The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1985/04/15R6GULAk NEETING OP THE ~NAHEIM CITY PLANNING CqMMI5SI0N F,GULAR MF.~TINC The cegul8r meeting af the Anahcim Ci*_y Pl~nning ~omniisaion wa~ called ko ocder by Chafrman fierbst at 10:U0 a.m., Rpril 15, 1985, in the Council Chamber d quoram being present and the Commission reviewc~ pldns of the items on today's agenda. RECrSS: 11:3Q a.m. RECONVENGD: 1:33 p.m. PREStiNT ~haiemAn: Hetbst Commiasianers: Bouas, Bushoce, Pry, King, LaClaire, McBurn~y ~gggN~; Commiss~oner: None ALS4 PRESENT Annika Santalahti .Tack White Jt~y Titue Paul Singer pat Whitaker Janet Hdbel Gr.eg Hastings Bdith Narria Assistant DirecCor for 2oning Assiatant City Attorney Office Enqineer City Traffic Engineer Neighborhood Restoration Specialist Park Planner Aaaociate Planner P1Anning Commission Secretary ITEM N0. 1. EIR NEGATIVE UECLARATION AND CONUITIQNAL USE PERM:'i' N0. 2560 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: C C 5 F LA PALMA INVESTMENT CO., 2390 E. Urangewood Avenue, #380, Anaheim, GA 92806, ATTN: JEFF SMITH. Prnperty is appcoximately 8.6A acces at thP northwesi corner. of La Palma Avenue and Richfield road. To p~rmit an induetrially-related two-story office complex. Continued from l•he meeting of February ~0, 1985. It was noted the applicant was n~t present ~t the begi.nni~g of the meeting and following Item No. 2, Greg iiastings expl.ained the petiiioner was contacted and has requested a two-week continuance. ACTIUN: Commissic+ner King o£fered a motion, seconcied by Commissicner Bouas and MUTION CAItRIED that conaideratian of the aforementioned matter be contin~ed to the reyularly-scheduled meeting of April 29, 1985, at tne requeat of the petitfoner. 85-180 4/15/85 MINUTES~ ANANF.IM CITY PLA~'NItiG COMMISSTON, APRIL 15, 19.05 85-181 ITEM NU. 2. EIK NECATIVE UECLAkATION AND VRRIANCE N0. 34?1. PUbLIC HEARIhG. UWNERS: STEWAHT, GR~EN ASSOCIAfiES, 2914-33U 5th Avenue, S.W., Gatgary, Alberta, Canada T2POL4. AGtiNT: KAR[. ~EADF.R,. P.O. ~ox 6371, Anaheim, CA 928U6. Property deacrihed as an irregulerly-shAped parcel of land conaistinq oE approximetely 27.11 acres, lot~pted nt the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and State Cotlege ~ouleva[d, 214 5outh State Co11Pye Eiuulevard (New Meiji). Waiver of minimum nurrbec of parkiny r~paces to ~~ermit a re~knurAnt. Z'HE FGLLUWINC ACTION WAS TAKcN AT THE BEGINNING UF TN~ M~ETING. AC'P.~N: Commissioner aouas oEtered a motion, ~econded by Commissioner Kiny and MUTIUN CARkIED that~. the petition [or Varianr..e No. 3471 be withdcawn at the req~~est of ~he petitioner. ITEM NU. 3. EIF NEGATIVE DECLARA'PION, WAIVER OF r.pUE R~UTA£MEN: AND (:ONUITIUNAl. USE PEkMI'i' N0. 2072 FUP.LIC t1EAFt1NG. OWIJERS: E.D.G.A. ENTERPkISES, 199U Westwood fioulevArd, Los Angeles, CA 90025, ATTN; LES E. LEDERER. AGENT: JOHN SCItROEQER, 1a39 Bayless Street, Anaheim, CA U28U2. Fropecty descri.hed as an irregulacly-aha~ed parcel of land consisting oE ApproximaLely 0.95 Acre located at the ~orth~ast cnrner of Cerrito5 Avenue and Anaheim 8oulevaCd. To permit -~n ~ntertainment facility for teenagers with waive~ of minimum numbec of parkiny s~aces. Continued from the meecing of April 1, 1985. 'Phere wece approximately four persons indicating their pres^nce ir. opposAtion to subject requeat and al~hough ~he sta~f repor~ ~aA not read, it is reEerred to and made ~3 pact of the minates. John Schroeder, agent, explainPd the security procedures will i~clude 4 state licensed security guards witt~ 2 petrolling the surrounding area, including the Pacific Stereo and uineyard Church parking lot and Sav-ons headquarters and the businesses on the other side of Anaheim Boulevard. He stated he will coorr]ir.ate with the Police Department on the best way for the yuards to move nround either by car, foot, bicycle, etc. Mr. Schroeder stake~ he mek with ~.he owner of the liquor store and was assured they had never s~old alcahol to minors and will not allow loitering around their store and that he had assured the Iiquor store owner that his staff will be available to assist with any problems that they may encounter as a cPSUlt of Nightscape's presence. Mc. Schcoeder stated two security guards will specificelly patral Nightscape's parking lot and each security guata will heve a two-way ra~io. He stated an cccasions when staff mu~t ~onfront one oc more youths, they {:now the go~l is to bring them into compliance with the rnles and that a'no nonsense" attirude towards offendezs has cfrcumvented any pcoblems. 4/15/85 MINUTBS. ANAHEIM CiTY PLANNING COMMISSIUN. APRIL 15, l98_5____ 85-182 Mr. S4hc~~~dec akated he does not f~reseQ a negative impact due to the non-conflictina operating I~oucs with the majority of. the aurrounding bueinesaea. C m cocning the ~arking wdive~ request, hp explo~nod he has talked ko the property ownet obout tne neceas~ry 133 apar.e agreement and he indicated th~re would be no problem with grantiny thfs agreement DecAUSe he still has 147 spaceA ahove and beyond Pacific 5tereo'~a requicementa. :~e stated parking might p~ne a problem if all thr.Pe buainesses were open at the es^~e time, but ~ince his buoinesc ia only opPn F'r:~sy and saturaF~y Pveninga, he did not think packing would be a proble m at all. Mr. Schroeder stated he tc+lked t~~ 9'Arg~ant Bill 5herec of thp Santa ~na Palice Department about tne report Aubmitted at the previoua meetiny indicet.ing there were 67 inci.denaes in and araund Niglitsct~pe Er~m Octobe r to the presenk ~ime and wes ir~f.acmed that there were ~nly 9 calls and Niyhtscape was cesponsible for 7 of thotae 9 calls. He ~dded ~rgE~ant Sherec indicated he thought maybe r.he 67 calls teported were f.or tiie entire 270U block of Main Stceet and not this spec.ific address. He stat ed he could give an accurate accuunting ~f each of the 9 report~. Mr. 5chroeder referred to ppople who t~upport thi, ceyuest such aa Casa (Commu:~ity Againat Sub~tance Abuse) who recommendecl Nightscape as a good safe place to send the kidG and ~tated tt~ere has never been a drug arres t or citation at Nightscape. Marilyn Marani stated she has two teenage dnughter.~ who attend Loara Higti Schooi and she is active in theic school activities and botti are active in school activities and t~oth have attei~d~d Circle City (the name o1 the Pacility when it was located in Oranye) with an organized group from their school. St~e ~tated it is increasingly more difficult to find a place where the teei~ayers r.an go where they will be superviaed and not encount ec druy or alcoholic bev~rages bein~3 pushed. She atate~d she kn~ws Night~c a pe is a well-supecvised facility and a place she feels comfortable sending her two daughters; and that the security is good ~nd she thought the ~,roposed location would be a good location. Mike Dambrowski stated he represents the past owners of the Main Scceet 5hoppir_y Center; that their property was recently acqsired by the City of, Santa Ana Redevelopment Agency for the expansion of Santa Ana Fashion Squace. H~ skated during their past 11 years of ownership, that proper ty has had three ~9iffecent nigtitclub operations, two serving alcoholic beverages and Nightscape which was non-alcohalic and, in his opinion fr om a management standpoint, this has been a well-supervised and managed operation and there have been minimal problems to other tenants and to the public. He stated Mr. schroeder has been extremely honest and sincere in all hi.s dealfngs with them. He stated the thing about Nightscape's aperation that impKessed him the most wa~ the ~ecurity because securit y was a prablem in the past with the ather nigfitclub operations and they believe the security at Nightscape is the r~ason there has not been any c;onfliets. Ne stated if th~ pcoperty had not been acquited by the Cit y of Santa Ana Redevelopment Agrncy, the lease with Mr. Schroeder wauld not have been terminated. 4/15/85 MINUTES. ANANF.IM CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSJON, APRIL 15, 1985 85-18~ Geocye Sidley~ atated he is a reattor and hes known Mr. Schr~eder for ovec 10 yeara and Eiret met him when he waa e reaecve dPputy in the Urange Counly Sheciff's Department and he also worked Eor him Eor a Ahoct period o~ time and he was impresyed wiCh hia consciQntiove ond de~endable attitude towarde hia jab ~nd believed rhat his tcatning mude him a c~tnpetent, se1E-emF~loyed businean m~n. I~e stat~d he viciCed bolh Mr. Schroeder's tacilitles includiny the current Ni.ghta~•ape operation, Einding that they were well supervised and tie watched them i~ o~ecation Hnd they make certaii~ thlnys are conducted to kheir rulea and regul~lions. He skated Mr. 5chroeder is wel.l qualified to operate a f~~cility such as khis because of Rhis background in law enf.orcement And hi~ training in thic type of busine~s and he oaw no reason not to approve this requeNt. Dr. Nurria, chairman of CASA (Community Against Substance Abuse) referred to a letter she had submiCCed ~nd sCaled she wante to epeak on behalf oE the uses that Nightscape was Lhe only ent~rt~~inment facility for under-21 grou~s in Urange when they were located in that City and it was a safe place for them to gather and hsve a good time and a lot of the patrons EolloWed them to Santa Ana. Sttie stated there wAS nokhing in the ceport from the ~olice Department that doesn't ha~~,en daily on camE~ur~es and at private parties and her daughr_er, who is present at today hearing, stated at least in this kind of situation, if thoae things do occur, they are contcolled and the kida can be taugtit. that they can do lhee~e type of things wil•hout drugs or alcohol. She ctated the youths do need altecnative type activities and if mor.e adults would offer more of these type a~tivities, perhaps the ctiemical warfare we are combattiny with alcohol and dcuy abuse would decline considerably. James Starnes sl•ated he was recently a security guard at Nightscape and he thought what the petitioner has said about security ie more or less a joke because whPn he was wocking there, he alway5 came across youny people who were under the influence oE alcohoi ox drugs; and that he has caught people ~moking pot at different locations inside the clud. He stated he wocked outside without his guard cards; and that he kn~ws there are people workiny there who do not have their guar.d car~s and that: the first night he worked he caught two people in a aexual act under the video monitor; and that he brought two ~itnesses ta tt~e meetiny who would verify what he is saying. He stated he caught one girl with a bottle of wF~iskey; and thak when they caught anyone under the influence of alcohol or dcuge, they were instcucted to ca11 the parents of the young person and not yet the Police involved. He stated the head of security at one time pushed one of the female patrans down. He stated he has wocked in the parY.ing lot and that they canstat~tly find peopl.e with beer and wine and they ace chased out ot the parking lot. He stated every night, inside there is always someone under the influence of alcohol and he did not believe this use should Ue allowed ta go on. Mr. Schcoeder stated Mr. Stacnes is an employee who was terminated recently and is disgcuntled. He atated he was never made aware of anyone involved in a sexual act at the club and the Santa Ana Police Departmenk has request~d khey handle any problems with alcohol or drugs by co~f~scatiny the alcohol or dtugs and sending the persan on their w~y or calling their parents, but if the ~atron is posing a threat, the Police 4/15/85 MINUT~S, ANANEIM CITY PLANNINr, COMMISSIUN, APR.IL 15, 1?85 85-184 Departmont is called. He stated !f they hice a security guard thAt ia not &tate licenaed, they make every eLfort to keep khal- employee insidc the club and only licensed security gunrda work outaide, and th~ay get thei.r stAte liconse cardR as soon as possible. TN~ PUBI~IC NEARING WA5 CLUSED. Commisaionor La Claire stated ahe epent nlmost an haur on Saturday night in th~e parking lot at Nightacape And alao looked in the do~r and from whal• she saw, the peoplQ who attQnded Nighkscape were averAye teen3geca end wece excited and looking Eorward ~o getting into tihe c.lub; an~9 that r_here was a line o~ abou~ 35 te 50 young Neople waitiny t~ get in and they wece all urderly. She statr.d Chere were about 4 people who were obviously not goiny in and were chased ofE by the secucity guards. She stAtecl there was a~arty going on next door that sr~m~e night and the people comir~g out of that psrty were in t,ad sh~pe Crom drinking, ekc. and that thr t.eenAgers coming out of Niyhtscape were not in bad shape. She stated ahE watched the guard at the door kaking security precaution~, checking identification, etc. and khere waa a security guard out front ai~d another one patrolling by the bingo parlor. St~e added the binc~o parlar causecl mo~e trafEic than Nightscape. 5he ~tated she per~onally overheard one oE the ~ecurity yuards handling one of thP incidents and she thought he handled it very well by telling them to Qither go inside or leav~ the ~~remf ses. Commisaxoner L~i Claire stated iE ~his is appruved, sl~e though: mure than two secucity guards ar~ needed on the parking let and that four would be needed just Ca ~atroi the parking lat so ttiey could teli the people to lesve even soonez. She atated ahe is conce:ned about the parking eitt-atian as it applies to the agreemer~t with the church. Les Lederer, ~art own~er of the pcoperty, explained they own the conti.guous p[operty utilized by Yacific Stereo and L•he Church and he has spaken to the Pastor at the Church and he did voice concern that the proposcd use might in~pact their parking, t~ut that he has in exaeos of 3C0 additional parking spaces which are used exclusively by Pacific Ster.eo and the church cannot park thece and Pacific Ste~eo only requirea 163 spaces, so there is more than adequate parking, plua the hours of operation ars differ~ent. He stated he did not believe the church parking would interfere Frida;y and Satucday evening. Commissioner Bushore stated the Planning Commission's decision regrirding the church wa~ based, at one time, on infacmation provided by the representatives fram the church that :hey could use packing spaces available For Pacific Stereo because their parking study w~s based on all the spaces being available to them; and that they present~d a letter giviny them exclusive right to park on Parking Lot A, and they have Sunday use of Parking Lot• C, and they have a letter from Pacific Stereo gi.ving them week-end and additiona.l mid-week use of 310 spaces, Mr. Lederec stated the Yacific Stereo lease expires June 30th of tr,is year and their parking requirements are higher than he would expect of the next tenant and they are definitely not goiny to cenew their lease. He 4/15/85 MINUTES. ANAH~IM CITY PLANNIHG COMHTSSIUN. ~PRIL 15, 1985 85-185 referrod to th~ diagc~m of th~ parking and referred l•o the etaff report which indicat~s the kotal required parking ia 163 spacea And that 310 spaces exi9t fa~ ttiPir use. Commisaionpr eushore stated hia concern is whether the chucrh has accesA to all the apacea any time they need them, noting they have 10 eeminara a ye~c fcom Friday nigtit through Sunday. Mr. i,edercr :esponded that perhApb Paci~ic S~ereo has given them ~hP right tc> use their spaces, but ctiat rlyht would end on ~une 30, 1985. Commissiioner Bushore stated the owner has olceady given them the r.ight to usa Lc~tA H and C with the right to maintain. Mr. Lederer stated they I~ave a non-exclusive cight, under tlie lease, ta those apaces and he haE the rigt~t to al~ow anybody else, specifically including any te~~ant at the restaurant, to use the ~arking spaces and the church would not have to pay far the maintenance as a resutt of anybody else's use. He 3tated iE there Hre any trash or maintenance problems, btr. Schroeder will have to take care of that ~r the lease would '~~ terminated. Fie stated all the fences are down and he was not aware oE a f~arkfng problem with Pacific Stereo during a Sunday sale. He state~ the ~hurch does have the right tQ hold 10 seminars a year and they haNe ~~ give him three days advance notice and during the three yeacs, he has hAd only one notice ot a seminar. He stated there was one occ~sion several week~ ago when tt~e chur~h was as full as it has ever been and lhey wese alsa doing a broadcast and ~heir p~rking lot was not full, so he ~id not see a parking problem. Canunissioner Bushore stat:ed the church has the possibility of having seminars lU times a year and they have the right to the entire parking lot during thase Eeminars and thought that could cause a conflict with the type oE users comin,y to the church and tt~e type af usArs coming to the entertainment center. He stated he has nevet seen a park3.ng problem nor the parking lot full and he goes past there ftequenF.ly. He clariffed that th~ variance for parY.ing wa~ granted ~or the church based on the fact the owner had given them the r.ight L•o use all the spaces. Mr. Lederer stated the parkiny thaL• has been required has been more than adequate. He stated he was not aware that the church people were parking on Cerritos. Commissioner La Claire asked what the petitioner will do if there is conf.lict between the two uses. Mr. Lederer stated they will t~ave to work out the lease accordingly, but he did not think there will be a realistic problem because on the bu:~iest day, he has not seen the lot full. He stated the church has exclusive rights to u~e the packing area until July 31,- 1988, ana it they want to extend theic lease, there will be a much better experience to know whether they need all the parking; and that the Pacific Stereo lease is ovec in June of this year and they have 310 spaces. Co:nmissioner Bushore stated if a different type use went into PaciEic Stereo facilities, thE parking requirementa could change and asked what the parking r~quirement would be if the chucch would move into that faeility now occupied by Pacific Stereo. Gceg Hastings, Associate Planner, stated he believes Pacific Stereo's parking requirements were calculated on retail space which is 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet and if it was re-calculated for church use, the reg,uirements wou~d be 1 space per. 35 square feet, as opposed to 1 for 200 square feet, and Parking requirements would go up substantially for church use. MINUTES, ANAN_EIM_CIxY PLANNING COMMIS~ION. APRIL 15, 1985 ~5-1$6 Commlasioner Buehore atated from their letter it seeme the church ia intere~ted in lea~zng that facility. Mr. Lederer atated he talked to the church cepreaenta~ives and Pastor Thompaun l•old him th~t if they lease that facility, r.hey intend to use it for pcinting operations and not f.or general as~embly area, t~uk they did not come to terms on A 1888Q and it is Qx~r~mely unlikely the rhurch wa~ld be the new tenants. Chairman Herbst ataLed a reci~rocal E7arking ~greement would t~e ner.essary, as appraved by the City Attorney'~ Uffice and City Traffic Engineer, and it would have to be reGOCded in order tn ~atis~y the parking waiver. Paul ~ingec, 'Praffic Engineer, stated he is not concerned About th~ parking on the parking lot ttself because that would be orderly with the security yuardsj however, he is conceGned that teenagera will p~[k a~ross the street on Anaheim Boulevard to avoid t1iP securir.y where there Are vacant properkies witt~ adequate aEf-street perking which are not utilized at that time of night and also, parking is allowed L~n Cerritos Avenue a~d they would be encou~aged ta park there becau~e there would be no su~ervision. He stated he wAS concerned about pedestrians ccossing the street and his concern is Lur traffic safety because at that time of night, there is t~igh speed r~ditic on Anaheim Boulevard and Cerritns. Mr. Lederer stated this is ei.5~ntially an industrial are. and there could not be a better pl~ce f~r k.1~is t:ype use. He stated the location Ls reall.y not suitable for a reskaacant be~ause it is an indurtrtal area and is dead ar night and there is light r.caffic on Cexrit~~. He stated the petitioner has aqreed ta ~Ay for any ~~ditiunal Police services. He stated there are plenty of remedies availab2p to the City if the use is a nuisance such as [evoking khe perm~k. Mr. Schroeder stated the two security yuards that would be on roving patrol would address any concerns on the ~~~urrounding ~[operty and he will checK with the ~olice D~partment to d~termine the actual number of security guards and they will hire whatever number of guards required to handle ~he problems. Mike Dombrowski stated they were in a similar circumskance with shared parkiny at the shopping center and found the patrons coming to Nighkscape do not ~ant to walk and v~ry Lew people use adjacent parking lots in oLder to avoid the security checks. Commissioner La Claire stated on the niqht she went to the Nightscape location in Santa Ana, she looked around in the area to aee where everyone was parking and there was a parking structure .in the area and no one was parking there and she ortly ~aw three cars in another parkina_ lot. Sne skated in her opinion, this dpsecves a chance~ but she wanted the petikioner to stipulate to having four ~ecurity guards in the parking lot at all times, unless the Polic~ Department says more are needed and she would recommend a two-ypar time limit. 4/15/85 MINUT~S. ANAIi~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ APRIL 15, 1985 _ 85-187 A~TIUN: Commis~ionec La Claire offered a motion, aecoi~ded by Commis~ioner King and MUTIUN CARRIED that the Anaheim Cit,y Planning Commi~sion hd~ ceviewed the praposal to permit an entertAinment center for teenagers witt~ waivec oE minimum number of packi.ng spaces on an ircegularly-~haped ~arcel of land cansiating of approximatel.y 0.95 ecres LUCArP.d at the nactheast cornor of Cerritos Avenue ~nd Anaheim Boul~vatd~ and ~aea hereby ~~pprove Che Negative Declar.ation upon findiny thAt it h~s considered ttie Negative Uec:aretian togel•her with any comments rec~ived during che public r~view pcoceaB and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments reeeived that there is no subyt~ntial evidence that t.he pro~ect will have a siynific~nk effect on the enviranment. Commissioner [,a c:laire stated she would like a reciprocnl prarkir~g ayreement appraved by the City Tr.Affic Enyi.neeK and City Attorney's OfEice. Commiasioner E3ushore asked about rNStricted parking on Cerri~os and Anaheim Boulevard in the evenings, Fr~pecially Anaheim Boulevard, since it would not huct the indu~triA1 area at night. ~aul Singer responded he would hAVe to look into that possibiliCY and review it wilh the City Attorney's Office and Police Department anc~ determine if it is ~ossible, but it could possibly be arranged in some manner. He r.oked the liquar cl-ore does have street parking and restricting their parking would afFe^.t their business during those haurs. CortunisEionec Bushore sL~~e~3 he is concecned because uf the liquor store in the area and restricted parkiny at night would cut down on the possi~ility of ~eople parking on that str.eet and also open up tl~e visibility. Commissioner Bouas p~inted out the liquar st~or.e has their own parking facilities. CornmiasionPr Bu.~hore furth~r clarified tha.t the parking coul~ be restr.icted on Friday and Saturday evening~ only ~rnm 6:OU p.m. He clari.fied that would have Co be approved by the passage of an ordinpnce by the City Council. Respc~nding tc Chairman Herbst, .?ack White explained the waiver •+ould still be n~cessary because the aqreement would not be for the exclusive use of the off-si~e parking and that the Code allows ofE-site parking to count towards Lhe required parking anly if there is an exclusive agreement riyht to use it, and here therQ would be a joint use agreement and at certain times spaces would be available far other uses. Commissionec La Claire offered a motion, seconded by Gommissioner Buuas and MUTIUN CARRIED that tt~e Anah~im City Planning Commission does t~ereby grant waiver of Code requirement nn the basis that the pekitioner has stipulated to record and aubmik a r~ciprocal parking agreement, satisEactory to the City 'Praffic Engineer and City Attorney's Office, and further on the basis; that the parkiny waiver will not cause ~n inccease in traEfic c~ngestion in the imme~iiate vicinity nor advecsely ~ffect any adjoining land uses and granting o£ the parking waiver under tt~e conditions impased, if any, will not be det~imental to the peac2, health, safety and general wel~are of the citizer~r~ of the City of Anaheim. 4/15/85 h MINUTE5. AN~HEYM CI~'Y PLANNING CnMMISSI~N,~ AP.^.IL 15, ~985 85-188 Commiasloner La Claire offered 1te8olution No. PC85-96 and moved for itr:; pa~sage and adoption thet the A,nahetm City Planning Commisaion doea h~reby yrant (:ondikional Use Permit Na. 2572 purauent ta AnAheim Municipal Cr~de 5ectiana 1ti.03.030.U30 thcough 18.03.Q30.035 and subject to petitioner's stipulation to ,~ubm~t a c~ciprocsl parking agreement, setiafactory t~~ the City Tcaffic ~ngineer and Cit!,~ Attorney's OfficE, And said pet~mir could be for A peciod oi kwo years, t~nd ~ub~ect to Interdspartm~nt~l Committ~ae recommenda~i~ns. Jack '~lhite pointed out Commissioner L~~ riaire had indicated she wauld requi[e tt~e petitioner to have A minimum of four (4) security guards for the ~arking lot with two acidi~iAnal guards E,atrallinq the udjacer~k areas. She clr~rified that should be incl~ded in her resolution ~nd also clarified that the yuarde at the do~r dn npt count. Commissioner FcX etated he cauld not completely disce•g~rd thE flkAtements oE the former securaty yuard and Eelt if they are doinq such a great job of acreening the ~eaple who enter the p:Pmises, :~e did not serr how those things could happen, but since a two-year time li.mit was included, he could vote in favor of: the ceyuesk. Mr. Schroeder responded to Chaicman Nerbst that he wauld atipulate to the six security guards in the parking lot. On roll call, the toreyoing resolutian was pas3ed by the f.ollawing vote: AYES: BpUAS, BUSHORE, FRY~ HERBST, Y.ING, LA CLAIRE, Mi: BURNEY NOE.S: NUI~E ABSENT; NONE Commissioner Bouas stated she hopes ~hia appcoval mean:• ttal ~roperty Will be cleaned up and mad~ t~ l~ok ptesentable. Commi~sioner f3ushoce stated he voted in favor o~ the rPquest because he felt evaryone deserves a trial period, but he will bi:• watching it very closely and stat~d he thought this is a vezy good 1c,cation for tt~is use, except foc the liquor score acrass the street, and i~e did not think this type club, no matter how well it is operated, will b~ compatible with the church next d~er. He nc}Qd that is A very activP churct- and there will be a natural conflict, He s=ated he will be ch~ckino this operation and will check Police reports and othec things when the us~a comes up for considsration again in two y~ars. Chaicman Herbst stated tt~e Industrial Development Board reviewed this praposal and recommended denial on the basis th~it the use does nat suppor'c nor relate tu the surrounding industrial cort~munity and added he sees this particulac property as being quasi-commercial and not totally industrial because of the car lots along Anaheim Boulevard. He stated there are also commercial uses with Pacific Stereo on the same ptoperty. Commissioner Bushoce stated he would like to l~now the functiona of the Industrial Development Commi~ttee because he thought it was to take the place of a Iack of Chamber of Commecce and there seems to be t~-o similr~r commf tteer~ Jack White, Assistant City Attorney, presented the written riyht ko af~peal khe Planning Commis~ion's deciaion within 22 days to the City Council. MtNUTES, ANAHE?M CiTX PLANNING r.uMMIS~IUN ~,APRIf. 15. 1985 85-189 IT~M N0. 4. 6IR NEGATIVE UECLARATION, WAIVER QP CODE RE~U:REMENT AND CONUITIONAG UAE PERMIT NU. 2673 PUE~LIC HEAkING. OWNERs: DU'iCH CLUa, A.V.I.U., INC., 155'! WesC fiAr.ell~ Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92802. AGF.NT: ROf3ERT BAX, 6624 Naomi ~venue, Buena park, rA 90620» Property described bs a rcctangulArly-o-~aped parcel of land conaietiny of bpproximately U.72 acre, 1557 W. Katella Avenue (Uutch Club~ A.V.I.U.). To ex~and an existiny private club witri Alcotiolic beverages with waiver cf minimum number of packing spacea. TIiE PULLOwING ACTIUN WAS TAKEN AT 7'tiE BEGINNING OF 'PHI; M~ETINC. ACTION: Commisaioner King offered a motion, ~econded by Commissioner Bouas and MUTION CARRIf:D th~t conGicieration o[ the a!`oremeritioned matter be continued to the regulariy-schec3uled meeting oF A~~ril 29, 1985, at the petitioner's requesk. IT~M NU. 5e GIR NEGATIVS_ UECLARATIUN AND '/ARIANCE N0. 3474 PUBLxC NEAEtING. OWNI>-~:~-. VINCf:NT P. PEITR~K, 218 W. Vermont Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92fi05. ~•P~~+•": HUGO A. ~~AZC~UF.Z, 619 South Live oak Drive, Anaheim, CA 92805. ~:=~!r:~ uescrfped as a rectAngularly-sha~ed parcet af land consistiny of -,:,~~ •+x~e~~~iy 0.4 acre, :~18 W. Vermont Avenue. wnivers oE minim~~~~ ..~ -~~~~~ ~ite acea per :lwelling unit and maximum structural heigh~ =~on~l.r.uct a 16-unit affordable apt~rtment complex. Continued f[om c~~~ -~«~=.ti~? of April l, 1y85 There was no r,n~ ~~~~~•~ting their ~resence in opposit~on to sub~ect cequest and al~t=>~~~_,~, .~h~: staff repart w~as not r.ead, it is refer.red to and made a part oE w*~e_ '~kr,~ates. Hugo Vazquez, agenc, ~xplainF~ the revised plan is for 14 units and is the satne plans ~pprovwc~ tv~o weeks ago for the property next dooc. C. M. ThompsoR, ar..~.~itect, 625 W. Katella Avenue, explained when he was first ap~soac'~ed ~~ us~ rhE same plan, except for flipping the project over, which he h~~ prev~~usly drawn for another client, he aas not sure if that was the ~i•at~: thir~ to do, but thAt Kennedy und Hause and Mr. Va2quez and the pro~perty owner are working well together anr~ that building the same project c~a~uld be beneficial because grading fot the parking for all the units c~oula br, apread out between both proje~ts and that the projects will look more uniform a~~d the landscaping cais be increased and the parking witl be in the middle creating a'u-shaped' project. ~HE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ACTION: Commissionec King offesed a motion, seconded Uy Commissioner Fry and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning C~mmission has reviewed the proposal to construct a 14-unit apartment complex with waiver of 4/15/85 MINUTES, ANAHEZM CITX PLANNING CUMMISSION, APRIL 15, 1985 85-190 maximum ~tructural F~eight on a rectAngularly-shape~ parcel of land consist~ng of apptoximately 0.4 acre, having a fcontagR of approximakely l.lU feet on the oouth side of Vermont Avenue and further. deacribed as 218 W. Vecmont Avenue~ and doeA heceUy ep~~rove the Negative beclaration upon fir.ding that it has conaidered the N~ga~ive peclaration together with any comment~ r~ceived during the pu-~lic rFView proceas and further finding an the basis of the Initial 5tudy and any cornments received ~hat there is no subatantinl evidence that tt~e ~coject wil? ~~~~e ~ significant efEect on the environment. Commissioner Kiny ofEered Kesalution No. PC85-97 and moved tor its paseag~~ and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hpceby grant Varianee No. 3A74 oh the b~ais that there are s~eciAl circumstane~a applicable ko the property such as size, st~ape, topography, loc~tion and surround~ngs which do not apply eo other idenl•icaily zoned proper:y in the same vicinity; and that stcict application of the Zoning Code deprtves the property uf privileges enjoyed by othec prope:tie~ in the identical zone and claasification in the vicinity and subject to Interdeparttnental CommittEe recummendations. On roll call, the foreguiny resolution was pas:~ed by the Eollnwing vote: AYES: BUUAS, FRY, NERBST, KING, LA r.LAlRE, MC BURNEY NOES: BUSHURE ABSENT: NUNE Commissionec ~3ushare ~ttated he is aga.inst RM-1200 Zoning on that ~tr.eet anc' especially a 3-story oroject and his opposition has been on the record fo~r sevsral mor~ths. Jack White, Assistant City Attatney, pr~~~ented the written right `o appeal the Planning Commiss:on's decision wikhin 22 days to the City C~urcil. ITEM N0. 6. EIR 1VEGATIVE DECLARATION AND RECLASSIPICATIQN NO. 84-95-29 PUBLIC HEP.RING. OWNERS: NORBERT A. AND RUTH M. WATERS, 12132 Morrte Lane, Gacden Gcov~, CA 92640o Property desecibed as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land r_onsisting of approximately 0.46 acre, having a frontage of approximately 320 feet on the north side of Ball Road, 2523-25 E. Ball Road. RS-A-43,OU0 to CL. There wa~ no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff ce~:~ort was not read, it is referred to an~~ mAde a part of the minutes. Norbert Waters, property owner, w~s present ta anawer any questions. TNE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Herbst asked what is planned f~; the bal.ance of the praperty. Mr. Watera stated there is no specific interest in leasi~g the other porti~n of the property at this tlme and he does not have specific plans. 4/15/85 L 15,__1985 85-19 MiNUTES nne+n~~„ -_ _ - - •oblem rezoning the whole p~cc:el foC Chai[man Herbst atatPd he has a p. commercial usea without seeing specifl~ p~a~s because it ie abutt ng an oif ra~mp Eor the EreewaY• Mr. W~tiecs atated there is approximat~ly '15,00U square feet of extra beyond what it ~ia ~eyuired foC the cucrent project and he WOWOUld pCO~,erty rc ecty and the building hoPe to Hut another commercial unit °ortionpof~the property. b~ placed somewhere on ~~he easlerly p Greg klastings~ explained in orJer to Responding to Commiasiuner ~~uag'ortion of the proPpXtY~ a reviaed legal approve a reclaeaif.ica.tion c.n a p descciption would be re9uiced. stated he did not ree any E~roblem wil•h rezuning L•h~hi~g Commis:~foner Nry curb cuta or Any entire »arcel because the owner could noandehe did not see any FrQblem elae until he came back beEoce the City because the parkinw will be limit~d commeccial usesL tHe stated~this is~a noted l•he rest is Already zonandfit is very cddly-shaped• very sma11 piece r~f pcoperty Pr Traffic Enyineer, stated the City is aakiny t.hat the puul Sing_ r vehicular access rights be cedicated on Hall Road, so tt~at solves an prublems t~P can Locesee. of.fered a motion, seconded by Commissloner Fry ACTION: CommiE;sioriec King planning Commission has reviewed and MUTION CAR'RIED that t.hesubjrectmpr perty from the RS-A-43,000 the proposal to reclassify (Residential, Agricultural) 2one to the CL lCommercia1cUximateaY Op46 an irregularlly-shaFed Paccel of land cons3~Ulfeetfon~the north side of acre, having a frontage of approximately and does thak it has Ball Road and furehNe atsvelneclaratian uponSEindingil Roa ; heteby approve th 9 comments received considered the Negative Declacation together with anyo~~ the basi~ of the during the public review process and fucther fin9i~g ~~ comments received that t~~pre is no substantial Initial Study and an, evidence that the prc~ject will have a siynificant effect on t e environmr.nt. assage offered Resclution No. P~~Commission~d esfhereby grant Commis~ioner King planning and adoption that the Anaheim City ReclassificaLion No. 84-85-29 subject to Interdepartme~:tal Committee tecommendations. vote: On roll call, tt~e .`.ocegoing resolution was passed by the following BOUAS~ BUSHORE~ FRY~ KING, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY AY~S: NUES: HERBST ABSENT: NONB ack White, Aasistant City Attorney- presented the written rlgC~uncilppeal J s to the City the Planning Commi~ssion's decision within 22 daY 4/15/85 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY_~LANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 1~, 1985 85-191 Chairman Herbst 8tated he hae a problem rezoni~g khe whole parcel for commercial usee without seeing opecttic plana ~ecause it is abutting an off. ramp for the fceeway. Mr. WaLera stated there is approximately 15,000 aquare feet of extra ~roperty beyond what it is required Foc h.he current pro~ect and he would hope to put anc-ther. commercial unit on thc~ property and the building would be placed somewhere cn the easterly portion of the propecty. Respondirig to Commissioner ~ouas, Greg tlastings, explained in arder to ap~rove a reclassification on A partion of the property, a revised leyal deacription would be reyuired. Commissioner Fry stated he did not aee any problem with rezoning the entire parcel because the owner could not make an,y curb cuta or anything else unt.il he came ~ack before the City and he dici not see any problem because the parkiny will be limited which will limit the development and noted the ~esl• is already zoned for commercial Usea. Ne ~tated this is a very small piece nt property and it i.~ very oddly-ahaped. Paul Sinqer, Traffic Engineer, stated the City is askir~g that the vehiaular access rights be dedicated on E3a11 Road, ao tt~at solves any problems he can Eoresee. AC`PION: Commisaioner King off.ered a motion, seronded by Commissionec Fry and MOTIUN CARRIED that the Anaheim ~:ity Planning Commicaion has reviewed the p:oposal to reclassify subject property from the RS-A-43~000 (Residential, Aqricultural) Zone to the CL (Commercial, Limit:a~3) 2one on an irregulariy-shaped parcel of land consisting of ap;~roximbtely 0.46 acre, havfng a frontage of appruximately 32U feek on the nochh side af F3a11 Road and furtl~er described as 2523 - 2555 E. Hall Road; and does he:eby approve the Negativ,: Declaration upon finding that it haa considered the Negative D~claration together with any comments recefved during the public review process and further finding on the basis oE the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a sig~ificant effect on the environment. Commissioner King o£fered Reso.lution No. PC85-98 and moved for its passaae and adoption that the Anal~eim City Plannfng Commissicn does hereby grant Reclassification No. 84-85-29 subject ':o Interdepartmental Committee reccmr~endatiu~is. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: 80UA5, BUSHORE~ FRY, KING, LA ~.LAIRE~ MC BURNEY NOES: HERBST ABSENT: NONE Jack Whi.te, Assistant City Attorney, presented the wriCten right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. 4/15/85 MINUTES ANAHBIM CITY PUANNING COMMISSION APRIL 15 1905 _ 85~192 ITEM N0. 7. ~lk NEGATIV~ UECLARATION RECI~AS5IFICATION N0. 84-85-30 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NU. 2676 PUBLI~ HF:4RINC. OWNERS: ANIZ'A MARGARETE AND CHARLES E. PEAIRS, 1201 Glenview, Fullerton, CA 92635. AGENT: RUNALD A. MUCCINO, P.O. Box 4056, Anaheim, CA 928U3. kroperty d~acriGed as an irregularly-shaped paccel of land consisting of approximately 7405 equace teet , 11~7 Narth Swan street. RM-1200 to CL or a leas intenAe xone. To permft a uaed automobile salea agency and lot. There waa no one indicating theic presence in opposition to aubject requeat and although the staff repoct was not read, i~ is r~eEerred to and made a part of the minutes. 12on Muccino, agent, was ~resent to ~nswer any q~~gtiona. T.HE PUF3LIC HEARING WAS CI.OSED. c:ommLSSioner Fry st.ated he wouid not vo~e tor a used car lot on that si~.e lot in this ar-;u. Paul SingPr., Tr~~~fic F.ngineer, stbted there are pl~ans for the wi.dening of Anaheitn Bou.levat•d and this portion of the atreet will, for al.l practical purposes, become a parking lot with 90° parking and stated it will ;~ot be a thorouyhfare and will be widened in approximately :989 or 1990. He stated it wil~ still be a public skceet~ but the thocouyhfare wi11 be on Lemon and Harbor and traffic will be discouraged from using An+3heim (3aulevacd. He stated also left-turns will be reatcicted. Mr. Muccin~~ responded to commissioner 9ouas that he picked this locatinn and ex~.ected to be there for at least 10 years. He stated he wt~nted a srnall lot like this because thiy will be a one-man operation anc mostly wholesale rathec than retail. He stated there will only be 9 or 10 cars at t~5e site at one time. He ~tated it will be a nice fa~ility and will irnpcove the area. Responding to Commissioner Bushore, Mr. Muccino stated he is in business on North Crescent and has been there since 1978 and prior to that his business was located at 725 S: Anaheim Boulevard. Commissioner Bushore stated the petitioner's present location is in an industrial ar~a and asked if this locati.on is being requested for the opecation of the retail portion of the business. Mr. Muccino stated he handles all types oF wt~olesale cars and he fs paying cash fot this lot and will pay Eor the building with cash and ifi sincere in his plans and does not intend to throw his money away. Commissionec La Claire askEd what else could be developed on thfs property and Commissionpr McBurney indi.cated that was his same concern. Jay, Titus, Office ~:ngineer, staked the City is reguesting dedication an Homer St:eet of 32 fe~t, bt:.t nott~ing additianal on An~heim Boulevard. 4/15/85 MINUTGS, ANAHE~M CI~Y PLANNING COM~ISSION, APRIL_15,_1985 85-193 Commisaioner ~ushore atated he would be willing to g~ ~ao~~g with a conditional uae permit for 5 yeers to determine iE the u~c is really going to be whole~ale and stated he f~lt aince the pekitionec 18 curcently operating in an induatrial area, the uae ia prob~bly going t~ be wholesale. Mr. Dluccino etated he would not want any wo~:k to he done outafde on the vehicles and he woul.d want t•he operation t~ be as nice And cl.ean as po~sible. ACTION: Commissionec Bushore offered a motion, aecanded by Comtni3sinner Kiny and MUTION CARkiED that the Anaheim City planninq Commiasion has reviewed the proposal to reclassify subject properL•y from the RM-~1200 (Residential Multiple-Family) Zone to the CL (Commercial, Limited) Znne or a less intense zone on an ircegularly••shaped ~accel of. land consisting of aE~proximately 7405 square feet located at the northwest corner cf Swan Street and Anaheim Boulevard and further deacribed as 1107 No~th S~an Streets and does hereby appcove the Negative Declaration upon findi~y that it has co~~sidered the Negative Declaretion together with any comments received during the public revi.ew process and further Einding on the basis oE the Initial 5tudy and any comments received that there ia no substantial evidence that tFe projecl• will have a slgnificant effect on the environm~:nr.. Commissioner Bushote ofEered Resolution No. PC85-9~ and moved for its passage and adoption that tt,a Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Reclassification No. 84-85-30 subject tn Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. Un roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: ~OUAS, BU5Ei0RE, HERB3T~ KING, LA CLAI1?E, MC BURNEY NOES: FRY ABSEN'i': NONE Commissioner Bushore o[fered Resolukion No. PCBS-100 and moved for its pas~age and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission d~es hereby gtant Con~itional Use Permit No. 2676 for .. period of five (5) years pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Section 16.03.030.030 thcough 18.03.030.035 and subject to interdepartmental Committee recommendations and subject to the petitioner's stipulation that there will be no more ~han .12 vehicles on the premises at any one time and all work will be conducted i~,side the faciliti~s and the use primarily will be a showroom and wholesale operation. On coll. call, the foregoing r~solution was pasRed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS~ BUSHORE, HERBST, KING, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEX NO~S: PRY ABS~NT: NONE .tack White, Assistant City Attorney, presented th^ written right to appeal the P7.anning Commission's decisiun within 22 days to the City Council. 4/15/85 MINUTES. ANANSIM CLTY PI.ANNIN~ COMMI&SION. A_PRj.t~ 15,_ 1985________85~•194 R~CESSED: 2:55 p.m. R~CONVFNLU: 3:05 p.m. ITE:M NO. 8. EIR NEGATIVE pECLARATION, RECLASSIFICATIUN NU_, 84-85-31, WAIVLR OF CUUE ItEQUIkF;MF.NT ANU CONDI7'IONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2678 PUBLTC H~ARING. UWNERS: TA 'PSUN LIN AND ti~H-NIANC JAN i.,IN~ 7777 BedGh F3oulevard, Buena Park, CA 90620. AGGNT; JOfiN F. SWINT, 707 W. Narth SCroet, Anaheim, CA 92805. Pco~erty deacribed as an irr.egularly-~hap~d parcel oE lund conaistiny of ~ppr~ximat~ly 0,92 acre, 705 South 6e~ch Doulevard. RS-A-43,UUU to CL. To permit a 73-unit, 3-sto~y mu:el with waiver of minimum landscaped setback. TherN wece ten pecaonc indicating thelr preaence in opposi.tion to subject reyuest and although the staff report wAa not read, it is referred to and made a E,art of the minutes. John Swint, ag~nt, 707 W. North Street, Anaheim, was present to an~wer any questions. Cindy Stanaker, 3024 Cheryllyn Lane, presidenG of Windriver, Condominium Association, stated they feel a mot~:l would be very undesirable to the residents and homeownecs in this particular r,ommunity. She referred t~ the Statement of JustiFication filed by the petitioner, puestion A which retlds haw the pr.o~o~ecl use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and yrowth of the area and how th e site proposed for the use is adequate to allow for the full development of the proposed use in a manneK not dekrimental to the particular area nor to tt~e peace, health, sr."ety and general welfare. She statacl the petitf:~ner's reap~nse was tliat the properties in the immediate vicinity have been designated for motel and hotel usea and this project will be harmonious with the adjoining properties. She stated the property is adjacent to ~heir condominium project and thc~re are batting cages on the south side and apartments across Beach Boulevard, sa they do not see how this use for a motzl could be harmonious with their property. She stated there is not a motel on the adjoining property. She continued that Question B asked how the traffic yenerated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden on the streets and highways in the area and how granting of Che conditional use permit, under the conditions imposed, wil2 not be detrir~iental to lhe peace, henlth, safety and general ~elFare to the citizens of the City of Anaheim. She explained the petitioner's response was that Beach Boulevard is a major thoroughfare and this project wi11 only generate 62 additional veni.cles which is negligible considering the volume of cacs on Beach 9~ulevard. She stated there is already a traftic problem in this area and the batting cagp facility does n ot have enough park:ng and tra£fic already backs up to their property and 62 more vehicles into this motel would cceate a bigger prot~lem. She stated there is no access to that property from the narth and it is already congested at the ~ignal of Orange Av~nue and Be~ch Boulevard. 4/1S/85 MINUTES, AN~HEIM CITY_PLANNING COMMISSIQN1 APkIL 15, 1985 85-195 Ms. Stannker referr.ed to Question No. 1 of the Statement of Justificetion filed by the petiti~nor, "Doea thi~ ptopPrty differ from other ~,r~pertiea in ~he s~me zone and vicinity as ko aize, ahape, topogco~hy, locatlon or surroundingK and petitioner'A response was thut the u~jncQnc pcoperty ~o the nocth and weat ace zoned RM-3U00. She added she thought the zoning wa~ ~A-3UU0 for residentiAl, agriculturai. She added again L•he surruunding propecties are not developed with rt~otr.ls. She cead Quesl•ion No. 4: "Ie the hardship on khe land rather than on the ~wnec personally or economically•, and tt~e petit.ianer's responne is that increased l.andscAped area would add 2,72Q syuace Eeet to the Landacaping and there is no actu~l hArdahip other than Add~tional cost. She atated lhere will be a lol of hardshipa on them as they will be parking the vehicles right underneath their windows. She stated the kitchen And living room windows on 3U units fece thAt property and 20 r.o 25 units arN within 15 feet of the fence where they plAn to park the cars. Ms. Stanaker refer~ed to the Initial Study filed by lhe petitioner and uuestion I~o. 2 asked iE ~ignificant increeses in either noiae levels, du~t, odors, fume~, vibration or radi.~Cion will be generated fcom thc project area either during conatruction oc f.rom completion oE tlie project, othPr than reaulting tcom n~rmal constructi~n activity. She 3tated staff ha~3 rpcommended an Cnvironmental Negative Impact and asked what khat means. Jack White, As~istant City Attorney, explttined under the CaliEornia Enviconmentul Quality Act, the City, in isauing a discretionary permit, such as a rezoning and conditional use permit as in tl~is case, ts reyuired to determine if kher.e i3 an adverse enviconmental impact which wnuld be generated by the project and if ttie City determines there is no environmental icsues, they may, as in this case, recommend approval of an environmental negative declaration, meaning there ~s no neyative environmental imE~act; however, it the City fi.nds there is a~otential adverse im~act, it is necessary fnr the petitioner to prepAre a lengthy document called an Environmental impact Report and thot the Planning Commission must consid~r and cectify k}~at before approving any of ~he projects referred ko. He added, in this instance, the staff has analyzed the project being proposed and haa determined, based upon the Initial Study that there is no adverse anvironmental impact and has prepared a nsgakive declar~tion for the Planning Commission's consideration and approval. He stated the testimony being received from the public can relate to thiF aspect of the projec~, but it will be up to the Planning Commission to determine whether or not a negative declaration is appropriate or if an environmental imFact report shnuld be prepared. Ms. Stanaker asknc3 how Questi~n No. 2 could be an~wered "no', since there will be a pote~t.ia) increase in noise after the construction; that right now they are setting next to a closed veterinarian hospikal and there is no noise generating from that use, but there would be a lot of added noise with people coming in and out of the motel and using the pool area, etc. She referred to Question 5, "Will the pcoject cequire certification, authorization or issuance of permits by any other local State or Federal Agency, Health Department, etc.'. She stated sh~ believed they would need to get a permit for the pool. She added she thought they were concerned because nost of the queskions hud been answered 'no', and feel 4/15/85 MINUTES. ANANEIM_CITY PLANNiNG COMMISSION, APRSL 15~ 1985 85-196 thet no one was really read~ng the form. Sha stet~d Rho hAd already discussed the traffic r.onyestion and referred to the c ommenks cegarding the treea and atated there ere quike a tew tcoes on th e aite and ~he would ltke to have them checked to make aure th~y are not de teting rreeo that ahould be kept. She stated the initial ~tudy indicate d there is no concern about Elooding, but her hu~bA~,d is a geologisl- and indicates there could bg e problem i~ith ilooding. She stotr_d a lot of homeowr~ers pl~n to move iE this yets apNrov~d. Ms. Stanaker ~tated 2d of the homes were purchased thr ough the b~nd ~s$ue and even though that waa an advantc-ge at the time, aom e of them probably would not have purchased their condominium if they t~ad known t.here would bP a motel built next door. St~e preaented petitiane s igned by the !.meownecs. llAniel Valdez, 3U30 Cheryllyn, presented pi~`urec of t heir r.omptex and their pKesent view of the aurraunding area and thc po t entinl view of a 3-story stcucture. He stated there are currently ov~ r 13 motels from Orange Avenue to c' ~ 1 Road, witt~in .3 of a mile, with over 583 rooms. He presented photoyraN s of the mo~els in that area. tte statpd he drove the freeway and got off at Eieach Boulevard in Buena Park and there arc 21 motels Lrom the River~ide Freeway to Orange Avenue in a 2-1/2 mile expanse on Beach eoulevard, not caunting the 13 shown ~reviou sly. He added he thought the numbec of rooms would be doubled. He staterj one oE khe ma.in issues is ccime in the immediate area and he has spoken with Officer Christianson of the Anaheim Polic e pepartment Community Relationa about burglarly, rapes, prostitut ion, drug activities, etc. around the molel ~reas and he coul~3 not be spec i fic on the number of ca1~K, but there would be an inccease and suggested t he neighbc~rs a~k for a crime ana~.ysis break-down in thnt area. He atated theics is a family community with children and those type activities w~u ld have an adverse affeck on all the residents in their community. Ne a_sked about l:he number of parking spaces with 69 proposed for 73 roome and ~ tated there will be abuut 12 employees at the motel and thought there wo u l.d be a parking problem. Evelyr- Tribole, 3012 Ch~ryllyn, ~~ood River, stated st~e is strongly againat the motel and suggested alternatives such as c~ndomi n iums, apartments, veternarian hospital, ptiysician, etc. She atate!~ sh e is concerned as a homeowner about what this will do to her property va 2ues and noted she runs every day and is very concerned about hPr safet y. Steve Engel, 3018 Cheryllyn, stated approximately 2 years ago he moved in this Winc~ Rivers project and even thongh thi~ projec t may loak like a motel, the units are their homes and when they moved in, they were surrounded by local busin~~~e~, but they have never inftinged on each other. He added he felt this would be an invaaion o f their privacy wikh parking lot lights on during the night ylowing into =heir homes. Hc~ stated less than 100 feet away th~y will have people staring into t[~eir windows and they will have t~ keep ~heir curtains d r awn and there will be a 3-story building only 10 feet from their backyard and their swimming pool will be right along the fence where the waiver is being requested and people on the second or third stori.es will be able t o stare right down 4/15/85 MINUT~S ~ ANAIIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMI5SIQN, APRIL 15, 1985 05-197 into th ei.r cecreational area and backyArda and it will be very easy for them to throw thinga over the Eence in~o theic aree. He atated they have a aecur ed pro;ect and if this motQl goe~ in, there will only be a 6-foot high te nr,e se~ara~ing the properties and peopte wi.l he able to climb ove~ the fence oC throw thi.ngs ove~. He etACed the tr.ash encloaures wi11 be placed aa fac away from the motel as E,u~ssit~le, buk v~ry clase to their projec t which w.ill be adding amella, odocs dnd pesls includin.y rats. Ne atated tliey are not ayainst gcowtl~ and development, but did not think a 73-unit , 3-xtor~ motel is re~lly an appropriat e usc Eor this land. P.J. C o ok, 3054 ~hery.llyn Lane, stated there is no substantial rcason for changin g the zone and building a motel in this areas that thece are 13 motels in ~he 1/2 mil~ Area between Ball and Urange witt~ mnre then 5a3 roome available and tt,e amucement pArka in that area have 3 ~r 4 differ~nt motel t ype tacilities neAr by. She stAted this will put the surrounding commun i ty in a t~iyh risk area for crime, saEety and privACy. John ~~+int stated the neighbors do hAVe a lat of concerns, but khis propert y cpnnot be left as RS-A-43,ODU k,ecaus e no one would want to build a home there and ~3each Boulev~cd ts a major corridor in Orange County and the whole area snould be conaic]ered commercial. tIe added he thought this motel s hould t~e conaidered as a buffec between the residences and the battin g cages which are not very pretty ta look at and is quit.e noisy at times. tle stated a 73-unit motel isn't tike a theater creating a major t~affic ~~roblem at one time and the cac~ would bc cominy zn one every 10 or 15 minutes and o[ all the ~:utnmercial use~ he could consider for this proper t y, a motel would prot~ably have the lea st impact and the least amount of traffic and noi.se. f~e stated there a[e five parking spaces more than C ode requires. Ele stated obviously this is considered tc be a good area f or rnotels aince there ace 583 rooms in that area and there would not be lig hte ahining into their windows and that will be couered with a cundit ion of approval. He stated there wouZd not be 24-hour activity bec;ause people corne to a motel to rest. He stated there ace no windows in t~~e west Fnd of the motel and all the other windows are at 90~' angles to the neighbor's pool and he did not thinl, anyone could look ~;:ko ~I,eic pool area. Ne ~tated he @ld not think anyone would he cli;~ibino over the fe~.ce to get into their pool because the motel would have its own pool. He added he could ~,ut a lU-foot landscaped strip on the north ^ide and nr~ lose a ny parking spaces. THE PU BLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Respo n• 'ng to Commissioner Bushoce, Mr. S++int explained he has built about 17U mo..~ls in Anaheim. Commissioner eushore stated Mr. Swint has gener a lly tried to take into account the impact on adjacent residential prope r ty and knows the Commission's concerns about parking right next door to ces idential property and asked what happened to this proposal. Mc. Swint stated this is thQ first *_ime he has evec designed a motel this close to a building which he thought was an apartment complex. He stated he di d check wi1:h Planning to find out what the setbacks were ane~ was not made aware that there was supposed to be a 10-foot landscaped strip and he could pcovide that strip without a hardship. 4/15/85 MINUTES. ANANEIM CITY pGANNING CUMMISS_ZQN~ APRIL__15~_ 1985_ _____ 85-198 Commisaioner E~ushare atated this ta an unique a~c~A and Cheryllyn was an exceplion to the rule nnd the pool was put towarda E~eacti Boulevard because oE the noise. He etated he had concerns with thet pcoject from the first proposal as to where the roads would be ~laced and the road was pl.aced next to the hoapital property because they knew this praperCy was going to be developed wikh conmiercial or prof.e~sionAl officesj and probably the coad ehould have been plaeed nexk to this ptopecCy and now, khere will be a 3-story pco ject on thAt property wh i<:ti wi 11 look dawn onto th is lot . fte atated he thought the area4 to the nor tl~ anc~ went st~uuld have been t•aken into considecatian and this pro~ect, as ~roposed, witl hAVe an impACt. He stated a lot of variances were granted on the Wind Riverf. project in oxdeK to pcovide the uEEorda~ility and ~ comPromiae has to i~e rea~:hed on C!~i~ property because Narking next to the Eence will r_ause a pcublem and people do throw things over fences. He added a 2-ctory o~f.ice building might b-~ better on thia ~r~perty. Mr. Swint Rtated this is considered u yood ~.rea Por motels because of the traf.Fi.c on that m~jor c~rridor. He stated the traitic Erom the motel wou l~~ not be as mur_h as an of.fice building where there ie tratfic all day. Commissioner Bu~h~re stated an ofEice building could be designed with no oc very little visual impact on the property next doot and it would be ~losed earlier in the evening than a motel because ~c.ople tend to stay ~ut as long as thEy pu~sibly cnn when they are on vacation. Ne stated the property on Cheryllyn probably sl~ould have been commeccial, but was developed with residential uses a~ ~i now this property will be affect•ed by L-hat existinU develr- ;t. He stated there has to be a compromise and he did not bei,.,. e~ ~~y rnotel with parking right u~~ to rheir Eences is an Appropriate :. rommissi .• r La Clair«: stated looking at it from a land planning point ~f vif•w, ar+~: for the yood oE the neighborhood, it looks li,ke all of Beach Boulevard ia zoned CL, except Eoc this pro~,erty, and she sees this property as CL since everything else alon9 there is CL ~nd in thinking of other useu that could ba developed under CL, a motel would have the least impact on the neighbors. She Added sY~e would not vote for a variance and wants the 10-foot fully lAndscaped and noted that ia a Planning Commission policy for providing screening with mature tzees and she asked the petitionec to stipulate to providing trees, etc. She stated it appears the developer did make an effort tc keep the intrusion at a minimum. Mr. Swint stated he can provide the 10-foot landscaped strip because he does have Qxcess parking spaces. Cammissioner La Claire stated she did not see how this motel could be any more intrusive than the batting cages with lights, etc. and asked if there is a lighting plan for the building. Mr. Swint ~tated they will only use enaugh lighting to 'ight the balconies and Code requires 2 watts per foot on the balcony as a safety pr:ecaution, and any lights in the parking lot would be faced towards the motel and noC outside the property. 4/15/85 ..._..,,._ .............~,..,.._.~,~. ~.:..~.,.~ ..:, .,,... _,_.__...._,-..,--~... ._._.,.~., •, . '.- MINUTES, J-NAH~IM_CITY pL~NNING CUMMISSION, APRII. 15, 1985 85-199 CommiaelonPr La Clafce stated there ia no landacaping plan and she did not know where the lewr~ ar~c+a ~re proposed Erom the plans presonhed and refecr~d to the edge of the building on the weat end. She added Ahe could nat tell fcom the plens wtiere the landacaping is propoaed. Mr. Swln~ ex~lai.ngd he has moce ~han the requirod landscaping. Commissioner La Clal[e ascertained that there wil~ be 10 feet oE 1anc~scaping west of the buildiny. Mr. Swint pointed out the pro~ased landsca~ed areas on the plan to Cummiesioner La Claire. Commiseioner Bushore Aaked iC the 3cd story balconiea could be st~lelded r~o the gueata could not see the neighbora. htr. Swink stated he would have no objection to providiny ac~me shieiding. Mr. Swint point.ed out that the trash enclosure Areas and stated he cuuld move thoAe into one of the pfirking atalls. Commissioner Bushu~e Atated he has a real problem with this and it is beginning to look like the Commission is tryiny to pUSh it through, but thar. they are just tc~iny t.o reach a cornpromise. C~~mmissioner. I.a Claire state~ the opposition should know the Commissioners kriow Mr. 5wint because he has been before them many times in the pa~st and he doesn't always geC what he wants. Mr.. Swint asked far a continuance in order to redesign the pcoject. Commissioner La Claire suggested he meet with Clie neighbors after the plans ace revised. Chairman tiecbst stated this parcel i~ zone~ RS-A-43,000 which is a holding zone and the properGy has a commercial (CL) potential on it and once it is re2oned CL, there are many uses th~~{. ~:ould potentially go in without cominy befare khc Planning Commis~~ ~. He stated hotels do not create as much tcaffic as a normal commercia2 u~e and howt~ver the ~roperty is developed, there will be some tcaffic generated. He ~tated with the motel redesigned, it could be a good use for the property, if the neighbors are protected with high walls For screeniny and landscapec] buffers. Mr. Swint indicated he would l.ike a foi~r-week continuance. ACTION: Commissioner McDurney •~f~Pred a r~otion, seconded by Commissioner La Claire and MOTION CARRIED t;. ~onsideration oE the aforementioned matter be continued to the Ce,- %i'~r-sCheduled meeting ~f May 13, 1985, at the request ot the petitioner i~~ or.der to redesign the project. ITEM N0. 9 EIR NEGATIVE DECLAFtATTON, RECLASSIFICATION, _'_. 84~85-32 ~ND VARIANCE N0. 3475 PUBLIC HBARING. OWNE:RS: SEVERIANO J. AND FUTH hNN PEREZ, 3153 W. B~11 Road, Anaheim, CA 92804 and AItTHUR P. AND BEVERLY R. LANE, 31~7 and 3163 W. Ball Road, Anat~eim, C.A 92804. AGENT: MAGDY HANNA, 4000 MacAtthur Boul.evard, Suite 6&0, Newport Beach, CA 92660. Property described as a re~ctangularly-~haped parcel of land consistiny of approximately 1.17 acre, 3153, 3157 and 3163 West Ball Road. 4/15/ ~ "- MINUTES, ANANEIM_CITY PL~NNING COMMISSION, APRIL 15, 1985 85-200 R&-A-43,000 to RM-1200. Wdivecs of minimum bullding aite are~, mdximum buildinq heiyht, minimum required recreational-leieure area and minimum diatance between bu~tdingm t~ conatruct ~ 48-unit afEordabl~ apectment complex. There were two persnns indicating theic presance in oppositl~n to aubjoct request and although the ~taff report was not read, it is refecrnd to and made a part cf the minutea. Paul Majos, agent, presenta~ a color~ng cendering of the project and explained each unik will have a 2~car enclo~ed gara~e. Jack Sera, stated he lives :n San .1ose, but owna the property next door to subject property and thio i.~ the ficat t.imP he has seen the plans and it appears that ttiis will be a 3-story bullding with a garage on th~ ground level, noting I~e hes A 2-atory buildiny and the 3-story structure will overshadow his proper.Ly. fie atated he has 43 units on a lot that is laryer tt~an sub~ect pro~erty and they ace r~questing 48 units and asked if he would be able to put an ~zdditional 8 units on his property if this ie granted. Chairman Herbst explained there is a State law requiriny that if the developer aycees to enter into an ~greement to provide affordable units, he is enCitled t~ certain variances, at the discretio~ of the Planning Commission. Jack White st~ted the term "aEfordable', as used in zoning, refers to a project under the ~rovisions oE ~ection 6591~ of the Gavernment Code wt~ich provides low and moderate income housing, in accordance wi.th a deflnition in thE appropriate Code, and allowa a density credit to be given to a project that provide3 a minim~~m 258 of the t~tal number nf units for low or moderate incomE housing. He added the developer would have to en~er into an agreement with the City agreeing to comply with the rental rates, etc. Mr. Sera asked if he could apply foc that as well, explaining he has been charging $100 a month less than his competitors. Jack White stated Mr. Sera shou.ld discuss that with Pat Whitaker in the Community Housing Deparr_ment. Mr. Sera stated he is oppoaed to the third-story unit and he only sees 4~ parkiny spaces. He stated there are 43 garages and 23 additional spaces on his property and their parking is full. He stated he welcomes develo~ment be~ause the propecty right now is an eyesore and there are no curbs or sid~walks and the wnter does not drain to the street. Gceg Hastiny~ stated 120 parking spaceE are proposed for this praject and that no parkiny waiver has been requested. Mel Mc Gauyhy stated he ownF the parcel immediately north of subject prnperty on the west and he is all for the project, but not the way it is designed; that it would be go4d for apartments if they are kept in line with whak the C1ty requires; that 3 storie~ are out and the apartrnent project is too close to his proFerty line and should be l~cated at least 75 feet away from his pcoperty. He stated he did not see a f~nce and asked if one ia approved, that it be at least 10 feet high. 4/1~/85 1 MINt,1TES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL_15, 1985 85-201 Mr. Majon stAted khey Ace propoaing 124 parking epaces and they have 90 feet instead of 150 teet hetween the proper~ies on the eASt and they would like to have a b-foat higli block wall on the property line, but are willing ko provide an e~f:oot t~igh wa11. Ne Added khey have to declicate 25 feet to tlie City on the fcont and will pt~vide curbR and gutters and any necesrary stceet improvements. TNE PUBLIC HEARINC; WAS CL~OSEG. Chair.man Herbst stated this pro~~c:t would definitely over~uild the properLyt t}iat there is not enough r.ec[eati~~nal area and that the building~ r~xe.~ too C10fiF. tiP st~-ted they are ~ntitled to ~ome variances becauee of the affordabie aspect, bu~ the Gonmiasinn still wt~nts to keep the t,,ildinyc~ livable ~nd he did not think the Commi.soion haA gone quit~ this far. Efe stated he thought khe third atory should be eliminbted and the project brouyht cloaer to meetin4 r,ll the other Code requirement~. Mr, hlajos stated they are requestiny les~ dFnsity than waE granted to other aikordable projer.~fi And khe Ci.ky hr~s ppptaved other projectr~ similar ~o thi~. Commiasioner Bushore srated what has b~en ~llowec3 before has nakhi.ng to do with this pcuject and any ~~roject muAL stand on its own. R~sponding to Commissioner Bushore, Mr. Majos stated they a:e proposing ~.24 ~atking spaces, with Commi~sianer (3u~hore pointing out he counts 120 ~~c~ces. Cummissioner ~ust~are aeked how much leisure area is proposed, with Mr. Majo~ respondiny they ate pr~p~sing 132 ~qu~re feet, plus the '~alconies. Commissioner 9ushore pointed out 13'l feet fncludes the private balconies with Greg Hastings in~~.cating ttiat is c~rreck. Commiasioner f3ushore suygested the petitioner cequeat a 1-month cantinuance in order to look the praject ovec. He stated he did not know if 3 stor.ies will be permitted becauae the project is 52 feet from the cesidencefl on Glen Nolly. E~e ~lated he t{~ouytzt staff could work with the 6eveloper and inform him of what might be allowed, based on past experiencN, but the praject has to stand on its ~wn. Mr. Majos stated he w~uld like a continuunce and it was noted in order to have the hea[iny in tWa weeks, he would need to submit cevised plans to staff by Eciday of thi~ week. Greg Hastings stated he was not sure the staff wauld have amrle tim~e to handle a review of revised plans for the next agendb. Chairman Herbst suygested the continu~nr.e be for 4 weeks. Commissioner La Claire stated the Commission i.s not opposed to givin, some vari.ances, but in this case the petiti~ner needs to cut down on the density and cut down ~ci some of the variances that she is concerned about such as the square footage per dwelliny unit, even though she knaws the project wil~ be 100@ affocdable which is different than 258 affordable. It was ciaritled this ~ro~ect ~aill be financed with "private fund~". She suggested the developer should check into the economics of providing a~fordable hou~ing. She sl•ated this i~ ju~t overbuilding the property just a little bit and suggested the developer find ouk how high the adjbcent apartment project is and compare it with the pcoposed height of this project. Mr. Sera stated actually this is a 3-story buildtng, but only garages wi11 be on the first floor. Chairman Herbsk suggested the developer meet with the neighbors to provide something that everyone can live with. 4/15/85 MINUTE9„~ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CUMMI3SIUN1 APRIL 15r 1985 85-2Q2 Commiseioner Buehore atated there are two lota on L•he noctheast c~cner of the property With f.rontage on Clen tiolly and Commission would want to be sure khere ia an adequete buffer zone for t:heir backyard$. Chairman Herbst stated the whole back partion ncedc a buffer zone. ACTIU~: Gommisaioner McBurr~y ofFered A motion, aeconded b,y r,ommiesioner King and MUTIUN CA~RIEU that consideration of the aEorementioned matter be cuntinued to the regulacly-scheduled meeting of May 13, 1~85, at the requeat of the petitioner. PUBLIC 'PES'PIMONY FUR IT~M5 lU ANU 11 WA5 HEARD TOGETHER. IiEM N0. lU EIR NEG~TIVE UECLARATIUN~ RECLASSJFICATION N0. 04-85-33, WAIVER U~ CUDE REQUIREMENT, CONDITIONAL, U5E PERMIT N0. 2679 AND RE~U~ST FOR R~MOVAL OF SPE~IMEN TRF.ES PUBLIC EIEARING. OWNERS: SYNOD UF SOUTHERtJ CALIFORNIA AND fiAWAI2~ 1501 Wilstiire Boulevard, Los AngelES, CA 90017. AGENT: VICTOR CONSTRUCTION CO., 3445 E. La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting os approximately 2.4 acrea loc~ted at the southeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Fairmonk ~oulevard. RS-A-43,~OOfSC) to CL(SC). Z~~~ per.mit a retall centec with on-sale alcoholic beverages in an enclosed restaurant with waivers o~ minimum number of parking spaces, maximum number of signs, maximum numbez of sign display surface, required sign placement and rtiaximum sign area. ITEM NU. 11. EiR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OF COUE REQUIR6MENm AND GONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2680 PUBLIC kfBARING. OWNERS: SYNUD GF CALIFORNIA AND HAWAII, 1501 Wilshire BoulevaCd, Los Angeles, CA 90017. AGENT: CANYON HILLS UNITGD PRESBYTERIAN CHURCFi, 62p0 Canyon Rim Dcive, Suite 114, Anaheim, CA 928U7 AND VICTOR CUNSTRUCTIUN COMPANX, INC., 344~ E. I,a Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92d06. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 2.2 acre», having a frontage uf approximately 34~ feet on the east side of Cairmont Boulevard, approximately 452 feet soutti of the centerline of Sar.ta Ana Canyon Road. To pecmit a chusch and pre~chool facility witt~ waivers of minimuR landscaped setback, max~.~um number and size of idenkification signs, minimum number of parking spaces and maximum structural height. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to sub~ect zequest and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a pare of the minutes. Ben Pruett, 2615 G. Glen Canyon Road, Orange, explained this is a 2.2 acre parcel And they are looking to divide it into a retai~ center, as well as a church project. He stated in 1981, the church gurchased the property and the Planning Commission approved a pr~ject with shared parking for a 4/15/85 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CUMMISSIONI APRIL 15. 1985 85-203 church buildingj however, they h~ve faund a better use of the propert~r would be a rctail center considering the location. H~ ~tated the trefEic etudy wag performed on thQ baais of the criteria fucniah~d by the City Traffic Engineer. Joe Woollett, archit~ct, 58 Plaza Squece, Orange, pre~ented slidea ~f: the pcoposed project and the general area. Dick Peliquun- Victor Construction Co-npany, 3445 E. I.A Palma Avenue, Anaheim, stated they have met with AtAIE and Eeel they hbve come up with a :easonable plan whiat~ addressee all stafE's concernr. He ~tated they will have a shated parking ay[eement a~d there should be no conflicto with ~~-rking. T.i'r: PUISLIC H~:ARINGS W~KE CLOSFU. Janet Habel, Anahei.m Parks and Recreation Dc~parCment, referced L•o the Sar~ta Ana Canyon tiorse trail and explained it is a majoc horse krail easterly and eventually would meeti u~~ with the trail in Weir c:anyon and stated they would like to get dedication of horse trails whenever possible. She stated most of the horse peoE~le use the east side of Faicmont Boulevard. Chairman Nerbst stated he would diEfer with that statement becaude they use the other aide c,f Fairmont. t1e staked he uses that roacl twice a day and during the la~t 7 yeacs, hu~ seen maybe 2 or 3 horsea on that Rtrect. He atated almost all khose homes have restricti~ns against hocses and the horses are coming Lrom the rear uf the sho~ping center and going to the E'our Corners pipe line. tie stated there is a horse trail on khe west side of the street and he did not think it is needed on both sides. Ms. Hahel otated there is a wide ahoulder on both sidea of Faicmont. Chairtnan tierbst ~t.atPd the wide shoulder was put there for the purpose of widening the street in the ft~ture. Chairman Herbst staCed the horse tra,il is shown on the General Plan a~ being on the other side of the street, and that is why the shopping center used that cri.teria to put the trail on the other side of the street. Ms. Habel stated tl~e General Plan does show that the trail wilt go al~~ng Ftlirmont somewhere. She stated the Parkway Maintenance people maintaln the east side of ihe stceet because that is the side used most frequently by the horses. She stated if the horse ridecs go west on Santa Ana C~nyon Road ar~d want to go back up bel~ind the shoppina center to the Arboretum area, they will have to cross at the inl•ersection of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Fairmont and go up along the shopping c.entQr anc~ west on Rio Grarnde to get to the SAVI Trail. Commissioner Buahore stated she is right and ~he trail wrs on the other side because the Commission did not want it in front of the shopping center and stated the trail connects further up on Fairmont on the east side and continues on the east side to O1~ Bridge~ Road. ChaSrman Hecbst stated he thinks the whole trail system needs to be revi.ewed; that the Commission tried to pcotect the rural atmo~phere in the a~ea, but things have drastically changed and Santa Ana Canyon Road is 4/?.5/85 MINU'PES~ ANAHEIM CImX PLANNING COMMISSICINI APRIL_15, 1985 85-204 nu place for a horee trail and he thought it should be relocAted. He stated a etu~iy ahould be made a~ to how many horsea there ace in the Santa Ana Canyon area an~ he thougt~t there ahould be aidewalks in most of the areaa tather than horse trails. He stated moat of the ~r.ea~ now being dcveloped have restrictions against horaes. C~mmisaionec La Claire stated she would agree Chat there are very few horaes in the area; however, that is nol ~uat d horse trA.il, but also a riding and hiking trail and a lol of people use ik. fihe s~ated the whole trail syster~ does ~,~ed to .: evaluated. Ms. Habel sta~ed if the hocse trail is not required ~n b~th sidec of the coad, the ~oople wtio want to go down Rio Grande, would have Co make a turn acrosa ttie street. Comriissioner La Claire suygested ~he Parks Department do a bcief study r~nd make a presentation at the next Planning Commiusion meeting as to what we have and what ia planned in the area. 5he stated the main poction ie on tt~e east side of the street And ahe knvws it is a 9oad accesa ta the pipeline. Commissioner Bushore ~tated there have been discussions about the 5 acrPs which is not feasible as a park site being developed into an area where people could park their horse trailers, ~o :here wauld be people going oul- in all different dicectiona Erom thr~t location. tie stated he felt the trail should be lefr as it is now on this plan. Ms. Habel skated the Parks llepartment is trying to follow the Trail's Element as closely as possible and does rNquire dedication when a n~w project comes in. Commissioner La Claire stated portions of the trail sy~tem have been lefk out and other things have happened, so there are pnrtions which t~ave n~t been included and th~re are sections nf the trail that stop and she woiald like to know the entire situation. Commissionec Bushore ~tateci in reviewing the cecord back in 1981, he was on vacation at the time this matter came up, and when it came up again foc ~ extension in October 1984, he had a o~e of the local churches, and e~en conflicl because he was thouyh he does not have working with that conflict anymore, felt he should abstain on this matter. Commissioner Bu~hore left the Council Chamber at 4:45 p.m. Commissione~r Bouas asked if the parking closest to the church will b~ used on Sundays because the walkway is shown from the other parking area and the church goers would have to cross aver that area to use that parking. Mr. Woollett responded that th~ere are about 48 parking spaces adjacent to the church and on Sunday mornings they are filled first and it is about 120 feet to the retail parking area which the church people wauld be using. Chairman Herbst suggested movinq the buildii~g cver towards Santa Ana Canyon Road similar tc~ this situation appraved at Imperial and Santa Ana Canyon Road; and that with the way the project is,laid out the parki.ng will work, but 4/15/85 MINUT~S, ANAHEIM CI~Y PLANNING CUMMISSION~ APRII~ 15, 1985_ 85-205 marqinally becauae thece is a conflict with pedeBtriAne coming from the overtlow ~rea acros~ Lhe entrance where the cace are coming in to go to the servicea. Paul Singer atated if the building could be movPd tuwatdA Santa Ana Canyo~ Road and a portion of the buildiny in the 'L' made amAller, he believed the entire circulatian could be impr~ved And the pArking would be more conveniently located and pcobubly somewhat more Rafe. tle sr.ar.ea s~aff could not make that recommendation until i.t came bef.oce the Plann~ng Commission. Ne stated the initial problem is the •L• shape and all traffic has to cross the acceso ~nd pedestrians walking from the par.king area pcactically have to ccoss in the path of oncominy traffic. He s~~ygested relocating a poct±un oP the building and making an exit on 5ohta Ana canyon Road Eor emergency vehicles an~ truck tcaffic ('right-turn only exit") with tice busters to prohibit traffic coming in and added he thouyht that would provide bette[ vision and traffic safety. Ct~airrnan flerbst s~ated having thaC area fully landscaped makes r~ muct~ more beautiful area in front of the building, rather ~han havinq cars parked there. Mr. WoollEtt stated he appreciates Mr. Singer's suggestion and by moviny t.he building forward and having more vi~ual separation between the buildings, xC does make sense, but lhe ~lan shows the drainage easement right against the back and pointed out that eASement on the map. Comtnissioner Mceucney stated the devel.oper could t:z-ke access over ~he top, ~ut could not build any structures on the easement. .Iay Titus, Office Enyineer, stated the City certainly woul.d ~ot want any structure wfthin the dr:~inage easernent area, but also would want ttie structure constcucted so that the fv~ting load would not impact the storm drain pipe ai~d that the setback would have to be determined. C~mmiss.ioner Bushore asY,ed about a restaurant and asked what type r.etail uses are planned in the retail centec. Mr. Waolletl• stated they have no conEirmed retail users as yet, but have been approached by a dry cleaners and some other qeneral type uses that ace allowable in that zone. He stated they have agreed with the church not to have billiard parlors or. bars, just for tlie consumption of. alcoholic beverages in a bar atmosphere; that the church has ayreed to allow a reataur~nt that has alcoholic bevecage sales duriny dinner; and they have agreed not to have a fast-food type restaurant or convenience market. He stated they will work those things out sa it wi11 be harmonious with the church needs and that they are not planning to have a liquor stoce. Chairman Herbst stated the protlem is that probably 758 oE the church parking will be on the retail shopping center 'lot. Mr. Woollett stated the shopping center will be cloaed when they have peak traffic for the church and probably the only thing open will be khe restaurant, sa there will not be a conflict. He stated cutting off part of the builuing and moving it to the front might cause people to use the church's parking lot rather than the parking at the retail shopping area. He stated they can examine Mr. Singer's suggestion 'to see if it will work. 4/15/85 f MINUTES~ 11NAHEIM CITY PLANNING CUMMISSION, APRII~_ 15, 1985 85-206 Chairman Herbst atated he hAS no prnblem with giviny e varience and Commissianer McBurney aCated he thought cedoeign would make a emoother Elow with traffic cominq in, Qspecially d~wnhill, and making a turn into the centec with people trying to make a right-turn in in such a ehort distance could be very haaardous. Chairman Herbet atated inyrese Eor delf.very would be ~ft Santa Ana Canyon Road, but the egreas would be off Eairmont which would help that one area which is r.eally impacted. Paul Singet stated he would point out that the ingress on Santa Ana Canyon Road wou.ld be utilized for emergency vehiclea and truck traffi.c serving the property ~nd it ehould be designed to diac~~urage normal vehicular traffic. Mr. Woollett reques~ed a four-week continuance. ACTIUN: Commissinner E'ry off~red a motion, seconded by Commiasioner Bouas and MOTIOM CARRIEb (Commissioner Bu~hore at~sen~) khat consideration of the aforementioned matter he conkinued tc~ the cegularly-echpduled meeting of May 13, 1985. RECESS: 5:00 Q.m. RE;CONVBNED: 5:1U p.m. Cammissioner La Claire left the meeting and did not return. Commissioner Bushoce retucned to the Council Ch:,mber. ITEM NU. 12. EIR NECATiV~ DECLARATIO_,N~. R_ECI.ASSIFICATION N0. Rd-85-34 AND VARIANCE NU. 3477 PUBLIC H~:ARING. OWNERS: HABIB MANSUURI-FAR AND JOSEPH N. MAKABI, 5905 Beckford Avenue, Tarzana, CA 91335. AGENT: CHARLES A. ROSS, 43a E. Katella 7~venue, i227, Orange, CA 92667. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land concieting of approximately 0.74 acre, 3333 W. Ball Road. Waivecs of maximum structural height and maximum fence h~ight to conatruct a one and two-skory, 22-unit apartment complex. There was no nne inslicatinq their presence in opposition to subject zequest and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minul-es. Jerry Drukin, agent, was present to a.^.aWer any questions and e~cplained they are proposing a 4-foot high masonry wall with a 42 inch high wroughL• iron fenc~ on top of the east property line and that the ataff report indicates there would be a 7-1/2 foot high block wall, and that was not his intent. THE PUBLIC HEARTNG WAS CLOSED. 4/15/85 MINUTES. ~N~I~EIM CITY PLANNING COMMIS3ION. APRIL ]5. 1965 85-207 Commissioner King aekod ab~u~ the fenr.o on the a~st ptoperty line, pointing out there ~s A nice existing chein link fence. Nr.. Dc~~kin ceapUnded that, hopefully, tt~ey will be able to negotiate the removbl of that fence wlth the nuraery ptaperty ownec. Cnmmissioner Fry at:kQd if th~y have accese from Deerwood. Mr. Drukin atatod they do not have accesa f[om Deerwood And wauld have to provide a modified cul-dQ-sac within thc existing ri~ht-of-way and they will not b~ tsking access oEf a residential street becauae rhey felt the impact it would create on the residential area might be undesireble. Commissioner Buahor~ stated there Are only 5 reaidencea thAt would Ue ai-fected and Greq [iastinga explained there would be 6. Jay Titus stated one o~ kt~e conditions is that the owner dedicate accesa Lo Deerwood to the City. Commisaion~r ~ushore atated he aees a way to take Another access otf Ball Road whict~, Lcom a aafety standpoint, might be beneEicial. Responding to C~mmisaioner sushoce, Creg Hastings stated thE property is designated tor low-densi.ty residentiat land uses on the Ceriecal Plan. ReaE~onding to Cotnmissioner Bu~horP, Greg Eiastinga stated the closest medium denaity io about i blocK to the east and 1 block to the west. Commissioner Bushore stated he knows the General Plan is generAl, but thought considering propertie~ 1 block to 1-1/2 blocka away ia not appropriate and aaked why a General Plan Amendment was not initiated foc this request. He stated the Commiseion just approved conunercial office uses for that area wi~hin the laat 6 months and Commission expresaed concecn that in this area cer~ainly that would h~ve a good impact because it ~rabahly could not be uaed for ~ingle-family residential lana uaeo; and that anothec uae m~ght be a~artments which would cause A higher impact and the neiyhbors seemed to go al~ng with tt~ak, but thiu pcoperty, in comparison, goes b~ck 122 Eeet right into a single-£amily re~idential area. He asked if the neighbors have been consulte~. .Ierry Drukin stated the properl•y owners did contact the neighbors and discusAed the potential plans aith them and their main concerns wece the construction of the block wall an the property line and the visuai intrusion. He stated the buildings have been laid out so thec~ is very minimal intrusion from any of the units. He stated there are no windows facing any of the single-famfly zoned homes and on the west there i.s a one story building and u walkwpy into private patios and there are no doors or windows Alony that walkway which would intrude into the single-family homes on Deerwood. He atated no one is here today tQ speak againAt the pro~ect. Responding Lo Commisaioner Buahore, Greg Hastings explained allowable density for low density designati~n an the General Plan is 6 unit~ per 4/.15/SS MINUTBSL ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ APRIL 15. 1985 85-208 ecre and it waa clarified ~ unita would be permitCed on thie propecty. Commisaiun~r ~ushore etated alkhough there is nobody present in oppoolCion- he did not think the property ehou'' be rezoned withour A C.onecal Plen Amendment. t~e etated th~ number a. unita wa~ [educed tp what would be more in llne with '~w donsity, acce~a could be taken oEE peerwood, and rhat would be ~etker planniny. Mc. Urukin atated when they coneidered thie devolopment on this prnperty, they l.ooked at the potential reali~Cic uaes and con~idering al.l o[ the variuua a~pecte, they cealized it is not going to be developed ae a aingle-family residential type use or even n~ condominiutns. tie stated he met witti Jay Taahiro end diacussed a Genecal Plan Amendment and wtiat should be done wilh this propecty And Mr. Taehiro fNlt, considering the mixed uaes on Ball [toad and khe fuct that the:e are apartment pro~ecta Along t3all Road, that t~~is miqh~ be an ~ppropriate usA and not necessarily tequire s General Plnn Amendment. Mr. Drukin re~~~onded ta Commisc~ioner Buah~re that the nursery is ~oughly 300 Eeet by 30U IneC. Commissioner Bushore stated if this prop~rty is r~zoned to medium density, ~nd tlie determinatioi~ is madc khat the property nex~ door is medium denc+i~y, it would be allowed 75 uniks, ~+lus aEfordahle honuser., and als~~ the p~operty acroea tt~e atreet is n 2~acre ~a:cel and those people are c Rtankly approached ~y developers wanting t~ construct apurtments on their property. He etated the neighbors on the other side of the street do not want to see apartments deveLoped and thia will r~et ~, precedent with a ~ig impact. Chaicman Herbst stated Balt Poad t~as moatly been developed in the last 15 years as a thoroughfare wi~h apartmentat and ti~at he looks at this as an infill lvt r~nd infill lots Are being developed all over towr in ~his manner and there is a need to provide houaing. Mc. Dcukin stated Anaheim is a Charter City and is not cequiced L-o Lollow the General Plan tp tt~e letter. Commissioner Bushore stated the interpretation is that when a project is reslly in doubt, sCaff lets the applicdnt proceed and gives him the benc~i~ of the doubt and advise him that the Planning Commission oc City Council may or may not qo along with it ai~d leaves il• up to their determiriation. He stated he sees what is going to happen with all the other properties in tt~e general vicinity. He stated each project does stand on its own and the Commission haa to look a~ it closell, but in tecros of the General Plan, the whole area must be consi.dered. ACTION: Commissioner Kxng offered %9 motion, seconded by Commissionec Fry and MCTION CARRIED (Coinmissioner Bo~as, and Bushore voting no and Com.missionec La Claire absent) that the Ar~aheim City Pl~nning Commission has ieviewed the proposal to reclnssify subject propecty irom the RS-.'~-43,000 (Residential, Agricultural) Zone to RM-120Q (Residenti.al, Multiple-Family) 4/15/85 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNiNG.COMMISSION L~PRIL 15, 1985 85-209 ac a less intense zone to conatcuct a 1 and 2 atory, 22-unit apartment complex with waiver~ of maximum etructucal heiyht and maximum EnnGe height on a rectangulacly-ahaped paccel of land ~onaisting of appr.oximaCely Q~74 ecre, having a fcont~ge nE approximetel,y 100 feet on the norkh aide of eell Roed and further de~ccibe~ es 3333 Weat Ball Roudl and does hecehy approve the Negative DeclAration up~n finding th~t it has conaidered the Negative DeclarAtion together with any comments received during the public review process and iurther finding on the baeiR of the Initial ~tudy and any comments received thak there is no substantiel evidence that the pcoject will have ~ signiffcant effect on the envir~nment. Commissioner King offered a reoolution nnd move~ for ite pa~~age and ado~lion that the Anaheim City Planning Commi.eaion does heceby grant Reclaseification No. 84-85-34 eubject to Int~rdepartmental Ccmmittee recommendationa. Ur~ roll call, ttie foceyoing reaalution FAILED TU CARRY by the following tie vote: AYES: ERY~ HERBST, KINC NUES: BOUAS~ BUSHURE~ MCBURNEY ABSENT: LA CLAIRE ~Tack white, Assistant City Attorney, explained the m~tter will automatically be continued to the r^xt meeting in order [or the seventh Commissi.oner ta be present ~r by motion, the Pinnning Conmission can send it to thH City Council withnut tecommPndation for further action. h1r. Urukin stated t~e ~ould like it approved today sinc~ there was no opposition. Commieaioner Bushoce stated Deerwoor~ Drive should bP built right through the middle of these properties so thP rear portion could be developed foc RS-7200 zoning. Mr. Drukin responded they havE no control over the adjacent ptoperty awner and he has no desire to sell at this time. Commissioner Bust~ore stated he would not want ta hold this project up waiting for thp adjacent propecty owner to decide to develop his property, but wh~n that property does come in, he will be taking a close look at it. He stated the P~anning Commission is hece with y~cs of experience to plan the City and see the overall effect ~ach property as it is taken individuslly. Commissioner Fry stated he would offer a motion that this m~tter be facwarded on to the City Council without recommendation in order not to hold this develaper up. Cominission~r Bushore stated he would oppose the motion because he did not think the Commiscion should forwa~d mattera to the City Council without reco:nmendation. Jack Whfte explained c..~ only matter acted on was the reclASSification and that resolution failed to ~arry and is tl~e only matter to be sent on to the City Council at this time. 4/15/85 '^ 3477 on the CommiasioneK King ofteC~d A reeolution gcdntin9lcablento the propectY eu ch basie thaL t,here aro spPCial ~i~cumst~nces apP as sixe, shape, topog?oned/pr~,pertynin~the~samenvicinitytcancl~thdt etrict to other idanti.cally application of the Zoning Code c~eprives the property oE pcf•vilegea enjoy Fd by othec prop~UbiectitotintecdepAr.tmentAl Committeeirecomm~ndations. vicinity and j Ur~ cvll call, the f~r.egoing reaolution waa pasaed by the tollowing vote: AYES: BOUAS~ ~RY, IiEI28ST, KING NOES: BUSHORE~ MCBURNtY ABSENT: 1,A CLAIRE Jock Mihite explained one ut the conditions oE approval or~ the variance requires that the reclassification be finalized and there was a tie vot e on that reyueat. Comrt;x.3aioner Bouae ~tated she would change her vole t o Mr Urukin stat~d •~~" cceating a tie vute ~n i.he foregoing reaolution. • he would like a few minutes to discuss this with the owner of the pCOperty. He returned to the podium at~d staled thEy would l,.ke the mattet for.wacded to the City Counc,il without a cecommendation. Commi$sioner ~ry'e motion that subject matt~r be refecreW~~~secondedyb y Council without.re~a deMOT10NnCARRI~De(CommisFionecol.a/Clafre being Commisaioner King, absent). ,lack WhiCe exNlained thi.s matter will automati~~~:y go to the City Co u ncil with notices of that hearing bei.ng +~ent in the same manner as notice:; for today's hearing. IT£M NG. 13. EIR NEGATIVB DBCLARA'PION WAIVER OF' CODE RE utxt~~ry1 n~~L COND~ I~NAL USE ~'ERMIT NO. 2677 PUBLIC; HEARING. OWNERS: GERALD A. YOUNG, 330 E~Bhanean a~cel~ofola n der CA 92665. Pco~ecty desecibed as a reetanaulacly- P P consisting of approximaCely 0.41 acce locat~d at tt~e northwest carner of ~ Miraloma Auenue and Millec Street, :~371 East Miralomb Avenue (Duke's Charbroiled). To pecmit an enclosed restaurant with waiver of minimum number of pa ~king spaces. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject cequest and altl~ough the staPf ceport was not read, i~ ie r~ferred ta and made a part of the minutes. Bill Kovert, agent, 3535 Farquar- Ld~9ximately+508aofdtheebusiness w illybe was prepared znd determined that app 728 being u tilized walk-in and that the patking will be adequate with only even during peak periods. He stated the restaurant is not located on a major tharoughfare. THf; PUBLYC HEAltING WA5 CLOSEU. 4/15/85 i r MINUTE;, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMt+lI~SSI~.N.,; APRIL 15, 1985 85-211 Comminsioner McBurn~y asked if they have any units with drivo-thtough faci.lities. Mr. Kovert reRponded ~.hey have L•wo restauranta wi.th drlve»througF~ windows and lhey ocg in~lly propose~d that for this pcoperty, but Mr. Singer did not llk~ thp ci =culotion, so that plan wa,a dropped and this witl ne serictly a siC-down r ee~aurAnt. Responding to Commisaionec Bushore , Mr. Kovert stated tt~is ie hasically a hambucger cestaurant with A few lu ncheF. but he did no-: bring a menu. Commissinner euahore asked if th~r e i9 a way to tie this to d f.ast^food type facility juat in case tl.h ty p e ot testaurant should change. Ile stated he could see a potent;i~l impact wlth ai~ul.i~er type oE ceataurant. Jr,ck White explained the permit c o uld be limited to a specific kype aP use, but noC to a particular name d K~ACau[ank. it was pointed out the fast-food definition in ktie Codc.~ r eada that: 'fast-food is any establi~hment wt~ich ia engayed in the bu~sineas oE preparing and purveyin~ tood wk~~re said food is customarily ordecE~d by patrons while ~tanding at a countec or window located inside t he building, reaardless of the manner in whicti said Eood is theceaEter serv ed or whethec or not it is consumed on the premise~•. Mr. Kovert stated they have a wai L-ing area, but they an~icip~te ~ lot oE carry-out. He stated patrons ocd e r their food at a counteG and then seat themsel'vea ar-d the food is taken to Chem when it is prepared. ACmION: Commissioner King ofEere c3 a r~otion, r~ec~nded by Commfssioner Fry and MUTION CARRIED (Commisr~ioner La Claice absent? tt~at the An~heim City Planning Commissiun has reviewed the pcoposal to permit an encloaed restaurant with waiver of minimum number of parkiny spaces on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of la nd eonsisCing of approximately U.4 acre l~cated on the northwest corner o f Miraloma Avenue and Mitler Street and furthec described as 3371 E. Mira 3_omaj and does hereby approve the Neyative Declacati~n upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any cum~s~ents received ducing the public review ~~rocess and furkher finding on th e basis of the initial Study and any comments received that there is n o sybsrantfal evidence that the pruject will have a signiffcant ef.fect on the environment. Commissioner King offered a motio n seconded by Commissioner Bouae an~3 MOTION CARRIED (Cortirtiissioner La C latte abaent) thar_ the Anaheim City Planning Comrnissi~n does hereby g rant waivec of Code requirement on the baais that the parking waiver wil 1 not cause an increase in traffic congestion in the immediate vicin ity nor adver~ely affect any adjoining land uses and yranting of the pa r king waiver under the conditiuns imposed, if any, will not be detrimental t v the peacE, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the C i ty of AnahEim. Commissioner King offered Resolu t ion No. PC85-101 and moved for its passage and adoption that the An a heim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit FIO. 2677 pursuant to Anaheim Muni~ipal Code Sectfor~~ 18.03.03Q.030 through 18 .03.030.035 and subject to a r.~striction that the uae shall be limited to a fast food restaurant as defined in the Anaheim Municipal Code and subject to InterdeparCmental Committee recommendations. 4/15/85 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~_APRIL 15, 1965 85-212 On roll call, the focegoing resolution wAS ~aesed by tlie following vote: AYES: BUUAS, $USNUNE, FRY, HERBST, KING~ MC ~URIi~Y NOES: NONE ABSENT: LA CLAIkE Jack White, Assistant City Att~rney, preaented the wrltten cight to appeat the Pl~nning Commi~aion's dec.isi~n within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0. 14. EIR NEGATIVE, WAIV6R OF CQDE REQUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NU. 2681 FUBLIC HEARING. O~~N~RS: COM~fONWEAI.'PH FINANCIAL COItP., P.O. BoX 76478, Los Angeles, CA 90076. AGENT: UN'[TFD SUITES OF AM~RIGA, INC., ATTN: RUBERT FUGLER, 45U Newp~rt Centec Drive, Newport Beach, Ca y2660. Property deactibed as an irregularl.y-ehaoed parcet of land conaisting oE approximately G.34 acres located at the southe~st corner cE Frontera Street and Glaesell 5treet. To permit a semi-Enclased frees~anding restaurAnt wlth on-sale alcoholic beverages and waivec of minim~m numbec oY parking spaces. THE FULLOWING ACTION WAS TAKEN AT TNE BEGINNING OF THE NEETING. ACTION: Commisaioner 8ouas offered a~ motion, seconded by Cammissione~ Kin+~ and tdUTION CARRIG•'D that con3ldection of the aforementioned mattec be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of April 29, 1985, at the ceque~t of the petitioner. ITEM N0. 15. EIR NEGA7'IVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3473 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNEftS: CYPRIEN AND CATHERINE pUHAFT, 888 S. L~mon Street, Anaheim, CA 928U5. Propecty described ras a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 7,650 square feet, 869 South Lemon Stceet. Waivers of maximum fence height, minimum side yard setback and minimum width of pedEStrian acceseways, re~uired type of parking spaces and vehicular backing onto public street to constr~ct a 2-unit addition to an existing single-family dwelling. : There was no one indicating their presence in opp~sftion to sub~ect request and although the staff report was not read, ft is referred tc and made a part of the minutes. Ulyssus Bauer, 17390 McAllister, Riverside, agent, was present to answer any questions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WA5 CLUSBD. ACTION: Co~nmissioner King offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fry and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner La Claire absent) khat the Anaheim City Planning Commiasion has reviewed khe proposal to construct a 2-uniti 4/15/85 t; 85-213 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLi+NNING CQMMISSIUN APRIL 15 1905 addition to a si-'~qle-fertiily dwelling with weivora oE maximum fence height, minimum aido yard setback And minimum widrh of ped~$ttontoapublicaetteete, reqi~i~ed type of parking epacea and vehiculac backinp e roximatel.y 7650 on a cectangularly-ahaC~ed parcel of land conais~50gf~et on thP weat s~de aquace Eeet, having a frontage of approximetQlY Lemon StCeRti and does oF Lemon StreeC and furCher described as 869 S. hecaby approve the Negative Declacakion upon findin9 ~'commenteareceived cUnsidered the Negt~tive Dectar+~tion togethec with enY during the public review mentg8receivedrthat thereng8p~o BUr~~tant.ial the Initial Study and any com evidence that the project will have a eignificant eEfect on the environment. Commiesioner King oEfered Resolution No. p~P1anningnCommissionrdoes hereby paesage and adoption that the Anaheim City c~rant Variance No. 3A73, waive~~ (a)r (b) andc(~d1~C~y 8uchbu8i~izeat~hePee are epecial ciccumstances appticabl•• to the p B ~o other topography, location and surcoundings whicn do n~andpthet sttict identically zoned ~roperty in the same vicin~tYs a~plication of the Zoning C~de depcives the property of ~rivilegen enjoyed by other propecties in the idpnWaiverZ(c) onatheebasis~lhatnthe parking vicinityt and xurther granting waiver will not ca~se an increase in traff~~land~uses~andngrantinyeofathe vicinity nor adversely affect any adjoining will not be parki~ng waiver under the conditions impooed, if any, detrimental ta the peace, health, safety and general W~aLtmentaltCommittee citizens of the City of Anaheim and subject to Interdep recommendationc. On roll call, the foregoing resolution wa8 passed by the following vole: AYES: BOUAS, BUSHOREr FRYr HER~ST, KzN~~, MC BURNGY NUES: NON~ ABSENZ': LA CLAIRE Jack White, Assistant City Attorney, ptesented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM NU. 16. EIR NEGATIVE LECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3475 PUSLIC HEARING. uWNh:kS: MARK AND SUE ANN CROSS, 599 Paseo de Luna, Anaheim, CA 92&07. AGENT: SALKIN E;NGINEEKING CORP., ATTN: GEORGE G. KERNS, 1215 ~. Chapman Avenue, Orange, CA 92666. Property described as an icregularly-shaped parcel oE land consisting of appcoximately 1.46 acre, 599 Paseo De Luna. Waivex of minimum building aite width foc c~l-de-sac lots to establish a ~WO (2) lot single-family subdi~'i~ion. 3s no une indicating their presence in opposition to subject ~ and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and maut pact of the minutes. 4/15/85 ~. MINUTES. ANAN~IM CITY PLJINNING COMMISSION. APRIL 15, 19_85 85-214 Mar.k Croos, owner, ref~cr~d to th~ ataff report, Paregraph 7, which indicates that this is to be a 1250-aquare foot house, and explained it will actually be a 3000-square foot house. Ne expleined a variance wa,a denied on February 20, 19a5, becauee of the gradP of the driveway a~ 208 and the plan was redeaigned and the~ drivewdy ia proposr.d at 158 grade. He preASnted photographa and tcact mapa of other ptoperties in the sucrounding area of the same size and shape which hav~ been developed ir- this same manner. Sue Ann Cross stated all thet.r neighbors approved of this variance and two have written to the Plsnning Commiaeion asking tt~at this be approved. She read two letters, one from Sid Koaick indicating su~port and also that the plans have been reviewed by the Woadcrest Homeowners Aasociation and they hHVe appraved them. She read a Eecond letter from Adrianus and Marita Van Us, 560 S. Paseo De Luna, indicating theX slo not object to the requesC. She indicated there are other letters which have been ,~ubmitted f:om their neighbors and as~ked the Planning Commission to review thoae befoce acting on t.t~is matter. Geocge Kerns, Salkin E~gi~eering, presented a map showing c~oss secti~ns of. the property and pointed out they have ~cc~~mplished a flatter driveway by designiny a split level home and it also reduced grading. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS C1.OSED. Commissioner Fry stated the drivEway appeara to drop about 20 feet from the beginning of the cul-d~e-sac to the rad and asked the distance of the driveway to the pad. Mr. Kernc ~taLed it i~ about 125 feet long. Commissioner B~~shore clarified lhat the driveway has a 158 grade. He also asked iP soils test3 have been done on this property. Mc. Kerns stated soils tests were done Eor the entire tract and he has cead the tests for these particular lots. Chairman Herbst noted the Commisaion haa had no opposition to flxg lots ber.ause they were built along with L•he tracts and grading was appcoved by grading permits. He stated the sails testa were prabably done where the original house was located, but he would wank to knaw if core samples were taken on these particular slcpes. Mr. Cross stated he read the soils report and to the best of his knowledge- the soils tests wEre done bef.ore the tract map was done and it looked like the tests were done there, but he dic~ not want to ~spend a lot of money on soils tests until he had received approval for the variance. Jack White explained the issue before the Planning Commission is really exclusfvely for a variance pectafning to the width of the lot and if the developer proceeds, he will have to get a parcel map approved and also a grading plan approved and both of those come £rom the City Engineer and he will have to be satisfied and will have to be assured the land is suitable for a propose~ subdivision and that the site :~s suitable for grading and being subdivided. He stated the only reason this application is before the Commission is because of the street frontage which is less than Code requires. He stated just because the Planning Commissidn approves a 4/15/85 MINUTBS. AN~NEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION,_ APRIL 15,__1985 __ __ 85-215 variance, does not moan the City Engineer is obligated to ~pprove the parcel map oc yrading permita. J~y Tltus Ataked the seweye would be nn engineering question and the City Engineer will obviously have to appcove ~he grading and a soile report will be required before a grading plan or a paccel map is a~proved and thQy will have to have an a~pcoved method of dealing with sewaqe and drainage. ACTION: Commiasioner King offered a motion, seconded tay Commisaioner Fry and MOTION CARRIED (~ommiseionec La C1Aire absent) thak the Anaheim City Planning Commission t~~s reviewed a~ropoabl to establiah a 2-lot, RS-5U00(SC) subdivision with waiver of minimum building aite width for cul-de-sacs on an irregularly-shAped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.46 ocres, located at the aoutherly terminu~ of Paseo De Luna and further described ~s 599 Pase~ De Luna= and doe~ hereby approve the Negative Ueclacation upoii finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration togetheK with any c~mments received during the public rpview process and futCher finding on the basis of the Initial Study nn~ any comments ceceived that there ia no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant efFect on the enviconment. Commissioner King offered Resolution No. PCBS-103 and moved for its Fassage and adoption that the RnAheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Variance No. 3475 on the basis that thece ~re s~ecial circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topogcaphy, location and surrounding~ which do not apply t~ other identically zoned Qroperty in the same vicinity; and that strick appli~ation of the Zoning Code deprives the pcoperty of privileges enjoyed by other pccperties in the identical zone and claasificetion in the vicinity and subject to Intecdepactmcntal Committee recommendations. Un roll call, the ~oregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY~ HERBST~ KING, MC BUFtNEY NOES: BUSHURE ABSENT: LA CLAIRE Jack White, Assi.stant City Attorney, presented the written cight to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. Commissioner Fry leEt khe meeting at 6:00 g.m. and did not return. ITEM NO. 17. EYR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIUN-CLASS 11 AND VARIAIJCE NO. 3478 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: COU:ITP.X CLUB HOTELS, INC., 14771 Plaza Drive, 'G", Tustin, CA 92680. AGENT: JOSAM OZYP, 1251 N. Harbor t3oulevard, Anaheim, CA 920U1. Pr~perty is de~cribed as an irregularly-shaped parcel o~ land consisting of approximateiy 1.44 acres, 1251 N. Harboc Boulevard (Comfort Inn). WaivErs of submittNd ~oc~tion of a freest~nding sign und minimum distance between Ereestanding signs to construct an addition to a freestanding sign. 4/15/85 MINUTES, ANAIIEIH CITY PLANNYNG CUMMISSIONI APRIL 15, 19~5___ 65-216 Thoce wae no one indicating th~ir presRnce in oppneition to aubject requ~st and nlthough the stAEf report was not [9Ad~ it ia ceferred to and made a part of the minutos. Josam Ozypr agent, cxplained they are requesting an addition to their existing freest~nding entrance eign= that they need the additional nigning because of the compet.itiont and they need to let peoplP know their ratea which are ebout Y/2 tl~e ratea of the competition~ and, el~u Anaheim's Code require~ thbt if they advertiae the rates, tt~ey must st~ow the number of rooms, cl~ssiticationa and room rates. P~u1 b[ownr ~uill Brothers Signs, 2y2 S. 'I' 5treet, San nernardino, CA, stated they did not cealize when this was firat preaented that it waQ necessary to have approval of the marquee or reader board with their other signs and stated about 959 of the hotels or motels in Anaheim havE reader board~. He stated they orLginally had leas aignage than Code allows, but the applicant has found they need the additional signage. TNE PUBLIC NEARIhG WAS ~LUSED. Chaicman Herbst clarified that this will not be an additional aign, buC one af the exiatiny signe wili be raiAed 3 feet with a reader board sign right underneath it. Commissianer Bu~hare clariEied that waivec (a) is the same thing as gcanted in 19a4, and the other sign is ati.ll under Code and the total signage will atill meet Code. He added he E'elt thi3 is a very r~aaonable cequest. Jack White, As~lstant City A~torney, asked if the sign, as proposed, will be visible from the freeway, with Mr. Bcown responding it wi.ll not. It was noted the Planning Dicector or his authocized cepresentatfve has determined that the proposed project falls witnin the deflnition of Categorical Exemptions, Clas~ 11, as defined in the ~tal•e Environmental impact Report ~~uidelines and is, therefore, categocically exempt frnm the requirement to prepare an EIR. ACTION: Commissioner eushate offered Resolution No. PC85-104 and moved for its passaye and adoption that ihe Anaheim City ~lanning Commiasion does herEby yrar.t Variance No. 3475 on the basis that the total square footage of all the signs still rt+eets Code Lequiremfnt; and on the basis that there arP special circumstances applicable ko the property such as size, shape, topo~raphy, location end surroundinys which do not apply to other identically zoned proper~y in the same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other propertiea i~ the iden~ical zone and classification in the vicinity and subject to Interdepartmentai CommittEe recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS~ BUSHORE~ HERBST~ KING~ MC BURNBY NOL•'S: NONE ABS~;NT: FRY~ LA CLAIRE 4/15/85 ~. ~ MINUT~S, AN1-N~:IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSYON~ AYRIG 15, 1985 85-Z17 Jack White, Asaiotant City 1~ttorney, pceoented the written right to appeel the Plenning Commisaion's decision wikhin 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0. 18. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARI-TION (PREV. APPROV~D) AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2300 (REAUVERTISEU_) PUBLIC HEARING POR EX'rENSIUN OE TIME. OWNERS: RUBERT J. WATER5~ ARITA SALES CU., 2720 E. 12ega1 Park D[ive, Anaheim, CA 92804. Property described as an irregulArly-ahaped pe+rcel of land coneiating of approximately 1.2 acres, 2720 Eac+t Regal Park Drive (Ar~e,Sales Co.). Rc~quest for a 1-year (1-month retcoactive) extenslon of ti.me or deletion of Condition Nn. 5 of Resal~ition No. PC42-35 pertaining to required extensions of time to retain cetail. sales of dinnerware products in the ML 2one. ThEre was no one indicatfng their pcesence in oE~~osition ta subject request and at~hough the ataff. report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the mi~utes. ACTION: Commissioner King offered Resolution No. PC85-105 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commis~ion does here~y grant a one year extension of r.ime Por Conditional Use Permit No. 2300 to expire Match 8, 1986, on the basis that said permit is being exercised in a mannec not detrfinental to the particular area and surrounding land uses noc to khe pubtic peace, health, safety and general welfare. On roll call, t:he foregoing resalution was passed by the following vote: AYES: F30UAS, BUSHURE, F~ERBST, KING, MC BURNEY NOES: NONE ABSENT: FRX, LA CLAIRE ITEM NU. 19. EIR NEr,ATIVE DECLARATION (PREV APPROVED) AND VARIANCE N0. 2349 PORTLON A), CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1408 (PORTION B) ~ (READVERTTSED) PUBI~IC HEARiNG. OWNERS: COLLINS LIMITED PARTNERuHIP, 1077 N. Ball Rpad, Anaheim, CA. Property described as Portion A- An irregulacly-ehpped paccel ot land consisting of approximately 1 acre located at the southwest curnec of B=aadway snd Adams Street, and Eurther described a~ 1514 West Broadway. (Szsid property is developed with the `Pepper Tree Faire") and Portion 8- A rectangulacly-•shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.6 acre located at the southeast corner of Broadway an8 Adams Strept. (Said property is curcen~ly developed aith an industrial building hat~ing a'Pepper Tree Faire" sign pt~inted e: che west wall). Requsst for 2-year extensions of time or deletion of Condition No. 10 of Resolution No. PC72~77 (Variance No. 2349) and Condition No. 2 of Resolution PC-73-147 (Conditional Use Permit No. 1408). 4/15/85 MINUTES, ANAI•IEIM CYT~ PLANNING COMMISSIONI_ ~PRIL 15. 1985 85-218 Thece wAS no one ,tndicating their presence in op~oeition to sub~ect t~queat and although the steff repoct was not read, it la reEecred t~ and made a part of the minutes. David S. Co~lins, 1077 W. ~all Ropd, Anaheim, was present to anower any queskiona. TIiE PUBI~IC HEARING WAS CL()SEU. ACTION: Commiarianer Hushore ofteced Resolution Nos. PC85-106 and PC85-107 and moved foe their passage And adoplians that tt~e Anaheim City Planning Commiesion doos hereby deleke Candition No. 10 of Resolution No. PC72-77 on Variance No. 2349 and Conditian No. 2 of Resolution No. PC73-147 for Conditional UsE Permit No. 1408 on the baais that the deletion of such time limitotion is necessary to permit reasonable operation under the permit as granted. 0~ roll call, the forEgoing resolutions were passed by the following vote: AYES: AOUAS~ BUSHORE, HERBST, KING~ MC BURNEY NOES: NONE ABSENT: FRY, LA CLAIRE; ITEM NU. 20. REPUKTS AND RECOMMENDATTUNS A. CUNDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2661 - Request from applicant (U b D Development) for review and a~proval of reviaed plans foc Conditional U+~e Permit No. 2661, property located at 1460 South Harbor Eioulevard (Red Lion Inn). Hr~ace Uohrman, D& D Development Company, presented a letter to the Assistant Director for Zoning from Disn~yland indicating their acceptanc~ of thp balloon tests. Bill Kumer, Chief Engineer, Disneyland, explained they did pcepare a letter and are only suggesting a conditic,n that there be n~ signs located or~ rhe front west sfde of the tower facing Narhor Boulevard above 45 feet unl•i: visual intrusion tests are performed and acceptance of the color, si2e, height and lighting requicements shall be in writing from Disneyi~nd's Maintenance Director and that they do concur with the present t~efgh~ at. T8.6' feet. Commissioner Bushore stated he voted against this last time because he was concerned, not so much with the height of the hotel, but with the signage and he wanted to be sure there is no problem in the future. Mr. Kumer explained the signage problems with the Emerald Hotel is the reason they hav~ suggested thia condition for this hotel. Eie explained the height acceptance is af: 7Q.6' on the front of the building. 4/1S/85 x MINUTFS~ ANANEIM CTTY PLANNING CUMMISSIUN. APRIL 15, 19$5 85-219 Thece was a brieE diacuRSion regatding the pcevious cesolution which wAS a~proved for a 80' high, 9-atory hotel, and the Disneyland letter acceptnnce ia far 78.6'. Mr. Uohrman atated the height oE ttie hotel is 88 feet, but the highest poinr of khe west end of th~ buildiny is 7~.6' and that is what Dianeylr,nd is appcoving. Commiasioner I~ushore asked if the ballAOn wAS flown at 88 feet oc 78 Ceet, noting the hotel is 88 feet high. Mr. Kumer stated their concern was with the Eront of hotel and the balloon was flown at 80 feet, 85 feet and 90 feet and there were no problems. ACTION: Commisa:oner King offeced a motion, seconded by Commiesionec Mc Hurney and MOTION CAItRIED (Commissioners Fry and La Claire absent) ~hat the A~~aheim City Planning doe3 hereby recommend that the Anat~eim City Councii appcove the aubmil;ted cevised plans (Reviaion No. 1), subject to ~he Interdepartmental Committee revised conditions of approval as shown in the staft repoct, and including an additional condition khat no signs shall bN located on the Eront west side of the tower facing [iarbor Boulevard above 45 feet until visual intrusion tests are conducted and that acceptance of the color, size, height and lighting requirement.s shell be in wciting from the Gisneyland Maintenance Director. B. VA.RIANC~; N0. 3462 - Nunc Pra Tunc Resolution amending Resolution PC85-49. Propecty located at the northweat corner of Orangewood Avenue and State College Boulevard. ACTIUN: ~ommiASioner Mcf3urney offered ResoluCion [vo. PC85-108 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant a nunc pro tunc resolution amending Resolution No. PC85-49, in connection with Variance No. 3462, Un rall call, the foregoing resoluti~n was passed by the Eollowing vote: AYES: BOUAS, BUStiORE:, HERBST, MC BURNEY NOES: NONE RBSCNT: FRY, LA CLAIRE ABSTAIN: KING OTHER DISCUSSION: The property owners Por item No. 12 were present and asked fnr further explanation regatding the tie vote situatfon on their matter. It was explained that the action of tihe Planning Commission was to send the matter on to the City Council without a recommendation due to the tie vote and that would speed up the process so thar_ the matter would not have to be heard again by the Planning Commission. 4/15/85 r `~ '.. MINU'1~E;S.,~ANAHEIM CI'rY PLJ~NNING CpMMISSION ~-PRIL 15 1985 85-22Q AUJOURNMENT: Thexe being no furthec buainese, Commiseioner King ofPerAd e motion, aeconded by Cammisai.onsr Boues end MpTION CARRIED (Commisaioners Fcy +~nd L~ Cleire abaent) that the meeting be adjournea. The meeting wae adjoucned at 6:25 p.m. Resp c:tfully aubmitted ~ ~ . Edith L. Harris, Secretury Anaheim City Planning Commisaio~ ET~H : lm O110m 4/15/85