Minutes-PC 1980/10/20~ ~' 1 ~1
~
i
Clvlc Csnter
Maheim, Callfornl~
October 20~ 19n0
REGULAR MEETING OF TNE ANAIIEIM CITY PLANNiNC COMMISSIQN
REGUI.AR - Thc regular meeting of the Anaheim Ctty Plenntng Comntsslon was called
MEETING to order by Chairman Talar et 1;40 p.m.~ October 20~ 19$0
tn the Co unci) Chamber~ a quorum oeing prosent.
PRESENT - Chatrman Toter
Cammissloners: Barnes~ Bouas~ Bushore~ Fry~ Ncrbst~ King
ALSO PRESENT - Jack Whita Assistant City Attorney
Jey Titus Office Englncer
Annika Santalahti Assistant Qtractor for Zo~tng
lisa Stipkovtch Nousing Msnager
Dean Sherer Assistent Planner
Edlth Harris Planning Commiasion Secret~+ry
PLEDGE OF - The Pledg~ of Allegia~ce to the Flag was led by Commlssloner Barnes.
ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF - Commisstoner King offered a mot(on~ seconded by Commissioner F~y
TNE MINUTES and MOTION CARaIEU (Chalrman Tolar abstaining)~ thet tl~e minutes
of the meeting of Octob~r 6~ 1g80 b~ approvcd as submitted.
CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION
Chairman Tolar presented former Piannlny Commisstoner Amin David~ Jr. a Certtficate
of Appreciation for his fou~ years of dedlcated servlce to the citizens af the City
of Anaheim for guldance in the f(eld of lt~nd use, low and moderate housing~ etc. and
scrving as the Cammisslc,n's representative in developing thc progressl~e and
innovative Nousing Elerr+enc.
Mr. Dav(d thanked the Commission and Staff and expressed hts deep appreciation
and stated hls growth was at its peak during that time.
CONTINUED ITEMS
ITEM N0. 4: EIR CATEGORICAL EXEHPTION-CLASS 1 WAIVER OF CODE RE UIREMENT
COND~ONAL USE ERMIT N0. 2122 AND EN A IVE MAP F FtACT N0. 112 : PUB IC
HEARING. OWNERS: LEWIS L. WRIGHT~ ET Al. c/o ROB~R1` M8RR13, 3~1~f~Crow~ Valiey
Parkway~ Suite 22~ Laguna Ntguel, CA y2677. AGENT: RICHARD L. FORD~ 34192 Violet
La~tern~ Dana Point, CA 92629. Property descrtbed as an trregularly-sheped parcel of
land consisting of approximately 6.6 acres~ having a Prontage of approximetely 525
feet on the north side of La Palma Avenue, having a m~ximum depth of approximately
7a0 feet. and being located approximately 570 feet east of the centerltne of Miraloma
Avenue, and further described as 2633 East La Palma Avenue. P~operty presently
clesstfieci Rt4-1200 (RESIDENTIAL, MULTIPLE-FAMtLY) ZONE.
80- 595 t0/YO/80
~
i i
MINUT~S~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING C~MMISSION~ OCTOBER 20~ 1980 8~"596
~IR CATEOORICAL EX~MPTIOM-CLASS 1~ WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT~
CONOITIONAI. USE PERMIT N0. 21Z2 AND TENTATIVE NAP OF TRACT N0, 11286 (CONTINUEO)
CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST: TO PERMIT A 15~+'UNIT AFFOaDABLE CONOOMINIUM CONVERSION IN
THE Rhh 1200 2one.
TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: TO ESTABL1511 A 1-LOT~ 156~UNIT AFFORDABLE CONOOMINIUM
CONV~RSION SUEIUIVISION.
!t was noted t' ~ petitioner had requested a two-week conttnuence.
ACTION: Commissianer King of}ered e motion~ seconded by Commissioner Bushore and
ON CARRIEU~ that the M ahetm City Plan~tng Commission dacs hereby grant a twc~-
week cant(nuance of the sforame~tloned iCem to the regularly-scheduled meeting of
I~ovember 3~ 1980 at the rcqueat of the pcttttoner.
ITEM N0. r EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATI0~1 uAIVER OF CODE RE UIRCMENT AND CONOITIONAL USE
M N0.~212 : UBl C N N. N R: 11 . N IIER 0. NU N~ 5 out
Wa nut Streat~ Anahni~n~ CA 97a02. AG~NYS: CHERLENE WIILIAMS ANO MAXINE SWAIN, 940
Nantucket Stroel~ Le Nabra, CA 90636. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped
parcel af land cansisiing of approximately 0.71 acre located at the northeast corner
of Beaco~ Avenue and Wainut Strcet, heving a frontage af approxtrretely 260 feet on
the north side of Baacon Avenue~ and a frontage af approxlmately 120 fect on the Bast
side of Walnut Strcet, and further described as ~SG South 4lalnut Street. Property
presently classifled RS-A-~~3~000 (RESIUENTIAL~ SINGLE-FAMII.Y NILLSIOE) ZONE.
CONDITIONAI. U5~ REQUEST: TO PERMIT A PRE-SCIIOOL WITH WAIVER OF MAXIMUM FENCE NEIGHT
IN THE RS-A-W3~000 ZOt~E.
It was nated the petitioner had requested a two~week continuance.
ACTION: Commissloner King offarcu a motion, secondcd by Commixsloner Bushc~re and
Mp ION CARRICU~ that the Anatieim Clty Planning Cortmisslon daes hereby grant a two-
week continuance of the aforenenttoned item to the regularly-scheduled meeting of
November 3, 19G0 at the request of the petitioner.
Chairman Tolar explained to th~se p~rsons present that the Cortmisslon normally does
allav a continuance when requested by tlie petitioner because plans have not been
completed or some vther information needs to be provided. He explained that the
continued items are placeJ at the beginning of the meeting and khat no new notices
wil) be sent.
ITEM N0. 1: EIR NEGATIyE DECLARATION RECLASSIFICATION N0. 80-81-12 CONOITIONAL USE
E~RMIT 0 2115 AND EN ATI E MAP OF TRAC N0. 1125 : U LIC HEARINC. O~WNERS:
D RD . ND NER l L. 1 L,- OZ e ar, orba inda~ CA 92G86. Property
described as a rsctangularly•shaped parcel of land consisting af approximately 0.89
acre. having a frontege of approximately 220 feec on the north stde of South St~eet,
having a maxim~m depth of app~oximately 17~ feet~ and being located approximately 200
fe~t west of the centeriine of Anaheim Baulevard~ and f urthe~ described as 115~129
West South Street. Property presently classified PD-C (PARY.ING DISTRICT~ COMMERCIAL)
ZONE.
RECLASSIFICATION RCQUEST: RM-3000
COMDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST: TO PERMIT A 22-UNIT AFFORDABLE CONOOMINIUM COMPLEX.
10/20/80
~~
~~
NINUTE5. ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMiSS10N~ OCTOBER 20~ 19~ ~•597
EIR NEGATIYE DECLARATION~ RECLASSIfICAT10N N0. 80-81-12~ CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT N0. 2115 AND TEHTAYIVE MAP OF TRACT NQ. 11~5b (CONTINUEQ)
TENTATIVE TRACT REQUES7: TO ESTABLISH A 1-LOT~ 22-UNIT AFFOROABLE SUBOIVISION.
Subject ~etitlon w~s co~tinued from the meeting of October 6~ 198o at the request of
tha petittoncr.
The~e was no one indicating thetr presence in oppositton to sub)ect request~ and
although the staff report to the Planning CAmmisslon dated October 20~ 1980 wes not
read et thQ public hearing~ it is refnrrod to ~nd made A part of the mtnutes.
Edward Padlila~ owner~ stated originally a 25~untt apartment complex was designed for
thls sitc, but he hos changed his mind an~ has designed a 22-unit affordAbie
condomtnium proJect. He steted t-e has consulted Lisa Stipkovtch of th~ hlousing
Department rogarding the selling ~rtces of theso units. He stated the architect~
Dale Saxton~ Is also present to answcr any questions.
TH~ PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Lisa Stlpkovich~ Housing Manayer, Nousing and Neighbo~hood Preservatlon~ Community
Dnvelopment, stated their dapartment dld an analys(s of the propased sale prices;
that there were problems with the develope~'s original propos~d seilin~ ~rtces, but
they have come to an agreement on the prlces fur three unlts at S57,25~. three unlts
at $63.~00 and five units at S69~000; that the three units at 557~252 ~et 100$ of
the median income and the other C,ro sales prices meet 120$ of the medtan inccxne and
this (s calculated on 10$ down and a 12`~ ~nterest rate which is a ballpark interest
rate, but the developer will be locked into these sa111ng prices. She explained if a
tex-ex~mpt mortgage financing can be c~btained for the developer through the Marks-
Foran bond issuance~ the developer has egreed to make the project 100$ effordabin,
and the other 11 units would se11 at S75.tS7 which is at a 11L interest rate~
affordable to a household of four at 120$ of the medium. She ~xplain~d the develo~er
is absolutely 8greeing at this point to sclling the 11 units es attpulatedShed the
other 11 units at 575~257~ if tax-exempt mortgage financing is obtained.
explained their departmnnt is p~opostng to put resale controls on the u~its which
actually sell below market value and those resale controls will be on the City
Councll agenda on the 28th. They are proposing that there be deed restrictions wiCh
fi~st right of refusal to the Housing Authority at a prtce equitable to the purchase
price~ plus the cost of the housing index of the Consumer Price Index for the number
of years they have held the property~ in addition to any impravements. She expleincd
this would be based on the housing prices in the area.
Chairman Tolar asked if this woutd be standard conventianal financing which would be
assum~ble, etc. or if the loans would be government-subsidized.
Lisa Sttpkovich replied financing would be co~ventional unless other methods of
financing are identified and in mos~ cases dev~lopers do not knew what their
financing will be.
Cortmissioner tlerbst referred to the minimum structural height waive~ and asked if the
property to th~ west has a resolution of intent to multi-family zoning and Gean
Sherer, Assist~nt Planner, explatned that waiver relates to the two-story building
proposed 45 feet from the single-family zona boundary to the west across the publlc
alley and stated that prope~ty is not undcr a resolutio~ of intent at this time.
10/20/80
~
1 f
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CiTY PLANNING COMMISSION. OCTOBER 20. 1980 80•598
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION~ RECLA5SIFICATIpN N0. 80-81-12~ CONOITIONAL
USE PERMIT N0. 2115 AND TENTIITIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 11256 (CONTINUED)
- --~-
Commis=toner Ne.~st indlcated his ccmcer~ that thesa proJects seem to be encroaching
clo~er end claser to single-famtly restdentiei aress.
Commissioner 8ushore sta~ed thl~ development ~ea11y o~ly aff~cts four lots with
actualty Mo rsstdences~ with parktng lots to the west and aouth. fle felt those are
extenueting ct~cumstances.
Chalrman tale~ stated the~e la a duplex on Stueckle end asked if the 1;0-foot
rest~icxton would still epply since thet development is not si~glo family.
Deen Sherer repllad thc 1~0•foot limitation applies to the zone boundary and not the
actual devetopnbnt of the property and tha zoning on thr, property ta the west is RS-
7200 (Residantlal~ Single-Fsmtly).
Commisston~r Herbst stated he does nnt hav~ a probtem with this partlcutar pro)ect
because ot the alley end Che pro)ect dosiyn; however~ developers always research the
vartances allowed and use them for a crutch.
Chatrman Tolar stated efter recent study~ the general consensus of the Council and
Cammission was Lo review each proJect on a case-by-case besis snd this particular
ares is a translttonel area.
Commissioner Herbst stated agaln he has no problem with this particuler proJect~ but
wanted tlie Commisston to ~eview future requnsts carefully.
ACT10~~: Commissioner Barnes offcred a matio~~ seconded by Commissioner King and
M ON CARRIEU UNANIMOUSLY that the Anaheirn Clty Plenning Commissi~n has reviewed the
proposal to reclassify subJect p~operty from tho PD-C (Parking District•Coimiercial)
Zone to th~ RM-3000 (Residential~ Mult(ple•Fam!ly) Zone to permlt a ane~lot~ 22-unit
affordable condominium complex on a rectangulsrly-shaped parcel of lanr conststing of
approximately 0.89 acre, tiaviny a frontage of approxtmately 220 feet on the north
aide of South Street. haviny u maxirnum depth of approxlmately 175 feet a~d being
loceted approximately 200 feet west of the centerline of Anaheim t3oulevard; and does
hereby approve the Negative Declaratian f~om the r~qulr~ment to prepare an
envtronmental impact report o~ the besis that the~e wouid be no significant
indivfdual or cumulative adverse tnvironmental impact due to the app~ova) of thfs
Negative Dectaration since the Anaheim Ganeral Plan destgnates the subJect property
for rnecfiunrdensity restdential land uses commensurate with the proposal; that ~o
sensitivc anvironn~ental impacts are involved in the proposal; thet the i~it~el Study
submitted by the petittoner indicates no stgnlf(cant individual or cumulative adverse
environmental (mpacts; and that the Negative D~claration substantiating the fo~egoing
findtngs is an file in the City of Anaheim Planning Oenartment.
ConmisslUner Barnes offered Rnsolutton Pb. PC80-178 and naved for its passage a~d
adoption that the Anahe(m City Pi~nning Commission does he~eby grant Petitio~ for
Reclassification No. 80-81-12~ subJect ta Interdepartmentai Commlttee
recommendations.
On roll call~ the foregoing resolution was paased by the follawing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ BOUAS~ BUSHORE~ FRY~ HERBST~ KINC, TOLAR
NOES: COMMISSI0NER5: NQNE
ABSENT: COMMOSSIONE;RS; NONE
~ g
MINUTES~ ANAWEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ OCTOBER 20~ 1980 80-599
EIR NEtiATIVE DEGIARATION~ RECLASSIfICATiON N0. 84-81•12~ CONOITIONAL
USE PERMIT N0. 2115 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 11256 (CONTINUED)
, _ ...~..._
Jeck White, Daputy City Attrrney~ suggested a m~tton be made granting walvers of Code
requlrement findlny that tha walvers ere approved an the basis that such watvers
constitute development bonusea aa pursuant to Gavermm~nt Codo Section 65915 and tha~t
such bonuaes are warranted due to the fact that the developer is buliding not less
than 25$ of the unlts for low and modorste income housing.
Commlssioner Barnes offcred a motio~~ seconded by Commissioner Fry end MOTION CARRIED
UNAt~IMOUSLY tliat waivers of Code requt~ement be grented on the basla that such
waivers constttute cievelopmcnt bonuses pursuent to Governn~ent Cade Sectlon 65915 and
that such bonuses are warrent~d tr~ th(s case due to the fact that the devsioper is
buildiny not less Chan 2S~ of the units for luw and maderete tncome hous(ng units.
Commisstonor aernes offered Resolution No. PC80•179 and moved for its passage and
adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Pctttton fo~
Conditional Use Permit No. Zlly~ subJsct to Interdepertn~nta) Commtttee
recomme~datlons.
On roll call~ the foregoing resolutton was passed by the fallowtng vote:
AYES: COMMISSIO~~ERS: BARNES. BOUAS~ BUSHORE~ FRY~ NEROST~ KING~ TOLAa
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSE~IT: COMH I SS I Ot~ERS : NONE
Jack White explained ar~ additional condttion should be added to the tract map
approval that prior to approvai of the final tract map~ the devetoper shall enter
into an agreeme~t with the City of Anaheim pursuant to Government Code Section G5915
agreeing to maximum Inltial sales prtces of 3 units at 557~252~ 3 units at $63,50Q
and 5 units at S69,000, together with such additional covenants and conditions
including ~esale controls ~s requtred by the City of Ana~heim.
Jack White also added that Condition No. 11 of the Reclasstfication ~esolution should
be amended to re~d: "Prior to the introduction of an ordtnance rezoning subJect
prope~ty~ Candition No. 1~ above mentioned, shal) be completed. The provisions of
rights granted by this resolution shall become null and void by action of the
Planning Conanission unless said wnditions are complied with withtn one year f~om the
date hereof~ or such furthe~ time as the Planning Commission may grant.
tk stated if there are no obJections, that change wlll appear in the reclassification
~esolution.
Commissioner Bushore asked if the tract map approval should Include the stipulation
relating to the tax-exempt financtng and Jack White replied he would have no
objection to a condition being added that in the eve~t the Marks-Foren bond issua~ce
goes threugh, the developer has agreed to make the p ro)ect 100$ affordable at a sala$
pr(ce of S7S,257 each for the remaining eleven (11) units.
Commissioner Barnes offered a rrbtion~ seconded by Comnissioner Bushore and MOTION
CARRIED~ that the Maheim City Planning Commission does he~eby ftnd that the pro~osed
subdivtslon~ together with its design and improvement, is consistent with the City of
Anaheim General Plan, pursuant to Government Code Section 6'vk73.5; and does~
therePo~e approve Tentative Map of T~act No. 11256 for a one-lot~ 22-unit affordable
condomin(um complex~ subJect to the follawing conditions:
10/ZO/8Q
~:~:5
t ~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CIYV PLANNING COMMISSION. QCT09ER 20~ 19a0 80-600
EIR NEtiAT1VE DECLAMTiON~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. 80•81-12~ CONpIT10NAL
USE pERMIT N0. 2115 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NQ. tiZ56 (CONTINUEO)
1. Th~t tha ~pproval of Tentative Map of T~act No. 112$6 is grsnted subJect to
thn approvei oF Reclassiflcatian No. 80-81-12.
2. That ~Fwuld chts subdivi:ton ba developed as more than one subdivtslon~ each
subdivislon tha~~of shell be submltted tn tentattve form for approval.
z. That subject p~operty sh~ll be srrved by underground utilities.
4. That drainege of aubJect propa~ty shall be ditposcd of (n e nr nner
settsfsctory ta the Clty Engineer.
5. That the owner of subJect property shall pay to the Ctty of Mahnim th~
appropriate park and recreetio~ tn-lieu fees as determtncd to be apprppriate
by the Clty Council, satd fees to be paid at the tlme thc buildinq permlt I~
tssued.
6. Th~t the orlgtn~l documents o~ the covenants~ conditlons~ and restrlckions~
and a lette+r addressod to developor's title company euthorizing rec~rdetion
thereot, shall be submitted to the Clty Attorney's oPfice and approved by
the City Attnrney's office and Engineering Dlvislon prior to final tract mep
approval. Said documents~ as epproved~ sheil be filed and ~ecorded 1n the
Offtce of thc 0~ange Gounty Recorder.
7. That the avner(s)
sssessnxmt fee (0
Council~ for each
permi t.
8. ~That the proposeJ
grade per Ct ty of
Traffic Engineer.
of subJact proparty shail pay the trafflc signal
rdln~nce No. 3896) in an amount as determined by tha City
new dwelling unit prior ta the Issuanco of a bullding
drlvaways tu the subterranean gm~age shall malntain a 2$
Anehefm Standa~d Ceae 1~ 9121 on ftle in the office of the
9. That the approval of Tentativ~ t~ p of Tract No. 11256 is grar~ted subJect to
the epproval of Conditionei Us~ Permtt No. 2115,
10. Thec prto~ to approvai of the finei trect map the de:velope~ shall enter into
~n agraement wit~ Lhe Ctty af Anahelm pursuant to Goverrnne~t Code Section
65915 agreetng to the rta ximum sales prices of three (3) units at S57.2S2,
threa (3) units at 563~500~ and fiva (y) untts at $69~000. together wtth
such additional covenants and condttEons~ including resale controls as
raquired by the City of Anahelm; and that in the event the Msrks-Foran bond
is issued and itnanclrog is available, that thc rematning eleven (11) untts
shall be sold at prices not to exceed 575-257 aach.
ChairmA~ Tolar wss concerned about changing thc conditions and Jack White sxplsined
tho condttton was (nadvertently omttted f ~om the staff report, but he understoad that
this 6s what the developer had stipulbted durtng today's pubiic hearing.
10/20I80
~~
t. i
80-6e t
N0. ~~~3 RERDVERTISED AND VARIANGE ~~0. 1 4: PU~LIG hEARING. OwNER:
. ~ arouse ~ na e m~ . Property desc~ibsd As sn
i~regularly•ahaped parcel of land conststing of app~oximately 0.22 aera. havtng
a fro~tago af approximately G~ feet on the south sld~ of Belmont Avenue~ having
a maximum depth of epproximAtely 1G3 feet~ and being loceted Approxtmately 280
feet east of the centerline of E~st Street~ and further described a: 1222 Esst
Beimont Avenue. Proporty preaently claasified RS-72A0 (RESIOENTIAL, SINGLE-
FAMILY) ZONE.
RECLASSIFICATIOt1 REQUEST: RM-1200
VARIANCE REQUEST: WAIVER OF MINIMUM LOT AREA PER DIJELIINC UNIT~ TQ CQNSTRUCT A
DETACNCU OPJE-FAMILY DWELLING.
Th ere was one person indicating his prdse~ce (n opposltlon to subJect request,
and atthaugh the staff report to the Planning Commisslon deted October ZA~ 1980
was not re~d at the pubiic hearing~ It is referrecl to snd made a pert of the
minutcs.
6ordon Sloen, owne~~ stated a 2Q-unit apartment praJect wes approved for subJect
property six months ago~ bui because of the interest retes was not constructed;
and thaC naw hc wants to construct one house on the rCar of che property. He
potnted out a correction (n paragraph G, pAge 2-a of the staff report in that
the bulldtny site area Is 4773 square feet~ rather than 4768 square feet as
shown. He stated he has owncd this vacant property for ly years and It has been
a weed patch, except when ncighbors or t~nants used it for a gardsn. Ne feit
this proposed us~ ts the hlyhest and best use for thts Rroperty.
Conmisslonar Bushore asked Mr. Sloan if he awned the prope~ty on the corner,
explalning h~ was concerned about a possible confllct of inte~est end Mr. Sloan
~epliad he did not vwn that property.
Jim Lucey, 1217 East La Palma Avenue, stated his property is back of subJect
property; that he is opposed t~ this variance and was concerned that the staff
report indicates thc length of the property to be 163 feet and asked if that wes
measureci from the centerline of the straet. He did not belleve th~t a house
could be built in thc rear yard of anather hause in a rasidential neighborhood
such as this. Ne staied the subJect property haa been a trashy, messy place and
khe neighbors have complained about gophers, ftre hazards~ etc.and that M~.
Sloan is an eibsente~ landawner with no conc~rn for clie neEghborhood; that the
property to the east recently changed hands~ but he could not asceriain who
purchased it; that during the last proJect~ ~1~. Sloan t~ld he and his neighbors
that he wanted them to go along with him Eecause he had influence wtth the
Planni~g Commission and would have r-o problem getting approval; ~nd that they
presented 60 petitions in oppasition and the proJect was epproved with a high
mt+Jority. He stated he is requesti~g that thts var~ence b~e denied.
Mr. Slaan stated he has never talked to Mr. Lucey because hc refused. Ne
assur~ed the Commission that hc had not purchased the corner property referred to
and that he does not knav any of the Commlssioners and has no influence.
~10/20190
MINUTES, ANAIIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ OCT09ER x0~ 1980
~. ~
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, OCrOBFR 20~ 1980 80-602
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY APPROVED),, RECLASSIFICATION
NO`~],4-80-Z9 ~„REAQVERTISED) ANO VARIANGE N0. 317~+ ~C4NTINUEp)
TIIE PUE3l.IC HEARItIC WAS CLQSED.
Commissfan~r Buahore asked why the petitianer did not request a lot split rather
thd~ e reclasslftcAtlon.
Mr. Sloan repllad he dld not request a lot spltt because hr.~ ~foas not Inte~d to
nver sel) the p~operty.
Comnissioner ausl~ora saw nothing wrong with bul ldtny this re~tde~ce bacause tt
Is veryr close tu rn~eting the ordinance rnd it wll) create addttional housing
which is needed.
Hr. Sioan re~t this w~~ld create a buffer If the twa lots ta the west a~e
devaloped os muit~-fnmily resldentlal. Ne felt eny o~~posltion would bc beceuse
~hey did not know wl~at is betng proposGd and noted the netghbors to the south
tndtcsted they would ~refer houses rather th~~ Apartmc~ts.
Commisslane~ tlerbst polnted out thls proJect is e~cturlly a reduction in the
density over the previously-approved proJect because that plan showed a duplex
~ather ch~n stnyte-family.
ACT 10`~ : Commi ss loner K) ng of fercd a rt~t ion ~ seconded l,y Cornmi s s(oner I~e~bs t end
'~'; •i CARRIEU UNANIOUSLY, that Lttf Anaheim City Pl~nning Commission hrs
revlewed t~~e proposal ta reclassify subJect property from RS-72~0 (Restdenttal,
5ingle-Family) to RH-1200 (Residentfal~ Muitiplc-FamilY) to~e to permlt two
stngle-family dwellinys with waiver of m(nimum tot area per dwelling unl! on en
trregularly-shaned pa~cel of land ca~sisting of approxia+stely v.22 scre~ having
a frontage of approxlmately 68 feet on the south siJe of Oelmont lvenue, having
a maximum dcpth ~f approximately i6J feet end betng lacated appro•.ir+~ately 280
feet east uf the :.enterlinc of East Street; a~d d~es heraby app~ovti the Negative
Oecle~ation frwn thc requirer~ent to prepare an environrnentel impact repo~t on
the besis that there w~~uld bo no signlficant tndividuel or cun~lstive Adverse
environmencal impact due to the approval of thls tsegative Oeclaration since the
A~aheim General Plan destgnates the subJect prope~ty for low and la+•medlum
density resiJ^ntiai land uses cortmcnsurate with the proposal; th~+t no senstttve
environme~tul in~icts arr fnvolved in the proposal; that the Initiel Study
submitted by tf~~: petitioner indicates no ~Egntftcant indivldual or Cumulative
adverse cnvlronmental impacts; anJ that tho Negattve Deciaration substantlatl~g
the f~rcgotny findings is on file in che Cicy ot~ Meheim ^lanning Department.
Comnissioner King nffered Resolutic~n No. PC80-180 and moved for Its passage and
adoption that the .4nahcim City Planning ~ommission does he~eby grant Petttian
for Ya~iance No. 317~ an the basis thst the request is minlmal (lass than l0E)
and denial w~uld ck prive subJect property of a privllege enJoyed by other
propertiES in the same zone and vicinity~ and subject to Inierdepbrtmental
Committce reeommendations.
Un roll catl, the foregoing resolution was pessed by thc following vot~:
AYES: COMMlSSIONERS: BARNES~ BOUAS. EfUSNORE, FRY~ NERBST~ KING, TCLAR
NOE5: COMMISSIONERS: NOtIE
ABSENT: COMNI5SIONERS; NONE
Jack White. Assist~nt City Attorney~ pres~ent~d the written right to appeal the
planning Commissioi, s decisio~ within 22 day~ to the City Council. ,Q'20/~
,,a,.
. _ ___. .._.__.__..__~. _..rr
~~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINf COMMISSION~ OCTOBER 20~ 1980 80-603
ITE~: EIR NEGATIVE QECLAl~ATION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2120t PUBLIC HEARING.
t RRY . ~.. ox ~ wpo~t m~c ~ . ~~Tt ALVIN R.
STEELE~ 1550 Everglade Circle~ Placantta~ CA 92G70. Prope~ty deacrtbed as an Irregula~ly-
shaped pa~cel ot l~nd consi~ttng of epprAxinwtely G.5 acres~ heving a frontage of
AppraxtnMtely 2~-0 feet on tha north stde of La P~ln-e Avenue~ having a mnximum depth of
epproxlmatcly 132~ feet and betng locatad approxtmately 2Q20 feet west of tha cente~line
of li.ipe~tel iltghway~ •nd further descrtbed aa ~~+1y East Le Pslma Avenu~. Prope~ty
presently clessified ML(SC) (INOUSTRIAL~ LIMITED SCENIC CORRIDOR OVERIAY) IOfJE.
CO~IUITIONAL USE REQUESTt TO PERMIT AN AUTQMOTIVE aEPAIR SERVICE IN Tt~E ML(SC) ZONE.
Thero was no one indicoting their presence in oppositton ta subJect request, and although
the steff ~epo~t to thc Plsnning Commission dated Octaber 20~ 1980 was not read st the
pubtic Iiearing, it fs ref~rrad to and nu~de e pert of th~ minutas.
A1 St~ele~ agent. stat~d this proposed eutomotive repalr s~rvice is located In an
lndustrta) park surraundcd by Industrial uscs an~i the~c Is an~ple pa~king; and that ell
work wlll be done inside the building with haurs of operatton fror+~ F3:0 ~ a.m, to G:00 p.m.
TIIE PUt~LIC HCARING WAS CLOSED.
Co-rmissioncr il~rbst askeJ about autcxnobi le stor.~ge And Mr. Stoele r~pl ted that el) storage
wtl) be instde the bulldiny.
Dean Shcsrcr~ Assistant Plenner~ rsked that a condit(on be edded that the owner of subJect
property shell pay the difference between the industrial and conwnarclal trafftc slgnal
assessment fee (Ordi~anc~ No. 3~96) in an amount as datermined by the ~Ity Council~ prlor
to the issuance o~ .: building pcrmit. He expiatned thts Is a stendar~ ,:ondition tmposcd
when automoblle repalr or oth~r commerclal type uses go into an Industria) faciltty.
ACTIQf~: Cammissioner Barnes offered t~ motlon~ scconded by Commissi~~er King and MOTIOH
~~t U UNAt11M0USLY thnt the Anahcim City Planntng Commtsslon has revlewed the proposai to
permit g~~ autdmotive r~pair servlce 1~ the ML(5C) (Industrlal~ ~Imited-Scenlc Corridor
Overlay) Zone on an irregul~i~ly-sheped parce) of land consistfng of approximat~ly 6.5
ac~es, havin~ a frontage of approximetely 240 feet on th~ north si~t~ of La P~lma Av~nue~
having A f11A~!Imum depth of approxlmetr;ly 1325 fee*. ond being loca~te~ ~pproximeteiy 2020
faet west .f the Gentertine of Impertal Highway; and does herehy approve thc l~gative
Declsratto~i frort~ the requirement to prepare an environmental Impact report on the basis
that there wauld be na significant individual or cumulative rdverse envlror-mental impact
due to the epproval of this Negatlve Decl~ration since the Anaheim Generdl Pla~ des~gnates
thc s:~bject property for ganera) Industrial lend uses tommensur~te with the prQposai; that
no sensttive environmentai (mpacts are I~volved tn the propoaal; that the Inttiel Study
submitted by ihe F~tltloner indlcates no siynif;:ant tndividual or cumulstive adverse
envlronrr~ncel lmpacts; and thet the Negative Dec'eratton substantlating the foregoing
findtngs is cm file in the City oF Anaheim Planning Department.
C~lmmisstoner Barnes off~red Resolutton No. FG~~-1~2 and moveci for its passage and adoption
thet tha Anahcim City Plenning Commlssion daes herahy gra~~ Petttion for C~ndittonal Use
Pa~mit No. 2i20~ subject to Interdeparcmental Comnlttee ~ecor.m~ndet(ons~ inclvd~ng the
addition~l condltion requirtng p.~yment of the dtfference between the ind~~strial and
commercial trsffic signal assessmeflt fees.
On roll cali~ the foregoing r~solution w+~s prsscd by the ~ollowing vote:
AYES; COMMISSIONERSs BARI~ES~ BOUAS~ BU5t10kE~ FRY~ HER857~ i:iNG. TOI,AR
lIOES : COMN I 55 I ONf RS : NQHE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
~ni2e~8e
~ ~ ~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ OCTOBER 20~ 1980 80-604
ITEM N0. 6t EIR N~GATIVE DECLARATION CONOITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2124t PUBIIC HEARING.
~~RY . M ~ r na ay r ve~ unt ngton eac ~ 2649. AGENT: C.
DAVID BASS~ 4917 Nazelnut Avenue~ Saa) Beach~ CA 9Q740. Property described as an
~rreyulerly-shapad parcel of la~d conalatiny of approximately 1.6 ac~es~ having a frontage
of approxlrrwtaly 135 feet on the north stde of Ball Road~ having A maximum depth of
app~oxinwtely 1~0 feet and being loceted n~proximotely 200 feet west of the centarline of
Knatt St~eet. Property presently classifiad CL (COMMERCIAL~ LIMITED) ZONE.
CONDITIONAI USE REQUEST: TO PERMIT A CAR WpSH IN THE CL 20NE.
There wss no one indicatiny thei~ prea~~ce in opposttlon to subJect request~ and Although
the acaff report co the Plenning Commission d~tad October 20~ 19g0 was not read at tho
public hearin~~ it is refer~ed to and made a part of the ml~utes.
Terry Doyle~ QuAlicy Carwesh System~ explained a new combinetion automattc and self-
servlca car wash operation is proposed on the old shopping cente~ site at Knott Street and
Ball Road. He axplained landscapinq Is plenned wlth 8 large planter elong Bell Roed fram
the service station to tha rall~oed t~acka and along thG north p~operty ltne and around
to tha fro~t; that the building wilt be slumpstone with simulsted red tile roof and wtll
house ~ix bays~ one automatic and five self-service b~y. He presanted ~ brochure of a
sn+aller similar fecllity for the Corm~isslon's revicw.
Mr. Doyle axplalned the trend has been towa~~i aelf-~ervice cdr washes during the last faur
yaars because oF thP larger vehicles they will accommodate. He statad they v+ill build s
delux~n operation with ~ full-tin~e rashier which makp~ a big dtfference beceuae customsrs
can get change. He stated the location will be ~ell•maintatned; that ~he equipment
is larger snd does a better Job and wlll accomm~date pick-up trucks wlth campe~ shells. 4-
wheel drive vehicles and vans.
Commissioner Fry aaked if tl~e water wil) be recycled and Mr. Doyle repiled they actually
recycle Ei4X of the water.
THE PUBIIG NEI~RING WAS CLOSEU.
ACTION: Commissioner 8usho~e offered a motlon, seconded by Commissioner King and MA710N
CA~ R ED UNANlUUSLY~ that the Ansheim Clty Planni~g Commisston hAS revtewcd the proposal La
parmlt a car wash in the Cl (CcHnrnercial, limited) Zane on t+n irregularly-shaped parcel of
lend co~slstinq of approximate~y 1.6 acres~ having a frontaga of app~oximutely 135 feet on
the north side of Ball itoad, eppraximately 200 feet wcst af tha centerllne of K~ott
St~eet; and does hereby approve the Nagetive Declaration from the requireme~t to prepare
en environrtrencai imp~ct report o~ the basis that cherc would be :~o significa~t individwl
o~ :umulative adverse cnvironmcntal impact due to the app~oval of this Negative
Oe,claration since the Anahelm General Plen de,lynates the subJect properxr for generai
cann~;cial land uscs cocmien~urate with the proposal; Lhac no sensitive e~vi-o~mental
lmpacts are invol•ed in the prcposal; that the (nitiel Study submttted by the petitl~ner
In~icates no siynificant indtvidual or cumulative adverse envt~o~mental imprcts; and thait
the Negative Decleration sub~tantiating the foregoing findings 1~ a~ file in the Ctty of
Anaheim Planning Oapartment.
Comml~sio~er Bushore offered Resolutton No. PC80-183 and moved for its p~ssage a~d
ado{~tio~ that tha Anshetm City Planni~g Commission does hereby grant Patitlon for
Condittona) Use Permlc No. 2124~ subJect to Interdepertmentri Committee reconn~endett~s.
On rol l cei l~ the foregoing resolutton was p+~ss~d by the fol lavtng +ote:
AYESt COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ BOUAS~ BUSHORE, FRY. kER6ST~ KING, TOLAR
NOES: COMM~SSIOkERS: NONE
A85ENT: C4MMISSIONER3: NONE 10/20/80
~;
~ 1
MINUTES, ANAHEIN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ OCTOBER 20~ 1980 80~605
ITEM NQ. : EIR CATEGORICAI. EXEMPTION•CLASS S ANO CONDITIONAL U5E PERMIT N0. 20 6;
U9ll HEARIN . NER: M CN L. CRUCII~ 9 ast a Jo a treet, n~ c m,
92406. Property describad as a rectangularly-shapad psrcel of land ca~sisting of
approxtmately 1.1 acre~~ having ~ frontege of approxirtwtely iy~ feet on the t~uth
sido of L~ Jolla Streat~ having a maximum ck pth of epproximately 31~+ feet end being
located app~oximately 180 feet wost of the c~nterline of Red Gum St~eet~ and further
described as 2920 East La Jo11a Straet. Property presently ci~sstfled ML
(INUUSTRIAL, LIMITED) ZONE.
REQUESTEd BY THE CITY OF ANANEIM: UNOER AUTFIORITY OF CODE ScCTION 18.03.091~ TNE
CITY OF ANAHEIM PROPOSFS TO REVOKE CONDITIO~~AL USE PEitMIT N0. 2056~ FOa FAIIURE TO
COHPLY WITtt Tl~E CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.
There was ane ~erson incf(c~ting hia presence in np~ositton and one person resant in
fovor of ~ubJect request and although the steff report to the Planni~g Conr~,issio~
dated O~tober 20~ 1980 was not read at the pubiic he~ring~ it Is rete~red to and made
a p~irt of the mi nut~s.
Dean Shrrer, Asslstant Planner~ ~resentcd the staff report to the Planning Ccxrmission
dated October 20~ 198~~ noting Conditlonel Use Permit No. 2~56 w~s granted by the
Plenning Commiss0on on Ms~ch 24~ 1980~ subjact to certain co~ditons being met ~ncf a
revlew nf tlie propcrty and City files revoaled th~t only one of thc c~ titions had
been rr~t on thc dAy the staff rcport wRS preAAred; tharefore~ it Is recomme~nded that
the permit be revo~ed.
James W. Reed~ Jr.~ P. 0. Box 71E, Eialboa. Callfornla. 926~1, representing the
petltioners~ Mr. Shoo~. ancf Mr. Crucll. requasted a 9~-day continuance to comply with
the conditlons prcviously set forth end also thst a waiver be granted for th~ asphalt
pavem~snt~ pointing out F~is client has an estlmate of 565,000 for asphelt paving. He
explalned there is a small sub-standard house oR thfs tndustrl~lly-zoned property end
that r,is clients int~nd to canstruct ~ndust~lol butldings and improvc the enttre sitc
end lf he bleckto~s the arca now~ wlll l~ave to remove it when the propcrty is
ul ti mately deve lopcd.
Mr. Reed continued that plans have been prepared for curb end 9utter improvements and
the plans cost S1~25~, plus thc fmprovemcnts r+ill be e~cpe~sivc r,nd asked thst th~se
plans be approved io that the improvements can be accomptished. He explalned the
delay in curb and gutter improvements Mas Gaused because his cllent was trying to
work with his adJace~t nelghbors for addttior~al surb and gutter.
Hc referrad to the conditlon relating to the t~ash storage area and stated he has a
ca~tificat~ signed by the i~sp~ector shoatng tts completion; that he hes a receipt for
th~ drelnage fee of $2~234; that he al~o has a ~Er.Elpt for the traffic signal
asse~sment fee af $34.00; that the~ existinfl house hss been re• roofed and inspect~d;
that he h~s an electricsl bicl far 5525.00 and wili go forwarJ with those
irt~~ovements~ pending the Plsnntng Commisslon's approvat~ but asked that that
requt~ome~t be walved since the house will be to~n dawn in about three years. He
explatned only the front room nf the house is befng used as an offlcc and b~inging it
up to Code requlres that it be usable by the handitapped and there are no handtcapped
people wo~king in this masonry wali construction business and there are no retail
customers; that the garage needs to be sruccoed nn one side because lt Is adJacent to
snother property bnd that wtil be done~ ~f requirecf, but would request thst that
requirement be walved. he st~ted he haa a letter f~om M~. Pace~ the adJacent
10/20/$0
~.~
~
HINUTES~ ANAHEtM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ OCTOBER 20~ 1980 SO•606
~IR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 8 AND COt~lDITIONAL l-SE PERFIIT N0. ~056 (CONTINUED)
....,.__.....~~..._......_...~...._..~.. ..-_.
props ~ty vwne~ who is also prasent~ Indicating he la not (~tcrestad tn a block wa~l
or t Mt pa~ticula~ wal) bniny stuccoed beceuse the property Is goin9 ta be developed.
Chairman Tolo~ explained the condicions of the origtnal condltlonal usa pe~mlt cannot
be m~diFted et this hcaring •nd Jack Nhite~ Assistant City Attornay~ :tatod any
modl ficatiana to the existing conditions oF approvs) wauld have to b~ advertised as
modifiuttons and ~ hearing held on that ttem~ but tho public notices giv.,n tor this
hea~ing were soleiy for tha purposes of determining whether or not the ~xisttng
permit wtth the exlsting conditions should be revoked, The operato~ would have to
submi t A rnquest to modi fy tha condi tfons end could hove submltted thet request st
any t i me ,
Mr. Reed expiained he is p~inting these tht^;s out wlth the baslc costs invalved a~d
to shaw wl~at ~~as been donu.
Chat rmen Tolar explatned those costs wcre therc when the permit was originally
y~an ted.
Mr. itaed felt clearly there was a misundcrstancfing by Mrs. Crutii who came to the
Plenning GepArtment and ConJitions No. G and 9 wer~ hlc~hlTght~d with yellow and she
unde rstoocf tha t t hose wou 1 J be de 1 r tcd. He fe 1 t w i th the except 1 on of the curb and
gutter~ hia cl ient I~as substantiel ly conformed to the conditions of approva) and hes
already spent .~roximatcly S4~000 and will have addltional costs; thet thts is s
pooi construction relsted buslness and to rrvoke thlg permtt wvuld put a lot of
peop 1 c out of work.
Ne explained his client has oilcd thc iot and will oil lt ag~in afte~ thc first ra~tn.
Mike Nogyle~ Presldent af Southern Plastic Moul~+, located across the street~ stated
there are regulatlons regarJln~ the ymaunt of dust compar+les can caus~e In the alr;
that his compeny had to comply with tt-e requl~araents fur landscapi~g. ~tc.; that
thei ~ ccxnpeny has eppr~ximatRly a mi I 1 ion dol lars worth af nqulding equipn+ent tn
thei r faci 1) ty~ wl tt~ a water tc~wer td recirculatc weter to keep the equipment cool
end that they havc had dtfficulty (n the last clght to tem m~ntt~s wlth heavy dirt
continuously in Lhe water tovrer which then gets into thelr equtpme~t. He explalned
t~ueks are in and out of the property ecross the streot consta~tly; that a citation
was i ssued for i 1 leyal dumping on the s i te next door to subJect pr~perty; that they
bring truck loeds of dlrt in and unlaad it and th~ ~everal days leter will load !t
end take it out again and make no attempc to water the Area; that his father had
inv. ~~,~ated the operation on a p~srticular rventng and a yaung man was diqgtng a
Isrc~a nole on the adJacent property prepertng to bury tre~ limbs and trash which had
bee~ cleared frc~m scxne otl~er lot. Ne was concerned th~t that ~ebris woutd later
decsy and causG any bullding eo settle. He stated tiis canpany trips to keep their
vehicles clean, ~~t dirt ;n the area makes that impossEble.
Mr . Nogg 1 e a ta ted tho oQe ra to~ has i nd i ca ted he does no t svant to aspha 1 t the area
because he 1 s go i ng to bu f I d a bui i d i ng. b-~t i t hes been seven months s i ~ce the
ori gina) pern+i t was i ssued enJ the di rt ~r blem has been getti ng worse and worse~ and
he has only ~ecently olled the area. He exNl~tned 9~QtN1 sque~e Peet had been added
to the rear of his avn buiid~ng and it wa~ r~o problein removing the existtng aaphalt.
Ne felt the nefghbars deserve some conside~ation because it ts costing them mnney to
take care of the problems t~.at arQ betng caused by the continuel t~uck ~+cttvity and
th~ dumping cn the edJaeent pruperty.
10/20/80
~~
` `
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMI5SION~ OCTO~ER 20, 1980 80~607
EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLAaS 8 ANO CONDITIONAL USE PERM;T N0. 2056 (CONTINUED)
M- Nvggle co.tinued thet he understands the problem of reloceting the bustneaa~ but
slyu understands that the velue af this properCy h~s tnc~eased and would be more than
enc~~gh to pay for a nave.
He ~'clt the Commission should consider that it hes taken this ton4 to comply with e
60-day ~equirement in thelr evaluatlon of this revocation.
Douglas Page~ Page Manufacturiny~ awner ~~f prope~ty to the west~ atated prfo~ to this
construction c~~~nany coming to the Area~ the undevelopeJ prop~rty surrounding his
property was covared with weeds but the cu~rent nperAtor hrs butlt up the leve) of
the property. ~,uilt a blotk wal) and alled the property. Ne explalned he does not
notice the dusr problam bQC~use there are other undeveloped dreas all around ar,d
there is dust fro~+ the strawberry flelds and he does not heve technical equlpment
which the dust wouid bother. Ne felt aven if thls constructlon opareti~n was not
there, ti~c dust ~roblam wou1J continue and pntnted out there is an autom~bile starage
yard and a flawer g~owing ope~ation in the area. 1k stated he would prefer to have
thls opa~Ation with tlie trucks in and out all dey beceuse he hes been robbed a number
of times an~ felt his p~operty Is sefer wlth the constructtc+n company there.
M~. Reed stated nellher rr. Nogyle nor his father have ever approacf~ed his client
regarding the dust problems they are having end point~d out the Pi~sti^ Mould Wmpany
haa outdoer storaye in an open chalnlink fenced ares without slats end he dtd not
knav whether or not th~y had pera~issian fo~ that; thai Mr. Noqgle seems to be
concerned about dumping and bulldozing on the adJacent property and It seems to be
very clear thbt that is not his ci(ent's responslbillty; that thcre are other uses (n
the same aree which obviously causc a lot of dust. Ne did not knaw what the Plasttc
Mould(ny oper~tlo~ entails, but felt (t should be a self-contelned operativn. He
stated the property w~s oiled about a month ~+go and ~fter the first ~ain it will be
oiled aga(n.
THC PUksLIC N~ARING 41A5 CLOSEU.
Chalrrnan Telar asked wh~n the btlls wcre paid which were presented today and Mr. Reed
explefned they were paid fairly recencly~ within the las• month.
ChAii~man Tolar stated he understands there is dust from other uses in the a~ea~ but
found it lncerescing :hat all these requirements have been in farce for severai
manths and now all of a sudden a~e being taken care of. Ne feit probsbly the reason
the yeilow hignliyl~ting was done on the conditlons v+as because thr staff wanted to be
sure the petitioner underst~od that those thlnqs had to be taken care af within the
60-~+ay perlod. tia stated he is not in favor of amr businessman going out af business
in this City; howeve~~ he FounJ a lot of discomfort wtth the fact that thts business
has been there since Me~ch and the operatar ts Just now starting to take care of the
problema because a citation was t3sued end a pubilc hearing scheduled. He st~ted tn
his Aplnion the whole c:onditi~nal use pern+it was totally violated end there waa
really ~o effort put forth by the petitior~c~ to comply. Ne stated tf that same
atti~tu~le was taken ta+ards eve ry cond(tlonal us~ permit that was grAntecf, this ~lty
would be a btgger mess than it already is and he could not understand end did nat
have any empathy wtth the fact tha; thesc things are now being done.
Chairmsn Tolar stated the asphalt paving was a requi~ement of the orig~nal
canditional use p~rmlt and he understands tho differense in the cest~ but this public
hearing is oniy to revoke this permit today or grant an extension of time for
10/20/80
~ t !
1
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANN~NG COMNISSION~ OCTOBER 20. 1980 80-6 8
E f R CATEGOR I CAl EXENPTI ON~CUIS~S 8 AND C4NQ I T 1 ~NAI. USE PERM I T-!0. 2056 (CONT 1 NUED4
compllance. He felt t~ome of the dust arr+hlans are not this ~tiant's responstbility~
but he wouid nat support any extenaion lo~ge~ than 30 days to get th~ wo~k done.
Commissiuner Bushore stated the original conditional use permi~ wss requested as a
result bf actfon taken by the Zoning Enforcement Offtcer.
Chsirman Toler asked if the prope~ty avner is present and ask~d why those conditions
wero not camplled wlth earller.
Mr. Ree~i explelned the reason for t~~e
besically constructlun of block wails
b~en down recently end the petttion~r
they pu~chaseJ tha property to cxpand
forthcomtng. He ~Iso believ~d part o
they dtd not liove representation.
delay wes the costs; that the operation is
f~r pools and tt~e co~structton b~~tness has
an-' his partner went into debt hCavtly when
t~~e operatton and s.~n-~ of the mcney was not
f thc n roblem may have been confusion because
Dean Sherer, Assistant Planner, stated the orlgina) zontng enforcer-knt action was on
February 12~ 1~80~ about one month prio~ to thr. aric~ind) heartng.
Cammisslone~ 8uslare recalled fr~m the March heering that the epplicant was asked how
long it would take to ccxnply and i~e thought there wss a mutua) agreement f~~r a f,0•day
period.
Chsirman Tolar statecf normally unless a stipulatlon is rtx~de by the petitioner, the
Commission does no! arbicrarily impose a 60-day limit for compltance.
Dean Sherer explatned t-ie pet(tloner was operating wlthout a permit ortginally and
then read f rom the mi nutes of the March 24th hear i ny ~"that Commi ss f aner Qushare
questi4ned the length af tim~ normally ~llowed for the property to be brou4ht up to
Co~e, noting that this ts an existing use and Daan Sherer oxplained a conditlon has
been recaronen~ed for compllance in ~0 days".
Commtssion_r tierbst asked w~~en th~ Zontng Enfnrcement Office~ lasc tnvesttgated the
property and Dean Sherer replled September S~ 19 &3.
Commissioner Bushore stated speciAl ctrcumstances alway~ warrant considerati~n and if
the applicant had been diligently warking tvwards meeting the~e requirements, this
hearing would nok have been necessa ry; that ~he Commlsslo~ does not want ta put
anyone out of business~ but the pctitiane~ was operating illegally tn the first place
and has shawn no willingness to go along with whet would be requt~ed of anyone else;
that the Comnissio~ers are also citlzens In this City and that hP has some concerns
for xhC ~eighbors anJ if this use is causin~ the petitioner to be a b~+d nei9hbor,
then meyt~ this is the wrong location.
fhairman Tolar aske~ about the operation of this busincss and askod what ts creAting
the traffic and dumping problert~s on the lot naxt doo~ and Mr. Reed explained their
business is construction of block walls and the majority of thetr work is
const';uction of walis around homes which have pools ae~d they do tlle work on the
pac!s, etc. He stated h~ has no knowledge of the dumpfng on Che property next door.
He stated it looks like there are dauble semi-trucks ar.d traiters dumping dlrt there
f rom a closP location rather than going to the dump~ but it has nathing to do with
this operatio~. The praperty looks like e good dumping site because it Is a vacant
lot.
10/20/SO
~~`'
!
~'
MI NUTES ~ IWIWE I M Ci fY PLANN I NG CO~iMI SS I ON OCT08ER 20 ~ 1980 80-6 Q
EfR CATEGORI'1L EXEMPTION~CLASS 8 AND CON~ITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2056 (CONTIMUEO~
_....~..~..
complta~ce. He felt somo ot the duat problsmt are ~ot this citent's re5pc.~sibility~
~~ut he would not support •ny sxte~sion lonye~ than 30 day• to gat the work done.
Commissianer Bushore atated the o~lgtnal condittonal use permit wes ~equested as a
result of actlon taken by the 2aning Enforcement Offtcer~
i;hsirn+en Tolar ask~ad tf the property owner fs present end asked why these condltlons
were nat complicd with earlier.
Hr. Reed explained th~e raaso~ for the
bsatcally construction of block welis
been dawn recently and the petitionc~
they purchascd the pro~erty to expand
forthcoming. He elso believed part o
they dtcl nat have represent~tlon.
dniay was the co~ts; that che operetion Is
for poals and the constructtan business has
end his pa~tner went I11t0 debt heav:"~y ~ihen
the operattan and som~ of the money waa not
F the problom may have been confusion because
Dear Sherer~ llssistant Planner~ stated the or(ginal zoning e~forcement actlon was on
Feb~usry 12. 1980~ about on~ month prior to the nrlgtna) he~ring.
Commissioner Bushore recAll~d frorn the March hearing that the appltcant was asked how
long it would take to comply and I~e thouyht there was a mutual ag~ecr.~ent for a GO-day
period.
Chalrma~ Tolar stated normalt~ w~iess a stlpulatton ts made by the pctitioner~ the
Conmis9lon does not arbitrarlly Impose a 60-day limit for comrlta~ce.
Dasn Sherer explalned tf~e petitioner was operatlny withaut e permit originatly and
then read from the minutes of the M~rch 24th hearing~ "that Gortmissioner Bushore
qucstione~d thc length of time normal'~~ allawed for the property to be brought up to
Code~ ~oting that thia is an existing ;:s~ and Dean Sherer explalned e condttion has
been recanmendPd for c~m~l ience in f~~ clays'
Commissioner Herbst asked when the Zoning En'o~cement Officer last investigated the
property and Dean Sherer replled Septembar 5, 1980.
Commissioner @ushore stated sp~cial circumsta~ces always warrant consideration and if
the applicent had been d(ligently working taw~rds meeting these requirerto~nts~ this
hear(ny would not hevc been necessa ry; that th.• Coarnissio~ does not want to put
anyone out of busi~ess~ but the petitlnner was opc~~+Ing illegally in the ft~st plac:e
snd has shown no wi111ngness t~ yo along with what would be requ(red of anyane clse„
that the Commissio~ers are also cittzens in this City~ and that h~ has son+e concerns
for the netghbo~s end if this use is causing the petittoner to b~ a bad neighbor,
then mayba this is the wrong location.
ChairmAn Tolmr asked about the operetion of thts bu~iness and asked what (s c~eating
the trafftc and dumping problems o~ the lot next dnor and Nr. Reed axplained their
business is conslruction of block walls and the m~Jortty of their work ta
const~uction oP walis around homes which have pc~ois and they do tt1e w~rk on tha
pools~ etc. Ne stated h~ has no knowledge of tha durtping on the p*opcrty next dnor.
Ne statad it looks like there are dauble semt-t~ucks and tratle~~ dumptng dirt there
f rom a close location rather than going ta the dump~ but it has nothing to da ~~th
this oneratiar. The p~operty looks tike a good dun+piRg site becduse it is a vacant
lot.
10/20/80
t ,
"t
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ OCT09ER ?0~ 1980 80•60g
EI~ CAT_E_G4RICAL ¢XEMPT1011-C1A5S 8 ANO CONOItIONAI USE PERMIT N0. 20y6 (CONTINUED)
~.~..._,.._.---~~._ ._~._.
Chairman Talar tlerlfied th~t chora are no other trucks bringing in material from
other alt~s far this con~tructlon caa~pany and Kr. aeed itatnd the petittoner has
bricks or sAnd clelivered to his sice otcationelly~ but th~t ts al) and expleined (t
is possible tlie avner of that adJacent propercy ts allowinq the dun+ping In order to
build up the Iev~l of the aite because of the slope.
Wslt Shoak~ nperator of the bust~ ss. ateced rtwterials are boing dumped on the
edjecent property from everyw-• e; that he cleaned the property once and that caused
e lot of dust~ but th~ro are ~..~opln in end out of that site frcquently. Ne stated
there are no posted signs or fence~ on the property next doar.
Mr. Shook stet~d he Is rc .fy to p~occsed with thc street improv~mnnta, and that delay
was because Mr. Rsmsey h~nts to improve hls praperty At the same tlmn and the plans
to be submttted today h~ve street improvemcnts for bath propertles. Me stated since
h~ purchase~! thc prope~ty he has Installed fenctng and has trted to (mprove thc
property and has oilc.i thc lot.
Chairman Tolar asked why ft took sa long to get oil on the ground since it was
suppasnd to bc blecktopped ~nd Mr. Shook rxplained they started wlth 4" of rock anct
have added otl; that he orlginrlly ayreed ta thc biacktopping because he had an
estimatc fo~ 35 cents a squere fout~ but now blacktop asphalt Is more expenstve than
concrete block and stated he Just does not have th~ mo~ey to do it.
Chalrman Tolar stated the petitioner ahould have contected the City right eway and
lnclicated this condit(on was not something he ce~uld live up to.
Mr. Shook stated h~ has 11 people worktng for him and they ga out in the nwrning a~d
come ba~k in the afternoon and the dust during the day is not bel~g c~eated by his
employees since he oiled the lot.
Camnissioner Bushore stated there Is nc~ oil out front where the employees ~re parking
betwcen tho fenca and thc cu~b. noting he was at the site this morning~ and M~. Shook
cxplained that area Is oilcd.
Chatrman Tolar stated the Camnission cannot changc the origint~l conditions. Ne
stated the City only has tw~ Zoning Enfo~cement Offtce~s ~nd obvia~isly one of them
has ~pent a cansid~rabl~ amount of time at this tocation. He ask~d how much time
would be needed to complete those original conditions.
Mr. Reed asked (f all the canditions must be con~plled with and Chairman Tolar replied
that they dtd and stAted he ~s not happy wtth this operation because it has been
going on for nine nanths. 11e statod a11 the conditto~s must be compited ~eith or a
modificatton requested and s:atcd a~a(n that if everyon~ vtolated thair permtts in
this City~ it would be a ter~(ble mess. Ne stated this use does have an effect on
the neighbors and shuuld be changed.
Mr. Shook steted he understancls the probl~ms and new has a Iist of things ta be
accomplished, but whan he previously came to the City~ nobody seen+ed to ba ab~e to
givc hfm any anawers and scnt him frflm one office to another. He sta~ed he did not
knaw ab~ut all the fees invalved and there were a lot of htdden costs and he dtd not
have all the :~qnry necessary to meeC these costs.
10/20/80
~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMNISSION~ QCT08ER 24~ 1980 80•610
EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION~CLASS $ AND CONDITQNAL USE PERMIT N0. 2056 (CONTINUEO)
- _._..... ..~._...~_. _~ ..
Chairnwn Tolar eskad agaln haw much time he would need to conform to all the
conditlons oF tho ortginaiconditional u:o pe~mit a~d Mr. Shooic replied he Is prepa~ed
to start immedtately and hen the plans and will complete everything as ~oon as
possiblo. He explained the pool constructton buaineas has boen down over 5A~ and he
did iiot have the money bePore but naw has the money for th~ street tmprovementa~ but
not tho asphalt peving. I~e stated hc h~.s been told (t takes 5 weeks to get the
paperwork complet~d.
Commisaioner Herbst sugge~ted the condition resd that ;he t{n~e llmit be;j~n aftar
ap~rovel ~f the plens by the Ctty.
Chelrman Tolar stated the pctitloner would have to request that the condltlon
~equi~l~c, paving be Jeletaci from the orig(nal permit.
Mr. Shook ~xplained he plans to pave the parkiny srea in front and instai) spr{nklers
and landacaping~ but did not want to pave the antire a~ea and then tear it out In
three yoars.
Conmtssi~~er Bushora stated tha netttio~er is pro~ecting th~ee years for development
of Cho prope~ty~ but there is no way to know that that ls oning to happen. I~e
explained again the conditions cannot be clianged and asked how long the petitioner
needs for c~mpliance.
Mr. aeed suggested 45 ciays afte~ appraval af plans which would ailow ttmo for the
petlttoner to requcst a modificatton of the ortginal permit to d~lete the asphalt
pavtng rcquirement.
Dean Sherer explalned it would take 30 days from f(ling to adver;ise a new public
heariny for deletian of the co~dicion.
Jack Wh i te ~ Ueputy ~ i ty Nt ~ur~~~y ~ z..m,cs tcd a s i x-week cont t nuance of the revocat i on
heartng d~~~) ng wh(ch tlme the appl icant cen apply for a~d have heard a mo ;i ficetiv~~
of the orlginal pe~mit and comply with the other conditions end drpe~d~ng upon the
determi~ation of that conditton~ the Comm(asion can act on this request for
revacation.
Chatr-~an Tolar stated normaliy he would not support a continuance such as this~ but
in this cas~ felt it is a good idca. He suggested if the cr~~tinua~ce is granted~
that thz petitioner make every effort to get the landscap'..ig i^ and the area oiled
agein to keep the dust down. He stated he will strongly tonsider that dust (a el~o
coming from other propert!es in the area.
Commisstoner Nerbst felt the Cummission may be 6eing too strt~gent because it .:auld
very possibly take longer to get the plans appr~ved by Engineerin ~nd canstructlan
started on the curb and gutter~ etc. He suggested 4~ days after ~,,~roval af the
pltns by the City.
Jay Tlius~ Office Enginee~~ stated the plans for cu~bs a~d gutters would requlre
minor work by the City and after the plans are s~bmitted~ work begins wlthin five
wo~king days~ and dependi~g upon how complexe thc plans ara and wh~ther corrections
have to be made by r.he mpplicant'~ enginee~~ and assumtng their enginaering plans are
complete, approva! w~uld he in two wne4cs to thtrtX days.
10/20/80
-;
,
t: ~
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CIIY PLANNING COMMISSION~ OC1'OBER 20~ 1980 80-611
&IR CATEGOitICAI EXEMPTION-CLASS A AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 20~ (CONTINUED)
~
Commleslaner Barnes syMpathized wlth the applicant not h~vi~g the money to camplste
tha condltions. but wAa cancarnnd that walving the condicions would set s p~ecedant.
Chai~ma~ Talar agraed~ but did not think no~mally outdoo~ storaqe uses hove been
requlred tc+ pav~ thetr eraes and acve~~al hava be~n granted without thet requirement.
Comntsstoner Herbst stated the Commisston has .,1lowed outdoa~ stor~ge with decomposed
c~rAnite end oil and he has no problam with th~t~ but he dtd not egree with what has
happena~. !1a did not want to give the applicant an t~posstblc tesk. but wdnted to
saa the lrndscaplny and street improveme~ts at least started ric~ht ewdy.
Commissio~er Barnes wented the applicont to understand thst It is nat a forec~one
concluslon that the asphelt ~aving c~ndition would bo dcleted.
Jack White~ Deputy Gity Attornoy~ ~tated that should be cleer and the Commission
should not bc discussin~ that p~rticular condltlun~ assuming the appllcant wi11 epP1Y
for deletio~.
Commissioner Barnes suggestcd Mr. Shvok meet with Mr. Nc~ggls and eddress the dust
problem and also try to f~nd out who is dumping ~~n the ~dJbcent p~opery.
Mr. Shook stated Mr. Ramsey~ awner of thc ad)acent property~ ~~as indiceted he wants a
block wall. but it has ne~icr been done. He stat~d he has plana for both proqertics,
but he has no control ovcr what thc adJacent property vwner does.
Commissioner Bushore stated he would offrr e motion for a six-we~k contlnuence~ but
wanted to make it perfectly cloar that there is no foregone concluslan on a~y of
those conditions already approved ~nd thet would be e whalc sep~rate hearl~9~~~cantn
six wecks tirtse hc wanted to see e lot of tf~ings ecc~.m~llshed. stating the app
must shaw him some credibility.
Mr. Shook stated when he gets perm'ts for masonry wo~k~ there ere standard rules to
follew~ but hc was not rully aware of what was i~volved wlth putt:ng In a street~ but
now has a plan and cen get a fi~m b?d.
ACTtON: Commisslone~ Bushore offered a neotion~ second~d by Commissloner King and
MOTlO CARRIED~ fnr a six-week continuancc to December 1, 198t?.
Commissloner Bushore stated th(s action svas not predicated on eny futu~~ actio~s, but
on what is done between na. and the~r and .tst~d the Con~~*ission does not want to put
anyone out of bu:.iness. Ne suggested that anything that cannot be completed ~n the
s i x weeks si~ou 1 d be dacumented to sha+ ~-+hy i t wax not done. He d i d not want to
include subJect to approval ot plans by th^ City because lt coulo then be up to the
appltcant's ~ngineer to get the pians in
Commissioner Bushore stated he wants t~ ~ee sometr~ing done abvut the illegal dumping
on the vacant lot and asked City staff to see that that lot is watched so the problem
can be 501 yCCS.
Chairman 7olar suggesced a lctter to the property owne*.
Annika Santalahti stated several Clty departments are aware of the ~~ohibitlon of
dumping without permission and are able to issue citations nr let the property awner
know that they should past the property
Chairman Tolar expiained nc additional notices will be sent and if a request for
amendment of conditions is filed~th~ra wiil be public nottces glven of the date of
that haaring. 10/20/80 ~
~ :
~~ ~.
MiNUTES~ ANAHEIM f.ITY P:ANNING COMMISSION~ OCTQ9ER 20~ 1980 80•612
ITEM N0. ~!t EIR NEGATIVE OECLARATION Af~O VARIANCE N0. 1: PU4LIC HEARINC.
OIrNE : C D H COR R ION, 01 ast ata a venue, n~ eim~ cn 9z8oz. Prope~ty
d~acrtbed et a ~ectangul~rly-shsped perce) of land consttti~g of app~oximstely 1~.65
acres~ liaving a f'rontage of approxlmately 120 feet on the south slde of Katatla
Avenuo~ having a maxtmum depth of r~pproxfmately G00 feet end being locaLnd
a~pproxtmetely 530 feet east of the ~enterline of West Street~ and further descrlbed
a! 101G West K~ ella llvenue. P~operty p~esently classified C-R (COMMERCIAL-
RECREi1Ti0N) ZONE.
VARIAIICE REQUEST; MINIMUM NUMBEP. OF PAaKINf; SPACES TO EXPANU AN EXISTING MOTEL.
There wes na one Indlcating tl~eir presence tn oppositi ;,Ject ~equest~ and
elthough th~ staff report to the Planntng Commission da tobsr 20~ 198o was not
read at the public hearing~ it is referred to ond made a p~~~t cf the minutes.
John Swtnt~ )0/ West North Street, Anahelm~ agent~ stated on August tlth Vs~tt~nce No.
31G4 was grante<i and all the aryuments ~:e the same for gr~nting tnis varlAnce. He
explatned o chenge was mada to the archlcectural plens wlthout hls knowledge and
12' 8" areasof the corners of the buildtng were ~~moved to make wfde~ access, but
that is not posstblc since the two-story buildtng is exist(ng. He stated he would
iike to have: appraval of thc plans~ s~Ject to thosc corners nat being r~:noved.
There was a brlef dtscusston between Jack White, Assistrnt City Atto~ney~ and Oean
Shercr~ Asslstant Pla.~ner~ as to whether or not Mr. Swint was refe~rtng to the
exhibit approved far Varlance No. 3164 or subJect request and dean Sherer explained
the submitteJ plans shaw the corners cut off far this request~ but the epproved
exhibit for the previous variance does not show the cornefs removed and explained
th(s ts en entirely separate rcquest and does not nffect thG previously-epproved
proJect for an addition to the motcl.
Chairmer~ Tolar stated there is a problem bocausc of trash truck accoss.
Mr. Swint s;ated trucks do not have access anyway because the butldtng has an eight-
foot access and '7 units were added last yea~ wlth the same access.
Annika Santalahtl, Assistant Di~ectar for Zoning, stated the p~oblem is really acc~ss
for emergency vehicles and t~ash trucks; and that the City has become more stringent
and what was legitimate 10 years ago does not hoid true today.
Jack Whfte ~ndfcated as he understands the situatlon, the previous plan approved was
tn connection with a prevlous adcJition and ~~e only plan showing the co~ners removed
(s this one and it has not been approved so the Conmission can consider the corners.
He statecl if the pian is approved~ there wtll be ctrculatton and parking problems.
Cort~nissioner Barnes stated the circulation and parking prablems have always been
ther~e.
Jay litus~ Offlce Engineer~ stated the circutatton and parking problems were
always there~ but the rea~ portion of the property was not encumbered with addttional
units and there was an epen area for maneuvering and nav they are requesttng to put
in r.iore units and do nat have the area fo~ maneuverability.
ao~zo~so
~ t
,,~ :.
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, OCTOBER 20~ 19~J
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3173 (CONTINUED)
~.~...__.~ .....
80•6t3
John Swtnt stated no trucks can ever entQr the property and neve~ could and he felt
anyo~e who cen operate a car tn a 25-foot wide drlve and make a 90 degree turn into a
stall can manauvor this access. He explained there is a fire hydrant on the sita
brceuse thero is no accQ~s for fire trucks.
Commtasinner Bushore asked why tho units werc placed on the north end af the p~operty
rather than the east encl wast sidcs and Mr. Swint replled thet this ~~ Just a
better design.
Ch~alrman Tolar aaked how thN plens ca~ be changed to include the corners and Mr.
Swint stated the building wes built twenty yea~s ago with the corne~s.
Commiss ioner Ilerbst asked how the trASh wi l l be plcked up ~ncf Mr. Swint ~ap) (ed that
the petitloner has a vet~lcle an6 hooks it onto the trash contd(n~r end brings It to
thc fro~t for pick up,and he has been do(ng this three times A week for twenty years.
ACTION: Commiasioner Herbsc offered a rrotton~ srconded by Commissioner Ki~g and
t~ION CARRIED UNANIMOUSIY~ that the llnaheim Clty Pla~ning Commissian has revi~wed
the proposa) to permlt ex~ansi~n of an extstinc~ motel with waiver of mtnimum number
of parking s~aces on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of lend cnnsisting of
epproxlmately 1.f~5 acres~ h~svtng a frontage of appraxim•+:ely 120 feet on the aouth
siJe of Katella Avenuc, having a maximum depth of approximetcly fi00 feet and be(ng
locateJ approximately 53~ feet aast of the centerline af 41es~ Street; and does hereby
epprove [he t~egative DeclAration from the requiremcnt ta p~epar~ an environmental
lmpact report o~ the basis that there would b~ n~ signif'cant individual or
cumulattve adve~se environmental impact due to the epprova9 uf this Negetive
Decla••ation s(nee the Anaheim Ge~cral Plrn destgnates the subJcct proparty for
commercial rec~~atio~al land uses commensurate with t~e pro,~~sal; thet no sensitive
anvironmental imp:,ccs are involved in the proposal; that th~e I~itial Study submttte~+
by the petittoner indicates no s3gnif(cant individual ar cumulat(ve adve~se
envtronmental tmpacts; and that the NegatJve Declaration substantiatin3 the foregotng
findinys is on file in the City o~ A~aheim Planning Department.
Commisslaner Herbst offereci Resolution No. PC80-184 and maved for its passege and
adoption that the AnahCim City Plannfng Commission docs hereby grant Petitton fo~
Variance No. 3173 on the basis that a certain percer.zage of the guests arrive by
transportation modes other than privete vehicle and denia) would deprive subJect
property of a privflege betng enJoyed by other property owners in the same zone and
vicinity, ancJ subject to Interdepartmental Comm!ttee recommendatlons.
On roil call~ the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSION~RS: BARNES, BOUAS, BUSHORE, FRY, HERBST, KlNG~ TOLAa
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
Jay 71tus~ Office Engineer, asked about the trash bin shown on the plans and
Commisstoner Herbst explain~d the agent has sttpulated that the owner pulls Lhe trash
out to the street so it witl stii~ need th~ trash storage area.
1~/2Q/80
~~
:; 1
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMh11SSI0N~ OCTQBER 20, 19E~0 80-61~
IT~M N0. s
R ND REC~"'uNQATIONS
..~~
The following Repar~a and Recommendatlons staff repo~ts wera presentad but not read;
A. CpNDITIONAI tISE PERMIT N0. G - Request from Orange County Water 0lstrlct,
o~'r L rm nnt an o~' on t~na Use Permit No. 675 for property cansiattng
af approximately 5.5 acres located an the east atde of Rlchfteld Road.
ACT` ION: Conmtssioner King offered Resolution No. PC$0-185 and moved for its
passaq~ and adoptto~ that the Anahetm City Planning Commisston ~oes hereby
termin te all p~oceedirigs in connectlon with Conditianal Uae Permlt No. 675.
On rnll call~ tha furegaing resolutton was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ 90UA5, BUSHORE, FRY, HERBST~ KING. TOLAR
NOES: COMMISSIOtlERS: NONE
ABSENTs COMMISSIONERS: NONE
9. DEVELOPMENT STANDARQS FOR LOW AND MODERATE COST HOUSING PROJECTS - Anntka
anta e t suggeste av ng t s tem appear on t e agen a n one n-onth~
hovember 17~ 19Q0, as a roport and reconn~endation ftem as e combined report
from Planning and Ilousing Departments and at that time a speciftc date for a
work sesslon c~n be discussed.
O1'IiER COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Commissioner Bushore asked siaff to respond tn
t e etter rece ve rega~ ng the property at 8i14 West Lincoln, the Fun
Ce~ter.
Chairnwn Toiar thought this was a Poiice Qepartment problem and Cammissioner
Bushore asked staff to determine whathor or not there is a condit(onal use
permit issued on that property.
Commissioner Herbst referred to the apartment conversion discusse~ and
stated he would like tn have any va~tances c~ranted fo~ apartment house
converslons referred to in the staff rcport and whether or not ~ny variances
were granted on the apa~tment complex when it was o~iginally approved. Ne
was irCerested in the parking ratio and also the number of three. two or
ane bedrooms in the praJect.
ADJOURNNENT There being na further business~ Commissioner Nerbst offered a motion~
seconded by Commissioner Tolar and MOTION CARRtEO thet the meeting be
adJourned.
The i~eting was adJourned at 3:40 p.m.
Elti:lm
Res~ectfully submitted~
,: ~ •
~~~ ~'f'G~/l~!-ti/
Edith L. Ha~ris~ Secretary
Anahelm City Planning Commiss(o~
~e~2e~se