Loading...
Minutes-PC 1986/05/12REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR McETING The zegular meeLing of thA Anaheim City Planning Commission was called l•o otd?r by Chairwoman La ClairA at 1U:00 a.m., May 12, 19~6, in the Council Chamb?r, a quorum being ~=esent, and th~ Cammission revipweo plans o£ th? it•ems on today's agAnda. RECBSS: 11:30 a.m. RECONVENED: 1:3U p.m. PRESENT: Chairwoman: La ClaitP Commission?cs: 8ouas, Fry, Herbst, Lawicki, MPsse, McBurn~y ABSENT: Commission?r: None ALSO PRESENT: Annika Santalahti Assistant Director for Zoning Malcolm Slaught~r Deputy City Attorney II Joseph Fletcher Deputy City Attorney Jay Titus 0£fice Engineer Paul SingAr Traffic Engineer Dan Schiada Assistant Traffic Engineer Leonard McGh~e Associate P1annAr Edith L. Hacris Planning Commission SAcretary MINUTES FOR APPROVAL - Commission?r t9°ss? o£fered a m~tion, secanded by Commission?r Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that th~ Anaheim City Planning Commission does hAreby approve Lhe minutes of th~ meetings of April 14 and April 2a, 1986, as submittAd. ITEM NO. 1 EIR NEGAiZVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2774 PUBLIC HEARING. UWNERS: HOLLY WAD~ DAVIDSON, P. O. Box 325, Holualoa, HI 96725. AGENTS: ORANGE COUNTY STcEL SALVAGE, INC., 3200 ~. Frontera Street, Anah?im, CA 92bU6, ATTN: GEORGE AllAMS. Property dAscribed as an irregularly-shapAd parc~l of land consisting of apptoximately 6.4 acres, 3200 East rrontAra Street (Oran9e County Steel Salvag?). To permit a private heliport in conjunction with a resoucce recovery operation (Oran9A County Steel SalvagA). ContinuPd from thP meeting of March 31, 1986. ACTION: Commission?r Bouas of£ered a mol-ion, s?conded by Commissioner t4cBucnAy and MOTION CARitIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby continue consideration of thP aforementioned matter to the regularly-scheduled mePting of June 9, 1986, at the r?quest of the petitioner. 86-307 5/12/86 86-308 MII~UTES ANAAEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 12 1986 ITEM N0. 2 EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 11 AND VARZANCE N0. 3544 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: CITY OF ANAHEIM, 2U0 S. Anaheim Boulevazd, Anaheim, CA 92805. AGENT: J. R. H. INC., 5101 E. IndApPndenc? Blvd., Charlott°, NC Zy212, PtopPrty d~scribed as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 9.3 acre~ locatPd at the northAaster.ly corner of La Palma Av~nuA and WAir Canyon Road, having apptoximatA frontages of 910 £eet on the notth side of La Palma Avenue and 758 £eet on the ?ast side of Weir Canyon Road. Waivers o£ maximum numbPr and type o£ signs, maximum sign area and display sur£aces and limitations on sign liyhtin9 to consttuct 3 freestanding signs and 3 wall signs. Continued £rom th? m?etings o£ March 17, 31 and April 14 and 'L~, ~y~b• ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offetAd a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBUrnAy and MUTION CARRIED thal- thA Anah?im City Planning Commission do?s h~~Aby continuP consid?ration of th~ a£o:PmPntionpd matter to th? zegularly-schedul~d mAeting of Jun~ y, 1986, at th~ petition~r's rPquest in ozder to submit revisPd plans. ITEM N0. 3 EIR NEGATIVE DEC ~nNniTIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2 PUBLIC HEARING. OWf~ERS: B. R. PROPERTIES LIMIPED PARTNER5HIP, 45U Newport CPnter Dr., ~304, Newport BAach, CA 92660. AGENTS: HOWARD F. 'PHOMPSON 6 AS50CIATES, i6520 Aston Stzeet, Irvine, CA 92714• Prop?rty d?scribed as an irr?gularly-shap?d parcel of land consisting of approximat~ly 2.24 actes, locat~d at L-hA north~ast corn?r of Sanka Ana Canyon Road and WAir Canyon Road, having apptoximal•? fzontag?s of 3y3 feAt on th~ north sidA of Santa Ana Canyon Road and 220 fAet on the east sidA of W°ir Canyon Road, and futther dPsccibed as 175 RivPrviPw AvenuA. To pezmit a thitty-ninP foot six-inch high building with waivers of minimum structural s?tback, typ? of sign ar,d maximum si9n arPa and display sut£ac~s. Continu~d from thP meeting of April 2~, 1986. There was no onP indical-ing their presence in opposition to subject requ~st and although the staff report was not tead, it is referred to and madA a pazt of the minutes. Richazd GPnzel, 5720 Av~nida Barcelonia, Yotba Linda, ag?nt, ~xplainPd the plans hav? beAn revisPd rPlocating th~ building 65 feet from Santa Ana Canyon Road Lo eliminate a tunnol ef£ect naxt to L•he street. H~ explained the building will be locat?d within the 130-foot storm drain area and they will have to ptovide two drilled-in-place pilings to mak~ sute theze is no burden on the stora~ drain facility. THE PUBLZC HEARING WAS CLOSED. 5/1"1/t36 86-309 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 12, 1986 Chairwoman La Claire stated she was happy to see the building moved back away f.rom Santa Ana Canyon Road. She askpd the pPtirioner to stipulate that adequat? pilings would bA provided and that they will negotiate wil•h the City for thP purchas~ of that easement area. Mr. Genzel stai•ed they £eel they shoulu npt hav~ to~hQtoLiginal~property~owner City which was originally dedicat~d L-o th_ City by with no chatyP to thP City. H~ stat?d the L?QuPSt to relocate th? building was rAquest?d by th? City Planning Commission and th~y would cequAst that tnat condition b? eliminatPd. He stat?d lhey are incucring the additional ~uilding cosL-s o£ thA pilings and originally inl~ndQd not L-o develop in the pasement ar.ea. Malcolm Slaughter respondPd that whPth~r oz nol- the City originally paid £or th° dAdication of the easem?nt is not pertinent to this discussion and if the peL-iL•ionAr wishPS to build L-hP building in this locaP~itionetthad th?poption thal will havP l-o be resalv~d. H? p~intPd oul• tc;. P- o£ conf.orming with ~hPVpnn~houghdthedPlanning~CommissionpisVin f.avozPOfath°TS from thosA Codes and rAlocation of L-hA building, it is ultPn~itleduto`r°imburs?m?ntuforlth? datermin= wh?the= or noL- the Cily is ~asemen~ area. H? stai•Pd even if L-he condition is not a pact of this zoning action, it is som?L-i~ing L-hat will have lo DPpi~iPlllf it`isbapprov~dP petitioner can Pxercis? L-ne rights of this p. , Jay Til-us, Offic? Engineer, sugg?st?d a condilicin could ti? added that th~ applicant apply f.or and rec?ive approval f.=om lhe City for abandonmPnt of a porlion of that storm dcain ?asem~nt. Mr. Titus stat?d ~hA applicant also CPfPLCPd L-o two pilings in his opening commenls and h~ was n~r Sut° wh°rP that pacticular numbet was dPLSnall ppt he would likP thA condition ~o read L-hat fooLings for this building d?signed in a mann?r that no footin9 load would b? imposed on the ~xisting slocm dtain stzucL-ure. ACTION: Commissioner rry offeted a moL-ion, secondAd by Commissionec eouas and MOTION CARRIED that th? AnahAim Cil•y PlhRbuilding with waiverseofominimum pcoposal to pArmit a 39-~001- b-inch hig stiuctutal setback, typ° of sign and maximum sign area and display surfaces on an irregularly-shaped patcel of iand consisting o£ apptoximatPly 2.24 acres locatAd at the north?ast cozner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and W?it Canyon Road and f.uzther d?scribed as 175 Riverview Driv°: and does hAreby approv~ the Nega~iv~ Declaration upon finding that it has considered the N?9ative Declatation togAther wil•h any comments receiv?d during tnP public LPVLAW process and £urthez finding on the basis of the Initial StudPc~ndillyhavAmants z~c?ived thal- there is no subsl-antial ~vidence l-hat thP pro7_. significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Fry of£?red a motion, seconded by Commissiopep $OUtanL-nwaMversNof CARRIED that th° AnahAim City Planning Commission does h_s.by g Pp+ Cod~ r~quir?ment on the basis that l•here are spPQlo~ati nuandasurroundingsble to the p~operty such as siz~, shapA, topogtaphy, wnich do not apply to other idantically zoned property in the same vicinity; 5/12/~6 86-310 MINUTES, ANAHEIM~ CITY PLANNING COMI4ISSION, MAY 1"l, 19~6 and that strict application o£ the Zoning Code deptiv?s thA prop°t~~ of privilegPs enjoyed by other ptoperties in the identical zone and classi£ication in th~ vieinity. Commissioner Hetbst asked whethez or nol- the 4U-square fooE m~nument sign could be rPd~ePd L-o con£orm with Cod~ since ~hA p'opertY is in thA Scenic Corridor Ov?~lay Zone. Mr.. Genzel stated they nPed~d thP larger sign sa it could be s~en from the str?et and ?xplained it is local-ed on th~ wAsterly sid~ of the pntrance. Chairwoman La Claire asked L-hat the stipulation be includAd in thA resolution that LhA p?titioner will negotiate with L-h~ City pPLtaining L-o the AasemAnt ar.ea and construction design cancerni:~g thp pilings £or the building in that araa. CommissionP= Fry ~ffPred Resolution No. PC86-119 and mov~d f.or its passage and adoption that th~ Anaheim Cily Planning Commission do?s her?by grant Condilional Use Permi~ No. 2773 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Cod? S°ctions 18.03.030.03U through 1~.U3.030.035 and subj?ct L-o thA £inding that the petitionAr will work out a satisfacl-ory agree~Pnt with thP City Enyineez's Of£ic? p?rtaining L•o the abandonmAnt and/or purchase o£ a portion o£ th~ storm drain PasAm~nl• area an~ also as to lhp dAsign of thA building so tnat th? £ootings will not imposP a burd?n on the storm arain structur? and subject to the Int?rd?pattm?ntal Committee recommendations. On roll r_all, the for=going r?solution was passAd by thA following vote: AYES: BOUAS~ FRY~ HERBST~ LH CLAIRE~ LAWICKI~ MC BURNEY~ MBSSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Malcolm S:Laught?r, D?puty City Attorney, prpsented l•he written right to appeal th? Planning Commission's decision within 22 days l•o thP City Council. ITEM :10. 4 EIR NEGATIVB DzCLARATIUN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2792 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: SAMULL A. HARDAGE, 110 S. Main, ~i010,SW1Maina, KS 67202. AGENTS: WILLIAM VICKR~Y, PETE KRUSE AND HAL TOLAR~ ~ #1000, Wichita, KS 672U"l. Ptoparty is described as an irregularly-shaped parc?1 0£ land consisting of approximat~ly 6.3 acres, having a frontage of appr.oximat•?ly 402 £eet on the south sid? of La Palma Avenue, furth?r described as 51U0 East La Palma Avenue (undevelopAd). To constcucL• a 3-story, 2U0-unit hotel complex with on-sale alcoholic beverages. Continued £rom L-he meeting of April 28, 1986. There were three persons indicating theit pzesence in opposition t•o sub7?ct request and aithough the sta£f report was not read, it is refezzed to and made a part of the minutes. 5/ 1"L/tl6 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 12 19~6 86-311 Hal Tolar, 1681 W. Broadway, Anaheim, explainad thAy have pr~sAnted information pertaining to thA proposed hotel and other similac hotels in industrial areas thzoughout the country L•o representatives of th~ nPighboring businPsses and AxplainAd thP proj~ct which they feel will b? an asse~ to thP arPa and theit business?s. He ~xplained the hotel is dAsigne~ to accommodal-e the commercial business park areas. ya stated L-raf£ic was a concArn and thPy have rAviewed the ar~a again and £rom 7:30 to 9:00 a.m. and from 4:U0 to 6:UU p.m. therA is a lot o£ tra££ic congAsL-ion in that area on La Palma; however, thPy feel this notel would certainly not add to l-hat traffic, and could help the traffic si~uation sincP l-he p?oplP sL-aying in thA hotel would bA working in thP area and would oe at th~ hotel for brAakf.ast during thP morning rush hours and in tne a£ternoons would bA going l-o t•hA hotel and not creating additional cong~stion at the interseclions. Mr.. Tolar stated l•her.? is a shopping arAa .6 of a mile from subject propezty at thP corner of Impetial and La Palma in cas~ a hot~l gu?st wanted to dc any shopping. He s~atAd noise is always a r.onc~rn to an inausl-rialist and pres?ntPd photographs of thA ar?a and poinl-ed out th? tiv~r and fre~way arA south of L-hA p=opPrty and a Bank o£ Ametica sl-orag? building is to th~ east and commercial businPss parks ara on th~ norlh side of La Palma. HP stated l•his is not a hotel in l-h? stricl-?st sens~ of the word like a Marriol-t or Hill-on and is designed specif~cally to be campatible wiL-h thP commercial business parks. HA presAntPd photoyraphs o£ thA Brea site m~nl-ionad previously which will b? the samA typA hotA1 and ~xplain?d that has been approved and l•hA plans are in for ch?cking and the hotPl will oe under consL-ruction by June lst. H~ stal?d on the wost sid~ o£ subjAct property thAre is a strP~t which yoes lo a City of Anah?im utilities easement and thAre are no windows on the Thoroured Racing Piat? tiuilding. He stated ~uint~k, who also had some conc?tns, is about 300 to 4UU f??~ down L-he str?et. Mr. Tolar stated most of thei~ pzevious £aciiities had kitch?ns in all units, but l-hA numbAr in this particular facility has been r?duced to 478 witi~ kil-chen units. H? presented letters Lrom user.s indicating yuests are primacily employees transf~rring to the arFa, attending sales meetings, tr.aining seminars, Atc. They stated the units wil-h kitchens are designed fot p?ople who want to stay a wpek or ionger and do not want to yo out to pat in a restaurant all th? tim~. He ?xplained they hav~ £ound, however, that the kitchAnG wPre not b~iny used that much, so have reduced thP number in this propos~d facility. Mz. Tolar stated L•he land costs were ?xtremely high and th?re is no way financially L-o evPn consider thes~ as residantial units for that propecty, and that tney believe this is an excellent sit? because it is on thA perimeter o£ the industrial commercial business pazk ac?a and that area is bounded ~y La Palma, Ozany~thorpe, Imperial and Lakeview. Mr. Tolar presPnted 1?tters from companies which use these type faciliti~s, ana read one fcom General Dynamics relatiny to a similar f.acility~ the "ResidPnce Inn' in E1 Paso, T°xas. 5/12/k!6 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 12 1986 $6-312 G1?nn Wise, Pzoject Managet for Ciba-Geigy Corporation, 1091U Talbert Avenu=, Fountain Valley, Calif.ornia, explained they had an opportunity to meet with Mc. Tolar and moie infotmation was provided on this hot~l which was help£ul; nowev~r, there was no information available £zom neighbors of the oth~r hot?ls around the country, ane, ~.her~ was no evid~nc? that thece werP truly indusL-rial businAsses as direct nAighb^rs to l•hAs= hot?ls wh~ were pl~ased with the facility bPing zn thPir ara-a. Mr. WisA stated in raviewing L-h~ local site app=~ved in Braa, it appeared f.rom the pictures that the industrial siles around that location W~~P not rPally v?ty h~avy industrial businessAs, with a car lot next dooz, etc. yo sl-aL-ed the brochure giv?n them indicat?d th~ targ?L-ed custom?ts for these hotAls y?nerally includ?d pA~sons attending s~minars and lzaining s~ssions oz p?ople conducting business in th~ area for morP than an overniyht stay, p~rsons relocating, inves~igating n?w job opp~rtunities, looking for or awaiting occupancy of a new rPsid?nc~, and p~zsons on an ~xtended recr?al-ionai or mPdical-r?lated visit to relatives, ~xp?ri~ncpd commPrcial travelers who want more space for wor.k or entPrtainment who anjoy th~ homesty:~ amPniti~s. He addPd thPGP arA really conc~rns Lo lheir busin?ss; and that tnAy hav~ PPO~ZP r?locating and som?times hav? to wait for ti~aic new hom? to bA built and do need a plac? to stay, which means famili?s would be stayiny thece and h? did not think L-his ?nvironmPnt wou'_d b~ acc~ptable oecause of the industrial users who might cause strange odocs, dust• o~ noise which would b? annoying and wil-h childcen involv?d, parpnts would b~ ov~rly r,oncArned and mo~e sAnsitive. Ho stated they would like for the Commission to consider tnat this operation, while it may bP good in th~ b>ginning, as time go°s on, thp=p may be incteased opportunities, as thA industries dev~lop across thP street, £or problems to occur if thet~ wer? stsong adozs, aust oz noise wnich could b~ uncomfottaelA for thA guPst•s ~t lhis hotel. HP sl-atad ~hAy plan to bA at l•his location for a p°ationmandnthehParels pl~nty of room for growth and theirs is an industrial op.. P pPopl? stayiny concezned that eventually l-his could becom~ a problAm f.~P thanvironmPnt. He at thP hotAl, and there could bA a nA9ativA impact on th_ir added it can be expPnsivP foz a company to have to dAfend itsel£ on 7ust a nuisanc? charge. He stated th?re could be noise, traffic, dust or odoc problems; and that La Yalma is th? access for most of ~h~ businesses in thA area and this hotPl would be right on that artAzy. H~ added there are aroas not too far away whPrP L-his facility would ee more acc?ptable becausa th~re is a nPed for this typ~ facility, eut this is just too clos~ L-o industty. Bill Wisnet, Distribu~ion C?nter Manager, WatnPz Lamb?rt Company, stated the first timP he heard about this was in a letl•?r from Thotobred Racing Plate Company and h? thought a good n?ighbor policy would dictate that a proprietor of. a new hol-~1 would visit with all l-heit neighbors. Mr. Wisner statAd about 12 yeacs ago h? interviewAd with t-he Warnet Lamtiert Company at their form?r. location on La Palma and that h~ was very impressed with theit most attractive indusstrial ouilding bAcause of the lush landscapiny 5/12/tl6 MINUTES, ANAHEIM~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MAY _12~ 1986 86-313 wiL•h about 4 acres of lawns and ga~dens. He pointed out the adjacent building had about 5 acres o£ landscaped lawns and garaens and that Warner Lambert was very pzoud of Anaheim and La Pa'_ma Avenue and, in f.act, there was no str~?t =xisting when they built their facility. HA stated Warner Lambect controlled most of thA land in that area and was very specific about who th~y would s=11 to and what their building had lo look lik? and insisted l-hat lhete would oe adequaLe landscaping. He stated they have less voice today than they did in the bAginning bAcause th~y sold their property Ciba-Geigy, but would like th~ Commission to consider that the original intent was that Lak~view and Imperial would b? thA commercial arteries for La Palma and ?v~rything Als~ would be industrial. He stated there is a hot~l at Imp~rial and La Palma which ne f~lL is v~ry ad?quate and lhat most of thP companies in L-hat area us> that hotAl and have foi a number o£ years. H~ stated khis is an industrial arPa and th~y have b?en good n~ighbors and lhA stzeet has been k~pt nicA; and that the hotAl would probably look nice, but it is l•otally diffArPnt and does not fit into thA overall scheme o~ master plan f.or thal sL-reet and h~ would r.ather see a nice large industrial usPr on that oroperty. Ed hinney, Thoroughbred Racing Plate Company, SUGO E. La Palma Avenu~, Anaheim, statPd they do not think this hot~l would fit inl•o the area and th~y are still opposed. He presenL-ed letters from Floor Syslems and Calisco who ar~ n~ighboring business~s also opposing the r~quest and pointPd out Quint=k still opposes this request. He stat?d h~ undersl-ands ~hat commercial land in the arAa is s>llin9 for ~20.00 a squaz~ foot and this propAzty was sold for abaut ~11.15 per square fool-, so h~ could und~rstand why they would want to have a good projAct there, but that this usP doesn't fil into the arpa or comply witt~ the Genecal Plan f.or this City. He stated they hav? been at l•hat location for ov?z 1S years and that the arPa has grown and really looks good, but L•hat it is an industrial area and thAy feel it should b? k~pt industrial. Mr. Tolar stal?d the suite hot~l concept in an ind~tsL-rial commercxal busin~ss area is n~w to this particula~ area, but is noL• nAw to indusl•rial commercial sites throughout the country. He stated th? hot~l is d?signed with a center couztyard so that noise oi aci:ivities by a family would not ba as much of a p_*oblem. He ~xplained th~ze would be lush landscaping and the landscaping would p:obaoly be more lhan it would be with another industr.ial building. He stat?d a hotel such as l-his would be covered by City codes with r?strictions as to noise, air pollution, etc. and also has requir?ments for sound att=nuation and thought thA guesL•s staying at this hot=1 who are affiliated with the businAsses in the area would not want to complain againsL- their own companies. He stated th? industrialists in their meetings admitted they hav~ people coming l•o L•hA area £or sPminars and training sessions and admitted that they would use this £acility, but would pre£er it be £urthPr down the stteet. H~ stat~d ther~ arA peopl~ who are locating in this area who are being trans£errPd from anothet area and these facilities are needed in that instance and poinL-Pd out there ar~ no waivers requested £or si9ns o~ parking so they arP not trying to attract people from L•he reczeational area or freeway. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst stated certain signs would be allowAd by right, such as wall sign £acing the freeway and asked the applicant to stipulate that they would not put a sign on that wall. Mr. Tolat responded lhat Mr. Vickrey is nodding in the audience that he Nould be willing to make that stipulation. MINUTES, ANAHEIM, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MAY 12~ 19~6 86-314 Commissioner Herbst stated thA Planning Commission looks at the indust:rial ar.~a and undArstands the industrialists' concerns, but as land plann?rs, looks at whAther ur not the use will service the industrial community and he believed L•his particular concept £or a hotel will service the industrial community and is built speci£ically for serving the industrial communiL-y. He pointed out there are commercial uses in the azoa betwPen Lakeview and Imperial and the Commission has opposed many of l•hose uses, and he felt this hotel would service the area mor.P Lhan the M?rcAdes dealership which is Axisting just down L-h~ stzeet. Chairwoman La Claire sl-ated sh? has donA a lot of business traveling and has lookPd for ar_commodations such as this and felt this will really be an assAl- to the business person Crav?ling and it is particularly nice i£ the traveler is out of town for a coupl? of weeks at a L-im~. She added £or the past £Aw yeazs, thP Planning Commission has tried to keep the indusL-rial area industrial; howAver, things have changPd and more and more commercial office and commArcial establishmPnts ara goiny into thp industrial area and the compiexion is going to changP in l•hat arPa. She stated she undArstands the opposition's conc?rns and is concArnAd that once l-h? hol-P1 is in, thAy would com? back and complain about the industrialicL-s causing nois>, dust, Ptc., and sh? did not know th? legalities, buL- £elt this Commi:~sion would not be very sympaL-h~tic Lo that type complaint. ShA stated most motPls or hot?ls whPre business people stay are located in or near very highly-travelAd streets, probably because L-ne yuests will only be thPra for a short L-ime; and L-hat she has bpPn in L-hat area many timas in th~ Pvening and there reaily isn't a lot of traffic at night a£ter 7 p.m. She sl-ated sh? thoughL- th~ use would fit consid?riny thP f.act that thPCP is going to bA moc~ and mor? commercial oEfica uses in thaL- ar?a and less and lass industr.ial users, which is l•hP direction the City Council is taking, ar~d tha~ there is nok going to bA a problem with ttaffic and if anything, the L-soffic will o~gin to declin? in L•he evenings. She added `hPL? are requirempnts for sound attenuation which will be placpd on this hotel so that noise from the industries should not bA a problAm and L•hat this is protiably one o£ the few businesses khich sne £e1L- would be a ben?fit L-o the indust~ial user in L•he area. CommissionAr Fry stated hP is extrem~ly conrerned aoout th? opposition's concerns, and cannot suppor.t the cequest and did not Delieve it would be compatiel? with L-h? area. He added, however, it may be compatiblp in 10 y?ars, but not at this time. He referred ~o th? findings requir?d £or approval and stated he believ?d the use would adversPly affect lh? adjoining land uses and growth and development in L•he area. Commi:sioner Bouas agreed and stated she did not £eel this holel should be in this area; that oziginally shA did not think it would be suitablP because it was in L-he cPnter o£ L•he industrial area, and then later decid?d it was on the perimel-er, trut now a£ter case£ul reviek, feA1s it is on th~ perimeter on one side, but in the cPnter on three sidAs and she could not support thA requAst. Commissionet Herbst stated being in Lhe centAr of the industzial acea is th~ reason he will support the use because he feels it will setvice the industrial 5/1'l/~6 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 12 1986 86-315 communil•y and th~ hot?1 could not sutvive if th=y were trying to attract guests from the rAcreational area and in this location, the industrial community will be its only suppozt. Commissioner Bouas stated she agreed that it will have to survive on guests fcorti the industrial c~mmunity, but did not think this is the right location. CommissionAr H~rbsL• statPd hA travels La Palma Av~ryday and SAPS thP traffic and did not think this project would adversely af£ect the traffic pattezns or creatP traf.fic congAsL-ion o~i La Palma, and in fact, would probably d:aw traffic away from La Palma. CommissionAr Mess? ag~~ed traf.fic would nol- bA a pcoblem, but apptoval would be putting a us? that is strany? ~o the arAa into ~he aroa and felt if. it was on Lakeview, Tustin, Imp?rial or K~aemer, th?re would bA less impact and it would not result in a change to tha industrial communiL•y. Commissioner H~rbst stat?d he has been f.ighting foz the intpgrity of that azea for the last 20 years and the City Council is going mor~ towards ofEicA buildings, ~tc. and theze are morA o£ficA us?s L-he•ze t•han industtial us?s. HP stated this is a new concept, but ho has sAen it and it does work in the indusL•r.ial community b?cause it doPs servica that community only and they wi'_1 not b~ trying L-o attract pAopl? into th~ ar?a. Chairwoman La Clairp statAd it would create fa~ less traf£ic than an industrial user. ACmION: Commissioner H°rbst offPr°d a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBUrney and MOTION CARkIED that 'h° AnahAim Cil-y Planning Cammission has reviewe•d thA proposal to consl-cuct a 3-story, ~UU-unit hotel complex with on-sale alcholic bevezages on an irt~gularly-shaped parcpl of land consisting of approximately 6.3 acres, having a frontag~ of approximately 402 fe?t on L-hp south side of La Palma Avenue and £urther dPSCLlbpd as 510U East La Palma p.v=nuP; and does hAreby approv~ the N~gative Declacation upon finding that it has considPced the Negative Declaration together with any comments received dur.ing the public review procAss and furth~r finding on the basis of thP Initial Study and any commAnts received that thezA is no substanLial evidence that the project will nave a significant ef£ect on th? Anvironment. Com~issioner He_*bst offeted Resolution No. PCd6-120 and moved for its passage and adoption that the AnahPim City Planning Commission does h=reby g=anL- Conditional Use Permit No. 2792 pursuant to Anah~im Municipal Code Sections 18>03.U30.U30 through 18.U3.030.035 and sub~ect to InL•erdepartmental CommitL-ee tPcommendations including an additional condition that no wall signs shall be permitted on thA north facing wall. On roll call, the £ocegoing resolution was passed by the fo'_lowing vote: AYES: HERBSTr LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI~ MC BURNEY NOES: BOUAS~ FRY~ MESSE ASSENT: NONE Malcolm Slaughtec, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written tight to appeal the Planning Cammission's decision within 22 days to the CitS/12/gbil. ~6-316 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION [4AY 12 1986 ITEM N0. 5 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION RECLASSIFICATION N0. ~5-86-32 AND VARIANCE N0. 3556 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: YUK T. LAU AND SO KUEN LAU, 314 N. Beach Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92801. AGENT: DBNNIS MARCHANll, 17362 Tothard Stzeet, Huntington Beach, CA 92b47. PropArL-y described as a rActangularlQ-shapedLP%imal-el£ lOUd consisl'ing of apptoximatAly U.3 acrA, having a fron~ag_. of app Y £Pet on th? east sidP of Har.ding Drive, 110-119 South Harding Drivo. RS-720U to RM-120U oc a less intPns° zone• Waiv~rs of maximum strucL•ural hAight, minimum st-r.uctural s~tback and minimum distance bPLWpPR buildinys to cons~ruct a 2-story, tl-uniL- apaxL•ment complAx. There were LwPlve p~rsons indicating th?ir preseiice in opposition to subjFct requAst and although the sta£f zepor.t was noL- read, it is cefecrPd l•o and madA a part o£ the minu~es. DPnnis I~archand, ag?n~, explained Harding S~r?et is in a declining neighborhood with comm°rcial developm?nt on one sidA of thp StzPP~~ and also therF is an alley extending £rom Hacding to GLand wi.th thP commatcial developmAnt on on? sid? of the alley and subject prop?zty on the other side. ge stat?d they are tequir.ed to d~dicaL-p 12 ~eet on Harding to L-hP City of Anaheim and mosL- o£ thP oth?r parcAls had Lo d•Pdicat~ onPy ZPfpxistind also, thOy are iequirAd ~~ dPdZCat? Z LPPL ~n L-he all?y bepaus_. th S~ Lt ha$ L~ bP commercial development r_annot give up the onPP~°a=pLLeuuiced L-o dedicate ~akPn f.rom subjPct proP°r~Y• Hp explained th_y 9 app=~ximately 1,U00 squace £P~t to L•he City. Mt. Matchand stated pzobably some of. thA neighbois are opposed to l-he height r~quest. and that the CodP pArmiLs unly one stoty within 150 £ePt of. singlA-£amily residential zonAs. H~ stated this propetty is bel•w°en commer.cial and single-£amily residential and he thought this project would SPZVA as a bu££ez zon? between the single-family and commercial uses. H° stated one o~ the neighbors PXPtPSSPd concern because they have a pool and want to ensure thPir privacy and in order to hPlp alleviate that problem, they would bA willing to eliminate the windows on the east, tie added thete is abouL 3U feet bPtwPen thp driveway and the rear wall of the house whete L•hA pool is loca~Ad. Mt. Marchand stated this type developm?nt nas been allowed in this area and thA area is designated on the General Plan fot medium density residential and that thP a~ea is d?clining and thPLP are vacan~ lots across the street. Roland Weinhold, 131 South Grand, stated he is spAaking on bAhalE of the other r.esidents and presented a display showing photogcaphs of the housAs in the area on the west siae of Gzand and the Past sid? of Harding which indicates L-he azea is primarily single-£amily, single-story residences with two duplAxes, and that those duplexes appear from the front as singlP-£amily residences. He stated even though this atea is zoned £or more than single-£amily residences, the people on tha block object to the request for so many variances from L-he Codes. HA stated the petitioner is requesting to 5/12/66 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANIJING COMMISSION MAY 12 1y86 86-317 build 2 s~oties at 9 to SU f.eet from single-family homes to the >ast, south and w~st and the projecL- would be B to 10 feet higher than the co~nercial zoning L-o ~he north, so h~ did not undersL-and how that would creal-A a buffer. H? stated the requirements fot setbacks arA 13 and 10 fPet and the petitioner is requestin9 6 feel and 9 fAAt, and th? minimum distance between buildinys should b> 27 to 32 £AeL- and tnA pel-itioner is requAsting 1S to 19-1/2 f.eet. He statAd il appears they ar.e trying lo put too much on a pcopArty that is not large enough to accommodatA the ptoj°ct and it ceally doPs nol con£orm to th? neighbozhood as it is existing. Mr. W~inhold stated six singlP-family r?sidences hav? b?en oui1L• on Grand since 1977, and on Harding there are thrPe newer single-£amily z?sidences, and thA two vacanL- lol•s are botli owned by Cne people who livA tPPr~intedhout L•his choSeR L'O ledVe them VdCant becdUS? thPy lik~ the space. H_ p is not a dPclining nAighborhood and ther? are a loL- of olaet homes on the s~reet, but they are, fo: the most ~art, fairly w~ll maintained. HA pcAsent=d petitions signed by Che resid?nts on l-he wAst sidA of Gzand, botn sides o£ Harding, the Aast sidP of Topanga and thP north side oPrD°lis ofP an alleyall opposed to L•hP zequesL•. He stated access L•o this prop. y which empties onto Har.ding and GLand and the intersection aL- Grand and Lincoln has a loL• of L-ra£fic and putL•ing 16 more v~hiclFs intc tnose l•wo SLL??tS will just add Lo thP problems. Mr, Weinhold sL-dt?d L-h?LP was a question about th~ water services sinc? this area is now servAd by an ~xisL•ing wPll and they do not know what impacL- anoL-h~r S units would hav? on that well, and whPthPr oc nol a fire hydrant could be servicAd from that well. ~~r, WAinhold stat?d lhP variances L?QUPSLPd are noL- minimal, but are SU8 more tha~ thP CodP per.miL•s, and they do not fePl ~he alley is widP ?nough to accommodat? the number of cars anticipatAd. Kathy Weinhold stated one p?zson was contacted about this project and no onP ~lse knew about iL- until th?y received thA notices fcom the City. She stated, petsonally, she obj?cL-s to someone calling her 7-year old hom~ declining and that shP moved into a singl?-£amily n~ighborhood and would iike it to remain a single-family neighbozhood. She stated she thought this change would be detrimAntal to thA neighborhood and that these changes need to be stopped. She stated chere atA r.ew home•~wners, in addition L•o thP people who hav? lived in thP neighborhood since th~ 1y20's, ar.d they are a21 against the pro~ect. Mrs. Dzuif£, owner o£ th? duplex at 124 S. ~arding, stated she would not be against a project similar to the onA shA developed, wh~.ch is a single-stocy duplPx. She stated he* oojPction is ~0 2 stories and the high dPnsity on such a small lot. She stated she is also concetned about danger to the well and notPd somA of L-he people on Harding Stteet have lived there for over 5U years and if that w~ll was damagPd, it would probably become impossiblP Lo tepair and all pLOpecty owners would have to go into the City water service, and she undPrsL•ands that would cost each owner about ~4,UU0. She st:a~ed no one objActed to her project and it has workAd out very well and she is not against progress, buL• thought it should be very cacefully monitored. She statad she dedicated 12 £eet when she constructed her proj?ct in 1984. 5/12/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM~ CITY PLANNING CONiMISSION, MAY 1"L~_19~6 86-318 Mr. Marchand stated at1 thGe pcesent time 110 Harding is L-he only property [?qV1[pd L~ dedicaL•e 12 Lept• ~~ stated hP decidpd td V$P ~hp alley for access in order to mitigate traffic and did n~t believ~ 16 cars would be a dPtriment on either sL•reet and that the lta£fic can exit either way. HA stdtPd thP peoplA oR thdt stLe?t Would benPfit from t:hiS Comp1PX witn thP insL•allation of a£ire hydrant and also additional lighting, indicating their lighting is not adequate at th? pces?nt time. He staL~d the projecl actually has on? side adjacent to a co~nencial dev=lopment and th~ fiontage will navG a nicAly landscaped 15-foot setback and tr~e building will be 2 skories, but direcl•ly across thA str~et is onA rAsidence and a vacant lot. He stal-ed thA soul-h side is adjac?nt to a singl?-£amily residence; howevAr, th?y have pcovidAd a 14-£oot setback in the middlA of tnA building to minimize L-hat impact so L•hosP people would b? minima:ly affected. HA statad the 15-foot courtyacd was an e£fort to appAase the neighbors to the south and at the rear is app~~ximately 4U fe?t, with a sel-back that is moz? than with thP existing hous~. He s~ated th?~e will bp no windows on that sidA and thA neiyhbor's privacy will be insurAd and there will eA a 25-foot dciveway whieh will providP a bu££~r. H~ statpd a pcec~dAnL- has bePn set in that ar.=a and on Grand AvenuA there is a 2-story apartment complex and th? n~ighbor with the pool felt that apar.tment complex had not imposed any constr.aint-s and was not a thrAat and, in facl, is a good neighboc and he ~ould PXpPCL this proj?cL• wou;d also b~ no proelem. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissionar Bouas ask~d about th~ wat~r servicA. Mt. Marchand statPd thAy have thA option of Aither using th~ wPll wal•P~ or the City water, and have not made a decision as yet, but ~ould be willing ~o sL•ipulaL-e to usin9 tne City waLer sArvices and pointAd out a£icA hydrant would also pe installAd. Commissioner Herbst asked i£ thP petitioner had done any zesearch on apar.tments adjacPnt l-o single-£amily properties zelating l-o the building heighL- and explained in the past, variances have bAen granted from tne 15U-foot seL-back, but never less than 5U f.eet and this proj?ct is at 9 feAt on th~ south property line and approving this complex would be satting a precedent never allowed. He stated this would ti~ an infring~ment on the neighbors and thA whole ar?a is single-story and he felt it should cemain single-story. He addPd he did not think L-h? arAa is ready for 2-story apartments at this time, even though the General Plan designates it for medium dPnsity residential land uses. He suggested a gardpn-L-yg~, single-story apattment complAx wil-h possibly 4 unit~. Mr. Marchand statAd there is a commercial development on one sidA of the pcoperl•y and therA is over SU £eet on the Harding Street frontage with approximately 30 os 4U on the rear, with only one side being a£fected, and thaL side of the building is designed such that the problems would be alleviated. 5/1"l/86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMI4ISSION MAY 12 19~6 ~b-319 Chairwoman La Claire stated she is not sure the stceet was appropriatPly classified on thP General Plan because it do~s have singlP-story, single-family homes and ther.A are some new homes in the ar~a and there is a mixtur? of newer and old?i homes and they ace nicely k=pt and the Commission has tri~d to ptotec't that arPa. She suggestPd thA pAtitioner z~quest a continuance in order to considPr revised plans for a single-story pzoject. Mr. Marchand stated he would like a continuance in OCdPt to considet revising the plans. ACTION: Commissioner McBUrney offered a motion, seconded by Commissionec gouas and MOTION CARRIED that considecaEion of ~he aforementioned matter be concinuPd to the rPgularly-schaduled mAating of June 9, 1986, aL• L•h~ requAst o£ the pAtitioner. Commissionot Bouas suggAsL-ed L•hA petiL•ioner meet with the neighbo~s prio~ to the meeting in order for them L•o reviAw the revisAd plans. RECESSED: 3:05 p.m. RECONVENED: 3:2U p.m. ITEM N0. 6 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VAF2IANCE N0. 3557 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: J. RODN~Y LAWRENCE~ PIER 1 IMPURTS - WES'L, INC., 3U1 Commerce Stzeet, #600, Foct Worth, Texas 76102. AGENTS: Jltd SOMERS, SANTA ANITA DEVELOPMENT CORP., 363 San Miquel Dt., NAwport Beach, CA 92u60. Pcoperty describPd as an it[A9ularly-snaped parc~l of land consisting of approximat?ly 8 acres, 5455 E. La Palma Av~nue. Waivers of rAquir?d lot frontage, minimum nurtieer of pazking spaces and maximum number of compact parking spaces ~o establish a two-parcel suadivis.iun. There was no on? indicating their pcesencA in opposition to subject requ~st and although the staf.f report was not read, it is refetred L-o and made a part of the minutes. Jim Somets, Santa Anita Development Cozp., agPnt, was present to answec any qnestions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairwoman La Claite stated sta£f has suggested L-he propecty bP subdivided so the ?asAment will be on the £lag lot. Mr. SomPrs cesponded thAy have no plans for the development fronting on La Palma and if iE is dividAd as suggest~d, parking £oz the warehouse will be on that thin strip, and it teally doesn't makA any difference because they have to have reciprocal easements £or both parcels for utilities, £ite lanes, ingress and Pgxess, etc. Chairwoman La Claire stated th?re could be a problem i£ the pazking is used by th? establishment on the fronti patcel on La Palma creating a problem for the reac parcel. Mr. Somets stat~d thP rear parcel will be developed with a Pier 1 watehouse whioh will b? a waiehouse distribution center and would be a dor.k-high building with very little power and would not lend itself to a manufacturing £acility because of iL-s design. He stated they do not- see a need fot additional patking. 5/12/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, NAY 12~ 19~6 ~6-320 ACTIGN: Commissioner McBUrn~y offered a motion, secondAd by Commission?r Herbst and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has revi~wAd the proposal to establish a two-parcel industrial subdivision with waivers o£ rAquired loL- frontaga, minimum number o£ parking spaces and maximum number o£ compact- spaces on an irregular.ly-shaped parcAl of land consisting of. approximately 8 acres, having a f.rontage of approximately 319 feet on the north side of La Palma Avenue and furth~r, described as 5455 E. La Palma Avenue; and does hPreby approve the NAgative Declaration upon £inding that it has considered th~ NPgative Declaration together with any comments ceceived during the public review process and f.urthPr finding on thP basis of the Initial Study and any commenL-s r~ceived that there is no substantial evidence that the proj?ct will have a signi~icant effecL- on th~ environment. C~mmissioner tdcBUrney offerAd Resolution No, PC86-121 and mo~•ed £or its passage and adoption that the Anah?im City Ylanning Commission does hereay grant Varianc> No, 3557, waiver (a) on thP basis that thAre are sp?cial circu~stanc~s applicable to the property such as sizA, shape, topography, location and surroundings which do not apply L•o other identically zonAd pYOpArty in L•hP same vicinity; and that str.ict application of thA 2oning Code deprives the prop?rty of privilages enjoyed by oth?t propecties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity; and granting waiv~rs (b and c) on the basis that th~ parking waiver will not cause an incr=ase in traffic congestion in tha immediale vicinity nor advPrs~ly affPct any adjoining land uses and granting of L-h? parkiny waivec und~r the conditions imposed, if any, will not b~ detrim?ntal to th> p~ace, h=alth, safety and general wel£ar~ o£ the citizAns o£ th~ City of Anaheim and subjAct to Interdepar.L-mental Committee recommendations. On r.oll call, the £orPgoing resolution was passed by Lh~ following vot•e: AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE NUES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Malcolm Slau9hter, DAputy City Attorney, presentPd the written right to app~al the Planning Commissior.'s decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0. 7 EIR ~EGATIVE DECLARATION~ WAIVER UF CODE RE~UIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2788 PUBLIC HEARING. ONWE~S: STAFAC INC., c/o THE CORPORATION TRUST CO., ATTN: MR. JOSEPH BARBERA, 100 West lUth Street, Wilmington, DE 19~U1 AND SHELL OIL CO., FRANCIS FULLER, DISTRICT ENGINEER, 511 N. Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, CA 92801. Propecty is desccibed as a tectangularly-shaped paccel of land consisting oE appraximately 0.52 acte located at the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Kra~mer Boulevard, 30H5 West La Palma Avenue (Shell Service Station). To permit a self-service gasoline sales and a Foodmart with off-sale beer and wine and with waivers of maximum number of £reestanding signs, permitted location of freesL-anding signs and minimum distance between freestanding signs. 5/12/~6 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CO[~MISSION DSAY 12 1986 86-321 There werA six persons indicating thAir presAnce in favor of subject rPquest and two peisons indicating their pr?sence in opposition to subject tequesk and although the sta££ report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Berni~ Smith, representing Shell Oil Company, explained L-hey plan to demolish the axisting sezvice station and build this n~w facility for a£oodma*t with o££-sale beer and wine sales. HA stated they will have 2,7U0 feet of landscaping (128 of. the totai development); that on La Palma ftam Brookhurst to Imperial (9-1/2 miles) th~ce is only one foodmar.t with gasoline sales and it is locat?d at Impetial. Mr. Smith r.eferred to Condition No. 4 requir.ing a 12-fool dedication and stat~d they would pcefer not to make that dedication bPcausp thA loss of foolagP would af£ect their circulation on-sit~. He stal-ed b>cause of previous dedications made to the City of Anaheim, they will have to rAduce thP new £acility to a 2-pump island insL-ead of` a 3-pump island. H~ explain~d originally they bought 41,100 square •Ppt of p~operty and the curtent site is 22~000~ So they have dediCdted 458 of thAiL original property L•o the City~ dRd With this additional 12 f?et oL 19~U00 squarA fPP.t/ th~y will have dedicated 548 of th~ir property to the City. Concerning b?er and win? sales, he explained Snell Oil Company does not sell beer and wine and the facility is 1=ased to an independent businessman and in order to attract• a£irst class d~alez, thAy have to provide a fitst-class ~acility and the beer and win~ salPs contribute to the foodmazt profitability. He stated they hav~ no studies to disagree with the task force study conducl-Ad by the Phoenix Polic? Deparlment which snowed tne location of whece arcested persons elaimed to have been drinking was ut bars (458), hom~ (18$), friAnds houses (14~) and miscellaneous local-ions (242). HA stated they £ound no relationship to the tandem sale of gasolir~e and beer and wine. Alan 2a11, Atl•orney, 17592 Irvin~ Boulevard, Suite 2U4, Tustin, r?prosAnting the indep?ndent dealer, presented a petition distributed by the d~alei two hours this morning and read thA pAtition indicating suppott for the following rAasons: (1) that the property will oe upgtaded becausA of a new building and improvements, (2) adjoining properties will increase in value, (3; City will derive additional revenue because of increased valuation of prop?rty, (4) additional lighting which will be provided act•s as a deterrent to crimP, (5) convnnienc? to drivers who need services at times when other places are closed and (6) convenience for seniot citizens who do not drive. Mr. Zall stat?d his clienl• has seveial service sL-ations and some do have the sale of teAr and wine presently and he is an experienced operator and has been operatin9 iri the City of Anaheim £or seven years. He stated subject property is not near any churches, schools, libraries, oz any building which would have minors present and is in a commercial area which is becomin9 incxeasingly moze commezcial. He stated this business must also obtain approval £=om the Alcoholic Beverage ..'ontrol Boazd and they would have the power to revoke or suspend the license if ptoper procedures ate not ul-ilized. He stated the applicant intends to comply with all requirPments o£ Ordinance No. 4668. He statPd this will be a 29-hour a day opeiation, seven days a week, in an area where there are no other businesses open. 5/12/86 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MAY 12~ 1986 86-322 Karl Sator, representing S& S Investments, 3150 E. La Palma, representing about 100 tenants at theit industrial complex, =xplained they have been before the Commission many times in the past regarding their problems. He explained their property is between Kraemer B~ulevard and Shepard Street where the amusom?nt park or fun center is locatAd and on weekends particularly, they have had numerous problems with youths in the area and th? Police are there every we~k~nd on Friday and Saturday nights and Sundays. He stated he thought with the sale of beer and wine at this location, there would be additional problems and did not think it should be permitted in an industrial azea and did noL- think th? salA of beer and wine would service the industrial area and noted there is a commercial arAa not veiy £ar away. Otto Stephen, t~nant at 3121 E. La Palma, YodAr Industrial Complex, stated he would strongly object to this dev~lopment becausA he did not see any good reason fo~ it to b? there, but can see a few reasons why it should not be therA. He stated there are facilities Wh?rP bpPL and winP could be purchased at Kraem~r and Ozangethorpe, La Palma just ovez the fr.eeway, Glassell and Lincoln and noted those locations are less than one mile from subject propArty. H~ stated ho did not see how this market could be a convenience for senioz citizens becausP there are no senior citizens living in the industtial area. He stated a major problem is that the facility would be genetating undesirable traffic and that with CamAlot in that area, there is a lot of unwanted traffic now and their parking lot has peen used by the youth as a place to drink and pacty and there is trash left be:nind by the young people. Mr. Steph~ns stated just today he heard on the radio that an AM-PM Market was being ~obbed and two men were killed by th~ attendant and though~ this facility would be a prime ~arget for that typP criminal acl-ivity because it is on the ouL-skirts o£ where nocmal traff~c would b?. Alan Zall, Attorney, representing the dealer, stated he is no~ ~amiliar with the incidenc~ referred to with the robbery today and unfortunately, thete is crime in all communities and that there was no real objection from the Police Department rogarding this application. He stated the request denied in 1985, was prio_* to Ordinance [~^. 4668 which was passed in Nove:~ber 1985, and the oizcumstances and conditions wer.e diff?rent. He stated che owners of Zaby's Motor Lodge located at 444 W. Katella are presAnt in £avor o£ this request. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairwoman La Claire stated she is £amiliaz with th~ statistics regarding alcohol and deaths of peoplP due to dcunk drivers in California, plus the increase of teenage drinking. ShP stated she has conducted het own private survey with many teenagers and when she has inquiced as to where they purchased their alcohol, she has been told t•hey get it ftom gas stations where beer. and wine is sold because most of th~m employ a young person and pay them minimum wage who is taking the money for the gasoline sales in addition to everything else at the same time and is in a hurry and does not check as closely as they should. She stated for that reason only, she has n~ver voted in favor of the sale of beer and wine in conjunction with gasoline sales, and al a time in this country, when ~ae are trying to discouragP drinking and 5/12/86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 12 1986 86-323 dciving, she could not vote in favor of this cequest. She stated she would vote against it also because she did not think it should be in this location since this is an industtial area and the Commission has tried to keep this kind of sale out o£ the industrial area because a lot o£ people will buy the beer and wine and dzink it and thpn go back to work and get hurt and many industrialists agree they do not want it thPre. Commissioner Herbst stated a similar request was just recently denied actoss the street for the same reasons, He stated he does not approve of the sale of beer and wine in conjunction with gasoline sales and suggested maybe Shell Oil should do some research because cur.rently the State of California is considering enacting a law to ban such sales. He statPd as an industrialist, he doAs not like b~er and wine sold around industrial pPople ~ecause there are pcoblems with alcoholism and p~ople wo~king with heavy equipment, etc. and th?re could be major accidents and he did not lik~ peopl> to have ace?ss to beer and wine within walking distance of their jobs. Commissioner Bouas dg:?nd this is not lhe right location. CommissionAr Fry stated b2eL and wine sales probably do contribul•e to the profitaoility of the operation, but do not contribute to t•he health, safety, general wel£are o£ the public and hP would oppos? the zAquest. ACTION: Commissioner Fry o£fered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that the Anah~im City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to pPrmit a sel£-service gasoline sales and Foodmart with of£-sale beer and wine on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of appcoximately 0.52 acres, located at the northwest cornez of La Palma Avenue and Kraemer Bouleva~d and £ur.ther described as 3U~5 E. La Palma (Shell Service Station); and does here5y approve the NP9ative D~claration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declacation together with any comments teceived during thA public ceview process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a signi£icant Af£ect on the environment. Commission?r Fry of£er?d a motion, seconded by Commissi.oner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that th? Anaheim City Planning Commission does hAreby d~ny waiver of Code requirement on the basis that there ace no sp~cial circumstances applicable to the p*_operty such as size, shap?, topography, location and surroundings which do not apply to othec identically zoned property in th? same vicinity; and that ~trict application of thP Zoning Code does not deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by othec properties in the idPntical zone and classi£ication in the vicinity. Commissioner Fry offered Resolution No. PC86-122 and moved }or its passage and adoption t.hat hhe anaheim City Planning Commission does heteby d?ny Conditional Use Permit No. 2788 on the basis the sale o'_ beer and wine in conjur.ction with gasoline sales would be detrimental to the peace, health, sa£ety and genezal welfate of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. On roll call, the £oregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY~ HERBST~ LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI~ MC BURNEY~ MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE 5/12/86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 12 1986 86-324 Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right l-o app?al the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. THE FOLLOWING ACTION WAS TAKEN AT THE BEGINNING OE THE MEETING. ITEM NO. 8 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAIVER OF CODE REUUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2795 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: CHEVRON U.S.A. INC., 1201 S. Beach Boulevard, La Habra, CA 90631. Property described as a rectangulazly-shaped parcel o£ land consisting of approximately 0.58 aczes located at the southw?st corner of Katella Avenue and Harbor Boulevard, 18U1 S. Hartior Boulevard (Chevron Sezvice Station). To permit a convenience macket with gasolinP sales and of£-sa1P beer and wine with waivers o£ minimum number o£ pazkin9 spaces and maximum number of fteestanding signs. It was noted the petitioner has requested that subject petition be withdcawn. ACTION: Commissioner Bouas of£ered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBucney and MOTION CARRIED l•hat subject petition be withdrawn at the requesl o~ the petitionpz. ITEM N0. 9 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAIVER OF CODE RE~UIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL U5E PERMIT NO. 2796 PUBLIC HEARZNG. OWNERS: KNOTT AVENUE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, 315 S. Kno1164'LpKnott Anaheim, CA 928U4. AGENTS: GOODMAN CHURCH BUILDERS WESTERN INC., Avenue, ~9, Garden Grove, CA 92641. Propetty desccibed as a rectangular.ly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 5.05 acr~s, 315 South KnoLt AvAnue (Knott Avenue Christian Church). To expand an existing church and to retain a pre-.chool with waivAr of minimum number of parking spaces. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subjecl r~equest and although the staff report was not read, it is refetred ~o and mad? a pait of. the minutes. Wayne Goodman, agent, refetred to the pa~king agreement requic~d with the Anaheim Union High School District and explained, although the district does not have a problem with allowing parking on theic ptoperty on Sundays, they may have a problem with signing an indefinite pazking agreement, and asked if it would be possib~e to sign the agreement with the school district without ~ de£inite time period and then if the district withdcew the agreement, they would agree to put up the parking structurP at that time. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. CommiFSione~ Fry stated in the past, conditions have been granted that in the event thece is a parking problem, the petitionecs have agreed tu provide parking as necessary as detArmined by the City Traffic Engineer. 5/12/86 12 1986 86-"s25 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ~Y Malcolm SlaughL•ez stated notmally a condition has been included that the owne ainst the property guacanteeing or subsequent owner would zecord a covenant ag has been requiced to provide pazking as needed in the £utute; and that bonding to make sure the condition is complied with. Paul Sing?L~ T=afiic Engineet, explained 1~onds are usually only for a Pziod and they ate very expensive and ate pzactical whenbutpin ls three-year P• =ove that they raally do not need the parkingr a hotel ptoposed to p this case, he does not know how the condition could be handled legally, u some othet patking would have to be obviously i£ they lose the school patking, provided. Responding tio Chaitwoman La Claite, M=. ~O°~rauseraondSundayshool has 45 pre-school studAnt•s and the chutch is a maj Il- was clati~ied the propettY has 343 patking spaces without the agreemenl with thP school. Mr. Goodman explainAd there about 1,U00 peoP1_ who attend thP church and at the pr°s°nt time they are handling the packing quite well on their own site, but as the chutch gL~WS in th~ future, there could b~ a probl~m. Commissionet Fry askPd ML. G~odman ~~ stipulate that in ~he event in the arking agreement is withdrawn oy the school distticp. W,uld £utute that the p rovidPd. M~. G~odman stated t= babl thA additional on-sil•e parking would be p make that stipulation. Paul Sin9ez stated the chutch secvices as p Y heaviest uset and ~hA pLA-school has adaquate pa~king. Mr. Goodman stated they have two setvices on Sundays and they have simultaneous use of the sitA and agt°ed that l-he church needs the pazking and thaylRS £acilities oneSundaysthbut9at thetpresenthtimehth?y~aresn thusing par' g even the chucch servic~. tho~e facilities for Malcoim Slaughter stated C~ndition P7o. 6 as proposed, contemplated a little dif£erent use than is being discussed and suggested it be modified to tead: "That tY~e p?titioneY shall present a patking ag~eement with thP adjoining property ownet (the School district) in a focro satis£actory to thP City Attorney's Office," with additional la~~guage, "that the petitionet shall also providP a rPcotdpd covenant in a form satisfastacestontsitelin the~event the agreeing to provide an additional 93 parking p ~ parking agteement with the school is ter.minated fot any ceason . ACTION: Commissi~ner F=y offered a motion, seconded by CommissionpL Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewPd thP proposal to expand an existing church and retain a pre-school with waiver of minimum numbez of parking spaces on a rectangulacly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approXimately 5.05 acres, having a E=onta9? ~f appLOximately 497 fe?t on the west side of Knott Street and £urthet described as 315 3outh Knot and ~oes heceby approve the Negative Street (Knott Avenue Chtistian Church); Declaration upon £inding that it has consideted the Negative Declacation the ublic review pzocess and togAther with any comments ~eceived duting P ~~~ents rAceived £ur.ther finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any that there is no substantial evidence tha~ the ptoj°cL• will have a significant effect on the environment. 5/12/eb MINUTES~ ANAHEIM, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 12 1986 ~6-326 Commissioner Fry of£ered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant waiv~r of Code requizement on the basis that the pazking waiver will not cause an increase in traffic con9estion in the immr.diate vicinity nor advEisely a£fect any adjoining land uses and granting of the parking waiver under the conditions inposed, if any, will not b? detrimPntal to the peace, health, sa£ety and general wel£are of the citi2ens of the City o£ Anaheim and further that the petitionet shall provide a parking agteement in a£ocro satisfactoty and approved by the City Atto*ney's Office with th~ school district, the property owner o£ the adjacent pzoperty west of thP subject property, for 93 off-site parking spaces and fur.ther that the petitianer shall provid? a cov~>nant agreeing to provide 93 on-site parkiny spaces in the event the agreement with the adjacent prope*ty is withdrawn. prior t~ voting on the resolution, Annika Santalahti asked that the condition bo expanded to include that the covenant and pa[king agreement shall be provided ptior to issuance of building pe=mits £or th? n?w cons~ruction. Commissioner Fry offet°d Resolution No. PC86-123 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hPreby grant Conditional Use Permit No. '1796 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.03U.030 through 1tl.U3.030.U35 and subjPcl to Intord?partmental Committee rFCOmmendations including modi£ication to Conditi~n No, 6 that th? parking agreemAnt and covenant shall be providod pzior to issuance of building permits befote the new consttuction. On zoll call, the foregoing tesolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS~ FRY~ HERBST, LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI~ MC BURNEY~ MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Malcolm Slaugh~Pr, Deputy City Atto~ney, presented the written right to appeal the Planniny Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0. 10 EIR N°GATIVE DECLARATZON WAI`IER OF CODS RE~UIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE P£RMIT NO. 2797 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNEFS: LUCO D. AND MADELINE D. CALIANO, 16U55 Gallatin, Fountain ':alley, CA 9270B. AGENTS: ELI2ABETH HALAHAN OR MA1tK CALIANO, 1379 N. Jasmine, Anaheim, CA 92801. Propetty is described as an irregulatly-shaped parcPl o£ land consisting of approximateiy 5515 square feet located at the southwest co_*nec of Cozonet Avenue and Jasmine Place, 1329 Jasmine Place. To expand a board and care f.acility for a maximum of ~en developmentally disabled g~rsons wikh waivet o£ maximum fence height. There were twelve persons indicating their pzesence in opposition to subject request and although the sta££ zeport was not read, it is re£erred to and made a part of the minutes. Elizabeth Halauan, a9ent, 2455 Harriet Lane, Anaheim, stated they have been operating a board and care £acility for developmentally disabled people at 5/12/tl6 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 12 1986 86-327 this location since the end o£ 1985, and ace cucrently state licPnsed £or six individuals and the clients are young men ranging fram 23 to 3U years of age who ate mildly retatded; however, none of them have any behavioral problems. She stated all of the men ace inv~lved in wa~kshops or work in companies where they hold down rPgula~ positions and are paid a salary. She explain=d the wozkshops are tcaining in ord~r for them to be able to get out into ~hP community and hold down employment. She stated the home is extremely well-oigani2ed and these men aze gone mo~t of the day and have planned activities everyday and are monitored and have an adult with them at all times. Ms. Halahan stated they realize the concecns of the community with having handicapped individuals wandering around in the neighborhood and th? unfamiliarity of the situation and that is why they have made it a point to have a very definite planned program for thes~ disabled pecsons so they can interact wilh the community as a whole without infringing on the rights and privacy o£ the immediat? neighborhood. Ms. Halahan stated the hom~ has th~ availability to have two or four more individuals easily and they have no changes in mind to the oul-sidP of th= home and want the opportunity of the p~ppo=~y value appreciation the same as the neighbors. She explained the opecation is scrutinized very closely by the Stat? Licensing Department and kegianal Cen~er dealing primarily with mentally retarded individuals and they do not deal at all with the mentally ill individuals or individuals with behavioral pzoblems. She explained most of theit clients are from homes where the pacents ate getting older and want to be sure that their son will be able to function on his own after they are gone. She stated tne State and Federal Governmen~s require that cate be provided for th? handicap in a residential setting and they are caught in the middle because people in the neighborhoods who are uninformed do not want them thPze. Sh? stated she hoped thP neighbors would look at the situation and realize thece have been absolutely no incidences at that home sinc? they have been in operation and hoped, on the basis of their reputation and the requirements by the licensing agencies and what they want for the young men in l•his home, that they can continue to oper.ate ~rith the additional clients. She stated she had lived in the home herself until one month and has another hom~ in Garden Grove which deals with the eldecly and wanted to sp?nd more time visiting with the elderly cli?nts and in otder to accomplish that, has hired a well-quali£ied couple, 55-years oP age who have been dealing with the handicapped £or five yeazs and came highly recomrnended by the Regional Center and she has to pay that couple well because of kheir quali£ications and needs the additional two clients to pay thei*_ salary. She stated there are no traffic problems; that they have a van which used to be a school bus which L-hey use to ttansport the young men to the functions and there are no individual vehicles on the pt?mises. She stated the couple who lives there also has a converted van, so there are only two vehicles on the premises and the couple is there thtoughout the week and she and her £iancee are there on the weeF:ends, and either one of them is there once a day everyday, and are accessible 24 hours a day. She explained het fiancez's backqround is psychology and her background is health care £or 12 years with nutsing previously. She stated she feels they ate w~ll qualified and £eels it is important what their neighbors think and it is i.mportant they maintain a home that is conducive to the imp[ovement of the neighborhood. She stated she can appreciate the neighbor's feats. 5/12/86 _. ... - 85-~28 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 12 1986 Gary Pecez, 1323 N. Jasmine, stated his p_*operty is right next door to subject properly and that the square footage shown for subject propezty is not correct and is actually about 500 square feet less. He stated the fence is appzoximately 3£eet 8 inch~s away from the side of the house and thought it should be 5£eet. He st~ted the petitioner indicated they have one van; horrever, he thought there aie two vans, in addition to ~he one owned by the couple who stay there and that he has seen Dial-A-Ride mini-buses leaving the neiahbothood very recklessly. HP stated he has the vehicle numb?r of that Dial-A-Ride vehicle and if he sees it happen again, he will repott it to the tr.ansportation distticl•. Mr. Perez stated they do run a E.ight oper.ation at this home, but he would not like to see the increase be~ausP he thought there ~ould be an increase in tra£~ic; that it is a 5-bedcoom, 3-bath hom~ and with a maximeo le wouldobePl he thought it would be very crowded and did not know if two p p able to supervise that many peoplP ef£ectively. He stated thete are childcen in the neighborhood who ride in the street and play on the sidewalks and an increase in the number of vehicles could be a hazazd to the children with the view of oncomin9 traf£ic b,ing obstructed. Jacquelyn Terrell, 1307 N. Jasmine, stated her property is on the same side of the stieel•, but at the other end of the block and her home is probably a little lacgec and she has five bedrooms and a large backyard which subject p~op?tty does not have. She explained shP has seen three vans and the Dial-A-Ride vehicle and the Pine Tree bus. She further explained she is the Chairperson of t.he £oundation for the Park and Recr?ation Deparlment hoping to raise money for a therapeutic center in Anaheim and has worked with this type of person and has volunteeted to take care of one. She stated she has been asked to have them in her homo since hei children are now grown and she has the space available, but she felt it would not be fair to her neighbors to have her home used as a business. Ms, Tezrell stated she wants the handicapped to have equal zights, and that she loves this type individual, but does not £eel this home is adequate for this a9e gzoup of handicap individuals and felt they need separate rooms for privacy. Sne stated she is speaking for the younger people in the neighbothood and felt there is a place £or this type of home, but n~t with this numher of peopl? and felt a maximum of £our could be well-managed and supervised. She stated one oP the young men came out as she and her little granddaughter were takin9 a walk around the block and gtabbed her, which was fine because she knew how to handle him, and she gave him a hug and told him she was happy he was living there, thinking he was the only one at that titne. ShP stated if that had happened to one of the younger parents or one o£ the children, it would have probably caused £ear and stated you never know when a person of this type might tur^ on you. She stated a few yeats ago she was app~inted by Mayor Seymo~r and Disneyland as Chaitperson of the International Very Special Arts Festival £or the disabled f~r Califotnia and Mexico and has worked very closely with this type of disabled individual. She explained she has a disabled man in her hom~ on occasional weekends and all holidays and she ur.derstands their needs, but does not want a latge numbez of them in her neighborhood neat small childten and hoped the Commission would consider the young families in the neighborhood and ke?p the home at four or six. She stated she thougtt it would be hazder to sell a property in a neighbochood where there is a home such as this. 5/12/H6 86-329 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 12 1986 g, W, Harder; 1305 N. Lotus, Anaheim, stated he has lived there £ot 31 yeazs and bought into this single-£amily neighbochood for that enviconment of raising his family without being near any industries ot businesses. He stated he would call this a business, althouehen~eWhichewe~are,alllcontributir.g to business, but it is a monetary arrang m and there are places wher.e these types of homes could be located, rather than tight in the heart o~ a family neighborhoodbu~e~hPreaatecotheresmall children raised. He stated his childcen ace 9rown, in the neighborhood that he is cnncetned about th~m. He stated he did not know these people were there until the childcen had commented about people in the neighborhood staring at them. Mc. Harder stated they only became aware o£ the existence of this home after they teceived their notice of tt~ieheeneighbors were not notifieduLCHesstated ptopetty for this type facility, he undetstands the State supercedes the City and the nei9~bie5inothethomee ~He be notified unless thete ate goingrotectionrforhtheSlitizens and he hoped thiG stated previous plannecs offered p Commission would OEYP.C that same protection. Mr. Harde: add~d there are only twelve people present and many people did not have ample opportunity to attend the meeting b?cause they have to work and that many people did not r.eceive notices. He asked ~oached to pbeventsioie to grant a continuance so t•hat m~re people could be app additional people. H° stated they ate awace that six are allowed without any notices or permits fcom the City. Fie added theze is recent legislature pending that would extend the limitations f~~m 3U0 feet to 2U00 feet be£ote a person could open anothet home in thPa~smand ifhthehhomeawesanot~compatible £acility would be reviewed in five y_ with the neighborhood, th~re could be a hearing and there would be an evaluation of the conditions in the home and tPestatedratala3Umintthed if it is a probiem, even l-he six could be denied. N because they have to aotk. He aftetnoon not many people can attend a meeting stated a dill is also being pr.esented on May 21st to makPducationulbackgro:!nd, more stringent for ~his type of care £acility regarding etc. He stated at Talbert and EuclieOiiPFoon~oiWp=kland hePhaslobservedlthem ittdustrial are3 where this type o£ p P 9 A stated he is glad and most of them are still children in adult bodies. H_. lhere is someone to provide the carP, but thought they could be located in a more semi-business area to take the burden o£f Che people tr.ying to raise childten in the neighbothood. He stated he f.eels the neighbors sbould be no~ified by the State when one o~ the~e homes is proposed. Commissioner Lawicki stated he has just realized his narae is on the title of property within 3U0 £eet at 1324 Lotus Place and declated a conflict of interest and lef:t the meeting. John Farquhar, 1326 Jasmine Place, stated his property is diagonally across the street fr.om subject PLOSeinythedreareandhtheresaze ahceeWVar.~nparkedcon ~roperry since the gar.ag_ the street and there has been one near-accidenE because o~ the blocke visibility and noted L•hat is a busy stzeet. He stated he haslawo~ ~nn~heit childcen and is concerned abou~ them crossing the stceet l-o P Y fri.ends on the other side o£ the street because with the van5/12/86 ~n the ~6-330 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 12 1986 stceet, oncoming cazs would not be able to see them. He sta~ed when the house was sold, they heard two people had purchased it, but nothing was said about it being a board and cate facility, and it wasn't until a£ter it was occupied, they learned 'chey had planned to keep some childzen there who needed heip, but now the people who pur.chased the house don't even live thete and this is a business. He stated it is difficult to finance boazd and cate facilities and they ate at a premxum because of that and asked how someone can arbittarily purchase a homP in any nei9hborhood and no one is notified of the intended putposes o£ the pzoperty. He stated he was FerW~uldhbebingtroubleuse in Fountain ~lalley and started a loan company, Kachleen Healey, 1312 N. Lotus Place, stated she agzeed with her neighbors and explained she had checked with the State concetning the laws and £ound out these people are considered one family, even though they are £rom six di£fecent families. John Hemecson, 1333 N. Columbine, stated his propeity is ~nQo lecinethe of Jasmine and ptesented a petition containing signatures of p- P neighborhood who ate opposed to the tequest. Elizabeth Halahan stated she feels he: neighboc's anxieties and hears their concezns and felt i£ she did not know what she knows about these people who she is in charge of, she would also be concerned. She stated regarding the size o£ the structure, that this is the way she puichased it and if thece are violations of. the Code, she will take care o£ that p:oblem. gegarding the buses, she stated there is a Pine Tree bus which was purchased to transpott their clients, and the couple who wotks thete have a conve[ted van and the othez van mentioned by one of the neighbo:s belongs to a gentlemen who wor.rs there; howevec, if that van is a problem for the neighbors, it can be paLked som~place else o~f the p~emises. ConcFrning the Dial-A-Ride, she stated she sees those vehicl?s in the ne=oblemhwithWOneho£ theiraariversn9ito her £acility o~ not, and if thete is a p coblem should be reported to Dial-A-Ride; however, if the neighbors see a p with one of hec dzivers, she would take whatever st2ps would be necessary to corzect that problem, but has not contzol over the Dial-A-Ride dtivers. gegarding the number of homes within a 300-foot radius, she stated if 1000 feet was ~he minimum distance between ~acilities, she thought that would be in otder, because she would nol want to see a lot o£ these in one neighbothood. She stated these clients are a little di£fecent and are mildly retarded, but thetGn d ShepherdhHoneSinuSouthaCounty orsditectly frommtheiraown£homes,ther Ms. Halahan asked if it would possible, since there are no changes that have to be made intecnally, to be permitted to have at least two additional clients. She sta~ed she could have had other people present at the meeting in suppoct o£ het request, such as the members ftom the church ot the Regional Center because they intetact more ditectly with these youn9 men. THE PUBLIC HEARING S9AS CLOSED. 5/12/Sb f ~. ~r MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 12, 1986 86-331 Responding to Chaitwoman La Claire, Ms. Halahan stated she has only spoken with one of the neighbors, Gary Perez, about one month ago regarding this £acility and at that time he had said he did not even know what was going on thete and even apologized for the noise his childzen make. She added, however, she has not contacted any other neighbors and was not suce it would have helped because she knows the fears they are experiencing fcom not being aware o£ what is going on and what it is like to live with these type gentlemen. She stated the medical records of. these gentlemen would show there is a whole series o£ ptocesses which have to be gone through to determine whether or not they have had any behavioral p~oblems and that there is nothing in any of their r.ecords indicating a problem. She explained she selects each client and investigates each ore by going to their workshops and observing and gets written petmission to investigate as faz back as necessary to determine whether or not anyone has had a problem. Responding to C~mmissionec M~sse, Ms. Halahan explained she has had six clients at this addres~ since November 19t35, and that this structure has f ive bedrooms right now because they removed one wall, but will put it back in to make it six bedrooms; and that would not even necessary in ozder to have kwo additional clients because the bedroom is in existence at the pcesent time. Responding to Commissioner Bouas, she stated there can be two c'_ients in each bedroom. She stated the couple have the £ront portion of the house with a private bath and stated there are three dining areas where ten people can be seated at one time. She explained the house is 20UU squar.e feet as indicated in the papers when she puichased the prope~:ty. Commission^r Bouas stated she feels six people in this house i~ zeally quite enough, especially with the way the neighbors f.eel. She added maybe in the £uture more could be added when the neighburs feel d'zf£etently after seeing the oper.ation. She suggested the applicant contact the neighbors and allow them to get more acquain~ed and to know the opezation better. Chairwoman La Claire stated she knows this type facil.i~~ ~_s very needed, but can identify with the neighbors' concerns and frustcatic...s abvut the State laws and thought those laws •:.ere enacted because no one wants these homes in their neighborhood. ShE stated she thought there was a lot ct misunderstandiny and fear on the part of the neighbots and suggested the petitione* Ghould probably eithet withdzaw the petition and submit it again in the future or request a continuance in order ta educate the neighbors about the operation. She stated she felt this was a shock to the neighbors and some of the people were not even aware it was there and maybe after the shock weacs u£f. and evaryone has had an opportunity to learn more about the operation, they might rot be so feazful. Commissi~ner Messe stated he felt i£ the operation had neen in existence for a year or moze, he would have no pcoblem increasing the numbez o£ clients, but thought right now is just too soon and suggested waiting six months to make this request. Commissioner Bouas asked if the vans could fit into the garage. Ms. tialahan responded she was no't sure and explained that the garage is not being used at the present time. Commissioner Bouas stated she thought packing khe vans on the street was probably one of the problems with the neighbors and at least one of them should be relocated because it does block visibility. Ms. Halahan stated there is only a short distance to an area where the vans could be 5/1'l/8b MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 12 1986 86-332 parked away £rom the residences. 5he stated one of the issues in coming forwacd to requast the additional clients was i~ o~det to keep the couple working which she has hized, and taking into consideration the cost of food, transpor'~.tion, insurance, utilities, the mottgage payment and the couple's salary, 'le is not really making a lot of money and the zates were calculated on statistics which are ptobably 2C years old. She stated she would like to be able to keep the older couple she has now so she does not have to hire young people f.or less money who are not as qualifiedo Commissioner Bouas stated part of the problem is that the petitionet doesn't want to ceside on the propeity hersel~. Commissionec Messe stated the home is well-kept and the program has positive aspects in his op.inion. Chairwoman La Claire stated the Commission knows ~his is prodably one of the best facilities of this type and that is not the issue, but the problem is the shock for the neighbors. Sh2 su9gested again the petitioner ask £ot a continuance an~ ~ome back later, af.te~ the neighbors ace more familiar with the oper.atior .., maybe il- would be possible to reach a compromise. Annika Santalatiti explained if the applicant is willing to request a continuance, iL• can be for as iong a~ tequested, othecwise, the CoNnission has to act upon the matter w~thin 40 ~ays aftee the public hearing i: closed. She stated if the matter i~ ;ontinued for 9U days, notice of the public hearing will probably be sent in order to make =ure the neighbors are aware o£ the continued public hearing. Ms. Halahan asked for. a 50-day continuance. ACTION: C~mmissioner McBuzney of.fer~d a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED (Commissicnet Lawicki absent) that considetation of the aforementioned matter ue continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting o£ August 4, 1986, at the reguest of the petitioner. ~ommissioner Lawicki returned to the treeting. It was no~ed the matter will be ceadvertised. Annika Santalahti explained i£ there is someone present who did not receive a notice and wants to be notified o£ the continued hearing, they should give their name and addtess to the Planning Depaztment. ITEM IdO. 11 EIR CA'PEGORI~AL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1~ WAI CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2794 PURLIC HEARING. OWNERS: LEE & CAROL JOHNSON, 3435 lJ. Ball Road, Anaheim, CA 92894. PLop°='~Y desctibed as an icregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of app=oximately 1.4 acres, 3435 West Ba11 Road (St. Elizabeth's Hospital). To permit the expansion ~£ an ~xisting convalescent hospital with waivers of ninimum number of parking spaces and minimum structur.al Getback. There was no one indicating their p=esence in oppositior to subject request and although the sta£f. report '~as not read, it is referted to ar.d made a patt of the minutes. 5/1'L/86 _ a_ 6'sss M;NUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 12~ 1~. Lee Johnson, owner, was presen~ to answer any questions. THE PUBLIC NEARING WAS CLOSED. It was clari£ied the size of the building will not be increased. Commissioner Herbst questioned the occupancy of the hospital when the tzaffic study was made. Pai:l Singec explained the traf.fic ratio was developed when tha entire facility was being used. It was noted the Plan=Q osed projecttfall~awithinZthe~definitionlof has detecmined that the p P Categorical Exemptions, Ciass 1, as de£ined in the StatetEf=bm thentequirement geport Guidelines and is, thetefote, categorically exemp to ptepare an EIR. ACTION: Commissior.er Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissione= $Oant and MO'PION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does herzby g waivet (a) on che basis that the patking waiver will not cause an increase in traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity noc adversely affect any ad~oining land uses and grantin~ of the packing waiver under the conditions imposed, i£ any, will not be detrimental to of.~Anaheim;handtgrantingYwaiver genecal welfare of the citizens o~ the ~ity (b) on the basis that ther.e are spe~aah cii cationcandasurroundings which do propezty such as size, shape, topog P Yr not apply to other identically zoned pzoperty in the same vicinity; and that stcict apolication of the 'Lonir.g Code depr.ives the p:opz=tY o~ ptivileges enjoy~.d by other propecties in the identical zone and ciassif.ication in the vicinity. Commissioner Fry offered Resolution No• Co~issionndomsVhereby qLynpassage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Conditional Use Permit No. '17y4 pursuar.t to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.03~.U3U through 18.03.030.U35 and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. pn ioll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: BOUAS, FRYr HERBST, LA CLAIREr LAWICKI~ MC BURNEY~ t4E`•'E AYES: NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Joseph Fletcher, Deputy City Attotney, pLeS~nted the written cight to appeal the Planning Commission's dacision within 22 days to the City Council. Commissionet t~cBurney 1~ '!' the meetin9 anc~ did not zetucn. THE EOLLOWING ACTION Wh.~ TAKEN AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING. ITEM NO. 12 EIR NEGA'rlv:: u~~..~n--~ -- RECLASSIFICATION 1 Fib-33 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: CLAUllIA KINNE, ET AL, c/o KIRK H. FINLEY, 15ll2 13. groadway, Santa Ana, CA 92701. AGENT: TONY WAT'PSON, WA'PTSON REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS, 84U Newpott Center Dr., Suite 540, Newpott Bzach, CA 9'l6bU. 5/12/86 ; ., 86-334 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 12 1986 property desccibed as an ircegularly-shaped parcel o£ land consisting of approximately 3 acres located at the northeast corner of Katella Avenue and Claudina Way. GPA - te9uest to consider amendr~ent to the Land Use Element o£ the General Plan to consider alt~rnative proposal of land use from the curr.ent aeneral industrial designations to the general commercial designation. ML to CL or a less intense zone to expand retail uses in an existing retail/warehouse building. ACTION: Commissioner. Bouas offezed a motion, secondad by Commissioner I4cBUrney and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the afly~b~nat the reyuestb~ eontinued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of May 28, ~ of. the petitioner. ITEM N0. 13 EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIUN AND CUNDITIONAI. USE PERMII`L~U. 1556 (READV.) Public Heacing for an Extension of Time. OWNER: ANIL H. PARIKH, tib'L S. Harbor Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805. P:operty described as a rectangularly-shaped parcal of land consisting of appcoximately 6,3UU square feet located on tne east side of. Harbor Boulevard, 862 Sou1:h Harbor Soulevard. Requast £or an axtension of time or deletion of. Condition No. 1 of Resoiution No. PC75-175 to permit an o£fice in an existing residence. Thete was no ona indicating their presence in opposition to sueject request and although the staff. teport was not read, it is re£errzd to and made a par.t of. the min~tes, ACTION: Commissioner E=y o££ered Resolution No. PCkib-12S and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Ylanning Commission does heteby delete Condition No. 1 of. Resolution No. PC75-175 daleting the time restrietion on the basis the use has not been dettimental to the suctounding area and is necessary to permit reasonable operation under the permit as gtanted. qn roll call, the £oregoing resolution was passad by the £ollowing vote: AYES: FiOUAS, FRYr HERBST, LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI~ MESSE NOES: NONE AHSENT: MC BURNEY ITk:N NO. 14 REPORTS AND R~COMMENDATIONS A. RECLASSIFICATION N0. Ei4-tS5-3U AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2676 ' With Request from Anthony's Auto Imports for extensions of time to comply conditions of approval on ptoperty located at 11U7 Notth Swan Street. ACTION: Commis~ioner Herbst offered a m~tion, seconded by Commissioner goua.°. and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner McBUrney absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby apptove one-year extensions of time for Reclassi£ication No. d4-ki5-3U and Conditional Usa Permit No. 267b to expire on April 15, '_987. 5/12/~ib MINUTES, AAIAHEIM~ CITY PLANNING COMt•fISSION~ M~Y 12~ 19d6 86-335 B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2550 - Request £rom Business Pcopetties for a 1-year extension of time to fulf.ill conditions of approval on ptopercy located at 2430 East Katella Avenue (previously, Malibu Grand Prix). ACTIUN: Commissioner Herbst of£eted a motion, seconded by Commissionei Bouas and [90TION CARRIED (Commissioner McBurney absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby spprov~ an extension of time for Conditional Use Permit No. 25ti0 to e>:pirE on April 16, 19tl7. C. VARIANCE N0. 3125 - Request from Brown Development Corporation for termination of Variance No. 3125 to comply witti conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 26U3, on prope.rty locatetl on the south side o£ Wilken Way, 77U f.eet east of th~ centerline of. Harbor Bouievard. ACTION: Commissionzr Herbst Resolution No. PC~6-~"lb and moved f.or its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby terminate Variance No. 3125. On roll call, tha foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS~ FRY, HERBST~ LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: MC BURNEY D. VARIANCE N0. 933 - Request £or tecmination from Mr. & M~s. H. E. Grimm and Mrs. Paul A. Loke on pzoperty l~cated at the northeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Magnolia Avenue. ACTIUN: ConMissioner. Hernst Resolution No. PC~b-1"l7 and moved £or it~ passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planni~g Commission does hereby te[minate Variance No. 3125. On roll call, the £or.egoing resolution was passea by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY, H~RBST~ LA CLAIFtE, LAWICKI~ MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: MC BORNEY E. CONDI'PIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 654 and 1012 - Request fzom J. C. Chen, property owner, to terminate subject permits on property located at 114 North East Street. ACTIUN: Commissioner Herbst Resolution No. PCBG-12ri and moved £or its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hezeby terminate Conditional Use Permit Nos. 6S4 and lU'12. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYE5: BOUAS, FRY, ~ERBST, LA CLAIRE, LIiWICKI, MES5E NOES: NONE ABSENi: MC BURNEY 5/12/db `,, 86-33b MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 12 1986 g, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1290 - Reques~ from Robert K. Walker, property owner, for termination on propezty located at the southeast corner of Lincoln and Magnolia Avenues, furthei described as 100 South Magnolia Avenue. ACTI~N= Commissionet Herost Reselution LJu. PC86-1"L9C~~ission does1hzrebY passage and adoption that the Anaheim Cit: Planning tetminate Conditional Use Permit No. 12YU. On toll call, the £oreg~ing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY~ HERBS'P, LA CLAIKE~ LAWICKI~ MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: [dC BURNEY ~, CONllITIONAL USE PpRMIT NU. 1935 - Re4uest f.romtG~e~L~alloeatedratfthe Katella-Lewis Pro erties) fo_ tetmination on P P Y northwest cornet of Katella Avenue and :.ewis Street. ACTION: C~mmissioner Her'~st Resolution No•PlanningOCommission doeslhereny passage and adoption that the Anaheim City terminate Conditional Use Petmit No. 1335. On roll ca11, the £oregoing ~esolution was passed by the £ollowing vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY~ HERBST~ LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI~ MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: MC BURNEY g, CONDITIUNAL USE P~RMIT NU. 14b'' AND VARIANCB N0. 15U4 - Request from General Partne~ of JSF Ptopettias fot tecminations on PtoPzLty located on the east sid~ of Anaheim Bouleva~d between Pacifico and 0=angzwood Avenues,~ ACTION: Commiss~i~n thatbtheRAnaheim City•Planning1C~nmission doeslhezeby passaye and adop tezminate Conditional Use Petmit No. 1335.: On L'~11 eall, the fore9oin9 resolution was passed by tha £ollowing vo1:e: AYES: BOUAS~ FRYr HERBST~ LA CLt~IRE, LAWICKI~ MESSE NOES: NUNE ABSENT: MC BURNEY ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissionec gouas and MOTION CARRIED that the meeting bz aaJourned. The meeting was adjourned at S:UC p.m• Respect£ully submitted, ~~:~~ ~ /~~~~~ Edith L. Hartis, Secretacy Anaheim City Plannir.~ Commission ~ ELH:lm nl4flm .... ... ..... . ..... ..