. He felt the area where there could be a dtfference would be tl~e handball courts themselves because we do not have specific experience with racquetball courts~ but the 4 spaces per court seems r ore real isttc tlian 2.8 spaces per co~~rt. Mr. Ilohl stated the 2.iS fi~ure cxcluded eve r~thinq but the racquetball courts and the 4.0 flgure includts the racquetball courts and the health club and some of the other support a reas . Commtssl~ner Johnson stated 4.0 is the fig~re tl~e Clty uses far racquetball courts and Commissio~er Bushore tndicated he undcrstood the one space for 35 square feet figure r~pre!~ented tfie other multi-use areas. and Robert Henninger explalned the one space for 35 square feet figure represents ttre multi~purpose use areas such as the viewing area around the e;Khibition court and the cocktail lounge and conference rooms~ or those areas where F,opt~a could gather and sit in seats. He stated the ~acquetball cou~t includGS accessory uses aflrectly related~ s~,ch as locice~ rooms. health ctub~ pool and the trACk. Chdt~man Herbst su,qgested that stnce the petitioner hes tied this use to the use of afftces on adJacent property with a reclprocal pa~king agreeR~nt~ both properties should be revtewed since the recre~tional faciltty requlres 655 parkin~ spaces a.^.~ the office use requires 239 parking spaces, and both have a defici~ncy. Commi^:sfoner Bushore stated he woulci llke to be able to view those uses which were being used for comparison. Mr. Hohl stated there are no fixed rutes for racquetbal) courts and they have had to make their own rules and have tried to take those factlities which are ~uccessful and compare them to other clubs. He did not feel the ratio fos• ~arking required for thc Sports Gallery and this facility are even close. Chairman Herbst stated this is a 142,720 sq uare foat building area and the uses are not all shown here a~d the figures are not relative. He stated many of the areas oonflict with ths d(fferent types of uses. such as swimming~ running and a regul~r health club~ ~+/9 / 79 ~ MINUTES, ANA1iEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ AF ~Il. 9~ 1A79 79-2 76 Ela NEGATIVE I~CLARATION AND CQNOITIONAL USE PERf41T N0. 1~60 (contlnued) ~ ~~~~..~.~~~..~~r~~~~~~r~~~~n~~r racquetb~ll~ cocktall launge~ etc.~ potnting out this is a 1~iy complex ~nd felt it shouid be ex~mined very car~fully. Ne polnted out bo*.h complexes ~re sh~rt of pdrking and elther one could be sold off. Mr. Nohl stated he would agr~a with the Clty's Eigures rngardinq the bowling tan~ p~rtlon of the facility ancl those space!~ have not been included In the celculat(on. He stated a perso~ woul d not come ( n J us t to use the l~unyr~ r~or J us t to w.tch someone pl ay racauetbal l~ nor Just to use the showers; that the sane person wh~ comes in would be the one who would go tl~rough the wl~ole cycl~ and felt that should he cansidcred. Robe~t Nen~inger~ As!~istant Planner~ explained the rnafor parking tssue Is the araas of assembly and felt It all depends upon how those ~reas wlll bc oacreted and function with the remetnder of the club. Chatrman Nerbst stated the petltia.~er has been discussiny racquetbal) and he felt lt is I~nportant to know haw the rest of the facility will be opzrat~d~ and Mr. Hohl explained 100~000 square feet of tl~e bullding wlll be racquetball orlented and the players will wa,m up before thcy piay In the multi-purpose exercise raom~ and aftcr thPy play~ they will coc~l off tn f~onC of tlie vlewing area, an~i thls Is the same; person wfio gets the sanclw~rh or drink from the snack bar. Mr. Hol~l ststed he had taken the 2.8 ~'igure as an indicator and multipiied that by the i~umber of courts (in this case 2.8 x 65) and subtracted the parking requirements, and 15 spac.es for 4200 square fcet Is left o~cr~ whetlier it be for a lounc#e, etc., and dividing that gives ~.6 stalls per 1000 square fret~ and stated that ts what they have at thrir prosent club. He explained that using that formula~ he had compared this use with other facllittes tn the arca. Coawntssioner Ki~g stated he thought It would be ridiculous tor a businessman not to provtde enough perking spaces and felt th~ matter had been researched by the petlttoner and thet adequate parking will be provided. Chairman Nerbst stated he would like to have answers regarding the other uses in the buflcling and po(nted out severa) ~reas he had questt~~o~, and Mr, Hohl stated the staff repoi•t tndicat~s 02 spaces are needed for the multi-pu~pc^e room and thts is really an exer~;;tse room where a person who is going ta play handbal l a~l 11 wann up for 15 minutes befoi•e playtng, and they recommend this because thetr average customer is 25 to 45 years old .end ls not an ~ythlete. Hr. stated he docs n~t have 82 space~ at his present club and has 19 courts. Chairman Nerbs~t asked ebout t`~e men and women's health club is across the ha11 from the multi-p urpose room~ Mr. liolil explai~ed the health club is a Nautilas wnere a person would do r~ 20-minute workout going through ten machines on a regular sr,hedule threc times a week~ end the exe+rcise rc~om is the warrtwup room and polnted out :he Sports Gall~ry and the ~~ahelm Racquetball facitity have una, and indicated that area was tncluded in the suppo'ttive square fvotage. Chairman Nerbst suggesteJ tt~e Cortmission discuss the affice complex since the two seemed to be tied together, and Mr. Nohl replled they had talked with them as good neighbors~ r~alizing thelr octupants wili usin~ the club and peopie wfll be p3rking in their parking spaces durira the day. Chairman Herbst state~ there is a code to meet for office buildings as well as the recreationel facility ~nd that neithe~ of these p rojects meets the requirements, and asked i f they were owned by Che same property cwner. 4/9/79 MINUTE'~ ANANEI'1 GITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ APRiI ~~ 1979 ~9'2~~ E~a NEGAT~VE DECLAMTION AND CONOITIO~IAL USE PCRNIT N0. 1960 (contl~ued) Doug ~.~ier.on~ Emkay Devetopment Company~ stated they cHn thu 4>-acre parcel and the proposed racy uetbell faciltty and the offic~ bu~lding with frontage an O~angewood are In escrew wi th tham. Ilo statad he hes worked w) th both part i es who ~~re buyi nc~ the lend rnd {t I~as bann his greatest cnncern that adequate pa~F:in~ wil) be provide'. He stated h~ had vrorked ve ry clos~~y with Mr. ~lohl and palnted out staff has not had thc ben~tit of thn latest chart which Is an atterr~t to compare ~sxisting facilities on n fei~ basis~ and f~lt the biggest prablem he had In undarstanding the ~rop~sal ws5 thet it wa~ the blgg~st p roposed facllity of this typc In tha area. He stated they had looked at the perkin~ r~equlred for Lhe racquetball along with thc parking requlrud for additional actlvitle.s and it vories at dtfferent cluhs becau`e some are sociai .~nd yome are racr~otional. Chalrman Nerbst stated there is a~~6-l-.~ne bowling alley which rea~~ires 13f3 perkiny spaces on I ts c~wn. Mr. Anderson stated the bowling alley has been seraret~d ~end there Is sufficient parking for ~hef~~ ~is~beingyverynrestrletivee~ndehehd(dhnot know~ofranynuSef lrnanyPcicyfwhlch squa e requlres one space for 35 squara feet. Comrt~!ssioner Bushore stattd the petitianer Is probabty 5~~ right in hls analys~s of the overali parking snd staff Is probsbly S~~ right, and they are still !15 spaces short. Ne fel: the Comm(ssfon Is flexible, but has to rety on staff and what experience has provcn from time to time in the Clty and stlil takt lnto account that th!s is rather dtffarent~ bu- still felt lt would be I~acting the area. Mr. Anderson stated staff dld not have benefit of the chart in making their an.~lysts. Commissioner Bushore suggested that staff have benefit of ttiat informetion snd asked if they still wouid com~ up short on parking spaces. Robert Hen~inger stated one of the ma)or concerns staff hpublic dancesewhichtalwaxsibiti~n court and the peti tioner ha~+ aiso proposed a theater and Y requi r~e one space for 35 square feet t n the Ct ty of Mahei m~ and that t s tvhy these h i gher parking roqulrements were caiculeted. He stated if they want to stipui~te that the multi- purpose room wili be for exercise only~ then there would be no probl~sm~ Chairman Herbst stated he felt the Commission would like to d~? sdrtie research be~ause of the st=e a~d uncertatnties of tha proJect~ a~d that the matter shauld be continued for two weeks to allaw the Con+mission time ta digest the information presented and to allow staff timn to revicw the r~a~:erlal. He Indicated hs felt a lot of things have been left out of the presen~etion, includ4ny the ~+~1!t danctng~ the bowling alley and conference raoms~ and point~d aut thc City h3s had a lot of experience wtth these uscs. Ne stated he could not support the use as presented with the lack of parking~ hut felt the problems could be resolved. Commissioner Johnson ~tated studles heve been ~one end on the bas(s of what he has seen~ he oould not support the requ~st and indicated he has gone to racquetball courts in the area and could not find a Rlace to park~ and Gommisstoner David ag~eed~ indicating~ however, he would like very much to see this proJect developed in MaF~etm. Commisslaner Bushore stated the petitlone~ h~s indlcated intentir~ns of drawing fram the other entertainment complexes tn tM~e M ahrioi area and pointGd out the other fac~littcs NI~NUTES~ ANAHFIM CITY pLANNINC GOMMISSION~ APRIL 9, 1979 79'278 kIR NEGAT~VE DECLAitATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 19G0 (continued) ~ ~ ~~~ compe~ec! wlth this faclllty ere nnt locat~d tn eress wlth these ktnds of entertalnment yuch as Dlsneyland •~d felt that wauld n-~ke e dlfference. ACTION: Chelrman lierbst offered a motion~ seconded by Camm(ssloner Davld end MOTiON ~0 (Commissioners B~rnea and Toler being sbsent)~ that c~nslder~tlon of Conditlonel Use Po~ml~ No. 19G0 be contlnued to the regularly-scheduled meettng ~f the Planning Cnmmission on Aprll 23~ 197~. In order f~r tht Commission to r~view the meterlal submitted. ~ECESS There was a 1;-minute recess at 3:50 P•m• ______ RECONVENE Tl,e meetlny was reconv~ned at 4;05 ~.m. ~~ ITEM N0. 6 ~ N~d'~VC DECLAMT i ON • U NT . 19~ 3 ...~.~~ ~ - MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPA:ES o sheped parcel of l~nd conslsttng o mate ly 2~~4 feet on th~ nc~rth s i de mately 218 feet. and being located ~ollege Boulevard; and Port(on B- approximately 1.G acres located at Cruz Street, having epproximate f Avenue and 141 feet on thc east sl ML (IN~USYRIAL. IIMITEO) ZONC. CONTINUED PUULiC NEARING. OWNER: EMKl~Y BUSlNESS CENTER~ 1201 Qove Stre~t~ Sulte 200, P.O. 8ox 239p~ ~Iewport Beach~ CA 92Gf,3, A6~NT: SUNSET CONSTRUCTION~ INC~~ y01 North Brookhurst Sirect~ M3o8~ Ant~helm~ CA 928tf1. Petitioner requests permi4tlo~ to CONSTRUC7 TNREE CONMER~IAL OFFICE BUIIDINGS WITH WAIVER OF n property described es Portlon A- r rectangularly- f approx(macely 1.~7 acres having a frontege~ of apprext- of Qrangea•oud Avenue~ heving e maximum depth~ of epproxl- approximately 63~ feet west of the c~nterl;ne of Stete en Irregularly-shaped parcel of ldnd conslsting af thc northeast corner of Q~angewond Avenue and Sa~ta rontsges of 372 fcet ~n the ~orth side of Orangewood de of Santa Cruz Street. Property presently class(f(ed SubJect petltlon w as contln ued from the meeting of March 26~ 1~i79, at the request of the petitlo~er. There wa~ no o~e indir_ating thelr presence i~ oppositfon to subJect raquest. and although the staff report t~ the Planning Commisston deted April 9. 1979 was not read aC the publlc hearing, it is referred tn and made a part of the mt~iutes. Oave I~oc~k rapre~e~ting Sunset Constructian. Inc.~ agent, stated the proposa) ts tor a commercial office build~ng a~d the tenan~s have not yet been determ~ned, but they expect attorn•_ys~ Insurance agent;~ etc.~ and that the plans cell for an Inte rlor•corrldored buiiding. He stated they awn six office buildings In the Cfty of M ahelm ano faur of them are pattoed buildlnys w~th ingress snd egress from an exterlor ~int of t,he buiidlny and those araas are no~ taken into the gross count for parking. Fie stated because of security they have yone to ~n inslde loeding (cente~ corrtdor) butldtng nnd are trylt~g to get the Conrnission to look at tl~e public rorridor, stalrwells~ restrooms end mechanical areas as non-tenantable spaces~ and explatned if the Commission will agree with this concept~ they have provided 4 spaces per 1U00 square feet parking ratlo. Ile stated the co~~tyards of a patto butlding ar~ not consldered rentable and the Building Division has looked upon restrooms~ mechanical rooms and stairwells as non-tenantable spr~ces. and stated they would Oike to add th~ corridor to tha*.. Ne stated thay have two inside corridor bulldings In the city and have not had one robbery at these factli!;as, and pc~inted out there are too many dark corners tn the patioed buildings and the area cannot be patrolled As eesity. 4,/9/ 79 ~ MIf1UTf.S~ ANAt1E1M C17Y PI,Af~t~ING COMMISSIOFI, APRIL 9, 1~1~9 ~~~~7~ Ela N~GATIVE DECI.AMTION AND CQNDIT10~_ ~AL USE PERMIT N0~ 1953 (COntinued) --- •- THE PUk~LIC NEARING NAS CLOSEO. Chal rman 11erb~t ssked the pcLi tlonnr t f he had had Any thought thst thn.re mlght bc med) cal oftices i~ tl~e conwiex~ end ~1r. Nook replied they would not c~nsid~r medical ~ffices because: tho perkiny stend~rds ~+rc dlffercnt. Chalrmen Nerbst stAtc~d he wanted that steteme ~t o the recor~ becauoe thc perking problems are c~mpounded wi th n~dicol ~ff ~ ~vi ce~to thet~industrlel f communi ty,n9 W( ~~ prtmrrl ly be providing a certa{n amou~-~t of sa M~, IIAAk stated an accountAnt w111 probably occupy somc 3~~n~ s4~rc fcet, en insurancc agent w~>> oututhe~ a~etbuilJingha buliding~~t~oss',f~omsthleestadium'Anc'CtheseAtyp~~uspsnU. Ile poi nted Y are going into that bullding. Ghal rman Herbo t Asked i f th Is is a reytonal type Insurance aqency ~ and Mr. Hook repl ied 1 t was and stated if a tonant wanted a larger a ~ea hc would qo Into another buliding becauae thc avaragc depch of thfi`c°W~ulds~et20 ta ~ f~~t.from the corridor to the outer wetl, and tha lenyth of an of Chalrman Nerbst asked how the corridors had be~~n considered In the parking requlrements~ and Robert Henninger. Assistant Planner~ sta ted the code calls for analyzing the parking on the gross floor area of the buildtny~ whi ch incluJes all the floors enclased with walls and under cellings, and does lnclude the res trooms, stalrwells an~.1 ~is~doff(ce'{bultding~ even i n the case wherB certa i n areas a re exe 1 uded, such as i n a h 1 g the park{ng Is ar~alyzcd by grnss floor area minus those areas exclusively devotad to the rn~chanical equipment s4lely for the function of bulldfng maintenance~ so even in a highrise b~lldiny restrooms and halls are included. Chairman Ilerbst stated the h~lis and restro~ms ere not leaseable areas~ and Robert Henninger sCatcd tha parking standard is fc,r qross floor area~ but tha ott~cr polnt is true. th~k t f these we~e not covered stal rw~l Is and we~e under the exterlor o~` the building~ they would not be c~nsider~d. Chai rman Herbst asked 1 f those were el iminated~ how much squarc footmgt would nat be consldered in the parking ratio i f they wer~ outside the bul lding~ and Mr. Henn(nqer explalnad the 184 spaces covers the leasab 1 ~ srea. Commissioner David asked if this is e~niq~e situat~o~ and if our code is wrong regerding those a~eas, and Mr. liook explained the CI ty of ~anta Ana rcqui re3 2.75 spaces per tA00 for a bullding of this size. but he was not sure wheths~ ar not tho5e areas were included. He stated he feit the n~m~ber of people who wl~l occupy the space should be counted, and pointad out the corridors. stairwells a~d restroc~ms are comn+on areas. Commissloner David stated uxl~~g this logic seems reasonable~ but thP codo also seems reasonable and the difference is really 2?$, and thet Ss a wide margin. Mr. I~ook stated they have four patio bulldin~s nn Brookhurst overlookSng the golf cou~se and the parking retlo i5 4 spacts per 1000 square fezt on that rentable space~ and the mechan i c~l rooms . phone rooms and restroom~ were excl uded and he fel t i t wi 1 1 woric to deal with net rentable space. He stated tha bulldings on arookurst sre 140$ occupled and have bean for 13comins and toing savthatcther~P isbreclprocalsparkangnwithi~Pthe complex axZall people are 9 9 times. 4/9/79 MiNUTES~ AN~NEIM CiTY PLANNING CdMM15S1UN, APRII 9~ 1~79 ~~~28~ Ela NEGATIVE DECLMATION ANO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1~5_~ (oontinued) Ch+~'.~ H~+~st s tated becauss of the des i gn of tha bul 1 d I ng w) th thc wa 1 kways I ns i dc the b~ildtng~ the petitiontr Is being required to supply parkin q for that aroa and felt m+~ybe that area of the cade is not qulte correct. Annika Santalahtl~ AsslStant Dlrector for Zoning~ expl~(ned thc petitlo~er may modify the Interlor very eently by obtalntng a building permit for intcrlor modific~tions and then~ of caurse. thG parking would be lackiny. She disa~reed tha ~ the code shauld be changed ~nd felt the petitlo~or could st(pulate to not madify th~ b ullding to increase the parking~ but with an oxterior well they could very eastly ehango it. She stated the code allows that a b uilding hiyher than three stories which has a qreat deal of inechanlcal 5~ACC involvad alloars 25~ t~ he d~ducted; however~ these are twcr~tory buildings. Commisslanet Bushore clartfled tha location af the buildin y s ontl~ookhurst and Indlcated he fnl t there was ++ tremendaus parking problem at that locatlon, An4 Mr. 11ook statcd there is an optometr{st and a dentist at that iocation~ but that the builcJings are 1004 occupled and persons hav~ never had to leave because they could eve n tuAlly find a parktng space~ and they are operating on a 4 space per 100~ square foot rstlo, CommisslonQr Bushore indic~ted he would like to have a con tinuance In orc'.er to lo~k at thP buildings being referred tc~~ pointing out this may bc of b~neflt to the petitioner. Chairm~~n Ilerbst ask~d about the reciprocal parkfng agreemee~t refierred to by the prevlous appl lcant~ and Mr. 11ook ~epl ied tl~at he had o~iginal ly app r~ached them and agrned with the statements rega~rdtng the hours of use and felt their peopl~ w~uld bc th~re from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and they realized sorne of his tenants will be physically parking on the ~atquetball cou~t p ~operty a~d, to avotd a problem~ they h ave come up with a gentlemen's agreement whereby they would not be towing cars away. lie stated he wanted the praJects to stand o~pfL~~~~"ithethe54aspacesYper r1dQOWSquare feethand hascnotrhadrany~troubletwtth hc was com thet ratlo as long as he tiaR the right kind of tenants. Chalrman Nerbst stated he wo~~ld like Mr. lic+;,k to stipulat~ to the types of uses that will be al lowed and those stipulattons wi 11 t~e a part of t~~e cond!tlons. pointing out medical offlces would not be allowed. Comml ss tnne r Johnson stated he fe 1 t th t s real ly i 1 1 us trat~s the necess 1 ty of hav i ng the parkfng right becbuse if a rnistake is made by etther of the appl icants. it falls on the other Indiv(duai. Commissioner Johnsan felt the two uses would cumplemen[ e achother and offered a motlon~ seconded by Commissloner King and MOTI~f~ CAZRIE~J (Commiss ioners Barnes and Tolar bein~ absent). that consideration of Conditioi~a! Use Permit No. 1953 be continued to the regularly-sGtieduled meeting of the Ptanning Commission on Apr(1 23~ 1979• in order to a11ow more research regard(ng the parki ng and Lo al loew the peti ttoncr to submi t a 1 ist of proposed uses. Cammissioner David asked if the re w as any way to find m~ r e parking, a~d Mr, Nook rep{led the on ly way woul d be to reduce the s i ze of the but 1 di ng and the effecti ve. i ncome- producing space 6s marginal. Commissioner Johnson siated he wcwld like staff to come aip with a recommend~tion because this is a new way of calculating tha parking, and Annika Santalahti replied if there was a guerantee that the non-rentable space would remain non- r~ntable~ then she wauld a~ree, but tha*. tl~ey could modify the tnterior af the bulldi~g without coming before the Planning Conmission. 4/9/19 ~ - _ MINUTES. A~IAI~EIM CITY PLIWNING COMIIISSIAN, AFRiI 9~ 1379 79~za~ ITEM 1~0. PUBLIC MEARING. OWNERS: ROBERT AND IiELE~~ E. DULTZ. ~ ACENTS: ~ N VE DECLARATI QN 3~ Zh West Bo i l Roed, Anahe i.n~ Cn 928c1 ~. p M 0. 1~64 SOUTHLAIID BUSINESS SAIES~ 210) fast Ball aoad~ Anahelm~ CA 92806 and KATSUO TSUDA~ 11222 Rancho Sa~tiaga Boulevard. Ora~ge~ CA 92hG7. Petitl~ner requnsta permission to ESTABLISH A Si11ATSU (JAPANESE THERAPY) SPA on pro~erty described as a recta~gulsrly-shsped parce) of lan~1 consistlnq of app~o+clmately 1.0 acre having r f~ontege of approxlmately 132 feet on the so~QXimatei~f 262,faetaw~steofnth~ centerlincpof of opproxlmately 271 feet~ boing locatod app Y B~ach 8oulevard~ and further degcribad as 3~~~~ Wast Ba) l Road. Property presently ciassifle,~i Cl (COMMERCtAI~ LIMITED) Zi)NE. There was na one indlcating thefr ~resence In opposition to suh}~et re~uest. and although the st+~ff report to the Planning Commission dotect Aprtl 9, 1979 was not read at the public h~aring~ It (s referred ta and mede a ~art of the minutes. Katsiw Tsuda~ agknt~ and l~en)amin Adar.t~i, attor~ey~ were p-'esent to answer any quesGtons. 'THE PU13L1~ NEARING ',~AS CLOS~D. Commissloi~er Bushore ~~sked what type of tralning the operator is requlred to havc an~~ if a~ eertificater15Ar,dQhasCha~iaaddMtionalctr:~in(ngdand~heEdoesAhave~c~rtlflcatlonh~~ i~ '~apan for two ye~ s Commissloner David asked hc.w~ he gets his customers, and M~•. Adachl repliec~ that the eustomers are rt-ostly referred by other people, Commtsslon~r Bushore rrferred `o the tre~atment area and r,sked i f it wes ali an ope~ Area, and htr. Adachi replled that it ~s. Commissioner Johhatnthek`arefandethatetheregare seFa~atc daysbfor menesnddwanen,custo Ms. Adachi replied t Y Commissioner Bushore clarified that tr~e hours of operatlon shal l be 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p,rt~. dal ly. and Mr. Adachi repl ied that that was correct. Adach i Commissloner Davld as~ed how th(s use wou!d di ffer from a massage parlor~ and M~. replied that this Is act+~ally digit+~l acup~mcture and that pressures are appli~d to certain points of the body which has certalr; theraputic value, and tha[ it has been done for centurles In Japan and all over the Orient. He stated he Lhought approximately three of these faci 1 1 ties have bee~ epproved by this Commi ss ion. Commissioner Bushore asked i f the propert~i were sold~ what othe r uses c~uld take advantage of this condttton~atouthePsrecific plans agas~bmitt~d andnthateihentreatmenterooms couldt wiil be connecte P not be pe~titloned. Commissloner Bushore asked if there are aqe restrictto~s for the patrons, and Mr. Adachi raplted that th~strictionsaforrthertechniclans becauserthey needMto benlicensedxP~ained there are age re Jack Whlte~ DePheysCameycondition3 couldib~destablished(usi,ng~tf-+e~samehfloorPplan, this same use with t 4/9/79 Mlt~UTES~ ANANEIM CITY PIANNINC COMWISSION~ APRIL 9. 1h79 7~"2B2 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT_ N0. 1964 (c~nttnued) ACTION: Cortmissloner Dushore offcred e motlon~ secondcd by Gommissione,r Dav1~1 ~+nd HOTION CAR~ EO (Commissloners B~rnes and Tolar batng abSent)~ that the Anahelm City Planni~~ Commisslan has reviewad tl~e request to permit a shlatzu (Japanese phystcal th~rapy) spa an a reGtangularly-shaped parce) of lend consistinc~ of approximately 1.0 acrc havtng a f~ontage of arproximately 132 feQt on the south sidc of Bal) Road~ having a meximun depth of apprux(mately 277 feot~ and being located approxfm~tely 262 feet west of the centerline of Daach Boulevard; and does hereby approve the Negative Declarettan from the requlrem~,nt to praperm an envfronmental tnp acx report on the basls that there would be no s(gnificanc Indiv(dual or cumulative adverse envlronmental impact due to the approval of thls Negattve Docldr~tion since the M aheim Genaral Plan designates the sub,ject property for commerclal land ~ses comme~surate with the propasal; that no sensltlve envlronmentai impacts are tnvolved in the proposal; that the Inltial Study submicted by thc pctltianer lndicAtes no signiftcant Indlvidual or cumulotive adverse envfr~nrr~ntal impact~; and that the Negative Decleratio~ substantlating the foregoing findings is on flle in the City of Anahelm Pianning Department. The Commission discussed c~nditions to be added to app roval of this permit~ fncluding the hours of operation, specific plans, and tf~at the treatment area shall be open with no enclo~ed cubicles; that there be n~, age restrictfons for the patrons; that there be no advertlsing af tl~is use as a massag~ pa~lor or f~r rap scssions or rm deling studio; that the pe~mit be issued for a one-year period and that the usc not bc cnnstr~ed elther verbally or written by advertistng ~r signing a~ massaqe~ other than shlatsu; and that th~re be no rap sessions ancf thc wo~d "studlo" shall not be used and that there be no modeling on the premises. Commissloner ~usfiore offered Resolutlon No. PC79~69 and mnved for its passage and adoptlon~ that the Anahelm City Planning Cammission does hereby grant Petltion for Condi tional Use Parmi t No. 1~64, sut~,ject tn review at the end c~f a one-year period to determine whether or not the use has had a detrlmental effect an the surr~unding area~ and subJect to the fallowing stfpulations by the petitianer: a) that the hours of operation shall be 10:00 a.m. to ;1;00 p.m. daily; b) that there shall be no age restriction for the patrons; c) that the treatment area shell be open with no walls or partitions to enclose cubicles; d) that there be no verbal or written advertising or si~nir~g to advertise the use as massage, othe r than shiatsu. or offertng rap sessions~ ~ra deling; and e) that the word "studio'" shall not be used in any advertising nr s(gning; and subJect to Interdepartment~l Cortml*_tee recommendations. On rol l cal I, thc foregai ng ~esol ution was passecl by the fol lcywi ng vote: AYES: COMMISStOhERS: ~USNORE~ DAVID, NERBS7~ JONNSON~ KING N0~5: COMMISSIUNERS: NONE ARSEN7: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ TOLAR ITEM N0. 8 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: ~ICOLAS KIVA KLETZEL, E7 EIR' N'EGAIIVE DECLARATION AL~ c/o Thomas W. 4falsh, 43j North Camdcn Drive~ CUI~D17i0NAL USE PERMIT N0. 19G1 Beverly Hllls~ CA 90210. AGENT: MARK STEVENS~ 5555 South Sepul veda Bouleva~d, Cul ver C i ty, CA 9~23~. P~stitioner requests permission to ESTABLISH RETAIL SALES OF TIRES ANN AU'1'0 PARTS IN THE ML ZONE on property describea as a rectangularly- 3haped parcel of land consisting of app roximately 10 acres located at the northrrest corner of Mi raloma Avenue and B 1 ue Gurts St reet ~ havi ng approximate f rontages of 790 feet on the nc+rth side of Miraloma Avenue and 600 feet on the west side of Blue Gum Street. and further described as 13~-7 Blue Gun, Street. Property presently cla~sTfied ML (INDUSTRIAL, LIMITED) ZONE. A/9/19 ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMiS510N~ APRIL 9~ 1919 ~9'283 EIR NEGATIVC DECLARATION ANO CO_N_DITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1961 (cuntinued) There was no one (ndic~ting thelr presence in oppositton to subJect request~ and although the staff roport to the Planning Commission datecl April 9, 137g wes not read at thc public hoaring, lt ls raferred t~ and mede a part of the minutes. Cammissioner Johnson declared e confilct of interest as deflned by Anahmim City Planning Gommission Resolution No. PC76-157~ adnpting a Canflict of Interest Cade for the Plonntng Commisslon~ and Government Cade Sectlon 3625~ et s~q.~ in that thA appllcant purchases from his company and~ pursuAnt to the provisio~s of the above codes. dectared to the Chalrman that he was wlthd~awin~~ from the hearing In connectton with Condltionn) Use Permit t~o. 19h1 end would not take part in cithesr thc discussion or the voting thereon and had nat discussed this matter wich any member of the Planning Commissio~. TFIEREUPON~ CQMMISSI~NER JOIiNSON LEFT TIIE COUMCIL CHAMpER. M~rk Stevens~ agent~ was present to answer any questions. THE PUBLIC NEARING WAS CLOSED. Comm(ss(oner David asked haw this use for commercial ~etail sales was allawed ln thls industrial area. tir. Stevens rep 1 t ed wh~en they had 1 ooked at th I s pr•ope rty . i t was be t ng used as a toy warehousc and they had slqned a lease without knowing the zoning on the p rop~rty or knowing that there we re restrictlons on the use af the p roperty; that In othcr cities retail ~ales are allowed in m~~ufscturing zones; and that tl~ey were not aware retail sales wg~e not allowed in manufac+turing zones tn Anahelm. He stated a notice from the Zoning ~nforcement Officer was quite a surprise because they had not known they were breaki~~ eny laws. He explained they have been ot this locatlon for about one year and they heve had no traffic problems. Commissto~er Busf~ore asked h a+ the customers were drawn~ and Hr. Stevens repiled basical{y by word of mouth end by advertisement f lyers; that they mai l thei r flyers to thei r whalesale outlets; and tfiat this facility is basically a place where a pe~san can come in and buy merchandtse tk~at is not a ho~t-selling ttem at their other locations and lt is basically a "cash wa~ehouse". Cammissioner Bushore asked how much of thefr business is wholesale. and ~1r. Stevens replied It averages abouc 60e. Chatrman Hert~st asked how they handle wholesale trade. and Mr. Stevens replied that if a parsnn cort~s in with a resale card it ts ciasstfied as wholesale and they do not Gharge taxes. Chairman Herbst stateci when a~ nparation is wholesalc. merchandlse ts usually dellvered out of the wholesale warehouse to other facilities~ and M~. Stevens explatned that they would only deliver to their exlsting stores from their cash warehouse~ and any other wholesaler:c would have to carry out bny merchandise they purchase. Commissioner Bushore a~ked what type of stores their other outlets are, and Mr. Stevens reptied they ~~re "Mark C. Bio~ome" stores. Commissloner 8ushor~ stated compartng the Mark C. Blcx~ne stnre on Euclid Street to this warehouse. there are m~re tires i~ the Eucltd Street store than on subject ,~roperty~ and N~. Steve~s statec+ thei r gverage store would carry about 1,700 ti res and th~: cash warehouse would prcbably have approxlmstely 1,500 ~tlres. but hc w~s not sure of the 4/9/79 ~ NIt~UTCS, ANNiGIM CITY PLANNING COMNISSIQN~ Af'Rll 9~ 197~ 79-28k EIR NEGATI_1~f,, DECL.ARATION AND ,~ONDITIO~,NAL ~~ ~ERMIT NQ. 1961 (co~tinued) inv~en•ory. He explained thc ti~•es ~t the ret~il atoros are {n demand end do sell faster than th~ ti~e~ tn the cash w~rehause. Commissioner Bushore steted he lookcd at thl~ as another outlec for tires and felt there would be more tires brougfit In fr~m tho ~etall outlets than from e wsrehouse~ and thet the facility is not even set up as a warehousa, but as a walk-through for cuatomars. Chairma~ Herbst stated he has a resale permit for his bux(ness and asked if he cruld walk In and buy ttres by submttting hts resale card~ and Mr. Stavens roplied that h~ was not sure h av the bust~ass is operated end could noc answer that question. Conxnissinner pavid ~sked tf tires arr.. mo~mred at this facllity, and Mr. Stevens replled this is merely e tash-a~d-carry operat(on and they d~ not do any work here. Cr~mmissloner Bushore pointed out the parman~nt-type banners which were ~n the front of the building were illegal. Commisstonor David asked the length of tha lease~ and Mr. Stevens repltod it is a two-year lease whlch witl expire on April 28~ 1g80. Chalrman Herbst stated he couid not consider this use as a wh~lesele operatlon and would conside~ It purely ~stiait; that wholesale meAns deltve ry to other outlets and he felt the word "wholesale" is being used facetlously here because they do seli directly to the publ lc. Cornmissioner Bushore asked tf code ~laces a percentage on the amount of incid~ntal ~etei) sales that can be done from the werehouse~ and Chatrman Herbst stated there would have to be retai) outlets sancplace else. and Robert Henning~er~ Asststant Planner, expiained there is na percentage plated on werehousing unless t~ere is manufacturtng done on the premises. Cainnissloner Bushore stated hP reviewed this is as a purely retaii operation~ but that Cnmmissioner David had referred to the icngth of the leasc~ ~nd pointed out he felt since it lias only another yea~ to run, the Commisslon could allow the use until the end of the lease. Ctia~rmen Herbst indicated he fe~t this is another case where the property owner or landlord t~ad violated the code Gy allowing a lease to be signed for rctali sales in an industr(al zone a~d that it Is not fair to the petttioner. ACTIOtJ: Commissioner Gavtd offered a rn~tinn, seoonded by Cortxnissione~ KJng and MOT10~! ARRIED (Commissioners Barnes, Johnson and Tolar betng absent)~ that the Maheim City Pianning Commtssion has revie~red the proposal ta permit ~etail sales of tires and auto p~rts in an ML (Industr181, Limited) Zone on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of la~d cansisting of approximately 10 acres located at the northwest torner of Ml~loma Avenue and B{ue Gum Street, having approx~mate frontages of 790 feet on the north stde of Mtraloma Avenue and 6Q0 feet on the west side ~f Blue Gtm Street; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaratian from the requirement to prepare an envlronmental impact report on the basis that there wauld be no significant individual or tumulative adverse envi~onmental Impact due to the app roval of thls Negative Declaration since the Anaheim 6eneral Plan designates the subject property for general industrt~l land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive envtronmental impacts are invalved in the aroposal; that the In(tial Study submitted by the petitioner Indicates no significant tndividual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and that the Negativz Declaration substantiating the foregoing findfngs la on file in the City of M aheim Planning Department. 4/9/79 ~ `' 19-285 MINUTES~ l~~tW11CIM CI'TY PLANNING COMMISSION. APRIL ;1~ 1979 EIR NEGATIVE UF:CIARATION AND CON~ITIONAL USE PERMIT NO w 1961 (wntinucd) itabe~t H~^i~nl~ger Indicated Condltian No• ~ 4~~~dfference~betweenethe~industrlal andhat the ow~e~(s) of subJect pr~perty shal) paY t ~~ d~ ~~unt as detennlnnd conwne~~~+it LCouncllstwi~htns3~~~~Ygtofethe(d~tenafcepprova8~of~this conditi~nel us~ by the Y ~erml t." Commis~toner David asked how much money is involved In thls conditlon~ and Annika Sentalahti~ Assistant ptrector for Zoning~ explained that the fee is the dlfference betwe~:n commercia) and ~^dtl~tnaaareadset aslde fortcustom~rssendttharnnrmalgcharge,ts th~t this f s a bi g wareh~ause w difference between indus~~tacui^~d hui dlnqal' end it may well be that th~ Industrial oe was riever pal d on t:h i s p Conmissinne~ Oavtd indlcaced that sin~Xi~r8~~1r~onQ~Yca~ Whe,wouldflikedto~excludee hatt the lcase only~ ta be terminateJ in appr Y r.andition. Chalrman -l~erbst suggested that a cert~ln percenkoge of the fee cc~uld be charged since tfie length of the permit wlll ba for one yea~ only. Annika San~tal~htt explalned that the Traffic f•.nginecr bases I~is determtnation on ~he amou~t of traffic 9enerated and if it is slmilar to a regular inenerall, sreaktn~ hh~has occasionally accepted pay~ent of the i~dustrial fee only. but, g Y P 9~ expects the fee to be Pei~ aCounci j~rcial rate and the petitioner would have to request an adJustment f~om the C y Chairma~ Herbst steted the Pla~n'.ng Commission could suggest to the Ci[y Councll that that fee be deleted in this case. Annika Santalaht) explr~ined ;o~~;~ shuaredfeet,eandatheldifferencetis~~e~erallyerequestcd~ comne~cial rate Is S137 Per q She stated if the pGtitio ce~r~r~h~~~refficegeneratPdtis c.luser totancindust~ial use~,tthe amount of customer traffi Commisslon could dele;e the c:.ondiLion, Mr. Stevens indicatad oG~de'.~ncrease slightly~,danciethat5tfieye~o~havet42 parkingnspacesper day, but that f t gure c Commissloner David offereu Resolut~iisgN~n does hereby grant Petit1onnfn~aConditionap~Use~ that the Anaheim City Planning Co Permit No. 1961~ to terminate on April 28~ 1980. and sub,ject to the petitlo~er's stipulation that there wi~a~b~ommitteoer~corm~endationsis~~ayed on the buildlnq, and subJect t4 InterdepartrtK:nt Annika Santalahtl suggr.sted that the condition requiri~g pay ment of the traffic si~nal essessmenL fee be deleted from the cond~Teon ~~f the Planning Commissivn felt the traffic gene~ated would be sirnllar to an indust Commissioner David indicated he would like th~t co~dition deleCed from the resoiution.. On rull call. the foregotng resolutio~ w~s pessed by the followtng vote: AYES; COMMISSIQNERS: BUSHQaF, pAVID~ HERByT, KING NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMNISSIO~~ERS: BARMES~ JOHNSON, TOLAR ~~-issioner David explained to the petitioner that the Planning Conmission is ver~-~/9/79 concerned about the protection of the industrtal areas. ~ _.-.-_,_... _ _ _ --. _ _._ - - MINUT~S~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ APRIL 9~ lg7g 79~286 COMMISSIQNER JOHNSQN RETURNEQ TQ TIIE COUNCIL CHAMBER. ( TEM Nq. ~ PUBL 1 C NEARI ~IG. OWNER: DUYLE H I LL ~ P.('~. Box 3~~+5 ~ EIRr NE~A~VE p~CLARATION Aneheim~ CA 92aA3. AGENT: QAVID S. Vp.N FLEET~ COND T ONAL U E ~RMI N0. 1962 1585 West Broadway~ Anahefm~ CA ~2802. Petitioner requests permissl~n to ESTABLISN RETAIL SpLES OF SHEET MUSIC IN iNE ML ZONE ~n property dnscrtbed as a rectangularly-sh~+pe~i p~rGCl of land conststing of approxlmately 0.8 ac~e having a fr~ntane of approximiat~ly 24~~ fcct on the north side af t~~oadway, having a maxlmum depth of approximetGly 150 feet~ being located approximately 170 feet east of the centorllno of Loars Street. and further described as 1585 W~st eroadway. Property presently classlfied ML (INQUSTRIAL. L{MITEO) ZONE. There was no onr ln~iic:,ting t~~eir presence in opposltion to subJect c~equest~ and although the staff report Co the Planning Commisston datPd April 9. ~979 was not read at the publlc hearing~ it Is referred to and made a part Qf tfie rn(nutes. David Van Fleet~ agent, explained Cheir operatlon is a sheet muslc store and they do not sell musical I~struments an~i do not havc guitars hanging on tf,r wall or drums sttting around to be purchased. He stated they Fiave been at this lacation f~r ten years and have a ten-year lease and hbve been cited for selling ln the industrial zone. Ne ex~lalned that they never see approximately 80$ of their c~stomers; for example~ they sell music to th~ Riverside Unified Scf~ool District for their marching bend or choir en~1 it is done over che telephone by purchase order ancl shipped by United Parcel. He explalned that they do sell to the public and are the biggest sheet music stor~ in the western Untted States. Ne s-trr~ted they also dplivcr or process orders for their San Dlego store and they print their ~wr b roch u res . ~`r,~ PUOI i C HEARI t1G WAS CLOSEp. Commissioner K(ng stated ha did not believe this area sh~uld be zoned oommercial, and Cha~irman Herbst stated he feit this was one of those industr(al areas which abut arterial streets~ such as Broadway, which has been discussed in terms of modifying the zone to atlvw certain uses wh(ch do not conflict. He stateJ hA dld not sPe anything wrong with this particular use in this area. Commissloner Sushore asked if tha use wouid have th~ same traffic impact as a retai) store~ and Mr. Va~ ~leet replied that most retail music stores are located in shopping centers and operate at night, but that this operation closes at 5:30 p•m. and they do not operate on Sunday. He stated an a rainy Saturday afte ~noon, the starc would have quits a few band or choir dlrectors~ but because of the zoning, the rest of the businesses around the a~ea are not open so there is no traffic problem. Commissioner King stated thts is a qutet operation and probably has the lowest traffic of any business that could be established there. Commtssioner King offered a motion. seconded by Comnissloner Johnson ar~d MOTION CARRIEQ (Gommissione~s Bernes and Tolar being absent), that the Anahelm Clty Planning Commtssion has reviewed the proposal to permit the rctall sales of sheet music in the Ml. (Industrial~ Limited) Zone nn a rectangularly-sheped parcel of land consisting of app~oximately ~.8 acre having a frontage of approximately 244 feet on the north side of Broadway~ having a maximum depCh of approximately 15~ feet, betng located appraximately i70 feet east of the centerline of Loara Street; and does hereby app rove the Negetive Declaration from the ~equtrement to prepare an environmental impact report on the basis that the re would be no siyntficant individual or cumulative adverse e~vironmental impact due to the approvai of this Negatlve Decla--ation since the Anahelm General Plan destgnates the subJect property for general industrial land usQS cortmensurate with the proposal; that no sensittve 4/9/79 , MINUTFS~ ANAHEIK CITY PLAt~NING COMMISSION~ APRIL 9, 1979 ~9-2g7 EIR NE6ATIVE DECLARATION ANO CONDITIbNAI USE PEfWIT NU, ~96z (continuad) .,. ~.~~ environmcntsl tnpacts ara Involved in the propossl; that the Initial 5tucly submitted by the petitioner Indlcates na signiFicant indlviduel or cumulatlve adve~sc envfronmental Impacts; and that the Negative ~eclnratton substantiating the fo~egolnq findings Is on file In the City of Anaheim Planninc~ Department. ~Cortimissioner David askod about parktng In the araa since th(s is a retatl business~ and Robert Henninger, Asslstant Planner. explalned that staff had analyzed the use under the rogular r~ta(1 commercial standards end the parkfny is adequate under those standards, and that the use has beor~ at that locatis~n for ten yoars dnd there have been no problems. ChalrmAn Horbst esked if they intend r.o renew thGlr lease on th~ propcrty, and Mr. Van Fl~at repll~d that they have a verbal egreement end are heppy at this locatlon and plan to stay tF~cre. Robert Nenninqer asked that Conditlon No. 1 be amcnded to read as follows: "Th~t the awna~(s) of s~b.fecC property shall pay the dlffere~ce betr~een tl~e industrial and comrnerclal traffic slgnal assessment fres (Ordinance No. 3R96)~ In an amount aA determined by the City C~unc~l~ wlthin 3~ daYs of tha approvel date of th(s condittonal use permit." Commtssioner King offered Resolutlon No. PC7~-71 a~d moved for its passage and acioptlon~ that the Anal~eim City Planning Commissian does hereby grant Petitic~n for Conditlonal llse Permit No. 1962, subject to Interdepr~~tmental Committee recorm~endations. On r~ll call~ the foregofng resolution was passPd by the following vote: AYES: CQMM155101~~RS: BUSHORE. DAVID. NEaBST, JOIINSON~ KING NOES : CaNMI SS I O~IEf~S: NONE AHSEN7: COMMISSIONERS: gARtJES, 70LAR iTEM N4. 10 PUBLIC NEARING, OWNER: NEMAX~ INC.. 3121 Fruitla~d E~-N~E DCCL~4RAT1(1N Avenue~ Los Mgeles, CA 9~~58• AGENT: EARI. MII.LER~ CONDITIONAI. USE ERMIT N0. 1969 1$32 East Ball RQad~ Anaheim~ CA 92305. Petitioner requescs permission to RETAlN AN EXISTING VAI~ CONVERSI01~ FACILITY on property dsscribed as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 2.4 acres having a frontage of approximately 172 feet on the south side of aall Rosd, having a maximum dcpth of aphroxlmately 648 feet, being located approximately 318 feet west af the centerltne of State Cojlege Boulevard, and further described as t832 f.ast 6ali Road. Property presently classified ~al (INDUSTRIAL~ LIMITED) ZONE. There was n~a one indicating thetr presence in opposition to subject request~ and although the staff r~~port to the Planninq Commisslon daCed April 9~ 1979 was not read at the public hearing~ it is referred to and made a pa~t Af the minutes. Ear) Mille~, agent, was present to answer any questtons. Chairman Herbst asked th~ percantage of business which would be considered as retail, and Mr. Miller replied that approximat~:ly 60$ would be wholcsale and 4Q$ retail and explatncd they do sell retail at the Orange Sw~p Meet and approximately 20$ of their bustness would be retail at this location. THE PUBLIC MEARiNG WAS CLOSED. 4/9~79 MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLANHINC COMMISSION~ APRIL 9. ~97~ 74-288 kIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CO~IDITIONAL USE PEaM~7 N(1. 1969 (contlnuad) C~rnnlssloner Bushore asked th~ hou~s of operr~tlon~ and Mr. Milter replled they wuuld be from 8:00 e.m, to 5:~~ p•in.~ Monday thr~uqh Frld~y~ end F3:QQ a.m. to 3:00 p,m. on Saturday. Commisslonor Oavid bsked why the traff(c signal assessment fee hed not been included tn the conditlona~ and ~obert 1lenningcr~ ~sslstant Planner~ replled that Peul Sinqer hed dlscussod thls particular casa an~! based h~s decisinn on the b+~sis that the Planning Commfsslon hed deletod that cnnditlon from recent sfmtlar requests on the basis thAt the use should bc constdered morr (ndustrlal than reta{1. Commiss(oner John~on aske~l If all wark would be ~ione inside the faclltty, and Mr. Miller re~lled that It would. ACTtQN: Cornmissioner David offere~t n mc~r.tan~ seconded by Commissloncr King and M0710N CARRIED (Commtssioners Etarnes and 7olar being nbsent)~ that the Anahcim City Planning Cammiss(on has revir.wed tlie proposal to retain a van conversian facility on a rectangularly-shaped perccl of land c~nsisttng of approximntely 2.4 acres having a frontage of ~~ppr~ximitcly 177. fect ~n the soutt~ side of Dall Road, heving a maximum depth o~ approximately ~+OB feet, being lacatcd approximat~ly 31~ feet we~t of the centerllne of State Collcge Boulevard; and does hereby approve thn Negativc Qecl~ratlon from thc requlrement to prepare an environrt-ental imF+act report on th~e hasis tt~at thcre would be no slgnificant indlvidual or cumulative adverse envlronmental imc+act due t~ lhe approval of this Negative Declaration s(nce the Anat~elrri Genrral Plan deslgnate~ tl~e subJect prope~ty for gene~al Industrial land uses comrtr.nsurzi[e wixh the proposal; that no sensitfve enviromm~nr,al impacts are involved in tl~e E~roposel; that the Ir.itlal Study submitted by the petltloner lndica;e~ no slgnif(cant incilv(dual or cumulative adver~e environment~l impacts; and that the Negative Uec~~~ation substantiAtinq ~he fureqoing findings ts on flle In the Cicy af A~aheim Plen~~~ ~ Department. Commissi~mer David offered Resolution No. PC79-7?_ and moved for lts pessage and adoptlon. that the Anahelm City Planning Cortmiss(on does hareby grant Pctition f r Condittonal Use Pe~mit No. 19f,9~ subJect to the petitioner's stipulation that the hours of operation shall be 8:00 a.m. to S:d~ P•~n•, P'wnday through Friday and ~3:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on Saturday; that a!1 w~rk will be done tnside the facility. and subject to revlew at the end of a one- year period~ to March 31- 198~, to determine whether• or not the use has had a detrirr~ ntal effect on the surrounding area~ and subJect to Int~rdepartmenta) Committee recommendations. On ro21 call, the fore9oing reselutlon was passed by tt~e following vote: ,1YE5: CCHMi5510NER5: BUSHORE~ OAVID. HERBST. JGI~NSOIf JOES : COMM I SS I ONERS : t~ANE Af3SEN7: COMMISSIOIIERS: BARNES. TOLAR A~STAIN: LOMMISSIONERS: KING 4/9~74 MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COFWISSION~ APRIL g, 1974 79-28y ITEM N0. 11 PUBLIC NEARING. OWNERS: MARiQN C. NE~IRY AND ELAINE ~TR~~CI~.AL EXEMPTION-CLASS J. HENRY~ 1212 Westrt~nt Drive, A~aheim, CA 92801. R ~ E N0. ;0~ AGEt~T; NORTN AMERICAN INVESTMENTS~ 1940 North Tustin Avenue. N100~ Orange~ CA 92665. Petittoner requests WAIVER OF (A) MAxIMUM STaUCtURnL HElr,fiT ANo (B) MINIMUM LANDSCAPED SET~ACK TO CONSTRUCT A COMMEaCIAI CENTER o~ property described +~9 a rectangularly-shaped parcei af lend consisttng of approximately 3.1 acres located at the southwest corner of 9a11 Road and C,Ilbert Street~ having approxim~te frontages of 609 feet on tha sQUth side of Ball Road and 222 fect on the west slde of Gilbert Strnat~ and furthar dnscribed as 244~ West Ball Road. Property prestntly classlfled Cl (COMMERCIAL, LIHITED) ZONE. There was ne on~ Indicnting thpir ~-r~swnt~ tn o~position to subJect request~ and although the staff report to the Plannin~ Commtsslon dated Aprll 3~ 1379 wos not read at the public hoaring~ it Is referred ta and mAde a part of the minutes. Cralg Combs, representing North abuts a school an the south s i de of the property 1 Ine, primari ly be no openings i~ the rear wall bullding. TNE Pll4LIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Amer(can Investr~ents~ ~gent~ explained thetr property and their plans are to place the build(ng wtthin 6 inches to eliminate any nuisanc~ areo~ and explnined there wlll ~nd that water drain~ge will come to the front of the Robr.rt Henninger~ Assistant Planner~ explatned that normally lfl feet of landsc~ping is required adJacent to a residentiai rone~ but there is a school developed on tha~ property. Chairman Nerbst felt 2 feet of landscaping tn front of the wall is rather minlmal, and Mr. Combs explatned there is sctually ;t feet of landscaping because the curb face and wheel stops are set so that thF ca~s wlll hanc~ over the landscaped area. Comnlssioner Bushore asked if adequate parking is provlded~ and Mr. Nenninger replled that excess perking ls provlded. It was noted the Planning Oirector cr his authorized representative has determined that the proposed p ro)ect fmlls withtn the definltinn of Categc~rtcal Exemption~, Class 5~ as defined in paregraph 2 of the City of Anahe(m ~nvironmental Impact Report Guldelinzs and is~ therefore~ categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. ACTION: Commisslon~er K6ng offered Resolution No. PC79-73 and moved for its passage and a~optfon~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commissiu~ does hereby grant Petition for Vartance No. 3088 on the basis that whtle the adJacent property to the south and west ~s zoned for residential uses~ RS-A-43.~~00~ It ts developed with a public school a~d stmtlar varlances have been granted In the past under similar circumstances. and subjcct to Interdepartmental Committee recorm~ndazions. On rall cell~ the foreqoing resnlution was passed by th~ following v~ote: AYES: COMMISStONERS: BUSHORE. DAVID~ HE.RBST~ JONNSON~ KING NOES: COMMISStUNER5: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ TULAR 4/9/79 MI-~UTES~ ANAHEIM GITY PIANNING COMMISSION. APRIL 9~ 1979 79'~90 ITEM N0. 12 PUULIC NEARING. OWN~Rt GULF OIL CORPORATION~ 1801 EIR CATEGORIGAL EXEMPTIO'd~ClASS ' Avenun of the Stsrs~ Los Angeles~ CA 90067. AGENT: ~ p NORTII AMCR I CA~~ I NVGSTHEf~TS ~ 1!140 North Tus t i n Avenue ~ N1Q0~ Orange~ CA ~92~65. Petltinner requests wAIVER OF (A) MINIMUM STRUCTU Ml. SETEiACK AND (B) MINIMUM LANDSCAPED SET9ACh TO CONSTRUCT A COMMERCIAI. BUILDING on propcrty descrlbed as a rects~qulerly-sl~aped parcel of iand consisting of approxtmately 0.5 acre located at the northwest corner of Orenge Avenue and Knott Street~ end havtng approxtmate frontages of 11~9 feat on the nnrth side of Orange Avcnuc and 147 fcet on the west side of Knott Streot. P~operty pr9sently classified CL (COMMERCIAL~ LIMITFD) 20tJE. There was no one tndiceting their presence in oppositlon to subJect request~ ancf although the s taf f re~ort to thc P 1 ann I ng Commi ss f on datcri Apr I 1 9~ 1~17~ was not read at the pub 1 I c hearing~ it Is referred to and made a part of the minutcs. Craig Combs, representing North Amer(can Invcstmcnt!~~ age:nL~ referred to the sctbacks on the west and cxplained that che pro~.erty ltne abuts carpnrts there and ther~ will be no op~nings on the rear well and the b~llding wlil form a good ba~rter to the carp~rts and parking area. He stated tl~ey have requested a 5-foot structural setback adjacent to Oran,ye Avonue and also a walver p~rtaintng to landscaped setbacks adJacent to residences. He pointed out this is a dtfticult property to develop. THE PU~LIC NEARING NAS CLOSED. Cha(rman Herbst stated the plans shaw a very bad ~utlet on the corner ~3nd explalned thc Commission reco9nizes the difflculty of develoi~ing these service stetion cornar sltes~ but did not feel the traffic hazard has been eliminated wtth these plans. Ne felt the butlding could be placed within the co~ifines of the ordinance and traffic could fiow out the back~ and stated it would probably require a smaller butlding but would eilminate the hazard at that corner. Mr. Combs stated they had tried to kecp thc build(ng away fram the corner and had t~led to use the curb cuts whlcli exist. John Coelho, representing North Mierican Inv~stments~ agent, explatned there is a large utillty pole with guywires l~cated in the sidewalk at tt~e rear and thai It cannot be moved, and that was the reason they have ~noved the bui lding back a~d used the existing driveweys~ but that one alternative would be to not have that drtvrway on Orange at all and widen the driveway on Knott Street. Chairman Nerbst stated in the past servlce statians were al'owed to have these type accesses, but the new ordinanc~ requires that driveways must be 110 feet from a corner. It was noted the Planning Director or his euthortzed representative has determined that the proposed p roject falis withln the definition of Categor(cal Exemptions~ Class S~ as defined In parag~aph 2 of the City of M aheim Envtrunmental Impact R~port Guidelines and is~ therefore, categorically exempt from the requtrement to prepare an EtR. The Commission discussed whether or not both waivers should be granted, and Chairman Ncrbst felt granting watver (a) for a setback of 5 feet on Orange Avenue would be setting a dt re precedent. Mr. Combs pointed out the building is app~oximately i30 feet away from Kn~tt Street. He pointed out the st~eet Jogs out whare the apartments ar~e located and fe t probably the apartmenxs were developed befo ~e the servicc station~ so this buildiny is really set back further. 4/9/19 ~ MINUTES, Af~AHEIM CITY PLI1FINt!!C COH~11S510~~~ APRII, ~~ 1~'~ 79-2~1 EIR C_I17E_GORICAI, EXEMPTION-CLqSS y_ AND VARIANCE N0. 3087 (continued) ,lay Titus~ Uffice Enginee~~ ateted the street has been fully dedicated and it may not heve bean fully Improved t~ Its ulttmate at this time~ but irprovemant.s wlll be made. The Commiss(on revlewec! the aerlal photograph of the area and could not determing whether or not the curb J~gs at that locatl~n. M~. Coealh~ statcd they could reduce the size ot the bullding by ~~ f~et. ACTION: Cc~mm{ssioner Jahnson offercc! Ressolutlon No. PC7~-74 and maved for Its passage and a opt on, that thc Anaheim Clty Planning Commisslon does hereby grant Petitlon for Varlence No. 3087, In pert~ denyino Nelver (a) on the batls thet the pPtltloner stipulat~d to revlse the plans to conform wltf~ the mtnimum structural setback of 10 feet along Orange Avenuo, and granting waiver (b) on the b85I5 tha[ subJect property abuts carports on the west p~operty line and abuts aper~ yard areas of apartments. and on the t~asis of rhe petittancr's stlpulation to close the driveway on Orange Avenue and to widen the driveway on Knott Street to perm(t adequ»te turning radius, and subJect to Intcrdepartmenta) Gommittee recommendations. On ro11 CdII~ the foregotng resalutlon w~s passed Sy the follpwin~ vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: f+U~NORE~ DAVID, HEREIST, JOttNSON, KING NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE AaSCr~T: COMht I SS I ONERS ; B/.1RI~ES, TOLAR ITEN N0. 13 REPORTS ANU RECOMMENOATIO~~S A. AMFNDMENT TO GHAPTER 1c~.A5.111 - To add a ltmltatlon pertaining to the maximum number o b 1 boards ae~mitted on esch street frontage. Annika Santalahtt~ Assistant Director for Z~ning~ presented the staff report~ explatning th~t the Zoning Code permlts btllb~ards at the intersect(on of two arterial highways when constructed within the l.-shaped area iocated a minimum of 25 feet ar„~ a maximum of 200 feet from the intersectton of the p roparty lines. and that~ typlcally. a maxJmum of two billboards are constructed w(th one facing each of the intersecting highways. She explained that recen*.ly two bilibuards were c.onstructed by tw~ different firms on ane highway frontage at an (ntersection of two highways~ and following dtscussions with the bullder of the first blllboard regardi~g the adverse visual impact of one billboard being placed immediately adjacent to ~noth@r~ staff agreed that the number of billboards should be ltmttod to prevent multiple billboards on onc street frontage. ACTION: Commissio~r-r Davtd uffered ~ mot~on~ seconded by Commissionc~ King and MOTION CARRIED (Comm(ssioner~ Barnes and Tolar being abse~t). that the Anaheim Clty Planning Commission does he~eby re~ommend to the City Council chaC 5ection 18.05.111 pertaining to permitted location of biliboards be amended td include the following: ".005 LIMITA710N OFI NUMBER OF BILLBOARDS. f~otwithstanding the p rovtsions of Section 18.05.111 hereof~ ~ot more than one (1) billboArd shall be ~ermltted on each street f~onta~e of any such corner 3s hereinbefoce deflned." 4/9/79 MINUT~S~ ANANEIM CIT~ PIANNING COMMISSION. A,PRIL 9~ 197~ ~`~'292 8. CUNDITI~NAL USE PERMIT N0. 18f%1 - Request f~,r an extcnslon of tirn~. The staff ~epurt to the Pla~nning Commisslon dated Ap~l l 9~ 191~1 was presented~ notlnc~ subJcct property is a rectangularly-shaped percel of lend conststing of 0.2 acre heving A fro~tege of approximacelY 5~ feet a~ tt~e Qast side of l~nahelm Boulevard, having e maxlmum depth of approxlmstely 15Q fest~ end being located dp~~~xlmately 2~~3 fect north of the cente~llne of Nortl~ Street; tl~at the ep~IlcAnL (Tnd Ferls) requests a rotroactive~ slx- month ~xter,,,io~ of time for ConditionAl Use Permit No. 18(31 whi~h was granted by the Planntng Commisslon on August 2B~ 197~~- to permlt en automobile dstall shop with a waiver~ of minimum number of perking spaces; that subJecc petitl~~n was granted for e perlod of slx months, subJect Co review and conside~ation fc~r an extenslon of tlme by the Planning Comm(sslon to detormine whethnr the use has haJ a det~tmental effect on adJointng and nearby land uses; that the Zoning Enforcemei7t Officer has inspected the sub.ject alte and has Jetermined that the property is beln7 use-d in full complfance with all conditlons of Condittonal Use Pe rn~tt No. l~+il; and that thcre have becn no detrlmental cffects an adJacent and ncarby land uses. ACTION: Commissloner Y.Ing offered a motion~ seconded by Commtssioner Oavid end MOTI~N C t~R EO (Commissloncrs narnes ar~d Tolar beiny absent). chat the 1lnahelm Clty Planning Commisslon does hcr~eby ~rant a retroactlve~ six•month extpnslon of [Ime for C4ndltt~nal Usc Permlt No. 1881~ to explre on August ?.8. 1~79. C. CONDITIOt1AL USE PERMIT N0. 498 - Request for terrninat(on. The staff report to the Planntnc7 Commission dated Aprlt 4~ 197~ was presented, i~oting suhJect p roperty ts a rectangularly-sh~~ped par~e) of land consisttng of approxtrru~tely 0.3 acre located at the southeast corner of Syc~more Street anci East Street, having approximate frontayes af 122 fcet on thc south side of Sycamore Street and 120 feet on the east side of East Street; that the appltcant (Arthur I1. Shipkey) requests termination of Conditional Use Permi t No. 428 whlch was gi•anted by the Ct ty Counti I on July 9~ 1963, to pe~mit a service station; thet on January 29~ t979~ the Planning Commission approved Conditfonal Use perrnit No. 1~3a, to permit an automobile repalr facillty, on subJect property and one of the conditions of approval of said cc~nditional use permit included the requirement th~t the property owner s~imit a lettar requesting terminatton of Condltlonal Use Permlt No. 428; an~: that sald letter requesting termination has been submitted. ACTION: Commissloner Johnson offered a motion. seconded by Commissioner Ktng and MOTION IEO (Commlssioners Barnes and Tolar being absent). that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommGnd to the City Councll that Conditional Use Pe rtnit No. 428 be terminated at the request of the petitfoner. D. VARIArICE N0. 2G81 ~ Request for a retroactive e~• .~nslon of tPme. Annika Santalahti~ Assistant Di~ector for Zoning, presented the staff report to the Pla~n(ng Lomnission dated Ap~i l 9, 1979. noting subject pr~pe~ty is a rectangulerly-shaped parcel of land c~nsisting ~f 0.3 acre having a frontage af approximately 118 feet on the north side of Ball Road~ having a maximum depth of approximately 122 feet, betng lowated approximately 68S feet east of the centerline of Brookhurst Street; that the applir_ant (Dan Dauna) requests a three-year~ retroacttve extens,~n of timef~foraVPertod of three7 which was granted by the Planning Commission on April 28, 1975- years to permit 'xpansion of unlawfully-establlshed apartments and commercia) offices with 4!9/79 MINUTES~ ANW1E1F1 CITY PLAlINING COMMISSION~ APRIL 9~ 1979 79-293 REPOaTS AND R~COMMENDATIONS - ITEM D(continued) waiver af pormltted uses and minlmum nurtbar of parking speces, subJect co conditlons which Included the stipuletion thet when the Mo oxisting cnrtrr-~rclal tena~nts ceased to occupy the subJect p ro perty~ commerctal use of the pr~perty would cease~ and that the residents of the apsrtments wo~ald bo Itmited to senlor citisens; and that the toning Enforcement Office~ ha~ detormined that the sub)ect pr~perty Is currontly in compllance with these conditlons. She stated it has been the pollcy of tha Clty tl~at an extenslon of ttme be granted only for a pe~lod which does not exceed the length of tima for whlch the ortglna) v~~iance was granted. ACTION: Commisslo~cr King offered ~ motlon, saconde~! by Commissioner Davld and MOTION CA RjEp (Gommissloners 8arneY end Toler being absent)e that the Anahelr~ City Plannine~ Commisslon doas hereby gran~ a thren-yaer~ retroactive extNnsion uf tlrtx~ ' r Varl~nc~ Nc~. 2Gii7~ to exp 1 re on Aprl I 28~ 1981. COMMISSIOf~ER DAVID ~EFT THE MEE7iNG AT ~:35 P•M~ E. RECLASSIFICATI~N N0. 7-78-50 VARIAt~CE N0. ? 98 At1D TE~ITATIVE TRACT NQ. 10~+37 ' equest or approva o rev se p ans. The staff report ta the Planning Commission dated April 9~ 1979 was prasented, noting subJect property is a rectang~larly-shaped parcel of land consisting of app roximately 7.7 ac~es having a fr~ntage of approximately 551 fcet on the west side of Magnolia Avenue~ heving a maximum depth of 6~5 feet~ be(ng tocated approximately 325 feet north of the centerilne of lincoln Avenue; that th~ applicant (Rabert J. Chase~ Ma ~+el) Sterkman AIA and Associatesj ~equests approval of revlsed plans for constructlon of a thre~-lot~ 95~ unit, RM-4~00 (Resldentlal~ Multiple-Family) Zone condoml~lum subdlvlston; that subJect p roperty is zoned RS-A-1-;~000 wlth a resolution of tntent to aM-40U0 under Recla~ssiflcatlon No. 77-7a'S~ W~~1ch was approved by the Planning Commissto~ on April 24, ig78; that a portlon of said property is currently undeveloped and the remaining portian is developed w(th a church and schaol; thst Reclassification No. 77-78•50 and Vartance No. 299a• to canstruct a 132•unit condominlum camplex wich walver of minimum site area per dwelling unit~ minimum rear setback, minim~- distance between buildtngs, type of pa~king spaces. and required screening of parking facilittes were approved, In part~ by the Planning Commission an April 28. 1978; and Tentative 7ract No. t0437 and Variance No. 3019. to cateblish a three-~oved'b2 thetPlen~i~ngOCommisslon onSJunevSs'o97a(th waiver of minimum lot width~ were app Y The staff report furthe~ noted that submitted revised plans indicate the number of dwelling unlts has been reduced from 132 unit~ to g5 units~ ~educing the density of the proJect from 17.~~ to 1?..5 ~e111ng units per acre, and that lot coverage rematns the same at 27~; that the previousiy approved subterranean par4;ing structure for the site has been eliminated and revised plans indicate two-car garages far each dwelling unit~ plus open parking spaces fo~ GO cars; and that the parking represents the same ratio as approved on the ortginal plans and Is greater tha~ the minimum requiremants of the RM-4000 2nne. Robe~t Nenning~r~ Assistant Planner, stated the submttted plans conform to all watvers sti 11 perta(ntng to subJect property snd prevlousiy granted under Varlance Nos. 301g a~d 293a• Ne stgted the Planning Commission may wlst~ to de~cr~i"~ ~ovedeplans.P roposed revised plan~ are in substantial compllance wlth previously App Chairn!a~ Herbst asked tf the driveways vrould confonn to private road standards. and the appiicant, Robart Chase. stated they had been info rn~ed by the Traffic Diviston that the driveways would have to meet the roadwsy standa~ds. He indicated his flrm had been 4/9/79 .~+ q ~ MI NUTES ~ ANAI~E I M C 1 TY PIANN I ~~G COMM 1 SS ION~ APR I l. 9~ 1979 7~-294 ~',PORTc eug ~~~~{~ATIOIi~~EM_E_ (contlnued) brought in on the pro)ect after the plans wero developad ~nd approved by the Planninq Commlasl~n and Clty Councll and that their firm~ ofter reseercliiny the proJect, had re- evalueted the subterranean qarage and sugqested that It would be a better end ssfer proJoct not to have khe subterrenoan perktng~ but ~+t tlie expense of some of thE u~) xs. It!~ stated he felt they had desiynsd a better proJect. Commissionor Johnson and Chairman Nerbst were concerned whether or not th~ plans would conform with those variAnccs as previously epp~oved~ and Robert rlenntnger, Assiscant Planner, replled tt~at thc plans hsve been revlewed and the only waiver remelning was on Varlanca No. 2998. which wes for the mintmum slte area ~-er dwclling unit~ and they are sttll under the 4000 square feet required~ but are much closer than the previously submitted plans and the other walvers no longer apply. He expldined the mtnimum dwclling unit slze is indicated as 30~6 squere feet and th~ c:c~de ree~u(re:s G~00 squa~e fect. Ile polntad out thc cnde was recently emended to rcquire 3~~~ squarc f~~x~ but the pla~s were revlawed under th old RM-4~0(1 zoning requirements. Chalrman Herbsc wes conce rned about the access point on Yale~ and Mr. Chase polnted out the C~ty Council had denled that access at thelr hearing. Comm(ssloner Johnson w~s concerned that this pro}ect is no simtl~r to the original proJect that the people had seen and was concerned tnat wher, something different is bullt~ they would be upset~ evon though It is much bettGr at the tower denslty. Robert Nen~inyer explainad tl~at was the reason staff had rer~ue~ted th8t the Planni~g Commission determ(ne whether or not a publtc hearing shouid be held to review the rev(sed plans. It was the general consensus of the Commisston that the plan is a netter plan and is in substantla) eccordance with previausly approved plans. ACTION: Commissioner Johnson offered a motton~ seconded by Commisslcner King and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Barnes~ David and Talar being absent). that the Anahelm C(ty Planning Commi~sio~ does hereby approve the revised plans for i,eclessification No. 17-7g~ 50, Variance No. 29q4, and Tentative T~act No, to437. F. PRUPOSED SALE OF A LANDLOCKED 5URPLU5 ~'ARCEI SY THE COU~~TY OF ORANGE. The staff report to the P1anning Commission dated Ilpril 9, 1979 was presented~ nottng subject property is an Irregularly-shaped parcel of land conststtng of epproximately .65 acre located on the narcherly side of tha Orange Cou~ty Flood Cant~ol District's Atwood Channel and southerly of the Atchison~ Topeka b Santa Fe Rallway, betng approximately 1200 feet east of Lakeview Avenue; that in accordance with the provisions of Section 65402 of tha Gove rnment Code, the Orange County Environmental Management Agency requests that the Planning Commissia~ determine if the p roposed sale is in conformance with the City of Anaheim's Generet Plan; that the subJect parcel is cu~rently zoned RS-A-W3~0~0 (Residential/Ag~i~ultural) with a resolution of intent to ML (industr{ai~ Limited) approved by the City Coun~il An June 17~ 1969; that the Anaheim General Plan Indicates the site for gene~al industrial tand usas; that the site is suitable for general industrial use in conformance wlth the General Pian and Reclassification No. 68-69-94; ~nd that thP ML site development standards require all lots to have public street frontage and the proposed sale would create a lot without street frontage and a va~iance would havo to be obtained before the parcel c~uld be sold. 4/9/79 \ MINUTES~ ANANEiM CITY PUN111NG COMMISSION~ APR1L 9~ 1979 79~2~5 AEPORTS ANO RECOhWENDATIONS - ITEM f(ocntlnued) ACTION: Commisstaner King off~red a moClan~ secc~nded by Commisstone~ Johnson end MOTIOW CARR ~0 (Commitslone~s Barnes~ David and Toler being absent) ~ that the Anahetm City Plan~ing Comrritta{on does hereby ~ind that the proposed ssle or lease ~f eubJ~ct pa~cel la in conformance with the Anahetm Genaral Plan, bu~ would need a variance to allow a lot wl thout pub I ic street f rontaqe. ADJ6URNMENT there being ~o further businese. Ccmmisstone~ Johnaon offered A motlon, ~ seconded by Commi ss toner K1 ng and M07 I ON CARRI ED (Commi ss lo~e rs 9arnes ~ pavtd and Tol ar bol ny absent). The meet t ng ad,Journed et 5; y4 p. m. Respect fu l ly subml ttod, ~~ ~ ~~" Edith L. ~er~is, Secretary Anahelm City Planntng Commlssion ElN:hm d ji R