Loading...
Minutes-PC 1986/09/03REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING The cegular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to order by Chaicman McBUCney at 10:00 a.m., September 3, 1986, in the Council Chamber, a quorum being present, and the Commission reviewed plans of the items on today's agenda. RECESS: 11:30 a.m. RECONVENED: 1:35 p.m. PRESENT: Chai[man: McBUrney Commissionets: Bouas, Fry, Herbst, La Claire, Lawicki, Messe ABSENT• Commissioner: none ALSO PRESENT: Annika Santalahti Malcolm Slaughtec Paul Singet Carl Hatrison Debbie Fank John Poole Bruce Freeman Sgt. Bcantley Leonacd McGhee Pamela Statnes Assistant Dicector for Zoning Deputy City Attorney II Tcaffic Engine~:t Office Engineet Assistant Tcaffic Engineec Code Enfotcement Supervisor Code Enforcement Officec Anaheim Police Depattment Associate Planner Planning Commission Secretary Pco TempoCe APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fry and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Lawicki abstaining) that the minutes ftom the meeting of August 4, 1986, be appcoved as submitted. ITEM N0. 1 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2785 PUBLIC AEARIt7G. OWSIERS: SEYMOUR ADLER, 16608 Parklane Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90049. AGENT: LEE C. BUNTER, 1807 N. Raymond Avenue, Anaheim, CA 9280_l. Proper`Y described as a cectangula~ly-shaped paccel of land consisting of appro :. -aIy 3.2 acces, 1807 North Raymond Avenue. To petmit a sales office iii conjunction with an existing wholesale carpet business. Continued from the meeting of July 7, 1986. It was noted the petitioner has cequested subject petition be continued. ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki and MOTION CARRIED that considecation of the afocementioned mattet be continued co the regularly-scheduled meeting of Septembet 15, 1986, at the request of the petitionec. 86-605 9/3/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SEPTEMBER 3, 1986 86-606 ITEM N0. 2 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION RECLASSIFICATION N0. 85-86-35 AND VARIANCE N0. 3565 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: RASUL MOHAGHEGH, ET AL, 12652 Hus*.on St. N. Hollywood, CA 91607. Propetty described as a rectangulacly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.22 acre, 314 West Elm Street. RM-2400 to ht~-1200 or a less intense aone. Waivecs of maximum building hei9ht, maximum site coverage and minimum landscaped setback to construct a 6-unit apartment complex. Continued from the meetings of May 28, June 23 and August 18, 1986. There was no one indicating thei[ ptesence in opposition to subject request and although the staff repoct was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Chairman McBUtney noted staff cequested the petition be wir.hdrawn. Malcolm Slaughtec stated aQparently the problem was that st.aff was unable to get the applican~ to submit any informa~ion or to con~.acr. staff. He said because of this, it might be more approptiate to order it off calendar, and if ~he applican~ wanted ~o come in and Fay ~o readvectise, he would be able to do so. In response to questions by the Commissioners, Leonard McGhee said the item was originally on the May 28th agenda. He said the applicant was contacted as late as yesterday, to request his appearance at this meeting, ar to advise staff what he wanted to do with the property. ACTION: Commissioner Herbs~ offered a inorion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby remove Reclassification No. 85-86-35 and Variance No. 3565 from today's calendar for readvertisement at a future date, at the cost of petitioner. ITEM NO. 3 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAIVER OE CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2819 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: FAR WEST SAVINGS E LOAN ASSOC. If+MERICAN FIDELITY CORP.), 4001 MacArthur Boulevatd, Newport Beach, CA 92660. AGENTS: LIVING FAZTH CHURCH, 12862 'H' Garden G[ove Boulevazd, Garden Grove, CA 92643. Propec~y desecibed as an irregularly-shaped paccel of land consisting uf apptoximately 9.5 acres, 3584 Enterprise Drive. To permit a church in the ML Zone with waiver of minimum number of packing spaces. Continued from the meetings of July 7, Augusr 4 and August 18, 1986. There was no one indicatin9 their pcesence in opposition to subject. request and although the staff teport was not read, it is referted to and made a pa[t of the minutes. 9/3/86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ SEPTEMBER 3 1986 86-607 Howard Shaffec, 206 Sullivan Street, Santa Ana, was present tepcesenting Living Fairh Church. He ~hanked *.he Commissioners for speaking on ~heir behalf to the City Council. He started his pcesentation by noting that sidewalks had not been required of othec tenants locating in the area, yet they were being requiced to inst311 over 1300 feet of sidewalks that would benefit everyone in the complex. He then requested this condition be deleted f~om the conditions. He also said tha~ if t.he driveways' radii were no~ s~andard, it should have been brought up when other tenants were moving into the complex or when ~he complex was originally built. He said *hey ini*ially requested a two-year period; howevet, since City Council just adopted a new ordinance allowing a~hree-year period of time in any given ~en-yeac period, ~hey would like to change theic eequest to thcee years. Commissioner Herbs~ inquired as `o the sta~us of the ocdinance. Malcolm Slaughter said he undecstood the ordinance was adopted by Council last week, and ~h~~/ ~echnically it would no` be effec~ive for `hirty days. He said there was nothing in the legal advertising that would restric` Commission from gran~ing ~he ~hree years being requested. Leonard McGhee said the Redeve'_~pment Commission, at its regular meeting of July 2, 1986, recommended approval for ~wo years and direc~ed the Director of Community Uevelopment to entec into an agreement with ~he petifioner (if approved by ~he Planning Commission) t.o so termina~e `he church use in two years from date of Plannin9 Commission resolution. Commissioner Bouas said she fel* the Redevelopmen~ Commission would have recommended appcoval for three yeacs if that period of time had been requested, and Mr. McGhee agreed. He srated tha~ s~aff did not have a pcoblem with the thcee-yeac period. Chairman McButney asked staff why sidewalks were being requi~ed in an industrial area since there is a lot of non-foot traffic. He also noted this would be quife an expense to incu[ for a~hree year period. Paul Singei~, Tcaffic Engineer, said the City Engineer had instcucted staff to cequire sidewalks in any indus4rial area serviced by bus traffic, and to make it a condition of appcoval. He stated the applicant could contact the Cit.y Engineer and request a waiver from this condirion. Chairman McBUCney asked if Commission could eliminate this cundition, and Malcolm Slaugh*_er said i~ was a s~aff rerommended condition whir.h Commission was not obligated to impose. Commissioner Herbsr. said `he Ci~y Engineer had generally granted waivers on sidewalks in industrial ateas (COUncil Policy 208 "Temporary waivers of sidewalk construc~ion'), bu~ khere was also a stipulation fha~ if and when they were required, the propecty owner would be obligated to put them in. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. 9/3/86 N,INUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3 1986 66-608 Commissioner Bouas said she did noc feel ic was fair to require che installation of sidewalks from the church since this use was only a small poction of che entire area and thac it should really be ~he ownec's responsibiliLy. Commissioner Lawicki asked the applicant if he still had a question regarding the driveway radius requirement. Applicant noted the radius had exisced since the development was built. Malcolm Slaughcer said if the radius already exisced, it did meec conditions. ACTION: Commissioner La Claire offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED chat che Anaheim Cicy Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit a church in an existing industrial buildin9 in che ML (induscrial, Limiced) Zone witl~ waiver of minimum number. of parking spaces on an irregulacly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximacely 4.5 acres havir.y a f~oncage of approximacely 3gg,7 feet on the southwest side of Tustin Avenue and a froncage of 260 feec on the norch side of Grove Screec, havin9roximately 180Cfeet south of appr.oximately 1,030 feet and being located app the cencerline of Micaloma Avenue and further described as 3584 Sncerprise Drive; and does her.eby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has consideced the Negative Declaration cogecher wich any comments received during the public review process and fucther finding on the basis of che Inicial Scudy and any comments received chat chere is no substantial evidence thac the project will have a significant effect on che enviconment. Commissioner. La Claire offered a motion, secon~ed by Commissioner Souas and MOTION CARRIED chac the Anaheim City Planninq Commission does hereby deny waiver of Code requirement on the basis that the need for the parking waiver was eliminaced afcer publie nocifieacion. Commissioner La Clair.e offered Resolution No. PC86-227 and moved for its passage and adoption chac the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2819, in par.t, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.03.030.030 chrough 18.03.030.035, wich a recommendation to the City Engineer to gr.ant a waiver of Condition No. 1 (the inscallacion of sidewalks along Tuscin); delecin9 Condition No. 2 on the basis that the existing driveways did meei Code requirements; and fu[ther, modifying Condition No. 3, grancing subject pecition for a period of chree years in accordance with the new City ordinance; and s~bject to Incecdeparcmencal Commitcee cecommendations. pn roll call, the foregoing r.esolution was pass~d by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY~ HERSST~ LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI~ MC BllRNEY~ MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Malcoim Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision wichin 22 days to the City Council. 9/3/86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSInN, SEPTEMBER 3, 1986 86-609 ITEM N0. 4 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE_N0. 3590 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: REMO AND ANTONIETTA GI2ZI, 21'752 Queensburyr E1 Toro, CA 92630. AGENT: RANDY McFARLAND, 8412 Garden Gtove Buulevard, Garden Grove, CA 92644. Pruperty described as a recrangularly-shaped parcel of land consistin9 of approximately 0.45 acte located at_ the northeast corner of Rate:;.a Avenue and Nukwood Str~e*., having approximare ftontages of 124 feet on the nocth side of Katell: Avenue and 12A feet on the east side of Nutwood S~reet and further descr~bed as 1895 Wes~ Katella Avenue. Waivers ef minimum number of required packing spaces, maximum building height and minimucn landscaped setback to construct a commercial shoppin9 center. There was no one indica*in~ ~heir presence in opposi~ion ~o subjec*. cequest and although the staff report. was not read, it is refetced to and made a patt of the minu~es. ;~.~ndy MeFacland, agen~, said *he setback had been changed f.ron 0 tc~ 5`eer ~, ,d plans had been revised. He said they were asking •.% a minimur~ :,e~ght ,,tback because t.cash problems, kids, and drinking be' "he buil::_ngs ,d cceated ptoblems for nei9hbors at similat projects. He said +-hey had a patking study done by Weston, Pringle and Associa':es. He noted the study showed the demands foc this type of project c~~sult in hi.9Y. turn-over, short-t.erm parking which requires less space. He said they reduced the building by 5 feet ~ringing the parking ratio up to 3.1 from 2.8• THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman McBurney asked who *.he pot.ential r.enan~s would be. Apolican`. said they ^robably would be small service-type stores, one food stote, and noted any cestaucan~ or food ~~or.e ~hat wen* in would be limited to take-out food only, thus requiring '_ess pa~king. Commissioner Messe asked if khe Parking Code made a diffe[en~:ial between small and ld[ge units a<id Paul Singer said no. He said he would like to make one correc*.ion on Paye 4-c, Ikem 16, and add ~he following t:o the last sentence; subjec'~ to oataining a recipcocal packing agceement with adjacen* property. He st.a~ed he did nor feel *.his project had enough patking. Commi~sioner Messe asked if adjacen~ propert.y met Code as far as parking requirements and Mr. Singet replied no. Applican~ cesponded ~o Commissioner Bouas that he could ge!: a reciprocal packing agteement. Commissioner La Cla:re st.a*ed she was ext.remely concerned abou+: the parking. She said there wete or~ly about half the spaces cequired and she wanted ~o be sure ~here was enough parking spaces for all fhe shops. 9/3/86 ~ MINUTES ANAflEIM CITY PLANNING CQMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3 1986 86-610 Paul Singec sa:.d he felt the parking was marginal, even though it worked out mzchemacically. He stated the parking requirement would improve with the reciprocal packing agteement, as the uses overlap and did not necessarily occur. at the same time. Commissioner Bouas asked whac type of shops were next door co the project, and applicant staced thexe was one bnsiness, an auco paccs store. He said the owner was planning to remodel. Commissioner Bouas asked how many parking spaces the scote had and applicanc said after the remodeling there would be 5.5 which meets Code. He said the combined projects would have somewhere acound 4.0. He noced both owners were agreeable co the reciprocal par.king agreement. Commissioner Lawicki said the shopping center. appeared to continue further easc with restaucancs, a liqnot scoce, and ocher shops. .+pplicanc noted those businesses were not directly adjacent to his proper.ty and had diffe.'ent owner~. Commissioner Herbst asked how many would be employed at this particular location, and applicanc said probably one per shifc. per night. Commissioner Herbst asked how manYthreeeoftcheescocesawezepbeingnremodeled thoughc there were seven; nocing, and consolidated into the auto pares store. He responded co Commissioner Herbst chac chey had cwo employees now and he did noc know how many chey would require at the new score. Commissioner La C.laire said chai. she would noc supporc a pcojecc chat comes in with only half of the par.king r.equiremencs. Commissioner. Messe said he '~ad a problem wich ~he development because of che Traffic Engineer's comments, and the fact he felt the project was a little overbuilc for che parcel. Commissioner Bouas noted that with the reciprocal parking, and the fact chey raised che amount of parking from 2.8 zo 3.1, chey were more in keeping with the r.equiremenc.s. Commissioner Her.bst stated he felt the pcoject was overbuilt. He said wizh the limited parking, there •aas a scrong possibility che employees would park on Nutwood, a r.esidential street, during shift changes and cause problems foc che residents in :he neighborhood. Chairman McSUrney asked applicant if he would like a continuance to revise plans, and applicanz indicac.ed he did noc. He said he wanced eichec an approval oc denis2 today. He staced he ~aould be willing to make a stipulation co encer inco a recipcocal parking agreement. Commissioner Fry stated he also felt the project was over builti. ACTI01.: Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Comnisyioner Lawicki and MOTION CARRIED chat the Anaheim City Planning Ccmmission has re~iewed the proposal to constcucc a commeccial shopping cencer with 9/3/86 MINUTES AN~HEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ SEPTEMBER 3, 1986 86-611 minimum number of required parking spaces, maximum bui].ding height and minimum landscaped set.back on a rec~angularly-shaped parcel of land consi.~ting of appcoximately 0.45 acte located at the northeast cotnec of Katella Avenue and Nut.wood S~ree~ and further descriUed as Z895 West Katella Avenue; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding tha~ it has considered the Negarive Declara*.ion roge*hec with any comments ceceived during the public review pcocess and further finding on the basis of the Initial S~udy and any comments received tha~ thece is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment.. Commissioner Fry offered Resolu`.ion No. PC86-228 and moved for it.s passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny Variance No. 3590 on ~he basis tha`. the parking waiver will cause an inceease in traffic con9estion in the immediate vicinity and adversely affect. any adjoining land uses and gran~ing of the parking waiver will be dettimental to the peace, health, safety and genecal welfare of the citizens of `he Cify of Anaheim; and on f.he basis `har. there are no special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings which do not apply `o o~her identically zoned pcoperty in the same vicinity; and that strict applicafion of the Zoning Code does not deprive `he properry of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity; and fur~her on r.he basis ~he proper~y would be overbuilt. On zoll call, the foregoin9 resolutior was passed by the following vote: AYES: FRY~ HERBST, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: LAWICKI~ BOUAS ABSENT: NONE Malcolm Slaugh~er, Depu~y City A~torney, presen~ed `he wri."".en righh to appeal the Planning Commissien's dec~sion withir. 22 days to the Ciry Council. ITEM N0. 5 EIR N£GATIVE DECLARATION WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2834 PUBLZC HEARING. OWNERS: EVERETT H. MILLER, TRUSTEE, ET AL, Roycroft Avenue, Long Beach, CA 90803. AGENTS: FRANCIS FULLER, SHELL OIL COMPANY, 511 N. Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, CA 92801. Property described as a rectangulacly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.45 acres loca~ed a~ the nor~heasr. corner of Brookhurst 5treet. and Ball Road, 956 South Brookhurst Stceet (Shell Setvice Stati~n). To permit a foodmart with off-sale beer and wine in conjunction wit.h self-secve gasoline sales and waiver of minimum stcuctural setback. There was no one indica•`-ing *.heir presence in opposition *.o subjecf cequest and although the staff ceport was not read, it is referred to and made a part. of ~he minu~es. 9/3/86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3 1986 86-612 Dale Lewis, agent, 511 N. Btookhucst, Anaheim, said he w~nted to make a corcecr.ior. in ~he staff repoct. He explained *.here would be 3 islands, 3 multi-pcoduct dispensers, and .l8 hoses. He noted the Kiosk would be removed from r.he island; t.he cashi?r's b~o~h would become part of the foodmart deve?opment; and the island cover would not be repl~ced. He said they were asking for a waiver of *.he 10-foot setback, as there was a natutal buffet with the 3-foot planter between their project and the apat~ment complex; and, ~here also is approximately 35 feet of driveway into the apartment complex, and probably anorhet 15 feet before the first drrelling unit. Mr. Lewis s':a*.ed they were in agreement wir.h all ~he conditions, excep~ Condition No. 3, pertaining to dedication on both street.s. He said they have been willin9 ~o dedica`.e when feasible; however, in ~his case i*. would harm the stacking space for cacs waitine to use the facility, and in~erfere wi*.n ~he mobili`y of *.he *.ankers delivering produc~s. He said the main problem was they did not own the property, and the owner had made it clear that he was no'- willing ':o make *he dedica~.ions. He s*.a~ed because of this, and the fact the condition was based on a future even~ that might never occur, they were asking Commission t.o delere rhis condition. Malcolm Slaugh`er asked applican~ if he was aware of rhe conditions imposed by Subsection .020 of 18.67.023, concerning off-sale beet and wine as far as the minimum sales, inven'ocy res~ricr.ions, receipt.s, e~c. were concerned, and applicant tesponded that ~che people cesponsible Eor that portion of *.he business had not indica~ed any problems. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Fry s`a*.ed he would no!- vo*.e for ~his if the irrevocable cight was not deeded to the City. He stated as in the past, the Planning Commission was not going ~o vote to permit off-sala beer and wine in conjunction with gasoline sales. Commissioner Herbs~ agteed wi~h Commissioner Fry and s!-a':ed we have a lo* of growth takin9 place in the City and felt this type of development should no* be allowed. ACTION: Co:nmissione[ La Claire offered a mo`ion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Plannin9 Commission has reviewed the proposal fo permit a foodmart wi!:h off-sale beer and wine and self-serve gasoline sales .+ith waiver of minimum structu~al setback on a rectangularly-shsped parcel af land consisting of approximately 0.45 acre located at the nottheast cotnet of Beookhucst Stceet and Ball Road, and furthet described as 956 Sou~h Brookhurst S~ree`; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon Linding that it has considered the Negative Declara~ion ~oge~hec with any cammen~s received during the public review process and fucther finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any commen~s received rhar there is no substan~ial evidence that. the project will have a significant effect on the envitonment. 9/3/So MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3 1986 86-613 Commissioner La Claire offe~ed a motion, seconded by Commissionec Herbs4 and MOTION CARRIED, ~ha~ the Anaheim Ci`y Planaing Commission does hereby deny waiver of Code cequirement on the basis that there ace no special circumstances e.pplicable to the property such as size, shape, ~opography, location and surtoundin9s which do not apply to other identically zoned property in th~ same vicini`y; and tha`. st.cict application of the 2oning Code does not deprive the properey of privileges enjoyed by other propet~ies in rhe iden~ical zone and classifica~ion in ~he viciniry. Commissioner La Claice offered Resolution No. PC86-229 and moved for its passage and adoption ~ha` the Anaheim City Planning ComR~ission does hereby deny Conditional Use Petmit No. 2834 on the basis the sale of beer and wine in conjunc~ion wi~h gasoline.sales would be de~rimen~al ro *.he peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. On toll call, ~he foregoing resolu~ion was passed by the following vo*.~: AYES: BOUAS, ERY~ HERBST, LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI~ MC BURNEY~ MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Malcolm Slaugh~er, Deputy Ci~y A~torney, presen~ed *.he writ.ten righ`- fo appeal the Plannin9 Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. RECESSED: 2:35 p.m. RECONVENED: 2:45 p.m. COMMISSIONER FRY LEFT THE CHAMBER AND DID NOT F.ETURN TO THE MEETING. ZTEM N0. 6 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL IISE PERMIT N0. 2638 PUBLIC HEARING. OWN~RS: ELWOOD F. JOHNSON, ET AL, 1848 W. Almond Avenue, Orange, CA 92668. AGENT: CLAYTON A. PETERS, 3242 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801. Propert.y described as an irregularly-shaped parr.el of land consisting of ap~roximately 1.5 acres located south and east of the southeas~ cornec of Lincoln Avenue and r'est.chester Drive, 3242 W. Lincoln Avenue (Games Plus). To retain on-sale beer in an exis~ing billiard patlour and amusemen~ arcade with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. There was no one indica`ing their presence in opposition `-o subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is teferred tu ar.d made a patt of the minutes. Clayton Pe*.e: agentr 21851 Newland, Huntington Beach, in~roduced George Katsampes, = •~est 19th Street, Costa Mesa, who was the original applic~n`- foc ames Plus. 9/3/86 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COHMISSION, SEPTEMBER 3~ 1986 86-614 Mr. Katsampes said chere seems co be some sorc of concroversy about incerpreting che minuces of che City Council meeting since che capes were no longer available. He scated when he applied foc the condicional use permit in 1983, chac ne cold Council if they had any reservacion abouc the project, they could limit ic for 6 months co 1 year and chen review the acciviries. He said if everything was found to be sacisfactocy, that conditional use per.mic could mature and be an on-going permit. He made reference co copies uf the Council minuces ne had obtain from City Cler.k's Office. He said he was shocked co see the resolucion which scates ic had expired 6 monchs after issuance by Cicy C~unc;l. He scated chey had continued co ope~ace che business, noc realizing chey needed co do anything furcher. He indicated chey had been operating for 3 years, and if chey had noc soughc to sell che business, chey would noc be befor.e che Planning Commission zoday. He s~aced he received the memorandum from che Police Deparcment peccaining co accivities ac Games Plus since 1982. He staced he would want to review each of che 20 cases noted Un che memocandum, as he felt many of che problems could be atcributed co ocher businesses in zhe area. Mr. Kacsampes scaced chac Officer Chrisciansen, from the Anaheim Police Deparcmenc, had met wich che owners ~hree weeks ago and he had scated che place had a'clean bill of healch'. THE PUBLIC HEAP.ING WAS CLOSED. Chairman McBurney asked Malcolm Slaughcer why chis issue was be£ore the Planning Commission when Cicy Council had gcanced the 6-monch cime limit. Malcolm Slaughcer staced ic was because applicanc was seeking a new condicional use permic. Mr. Slaughter also noced a copy of che resolucion chac Mr. Kacsampes was referring co, was mailed on November 3, 1983, from che Cicy Clerk's Office co the ociginal applicanc of Games Plus, Mr. Dargatz. He stated che issue of the time limic should have been raised at thac time. John Poole, Code Enforcement Supervisor, City of Anaheim, introduced Bruce Fr2eman, Code Enforcement Officer, City of Anaheim, and Sergeant James Brancley, from the Anaheim Police Deparcmenc. Sergeanc Brancley scaced he would be happy to answer any questions. Chairman McBUrney asked Sergeant Brantley if his obser.vations of Games Plus gave che facili~y a'clean bill of healch'. Sergeant Brantley replied it did not. Ser9eanc Bzantley staced he was noc directly involved with chis case, buc noted that che information in che memorandum, dated Augusc 14, 1586, and submicced to Commissioners was caken direccly from Police files. He noced che incidencs occurred eicher inside or directly adjacenc co Games Plus. Sergeanc Brantley spoke briefly about ralice concaccs wich other businesses ac chac locacion. Bcuce Ereeman scaced he had nothing co add co Sergeant Brantley's commencs, but would be happy co answer any questions che Commissioners mi9ht r?:ve. MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMM?.SSION, SEPTEMBER 3, 1986 86-615 Commissioner Hecbst asked Mr. Freeman if he had any occasion to enforce Code at that cen~er. He responded over the pasr 2 years he had to go to the commeccial shopping centez, where Games Plus is located because of complain~.s ~f ~rash, graffiti on walls, and o~her things of *ha~ na~ure. He stated for the most patt, Games Plus had complied in an expeditious manner. Commissioner Bouas asked if minors could go ro this facili~y. Applicant said yes. He also stated that beer could only be ordered by adults after they had clocked in for a billiard ~able. Commissioner Bouas asked if they s?rved any type of food and he replied they sell fritos, sandwiches, chips, e~c. Commissioner Herbs~ s~a`.ed he vo`ed agains~ ~his projec` when it was firs~ before Commission in 1983, and he still felt the same way. He noted they had le~ters in opposi~ion because of noise, e~c. ACTION: Commissionec Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki and MOTION CARRIED (COmmissioner Fry absen~) `ha~ the Anaheim Ci`y Planning Commission has reviewed the pzoposal to ret.ain on-sale beer in an existing billiard parlour and amusemen` arcade with waiver of minimum number of parkin9 spaces on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.5 acres locar.ed sou*.h and eas*. of ~he southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Westchester Dcive and further described as 3242 West Lincoln Avenue; and does hereby approve `he Negative Declaration upon finding Lhat it has considered the Negative Declara*.ion *oge~her wi*h any commen~s received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received *.ha~ thece is no subs*an*.ial evidence `hat the project will have a sig~ificant effect on the environmen~. Commissioner Herbs~ offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED {Commissioner Fry absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny waiver of Code requicemen~ on `he basis `.hat the patking waiver will cause an increase in traffic congestion in the immedia~e vicinity and adversely affec~ any adjoining land uses and granting of the packing waivec will be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of t.he citizens of the Ci~y of Anaheim. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC66-230 and moved for i`s passage and adoption *.hat the Anaheim Ci*y Planning Commission does hereby deny Conditional Use Permit No. 2838 on the basis that there are no speciai circumstances applicable *o the property such as sice~ shape, topography, location and surroundings which do not apply • ~thpr idenkically zoned property in `-he same vicinity; and that srri^*_ application of the Zoning Code does not deprive t~e p~opecty of privileges enjoyed by other properties in ~he identical zone and classifica~ion in the vicinity. On roll call, the foreg~ing resolution was passed by the followir.g vo*e: AYES: BOUAS~ HERBST~ LA CLAIRE~ LAl4ICrI~ MC SURNEY~ MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: FRY 9/3/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIO[~, SEPTEMBER 3, 1986 d5-616 Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days ~o the City Council. ITEM NO. 7 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATIO~ AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 219 PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY: CITY OF A~AHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION~ 200 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805. Ptoperty described as apotoximately 11.3 acres extending along *.he wes*. side of Anaheim Hills Road fcom San*.a Ana Canyon Road a distance of approxiroately 2800 fee*... To consider amendmen~ of the Land Use Ele.men~ of the General Plan proposin9 a redesi9nation from the hillsi~e low density resident±al (5.7 acces) and commercial recreation (5.6 acres) designa~ions `.o a general open space designation. There was no one indica`.ing *.heir presence in opposition `o subjec~ request and although the staff report was not cead, it is ceferred to and made a part of ~he minu~es. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner La Claire s~a*.ed she was glad to see this amendmen~ requesFed because it would protect the rest of the acea. ACTION: Commissionec La Claire offeced a mo`ion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Fry absent) that. the Anaheim Ciky Planning Commission has reviewed *.he proposal *.o consider an amendmen` to the Land Use Element redesignating subject property from the current Hillside Low Density Residen}ial and Commercial Recrea*.ion designations ~o a General Open Space designation on an irre9ulatly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 11.3 acres extending approxima~ely 2,800 fee~ along t_he west side of Anaheim Hills Road, beginning approximately 620 feet north of r.he intersec*.ion of Nohl Ranch Road; and does hereby approve the Negative Declacation upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declara~ion ~ogether with any commen~s received during ~he public review ptocess and furthec finding on the basis of the initial Study and any comments received tha~ there is no subst.antial evidence *.ha~ the project will have a significant effect on the environment, Commissioner La Claire offeced Resolution No. PC86-231 and moved for its passa9e and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby adopt and cecommend ro t_he City Council adop*ion of an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan designated as General Plan Amendmen` No. 219, Exhibit. A for general open space designarior.. On roll call, the focegoin9 resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS~ HERBST~ LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI~ MC BURNEY~ MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: FkY Malcolm Slau~hter, Depu~y Ci~y A*torney, presen~ed the wri~ten right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. MINOTES, ANAHEIM GITY PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3 1986 86-617 ITEM N0. 8 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV. APPRCNED) WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT (PREV. APPROVED) AhD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2341 (READVERTISED) PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPROVAL QF REVISED PLANS. REQUESTED BY: CITY OF ANAFiEIM, 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, ~~ 92805. AGENTS: WESTERN NATIONAL PROPERTIES, P. 0. Box 6348, Oranye, CA 92667, ATTN: KELL~ CAMPBELL. Property desccibed as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 4.4 acres, 730-810 Noc`h Loara S*.ree~. To pecmit a 100 unit senio[ citizens' apa~rment complex with waiver of maximum structucal heigh~ (previously appcoved). Continued f~om th~ meeting of August 4, 1986. AC'PION: Commissioner Bouas offered a mo~ion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Pty absent) that consideration of afocementioned matter be continued ~.o the regularly-scheduled meeting of September 15, 1986, as requested by petitioner. ITEM N0. 9 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV. APPROVED) AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2155 (READV.) PUBLIC HEARING FOR REVISED PLANS. OWl~ERS: NAZIH NADER, 6331 E. Via Arboles, Anaheim, CA 92807. AGENT: EUCLID STREET BAPTIST CHURCH, 1408 S. Euclid Street, .Anaheim, CA 92802, ATTN: BRY~~ L. CROW, PASTOR. Request to amend Condition r7o. 3 of Resolution No, PC80-233 (to permit the approval of revised plans (Rev. No. 1) for a church in ~he ML(SC) Zone). There was no one indicating theic pcesence in opposition to subject rEquest and although rhe staff repoct was not eead, ir is referred *o and made a part of r.he minutes. Gce9ory Sanders, a~`orney, was presen`. represer.*_ing rhe applican`. Mr. Sanders stated they wece in concur[ence with ~he tecommendations setforth by s~aff. He noted City Council had passed an ordinance allowing a 3-year period for church use in the industrial acea, and since the conditional use pecmit that was being tcansfetred would expire December 1988, they would like to cequest an extension until August 1989. THE PUBLIC HEARI[iG WAS CLOSEll. Chairman McBUCney stated this was an unusual request and he felt it should tequice a new conditional use permit because this is a diffetent church. Commissioner Messe noted *hey had a new ordinance, new applican~, and essentially, a new church. He stated the only thing they did not have was a new condirional use permit. Applican* noted address was different, bu` ir, was loca~ed in the same industrial complex. 9/3/86 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~_SEPTEMBER 3, 1986 86-618 Commissiones La Claire scaced she wanted co granc che condicional use permit, buc woi~ld like to know why they did not apply for a new one. ~r. Sanders szated Pascor Crow had gone to che City oE Anaheim Planning Department to apply for a conditional use per.mit and was advised to pzoceed in chis manner. Commissioner Bouas noted rhat at that time there was no ordinance to cover a church use in che induscrial area. Annika Santalahti staced in 1980, when the conditional use permic was originally approved, Code did noc read che way ic does cusrencly, so it was a valid application at that time. She noced when applicanc firsc came in co apply, che Zonin9 Code in che Canyon Induscrial Area made no provision for chur.ches, so filing would have been worthless. She said the only possible mechod would have been co ucilize an exiscing condicional use permit on the propeccy. She stated thece was such a permic in zhe induscrial complex, buc located in a differenc unic; hence, che modification of the approved site plan to r.elocate from one unic co the ocher. She noced in che incerim, che Zoning Code was changed. Malcolm Slaughter scated he had spoken wich Jack White, City Attorney, who drafzed che new ordinanee and asked che Cicy Council, at che cime of che hearing, whether propercy meant the encir.e parcel or. just the locacion of the specific use. He sc:zced he underscoad chac Council's intencion was co refer to only the area where the use happened to be, so for purposes of this ocdinance, ic appears che incent co mean chis proper~y could have as many churches as building units, pcoviding none of them exceeds the 3 years in any given 10-year period. Malcolm Slaughter. staced Commission could grant a condi''ional use permit at che new location for a maximum of 3 years. Afcer considerable discussion, Commission said they definicely wanted to creac chis as a new conditional use permit. Commission inquired if the applicant was aware of the conditions required under r.he new ordinance. Mr. Sandecs said yes, and they were entirely satisfied with the conditions imposed, and che lan9uage in the ordinance adopced by the Cicy Council. It was noted the EIR Negacive Declaration was approved on December 15, 1980, and filed with th~ County on January 7, 1981. ACTIOti: Commissioner Messe offered Resolution No. PC86-232 which supercedes Resolucion No. PC80-2~3 and moved for its pas°a9e and adopcion chat the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby ap~~ove r.evised plans moving che previously approved church use from one building (5401 E. La Palma Avenue) to another building (5425 E. La Palma Avenue); amending Condition No. 3 of Planning Commission Resolution No. PCSO-233 co read: '3. That subject property shali be developed substantially in accocdance with plans and specifications on file wicti che City of Anaheim marked Revis~on 1 of Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2."; adding Condition No. '6. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay the difference becwee9/3/86SLria1 MINUTES, ANAHEII~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SEPTEMBER 3~ 1986 86-619 and commercial craffic si9nal assessmenc fees (Ordinance No. 2876), in an amounc as decermined by che Ci~y Council, for che pcoper~y ac 5425 East La Palmz Avenue (proposed church locacion) prior co issuance of a building permit, or commencemenc of the acii~icy auchorized under chis resolucion."; and, addi.tig Cundicion No. "7. Thac subjecc use may noc commence activicy unril after ehe effeccive date of Ordinance No. 4743."; and furcher granting subject pecicion for a per.iod of chree years in accordance with che r.ew City ordinance. Tne ocher condicions secfocch in Resolution No. PC80-233 shall remain as is. On r.oll call, che foregoing resolucion was passed by che following voce: AYES: BOUAS, HERBST, LA CLAZRE~ LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: FRY Malcolm Sla~ghcer, Depucy Cicy A~torney, presenced che wriccen righc co appeal che Planning Commission's decision wichin 22 days co the Cicy Council. Commissicner Y.ecbsc asked that ic be noced in ch~ minuces chac Malcolm Slaughter advised Commission ~hey could ~rear Condi~ional Use Permic No. 2155 as a new condicio~al use permiz. ITEM N0. 10 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDA.TIONS: A. GPA STUDY AREA - Requcsc from Planning Bivision for direcLion conceening Generi.l Plan Amendmenc Scudy a~ea boundaries (Coffman and Cypress Screec). ACTION: Commissioner MesSe offered a morion, seconded by Commissioner Herbs~ and :~CTION CA:tRIEU lCommissioner Fr.y absenc) chat che Anaheim Cicy Planning Commission does hereby direcc scaff co include ~he nine rert~ainirig paccels in ~he Cof[man/Cypcess Street neighborhood as parc of the expanded General Plan Amendment Scudy Area. OTHER DISCUSSION: Cormiissioner La Claire staced she would like ~o meec wich Paul Singer ac 10:00 a.m. on Sepcember 17ch, co discuss che parking ordinance. Annika Sancalahti said staff would check wich Paul Singer and schedule a meetiny. ADJOURNMENT; Commissioner Herbst offered a mocion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and t40TZGN CARRIED (Commissioner Fry absenc) chac the meecing be adjourned. The meeting was adjourned at 3:40 p.m. Respeccfully submi~ced, ~~~ :r,z~i S~ Pamela Scarnes, Secrecary Pco Tempore Anaheim Cicy Planning Commission 0217m 9/3/86 n c . 1 m .. .. . .. .. . .. .__.. ......._ _ _. . . . . . .... . .