Loading...
Minutes-PC 1979/04/23~ •~ ~~ ~ Ctty Iloll Anahaim~ Csilforn~a~ April 23, 197Q REGULAR MEETING OF TH[ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR - The regular meettng of the Anehelm CiCy Planning Canmtssion was callad to MEETING order by Chairmen Herbst at 1;30 p.m.~ Aprtl 23~ 1979~ In the Council Chamber~ a quorum being present. PRESENT - Chatrmen: Nerbst Conxntssioners: Bushore. Johnson~ Kinq~ Tolar Commissioner David arrived at 1i35 p.m. ABSENT - Commisstoners: Barnes ALSO PRESEtJT • Jack Wh i te Jay Tttus Pau) Singer Annika Santalahtt Jey T~shtro Robert Henninger Edith tlarr~s Deputy Ctty Attorney Offlce Engincer Traffic Engineer Assistant Director for toning Assoctate Planner Ass(stant Plrnner Planning Ccxnmisslon Secretary PLEDGE OF - The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flac~ was led by Commissioner Tolar. j ALLEGIANCE F APPROVAL OF - Commissloner Johnson offered a matiU~~ seconded by Cc~mmiss(oner Bushore ~ TNE MINUTES and MQTION CARRiED (Cammissto~e.r 8arn~s being absent)~ that the minutes of ; the meeting of Ap~il 9~ 1g79 be approved as submttted. ITEM N0. 3 COiJTINUE~ PU~LIC HEARING. OWNERSt WILLIAM S. AND ~.~. EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION- SANDRA L. GALti~ 1R83 North Coronet Place, Anaheim~ CLASSES 1 AND CA 92801 Petttioner requests WAIVER OF MtNOMUM QA~TARZ`~A~. ~H~~ NUMBER AND TYPE OF PARKING SPACES TO R~TAIN A ROOM AODITION IN AN EXISTING GARAGE on property described as a rectang~larly-shaped parcel of land consisting of app~oximately 6110 square feet havtng a frontage of approx(mately 65 feet on the north side of Valdina Avcnue~ having a maximum depth of approximately 94 feet. betng located approximat~ly 887 feet west of the centerline of Gilbert Street~ and further described as 2461 West Valdina Avenue. Property presently classified RS-7200 (RESIDENTIAL~ SiNGIE-FAMILY) ZONE. SubJect pctition was continued from the meeting of MarGh 26, 1979~ at the request of the pet(tioner. It was noted the petitioner had requested a two-Neek cantinuance. ACTION: Commissione~ King offe~ed a motton~ seconded by Commissioner Tolar end MOTION C t~t ED (Commissloner Barnes being absent)~ that consideration of Variance No. 3085 be continued to iche rayularly-scheduled meeting of the Planning Ca~xnission on May 7, 1979. at the ~equest of ~'• p~ti tioner. 79-296 4/23/79 ~ ~ MINUTE5, ANANEIN CiTY PLANNING COMMISSION~ APRII 23~ ~979 79'197 COMMENDATION TO STAFF Commissioner Johnaan stated he would like t~ coma~nd ehe Plsnning staff on behelf of the Plenning Commisslon for the yood packsge they had put cagether for the w~rk session in the canyon area on Seturday~ April 21st~ and felt the informatlon pr~vtded was extromely v~luable, lie fslt (t w~uld be advisable Co perl~dlcally (sugqested annually) have this type of work sesston to keep the ConNnlsslon ~pprtscd of developments. COMMISSIONER DAVID ARRIVEO AT 1:35 P.M. ITEM N0. i CONTINUf~ PU~I.IC HEARING. OWNER: EMKAY BUSINESS ~~VC DECLARATION CENTER~ 172~ East Garry AvenuE~ Santa Ana~ CA 92704. u U E I N0. 19G0 11Gk:NT; E. 0. RODEFFER~ 172~ Eest Garry Avenue~ Santa Ane, CA g2704. Petlttoner requ~sts permissio~ to ESTABI.I Sfl A SPORTS AN[1 ENTERTAI NMENT COMPLEX WI TH DANCING Ar~D THE Or~-SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES on property descrihed as a~ trregulerly- shaped parce) of ler~d conslsttny o~ approximately 6.1 acres located north and east of the northeast cornc~ of OrangGwood Av~nue and Santa C~uz Street~ havfnq ~+pproxtmate frontegas of GO feet un thc north side of Or~~ngewaod Ave~ue and 70 feet on the east sfde of Santa Ct'uz StreeC~ and hdVin~,J a maximum ~iepth of approximately 741 fect. Property presently clasatfied ML (IhfOUSTRIAL, LIMITE0,) Z01JE~ SubJact petttion was concinued from :he meetings o~ March 2G and April 9~ 1979~ at the rr.ques t of the pet i t t onc r. There was no one indicating tfieir presence in opposition to subJeci request. The staff report wes presented~ notiny the petitioner has Indicated willingness to sttpulate that the: conference r~~m will only be used durtng the day when the ;emainder of the fACllity Is not in full use and has stipulated to closing the conference room after 5;b~` ~~.rn. Further, the petitioner has st(pulated the stadium court would not be used every ,lay and thnt whenever the stadium court is in use~ 21 of the racquetball courts w(I1 be caken out of service~ end that the bowling ailey has been ~educed from 42 to 37 lanes. Charles Nohl~ the petitioner, was present to answer any questions. TI1E PUBLIC NEARING WAS CLOSED. r' 'rman Ne~bst clarified tliac the petitloner has stipulated to close a portion of the •;.;::etball courts when the stadium court is being used for a tournament, and Mr. Hohl .';,ated they would be wilting to d~ that if it is the Commission's desire. Chairman Nerbst stated he f_it that stipulatton r+~;,i~ clear up a iot of the questions concerning the parking a+~' ~.ointed out that the uses des(gnated on the plan would also be a part of the cond(tions and any modifications would have to come befo~e the Planntng C~nrnission to determine whether or not the par~cl~g wuuld remain tl~e same. J~ck White, Deputy Ctty Attorney~ cisrified tha: any cha~ges would be seen by the Plt~nning Commission. Comnissioner Johnson asked Mr. Hohl hts ferltngs ~egarding the revised plans, and Mr. Hohl repited after ~eviewing the informati~n providcd by staf~ and additional information~ he 4/z3~79 N.. .M, .~ k MINUTES~ NiAHEIM CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSIUN, APRIL 23~ 197y ~9'29$ EIR NEGATIVE DECIARAT'ION AND CQNDITIONAL U:E PfiIMIT N0. 1960 (continuar) felt this Is ~ f~l~ly good peckege and indlcated they would he wllling to comply wlth all of the conditions. ACTION: Commisstaner Klnq offereJ a motlun~ seconded by Commissloner Drvid end MOTION ~D (Gommissloner ~arnes belny ebsent), thet th~ Anahcim Ctty Plen~fng Commissian lies rovlewed the proposal to permit a sports and e~tertainment complex w(th dancing a~d the on-sale of a~lcohollc bevereyes on an Irregulerly-shaped parcel of lend consisttng of ~pp~oximately 6.1 acres located north and east of the northeast corner of Orenqewoad Pvenue and Santa Cruz Street~ heving approximate front~ges of 6~ fcet on the nr~rth side of Or~ngewood Avenue and 7~ feet on the cast slde of Santa Gruz St~eet. and havlny a mexfmum cb pth of approxlmately 741 feet; and does hereGy approve thr, Negative Declaratlon fr~~m thie rnyutremant to prepr~re an cnviranmcntol impact rcport on the basis that the~~ would be no signtticant Indiv(duel or cumulative adverse envtronmental In~acc due to the epprovel of thls Negatlve Declar~tion slnce the Anaheim General Plan destgnates the subJect property for ganere) (nduskrial land uges conmensuratc with the proposal; th~t no sensittve environmental Impects are (nvolved in the proposal; that the Inltial Study submitted by the petitioner indlcate~s no significant individual or cumulattvc adverse environmental impacts; and that the Neyative Oeclaratinn substantlating the foregoinc~ ftndings is ~n file (n the City of Anaheim Planning De~-artment. Commisslaner Kin~~ offercJ Resolution No. PC7`)~,, and moved fo~ its passaye and adoptlon, that the Anahelm City Plenning Commission does hereby yrant Petition for Condittonnl Use Permit No. 1960~ subjcct to the stipulations by the petitloner that when the stadium caurt Is in use for exhlbit(on yames or any other entertatnment bctivittes~ 21 desfgnatecl recquetball courts wlll not be used; that the conference room wil) be closed ~fter 5:00 p.m.; that the serving of on-sble alcoholic beverages wlll be llmited to the lo~unge near the courts and the bar located adJacent to the bowling lanes and no alcAhollc beverag~ss wlll be sold or served elsewhere in the building~ and that fc~od servlce w(11 be limitpd to only sandwiches. selads or sim(lar foods. and thac no full dlnners or lunchcans will be served; that the bowling facillty will be reduced to 37 lenes; and subJect to the pr~~perty being developed substantially ir- accordance with precise plans as presented; and subJect to Interdepartmento) Commtttce recommendations. Qn roll call~ Che foregotng resolutio~ wes passed by the following vote; AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BUSHORE~ DAVID, HERBST~ JOtiNSON~ KING~ TOLAR NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMiS510NERS: BARNES 17EM N0. 2 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. Old'NER: EMKAY BUSIN~SS ~1~ ~l'~VE DECLARATION CENTER~ 12~1 Dove Street~ Suite 200, P.O. Box 2390~ E 0 ODE EQU EM NT Newport Beach~ CA 92G63. AGENT: SIINSET CONSTRUCT(ON, ~ . 1953 INC.~ SO1 lJorth Brookhurst Str~et, A~3Q8, Anaheim, CA ~ 92801. Petttioner requests ~ermission ta CONSTRUCT TNREE COMMERCIAL bFFICE BUILDIN~S WtTH WAiVER OF MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES on property descrlbed as Portiort A- a rectangularty- sheped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.~7 acres havin~ a frontage of approxt- mately 240 feet on tt~e north side of Orangcwood Avenue, having a maxtmum depth aF approx(• mately 218 feet, and being le~cat ed approximately 632 feet west qf the centerline af State Callege Boulevard; and Portion B - an Tr~egularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approxlmately i.G acres loceted at the nortt~east corner of Orangewood Avenue and Santa Cruz Street~ having approximate frontag~s of 372 feet on the north side of Orangewood Avenue and 141 feet on the east side of Santa Cruz Street. Property presently classified ML (INUUSTRIAI. LIMITEDj ZONE. 4/23/79 MINUTFS~ ANANEIM GI1'Y PIANNING COMMISSION. AHRIL 23~ 1979 79-z99 EIR NEGATIVE DECLAKIITION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1953 ~GOntinued) SubJAC; petition ~~ae~ c~nCinued from the meettnqs ot March 26 and Aprli 9- 1979~ at the re~quest of the petittoner. There wes no ona Incilcatin~ thelr presence ln oppositlon t4 subJect request. and although the staff report to the Plann(n9 Commisslon dated April 23~ 1979 was not. read at the public hearin~~ it is rcferred to end n-ed~ a part of the minutes. Dave 1~ook~ 1g41 I~orth Brookhurst Strcet~ Suite 308~ Anehelm~ wrs present to answer any questlons and pnlnted out a lettcr had be~n submitted sttpulating that certain uses would ~ot bc allvwed in thls comp~ex. THC PUBI.IC HEARII~G WAS CLOSED. Chairmen Herbst cla~ffied thAL there would be a conditton added that no intertor modiflcations would be madc prior t~~ cor•+ing before the Plenning Commisslon~ end Mr. Nook Indtcatad he agreed wtth that condttion. Ccmmlastoncr Johnson asked tf the butldings would be sold, a~d Mr. Mook replied that they woul d. Coanmissioner Johnson indicated he would like a stipulation by the petitioner that prospective buye~s wou~d be made aware of the restricted uses~ potnting out tt is dFfftcult ~fter the prop:rty has been leaspd to police the~e situattons~ nnd Mr. Nook lndicated that he would so ~~form the prospective bi~yers. AGTION: Commission~r David af/ered b rration~ seconded by Commisstoner Ktng and MOTION ~D (f.ommissioner Barnes being absent)~ that the AnahGim City Planning Commission has revtewed the p~oposal r.o aermit threc office buildings wtth waiver of minimum number of parking spaces on Port(on A- a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land Gonsist(ng of approxtmately 1.07 acres having a frontage of approximately 240 feet on the north side of Orengewood Avenue, having a maximun depth of app roximately 21a feet and betng located a{~proximately G32 feet west of the ce~rerline of State College Boulevard; and Portion 8- an irreqularly-shaped parcel of land consisttng of approxtmately 1.G acres located on the northcast carner of Orange.w+ood Avenue and Santa C~uz Street~ having approximate fro~tages of 37~ f~et on the north stde of O~angewood Avenue and 141 feet on the east stde of Santa Cruz Street.; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaratlon from the requirement to prepare an snvironmental fmpacc report on the bas(s that there would be no significant tndivtdual or cumulative adverse envi~onmental impact due to the approval of this Negatlve Declaration since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subJect property for genera) Industrlal land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sensttive environmentat impacts are fnvalved in the proposal; that the (nittal St.~dy submitted by the petiti~ner indtcates no sig~ificant indiv(dual or cumulattve adverse environmental impacts; and that the Negattve Oeclaration substantia.ing the foregoing Pindi~gs is on flle in the City of Anaheim Planntng Departmcnt. C~rnnissioner Osvid offered e motion, secanded by Commisstoner 7ola~ snd MOTION CARRIED (Commissione r 9arnes bciny absent), that the A~aheim C[ty Planning Co~nission does hereby grant the request for walver of code requirement on the basis that the design of the buildings with interior corridors would c~eate less need fo~ parking. and subJect ta the petitloner's stipulatfon that no interior modifications will be made withaut Planning Comm{ssion approval. Commissioner David offered Resolutian No. PC79-77 and moved for its passage and adoption, that thz Anaheim Clty Planning Commission does hereby grant Petition for Condittonal Use Permit No. 1953, subject to th~ petitione~'s stipulation that medical a~d dental offices~ ° 4/23/79 ~ ~ MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ ApRil 23~ 197~ EIR NEGATIVE DECIARATION AI1U CONDITIONAI USE PERMIT N0. Igy3 (concinued) ~9-3~0 preacriptl~n pha~mnclrs~ banks or savings anJ loen offlces~ trust con~Antes, security or conxnadity exchenges~ or any retatl ~to~es shall be prohtblted~ and thet no Interlor modiftcetlons wtll be mnde~ end subJect t~ Interdep~rtmental Committee recommendattona. 0~ roll call, the foregolny rasolut(on was passed by the follow(ng vote; AYES; COMMI SS I ONCRS; 9USIIORE ~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT; COMMISSIONERS: DARNES OAViD~ NERaST~ JONNSON~ KING~ TO~AR ITEM N0. 4 CONTINU£D PU6LIC NEARING. DCVELOPEIt; 9URNETT E DECLARATtQN DEVCLOPI4EI~T C0. ~ 18492 Ili I Icrest Av~s~ue, V( 11a ~N ~ ~ Park~ CA 9266/. ENGINEER: N~RRIS ENGINEERING~ N0. 9594 (REVISIO~~ No. 1) 172g1 I~vlne aoul~vard, Suite 312, !'ustin~ CA. 92G80. SubJect property~ describad ~,~s an (rregularly-sf~aped parcel of land coneisting of approximately ll.g acres havtng a fronkage of approximately 5~Q feet on the east side ~` H~nntng Way~ haviny a maximum depth oF approxirnately 1170 feet, and beinq locatr.d appraxi- mately 3~4 fcet soutl~ of the center) ine of Arbo~etum Road~ is propas~d aa o Ir,-L~} ~ R~-115- 22,000(SC) (RESIUENTIAL~ SINGLE~FAMILY HILLSIDE-SCF.NIC CORRIDOR OVERLRY) 1.0!~E 5UBOIyfSION. Subject Cract was continued from the meet(nq of March 26~ 19 7~1~ at the r~ques~ of the petltioner. There were approximately seven persons (ndicattng their presence In Q request~ and althouyh the staff rpport to the Planntng Commission dateupAiriln23~ ~~~eCt not read et the public hear(ng~ it is referred ta and made a ~ ~ 319 was part of chr_ minutes. Jack Norris~ e~gtneer~ stated this is a redes(gn of a tract whtch was origlnarly approved about dvo years ago with a slightly diffcrent lot and grading canfigura~ion which had a tota) of 9 lots and all pa~is were to be graded. He pnintr.d out thts tract (s f~r 10 lots with no grading except the road. Ne steted one of the blggest abstar.les to overcome was access which (s p roposed along Nanning 41ay. He explained that the existing Henning Way is vary narrow and steep witl~ a grAde of 18-1/2$ to 19b; that ~the Fire Depd~tme~t expressed a great deel af concr rn regarding the responsz tfine on such a narrow, steep road, but that problem has been ~nlttgated to some extent; however~ the Fire Department Is not overJoyed with the access~ but realtzes thls is about all that can be done and are not ecttvely opposing it. He st~tecf there was also c4ncern from the Santta~tiun Departrn~nt whether or not the t~ash trucks would be able to get up the hill. He stated~ without gofn into great detall, these prablems have been worked out and explained that the existing Her.ntng Way wil~ be w(ciened to a minlmum of 16 feet ~f pavement for about 300 feet~ wfth the ~ematnde~ being 1$ feet wtde wEth some turnouts where there is adequate room. Mr. Norris referred to the Inte~departmental Comm(ttee Conditfon No. 9 requirtng that all private streets be developed In accordance with the Ctty af Anaheim's standard for private streets for the hbhler Dr(ve area, and requested that a porttun at the upper part be ~educed to 16 feet and indicated he had discussed this with the Engineering pepartment. Dennts Glende~ 36S South Henning Way~ Anaheim~ presented an exhibit he had drawn showing the existtng Henntng Way~ the proposed access~ and an alternative he would llke to propose. Ne stated exlsting Henning Way is vc ry narrow and he felt wtth the proposed nddttional hames the trafftc will be doubled. tle poEnted out the actual easement and tndicated the praposal would entai; f(iling tn a ravine and stated the homeowners did not want thet and wished to retain the land as it ts and also to meintain the trees, polnting 4/23/79 MINU7ES~ ANAHEIM CITY PIANNIN6 COMMISSION~ APRiI 2J~ 1979 79'301 EIR NEGATtVE DECLARATION AND TENTATIVE IUIP OF TRACT N0. ~ 59~ (REVISION N0. I) (conttnued) - - ~_.. ...._...._._._ _.. out they felt If the road is widened, tha trees will be dsmsged. He explained that prevlous co~structtan of the sewe~• line had killed several of the trees. Nn presented the alternative proposed by the homeowners snd stated they realtz~ that development wtl) happen and they are not agalnst th~t~ but are in tavor of doing tt In e way tht+t wil) be advantageous to eve ry one~ and polnted out other ereas which ere to se developed. He felt if everyone from sll of these areas uses this na~row~ overcrowded ~oadway~ there will be problams and the proposed alt~rnAtive would provicie another road (explaining an old road Is already exist(~g at that locatlon). 811) Morrison~ represonting Dsvid and Vtrginla Gronbcrg~ ~dJacent propcrty owners~ ~ead a proposed condltton frAm the staff report thac "positlve ~ssurAnce shall ba p~ov(ded tl~e City that such dralnage facilities will be completeJ prtor ta October 1;th~" nnd staCed this pertatns to any gr~dtnq or Improvements on the prope~ty; that thls fdentical condttion was proposod In Tract No. 9524 which is ad,)acent to the Gronbargs. Ne stated since Tract 9524 was approved~ they are concerned about any more development upstret+m durtng the ralny season, and stated Tract 9524 has put tn a sewer ilne whtch hns caused approxlmately S3~004 to S5~000 worth oF damaye to his clients' prope~ty and that nothfn~ is being enforced. He referred to a letter written to the Clty Attorney And (ndicated they have documented proof that the development in 7ract 9521- has caused damage in the area and stateci thelr maJor concern to the Planning Commission is that nothing rtwre is done until ~hese prablems are resolved. Ne presented photayraphs of the area before devclopment of th~ upstream area and of the property after the sewer was put ln during the rainy season. Mr. Morrlson stated they have trled to work with the devela~er and have a stgned agreement accepting water in a concentrated manner in a totally different location than what Is shown in the pt~otogra~h. He stated they are asking thc Commission to hetp th-.m protect the dvwnstream ~roperties. He asked if it (s mandato ry that adJacent property owners be notified of these hearings~ pc~intiny out his clients have never been notified of any hearinys on et[tier of these tracts. Robert Ilenni~ger. Assistant Planner, stated accordfng to the State Subdivision Map Act~ the tentative trACt itself docs not have to be advertised and that normally the negative declaration wculd have to be advertised; hvwever~ in this case the negative declaratton was prev{ously approved in 1y73. R. M. Gregory~ 351 South Nenning Way~ Anaheim~ adJacent property avne~~ stated he F~ad met with the petitioner and oriytnally ±he 18-foot w(de road had not sounded too bad, but after measuring It and thinking about the other possibilities, he has ck cided to oppose the request. He stated the~e is a third alternative which Is another road on the other side of the canyon~using the present road for the down raad. He stated the present road Is steep and fire trucks have gotten stalled on it~ and there ts always the posstbtlltY of fire and a veh(cle getting stalled~ locking them tn. Ii~ referred to an incident where a cnment t~uck had stalled going up and the driver had lost control and the truck had rolled down ths hill and fortunately ~~+as stopped by hitting a fire hyd~ant and tre~. He did not feel it would be possible to put utilit(es underground without damaging the trees~ and asked the requirements for a separation. Robert Henninger explained the normal separation is 10 feet; hawever, they would be allowed a minlmu+n af 3 fee.t with concrete construetion. M~. Grego ry stated approximately 8 trees were killed when the sewer ltne. was const~uct~J. He stated he was also concerned about the safety of children walktng on the ~arrow road and felt wlth the total potentia! development of the area~ it will be very hazardous. He stated (t !s not possible to construct e retaining wall on the property above his property 4/23/79 MINUTES~ ANAHEIH Ci7Y PLANNING GOMMISSIUN~ APkIL '1~~ iy~y 79~3pZ EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND TENTATIVE MAP OF Tt~ACT N0. 9594 (aEVISION N0. 1) (conttnued) because of tha staep gr~de. Ha stated he would be wllitng to aork with Mr. Burnott end suggested, egetn~ that a raad be constructnd on the othe~ side of the conyon~ potnting out there is flll dirt eveilable~ aMd apologized for :~peektng in oppositlan~ but falt the interests and welfere ot tha people (n the are~ should be constdered. Mr. Withers, 361 Henning W~y~ Anaheim~ stated they had hed a me}or power Ilne fatlure when thc llne w as snspped And h{t ~che yround after dn exeensive retn with approximetely 10.000 valts of electrictcy, and he had celled tha emergency vehicles about 9:00 p.m. and It took 25 minutas for thom to arrlve. He felt ii there had bean any veh(cles on the road~ ernergency vehicles could nor hnve gotten through end stalcd they had had a dlfficult tlme ftnding th~ preperty snyway bece~ase of the narrav roed and ~tecp grade~ plus there wcrc no Itghts. Fle stated therc is no way to cut the hll) dawn and th~t he Is (n favor of maktng anoth~r raad with the twa~entrance plan. He stated his truck is ~3-1/2 feet wide from htp to hip~ and (t (s diffic~~lt to pass another vehicle on the current road. He stated he wrs also concerned about chiidren in the area anQ felt it will be vnry d~nge~ous wtth the addltiAnel homes. Dave Ward, 311 South Nenning Way~ Anahetm~ which ts the bottom of the grade~ statpd he has na obJectlons to the prop~rty vwner selilny h!s ~raperty for ck velopment~ but felt this ore~ has spectal circ.ui~ tances~ polnting out the road was built many ye~rs ago for privatr use by the peoplc who live there and it is Just baraly odequete for the existing flve hornes. He did not `~eel an addittonai ntne homes with ~ potentlAl for possibly 30 or 4(1 more could be serviced with th(s substand~rd road. Ne referred to the constructlon equlpment~ pointtng out (t would be very danc~eraus for the homes at the h~ttom because they ~ould not make i' up the hlil. He refer~ed to the cement truck mentioned previously and indicated there have been several other trucks which couid not make tt and have had to back da~rn tht h i I i~ and he fe 1 t t t t s ve ry dange rous . Mr. Ward steted he was also concerned about dratnage and referred to the ralns in ~969 and to the ditch wh~(ch was eroded and fe1t addit(onal dralnage wauld create more problems. He felt Installation of the underground ~~t(lities would kiil more of the trees and stated~ egatn~ he was not obJecting to the deve~opment~ but would like to see It done (n a manner that would not endanger other homes in the erea and in a manner that would not inconvcnie~cc~ the people who presently live there. Mr. Morrison stated the double access is a new idea for his clie~ts (th~ Gronbe rgs) and they would have no strong obJection to something like that~ but ~as concerned b~cause tt would be another graded area gotng up the sidc of the hill and fcit they should be protected du~ing the wir.ter months or they will have the saQne pro~lems. He stated the sewer ltne whtch was installed waS adJacent to a row of eucalyptus trees and that probably 15 or 20 full-grown eucalyptus trees had ~een destroyed. Viginla Withers~ 361 South Henning ~lay~ Anaheim, stat~d the staff report indtcates that the p~lvete street must be devrloped simila~ to the tiohirr Dri~te ~rea and steted the Mohler Orlve erea ia beautiful~ but IL is a circle a~d you can go all the way a round; however, thts area has only one way (n and one wsy out. Mr. Norrt:~ responded to the co~cerns regarding the access on He~ning Way and tndlcated he realized tha concerns expressed are legttimate and explatned their goal Nas to preserve the charecter and appearance of the neighborhood as much as posaible~ which was the reason for using the existtng Henning 11ay. He stated the present easement is somewhere else and goes up the canyon and woul~ requi~e fill and would destroy the canyon. He stated the present proposal (s to save the trees that are on one side of the road and move the utilfties as far away as possibie to ~sduce the possibility of ki111ng the trees. He stated the axisting pavement is guite narrow and they are proposing to widen it to a 4/23/79 MINUTES~ ANIWEIM CITY PLANNING COMMtSSION~ naai~ 23~ iy79 79-303 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION ANO TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 9594 (REVISION NO_, _1) (continued) minlmum of 16 fAet wlth ddditiona) wtdth where possible tn a~ccordence wtth the Mohle~ D~Ive stand~rds. 11e steted xhe grade is steep~ Dut they have di~cussAd thts with the cem~nt campany and they have indiceted there would be ~o prohlem getting trucks up there. He stated M~. Burnett has suggoated that a siy~ be poatnd during constructton to give a warning. He referred to the draindge concerns and stated the drainage rv~uld b~ hanAled in a proper~ enylnee~ed m~nner~ He felt the concerns regarding tf~e chtldren using the roed ere leg(ttmate and he would have to admlt that would be a problem, but explatnnd the ultimate nunber of homes using the roed would be 20 or 21 and n~t. 30 or ~+0. ik spondtng to the suggastlon of anothrr ellgnrr~nt cominy (n on the east stde through a canyon aff an ~xtension of Qutntei-a~ I~e explained they hava studlcd thet posslbility enci ic was pursued; h~wever~ tl,er~~ were two problems: it would morr or less destroy the canyon Nith [h~ gradtng thet would be required~ and alsa that the road Is completely off Mr. Durnett's property and hc has n~ cantrol ovsr it, tie st~ted he w~uld he agreeable to using that access if It were pc~sslble, but until Just nc~w, was under the (mp;esslon that It was not possible. He felt that opens up a re~ilm of possibilttics whtch tt~ey d(d not reb 11 ze we re open un t( 1 J us t na+. 7HE PUI~LIC NEARING WAS CLOSEO. Commissianer Tolar stetcd he felt it wnuld be an exercise in futili~y to continue thls heartng becausc there are so m~ny problems that need to be resolved wtth the ingress and egress. He stated he is not c~ posed to the zoning on the property~ but the apposition has pointed out lhis is not merely to atlow tngress and egress for 9 lots~ but an opportunity to ptan sortw~thing for tf~a enttre area which Is golnq to shape development !n that whole~ iittle canyem. He st~ted the canccrns uf the neighbors dictate that In all clear cor~sclence tie could not support anything until the prablems wtth ingress and ~sgress and the yrack ar~e reso! vecl. Chairman Nerbst stated he felt the entire area needs a master plan of circulation and the propcrty owners need to ~et together reyarding Lheir future plans of development and a clrculatlon plan should be developed to service t!~e whole erea; then as eve ryone develops their individual parcels, they wili be able to develop to a master plan of circulatlon and knav exactly where they a~e going to go, He stated he could not support the tract map at the present time with ihe uncertalnties of the road and the grade~ and if there ar~ other alternatives as s~39ested~ all the pruperty owners shou~d yet toycther with an engineering group and destyn the circulatlon. He stated the Ctty has been ve ry adament In not allowing any grades more than 12x because ~f the trash t~ucks and emergency vehicles and also felt eventually school buses will be required tn the area. Mr. Norris Indicated he would like to request a four-week wntinuan~e. ~1CTION: Commissloner i'olar offered a motton, seconded by Commissioner David and NOTION C~1t~R EO (Commisstoner Bar~es being absent)~ that constderatinn of Tentative M~p of Tract No. 9594 (R,evislon No. 1) be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of the Planning Canmission on May 21, 1979, at the requcst of the pettttoner. Commissioner Tolar polnted out that no further notiftcation wltl be made of this i~earing and that it will be held on May 21, 1979, unless the petittoner requests an additicnml continuance. 4/23/79 MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING GOMMISSION~ APRIL T3~ 1y19 79-304 ITEM N0. PU6lIC HEARING. OWNER; GITY OF ANAN~IM, 106 North EIR NEGA IVE OECLAMTION Claudina Street~ Suitd 607~ Anahelm. CA ~20~5. R ON N0. -7~-42 Property descrlbed es en irregularly-sheped p~rce) ~'~'F~~ . 3 of lend ~o~sisting of appraximately 0.4 acrc having a frontage of approximately 175 feet on the south side of a~ alley located soutF,west of the south- we=terly cul-de-sac terminus of Floyd Avenue~ havi~g a meximum depth of approxtmately 109 taet~ snd being located approximately 328 feet east ut the centerline of Beach Boulevard. Property prnsently classified RS-A-43~Q00 (RE51DE~~TIAL / AGRICULTURAL; 20NE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION; RM-1200 (RESIDENTIAL, MUITIPLE-FAMILY) ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF MAXiMUM tiUILUING NEIGNT TO COWSTRUCT A FOUR-UFIIT APARTMENT DUILDING. There was ~o one tndicatiny thelr presence in op{x~sitlon t~ subJect request, and although Che steff report to the Planning f,ommission dated April 23~ 1979 was not read at the public heering~ It (s ~eferred to and made a part of the minutes. Jlm H(I1, 5520 East Second Street~ Suite A, Long Beach~ enginee~~ stated this property was difftcult to develop and Is bordered by a public alley and a drainaye dttch, and explalned they have tr(ed to cr~ate a livable space with a configuretton that ts economlcelly feasil~le to devr_lop. He stated he felk they heve ac.camplish~d this and have p~ovlded a recreattonal area and a view, and p~inted out the lot coverage is about 50$ of what is normally allowed on property of this size and felt they are buffered from the Lrafftc. Ile steted they have r~quested the wetver for a two-story structure tn order to orient the striacture on the property to meet setback requ(rr.ments and explained they liave pravtded adeauatc parking. TNE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commlssia~er Johnson asked about the surrounding uses~ and Mr. Hill explalned the property (s surrounded by a drainage ditch, a public alley and across the alley there are apartment complexes~ and the pr~perty to the west is cortmerctal. ACTION: Commissloner King offered a motion~ secondcd by Commissioner Tolar and MOTION ~D (Commtssioner B~rnes being absent)~ that the Anaheim Ctty Planntng Commission has revl~ved the prop~sal to construct a four-unlt apartment building with a walver of maximum butldtng t~elyht and to reclassify the property from the RS-A-4~~000 (Residential/Agricultural) 2one to the RM-1200 (Residential~ Multiple-Family) Zone on an irregularly-shaped parcrl of land consisting of apcaroximately 0.4 acre having a frontage of approxlmately 175 feet an tf~e south stde of an alley located southwest of the souttwesterly cul-de-sac termtnus of Floyd Avenue~ having a mar.tmum depth of appr~xtmately 109 feet. and being lacated approximately 328 feet east of the cxnterline of Beach Boulevard; and daes hereby approve the Nega*.(ve Decla~ation from the ~equi~ement ta prepare an envtronmental impact report on the basis that there would be no stgniflcant tndivtdual or cumulative adverse environmental tmpact due to the approval of this Negative Declaration since the Anahetm General Plan designates the subJect p roperty for medtum density resldential land uses commensurate wtth the proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are invelved In the proposal; that the I~itial Study submi[ted by the petitioner indicates no signiFlcant indtviduel or cumulative adve~se environmental impacts; and that the Negative Declaration substantiating the foregoing findings is on file in the Lity of M aheim Planning Department. 4/23/79 ;t 19-305 MINUYES, ANAI4EIM ClTY PtANNING COMMISSION, APitIL 23, 1979 0 t (conti~ued) 8- -4Z AND VARIANCE NO.~,,,~„ EIR NECATIVE DEC6ARAiIQN RECLASSIFICATION N0. Commissiona~ dushore wes canc.er~ed that a tw~-sto ry structure would be looking down o~to the neighbors~ polnting ouM ~hH~~~aexplained tt~at~theachannel9is 75~fe~~dw~de^andhthere Is t!-e 1S0-foot sntback, and r. probablY a satback dista~co of 125 faet. Commisslonar King offHr~d Reso~CommisslonPdoes7he eby gr~ntfPetition~for~RAClassiflcatton that the Anaheim City Plan~tng No. 7a 79`42~ ~~~~~t to Int~rdepertmenta) Committee recommendatio~s. On roll call~ the foregoing resolulion was passed by the Pollawing vote: AYES: COHMISSIONERS: ~USHORE~ DAVID~ HERBST~ JOHNSON. KING~ TOLAR NOES: COMMiSS10NERS: NQNE ABSENT: COMMISSIANf.RS: l~ARNES Commissio~er King offered Rosolution No. PC79'79 ~^d mOant PetittonpfaraVarlancedNuti3~91 that the Anahelm City Planniny Comisst~n ~fc~es hereby g on the basis of the trtangular-shiPed va~lanceslhavesbeenegrantedacand denial wr~~+ldnbef~ek Chan~el and on the basis that sIm daprlving subJect pre~~sub ectetorlnterdepartmental~CnmmlttaehrecPcxm~e~datlonsn the sart~ zo~e and vicinity, ~+ .1 Qn rol) cal~~ the foregoing resolution wes passed by the following votc: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: EiUSHORE~ UAVID, h~aUST~ .~01{NSQ~I. KING~ TOLAR NOES ; COt1Ml SS I ONERS : NONE ABSENT: CONMISSIQNERS: SARNES Chafrmsn Nerbst lndicated hedralna e dit~he preced~nt is being set by this apProval because of the 75'f~t wi de 9 ITEM N0. 6 PUBLIC H'ERR~NG. OWNER: ANANEIM REDEVELOPMENT ~~VE DEGLARATION AGEWCY~ 106 korth laudina Strcet, Suite 400~ R C ON N0. 1 79'37 Anaheim. CA 92805. AGEN7S: MC CLELLAN, CRUZ 6 GAYLORD~ 1199 East Nalnut Street, Pasadena, CA 95106 and W b D COMMERCIAL PROPER?IES, INC., 1633 26th Street, Santa Mon(ca, CA 90k06. Petitioner requests that proparty described as a~ irregularly-shaped parcel ofOSe~da~^rtmentnof LlncolnxAvenuey and~Anaheim Boulevard, having soutt~west corner ~f the prop 9 approximate fronta9es of 1050 feet on the south slde of Lincoln Avenue~ 5~+~ feet on the wegt side of Anaheim Boulevard, 3?4 feet on the east slde of Clementine Street, a~d 375 feet Qn the north side of Oak Street~ be rcclassified from the C6 (COMMERCIAL~ GENERAL) AND PD'G (PARKING DIS7RICT-COMMERCIRL) ZONES to the CL (COMMERClAL, LIMI7ED) Z4NE. 7here was ~o one indicating their presencC Sn opposition to subJect request, and although the staff report to thc Pe~~ei~~cp~~~ ~~°^ed~rt ofrthe~minutes was not read at the public hearing, it is ref Conmissloner Bushore doclared6a1confaa~tingiatConflict offlnterestACodeifor~thePPlanning C~niss':~:- Resolutian No. PC7 57• in that he has a contractual Commissic,-~. a~c~ Gove~nment Code Section 3625, et seq., a~rangemant with the Anahetm RzdeveloPdeclarednto tfirtCheirmanuthatihe wasnwitharawing~~t to the provtsions of the abave codes, 4/23/79 MIMUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNiNG C4MMISSIGN~ APRIL 23~ 1g)~ ~~_~~6 EIR NECATIVE DECLIIRATION_ ANO RECLASSIFICATIpN N0. )8-~9 37 (cantl~ued) f~om the hearing in cennectto~ with a~classificotlon No. 7R-7~-37 and would not take part in elther the dlscusslon or voring thereon and had not dtscussed thls matter with •ny membor of the P~,nning Commtsslon. THEa~:UPON~ COMMISSION~R gUS1i0RE LEFT TIIE f,AUtlCll CNANBER AT 2~36 .M, Norman P~lost~ Executive Dlrec~or of Communlty Uevelopment for the City of Ansheim~ stated the pten baing presented wss r~:vlrwed by tha Interd~partmental Commtttee end that twa or three ttems were modt fle~1~ one ck:ai ing wi th the loadtne~ src~e and one wtth the traah enclosures~ but ~therwise the propota) Is far a zone change pursuani to t,he redevelopment plan ancl to the cfispos(tion and development agreement for the ~levnlopment ~f the netyhSorhood center, Mr. Ed Krleger~ reprc~~antiny Mc:Clellan~ Cruz and Geylord~ ayent, polnted out the trash enclosures for aech indlvidual ~uiidiny and the loading ere~ for Bulldiny ~ Nhlch hsve been chsnged and stated bacause; the outsfde sales e~ea was increased on the overal) cumplex plan~ the loadf~~g ai~ea w~s a Ilttlr bit restrlcted~ and p~inted out a side leeding area is proposed, He stoted this had beon d(scussed with the Trafflc Englneer and pointed out ihat thera is no curb at thls loc~tion. He stgted It Is approximetrly 28 feat froin the existing curb line to the fac~ of the b u(lding. Ile stat~d the ~vner und~rstands that the outside garden tales for the druy sto~e ~ill req ulre a cond(tlonal use permit and polnted out an Q to 10-foot ~,n scrcen wall is praposed around that area. TIiE PUDLIC HEARING WAS CLOSEU. Chairman Herbst stated he had a qucstlon regarding thr. c(rculatton element with the traffic from the bank dr~ve-tn windows heading into th~ oppostte di~ectlon of the t~affic flow and stattd he felt this is a poor circulatio~ plan. ~Mr. Kr(ege:r replled chat th(s is a c~nc;eptual desiyn and has not been approved~ a~d that tF~e actua) drlvA-up lanes would have to be worked out at a later date. Chairman Herbst stated the Commisston likes ta see wf~at is going to happen on the propertv and polnted out this is a piece of aroperty that is going to be completely bare and felt nav is the time to design the circulat(on. He felt the circulation would be a disaster as proposed. Commissioner Tolar stated he felt thts was the most unimaglnative~ Iack of creatlvity piece of englnenring he has ever seen; that this is 11 acres which ts the beginntng of a ~~r downtown M aheim and frpm what he sees. Is a copy of eve ry shopptng c~nter which has been butlt in the last 2; years in Southa rn Callfo~nia; that the beg(nning of a brand new davntawn M aheim sho~ld be a creative idea and not a Del Taco on the corner, and he did not think that is what is needed on an Inroad into the City where we are spending millions and milltons of dolla~s ta entic~ private ent~rprise into the downcown e~ea. Ne stated if *.his were sny other developer than the City of Anahetm~ he would probably be more empi~atic, but that there is no way he could support thts proposal. He statad he knows the pian probably complles with the landscaping requirementa~ but th.t it Is not interspersed throughout the center~ and referred to the large parking area which ~s nothtng but blacktop and stated we a~c trytng to get rid of that type of thing. Ne referred to a beautiful new complex which is bei~g built to house the city hall whtch will laok ~tght down on this area~ and all they wtll se~ will be the roofs of this center and a massive pa~king lot. He stated thts looks llke the same plan he had looked at three or four years ago. Mr. Priest replied th~t it is p~obably the same plan that he had seen; that the new complex will be looking down on these buildings and there is no way to avoid thet because 4/z3/79 ~ '~ 79• 341 19 79 MINUTES~ ANAHE~M CITV PLANNINGfC~~SSF,~ATI0NRN0.278• ' 7(~~t~~~Ad) EIR NEGATIVE OECLAMTION AN~ R the buildln9s •~e eight stories high, but the agreemant spaclticallY Provioes thel thc roofs wi I) be troeted so that you wi 11 not beovoocl~~9b~~h~nQq~~P~^tr~nttho roofh~s ton~ ch~nge action the working drawings sra ^~t P~ ' be aereened; and that tho plsn does ~ot gtve tull crsdence to the lendscePz^5 Pk Pw~ehave ust 11 e Canmisalone~ Yola~ asked wl~~t ise s°Aand~Co Iseie~ner9Kingtreferrnd~toseov~reJ M~ll~~g9ee wi th •I 1 the oth9r shupp~ ng cent ~ 0 ~ange South Cosst Plaza~ centers in tha area such as the sroadway fn Anahe1m, etc. which a~e cfoing a trerrr-ndous business~ enW~ahaddinf Aneheim 40pyearseaqar will Ma11~ ~ lan of what be covered and stated thia looks like a p Mr. P~{est stetnd this pa~t~cular cantcr is note~site'anudare not enclosed~inhat',1n91e1es of stores Is praposnd blong the b~ck siJe of th mall~ although a pers~n can obviously welk directly from one store to the oth~~. ~~~ stated Commissioner 'Tolar had ccxnmented tha~h;s~wa~athehsame planasincehi t wasnhisrne or fo~r years ego and indica:~:d he would hope understandtng of the direction from the~ntcrCOand'thatereglona~rcenters arelsignificeo tto neighborliood center r-nd not a ~egional ~rted by diffQrent than nei~hborhood ~enters. toedcvelop ahPortiontofnthevplt+n~tohbeAsuPf-Y Pe his arrival i~ thetr redirectlon was the surroundi~g nelghborhoods. Ha axplAlned there Is not adec~~ate area to da~e 4P ~aglonel center~ even if it we+re destred. Chairman Herbst aske~ whet w( 11 be developed onetinto'negotietion for~P~ime~~~Yrcommarciai Mr. Prt~st r:plied that the a~,~ency has Just g s and a ilm~ted artwunt offtce space. He pointed out the area proposad for specialty shop of connnercial ~ffice space~ a restaurant and the possibi lity of a hotel on thn southern portlon of t~e plan. Ct~sirman Nerbst stated in lookin9 at tha ph~n r~~emeof gettingoak40pfoothesemintruck would q~C~~thehdockrat,the~market andd~etting ou[, even into the alley, backi~g dock is a depressed well ~ and Chatrman Herbst polnte~ out Mr. Krieger stated the loading oor locatlon and It the alley would be blocked with a sani-truck and felt this Is a very p would be a very d{fficult situation. Mr. Prlest stated thc developmcnt plan is not to provide that as a publ ic a~ley~ but essentlaliy for access to the development. it would be very difficult to get a Chat rtnen Herbst stated wi th the wa11 along there ~ semi-tt'uek backed ln there and out into th' gho~pi~9H~ntersdwith 40 foot'~~~~ks 9~tting P~~~~n,s with plans siml lar t° ih~en is~not evenpas good as some the Commission has felt into the loading areas and th(s p wer~; bad. ~omrnissi~ner 7olar was concerned about the fntuaccessa tnt fronteofi the~ma~ket whenmitkis and stated he did not think there would be a y ex a~ded~ and that the expansio~ area goes right into th~ landscaping of the parking an P feit exnansion of the market would stop the circulation of that whole s te. Mr. Priest stated if the market is axpanded~ they would havo to get a sepa~ate aPProval, including the parking plan~ which would avo(d this altuation. 4/23/79 MINUTES, FlNAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ APRiI 23~ 1979 79- 308 EIR NEGATIVE O~CIARATION ANU RtC1,A5SIFIGAIIUN Nu. /8•19-s/ (ccntlnued) Commitsloner To1sr stated slnce there wi l l be a clean ii acres~ the problem should be reKOlvad naw rather tha~n tt~ree years from now, snd felt e n(ccr proJect r.ould be developed. Mr. Priest stated he belle ved thay have developed a ntce proJect and Indlcated ho did understand the Commission's concerns. Ne explained considerable time has been spent wo~ktng on this devnlo~mant plan~ but that they would ue hap~y ta look at any alternetlves. Cheirmen Nerbst polnted out that +~ street wtll be de:v~loped right thmugh the mlddln of the shopp(ng area and hc was cancerned dr(vers would gu through the center to avoid qoing onto Lincoln~ +~nd felt that was a po~r trafflc circulation plan. C~xnmissloner David askcd i f thc Rcdevclopment Commisslon had approved these plans. Mr. Prinst rap l ied that the Gommts3lon has epproved the plans ana that they were lookf ng at a neighborhood shopptng center end explalned there is a ltmited number of ways to lay out a nnighborhood shopping center on m~st sites; that the Issues of loading~ traffic ctrculatton, and access ar~ technicol ar~d can be, and need to be, worked out. Ne steted the issue Jusk mentloned by Chsirman Herhst regarding a drtve passa~e tl~r~ugh the shopping center and the drive-up la~es for the bank should be worked out. He stated the des(gn limitattons of a neighborhood shopping center are dictated by the shoppers, and shoppers will not yo acrass a wide exFanse from one skore to anoeher store. nor do they ahop In a strip commerclal fashton. He indicated he h~d telked before th~ Planning Cortmtsslon before regarding the facf tf~at they are try(ng to centrAl(ze the shop~tng methodology h~cause people dc ~~~ oark and walk to shons. He indtcated oRe diswsslon whlch came to his mind regard(ng ~~• ~omplexity of this issue was the gap or break between the two modulars of stores which the Agency had i~~siste:d upon because they wanted shoppers to be able to welk from one site to the other site so that a"Chlrese wall" is not formed~ ard the developer was extremet y conce~ned from his experience with a break, potnt(ng out people ~i 11 stop wf~en they corne to a ce~tain point. Commissioner Tolar stated Mr. Prlest had indtca~tad earlier in the meeting that the alley being referred to as a break was not necessarily going to be a public alley and felt that would provide the sarne break. Mr. Prlest stated the essential difference is th~~t that break is not between two siores in the same shapping center. Ne explained that going west from tht Safeway store~ shoppers would be drawn from one store to the other and that it seemed like a small item to htm~ but that the deve)oper di d not thlnk i t was a smal I i tem. fle stated the Agency has been d i rectad by the C i ty Coune t I to oriant that po~t ion of the proJect to the surroundi ng netghborhood. He explaineJ this development existed prior to his arrival in exactiy thls same confiyuret(on by a to tally different devclope~ and polnted out that thc Rcdevelopme~t Commfssion had heard seven differe~ t proposals, ai 1 fol lawing more or less the same configuratton. He steted the root treatment was somethin~~ laid on the developcr by the Agenry and that they had e~counte~ed sorr~ resistance because it was a little unusual. He stated the fact that eight developers had proposed eYdct~y the same thing did not make the pr.,Ject perfect~ nor did i t answar every question. Commlssioner Tolar stated~ recognizing what is tryinq to be accomplished in the downtown area~ he did not understand why roof-rr~unted equtpment should be ellvwed. pointing out roof-mounted equipmc~t is not a1loNCd in the canyon area where one property looks dawn anto another property. H~ pointed aut other buildings will be three or four stories high and will be loaking down o~ thts complex and felt the elimination of roof-mounted equipment should be looked into. He stated Lhis is the first of a long line of projects. 4/23/79 ~ APRII. 23 ~979 79-309 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING ~OMMISSION~ ~ EIR NE~ATIVE DECLAilATION AND RECLASSIFICATION N0. ~8-79'37 ~GO^~^a1eo~~ssiui~nr J~hnson Mr. Prlest atateinthCo~isslonuncallsQtl~o entYP~s) f ~creening~"dog hcuses". •teted the Plann g Commissioner Johnson ststed he thought (tHQ°ind~~~tGd'hetrealizedPdlrectton hasubaen~given from th0 rr~)ority of the Commisslone~s. by tha City Councll th+~t this shoul~ on~l sho9pinghcenter~PpNe9l~dicatadnheadld~otdagree the f act that th i s w I 11 not be a reg i p he votes on th 1 s i ss ue. He with that co~cept~ but that that would n~t affnct the way stated the Commisston Jointly has hsd dlaeCbutnfeltcitgweuldabeEVary~bs~for~ther whtch wi 11 ba of essistance to the nei ghborhoo . Commissio~ if the developcr werated,theddevel per~has had~a lot oif hassles nbut that % has for a~y other dsvaloper. He st alao had advantac~es of a lot of ess1gtehat and othe~,devel pcrncouldunoth~V~b~~nandrasy~ finest local center ever p~esonted so t Y that the da+ntown davelopcr was allawedcn~i^~~e p~antto~the~PlanningfCommissio~ thet~they t{~e Redevelopment Agency sl~ould be p es 9 would be proud t~ s~~ppurt. Mr. Priest ateted there was nothin9 "'~ake thehplanmback~taf thehci~veloper9 ndnseenifhthern only response would b~: that he would t a re 1 nrq roveme~ ts wh 1 ch cen be made ~ s ta t i ng the Agency' s ob ~ 1 go t t on 1 s to ass i s t the developer in any wey tf~ey can. Priest statcd Chalrman Herbst esked why Oak Street w~+s not continued an through~ and Mr. Oak Streat is not cu~re~tly contned~as~a streethbutdashatserviceeroad'to~thedstores. throughways and i t was not des 1 g Chai rrnen Nerbst stated the Mo pro}e~tblef exceptlonkcandpthatOwasSwiChtreference toi the stated th~t was cor~ect wlth one possi break between the bulldings~ and there w111 prabablY t~e some sort of ~n intersection. Chairman Herbst clarified his con~velohed acr sshthe streetkwould betlookingcrightrintos right to th~ street and anything P the se~vlce entrances. Commissloner Tolar stated with these two deveiopments :.acking up to Oak Screet. he did not unders tand what woul d makc people want to go f rom cme deve 1 opment to the other. snd fel t thet woul d be r~, automati c b reak. Mr~ Prlest stated a practical reason fen,tjLt~~~dkbesverytcostly to relocatei i t and'bring easement in the existing Lemon Street it back In later to service the development. Commissio~er Tolar asked what would encouraga an individual to come: ~nto the downLOwn area and develop a canmercial offlce buildtng~wandhaut,9trashtbins~along thetalleyCketc.e cqnrnercial shappln9 center wi th trucks Mr. Priest stated thn Oak Street alley will be servicing two developments ahd ~y ~dJacent developments wi 1) also need serviceswi; ~abe clearedhebutaPate~tial' develoRersvdo~not^knaws pointed out~ Is that sizaable sites exactly where the buiidings wlll be 1o~iLhd~Ye~oPerst they would antictpate~thegplans ~r built. He stets based on discussions proposed envlsloned any frontsal envisio~stasge~tle rcalignment ofiCleme~tinatto Join Brashears/Collins jotnt propo Lemon cx~ their site, ~ot affecti~g this d~evelopment or the lo+~ding sites~ which wou 4/23/79 MINUTES~ ANANEIM CIIY PIANNING COMMISSION~ APRIL 23~ 1979 79-31~ EIR NEWTINE DEGIARATION ANU REGLASSIFICATION ~~0. 78-79•37 (continued} _.____._._ ___..__...... ._.~_ allaw lundscape screening. lie pointed out any development will have a beck stde and there has to be loadlny anci ui~loadliig at son~e polnt. Commlssloner Tolar felt there Is an oppartunlty at thls time to develop the slte creettwely so that there Is not thc wsl) and alley and tu provtde landscepinq or othe~ amenitirs such ds berms which wlll maka It different than the backs of other commercta) centers. Ne dtd not feel thls Is a normel carm~erc(al center when you are t~lking about A multi• m(Illon dollar~ comme~ctai ~ffice complex going into the arGa. fle felt the back should be designed architecturally as well as the fro~t~ whether It is u+lled a nelghborhood center or not. Commis slo~er Johnson stoted he ag~eed and he belleved there are shopping conters which a~re fronte d on all sides with a large plar.a inside which Is tlosed to the publlc entlreiy. Ile pol~te d out hc ls not rcdesigning the project, but is mercly dlsegrecing with the sCatement that there must be an ~qly rear to thls comn~ercial center. Kelley Neshime. Executive Offtcer, W b D Commercia) Propertles~ agent~ indicated he felt there was some confusi~n ~n hls part as well as everybody else's; that th-ey have wnrked on thls proJect slnce October 1977~ wlth the ayreerr~nt ~Igned In January 197`1; that this Is thei r tht rd redeveloprt-ent proJect and there are cert~in paran~ts~s whi ch they have to work with~ including the archltecture and desic~n~ which are all spelled out tn their agreement; thet ~ormally they would work witl~ the Planntng staff and yo before th~ Planniny Commis~lon on o regular routlne schedule~ but that the Redevelopment Agency ls basically their cnnduit for information and sort~ettmes t-~e Agency does lack knowledge tn the arehit~cture a~nd desi~n aspec~s~ but felt if the Commission has not seen the full architectur8l renderings, landscaping plans~ etc.~ end are slmply looking at tF~is lmpersonal plen~ tl~ey are not yetting the true picture of what ts being ~roposed for the City of Maheim. He stat~d thcy have been berore the City wtth thcir architectural rcnderings and thelr four-slded desl5n plans and have obtatned approval; that thelr development agreement calls for• certaln eh(nys ~eing done on a time{y sequenc~~ that the City must do certaln thtngs within a cer[ain timc perlod and the develope~ must oo ce~tain things withln ~ certaln time period~ and that they havc met all those requirements. He stated the plans are presently into the ~utldlny Divtsl~n for approvsl and they have submitted prellminary pians for the entire site~ including the working drawings~ la~dscape plana, etc.. and that :he design was pretty well the same sort of "neighborhood' cfestgn the City Council had agreed was pract(cal development for the Cit~• ~f Anahefm, and that they were elected to do this development on the b asis of W G D's reputatlon as a quality- type butider. He stated they have bullt 31 shopping centers and have ret~ined ownershtp af al) of them; that this shopping center wil) exceed any of the shopp(ng centers as far as the design. He stated they have had to adhere to strict design controls that the City and the Agency have placad upon them; th~at the rear of the shops i~ architecturally designed and that the four sldes of the building are architecturally treated and are not plain block; that there are no t~ash bins sitting along the alley; and that there are landscaping buffers provided w) th rrpunded, 9rassy areas. Chairman Nerbst asked where these plans are that reflect the lanclscape plans and berms~ and M~. Neshime tndicated that their conduit is the Agency and plans +~ere available if the Planning Commission wished to review them. Chainnan Herbst Indicated he felt from looking at these plans that the Planning Commission is e~octed to be a r~b ber stamp~ but that if the Planning Commisslon -: to make the ,, ground rules, the Redevelopment Agen.ry must deal with the Plann(ng Commission; that the Commission has been involved as land planners for years and polnted out he felt this was ~ poor circulatlon and the plan should ~e revtewed by the Commission and the Agency. 4/23/79 MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLAHNING COMMISSION~ APRIL 23, 1g79 19•31) EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATtAN ANU RECLASSIFICATION N0. 18-~q-~_] (continued) Mr. Neshime st~ted that the A9s~cy and th~ develope~ have hed verlous meetl~gs wtth the Planning Department steff and the Traf~ic Enainee~ing staff and have Narknd with staff on the ctrculstlon patterns and refe~~cd to the c~lteria they havo had to Nork wlth sa far as utillties ara concernod and also the wishes of the City stsff to hsve ac~ess ta the rear portlon. Ne ststed the la~dscaping plans have bee~ discussed wtth ~taff~ also. Chalrman Norbst asked Paul Stngar~ Traffic E~gtnecr~ if he hod any comnents regardtng the trafflc circulatlon~ and M~, Singer r•eplled that they heve met s~veral tlmes on thls pa~ticuler plan and several sugyestlons have been madc, but they are not reflected on thts plan at all, Mr. Neshima askod if thc Cummissian would 1(ke to take the time to revlew [ha lendscaptng plans~ archttecru~al renderings~ a~d elevatinns. Chalrman Horbst stated he felt thls plan deserves a continuance In orde~ for the Planr~ing Commtsslon to go over the plnns slnce other people are wetting; thet thls is the first developmnnt ih~t wlll go into thG dawntown Anahelm area and he felt Anahelm and the taxpayers deserve the best~ rnd in his view of lanJ planning as A Planning Commisstone~ for over 13 years~ thts plan does not r~fiect the best planniny that couid happen on this site. Mr. Neshime asked for a tontinuancc in order f~r the Plannfng Commisslon to revlew the plans. Commissioner Tolar asked why this plan reflects the bank trafflc coming out the way it does and why the future expanslon goes right intn the landscaping and why there is a gt~Alght alley~ etc. He indicated it was his opln{on~ bafore Chetrman He~bst had mr~de his statement that it was obviaus the Commtssion wss expected to rubber stamp this development. He stated the Commissioners are land planners and would have said these same thtngs to any other devrloper who presented these parttcular plans. Commissloncr King asked if underground laading and unloading had baen considered~ and Mr. Priest replted that thcy had considered the well~ but hc did not know whether underground loading had been cons(derad. Mr. Neshime explained the ioading concewt wtth the service well wh(eh Is sc~eened by a wall and mounded landsceping from the atley to Che wall. He felt tf the Comnlssion had the landscape plans they would be able to see that the enti~e a~ea ~s ldndscaped so thr~t people looking Lhrough at the back nf the shopping ce~ter will not see the typtcal back of the center. Chalrman Herbst stated he would like to see a plan presented that wil) reflect a circulation element that will work~ pofnting out parking is destgned contra ry to the flow oP traffic. Cort~issione~ Tolar asked that the issue of Che fuCurc expansfon of the market into the landscaping be answered als~~ and Mr. Neshime replied that chances are sllm the expansion wlll ever take place and explatned the reasan fo~ showing the expansion was economics in order for the tent+nt to justtfy the davelopment. He further explained that in order to have the expanston take place, a proposal would have to be presented at a later date which would be acceptable to the City of Anahetm. Commtsaioner Tolar refer~ed to the straight-through st~eet proposed frum Anaheim Bouleva~d to Clementtne Street and stated that would be the same thing we have had f~~ 25 years - a sxraight street right down the front of the shops. 4/23/79 MINUTES~ ANAHE.IM ~ITY PLANNING COI~MISSION~ APRIL 23~ 1979 19~312 tlk NEGATIVt ut~LAkA11UN ANU REG~ASSIFILATI4N N0. 70-79-37 (co~tinucd) .. . Mr. Nasfilmn stated the design Is enticln~ che supermarket and e rr-~Jor drug ~torQ~ snd CUmmisalo~nr Tolar statec! hc hopcd thts city dtd not da wr,oc lt is doing to crcatc another Safeway dawntawn because I~e dld not feel it was necessary to teer down all of those bulidings to bulld enother S~few~y enA another drug store~ and tndiceted he would like to see som~thing dlfferent than what hns baen done f~r 2~ years. Mr. Neshime statod the Issue Is not the uses betause tl~e uses have been deflned by the City Council~ b ut thot the issue today ls thP ser(ous questions and concPrns of the Cc~mrtilssipn reyarding thQ trA~fic patterns. 11e stated they have butit 30 s~~op~~ing centers anJ have had no problem wlth thls type of clrculation and polnted out chey could provide speed bumps. Gommissloner Tolar Indicated i~e wanxed lo make it clear that he was not agAinst the developGr; that nobody wants this developrtwnt downtown any more than he does and he Is really excitad about what is being done~ but wants to get (t start~d riciht and mavbe adequate (iif~rmatian has nnt been pruvlJed to the Ptanning Commission. Chatrman Ilerbst indlceted he wants the proJect in downtown Anahelm al~o~ but that he was dtssppointed with whet he h~s seen; ttiat the adverse trAfflc pattern and the truck deliverles are a probiem ~nd tie did nat fecl the trucks could get In +~nd out of the alley. Ne felt these problems must be corrected beforG he could vote for the proJect and felt (t was the rosponsibillty of the Commission to see the plans that reflecc the treatment on the back of the b ulldings~ the l~ndscape berms~ etc. ACTION: CortmissEoner Tolar offered a motian~ seconded by Comnissioner King and MOTION RZ ED (Commissioners 6arnes and Bushor~ being absent}~ that consideration of Reclasslficatlon No. ]8-79•3J be continued to the regularly~scheduled meeting of the Plann(ng Comm(ssion on May 7~ 1979~ at the reques~ of the petitloner. Commissloner Tolar suggested that the Redevelupment Agency mtght help them present thelr plans at the morning work session the Planning Gammission witl hold before thelr regular mgeting~ whiich is open to the public~ on May 7~ 1~~9• Mr. Prlest indicated they would review the concerns wtth staff and make sur~ they hav~ all of the info nnatian to present to the Planning Commisslo~ at that meetino. Comrnissioner Tolar suggested that the Planning Comntssianers meet at 9:00 a.m. rather than 10:00 a.m. (n order to provide adequate Lime for revfew. Commissioner Oavid suggested to Mr. P~lest that the entire pian be presented at least for surrounding u~ses for this proJect, and Mr. P~test replied that the master pla~ exists in concept. Mr. Neshime asked tf there was any possiblitty of getting together on an informa) basts prior to thet meeting, and Chairman Herbst and Commissioner Tolar felt the Planning Commisslon's opinlons have be~n expreased and Chairman Nerbst felt the Traffic Engineer should be InvolvnJ in the meetiny. Chairman Herbst steted that he Mould want thts to be the fi~est shopping center anywhera. RECESS The meeting wss recessed at 3:30 p.m. ____..__ RECO_ NVENE The meeting was reconvened at 3:~40 p.m.~ all Commisstoners~ except Barnes~ being present. 4/23/79 .. ~ 1'1NUTES~ ANANEIM CITY pLANNING COMMISSION. APRII 23. 1979 79'313 ITEM N0. PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: BRVAN INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES~ ~T~~RICAL EX~MPTIUN•CLAS5 1 INC., 146 East Orangethorpe Avenue. Anahalm~ CA 92801. ODE E~.U EMEN AGENT: INTRAVISION~ INC.~ 11+S East Orangethorpe CONDI ONAL U~SE~ PERM T N0. 1946 Avenue~ Anaheim~ CA 9Z801. Petitianer ~equastY permission to RETAIN A BINCO PARLOR WITH WAIVER OF MINIMUf1 NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES on property described ds a recta~gularly-Yhapad parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.9 scres having a frontage of approximately 23~ feet on the north side of Orangethorpe Avenue. having a meximum d~pth of approximately 277 feet~ betng loceted approximately 11y5 fePt east of the cantarline of Lemon Street~ and further d~sc~ibed as 1~+~. East Orangethorpe Avenue. Pr~perty p~esently classified ML (IHGUSTRIAL~ IIMITED) 7.ONE. There was no one Indicatinq thei~ presence in opposition to subJecc request~ and althouqh the steff report to the Planning Commission dat~d April 23~ 1979 wa~ not read at the public heartny~ it i~ refQrred t~ ancJ mada a port of the minutes. Jean 5tewart. representing IntrAVision~ Inc.~ agent~ stated thcy were applying for e conditiona) use nermit for the use of the property ds a bingo center and also to operate the Intravision Corporatlcm. She indicated she understood the zoning we~ proper for this use and the lease was conting~nt upon eve rything being approved; that she had ~ permit to play bingo and a business Ilcens~ and Is now having to request a condlt(onal use permtt. TF1E PUBLIC NEARING 41A5 CLOSEU. Commtssionor Bushore steted he had inspected the slte and the information presented Indicates 123 Parkfng spaces ara existing, but tliat he had counted 110 markzd spaces. 6 of which were questtonable because of outdoor trash storage. Ms. Stewart ~sCatad there ls parktng on the street and explained that they do havc a guard to see that the parkinq ts In arder; that one of tl~e members of the Planninq Comnission had been to the stte on a Sunday and pointed out the cars parked along the bullding were out of order end those cars were removed and have not been parked there since. Commisslflner Busho~e expialned that the code requires 185 parking spaces and he had counted 104 usable spaces. He stated each proJect must ~tand on its own merit and street parking cannot be countea. He explained he was the Cortmiasloner who had been to the stte on that Sunciay mcntioned and there was a horrendous parking problem; however~ t~is past week the problem was m{tfgated, but he wes concerned that the patrons wauld utllize other parkfng tn the area. Ms. Stewart stated they havc been asked not to use the Northrop parktng and they do ~ot use It~ but that the company nn the west had pe nnltted parking on their property. She stated bingo (s ope~ated an Sunday afternoon from 2:00 to ti:00 p.m. and on Tuesdays. Wednesdays~ Thursdays and Saturdays, and thiey are never open o~ Friday because the Richlen Cort~eny is open u~til y:00 p.m. on Friday evenings, a~d that they hava agreed to close during the holiday seasan because the Richlen Company, which is a dtscount retail outlet, has traffic problems at that time. Commissfoner Bushore asked the function of Intravi~lon, and Ms. Stayart ~eplied intravision is a public foundation established for the purpose of p~vducing video casseCtes to be shvwn aC the beds of hos~+ital paiients to help inspire them to build a consclousness for health; that they are doing some ~esearch wtth a Scuthern California medica) schc~ol; that there has bee~ a great deal of work done in the audio fteld giving people whp are going to have surgc ry the next day an aud(o cessette ta help them ftnd 4/23/79 t , ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ APRIL 13, 1979 79-314 MiNU7ES~ ~IR GA7EGORICAI EXENi'T10r~-CIASS 1 AMD CONpITI~NAI -~SE, PERM~T N0. 1 46 (c~ncinued) peace t~~e nlght before; that they arn trylnq to help people get hold of something withln themselves to help tham pul) through thefr t~tal~ and trlbulatlons; thet they are working wit~- the Voterans Admtnlstratlo~ ~nd the Americen legion; that thls Is not b ~sed on any religlous ~octrine and the nar~x~ of the proqram is "This Is Your Dey" (your day for health~ o~ felth~ or hesllny~ or strength and cou~age~ etc.); that this Is e five-minute program and they are ail narrated by different celcbrities; r~nd tl~at they have made two pilnts and are using the fands from bingo to ecqui~~ the equlpment and to bulld a studio to produce the cassettes. She stated they have a ve ry stncera motivatlon In serving people In thls aroa. Commissloner Jahnson statcsd the Gommisslon Is not making its decislo~ based upan the us~ of the funds. He asked if they were in the process of producing the tapes at this time, ar if it was in thetr overall plan, Ms. Stewart replled that they have prod~ced a pilot~ but have not produced or distributed any cassettes; that they have applled for grants~ etc. Cammissloner Tolar stated he does not have any problem wlth the use of the property and that bingo seems to be a wey of life n~v+ with many organizetlons using it to raise funds; ha+ever~ he was concern~d ebout tha parking. He stated he dld not knvw of the approval of any use where the proJect did not stand on its own merit. He felt there would have to be someh ori~o18°k~~qtcannout~be allowedito contlnueh,and heedld notefeel~thetCo issio~acould nelg P spprove this typc af vlolation. Ms. 5tewart statrd there !s a limlt on tht seat(ng capacity~ but tl~at they have ~ever fllled to that capacity because It is not comfortable for the players. Commissloner ~ushore stated on the day he was In the Area there was a horrendous park(ng problsm and polnted out he was not looking at this proJect because ft was not sc.heduled; that the guards were more Inte~ested in watcht~g the traffic than the parking; that the flre lanes were bl~cked and the~e was haphazard parking; and that Northrop had e person watchtng to make sure that the(r park(ny wes not befng used because they had people workl~g on that day. Ms. Stewart stated that problem has been completely cleared up and no on~ is using North~op's parking and the guard ts seeing that the parking ts handled prc~perly. Commissianer Bushore asked if any other bingo us+ts have bae~ approved in tha Industrial area. Robert Nenninger, Assistant Planner~ stated bingo usas have been granted In the industrial area~ mostly for private clubs and normally with reciprocal psrking ag~eenents as bein~e proposed here~ but with the totai ~mount of parking on the off-hours being adequate. stated the oniy way the parking could be brought inta conformance with cocSes would be to reduce tha size of the assembly area. CommissiQner Bushorc felt it woutd be hard to ask them to reduce the number of players or thelr intended use of the property. He did ~ot see how the Ca!nmission couSd approve this use and stated he was oppased to the use beca~use of the needed parking. Ne asked how many people ~orrt~~lly attend these games~ and Ms. Stewart replied they had approxtmately 300 people playi-~g on the previous Sunday. Commissioner Bushore stated even if the players came Mo in each car, 150 spaces wouZd be needed which would mean 27 cars parked o~ the street or on neighbors' property. 4/23/79 MINUT~S, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ APRIL 23~ 1379 19•315 EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 AND CONOITIONPL US~ PERMIT N0. 194b (contlnued) M'. Stw+art statod thcy orc no longor using th~ Narthrop psrkinp~ but that pa~king is ~vallable across the straet on property awne,d by 6ryan Industrial Propertles. Commis•.lonnr ~uahore steted players woulcf heve to cr~~ss Orangethorpe Avenue If they parkad across the streat and ha would not want ta be resp~nsible for that type of arrangamant. CommiASioner Johnson at~ked how many flxed scats are in thc fecllity~ end Ms. Stewart stated they h~ve permlasio~ from !he Fire ~Ndrtment for 354 seets~ but they ha~e only 336 serts . Gommissloner Johnson stated the Plan~iny Commisslon has sevaral Inek xes or ways of cAlculsting how many parking sNeces are requlred~ onc based on square fc+otage and the other based o~ the number of fixecl soats~ and that the method of calculating thls use indicatas 18$ spaces are requlrad for this use. Robert Fienntnger explained tnet ~8S spece` ere required for all the uses on chls site and 155 spaces would bo requlred Just for thc bingo use based on the ratio of 1 space per 3~ square feet. Lommisslonor Tolar ask~d how many amployees would be on the premises. and Ms. Stewart replied they heve volunt:crs who work the bingo 9ames and there would be approximate~y s(x persons who would need to park. Commlssioner aushore stated 1~5 spaces arc requlred Just for the bingo use and that Intravisi~n uses only one~-third of the building and two-thlyds of the parking~ whtle th~ wholesale use uses two-thirds of the buiiding an~ one-third of the p~rking. He stated approximately 7SZ pf the area is proposed for bingo tables~ two restrooms. a snack bar, some offlcss~ and a store roam~ and ~sked where they would do work on the video cas4ettes. Ms. Stewart stated they have only been doing the bingo for 60 days a~d when they purchase cameras and go into productlan~ they wc,uld ~emave thp bingo tablrs. Commissloner Bushore stated he dtd not see haw he could support the use because the Commission is constantly trying to pratect the industrial a~ea, and Chalrman Herbst stated he has never supported bingo in the industrial area because he thought It was the wrong use In the w~ony place. Ms. Stewart pointed out the building to che west is industrial; however, further past that the~es Is a furniture stor~ and Tile Wurld which are ~oth retail and ac~oss the street is ell retatl, and next door, in th~ same bulldiny, Is the Richlen Company which iS a ~atail operaeio~. Commissloner BusFwre stated the Commission (s discussing this partlcular use and not the other uses; that therc are permitted uses in the i~dust~tal area and if the other uses are not supposed to be there, then the problem is compounded; and that he assumes those uses. If they were approved. would stand on their own merit, but that he sees chis as a bingo use in an Induskr(al arca with a tremendous parking problem. Commissioner Tola~ stated he did not nec~ssarily agree; that this is one of the are~s which Is industrially zoned which could be deemed quasi-cam+ercial because tt is on an arterial highway, and he was not satisfied this is a pure industrlal Zone. Chatrrtwn Herbst sCated the site is right next door to Northrop and that tFiey wl ll have tc~ spend their mo~cy ta have a person protect their parking, and he felt no matter what the petitioner does. people will stiil park there. 4/23/~9 ~ NINUTES~ ANAFIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ APftll. 2~~ 197~ 79-316 EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1_ AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1946 (conttnued) Commissionar Tola~ esked whst zone permits binqo uses~ and Jack Whlt~~ Deputy Lity Attorney~ replled b(ngo (s allownd in all commerctel zones under the bingo ordinance and haa to ba conducted at the same location as the organizatlonal activity~ fu~cttona or offices~ and a condltlonal usa permit (s nat n~eded in a commercisl xone for a bingo operatlon; hawever~ (f there Is inadequate parking, a varldnce would be requtred. Commissloner Tolar asked about th~ lease~ and Ms. Stuw~rt stated sl~e does have e lease and it was contingent upon this use baing app~oved by the City for this operatlon~ and th.~t It was approvcsd and she do~s hava a btngo llcense and bustness ltcense epproved by th~ Plann(~,q Uepartment~ the Flre Uepartment~ the Police Department~ the City Attorney'~ Office~ etc., and that the operotlon was commenced on that basls. Chairmen Nerbst felt Bryan Industrtal Praperties should I~ave been vPry jware of the uses permttted in tlils zone. Robert Henninger explained that the Planning Oepartment did approve the use in error~ but eccording to the pla~s submittrd at that t(me~ tl~e park(ng we,s adequate and apparently the use has bocn increased. Ms. Stcwart IndlcaCed t~~at these are the same plans as submitted at that time. Cammlssioner David asked if the Plann(ng Department knew the b(ngo opcration was going in, pol~ting out this Is an (ndustria) area and that a condltlonal use permit would be requlred, and it was nated the approval was on oversight. Commissfoner Johnson esked tf there were any complaints recorded from Narthrop~ and Mr. Nenninger repiied that no complaints had been received. Comm(ssioner Bushore referred to recent articles in the newspaper concerning employees of these bingo games betng paid which is a violation of the bingo ordinance and asked (f this organization was included~ a~d Ms. Stewart replled that ihey were. Commisstoner Bushore stated he had mentloned thls subject because he could see Commisstoner Davtd's interest in allowing the use until the termination of the lease and he was trying ta make up his awn m(nd and thera were some bing~o operatlons actually paying employees, which is a vtolation since all workers shnuld be volunte~rs. Ms. Stewart indicatcd thcy do not pay their employees. Commissioner Oavid stated he would ltke to app~ove the use at least until the license expires on Janua ry 27~ 1980~ because of the oversight by the varfous departments of the City. Commlssloner T~lar was concerned because there was an oversight by the Clty and did not feel he could Justify dental to the petitioner after the petitianers have been ca~did and hAn~st and we~e assured the use was approved. Commissioner Bushore stated it ts unfortunate that a mistake was made and he recognizes there is a lot of misinformatio~ that goes out of City off(ces~ but did not feel that Just because somebody downstairs makes a mistake~ the people upstairs should approve it. Catmisstoner David stA:ed he was refe~ring to the use being permitted unttl the expiratian of the bingo license on Janua ry 27~ 1980~ and Jack White explained the binga license is a regulato ry control of bingo games themselves, and that it (s more than Just a regular business license. 4/23/79 MINUTES~ IWANEIM CITY PLANI~ING COMMIISSION~ APRIL 23. ~979 79'3~7 ~Iit CAYEGONICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 AND CONDITIONAL USt PENMIT N0, 1946 (co~tinutsJ) Chsirman Herbst stated this I~ over 300 peaple attending this atte with only 123 parking spsces e xtsting~ whlch means there wilt be some 150 to 200 automobiles compnu~ding the area. Robert Nenninge~ stated he belleved the floor area for the main aasembly area was smeller at tha tima the plans were originally brought beforc the Plannlnq Department and there was evidence that there was reciprocal parking. Chairnna~ Herbst stated he felt the use would be detrimental to the surrounding area. Annika Santalahti~ Assista~nt Director for Zoning, stated sometime~ when the petitloner indlcAtas they will expeck 1~4 to 240 people to ottend the games~ then the Pler,niny Department feals that would be permissible accordtng to the zoning and the petiti~ne~ goes before the Fira pepartm~nt and is told they would bp allowed to have a maximum c~pactty of 35~ P~ople~ then they decide that would be great. She stated shc dld not know what had happened In this parkicuiar case~ but that It has happcsned in the past when zoning has sald that a number (s fine and the Flre Departme:nt allows more. Cammlssioner Tolar stated because of staff's error, he was thinkl~g In terms of allowing the use for a ltmited period of tin~e and controlling thc number of people permitted to participate whlch~ in turn, would limit tha parktng. Comntsstoner Bushore pointe~i out to the petitioner that the thtnking is towa~ds reducing the bingo nrea and limiting the number of players to approxlmataiy 250 and ltmltt~g the use to the end of the ~icense period~ and asked if that would be agr~eeable to thc pctitioner, Ms. Std~-art ~eplied that it would be difficul[ to reduce the number of players~ and Conwnissioner Bushore pointed out they are allowed to play five days a week. Commissioner Oavfd polnte~- nut the steff report indicates the petitloner expected a maxlmum of 250 to 260 persons Lo occupy ttie premises at eny one time~ and Ms. Stewart replied she had never made a statement as to the n unber of players. Commis~toner Tola~ stated this problem wi[h Iicensing has be~n dtscussed many times ~nd he could not understand why we cantinue to have this same problem. Commissloner Johnson ~asked if the lease was cantingent upon the approval of this permit~ and Ms. Stewart replted that it was. Jack White stated he was not in a position to give the petiti~ner legal advlce rega~ding her lease, but felt tt was wo~th exploring If the permit were denied~ even tf the approval was given in error but cannot be carried out under the zoning code, then there may be legal qrounds for terminating the lease. Chairman Herbst stated Bryan Industrial Properttes has been developing industrial complexes for years and are very cognizant of what ts required. He stated he would not vote for approval of bing~ 3n the industria) area. Commissioner David stated he agreed that the industrtal area is not the proper place fo~ bin~o operattons, but felt the petitioner had been a victim of circumstances in this sttuatlon. Chalrman tlerbst stat~d he would Itke ta find out what happened regarding the plans presented and the parking spaces proposed. 4/23/79 79-318 MlNUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ APRiI. 23~ 1979 EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 ANO CONDITIONIIL USE PEaMIT N0. 1946 (continuad) Ms. Ste~wart stated thts is an Identical plan to the ona submitted to the Plennlny Depertment whan she N~s wp~k~~o th~11LMcensingtDepartn+rnt.the one M~. Ilenninqer had stemped and i~ltialed to be returned t Mr. Henninge~ atated hcz recalled thet the parking met the rcqul~ements at the tfine of the o~lginal propasal~ but that he does not ht+ve those plans and they were not returned to the Licensing Department. He stated he would believe the infermaCion contained i~ the staff report regdrfrom Mse Stewart2bndpis~conslstentPwith thePnumbe~~ofcseatingkproposcd at 2fi0. lnformation It was noted the Plenning Oirector ~r his authorized rep~esentative has dete~mined that the p roposed proJ~ct falls within the deflnition of Ca~egorical Exemptioi~s, Class t~ as deftned in parayraphoricalih~exempt~fromathemrcquiror-,~nctLO pmepareRan~ElRGuldelines and is~ therefore~ categ Y Commissioner David askeu if waiver of the minlmum number pf PHenningeraexpl~lned thelcode requf red if the number uf players ls I tmited to T.50, and Mr. relates to the square footagc of the matn asse~~oly area and it would hsve to be reduced In order to eliminate the walver. Comnissioner Tolar suggested denying the waiver and granting the cond(tional use perm~t subJect to a maximum numbe.r of players, anci Jack White explained that the walver would stil) be requtred b~cause 185 parking spaces are necessary unless the main assembly area Is reduced~ a~d~m~9~dgassembly area tovthebnumber~ofesquare e~tiwhtch,wouldPequal the 123 granted for spaces exl s ti ng. Commissioner Tola~ asked the square foutage which would allow the number of patrons propos~d at 250. He stated he would support the use sub)ect to the hours of operatlon being stipulated as indicated when tl~e other businesses ere closed bocause af the inequlttes of the City being able to contro) iicensing and this type of thing betng done in the first place. Ne felt (f this had been controlled by the LicenslnHee~Phasized9that Oepartments, the Commission would not have to hear this type of thing. he was not bu~t~9etl~"~antedstofpolntaout thatewe havesgotftoahaveebetterecontrol of the ever seen~ Y licensing and what ls happenir.g in the industrial zones. Chalrman Herbst stated he'ece becauseehettistquiteNknawledgeable~aboutrthe usesewh(ch canld sllaw this in the flrst p go into the industrial area. Robert Henninger stateveitotbe reducedifroW~5450 squaremfeetetoh~~450rsquareefeet, the main assembly area would ha M nika Santalahti stated 240 persons would be aiiowed at the bingo activlties if vidved ~,~om the po~nt of view of the number of spaces per fixed seats. She stated that option is not evailable in this sttuation because the seating ~s not flx~ed and they can arrange it any way they like. Ms. Stewart stated they arrange the seating in accardance wlth Fire Oepartment requirements. Commissloner David stated he would like to offer a motion which would give them until January 27, 19~30 to look for another location. 4/23/79 MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL ?3~ 1979 74"3~y EIR CATEGORICAL EXEl~'TION-GLASS 1 AND COMDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1946 (continued) Ms. Steiwart ststed with 15(, ple/ers they would probably not mt~k~- it very well dnd that the Fire nepartn~ent has replanned the facility, ellowing '~.ham more patrons~ but thAt they heve reduced the nu~nbar from 3y4 to 330. She :Cated she hes graat regard for the properties s~ound end does not feel they have infringed on the other propertiss as s~ riously as picturad. She asked if valet parking would be acceptable with perking at th~ facilities across the street. Commissioner ~ushore asked Ms. Stewart if she was the same Jean Stewt~rt who had eppea~ed befnre the City Council on Septerrber 19th concerning the pr~posnd chen~es in the btnge ordinance~ and Ms. Stewart replied that sh~ was. He pointed aut that she h~d Indlcated she did not fee) any restrictions should be placed on che number of days that bingo wouid be allowed~ but that thr~e days would bn the minlmum acceptahle. He stated~ (f epp roved~ this wnuld not be ~aking them to cut down on the number of days per waek to ploy, but on the number of people who would be allowed to play so that the use would not hurt the nelghbors. He felt this arrangement would be nbre than falr. Commissioner Davld offered a motion~ scconded by Commissioner King and MOTION CARRIED (Commissloner Barnes being ebsent)~ thet th~ wafver of code requirement ba dcnied for the minlmum nunb er of parking speces vn thc be~Si5 that parking is a problem In the area. Ms. Stewart asked if this was lhe f(nal dctlan on this matter~ and Commissloner pavid pointed oux she could appeal any decision to th~ Ctty Councll. Commissioner David offered a resolution that Petliton far Condtttanal Use Permlt No. 1946 be grented and that thc main assembly arGa be reduced from 5450 aquare feet to 445o square feet~ which would limit the nurrber of players to approximately 250~ to explre at the end of the annual Ifcense perlod on Jsnuary 27, 1980~ subJect tn the petitioner`s stlpulati4n that che hours of operation shall be from 7:00 p.m. to 12:00 m(dnight, Tuesdey, Wednesday, Thursday and Saturday nights, and 2:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Sunday afternoons. On roll call~ the for~going resolution FAILED TO CARRY by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: DAVIU~ KING~ TOIAR NOES: COMMISSIONEkS: BUSNQRE~ NERBST~ JOHNSGN ABSENT; COMMISSIONERS: BARNES Co~nmissioner Bushore offered a resolution denying Petitlon for Conditlonal Use Permic No. 1946 on the basis that ;his is the ind~strtal area a~d will create parking problems for the surroundtng uses. Commissioner David ind(cated he was spea~ing against the resolution for denlal on the basis that he felt the Planning Commission has to back up the staff ~nd here is s situation where there was an error and the pecit)oner is a victim of circumstanceS. The foregoing resolution FAILEO TO CARRY by th~ following vote: AYES: CQMMISSIONEaS: BUSNORE~ HERE35T~ JOHNSON NOES: COMMISSIONERS: DAVID, KING~ 70LAR ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 9ARNES ACTIQN: Commissioner Bushore offered a rtatior,, seconded by Correnissioner David and MOTION ~D (Commissioner Barnes being absent), that co~~ideratian of Petition for Condittonal Us~ Permlt No. 1946 be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of the Planning Cammission on May 7, 19~9~ because of a tie vote. 4/23/79 k ~. MINUT~S~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ APRIL 23, 1979 79~ 32~ 17EM N0. 8 PU('~I.I~ NfARI~~f;. QUNCRS: A, G. ANU UORIS K. RICHTER, t NE6 VE DECLA;'ATIOt~ 30Q01 frown Val ley Parlorray, Laguna Nlgue) ~ CA 92677. Q~(~t ' , ,~NT A~~NT: C. C. NUMPNRIES~ 3~~01 Crown V~) ley Pe~kway~ ~ IONAL S~~i'~MTT~~fO. 1g47 Laguna Nigucl ~ CA 9?.67~. Petitioner requests ON-SALE - OF ALCUHOLIC nEVERAGES IN A PROPOSED RES7AUMNT WITH WAIVCR OF MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKINf SPACES on propa~ty lescribed as a ractangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting ~f approximetely 0.7 acre havtnc~ a frontaye of approximately 170 faet on the north side of La Palma Avenuo~ having a max(mum depth nf approximntely 170 feet, be(ng located approximately 195 feet east of the centerline of State College doulevard. and furthe~ described as 2011 East La Palma Avenue. P~operty presently classtfied CL (GOMMERCIAL~ LIMITED) ZANE. The~e was no ane Indlcar.ing their pressn in oppositfon to sul,ject req uest~ end although the staff report to the Plunntny Cammisslon dated Aprll 23~ 197~ was not read at the public h~aring. (t Is referred to and made a part of the minutes. John Hunt, ~epresenting The Black Angus~ 200 Sec~nci Av~nue West~ Seettle~ 4lashington, was prese~t to answer any questlons. THE PUBLIC ~IEARIN~ WAS CLOSED. ACTtON: Commissioncr Tolar offered A mntion, s~r.onded by Comnlssloner Davtd and MOTION CARRTED (Commtssioner Barnes being ebsent), that the Anaheim Clty Planning Cortmfssion has reviewed the proposa) to permit the on-sale of alcoholic beverages in a proposed restaurent with waiver of minimum number of parkfng spar.es on a rECtan,yularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximate~y 0.7 acre having e frontage of approxlmatety 170 feet o~ the no~th side of La Palma Avenue~ having a meximum depth of approximately 170 feet~ being located approxlmately 195 feet east of the centerline of Statt College Bouievard; and does hereby approve the Negotive Deciaratton from the requircment to prepare an envlronmenta) impact r~:port on the basis that thrre would be no slgnificant individual ar cumulatlve adverse environmental impact due to the .~pprov~l of thls Neg~*~~ie Declaratlon since the Anah~im Ger~eral Plan designates the subject property for general commnrctal land uses commensurat~e with the proposal; that i~a sensitive enviro~mental rmpacts are (nvolved (n thc p~oposal; that Che Initial Study submttted by the petitioner indicates no significant indiviriual o~ cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and that the Negetive Declaration suh4tantiating the fo ~egoinq findtngs is on file in ;he City of AnahPlm Planning Departmenc. Ganmissioner Tolar offered a motion~ seconded by Conmissioner Bushore and NOTION CARRI~D (Commissio~er Barnes beiny absent), that the M aheim City Planning Conmission does hereby grant the request far waiver ~~f code requirement for minimum number uf parktng spaces on the basis that dnniel would be deprtvtng subJect prope~ty of prlvlleges bcing enJoyed by other p roperties in the same zone and vicinity. Commissio~er Tolar offered Resolution No. PC79-$4 and moved for its passage and adbpt(on, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission doe~ herc:by grant Petition for Conditi~nal iJse Permit No. 1947~ subject to Interdapartmental Cornnittee recomn~~ndatfons. On roll call~ th~ foregoinq resolution ~~as passed by t~.e following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BUSHORE~ DAVIU~ HERBST, JONNSON, KING~ TOLAR NOES: COMMISSI~NERS: ~IONE ABSENT: COMM15510NERS: 13ARNES ~+/23/79 ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CI1'Y PLANNING CO MMISSION~ APRIL 23~ 1979 ~ 1h 79• 371 pU~LIG HEARING. OWNER: ROBERT M. TEPPER~ P.O. Box ITEM N0. z1~~ Northrid~~~ CA ql'~24. AGENTi KIiENG LIM ONG~ N A VE UtCLARAl1UN q~aF~a~m~ CA q2gp]. Patitl~ner p~ ~~yg 104U Burlwood Orive~ ~equests permis3~~n to ESTABLISH A SMALL ANIMAL NOSPI7AL on pro~erty described ~s s re+ctangularly- sh~ped parcel of land consisii~ of LemonxStre~tY having~a max{mumadepthtof approxl ately mately 220 feat on the e~st 143 feet~ bel~tg located apbe~xa^~1G04 North~LemonuSt~oetthep'e~pt~'~y~p'eS~ntlynclassifted Avenue~ end further desc CG (COMMERCIAI~ GENERAL) ZONE. There was no one indicatin9 t~n~ ~Commission,datedpAprtln23~, 1 79ewasrnot~readaat theh~ugh the stAff report to the Plann g public heariny~ It la rofcrred to end made a pa~ t of the minutes. Kheng Lim 4ng~ agent, was pre~sent to answor any questions. TIIE PUBII C HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Nerbst ssked the size of the animals~ and D~. Ong replied s St. Bernard or Great Da~ne daq ix Lhe largest animel. Conmissio~er King palnted out th e~mals,atlthtsnfactlttyffand~ D~t OnqtlndicateduthatGheQ grooming or general boarding of en agreed. ACTION: Commisstoner King offe ~eA a moti~n'tha~~h~d~+ahe/mnClty~PlanningdCaommissionNhes ~p (Commissioner Bernes being absent) ~ revlewed the proposal to permi t c~"' 0,958acrelhavingta1frontegecnfnapproxlmetelyd220f feet of land consisting af approximat Y roximate) 143 feet~ bel~g on the east side of Lemon 5t~eet~ ha~ving a maximum depth of epp Y located epproxln~ataly 455 fcDectaration from~the~requi~ementatocprepareAannenvironrt+ental ~ereby app~ove the Negative impact report on the basis that the~e wouldroval~ofithisiNec+ativeiDec aratlo~usinceithe adverse envi~onmental impact due to the app ~ A~aheim Gener~) Plan designates the sut~Ject property for general ranmercia) l~+~d uses canme~surate with the propos al; that no sensittve envTronmental impacts are involved in the proposal; that the (nitla fsete~ironmental impactsPcandithat theiNeqattvc Declaratlon individual or cumulative adve substantieting the foregoiny findings is on file tn the Clty of Anahelm Plenn(ng Department. Commisstoner King offered Resolut(on No. Pi.79-81 and R1Ofentf Petltianefor9CondltionaliUse tl~at the A~ahelm City Planning Commission dnes harPtiy g Permf t No. 1948~ subJect to I nterdepa~tmenta~) Commi ttee recanmendations. On rol) call, the foregolny resolutlon was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BUSf~ORE~ OAV10~ NERBST. JONN50N~ KING. TOLAR NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSEMT; COMMISSIONERS: BARNES 4/23/79 "'r: .r ~ ~. 79•322 MINUTE:S, ANANEIM (:ITY PIANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 23~ 1979 ITEM N0. 10 PUliLIC HEAPINr. OWNta: BUSINESS PROPERTIES a29~ E UECLARl~TION 17~~~0 Sky P~~k Circlo~ I~vlne~ CA 9271~+• A~ENt: ptl TALO~ INC.~ ~45 g~kar Street~ Coste Mesa~ CA « ~ -' ~~~ ~2f,7(,. Petitloner re~u~s~ts permission to ESTABLISH A DRIV~-TNKOUGH RESTAURANTl4 ~ aGAesrlocetedrnorthas en irregule~ly-shaped parcel of land c~nslsting of app~oximately , g rnxl- and east of thc nartheest o~rChe northasidc of~Ch~pman Avcnue and,~~7rf~~teonnthePe~st mate frontages of 7~: feet side of Ilerbor BoulevArd~ and having a maximum depth of appraximately 250 feet. P~upe~ y presently claasified CG (COMMERCIAL, GCNERAL) ZONE. There was no one Indlcating their presence in oppositlo~ to subJect request~ and a~ithough the staff report to the Plannfng Commisslon dated Apri) 23~ 191`3 Was not reacl at the public hcarlnc~~ t~ Is rcferred to and mede a part of the minutes. Lsonard Metcalf~ Staff Architect~ Uel Taco, Inc.~ was present tc. answer any questions. THE PUIiLIG HEARII~G WAS GlO5E0. AC?~CN; CommisSion~r Bushore offrr~~Se^~ti~`~atSthenAnalielmCC~tysPlanningiCommission'has CARRIEU (Gommissioner ~arnes belny ~ shap~sd parcel revtewc~i the proposal to PQ~'~matclyr4vl acres9locatedunortli andnc~asteaf, kheYnortheest of land consisting of app corner of Chapman Avcnue and Harbon~4667efeeC~oneciie9e~strslJe of Harboe~Boulevaad~eand n the north side of Chapman Avenue e rove the Negative having a maxlmum depth of approximately 250 feet; and does hereby app Ucclarat(on from the requirement to P~iVi~~~;~o~~cu ulative,adverse envlronmentai impact that there would be no significant In due to the approval of this Neaj~GO~ r~ialeland uses~cicxmr~ensurate withfthePpeoposal9nthat the subJect property far ger.ei no sensttiv~ environmental Impactatesenonslgnificanthindividual~onc~umulattvetadverse Y submitted by the petlti~ner indic environmental l~r~pects; and tt~at OfeA~aheimvPisDinningeDepartmen~antiating the forcgoing findings is on file in the City Gomm~ssioner Bushore offereC'L~SF;~nningNCammicslor doesmherel~y~9rant Petitianafor adoption~ that the Anaheim Y Conditional Use Permit No. 196~, subJect to Interdepartmental Committee recommendatlo~s. On roll call, the fore~oing rPSOlution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMM15510NER5: BUSHORE, DAVID~ HERBST, JOHNSON. KII~G~ 70LAR NOES: GOMMISStONERS: NOt~E Af3SENT: C~JMM15510NCR5: BARNES leo~ard Metcalf stated the signing plen would be submitt~d for approval (n the near future. 4/23/19 ~ ~ MINUTES~ ANAIIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMIS510N, Ai'RIL 23~ 197y 79-323 ITEM NU. 11 PUBLIL t1EARING. OWNCRS; PING L. WU AND NORMA S. EI~R CA1~O~IICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS WU~ 567 Pcralts Htlls ~rive~ Anaheim. CA g2807. •~ ~ p Petitioner requests WAIYER A~ NINIMUM SIpE YARD ~' SETOAG K TO CONSTRUGT A TENNIS COUaT o~ property dascribed es sn (rre,yularly•shaped parce) of lend consisting of app rox(metr_ly 1.~ ecre hAVing no frontege on e public 5tr~et. heving a maxlmum depth of approxlmately ;32 feet~ betn g locatod approxtmetely ~30 feet south of the intersectlon of Peralt:. Ht Ils Drive end Cerro Vista 41ay~ end further described as SG7 Peralte Hllls Drive. Pro~erty presentl classifled kS-HS-43~~~6(SC) (RESIDENTIAL. SINGI.E- FAMI lY-N I LLS I pE-5 CEt~ I C COf~RI DOR OVERLAY~ 20NE . The~e was no one indlcating thetr presence in opposition to subJect req uest. and although the staff re~ort to the Plsnntng Commisslon datcd ~prl) 23- 1979 wAS not reod at the publ ic hearing, i t is refp~red to »c~d m~~fe a psrt ~f thP minutes. Piny C. Nu~ tlie petitioner~ was present to answer any quest~ons. TNE PuBLI C NEARI NG WAS CLOSED. It was noteJ the Planning Director or hls authorized represent8tivc has determined that the p~oposcd ~,r~)ect falls withln the definition of Categorlcal Exemptions, Class 5~ as deflned in para;raph 2 of the Ctty of Mal~eim Envir~.n~~ental Impact Report Gu(delines end is, therefore, catego~ically exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. Ghairman ~lerbst asked about the proposed lig~~tiny, and Robert Henninger~ Assistant Planner~ pointed out dc~wnlightinr~ is proposed. ACTION: Commissioner King offer~d Resolutian No. PC79'83 and moved fo~ its passage a~d a~opt~ron~ that the Anaheim City Plann(ng Gommiss(on doe, hereby grant Petition for Variance Na. 30ts6 0~ the basis that den(al would be depriving subJect property privileges enJoyed by other properties in the same zone and vicinity~ and subJect to InterdGpartmental Cortmlttce recommendatlons. On roll call~ the foregoing resolution was passed by the follc~wing vote: AYES: GOMMISSIONERS: BUSFIORE, DAVID~ HERBST, JOHNSON~ KING~ TOLAR NOES: COMMISS I ONERS: NONE AkiSENT: GONMISSIONERS: EiARNES ITEM N0. 12 PUBLOG HEARING. OWNERS; CARL AND IMRGARET KARCHER~ €T~'•~~ICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 11 1200 North Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92801. VARtANCE N0. 3009 AGENT; BOB HOLUEN~ 1200 North Narbor Boulevard, Anahetm~ CA 92~01. Petitioner requests WAIVER OF MAXIMUM SIGN NEIGHT TO CONSTRUCT A FREE-STANDING SIGN on property described as a~actangularly-shaped parcel of land consisttng of approxi- mately 0.5 acre located at tlie s~uthwest corner of Katella Avenue and Casa Vista St~eet~ having approx(mate f~ontages of y5 feet on the south side of ICatella Avenue and 220 feet on the west side of Casa Vista Street~ and fu~ther described as 1168 west Katella Avenue. Property presently classified C-a (COMMERCIAL-RECREA710N) 20NE. There was no one indicating their presence in opposiilon to subject request~ and althaugh the staff repoit to the Planning Commission dated April 23~ 1979 was noc read at the publlc hearing. it is referred to and made a part af the minutes. 4/23/79 ~ 1 ti MINUTCS~ ANAHEIM GITY PLANt~ING COMMISSION. APRIL 23~ 1919 79•324 EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 11 AND VIIRIANCE N0. 3d~~ ~~~tlnucd) Bob Holden~ age~,t, explalned duriny the remodal iny of Carl's Rostaurent at 116(3 West Ketel l~ Avenur. f t wes declded to mako A name ch~+ngP th "Cerl K~rr.h~r's Sunshin~ Brol l~r". Me patnted out there ~s an exlsting 50-faot hiyh pole sign and they vmuld I(ke t~ be eble to use the exlstln~ pole. He presented piens and pictures of the ~xisting sign looking both edst and west down Kstella Ave~ue. Ne stated if they hsd to go any lower than SO fee[~ al) vislon would be obstructed by trecs, telepho~e poleS, und existing 50-foot F~igh aigns In the erea and felt th~y do necd the ;0-foot height. Ne Indicated thc p~aposod sfgn wvuld be a much better looking slqn~ end that all ihe slgning on the lower portion woul d be e 1 I mi nat~d. TNt PUBLI C NEARING WAS CLOStU. Commissioner T~iar stated the problem he hes with this request is chat a similar request for a sig n on Beach Boulevard was recently d~nied; that he can appreclate what Is betng attempted. but did not feel he could support a 50-foot high slyn because If one is permittad~ others wlll facl they should bc allowed the sart-e nrivtleges. Commisslo~er King polnted out the existing ;0-foot stgn was constructed ~rior to the code be~ing Ado~,ted end pofnted out if the siyn were located 300 feet f~om residentlal uses~ ~ 50-foot high pole sign would be allowcd~ and he did not fe~l the sign would be harminy anyone. Robert lie nninyer~ Assfstant Planner~ explainsd if the property is located 300 feet from a restdent(al area. the petitioner would be allowed Co add one foot for each 10 feet over the 300 feet~ to a maxlmum c~f 7~ fec~t. Commissio~er Bushore stated he had viewed the exlsting sign from the Gra~d Hotel and It appears to htm the peticioner ls tryYny to get his sign h(gher than anybody else's and felt this Is a chance to bring the signing into canforma~ce and tt should be done. and. based upon the fact thai other requests had been d~nfed, he could not support the request. Commissio~e~ King stated the sign is not harming the resldential area and po(nted out the two•story building with only three wfndows on the north side~ and explatned the sign ls fectng east and west and there is nathing on the south side of the sign which Is toward the residential area ta the south. Commi ss i oner Bushore stated he was not c:once rned about the res i dent I a 1 area ~ but he J us t did not see any need in haviny the s(gn Chat high and felt the petitioner ~nuld be harmtng himself. Hr felc lower(ng the sign would attract more atte~tlon because must people are looking at the architecture of the building and not looking up, and pointed out the p~lm trees blocked Che sign anyw~y. ~1r. Holden stated if ,~ie siyn Is lvwered to 25 feet~ tt cnuld not be seen and that other signs along Katella Avenue are at least SO feet tall. He stated, in addition~ they are trylny to attract people from the Disneyland and Narbor Boulevr,-d areas and need a 50-foot high slgn. Commissioner k3ushore stated he could read the extsting sign from the Grand Notel and dtd ~ot thin k people would be abie to see the proposed stgn with smaller letters from the Grand Hotel nor from Disneyland. Chalrman Nerbst steted in that area the maximum sign height is 75 feet if it is located fa~ enough away from a residential area~ and Robert Henninger, Assistant Planner, further explaine d the sign wouid have to be 750 feet away from any res~dential area in order to be 75 feet high. 4/23/79 ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ APRIL 23~ 1979 19~3~5 EIR CATFGO RICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 11 AND VARIANCE N~, 3089 (continucd) Commissioner tiushare steted hP could see the benc+fit ~f the 65-f~t high slc~n at the Carl's factlity at the corner of Katella anJ the freewsy es it can be seen from the freewsy~ but could nat see the benefit af the proposed sign at this locatlon. Chairman Herbst atated the existing sl~n is ;0 fPet tall and the petit(oner could change the c~py w{thout a hoaring and is merely t rytng to upgradc the cxisting slgn; that it has nut caused any problem~ with the noighbors flnd he felt the petitloner would be deprived a prlvlinge an)oyed by other properttns in the area. Cc~nmissiuner King pointe~ out trees in the parkway are prolecting the wtndaws in the residentlal area a~~f that they would not be able to see the sign. It was noted the Pl~nniny Ulractar or hls autharl=ed reprGSentative has determined [hat the proposed prvjec- falls wltf~in the definitlon of Cateqarical Exemptlons. Class 11~ as defined In paregrapr~ 2 of the City of Anal~eim Envlronmental In~act Report Gufdellnes and is~ therefore~ cateyarically exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIa. ACTION: Commtssioner King affered Resolution No. PC19-34 and mc~ved for Its passage and adoption, that the Anahelm Lity Plann(ng Commtssion does herct,y grant Petitlon for Varlance No. 30,59 an t~~~ bssis that tt~e present slyn is existing at 50 feet and is not harming the nelghbors~ anJ denial would be denyln~ a~~~ivilege being ~nJoyed by other bUSinesses in the same area~ and subject ko Interdepnrtmental Commtttee recommendations. Gommissioner Tolar (ndicaLed he would be supporting thts request on the basls that it wc~uld not be settiny ~ precedent because there is already an existing 50-foot high sign at this locatlon~ and he did not feel chis was the same situatton as the request recently denled on Beac.h Boulevard since there were no other 50-foot high signs tn the area. Mr. Flolden stated economically it would be more viable since ther~ ls an existing 50-foot high pole and explatned they would bc willing to relocate the stgn enywhere on their lot if they could get it 35U feet away from residenttal areas~ and also they need to attract customers who are driving both ~ast and west on Katclla and from Disneyland. Commissianer Bushore stated people would oniy be able to see the sign from one corner of th~ Uisney~land parking lot, and Mr. Hol~en explained it is not th~ir desire to attract customers from the Disneyland parlcing l~t~ but the tourists who arP in the motels and i~otels arounJ Oisneyland. Commissioner Bushore stated that is the reasun he felt the slgn would be more be~eficial if it were lower since the tourists could see it driving down the street. 11e stated he had only seen Lwo siyns in ttie ~rea which were 5Q feet tall which would give any competition to this siyn, a~d felt the palm trees would be a bigger problem. Hr. Holden stated they have a ve ry competent sign arct+itect and this wes his recommendation. On roll call~ the foregoing resolution was passed by the followiny vote: AYES: COMMISSIOWERS: UAVID, HERBS7~ JOHNSO~;y KING, TOLAR NOES: COMMISSIONERS; BUSHORE Ai3SENT: COMMi5510NCRS: BARNES Commissioner Johnson stated narmally he would not support approval of a stgn va~iance. but there is an existing 50-foot high st~n at this location and the petitione~ is trying to improve it. 4/23/79 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ APRIL 23. 1979 19•3~6 ITEM N0. 1~ PUBLIC HEARING. I- To co~sider aiternate propoaals ~ DECLARATION of ultimete land uses Includtng~ but not limlted to. N U 0. 1~Q general comn-erclai~ sinqlc ~nd multiple-famlly ~ - resldentlal developmnnt fo~ spproxlmately 1'1.1 acres on the east side of liarbor Boulovard~ approximately 870 feet north of the canterline f Chapmen Avenue; a~d II - To consider en Ame~drt~nt to the text of the General Plan to parmit mobtlehome parl, development in conxne~clal areas a~d to update the current General Plan in this regarcl. There was no one tndtcaLl~9 thetr presEnce tn opposltlon to subJect request. Jay Tashi~o~ Assoclate Plan~cr, presented the •taff report to the Planniny Comnisslon dated Apri) 73~ 1979, nottny thot Gencral Plan ~mendmcnt No. 1;~ conslsts of two parts, enn being the Lend Use Element f~r Area I wfiich is a rectangulsrly-shaped parcel of land ~onsisting of ~pproximately 17.1 acres located n~ the east side of Harbor Boulevard~ app roximately 8J0 f~et north of tl~e centerl(ne af Chapm ~ Avenue, which Is a prope~ty owner Init(atod General Plan amendment ta chanqe the current qene~al commerctal~ law and m~dtum density residential destgnation to general coim~e~cial and low-medium density residenttal desi~n~tion; that it was the intent of Che proptrty owner ta seek the RM-300~ zontng and t~ cons ruct e condom(nlum c~~mplex should the General F'lan be amended to reflect low-mediur density residenr.ial, Na explained that Area II pertains to amandment of thc Genera) Plan text to permit mobilchome park developments in commercial 3ress ~nd to update the current General Plan in tl~(s regard. fle stated tl~ts ar-~ndmcnt was initiated by the City Council durlny consideratlon of rn~bllehome subdivislons~ develop~nt pracessing time end re~tai Asslstance on February 20. 1`)79. and tl~at they had directed staff to amend the General Plan text ta permit rnobilehUmes in all conxnercial are.as, TNE PU~LIC HEARING WA5 CLOSED. Chairman lierbst was ~oncerned how the proposed change for comnercta) uses would affect plans already app rov~d for resldential development adJacent to th~: commercial usr.s. Annika 5antalahti~ Assistant Director for Zoning, st~ted she recalled that the u~tts met the normal 1S-foat setback and the developer would noMr be requlred to construct a block wall, and there are s~Cback, re.quirements for the cammercial uses that will take place. Chairman Herbst sLated that residential uses are approved and he dTd not th3nk ttie condominium ordinance dlscusses the 20-foot landscaped setback and felt cundnmin(ums should be considered tt~c same ss sl~gle-famlly dvellings anJ the same rules shouid ~pply, and if this is changed fram residential to cemnerctal, the devel~per should be ve ry aware that he has to provEde the 20-foot buffer so that he would not be infringing on the rights of people who are going to buy the property. Jay Tashiro st~ted the property awner has been reminded of the Pla~ning Commission's poltcy relatlv~ to the 2Q-foot landscaped buffer. The Commission d~xcussed the plans proposed an adjacent p~operty, and Annika Sa~talahti explalned there are duplex lots along the westerly property line and an alley adJacent to the north property line. Jay Tashiro explalned the developer of subject property will be required to meet the height restrictions of the commercial zone plus the 20-foot landscaped buffer, and dld not think the adJacent property would be affected. 7here was further discussion regardin~ whether or not additional cortmercial uses are being proposed with the property awner, James Martin, exp'~ining the c~rm~erGial will not be changed; haweMer, Jay Tashi~o explai~ed that more commercial is being requested and that the property is presently zoned CG (Commercial, General). The property owner wilt 4/23/79 ,~ __ _ .._ __ ____. __._ _____.W__ - =-.--.-,.,..,~._..~__._ ~.._. -~ ~ MiNUT~5~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNiNG COMMISSION~ APRIL 23. 1~19 79'3z7 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CENENAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 150 (contlnued) maintein thN zoniny on a portian ~~~tina on Ilarbor 9oulQVarc~ and the commercial Is t»+nq expanded east as far as the General Nlan Is concerned. The Commission d(scussecl the access to the rroperty and the proposed cievelopment of the property with the prope~ty awner. Cl~airmen Herbst po(nted out the problems w(th access, notin~ thAt there had ber.n oppasttion to access onto Wtlken Way~ and Mr. Martin indicated he hed dtscussed the trafftc problems with the Traffic Engineer. Chalrr~an Herbst tndtcated hts hesltancy to chanye the General Plan until plans are presented, ~ncl Annika Santil~hti ex~~l~ine~i ~hnt whPn thF rer,onlnc~ cc-mes in, rl~~s wi l l be presen ted. Cornmissianer Tolar stateJ he a,yreed with Chairman Herhst and ~ssumed the property owner is trying to yst some fceliny before (nvesting a lot of n-oney~ but he was uncomfortable with clianging the General Plan untll those cha~gea cauld be tied t~ specific plans (tt was noted that tf~e request is for a Generai Plan amendment and not rezantn~). Chalrman Nerbst asked the property awner if hs understood thc denstty of the RM-3000 zoning~ and Mr. Martin re~~lied that the proposed use will actually decrease the density of the ex(sting plans. ACTIUN: Commissioner Johnson offered a motion~ seconded by Comnissloner King and MOTION Zt D(Commissioner Barnes beiny absent)~ that the Anaheim City Planning Cammission has reviewed the proposal to change the General Plan deslgnation from the current general comnercial~ low and medlum density residential designatlon to general commercial and low- medium density residential designation on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of appraximately 17.1 acres located on the east side of Harbor aoulevard, approximately 870 feet north of the centerllne of Ghapman Avenue; and to amend the text of the ;,eneral Plan to permit mobilehcxne parks in cortxnerc(al areas; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaratlon firom the requiremenz Co prepare an envlronmental impact repnrt on the basts that there w~uld be no significant ind(vidual or cumulative adverse environmental impact due to the approva) of this Negative Declarati~n; that no sensttive env(ronmenta) impacts are involved in the praposal; thaL the Initiel Study submitted by the petitloner indicates no significant Ind(vidua) or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and that the Negative Declaratton substantiatinc~ the foregoing findings (s on ftle in the City of Anaheim Plann(ng Oepartment. ACTION: Corr,mtssioner Johnson ~ffered Resolution No. PC79-85 and mc~ved far its passage and acTopt~on~ that the Anaheim Clty Planning Conmission does hereby adopt and recomrt~end to the City Council that General Plan M-endment No. 15Q, the Genera) Plan text and Land Use Element~be aciopt~d; and that Exhibit R be approved for Arca 1. On roli cail~ the foregoing resolutlon was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BUSNORE~ DAVID, HkRBST~ JOHNSQN, KING~ TOLAR NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMiS510NERS: ~ARNES Chairman Herbst pointed out that all str•uctures within 150 feet of residential structures must be single story. 4/23/79 ~ ~~ ~~ 79-~Za MINUTES~ AI~AHEIM CITY PLANNING COMh11S510N~ APaIL 23. 1979 ITEM N0. 14 '~~~IRU RECOMMkN UAT I ONS A. VARIANCC N0. 23~+ ~PpRTION 11 AND COt~01TI0NAl. USE PERMIT N0. 1408 FORTION I3 Request or extensions o t me. The staff repo~t to the Planning Commissl~n dated April 23~ 1919 wes Presented' noting subJect properties consist of two portlo~s: Portlon l1 - an Irragularly-shsped parca) of land conslsting of approximately 1.~1 acre locetPd At the svuthwest corner of a roadvay and Adams Street and further dcsc~ibed as 151~+ West B~oadway (developed wlth thc f'epper Tree Faire); an~i Portlon H- a rectan~~ulerly-shaped parcel ~f land conslsting of approximately 0.6 acre lacateJ at the southeast carne~ of Broadway and Adams Street (currently devel~ped with an industrlal building havin~~ A Pepper 7rcr Faire sign painted can the west wall); thot the applicant (Davicl S. Co111n:,) requests Appr~val of extens~~ns o~ t(me for Varlanca No. 2349 end Conditional Use Permit Nc 1~~0~; that Va~riance No. 231~~~ to establish a center for the sale of handcrafted art objects and rel8ted n~erchAndlse w(tfi food sales~ was approved by the Pl:+i~ning Commissfon on April 17~ 1~372- for a perlod of one yea~~ after which time the use: wauld bc ~eviewed to dctermine its campatlbtllty with the area and to determine wliether the parkiny bafng provided was adequate; that on July 1~ 1975~ the Planning C~mmission approved outdoor seating for the lunchroom aftcr the applicant had subrnitted a letter signed by the neighbors Indlcating they had no objectlons; thrt no complaints have bee~ raceived about tl~e activities of the Pepper Y~ee Feire and existing parking appears to ba adequate; that Condikional Use PCrmit No, 140Ei~ to establish e billboard exceeding the allawable areA at other than an authorized location~ was approved by the Planning Commisslon on July 9~ ~973, for a period of one year with possible time extenstons; that the biliboard Is paintad on the wall of a buildtng and advertises the Pepper Trec Faire; and that the time limltatton was established in arder that the Planning Commission could cktermine whether tl~e btllbpard would have an adverse effec:t. On May 28. 1~75. the Planniny Comrnfssion granted a Mo-year extension of time for Co~dltional Use Permit No. 1l~~8, tv expire on May 28, 1971~ and previous extcnsions of tlme have bcen granted fo~ Variance No. 23~+~ and Condltional Usc Permit No. 1408~ to expire April 17, 1979 and May 2a~ 1979~ respectively. ACTION: Commissioner Tolar offe~ed a motton~ seconded by Commisstoner .Johnson and MUTION C RR D(Commissioner E3arnes being absent}~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commissian does hereby grantiee Qn Aer~~e1Jen19Q;'oan~i"~~~yeariextension2of~timetforcCondltionaliUse7~ 1979 , to exp P Permit No. 1bOd, to expire on May 28, 1y81. E~. VARIANGE ~i0. 2694 - Request for an extenslon of time. The staff repart tn the Planning Gommission dated April 23- 1~79 was prese^ted~ noting subJect property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of lend consisting of approximately 0.5 acre located on the east side of Rose: Street, app~oximacely 2S5 feet south of Santa Ana Street; th~t the applicant (Noti+ard Farrand) ~equests an extension of cime for Variance No. 2694 which was granted for a period of two years by the Planning Commission on April 28~ 1915. to permit the outdoor storage of shipping containers with waiver of minimum front setback and requtred enclosure of outdoor uses~ subject to review and consideration for an extension of time upon written request by the petttlone~; that subJect varlar~ce provides for the parking of two shipping containers in the required fro'oximateck ofeet hidhstthat warel~ouse; that the containe~s are S x 24 feet in area and app Y 9 9+ the containers are dr~pped off~ loaded with plastic flower pots and picked up for ~/23/79 ~F MINUTES, ANAHEIM r.~1Y PLANNING CQNMISSION~ APRIL 23~ 1q~9 7~-~29 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIOliS - ITEM ~ (continued) shtpment; that one af the conditlons of approvel was thet th~ effort to altminate the necd for requestsd welvors during thc epplicrnt ha~ ~tated it would not be possible to operate wlth~ complatnts have been received regercfiny tho cnntainer storage suhJect vsriance; and that one previous extension of time hes Ap~t1 zs, tiy7~, epplicant shell make an two-ycnr pcrlod and thc ~ut the contalners; that n~ ~Ince the approvel af been granted~ to expire ACTION: Commtsslo~er Kiny offered a motlo~~ seconck d by Comm(sslancr Uevid and MOTIOk I~~ED (Commisslo~er Bernes being absent)~ tliat the Anahelm Clty Plannt~g Cammisslon does he~eby grent e twcr year extenslon of t(me for Verlance No. 2694~ to expire April 28~ 1q$1. C. RCCLASSIFICATION N0. 7~-79-33 - Nunc pro cunc resoluiton to amend Resolutlon No. ~ 9- . The staff report to the Planning Commission dated April 23~ 1~79 ~~as prosenteJ~ noting that due to a clerical error, a nunc pro tunc resolutton is nece;ssary to corrCCt Resoluttcan No. PC79-4:3 in connact(on wtth Reclassification Na. 78-79-~3 whlch wes grented by the Planning Commisslon on Merch 12, 1979. ACTION: Comm(ssloner Kiity offered Resolution No. PC79-75 and moved for its passage and a~optTon~ that the Anaheim City Pla~ning Commtssion does h~reby yrant the resolutlon amendtng Resolutlon No. PC79-43~ nunc pro tunc~ i~ ccxinect(on w(th Reclasslficetion No. 7~-79-33• On rall cell. the foregoiny resolution was passed by thr following vote; AYES: COMMlSSIONERS: BUSHORE, OAVID~ HER85T~ JONNSON, KING~ TOLAR NOES: COMMiSSIONERS: NONE AB$ENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES COMFIISSIONER DAVIU'S APPOINTMENT TO TNE COMMII'TEE TO STUDY THk HOUSiNG ELEMENT. Chairman Nerbst noted [hat the pianning Cortmission had unanimously recommendcd Commissionar David to serve on the committee to study the Nousing Element. ADJOURNMEkT There being no further business, Cornnissioner David offered a motlon~ seconded by Commtssioner Kiny and MOTION CARRIED (Canmisstoner E3arncs belny absent)~ that the meeting be adjau~ned. The me~sting was adjourned at '-.2y p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~~ • ~ Edith L. Harris, Secretary Anaheim Ctty Planning Cortwnission ELN:hn~ 4/23/79