The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1982/04/05C ivtc Canter Anahelm~ C~+lif~r~i• April 5~ 19~x REGULAR MEE7ING 4F TIIE ANAHEIN CITY PLANNINr, GAMMISSION RE~UI.AR The raguler mseting ~f the Anaheim City Pl~nntng Commisston NEETING was ci+iled ko order by Chairrnt~n 9ushore ~t 1A:~~ e.m.~ April y~ 19~2~ tn the Counctl Chamber~ e quarum heing present~ and the Commtasion revt~red p1Ans of the ttems ~n todby's r~enda. ReGess: 11:0~ a.m. Reconvene: 1:3~ p.m. for public testimnny. PRCSEN7 Chairmen: Bushore (Arrived at 1:3?, p.m.) Commissione~s: Barnes, B~urs~ Fry~ Nerbst, King, Mcaurney ABSENT Conmtssloners: ~~one ALSO PRESENT A~~iks Santatahtl Assistr~nt Director f~r Zoning Jac~ White ~ssistant City Attorney Jey Titus Office En~inrer Paut Singer 7rafftc Enc~ineer Dean Sherer Assistant Planner Ed(Ch 1larrts Planning Commissien SecretAry PLEDGE OF AIL~GIANCE Tf1 TIIE FLA~ LE~ DY - Commlssloner Fry. ITE11 H0. i: EIR CATEGORIC.4L EXEMPTtON-CLASS 21 AND CONDITIhNAL USE PERMIT N0. 2151: ------ - - PU8L1 C f1EARl tIG. AWNER: ABEL AND CAROL R. MENOE7. i~~b North Lan~n. Anaheim~ CA ~12$f1S. AGE~~T: I~UMQERTO VILLASENAR~ y13 u. Fourth SCreet, R4~ la flebra~ CA qA631. Pr~nerty described as an Ir~egulArly•shaped percel of land wnsistinQ of approximateiy A.14 acre locrted at the sout~east cornar of Anaheim 9ouievard anA Lemon Street~ ~n3~ Narth Anaheim Boulevard (Su Cas~ Auto Sales). THE ANAIIEIM PLAfINING COMMISSION REQUESTS A PUBLIC HEARING TA COHSIDER RCVOCATIAN OF COI~OITIDNAI USE PERMIT N0. 2151. The~e was no ane indicating thetr presence in epposition to suh~ject ~ecfuest~ and although the staff report was nat reed~ it is referred to a~d m~de ~ pa~t of the mtnutes. It was noted the property ow~er h+~s requested th~t this permit be revoked on the basts that SubJect p~aRerty is no io~gur batng used +~s an autonpbile sales tat. ACTIaN: Commissio~er King offered Resolution No. PC82-53 and moved Por it~ passage an- d~optlon that the A~aheim Ctty Planning CommissiGn does hereby reveke CondTtlonal Use Permit No. 2151 on the baals that the property owner hai ~equested that it b~e revoked aince the use hes been discontinued end on tne basts th~t the permit g~anted is being or recently has bee~ exercised onntra~y to t~e ferms or conditians af such 82-t91 ~ ~ MINUTES~ 11NANEIM CITY PLANNING C~MMISSION~ Aprtl 5~ 1~R2 82 -1A2 epproval; end that use far which the apprave) wss qr~nted has been so exerGtsed as to ba detrimental to the public health or safety or so as to constltute a nuls~nce. On roll cell~ the fore~oln~ resolutlon wss pessed by the tollc~wing vote: AYES : COMHI SS I ONERS: E3ARNES ~ UOUAS, DUSIIQRE ~ FRY ~ f1ERBST ~ KI Nt; ~ Mc6URNEY NOES ; C OMMI SS I ONEftS : NONE AE3SENT: COMMISSIONERS; ~IONE ITEf~ N0. 2: CIR CATE~ARICAI EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 23A7: PUQLiC FIEARIt~G. ONNER: MAURICE PINTO~ P.O. BOX 3N21~ Anaheim, CA 92A03. A~ENT; L117. CLENA GARCIA~ 1657 Uree Boulevard~ Fullerton~ CA g2G35. Property described as An irregularty-sh++p~d parcel of iend consistiing of approxlmately ~.3 ~cre located at Ati~ S. liarbor Boulevard (Mo~ Petit C~fe). TO PERMIT ON-SALE DECR AIID t~INE IN AN ~XISTI~~G RESTAURANT. It w~s rx~tod the petitloner requested a two-week c~ntlnuAnce. ACTIQN: fommissioner King offered a motton~ seconded hy Cormmlssiener douAS anci M~ ON CARRIED~ (Commissioner t3ushare absent) that c~nslderetf~n of the afore- mentloned item be a~ntinutd to the reqularly-scheduled meetin~~ ~f April 19~ 19E~2~ at the request of the pct(tloner. tT~M N0. 3: CIR NEfATIVE DECLARATION,_NAIVER OF CODE R~QUIREMENT A~10 CQNDITIONAL USE PER!11 T t~0. 231 : `""~' PUt~LiC IIEARIt~G. Ou1JER: ROVI PACiFIC REALTY CORPORATIf~N~ ta01 Century Park F.ASt, SutCe i i l~ Los Angeles. CA gAAh7. AGE~~T: MR. A-1D MRS. n. 11. DLANCN4R0, 120 E1 Oor~do l.ane, Anahetm~ CA 92807• Property descrtaed as ~ ~~ctangul~rly-shaped parcel of la~d consisting of approximately ;.Q acres lacnted at the no~theast corner of Ser~a~o Avenue and Nahi Ranch P,oad~ 6511 and 6513 Serr~no Avenue. TO PERMIT A PRIVATE NURSERY SCtIt10l WITI~ i~AIVER OF M11~IMUM tlU~1aER OF PARKINC SPACES. There were three persons tndicating their presenca in fav~or of subiect request, and no one indicating thetr presence in appositto~ to subJect request ~nd altlm ugh the staff report was not read~ tt is referred to and made a part of the minutas. Floyd Ferano~ Attorney, 2555 E. Chapman Avenue~ Fullertan~ California, stated subJect property is a 35~2A0-square foc~t shopping c~nter at the corner of Noh) Ranch Road and Serrano P,venue, and 23~OOQ squ~re feet of the center is unoccupied, and has been for approximately five years; that the petitio~er preryoses ta occupy 7~100 square feet at the north end of the shopping center ~n a Menty-year lease for a pre-schoel through third grade for a mAximum of epproxir~tely 2~~ students with apprvxirt+ately 50 b/5/82 ~ , MIN~TES~ ANAt1EIM CITY PI.ANNING CONMISSION~ Aprtl 5~ 1982 9x•1q3 employees~ He expletned these petitinners presently aperete two stmil~r schools: ane In Yorba Linds with 116 students and one in Placentla wlth 4,3 students~ ~nd noted letters heve been included fr~m the citles ~f Yarb+~ Ltnda and Plr~centia and AISA a letter from the shopping r.enter where the f~cility is located in Yorba Lfnd~. Ile notad the Pl~centir~ faclllty I~~locsted tmmedirtely ad)ecent te a resldentiAl home end there have never been any c~mplalnts. Mr. Fereno raferred to a petttion end letters circuleted throuc~hout A~ahelm Ntlls contatntng approxtmetely 155 signetures supporttng the appilcatian. -le ~tated ell the atc~nrturas~ except those w!th lines drAwn throuqh them~ are residents in the immedtate area whe~e tha scheol will be 1 x~ted. !le stAted the petttion And letters of support a~e prescnted for the purpose of reAlly showin~ thet this is a use which is needed In that area. Ile strted ~he ~etttloner selected this atte after the~y were requested by ~he parnnts of students now attendtng the other fACiilttes to c~nsider the po~sibilities of opentng a schac~l in th~ ~nahelm 11111s aren. ~le stated therR Is a stmilar facility at Imperlal Ilighway and Sante AnA Canyon Raad whtch is onerated by the Lutheran Church And presently has a waltin~~ Ilst of ;A Appiicrnts. Mr. Farano referred to the trasl~ locat ton and stAted t~~e ow~er of the property woul d like to change the locetion to r centrsl locatlan on the sc~uthwest side of the buildln9 (et the rear) 100 feet f~om t~ohl RAnch RoAd. Mr. Farano st~ted these operators w111 not be holdin~ any lar~e events fur parents tn the eventngs At thts facility end wtll hrald Any such events at a l~cal scFx~ol or church~ and that the schaol would not be in sesslon on weel-ends or hoitdays. THE PUl3LIC IOFARING WAS CLOSED, Commissioner I~erbst referred to the petitian and lett~rs submitted and noted that the property owne~s on Carnegie Avenue and Qulncy Clrcle. which are the homes backinh up to thi5 property~ were not contacted. Mr. Farano replied that he had advised the petttlaners nc~t to clrculate petiti~ns on a door-to-door basis and that most of the signatures were obtained at a Little League breakfast. tle stated there ts a grade dtfference af 40 to 5~1 feet between thts prope~ty and the property to the rear and he did not think the~e w4uld be any noise dtsturbance from this use. tle stated~ hawever~ the property to the north will be the most aff~cted an~i he dtd not kROw hc~w those owners wautd feel about the p~oposal~ but the petitionsr would propose to conduct the school in A WAy to minimtze any sound on the north side of this building. Commlssionar tlerbst statad the surrounding property owners probably got notices of this heartng; but that they have been here severa) times in thr pASt req~rding other uses because they were concerned stnce their properties are at the rear of the shopping center. He stated that grade is oniy about 2~ feet differ~nt and thc~se are expensiva homes and he was concerned that a use such as this would devaluate their 4/ 5/ 82 MiNUTES, A~IAHEIM C11'Y PLANNIN~ COMMISSION. Ap~i) 5. 1~32 R2-1q4 proparttea; Lhat he recognizos th~t shoppt~g center h~s ~ lot oF probiems~ but same of those probi~ms were brouqht on by the shopping cant~r a+ner and he dt~i nnt w~nt to parmlt a use th~t would harm the surruunding ~roperties. Ile strted he d~es nc~t feel this use~ as proposed~ would ~ece~sarily be ~+ nuraery school; thet it is ~n edueation~l fecility for up ta 26A students and would be blocking aff circulntlen far the anttre shopping center ~~d parkt~g spaces weuld be deleted. Fie stnted he feels thls is the wrang pl~ce for this type of opsrntton because It would he taking up spACes intended for the sho~+ping center and blocking circul~tt~n and thAt it enly has two accasa ~oints and this school would deter further gi•owth In thet center In the future. Commissioner Fry ~•~ted he would agree with Commtssioner Ilerbst; thet the integrity of tha pntitioner ~s not tn qu~stton here~ hut he is concerned about the circul~tion bei~g blocked and parents heing f~rced to come In end drop thetr students aff~ then somehow turn Around and get back out and he would not he in fAVOr unless scxnething c~n be resoived pertaintn~ to the circulAt(on. t~e stated the use of the property far a school does nat bother him. Mr. FarAno stated this use would be IocAted at the narth end of the property and the part being used for the R~ayground ts th~ part of the parking area to the ix-rth ~f Che buildtng at the re~r and that area wlli only be used for t~~sh trucks nnd is not an area normally transltted by the patrons of the shopping center. He stated a p~rant could pull Into a designated pArkinct space, drap the chtid aff~ then b~ck out and go out the same way that they otherwise wauld if the building was used for cammercial use. 11e said he did not see thAt Rstron use of the shopping center will be changed. Commissioner Ilerbst stAted with 2~~A studentg~ traffic would be heAVy in the morning and he was conce~ned how the trafflc wouid get dut. Nr. Fareno stated becausn of the staggerad hours~ students do nut always Arrlve at the same time and the operAt~rs expertence has been that the maJarlty of the students are drnpped off betwee~ 7;30 and a:30 AM and picked up at S pM~ and there are no niore than 3 vehicles at any one time~ and In this Instance the parents wlll drive on to the property and tf~e students will be met hy an empioyee ~nd taken into the factilty. Ne stated he did not thlnk the idea of going around the buildtng is valid. Commisstoner Fry stated he does not agree and he felt ~~ enroliment reaches 2F0 stude~ts, probably l0A vehicle:s woutd be coming to the +facitity withtn a 15-mtnute period with one student In each vehtcle. tle stated he takes a child to a private schao) with this same sltuaCion and it (s practically tmpossible to get in and out if they arrtve during that same ty-minute spen and he thought it would be very important to be ahle ta d~op the chlld nff and proceed arau~d the building. Commissioner He~bst stated signat~rc; un the petition submitted Includad seme pec~ple on Lakeview whtch is six miles away ,~d nc~ne of the penple who would be directly lE/5/82 MiNUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNt~IG COMMISSIAN~ April ~~ 1q8Z 82-1q5 effected by the use were contacted and he felt A use auch as this would devalue thetr homes and that It wouid be a poor lr~nd use. Mr. Farano stated there (s e school at the co~ner of Nohl Ranch Road and Noh) CAnyon Orive and the hanes around it are Just ~s veluable end clarifted again the petitton w~s not submitted necessarlly to show that the neighbors dld not obJect~ but tn show thet there Is a need for this factllty in this locatlon er somcwhere in the Annhetm liills area. and with today's econonry and wlth the number of perents working, the dey- care facility is a publtc servlce needed tn this srea. Commisaioner l3arnes stnted she is concerned about the land use; that meybe she coulc~ vote for apnro val of such a use on an interlm basts until the ec~ncx+~y Improves~ but with 2G0 students and the passible tmprovements requtred~ she did not want to see something permanent. Sha state+d she did not like the (cfe~ of students up to 3rcf grade and did nc~t thi~k there is a need for that as much A4 there is for ~ pre-schoot and day schaol~ rnd she was also ccmcerned about tht~ parking. Mr. FarAnn stated 2G0 students Is the maximum number for which the fr~cility coulA be ltcensed~ but if it would m~ke aparoval m~re paletahle, they w~uld be willing to start out with 13S ~tudents and increase to 21~ over ~+ S~Ye~r period, with the Commtssion having the opp~rtunitY to revlcw the uso ~nd ev~luete the effect tt hr~s had on the w hole area. Ile stated thts would be a 2~-year iease ARC~ CI1Cy certatnly could not put themselves in the pusitlon of having the C anmisslon say at the end nf five ya~rs that they dan't like tt and then revoke the pern+lt. Chalrrnan I~ushore statsd he has been awAre for a long tin~e that ther~ ts a need for a pre-schoc~l facility in thAt area; hawever~ he thought maybe the notlce indicattng thls would be a private nursery school mi~ht h~v~ been mislc-ading and he felt this is far beyond a prtvate nursery schcac~t. Ite stated he felt he c.ould go alang wlth approval on a temporery basis, if tl~e number of students is reduced, end if the circulation is redestgned to go around the build(ng between the fence and the •xistin9 parktng spaces and the playground placed next t~ the buildi~g. tie stated this would mean far less students. t~e stated he knows thert ts na praperty available in th~t area. but thi5 is bad land ~~se. Hr. Farano replied that redGSlgm m~y be ~ossible; however~ they have pr~mised and intend to maintain a ZS~foo~ drive around the butldtng for enaergency vehicles and he feit if this change w~s made~ the emergency ~ehicles c~uld not ~egotiAte around the ~ear of the building. Chalrman ~iushore strted the corner could be sleped ta provide adequ~te turning radlus. tle stated onca the scFwc~) is there and gets up to 26f1 students and the neighbors start complatning, he would not wrnt to have to hc~ld a revc~cation heAring. Hr. Farano stated he did not think they could go belc~w 135 students and would ~e~lly nned to have approximately 1G0 students on a str~+dy basts in order to make the ~/ 5/ $2 MINUTES~ AHAI~EIM CITY P~ANNING COMNISSION~ Aprt) 5~ 19~2 f~~•lqb proJect ecanamtcally feASible. Ele Asked tf he cnutd have e f~, minutes to censult wtth his citent. Af~er a brtef dtscueston with his cllents tn the eudlence~ Mr, Faranv steted his cl lents sey that pert iculrr espect hes not been explored and they would hsve strong questlons ~bout It~ ~1e pntnted out there ts s scheel extating at ~~egno) ia ~nd l,a Palme with exactly this same tr,~ffic situ~+tion~ so the p~ecedent hes been set. Chairm~n Bushere st~ted that schoc~l on Magnolla and La F'alma h+~d access around the building for se~•vlce. Ilt asked if they would I ike to explore t'~e p~ssibllity menttoned a~d nated the ancunt ~f ployqround are~ will determine the number ef chtidren perrnttted by the st~te end if it nets into economics~ the petlttonAr may heve to renegot tate th~ 1 eZ15e wl th the 1 andlord . Mr Farana asked if thts ma ~ter coulc'be poatponed untll 1ACer in th~ meetlnq sn he could discuss the sttuAtion with his ct tents. Cheirma+n aushore suggest•d they look et the access ~nd cc~nstd~r cont.~ttlny those 13 ~raperty owners t~ get thelr epproval. Commiss loner ~i~rbst sugges ted a two-N~eek rnnt inunnce unt I 1 the pet i t toner c~uld contect the edJACent ~rope~ty owners a~d c~me u~ with s~methtng concrete req~+rdinq their fealings. and redesiqn the proJr,et to pr~v(de adeauate circulAtton. ~1~! stated he would nnt vote for the .~~~ as it sta~ds. Mr. Farano as~ed tf the Coa-imission Is suggesting that I~e contacC surruundlncl property c~wners ~nd get thetr ~greancnt. I~e stated he hes been befor~ this Commisslon many ttmes tn the past and has nevar hee~d anyone ~,a told to get the s~~rrounding property owner's epproval. Ile ~;a~ed the property a+ners c~ot notice nf !his hearing and there Is no onc here to eb~ect. Responding to Commissiuner Darnes, Dean Sherer, Asslstant Planner~ stated the lec~a) notices read~ "that the request Is t~ permit a privet~ nursery schonl wlth wafver of minlmum number of parking spaces." Commissioner Barnes stated in her mind n schoc~l with 2-1/2 year old child~en up through ;rd grade students Is not a privAte nursery schooi and that is probably why the property owners are not -~ere to ob_j~~t. She stet~~ the c~rd didn't mention how many studGnts are proposed :~nd tm m~st peeple's mtnds~ ~ private nursery schoc~l would be a srnal) facility with not even tAQ students. She stated she would 11ke to see a day-care school tn th~ arca~ but did not th{nk this property was de,igned for th~t ktnd af use because it is too c1osG tc~ resldential properties. and there would be a parking problem~ and dr~pp ing off and pTcklnc~ up the chi ldren would cre:.te a traffic problem~ and ~Iso the chti dren wouldbe playtng on concrete and wlth that number of studen:s, there wtl l bQ no ise ai 1 day lonq. She stated she felt the people en Carnegie have a rtght t~ know that this Is not a privAte nursery schaol. 4/5/82 ~ MINUTES~ At~AIIEIN CITY PLANNIK: COMMISSION~ April 5~ i4A2 t~p.~q~ Chelrrrwn Bushore stated he could understand the ~+atitioner's reluct~nce to cantact adJscent prope~ty c~wners, and suga~ested the mstt~r be reddve!rttsed by the City t~ tncluda the type of facility snd the number of students. Oean Sherer atatad the a private nursery school w~s the closest descriptt~n whi~h f its the use tn the Cl/~~S Zone and the next category would be r prlvate educatlona) fACI 1 1 ty snd egreed the desc~ i pt ian cb~s not qu ite represent what is nroposed. Commis:ioner F~y agreed the matter should be readvert Ised. Chairman sushore po~tpnned the heering c~n this n+~tter until IAter in the n~etinc~. Daan Sherer sxa~ed if the Com~ission dfrecta staff to rendvertlse thts ~+rtter, It can be advertised for tha next hearing on Aprll 1A~ 1QA2. FOLIdWt NG TNE iIC~R I Nr, ON I TEM N~. 11 ~ I TEN N0. 3 CA-ITI NUED ns Fn~~rn~c ; Mr. Farano stoted Aft~r dlscussing this mntter with hts clients~ thoy feel to open tha dr I vew~y ar~und the bul I d t n~ for any purpose other than emrrgency vr.h tcl es woul d probably not meeC the re~utrements of the State of Callfornta because of the ch,lldren being back there. Ile steted, how~ver~ they would Ilke t~ propese an alternetive tc~ the piana as submitted and that 15 to put an opaning (n th~ curb a;~d cre~te another d~Iveway at th~ easterrnnost end of the prc;perty for perhaps ingress only which w4uld ellow tl-.s par~nts to comc (n a~d drop off the stu~lents (n the frortt ~nd go out the westernm~st drtveway. Ile stated there NI11 be two drop off s,otnt~: one ~n the north slde and one on the~ south,erly side, with not Ail coming in the frent. Concerning the grade on the north end~ he streted he hAd )udged that to be a 5~~foot diffe-ence and it ts hIs opinlon that the noise eler~ent would not be sinniftcant and he would be surprtsed i f the nelghbors even know the scheol ts there. Commts~tone~ Fry stated he sti 1) would like t~ see the matter readvertise' betause te~chnically it is noc a nursery sehool. t1r. Farano stated if the alter~ative suggestion sounds ecceptable to the Commtsston~ they would have no probiem in eooperating wlth the re~dvertisement, but if the Comnisslon is prepared to say that it cbes not meet with their sattsfactien. then thry wc~t~ld not want to wastc any more of the C~nmissien's time and money because there is n~thing they cnuld do abaut openlnc~ up that drlveway at the rear. Commisstone~ Fry asked thr distanc~ between th~ drtveways If the sugc~ested st ternative for another drtve,way !s taken . Mr, Singar repl ted the differe'nce is approxlnwtely 120 feet~ and (ndiC,~ted that was the suqgesttan he had made from the very b3ginning. f1e stat~d he wanted the petttloner tn be aware ~hat no parkl~g is s! lowed on Nuh) Ranch Raad .,nd Se~ra~o and any drop-off are~ would have ta be strTctly regulated. ~+/S/82 ,~, ~. MINUTES, ANAIIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISS{ON~ Aprl) 5, 1g82 82.~q3 Mr. F~rarx~ re~lied that they understnnd and atnted the chlidren wi11 be In+Medl~teiy taken into the fecitlty by a membe~ of the staff when they Are dre~pped off~ Conc~rnt ng G~ : ns ~~~r. Farano repl t~d they dc~ havo buses f~r t~k t ng ch i l dren to cAmp ~ etc.~ but th~y do not ntr.k up and d~llver students. Commlasloner tlerbst stetad he felt this aiternative would Pliminete A good ~rtton of the ~Irculati~n probidn~ but he w~s stiil concerncd aboui re~dvertisinc~ the use to be sure the Neopia (n the area are totAlly aware of the pro~sel ancf the problem they could be cr~ntl~g. Dear~ Sheror stAted the readvertisement woulcf be worded thet A pub lic h~aring w~uld be held an Aprtl 1~ to consider a request f~r a private dAy-c,~re cen~er an~iC'~l~ment~ry educotional facility for chtidren 2-1/2 years old through 3rd gra d e f~r e maxi~um enrollment of 260 students with ~ w~+iver of mtnimum numher of p~r king snaces. Mr. Faran~ suc~gested a r~ference be Includea in the readvertiseme nt that this Is to be a ECE (Eeriy Chlldhor~d Educattonai) factitty and thought thet would heip (denttfy tt more accurntoly. iie stated he wantrd t~ make lt cleer that th e t+etltien which was circutated wes not destgned t~ avold the~ reople fn the sur~~undin q nrea, but was to ostabllsh tha need for thl• type f~cllitY (n thnt area. ACTION: Chairman Bushore offcred a motlon snconded by Commisston~r Kinc~ and M~TIAN CA RI ED ~ that c~ns Iderat lon of the Afore-mcnt inned rr-~tter ht cont i nued tn the regutarty-scheduled meeting of Aprll 19~ 1932~ in order that the rnAtter could bt readvertised to accurat~ly d~scrfbe the proposed use As a prlvate dey-care center a nd GlementAry educati~nal facility fpr children 2-1/2 yerrs nid thou qh 3rd grade fc~r a maximum enrollment of 2~~ studants wlth a r,alver ~~ mintmum numbe r nf pArking spACes. ITE~: EIR CATEGORICAt, EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 At~D CONDITIOr~al u5E PERMIT NO. 2315: -- -- __ P~JBLIC HEARIt~G. 011NER: ANAFIEIM INVESTMENTS~ P. 0. Box 1116, Golcta~ CA 43017. AGENT: CRISTOdAL CERVANTES~ 466 N. f~oble Street~ Orange~ Cl~ 92F+69. Property described as a rectangulariy-sha pec: pa~ce) af land consisttng of a pproximately 1.2 acres, 514 N. East Street (Temazula TaQueria). TQ PERMIT ON-SALE BEER AItD WINE IN AN EXISTIlIG R~STAURANT. There was no one tndicating thei~ presence tn oppositinn to s~~+(ec ~ reques!, and althaugh the staff report was not ~ead, it ts referred to and ma de a part of the minutes. ~'.r. Gomez~ re~resenting Criatobal Ce~vantes~ was ~resent to answe r any questlons. Clan fielnz, 123y E. Sy~camore~ stated he h~s lived he~e for 31 ye~ rs and presented photoc~raphs of s~bject property tn illustrate the sltuation. He s tated thr owner af G/5/82 :b MINUTES~ ANAl1EIM CITY P~.ANNING COMMISSION, April S~ 1982 82-199 subJect pr~pe~ty is ~n sbsentee lartdlord ~nd the property hes been deteriarAting and looks bed with trash all over the place; thet the tresh bin ts palnted with graPfttl; that the s upply trucks da~iver right in the perking lot; and that th~ bl+~cktop ta broken~ et c. Iie stated the block well along Sycemore Is broke~ and the shrubbe~y ts neglected. fle presented photogrephs of his property t~ show it is wel) kept. He steted th ~ restaurrnt under discussion h~s an outside teble and wondered if tt wtil b~c~me a stdeweli. cafe. ile stAted if this p~eperty ewner keeps requastlnq waivers year afte~ year~ they should show seme ressponsibliitv In keepiRg u~ the environment of the neighborhood becausc thry do nc~t like thta bad lookln~ plec~ rtc~ht in thetr b~;.KyR~rds. Ilo statad he is not sa much egatnst this permit for b~er ~nd wine~ but thero ere two estabiishments there elre+~dy whtch s~li beer and wine (the n+inl-market an~ Anoth e r sto re) and suggested de~nying this roquest u~tii the ~wner shows •~me res~nsibil(ty. Ile stated the buliding looks renlty bad and there are eir- condttloning units on the eASt sld~a of thc rcx~f ilne w{th a snow fence type structure which Is in bad conditlon~ end Is fa111ng down. Mr. Gomez stat~~i it Is true thts pro perty has been left for a I~ng tlme a~d a lot ~f busine~sses have been empty~ but nc~w they arr. starting to bring tt up; thar, thay hava two trash bins a nd thc rarklny 1ax hrs been repAired ~nd ~nd the spaces ttrtped. Ite ~tnted the y are trying t~ yat all, th~ businessts octupled and noted the neiqhborhooQ neec~s tFits ser~i.:e and he felt tf the problems are rer+orted to th~ ~wners~ they will repe i r them, TNE PUDL{ C IIEARI N,aAS CLOSED. Commissian er f:(nq s~ggested the p~o perty owners should be present because th~re ~re a lot of improvements which need to be rr~de. Chairman E~usl~ore stated thc request tod~y Is for the bee~ end wine per~nit. but there are scmie other p~oblems and it ls sugcaested the Code Enforcen+ent ~fftcer investigete for any vtolatlons so thr~t the property nwner cen be forced to crampty And not put the nntire burden on the tenants. Ne potnted out the st~+ff rep~rt suc~~ests certain tmprovements such as getting the parktng spaces striped anrf closl~n soe+e of the Jrlveways because they are dsnge~o us. which me~ns before the p~rmit (s finnl, either the awner or tha agent hAVe [o close th~ drlveweys and stripe the perktng lots~ et~. Mr. Gomez stated tne parktng space9 have been remarked ~nd the t~arklrg lot has been F(xed. Conmissioner Y.ing stated ~ight naw there ts loud rnusic playfng somewhere Ir ~hls centar which dtsturbs the neighbors. M~. c'~omcz repll~d that they do hAVe a Juke-box but therc ~re no sFeakers outslde and when the door Is closed the music cannot be heard outside. A gentlemon tn thz audlence indicated the notse doos came fran the business next doar. 4/5/82 ~ MINUTES~ ANAIIEIM CITY PLANNING COMNISSInN~ April S~ 19~2 A2•2f10 Commtssioner Ilerbst stated tn view of this shonpl~:y center's detarlnrAting c~nditien; this metter should be continued in ordar for this p~+titione~r to contect the pro-~erty owner regarding the ahopping center ltself. Cor~~missihner King sug~ested providing the property owner with n c~~y of th~ st+~ff report, painting out there are a lot ~f ch~nges that need tn be m~de such ~s the drivew~y neare~t the intersectton noeds t~ be closed end ~ne drlveway needs to be wtdened. Commissioner Uarnes stated tf this shopping center was In qc~o~~ condltl~n, there probebly would not be any problem with thls becr a~nd wine permit~ but because there are so me ~rahlems there~ the petltloner needs to talk to the ~wner. ChAirmen Uushore quostioned whether ~r not a~ontlnuance would be necessary becAUSe these a~nditlons will be p~rt of t' Approval am~way encf If they d~ n~t ~eech an agreement between them~ a~rmtC NI1) not be necensary. Jack White~ Assistent Ctty Attar~ey~ st~ted condltions im~se~1 on the nermtt have to reasonably relate t~ the use for oihir.h tt is oeing requested encf condict.~ns cannot be (mposeci relating to the over all m~lntenance of the entire center~ etc. and it is posslble (f the property ts heing m~intal~ied out of hermony with the nelqh'~orhood and is caustng a dPtrimental effect on tha surrounding pr~perty~ it r+~y cc~nstltute a public nulsance which should be inv~stigateJ. He stated the City r~w hAS a pubitc nuisance ardlnance whtch could be uttllzed In this type sltuAtinn whtch m~ans the owner must appear before the City Council And take staps tn ~orrect the ~roblems. fle stated somctlmos thc Planning Comr~lssion does walk a ftne line in Imposinq condittons enc! he is not suggesting that th~ c~nditlons rehulring th~ drtvew~ys F,~ deleted but is suggesttng that If such c~nditions are h~ing Imposed whi~h da create additi~nA) burd~ns on thc owner of the property~ it rr~y he well t~ explore a dtfferent approach as It pertalns to the nuisanc~ ordinance pracedure. Chair;~ran l~ushore stat~d he felt if thls Is approved with the c~ndittons ~s proposed. this applicant rrtlf never get hls permlt For t~eer and wine and the Clty wtll never yet the sltuatlon carrected. Jack White stated it (s posstbie wt6ening th~ driveways does reason~bly ~elate to this use, buc that cleaning up ef the entire prepe~ty would nc~t be an appropri~te condltion to attach to epprovAl. Cc~mmiss ion~r Y.inq stated thbt cor~er is dangero~is an~! th~re hive been rccldents the ro. ~Ir. Gomez stAted he dtd not think tha ~ccidents had ~nything to de with this rostaurant or the people who b~~y beer and wlr~. Gomnissioner f3oua3 stated the plans show ~5 par~;ing spaccs, but i~specti~n of the site rev~ala thnre are nnly ~9 sp:,ces availeble and clasing the driveways would be needed, otherwtse they would not have enough parkinq spaces. ~~/5/82 '. ~ ~ ~. M I ~iUTES ~ ANAIiE t M C t TY PLANN I NG COMMI SS I ON ~ Apr i l 5~ 1~82 8~-?.~ 1 Ded~ Sher~r. Assl~tAnt Pl~nner~ stated if this p~rmit is eppreved with the condttlons at stated, as part of the proe~dure~ the Plenninr Dap~rtment weuld not rela~se the lice~se ~pprov~l t~ the Alcohalic deveraqe Contr~l Board untii the cnnditiens ~ra ~~tisfimd~ which would include ~e-stripi~g of the lot~ ciosure af the two ~trtvew~ys~ and improvemsnt of the other drtvewdy. Ite steted th~t gives t-+e City +~ hendlo and nlao the appltcant ha~ ;!~e opportunity ta come back and esk for rr~dificatton of spectfic con~+ition: tf he ffnds after talkin~ with the prop~rty owner~ th~t he cenrx~t compl Y w i th one o ~ mc~re of the cend i t lons. Commisslo~er FIcDu~nay nated mast of the Commissien's ccmcerns h~ve been spGlled out tn the c~nditlons end undcr the circumstences~ other then th~e maintenance ot the property, thts I, where the Commisston should stend ~nd the permlt sh~uld '~e g~anted. It was noted the Planning Director or hts authorized representAtive has determined that the propc~sed pro)ect falls withtn the deftnttlon af Categc,rical Exemptlans~ Clt~ss 1~ as defintd ir the State knvi~orxnental Imp~ct Report f,uldeiines and ts~ ther~fore~ categoric~lly excn~t Prom the re~uirement to prenare nn EIR. ACTION: Chairn-~n aushore ~ffered Resolutio~ Nn. PC82-a~ and moved for its pessage an a ptlon thet the Anahefm City Plnnning Commissi~n d~es hereny yrant Condltian~l Us~ Permit No. 2315 subJect to th~ cc~ndltfon that the extsttng outdc~r eatl~q tebte shal) be ramoved and in compitance with Sections 18.~3.~3r1; .q31; .~132; .n;3; .A ~ and .0 3~~ Title 14 of the Anrheim -~unlcipei Cocie ~nd subJect t~ Interdepartment~l Commt t tee recommendet ions . i'rior to vr~tfng on the resolution, the outdo~~ tah)e was discussed wit., the agent indicating they dc~ not serve outslde an~1 rwt(ng that the tr~sh cans ~re pleced there for dtspos~l of the trosh. It was nated by Chalrman ~ushore that part of thc resolution will be th~t the table shsl) be removed and that the ~ear clcxirs of the rest~urant she11 rem.~tn closed durTng buslness hnurs. On roll call~ the foregoing resolution was passed by the folic~wing vate: AYES : COMMI SS I ONERS : E3ARr1ES ~ DOUAS ~ QUSNORE ~ FRY ~~~CRBST ~ KI NG, !~cBURNEY Nd~S; COMMt5SI0NER5: NONE 11DSENT: COMMISSIONERS: lIONC Jack White, Assistant City Attorney~ p~esented the wrttten right to ~ppeA) the Pianning Commission's dectsion wlthln 22 days to the City Council. Chalrmain Qushare dlrected staff to consider this as :, cc~mplA(nt so that the pro~erty wtll be (nvosttgated. ~+/5/$2 NINUTES~ AN~-IIEIM CITY P~ANNING COMMISSIAN~ Aprtl 5~ 1~8? ~2-202 ITE~M N0.': ~IR NEGATIVG QECLARATI~N I-.t~~ CONDITIONAL USE_PE_RMIT N0. Z;16: PU9LIC HEARINC. OWNF.R; EDWARD i. AND MAF,:. E. VANAGS, 1510 N. Stete College Uoulo w+rd~ Aneheim CA g28QG. Property descrihed as an 1~reAular~y-shaped parcel of 1+~nd conaisting of approxin+ntely 1.3 ecres~ 15AA N~rrti Stete Co11~ge Boulevard. T~ PERMIT RETAII SAlES I1~ TIIE r1L ZONE. There wes no one Indicating th~ir presence in opposttion te subject request~ ~nd although the staff repart was not read~ tt ts referred to and n~ d~ a pa~t ~f the ~~~inutes. Flaris Vanegs~ owner~ st~eted the requ~st ts to permlt e c~mputer outlet in this locatian which Ts between the Riverside F~edway and 0 rAngethorpe an~ is predomtn~tly a commerciai :~ wtth two servic^ stetlons. e ~estAU~ant, retali ~lumbtng store~ auto perts store~ unftnished furnl,ure store~ etc. f~e stated the Appllcant's company name Is "Computerla~d" and they set) sn~11 business cor-,~uter~ strtc;ly to the Industrial users. ~le pres~nted a pr~posed st~re layout and expl~tned they will not be selling hand-held calculators~ etc. and matnly wlil be selling to businesses end indicaXed they presently have two stores in Orange County~ one ln Tustin and one t~ Irvine ~,nd nated this araa does not have a slmil~r outiet. Dean Sharer~ Asslstent Pl~tinncr~ stated the staff report indicates thc easterl•~ drtveway shouyd ba closed and thet should read the westerly drivcway an Page y-e~ Paragraph 16. Mr. Vanags noted that much of the business ts done by telephane. Rospo~ding to Gortmisstoner Barnes~ Ila) Gray, 1AG 41est First Str~et, Tustin, explatn~ed they ~urrently advertlse in the l.A Tlmes. uall Str~eet Journat~ 9usiness Week. etc. ACT10N: Commtssioner King offered a mott~n~ s~c~~d~d by Commissioner Barnes and MOTION CARRtED~ that the Anahetm City Planning Commisslon hes revlewtd the pr~posa) to permlt retatt sales In the ML (Industrlal~ L.imited) Zane on an lrregularly-shapec~ parcei of land conslsting of approxlmetely 1.3 acres~ focated at the northeast oo rner of Via Durton Street and State College Street (1500 tiorth State Co11e~e Boulevard); and cbes hereby ~pprave the Negatlve Oaclaratlon from the requirement co prepare an environmenta) impact report on the basis that there would l~e c-o significant Individual o~ cumulAtlve adverse envtronrnental tmpact due to the approval of thts Negative Declaration ~ince the An~heim Ganer~i Ptan designates the subJect property for c,~~eral industrial land uses commensurate with the proposal; Lhat no sensitive environrt~ntal (rt~acts are Involved tn the praposal; that the Initial StudY submltted by the petltianer Indicates nn significe~t individuai ur cunulative adverse anvtronmental impacts; and that the t~agattve Declarati~n subst~ntiattng the foreyoing findtngs is on fite in the City of Anaheim Planning ~epartment. 4/5/R2 !~# ~- -~ ~ MINUlES, ANAl1E1N CITY PLANNING COMMiSSION~ April 5~ 1982 32- 2~3 ~hb~e wat a brlef d~ccussion conce~ning the parking spaces with Canmissioner Herbst pointing uut thmre ~re 63 spaces shown and only 50 ere re~utred by Code and there will be no F.a~dshlp In removing the six spaces to provlJe bctter circutetlon. Commissloner Kl~g offered Re~olution Na. PC~2•60 ~nd nnved for tts passage and edaption thAt the Anrhelm City Planntng Commisstan does he+reby grant Conditlonal Use P~rmlt 2316 In campliance with Sections 18.A;.~3~; ,031; ,432; .~33~ •~3~+ and .~35~ Titis li~ of the Anaheim tluntclpal Code and subject ta Interdepartmental Committe~ racammendot tar~s. On roll c~ll~ the foragoing rasolutl~n wAt passed by the f~ll~wing vot~: AYES: C~MMI SS I~ONERS : DARt~ES, DOUAS ~ aUSHORE, FRY ~ IIEaaST ~ KI NG ~ Mct3URt~F ~ NOES : COMMI SS I O~~ERS : ~~ONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ITEM N0. G: EIR CATEGOR_ICAt. EXEMPTION-CLA55 1 AND CONDITIf-Nl1l USE PERMIT N:1. 2 1 PUDLIC HEARIIJG. Ot~1NER: BROAKMORF ARMS~ 1641 Lengley Avenue~ Irvine} Ca 9271G. AGENT: WICK RODOGN/-~ a74 S. Brookhurat Street, Mahaim~ CA 9T.~I04. Property desc~ibed as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consistinq of approxtmately 1.9 acres~ 874 South Brookhurst Street (Ltno's Pizza). TO PERHI T 0'1-SALE ~EER AlID W I NE 1 f~ AN EX t ST I NG RESYAURANT. There was no one indicating their presence in opp~sition to subJect request~ and although the staff report was nat read, it is r~ferred to anci n-~+de a part af the mtnutes. Chr(s L'astn, 830 Sos~th t3rookhurst. praperty manager for the shc~pinq center~ was preaent to answer any questions. THE PUaLIC ilEAal fIG WAS CLOSEQ. It was noted the Planning Director or hia Authorized representative has determtned that the p ropnsed projact fells within the definttion of Gategnrical Exemptl~~s, Class 1~ as defincd in the State ERVironn+ental Impact ^eport Guideli~es and I~, the rofore. categorically exempt from the requlrsment to n~epare An EIR. ACTIQN: C atmissioner Ilarnes offered Resolution No. PC82-61 and m~v~d for its passaqe a~d sdaptian that the Anahetm Ctcv P1Anning Commission does hereby grant Condittona) l7se Permtt No. 23 ' in con~ltance with Sections 18.Q3•030: •~3~; .~3z; •033: •~134 and .035• 7ttle la of the Anahe ~n Municipal Ccxfe and subJect to inlterdepa~tmental Committee reoommendattons. On ~oll call~ the forcgoing resolutian was passed by the followinc~ vote: ,=~4~~: COMMISSIONERS; BARNES, BOUAS, BUSHt1RE, FRY, HERBST~ KING, McBURNEY NOE5 : COF4M I SS I ONERS : NONE . ASSENT: COfM11SSI0NER5: NONE 4~S~g2 MINUTES~ ANAt1EIH CITY PLANNING CO~1t~tiSSIQN, Aprt 1 5~ 1qa2 82-2~~+ IT~M Nb. : EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION ANO AND CONDiT~~NAI. t~E PERMIT N~. ~~1$: - --•-------._..., ~.. PU611 C IIEARI NG. O~:iNERt GAST ANAHE I H SHOPP I ~~C CENTER ASSOC t ATES, 2AAA "A" Eas t Llncoln, Aneholm, CA A28f17. APENT: I,ORRAINE McCO~IAU~HY, 29~~i S. Cltrus. West Covinn~ CA 91791. Pro{~erty descrtbed ~s ~n irregulnrly•sh~+ped p~~cel ef land cansisttnq of approximately 15.5 acres~ 2124 East linc~ln Avenue. T~ P~RMIT o~~-SA~E ALCOHOLtC dEVERAr,~S IN A PROP~SFD RESTAURANT. There was no one indicating thetr presenc~ In opposltlon to suUJect request~ and although the staff ~eport wAS ~ot read~ it is r~ferred to and made ~+ oart of the minutos. Lorralne McConau~hy~ agent~ read e letter from the p~operty ~wner reqarding their plan to renovAte thts shopptn~ center~ indicating this would be the proper time to relocate the driveway ~.~: alsa tndic~ting they own the describQd pro~ertles t~ the east and west of subJe:.t property and do arprove a reciprncal parking anreement ns requestecf. She stoted they feel thls restnurnnt would be an asset to the communlty and to the s-x~prine~ c~nter. TIIC PUdLIC -ICARIt~C WAS CLOSED. Chatrman t3ushore asked about the "itve antert~~inn+~nt" ~nd 1~s. McConaughy repl ied they da not have live music excct~t ~ftcr 9:0^ ~.n. when the other businesses Ir, thc canter ere closed and would just h~~ve t.~ped backyrnund music durtng the day. She explained this will be e ste~k hc~use wtth I~hster~ etc. nnct the I(ve muslc witl probably be A piano bar after 9:00 p.m. ACTION: Commissioner Her'~St offered a rroti~n~ 3cconded by Cc~mmtssl~ner Kinq ~nd MOTIOtI CARRIED, that the Anahelm Lity Pl~nning Commission has r~!viewed ~ procx~sat tc+ permtt on-sale alcohallc beverages ln a proposcd r~staurAnt ~n An trregul~rly-sh.~ped pArcel of lend conststing of approxiru+tely 15.~ acres~ having a frontAg~ ~f approxim~tely 7~y feet on the south side oF Lincoln Ave~ue (2~24 East Linc~ln Avenue); and does hereby appreve the ~degattve ~eclAratlan fr~m th~ requircment to propare an environrt~ntal impact report on tfi~ h~sis that there would be na slgnificant indivtclual or cumulative ~dve~sr. env(ronn~entai impact due to the approval of this We~ative Oeclaration slr~ce the Anahetm ~~e~eral P1an deslgnAt~s th~ subJect property for gener~l com~nercial land uses cnmmensurAte with the proposal; that r~ sensttive enviranmental impacts ar~ invo~yed in the proposal; that the Initlal Stud~j submltted by the petitioner indicAtes no slg~tf(cent individual ~r cumulaCive adverst envlronrtKSntai 1~+-pacts; and that tha Ne~Ative Declaration substanttAting the forec~oing findtngs is on file tn the City of Anaheim Pl~nn~ng Oepartment. Canmi s ione~ Ile~bst affered R~eso lut ion tJo. PC82-G2 and no~ved for i ts passagc and adopt'~n that thc Anaheim City Planning Commisslan does her~by grant Condttinna) Use Permit No. 231$ in tompllance wlth Sectlons 1t1.03.~3~~: •~3~: •~3~; •~33: .~~i~ And 4/~/82 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING C~MMiSS10N~ Aprll 5~ 1~82 a2-q~5 •~35~ ttle 18 ~f the llnahbim Municipal Code and sub)ect to Inte~de~artmental Cammittee reco~.mendetlons~ nadifying Conditlon No. 1 to re~ulre th~+t the driveway westerly of Stnte College Boulevard will be relecAted to attgn directly rcros~ fr~m Alann when tha shopping center la ~enoveted ea stip~~ated by the pr~porty ewner. On rolt call~ the foregoing resalutlon was p1S4Cd by the foll~wtng vote: AYES: CbMNISSIONERS: BAR~~ES~ IiAUAS~ DUSHORE~ FRY~ 11EapST, l:ING~ McpURNEY NOES: C~MMISSIONERS: NONE hi1SEWT; COM~11551oNE~S: I~or~E Chairnwn Qushore stated he felt from revlewinq thrse plens thnt th15 appe~rs ta be e dlsco and ~oted this is a conditional use permit anci lf ther~ are nny camplalnts about louA musit~ etc~ tn the futu~e~ thon this n~tte~ cAn h~• reviewed t~ considar ~evocation of the conditional use permit. RECESS Thera wag ~+ ten-minute recess at 3:AQ p.m. RE~CO.N'"'~E The m~et Ing was reconve-~ed a 3: 1~ p.m. ITEM ~J` Q_.Ei: EIR GATEGORICAI, EXEMPTION-CLA55 21 AND VARIAI~CE tiQ. 2~15 SRf.AGVERTISED) : PUDLIC IIEARING. Ou1~ER: DELOUN PROPERTIES~ g171 Nilshire 8oulevard, Eieverly Hills~ CA. 90210. AGEI~T: HAROL~ AREDOR~ 1225 S. ~tate Coilege H~ulevard~ Anahelm, CA 92`~Of+. Property descrlbed as a rectang~larly-shaoed p~rcel nf lencl consl4tinn nf approxlmately 1.1 acres located et 1225 South State Colleqe Qouleverd {4-pay FurniturF Ltquldators). Petitianer requests amendment to cond{tions af appr~ova~ pert~ining to percentage of retail salcs and oucdoor ~dvertising. I: wns noted th~ peCttioner requosted a two-week continuance. AC_ TION: Commissioner Y.ing offered a motton~ seeonded b~r Cvmmissi~ner BouAS ~nd MOTION CIIRRIED~ (Commt~stoner Bushore absent) that considerailon of the afore- mentlon~d item be contlnued ta the regul~rlv-~ heduled meeting ~f April 19. 1~82~ at the request af thc petttioner. ITE~_ 1 NO 9: EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2319: PUBLIC II~ARI~IG. OWN:R; DEIDUI~ PROPERTI~S~ gilt Wlishtre dnulevard, Bevzrly flllts~ CA 90210. !~REtJT': NAROLD ABEOOR, 1'e.,.; S. State College~ f31vd., Anahetm~ CA 92806. Property described as a rectangulariy-shapr.d partei of land c~nsisting of approxS~-ately 9.1 acres l~c~~ted at 1225 South State Callege E3oulevar~l (4-~ay Furniturz Liquldators). 4/5182 MINUT~S, Af1AlIEIM CITY P~.ANNiNG CANM1S51~~1~ Aprtl 5~ 19~Z ~2'~~~' TO PERMIT R~TAIL FURN~"~,~P,~ SALES IN TIIE Nl. ZONE. It w~s natod the petittoner ~equested a two-week c~nttnuence. ACTION: CommisslonQr hing offare~d a nbtt~n, secon~ied hy Conxnisslener douas and M 10 CARRtEO~ (Cortmissic~ner pushore +~bsent) that considerntlon of the nfore- menttoneci Itam be continued th the regularly-scheduled meeting of llprtl 19, 1982~ et the raquest of ths petltt~ner. ITEM tJO. 10: Ela C1ITECORICAL EXEFtPTI'1N-CIAS_ 3 AND VARIANCE Nf1. 325~: PU~LIC IICARlNG, OIINER: DONALD M. AND IRENE 5. YAN~ ~~1+7 Frontirr r,ourt~ Annhelm~ CA 92507• ~roperty described as an irregularly•shaped pnrce) c-f l.~n~~ cons(sting af ap~aroxir.~atelv ik,20~ square Feet~ 647 ~r~ntter Court. -~AIVER OF PERNlTTEn TYPE OF FENCE Tn ~~NSTRUCT A~ENCE. Thare wag rw one ind(cattng their presence in oppnsition tn subJect requast~ +~nd although the stAff ~etx-rt was not read~ it Is ref~rred t~ and r-wde a ~art of the mfn~,,tes. Edward Sato~ ogent, w~s present t~ answer ~ny quesxl~ns. TNE PUBLIC HEARIN~ u115 C:.OSCb. Commisston~r F1c0urney asked if the fence wtll obsiruct anyone's vlew from the opposite sidn. M-. Sato stated the solid fence is 2 feet high with wrought iron on top of that and ~~c did not think anyo~e' view woul~l be obstructed. i t was noted tne ~'' l.~nn i ng D I r0ctor or .~ i s author i zcd rapresentAt i ve has determt ned that the proposed project falls withl~ the deFlnitlon of Cat~9uldellnes~nd,iss~ Class 3. as defined in the St~te E:nvironmentat Impact Report ~ t!+arefo~e, cate~aricaliy exempt from the requlrernent to prepare an EIR. ACTIOt~: Commissioner Harbst offered Re~olution ~~o. PC82-63 And moved for its passage an~ aanption th~t the Anahetm City Planntng Camrnlsston dc~es hc~eby grant VarlancQ No. 3259 on the basis that the solid ~art of che fenct will onlY be 2 feet high end the vehicular line of sight wili nat be obstructed and subJect t~ Interdepartmental Committe~ recorm+rndations. On rol) cell, the foragoing resol~ation was passed by the f~1lc~wtng vote: AYES : COMMI SS I ONERS: aARNES ~ 90UAS, EfUSHORE, FRY, hIERaS7 ~ KI N~ . McE1URNEY NOES: C~MMISSIONERS: NONE ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NUNE Chairman Bushor! cc.~mplimented the agent far coming before the Planning Commtsslon before building thn fence. 4 /5/82 ~._~..,.._. ~...._-~ I! \ MINUTES, AHANEIM CITY PLANNI~IC COMMISSION~ Aprll 5r 1982 A2-2A7 ITEM NA. 11: EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTI~IN•CIASS 5 AI~D VARIANCE N0. 326~; -----~ PUBLIC IICARiNG. OWNER: KEIT{1 AWD F.RMA J. WR~LSTAD~ 25? South Leandro Street, Anaheim~ CA ~2807. Property descrtbad as t+ rectangularly-shAped parcel of l~nd conalsttng of approximF+tety ~424 s~uare feet~ 2;2 South LeAndrn Street. uAI VERS OF ttAXl MUM FENCE HE t CNT AtIQ M 1 N i MUM S I DE YARD SETBACK T(1 CONSTRUC' A 6-FAQT HIGII l3LOCK wl1Ll ANp RUOM ADDITIA~I. There was no one tndicattng thelr preaence In oppc-sitton to suhJect ~equest~ and although the staff report wAS not reAd, it is referred t~ and made .~ part of the inl nutas. Kelth Wrolstad, awner, axplalnad they will be butlding a dintng r~m on the south aide and want t~ put ~+ stucco wall there for privr~cy and securtty. Ile pr~sented phat~igraphs of the ~roperty to show the cc~rner nf the wall. T-IE PUDLI C ti+cARl r~G uAS CLOSED. Paul Singer~ Traffic Enc~ineer~ ex~latned fror~ revir~wi~g the p1Ans, the wall wfll not interfere with appr~~ching traffic visih111t~. It was noted the Planning Director or his authartzed represent~tive hAS determined that the propased pr~iect f~~lls withln the definition of CategoricAl Exemptions~ Class 5~ as deftnei In the State Environmenta) Impact Repa~t Guidellnes and is~ therefore~ catcsg~arlcally exempt from the requlrement to prepsre An EIR. ACTION: Chalrman aushore offered Resolutton No. PC82-64 and mc~ved for its passac~e anc~ adoptlon that th~ Anaheim City Planning tommtsslon daes hereby grant Variance No. 32G0 on the basis that the walt, as pro~sed~ wil) not obstruct v~hicular line-of- sight and subject to interdepartme~~tal Committee reccummendations. Jack '~lhita~ Asslstant CEty Attornay, sugg~sted Candltlon No. 1 should be n+~difted to read "That the wall shall not~ hstr•~~ct vehicutar linr of-sight As determined by the City Traff(c Engineer. On rd 1 cali, the foregoing resoluti~n was passe~~ by the follc~wtng vote: AYES : C OMM I S51 ONERS : BARNES ~ EiOIIAS, DUSNQR~ ~ FRY ~-iERBST, F:I NG ~ McBURNEY NOES: GOMMISSI4NER5: NONE ABSENT: COMMiSSI0NFR5: S:~NE 4/ 5! 82 MINUTES~ ANAFI~IM CITY PLANFIING CQMMISSIO`I, Apri) 5. .982 ~S2'2f~ ITEM NQ. 12: EiR NEGAtIVE QECLARATI0~1 ArID~V11R1ANCE N0.32G2: PUBLIC ti~ARING. OWNER: aANCNO DEL R10 STABLE~ LTD.~ c/o Mr. J~ck Ka~ r~n~ Kaufm~n f, Lo~ber~ Attorneys nt Law~ G1end~le Federet Pieza~ 1192f~ Bern+~rde Court~ Suita tAi-A~ F,ancho 6ernerda~ Sen D1ego, CA ~21Z8. AfEMT: NAITA PROPERTIES, 1N~.~ ~>71 Bre+~ Ca~yon RoAd~ Suite 5- Welnut. CA 917a9. Property de~cribed ~s nn lrregulerly-shrpad parce) of'~and consisting of spproxtmetely 10.5 +~cres~ bounded an tf~• west by the Orange FreewAy, on the south by tha Southern Peciftc Railro~c!~ on the eest by the SAnte Ana River and Is further lc~cated a~pr~xlmAtely fi2~ feet scwth of the centerilne of Taf t Avonue . WA~VEa OF aEQUIRED LOT FRONTl1GE TO ESTADL1511 A T'Q-LOT SUBp!`.-~SI~N. Thure was no one i ndl cat i ~c~ the i r presence i n opp.~s i t i~n to suh,~oc t rec~ues t~ and althaugh the steff re~rt was not reed~ tt is referred t~ nnd n-~+de A part of the minutes. Commts~tonar Mcaurney declar~d a confilct ~f interest As defined by Anaheim City P1Anning Commission Reso~ution No. PC7~-157~ ~+~~~ti~g a f.onflict of ~nterest Code for the Planning Cammisston~ and Governme~t ~ude Sec.tlun 3(~~5 et seq.~ fn that he has a ffnanclal interest in the develoFment and~ ~~~rs~~snt ta the provlsions of the ~bove codes~ decl,;r~~d to the Chatrman that he was withArawlny from the h~arinq tn connectf~n with Varianca ~~o. 32!~2 and would nc~t take part in e!th~r the discusslon or the wting thereon~ and has r~t discussed• this r+atter wiih any n+ember of the plan~ing Coms~l.slan. Th~reu;~n~ ~nmmtaci~nr~r Ncf~urney left thc Council ChFxnber. Michael Todd~ agent~ str~ted they hAVn an optlon to purchase r, smal) ~rtl~n of the Rancho Del Rio St~ble property and it needs to be parcelized ~nd they are ~n escrow to purchase the adjactnt prnperty end are shifting the property Iines so cwat 1.7 acres of the ranch property be+comes pa~t oF the property they are purth~sing. 7'HE PUBLIC IICARING 'aA5 CLOSED. Responding to Chairmsn Qushore~ Jack'ahl~c. Assistant City Atterney~ explained the hear(ng was necessary because the ad.justment wr~uld be creating a new l~t. Respondlny to Camm(ssloner Ilerbst. Mr. Todd stated they witl be providing access to the stahle property as part of the~ir agreement and when the stable property develops in tha future, tti~ey wi 11 have access. lie stated they are contemplAting tndustri~l comrnerciat uses. probably a combination of offite and research nnd development type uaes. ACTtON: Cormtssioner Y.ing offered a motlon, secAnded hy Commissloner Herbst and MO- Tj N CARRIEO. th~at the Anahelm City Planning Commiss~on has reviewed the Aroposal to astebiish a two-lot subdtvision, wlth walver of required lot front~ge on an trregularly-shaped parcel of tand consisting of appr~xtmately 1~.5 ~cres b~unded on the west by the O~ange Freeway~ on the seuth by thc Southern Pacific Railro~d, on the cast by the Santa Ana River~ approximately 620 feet south of the cent~rline of Taft b/ S/82 ~ MINUTES~ ANANlIM CITY PLAI~NING COMMISSION~ Aprt1 5~ 198x gx•~A4 Aven~~e; snd d~o~ hersby approve the Nrgative O~clsratlen from the requiroment ta p~ep~re •n anvtro~ntal im~+ct rep~rt on the ba:ls that tha~e would be nc~ stgnificent tndivldual or Gumulatl~d adverse e~vlronmenteS impACt due to ~hh epprave~ of this Neqa~tive Decleratlon since tha AnHhelm Gmner~l Pl+~h designdtes tht subJect property for ganere) ~ndust~lal land uses commensurr.te with the propos+~1~ that n~ senaltiv~e environmantal impRCts are tnvolved In the pre~osal; thet the Initir) Study subn+ttted by the petttion~r Indlcetas rx~ stgnlflca~t individual or cumulAtive ~dvArse env(romm~nta) Impacts; end th~t the N~gettve DeclarAtinn ~ubst~r,tt~ting thc foregoln~ findings Is on file in the City of AnAheim Planning ~epartment. Commi ss i aner I:1 n~ of fereA Resol ut lon No , PG82-6 ~ and moved for 1 ts ~ASSAC1e and acic~pti~n thr~t the Aneheim Clty Planning Cammtsston dc~as herehy grr~nt V~rlance No. 3262 on the basis that 'he access easement agreements wi11 be submitted gueranteeinc~ acceaa M botn p~rcels and aul~Ject Ln Interdepnrtrr~ental C~r-mtttee recenM+-endatic~ns. On n~i) call~ the foragoing resolutt~n wns pas~ed by the f~iilowing v~te: AYES : CoMHI S51 ~~iERS : aARNES ~[t0uA5, DUSHOR[ ~ FRY ~ i~Ea~ST ~ KI kr, NQES: C4h1MISSIONERS: F~(1tJE A65ENT: C011MISSIONERS: MCEIURNEY ITE11 t~0. 13: Elk CATEGORICIIL CXEMPTIt~N-CLA~~S 1 ANO VARIANCE Nf1. '32f~: __.~.. - -- PUBI.I C t1EARi tIG. OYlttER; MARVI t~ AND SHI RLEY riFeEi~~ 1~i0 Newpart Center Dri ve ~ Sut te 230, tlewport Beach~ CA ~266~. Froperty descrlbed as a rectAngularly-shaped parcel of land cons(sting af ~pproxtnu~tely .~~~~ acre~ ifl4A Glencrest ~vcnue. WAIVERS OF MINIIIUM 51TE nRfA PER DuELLING UNIT~ t11NIMUM FlUOP AR~A PEP, p~,JELLING UNIT ANp MI tl) t~1M NUMBEa ~F PARKI ~~G SPACES TO RE7AI N TIIREE i LLERAI AP.4RTMf.~IT Uf11 TS. There were three persons +~dicating their pr~sence in f~vc~r to subJect request~ and althc>ugh the staff ra~art wAS not read, it 1~ r~feri~ed to and made a part op the minute;. Floyd Fare~no, sttorney~ 2555 E. Chapman Avenue~ Fullerten~ st~ted the tlebens purthased thls proparty (n 1977 as an 18-untt apartmenL complex and did not ~eallte unti) approxin~tely 2 months ~+go~ when the property w~s inspected prtor to betng sold, that thrae of the units were converted tllegalty. tie st~ted Mrs. Taylor who has lived there slnce 197~~ is present And cen testify that there were 18 units ~xist tng wh~n sh~ mc~ved there. ile stated there were rx~ stru~t.rA) changes to the complex in the ccmversian of these three units. Concerning the parkt~g spaces~ Mr. Farano stated even if this request is denied, the parking spACCS w~uld rxat he adequate under todAy's standards; hawever, when the units were constructed tn the 60's~ the spaces conformesci to Code requlrements +~nd the additiona) raqulrements w~rs appr~ved lAter. ~le stAted the three bachel~r untts are 4/ S/ 82 NINUTES, ANAHEIN CIYY PLANNING COMMISSIAI~~ Aprt) 5~ 1g82 82•210 occupied br thrce msn ond Mo of thexn do not ewn a vehicle~ s nd theL the~o ~re 1~ vehlcles cwmed by 18 residents. THE PUOI.IC t1~ARINR WAS CLOSEO. ChalrmAn Uushore asked N~. Farano to Justlfy grentin~ this ~~ quest rnd ~skeA hc~w the Commissior-~ ln the futu~e~ cnuld deny stmilnr requests f'or I1 lec~~l units~ Including yerage oanverslons. Mr. Ferano stoted in thfs sttuatSan the converslon was done r l~ng time ago and no one even knew It had heen done, sn it cert~t~ly h~s nc,t crested arty kind ef problen+ in the netghborhood. tle stated he coul d not offer Just ittcat lon whera s~r~~eone h~d intmntlonal ly cronted an illegal untt and whoever dtd this w~s wronq, Ile presented photographs ~f the Inside of thesc throe units tn ~uestion an d noted they ~re certetn~y hablt~+ble f~r humana and dc, nc~t create health hnza~d~. Ile st~+ted he did ~~:: think the Comr+issl~n should t~lerate gAra~.~a conversions but he did not think thts converalon crentas any problems, I~e noted two ~f tha units rfe nc~t have kltchens a~d he hed inf~rrrr.d his tllents that tt is possible the Commission would raqul~e that kitchen faclllttes be Installed tf this ts approv~d. ~1e sta t ed he dtd not think this Is m~iCh d(fferent than other bachelor unlts whlch h~v~ been granted lhr~ughout Anah~, t m. Chairi+~nn dushore stated if thts is approvcd, other people wtth simltar converstor~s wtlt ~e requesting the same thing and he dtd not see how the Canmissinn could de~y tt~ose requests. f1r. Farano stnted certa(nly the Commisstan has approved illegal conversl~ns in the pASt And he canr~t ergue with the phtlosephy that p~ple who iliegally enlarge their rasldentlal property should be ~ilowed to do it~ but he felt thls ts different h~cause this property owner did not do the cc~nversion and he Is the onty person who w~~uld be punished and the Comnisslon has a long histary and ~ tot ~f precQden~.s have been set for the pr.rson who does the o~nverston getttng bang ~d on the head a little end then the canverston (s approved. tle stated he ~id not Mnew that th~ Commisston had ever turned one down where the conditions did not impose a hardship on the community and did not present a oondlt~an unfit for hun~n hs bltatlon. Chairnv~n B ushore stated he ls r~c aware of any in the pnst four yeera th~t have been approved~ i~ciuding garaye :.nnversions. Mr. Farano stated he agrees wlth denytng q8ra~~ converatons because they are easily co~verted back and atso they deprlve the area of eff-street narking. IIe stated they arn s lmply thrrnving themse:l ves on the mer~y of the Commtss{on and ife fel t the Fu~ishr+ent shc~uld itt the crt~ and the crim(nat. b/5/82 ~ MINUTES~ AqANE1N CIT1l ~'LANNlN~ COMHISSI~N, April 5~ 1^`~2 A2-211 Conanissione~ Harbst steted ~he property owne~ is r-ow findlnq out that the unfts are Illegal b~causo h~ Is trying to sell tha pr~perty ~nd asked why he did not find thet out when he purchased tho p~operty . Mr. Fernno steted M~. Neben prc~bebly essun~d the gltuatinn w~s proner An~t dtcl nat reccg~lze that the u~i ts we~e ill~agel. Mr. Nabens ststed he purchascd the pr~perty frnm A re~l estrte hroke~r ~~nd presumed evarythtng w~s flne; that he did not think he purchasod fror~ thg orlginAl c~wner~ but that the owner Ms purehaeed tho untts from h,~d awned them for ~ lonc~ ti~ne. Ne stated he does not belleve in owning property which does mt c~mn1Y w~th requlrements ~nd he wents to have thts corrected, ~le stated thts complex lo~ks ifke tt Is absolutely n~oper and there was e~othinc~ to m~ke him suspect th~s: it wasn't. Ile stated the three olderly gentlemen who live thoro w~uld be tlie portles who wnuld he affected; that they reelly feel the bRet use of this buildinc~ Is ~s is and whnt it h~s been for al l these yaars and the tenants ere very happy. Chairmnn tiushore asked sfnee ~1r, Neben Is ~n attorney, would hc not wr~nt to remedy the situatlon back to the p~rson who origtnally sold the property to him impr~perly and tndicrted it upset! h~m to think tha~ a real estr~t~ hrokor soid the property in this s) tuation. FI~ stated right nc~w there are two tenants there who dn nat hdve vehlcles but if this is apc~rovQd, th~se ten~ncs could move and the noxt tenants m~y hava vehlcles And the~e Is a parking problem in the ncighborhood elready. Mr. tiebens steted any group of tenants could have mor~ cars than garages, but the buildtng Is constructed in a rr~nner which appears there were enough rarking spaces In garages when th~ b~, i 1 ding was bui 1 t and the rest of the nef ghborhood was bui l t at the same t ime w( th thc same rectul rome~ts . Commissioner Y.tn9 asked if 1ir. I~eben would be wit i ing to correct the sltuatl~n over a period of years by el iminating the problem. Mr. Farano stated that would not correct the p3rktnq problem hecause parking was legal for the property when It was bullt and the parking sp~ccs were provided according to Code. Jack White stated the p~rktng variance is at tssue here because an attempt to legitimtze throe addTtlona~ units wr~s rt~de and if these three units were deteted, the park i ng woul d be 1 ega 1 nc~n-canforrni ng even though i t is def ic 1 ent. it was noted the Planning ~(rector or hts authorized representative has determirted that the proposed proJoct falis within the deftnition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1~ as defined in ti~e State Environmental ImRact RePort Guidelines and is, therefore~ categor 1 cal ly exempt f ~om the requ T rement to prepere an E I R. 4/ 5/ 82 ~ MINUTES~ AtIAf~EIN CITY PLANNING COMMISSIAN~ Anrii 5~ t~a2 8Z-21? ACTION; Comrnisslaner 11~rbst offered R~solutlan No. pC~2-6~ and moved for its pe~saqe an a ptlon thAt the An+~helm Ctty Pl~nning C ar~mtsst~,n doss hereby grnnt V~riance No. 32G4, granting walver (a) o~ the basis tFret ft pertalns tn only cne unit~ and en the basi• that similar ruquests hAVe been qranted In the sAn+~ rane ~nd vicinlty ++nd deni~) would deprive sub~ect p~operty af ~rtvileqes enloyed hy ethe~ pr~pertles (n thA seme zone and vtcinity; and grrntinq woiver (b) on the bnsis thet bachelor untts hava been gr~nted on stmiiar-alzed preperties in the san~ zone and vicintty and subJect to the condition that kitchen AfPicfenGy units shall he tnst+alled In the two units vihich currently cb not havo kitchen f~ctlities and gronting watver (c) nn the basls that due to xhe sl=e of the three units~ less parking is r~quired and that the units did conform to Code when o~iginally built ~nd aubJect to Interd~partrn~ntai ~ Commlttee recor.xnendatl~ns~ t~cludtng the conditlnn thrt the unlts shall he brought up to mintmum bullding codes wlthln GO dsys. Commisston~r tlerbst clarifled he Is offartnc~ A resc~tuti~n for Approval of these unttg bncause they have been existing for nu~ny yeAra without ~ny detrirr~ntal affect en the surroundiny area a~d to convert them back would penalize the panple who live in the units and create a hardshlp on the property own~r wha purchesed the units tn thls existing condition and that any simllar requasts in the future wlil be reviewed on a case-by-case basls. Chairman Qushore st~ted he can see approval of this re~uest opontng ~ can ef worms and he could not vate for approval of something that ts wrong ~nd co~~ld nc~t see any Justtfication. !1r. ~arano steted normally he would ayree with ChatrmP+n ~ushore's appnsition hut perhaps the best control would be with the ftnanctng institutions becAUSe they do roqui~e ins~ctlans before flnaliztnq I~ans. On roll call, the f~regoing resolution was passed hy the f~t)~wing vntc: AYES: COMM15510NEftS: BARNES, QOUAS~ FRY, I~ER95T~ v.INr, f~0E5: CO-1M1 ~S iONERS: BUSNORE ~ HcUURNCY ABSENT: COMMI S51(1NE~tS : NONE ITEM N0. 14: EIR NEGATIVE QECI.I~RATION, RECLASSIFICATION M0. $1-$2-18 AN~ VARIANCE r~o . 2 : - PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: TI1~LF1A M. ANp FIENRY B. tlESSELN, 1717 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim~ CA 92801. Prope~ty dascrlbed aa a rectangulariy-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately .kG ecre~ 1b1 South UAIe Avenue. RECLASSIFICATION REQUEST: RS-A-43.000 to P.M-12A0. VARIANCE RE~ilEST: UAIVERS OF MIMiMUM BUILQING SITE AREA PER UNIT~ IIAXIMUM STRUCTURA~ HE t GHT AND N I!1) MUM LANDSCAPED SETEiACK TO CONSTRUCT A 16-Utl l T APARTMEMT CLIMQLEX. ai sia2 MINU'T~S~ At~ANE1M CITY PLANNING COMMiSS10N~ April 5~ 1982 82-x13 There ~~ere Mo persons indic~ting thelr P~esAnCe (n oppasition to subJe~t request. and althou9h the staff report was not read, tt ta r~ferred to end moda n p~~t ef th~ ~nl nutes. 5tanley Wise, 242 fbrth Cemino Rayale~ A~ahelm~ steted the project Is a 1~-unit apartme~t cort~lax on Dal~ Ave,nue~ Juet south of Llncoln .,nd they have met with sta~f and agreod to the recorm~sndat tons. t1e s tated they tr I ed to ~rnv I ~!e a 1 1 v~b le situatior~ by fecing the units to the na~th rather th~n to the south t~w~~ds the ~lood contro) r~ha~nel ~ Ile stated M~. Singer ha~ reconxnonded reversinq the pro,lect by 180 d~greas~ but they feel the plan~ as praposed~ is mare suitable f~r future oxpanston of the pr~~perties to the north. Jack White+~ Assistant Clty Attorney, asked thet the lASt two sentences of Gonditto~ No. 2 be n~adifled to ~ead: "Th~t snid securtty shell be pnsted wtth the City prior to the ~pprov.~l of tmprovement plans~ and the abovQ-rec~ulrcd Improvements shali be installed ~~rior to occuponcy". Dwight and Avenida Auchard~ 13a South Dale, sCnted they own the ~roperty next do~r to the n~rth and if thf~~ rezoninq for apartrrMnts Is permttted~ they feel it is only re~so~abls qnd fair to ask thac the Plannlnr~ Cortmission enforce the privacy ragulatlons deslgned to protect stngle-femily restdenttal propertl~es. Mr. lluchard stated if garac~es ~re bult +: under twa-stnry ~partrn~nts this woul d be the srme 85 havi~c~ thrae stti-ry a{~artments looktny down on them. lie stnted he butlt hts tiome hims~lf thirty-three years ago and it has al! klnds of `ruit and nut trees ~nct is a nice pl.sce. Nrs. Authard stated they do not want apartments huilt on thls prc-perty so close to thetr propert•y. Shrs stated they ha~i revicwed the pl~ns thls mc~rning. Re~ponding to Conrnissioner Fry~ Mr. Auchard stAted hts property is apprhxirt-~tely one acre. Mr. Uise sta tr~d on the south prc~perty 1 inc where the twa-st~ry unt ts are locdted above the parlci~g~ this will be a camplete blank wali because they de not want to have any windcw+s that wa~eld overloc~k the Auchard's property and that they do have p~ivate patib decks wfiich wiil provide mare recrertion-leisure space tha~ requlred. TE!E PUaLIC FiEARING wAS CL65ED. Commis3loner Fry stated he feeis :he proJect is better as propased and not reversed as reconmendeG by the City Traffic Englneer and as tt is, there is no vtsual intruslo~ into the property ad)oining to the narth. Ct~airman Dushnre asked if the 201 dw~il tng units a~e higher Lhan twcrstory. Mr. Nise replled it is a full three-atary structure and does bac~ up to tfie proRerty wtthin k/ 5/82 ~ MINUTES~ 11NAilE1M CITY PLANNINf+ CAMMISSION, Ap~li 5~ 1q82 ~2•21W approxim~+tely 65 fset. He explalned the back units are 8 feet fr~m the property 11ne which meets the City Code requirements. It was noted the Auchard's hous~ ts about 40 feet frRm the property line. Chetrman aushore explatned to Mr. end ~1ra. Aucherd thet the Planntng Commisslo~ takes ~ lot of thinga into conslderatton before their decislons anc' one ef them is hc~w the pro,ject will h~rm the neighbar~ or how It will pr~aper thes netghbors. -le ~inted out th~t somed~+y this d~cisi~n cauld help the Auchards in develcpinq their property, making it more value because ~f the density; wher~as~ If It Is 1lmited and they wtsh to develop, th~l~ nelghbors on the north could abJect. Ile pointed out the closest thing ta them would be a blank wall. accordtng to these pinns. Mrs. Auchard stated the plans shc~wed windows and there is a cirtv~way close t~ their property linc. It wAS noted tf the proJett was reversed~ the garages woutd not provide A buffer and people would be throwing trash over the fence~ etc. Mr. AuchArd at~ted th~y ar~ only asking that thelr privacy be pr~tected. Chatrman ~ushore stated he felt the prlvacy wlll be protected; hawever. thelr v(ew may be obstructed a Ilttle. but d5 lang As the devel~~me~t doesn't hurt the property next door~ it should be developed as the ow~er sees fit. !1r. Auchard stated the further away the apartmants are and the more out of stc~ht they are~ the happtcr he will be. 11e stated they would Just lik~ Lo see the laws enforced for ~roperty being developed ad)acsnt to single-far+ily resid~nti~l. Commissioner 6arnea stat~:d the apartn+~nts would be on the opposite slde, away from the Auchards property except fQr one end. Mr. ulse explaine~ the plans to Mrs. Auchard anc! it was noted the generai plan deslgnatton on thls property is for medium denstty re~idential. F1~. Aucha~d statad he understands they t-ave to kcep the twa~story units 150 feet from the stngle-f,~mlly mned property. Chairman Ilushore sta ted the petittoner has the rlght to ask for a vartence and has to prove there is a hardship for granting a vartance. Responding to Chairnu~n Bushore. Oean Sherer explalned the he~ght waiver pertained 10 the property to the north end also the praperty across the street on ~ale and that !:here is no resoluiton of intent and the current generai plan designatiort is far medlum denstty rasidentiai and the currant m~ing is RS-A-G3~OOA. ~isia2 .~ ~ NINUTfS~ ANANEIN CITY h~AI~NI~Ir, CQMMISSI011~ Aprl) ~, 1~f32 62•215 Mr. wisa steted thP prnperty Is anly 96.8 fe~t wide an Oale Avenue; that nost apartme~ta bulit today e~e extarior to ext~rior stucco enct th~y nre trytng to us~ more l~nc~v~tions end technoingy wlth wood aldiny~ ~+tc. to help enh~nce a hetter e~vironmant fer :he people to the nerth; th~t they are adding r+~re dQt++11 such as decar~ttve handrells~ etc.; that the property Is design~ted fer muTtiple•femtly untts and there ~re 1~-fqot satbacks In the fr~ant at the tower itself and they are hoidtng back 17 feot f~rom th~ nnw right-of-way; thsc they hbve to dedicete 25 f~t t~ the City for tha rrideninq of` Dal~ Avenue; that they plan t~ lendscape nnd have dec~rAttve walls~ etc. ~le nxplained tl~ey have worked wtth ~taff Goncernsng the t~ash ~oc~tlon and heva sAtisfled ths SanltAtion Division requtrements. Commisslaner McEiurney asked if the p~sslbiltty of ustng n common driveway t~ the south hes been pursued anci Mr. t11se repiied that was tnvestlgeteA and Is not posslble. Mr. ~11se stated thoy de have ~ 1Q•foot ingre~s nn~i cc~ress eas~ement for Percel No. 2 which is a lanA-locked parCe) to ~he rear. Ile st~ted whcn the other A~+Artments we~e ciev~loped to the rear~ they werQ only ~i5 feet aiwoy fron+ this praperty to the ~rth and asked why thAt wasn'c a requlre~nent at that ttme. Mr. Wise stated the gr~dc of thts property !s I~wer than other propcrties on Qate and they will hav~e to bring In ftll dirt and bring the property up to i te 2 feet above Dale Avonue. Chairman bushore asked if the posslb111ty of providing aff~rdable hausing has been explor~d. fie stAted the City Council has a poltcy of nc~t ailowing r.wre than 25$ density bonuses and than only if there is 25T affordable housing prnvided. Mr. 41i~e stated that the affordable -~ousing issue was braught up at the meeting but they did nat pursue it. Oean Sherer stated the City Caunctl's policy appiles to condrnnlniums and spartrnents and n~ rmally when a developcr approaches Pl~nning St~ff for e density bonus, they are acivised of the policy regarding nffordabtlity end it Ts thelr option to either pursue that ar A varfance. Mr. Nesseln~ p~operty owner~ explained there is a 10-foet ease+-~nt at the re.~r nf the property And the property owner's atCorney has advised th~n that es scx~n as the property becomes one p~;operty. th~ 10-foot eesement wt)1 be eltrninated. Chalrmsn aushore stat~d he realizes there are some hardships bec~use of dedttations end topography, but they a~e rx~t unuaual and would be encountered tn r~~y development and he ~rsonally takes thls Job seripusly snd untii the pc,licy ts changed~ he has to follaw it. 4/5/82 ~~ ~ NINUTES, ANN~61H CITY i'LANNIf1G CANMISSION, April 5~ 1~82 82-x16 Jsck Wfitte st~ted the density bo~us th~t Is pR~missable under the stnte l~wv ts a mandate fmm the st++te gevernment thet applles In instances where se celled "affordeble" housing is provided and provldes th~t tf not tess th~n 2;~ of the tot~l number o! units being conat~ucted are elther re~ted or sold tn f~milies with l~w or moderate Incanw~ ths City t~ nr~ndatai~ wtthuut a vertance~ t~ gr~nt e density bonus of not loss than 2~$ or two other types of bonuses . Ile stnted on the ether h~~nd ~ wher~ thn d~vqlopo~ does nnt see fit tn t++~:e ~dv~ntec~e of th~t partlculer mendate of lt~w~ but files for a v.~rtence~ not withstAnding the Councli's ~olicy~ it is stlil a rt-t+tter of lsw~ and if he c~n lagally justlfy tho c~rnnting of the v~riAnce the Plr~nning Commission or Clty Countll nu~y ap~rove It and he d1~1 nat belleve it w~+t a City Councll !ntcnt to edo~t e~licy thet vitllat~s ~+ ~rovis~nn ~f efthe~ the state law or ordinr~nces and our ordl~ances dc~ provlde that a varirnce can be~ yranted even though thero is na aff~rdahlc housing Aqreement. Ne st~ited this developer h~s not chosen to provide an afford~~bl~ type proJect; tharef~r~~ is not lc~ktng for dernsity bonus es e motter of rtght and Is seeking a vAriance nnd the question is reaily whether or not he has denranstr~i.ed there ts a hnrdship on the pr~perty to justify the granting nf thc ~nive~s. Gommtsstaner Ilarbst stat~d this is a reGtangularly-shApecl p1~te of property ~nd is not unusual and psked ha~ the cM vei~p~er cou1A Justify the hardsh(p. 11e stAted fic felt there ~re ,just too n+any units f~r the parcel. Cha-(rman Bushore stated the (.on~mfssion is snying th~y would 111:e t~ help but f~r dlfferent ~eosons havc rx~t been ablc to Justlfy in their cw+~ mfnds grantTng of thc vartAnce. Mr. Wesseln stated he owns ~ few opertr~nts ln 1lnahefm and has about 1I,0 peoale ~~ A waiting tist and most of them are retirec; people And he is lrx~king for sma11 condensed ~nits whera a group of stxteen f<~r~iltes c~n live. ~ie strted he has been in the business for tweive years and dn~s try t~ crowd tha untts. He st~tcd on Drc~okhurst 73 units per acre wtth three-ato ry units were const~ucted and he knows thaC it has benn done and ap~rtmants arc needed in A~aheim. !1e referred to Webster Street property where a small 16f1-bv il~-fac~t parcel was ~~~+roved for twelve units. lie stated he has be~n watching a~id asked what }ustifieation was used on that prep~rty (Webster and Orange). Ne st~ted there arc fourteen untts on another property . on less than 1/2 acre. tte stated he thought this would be ~ gcx~d place for retirement un1Cs. Commissloner Herbst stated the applEcant cr~n ga to t~:e Housing Auth~rtty and get a density bonus by providing 15~ uf the untts A4 affard~bl~. I~e stated the Cornr++lsston is looktnc~ for a way to grant these variances and riqht n~H th~y cannot do it. Responding td CammissiAner McEDurney~ Mr. ~'esseln stated the rents will be hetw~en 39U end 404 dollars A rn~nth for a one-bedroom ~nit. 4/5/82 ~' i M I NUTES ~ 11NAHE 1 N C I TY PLANN ( NC CAMMI SS I f1M, Apr 1) 5~ 1q82 A2-217 Chalrm~n ~ush~o~e stafied the proJeet et 715 Sauth Websto~ wr~s 100$ eff~rdabie. N~ strted he dc+ea not 11ke •ubsidtzed housing but thc Commisslon'a hends Are tled unless these units arA aff~~rdoble er unle~~ the petittoner can prove hardshlps on the property. Mr, ues~seln refe~red to 10 units ~n 1lebster on a sm++ll 1ot. Chalrman Bushore st~ted he dld not think Lhere was a dansity bonus tn that tnst~nce and the ~pprovel had to da with the+ height a1c~r,4 because the p~ope~ty carnered on two properttes. Nr. uesseln steted he had trtad te buy that prc+perty end was told he woutd only be allowed to have four units and then tt was epprove for 1~ unita and hrs the tr.~sh sitting rlght on Orange Avenue. IIe stated he thought the City of Anahelm wAS leaning tawArds provtding mnre apArtments. Chalrman fiush~~re respondod the City is leaninq Cc~wards prnviding more housing and that this is a good project, but th~ere ts no Justificatton for approval ~f the dons 1 ty . Mr. Wessaln stated they had this pro~Prty in escr~w and r~t with st~ff and pencilod out the pro)ect and a reat est~te agent had indlcetcd (t ~+ould handle 2f1 units. Ile stated after worktng wlth the Trssffic Lngineer and stAff~ they have come up wtth 16 units and stated they do keep the(r uniCs and cfc~ not s~ll them. Cheirman t~ushore stated if the proJect has t~ be two stortcs ln order to get the density, the rea) problem {s overbullding the pro)ect. He pc~lnted out the Anaheim Codes have been reduced conslderably i~ recent ye~rs and the Commisslon t3 constAntly trying ta create more ho~asing~ but cannot keep granttng wr~tvers wlthou~ Justiftcation, t1r. Wr~ssein referred ta the Cfnnamon liollow proJect clase ta the freeway which w~s supp.ase to be For l~w lncoms families. Gh~irman O~rs~hore stated that of the 8$ units., 18 v~r:re supposed to be affordable hausing end the areA wes alrr~st ~+ acres. Ile statrci the pctitioner is r•equesting tha Commissio~~ to do samething thcy have not done for an~~one else. tle asked if the petttioner would like a continuAnce ta see what he can WOrk OuL. C:,rtmissioner McB urney stated this 15 a very attractive project and would be an as~s~t to the City and he hoped the petitioner can work s anething out. Commissiane r Fry stated he thtnks it ts a deplorahle situatfon when a develeper con~s in wlth an outstanding prnJect and~ t~ Gssence~ the law says if he wtil rsdestgn Ctn~ proJect and sell or rent it to those on government subsidy. he can g~t special dispensations which the Planning Commission is forced to give him~ but if he wa~ts ta do It on hts own, the Commission is not permitted to do anything. b/5/82 ---__LL.~4 MINUTES~ ANAfiEIM CITY PIANNING COMMISSION~ Aprll 5. to~2 82-21g Commi~sion~r tlerb~t ~tated if the develop~r p~~viries low c.~st housing~ he Is antl~led to thase bonuses enci the Commisal~n crnnot ke~p chnngtng In the middle of the streem and granting bonuses when other property owners wer~e n~~ gtven the SarrM privileqes. Anntk~ Santal~fitf~ Assistant Director for Zonln~, strtod the City does have An RM- 1Q00 z~me which wes deslgned for sites etther ~n thA ciowntown Arna n~ heve some particular slte conditions such as the Ltncoln Roach Mobilehome Park and the ordinrnce ellc»vs density up t~ 2G~ highe~ th~n the cur~ent Codr., but the sites cannat be Just any rectanqular shaped parcel a~d it hes to have specl+~l circumst~nces and the ~nly one which has be+~n Ide~tified hes t~e.en the Lincoln tiench Mobilehort-e Park whict~ has soma very difficult rel~cation issues and the site hns to be c1e~+red befere beln,y develc+ped, etc. ~nd thrt stefF has ~at talked tn anyone olse where these ctrcumsta~ces w~ulci apP1Y. ACTION: Commissioner Fry offere~ n mot~on~ seqc3nded by Commissinner I~erbst AnA M ~ CARRIED. thnt constderation of the efore-mantioned nwtter be conttnued to the rer~ule~ly-scheduted meeting of ~pri) 1g~ 1~132~ a~t the request of the petltloner. I TEM ~ta0. 1 ~t REPORTS AtID RCC0~IME~IpATI ~J~IS The foilawing RQports and Recc~r~nend.ations st~ff re~rts a~ere presented but nnt read: l~. CO~~DITIOIIAL USE PERMIT N0. 1612 - Request from ponald L. Shafer for extens on o t me on pfoperty ocated at 12~3 uest lincoln Avenue. ACTION: Commissloner I;i~g offcred a motion~ seconded hy Comintssioner Ilerbst anci MbTION :ARRIED (Ch~'rm~n Bushnre ahstAinin~), that thc Anahelm City Planning Comnisslon cin~,s Iier~R~y grant ~ ~nryear extensinn of time for Condlttonai Use Permlt I~o. 1811 to expire on April 10, 14R3. B. VARiANCE t~0. 17~ - Rec~uest from Den~ts W. Aese for terminAtion of Vartance I~o.~'j9~ ~~or pr~perty located at 701 East Cyprr.ss Street. ACTION: Commissiorer Klnc~ offered Resolution No. PC82-~7 and rrx~ved for its passage and adcyption that the Anahetm City Planntng Commission does hereby terminate Variance ~~o. 17~0. On roli c:all, the foregotng resoluti~n was passed by the foliowing vote: AYES: COMMI S51 QNF.RS: UARNES ~ E30UA5 ~ BUStIORE. FRY ~ IIERBST~ 1;1 NG, hkBURNEY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: N~NE AE3SENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE C. raNDIT14N4L USE PERM17 N0. 1748 - Request from bale C11is, tiJebe~r Stationa ry. or axtens on o t me or Cun ttonal Use Permit No. 174a on property located at 2511 Wast La Palma Avenue. ACTION: Commisstaner Y.ing ~ffered a motio~~ secanded by Commissioner Herbs~ a~'FSTION CARRIED, that tha Anahetm City Planning Commissien does h~ •eby grant a retrosctive extension of time for Canditianr~l Use Permft No. ~ 48 to expire o~ Septenb er 12, 1983. 4/5/82 MINUT~S~ ANAi~EiM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ April 5r 1q82 n2-219 D. CONDITIONAL USE PERM_IT N0. 2071 • Request fror- Harnid M. W~ight for ~n extans on o t me~ or ~n t ona) Use Parmit No. 2f171 on property located ~t 12A0 Sunshlne Way. .ACTION: Conrnisstoner Kinc~ offerecl a rt+~tl~n~ sec~nd~d by Commission~r Ncrbst ~,na~f'1~`T1011 C.4RRIEb, thnt the Anel,eim Clty P1Annin~ Cor~misslon dees hereby c~rAnt a one-yeAr extensinn of t Ime t~ ~x~i r~ nn ~prt 1 21 ~ 1~1A3. E. AaANDONMEF~T N0. 91-~ • Request from W)11 lem S. ~~an~s to abAnd~n ~ pc~rtlon 0 on ex st ng oasement for e~ac! nnd ~ubilc utilitY p~~rposes~ l~c;~ted o~ the s~uth slde af Center Street~ west of State Coileqe Qoulevard. IC was nc~ted tha Plonntng Uiract~r or hl~ authorized representative has datarmined ttiat tha proposed proJAct falls wlthin the deftnitton of Cateyorlcel Exemptions~ Cl~ss ;, as deftnKd tn the State Environment~~! Impact ~?eport Guidellnes and is, therefort~ catectorlcr+ilY exempt frnm ~he re~ulrement to prepere an EIR. ACTIf!~I: Ccx+m,lssioner Kl~g offered a rtx~tt~n, s~-cnnded by Commtssirntr Herbst an t401'ION CARRIED~ thAt the Antth~im City Planning Cc~rnmissi~n d~~s herehy ~ecormiend ta the City Council appr~,val of Abandonment No. F1-2~A a~ recommended by the City Cngineer. F. AC3ANDONMEt~T ~~~. 81-22A • Request from C. L. "larunn tn abAndr~.n tfie easterly ~~0 eet a the ex stine~ 1h.~0 font Mrid~ esser~+ent f~r inc~~r,ss end egress loc~te~.i along the westerly property llne of Lot 2: ~f Tr~ct No. 2111 located an the nc~rth s i de of C res twc~od Lane ~t ~7~1 '~est C restwmcf t.nne. it was noted the Planning Uirector or h(s authv~ized re~r~sentativc has determined that the propased pr~)cct fafls withir, thc definition of Categorical FxcMptions. Class S~ as dcfined in thr. Str~te Environment~+l Impact R~~rt Guidellnns and is~ ther~forf~ cate xr(cAlly ~xempt from the requirement to preparc an EIR. ACTION: Lommissioner King offered a motlon, seconded by C~mmtssioner flerbst and NOT'ION C1IRRIEQ. that the Anahelr+ City Planning Cornmiss~on does hereby recorwnend Co the City Councll approval of lib~ndc~nr+ent No. R1-22A as recommended by the City ~ngineer. G. ABANDONMENT I~O. 81- - Request from Ilal l~ Foreman t~ ~bandon a f~rmer Southern Californta Edtson Company Public Utiltty easement acquired by the City of l~nahetm~ as successor, located at the northrres*_ corner ~f La Palma Avenue and Kemp Street. It wes noted th~s Pl~nning Qirectar or hls autharized representative has determined that the propcysed proJect fA11s within the d~ftnltion of Cateqorical Exemptions, Class 5~ As deftned tn the 5tate EnvlronmGntal Impact aepo~t Guidelines and is~ therefore, cateqoricnlly exe~npt from the requirernent to prepare an EIR. ACTIAN: Comnissioner Ki~g offered a n~tian~ seconded by Commisslaner Nerbst and M~TION CARRIEU, that the Anahetm City plAnning Gammtssion daes hereby recommend to the City Council approvai of Abandonment No. Q1~~ as recorm-end~d by the Ctty Engineer. 4/5/82 . y~ ...: ... { :.. .. " ';; ..,5,_~ 4/d ~.. .~, ' ~ ~ , . , ~ ~ .. MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNtNa COMMiSS10N~ Aprtl 5~ 1982 8x-22A ~1. AHANOONMENY N0. E~1-26A - Rsquest trom An~cel Enfll~eertng Company to ebandc~n s orrtwr ut e~n a fornla Edison Company Publtc Utility eas~nent Acqui~ed by the City of Anaheim~ ss successor~ l~cated e~st af Harhor~ north of Orungewood Avenue. It was noted the Pl~nning Qirector or hts ~uthorize~f rapresentettva h~s determined thAt the propose~7 proJact falls wtthin the definlti~n of Cetagorlc~l Exemptions~ Cintss 5~ ss defined tn the St~te EnviranmentAl Impnct Report Guldalines ~n~i Is~ theraf~~e~ categericeily exempt fr~m thm re~ulremant ta prel+are en EYR. ACTION: Gommlastoner King offared a mntlon, secended by Cammiset~ner tlerbst ~nc~'T~I(1N CARRIED, th~t tha llnahelm City Planning Ccmmisslen does hereby recomnand to th~ Ctty Cnuncll eppraval of Absndonment Na. A1•26A aa recommended by the Ctty Engin~er. ADJf1URNNENT There betng nc~ further E~ustness~ Commlas(oner -~erbst offared e mntion, secendod by Cannisstoner Bou~~s and Mt3TI0P~ C4RRIE0~ tlu+t the meetlncl bR adJourned. 1he meettn~ was adjournecl et ~4:~0 p.m. Respectfully submittc~~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ Edtth L. flarris~ Secretary An~eheim Ctty Planning Conm~lssion EH:Im 4/5/62 _ :::~