Loading...
PC 1984/08/06REGUGIIR MEETING 0~ TNE AN~HEIM CITY ~LI-NNING COMMISSIUN REGULAR MEET.ING Ths cegulac meeting aE khe Aneheim City P1Anning Commission wes cnlled to order by Chairman Hecbst at 1Q:p0 d.m., August 6, 1984, in thg Councl~ ChAmber, ,9 quorum b~ing pcasent and the Commission rev~ewed p1anA of khe items on tuday's agende. RBCESS: 11:30 a.m. RECONVENE: 1:4Q p.to. PRESENT Chairman: Nerbst Commi3aioners: Bouas, Fry, King, La Claire, ABSENT; Commiasianers: Huahoro, Mctiucney ALSO PRES~NT Annika Santalahti Malcom Slaughter Jay Titus Paul Singer Greg Hastings Bdith Harris ~ssistant ~icector for Zoniny Deputy City Attorney Office Engineer TrafEic Engineer Assistant Planner Pl~nning C~mmission Serretary AYPRUVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner King offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner E'ry and MOTTAN CARRIED (Chafrman Herbst abstaining and Commis~ionere Bushore and McBurney absent) that the minutes of the meeting of July 23, 1984, be approved as corrected to ahow Commissioner La Claire a~ Chairwoman Pco Tempore on Page 84-454. ITEM IJO. 1 WAS HEARD AFTFR ITEM N0. 4, DCCAUSE THE APPGICANT WAS NOT PRESE-iT. TTEM N0. 1. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION RECLASSIFICATION N0. 83-84-23 AND VARIANCE NU. 33$4 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: DON C. AND TAMIRIS DUKB, 3538 W. Savanna Street, Anaheim, CA 92804 and DUANE FREDERICK AND SP.LLY ANN PETERSEN, 600 S. Nutwood, Anaheim, CA 92804. AGENT: JOHN KING, I9522 Independence Lane, Huntington Beach, CA 92646. Property is described as ~ rectangularly-ahaped parcel of land coneisting of approximately 0.78 acre, 3538 W. Savanna Streek. RS-A-43,000 to the RM-120U Waiver maximum struckural height to construct a:8-unit apartment complex. Continued fr~m April 2, 16, 30, May 14, 30, .1une ll, 25, and July 9, 2984. Tamiris Duke, agent, p~inted aut they have deleted ~.he regueet~all variances, except the structural height and are proposing 14, threp-bedroom units. THE PU$GIC HEARZNG WAS CLOSED. 84-487 8/6/84 MINUTES. ANAEfBIM CITY PLI~~(NING COMMISSION. l~UC,UST 6, 1984 84-488 AC'fION: Commiesionar King affered a rootion, seconded by Commiesioner ~ry r~nd MOTION GA.RRIED (Commiseionere Dushore and McHurney abaent), that the Auttheim City Planning Commiseion hae reviewed the propoeal to r.ecla ssify subjec.t property from the R5-A-43,000 (tteeidential, Agricultural) Zone to the RM-120Q (Reaidential, Multiple-Family) Zone to conRtruct a 28-unit. apartment complex with wa.tver of elructural heigtit ~n a rect~ngular].y-ahap~d parccl of lend consieting of approximete].y U.78 ~cres, havlug a frontage o f approximately 158 feet on the soutti eide of Savanna Street and further deacri bed as 3:38 Weat Savannn Street; and doea hereby approve tl~e Negative D~cleration upon tindi.ng that it has conaidered the Negat.i.ve Declaration together wi th any commente received during the public revtew procese and further fitzd i ng on the bneie of the lnitiAl Study and any comments rec~ived thaC there is n o substantial evidence that the pro;Ject will lieve a significant effect on the environment. Commisaioner Ktng offered Kesolutioti Nu. PC84-154 nnd move d for its paesage and adoption that the Anaheim City Pla~ini.ng Commisaion dae s hereby grant Rec~asaification Na. 83-84-23 sub~ect to TnterdepartmenCal Commi.ttee recommendationa. 4n roll call, the foregoing reaolu~ion was passed by the f o].lowing vote: AYES: BOUAS, 1~RY, HtiRBST, KiNC, LA CI.AIRF: NO~S: NUN~; AB~ENT: $U5HORE, MC 9UEtNEY Greg Haetings pointed out Condition No. 11, Page 1-f, shoeild be amendecl to read: "That prior to iseuance of building p~rmits, the a p pJ.icant sha11 pr.esent evidence satis£actory to ttie Chief Building InapeG t ur that the proposed pro~ect will be in cnnformance Nith Council Polic y No. 542 Sound Attenuation in Residential Pro~ects." Commisaioner King oEfered Reaolution No. PC84-155 and move d for 1te pessage and Rdoption that the Anaheim City Plannins Coramisaion doe s hereby grant Var.iance No. 3384 on the basis that there are special circ umRtances applica ble to the prop~rty such ag aize, shape, topography, location and aurraundinga which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicinity; and that etrict application of the Zoning Code deprives th e property of privileges en~oyed by ott-er properties in the idenCical z one and claseification in the vicinity and sub~ect to Interdepartm~ntal Committee recommendati~ns. On r~ll call, the foregoing resolution was pa.ssed by the f ollowing v~te: AYES: BOUAS, k'XY, HER-5T, KING, LA CLAIRIi NOES: NONE ABSENT: BU5HORE, MC BURNEY Malcom Slaughte:r, Deputy City Attorney, presented the wri t ten right to appeal the Planning Commiasion's decision within 22 days to the C ity Council~ 8/6/84 MINUTES~__ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, AUGUST b, 1984 84-489 ZTE~ N0. 2. EIR NEGATIV E DEC LARJITIUN, RECLASSIFICATIQN N0. 83-84-29 ANQ VARIANCE N0. 3398 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: 5AID LAHInGANI, ET AL, 1332 Amberwick Lene, Anaheim, CA 92804. AGENT: STERL I NG K. CARLSON, 447 E. ~7th Street, Co&td Mesa, CA 92627. Property descriF~e d as a rectangularly-eha~ed parcel of ldnd c~natsting of approximately 1.18 ac r ea, 2910 and 2918 West Bell Road. RS-A-43,U00 to RM-1200. Waiver~ of mAxlmum struc t ucal height and mnxfmum fence height to construct a 35-unit apArtment comple x . Continued from the meetin ga of May 3U, Jur~e 25, and July 2i, 1984. There were five ~ersons i ndicating thei~• presence in op~osition to subjpct regueat and although the staf f repoct was not ~ead, ik is reEerred to ~nd made a part ot the minutes. Sterling C~rlson, agent, explained this was a difficult parcel ~o dev~lop especially becaune of th e div ersity o£ the neighborhood, With apartments to the east and commercial u sea to the west. He stated he haa met with thP neighbore and wocked out comp romises to provide privacy and security to the neighborhood. ~. C. Chambers, 934 S. Ga ymon t, Anaheim, stated hi~ property is directly across khe street from t h e propoaed project and he is still concerned about the den~ity, pointing ou t the re are sing2e-family r.esidences on three rides of thia property dnd there i s also a school cross-~alk and added children from the complex will be a pr oblem; and that there are na aidewalks in that area and th~ children will be using the street. He st~ted adding 75 vehicles to this area will be a cons i dera ble increase and pecmitting two-way traffic out of both dciveways will ad d more traffic at the school crossing arpa. He atated they are alv~ con c erned about the parking because there is never e~ough parking avaalable for any of the apartments along Ball Road and explained the curb at his house is alr eady painted red because of a school crossing hazard and if the cutb is not r~ ~-z~ned at subject proper.~y, there will be thp same hazard and if it is red- z aned, there will be a parking problem. He asked where visitora to tt,e apa rtments wiil park. He added they ace concerned about the tra~fic, density and safe ty of the children. ~ahn tlcWhirtec, 1219 S. Ga~mont, Anaheim, stated his property adjoins su5ject property at tt~e southwes t corner. He submitted a written statement frQm Mc. and Mrs. Claxk who were n ot a ble to be present et thiR meetfng, indicating their oppoaition. Mr. McWhictec continued t hat the General ~lan designates the area for low-medium density l~nd eiaes and the area that bocders subject property has coughly 20 singZe-fami~y home s, so it is basical.ly a low-density area and he felt this project would j ust cceate too much activity on a very small parcel. Robert Walton, 926 S. Gaymont, stated he is opposed to the density. He presented a statement si g ned by six ownecs from the 9-unit condominium project 8/6/84 MINUTES, ~NAHEIM CITY PLANNING CAMMISSION, ~UGUST_6, 1984 a4-A90 directly acrosa Ball Road who objeat to the denaity. He stated thia would be juat too much overcrowding and the height is not dpplicable to the neighborhood And the two levels plua packing would not enhance their propertiea ~nd khe L•raffic would definitely be a proDlem. Mr. C~clsan stated the City Traffic Engineer requested t~~at ~ne of the entcancae be aligned with Gaymot~t SCree~ and the~ they provide a second driveway 100~ feet away from the ficat driveway and create L•he u-ahaped eccess so that the vehicles would have easy enl-ry and exit. he etated any projoct designed for this site would have to meet those Aam~ treffic requirements. Mr. Carlson stAted the older ApArtment~ built in kh~t neighbori~ood wece built nrior to the change in the packing requirementa and thia project• will be providing 2-1/2 spaces per unit which is much mote khan any of the othes projects. Ne stated the project is under the allowable density for that. zone. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CI~OSEll. Reaponding to Commiasionec La C.laire, Mr. Carlson cta~ed one 2-st~ry unit is within 50 feet aE the ea~t pcoperty line and the nearest 2-story strr~cture to the south propecty line is 50 feet away and there ~,ce no decks ~r stsirs facing the single-family homes. C~mmissioner LA Claire atat~d the 7-fook high block woll i:.~ pr~po~ed becAUSe oE the request from khe ndjacent property ownere. Mr. (:arlson responded ~o Commissioner Bouas that thc~ gar.~ges are about 3 or 4 Peet below the existi.ng grade level and are considered ~emf-~uck-under parking. Cammissioner La Claice stated the Commission is faced with allowing more commercial on that street which would add to the parking pcoblem. She stated obviously khe propecty will not t~e developed as Eingle-f.amily homes and there is existing RM-1200 development. nearby and there are sho~s and rest~3uranta and a lot of comm~rcial uaes in that arQa anci it woulci be a very dif£icult parcel to develop. She added the Commis~ion is suppased to consider the highest and bsst use of the property and thE use that wuuld hav~ the least effect on the other property owners in the area. Sh~ added she thought the developer has worked out us much protection f~r the property owners as possible and that mor~ parking is provided than in the other apactment complexes in khe area and she thought this revised praject would be a good tran~ition for the area. Chairman Herbst pointed out the properky is under a resolution of intent to RM-1200 and it has been thece for quite some time. Commissioner King stated the project would be a good buffer for the homes to the rer~r. A~TI0~1: Commissioner King offered a mation~ seconded by Commissioner Fry and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Bushore and McBurney abaent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to reclassify subject property from the RS-A-43,000 (Residential, Agricultural) Zone tc the RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zone to construct a 35-unit apartment complex n~ith waivers of maximum structural height and maximum fence height on a rectanc~ularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.18 ~cres, having a frontage of approximately 341 feet on the south side of Ball Road and 8/6/84 MINUTES, AN~H~IM CITY PL~NNZNG_COMMTSSION, AUGUST 6. 1984 84-491 Eurther deecRibed de 2910 and 29~8 West e~ll Roadt ~nd daes hereby Approve the Negative Declacation upon finding that it has coneidored the Negative D~clarati~n together with any comments received during the public review praceas dnd fucthcr finding on the basis of the Initial ~tudy and eny comments received that there is no aubetantial evidence that the project wi.11 have a significant effect on the environment. Cammiseinner King offered Reeoliation No. PCBA-156 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Cornmission doee I~eceby grant Reclaesificdtion No. 83-84-29 subject to Interdepactmental Cammittee recomm~ndations. On roll call, the foregaing reaolutio~ was passed by the Eollowing v~te: AY~S: BOUAS~ ~RYi FIERBST~ KING~ LA CLAIRE NOES: NONE ABSENT: BUSHORE, Mv~BURNEY Commissioner King oEfered Resalution No. PC84-157 and mnved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commi~si~n does hereby grant Variance No. 3398 on the basis that there ace apecial circumstances applicable to the propert•y such as aize, shape, topogr.Aphy, location and surraundings whlch do not apply to ott~er identically ~oned ~ruperty in ttie aamt vicinttyj and that atrict applicakion of the Zoning Code deprives the ~roperty of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and cla~sificatian in the vicinity and sub~ect to Interdepartmental Committee recommendationa. On rall call, the foregoing resolution was pasaed by the f~llowing vote: AYES: BOUAS, FHY, HERBST, KING, LA CLAIR~ NOES: NONE P.E~SENT: BUSHORE, McBURNEY Malcom Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the writtpn right to appeal the Planniny Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0. 3. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATIQN AND REQUEST FOR 1`.PPROVAL OF REMOVAL OF SPECIMEN TREES (N0. 84-03). PUBI.IC HEARING. OWNEFiS: PARAMJEET S. DARGAN, 5040 S. Crescent Drive, Anaheim, CA 92807. Property described as an irregularly-~shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately I.2 acre~~, 5040 East Crescent Drive. Request approval for th~e removal of twelve (12) specimen treea. ACTION: Commission~r King ofiered a motion, seconded by Commissioner B~uas and MO`PION CARFtIED (Commissioners Bushor.e and McBurney absent), that consideration of the afotementioned matter be continued to the cegulaxly-scheduled meeting af Sepkember 5, 1984, in order for the applicant to complete replacement of the trees that wece illegally cut down. 8/6/84 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMIBSION AUGUST 6 1984 84~492 ITBM N0. 4. ~I~ NEGATIVE AECLARATION. WAIVFR OF COQE RE,~UIREMFNT_ANb CONDITIONAL USE PF.RMIT N0. 2598 PUBLIC HEARI~G. OWNF.RS: MCDONALD'S CORPORATION, c/o JUDY PGAHUTA., 10960 Wilshire B~vd., t600, I.oe Angeles, CA 90024. Property dea~ribed r~s a r.ectangularly-shaped paccel of land consisting oE approxlmAt~ly 1.4 acrea, 1500 South Harbor Boulevar~. To permit a~rive-through restaurank in the CR Zone wlth waiver of. minimum landacaped setback. Cont~nued f.com the meeting of July 23, 1944. There was one pecaon indicating hia preaence in opposition to subject requeet and although the sCaff report was not read, it is referred to and mAde a part oi the minute~. ltandy Houstvn, attarney repre~enting McDonald's, explained the restaurant will be owned and operated by Gordon Gcay who pre~entl,y owns and operates kwo othec McDonfild's rest~urants, in Chis City. He explain~d they are also planning a pJ.ayland which would ceyuire a variance of the ~etbACk along Harbor Boulevard. Gocdon Gray presented photographs of an exi.ating facility in Tustin ahowing their playland nnd landscaping and also presenked a plan ahowing the landscaping i.n green. Malcom Slauyhtec, Deputy City Attorney, explained at the present time the CR Zone does not permit drive-in, drive-tt~rough rPStauranta; howevec, there is a Code amendment befoce the City Council t.omorrow which wnuld permit such uses through the approvel ~f a conditional use permit, if .it is adogted; and that thie entire proceeding today is conttngent upon the adnption of that ordinance. Ernest Bad~lian, 1540 S. Hbrbor, stated he owns the property adjacQnt at 1520 S. Harbor (The Sands Notel) and he does not objcct to the McDonald's restaurant, but that thece are a couple of problems which wi.ll arise after it is bui].t: (1) it is going to be a drive-through reBtausant open from 6;00 ~.m. to midnight and thece will be continuoue trnffic and his motel i.s~ next door, and asked how many cars they will be able to stack before blocking the street and (2) tt-e playground out front, pointing out that 4 years ~go he had tried tv build a restaurant with a few umbrellas and tables pru:.,r~eci out front and could not even i:ile an application because it was not permitted. He stated he is against encroacl~ing into tne 35-foot setback. He stated they would Iike to have a wall eonstructed next to t.heir pcoper.ty because the cu~tomers from the restaurant could look right into the bathroom window3 af the motel. He stated he did n4t believe landscaping would buffer tl~e tra~fic nof.se for the motel guests. He added the play~and would be fine as long as it is not placed in the 35-foot setback ~ince everyone else alo~g that street has been reqnired ta comply with the setback requixements. Mark Kale, McDOnald's Re~al Estate Department, stated he unders'tands they are in conformance wlth Code requirements pertairiing to the wall. He stated they do have landscaping on the southern property line a~nd that they do conEorm to Code. He cesponded they will put in whatever landscaping is required. He 8/6/84 MINUT~S. ANAFI~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISb10N. AUGUST 6, 1984 84-493 atated the lend~caping plan$ have not yet bcen deve~oped. Mr. Gray atated thW landacapin~ ie the eaeieet pcoblem end they will ~rovide whatever landscaping is ~esired in order to have a friendly relationship with their neighbora. f!e ceferted to the photographa submitted which sh~w the 8-f.oot high landscaping at khe Tuskin facility £or. the pucpoae oE blocking cace from thP eating bree. He stated Chey will make sure the landscaping ie A barrier that in acceptable to all Narties. Tt~E PUBLIC HEARING WAS CL05EI-. Cammissionec King Aaked nbnuk the waiver of minimum landscaped aFkback. Mr. G[ay stated khey are aAking fur a varianae to provide a 15-fook l.andscaped Area in front oE the playlandj however, the building itself will be back 45 feet. Greg Hastinqs, Aseistant Planner, pointed out parking 1~ also proposed in the front aetback w}iich io not permit;tac3. Commir~sioner Fry $teted he thought there should be a 6-foot block wall along the southerly properky l.ine to i~olate lhis ~peraL•ion from t:,e motel.. E'ie atated he ie nor thrilled either .+ith the idea cf encroachirwy into ~he setback and did not understand why the whole project cquld nnt hfr .~~t back furthec to pcovide for the playland witho-ik encroaching into the seth=~k. He stated he is also not thrilled with the idea of the drive-through --~a•r,.aurant in this zone because therQ is a potential of cre~ting e tremen~~F>~:= r,raffic prohlem with heavy traffic atacking and backiny out onto Narb• '==~~~ievard. Responding to Commisaioner Bouae, Mr. Gray atated th~ -~c-;:~g iane will be 130 feet .long or twice as long ae the minimum requi~•-,- ;.~. ~- `: Code. He atated because oT khe lack of residences in the ar•~, ~r~ ~ar~ looking for a large portion of tt-elr businesa to be walk-in kca~ Mr. Kale responded to Commisaioners Pry and King t=.~ -*~cy cannok move the whole project back because th~ cear portion of c:ts•- ~°r~~rt;y wfll not belong to McDonald'e. He stated the 380-foot depr,h is cor_r~r =~r~c they are endeavoring to provide as much parking as pos~iblP. Responding tu C~mmissioner Fry, Mr. Kale stated th~~~~~.-11L have a cross-p~rking agreement wi.th the awner of lhe other pcoperty as ic~:~~:tains .:0 6 parking spaces. Commissioner La Claire stated 98 parking spaces are :~quired and 98 are pcoposed, with Commissioner P.~rbst pointing out thR ~etiti ner has encroached into the setback in order to provide the requir~~ ~arking Commissioner La Claire stated the property owrier n~xt door was required to provide ~.he 35-foot setback and agreed th~t candition should be adhered to. She not~~7 thece is ample pr~opezty ta provide the required Eetback and ~till have room to do everything the petitio~er w~a~nts to do. She agreed that a lok of business wili be From walk-in tra~ffic and she was not aoncerned about parking in that area. Stre arated if the Commission allnws this variance and if people ace a].lowed to ~au~ t;te.ings in the setback, it would not bene:~t the City or kh~ people traveling clown Harbor Boulevard. She stat~d she understands the concept of having the pl.ay equipment out front and likes the idea~ but not if it has to encroach into the setback area. She pointed aut if this is pecmitted, thece will be many more aimilar requests. 8/6/84 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CTTY PLANNING COMMISSION, AUGUST 6, 1984 84-A94 Mr. Kale at~ted !h4ry heve not suggested a pRCmanent atruc~ure in the aetbackt that because thF: p~~perty i~ zonQd r~wreational, thoy thoughk a plAyland would relate well to th~ .anin~~ And th1ey would be wi111ng to screen the playland w''h landsc~ping rigAt ta the setback area so khat tho appearance fcam the at[eet would bo that. the whole area was a yceenbelt. Chairman H~rbst RrA~Rd the Commiesion has denied other requests for encroachme~~lrs in the setback and the only thing that hae been allowed in the aetback i~a a~mail ~~t~ato-type building and since Chen the Commisaion has adherud ~a the re~uicPments of the setbeck. Ne agreed that reyardlesa of the screening, the ~ncroachm~nt would e.till be thern with the parking and the playgr~~und. He stated tt~e lot is 150 feet by 380 feek and in ordez to have ~ variance gcant~d, +~ hards}iip pertaining to the property itself h~a~ to be demanstcAted and '~e could not see a hardship with the aize of this property. Commissionec L~ ~'laire ~~tated the City has alrersdy had other requests with ~eople wan~:ing ta put thin~s in the setback and everyone will be watching this project, Mr. x~le state~d it is vQry important foz them to have a good relati.on~hip with the City ~nd thei.r neighbocs an~ the community, so they would propose to drop the proposed pl~yyround. Responding ta Commissioner Fry, Mr. Kale atated they would noc want tu request a aontinuance in order to revise their planr~ and would sxmply dc~op the playland portion of this request. Commiceion~. Pry~ asked 1E the petitianer would stipulate to conatruct a 6-foot high block ~rall on the south property line. Mr. Kale stated they would rather a~:cnmplish thk same purpose with mutually ag:eed ko dense landscaping. Commissioner Fry stated he could not yo with that and Chairman Herbst atal•ed landscaping dues not reduce the noise wt~ereiri a waYl would. Commissionez La CLaire stated thi~s is a commetcially 2oned property and the owner next door was not required to construct a wall. She added she did not evQr remember m~king an adjacent property owner Qay for a wall and that usually tw~ comrnercial property owners wauld partici~ate in the cost of the wall. Chai.rman lierbst stated people would be sleeping in the motel and this would be a urive-through reataurant, which has nevec been allow~~d in this zone before. Commissio~~er La Claire stated the motel would have the same pro5letn wi;.th any othec restaurant or a movie ~heatpr next door. Annika Santalahti, Ascistant Dir~ector for Zoning, stated the ordinanc~~ pertains to walls only celating to residenti.al uses and she did not rrmember a wall being tequired between twc commercial praperties; h~wever, in ~aPl~roving a conditional use germf.t, the Commiseion can rrquire whatever condition~ they feel are necessary. She stated there have been comments to the Cit,y Council in the Qast with a commercial use next to a~otel. Malcom Slaughkec stated the McDonald's representatives have withdrawn the requeat for the variance and the only coneideration before the ~ity Planning Conm•Lssion is the cor.ditional use permit and staff would recommend amendments 8/6/84 MINUTES, AN~NEIM CITY PLANNYNG COMMISSION, AUGUST 6, 1984 84-495 to conditione to bp consiatent with the proposed Conditio~ Na. 20 which was added onto the stefE report, and the wording of Condition No. 9 should be changed to provide --- 'thpre will he no oFpoctunities for left-turn in~,~ceso to Hncbor eoulevard" --- so that drivers cannot leave McDonald's And g~ southbaund on liarbor Boulevardi and that Condition No. 10 sh~uld read:---'that the vehlculat righLa at approved accea~ ~oints in the proposed relocatior~ ar.e~ of the south driveway to Nacbor Boulevard shall Ue dedic~ted to ti~e City.' ChairmAn Hecbst stated the plans show s~me parking in the setback and asked how this should be h~ndled. Greg Hastinge responded that A parking spacea would be lost if the variance is denfed and that the w~iver originally covered the parking and the playland and if the Commission wishes to have the Eull 35-foot setback totally landscaped, a parking waive[ would have to be advertised. He stated the Commission c~uld approve the parking spaces in the setback and deny the playland portion. Pnul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated hF w~uld agree with the peti~ioner that thoae parking epaces would not be needed becau~e there was a parking study conducted for the propecty st the CO['~QC of Freedman and Harbor for Carl's Jr. which indi.cated there would be a lot uf walk-in kraffic and he would expect that same study to apply to thi~ property and that this area is truly over-p~rked when it comes ta existing ~arking facilities. ACTIUI~: Commissionar LA Claire offered a motion, seconded by Commiasioner King and MOT:UN CARRIED (COmmiss~~ners Bushore and McBurney abaent), that the Anaheim City Paanning Commission t~a~ reviewed the proposal to permit a drive-throuqh restaurant in tt~e C~ (Commercial, Recreation) 7,one with waiver of minimum landsca~ed setback on a rectangularly-sNaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.4 acres, having a frontage of ~pproximately ].60 feet on the east aidP of Harbor Boulevard and fucther deacribed as 1500 South Harboc Boulevard; and doee hereby approve the Negakive Declaration upon finding that it has con3idered the Negative Declaration together with any c~mments received during the public review proce~s and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the p~o~ect will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner La Claire offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fry and MOTION CARRIED (Commissionera Bushore and McBucney absent), thak the Anaheim City ~lanning Cammission do~s hereby grant the waiver of Code requirement, ir~ patt~ permitting the encroachment for 4 parking spaces in the landscaped setback along Ha~rbor Boulevard and denying the playland area; and granting the waiver on the ba,sis that thece are special circumstances applicable to the property such a:~ size, shage, topography, location and surroundings which dc, not apply to other identically zoned pcopecty in the sartie vicinity; and that: strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by othet' properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity and sui~ject to Interdepartmenkal Committee recammendations. Malcom Slaugl~ter asked if it was Commission's intent to have the 4 parking spaces in the setbark with Commissioner La Claire pointing out she would prefer to have the full 35 feet fully landscaped. 8/6/84 MINUTES. ANAI~EIM CITY PLANNING COMMI9_S_ION,_ AUl;UST__6__,_1964_ ____ __ 84-496 Paul Singer pointed out khere is a parking agreement with the propetty owner next door for 6 parking space~ and auggeatPd that agreement be increasec~ to cover 10 spaces wtiich would mQan that the 35-Eoot landscaped area cauld be completely l.andacapecl. Commisaioner La Claice offered .Reaolution No. PC84-158 and mov~d for its pasaage and adoptiQn that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Condi~.ional UFie Permit No. 2598 sub~ect to the petitioner's atipulation to delete the playlr~~d portion oE the pr.oposal and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations i.ncluding the modified wording to Condit.i.ons 9 and 10 and the addition of Condil•ion No. 20. Chaicman Herbst adcled he would like tu make ~ure that the applicant gets together with the tidjacent property owner to work ouk a muti~ally acceptable landscaping or wall for the southern property line. It waA noted that would not be included as a portion of the resolution. On ro11 call, rhe foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AXES: SOUAS~ FFtY~ NERBST~ KING, LA CLAIRE NOGS: NONE ABSGNT: BUSHORE, McBURNEY Malcom Slaughtec, Deputy City Attorney, pteaenhed the written right to appeal the Planning Comm:ission's deci~ion within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0. 5. EIR NEGATIVE DBCLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2602 PUBLIC HE:~RING. OWN~RS: HILL PLACJ~ APARTMENTS~ C/o WILLIAM R. GORMAN, 1335 W. •'alei~:~a Drive, Fullerton, CA 92633. AGENT: MELISSA P. ARRABACA, 1315 S. Anaheim _ioulevard, Anaheim, CA 92804. Pcopecty deacribed as an irregularly-shaped percpl of land cansisting of approximately 0.75 ac:e, 127 and 133 West Hill Street. To permit a 40-bed adult board and care facility. There were approximately seventeen persons indicating their prQsence in opFosition to subje.ct tequest and although the staff report was not read, it is referred ko and made a part of the minutes. Melissa Arrabaca, agent, stated she currently owns an existing 36-bed adult board and car~ facility at 1315 5. Anaheim Boulevard and she has had that tacility since 1991; however, most of her clients were at another locarion she operated since 1979; that the cliente are developmentallx ret~rded, ranging in mpntality from age~ 2 thcough 12 years old and they are training them to become a part of the community. She explained a medical d~ctor visits the facili:~~ once a month to mo~aitor their physical health and khere is a licensed nurse that lives there fa.ve days a week. She explained she xs also a nurse and overseee this facility and khree others in Orange County. She stated there is a psychologiat on staff and a psychiatric doctoc that visits the facility twice a mor,th and the Regional Center of Orange CQUnty assigns a case worker to monitoc the patients and the facility. She stated most of the clients do not really have any fam:ly. She explained this proposal is just another a/s/aa MINUTES. ANAIiEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, AUGUST 6~ 1984 84-497 extension of the Eacility on Anaheim ~oulevard and the Regional Center encouraged her to open thiu extenaion because of the need for thia kind ~f facility. Sho exp.l.ained there will ~e no alterations to the ~uildinq, but there would be aome remodeling to provide tor a dining room and recreational room. Sheila NeaChery, RN Consultant for the Regional Center of. Oranye County, explained the Regional Center is a mandated agency, one oE twenty-two in the State of Calif.orniAt that a law wAa passed in the Skate of California mand~ting that people be taken out of the State Hoapitals and placed in communities in the least re~trictive environment poas~.ble and that board and care homes were developed. She stated ~his Applicant hns had a board and care home aince 1981, and she has m~nitored ~he clients there to make suce they are placed in a c.lean, safe enviconment where they are caced for and monitored; and the c.lients there ~re part of the community and have not created any disturbances and have ceceived quality car.e fram the applicant. She expla.ined the clients are known as the developmentally disabled. She explained they go out for walka and khey do attend work shops and are integrated into the community and tt~ie extension is really necessary because it will provide some non-ambulatory beda which are race in all of Orarn~e County. She atated because there are not en~ugh facilities, many timec clienta who do not deserve ko be in a skilled nursing home or convalescent home have to be placed there because there is no place for them to live as ordinary a llEe as po~sible. Ann Bien, 6673 Paseo Del Norte, Rnaheim, explained she has worked at the Kegional Center Eor 6-1/2 years as a soci.al w^rker and she has woKked with the applicant for 4 of. those years and the clients ace very dependent upon such good care provfder3 as this applicant. She atated the clients at this facflity are non-destructive, non-violent, but that :hey do go for walks and once in a wt~ile they may raise their voice. She atated the cace they receive fcom this facllity is just marveloua an~ explained the new beds will be far non-ambulatocy clients which means they are for people who cannot walk unaesisted, but not .r.c~essarily ~onfined to wheelchairs, but they cannot walk easily by themselves. Geto Smith, attorney, Costa Mesa, representing Mr. and Mcs. Arnold Haguewood and MrE. Genevieve Firsstc,ck who own the building directly across from the proposed facility, explained they are opposing both the adoption of the EIR Negative Declaration and the conditional use permit for ~everal reasons; that t~ey do not believe this type facility is compatible with the neighborhood; thaL the existing facility is locaked on Anaheim Houlevard and immediately adjacent to the south there are 4-plexes, similar to the one that is progosed, which would be better suited to this type conversion and would not disturb the neighborhood as they anticipate the proposed project would. Mr. Smith referred to the staff report and stated they believe khe parking is going ko be insufficient and explained the parking on Hill Pl~ce is currently fnadequate and there are many cars parked on the street. He also referred to the ~taff report comments that 10 em~loyees would be employed o~-site and that 12 parking places are provided. He stated it is his understanding that there arE 4 buildings involved, each requiring iap to 5 employees at any one time, which means 20 employees os 1~~ parking spaces would be necessary. He atated they understand the facility would be almost identical to the one existing on 8/6/84 _ _.___~..,..~,~ MI~UTES. ANAHEIM CI'PY ~I.ANNING COMMISSION, ~UGUST 6, 1984 8A-498 ~naheim Boulevard and thet Eacility ie somewhet an eyesore and current2y there ia ~ ahdin li~k fence acrosa the Eront and a~arge number of f.olding type chairs and benches in t.he courtyard area and Choy believe it, ia unsightly ~nd not in keeping with khe nice residentiAl area that now exists. Mr. Smith etated if the Planning Commiaeion is inclined to gcant this coiiditinn~l uae pecmik, they would reque~t a block wall be placed acrosa the courtyard with aame landscaping provided to ahield the block wall. He stated there were some commenta made rege:ding the type oE cliente ahd their need to wander ~bout and one of thR neighbora' complaints hua been that kh~ tenantA do walk around and there ia concern for ~heir safety, but in addition, there is a concern for the aafety of the other tenants in that , area. He stat•ed it has boen theic experience that the clients have a benana,y~r"""`~'~ to feed stray cals and khe cats do ovecrun the neighborhood An~ if there were additional beda madp available, additionel cata would come into the neighborhood and they would r~quest a condition ttiat thcre would be no fee~ing of cats or of stray animals of any kind. Mr. Smith ceferred ta Page 5-d of stA£f reporl, Conditions 1 and 2 concerning fees for street lighting and tree planting and stated his cllentR are not in favor of more stceet lighta on the street. Greg Hastinga explained the Electcical Division has ask~d for that condition, based on the fact that the Ci~y originally pu* the .lighta into the acea and they are requesting reim~ursement for those fees and that th~~ ~ees will pay for. the existing street trees and street lights. Mr. Smith st~ted I~is clients also ask that there be aome type of restriction placed on the type of ~ign that will be placed on the f~cility and theX believe the cucrent sign on the Anaheim Boulevard facility fs certafnly too lar.ge and garish for a residential neighborhood of this type. Mr. Smith atated it a~environmental impact ceport hr.d been required, altE:rnative sites would have I~een asseased which wr.uld show there are other sit~s more suitablee Genevieve Firestack, 132 Hill Place, stated she has o~~ned thA triplexes across the stceet fcr 26 years and is the original owner. She stated this cul-de-sac of apartments is one of the nicest kept aceas i~ Anaheim and she is against this proposal because of the ~raffic and people congeation. St~e stated the patients dn walk all over the neighborhood, to the 'loc~l restaurants, etc. and she is concerned for their safety and is afraio ti~ey wi~l be h~t by a car. She stated she is also concecned auout the water pressure with that many people bei.ng added t~ the area; and that there ace ~urrently 10 people living in those 8 units who will be out of a home and explained there ia already an existing water problem. She stated she has nothfng against the petitioner, but feel~ this area ~s not suitable. She st~ted she feels tt~ese people need a large area to play games and visit with each other, etc., and they need ccnstant supervision. P~ter War~ ~f, 1309 Icis ;;treet, stated he ia against the Projpct because of the people congestion and noted those people wa~k up and down the street and he has almost hit them in his drivew~y and he did not think they hAVe propez supecvision right now. He etated they have the right to double-bed the facility which could mean 80 patients and that wauld be a catastrophe. 8/6/84 MINUT~S, ANAHEIM CITY PLA_NNING COMM_ISSION, AUGUST 6, 1984_ 64-499 Debor~h Courtier, 1314 Hill Ava, Apt. D, etated she ie concerned dbouk the 10-foot wide landecnped setback on the west because there would anly be thet dietance betwoen them with a 6-foot Eence And aometimes it geta noisy with only one neighbac and ehe was concerned about the noiae wtth that many peuple. She stated thia ie a beauti~ul neighborhood and ahe has lived there 6 yeara and is atarting her own businesa rhere now and this is ceally a cnncern foc her. Mrs. Bien reEerred to the sign mentioned and ateted before Lhece was a facility called "1t~eni~a's Gueat Nome• for mentally ill p~ople and that eign had been in the area since 1971. Mrs. Bien referred t~ comments about people wandering in the neighborhood And stated ahe wniks almost every evening in her neighborhood and asked if that would be con~sid4red ~andering. She stt~ted thoae clients are citizene of this countcy and pay their sAles taxes ju~c~- like ev~ryone else xnd have the rlgtit to walk in the netghborhood. She etated they are not dangerous pROPle and not one ~erson has ever been hurt by these people in that area. She sta~ed they do know what to do about their uwn safety and they need to be in the least restrictive environment possible and that they should not be placed out in ttie country where they can romp And play because they ate not childcen. She stated none of these clients have cars or drive and are picked up to go to the workahopa in thE morning and are brought back in the evening. She stated she usu~illy parks her cac at the corner, not even at the fcont of the facility, and ahe will continue to do Chat. Ttesponding to Chairman Herbst, Creg Hastings explained the applicant has stipulated ther.e would be a total oE ten employees for both the facilitfes and Code requires .9 space per employee and they are propoaing 12 parking spaces, so the parking doee meet Code, even if each building is conoideced independently. Mcs. Arrabaca explained they have three full-time, live-in employees And anly one employee drives to the facility at the pceaent times that she is in and ou~ of the house and her husband comes there in the evening ai~d her father does niaintenance work in the mornings and sometimea in the evenings when he is not working= and that doctors do visit the facilit,y and there ia one part-time emgloyee who comes in the morning to get the clients ready for the workshops and is there about 3 hours and another part time worker comes in kh~ evening to help get them to bed. She fucther explained tliere wQUld be three full-time employeea in each facility and two part time employeea, plus hec, her husband and father. THE PUBLIC: HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner La Claire stated there wAS a lot of comments about the patients walking around, but the new facilities being pcopoaed ar.e £or non-a~nbulatory patients, so there would not be an increAae in the numbec of people who are out walking around. Mrs. Acrabaca stated some of the clients need to Walk for the execcise and for their health and the clients who are allowed to walk can be trusted. Commi~sioner La Claire stated the new facility will be for non-~mbulatory patients who cannot walk by themselvea. 8/6/84 MINUTBS, ANAHEIM CITY PL1-NNING CQMMISSIUN. AUGUST 6. 1984 ____ 8 4-50U Mro. Arcebeca atat~d non-ambulatory m~:Ane a pereon who cannot w~.lk without an aid auch ee a walksc or wheelchair or if they are blind end that they co uld not respond to save themselves Erom a cetas~ropt~p. ~ommiesioner La Claice a~ked if thQ patie~ts in thie new facility will s 11 be wdlking eround the neighbochood and Mrs. Arrabace responded thoy would not. She explained tho ones walking around the neighborhood will be the same ones ehe has now. ChairmAn Herbat asked if thPy plan to utilize an existing sign. Mrs. A rrebaca responded it really doesn'- matter whether she has a sign oc not and s~ a ted the sign ~he has now is nut ceally that big. Malcom Slaughter stated because of the zaning of thia ~roperty, the app licant could apply foc and be entitled to a permlt foc a sign that meeta the C L standards, unless a[eskriction ie imposed a~ a condition of this cond i tional use permit. He alao explained while thece hus been a lot of discussion regacding t~~e typc of ~atient, c~mbulakory or non-ambulatory, there is n o restriction unless the Commission imposes one as part of the condition a 1 use permit. He explained an adult board and care facility ia being reque~t ed. Commissioner eouas aRked the number of empl~yees. MrE. Acrabaca stated lhe Sl•ate cequires thrpe full-time, live-in employees, two part-time employees and that she also counts herself. and her father as full-time employees and her huc~band as a part-time employee. She clacified that the three full-time employees live on the premiaes. She statPd she would have the same st aff for the new facility. Greg Hastings ex~lained C~de re~~uirea •9 spacea per emplo,yee or nine parking spaces for both facilities combined, or 5 each if consideced separately with 5 employees for each facility. Mrs. Atcabaca responded to Commissianer Bouas that they have one van w hich they use only for recreational purposes Eor the clients and that the pa tients ace picked up and taken to the workshops or other places b,y the vans f urnished by the Regional Center oc publie transportation. She explained thece is only one client at the pcesent time who does not go to the workshops dafly. it was clari:ied the non-ambulatory petients will also be picked up and taken to the workshops. She explained their van will hold 15 to 17 pe~ple. Commissioner Bouas asked if the yacd could be fenced with a block wal 1 and if the petitioner will be willing to construct the £ence. l~rs. Arrabaca responded they wouJd be willing to provide whatevec is necessary. Greg Hastinqs explained a 6-foot high block wall would have to be set back 10 feet from the front propertiy line. ACTION: Commissidner King offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fry ar~d MOT~ON CAP.I.IED (Commissioners Bushore and McBurney absent), that the Anaheim City Plar~ning Commisaion has re~iewed the proposal to permit a 40-bed adult board and care facility on an irregularly-shaped parc~l of lend consi s ting of approximately 0.75 acre, having a frontage of approximately 175 feet o n the north eide of Hfll Place and further described as 127 and 133 Hill Pl ace; and does hereby agprove the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Ne~ative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the bxsis o~ the Ini tial 8/6/84 MINUTES. ~NAHBIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, AUGUST 6._1984___ _ 84-501 &tudy and any comrt~ents recoived that khere ia no ~ube~entiel evidence thet the projvct will h~ve e aigniflcent effect on the environment. Commiasi~ner King offered fieeolution No. PC~4-159 and mov~d for it~ pasaege and adoption th~t the Anaheim City Plenning Commisaion doee heroby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2602 aubject to the petitioner's at~pulekion thet a 6»f ooC hiqh canerete block wa~l would be canstructed $C~OAS the ~~ourtyard area of the Eaci.lity nnd that the wall wowld be conetructod to the satiafaction of the City Engineeriny Ae~artmant, and that .landscaping will be providedt and that no signa will be permitted and subject to Interdepect.mental Committee cecommendations. On rol? call, the foregoin~ reaolui.i^n wrc pdRSed by the following vote; AYES: BUUAS, PRY, t1ERBST~ KING, LA CI.AIRE NOES: NONE AHS~NT: BUSNORE~ MC E3U~tNEY It~CESS: 3:20 p.m. RECONVENE: 3:27 p.m. ITEM N0. 6. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION ANQ RECLASSIFICATION NO. 84-85-1 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: DAVID C. BOOMS, 229 S. Loara Stceet, Anaheim, CA 92802. AGENT: ROY C. KABAT, 2037 Cl~arbrook Lane, Anaheim, CA 928D4. [~roperl•y described as a rectxngulnrly-shaped paccel of land consi8tiny of Approximately U.5> acre, 219, 225 and 229 South Loara Street. RS-A-43,000 to the ML Zone. There was no one indicating their presence in opposikion to subject requeat and although the stafE repoct was not read, it is refecred to and made a part of the minutes. David Wall, agent, was pxesent to answer any questions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ACTION: Commiss~onec King offered a m~tion, seconded by Commissioner Fry and MOTION CAFt~tIED (Commissionecs Aushore and McBurney absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to reclaRSify subjec:t property from the RS-A-43,000 (Residential, Agciculturgl) Zone to the ML (Industrial, Limited) Zone ta con.st;r~ct an industrial building on a rectangul.arly-shapeci parcel of lAnd consiating Af appxoximately 0.53 acre, having a frontage of approximately 195 feet an the west side of Loara Street and further described as 219, 225 and 229 S. Loara Stceet; and does heceby approvp the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has consider~d the Neqative Declaration together with any commentR received during the public review process and furth~r Einding on the basi~ of the Initial atudy ana any comments received th~t there is no eubstantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. 8/6/84 MINUT_B_Sl ANAHEIM CxTY PLANNING COMMISSION~ AUGUST 6, 1984 gq-5~2 Commiseioner King oEEered Resoluti on No. PC84-160 And moved Eor its paseegQ and adoption that the Aneheim City Planning Commie~ion doe$ hereby gr.ant Reclassification No. 84-85-1 eubject to xnterdepertme~tal Committe e recommend~tiona. on roll call, Lhe foregoing rQSO~u tion wae passed by the Eollowing vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY~ HERBST~ KING, GA CLAIRE NUES: NONE ABSENT: BUSHOEtE, McBURNEY ITEM N0. 7. ~IR NEGATIVE DECLARATZON. WAIVEi2 OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAI~ USE PERMIT N0. 2604 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: RUAERT W_ WHITB/JANET M. WIiITE, 234 W, Upper Dciv e, Cocona, CA 9172U. Pcoperty descri bed as a~ icregularly-shaped paceel of la nd consistin9 of approximately 2 acre s, 806 North erookhurat Street. To pPrmit an automobile repair and towing fecil:ty with waivers af minimum landacaped setback and minimum number of parking apacec~. There was one person indicatiiag his presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff repoct was n ot read, it is referred to and made a pa zt of the minutes. ~eniae Serrage, 806 N. Bcookhurst, agent, was present to answec an y questio ns. Jerry Tullius, representing the pr operty owner at 2200 Sequoia Ave nue, Anaheim, stated they do nnt object to the contlnued use; however, a letter wus submitted indicaCing tlieir only objection was to the waiver of landecaping requirement because they feel this i~ a chance to do aomething abo ut the loak along Bcookhurst and to atart enfo rcing the tequirements and this is the fi ret opportunity to starl• to upgrade th~ ~rea. Mr. Sercage etated there is no progosed change to the building, bu t they wi 11 puk. in new sidewalks, curbs and g u tters and the propecty is being cleaned ~ip. He explained the front fs asphalt parking lot and there is not a 1 ot that could be done to the landscaping. Chairman Herbst agreed Brookhurst was in the County when it wae developed and it was developed in a manner not s uitable to Anaheim's requirement s withou t landscaping and eetbacks and if the petitioner is buying the pcoperty, he felt some landscaping should be done. I3e suggested 10-feet of lsr,dscaping in the f ront. Mr. Serrage atated thece wi.21 be some lawn and ahrubs planted in front of t2~e house portion of the property, but in ftont of the shop, there is aephalk parking= however, thete is a plant er adjacent to the building whic h will be planted. Chaicman Hecbst suggpsted tak~ng o ut some of the asphalt and ~sutting in landscaping. Mr. Serrage cesponded that would eliminate a lot of the parki ng. 8/6/84 MINUTFS, JWAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIONl ~UGUST 6`1984 84-503 Commission~r Kinq stared there ie a 9-foot strip af land in thR Erunt between the sidewAlk and curb which cauld be lAnd~cnpod. He ataCed he hopod ~he house end lawn will be r~navate~ because the Oleandere and lawn ere dying. Mr. Serrage st~tod accordiny to the driveway plan, the Olean~ers will be removed and a wall insta~led with a planter box in fr~nt of it aepareting the driveway and the house, so i! wil.l not be an eyeaore. Ne er.ated almo~t all the fcont yacd will be eliminated and thece will be a ~awn area on the left side. H~ pointed out the Fr~posed landocaped areas on thQ plan~. .Jay Titus, affice ~nglneer, stated khere is a 9-foot City righl-of-way and normAlly the aidew~lk will be 5~eet wide, so thEy could plant the 4-Foot area. Commiasioner F.y agreed the property should be landscaped in frant. Commisaionet La Claire asked if the petitioner would be willing to install landecaping and icrigation in the northweat cacner of rhe pcoper~y whece the lawn ~rea is prapased and also in the drQd between the curb and sidewnik. Mr. Sercage rea~onded he would make that sti~ulation. He asked if that could be conaidered an aeaessment in order to determine if the former owner is reaponsible Eor the f.eea hec~use they have agreed to pay any bonds or assesament~. Malcom Slaughter explained the Commission is simply imposing the condltiona and it ie up to the property ownera to determine who will comply with these conditions and it i~ not the commiasion's concern who ie cesponsible. Mr. Sarrahe a~keu if they had bought t~~ pxop~ business,wauld they still be required tu p~- Sleuyhtec sta~~d tiP ~aia not knoa wh^ther or n previoua.,~ ifisued ~;~ thp City whic th~y may ~o the aidewslks and that the petition~~~. could ~he Ue~~+rtment to ;s~~-ke th,a~ detec:s~inat:on. ~n~ kept the existing e sidewalks. Malcom ~ was a sidewalk waiver , ;. to tezminate and re~uire ck with the Engineering Commissioner La Claice stated because the petition~r is aaking for a conditional use permit for this business and for a waiver of Code requirement, he will :,a'c to mest the$e requirements; hawevec, if he had continuad with the existing businesa and ;~ot cequested a eiew permit, he woul~ not have had to comply. She explained these requirements are placed on all property owners in the City ta make it, fair for ever~+one because everyone has to pay the :ees. She pointQd out the ~etitioner is actually getting away with not putting in all the landscaping required, which allows him to have mote parking, permftting him to do more busines~. She explained if the fees have been paid, the petitioner will not be required to pay them again. Greg I~astings explained staff hAS researched the recorda and found the fees have not been paid. ACTION: Commisaionec La Claire offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner King and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Bushore and McBurney absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has ceviewed the proposal to permik an automobfle repair and towing facility with waiver of mir~imum landscaped setback and minimum number o£ parking spaces on an irregularly-shaped parce.l of lend consistf~.ig of approximately 2 acces, having a frontage of 8/6/84 MINUTES. 11NAH~2M ~'ITy PLANtiING C!~MN,:iSSIQ?~. AUGUST 61 1984 84-504 approximately 250 f~~et or~ the east side of E3rookhur~k ~t:eet end further c9esecibed ue 906 North BroakhurRt Strectt and does her~by approve the Negative Declaretion upch finding that it hes conaidered the Negdtive D~claretion t~gethet with eny co~~~nents received during th~ public review proceRa and ~urther finding on tt~e b~aie ~f the InitiA.l &tudy e~d Any ~ommenta r.eceived that there is no aubetdntial evid~nce that the projeat will have a aigni.fi.cant effect on the envir~nment. Commiesioner Le Claice asked the nature of the buainesa as it relat~a to the st~rage of vehiclpa becauge oE parking prohlema. Mr. Serrage stAted the property is 2 full acrea and th~ce is more than ample room in the rear to stoce vehicles. He stated right now he uperates a aimilar businesa in San Jose which is approximately 1 acre with appr~ximately rhe aame aize building and they have never F~ad a storage or parking problem. He explained most customers leav4 their vehicle~ Eor repaica arid only one oc Cwo epaces are needed fnr a secrekary and a customer who wt~nts to get an eatimater etc. CommissionPr La Claice offered a motion, secondPd by Comrniesioner Fry and MOTION CARRIED (Co~ntrissioners Bushore and McBurney Absent), that the An~heim City Ylanning Commianion doea hereby grAnt waiver (a) on the bASie Ch~t thece are apecial circumstancea applicable to the pcoperty such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings which do n~t apply to othec identicully zoned property i~ the same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoniny Code deprives the prop~rty of privileges enjoyrd by othec properties in the identical zane and cla:~aification in the vicinityt and also on the b~sis that the petitionec has agreed to provide landscaping i.n the 4-foot azea between the curb and the sidewalk with proper irrigation and in the lawn area of the northwest co~ner and the planter erea pcoposed in the front of khe building; and granting waiver (b) on the bagis that the packing wai.ver will not cause an increase in tr.affic congestion in the immedis~te vicinity nor advecaely affect any adjoining land uses and grantiny of the p~rking waiver under the conditiona impoeed, if any, will not be detrimental to the p~.~~~~N health, ~afety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anai;~~rn. Commiasioner La Claire offered Resolution No. PC64-161 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning C~+mmission does hereby grant Conditiona~ Use Permit No. 2604 pucsuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations, including the petitioner's stipulations regacding landscaping and irri9ation. On roll call, the foregoing resol.ution was passed by the :~a.~~wing vote: AYES: BOUAS~ PRY~ HERBST~ KING, LA CLAIRE NOES: NONE ARSENT: BU5HOftE~ MC BURNEY Malcom Slaughter., Deputy City Attorney, presented the written r:[ght to appeal the Planning r,ommission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. 8/6/89 MINUT~S, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIONj AUGUST 6. 1~84 84-505 ITBM N0. 8. EIR NEGA~IVE DECLAA:ATION1 RECLASSIFICATION NQ. 84-85-4~ WAIV~R OF C00~ R~QUiREMENT ANU CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2605 PU~LIC HEA~ING. OWN~RS: CHESxER PETERSON AND BEVERLY ANN COMPTON~ 327 N. Shattuck Place, Ordnge, CA 92666. Froper~y deeccibed aA an irreqularly-ehapQd parcel of land consiating of a~~roxim~kely 4.4 acrea located narth and weat of the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and imperi~l Highway. RS-A-43,OOU(SC) to the CL(SC) Zone. To permit e multi-screen indoor theatre and a 47-foot high aemi-enclosed restauranL- witti waiver oE minimum number of packing apaces. ACTION: Commisaioner King offered a motion, seconded by Commiseionec ~ry and MOTION CARRIED (Commiasioners Bushore and McBurney absent), khat caneideration of the aEorementioned makter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of August 20, 1984, in order far the applicant to submit reviaed plans. ITEM N0. 9. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONUITIANAL USE PERMIT N0. 2600 ! PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: FREDERICK ROBERT AND RUTH FRANCES SACHER, c/o Lee and Associates, P.O. Boa 249, E1 Toro, CA 92630. AGENT: RONALD W. GLASS, P.O. 6ox 2364, Pomon~, CA 917~9. Property desaribed as an irregularly-ahaped parcel of land consieting of approximately 1.9 acres, 2872 Ea~t La Palma Avenue. To permit a paper and aluminum recycling faci.lity in the ML Zone with waivec of minimum number of parking spaces. Thece was one persnn indicating hia presence in opposition to subject re~uest and although the staff report was not reAd, it ia referred to and made a part oE the minutes. Ron Glaas, Garden State Paper Company, explained their operation will be recycling old newspapers and aluminum cans and other grades of paper and all activity will take place inaide the facility. He presented slides of similar operations. tlarold Koykendall, 2890 E. La Palma, Anaheim, stated the City wants to keep this area a~ a showcase industrial area and asked if this is the type of operation thpy wanL in that showcase area. Chairman Herbst pointec out this type operation is pecmitted in the industria: area with approval of a conditional uae permit and that is a•'y the public hearing is being held and if the use turns aut to be detrimental to the industrial area, ~t will not be ~llowed. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Herbst stated ti~e City had some problems with recycling centers in Anaheim, but in those situations the entire activity did not take place inside and stated he aid not think this opecation would be a problem since it will be 8/6/84 MINUTE5, ANAHEI~ CITY PI.ANNIHG COMMISSION, AUGUST 6`1984 84-506 inaide. He esked what the bus.ioat days would bo with pQOplo bzinging in papec~ and c~ns,. Mt. Glass ce~ponded tho twa busieat days ere Saturday and Tuesdays, since khey are no~ open on Mondays. He atated the,y can handle traffic and people very ra~idly and he did not anticipate A problem baAe~ on their exper~ence with theic other operations, with a few exceptions. Ne explained the people are in and out ~n about 10 minutea. ChairmAn Nerbet atated the[e would not be a probl.em An Saturday uecause most of ~ne buslnessee in that area are cl.oaed, b~t there could be n pr.oblem on Tuesday, iE th~ facility gets really busy. ACTION: Commieaioner King offeced a motion, seconded ~y Commiasionec Fry and MOTION CARRIED (Commi$sioneta Hu~hore and McBurney absent), that the Anaheim Cfty ~lanning Commission has rEViewed the propaaal to permit a p~per and aluminum recycling faci.lity in thE ML (Industrial, Limit~d) Zone with waivQr of minimum number ot ~arking spaces on an ireegularly-~haped parcel of land cunei~ting oi approximately l..g acres, having a frontage of approximakely 37~ feet on the southeast side of La Palma Avenue and further described as 2872 East La Palma Avenue; and does hereby appcave the Negative Declacation upon finding thwt ik has conaidece~ the Negative Declaration togeCh~r with any comments recei.ved ~uciny the publzc revie~ process ~nd Eus~h~r £inding on the basis of the Inittal Study and any comments received that thece is no substantial evidence that t:hN project will have a significant eftect on the environment. Commisaioner King oEEeced ~ moLion, seconded by Commission~c Fry and MOT10N CARRIED (Commissioners Bushore ~nd McBurney ubaent?~ ~hat the Anaheim City Planning Comrniesion daer, lyeKe~y grant waiver of Code requir•ment un the basis that the packing ~aivec Wil.l not cause an inccease ~n traffic congestion in the in~ediate vicinity nor adverse~y aFfect any ~djoininy l~nd uses and granting of the p~rktn~~ waiver un~er the condition~ imposed, if any, will not be detrimental t~ the peacw~ health, ~afety and general welfa:e oE the citizens af the City of Anaheim. Commissioner Kin~ ofFered Resolution No. PC84-162 and moved for its passage and adopti~n that the Anaheiro City Planning Commission does hereby grant Canditional Usa Permit Na. 2G00 pursuant to Anahei~ Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18,03.030.035 subject ko Intecdepartmental Commiktee recommendations. On roll call, the fore~oing resolutic~n was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY, BERBST, KING~ L'A CLAIRE NOES: NONE ABSENT: BUSHOR~, MC BURNEY Malcom Siaughter, Deputy City Attorney, prNSertted the written right to appeal the Planning Cam:nission's deci~ion within 22 days to the City Council. 8/6i 84 MINUTES1_ ANAH~IM CTTY PLANN~NG_COMMISSI_0_N,__AUGUST 6,_1984 84-F0~ ITBM N0. 10. EIR NEGA'IIVE DECLAItATION, WAIVER OF COpF REQUIREMENT ANp CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2592 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS; CLARENCE D. AND RHFA L. MEDAOCK~ 1428 ~. Katelle AvenuQ, Anaheim, CA 92805. AGBNT; LARRY R. GREENN•IELD, 150 B. Katella Avenue, Anaheim~ CA 92807. Property daacribed as ~n irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting af app~oximately 16 acces located aouth and eaet of the southeaat cocner of Katella Avenue and liaster Street, _30 Eaet Katella Avenue (Larry's CoEP~e Shop). To permit on-sale beer and wine in an existing restaurant with waiver of minimum numbor of parking epaces. :'here was no one indicating th~ir presence in opposit.ion to sub~ect cequest and alEhough th~ staEf repnrt was not read, ~t is referred to and made u part of the minutes. Lacry Greenfield, agent, was present to answer any quesCi~na. TH~ PUDLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Gceg Hastings, Aesistant Planner, 3tated Condikion No. 2 should be deleted because the applicant has indicated that vACiance is still in use. Chairman Herbst asked about Parking on City propecty. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, explained thece ie an easement for road purpvg~~s along Katella Avenue and the property owner renta t.hat ~roperty £rom the City for e minimal fee because he maintains the propPrty. He atated the City does not want to vacate thnt right-of-way because it will be cequired for future relocati.on of the Katella bridge. He stated without those parking apaces he thought there would be adequate p~rking on the property. Commisaione~ La Claire ceferred to a letter received by the Commission pertaining ro the asseasment district. Faul Singer pointed out this permit doQS not have that condition. Cewilia Paine, secretary to Clarence Meddock, property ownec, explained the letter was written in connection with a Council hearing on the Riyeria project and has nothing ta do with this project. `"""`~~ ACTION: Commissioner King of£ered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ery and MOTION CARRIED (Commiasioners Hushore and McBUCney absent), that rhe Anahefm Cih,y Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to pecmit on-sale beer and wine in an existing restaurant with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces on a irregulacly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 16 acres locaEed south and east of the equthe~ast corne. of Katella Avenue and Haster Street and fu[ther described as 150 East Katplla Avenuet and does hereby approve the Negatlve Declaratian upon finding ~hat it has confiidered the Negative Declaration together with any comme~ts received during the public review proceas and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments ceceived that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant ePfect on the environment. 8/6/84 MINUTES. AN~HEIM CITY PLANNING COMMTS~ION. AUGUST 6, 19A4 84-508 Commiseionec King afEered d motion~ aeconded by Commisai.oner ~ry and MOTION CARRIEA (Commiasionera Buehare and Mc9urney absent), that the An~heim City P~anning Commisaion does heceby grant waiver of Code requirement on the basi~ khat thr ~arkin~ waiver will nol• ceuse an increase in traffic conge~tion in the immedidte vicinity nor advers~ly affect Any adjoining lAnd uaea and gcanting of. the parking waivec under the eonditions imposed, if any, will noG be detrimental to the peace, health, safetX and general welfare oE r.he citizena of the City of AnAheim. Commissioner King of.fered Resolution No. PC84-163 and moved for its passage and adopti~n that t:he Anaheim City Planninq Commiesion does heceby grant ~onditional Use Permit No. 2592 pucsuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 sub~ect to InterdepArtmental Committee cecommendations. On roll call, the foreg~ing reaolution was passed by the fo~lowing vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRX, HLI~35T, KYNG, I~A CLAIRE NOES: NONE ABSENT: HUSHOR~, MC BUZtNL'Y Malc~m Slaughter, Aeputy City Attorney, presented the written cight to appeal the Planning Comm~.ssion'a decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITFM N0. 11. ~IR t1EGATTVE UECLARATION, WAIVER OF COD~ REQUIREMENT ANU CONDITIANAL USE PERMIT N0. 2601 PUBLIC kll:~RING. OWNFRS: CALIC+ORNIA/ORANGE BNTERPRISES, INC., 2914~ 350-5th Avenue, S.W. Calgary, Alberta, Canada, T2POL4. AGENT: STEWART~ GREEN 6 ASSOCIATES, 2316 E. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806. Property described as an ircegu:atly-shaped pa~cel of land consisting of approximately 27.11 acres located at the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and State College Boulevard, 21Q8 East Lincoln Avpnue (East Anaheim Center). To permit on-sale beec and wine in a proposed restaurant wi~h waiver of minimum numbec of parking spaces. There was no one indicating their nresence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the rninutes. Greg KQOden, 14171 Debusk, Tustin, was present to answer any questfons. THE PUBLIC HEA1tING WAS CLOSED. Responding ta Commissioner Fry, Mt. Kooden explained this is a new restaurant and will be located next to Sav-on Drugs. ACTION: Commissloner i+ing offered a ~rotion, seconded by Commissioner Pry and MOTION CARRIED (Commissionera Bushoce and McBucney absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has ceviewed the proposal tc~ permit on-sale beer and wine in a proposed restaurant with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land conaisting of approximately 27.11 F!/6/84 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PL~NNING_ COMMISSION, AUGUST 6, 1984 84-509 acres located at the eouth@sst corner of Lincoln Avenue ~nd State College Boulevard and further described ae 2108 E. Linaoln Avenuer and does heceby approve the Negative Uealaration upon finding that it has coneidered the Negative Declaration together with any co;nmenta received during the public review pcocesa and Lurther finding on the bAais of the Initiel Study and any comments received that thec~ is no subatantial Pvidence thct rhe pcoject will have a sSgnificant effect on the environment. Commigaioner King offered a motion, seconded by Commiasionec Fry and MOTION CARRIED (Commi~sionere eushore and Mc~~tiriey aL^ent), that the M eheim City Planning Cammiasion does hereby grAnt weiver of Code requirement on the b~sis that the parking waivec will not cause ar: increase in traffic congestion in the immediata vicinity nor adveKaely affect any adjoining land uaes and granting of the parking waiver under the conditions impoaed, i~ any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and genecal we].fare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Commissioner King offered Resolution No. PC84-164 and moved foc its passage and ado~tion that the AnahEim City Planning Commission does heceby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2G01 pureuant to Anaheim Munic~pal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 thraugh 18.03.030.035 subject to Interdepartmental Committee r~commendations. An roll call, the foregaing resolution was passed by thp follnwing v~te: AYES: BOUAS, FKY, HERBST, KING~ LA CLAIRE NOES: NONE A9SENT: BUSHOR~, MC BURN$Y Malcom Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's dec~sion within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0, 12. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 341~ PUaLIC HEARINC. OWNERS; PHILI~IP CLARK JORDAN, ET AL, c/o "Tecra', 10061 Talbert Avenue, Suite 325, Fountain Va11ey, CA 92708. AG£NT: JAMES R. NEEA~AM, 9992 Sandra Circle, Villa Park, CA 92667. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel ot land consisting of appcoximately 7860 square feet located ak tne southwest corner of Seuth Street and C.laudina Street, 807 South Claudina Str~~et. Waivere of maximum structural height, minimum structural aetback and minimum cecreation-leisure area to construct a 4-unit apartment complex. There were two persone indicating their presence ~n opposition to subject request and al~hough the etaff report waa not read, it is referced to and made a part ot the minutes. James lleedham, agent, was present to answer any questions. Ted Caldwell, 200 E. South Street, Anaheim, stated Claudina Street is a very over-used street with multiple-family dwellinga and most of the lots already have duplexes with moce than one family already living there and he felt B/6/84 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIaN. AUGUST 6, 1984 84-510 _.___~-_.- ~ adding more :°amilies with thelr cara patked ~n khe street, etc. will create traffic congeation and a terrible pcoblem. Ne atated he sometimes has dif~iculty parkiny on his own propertyt however, the biggest prnblem with thic~ requeat i~ the densiky. Ne stated Commiasion i~ concecned about the protection of the ct~lldren and the environment and he did not think the negative declAration ahould be approved. He stated this project would add another 0 to 10 children to the acea with no recce~tionel epace, noting there ace no parks or playgrounds in the area a-~d the kids play in the street And he has actually seen children hit by cars. He stated Claudina ia A major thoroughfare because of the ap~ctments on the south ond. Mc. Caldwell atated in order to construct th~s pr.oject, some priceleos s~ecimen ~reea will have to be cemoved. He stated he thought this project would decrease property vaJues and cau4e overcrowding and an unsafe environment. tle explAin~d tl~ere are as many as lU to 1S people living in some of rhesN house~ on khe street and ~~llawing these 4-plexes could mean they will become run down like other rental propertier~ along Claudina Street. fie referced to other vuriances which have been granted in the area and sCaked there io not enouyh parking- He atated he did nok think this variance should be grante~3 unless the Commfseion is ready to cceate some additional play areA f.or the children. Vertis Key, 726 S. Claudina, Anaheim, stated t~is concern is the devaluation of the single-family properties on the north aide of C1audLna Street. He added he w~as also concerned about the children playing on C:taudina because right now drivers can see them beEore they make the turn, bat after the apartmenh.s are built, appcoact:ing traffic woulc] not be able to see the chfldren playing and he is aL•raid someone is yoinr, ~o get hurt. Mr. Needham stated the existing structure on the pcoperty is 40 to 5U years old and iR in a state of diarepair an~ this property will not be de~eloped as a single-family property or even a duplex becnuse of the cost; and thak the p:oject would not be one that would be pllowed to get run-down. He stated he owns pcoperty in the 80U block of Claudina and has ownecl it for 4 years and there is only one family per unit in thoae units and he has developed other property in the City which he still owns and operates. He stated he felt thP only way ko curb the ~roblem of more people or children in those houses ia to upgrade the arJ?a and he has confidence that Claudina will be upgraded or he would not invest his time or money into it. He stated he has no control over af,ildren playing in the street. He pointec] out the prop~rty is zoned RM-1200 for up to o units= however, the density is curtailed by the parking requirements. He point~d out two of the waivers have to do with the dedication oE the property to the City. Mr. Needham explained this is a cocner lot and none of the required setback will be included as recreational area but they have put in 1ei~ure areas (patios) adjoining each apartment unit, one downstairs and three upstairs, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ReEp~nding to Commisaioner La Clai=e, Mr. Needham explained the 18-foot setback L•rom South Street would have been 20-Eeet except for the dedication required by the City. 8/6/84 MINUTES, ANAH~IM CITY PLAN_N_I~G COMMISSION, AUGUST 6, 1984 84-511 Concecnin9 the time for the a~ceet wide~ing, Jay Titus, OEEice ~ng.ineer, explained there ate no plana at the present time for the street widening and the rgquest ia Eor an irrevocable offer for dedication. Annika Santalahti e~plained new conatruction projects are requfred to be designed for the ultimate right-vf-way. Greg Hastings sr.ated the setbACk foc 3 to 18 Eeet proposed pertains to the traeh enclosure which is located 3 Eeet tio the ultimate right-oE-way on Claudina and the building itself is actuAlly ~et back 15 Leet Erom Claudina. Commisaionar La Cla.ire stated khere is a real problem in that neighborhood and clnrified that the agent in this situation will own the unit~ and stie felt since he alceAdy owns other propecty in the acea is probably awate of what is going on with many people living Ln the one un~t, etc. Mr. Needham sr,ated tie has confidence that the neighborhoad will regenerate itself. Commissioner La Claire asked if a playground with some minimum equipment, such as a sandbox, could be provided for the childten in ttiat complex. Mr. Needham stated he would put a 42-inch high wrought iron ~ence around the exterior property line and prov~de mfnimal playground equi~ment, surh as a sandbox, to reduce his liability. Mr. Needham refer,red to the trash enclosure and stated it adjoins the alley and sticks into the Claudina sethack and he proposes to build a minimum height encloaure with an earthern decorative mound. Commissioner La Claire stated this property is zoned RM-1200 and the second ~aiver is because of the dedication and the ~etitioner has stipulated ~o provide an appropriate fence at an appropri~te height. Mr. Needham sr_ated the a-plex at the other end of Claudina Street has a wrought iran fence and he did nat think there was any parking provided on that property. He added there are 10 parking spaces provided on subject property. Commissioner La C~aire staked the problem on this etreet already exists and she did not know how it could be alleviated. but this particular project has off-street parking and the other projects along the street do not havE any parking provided and i€ the petitioner does pcovide the play area, as sti~ulated with the wrought icon f~ncing, the project might be accepkable. Mr. Needham ceEerred to the properties on the north side of South Street and noted they are sfngle-family, single-story houses, but the properties south of South Stre~t on Claudina Street are mixed with one-and two-story apartment unito. Greg Hasting~ pointed out the structure is 83 feet from the single-family zoning. Commissioner La Claire stated the Planning Commission and City Council have discussed the 150 se~_back for abaut 6 years and an ordinance was proposed to cut that further down in particulaz cases, but tt was determined that ft should be left as it is at 154 feet and that each case would be reviewed xndividually. She stated ~his looks like ~ nice project and ahe underatands the pcoblems in the area and did not think thia ~~ould enhance those problems. 8/6/84 MINUx'ES. AHAHEIM CITY__PLANNING COMMISSION, AUGUST 5. 1984 84-512 Mc. Needhum stated in addition in epending his monoy in the area he is r~placing ~n old structure which will raiae the c~liber of tenants. He ~tated he also will be payLng for d fire hydrant end other Eeea. ACTIGN; Commiasioner King of.feced a motion, seconded by Commisaioner Fry and MOTION CARRIED (Commisaioners ~uohore and McBurney absent), that the AnAheim City P1Anning Commiasi~n has reviewed the proposal to construct a 4-unit apartment camplex with waivers of maximum atructurAl height, minimum atructural setback and minimum recreAtlonal-leisuce area un a rectangularly-shaped paccel ~f land coneisting af approximately 7860 ~yuace Eeet located at the southwest cocner of South Street and C]audina Street, and further described as 807 Sonkr~ Claudina Str.eett and do~s hcreby apprave the Negative Declaration upon finding that it hns considered the Negative Declaration together with any commenta received dur.ing the public review proces~ and fucther finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no sub~l•antial evidence that the project will have a signifiaant effect on the enviconment. Commissioner King oEfered Reoolution No. PC84-165 nnd mov~d for its ppssage and adoption tha~ the Anaheim City Planning Commis~ion does hereby gr~nt Variance No. 3416 on the b~sis that there are speci~l circumst~nces ~pplicable to the property ~uch as size, shape, topogr~phy, location and surrounding~ which do not apply to other identically zoned properr.y in the same vicinity; and thAt strict application of the 2oning Code depcive3 the pr~per~y of privilegea enjoyed by other properties in the identical xone and classification in the vicinityt and subject to the petitioner's stipulation to provide a 42-inch high wr~ught iron fence around the entire property and to provide minimal p].ay eyuipment such as a smal.l sandbox for the children to play and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. On zoll call, the foreqoing res~lution was passed by tt~e following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBfiT, KING, LA CLAIRE NOES: NONE ABSENT: BUSkiORc, MC BURNEY Malcom Slaughter, Deputy City Atrorney, presented ttie wriCten right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. I'PEM N0. 13. EIR CATEGOItICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 11 AND VARIANCE t~0. 3415 PUl3LIC HEARING. OWNERS: KENT LAND COMPANY, 11601 Wilshire Boulevard, llth Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90025. Property described as an irregulatly-shaped patcel of land consisting of approximately 35.4 acr.es located at the southeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Weir Canyon Road, 179 South Larkwood Street (Tract No. 10983 - East Hills). There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and alkhough the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Lisa Grubbs, representing Kent Lar~d Company, explained their rPC?~~est is for apptoval to display 10 flags in East Hills, seven days a week, ~~ hours per day and they feel it is very important foc their sales. 8/6/84 MINUTE5~ AN~NEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION1 AUGUST 6, 19 BA 84-513 THk PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commieaionec Le Claire askpd what infor.mAtion is provid e d to Qoter 'a.l buyero about the aurrounding area. Me. Grubba respondRd they ~ o provide ~~~format.ion about the achools and other pu~]ir faci2ltiea :~~ch au 1 ibrariea, etc. Commiaeioner La Clei~e aeked if they are elso p~ovided with informetion about the dump an~ jAi1 eite location. Ms. Gru~~K reeponded t hey ece prAV~ded that information if they request it. Cammiasioner La Claire atated in the past thece hAVe been pcoblema with people not being provided the inforniation pectdining to City plana nnd policies and there have been A lot of aomplainte because people were nat awace when they purchoaed their homea of what weA going to ~o into the area. She skate~ she would .like f or this rupresentative to tell her company, the Kent Land Cnmpany, tha~ the P~a nning Commission ie concerned about that problem and w~uld apprec{,ate it if khey woulu n~tify tl~eir bi.~yers not nnly of the good things aboilt the area, but also about kiie bad thinga. She atated also she did not appc~ciate the fact that the developecs stuck their heads in the sand during the jail-site and landfil.l issues~ It was noted the Pl~nning Director or hia aUthocized representatlve has determined that the pcopoaed pcoject Ealls within the d efinition of C~teyocical Exemptions, Claa~ 11, as defined in the Sta te Environmental Impact Report Guidelin~s and is, th~refore, categorically exer.-pt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. ACTION: Commisaioner La Claire ofEered Res~olution Na. PC84-106 and moved tor ike~ p~ssage and adoption that the Anaheim City Pl~nning Commission does hereby grant Variance No. 3415 for a period of 6 months to exp ire F'ebruary 6, 1985, Eor a term continuous with the permit issued pursuant t o Aneheim Municipal Code Section 18.05.085, unlps~ other time extenaionr~ ar e granted by the City Council on the basis that there are epecial circumetanc es applicable ta the property Ruch as size, shape, topogcaphy, location and surroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the sa me vicinil•yJ and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the proFerty of priNileges enjoyed by other properties in the identir,al zone and c lassific:ation in the viciriity and subject to Intecdepartmental Committee reco:nmendations. On roll ~all, the focegoing resoZution was passed by th e fol~nwing vote: AYES: BOUAS, ERX, HERBST, KTNG, LA CLAIRE NQES: NONE ABSENT: BUSHOPE, MC BURNEY Chairman Her~st pointed out there are several tracts in the Anaheim Hills area which are curcently flying flags and have not been befo re the Planning Commission for approval and he did not like to see one developer have to np~ly for a permit and others not. Ms. Grubbs responded they were cited and thought the sign company had gotten appcoval. 8/6/84 NINUT~S,_ AN~HEIM C:TY PI.~NNING COMMISSION~ ~UGUST 6, 1984 84-514 IT1sM N0~ 14. REPORT& ANA RFCQMMENDATIONS: A. V~-7ti1-NC~ N0. 1764 - Request ~r~m Jamea W. Skinner (Warmington Homes) foc termination aE Variance No. 1764. P~opecty ie approximetely J.7 acres on the norch oide of Chapman J~venue, approximAtely 805 feet east ot Cho centerline of Harbor Boulevard. ACTION: Commisaioner King ofLFred Resalution No. PC84-167 and moved Eor ita passage and adoptiun that the Anaheim City Planning Commisaion doRa hereby terminate Variance No. 1764. On roll ct~ll, the foregoing Keeolut~.on was pasasd by the £ollowing vote: AYES: DOUAS~ FRY, HERBST~ KING, LA CLAIRE NOES: NUNE ABSENT; BUSHORE, MC BURNEY B. VARIANCE N0. 2681 - Request from Jim Jett (Pete'E Road Servicea, Inc.) foc termination of Variance No. 2681. Property located at 1193 N. E31ue Gum Stteet. ACTION: Commissionec King offered Reaolution No. PC84-168 and moved for ite passage anc~ adoption that the Anaheim Cii:y Planning Commission does hereby terminate Variance No. 2681. On rall call, the focegoing resolution wa~ passed by the following vote: AY~S: 30UAS, FRY~ HERBST, KING, L1~ CLAIRE NOES: NONE ABSENT: BUSHORE, MC BURNEY C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT t~0. 2357 - Request from John E. Schaefer (Farrell Courier) foc a two-year extension of time (one year tetroactive) £or Conditional Use Permit No. 2357. Property located At 2521-N W. I.a Palma Avenue. ACTION: Commiseioner King nffered a motion, seconded by Commissionec Bouas and MOTION ~ARRIED (Commissioners Bushore and McBurney absent), that the Anaheim City Planning commission doea hereby grant a two-year extensian af kime (one-retroactive) for Conditional Use Permit No. 2357, to expire .;uly 26, 1985. Other Discussion: Annika Santalah~f pointed out the Council will be receiving a copy of an ordinance peckaining to drive-th•~~ugh restmurants in the CR Zone for their consideration and she would like to know if there are any additional thoughts or comments from the Commiasian pertaining to thak typ~ of use. 8/G/84 MINUTES_,~ N~HEIM CITY_PLANNING COMMISBION. AUOUST 6- 1984 8~-515 Chairman Herbst poi~ted out if dcive-thraugh cesteur~~ta are ta be loceted next to motels, he felt additianul acreening should be provided because peoplo in the morels ~rQ~ thece to aleep ~nd t h~re ehould be aometh~ng in the ordin~nce to {~ravide that raquiremerst, Commissionec Fry poinked ouc the motel owner ehoul~ woKk toget h er with the edjecent pcoperty owner to construct khe w~ll tagekhe r~ Commiosionec La CLaic~ pointed ~ut thare ia A lot of wdlk-in t r a~fiG in thet aceA and Commiaeioner Fry pointed out th9re would be ti long etacking area in the McDonaYd'~ pcopoaed today. Commissi~ner La Claire clariEied that it is the cecommendat~on oE the Commisaion khat this ordinance be adopted a8 long es the uses are permitted through the approval of a conditional ~~se permik ao that the planning Commiasion will qet a chance to look at anything that ie ~ubmitkod. ADJOURNMENT: There being no fucther bu~i~ese, Goenmi~sionec P ry oEceced a motian, s~conded by Commisaioner King and MOTION CARRIED (Commissionecs Bushore and McBur rey abaent), that the meeting was adjourned. The meeting was adjourned at 4:50 p.m. Reapectfully submitted, ~v ~ / ~ ~ Edith U. Harris, Secretary Anr~heim City ~lanning Commission ELH:lm 0060m 8/6/'84