Loading...
Minutes-PC 1977/06/06~ ~ MINUTf.S Jun~ 6 , 1~i77 REGULAR MEETING OF TNE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISiION REGULAR - A regular meetin~ of tl,~ Anaheim City Planning Commt~:slon was celled to MEETING order hy Chalrman Pro Tempore Tolar at 1:30 p.m.~ Ju~~e 6, 1977, in thc Council Chamber~ a quorum being present. PRESENT - CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE - Tolar COMMISSIONERS - Barnes, Davld~ HQrhst, King (Cortxnissioner Linn arrived at 3:00 p.m.) ABSENT - f.f1MMISSI0NER5 - Johnson and Linn (Linn arrived at 3:00 p.m,) ALSO - Frank Lowry PRESENT Annika Santalahti J. J. Tashiro Jack Judd Paul Singer Edith Harris Assistant City Attorney Assistant Plannir~~ Director - Zaning Assistant Nlanner Civil Engineering Assistant Traffic Enginee, Plannin5 Commission Secretary PI.EDGE OF Commissioner King led the Pledye of Allegiance ca the Flag of the United ALLE6IANCE - States of America . APPROVAL OF - Conrnissi~,ner Barnes asked that th~ words "without the landscaped buffer" MINUTES be deleted from the last s~ntence, sixth paragraPh ~ page 77-340 of th~e May 23rd meeting. Commissioner King offered a motion, that the May 9th minutes as submitted and the May 23rd minutes as corrected be approved~ seconded by Co~nmissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Johnson and Linn absent). ITEM N0. 1 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. Owner: STEPHEN HOPKINS EtR NEGATOVE DECLARATIUN DEVELOPMENT CO.. 1303 Avocado~ Ste. 225, Newport Beach~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1706 CA 92660. Agent: 5HOftT STOP DRIVE-TIiRU, 1444 N. Glassell, Orange, CA 92667. Property described as an ;rregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of appr~ximately 0.3 acre, having a frontage r,f approximately i63 feet on the west side of Kellogy Drive, having a;naximum depCh of approximately 125 feet,being located dpproximately il$ feet north of the centerline of Orangetharpe Avenue~ and further described as ~703 Kellogg Drive. keque~t to permit a drive-throu~h restaurant with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Property presently classified CL (COMMERCIAI, LIMItED) ZQNE. J. J. Tashiro, Assistant Planner~ reported the petitioner had requested a continuance to June 20, 1977,in order to obtain additional information. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner King, and MOTION CARRIED (wilh Commissianers J~hnion and Linn absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby continue consideration of the subject item to the regular meeting of [he Planning Commission of June 20, 1917, for additional information~ as reyuested by the petitioner. 7he petitioner was not present at this time in connection viith Agenda Items 2 and 3• Chairman Pro Tempore Tolar called for conside~ation of Itern No. 4. ,lune 6, 1977 17-3b~ MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINf, COMMISSION~ June 6~ 1977 77-367 ITEM N0. 4 PUBLIC HEARING. Owner: JAMES A. AND GRACE LIBERIO~ EIR~NEGA VE DECLARATION 1720 W. Le Pelma, Anahetm, CA 92801. Agent: DQN M. RECLA IFICATION N0. -77-58 BROWN~ 1720 W. L~ Pelma Avenue~ Anaheirn~ CA 92801. S,~Jec.t property, irregularly-shaped pa~Gel of land consisting of approxtmately 1.3 acres located at the northeast corner of Anah~im Baulevard and Lemon Street.having approximate Frontages of 380 fcet on the north side of Lemon Street, and further described as 1020 N. Anehetm Boulev~rd. Property presently classlfied CG (COMM~RCIAL, GENERAI) Zo~e. REQUESTEO CLASSIFICATION: ML (INDUSTRIAL~ LIMI':D) ZONE. There was no one appearing in opposition of this request. Although the ~taff report dated June 6~ IyJj, was nat read at che public hearing, ir is referred to and made a part of the minutea. Jart~es A, L.ibcrio, propcrty owner, was present to answer any quest.ions~ but had nothing to add to the staff ~-eport. THE PUBLIC HEARING ~AS CLOSED. ACTION: Cormnissioner King offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner David. and MOTION ~ CARRIED (Comnissioners Johnsan and Linn absent) that th~ Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the subJect project consisting of reclassification from CG to the ML zone on approximately 1.3 acres of land lor.ated at the northeast corner of Anahelm ~oulevard and lemon Street and d~es hereby recommend to the City Cauncii of the City of Anaheim that a Negative Declaration from the requiremcnt to prepare an environm~ntal impact r~port be approved for the subject project on the basis that there would be no signiftcant adverse environn;ental impacts since the subject property is adjacent to comnercial devel~pment and i~dustrial development ~imilar to the prapasal; that there would be no individual or cumulative adverse impacts or the envirenment due to the approval of this Negative Declaration since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for general industrial uses comnensurate with the praposal; ttiat no sensitive envirorimental elements are involved in the propos~l; and the Initial S~~,r~ submitted by the petitioner indicates n~ significant adverse impacts~ and cha: the Neyative Declaration is on file in the affice of the Planning Department at City Hall. Commissioner Herbst asked Frank Lowry, Asst. City Attorney. if approval of the reclassi- fication could include the candition that development be in accordance with the specific plans submit[ed by the pPtitioner and Mr. lowry rPplied that it could. ACTIOt~: Cornmissioner King offered Resolution No. PC77-116 and moved for its passage and adoption, that the Anaheim City Planning Commis~i~n does hereby recommend to the City Council of the City of Anaheim that petition for Reclassification No. 76-77-59 be approved, subject to the condition thatdevelopment shall be accordance with the specific plans submitted by the petitioner and subject to the Interdepartmental G~mmittee Recommendations. On roll call, the faregoing Resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: King, David, Barnes, Herbst, Tolar NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Johnson and Linn ,lune 6, 1977 77-367 ~ ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CIT~ PLANNING COMMISSION~ June 6~ 1977 17-368 ITEM N0. 5 EIR NEGATIVE DECLAaATiON RECLASSIFICATION N0. ~7 VARIANCE N0. 2~_+T~ having a max(mum depth of feet west of the centerli PUBLIC NE~RING. Owner: ROBERT D. AND NAROLDENE V. WIENS, 7536 Vista Del Sol~ Anahelm~ CA 92807. Property de- ~ sc~ibed as an lrregul~rly-shaped parcel of land consisting of epp~or.lmately O.g acre, having a frontage of app~uxl- mately 137 feet on the s~uth siJc of Orongewood Avenue~ approximately 245 feet, and belny IocAted approxlmately 250 ne of Spinnaker Street. Property presently zoned RS-A-43~000. RCQUESTED CLASSI~ICATION: RM-1200 (RESIDENTIAL~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY) ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: Walver of maximum buildinq lieiyht to construct a 21-un(c apartment complex. No one indicated their presence in opposltian of the subJect items. Although the staff repurt to the Pianning Commission dated June 6, 1977, was not read at th~ publ(c heartng~ ic is referred to and m3de a part of the minutes. Robert Wiens~ property owner~ indfcated his prPSence and noted he had no comments to make but was available to answer questic~ns. The proposed trash enclosure location (Item 15 of the Staff Rr.port) was discussed, with J. J. Tashira, Assistant Planner, pointing ~ut this problern had been taken care of. Mr. Wiens explained that aligning the driveway as recortanended by the Traffic Engineer in Item 16 of the Stafif Report would be hard. TNE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSEO. Chairman Pro Tempore Tolar explained to Mr. Wiens that the proposed driveway alignment which does not align with Nautical Street to the north could create traffic problems because of conflicting left-turn movements, He suggPsted that the location of t.he two-story building be changed to the west side of the pr•operty. Mr. Wiens replied that to move the building would put it within 15~ feet of the single- family zoning to [he east. Commissioner Herbst asked if hS~. Wiens had been aware of the Planning Commission's policy encouraging a 20-foot wide landscaped buffer when multi-famEly property i~ developed abutting singlc-family property~ and Mr. Wiens replied tha: he was not aware of it. Commissioner Herbst felt the 10'6" high carport walls abutting the south property line would be an encroachment on the adjacent single-family homes. Mr. Wiens explained that he had tallced with Mrs. Clark, an adjacent property owner, and chat she had no objections and had wished him luck. Commissioner David asked how developers were advised of the Comnission's policy concerning this buffer and A~nika Santalahti, Assistant Planning Director-Zoning, explained that when a developer presents his plans to staff, he is typEcally advised of the policy and enGOUr- aged to provide a suitable landscape buffer. Cortxnissioner Herbst indicated he felt single-family homeQwners are entitled to the pro- tection of an appropriate landscaped buffer when apartments are constructed. Commissioner King pointed out that no one had appeared in opposition. June b, 1977 77-368 MINUTES: ANAIIEIM CITY PLANNING COMM15510N~ June b~ Iy71 77-3b9 EIR NEGATIVE DECIARATION, RECLASSIFICATtON___NO_.__76~7-59 and VARIANCE N0. 2944 (continued Cammissioner Herbst r~stated he felt the carports becking up to the homes would encroach on the s1ng1G-femily rr.s(dential ilving envlronment~ blocking the view a~d impacting air circulation. Commissioner David asked if the p1An could be redesigned to incorparate the Commission's policy and Mr. Wlens stated he did~'t Nnow. Chairman Pro Tempore Tolar stated that he did not like ta delay developers~ but felt the carport walis would be an encroachment. Ne explained that th~ Commission hed recently required the landscaped 'ouffer fui u~li~•~ similar develapmcnts; howcver, there could pos5ihly be a compromise because oF the unusual shape and r~latively narrow width of the subject property. Commissianer Barnes questioned Mr. W(en~ concerning the area in front of the laundry room~ with Mr. Wiens pointing out it would be landscaped. She was concerned about the noise and asked if the entry to the laundry could be redesigned toward the apartmen[ cnmplex~ rather than the single-family homes and Mr, Wicns stated he would do that. Commissioner King stated that the driveway, also, should be redesigned to align with Nautica) Street, as previously discussed. Mr. Wiens stat~d Chat only six carport~~ abut the RS-7200 Zoning, possibly affecting oniy one lat. The Commission indicated the plans referred to by Mr. Wiens were apparently not the s~me as the exhibits submitted with subJect reclassification. Commissioner ~erbst felt maybe this area shouid be considered for garden type apartments. He asked Mr. Wiens how much time ::~uld be needed to rede5ign the plans to incorporate the necPSSary changes. Chairman Pro Tempore Tolar asked staff why had the Commission policy been overlooked and Mr. Tashiro replied tl~at there was no written policy and some apartment proposals had been developed without the full 20 foot landscaped buff~r. Ms. Santalahti stated that a written policy waul~ be established. Commis~ioner Barnes poinLed out that Mr. Wiens' pians were not the same as the plans reviewed by staff and Mr. Wiens agreed, noting he was holding an older set and that the Staff Report analyzed the current plans. Chairman Pro Tempore Talar asked Mr. Wiens if he would like a continuance to prepare reviszd plansand Mr. Wiens replied yes. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Cammissioner King, and MOTION CARRIEU (~ommissioners Johnson and Linn absent) that the Anahieim City Planning Cor.unission does hereby reopen the public hearing and continue consideration of the subject item to the regular Planning Commission meeting of July 6, 1977, for revised plans incorporating the Traffic Engineer's and Planning Conxnissi~n's recommendati~~ns. At 2:OS p•m. it was noted the petitioner had arrived regarding items 2 and 3. June 6, 1977 77-3b9 ! ~: MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CIIY NLANNING CQMMISSION, Juiic 6, 1777 77'37~ ITEM N0, 2 PUBLiC HEARING. Owne~: LAN A CORPORATION, 934 Chestnut EIR NEGA?IVE DECLARATION Street~ Escondido, CA 92025. Agent: LYNN E. THOMSEN~ RECLASSIFlCATION N0. 7-77-57 110 N. Euclid, N222, Anaheim~ CA 92801. P~operty VARIANCE N0. 2~ 1 describ~d as an irregulary-shaped parcel of land con- sisting of approximately I Acre~ having approxlmete frontages of 180 feet on the south side of La Palma ~venue and 25 feet on the west side of Harbor Boulevard, and having a maximum depth of approximately 320 feet. Property presently is classifiPd RM-12Q0 (RESIDENTIAL, MULTIPLE-FAMILY) 20NE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C~ (COMMERCIn~., LIMITED) ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: Waiver af minirnum sCructural setha~k r~ c~nstruct a commercial building. No one Indicated their presence in opposition to the subject items. Although the staff report to the Planning Commission dated June 6, 1977~ was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Lynn Tl~omsen, agent for the property owncr, apologized for being delayed and stated he was available to answer yuestion;. THE PUBLIC NEARlNG WAS CLOSED. Chairman Pro Tempore Tolar questioned Mr. Thomsen whether the driveway to Harbor Bouie~ard was shared with Del Taco, and Mr. Thomsen replied that it was. Conunissioner Herbst was concerned that che exact width of the driveway had been specified in connection with a previous conditional use permit permitting Del Taco. Annika Santalahti, Asst.Planning Director-Zoning, stated staff wuuld check, but she didn't think an exact figure had been a part of that resalutian. ACTION: Commissioner 9arnes offered a rnotion~ s•conded by Commissioner King~ and MOTION CAhRIED (Commissioners Johnson and Linn absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the subject project cunsisting of a classification ta the CL (COMMERCIAL, LIMITED) ZONE and a commercial building with waiver af minimum structural setback having approximate frontages of 180 feet on tht south side of La Palma Avenue and 25 feet on the west side of Harbor Boulevard. and does hereby rqcommend to tlie City Council of the City of Anaheim that a Negative Declaraci~n from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report be approved fo~ the subject project on the basis that there would be no significant adverse mnvironmental impacts since the sub.ject pro- perty is adjacent to similarly zoned and developed properties~ and that there would be no individual or cumulative adverse impacts on the enviroment due to the approval af this Negative Declaration since the Anaheim City GP~~~ral Plan designates the subject property for general commercial land uses commensurate with th~ proposal~ and the {nitial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant adverse impacts, and the Negative Declaratian substantiating the foregoing findings is on file in the Office of the Planning Department in City Hall. ~hairman Pro Tempar~ Tolar asked Mr. Thomsen if he planned to develop per the submitted exhibits and Mr. Thomsen replied yes. Chairman Pro Tempore Tolar asked if che petitioner would conze back to the Commission if there were any changPS and Mr. Thornsen agreed. ~une 6, 1977 77-370 MINUTES, ANAHFIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. June b~ 1977 77-371 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION. RECLASSIFICATION N0, 76-77-57i VARIANCE N0. 2~41 (continued) ACTION: Corrxnissioner Barnas off~red Resolutton PC 77-117 and moved for its passage and edopkion,that the Anaheim City P18nning Commission does hereby re~:ommend to the City Councll of the Ctty of Anaheim that petition for Reclassification Na. 76-77-57 be approved, based an the specific plans submitted and on file in the Planning Departme~t. subject ta Interdepartmtntal Committee Recommendations. On roll call,the furegoing rzsolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Bar•nes. King~ Merbst, Davld~ Tolar NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nane ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Johnson and Linn ACTION: Commissioner Barnes offer~d Resolution No. PC 77-118 and moved for its passage and adoption, chat lhe Anahelr~~ City Planning Commission docs hereby ~~pprove petition for Variance No. 2941 on the basis that th~ parcel is irregularly shaped and abuts property which although zoned RM-1200 is developed with an elementary school rather than residential uses which the reyuired setback is intended co protect; and subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations. On roll call, 1.he foregoing resalution was passed by the following vo[e: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Barnes, King, Herbst. David, Tolar NOES: COMMISSIOP~ERS; None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Jof~nson and Linn ITEM NQ. 3 Owner: LANA CORPORATION, 934 Chestnut Street, Es~ondido~ tIR NEGATIVE DECLAftATION CA. 92025. Agent: LYNN E. THOMSEN, 710 N. Euclid~N222, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.1713 Anaheim~ CA 92801. Outdoar storaye with waiver of (a) maximum fence height and (b} minimum landscaping is pro~ased to be developed with subject property consisting of 0.6 acre on the south side of La Palma Av~nue, 365 feet west af Narbor Boulevard. No one indicated their presence i opposition to the subject items. Alchough the staff report to the Planning Commission Jated June 6, 1977~ was not read at the pubiic hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Lynn Thomsen, agent for the property owner, explained that due to the narrowness ot the parcel, they wished to develo~. outdoor storage on a Lemporary basis until additional properiy can be acyuired from the schoo) district. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner King asked Mr. Thomsen to clar~fy what was intended by the word "temporary" and Mr. Thomsen replied that he did not have a definite time; chat this would depend upon when the school property would be disposed. Comrnissioner Herbst asked what assurance M~. Thomsen had that he could acquire the school property and Mr. Thomsen replied that he had no assurance, but that the school property would not have the street frontage. .1une 6, 1977 77-371 ~.,. MINUTES, ANAHEIM GITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Junc 6~ 1977 71'37? EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, CONpITIONAL USE PERM17 N0. 1713 (continued) Commisst~ner King asked Mr. Thomsen if he had considered other uses and Mr. Thamsen explain~d it was very difficult to try to do anyth(ng wlth that particular parcel of land end felt a temporary use would provtde revenuc and improvements to the lot. Ht asked the Commission for suggestlons for e bettpr use. Chairman Pro Tempore T~lar explained thac Commisslon cauld noi give hlm suggestions but that he persvnally felt an outdoor storage area was not a desirable use for that site, and Commissloner Herbst egrPed. Commi~sinner Hcrbst pointeci ~~~t che traffic cond(tfons in the ares stating the inter- section at Harbor Boulevard and La Palma llvenue was or.t of the busiest; and suggested Joint development with ad,jacent properties. Mr. Thomsen asked if the obJectic~n was to the use or the lack of scr~eni~~~~ ur the lack of a time limit; and Commissioner HcrbsC replied it wrs all three and Chairman Pro Tempore Tnlar re~lied he obJc~cted to [he usc. Mr. Thomsen asked the Corm~ission again for direction as to what they consid~r a feasible use for the property and Asst. City Attorney~ Frarsk t_owry~ replied that the Commission should not go on record as indicating a specific use in [hat it. coulcf later be construed as pre-Judging if subsequent Commission action were required; and they would~ iherefore, not be able to vote. Commissioner Herbst stated he disagreed with the Negative Declaration because this use would have an adverse effect ~n the neighborhood. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner Kiny, and MOTION CARRIEC (CorTMnissioners David and Barnes voting no and Conm~issioners Johnsan and Linn absent)that the Anaheim City Planning Commissiun has reviewed the subject proposal to permit outdoor storage with wa'ver of maximum fence h~iyht and minimum landscaping cn an irregularly shaped parcei consisting of 0.6 acre loca[ed on the south side of La Palma Avenue approximately 365 feet west of the centerline of Harbor Boulevard and does hereby recommend to the City Council of the C3ty af Anahein~ that a Negative Declaration from the requirement tu prepare an snvironmental impact repqrt be denied for the subject ~roject on the basis that there would he a significant adverse enviran- mental impact ,~i tl~e neighborhood because the proposal is not c.omnensurate with the existing commercial uses in the area and is more suitable to an industrial area. ACTOON: Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC 77-119 and moved for its passage 3nd adoption, that the l3naheim City Planning Comm~ssion does hereby deny Petition fo~• Conditional Use Permit No. 1713 to permit outdoor storage because the proposal is not commensurate with the existing commercial uses ln the area and is more suita5le to an industrial area; that the proposed fencing will not adequatcly screen the use from La Palma Avenue (an arterial highway); and that although petitioner indicated the pro- posa) would be temporary, petitioner cou~ld offer no such guarantee. On roll ca{l, the foregoing resoluticn w~s ~assed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS; Herbst, Kin~, Barnes, Tolar NOES: COMMISSIONERS: David ABSENT: COMMISSIQNERS: Johnson and Linn Commissioner David indicated his negative vote was due to this being a narrow site and difficult to develop. .1une 6, 1971 77-372 MINUTES: ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 6~ 1917 1T-373 ITEM N0. 6 PUBLIC HEARING: Owner: PABlO V, AND LAURA KNOWLTON ____~ EIR NE6ATIVE DECLARATION DGMINGUEZ, 1253 E. Santa Ana Street~ Anahelm~ ~A 92805. RECLA SI ICAT N NO ~~77-69 Ayent: THE ROBER~ P. WARMINGTON COMPANY~ 1788~ Sky Park Circlc, Suite 205, Irvine, CA 92714. SubJect property~ an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approx(mately 7.9 acres located south and east of the southeast corner of ~ell Ruad and State College 9ouleverd~ having ~pproxi- mate frontages af 458 feet on the south side of Ba~l Road and 458 feGt on the east side of State College Boulevard~ ~nd having a maxlmum depth of aaproximately 607 feet. Proper[y presently is classified ML (INDUSTRIAL~ LIMITEp). REQUESTEQ CLASSI~ICATION: CL (COMMERCiAL, LIMITED) 20NE. Tt~err. was rio ur-N aNNeariny in upNosil.lon of the r~q~~~t. Aithaugh the staff report dated June 6. 1977 co the Planninq Commission was nor read at tl~e public hearing, ~t is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Jim Christensen~ representative of the Robe~rt P. Warmington Company, pointed out the sub- mitted plan would be developed~ but minor changes might accur and would be within the limitations of the zon(ng cude. H~ expl~ined chpt the building designer and landscape architect wsre available to answer any questions. Mr. Christensen referred to Item y of the Indepartmr.ntal Committee Recommendations, asking to be released from the requirement to build a six font black wall because the property line abuts apartment complex with carport walls 11'2~' high. Concerning re-alignment of the driveway on Ball Road~ he stated moving it 6 or 8 feet wauld foul up the parking. Paul Sinqer, Traffic Engineer, explained there will be a turnin~ (ane when the property is improved. THE PUBLIC NEARING WAS CLOSED. Cormiissioner King asked Mr. Christensen if he ~rould comply with the Item 15, additional ref~estorage area, and Mr. Christensen agreed. Chairman Pro Tempore Tolar voiced concern that ps~ple would try to get to the shopping center across 8all Road by crossing the street diagonally and thought that nearly opposite driveways should align. ~~r. Christensen asked if some parking spaces could be designatcd for compact cars only in or•der to ac:commodate this alignment which would reduce the numb~r of spaces and Commissioner Herbst pointed out th~ proposed parking is over the minimum required so this could be done without Conxnission's permission. Commissioner Barrt~es noted the landscaping on the north side arid the i0 foot buffer to the east are not shown as being landscaped, but assumed both areas would be. Chairman Pro Tempore Tolar stated he felt the masonry wall requiremPnt in Condition ~5 was not necessary since the carport walls are over six feet higF~. .June 6, 1977 77-373 ~ MINUTES, ANHHF.IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ June E~ 1977 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND KEGLASSIFIGATION N0. 7~••77•GO continucd ~ 17-374 ACTION: Commissloner barnes offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner King and MOTION CARRIED (Canxnissioners J~hnson and Linn absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed tF~e subJect proposal consisting of classlf{cation to thP CL (COMMERCIAL, IIMITED) zone to construct a commercial shopping center on approxlmately 7.9 acres located south and east of the southeast corner of Ball Road and State College Boulevard~ and does hereby recommend to the Cfty Councfl of the City af Anaheim that a Negatlve Declarati~n from the r~qufrement to prepare an environmental impact report be approved for the subJect proJect on the hasis that there would be no significant adverse impoct~ on the environment since the subJec.t property is adJacent to commercial and industrial development and will not cause harm to adJoining property; thaG there would be no individual or cumulative adverse impacts on the environment due Co the approval of ihis Neyative Ueclar~tiun since the An~h~(m Genera) Plan designates the aubJec.t praperty for qene~al commercial uses c~mmensurate with the proposal~ and the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no ~ignificant adversc impacts. The Negative DecSaration is an fi1P at the office of the Planning Depa~tment in City Hall. ACTION: Commissi~ner Barnes offered Hesolution No. PC 77-120 and moved for its passage and adoption, rhat the Anaheim City Pianning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council of the Ci[y of Anaheim that petition for reclassification No. 76-77-60 be approved, s:~bject to the additional conditions that the driveway on Ball Road will b~ aligned w~th the existing one across the st~eet; that the landscaping shall be incorporated in the setbacks as required by Cod~. Exhibit 1; that additional refuse storage will be provided; and subject to the Interdepartmental Conmittee Recommendations, as amended~ by deleting Conditian No. 5 concerning the six foot masonry wall t~ be can- structed along east proper[y line ~ince 11'-6" high carport walls provide suitable site screening. ~n ro.i call, the fo~egoing resolution was passed by the followiny vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: iarnes~ King, Tolar, David, Her~St NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Johnson and Linn. ITEM N0. 7 PUBIIC HEARING. Owners: JULIUS C. MOLINA~ 3931 Atlantic EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATI4N Avenue, Long Beach, CA 90807 and FRANCES E. DODD, 5738 VARIANCE N0. 29 2 ~ Carlton Wdy~ a111~ Los Angeles~ CA 90028. Subject property, r a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approxi- mately 9,360 square feet, having a frontage of approximately 80 feet on the north side of Vermont Avenue~ having a maximum depth of approximately 117 feet, being located approximately 410 feet east of the centerline of Harbor Boulevard, and further described as 321 W. Vermont Avenue. Request for waiver of (a) permit~ed u~es and (b) minimum number and type of parking spaces to permit an exist~ng illegal triplex in the RS-7200 (RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY) Zone. There was one person appearing in oppos~tion. Although the staff report to the Planning Commission dated June 6, 1977~ was n~ read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Frank Lowry, Asst. City Attorney, read a letter from Mr. C. A. Potts, 409 W. Vermont A,venue~ in opposition to the request. This letter is on file in the Planning Department and is made a part of the minutes. ~une 6, l977 77-374 ~ ,. ~ MINUT~S~ AMAHEIM CIfY PLANNING COMMISSIC~N, June 6. 1977 77'375 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARAYION AND VARIANCE N0. 2q42 (contlnued) Franccs Jodd,the petiti~ner~ stated she was not awarr the property w~s not properly znned for a trtplex when the propnrty was ~urchased. George Forern~n~ 31~ W. Hampshire Ave,. v~iced concern about the illegal conversion feeliny other pevple would be doiny the same typc o' thing if such ~;an~ersions werc accepted; that th(s type oi~ co~~vorsion w~uld devalue the property rather than enhance lhe value. He steted he had knuwn about the conversion for same time~ but thougF~, per- misslon had been granted and that to grant this pCtition would be setting a prPCedent. Mrs. Dodd noted the dwellings h~d existed for a loriy lime. THE PUBLIC 11EARiNG WAS CI.OSED. Chairman Pro Tenpore Tolar asked Mrs. Dodd how long she hac' owned the ~~roperty and she replied that •~scrow had clased in January. N~ askeu hpw she had b~eri notified ~f this illegal conversion and she replied that there had been some hard feelings between ~~eig-i5ors and the former owners and a zoning com,~laint haa been filed. He asked her if the former owners had done the conversion and she repiled that they informed hcr the.y f~ad not. He asked why this had nok come to light whe~ ~' applied fnr e loan and she rr.pl(ed tl~at she had assumed an existing loa•i. Carnmissioner David ~sked if she had purchased the h7me as a tiiplex ar a single family home and she replied as a triplr.x. Commiss(oner Herbst auestioned the lot coverage since it appFared a garage could be built on che site. (Mr Lowry s*.ated that lot c.overage had ~iot been cal:.ulated.) The available parkin.~ was Jiscu~sed, with Commissioner King poin[ing ou[ there was ample on-street parking and Corni~issioner Herbst stating that on-site parking cauld be provided. Mrs. Dodd asked if a carport could be put over tne paved apron. Chairman pro Tempore Tolar stated he felt this was pr~bably o~e of the nicest looking projects on Vermont and didn't lhink it was creating a parking problem. Commissioner Herbst staCed he wanted to know the lot coverage because if there was enough room to svpply Code-rcquired parking~ he c~uldn't agree to a pa,king waiver~ and Chairman Pro Tempore Tolar agreed with him. ~. J. Tashiro, Assistant Planner, reported the l~t coveraye is approximately 33~ and 40~ is permitted in the RS-7200 zone. ~Commissioner Linn entered the meeting at 3:00 p.m.) The Commission discussed whether or not there was enough rc.~om for the required number of on-site aarking spaces. Mrs. Dodd commented on oth~r multi-family units in the area. Commissione~ Herbst asked why the zoning wasn't checked when the unit was constructe~ and Mr. Tashiro reported no building permits had been issued. June 6, 1977 77-375 ,~ "~. MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 6~ 1977 EIR NEGATIVE DECI.ARATION AND VARI'~NCE N0. 2942 (conttnued) 7~-376 The Commisslon dlscussed ~ general plan amendment to consider madi um de~sity residontial land uses since this mlght be vlewed as a transition area because there is RM-1200 zoning to the southeast. ACtION: Commts3ioner King affered a motton~ second~d by Commissio n ~r Davtd~ and MATION CAAAIEO (Commi~sionnr Johnson abs~nt) that the Anahcim Cicy Planni ng Commisslon has reviewed thc triplex illegally constructed on property zoned RS-7 2 00 (Residentlal, Single-Famtly Zone) located at 321 W. Vermont Avenue and does her~ by racommend ta the C(ty Counstl of the City of Anehe(m that a Negative Declarati4 n from the requlre- ment to prepare an envir•anmanta) impact rep~rt be approved for th ~ sub)ecc project on the basis that there would be no s(gnificant adverse environme n tal impacts since the sub,ject triplex is existing and there are othcr e~xisting r,~ulti -famity ~inits In the area; that therc would bc r.o ~ndividual or cumulativ~ adv~rse impacts on the environmen~ due to the approval of th(s Negative Oec.laration sinc e che Anaheim General Plan designate~ the sub;ect p~operty for low-denst ty residei~tia) i and uses corr~nen~urdlC with the pro~sal, and ot;~er rParby properties for medium-dcnsity residential uses; that the Initfal Study submEtt~,i by the petitioner indicates no si gnifir,ant adverse impacts;and th~t the Negative De~:.laration is on file at the Plan~ing Departmpnt in City Hall. Af,TION: Commissioner King offered Resolution Mo. PC 77-121 and move~~ fo.- its passage and ~~ adoption~ that the Anaheim Cicy Planning Cnmmission does hereby app;•ove Petition for Vari~ance No. 2942, (n part, approving waiver of the permitted uses, finding that a hardship exisCs in that che triplex is exiscing and was :,onst.ruc:t~d by a former owner and there are other existing multi-family units in the area; aria denying waiver of minirnum number and type of parklnq spaces finding tha[ a h~rdsh~p does r~ot exist in that there is adequate !ot area avai'~ble `or construction of the mi~imum number of park i n~ spaces . On r'oll call, the forec,~ing resolution was pass~d by the f~llowin g vote: AYES: COMhtI5SI0N~~` King, Herbst~ Tolar, Barnes, Linn, D avid NOES: COMMISSIONER`~: David ABSENT: COMMISSI~NERS: Johnson Commissioner David ir~dicated his neyativP vote was not 9n opposit +on to tfie proposal. but supparted it,as requested~ since the tripl~x was exisrir,g bef ore the present ow~.~r purchased the property and she was not aware it was il~egal. Mr. L~wry reviewed the petitioner's rights of appeal. Commissioner ~;ing offered a motion, seconded by Corr~nissiar~er Da•ii d, and MOTION CARRIED (C~mmissioner John<<~n absent) that staff prepare a general pi~n amendment to consider medium density residenti3l land u~.es for both sides of Vermont A v enue between Lemon Str~:et and Harbo~ 9oulevard. ITEM N0. 8 PUBIIC HEARING. Owners: M! CHAEL T. AND JERALYNN J. EIR CATEGORICRLL~ EXEMPT - CLASS 1 DE FR4NK, 3347 w. Ball Road , Anahe;mf CA 92804. VARIANCE N0. 29 3 Subject pro~erty, rectangul~rl;•-sh~aed parc~l of land ~ consisting of approxim~tely b98y square feet, having a fron~age of approximately 72 fee: ~r. the ,~urth sid2 of 6a11 Road, having a maximum iepth of app;oximately 97 f~et, Seirig 1~ ' approximately 1075 feet east of ths centerline ~f Knott Street and further descrihed as 3347 West Ball Road. Recuest for waiver o` pruhibit~d nonconfor::,ing str~ctural expansion to expand a single -famiiy residence in the f.L (COMMERCIAL, I.IMITED) zone. June b, 1977 77-376 MINUTES~ AN,4HEIM CIT Y PLANNING COMMISSION, June b~ 197? 77-377 EIR CATEGORICALLY EXE MPT-CLASS I, VARIANCE N0, 2943 (con~tnued) Mr. Michael De Frank, the petitioner, stated he w t~d ta convert his garage and build a new garage. THE PUBLIC HEARING WA S CLOSE~. Commissinner Herbst a sked why this was considered non-conforming and Annika Sar~talahtl~ Asst. Planning Direc t or, Zoning, explained it was because the petitioner wanted to expand the existing residence ln the CL Zone, Fr~nk L~wry~ Asst. City Attarney, explalned the legal non-conforming use of the properky and that the petition er needs permiasion ~F the Planning Commissian to expand. The ~~elitiuner explained he intended to occupy the dwellin~ as his home. It was noted the Dir~ctor of the Fla~ning Department has determined lhal ti~c Nroposed activity f~lis within thr. defirition of Sectiun 3.01, Class 1~ of the City of Anaheim Gu~delines to the RP q uirements f~r an Environmental Impac:t Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from che requirement to f11e an Eltt. ACTION: fainnissione r Nerbst offered Rcsolution P~ 77-i22 anci moved for its passage and adopt i on , iha t tlie Anahe i m C( ty P 1 ann i r~g Comm i s s i on does he reby approve Petition for Varianc e No. 2942 finding that a hardship exists in that the petitioner would be denied the right to expand his residential dwelling which right belon9s to others with dwelliny s in resiciential zones because subject property, although zoned coinmercially~ is developed resldential ly. On roll call~the fo r egoing resolution was pas~ed by the follow~ny vote: AYES: COMMiSSI~NERS: Herbst, David~ King, Tolar, Linn, ~arnes NOES: COM~i05510NERS: None ABSFN~: f~MMISSI0NER5: Johnson RECESS•. Chairr^a ~ Pro Tempore 7olar called a brief recess at 3:~5• RECONVENE: The mee~ting was reconvened at 3~25• ITEM NO.~_ PUBLIC HEARING. Owner: DAVID DOERING, 1209 W. EIR CATEGORICALI.Y E X EMPT- CLASS 1 Lincoln Ave.~ Anaheim~ CA 92805• Agent: DONALD CONDiTIONAL USE I'E RMIT N0. 1710 L. SHAF~R, 1203 W• Lin~oln Ave.~ A~aheim, CA 92805. Subject property, irregularly-shaped parce7 of land consisting of approximately 0.7 acrc located at the northwest corner of tincoln Avenue and Carleton Avenue , having approxir~ate front.ges of 1C0 fe~t on the north side af Lincoln Avenue. 105 feet on the west side af Carleton Avenue and 151~ ~eet on the south side ~f Oiamond Str e et, and further described as 1203 West Lin~oln Avenue. Request t~ e.xpand an existing c ocktail lounge and dance hall in the CG (COt1MER.CIAL, GENERAL) Zone. There was one pers o n indicated her presence in opposition t~ the request. Although the staff report dated J ~ne 6, 1977 to the Planning Commission was not read at the public hearing~ it is refe ~ ed to and made a part of the minutes. Dcna1J Shafer, agen t for the property owner and owner of the Marquis Cocktail ~l~b~ stated he need~d a conditional use permit fur• an existing expansian since thp previo~~s owner had expanded the u s e without City ap;~roval. June 6, '~77 77-377 ~ ~I ~ MINUTES, ANAHEIM CiTY PLANNING COMMISSION, June b, 1971 77-373 EIR CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT-CLASS I,CONDITIONAL USE PERMII 1710 (continued) Commissioner Herbst asked Mr. Shafer If he was buying thc prAperty and he explatned rhat he was leasing the praperty and owned the business . Mrs. Mar~aret R, Su 11 Ivan, 1122 W. D i amond Street , Anahelm~ st~ced she I 1 ves around xhe corner from th~ Ma~quls and esked exactly who owned it and Chelrman ~'r•o 1'empore '~oler exp 1 a i ned tl~e prc~pe rty wes ownc.J by Dev i d Doer i ng . Mrs. Sull ivan indieatcd she had ra~d in the newspaper that Mr. poertng was the former owne~ and Frank Lowry, A55t. City Attorney, explained that the owner of the property (s David ~oering but that Mr. Shafer h: appl ied far the condttional use permit as owner of the bus iness, not the prope ~t, • Mrs. Sul I ivan voiced concern that th~ Maryuis was not the tyN~• uf rytd~l ishme~t she f.:lk Mr. Doering hAd indicated ik wauld bc when it was first opened. She producsd pictures and advertisements wh(ch she felt were proof that the propc~ty was n~t being used for a dancc hall, Mr. ShafPr stated he was not conne- ••~d with P1r. Doering, except as a lessce; that the property described by Mrs. Sullivar~ was not the bar itself but an apart~nent in the same bu 1 1 c1 i ng and tha t he I185 noth i ng to do wi th Cha t. THE PUBLIC rIEARING wAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst asked Mr. Shafer if he leased only the qround floor, and Mr. Shafer explained that he only leases ttie ba~. Cc n~nissioner King referred to a l~tier received from Mr, and Mrs. Jeffrey Sacks, 1214 Diamond Street, complaininy about the condition of the landscaped setback on Dlamond Street being ov rgrown wilh weeds. He asked Mr. Shafer if that area was his responsi- b i 1 i ty and Mr. Shafer repl ic~ that he would see that i t i s taken care of . Mr. Lowry read Mr. and Mrs. Sack's 1 etter whi*:h i s referred to and made a part of the minutes. Chai rman Pro Tempore Tolar asked Mrs .Sul) ivan to clari fy which port ion of the bui iding she was referring to and she repli~d that she was referring to the whole building because it all starts at the Marquis Dar. Cha i rnan Pro Tempo re Tolar asked wha t access tl~e re i s to the upsta i rs apartment and Mr. Shafer explained lhere is an outside sCairway. Cortniissioner Herbst ~sked Mr. Shafer if he would comply wich the stipulatiuns made under the orlginai conditional use permit in reiat:onshi~ to upgrading and maintaining the parking lot and Mr. Shafer expl a ir,ed the ba~ manager' ~ son does c:ltan up ~ne parkiriy lot. Cummi~sioner Barnes asked Mr. Shafer how long had he owned the bar and Mr. Shafer replied abou. one and a half months but that he had worked there twice during the pa;t five years. Commissioner Herbst staced he would offer a resolution for approvai fur a period of one year to g i ve the new owner a chance to show wha t he can do. ,lune 6, 1977 77-378 ~ .~. .~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ June 6, 1971 77'379 EIR CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT. CLASS 1 b CONDITIONAL U5E PERMI'1' 1710 (continued) It was noted the Director of the Planning Depa~tmen t has determined that th~ proposed activity Fells wlthin the definition of Section 3.01, Class l, of the City of Anaheim Guidelin~s to the Requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is, thercfor~~ cetegorfcally exempt from the requireme~t to file an ElR. ACTION: Conm+isstoner Nerbst offered a r~tinl~~r icin r~corm~i~nding approval of Conditlonal Use Permit Na. 1710 for a per~i~d of on~ year, wlth the petiti~ner stipuleting to upgrading the parkiny lot and mafntafning it accordtng to conditions of apprae~el of Resolutian 73R-65 adopted (n connectia~ with Conditional Use Permii No. 1360 And to also maintaining the pa~kwey alang Diarnond Street; subject to the riynt of renewal at the end of one year, ~nd ;ubject t~ Indepartmental Ccunmittee Recommendations. On roll call, the f~regoing resolution DID NOT PASS. du~ to a lie vote: AYES; COMMiSS!ONERS: Tolar, Nerbst, Linn NAES; COMMISSIONERS: Barnes, King, Da vid ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Johnson Frank Lowry, Asst. City At[orney, explained the mr+tter would be continued for twa weeks~ in order for Chairman Johnson to break the [ie vote. ITE M N0. IQ ~'UBLIC HEARING. Owner: ANA-PARK, INC., 1557 W. EIR CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT~CLASS 14 Mabl~ Street, Anaheim, CA 92802. Request to CONDITIONAt. USE °FRMI N0. !~ expand a pr~ivate school located in Ml.(INDUS~RIAL, LIMITED)2onr.. Subiec[ praperty is a rectangularly- shaped parcei o` la~d consisking of approximately 1•7 acres located at che southeast co rner of tlable Street and Loara Streeet, haviny a pproximate frontages of 627 feet un the south ~ide of Mable Street an~! 121 feeY on the east side of Loara Street. There was no one appeai~ing in oppositi~n of the re quest. Although the Staff report to the Planning Commission dated June 6~ 19'1 was not read at the public hearing, i t is referred to and made a par~ of the minuces. Kenneth W. Holt, representing Ana-Park, Inc., indicated the ~roposal was to build a cafeteria. TNc PUBLIC HEARING WA5 CLOSED. It was noted the Director of the Planning Departm~ nt has determined that the propused activity falls within the definition of ~ection ~.~1~ Class 14~ of the City of Anaheim Guideline~ to the Requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is. therefor~, categoricaily e.xempt from the requirement to file an EIR. ACTION: ~.~mmissioner King offered Resolution No. P C 77-123 and moved for its passage and adoption, that [he Anatieim City Planning C ommission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 1711 to expand a private school, subject tc indepartmental Committee Recommendations. June 6, 1977 77-319 MINUTES, HNnHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ June 6, 1977 71-38~ EIR CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT AND CONDITIANAL U5E PERMIT N0. 1711 (r.ontinued) On roll call, the fure,yoing Resolution wes pessed by the following vote: AYES: COMMiSS10NER5: Ktng~ David, Herbst~ Tolar, Linn~ Barnes NOES; COMMISSIONERS: None ~BSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Johnsqn I1~.M N0. ll PUBLIC HEARINC. Ow~~r: DUN~ °ROPERTIES, 28 Brookhollow E~~ NEGA7IVE DECLARAT~bN Santa Ana, CA. Request to pe•rmit a recreational CONDITIONAI USE PERMIT N0. 1712 facility ln the CL (COMMERCI~,L, LIMITED) zone on an irregularly•sh~aped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.9 acre, having a frontage of approximately 359 fE~et on the sautheast side of Woodland Drive, having a maximum depth of approximat~ly 187 teet~ and being located approximately 267 feet west of the cen[erline of Maynulia Ave~~ur. There was no c-ie appearing in opposition of this request. Althouyh tne Seaff repo~t to the Planning Comanission :1~[ed June 5~ 197J, was not read at the ~~~hlic. he~ring, it ts re'rerred to and made a parc of ~~ minutes. Commissioner King noted[hat he had a conflict of interest as defined by Anaheim City Planning Commission Resolution No. pC 76-157 adopting a Cunflict of Interest Code for the Planning Commission and Government Code Section 3625, ~t seq., in that he owned common stock in Pacific Liqhtiny Corporation ~-~nd Ounn Properties, the developer of the property and thet pursuant t~~ the provisions of the above cudes~ he was decla~ing to the Chairman Pro Tempore that he was withdrawiny from the hearing in connection with item No. 11 nf the Planning Commissi~n ag~nda and would not take part i,~ either the discussion orthe voting Chereon; and tf~~t he had not discussed this matier wi[h any member of the Planning Corrmission. THEREUPON, fOMMISSIONER KING LEFT THE COUNCIL CHAMBER. The petitior.er presented a color rendering of tl~e propo~ed facilit:y and indicated he was available ta answer questions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ACTION: Coaxnissioner Bar•nes offered a motion~ seconded by Commis!~icner Herbst, and MOTION CARRIED (Convnissioners Johnson and King absent) t~-at Anaheim City ~lanning Commission has reviewed the s~~bject proposal to construc~~ a recreational facility o~~ a parcel cons+sting of 0.9 acre ~n the southeast side of Woodland Orive, 267 feet west of Magnolia Avenue and does hereby recommend to the City Council of the City of Anaheim that a Negative Declaration from the requirementto prepare an environmental impact report be approve~l; that there would be no individual or cumulative adverse impacts on the environment due to the approval of this Negative Declaration; thac aithough the Anaheim Generai Plan ~esignates the subject praperty for qeneral industrial uses, commercial zoning has been approved and both uses are cammensurate~ with the proposal, and that the Initial Study submitted by [he petitioner indicates no significant adverse lmpacts. 7he Negative Declaration is on file in the Pl~nning Departmer~t in C~ty Hall. ,lune 6, 15,7 7~-380 ~ MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 6, 1q77 EIR NEGATIVE QECLARATION G CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1712 (cont(nued) ~ 77-381 ACTION~ Commissioner 8ernes offered Resolutlon No. PC 77-124~ end moved f~~r i~s passege and adoption, that the Anaho(m Clty Planning Commisslon does hereb~ y~~~r. Condittonal Use Permit No. 1712 to cona~ruct a recreational facility subJect to the specific plan submitted and ~he landscape plen as submitt~d~ and subJect to Inter- departmental Comrnittee Recomme~~~iations, On rol) call~ the foregoing resolutlon was passed by the following vote: AYES: CCMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: REPORTS AND REI.OMM~NDATIONS Barne:~ Herbst, Qavid, Tolar~ Linn Nor~e Johnson and King I[em A_ keq,~est for terminatian ~~F Varianc~ Nu. 2485• The staff repoit to the Planning Cortxnission dated June 6, 1911 ~s preser;ted and made a part af the minutes. ACTION: Cornnissioner King offered a motion, second~d by Comm~ssioner Herbst and M0710N CARRIED (Corrmissioner Johnson beinc, ~bsent), that the AnaFeim City Pl~nning Com-~ission d~es hereby recomnend to the City Council of the fity c~f Anaheim that all proceedings in connectfon with Variance No. 248~ be termina[ed, as requested by the petitioner. Item B-Request for Termination of Vari~nce No. 2525• The staff report to [he Planning Commission cJated June 6, 1917 was presented and made a part of th~ minutes. 4CTION: Comnissioner Linn offered a motion~ seconded by ~ortmissioner K.iny and MOTION CARRIED ltommissioner .lohnson being absent) :hat the Anaheim City Planning Cort~nissi~n does hereby recommend to the Cit~- Council of the City of Anaheim that all proceedings in connectiun with Variance No. 2525 he t,erminated, as requested by the petitioner. Item C- Request foi extension of time or~ Variance Ho. 2599• The staff report to the Planning Commission dated June 6, 1~77 was presented and made a part of the min~~tes. ACTION: Commissioner King ~ffe~ed a motion. seconded by Commissioner David and MOTION CARRIED ;Cortmissioner Johnson being absent) that the Anaheim City Flanning Commissior~ does ~~ereby grant the reques[ fo~ a two-year extension of time for VariGnce No. 2595, retruactive ta May 13, 1977, to expire on May 13, 1919• Item D- Re uest of extensi~n of time on Conditional Use Permit Na. 1?.25• The staff r~port to the Planning Commissiun dated Jun~ 6, 1977 was presented and made a part of the minutes. ACTIO~: Commissianer King offered a motion, seconded by Commtssioner Oavid and MOTION CARRIEQ (Commtssioner Johnson being absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recornnend to the City Co~~~cil that a five-~ear extension nf time .lune 6, 1977 77-381 ~ MINUTES, ANAHEIM GITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 6, 1977 11-382 REpORTS ANO RECOMMENDATIONS (contlruad) Item D - (continued) ae approve~ for Conditional Use Permit No. 1225, retroactive ~o April 20~ 1977~ to expirc on April 20, 1982. Item E- Request for an extension of time on Conditional Use Permit No. 1545• The staff report to the Planniny Coi,mission deted June 6, 1977~ was presented and made a part of the minutes. Annika Santalahti~ Asst. Planning Directur-Zoning, repor~ed this request pertains to the animal hospital only wf~ich is to be developed on the no•therly portton af the property. ACTION: Commissioner David offered a motion, seconded by Corrmiissioner King ~nd MOTIUN CARRIED (Commissioner Johns~n absent) l•hat rhP An~hPi~n City Planning Commission does recommend t~ the City Council that a two year AYtensian ui time for Conditional Use Permit No. 1545, relroac[ive ~o June 23, 1976, tc> expire Junc 2.3, 1978, bc granted. Item F- Request for an extension of time f~r Variance No. ZSOd. The st~~ff report to the Planning Commission dated June 6~ 1977, was presented and made a part of the minutcs, Commissioner Herbst a~ke~ if the property had been sold since the oriyinal petltioner stipulated to the condi;i~ns of subject variance and J. J. Tashiro~ Assistant Planner~ reported this was a new owner; that the r.ew owner was not aware of the sti~uiations; and that no complaints have been received since the present occupant acquired ths ~roperty. ACTION: Commi~~ioner King offered a rnotion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, and ~ MOTION CARRIED (Comnissioner Johnsor~ absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commiss on her•eby does aranc ~ one-year extension fur Variance No. 2800, retroactive to May 10, 1977, to expire May 10, 1918, subject to the followinq conditions: '. That the necessary bu~lding permits be obtained within a period of three months. ~. ?hat the room be r~conver•ted into a garage and that the property owner agree to s~+bmit a writter~ request for termination of the v~riance in the event that tr~~ ~roperty is sold. Item G- Abandonment No. 76-18A - Requesr, for a~~-~ndonmer,t of ~~vr[ion of public utility easement. Frank Lowry, Asst. City Attorney, presented ~ request for abandonment of a portion of public utility easement in accordance with Section 50435 of the State of Califarnia Government Code requiring the Planning Commission to act before a vacatian of an easement can be ordered. It was nated the Director of che Planning Department f~a5 determined that the proposed activity falls Nithin the definiti~n of Se~tion 3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the Requirements for an Env~ronmental Impact Report and is, therefore~ categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. June 6, 1~77 77-382 'l i , ` MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 6, 1977 77-383 REPORTS AND RECOMMENOATIONS (continued) Item G - (contir__ nued)w ACTION: Commissioner Barnes offered e mor.lon~ seconded by Commissioner King and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim Planning Commission doea recommend thet the Utilitles Qepartment's recommenda~tlonbeaccept~d and Abencionment No. 76-i8A be granted, ADJOURNMENT There being no furth~r business~ Commissioner King offered a motion to adjourn the meeting, seco~ded by Cammissianer David and MOTION CARRIED (Commissione~ Johnson absent) thet the meeting be ad~ourned. The mecting adjourned at 4:OQ p.m. Respectfu';~r submitted, ~~'`'~'w ~ , Edith l. tiarris Planning Commis~~Ion Secr~tary