Loading...
Minutes-PC 1985/07/22REGULAR MEF,TING OF 9'HE ~NAHBIM CI~Y ~1,~HNING COMMISSION RBGULAR M~ETING Tl~e regulac meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Cemmissian w~~ called to ordec by Cheirman tler.bst at 10;00 a.m., au!.a 22, 1985, in the Council Chamber, a quorum bFiny pres~nt, and the Commission ceviewed plans a~ the i t. e-ns on tOvAy ~ A agenda . ftECCSS: 11:30 a.m. RECC.~NVENEp: 1:3U p.m. PRESENT Chairman: Herbst Commissionera: Bouas, Fry, La Claire, L~wicki, Mes~e Mc eur.ney ABSENT: Commissionsr: None ALSO PRESENT Annika Santalaht.i Amsistant Dire~LOr for 2oning MalGOlm Slaughter Deputy City Att~rney JAy Titus OfficP Engine4r Paul Singer City Traffic Engineec Kendca Morcies hssistant Planner Edith Harria Planning Commisaion Secretary INTRUDUC`PION OF NEW PLANNING CUMMISSIONERS: ChairmAn Herbst introduced Leonard Lawicki and Bob Messe, two new Planning Commissianers appointed to serve ur.til July 1, 1999, and welcomed them to t•he Commission. RESOLUTION UF APPRECIATIUN: Chairman Herbst offered a Resolution of Appreciation to for~ner Planning Directot Ftonald I,. ThompFon wt~o ia leaviny employment with tt~e City of Anahptm to assume a position elsewhere. He thanked Mr. Thompson for his 23 years af service to the City of Anaheim and for his help to the Planning Commissioners over the many years. ELECTIUN QF OFFICERS: Commissianer Fry nominated Charlene l.a Claire as Chairwoman and Chuck Mc Burney as Chairman Pro Tempoce tor the 1985-86 year. There being sio furthex nominations, the nomi.nations were closed. Commisaioner Fry affQred a motion, seconded hy CommissioneX Bauas and MOTION CARRIED that Chartene La Claire be elected Chairwoman and Chu~k McBurney Chairman Pro Tempore unanimously of the Anaheim Cfty Planning Commission for the 1985-86 yeat. SS-376 85-377 MINUTES ANAH~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIUN Jul. 22 1985 Commissioner Fry nominated Edith Hacri~ es Secr~tary fuc the 1985-86 ye~~• There bsing no further nominakions- nominations were clos~d. Edith Har:is wa~ elected SecrHtary p~ ~he Planning Commission unanimously. Chairwoman La ~laire assumed tt-e chair. She added her thanka to what Eormec Chairman Herbst had said r~gacding Ron Thompson. Chairwoman LA Claire W~i°~~ioner~F1ce°rney ~nd MOTION CApRIF.D thateindthe motion, seconded by Co future the AnAheim City Planning Commission present plAques cecogniz ng servicea tu Eormec Com~m~a~eBCS~ofASer.vicehon thetCommiselonAandeCommi$sioner Gerald Dushore for hi Y Paul King fc,r his il yeacs of service. APPRUVAG OF MINUTES~ d`MOTIOy1CARRIEDr(Commissionersml.awi~kisandrtMeasey Commissianer Bouas an s of June 24, 1985, and JulY s- abstaining), that the minutPS of the meeriny 1y85~ be appcoved as submitted. ITE;M_NU. ?.~~:IR NEGATIVE DECLARATIUN ANU CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2697. PUI~LIC HBARING. UWNk~~S: APF CENTER, ATT~:: JX.CK HOROWITZ, P. 0. a~% 27163~ Los Angeles, CA 90027. Property described as an icregularly-shaped parcel oi land consisting ~~f approximately 4.1 acc~es located at the southwest corner of Orangethocpe and vlacentia Avenue, ar~d further described as 1G31 North Placentia Avenue, .'n:ts A, B, E, ~r ~- p~ R- 5 and T. To retaii~ seve~ automob~le repair and automotive-celated businesses. ~untinued from the meetiigs of June l0, 'l4, and July 8, 1985. It was noted the petitia.er has req~~sted a continuance l,ugust 5, 1.985. A~TION: Commissioner Fry ~~=~~ie`~ ofmthe~afocementioned mattersbencontinuedatio p1uTIUN c:ARRIED that considera of August 5, 1585, in order for the petitioner the tegularly-$cheduled meetiny staff. to ~ubmit additional information as cequest~d by Planning ITEM N0. 2. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION RECLA55IFICA'110N N0. 64-85-37 t,ND VARIANCE N0. 34$6. PUE~LIC HEARING. 4WNCks: FtALPH W• AND VIRGIl7IA G. MAAS, c/o WII.LIAM ~t. San Clemente, CA 92672. AGENT: FItUEBERG, 3553 Camino N,ira Costa, Suite F. RiCK LBSLIE, 4246 Greenbush Avenue, St~ecman Oak:z, CA y1A23, Proper~oximately defccibed as a eectangularly-~hapQd parcel of land r.onsisting of ~pP 11,360 squa~~ feet loc~u=ther describedWa8~y01CSouthfHarb~rnBoulevacd~~d Harbor Boulevard, and f with waiver of minimum skructural Reclassificatinn from R~-A-43,000 to CL~ ~entet. setback to construct a commercial shopping te the meeting of i/22/8S W~ ....,. _. ...,. , ,_ _ ...~...a~o.w.w~r+~- ..~s:~... , . ,. ,. MINUTES. ANAHEIM CImY PLANNING CUMMISSION, JulY 22, 1985 US-378 There wae one pereon indicatiny hig presence in apposition to subject. requeat and ~lthough the FitaEf report was not reAd, it is referred to and mAde a part of tl~e minutea. Gr~g Dickson, Windsor E~nanciAl CorpocaCion, explainecl he i~ cepresentiny Windaor Financ••~~1 and the interests ~f the curr~nt ~roparty owners, Mr. & Mrs. Maar~, and ~c~;.ntial projected users oi thio property who are four retail tenants wh~~ nt~ve alreody siyned leases. He presented photographa label.ed A, B & C to cl ciEy the issues, and explained there was a lot a~lit befoce the SubdiviG on Map Act and the pcoperty they are pu[chasing is the vacant pc~per+, shown on the righl in the photograph and the property line is about 18 ir~ :~es from Mc. Wo~~'e buildiny; and that the dr.ivewny indicated is tt~e curr~i~t driveway used uff ttarbor which was encroaching by about G feet; that Ext~:bit B is 'iooking towacd tlarbor Boulevarcl and showE ther.e are about tive parkinr spaces which were E~cevi~usly encroaciiiny on the property; that Exh;':'t C ahuws the westerly ~roF~t:~ y line and pact aE the asphatL has been remov.d and ~he driveway currenkly used for the motel is abaut 1/3 encroaching onto subject propecty. Mr. Uickson stated Chey have ma~ie m~ny attempta to resolve the problem with khe neighbo[, including lool:iny at practically ever}~ ~ption available, and have not been able to come t~ an agceement, and t~ave made suggestions regardiny a land swap aption whict~ would cesolve his access problem to Harbor Houlevard and maintain that access wtiich he is c~rrc~ntly using. F;e stated at this paint they are open to sugge~tions; and that this is a small aite and they cannot lose too much gcoas leasable area withaut the ~ite becoming uneconomical. Eie stated they would like some suygestion fcom the Planning C~mmission relative to what kind of direction they should take. Frank Carbone, Co[porate Counsei for Windsor Financial Corporation, stated t•here is a dispute between the ownecs ot subje~-t prop~rty, Mr. & Mcs. Maas, and the owner of the adjacent property, Mr. Woo, concecnfng whethPr or not a prescriptive e~sement exists on the propecty; anc? that he ha~ investigated the mattec, toyether with outside counsel, and it is c'~eir belief that there t+re na prescriptive rights. Chairwoman La Claire stated the Planning Commission is not going to get into any arguments about property rights and will only review the request for the variance, including the traffic pattern. Mr. Cacbo~~e stated he wanted the Planning Cot-smission to k~ow that a lawsuit was filed in an atternpt to have a prelimi.nary injur~ction ~ssued to force a prescriptive driveway over the southerly 2U feet of this property and ti~at matter is set for hearing in the Orange Cbunty Superior ~ourt on August 6, and the prelin~inary injunction will either be granted or denied at that time. Mary Wony, 6075 Windemere Way, Rivecside, explained she wa^ the broker who sold the motel to Mr. 6 Mcs. w~o three or four year~~ ago and the motel is their livelihood. She stated the motel iE about 2U years o1c~ and there is a sQrvice station on the corner and it never occurred to her that the motel wou" `~e jeopa[dized by the driveway someday because it has '7een there for 20 ye She stated i. was her responsibility to look into t,e title pulicy and 7/22/85 ~)INU'rES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNSNG CUMMIS~IUN_._JUly 22~ 1985 85-379 thare ie no recocded easement, but the motel w~s devel.ope~1 by Mr. & Mrs. MAas who were tha owners ot both properties at one time and ~.t~cy must have known that the motel would heve to have an eahement. Ms. Wony stated there were som~ thinga omitted from Mr. <'atbone's lettec ia the Pla~ning Commisaion, such bs they suggested that: the new nl~op~,iny cFt~ter be relocated in ~ difterent direction with lhe long ~ide on Vermank anc? the shurt side to the motel parking lot which would allow them to share a common driveway. She statecl with the der~ign oE the :~hupping center as pcoposrd, the kraEfic north and south on liarba~ will k~e able to see if: and it will be mare valuable ta their develoument. :;he stal•ed the shoppin;y center i:~ xztil] in the planning otages and it could be cedesigned to beneEit both parlies. Ms~. Wong stated she developed a motel at tlarbor and the Riveraid~ F•-eeway and when they were developiny it, it waa adverti.r~ed for sale; howeve , ahe was aaked why she advertised the motel Eoc sale befor~ the E~~ -~it wAS c~ran~ed. She stated Mr. Dickson atated they were puttiny a financiAl burden on them bec~uae they had already leased some oP t:h~ r~paces for the oho~ping center and changiny the des~.gn would delay the project. James McCuigan, Akto[ney, Santa Ana, stated this matter was continued by the Commisaion on June 24, 1985, and the applicant strongly opposed a continuance at that time until the Commiasion indicated they were less than favorable to the a~plicakion and he was yiven the occasion ta pcesen~ a r.odified site pl.an, but there has not been a modified plan and "he applicant has not addressed tt~e adjoining oroperty awner's concerns. He stat~d there was a 3b-f~ot wide driveway in place on June 24 and alao thece was one p~jrking space foc evecy motel unit, but at 7:00 a.m. on ,1une 27 a bulldozer came in and removed the asphalt and they have no access whal•soever from Harbor Boulevard and Vermonl Street deadends and there is almost no traffic on thac street, so they victually have no access to the motel. Hc:~ stated the common access was shared by the motel and servicc st~tion f~r 23 years uncler common ownership and now the motel business car~not funclion and i~ losing revenues at ar~ astonishing rate. Mr. McGuigan stated he would like to c~.rECt what may be a wrong impr~~ssion fr~m the attorney; that a lawsuit has been filed •:nd there wi11 be a hear.ing on August 6, but khere is ~resencly a temporary restraining order to prohibit the property c~wner~ frcm building any permanant stcucture above ground within 20 feet of the property line, an3 there is similarly a t~mp~rary restraining order from the Grange County Superior Court that permits them to repair anc7 refurbish the sa~ne 20-foot area on the commor ~~st/west border with asphalt. He added the Orange County Superior Court does not make such an order imposing permissive or cesl•cictive acts on other people's pr~perty ~~,~less they feel there is significant merit from what has been submitr.ed to them. Mr. M~Guiqan stated he read the letter submitted by Windsor and it seems they carry forth wil•h the 3ame theme that Mz. Woo has a problem and noted he had no problem on Juae 23rd, and he would suggest Windsor ,~as ~ s.light problem =,nd have perh~ps ovescommitted themselves by saying they have the units leased. Mr. McGuigan responded to Chairwoman La Cl~:re that he believed these is 7/22/8S MINUTES. ANAH~IM CITY PLANNIhG CUMMISSION. JtllY 22~ 1985 85-380 another contiigurAt~on whiah wou~d be more campatible with the Woo's operation oP the motel. He ata~:ed there i~ a comment i~ the statement for ~ustification tt~ar, 1.8~3/4 Eeet will be ~,'cUn fcom th~ existinq parrel for widening of l~Arbor Boulevard, bul only 4-1/2 teet will be takent and thot there i~ a 20-foot high buildiny proNosed wxlhin ti teet of the rnotcl of.Eice hlocking off access to the otEic~ and one or two of the motel unit~ an~ noted that would be a ffre t~tazerd with no emeryency access. Mc. McGuigan s~ated staft's cecommEndation for a condition requiring dedicatian of somz of ti~e motel property along Harbor is probably n~ce~sery f~r aafety and if they can corne up with a plan that ie acccptable, they will cooperatE fully and they are not adverse to development. Rick Leslie, Architect, stated botl~ of the previous speakers have menti~ned redesign oE the center and the~ l~ave made numerous attempta to give ttiem space and acc:ess and have changed tt;c confiyuratic~n of their building somewhat so they can still have access to Nacboc; however, no shopping centec can be f lipped tu r~ny other configuratiori, pointin~ out the traffic or. Ve:~nont i~ almost ni1 anci nobody would want a comme~cial store facing a Rtreet wit~ ~o trafYic and also because ~t the narr~w dimen~ion o~ r.-~N site, especially d~e to the wi~eniny of Narbor and khcy are going to have to uadicate 18-1/2 feet ~or that widening. He ad~ed t.hey t~a~~e to hav~~ a dr.iveway off Nbrbor and that this is the confiyuration of buildiny that can take place ~n this site. Gteg Aickson s~cated they have no objection t~ a common driveway on }I~rbor Boulevard; however, be heard n~ positivQ suggestions on c.he oppasitxon'~ part reg3rding some of ttie 31tPrnatives they have discussed whir.h they are willing to consider to solve this probiem. He added thece seems to be a dea~ilock and he ~ uld sugyest that they aould be wil:!ing to aeC the buiidi~g back ten feet and have a common driveway off tiarbor; ana that they would be wil?ing to ga along with the l~na swap oc many oth~r atte.natives and th~y aze laoking for dicection from lhe Commiesion. THF' PUBLIC NBARItJG WAS CLOS~D. Mr. McGu~gan responded .o ~haicwoma~; La Ci.aire that the August 6th hearing betore ttie court is to ma~e the restrain~ng order permanent Commissioner Herbst sCated tfe request is f~r u variance to put the building nn the ~,roperl~+ linP and he would not vote for d wa~ver such as that which would inteCfere with `:~~ neighbor. FIe stated this property is not adequate for a shopping cente ittiout v~riances. Mr. Jickson stated they are willing to relocate th~ lauiluing~ but having to provide the 1G feet on both sfdes would make thF ptoject uneconomic~l. Commissionec I!erbst stated the prop~ ty owners should ~e able to get together and resolve tt~e problems wit~~out having to Urgue it out bef~re the Planning Commission. Chairwoman La Claire stated ev;.~n if the variance is not granted, it will nat prevent them from blocking oFf the neighbor's property, and suggested thPy should cnopecate Lo wark out what is best for. both property owners. 5he suggested a continuance so they can work out b sQ~ution togethec. Mr. Dickson stat~d one of thQ requirements in the survey was that 6 feet 7/22/85 MINUT~S, ANAHF.IM CITY PLANNING COMMI55ION, .~~1V 22, 1985 _ 85-381 around the praperty waa to be identified und it w~a done and the surveyoc said the building wos about lU feet away and if tt~ey har~ known it was thet close, they would nevex have file~ ~hia plan, and on~ of Cheir etafE members went nut ~nd actually found the marker on the F~~operty. Chairwaman Ln Cl~ire stated thcre ar~ gr~unds for gr.anting this varibncE since the Gity is yoing to requlcc 18-1/2 f~et. Mr. Uickson requested a two-week cont~ ~nd ~t was ex~lained that any ceviaed plana would have to be subrtii~te~ ~tafE ty this coming Friday. Dtc. McGuigan stated t7e c,~n meel wikh the ~etit.ioner t•omarcow only~because F~e wuuld be out of kown until Sunday. Commissionec McFiurney stated Che architect should seriausly take a look at reduciny the size uE the project and doing came tc~~ation becauae he £elt the proposed projeck would be seriously overbuilding the pcoperky. ACTIUN: Commissioner McBurney ofFered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boua: and MCTION CARRIEU that cor~sideration oE the aforementioned-mattez be continued to the cegulacly-scheduled r~~eeting of Auaust 5, 1985. ITEM NO. 3. EIR NEGATTVE DECLARA2'IQN ANU CONUTTIONAL USE PERMiT N0. 2314 (Readvertisod) ~ PUBI,IC NEARING. UWN~;RS: itUV1 PACIFtC CURPOI?ATION, 1801 Century Park East, ylll, Los Anyeles, CA 900U67, ATTt7: DANIEL WEBER. AGENT: FARANU 6 KIVIET, l0U S. Ar-aheim Dlvd., ~340, Anaheim, CA 928G5, ATTN: FRANK A. ~OWKY, JR. ~ro~ecty described as a rectangularly-shr,ped parcel of land consisting of approximately 3.0 acres located at the northeast corner of Serrano AvEnue and Nohl kanch Road, and further desccibed as 65U9, 6511 and G513 Serrano Avenue (Town and Countty Early Education Center). Amendment of Conditian No. 2 of Planning Comtnission Resolution No. PC: b.:-•68 foc ~r~proval ut revised plans (No. 1) foc expansion of an existiny private day care and elementary educational facility (ages 2-1/2 years thcough rhird grade). Continued from the meeting of J~ane 24, 1985. It was noted the petitioner has requested a continuance. ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offec~d a motion, secondQd by Commissioner Mc 9urney and MOTIUN CARRIED that cons~detation of the aforementi4ned matter be continued to the meeting uf September 4, 19b5, in order for the applicant to complete a sound stu@y and to submit additional information as cequested by staff and the Planning conunission. 7/22/85 MINUT_ ~S. ANAN~IM CITY PLANNINC CUMMISSIUN. July 22, 1985 85-382 ITb'M NOy4. EIR NEGATIVF. DECL~ARATION, WAIVER ~F C0~'_, RESJIREMEtiT AND CONUITONAL USE P~RMIm N0. 2700. PUHLIC HEARING. OWN~;R,: KENNETH W. ANU UAWN L, MATNL•:Y, 1380 Knollwood Circle, Anaheim, CA `.12E~U1. AG~NT: ~FiAPLES STCIN, 2231 Vista fiuerta, Newpott Beach, CA 9'166U. property de~cribed as an irreyulacly-ahaped p~ccel of land coneist.ing oE appcoximately 2.14 acces, having c+ fcontage uf approxiinately 48 feet at the northeasterly teriai.nus of Knollwoad Cir.cle, ~n~ further deacribed a~ 138U Kno.llwood Circle (SNTEl~CEM). Wa~.ver of minimum number af parking sE~aces to relt~in the in~nufacturing and storage of liquid and powder chemicala, inr_luding petroleum and petc~leum baaed producCs. c:ontinued Erom the meetir~g oE June 24, 1985. It was noted thE staf~ has requested a continuanc~. ACTIUN: Commissioner Bouas off~:red a motion, seconded by C~mr~issio~~er Mc H~rney and MUxiON CAFtRIED that conaideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the meeting of August t9, 19d!,, at sta;E's request in order for ataff to coordinate with cthec govec~m~nt agencies. Commissioner Herbst asked staff to provide aE m~ch data as possihle on stocage of chemicals ir. the Ciky of Anaheirn beaause of the recent di~astet, adding he thc,~yht these types of uses should be watched very cloaely to make sure khey cc,-~ply with state, county and other agency regulations. Commissio~et Mc t~urrey asked for input fcom the Fire Uepartment regarding the ab~ve rec;uested permit. Kendra Morries, Asai~:ant Planner, explainec~ the majur reason for the continuAncE is sc that staff can get together wikh okhec agencies and ~he Fire Ueparrment to provide all the infocma~~on f~ossible. Conunissioner Elerbst atated the t~usiness that had the cecent f ire came into the City under the business license ero~edure and he lhought thece needs tu be ~~1QSer control on where they are lucated and wha(. th~y store. Chazrwoman La C:laire stated the current ordinances should also r,e reviewed. ITEM N0. 5. EiR NEGATIVE DECLARATIONp WAIVER Ot~ CODE REQUIREMEN'P AND CONDITIONAL USE PF.RMIT NG~. 2695. PU$LIC HEARING~ QWtvERS: TFiR1FTY UIL CO~IPANY, ATTN. A. W. JOHNSON~ Jft.~ 1000G Gakewood Bou!evard, Downey, CA 9024U. Property described as a rectangularly-sh~F~ed paccel of lanc~ consisting of approxirt;ately 0.56 acre located at thP narthwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Da1e Avenue, and further described as 2801 W~st Li.ncoln Av~nue. Request for waiver of minimum landscaped setback to permit a convenience market with gaac:ine sales and off-sale beer an~ wine. 7/22/85 :~UTESy ANAlIEiM CITY PLANNING CUMMISSIUN1 JalY 72. 1985 $~-3A3 Thece wece five persor~s indicating lheir preaence in opposition to subject •eyuest And althouyh the staff repor~ wae not read, it is referred to and made a part ol the minutes. A. ~. Johnson, agent, explaine~ they propose to remodel the existing service station And pcovide a min~-market with the sale of ~nacr faod itema and '~everayea~ including off-aale beer AnJ winet and that the/ Anticipate ~Oe of he mini-~market cuatomers witl be exiating service station cuatomera who ere A1reAdy on thP gite. Myuny Soo Chuny, 290U W. Lincoln, AnahPim, stated he is speaking as ~ private citizen and iA opposed to lhE request becauae there are alr~ady four liquoc store~ in one block and this mini-market ia not needed uecause of the existing problem with drunken dri_verss and that he is also opposed because the bu~inesses will be destroying eacl~ other aith too m~~ny in one ~rea. Khanh Ton, Lindale Market~ atated there nre ~even liquor st~res within a three-block area and if thia is allowed, it will destroy his business. Juhn Mistoquiteb (Secretary cculd not verlfy name) st~ted he is closeat lo the gas station and he brought his market five or six yeais ago and is not evt~n making ~ living now and if thie is al.lo~ed, it me~ns he will h~ve to close his busine~s because they will be offeriny the same things he has to sell. Hyo Si~ Lee, 2837 W. Lincoln, An~heim, stat~d ttiere are four liquor stores now and approval of this will make tuo many. Mr. Juhns~n stated most of the op~osition was to the number of stores in the area and they £eel that most of tbeic trade wiil be with existing customer~ and they feel ~he campetition is good and they would not be looking at tY~e are~ if they felt it was overbuil.t at this time, and the,y feel this wi:l be an asset to khe area and neighborhood. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ommissioner Mc Burney stated il is quite obvious that the Planning Commiesion t~as an attitude tawards this type of mixtur.e between gasoline sales and the sale of beer ar-d wine and he has t~ear~ nothing presented to change his mind and he would still be opposed. Commissioner Bouas asked if the mini-market with the sa~e of beer and wine would increaAe the bus;ness, and Mx. Johnson responded it would not increase the ga~oline sales significantly. He stated the purpose of the mini-market is to fully utilize the property in order to remain cnmpetitive in a competitive business. He staLed their primary pucpose is ta inerease gcoas salea by selling other than gasolxne prod~~ts. Commissio~rer $ouas asked xf they would be williny to have the mini-ma[ket, witt~out the sale of beer and wine. Mr. Johnsan stated that is not economical and the sale of beer and wine represents the difierence between a successful ope:ation and an unauccessful operation. Mr. Johnson respdnded ta 7/22/85 MINGTES. ANAN~xM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIUy~ JuIY 22. 19$S 85-3g4 C~mmisaione~ Bouas that they Are not busineae and are trying to prov~de a m~jority ia not beer and wine. trying to get inko the beer and wine packaye oE convenienue iCemn And thc Commisaluner Fry starea he hoa no objection t~~ L-he woiver, but ie moat vehemenr.ly opposed to the aale of beer and wine. Cummissione~ Messe a8ked what the peccentaqe af incre~~sed grosa sales would 1~h anticipated from the oale uf beer and wine. Mr. Johnson reaponded his expectise is not 1n that tield, but h~ has heard it in in the 20 to 25a range. ACTIUN: commiesioner E~'ry ofEeced a motion, seeonded by Commisaioner Bcues and MUTIUN CARRIED t_hat the Anahelm C:ity Planning Commission has reviewed khe pcoposal to pecmit a convenience market with gacoline sales and off-oale beec and wine with waiver ot rtiinimum landacaped setback on a rectangularly-~haped pa~cel of lAnc3 consisting of approximately U.56 acr,e located at the northwest cornec af Lincoln Avenue and Dale Avenue, and f~rther d~sccibed a~ 2801 West Lincoln Avenue; and does hereby approve the Neya~ive Declacation upon f~nding that i~ has co~sidered the Ne~ative Declaration together with any commenta receivEd duriny tkie publ.ic review process and fucther finding on the baafs ~f the Initial study and any commente ceceived that thece is no aubstantial evidence that thE~ nroject wilt have ~~ significant effe^t on the environment. CommiFOioner Fry oEfered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTIOy FA~LEU TU CARRY ((:omrt:i.ssioners Nerbst, La Glaire, Lawicki, Mc Burney and Messe voting no) that t-.~~ Anaheim City ~~lanning Cortur~ission does hereby grant wai.ver of code requireRient on the basis that there are others in the area with the same privile~,:^s and there is no negative impact on suzrounding propecties. Conimissioner. Herbst ex~lAined his negative vote was because service stAtions were yranted a privileye not enjoyed by othPr prnperties in the area in that they were allowed to encroach on the cornera to secve the tcaveting public and other markets t~ave had to meet setback requirement~~, etc., and the 3ervice station~ have gotten away from se[vi.cing the traveling public by eliminating the needed Fervices. Commissioner Fcy pointed uut thig waiver is for landscaping and it is graduated fro~n 0 to 5 feet. Paul Singec, TrafEic Eng~neer, stated the two ~iriveways shown are on Lincoln Avenue and Lincoln t~as a median isl.and and noted he doe~ not like driveways that close to cornecs, but the applicant hay f.ndicated that there is a median island on Lincoln Avenue and the City C~~incil has grante~ such requests before. Commissioner Fcy offered a motion, ~econded by Commissio~~er Bouaa and HOTION CAP.RIED UNANIMOUSLY that the Anaheim City Planning Cummission does hereby deny waiver of code requirement on the basis there ace no sp~cial circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundinga ~rhich do not Apply to other .tdentically zoned property in the same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code does not deprive the propecty of privileges enjc.~Yed by other propertie: in the identical 2one and classification in the vicinity. 7~22/85 MINUTE5. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CUMMISSION. July_22. 1985 ~V„ 85'385 Commiesionec Fry offered R~a~~l.utian No. PC85-175 and moved tor ita passage and adoption thaC tt~e Anaheim City Plannin~ Commiseion does hereby deny Conditional Use Permit No. 2695 on the bASis that the sale of beer and wine in aonjunc:tion with g~soline salds could contribute tu the exieting drunk driving problem and t~e detrime~tal to t~e peace, heAltt~, safety and welfare of the citizena. Ch~irmAn La Clair.e a~ded she would like to add that one reA~on Eor denial is because ut the opposition that the other stoces in khe areA would be adversely aEfected. Un coll call, the foregoiny resolukion was pasRed by th: following vote: AYES: ~UUAS~ FRY~ HERRST, LA CGAIRE, GAWICKI, Mi~ BURN°Y, MF.SS~ NUES: NONE AB5ENT: NONE Malcolm Slauyhter, Ueputy Clty Attarney, presented l•.h~ written right to appeal the Planniny Commisaion's decision wi.thin 22 daye to the ~ity Council. 7TgM Np~6. EIR NEGATIVE DE;CLARATION, WAIVER UF CUDE RF.QUIRF.MENT_AND CUNDI'PIUNAL USE: PERMI7' N0. 2703. PUBLIC HEAFiING. OWNERS. PACE/B~;TTER PRODUC7'S INC., 1441 N. Baxter Street, An~aheim, CA y28U6-1272 AND AUGUSTINE L. NIETTO,IT, c/o ANTHONY RU3SELL, 4631 Tellar, Ste. 140, Newpart Beach, CA 9266U. AGENT: JORDAN ARCElITECTS, ATTN: ARIEL VALLI, 2201 Mactin Street, 5uite 201, Irvine, CA 92715. Prope[ty dercribed as an irreyularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 2.8 acces, located at the southwest corner of Via Burton and Baxter Street, and fucther described as 14U1-1441 Haxter Stceet. Waiv~rs of minimum number of parking ~~aces, maxi:num building height, and minimum stcuctural setback to p~rmit a pubiic mini-stoxage Eacility and on~site cnretaker's residence. '~here was no one indicating their pcesence in oppasition to subject request ~..d although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part oi~ the mir~utes. Bruae Jordan, aqent, stated they have reviewed the conditions and agree with them. He explained tl~e cequest for packiny variance is because the City of Anaheim does not have a s~ecific requitement for aelf-storage and they were asked ~o submit a parking denand study which was done and in the past a higher degree of variance has been granted. He added these uses gen~rate ver,y little tcaffic. Concecning the aetback, he stated the parcel is diffict~lt to develAp for industrial uses becauae it is natrow. He noted the property is also located adjacent to a 2U-foot al.ley, separating it from a cesidential zone. Ha stated this will be a b~nefit to khe residential neighbors wPst of the property with the buildings acting as a buffer to reduce freeway noise. He staked the height waiver is necessary because of tne City of Anaheim requirement for :ire s~rinklers. 7/22/85 MINUT~S, ANAHEIM_CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. July 22~ 1965 ___ a5-366 THE ~UBLIC H~ARING WAS CLOS~U. Commiseioner Flerbst atated this i.s probAbly one of thc towest tr~ffic usea we could have in the arva with the acceas fcom Via Burton to State College, and the exiatiny buildings will ~e rert~oved. RE~s~onding to Commiaeionec Fcy, Mr. J~rdan stated the ~nly acce~e to either ot the allays wil: be for emeigency purposo8. Responding tn Chairwoman L~ C1A~ce, Kendra Mocriea, As3lst~nt Planner, sta~ed there a[e mu1Gi-t:amily units to the north and west across the 20-Foot wide alley. Kendca t4orries asked that ar additi.onal condition be added tt~at the property ~wner shall obtain or purchase an ea8ement over the existing 1-Eoot wide holding strip locaked adjacent to the westerly property line and the alley and explained thal would facilitate the emergr:ncy Access ~ate. Mc. Jordan stated they would like that conditinn to read that only if that acceas is necefiaitated by the Fice ur Po11ce Departments would that e~sement be required becauae they have had sorne discussion with the Fice Department and they have indicated they would n~t require thoae acceso ~oints becauRe they have f~und the tucning rAdxuse~ were adequate. Ms. Mocries ~tated that could be added to thP pruposed condition. ACTIUN: Commissioner tierbst offered a mution, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MU2'ION CARRIED that the Anaheim Ci.ty Planning Commiasian has reviewed the proposal to permit a public mini-storage ~acility and on-site caretakec's residence with wuivets of minfmum number of parking spaces, rtiaximum building heiyht and minimum structural setback on an irregularly- shaped parcel of land consisting af approximately 2.8 acres, located at the southwest corner of Via aurton and Haxtec Stre~t, and further deacribed as 14U1-1441 Baxter Str~et; and does hereby approve khe Negative Ceclaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declar~t.ion together with any comments ceceived during the ~ubiic review process and L•urtl~er fi~di~g on the b~sis oi ttie initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project wi11 have a significant effect on the environment. Comanissioner Herbst offered a tnotion, seconded by Commissioner Mc Bucney and MGTIUN CARRI~U that the Anaheirt~ City Planning Commission does hereby grant waiver (a) on the basis that the parking waiver will not c2use an 9ncrease in traffic cungestion in the immediate vicinity nor adversely affect any adjoining land uaes and grantfng of the parking waiver under the conditions imposed, if ~ny, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general wel£are of the citizena of the City of Anaheim; and further granting waivers (b) and (c? on the basis that there are special circumstances ~pplicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location (abutting an alley) and surraundings which 9o not apply to other identically zoned prop~rty in thQ same vicinity= and ttiat s*.cict application of the Zoning Code deprivea the property of privileyes enjo~ed by other properties in the 7~22~85 MINUTES. ANAHGIM CITY P3~ANNING COMMISSION. JuIY 12. 1985 85-367 iaentiaal zone and clasai~icution in the vicinity; and turther that the buildinq~ will secvo as a buffer to the reaidontial area from the FreewAy noise. Commissioner Herbst af~eCed Resolutio~ No. PCa5-1.71~ and moved Eor its passage and adoptlon thet the Anahelm City Planning CommisEion d~es hereby gcr~nt Conditi~nal Use Pectnit No~ 2703 pucsuant to Anaheit~ Municipal Code Section La.03.Q30.030 through 3U,030.030.U35 and subjecC to InterdepArtmental Committee Recommendati ane, including an additional c~ndition that the praperty owner shAll obtain ~n eASement ov~r the existing ont+-foot wide hplding atrip lo.:ated adjacent to the westerly propecty line and the alley, if an emergency ac:cea~ gate ia required by tiie Fire Department or Polic~ Department, On roll call, the foreyoing rec~alutiUn was passed by the tollowing vote: AYE5: BOUAS, L'RY~ HEkBST~ 1,A (:L.#\IRE, I.AWICKI~ MESSF~ MC DURNEY NUES: NUNF: ABSENT: NONE Malcolm Slauqhter, Depu~y City Atr_orney, presented th~~ written r. ight to appeal the Planning Commission'e decision within 22 daya to the City Council. RECE;SS: '1:55 RECUNYkNE: 3:05 ITEM N0. 7. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OF CODE 11EQUIREMENT AND L'ONDITIONAL UE PBRMIT tdU~ 27U4. PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: MURRAY AN D TILLIE WEISBERG, ~725 Ciifton Wa~, Heverly Nills, CA 90 211. AGENT: ANANEIM MAZDA, ATN. RICHARD HEINZ, 601 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheirti, ~R 92805. Property described as a rectangularly- st-aaped patcel of land conaistiny of approximately .49 acre, located at the nartheast corner of Water 5tceet a n d Anaheim eoulevard, and further dpscribed as 558 Anaheim Doulevard (Anaheim Mazda). Waiver of minimum nunsbec of parking sptsces to permit an automobile and truck storage and sales lo t. There was no one indicating their presence in oppositio~~ to subject request and although the sta~f report was ndt read, it i~ cefer~~ed to and made a part of the minutes. Ri.chacd Neinz, agent ~ explained they wish to move their location ka the new Anaheim Auto CEnter which is planned on Ball Road at the 57 Freeway and there have been some delays, He stated they expect ~~ move w~ehin 18 months ar~d this :[s a temporary locatitin to store vehicles and woulcf like a temporary pexmit for 16 months . He refecred to Condition Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 9 and stated they wQUld not be ab 3oto comply with those conditions t>ecause this ia a temporary locatfon. He stated Condition No. 2 refers t~ the three dtiveways on Anaheim eoulevard and they wer e uaed for the car wash that was there and they have been block ed off eithec by displayed Autocn~bi:les or a fence and 7/22/85 MINUT~S. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIUN, Ju.ly 22, 1985 ,_ a5"3~a there is no access from Anaheim Boulavard. He atflke~ th~ cost to claee those dCivewaya would be ~cohibitive since this a tempocary location and afnce they do not know what the ultimate use of the property would be. He ~tated Condition No. 3 cefers to street lighting ~long WateK Stceet and apparently tlrec~ a light re~uired and he did not understand thAt condition einc~ nothing has changed and he would like khat condition waived. He stated Conc9ltion No. 4 requices lhat all existing underground storage tanka be cemuved and explained there are two gasoline tanks on the property which they are using now, and they have permits from tt~e Fire Department and would like to continue to use tt~ose tanks. He referred to Condition No. 9 requiring downlighting And explained thece i.s one light which is higher than 12 feet which was existing and is pointed away from the residential $rea. TH~ PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLC)SEL~. Kendra Morries, Assistant Planner, stated btaFf would like to add a condition that the exiating sidewalk on Water Street be repaired tn the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Jay Titus, Office ~ngineer, expl~ined the existing sidewalk is k~roken and cracked and could be a hazard and the City wauld like to hav~ that cemoved, replaced ar repaired to the sal:iafaction of the City Engineer. Chairwoman La Claire clariEied that they only want a temporary permit for 18 montha. Jay Titus explained regarding that street lighting Conditi.on that there is no street liqht on Water Street and the Utilities Department has requested that one be installed and Kendra Morries explained the street lighting fees have never been paid on that property. Commiesioner Herbst asked what would be ~atisfactocy to the Traffic Engineer for temporacily allowing the driveways to be blocked. Paul Singer responded he would have no problem with temporary blockage by chaxn, provided the chain has some sort of reflectors which can readily be seen, and better yet having cars displayed in fcont of the driveway will help the situation. He added he would cecommend khat the condition only be granted for a perind of 18 months. Chairwoman La Claace stated Condition No. 2 could be modified, Mr. Heinz clarified that Mr. Sin~er preferred to have some type of reflectors in addition to the displayed vehicles so that it becomes obvioua there is no driveway. Commissioner Herbst atated he felt a chain is necessary, i~ additicsn to the displayed vehicles, because there are t{mes wfnen the 1ot is not full. Chaitwoman La Claire stated the condition requiring street Ifghting has been waived for temporary use+~ in the past. CommissioRer Herbst stated he would like to see that condition included so that it gets taken care of. 7/22/85 MINUTES L ANAHG~M CITY P~ANNING COMMISSION L,JuI.Y 22~ 19Q5 a5-3a9 Commissioner Herbat stated if the Fire Uepartment has appr~ved a permit for the undecgGOUnd storage tanks, he would have no problPm wil•h the tanks cPmaining until tlie property is deve'oped Eoc sorne other uee, but wanted the pr~~erty owner to know that City acdinances require that the tanks be cemoved ~c filled when a aervice station ie no longer thece b~cause they ~~re dangerous. Kenata Moccies ex~lained the condition pert~-ining to parkiny light• stancla[ds kypical.ly relates to new light sCAnd~~cdcs And Mr. Neinz exPlained they do not plan to install any ne~~ light standacds and the only problem ia with an existing one. Commissi~oner Mesfie asked il the petitic~ner has agreed lo comply with i:he propooed additional conditio~ pertaining to the sidewalk. Malcolm 5lauqhter, Deputy City ~ttorr~ey, stated in view of the stat:ement made earlier that there may be u hazardoua condition due to khe disrepai.r of i.he sidewalk, he would suggest that t.he condi~ion be included with A vE+ry limited time limit f~r the rep~~ir because the City, as welt as the property owner, could be looking at fome liability exposure ~huuld the sidewalk not be repaired immediately~ and he would suggest no more than 30 days to complete that repair. ACTION: L'ortunissioner Fltcbsr_ a£Eered a motiAn seconded by CQmmissioner Mc Burney ena MU'PIt)N C/~~tFtIED that t.he Anaheirn City F~lanning Commission has reviewea the ~~ro~osal to per.mit an aukamouile and truck atorage and sales lot with waiver of r~infmum number of packiny spaces nn a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land c:o~~sisCing of approximately .49 acre, located at the northeast cornec of Water Street and Anaheim Boulevard, and £urther described as 55Fi Souti~ Anaheim Boulevard (Anaheim Mazda); and does heceby apptove tlie Negative Dealaration upon finding that it has consf~^ced the Negbtive Declaration t.oyether with any commenCa received during the public review process ond further ffnding on the basia of the Initial. Study and any comm~nts received that there is no subscantial evidence that lhe project will have a signi.ficant effect on the environment. Mr. Heinz asked that a representative fcom the Engineering Dc~artment c;ome out and show them exactl}~ what needs to be done and to which sidewaiks. Jay Titus responded that the Fi~:ld EnginEer will go over the situation with him. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, geconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED tha~: the Anaheim City Planning Cornmiselon does hereby grant waiver of Code reguirem~nt on the basis tl-,at the parking waiver will not cause an increase in trriff.ic congeation in the i.r~mediate vicinit~r nor adveraeZy affect any adjoining land use$ and granL•ing of the parking waiver under the conditions impos~d, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, healCh, safe~y and yeneral welfare of thE citizens of the City of ~,;aheim. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. .PC85-177 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheirti City Flanning Cammission does hereby grant Condition~l UFe 1Permit No. 27U4 for a period af 18 munkhs, to expire on ,lanuary 22, 1987, pursuant to Anaheim Flunicipal Code Sectis~ns 18.03.030.03(1 thrnugh 18.03.030.035 and subject to Interdepactmental Committee 7/22/85 MINUZ'~S, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIUN. JulY 22, 1985 Recopunendations, .includ~ng a m~dification to Condition No. 2 requiring that the driveways ahell be temporarily cl~sed with chnins and reflectors, and incl-ading an additional condition that sidewalks on Water Street ahall be cepaired ar replACed wit~in c pecfod of Lhirty f30) days to thQ eaGisfaction of Che City Engineec. Un coll call, the foregoiny resolutiun was passed by the following vote: AYBS: ~UUAS~ FRY~ HERBST, LA CLAIRG, LAWICKI~ ME5SE, MC dURNEY NUES: NqNE ABSENT: NUNE 85-~90 MAlcolm Slaughter, Deput,y CitX Attorney, presented the written right to appeal th~ Planning Commission's dccision within 22 ~iays to the City Council. ITEM N0. 8. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATIONi WAIVER UF CODE .REQUIREM~NT AND CUNDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2705. PUBLZC HEARING. OWNERS. CENTURY PRUPERTIES, 1801 Century Park East ~2100, Los Anq1ES, CA 90U69. AGF:NT: FO~TER ~ KLEISEk COMPAN:~, 1550 W. W~chington Blvd., Los Anyeles, CA 9007, ATTN: ROnERT J. VERMAN. Pr.operty describeo as an irregularly-shaped par~el of land consisking of apprnximately 3.1 acres Yocated north and eagt of the north~_ast corner ~f Lincoln Avenue and Beach Bc~ulevurd, and £urther described aF 20U Nortl~ Beach Boulevacd. Wai.vers of maximum display area and maximum height to permit a bill.bard in the Ctl Zone. It was noted the petitianer has requested a Gantinuance. ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mc l3utney and MOiiUN CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned-matter be continued to the regularly-eched;aled meeting of August 5, 1J85, in ocd~~r for the applicant to suhmit dacumentation requested by staff. ITEM N0. 9. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2706 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER5: KINNEY FAMILY 'TRUST, JUHN H. A.ND IDA KATHERINE KINNEY, P. 0. 8ox 2473, Rancho Santa ~'e, CA 92067. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land ~,onsi~ting of approximately 0.5 acre locate.3 at the southwest corner of Winston Road and Anaheim Boulevard, and further d~scribed as 10b W. Winston Rnad (AnahEim Nissan). To permit a truck sal~s and storage fa~ility. '.;t~ere ~w~s no one indicatin~ thsir presence in oppositian to subject request ~ind although the stc-f~ report was not read, it is rePerred to and made a part af the mi~utes. Nlaureen Bigqlec, Business Manager, Anaheim Nissan, referred to the recommended Condition No. 7 for removal of the undergraund storage tanks and stated they 7~22/85 MINU'PE5. ANAH~IM CTTY PL1~.NNING CUMMISSION, Ju1~22. 1985 _„_,,,_ 85_„391 are uaing the undecground storage tanka and gasolin~s pumps. 5he referre~ to Conditian No. 3 and atai.ed Chey ~reviuunly discusxFd plana for closing two drivewaXs and rRlocatin~y curbs, guttera and sidewalke, but nothing has been mentioned about atreet lights, water tucilitieo, pavement, Rewerr~, drainage~ etc. And explain~d ti~e~r ar4 leasing this Lr,cility for tl~e next Eive yeArs, but ik has existed thi.a way for a l.ong time and u~skEd for clazil:~~cation of what is bNing [equired. Jay Titus, OfEicp EnnineF~r, explfained chat ic a genecal condition and the cancern is the exist;.ny curb nnd gutter and sidewolk and y~atting them relocated to the ultim~~te locAl-ion which woul.d r~quire re).ocating any facilities which may be in the way. Fie explained khe exi:~ting improvements ace at 3'1. feet from centerline and the cla~sitication o£ the at~eet requiCes Eutl riyht-of-way of 53 feeC which exit~t:s now, but the r.~rb and c~utter ia at 43 feet, ~o Chey h~ve to be moved. Paul Sinye[, '1`raEfi.c EnginE:er, expl~ined recer~tly the drive-in restaurants at Anaheim and E3all and the old Market Basket pra~erty were required to m~et this same conditian and as pcoperties come in for cfevelopm:~nt, they will have to relocnte. Jay Ti.r.us Eurther ex~l~ined as pco~:>erkies come in, if the improvemtnts exit~t, the +~tandard condit.fon will be to have them relocate the improvemc~nts t.o th~e u1L-imate location. Ms. Eiigyler referred ~.o Condition No. 5 cequicing ~:h~~t all driveways shall be reconstrucr.ed to accommodate ten-f~aoC radiua cucb teturns and added she understood that the exis!:ing dciveways were fine ~nd cuuld be r.etained. 5he asl;ed ior a~four-week continuance gince she was r.ot prepar~d to agree to khe proposed conditions. ACTION: Commissioner Nc Burney ofEered a mUticsi, seconded by Commissioner H~uas and MUTION CARRTED thati consideration of thce af.o[ementioned makter be continued to the regularly-scheduled mectiny c?~= August 19, 1.985, at tPie request of the petitioner. ITEM NU. 1G. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIV::R OF CODF: REQUIREMF.NT AND COMDITIUNAL USE PERMI.T N0. 270y. PUE3LIC EfEARING. UWNERS: MARTIN I.UTHER klO:iF~ITAL, INC., 1830 W. Romneya Drive, Anaheim, CA 92oU3. AGEt~T: ROBERT D. MIC'RCLSON, P. 0. BUX 2303, Urange, CA 92669. Propeety desccibed as a rectangul«rly-shaped parcel of land consisi.ing of approxim~tely 7,56U square feet~ having a frontage of approximately 72 feet on th~e north ~ide of Neighbors Street, a~~proximately 200 feet east of the centerline of Unondtigo Avenue, and furth~r dEaccibed as 181,7 West Neighbors Aver.ue. Wai~er of rec.;uired location nf par~ci.nq spaces to permit a social zehabi.lita:ior~ centEZ for chemical dep~endency in I:he RM-1200 fResirlential, Multiple-Family) Zone. Th~re were ap~roximakely 31 persons indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and a.lthough the staff report was not read, it is referred to and inade a part ai tt~e minutes. 7/22/BS MINUTES~ ANAHFIM CITY PLANNING CUMMISSZGN, July 22, 198~ 5__, 85-392 Terry eelmont, PcuaidenC, Ma~tin Lutl-er tloapital, stated he was extrertiely concerned and wt.~hed to expresa to the residenta in the Nelyhborn Stceet area ttiat the decoyAtory comments regatding the neighborhood which wPre in the Register were not made by any member o~ hiF: ~taff, Mc. Belmont at~ted they were here about four yec+cs ago tn aak for a conditional uae permit for ttie parking lot an th~ west side of the ho~nital and at that time they had vigorous neighborhood concern about that project nnd iL• wns ultimately appc~ved and the relationstiip between khe h~spi'.al and the neighbors who had concerns about th~t tias been ~~ery good and they have f.ulfilled evecy tE~yulrement and cxpectAtion thc,t was asked at that time. He stated they sent a letter ~o the property awn~r~s in Che Neight'~oc~ ~tr.eet Acea and dietcibut~d 1.etters ;ast Thursday anci Friday invlting the residents to the ho~E~ital l~+i;c: HridAy niyht Pnr discussi.on a:~d they tealize h.hat wn6 p[obably late noticE~; howev~:r, they did t~ave ecme diacussion with some of the neighbors on Sat~~r.~:~~y who came tu khe hospit~l. He explained DiSC~~rery Recovery is their chemical dependency program which has been a pact oi ~~.~~-in I,uther Huspital Medical Center. t~c over five years; that its E>atienCs '-~ ~~ »eeri peaceful neigt~bors with oL-her patients in the haspit~alJ that the pro~. ,=~°us been wel~-accepted by many in the employee community, but now it~ orde~ ' +3h~ ~ ne opportur~iky for cl emical dPpendency rehabilitation available t~ ~~ -~~uale, they are pro~osing that t.his ~~cial rehabilitatior~ proycam be •~-.~3~~~ ::+~:: 1817 Neighbor~ street because it is ideally yuiked due to its p~~~~ ,~'z -~ ~ne hospit~l ~nd its space; that the pcoyrem is purely reaident- ~.:'F.=~xning, administcative and support services located within kh~ hos~, :^ - ~ r,t~.:= some patient~ ~+ill be going to wark everlday during the latter t~a:= -i '~~e~c treatmenk pco~ram and the pcogra~n would be ~or adults; that pNo~.'; ~e:.~~eu by this program are working individuals who have PrivAte insucunc-~ - n~~ns to pay theic bill, so it is not a chacity program; and that there i~ :.~:~~-r scr~ening Ec~r kh~se eligible to participate in the program ~nd pacticif+.~e~~,= -xi:ce highly ~cheduled and have 24-hour supervision on site at all times. Mr.. Belm.~r~ introduced two Eormer participants in the program. Rutt: w'~+.y1 ~~~. President of the Nospital Guild, explained she went through L•he program f<:uLL year~ and four months ago and she believed it is a good pcogram and d~~~s d lot c good for a lot of peopl~ and those who go through the progra-n y:e pecl~le who wnnt the program and they are not neople who are forced t~ go throuyh it and when a person wants something, they make it work for them. Larr~r Wernick staked he attended th~e pcogram one year ago; thAt he understands the concerns of the neighbors because he is a.fAther and grandfatl~er and four oi his childcen hAV~ graduated from college An~ he is in business for hirt~self; that hia pcobletti was addiction to prescription medicatiun and he knew he needed profeasional help, so he entered hitoself into the Martfn Luther prugram. Ne stated two men whu have graduated from the program are working fur. him in his bu~iness. He explained the largest majori~y of the people gofng thcough tt.e pcogram ace those wh~ recognize they want Co do something 7/22/85 MINUT~S, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 22, 1y85 a5-393 b~t~er than what they have been d~ing in tlie past and are willir~ to pay L•he price to do it and juat want the help to La madP avc~ilnble. He atated the people in the pcoyram are not maniaca, nbusers, etc.r and that he is just ag concerned ubout his childrv„ as any parent a~nd askecl that the CummisAion considec the potential of the individual. Mr. 8elmant stated the reason they have ct~usen this site ia that they rieed to have a facility near tt~e hospital so they can ori~nt the program ko the hospital facilitiea and it is not poasible ta have i.l on site and it is not pa~sible to have a reaidential proyrem because of the coct and explained parking would be available on the hospital parking lot. He added there is a cnncern about the general welfare and safety of the r.esidenta and stated they have had plenty of experience in tlie hospital with reyard t~ the type af patients they serve And the screening will be b~ close~r in the residential proyram. He stated they are trying to accomplist~ a more homelike environment and they du not feel the satety of the neighborhood wo~~id be leopardized. P. U. Harwell, owner of the A-plex at 1823 W. Neighbors which is next door west to subject property, stated the two people who spoke have a great deal to be tt~ankful for; however, he would have been more satisfied if Mr.. Belmont had brought in aome~ of' the failures from the program. tle stated there is an error in the staff teport which indicates the building is 4,613 square feet and all the unit~ are alike a~nd they t~ave 3,400 syuare f.eet. Mr. Hacwell stated h+~ understands there is going to be daytime supervision on site anci the C.lOS@3t supervision is al• the hospi.tal over 600 or 70U feet ~away a.t niyht and askecl if that i~ correct? Mr. Harwell stated four yecra agc. ~hey focmed an aasocistiun in the area for khe purpose of improving the uverall appearance, as well aE the maintenance and repair of the neighborhood; that they presenked the Mayor and City Council a li~t oF existing zoning violations and received the coopert-tion of the City; that he received the notice of this hearing on Saturday and was surprised and didn't know an,ythiny like this was being pcoposed; that on Zhursday he received a lettec from Larry Jacobson fcom the hospital and there was nothing in the letter about a meeting on N'riday night. He stated the Program Director at Martin Luther stated i~ his lettet that tt~ey are proposing to use thie property for up to lu critically depPnden~ adults, not stEreo-type street addicts, but employed produ~~:tive members of our community who have becom•~ chemically dependent, He s~r.ated he is not we11-informed on the yood, bad, or indifferent characterisr.ics of chemical.ly dependent adults, but fcorn z,ll he has read a~id the numerou~ criminal acts described in newspapers a~~~ r,n television of caurt cases in this state und his own feeling is that a dope actdict is a dope addict, 'J:1P~her it is alcohol, pot, or. whal:ever. He stated it is only too obvious that the hospital's pcime motivation is making money and they don't care that 16 people will be domiciled in a residential community where hundreds of children live. He explained al.l the four-unit buildinys in the area contazn appcoximately 850 sq. ft. in each two-bedroom, two-bath unit, in a medium eent range, and there are al~~~ays many small childr~n in the area. 7/22/85 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Jul :2r 1985 - g5~39~ Mr. Narwell atAted the petitionec indi.cated all parking will be pcovided in the h~apital's parking lot with pedeatcian access and atated he did not believe thoae who live in thiF~ facility will ~ark that fac away when they can park in front oi the unlt and parking on thal• street is al~eady totally satu[~ted without. 16 more vehicles. He reEerred toft~hepunits9in~thatearea$ Eor the City of Anaheim ~nd stated right naw many house more thAn 10 people. He asked th~ Commission is disappKOVe the conditional use ~e~mit. Comm~saionec HerbsL atated the Commission wants to henr wha~ licnntp~tlat~any ha~ to eay, bur, duea not ~ap~r.eciate thE~m running down the app nne has the right to come before the Planning Commiasion and ask foc anything they wunt, [ey~rdleae whaG tl~e ordinances say, and that doesn't mean they can get ic, but they have the right to ask 3nd this applicnnt has Chat cight. He asked the apPosition to keep their comments directly to the case and not against tt~e person. Den-ii.s Sellars stated he runs h.he T[ans-AmErica Propecty Management firm located at 431 N. bcookhurat, Suite 2U0, Anaheim; and ttlat he is here by re~olution ot the Bo~rds of Dicectors oE the Anaheim Shoces, Lakeview and Wellinyton Landiny communities which are all immlo~eC`hatt~originaliy histin Luther tiospita.l ~n khe west cide of the packing intention aas to intcoduce their cnncecn and vote against this projeck, but unfoctunately fe.lt he had to make an opening statement based on what Mc. Belmont had indicated and take exception to a couple af things he said; that no homeowner in the Anaheim Shores community, which is immediately ad~acent to the hospital parkiny lot, was n~t.ified of this proposal~ thatnMrthBelm~nt the residents of Lakeview ~r W~llington Landing communilies; coCrectly stated that Eouc years ag~ he was before the Planning Commission with cegacd to parkir~g and so wece the Anaheirti Shor.es homeowners, and they weXe notified of that hearing, but wece not notified of this heariny and anly learned about it thcough the e£f~rts of 'ct-e homeowner~ in che immediate areA. He stated he would also take exceptian co Mr. Belmont's comments that their relakionahip witt~ the neiyhbors immediately adjacent t.o the parking lot on the we~t, which is Anaheim Shares, has been satisfactory during the last four years 5ecause thttt is not tcue; that nui~iec~us letters have beers sent to rhe hospital with ce9ard t4 the noic~ of their air conditioni~g and electric that apparatu5 which continues to keep the homeowners awake during the night; they have tried consistently with the City and the hospital to resolve that issue, but it has not been done, He statec3 theic concern is that should this request be approve~ ancl they are allowed to establish this rehabilitation center, thaS they wi11 not live up to thefr agreements with regard to the center as thay have not with regard to the parking lot. He stated the communitles he cepre3ents cunsist of over 5~0 homes and this is a family-oriented area and there are many, many children and some have swimming pools, etc., and the community is concerned with the crime element related to chemical dependent peop.le with re9ard ko the sa~ety af. the children. He sl•ated since there is no securiky at nightr an additional anxiety and burden io added and they fear f4r the safety and general welfare of not only themselveshebufeacethis~will~addhtremendousiadversity to their~children9inhP day, and t y their living conditions. ~~22~g5 8~-395 MINUTE5. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNI~C CUMMISSION~ JuIY__2?~ 1585 _ - Sharon Glbsgow. 1769 W. Nelghbar~, As~a~eim, etated Aortere feher.echildrentnc~ iy72 and has three ctiildren and ahe ia the so1Q aupp that ahe worko for St. Jude Retiebilitation Hoapitul and un~eratAnds what the hospital wants to do, but she wanta to protec8 c~gtfofisubjecttpcaperty~andQ live acound he~t that she lives fcur buil~ing hec ehildren have F[iends at the oGher end of tt~e block anc~ parkin9oblem t all~wed next to the fence at the hospit~l an~i thech ia a parking p already. She at~ted ~he wantR aafety for her children and ~-~~u~in teat~thelry concernt and thai: she undecstands all the~e people need help expena~e loakinyttioc1eother~money~aourceseYbutdahetdid~nottthink~itn~houldYbe they a at the neighbo[r' ex~enae. Christine Kosko, 1148 Uutcigger Way, AnAnEiio, a resident ofrehub~litation~I stated th~[e is a probletn now without the influx of a drug center int~ ~he neighborhoad; that they havt~ had Eour break-ins in tt~e past year within a radius of six home~ and iC has cesulted in many residents puttiny in aecwrity systems, and their aseociation has t~ired secucity ta patrol the ace~a and they feel r~t this time they are r~ot safe in their ~wn neiyhbo~hood a~d feel introduci~g another elemer~t ~nto the neighborhood will create gr.eater pr~bl~:ms. She stated ~t~e is a diXect cecipient oE the noise from Martin Luther tio~pital with generatore rosed~to~this30equest~nd the noise level is really great. She stated che is opp Sabrina Goeller, Manayec of property at 1152 N. Mohican Way, stated she has 21 residential units and right nuw there are thCee mothF~ra of small infants and thece have been numerous times these motherD i~ave had to park mo~e than two blocks away; that she b~lieves ~amethiny needs to be dane about this problem with chemically de~endent people and she is supporL•ive ~~f that, but there is also a theory among young tnothers about the kidnappinq of childcen •~nd having to park two blocks away is vecy fcightening- especially fUr a mother carrXing dn infant; and that the neighbothood is nor that safe as it i~ now. She stated she would think Martin Luthec would be oppoc~ed to puttinq in a drug rehabilitation centec in that area becauae thece hnve been ~everal drug busts thete. Ann Hammershoi, owner of 1763 and 1745 W. Neighbors Street, presented ~,etitions with 334 bonafide siynatures against approval of the cond;tional uae permit repcesenting owners- alling&L-o evenathinknthatnsuchea planZwouldneven neighborhood; that it is app be considered in this family-oriented neiqhborhood; that it is awaa~e~o e that they only neigborhood that does not welcome more problems; that drug addicts do not improve ar;b eradicate the problems they already hat1;~t if they ace w~l] enough belong in a half-a~ay house in their neighborhoud; to minqle in normal society, they can return to their own neighborhoo~as and they sho~ld not be concentrateo in their midst; that deaieabatient justnasfew wi11 be difficult to attract to their units with this tYPaluea wi11 drop feet from their fr~nt doors and bedrooms; that property dramatica?.ly: that many ace amal'1 owners osal~~seunwarrant~d,punjustiend~~r their livelihood and they think this prop vecy real detrin~ent to theic nPighborhood. 7/22/8~i MINUT~S, ANAHGIM CITY k~LANNING COMMISSI(1N. JillY 22.. 1985 85-30~, Ma. Nammerahoi stated !t was her underatending that thia would not be a au~ervised nrea, particulacly at niqhtt and Paragraph No. 6 sta~es the petitioner indicates there is no resider~t sCaff. on the premisea. Sl,e stated they have enouyh police problems in the area and parking is a problem ~~nd tfiere have been aoma addicts in the area and they have tried to suppr,rt theic ha~iit by bceak-ins; that it has improved over the last year and they hope to improve it more becauae the uwnero are going to bund to~ethec even more tzghtly an~ tcy tu eradicate aom~ of theae prabl.ems. She sral•ed ahe feel~ this is a very poor place to tty to put a dcug rehabilitation c~nt~±r, right in the middle of tamiliea witl~ chi:dren. She stated iE the patiPnt had to go tt~~e hospital Eot help away from their own families, ,she c91d not underFStand why they shauld be planhed in thefr neiyhborhood. Mc. Belmont atated he wa~ not sure Al~ouk the squa[e .fc~otage of the unita. Eie 3Cated there i~ 24-hour su~~rvision and the indication in ch~ st:aff report means there are no emplayeE~~ living there, but th~~re will always be counselacs ttiere. tie otated they have lived up to atl aspc~ct.s of the agreemes~C of the conc]itionAl use permit granted four years ago fot th~ parking lot and the noise issue xs entirely different. He stated their power plant is on the west s~.de ot tt~E propert~y and they do their best to try to rceep it ar quiet as possible, but when there are emergency problems in the City, they must run thc~ emergency power and it makes noise. Mr. belmont stated they did no~ Anticipate the kind af concern expressed here today and they did qet the letters t~ the neiyhbor~ much too late And it appears they needEd more time to hav~ khe q~estions ~3nswer~~d and that was not done ana that was the I~ospitdl's error. He suggested a c~r.;;inuance ir. order to yivP them a ci~ance ko talk with the residents and, hope:fully, deal with ttieir concerns. Ne stated they are concerned about wliat happens to the neighburhood and will do evecything in their powec to work with them. THG PU6LIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairwaman La Claire stated she thought it was a very good idea to request the continuance. She stated substance abuse is her ffetd and she knows quite a bit about it, ana she understands t~ow these ~laces are run and al~o know~ th~~t the average person does not understand substance abuse, how it is treated or ~~ho the abuser ia or who becomes dependent on dcugs. She stated 1 out uf 10 Americans is an alco~iolic, and 1 ou~ 3 peof~le is affected by somebody who is abusing something and it is a very widesprpad problem and the abusers are people like all of us, and they are noL• th~ •skid row" type; that 43$ of the children abused a,re moles~ed by fathers or step-fathers, and ar,other 438 are molestzd by people they know. She stated she thought it is timc we faced the facts and s~arted talking and listening and learniny about these things. She added she is not saying that she is in favor oF tha.s particular facility in this particular plac~, ~ut d,id think it behooves everyone to learn m~~re about it and felt the continuance is appropriate so they can find out abnul :t. Conimissioner Herbst stated khere are several o£ these type places in Southern Califarnia and suggesteci that i£ a continuance is granted, the hospital locate those places and take sort:e people frem the neighborhood so they can visit the 7/22/85 MINUTES, ANANEIM CI2'Y PLANNING COMMISSION, Ju1Y 22, 1985 85-397 neighbochood and talk to the people living iii those neighborhoods ad;oining theae Eacilities. He stated this doea not mean that he is in favor of this particulax proje~t either, but he wanl•~d a~l the Eact~ on the t~blet that ther.e is a prublem in tha cammun~ty and nobudy wanta something like thi~ next to them, but th~ Cornmis~ion has to look aC all the f~cts and what is going to be good for the community. Ne ntated he feels ,some of the views expreased today are exaygerated because thece ase place~ with thie type uAe, and one is in Orange which wae the[e for ~bou~ 1-1/2 yeara before applying for u pe[mit and the neighbora did not even k~~ow they wece there. He stAted he thought if tt~ese neighbora atudy the issue, they may change their minds. Chairwoman I~a rlaire responded to questions from the audience that everyone was given an oE~portunity to speak befoce the tiearing was closed, and there wece aevecal people indicating from thN audi~nce that they did not gek l•heir chance to speak. ACTION: Commissioner Ery offered a m~tion, seconded by Commissioner McBUrney and MOTION CARRIEU that consideration ~f the atorementioned mbtter be continued to the regularly-sche~~led meeting ~~f Auguat 5, 1985, at the request of the petitioner. Commi~sfoner Herbst suqgested the hospital hire a sound engineec to l~ok into mufEliny the noise from the generatars beG~use it can be done very eEficiently and reasonably. Chairwo-nan La Claice pointed out any 1~!tt~rs can be uddcessed to L•he Commission as a whale or individually and explai~ed everyone will get an opportunity to spea;c at the next heAring. Ms. Hammershoi pcesented the petitions containing 335 eign~k~res. CommisEioner pouas painted out the petitinner requested a four-week continuance instead of two weeks. ACTIUN: Commissione[ itetbst changed his mution, sec;c!:ded by Commission~t de[bst and MUTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued ko the regularly-scheduled meeting of August 19, 1985, rathet than August 5, 1985. Kendra Morries, Assiatant Planner, explainr,.d no new notfces for the August 19th meeLin~~ will be mailed and interested p~rties can call the Pl.ar.ning Depa~tment to make s~~ce the rtiatter wi 11 be heard on tk:at date. Chairwoman La Claire stated regardless of whatevec statements she has made, that ahe tculy has not made up hes mind about this subject. Commissioner Herbsk explained in response to a statement made about notices that the City of Anaheim posts a notice on the property, one is publiahed in the newspaper and the residents within 300 feet are sent notices and the City is only obligated to do one but does all three, and that the people who live further than 300 feet away do nut get notices and people who rent do not get notic~s because they are sent ta the property owner. He stated the r~eigtibocs are 7/22/85 MINUT~S~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CUMMISSION~ JuIY 22~ 1985 85-398 ~reeont so they must have g~tten the noticea, so it m~~peare tlie nolices were pcoperly distcibuted. Ctiairwoman GaClaite atoted iE ~ny~ne wAnCs to contact any of the C~mmiesionera, they can ~o so through the City. RECESS: 4:13 p.m. R~;c:UNVE:N~ ; 4: 21 p. m. ITEM N0. 11. ~I~II N~CATIVF UECLAkATION~, AND VARIANCE NO. 3490. PU~LIC HkARING. OWNLRS: GAHINU K. GONZALES, 915 i•1. BroadwAy, Anaheim, CA 928U5. Subject property ia a cectanyulerly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approxim~~tely 6,675 ac~uare feet, having a frontAge oE a~proximAt~ly 50 Eeet ori the north side o~ Broadway, and further described as 915 West Droadway. Waiver of mi.nimum side yard setback to construct a room addition to an exisL•iny duplex. Ttiere was one peraon indicating I~er. F~reaence in oppc~3lrion r.o ~ubject [equest and eltliough the staff re~ort was not read, it is ceferred to and made a part ~f the minutes. Gabino Gonzales, owner, explAined he bouyht this property two yeArs ag~ ~nd it is a duplex with ane bedroom and a small kitchen, bnd he fixed up the garage Eor the rest ot th~ Family, but received a notice oE violation, and n~w wishes to construct an addition to the side of tt~e duplex. :~~e adde~3 he pl~ng to reconvect tl~e garages MaKian Hacvey, 212 S. Illinois, Anatieim, refecred to aketche~ she submitted earlier showiny her praperty faciny Illinois with the rear of her property across ttie alley n~~th vf the rear of the petitionec's lot. She stated they have had an on-goiny parkiny pcoblem with people using the alley for parking and she cannot enter. her garage. She stated she also has a carport or patio which is used to pack a second cac and the 25-foot rear section of her property wag only ar.quired 10 yeara ago fcom the prior owner and ik is vacant property, anr~ adjacent to that between her garage and patio there is a little space wt~ich allows her to drive her car in~a the garage ~c the carport. She stated they have an on-going communication problem because of the language barriec and the only concern she has technically doe~ nut deal with the expansion o£ the front section of their duplex, but wilh theic access to their patking area because she also has plans to build an the rea: of her pcopert}. She stated the petit.ioner's existing gaxage (20' x 20') is on the northeast cornec of their property which is right across from her vacant property and Gdjacent to their garage, they have a huge metal fence built on the property line and they cannot open the gate without driving onto her property. She atated ahe would not deny a n~i9hbor access to hi.s yard by driving across her propee~y, but when they park on her praperty so that ahe cannot get in and out of her garaga ar carpoct, she has to go over and have them move the vehicle. She stated when Chey were doing work on the property, there were a.lot of people using her property for parking and she frequently had to a~k 7/22/85 MINUT~S. ANAHEIM CI'~Y PLANNING CUMMISSION~ Ju~y 22. 1985 85-399 them to move the vehlclea. sha ~tntod if atie is granted permiastnn to build on her pro~,er~y, ahe did not want to build rigtit up ko her prap~rty line and will teAVe a turniny cadiua Lor the petiti.oner and herself and ahe felt building their fenc~e on khe propecty line wAS A diaserviae to her. 5he stated to het knowledye, both duplexeH are oc:cupied, in addition to tt~e liviny quatters in the garagP and ~hPre were tenants in the renr of. the home which created the duplex. Ms. Hacvey ~aked foc elaritieation ~~ ~;o what the petitioner is~ pcopooing, wondering if they are intending to uae the two-car yarage and reconvert it and tlien ad)acent to ~hat ~dd another 20 feet for A carpoct with a 1S-foot open space. Kendra Mc~r.cies, Assiatant Planner, atated Htaff is Aware that the applicant ia cur:rently illegally occu;ying the garage and that will be converted back to four enclosed ~,arking spaces, with the appco~•al of the Traffic Bngineer f.~r rc,ll-u~ doors and the applicant is aware that the garage area must br converted back And that is nut a part of today's application anci those four coverEd parkiny spaces And one open apace muGt be providec3. My. Narvey pointed out the width of the ailey varies at ~3, 16.5 and 20 feet and explained the alley wae improved and all Che property owners were asked to dedicake 3-.1/2 f~et And she did not c~edicatF 3-1/2 feet along her pcoperty where the patio is lc~cal•ed because it would have destroyed the patia. She added her only concer.n is the access and parkiny, but a coll-up door would help the situation, however, she would still question ttie turning radiuA into the second packing arEa, pointing oist there i~ only 16-1/2 feet between hec fence and the petiti~ner's property line. COMMISSIUNER FRY I.rPT THE MEETING AT 4:40 p.m. AND DID NOT. RETUttN. Mc. Gonzales stated Ms. Harvey has never talked to him about the ptoblems; khat st~e was right in stating t~er property was used far parkiny when t~e was fixing up the house Gecause several family members helped. He stated she told him that they could not park on --~er pcoperty and they did not pack there again. He regponded to Chairwoman La Claire that thE occupants of his properCy park in the back yard ar~d they can park 4 or 5 cars there. He explained he built a new fence from the garage r,o the praperty line with a gute and the gate opens toward L•he alley. He explained he will build a carport and will install khe roll-up garage door. Comrnissioner :~erbst stated from the plans suhmitted and the d~awing submitted by Ms. Eiarvey, he did not know how the Commission can approve this carport with only a 16.5-foot back-up space. Kendra Morries reepanded she has not seer~ the drawing Rubmitted by the oppusition, but the inf~rmation from the Engineering Department was th~t the 7/22/85 M~NUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINC COMMISSION Jul 22 1985 45-400 alley ia 20 feet wide. Commisaioner Herbst stated the drawing aubmitted by th~ o~pasition ahowR the alley at one location ie 13 feQt wide and ~9lcectly behind l•he petitioner's cACport, the alley ie 16.5 feet wide and '10 feet in othec ar~as. Ms. Morrie~ stated Chat will have to be verified. Jay 'ritue, Uffice Engineer, explained the properl•y owner of oubj~ct property has dedicated 10 feat on their eide. ~ommibaioner Nerbat ~ointed out the pet~tioner hae enown a 2U-foot alley directly behind his carport, but his. Harvey says it is only 16-1/2 Eeet so he cannot back hia car oul• without going onto her prope~ty. ~y Titu~ skated tt~e ulley t~as been dedicated to tt~e ultimAte l0 feet on the south ~ide, but not on the nor.th side. Ch~icwoman La Claire stAted there s~ems to be a discrepancy. Commissioner Herbst stated the City haa not ~Llowed n 16-1/2 back-up space. Mr. Gonzalea stated a lot of ~~kle park on ~h~ alley, but he does not park i~i the alley and no one who li, s on his prnpetty parks in the alley. He explained there ace four cars on t~is property. Commiasioner Messe bsked what Ma. Harvey is objecting to. Ms. Harvey responded she haa no problem with the addition, but wants to know how they will gain accesa to their parkiny because there have been ~arking problema and their friends do ~~ck in the alley and go ~nto subject property through a gate and she has called the C~olice more than once to have th~ cacs removed because Fhe cannot get out of her property. 5he stated the problem is the encroachment on hec property of their vehicles ta make the turn to come in and out of thQir pcaperty, and they misuse the privilege and have never ask to park there. Respond~ng to r.hairwoman La Claire, Mr. Gonzales stated the new addition will not increase the number oP people living on the property, and the peorle now living in the garage will be living in the addirion. ~omn:iasioner Herbst asked how far L•he carport will be frotn the alley. Mr. Gonzales could not answer that question. Commissioner Herbst statec the buildiny should be set back at least fiftf~en feet from the centerline of the alley; that the petitioner has dedicated 10 feet from the centerline of the alley and the garage structure should be back at least another 5 feet. Kendra Morries stated t•he Traffic ~ngineer did appr~ve the carports with roll-up garage doors predicated on a 20-foot back-up for the alley; however, based on the drawiny submitted by Mr. Gonzale~, it Appears that is n~t the case, so the 20-foot back-uQ space is even .less than the Traffic Engineer thought. She suggested a two-week continuance to get the measurements of the all.ey and verify through Traffic Engineering that the roll-up door is acceptable. Chafrwoman LaClaire asked if Mc. Gonzales would like a two-week continuance. Kendra Morries asked Mr. Gonzales to get in touch with the Planning Aepartment staff to revise the drawfngs. Mr, Gonzalea indicated he would like to liave the hearing after the i0th of August. 7/22/85 MINUTES ,_ANAHBIM CITY PLANNING COMMISuIONR Ju1~22. 1985 85-AU1 AC~~ 1_ pN: Commiseione~ Mc Bucney offered a motion, second~d by Commieaionex Messe a nd MOTIUN CT,RRI~D lC~mmiasloner Fry abeent) that conaidpration of the aforeme ntioned matter be continued to th~ regularly-echeduled moetinq of Auguat 1N, 1985, at thQ cequest of the petitioner. Chairwoman La Cla~ra explained n~~ new noticea will be sen~ regarding the contin ued meetiny. ITE;M NU. 12. EIR NEGATIVE UECI.ARATION ANU VARIANCE N0. 3502. YUBLIC H~ARING. OWNERS: MARGAKk~T JEAN LEVECKE~ 700 Nortl~ Helena St[eet~ Anahe i m, CA 52805. AG~NT: NORST J. SCNOR, 1200 N~rth Narbor Daulevfird, Anahe i m, CA 9'IHUI. Property described au a rectangula~ly-shaped parcel of land c on~ieting of approximately 16,737 aquare feet, located al the northeast corne r oE Wilhelmina Street and ilF:lena Stceet, unc! Eurther described as 700 North Nelena Street. Waive r s at; permitted encroachmen~s into cequired yards, maximum fence t~eight, and m i nimum side yard ~etback to permiC a playhouse ln the side yard and a dog [un i n the front yard. Commi ssioner Mc Bucney declared a Gonflict. of intere~t as defined by Anaheim Ciky Planning Commission Resalukio~ No. PC7G-157 adopting a Conf.lict of. Inter eat Code for the Planning Commi~sion and Governr~ent Code Section 3625, et seq., in that. he hbe a patQntial financiat inCecer~t in the outcome of thia prop o sal ar-d pursuant to khe proviaions oE the above Codes, declared to thc Chair rnan that he was withdrawinq from the hearing in connection with Variance No. 3 SU2- and would not take pacL in either the discussion or the voting there an and had not discussed this matter with any member of the Planning Comm i ssion. Thereupon Commi.seioner Mc Burney leEt the Council Chamber. There wece six pecaons indicating theic presence in opposition to subject reque st and although the staff report wss noC read, it is referred to and made a pa r t of the minutes. Hors t 5chor, agent, stated he wiZl be the first to a'mit chat if the cont r actor and architect on this project had done the ~esearch pcaper,y and comm.inicated with staff, tt~is hearing probably would r.ot be necFSSacy, but ~~w khey are faced with some exiating aituatione with a r:layhouse, a fencp and the dog r un . Mr. Schor stated they wish to present some pcoposals to mitigate the problems and corre some of things that were done. He present~d an exhibit ahowing the si.x-foot wall six feet within the 33-foot setback area and explained they pr~p oee to remove the upper three feet back to Che 33-foot setback area making the fence three feet high because the neigl~bor, Mr. Thom, complained that the fen c e was blocking his view of the neighbortiood. He explained the original play house waa constructed 10 feet away fcom the praperty li.ne and the addition is a ppsoximately 1'6' away from the property .line, and it is approximz~tely 10 or 12 feet high and they use it for storage of the bicycles and tays and as a play ho~ae and it will not be aa ~ahabitable facility. He stated they pzopose to r emove the upper cable roof and bring it down tc a minimum height within 7/22/85 MINUTE S. ANAN~IM CITY P~ANNING CGMMISSION, JulY 22~ 1985 85-A02 the setbACk area, end the ~acility would project no mace thon 1'10" which ie exactly thE projection that the neighbec ~regent:ly has for ~he metal carport awn~ng. Ne etated ttiey will conetruct the wall According to the City's ~ire Codes. He pointed out the carport awning is one Eoot away from the common proper ty tine. He statod they pr.imacily propose ttiis to meet th~e concerne of the ad joining ~coperty owner to provide air circulAki~n and the view that he previouoly en~oyed. Mr. Sc hor atated the last item of concern ie the doy run and he would agree chainlfnk Eenciny was not a yood choice f.or that neighborhood, but they would propos e to mitigate thAt with reconstruction using decorative wrought iron ai~~ also would propoce a very decorative wrought irun fence in the fxont yard in Eront of the doy run which would add to lhe screening, ~lua shrubbery ta be ~~lante d behind it. Ne referred to an exhibit showing the wrought iron and atated t~e thought it would be quite an enho:~cement to the neighborhood. Mr. S c hor stated in driviny the area, he found encro~chments into the 10-foot ae~ba c k area are quite common. Ne reEerred to garages, aviaries and a guest home w hich ace encro~ctiing and directly acrosa the street, there ia a gacagF encro a ching. He atated thz c_ei9hbor next door has the gara~~e and mptal awning encr~achiny . f3!11 Dxrlin, 727 N. Helena, stated the simple fack seems to him to be that the petiti~ner is ctianging the front yard into a back yards that when the houae was re modeled, a great uf ~ieal af efEo~t was put on an entrance on Wilhimenia Stree t and the reA1 fron' ~r~~nce is tielena Street. He stated there ia a ~rablem with the ~.~y '~ ~use it ie a very noisy dog and they should have it in the back yard. ,~ ~^' the agent did not mentioned the concrete pad th~~t h olds t` swing se~.. •ad if that is encroaching also. He stated thiL i s une c. :~naheim'a mo~t beautiEul street~ and there are 10 beautiful F~omes a::d us~:~g the f.runk yard of one as a bvck yerd is comaletely r]estroying his viQw. Joe White, 8U9 W. Broadway, explained he is representir~g A1 Thom who is cpniin ed and could not make it to the meeting; that Mr. Thom has lived in the house adjacent to subject pcoperty for about 30 years and everything was fine ~antil the contractor who had no regard for Anaheim'n Zoning or Building Codes did t his work next door with ~ 6-foot high wall ~~nich block~ Mr. Thom's view, and t he playhouse is moce than 2UU sq. ft. in siz~ ana Mr. Thom doesn't want to ha ve to l~ok ~t it. He stated the dog run ~s t~ctually a dog pen made of chain link fencir~g with a top and confines a very noisy dog; and also there are odors connected with the doy run and a clog run isn't permitted to any front yard setback and this is a be~iutiful netghborhood and *_hete haven't been viola tions unless they wece agreeable and in thie case, no one contacted Mr. Thom and he is a pretty easy old gentleman to get along with. He stated the property is not the hardship and the real hardship was created by the contr actor. He stated h~ felt the ceyuest should b~ denied because it could be co nsidered precedent setting. He stated the neighbors reaent something like a dog pen in the area and considec it A blight on the neighborhood And als~ the playground equipment on the concrete ala~ is not ~l~asing and he felt if th ey gotten together with theic neighbora, these ~:;" °gs could h~ve been atra i ghtened out. He added the contr~r,tor should be r•.'~ted from doing busin ess in Anaheim. 7/22/85 MINUTk•S~_ ANANEIM CSTY PLANNIN~i CUMMIBSION~ JulY 2~ 198~+ __ 85-403 John Sh~a, 640 N. Helena, at~ted he want8 to be on record thak t~e~ totally concurs with the opposition. Mr. Schoc ~~tated the only prscedent oetting natur~ oE the propasal ig the [econatruct~c~n end retention of tho dog run, and many oE thp neighbocs da enjoy an encro~chment of the l0-foot setbeck. TH~ PUBLIC NEARING WAS (:LUSED. Malcolm S1~'+ucat~ter, De~uty City Attorney, asked l•hat the exhihit ~?reaented be left with staEf ac ~~art. of the cecord. The Commiesion reviewed the exhibit and Mr. Sclior fuxther explained thelr pro~csal to mitigate the exiating ~roblems. THE pU9LIC H~ARING WAS RE-OPENED. Joe White ataGed the pr~per~y is 1G,737 sq. ft. and he felt aurely there is some other place to put th~ cjog run thAn in tt,e Eront yArd. Mc. St~Pa stated he ia concerneci abouC the huge concreke slab with the swings ~n it and did not think it b~longs in the front yard ~ithpr. He staCed tie ha~ a daughter-in-law with two boxers and she is very interested in the outcome of this ;~earing b~cause shE feel~ she would like to do tt~e same thing. J~e White pointed oul• the varf.ance does not take into considera~ion the d~g h~use which i~ located about six feet from the stceet. TFik: PUEiLIC HEARING WAS CLOSEO. Commissioner. BQUas asked why these thin~;~ .:annot be mov~d ta the teac becauae there is plenty of property. Mr. Scho~ •..~ted khe back yard han been set asidP for the pool which they plan to cr~nsrruct within the next two years. Commiss.i.oner Bouas stated maybe they ao not have room far a pool and they have to make a decision whether to have a pool oc a place for the ahildren to play and a place for the dag. Mr. Schoc atated they have submilted a p.lan ta the City which shows the future pool a[ea and plans have been devel~aed fo~ thz pvol. Commissioner Bouas stated she knoc~ "~ ~s a lar.ge family and they do need these things, but nertainly the dog li~ the fcont yacd is not the answer and the contractor certainly n~ade ~ mistake, and they will h~ve to sit dawn with the neighbors and work the whole thing out to keep harmony i^ =hP neighborhood and keep the neighborhood lookiny the way it does. ~he adc:~. 3 qarage encroachir~g in the 1G-foot setback acea is a lot different than a dug run constructed of chainlink fencing. Mr. Schoc stated they would agree and the chainlink fence will be gone in any event. 7!22/85 MINUT~S, ~NANBIM CITY PLANNING CUMMISSION, JUlY 22. 19a5 ____ 85-404 Comm.taeioner Necl~et stdted he was by the pcope[ty thie morning an~ w~s appalled at itr+ ~undition and wikh what they are rrying to d~. Ne stated A variance is usu~lly o.k., 1E it d~esn't harm the neiyhborhood and these var~ances are damaging to the neighborhoods that making the modif.icationb to the ~lay houae will make it arceptable, but he will never grant A variance for a dc~g run in the Cront y~cd. He added a vAKlance goea with the property, ~nd he thought a vaciance of this type would r.ertAinly set a precedent. He stated impraving the dog run will not geC iC away Ecom the neighbocs and they say it fs ~ very no~sy dog cauaing them problems day and night. He atated with th~ aize oE the propecty, a hardship cannot be juatified. Commissiuner ~ouas ~tated ehe thought the awing aet is aloo a problem. Mr. Schor s~ated once the wrought iron fence is consttucted and l•he lAndscapiny completed, the whole appearAnce will be changed ~nd it will be an aaset, but riyht naw it i~n't. Commissioner Meose ~scer~~ined that the play acea concreke ~ad is new, and was done by the present contractor. Ch~irwoman La C'laire stated the primary concern seems to be the dog run and the other concern is the fence L•hat is intcuding on Mr. Thom's aide; however, t~~e si.deyard sekback has been used by ather people so she did not see any hprm with t,he playt~~use. ACTIUN: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mesae and MU'1'ION CARRIED that ttie Anaheim City Pla~ning Commission has reviewed the prupusal to permit a playhouse in ttie side yacd and a dog run in the fronC yard with waivers of permitted encroachmenta into required yards, maximum fence height and minimum aide yard aeL-back on a rec:tangulacly-shaped purcet of land cansisting of approximately iG,737 square feet, located at the northeast corner of Wilhelmina Street and Halena Street, and further described as 700 North Helena 5treet; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it ha~ considered the Negative Ueclar.ation together with any comments received du~iny the public review process and further finding on the basis af the Initial Stu~y and any cumments received that there is no substantial evidence that the ~roject will have a siqnificant effect on the enviconment. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC85-178 and moved fcr its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planni.ng Commiasion does hereby grant variance No. 3502, in part, denying waivecs (a) and (b) on the basis that there are no special ciccumstances applicab.le to the property s;uch as sf2e, shape, topography, location and surroundings which do not appl;~ to other identically zoned property in the sa~a vicinity; and that stri~:t apglication of th~ Zoning Code does not deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zo~~e and classification in the vicinity; and grantiny waivex (c) to allow the playhouse ~ubject to a revision as shown by the applicant to remove the gat".ed roof and instal~ a flat roc~f on the basis that stcict applicat;on af the Zoning Code deprives the pcopeety of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classi~;icati.on fn the v~cinity and subject to Interdepartmental Commfttee recommendatinns. 7/22/85 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITX PLANNING CUMMISSION, JulY 22, 1985 85-405 On rull call, the EorQyoing rQSOlution was paASeA by the followiny vote: AY~S: BGUAS~ HERBST~ LA C~AIRE~ LAWICKI~ M~SSE NOES: NONE A~SENT: FRY~ MC BURNEY M~lcolm Slaught~r, Ueputy C1ty Attarn~y, preaented the wr.itten right to appeal the Planning Coa~mi~sion's decision within 22 days to the City Cou~cil. ITEM NU. 13. EIR NEGATIV~ DECLARA'r10N, RECLASSIFT(:ATIUN N0. 84-85-43, AND VARIANC~ N0. 34~9. PU~L'!C !!EARINC. QWNERS: LUCION W., JR., ANA BARHARA H. MXI.ES, 3609 W. Suvanns Street, Anaheim, CA ~2aU4 and Ri)BERT Z. ANU l.INpA L. AUAZR, 3613 W. 5avanna Str~et, Anaheim, Ch 92004 and JAM~S A. AND KAZ'!lLF.GN ANN PICKEiART, 3621 W. Savann~~ Stceet, Anahelm, CA. Propezty described aa an irregularly- shaped parcel of land consiating of approximately l.if, acrea, having a frontage of approximately 243 feet on the north ~ide of Sav~~na Street, and turther ~escribe~ as 3609, 3613 and 3621 We~k Savanna Stre~r.. Rer~a~aiEic~tion from ~S-A-43,ODU to RM-12Q0. waiver of rnaximum structural heiyh~ to cor~stri.ict a 45-un.it anartment complex. T.fier.e were thtee persons indacatiny kheir presence in opposition to subject rec~uest and althouyh the stafE rep,rt was not cead, it ia reEerred ko and made a p~rt o~ the minutes. ~red Har.tman, ag~nt, explained they have been wocki~g on this projecl foc several mo~thb And are awace that some of the n~ighbors are op~osed to the pro,posal but wanted Zo poin` out that in the p3st this prUperty was designated Ear a tiigher. density than they are proposing and their proposal aplita the difference between whak the designation used to be and what it is noa; that the majority ~f property owners on Savanna wece instrumental in changing the zoning and are in Eavor of the propos~l and the opposition that may 5e forthcoming may be from ~ropecty owners in the acea who per.haps do not live on 5avanna. Kendra ~arries, Assi.atant Planner, explained page 13e cf the staff report was omitted when the ceporks M~ere duplicated but has now been passed out. Mary 6ater, b7QZ Savanna, stated they ace vecy much oppased to this project and that they woul~ be happy with any project developed along the same lines as the candominiums ; that Savanna is a dead end street approximatety 1400 feet lony and tre north side is approximately 508 developed and aouth side unly `.a~ r.wo apartment projects and this would open up the whole area to that much density and the tr~ffic cauld not be carried on r.he ~ead end street. She st~,ted she wd~ concerned that if there was a big fire such as recently occurred in fialdwin Park, the residents would have no way out. Art Stahovich, 805 Ramblewood Drive, stated he owns property at 3639 Savanna, at the snd af the street, and he had it recently rezoned for eight units and 7/22/85 MINUTES, ANAHti1M CITY ~LANNING CUMMISSION, JulY 22. 1985 8~6 aince 1977, thQ 7coperty w~s zoned for RM-2400 ~nd he thought ~his would bQ giving just a few property owners the beneEitsj and thet Savanna is a long narrow atreet and thia would increASe the tcaffi.c and seL a precedentt And that the othec pcoperty owners who have develo~ed their proper.ties, abided by the RMw24U0 requirementa. He added t~e was alao concernod about acceas in case of Eire. Mr. Narttnan stated ~hey are gning to be required to add another 12 feet to the atceet to make an ul.tima~~e wi~tti of 64 Leet and the problema with the fire that oacurred yeara ayo was tha~ the atreet was narrow. He stated also for emecgency purposes, the street r,1»t goes south from Savanna and ends with a cul de sac tr~dt goes inro an Apactment project haa a very loonely constructed tyNe of wall which could be used in case of emecgency. TNE PUBLIC NEARING WAS CLOSEU. Commissioner Nerbst tttated he w~uld agree with the oppoaition; thAC there have been several public heatings on S~vanria Sl•reet ~egardiny density and the street, ~rainage~ e~c. werN discussedt ~nd since the adoption of the GenerAl Plan, the Commie~ion hag not deviated tirom it primaclly because it is a 3ma11 siceet and a project of this Eize would aet a precedent. He added khe General Plan was adapted based on the desires oi' the property ownersr that other develapers has beer- reyuired to develop with the 18-units per acre guideline and that is neceseacy becauss th° street is not adequate. He stated after denyiny other property owner~, he could not vote Eor appraval of this requeat. Chairwoman La Claire stated the property could be rezoned to RM-2400. Commiasioner Nerbst asked ~f the petitioner would li~e a continuance to revise the plans. Mc. yartman ~sked if the Commissian is wan~ing him to request a Genecal Plan Amendment, and Commis~ioner Herbst responded he ie a~ggesting that the General Plan [emain RM-24U0, and he did nat think he would even consider an amendment bec~uae the streets and drainaye in the area cannot stand this kind of density. He stated ~very develapet that comes in usually researches past actions of the Commission and will request tt~e same thing. Mr. Hartman asked if the Commission would give any ~~onsideration to the wishes of the property ownecs ~n the street. Commissioner Herbst stated services would also have to be provided for any project and there have been publir. hearings in the past and denials to other propecty owners. Kendra Morries responded to Chairwoman La Clair~ that the net density i~ 31.25 dwelliny units per net acre. She atated the statement the applicant made that the request would be foc 7 units over the allowable is misleading because the request is for 7 units less than would be permitted if the Planniilg Commission granted the RM-1200 zoning, and based on the Genetal Plan deaignation of low-medium and the zoniny at RM-2400, they could ~copose a maximum of approximately 26 units. Ml~ich is 19 units over wha~ the GFneral Plan designation allows. 7!22/85 MINUT~S. ANAFIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMIS6ION, JulY 22, 1985 85-407 Chairwoman La Claire po±ntrd out the past actions of ~he Plann~ng commi88io~ in the staff repor~ ~nd atated iC the net deneity of this project wae approved at 31.25, thp cloaest paet actiona to that would be 21.0 per Acre. Kpndr~ Morries pointed out those li~ted with denRities at 22, 23 and 24 are based on RM-2400 zoning with a General Plan designation oE medium deneity, and all the pro~ects on Savanna, whettier they were bePore the Genecal Plan Amendme~t or aftec, have conformed with the General Plan in eff~ct at that timer and that the only propertiea that wece granted medium denaity approvals wece towards the end oi the street neac Knutt, and the bulk of the properties on both the north and south side of 5avanna have been and still are bound to low medium at 18 units to Che acre. Chaic~oman La Claire stated in response to the petitioner's queation cegarding tt~e ~~st~t~s of• the other property owneca on the stceet, the Commission Eeels and ielt then that the problertis with traffic, dratnaye, a cul de sac and acGes~ d~d limit the area Co what was approved on the Genecal Plan, and in n~dition, there were a lot of people who wanted it that way at khe time. 'tesponding to Commiasioner Herbat regardinq a conCinuance to rede~ign the plan, htr. Hartman stated they would requeat a contin~aance to Augu3t l9, 1985. Kendra Morries Btated staff would like for the petitioner to c~ntact hec or the Planning Department staff to schedule a revi~w of the revised plans ak an interdepartroental Cammittee meeting. ACTION: Commissioner Herb~t oftered a motinn, .,eco~ded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIEU (Cammissioner Fry absent) thAt consideration of the afocementioned matCer be continued ak the regularly-scheduled meeting of August 19, 1985, at the request of: the pztitioner in order to submit revised plans. CUMMISSIONER LAWICKI L~FT THE MF.~TING AT 5:4U p.m. AND DID NOT RETURN. A propecty owner at ~63U Savanna Street stated that every one aho has undeveloped property there no~ is in favor of the highec density, and other property owners are ~resent to make a s~atement to ~hat effect. Chairwoman La Claire explained the property owners will be given an oppoctunity ta speak at the contir,ued hearing on August 19, 19A5. ITEM NO. l4. EiR NEGATIVE llECLARATION (Prev. Appr.oved) ANU CONDITIONAL UuE P~RMIT N0. 1858 (Readv~[tisen) PUBLIC HEARING - TIME EXT~NSIAN: OWNERS; UTTIS E. PI'TTMAN, 1401 N. Jefferson Street, Anaheim, CA 42807. Property described as a rectangularty-shaped parcel of land consiating of approximately 5.0 acres, having a fzontage of approximatel.y 256 feet on the west side of Je€fersan Street, and further described as 14U1 North Jeffecson Street. Request for approval of a 5-yeer (2-year retcoactive) extension of time or deletion of Condition No. 12 of P.esolution No. PC78-~26 pertaining to required extensiona oE time to retain a cat kenne2 and maintenance and slorage yard for heavy equipment. 7/22/85 ~ n, w~ MINUTEB. 1-NAHEIM CITY PLANNING COHMISSION, JulY 22, 1985 85-408 ACTIUN: Commisaion~er 9~uas o[feced a motion, seconded by Commieaioner Mc Burney and MnT7~N CARRIED (Commiesioners Pry And Lawicki Abaent) that considerntion oL khe aforsmentioned matter be continued to the regulerly- scheduled meeting of Auguat 1~, 1985, i~ order for etdfE to make a field investfgation to detecmine if conditions imposed by Conditiondl Use Pecmit No. 1858 are being complied With. ITEM N0. 15. EIk NEr,ATIVE DF,CLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2090. PUBLIC HEARING,. OWNFRi: H1-RvEX OWE;N, 11051 Nunting H~,r~, Santa Ana, CA 9275U. Pcoperty deaccik~ed as a rectangularly-ehAped parcel of land consieting of approximately 0.9 acre, having a frontage of apptaximately 175 fpet on the eaet side of KraemPt ooulevard, and further described as 1160 N. Kraemer Boulevard (Oscar'a). ACTIUN: Cammisaione[ H~~rbet offPred Resolutior, No. PC85-179 and moved Eor ita passage and adoption that the Ar~aheim City Planning Commiasion does hereby grant a 1-year. (1-month retro2~ctive) extension of time foc Conditional Uae Permit No. 2090 on the basis that eaid permit ie being exe~cised in << mannPr not detrimental to the particul~r areA and surrounding land uses, noc to the public ~eace, hc~aith, safety and general wetfare. On call call, the for~egoing cesolution was passed by the following vote: AY~S: BOUAS~ tiERB:~T, LA CLAIR~, MESSF, MC BURNEY NOES: NONF ABS~;NT: FRY~ LAWICKI Malcolm Slaughter, I~eputy City Attorney, presented the written right t~ appeal the Planning Commis,;i~n's deci.sion within 22 days to the City Cauncil. AllJOURNMENT: Commissioner Herbst offerecl a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mc Burney and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Fry and Lawicki abaent) that the meeting be a~ijourned. The meeting wae adjourn~d al 5:45 p.m. Submitted by, ~A' ~ ~ . a,~. Edith L. Harris, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission f0125m 7/22/85