The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1979/02/12City Hall Anehalr~~ Calitornta February 12~ 1~~9 REGULAR MEETING OF TNE ANANEIM Cli; PLAMNING CQMMISSION REGULAR - Tiie regular n~etl~g o} the An~hetm Ctty Planntng Commisslon was called to MEETING order by Chslrmen Herbst st 1=30 p.M.~ Fabruary 12~ 1979~ (n the Cou~ctl Chomber~ a ~~uorum being p~~sent. PRESENT • Chatrmens Herbst Commissloners; Bar~~s~ Davld~ Bushur~, Johnson~ King~ Tolar ABSENT - Commisstoners: Nnne ALSO PRFSCNT - Jack Whtte Jsy Ti tus Jool Ff ck Annika Santalahtl Jsy Tashiro Robrrt Kelley Oave Anderson Edtth N+~rris Deputy Clty Attorney Off(cr Enginecr Assistant Directo~ for Plan~ing Assistant Director for Zoning Assoctatc Plannar Aaaociate Planner Assistant Planner Plenning Commiss~~.,~ Secretaryr PLEDGE OF - The Pledge of Allegisr~e.~ tu the Flsg was led by C~nlsxioner 9arnes. ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF - Commissioner King offered a mc~tion~ seconded ~y Cqnmissioner Joh~ao~ THE MINUTES and MOTION CARRIEU, pha! the mtnu-es of tt~e meettng ot January 29~ 1979 be approved as submitted, ITEM N0. PUBLIC HEARING. ONNER: LAS TIENDAS DE YORBA~ 363 El TEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 San Mlgue) Drive~ Newport Beach~ C~1 926b0. AGENT: • S.G.P.A.~ 440 Upas Street, San Diego, CA 92103. Petttioner requests WAIVER OF HINIMUM NUMBER OF PARK- ING SPACES TO CnNSTRUC7 A FAST-FOOD aESTAURANT on p roperty descrtbed as an irragularly-shaped percel of ~and oonsisttng of approximately 5.0 acrss loc~ted at the northwest co rne~ of Santa Ana Csnyo~ Road and Inipa rtal Highway~ having approxtmate frontag~s of 700 feet on the north side of Santa Ana Canyon Rc~a~d and 520 feet on the west side of lmperial High~vay~ and further described as 5555 East Santa fina Canyon Road. Property presently classified CL(SC) (C4MMERCIAL~ LIMITEO-SCENIC CORRlpOR OVERLAY) ZO~~E. It -vas noted th~ pettttoner had requested that consideration of the afo~ementioned ttem be wi thdra~wn. 79~99 2/12/79 f• ~ MINUTES~ ANJINEIM CITY PLAPINING COMMISSION~ FEBaUARY 12~ 1979 79-100 ITEM N0. 12 PU81.IC HEARING. OMNERSt IIlENEO G. AND EMELITA A. 'ET~"'CIITC~ICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 MUNOZ~ 1303 J~smt~e Pl~ce~ Anah~im~ CA 92801. ~etitloner requasts p~rmt~~lon to ESTAOLiSH A NEALTH . 1945 SPA AND MASSAGE PARLOR WITH wA1VER OF (A) MINiMUl9 ~ NUMBER OF PARKINO SPACES AND (B) LOCATION OF PARKING spaces o~ prop~rty describ~d ss a rectangularly- sheped parc~l of land conslsttng ot epp roxtmaRely 61~0 square }~et loceted at th~ southwest corn~~ of Lincoln Avenue and Bush Streat~ havtng approxtm+~te frontage~ of 50 taet o~ th• south xlde of Lincoln Avenue and 125 f~at o~ the weat stde of Bush Street~ and further descrlbed es 924 E~~t Ltncoln Avenue. P~operty prosently classifled CL (COMMERCIAL, LIMiTEQ) ZONE. lt w~s noted thst the •toramantloned it~m was advertlsad wtth the In wrrect locatton and that tha matter should be continued in order for staf( to reedvertlse~ showing the proper loutlan of aubJect property. ACTION: Co~~misatoner To1ar ofFered a motton~ smconded by Commisatoner D~vid end MOTION ~D~ that the Mahclm CI ~y Plann(ng Commtsston dc~es hareby cont(nue conslderetion of Petitton for Condltionai Use Permtc No. 1945 to the regularly-scheduled nreettng ot Febr~a ry 26. 1979~ tn order far staff to readvn~tiae subJect petttton. ITEM N0. 1 CONTINUEQ PU~LIC HEARING: PLOTKIN-ROSEN OEVEi.OP- ~~~VE DECLA~tATIQN MENT CO.~ 13352 Mashington Boulev~rd~ Los A~geles, COND 0 AL U E M N0. 192C CA 90066. AGENTt FRANCHISE REALT' INTERSTATE CORP.~ 10960 Wllshire 8oulovard~ Los Angeles~ CA g0024. Pstitioner ~equests permission to ESTABLISH A ORIVE•THROUGN RESTAURANT on property desc~ibed as a rectanqularly-shape~ pbrcel of land consisttng of epproximately 0.8 acre having a frAntage of approximately 125 feet on the east slde of Euclid Street~ h~vtng a maximum depth of approximately 272 feet~ and being locatad approxlmately 995 feet north of the centerl~ne of Crescent Avenue. P~ope~ty presently classifted CL (COMMERCIAL~ IIMITED) ZONE. SubJect petitton was co~tinuad from the meetings of Dec~rtber 4 and 18~ 1978 and Janu~ry 3~ 15 and 29~ 1979 at the ~equeat of the ~etitionPr. There was no one indlcating thQir presence in o{~position to s~bJect reques:, and Although the ststf report to the Plann~ng ConMnission datcd February 12~ 1979 ~as not ~ead at the publtc hearing~ it ts referred to 9nd made a part of the minutes. David Carey, 9z72 Greenwich. Anaheim~ was present to answer any questlons. THE PUBLIC NEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairm8n Herbst indicsted his concern regarding the Trsffic Englneer's recommendation concerntng th~s drivew~y to the north. Mr. Carny explained that the adJ~tning prope~ty is part of Che proJect. Chalrman kerbst Indicated his only concern had bsen the drlveway and if thet was agreaable to both partles~ the~ he had no further questions. ACTION: Commisaioner Kin~ offered e motlon~ seco~ded by Commissioner David and MOTIOH t~0~ that the Anaheim City Plannin9 Conanisslo~ has ~evte~ed the proposat to permtt a 2/12/?9 ( MINUTCS~ ANANEIM GITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ FEBItUl1qY S2~ 1979 79•101 E, IR NEGATIVE DECLARATION ANO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1920 (wntinued) dri~s-through rescaurant on a recr~nguls~lr-shep~d parcel of land consisting of approximatoly O.g acre having a frantege of epproxtmately 125 feet on th• east side of Euclid Street~ havtnfl a msxfmum depth of approximately 272 teet~ and befng loc~ted approximately 995 f~et no~th of the centerline ot Croscent Ave~ue; en d does hereby approve ths Negetive D~claration from the requtrement ta prepara Nn environme nta) Imp~ct report on che bssit that thera would ba no algntftcent tndividual or cumulative adverse ~nvironment~l impact du~ to thc spproval of this Negettve Declaratton stnce the Anahetm Ganersl Plan destgnates tl~e subJect property for general commerclal la~d uses can~nensur~te wtth the prop~~al; that na se~attive envfronmental tmpacts are (nvolve d In the ~roposel; that the Initlel Study submitted by che petitloner Indicetes no significarrc indivtdual or cumulativ~ adverae e~vironmental Impacis; and that the Negettve Decla ratlon subatantiating the foreyolny f tn~linys is on fi le (n the Ctty of Anaheim Pl~nn(ng Departn+ent. Commissianer King o1'fered Rasc-lution No. PC7g-28 and moved for tt: passA9e and adoptlan, that the Anshelm Cil.y Planning Commission does hereby gr~nk Petltion for Conditional Use~ Parmlt No. 1920~ subJett to the property betng dev~loped substanttally tn eccordance with precisr~ ~lans as presenteci and subJect to Interdepartmental Committe e recommendatlons. On rc,l~ call~ the forec~oiny resolutlon was passed by the following vo te; AYES: COMMIS5104~RS: BARNFS~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS; NONE ITEH N0. 2 EIR- N- E A E DECLARATION C or~ , ~79-27 ~ D ONAL llSE E MI N0. 1936 cente~ltne of Orange Avenue, and presencly ciasslfied RS-A-43~000 BUSHORE~ DAVID~ liERI3ST~ JOHNSON~ KING~ TOLAR CONTINUED PUBLIG kEARING. 04M 'c RS: JONATNAN T. Y. YEH~ ET AL. 420 South Beach Bo ulevard~ Anahcim~ CA 92804. Praperty described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consfsting of approximately 138 feet on the east side of Beach Boule vard~ hav(ny a maximum depth of approxfmately 23$ feec, being located approximately ;28 feet north of the further described as 420 South Beach Boulevard. Property (RESIUENTIAL/A.GRICULTURAL) ZONE. REQUESTEp CLASSIFICATION: CL (COMMERCIAL. LIMITED) ZONE. REQUESTED COF~DITIONAL USE: TU EXPAND :,~ F. ;ISTINC MOTEL 4JITH WAIVER OF MAXIMUM STRUCTURAL HE i GFIT. SubJect petitlon was continued from the meeting of Janua ry 29, 1979 a t the request of the petttioner. There was no one indicating their presence in oppositlon to subJect request, and although the staff report to the Planning Commission dated Februa ry!2, 1979 rva s not read at the publlc hea~iny~ it is referrcd to and made a part of the minutes. Jay Tashtro~ Assoclate Planner~ pointed out a correction to the staff report, Condition No. 6 of the Interdepartmental Commlttee recommendations shculd be amended~ as foliav~: "That Condttion No. 4~ above mentioned......" Jonachan Yeh~ owner~ was present to answer eny questions. THE PUBLIC HEARI'VG WAS CLASED. 2/12/79 ~ c ~ , MINUTES~ ANIWEIM CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSION. fEBAUAItY 12~ 1979 79•102 A TION. RE~,~ASS~,~'ICATION NQ, 78- •2j AN~ f~ONDIT ONAL U5~ ~ti~T._.,~Q,..1,,, 936 Caemissioner Tolar stated his concesrn rep~rding th~ two-story units ab~etting the single- famity residsnces ~~d polnted out the Commtesio~'s pollcy does nnt pe~mit two-sto~y units wlthin 15Q feet of resldences. He explained h• dld not have •ny basic obJectlon to th~ nwte) axpa~slon and folt there is room for expanslon~ tiut could ~ot support th~ Mo-story units backing up to the residences. He indicated there were problems also in relatlonship to th~ pool area and the trash ~enclosure aroa aetbacks. Mr. Yeh replled he hed )ust followad the general practice of other motels In the area~ palntt~g out that a lot of them are two-story. Chatrman Flerbst explained the plana show the units 7 feet from the property iine adJacent to raside~tial homes and thet two-story untts would ~lock off a good perce~tage of the 119ht and et r to those homes and could be det.rlmental to thelr p~operttes. Commiss loner Davi d asked i f the other two-s tor~ un i ts t n the erea were to the south of this prapsrtr and if they we~e backtng up to ro~identlal properties~ end Mr. Yeh rsplled that they ware. Commissioner Johnson indfc~ted therc wss no prol~lem with heving two-storyr units on the prop~rty~ but that Che problam Is the locatton ot the twa-story untts i+butting restdenttal. Commisslone~ Barnes expiafned che Plsnnl n~ Cortimiss ton usu~l ly requt res single-taml ~y bulldtngs to be located 20 feet from the p~operty line edJacent to single-famtly residentlal areas~ a~d if two-stary units are p'.aced that close to the property line~ atr circulatto~, awilight~ etc.~ would be blocked for these residents. She stated she wsY not opposed to the two-story units on the iwrthcrn portion ot thc property. Commisaloner Johnson asked staff if these aspects of the proJect had been discussRd with the applicent. M~. Wang~ archltect~ expletned the setbwek requirement in the coerne~cia) zone Is 10 feet and that they are requesttng the setbac-c at 7 feet t~ comply with the extst(ng building. He explained the bui lding on the property behind subJect •~roperty is lac~ted 25 teet from the property 1 (ne. Conmissione~ Barnes stated the Plarning Commission has never approved a request such as this since she has been on the Conmissio~~ and pointed ou¢ therc are diffe~ences tn the setbacks in the ~rea because the developments we~e do~e before the present ordlnances were adopted~ or were developed under County standards a tong tlme ago. Commisstoner Bushore asked what ts located south ~of the motel. Mr. Wang ststed the two-story rrotel he had ~eferred to v+as completed last year at 328 North Seach 6oulevard (the King's Motel} end had a 10-foot setback. Commiss(oner Bushore asked if the petitio~er would like a continua~ce in order to radesig~ the proJect to move the Mo-StorY units eaey from the residential ares a~nd relocate th~ s~imning pool so It Is not locaced on the p~operty itne. Mr. Wang stated he could request a conti ~uence and then he pofnted out they are proposing addl tional unl ts on the east s i de wi th a 10-foot setba~ck and asked i f that aoul d be allowed. 2/12/79 MINUT~S, ANANEIM ClTY PLANNIN6 COPM~IISSIOH~ FEBRUARY 12~ 1979 79-~Q3 E1R_NEGATIYE D CLARATION. RECI,ASSIFICaT1QN N0. j8-79-~7 AND CONDITIQ~AL USE PERMIT N0. 1936 Cc„nmissione~ Johnson asked far clartficatton from staff regarding the aetbecks, snd Jsy Tashlro~ A•soclace Planner~ expletned the structu~~l height Is based c~n a 2:1 ratlo a~d the exls!~ng natel has a 1•f~t setbeck~ whtch would pe~mli a 3-1/2 foot tsll structure~ ~nd • ~~-foot high structure es proposed Nou~d requlre a;S-foot setback. He explalned the petittoner has thA option ot developing a stngle-sto ry unit and malntaining an 18 to 20-foot •etback tn o~der to comply wi xh the code. Gommisatoner Johnson stated rlght now he could not support this proposal for a two-sto ry structur~ egainst a residenttal area with a 10-fuot setback~ pofnting out that one-~tory is permtttmd and exceptlons h~ve ~een made betause the formule does n~t work out exactly~ but that the exceptions are not mede for two-sto ry units. Chatrman Herbst expleined the extsting singie-sto ry untxs do not meet current ordinances which requlre 20-foot setb~cks; that tlie extsting structurc ts set baGk 7-1/2 ~eet ~nd the request ts for a two-sto ry unit~ whlch compounds the situation. Ne steted he would support leaving the sl~qle-scory units tn line with the existlnq structures~ but could not support the twasto ry untts. He stated the Plsnning Commtssion is quite adamant ln protecting the restdential t~tegrity of the canmu~ity. He stated the plan hes problems wtth twa-story u~lts abutting residential and a minor probiem with the fror.t setback~ whfch could be eltminated by setting the pool further back and provtding a 3~foot landscaped area alo ng the f!ont. Commtssioner Tolar asked the petitlo~er (f h~ Nould like to request a two-week continuance~ and he Indicated that he would. It was noted revise d plans would have to be submitted to staff by F~iday in order to appear on the next agenda. ACTION: Commissloner Tolar offe~ed a motlon~ secanded by Commissioner Johnson and MOTEON ~D~ that consideration of the aforementioned item be continued to the regula rly- schedultd meeting of the Anaheim Clty Plannin9 Commission on Februe~ry 26~ 197g~ as requested by the pe ttttoner in urder to submtt revised plans. ITEM N0. 3 PUBLIC HEARING. ONNERS: PAUL KOURI~ 3621 Century~ R N A VE DECLA RATION Sutte 8, Lynwood, Cr~ 90262 and ROBERT 0. GUYOT~ __ ~_ 9-28 126) North Gtlbert. Fulle~ton~ Ca 92b33. Petitioner requests reclassiii~etion of property desc~ibed as an i~regularly-shaped parce~ of land conststing of approximately 2.9 a cres having a frontage of epproxlmately 919 feet on the !~outh side of Orangetho~pe Avenue, having a maximum de~th of approxtmately 121 feet. being located approximately 945 feet east of the cent~rline of Miller Street~ and further described as 3500 East Orangetho rpe Avenue~ frvm the ML (INDUSTRIAL, LIMITED) to the CL (COMM~Q~IAL~ LIMITED) 20NE~ Thsre wes no one indir.at~ng their presence in opposition to sub,ject request~ and ~lthough the staff reporC to the Planning Commtsston deted February 12~ 1979 was ~ot raid at the publtc hearing~ It ts referred to and made a part of the minutes. Robert Guyot~ petttioner~ was present to answer quest(ons. THE PUBLIC HEARING VAS CLOSED. 2/12/79 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CI1'Y PLANNING COMMiSS10N~ FEBRUARY 12~ 1979 79-IQ4 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND RECLASSIFICATION N0. 78-79-28 (continuad) Commissloner Johnso~ polnted out the Clty of Anahetm ha~ baen trying ta ~etein the tnduatrlal propertles for industrla) ~sos and ~sknd wh~t conrne~cial use~ are planned for thls proJect. Mr. Guyot replted the uses would be limited to commercfal such as fur~iture or Interior decorato~s. He pointed out there would be ~o ~astu~rants or anything of thst klnd thac would requtre a lot ~f psrkfng. He explained fo~ all (ntents ~nd purposes this property is located tn the City of Placentla and that he ts dratntng 19 ecrcl of Placentia property (~to his drafnage system, and po(nted out that economically he needed to heve commercta) u~es. Commtss(oner Johnson statccl there wes no b~g problem with the proJect and he understood why the request Is betng made. He potnted out thls ts en (soleted pe~cel ~nd he had hoped the retdtl uses might lean taverds the r,ommerctal community~ ~nd asked tf the~ewere a tot of commerciai uses i~ thec eres. Mr. Guyot stetad across the street and up Chapman (s residential property (R-t) and next to him is commercial p rope~ty. Ne pointed out Placentia has zoned the propcrty for coim-a r c t a 1. Comm(sstaner King asked Mr. Guyot to stlpulate thaC th~ uses wlll only include retall shops wlth no uses requlring higher Intens(ties of parking, and Mr, Guyot replted he was willtng to stipulate to thet Conditlon. ACTtON: Commisstoner Ktng offered a mottan~ seconded by Cammissioner Dsvid and MOTION C~1tR~ED~ that the Anaheim City Plann(ng Commisslon has revlewed the proposel to reclasslfy the sub ect property from thn ML (Industrial, Limited) 2one tu the CL (Cam~erclal~ Limited~ tone on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting ~f approxtmately 2.9 acres having a frontage of approximately 9ig faet on thc south stde of Orangethorp~ Avenue, heving a maximum depth of approximately 121 feet~ being locaCed approxlmately 945 feet east of the ccnterline of Miller St~eet; and does hercby approve the Negattve Declaration from ti~e requl~ement to prepare an environmental impact report on the basis that there would be no significant Individual or cumulat(ve advErse environmental impact dua to the approva) of this Negative Decla~ation since the Maheim Generat Pla~ deslgnates the subJect property for uater/low-medium density restdcnt(al tand uses conrriensurate with the proposal; that no scnsittve environmentat lmpacts are Involv~d in thc proposal; that the (nttia) Study submltted by the petitioner ind(Gates no signtftcant indtvtdual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and that che Negative Declaration substantiating the foregoing findings is on ~ile tn the City of Anaheim Planning Department. Commisslonar King offered Resolution No. PC79-29 and moved for tts passage and adoptfon~ that the M aheim Ctty Plaiini~g Commission does hereby grant Petitlon fo~ Reclassificatlon No• 78-79~28, subJect to the stipulatlon by the appl(cant that the sub)ect commercia) ce~ter wi 11 (nclude only retai 1 shops and that uses requi ring hig;~ parktng intensities, such as restaurants~ wtll not be permitted, and subJect to the condition tFat the property shall be developed substantially ln accordance with precise plans as p~esentQd, and subject to I~terdzpartmental Committee recortr~n~!ations. On roll call, the foregoing ~esolutton was passed by the followi~g vote: AY~S: COHMISSIONERS: BARNES~ BUSHORE. DAVID~ iiERBST~ .IONNSON~ KING~ TOLAR NOES: COMMISSIONERS~ NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE z/tz/79 J ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ FEBRUAaY 12~ 19)9 7q-lOS ~1R~1 EGATIVE_~ECLARATION AND aECLASSIFICATION N0. 76-79-28 (conttnued) Commissioner B~rnes explalned she felt thls property is different~ polnttng out she Is usually oppased to this type of request~ but supported this requ~st because ahe felt this p~ope~ty Is far rsrro vcd fram a~y othor Industrl~) propertins end is zo~ed for commercla) uaes In the City of Placentia and borders a~ thelr city limits~ end ahe dtd not fee) tfo prope~ty londs (tself to i~dust~tal us~. ITEM N0. 4 PUBIIC NEARING. OWNEkS: FRNEST A. AND DONNA J. DROWN. ~~E~rVE DECLARATiON 2224 South Le~wis 5treet, Anehetm~ CA 92E302. AGENT; ~_,,, • 79-29 INVESTORS DEVEl.OPMfNT OF ORANGE COUNTY~ iN~. ~ 1345 North Grand Avenuc~ SantA Ana~ CA 92701. Petitlo~er requests recl~ssiftcetion of prop~rty deacrtbed as an irreguterly-sheped pArcel of land conststing of approximately 0.8 acre hevtng a frontage of approximately 1F30 feet on the east side of Lewts Strect. having a rrwximum depth of approximaYely 217 feeC~ being located spproxtinately 1160 feet aouth of the conter~tne of O~angewood Avenue~ and further described as 2224 South Lewts StreeC~ from the RS-A-43,Q~U (RESIDENTIAL/AGRICUL7UR/IL) to the RM-120Q (RESIDENTIAI.~ MULTIPLC-FAMILY) ZONE. There wss no one Indtcating their presence In opposition to subJect request, and elthough the staff report to the Planniny Commisslon dated Februa ry 12~ 197~ was not read at the public hearlny~ it (s referred to and made a pert of the mtnutes. Jeck Davis~ Investors Devel~pment of Orange County~ inc.~ 131~5 North G~end Avenue. Santa Ana~ stated the pr~Ject is for 10 units and does meet the requlrements of the zoning requested; that the units Irs the front are one-story and wi11 appear as large homes; and that one duplex end two fourplexes ~re propostd, Ne statcd he would like to discuss xhe Traff(c Engineer's reconwnendatlon that the proposed drlvdvay be real(gned fo eliminate potentla) tr~ffic safety problems, and explained trafftc from Unit C(the duplex) would be back(ng out onto lewts Street and noted ihe proJcct had been degtgned in this fashton because there a~e other properties (n the area wi~ich da back o~at onto Lew(s Street. Cammissioner Bushore ask,ed M~. Davts whet other properties back out onto Lewls~ and he replied that they are further south. Mr. Oavts ind(cated the p~oJect could be redeslgned and planned so that the trafftc from Untt C would not be backing out onto Lewis Street, but he was concern~d about reallgning tt-e drl veway between Un i ts A and B and moving t t 30 fest aouth ~o al t gn wl kh S(mmons Avenue~ indicating he did not belleve that was part of the code. He explalnAd tf the driveway is moved 30 feet, therc wlll be approximately a 14-foot strip along the side of the property. Ne stated !f he could work wtth the Commtssion and not change that drlveway~ he would be willing to stipulate to changtng the other driveway so that traffic does not beck ouc onto Lewis Street. Chairme~ Herbst polnted out there Is no turn~-around area shown f4r tfie trasl~ t~ucks~ end askad what Is proposed fnr trash collection. Mr. Davls explained in this type situatton they use a flatbed cart and regular trash contatners and the cart is putled out to the curb and the trash Ts cotlected at the curb; that the carta are kept in the separete~ e~closed trash areas and each uni*_ has its own enclosed traah area. Commissioner Bushore asked who would be responsible for pulling the carts out to the curb. 2/12/79 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITIf PLANNING COMMISSION. FEBRUARY 12• 1979 79~~06 EIR NEG_TIVE DECIARATION AND RECLASSIFICATION N0. 78-7~ ~~~ttnued) Mr. Davis replled th~ir company usualiy rotains approximately one-half af the unlts they bulld and thair manegement company would see thet thA trash Is teken ce~e af and if they sel) ths units~ the owne~ would be r~sponsible for it. He explalned they have hed no problems in the paat and have bullt spproxtmately 500 u~6ts using this sarne sttuatlon. Comml sslar..,r Bushare was concernad that there coul d be un i ts wl th absentee owner~ and that the unlts would be managed by • property menagament oomPany and it would be their responsibtlity ~~o come over and pull the trash out to the curb. Commisstoner Tolar indicated ~.oncern regarding the trash and felt it could be a problem and that It must be taken care ot at thts level; thdt tt ts imp~obabla that thts company w~~~ ~;, ;~.~ ~~nics fnrever and the units are smsll And if they did have proparty mentgeme~t~ he did not think they would cane over n~-~ pu~! :t;c tr~eh cert out to the curb. He stated h3 was not sure thts w~uld be e yood u~e for this property. fle tndtcated hts other concer~ was traffic backing out onxo Lewts Straet and sta:e~i he did not know of any other p noJects with this sltuation and if there ere others, did not thlnk that makas tt rtght for this proJect to be devetoped in thts sa~me manner, even though he recogntzad eve ry resldentiel structure backs out onto the str~et~ but nated Lewis Street Is a busy streat. Jay Titus~ Office Engineer, statod the traffic has tnc~eased subst~entlally on Lewis Street recently and Manchester further south was realigned~ which brought more traffic onto Lewis which previously had used Manchester. Mr. Davis st:ted he would stipulatc to rea~~ange Unit C so that it Nill not beck out onto Lewis 5treet. Commissioner t~lar stated he was not sure what this property would be best sulted for and felt maybe the cemete ry should purchase lt~ but f~1t tha problems~ including the alignment with Simmons~ lle in having too many units on the prop~rty. Mr. Davis stated no n~atter what I s developed on the property. to try to al ign the driveway with Simn~ns would be a~~roblem. Commissioner Toler statcd he agreed it would be a problem to atign the drtveway with Simmo~s~ but stlil felt there ls too much development on this property and felt the problems could be rectified with ~edesign. Commtssio~er Bushore stated he did not ~emember any proporties that backed out onto Lewis snd stnce trsffic has tncreased cansiderably on that street. recently, he could not support the pro,ject with the traffic and trash situation. Ne stated since the property abuts the cemete ry~ he would have no obJection if the setback r~ere less, and suggested moving the units claser to the cemetery. Mr. Davis stated they have a great deol of open space behind the proJect and they are well belaw the requircments for density. Commissio~er Tolar statcd we all understand we are playing games wtth the numbers; that every proJect must stand an its own merits and you cartnot hang your hat on the nun~bers~ and stated these problems must be resolved before he can support the proJect. Commisstoner Ki~g stated he would not agree with Commissioner Tolar regardi~g thn density; th~t the Commission is constantly talking about [he need for law and moderate income houstng so that young couples and the elderly un fixed ~ncomes can afford housing. 2/12/79 MINUTES. AHAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMNISSION~ FEBaU~RY 12. 1q79 19•~~1 EIR NE'ATIVE DE~LARAT~I N, ANQ,$~tt etSIFICATI0N~N8. 78-79~29 (contlnued) Commisaloner Ba~nes stated she Is not oppo~ed to the density~ but Lhst ahe ts co~cerned about tho trash situAtlon and f~lt those trash encloture A~ea~s are a long way fran the curb end it would be difficult co move the t~ash out to the curb. Mr. Davis explatned the trash Zart is pulled to the curb ~nd tl~ey hsve thls same sltuatlon in meny of their untts and tt has not bee~ e problem a~d the trash has always bser~ pfcked up at the curb. Gommlasloner Cavid askod whc mi+kes tl~e Judgme~t regardiny the trash situation. ond Jay Tashiro replted that the Saryltat~on Dtvislon makes the final detorminatlon concerning tho trash locattons and pick-up ~nc1 they norrtu+lly would ltke to see same sort of turn-around provided on the propcrty. Cortmilss(oner David stared obvtously this small percel cannot provide a turn-around on-~~t~ end asked how Mr. Oavts c~n communicntr. co the staff thet he intends to use the cert-type t~ash remaval. Jay Tashiro answered that one of the conditions included in the approval would be that the trash enclosure area be pr~vided (n accorJance wlth approvel of the Dlrector of Public Works~ And that it would be up ta Mr. Davis to s~Clsfy the Sanltation Div(sion. Chalrman Herbsc felt the acceptance of the trash locattons should be noted an the plans by the Senitatlon Divlsion before ttie Planniny Commissian hears the proJect. Jay Tasi~Iro scated tn the past approv~~l has been granted with the condition regarding the trash and when the plans are presented to the Sanitatlo~ D(vislon and ~re not acceptable~ the pro)ect has to be redcsiyned. Chairman Herbst stated when trash Is Involved in a proJect~ Sanitation Dlvislon approval should be gotten befor~ the Planning Cortmission hears the proJect because (t does cause the petltioner to spend mare time and money~ Cammissioner Barnes stated a 10-unit apartment proJect would produce a tremendous ~mcount of trash and felt a big cart would be necessary to move tt to the curb. Mr. Davts explalned this (s a low-bed cart and they have used tt for many yea~s; that one cart wil) be provided for each fourplex and one for the duplex~ so there will be three separate carts. Chairman Herbst statad he rGCOgnized Untt A could be moved to the rear of the property~ but he dtd not thtnk It would beauttfy the proJect; that they are g~ing to have a nice landscaped area in the frnnt ar~d stated it could be arrang~d th~at the trash could be picked up by the dumpster~ but it would ruin the aesthetic value of the property. Commissioner Tolar asked the petitio~er if he wauld Itke a two-week contlnuance in order to radesig~ the proJect to rectify these minor problems wOthout reducing the density~ and Mr. Davis indfcated he wou{d like e c4ntinuance. ACTION: Commisstoner Tolar offered a mation~ seconded by Commissianer Bushore and MOTtON C~ ED~ that consideretion of Petition for ReclassiPicatiun No. 78-79-29 be continued to the regularty-scheduled meeting oi the Anaheim City Planning Cammission on February 26, 197g~ in order for che petitioner co s~mit revised plans. 2/12/79 ; MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 12, 1979 79-108 ITEM N0. 6 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNF.RS: CNARLES AND PATSY CUNDIFF~ ~EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1141 North Cosby Way, Suite A, Anaheim, CA 9280h. CONUITIONAL USE_PERMIT No, 1944 AGENt: ANANEIM 191L15 COMMUNITY CHURCN, 5207 East Orangethurpe, Anahe(m, CA 92807, petitlanCr requests permission to ESTADLISH a, CHURCH IN THE ML ZONE on property d~scribed as an trregularly- shaped ~arcel of land consisling of approximately 0.1 acre having a frantaye of ~pproxi- mately 20 fret on the north side of Le Palma Avenue, having a m~xim~.im dPpth of approximately 340 feet~ being locat.ed approximatcly 534 f~et west of the centerl ~~e of Lakeview Av~nue, and further descr(bec~ as 4421 East la Palma Avenue. Property presently classified ML(SC) (INDUSTRIAL~ LIMITED-SCENIC CORRIDOR OVERLAY) ZONE. There was no one indicating their presence in ofioosition to ~ubject request and although the staff report to the I'lanning Commission dated February 12, 1979, was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made d part ot the minute5. Gary DeV~~ul, Pastor of Anaheim Hills Community Church, stated [his church is sponsored by the Reformed Church in America and is ~ spin-uff uf th~ GarJen Grove Communfty Ch~rch; that they have moved into the Anaheim Hills ai•ea beGause there is a lack of churches t.here and are now m~eting at the Vista del Rio Jr. Hic~h Schoc~l. He stated [he Code permics churches in che ML(Industrial, Limited) zone ancf explalned they are asking for a temporary conditional use perrnit for approximately two years so they can financially make their way into Anaheim Hills pr~per and be able ta afforci to purchase land there. He stated they are in the pro- cess of purchasing the subject property. Comrnissioner Bushure stated land in Anaheirn Hills is scarce and very exNensive and asked where they plari to purchase it. Mr.De Vaul stated they do not have the land to build theii~ permanen[ churc:h at the present time and explained it is their d~sire to take the money they are payiny the school district (51,400 per month for the use of the School) and put it into a b~~ilding and property in order to build equity and then be able in the next two years to pur;.hase property ta bu~ld a permanent church. hle stated they have found property in Anaheirn Hills is $250,000 an acre for cammercial property and $120,000 up for residential property and a lot of the property they have looked at has been in the mid~le. uf a gulley or something like that. Commiasioner Bushore asked if they plan to have weddings and things of that sort at the church and if they plan to have evening prayer meetings al the church. hlr.De Vaul replied there would be very little activity in che evening and their primary usage would be non-business hours. Commissioner Bushore pointed out the staff report states the facility will be used for Sunday assemblies. He asked if the facility would be used f~r fund raising activities such as bingo and Mr.De Vaul replied they have never had Co raise funds like that in their church. Cammissioner David clarified the of two years and asked why the p Mr. DeVaul repl ied tl~at was what and had said they only wanted it use permit. He stated he wanted into an industrial area forever. tonditional use p~rmit could be granted for a period etitioner had indicated the permit could not be temporary, he was led to believe; that he applied for the perrnit f~r a temparary period and was instructed to file for a the Commission to know that they did not want to move 2/1?/79 MINUTES~ AMAHF.IM CITY PI,ANNINf COMMISSION, February 12. 197y 79-1~9 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION CONOITIONA~ USF. PERMIT N0. 1 49 4(continued) Commissioner Oavid stated the perrnit could be yranted for a dclermiued amount of tir-~ and the use would b~ temporary ~nd lndicated he has no problem wlth thr. requcst. Commissioner Barnes asked how lony it would t~~kE to find the property for the permanent church and Mr. Duvall replled they have set a goal of two years. Commissioner l~lar indicated he has some real questions about this in relatlonship to why they had cliosen a site right in thc middle of an industrial park. Mr,peVaul stated thry h~d ch~5en the SItP_ because it was cheap enouqh fc>r thern to purrh.~se n~r an~i start building equ(ty, and secondly~ because it is easier for them to mc~ve in and ouC and will allow them to get chelr operat(on under onc roof because at the present time they are having to rr~ ve all lheir eyuiNn~;nl (Nui~~it5, organ5,etc.) into the ~chool and they have also chasen this site because it is in the middle ~f the ~irea tfiey have chasen to minister to. Commis~ioner Bushore clarified that the subJect property is being purchased rather than leased and inclicated it was his feeling that .a problen, will be built in and felt with the difficulty in ffnding lan~~ in the Anaheim Hills ~~rea th~r this church will be at this location for the next 15 years. Mr, DrVaul stated they could not afford t~~ buy the land right now and this is an inter- mediate place. Commissioner Bushore stated the Commfssion has been qettin7 a lot of pressure to leave the industrial area as industrial and indicated as far as he was concerned since they are buying the property, chey will be there permanently. Mr. D~~Vaul replied they want this building for a maximum Uf twa years and emphasized that they do not want to be in an industrial area for any 15 ycars and stated they could not possibily minister to the community frcm an indus~rial bullding for 15 years. Commissioner Bushore asked how long they have been established and how many members the church currentlyhas and Mr.DeVaul slated they have been in the area for approximately five months and have approximately 200 members in the congregation, Commissioner Tolar st~;ted he admires these people trying to build a church in the canyon area and felt it i5 neecled and pointed out the protlem of buying land is their problem and che Planning Commission has to consider the land use; that he has heard a lot about breaking down the industrial area in relationship r.o othe~ uses and dld not see how the Commission, in all goud conscience, could a~~prove a request even for a temporary use when they have not allowed other uses even in the so called buffer zune between the freeway and the industrial area. He indicated he could not support this use even on a temporary basis and felt calling this a temporary use is somewhat playing with semantics even though he understood their intentions and believed what they are saying is what they totally believe; however, he could not envision that in two ye~~rs they could find property and would be requesting extensinns of time on this use. Mr. DeVaul asked if he wauld not consider the use compatible if there is na industry going on while they are there. Commissioner Tolar stated there have been several ~equests before the Commissfon for churches in the industrial area and just recently the Commission has had several 2/12/19 ~ ~ ~ r MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 12, 1979 79-I10 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Nq. 1~44 (contin~hd} requests for furnitures stores in the Industrial area and they have all uscd the same arguments; that they will be using the facllity during non-business hours and would not be competing in terms of traffic, etc. He stated industrial parks are net designed ~or this type pf use and he fPlt as the c~ngregation qrows thcy wil) be want(ng to use the facil(ty for n(ght services :~r.~ ~ther types of uses which will conflict with i~~e industrial park. Mr. DeVaul replied there is nothing they could hold during business hours because they cannot service the community dur(ng business hourr,. Chairman Herbst stated industrialists have a lendency to work 24 hours a day, sevFn days a week at times and puinleJ uut thcrc arc ~o^~c r~ther i,r?N huildin~s in this area and if they are wnrking ~in Sundays, where would the congregation park? Mr.DeVaul explained they do have reci~~rocal pirkiny aqreements witF. the ~eople who are there now and ttiey are very happy to have the church there. Chairman Herbst stated he could see problems and Gould not support a church at this location; that if il was an isolated parcel or i~ a fringe area on a temporary basis. that he might consider it, but since it will be in the mi.ldle of an industrial park and there i~ not enough parking ~n site to take car~~ of the situation and as these buildings become occupied and industries need to work on Sundays, there will be parking problems, Steve Hillard, Attorney and member of the church~ presented a le[tc:r frum one of the occ~~pants of one of the buildings intt~e complex expressing their pleasure with tl~is use and the reciprocal parking agreement because of the lack of F~~rkiny during business hours and indicated he thoughc this would help facilitate the industria! uses of the property. He explained [his is the only occupant of any of the buildings at che present time. Chai~-man HerbsC did not think even with a reciprocal parking agreement with only one tenant th~re would be enough parking and Mr. Hillard replied he felt this type arrangement would bP agreeable throughout the complex because of the nature of the use and the fact the business hours are opposite. Chairman Herbst did not agrPe t!~at Che hours would be opposite pointing out he is an industrialist and there are times when they are working 24 hours a day. 7 days a week. Mr. Hillard stated he thou9ht that was the exception rather than the rule. He added that a church function within the ind~strial zone is one of the uses which is allowed with approval of a conditionai use permit and did not think a church is tatally inconsistent with the industrial atmosphere or it would be out~ide the scope of that zoning. Chairman Herbst explained th~ requirement for the conditional use permit is to a11ow the Planning Co~xnission to determine whether or not the locatian is compatible with the use. lir. Nillard felt a church is more con~patible irs an industrial area than any cther area except farmland because they w~uld nvt be blocking driveways ar bothering the neighbors during sleeping hours or having choir practice that will wake ;he neighbors and for the most part would not be bothering a~yone and felt this would be the ideal spot for a church. 2/12/79 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ February 11, 1979 79~111 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION CONDITIONAL U5E PERMIT N0. 1944 (continued) -______w~_ -`-r._ Commissioner Johns~n suggested the petitioners should tread lightly and lry very slowly to change the direction af the Commission's thinking bec~3use telling th~~ p~~st history ot' Anaheim they are wrong and you have declded you have a better use for the prc~perky than what it is zoned for is ~ot the way to get anywhere. Commissioner Johnson offered a motion seconded by Cornmissioner David and motion carried that the Anaheim City Planning Cormiission has re~iewed the proposal to per•mit a church in the ML(Industrlal, Lim([ed) zone on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.7 acre having a frontage of approxim,~tely 20 feet on the north side of La Palma Avcnue, having a maxirnum depth of ~pprox(matcly 340 fect, bcing locat.ed approxi- ~n~~Ply S~4 fPP~ w~cf nf thn rs+ntArl inP nf I akovi~w Avwniin~ anri ~Inne hnre+hv ~~,~rnvP ~hA Negative Declarr~tion from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report on Che basis that there would be no sigriificant individual or cumulative ~dverse environ- menta) impact du~ to the approval of this Neqative Declaration since the Anaheim General Plan desiynates the subject property for general industrial land usec comrnensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive environmental imp~c[s are involved in the proposal; thal the Initial Study submitted by the petitioncr indicat~s no significan*_ individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and that the Neyative DPClaration Substantiating [he foregoing finclings is on file in the City of Anaheim Planniny Department. ACTION: Corn~nissioner Johnson offered a resalution for approv~~l of the petition for co- d ional use permit No. 1944 to allow the temporary use for a church facility for a period of two (2) years on the basis that the Hill and C~~nyon Municipal Advlsory Committee had reviewed the project and supported it; and on the basis that i[ is a t~mporary use and the building exists (indicating if this were a reyuest for a new project he could not support it, but that he could not conceive of a church slaying active from this industrial property for a l~ng period of time and would accept as Cruth the use would be for a two year period or less); that thesc ~3re members of our community and are asking for this temprrary use; that they will nat be conflicting with the industrial traffic of the area. (He sta[e~ he supports the protection of the industrial zone, but felt this would be a temporary use.) Mr. DeVaul stated the congregation understands [he tax problem in the area and has agreed that they would be willing tu waive the non-taxable status of the ~~roperty and pay taxes on this property and indicated it is nc.t their intent to rob the City of the taxes. Jack White, Deputy City Attorney, explained the City is not in a position [o a~cept a waiver of the tax exempt status. He felt it is most unfortunate that this has appeared in a motion made by HACMAC because it has nothing to do with the land u,e and w~uld not be a legal conditicn that we could place upon the approval of this application. He ex- plain~ed the tar, status is between the church, the state and the federal government and the City cannot accept the waiver of tax exemption as a sort of extortion fc.~r allowing the use. Comnissioner Tolai stated talking against a request such as this is like talking against "metherhood and apple pie" but in lookinc~ at the request strictly irom the zoning aspect and the comment made by the petitioner that one of the reasons this site was chosen was because it was cheaper and they will be ablz to save money to build their own chiirch, it has been the experie~ice of the Planning Commissicn that there are a lot of people who would like to I~cat~ in an industrial park because it is cheaper than a commercial area. 2/12/79 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ~ebruary 17., 19~J9 79'I12 EIR NEGATIVE OECIARATION, CONpIT10NAl USE PEkMIT N0. lyA4 (continued, Hc felt one of the reasons therc have been maJor violations ~nd the rpa5on for the present effort to clean up the industrial area is that penple have elected tn byp~ss the Commisslon and develop conmerclal uses in the industrial zone because they th(nk it would be better the way khey planned it than ihe way the City planned it because they need tenants in thelr propcrties~ even if they ar~ p~ying less rent. Conmissloner Tolar stated he cauld not understand how the Conmission could co~sider taking the exact opposite posikion than they have been taking concerning othPr uses in thc indus[rial area and brPaking down the inteqrity af che inclustrial zone even for :, ch~rt {~~rind of time. He stated the Planning Comrnission is constantly hammered by pecitioners wanting to go into the industrial area using the wcrd "precedent" and fell the Cammisslon must live wilh lhe standards or change them. He stated if churches are allowed in the industrial zone, a specific area shculd be set aside rath~.r than the middle of an industrial park. He staced he appreciated these ~etition~:rs honesty, but pointed out these are the reasons we havc different zones ~~nd he could not envision that a church would be compatible with the industrial arr.a. Cormiissioner Tolar indicated concern that the present use is lo~ated at thr. Vista del Rio Jr. High School and was oper,~ting without a c:qnditional us~ permit and it was point.ed oiit that the school was leased ~o the petitioners by the Orange Schooi District. Commissioner BarnFS ind~cated she fe1t. very stonc;ly bath way~~ but telc somPtimes other Chings than pure ::oninc~ ha~ie to be looked at and in addition, this is not a zoninq chanye. She. stated the Commission would not le+ anybody else go in for a short period of time to try and save money, but there is definitely a need for a church in that area, especially for the yautti and she would be r~-ore inclined to support it, but has mixed emotions ~ince this is a business venture and there are mar!y people who are asking for the same privileges. She stated tne only reason she miyht s~~pport Lhi~, reyuest is because she feels it is probably one of the most compatible uses thar. coufd go into the industrial area. She explained she has voted against any uses other than industrial intt~e industrial zoncs. She pointed out she passes this property daily and is a little concerned about the traffic onto th.: street because of the driveway, but other than tliat felt this use is the most favorable she has seen on a temporary basi~. Cornmissioner 'Tolar remin~ed the Commission tha[ a request for a furniture store was recently denied predlc~ted on the traffic with maybe 50 people in there at any one time, 3nd now this request is for 200 people being there :~n a Sunday at one time. Commissioner Barnes felt the use would be compatib~e because the traffic will be there on Sundays explaining she has gone past this site many times on Sunday and there was no one there. Chairman Herbst stated the Commission is underguing a study involving the Chamber ~f Commerce, the Redevelopment Commission and others at the current time concerning what uses couid be allowed in the industrial zones and a meeting is sc!~eduled ~~ arrive ar some conclusiun about what typE of conditional use permits will be allowea in the industrial zone because of the incompatability of some of the uses that have gune in without permits in these zones. He felt the Commission is r~ot in a position at this time ta grant a permit until the study has been completed and some corclusia~~s nave been reach2d. ~ I MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 12, 1973 79'~~~ EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATIONy CONDITIONAL US~ PERMIT N0, 1944 (continued) Commissloner David stoted he was glad for Planninc~ Commisslo~s -vherr we can review each ca,e individually and evaluAte wh~ther or not thP use is comnatible w(th the ~ite prc,posed rather than just drawiny a line and bulldirig cverything llke ar~ erector set. He did not feel this is the praper place for .~ church; thercfarc, the use would be for only two years as indiceted and felt the request i~ reasonable and compatible and indicated he would support the request for approval. Commi~tiioner Johnson point- ~ut the requ~st is tor a t~mp~rary permit and explained he normally would not suppor ..h a request. Chairm:~n Hcrb:,t :,totcd thai :~ciny ba~l. f~~ I~istui y I~r: iew~ii~i~c5 tl~dt NC~u~il ~i(lr.~ N~rmit comes back to the Commission with requests for renewal. Commissf~~nrr Barnes st~t~~1 ShP w~uld n~~t be (n favor oS' ~n extensi~n aftcr the two year period and indicated ~he felt this is a very temporary tl~inq, otherwise, she would not su~port the request. Commissioner Bushore stated he bclieved the petitloners, ~ul olso believed with the situatic,r~ In the ~ai~von and the situation with the church purchasing subject property that it will be much longer than two years and f~r that rca5on he could nat support the motion for approval and also because of the people wha will be coming in after this. Th~ foregoing resolution FAILED TO CARRY by the follawing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, OAVIU b JOHNSON NOES: COMMISSIONERS: eUSHORE, KING, HERBST, TOLAR ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONF ACTION: Commissioner Bushore offered Res~lution No. PC79-30 and rr~ved for ~ts passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny petit(on for Condit(onal Use Permit No. 1944 on the basis that the use would not be compatible with the surrounding industria) zc~ne. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following v~te: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BUSHORE, KING, HERBST, TOLAR NOES: COhiMISS10NERS: 9ARNE5, pAVID b JOHNSON ABSENI': COMMIS~IONERS: NONE Jack White, Deputy City Attorney, presented the petitioner with the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's dscision within 22 days to the City Council, ITEM NQ. 7 PUELI~ NEARING. OWNER: JAMES A. MC MAHAN 2121 EIR- CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIOM-CLASS II Wilshire Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 90~406. VARIANCE N0. 307. AGENT: GILBERT A. THOMAS~ P. 0. BoK 1428, Tustin, CA 92680. Petitioner requests WAiVER OF MAXIMUM SIGN HEiGH7 TO ERECT A ROOF-MOUNTED SIGN on pr~perty described as a reGtangularly- shaped parctl ~f land ~on~isting of approximately 0.9 acre having approximate frontages of 135 feet on the west side of Euclid Street anci I' Feet on the west side of cul-de-sac terminus of Catalpa Avenue~ having a maximum d~pth of approximately 304 feet, being located approximately 1055 feet south of the centerllne of La Palma Avenue~ and further described as 845 North Euclid 5treet. Prpp~rty presently classified CL(COMMERCIAL, LIMITED) zone. There was no one ind~cating their presence in opposition to subJect request, and although the staff report to khe Planning Commission dated Februa~y 12, 1~79, was not read at the pub- lic hearing~ it is r~ferred to and made a part of the minutes. 2/12/79 ~ ~ MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 12, 1979 79-114 £IP CATEGORICA~ EXEMPTION R VARIANCE N0. 3074 (continued) Gilbert A, Thomas, agent, stated McMahan Furn{ture has been loceted In An~helm for 20 yenrs and at the present addross for fivc years; that [he structure is a modern two- story 28,000 sq. ft. bullding; that the roof of the bulld(ng is 22-feet high and they have a 2S-fo~t lilgh tree-standing slgn located on the pr~mises, Ne presented photogrAphs of the cxisting sign. He Nxplained they are requesting permission to install a raof siqn 40-fPet high tor better vi~lbility up and dawn the street. He stated the staff repart indtcatPd staff could find no records of permits for signs ab~ve 25 feet, but he wanted Co point out there are signs in the area higher than 25 fect, the Cal Federal bullding to the north with a slgn wcll nver 100 fect and the Lee's Bar Stool sign and other signs on the lef't side ot che street are ~aller than tlie applicant's sign; t~ thc south Alphe beta mArket, siyn, Cl~i~~.~.i~ ~ie sign uhich ~re OYf'r ~S FPP~ high. He sta~ed the Lee's Bar Stool sign particularly blocks che McMahan's sign. He explained the proposed sign would be in the same good taste .35 seen in the building and they fe~l it woulcl ~untrfbute to the business climate of the cnmim mity. The ~ui.!ic hearing w~s closed. Commissioner Tolar asked if th~re are other siyns in ~the area which are taller than 25 feet. Jay ~'ashiro, Associate Planner, stated it is possible there are taller signs and Indicated staff had revfewed [he record for any psrmits which would have permitted higher signs and there were no records of any permits e~ranted, but th.-,t they could have been existing non-conforming uses which were conscructed prior to the Si~fl ordin~~nce being adopted. Commissioner King stated in checking this in the field he had s,een ,nly one free-standing sign higher than th~ 25 feet and that was the Century 21 sign and i[ is located more than 300 feet from any residential area and felt the other signs mentioned would be more than 300 feet away from any residential ~~rea and the pr~posed sign is closer than 300 feet. Gommissioner David asked the height of the present sign and Mr. Thomas replied the existirig sign is 25-feet high and the roof is 22-feet high so part of che siqn is obstructed by the building itself. Comroissioner Kiny stated most of the siyns within 300 feex of residential areas in this area are consistent and in line wi[h the McMahan sign, except Century 21. Commissioner Johnson indicated he did not think the Lee's Bar Stao) sign is higher than 25 feet. Mr. Thomas explained he had only gotten this staff report today when fie Game to the meeting; otherwise, he would have gone out and mc:asured the other si~ns. He stated if it is important to the determination he could request a continuance and furnish that informatian. Commissioner Barnes explained the Keystone sign which gives the temperature and time was granted because the peaple from the neiyhborho~d had indicated they wanted it bECause of the information it would furnish, but she did not see any reason to grant any more sign variances because the Commission is trying to make all the signs in the city confurm and as people come in and request new signs or want tu rsdo their existing signs, they are asked to conform to Code. She stated it is the Comnission's hope to eventually get rid of the garish big signs. She stated this is one of the nicest buildings around and she did not see why they would want to ruin it with 2 large sign and felt anyon~ lookin9 for the store could find it. Commissioner Johnson indicated he agreed and felt this building and exi.,ting sign are in very good taste, 2/12/79 ~ ~ ., ~,. »w.~„ ~ MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CQMMISSION~ february 12, 197g 19-~15 EIa CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION 6 VARIANCE NO 3q74 (continued) Commissioner Kinq state~l th~ signs in the area are consistent and look r;ce, Mr. Thomas stated looking from L~e's Bar Sto~l's sign, thelr sign Ia completely blocked. Commissioner Bushore stated hi, business is locAted at l.a Palma and Euclid and he can see this sign perfectly ancl from the opposite corner can 5ee it perfectly by Just turniny his head a I(ttle bit. Mr. Thomas stated without having th~e opportunity to check the or.her signs, he eould only accept the Cornmiss(oners' superior knowledgc, but in driving down the street hc was surc thc othcr ~Igns mcntioncd wcre highcr than 25 fcat, but that it is passible those arc located rrx~re than 300 feet frorn residentlai properttes. Chairman Herbst related that if ~his sign is permitced, then when the other people are ready to redo their exist(ng siyns, they r~r(11 want 40-foot high signs. It was noted the Planning Dir~ctor or fiis authorized representa[iv~ has determined that the proposed proJect falls within the definition of CaYegorical Exemptions, Claas 11~ as defined in Paragraph 2 of the City of Anaheim Environmencal Impact Report Guidelines and fs, therefore, categorically exrmpt from the requlrement to prepare an EIR, ACTION: Commissioner Johnson offered Resoiition No. PC 79-31 ~nd rr~ved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim f,ity Planning Commission does here5y deny Petition for Variance No. 3074 on the basis that there are no 5pecial circumstancPS appiicable ~ the property~ includiny size, shape~ topography, location or surroundings, which d.. not apply to other property under identical zoning classification In the vic(nity, and strfct applicatian of the zoning code dnes not deprive subjece property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity. On roll call the foregoing resolutian was passed by the foilowing vote: AYES: COP1MiS510NER5: 9ARNES, BUSNORE, DAVID, HERBST, JOHNSON, KING b TOLAR NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Jack White~ Deputy City Attorney~ presented the petitioner with the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the Ci[y Council. ITEM N0. 8 PUBLIC HEAR~'G. OWN~RS: ROBERT D. ETCHANDY, ETAL~ EiR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 5 2$00 South Main 5treet, Santa Ana. CA 92707. AGENT: VARIANCE N0. 307~ ELDEN BAINBRIDGE, 2800 South Main Street~ Santa Ana~ CA 92707. Petitioner requests WAIVER OF RE~UIRE- MENT THAT ALL LOTS ABUT A PUBLIC STREET TO FSTABLISH A TNREE-LOT INDUSTRIAL SUBD{V{SION on property described as an irregularly-sh~ped parcel of land consisting of approximately 5•3 acre having a frontaUP uf approximately 800 feet on the east side of Tuskin Avenue, having ~ maximum depth of approximat~ly 360 feel, being located approximately ~65 feet south of the centerline of I.aPalma Rvenue. Property presently classified RS-A-43,000 (RESIDENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL) ZONE. There was no one indicating tfieir presence in opposition to the subject request and although the staff ~eport to the Planning Commission dated February 12, 1979~ was not read at the public hear(ng~it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. 9/t~/7o ~ . » . . ; t NINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY P~ANNING COMMISSION~ February 12, 1gJg 19-116 EIR C_ATEgORICAI EXEMPTION-CLASS 6 VARIANCE NU. 3076 (continued) Elden Balnbridge, agent . was present to answer eny questions. THE PUBL IC HEAR I NG WAS CLOSEO. C~mmissioner Barnes esked the petirloner If he owned the property, ~nd if all three industria) bul ldings wi 11 have strer,[ frontage, and where the fronts are for 9uildings I and 2. Mr. 8ainbrldge answored he has aleaeehold interest in the property; that the buildings wi 11 liava fiu~-tdy~, t,ul nu ~ccey~; ~nd that 6ui iding f fronts on lustin Nvenue and Bu) iding 2 fronts rc,w~rci the water reservoi r and the but ldings back up to each othe~ wi th an a) ley between. Coimnissloner Barnes indicated her concern with the alley and parking and stated she did not kncnv what type of Industr(al u~er could use buildlnqs like these because normally they require areas in the rear in order to get the~ir ma[erials in and out and requirE some- thing larger than a 26-foot driveway between bulldings. She felc the design of the build(ngs leans toward eommercial users. Mr. Bainbridge indicated they wauld be looking for light industrial users and it wil l be a clean operation with no oulside stora,ye, etc. f,ommissianer Tolar stated it is up Co the petitioner to design the buildin~s for th~ lndustrial users. Cheirmar, Herbst indfcated he did not want to set a precedent by granting a three-lot subdivision for long narr~w buildings which by their design will not service the Industrlal user and would set up a commercial activity at this locati~n. He felt the design with glass fronts would encouragc commercial users rather than industrial users. Commissianer Talar pointEd out the petitiuner is reyuesting an industrial use and fhairman Nerbst replied the petitioner is requestiny a three-lot subdivision and he felt :~~ property wou~d have been divided differentl if uses. Y properly design4d for industrfal Commissioner David aSked if the purpose of the subdivision to to allow the parcels to be sold. Mr. Bainbridge explained they are subdivided so they can be taxed individually or they could be soid; that these are multi-tenant buildings ar~d are designed for smal l users (1,500 to 1,800 sq. ft.), Commissioner Johnson stated his concern regardtng access to Parcel 3~ and indicated he would have trouble supporting the request. He did not feel the Commission would be Justifled in rienying the project on the basis of the design leaning toward commercial uses. 2/12/79 ~ f. MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNIN6 COMMISSION, February 12, 1y79 79-117 EIa CATEGORICAL EXEMpTION -CLASS $, 6 VARIANCE N0. 3076 (continued) ------- .~ Chairman Herbs~ referred to a previous heariny on this particular property fc,r a furniture store and the ~rtterie pre sented to rllm(n,~te industrial properties bei~g used comrnerclally such as the glass froncs. etc. Mr. Bainbridge clarified there is a permanent casement abouG 25 feet. from the east propcrty line with the water dist ~ict t~ parcel 3. Chairman Nerbst nn(nted out they would be drivfny through a parking lot to get to the property. Commissioner Bushare thouyl~t l~~at ease-ne~ • had recently been abandoned ancl Mr. gainbridge explained the fee s(mple street was abandoned and in exchange they had gfven them an easement across the portion of the property tliey owneci as a trade-off' situation. Commissioner Barnes (ndic ated her understanding that the Conx~iission is just talking about the lot split and not app roving the plans as submitted; that if the plans meet the ML zoning requirem~nts, they do not have t~ be approved by the Comnission. Jay Tashiro~ Associ~te Planner~ stated that ~s correct; that if [he planssubmitt.E:d meet the zoning requfrements, they are simply 5ubmitted t.o the Building Division for Plan Check. Jack White, Deputy City A ttorn~y, explained the only issue before the Commission today is whether or not a variance should be granted to allow a lot that doesn't abut a public str~et as required by th e code. Cvmmissioner Tolar state d we have granted several of these type lots in the industrial area with the recent con dominium type industrial complexes with permanent ingress and egress through dedication . It was noted the Planning Director or his authorized representative has determined that the Qroposecl project falls within the defini[ion of Categorical Exemptions, Class 5, as defined in Paragraph 2 of the City of Anaheim Environmental Impact Report Guidelines and is, therefore, categQ ricaliy exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. ACTION: Comm~,si~ner Tolar offered a resolution granting Variance No. 3076 on the basis that denial would be dep riving subject property of a privilege being enjoyed by other ~perties under identica 1 zoning classificacion in the vicinity and subject to Inter- departmental Committee Re commendatians. Commissioner Johnson sta t ed he would appase the resoluti~n because the petitioner is not asking for a use, but is asking for two lots without s[reet frontage and the fact there is an underlying abvious n ess about it is not a part of the record and the variance is not to allow the use. Commissioner Tolar stated the variance is to allow the use because most of the condominium type industrial parks ha ve been developed exactly like this and are separate lots and can be sold individually and everyone of them has a private ingress and egress and are not on public streets and ma n y are on dedicateci easements exactly like this one. Chairman Nerbst stated he would oppose the resolution because the project is not designed for industrial uses. On roll call the foregoin g resolution FAIIED TO CARRY by the foliowfng vote: 2/i2/%9 ~w MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Fcbruary 1?., 1919 79-11Q EIR CATEGURICAL EXEMPTION-CLtiSS S, 6 VARIANCE N0, 3076 (cant(nued) AYES: COMMISSION~R5: BARN~S, DAVIO b TOLAR NOES: COMMISSIONERS: DUSHORE~ HERDST, KING b JONNSON ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ACTION: Cnmmissioner Bushore offered Resolutior No. PC79-32 an~ moved for its passage and adoptlan that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny petition for Variance No. 3076 on the basis there are no special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, locatian or surraundings which do n~t apply to other pro~erty under ident(~al xoninq classific.~tion in the vic.inity and stricr. appllcati~n of t.he zoning cc~de does not depr(ve the propcrty of privlleges enJoyed by ather proprrty under identical zoning cl~ssifi~eliv+~ in the vici~i~y. On roll call the fnregoing resolution was p~ssed by the following vote: AYES: C4MMISSIONERS: BUSHORE, N~RBS1, KING b JOHNSON NOES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, DAVID b TOI,AR ABSENI': COMMISSIONERS: NONE Jack Whitc, Deputy City Attorney. presented the petitioner the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 day~ t:o the City Council. RECESS: There was a 10-minute rec~ss a 3:25 P•m• RECONVENE: The meeting was reconvened ~t 3~35 p.m•~ all Commissioners present. ITEM N0. 9 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: RAYpELI RICHARD AND LAWANDA EIR NEGATIVE UECLARATION HAZEL BOBST, 9282 7histle Raaci, Anaheim, CA 92aU4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1940 Fetitianer requests pern,ission to ESTAaLISH OUTOOOR STORAGE OF MASONRY MATERIALS AND EQUIPMEN7 on property described as a rectangularly-shaped p~rcel of la~d consisting of apprAximately 0.5 acre having a frontaqe of appraximately 95 ~eet on the west side nf Dale Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 242 feet, being located approxin~tely 355 feet south of the centerlin~ of Lincoln Avenue, and further described as 131 South Dale Avenue. Property presently classified RS-A-43,OQ0(RESIOENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL) zone. There were th~ee persons indicatiny their presence in opposition to the subject request and although the staff report to the Planning Commission dated February 12, 1979, was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and make a part of the minutes. Richard Bobst, petitioner, stated this request is to permit h~im to keep masonry material and equipment at 131 S. Dale Avenue; that he has had the material and equipment stored there for 24 years witl~ no complaints until about four months ago. Dwight Auchard,i35 % Dale Street, presented a letter indicating his oppositian to subject request. Jack White, Deputy City Attorney, read the letter and subJect letter is on file in the Planning Department files. Points o` op~~sition as noted in the l~tter were: considerable nnise~ truck delivery, traffic past his bedroom window, narrow driveway between properties; destruction of rose hedge planted to prevent trucks from hitting his ho~se; 3-foot overhang on roof makes it too difficult for high loads to pas~ through; damage to 4-foot high solid wood fence; tall weeds and grass (fire hazard); space rented to someone other than petitioner; metal stared on property and then beat on with heavy hammers; sc~ap metal storage vacated the property, but the same type use or worse could return; lot used to store dump trucks, I heavy trailers and bulldozers and employees vehicles; noise from engines warmi~g up in the early morning; and also dust; masonry material bulldozed to the outside and c~vered with 2/12/79 ~ MINUTES, ANAHCIM CITY PLANNiNG COMMISSION, February (2, i97y 79-~~g EIR N~GATIVE DECLARATION b CQNDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. ig4a (contlnucd) 7 fe:et af rubbish and dirt; fence raised to 6-feet. and dirt has been piled against the fence; n~ost of the dirt was removed but fence was badly smashed (n; and decr~ase in property value. Clark B(ggers, 2828 W. Lincoln~ AnahQ(m, stated he owns the apartment complex on the western property line and the bullding is three storles high which mcans 2/3 uf his residents with patios and view windows are looking down into what is supposed to bc a residenttal yard~ but their view is really of a junk yard; that salvage construction ~quipment, etc., is stored all over and also his ~esidenks have a diFficult time sleeping late because oF the notse with the eyuipment loaciing .,~~~i unloading, He stated hc would iike to requ~sl ~a~~idl uf thc rcque~t beca!~sp thtc uae downqrades the neighborhood, Mr.Bobst stated the portion of the yard referred to with the abandon~d t.rucks does not belong to him; that he own~ Ghc portion south from the abanduned trucks; that he had rented a portion of the property to a swimming pool company and they had two trucks and tractors, but has since had them vacate the pruperty; that he h~s been trying to get the property cleaned up and had had a truck and trailer scheduled t.~~ come in and haul ~verything away, except for an ~~rea approximatEly 20' x 30', but the rain had delayed thaC project; tha[ Mr. Auchard's bedroom is 10 to 12 feet away from [he fence; that the pool c~mpany had pushed some dirt against the fence, but he had asked them t~ move it and he had noticed the fence was pushed in a little bit in one spot. THE PUBLIC HEARING wA5 CLOSED. Commissioner Barnes asked Mr. Bc~stit F had lived at this pr~~pertv at one time and he replied that he had built the house 30 years ago and had lived tf~ere for about 12 years and when he built a house in Fullerton, he kept subject property and rented Che house and stored his equipment on the r~ar of the property. He explained he had rented a portion to the pool company for about five months, but had never rented any portion of it bef~re. He also explained the prcperty tu the north does not belong to him; that it has an easement on his property to get to tt~e back where the trucks are stored, bue he did not know wha owns the equtprr~ent. He stated he wants a perm~[ to park maybe one truck~ maybe a couple mixers and a smal) amount of masonry materials, but that the rest of the materials will be removed from the prope~ty. Commissioncr Totar stated he had gone to the property and viewed it from behind the gas station and the~ property to the north and ~,sked if he would have been able to see subject pr~perty fram tl~is loc~~tion. Mr. Bobst clarifiect that his pr~perty is ~rum the ~ld qarage south to the burned out dump truck. Commissic~ner Tc~lar stated hr wouid have to agree with the opposition and did not sae any reasori to support this type sLorage. He referred to a previous hearing recently on Ball Raad similar• ~o this requ~st in the sense that 24 years ago this type of use was no "big deal" in An~heim, but felt the area has outgrown the storage of any type of equipment and the buiid up araund the properCy supports the arguments presented in opposition and show that the use is not compatible anymore. He stated he supports a person having the right to use his pronerty the way he wants to as long as it dcesn't violate the health, safety and welfare of oth~r ppople. He felt the use has become a nuisance to the neighborhood. He stated he will ask the Zoning Enforcement Officer to check into the property to the north because both of these properti~s are really bad. 2/12/79 MINUTES, ANAIiEIM CITY PLANNING COMMIS5IQN~ Februery 12, 1y79 79-120 NEGATIVE DECLARATION f. CONDITiONAL USE PERMIT N0, 1940 (continued) ---~._.~ _____._~ Mr. Bobst stated he~ wanted permisslon to use part of the arca behind the renta) houtie to keep a small amount of equipment. Co~~Hntssloner Tolar stated the petitioner has been fortunate in his business and hes been able to afford to have a nice home (n a pr(vate res~'- ial area where he does nut have to look at this type of thing~ but unfortunately other~, st(I1 live there fn a life style they can bfford and felt this use is infringing on lheir rights, He felt the petitioner ne~ds tu find another place to store hts equlpment. In additian, he felt storage of equipment on thts property along with the residential house which Is rented Is a dual use on the property and has not been allowed by the Planning Commissi~n. Cormiissioner Bushore asked if the dump lrucks are gett(ng onto the adjacent property through [he easement and Mr. Bobst replied he had owned the property next door to the narth ~nd sold it and the owner h~d a truck and wanted an easement to the back and he had given him an easement on the suuth side of his pruperty. ConmiSSioner Talar clarified that khe petitiuner had sold the adjacent property to the north and had given an easement to the rear of that property and asked what the frontege of that property is. Mr. Bobst replied the property is 55} feet wide by 242 feet and that there is no fence dividing the properties in the rear. CommissionerBushore explained his question had been how Che cr•ucks were getting onto the property to the north, but that Mr. Bobst had answered that by indicating there is an easement. CommissionerBushore indicated he cauld find no reason to support this use. Cammissioner David asked how long the petitioner needed to clean the F~roperty up and Mr. Bobst replied he did not know. Commissioner Tnlar stated as long as the ea~emenc is [here this problem will continue. Commissioner Bar•nes stated [he problem is not with the easement, but what the easement is used for and felt when th~ Zoning Enforcement Officer tell, the use~ he can't use it for that purpose, the problem wi11 be solved. Commissioner David p~inted out to Mr. Bobst that he did not think the permission would be granted to continue this use and asked how much time is needed to clear the property, so that it could be included as part of the motion. Jack White~ Deputy City Attorney~ explained normally 30 days are allowed. Mr. Bobst explained he would have to rent spa~e for storage and explained the only reason he had kept thts property in the first place was to store his equipment and eventually he would build apartments because he does not get enough rent from the residence ta make it worthwhile. He asked that he be granted until April l, 1979, to clear the property. Commissioner David offered a motion for appraval of the EIR Negative Declaration. Corr~nissioners King and Barnes indicated they could not support approval of the negative declaration since they felt tl~e use does have an adverse impact on the surrounding area. Chairman Herbst agreed. Commissioner David withdrew his motion for approval of the negative declaration. 2/12/79 ~., MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION,February 12, 1979 79-12) EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION b CONDITIONA~ USE PERMIT_N0. 1940 (continued) ACTION: Commissfoner David offered a r-btion, seconded by Commissioner King and MOTION CARRIED that the Anahetm City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal tu permit the ~.~utdoor storage of masonry m~terials and equipment on ~7 rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consistir~g of approximately 0.5 acre, having a frontage of approximately 95 feet on the west s(de of Dale Avenue, liaving a maximum depth af approximately 242 feet, being located approximately 355 feet south of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue; and does f~ereby dlsapprove the Nr.gative Declaration from therequirement to prepare an env(ronmental impact report on the basis that there would be significant individuai or cumulative adverse environmental impacts due to the approval of this Negative Declaration. Commissianer David offered Resolution No. PC79-33 and m~~ved for its ~assac~e and adoption thal liie A~wfir.im City f'lanning Commisslon does hPrPhy d~ny the petition for Conditional Use Per ~t Nc~, 1940 on the basis f.hat the existing illegal use has had a detrimental impac~ on the surrounding ~eighbarl~~od and the use is not compatible with the res(dential nature of the surrounding neighborhood; an~! further, that the property shall be vacated by Api•(1 l, 1979, as stipulated by the petitioner, On roll call the fcregoing resolutfon was passed by the fo'lowing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS; BARNES~ BUSNORE, DAVIO, HERBST, KING, JOHNSON b TOLAR NOES: COMMIS510N6RS: NONE ABSENT: CAMMISSIONERS: NONE Jack Whlte, Deputy City Attorney, presented the petfti~ner wit.h the written right to appeal the Planning Gommission's decision within 22 days to thP City Council. ITEM N0, 10 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: LAZARE F. BERNHARD, 1800 EiR NEGATIVE DECI.ARATION Avenue of the Stars, Los A~geles, CA 90067. AGENT: WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENTS JOSEPH H. DOYLE, 1432 West Beverly Drive~ Anaheim, CONDITIONAI USE PERMIT NU. 1941 CA 92801. Petitioner requests permission to ESTABLISH A ROOFING CONTRACTOR'S STORAGE YARD WITH WAIVER OF (A) MAXIMUM FENCE HEIGHT AND (B) PERMITTED ENCROACHMENT INTO REQUIRED ~~TBACK on property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel ~f land consisting of appraximatety 0.5 acre located at the northeast corner of Broadway and Loara Street, liaviny appr•oximate frontages of 137 feet on the north side of Broadway and 15~ feet on the east side of Loar~ Street, and further described as 1595 West Broadway. Property presently classified ML(INDUSTRIAL, LIMITED) ZONE. There was no one indicating tF~eir presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report to the Planning Commission dated February 12, 1979~ was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Joseph Doyle, agent, referred to che staff report which indicates subject pruper ~ was originally developed as a storage yard for new automobiles and recreationel vehicles, but pointed out the ~roperty wasoriginally develaped for the storage of lumber and the presenC wall and ingress and egress were requirements of Che City of Anaheim, referring to the recommendation of the Gity Traffic Engineer that the existing driveway on Loara Street be relocated to the north property line. He indicated relocatingthis driveway would be a hardship. He stated the request is for storage for a roofer,who has indicated he will have Four vehicles and will be storing r•oofing materials. THE PUB~.IC HEAR;NG WAS CLOSED. 2/12/79 ~ ,~' ~. MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 12~ 1979 79-122 EIR NEGATIVE DECLAaATION, WAIVER OF COQE REQUIREMENTS b CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1941 (cont i nued) _~~ ._ Commissioner Tolar Stated he recalled that this property was nUt paved: however, the staff report indtcates the property 15 paved. Mr. Doyle stated the property is not blacktapped and to put In blacktop would cost $8,000 and the tenants would not pay it. He explatned [he property is cavered w(th six inch~s af "pea gravel'' paving. Commissloner King referred to Item 8 of the staff report which indicaces the propPrty is paved and surrounded by a 6-foot high masonry wall and pointed out the property (s not paved and the wall is eight feet on lwo sides and sIx feet un the north side. Hc~ stated he would nul Nut 11~C ir,csc gr~vcl in the rArPr~nry ~f pavinn. Jay Tashiro, Associate Planner, pointed out the plans submitted indical~J ll~e prppcrty Naved and thc 6-foot wall an~i Ch~irman Herbst pointed out to Mr. Doyle that those items were shown on the exhibit. Commissioner King explained when this property was previously hefore the Comnission, h~ had offered a motion f~r approva) and the motion was denied on the basis of the creation ~f dusl and noise, which he did not agree with, poinling out the dust and noise would have to go up and over an 8-faot wall, then across the street against [he prevailing wind and up and over another 8-foot high wall to reach the homes. It was noted that request had bsen for a storage yard for impound tars. Jay Tashiro explained the Planning Commission had approved the request and the City Council had denied it. Mr. Doyle explained the Flanning Cummissia.~ had approved the reques[ for a one year period providing the area was paved, so that one year's rent would have gone into the paving. He explalned that the neighbors had objected to the use at the City Council meeting bec:ause of the d~~st and indicated he had checked and the environmental psople had indicated to him that tl~ere would be no dust. Chairman Herbst askPd how high the roofing compar+y i~tends to store their materials and Mr. Doyle replied that all the material will be b~neath th~ height of the fence. Commissioner Tolar asked if the landscaping would be rejuvenated and Mr. Doyle replied that since the last hearing, someone has removed all the dead trees. He stated he would make sure the landscaping gets don~. He stated they will put in a shallow i~rigation system, Commissioner Bushore asked the hours of operation and Mr. Doyle replied they will be 8 a.m, to 5 p.m•~ Monday through Fr•iday, and probabiy on Saturday. Mr. Ooyle statad the landscaping is not a big problem, but the paving and relocation of the driveway are big projects. Chairman Herbst asked if the slatting in the gate would be redonP ,nd Mr. Doyle replied that it would. The stipulations of the petitioner were clarified as: a) redo the slatting in the gate~ b) hours of operation - Sa.m, to 5 p•m., Manday through Saturday. c) proper landscaping and irrigation along Loara and Broadway Streets, d) no storage of materials above the height of the walis. e 2/12/79 F^ ~~ MINUTES, ANIiIiEIM CITY PLANNING COMMI5SION~ Fcbruary I?., 1979 79-123 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, ~JAIV~R OF CODE REQUIREMENT b CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1~41 ~c~ntlnued ACTION: Commissioner David offered a motlon, secnncfed by Commissioner King and MOTION CARRICD that the Anahelm City Planning Commission has reviewed the propos~il to ~ermit a roofing contractor's stor~ge yard with waivers of max)mum fence height, and permitted encr~ ~hment Into required setback on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.5 acre located ~k the northeast corrier of Broadway and Loara Street~ having approx(mate frontage~ of 137 feet on the nc~rth side df Broadway~ and 150 feet on the east side of Loara Str•eet; and does hcreby approve the Negative Declaration from the requirement to prepare an enviranrr~ntal impact report ~n the basis that t.here would be no s(gnificant individual or cumulative adver•se e~vironmental impact due to the approval of this Negative Decl~ratian since the Anaheim G~neral Plan designates t.he subJect Nr~perty f~r yen~ral indus[rial larid uses conri~;n5urate ~Ni lii lhe Nr~pusal ; Lhal nu SenSi- tive environmental impacts are invnlved in thP pro~~cal; that the Initial S~udy Suhmi~ted by the petilioner indicates no significant individual or cumulat.ive adverse environmental impacts; and that [he Negative Decl~r~ation substantiatinq the foregoing findinq; i;, on file in the City of Anafieim Planning Department. Commissioner King stated he agreed with the p~titianer regardiny che r•elocation of the driveway on Loara Street t~ the north propsrty line and Commissioner David indicated he planned to eliminate that requirement. Commissioner David offered a motion, seconded by Coinnissioner Tolar and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Johnson voting no) that the An,,heim City Planning Cortmission does hereby grant waiver (a) on the basis that an approximatc 8-foot high masonry wal) exists and is necessary to screen the view of the materials ta be stored below the height of the wall and thc praperty next door to Che east is d~velo~ed at the same distance, and on the basis that there are special circumstances applicabl~ to the property whicFi do not ap~ly to other properties under identical zoning classification in the vicinity;and grant waiver (b) on the basis that denial would deprive subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the same zone and vicinity and the use of the property is limited becau,e of traffic noise at 9roadway and Loara. Conxnissioner Johnson explained his negative vote is to reyisterhis displeasure in having these storage yards scattered about Anaheim and thought the property owner should do something with this property other than a storage yard because outdoor storage is soon to be a thing of tl~e past. Chairman Flerbst explained the liistory of the property; that the property c~wner has leased the property and when the lease expires, he plans to develap the property and indicated he f.r,lt approval of the conditional use permit should be contingent upon the length of the existing lease, Commissioner David offered Resolution No. PC79-34 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commissi~n does hereby grant petition for C~nditional Use Permit Na. 194~ for the period of the existing l~ase, ta expire January 31, 1983, subject to the stipulations by the petitioner that no materials shall be stored above the height of the existing 8-foor fence; that Che hours of operation shall be from 8:00 a.m, to 5:00 p.m, - Monday through Saturday; that proper landsca~ing and irrigation shail be provided and maintained along Broadway and loara Streets; that the slatting ln the gate shall be replaced and subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations, with the excepcion of Condition No. 1 which shall be deleted. Jay Tashiro asked whether or not it is the Commission', intent that the property be paved, and Chairman Herbst replied that it is not their intent to require paving. 2/12/79 ~` MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLIINNING COMMISSION, F~bruiry 11, ~~79 79-124 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARAT~ON, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT b CONDITIONl1L U5E PERMIT N0. 1~41 (continued} On rol) call, the foregoing resolut(on was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNF_S, DAVID, HERBST, KiNG 6 TOLAR NOES: COMMlSSIONERS: BUSIIORE b JOHNSON ABSENT: COMMISStONERS: NONE ITEM N0. 11 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: BEAM INVES7MENT COMPANY, EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1370 Nortli Red Gum Strect, Anaheim, CA 92806. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Petitioner rcquests permission to ESTABLISH A TRUCK CQNOITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1942 RENTAL AND l_EASING FACILITY WITH WAIVER OF REQUIREO E~lCLOSURE 4F !?UTD44P, USES on propcrty dc:.cribed as a rectanqul~~•ly-shaped parce.l of land consisting of approximately I.l acres located at the southeast cornPr of La Jolla and Red Gum Streets and having approximate fr~ntages of z98 feet on the south ci~iP ~f 1.~ ,1~11~ Str•~~t ~nd 15S fe~t ~n the east side of Red Gum Sireet. Property presently ciassified ML (INpUSTRIAL, LIMITED) ZONE. There was one person indicatiny their presence in opp~sition to subject request and although the staff report to the Plann(ng Cummission dated February 12, 1979, was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and m~de a part of the minutes. Bill Warden, Beam Investment Company, 1370 N. Red Gum Street, Anaheim, st,~ted they propose to establish a truck leasing facility to lease trucks to the industrial area with a minimum number o( trucks stored on the property; that they f~ave spaces for 25 trucks, but plan to never have more than ~ or 10 trucks on the property at any ane time; that they have reauested a waiver for the fence and explained tliere is an existing 6-foot chain-link fence with redwood slats; that the largest truck they will have wil) be 13-feet high with the majority being 6 to 8-feet high; that regarding the 7raffic Engineer's recommendation that the two proposed driveways be deleted and replaced with one 30-foot driveway which aligns with the driveway across La Jolla Street, that he had met with the Traffic Depart- ment and worked out a solution to use the twa drivzways narrowed to 30 feet and designated as "~ne way" in and "one way" out to avoid ~ny traffic problems. He presented a revised plan shawfng the one way driveways. He also explained the trash enclosure has been designed to n~eet City standards. Mike Noggle, 17377 Aspengtow Circle, Yorba L.inda, President of Southern Plastic Mold, 2941 E. La Jolla. Anaheim, on the northwest corner opposite su5ject property stated they have been at this location for approximately two years and there are a numper of new industrial buildings in this area anc' little by little the area is being renovated, but th~y have one continuai problem .nich ~s trucks parked up and down Red Gum 5treet adjac~nt to their building. He explained this problem may not~be related to this request, but they can t seem to get any relief from the problem of large double trailers and trucks wh~ch pose a hazard as we11, He did not think subject property is l~rge enough to establisfi a tr~ck leasing facility~ pointing out no company plans to stay small and wondered where they would park large trucks when they do expand. Mr. Warden stated the staff report clearly states the trucks witl be 20 to 22 foot "bob- tail" trucks and the trucks referred to parked on Red Gum Street are the large tractor- trailer type, He stated they are a leasing facility and the ma~ority of their trucks will be out most of the time; that they do have 25 spaces~ but if they have 25 trucks not leased, th~y will bc: close to goiny out of busin~ss. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~~,~.~~ ~ MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY pLANNING COMMISSION, Fabruary 12, 1979 79'125 EI~ NEGATIVE DECLARATtON, wAlv~k oF C~DE RF.QUIRCMENT ~ CONDITIONnt. lisF PERMtt N0. Ig42 (continued) Comn~lssfoner Tolar stated he thouyht this particular use of truck star~ge is conducive to thls area and he would rather see this use in an industrial area than a commercial area. Ht stated he waa concerned about the size of the trucks, but the pctitloner had answPred those .ryuestions; that if this request is a~.proved, a maximum number of trucks to be stored on the pro~erty will be specified and ti~~ ~etitianer will not be able ta expend this facility. He asked what type of work will be done on the trucks at this facility. John Earnhart, Avis Truck Rental~ sL~ted hasically this will be a truck maintenanc~ facility and their func[ion is the long term lea~iny of small to medium duty trucks to the fndustrlal commun(ty; that it will be a 5-day ~ week operation for commercial applicetion only and ll~~r~ will bc no rcntals tn in~iividuals for furniture moving~ etc.; that there are no maintenance facilities in this area at the present time. Commissianer T~l~r ex~~l~~ined his concern is what type of work will be done on the vehicles in thic building. Mr. Earnhart replied they will do full range preventive maintenance, excluding body work; that they will do oi) changes, tune-ups, brake Jobs~ wash the veF~lcles (pointing out there is a covered wash bay in back of the facility); transmissi~n overhauls; engine over- hauls,etc. Chairman Herbst asked if all this work will be done inside. tf~e facility and Mr. Earnhart explained that it would be done inside the facility to~ally and that the only storage that will actually be done is far those units that are in for SOme type service, plus r.he smal) rental fleet which will be out during the day most of the t~rne and back in in the evening. Commissioner Tolar asked that tlie hours of operation be stipulated and Mr. Earnhart replieu the hours of operation ar~e projected to be commercial hours of operation and estimated them to be 7:00 a,m. to 7:00 p.m, - 5} days a week. He explained they are a service business and their hours would dPpend upon the customers in rhe area. Commissioner Tolar stated if he supports this request, it will be with specific hours of operation. Mr. Earnhart stated the maximum hours of operation would he 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Chairman Herbst asked if the leasing operation is on a yearly basis, or if peaple could come in and ledse a truck for one day, and Mr. Ea~nhart exp!ained there will be some of the one day leasing to industrial or commercial users only and that there will be no leasing of trucks t~ individuals. Chairman Herbst asked if any maintenance will be done on other vehicles and Mr. Earnhart replied the main~enance will be strictly on their own vehicles. Commissioner Barnes stated she was interested in th~ impact on the parking in the area and asked if there would be vehicles parked on the street and Mr. Earnhart replied they have provided more than adequate parking on site. Commissioner Barnes explained if the request is approved and it is stipulated there will be no parking on the street, and parking is done on the street, then the permit can be revoked and Mr. ~arnhart indicated he had no probtem with that stipulation. 9/t9/7G MINU7E5~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 11, ~g~g 79-126 EIR NEGATIVE DECI.ARATION~ WNIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT ~ CONDITIONAL USE FtRMII N0. 1~!~2 ~continued) _ Commissioner Tolar asked the length of the lease and Mr. Earnh~rt replled they have a 10-year lease with two five-year optlons. CoR~issioner Johnson clarified that the trucks i~ow parking on the street are not connected with this aperatlon and Mr. Earnhart indicated he did not know who owns those trucks and indicated he shares the apposition's cancern regarding those trucks. Chairman Herbst referred to the gates from LaJolla on the rear cf thc property and asked how they fit in with this usc. Mr. Warden explained the purpose U~ lf~use ydley ~C tl~e ~outh i~ for a circular motion ~nd ~xplained the f~ar.ility tn the suur.h has an ~~~reement with the lessee that they will be able to use the gates and the driveways because Red Gum is nat fully de~~eloped and use of the driveway to the sauthe.ast corncr of the lot makes it diffic~.ilt for enterinn and exiting with lhcir trucks. Chairman Herbst asked if th~ pa~-king spaces shown are for the use of the petitioner or the adjacent property and Mr. Warden replied they are for the use of the southern pr~~erty. Comrnissioner Bushore asked if staff had reviewtd the revised plan with the driveway configuration ~nd it was replied thct Jim Kawamura, Traffic Engineering Assistant, had reviewed it. Mr. Warden explainNd at present Gypsum Entcrprises uses the entire properiy, but are going to lease this portion to the 2ruck rentai facilitv. Commissioner ~ushore stated he felt this would be a very goad use for the industrial area; however, he wa= opposed ~a the six-fout high screening wdth the slats as proposed. Mr. Earnhart stated last summer ~~other company similar to this one came into the city and applied for a conditianal use permit (Californi.. Truck Leasinq) on 8a11 Road,east of Anaheim Boulevard and they operate more and larger equipment than this and they have a six-foot slatted fence,and also Rawlins Leasing on Bail Road. Commissioner Bushore stated he was not on the Commission when those uses were approved, but he did not think a 13-foot high fence is necPssary; however~ if the appticant would stipulate to an eight-foot high block wall, he would support the request because he felt some of the use needs to be hidden and pointed out this is a beautiful industrial area and this is an oppor[unity to improve that corner. Mr. Earnhart stated the only objection would be to the cost. He explained he is not opposed to the screening concept because it does make the neighborhood a lot neater. He stated this is ~ot a truck storage yard a~d will not have a lot of visible equiprnent sitting there. Cammissioner Bushore stated he did not think anyone e, e in that industrial area has been granted what is being requested here, but that he could be wrong since he has not been on the Commission that iong; that he is not asking that the entire property be provided with a block wall. but oniy those portions that face on Red Gum and La Jolla. He stated he would be opposed ta the screening with slats but that he has no objection to the use whatso- ever. F~ ~ ~. \ ~r MINUTES, 1NANEIM CITY FLANNING COMMISSION, Febru~r•y 12, 1979 7~-127 EIR NEGATIVE DEC~ARATION, WAIVER OF C~DE REQUIREMCNT b CQN~ITIONAL USF. P~RMIT N0. 1 42 continuec!) __ Mr, Earnhar~ indicat^d ~ie would like to have the other Cornmissianers' thauc~hts regarding thc block wall. Commissinner Tolar ~taled he appr~ciates thet this is an opportu~~lty to help clean up that area, t-ut h~ was r~,•t surr: that a block wal 1 1 s neccssary in order to do that . Ne fe) t if the property c~uld be screenecl with slats and landscapinq ,is proposed~ that it will clear~ up the co rner and t.he blc~ck wall wnuld be unreasonable to lay on a les5ee to improve that property; th~t even over a ien-year pPriod of time it would be hard to amortizc It. He felt ~i..+nsr landsc.-~ping and sl.~ts could accomp~ish what needs t~ he done. He stated a lot of the industrial area~ have been aesthecic~illy well-screeiied with dense landscaping and slats rather than with block walls and pnint~d out th~~t w,,lls have a tendency [o ~ook very bland aiid ~~cuplr. ~!u v.~ite an the~n and hc t~clt it is unrcisonabl~ t~ requirP i hl~ck wall. Conxnissioncr Bushore stated he had vlewed th.; prn~~rr[y and there are cxisting slats and he could see right through them and did not like what h~ saw. Ne asked how many lineal feet arc involved and Ptr. Earnhart replied it is ~ver 400 lin~al f~et ,and an 8-foot block wall would be vcry expensive. Chairman Nerbst sta[ed since this is a corner nroperty, chey will be abligated to pravide 25 feet of landscapiny and hc felt the landscaping could br. donr, in a manner wi~'~ shrubbery su~h as oleanders or s~mething similar a~ainst the fence ~,nd the prcperty could ~~Imost be cumpletely screened ~n ane ycar'S timr.. Cc~mmission~r Barnes Sca[nclshe was also concerned about th~~ landscaping and indicated she would like tu see the landscape plans bro~gh[ back before the C~mmission,pointing out N~r. No~aqle's building is well lan~scaped across the st.reet. Shc stated the ~~urpose of the landscaping would be to hide compl:.~rely anyching inside the yard and sug~~ested the pet~tiuner tal:e a cue from the landscaping across the street. Chairman Nerbst stated he felt it would ~r.~ virtually impossible to entirf~-y scr2en the 13-foot high trucks which do belc~ny in the industria~ area. He stated you v.~~uld be able to see the trucks in the rear, but you would see the I~ndscaping in front which would break thc starkness of the size of the trucks. Chairman Herbst pointed out in other arcas,such as Irvine, redwoc~d slatting has been provided for screening and you can see throuyh it, but it does provi ~ adequate screening. Commicsioner Bushore stated those slats are for typ+ca) ind;~strial users, but this is not a typical industrial use sir,ce they are propo~ing a rental ~torage maintenance facil~ty in an industrial area and he felt there is a differerice. Chairman Herbst explained all work will be done ?ns:~P the building. Mr. Earntiart sYated Du~n Pr~perties is develaping all the pioperty contiguous and eastward of subj~ct property and will be landscapir~g all the way down La Jolla and asked if they could tie in with that landscaping theme. ;hairman Herbst stated he srill felt that they need more dense landscapi~g along the Fencing bec:use of the storage of the vehicles. Mr. Earnhart asked if the landscaping would be as opposed to slats and Chairman Herbst stated the slats are ;till required, but landscaping should be in front of the slats. 2/12/79 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY ~LANNING COMMISSION, February 12, 1979 19-128 F.IR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMEMT b CONQITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 19-+2 (contlnued) _T __...___.._.._._.,_..._. _.r __.__ Mr, Earnhart explatned ag~in th(s is not really a storage yerd such a~ seen at the recreatio~al vehicle storage yards. Cornmissioner Barnes asked if the petitioner fs obJecting c~ putting in I~ndscaping and Mr, Earnhart replied he was not ubJecting to the landSCaping but was afraid ~f the cost and wos concerned i t c:ould end u~ cc~st iny more ihan the 450 feet of block wal l. Ch,.ilrman Herbst explained whether the wall or the fencing with slats Is provided, the 25-foot landscaped setback will be a reyuirement and the Corr-mis°~ion ls suggestin~ rmre ~ense iandSCaNiny ~~e,~t Lu thc fencc. t~ hclt: :,creen t!~e ~+rn~,Pr~v an~1 rrtt ~f the landscapinq cc~uld go along with the other landscaping in the area. Commiss(oner Barnes stated she f~lt this is a nice area and there is Iancl~.c~+Nin~ qoing (nto the industrial areas and we are tryiny to create an atmosphere in our industrial area which will attrac: people from ail over the United States. Commissioner Bushore s[ated louking at the existing slats he c~~uld see exactly what is there now and he supposed tha[ is what he is trying to cover, not the use at this facll(ty, bul what is b~tiind it. He felt with the qates and both properCies using them proper screening will n~t. be provided. Mr. Warner stated ther!~ wi 11 be an addi t ional fence across the south whlch wi 11 help block the view and also the or~~~ whole side will be b~ocked by the buildinQ. He stated the people behindthem do have quite a number of tall diesel trucks. Commi~,sioner Elushore stated he objected to the slats becau~P once the~ are put in~ they are never looked at again. Mr. Warner stated that is not the case here because ti'!e:y ~.annVt afford to look second rate. Commissioner Tolar str,ted they have agreed to landscape anc! that the Conmission will have to approve the landscape plans and the pet~tior+er has hea~d and understands the conver~ation that h~s gore on here today and i~~ felt there would not be a problem. He stated the landscaping the Cammission has in mind will not cost 3~ much as a block wall. Comm(s~ioner Johnson stat~d he likes screening t~o, but putting in an 8-foot block wall would b4 l~cking the yard in here from now on and referred to the previous hearing where the wa'1 is existing and the Commission felt they had to approve therequest far storage. He stated he would go alc~ng wi th the chain ! ink fence wi th , iwood slats because propcrty d~>es get t remendous I y va 1 uab 1 e. ACTION: Commissioner Tolar affered a rnotior, seconded by Comnissioner K~,~g ancl MOTION CARRIEO that the Anaheim City Planning Commission nas reviewed the proposal t~ per•r,iit a truck rental and le~sing facility with awaiverof required enclu~ure of ot~tdoor u~~~s on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting o` approximately I.l acres located at lhe southeast corner of La Jalla Street and Red Gucn Street, having approximate frontages of 298 feet on the south side of La Jotla Street and 155 feet on the east side of Red Gum Strezt; and does hzreby approve the Negative Declar~tion from the require- ment to ~repare an environm~ntal impact repArt on the basis that Yhere would be no signi- flcant individual ar cumulative adverse environmental impact d,~e to the approval of this Negative Declaration since the Anaheim Ge~hera! Plan designates the subject prope:ty fo~ general industrial land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive enviror.rtiantal impacts are involved in the p~oposal; that the Init~al Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no sig ~ificant individua~ or c~~mutative adve~se environmental impacts; and that the Negative Declaration substantiating the foregoing findings is on file in the City of Anaheim Planning Department. 2~~2~~9 ~- MINU7E5, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COM`11SSlON, Fcbruary 12~ 197q 19-129 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION~ WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT E CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1942 (continuad AGTION: Commissioner Tol~r offored a metian~ s~conded by Commissioner Kinq and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bushcre voting no) that the Anaheim C(ty Planniny Cnmmission does hereby grant the requcst for waiver of cod~ requirement ~n the has~s that other properties In the induskrlal areas have boen ailoweci fnr starage of vehicles or equipment with a 6-foot screentny fence and denial would be deprlving subJect property of p~lvlleges ~•~~joyed by othe~ properties under identical zonina classification. Cornmissioner Tolar offered Resolution No. PC79-35 and moved for its passage and adoption thAt thP AnahPim Cltv Planninq Commissio~~ does hereby grant the Petition for Conditional Use Perm(t No. 1942, subJect to the follc~wing condltions stipulated tu l,y the petitloner; that all work on ll~~ tru~ks shall bu conducted wholly Inside thP build(ng; that perm(tted mechanical work shall consist of minor repairs and maintenanc- of petitioner's vehicles only with no maintenan~e services being offered tu lh~ genera! pu` .; that land- scaping plans showing dense landscaping along Red Gum ar~d La Jolla Streets ahall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of a building permit; that no large semi-tr~ctor/trailer typa vehicles shall be st~red on s~ub,jPct property; that a maximum of 25 twenty to twenty-two foot iong "bobtail" trucks shall be stored nn the property at any one time; and that adequate parking shall be provideJ on-site for all employees, rental vehicles and custoR~er's vehicles; and sub.ject t~ Interdepartmantal Committee recuinmendations. On roll call, the foreyoing resolution was passed by the fullowing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, OAVID~ HERBST, KING, JnNN50N b TOLAR NOES: CO"1MISSIONERS: BUSHORE ABSE~T: COMMISSIONERS: NONE 2/12/79 MINUT ES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNIN G COMMISSION~ FE~RUARY 12. ~91g 79-130 ITEM N0. 1 0 S 0 REGOMMENDATIONS A. RAILROAU NOiSE IN SAN TA ANA STREET AREA Robe ~t Kelley, Associate Plann er~ presented the staff report t~ th~ Planninq Commission deted Fnbruary 12~ 1979, nuti~_y that on Jenuary 3~ 197`~~ du~inq the h~:a~ing on the Nolse Element of the 6ene~al Plen~ a resident of Mahelia pre~ented e compl~int concerntn~ noise from operatlons of the Southe rn Pac(fic Rallroeci on Santa Ana Stre:et and thet the Planning Commisslon had reouested staff to prepore e rcport on the matter and determtne If tf~ere a~e mlt(gatlon measures whtch could reduce tl~e nolsC (mpect. Hc !r~dic~+t~~ Rcaff has cone 1 uded thet the i r yu,yges t i on wou 1 cl be that thP rPS I ~fents can reduce ( nter tor no i se leve ls by installinq insulation and doubl~ wind~ws tns(d~ their homes and thet thcre may be tax credits available for this bec9use of the cncrc~y conservAtion features of such meas ures. He pointed aut other near torm mitigatlon measures w~uld appear to tnvolve cons iderable expensp~ t(me~ an d passthle controverslr~ features and~ in edditlan, may have only lirnited effeGttvencss. Chai ~man Nerbst referred to the memor~ndum f~om the U.S. Governmme~nt~ Depae~tmcnt of Tran sportation~ and thcir camment that th~y would be making some attempt to mitigate the poll utlon problem. Mr. Keiley polnted out this in volved allawing the diesel engines ~ Idle and he did not knorr what was being done about that situatiu~~. He pointe~l out one of these enn,'nes fs ve ry difficult to start and h e did not know (f the City hes any controi of this situation. Commissioner d~rnes asked abo ut the railroad using the~ whistle at the crossing and the poss ibillty of a guarded inte~section, M~. K~lley replied that refe re nce was to West Street and he had dtscussed this metter with the Traffic Ertgineer, and he had indicated the traFfic volumr ,id not warrant guarding the int e ~section. He potnted out the Southern Paclfic Railroad has ignored this ordinance and thei r personnel have indicated they w~~,~ld not c~mply unless the rsilroad legal staff so advlsed them~ and the City At torney has indicated there vrould be a question of liability in ease of an accfdent and en forcement of the ordinance would be difficult artd w ~Id req uire extensive collection of data to provide evidence. ACTI ON: Commissioner Barnes offe~ed a motion~ seconded by Commtssiunr_r Oavid and MOTION ~~t~0, that the Aneheim C~ty Pla~ning Cortmission does herebY recomme~d to the City Coun ct) that thev reconmena the restdents in the area could provide tnsulation in thetr hort+~ s which would provide some so~t af ~ound barrier~ and ihat the City Cou~ci) do eve rything possible by way of correspondence to the railroad company cflncerning the complaints, with carbon copics to the Occupational Safety b Health Adm:ntstration (OSHA). B. ABANDONMENT N0. 78~17A - Request to abandon a portton of an existing public uti ty easement Ooc ated ~125 feet, more or less~ north of Brll Road from 364 ¢aet~ mor.: or less~ west ta 251.75 feet west of Beach Boulevard. The staff report to the Planning Commission dated February 12~ 1979 was p~esented, noting the request is to abandon a portion of en existing public utility easement located north of Ball Road~ west ot' Beach k3oulevard; that the request has been ~eviewed by all departments of the City t+nd affected outside a~~encies and approval ts recocnrt~ended; that the subJect egsement was originally acquired by the Southern California Edison Gompany and 2/12/79 ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ FEDitUARY 1'l~ 1979 79-130 ITEM, ~N0,~. 1,~ A~~ORTS ANU aEGOMMENUATIUNS A, AAILROAU NOISE IN S ANTA ANA STREET AREA Robert K~Iley~ Associate Planner, prtaented the stsff report to the Plenn(ng Cortmission deted February 12~ 1979~ noting that on J~nurry 3~ 1979. during tl~e hearfnq on the Noise Element of the Genrral Plan~ a restdent of Anahetm presented a camplelnt concernin~ nois~ from ope ~otlons of the Southern Pacitfc Railroad on Senta Ana Street end th~t the Pla~n(n,q Commission had requesteJ staff to prepa~e s report on the metter and dctcrm(nr if there are mitigetion measures wt~ici~ ~uu1~J r~ducc thc nais~ Ir!~.+~c~, H~ indtcated staff hes conclude d that their suqgestion wo~alcl b~ that the resi~lents can reduce (nterior noise lavels by (nstalliny insulation And double wtndaws tnside their hames end thnt there may be tax c redits avallable for this be~auss of the energy c~nsPrvation features of such rneaaures. He pointed out ott~er neer t~rm mltigation mcasures woulo appear ta lnvaive considerabi~ expense~ time~ and possible controvers(al features and~ in eddition~ may hnve only 1(rnited effect(vencss. Cha(rman Nerbst referred to the memorandum from the U.S. Govcrnment~ Dn~~Artment of Transpor tat ion, ~nd the ( r co~mien t that they wou I d be mak ( ng sorne at tem~-t to mi c i gete the pollut(on Nroblem, Mr. Kelley po(nted out this inv~lved allnwinq the diesel enc~ines to Idle and he did nat knuw wha t was being done abo ut tf~.,t sttuatlo~. He pointed uut one of these engines is ve ry dif flcult to start and he did not know if the City hns any control of this situatlon. Canmissioner Barnes asked abc+ut the railroad using the whistle at the crossing and the possibllity of a guard~d intersection. M~. Kclley replied that reference was to West Strcet and he hed discussed this matter with the Traf`~ Engineer~ and he had inciicdted the treffic volume did not warrant guarding the intersec..ion. Ne pointed out the Southern Paciflc Rallroad has Eynored this ordina~ce and thelr pe rsonnel have indicated they would n~t comply unless the r~tlroad legal staff so advised them, and the City Attcrney has ind~ ateQ rhere would be a question of liobiltty ln case of an accident and enfo~cement nf the ordina~ce would be diff'cult and would rnqulre extensive collection of deta to provlde ev(dence. ACTl~N: Conmissioner darnes offered a mocton, s~cnnded by Conmissioner David and MOTION ~D, that the Anaheim City Planning Ccim~issic,n does hereby reconmend to the City Council that they recommend the restdents (n the area could provtde insulation in their homes which w~uld provide some sort of sound bar~ter, and thnt the City Council do evc rything possible by way of correspondente to the railroad company concerning the wmplai~ ts. with carbon copies to the Occupational Safety 6 Health Administration (OSHA). 8. ABANDONMENT N0. 7$-17A - Request to abandon a portion of an existing public uti~~ty easement located 112y teet. more or less, no~th of Ball Road from 364 feet, more or less, west to 251.75 feet west of Beach Baulevard. The staff report Zo the Planning Cammisslon dated February 1?, 1979 was presented~ noting the req uest is to abandon a portion of an existing public utility easement located north of Ball Road~ west af Beach Boulevard; that the request has been ~eviewed by all departments pf the City and affected oueside agencies a~d approval is reco~miended; that the subJ act easement was originally acq~~ired by the Southern California Edison Company and 2/12/79 r,. , MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNiNu COMMISSIQN~ FEBRUARY 12~ 1979 79-131 REQORTS ANU RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM B(continued) a:tiqned to the City at thc tirr~ of acquisltion of Edison Campany's faciltttes tn xhls area~ and the C(ty Electrlc~l Ulvislon stated they heve ~o present or future facllittes propoaed t~r this part of said eesement; and that an enviro~mental review of this ~equest Indtcates this ~~e categorica~ily exempt from th~ requlrem~nt of tht filinq of an Eia. ACTION; Commissioner King offe~ed a mott~n~ seconde~l by Commissioner David and MOTION ARRIED~ that the Anahetm City Plann(n4 Commission does hereby recommend to the Ctty Council thet Abandonmen; No. 78-i7A be approved. C. ABANDONMENT N0. /ts-k~N ~ Re(~UCSL to abandon re~~r.i.~~t trrevocahle offer of e cat on or street purposes of Lots H end C~ TraGt No. 3~~~~ located south of l.i~coln~ west of Westchester Orive. The staff report ta the Planning Cummission dated February 12~ 1979 was presented~ noting the reque~t Is to abandon a recorded irrrvocable offer of dedicecion for street purpe-es of Lots ~{ and C of Tract No. 3l~bf, located south of ~incoln~ west of Westchester Dr(ve; that the request has bren reviewed by all departmr:nts of the City and affected outside agenciea and approval ts reconmended; that the ultimate right-of-wsy of Westchester Or(ve and thc alicy ta the west were dcdic~ted and fully lmprnv~d at Che tfine of recordotion of and developmenc of Trnct No. 3~06; that the intent of the irrevocable offer of dedlcation for street a~d alley purposes was tn apecify the cost of the street and alley and to allow access to the owners of the property to the west of Tract No. 3886 upon the payment of their proportionate share of the cost of tmprovement of said street and alley; that Lhe applicant has acqutred the fc:e title to said Lots 0 and C from the previous developer of said Tract No. 3~u'i by grant deed recorded December 1~~ 197~ and requests that the dedicated irrevocet,le offer of de~iication for streGt an~ alley purposes across said Lots B and C be abandoned so as to clear this potentia) dedication from their kitle; that the appitcant has submitted a parcel map which clea~ly indicates the p~oposed subdivfsio~ of his property tncludtng the erea included with Lots B and C~ which clearly indicate~ that all of the required street and alley dedications have ber.n mr.t and subJect Lots B and C are no longe~ requlred for the intended purpose; and th~t an environmental review of the p~oposed abandonment indicates this to be cate~orically exempt from the requirement of an EIR. ACTION; Commtssioner Y.ing offered a motion~ seconded by Canmissioner David and MOTION ~ Ri D, that the Anaheim Clty Planning Commisslon does hereby ~ecommend to the City Council that Abandonment No. 7£s-23A be approved. D. ~IAIVER OF HILLSIDE GkADING ORDINANCE - TRAC' N0. 841b Jay Tashi~o, Associate Pianner, indicated staff would '!ke to request that consideration of this item be continueJ For two weeks inasmuch as an exhibit is not available. ACTION; CommissiAner David off~red a motion~ seconded by CortmissIoner King and MOTIC~N CARRIEG~ that the cansideration of aalver of the Hillstde G~ading Ordinance for Tract No. 841a be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of the Anaheirn City Planni~g Commission on Februa ry 2L~ j979. 2/12/79 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ FEBRUAR~ 12~ 1979 »'13~ REPORTS ANU KECOMMENUATIONS (co~ttnued) E. COiJU1T10NAl USE PERMIT N0. ~~lti - Raquest for te~rntnation. The staff report to tt,e f'lanning Commission dated Fabruary 12~ 197y was presented~ not(ng subJect property Is a rectangulerly-shapad ~erce) of land conststi~ig oP approximat~ly .C11 acre having ~n fronta•~e of app roximately 131 feet on the s~uth sidc of Orangewo~d Avenue~ having a maximum depch of approxtmately 245 feet~ and uetng loceted approxlmately 245 feet west of the ~enterline of Spf~nakE~ Straet; thdt the appllcent (Robert Wlens) requests termination of Conditiana) Use Permtt No. 1716 whtch was grenteci by the Plonntng Commission on Decen~b~r 1~-~ 1~70~ to perm(t a day care center in th~ it5-A-43~QQ0 (Residentlal/Agrlcultural) Zone; thac on Uecember 5~ 1~377~ the Pla~ning Commission approved Reclasstflcati~n No. 71~7a-32 to reclasslfy subJect property from tha RS-A-43~0(10 Zon~ to the RM-1'l0~ Zone In order to construct a 16-unit ~pertment complPx~ and one of the condttlans ~f the approval wes tn~t n 1Ctte~ rcquc:,ttng ter~~~'~~~Inn ef Cand(ttone) Use Permit No.1216 be permitted and said letter requestiny termination has be~n submitted~ ACTION: Commissioner Dav(d ~ffrre~i Resolut(on No. PC79-}n ~nd moved for its passage and adoptTon~ that the Anaheim Gtty Planning Comm(xsion does Fiereby terminate Petitlon for Condl tional Use Perml t No. 121t;, On roll ca11~ the f~regoing res~~~ution ~vas pessed by the follawinq vate: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ BUSNORE~ DAVID, HERBST~ JONN~Or~~ KING~ TOLAR NOES: COMMISSIONERS; NON~ Af1SENT': COMMISSIONERS: NONE F. ~~BILE HOM~ SI~~DIVISIONS. UEVELOPMENT PROCESSING TIME~ AtID REN7AL ASSISTANCE. Josl Fick~ Asststant Director for Pl+~nniny~ pressnted the staff repo~t to the Planning Comm(sslon dated February 12~ 1~+7y~ notiny that during the past several months lssues regarding encouragemenmt of {aw or moderate incorne hou3ing have besn (ntroduced by the public; that the City Council~ on Navember 7~ iS78, directed steff to take stea~ to aliminatc or re~'~~ce to the yreatest degree red tepe to sho~ten thc buildin_y permtt process~ to ~~ek rentai credit banGftts through State eme~ge~cy legislation, and to amend City orsilnances to permtt development of mobile home subdivislons~ as well as permit conversion of existing mobile home parks to subdivisions or condomtniums; and that the staff repo~t discusses staff findings and conclusions with respect to this request. He pointed out that on page (9) vsrious alternatives arc presented. He noted there were persons present (n the audience who mi~ht have tnformatlon to Rresent. Pat Kish indtcated currentlY she is the Housing Gonsultant ~or Supervtsor Ralph Clark and ls a memFier of the Netional hbbile Home G~uncil and ts an advocate o~~ m~bile home development. She stated she had rev6ewed the staff repo~t and found it quite attractive and she would be happy to ansr+rer any ~uestions. Mr. Fick suggested the Commissla~ discuss the putcntia) alternatives on a point-by-point basis ~nd~ in additlan~ they could add~ alter or delete any alternetives they might desire. Ne explutned Portion A~ Building Permit P~ocess, AlternativGS 1 and 3~ would essentially be procedural items which would help expedlte the building permit process for private proJects Nhich thz developer could initlate. He st~ted Alternetive 2 would require instttution of a priority plen check procedure and~ if established~ perhaps other types of uses would get "second seat" du~ing 'the ~eview process. 2/12/79 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ FEaRUARY 12~ 19~~ 79-133 REPqRTS_AND RECOMMCNDATIONS_- ITEM F (contlnued) Ch.•trn~n Hcrbst Indiceted !~•~ould not like to see a priarity process established and plan check f~r a mobile home park take precedence over other developments and dtd not feel the ur~ency is thec great due to present processing proctices. Mr. ~i~ exptained Alternative 4~ if detArmined to he app~opriato by the Commisston~ would eatablish a fae relmbursement for dlffdrent types of devcl~pment f~es~ and Comnissioners Herbst~ Toler and Johnson indlcated they did nat a~re~ wlth tl~at crtterla. Commissio~er Tolar stated m~blle homes are not mobile tod~y and referred to tf•e park on Sunktsi vlsited during the lunch hour. pointing out those people do not pay taxes because of the veh(cle licensing pracess, and felt tlie only ~evenue th~ City has is through the building permit process and `.~ did not want tn see that situatton changed. He felt ft is a vary sm.z!? ~;M±~_r.t t~ ~~~y In relationshtp to some cost/revenue beck to the Ctty because they do not receive any bencfits aFterwards. Cammissioner Herbst felt this Is one situa~lo~ whlch should bc explored and recummendatlons should be made to the State tl~at the mobile home ordinence should be changed so that they are called p~efabrlcAted houses rather than moblla nert-es so that the~y would becnme real prap~~ty since they are proposing a+n•your-own fecility-type situ~ttons. He felt if mobile home parks become housing for families wtth chtldren~ then schoal taxes sh~uld be paid and that is done through pt'operty texes. Me stated currently a lot of the parks ere designed for adulcs only, but !t is posslble they would be allaving chtldren tn the future. He also felt these pa~ks should be called planned community developments and then they could have cove~ants~ condittons ond restrictions which could control the situatlon. Commissto~er Tolar asked Ms. Kish if the Supervisors had dtscussed mobile homes being licensed rather than taxed. Ms. Kish stated presently the~: is legislatlon In the Mcorktng to restructure the taxes; that rx~btle homes are under the Department of Moto~ Vehi..le taxes; and if a park ts located withi~ a city. those taxes are broken down in three ways: one-third to the city~ one-third to the schools, and o~e-third to the county; and if thn park is located in the county~ the taxGS are b~oke~ dewn in two ways: one-half to Lhe county and o~se-half to the school district. She stated th~. in o-der for mobi-e hcxnes to be accepted as housing, which they are, tliere have to be s4~~: changes made in the tax structure; that there Is a possibil:ty af grandfathering in the e.cisting mobile horr~ owners who are on rental property~ giving them e choice of whetler or nnt they would prefer to go or~ to "ad valo~em" or remPin on "in lieu"~ but th~rc definitely is legislatto~ in the working to chenge the taxatfon of mabile homes. Sl~e stated in ansvrer ta another comnent that was made on the planned community developmert such as proposed at the Cook's Corner development~ that dev~lopment wouid be ci privately-c~wned property and those people would be paying ad valorem taxes, but tt~at thi: Es a manurnental task and is beiRg undertaken at the S~ate level. Commissloner Tolar asked the time frame for getting some type of chan~ge. and she indicated it certainly would help to have the local Planninp Commissions and Ctty Councils correspond with the legislator~ B~:~ce Nestande~ who wili be introducing this kind ot I~gislatton and ta encourage that this bill pass. She indicated Judging from her experiencs with the State le~glslator. this would not have any clifficulty in passtny~ but snaving the support o~ the Planning Commissions and Citv Councils would deflnttely be helpful. Comnissioner Tol~~ suggested that part of the Comnisslon's recorrrr~ndation rega~ding the m~tille home ardinance should include suprort of that bill. He asked the number of the 2/12/79 MI NUTES, ANAt~E I M CI TY PLANN I I~G COMMI SS I ON ~ FEBRUAhY 12 ~ 1919 79- ~ 34 REI'ORTS AND RECOMMENUATIONS -._ITEM F (contlnued) Assembly b111 ~ and Ms. Kish t'epI leJ tliere i~. nut ~ bl l l numbr.r att++ctird to ~ yet~ but that she would sae to it ~hat the Plann(ng Commisslon would receive nottflc clon of It from 14r. Nestande's offlce. Ms. I;ish polntecl out that about two years ago she was activp with Senat~r Paul Ca~penter on hls adv(sory board and they had hand-carrted a questfonna(re throu~ahout mobile home parks in the County. a~d had rec~ived 5~OU0 questtonnatres beck; that there ere ovar 60~00~ mobile h~me aw~ers in this County, with 2y~ mobile ~~me parks and over 3> p~rks wlthin "he C1ty of Anaheim alone; and that the results of the questionnalre had pointed out the ma,ior ~robloms ar~ Increasing rents and dictatarlal rt~anagement. She st.eted the people are in a~ocked-in position because they have made a sizable investment In thelr mobile home and in their lands~~ping end they are not mobtl~ anymore~ and that the ma~ufacturers would be tl~e f+ ~t to acknc~wledgc that; that the only time they are mobtie is when Cl~ry are brought f~ ~ thr factory to the site. She ref~rred to a recent experience of a couple loc.ted ln Anaheim's Del Prado Park on Euc11J wl~o had moved Incn the park in 196~ and th.~• it was a"pet park"~ but when rheir pet died~ aftPr seven o~ eight years~ thetr ~au~ ter bought them another ~+et end becaus.~ of thts situation~ they were evicteJ and lost .he right to sell their mnblle home locak~~d in th~e pa~k and had only gottan $9~000 fo~ a rade-in; that the mobile home had to be rert~~vcd~ they hed to vacate~ and the total cost r~ the inubile home owner was In the area of $Fb~~OQ to S9~,000~ including thefr at:orney fees and park c~wner's attorney fees. Sne felt one of the solutions to the situ:~tion is giving the ~eople a choice of lI'restyles~ allawing them to c;hoose a prop~rty ownership~ and this Is sv~,~ethiny thls County has not done. She stated If the Cooks' Corner developrnent. materializes~ it will be the fit'st of its kind and it is definitely needed throughout the County. not only ta provide low or moderate income housing, but actually giving the people their ciioice. She stnted she has received many calls from homeowners in the Clty af Anaheim w:+nting t~ know why they could not purchase a lot w(thin the City limits after being a citizen of this County for 30 years and why they have to go out to Cook's Corner if thcy want this form of lifestyle. Chafrman Herbst asked if she had any feeli~g for what the mintmum site would be for a small communlty development, and Ms. Kish replied it wouid be advantageous if the requ:reme~t could be lvwered to five acres. arid possibly nine units per acre, which would be what San Diego Couniy is terming a mini-park. Chairman Hetbst pointed out every proposal for a mobile home perk submitted in Anahe(m which abuts a residential area has had a lot of oppositian. and that a five-acre site adJaccnt to a high-class residentia) area wo~~ld certainly cause e lot of oppositlon. Ms. Ki~t~ indicated that would not be anything new; that there is a wide-s~ale educational program betng conducted and that Art Linkletter is the spok~sman for ttie manufacturing i~dustry te bring farth to the people a new and improved image concerning mobile homes since they are housiny. She stated al) mobile homes since 197b are built according to Housing and Urban Development (HUD) standards and even canventi~~nal homes are not b~iilt ko those standards. Chatrman Herbst asked if a mobile home park is involved in low cost housing, would HUD support rental assistance i~~ th~t situation. Ks. Kish pointed out Congressman Patterso~ had recently introduced an amendme~t to Section 8 of the Housing Assistance Program which has been signed by the Presic' ~t and will now qualify mobile home awners to receive rental assistance on their space ~ental; that in the past mobtle home owners, simply because they vwn the structure~ were penalized by not qualifying for rental assistance. She stated this bill has becn passed and Is presentl~r bei-g held up by HUD on drawing up af the guidelines. 2/12/79 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CoMMISSI~N, FEBRUARY 12~ 1g79 19-135 REPURT5 AND KECOrtiENUATI0N5 ~ !TE M ~ ~conttnued) Chsl~msn Nerbst stnted all clties are concerned with low- u~st houstng and where (t is going to be located end how wn wlil get there with the cost of housing today. Ms. Ktsh stated she did not Ilka Co stey strictly on that pramtse; thet certa~.~ly it should be tncluded~ b~~t felt another area which shou;d be concentrated on (s providinq the people a 100~ choice of lifestyle. She felt when peopie have baen praporty owners and declde to go into a moblfe home~ they should not be penelized Into ~c~ing into a rental situatlo~~ and she felt new is the tlme for a maJor city like Anaheim ta yet lnvolved in thts situattan. She poPnted out the Mayor of Anaheim ha~ been quite Interested tn this and tl~et the Ctty Council and Supervisors ere reluctant to onact any ktnd of ~ent~) control ordinances and felt this ts one alternative to chat situetton. Jack 4lhite~ Oeputy Clty Attorney~ poir.ted out e motion should be rt~+de concerning Se~tlon A~ 8utlding Pcrnf; Pracc;;. Cheirman Herbst stated he felt the priority plan check p~ocedure should n~t t~e institutad because It could put housing Ahead of an industry In the City whlch wll~ create Jobs, polnting out lu dld not feel this Clty Is that far behtnd in its plan check procedure, Commissioner Barnes asked tf thts Is referrinq only to the mnbile home subdi: s~ons~ indtcating her interest in other typ~s of low i,;~ome or moderate inco--~ housing. ACTION: C~mmissioner Tolar offered a rt~~ta~, seconded by Commissioner Dav(d end MOTION ~D~ that the Anahetm City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Councll that Alt~~native i((nstitutfon of the "Super-stamp" procedure In all departments for privaie mobile home proJects) and Alternative 3(recorm~ending the eval~ation of all dspartmenta) handouts by staff) be approvsd; and Altcrnat(ve 2(for the fnstitution of a priority pian check prucedure for mobile home parks) end Alternet(ve 4(that staff prepare criterfa for fee reimbursement for ~11 or selected development feesfor m~bRle homis parks) be deleted. Mr. Fick explatned Portion H~ St~te Legislatlon, ofi ;he sta~ff report, noting Alternative 1 wuuld continue with rental assistance programs presentiy in progress in the Can~nunity Deveiopme~t Department; Alte~native 2 would direct staff to continue to monitor new leglslation for rental asslstance for patentlal implementation in Anaheim; Alternetive 3 would direct staff to evaluate existing housing needs ~nd develop a ve ry comprehensive housing program through the Nousing ~lement; and~ from testlrrbny~ suagested Alte rnativc 4 should be altered to direct staff ta ~~c ttor tl,c s(tuatfon with potential tAx structure changes and~ if appraprtate, recommend to the Cauncil tttiat they endorse that change in the legislatton. ACTION: Commtssfoner Tolar offered a motton~ secc:,ded hy Cnmmissioner Oavtd and MOTION At D~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commisslon does hereby recommend tr, the Ctty Co~ncil that they approve Alternative 1(the Comnunity Development Department continue r~ith rental assistnce programs presently in progress)~ Alternative 2(staff continue to mon(tor new legislatior for rental assistance fo~ potential implementa;.ion In Anahcim), Alternative 3(staff comprehensively evaluate cxisttng ho~ 'ng needs~ problem-solving strategtes and c~urses of action through the Housing Eleme, ~, a~d Altarnative 4 art~n~ad Yo read "that tt~;. City of Anaheim should go on record encouraging future legislation regarding a change in the tax str~icxure to rr~ore appropriately address mobiie homes." M~. Ficic explained the sl~+ff report regar~ing Stction C~ Mobile Nane Subdivi;ion, particularly pointing out Alternattve 2(that the General Plan text be amended to permit mobile home park developn~nt in law denslty residential areas ur u,mmercia) ~r industrial areas !f so deemed approprtate by the C~-mmissian). He stated currentiy mobile homes are 2/12/79 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ FEBRUARY 12~ 1979 19-136 REPORl'S AND RECOtiMENDATIONS - ITEM f(ca~tinued) spectfled es npproprlate usea in low-medium and medium denslty residenti~l designations. Ne polnted out that If the Commisslon feels the text should bo chenged~ Alt~srn~tfve 3 providas that the 2ontng Code could also be ~mended to permit mobile home parks by conditlon~l use permit tn all zones; that Alte rnattvo 4 dlacusses the Sc~nic Co~rldor Overlay 2one which presently prohibtts mob(le hornR perks in the Ml(SC) (Industrlal~ Limited•Scentc Corrtdor Overlay) ~ono; e~u thac Alte~natives 5 and 6 are tled together~ with Alternetive 5 belnq the recommended change to fivR acres i~ size~ whlch opens up addltlonsl sites~ and Alternstive 6 al~awing the maximum denstty to b~ reduced to nine lots per ,yross acrc. C~mnissloner Tolar indiceted he has discomfart wtth allowing these uses in the industrtal arca and Feit "industrial" should be taken out of the motio~. Ha patnted out Comm(ssioner Be~nea hsd Indicated for comnercial areas this wo~~ld be a down-zon~ ond he would not be oppusad to a inobi te home parl. In a camcrcial ~rea. Chalrmrn Herbst (ndicated he thought there wrre snme comnwsrcial A~El15 where mabtle hame pt~rks could be permitted by condittonal use perm(t. Jack Wh(te~ Ueputy C(ty Attor~ey~ potnted out we aro discussing a conditional use pe~mit procedure in any t~istance and not talking abo~. an outriyht perrnitted use. Commisslone~ Tolar felt including indust~ial would be encourAg(ng developers to request permits for those ereas. Chairman Nerbst po~~:ed out today we had had o request for a church in an industrtal zone and the petitioner had pointed out chu-cties are allowed with a condi;'onal use permit in any zone. Jeck Whtte pointed out ~he problem here is with the Gen~ral ~lan; that when s subdt~ision map is submitted, the Subdivisio~~ Map l~ct prcvides thst in tirder to approve that map tt has to be consistens wlth the General Plan; thai if the Ge~eral P1~~ showx the arae as Industria) and there is nothing in the Pl~n thet says tndustrial land use• tnclude mobile home park subdivisions, then as n matter of law the subdiviston is not consistent w'th the 6eneral Plan and cannot be epproved. Chairnan Herbst stated tf a parttcular mobi le horr~ stte ~es provr to b: approprlate on that slte~ then a General Plan amcndment c~uld be inltiated. Commissioner Barnes stated the ~rport indicates the Gene~al Plan t~xt be amended to permit mobi le home r~arks, She st~ted she real ;:es there is a iremendous ~eed for low-cost housing and moaile home parks~ highrises, etc.~ h~•t f~lt. tt,e Cortmission should look at why w~ Fav~ a General Plar, tn the firsr, plec~. ~he stated she wouid hate to see ail the zones thiti~wn out +~nd developers come in and tell thc ~ornmission wh~ere they want the mobtie home pa~ks and then thp Commtssio~ can decide. She stated shc w~uld like to see the requests for mobile home parks be in the low~m~diurr~ rnedium and comn~ cial areas~ but that she Is opposed to thefr being tn the indus• ial areas or law density residential areas because of thR protection of the people ther~ ~ot frum lawtntome hou~i~g but from someti~ing they did not expect to come into tt~etr .ea. which is higher denstty o- tommerctal establishment or those sorts af th~ngs. She stated that is Nhy v.e have a General Plen .:d that people depend up~n the '~eneral Plan. Chairman Herbst indicated he would have to ag~ee ~ar~ce rning the lvw de~sity designation and pointeu out a mobile home park with 9 untts to the acre wouid not I~e constdered low density~ but that here again if the~e was a site Lhat would be compatible~ the petitioner still would have th~ right to request the permlt. 2/12/79 MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ FEBRUAR~ 12~ 1979 19-~37 ttEPORTS AND REC014~MENQATIANS - ITEM F(cantinued) Joel Fick indlcated tf he w~s reedinq the Commission correctly~ che way to Initiata ~pprop~late actlnn would be racommended epp~nval of Alt~rnative 1~ co expa~nd tha deflnitlon of planned unit development to permit mobile tiome perk subdtvtstons lnitlally; and then under Alte rnatlvc 2~ that the Genera- Plsn text De an~ended to also include moblle home parks !r comm~rcial areas; ond under Alternative 3~ amend the Zon~~~q Code to permit mob~le home parks by condittonal use permit tn the zones that implement cammercial~ low- medlum ~nd medium denstty res{d~sntial. Cha~rnnan He~bst potnted out we do allow medium de~slty resldentlal haw to down-zone conrnerclel areas; that Is~ ctiange the commercial to residentiel with apartrtwnt houses~ and he did not see (n ce~ta(n areas why mobile home parks would not fit. f1e staced tn other areas we would stt 11 not be denying them eny rigl~ts h~r~i~--~ rhey ski 11 have the ric~ht to reques t th~e permi t. Mr. Fick .~sked if there wAS any fneling by the Commiss~~n rege~ding Alternat(ves 5 and 6 o~ the present size and maximum d~nsity for mnbilc home park sites. Chairman Hrrbst asked how many s(tes in Anaheim would be available for mobilc home parks. Qave A~derson~ Assistant Plan~er, painCed out there a~e not that many; that with a ftve- ac.re minlmuin, there w~~uld prabably be arounJ I1. to 15 additional stt~s. ~hatrmen Herbst polnted out the possibility of someone wanttng to spl(t a parcel for comne;rclal and a five•acre mob(le home park site. Joel Fick statcd there arc existiny si[es b~tween five and ten acres, but there would atso be additiunal sites on property thal will be annexed to the Gity~ for example. on some of the ranr,hes . Commissioner Barnes stated there are -~ ry f~wr undeveloped acres left in Anaheim and low- to-rrbderatc incon~e housing Is needed ve ry 5adly~ but she felt the Commission had not confront~d the issue~ whi~h is higl~rise buildinga~ and polnted out i09 units ta the acre ceuld be developed if we even looked at hi~;hrise proJects, and yet the Conxniss(on has been dragging their feet. ~he stated part of th.~ problem is che Cortmunity Housing Commissfon keeps talkin~ about a recommendation thar we do not focus all of those lvw-income people in o~e area and felt that was ridiculous because we are talking about one buildfng~ and she dtd nct feel khat was the intent of whatever legislation they ar~ referrtng to. She asked why we have not looked into hlghrise prr~~ects. Mr. Firk poi~ted ~ut that staff had received no ~ecent inquiries regarding highrise development. Cortmissioner Barne, pointed aut the Plannir+g Commission had directed staff to lc~ok tnto the issue and felt staff has looked into it and, because no one has come running in tn build that type proJect~ diC not pursue it further. Mr, Fick steted the Ptanning staff will be 1~ ~ktng at all those factors in a ve ry- ~nmprehensive~ detaited study through the Housing E~ement; thAt a stud~r ts p~esently being pursued and we are in the p~acess of sec~ring consultant support to revise the Housing Element in accordance wtth State gutdelines and the Housing Elenr_nt gutdeiines require that we analyze all existing housing needs in the Clty and we a;e also re4uired by State gu~delines to come up with a comprehensive program to alleviate housing probtems ~nd a p~ogram to tnstttute wh~t the study findtngs ~re~ and indicated it v+t~s his feeling that some housing problems and solutions may be not yet properly tdentified. 2/12/79 ; ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ F'EBRUARY 1^, 1979 79-138 R~PQRTS AND RtCOMMENDATIONS - ITEM F(continued) Cortmlastonar Bushore pointcd out we only have iQ or 12 parcels that would be suitable fnr mobile home perks and felt the Pianntng Commisslon should do something soo~ abouc the highrise p~oJects. Jay Tashiro~ Asaociate Plan~er~ pointed out staff (s loaklr~~ into the RM•4000 zoning ordtnences and prepartng a st~cly as dir^cted by the Commission and hiqhrise proJects wtl) be brought up at that t(me. Lhairma~ Herbst pointed out hc felt low denstty and indus~rtal sl~ould be deiet~d from the motiw~ at this time~ and Mr. Ftck Indtcated thet essenti~lly chey would be d~alettng A1tRrnot(ve 4 because thet ts the mobile home altern~tivo tn tndustrial areas ln the Scentc Corridor. Cormiissioner Barnes polnted out Alternative 3 should read "low-medlum~ medfum and commercial"~ end that llie flve-acre sites wauld be c,u~table. ChatrmaR Herbst polnted out the. ftve-acrr. sites that ~re left mey not be conducive to moblle home sltes. Mr. Ftck pn(nted out the change may be signtficant on the S.A.V.I. ~~r~perty~ portlons of the sauer Ranch~ and partlons of ocher ranchcs; that thcy do havc flflt pc~ttons on those prope~ties which might be conducive or affected by thts change lf desired by the davelopers. Chairman Narbst asked if we are talking about deletiny mobile home pa~ks from the Scenic Corrido~~ and Mr. Fick repli~ed they are presentty pr~nlbited only in the Industrtal area and no oCher Code thanges would take place. Mr. Fick sta'ad lhe w ay he understands the Commission's direct~on is th~t they are amenable to Alternatives ! and 2~ adding comrnercial are~s to the Generel Plan text tn Alternate 2 ar~d permitting mob(le home parks in commercial zones by conditinnal use permlt (n Alternative 3, and Alternative 5 wo~ild be amended~ permitting mobile home park sizes of f(ve acres; Alternattve 6 would amend the guldelines to permiC ntne lots per gress acre~ end Alternative 7 wvuld bc a general Commission statement encouragtng loa- and moderate i ncame tt4usi ng, ACTION: Commissioner Johnson ~ffered a motion, seconcied by Commissioner Bernes and MOTION C ED, that the Anaheim City Planni~g Commisst~n does hereby recomrnend to the Clty Council that Portton C~ Mobtle Home Subdivision portton of thc staff report~ be approved~ as follaws: Alter~axivc 1(that staff nxpand th~ p~essnt definition of residential planned unit develupments to includc mobile har~e pa~k subdivtsions); Alternattve 2(that the General Plan text be amended to also permit mobile home park development in ccwnmercia) areas); Alternative ;(that the Codc be amended tu also permtt mobile home parks by conditional use permit in low-medium and cortxr~ercial zones); that Alte~native 4 be deleted; that Alte rnative 5(site development guidelines be amended ta permit mobtle homc park develepment on fEve-acre sites); Alte rnative 6(that site development qutdelines be amn~ded to per~niti mobile honx subdivtsions with nine l~ts per gross acre); and Alternative 7(that the Planning Commisslon go on record as encouragtng proJects which provide housing for low and moderate income segments of the com~nunity). Commtssioner Barnes indtcated she feit the Plen~i~g Commissfon should go on record a~s encouragtng the same kind of alternatives into the building permit process section for law-income housing of any :~?nd, ~cith particular empl~ASts on private ownership of the property. ~i»i~o *, ~IINUTES~ ANAHEIM C~TY PLANN~IJG COMMISSIfkI, FEBRUARY 12, 1g79 15~ I39 I~EPOR_,_ TS ANC.RECpMN_NDAi IQNS -~'fCM F(continucd) P. J. Sta~ ,~ A. 1l Hohn b Assoclates, mobilr home park developnrs~ stated they hsve been worki,;; tn ~;h• development of mobi le home parks •nd F~ad recently 6vi lt one tn the Thousand O~ks are4 e~d that city hdd deletad a lot of the permtt costs t~ them 1~ order to e~~ble sento~ cill:ens to be eble to afford the rent. Chai~m~n Herbst pointed out the eliminatton oF these fees would be the City Cauncll's prerogattve. Commtssioner Bushore ~sked whet those spaces In Thousar~d Oah~ rer-t for, and Mr. Starks ra~lled b. •-roximately S150 per manth. Chainnan Herbst asked Mr•. 5tarks if thie minimum let size of 200C square fee~ (s acceptabla to the devalapers, anS t~~~. ~tarks r~N) tr~f i t wuulJ l,e ac,c;eptabir. end the proposod n(ne units per acre would fit (nto thcir thin kinU. Commfssioner Johnson steted he was anxious to assist in allowing the c~wncrs to buy rather than rent the land. ~. ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18 MULT~~IPL-E F-~MILY tONE`.' Jay Tashtro~ Associate Planner~ presented the staff report. pointtng out the prr,posed amsndments ba3ice~ly change the maximum density of 10.9 untts per acre to 14.y units per acre ~nd the pArking requlr~ment from 2.5 to 3.5 spac~s per unit. ACTION: Commissioner David offered a motion, seconded by Corm~issioner Kinq and MOTION ~D~ that the M aheim City Planning Commisston does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of the ordinance amendtng Chapter 18.31~ Sectiona 1t3.31.061.0~2 and 18.31.066.~10~ Title 18 of the M aheim Munfcipal Cade~ RM-3000, Reside~tial~ Mulciple- Family~ Zonc. N. VARIAtJCE N0. 3071 ANO TENTATiVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 10~~76 - Reque~t for apr,roval of rev se p ans. The staff report to the Planning Commisston dated Februa ry 12~ 1979 was presented, noting subJect property consists of appraximately 17 acres located near the intersectio~ of Chapman Avenue and Harbor Boulevard and that Reclassffication No. 7$-79-26~ V~rtance No. 3071~ and Tentative 7~act No. 10476 to pe~mtt the constructlon cf a 218-unit condominium subdtvision wes conditionally app roved by ~he Planning Commissfon on January 29~ 1979. subJect to the condition that revised plans e~ submitted to relocate guest parking areas. Jtm Aski~s~ authorized agent~ presented the revis~d plans to the Planning Commission which reflect the parktng changes as suggested by Che Pla~ning Commission at the hearing of January 29, 1975. Mr. Gilmors, architect, explained the revised plans and pointed out the relocated parktng spaces. ACTION: Commissioner Johnson offered a mution~ seconded by Commissioner David and MOTION CARRIED~ that the M aheim City Planning Commission cbes hereby epprove the revised plans for Vartance No. 307i and Tentative Map of Tract No. 10476. ~ SEC~f~~18~31.~6lwQt2 AND 1f3.31.05G.U10 TITLE ~.. : 79-140 MINUTES. ANAM:IM CITY P UINNINC CONMISSION~ FEBRUAItY 1~~ ~9 79 AOJOUaNMEN7 Th~~e bsing no furthet eusiness~ Commissloner David offar~d • motton~ seconded by Commisstoner Tolar a~d MOTION CARRIED~ th~t th~ meeting :+e adJourned. Tha n~sting was adJournsd at S=S~ P•~+• ito'peGtfully sub~nitted~ ~,~.Ll%r~, ~ /'~`Q~'~ ~t~-e~ Edlth L. Ma~rts~ Secr~tary A~aheim City Planntng Commisston ELHthm 2/12/79