The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1981/09/21~ ? f Ctvlc Center Anahetm~ California September 21, 1g81 REGUTAR MEETING Of T~IE ANANEIM CITY PLANNIHG COMMISSION RECULAR The reguler rtkating af the A~ehetm Clty Plenntng Cam~isslon MEETINf wat catled to o~der by Chelrman 8ushore at 10:A; a.m., September 21. 1981~ In the Council Ch~nbe~, a quorum being present~ and the Commisslon reviewed plsns of the Itams on todey's agenda. Retess: it;d7 a,m. Reconvene: i;;~ p.m, fo~ public testimony. PRESENT Chalrmen Bushore Commissioners: 9arnes~ Bouas~ Fry~ Nerbst~ King~ Talar (Commissioner Tolar arrlved at 1:4y p,m.) AI,SO PRESENT Annika Santelaht( Joel Fick Jack Irh i te Jack Judd Jay Tashtro Peul Singe~ Dean She~er Edith Harrts Assistant Dire~to~ for Zaning Aasistant Dir~ctor for Ple~ntng Aaslstant C(ty Attorney Office Engineer Assoclate Plsnner Traffic Engineer Asststant Pl~nner Planning Commission Secretary PLEDGE OF ALI.EGIANCE TA T~IE fLAG_ LEO BY - tommisslnner King. - ITEM N0. 1: EIR NEGATIVE OEG ~ N0. '.2 : TI OM. RECLASS I FI CATI ON N0. 81 -81-4h, ANO CONOITIONA .~__. PUBLIC t1EARINC. ONNER: ANTt10NY AND LEA GOUVEIA~ 837 South @each Boulevard~ Ansheim, CA 92L'Or+. AGENT: lA CRESTA BUILDERS~ JIM FREDINBURG. 8322 Cietrmont. Mesa Boulevard, San Olego, CA 92111. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped pa~cel of land co~sisting of ap~roximately Q.75 ac~e~ 837 South 8each B.~ulevard. RECLASSIFICATION REQUEST: RS-A.-43~00~ TO CL. CONDITIONAI USE REQUEST: TO PERMIT A k>-UNIT MOTEL. Subject petitian wrs continued fror+~ the meetings of July 13~ tg81~ Auqust 10 and 24~ end Septembcr 9~ 1;31~ at the rcqucst of the petitioner. There was ~o one tndl~ating their presence tn oppositiun to sub)ect request, and although the staff re~ort was not read, tt is referred to end msde a part of the minutes. Jim Fredinburg~ agent, was pr+eaent to answer a~y questians and txplained they have resol•~ed the neighbors cancerns and rtr~ved the swi+nming pool and turned the but lding. . THE PUBLIC NE:ARING WAS CLOSED. 81-579 ~ MINUT~S~ ANAtIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ SEPTEMBER 21~ 1981 $1-5$0 ACTIONs Commissioner King offe~ed ~ motton~ aeconded by Cammfsatoner Bou~a~ and MOT~ON CARRIED (Commissloner Tolar being abaent)~ th~t the Anahetm City Planning Commissfan has revl~wed the proposal ta reclaasify subJect p~ope~ty from RS-A-43,000 (Restdentlal~ Ayriculturai) =one to the CL (Conn~ercisl~ Ltmited) zone to permit a~~5- unlt mote) on a rectangule~ly-shapad parcel of land conslsttng of epproximately .75 acre~ heving a frontage of •pproximatrly 11p feet on the west side of Baach Boutevard (837 South Besch Boulevsrd); and doea he~eby spprove the Negettve Declaration from the requirement to prepere en environmental impect report on the bests th~t there would be no significant individual ar cumui~tive edve~ae environmantal tmpact due to the approval af thia Heyattve Declar~tlon since the Anahefm Gener~l Plan designates the subJect property for general commerctal land uses commensurat~ with the proposal; thet no sensicive environmental tmpacts are Involved In the pro~+osal; that the Initiai Study submitted by the petttloner indicates no sic~niflcant indivtdual or cumulattve adverae environmental impacts; end that the Ne~attv~ Decl~rattan substantlatin~ the farcgoi~g ftndinys is on file tn the City of Anehetm P1Anning Depertment. Commissloner King offered Resolutlon ~b. PC81-2A0 and moved for its peasage and adaption that the Anaholm City Planning Cortmi~s(an dacs hereby gra~t Roclessificattan No. 60-a1-~i4 subJect to Interdepartmental Committee r~coamendatto~s. On roll call~ the foreyoing resolution was passed by the followinq vote: AYES: ,OMMISSIOt~ERS: I~AkNES~ BOUAS~ tiUSNpRC~ FRY~ HEaBST, KING NOES: COMMISSIONEi'.S: NONE A95ENT: COMMIS510WER5: TOLAR Con.missfoner King offored Resalutlon No. PG81-201 and n~ved for tts passage and ~dopCion that the Anaheim City Planning Cor~mission does her~by gr~nt Conditiona) Use P~~mit No• 2237 in c,omplia~ce with Secttons 18.~;.030; .031; .~~2; ,03~; .034 and •~35~ Titl~ 1$ of the Anaheim Muntcipal Code end subJect to Interdepartmental Commi ttee rec,ommendat icxis. 0~ roll catl~ the foregoing re:solutlon a~as passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ NOES: COl1M15510NER5; NONE A~SENT; COMMISSIOt~ERS: TOLAR EIR NEGATIVE ._ i t y 1 : BOUAS~ ~US110RE~ FRY. NERBST~ KING C LARl1T 10~~, RE SIFICATION N0. 81-82-t ahn ATIVE MAP PUBLIC HEARING. ONNER; DONAl,O G. NEYDENDAHL~ ET Al, 205-^11 North Mestern Avenu~~ Anahetm~ CA 92$01. AGENT: SUN-CAL INVESTHENTS. ATTENTION: BRUCt ELIEFF~ 2006 North Broadway, ~'102~ Sante Ana~ CA 8270G. P~operty d~~crlbed ~s an (rregulariy-st~aped parcel of I~nd consisttng of epproximately 1.4 acres, 2~5•211 North Western Avanue. 9/21/81 MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMNISSION~ SEPTEMaER 21. 1~8! g~_Sg~ REClAS51~'ICATION REQUEST; RS-A-~~3~A00 TQ RM-3onn. TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: 10 ~STABLISH A 1-LOT, ~~-UNIT CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISiON. Subject peticlon was continued from tl~e meetings of Au~ust 10~ t~~i1. and September 9~ 19~1~ at the ~equest of the peLitioner. It was noted the petittoner has requcsted continua~ce to November 2~ 1g81. ACTION: Cammissioner King offered a motio~~ s~conded by Commissioner Herbst and M~ 0~1 CARRIED (Cortmissloner T~lar being ebsent)~ that the eforementlaned ttam be continued to the reelularly-scheduled meeting of Novemher 2~ 1~81~ at the request of the patitloner. ITE~ 3: EIR h~GATIVE OEfLARATION AND CONUITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 2252; PUBLIG HEARING. OWNEp: CAaL N. AND JUDY A. BURRIS, 39 RockingNnrse Rosd~ Rencho Palos Ve~des~ CA ~0274. AGEHT: MQNTE SILVERI3ERG~ 3035 La Mesa Avenue~ Aneheim~ CA 92$06 LAW OFFICES OF FLOYD L. FARANO~ Attention: Cherles M. Fereno~ 2555 East Chepman Avenue. Suttc ~+15. Fuilerton~ CA gZ631. Property descrtbed as a recta~gulery-shaped parcel of land consisting of app roxlmAtely 1.h7 acres locaced at the northwest carner of ~a -~lese Avenue and Kraemr.r Place~ '3f135 La Nesa Avenue (~~ew York Carpets). CONDITIONAL USE aEQUEST; TO RETAIN RETAIL CARP~T SA~ES FACILITY IN T11E M~ (INDUSTRIAi.. LIMITED) ZONE. There was o~e person indicatiny t~is presence in oppositior. to sub,(ect request~ and althouyh the staff report wes not read~ It is referred to end made a part of the minutes. Charle~ Farano~ atta~ney~ explained Mr. Silve~berg~ President of aelmonc Carpets of Santa M a~ !s presant to anawer any ~~uestions. Ile stated this operatton was formed approximately 10 montl~s sgo as a subsidtary of Belmont tarpets and is a sepa~ate operetion end sells factory closeouts or factory sr.conds end disrontinued pattt rns of carpeting directly frc~m the factory; that the bustness was start~d January 1, 1g81~ as New York Ce~pet and Supply a~d stnce that time they have catered to wholesale buye~s of carpettng; that techntcaiiy they heve ~~o sales personn~l and have 2 or 3 employees on the premises at all cimcs and have approximately 12,090 square feet of warehause space and basically do not have any improvements on the prQperty. He ~eferred to the photoyrephs of thn property presented t~ staff whtch were passed out to thr Conanission. He atetcd they do not seii from sample t~^oks and strictly sell from the r~ils oi carpeting that ~re o~ the premises. Mr. Farano further explafned thcy sell mostly to apartment canplex owners a~d small developer~ o~ other cantrectors and itrst went tnto this business because they felt there was a ~eed 1n thts a~ea. He steted even thaugh thts request is e result of sn g/2t/8t MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLAHNING COMMISSIpN~ SEPTEMBER 21. 1981 ~1'S82 sctlo~ takon by tne Zoning Enfarcement Offlc~r~ the pe~itloner did not Intand to sell csrpeting on ~ retail b~sis snd mad• no rea) marl~eting effort to reach the general public, but thet people do cane in ignartn~ the 'lvholes~le o~ly" stgn and w~nt to buy the praduct. He steted they hsve nat chan~ed thetr n~xhed of operation and will m~intatn It to a certain degree. Ile steted currently they get ~bout stx custaners s day including wholesale and retetl. Mr. F~rAno referred to naga 3- paragraph 9~ uf the staPf report whi~:h Indicates the petitioner I~~s stated tlie ratall a~les are secondary to th~ primary wholesale cer~et disc~ibution b~istnoss and the ~etail ssles wlli nc~t exceed 2~$ of the t4ts1 sAles valume. He steted he d.~cs not want to mislead tr~r Commission end felt there was prabably e break~iawn In communicetion~ between htnnelf and the steff bocau~e ~lght naw the sales are ellocated ~s 80Z wholesale snd 20~ retatl but tha~ m~y change depending upo~ the ccnnomic sltuAtion. He atated the petitianer would Iike the ebi 1 tty to sei 1 to ~~cai 1 cuatomers end th~+t the apartme-+t and rental c~wners are the only atynlfic~~t mar et for this type of mcrchandtse right now but that ~ould change. Hcs steted the operatian Is now oD~ning at 0 a.m. when the installers errive s~d load their trucks and thdt they would lik~! t~ cantinue opentny at 8;00 a.m. He steted he does not want to lead the Conmission to believe that the owner would kick people out tf they arrlved bcfarc 10 I~ the mornin~. Mr. Farano steted the petitioner is operAttng e warehouse showroom concept for a I arg~ product wf~ I ch i s pu~chased l~~ss o( ten thdn othc~ 1 tems t+nd tl-at 80$ of the businesses in thAt parttculer area bounded by Kraemer~ Whtte Star~ le Palme and che Rive~slde Frceway s~c currently doing retall busi~esses; ~nd that thls arNa was picked by the C(ty Counci) as a prlme arte for the "reteil (sland concept."~ and he believed this perticular business complles with th~t concept becauae of the size of the product and (t does praduce r~uch less traffic thnn otl~er retai) businesses. Commiss(oncr Tolar arrived at 1:~+~. Mr. Farano stated tho o+~rner has agreed to cnmalv with the srme condltions that were placed on the Sacker prope~ty es follows: (a) that the propased bustness shall com~ly with all slening requi~en,ents of the ML (Ind~strial, Llmlted) zonG~ (b) thAt the sub}cct property shai) be developed substsntiali;~ In accordance wlth th~ ~l~ns and spGCificetions on flle with th~ City of Anaheim rwrked Exhibits 1 througn 3~ ~~) that the business shall have no fiags or ba~ne~s. no~ shall they fly eny banners or havc aRy stdewalk or parking lot, s~les and that n~ wlndow signs shall be permitted. Ne stated ehe only other candition prQViously discussed wss th~t no business shall be open until 10 a.m. and stnted agstn thts business has to opQn at A e.m. to load the carpeting on the trucks And that tt~ay would l~ke to be abl~ to be ope~ at 8 e.m. and sell If ~ customer comes In. Jim Mooney, owner of Monney Carpet CompanY. 29F1 1/hite Sta~, stated th ~se years ago he had ~easad a space at sub,ject p roperty and the~ found he couid ~ot setl ~etatl and 9/21/81 MINUTES~ ANAIIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ SEPTEMBEa 21~ 1981 81-SQ3 efter gotng over the ~itustlon with the City Cou~cil~ Plsnning Commiaslon. the Sacker Property M~n~gen~ent Company~ etc.~ for twelve ni-~nths, he decided to m~ve because he could ~ot sell ~etali and explaln~d 90E of his business Is ret~tl. Ne ststed he moved into ••pot legelly zonad for retail ~nd thst he felt thla potltloner knew tha zo~ing when he mov~d th~re and legally he is wro~g snd he did not see eny reeson to chanye the =oning naw. He steted the petttioner buys whole~sale for resale end p~es~~tad an advs~ttsament from the August 3Ath newspaper which he felt platniy shows thet Mr. Silverbe~g ts soltcitin~ reteil business. No stated he has spent a lot of rtw~ey and had dc~ne eve rything legally and hAS ralocAtcd (nta an sree that was propRriy zoned for whet he wented to dc~ end ha feela Mr. Silverborg Is golnc~ after the rotail bustncss ~nd that beth Mr. Sllverb~rg and his sttorney knew wh~+t they were dotng when they started !he busi~~ess. Jack White. Aasistent City Attorney~ sha+ed the newspaper ~dvertlsement to Mr. Far~no end Mr. Faran~a ~ead from the .~d: "Attention Bullders~ Cantrectors~ Apartment end Motel Owners. Decc,rators~ Realtors end Installers• 1lholesaie to the Trade and thelr cllents". Ne stated the ad doesn't aay enything ahout retail, He steted again the petttloner did not have eny Intentlun of advertisinc~ or promoting himself as e retall cArpet distributor end th~t he knew this wes dn industriAl zane and he intended to sell wholesalc. Hc stetrd th~y are attemptiny to be honast and stratc~htforrrard with tho clty and the Planning Commissfon end if they arc c~oing to s~ll retall. they want to h+eve permisslon. Ile stated thny F1AVC telked to other business owners in the eree es to whether a~ not they have a~y ahJectlo~ to Mr. Sflverberg selling factory se~.onds ond close-out carpettny on a retall bnsls end nc~ one they have talked with has expres~ed any oppositio~. Ile gav~ business cerds to the City Attorney of the people they h~ve toiked with and stated durin~ the problems wlth the Sacker property~ h~ talked with many peaple In the ares~ between the aiverstde Freeway, Kraerr~r BoulevA~d~ La Palma Avenue and Whfte Star~ a~d most of them were in favor of whalesale shavroqm concepts and/or retail saies in the area. F1~ explatned they have not tal~.ed wtth th~se same peoplc conc~rntnq this particular proJect~ but h~ dtd nat lhink thcy have cl~anged their apinion. THE PUDLIC HEARING WAS CLOSEp. Mr. Fsrano ~esponded to Chrirrt-an Bushore's quostlon that Mr. Silverberg waa clted for retall SAICS. Chatrman Bush~-re asked if there is sny siyn wl~ich indicates 'h~-holesale only" snd Mr. Silverborg indtcaied fro^+ the audience that the slgn ls Just tnsidG the bullding~ bestck the cbor. Cha(~man dushora esked if they wouid have any obJection to putting up e slgn on the outside of che butiding which indicates '~vholesale oniy" and Mr. Farano rtpll~d he was not sure wh~t purpose that would serve end the c~mer might heve o~)ectinns. Dean Sherer~ Assistsnt Planne~~ respondcd to Chalnnan Bushore's questio~ that the code pres~ntly reads that 10Z retail sales arc permittad in the indust~tal zone provided the product sold Is p~oduced or nwnufaGtured on the p~emises; harever~ I~ 9/21/81 MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PIANNIIIG COMMISSION~ SEPTFMBER 21~ 1981 81-5a4 the p~st the Pi~nntng Commtsalo~ has granted retatl s~le~ t~ the ML Zone for a maximum of 25: of the floor are~. Commlsstoner Kinp noted Mr. Fa~ano hes (ndicated the petttloner wsnts to be abie to exceed tho:e percentages and Nr. Fareno replled the code was modffted to ~llow comnercial uses with the approvai af a condittonsi use perrt+it In certein ctrcumstances wherQ ths product sald Is of s~uh e slta th~t it roqutres a lArge warehuuse area and if the petitioner c~n convince the Commisslo~ that the traffic wil) not hinder the indu~tria) zono trefftc patte~n. Ne stated in thts perticular sltuatton they do not exceed retnil s~los of 2~2 mast of the time end the petitioner (s selltng and ~dvcrtistng t~ thc whalesale buyer. Ne stetod he would heve a little trouble stipuloting to not excead the 20Z ftgure because most businesses tn that a~ea •re retAtl ric~ht nvw. 11o aXsted he dfd nc~t thlnk anyone le~stnc~ from the Sackar property was restrictod to the 20 or 30$ rctall figu~e end even tf they wanted 100~ retatl, the studtes show they do n4t get mc~re than 5 or 6 ce~pet customers per day during the weekdays end ho dtd ~ot think tf~e tndustrtal araa traffic pattern would be hindered. Chairman Bushore steted reyulscing the pe reentagc o` retaii sales Is a problem ~nd asked if Mr. Silverbarg wes made a-~-~re af tho canditions when he laaeed the p~opcrty and Mr. Farano responded that Mr. Silv~rberg wAS ask~d when he ap~+lied for a husiness license whethcr or nat he plenned to sel) retell and he had responded "no". Ch~irman Bushare asked if New Yark Carpats hAS ever displayed flags or banners and Mr. F'arano replled that he dld nc~t kna+ of any. Commissioner Nerbst stated when the petitioner started selling retaii. he dld not cane back for a bus iness I i trnse and he knr:w i t wa~ i 1 1 ec~sl . Mr. Ferano stated tf he wes the petitioner~ he wouid h~ve known what the rutes are~ but he was not sure that Mr. 5ilverberg re~lly un~erstands v+het is gotng on in that a~ea. Comnissloner Nerbst pc~inted out that Mr. SI iveraerg f,ns a wholesale business 1 icense and was asked (f he pianned to have retetl sai~s wha~ th~ liccnse was issued and Mr. F~~ana replted when a person goes to the bustnc~ss license window~ they are asked if they plen to hava retall and if they say no, they are g(ven the farrns to f111 out and nothln~ morc is satd. He stated he dtd nat know whe•her or ~ot Mr. Silverberg knew t~~t he cauld do absolutely no retail ssles at thts locatio~. H~ stated the pe~titloner came to his office and said he wented to do the rlght thing and pointed out agaln there are a lot of retall ~usinesses (n that gene~a) arr~. Chai rrrwn Bushore stated tt~ere ar~ certatn areas wi~ere the Counct 1 has a) lowed retsi i salea and that the Commisslon hsd denled thpse samc requests. He stated from the advertisement it could be c~onsiderrd as wholesale or retall~ but when the questlon was asked if the petittoner wouid ~estrtct his retait sales a~d put up '1~rholesaie 9/21/81 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ SEPTE MBER 21~ 1981 81-585 only" stgns~ he did not w~nt to cb those thin~s ar+d he felt with the signing that ts alraady there~ it eppears he Is trying to attract rrbre retsil sales. Commisstoner fry stated the quastton is reatly whether or not the Commission wants to allow cornmerclel uses in the industrtal =one. He stated the advertisement ssys wholesate~ but he knows that whole~~le doea not ~nean thn s~rr~ thing today th~t tt mecnt ton year~ ago and the ad also indicates tha t it is Nholeaale to the trade and their citents. Ilo stated he felt the whole thin g Is a farce and felt the pettttoner is before the Planni~g Commission becau~e he got caught. Commissloner Bar~es stated th~ petttloner h~s co~~+e before thc Planning Commissian ~nd asked for rctall aelna in a str~ic,~htforward menn~ ~ and she dld not blArt~ him for not wsnting to put out a slgn, because he is asking for r~tall sales. She stated the Commlaslon has to dect~e whether or not they wan t retall In that locstlon and she sat in on the meeting witl~ the City Councl) regardireg chls area and lt was her betlef thst thts are~ was Included in that island conce p t. Deen Sherer ex~latned the studles brought befo~e the Council and Planning Cammisslon over a year ago dld discuss the crestion of r~tail tslands in the industrtal zone in this areo end that this property waa Incfuded in thet island area~ but that nothtng was offici~liy cstablished es fa~ as creatiny a ~ew zone. He stated when sane of these petitlons went before tfP City Gouncil~ tt~ey were granted subJect to sttpulattons slmtlar to the ones Hr. Faran~ had mentlo~ed. Ne polnted ~ut it Is difflcult from the Plannfng Ik p~rtment's point o f vierv to enforce the 20$ retail volun+e flgure and the only way wauld be ta search the baoks and thst ts not really the duty of the Planning Department and thet norrnally the Plennir,g staff would ask that the 25$ aPPly to the specific floor area. Dean She~er explatned in most Inste~ces~ the Cit y Council has overturned che Planntng Commission's decisicx~~ and referred to the Curtls Fur~iture facllity. He expletned Curtis Furnl~u~e was sllawed to havc comp)ete re t ail operations. hawever~ stipulatlons were that thry coutd not fly flags or banners and tt~e hours of operation were limlted; hvwever, subsequently th~ condtttca~s were an~nded end tht oniy conditio~ remalning wes that the hou~s of opar~tion sheil start at 10:0~ a.m. Commisstane~ Ba rnes stated based on the Council's po11Gy~ she thought thts r+ould b~ a primc area for commerctal usss in the industrlal zone because the~e is so much there already and she did rx+t really see any harm )n allowtng the petittoner to tontinue what he has elresdy been doing~ notinn that he h as A1~eAdy made crertain stipulattons and she could understand why he wants to start his operatior at 8:0~ a.m. Commissioner fiouas asked (f the price charyed ¢o r the carpeting is the same for retail and wholcsale buyers and Mr. Silverberg repii~d at this tlme. the retail t~ade is s~ small~ he has not established two differc n t prices and Nr. 'arano add~d that Mo prtces may be esteblished in the future but that the petitloner Nili nat change selling factory seconds and close-outs. giz,ia~ ~,,,;~ i } MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ SEPTEMBEtI 21~ 1481 81-586 Commi~stoner Barne~ stated sht Is c~ancerned about advertl:ing and t~effic whfch Is the r~eson for kaeping cc~rmertial and Industrlet seper~ted; however~ :here are several uses tuch es the water sltde already In that area which she fett would Interfere mcre than this type u:e. She responded to Cammis:laner King thst she did not think the parcent~ge of retell sales could be oantrolled and sho felt if the stlpuletlons they have made are kept~ thare will be no problem. M~. Forano st~ted they huve no prohlem witl~ Ilm(t1~Q ~etaf 1 selas to 25~ of the floor eree; havever~ the w~rehouse ts Just a big room with cdrpettng In tt end h~e dtd not knaw how thts could be accomplish~d. tie stated they sell p~oducts which normally are to wholesale buyers and that ts the way they adve~iise and that they ere w) i l tng to sti~+ulate to selling only facto~y s4oonds end close-out carpets. Cammissloner King stated t f this request is approved the petitianer wi l l be free to sell completely wholesale unless tha restrtctlon is I~cluded limtting rntatl sales. Commisslo~er Bnrnas stnted she dtd not see the need to llm-t the retatl sales to 25$ because thty only have an ave~age of 6 custaners per day and thet would not cause a trafflc probtem. Commissio~er Ktng did not thtnk there would be a concern regarding signs because they heve stipuleted ta comply with tha previously approved stipulntlons on a similar property in the same vicinf ty and Mr. Farano asked if tna Commtsston has a problem with the axisting signs. Chatrman Bushore stated he perso~a{ly feels the petitioner is catering to ~etail. Paul Singe~~ Traffic Enginc . stated there are e great number of retail uses going (nto the industrial arcas and wanted to be aure the Commtsalon is awere the streets were designed for indust~tAi traffic and that commerclal traffic is fA~ greate~. He stated he did not belleve tlits particular use is going to c~eate a traffic problem by itself~ but it may contribute to problems in th~ future. He stated if the Commission is gotng to permit a retai 1 outlet. the property should be assessed for traffic stgral assessment fees on a retaii basis. ACTIO~i: Gommtssioner Barnes offered e motlan~ seconded by Chairman Bushore and MO CARRIEd~ that the Aneheim City Plannln9 Cammisslon has r~vlewed the proposal ta retatn a retai l carpet seles fact 1 i ty tn the ML (1 ndustrtal ~ Limited) Zone on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.47 acres. located at the northwest corner of I.e MeAa Avenue and Kra~mer Place (3035 La Mesa Avenue) ~ and does hereby approve the Negattve Declaratlon from the requtren~nt to prepa~e an envtronmental impact report on t~. basis thet the~e would be no significant indivtdual or cumulative adverse environnksntal impect due to the epproval of this Negative Dectaration sinoe the Maheim General Plan desiqnates the subJect property for genora) industrial land uses c~nmensurate with the proposal; that no sensttTve environmentel tmpacts are involved in tha propoaai; th~t Chs Initiat Study submitted by the petitioner tndicates na stgnificent Individual or tumulattve adverse 9/2tl81 MINUTfS. ANAHEIM CITY PIANNING COMMISSIQN~ Sf.PTEMDER 21~ 1981 81-567 environmontal imp~cts; and thet the Negative t~ clsration substantlettng tha foregoing findings Is on ftle tn the Clty of A~ahelm Plsn~ing Department. Commissfone~ Barnes offered a resolutlon and mc~ved for Its pass~ge and adoptlon that the Anahetm City Planntng Commisslon doea hereby grent Conditlonal Use Permit No. 2252 s~bJect to the petitiona~'s stipulattons that the p roposed busineas shall compiy with all stgning ~equlrem~nta of the Ml (Industrisl~ Limtted) Zone and that no flags ar banners shat) be dtsplayed and no sidewalk or perking lot seles sh~ll be hald and that no window signs shall be permitted and thst oll aasessments shall be o~ the b~sis of commercla) esteblishments and that the hours of operetlon shal) be limttad to 8:00 s.m. to 6:00 p.m. snd ~ubJect ta Interdepartmentel Cortmtttee recommendatlons. Commissioner Herbst steted he thought thA Phi) and Jtm operaticx~ acr~ss the street had been ltmitod to 25~ ratatl and that their ~ecords would ~e sudited. He stated he ts not in fevor of granting a purely reteil s~les ope~atton in this area because tt wil) set a greve precedent (n thts Industrlal communlty and he dld not thtnk this petitlon~r should be allowed 100$ retatl when .~n tndustrial busineas down the street can only liave 10$ retsi l. Hc statmd tha Conr.~i~ssion has been trying to preserve the industrial aree far years and it is gradually I~ein~ deqraded a~d this location has good vtsibi llty~ but accesslbl itty through the industrlal srea ts very poc~r. Ele stated he could not 3upport rctatl but would s~upport wholesele rnd he did not think this petltioner should b~ g~ented anythtng dlfferent from anyone else. Chairmen 8ushore indicated he felc that If che r~s~lutlon is granted~ it should have a tfine llmlt so it c~n be revicwed. Dean Sherer explalned that the City Counci) had granted thQ Phil and Jim operation 1{mited to 2y~ retall sal~s annually and that their boaks would be subJect to audit. Commissioner Barnes noted the petittoner has sttputated to llmiting the floor scpace -0 2~~6 retail sales end she supposed that 25~ could be added to the resolution but did not knaa haw it could be paliced unless the books were a~,dit~d. She clarifted thaC he~ resolutlon rvauld be to allorr rctail saleS without ~hc parcentage restrictio~. Mr. Farano referred to Condition Na. ; of Interdepa~tmental Committee rtconn~endations requiring t!~at three conditional use ~ermits be termineted and indicated they would request thet the property owners submit thc requfred fetters~ however, could not guarsntee that could be dane. Commissioner TolAr stated he is not sure there ls a pure industrial user in that area and thet tha City Councti decided that that particula~r area could be used for a mixture of lndustriel and commerciel uses and that this use ~ould certai~ty be in line with what eve ryone else has been alla+red to do. He stated he has not seen an ~ndustriel area tn thls city fhat would be more of a deterrent for conn+ercial uses then this area And he could not envlslon a lot of p~ople getting off the freewsy and 9/Y1/81 MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMHISSION, SEPTEMBER 21~ 1~81 81-588 d~tving tc that site on a consistent basis to buy carpetfng. Fie steted he would support the motton for s meximum of 25$ retetl sates; howaver~ he dtd not belleve auditl~g the books or any oth~r type of poltcing would determtne the percent~ges. Fte ststed he thought that perttculsr use was competlble wtth the surrounding area. He suy~gested that ~ time limit be inctuded beceuse conditlone) use ~ermits stay wtth the property and if thl~ owner aold thls property or busineas~ he would ltke to h~ve the ~Ight to revtew the nea- uae. Commissioner King stated he would go along with the resolutton if the 252 limitetion i~ included- Gommissione~ Talar stated tt is up to this Commtssion to determine whether or not the limitetion should be tncluded, whether ar not the petltioner elects to ga along with it~ a~~~ he would not suppurt it unless then~ is that a~reemenC and there Is a time iimit and a percentage itmitation included. Cammissianar Bouas esked if sales tax is cheryed on carpeting sold and Mr. Farano replled that at tht present ttme there ts no retall sales permit~ sa no •~xes a~e charged. Ne stated Mr. Sllverberg is a flooring contractor and sells on a contrec: basla and doesn't have to have a retall s~les tax number. Ila stated he has talked with hts cllent and he has Indicated that he cannot go along with the 25$ retaii sales 1lmttatlon~ because sometimes ft is almost impossible to tell whether the sale is wholesele ar r.tAtl; tl,at he is e flooring contractor and can say that eve rything he sells Is wholesAle and he hes no way to teil. other than a d~tly audit~ haw much recati is sold. Ha stated he also feels that this llmitation wouid b~ unfair because the pruperty on one side ts allaved 100$ retaii and referred to furntture seles in the area and the gymnasium which are allowed retail everyday. Fle steted Mr. Stlverberg yave tha people in the 8usiness License Depertment e copy of the advertisen+ant and when the 2ontng Enforcement Officer came~ he advised him to apply fo~ a condittonAl use permit a~d tndlceted he had no way af knowing whether the custemer coming (n ts gotng to be aholesalc or retail and the persQn at the wlndow hsd told h~m es long as he don't try to r.~t retal! customers. there wil) bc no p rob 1 om. Commissioner Barnes clarified the petitioncr Just wishes to ~ontinue what is now being done and asked if he would stipulate to not adve~tise to the c~entral pubilc snd Mr. Farano repl~ed the petitioner is,wtiling to continue Ju~t as he is now doinq end Commisstoner Barnes steted she is requcscing that stgns stating "not open to the pubtic" be displayed. Cammissioner Talar stated the qucstion in hls mind is how to contro) the retatl percentages and Commisslone~ Herbst staeed it could be cantroited through thE salns tax and the petitianer h~s to report the sales tax eve ry month and if he Is selling to the genera) public~ he should have a res~le numb er. 9/21/81 _, . _ .. . _. i~,.'~ MINUTES~ AN1W EIH CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. SEPTEMBER 21~ 1981 81- 58,9 Commissloner Barnas aakad that no sign b• placad on the buildinq which indfcates that the facttitles be open to the public and Mr. Stlverbe~g Indicated from the audtencn that he would not be putttng up ~ny stgns. Commisslaner ~arnes tlarifled that the resolutton would be llmited to a two-year ba:la with na rotall percentage limitstfan. Commissioner Herbst ststed snyLhing sold retetl to the publlc must heve a sales tax charge and Chalrman Bushore stated the cerpnttny is s~id et the seme price. F~e stated the petitioner should get a reaele permit. Mr. Fsrana steted his cllent steted he wtll continuc to advertise and do the sam~ thtng he Is doing right nav and will nc~t put any "open te the rubltc" signs. On roll call~ the foregolny resolut(on FAIIED TO CARRY by thc following vote; AYES: COMMIS510NER5: BARNES~ TOLAR NOES : COMMI SS I Of~ERS : BOUAS ~ BUSI~ORE ~ FR1r ~ ViEROST. KI NG ABSENT: COMMISSIOtIERS: NONE Cortmissiflner Ktng offered Resolution No. PC81-202 and moved for its pas~eqe and adoption th~t the Anahelm City Planning Commission does hereby grant Condltlonsl Use Parmtt No. 22~2 subJect to the petitioner'~ stipulatlon that no fl~gs ar ban~ers will be displayed and that no sidewalk or parking lot sales wtll be held and th~t no stc~ns wil) be placed in the windows and that the rGtail sales shall be limtted to 25$ of tha total sales vaiun+e and that the us~s shall be reviewed ln two years in complla~ce wtth Sections 18.03.d3~; .031; .032~ •~33; .~3~+ and .035. Tttle 18 of the Anahelm Munlc:ipal Code and subJect to Interdepartme~tal Committee recomnendations. Jack Whttc clartftod that a condition wauld be included which wouid requtre that the applic~r+t provlde proof to the ctty thet hls retail sales heve been limited to 25~• Commissicx~er Herbst pointed out that in~smuch as the City Council has approved similar requests in that area, denial of thts would be dcp~ivtng the property of a privilrge en~oyed by other propertles in the same zone and vicinity. Commissic,ner Barnes was concerned about the assessment to be charged on this property and felt the traffic stg~a) fees would be the only o~e that should be reassessed. Daan Sherer pointed out that the only fees that would be invc~lved wa~ld be the street trees and the trafftc signal and that tha traffic signal assessment fees would be b~sed crn the difference betwee.n ind~strial and comn+ercial rate. Mr. Farano queationed the traffic assessment fees to be charged and Commtssioner Tolar indicated he understood ic was the intent of the resolution to be charged the 9/21/81 ti 3 MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SEPTEMBER 21~ 1981 81•59Q same parcentage of traffic signel esseasment fee~ that 1~ being allawed~ whtch ts 25Z commerctel and 75~ indust~ial. On roll call~ Lhe foregoing ~esolutlon was passed by the followtng vote: AYES: COMM15510NERSs BARNES~ BOUAS~ FRY~ ffERBST, KINC~ TOLAR NOES: COMMISSIONERS: BUSNORE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Jack Whtte~ Aasistent City Attorney. presenced the w~ttten ~tght to appesl the Planning Commission's decision withln 22 day~s to the City Councfl. IYE~1 N0. 4: EIR NEGATIVE O~CLARATION RECLASSIFiCATIQN N0. 81-82- AND CONOITIONAL U E ' M N 0. 2: PUQLiC NEARING. ONNER: AMERICAN NATIO~~AL PROPERTIES~ INC.~ P. 0. Box 10A77~ Santa Ana~ CA 9z711. Froperty described es an trregul~rly-shaped pa~cel of land consistfng of approxtmetely 5.~0 acres, located north And west of the nortl~wesk corner of Orange~woad Avenue and Manchoster Avenue~ 2111 South Manchester Avenue. RECLASSIFItATIOP~ REQUEST: I~S-A-43~~Of1 TO CR. CONDITIONAL USC REQUEST: TO PERMIT A 5-STORY QFFiCE 6UILDING. SubJect petition was ccanttnued from the me~ttng of Septemher 9~ 1~~1~ at the requast of the petitlone~. It was noted that the petitioner has requested a continuance to November 2~ 1981. ACTIAN: Commissio~er King offer~d a motion, seconded by Commissloner IierbsC and MO ON CARRICO, that the above ment(oned Item bo conttnued to the regularly-scheduled meettng of November 2~ 1981, at the request of the petittoner. ITE~ M N_ 0. 5: EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION. RECIASSIFICATION N0. 80-81-38 AND VARIANCE Nb. .~~~ - PUBLIC HEARING. aWNER: GORNELIA S. VOGT. 11251 Euclid Street. Garden Grovc, CA 92640. AGE~~T: RUSSELL JAY~ F,9y1-A Lincoln Avenue~ Buena Park~ CA 9A620. P roperty described as an irregularly-~haped percel of 1a~d consisting of approximately 6.7 ac~es located at the southeast corner of Llncaln Avenue and Peregrine Street~ havtng e frontage of approxin~stely 320 feet on the south side 4f ~incoln Avenue and a frontage of 780 feet on the eagt side of Peregrin~ Street. RCCLASSIFICATION REQUEST: RS-A-43~000 TO RM-1200. VARIANCE REQUEST: WAIVERS OF: (a) MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT ANQ (b) MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES TQ CQNSTRUCT A 184-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX. 9/21/81 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ SEPTEMl3ER 21~ 19A) 81-591 SubJec2 petition w~s continued from the meoting of Septenbsr 9~ 19$1, at the reque~t of the petttloner. Th~~e waro approxtmately 20 persons Indicattng their p~~sence in oppoaltion to subject ~eq uest~ and althouqh the st~ff reporc was not read, It (s ~efe~red to •nd mada a part of the minutes. Ruasel) Jay~ 1111 Dolphin Tarrace~ Corona Del Mar~ Developer~ steted there ts a dtre need for apartments In Anahaim because developers are not bullding apartmAnts. IIe referred to the Traffic Enginaar's ~eoommendotlon ogatnst granting a parking variance on the baals that no parking will be permitted on etther Llncoln Avenue or Perngrine St~eet and pdinted out m~ny of the apartments a~e f~cing Peregrtne and It Wil) be difficult to not permit the tenents to park Just a few feet from thelr front doors. He indtcate~~ the~~ is not much traffic on Peragrtne and that the street swceping is done Mondeys between 8:00 ~+.m. and noon and he felt most of the cars wli) be gon~ by that time. He pointed aut the de velopment dircctly across the atreet Is eomme~cial~ so there Ntil be vc ry few people from that complex perking on the street and most af the people who wauld want to pArk on the street would be from thts proposed apertme~t complex. tle stated he did not think there would be a problem if parking is permttted on Peregrine. Mr. Jay also polnted out that he did nat feel Conditlo~ No. 15. redestgning the access~ is necessary end stated he dtd ~ot see anything wron9 wtth the pians es presented. Mildred Moore~ >OU Peregrina. stated they and most of their neighbors are not tn favor of the requested waivers becausc the number of units requested provide a greater percentage of populatio~ density than in the surrounding single-family residences (on 80$ less land); that tt~e waiver of number of parking spaces propos~~ appear to be inadequete and she felt thn situatfon wauld cause increased parking o~, public streets end also the increase in number of automobtles a~uld create a traffic flow problem. She statcd she disagrced with Mr. Jay~ in that Peregrine is a busy street and It is difficult to make s right turn o~to Peregrine tn the middle of the afternoon. Mrs. hbore stated the proposed pro,ject borders the entire north s~de (107.25 feet) of her yard~ the length of her house nnd her front yard, which Is approxlmat~ty 1/3 of the south boundary of the proposed praject. She stated the open parki~g spaces would abut her p roperty wtthtn 7 feat nf two bedroom windows and within 5 rteet of one bathroom window and she felt the carbon monoxide fumes gen~~ated from the cars using the parking spaces would create a healtl~ ha2ard. She also felt the notse generated ¢rQm that mam- cars parking that close would treate a problem with sleeping in the bedroom. She indicated he~ shake roof overhang would be 4 teet from the property line~ and becsuse of the lower alevation of her p roperty. the top of her roof woutd be approximately 1 foat from the top af the 6-fxt wall and she felt this situatlon could be e ftre hazard ar even a security problem. She pointed out Commission's policy requlres a 20-fc~ot wide setback when multi-family abuts single-fami~y property 9/21/81 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIQN~ SEPtEME3ER 21~ 1981 81-592 a~d she stated if this proJect ts aDDrovad~ sha would urge that the ~0-foot wtde landscsped setbsek ba ~equlred whic' would buffer the noise and put It further sway from the proparty ewners on ths south. She suggested thet al) the parktng spt~ces be anclosed on the top and three sides and opPn spaces. If any~ face the north. Mrs. Moore also asked about the cul-de-sac propased at the termtnus of Perngrine Street and polnted out Pe~egrine desdends et Wostport Orive nnd elso in front of her house. Dean She~er~ Assistant Planner. oxplai~ed the condttion celis for the developer to p rovide e modified cul-de-sac on wh~t would be the northerly te nntnua of Pnregrtne Street snd wnuld be within the existing right-of-way snd potntcd out on ehe map where the cul-de•sac would be locntod end M~s. Moore clorifted thet would be on South PeregrtnQ StrQet. James Coburn~ 511 South Colt Street~ steted he ts speaking for several of his neighbors o~ South Colt Strect~ Mr. and Mrs. Rocco 6ucclarc111~ 521 South Colt. M~. and Mrs. Ger~ld Duran~ 501 South Colt, Mr. and Mrs. George Helmer~ ~~07 South Colt and Mr. and Mrs. W. Morse~ 4A) South Colt~ and they reyucst that the watver for the 7- sto ry bulldings (buildings 11 and 12) be dentcd on the basls that they would be invaston of privacy and causn increased noise and pollutlon~ general nuisa~ce and a decrease in attrectiveness of the area. 11e slso stated if the p roject is approved~ thry are ~ski~~g to have covered~ enclosed semt-garages abutting the p~oposed 6-foot wall. and the yarages facing east with the wal) to the ~ast. He stated they fee) open parktng is unstghtly' leacfs to abend~ned cars being parked~ tends to use a~s a car repeiP area and ts not sultabla t~s a barrie~ for sound and nalse polluti~n. Mr. Coburn also polnted out their concern with the drainsge since lt is not specified and they are requesting the drain~ge should go west~ not south down Peregrine to flood Virginia Street which e0ready has flooding probiems. lie stated they wauld also ~equest that the proposed 6-foot high block w all on the southern half of the easter~ side and on the south be co~structed if the project is approved. Norman Kcup~ 2327 Puritan Lane~ stated he lives directly on the south border of the subJoct property. He stated he has been on both sfdes of the fence~ ~s a developer esktng for watve rs on his property at 1250 East La Palrt-a~ a~d now as a home owner. He statcd the propa~ty owners have the right to develc~p their prope~ty but the neighbors also have rigt~ts and the city needs to provtde housing and ~et the best tax adva~tage. Ne stated there are eieven hdr~es surr~undtng the subJect p roperty a~d he felt tha develope~ shouli be responsible for lnstalti~g the 6-¢oot high btock wsll along the bounda ry lines. i~e stated lie stl ll f~:els that the height 1 imit from SQ Lo 104 feet shc>uld be 25' from ground level and from 100 to 150 fcet, no more than 35 feet and fran 150 to 200 feet, no more then 4; feet. Ne referred to a staff report to the Pianntng Commissio~ dated June 16, 19a0~ whereby a study was made of the height limit allowed in citles sur~ounding An~tielm and noted 64$ a{lowed trro-stories regardiess of th~ dtstance 9/21/81 NINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ SEPTEMBER 21~ 1~81 61•593 between single-f~mily sonas and 12~ required Pla~ning Camnisslon review for propos~d multi-family dwellings +~d)~cent to single-femtly. Ne st+~ted more houstng is wanted in Anaheim and more density is requirad with lcas aetbacks~ Na stated he felt it is only falr for the hameown~ers aurroundtng thla prope~ty to gtve them a Ilttle contider~ttc+n end he felt a ~~0-foot setback would be adequetc~ with the hcight restrtctions that he had p~eviously mentioned. Debre Peterson~ 2333 Purttan~ stated their property is on the corncr of Purttan and Peregrtne and abuts the subJect p~operty and they are opposed ta the waivars~ tf the developer ia not willtng to abide with the code requlren~nts within 150 feet of tha sinc~le-family resldenttal hanes boundary~ the height of any structure should not exceed 1•stary and pointed out tho proposal ts for 2-scoriea~ 73-feet from the south praperty li~e and 76 feet from the east prope~ty llne whtch are adJacent to single- family residenttal zones. Sh e referre;d to the 20-foot wide lendscaped setback requtred where muitiple-family development abuts single-family restdential areas and pointed out the develope~ is pruposing carports ond open p~arlctng spaces adJecent to the south and ~ast prope+rty 1 ines. She st+~ted they feel these requt rements must be mat by the devclopor ond that she Is o~posed to the uirports and apen parktng beceuse carports do not make a good sound barrier rx~d do not confine ce~bon monoxide end open parking spaces would endt~nger thet r property to crime. Sfi~e stated she would prop~se th roes-slded garages openfng to the north wlth no breaks in the garagr_s for open perking. She felt if these conditlons ~~e nat met~ she wll) be dearived of her prtvil~ges as a homeowner to en)oy her praperty and she wes coricerned ebobt the safety of her small children. Mr. Jay stated thesc hort~cawne~s hsve valid arguments~ but these are vc ry dlre ttmes and tt ls dtfficult for a developer to develop a proJect like thls and if restrictions are tmposed, it will be dtfficult to build these spartments. Na stated he cannot argue with these homeowners because this proJect would lnf~inge on thelr property to a certain degrcc~ but that no developer is building apartments today because it Just doesn't pay; thst they will probably get S500 a month for these apartments and atth a yZ vacancy fnctor~ they wil) have a S2~000 a month negettve cesh flow. He stated lt seems the Planning Comnisston has to decide if they want apartments or not because It will not be fcaslAle to develop apartments tn confarmance with code. ile stated they could bulld condomintums and make a lot more mon~y~ but they want to build apartments. TH~ PU~LIC NEARING WAS CLOSED. Cormissioner tierbst stated he fclt Mr. Jay has a negatlve atticude towards the h~meowners and that these cnndtttons are imposed to protcct the neighbors. 11e stated he wouid not want a car~ort rtyht ansinst hts p~nperty wtthout buffering and he has voted fnr similar proJccts in the past end knows what they do to an ares. He stated he knows that apartments are needed. but not bad enough to infringe on these peoplc's rights~ health~ welfare and air circulation. He stated a varie~ce couid not be granted because cha~e ts no hardship and suggested if the developer realiy wants to 9/21/81 MINU1'ES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ SEPTEMBER 21~ 1~81 81-59u develop the ap~rtmsnts, that tha plans be ~evised tn confo~mence with cade, keeping these people's rights in mtnd. Commissloner Barnes stet~d she is c~nce rned about garages right next to the neighbora' properttes becauae a two-story w~l) is pretty htgh. She statnd ahe is not too conce rned about the 2-stortes loceted 76 feet from the property llne, but felt a buffer would be raquired between the garages and the neighbors' property. She asked if thesn wtll be tawnhouse atyle devctoprt~nts or stecked units and Mr. Jay repiled they are stecked with an apartmeni below and one above. Commiasloner llerbst stated the Comntsslon a~d City Council hed several meetings to review the 1;(1-foot setback requi rements and did change the ordinance; and thet apertments have b~on allowed wiihtn 67 feet of the praperty line. Deen Sherer~ Assistant Planner~ ciarified that the code was amended pertai~tng to condominlums only~ but that the 15n-foot sotbsck ~5 still requlred where apartments abut s Inglc- famt ly pronerty. Commissioner Herbst stated the Commission has suggested to staff that the ordlnence be chen~Pd to aliow the ~an~ setbacks for aoartm~ents and he felt the property awners should know that thc Comnisslon hes been giving variances on this type request becauae of the cost of la~d. Chairman Bushore stoted more Cc~sity can be attAined fn thr RM-1200 Zone than in the RM-3~b0 Zone and that these proJccts should be reviewed on an indivtdual basis a~d that a hards!~tp woutd still have to be }usttfted end the hardship has to be on the land itself~ and the only ha~dship proven 1~ere Is economic~~ which the Commlssion cannnt even c~nsider. Fie statcd the develaper was advised before he got to this sCage~ what the Plenning Comntsstqn's potlcies ~re. He stated the only way waivera could be granted without th~e hardshtp woulci be if th~ dev~toper is willing to en~er tnto an egreert~nt to provide low-cost t-ous{ng and that S500 a month is not considered low-cost housing. Ne asked if the develope~ has financing for the proJect and Mr. Jay replied he does not have tanstruction flnancinS and thc calculatlons were based on a 12$ interest rate. Chairman Bushore was conce rned abaut th~ proJect betng soid and Mr. Jay replied that the land wAS teased to them and would not be sold to anyone else. Chalrman Bushor~ stated the Commtsston is concer~ed abc,ut creating housing and that many of thc peopl~ in the audlence have young chtldr~n who atll be comt~g Onto the housing trunch~ but unless someane etse can ~rovide another argume~t that these plans should be: revised. Commisslonor E3arnes stated she can~ot +n~te for thts p~aJect es 1t stends because of the yerages and she felt thase neighbors deserved some p~atecticn. Sha stated she doesn't have any ebJection to the 76-feet setback for 2-atory untts and she does not ob,Ject to the density. but is conae rned about the parktng because parking would not 9/21/81 MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ SEPTEMDER 21~ 1q81 $1-5~5 be pe rn~itted on Peregrina Street. Mr. ~ay steted he thought the tenents would park on Poregrine Street no matte~ how much parktng la p rovided o~ site because of the co~v~enlence. Chairnbn Dushore stated he egreed but on street aweepin~ daya If there is no pe~ktng p rovided on sitc~the tenants will perk on thecommerclal pArking lot next door in front of the post offtce and thaC will compound the problem. Paul Singer stated the city is comtenplating putting a continuous tefc-turn lane on Peregrin~ Street~ ond therefore~ would re mave~ perktng in o~der to acconmodate that lane and that wouid be done whethe~ this proJect is opproved or not. Chairman Bushore asked Mr. Jay if he was interested in exploring low cost housing with the Community Ilousing llutho~ity and Mr. Jay replled he has tall:ed wlth them and they havc no funds avellable. Chalrman Bushare stated that thcy could reech an agrrement to subsidize rents and Mr. Jay rcplled he fs t rytn~ to evoid thet canccpt. Commissi~ner Talar stated t-a thought government subsidized houstng would be a detriment to thts aree. i~e s~t~+ted eve ry one agrees that apa~tments are needed and is somcthing these people can live with and the o~ly questton is how ta desl4n the plan to meke tt compatible with the area. H~e stated he has no problem wtth the ~etbacks and wanted to explatn to the neighbors that 2-story housing or condominlumt could be placed wlthtn 5 feet of ~heir propcrty lines and that would be mart of an invasion to thel r p~) vacy than th E s deve lopment at 76 fect. tle stated hc fe 1 t 76 feet wi 1 1 p~ovide the dlstance but h1s concerns are the buffer on the south and east property 1 ines all the way to thn market. ~le stated che seccx~d pmbler~ he has is wtth the parking .tnd he did not think It is fair to pass off the parking problems to other areas. He stated it is up to the developer to rectify the problem even if it means underground perking or tonpact parktng stalls. Ilc stated 30 to ~+0$ of the people today are drivtng sm+~ller ca~s and he f~lt thls is so~ething thst could be considered. tie stated he feit if the developer wou1~1 redestgn the proJect he could rectify Che buffer problem and the pa~king p roblcm and he felt these arr also the two maJor problems that the neighbors hsd wttt-~ the project. fie stated he did not think anyone has sai d they are opposed to the pro,ject but are opposed to the encroachment into their resldential area. Ne statcd he has a strang feeling that this pro)ect wtl) be dcnted if the vote is taken -oday and he felt that woUld be a detrtment to the cl ty~ thes~s~ property awners and the deve loper and suggested the developer request a continuance R~~ o~der to redesi~n the proJect to see if he can acconplish rectifying thet r conce rns . Mr, Jay stated maybe wlth re design he would end up with a 15-foot buffer rather than 20 feet and Ca mnissioner Tolar statad he could not answer whether or not that would be ecceptable unttl he sees the redesigned plans and Mr. Jay tndicated he has some lay outs with him today which the Commisston could review. 9/21/81 MINUTES. ANAIIEIM CITY PLANNiNG COMMISSION~ SEPTEM9ER 21~ 1:,81 81-596 Cl~eirme~n aushara ttated there a~e oths~ variince~ whtch could be ~ought 'n orde~ to get tha nunber of units d~-sired~ such as tutting down the dlatance between buildings~ etc. M~. .lay repllod he would ratl~~r reduce tl~e nunt~er of units than put the butldtnga cla~er toqethor and Chairman eushore stated the Comnisslan is trying to get the Jtatanca for the nelghbors snd put it on tlie people wh~ wlll be Iivlrg in khe u~its bec~usa they wil) have a cholca whether or not they want to iive thora. Fle stated there are othe~ pli~s avallable rather than impacting the residents. Commlssione r Tolar siked if the dev~loaer wouid 11kG a fau~-week continuance to the meettng of October 1~th in erder to redest~n the proJect and It was noted that two Conmi~sianers wauld be attending the League of Citles conference and it wis determineci that a Cwo-war.~ cnntinuance would be adequAte. ACTICN: Conmissioner Tolar offered a motlon~ seconded by Commissioner King and M N CRP,PIEU~ thot considerattor~ of the aforementlo~ed ttem be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeti~g of Octoher 5~ 1981~ nt the request of the petitfoner. Commtssioner Nerbst sugge~ted that bach~lar unlts cauld be provfdcd tn the proJect. It was pointed out that no new notices w(I) ba sent and thst the neighbors should cal) tl~e Planning Or.Fsrtment t~efore the me~eting to determine whether or not the petitioner haa res, ~sted dnother continuonce. Ch~lrman Bush~re explatned tt ls possiblc that other variances would necd to be readvertised and thet inforn+atlon coutd be obtained by celling the Pl~nning Departn+ent and gave the phone numb~r. Mr. Singer suggested thst the developer givr. constderation to the drtveway redesign as rocomme~ded. RE_E55 There was a tEn-minu:e recess at 3:30 p,n,. RECONVENE The cr~eting was reronv~ened at 3:4J p.m. ITEM N0. 6: EIR t1EGATIVE DECLAltAT10~1. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND COMDITIONAL USE PE RM~ T N0, 22 ,: -~~'~ _..._.r_....~_ PUpLIC HEARING. (:WMER; JACK ~. ANO DORIS N. CHOU~ 17II1 Yalley Quail Or1ve, Santa Ana, CA 9270>. AGENT: C F C RESTAURIWTS, INC.~ 6309 East Washtngton Boulcvard, City of Conmerc~~ CA 9U01~0. Property des:ribed as an irregularlysh~ped parcel of land conslsttng of approximately 1.E~ a~res, 71(1 East Katella Av~nue (Longfellows). Praperq presently classifi~d ML lINOUSTRIAL~ IIMITED) ZOrIE. CONDlTIONAL USE REQUESY: 'TQ EXPA-tD AN EXISTiNG RESTAURANT IN TtiE ML ZOME ViTH WAIYER OF MAXIMUM WALL HElGlIT. 9/2~/St MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ SEPTEMBER 21~ t981 81- 59~ Th~re wat no one Indic~ting their protence in oppo~itton to subJect request~ end although the staff ~eport wat not read~ It ts referred to and mAde a part of the minutes. Rogo~ C~awfo~d~ ege~~t, wos present to •nswer ar+y quettion~. THE PU4LIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ACTION: Cortmisstoner Kin9 offere~ a motlon~ oecunded by Commisstoner Fry and MOTION CAR IED~ that the Anahetm City Pl~nning Cammission hes revtewnd the proposal to permit expan~lon of ~n existinc~ roataurant in the ML Zon~ w~th waiver of maximum wsil height on an Irregulariy-shaped percel of tend consisttng of approximately 1.6g ac ~es located south end west of the south west corner of Ketella Avenue and Lewts Street. (710 E. •t Katella Aveni~e); end dae!s hereby epprove thr Negative Declaratton from the requirement to prepare an environmentel impact rep~rt on the basis that there would be no significant tndivtdual or cumuletive odva~se environment~+i impdct due to the approval of this Negative Declaratton since the Anaheim Genera) Plan deatgnates tFte aubJect propcrty for general industrial land uses con-mensur•ate with the praposai; th~t no acnsittve enviro~mentsl impacts are tnvolved In the proposat; th~t the Initial Study submitted by the pet(tioner indlcates no siqnificant Individuel or cumulative adverse envlronmental Impacts; and thst the Negaki~.: Oeclaration substantlettny the foregotr.g flndings Is on file tn the Ctty of Anaheim Planntng Depsrtm~nt. Comnissfoner king offered a motton~ sec~nded by Commissloner flouas end NOTION CARRIED. that the Anaheim City P~~,,-~in~3 Commissian does hereby grant w~iver of co de requi rerr~nC on the basis af the locati~x~ of the bui lding on the unusual shspad property and the surroundings and that the wall will not tntcrfere with traffic safety. Commi ss icx~er Ki ng of fe~d Resol utton No. PC61-203 s~d meved for i ts passage ana adoption thst the Anahelm City Plenntng Cortrnission does he~eby grant Conditional Us e Permit No. 226N tn compiisnce wlth Secttons 1~.03.A30; .4;1; .032; .033i .~3~+ and .035. Title 18 of the An~tieim Municipal Code and subjtct to Interdepartmenta) Conmittee r:commendatlon . Qn rat) call~ the foregoing r~solution was passed by the foitowing vote: AYES: COMMI~SIONER~: BARNES~ BOUAS. BUSHORE. FRY, HERfjST, KINr~ i~LAR NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSlONEP.S: NONE 9/21/&t ~~ ; MINUTES~ ANMIEIM CITY PLMltrirlr, COMMISSION~ SEPTEMBER 21~ tg81 g~-y~g ITEM Np ~; EIR NEGATIVE DECIA_RATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3237: PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: J M1ES TO ANP SHIRLEY H. RAFFERTY, 178 Paseo Robles~ Anaheim~ CA 9280~. AGENT: FREDERICK J. LAWSON, Attorney~ 16311 Venture Boulevard,Suite 580~ Enctno~ CA 91436. P~operty described as an (rreqularly-shaped parcei of land conaisting of approximately ~~E~8a squ~re feat~ 17A Pa:eu Robles. Property presently classiFied RS- 5000(SC) (RESIDENTIAL~ SINGLE-FAMIL~ SCENIC CORRIQOR OVEaLAY) ZONE. VARIANCE REQUCST; NAIVERS OF PEa111TTE0 ANTENNA TQ RETAIN A GROUNp-MOUNTED ANTEyF1A. _ ~, /- ~ ~~ F <~ ~~ .J s --' .S r.. There were opproxlmetelyri-ine~persons Indicattn thelr presenca in o /~~~~~ 9 PP~s I t I on;'~a ;,, '. '~r/ sub)ect -equest, and ai though tha stAff report was not read~ ( t ts refe~r_~d to and ' ~--~ mack a part of the mi~utcs. Fred Lawson~ Atto rn ey, stated one antenna has been In existence for more than stx years and (a an ameteur radto transmittine~ and rec~lvi~g ant~nna. Nc refe~red to an ordtnance passed in 1g77~ and na:ed the installetion tts~lF was in 1~75; that Mr. Rafferty was federally ltc~nsed by the Federal Communicattons Commisalon as an emateu~ radlo operator w!~en he mnved therc and thAt he telephon~d thc cfty and learned thare were no hefght restrictlons and only retRntly It hes come to hls attentlon th~c there Is e total prohibitlon of televison and radio antennss tn thls communtty; that th~ community itsClf is topograpnically located in such a way that ~lithout an ~xt~rnaily raised antenna~ Mr. Rafferty ls totally unable to communlcate ~nd evidencc of thls is wttl~in tl~e community liself where t~are are more tha~ 250 h~orr~s~ of whlch npre than 150 havic existing externally ratsed teievision antennas. !le steted it is a fact of science that in order to rece(ve and transmit cslec~romagnetic slynals far tclevislon and r~dia~an extcrnally rbised antenne ts required. 1!e stated the antenna itself ts vc ry axpenslve and lts specifications and e:ngineering ctCSrly show it !s n saFe instrilAtton. lie stated this is a communtty servlce which Mr. Rafferty has dc~nc for rtbrc than 20 years; thet amateur radios are vcry nice to have in times ~~f disaster and in locsl ~ national and intern.~tlonal amergcncics. fic stated this is a residentlat use af a p~operty and is Mr. Raffcrty's hobby and is a communit•• servtce as well lr tln~es of earth~uakes or fi.-es. Iie stated tn addltlon to the feder+~l Ilcense rihith renutrEd careful written examinatlo~s to establish to the satisfactton of the fe~eral government that Mr. Rafferty is capable and qualtfled to operate an amateur radio~ Mr. Rafferty exerclses hls first amendmant rtghts to frecdor~ of speech (n the use of hts prop~rty. 1-e stated Mr. Rafferty reccivcs no profit or beneflt ~rom this radio and tt~at this has be~en establtshed as a residentta) use. tir stated ~o enforte the ord(r,ance upc~n Mr. Rafferty and r~equtre him to remove SS.Q~~ ~~orth of e~uipment woulri drprive him of hts abtilty to carN~unlcate ~ind hls federal ltcense would then be useless and they belteved thls wou~d constltute a vivlation of hls right of free speech. ~1r. !_Awson presente6 a diagram showing the c~mmunity and not~d the home of the petitioner ts indtcated in green .nd the yellaw indica;es the teieviston antennas currtntly ln extstence In vlolatlon of the ordinance. He stated the purpose of this plan is to show that in nrder to exerclse the rlght ~f free apeech~ or recetve televislon signais. ft ts necessary far the maJority of the community to place rxternally raiscd antennes on thelr roofs. ~~e stated in the 1940's a court ruled that television entennes we ~;~anething ne~w end could be installed. even thouflh local daed res;rictton~ prahibited them and the court found it is A new techn4logy and talnvtsion ar~tennas are needed; and that those were the days of th~ UNF wher;; the 9/~ i/81 MiNUTES~ ANAIiEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ SEPTEMBElt 21, 1~181 ~1-599 antonnas were needod and ha felt the seme le true todey wlth UHF bein~ used more by television stations for pay-televtsion, etc. t~e stated the questlon bccomes todey whether o~ not the prohlbition totally of an entenna for Mr. Rafferty to receive hls radio slqnals when televislon anten~as are nece~sary to recetve television stgn~ls woutd deprive Mr. Refferty of privlleyes and rights he req~sts. Fkrle Calhoun~ 6000 Peseo Rio Azul, stated hls honr Is directly behtnd the petttianer and they are p~obably most effected by thls entenn a. Ne presented a p~titton co~talning approxtmately l0A signaturea of people obJecting to this type of thing in a residential ares. He stated they cauld have had ~+inny more slgnatures on the petition tf they had morc tlnx and stAmina and tha t ontv 5 or G~eoplc refused to slgn thc petition and that they sympathlzed wtth th em and Indicated they would not want aomethlnc~ 1tNe this In their backya~ci. Ne stated a n~rnber of people have stated they had experienced Int~rf~rence af verying degrees end acfded that he could not say that a11 the Interference is c~~used by this antenna hut felt a g~est percentage of it (s. Ile stated thay oppose the granting af thls var lencc to allow one man's hobby L:. be tnflicted on the nelght;orhood and they ar~ oblic~cd to parttclpote in his hobby not only by tQlevision end radlo and sterco interferene~~ hut also by havtng to vtew tt tawering over the neighborhood. t1e stated this Cy C 4nr~ c~n be seen from thousands of yards awoy and those directly adiecent or ; or ~ lo ts away ere subjected to the nolse of the antenna in operation every time he switches dl rections, whlct~ is very annoyin~;~ espec(ally whcn one is trytng to slerr. !le stafed, no doubt~ Mr. Rafferty Hil) s~~y hN wtll be deprtved of ~~Is r19ht to comnun icate If thls is denfed. but that he does have e telephone and the postal service operaLes; that (f he feeis he must communicate as e ham operator~ tt~an he should l~as~ en industrlAl b~ilding. Ne stated Mr. Rafferty has stated that he feels eve ry one should be ~Ilowed to do what thoy piease on thelr vwn prcmises and he would Agre c as long as it does not interfere with anyone else. Ne stated Mr. Rafferty feels th a t since he is ltcensed by the FCC~ that he should broadc~st as I~e sees fit unckr thei ~ reg~•lations and Mr. Calhoun asked where are the nel ghbors' ri ghts. lic stated Mr. Raf fe ~ty is tnfringing on h i s net9hbora' rtghts to a peaceful existence without v-Isable and audibl~ interference; that the city has requi red al t uti l i ties to ba pls~ed undcrgrouncf to ei iminate unsightly poles and wires, there~y addtng greatly t o the cast of their hanes e,nd they do not see the d(ffc re nca in po1GS a~d wlres and tFsis antenne. Ne asked why they shoul d pay more for thel r homes hecr~~~se of c i ty r~gul at tons ~ only to have the whole effect nsgated by structu~es such as this and stat~d Mr. Rafferty has made no attempt whatsocver to even scrren his first antenna by pt~nti~g shrubs and trees; however~ with the newer and talle~ entenna~ nothing short ~f a ~edwood forest could screen it from vtaw. 11e stated if thts va:•~ance is al:awed, e far-reaching precedent has been set and no o~e else could be denled the same variance and the area befare long could look like one giant erector set. He steted Ll~ey do not see ha+ thG ctty could grant thts request for a non-conforming overstzed antenn a tn a middle of a residential zone. tl~e stated hls t~levlsion ente~na is in the atcic and they liavc had no probiems except when Mr. Rafferty is transrt~itting. DeDe Calhoun stated she opposes thi~ antenna beceuse it ts an abomtnat'on whtch totally desLroys the b~autit`ul tranquil skyltne uf the sce~ic corridor and personally 9/21/81 ~ 1 MINUTES ~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. SEPTEMDER ~1~ 1~81 81-6A0 tnvadas he~ prlv~te property to the extene th~t she cannat escape from tt and that she is betng fo~ced to edopt this blg brothar visually. She stated she waa not con:ult~d nor was the c;ty co~suited prlor to the canatructton of this towar; thet it was th~usf~ed upon them by Mr. Rafferty's total disregard fa~ his sur~oundings and it is her understandtng that the ~utlding and Planning ~epsrtn~ents were designed to protect the ma)orlty and codess have been estehl tahed for the s~~e of evei /ona snd must be upheld and enforced; that she has been informed thet this type structu~e ~equt res s but 1 ding pennl t and thac none wes requested end wi thout e permt t and a step•!~y-ttap tnspection~ she askod how she could be assured that this existing tower is safe ~ that it can extend 75 feet in hai~ht within 15 feet c.f her property lina and pos~s a potentiel hazerd to propertles eround it. She presented phatographs shawl~y th~ tmpact of this st~ucture on her property. 5he stated secondly she opposes th Is ham aperetion becausc t t is an i~ .flsian of her pri~ ~cy~ depriving her of her right to comnwntr.ate and when M~. Rdfferty is transmitting~ he fr~quently interferres wlth her abtllty to 1laten to radl~ and sterco equfpment and if Mr. Rafferty was transmitting du~in~~ an emer~ency sttuetion~ she could be deprtved of her right to hear ctvt 1 d~fense messag~s on h~r awn radta. Sha played o tape recording of the interfercncc. Mrs. C~ lhoun stated this negates her sense of security and vlolates her rights and she fe~ ls oppressed by Mr. Raffertv Inside and outside of her own hcxne and her hunan and civ il rtghts should not be sub~~r_ted to his whtms. She stated she felt he should be ai lo+~ed to be a ham operator~ i :~e chooses to be one, pravtdtng he conducts himself in a manne~ whereby he ~cognizes th~ rights af others and subm(tted that Mr. Rafferty be responsible for modtftcattons to comply wtth city cod~s ar~ ~r~inances and that he conduct hls activttles on an atmasphertc frequency whtch c~isturbs na one. She sta !ed she felt he should be cha~ged with ftnding a solutton which achieves both of the ~bove and that the ci ty shaul~ be! charged -+ith seetng that he compl ies and i f the Consnlssion is terrpted ta grant this variancc~ afte~ seeing the •~posltion's si9natu ros~ vieNing the pictures and listening to the tapes. she wculd ask that an envi ron~nental impaCt repart be performed before granting such requests and she would 11ke fo r the studies to begin in h~r ba~kyard. Chai rma~ Bushore explained the s~bmi tted photographs coul d not be returned. Chairma~n Bushore asked if buiiding pennits are required for this type structure and Jack Wh ite~ Assistant City Att~rney~ repi teci they are requf red and none were request~d. Caral D ilycr, G~O1 Paseo .io Azul, stated she llves behtnd Mr. Rafferty and when they purchased their home~ they were loaking for an ~rea where recreation vehicles oould not be parked ~nd where there were no tcleviston antennas or telephone poles; that her te1 evtsion antcnna Is i~ the attic; and that the first antenna Mr. Rafferty instali ed did not hother her very much. but the next one is very noisy, Just like was hedrd a~ the recording, and he does broadcast in the mor~ings and evenings. She stated sh~ has si~ce gotten cable televislon which casts S30 per month ~o that she 9i2~ia~ MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIO-t~ SEPTEF~ER 21. 1~81 81-6~1 does not have the Incerference end that she does nat listen to her ~adlo anym~re becauae she can't hesr it. She stated it is quite loud whon the antenn.~ r~tates. Glorta Fish~ 16Q Paseo Etobl~a~ stAted she ls e neighbor of the Raffertys and she moved there th~ee years ago and the antenne wss elre~dy there and she has had no nolse or Inte rference probl~ms end it is not an eyesore to her. Janat Jones, 200 Oltnda O~ive~ 6rr,~ atated she lives tn a hill and cenyon area and has been o ham redio oparator for ~, ye~rs and has an ~ntenna system e~d in ttie hill ar~s~ her hobby ~equires an entenna And unfortunately hers is not as htgh a~~d she cannot transmlt becausa of thn hills and cannot talk to those people In other countries who are in need of emergency ux~versetlon and she c~n~ot help th~m by contaccing thetr families. She steted she betieves she does this as a servtce and she kr +s what Mr. Raffcrty daes is more than Just ~ hobby and they do help people. Bill Doud~ 63tG Vermont~ Lon~ deach~ p~ss~d ~ut r~ference materlals to each Commtssioner and statsd he has been ~ ham radio opcrator for ~~0 years and has experlenced ~hl~ San1e sort of prd~lem and tt~at these prnhlcros~ os serlous ~as they might seem~ have ~ solution. 11e siated he ~~ecam~ very interested In the soluAble problem of intr_rference and sCrves. at this time~ on a televistan interference commlttee of the College Par~ Radlo Club and that Mr. Rafferty ts ~ member of that sgme org~nizatlon. He stated I~e has visitcd Mr. Rafferty's station and wes o~ the s(te when the foutings werc poured and therc was a r-'x~~'x10' holc~ filled wlth 3 yards af reenforced concrete and that specifications for that installation are readily av~ilable and a~e stAndarized and werc u~~ed In thts InstAllation. He stated h1s visit to Mr. Rafferty's station was offtcially as a representative of the College Park Radio Club ar affiliate ~f the Ar~e~l:.an Radto Relay League; that they are concerned abouc the saurce of the problems which heve been rats~d, psrticularly with interference to televis~~m~ stcrco, radios and telephones and maybo something that could be attributed to the operation af a ham ~pcrator radio station, but he feit it is unfair to suygest that Mr. Rafferty is the c~~use. He stated the cause and the source are somewhat different In this case; that Mr. Raffe~Yy~ withaut a doubt, is the sou~ce of interferenae~ but he did not think he was the cause and th.~t t~~~ cause could be remedied ve ry easily during the manufacture of the device and while it may appear there arc multiplc problems wtthin the samc household, even extendtng ;o the telephone. radlo, ste reo and tclevision~ that eech one of those when dealt with separately can be cured. Chalrman Bushore clarified that Mr. Daud is referring tc, the devices in the people's homes and not to the manufactured device af Mr. R.~fferty's equtpmerit. Mr. Doud replied he has tho rougP~ly checked Mr. Rafferty's statlon, the transmitter~ linear a~^plipflier and antenna lnstallation and on the bests of hls escperience with amateu~ raciios~ there is nothing that can be done to Mr. Rafferty's install~tion~ but that he could point to re ~edtes that would taks care of the camplAtnCs such as the interference In the recording~ and there is is a very easy way to resolve the probtem and it could be done with advice from any radio organizatton~ such as theirs. or by the Federal Communicattons Cortmtssion itself. Hc stated he vlsited the Federal 9/21/81 ~~, MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ SEPTEMdER 21~ 1~81 91-602 Communtcattons orc~en~zation today and they have med~ avatlt+ble a booklet provided by the FCC ~~lating to Y•edto and television inte~ference problems end they try to dtfferenttate between televiston problems and external sou~ces af interfe~ence and t~~: FCC~ tn recent years~ has found this kind of complaint has multipited. N~: stated Mr. Rafferty is a professional amat~u~ and in that sense his redlo broedcasts are conducted on the highest plane possible and thet at times th~e cttiren~ bend interference mery be another source and he sees nqthing about Mr. Rafferty's tnstellatlon that could be chanqed or should be chs~~ged and he felt thc problems cauid ba solved and the F~C has indicated sortie of the comm~n remedtes. Chairman bushore stated interference ts not the issue and t'•e only question before the Conmissta~ is thn vartance to allow the a~cenna and s~nc~ the antenna Is extsttng~ the Wnr~tssian is ba(ng as:.ed to solve~ tha probiem hefore they have approved Lhe problcm. He stated fie spprectotes the Information bei~g provlded and wil) take it hartr_ to review it, but he felt it is unfair to try and turn thts around and blame thc problem on the neic~~bors' televlslon sets. Mr. Doud stated he would e~courage thesc nelghbors to regiscer thelr complalnts bsseci on the interfc:rence problems because those prnbiems can be solved. tle referred to tl~e structurai critictsrn raised regarding the tower• itself and stated the tower is structurelly of grcat tniegrity. Mr. Lawson steted he Is nat avare of the rec~utrement for a bullding permtt and Chal rm~n Dushore repl ted anyttme an in~arovcment is made tn pro~~rty ~ a bul ldi ng permtt is reqiilr~ad and stated tf-~e Planntn~+ Commission is not a court of law and is here to act on che variance for the anten~.a only. Commlssioncr 7otar asked when the tower was built and Mr. l.awson replted It was butit in 1~75 and explatncd a City of M aheim auilding Inspector had tnspected the structu~e and since no permit was required~ no permit was given. -1e ref~rred to the interference complat~ts and stated the petitloner has given filte~s to those pwple who have complai~ed whtch wi1) solve their p~oi~lems; but that they have not been installeJ and stated he feit. as Nr. Rafferty's attorney~ that the informatton provided should be included because this is a v~ery sensitive area of neighbors rights. both Mr. Rafferty and the neighbors and that these matters have to be give~ a lot of cunsideration and he is speaking about the rtgh[ of f~eedom of speech, tha residential private right t~ free speech whfch the courts have .~tven a lot of importance because tt ts a f~damentel constttutional right and thet Is why ti~e references wene made to ihe federal gc~ve rnment and to the City of Placentia actions wherein the court ~uled thet a 25-foat height restriction was unconstitutional. Chairman gushore stated this is a different case and thls Cartmisston is not a court of lew and ts not makir~g ar. asccrtattan ~s to the actians of another court of lmv or future court of law regarding the vari3nces and codes and the only thing before the Commis5lon is whether or not to ailow tt,e antenna. He stated Mr. Rafferty has the right to point his finger at any of the neighbnrs a~d the Zoning Enfo~cement Offtcer wlll investigate that c~mplaint. 9/21/81 MINUTES. ANAHEIn CITY PIANNiNG C~MMISSION~ SEPTEMBER 21~ 1~81 81-603 M~. Lawson stAted wh11e Mr. Reffe~ty mua~t corrply with the t~w~ the Commissianers must at~o ca~~ply ~-Ith ~ highnr law which Is over the ordinancea~ and thet is the state legislatlon ~rid fede~a) legislatlon whlch Is the rcason he ralsed the point and Ix requbsttng thet the Commisslon revtew the law beceuse a lot of other cltles have not done thet and hove gone i1) the way to the Supremc Gourt. Jock White stated the Commisalon is not (n a position to revtew the lew; that he Is thair attorney and wi11 say. spesktng on thetr behelf~ thet the City Attorney's Afftce is prepared to defend this ordtnance and It wil) not be def~nded in this public hearing. Ne stated the purpase af todAy's hearing ts to determine wh~ther or not there are adec~uatG facts~ besed on the criteria tn the ordinance~ to warra~t the ve~lance. TNE PUBLIC NEAitING WAS CLOSED. Chairnwn 6ushore s~ated the Co mnission wants to protect everybody's rights~ both Mr. Refferty's ar-d his neiqhbors and haped their decision wili be fair to eve ryone. Commtssioner Fry clarlfted that the 75-foot crank-up tower was bullt after the ordinance wes adopted and Jack White explalned the addendum to the petitlon~ which was submttted by Mr. Larrson~ indtcates on pege 2 that the applicant's ~+~•foot radio mast was lnsialled more than f, years ego in August of 1975. ~n~! that the 70-foot ~adto tow~r was installed (n August of 1gt3~~ and tha. the ordinance was adopted in Octvber 1g 77~ and the subject matte~ of taday's petitlon Is the 70-foot radlo tower bui It In 19a0. Com+~tssioner Tola~ stated he agrees thet the Comnisslan is here to discuss the va~lance itsclf and ere not In the en~ineering or anten~a business and should not be distussing the nelghbor's obligatlon to install filters h~i:h have been glve~ to them. tie stated he Is eRpaihetic to Mr. Rafferty's problem ~~.~ause the tower has been tnstalled~ but if he hed sought a butlding permit, ttie wouli have been told that the tvwer waa prohtbited in the Scenic Co~rldor Zone. He state:~~ the attorney should unckrstand that antennas of a~y ~Ind ar~e not perr•~itted in the Scen(c Corrtdor. Ne stated he ls ready to offe~ a m~tlon because he feels allawtng tiis type of antenna is a diroct violation to evc rything that has becn done tn that cinyon area and if eve rybody started ~utting up antennas. the whole purpose of the :cenic Corridor designatton would bc defeated and also the re ason pec,ple move tnt~ that aree would be defeated and the purpose of the underground wiring and utilitlas wc.~'~i be defeated. Ne stated if there are other roof-mounted antennas ln that aree~~ it is ~p to the city to see that thosc prnperty owncrs comply with the ardinance. Ne stated he feels Mr. Raffcrty is clotng a good se~vica and is not purposely hurting his neighborg. but that he could not suppart this request. t~e npted church~s have not been permltted to have steeples lhis high and the maximun allowed has been 37 feet on Solortnn Drive. He steted he has been on the Commission 7 or 8 years and hes heard atl kinds of argunents as to why pcople should bc olivwad to heve what xhey want, but that he dld not think theae p roperty a-~ners naved In~a that area to look at an antenna like thts and that he could nnt support it. ~i2~ia~ A-'At1EIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. SEPTEFItiER 21~ 1Q$1 81-604 Chairman 6ushore steCed ho does not feel this I~as enytl-Ing to do wtth the freedom of speech and he looks et it strlctiy as an addendum to tl,at building which would normsl ly raqut re a bul l ding permit And i f Mr. aafferty had requested a but lding penntt a years ago~ therr wauld havr -,een a p~~blic hearing ~nd this would probsbly have been denied and he fclt it would be a ve ry dange~ous p~~cedent settlnq sttuation and referred to the oomment of one person who said shc was ~ ham radl~ aperetar and he felt If this Is app~ovcd~ ~ve ry r~cfio ham AnCI'Atn~ wlil be asking for thc seme thing. He stated I~a can~ot support this ~equest or the grounds it would b~ a dangerous p roGadent aetting situation. Commisslonor flerbst stated thQ clty had to c~a r~ a lot of trouble to c~et thAt area dcstgneted As the Scenic Corridor and there a~ • certaln requi rer~nts whtch must be met In thet ~re~ to metntatn that deslgnatlo nnd that stc~ns and roof-mounted equlpment are things wl~ich must be prohiblt~~cf and he could not support the request because ic wouid dcstroy tt,e canyon arca. Mr. Lawson as4.ed if the ~+~}-foot mnst (nst•~ll~d in 1~7; is belnc~ discussPd alonc~ with the 7Q-foot h(c~h tower and Conmissioner 8arnes st~te~d subject property wds develaped with a single-family resicfence and (~ zon@d RS-5000 ~nd had the Scenic Corridor Overlay on it whicl~ was appr~ved July 10~ 1~173. She stated she has been on th~ Commtssion for G ycars and the Co mnission has nevcr ~Ilawed ~ towcr such as this. She ~tated she is not iri favor of this request b~cause It vtolates the Scentc Corrtdor Ovcrlay Zuning designatlon. Jack ~fi Ite stated he could not glve the attnrney a definltive answer today and would have to do some research Into the htsto ry of che ordinance; however, if the city adopted a zoning ordinance after the date the structure ls tegrlly astabltshad~ that structure would then becorn~ a legal ncx--conformtng use and could be malntalned reyardless of what the ordinance says~ however, he is not offerlnq an optnio~ on this particulAr structure. Ne stated the 7Q-foot high ta~e~ was clearly put up efter the effective datc of the ordinance~ but there is a que~stlon cancerning thc 40-foot high tower which he would havc to r~vierr. Commissioner Tolar offered a motion, seconded by ComntSSione~ I;ing and M(1TIOfi CARRIED, that the Anaheim C(ty Flanntng Commissi~n has reviewed the proposal to retatn a ground mounted r~~~tenna with walver of parrnicted antenna on an i~regularly- shaped ~ercel of land consisc(ng of approximately )~REB square feet, having a `rantage nf approxir~ately 37. feet un the southeasterly side of Paseo Rables, (173 Paseo Robles); and dr~es hereby approve the Negative ~eclaratlon from the requirr.ment to prepare an environmental Impact report on the basis that th~re would be no s1~,Mificant indivtdua) or cumulative adverse envtronmental lmpact due to the approval ~f thts Negatfve Dcclaration stnce the Anaheim Ge~a:al Plan designates the subJect property for hillside tow-medium denstcy residenttal land uscs cortrnensurate with the proposal: thet no sensitive environmentei tmpacts are involved in the proposal; that the Inltta) Study submftted by the petitioner I~dicates no signtftcant indfvidual or cumuletive adverse environmentat irrpacts; and that the Negative DeclA~ation 9/21/81 MINUTES~ ANAFIEIM CITY PLANNING ~~MMIS510N~ SF.PTEMBER 21~ lQ$1 81-60~ s ubstenti~ting the foregotng findings is on file In tha Ltty of Anahelm Planntng Department. Commlssloner Tolsr offered a rasolutlo~ for deniai of Vartance No. 323~ on the basis that tho antenna does have an adverse environmental Imp~ct o~ the area And also on the besis thet it violates the Scenic Corrtdor desiqr~atio~. Jack Whtte explained the Commission hsd Just approved the negative declaretion on the baals that tha pro)ect does not h+eve an adverse enviranmental impact and exrlalned if the Commisston does not ~pp rove the negottve declaration, then they cannot approve the variance, but that tfiey cannat approve tt~e negative declaratton based on the findings es indtcated and then deny the variance on different findings. Ca mnlsstoner TolAr offered e motion~ secondnd by Cammisslo~er Herbst~ to rescind the prevlous approval of the negntive declaration. Conmiss(oner Barnes felt the raason for the denial of the vorience should be based a~ the fact that the antenna Is not in conf~rmance with the ordinance and there is no herdship shown for the varience. Commtssloner Tolar suggested that that portton of hts ~esolutton pertatning to the adverse impacts be removed. Cnmmisstoner Herbst felt the antenna does have sn adversc lmpact on the whole commun(ty and C~nmissioner Barncs felt the antenna deftnitely has an adverse impact. ACT101~: No action was taken on the previous mocion to rescind approvnl of Lhe negat~ve declo~ation~ so Commissioner flerbsc offered a motion~ sec~nded by Commtsstoner Barnes and PIOTIOt~ CARP,IED~ that tl~e previously approved mation to approve xhe negative declaration be rescinded. Commissioner Tolar offerad a motitm~ seconded by Commissioner King and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Cortr~isslon has revlewed the proposal to retaln a ground mounted antenna with waiver of permitted antenr~a ~.i an irregularly- stiaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 7~a88 square fee:. having a frontage of approxlmately 32 feet on the southeasterly side of Pasoo Rpbles (17$ Paseo Robles); and does hcreby disappr~~ve the Negetive D~claratton from the rPquirerr~ent to prepare an environmental impact report on the basis that the~a would be signtftcant indtvidual or curaulative adverse environmenta) impacts due to the approval of this Negative Declaration; that se~sitive environmentai im~acts are involved in the praposai. Commi~sione~ Tolar affered Resolution No. PC81-204 and na ved for tts passage and a doption that the Anaheim Clty Planning Commtssiort does hereby deny Varlance No. 3~ on the basis that there are no unusuai hardshtps pertaining to the size, shape~ topography, location a; sur~oundings of subJect property and on the basis that subJect property is located in the Scenic Corr(dor Overiay Zone and approval would 9/211$t ~ } ' { ~ MINUTES~ ANAIIElM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ SEPT'EMBER 21~ 1981 81-6Q6 set sn undeafrable precedent~ and approvel would be granting e~rlvtleg~ denied to othor propa~tles. On ro11 call~ tl~e foregotng resolution was pasaed by tha followt~~g vate: AYE5: COMMISSInNERS; f~ARNES, BOUAS~ BuSNORE~ FRY~ -~ERpST~ KING, SoLAR NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NQNE ABSENT: COMMISSIONER': NONE Jack 1lhlte, AaslstAnt Clty Attorney~ presented the wrttten right to appaa) the Planning Commtsston's deciyton wtthir 22 deys ta the City Cou~ctl. Cnmmissioner Totar left the moetl~y at ~~:35 n•~• and did not return. ITE! M N0. t3: EIR~GqTIVE DECIARATIOtJ AND CONDITtONAL USE PERMIT N0. 226~: PUBLIC IIEIIRING. AWNER: MELVlLLE J. AND COROTHY E. McLEA.N~ 3409 Esst Mlraloma Avenue~ Maheim~ CA 9280fi. AGENf: CHUCK AN~ PAM BEDIIRD~ 1310 ~k~rth M111er Street~ Anahetm~ CA 93806. Property described as an irregularly-shoped parcel of land conststing of appraxtmateiy O.g2 acre~ 1310 North Mi11er Stre~t (Bedard Autortative). Propc~t~y presently ciassified ML (INDUSTRIA~~ LIMITED) ZONE. CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST; TO RETAIN I1N AUTOMOBILE RCPAIR FACILITY 1-J TlIE ML ZQNE. Ther~ was no one indlcating their presence in opposttion to subJect request~ and a) tt~ough the staff n!port was not read~ i t ls referrrd to end madr. a part of the minutes. Chuck Bada~d~ Agent, was pres~~t to answe~ any qccst(cns. TI~E PUDLIC NEARING WAS CLOSED. Chafrman Bushor~ stated thls is one of those uses pe rtnitted (n this area subject to the approvel a conditional usQ permtt. so that the ope~atlan w n bc controlled and asked i f th~ pc~titloner is wt i l ing to stipulate that al l work w11 i ba perforn~ed inside the tactllty and that ail autor~ol,iles will b~ stored inslde the fac('ilty and Mr. t3edard repiied I~e would be willing tu make thosc stipulrt~~ns. Cha'-:nan Bushore •Nas also concerned ~,5out the business license for tt~ls ~peration and stated it aY;~esrs the petitloner is alrcady storing ~.ars outsid~ enc+ stated no vehicles can be parked outside and that the parking '~t is for -;r,pluyees and custon~ers and if :hesc te rms are vtolated~ the conditional us permtt ca~ be reviewed for revocatTon. Dean Sh~arer~ Assistant Plenner~ explained the petitioner hes requ~sted e business license for eutomobile repair and :hat appitcAtion is ~endTng subJect to approval of this req uest and Mr. Bedard explair~~d he ha, an actual city business ltcense on hts 9/21/81 :.~• ( MINUTES~ ANAFIEiM CITY PLANNING COMMISS'ON, SePTEMBER 21, 19~1 81-607 premisea at thv prasent time ~ind Dean Sherer explotned once the f~es have been collectzd~ the ltcense i, tssued righ*, awey s~d In thts Instance the Planntny ~epartmsnt nottftod the applica~t that a c~~dittonal use permit would be required. Chalrma~ aushore stated occaslonatly the Planning Commtsaton epproves these requests subJect to revlew at the end of a certatn tin~e period and tho operation is automatically reviawed. Commissioner Boues felt the time limtt should be irr~osed on thts permit and explelned the petittoner~vo~ld not have~ to come back unl~ss there ts a problem. ACTION; Cortmisstoner Bouas offered a motion~ seconded by Commisaloner King MOTI ~~ CARP,IED (Commissfoner Tolar being ahsent) ~ thet the Anaheim Clty Planning Commisstcx~ has reviewed the proposal to retain Rn automobtle repair feciltty tn the ML (Ir~dustrial, Limlt~:d) tane on an trregularly-shapcd perccl af land consisting of epproximar,ely O.g2 acre ~ located nor•!h end east of tl~~e northeast corner of Mi raloma Avenue and Mi ller Street~ (1310 North M~ ller Street); and does I~ereby approv:: u~.: ~legative Occlar~tlon from the requircment to prepare ~n environmental impact report on the basls t;~aC the re would be no signlftcant Indlvtdual or cumulativc adverse environmental irr~act due to the app m va) of this Negative Declardtion since Lhe Anahcim General Plan dt:.(gnutes the subject propcrty for gcneral industrial land uses commensurate wl th tfic pro~osaf ; that no sensi ti ve envi ranmental Irr~acts are lnvolved in th~e proposal; tt-.~t tt,c Inittai Study submttted by the peticloner indicates na stgnifica~t tndividual ar cumulative adverse envtronmrntal {mn~cts; and that the Neg~tive Ueclaration substantiating the foregotng flndings is on flle In the Clty of Anaheim Planninc~ Oepartment. Commisal •r E~oues offered Resolution No. PC81-zn5 and maved f~ ~• its pass~+ge and adoptic ,~at the AnaheTm City Planning Commtssian does hereby grant Cor,dltional Use Permit No. 22G3 subJect to revie,w+ at the end ~f ont year and s~Ject to the petltloner's stiputation thst al) vrork shatl be performed ins;de the facllity and a11 vehicles stared inside the factlfty ln compllanGe wtth Sections 18.03.030; .031; .032; .n33: .034 and .035, Title 1II uf the Aneheim Municlpal Code and subJect ta Interciepartmental Commlttee recoaxrx~ndations. On roll calt, the foragoing r~snlutiori was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIOt~ERS: BARNES BOUAS, 81.:,HORE~ FRY. HER6ST, KING NOES: COMMISSIO~IERS: NONE ARSENT: COMMISSIbhIERS: TOLAR 9/21/ot ~, ~ t , ~ , MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMM15510H, SEPTEMBER 21~ 1~$1 81•60~ ITEM N0. : EIR NCf,ATIVE DECLARATION AND ~ENERAI PAN NIEI~D~IENT N0. 1G5_LANQ USE LEM I~ : PUULIC H~ARiNG. To consicier arnenJment to the Land Use Clement. TNe amendment ~+I11 consider c:henge from the current Ceneral Industrlal desi~~nrtlon to Comn~erciel Professlana) for ap~roximately 25 ~cres bounded on the east b~~ St~-te Collc~e Boulevard~ south by Orangewoori Avenue~ end west t~y Anahelm Uoulev~ard, Thcre were two interested persons lndicating their rresence at thc public hearin9~ and although the staff report wes not fead~ it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Jey Tashiro~ Assocl~te Planner, presentcd the staff rep~~rt to th~ Plonnino Commissi~n deted Sertemher 21, 1)~il~ and noted this is a pro~erty o~rn~r/City°inltiated ~encral Plan Miendment to chan~e th~e current Geners) Industrtal desie~nation to Ccxnmertial- Professtonal; that the rro~+erty awner tnlttat~d p~rtion Involves 3 parce!s c~nsisting of approxtma[ely 23.~1 acres~ and the City ii~ftinted nortion consists of Aprraximately 1.1 acres end Is one parcel; and that the study ~rea consists of appraximately 25 acres~ bounded on the east by State Colleqc Eioulevard~ on the south by Oranyewood Avcnue~ and on the wr.st by Anat~elm aoulevard. 11e stated surroundinq land uses include Industrlnl uses to the nc,rtt, and to the e~tist ~-cross Statf Colle~e Boulevarcf~ the Anaheir* City lir~its to the south~ stnc~lF-family resizlences outsid~ the city limits across Oranc~ewood Avenue~ a~d Aneheim t3aulevard and St+nta Ana Fweeway tc tre west~ Ne steted circulati~n ts by State Coll~ge ~oulevard, Orangewoocl Avenue~ Smnta Cruz Street~ and Anahelr~ Hc~ulevord. 11e cexn~ared the estimated average traffic Zrips~ based o~ the current Ir~nd use designation and the prop~sed land use design~tion. He stated anc. of the prima ry pu,hoses for thc renuestcd amendment Is to bring the General Plon Jesignatlon into conformanc~ wlth existing and proposed lanci uses And that that conformance ts necessnry in urder for any office building subJivistan to occur. lie stated input received from various city dcnartments Indicates that pubtic serv(ces ar~ adequate to service va ryin~ types of office development far this gen~ral area~ however~ lt sliould be noted that che TrAffic Engtneer has expressed conGern regarding actumulative traff~c i:n~acts fo~ the 9ener~l nrea, due to the intense conKneretal office constructlon. -le steted the petitloner has indicated that he has advlsed [he T~affic Engineer that e stuc~y has been undertaE.cn acldressinq hlt concerns an~i will be subrnitteJ in con.junction with future reclasstficatton applicatiun and tliat the above ar~ang~ner~t is acceptahle Nith the TrafFic Enc~ineer. He stated the Plannin~ ComMission may wish to take note thet prese~tly the Anaheim Stadium industria) area lncludes approx~mately 1,~~~+0 acres and apprava) of this subiect amendment to Gonx»er•cial-Professlonel will reduct that by 2; acres and that s~verel siynificant dtfferences exfst in site cSevelopr~ent st~n~iards be;ween industrial and commercial office zoning anc! sucf~ Jifferences include setbacl:s on artertal hic~hways~ (industrlal 50 feet and cornm~rcial 10 fcet) nnd mt+ximum structural heiq?~t (industria~~100 fect/comr-~rcial 150 feet). Ile stated if the requested amendment is aN~roved for Conmcrcial Professional designatton~ tl~e Plonniny Conmission may wtsh to consi~ier amending the site develo~xnent strndarcfs for the Camtercfal-Office and Professionel Zone to mair,tain tlic existina setbacks along arterial highways (State College Boulevard, Oranycwoo~i Avenue~ Anaheim Ebul~vard). Mr. Tashiro indicated he had a letter which was submltLed Just prto~ to the Planniny Cvrtxnission mretiny which the Planniny Ccmimissiun may wish to revi~w+. Jack lrhite, Assiscant Clty Attorney~ explsined thls Is not a legislative matcer and the Cornr~lssi~n can rece{ve any evidence they wish to revicw. 9/21,~~1 ~ : MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PL!'~NNING C~MMISSION, SE''TEMBER 2'~ 1~81 g~.~,~q Narry Schrey, 182t! East Gary Street, ~~nt~ ..r,~ stated choy conCUr with the stnff ropart and noted s tr~ffic study is unJvrwey by local enc~tneers ond wlll be presented ;o the Tr~fflc Enytneer si~ortly end th~y hop~ the Plnnning Commiss(on wll) support the staff recomrnendetlo~ on thc e~vtrc~nmenta) im~ect report end agroe to the amendment to ctic f~nerel Plan. Itc expleln~d he r~~,resents porcel C. Jack 4lhite explelned the wrltten corras'rOhdNf1CG' r~ferr~ci to eArlier is a letter dated Septert~t:er Z1~ 1~)f~1~ to Jby Tashtr~ f.•o.n the law firn of LaZOf and Swanson~ slgned by Ri~hard Ulumenthal~ InJicet(n~ thtir firm re~,rescnts Anahctm StAdium Professional Offic.e (iullding :ampAny and •,~attng ,,~ile their cllent dnes not hAVe Any obJectlan to the proposrd Gentral plan 14nenclm~nt. they are conc~rned ~s to th~ Affect the amcndment mie~ht heve on an a~reer-~nt for rec:iproc.~l parkin~a ihey liave with Mr. Rodefi`er who previously (ntended to dcvelop the adjolRtng pro~erty with a health club and racquefball fAClltty alang witl~ ;n0 p~rking spACes~ and that the letter indicates they are conc~rnrd that the~y may lose a tenant or scxne rect~rocal parking rlc,~hts bccausc of subsc~ur.nt d~velopment outsidc the pertmeters af what was prevtously ae~ree~f ta. Ile stateJ in his opirion this ls a mAt[er betw~en property awners but w~ntea It In tt~c recard, Rosalic McMann~ 138'!2 Or~ngewood~ stated shs b~sllcvcd one of the parcels would be where the Heritage Uank is now located and that she (s concerned abaut the Heritage Banl: and stated she ts not opposed to these ct~anges~ If the butlclings to br. built are sim) lar to wtiet ts ther•e r-or~. Chairmen E3ushore stAtad the buildings woul~ ~~e similer to what is there naw and the reason for this request ls bccause the pro~~~-rty has dcvelo~ed !~uite naturally into professionel officc aimos~hcrs and to pcrmi: the awners to actuolly sell indivtdual off(ces in seme af chese buildln~s~ the zorilnq has to be in confar~ance wiCh the Gene~al Nlr so this will have no effect an the existing structures and anything in the futura tiroulci hAVe t~ be donc under tlie new ~oning and he dl~ not think th(s would affect the Heritage E3ank since it ~s a temporary butiding. Mrs. McMann wes concern~d about the hetgl,t rest~ictlons. Uean Sherer explained the height rescrtcttons in the Office Professtonal ~one and the differences between Officr. Professlonal and NL Z~ning, Chairman Etushore asked if thcre will be a prohlen slnce p~rt of this ~r~perty is located in the County of Oranc~e and Jac{. Nhite replled there wtll not be a legal problem; thaC the Cortm(ssion is discussinq a General Plan Arntndment today~ whlch Is a long-ra~ge planning tool and if there is going to be a proposecf r~zoning, that would require Anuther publ(c heering ar~d st that timp t-,c exact concept of the propused develapment would be presented and dis~ussed and this ts the first step and not a necessary step to the zone chenge; that as a ct,arter city there is no requtrement u~der existing law that zoning conform to the General Plan~ so the fact that the aree will be generai planned ciops not mcan that as a metter of law, withi~ the next GO- days or G months the property must be rezoned. Hc stated in ail probability there wlll be a rez~ning subrnttted and Chere w(11 be another publJc I~earing. Mrs. McMann asked what types of buildings waulc± bc permitted under the Con~nercial ProfGSSional Zone and whether Qr not doctors and lawyers offtces would be permitted. .iack 1lhite stated there is a whole list of uses permttted in that zoree and that doctors and lawyers are included. ~ 9/21/81 ;~~NUTES~ ANAIiEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ SEPTEMBER 21~ 1981 81-610 Mrs. McMan~ stated thet would be much better because the bank is drtving them crezy with {14ahts ahining into thelr homes end cers comtng out of the driveway too fast. Sh~ stA~~ tihe believed that it Is a temporsry drivewey. Dean Sharer ateted typically It is requircd that any ilghts on perking lats be down- directed ~r+ay f~om adJoinin~ residentin) pro~erties end M~s. McMann ex~latned th~y do ~ot oppose the perkin,y lot li~l~ts or the Iic~hts hanginy down the ~Id~ of the bulldinc~s~ but there is one brlght light on the wall whlct~ liyhts up thelr yArds. TN~ PUbLIC HEARI-~G WAS CLOSED. Chalrm~~~ B~ahore asked if thc assessrr~nt fees wo~~l:: be diff~rent for the extsting bulldings and Jay Tashiro steted whe~ the cnnditlon~~l use permit wes epproved~ the fees were ass~~ssed~ rrobably et the cortmerc.ial assessment and Jack Whiee rPplied if they hu~e nrr~acly been pald~ tt~ere will be no chnnye and if an owner wants to subdlv(dt~ the fees would depend upon what type dcvelopment is propesed. Chairman ~ush~re askad ebout the landscaped setbecks and Commi•.slon~r 1lerbst stAted I~e felt the setboct;s shoulcl be the same as the existlnq incfustrial area. Commissioner Fry clariflad that Commissioner Nerbst Is concerned about the streets on the perimetc r~ oncl not the incprior str~ets. Comr~isstoner E3arnes stateJ thls Is a General Plan Amendm~nt and when speclfic proJects are present~d, the C~~nission wil) sre that they conforn to the ordtnances. Uean Shcrer felt Commiss(oner lierbst's tsolnt is valid and that chere are existing offlce buildtngs whith heve a scructural setbac4.~ eitt~er off State College or Orangewood at ~D-feet and if the zontng change to Commerclal Professtonal is approved the structural se~bacb:s would be 10 feet fram An arterial highway. qC71oN; Commissioner Herbst offerc~ a mation. seconded by Cor.missloner Ktnc~ and HGTIOIi CARRIEU (Carm~lssioner Tolar bCIf1~ absent) ~ thet the Anaheim City Planning Comr~ission has revicweci the proposal to chenge 2he current plan desic~nation tU Comnerci~l Professional on property cansisting of epprnxir-ately 2y acres bounded an the east by Statc Cqlles~e E3oulevard~ south 5y Orangewood Avcnue. and west by Anaheim [soulevard; ar~d does hereby approve the ~Z~gattve Declaration fron the requirement to prepare an r.nvironmentat impact repc~rt on the basis that th~re would be no sic~nificant lndfvidual or cumulative adverse envtronmental impact due to the epproval of this Neyative Decla~atian since the Ik~a~h,:im General Pitn dcsinnates the subject property for gcner~il indust~ial land uses wrm~nsurate wtth the proposal; that no sensttive environmental impact~, ara involved in the proposal; that the Initlal Study submltted by the petitioner indicetes no siynificant individuel o~ cumulatlve sdverse envi~onrt~ntal i~pacts; and that tF~e Fk yative Declaration substanttating the fo~eyoing findings is on f(ir In the City of A~oheim Planning ~epartment. Gonmissioner Nerbst offe~td Resolutlan No. PCaI•20(~ and meved for its passoge a~d adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commissi~n does her~by recammend to the City Counctl that General Plan Amendment No. 16$ be granced, approving Exhiblt A~ includlny t~~e stipulatton tt-at the structurel getback shall b~ in confo~mance with the existing setbacks. Q~ roll call, the foregoing resolutlon was passed by the following vote: AYES : Cfk1Ml SS I ONERS : BARNES ~ BOUAS . BUSHORE ~ FRY, NEaBST ~ iCl NG NOES: CQMMISSIQNERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMiS510N~R5: TOLAR 9/21/8i ~i" MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PL/WNING COMMI SSION~ SEPTEMOER 21 ~ tq81 1 TEM N0. 10 ~~~~AN~ RECQt1MENDATIONS 81-611 The f~llawiny Re~ort~ and Reconr»endatlons staff r~ports were presented but nqt read: A. CONUITIONAI, USE PERNIT N0. 217~ - Request for epprova) of revised p1an~ from M chae J. nde~son~ Meye~ Investment Properttes, inc.~ for property located at 5~3f' South Waat Street. AC,,, TI0~1: Commissloncr Ilerbst offered ~ motian~ seconded by Ccxnmissloner Fry t~nd MOTI01~ CARRIED (Cbmmfssloner Tolar being ebs~nt)~ that the Anehetm City Plsnniny does hereby dete nninr, thnt a public hearing be ~eld November Z~ 1g81. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERNIT N0. 1~88 - Reque~st for tern-inatton from James E. U~rob tt anyon~l aa'e~`hop~`ng"~ent~r for proparty locetcd et 5717 East Sente Ana Cai~yon Road. AC~TIO_N: Commissloncr Kin~ offQred Reso~ut(on Na. PCa1-?.~f~ end movod for its passac,~e and ecloptfo~ that the Anaheim CICy Plann~ng Commission cbes hereby termina[e Conditlonal Use Permft ~lo. 1~Q8, On ~a11 call~ the foregoinc~ resolutlon was ~essed by tl~e followtng vote: /1YES; C~MMISSIONERS: BARNCS~ COUAS~ Q~SIIORE~ FRY, IiERBST~ KIIIG NOES: COMMiSSIANERS: NONC AI~SEtIT: COMnIS5l0~~ER5: ToLnR C. RCCLASSI~ICATION N0. J~-$p-~, ~ Request for extension of ttme from Anahe:im 11 lls~ inc.~ or property tocated on the narth side of Canyon Road~ approximt~tely G0~ f~ct west of thc cen[erline of Serrano Avenue. AfTION: Comnlsstoner Ktng offered a moticH,~ ser.oncJed by Con~nissioner Barnes an TIOH CARRIEO (Lommlssloner ~lerbst voting no and Canmissio~cr Tolar being abs~nt), that the Ci ty Planning Commtsstcx~ da~s herehy grant a one- year retroactivic extensiw~ af time to REClassificatio~ No. 7q-8~-a to expire vn September 10~ 1982. U. A~AtIDONf~ENT N0. ~1-6A - Requcst from Susan G. Ghandehari for Omega tlomes~ Inc., to aban n an existtng 1' x 32A.y0' public utility eaaement located w i th i n tt~e prqperty located at the south s i de of Ordngewvod Avenue ~ 403' west of ninth strtet. ACTIOt~: Commissioncr King affered a notion, seconded by Con+missioner Nerbst an ION CARRIED (Commiss laner Tola~ being absent) ~ that the Anaheim Clty P lann tng C omn tsston does h~reby recommend to th~ City Cc-uncil that Abandonm~e No. £31-GA be approved as ~ecrasn~ended by the City Engineer. 9/21/81 MiNUTES~ ANIWEIM CITY Pt,ANf11NG COMMiSSION~ 'aEPTEMBER 21 ~ tg81 81-G12 E~ A~N~DONMENT N0._81-7A - Request from Susen C. Chandeheri for K. 41. Lawlar b ?~'ssacTa es, nc,. a sb~ndon a pub~ic utillty eesement located north of La Jcil~ Street~ ~1y~' Nest of Kraemcr t~oulevard. ACT10N: Commfs~ioner Ktng offe rod a motlon, seconde~d by Canmissloncr Nerbst anirR~'TION CIIRRIED (Commissloner Tolar t~eing ~bsent)~ thet the Anaheim City Planning Commtssion cioes hereby re~commend to tF~e Ctty Counci l thet AbenJ~nment No. C~1•7~ Ga approved aa recmm~ended by the City E~gineer. F~ A9ANOONMENT N0. ~S1-5A - Request to abandon starm drain, drainag~ facllitie~~ equestr an ~ ng, blklny 6 hiklnn easex+ient located wtthln Tract No. 11122 at Country 11111 Ro~d 6 Old Uridge Road. ACTION: Conmtssioner Klr~g offered a motlon~ seconded by Commtssioner Nerbst t~nd MOTION CARRIED (Cortmisslone r Talar betng absent)~ that the Anahelm Clty Planning Commission docs hereby r~cnmmend to the City Caunci) that Nbandonment No. B1-~A bo approved as recam~ended by the Ctty Enylneer. OTHEa D15CUSSIQU: Commissioner Barnes asked about all tht antennas referred to durln+~ an earlier hearin~ anJ stated th~~e are vlolatlons of tf~e Ccide called infractions and some ca11eJ mtsd~rn~anor•s and noted for ~n infrnction~ the City could collcct a fine for a benner, etc. Jack White explalned an infractio~ is similar ta a narking tfcket and a misdemsanor is slmilar to petty theft; that the maximum finc Inposed for an infractlon is 525•~~ for tf~e flrst offense ond 55~.~0 f~r tine socond ~ffense and $1(1~ for the thlyd offense; tt,At there ts a S5Q~ fine and/or six manths In Jall for a misden+~~nor; that wtth ~n (nfractlon~ you have na ric~ht to a jury trial; that very often minor offenses are proc~ssed As tnfractions; thet both have to ga through the sarnc cou~t process and the City doesn't get any mo~ey. except whe~ the judge says there is an tnfraction~ unless the d~fencfent pleads guilty. Conxn(ssloner lierbst stated if cai~le has b~en inst~lleci ln the arra~ the Clty could p~~ssibly nottfy those ~cople with antennas tt~at they a~e are In violation of the Code. Ne stated most of tht hll) and canyon area has cable. Joel F(ck, Assista~t Director for Planntnh~ explained the County of Orange will make a brief presentatton concerning tt~e hezardous waste transfer statton ~t the November 2~ ig31~ Planning Conmission meeting. Ile stated they are st~ll examining three sites in Anal~eim. AOJOURNMENT There betng no further business~ Commissloner King offered a motlon, seconded by Commisstoner Herbst and MOTION GARRIEO (Cc~mmtssioner Tolar being absent). thaL the meetir~g be AdJourned. The meeting •ves adJourned at 5:2~ p.m. Respectfully submltted~ ~~~ ~' . Edith L. Harris, Secretery Anafielm City Planning Commissicxe ELFI:Im