The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1985/08/19w .. i :~ti a~ • . REGULAR MEETING OF TNE ANANEIM CLTY PLANNING C(:MMIuSiON REGULAR MEETING The regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called ~o order by Chaicwoman I.a Claire at 10:00 a.m., August 19, 1985, in the Council Chambec, a quocum being present, and the Commisaion reviewed ~lans of the itema on r,oday's agenda. RECESS: 11:30 a.in. RECONVENED: 1:30 ~.m. PRESENT Chuirwoman: La Claire Commiasionera: Bouas, Fry, Herbst, Lawicki, Mc Burney, Mease Ak~S~NT: Commission~r: None AI.5U P~tL•'SENT Annika Santblahti Malcolm Slaughter Jay Titue Paul Singec Dav~ Bergman Kendra Mocries Edith Harcis Assistant Director tor Zoning D~puty City Attocney OfEice Engineer Ci,ty TraEfic En4lneer Fire tnspector Asaistant Planner Planning Commission Secretary APPRUVAL UE MINUTES: Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by ~ommiasioner E~ouas and MOT'ION CARRIED (Commissioner Messe abataining) that the minutes of the meeting of August 5, 1985, be appcoved aubject to a cocrection on Page 85-414 changiny Commissionec Herbst's afEirmative vote on Variance No. 3486 to a negative vote. ITEM NU. 1. ~iR NEGATIVE DECi.ARATiON AND CONllITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2697 PUBLIC FIEARING. OWNERS: APF CENTER, ATTN: JACK HOROWiTZ, P. 0. Box 27163~ Los Angeles, CA 9U027. Property described as an ireegularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of. approximately 4.1 acres located at tht southwe~t corner of orangethorpe Avenue and Placentia Avenue, and furthec described a~ 1631 North Placentia Avenue; Units A, B, G, O, P, F<. To retain five automobile cepair and automotive related businesses in the ML 2one. Continued Fr~m the meetings of ~iune .10, 24, July 8, 22, and August 5, 1985. It was noted the apglicant was not present ~nd this mutter was trailed until the end of the meeting. FULLOWING ITBM N0. 16, TH~ FOLL4WING DISCUSSION AND ACTLON WERE TAKEN: &5-437 8/19/85 ;: ;_ „:~ MINUTES. ANAHEIM CLTY PLANNING COMMIS5ION, AUGUST 19. 1;85 8~-438. Commissioner Herbet atated he goes by thia pcopert•y everyday and it appears the whole block ia in vi~lation of the industrial ordinance and all the buildinys ere commercial and 1t is ju~t not this partlcular use. Fle stated thie use for automobile Kepai[ and autotnot:ve related buainesses is probably moce induatrially-celated thAn a lot of the other uses that ace exiating. Chairwoman La Claire stated che felt the petitione~ should he pcesent to answec the questions. Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, stated part of lhe problem ia that the conditional use permit is for 5 di~tinct uses and the petitior.er tias been advi~ed ik wauld Ncobably be better to prc~cess zach one individually and the people who are directly aEfected with the uses are lumped togethec by tF~e person who haa filed the pecmit. He stated I~e would recommend that aeparate applications be filed and that the people direct:y involved may not know l•hat. the hearing is proceeding and it would affecl the rights of those people not here. He stated he though~ it would be appropriate to notify the okher S businesses involved. Commissioner Fry stated fcam the practical standpoint, the automotive shop shnuld not be in this location. Chairwoman La Claire suggested a contir-uance for 2-weeks in ocder to notify each person involved. ACTIUN: Cort~misbioner Fry oELered a motion, seconded by Commisaioner Herbst and MOTt~N CARRIED tCommissionec McBurney absent) that consideration oE the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of September 16, 1985~ in order for the applicant to be pre~ent. ITEM N0. 2. EIR NEGATIVE UECLARATtON, WAIVEK OF COUE REQUIR~MENT AND _.r..~- CQNUITONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2700 PUHLIC HEARING. OWNERS: KENNETH W. At~D DAWN i~. MATNEY., 1380 Knollwood Circle, Anaheim, CA 92801. AGENT: CFIAP.LES S'I'E;I~I, 2231 Vista Huerta, Newport 8each, CA 9266U. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 2.14 acres, having a fcontage of appcoximately 48 feet at the norrheasterly terminus of Knollwood Circle, and i~srther described as 138U Knollwood Circle (INTERCEM?. Waiver of minimum number of packing spaces to retain the manufacturing and storage of liquid and powder chemicals, including pet~oleum and petroleum based products. Continued from the meeting of June 24, 1985. There was no one indicating theic pcesence in opposition to subject cequest and although the staff report was not read, it is referred ro and made a part of the minutea. Charles Stp3.n, agent, vice-presfdent of intercem, stated this busineas has been in operation in Anaheim since 1974 and they wish to asa~re the Cammission that it is their intention to be good nQighbars and to be good manufacturers and be in tota~ compliance with all governmental agenciea involved. He stated it has been his job to coordinate with these agencies and he has been assured 8/19,~85 MZNUTES~ ANANEiM CITY PLANNING CQMMLSSLQN. AUGUST 19. 1985 85-a39 within the last two weeks that they are in compliance and f~~vocnble commenta have t>een made about tli~~ic method oE operation and theic operatian is a model wikhin the induatr,y. KQnneth W. Matney, preaiaenG/owner uf in~ercem Corp., atated the chemicals industry ia very clocely re~~ui:~~..~-d by c3uite a numt~et ot ditfe~ent -~ovrrnmental ayencieo, incluciing ttie FnvironmentAl Protection AgEncy, Orange C~unty Health Ue~artment, Uran~e County Sanitation uistrict, Anahr.im Eire Uepartment, Drug Enforcement Agencies, City Zoniny and Planniny De~artment, Niyhw~y Patcol and pepart•nent oE Tranaportation. He added they have done their t~est to follow the guidelines as closely as po~sible an~l with the permits requir~~d, there ace caun~lesa inspectioris. Mr. Matney stated ttiey I~a~e made rame imE~rov~ments r.~ try and atay ahead ot u~cuming ce~~ulationat chaL• they have entirely replared their ~aphr~lt yard oE almost l acre with G-to-l2-incties of conccete and they hav. diked the entire perimeter ot the ~.~rciperty to ensuce tl~at no ct~emicals will le~~k ur c'ischarge trom the ~remises; and that the Orange Count; Sanitation DiEtrict has worked cloaely with them an t~ow to atnre chemicats and pret'ent a~cidental api.llage or leakage into rhe sewer systein. He explained the Traffic Engineer has reccmmendPd 24 parking spaces and they will pcovide t.hat number; and tt:at ~i~ey have a~,proximatPly 16 employees and they clo nat have a lot oE traffic. Ne stated they are in the process uf ineeting all the conditions. He explained one ot the ce~;uirements is to paint the Eire lane and the lane has been p[ovided, but has not yet been pa~ntcd, but thak will be dane. Ne stateo the,y are a chemical manufa~•~.uring company wt~ich basic:ally tnanufactures cleaniny compounds fnr o~hpr customers for ~istribution under their labels. He stated the ma~~rity oE theic products are ~~or~-hazardous and non-taxic and included rug shampoos, car shampoos, glas~ and winc::~w cleaners, powdered laundry detergent, liquid detergent~, kitchen chemicals auch as dishwashiny compounds, oven cleaners, etc~ He staked they ~9~~ have producta tt~ey consider hazardous suc1~ as heavy duky steam cleanecs, paint removers, carbucetor cleaners, etc., and those do involv~ using haza[dous chemicals in their manufacture; however, the finished product dues not exhibit as hazac~ous characteristics as ~he raw m~terial. He stated the entire yard has separation walls and berms to separate ~ne type of chemical from anothez and in the event of accidental discharge or spillage~ they woulcJ not entangle with onE another. He stated ~he Fice Uepartment has asked them to store their flammable chemicals in a particular area designed to mi;~imize the chance of any pcoblem. TtiE PUBLI(: HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst recerred to the recent fire at the Fricker Company ahere a lot of people were evacuated and asked iE there wece any hazacdous materials at this facility which would require evacuation in case of fire. Mr. Matney stated this operatian is completely diffecent th~n the Fricker Company~ that the Friclcer Con~any wa~s mainly involved in pesticides ur agric~ltural chemicals, many of ~ hazardous nature, and also when they intermix they can release different kinds of products. 8/19/85 MiNUTES. ANAHEiM CTTY PLANNIN~ CUMMISSION. AUGUST l9~ 1985 85-A4U Res~onding ta Commi.ssionec Herbet as to w hQther or not people would have to be evacueted if thece wag e fire, Dave B~cgman, l~ire inepector, explained there is always a possibility thAt the same thing could occur, but the raw producte at thia facllity are ~:otally different so ttie por~Aibility is very renote. tte at~ted the Fire DeE>arCment kPele comfocta Dle a~ich what they have at this f~cility. He atated th~ building is totally apcinklered and tl~e area ia diY,ed and thPy do not E~el a fira co~ild g~t to ~ point to create ~uch a situation causing evacuation. Chaicwoman Ga Cl.aice Asked what h~ppenH t o runuf.C water when it rains, becauae the enti~e yacd ia cemented and dikeci. Mr. Matney ex~lained Cheir Uperatiny Plan s d~scribe~ what must be done in the event of rain and ataL•ed the yard is aeparated into three diEferent areas and ttiey all collect th~ rain waCer and b~Eore ~t can be diacharged, it has to Le tested, ~na ~ny rain water allowed into Ct~r sturtn drain cannot contain chenica.ls. Eie added it i~ possible therE cou1~9 be a gceater amount of rain that could possibly overElow Lhe dikea, but that they did work with the Or.anqe County Sanitation pistcict and, according to history, they have mure Chan ei.ough capacity to . ontain the watei Chairwoman La Claire stated she is vecy c oncerned about pcotectton oE the under9round water cupply. Mr. Matnay stated they are monitored regularly by ktie Urange c:uunty Sanitation Districk and thny do monitor them on-site and occasionall,y open their clarifiFr syste m which is where their water is cJischarged and they sample the water and also open the man-hole covers down the street and sample thak water. He sugge4ted the Cit; should work cloaely with the Orange Co:lnty Sanitation District to possibty muni`.or facilitie~ such as this to prevent other ~ompanies or people involved in ch~mir,al manutacturing or any chemical invol~~~men c from contaminatina the water. Chair.woman La Claire stated tt~ere are eir_eneive reports and most o:f the question~ have been answered. C~mmi~sloner McBurney stated he has besn satisfied from the ceport$ and information from the varioua agencies, and he felt the se~aration between the Qroduc:.s and the way it is kep~ in the cor~fines of the property is quite acceptable. Commisaioner Mctiurney ~L•ated ataff would like Condition No. 7 changed to read: 'That as required by the Anaheim Fire Department, a masonry block wall st~all be con~tructed and permanently maintained for the purpose of cunfining all flammable matecials stored outside the bullding. The height and location shall be aaproved by the ~~re Uepartment•. Mr. Matney stated they feel that condition ah~oulu ,lefinitely be inclucied. ,ACTION: C~runissioner McBurney offered a motion, se~~nded by .,um~~,issioner Fry and MOZ'ION CARRiED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission nas reviewed the proposal tA retain the man~facr_ucing and stocage of liquid and powder chemicals, including petrcleum and petr cleum based products, with waiver of minimum number of p~rking spaces on an irre~gularly-shaped parcel o.f land consisti.ng ~Y ap~~roximately 2.14 acre~s, having z fcontage of approximately 48 Peet on the ~tartheaarerly terminus uf Kaollwooc. .._ 'e and further dencribed as 138~ Knoll~+ood Circlej and ciaes hereby approve the Negative Declaration 8/19/85 ~ 's MINUTE_5_, ANAH~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSTUN, AUGUST 19. 1995 85-441 upon finding that it has canai.deced the Negat:ive Declaration r-~qether with any commentR receiveci during the public review procesa anc~ Eurt1• flnding on the basie of Che tnilial Study and any comments receivod thdt there is no aubatcntial Pvidence that the pcoject will haue a significant effect on the environmont. Commis$ioner Mcburr~ey offercU a motion, seconde~ l,y rammifisic,ner. Bnuas and MuTLUN C~:RRi~D that Che Anaheim City Pl~nning Commiasion doea hereby gcant waiver ot Code reyuiremen:. on the basis that the parking waiver will not cause an incceASe in tcaffic conyestion in the i.mmediate vicinity nor adver,ely aEfect any adjoininy land urtes ~nd granting of the pArkiny waivec under the conditions imE~c~sed, i£ eny, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, stafety and yeneral welfare of the citizenr of the C:ity of Anaheim. Commisaioner McBurney ofEeced Reaolution No. PC85-191 and moved Cor its passaye and adopCinn ttia~ the Anaheim City Planning Commission doe~ hereby yrant Co~~ditionul Use Permit No. 2700 pursuant t~ Anaheim Municip.~l Code aections 1~.U3.03U.030 through 18.03.03U.035 and subject Co Interdepartment..l Committee recummEndations including the mod.ification to Condikion No. 7. Un roll call, the Foreg~i~g resolution was passed by the Eollowing vote: AYF•.S: f30UAS, E'FtY~ HEkLiST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKL, MC BURNEY, MESSE NUES: NUN~; ABSENT: NUNE Malcoltti Slaughtec, Uep~rty City Attorney, presented ttie written right to appeal the P1Anniny Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. iTEM_N0~_3. ~IR NEGI',TIVE DECLARATIUN AND CUNUITInNAL USE PERMIT N0. 2706 PUbGIC HE1IRI~JG. OWNERS: KINNEY E'AMiGY 'PRUST, JOHN El. AND [DA KATHERiNE KINNEY, P. U. 9ox 2473, Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92U67. Properky described as an irregularly-shapeu parcel oE land consisting of approximately 0.5 ~cre located at khe sauthwest corner of Winston Road and Anaheim Boulevard, and further c~scribed as lUU W. Winston Road (Anaheim Nissan). To pecmit a truck sa.les and storage facility, ~ontinued fcom the meeting oY July 22, 1985. There was no one indicating their prese:~ce in c~position to subject request and although thE staff report was not read, it f~ referrec. to and made a part of the minutes. ~ Tom Turnec, Ta~ and Associate~, Civil be modified to eliminate the words "or intent to continue to maintain and use ~ueling facilities. Engineers, as{:ed that Condition No. 7 removeii" because ft is the applicant's the existing storage tanks and gasoline Kencira Morries, AssisL-ant Planner, stated staff would like that condition left as is, so the Fire Marshall can have the option of cequiriny maintenance oE the tanks ta the Uniform Pire Code if the~+ aze to be used or in the event the tanks cease to be used, he can requ:re they be cemoved in compliance with the Fire Codes. - 8/19/8S MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANN I NC COMMISSiON AUGUST 19 1~)85 95-442 Malcalm Sleughte~, peputy C ity Atl•ocney, au~39estNd adding after the word "removed', "it the tanks ar e no longec being used"~ so t17at the Pire Marshall can c~quice them ~a he main tAined if they ace being naed or removed iE they are not beinq used. TH~ PUBLI(. t1EARiNG WA5 CLO5~U. Kesnonding to Chairwoman La Claice, Mc. 'Pucner stated the tankE and dispenserK are being used to Euel the petitioner's own vet~icles. Reaponding to Commissionec McBurney, Maureen Bigyler, F3usiness ManAger of Anaheim Nissan, explained t hey have a 5-y~ar lease ~d a 5-year option and expecL• to be at that locac i on for at least LU years. ACTION: Commiasioner FCy ofEered A motion. c~econded by Cammissioner He[ba!: and MO'PIOt~ c:ARRLED that the Anaheim City Planning c:ommission has reviewed the proposal to permit a truck ealec~ and stocage Eacility on An :r.r~gularly-shaped pbrcel of land consiating c~t approxirt~at~±ly U.5 acre locaced at the southwest corner of Winston Road and Anat~eim Boulevard ancl fu~ther desccibed as 2100 West Winston koadt and doe s hereby approve the yative Declaration upon finding Chat it has consid ered the rlegaGive Declaration together with any comments reccived duri~; t he public ceview proceas and furthec findir.g un lhe baais oE the Initial St~~d y and ~ny comments received that khece is no substantial evidence that the pcoject will have a aignificant ef£~~t on the environment. Comm~ssionec Fry offered Rea~lution No. PCBti-192 and mov~d Eor its passage and adoption that ~he Anaheim CLty ['lanning Commission does herr_hy grant Conditional Use Permit No _ 27U6 purEUant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.G3U.U30 throuytti 18.03.03U.U35 and subjeck to tnterdepartmental Committee recotnmendations. Un roll call, the toregoi ziy cesolu~i.on wa~ passed by the foilowing vote: AYES: BOUAS~ ~RYr HERFSST, LA CLAIREr LAWICKI, MC BURNE~~ M~SSE NOES: NONE Af~SENT: NONti: Malcolm S1AUghter, Deput y Ci.ty Attorney, presented the written right to apQeal the Planning Commiasion' s decision within 22 days to the City Councit. IT~M NU. 4. EIR NEGATIV E UECLARATLUN~ YJAiVER OF CODE REQUiREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 2709 PUBLIC HEARIt~G. UWN~;RS: MARTiN LUTHER HUSPITAL, T.NC., 1830 W. Romneya D[ive, Anaheim, CA 928U3. AGENT: RC:BERT A. MICKELS(3N, P. 4• RUX 2303, Orange, CA 9266y. Property dssccibed as a rectanyularly-sl~aped parcel roximatelyn72Afeet af approximately 7,560 scauare Eee~, having a fcontage of app on the north ai'~- of Ne i ghboca 5treet, appcoximately 200 feet east of the centerline of Unondago a.venue, and further described aa 1817 West Neiyhbors Avenue. 8/19/8S MI~'UTES, ANAHEIM C:TY PLANNLNC COMMISSION AUGUST 19 1985 85-443 Waiver of reyuired locatfon oE parking apaces to permir a$ocial rehabilitation center foc chemt.cal dep~ndency in the RM-120U (Reaidential, Multiple-Family) 2ane. c'a~tinuad Erom the meeting uf ~uly 2"l, 1~85. There WNCP. nine persons in~icating their pre~ence in opp~sition to subject request and althouyh tho staff report w~s not reAd, it is referced to and mnde a part oE the minutes. Lar-y J~cobs, Program Director for Di~covery Recovery, Martin Luthec Hospital, ex~lained the,y have cequeated a cuntinuance because ti~ey -~,,vn invired the nei9hbors to come and meet with them; th~~t they t»d two meet~.nys, one of the 5th and one on lt~e 6tt~ and that no one attended the meeting uf the 5th, but on the the Gth, there was a yood representation from owners in L•he area, but only a few tenants were ~cesent and they wanted mare time to go back to the ~eople an N~igtti~or~ SCCeet anci encourage them ~o come to another meeting wt~ich wili be held on the 2~th. tfe explained they were natiffed of that meeting laati Friday. Gene Sprink, ownec oE an apartment complex at 1828 West Glen, statQd he did not know anytY~ing about the meeting; however, he did meet. at rhe hospital, with Mr. Jim ~arley and Uon M:.rphy and yot inEormation about other areas where thrse rype f~cilities are cated. He stated he got the addres~es of thotte facilities and li~ted all o: them and t~as pictures with meps to present to the Commis~ion. Ne explained hs felt the other facilities were mostly commerc:[al areas and he thou9ht wr~at they are trying to do doc~ not fit in with the South Coast Counseling criteria. Commissioner Fry suggested the picluces and maps be presented at the nPxt ~,ublic hearing. Chairwoman La Claire suggesled the information be submittQd to the Planniny DepartmPnt to be included with the Commisaioner's packets for that public hearing. Commissioner McBurney suggested because of the length of the agenda on September 4th, that this matter should be continued to the 16th which would give the hospital amp1E time to meet with the neighbors. ACTIUN: Commissioner McBurney offered a rnotiun, ~econded by Commissioner Messe and MOTIQN CARRIEU that consideration of the aforer:ntioned matter be continued to t~ie regulacly-acheduled meFting of Septeml,er 16, 19t35, at the r~quest of L•he petitioner. Chairwc~mAr~ La Claice suggesLed the neighbocs call tt~e Ptanning Departnent on the I6th to make surE the matter is going to be heard on that date. ITEM NQ. 5. EIR yt.:ATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 349a PUBLIC HEARING. U~~NERS: GABINO R. GONZALES, 915 W. E3roadway, Anaheim, CA 92bJ5. subject property is a rectangularly-st~aped parcel of land consisting of approximarely 6,675 square feet, having a fronkage of approximately SO feet on th~ north si.ds of F3roadway, and further desccil~~d as 915 West Broadwe!. 8!19/85 _ ... . . . _ . . ..... ...-~,» i MINUT~S, ANANEIM CITY PLANNiNG CUMMIS&ZON. AUGUST lh, 1965 85-444 Weivet of minimum side yard ~etbech to conatruct a room a~dition to an exi~ting duplex. Continued Lrom ttie meeting uE July 22, 1985. Thece was one pcr.son indicating his presence in oppoaition to subjecL• request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and mnde a part of. the minutes. Cabino Gonza.lea, owner, wax present to anawec any yuestions. Marie Harvey, 212 S. :llinoi~, stated she i~ not opposed to the expansion of the residence, but to the question oP packing access. 5he stated ap~arenlly 4 parking spaces are being approved instead of the required 5. Chairwoman La Cla.ire stated it was thought the garage had 2 parking apacea, but it only has one and tr~e number of F~ackinq spaces haa been rhanged to 4. r~s. tlarvey stated she has no oppo~ition to the 4 packiny spacea. She stated tne staff rep~ct indicated the exiating 6-fo~t hiyh ~ence is wood, but it is really metal, and asked if it will be removeci enabling them to get acce3s into the carports. Kendra Morcies explained the ap~licant I~as been informed until the addition is made and the additional carport and apen spacP are provided on-site, the tenants must open the gate and put the vetiicles on the property, rathec than parking them in the alley and whe~ the new parking spaces ace developed, the gate will be pQrmanently remaved. Ms. Harvey stated when the large gate is ~pen, it does block the a11ey completely and it is frequently left open denying access to the alley to other residents in the area. She asked if thece ace any additional variaaces being cequested since there is one les., paxking space being pcovidec3. Kendra Morries stated 4 parking spaces were required at the time the 2 units were built, so it confo[med to khe CodQ and no waiver is required. Ms. Hacvey asked i: there is ra requi[ed setback for the carports -- when the fen~:e is down and he ic ~sing the carport and open space f~r 3 of the 4 parlcing spaces, can he park riqht to the property line. Kendra Morries stated parking spaces are requiceci to have a back-up erea of 25 £eet and the plans show a proposed back-up of 20 fAet right now and st~e thought Commission would probably require the parkiny to b2 mo~ed southecly 5 feet to provide for the full l5-foot back-up area. Mr. Gonzales indicated he did not have anything to add. THE PUBLiC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairwoman La Cl.aire stated she can understand ~1s. Hacvey's problem and it is a narrow alley, and she thought a comprami.se would be to move the carport parking spaces back 5 feet ~outh to provide a iarger turning radius and also the Eence removed so the people will not park outside that fence and will be forced to park inside the carpoct. S/J 9/85 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITX PLANNINC COMM[SSLON, AUGUST ;9,~ 1985 85-445 Mr. Gonzales atnted he would mave the carN.rt bdck 5 feet, but Chat the fence is his ~[otection Ecom vandaliam or theft. GommieaLoner Fry atated khe Commission is reatly concerned with the gate And would like it removed wher- the carport is built and a fence can be constructed there. He srated the carport shou.ld be moved 5 feet aouth ot what is nhown on thQ submltten plans. Commiasinner Lvwicki stated the pr~blem is the type of gate which pratrudes into the alley ,~~~ suygested maybe a sliding yate ae an option. Mr. ~~onzales 3tated he is ~lanning to put in a sliding gaL•e. Chairwoman La Claite stat~~d she did not think u slidiny gate ~ild wock because Chat would elimin~te the parking. Kendra Marriea stu~ed it miqht be more a~propriate to cequire car~orts witt~ doora if the petitioner is concerned with his security. She str~ted ttie petitioner. can construct 3 enclosed carports if he desLres. ~ommisaionec Messe sugge~ted an overtiead dooc on l•he c~rports. Mr. Gonzales stated the patio is un the rear of. the house dnd he bu'lt a bar on the pati.o and that is w~ere they spend moat of their time and he is worcied abaut the security. k~e staCed all the yarage doors open onto the alley in that neighbnrhoo~ and t~is is a 1Lttle wider and maybe he could modlfy it. He noted a per3on has to get out of. the car to open the garage and during that pe-:od of time, the alley is blocked. Comtnissioner Hecbst sugyesked overhead doors. Commias:one~ Fry stated the petitioner could put in overt~ead doors And move the carpoct t~ack to help alleviate the probl.em af the ~oor opening into the alley. Mc. Gonzales stated the door will not open i~to the ~lley. ACTION: Commissioner Fcy offered a motion, seconde~ ~y Commissioner Bouas ~nd MOTIUN CARRIED that Lhe Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to constr~ct a coom addition to an existing duplex with waivec of minimum side~ard setback on a rec~~angulacly-shaped pa[cel of land cAnsistiny of appcoximately 6,675 squarE feet, having a frontage of approximat.ely 50 feet on :he north side of Broadway, and furthec deacribed as 915 West Broadway; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding t~at it hail considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public ceview process and Eurther fii~~ing on the basis ~f the initial Study and any comments r~ceived that th~~re is no substantial evidence that the ~ project will have a signi.ficant effect on the environu~ent. Cotmnisaioner Fry offered Resolution No. PC85-193 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does I~ereby grant Variance Na. 3498 on the basis that thQre are special circumstances applicable to the property such as sizr, shape, topography, location and surroundings which do not apply tu other identically zoned property in the same vicinity; and that strict applicatian of the Zoning Code de~rives the pccperty o~ privileges enjo,yed by other propecties in the identicai zone and classification i.n the vicinity and subject to rhe pet~tionet's stipulation at the public hearing to 8/:~9/85 1': MINUTESf ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CUMMI6SZON, AU_r,US~t 19, 1985 85-446 move thF proposed cacport 5 foet south oE t}:e ahown location to provide a lar9Pr turn~ng radius and aubject to inL•erdepartmental Committee r~commendationA. Un roll cell, the foregoing reaolution wAn passed by the follawing vote: AYBS: ~OUAS~ FitY, H£RBST~ LA CLAik~, LAWICKI, MC BURI~EY~ MESSE NUES: NON~ AbSENT: NONE Malcolm Slaughter, DEputy Ci.ty Attorney, ~resented the written righc. to appeal the Plannin9 Commission'o decixion wlthin 22 days to the City Council. THE h'ULLUWLNG ITEM WA5 HEARU AT '1'H~ dEGINNiNG UF' 'PHE MEETiNG. ITEM N0. 6. EIR NEGATIVE; UECLARATjON, RE;Ci.,ASSIFLCATLUN N0. 94-85-43, RND VARIANCE N0. 3499 PUBLIC HEARiNG. OWNERS: LUCIUN W.~ JR., AND f3ARBARA Ei. MYLES~ 3609 W, Savanna Street, Anaheim, CA 92804 and RUd~RT 2. AND [,INDA L. ADAIR, 3613 W. Savanna at[eet, Anaheim, CA 92804 and JAME5 A. AND KATHLEEN ANN PI~KHART, 362~ W. Savanna Street, Ar~aheim, CA. Property desaribed as an irregularly- shaped ~>arcel of land consisr.ing of ..~pproximately 1.7G acres, having a frontage of appcoximately 243 feet O~. the north sicle of Savanna Streel, and fu:tt~er des~ribed as 3G09, 3613 and 3621 Wesk Savanna Street. Reclassifica:~..~n from RS-A-43,OU0 to RM-12U0. Waiver uF inaximum ~~tructural height to conatruct a 45-unit aparCment complex. Cantinued fcom the ieet~ng of July 22, 1985. ACTION: Commissiontr Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARit[ED t~at consideration of tt~e afocementioned matter be continued to the regilarly-s^heduled rr,eetiny of September 16, 1985, at the request of the petiti~~..~~ in order Co submit revfsed plans. ITEM N0. 7. EIR NEGATiVE DECLARATION ANU CONDITIONAL USE PERMtiT N0. 270? PUE3LIC H~;ARING. UWNERS: FRANK H. GRELNKE, lOll Laguna Road, P.~. eox 1.207. Tustin, CA 92680. AGENT: FLUKENTINU MATA, JR., 214 W. La Palma Avenue, Rnaheim, CA 92801. Property desccibed as a rectanyularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.6 acre :ocated at the southwe~t cnrner of Urangefaic Lane and Raymond Avenue, 1431 North Raymond Avenue. To permik an auto repair shop in an exis~ing ~ervice station. Continuea from the meeting ~f August 5, 1985. There was no one indicating ~heir presenae in opposition to subject request and althc~ugh the staf.~ report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of tt~e minutes. 8/19/85 $5-447 MINUTES ANAH~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSLbN AUGUST 19 1985 Ploronl•ino Muca, petitio~ier, atated the op~ueltion ar the last meeting pectained to the pcoperty having wrecked cara parked an it an~ additional traFfic and indicted he bcought pictures of the location in tull operation. He ekate.d th~~ number of vehicles at t~ie ~acility ~~ould be o to 8 per day and n~ted th1~~ ~~ an induatrial area wit.h many induatries which have lArge fleeta of tcuck. and hundceds af emplayees who dcive vehicle4 and noted the traffic aeems t~ be moviny amoothly on the stceeta and he di.d not think the additional 6 or 7~;ara w~uld co-~tribute ~o the problem. Mr. ~•-ata stated automotive repair is permitted as r~n acceasory use in a ~r vice st~tion wich a conditional use permit and read the li.et of permitted r~:~airs, indicating t~is o~eration will be less than allowed as an accessory use at a nervice station. Frank Greinke, ~wner., ~_f.~~lained his ~on who opetates the aervice stati~n, met with the adjacent pro~ecty owner and to his knowledye there was no objection to tt~e proposed plans. He stated he would be concerned with proposed Condition Nos. 1 and 2 pertaining to closing the driveways; that when they ~,urchased the property i~ ha~i been An abandoned servi~e station and they have improved iG into a very viable bueiney~ which generates in excess of ~1,000 per monCh in sales tax revenues to trie City of Anaheim. He stated the driveways are neceasary for the. existing opscation because of the large truck trafPic and !-~e felt it is necessary to sepArute the cars from Che targe trucks on site. THE PUk~LIC HEP~RING WAS GLOSED. Commissioner Bouas asked about the diesel spill.age, noting thece ha3 been a ~roblem in the past. Mr. Greinke atated he did his best to resolve t.hat Qcoblem by install.iny some retenti.on tanks; thak occasionally in fueling the large tcuck and tr~iler rig~, the ~ozzle sometimes will not shut off and there is a small a~~ount af spillaye and the tenants were washing th~ c~~iveway down in the past, but ha~ve since learned they shoul~9 be swept; and that if there should be an aciditionai pr.oblem witt- spillage of m~re than just a bu':~ble or two, theKe are retention tanks which would hold any of the diesel fuel, which is then pumped and takPn back to l•he cefine~y. He stated to hi.s knowledge there is no problem. He stated thxs is a large fuel station wit'~i heavy diesel usage. Respcnd:ny to Chaicwoman La Claire, Mr. Greinke state~ the nozzlea shut off when th~ tank is fuli, cr if on~ pops out of the L•ank, on impact it will shut ^ff automatically. Commissioner Messe asked how the northecly driveway vn Ocangefair hel.~a the traEfic flow. Mr. Grexnke stated regular truck customers normally c~~me in a certain wa1~, but not all customers are regulars and thPy will come in L•he other way and those coming into the station fra^~ Raymon~, he~din~ out across Orangefair, would use that driveway. ;missioner Ery stated he would agree with not closi~g the drivewzys in this tance, becaus.. cloaing them would ~reate a traffic t,zard. 8!19/85 MINU7'ES, ANAN~TM CITY P~ANNING CUMMISSION~ AUGUST 19. 1985 ,~ 85-448 Mr. GcE:.nke stated lacge trucke do intimidate driver-~ ir- cars, sa ~hey try to ~eparate cars Erom trucka. Cornmissioner Mceurrapy lett the meeting at 2:40 P.m. -nd did not return. Commiasioner Messe claritied the dieael fuel i~~ only sold on the we~~t eide. Chairwoman La Ciatre staked it has been noticed 4here are eome problama with tratfic in the area and asked what the owner would suggest to reeolve those pr~~blema. Con~missioner Fry nointed out that on Frida,y or Satuc~ay lant week there were ~.wo rigs fueling at the station, one headed south and o~~e hcadi.ng n~~rth and the one headed south had the renr ~crtion of the r.AnY. aticking out over the cucb which restri.cted khe flow of trafEic o~ Orangefair, and there ~~as a truck and trailer par-;ed along the north sidr_ of Uran~~fwir, which he assumed was wr~iting to yet in to refuel, and thal cr~~~~ted a C~emendous t[affic hazacd. Mr. Greinke stated the,y have installed hig~; speed ~~umps. He stated one uf their problems i~ khat tt~i~ is a s~icces3ful operakion. tt~ st~ted the[e is a lot of seasonal trafFic right now because it i~ h~rvesl• kime and these trucks are on their way to the plant, so tt~ere is a larger amount af traffic than normal; t~owev~r, the drivers are ~aid by the load and want to get in and out as fast as possible. tie stated he is not at the etatior, everyday, but is awace ot the problem. He stated this wa3 a closed service station which the,y have turned into a successful vi.able bu.:ineas. Chaicwoman 1.a ~laire asked iE access can De limi'.ed to one way in and one wa~ out. Mr. Greinke stated they have one way traffi.c and he did not think tt~at was ever viol.a~ed. Fle stated normally truck dri'ers have ~ language of thefr own and they do trai~ other dxivers to u3e tt~e most efficirnk access; huwever, it is designed so t.he; will come in one way off Urangefair and go our the other way. He stated he was not aware that was a prc~blem, but that they can reatripe the access and put up additional signs. Commissioner Fr,y stated he waa mosr. concecned with th,e problem of $tacking on a public stceet and su9gested th•t curb be painted red and it waa noted that is in front of the Laura Scudder property. ~ommissioner Fry stated a lr~rge rig parked on th~t north side blocks half the street. Mr. ~~einke stated they do not feel this operation f~-' an automobile cepair business will exF~and or increase the prc " em and this operatio~ will be providing a service for the people who a, already in the area. He stated they have 24 haur fueliny at this station and they try to encourage trucks to fu21 later at night. Responding to Commissi~net Lawicki, Mr. Greinke stated the improvements to prevent overflow were installed about 1 week or 10 days ago. CommisEio::ec LawicY.i pointed out that on the 12th of this ~n~nth, large quantities of spillage occurced at this location into the guttecs and streets an~ that is a repeated occurcence. Chairwoman La Claire suggested the owner take a strongec stand and guarantee the operatian will be overseen by ham or someone since it appears that the 8/].9% 85 MLNUZ`ES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNLNG COMM1SSiUN, AUGUST 19, 1y85__ 85-449 ma~agpr hae nor ~eally been manay~ng it and this ~etitioner wants to aome in with a legitimr+te buEiness sn~1 ch~~ Comrt~iasion wu~ta tiim t~ have A buaineas, but there are all these uther prublems, a~nd the Commiseion needs Assurance that this situal-ion will be co;~trolled. Mr. Greinke str~ted there will be char~yer~ made after today= that they are a large compAny and take pride in their ~peration and this }~aE certainly goGten hi5 attentian and asgured the Commi~sion there will br a chAnge in attitude or a chanye in managem~nC in the atakion in the near future ancl Chat the problems will be [esolved. ACTIUN: Commissioner Fry ofEered a motion, seconded by Ccmmissianer Buuds and MU~riUN CARkiED (C~mmissioner McAurney abaent) that the Anaheim City Planniiig Commissicn t~as reviNwed ~he proposal to permit an automobzle r.ep~i.r shop in an exiatiny ~ervice stntion on a_ectangularly-shaped parcel of land consiating ot apC~roximately 0.68 acre iocated at the soutl~west carner of Orangefair La~e and kaymond Avenue and fucther described as 1431 North Raymond Avenue; and doe~ l~ereby appcove the Neyative Deelacation upon finding thaL tt has considered ~he Negative Declaration t~>yether with any camments rece~ ~~ durin~~ th~ publir. revi,ew proc~~ss and further finding on the :,a:~is of the Inltinl Study and any comments received that there is no sub~r.anti.al evidence that th~ prnject will have a si.;niEicant eftect on the environment. Commissi~ner Fry offprPd Reaolution No. PC85-194 and moved foc its ~asr~ge and adoption that lhe Anaheim City Planniny Commission does t~ereby yr~t~t Conditional Use Fermir. No. 27U7 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Ccde Sections 18.U3.U30.U30 through 1E;.U3.U3U.U35 and subjec:t ta TnterdPpartmental Committee recommendationa, eliminatiny Conditions 1 and 2. ~ay Titus, OFfice ~ngineec, suyyested if th~? Commissi.on doea not ~equire closing the dciveways, they shoul~i requi.re a lacgPc turning rudius to get the vehicles ~ff the street. Commissio~er Fry stated ther~ is room for only 2 rigs on the ~ropezty and Nutting in a larg~er cadius will nat help that situation, and he did not thir.k the cars have ~~ problem getting in and out, so he would eliminate Con~itiona 1 a~:d 2. ChaiiWOman I,a Cla~rz pointed out Lhat h~r vutc: in favor of this request is basEd on the own~r's $tipulati~n t~ see that the problems are re:olved and she thouyht the other ~ommissioners' favorable votes will be based cn the same assurance. On ro11 call, the ~regoing resolution was passed by the Eollowing vote: AY~S: BOUAS, E'KY, HERi35T, LA CLAIRB, ~.AWiCKI, MESSE NOES: N~ JE ABSENT: MC BURNEY Malcolm Slaughtec, Deput.y Cicy ,~ttorney, presented thE: written right to appeal the Planniny Commissior.'s decisiun within 22 days to the City Council. Mc. Greinke steted he appreciated the Commission's cc+nsidecakion and will do anythiny he can to improve ~he situati,on and they will bP berter citizens than they have b~~n in the past. 8/19/85 MINUTBS. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMiSSiON, AUGUST 19, 1985 ___ 85-4 0 RGCE55ED; 2:51 p.m. RECANVEN~D; 3:U2 p.m. i4'B N0. 8. Eik NEGATZVE UECLI~RATTON ANR VARIANCE N0. 35Q1 PUBLIC HEAt2ING. OWN~RS: WILLIAM A. MONRUE AND PATRiCiA E. MONRO~~ 41l Easl Uld Lincoln Avonue, Anaheim, CA 9~D05. Propecty ~escribed as a cecCangularly-ahaped parcel of la;~d consisting oE approximar.ely 0.50 acre, 1655 South Euclid Street. Waivere of maximum structural heigt~~ ~ent ta single-fan~ily zoning and minimum landscaped setback adjacent to Uingle-family zoning to constr~ct ~ one-storY, commercial retail complex. Continuad fcom the meeting af Auyust 5, 1985. 'i'here was no one indicating their presence in ~~~position to subject request and although the atafF report was not read, iC is referred ~o and made a part of the minutee. C'7mmissioner Lawicki declared a conilict of interest ar~ stated at the Auguat 5th meet,ing. tie left the meetiny at 3:05 p.m. Phi1 Manroe, agent, explained the property where the petitianer's cucrent facility is located aas purchased by thr Ftedevelo~ment Agency and Liiey have been given a notice 'o vacate wh:ch has expired and they are tr;~ir,g to save Che reniainder of the :,uainess and relocate to this location. TH6 PuBLZC HEARtNG WAS CLOSED. Commissioner HerbBt stated the applicant t~as ~one what khe Commicsion has tequested and with the landac~ping proposed, he did not see any pcoblem with the proposal. p,(._~TION; Commissioner ~lerbst offered a motion, Eeconded by Commios:oner Ery - and MUTIUN CAYiR'[ED (Commissioners Lawicki and McSurney absent) that the Anahei:n City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to conatruct a 1^story conunercidl Ket~' 1 center with waivecs of maximum struetural height ac'.jacent to single-£amily zone, and minimum landscaped cFtback adjacent to sing.le-fami~y zoning on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of dpproximately 0.5U acre, having a frontage of approximakely 125 feet on the west side of Euclid S~reet and further described as 1655 9outh Eucl:d St.reet; and does hereby approve the Negative beclacation upon finding tt~~t it has considered the Negative DecLuration together ++ith any commenta received during the public revie~r process and furi.~ec finding on the basis of the initial Study and any cammentr~ ceceived that there is no subskar,tial evidence that the project will have a signxficant effect on the environment. CommisAioner Fry Resolution !~o. PCB~-195 and moved for its paasagP and ado~tion that the Anaheim City Planning Conunission daes hereby grant Variance ~ No. 35U1 on the basiE that there are specfal circumstances applicable to the propecty s~uch as size, shape, topogtaphy, lacation and surroundings which do not apply to other identically zooed property in the K~me vicinity; and that 6/15/85 _ . __ _..:.~ MINUT~ ES. ANAHEx.,~M C~Ty p... LANNZNG COMMlSSiON AUGUST 19 1985 85-4SL atrict applicetion of the Zoning Code deprives khe pcoperty o~ privilege~ enjoyed by other properties in the identical °~nE and classificakion in the vicinity and $ubject to interdepactmentnl Committee recommendations. Un roll ca?1, tho foregoing resolution was pasaed by the following vote: AXCS: BUUAS~ FRY, HERBST~ LA CLAtkE, M~:SSE NUES: NONE ABSENT: 4AWICKt ~ t1CBUF2NF~Y Malcolm 5lauyhCer, Deputy City Attorney, presenteu the written right to appeal the Planning Commiseion'II deci~ion within 22 days to the Citv Council. Commissioner Lawicki retucned t.o the meeting. TNE EOLLOWING ITEM WAS HEARD A`r THE BEGINNING GF THE MEETING. ITEM NU. 9. ~IR NO. 259 (PKEVIOUSI,Y CERTiFIED) AND RECLASSIFICATION N0. 85-86-3 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: D 6 D DEVELOPM.°,NT, 11008 Norwalk BoulevaCd, Santa Fe Springs, CA 9(i670, A'PTN: CAMILLF. COURTNEY. PtopeCty described as an irregulacly-shaped parcel uf land con3ssting of approximately 7.5 acre~, having a frontage of appr~r.i.mately 513 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, approximately 1,340 feet east of the centerline of Rio Vista Street.. RS-A-43,U00 to RM-3000 or a le3s inte~~se zone to construct a 99-~anit, RM-30U0 - condomir-ium subdivision. ACTION: Commissioner E3ouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBUrney and MOTLUN CA.RRIED thak consideration of the aforemention~d matter be continued to the reyularly-scheduled meeting of September 4, 1985, at ~he r.equest of the p2titioner. THE FOLLOWING ITEM WAS HEARD AT TFIE BEGiNNING OF THE MEETiNG. ITEM NO. lU. ~.IR NEGATIVE DECLARATif)N, WAIVER OF' CUDE REQUIREMENT ANA CONDITit~NAL USE PERMIT N0. 2694 PUBLIC HEARING. C~WNERS: FR::DERICK Z. AND MAURI~E ZIEGL£R, 98&9 Santa Monica Boulevard~ Beverly Hills, CA 90212. AvENT: COLDWELL BANKER, 21U0 West Orangewood Avenue, Suite 10p~ Orange, CA 92668, ATTN: JAMES KEANE. Property desccibed as a rectangula:ly-sh3pe~ parcel of land cansisting of Approximately 3.1 acres locaked at the southeask cocnec of Miralema Avenue and Red Gum Street, 128C and 12y0 North Red Guc~ Street and 2970 East Miraloma Avenue. To permit an automobile bod;~ and detail 3hop in an existing industrial complex with waiver ~f minimum number of parking spaces. ACTION: C'~.smmissioner Bouas ofEeced a motion, seconded by Commis~ioner McHurney ~nd MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the afarementioned mattec be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting oE September 4, 1985, in order for the petiti~ner. to submit tevised plans. 8/19/85 .wy MINUTES ANAN~IM ~ZTY PC~ANNING CpMMiSbIUN~AUGU:~~ 19, 1985 ~, _ 85-452 IZ'E~M NU. 11. EIR N~GATIVE UECLARATIUN ANU CONDI'TIUNAL U5E PERMiT N0. 2711 E'UF3LtC HEAKT,hG. OWNERS: DUNN PROPERTIES COKPORATION~ ATTN: RAY Ch:~MAK OR ANUY SCttUTZ, 28 Brookhollow Drive, ;AnCA Ana, CA 92705. Property deacribed as a rectanyularly-ohaped pArcel oi land conuisting of Approximately 9.33 acrea located at the nortt-east cornec of La Palma Avenue And Kellogg Drive. To per.mit an industriAlly-related office cumplex in the ML(5C3 Zone. There was rio one indicatiny theic presenc~ in ~pposition to subject. requeat and althu<<yh the ataff report wa~ nol• read, it is cef.erced to and made a par.t of the minutes. kay Ch~rmak, Uunn Properti~s, explr~ined thi~ regueat is similar and almoat identical in nature to Conditional Uae Pecmit No. 266q which was recently approved Lor another applicant by the City Council on June 25th. He stated the only isgue is the request f~r a~proval of a list of industrially-ce?.ated uses whicti would allow them a gteater measure oE marketing Elexibility than havin~ to undergo the normal procedure where eacl~ use is process~~d through tha Planning Commission which is very time consuming. tle ~tdted tliis llst oE pr~t~used uses !s essentially the se~me as the one approved for Condi~tional Use Permit No. 266U and because of the similarities of the two applica~ions, hp would not present the arguments againo and stated they are n~t requesting anythiny moce than what was gcanted in that instance. ~tr. Chermak Etated they will accept all the conditions pro~osed with a clarification of Condition No. 2 which deals with installation of sidewalk.s on Kell~gg U[ive. He explained they have reyuested waivers of sidewalks for ooth La Palma and Kellogy, but wece told because of the foot traffic on La Palma, they would tiave to install those sidewalks, ~o they have a current requeut for wai~~er of sidewalks jus~ on Kell~yg. He stated tt~ey `~~1 since no other properties have sidewalks on Kelloyg and it may be sometirne before they a[e a~tually required, that it would be more beneficial to have additiona:~ ~andscaping. John Flocken, Chairman of the Industcial Development Board, stated they are opposed to this request because they view this pcoject as a commercial development with spec buildings and it does not conEorm with the Board's goals and objectives as outli~ed by Lhe City Council and as outlined by thp memorandum of goals and policies regarding industcial development for the City of Anaheim. He stated this doesn't permit the t~ighe~st and best use cf industrial land and is an attempt to put up a commercial develupment in an industrial zone. He stated it is believed that an amendment to Title 18 should be given vecy seri4us considecation and the specific 1Lst of uses shou~d be looked at very closely by the City Council and should be revised because it is toa restrictive and should t~ave a bro~de[ scope; an~ that commercial development should nok be ~ermitted until there is ~ revision to tlie General Plan. Mc. Checmak stated he respects Mr. Flocken's concern regarding commercial businesses in the industrial area, however, they are not requesting such a broad list ~f uaes that would all~w any sales typ~ businesses into the area and are only asking for these type uses which are industrially-related and by 8/1~/85 MINUTEu ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CUMMLSSION AUGUST 19 1985 85-453 giviny thRm a apeaific list, it allows the oppoctunity oti apesdiny up the proceas and reducing the amount. of time required by stnff And the Commission to review the projects nnd they are not attempting to ah~rt circuit the ayatem. TF~~ PUBLIC N~ARING WAS CLOS[;D. Commissioner NerbaL- stated there Are 3 buildings with 102,000 square .Eeet of oftice space and only one industrlal L•uilding providiny 53,983 ~quare feet oE industrial sNace. Mr. Checmak stated buildinga 2 and 3 could be accupied by an induatrial-type u~er auch as research And development for an electconic company, computere, etc. Commiasianer Nerbat ~tated it bot.hers him that the petitioner obtained permlti: tn constr~~ct indusrrial buildings, but actually built office buildir~gst and that this is prime induutrial land and they have bullt ofEiceH flnd ure now coming in and reyuesting appcoval nE a liat oE uses. D1~. Chermak p~inted out khose uses un the list witt~ aaterfsks arN permitted under the curcent zr~niny codes. Kendra Morries, Asaist•ant Plannec, ex~lained r.he tist supplied by the petiticner, as shown in ParayC~~ph lA oi the staft report, was compared w~kh a lis~ submitted by CCbF in Paragra~h 17, and there a~re anly 5 use3 included in this gr~posal which wece not included nn tliat li~t submitted by CC6F and approved by the City Council. Mc. Chermak added their i.nterpretation oE l•hE 5 uses is that the,y are very definitely industcially-oriented and if the Commission doe~ not agree, they would be willing to cemove those 5 uaes. Cotnmissic~ner try stated this is an office building on an indust~ially-zoned propecty and he t~ae not changed his mind about the uses. Malcolm Slauyhter, Assistant Deputy A~torney, stated he would just make a comment that the CC:sF proposal approved by the City Council recer-t:ly does not relate to this reyu~st at a11. Commissioner tlprbst atated it appears that the area from Tustin to Zmperial has been designated by the property owners for ofEice uaes, but this is prime in.dustrial propecty and he doE~s not like to see an applicant apply for an industrial building and havti it turn out to be three-quarters office building with a small industcial site because there is still a lot of vacant land to be developed and every pcopecty owner wants this Cype of devel~pment because :.t does increase the psoperty values, but it does not cceate the jobs which tt:e City needs. He Etated there are plans for more of' these type pro~ects 1n that same area and he would yuestion how many R&D sites are needed in the City of Anaheim. He added approval af this will delete the need for offices dow~ntown and tt-.is land is industrial and should remain as industrial. Chairwpman L~ Claire stated :n the near futuce it will be very difficult to find indus~rial pcopecty and the Commission has tried very hard ta keep the industrial land by denying these cequests, but it aeems to be a losing battle because of the encroachmente of commercial and coRanercial office into this z4ne. She stated all kinda of industry is needed here anci this is not truly research and ~~velopment such as the Hughes facitity which is truly res~arch 8/19/8~ .. ,,. a MxNUTES. ANANLIM CITY PLANNING I:OMMi5Si0N, AUGU;T 19. 1985 95-454 e~nci devolopment. Sho btated 1E we are going ~o have commercidl oEfices in the industr.idl zone then a Cenerel Plaii AmendmenC should be ~roceas~d. She etoted she feels for all the r~tt~er citixens of Anuheim, the Commiasion ahould try to pcotect the induatrial bas~ becaurte it has braught money and jobs into the area. Commissioner Hecbst stated I~e wauld have nu problem with certai.n usea in this area, but a list like tt~ia is juat too b~oad and Che property owners Are tryi.ng to aay ~hat they will control the eitu~ti~n and keep them kotally industrially-orienteri, but he thought, as a landlord, they will lense the property to whoev~r comes in ~nd he thought ttie uaes 3hould be ap~~roved by a canditional use permir on an individusl ~asis so the Commisaion can analyze ~he use to ~ee it it iE pucely industriully-orienCed. Chai.rwoman La claice stated the Commission etudied thir~ isaue many years ago with the City Council nnd many lis~a were ceviewed and a list ot uses wAs eventually developed which the Commission And Council felt woulci serve the industrial ace~ ~nd ahe s~w no reasun to deviate from that list except Eor the rer~earch and development usee, whict~ was juet cecently changed in the ordinance. Commissioner Fierbct stated it has been Eouna that the list is bein~~ neyated many timea, purticul.arly around the 5tadium Area which is becoming purely otFice orientecl, and the Commi.~sion did not allnw theae usea in the Scenic Corridor, until Council ap~roved one cecently, and he did not know t~ow muct~ aEtice ~pace that area can stand. He addcd he would Iike to see the ~etitioners prove that everytt~iny that goea in is industcially-oriented. Chairwoman La ~laire statecl there is a real pcoblem and if the Commission want~ to protect r.he industrial aceas that are left in Anaheim, they will have to start denying these requesks. Commissionec Messe c~taeed to prevent eneroAChment~, he would prefer to take the requests on a case-by-ca~e basia rather than the list being approved saying anything goes. Commissioner 6ouas skated that is what was ayreed upor. in the beginning and that decision was overturned by the City Council. ACTION: Commissioner Fry offer.ed a motic~n, seconded by Commissioner Messe and MUTION CARRIE;A (Commissionec McBurney absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has revie~ed the pr~posal to permit an indusirially-oriented office complex in the ML(SC) (Industcial, Limited, Scenic Corridor Overlny) Zone on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 9.33 acre~ located at the northeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Kellogg Drive; and doea hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received ducing the puolic review process and Lurther finding on the basis of the tnitial Study and any commenL•s received l•hat there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Fry offeced Resolution No. PC85-i96 and moved for its passage and adoption that the A~aheim City Planning Comm:tssion does herebl deny 8/19/85 85-455 MINUTE~S AMAt~EtM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 19 t985 Conditional ~Jpp PermiL• No. 2711 on the basi~ ':hat the usea, a~ proposed, would not bQ compatible with the industriel. arEa. Commis~ioner HerbaC pointcd out for the City Council's benefit tha t the kla nnina Commiasion feela that with the growth ~f. the res~arch And dQVelopmpnt uses, the cequeste should be revi~W~~ ~X the Plc~nning Commiseion an a case-by-case bAOi~. On roll c~ll, the tocegoing resol.uL•ion was passed by the fnllowing vote: AYF:S: BUUAS~ FRY, HERHSI'~ I.4 CLAIRE~ LAWICKI~ t4ES5E~ NUES: NUNE ABSP:NT: MCBUI2N~:Y Malcolm slaughte~, Ueputy City Attocney~ presented the written right to c~ppeal. the Planning Cammission's dec;l~lon within 22 days to rhe City Cuur~cil. ITEM NU. 12. EZR N~GATIVF: DECLARATLON AtZD CUNDiTLONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2712 pU gLiC HEARING. OWNBRS: HUNG ENC SITY 6 SAI SFIUNG SITY, 913 BeacY. Boulevard, An aheim, CA 92804. AGENT; LU ARCHiTECTS & ASSUCIAZ~ES, 8862 Carcien GGOVe B o ulevard, 1101, Gnrden Grove, CA 92644. f~roperty described es a re ctangularly-st~Aped parcel ot land consiEting of appcoxim~tely 0.51 acce, 913 S o uth Beach Eioulevard (Robinh~od Motel). T o consttuct a 7-unit addition to a 22-unlt. motel. T h ere were two pereons indicating their presence in opposition t o aubject request and althouyh the staff repoct was not read, it is ceferre d to nnd made a part of the minutes. C hin Lu, architect, explained they wish to add 7 units to an existing ?2-unit motel on Beach 9oulevar~ and that the use is compatible with th e City's Land use Plan. J ot~n Gantes, owner and operatoc of Dimitri's restaurant, 907 S. Beach that at eoulevacd, stated their main cancerns ace parking and tcaffic fl ow; present there are 22 units plus the managers unit and at least 1 Oandhmany$park park on r_he restaucant's parking lot Lrom 8 to 10 hours per day, t hece for days at a time and with several more nnita being added and mure employees, he thought the motel's packin~ needs will ~e greater and the use of t heic parking lot will be increased. He stated in addition to a utomobiles, trucks, trailers anc3 recreational vehicles from the motel cegul arly park ~n the restaurant pa~kiny lot due t~ the lack of space on the mote 1 pcope:ty and dup to the £aet that the motel pcoperty is vecy narrow with a s hoct turning radius. Ne stated each motel unit does need 1 packing spac~ be cause it is not located near the Conventxon Center where thE: guests arrive by othec transpoctation modes and during the slow period of the yeac, e~pecially during the winter montha, the units are often rent~d by the week or month and additional parking is requi=ed because there ace more people in the units. He stated parkinq ia also needed b;~ 2 or 3 employees, delivery vehicles, etc., in additia~etonly~24 parking~spaces~andctheyaplan~toeadde7,unitsta-ndHtheyaneed there one 8/ 19/s5 MINUT E S, ANAHEIM CITY P~ANNZNG COMMISSION, AUGUST 19, 19$5 85-4~6 s~ace per unit, plus the manag er'a unit And delivery vehicles, which wvuld be at Lea~t 35 parkiny spaces. Mr. Gankes staled they ~rant Lheir neic~hbors ko Frossper and to u~grade the ~,r~perty, but not at their expenrse, and their mo;:el busineac must be confined within their own prope~ty tine~. !ip sta~ed if tt~ey are going to increase the mote 1 units, they (~r adjacen t propecty ownera) must be guarAnteEd Chat their E~roE~er ty'R riyht~ wi 11 n~t: be fucther impacted. Fie stated they would requice, at th e petitioner's expenae, i nstallation of 5-fa~~t high f.ence poats filled with c uncrete placod evcry 2 f eet ~ill the way froe: Beach Doulevard to the re~r oE th e ic property to de~er th e ir customers and nssociated users from impacting the resCaurant's customera and employees. He ~katc~d with t~he Beach Roulevarcl auper street. project which is pro~osed, there is a possibilit,y that -nore Narking will be eliminuted on Che stceet. Rer~ponding to Commissioner Messr., Mr. Gantes ~xplained a salid wa11 would not work b ecau~e of the narrowness of the ~ropecty anci Itie would ~uggest 5-foot high s tcel pos~s placed 3 feet intn the Aaphalt to cleter thei: traffic Fr.om uRing his property, both Lor a ccese and ~az~king, an6 rec~mmends khey be placed abaut 2 feet apart. kIe presented photographe t~ken yesterday i:o ahow the vehicles parked ~r~ t~ia lot and an arterial phota shc~-ving how their properties are ad jacenC to each oL•her. t t was expl.ained iE the photos are submitted, they must be maintained as part of the record. Mr. C;antes dld rir~t submit the aerial photo, but the Commission reviewed the ottier 3 photographs. Mr. Ga ntes stated they have h a d a g~od relationship with kheir neighbocs, but felt 7 more uni~s will incr~ase the tcaffic and parkiiig problem and the biggest problem has been in the lasr Eew ,years when they have been centing the units on a weekly or monthly basis increasi.ng the numt~er of vehicles, and also the packiny lat has been used by the children staying in the units and the mutel guests do use theic par k in9 lnt to maintain their vehicles. Commi ssioner Lawicki asked if tow-away signs have bee~ considered indicati.ng the r e staurant parking lot is for cestaurant custamers only. Mr. Gantes atated they have had those sig ns poeted foc 7 ar 8 year.s and khey do enforce it ancx also regularly ask children not to play on the F~arking lot for insurance purpases. Mr. L u stated the parking pro v ided is in conformance with Code and the 24 spac e s do meet Coae requireme n ts at .8 spaces per unit plus employees. Mr. Lu state d during the lunch hour, the restaurant parking lot is full and some of their customers might be usin g the motel's parking lot and suggesCed if the resta urant owner wouid like s omething constructed between the two commercial E~roper ties, they should share the expense. THE PU BLIC HEARiNG WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Fry stated the Planning Commission miist malce a fiading that the proposed ~se will not adversely affect the ad joining lands and it ~ppears it is q u ite possible the motel i s affecting the adjnining E~coperty now without the a ddition. He did not agr e e that installing the steel postA would be a good idea and suggested maybe a chain link fence would be more appropriate to prevent vehicular and pedestrian txaffic from accessing tbeir property. 8~19/85 MINU'P6S, ANAHEIM CTTY PLANNTNG COMMiSSiUN, AUGUST 19. 1905 85-457 Responding to Cammiaeion~c Bouas regArding whether or n~t to instnll chain link Pencing, Kendca Morries explained Code does not require any type of fence. Commiasioner Fcy pointed out Commiseion could make that a cAndition ~f appcoval. Commiasioner Bouas atated ehe thought the reatauranl uperator ia happy when the mAtel guests do walk over Co patronize his reataurant, but something needs to be placed between the propertiea so they have to walk around. She asked what happens to the bed tax when ttie motel renta the units ~y the week or month, Mul~olm Slaughter stated the bed tax terminatea on the occupancy on the 30th day, sa if the occupAnts atay 3Q days or more, the bed tax is not paid on that additional period. Commissioner aouas stated at times it sounds like they ace r~nting lhe motel units as apartments. Mr. Lu skated he did not know how many units are rented in that manner, but he did know there are other motels in An~heim with weekly tenants. He staCed 7 of the exieting units have kitchenettes, but none of the new units will have them. Ma.lcolm Slauyhter stated under the provisions of the Zoning Code, the definition of a'hotel' states the maximum time ~eriod for rental is ). week oc 7 dayaf however, the Code fucthec states that nothing shall preclude any person from renting accommodations for ae many auccesaive weekly or 7-day time petinds as they choose, so ttiere is na limit in the 2oning Code far the length of sray. Commissioner Messe stated it seems the restaurant opecator does not object to the motel, but to the use of the parking lot, and thought they should come to an agreement on the type of fencing and then the Commission could go ahead with this request. Commissioner Herbst stated he did not think the restaurant shou~d be penalized by having to pay ~or putting up the fence since it is the hotel `hat wants to expand their property and appear to be doinq the encroacl~ing and iE they want the expansion, they should put up the fence. Chaicwoman La Claire stated she was not quite Ruce there is an encroachment onto Dimitri's property and the encroachment may be equally onto ths motel prop~rty and in the past the Commission has requested ~he applicant to construcl• a wall if there is a questton about the parking whi~h ~he Commission decides on, or approval could be subject to approval of the Planning AeNartment sta£f and whoever comes in for a change in ~heir plans will be the ones to provide the fence. ACTION: Commissioner La c:laire offered a motion, Recondpd by Commissioner Fry and MOTION CARRIED (Commissionex McBurney absent) thak the Aneheim Ciky Planning Commission has ceviewed the proposal to con~truct a 7-unft addition to an existing 2Z-unit motel on a rectangulArly-sha~ed parcel of land consisttng of approximately 0.51 acre, having a frontage of approximately 75 feet on the west side of Beach eoul.evasd and furtt~er described as 913 South Beach Boulevard; and does hereby approve the Negakive Declaration upon finding 8/19/85 MiNUTES, ANAI~~T.M CiTX PLANNING CUMMISSION. AUGUST 19 ~ 1945_ 85-458 the+t it hue considered the Negative Ueclaration together wlth any cumments received during the public review process ~nd further finding on *_he basis oC the Initial 8tudy und any commer~ts G:ceived that thece is n~ t~ubslankial ~vidence that the project will have r~ significant e£fer.t on the environment. Commieai~ner. La Claire offeced iteoolution No. PC85-197 and moved for ita passag~ and adoption thAt the Anaheim City Planning Commia~Ion does hereby grant Conditional Use I~ermit No. 2712 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.U3.030.U3U thcougt~ 18.U3.03U.035 and sub~ect to an addikfonal conditi~n that a wall at least 5-feet high will be construct•ed along the northerly property line subject to ~he appcoval of the Planninq Departrent atatt. Commissioner Herbst stated he did not f.e~l .taff should b~ ar~ked ta make tt~al• decision. Ghairwoman La Claire statecJ there may be some re~son why they would not want a ce~tain type fenc:e. Commission~r Herbst stated the choices should be wrought iron, ch~in llnk or block wall. Kendra Morries atatEd there are vracious type3 of fenciny that would be appropriate and staff would want to see photugtaphs oi ~hat is existiny so tt will be compatible. c:ommi~si~ner Hecbst stated the neighh~;rs should yet tagether and agree ~n wntat Lhey want. Commiseioner b~cy rt~ted tf~e condition should ~~ thar. a Eence shall be installF~~ th~ Eutl las~gth of khe propecty at least 5-feet high to cansist uf either chain i.,ink, cor~cre~e b.lock or wrouyht iron. Malculm Slaughtec stated the fence could not be approved in the Eront setback area. Commi~sir~ner Herbst stated the parki.ng sC~aces propo3ed d~ meet Code require:nents and the Commission r,ould nc~t ask foc more. Un roll call, the Eoregoiny resolution wxs passed by the fol2owing vote: AYES: BOUAu, FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENZ': MCBURNEY Melco.im Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written r.ight to appeal the Planning Commission's deci~ion within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0. 13. EIR N0. 268, RECLASSIFiCATION NO. 85-86-2, WAiVER OF CODE RE~UIREMENT AND CUNDI'PiONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2713 PUBLIC HCARING. UWNERS: ST~,TE COLLEGE PARTNERS, c/o UpNP~ PROPERTIES, 28 Hrookhollow Drive, Santa Ana, CA 927U2. AGENT: BtLL SiNGER AND ASSOCiATES, 5100 Eiirch Stceet, Newport Beach, CA ~2660. Property described as a rectanguiarly-shape~ parcel oF lar~d consisting of approximately 7.67 accEs located at the northwest corner uf Orangeweod Avenue and State College 5oulevacd, State College Plaza. MLiPP) to CO(FP) or a less intense zone to permit a 10-stary and 12-stocy commercial office complex with waivers of minimum number of parking spaces, maximum etructural height and minimum landscaped setback. 8/19/85 MINUTk~S ANAHELM CLTY PLANNING COMMISSLON AUGU6T 1.9 1985 85-459 Chairwoman La ClairQ expla~nad there ia a request for a continuance to the meet.ing of Septembec 4, 1985, And fucti~er explained since it r~ppeara that meeeing will be rather lengthy and aince the City is having a atudy dane at khe preaent time, they would like to cnntinue thi~ mett.er to September 16, 1985~ Bill Singer, parCner with Dunn Pcopertiea, explainAd they Ace developing Phase$ 2 and 3 of the State College Plaza wikh a 10-atory And 12-story office building r~r the nozthweat corner of State College and Urongewood. He read a letter dal•ed August 19th to the Planniny Commisaion explainin~q they would ayree to a rwo-week continuancet however, since purchasing the prnperty in November 1984, they havp complied with all ~f stafE's requeeta including an environmental impact report, trafEic sl•udy, etc. an~l in addition made a sub~stantial financial payment tuward the co~st oF the study beinq conduct~d and those cequeats have co~t a great deal Uf time ~-nd money and that would requerst the continuance not exceed two weeks. ACTtAN: Commissioner t3ouAS offered a motionr `~e~onded by CatnmissioneC McBucney and MOTtON CARRiED tnal: consideration uf the atarementioned matter. be continued to tt~e regularly-schecluled meeting o~ September 4, 1985. ITEM NU. 14. ~IR NEGATIVE DECLARATION ANU VARTANCE N0. 35Q4 PUHLIC N~;~1FttNG. OWNERS: GFtAY S. ANU PAULA S. KILMFR, 607 5. Harbor Beul~evard, Anaheim, CA 9'1805, A7'Ttu: MARY VER~UNCK/HUGU VASQUE2. P[~p~rty dus~cribe.-d as a r.ectangularly-shaped paccel oE land conAi.sting of approximately 0.43 acce, 220 and 224 North Ulive Street. Waivers of minimum buildiny sit~~ acea per dwelli~g unit, maximum struc:tuYal heiyht, maximum site covernge, m~inimum tloor area and minimum s~ructucal setback to construct a 19-unit affordable apartt~ent complex. There was one person indicating his pcesence in app~~ition to subject request and although the staEf report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Eiugo Vasquez, ayent, explained thi$ project was redesigned after proposing a 24-unit senior citizen complex on sub~ect Fropetty at the Planning Commission's recommendation, He explained this will be a Victorian design with a courtyard, skylights and 9-foot high ceilings on the lower level units. Tom Clark, 1415 E. Chartres, Anaheim, ~tated he was present previously when more units were prop~sed on this propetty and that he wot~ld oppose this request an the basiA that a 3-story project is too m~ich development for the property and there is not ~enougti open space. He pointed out the purpose o£ redevelapment in the d4wntown area is to improve the area and open space is very important. Huyo Vasquez stated they trie~ to achieve the Victorian style fe~tures and felt this design would enhance the entire c,eighboc;~ood. He explained they have three frontal streets (Olive, Cypress and Santa Fe). He skated there is a cent~al courtyard which is not being counted towarda the total ~pen space requir~ments because the pr~ject is being built at graund level. Kendra S/19/85 -1INUT~S. ANAHEIM Ci'PX PL,ANNING CUMMI5SZON, AUGUST 19, 1985 , 85-460 Mocriec etHted the courtyacd area whicti is appcoximately 10 feet of£ the ground wan cour,ted towrlyds the open epace or cecreAtional-leia~ce area and ik was also c~unted Cowards the lot coverage since it is oft thc: ground and it is not landscaped area. She explalned the drawinga wer~r misleAding and two drawings wece submitt~~d. She explained the atructural cetbr~ck is requlred becauae the second ~t~~cy decks Uverhang int~ the 15-foot wide landscaped setback area ad3acen~. to Cypresa Stceet. Mr. Vaoyue2 sCated it: is h.ia ~nderetanding that unlesa th~~ parking is under~around 4-.l/2 feet, it is not counL•ed the same way And the waivec it~ be~ng calle~i out becauae ~~d: the balconiesj however, h~ felt thuse balconies w~uld be a br:nt~fit to the ~enanto And still have the central court~~ard, but they could eli.minate thase or the courLyard if the Commissiun feels they are an intruaion on khe neiyhl7ors. Commissionec Elerbst stace~ it appear~ t.he petitioner i.s trying to use the guise of affordAhle: housing agAi~y to qet waiver~ in order ta overbuild the Nroperty; and that affordable housing is finc as lony afi it doesn't impact the area. Ne added thia is a beautiful laoking project, but it is ~ust too much density. Reaponding to Mr. ~Jasque~, he stat~d he c~~uld not agree with any of the vaciAnces. Mr. Vacque~c stated the hardskip on this property is actually becau~ae it Eront~ on 3 str~eta reyuiring 3 setbacks plus ths dedication~. ChairNaman La Claire a~kec ~~nat the site covecaqe would be iE the courtyacd is deleted, poirstin~~ out if l•his wFas a greenbelC arpa, it would not be counted as site coveraye. Kendra Morries explained in this instance aince the parking is not subtercanean and the courLyard is 8 to lU fE.:et off the groiand, staEf calculated it as aite coverag~.. Re~p~nding tb :hairwoman La Claire, Mr. Vasquez explained the court~ard could be consGaucted several different ways, one being a pre-poured concrete system and tlier•; t~roughL t~ the site, or it could b~, a concrete-base ~oured on-site, or i. cauld be built of wood with a lid of stucco an~i 1-1/2 inche~ of lightweight concrete above thar. to achieve the Eice rating. He explained it will ue la~.~dscaped and he anticipates putting in a nice garden type landscaping f~~t the whole project and the courtyacd could be eliminated; howevec, tie ':elt the courtyard was somethin9 the tenants coulci enjoy and benefit from. Commissioner H2r~at stated basically rhis is a project built completely on stilts with expo~.ed garages underneath ma'Ring it a 3-story project with balconi.es all tlie way around. F1r. VasquE~z stated the pcoperties at 129 N. Ulive and 1?.9 S» Me?r.ose were built in C~e same framework and sta~ed he would like to have ya~age doors, but the Traffic Engxneer did not approve. tle stated a person ~ould not 5e able to aee into the garages unless they were passing the areA where they drive into the garages. Chairwoman La Claire stated the Conuni~sion likes the looks ~f the project, but felt r~ome ot the vatiances should be eliminated. Mr. Vasyuez stated they could drop the parki.ng 4-1/2 feat below grade which would make this a 2-stocy building. Annika Santalahti explairted the site coverage is the building covecage on-site and that fnrludes all buildings; that'in a few instances with a half and half situation, statf has gone along with not calling it site coverage, even E3/19/85 NINUTES, ANAHEiM CITY PLANNING COMMIuSION~ AUGUST 19. 19A5 85-4G1 thougt~ it ls clearly ~ building, but in those few casea, when staff has 8een Che tes~lts, they have not been good. ShP atated we nre seeing a lol more of theae type requeaLa an in-fill lot aites whe~e all. the neighbocs have 1-story pro~ec~s, ~nd they ace looking at a Z-1/2-stary pcoject and it becomes a viaur~l impact on thc~ae nei~,hbor& and in somt~ caaes khey ha~~e been bermed. Mr. Vasyuez ar~ked if the pro~ect would be more acceptable i.f he eliminated waiver (b) by puttiny the building 4-1/2 EPet bc~low grade with a rAmp down to the ~url;ing, and elimirrating khe central courtyard which would P1~~$eaStre~t waiver (c); and that he could elitninate hhe patio areA Ea.r.iny Cyp. which wauld eli.minate waiver (e) and ~hen the s~~nly waiver required would be waiver (a). Comtniesioner La Claire atateci the aite r_overage w~~~id be 56.7+b countiny the cau~ctyard As operi ~pace and not site coverage. Mr. VASquez stated he would have to redesign th~ floor plana for ~,.ouple of units in arder to t~ring it to 558. Chairwoman La ~'+~~e stated she thouyht the Commiseion wante a wel.l constructed ~~ : r~<:-'• that is ~esthetica.lly ~leasing. Cammissione;. `-- ~~s: rs_i-ated he is a.ls~ cc~ncerned abou~ the density im~act on the area. =~y ~~E~~ r.~ne approvr~l oE the waivers depends an tt~e area and this i~ an area ~-~`:~ N=?.r~c streets will be impacted and he did not thtnk t.he project t~; -~s ~~_ :~f~ ~?~~zbuilt. Mr. vasquez gtated khi~ property is in downtown Anaheim •r:, tirr..c: i~ a majar i.mpact of new commercial uses coming in and he ho~es t+.-*~ ~~? ~~ ,emely well which wiil sti~nulatE a lot ~~f new jobs and als~ the gxowt, ~~~~i =nc neighborhood. He stated he needs s two-week continuance in order t.o .^~~~~.:-:: rr~e plans and Kendra Morries cecommended the continuancP be for Eour. K;~---=-, ACTIUN: :+ont~a;,::~sioner Herbttt offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and h~UTI~+~~-~~I~ti (~ommissioner McRurney t+bsent) that concideration of the afocemen~i*x~ec matter be continued to the cegularly-scheduled meeting of SepCr:mber 1!0, 1985, at the request oP the petitionec in order to submit revised p~~~~s. LTEM T~U. -= EjF NEGATIVE DECLARATION ANA VARiANCE NU. 3506 PUBLlC hE.2ftING. OWNERS: OWEN B. LAMPMAN ANU ROSE MARIE LAMPMAN, 14270 E~astiidge Drive, Whittier, CA 9U602. AGENT: C& H DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, 1421 N. Wa~a,~a Road, Suite 180, Orange, CA 92567, ATTN: TERENCE S. CLZNGAN. ProQecty c:escribed as an irregularly-ahaped parcel of land consisti.ng of approximately 0.52 acre located at the northeast corner oE Katella Avenue and Brookhucst Street, 2181 West Katella Avenue. Waivers of maxim~im structural height and mi.ni.mum landscaped setback to constcucr_ a one-story commErcial retail center. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject requeat and although the etaff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. 8/19/85 MINUTBS~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, AUGUST 19, 1985 ~5-462 Terry Clingan, agent, atated thie requeat resutts from the ~dd configu~ation of the property An~ one of the constrainte is the frontage on arookhurst which has been dedicated and thw ~epth of a portion of t:he property io 49.22 feet and is only useful as a lane roc accesa and for parking. tle atated applying the full setback restrictiona on t~ic pcoperty which is zoned commercially a~utting reaidential praperty to conatru~~t a 1-stary tyE~ical commercial buildin9 with a height of 18 Eeet 6 inches would require abutting each pro~erty with a setback o: 37 feet for 2 feet of every 1 Eoot of building height which w~uld then place the building on Che cornec of the propecty and s~verely limit the ~r.actical u~~ of the building. He ~tated he tried several timea tu lay out t:he project and it ae~ma thi8 ie the best configuration the~ could come u~ with. He stated they Leel fcom the sr_andpoint uf the adjoining liumeowners that c~~~ of the advantages will be Chnk the pr~ject will be s~:ceening foc the homeowners fcom the traffic on Katella with 6?,b00+ vehicles per day in that intecsection. tie stated if tr~e full setback restcictions were applied, ~he alternative would be to place the building on the Eront and create traffic in the reac abutting tt~e neigtibors' wa11s. He pointed ou4 thece was a aerviee station on Chis site for 2(1 year.s which was recently razed. tie stated they have presented the plans to the abur~ing property owners and they have xndicated they are happy with the plans and are an~ioua to see the propc~rty developed. He stated if the full cetbar.k ceyuirements are adhered to, a~~ alternative would be a restaurant and he did not think that would be in the be,st xnkeres' of the abutting ownera. He stated there will b~ no reac doocs ta the bu~lding and there will be gates at either end of. the b~:ilding pteve~ting access to the rear c^~ the intrusion to the neighbora' rear yards wnuld be minimal. Tk~~ PUBLIC HEARINC; WAa CLOSED. Chairwoman La Claire xtated she thought this woul~ be a go~d use for the ptoperty and noted Brookhucsk and Katella are busy streets and this witl provide snme noise attenuation Por those people behind them. Cnmmissioner Herbst stated he thought the architect has tAken the neighbors into considecation and 17e realizes rhis is a difficult site to develop and he would have no problem with approval since the neighbors have be~en approached and have no problem with the pr.oposed development. F1c. Clinyan stated there a~as a queation in the staff report concc r;~ing the existence of a b2ock wall arid that that is probably one of the most attractive -~lock wa.lls he has seen existing on the property and it is about 7-feet high. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst of.fered a motion, seconded by Commisaianer Bouas and MOTIUN CARRIED (Commissioner McBUrney absent) that the Anaheim City Planr~ing Commissior- has ceviewsd the proposal to construat. a 1-story commercial setail center with waivers of maximum structural height and minimum landscaped commerclal setback on an irreg~larly-shaped paccel of land consistins~ of a~proximately 0.52 acres locate~ at the northeast cocner of Katella Avenue and Brookhucst Stceet and fur.ther described 2181 West Katella Avenue; and does hereby approve the Ne9ative Declaration upon finding that it has considered 8/19/85 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CUMMISSiON, AUGUST 19, 1985 85-463 the Negative Ueclaration togeth~r with ~ny ~:omments ceceived during the public review pro~:ess bnd Cur~her Eindiny on the basis of the Lnitial Study and ~ny comm~nte ceceived that Ghere is no subatAntial evidence that the ~ro~ect w111 have a aignific~nt effect on the environment. Commiasionec Herbst otfered Reao.lution No. PC85-t98 and moved f~r its p~ssage and adoption that the Anaheim C.ity Plannin~ Commission does hereby grant Variance No. 35Ub on the basis that there ace special circumstances applicable to the pcoperty suct~ ~a uize, shape, topography, location and eurroundings which do not apply to okher identlcally zoned property .in ttie a~me vicinity; and that atcict applicati~n pf the Zoning Code deprives the property oE privilegec~ enj~yed by othc~r properties in the identical zone and cl.assi~ication in the vic.nit~+ and subjecc tu InterdepactmentAl Commitlee recommendations. On roll call, the foreyoing resolution wa~ passed by the following vote: AYEG: BOUAS, FRY, NER}3ST, LA CLAIRE~ I.AWiCKI, ME55E NU~S: N~NL ABSENT: MCBUkNtY Malcolm Slaugt~ter, Ueputy City Atto~ney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commisaion'a deci,sion within 22 days to the City Council. 1'PEM NU. 16. E;IR NEGA'I`ZVE DECLARATION, RECLASSIFICATiON N0. 85-$6-4 AND VARIANCE N0. 35U7 PUBLIC tiEARiNG. UWNF.RS: ELTON C. AND MAE BELLE SNAVELY, 1259 N. Batavia 5k[eet, Urange, CA 92G67. AGENT: CHARLES A. ROSS, 438 East Katella Avenue, Orange, CA 92667. Property described ~~s a cectangularly-shaped parcel of land conaisting of approximately 0.70~;`'~3614 West Ball Road. kS-A-43,OGU to RM-1200 os a less intense zone. Waivers of maximum structural height and maximum number of bachelor units to construct a 29-unit apartment complex. There ~as no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject requpst and although the staff report wAS not read, it is referr.ed to and made a part af the minutes. Bill Phelps, 1259 N. Batavia, Orange, agent, was present to answec any questions. TH~ PUBLIC HEARING WA5 CLUSED. ACTION: Commisaionec Herbst ofEered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fry and MOTZON CARRIED (Commissioner McBurney absent) thah. the Anaheim City Planniny Cammission has rpviewed the proposal to construct a 23-unik apartment com~Iex with waivers of maximum structural heighk and maximum number of bachelor units an a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.70 acres, having a fronkage of approximately 239 feet on the south side of Ball Road and Eurther described as 3514 West Ball Road; and does hereby approve the Negatfve Declaratian upon finding that it has considered 8/19/85 _ __ _ __.... _..,.. .j MINUTE5, ANAH~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIUN. AUGJST 19 L 1985 85-4GA thc NegAtive Ueclacation together with any comments ~ecaived duKing Che publir ceview procrsa a~d furthec fir~ding on the basie of the initial Study and any commente received that there is na subetantial evidence that the pco~ect wlll have a significant effect on thE~ environment. Commieaioner Herbst offered ReEOlution No. PC85-199 and rt~oved Eor its passage and adoi~tion that the Anaheim City P.lanning :ommiesfar~ daes hr•.cEUy grant Rec.lassiflcation No. 85-86-4 subject to Tnterdepartmental Committee recommendations. Un roll call, the foregoing resolution was pagsed by the following voke: AYE5: EiUUAS~ FRY~ HERB5T, LA CLATR~~ I,AWICKi~ MESuE NOES: NONE ABSENT: MCBURNEY Commiss:cner Herbst otfered Resolutiori No. FC85-20U ~nd moved for iLs ~assage ~nd adoptlon that the Anaheim City Plr~nning Commissi~n does hereby gcant Variance No. 3507 on the basis that there ~re speciai ciccumst~nceA applicable to the pro~,ecty such as size, ahwpe, topography, location and succoundings which do not apply to other identically zr~ned pcoper'.,~ in the same vicinity~ and khat sl.cict ap~lication of the Zoniny Code d~:prives the propec~y of privileges enjoyed by othet nropecties in thP identical zone and classification in the vicinity and subject ro Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. Kendra MorrieB asked that Cond~tion No. 21 be modifiec to read: 'SUbject properly should be conetructed substantially in accordance with plans and sNecificat.ions o file with the City of AnAheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1 through 3". On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the f~~llowing vote: AYF.'S: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MESSF. NUES: NqNE ABSENT: MCBURNEY Malcolm Slaughter, DeputS~ City Attarney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision withfn 22 days to the City Council. Mr. Phelps pointed out the project was advertised Far 22 units and is actually 23 units and it was noted the approval was for 23 units as submitteci on the plans. Malcolm Slaught~r stated this eccor became apparenk at the Lnterdepartn~ental Committee meeting and he had advi~sed tha dev~loper that since the actual Code waivers c~ere advertised, the number of uniks were pcobably insignificant, but since it was his cl.ient and his project that would be affecL•ed in the event of a court challenge and the court determined that the advertisement was invalid, and he would have to make that detecmination; and th~at he had been requested to aubmit a letter in writing Nhich he di~, but it was not quite what was cequested that he has asked for a further letter to clarffy it. He added he thought the Commission iE in a position to go ahead and approve this at 23 uniks. 8/1S/fi5 MINUTCS. ANAkfEiM CLTY PLANNING COMMI~StON, AUGUST 19, 1985 8~~-465 LTEM N0. 17. ~IR NEGATIVE UL'CLARATtON (fiREVIUUSLY A~PROVED) AND CONDtTTC1NAL USE PERMIT N0. 1815(REAUVERTISED) ~ PU9LTC HEARING EOR EXT~NSION ~P TIME. OWNERS: OTTZS E. PIT7'MAN, 1401 N. J~fferaon Street, Anaheim, ~:A 92~07. Proi~erty dPacribed as a ractangulacly-shapQd ~arcel of land aonsi~ting oE Approximately 5.0 acreA, 14U1 North Jefferson Street. Petitioner requests A[~~~roV~l. of a 5-year (2-year cetraactive) extpnaion of time or deletion of Condition No. 12 of ReaoluCion No. PC78-126 per~aining to required extenaions of time ko retain a cat kennel and maintenarice'and etorage yard for. heavy equipment. T~ wuN noted the applicant was not pc~sent. Commissioner tier.bst stated sinc:e the E:etitionec hae not fullfi.lled the ociyinal aonditior. oE the permit, he thought the applicant should be presenk or the permit should be terminated. Kendra Morries explained the applicant had been cantacted and suggested the matter be continued. .,CTION: Commissioner Herbst ofFered a mol•~on, seconded by Commi~sioner Fry and MO~tUN CARRIFD (Commissioner McBurney absent) that consideration of the aforEmentioned matter be continued to the c~egularly-scheduled meeting of September 4, 1985, in ordec foc the apolicant ko bP pceser~t. ITEM NU. Lti. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONu A. PROPOSEll CODE AMFsNAMENT - Amendment to Zoning Code Subsection 18.84.061.U20 to a.llow for automobile, truck or mnbilehome sales lots (new or used) in the comrneccial areas of the Scenic Corridor SC) Overlay Zone. it was noted that the second page of the staff report was omitted in duplicating, but that it hae been distributed tU the Commission. ~:ommissioner Herbst stated the amendment indicz,tes new and used cars and he thought the used car ~tales should only be tt'llowed in coniunction with new car sales in that ~one. Annika Santalahti stated in a~ny case, they would be required to request a conditional use permit. Malcolm Slaughter stated from a land use standpoint, it becomes a problem to distinguish between new and uaed carF and the problem here ,.s that staff is proposing basicallx to delete prc:ibition of these type uses Erom the SC Overlay Zone and if this is amended thos~ uses wnuld be allowed in the SC Zone pursuant to a condit.ional use pecmit under the underlying zone which, in this case is probably CL, and that zone does not distinguish between new and used rar lots. He stated there could probably be a compleke redrafting of the underlying zone to diskinguish between those twa, but that is not the pre~ent casee 8/19/85 Ji~ ~ 1 ~ Y M_INUTES, ANANEIM CITX ~I~ANNINC COMMISSIUN, AUGU5T 19. 1y85 95-466 Chairwoman La Claira atated the 8cenic Corridoc Uverlay ZonN is a differ~nt zone an~i should be treated differently. Mr. Slaughter stated there could ptobably be different criteria, but the way it is preaently propo~ed !n the Code, it cann~t be done. Commissi~ner tlerbst stated the Amendment tAlke about trucks and mobilehome saleo and .ie ceAlizea what the City is attempting ro do becouse ot the site which is La l~alma and Weir Canyon Road, but did not want to see truck and m~bi.tehame sales. Malcolm Slau9htec st~tied 1E the Code chnnge 1.s approved, it woutd a~ply throuyl~out the SC Zo~ie ~nd not just at the specific site. Commissioner Eierbat stated this change would aff.ect the whole Scenic Corridor area and he wauld nat have ~ny prablPm with new car sales, but would have a ~,roblem with truck and mobilehome sales and used car saley in tfiat area. Chairwoman La Claire sugypsted limiting the C~de change to new cars anly because this is the ~C Zone and sl~ould be prot•:cted, pointing out there is a recrea~ional vehicle manufaeturer in the Areu and she would not war~t ka aee them open up a sales lot. Commissione[ Herbst stated he would like to chdnge the amendment to specifically exclude used car sale~, except in conjunction with new car sales, and to exclude eales of trucks and mobilehomes, new or used. ACTIUN: Cummissioner Hecbst offeced a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki and MGTiON CARRIBD (Commissioner McBurney absent), thAt the Anaheim C:ity Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council appcoval of the propor~ed Code amer-dment witt~ modification to prohibit used cac sales, except in conjunction with nes~ car sales as an accFSaory use, and also prohibit the sale of trucks, recreational vehicles and mubil~homes (new and used) in the SC(&cer.ic Corrid~r Overlay) Zone. ADJOURNMF.NT: Commissia~er Herbst oEfered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fry and MUTION CARRIED (Commissioner McB~rney absent) t•hat the rt~eeting be adjourned. The meeting was adjourned at 4:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~ , ~ ~~ 4-;','l ~ . /~C t ,,,. ~; ~ _ _. Ec~ith L. Harcis, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission BLH:1m 0137tr, 8/19/85