The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 1984/04/02REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHCIM CITY FI~ANNING COMMI55ION f2ECJLAR MEETING The regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning CommiAaion wa~ called to order by Chairwoman Bouas at 10;0U a.m., April 2, 1904, in the Counci.l Chamber, a quoru~r being present dnd the Commiasinn reviewed p1anA of the iteme on today's agenda. RECESS: ].1;30 a.m. RECONVGNE; 1:30 p.m. PRBSEtJT Chairwoman: F3auas Commissioners: Dushore, Fry, H~rbst, King, La Claire ABSFNT Commiasionere: Mci3urney ALSO PRESE~NT Annika Santalahti Jack White Jay Titus Paul 6ing~r Jay TAShiro Greg Hastinga Kendra M~rCies h.dith Hac[iE Assistant Director for Zoning AssieCant City Attorney ~ffice Engineer Traffic Engineec Asaociate Planner Assistant Planner Assistant Planne~ F~lanniny Commisaion Secrptacy APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissio~er King offered a mokion, ~econded by Commissioner Fry and MOTION CARRIED (Commiasioner McE3urney absPnt), thut the minutes of March 19, 1984, be appr~ved as subrtiitted. ITEM N0. 1. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. ~56 (PREV. APPROVED), WAIVER OF CODE REQUII2EMENT AND CONDITIUNAL USE PERMtIT N0. 2541 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: KAISER AEVELQPMENT COMPANY, ATTN: CLINTUN DAVIS, P.O. Box 308, Carlsbad, CA 92008. Propecty described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land cdnsistfng of a~proximately 37.2 acres located at the southwest corner of Sunka Ana Canyon Road and Weir Canyon Road. To permit an 18-lot, planned commercial office and light industcial comp].ex that includes a hotel, restaurant and drive-through financial insti~ution wikh waiver of maximum building height. Continued from February 22 and March 5 and 19, 1984. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to sub7ect request a:-d although the stafE CP.pOCt was no~ read, it is ref~rred to and made a part of the minutes. 84-157 4/2/84 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITX PLANNING COMMISSION~ APRIL 2, 1964 84-158 Ecank Rice, Itegional Managex, Kaiaec Development Co., 2122 Palamac Airport koad, Carls~ad, explained their compuny purchased Lhis 37-acte pACCel from Kaufman and Broad (K 6 B) late last yeurr that K 6 n will cohtinue tu develop the residential portiona of the Bauec Ranch, but have no involvement in this projectr that thia pro~ect wi11 be a we11-planned, high~yuality, caref.ully implemonted commeccial office and induatrial development and will contribute aigniflcantly to the tax and employment base of the City generating about $225,OU0 ner year in property tax revenues; and r.hat iE a hotel is develo~ed, it wil.l generate about $400,000 per yeAr in additional City tax revenuea, and about 2,50U people will bn employed in this Nroject at ultimate development. Mr. Rice stated they are only requesting a waiver of the 35-foot height limitaCion ot the Scenic ~acridoc Ordinance for cert~in dea:gn~ted lots and do ~ot believe r_he 3-oc A-story heights wauld ue in con£lick with the Scenic Corridoc Ordinance and tt~at tt~e proposed height would not discupk the natural scenic beaUty ~L thE area becau~e there will be heavily landscaped setbacka and embankments which will minimize any r-egative visu~l and aesthekic impact. Several alides were presented showiny the pro~osed project and the view with the heavily landscaped b~nk. Mr. Ri.ce stated the elevated location of the site ~nd the heavily landscaped embankrnents and landscaped areas will soften buildings and they think it will reduce their scale No that a 3-or 4-story buildings will laok very differenk than expected. He ~tated the statf report sugge3ts that a height waiver wou.ld be precedent setting, but t.frey have a different opinion because most of the commercial develapment in the area is going to be concentrated near their project ~nd it is unlikely that it ever will impact other portions o£ the Scenic Corridor. He stated it is theic under~tandiny that precedent has already been set w.ith l•wo height waivers which were granted in 1977 and they did not lead to a rayh of new requests for waivers and he did not think approval of this ~aiver would lead to new ceyuests. He stated it was yuggested that it mxght mak~ more sense to evaluate Lhe height waivers at a later titt~e on a lat-by-lot basis; however, they believe this i~sue Should be addresse~ today on a comprehensive project basis and not on a piecemeal basis when individua], buildings are proposed. He stated they are developersof the entire site and are proposing increased heights for only those lots for which incceased heights make sen~e and the lcts being discussed were pointed out on the plans (Lots 1 through 9? adjacent to the major roads (Weir Canyon and Santa Ana Car~yon Roads) and are generally located at the top of embankments. ~e stated they are also away Irom the residential areas at the southwest and they feel a auperioc project would result if the Commissi~n grants the waivers koday on a systematic, comprehensive, in-advance basis. He stated granting the waivers roday will reserve the right for the Commission tn review and approve final site plans for each and every lot prior to issuance of building permits. THE PU~LIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Responding to Commissioner Bushore, Greg Hasking~, Assistant Planner, stated that two pret~ious variancea approved were for a church steeple and clack 4/2/84 MINUTES, ANAH~IM ClTY_PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 2 1984 84-159 tower. Comm~asioner Buahore stated even though the Planning Commisaion is not supposed to set precedents, thia petitionec haa just referred to those two appcovals as being precedents. Reaponding to Commission~c H~rbat, Mr. Rice stAted at this time, khey intend to develop khe ma~ority oE lots themselves, but no developer could guar~ntee that they could build out every project given the way market and economic conditions are today and they would ho~e that if the ecu~iomy ctays strong, they will be able tu be L•he buil.der of the entire pcoject. Commissionec Herbst stated he has a problem giving blanket approval for height waivera without seeing the buildings proppaed for the pr~perty. He pointed out this petitioner c~uld decide to sell the property to someone else and he thought the pro~ect shuuld be approved without the height waiver and the Planning Commisaion shouJ.d see ~he building~ as they are designed because times do change. Mr. Rice otated the Commission will have the right to review bath thc architQctural and site plans for any buildinys proposed for any of the lot~ and they are interested now in being able to know, with certainty, that th~se lots which do warrant slightly higher treatment, da have that right, so they can begin looking at all the lot~ fronting on Weic r.anyon Road in a comprehens~ve way, but if it is left that each project has to come in again for approval of height waivers~ it will impose a greac difficulty on them to try to make the project as high quality as tliey woula hope for. Responding to r.ommissioner Bushore, Mr. RicE stated somNOne in his office talked with someone about a church with the Latter Day Seints, but they have had no further discussions with them and they have no inkentions of having a church. Commiasioner Bushore stated he received the word that Kaiser was perfectly willing ~o sell one of the lots off as a church, providing thcy would pay the price that everyone e2se would pay. Mr. Rice stated he personally had a conversation with someone about it and that was not the impression khey intended to convey. Commissioner Buahore stated apparenl•ly there is some misinformation going around and it doesn't soun~ like a very well-planned development. He added that was not to say he would have a problem ~ith a church on the propetty, bec~~use tt~ere are church needs in the canyon area. Mr. Rice stated they feel it is a well-Lhought-out-plan and explained they are not propusing any specific building development on any single lot, but are here to obtain approval for a conditional use permi~ and waiver oP building height; and that a conditional use permit is needed because the City's current Zoning Code does not permit the development of a high-tech R and D building and they were advised this is the propec procedure and decided to request the height waiver and other basic criteria for the projects at the same time. He added they are not only asking for heighk waivers on a few of the lots, but are asking fur th~ Commission to say that those back lots near the residential area should not be a].lowed a height waiver. He stated he understands they will have tu come back as each individual Ioc i~ developed with a specific 4/2/84 MINUTES, ANAHF.IM CITY PLANNING CQMMISSION, APRIL 2~ 14$4 84-160 final eite plan a~d epecific building plans. [ie etated ~he Commiasion would be acknowiedgi.ng the hardship of thia eite with its elevated character which will allow the developer to economically develop this 650,000 equere feeL• which was anticipated by the environmental impact report for thia pr.oject. Commiaeioner Bushore atated the environment•nl impact report talked about a maximum ~ot~ntial build-out and thece were no specifi.c densities as to num~er of units that would be allowed under the Flanned Community Development. He seked which flood plain this property is located in and it wAS noted it was not in any flood plain due to ita elevation. Mr. Rice stated therP is comprehensive gradinq go~,ng on in th~t area and the site is currently higher than SantA Ana Cnnyon Road and with the new aonfigucation of the ruqds, it will be even higher and one of ehe thrusts of their request for the w~iver was khe fact that those roadL are lowec in elevation ~~nd the buildings are higher and a 5-story building would look like a 1-story building to someone driving on the road and the height wAiver is requested on the front portion oE the praperty unly and tlio~e lots adjacent to the residential areas will basicAlly look over the tops of buildinqa. Kendra Morries, As~iotant Planner, st•ated under lhe ori~inal Planned Community Zoning for tt~is parcel, there was a condition that final apecific plans for each lot be Aubmitked to the Planning Commiasion far review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits o: prior t~ thE cecordation of a final parcel map, wtiichever occur~ first. She stated the conditional use permit does, in fact, address specxfic ~ses and buildin~ sizes on the plans. Slie stated the appli.cant's plans for deve2oprtient of the property a:e apecifically defined in terme ot the uses that wou~d ultimately be there in the staff report and the confiyuration a.llowa toc a numb2r of uses on dif•ferent lots, but they are speciEically delineated as to the type of uses which could actually accur on khose lots. Commissioner Bustiore clarified he wants a definition of R& D because there are some khings that could go in there by right which the Commission would not want to see. Kendra ~orries stated under the canditional use permit section of Ehe Code, t:~e applicant is applying for the designation of planned commercia~ offices and light industrial centers, which are allowed provided Lhe uses ace integrated within a single development that has an overall site area of 5 acres and a common private traffic circulation, and light xndustrial uses consist of light manufacturing, processing, and packaging, servicing, or fabrication or the following: laboratocies, pharmacPUticals, cosmetics, publishing companies, scfentific equipment, assembling, drafting instruments, electrical or electronic equipment, research and development and teaching lab, scientific labs, aound equipmenk and supplies and other similar uses as expressly approved by the City. She added it does not allow retail uses under the R & D definition. Commissione~ ~ushore stated his concern is that he does not want to see a lot of piecemeal induatrial uses that do not actually fit in with the regional shoppinq center and he can see tha~ happening with this project. He asked if it could be controlled with the filing of certain CC&R's which would prohibit 4/2/84 1964 84-16'1 MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOK,_ AF~RIL 2._ ..._._._. that type of thing. He eLdted he would not approve r~ny height w~ivece unt:l he aeea the building plona and sees the pads and how the upper hillside .ta going to be graded Und what the people are actually qoing ro aee~ Camrnissioner La Claire slAted she ia not oppased to the concept oE thia project, but it is very difficult tu viaualize a 4-story 63-foot high building when thece t-re none in the canyon area and l•he Commisaion is r,ot fbmiliar with the way it will be yraded. She stated Anaheim does not have an archi`.ectural review board and thcre is a building at the corncr of Imperial and Nohl Ranch Road which is out oE ecale with the entire ar.eA And it is an eyeaore, even though it would be fine i.f it were on the slopea of Newport Beach. 5he added if thia developer had complete architectural contcol and the Comminsion knew their track record a~ a company, they might be more willing to appcove khis. She atated she doea not want to aee the lots one at a ti.me and would rather aee the dpveloper take the respunsibility and thouqht the Commission is just a little afcai.d becau~e they do nok t~ave the control. Mr. Rice atated regardless of whether or not they build out every lot, they will have architectural control and will prove, aa ttiey have in nll their projecCa, t:hat they take great pride in controlling not only the architecture of L•he individual lot, but that it relates to th~ building next to it. He ~tated they want this approval su they can plan the wt~ole project and they need thie approvxl to set the design guidelines for everything that i~ built on those lots. C~mmissioner Ga Claire stated she passea that aren often and it is hard ~o visualize it ~oing 60 miles per l~~~ur down the freeway ~1nd she would lihe to see some drawings showing the line-of-sight from Weir Canyon. Mr. Rice stated he thought the appropriate time to have been concerned about the Scenic Corridor was when the grading plans were appr~ved; that the impact on che Scenic Corridor has already been estab~iahed by approval ot the massive grading which is essentially underway now and the issue ai whether or. not the building is 1 or a more stories high is negligible compared to tt~e grading that is already approve~. Line of sight drawings were presented and it was pointed out the occupant would be seeing txeea and not buildinqs. ElP stat.ed if this waiver is not approved, it is possible that someone to whom they might sell a lot, would come back and pcopose a high-rise building on a lot where it does not belong. He stated they ace really asking for a restriction that only tho9e certain lots where it makes sense will have a slight~y higher height anci they do not want to be the master developer of a project whece someone could cvme in and obtain a height waiver. Commissioner Herbst asked what type of control the developer will have af~er the lots ace c~ol.d. Mc. Rice stated regardlea~ of how many lats they sell~ they wi11 reserve CC6R's contcols. Comrr.issioner Herbst stated that does nat give the City any conttol. Mr. Rice atated if this is approved, the Commisaion will have approved a serie~ o£ heiyht res~rictions which would limit the heights on the back lots. C~mmissloner Hecbst stated the Commir~sion has been through this befoze and if this developer sells those lots 4 or 5 years in the future and 2 or 3-~tory buildings have already been built in the £ront, the purchaser uf those lota 4/2/84 .a~ 84-162 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CQMMISSION APRIL 2 1984 would havo his architect draw up plans for 5-story buildings and then point out thece are 5-atocy buildings juet down the street, and thp~ the CC6R'8 will become o civil problem between the purchASer and the developer. Fle Atated the Planning Commission ie not au~posed ta aet a precedent, but it happens a11 the time. He stated he ia opposed to this request becau~e tt~ese things huve happened before. Mc. Rice stnted the Commission wou~d be l.n a stronger position if th~Y would re£er future developers to this heacing when tt~e height .issue had been discussed= and it would be a p~rt of the public record that the height restrictions were placed an those lots where the ~lanning Commission thought it made sense and the person who bought the back lot thinking they were going to get the heigh~ waiver should have researched the situation. Commissioner Bu~hore atated that contradicts the petitioner's opening statement regarding the Lact that the Pl.anning Commission had granted waivers back in 1977. He stated the petitioner had said the Commisaion had approved the yrading plan and added tin ccenter,cbutathepactual gradingeplantwasould be moved far the regional shopp 9 appcoved by the City Enyineer's Office. Commisaioner eushore stated the developer. has requested this height waiver so his de~elopment can be seen and it has nothing to do with the grading. He stated the City will have to live with the situation out there after this developer sells the lots and m~ves on down the road; and that there is a Scenic Corridor Ordinance with a height restriction and pcobably if the lot was sold to a church, ~he Commission would approve a waiver for a steeple, b~~t he would not vote for this- Mr. Rice stated Commi3sioner Bushore I~as implind that they intend to go in and build a cuuple of buildings and leave and he has attemptPd to indicate that they intend to ~hephecd this project through c~n a cumprehensive basis. He stated with respect to the comment about precedent setting, th4~t the precedent set today would be that the Cotnmiasion deli~erated no~ ~~ a lot•-hy~lot basis, but on tiie basis of the entir.e project. Comniissioner Bushoce stated the Commission, as Planners, has to plan for the best and for the worst because if someone came along Gnd of£ered to buy all 18 lots as they currently exist under the parcel map and there was reasonable enough inducement, he thought this developer would wa~k away fcom the project ~omorrow and the purchasec could come back and change the whole stcucture. He addpd thp Commission has approved pruject after project which was never constructed or totally changed. Mr. Rice stated their interPst in requesting the height waiver is to make it a better project and to give the City a planning tool to keep the higher uses wt~ere they should be and the other uses where they should te; and that there is no assurance that c~ameone elae will not at s~me point, be involved with this proPerty. He 3tated tt~ey think ik is g~od planning to establish certain fundamentals for a project of this scala with coad sizes, lot sizes, landscape requirPments and signage and with those big cor.straints imposed on them, they will ~~c~alop a high qua.lity project, but if the Commiss?on denies them the 4/2/84 MINUTES. ANAFIETM CITY PL~NNING COMMZSSION~ APRIL 2. 1984 84-163 right to talk in advance about cectain nominAl heigl~t i~~creas e P, lhey will continue to meke an e[Eort ta do n high q~»lity project, but it will he much more difficult. Commis~!oner La Clnire etated ahe agreed with a lot of what t h e~otitlaner has ~aid and r~he likee tu aee a planned development, but the prob lem is thdt she is airaid Chis develaper. is g~i~~g to aell the project and the Cummiseion will be atuck wiCn future develapers coming in end anking for a lo t oE waivers. 5he atated she is not. nfraid of 4 stories nex~ to the EreewAy, but hes some doubts about the corner of Yieir Canyon and Monte Vista becaus e ahe just c:t~nnot visua.lize 60 feet instead oE 25 [eet. Mr. Rice ataCed the slides pcobz-bly show bes~ whak it wnuld 1 ook like becauae that corner h~as banks on aoth sides and a regiona] shopping c enter is acrostt the street and ~he reaidential area would b~sically look over thr top af the buildinc~s becauae of the elevations oE the site. Commissioner Bushore stated if there were residents liviny th ~re now, there would be a lok of people opposing this rec;uest and ahances a r e the huildings will be there before these h~mea are ir and if the people had knawn what they would be looking down on, thw_y Frobabl~ w~uld not be buying t hose premium lots. He stated he did not ~hink any of the Commissi+~ners are ugAinst nlanned development, but want to see khe CC&k's e~pecify the uses tha t are going in so it can be controlled. Commissioner Fry stated ii this ia approved for 63 feet, it c ould either be 4 stories with 15-1/2 feet ur 5 stories with 12-1/2 feet. t~ir. Rice stated their application specifie~ 4 stories arid they dr ~ot intent to co n struct anything over 4 stories. Commissioner La Claire stated st~e did not want to make a jud g ement on this today and would like to take these plans And view the eite. Mr. Rice stated he would be happy to give her a taur af the pcoperty. He res ponded to Chairwoman Douas tP,~t they are now in the process of selectin g an architect to start building design for a.100,000-squace foot building which would not be on any of the lot~ in question and would be on the lots with no height waivers at all. Chairwoman Bauas asked how they will control what goes ir an d asked why they could not come in and cequest a 10-story building. Mr. Rice stated typically they have CCSR's for. all their pcAjects which are ~et up wit h an architectural re~iew committee and a number of guidelines are set up in th ose CC&R's; however, they have not put height restrictions in their CC&R•s, but would make it clear tu whoever buys khe lot that they had the height re sCrictions. He stated they have never implied to anyone that they can get a dditional height and they are interested in kceping it to those certain lots. He stated there is no foolpcoof legal way to guarantee that, but he thought the power is that today the Comm±ssion is looking at the whole project and ag r ees that for this project these are where the height limitations chould be, o t herwise the Coma~ission will be subject each and every time a developer c omes in to p~litical pressure and tu arguments being made on a case-by- case basis. Comtnissioner Herbat stated they are calling this a planned commeccial development and are asking that specific lots to designated with height waivers and asked wt~at legal tool the City wauld have to sa y that certain lots should have 4 storiea or 5 stories. 4/2/A4 MINUTES, ANP-NEIM CITY PLANNING CUMMI58ION, APRIL 2, 1984 84-164 Jeck White sCAtad it ia hie opinion thdt thE ~lAnning Commisaion hAS the con~rol in that thQ maximum any doveloper can build is to the mAximum height limitation in the ord~nance and cantrary to what he has heArd today, legally there ia no auch thing in zoning as pr~cedQn~ and Qach parcel ia looke@ at individuall y; however, if t.hat daean'C seem sufficient ~s contcol, thece ie no reasan why a condition could not ~o ndded cequirxng the cecordation oE a cavenant ag ~inst ~he paccels thdt will not have the heiqhC waiver which will run in ~he iavor of the ~ity and which wlll, on the record, indicate thAt ~he hPigh~ limi t for those parcels i~ a certAin number o£ feet and the owner of thP pcopert y would have notice of the Code requirem~nto and the specific intenti~n of ttie City of Anaheim to limit that parcel to the h~ighk impoaed anu to cha n ye that limit wau19 reyuire a variAnce from the Cit~ and ~he expressed r emoval ot the cove~ant•. Commi~sion er Nerb~t stated coi~trACtote developing new pro~ertiEa a.lways reseacch tt~e Plannin9 Uepartme~t recu~ds and if thal• ~ight wac c~ranted to anottier property owner, it in tia.9 Eor the Commission or Council to deny those reyuestr~ a nd he reAlizea precedents are not supposed to be set. Ne atatec3 he likes the idea af a covenant, so t~~~~t when the ~roperty ic sold, ~he buyer is notii-ied. Mr. Ftice statEd they would have no objection to recor.ding a covenant. Commissioner La Claire statecl she iitill doer~ not want to make a has~y deciaion a»d would 11ke to look at L•tie pcoper.ty. Mr. Rice etated he would have no objection to a c~ntinuance and explained this matter has bee~ continued Erom the last t h~ee meetxngs in an attetn~~t to explain the project which ia apparently not, a typical project for this Ci.ty. He aEked if the height issue could be r~eparate~ fcom the other isaues and the bal~nce of this propoeal acted on t aday. Jack White stated this is one inteyrated appl.ication for a eonditiona 1 use permit and a~s a pact of that pecmit, there is a reque~k for a waiver of tieight. ].imito, therefore, the approvals need to be r.ombined and the actfon ta k en an both at one time. Commissio n er Herbst stated t~e would like to have ttie uaes for the research and cievelopme nt tied inko the conditional use permit because it is vague. CommisaionF~r }3ushore agreed. Jack Whit~= suggebted if specific u:~s are approved by the Planning Commission, tho~e uses as ta tt~e inCi.vidual lol•e involved would alao be recorded against the prop~ tty so the subsequent purchaser would t~ave knowledge the uses arp al~a lirt~ited. Mr. Rice slated the CC~R's to be recurded with tt~e property would specify not only the t~eight, but the al.ternative uses Eor each lot; and they would have no objection s ta l•hat restriction. ~ommissio ner D~~shoce stated he thaught it is impecative to spell out the uses, especiall y those fronting on Monte Vista because there will be a lot of demand for a lot of different uses and they need tn be pruhibited rigF~t now. Commissio ner. Hecbst stated he is concerned about the uses that would be allowed u nder the research and development designation and asked if there will be any medic~l offices allowed because rhose are the khings that change the 4/2/84 MrNUT~S. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CQMMISSION, APRIL 2, 1984 8A-165 piceure when it comea to purkiny. Mc. Rice Aaked 1E ~he Commission wou].d like to oet ~.p a tour oC the pcoperl•y and it was pointed out if the Commieoion~re wi~h to tour the pcoperty in a group of 4 ur more, a eFecial meeting wou'ld have to be called Eor that purC~oae, or L•hi~ i~~eekinq would hav~ tu be adjourned to a epacific date and t ime, or they could do it i.n grbups of 3 or leoa. Commi.eai~ner l~a Claice stated she would rather cAll the petir.iwner'a oEfice and set up an individual tour~ Commisaioner Bushore stated he did not want to get a gutded tour and would ~~ot want t~ meel• with anyune on a one-to-one huais outaide a public hearing . Commissione~ tlecbet atated he was not i.nterested in touriny the property. Jack White atatad there is no legal problem if the ~urpose ir l•o tour r.he property, but thare wou 1 d be a problem with meel•ing and discussing the project outsicle the public hearing. Ac:lUN: Commisaioner H e rb~t offered a motion, seconded by Commi~sioner F'ry and MOTION CARRIF;D ( Cammi~sioner Mr,Burnoy abaent ), thnt the Anr,heim City Planning c:ommisalon does hereby continue coneideration of the r~forementSoned matter to the meeting of Apci.l 1G, 1984, at the ceque3t of the petltioner. ITEM NU. 'l. E~lt NEGA2`IVE DECLARATION, WAIVER UF CODE REQUIRF.MENT AND CUNllIi`IUNAL USE l~L'RMIT NU. 2543 ~ PUBLiC HEARING. OWNERS: PkOJECT ANAHEIM, 2740 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801, AT'PN: WARREN S. '.'~~. AGENT: uAN JOIIN HUANG, 4790 F.. Pac.tfic Coa~t Nighway, Lon9 E3e.9ch, CA ;~ .•~. Property described as a rectangularly-ahaped paccel of land consf~ti n g ot approximately 2.62 acres, «740 West Lincoln Avenue (Anaheitn Town and Country Mntel). To permi~t a 46-apACe recreational vehi.cle pArk in conj~nction with an ex.isting motel with w~ivers of m~xin:um structurAl heiyhk, mii;imum landscapec3 setback, reyuired sike screening ana maximum fence height. Continued from March 19, 1984, in order to readvertisE. There w.ere four peraor.s indicating their presence in opposition to s~bject request and although the staff report was n~t read, it ts ceferred to and made a part of ti~e minutes. Joe Kitashima, a~chitec t, stated the plans have been rFVised relocating the restroom and ].aundry b~ ilding to the southwest corner of the property; that }~is preliminary plan has bee,^, submitted ko show what the grade of the property wil.l be and it ie indicated that they will cut approximately one foot off the rear of the property 1 i ne to bring the g ade approximately to or adjacent to the elevation oE the pr operty next door to the east; and there was concern regarding the block fence, specifically the residents to the east af the property indicated they wanted a t~igher fence and they had indicated they would be willing ko put up an b-foot s~lid f.ence which would consist of a 6-fvut high block wall with ~ 2-fook hiyh wooden Eence an top. He explained the reason for that proQosal is mainly the ccst of the concrete b~ock wall a~~d they Eeel an 8-faot wal 1 ~rould be dangerous as fa~ as the winds were concecned. He explained th~ 8-foot fence would be adjacent to the existing 4/2/8d MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 2, 1984 84-166 residence ta the east and wuuld be 300 Eeet from the cear of the property going north and wau.ld terminate a pproximAtely where the front residence ie located and the rest oE the f.ence would be 6 f.eet high ae ~riginAlly pl~nned fcom that point to the street. He stated khey will have six RV spaces 15 feet away from the eASt property lin e. Gary Woode, 2726 W. Lincoln, sta ted his pcoperly io ta the east and preaented A ietter signed by those not pre sen~ tndic~ting their request for khe following modificationR if the perm.t ie~ appcoved: (1) a 10••foot high masor~ry wall as meaeured from the petit i oner's gtound level to be built on their aide oE the property lino ad~uining t he tesidential property (2) an 8-foot hlgh masonry wAl.l as n~easured from th e petitioner's ycound level to be built dn the side of the property adjoining t hR commercial or nursery property in f.ront (and presented a map ~howing t~ie nutsery) and stated they would rather have a 10-foot wa11 the whole length of the property, but realized that would prabably be aekinq to~ much, (3) a 10-foot widF ].andscaped setback on the eASt side next ko the residential propecty to be maintained as required by Code and would include the entire front e xcept fot the first 147 Eeet from the etreet adjacent C~ the nur~ery and they would not ob~ect to a 3-foot setback adjacent to the nursery; however, they wo uld ask for 15-gallon trees to be planted on 5-foot centers ~long the east p r operty line to help reduce the noise. He atated they ar~ concecned ~about noise and exhAUSt fumes and about L•he:r privacy and sec~urity and st;fety oE the residents; and that the park will be open 24 hours a day, 7 days a w e~k. He sta.ed the ground level is between 3 to 5 feet higher and it will be difficult to lower Chat grade due to existing buildfng~ on the property and t h at is the reason for determining the height of khe wall as measured from their c~roUnd level.. He stated it is nAt uncommon for recreational vehicles to ha v e windows r.hAt could over2ook even an 8-foot wall; and there are children in Lhi~ neighborhood and they do not wanl• strangers looking into their ba r ky~rds. Regar.9ing r~erurity and safety, he stated they alceady live in a h i gh crime area d~e to the motels and the tcet~passing of adults and chi.ld r en would affect ~heir insurance. He stated this park will be run by a corpo ratian and the,y are wor.ried that it may not be managed properly and during the i r slow periods, there may be people who would stay longer than the 29 days. H e stated they would ask th:.t the wall be built beEore other construction begin s, so that heavy trucks would not be att.empting to enter theic dri.veways. ye s t ated there .ts already a pzoblem wikh congestion on Linco:n due to th e lack of parking spaces on the street caused by neighbociny motels. Mr. Woo~s stated one of the Comr.tissioners at the last meeting stated an 8-foot wall would not be sufficient and each of the neighburs feel that for their own protection and ~rivacy, a 10-foo t high masonry high wall, as measuced Erom the RV park ground level, is ess~nt i al and they feel a 10-foot wide landacaped setback must be maintained the ~ ntire len~7th of the praperty, except wiiere it borders the nursery. Helen Dewey, 2726 W. Lincoln, s t ated sh~ believed they should have a 10-foot high fence because cecreatianai vehfcles are not all the same sfze and some would be bigger and could look o ver the fence. She stated she feJ.t since they are residents, they should have a little more consideration. She added they are concerned about fumes and e x haust and also the fact that the park uill be open all night. 4/2/84 MINUTGS, ANAHEIM CITY PL~ANNING COMMTBSION. APRIL 2, 1984 ___ 84-1fi7 Commiasioner Pry atetied he believed Mr. Wooda had eluded to the foct that d Planning Commisaionnr had said an 8-foot high block wall wauld not be adequ~te and he did n~t think an 8 oc even 10-foot high wal~ had been diecussed by ~he Commiasion. Commissioner Rushore indicated he thought he hnd diacuased a higher wall. Ms. Dewey stated she had told ~evernl pvople About the 2a-t~ouc uae of the rar~ at~d they were simply horrified that would even be ~onaidered and felk there should be an 11 o'clock curfew. She aaked it the petitioner proposea a fence or a wall. Chair.woman ~ouas pointed out the petitioner had indicated it would be a G-foot wall wil•h a wooden fence on top. Ms. [,ively stated she did not think a b'lock and wood wall w~uld look good and did not think it would be very aoundproof. She explained her house ts the clunest ~o the park and L•hat ahe ia very concerned. Mary Woods, 2726 W. Lincoln, stated she would still like to have a 10-Coot high wall. Mr. hitashima stated if they construct the wall prior to construction, it would probably be damaged and would probably have to be rebuilt and the normal pcocedure is to clear the site, do the grading, compact it, and then build a wall. He stated reviaed plans should show the fence will be 8 feet high, b~~t lhat 6 feet will be concrete blocks and 2 feet w~uld be a wood fence £or a total of 8 solid feet. He stated it was their contention that the fence is required between the commercial and residential uses, but the property in front, which is appcoximately 30U feet long measured from Linr.oln to the residence~ is a N~hole3ale nursery and he did not see why an 6-foot fence would be necessary in that area. He explained the height of Che fence would be measured from l•he highesk elevation on either. side. Chaicwoman Bouas stated the opposition is saying the nursery is only back 147 feet. Mr. Kitashima stated he measured the site and it is approximately 300 feet from th~ ptoperty line on Lincoln all the way back to the fi.rst residen:e. There was a brief discussion regarding the location of the nursery and Greg Hastings pointed out it ap~ears on the City map that the nursery and homes are all located or- the same lot. Mt. Kitashima stated he thought the whole idea of the f-ence was to shield the residence and not the yar.d. Responding to Chairwoman Bouas, Mr. Kitashima explained he did go over and talk to one of the neighbors, but the others were not available. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner La Claire asked the opposition why they feel the fence snould be extended. Gary Woods stated they are planning to have a wal]. all the way to the str2et and they have no pro~lem with that, but are concerned about the height and would like the 8-foot wall to be extended the entire length of the property and they would want it to be 10 feet ad;acent to the houses. 4/ 2/84 MINUTES, A~IAHEIM CITY PLANNING C_~MMISSION, APRIL 2, 1984 84-168 Cammisaioner La Claire pointod out subject pcoperty is Abouk 3 or 4 feet higher than ttie neighbar's praperl•y and adding an 8-font well would make it an 11-foot wall from their side dnd she thought thAt would take cer.e of the n~ise. Sho otated the property is commerclal and if ther~ was a tall building there, an 8-foot wall would not cut out all the noi~e. She stated th~ other ~oncern was the visual impact with peop].e looking over the wall and ahe thought the only way to solv~ that prablem would be with landecAping and the pekitioner is propoaing landac~ping and trees. She stated ahe thought it ia reasonable to expect an 8-fuot wall Adjacent to the hou~es, but not beyond that. She stated the comtort etation has been moved to the other aide And the petitionec has given up quite a bit oE propecty adjACent to the houses, so they will not be impacted in a close nannPt. Chairwnman Bouas ~t~ted the petitione~ has n~t agreed to an 8-foot wall. Paul Sinyer, Traffic ~ngineer, atated there should be no wall or any typE~ oE conslruction foc 8 feet back from the aidewalk. Commissioner Bushore stated he wAH the Commiasioner wl~o mentioned that a 10-foat wall might be reasonable with ~ 5-Eoot setback, but with the grade separation, the neighbors would actually have a 13-foot fence and he thouyht the 8-fnot ~~all would be adequal•e nince the pet:tioner moved the spaces back 15 feet. He stated if a normal-si2ed motorhome wAS parked within 5 feet of the fence, the uccupants cou~d look over the top of the fence, but the 15-foot setback will prevent that, but pointed out there is still a 5-foot setback adjacent to the first home and the occupants of: the motorhome will be able to look over that fence. He stated 15 feet is adequate, but because there is na playground, the childrQn will play in the 15-foot area and they will be playing with fcisbees end balls that will go over the fence, but felt with the 8-foot wall and the .15-foot setback, there wi.ll not be a visUal intrusion and the cf,ildren will not be able to climb ovec the wall. Chairwoman Bouas ratated she felt the ~all needs to be solid block and not have waod on top. G~ry Wood stated they plan to lower Cheir pKOperty grade by one foot, so it will be a 10-foot wa11 and not an 11-fo~t wall. Co~missioner Herbst stated an 8-foot fence will ~olve the sound problem and he did not agree with a 6-foot block wall with a 2-foQt wooden top. He stated he also recommended IS-gallon Cypress trees on 5-foot centers because in two years, they will be 20 Leet tall. He stated the 8-.foot fence has to be built to Code and will be structurally sound. He added he does not agree with where they are proposing to s~op the 8-foot fence and felt it should go at least to the end of the nursery for 149 feet back and then it could be lowered to 6 feet at that point. Sam John Huang, agent, stated the original permit was for a 6-foot fence for 38 spaces and that he could go back to the original plans. He st~ted he would be willing to construct an 8-foot high wall for only 300 feet. ~ Commissioner Hushore stated the wall should be extended 10 or 20 feet north to protect that firbt house. Commissioner Herbst clarifie~ he would want to see ~,~ the 6-Eoot wall started 8 feet back from the ~treet for 144 feet and then the 8-foot solid masonry block wall ~hould be star*_ed from that point for the remainder of thP e~stern praperty line and then the 15-gellon Cypress trees should be pl~nted on 5-foot centers along that wsll. 4/2l64 ~ MINUTES~_ ANAHEIM CITY PLI~NNING COMMIS5ION, APRIL 2, 1984 84-169 Cummiseioner Huahare gtat~d if thib is tipproved, the.ro ahould b~~ condl.tionR Added r~quicing f:hat the mnximum stay be limited to ar~e, 29-d~~y period and thAt no tents would be ollowed and that no wheel~ would be remov~d from the vehic~er~ nnd th~t no akirtings would be installed ~n the vchicleR and no per.manent oc temporary Atructure~ would be pecmitted on the individudl spaces, except the ~atios a~ uhown on the plan~. Mr. Haung ~tated he undecstanda the additional conditione end explained sometimes gue~ts would atay a week or a month, but they would not Accept any permanent guests. Concerniny the 24-hcur oper~-tion, it was noted thAt people would be allow~d t•o come and go during the night, but that the ~Efice wo~~.ld not be open 24-hours a day. Commissioner E3ushore explained usually there i~ a sign te111ng the late arrivala to park in ~ny apace~ tht~t appear to be vacant and regi~ter and pay their Leea in the morning. He e~tated the yues~.s go to Oisneyland which is open until 1:00 a.m. in the summer and there i~ n~ way tc prevent them irom coming bACk in. tie stated most ~t+rk~ impose a~~und rect.rlcl•ions on the park themselvcs becauoe they do not want the guest~ to distucb each other. Mr. Haung r~tated there will be no game coam on the premi~ea. Chairwoman Douas clarified that the petitio~er agreed to the 8-foot ~olid block wall ~~ithout any wood fencing on top. ACTION: Commiasioner Herb~t offered a motion, aeconded t~y Commissioner King and MUTIQb' CAI2RIf;D (Cnmmis~ioner Mat3urnry absent), that l•hE An~heim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit a 46-space recreational vehicle park in conjunction with an existing ;notel with waivers of maximum structural height, mini.mum landscaped setback, required sire screening and maximum fence heigt~t on a cectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 2.62 acres having a frontage of a~proxi.mately 1~0 feet un the south side of Lincoln Avenue and fucther described as 2740 W. Lincoln Avenue; and does hereby approve the Negativ~ Declaration upon finding that it has ronsidered the Negative Declaration tog~ther with ~ny comments received during the public review process and ~urther finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received ttiak there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Herbst offered a mo~ion, seconded by Commissioner Fry and MO'PION CARRIED (Commissioner McBurney absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission dnes tiereby gra-~t waivers Uf Cnde requirement on thc~ basis that there are s~ecial cixcumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, tapography, location and surroundings which do not apply to other identicall.y zoned pcoperty in the same vicinity; and that strfct application of the zoning Code deprive3 the property of privil.eges enjoyed by othec propertfes in the identical zane and classification in the vicinity and subject to Interdeparkmental Committee recommendations. Commissioner Herbst offerPd Resolution No. PC84-53 and rtioved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission daes hereby grant Conditional Use Pexmit No. 2543 on the basis the petitfonec stipulated at the public hearing to provide a 6-foot hlqh solid m~sonry wall as measured 8 feet from the sidewalk for 144 feet adjacent to the nucsery and an 6-foot high 4/2/84 MINUTE5~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. ApRIL 2~ 1984 84~170 aolid block wall for kh~ balrnce oE the eastern pcoperky line and to plant i5-gallon ~ypceas trees on S-foot centern along Aald 8-foot wa?1 end Eurther hae agresd that the maximum otay for gueats shdll be limited te one 29-day period pursuant to the City's Transient Uccupancy Tax Urdinance and thet no tente shall be allowed and that no wheels shall be removed fram the vehicles and no skirkinga inska.lled on the vehicles And no pecmanpnk or temporary structutQ~ inatelled on the indtvidual ep~ces. Said (~ermit is gcanCed puca-iant ~o khe Anaheim Municipol Cod~ Sec~ione 18.03.030.03U through 18.03.030.035 and aubject to Interdepartmental Committee recommer.dations. Un coll. cu.ll, the foregoing resolution wns Fasaed by ~he followiny vote: AYES: BOUAS, BUSHORG, PRY, HF;RBST, KING, LA CLA.IRE NOES: NUNE ABSENT: MC BURNEY Jack Whit2, As~istant City Attocney, pteaented the written right to appsal the !~lAnning Commission'o deciaion within 22 days to the City Council. RECESS: 3:?.0 p.m. RECONVENE: 3:3U p.m. I7'EM NU. 3. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, CUNDI'rIONAL USE PERMI'T_N0._ 2547 PUBLIC HF.ARING. OWNERS: ANN PREN'rICE, 1101 Reseda, Anaheim, CA 92806. AGENm: MOH7~ OIL CORP., P.O. eox 221.1, TuHtin, CA 9Z680. Pr~perty described as an irregularly-shaped paccel of land consisting of approxima~ely 0.5 acre locattd at the southeast corner of I.incoln A~~enue and Sunkist Street, 2500 ~. ~incoln Avenue (Mobil Service StaCton). To construct a convenience market with gasoline sales and ~ff-sale beer and wine. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff repart was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. There was one person indicating her ~~resence in oppositian to sub}ect request and alth~ugh the sta£f report was not tead, it is reFerred to and made a Part of the minutes. It was noted the applicant was nut present. Ann Prentiss, 1101 S. Reseda Street, Anaheim, explained she is the owner of the property at 2500 E. Lincoln and would like to request a continuance so she would have moce time to contact Mobil Oil Corp~ration and explAined she did not have enough time tu review the situation and that they Fiad not contacted hex regarding this situation. Jack White, Assiskant City Attorney, explained Mobil has a lease on the property and as a lesaee, under applicable lawe, are entitled to act as the agent for the owner in filing a conditional use p~rmit application and the actual owner does not necessarily have to agree with the application. 4/2/84 MINUTR5, ANAHEIM CITY_P1,ANNiNG COMMISSION, APRIL 2, 1984 __ ___ 84-171 Commisaioner Hecbst stet~d he would have no problem yranting a cont~nuance, but wanted to point out the Planning Commis~ion has gone on cecord oppoaing gasaline and beKr and wine salee. A~TIUN; Cotnmissioner Herbnt ofPered a motion, secanded by Commissioner King And MOTION CARRI~D (Commissioner ~;cBurney absent), that the Anaheim City Planning ~ommi.asio~ dnea lie~eby continue considecatiion oE the aforementioned matter to the reyularly-schPduled mceting of April 16, 1984. I7'EM NU. 4. EIR NEGA7'IVE QL•'C~ARATION AND CUNDITIONAL USE PEkMIT N0. 2549 PUBLIC HEARING. UWt~ERS: W.C. AND PHYLLIS E. McCALL, 1120 W. La Palmfl Avenue, Anaheim, CA q2801. ~roperty desccibed as a rectangularly-ahaped parcel of land consisting of approximatFly 6375 squace feet, 415 South Kroeger Street. To pe:mit a 6-unit senior citixens a~artment comglex in the F2M-1200 2one. 7'here was no one indicatin~ their presence ir oppusition to subjecl request a~~d althougt~ the atafE report was riot read, it is ra;ferred to and made A pact of th~ rninures. Gceq L~Bond, Continen~al Pacific Enterprisea, architec~s and engineers, Project Deaigner, 1426 N. Burton P1aGe, Anaheim, atated they are propoaing a 6-unit senior citizen housing project pnd it either e~ti.sfie~ oc exceeda other projecta ir~ dPnaity, parking spaces per ~init. a~arl leisure-recreati~nal area per unit. lie atated there are apartment complexe~ on either side of the property. THE PUBLIC HEA~ING WAS CLO5ED. Responding to Gonmissioner Bu~hotp regarding the location of the nearest bus stop, Mr. L~ Bond stated they are proposing the type of clientele that will have a vehicle, so one parking space has been pravided per unit and explained they are not proposing a care-type facili~y. He stated he noticed the ~ge cestriction would be 62 yeats of age and al.so believed that is a State of California restriction. Ne ~tated the Planning Commiseion nnd City Council are guing to be having a hearing to di.scuss senior citizen ~~ousing skandards in the near future. Responding to Chairwoman Bouas, Mr. La Bond stated ~hex cannot really guarantee that the occupants would only have one car per unit, but they did c~mpare it with other senioc citizen projects which requiced .8 spaces per unit and they are providing o-.e space per unit. Responding to Commissioner Bu~hore, he stated they would rent to a husband and wife, but thought m~st likely the tenant would be a single person. Commiasioner Bushore stated he did not think tnis project could be compared to other senior citize~ projecte, because they expect the kenants to have vehicles and in other projects the Commission expected them not to have vehicles; and that se~ior citizen projects should be close to public tranaportation, shopping, medical services, etc. and he thought this is an impro~er area for senior aitizen housing. a/2/aa ~ ; M,INUTES, ANIIHEIM CITY F~LANNING COMMISSION, 1-PRIL 2, 1984 84-172 Ct~eirwoman Houae ateCed the Commieaion will be meeting with the Council on the lOth of April to establi~h aomc~ guidelines Eor senior citixe~ tiousing and askod if the petitioner would like to continue thia k~e~ring until after that date. Commiadioner Herbst stated this project ia not c1aRe to services and facilities which ttie Commission would normally look for in a aenior citizen projectj and that he knows l•here is a need for aeniac citizen houaing, but he would prQfer to have some real guidelines beEore appcoving anymore projecl•s. Commissioner eushore stated the petitionec is assuming the senior citizens in this project will drive cArs and he thought this project comes cloee to ~opyiny everything else khat has bEe~ approved in the past for seniot citizen projects and this will sirt~ply be a cegular apartment complex approved under the senior citizer~ auspices. Commissi.oner Bushore st~ted the intent of tl~e work se~asion ia Co come up with eome propose~d yuidelines in order f~r staff to pcepare an ordinance and it mAy be a lot longer than this petitioner wants to wait and hE th~ught, bnsed on previous discussion t~day and f~ the past, that tt~ia project will probably not meet the criteria anyway. He added he thought the peti.tioner has the right to know that and dfd net want him to go away khinking he can come back in two weeks and get approval. Commisaioner Herbst stated he wauld want a centinuance in order to hr~ve more input and some guidelineB to follow and to qiv~e the petitione[ an opportunity to review the input. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fry and MOTION CAFRIED (Commiasioner Mc6urney absPnt), that the Anaheim City Planning Commiasion does hereby continue consideration of the aforementioned matter to the meeting of April 16, 1984, in ordec for the Planning Commissi~n to meet with the City Counc.il to d:.scuss senior Gitizen housing standards. ITEM N0. 5. EIR NEGATIVE DECLAI2ATION, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 192, RECLASSIFICATION N0. 83-84-22 AND VARIANCE N0. 3385 PUBi,IC HEARING. OWNERS: FRANK AND SARAH E. MINISSALE, 111 S. Mohler Drive, Anaheim, CA 92a07. AGENT; EMIL BENES, 14081 Yorba, Tustin, CA 92680. Propecty described as an irregular2y-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.2 acres located at the southwest cornec nf 5anta Ana Canyon Road and Mohler Drive, 111 South h~ohler Drive. RS-A-~43,000(SC) to CO(SC) Waivers of minimum landscaped building setback and maximum building height t~ construct two (2) c~mmercial office buildings. There were fifteen persons indfcating thQir presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report ~ras not cead, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. 4/2/84 ~ ~ ~ MINUTES. ANANEIM C_ITY__rLANNING COMMISSION, APRI~ 2, 19~4 _,,,84-173 Emil Benea, agent, at~ted the Seven-Gablea Redlty Campany is a succeasEul bueinesa with offices located on Newport Avenue in Tuatin end they aurrently have a branch office in the Canyon P1azA Center in Anaheirn Nills and wiah to locnte a larger tacility for theic operakiun in that area. He stated they are pcopoaing to conatcuct a f~cility equsl to the one they cutrent•ly have in Tustin and preaented photographs uf the ex~sting facility. He etated they are interested in this site beaauae there is a limited amoune of commercial land ~vailahle oE a size amall enough foc them to dFVelop a facility. He expldined the current zoning is RS-A-43,000 and they are requeating a rezoning And General Plan Amendment. He explained they are proposl~g two buildings and expla~ned the aite is very irregularly-shAped ancl is bounded by SAnta Ana Canyon Koad, Mohler Drive and by a junior higt~ schuol on khe soutn. He ex~lained the ~ceni~ Corridor Uverlay Z~ne reyuires a 100-fnot setback from Santa An~ Canyon Road and they only have one Access point at Mohler Drive to the property. Mr. Benes stated they would nevet allow doctore or dentists in this project because of the traEfic and parking constraints and would probably lease moatly to real estate oriented usea such An attorneys, accountanta, etc. Mr. Benes stated they would like to delete the request f~r waiver of height limitation and conform to Code and explained l•hat waR an error on their part. Mr. Benes reFerred to the condition requiring a masonry wall along the boundary between the junior high school and this prapecty and explained there is a 15-foat slope Erom this site to the top of the playfield at the school And it is currently landscaped with a chain link fence existing on the top and he thouyht to put an additional wall at the bottom would serve na purposc• and they would cequest that condition be deleted. Phil Joujon-Roche, 450 Via Vista, Anaheim, stated he ~s repreaenting the Santa Ana Canyon Pro~erty Owners Association and ex~lained their assor.iation was founded in 1969, basically to preserve the rural atmosphere of the Santa Ana Canyon; that they have RS-HS-22,000 Zoning and A lot of their members have horses and they have worked very hard to cultivate a bridle trail system and when the property was annexed to tt~e City in 1972, they worked very hard te keep the hillside zoning and in 19~G the resolution of intent was finalized for the RS-HS-22,000 Zoning. Mr. Jouj~n~Roche read three g~als of the Canyon Area General Plan: (1) encaurage and maintain living areas which preserve the amenities of hillside living and which retain the over-all low density 3emi-r~ral and uncongeatpd character of the Santa Ana Canyon area, t2) maintain the integrity of each land use by locating compatible land uses adjacent to each other and preventing incompatible land uses, and (3} ~iscourage strip comrnercial development. He added he Eelt all khree of these goals ace being trampled and totally ignored by this proposal because it pcoposes to put the commercial establishment in tt~e h~art oF a low density residential established community. He stated the Traffic Engineer is recommending widening Mohl.er Drive to 40 feet which will eliminate the bridle trail which they have worked hard to get on khe ea~t side. He stated they are concerned about the safety of the school children as they walk to school past this high traffic area if this is approved and also tt~e large parking lot will be illuminated at night, and they do not have any lights in their residential area cucrentiy so this will not be compatible. He stated Anaheim sh~uld work 4/2/8~ MINUT~S, ANAN~IM CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSION,_ APRIL_2, 1984 84-17A hAGd to preserve what little half ecre ~atu there dre in the ~cea including Peralta t~ills, Anaheim Hills And Mohler Drive And explained there are about 700 acrea left which is about 1 syuate mile out of the original 40 sq~~~re milea and thece ie a demand for this type product. C. A. Arnold, 120 S. Mohler Dcive, Anaheim, presented pictures of the Mohlec Drlve/Santa Ana Canyon Road intecgection. He stated tie lives directly across the atreet from the propecty in queation And has major concerns about the value of his property and explained his home is 5,100 aquare feet and they paid ~550,000 foc it a~d purchased ik with thp un~ecstanding that the prope[~y in question was zoned cesidentially and the pictures submiCted ~o indicate ther the area is residential and there are only two paccels in the area which have not. been dpveloped. He at~ted they feel they would i~ave a loas oE value of lheir pr~perty and also a loss in terms of the enviru«mental impacts on the pcoperties in the area. He sta~ed uaeically they moved there to have the rurA1 setting and that setting will be removed wikh this type development and they wi11 suffer a loss of privacy and would not be able to get in and aut of their driveways. He referred to the staff report which indicates there is a vacAnt lot acr~ss the street from aubject property directly north. He stated that is not true beca~se hio house is located directly north. Ile stated also the staff report .indicateu traEfic on Mohler Drive i~ minimal and pointed out it is the only ~ajor artery up tt~e hill for about 200 homes and that hi~ son counted cars between 10 and 11 a.m. on Monday morning and 106 cars passed their home and during thp time the school i~ beginning and endiny, ~here Are approximAtely 360 cars going up and down Mohler Drive so it is a significantly travelled artery. Eie stated he is disappointed t';at the neighhors even had to apeak because he understands this property has come up before for commercial uses and this is obviuusly a reaidential area and it is unfartunate the hameowners association has ko come do~n and defend themselves. He atated in 1977, the Canyon Area General Plan was adopted with the homeowners and the City's input and basically is a good plan and is 1•,eneficial to the City and the homeownecs and he hoped it is maintained. Kathy Andres, 150 S. Mohler Drive, e~plained the location of her propecty on the map submitted and expiained they have lived in the area for 10 years and purchased their home to live in a residential rural area and that they have two horses and if this request is approved, the horse trail will be eliminated and there will be no way for t~er children to get their horses down to the horse trail system. She stated it is difficult tn get in and out of theic driveway now because of the tcaffic and adding this facility would make it worse because realtors do have caravans and adding more realtors would add n~re people going up and down the street. She staked there are three areas within 100 feet of her home that could potenkially become commetcial praperty if, in fact, this area was rezoned and she would be 1and~ocked with commercial property on two sides and st~e would request that the Commission not approve this rezoning because r.his is a commercial drea and there are other residential ar.eas in the Canyon. Frank Doty, 7431 Mill St•ream Circle, Anaheim, pointed out the atea on the General Plan explaining this is a loop street arid has about 200 homes and many of them ase very valuable and the petitioners have stated thece is a lack of commercial property and they are coming into this area which is clearly a single-family rural area and effectively aisrupting it. He stated there are 4/2/84 MINUTES~ ANAHBIM__CI'i'Y PLANNING_COMMISSION, APRIL 2. 1~984 ", 84-175 two propecty owner associdtions within this area, the Santa Ana Canyon F~roperty Owners Aas~ciatior~ and the Del Giorgio Property Ownera Aasociation and that officers of both aAOOCiationa have authocized him to atate ~hey are vehemently oppoaed to thia re9ueat. He explained within a short time since pcopecty ~wners received notice oE this public hearing, petitions were cicculated to the 200 homes in the ArP.3 and they hAVe 243 signatures. He stated he was sure if they had hAd more time, they could have g~tten 1008 of the ptopecty owners to aign ~he petition. He stated the mai~r aoncern of the propecty ownecs is the maj~r change if thia particular petition ia granted. Pamela Frazer, 485 S. Counl:cy Hills Road, Anz+heim, stated as ahe circulated the petiti~na for the neighbors signaturea she found they were concerne~3 about the traEfic flow. She stated the commeccial development will be coming into the acea with the Weir Canyon developmentt however, .~11 three corners of the intersection of Mohler Drive and Santa A-~a Canyon Road are preAently reaidential and they~ would like to aee the fourtti corner rraintained as re~sidential and to keep commercial trafEic moving east rath~r khan stop~ing in their acea. She pointed uut the existing stop sign and eXplained traffic alteady backs up around a dangerous curve, blocking driveways and stated she has waited 15 minutes at times when school was in session to get out onto Mof~ler Drive and the increased traffic from a comm~rcial area would cause a majoc problem and a danyer ro the children walking to and from school. She stated she heacd talk of widening the stceet to 4.lares and i.t is obv.ious the traffic flow would increase if this is approved and that is what they are trying to prevent because they want to be a single-family residential area and was t~ keep the commer.cizl traffic further east. Frank Minissale, owner, stated he currently resides on the property and has lived there for 26 yeacs; t.hat all the development in the Saiita Ana Canyon area at one time or another had opposition. t~e stated he gave the sidewalk easements to the school district even though his children never went ta that school. He stated his is the only residential zone between Mohler Drive and Fairmont and there is a sign right now on Fairm~nt which indicates property for sale zoned for a 40,000-~quare foot office buildinq and that office building would not have th~ pleasant architectural design as proposed for this property. He stated the Seven Gables Rea].ty Office on Newport Boulevard looks ;just like another home. He stated he has tried to sell this property for 1-1l2 years as residential and he has had people intere~sted who wanted to put in a pre-school or ~omething simi.lar that would cause more traEfic than the proposed use. He stated a real estate office has very little traffic and when he went to their offices a few times, he only saw two customers. He stated the traffic flow Ls going to be there whether this is approved or not and if this is developed for residential or commercial uses, the new owners will have to put a right-turn lane in and pay for it, even though the entire community is goiny to use it and that is not fair and that will mak~ it even harder to develop as residenti~l. He ~tated they have a valid concecn thaC this is going to devalue their propertyt but that property values have not decreased in that area and this will not devalue theic property. Larry Hatfield, Presfdent, Hatfield Development Corporation, 129 E. Lincaln Avenue, Anaheim, stated he is developing the property dnd it is their clear intent to produce a product that is compatible to the area and to the hot~eowners and it is very important to mitigate any of the impacts to the 4/2,~84 MINUTES, ANAHEIi~t CITY P'LANt,.;NG :OMMlSSION, ApRIL 2, 19$4 ___ _ 84-176 reei.dentt~. Ne staCed they have been locked into khe upper acceas off Mohler Driv~ even thaugh tl~at was nat what they desiced and he thought the r.raffic flow cnn be add~esaed given the opporturiity. Ne etated there is an iron-clad rule that the~e will be no accese ko Sc~nta Ana Canyon Road ~nd he underatands the reaeoning, but they will Lry ta mitigate the problems that do come up. !~e statecl t;hey have been building in Orange County f.or 12 yeare, but thiP particular site probably hes more problems than coul~ be mitigated fcom a sing.le-£amily residential standpoint and it doean't lerid itse]f, in his opini.on, to single-family zoning. Gene Secre~t, 121 S. r_anyon Crenk, Anaheim, stated he was beEore the Planning CommiHSion About 2 years ago for thirteen lots in Anaheim Hill~ and those lots conformed in evEry way and were approved and then there wos litigation and they had to count birds and rabbits instead of cars and children walking to school. He etated thiy is A loss of pconomi.c advantage Eor the property owners and will be a very beauti.ful building; however, approval would bp setting a precedent in the Sanka Ana Canyonj Hnd the petitioners are saying there is no avail~blQ commercial land readily developable; but Weir .^.anyon is being developed and he thought there is more than enough available property. He stated the Seven Gable building in Tustin :s a striking building in appearance, but is a commercial butlding on commercial property and regardless of what the build:ng looks like, if it is not resic~ential, it does not belong in a residentiai. area. He adde~i it would be seCting a[~rec~:dent and the City of Anaheim should n~t allow this situation to develop. Mr. Min.issa?e stated he never applied foc conunercial zoning before. Mr. i3enes stated they have 1.i~dicated a bridle L•rail easernent on the plans. Regarding parking dnd cicculat:.on, he stated they would be more than happy to con~ider taking access off Santa Ana Canyon Rodd, but diri not think the City Tceffic Engineer would approve. Concerning available commercial property, he stated th~ere is probably cammercial property available, but not of a size this developer could develop. He stated conr,erning traffic, because of the type o~ operation, there will probably be less conflict with a professional of£ice use because of l•he tirt~e people would be arriving and leaving than there would be with a pure commercial use. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Corrmissioner Herbst stated one member of the opposition made a camment about why t-hey had k~ come to thiA heariny and explained this is one of the processes we have to go tl~rough; that averybody has the ciqht to ask for anything they want on their pcoperty before the Planning Commission and the neighbors also have the right to oppoae that request and this is a right he will fighE for For the rest of his life. He stated he was one of the Commissioners on the Hill and Canyon TASk Force and the developers, homeowners, City Council and rlanning Commissi.on had many meetings over the two-year period and did come to the conclusion there were certain areas that should be commercial and r..ertain areas that should remain residentia2. He believed this particular area has to remain cesiiientia~._ He stated he would commend the developer~ for presenting a project that ta as suitable as anything could be, if there was going to be commercial development on that property, but because of the traffic aituation, he did not t:iink this propNrty 4!2/84 MINUTES~ A_N_AHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIUN, APRIL 2. 1964 84-177 would b~~ auitable. Na added thAt Mohler nrive is not gaing to be wi.~~nod, ~ven though the TrAfflc Engineec would lik~ to ece it widened and pointed ou' it is vory nercow. He atated accesa to thib ~:operty is not very good, but acr,es~ tu Santa Ana Canyon Road hAd boon l.imir_ed for many good reaeona end many access requests for 5anta Ana Canyon ttua~ hae been denied over the years and theX could nat give acceos now to ~hi~ owner. He ateted tFer.e are homes b~~king up to Santa AnA CAnyon Road all along ard ~his ia no differPnt than the ones acrase the a~ceet or the ones down khe atreek and t:hia development will imPact that cornec. He pointed ~ut he did not t;~ink there are any plens Eor signalizati.on. PAUl Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated signalization will be avoided As long as poasible. Commiasioner Herbnt stated he thought this wuuld be detrimental to the area and this properky, if it wua rezoned, would be pure 'sp~t zoning" for cornmercial oEfice and he cauld not vate for that. it was clarified that the property ia currently zoned RS-43,000 and that the RS-HS-l0,0U0 was approved, but never finalfzed. Commiasioner Buahore asked if the Seven Gable~ had a sign on the corner ~elling ti~e property and aAked if it ie being advertf~ed as residenkial 43,000-or 22,000-s~uare fo~t lota, or if it is being advertised as commercial pcopecty. Mr. Minissale etated he understands it is bei.ng sold as residential, w1.th tt~e possib:lity of creating three lots. He expla~ned he had the property far ~ale with Coldwell ~anker for approximately 4 months and had no offers and he was tcying to divide ir. into thcee equal lots And khat he had told them to sell the whole thing as one lot if they could, to someone who could try to get tlie zone changed to estabiash a pce-school or some aimilar use. He stated he tried to aell it himaelf for a year and had the aign indicating it w~s three lots and he did have aeveral people wanting to put a pre-scho~l on the property since there was alceady a achool next door; and then he pu~ it up for sale wxth Seven Gables Realty and they advertised it Eor about 7 days and then decided to purchase it foc their building in that area. Conmi~sioner eu~hore scated it seems there is some confusion regardiny the zoning and explained l-he rea] oning is RS-A-h3,000 and tht:re was a zoning action about 10 years ayo which was never finalized and he has heard a lot of talk about commercial zoninq. Mr. Minissale stated the sign on his lot will show t~e had tcied to sell it fot residential purposes and that many people who have looked at it do not want it because it is in clr,se pr.oximity to the achool and he has never had a bonafide offer on the pro~erty as residential. Commisafonec La Claire stated she was nn the Task Force for the Canyon Acea General Plan and it was fi~~alized in 1974 and the aim was to keep the rural atmosphere und she couid understand why the neighbors are upset decause it is the gateway to ~heir community and a commercial develop:nent or. that corner would :uin what r.r~ey have there now and shQ tt~ought commercial on that corner was just out of tl~e question. ~ 4/2/84 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMM~&SION, APR!_L_2,_1984 84-178 ACTION: Commigsioner La Claire offered a motion, aec~nded by Commiseioner K~ng and MOTION CARKI~G (Commisaioner McBurney absenrl~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commiasion has reviewed the proposal to change L•he curre~t hillside estat.e density residential deaignAtion to commerc~al profeasional And to rezone the propecty from RS-A-43,000(sC) (Reaidential-Agricultural Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone to C'0(SC) (COmmercial, oEfice And Prnfeasional Scenic Carridor) Zono to conatruct two cammerc:al office buildingR with waivers of minimum landscaped building aetback and meximum building height on an irr~gularly-shaped parcel of land conaiAling of Approximately 1.?. acres located et khe southwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Mohler Dri~•e and further described as 111 South Mohlet ~riveJ And dAes heceby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has c~~nsidered the Negative Declacatian together ~vith any comments received during the public review proceas and further Einding on the besi~ oE the initial Study and any comments ceceived that there is no subatantial evidence that the praject will have a significant effect on the ~nvironment. Commissioner Ga Claire offered Ree.olution PC84-54 and moved for its paosage and adoption that the AnAt~eim City Planning Commiasion doen hereby deny request for General Plan Amendment No. 192 on the basis that commercial profe~sional deaignat.ion is not appropriate at this time and it does not conform to the Canyon Area General Plan designation. Un roll call, the foregoing reaolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BUUAS. BUSHORF., FRY, HERB5T, KINC, LA CLAI~E NOES: NON1i A85ENT: MC BURNGY Commissioner La Claire offered Rpsolution No. ~C84-55 and moved for its passage and ado~tion that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby den}• ReclessiEicatinn No. 83-84-22 on the basiA that the area is not ~uitable for commercial uses, and that General Plan Amendment No. 192 ~edesignating the propcrty to commercial pcofessional designatian was denied. On roll call, the foreqoing resnlution was pas~ed by the following vote• AYES; BOUAS, BUSHORE, FRY, H~RBST, KING, LA CLAIRE NUE5: NONE ABSENT: MC BURNEY Commissioner La Claire offered Resolution No. PC~4-56 an~ moved for its pas~sage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny Variance No. 3385 on the basis that there ar.e no speci~l circumatances applicahle to the property suci~ as size, ahape, topogr~phy, location or surroundings which d~ not apply to identicelly zoned properties in the vicinity and on the basis that the general plan am~ndment and reclassification were denied permitting commercial uses on the property. On roll call, the foregoing resolut:ion was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BUSHORE, FRX, HERBST, KING, LA CLAIRE NOE~: NONE ABSENT: MC BURNEY 4/2/84 MIN'JTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 2, 1984___.__ 84-179 ~ack White, Aaeiatant City ~ttarney, preaenred the wcitten tigh t to app~el the Planniny Commi~sion's decieion within 22 deys to the City Counc il~ IT~M N0. 6. EIR NEGATIV~ DECLARATION, RECLASSIFICATION N0. 83- 84-25 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2554 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: FERRELL A. AND KARfiN R. WEB~R~ 480 Vi ~ Vista, Anaheim, CA 92807. Property describcd as a rectangularly-~hape d parcel of land consiating of approximately 8500 square feet, ~~aving a fro ntag e of approximately 58 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, appr oximately 27U feet east of the centecline of Olana Way, 2203 Eaat Lincoln Av e nue. RS-7200 to C0. 'ro permit a professional office use in a residential structure. Th~re wae n~ one indicating their presence in oppoaition to Au bject request and although the st$ff report was not read, it ia referred to a nd made a part of the minutea. Ferrell A. Weber, owner, explained he is an attnrney with oEfic es presently in Long Beach and it was hio intention when he purchased thie propecty to open An of£ice hAre in Anaheim and he is ceyuesting a zone change and c onditionai use permit to pecmit the office. Ne referred to the Area Aevelapment Plan 113 adopted September 25, 1973, wh,ich indicates that this was the propoaed plan far this proPerty on the north side of Lincoln between sunkist and State College. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED ACTIOP~: Commisaioner Ki.ng ~fferea a motiu~., seconded by Commissioner Herbat. and MOTION CARRIED (Commissione[ McBurney abaent), that the An aheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal ta ceclassify su bject property from the RS-7200 (Single-Family Residential) 2one to the CO (C ommercial, Office and Professional) zone to permit a professional office use in a re~iJential stcucture on an irregu]~cl~-rhaped paccel of land consisting of. approximately 8500 aquare £eet, having a frantage of approxima tely 58 feet on the north side of. Lincoln Avenue and further deacribed as 220 3 East Lincoln Aven~~e; and does hereby appcuve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has conaidered the Negative Declaration together with any commentA received during the public review proceas and further ftnding on the ba si.s of the Initial Study and anX comments received that thEre is rio subs t antial evidence that the project will have a signi~ir,ant effect on the enviro nment. Commissioner King offered Resolutic,n Ho. PC84-57 and maved £o r its passage and adoption that the Anahefm City Planninq Commission does hereb5 grant Reclassification No. 83-84-25 subject to interdepartrt~ental Co.nmittee recommendat.ions. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the foll owing vote: AYES: BOUAS, 9UGHORE, FRY, BERBST~ KING, LA CLAIRE NOES: NONE ABSENT: MC BURNEY 4/2/84 MzNUTEB, ANAH~IM CITY PLANN ZNG COMMI9SION, APRIL 2, 1984 __ 84-180 Comrnissioner King of:fered Reaolution Na. PC84-58 end maved for ita paseage and adoption that the Aneheim C ity Planning Commission does hereby grnnt Conditional Uae Permit No. ~554 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Section ~8.03.p3.030 through lA.Us. ~30.035 and subject to Interdepartmental Cammittee recommendatione. On roll call, the f~regoing rea~lution was passe~ by the follGwing vote: AYES: BOUAS~ BUSFlOHE~ F RY~ HERBST~ KING~ LA CLAIRE NOES: NONE ABSENT: MC BURNEY ITEM N0. 7. EIR NEGATIVE D RCLARATION~_KECLASSIPICATION N0. 83-84-23 AND VARIANCE N0. 3384 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: DON C. ANp TAMIRIS DUKE, 3538 W. S~vanna Skreet, Anaheim, CA 92804 and DUAN E PREDERICK AND SALLY ANN PETERSEN, 600 S. Nutwood, Anaheim, CA 92804. AGFNT: JOIiN KING, 19522 Independence, Lane, Huntington Deach, CA 92646. Propecty is deacribed as A rPCtangularl~~-ahaped parcel of. land consiyting of approx innately D.78 acre, 3538 W. Savanna Street. RS-A-~3,000 to the RM-120 0 Waivers of: (a) maximum s tructural height, (b) minimum Cloor arQa, (c} minimum landscaped setbac k,!d) permitted encroachment into fcont yard and (e) permitted location of tan d em parkinq spaces to constr.uct a 28-unlt apartment complex. There was nn one indicating their presence in opposition ro subject request and although the staff rep ort was not read, it is referred lo and made a part oP the minutes. John Kinge agent, stated t his is an attempt to provide 28 nice units with underground parking and a nice screened trash area in the front. He explained the project was difficult because they had to leav~ an openir~g high enough for handicapped vans and inei d e the parking structure there are two handicapped parking spaces. He point ed out the recreational-leisur.e areas pcovided on the plans. t~e stated he felt they met the spirit of the Anaheim ordinances in the fact that they have prova.ded 28 units and they aWer~ge over 700 square feet even though some are smal 1ec. He atat~d he was before the Planning Cammission 2-1/2 yeacs ago Eor a pro ject on Orange and Webstec Street and some of the designs in these units we re the cesult of the imput of the Gommission at that time. He stated this .is a nice building with good security and parking with tandem parking o~~ ~ach s i de of the common aisle in the basement and the Tra£fic Engineer r~as told him even though it was unusual, he felt it was essentisl].y good and tha t he would support it end the Fire Department gave tentative approval on th e basis the building will be sprinklered and the trash bins in front were added upon recommendation from the Sanitation Division. Commissinner Bushore sta t ed the Webster and Orange psoject was not a bad project, but asked what h appened to this project and added he did not think the petitio~.er tiad met t he spirit of the ordinances with five waivers requested and he did not like the size of the unite or the location of the 4/2/84 __ l MINUTES, ANANCIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSSON, APRIL 21 1984 84-181 tceah encloaurpa in the front setback and he did not like dauble tandem parkin~ on two eide~ '~ecause he hae aeen it in other pro~ecte and it doea not work. Mr. King stated the tcaah enclosures are behind the setback and the obstruction shown in the setback is the hAndicapped ramp nnd elevator. Greg Hastinga, Assistan~ Planner, stated t.rash ~nclosures enccoach two feet into the setback. Mr. King ceferred to eike development statistice on ~age 7-b of the ataff repoct noting khe differenee between cequiced and ptoposed is minimal. Commiasioner Bushore suqgested the peti~ionec requeat a two-week con~inuance and revise the plans. Commisaioner Herbst pointed out usually the City doe~ allow a certain percentage of bachelor units in a project, buL- this plan is almoet one-half. He clarified that the minimum size foc 1-bedroom unite is 700 square feet and 825 square feet fo~ 2-bedroom units. He atated he agreed khat the traRh enclosure b~nuld not be in the setback and agreed tandem parking ia not the best situatfon. Fir ~tated he thought the project would be just averbuilding the propecty. Commissioner La Claire atated even though somP oE the variances are minute, the project really is tAO much for the properl•y and she understands why he is trying to do it- but could not agree. Mr. King stated in order to give people the recreational amenities, L•hexe has to be a way to pay for it and this is a very very expensive recreational facility proposed. Commission~r La Claire suggested not providing the cecceational facilitie~ evsn though they are ni~e to have, buk it would force people to park on tt~e street because they do not want to pull into a tandem space if they will be going out again and the parking would impact the whole stree~. She stated she does no~ lik~ tandem spacea, particularly in apartments, because a lut of people share ap~rtments. Commissioner La Claire referred to Page 7-f. Condition No. 4 cequiring the developer to put in the drainage facilities, and asked if he had been awAre of that requirement. Responding to Commissioner Fry, Jay Titus, Office Engineer, stated the drainagE system has not been constructed and when the property at the end of the street was developed in auena Purk z number of years ago, it was intended that the facilities would be installed by the developer of that property, but it was never done. He stated there has been a number of properties developed along the atreet since that time, and it was the intent when tho~e properties were developed that the drainage would be put in by th~ othec property nwner. He stated the draina~e now has to be taken care of and there ia still suificient undeveloped property and a reimbui~ement agreement could be established and as the other proFerties do develop, they will contribute an~ re~mbucse the developer who pays foc the drai~age at this time. CAmmissioner La Claxre suggested the developer might wish to review the drainage situation because there is a drainage problem on Savanna Stre~t and a continuance would be in order. 4/2/84 MINUTEB, ANAHEIM CI'rY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 2, 1904 84-182 Commisaioner Bush~re etat~d he thought the Commiasion was trying to keep ~he density on the aouth aide of Savanna Street leas khan the north side because of the drainage and the property next door ia zoned RM-2400 and thia request is for R~-1200 and oth~r propertiea are RM-3000. Greg Nastinga cesponded that thie pcoperty ia right on the border. Commiesioner eushore stated a General Plans is general, but because of the aingle-family reaidencea in the areA, he thought thaL• was the intent And wAS eurpriaed there w~s no opposition to this request. Kendra Morr.ies stated there has been a General P1An Amendment relating to the surrounding area, but thie property is designated ~okh l~w-medium ~nd medium denRity on the Gcneral P~an, ao ~taff thought a request for either would be appropriate. Commissionec La C'af.re stated tt~e fact that the intent was ho k~ep the density low, wAS a good point ~nd she thought it might be time to review this area again in termA af wtiat is there and maybe change the designation ao we won't h~ve this problem in the future. Mr. King atated he would like to request a two-week continuance because of the st~rm drain situation. Commissioner Bushore clar.ified thet the mattec would not have to b~ readvertiaed to approve a le~ser zone. Commissioner HerbFr, stuted it appears the property is being . overbuilt And the developer should delete the waivers. ACTION: Commissioner King of.fered a motion, seconded by Commissianer Bushore and MOTION CARRIED (Commiasioner McBurney absent), that corisidecation of the aforementioned item be continue~ to the regulacly-acheduled meeting of April 16, 1984, at the request of Che pelitioner. ITEM N0. 8. EIR NGGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3386 PU6LIC HEARING. OWNERS: BERNARD J. STAHL AND BILL J. hICKEI~, 8151 Katella Avenue, Stanton, CA 90680. AGENT: J. WARD DAWSON, 2808 E. Katella Avenue, t201, Orange, CA 92G67. property is desccibed as a reckangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of appraximatel,y 1.0 acre, 1668 South Nutwood Street. Maivers of maximum structural hFight and minimum ~Lcuctural setback to construct a 26-unit apartrnent complex. There were ten persons indicating their presence in opposition to sub~ect request and although the staff report was not read, it is ceferred to and made a part of the minutes. Ward Dawson, agent, stated they woul.d like to request that the waiver of minimum sl•ructural setback be deleted. He stated they have just about exceeded all the minimum Code requirements and feet thfs is a good project. He refecred to Condition No. 13 regarding the zamp and explained they have had theic engineer working on that duri~g the lasr week and was sure they can miCigate it to meet.the Treffic Engineer's approval and stated the 178 grade was an error on their part. Paul Si~ger, Traffic Engineer, stated the primary ptoblem here is not the 178, but the 28 explaining it has to be a minimum of 20 feet back from the sidewalk. Mr. Uawson stated their engineer does have the proper information and he thought the problem could be mftigated. Commissioner Herbst stated he would 4/2/84 MINUTES, ~NAIiEIM CITY_PLANNING_COMMISSION, A~RIL 2, 1984 84-183 likE to see a set of plana to reflect the changes and a~ked if the petitioner would like to request a continuance. Mr. Dawson asked if the plans cc:.ld be apprcved if they agceed to ~atisf,y that condition. Nancy Hollis, 1715 S. Nutwoo~, Anaheim, presented a petition containing approxima~ely 133 signatures re~uesting that any development on that property be stopped and also preaented letters oE oppoaition and A letter ~rom the Stake of California regarding environmental i,~pact report guidelines. She reviewed some of the requirementa For the environmental impact repoct and explained the opposition did nat want a negative declaration approved on this project. She referred to the populatian den~ity, And unit factors and stated this is near the burned-out area and their popu~ation icom ttie 1980 census for the square mile from 8rookhurst to Buclid and 0~11 to Katella ts approximately 8,394 people. She reviewed the density in the general area and also the increase i.n traffic and tt~e drainage and sewage problems. She stated the pcoject. will have t~~ have a pump for the undergr.ound parking to pump the water out onto the already "lo~ded street. 5he staCed they are also concerned about the debris And felt it might clog the pump and create a catch basin in ~he parking area and Ahe did not think any of the tenants would pork there and would be parking on the street. She stated there i~ a water preseuce pro~l~m now And also the aewage is handled through the Garden Grove Sanital•ion District and was installed over 40 years ago for single-family homes for probably 20,ODU peaple and is total?y inadequate. She referred to the tuck-under parking and stated it is not really ver.y rea.ligtic and stated the noise and pollution will be major prableme. Ms. Hollis stated thak properL•y was never intended for apactments and they feel these units should be denied and an environmental impect report shou.ld be prepared. Ralph Sarno, 1703 'D" Heritage Circle, Anaheim, presented petitions containiny 38 signatuces from the people of Her~tage Circle indicating concern regard'nny the wall height to kEep unwanted noise and tcash out, the number of stories proposed and the number af parking spaces. He explained they have 4 parking spaces per uniC at Heritage Citcle and he thau9hk there sr~ould be more parking per unit at the proposed project. He stated they have a hard time now getting out onto Nu~wood from Heritage Circle and suggested the curb be painted red approximately 30 feet in each direction to their entrance. He stated this pr~ject would be inconsistent with the area and not compatible with the single-family and multiple-family, ~wner-occupied dwellings and the open space and landscaping ate also concarns. He stated the proposal does nat meet the parking Code and the use ~f tandem parking is very questionable. He stated south from where he lives, t.here is a nursery and he ~hought that property could be s~ld next and they would want to put in 50 units. Phil Lochhaas, 1661 S. Nutwood, AnahEim, stated he is an architect, but was here as a hameowner and wants to presErve the value of his property and the quality of the neighborhood. He stated his main concern is with traffic and one of the driveways for this property is directly adjacent and parallel to the opening of Heritage Park and that would become a direct conflict for access onto Nutwood. He stated ramping the driveway up to Nutwood would be a 4/2/84 MINUTES, ANAHEIH CI'PY PLANNING CO~MISSYON, APRIL 2, 1984 84-184 pcoblam becauAe with a wall, the drivar would not be able L•o see, especielly if ~here Are cars parked along the skreet And he th~ught with tandem parking, there will be cars parking on the atreet. He s~eted he also hAS some concecna with aight linee end visual privacy due to the fact that windows do face directly ecroas the street encroAChing on the neighbora' privacy. Rita Ray, 1927 Chateau, Anaheim, stated she drives down Nutwood a lot and won't dcive down Euclid which ia one reason traffic has increased and she thought apartments r.ight in the rtiiddle of that reaidential area wou.ld not be fairt that there are other unaold lo~s in Anat~eim nnd it waa her impcesaion at the City Council meetings that they wanted to put the highest density possible to provfde afFordable housing on these lata. She ptesented the classified ads from the Sunday Register for the Anaheim area only, showing apartm~nts for rent and stated apattments are nct needed in this area. She refecred to the npartments being built at Euclid and Ball and Atatpd they do not look g~ad and ~lso referred to t}~e 13-foot setbeck and asked if that would be measured vertically or horizontally. She stated Mr. Katz, the propecty owner directly south, is deEinitely opposed ta this, but co~ld not attend this meeting today. It was clarified the property was zoned RM-1200 and no variancea or waivera were requesl•ed and the petitioner could construct apartments on the property without a ~ublic hearing. Patricia Huth, 1'101 S. Nukwood, Anaheim stated she ie adamantly opposed to this apartment and does not want 2-story apartments facing her; and that this is a residential area and Hecitage Homes are aingle-fami].y dwellings facing Nutwood with no windows. 5he stated they acs secviced by 6 schools in the acea and ti~e heaviest traffic on Nutwaod is between 7 and 8 in the morning and again from 3 to 6 in the afternoon and cArs travel fast and they cannot get in and aut oi their driveways during these hours. She stated th~y are concerned a~out the flooding on Nutwood and about traffic and safel•y of their children. Mr. Dawson stated it wAS pointed out this property is zoned for apartments and they have desiyned a project th~t is well within the requirements except for the waiver of the maximum structural height; and that Nutwood is an arterial highway and they did front the pcoject onto Nutwood. He stated the opening~ on the ends are to give the project some enhancement, but those windows could be eliminated and noted the tandem parking conforms to Code. He atated the property is already zoned RM-1200 and khey are bounded by RM-1200 on the north an~ east and that fs their hardship. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bushore pointed out this is actually 2-1/2 stories because of the subterranean parking. Annika Santalahti, Aesistant Director fo~ 2oning, explained an area of 123 by 180 feet out of a total of 203 by 220 feet would be the permissible 2-story area, without any waivers, and clarified 2 stories is the maximum height for apartment units and if they meet Code, there would be 25 to 308 fewer uni~s. It was clari`ied that the townhouses are single and 2-story units ar~d Kendra Morries stated there were a number of waivers approve8 for the Heritage 4/2/84 MINUTBS, ANANEIM CITY PL~NNING COMMISSION,_ APRIL 2, 1984 84-185 Vil]age complex: building height, frontege of lota on a public stceet, minimum building sixe area, minimum dietance between bui.ldings, maximum wall height, etc. Commissioner La Claice atated there are 2-atory unita in thAt area and the prnper.ty is zoned RM-1200s however, ahe did ~ot want• to i~pact the AreA with parking. She stated she was concerned about the viaual intruHion on the 2-atory homes in the area. Ph~l Lochhaas pointed out hia property un the map explaining it is across the atre~t from subject pr.operty, the thicd lot south of Baloam facing Nu~wood and khe houses along thAt street ace all i-story and the 2-story homea are 80 to lOQ feet back fcom the street. It wao clarified the proposed atructure ~ill be 31 feet high and a single-family r.esidence could be between 16 and 28 feet. Commissioner He:bst stated this property is zoned for apArtments, but he thought thNre is room for compramise and the front line of the apactments should go back ~xngle-atory for a certain distance from the street and pointed out the Commiscion has allowed less than the 150-foot aetback in many instances. Annika SAntalahti clarified the waiver is for the west and south and it will be about 70 or SO feet to the close~t str~cture which is about 1/2 the diskance required for the 150-fook setback. Commissioner La Claire stated since the townhous~c were requiced to ~et back, this project should also be requiced to cet back. Commisaioner Bushore stated they should set back 80 to 90 feet from khe curb on the east aide of the street. There was a brieE discussion regarding revision of the plans a~~d Mr. Dawson atated he could nol• design khe eam~ type unit3 unless the size of the units is decreased. Commissioner Bushure stated iintil the Commission sees the plans, they would nok have a reaction to the size of the units, t,ut if they were cut down to some miniscule amount to accommodate the density, •h~ C~mmission may not be satisfied. He pointed out Che single-story should be set back 90 to 100 feet from the street curb. Commissionec Fry cuggested the Commiseion come up with a compromise whereby all units that set wfthin 100 £eet of the centecline of Nutwood would be single-story and the balance could be 2-story. Commiasioner La Claire stated that would L•~ke it 130 €eet Erom ~he single-family structure to the west which ~he thought would be acceptable since there is only a 20-foot difference and they could move them 20 feet and not even have to come in ~or appcoval. Mr. Dawson responded that would probably be their choice and they would like a vote to see if it is around and if it isn't, they can build without waivers. 4/2/~ MINUTES. ANAHE2M CITY PL~NNING COMMISSION, APRI_L 21 1984 84-186 Annika 6entalahti etdted on an il•em like this, if the Commiseion ~pproves it with the on~ wAivec granted in pact esaentiallx requiring revised pl~ns, the City Council will expect to aeo the rev~sed plans and a modified etaff report, so it ie really Uetter for the Planning Comm~asion to aee the plans ahead of time becauae Council becomes concerned whether Gommi~eion actually viewed the revision and they could recommend it be brought back to the Commisaion and that aould Add enather montti ta the process. Commisaioner Herbst pointed out ~f thi~ cequest is denied, the petitioner can build apartmente and confcrm to Code and stated he would offer a motion denying the ~egative declaration. Commissionec Bushore atated he did not think khe negative dFClAration should be denied because the E~roject ~oes meet the zoning nnd denaity. CommieRioner La Claire stated she aympathize8 with whaC the developer is trying to do, but the City ts trying to keep this area as nice as possible and the cnndominium~ wece built one-story on the front and mhe did not think khis should be treated any differently. ACTTON: Commissionec Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner 6uohore and MOTION CARRIF.D (Commisaioner McBurney ~bsent)~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commiasion has reviewed the proposal to construct a 26-unit apar~mQnt complex with waiver of maximum atrucrucal height and mini~um structural setback on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consiating of approximately 1.0 acre, havinq a frontage of appcoximately 220 feet on the east side of Nutwood ~nd Eucther described ac 1668 South Nutwood Street; and does hereby approve the NegativE Declaration upon finding that it has considered ti~e hegative Declacation rogether with any comments received d~~ring the public review ptocess and fucthec findiny on Che basis of the znitial Study and any commenta received that ttiere ia no aubstantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissionex La Claire asked Mr. Dawson if he was sure they would not want to request a continuance in order to discuss reviaion of the plans. Dr. Dawson stated they would like to request a four-week continuance. ACTION: Commissioner Hecbst offered a motion, seconded by Commiasioner Fry and MOTION CARRTED (Commissioner McBurney absent), that cansideration of the aforementioned matter be ~on~inued to khe regulazly-scheduled meeting of April 30, 1984, at the request of the petitioner. Commissioner Herbet suggested the petitione~ contact the neighbors prior to submitting the cevised plans. Chairwoman Bouas pointed out the nei9hbocs would not be notified of the cQntinued hearing. Commissioner Fry left the meeting at 6:05 p.m. and did nok retusn. ~ECESS: 6:05 p.ni. RECONVENE: 6:10 p.m. 4/2/84 MINUTES, AN~H~IM CITY PI,ANNING CUMMISSION, APRIL 2. 1484 ,. 84-187 ITEM Nq. 9. EIR N_EGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 33B7 PUB~IC HEARING. OWNERS: NORMAN P. AND DAR9AFtA S. GI.UTH AND MIRIAM J. LANDSMAN, 8441 Fox Hills Avenue, Buena PArk, CA 90621.. Property deacr.ibed as an irregularly-shAped parcel of land conaisting of Appraximatel.y 0.45 acre, 1777 West Glencrest Avenue. Waivers of (a) minimum site are pec dwelling unit, (b' minimum floer area Qf dwelling unit and (c) minimum numher And type of parking spaces to eetain an illegal apartment unit. There was no one indicating their pc~Rence in oppositlon to subject requeat and although the staff report was not readr it ia refercpd to and made a part of the minutes. Norman Gluth, agent, explained the pro~erty is not :larye enpugh to provide 120Q square fe~t per unit with 17 units and he would like to cetain thak 17th unit which is currently occupied by a bachelor who has been there more than 4-1J2 yeacs and the waivecs requested are minimal. He stated tl~e property is adjacent to commercially zoned property and the owner of thp commercial property does give parking, by permit, to people who live in the apartments and condominiums in the area. He referred to photographs taken At 11:00 a.m. on a SatGrday morning ta show the alleys were empty. He stated they feel denial of the waiver wnuld deny the property of A privilege enjoyed by other propertiea in the same zone and vicini~y. He referred to a 4-unit complex ~t the weat end of the block which ha3 only .1 parking space per unit. THE PU6LIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Responding to Conmiiesioner Buahore, Mr. Glutih srated this action is the reault of a letter from the City becau~e someone reported the illegal unit about one year ago. There was a~rief discussion concecning approval of a nrevious request in that same area. Commissioner Herbst stated the same unit has been there for 20 years and h~s evidently not been a problem and removal now would create more of a hacdship. He added he doe~ not approve of this type of action; however, and it is i~legal even though it is close to meeting the City's standards for a b~chelor unit. Commissioner Aushore stated it looks like the whol~e intent was to do this and he knows other bui~ders have done this in khe area, but in the other instance where it was upproved, the property was changing hands and the appraisec caught it and the owner refused to buy it unless it was approved. But in this case the owner knew it five years ago and took the chance that someday it might catah up to him and now it has caught up, so t~e actually created the hardohip for himself by acceQting it five years ago. He added he could not approve it because it would just add insult to injury. He stated there could be a parking problem on the street itself And asked about the situati.on on atreet sweeping day and stated he wouJ,d like to see the alley on that day. 4/2/84 MINUTES, ~NAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 2, 1984 84-188 Commiasionec ~d Claire etated thete is a parking problem on all the ekreeta around thal• area. She aekPd if he planned to aell the property with Mr. Gluth resp~nding he had no plane to sell in the iinmediate future. Commissio~er La C1airF stated ahe thought some compcamise could be ceached to allow this gent:emen to keQp the unit until he nella l•he property. Cummissioner Busi;ore suggested recordinq a covenant so khnt it would be on the kitle report so that when the properCy is sold, it would have to be converted hack to garages. Mr. Gluth staCed he wou~d preLEr that che variance be granted. He explained the eacrow, when he purchased the property, was a cather difficuit one and an attempt to clear this mattec up would have ~ust made it more cumplicated. Commissioner La Claire ~tated the parking k~othets her because there are only 19 spacea existiny and parking in khat acea is not goinq to get better. 4ommissioner buahore stated the last ~eyuest was for an 8~unit apartment complex made into 9 units and looking at all those individual lots and buildings, he f~lt there are probably far more than 3 illeyal units in that area and they are all contributing ko the ~roblem. ACTION: Commissioner Herbat offered a motion, aeconded by Commissiuner King and MUTION CARRIED (CU~missionz[s Fry and McBurney absent?, that the An~heim City Planning Cummission has reviewed the proposal to retain an illegal. apartment unit with waivers of minimum site area per dwelling unit, minimurn Eloor area of dwelling unit and minimum number and type of parking spacea on a irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.5 acre having a frontage of approximately 50 feet on the norCheasterly terminua of Glenctest Avenue and furthec describea as 1777 West Glencrest Avenuer and does hereby approve the Negative veclaration upon finding that it has consideced the Negative ~eclaration together with any comments received duriny the public revie~~ process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments ceceived that there is no substantial evidence that the pro~ect will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner L~~ Claire stated she would consider approval with a covenant because she f~~ls sorry foc the person who has been living there 4-1/2 years. Mr. Gluth stated the fact that the unik wa~ illegal was not revealed to the tenant at the time he leased the unit; however, he is aware of it now. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC84-59 and moved fot its passage and aaoption that the Anaheim City Planning Cammisaion daes hereby ~cant Variance No. 3387 granting waivers (a) and (~) on the basis that there ~ire special circumstances applicable to the property such as afze, shape, topo9raphy, location or surroundings, which do not apply to other identically zoned propecties in the vicinity; and strict application of the Zon~ng Code deprives the property oF privileges enjoyed by other properties in identical zoning classification in the vicinity and gcantin~ waiver (c) on the basis that the parking waiver will not cause an increase in traffic congestion in ~he immediate vicinity nor ~dversely affect any adjainin4 land uses and granting of the parking waiver under the conditions imposed, if any, will nat be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and genecal welfare of the 4/2/8~ MINUT~S L ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINC COMMISSION~ APRIL 2. 1984 84-189 citizene oT the City of Rnaheim nnd subject to the prAperty owner recording ~ covenant on the proporty that the illegal unit will be converted back into a garage when the propeKty is sold and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendationa. Commissioner Bushore ~tated the owner could sell the pcoperty by land contract and no~ get a policy of Title i~surance and pointed out the only time this covenant wuuld ehow up would be when there was a preliminary title research and a policy ackually isauedt however, aomeone could etill buy the property bnd not get a policy title inaurance. ~ack Wtiite, Assiskant City Attorney, atated khe propecty could be transferred and kherP is nothin~~ in that transaction that would preclude the tranaf.ect h.,~uec, it could reverL• to becoming an illegal unit at that time. On coll ca11, the foregoing resoluti~n wao pASaed by the foll~wing vote; AYES: BOUAS, N~RBST, KING, LA CLAIRE NUES: BUSHORE ABSENT; FRY, MC 9URN~Y Cummiseioner Bustioce clarifted that a time lirnit should be added to the condition requiring a cove~ant and it waa the general consensus of the Cammission that a 60-day tim~ limtt would be appropriate. Jack Wh~te, Assistant City Attorney, presented the written cight to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days ,r,o the City Counci.l. 10. REPORTS ANA RECUMMENDATIONS A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2300 - Request from Michael L. Crowe, (Arita Sales Co.) for an extension of time for Conditional Use Pecmit No. 2300, property located at 2720 East Rega1 Park Drive. ACTION: Commissioner King offere~ a motion, seconded bti~ Commissioner La Claire and MOTION CARRIED (COmmissioners Fry and McBurney absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby gcant a retroactive one-year extension of time for Condxtional Use Permit No. 2300 to expire on March 8, 1985. 8. CONDYTIQNAL US~ PER~IT N0. 33 - Reyuest :rom Lawrence Jett, McC.lellan, Cruz, Gaylucd and Associates for termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 33, property located at the southwest cornec of eall Road and Harbor Boulevard. ACTION: ~ommissioner King offered Resolution No. PC84-60 and moved for its passag~ and adoptio~ khat the Anaheim City Planning Co~mniasion does hereby terminate Conditio~~al Use Permit No. 33. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the fo~lowing vol-e: AYES: BOUAS, BUSHORE~ IiERBST, KING~ LA CLAIRE NOES: NONE ABSENT: FRY~ MC BURNEY 4/2J8y MINUTES. ANAFlEIM CIT'! PLANNIN~ CpMMISSION~ AF~RII. 2. 1984 8a'19~ C. New Billboar.d Regulations and Draft Ordinancea The sta~E report to the City Manager/City Council/P1Anning Commisaion datQd April 2, 1984, was preaer~ted~ but not cead n~ting that Che Planning Department recammends that City Council d~ny tt~e dc~[t ord~nancea pe~taining to Chapteca 4.U8 end 18.05 amending the Zoning Code pertaining to billboards in Anaheim. Commissioner Bushore stated t~e was pArticularly interested in the Planning Director's comments regarding the curtent sign ocdinance pnd that the same individuals tequesting the changes now are the same companiea and individuals who sttongly aupported the clianges in AnAheim's ocdinances ~evecal yeara ago to remove appr~ximately 30 ireeway billboards in Pxch~nge for the presc~nt billboards at arterial interoections. He atated he Eelt these proF~sed changes would set the City back 20 years. Commissioner Hecbst stated he has been a Planning Commissioner f~r many years and the City hae tried fax many years to delete signs and it disturbs him that these c}~anges would be going back to tre same thing with billboards causing `air pollution'. He stated he is thoroughly c+ppQSed to tl~ese changes; that Anaheim is probab].y one of the most lucrative cities fc~r signs because ft has the most people, the moak visfturs, and the moEt recceational areas and he felt billboards do not belong along the freeways. He added he has fought to clean up the signs in tt,is City for many years and did not want to see the City go backwards and start all over again and he co~ld not support this ordinance. Commissioner Bushore stated newspapers are tcaditionally for free entetprise to its utmo~t and when they put editorials in the newspapec that the City is settiny itself back, that should tell the City someth~ng. Commissioner La Claice stated right now Anaheim ifi a convention city and it is clean and nice and the entrance to Oranqe County through Anaheim is very nfce and Anaheim gets a lot of revenue from the conventions and she thought allowing more freeway billboards could have an affect on the number of people coming to this acea. Commissioner Herbst stated he khought if the City wou2~ put this change Qn the ballot and allow the citizens tu vote for billboards, it would go down to a resounding defeat. Cnmmissionec La Claire stated she thought if the City Council does approve thie, they wil] b~ known in the future as the ones who te-esta~lish~d bi:"~oards. 4/2/'84 _ _ . "'~ M,.,INUTES. AN~NEIM AL~JOURNt4ENT: There being no lurt•her busineae motion, seconded ~ ~ Commi,asiosiec Herbat offered a (Commissionere ~r y Co~~i$sioner King and MUTION CARRI~p Ad;nurned to a apeciz.l wor~krge~sionewith thetCite held on April 10 meeting be - 1984, at 1:3U p,m~ Y Gouncil to be The meetiny wao Ad~ourned at 6:35 p.m~ R~epQCkfully submitted, ~~ ; ~~rG~ ~ ~~ ELN:lm 0039m ACTION; Commisaioner 8ushore offeced 4 +v' 84-1 ~ LA Cl~ire and MOT20N CAl2RI~p mQtion, s~conded b that thQ Anaheim C~tX P1anningcC mmi$eionrdoe~ y ~ommisetoner Y and McBurn~y absent), City Council de~y the ntteched dreft ordinenc~ehereby eecommen~ thnt khe 4•~$ and 18.05 e~mending the Zoninq Code perC°~nin ~nahFim and dicect ataff to PertAinin 9 rO cheptec Chepter 3.20 e~tAblishln '~odify the drAft or~i~,nr~ncebillboarCs in $quar~ footage oF billboatdnainn,~al buetress license kaxehasedion the q ~~. EcJith L. Harris, Se~retAry Anaheim Ctty P,lanning Comn;ission 4/2/84