Loading...
Minutes-PC 1978/02/27C i ty Ns I 1 Anatictm~ Csllfor~l~ February 27. ~978 REGULAR_MEETIt~G OF THE ANAIIEIM GITY P~/WI~11lG GONMIS~101~ ______.~ ..-- REGULAR - The regular meetinc~ of thG Anet~eim Clty Planning Commission was calle~d to MEETING ordor by Chairman TalAr at 1:30 P.m•~ February 27~ 1~7~~ 1n the Counci) Chamber, a quorum being present. PRESE:NT - Ci1/11RMl1tl: Tolar COt1MISSIONERS: Barnes~ Uavid~ tlerbst, Johns~n~ King Al35ENT ~ COMMISSIONERS: Lfnn ALSO PR~SEUT - Jack Wh(te Jay Tltus Anntka Santalal~ti Jay Tashiro Edith Harris Deputy C 1 ty At torney Officc Engineer Assistan t Director for Zoniny Assfstant Planner Planning Commission Secretary FLEUf,E OF - The Pledge of Alleglance to the Flag was led by Commissio~er Johnson. ALLEG I Af~CE APPROVAI. OF - CAnmissioner Johnson offered a mc~tion~ seconded by Commissioner King and TIIE MINUTES MOT101~ CARRIEU (Commissioner Linn brovedabasnsubmittedthe m(nutes of the meetiny of February 1y~ 1.)73 be app ITCM N0. ~ EIR~ CA-T ORICAL EXEMNTION-CLASS 1 PUIfLIC ~~EAaING. 01n~~.:RS: BERNARbO M. AND MARGARET CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 03 L. YORBA, YORi3A 5110PPI~~G CEN7ER~ 2029 Gentury Park U QU i East, One Century Plaza~ SuiLe 3G60, Los Angeles. CA 90Q6~. AGCNT: CNEVROt~ USA~ INC., 1201 South Beacfi Boulevard~ La Habra, CA 90G31. Petitione~ requests pe~missiun to ESTAf3LIS~l AN AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STA110N 1JIT11 WAIVEa OF PERM~T~oxl- SIGN on prnperey described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of app mately Q.S acre located at the norttiwest corner of Avenida Be~nardo North and Imperial Hlghway~ havin~ approximate frontages of li~G feet on Lhe north side of Aven(da E3er~ardo North and 25~ feet on the west side of Imperial 1lighway. Property presen tly classtfied CL(SC) (COMMERCIAL~ LIMI7ED-SCEIIIC CORRIDOR OVERLAY) ZONE. Chairman Tular pointed out that subsequent ta the lega{ sdvertisement of the RubJect conditional use permtt, staff's furthe~ analysis of tho Initial Study of Environme~tal Impact concluded that a Negative Dec{aration be prepared and adverttsed in o~der for the development to be considered. ACTtpt~; Commissioner King affered a mvtion~ s~conded by Commissioner a~~nes and MOTION CARRIEO (~Commthei~eeularnmeeting fSChc,Pla`nning CsommisslonnoffMsrchal3.e 978~~indorde~ be continuc 9 for steff to advertlse a Negative Declaration. ~a-~o~ z~2~i~a y~NlA4i~DIW:~•• _ - ' ' ~ MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNII~G CUMMISSION~ Fcbruary ?7~ 1978 78'~~2 IT~M N0~ 1 ~~TVE DCCLARATION PUt3L~C NEAR11.,, ONNERS: KONSTANTINOS MANDAS, RECLASSIFICAT_IOt~ N0. ~J-'3-44 ET Ill.~ 910 S~uth Euclid Strect. A~ahelm~ CA 92802. CONDI f10NA- L U E PERMIT NQ. 04 AGENT: EI.E'il M. DOUKIUIS, yf~2 Ti~alla~ Suite ~3~ c~ y Layuna Bee:h~ CA !12f•51. Property described es a "" rectangi~larly-shaped parccl of I~nd conslsting of approximatcly 0.(~ Acre located et the snutheasc corner of Eleacon Avenue r~nd Euc11J Street~ iiaving spproximete frontages of 247 feet on the south sidc of Beacon Avenue and 110 feet on the east side of Euclid Street~ and further descrtbed as If~74~ 167L, '.68~+ and IG3P. Beacon Avenue. Property presently classifled RS-72(-0 (RL'SIUENTI~L~ SINGLE-FAM~LY) 201~C. REQUES7EU CLASSIFICA71011: CL (CCHI~ERCIl1L~ LIMiTLD) ZOt~E. RCQUE5TL0 CONUITION1lL USE: TQ PCRMIT A(-RIVI:-THRQUGH RE57AUR~fIT WITN WAIVER OF RC~ZUIREU BL~GK W/1LL. There were approximntely 2~.i pcrsons indicatiny t~icir nresence in opposition to suhJcct requ~st (13 addttlonal persons entercd latcr dur(ng tl~e hcarinq} ~ an~1 althc.~ugh the staff report to the Plennii~g Commiss(on dated February 27~ 1~7f~ was not rcad ac the public h~ariny. it is referred r.~ and made a part of the minutes. Jay Tashir~, Assistant Planner, reported tt~at a petition iit+d heen submitted contstning approximately 1Q3 signatures in opposicio~~ and subJect pctition is on file (n the Plannin,y Uepartment. Eleni tloukidis~ agent, fndi~ated tf-e request (s for a zone change covering four parcels and a condittona) use permit covertng three of those parcels; tl~ac the fourth parcel wtll be used In tti~ future for the expansion of an existing market; and that the three parcels w111 be used for a drive-chrough restaurarit. Shc indicated the Mendas fam(ly owns the property adjacent to the soutl~, whlch is a rn~rket and has been in existence for 13 years; that they are looking forward in thc near future to e~anding the market; and that they are also looking for comrr~rcial devel~pment of the drive-th~ougls restaurant. She stated some of their cllents have indicate~ they felt thls w~uld be a suitable use because of the quality of the meat sold at the mark.et. She stated t~iey felt this represents an incremental commercial expanslon to an ex!~ting shopping center and Is a~ expansion oF approxlriately lti$. She indicated it was th~ir feelino the houses on Euclid Street have already been heavily impacted by existing commerc(al~ and po~nted out the commerclal between Ball Road direct!y to the south th~augh to lincoln and pointed out the house across the s[reet on Beacon is for sate indicating there has been a great turnover in the area. She indicated it was tl~eir feeling it was better to have an arde~ly, lncremental expansion rather tl~an to allav pieGemcal development~ and that the existing owner/developer Is the loyical way to increase the commercfal. Concerning xha Trafflc Engineer's reco~rnendation to change tiie drivewAy location, Ms. Boukidis ind6cated she had rzdrawn tt~e ploc plan showing the changes requested and indic~ted this does not impact the parlcing because they still would f~ave adequate parking. Concerniny the requested waiver far the required 6-foot bloc;k wall on Beacon Street~ she indicated it was thelr feeling the 3-foat berm could be landscaped and would be more ir keepina wlth the residential nature ~f the neighbarhoud as opposed to putting up a G-foot grefflt( wall on a re3idential street. Shc pointed out the petitioner does not feel thls will remain a resident~al area. She presented a skeich showing the proposed landscaped berm. She lndi~ated eve ry attempt has been made to keep the drive-throuqh restaurant compatlble with the existing area. ziz~i~a MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, februery 27. 1970 78-103 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATIO~~. RECLASSIFIC~TION N0. 77-18~44. CQ~IDITIO~L USE PEF~MiT N0. 1804 (cont.) Mrs. Fo~ruyla~ 1G8~J Chateau~ An~heim~ stated thclr property is o block awey from the proposed prpperty and tt~At thcy arc ve ry much in favar of this p~oJect. Shc ~Inted out they were sel l inca thci r house bec:ause of tlie ~ot se; that tlie dust probl~m Is bed and th~y felt this location is absolutely imNossible to uae ~s a hom~ with 9~,OOQ cars passtng 10 feet from ttielr bedroom windows. She invited tlie Commisston or anyone else to come over and 11sCen ta the nolse. She Inciicated it was thctr feclin~ this is a Gom+~crclal aree because of the traffic. Mr. Farrugia lndicated f~e~ too~ felt this part(cular location is cc-mmerctal property~ and Chalrmen Tolar ~sked if he was referring to his a+n property or to thc subJect property, end Mr. Farrugia ind~:.ated tF-e properties were so slmilar that he was comparing them. Ile ind(cdted it was his personal opinion that tt~is is a comme~cial ~rea and tf progress in Anahetm is desired~ this area St~ould bc devcloped coMmerclally. He painted out a lot of t~~e structures gre over 20 years old .ind he felt thls areA needs redeveloprncnt. R~llin Raushel, iGG~3 Deac.on Avenue~ Anahelm~ an~lc~ffice at 2555 Cast Chapman Avenue~ Full~rton~ Cameron and NofFinan~ Attorneys~ indlcated he wished to rem(nd the Camnisslon that th~ burden of proof in a request for reclassif(catton is upon the applicant~ and he did not beileve tt~at proof ha~f bcen presented; that besically thls area has been resldential for tt~e last :0 years and is still resident(al~ and the nAture of Its use has not ch~nged~ that thc ownerships have changed but thc usr remalns the same. Ne stat~d th(s proJect ontlcipates de~velc~ping the s~uthern side of Beacon Avenue cortmercially nnd asked about tlie north side of Beacon Strcet. lie polnted out that r.ach and every one of thnse people present in npposition have e land interest In a p~oper[y which will be affected by this reclassificatio~ and that an additlonal 13 persons had entcred t1~e Council Chamber after tl~e opposition had been coun ted . Hr indicated he would like to know wt~at a+ould be tonsidered the change in ctrcurnstances in this caye; that If ttie r~classificatiun is appr~ve~ and a fast-food fecility is allowed~ that would be the chanUe of circumstance~ and that thi_ project would be adding in~~eased traff(c~ trash problems~ an<i police protection for keepfny the nefghbariiood safc. He indicated lie did not know Fww much dust the current owners I~ave in their particular homes~ but th~ opposltion would Attes2 to the fact that they are sattsfied with the restdential nat~~ra of the communi_y as (t stands today. Mr. Raushel pointeci out tl~ere are i~o less than 17 similar establishments between Bal) Road and Lincoln Avenue, and tl~at it is tl~e feeling these estahlishments are sufficient to deal with the needs of the commw~ity. Further. he pointed out the reclassiflc~ation would rufn the curre~,it resiJential nature oF Beacon Avenue and ayain pointed out the burden r~f proof is upon the applicart and has not been yiven; and that there has not been e change in the circumstances. He stated the petitioner has pointed out the meat market is dotng well and needs expansion~ and that is not a change of circumstances which would warrant the reclassification. Secondly~ bec.3use a few neighbors would like to have the drtve-th~ough restaurant is not a chanye of circumstaiices ta the cormwnlty itself; that the ownershfp has possibly ct~anged~ which is true of any residential area in Southern ~alifornta~ but that the use has not chanyed~ and that these were the thoughts and feelings of inembers of the community who would be acJversely affected by t1-is reclassification. Sally Whitc, ~309 West Broadway~ Anaheim~ tndicated she had owned the property at 1651 West Beac~n Avenue for eight years and thet she obJected ta this invasion on the residential area. She Indicated she was a realtor and realized what happens when commercial is allewed in a neigh~orhood~ especially food service. She pointed out she now lives one block from a similar establishment and it takes approximately one block ta eat a hamburger 2/27/78 S MII~UtES, ANAHEIN CITY PLAt~NING COMMISSION~ Fcbruary 27~ 197a ~a'~~~~ EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION RECLASSIFICATION N0. 77-18•44 CONUITIONAL USE PCRN17 N0. 1804 (cont.) or drink a coke and her yard ls a trash receptecle. She stated she hoped tlie Commissi~n realixed if they consider ~pproval of thls proJect that ~~Slie,strted sheAdoes3notAwant Glty of Aneh~im and that loss is the pride of ownership. thls change and felt it would causr. cha~yes tn tFie volue af the propcrties. Vernon Sharp~ 1Gft7 Wast aeacon Avenue~ Anaheim~ indicoted he wes the orlginal ~wner of one of the propertles being considered for reclasslficetion at 16a4 West Beacon Ave+nue and that he was oppo5ed to the reclassific:atlun for a drive-t~~roue~h restauront because of potential prablems that could be cnuseJ. Na polnted out he llves di~gonally across from a sirnllar establ ist~ment and there have been problems wi th trast~, burglaries, etc. ~ and hG tl~uught tl~ls woul~ nat be any bccter. He p~inted out I f the appllc~+tton was for expansion of Food Land~ he woulJ not be opposed~ but that he was opposeci to a drive-through rCStaurant. Ms, Boukidis potnted out potentlal prablems~ sucii as traffic, trash~ police protaction~ etc., caused by drive-tl~rough restaurants were noc necessarily concerns af tl~e Commisslnn; that their concern was for a zone change and a c~nditlonal use permit for the restaurant. She pointesd ouC the zone chan~~e was partlally for tt~e expansion of Food Lanci. She stated she felt the only trasli carricd into the neighborhood on Bcacon Avenue would be by thnse pcaple who live in the neiyhbonc~~od. She stated tt~at in addition to c~mnercfal changes causing chan,yes in the chAracGer of a neighborhood, absentee ownerst~ip is a cause for cha~ye in the character af the neiyhborhood. She polnted out they were not talk(ng about the nelghbcrhood behind the exicCing marl:et which is a res{dential area. but that an orderly and logical edge of the commercta) zone is not in the midJle of a block but Is a street. She stated the fact that therc have bcen no residential applicatio~s in the neig~iborhood has no affect on the zone chanc~e and stated there were probably cm1Y about eiyht lots tn the srea that could apply for a zone change and that. those pe~~ple directly on Euclid 5[reet find this logical; th~t Euclid Is an arterlal highway with a tremenduus amount of trafflc and the area Is chang(ng. TNt PUBLIC IIEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Tolar asked Ms. ~oukidls why s~~e felc thls actiun would not breaV: down the residentlal (ntegrity af the neighborhood when, in fact, lhc four lots would dump all traff(~ into the Beacon Avenue area~ whicli would eliminate the resfdential integrlty of a nelghborh~od. and Ms. ~aukidis pointed out the major trafflc of the drive-through restauront is through the drive-through and that the majority of the traffic goas onto Euclid Street. Chairman Tolar pcinted out the plans show ingress and egress an Eie~con Avenue, and Ms. Boukidis replied that access is for the people coming from Beacon Avenue. that tht main entrance is on Euclid and that the rtaajortty of thC back~up space is provided on the property. Shc stated that if the access ontc~ Beacon Avenue is an issue~ it could be changeJ. Cor~missioner Herbst pointed out this s(tuation was parallel with a simitar application approved last year on Gilbe~t and Lincoln with residential across the street on Gllbert and no access was allowed on Gilbert. He indicated he would not object to an expansion of Che rttarket [o take care of the existing business, but he would not be in favor of any type of access onto Seacon Avenue since it is a residential street and it is destlned to remain a residenttal street. and that there would have to be a subxtantial landscaped buffer to take care of any nolse fram the market. He indicated he would be e;~posed to any drive- 2/27/78 MINUTCS~ ANANEIM GITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ February 27~ 1978 7~-IOS EIR IIEGATIVE DECLARATION. RECLASSIFICATION N0. 71'78'W4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1804 (cont.) through reataurant on that cornor since he fclt it would be an Inv~slon of privacy to the restdentla) area becausc of the hours of opcrat(nn. Ms. ~oukidts Indicated that ~ lettcr has been f(led stating the i~ou~s of operation wlll be from 10:00 a.m. to 10;00 p.m., whlch are the same hours as the market. Comm(ssloner Herbst indicated he felt en expanston to the existing market could be dnalgned (n e manner that would ~ot be obJectlonable ta the nelghbors~ but that a driv~- ti~rough restaurent does create a continual flow of traffic and he would be opposed to that type operatlon or ~ny develo~ment which provided access onto ~oacon Ave~ue. Chalrman Tolar stated hc did not view this property as commerc(al and ogrced that Euclid (s an arterial high~aay and polnted o~~t the Planninq Commissior. has eliowed highcsr block walis on proparties frontinq on arterial highways to protect the residenttal Integrity. He polnted o~t this proje~c would bc brc~king down the Intee~i'ity of four laks and hk could noC support it. Ne felt th~~t wauld be just the beginning of brcaktng down the residentlal Integrity of the entire ~rea. He fclt these prop~rtics could be used for resldentlt+l homes end that there ~as no reason. at this tlme, the property should be rcclassif(ed as cor•irnerclal property. Ne tndicated he was not opposed to ax~+onsion of the existing market, but that It sh<~uld not bc done at the expense of tha othe~ homeowners. Ms. Boukidis polr~ted out cl~e widening of Euclid is part of th~ problem and chere is no srace. Commissioner Johnson asked ConxnisSioner Iferbst if he felt approval of the ~aclasslflcatlon could be handled at this time with tt~t cond(tionAl use permtt beinc~ denied. Commissioner Herbst stated he wnuld want some sitc developm~nt standards before approving the reclassifics~tion. f~e felt sincr. these four homes do back up to existinq commercial, the reclassification would be appropriate ar-d felt if the fou~ residences are removed~ with the proper landscapiny to provide the buffer necessary and with n~ access onto tieac~n Avenue, it would be a viable proJect. Ms. Eioukidls indicated the petitioner was w(lling to separate the condi[tonal use permtt reyuest fram the zone chanye request. Cha(rman Tolar indicated he would question the potential of the four propertle3 on the north side of Beacon Avenue and felt if the reclasstfication was approved, those homeowners would be wantiny to rezone their properties In the very near future. Commisstoner Nerbst indicated he ~elt sub}ect property could be developed and would not detract from the hnmes across the street; that there would be no traffic onto Beacnn Avenue. and felt with the proper landscaping and lighting, thts would be beneficlal to the nelghbarhood; that the petttioner is talking about enlarging the existin9rovinetthed indicatad he aould ltke to see some site development ~tandards before app 9 request. Commissioner Johnson ~ndicated he did noc feel that could be considered in conJunction with the present applica*.ion~ and he d;d not feel the o~ners of the market had shown any interest in pratecting and beautifying the area and he did not know why they should suddenly ~eve a change of heart. Commissioner BarRes asked if anyon~ present had lived In the four homes being referred ta, and Indicated she was Interested in testimony of the people who had lived there as to the notse. etc. 2~27~~8 ~ MINUTES~ ANNIEIM CITY PLANNINC COMMISSION~ February 27~ 1978 7S-1Q6 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION. RECLASSIFICATION N0. 77-18-44. CONUITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1804 (cont.) Ronatd Reese. 1670 Beacan Avenue. Anaheim~ lndicated hls praperty Is adjacent to subJect p~operty snd that hu has had his fence knocked daw~ s~veral times end felt the Incre~se in the t~afftc would be s hoza~d to his property. Chalrman Tula~ Indic~ted the Planning Commisslon has speciflc plans before thbut hedstllll his t'emarks wero nat dlrected at Ms. Boukidis or the own~rs of the prope.~ty, malntalnnd his pasition that cl~e Planning Cammisslon has specific plans i~~ terms of reclesslficntion for a fast-food restaurant and that is what thcy should a:t on. Ms. k3oukldis asked if it would be possible to amend the application for two separatc items. and Jack White~ Deputy C(ty Attorney~ pointed out he diJ not think it would be appropriats for khe Planning Commisslon to e~t~rtaln a rec~s~~~nershand,adve~tisiny the emendment ta thc appltcatlon without ren~t(fylnq tlie prop ty hearing; that they have one It~m bcfore them and that Is what khey sl~ould be considnring, not a partlel type of ~fevelopment to allow Lhc redesi~n ~f plans fn mid•stream. Hc felt the petitioner should ~esubmit precise plans if this appt~c~~tion ts dnnied. Chalrman Tolar indicated he agraed that the Plenning Commission hlicatfe~inEbefore tl•anr~t changes In plans in the past. but felt they should act on the app the present t(~ne. Commissioner Herbst indicated he was not in favor of the condit(onal u5e permlt but felt~ under the pr~per clrcurmtances, the rr.classiflcation ct,uld be approved. Mr. White polnted out the Commission must act separate~y on the four ic~ms before them, and that eny naw plans wuuld have to be submittec: with a new applicatlon. ACTION: Commissluner Johns~n offered e motion~ seconded by Commissloner aarnes and MOT10~1 CA`RIED (Commissioners King and Tolar voti~g no~ and Camm(ssioner Ltnn being absent). that the Anahelm City Plannlny Commission has reviewed :he req uest for reclassification of zoning from RS-7200 (Residentiel~ Single-Family} to CL (Cortmerctal, Limlted) and a cor+ditional use permit to permit a drive-through restaurant with a watvcr of requlred block wall on a rectangula~ly-sl~aped parcel of land consisting of approxim~tely 0.6 acre located at the: southeast Gor~er of Beacan Avenue and Euclid Street, having approximate frontages of 2~7 feet on the south side of Beacon Avenue and 110 feet on the east sidt of Euclid Street; and does he~eby approve the Negative Oeclaratian frorn the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report o~ the basis thAt th~re would be no signlficant individua) or cumulative adverse environmental impact due ta the approval of this Negattve Declaration since the Anaheim General Plan deslgnates the subject property for comm~rcial- profession~l and low density ~esid~ential land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive environn~enkal impacts are involved in the proposal; that the Initial Study submitted by the petitloner in~icates no significant indivtdual o~ cumulative aJverse environmental impacts; and that tl~e Negatlve Oeclaration substantlating the foregoing flndings is on file in the City of Anatieim Planning Department. Prior to voting on th~e neyative declaratlon~ the Commisston discussed whether or nat they felt an environmental impact rep~rt would be n~cessary on this project~ and Mr. White pointed out he felt the Planning Department staff would take the Commission's feeltngs into consideration if a new appiication is submitted. AC_ OW: Commissioner Johnson off~red ResolutiAn No. PC78-33 and moved for its passage and adop~.ion~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny Petitic+n far Reclassificatlon No. 77-78-44 on the basis that subJect property is noC deslgnated for general commercial use and sub~ect project wnuld be an extr~eme violation of the 2/21/78 76-107 MINU7E5~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ February 27- ~97a EIa NEGATIVE DECLARATION RECLASSI~ICATION N0. - 8-44 CONDITIONAL ;1SE PERMIT N0. 1804 (cont.) residentlal nature of the aroa and ghLi~he public convenlence~ heelth and welfare does not requirc ~eclassificstion at thi On roll call~ tha forogolny resoluti~n was passed by the foliowing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: E3ARNE5~ OAVID~ HERUST~ JONNS01~~ KING. TOLAR NOES: CQMMISSIQNERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: LI~~N Commissloner Johnson offereG,C~yP~anningNCommisslon d esmhcrebY~de^Yspetltion for adoption. that the Anahoim Y Condittonal lise Permit No. 1~iA4 on tldential intcgritynofpthednei~libarhoodr~, ~~~rcia and would be an incrusion on the res On roll call~ the foregoing resolution was passed by t'he follc~wing votc: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNL'S~ DAV'D, HERBST~ JONNSON, KING~ TOI.AR NOES: COMMI55IOt~ERS: ~~Ot~E AkiSENT: COMM155 IOt~CRS : l INtJ Cartxnlssioner Johnson offerc;d a~TOt~Oat the~request far~waivereofDcade requMOementCbeRI~D (Commissloner Linn being absent), tt denied nn the basis that the Pr~'PO4~p ertyidoesrn'at differ~fromrother,propertlestlc thed for tha request~d waivar e}`~ size~pshape~ topogrAphy~ location or surroundings. same zone and vlcinity as Jack White~ Deputy City Att~rney~ presented thc petiti~ner with the written r{ght tu eppea) the Planning Commission's ~iecislon withln 22 days. Commissioner Johnson indicated he -~ed ~~~~ntaandYthat~itdhadcbeen~aUha~d decisionafornhim favo~ of the residents and nat the pp to malce because some properties along Euclid Street Are required co be buffers far the rest of the area. ITEM N0. 2 p~gLIC NEARING. OWNERS: CALVIN ANU WILNEIMINA E R NEGA VE DECI.ARATION 8-4, MEEKHOF~ 5438 Hanover Drtve, Cyp~ess~ CA 90630. RECLASSIFICATION N0. 77'7 Petitianer proposes reclessification of Qropert~r described a~ a rectangularly•shaped parcel of land roximatel 0.3 ecre having a frontage of approximately 162 feet on the consisting af app Y roxiir+atcl 87 feet. and being west side of Western Avenue~ having a maximum depth of app Y located approximately 1G3 feet no~thhcfRMh120~n(RESIDE~lTIALa1MUL71PLErFAMILY)aZONE43'000 (RESIDENTIAI/AGRICULTURAL) ZONE to t There was no one i~dicating their presence in opposltion to subject request, and although the sta+~f report to the Planning Commission dated February 27, 197$ was nok read at the pubiic heartng~ it is refe~~ed to and made a p~~r: of the minutes. North Batavia, Orange. agent~ indicated thts property Is a very William 5. Phelps. 1259 small. narraw percel and ve nddt~~euis $o~~e~nitPcomplexead,jacent~on~tfietnorth and a two- developed with an egg farm a szo ry unit adJacent on the west. - '-_'~n MINUTE5~ At~AHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIQN~ Februa~y 27, 1918 78-10a EIR NEGATIVE DE_C_LARATION AND RECLASSIFICATION NO.:j7-78-~4r (continued) He indic~ted the staff reporC indicates a problem with che trash vehici~s needinq a 7~- foot turning radlus on a~ 85-foot wlda lot~ and that would be va~y d{fflcult. Ne indlceted the edJacent garages that back up onto Western~an~ present occupents are backing into a 45-foot area. TI~E PUaLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Ghalrman Tolar stated he had nn problem witli multiple unlts but wondered (f there was too much develapment on the site because with the number of units, three of the parking stalis would b~ backln~ out onto Western~ whlch is a main boulevard. Ne lndicated that problem~ ln addi~ion te the trash problem~ would indlcate there 1~ tno much development. Ha st~ted ha cauld not su~pe~rt the proJect with vehicles backing onto Western. Mr. Phelps polnted out that the ad)acent property backs out onto Western also~ and Chairman Tolar repli~d that two wrongs dn not make a right; that th(s is a maln boulevdrd whtch nerrows down toward the corner and vehicles would be backing into two lanes of trafflc. Fle stated he had no problem with the project and apprecieted the fact there ara no varlance5 raquestad~ but that he c~uld not support the plan with the parktng as proposed and felt the plans should be modified. Mr. Phelps asked (f a condition could be added that there be no cars backing out onto Western Avenue, and Chairman Tolar ruinted out this is one of those Isolated cases where he felt a continuance wouid be in order fo~• the plans to be redesigned. AC_TION: Commissioner Barnes offered a mc>tion~ seconded by Commissioner David and -~OTION CARRIEO (Commtssioner Lir~n beiny absent)~ Lhat consideration of t~~e aforementioned ltem be contlnued to the regular meeting of the Planning Commissi~,n af Marth 13~ 1975~ In order for the petitioner to submit revised plans. Commissioner King pointed out there is no way thc trasli vehicles could stop ?n frant of the proJect near the south property line because the lanes narrow down next to the curb~ and suygest~d that Mr. Pheips consiJer that tn his redesign. iTEM N0. 3 ~T~'~~T~`'aRICAI EXEMPTION-CLASS 11 PUBLIC HEARItJG. OWNER: STATE COLLEG~ ANAHEIM VAR ANCE N0. 2991 CENTER, 113~+Q West Olympic Boulevard~ p320, Los Angel~:s, CA 90~64. AGENT: AMERICAN SIGl1 COMPAI~Y, Suite 412, 3~33 west MacAr;hur Boulevard~ Santa Ana~ CA 92704. Petitloner requests WAlVER OF MAXIMUN NEIGI~T OF A FREE-STANDING SIGN 70 INCREASE TtiE HElGfIT OF AN EXISTING SIGN on property described s+s an irregularly- sh~ped parcel of land conslsting of approximetely 8.7 acres located narth and west of the no~thwest corner of La Paima Avenue and State College Boulevard, having approxlmate frontages of 264 feet on the north sidc of La Palma Avenue and 783 feet on the west stde of State College Boulevard~ and further descrihed as 10~1-1031 t~orth State College E~oulevard. Prop~rty presently classified CL (COMMERCIAL. LIMITED) ZONE. There was no ~e indicating their presence in oppositton to subJect r~quest~ and although the staff repc~rt to the Planning Commission dated February 27, 1978 was not read at the public heartng~ it Is refer~ed to and made a pa~t of the minutes. Scott Panntck~ representtng American Slgn Company. agent, indicated the petltioner is requesttng a variance to ratse the height of the sign on State Callege Boulevard by 3 f~et; that afte~ the display was erected, it was determined that by the nature of the 2/27/78 w.+«A;»~~ wa,w~aara.~_..,~ MINUTES~ ANANEtM CITY PIANNING COMMISSION~ Februery 2y~ 1978 78-109 EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 11 AND YARIANCE N0. 2 1(conttnued) display It would be mora aesthetlcelly plessfnq to add a decoratfve cap as shown on the p~int; that this was merely a decorat(ve cap end would give the sign more rcadebillty and ~ake It more attractive. THE PUHLIC NEARING WAS CLOSEU. Commissl~ner Nerbst asked if ttia stgn poles were cxtsting And why the varience was needed. Mr. Pannick replied that the ::osc wou~d bc conslderabla to reconstruct the slgn. Commiss(oner Herbst suggested t.he existing poles be Iowered 3 feet ~ecause the readerboard wc~uld be more readable if pleced in tlie lfne-of-sigl~t with the traFfic. Mr. Pannick indicated thee the owners wished to keep the slc~n at the exls[iny lieight. Commissianer Hefbst fndic~~tcd he did not see any hardship end f~lt the sign would be more readable to the drivlny publtc if lt were lower. It was notad L.he Director of the Planning Department or hls authorizcd reprasentative h~s determined that the proposed project falls w(thin tt~r. definltlon of Categorical Exemptlon~ Class il~ as deflned in Paragraph 2 of the City of AnAheim E~~vironmentAl Impact Report Guidelines and is~ therefore~ c.ategarically exempt fr~~m the requlrement to prepare an EIR. ACTIOtI: Commissloncr Barnes offereci Resolution No. PC7a-3S and moved for its passaqa a~d ac~optfon~ that P~titlon for Vartance No. 2991 be denied on the basis that this property does noi differ from other propertles in the same zo~e and vicinity as to the size~ shape~ topography. location or surroundings. On roll call~ the foreyoing resolution was passed by t1~e fallawl~g vote: AYES: COMMfSSIONERS: f1ARt~F'S~ DAVIO~ ~iERBST~ JOHNSON, KING, TOLAR NOES: COMMISSlONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIOPIERS: LINN Jack 4Jhize, Deputy i.lty Attorney, pres~nted the petitloner with thc written rfght to appesl the Planniny Commissi~n's decis~on within 22 days. ITEM I~O. 4 EIR~ CA- TfGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 PUBLIC IIEARiNG. OWNERS: FRANK M. ANO JEAN G. . g BELL. Bell Pipe 6 Supply Company. P. 0. Box 151, Anaheim, CA 92803. AGENT: MICHAEL G. FEDORCHE K~ 20152 Redland Drive~ Santa Ana~ CA 9?_707. Petitioner requests uAIVER OF MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK TQ EXPb1NQ A WNOLESALE PIPE SUPPIY FACI~ITY on property described as an irregularly-shaped pa-cel of land consisting of approxin~ately 1.1 acres havl~g a frontage of approximatPly 20$ feet on the north sid~ of Ball Road~ havt~g a maxlmum depth of approximately 251 feet~ being located approximately 199 feet east of the centerline of Claudina Place, ~nd further described as 215 East Bali Road. PropErty presently classified ML (INDUSTRIAL~ LIMITE~) ZONE. Th~re was no o~e indicating their presence In opposition to subJect request, and atthough the staff report ta the Planning Cortimission dated February 27, 1978 was not read at the pubiic hearing. it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Zi2~i~a 197g 78-ito MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANN'NG COMMISSION~ february 27~ 2993 ~~ontinued) IR CATEGORICAL EXE~P TION-CIASS 1 ANO VARIANCE N0. E Michae) Fedo~chek~ ag~nt~ Indic`1Q~d ~an to construct~a 12WOOOcsquArehfoot buildi~9~rnum sotback elong Bal1 Road; that t y P adjacent to the ex{sting bullding whlch has e 25-foc~t satba'k~ c~~~~s°along'adilkito~d are maintaln the same line of dcsign~ and that at~~er existin9 P P sot back approxlmately 2> fcet. TNE PUOLIC NEARIi~G W AS CLOSED. at the Chairma~ Tolar pointideouiht~ha~titloner would~haveaadequatesperking~tanci~polnted out Che northerly property 1 n~ P only problem he could see withecit~~~rntoastipulateeto closing~off thacddrlveway and ut onto Dell Road and asked tho p putting In scxne ty~e of landscaping rather than the four parking stalls, and Mr. Fedorche so stipulated. It was noted tha Plonniny Director or his authori=.ed reproricaltExemptioneiClassel~tast the proposed pra)ect falls within the definition of Categ deflned in Paragraph 2 of the Ci~y of Anaiieim Environmental Ompact Report Guidelines and is~ therefore, categorically exempt from the requlrerrM:nt to prepare an EIR. ACTION: Commissloner King offered Resolutiar~ No. PC78•36 and ~~~ent~Petitlongfqge and a opt an~ that the Anahelm Clty Planning Cort~mission does hereby g Varlance No. ?9~13 on the basis ef develared~wl tt~ ahs~imi lartsetbackeandndenlalf wouldhbe ottier propertles in th~ ~rea ar p ~ncrs~ s~nject to petitioner's stipulatlon denying a prlvilege en,joyed by other property gaid to ellminate nne drivewae tha~ aeea,Rand sub)ect toulnterdepartmentalgCommtttee driveway anJ to landscap ~ecommendattons. On roll call~ the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMI55lONERS: BARNES, L,~VID. NERDST~ JOHNSOtI~ KING~ TOLAR NOES: COMMI55lONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: LINN t TEM N0. 6 E F~ CA EGORICAL EXEMPI'ION-C1A5~5 1 PUat.IC HEARItIG. bWNER~ ~,R~11 PLostAngelestyC~ rP•~ ~ 0 0~ US' 'RM T N. 1801 Lentury Park East~ . N 1~ER OF COOE REQUIREMENT 9ooG7• AGF.NT: RAY SIIYERMA1~~ 654~ East Serrano Avenuc~ Anaheim- CA 92807. Peritioner requests permission t~ ESTABLISN A WINE TASTING FACILITY WIT11 WAIVER OF MINIMUM NUMBER OF PAaKiNG SPACES on property described As a rectangularly- shaped parcel of land cvnsisting of approximately 3.~ acres located at the n~rtheasterly corner of Serrana Avenue and Nohl Ranch Road, havbng approximate frontages of 485 feet on the north side of SerranU Avenue aranoSAvenue.~nPrapertytPresentlyNclassifiredRCL~HS(SC) further described as 6501 East Ser (COMMERCIAL. LIMITED-NILLSIDE-SCEt~IC CORRIDOR OVERLAY) 20NE. There was no o~e indicating thair presence in op,~sitlor~ to subject raquest~ and although the staff report to the Planntng Commission dated February 27~ 197a Was not read at the publlc hearing. it ts referred to and made a p~rt of the minutes. It was noted that the Hl ll and ~- ~yon M~.~Ec~Pal .Advisory Canmittae (HACMAC) reviewed the above prop~ al on february 14., ;c •. che spplic~nt l~dicated the proposed business Z~~~~~a M I NU7E5 ~ ANA~IE I M C ITY PLANN I NG CO MM I 55 ION, Fehruar~ 27. 1978 78-11 1 EIR C.'1TEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 AND CANDITIONAI USE PEaMIT N0. 1805 (continued) would consls• of wtne-tasting cla sses et his store during the evening hours, with an averege of 15 to 20 peopln at es ch meeting tol~oar I~ctur~s end sempla wine. On a roll call vote~ six me mbers voted to ~econxnend approva) ~f the permit snd three were opposed due to the negatlve comments rec~ ived from scho~l representAtivos and parents. Ray Sllverman~ agent~ indicated i he request Is to use the rear of the storage area as a wine-tssting classroom and that t he welver for parking ts bet~g requested since these classea are usually at night whe ~ rtK~st of the other buslnesses havo cloaed. THE PUE3LIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst asked Mr. Si Iv ~~an (f ha was awarc cf the parking problem which the Commission Is havtny with thls particular location~ and Mr. 51lverman replied that tliey usuAlly have only 15 or 20 pe~ple in their cln~~ses and tl~at they qenerally start at $:00 p.m. when the centar is Jeserted. Commisstoner 1lerbst asked Mr. Si lvcrman if hewould sttpulotc to those hours~ a~id he replfcd that hc would stlpulatc to ttic hours of ~:00 p.m, to 1~;~0 p.m. Commisstoner Flerbst asfeed what the area would be usecf for if the classes w~.re dlscontinued~ and M~. Silverman ~eplled that would be a storage area. Chatrman Tolar indicated this property do~s back up to residential and the Commission ts co~cerned about that residential property since tt is not pr~tected by a landscaped buffer. It waa noted the P~anning Dtrector ~r h(s authorized representative has determined that the proposed pro,ject falls withi n the definition of Cateyorical Exempt(on~ Class 1~ as defined In ParagrapP~ 2 of the Li ty of Anahelm Env(ronmental Impact Report Guidellnes and (s~ therefore. cateyoric.ally exe~~pt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. ACTION: Commtssioner ~arnes offered Resolution No. PC7r-37 and mc~ved for Its passaoe and ac~optTon, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Petition for Condi tlonal Use Permi t No. 1~305 to permi t A wine-tasti ng facl 1( ty on the basi s that the use would not be detrimentai to the surrounc;ing praprrty and would nox i~npose a burden on traffic into the fac!' :y and would be comp~tible with the uses in the orea in the same zone, and subject to Interdepartrnental Committee recornmencfations. On roll call, the foregoing resolut(on wes passed by the follc~wi~g v~te: AYES: COI~MISSlONERS: BARtJES, DAVID, HERBST~ ,,^HNSOtJ~ KING~ TOLAR NOCS: COMMISSIONERS: NONE AEiSENT: COMMISSIQNERS: LINN Commissioner Nerbst questioned the minimum parking space waivar and asked what would happen if this were not approved ~ and Jack White, Oeputy City Attorney, po(nted out the potittoner would have to p~cvid~ parkiny to Code in some manner. Gommissioner He rbst indicated he was thlnking of the rest of the site and that if the pettttoner could get by without the additinnal park(ng spaces, he did nnt wish to grant the waiver and felt if the 3~ s pacee were granted for thts petit3onerr problems would arise as the shopping center is filled. Commissioner Barnes asked Mr. White if the Com, ~~~'on could grant the waivet based o~ the specified hours. and Mr. White ~e~~lied that this w• uid not be possible. 2l27/78 MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ F~b~w ry 27~ 1978 78-11~ EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 AI~D CONDITIONAI USE P~IT N0._1805 (continued) Commissloner Jol~nson polnted out the last condltional use pe rmit far thi~ center hed been granted~ denytng the request for waiver of perkiny. Mr. Silvermen indicat~d he did nat thlnk porking would be a problem; that 15~20 people coming to the classes at night are usually couplas and they were talkinq about 7 or 8 cars. Ne questlo~ed eteff's Galculatlon In the(r requlrement far one sp+~ce for ;5 square feet~ a~d Jay Tashiro~ Assistant Planner~ polnted out thts ia beaed an the maln essembly area and ~eaulring one space for 3S square feet~ and M~. Sflverman ststed this was not e main assembly area. Mr. Tashlro polnted out that staff i~a~i based thls colcul~ttl~n on past slmt lar requests. Commissioncr Barnes (ndicated that if the requcst for waiver of the Codc rcqulremcnt Is dented. tt would n~t affect thc conditi~nal use permit end offered a motlon for dental of the watver of the Code requl~ement. Commissioner Johnaon Indicated he was not sur~ he understood the sltuation, nnd Mr. White pointed nut the petltione~ Is rGquirad to provtde 3~ sp~+ccs, and if It turned out he nonded only 1~ spaces, he would stlll be requlred to provide 30 spac~s. Commissloner Barnes withdrew her motion. Annika Santalahtl~ Assistant Dlrector for Zoning~ explalned that in thts particul~r case tho staff used catculatlong based on prevlous incidents and that perhaps the number of people attending the classes is restricted. and maybe the staFf analysis was overly stringent end It is possible it could be recalculated. Mr. Silvsrman steted the classes are usually ly or 20 people~ whlch limtts the amount of wine hn will be serving. Ne polnted out that parc of this areo Is retail selling space and part of the area is for storage. He felt the number sF~ould be r~calculated. He potnted out there ts golny to ba a plant shop in ttie cente r, which is mostly storage area~ and that this buildiny (s 60~0 square feet, wlth 30o0 square feet dest~ned for storages. Miss Santalahti pointed out tl~~ak based on a retatl fac~lity. 4 parking spaces would be requlred rather t~ian 3~ and felt ~ flgure somewhe~e between 4 And 30 would be the proper number of spaces requtred and suggcsted that 10 spaces would probably be adequate. ACTION: Commissiorpr ~arnes offered a motior~ seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION A I~0 (Commissioner Linn being abse~t)~ thac tt~e request for welver of the Code requtrement be approved. in parC~ requiring 10 spaces. 2/27/78 u.~irrr.i.rw _- _- Wd. _ ~ _ __ ... ~ MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSiON~ Feb~uary 27~ 1978 78•113 1TEM NU. 7 REPO U RECOMME~ID~TI4NS ITEM A. ORANGE COUNTY USE PERMIT N0. 3893 '~xpanslon of Rancho del Rio Stebles. .~..._ _.._~ ._...^._ -____ The st.+ff repart to the Planning Commission ~latcd Fabruary 27~ 1978 was presenced, notinq the owner of Ra~cho del Rio Stables I~a~ req~esta~J e use permit from Orange County for expanslon of the facllity. an~i tho Orange County Environn-entei Menagement Agency hes requested comments concernin~ the proposal; thet Rencho dei itio Sfsbles ts located (n an un I ncarpora ted a rea sou th of aa 1 1 Roac! on tl~c wcs t s I de of the San ta Ane R i ver ; and tha~t the faGility was establishoci in 1971 under Use Permit No. 3~93 to permtt a maximum of y0 horses and (n 19/`~ the opcratlon waS expanded undcr Use Permit No. 35g~ to permlt a moxtmum af 150 I~orses un 4.4 ecres. At that t~mc~ the Anaheim Planniny Ca-xnisslon and City C~uncll revlewecl the matter and concurred witl~ thr ~roposal~ subJect to the provision tf~at the mobile unit for the cnretaker's residence ba a~.,,rovr.d for one year wlth provisl~n of ren N+al. It was noted ~he proposed expansion would IncreASC the area to 10.6 acres and permit a maximum of 25~ horses, and no compla(nts liave been receiveci about the facillty; that the ar~a Is withln the Ctty of Anaheim's sphere of influence and is IndicAted for industrial use on thc Clty of llnaheim General Plan; that tl~e 4roposal also provldes for arenas~ horse-washin~ f~cilitles. a snack shop~ a meetiny room, and pat(o areas; and that the propos~l Is not In conformance witli the Anahelm General Plan and tlie Planning Corr-mission anJ City Caur~cil I~ave prcviously expressed concern about proposals far non- industrtal uses ln industrial areAS~ how~ver~ it would appr.ar the proposed fACiltty ls approprlate es an Inter(m use in thts location. Richard Tozer~ awner~ was present to answer any questions, Commissiancr Herbst pointed out this area would prabably be developed tn the future end asked how long Mr. Toz~~ expect~d to use thc property for tts present use~ and Mr. Tozer replied that he expecked to continue Che use forever; that three-fourths of the area is under an Edison easertwnt wire and oniy about four a:,res are usable. Commissioner Nerbst pointec! out he ha~ no objections to the use but would like to see tt revlewed approxlmately evcry threc years, and Mr. Tozer pointed out the County pe nr~its a~e usually issueJ for a three-year period. ACTI(1N: Commissioner lierbst offered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner David and MOTION CA D(Conmissioner Linn being absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the Orange Caunty Environrnental Management Agency that Use Permlt No. 3~93 for the expansian of Rancho del Ri~ Stables be granted, subJecx to review at the end of a three-year perlod. ITEM 8. R-BANDONMENT hl0. _Z_7-15A - Partlan of the east half of the norch/south e~7ey ctween L nco n Avenue and 8roadway, and also between Anahcim Boulevard and Clau~lina Street. The staff repurt to the Planning Canmissfon dated Fabruary 27, 1973 was presented~ noting subject request Yo abandon a portion of the east half of the north/south alley that lies between Lincoln Avenue and Broadway, and alsa between Anahetm Boulevard and Claudina Screct is presented for action by the Planning Commisston in compliance with the provtsivns nf Section 8323 of thc Callfornia Streets and Hi~hways Code. 2/27/78 MI NUTES~ AIUIHEIM CITY P1.11NNING COMMISS ION~ Fhbruary 27~ 197~ 7g°~ 1~+ I TEM 8(cont i nuod) !t was noted the Director of the Planning Department or his euthorized representative h~s determined thet the proposed activlty falls withln the dcflntttan of Categorlcal Examptlons~ Class 5~ as defined in Paragraph Z of the City of Anahe(m E~vironmental Impact Report Gufdaltnds and is~ thereforc, categorically exempt from the raqutrement to prepare dn C I R. AC710N: Comm(ssl~ner King offcred a mot ion~ scconded by Comnisslon~r David and MOTION .A(~Rt~EO (Commissiongr Linn bn(ny aGsent) ~ thet the Anaf~eim City Plenning Commisslon does horeby rec~mmend to thc CI iy Caunci 1 that request fur Abandonment No. 77-lyA be approved. ITEM C. VARIAPICE N0. 207~~ - RCquest for review and approval of prectse ~andscap ng plans. The staff report to the Planning Commisslon dated February 27, 1978 wos presented~ noting subJect property ls an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consistfng of approximately 0.8 ae~e located at the soutl~east corner of Santa Ana Cenynn Road a~d Imperlal tlighway, having ap proxirt~ate frantages of 90 feet on the south side of Santa Ana Canyon Road and 5~~ feet on the east side af Imperial Nighway, a~d that t-~~ ~ppiicant, Raneld E. Allen~ requests approval of preclse landscaping plans. Cornnissloner King offerCd a motion~ seconded by Commissioner Dav(d and MOTION C~RRIED (Gommissloner Llnn being absent)~ thai the prectse plans submltted in connection with Va rlanco No. 2fi'J4 be approved. I TEM D. REQUEST FOR CLAR 1 FI CAT I ON OF "STORY" PERTA I N I NG TO RE51 DENT IAL STRUCTURES . The staff report to the Plar~ni ng Commi ss ion ddted Februa~y 27~ 1g78 was presented~ nottng subject property is a rectangularly-shaped parce) of land consisting af approxlmately G000 squa~e f~e~ having a frontage of approximately 60 fect on the north side of tluntington Avenue, and that the appl icant~ Sid Lan~au~ requests approval to canst~uc~t a decorative ta+~e~ (ettlc additfon) an top of a second-stary additfon. Commissioner Nerbst indtcatad he felt thls item should be set for publ ic hearing brcause h~ would cpns(Jer this additton a thl~d story. Jack White, Oeputy City Attorney. poinLed out that if this is considered a third story, then the p~tltloner would havt to file for a variance and a public heartng would be set. He sugges ted that the Code shou ld be c 1 ari f i ed to def i no the term "f loor"; that i t now provides that a"story" is that area between a cclling and floar~ aut does not define e t ther "ce~ I(ng" or "f loor"; that i t should be clarif ied for not only thi s case bu~ any eases in the future~ and recommended that since the the facts of this case a~e before the Commisston, that It should consider that where thare are exposcd horizontal Joists that a ~e capable of supporcing a floor area , ev~n though a floor surface is not dlvided and the a~ca Is at least 6 feet In height and comprisi~g at least 50 square feet, tt shauld be eonsidered a"floor" and that tiiat would make Yhis a separate floor and tt would be prnh (bi ted wi thout a vari ance and wou 1 d not set a precedent for future appl icatlons and would be something the Planning staff eould ~ely on. He sugge~ted that this he done by r~solutlon ~rhich would be referr~d co G1 ty Counci 1 for concurrence. Ct~atrman Tolar clarified that if this action is taken~ the Plann~ng Commission would not be arbitrarily saying they condona what the petitloner (s dotng~ and Mr. White stated it 2/27/78 MINUTES, A~~ANCIM CITY PLANNING COMM1~510N~ f~brusry 27~ 1978 18-115 IT~ EM ~ (co~ttnued) would be Just tf~~ oppoaite; that if it is dete~~nlned this constitutes a flc~or. lt would be prnhib~tnd and the potltioner would have to apply for a variance. Commissloner Herbst pointed out h~ woul~d ba putting a roofline above a raafltne in the 6- foot spaGe. M~. White tndicated it is ve ry difficult tp try and distingulsh between one pers~n's attic and snother person's usable flnor a~ca~ and that is tho reason he has suggasted this criterls. Commlssloner Herbst did not agrne with the SO-square foot ~rea as retommendcd and polnted out this areo could be bn~rded in and used as another room. M~. White stated if thc petttioner boarded it In~ he cou1J use It legally as tt would be part of hts attic. ACTION: Commissioner Nerbst offcrcd Res~lution Nu. PC7~3-38 ond moved for its pessage and ec~optron ~ ihat ttie Anahe i m C 1 ty P 1 ann i ng Commi ss i on does hereby recorrxnend to the C I ty Councll that the .Anaheim Mun(cipal Code be clariflecf to define th~ term "story". On roil call, tlie foregoing resolution was passed by the foilcwing vote; AYES: COMMISSIONERS: HARNES~ DAVIU~ HERF35T, JOIINSON~ KING~ TOLAR NOES: COMM15510NERS: NONE ABS~NT: COMMISS IQ~~EaS : L INN ADJOURNMEN7 There beiny no furtl~er buslness~ Conxnissioner Herbst offered a motlon~ seconded by Commissioner David and MnTION CARRIED (CvmmissionPr Linn being ebsent), to adjourn the meettng to a speclal n~eeting on March 9~ 1978~ at 7:Q0 p.m.~ in the Councll Chamber. The meetiny adjourned +~t 3:00 p.m. Resp~ctfully submtttcd, ( j c~.(.~.. ~( ~ K.it~t..c-a. Edith l. Harris~ Secretary Anahelm Ctty Planning Comnisslun ELN:hm 2/27/78 ::1:~., .... f:b'w'1.\..~..~... ~..