Loading...
PC 1984/02/06REGULAR MEETING OP THB ~NANEIM CITY PL~NNING COMMI3SIpN REGULAR MEETING The ceqular meetir-g oE the Anaheim City Planning C'ommisaion w~s called to order by Chairwoman Bouas at 10:00 a.m., February 6, 1984, in the Council Chamber, a quorum being p~eaent and the Commission reviewed plans of the items oi~ t~day'e agenda. RFCESS: 11:30 a.m. RECONVENE: 1:35 p.m. PR£SENT Chaicwoman: Bouas Commiaeioners: Buahore, Kerbat, King, La Claire ABSEN~1' Commissioners: McBurney ALSO PRE56NT Anriika Santalahti Aseistant Director for Zoning Jack White Asaistant City Attorney Paul Singer Zrai-fic Engineer Jay Til•us Offic~ ~ngineer Kendra Morries Assistont Planner ~dith Harris Planniny Commission Secretary APPROVAL 0~ MINUTES: Cumrr~issinner King offered a motion, seconded by Commisaionec Nerbst and M07'ION CARRtED lCommisaiuner McBurney absent), th~t the minutes of the meetiny of January 23, 1984, be approved as submitted. I~1`EM N0. 1. EIR NEGATiVE UECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3361 PUBLI~ HEAItING. OWNERS: DAVID C. BOOMS, 229 S. Loara 5treet, Anaheim, CA 92802. AGENT: OSCAR E. WHI7'EBOOK, P.O. Box 314, Yorba Linda, CA 92686. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped p~rcel af ~and consisting of approximately 0.53 acre, 219 South Loara Stceet. Waivers of minimum lat acea and minimum lot width to establish a 2-lot s~bdivision. Continued frnm October 31, 1983, and January 9- and 23, 1984. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although ttie staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Oscar Whitebook, agent, explained the plan to aubdivide subject proQerty into kwo par~els with the northetly portion having a 65-foot frontage whic: would ultimately provide more space for the adjacent prop~rty (4uick Stact) and also provide another industcial property wi~h 130-foot frontage. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOuED. 84-44 2~6~84 MINUTES,_ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING GOMMISSION. ~EBRUARY 6, 1984_ ___ 84-45 Commiseioner ~u s hoce clartfi~d th~t this cequest i.A to subdivide the property, howevet, tt~e pe titioner i~ actuAlly talking about exponding an existing conditional use pecmit which cauld be accompli~hed with a lot line adjustment. He stated thia requeat ia to credte a hArd~hip lot and even though th~e plan s were reveraed, the Commisaion otill has the same c~ncerns even lhougt~ the petltioner has indic:A~ed bokh lata would be under the aame ownership. He statEd certain variances were granted when ~uick Start b~gan ber.ause ot the hardship on that lot and ti~ere is no requeat for thia property t•o be rezoned. Mr. Whitebook s tater3 he did not requeat tf~at the ~ro~erty be rezoned for induatrial use s because Mr. E3ooms doea reside on the property And prefers Lo cemAin there and (~uick :~tact next door has r~o immediate use for the praperty and if it was r ezoned for ii~~ustrial useo, the residence wnuld be in violation and the texes w ould increase. Commissioner Bu st~ore clarified that the recidence is currently exisl:ing. Jack Whil-e, Assiata n t City Attocney, explained if the residence was there lega.ily naw and the pr operty should subsequently be rezoned, of. course, the residence would become a legal non-confarming use and could continue ~nder that pcovision of t h e Code; however, he did not i~ave any inform~tion aa to whether or not it is c urcently Lhere. c;ummissioner Bus}ioce pointed out even if r.he property was rezoned at this time, tlie petitioner could continue to live there. Mr. Whitebook atated he undetstands th at iE the property was rezoned, the taxes could increase becauae the tax base i s higher for industrial propecty than for residential. Commissioner B ush~re stated proi .ies are anly rea~sessed when the use of th^ propecty chang es or when th? propecty is sold and hE~ did not see any ceas~n to create anothet sub-standard lct and that the ayent is saying that thEy dce going to expa nd th~ business and he felt the ahole thing could be done with a conditional us e permit Pxpansion or a lot line adjustmsnt and the reasona given so far a re ndt valid far the creation of a sub-standard lot. Mc. Whitebook staked if nothing is placed in jeopArdy and if the residentia] occupancy cou 1 d continue, his client would be perEectly amenabl.e to the rezoning of t h e property. Commissioner B ushore stated if the property was rezoned, the use would be le~~al non-conf acminy, but the problem is the creation of a sub-standard lot. Mr. Whitebook stated the owner does wi~h to make thic aJ.l one lot and title would be merg e d with Quick Start and asked if that would be more acceptable. Commissioner Bushore explained that could be accompli.shed with a lot line adjustment, but they would ~till need the expanaian of a conditional use permit. Mr. Whitebook stated they do not even intend to use the praperty at this time and understand that when they do decid~ to use it, they have to meet al.l the indus trial requirements. Eie atated th fact that the repossessed cars are parked on the other lot at thie point was by agreement with the City and he did not th ink they are violating any of that agreenient. 2/6/83 MINUTES, ANAHETM_C_ITY PI.ANNINC COMMISSION, FE~RUA~Y 61 1984 84-46 Commieainnec euahore stated the approval wae to allow storage an the induatrial lot and not on the one with the residence and there wan not su~~posed ro ~~~~ mace l•hun six vehicles. Mr. Whitebook sta~ed the ayr.eement was to have six vehicl~s on the properc.y where puick Start is luca~ed. Commissianer Buahore skated the Commisaion did not give permiaeion for the ntocage of vNhiclec on the lot where the reaidencea were located on the south. Commiaeioner I,a Clairp stated she thought aix spaces were allowed for wacehouxe parking and tive or aix apaces were allowed for the reposseR~ed vehicles. Mr. Whikebook stated there was a recorded agreement which provides for r.orage oE the vehicles un the ceaidential acea. He stated as C~uic:k Stact expands, they will remove the front reaidence and natucally meet all the induatrial zoning reyuicementa on the ~~her lot and noted the Commiseian has p~lice ~oweca tv enforce that Eact. Commisaioner Bushore stated thi~ is a aelf-creat.ed hardship and bPCause of the conditional use permit to permit ~ir. vehicles to be stored, the petitioner does n~t have space fur Ct~c storage of six vana and pointed out the Commission war~ concerned about tF~e parking a[ the ttme it was approved. Kendca Morries, Assi~tant Plannec, read the condition included in the resolut.ion For the ~roperty to the south as follows: "I'hat the use is gcanted for six (6) parking s~aces designated for the ~ropo~ed induatrial building which will be uaed for an office and assembling operation and warehouse with a maximum of five (5) ~arking spaces being utilizz~ for the Atorage of repossessed automobiles. If the petitianer submits an executed and acceptable parkinq agreement to the CitX Attorney's Olfice, ~aid agreement pecmitting employee parking on the adjacent residential property immeaiately to the south, the number of impounded vehicles may be increased to a maximum of ten.' Commissioner flushore stated the problem is that the em;~loyees are not parkfng on the property to the south and that is where the r~~possessed cars are being stored. Mr. Whitebook stated the employees are parking on the Quick Start pocti . but the total number of car3 is the same. Commissioner Bushore stated there are more than six vehiclea parked on the property to the south. Eie stated the variance foz a lot split is the rec~uest before the Commission today and he would not create another hardship lot in that area. Commissioner La Claire agreed ~nd stated she was concerned about creating that kind oE lot because it would increase t.he density and somEOne in the future wc~ld say the lot is too small to do what the neighbors are doing and requPst a variance. C~mmissioner Bushore stated this would be creating a third saleable lot and if i~ was truly necessary to expand the business, it could be done with a lot line adjustment. 2/G/84 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PL~NNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 6, 1984 8A-47 Mr. Whitebook stated he would like to be able ta come back in and request a lot line adjuetme~t. Cornmis~ianer Herbst suggeated A two-week conlinuance in order for the petitioner tu requeat a lot line adjustm~nt aince puick Start is purchasing the pruperty with the residence on it. Commissioner Bushore otated the lot 1.tne adjustment does not reyuire a public hearing and he would auggest the petitioner cnntact the City Engineer's Ofiice. Commisei.oner Fry stated th~ petitioner needa ta make sure the house i~ there legally and tha~ he can conkinue to uae it as a residence. CommisRioner Bustiore pointec~ uut taxes arE onJ.y increased when there is a sale of the ~roperty regacdless of the zoning. Mr. Whitebook requested a two-week continuance. ACTION: Commi~aione~ t~erbat offered a motion, seconded by Commi~ssioner ~-y and MOTIUN CARRIED (Commis3ioner McBurney absent), Chat the above-mention`.~ matter be continued to the mc~eting of February 22, 1984, nt the request of the petitioner. ITEM N0. ?.. ENVIROI~MENTAL IMPAC`I' REPORT N0. 262 AND CQNDITIqNAL USE PERMIT N0. 2461 PUBLIC FIEAKING. OWNE:RS: RIVIERA MOBILEHOME PARKS, 300 W. Kalella Avenue, Anaheim, CA 928Q2. AGFNT: ~LOYD L. FARANO, 2555 E. Chapman Avenue, Suite 415, Fullerton, CA 9i.631. F~roperty described as a irregularly-shaped p~rcel of land cons.isting oE approximately 16.1 acres, 300 West Katella Avenue (Riviera Mobile Home Park~). To permit two 14-story, 200-foot high officE complexes. Continued from November 28, and December 12, 1903, and January 9, 1984. There was no one indicating their presence i.n opposition to subject request end although the staff report was not read, i~ is reEerred to and made a part of the minutes. Floyd Farano, agent, stated there are sevecal legal considecations to be resolved with the adjacent property owners (Fujisf~ige) and tt~at they would request th~ Planning Commission to act un this matter so it can be bcought befoce the City Council in order that hi3 cli.enti, Fujishige, and ttie City can work tt-e problems out. He stated he would, t~nwevec, like to votce his opposftion to Condition Nos. 11 and 12 pertaining to the extension oE Clementine Street and Convention Way and to No. 22 pertaining to the recordation of an agreement pertaining to agreeing to participate in the requirements of Development Agreement No. 83-01 for the same reasons that were discussed at the meeting in December. He stated his client is willing to pay the construation coats and construct the road, but is not willing at this point to say they will obtain the pr~perty tt~at is requi.red ta cnnstruct that road and to dedicate it to ~he City. Regarding Condition No. 22, he skated he 2/6/84 MINUT~S, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, PEBRUARY 6, 1984 84-48 did cead De~relopment Agreement No. g3-O1 and that he ~bjected to thia condition at the City Council hearingJ howevet, the requeat was granted with that condition included, but staff ia required to preAent a repor~ to the City council describing more fully the exacr, meaning of rhal provision And its intent and staff is working on that study end it should be evailable in the near Eulure. THE pUBLIC NEAJtING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner tierbst suggested a continuance until a11 the leqal issues have been answered. Mr. Farano stated therE~ is na hurry as far as his client is concerned, but tt~ere ia anuther ir~sue ~ending co~cerning ~he right-of-way r~quired for the aewer lines and they ace all tied together. Commisaioner Herbst stated h~ is not opposed to the project, but the only w~y he could vote on this tod~~•:• w~~uld be with that condition included and there would be no expense to ti~e City regacding the acyuisition uf the right-of-way be~ause that is between the two property owners. Mr. harano atated he cannot say he can agree to that condition becauae he will object to it again At tt-e City Council level; hawever, he knows Commission will not act on this without that condikion as proposed. He staled he did not ttiink the Commission wants to get involved with thdt issue and he is requesting an action au this can be brought before the City Cc,uncil. CommisEianer La Claire stated the problem is that thia property owner should not be responsible for purchasing this pcoperty and tF~e City had hoped for negotiatio~3 between the two property owners and ahe did not think it is up to the Commission to require this property owner t:a provide it aIl because the property to the south wil.l be developing and according t~ the two letters received Erom the twa property owners, tt,ey are interested in cooperating. She sta~.~a ~he thought the request should be approved with the condition inclu~t~ and with a suggestion ko the City Council that it is Commission's inte~rtt tY~at Lhe property owner to the south cooperate with ttie property owner to the north to provide the road at no expenee to th~e taxpayers of the City. Jack White, xs~istant City Attorney, suggested iE the Commission desires to take a position on that issue, it ahculd be dane by a separate motion and not be included in this action. He stated he thought the City Council would have a free-rein in how the roadway is determined and who is going to pay for it, etc. and Mr. Faranu would have the ability ta negotiate with them when they make the final decision since those decisions are outside the prerogative of. the Planning Commission and the i~itent was to leave tt~e issue open in a manner that would not tie either th4 City or propecty owners or adjacent properky owners te a particular scheme. He stated he feels this does leave the issue open, even though the cond~tion does say "prior to the issuance of building permits for the third phase office development, that the right-of way has to be acquired and improved,' and if the City is not willing to pay for it and the owner is not willing to dedicate it, then the ball is left in this applicant's court as ta whether or not they want to proceed with the project. He added the City Council could come up wfth some alternative financing mechanisms, howevec. 2/6/84 MINUTES. ANANEIM ~11'Y PLANNING CAMMISSIqN, ~E~RUARY G, 1984 84-48 did read pevelo~mEnt Agreement No. 83-01 and thAt he objected to thia conditlon at ~h~ City Council hearing= however, tt~e request wra granked with that condition inaluded, but ataff is required to pcea~nt a re~ort tu the City Council deacribing more fully the exar.t meaning of Chat provisian and ite intent and ataff is working on that study and it ahould be ava~lable in the near future. TNE PUBLIC H~ARING WA:: CLOSE,D. Commiasioner Herbat suggestPd A continuance until all the legal isc~ues have been answered. Mr. F'arano stated there ia no hurry as far ae his client i~ concerned, but there is anoCher issue pending concerni.ng the right-of-way rpquired foc the sewer lines And they are all tied together. Commissioner Herbst ataCed he is not opposed to the project, but the only way he could vote un this today would be witl~ that cnndit•ion inaluded and there would be no expense to the City regarding the Acquisition of the right-of.-way because that is between the two property owners. Mr. Farano atated he c~nnot say he can aqree to that condi.tion because he will ob~ect to it again at the City Coiancil level; I~owever, he knows Commission will not act on this without that condition as pro~osed. Ne ataked he did not thir,k the Commiasion wants to get i.nvolved with that issue and hE~ is r.equeating an action so thfs can be brought bef~re the City Council. Commissionec La Clafre stated the problem is that tt~is proper.ty owner should not be cesponsible for purchasing this property and the City had hoped for negotiationF between the two property ownera and she did not think it is up to l•he Commission to require this property oNner to provide it all because the property to the south will be developing and accurding to the two letters received from the two propecl•y owners, they are intereated in cooperating. 5he stated she thought the request should be approved with the condition included and with a suggestion ko the City Council that it is Commission's intent that the property owner Co the south cooperate with the property owner to the north to provide the road at no expense to the taxpayzrs of the City. Jack White, Assistant City Attorney, suggested if the ~ommission desires t~ take a pos~.tion on that issue, it should be done by a separate motion and not be included in this action. He stated he thought the City Council would have a free-rein in how the roadway is determined and who is going to ~ay for it, ecc. and Mr. Farano would have the ability to negotiate with them when they make the final decision since those decisions are outside the prerogative ~f the Planning Commission and the intent was ko leave the isaue open in a mannec that would not tie either the City or property owners or adjacent property owners to a particular scheme. He stated he feels this does leave the issue op~n, even though the condition does say 'prior to the issuance of building permits for. the third phase o£fice development, that the right-of way nas to be acquired and imprnved," and if the City is not willing to ~ay for it and the owner is not willing to dedicate it, then the ball is left in this applicant's court as to whether or not they want to proceed with the project. He added the City Council could come up With some alternative financing mechanisms, however. 2/6/84 MINUTES. ANAHFIM CITX PLANNING CUMMI5SION, FEBRUARY 6, 1984 84-49 it w~~ noted thdt Envir.onmental Impact Repoct No. 262 waa previously certifled in conjunction with Conditional U8e Pecr~it No. 2460 and 2462 and that sAid Environmental Impact Report did address this projeCt. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC84-18 and moved for passsge and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commisaion doee heteby grant Conditional Uae Permit No. 2461 pucsuant to Aneheim Municfpal Code Sectione 18.03.03.030 through 10.03.03.U35 and aubject to Interdepartmental CommittE~e recommendationa. Un roll call- the foregoing resalution was passed by the following vote: AYES: ~OUAS~ 6USf~ORE, FRY, H~RBST~ KING, LA CLAIRE NOBS: NONE ABSENT: MCBURNEY Jack White, AFaistant City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's deciaion witt~in 22 days to the Ciky Council. IZ'EM NU. 3. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATJUN AND VARIANC~ N0. 3353 PUaLIC HEARING. QWNERS: DEUSCH RFAL ~STATE QEVELOPMEN'P, INC., 7000 W. Imperial Highway, Los Anyeles, CA 90041. AGENT: MAR LYNN SHEEHAN, 1650 E. Babbitt Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805. Pr.operty described as a rectanyularly-ahaped Narcel of land conaisting of approximately 2.35 acres, 165U East Babbitt Avenue lF~ractical Schools). To retain an industrial training center with waiver of minimum number oE parking spaceE. ACTION; Commissioner King off.ered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fry and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner McBurney abaent), that subject petition be withdrawn at the applicant's reyuest. ITEM N0. 4. EIR NEGATIVE DECl~ARATION(PREVIOUSLY APPROVED) AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2252(READVERTISED): PUBLI~ HEARING. OWNERS: RAYMOND RUNO, 1120 Kenwood Place, Eullerkon, CA 9'1631. AGEN7'; FLOYD FARANO, 2555 E. Chapman Avenue, Suite 415, Fullerton, CA 42b31. Property described as a rectangularl.y-ahap~d parcel of land consisting of ~~pproximately 1.47 acres located at the northwest corner of La Mesa Avenue anU Kraemer Place, 3035 La Mesa Avenue (New York Carpeks). Request Planning Commission recommend deletion of Condition No. 6 of City Council Resolution No. S1R-494, pectaining to a two-year time limitation for an existing retail carpet sales ~acility. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Floyd L. Farano, agent, ex~lained the applicant has been conducting business at this location within the conditions as required by the City Council when 2/6/84 MINUmES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMKISSION_~_PEBHUARY 6~_1984 ___ ___ _ $4-50 ~he permit was originally grant~d. Ile stated the permit was granted for a period of two years and was recentl granted an extenei~n of time by the City Council to expire in 1985 And thAt it ia necessacy for the applic~nt to requQSt an Ex~eneion every tw~ years. H~ stated the uses in L•he ar~a between the Rivereide Freeway, La Palma and White Star Are all consistent witli this use and there have been no pcob.lemR with the way this busineas has been conducted and that they are requesting that the twa-year time limit, ar temporary natute of the pecmit, b~ removed. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSBD. Commiasioner Bushore pointed out thin conditiunal use pecmit was origina~ly denied by the Planning Commiasion and later approved by the City Council. E~e referred to the Greek Mattress Factory next door which was granted without a time limit. Responding to Chairwoman Bouas, Mr. Fnrano aL~ted as a m~tter of courtesy and just in cuse the Council or Commission may have any questiGns, they always appear when they make the request for an extension of time. Responding to Commissioner Fry, Mr. Farano skated reguestiny an extension every two years is a burden which is not shared by other businesses in the immediate vicinit}° with aimilar zonin9 and tt~ErP is a cisk of failiny to make the reque~t and then the oper~~lor would be in violation of the Permit. Commissioner tlerbst stated the Commiaeion has ~lways ycanted extensions of. time retroactiv~ly in case someone does forget to make the request. He explained the conc~rn with this type of use in the industrial area and with the fact that this owner could sell the business to someone else who might not abide by the conditions and then if the time limit was removed, ft would require another public heariny to abate the problem and with this te~porary nature on the permit, ti~e use can be ceviewed every twa years and the permi.t can be revoked immediately if ~here were problems. Hz stated that is a control he would lfke to see the Ciky have over the situation and, un~ortunately- it has become ~ery easy to get approval for this type of use in the induatcial area and the two-year time limik is still a valid condition and it is not thAt hard t~ write a letter requesting an extension every rw9 years. [ie added he thought the Gceek Mattress Company is the only other one that hus been granted without a time limit. Mr. Farano stated he thouyhl the property on the cornet with the furniture sales room (Curtis Furniture~ did not have a time limit. it was clarified that he was referring to Mr. Bare and that whole ar~~ was excluded. Mr. Farano stated thece were restrictions placed on Curtfs Furniture regarding the ty~e of furnituce or appliances to be sold, but that it was a permanent conditior~al use permit with no time limit imposed. He stated without question, a conditional use permit stays with the land and has a certain value and as ~ong as ~his petitioner doesn't violate the conditions, there is no reason he shoul~ have the burden of requesting an extension since no one else does in that general area. Commissionec Bushore stated :he petiti~nec should feel privileged not to have the new burden imposed which is being done now with kime limits, wherein, the applicant has to completely rea~ply, pay the fees and go through the publi~ 2/6/84 MINU'PGS,__ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMTSSION FEBRUARY G~ 19s4 __ 84'S1 henring pcoceas again. ffe aCated he ia oppoaed to theae usea in the industtial area and f~lt it is a reason~ble condit:on to be allowed tn d~ thia type of busineea in that area. Jack White responded to Commissioner La Cloire cancerning subaequent property owner and Rtated in the past it has been the City Attorney's positicn that it ia not advisable to limit a conditionAl use permit to a p~rticulac owner of the property because hhe use goes with the land and any owner wF~o lives up to the conditione of apprqval ahould have ~he same Privileges as the other owner and hia oEfice haA auggested that khe permits could be limited to a number of yeara and at the end oE the time limit, a reapplication required. He stated this request is to modify an ~xisting conditio~ and he agreed that the waY it is currently wrikten ie not gc~od and the Commigsion can either rccommend that the pecmit be grant~d permanently or that. reApplication be required becauae he felt tt~ere is some questiun as to compliance with ~inimum due proceas requirements if a letter is simply submitted for an extensicn uf time and gr~nted without a public t~earing. He stated the Commicsion does not giv~ Ghie type permit any longer and ir~ his opinion, a specffic time limit is the more defensible way to grant a permit from a legal ~tandpuint than t~ying to tie it to p pacticular owner. He stated he can think of one or two instances during the past aeveral years where the Commiasian or Council tias attempted to tie a use to the ownership, but his recommendation would be to make it f~r a certain period of time. Mr. Farano stated the petitioner hao st~own no indication of violaliny t2ie conditions and has complied with all the conditions in the past and there is no reason to single him out for different treatment than is generally afforded to other people in the area. Mr. Farano responded to Mr. Bushore tt~at the owner is not aelling the business and explained the ~pplicant is not the owner of the property, but is the owner of the business that is being operated. ACTIUN: Commissioner Herbst of£ered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fry and ~tOTiON C~RRIEll (Commissioner McBurney absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commissian does hereby recommend to the City Council tha~ Condition No. 6 of City Council ReEOlution No. 61R-494 be deleted since thF nusiness is operated at the current time fn compliance with the condition~ imposed and no problems have been reported and on the basis that other uaes huve been granted in that area without time limits. Jack white explained this matter will automatically qo to the City Council and be advertised for public hearing. ITEM NOS. 5 THROUGH 15 WERE CONSIDEkED TOGETHER: ITEM N0. 5. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAIVER OF CODE RFSUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2446: PUBLIC HEARING. CWNERS: RICHARD C. HUNSAKER, P.O. Box 2423, Santa Ana, CA 92707. AGENT: REGENCY OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, INC., 8820 Sun~et Boulevard, Suite F, Los Angeles, CA 90069. Property described as an irregularly-shaped 2/6/84 MINUTES~_ANAHEIM CITY FLANNING COMMISSION PEBRUARY 6 1984 84-52 parcel of land conaisting of ~ppcoximately 0.65 acxe located at the nocthweaterly terminua of Regal Pack Drive- 2700 Regal Park Dr.ive. To permit a billboard in the ML Zone with waiverA of minimum structural setbar,k and maximum height. ITEM N0. 6. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATIONLWAIVER OF CODR RE~UIRGMENT AND CUNDITIONAL US~ PERMIT N0. 2447: PUBLIC ~EARING. UWNERS: ABJ DEVELOPMENTS, 301 N. KAmpart Street, Orange, CA 92668. AGENT: REGENCY OUTDC~OR ADVERTISING, INC., 8820 Sunaet Boulevard, Suite F, Los Angeles, CA 90069. ~rop~rty desecibed as ~n irregulacly-ahaped purcel of land consiating of upproximately 1.1 acres, 1010 Grove Street, 7'o i~ermit ~ billboard in the ML zone with waiver of maximum height. ITEM N0. 7• ET~ NEGATIVE UECLARATION WAIVER OE CODE RE UIREMENT AND CONDITIUNAL USE PERMIi N0. 244$: PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: DUN V. AND GARNET A. EDMUNDS, 18682 Mes~ Drive, Villa Park, CA 92667. AGENT: REGENCY UUTDOOR ADVEl2TI5IN~ INC., 8820 Sunset Boulevard, Suit.e F, ~~?s Angeles, CA 90069. Property described as an irregularlv-shaped parcel of land conaisting of approxirnately 1.9 acres located at the northwest cocner af T~ft Avenue and Eaton Way, 269] E. Taft Avenue. To permit a billboard in the ML Zone with waivers of permitted ]ocation and maximum height. ITEM N0. 8 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT_~ND CONDITIUNAL U5E PERMI7' NO. 2449: PUBLIC HEARING. GWNER5: E.B.~. PROPERTIES, 1274 Sunshine Way~ Anaheim, CA 9280G. AGENT: REGENCY OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, INC., 8820 Sunset Boulevard, F, Los Angeles, CA 90069. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.9 acre, 1281 Sunshine Way. To permit a billboard in the ML 2one with waivers of minimum structura'1 ~etUack and maximum height. ITEM N0. 9. EIK NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAIVER OF CODE REQUIRCMENT AND CONDITIUNAL USE PERMIT N0. 2450: PU~LIC HEARING. OWNERS: CON50LI, McCOMBER, NicCUBBIN INVESTMENT, CO., ?274 Sunshine Way, Anaheim, CA 92806. AGENT: F.EGENCY OUTDOOR ADVERTTSING, INC., 8620 5un~et eoulevard, Suite F. Lo3 Angeles, CA 90069. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approxirnately 0.5 acre, 1270 Sunshine Way. To pQrmit a billto~rd in the ML Zone with waivers of minimum structural setback and maximum height. 2/6/84 MINUTES~ ANAH~IM CITY pLANNING COMMISSIpN~ PEBRUARY 6, )984 ____ _ 84-53 ITEM N0. 10. EIR NEG~TIVE DECLARATIUN WAIVER OF CODE RE UIREMENI' AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2451: PU~LIC HEAKING. OWNEKS; BRISTUL COMI~ANY, 10899 tVilshire Boulevard, 5uite 933, Los Angeles, CA 90024. AGENT; REG~NCY OUTDOOR ADVF.RTISING, INC., 8820 Sunsel aoulevard, I,os Angele~, CA 90069. Ptnperty deecribed as an irregulacly-ahaped pnrcel of land conaistin~ of epproximately 3.1 ~~cres, 2311 to 2323 West I.a Palma Avenue. Tu permi.t two (2) billbaards in the ML Zone with wAivers of minimum structural setback and maximum height. ITEM N0. 11. ~IR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVEF OF CODE RE~~UIRBMENT AND CONDITIONAI~ USE PERMIT NU. 2452: PUBLIC HF,ARING. UWNERS: MAX CUKIER, ET AL, 27520 Hawthorne Boulevacd, 5uite 1~8, Palos Verd~s Peninsula, CA 90274. AGENT: REGENCY OUZ'DUOR ADVERTISING, INC., 8820 Sunset 6oulevard, SuiCe E, Los Anyeles, CA yu069. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel oi land consisting of approximately 6.4 acres located at the northwest corner of Miraloma Avenue and Blue Gum Street, 1311-1347 elue Gum Street. To permit a bi]lboard in the MI. 7,one with waivec of maxfmum height. ITEM N0. 12. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAIVER OF CODB R_EQUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2534: PUSLIC HEARING. UWNERS: RAPT COMPANY, 5031 Birch Street, Newport Beach, CA 92660. AGENT: REGENCY OUTDOUR ADVERTISING, INC., Sa20 Sunozt Boulevard, Suite F, Los Angeles, CA 90U69. Propecty described as an irregularly-shaped parcel oE land consisting of- approximately 10.6 ~cres, 2430 Eask Katella Avenue. To pecmit a billboard in the ML Zone with waiver of maximum height. IT~M N0. 13. EIR NEGATIVE UF,CLARATION WAIVER OF GODE RE UIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE ~p~RMIT N0. 2535: PU&LIC HERRING. QWNERS: WALTER T. ERICKSON, ET AL, 1850 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805. AGENT: REG~NCY OUTDAUR ADVERTJSING, INC., 8820 Sunset Boulevard, Suite F, Los Angeles, CA 90069. Froperty described as an irregulArly-shaped parcel of land c~nsisting o£ approximately 0.5 acres, 18°.0 South Anaheim Boulevard. To permit a billboard in l•he ML Zone wi~h waivers of minimum structural setback and maximum height. ITEM Nv. 14. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2536: ?U6LIC HEARING. OWNERS: JOHN C. AND EVELYN ADAMS, 23075 Via Santa Maria, Mission Viejo, CA 92691. AGENT: REGENCY OGTDOOR RDVERTISING, INC., 8820 2/6/84 MINUTES, AN1~N~IM C1TY_ PI.ANNING COMMISSIOI~. FEREtUARX 6, 1984 84-54 Suno~t Bo~.leve~rd, Suite P, Lu~ A~geles, CA y0U69. Propecty described as en irrequlacly-eh~pad Farcel uf lund coneiating oC a~proximately 0.8 Acre, 1845-1849 5outh MAncheatec Avenue. To perm~it a billboara in the ML Lont. with waiverc oE minimum structural setback and maximum height. ITEM NU. 15. EIR NEGA7'IVE UCCLARATION, WAIVER OF CODE: RF.4UIkEMBNT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMI'C NU. 2~a37: PUBLIC HEARING. U~1NGR5: KENNETH K~ES~F, 1928 5. Anaheim Aoulevard, Aneheim, CA 9'1805. AGENT: REG~NCY QUTDOOR AOVERTI5ING, ItJC., H820 Sunaet BoulevarQ, Suite F, Los Angelea, CA 9QOG9. Pr.operty deocribed as an irregularly-ahaped paccel oF land consis;;.ing of ap~.rcximately U.94 acre, 192z-1928 South Anaheim eoulevard. To permit t~ billhot+rcl in the ML 2une with wAivecs of minimum ~tructural setb~ck and maximum heiyht. ~here were thcee pecsona indicating their presence in op[~osition to ~ubject cequest and although the sl.alf repoct was not read, it is re[erred to and mad~ a part of the minutea. Bob Reid, 12eyency Outdoo: 'uvertising, 6820 Sunset Boulevard, Gos AngP.les, staCed these applicarions :iave t~een on file in the Planning Depart:ment foc many months; that there is discussion of a fraeway-type sign ordinance rhat will be pr~sented to the City Council, but that no de~iAion hac been rt~ade at presentJ that t:e suggested these aPplications be EilPd Lo go bef~re the Planning Commiocion now :~ecaube oE sumethiny khat happened at Skate level which ;jeopardized the proparty owner~ Mhich he has under lease- so it was theic determin~tion to try to get thec~ applieations going now and, hopefully, by the time the application~ gc' to this point, thece would have Geen a new ordinance adopted by the City Cour.cil; however, that is not the aituation. He stated he would agree with staf." s recommendation that theae conditional use ~ecmits cannot be approved and that the Commission Fias no alternative but to deny them and stated he could then a[>peal the decision t~ the City Council. .1ack White, Assistant Cit:y Attocney, s.ated the hearings have been consolidated on all eleven of thesQ applications and anyone wishing tu give Cesl•imon; should identify the location tt~ey are concern~•d about. Kenneth Kee~ee, 1922-193d S. Anaheim Boulevard, atated he has been approached by an advertising company to put a si;n on his property and he would like the revenue, but he has alway3 been 4ctive in thi.s Gity f~: many years and realizes there are sqme ramifications with having the freeway tied up with billboards. He stated he understands that the City is going to receive coneiderable revenue from rhese signs and it will benefft the pcoperty owners, and befng active on a different Board of the City, he knows what Propositic:~ 13 has done to the Ci.~:y revenues and it is his feeling that tt,i.s will not only help the property owners, but will t~lso ~ut somQ money into the ~offecs of the City. 2/b/84 8~-55 MINUT~31 ANAIlEIM CITY PLI~NNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 6 1984 Mr. B~tah atAt e d he has lived he~re since 1973 and owna the pcopArty A2a35~6 S. Anaheim Baulev~rd a nd thet he is opposing Conditional Use Pormit No. He atated he becAUae the bi i lboard will block the view of his amaller sign. owne the motel ~nd it i~ vacy eignificant ttiat hin aign be exposed to the fceeway. He e tated he ia not opposed to pcogress as long as it doea not hurt t~i.s businesa and a billboard next to hir~ property will nat maY.e a significant differ~nce on the livelihoud oE ti~e applicant, but it will make a significant differ~nce on hls livelihood. Philip Anthuny , 15842 Milanovia, Weetminater, atated t~e ie not speaking exactly '_n oppaaition, ~hat seve~al othe~ billboacd companies and proparty owners have rc~ inte~est in appllcationR b~~t that moat others have decli.ned tu even ~pply bec auRe the City daea not have an ordinanca yet which ~eally allows this kind oi d ecis ion. t~e atated they wou~d like to suggeat that perhapa t.he Commis~ion sh ~uld not really be even conaidecing proceasing these applicakions until thece i•.~ a b illboard ordinance. He ataCed they would r.equest the City prtorney to g ive sart~e guidunce b~cause there truly could be many other applicutionb b~oug hC before the City. He noted the staff report. points out the Commisaior, cannot approve these under tt~e pre~ent ordinance. Commissioner Fry stated L•he Commisaion did receive r~ letter Eroogitionrw~s Gra~~' regardiny CUP 24q~) in opposition and aleo a letter ot opp re~eived from t3usine~s Pr.operl.ies, Inc. Mr. Reid sta t ed one comment wus made abouh. othec cumpanies choosing not to f ile their apFlicatic~s and noted t~e did ~hoose to f ile because he thought that was the legal ~nd proper way to do i. Ne stated by filing thpir applications other aign companies car~ ~:ti~~ck the public records and find out ~t~e location of theic pcopoaals and could then lea~e property adjacenL• to theic signs which would virtually F'~~ hirt~ out oE business. Ke statFd he would agree thAt tize Commiasion has no alternative but to deny these requests ~,ecause the ordinance ha~ nut yet been prepared; however, he still believes that ar~y company tliat inAtigates a progcam in thirs City has the cight to be first. Jack Wliite s tated he did not believe staff, by processing these applications, sho~ild be construed as taking a posiGion as to the right of any parttr_ular company to t~ ~ first. He stated he has no informatiolicationifo~eatpermittof staff t~as any disctetior, to refuae to accept any app any type ana it has been the position of t~e City Attorney's Offic~ that the filiny of t he application is a ministerial act; that if a person chooses to fill out an application form and submit the fee, regatdless of the ability of the Planning Commiesion or City Council to approve that requeBt, the ataff member wh~~ physically takes the application i.n over the counter, is roveinFa position to give legal advice to an applicant if the City cannot app and that p~ raon cioes not havQ the right to refuse to take the a~p.li~ation. He stated to date to his knowlecige, tl~is is tt~e only company that has filed an; applications and that info~mation is in the staff report ~r.d the Planning Commisainn cannot appcovr_ the application because of limit3tions of Chaptec 4.08 of th e Code. He stated he would strongly ucge the Commi~ohibiteddbyyCode. these ap~li cati.c.ns on the basis that the uses are currently p 2/6/84 MINUTGS. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CUMMISBION, FFBRUIIRY 6, 1984 R4-56 Responding to Commissioner Fry, Kendra Morries explalned khere ace eleven applicationa reprea~nting twelve billboard~. Commiasioner Necbst stated the Commiaeion haA done evcrything they can to eliminate the billboard build-up in Anaheirti and refecred to the dots as ahown on th~ maps displayed. Ffe Rtsted he felt even tt~ouqh ~~e City would be getting some revenue, he did not think it would do the City imAge any good becaus~ every Lreeway is a gateway to the City and Anaheim has une af the finEat Convention Centere in the countcy and many people come ~o viait Dieneyland, etc. He stated it bothecn him ta deny all theae requests and send them on to the City Counc.il and he would like to see them all revicwed by the Planning Commi~slon u~der the new ordinance since aame of the signs may be ina~propriate under that new ordii~ance und some mAy not. He 3tated it is the Commission's duty to review the land uae ~nd he would recommend that the Planning Commi~sion and city Council have a work session to d~~cuss the new ordinance ao Commiasion can give their in~ut. Eie added theae billboards Are very larye and are Ear above wt~at is ~cE~sently ~lluwed under the ordinance. Commissioner aushore stated thi~ was to be one of the it~ms to be discusaed at a~:revious work session, bu~ it war3 c9ecided not. lo discusa it becauae it was a bit premature, but becauae the City Council is o poli~ical body and Planning C~mmissiun is a land use body, he thoughk the Commission s}iould make a recommend~ation *.o the City Council. He stated the City uf Anahe~m is a pcoft.t-oriented City and raiaes reven~zes khcough the Convention Center, Stadium, etc. and ways other than taxes and he was concerned Abr~ut all the signs a~id referred to the sign at the Anaheim Stadium whicl~ was alloweG to go in without following any of th~ rules and thought it would be hard for the City Coui~cil, with political p~easure~ ancl cont:ibutiona, to deny thesr requests. He ~tated he ha~ed if tt~e Ci.ty is yoing to remain profit-ociented and juin with the private sector, that they will look at the other avenues and n~t appcove evErything that ~omea slong from which the Cit:y will derive a ~rofit and khat they should ~nly proatitute ~her~selves so far. Commiesioner La Claire e~yreed with Commissioners Bushore and Herbst and ~stated she is very concerned about billboard blight because the City has been working so hard so long to reduce the size of signs and to clean up the existing siyns. 5he stated the profit moti•~e really disturbs her and pointed out one of the reasons people li~<e to have conv2ntions in AnahEim is because Anaheim does not have blight like other cities and ~he wond~red how much profit would be last if the ~illboards are permitted. She stated she did not tY~ink the citizens of Anaheim war~ billboacds along their 1Ereeways and she did not think the ci~zzer.s have beea heard from yet and that they should c~eally let the City officials kr:ow how they feel about the billbo~rde in the very near future. Commissioner Hecbst stated ~here are 50 applications for billboards on file today pending be£ore the State and not before the City. E~e stated he would like to see these matters continued until the rrdinance is adopted and Cornmi~sioner La Claire agreed. Annika Santr~lahti responded that the ordinance could be ready in about one month. 2/6/84 MYNUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CO~IMISSION,_FEBRUARY 6, 1984 8 4-57 Commiesioner Fry asked if thece w ould be A problom with granting a 60 or QO-dey contir.uanc~ on theae matt~re. Jock White explained the Commiseion can grant a continuance iE it ia reyuestr,d or agreed to by the sppllcanC or as cav~ced i~~ Section 18.U3.06~ of t he Cude, if for any reASOn testimony on a ny request set for a public heering cannot b~ compleL•ed, the Commisaion may, before tr~e Adjournment, p~~blicly announce the rime And place fo which th~ hearing aill be continued. He a ddsd if the CommisAion detecmines they do not hava eufficient teati.mony today i n order to make a dec.ioion, they could g r ant a conti.nuancet howevec, if there is evidence preRent, the only wRy a conti.nuance could be ~:ontemplatec3 would be if it ia reque~ted by the applicant. He clarified khe Cod e atates that in order to make a decision, and it does not aay in order to aE~pr ove, and he would have a hard lime legAll y saying thP Commissiun doea not 1~sve en~ugh informati~n tc~ deny the reques t becauae there is a provision in the Code thAt mandates deniu].. Commiseioner Nerbst stated thrre ~re twelve di[ferent billboards and some of the sit.es mAy be acceptable. c~mmissioner L~ Claire claritied tf~at the primary E>urpoee of getting thes e petitian~ befoce the Commissinn today wa~ to be firet in line and a~ked i f this paxticular petitioner would be considered firat in line if a contin u ance was granted until the ordinance ~as adopted. Mr. Reed stated iE that would be the case, he would 7ccept a continu,~:ice. Jack White stated there ia certa inly nothing to preclude another company or individual from applying for bil lboards in the City today, tomorcow or a t Any time in the future and it is E~os sible tt~at the Planning Commission could continue these matters for 6U da~+s and tomorrow ~nottier company c~uld apply far a different locaticn and a h~aring comea in within that 60-day peciod and in the meantime an ~rdinance has been aciopted and ttie Commi~sion has the information to grant the ~eques t to ano~hek company and since this matte r wa~ continued for 60 days, the ~ecoci d apPlic~ztion could ~e granted before th i ~ Qne. He stated this applicant w as the first in filing an application, bu t thece are others pending befor~~ the State. Chairwoman Bouas asked if th~re it+ any w~y to guacantee that if this is d enied by the Commission and goes befo r e the Ct~y Council, that khe Commission c ould have it come back to them. Jac k Whi`.e respc~nded there is no guarantee f or that. Commissioner Herbst stated staf ~ has recommended a negative declaration on these billboards and he could agree with that on some of the locations, but there are some sites wherE :he billboards could detrimentally impact ad a a cent Froperties wikh sight, health, safety, welfare, etc. He stated he canno t go along wi.~h aaying these large b illboards will not hAVe a negative impact - CommiFSioner euahore stated the City Ats-orney has sai~ the Commission ha s enough infotmation to deny the reqiiest, but he did nat think suificient evidence has been presented to approve them. He stated there is a cumul ative effect with all these billboacd s which must ba considered. 2/6/84 c~,~ ,:,..,... .,.. , _., . ,. . ~~ MINUTF:~,_ ANAFILIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FE6RUARY 6, 1984 - 84-58 Commissioner La Claire stated this was also d fiehing expedition and aome of these billboacds won't bP buil t And the Commia8lon doe~ noC know which onaa are Lor ceal. She atated ehe strongly objects to ttiis and thought this was ~he iirst time ther.e hae been some kind of a race to the City Council And the Commission is being asked to v ote on something that is ju,~t a political pl~y to puah this through and geC i t before the Ci.ty Councils and that the Comn+iesion does not have the f acts to review it under the new ordinance and know~ that none of them are g o ing to be bui.lt under the old ordinance. She st~ited ahe resents khe Commissf on being treated tt~is way and that she thinks it is the CommiASion's duty to look at tt~ese but that i.s n~t really the queRtion, and the petitionec is not really applying for billbaarde undpr the old ordinance. Commi~sioner Herbst atated tt~e se billboarda are 3U08 larger th~n the present Code allows. Mr. ketd stated the State requ ires two o~plications Ear one billhoard so the Eigure oL 50 could be cut in half. He stated he is sorry the Crmmission feels the way they do, but he also f eels compelled to represen~ his company by what was done at the State level an d exFlained that last year any application for a State prrmit for a billbo~rd in AnAhF~im had to be accompanied wikh a CertiEicate nf Zoning Complian c e by .~ Ci.ty oE Anaheim and he had asked on everyone's application if t~e c ould get those certificates signed to receive the State ta9s which gives no right to actually construct be4aur~e he wo~: •i still need a local City E,ermit, etc. and then during the course of the year, the legi3lature pas~ed a new I~ill which wiped out the Certificate of 2oninq Compliance requiremer,t and as of Januacy 1, 1984, they were not cequi.red to accompany a State permit. He s tAted he personally went to Sacramenk~ ;.o file his applications os~ January 3, 1984, and hi.s comF~any and one uther comFany were the only one repcesented a nd they wece advised tl~at the State had already accepted applfcations from two othPr comp=~nies prior to the end of the year without a Cectificate oE 'Lonin g Compliar,c~ which mpant. that they were firat and this is why he went ahead with these applications. Commissioner eushare stated the Commis~io nrs are land planners and he thought they would be doi.ng the citizEn s of Anaheim a serious injustice to pass khis on to ttie City Council wher. .: becomes a political issue instead of a land use iasue. He stated he tho~~h t there is adequate information to ask for a com~lete environmental imp~ct r eport and probably not enough information to make a deciaion and that a continttance cauld be granted, Mr. Reid stated he could not g~ along wi~h a continuan~e, but it is up to the Commission. Conunissioner Herbs t suggested a cor.tinuance. Jack White asked if. the Commission wishes to direct that an environmental impact report be prQpared. Cnn,rr,,ssioner eushore stated the Commiseion is saying they may need a fncuaed EzR :~nd tnaybe in b weeks khere will be enough informati--~ available to make a deci:>ion whether or not a full EIR ur a focused EIR is c.~iiired. .Iack White stated the Commission does not have to have an approved negative de..,.aration, or a certified env ironmental impact rPpo:t in order to have the legal ability to deny the pecmits and iL• is not necessary to continue the mattec simply because they thin k an EIR may be requiced and that a negative declaration is not appropriate. 2/6/84 MINUTES~, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ~~BRUARY 6. 19A4 84-59 Commissioner Hecbat srat~... he b~ill foel8 there ie not information for him to vote on tl~e reyuest and hP th~ught the Commiesion has the righF. to continue the matter foc 6 weeks to allow ataEf to pr.epare the new ordinance and in the m~untime have a work ees~i ~~ with th~ City Council before the ordinance goes into effect. ACT7AN: Commie~loner Herbat ~ffered a m~tion, aecon~~d by Comm'saioner auahore an~ MOTION CARRIED (Commission~r Mceurnay absent), that the AnaT~eim City Planning Commission does hereby cuntinue conaidetation of r.he af.orementioned mattera (Items 5 throuyr, 15) to khe regularly-scheduled mce~ing of March 19, 1984, due to lack of adequate inEocmation. Commiesioner La Claire atAted ahe would like to know which of theae billboards ace real a t which onea ace not since the applicant did admit he waa not sure wt,ich one~ ~ould ~e constructed. Commissioner Nerbat stated hE is not satisfied with a neg~tive declar.ution Eor all of the locatione because the billboard~ oE ~t~i~ size could have a detcimental effect on adjoininy properltecs un r,o~e of the locations. ACTION: Commiss:oner Herbst offered a motion, aeconded by Commission~r Bust~ore and MUTION CAxRIEU (Commissioner Mceurney abaent), that th~ Anaheim City Planning Commiss~on would like to ~uggest that Citf Council meet with the Planning Commission in a work session to dfscuss the praFosed billboard ordinance. RECE;SS: 3;10 p.m. REC~NVENE: 3:2:' p.m. ITEM NU. 16. EIR .IEGATIV~ DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2529: PUBLIC HEAItING. OWNERS: GREGURY ANB PATRICIA ~lGLANUEVA, 3400 Irvine Avenue, Suite 221, Newpor~ Beach, CA 92660. Property descr.ibed as a rectangular.ly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.66 acre, 671 South Harbor Boulevard. To permit a 3-story, 53-unit motel. There were three persons indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the stAff repo:r_ was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Gregory Villanueva, owner, stated he is requestiny approval for development of a motel; that he had ^reviously proposed an o£fice building on the propecty, but deci~ed a motel would be the highest and best use and they can provide a 53-unit motel. He stated they are not requestinq any variances and presented their rendering oE the proposed motel. He stated the lot is vacant and has become a maintenance problem; that there will be no restautanls and no major ingress or egress prablems. He stated the height of the building is approximately 3Q feet and they do not feel it would cast any shad~ws onto the north property be~ause thete is about 45 feet from the property line nri the ~orth to thefr building and the buildings to the south are two story and will 2/6/84 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CUMMISSION, ~E~KUARY 6. 1984 94-GO be approx.imately the same heiyht as thia motel. He atated they hdve minimized the w411 facina the south by deaigning it as a rEVeraed "C' so the openin~ of the 'C' would be ~n the south sidE. Olin Datnel, 2409 Alta Vista Dcive, Vis:a, CA stated he owns p:operty et 513 W. Hampshire and was concerned becauae they only propoaed 44 ~Arkirig spaces for 53 u~its and that people will come in with trailera ancj not be able to ~u11 in and he thought they would be parking in front of his property. He added they are also concerned about the 3 staries because the ~,eher properties are all Gwo stories and they would prefer to keep it that way because the guests could look down into their barkyards. Ann Casey, 519-1/2 S. Hampshire, Anaheim, stated tney a.lread,y have exc~ss traffic on the street and do have parking problems. She atated if thete Are openinga or wi.ndows on tt~e south side, they will be Ab~Q to hear loud cadios, televiaions and .loud partiea and thia is a quiet street and they would like to keep it tt~at way. ShE stated slie was also concerned about the height of the buildiny and the number of packing spaces. St~e staked they have trouble now with tour buses uaing the skreet as a tusn-around and damaging their pcoperty. Mr. Villanueva stated they did consider the eff.ect on the area as much as they could and there is no height restricL•ion on that site and they could have constcuct~~ a 10-story building. He sta~ed they meet the parking requirement of .8 space per unit for motels in Anaheim. He stated access would be on Hacbor only with a locked gate accec~ on the alley for Pire and emergency equipment. Concernir.y windows on thp ~auth, F~~ stated he would like tA be able to have some windows in minor areaa fuc aesthetic purpoaes, but not ~n every unit. THE PUBLIC HF,A}2ING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner eushore referred to the 10-foot dead ~:~ace on the nnrth :.ide between the m~tel and the convalescent hospital parking lot. He st•ated the petitioner indicat~d there is a 10-fool setback on the south side, but it is actually only 3 or 4 feet and he thouqht it might be better to bui?d L•he motel to the nortf~ property line and provide the extra space on the sc,uth between the a~artments and the packing sr.alls. Commissioner Herbst asked if there is a 15-foot easement from the alley t~ Harbor on the south si.de. Mr. Villanueva stated he was not aware of an easement and the requirement on the couth side to the building line is 10 feet and the 3 feet indicated is the landscaped area. Commissioner Bushore sta':ed aome of the a~~artments are built uver the garages with their only entrance overloaking the parking lot and he thought moving the motel to the north would pro~:ide 10 more feet on the south and give more pcotection irom the automobile noise and fumes and from t~ash being thrown over the landscbped area. Responding to Cammissionec La Claire, Kendra Morries explained the zoning is commercial and the setback required to the north is zero. 2/6/84 MINUTE~, ~NAHEIM CITY PLANNING ~OHMr~SION. PEBRUARY 6, 1984 04-61 Mr. Villanueva etat~d they would havq no objection ko moving the structure to the north, but would like to proceed as quickly ae passible in ocdec to meet the Olympic pche'ule. He stated he wauld only want to eonsider moving the motel 1E it daes.'c- hol.d up the p'lans foc construction. Commioaionec La Clai,:e stat~9 sii~ce the property is zoned foc commercial uaes, he could build an it anyway and ~hP only objection `.he co~~unis~ion has is the 10 Eeet provided on the aide where it ia not cequi.red with only 3 feet provided on the aouth. Mc. Villanueva Atatod the three feet noted on the plan is the lahdacaped area, but 10 feet is provided. Commissioner Bu~hoce stated thak puts the car~ within J feet o£ the fence. Commissioner. Fry stated if r.he petitioner would stipulate to moving everything to the north pro~erty line ~nd Adding more landscAping to the setback on the south property line and would stipulAte tl~at there would be no openings on the aou~h sidQ, the Commission could qo ahead with Approva.l of this pcoject. Mr. Villanueva ste~ted that would be accepteble and pointed out he was told the n~~rthern se~back would have ta be 10 f.eet and stated he doe~ not want to create a amall trash Aren of three or four feet on the north which would be unmanageable. it was clarified ~hat the conditional u~e permit is required foc ci~e motel use in the CO Zone. ,Tack White stated the Commission can take action on this pcoject today with ~.ie petitionec's stipulations lo move the motel; huwever, the condikion pertaining to the plans and specificationa should be modifi~~d to sliow the buildiny will be relocated. Anriika Santalahti stated the only thing about a shallawer setback .n the north is that all euilding Codes would still have to be met such as windo~~s, air conditioning units, etc. Mz. Villanueva asked if they would still be allawed to have the 10-f~ot ~etback on the south if the building ia moved to the north because o: t;~e open C design, pointin9 out there is a 30-foot unit blank wall on each enc of the wC~~ Commissioner ~ry clacified the Commission is asking that the southern building be moved 10 feet to the north also sa there wauld be 13 feet of landscaping on the south side instead of 3 feet. ACZ'ION: Commissianer King offered a motian, ~econded by Cammissioner Fry and MOTIUN ~A12RIEll (Commissioner McBUrney absent), that the Anaheim City Planning commission has reviewed the proposal tu permit a 3-story, 53-unit motel on a rec:angularly-shaped parcel af land consisting of approximately 0.66 acre, having a frontage of approximately 127 feet on the west side of Harbor 0oulevard and further described as 671 S. Narboc Boulevard; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered tt-e Negative Declaration together with any com~~ents received d~ring the public review process and Eurther finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that ther~ .s no aubsta.ytial evidence that Che p*oject will have a significant effect ~r; :he environment. 2/6/84 84-62 MINUTES_, ANAHEIM CI~Y PLANNING COMMISSION FL•'BRUARY 6 1964 Commissioner K~ng offeced keaolution No. PC84-19 and moved far ite paa~age end adoptian that the Anaheim City Plenning Commission doea hereby gcant Condikional Uae Permit No. 2529 purauanl to Anaheim Mu~icipal Code Section 18.03.030.03U through 18.03.030.035 and ~ub~ect to ths petitioner's stipulation to celocate the building to w~thin 6 inchea of khe northecn proparky line ar.d to provide 13 feet of. landac~ping on the south property line and aubject to modification of Condition No. 11 to provide ~~at thp building will be cel~cat~d As aL•ipulated to by the applicant and ..uject ~a Intecdepartmental Committee recommendatione. on roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the fallowiny vote: AYES: BOUAS~ HUSk{UR.E~ FRY~ HERBST, KING~ LA CL'iRE NOES: NUNE ABSCNT; MCBUkNEY Jack Whitc, Assiatant City Attorney, presented the written right to al~l~~al the Planning Gommi~aion's decialon wikhin 22 days to the City Cauncil. I'rEM NU. ~7. EIR NEGATIV~ DE~LARATION RECLASSTFICATTON N0. 83-84-16 WAIVeR QE CUDE RE~UxREMENT AND CONUITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2531: PJBLIC H~ARZNG. OWNERS: MAGANBHAi NARAN~FIAI PATEL, BT AL, 2176 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, CA °28U'l. AGENT: PETBR R. 20TOVICH, 307 North Euclid Way ~G-1, Anaheim, CA 92801. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.55 acre, 2176 South Narbor Boulevard (Hacienda Motel). RS-A-43,OOU to CL to permit a 6-unic addition ~o a 29-unit motel with waivers of minimum structural setback and minimum fence height. There was no one indicating their presence in opPosftion to subject request and although the stafE ceport was not read, it ic referred to and made a pact of the minutes. Peter Zotovich, agent, was ~r~~sent to answer any questions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioncer Hecbst pointed out the plans show three large rooms without any entrance to the patio area or walk-way and only one entrance from the room ad~ ~cerit to it. Mr. Zotovicy st&ted they intend to have four of the units as family-s.ize units with 2 raoms and one bath and one entrance. He explained t•hey will only be bedrooms and there is no intention of putking in a door and there will be no kitchens iri those units. Commisaioner Herbat indicated con~cern because these units are almost aparrment sized. Mc. Zotovich clarified that thece are four kitchen units in the motel now and khey will be convertin~ the existing manager's uni.t into a unit with a kitchen ~nd constructing a new manager's unit with a standard aized kitchen. He stated the owner ~~nted the larger two-bed~ units for lar~,a families. 2/6/84 MINUTES. AN\NEIM CITY__PLANNING COMMISS_I0t7,_FEBRUARY 6,___1984 _____ 84-63 Eie added they have no intention of conver.ting thoae units in the future. He sl•ated he wanted to use the entire space and explained when the remodeling is completed, they would have the ex~sting mAnager's unit conver.~ed to r~ cenkable kikchen unit and there will be a new manag~c's unit upat~ir.s. He ~tAted thece ia an office in the front and thAt will str~y and the front elevation changed to a Spaniah motif. KendrA Morries explained the exiscii~g building is 5 feet from l•he property line and the petitioner is pcopoaing to constcuct an addition to match that 5-foot setback and there will be a tctal of 35 units when it is finiahed. C~mmisaioner La Claire atated she sees no problem as long as thece is a stipulation that the units will not be rented as apartments And as long as the bed-tax is collected for thoae cAOms, etc. ACTION: Commisafoner La Claire affpred a motion, seconded by Commissioner King and MOTIUN CARRIEU (Commis~loner McBurney absent), that the Anal~eim City Planning Commiesion has reviewed the proposal to r.er.]asaify subjeat property from the RS-A-43,000 (Residential, Agricultural) Zone to the CL (Commercial, Li.mited) Zone to per.mit a G-unit addikion to a 2y-unit motel with waivers of minimum structural setback and minimum fence height on a rectangular]y-ahaped parce! oE land cunsieting of approximately Q.55 acre, having a fron~age of appcoximately 100 feet on the east side of Harbor Boulevard and further described as 1176 South Harbor Boulevarcl (Flacienda Motel); and does hereby aQprove the Negativ~ Declaration upon finding that it has conaidered the Negative Declaration tuyether with any comments received during the public review process and further finding ~n the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidenc~ that the pro3ect wil.l have a signific:ant effect on the envi.ronment. Commissioner La Claire ofF~red Resoluti.on No. PC84-20 and moved f~r its passage and adoption that t~~e AnahEfm City Planaing Commission does hereby grant Reclassificati~n No. 83-84-6, subject to Interdepartmental C,~mn~_ttee Recommendations. On roll call, the focegoing resolution wa~ passed by the following vote: AYES: 80UAS, BUSHORE, FRY, HERBST~ KING, LA CI.AIRE NOES: NONE ABSENT: MC BURNEY Comr~issioner La Claire offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst ar.d MOTIUN CARRIBD 1Commissioner McBur.ney absent), that the Anahei.m City Planning Commission does hereby gcant waivers of Code cequi.rement on the basis that the conclition~ are pre-existi~~g and there sre special circumstar~ces applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned properzy in tt~e same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the pcop~rty of privileges enjoyeil by other prop;.:ties in the identical zone and classi:ication in the viciniLy and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendatione. 2/0/84 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEgRUARY 6 1984 _ C4-G4 CommisRioner La Claice offered Resolution No. PC84-21 and moved for its ~a~auge and adoption t' ;t the Anaheim City Planning Commis~ion does nerehy grant Condit:onal Use Permi.t No. 2531 on the basia ~he p~citioner has stipulated thet therp shall be no doors to the outaide of the 4 lArge two-bedroom unit~ and thdt khey will not be converted and rented i~ the future as apartmenta and Rubject to Interdepurtmental Committee recommonJations. On roll call, th~ for.egoing cesulution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, 6USHGRE, ~RY~ HERBST, KING~ LA CLAIRE NOBS: NONE ABSENT: MC BURNCY TTEM N0. 18. EIR h'EGATIVE DECLARATION WAIVEk OF CODE RE UIREMENT AND CONDITIOtJAL USE PERPIIT NU. 2532; PUDL7C IlE~-i ING. OWNEf2S: MING-YUAN HUANG AND MEI-LI YEN HUANG, 3111 ~ ~a Mondo, Compton, CA 90221. AGENT: MERVIN .l. YOUNG, 522 S. Santiago, Anaheim, CA 92807. Propecty descri.t,ed as d rectangularl~•-shaped parcel of. land cUnsisting oF aC~proximately 0.66 acre, 3421 East La ~ralma Avenue. To pertnit an automobile body repair ~3nd restoration ~hop in the M_ Zone ~ith waiver of minimum number of parking epaces. Tliere was no one indicating their presence in nppoaltion to subject request and although the staff repork wa~ nok read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Mervin J. Young, agent, was pcesent to answcr any questions. THE F~UBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSGD. Commissianer Flerbsk clarified that all wock will be conducted inside the f.acility. ACTION; Com~r. sioner King offered a motion, seconded by Commission.-r Fry and MOTION CARRdEU (COmmissioner McBurney absent?, that the Anaheir., City Plannina Commission has revieved the pro~~sal to permit an automobile h~~y reaAir and restorati~n sho~ in the ML (Industrial, I.imited) Zone with waiver of minim.:n numbec c,f pa~king ~paces on a rectangularly-shaped parcel c~f land consisting of approximatel.y 0.86 acre, having a f.rontage of approximately ;7~ fert on the north side of La Palma Avenue and furthe: described as 3421 E. ~. Palma Avenue; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon i~ding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any com: .~ts received during the public review process and further .finding nn the basis oF the Initial Study and any comments received that there is n. substantial evidence that the praject will have a significani efEect An the er,vironment. (.ommissioner Kin9 off~red a mot.ion, se~:anded by Commissioner Fry and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner McBurney absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Comm~~sion does hereby grant waiver of Code reyuirement on the basis that the~P are special ciccunstances applicable to the pcoperty sue;, as size, shape, topograghy, location and surroundings which do not apply to other 2/6/84 MINUTES~ ANAHE_IM CITY PLANNINC COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 6. 1984 84-65 identically zoned property in Che same vicinityl and that strict app].ication of the 2oning Code deprives the Qroperty uf privileges en~oyed by other propecties in the identical zane and classification i~ the vicinity and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendationa. Commisaioner King offered Resolution No. PC84-22 and moved for ita pAasage and adoption that the Anaheim City P.laning Commisaion does hereby grant Conditional Use Yermi~ No. 2532 ~uKSUant to AnAheim Municipal Code Secti~ns 18.U3.~3U.030 through 18. 03.030.035 and subject to interdepartmenta: Cammit~ee :ecommeridations. Un ro11 call, the foreyoing resolution was passed 'oy the following vote: AYES: 9UUA5~ BUSHORE, FRY, HERBST, KING, LA CLAIRE NOES: NpNF ABSENT: M~ BURNEY ITEM N0. 19. EIR. NE<~?,TIVE DECLARATION, WATVBR OF CODG REQUIREMENT AlVD CUNPI'I'IONAL USE PERlIIT NG. 2.53.i: PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: KING-SEELEY TH~RMOS CO., 707. W. Lincoln Avenuc, Anaheim, CA 92805. P.GENT: ~PHE SALVATION ARM", AT'fN: MAJOR EDWIN HENDERSON, 2U7 North F~ench S~reet, Santa Ana, CA 92701-4887. F~roperty described as an irre;~~larly-shappd pnrcel of land consisting of approximately 14.5 acres, 1300 South Lewie 5treet. To permft t! Salvation Army Adult Rehabilitntion Center !includi.~g a 1.50-bed men's resi •e and treatment center And a wock therapy unit) witt, waiver of minimum n w~i~er of parking spaces. There were two pecsons indi.cating their presence in opposition t~ subject request and although the staff report waG not read, it is referred to and made a pact of the minutes. Commissioner King declared a conflict of interest as defined by Anaheim Clty Planning Commission Resolution No. PC76-157 adopting a Conflict of interest Code for the P.lanning Commission and GovernmP-+t Code Section 3625, et seq., in that he is on the Advisory Board of Directors £or the Salvation Army and pursuant to the provisions of the above Codes, declared to the Chaf~ ~an that he was withdrawing from the hearing in connectic~n with Conditional ~se Permit No. 2533, and would nol• take part in either the discussion or the voting thereon arid had not discussed thia matter with a~y membec of the planning Commission~ Tliereupon Cortuaissioner King left tt~e Council Chamber at 3:50 p.m. ~ommiesionec Bushore declared a conflick of fnterest as defined by Anaheim City P~anning Commission Resolution No. PC76-157 adopting a Conflict of Interest Code for the Planning Commission and Government Code Section 3625, et seq., in that he is the broker and agent for the current property owner and pursuant to the provis;ons of ~he above Codes, declarad to the Chairman that he was withdrawing from the hearing in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 2533, and would nct take part ~n either the discussi~n or the voting thereon and had not discussed this matter with any member of the Pla„ning Commission. Thereupon c:ommissionec Bushore left the Council Chamber at 3:50 p.m. 2/6/84 MINUTES. ANAHEIM C1T_Y__PJ,ANNING COMMISSION, FEBRpARY 6, 1984 84-66 Major Harlin Hall, representing Salvation Arm:-, 410 E. Faurth Street, Santa Ann, CaliEornia, explained they are requeating a conditional uae permit for an adult rehabilitation center wlth 150 beda with waivec of minimum number of pack~ng spacea. He erplained thia ia not a drnp-in cent~r and is nat a misaion and has a rehabilitation center for men. H~ referred t~ the brochu~e submittcd describiny the program and the type of peaple they help wtth counseling an~ medical treAtment and explained the men will be working in their work therapy pro~ram which will be in the warehouse And thel will be recyclfng merchandise donated and placing ik in the thriEt etores to be sold to supporl the progrAm. Vivian Fnglebrecht, 218 South Flor~tte, membet of the Advisory Board Loc the Salvation Army, stated she is apeaking for 18 members of the B~ard who recoynize the need for thia rehabilitation center and approve o[ this locekion and stated merchandise will be ceceived, repaiced and cecycled and sent to the thrift storea from this facility. 5he state~ the B~Ard has approve~ this worY. therapy center and dormitory facility. Lieutenant Alan Robinson, 361 S. Gilbuck, Anaheim, Commanding Officer SAlval•ion Army, stated the eoarci is in favor of this cequest not only because of the work program described, but because i.t will be helpful in theic support service~ such ~s ~ervices provided durir, the Ananeim fires last year and pointed out it would be very helpful to have this unit in Anaheim in case of a major disaster such a:; an eacthquake. Dale Kinella, Kiltoy Induatrie~, 1x30 Lewis, expl~ined they own contiguous properr,y and also own property at 901 E. Ra11 Road and 1000 East Ball Ruad ana 801 East Ball Ro3d and these properties total aver 300,000 aquare feet. He stated Kilroys is not opposed to the conce~~t of this entity locating here; however, the question before the Commission is whether ~r not this is an appropriate site for this fa~ility since the industrial use appears to be secondary to theic main purpQSe a-id tt~~ maximum number of employees that could be on this site at any one time is 75 and this is designed foc 150. He refe:red to the reguirement that ~he Ylanning Commission must find that the proposed use will not adversely a~fect the adjoining land uses and growth and development i~ tt~e area and ~~ointed out they have had a difficult time leasing 15,000 square f.eet of the fic:t floor of their facility and felt this cehabilitation facility will hav~~ a substantial impact on what they have existing in the area and what they havP planned for the future. F~e referred to their brochure provided which descri~e:; r.he type ~f program that will be provided to khe homeless, thase who have a drinkiny problem or are in tr~~ble with the ]aw, have a drug problem or a emotional problem and could be a parolee. He stated this is a t~ighl.y technical industrial area and Kilcoy Industries is planning a substantial industrial pack right around the corner and would provide jobs for some 750 to 1000 peoE>le and he felt that project will be dropped if this site is approved fur this rehabi.litatic~ center. He stated they wou~d like to req~est that the Com~r.issivn ~ontinue this hearing for some period of time to enable them to rationally determine what the impact of this center wil] be. He stated all they have had time to do is review the literature provided by the ~alvation Army and they do not want to be unfair to them. 2/6/84 MINUTES, ANANEIM CI1.'Y PLANNING COMMISSION1 FEBRUARY 6, 1984 _ 84-6_7 Mc. Kinella ~tated there ie law in the Stete oi CaliEornia which is impasing liability on citiea and caunties far this type sltuation of expoaing othec potential tenanta to potentially dang~rous aituAtiona. He added he did not know if this ie ~~otentially dangero~+ condition, but he did know that L•hc litera~ur~ providsd suqyests ttiat because theae are people in eerious nePd ~E help who will be cesiding in this faci,lit.Y un a permanent basie. He stated thia wil]. severely impact khia industriP~ area and stop the growth and there may be some problem~ that will stRm Er~m thia and he wa~ n~~t ~ure there is enc~ugh evidencH ~o detern~ine ~h^t it •. 11 nut aff4ct adjoining land u3es and yrowth and develo~~~ent in the area. Mr. Kinella stated the C.~ty of Santa Ana was in th~~ F~rocess of considering thi~ and the p~cmit was not granted and he did not r,~~ow why khey h~d rnade the decision aiid wo~ld like *_o have more i.nformation. Jay Madison, PottPr~ Industriea~ 1255 ~. Lewi~, stated their properly is dicectly across tt~e streeL and they have been there Eor 28 years and bought the propErty E~r industrial uses assuming the City would continue the industrial tract and now ~ residential facility is pr~poaed. He stated l-heir o~eration cuns 24 t~ouc~ a day and problems have acisen in oth~r cities whece they have operated 24 hour~ a day t~o Close to residential uses because noise has become a prublem at nigt~k. He stated this partic~ilac residential unit is going to be in th~ exact ceiiter of this industrial park and they feel the Planning Commission should stay with the oriqinal plans and leave this as an industcial area. He stated he has no object~on to tr~e repair facflit.i.es, but does object to the residential units. He re~erred to the p~ivate ruad and stated it i~~ right aC the top ~f the underpass and cars are usually traveling about 5U mi per hour on LewiA And cannot. see the acceas to Lewis Street And he thought this facility would he exttemely hazardous to the traffic alnng Lewis. He stated the street has no parking, but the traffic lane is adjacent ta the curb and there i.s a bus stop in front of this property which will cause more traffic congestion and probably the reaidents of this facility wi.ll use the public bus causing more stops and traffic congestiun. Major Hall presented pictures of other residences b~ilt in other parts of the country wtiich will be typ:ca~ of this facility. He stated the mPn rrho sign into the c~nter, siyn i~ for a minimum of 90 days and ace restricted to the residence for the first 30 days until they are completely dried out and explained they do not take men in who are drinking or have been drinki~g and they m~st get involved Mi.th the counseling program. He stat~d Santa Ana did not refuse the request; however, the residence did not meet earthquaka standards and it would have been very expensive to bring it up to Code. He stated this is the most logica~ and best location they have found to reach the various areas. He stated the residence doors close at 11:OU at week nights and 12 on Saturday, so that no one comes and goes after those houzs and they are all invo].ved in the work therapy program and they try to teach them new habits. Hs stated they did a survey in San Francisco which showed they have a 258 success rate of inen going through thefr program. He sfi~ated he has don.e this type of work for 17 yeacs. THE PUBLIC HEARI.WG WAS CLOSED. 2/!i/84 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 6. 1984 84-6 6 Commiasionec Herbst st~tQd thio site is probably a~aut ae isoZated ae a~y aite ~hat he rould think of Eor this Cype of uae and if the ~~te was developed ~ndustcially, the traffic would be a lot worse than it would be foc hhis uae. He steted mot~la aro allowed fur residential use with approval of a con~itional use pormit in the industrial area nnd even though this would not be ~ good motel ~ite, this reaidenCial uae appeara to be co~~ipatible. Ne atated there is a rAilread on one side and an underpass on the other side, so the prapecty is virtually isolated Erom exposure from any of the industriea mentioned. He stated these m~n will be working cecycling merchandise and the y will b~ hauspd in A very aecure area and he felt chis 8:te has the leaet amount of expo~ure for thia type uAe and it could not be lucated in a downtow n ar.ea or more denaPly populated area And he felt it woilld not be detrimentol t~ any of the Ad~oining areas. Commissionec La Claire &gceed with Commissioner Herbst. She reEerred to the person fcom Potters Industries wha had indicated ttie~r pl~nt is o~en all rig h t and asked if the Salvati~n Army representAtives have considered possibility o f r~o~se at night fLam the plant. MAjor tiull e;tated he clid n~t think the rioisr would affect the r.e~idents at aIl becaur~e the reaidential portion would be on the south eide af their warehous e and there wc>uld be another warehouse parking lot between. He atated the men cuming into this facility are so thankful tc~ have a p1ACe to live that they would not cc~mpl.ain about the noise. C~mmissioner. La Claire stated she wanted to compliment the Salvation Army and ita mpn who have helped these people and pointed out those same people who need this facility are the people wt~~ will be going ta work in these induetriea ~,nd do deserve a chance and she tho~.!ght this is the best area foc this type f~~cility and welcomed ttiem to Anaheim. Chairwort~an 13ouas asl;•:~.1 what type areas the other facilities are located i.n which where shown ii~ the photographs. Co1~ne1 Johnson, Salvation Army, stat P d genecally the C<<cilities are built in the inc~ustrial areas because of the warehruse and tecycling work which needs to be done in theic work program. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner FrS~ and MOTIUN ~ARRIED (Commissioners Bushore, King and McBurney absenk), that t he Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to pPrmit thp Salvation Army Adult Rehabilitation Center (including a 150-bec9 men's reaidence treatment center and a work therapy unit) in the ML (Induattial, Limited? Zone with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces on an i.rregularly-shaped parcel of land consiating of approximately 14.5 acres having a frontage of approximately 1140 feet on the east side of Lewi:, Stree t and furt•aer described as 1300 S. Lewis Stceet; and does hereby approve the NegaCive Declaration upon ~inding that it has considered the :~eyative Declaration together with any comments received during the public ceview proeess and fu~ther Einding on the basis oE the initial Sl•udy and any commen rs received that there is no substantial evidence that L•he project will have a significant eff.ect or. the environment. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fry and MOTION 2/6/84 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ FECRUARY 61 1984 84-69 CARRIBD (Cammissionera Bushore, King and McBurney absenl), that th9 Anaheim Ci*.y Planning CLi~~I1~S8~Of1 does hereby grant wuivec of Code tequirement on the basi3 th~t a large percentage of the residents would not heve vehicles and also on the basis that there is adoquet e nrea un the propc~tty to provide addiCional parking spaces 1E reguirEd a n d furcher on the basis that th~ parking waiver will not caus~ an increA s e in traffic congestion in the immediate vicintty nor advPr~+e]y affect any ~djoining land uses and grz~~ting oP the parkiny waiver undec the conditiona imposed, lf any- will nat t~e detrim~ntal to the peace, health, safet y and gerieral welfare of the citizens of the l:ity ot Anaheim. Commi.ssioner Herbst affered Rea~lution No. PC84-23 and moved for fts paasage and adoption thnt the Anaheim City Plan ning Commisaion does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2533 eubject to InterdeparLmental Committee recommendations inclu~:ing the recummend ation pertafning to the private s treet as recummended by the City Tcaffic Engi ne~r. Jay Titus stated this rocid wUUld only s erve thia one uaet however, in th e future if the property waa developed fo r industcial uses with moce Lhan one user, it would be logical to have the s treet developed to ~ublic street's otAndards ~n it ~an be dedicated as a p ublic street, Jack White Ruggested Condition No. 7 be mudified to read: "T hat ttie on-aite street shall be a private str~et unle~s the street is con structed to puUlic 3treet s~andardo with a m.inimum right-of-way of 60 feet anci in the future is offered and accepted Eor dedicati~n by the City of Anaheim. Ne explained the developer is not obligated to construct to public street standardo, but if he wants it to be accepted in the future as a public s treet, it muct be con~trur.ted to public street gtandards. On roll call, the foregoing cesolution was paYSed by the follawing vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBS:, LA CLAIRE NOES: NUNE ABSENT; BUSHORE, KING, MCBURNFY Jack W;~ite, A~sistant City Attorney, preaented thp wrltten cight to appeal the Planning ~ommissiun's decision within 2 2 da~s to the City Council. ITEM NO. 20. REPORTS AND RECOMMENUATIONS: A. VARIANCE N0. 1975 - Request from W. D. Gutnrie for termination of Variance N~. 1975, praperty located at 626 S~ Anahei.m 6oulevard. ACTIUN: Commissioner King offered Rez~olution No. PC84-•24 and moved foc its passage and adoption that ~h~ Anaheim City Planning Commissian doea hereby terminate Variance No. 197 5. On roll call, khe foregoing resolution was pasaed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BUSHOI2E, FRY, HERBS'P, KING~ LA C1.AIRE NAES: idONE ABSENT: MCBURNEY 2/6/84 MIPIUTBS. AN~HGIM CITY PL1-NN:tiG CpMMISSIONR FEBRUA1tY G,,,` 1~84 __ 8A-70 B. VARIANC~ NU. 2118 - Request fcom W. D. Guthrie fnr tecmination of VariancA No~ 2,~18, prop~erty located at 600 s. Anaheim Boulevard. ACT10N: Commisstoner King off ered Resolution No. PC84-25 end moved far ite ~UABAgN and ndo~lion that the Anaheim City Plunning Commission does hereby tecminate Variance No. 2118. On roll ca11, the Eoregoing resolution was pas~ed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, sUSHORE, FRX, HERB5T~ KING, LA CLAIRE NOES: NONE ABSBNT: MCBU1tNEY C. VARIANCE NU. 545 - Reyuest from 9yron Piayes, Jr. for termination of Variance No. 545, propecty luc ated at 1126 S. AnAheim Boulevard. ACTIUN; Commiasionet King off ered Hesolutian No. PC84-26 and moved for its passage and adoption thar_ the Anaheim City Planning Commission daes hereby terminate Variance Mo. 545. Un roll ~a11, the foregoing reso.lution was passed by the following vote: AYGS: RC)UAS, HUSHORE~ E'RX, HERBST, KING, LA CLAIRE NOES: NUNE ABSENT: MCBURNCY D. VARIANCE N0. 3134 - kequest f rom Duane Hltsvnicka f.oc an extension of time for Variance No. 3134, propecty located at 26-08 Russell Avenue. ACTION: Commisaioi~er King off ered a motion, seconded by Commiasioner Fr~~ and MO~ION CARRIBD (Cammissio ner McBurney ebsent), that the Anaheim Cit;~ Planning Commiseion does hereby y:a~~t a retroactive one-year extension of time for variance No. 3134 ta expi.re on F~bruary 25, 1985. E. COt~DI'fIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1257 - Request from Michael Kreiger f.or terminAtion of Conditional Us e Permit No. 1257, property located on the south side of Crescent Avenue, approximately 680 feet west of the centerline of Muller Street. ACTION: Commissioner King of fered Resolutio~ No. PC84-27 and moved for its passage and adoption tha t the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby terminate Conditfonal Use Permit No. 1257. C~n roll call, the foregoing r esolution was passed by the follawing vote: A'LFS: BOUAS, BUSHORE, FRY, Hk~R95T, KING, LA CLAIRE NOES: NONE ABSEN'P: MCBURNEY 2/6/84 MINU'I'ES, ANAHEIM CI~'Y PLANNING COMMISSION, FGBRUARX G. 1944 84-71 F. 'fENTA.TIVE MAP UF TRACT N0. 10585 AND VARIANCE NO. 3057 - Requast Erom ~drry Co~tl~a Eor approval of revised plans, prop~cty located on the noKthwest side of Mah eim Nills Road, approximately 800 feet south of the centerline of Nohl Ran ch Rosd. ACT10N; Comr~iRSioncr HerbFZt oftered a motion, Ki.ng and MOT10N CARRIED (Commissioner McF3urney City Planning Commiss i an doea liereby determine iloor plans and eleva t ians are i~ aubstantial approved spec~,tic plan s under Tentative Ma~ of Var;lance No. 3G57. seconded by CommieaionQr absent), that the Anaheim that sut~mitted revised ~onformance with previously Tract No. 1(1585 and G. TENTATIVE; MAP~IE TRACT NOS. 85'l0, 10996, 1U997 and 10998 - Request from Hogan, Roy, Partners f or waiver of the Nillsid~ Grading Ordinance pertaining to F.lope ma intenance responsibiliti.es, property locatec] at the southwest and aouthea s t cocner~ oE Sercano Avenue and tiidden Canyon Road. kichard Rc~y, No~,~an, Roy, F~artners, 3197 C Airport Loop Drive, Costa Mesa, CA., explained l.hey a r~ ceque~ting that cectain slopes and landscaped areas in the various s ubdtvisiona be maintAined by the individual homeowner rather than a horieowner's association; thAt essentially oide yard and fcont y,~rd s 1 opes are involved and due to the type of custom single-f.amily reridences that will be developed, ttiey will be substantially modifie d and d~.fficult to maintain through an associa~ion. He Rtated there a~e s o me major Nlopes- however, which will be maintained by the association. Cotnmissioner La Claire amked i~'. a sike c'evQlopment plan has been developed for eacl~ of lhe kracts. Mr. Roy re~ponded that this ir; a lot sales program and the impr~vec] l~~t would oe sold along wiCh t:he CC6Rs, and the individual ho uye would be s;~bjec~ to design development through L-he normal proCebs an d the z~ni7g i~ RS-HS-22,000 and RS-A-HS-43,OOa. It was clarified that horse5 would noc be permitted. Commissioner He[bst stated he would nut vote in favor of ti~is r~quest because he thought there should be unifo r mity. Mr. Roy stated all the slopes woul~ be planted and irrigated to Title 17 requirements, and the maintenance is tt-e o~ly matter at issue. Cammissioner Herbst replied that i~ the problem because on~ owner may not maintafn his slope. Mr. Roy explained the association woiild have th~a overriding ability to assume mafntenance if the owner did nc,t dn it. Commissioner La Cl~ir e stated she is familiar with that tract ana there is a lot of natura] v egetation on those slopes and asked if the slopes across the stceet are maintained by an association. John Lettman, Gunsto n Hall, 380 Anaheim Hills Roaii, Anah~im, explalned they made a atudy o~ all the sJ.opes in Anaheim Hills which had had problems and the siopes behind the houses are not maintained by the indiv:dual pcoperty owner so they decided to try this new concept. He statecl very f~:w slope s are maintained by the association becau~e the individual owner.s ha v e changed the slopes by planting extra trees, etc. 2/6/84 MINUTES. ANAHETM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 6, 1~84 d4-72 Commiesioner La Claic~ stated the ~eople acroes the etceet matntain their slopes very well snd there are not any houaea at atceet levol. She stated thece ace ~ome slopen which would be maintained in their origindl condition and noted Anah~im's sphere of influence ends ri.ghl• in that ~rea. Annika Santalahti, Aasistant Direckor for Znni.ng, ~tat~d three of the four 4cacta on the sauthern ai~e of Avenida GA Santiago are be.low akreet level And are not viai~le and the primary impact of the landacaping maintenance is going to be on the Froperty ownec. Commissioner Herbat stated he still fpel~ the down slope towar~ Serrano sl~ould Ue maintained by the homeowner's association because it is visible from all over the canyon. ~ommissioner La Claire atated she lives acroes khe street from a slope that is suppos~d to be maintained by the homeownere and it ien't, but there ar~e no hou~es acrosa the skreet Ero~ these slopea at street ~evel. Commieaioner Bushore btated he can point out slopes that pce not even planted yet by individual property owners bec~use that is the Iast thing they da and ir~ the areas where khe slopes are maintained by the association, at least the slopes are land~caped whethec the indiviaual yards are or not. Cart~missioner La Claire asked if thia waiver ha~ been ~ranted to anyone elae ar-d Commissioner Herbst indicated he thought tne C~trtmission had granted a few where the slopes went down to the street along the front. ~ay Titus, Of£ice Engineer, explained the or~inance only cequires the association to maintain the slopes ovec five feet in heighk and he did not think the City had officially waived the [equirement i.n the past. Jack White, Assistant City Attorney, stat:ed anothec major land owner in the City is currently looking at s~tting up a two-tiered maintenanc.e obligetion to: 1) require the fndividual ownecs to have the primary respansibility to maintain khe slopes that are on theic propecty and 2) if they do nat maintain the slopes, tne association then has the right and obligation to maintain it and ta lien the pr.operty owner for t~he to.~k of maintenance. He stated the City then has thp right and nat t.t~~. obligation ~o seek t~ require the asaociation to main~air~ the ~lopes. ACTZON: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, aeconded by Commisl:ianer Hushoce and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner McBurney absenC), ~hat the Anaheim City ~Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the ~e~uir~~+ents o£ Ant~heim Municipal ~:ode SecCion 17.06.138 requiring the landyca~in~ of ~lopes to bc maintained by a community associatfon not be w~+ived. Commissfoner Herbst skated the reasan Eoz this recommendation is that there is still a lat of hillside to be developed and this could set a precedent. 2/6/84 MINUTES, ANAt11~IM CIZ'Y PLANNINc C~~MMIS, SION~, FESRUARY G, 1984 84-~3 H. VAHIANCE N~. 32~8 - Reguoat from Eric M. LedecQr for nn extension of time, property .locAte~ at 942 Nurth Claudina Stceet. ACTXON: Commienionc~r King offerQd a motion, seconded by Commiagioner Herbst und MpTION CARRIE~ (Commiasio~er McBurney absent), l:hat ~he AnAheim City Flanning Commisaion does hereby grent a one-yenr retroactive Pxtension of time Eor Variance No. 3294, to expire ~ctobec 4, 19a4. i. TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NU. 10984 - Request from Jamea G. Crosby Enyineering Inc., for waiver of the Rec~uirement of th~e liill~ide Grading Urdinance As .it relatea to t1~e locating of a t.ract boundary at the top of a ttlope. J~y Titus, OLEice Er~gineer, presented the etEff rep~rt and explained khis is an khe aauer kr~nct~, ad~acent to the Wallace Ranch and they tare grr~cling a slope which extends onto the Wall~tce Ranch propecty and they have an agreement between these two property owneca for the grading and fur the maintenance af that slope whereby the homeoaner's aseociation of Tract 1U984 will maintein the landscaping until the Wallace Ranr.h doea develop and then the asaociations on ~he Wallace Ranch will maintain the 3lopes which are on Wallace Ra~ch ancl Chia tract's ass~ciation will maintain the slopes in this tract. ACTIUN: Cotrc~~iasiunec Fry off.erPd a motian, seconded by Commissione: Herbr,t and MOTlr~N CARRIED (Commissioner McBurney absent), khat the Ai~aheim City P1F~nning Commission doea hereby recommend to the City Council that the w~iver of the requicement of tt~e tiills.ide Grading Ordinance be granted as it relates to locating of a tract boundary (TcACt 1Uy84) at the top of a sloPe. OTNER AISCUSSIUN: A. Commissioner Bushore asked Cade Enforcement ko inveatigate a complaint on Sunahine Way as mentLoned in a lettPC received today. B. C:ommissionec Bushor.e refecrec to valet parking at several restaurants and suggested that an ordinance be adopted that when valet parking is opted by the owner, a certain percentage, such as 25a, musk be availabl~: to the general public who choose not tu ue~ the valet servi.ce. He thcught valet parking cause~ parking ~coblema on other busit:esses in the area with people who do not want to pay the fee oc who do not want o~hec people handling their car, etc. Commisaionec Herbst stated he could not see any way to police such an ordinance. Chairwoman eouaa stated the Hilton and others will have to uae valet p+~rking and Commiasioner Bushore thought tF,at would be a unique aituat;ion. He stated Commission ah~uld be more concerned when these requests do come in and they should be addressed individually. 2/6/64 MINUTESt ~N~HEIM CITY P~ANNINC COMMx9SI0N, ~EB~UARY 6, 1984 84-7C Commiasioner Buahore etated ~atnQ~ission eaked ateEf ~o ce~~iew the commercial/cecreation aree quike eorna time ago regorAing pecking erid t~ ~ee if some of the boundaci~e need ka be changed. He stnted there ia e na~ural flow now down Katella Avenue between th~ StadLum end the Dianeyland. ADJOURNMENT: Th~re being no further bueiness, Commiasioner Hecbet offered a motion, seconded by Commiasio~er King and MOTION CARRIED (COmmissioner McSurney absent), that ~he meeting be adjourned. The meeting was adjourned at 4:55 p.m. RespectEully submittEd, <.~e~'.,~ ,~° ~~=~-t:~.. EdiCh L. Harcie, 5eeretacy Anaheim City Planning Conimis$ion EI.H : lm 2/6/84