Loading...
Minutes-PC 1987/01/19REGULAR MEETII3G OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION The regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was .gilled to order by Chairman McBUrney at 10;00 a.m., January 19, .198'1, in the Council Chamber, a quorum being presont, and the Commission reviewed plans of the items on today's agenda. RECESS RECONVENED: PRESENT: ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: 11:30 a.m. 1.:30 p.m. C hairman: Commissioners: Commissioners: Anni k a Santalahti Malcolm Slaughter Jay Titus Debbie Fank Debbie Vagts Leonard McGhee Edith Harris McBurney Bouas, Fry, Herbst, La Claire, Lawicki, Mease None Assistant Director foc Zoning Deputy City Attorney Off ice Engineer Assistant Traffic Engineer Leasing Supervisor Associate Planner Planning Commission Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES •- Cc:mmi:;sioner Herbst offered a mop ion, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki and MOTION CARRIEn, that the minutes of the meeting of January 5, X967, be approved as submitted. PUBLIC_INPUT - Chairman Mr.RUrney explained at the er' of th ,'nwithin theber of the public would bQ allowed to discuss any matter of jurisdiction o. `h~ P?+xnning •:nr,,:rissSCn, oc any genda Lcai AGENDA POSTING - A comp lets copy oE1ateethei;Coun~ilJChambernfoyerdwindowsoandd at 8:00 a.m., January i 5, 19e7, ` in the d isp?ay case in t he lobby. ITEM NO. L EIR NEGATIVI: DECLARATION ANO REQUEST FOR SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL N0. 86-05 PUBLIC HEARING. REQUESTED BY: EAST HILLS DEVELOPMENT, 26300 La Alameda, Suite 3 3 0, Mission Viejo, CA 92691. Property descr~boximately 31 acres irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of app genera 1 ly located south and east of the intersection of Santa Ana Canyon Road and th a southerly extension of Weir Canyon Road, having a frontage of approximately 1512 feet on the south side of Santa Ana Canyon Road and being located approximately 1800 feet east of the centerline of Weir Canyon Raad, 8600 Santa Ana Canyon Road (Bauer Ranch) . Reques t for removal of one California Live Oak specimen tree and one California Pepper specimen tree to facilitate construction of 292 apartment units. 87-19 1119/87 87-20 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Januar 19, 1987 Continued from the meetingw of OcL•ober 13 and November 10, 1986. There was no one indicating their presence in oppooition to s~.rbject request and although the staff report was nat read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Michael Murphy, Greiner Engineering, agent, explained these landscaping plans are still in the working stayes, but do show the planting locations of the mitigation trees. He explained the two replacement trees will be 48 inch boxed Jacaranda trees which cost approximately 1,200 each and they will be approximately 20 Eeet high and and have a spread of shout 15 feet; and in addition to those two replacement trees, there will be approximately 800 trees planted on the site. He explained all the trees have been selected from the City's approved list and have been laid out on the plan in accordance with the comments received at the last meeting to provide a buffer to the adjacent residential areas. He presented a colored rendering showing the location of the trees and explained that plan will become a part of the record so the Commission can be assured the trees will be planted as indica*. ed. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Responding to Chairman Mceurney, Leonard McGhee explained this exhibit can be made a part of this action. Commissioner La Claire stated she is happy to see the landscaping plans and asked what type of trees are being proposed Eor the periphery of the property. Mr. Murphy responded tie was not sure of the exact species, but thought 10 to 12 different types of trees were proposed. He responded to Commissioner Lawicki that a laroe majority would be of the 15-gallon size and would be from 6 to 8 feet tall. Commissioner La Claire stated two trees were removlanpwasroriginallying approval and that is the reason this landscapiny p requested; and that there is a fine that could be imposed and since there are a lot of people who come in for permits aftac the faciAnfrosheoaddedtit is Planning Commission will be requiring a landscaping p very interesting to her that when this project was originally approved, there were several 48-inch boxed trees proposed, especially at the entrance of tt~e project and evidently that has been changed. She added she would lik~~ `' see two additional 48-inch boxed trees because originally lush landscapi~ proposed and she would like to see at least a total of four 48-inch ...;" ' trees, in addition to the 800 trees proposed on the rest of the project. She added she wnuid like to see the trees along the periphery have a screening quality. intr. Murphy agreed to the recommendations and stated the location of the two trees wathe°tW0 additional largewboxpdntreesewouldcbemCoralntreesdanddwouldsbe lik_ly, located at the entrance. ACTION: Commissioner La Claire offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRZED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to remove one California Live Oak specimen tree and one California Pepper tree to facilitate construction of 292-apartment units on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 31 acres generally located south and east of the intersection of Santa Ana C1~19/gRoad MINUTES, ANhFIEIM CITY l~LANNING COMMISSION, January 19, 1987 87-21 and the southerly extension of Welr Canyon Roadt and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding t.•hat it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review 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 significant effecl• on the environment. Commissioner La Claire offerer] a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MO'PION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant approval of Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 86-05 for the removal of one California Give Oak specimen tree and one California Pepper tree on the basis that reasonable and practical development of: the property on which the trees are located requireF removal of the trees whose removal, is sought and that the character of the immediate neighborhood in respect of forestation will not be materially affected by the proposed removal, and further, that any specimen trees removed shall be replaced with the planting on the same parcel with Eour 48-inch boxed trees Erom the specified list in the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone and subject to the property being developed in accordance with the Exhibit displayed aL• the public hearing and that the additional 800 trees will have a screening quality. ITEM N0. 2 L'IR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONUITIONAI. USE pER14IT N0. 2853 (READVERTISED) PUBLIC NEARING. OWNERS: ADA 1. tiIGDON, WEI.GS FARGO BANK NA TRUSTEF,S, 9600 Santa Monica Boulevard, Beverly Hills, CA 90210. AGENT: DENNIS WI[.LIAMS, 221 N. Beach Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92801. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.57 acre, 221 North Beach Boulevard (Angelo's). To permit a drive-in, drive-through restaurant with car hops and witfr waiver of minimum distance of a drive-through lane. Continued from the meeting of December 8, 1986. It was noted the petitioner has requested a two-week continuance and that there were L•wo people indicating their presence in opposition. ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of February 18, 1987, at the request of the petitioner. Responding to a lady in the audience, Chairman McBurney explained any petitions should be presented at the public hearing on February 18, 1987. He explained occasionally a petitioner requests additional continuances in order to revise plans or have additional studies done, etc., and the Planning Commission tries to accommodate those requests. [[e explained in t',is instance, the petitioner is Craving a traffic study conducted at the request of the City. Commissioner La Claire suggested the neighbors call the City Planning Department staff prior t~ attending the next meeting to determine whether or not another continuance has been requested. She explained this is an unusual situation because there are legal ramifications to be considered• 1/19/87 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY P[,ANNING COMMI_SSION,..JanuarY 19, 1987 8'1-22 ITEM N0. 3 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OP CODE REQUIRE CONDI'fIQNAL USE PERMIT_ N0. 2847 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: JOSEPH N. AND JALEFI .J. MAKABI A.ND IIOURIE HOURIANI, 3333 W. Ball Road, Anaheim, CA 92802. AGENT: HUGO VAZQUEZ, 2240 W. Linco.in Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92802. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.74 acre, 3333 West Ball Road. To construct a 94-bed skilled nursing facility with waivers of (a) minimum landscaped setback, (b) maximum structural heiyht and (c) minimum side yard setback . Continued from the meetings of October 13, Nnve-nber 10 and December 8, 1986. There were thirteen persons indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and rnadr_ a part of the minutes. Hugo Vazquez, 619 S. Live Oak Drive, Anaheim, explainr~d he has never built a project like this and it would have been built in cooperation with another group who would be managiny it, but evidently, wen though the need is tremendous, it is a very difficult typo of project to place in a residential neighborhood and he wouJ.d like to withdraw the petition for the 94-bed skilled nursing facility and look at the site for another alternative use such as commercial or multiple-family residential. Chairman McBurney suggested rhat before a plan is brought back to the Commission, it should bE reviewed by the property owners in the area. ACTION: Commissioner Herbsk ofEe.red a motf.on, seconded by Com;nissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED that the petition for Conditional Use Permit No. '1848 be withdrawn at ttie request of the petitioner. ITEM N0. 4 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATI017 AND VARIANCE N0. 3597 ._~- PUBLIC HEARING. OWr1ERS: FIUGO A. VAZQUEZ AND TAK WATANABE, 2240 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 6,695 square feet, 7.07. South Olive Street. Waivers of (a) maximum structural height (deleted), (b) maximum site coverage, (c) minimum recreational-lei~uce areas, id) minimum area of private recreational-leisure areas (deleted) and (e) minimum width of pedestrian accessways to construct a 2-story, 4-unit apartme,~t ~~uilding. Continued from the meetings of September 15, October i3 and 27, November 10 and December ~, .1986. There were two persons indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. 1/19/87 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLAN~iING CpMMISSIUN_,___ __January 19, 1947 87-23 Hugo Vaxquex, 619 S. Live Oak, Anaheim, explained this will be a four-plex located right behin9 City Ha11 and he has had four meetings with the neighbors regarding this project and has satisfied their concerns. Donna Berry, 511 E. Broadway, stated she is Chairman of the Neighborhood Committee and they do feel these plans arm a vast improvement over what was oriyinally proposed= however, they question the size of one of th. units proposed at 1600 square feet and they were concerned that that unit could be divided into two units in the fur.ur.e. Jacquelyn Frahm, 119 S. Olive, stated her concerns are about the same= that this could be overbuilding ttie lot and there is not sufficient recreational areas and if. that unit is divided, it would add to the problems. She added she would like to commend the developer for trying to follow the architecture and feeling on tt~e community. Mr. Vazquez stated he fecis this project would build up r.he integrity of the neighborhood and the existiny neighbors are very concerned about any development in the area and hope this project would set the tone for any future projects. He stated he would look at this project as an owner-occupied unit, with the owner occupying tha. large unit and renting the others out for income. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Messe suggested reducing the size of the one .large unit and providing more recreational-leisure area. Mr. Vazquez responded that could probably be accomplished. Commissioner Herbst stated he did not see justification for granting a variance and the project is just overbuilding the lot. Mr. Vaxquez stated that large unit is there because originally a recreation room was proposed, but he thought it would be much nicer to have an owner's unit. He stated the coning would permil• 5 units, but the neighbors wanted to see this Victorian character to the project to blend in with their neighborhood. He stated at the previous public hearing only one variance was proposed pertaining to the accessways and these changes were made to accommodate the neighbors' concerns. Chairman McSurney suggested dele~ing waiver (c) and then he cou?.d support the project. Responding to Commissioner La Claire, Leonard McGhee stated the variances requested refer to no private recreational areas, and only pertain to the walkways and common areas and that all landscaped areas have been counted. Commissioner La Claire stated the recreational-leisure area is really just plain landscaping and sidewalks. She stated since this is only 4 units, she could support the project because it really would not be that much of an impact on the neighborhood. She stated more landscaping would not mean recreational facilities for the children and added maybe our ordinances ace at fault and Commission should take a look at perhaps an amendment so that recreational-leisure areas do provide the recreational facilities for the children. 1/19/87 MTNUTE;S. ANAHiIM CITY_PLANNING COMMISSION, Januarv~ 19, 1987 87-2.4 Commissioner Herbst stated if thin is approved- every owner will be wanting the same thing and he did not see a hardship for granting the variance. Chairman Mct3urney stated if the recreational-leisure area is brought, up to Code, he could support the project. Commissioner Bouas asked what guarantee there could be that the large unit would not tie converted in the future iE the property is sold. Mr. Vazquez stated the floor plan is not one to allow dlviding the unit and explained the large unit is designed :~a a single-family home. He stated Code F:nforcemer-t in the City vF. Anaheim is one of the beat and they would be watching for such an action and alas, t~-e surrounding neighbors are also very informed about who liven where and who occupies all the units, so they would also be watching. Eie suggested requirinn the extra recreational-leisure as a condition of approval. Malcolm Slaughter pointed out the original project was reviewed by the Redevelopment Commission and they recommended denial and t-e did not know whether ti-e revised plans were ceviewed by that Commission. Commissioner Fry stated he thought the density was the Redevelopment Commission's concern. Chairman McBurn~~y stated he did not think it would be the developer'u responsibilities to se~~ that the revised plans are brought back to the Redevelopmr_nr. Commission. Commissioner Messe stated ;~e thought the Redevelopment Commission was also ~~oncerned about the architectural design. ACTION: Commissla--er Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fry and MOTION CARP.IED that l-he Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to construct a two-story, 4-unit apartment building with waiver of (a) maximum structural height (deleted), (b) maximum site coverage, (c) minimum recreational-leisure areas, (d) minimum area of private recreational-leisure areas (deleted) anc3 (e) minimum width of pedestrian accessways vn a cectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 6,695 square feet, having a frontage of approximately 50 feet on the east side of Olive Street and further described as 202 South Olive Street; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review 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 significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC87-10 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Variance No. 3597, in pant, granting waivers (b and e) on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity; and denying waivers (a and d) on the basis they wece deleted on revised plans; and denying waiver (c) on the basis that the petitioner stipulated at the public hearing to provide minimum recreational-leisure areas in conformance with Code and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. 1/19/87 MINUTES- ANAHEIM_CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 191 1987 _ 87-25 Commissioner Herbst added he would like a condition added that staff approved the revised plans showing the minimum recreational ar^pc in conformance with Code. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: AQUAS, FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BUP.NEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: BONE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented ti>e written riyht to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to she City Council. ITEM NO. 5 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND CUNDITIONAT, USE PERMIT t70. 2861 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: HUGO A. VAZQUEZ, 2240 W. Lincoln, Anaheim, CA 92805. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel. of land consisting of approximately 0.8 acres, having a frontage of 126 Feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, 2244 W. Lincoln Avenue. To permit a 75-unit motel with waivers of minimum structural setback (delet.ed) and required screening of parking areas (deleted). Continued from the meeting of January 5, 1987. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report. was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Hugo Vazquez, 619 S. Live Oak Drive, Anaheim, stated they plan t:o demolish the existing motel; and there was concern about tl~e: manager':. unit: and that is proposed i~.~t above the lobby area. He stated this would be similar to the Quality Inn or Embassy Iitn motels. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Responding to Commissioner Bouas, Mr. Vazquez stated the penthouse is designed to attract the highest quality tenant and it will not be used as a long-term rental. He explained he has talked to the Holiday Inn staff and there could be some minor alterations on the plan later before a franchisee could take over their design. He explained 35$ of the units would have kitchenettes. ACTION: Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit a 75-unit motel with waivers of minimum structural setback (deleted) and required screening of parking areas (deleted) on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.8 acres, having a frontage of approxirtiately 1?.6 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and further described as 2244 West Lincoln Avenue; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substanti«1 evidence that the project will have a significant effect an the environment. 1/19/87 t• 87-26 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JanuarY_19~ 1987 _ PC87-11 and moved for its passage and Commissioner Fcy offered Resolution No. adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission dose hereby grant Conditional Use Permit'8oo3?030.035sandtsubjecthtomInterdepartmentaleCommittee 18.03.030.030 through recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the Following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0. 6 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATIGN RECLASSIFICATION N0. 66-87-20 AND VARIANCE N0. 3627 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: OR. WILLIAM :OBERSON, 2775 W. BAnaheimalCAn92804. CA 92804. AGENT: HUGU A. VAZQUEZ, 2240sW. Lincarcelvofuland consisting of Property described as an irregularly- haped p approximatale Avenuecr2775ca2785nWest Ba1leRoadoandh910~r920aSouthrDaleoAvenue. Road and D RS-A-43,000 and CL to RM-1200 yr a less intense zone. Waivers of (a) minimum building site area per dwelling unit, (b) maximum structural height, (c) maximum s72eun°tveaf.fordabledapartment complexral setback to construct a 3-story, There thounh the staffareporthwas notsread,iitoisoreferocedotouandcmadegaepart and al 9 of the minutes. Hugo Vazquez, 619 S. Live Oak Drive, Anaheim, presented brochures showing the 72-unit apartment complex. He stated the project has five different floor plans ranging in site from 825 s5ttare feet to 1200 square feet and the central courtyard is 44 feet widz which provides ample distance between buildings. He stated there is a 2-story recreational clubhouse which is very important and also, a pool and Jacuzzi and the project will have a red the roof. He stated they ace requesting an 188 increase in density, but are providing affordable units, and there is a program providing rents at a much lower range so that 108 of the units are designated as affordable. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Responding to Commissioner Bouas, Mr. Vazquez stated he provided the Housing Department with a signed agreement this morning for 108 of the units as affordable units in the $400 a month range. Commissioner La Claire stated one of the things the Fair Housing Commission of Orange County found is that there are still a lot of people who cannot afford to live in affordable housing at the 258 range and it will be nice to provide some of the units in the lower range. 1/19/87 MINUTEST ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, .lanuar 19, 1987 87-27 Chairman McBurney stated Condition No. 13 should be modified to reflect the 108 rather than 25~ range for affordability, but that the number of years should remain at 20. Mr. Vazquez stated he would agree to that modification. Commissioner La Claire asked what the recreational facillties will contain. Mr. Vazquez stated there will be a lobby area that will be plushly furnished and there will be a security guard on the ground level with l-he recreation room upstai.ro where tenants can entertain thelr guests. Commissioner La Claire stated i.n this project the clubhouse may be acceptable, b~ there will be children in this complex and they do need a place to play a~~d she realizes there is nothing in our Code requiting those facilities. Commissioner Herbst stated this project is in a location that he would consider good for affordable units because it is adjacent to a junior high school which would give their children a place to play. He stated in the past when the Commission has denied affordable projects in other areas, it was because they did not think they fit in those locations, but in his opinion, this project fits in this location. He stated Commission wants affordable housing if it does not impact the surrounding area. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fry and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to reclassify su~ject property from CL (Commercial, Limited? and RS-A-43,000 (Residential, Agriculture) Zones to RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zone to construct a 3-story, 72-unit affordable apartment complex under authority of State Government Code Section 65915 with waivers of minimum building site area per dwelling unit, maximum structural height, maximum site coverage and minimum structural setback on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.69 acres located north and east of the northeast corner of Ball Road and Dale Avenue and further described as 2775, 2785 West Ball Road and 910, 920 South Dale Avenue; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review 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 significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. 87-12 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Reclassification No. 96-87-20 subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, IAA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC GURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC87-13 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Variance No. 3627 on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable 1/19/87 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Januar 19,_1987 ___ 87-28 to the property such as size, shape, tcp~graphy, location and surroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicinitys and that strict aFplication of the Zaniny Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity and subject to interdepartmental Committee recommendations with Condition No. 13 being modified t;o reflect an affordable agreement at 1Ga of the median income range for a period of 20 years. On roll call, the foregoing resoluti~,n was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, CRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC GURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0. 7 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL U5E PERMIT N0. 2868 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: EDWARD E. MATTHEWS, c/o FAR WEST' SA~IINGS, 4001 MacArthur Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92660. AGENT: .1AMF.S t:ANLEY, 545 Indian 'Pra.il., Anaheim, CA 92807. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 12.2 acres, 5435 East L;: Palma Avenue (proposed church). To permit a church in the Anaheim Canyon Industrial Area. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a pact of the minutes. Donald Sieveke, 4292 Dorothea, Yorba Linda, introduced Michael York, Pastor of the church, James Hanley, agent, and Tom Hillebrant as being present to answer any questions. He skated the recommended conditions of approval may effectively preclude them from using this conditional use permit because it would require a large expenditure of funds which they do not have and the owner has indicated he will not pay for these improvements. He stated He pointed Conditions 1 and 2 are not reasonably related to the church use. out the Community Christian Church is occupying a facility located at 5435 E. La Palma Avenue which is in a business complex with approximately 4U units and most of the businesses use the property during the week and the church uses it on the weekends with only eight or less persons on the premises during the week. He stated the Euclid Street Baptist Church is currently occupying this same business complex at 5425 E. La Palma Avenue and that unit is located right on La Palma Avenue. Hs Mxplained the attendance for thiacesuand the currently 200 or appro~;imately 90 families using 89 parking sp other church uses about the same number of parking spaces. He stated there is a past history of churches in this complex and the Anaheim Hills Community Church with attendance of 500 using approximately 150 parking spaces was approved without any conditions. He stated the conditions would require installation of sidewalks across the entire front of this complex; and that Condition No. 2 requires reconstruction of driveways to accommodate the sidewalks and he did not have an estimate of that installation. He statt.: he 3 for just received these conditions last Friday. Concerning Condition No. traffic signal assessment fees, he stated he did not know how much 1~19/87ees MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION t Jenuary 19, 1987 87-29 would be, but if it is somethiny the church can afford, they would be willing to pay. He stated the church will be located in the roar of the complex and there would be no Eoot traffic in that area because no church members live in the area. He stated parking for both churches in the complex is probr~`~ly less than the total packing for the weekday uses. tic stared he feels it is unfair. to assess these conditions against the church since r,hey wer.u not asr~essed on the other users. Pastor Michael Taylor, 3.15 Devon3hirc, Drea, stated they only learned about these contingencies last Monday and in conversations with the owner at ttrat time, understood he would be willing to comply with these requests, but in speaking with the owner directly this morning, that is not the case and the conditions jeopardize tf~eir arrangements for the lease. He stated t:he church is presently meeting in a Placentia school and they have a time limit placed on them which is quickly running aut and in the event this does not work out, they will be hardpressed to find another location. Iie stated a large percentage of the people in Anaheim hills are unchurched with only 5 or G churches serving that entire area, so there is a need for new c~~ngcegations in this area within close driving range. THE PUBLIC HEARIIJG WAS CLOSED. Commissioner La Claire stated churches have been granted before in other areas and in the beginning the Planning Commission was very concerned about allowing them in an industrial area because of ttre traffic, but found they do work well and there has never bean a complaint from any of the other industrialists and she did not see this as being any different from other churches and these conditions have not been imposed because churches are there on a temporary basis and it is a limited use as spelled out in the ordinance. Commissioner Herbst stated the traffic signal assessment fee has probably been imposed on the other churches. Malcolm Slaughter stated the traffic signal assessment fee which is included in the recommended conditions, may or may not apply because the ordinance imposes that condition whether it is included in the staff report, and even if it is deleted by the Planning Commission, it does not mean ttie church would be relieved of t'r,at assessment. Commissioner Herbst stated the change of use from industrial is the reason the Tr•affio Engineer has requested payment of that fee. He agreed the sidewalks and driveways should not be required since this is a temporary use for a 3- year period. He pointed out the permit would be for a 3-year period and cannot be renewed. ACTION: Commissioner La Claire offered a motion, and moved for its passaye and adoption that the Anatreim City Planning Commission iias reviewed the proposal to permit a church in the FiL(SC) Anaheim Canyon Industrial Area on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consistiny of approximately 12.2 acres, having a frontage of approximately 500 feet on the north side of La Palma Avenue and further described as 5435 E. La Palma Avenue; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received duriny the public review 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 significant effect on the environment. 1/19/67 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING. COMMISSION. January 19, 1987 _____ 87-30 Commissioner La ClairQ oftiered Resolution No. PC87-14 and moved for i is passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2868 far a period of 3 years pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations, deleting Conditions Noa. 1 and 2. On roll call., the foregoing resolution was passed by the following v o te: AYES: BOUASr FRY, ftERB5`P, LA CLAIRE, GAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Malcolm slauyhter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written cigh t to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Counci 1. ITEM N0. B EIR NEGATIVE UECLARATTON AND CONDITIONAL USE FF.RMIT N0. 2874 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: LOBE[, FINANCIAL CORP., 2528 W. Woodland Drive, Anaheim, CA 92801. AGENT: MTLESTONE BUILDERS, INC., 1739 S. Douglass Road, Suite F, Anaheim, CA 92806. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.26 acre, 1237 South erookhurst Street. To permit an automobile sales lot. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition L•o s~rbject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Earl Eddy, 946 W. Rainbow Falls, Orange, ..gent, was present to answer any questions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Responding to Commissioner Bouas, Mr. Eddy explained this lot would be for the sale of used vehicles. Commissioner Herbst stated he did not feel this is a good location for a used car lot and pointed out there are other areas in Anaheim where automobile sales lots are located and thought this use should be located in one of those areas. Mr. Eddy pointed out it is a permitted use with the approval of a conditional use permit. Commissioner Herbst staL•ed that is why a conditional u se permit is required and he did not think that this area would be suitable for used cars. Commissioner Fry stated he would agree, and did r,ot think this wou 1 d add anything to that section of the street and would probably be a det riment. Commissioner Mease agreed L•his would not be the right type of business for that area. ACTION: Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit an automobile sales lot on a rectangularly-shapei/19871 of MINUTES. ANAHEIN~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSIONr January 19,y 1987 87-31 land consisting of approximately 0.26 acres, having a frontage of approximately l0U feet on the west side of Brookliurst Street and L'urther described as 1237 South Brookhurat SL•reetl and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and f.irther finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Fry offered Resolution No. PC87-15 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny Conditional Use Permit No. 7.874 on the basis it would adversely affect the adjoining land uses and growth and development of the area and would be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and yeneral welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOJAS, FRY, HERBST, I,A CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy Gity Ar.torney, presented the written right. to appeal the Planning Com-nission's decision within 22 days to the City Gouncil. RECESSED: 2:45 p.m. RECONVENED: 3:00 p.m. ITEM N0. 9 EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 3,_WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2875 PCBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: JACK SATCFaWF.LL, 1158 Columbia Avenue, Ontario, CA 91764. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 6,600 square feet, 514 North Zeyn Street. To permit a granny unit with waiver of minimum structural setback and yard requirements. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was riot read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Jack Satchwell, owner, stated the existing home is a beautiful home built in 1912, and he planned this unit to be compatible and explained he has made extensive improvements in the 2-1/2 years he has owned the property which has caused an upgrading effect on the entire area and he plans to continue maintaining the property. Carl Anderson, 502 N. Lemon, stated he does not understand the request for a granny unit since the owner does not reside on the property. Mr. Satchwell stated he is a former resident of this property and just moved two months ago. Responding to Chairman McBurney, he stated the granny unit could possibly be for a family member because his parents are in their 70's and live out of state and are interested in coming here. He explail/19/67 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITX PLANNING CO .tI SSIUN, January 19, 1987. 87-32 restriction for a granny unit is that the person occupying the unit must be 60 years of age. Leonard McGhee, Associate Planner, pointed out Condition No. 4 indicates L•hat the occupancy would be restricted t o 1 or 2 adults, both of whom must be 60 years of age and does not refer to t he occupants being a family member. It was clarified there ie no restriction to the unit being rented. Commissioner Fry stated his origins 1 concept of a granny unit was that the occupant must be a Eamily member ov er a certain age at the time of the application and thought approval of this would just open "pandora's box". Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, stated he could not Find anything in the state law to indicate that the occupant must be a family member, and the occupant simply must be a person over 60 years of age and the floor area cannot exceed 640 square feet. tle added this is a request Eor a conditional use permit and the Commission sl~ou 1 d look at whether or not the findings of the code would be fu.lfillecl if this application is approved. Chairman Maeurney stated as long a s the the unit complies, he did not think the denial. ije added Ise was also under the a relative, and the other Commissioners understanding. person is of that age and the size of Commission would have grounds for impression that the occupant had to be agreed that that was their Commissioner l3ouas stated this woo 1 d be just giving apnroval Eor a second unit as long as the size conforms. Commissioner Herbst stated all the yranny units previously permitted were for family members. Commissioner Fry stated if they can put in a second unit cori:orming to Code, they would not need to come to the Planning Commission, but in this case the applicant needs approval of a waiver. He skated he could not approve this request. Commissioner La Claire stated if the unit was for a relative, she would view this request differently, and if t here was no waiver involved, this would automatically be granted. Malcolm Slaughter stated he was told that the City Council in the past has conditioned the approval of these granny units requiring the recordation of a covenant restricting occupancy to relatives of the occupant of the main struct~~re and that may or may not be the owner of the main structure. Mr. Satchwell responded to Commis sinner souse that the property is currently rented to a young couple. It was noted the Planning Directo r or his authorized representative has determined that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 3, a s defined in the State BIR Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. ACTION; Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hi~19~8deny MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 19, 1987 8?-33 waiver of code requirement on the basis that there are no special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicinity) and that strict application of the Zoning Code does not deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification. Commissioner Fry offered Resolution No. PC87-16 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny Conditional Use Permit No. 2875 on the basis that the waiver was denied prohibiting develoFment of the property in the manner proposed and [urther on the basis that the use will affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be .located. On roll call, the foregoing resoluL•ion was passed by the following vote; AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, LA C[,AIRE, I,AWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0. lU F.IR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS I AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2876 (OCUP N0. 3895) PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: DAVID AND CAROLS CHAVEZ, 4420 E. La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92807. Property descrLbed as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of .land consisting of approximately 1.8 acres, 4420 East La Palma Avenue. Request for an extension of time for Orange County Use Permit No. 3895 to continue operation of an existing recreational vehicle storage yard with a caretaker's residence. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not. read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. David Chavez, applicant, stated he is opposed to the condition requfr.ing sidewalks because there is no foot traffic in that area and he understands La Palma will be widened in the future and a portion of the sidewalk would be taken. He presented photographs of the property showing the structure and sidewalks presently existing. He agreed with the installation of lighting facilities. TY^ PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman McBurney stated it would appear the distance between the property and the curb is rather narrow. Jay Titus stated the condition requiring dedication for widening of La Palma (Condition No. 2) refers to the Critical Intersection designation and another twelve feet of dedication would be required. He stated if the Critical Intersection designation is adopted, it would be a number of years before the improvements are made and when it does occur, the City would be responsible 1/19/87 87 -:~~i MINUTES,_ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Januar 19 1987 for paying for the costs of putting in t~~e improvements and removing whatever improvements are there and relocating them, and there would not be any additional cwhichtwilleberdesignatedeas clciticaleintersections5andttheychaves in the ci y not been prioritized. Comnrissign~n thatsstreeta tJay Titusrexplairradsthewcityaia tryingato get ther sidewalk sidewalks installed as possible. Malcolm Slaughter stated the existing sidewalk may or may not be a public sidewalk. Mr. Chavez responded the sidewalk has been used by people walking in the area and is available for their use and he has no objection to them using it. Jay Titus explained Condition No. 3 requires installation of street lighting facilities. Commissioner Messe referred to a gravel pad to the east of this property in Front of the fence and asked if that area is used for parking. Annika Santalahti, zoning Administrator, responded to Commisermitrwithouttany this property was formerly approved for use under a county p conditions attached and this permit is really to allow the use to continue. IL• was noted the Planning Director or his authorized representative has determined that the proposed project: Falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1, as defined in the State Environmental Impact Report Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. ACTION: Commissioner Fry offered P.esolution No. PC86-17 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2876 for a period of five (5) years retroactively to er.pire December 1, 1991, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 and subject to interdepartmental Committee Recommendations, deleting Condition No. 1. On roll call, the Foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AygS; BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy Cil•y Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0. 11 EIR NEG4TIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT ANU CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2877 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERSa AnaheimRCCAR92801RPhProptctyCdescribed asRt SCHOR, 1200 N. Harbor Boulevar , rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting o£ approximately 0.52 acre, 2119 Scuth Harbor Boulevard (Carl's Jr•~• 1/19/87 i MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 19, 1987 87-35 To construct a new restaurant with a drive-through lane and waivers of (a) permitteu location of f.reeatanding sign, (b) minimum number and type of parking spaces, (c) minirnum length of drive-through lane and (d) minimum front landscaped setback. There was no one indicating their presence in apposition to subject request and although the staff. report was not teed, !t is reF.erred to and made a part of the minutes. Commissioner Mc Burney declared c1 conflict of interest as defined by Anaheim City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC76-157 adopting a Conflict of interest Code for the Planning Commission and Government Code Section 3625, et seq., in that he is employed by the owner and pursuant to the provisions of the above Codes, declared to the Chairman that he was withdrawing from the hearing in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 287'1, and would not take part in either the discussion oc the voting thereon and had not discussed this matter with any member of the Planning Commission. Thereupon Commissioner MC Burney left the Council Chamber. Commissioner Bouas declared a conflict of interest as defined by Anaheim City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC76-157 adopti~~g a Conflict of Interest Code for the Planning Commission and Government Code Section 3625, et seq., in that she awns stock in the company and pursuant to the provisions of the above Codes, declared to the Chairman that he was withdrawing from the hearing in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 2877, and would nut take part in either the discussion or the voting thereon and had not discussed this matter with any member of the Planning Commission. Thereupon Commissioner Bouas left the Council Chamber. Horst Schor, 1200 N. Harbor Boulevard, explained thir3 restaurant is part of the revitalization program of their restaurants in the City of Anaheim. He state] this site is within the City's Katella Redevelopment area and this project will be contributing to the redevelopment efforts in the city. Be stated they are proposing to move the sign from its current location to the northerly property line and explained the signing plans were submitted after the staff report was prepared. He stated there is a motel to the south with very little setback and a sign closer to the motel would be blocked to northbound traffic. He stated regarding parking, they have operated that restaurant for over 10 years and have never had a parking shortage but did submit a traffic study which found the actual need for parking was 17 spaces since many of their customers were walk-up customers from adjoining hotels, motels and businesses in the area. He added the kraffic report indicates that even with a 508 or 1008 growth in their current business, they would still have adequate parking. He explained the length of the drive-through lane has been increased over what is currently existing and the 3rd waiver pertains to the 100-foot distance required and they acL•ually have more than 100 feet from the ordering device to the service window and in order to expedite their service, they have recently gone to the design with a cash window a distance away from the food service window so that customers pay first and then receive their food at another window. Concerning the setback, he stated in most cases they have more than 10 feet of landscaping, but at a point where the handicapped parking space approaches the back of the sidewalk, there is a point where there is less than 1 foot and 1/19/87 MINUTEST ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CUMMI;SION, January 19, 1987 87-36 that is because of the size of the handicap stall. Ite stated they will actually have more landscaping than currently exists. He presented an exhibit showing the design. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS (:LOSEG. Commissioner La Claire stated this .looks like a very nice building and ~3ked if the freestanding sign is the same size as the existiny sign. Mr. Schur. stated it is the same height at 25 Eeet, but thought the square footaye is actually less than they currently have. ACTION: Commissioner La Claire offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fry and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Bouas and McBurney absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit the construction of a new restaurant with a drive-through lane with waivers of permitted location of freestanding signs, minimum number and type of parking spaces, minimum length of drive-through lane and minimum front landscaped setback on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 150 feet on the west. side of Harbor Boulevard and further described as 2119 South Harbor Boulevard (Carl's Jr.); and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the initial SL•udy and any comments received that there is no substantial. evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner La Claire offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fry and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Bouas and McBurney absent) that the Anaheim City Planning CommisRi.on does hereby grant waivers (a) ,(c) and (d) on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicinity; and thal• strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity and granting waiver (b) that the packing waiver will not cause an increase in traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity nor adversely affect any adjoining land uses and granting of the parking waiver under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Commissioner La Claire offered Resolution No. PC87-18 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2877 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.030.030.035, subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing :esolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: FRX, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: BOUAS, MC BURNEY Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. Commissioners Bouas and McBurney returned to the meeting. 1/19/87 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CI'PY PLANNING_COMMiSSION, Janua ~Y 19, 1987 87-37 ITEM N0. 12 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT ArID CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. '1879 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: GRADY E. HANSttAW, 519 5. Brookhurst• Street, Anaheim, CA 92804. AGENT: 3 M NATIONAL AGVEI2TISING CO., ATTiJ: DAVE RYAN 5959 Topanga Canyon Boulevard, $185, Woodland Hills, CA 91367. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximate]y 0.72 acre located at the northwesk corner of Orange Avenue and Brookhurst Street, 519 South Brookhurst Street. To permit a 672-nquace foot, double-face billlboard in the CH Zone with waiver of permitted height. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred L•o and made a part of the minutes. Dave Ryan, Agent, explained this is a request for a double-faced 14' x 48' billboard and that there ar~~ many of these currently existing i.n the city. He stated he understands the Planning Commission's concern to prevent any more unsightly structures from going up in the city; however, this will be a newer design with a single column structure. He stated he understands that typically larger billboards are denied by the Planning Commission and then appealed to the City Council but wanted to point out other billboards whi•=h were approved by the Commission recently, including one at Beach and Lincoln. He explained this location is on a corner that is not an intersection of a primary street and pointed out on Brookhurst near the 5 Freeway currently there is a billboard that was approved by the Commission in 1981. He stated there are several locations in the city which do not meet the requirements of being on a primary corner. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner McBurney pointed out the Planning Commission has never approved a billboard, but the City Council has overruled the Commission's denials on Several occasions. Commissioner Bouas asked if a regular-sized billboard could be constructed at this location without coming before the Commission. Mr. P.yan stated blockage from some of the on-site trees is a problem but with the proper square footage, they could put up a sign without coming before the Cornnission, but it would be approximately 1/2 the size proposed. Commissioner Herbst stated he has never voted in favor of a sign of this size and did not think they are necessary and that they are detrimental to the neighborhood. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, secor-ded by Commissioner Fry and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit a 672-square foot billboard in the CH (Commercial, Heavy) zone with waiver of maximum permitted height on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.72 acre located at the northwest corner of Orange Avenue and erookhurst Street and further described as 519 South Brookhurst Street; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any 1/19/87 MINUTES. ANAHEIM _CITY PLANNING COMMISSION January 19. 1987 ~ 87-38 comments received during the public review process any; 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 significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fry and MOTION CARRIED thaL• ttie Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny waiver of Code requirement on the basis that there are no special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings which do not apply L•o olhec identically zoned property in the same vicinityr and that strict application of the Zoning Code does not deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolur.ion No. PC87-19 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny Conditional Use Permit No. 2879 on the basis that the proposed use will have an adverse effect on the adjoining land uses and the growth and development os" the area and will be detcimenlal to the peace, health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the Cily of Anaheim. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST~ LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC GURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 21. days to the City Council. Commissioner La Claire stated she feels this action will be appealed to the City Council and she would like to reconunend that t•he City Council review the sign ordinance because Anaheim is a tourist city and needs to attract conventions to the city and something really needs to be dcne about the signs in order to at least keep pace with other cities. ITEM N0. 13 GIR_NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2880 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: HOME OF THE MINISTERING ANGEL, INC., ATTN: DORIS SMALL, 111 West 17th Street, Santa Ana, CA 9'1701. AGENT: CANYON ACRES RESIDENTIAL CENTER, INC., ATTN: DANIEL J. McQUAID, 233 S. Quintana Drive, Anaheim, CA 92807. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 4.3 acres located approximately 300 feet southerly of the intersection of Arboretum Road and Quintana Drive, 233 Quintana Drive (Home of the Ministering Angel). To convert a 3-car garage to offices and a storage room for an existing boarding and lodging home for 20 children. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. 1/19/87 MINUTES, ANAt~EIM CITY Pt,ANNING COMMISSION. January 19, 1987 87-39 r;~~n McQuaid, 16 Hickory, Irvine. Executive Director of Canyon Acres Residential Center, stated this a 20-bed treatment facility Eor young abused children in Anaheim Hills and it has been in operation since 1980. He stated the property is approximately 4-1/2 acres and they need the space for staff office spare and storage and explained they do have individual and group therapy with the youngsters and the request is for the use of the two-car garage apace which is not used for vehicle packing. He stated the ranch is nestled in a canyon and is completely surrounded by hillside in the rear with a good distance between them and any neighbors and the yarage is located the Furthest from any neighbors so this will not provide any disharmony with the neighbors. Leonard McGhee, Associate Planner, stated Condition No. 1 should be corrected to read; "That prior to issuance of a building permit...." rather than "prior to rendering of water service...". Mr. McQuaid sL•ated the property is 4-1/?. acres and the fee is 652.00 per acre and this is a private non••profit organization and it would be an extreme hardship to come up with that amount and requested that that fee be waived since they are not altering the use of the property or adding any riew construction. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Responding to Commissioner La Claire, Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, stated the Commission cannot waive the fees because they are established by Rules of the Utilities adopted by City Council and even if. they a-e deleted by the Planning Commission, they could still be applicable by ordinance. He added there are provisions in the Utilities Rules relating to exemptions from the fees under certain circumstances. Commissioner La Claire stated she does not remember this particular Eee ever beiny imposed on anyone other than a developer and it has never been imposed on a private property owner. Malcolm Slaughter stated the wording of the condition is that all appropriate fees shall be paid in accordance with Rule 15a and it may well be that the fee would not be appropriate in the first place. Commissioner La Claire sugyested the condition be deleted and a recommendation made to City Council that it be waived. ACTION: Commissioner La Claire offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED that the l+naheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to convert a 3-car garage to offices and a storage room for an existing boarding and lodging home for 20 children on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 4.3 acres located approximately 300 feet southerly of the intersection of Arboretum Road and Quintana Drive and further described as 233 Quintana (Home of the Ministering Angel); and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review 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 significant effect on the environment. 1/19/87 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 19, 19n7 87-40 Commissioner La Claire offered Resolution No. PC87-20 and moved f. or its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit 2880 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Section No. 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 and subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations, deleting Condition Nos. 1 and 2. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, LA C[.AIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0. 14 EIR NEGATIVE, DECLARATION AND VARIANCE NO X3626 PUBLIC NEARING. UWNERS: F. J. HANSHAW ENTERPRISES, INC,•, ET AL, 10921 Wesl.•minster Avenue, Garden Grove, CA 92643. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.93 acre located north and east of the northeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Brookhurst Street, 1112 North Brookhurst Street. Waiver of minimum number of required parking spaces to construct a 3750 square foot addition to an existing commercial shopping center. The applicant was not present. At the end of the agenda, the following action was taken. ACTION: Commissioner llesse offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissloner La Claire absent) that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of February 18, 1987, in order for the applicant to be present. ITEM N0. 15 EIR CATEGORICAT. EXEMPTION-CLASS 5 AND VARIANCE N0. 3628 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: IRAJ EFTEKHARI, 1098 Rimwood Drive, Anaheim, CA 92807. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.75 located south of the intecseckion of Owens Drive and Mahler Drive, 335 South Mohler Drive. Waivers of (a) minimum stru^tural setback and (b) maximum bui?ding height to construct a single-family residence. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes, Iraj Eftekhari, owner, explained he is requesting a waiver of minimum structural setback from 25 feet to 30-1/2 feet and it is just a architectural element because of the slope. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSER. 1/19/87 Y MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. January 19 ,_ 1987 _ 87-41 Commissioner Herbst indicated concern with vehicles backing out of the driveway onto Mahler Drive. Dave Matteson, Mr. Eftekhari's partner, explained Moh1Pr Drive is currently 25 feet wide and they understand there are no plans to widen Mohler Drive and explained the actual distance to the present roadway is well over 20 feet and there is a 3-cat garage and they would be required to back out onto Mohler Drive. Chalrrnan McBUrney asked if the house could be stepped down to provide more room on the driveway. Mt.. Matteson stated because of the slopes, it would be difficult to move the structure and construction costs would be prohibitive. Commiasioner La Claire stated the variance is justlfted because of the topography and the property is really steep, and she did not think Mohler Drive would ever. be widened. It was noted the Planning Director or his authori::ed representative has determined that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 5, as defined in the State Environmental Impact Report Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. AC_ TION: Commissioner La Claire offered Resolution No. PC87-21 and moved far its papassage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Variance No. 3628 on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, locatlon and surrounc'.ings which do nor apply Lc+ other identically zoned property in the same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privlleyes enjoyed by other propertie3 in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote; AYES: BOUA5, FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC GURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. THE FOLLOWING MATTER WAS HEARD FOLLOWING T.TEM N0. 17 SINCE THE APPLICANT WAS NOTwPR_E5ENT. ITEM 16 EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 3 AND VARIANCE 3629 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS. Mp,RGRETA JORGENSEN, 1006 S. Marjan Street, Anaheim, CA 92806. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 7,210 square feet, 1006 South Marjan Street. Waiver of minimum number and type of parking to convert an existing single-family garage to a wheelchair accessible therapy room. 1/19/87 MINU'PES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CUMMIS410N, January 19, ,198? 87-42 There was no one indicating their presence in ~~pposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Margreta Jorgensen, applicant, read a letter describ'_ng the need for this variance because of her handi~:ap and need to make her home completely wheelchair accessible. She eeplained she uses the driveway for parking and it will accommodate four vehicles. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst stated the only question he has would be reconverting the garage to a two-car structure when it is no longer b~:irig used for this purpose when the property is sold. Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, stated that was discussed at the Interdepartmental Committee meeting and the applicant stated she will be investing a lot of money into these particular improvements and these improvements may be very yood and benefical for someone else with a similar handicap, and he would suggest a covenant be recorded that. the garage would be convected back to meet code when the property is no longer occupied by a person having a disability requiring these facilities so that she could sell the property to someone having similar needs. It was noted the Planning Director or his authorized representative has determined that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 3, as defined in the State Environmental Impact Report Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from th~~ requirement to prepace an EIR. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC87-22 and moved for it.s passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Variance No. 3629 on ttie basis that the parking waiver will not cause a.. increase in traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity nor adversely affect any adjoining land uses and granting of the parking waiver under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the ciki~ens of the City of Anaheim, and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations including a condition that a covenant be recorded requiring that the property be reconverted when it is no longer occupied by a person requiring these same facilities. On roll call, the foregoing resolukion was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY, EiERBST, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: LA CLAIRE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. 1/19/87 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CI'PY PLANNING COMMISSION-, January i9, 1987 87-43 I'PN:M N0. 17 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0 .__3630 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNE,'tS: EDWARD AND EVE NODEit, 8354 Wilcox, Cudahy, CA 90201. AGL•'NT: EARI,GARR, 1650 S. Harbor boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92702. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 3.47 acres, 1650 South Narbur boulevard (Say+~ Motel). Waiver of minimum number of required parking spaces to expand an existing motel. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the chaff report was not r.aad, tt is referred to tend made a part of the minutes. Earl Garr, 1650 S. Harbor f3oulF~~c.rrd, Anaheim, Agent, stated he has ueen in thc~ hotel business in Anaheim for 't2 years and has operated this motel since 1973. He presented a rendering showing the motel with 61 additional unite and a new front elevation. tie explained this protect has to be considered in conjunction with tl:e restaurant (Anthony'3 Pier II) and on the surEac4 the parking waiver appears to be rather larye and according to code the restaurant requires 144 parking spaces; however, never in the history of the motel and restaurant has there bean that many cars in the lot. fie stated tcaff.ic studies have been clone many times by the traffic cr~ngultant and the highest requirement was for 1.02 spaces per unit and they ar.e requesting a total of 157 motel units. tle stated Wince tl~e motel was constructr~d they have trad the Southern California Edison easernerrt and it was just renewed Eor five additional years and that is the maximum it can be renewed. He explained there is a letter from Southern California Edison explaining the easement cannot be yranted f:or more khan five years, even though it has been there 32 years and it would not seem likely that it would be revoked. tie explained the easement is used for parking and is the same easement used by Disneyland and the golf course Eor parking. Ho explained he r3oes not plan to sell this property and presented statistics obtained from a parking study conducted by Iris staff which indicates that 144 parking spaces are adequate and 258 oE. the spacew are not being used. He Stated he tras a study to indicate that 608 of the guests registered in the motel do not drive, but are there l.hrough air tours, etc. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Responding to Commissioner Messe, Mr. Garr explained the kiosk is the Photomat Facility and there is also a 1-Flour Photo operation, a car rental operation and their parking requirements are four spares, and there is a small snack shop, a t-shirt operation, a travel agency, and a mini-mart. Regarding people using their property to get to the golf course, he explained they have a good rapport with the operators of the golf course and the majority of their users are during the day when the motel requirements fur parking ace their lowest. He stated there may be 6 or 7 people who would park there and go to the golf course, but they have been told there may come a time when they cannot use their property. He stated the whole golf course is under the Edison easement. Commissioner Bouas clarified that only eight spaces are located on the easement and Mr. Garr stated the problem is staff allowing them to count those eight spaces because the easement cannot be granted for longer than five years. 1/19/87 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSInN, January 19, 1987 87-AA Commissioner Bouas stated there are a lot of diEferen t uses going on on this particular property and she would hope with the remod a ling, it will have a different. look and clarified the services provided are basically for people who stay at the motel. Mc. Garr stated he does not like the way the signs look and will be redoing the signing and will have an electronic computerized sign showing messages for the other users on the property. Responding ;;o Commissioner Bouas, Mr. Garr explained this property is a leasehold and L•hey have just negotiated a new 52-year lease, He explained Anthony's is another leasehold which is sub-leased; and that he is required to provide the restaurant a certain number of parking spaces; however, the parkiny study has shown that there is never a need fo r more than 1.02 space» per unit. He responded that Anthony's does have valet parking and customers to the restaurant can come onto the motel property to park and they do on occasion. Commissioner La Claire stated she is more concerned about all the uses on the property than about the parking and she would like to see aJ.l the other uses eliminated. Mr. Carr stated the kiosk required five parking spaces and if he had known that, he would never have allowed it and, in reality, they only use one space, and without it, six additional motel units would be allowed and when the lease expires, he will probab~y not renew it. He explained the lease was granted for 18 years from 1977 and ~:':e other uses are compatible with the use of the motel and do not require a 10*_ of parking. He stated they intend to tie all the buildings together in the remodeling plan. He responded they are removing all the ugly parts from the sign and the motel sign will go with the motel. Commissioner La Claire stated she thought all the signs on Harbor need to be replaced with something more in keeping with the are a and she would be more in favor of this project if a decent sign was being proposed. She stated she is in favor of what is being proposed, but this propert y does have more uses on it than any other. She stated she thought Redevelopment is going to be looking at upgrading the properties along Harbor and she would like to see the signs not so theme-oriented, noting there are some very strange signs along that street. Mr. Garr stated if the removal of the sign is made a part of the conditions, he would remove it, however, he understands that all the signs were permitted. He stated he just renewed the lease and now has a chance to do something with thin property. Commissioner Messe stated the plans do not show what is going to happen to all the other signs which are existing now. He asked if the tenants will go along with removal of their identification. Mr. Garr stated there are other signs on tha property now and they do have an artist working on this portion of the plan for signs for the individual lessees. 1/19/87 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CI'PY Pt~ANNING COMMISSION, January 19, 1987 87-45 Commissioner La Claire skated she would like to see everything on the rendering because she does not want to make any more mistakes on this property. Commissioner Herbst stated he would like to go ahead with the project and require the applicant to come back with more information about signing on the property. Commissioner [,a Claire stated she would like a condition requiring all the other uses to he eliminated. Commissioner Herbst stated he could not go along with that suggestion because this is a motel and all the other motels have their own ships inside. tie explained the Planning Commission approved the kiosk and there is a 18-year lease which will not be renewed when 1t expires. Mc. Garr agreed he will eliminate that use when the lease expires i.n about 1995. Malcolm Slauyhter stated he tras been reviewing the license submitted by Mr. Garr, signed by Edison Company and not signea by Mr. Garr, and it does have a 5-year term ending June 30, 1991, however, that license doe4 have a 3U and 60 day termination provision arhictr can be exercised by either party. tie stated the terms of. the lease provide that Mr. Garr ay r.ees to use the property for vehicle access and gazebo purposes only and further states that t:~e licensee ayr~es not to park, store, repair or refuel any motor vehicles or to allow parking or storage of motor vehicles on any portion of the liceni:ed property, unless specifically approved in writing by the lessor, and he dicl not see anything to reflect that approval. Mr. Garr stated there is no kiosk use of the easement property and there is not going to be and that they already park on that easement and there have not been any problems and the lease cannot be extended for more than five years. Malcolm Slaughter stated the question is whether Edison tras, in fact, approved the use of that area for parking. Mr. Garr stated they have verbally approved it for parking and he talked to their representative this morning and there is no problem with parking and the approval will be given as a mat'.~r of course as it has been given to everybody e13e along the easement and it has not been brought up in the past because there has not been the need to bring it up. Commissioner Lawicki asked if there are statistics as to the number of guests who arrive by transportation other than private vehicle. Mr. Garr skated he did present that infor.mati~+n in connection with the parking study. He stated he sees the additional roans being used the same because they deal with tOUC operators which bring in large groups of people. Commissioner Messe stated a 58g variance fur parking i.s being requested and the parking study has been accepted, but wanted to know if the parking proposed will be adequate. Debbie Fank, Assistant Traffic Engineer, stated staff Coes feel that the parking will be adequate and the problem is due to the fact thaw the restaurant is added on to this use and the hotel by itself has plenty of parking and there have been numerous studies done and at all times they have had adequate parking. She stated she does not think the hotel needs what is required and the parking for the combination of all of these uses is adequate. 1/19/87 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 1 9, 1987 87-46 Mr. Carr stated basically all the shops in the motel are there for the convenience of the guests and normally the public do es not come to these shops. Debbie Fank explained the parking requirement^ are based on each use by itself and not on the Eact that there are large overlapping uses. Concerning the signs Eor each of the individual uses , Mr. Garr stated they do have signs for each of the uses and some of them are visible on Elarbor. Commissioner La Claire stated she would like to see the plans Eor signs on the property and a condition that the kiosk will be elim inated when that lease expires. aonard McGhee stated signing is n,~t a pact of thin request except as shown 4n the rendering and all the plats submitted by the applicant for this project included no signs and any sighing would have to be a separate application. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst aEfered a motion, seco nde~d by Commissioner Fry and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the propo3al to expand an existing motel with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land con ~lsting of approximately 3.47 acres having a Frontage of approximately 252 L met on the east side of Harbor Boulevard and further described ~~-~ 1650 Sout tt Harbor Boulevard; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon f finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on ttiE basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no s u bstantial e~~idence that the project will have a significant eft•ect on the envir onment. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC87-23 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commis s ion does hereby grant Variance No. 3630 on L•he basis that the parking waiver will not cause an increase in traffic congestion in the immediate vicini'y nor adversely affect any adjoining land uses and granting of the parking waiver under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detriments 1 to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim, and subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations inc luding a condition that the .f~~c existing kiosk''Ki"~~. he removes when its lease expires in approximately 1995 an that the signing plan will be submitted to the Planning Department staff and a variance applied for if required. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWII;KI, [~ C BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSEN'": NONE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presente d the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. commissioner La Claire left the meeting at 4:25 and did not return. 1/19/87 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January i9, 1987 87-47 ITEM N0. 18 EIR NEGAT?VE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE; N0. 3631 PUBt,IC HEARING. UWNERS; L. N. M U NSON, 16480 Harbor Boulevard, U102, Fountain Valley, CA 92808. AGENT: ROBERT CROWTHF.R/MUNSON PROPERTIES, 1648U tlacbor Boulevard, ;)102, Fountain Valley, CA 92808. Property described as an irregularly-shaprd parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.1 acres and geneca:lly located north and west of a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land approximately 110 feet by 135 fee t at the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Gilbert Street, and having af.p roximate frontages of 140 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue and 46 fee t on the west side of Gilbert Street. Waiver ~~f the minimum number of parking :spaces to utilize up to 35~ (4 units) of a retail center for restaurant /food service uses. 'Phnre was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request an~~ although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Bob Crowther, agent, explained th i s request is to permit Eour fast food type restaurants in their existing development which is under construction, and a parking waiver is required. tt~ s t ated drse to the change in our. society, the take-out food and fast food type ~ Aerations are becoming more and rnore needed. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Responding to Chairman Mc[iurney, Mr. Crowther stated ttre restaurants would have a small seating capacity with '^,•~be 4 or 5 tables and rec~ueated that these restaurants be approved by s t~cf as they come in. ACTION: Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner La C 1 sire absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to utilize up to 35g (4 units) of a retail center Eor restaurant/food service uses with waives of minimum number of parking spaces nn a irregularly -shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.1 ag es and generally located north and west of a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land approximately 110 feet and 135 feet at the northwest corner of Linr_oln Avenu a and Gilbert Street; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon fin ding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further Finding on th a basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evi: nce that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Fry offered Resoluti o n No. PC87-24 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Variance No. 3631 on the basis that the parking waiver will not cause an increase in traffic congestion in khe immedia t e vicinity nor adversely affect any adjoining land uses and granting of the parking wa,' er under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim, and subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations. On roll call, the foregcing reso 1•~tion was passed by the following vote: 1/19/87 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~JanuarY 19, 1987 87-48 .._.~_ AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, LA CLi,:TE~, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES : NONE ABSENT: NONE r.,~ :.`,I,CI ~~:(-~ Malculm Slaughter, Deputy City Attori-ey, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0. 19 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3633 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: STEVEN AND RICHARD GUMPERT, INVESTOR REALTY COMPANY, P.O. Box 2418, Newport Beach, CA 92663. AGENT; VERA HARPER, INDEPENDENT DEVELOPMENT CO., P. 0. Box 2418, Newport Beach, CA 92663. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 2.6 acr s located at the northwest corner of Katella Avenue and Euclid Avenue, 1701-1749 West Katella Avenue. Waiver o.f maximum structural heighl• to construct a single-story, 3-building, 29,975 square foot retail center. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and altho~igh the stall report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Vera Harper., agent, stated they gave contacted some of the neighbors and received no negative comments and presented a petition signed by the neighbors indicating no opposition to the plans. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ACTION: Commissioner Fry offered a mot.ton, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner La Claire absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to construct a single-story, 3-building 29,975 square foot retail center with waiver of maximum structural height on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 2.6 acres located at the northwest corner of Katella Avenue and Eu--lid Street and further described as 1701-1749 West Katella Avenue; and does hereby approve the Negat ~ Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review 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 significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Fry offered Resolution No. PC87-25 and moved f.or its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Variance N0. 3633 on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity and subject to interdepartmental Committee recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: 1/19/87 ^: MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January_19 __1987 - 87-49 AXES: BIiUAS, FRY, HERBST, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: LA CLAIRE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy ~:ity At•~~rn~,~ resented the written right to appeal the Planning Cornmisaion'u ~ior.1 coon W' ~ ~~rn ~.~ u~,~ . :o the City Council. ITEM N0. 20 EIR CATEGORICAL EXEM~'r1UN-CLASS TI AND VARThNCE N0. 3635 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: CLIFFORD EVANS, 221 "B' 8th Street, Seal Beach, CA 90740. AGENT: BRENT BLACKWELUF.R, WEST ANAHEIM DENTAL GROUI?, 515 S. Beach Boulevard, Suite D, Anaheim, CA 92804. Property is described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.98 acre, 515 South Beach Boulevard. Waivers of (a) maximum number of freestanding signs, (b) pecrtritted location of freestanding sign and (c) minimum distance between freestanding signs to permit two freestanding signs. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Brent Blackwelder, agent, explained there are two roof signs advertising their dental office and they propose to remove those two roof signs and erect a more pleasing monument sign. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Responding to Commissioner Messe, Mr. Blackwelder stated the current freestanding siyn advertises the pharmacy and the monument sign will be advertising their dental services and that he understands the owner has a permit coming before the Commission or has already been approved to put uo a multi-tenant sign. Commissioner Herbst asked if the signs could be r_ombined and Chairman McBurney stated he thought this would be a big improvement aver what is existing. it was noted the Planning Director or his authorized represe:ttative has determined that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Glass 11, as defined in the State Environmental Impact Report Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. ACTION: Commissioner Fry offered Resolution No. PC87-26 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim CiL•y Planning Commission does hereby grant Variance No. 3635 on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicinitys and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. 1/19/87 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITX PLANNING COMMISSION, January 19, 1987 87-SO On roll call, the Eoregoiny resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, LAWICKI, MC GURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: LA CLAIRE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written riyht to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0. 21 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. PROPOSED RESOLUTION - Adopting public meeting procedures for Planning Commission meetings in conformance with amended Ralph M. Brown Act. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution N0. PC87-27 and moved far its passage and adoption tl:~t the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby adopt certain public mee~ing procedures. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: 80UAS, FRY, EiERBST, LAWICKI, MC GURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: LA CLAIRE B. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT - Request from the Anaheim Police Department for Commission to initiate an amendment to the General Plan to consider designation of a Police Department satellite substation site in the vicinity of Weir Canyon Road and Monte Vista Road. Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner La Claire absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby instruct staff to initiate a General Plan Amendment to +the Land Use Element at the request of the Anaheim Chief of Police to consider the designation of a police department satellite substation site in the vicinity of Weir Canyon Road and Monte Vista Avenue. PUBLIC INPUT: There was no one indicating a desire to speak to the Planning Commission. ADJOURNMENT• Commissioner Masse offered a motion, sec~mded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner La Claire absent) that the meeting be adjourned. The meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ee ~~ G`~~ O 1 Edith L. Harris, Secretary ;)0240m 1/19/87