Loading...
Minutes-PC 1985/06/10F.6GULAk MF.ETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION .~- RkGULAtt MEETING The regular meeting of the AnAhei.m City Plann:ing Commiesion was calied to order by ChaizmAn Eierbst at 10:00 a.m., June ll)r 198~, in the Co~ncil Chambec, d quorum being pr.eaent, and the c'ortunission reviewed plans of the i. te~n~ ~ s agenda . REC~:SS: 11:3~ , ;~. RECONVENED: 1:30 p.m. PRIiSLNT Chair~aan: Herbst Commi+:sioners• Boua~, q~~~hore, Fcy, King, [~aClaire, • McBurney ABSENT: Commfasionec: None ALSO PR~SENT Annika 5antalahti Assistant Director for Zoning Melcolm Slaughter Deputy City Attorney Jay 1'i.tus Of f 1ce Engi neer Paul Singer City Traffic Cngineer Geeg Hasting~ Associate Planner Bc~ith Harris Planning Commission Secretarv APPI20VAL UF MINUTES: Conu ~ssianec hing offerad a motion, secanc~ed ~ f Commissionec Bouas and MUTION t'ARRI6D, that the minutNS of the meeting of May 19, 1y85, be a~prc~ved as submitted. ITEM N0. 1. ETR NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WAIVER OF C~DE R£QUIR~MENT AND CONDITIUNAL USE PEkMIT N0. 2689 PUBL1(: HEARING. OWNERS: GRAY S. AND PAUI~A S. KILMER, c/o C-21 Laurel, 607 S. Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805. AGENT: MARY VERDONCK, c/o C-21 Laurel, 607 S. Harbor Rlvd., Anaheim, CA 92605. Property descrlbed ac a re~tangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approxim~tely 0.43 acre located at the southeast c~rner of Cypress Strpet and Olive Street, 220 and 224 N. Ulive Street. To permit a 24-unit senior citizens apactment complex with waivers of (a? maximum fence height, (b) permitted encroachments into required yards, (c) minimum Uuilding site area and (d) mini.mum atructur~l setback. Continued from the meeting of May 1.3~ 1985. ACTION: Commissioner Ki.ng offeced a mation, sQconded by Commissioner and MUTION CARRIED that considecation of the afocementionpd mattet be cuntinued to the cegularly-scheduled meeting of June 24, t985, at the oE the petitioner. 85-314 McBUrney request 6/10/85 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIUN JUN~ lp 1985 .~, 85-3_15 I'PGM N0. 2. EIk NEGATIVE DECl~ARATION RECLASSIE'ICATION N0. 84-85-32 (READV.) ANA VARIANCE N0. 3~~87 ~ PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS; SE~'~RI1~N0 J. AND RUTH ANN pERE2, 3153 W. ga11 Road, Anaheim, CA 52804 and ARTHUEt P. ~,t~U BE;VERLY R. LAN~, 3157 and 3163 W. F3a11 Road, Anaheime CA g28U4. AGENT: MAGDY NANNA, 4000 MacArlhur Houlevatd, Suite 68U, Newport Beach, CA 92660. Property descr;bed as a cNCtanguldrly-shaped par~:el of land consisting of apprcximately 1.17 acre, 3153, 3157 and 3163 Weat Eiall Roed. RS-A-4~~UU0 to RM-12(1Q ar a le~s intenr~e zone. Waiver oC maximum building height tn construct a 52-unit epartment complex. Reclosaification continued from the meetinya of A~ril :5, a~id May l3, 1935. Ther~ were three peraons indicating their presenre i~ oppusitiun t.o subjec-: request and although the staff tep~r~ was not r.ead, it is refecred to and ma~e a part of the minut~s. Maydy Hanna explained the project is now curisidereQ 2 stot:ea insteAd of 3 an~ a 58-foot buEfer has been pcovided between the project and the si~yl~-family t~omes . Mel McGaughy exE~lained tie owns the proi~ect~+ immediately north of subject pr.operty and that they just went through tt~e same thing about 60 days ago when the Qroperty immediately west of subject pcof~eGty on Western was developQd and tha: property abuts subjeck propecty to the eask. He statec3 he is againat L•~,is prnject because ot the 2-1/2 stories wit~~ subterranean parking and ~.s ~pP~sed to Lhe 58-toot setback to his pcoperty. He ~xplained he aid reach a happy medium with the prpperty awner t~ the wer3C with a 71-foot oetback, but that he cannot live with SS feet, and with the balcunies and windows iacing his property, and with a swimming pc~ot and spa adjacent to his propert,y. Jack Sera, 11051 5anka Teresa Dcive, ~upectino, CA 95014, expl~ined he owns the 2-story apariment complex directly east uF this ~roject and most of the surrou~ding acea is sing'!e-family residences. Ne stated that he thought the height limit should be maintained at no mur~a than 2 stories. ~:. [ianna st~ted he underatands the concerri about su5terranean parking, bu;. that is the only design that provides SpCUC7.tj within the bui~ding ikself ~n~9 provides adequate parking so therc is no parking on the strePt. THE FUBLIC HEARING 'rlAS CLOSED. Responding to Corr~nissioner Bouas, Mr. Hanna stated the pool and spa are located on the northeask r.ocner of the pzoperty and a large buffer can be provided as ;.eyuired by the Plannfng Commissicn. Greg Hastinys, Associate Planner, explained the plans show the first livable unit is 72 feek away from the nortkiern property line. Chairman Herbst explained the project that was ap~roved on Western was r~versed and the 2-story pcrtion ~as set back 72 feet wikh a 10-~foct wall and 6/10/85 MI~"~.~5. ANAHEIM CITY ~LANNING CUMMIS5IUN. JUNE l0, 198^ 5 85-31~ he th?~ght that ahould be coi~tinu~d, and thia pcojPCt is only providing a ~8-foot setback with the 2-st4ri~a un~ balconiea overlooking thc neighbor's C>roperty. tie atated a8 long as the pool is 2U Eeet away Erom the property line, ttie Commission ~annoC really objPCt. Ne Kuygested providing a 10-foot high wall witiz the 2-~tory purtton at leaet 72 £eek fr.om the single-family prop~rties. C~mtnissionec McBucney stAted he thought there iF a 72 foot ~etback at the c cner. He asked tabnut the rear yard setback on the property just to the east. Greg l~asting~ atated the spa ic about 20 feet and *.he pnol is ebo~t 25 teet Eram khe narthern praperty line. Commissloner Bushore stated that he though~ it is siynificant that the ownera of the two single-~art~ily ~esidpnces which are inost affected are not preEent to oppoae. He st~ted maybe the petitioner could stipulr~te that the poal and spa could bP closNd at 10:00 p.m., but he thought the 58-foot wide buffer was more khan aclequate. t!e added he khought they have tri.ed to do a goad job ~nd eACh project is cevi.ewed on A case-by-case basie and thAre are apartme~nte ~n two sides of the pr~perty. Chairman Herbst stated Council has juat approved a projec~ on the property to tt~e north with 2 stories relocatNd to 72 fe~st and he thought approval wo~!ld be giving thi:: property ~wner somethiny denied to the adjoining property owner. He 8t?ted tt~e balconies ~+ill be overlookiny the cesidents' back yards. Cnmrt~is~ioner La Claice stated there are only three unfts with balconie~ facin~ what is shown as a vacant lot.. Mr. McGaughy responded that the swimming pool is abou!: 75 feet from his property; however, he is representing his Cwo neighbocs immediately to the east of his p~opetty. He stated he did not have time to get a letter from those two nei~hbors because he did not receive his notice until tt~e firRt of the week. He stated his residence is probably 75 feet from subject pruperty and ex~,lained he int~nds to build his daughter a l~story home on the vacant 1%2 acre and he did not want the halconi!s looking down onto that property. Commi~sioner La Claire ~tated a 2-stoty resiclence could be built wi~hin 5 feet of the property line and there are only 3 balconi~s overlooking the property and askeci if he woul.d still be apposed iE there were no balconiers with his yard 58 feet away anc3 with the windowa screened tu guarantee privacy. Mr. McGaughy stated he would like the property tu be movec~ back as far as the ~roperty immediately to the west of subject property and stal-ed he would not want windows and balconies facing his property and he would ~+ant the setback ak leaAt 7U £eet. Commissioner La Claire stated if the project is set back 70 feet, there would be a lot of kraffic in :.he rear ad~acent *_o Mr. McGaughy's ~roperty and accocding to the plans, that area now would be 58 feet of lahdacapi.ng with no cars parked there at all. Mr. McGaughy stat~d ne w~nts 70 to 71-foot setback ;~nd a 10-foot high wall wih.h the windows and balconies facing his pcaperty eliminated. Mr. Sera reaponded to Commissioner La Claire that he has owned the ap~rtments for about 10 yeacs and thought they were about 1 year old when he purchased them. ye stated there is a carport about 20 feet from the fence on ~he north cide and they !~ave no problems now. He explained his apartments are single-st.ory 6!10/BS r MINUTES. ANAHEIM C1.TY PLANNING COMMISSION. JUNE 10,_1985 85-317 in the rear and two ~torieo on khe £ront portion. Mr. Hanna stated r, can move tt~e s~~, but it will not disturb the ainyle-family reaidence~ to rhe cear end he has no ptobl~m with a 10-foot high wall. Chairman Fierbst skated if tl~e 10-foor hi.gt~ wall ia continued, tt~at would bring the project within the limits granted to others. Mr. Hanna stated it wnuld ~e very difEicult to cedeaign Che ~ro~ect And be able to maintain the building the way it is designed. Commissioner E~'ry stated he has no pcablem witt~ thio request and tha~. tne a~plicant ha~ Agreed to relocate the spa. ACTION: Commiseioner King ofEECed a motion, aeconded by Commiesionpr Fry and MoTI~N CARRIBD that khe Anaheim City i'lanning Commission haa reviewed the pcoposal to reclar~~lEy subject property f~om the RS-A-43,000 (Residential, Agricultural) Zone to the RM-1200 (Residential, M~iltiple-Pamily) Zone or a less intenae~ zone to canatrucC a 52-unit apbctmen: complex with waiver of maximum building heiqht wittiin 15U feet of aingle-Eamily residental zone on a rectangutarly-sha~~ed parcel of land conaisting of apprcximately 1.17 acreH haviny a frontaye of approximately 226 feeC un the north side of 9a11 Road and further described as 3153, 3157 and 3163 West Hall RoadJ and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considpred the Negative Declaration toyettier with any cumments xeceived during the public ceview pcocess and further finding an the Lasis of the Initia.l Study and any comments received that there is no subrztantiol et~idence that the pcojeut will have a niynificant effect on the environment. Commiss?oner. La Claire stated the City Council has bFen making every developer adhere io 1-~tory within 70 fee~ of single-family and if this is ap~roved by the Commission and aE~Fealed to the City Council, it could taY,e longer to get this project approved; however, if it is ap;~roved based on what the Commission has discussed with the developet, he could probAbly begin with the project. Commissionex Bushore ctated the ;~eveloper hah agreed to some conce~sions and the Council has the ri.gti~ to vote as they wish and so does the Commission and the c~eveloper is awaie of that; and also the two people whose properties would be most aff-ected we[e not hece to oppose. Commissioner King offered Reaolution No. PC85-1.44 and moved for its paE;sage and adoptian that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grait Reclassification h~. 84-85-32 subject to ?nterdepartmental Committee cecotranendationa: On toll call, the fore~oing reROlution was passed by 'the following vote: AYEu: 80UASi BUSHORE, FRY~ HERBST, KING~ LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Commissioner Ki~g offered Reso.lution No. PC85-145 and moved far ita Fassage and adoption t~:at the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant ~/ariance No. 3447 on the basis that there are spectal circumstances applicable 6/l'1/85 MINUTE&, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION,_JUN_E__101 19D5 85-318 `.o the propecty such ae size, ahape, topogr.aphy, location and surround~nga which do not apply t~ oL•her identically znnQd ~roperty in the aamQ vicinityt and khat akrict applic,ation o£ the Zoninc3 Code depriv@a the property o[ privilegea enjoy~d by other pcoperti~a in the identical zone and clasei~ication in tl~e vicinity and subject to Interde~artmental Comrti~tkee tecommendations. Priar, to votiny Mr. tlanna explained the design of the project would make it very diEEicult to close thoae Ualconien and windows becaus~ that ia ti~e anly opening on that side. ChairmAn Herbat stated Approval would be granting A pzivilege denied to others. Commieatoner King eCated in October oE 1984, a pc~~ect wbs approved wikh a 33-foot setback at 920 S. Weatern. Malcolrti Slaughter ~tated eome of the C~mmissi~ri'e desices related to a 10-foot high wall and explained Code requires a variance for a wall over G-feet high and if ~hat is the Commiesion's desire, a waiver wuuld huve to be advertised for a public heacing. Greg tiastinye explained the projecl a~,proved by the Planning Commission to the west of su~~ect property was or~ginally with a 33-foot wide setbdck= however, City Council upproved it with a 71-foot setback. Commissionec bushore stat~d he did not have a problem with a 6-foot high wall. blr. Nanna ~tated the ~ool deck is at ~round level. it was clarified thAt the resolutian only includes a 6-fool high watl. Commiesioner King asked if the petitionec had otipulated to move the awimming pnol and spa. Mr. Ha~na cesponded that tt~ey will move the pool and spa 50 feet ~way from the property line. It was clarified that stipulation will be included aa park of the cPaolution. On rol~ call, the foregoing re~al~tion was passed by the following vote: AYES: BQUAS, BUSkIORE, FRY~ KING, LA CLAIR~~ MC BURNEY NOES: HERBST A~SENT: NONE Malcolm Slaugh~er, Deputy City Attorney, presented the writte~ rfyht to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Cauncil. 1TEM NO. 3. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION ANA VARIANC~ N0. 3484 PUBLIC HEtiRING. OWNERS: YATRICIA N. SAHAGUN, 1003 ~. Broadway, ~naheim, CA 92805. AGENT: TUM COULTRUY, 18132 Norwood Park, TusLin, CA 92680. Psoperty described as a recrangular~y-shaped parcel of land con~isting of approximately 5950 squace feet located at the northeast corner o~ Broadwey and Bush Stteet, lOQ3 East Broadway Street. Waivers of (a) minirnum building site area, (b) minimum floor area and (c) minimum side yard setback to construct a aecond detached aingle-family residence. Continued from the meeting of May 13, 1985. 6/10/85 _ _.. ., .. . _.... .. MINUT~S1_ ANAHEIM CITY PLANMING ~U~MISUION JUNE 10 19 8 5 d5^319 Comroisaionor Bushore declac~d a conElic~ of tnterest a s ~iefined by Anaheim City Planning ~ommiseion Resolution No. PC76-157 a~opti ng a Conflict oF Interest Cude foc the Planning Cammissie~ and Govern~e n t CodP SecCion 3625, et 8g~., in that h~ is a conkractucal ceal eat~ke ~~qent f or. ~he Anaheim Redevelopment Agency and pureuent ko the provi.Qiuns of th~ above Codee~ declared to the Chai~man that he w~s withdcewing frnm t he hearing tn connection with Vaciance No. 34d4, and would not take pert in elther the discusRion or Che votinq thereon end had not discussed this matter with any member of the ~lanning Commiesion. Thereupon Commisa i oner Bushore left the Council Chamber. Ther~ w~a no one indicatiny ~1~eir presence in opposit i on to ~ub~ect request and although *.he ataEf report was not read, it is reEe rred Co and made a part of the minutes• Tom Coultrup, agent, wa~ preaent to a~swer ~ny questio ns. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. c:onimiEOioner Fry indicated concecn that this would becortie 3 unite. Mr. C~ultrup atated the property awner had submitted a letter. strating that t.he half addreas will be tranaferred to the new construc t ion and it will become a ~+ingle-family residence. Ne stated there wa~ a singl e-Eamily re~idence at one time and they closed one door and allowed the ceside n ta of the second story to enter f[om the cear and anoCher meter was instatled a nd that one meler will be transferred to the new r~ite. Malc~lm Slaughter suggested a covenant would limit the use oE the propecty to slated that would be acceptable. be recorded in Eavor of the City which two residentia 1 units. Mr. Coultrup Commi.saioner La Claire asked about the 3-foot 6-inch aetback on ttie east property line. Mr. Coultrup stated it is necessary b ecause of the four-car garaye and the maximu~n clea~ance required. Commiss i oner King etated there is no harm to the nei.ghbors to the east ~nd that this would upgrade the ~rea. ACTION: Commissioner Kiny oEfered a motion, second ed by Commisaioner Fry and MOTION CARRI[;D that the Anaheim City Planning Commis sion has teviewed the pcoposal to constcuct a second detached single-camil y dwelling with waivers of minimum building eite areA, minimum floor area and m inimum side yard setback on a rectangularly-shaped parr,el of land consisting oE approximatelX 5,9~0 syuare Feet located at khe noctheaet corner of Breadway and BushCOVeethe8nd further described 1003 ~ast Hroadway Street; and dae s heceby app NegaL•ive Dec~aration upon finding that it has consid ered the NPgative Declatation together. with any comments received dur i ng the public review process and further finding on thP baais of the initial Skudy and any co~r~ments ceceived that there :s no substantial evidence that the project will have A significant effect on trie environment. Commissioner Kic~g offeced Resolution No. PC65~-146 a nd moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commis s io~ does hereby grant Variance No. 3484 ~n the baeis that there are spec i al circumatances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundinge 6/10/8S MINL7TES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JUNG 10. 1985 85-320 wh~ch do not apply to other identically zoned prope~ty in the same viainityi and that stcict eppllcation of the Zoning C~~de deprivea the property of privilegQ~ enjoyed by other propecties in th~a identical zone and cla~eification iri the vicinity nnd aub~ect to the petitioner'e atipulstion at the heariny to recocd a covenant in favor oE the City of Anahei.m restricting the use of ~he property to two eingle-family residences ond aubject to Intardepsrtme~;tal committee rPCOmmendatfona, Un roll call, the Foregoing resolution wAS pa,ssed by the following vote: AYES; BOUAS~ FRY~ f~ERBST, KING~ LA CI,AIRE~ MC DURNE] NUES: NON~: ABS ENT ; BUSHORE Malcolm Slaughter, I~sputy City Attorney, preser:ted the written cight to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 daye to the City Council. C~mmi~eioner Bushore returned to the Council Chamber. ITEM NU. d. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, RE:CLASSIFICATION N0. 84-85-39 AND VARIANCE N0. 34b8 YUBLIC HBARING. ~WNERS: HERBERT ARTHUR TANNER, ET AL, 3215 W. Stonybrook Dr ive, Anaheim, CA 92804. AGENT: RICHAkD PIERCl;, 14771 Plar.a Drive, Tuatin, CA y2bHU. Subject property is ~ recCangularly-st:~Fed parcel of land corYeistirig of approximately 2.83 acres, having a[ront~ge of approxi.mately 203 feet ~n the south side of Ball Raad, 3534 West eall Road. RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200 or a less intense zone. Waivers of maximum atructural height and maxlmum number of bachelor units to conetruct an 82-unit a~+artment complex. Th~ere wAS no one indicating their presence in oppasition to sub ject r~.•quest and although the staff report was not read, it ie ceferred to and made a pert of the minutes. Richard Pierce, agent, was present to answer any q~~estions. TF3E PUBL'IC HFARING WA5 CL~SED. Greg Hastings, Associate Planner, responded to Commissioner McBurney that khe limit of number of bachelor unita was included c~s ~~ark of the revised paxking or dimm~ce approved in 1983 al loainq 208 of the total number of units f ar t~achelor unLts. Commissioner Bushore stated he thought the cequeat f.or the number of bachelor un its is minimal, pointing out that the devel~per could be requeoting a bonus based an af.fordable hausing which would be higher. ACTION: Commisaioner King o~ferEd a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fry and !lUTION cARRIE~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the pro~osal to reclasei£y subject property from the R~-A-43,OC0 (Residential, Agricultucal) Zone to the RM-1200 (Residential, Multipls:-Fa~ily) Zone to 6/10/85 ~ ~; ~ MINUT~S, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMI55ION. JUNE 10, 1985 _85-3~1 construct an 82-unit aparkment complex with weive:~ of maximum structural height and maximum numbet o£ br~chelor units on a rectangulacly-shaped parcel of .land conaiating of approximately 2.43 acreA, having a frontAge oE approxi.mately 2U3 feet on Che Aouth aide of Ball Road And Eurther described As 3534 West Bal~ Roads and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon fi.nding that it has corisidered the Negative Deaclaration together with any comments received during the public review proceas and f.urther finding on the basis of the Tnitial Study and any comments received that thece ie ~io aubstAntibl evidence that the ~roject will have a significant effect on the enviconmenr. Commiaeioner King offered R~BOlution No. PC65-147 and rtioved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Cotn~niesion do~s hereby grant Rpclassification No. 64-85-39 subject to Inkerdepartmental Committee recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution waa passed by the followfng vote: AYES: BOUA5, BUSHORE, FRY~ HERBST~ KING~ LA CLAIR~, MC BURNEY NOES: NUNE ABSEN7': NUNE Commissi~ner King offered Resalutiun Na. PCA5-148 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commi~sion does t~ereby grant Variance No. 3488 on the basis that there are special ci.rcumstAnces applicable to the property such as size, shape, tapoyraphy, location and aurroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicinftyj and that sCrict application of the Zoniny Code deprives r_he property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identicat zone And classification in the vicinity and subject to Intecdepartmental. Committee recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AY.ES: BOUAS, BUSHORB, FRY, HERBST, KING, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY NOES: NQNE ABSENT: NONE Malcolm Slaughter, Asaistant City Attorney, preaented thQ written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Councii. ITEM I~O. 5. EIR NECATIVE UECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2697 PUBLIC HEARIIJG. OWNERS: APF CENTER, ATTN: JACK HOROWITZ, P. 0. BoX 27163, Los Angeles, C.A 90027. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parce~ of land consisting of approximakely 4.1 acres locate~± at khe sauthwest corner of Orangethorpe Avenue and Placentia Avenue, and furthQr described as ~631 North Placentia Avpnue; Units A, B, E, G, C, P, R, S, and T. To retain six autamobile repair and automotive relatpcl busf~ie~Fes. ACTION: Commfssioner Ring offered ~ motion, seconded by Commisaioner McBurr~ey and HC-TION CA.RRIED that considerakion of the aforementioned matter be continued to the ~egularly-scheduled meeting of June 24, 1985, at the request of the petitioner. 6/10/85 ,. ,+ ~~ MINUT~S~ ANAt1EIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. JUNE 10, 1985 85-322 IT~M N0~ 6. ~IR NEGAxIVG DECLARATION, WhIVER OF CODE REQUII2I:MENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N:. 2698 PUBLIC H~ARING. UWNERS: SMOOKE b SONS INVESTMENT C~., P. U. Bo% 1311, Los Angslea, CA 90053-1311. AGENT: OItANGC CUUN'PY TRUCK 6 TRAIL~R SALES~ INC.~ A`PTN: JOHN BEN50N, 500 W. Collin~ Avenue, Or.ange, CA 92667. Property descci.bed as a rectangularly-~ha~~ed pacce•1 of land consisting of approximately 2.4 acces, 62U East Katella Aveniae. To permit a truck salee~ a~d service agency dnd lot with wAivers of required improvement of outdoor stocage areaa, minimum number of parking spacea, maximum fence height and reyuired enclosure oF outdoor uses. There was no one indicating thei.r presence in opposition to subject request and al.though the ~ta~;E' repo:t was not cead, it is reEecred to and made a part of the minutes. Jol~n I3enaon, Agent, stated concerning the requirement frr paving, that they only have a 3-yeac lea~e and the coat of paviny would be aver ~L00,000 and crushed rock or deco-npoved c3ranite would be about ~15,000, so they would like to have per~~tiRSinn to uRe the decomposed granite. He referre~d Co a requi.rement for p~cking spaces and explained they are nut a t~igh volume dealer and ure selling approximately 15 to 20 ~.~nits per m~nth and tt~e parking study wa~ ine~uc~~d whic:h justifies the number. of parni~g s~aces ceguested. He stated the fF•nc~ height is requested for sFcurity reasons and ttiat they hr~ve ceyuesr.ed a~etback of 35 feet froc~i Katella rather than 50 becau~e ttie preaent site '~as the fence at 35 feet and the display area on the east side of the Uuildin~ would b~ lost if the 50 feet is required. HP added theX are requeating not to be requiced to have the slats in the chainlink fence primarily so the public can see the merchandise as they drive by. Commissioner Mcbucney asked why ~he black-top pnving would coct 5100,000. Mr. Henson stat~d there is a lot of gcading that would be required because the property was used for a demonatration area for farm and construction equipment:. Commissionec McHurney clacified that the gcading would be necessary even :t they used crushed rock. Commissioner Bushore stated there is a drainage problem at the southwest corner abutting tt~e motel property for about 15 feet. Mr, Benson stated they will rectify that problem. Commissioner Bushore stated he would have no problem with the crushed [ock f~r a 3-year period because he sees this as an interim use and he thought the n~mber of parking spaces proposed i.s aclequate. He stated he tias no problem w:th the height af the fence nor the elimination of the wood alats. Mr. Benson explained they heve a 3-year lease, with a 1-year canr.ellation clauser so if the property nwner decides to build a hiyh-ri~s, they could be out in 12 months, but hope to be there 3 years or more. Concerning the landscaping, Mr. Benson etated there is grass thece now and fouc Palm trees anc3 they wil~ put in st~rubbesy and gsound cover there anci the 6/10/85 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITX PLANNING COMM_I_SSI_ON,_ JUNE 10, 1985 85-323 sAme thing an tt~e weat side in fcont af th~ new fencQ and agre~d iC has not been maintained vory well. Chairmdn Elerbst star.ed this is one of the main entrance~ into the City and into that area and the CommissionPr is quite co~cerned ebout properties being run-down and not maintained and thought if eprinkler syaCems are installed and the area8 are maintainQd, it would be advAntageous to their businesa and to the community. Mr. Henson stated they intend to meintain the property because they wanr the pcoperty to look nice foc thEir own buainebs. Commiseioner La Claire stated people wanti~g to buy nne of their products aome inko the area laoking for that buaineas and it ia not the type ot bueineas where people atop as they drive by. She Added bhe is cpncerned abou~ ~ipgcading Katcila and ahe wants this business to stay in the City and suggested aince Lt is not impoctant for people to see the equipment beEore they get on the premiaea, rhat the fence be scceened. Commiasioner Bushoce stated ~his petitioner is ~ust Caking over the business, and he should not be blamed for what is happening on the property. Chaicman Iferbst stated he has se~n some used truck operations on ol•her pcoE~erties and they look pretty bad. Mr. eenson stated anythin9 they have in tt~e front acea would have been reconditioned, painted and laok as good as new. He explained they t~ave bEen in tt~e City of Orange foc 4 years and want to move here for mote room and a better location. He stated they do a Gertain amount of buainess from people wha drive by. Commissioner La Claire st~ated even if they abserve the setback, they would b~ allowed to have trucks di.splayed in that 50-foot setback. Greg Hastings stated he was not sure if that is allowed in tl~at zone and would have to check the ordinances. He adde~ he believed the current user ie using the setback area for ~isplay. Commis~ioner King su99ested a 3-year time limit on the approval of the conditional use permit. Commissionet Bushore asked if the waivers couid be limited for 3 years with a conditional use permit. Malcnlm Slaughter responded tha~ they could if the conditional uae peLmit is granted with that limitation. ACZ'ION: Commiss3oner King ofEered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commisaion F~es reviewed the proposal to permit a truck sales and service u~ency and lot with waivers of required improvement of outdooc storage area, minimum number of parking spaces, maximum fence height and requiced enclosure ot outdoor uses on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting o£ approximately 2.4 acres, having a fcontage of approximately 288 feet on the south side of Katella Avenue and further deacribed aa 620 East Katella Avenue; and does herebk approve the N~gative Declara~ion upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any coR~ments received during the public review process and further ffnding on the b_~sis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. 6/10/85 MINU2'ES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CUMMISSION _JUNE 10, 19R5 85-324 Commiosioner L+, Claire stated befor~ the motiona Are c,f~ered, she wanted t~ p~int out that tt~is is one of thP gAteways to Anaheim and she did not s~e A reaeon not tn have a.lata in the fence because everyorie else is required to screen outdoo~r atorage ot equipment. She added she thought the aetback should be 5U teet ai~d ~ot 35. Gceg N~stings stated the commercial zone d~ea not all~w nutdoor akorsye and Commissicm ec Bushore stated this ie con~~deccd diaplay and ~_hat ie di~fer~~nt than storage. He str~l•ed he could understand why they want khe Eence that high foc ~ecurity reaaons and why they do not want it slal•ted. H~~ stated this is a 3-yeac interim use rind is better than what ia exiatir~g anc9 also the landscaping next door will be maintained c~nd in :3 yeArs tl7e paviny could be requited. Commissi~ner King ofter~ed a motion, aecondec~ Gy Commiasioner Fry and MUTION CARRIEU (c:ommiseionec La Claice voting no) thah the Anaheim Clty Planning Commission does hereby grant waiver Rb) on the ba~is that the parking w~iver will nnt cause an inctea~e in traEfic cangeation in the immediate vicinity nor adversely atEect rany acl~oining lanu uses and granting of the parking waiver undec th~ condikions imposed, if. any, will nc,t b~ detrimental to the peace, health, sAfety and yeneral weliate o~ the citizens of the City of Anaheim and furkner grantiny waivera (a), (c) and (d) on the basis that there are epecial circumstances applicable Co the propfarty auch as size, shape, topogtaphy, location and surroundings which do not apply L•o ~ther identically zoned propecty in the same v.icinity; and that str.ict a~plication of the Zoning Code deprives the property of pri.vileges enjoy~ed by other pro~erties in the identical xone and c;las~ification in the vicinity. Commissioner King offered Ftesolution No. FC85-149 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Plar,ning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2698 for a~~eriad of 3 years pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Coda Section 18.03.030.030 tt,rougt~ 18.03.030.U35 and subjecl to the condition that the kype af cruahed ro~::k to ~e used be approved t~y the City Enyineer and subject to I~terdepac~mE~rital Cummittee recommendatians. On col.l call, the foreyoing resoluCi.~an waa passed by the .followina vote: AYE5: BOUAS, BUSNORE, FRY, HERB:,T, KING, MC: BURNEY NGES: LA CLAIRE ABSENT: LJONE Malcalm ~lauyhtec, Ueputy City Aktocney, presented the written right to appeal khe Planning ~ommission's decisiun within 22 day3 to the City Council. Chairman Herbst explained this i:s a conditiunal use permit and if the sti~rulations are r.:~t complied with, it can be revoked, IT~:M N0. 7. EIR NEGATlVE DECLARATION ANU CONDITIONAL USE P~,RMI'I' N0. 2699 PUESLIC HEARING. OWNERS: BERNARA B. AND FLUAENCE RQTH, c/o WOR',D ~iL CO., P. 0. Box 60787, Los Angeles, CA 4QU60-0787. AGENT: GILBERT AJA RND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS, INC., 23117 Plaza Pointe Drive, Laguna Hills, CA 92653, ATTN: KERRY ROUSSELLOT. Property descrit~ed as a rectr~ngularly-shaped parcel of land consiating of r~pproximately 0.43 acre, located at the southeaat corner of Ball Road and Knott Street, 3450 West Sall Road. 6/10/85 ~ ~,` ~h ~ MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY_PGANNING COMMIS9ION. JUNE ~0, 1985 .._ 85'3?5 To canr~truct a aonvenience m~tket with oEf-na.le beer And wine and gasoline sale~. There waA no one indicating their pceaenre in oNpocition to subject requesr and althouyn the staft teport waA not re+~d, it in referred to and made a part of the minutes. Sam E31ick, Fairbanks Ranch P1AZa, Rancho Santa Pe, CaliforniA, attorney, explained his only concern was th~t thF P1Anninq Commisai~n has rnutinely recommended denial~ far convenience a~toces with the sa1P of gasoline and of~-oale beer and wine ~nd hoped tt~at they would not be caught up in that blanket of denials. He stated there i.s no evldence Co indicate that the ~elling ~f beer and wine in a conveni~~nce market would somehow encourage the misuae of alcohol. He atated they have taund in talking with Police Officere that mnst of the drunk dcivers ace cumi~g from bars, restaurants, cocktail lounyes or pcivate ~~arL•ies. He stated Mr.. Roth and the World Uil Compar~y have contributeu significantly to tMe alcohol and drug abuse pcogcfl-ns. t~e explainec: tt~ere would be no be,er and wine advertiaing sign~ in the windows amd there wi be an alarm ayslc~m tied to the Police Department and they would agree ~~ -.-ny other securiky systems which Che Commission feels would be advan~:.:Y:~+~„us. Comn-~ -~~~*~:: ~~~shore c~n~~limented Mt. elick on his pre~entatian. He stated thF~ ~~+i~~ ~ has a stcong opinion an the sale of beer and wine with gasoline ant ~~ ~ii.:~ nu~~: know how the petitloheK could say they do not contribute to the r~;.~-:•t ~,: ;-ic~ahol in this counCry when they Qel.l it. He stated obviously if ~ ~_r:,~~,;~ny is contribut:i.ng siynificantly to the alcoholic abuse program~, ~_~«^; ~4;~~. feel there is a problem and maybe it is because they know they are _•~-~,r~ ar~uc.ing to tne problem that they are making these c~ntributi.ons. ~~-~•~:,~:tian Herbst stated he di~agrees with the petitioner's statement that there <w;: tzNr,-, no proof because he just rece~tly saw a program an television wcuv~.ruang a study on alcoholic ~buse which indicated very definitely that the ~w~~v:~,n„ience tnarkets ar-d ser~~ice star,ions were contributing to the problem, e~~~cially with young people. Cv~nm.issioner La Claire steted some cities are even now looking at the problem ar::: she is very tamiliar with alcohol and substance abuse and has j~ist r~-:~ently completed aome sucvry;~e i~~ the field and plans to do a survey on this ~;;ticu'.~r issue in the :utuc~us that the CalifQxnia State Senate has r~cogn~~ed the problem and is thinkiny about loo~ing intu some sort of study and maybe legislation in the futuce because this is a time when alcoholism is rising, particularly with teenagers, and when askecf in an ir.f.ot~at survey, tc:enagers will say that primatily they get their fri~nds k~ purchase the alcoholic beveragps or get it themselves and one of ttie places they mention most frequently is the convenience mackets because the peraon who usually wotks there is of the same age and the;~ also are open longer and at differe~t houra. She stated in a liquor store, the prima~y eource of income comes srom the eale of alcoholic beverages and they ~re going to be more careful ahout who they sell to bec:ause they could lo~e their entice source of incame, but in this type of store, theic entire bource of income would nok be lost, so they do not monitor ~he sales khat close. She added it ~enms very psycholo91ca11y unsaund to promote gasclir~e and alcoholic sales when we are trying to get people to cecogni2e the problem of drinking ~nd driving and also 'imgulse buying' ie anothec factor tv con~ider. 6/10/85 MINUTES, ANAHBIM CITY P~~NNING COMMI55ION. JUNE 10~_1985 85-326 Mr. Blick stat~d i~ seems the Commi~sSon's poaition is very cleac and he thought it ia unfoctunate that their aornpAny's poaition has nok been examined, but their whule businesa has been de~lt an~ concluaive decision. He stated they have been recognized for their significant ef~orts and Ghe~r employees go ttirough ex~ensiva training and once they da make an inveetment in a atAtion like this, it is very signff:~;~t if they lose their ABC License and, in Eact, they could not build thie without that licenae. He added he would auggest the Commission keep open minds and r.ather than look at f.he probleme, to look at each specific case and what the c~mpany has beEn doing. Cornmisyioner ~ushora asked i[ a pereon purchaeing beer and wine is given a note saying it is illegal to drive and drink, Mr. Blick stated they have found thaC people drive everywhere nnd driving is ,~ot the issuP, but khe misuse o£ ulcohol is the isaue, and there haA not b~~en any evidence, and they tiave done some reeearch, to prove that this wLll contribute ko rhe pcoblem. He stated the Senate did not put through the legislAtion because there was no evidence to sup~ort lhe fact that cu~totners are moce inclined to misuse alcohol it they purcha~ed it at a conveniEnce market. Commissionec Husho:e stated there is no control over what happens ta r.nar. beer and wine once it leaves the facility, but because they are selling it, they are contributing to the problem, and this jusl makes it toa conveniE~nt Eor a person to skop in and buy gas and beer and driv~ away wt~ile drinking the beer. ACTION: Cornmisaioner La C1Air.e offered a moti~n, seconded by Cvmtnissioner McBurney and MOTIUN CARRIEA that the Anaheim City Planning Commis~ion has reviewed th~ proposal to conatcuct a convenience market with off-sale beer ~nd wine and g~~soline sales on a rectangularly-~haped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.43 acre located at the southeast cucn~r oE Ba?: Road and Knott S~cPet and Eurther descr~~;ed as 3450 West Ball Roa~9; and doe~ hereby approve the Negative Declaratian up~n Eindin9 that it has considered the ~eyative Declaration togethec wiCh an; comments rece~ved ducing the publi.~ review process and further finding o~i thr basis of the Initlal Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project wi.ll have a szgniEicant effect on the env~ronment. Commissioner La Claire offered Resolution No. PC85-150 and moved for its passage and adoption that tne Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny Conditional Use Permit No. 2699 on ttie basis that 4he sale of gasoline in conjunction with thEr sal~ of beer and wine would pessibly encourc•ge drinking and driving and woul,d be detrimental to the peace, health, safe~y ar.d general welfare of the citi~ens of the City of Anaheim. Chairman Nerbst stat:ed he would have no problem with appro~a.l of the convenience market e~nd the sale of gasotine, but the only problem is with the sale of beer and ~ir~e and if the business could not aurvive in that location without the sale of beec and wine, it must be that they are selling a lot of it. Commisaioner L,3 Claire suggested they open a liquor store. On roll call, the foregeing resolution was passed by the following vote: RYES: BOUAS~ BUSHURE, FRY, HERBS•P, KING, LA CLAIRE~ MC BURNEY NUES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's d~cision within 22 days to the City Council. ~,,..,,... ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIr~N, JUNE 101, 1985 85-3?.7 RBCESSEU: 2;~U p.m. RECO~:VENEI~: 3;U0 p.m. ITEM NU. 8. EIR NEGATIVE DECI.ARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3491 PUBLIC NEARING. UWNLRS: DAC.E I. SELLON, 2217 Narbar BoulevAr~, D-11, Coatn Mesa, CA 92627. AyENT: JOHN TARLOS, 17922 Sky Park Circle, Suite N b P, Irvine, CA 92714. Property deacribed as a rectangularly-shaped parcel oE land cc»sistiny of epproximately 0.3 acte, 322 South E3rookhurat Street (Kentuck} E'cied Chickcn). Waiver of minimum nutnb~r oE parking r~paces to expnnd an existing restaurant. There was one per~on indicatiny hia prea~nce in oppnsition to sub~ect request and although the staff report w~as not read, it ia referred to and made a~art of the minutes. John TArloa, agent, was present t~ answer any question~. '.['HE E~UBLTC NEARING WAS CLOSE~D. ACTYAN: Commissioner King oEf~red a motion, seconded by Commiasioner ~ry and MU1`IUN CARRIEU that the Anaheim City Planniny C~mmi.seion has reviewed the proposal ta expand an existing restaurant with wai~~cr of rt~inimum number of parking spaces o~ a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land c,onsisting of approximately 0.3 acres, having a Erontage of aFproximarely 50 feet on the east side of brookhurst Street an~ fucther descrlbed as 322 South Brookhurst Streett and d.~es hereby appr.ove the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Nega~ive Declaration together with any commpnts receivcd during tt~e public review process and furthec ffndinq on the basis of ~!~~~ Inftial Study and any comments ceceived that there is no su~stantial evidence that the project will have a sienif:cant effect or, the environment. It wae noted the person present in opposition ,~id not get an opgortunity to speAk and the ~ublic hearing was re~pened. Robert D. Smith, 327 S. Archer, Anaheim, stated his property is located d~rectly behind the Taco eel.l which is next to Kentucky Fried Chicken and their concerns, since he moved th~re in ~~77, have been primarily the noier from the parking loC in the rear khich is usually late at night or early morning hours especially in the summer when their windows are open. He stated he d:d not know if this expansion will have any bearing on thal• problem, but wanted to make their concerns known. He stdted he wondered if the smell~ from the chicken would be more since the facility would be larger becauRe they can always smell it. He stated presently when they look over the wall, they can see the air-conditi.oning units and they would like that cairected. He referred to the propoaed 6-foot wall ar~d stated the existing wall is not quite G teet Y~igh. Commissi~ner McBurnay stated apparently the noi.ses referred to are from the parking arees of Marie Callenders and Taco Bell because they stay open longer. Mr. Tarlos stated there are five residences affected by the development and their traffic study indicates that the rear parking area is 6/10/85 MINUTE~. ANAH~IM CITY pLANNING CQMMZSSI~N1 ~UNE 10, 1985 85-328 h~cdly ever used and 8aa@U he did not antiaipate any increaae in tcaffic in the rear and the equiptn~nt w~ll be upqrnded and they will be doing extenaive land~caping. He stated the wall ie 6 feet high on their aide. He etat~ the building design has ~ cam~~lete mansard rooF on Eour aides which would shield the visibflity of the equiF~ment. TNE PUBLIC HkARING WAS CGOSBD. C~mmissioner McHurney atated tl~e Cude re7u~res thAt the w~ll be 6 feet high from the hi~hest side. Mc. Tar).o8 stated extenaive landscapi.ng will be addec9 ~nd they are basically trying to upgtade t.heir image and he was not suce whAt type landscaping would be planted. Chairman Herbsk suggestFd trees that would yrow nbove the fence to help screen the ~eighbuchood. Cort~miESioner I.a Claire stated if this ia approved and there is ~ problem with people looking ovPr ttie fence from the parking lot, she would like the peti.tionec to stipulate tn putting in ~ lAndscaping scceenin~, Aa approved by at;ff, to entirely ~cceen the petltioner's side within a periad oE 3-to 4 years wihh Cypress treea on 3-foot ~~nters, for example. She explained she is not requeatin3 mature trees at ~his time, but tcees of sufficient aize that would grow at a quick rate to prtivide a denae acreen. Ik wab clarified ~y Mr. Smith that there have nol been ~ny problems fram Kentucky Eried Chir,ken and that maybe the pa¢king lot is a little higher which makes the fence aeem l~~wer than 6 Eeet. Commissioner La C~aire skated she still feels tt~e screening should ba pcovided because it could be dune vpry inexpensively and will help the neighbors. ACTIUN CONTINU~D: Commissioner King offered Resolutior~ No. PC85-151 and moved for its passaye and adoption that the Anaheim City ~'lanning Commission does hereby yrant Variance No. 3491 on the basis that there are specia~ circumstances applicable to the property such as size, ehape, topogcaphy, locakion and surroundin9s which do not apply to othec fdentically zoned property in thp same vicini~y; and that strict application of the 2oning Code deprives the propert}~ af privileges enjoyed by ocher properties in the identical zone and classification in the vfcinity and subject to interdepartmental Committee recommendarions~including a re~~uiremenk for dense landscaping including trees of sufficie~~t size to provide a dense screen within a short period of time as approved by the Planning Department staff. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BUSHORE~ ~RY, HER~ST, KING, LA CLAIRE~ MC BUFNEY NOES: NONE ABS~NT: NONE Malcolm Slaughter, Assistant City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. 6/10/85 ~ i MINU:ES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMt1ISSI0N. ~UNE 10~ 1985 ____ 95-329 iTEM+ N0. 9• EIK CATEGORIC__AU BXEMPTION-CLASS 5 AND VARIANCE N0. 2694. ~READVERTISED) PUBLIC NEARING PUR EXTENSION OF T?ME. OWNERS: HOWARA FARRAND, S22 S. Roae Street, Anaheim, CA q2805. Pcoperty ~escribQd as a ~ectangulArly-shaped parcel of land consieting of approximAtely 0.5 ecre, 518-52G South Roae Street (Farr.and Entecprises~ Inc.). Request for a ~wo year (two-year cetroactive) extenslon of time or deletion of Condition No. 2 oL Resotution No. PC75-90 pertaining to re~uired extensions of time to r~tain outdaor atorage of shipping cont~iners. Jim Farr~nd, agent, Mas present to unoWec any queEtians. The Commiasion reviewed the photogr.aphs aubmittEd. Commisaioner ~uahore stated this wa~ extended in 1981. and CommiASioner King stated they havP had ten years tc eliminate th~a ~ituation. hir. Farcand stated thel almost need those containers Lo bF in buainea~. tIe atated they t~iavP 60 bins at various locations and if they could not have a couple of them to be unloaded and reloaded Eor ~:he fnllowing day deliveries, they cuuld not exist at this location. He statc~d he ~oes not know what can be done about it because there is no additi~nal land and that th~y will be forced to mov~ if they can nut get this vaciance approved. He stated they have looke~~ at other properties, but like being in Orainge County and ace tcying to be a good citizen and hope to get this resalved. Chairman Herbst stated the staf.f repoct indicates the traffic is often blocked on Rose Stteet by storage F,ins unloading and loadi.ng and asked if that problem could be resolved. Mr. Farcand stated they are tryin5 to get their employees tu back into the stalls desxgnated off the street sc, they ar~ not blocking l•he street. Commissioner King stated Commission must prove t.:~at the operation is not detrimental to the ~artictalar area and surroun~ing land uses nor to the public's peace~ health, safety and genpral welfare and he would have A problem makiny that finding, due to the violations. Mr. Farrand stated all the buildings on this side of the street do not have any other place to load oc unload except in front of the buildings and they are not the only ones blockxng the street. Commissioner BushorE stated tFis is a difficult area and that other busine~ses are causing problems and clarified that the petitioner's father owns the building. He atated ~he use doesn't help the t~rea. Chairman Herbst suggested a 2-year exkension with the appiicant's indication that he would get the problem resolve9. He stated he would be wi~ling L•o ~o along with this until 1987, but not beyond th~t because when it was approvE~d in 1975, it was with the understanding that the petitioner would make an effoct to eliminate the need for the wafver. 6/10/85 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITX PL~NNING COMMISSIUN~ JUNF 1Q. 1965 85-330 Commis~iansr King offered Reaolution No. PC85-152 and moved f•~r ita passage and ddoptiun that the Anaheim c:ity Plennln9 Commisaion does hereby grant e ~-yeac extension of time o~ the basis that the vari~nce ia being exercised in a manner not detcimental to tne particular a~'ea and surrounding 1sr~d usea noc to khe public's paace, t~ealth. BaEety arid yene[al welfere~ sAid timo ext~naion to expire April 29, 1987. On toll call, the foreg~ain9 resolution w~s passed by thp following vote: AYFS: BOUAS, ~IISk~ORE~ FRY~ HERHST~ KING~ LA CLAIRE, MC BURNF.Y NOES: NONE ABS~NT: NONE ITEM N0. 10. E1R NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PRF,V. A~PRUVBD ANU CONDIZIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 23Z6 (REAAV.) PUBLIC HEARING FOR EXTENSIQN OF TIMG. OWNERS: ANTRANIK OZBAG, 1 Plymouth, Irvine, CA 92714. Property aescribed as a rectangularly-shaPed parcel ot land consisting of approximntely 0.32 acre, 116 Sau:h Magnolia Avenue. Request fnr a one yeac extension of kime or deletion of Cor~dition No. 7 of Resolution N0. PC82-83 pertaining to required extensions of time to retaln a veterinarf hosE~ital. Robert Rife, ip A2mond Tree Lane, Irvine, agent, was preaent to an~wer any y~estions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WA5 CLOSED. ACTION: Commissioner King offeced Resolution t~~'~. PC85-Z53 and moved for its passage and adoption th~t the Anaheim City Plania.ing Commission does heceby delete Cond~tion No. 7 of Resolutior. No. PC82-b3 pertaining to the reguiced time extension8 on the basis that the deletion is neceasary ta pecmit reasonable operation of the varianca as oranted. Un roll call, the foregoing :esolution was passed by the following vote; AYES: BQUAS, BUSHORE~ FRY~ HERBST, KING~ LA CLAIRE, MC BU~NEY NU~S: NONE AB~ENT: NUNE IT~M l~0. 11 EzR NBGATIVE DECLARATION S PREV. APPROVED; AND CONDITIONAI~ USE PERMIT N0. 1838 (kEADV.) PU~LIC HEAP.ING FOR EXTENStON OF TIME. OWNERS: MIKE LIN, CHAO~ INC.~ 333 Fl. Bdll Road, Anaheirn, CA 92805. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel o~ land consis~ing of approximately 9 acres, 333 and 475 West Ball Road. Request for a one year extension of time or deletion of Condition ilo. 5 of Reaolution Nu. PC78-113 Qertaining to reguired extensions of time ~o zetain a tent camping facility :.n ~n existi~g recreational vehic.le park. 6/10/85 r_~, 85-3~1 MINUTBS ANI~HBIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. JUNB lU,_1985 Commioeioner i3uu~hore atated lie has previuualy declered a conElict of intereat and leEt the Council Cha~mber. Mi.ke Lin, agent, wea pceaent ko anawec nny queAtiona. TFfE I~UBLIC IiEAR:(NG WAS CLOS~Q. Chaicmenh~Qthoughtathiehtype~usetneedaetohbe contcolledibecauaelitbleaaltpnd , beceus camping facility. ACTION: Commissioner King offered Rea^lution No. PC85-154 and moved for its ~ passage And adoption that the Anaheitn City Planning Commisaion does hereby ~rant a 1-year extenaion of time on the basis that the use is being execcised in a manner not detrimental to the pacl•ic;ular area and aurrounding land uaea nor to tl~e public's peace, healkh, safety and general welft~re nnd seid extoneion ahall er.pirp on Ma}~ 22, 198G. On roll call, the foreyoing reaolution was pa8sed by the faltuwing vote: AY~S: BOUAS, FRY, HERf3ST, KING, l.A CLAIRE, MC BURN~Y NOBS: NONE ABSENT: 6USHURE Commissioner Bushore returned to the meeting. ITBM N0. 12. R~PQRTS AND RECOMMBNDATIONS: A. CONUITIOf1AL USE PERMIT N0. 2442 - Request EGOm Boh Mills, property ownec, for termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 244"l, property located at 175U West La Palma Avenue. AC_ TIpN: Commisai~nec K;ing of.feced b Rea~lution No. PC85-155 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Flanning Commiasion does hereby grant termination of Conditional use Permit No. 2442. ~ Un roll call, the foregoing res4lution was passed by the following vote~ AYES: BOUAS, BUSHORE, FFtY, HERBST, KING, LA CLAIk~, MC BUR~JEY NOES: NONE ABS~NT: NONE g. VARIANCE N0. 1~89 - Requesk fcom James Mohler, Mohler Corpotation, for termination of Variance No. 1189~ property located at 134 South Wea-;e~n Avenue. ACTIpN; Commissioner King ot•fered a Resolution No. PC85-156 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commisaion does heceby terminate Variance No. 1189. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AXES: BOUAS~ SUSHORE~ FRY~ HERBST~ KZNG~ LA CLAIRE~ MC BURNEY PtOES: NUNE ABSENT: NONE 6/10/85 ~^ i'~ ~ ~ y' * MINUTE5, ANIINEIM CITY PLANNIN(i CUMMISSION. JUNE lU. 1985 85-332 C. VARIANCE NU,~~10y - Reyteest from Cerl N. Ker.cl~er and DonAld Rarcher, Carl KarcheG Bntecpciaea for tcerminetion o~ Variance No. 2109, praperty loceted At 3110 East La Pa1mA Avenue. AC7'IAN: Commissionec King o~Eered a R~solution Nu. PC85-157 and moved for ita pae~age dnd adoption that the AnAheim Ci.ty Planninc~ Commiasiun doee heceby terminete Variance No. 2109. Un roll ~call, the Eoregoing resolution was pao~ed by the following vote: AYEa: L~RY~ HERDST~ KING~ GA CLAIRE NUES: NONE ABSENT: BOUAS, BUSHORE~ MCBURNEY D. TENTATIVE, ~'FtACT NU. 10967 - Requesk Erom Boulevard Ente[prises foc a waivec ~f the Hillai~ie Crr~diny Ordinance as it relatea t:o the location of manufactured slopes within residential lots in Tract No. 10967, lacated within the Anaheim Hilla area, northwesterly of Stage Coach R~ad and Nohl Ranch Road. .1ay Titus, ~ffice Engineer, explained all the c~lope3 will te mAintained by the home~wners as~ociation. ACTION: Chairman tterbst offerNd a mol•io~, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MUTJ~N CARRIED that the AnRheim City Planning Commiesion does hereby reco~nmend to tl~e City Council approval oE the Hillside Grading Ordinance as it relates to the location of manufactuced slopes within residential lots in Tcact No. 10967• OTHER BUSINCSS: Commissiuner LA Claire auqgeated the Planning Cortnnies.ton sh~uld send individual letters ar a joint l~etter to a committee selected to put together a tribute to Tom Li.Pgler d~rinq his stAy in Anaheim and usked if ti~e Commission would like to submit a resolution in addit.ion to the letter. ACTION: Cammissioner La Claire offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fcy ar~d MOTION CARRIBD that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does i~ereby instruct staff to prepace a letter of congratulations to Mr. Liegler in adciition to a resolution to D~e pre~ented at the next meeting of the Planning Commission for later preaentation. ADJO~RNMENT: Commissionez Fry of~eced a moti.on, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION C1~RRIED that the meeting be acijourned. The meeting was adjoucned t-t 3:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~d.~-~ ~° /~~~-+~-:~ Edith L. Harcia, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commissi.on ELH:lm 0117m 6/10/85