The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1981/06/01Ctvic C~ntar Anaheim, Californta June 1~ 1981 REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR - Thc reqular maeting of the Anahelm Cicy Plenning Commission MEETING was celled to order by Chairman Tolar at 1:3b p.m.~ June 1~ 1981 in the Counci) Chamber~ e quorum being present. PRESENT - Chatrman Tolar Commissioners: Barnes~ Qouas, Bushore, Fry~ Herbst~ Kfng ABSENT - Commtssioner: None ALSO PaESENT - Annike Sentalohti Ass(stent Director for Zoning Joel Ftck Assistent Dtrector for Pl~nning Jack White Assistant Clty Attorney Jsy Titus City Engineer Dean Sharc~ Assistant Planner Edith Harris Planning Conmisston Secrctary PLEUGE OF ALLEGI/1NCE TO THE FLAG LED BY • Commisslon~r Herbst. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: • Commissioner King o~Fered a motlon~ seconded by omm ss aner ry an ION CARRIEO (Chairman Tolar abstaining)~ that the minutes of the May 18, 1981 meeting be approved as submttted. ITE'_M~NO. 1: Ela NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PEaMIT N0. 2207: PUBLiC NEARING. OMN~R: ORANGE COUNTY NATER DISTRICT, P. 0. 9ox $300~ Fountain Valiey~ CA g270$. AGENT: C. L. PI~ARa15 SANO AND GRAVEL, INC., 2~54 North Santlago ~ouleva~d, ~-200, Qrange. CA 926G7. Property ~lescribed as sn irregularly-sheped percel of land co~sisttng of approximately 3.6 acres~ having a f ro~tage of approximately 120 feet on the west side of Richfleid Road, having a maxTmum depth of approximately 570 feet and being located epproximately 17$0 feet south of the centerline of La Palma Avenue. Praperty presently ciassifted RS-A-43~000(SC) (RES~DEt~TIAL/AGRiCULTURAL SCENIC CORRIDOR OVERLAY) 20NE. CONDITIONl1L USE REQUES7: TO RETAIN A PORTABLE CONCRETE BATCH PLANT. SubJect petitlon was continued from the meeting of Msy 4~ 1981 at the raquest of the petittoner. There was no one indtcating thetr prese~ce tn opposition to sub)ect request~ and aithough the staff report w as not read~ it is referred to and made a part of the mt nutes . C. L. Pharris, agent~ referred to the recortmendation requiring that all improvements be made within g0 days and explained with the htgh interest rate and ec.~nomic condltiona, they woul~d like to b~e able to l~ase the property and start the work and bc allowod to wait probably six months b~fore complytng with the conditions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. 81-313 6/t/81 ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JUNE 1, 1981 81-;14 Cheirrrwn Tole~ afknd the longth of the leese end Mr. Phar~is replted tho lease ta far 5 yaar= but the W~ter Oistrtct ~:AS a atx-manth terminatfon notice cleuae in the leaso. He stated they have r~nother stte tn Cor~ne whero they could move the operatlon r~nd pointed out all the improvements an the prop~rty are portabl• •nd could be removed qulckly. Dean Sherer~ Assistant Planner~ explained this condttional use permtt would be grantaJ for 1 year and the petitioner could request extenslons of time. He expl~lnad the 9o- day period of time epplles to the trafftG signal assessment fee and other Improvements to be put on the pro~e~ty and thet staff would expect that to bo done withtn 90 days. Ne polnted out the~e are no building pcrmits requlred which these condittons would nornu~lly be tted to and thet is the raeso~ for this time limlt. Jack Whltc~ Assistant City Attorney~ further expl+~innd that normally bullding permits would be ~equired~ but in thl~ instence no permits ere raquired and this conditian as it atands would requtre that Che tmprnvements would be made wlthln 9Q days~ but khe Plannlnc~ Comhlsslon can chanye tl~e conditlon. llnnika Santalnhtl~ Assistant Olrector fc~r Zontn9r suggested that the condltion be amencled to read that prior t~ the corunencement of nctivity~ that the conditions be met. She explalned thc petitlonQr would need to stipulate thAt befare they begin the ope~ation~ the conditlons would have been ret. Mr. Pharrls indicatr,d they would ba willing to make that stipulation. Comnissioncr 6arnes stated sl~e has no probidn with the use~ but wanted to know whether or not there would bn eny klnd of waste products going Into the water system. Mr- Pharrls explained the Orange County Water Dlstrlct owns the property and that they are very aware and concerned which ls the reason for the stx-month terminetlon clause in the tease. AC_TION: Lommissione~ Herbst offered a m~tion, seconded by Commtssioner Barnes and MOTION CAkR1ED, t~iat the Anahetm Ctty Planning Commlsslon has reylewed the proposa) to permtt a pc~rtable concrete batch ~+lant In the RS-A-43,000(SC) (Residenttal/Agricultural Scenic Corr(dor Overlay) Zone on an (rregulerly-shapad parce) of l~and conslsting of approximetely 3.6 ac~es. having a frontege of epproximatcly 120 fect on the west side of Richfield Road~ betng lueatcd approximately 1750 feet south of the centerline of La Palma Avenue; and does hereby approve the Negative Dectaratton from the requirement to prepare an envtronmentel impact report on the basis that there would be no stgntficant indtvidual or cumulattve adverse environmental trt~+act due to the approval of this Negative Declaration since the Anaheim Gentral Plan designatGS the subJect property for general industrtal land uses commensurate with the Rroposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts er~ involved in the p~~pogal; that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no slgnificant Individual or cumulative adverse anvi~onmentr:l impacta; and that the Negative Declaratlon substantiating the foregoing findtngs ts on ftle in the Clty of Anaheim Planntng Depe~tment. 6/1/81 l ~ ~ ? MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JUNE 1~ 1g81 81-315 Commis~loner Herbst off~red it~~olutlon No. PC81•115 and moved for Its p~ssage and adoption that the An~halm City Planning Conmisslon daes h~reby grant Conditlona) Usa P.rmtt No. 2207 amending Condltion No. 8 to raad "that Conditlon Nos. 1, 2 end 3 shsll b~ complted with prtor to the camnencement of •ctivtty"~ pu~susn~ to SectlAns 18.03.030; .031; .031; •033: .034 and ~035~ Title 18 of th• Anahelm Muntclpal Code ~~d subJeck to Interdeportmentai Committ~e recommendattona. On ~ol) cell, tha fore going resotutton was pessed by the fotlaving vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ BOUAS~ BUSNORE~ FRY~ NERBST~ KING~ TOLAR NOES: COMMI SS I ONERS : NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ITEM N0. Z: EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-C4ASS 2 AND dARIANCE N0. 3216s .~r~~ ....~....~.~. ~ ~ ~ ~..~~i ~..r ~...u....~ ~ r..~.~~.~.~+..~~.~~. PUDIIC NEARING. OWNER: JAMES STOVALI~ ET AL~ 92802. AGENT: JAMES STQVALI, 1110 West Kate deacribed as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of acre~ located at the southeast corner of Ball Street (Aatro Inn hbtel). P~apnrty presently ZONE. 1110 West Katella Avenue~ Anahatm~ CA Ila Avenue. Anaheim. CA 92802. Property land conststin~ of ~pproximately 0.46 Road and 1~lest Street, 1204 South West classifted CR (COMNERCIAL~ RECREATION) YARIANCE REQUEST: WAIV~R OF MAXIMUM HEIGHT TO PERMIT A FREE•STAN~ING SIGH. SubJect petition was continued from the meeting of May 16~ tg81, et che request of the petitloner, It was noted thc petittoner has requested thet subject petttion be wtthd~awn. ACTtON: Commtssioner King offe~ed a motton, seconded by Commissioner Herbst end A~'Flb~i CARRIEO. that Variance No. 3216 be withdrawn at the request of the petltl4ner. I~TEM N0~_.~~: EIR NEGATIVE DECi.ARATION WAIVER OF C~DE RE UIREMENT AND CONOITIONAI USE ~€TtAi~"'fJ~: 219 , PU9LIC HEARING. OWNERS: MELODYLAND SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY, 1730 South Ciementina Street. Aneheim~ CA 92802. AGENT: OIVERSIFIED MANUfACTURING ANU ENGINEERING, 16191 Const~uction Circle West~ Irvinn, CA 92714. Property descr ~ed as a rectangularly- shaped parcel of land conslsting of approximatsly 0.)2 acre. 1732 Sauth Clementine Street (Melodyland School of Theology). Prope~ty presently cl~ssified ML (INpUSTRIAL~ LIMITED) ZONE. CONOITIONAL USE REQUEST: TO PERMIT A GYMNASIUM IN CONJUNCTI4N WITN AN EXISTING PRIVATE EDUCATiONAL INSTITUTION WITH WAIVER OF MINIMUM LANDSCAPED SETBACK. Subject petitlon was continued from the meeting of May I8, 1981~ at the request of the petl tioner. 6/1/81 MINUTES~ ANAMEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JUNE 1~ 1981 81•316 There was no one lndicating their presance in opposttlon to subJect reque:t, a~nd although the staff report was ~ot ~ead~ tt ts referred to and R.sde • part of the minutas. Tim Louden~ ~ep~esentln~ Dive~sitled Ma~ufactu~inq ~nd En~in~erln9i ststed they would like to requast a two-we~k continuance and exptalned thay are working with M~. Stn~ar concerning the fees. ACTION: Comml~sloner 8ushare offered a motion~ seco~ded by Commtssioner Barnea snd MO~~N CARRIED, thet cunsideratton of the aforementloned item be continued to the regularly-schedulad meeti~g of June iy~ 1981 at the request of the petitioner. ITEM NQ. 4: EIR N_EGATIVE DECLARATION~ aECLASSIFIGATInN N0. 80-81- PUBIIC NEARING. OWNERS: JAMES R. AND SHIRLEY A. NEEDHAM. 9492 Sandra Circle~ Vtlla P~rk~ CA q2667. P~operty descrtbed as e rectangularly-shaped parce) of land conslsting of Approxi~nately 0.39 acre~ 1028 East North Street. RECLASSIFICATION REQUEST: RS• 7200 to RM-2k00 There were four persons tndicattng their presence (n opposition to subJect request~ end although the staff report was nat resd, tt is referred to and made a pert of the minutes. Jamas Needhem~ 9492 Sandra Circle~ Vills Park~ ownar~ explained he would llke to have subJect property ~eclasstfied to RM-24a0; that the property was originally tentattvely planned for reclasslficetior~ several years ego o~ the Anahetm Generai Pian; thet the property next doo~ was recently developed as multtpl~s-family residential; and that ail the property in that generel area of East Street~ North Street and La Pa1ma Avenue should be reciasstfled. He sksted this proposnd proJect meeta a11 the setback and zoning requlren-ents of the RM-2400 Zone. Judy Backlund~ 1015 East North Streat, stated she is speaking for hersalf and her nelqhDors~ Mrs. Gelker and Mrs. Becerra and they are opposed to this change and feet lf it is approved. It wtli just be a matter of ttme before o~her simila~ requests are made and that would resutt tn some of the best hon~es In the area being remaved. She stated they did not oppose the spartment complex on the cor~er because that property hsd always bacn a problem ~nd they felt anything would be an (mprovement based on the informatton they had obt~ined from the Plsnning Departrnent~ but if they had knawn thGre would be four doubte garages right on the curb~ they would have opposed that p~oJect becaust It Is unsightly. She stated they feel tf thts proJect is approved~ there wtll be twelve more perking spaces at the front of the p~opcrty and tt will look ltke an alley. She stated thia ls a busy co rner as far as trafftc ls concerned aspecially wtth ehe 7- 11 Store which genaracea a lot of traf~ic snd also large tr~::ks do pa~k on thei~ street and it ts qulte ~-nisy and thls apartment proJect would mean more traffic. She atoted they do noi feel this area ahouid be developed piecemaal and tf the time comes whan it should be devetoped with apartments~ it should be done an a larger scale with the trsfftc prope~ly handled. She stated she has ltved there 30 years and dass not want to see any niore apa~tments developed in the a~ea. 6/1/81 MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLIWNING COMNISSION~ JUNE t~ 1981 81-317 Lea Nsrnandaz stated he (s speaking for hia mother who ilvas at 15:1 North Bush and he sgraes wtth Ms. Backlund'a sonments. He stated his mother was to~ced to mova from her home on Claudina to thla property on 9ush Street and that she ta on a ftxed Income a~d theae changes do creete problems fo~ her. Ne stated not eve~yone wa• properly tnforms~! of this heartng end he felt before any declalon is mede~ the rest of the anee should be properly Informed. Chslrman Tolar informed Mr. Hernandez that the City is required to notify the publlc of these heerings by two of lhree mnthods: edverttsments (n the newspaper~ posting the prope~ty and notifytng p~operty awncrs by rt-eli within ;~0 feet nf the subJect property. Ne conti~ued that the Ctty of Anahelm com~~lies w(th all th~~ee of these methods of notiflcatlon and that everyone has been properly informed. Claudtne Lassley stated she awns the propery dtrectly behtnd subJect property end she would not Iike to seo this epproved because of her privacy in the beckyard snd bacause the apertr.~ents In the araa do have quite a few police problems and any ~ddttlona) apartments cnuld cre~te moro of the sart~ problems. She agreed there is a treffic problem on North Street and large tru~ks do park there. James Cowce~ 719 North East Street~ stated he has lived tn the netghborhood for over 30 years and that t~e can appreciate the opposition's concern~ but it seems they are bucking a trend which began several years ago and he wauld iike to see ~n even greater dcnstty change to even double the ta unlts per ecre and aliawing two-sto ry apartments because~ from a selftsh standpoint, h~ would get top dollar for his property. He stated this would also be true for the other properties In the area. He steted it seems to him that thls change will beneflt the city with greater tax dollars from the use of the ~ropcrty~ plus the fact that the greete~ density wtll benefit peopic who a~e looking fnr housing. Mr. Needham stated in response to Ms. aacklund's conments~ the property is only gotng to be upgradad; that he just recentiy ck veloped the corner lot end the projr~t wi11 look a lot better in a couple of weeks when the landscaping has bee~ completed. He stated those are qualtty units and will house quality tena~ts. Ne stated the investment in the property wtll assure tha opposition these properties will be upgraded. Ne atated the parktng at subJect property is not on the street and will a11 be concealed by landscaptng and fenctng; that there is a 42•inch high maso~ry wall in fron! of the parking area plus heavy landscaping, He stated with the cost of constructioa and the cost of proparty~ the Qpposttion can be assured that the property awne~s wtll be extra careful to have qualtty tenants which Nill upgrade this propGrty and the genera) nelghborhood. TlIE PUBL IC NEARI NG WAS CLOSED. Cortmissioner Barnes stated she thinks this is a good proJect but she does have e concern regarding the masonry wall ecross the front and Mr. Needham explained the wall wili be a 42-inch high sand colored masonry block wall. Conmissior~r Barnes stated she would 1(ke to see a decorattve masonry wali instead of Just plain concrete block. 6/t/81 ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMiSS10N, JUNE 1~ 1g81 81-318 M~. Ne~dtiam stated he would have no problem wiLh providi~g the decorative block wsll~ but that the lAndsceptng wilt hide it wtthtn a short pe~iod of tlme. Commisslonar Bushore asked Mr. Needham if he has cb vetoped any other p~oJects In this City~ wlth Nr. Naedham explalning he had developed the p~operty next door end also another prope~ty at 880 So uth Claudina. Commtssioner Bushore asked (f the exterlor of this proJect will be the same as the proJect next daor and Mr. Needham replied It will be bastcally the same with stucco end wood itntsh. Chelrman Toier stated there was a Gene~al Plan study an East 5treet some years sgo and he was opposed to beginning of development of multiple-famtly units whlch would enc~oach Into that residential area; anci that recent studles shaved ell of Esat Streot on the west side should be rezoned because of the traffic~ etc. He st+~ted his concer~ Is that ~aw this Is not on East Street~ but the ft~st lot north end south on North Street; that he agrees housin9 is needed end six units would certeinly help that altuatlon but in looking at thc two ed)oining lots and the lot across the street on the north sidc of Narth Street behind the market, the questio~ comes to his mind where this rezoning should be stoppQd. Ne stated In 1976 th~e Commia~ton opposed a change on East Streot; Rnd that he supported tMe proJect on the corner because he thought it was needed but naw thls Is encroa~hing into a restdential a~ea and there ere two more locs on thc west side end also lots across the street whtch wtll obviously be dcveloped tn the same way; and it is already recognized the~e is a traffic problam getting out onto East Sti'eet. Commissloner Ktng Asked why development shculd be stapped and Chairman Tolar stated it should be stoppad because people heve boeqht homes tn a singta-famtly area and expected to malntain them as residenttal homes and once epartments are allowed to abut s(nglc+-family homes. there will be mo~e nolse, more people a~d nare trafftc and the peopie deserve the Commission's protectlon for their st~gle-fsmtly hc~mes. Commissioner Kin~ stated the Commlsslon keeps talking about increases In traffic~ but if Anaheim is to grow and prosper, obviously there will be an I~crease in traffic. Commisstoner eushore stated he feeis traffic is why some proJects should be disapproved. He stated t-ie record w(11 shcw that he voted against the project on the cornBr or(ginally~ aithough he felt East Street was ready for reciassificatlon because he dId not think it shouid ba voted upon until some publtc hearings were ~eld and thoso hearinys have been held a~d the people have clearly spok~n that they do not war~ t the rezon i ng. Commissione~ 8usho~e stat~d he was disturbed when he learned thet thts developer had built the p~oJect an the corner called "B~sic Shelters" because they laok very basic; that he is in favor of providing housing but was bothered by the type of units on the corner a~nd tha type of units these will be because they are not the type of units he would want to see En that area and he thought that type proJect will do more harm to the araa. He stated he feels thts is where the Cammtssion needs to set a precedant to turn the area around posltively. Na stated th~re a~e some problems in the a~ea 6/t/S1 ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY P~ANNING COMMISSiON~ JUNE 1~ 1981 81-319 an~ thtngs could yo the wrc~q way and the typ~ of product put in the aree wll) dtctate Lhe type of prcblems that NI11 come wtth it. Corvnissloner Harbst stated tn 1967 the General Plan dasignated the sre~ on Eaat Straet es modlum denstty rssidentiai •nd asked ahen the area o~ North Strest wss designatad as medium density~ noting the ftrst Gensral P1on hwendm~nt on E~st Street r• as I n 19b 7. Daan Sheror, Assistant Plan~er~ stated Ganerel Plen Mrendment No. 90 adopted tn 1967 anly daslgnated the west side of East Street up to North Stre~t for medlum denstty ~estdc+ntial but did not include tl~oso lots on tdo~th S+creet. Cartrnissione~ Nerbst potnted out the steff report states the G~nera' Plen destgnatet the propcrty es medlum denstty resicfential land uses. Mr. Sh~re~ replted ataff makes es~ evaluatian on borderline properties where the Genera) Plan shows stngie-family inn~dlately adjecent to n-edtum donstty residentlal and ih~: Ger-eral Plan edoptlan could go either wey and stated this property Is right et th~ bou~dary. Commisa(oner Nerbst stated the only problem he has Is that so~.~e of the other l~ts c,n North Street are of similar sizc end shape; and ~11 the lots on North Street werr~~~e acre and had ora~yc g~oves. He atated he 1 t~red in that ~~ree and ~•alkod on tl~e b~ck of those lots and he docs not thlnk the lots could he devclop~d into anything but multiple-f~mily res(Aential l,eceusa of the sixe~ but wa~n't sure whethe~ or not 6 units on ona lot w~uld be fea~ible. but polnt~d out 7 unlts have been approved an ~.s Palma. Ne stated thtre is a auestian here as ta -rhat ts the highest and b~st use of the property and h~ recognt,.e~ th~ lots across Le Palms coul~ go elther way i~ end when the+y are develo~cd for multlplc-family residential uses. tle st+~ted he fe~t this ar~a is dGStlned for this type of yrawtl~ because singla-famlly hc~mes would not be devetoped on that sixe lot. Ne steted he does not like the looks of some of the untts that are going in, but the L~mmisslan should not get In to architectura) control a~d should only dntermine whetf~er or not th4 property is suitabte fo~ tl~is type use and he felt the area is rcadY for this type development. Commissione~ Barnes egreed aince there is a reai need fo~ apartments In this area and maktng the units ni ar would only me~n higher rent. She steted the Commission just finished discussiny the Housing Eleirent and found out how many na~ apar;ments are goi~g to be needed and here ~s a develope~ wtth private funds -~illtng co build them and that this is a t~ansit3onal area and she fait this Is s good plAU• for those units. Commissioner 8ushore stated he is not opposed to multiple-faenily development a~long East Street, but that East 5treet should be developed fir~t b efore going tnto the ressidential area of North Street. He statnd the~e are tFings rhat could be done archttecturaily~ without a~chitectural control. whlch da not add cost tn the building, b~t that this Is setting a trend ~nd also goTng in t c a residentia) neic,hbarhood. He noted that none of the Canmissioners lfve i ~ that neigh~~rhaod~ He stated he ts trying to put himseif in the position of knawing w~at type of netghbor3 and properties are therc na+ and he fcit co allvw multiple-family uses alon~ North Street is wrung and thare wi ll be problems i~ the are~ in th~ fu[ur~s. He stated he would 1 iE.e to see EasR Street developed fi ~st and tf he i ived the~e, hc wouid not 6/lioi MINUTES~ AN AH EIM CiTY PLANNINC COMNISSION~ JUNE 1~ 1g81 ~1-320 liko to see tfils approved~ ~v~en in the name of housin~ beuuse lt will be deatroying a nel ghborhood. ACTI ON: Commi ss i emar Kt ng of fered s m~t I~n ~ seconded by Comml as toner Fry and MOTI ON ~~i D~ tha~t th~ Anahelm City Plsnniny C~~mmistfon has reviewed the propos~l to recla=sity ~~~ect ~roperty from the RS-7Z00 (Resldenti~l, Single-f~mt ly ) 2one to the R1~240~ (Residenti~l ~ Multiple-F~ml ly) 2one to construct a 6-unit epartment cqnplex ~n a ~ectangularly-shaped pe~cel of land consisting oP approximately A.39 acre~ hev(ng e frontage of approxtmately 75 feet on the south stde of North Street~ having a nwxt mum depth of ~pproxtmateiy 225 snd being loceted app, ~xlmately 200 feet we~t of the ee±nterline of Eest St~eet (1028 E~st North Street); and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration from the requirert~ent to prepare an envlronme~te) impact rnport on the be~is that there would bo no afgnlftcant tndividual or cumulative ~dverse environmental Impect due to the approvel of this Neg~ttve Decle~btian stnce the M~helm Genersl P1an designates the subJect property for multiple-femi ly residential lar~d uses corrn+~nsurace with the proposel; that no senaitive environmenta) imp~~cts ere Invalved in the proposal; thst the Inittal Study aubmittad by the petitionc~ Indicates no signlficanc Ind(vidual ~r cumulative adverse envlronrr~ntal (mpacts; end that the Neyative Declaratlon subatantlattng the foregoing findings is on file In tho CIt•~r of Anahein~ Plnnning Qepartmont. Commiss ioner K( ng of fered Re,ol i~ ion No. PC81-11(~ an~l moved for 1 ts passage and adoptton that the Ma~~oim City Flanning Commlssfon does hereby grant Reclassl~ication No. a0-81-~7 sub,jr.ct to the petitlone~'s stipuletion ta provfde a decarstive mesanry wall slung N~ rth Stre~t and subJect to Interdepo~tmentai Committee recommendations. On rot l cal I, the f~reg~oing resolut~an was passed by tho fol lowing vate: AYES: COMMI5510~'~RS: BARNES~ FRY~ HERBS7~ KING NOES: COMMISSIOtIE t5: 60UAS, 9USHpRE. tpLAR ABS~NT; COMM! SS ~ Ot~ERS : NONE Cha i rmsn To I a ~ exp 1 a t ned h i s vote was no t age i ns t the product or the need for hous I ng but his con~ern Is where to stop the multiple-fdmily yrowth into tf~e residentfa) ~rea. Ne stated it ts dlfficuit to make e deciston because of the housing problem whlch exists in thts clty. Ne agreed with Commissloner Bushore that ttiere ts space avallabie in this city especially al~ng East Street which could be approved for multfple-fa~:~; ly unlts. He stated he ~upports houstng tn the city~ but has a problem with thta ps~ticular devclopment. iTE` M N~O., 5; EIR CATEGORICAI EXEMPTION-C1.A55 5 AHD_VAR.tANCE N0. 3218: PUBLIC HEARING. OidNER: PA^ADISE INVESTMENT. INC. ~ 110 Strada Ploce~ Mt~heim~ CA 9Z807. Prope~ty descrlbed as an irregularlys~aped parcel of land consisting of approximeLely 1.) acres~ 110 Strada Place. Property presently classl~ted RS-{i5- 43~000(SC) ~o~e. VARIANCE REQUEST: WAIVER OF PERMITTEO ANT~NNA TO RETAIN A GROUND-MOUN7ED ANTENNA. 6/1/81 MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JUNE 1~ 19A1 81-321 Thare w~s one peno~ indicatiny hts pre~ence in oppc,sitlan to •ubJact requ~st~ and although the staff report v+ss ~ot ~e~d~ It Is raferred to and m+~de a pa~t of the ~+Inutes. Brian Jeannette~ 470 Old Newport Boulevard~ Newpr:rt Basch~ Callfornl~~ rapresenting Paradise Investment Company~ Inc.~ Oan d~iley, awner~ explnined this fs M~ . Bailey's persona) ~esidenc~ and this sltuation ceme u~~ when ~n Inspector dtscovared the ground-mou~tcd dish antenna whtch was being installed. He steted the exis ting ordinance hes to do with clessicai typg televislon or h~m radio operator poln antennas which s~e pale-maunted st~UCtures from 20 to 40 feet htgh; that this site Is • little over 1 ac~e in size and hes e lot of trces And they are pre=entl~r putttng in landscspiny on the reer pa~t of the yo~d which wt il incr~e:e the amou~t of landscaping, Ile statod they feel alnce tl~is Is not the classical type antenna which moat ordtnsnces have been writt~n for~ that It shoulc! be Alinwed. He st+~ted they do feel there Is probably yood roason for screentng and th~y would propose to provlde sn opaque (weod or slump block) fence in lleu of the exlsttn~ Iron fence. Joan Caln~ 1~+1 Cerra Yl~ta Way~ statcd she is 3peeking for herself and f~er neighbon~ the Mendoza's at 131 Cerro Vista Way, that her property is adjacont to subject property ~d her frant yard Is adJacent to thelr backyard and that the Streda Place property is at a highsr clcvation ond as a result they luok up to thls satellito antonna and can see it es they enter their driveway~ and f~om their front yard or from the fr~nt of the house and lt looks llke a rn~a~ scope. She presented photagrAphs of the antenna looking frwn hcr prope~ty and the street. She steted they are concerned because tt~e rest of the nalyhborhood has compl led wi th the ordinsnce and have inslde antennas and do get gooJ reception s~ there ls na need fo ~ sn outslde antenna for receptton. She stated aiso cable has been latd in the area far c~bte televis{on and therc is no necd for a satelllte antenna In order to 9et s lot of chdnnels because soon a lot of channals wl 11 be evaE lAble. She statesd th~e ant~nna Is very unsightly. She ltated Peralta Ilills Is part of the scenic corrtdor and mnst af the residcnts moved there because of the beauty and the rural atmosphere and noted th~re are no street lic,~hts, cu~bs ar siciewalks and tt seems an insult to h~ve something Ilke this. She stated thls is an intruston of vt~ion upon the environment not o~ly for al l of Pe~al ta N) l ls but on them personal ly bPcauae they l t v~e ne~t door. She stated they are also wo~rled because i f this is granted~ it could sez a precedent and therc mlght be other peoplt who went tu do tho s~me thing end it wAUt d ~uin the whole atmcsphere and enviro~ment of Peralta Nills. Richard McKenna stated he TS an employe+~ of Mr. Balley's and he did not thi~k It was Mr. Bailey's intention to cause any unsic~tly feature in the area and that the opaque fenc(n~ araund the area would obstruct any unsightly vlew fram any neighDor's house. He stated Mr. Bailey did not construct the antcnna knowingly against any ordinancea and he was sure he would be wi l l ing to comply wlth +eny reasonable request to screen thc entanna. Ms. Catn stated she feit a fence would make the via+ even worse bezause she hars to look up tu lt and looktng into a fence In t~e middle of thelr neighbor's backyard from har frontyard would be unsightly. 6J~/Sr MINUTES~ ANAN~IM CITV PLANNING COMMISSION~ JUNE 1~ 1981 81-322 Mr. Jeennatta ~teted It wauld be ve ry sasy to contin w thelr landsc~ping prog~am around the corner In o rder to •limin~te the vta+ from Mt. C~in's property and ic could be do~s to meet Planning Oep~~tment's spproval with a conbinatlon of landscaptng and fenctng. He 'tated this ts s very soph~sticated ~~ideo and communtcattons :yst~n which wes very expensive and xhat Mr. B~Ilay would he more th~n willing to spend more money to inaure that It is nat an •yesore, TIIE PUBLIC H~ARING WAS CLOSED. Commissloner Bernes as ked who installed the antenna~ stating anyone putttng them in should knav thac thcy heve to get pe rn+l~a from the city. Mr. Jeannette expleined the invantor of the video system is one of n~•. Eei ley's frlend!~ end he inatal led it a~d he was sure thet he had probably learned a lesson. Commissione~ Barnea st ated she is pretty calloused to s~n~one saying they dtd not knav because thet (s v+hat everyone says; thet she knavs I f he! has put any other antennas In~ that he k nows permits are requlred, partfcularly wtth Mr. Bailey being in the Investment bustness. She stated, haweMe~. she wall:s past this prope~ty sbout three times a week end she had not noticed the antenna~ so it ts not thet visable from the street and s he had to lc~ok for it; th~t it can be seen from Ms. Caln's front yard, but sha felt (f the a•nna is properly screened with fencing end lsndscaptng~ thcn it wil) not be un sightly. She steted the problem is thet the landscaping wil) take a long tinw to mature to caver the vlew. Mr. Jeannette stated they can put in maturc landscaping end stated agein there was no intantlon ta harm any one's vtew and (f It takes 36-inch box trecs to screen the antenna~ Mr. 6atlny wi 11 be w(lling to comply. Commisstoner Herbst as ked the purpose of the antenna and Mr. JeAnnette explained the antenna is for satel l i te recepticm and provldes the ab! 1 ity to pick up television signals from all over the world and that M~. Ball~y would only be receiving aignals and not sending signais and wc ~Id not conmunic~te wlth a~yone e1se. He stated this is Mr. Balley's hobby. Commissicmer kerbst asked the hetght of th~ dtsh and Mr. Jeannette explatned it is 2- 1/2 feet fram the ground and is set on a~, enyle and is approxlrn~tely 8-to 10-feet high. Chalrms~ Tolar sta~ed he can appreclate the Cain's ooncern because of their investment in thdlr property which ta very expenstve; that not cx~ly have pecple bought homes In this a~ea because of the rura) atn-ospl~ere but beGause they want to develop their properties wtth ~11 tha arnr.nttles such as tennls caurts, etc. He ststed this Commtssion has granted many oondttional us~ permlts for tennis cou~ts which were built right on the property 11nes wtth 20-foot htgh fences~ which were more ~Istible than thls ant~nna and that the tennis court itghts were also highar. Ne felc che preced~t has been set and that this antenna ~•m be screened and tt would not be as notsy es the tennis courts~ which are prevalen; throughout Peralta Hills. Commiss6oner Herbst as k3d why thts Is a request for a variance rather than a conditiona! use permit a~nd Annika Santal~iti~ Assistent Director fo~ Zoning. replled 6/1/S1 t ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JUNE 1~ 1981 81•323 the g rou~~-nwunted antennas aro specificelly prohibitad in the scenic wrrido~~ therefora a varlence is necessary. Commisstoner Herbst stated since this wtll be no higher than 1A feet ~nd wil) be properly scrsened~ and it la a nr~dern type o~mmunication system and there will be m~re similar request: in the futuro~ that it shauld be approved~ but tf lt is approved~ he stated he wtll w~~t to be sure that tt is done in a ma~nor that wil) not be abusive to the ncighborh~od ~nd can~ot bn seen from the street. Cortmissloner Ba~nes stated she has a slight problem with the varlence process tn thls In~tance end that something should b~ done to sllaw thia typa of equipment tf it Is toxally st~eenad. It waa noted tha Planning Dtrector or hts autho~lzcd represantative has determined th~t the proposed proJect falls wtthin the definttton of Categoricel Exemptlons~ Claas 5. ~s defined in parag~eph 2 of the City of Anahetm Envl~o~mental Impact Report Guldelines and is, thercfore. categorically exempt from tht raqulrement to prepara an F. I R. ACTIO~~: Commiasioner 8arnes offered Resalution No. PC81-117 and moved for its pe ss a'~'~ge a~nci adoption that the Maheim Ctty Planning Commisslon does hereby grant Vertance No. 3218 0~ the basis that ordinances do not pertain to chis speciftc type of antonna snd on the besi~ that the petltiane~ has stlpulated to completely acreer~ the ancenna within 30 days with combtnation fence a~d tandscaping of adequate size and subJect to Interdepartmental Committee recomnendetions. Mr. Je~~nette Indtcated thsy waula like to be sblc to provtde scraening wtth fencing but primarlly iandscaping and thc cortbinatlon wili glve them greater flexibtllty. Jeck White~ Assistant City Attorney~ explatned the oondltion should read "th~t the view should be screened from th~ surrounding pro~+ertles or street with combinetian landscapfng and fei:ctng to be approved by the Planning Oepartment". On roll call~ the foregoing resolutlon was passed by the following vote: AYES: C~MMISSI~NERS: BARNES, 80UAS~ BUSHORE~ FRY~ HERBST~ KING, TOLAR NOES: COMM~SSIONERS: NONE AE15Et~T: COMMISalONERS: NONE Jack White~ Asslstant City Attorncy~ prese~ted the wrttten rtght co appeal the Planning Commissian's decislon within 22 days to the City Council. Conmissioner Barnes suggested a Cnmmission policy i~at this type of equipment be ailaved tt it ts total0y screened from vtew of any other prape~tles. Jack Whito explafned a Conmission pollcy would disturb him unless the Commission is very carefui thst they heve in no way made a pre-judgment that they would grant a~y usQ that is properiy screened and th~t each case must be considered on a cas~-by•case basis. Ne stated staff could tndtcatc that in tha event a request ls aipproved that 6/1/81 c MINUTES~ ANIW EIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIO"~~ JUNE 1~ 1981 8i-324 the Commt~sion has a poticy requiring stta scree~infl, but tt should not bo Indiceted that lf It ls scraened, it would be approved automaticaily. Commissione~ flerb~t suggested ~mending the ordinances to allow this type use Dr conditlon~l use permits so it can be cont~c+iled with tlme limits. Chairman Tolar felt rather thsn ope~ing "Pandora's Box" with an ordinance change or a Commiasion poilcy~ that tt should be left a: (s ~rith n~ch ane bei~g revlewcd on e case-by-case basis. Commissianer Barnes scated the only probiem is thAt chia is a vartence request and that findings must be made t~ jusrify the grantlny of a varia~ca and she dtd rat fiee) ic ftts thls situatlo~ and c.~et a conditlo~al use permit process would be more app~opriate. JaGk I~hite expirined that would requir~ an amendment to the ordinance no longer prohibieing tha aqulpme~t~ making it allowable by a cond(tlonsl use permtt. Chairman Tolar auggeated staff bring back a recommended pr~posed ordinence In fou~ w~aeks. Mr. Jeannette stated they have been installtng this entenn~e on a fe,r other homes and are provtding a vt~ble design with roc~f-mounted wells. Chairman Tolar stated it would be hetter to leev~ the ardlnences alone; and thst roof- mo~snted equipment Is not parmitted in tha scenic corridor. Commissioner Bushore •sked tf Mr. Batlcy does this for a iiving and Mr. Jeannette replled it is Mr. 9ailey's hobby. Chairman Talar stated he apprectatcd Mr. Jeannette's e~mments~ but talking about roof-mounted equipment in the scentc a~~rridor would ceuse e lot of problems. ITE_ M N0. 6: Elii C_ ATA~GO,RIGAL EXEMPTIQN-CLASS ~.AND VARIANCE N0. ~0: PUBLIC NEARING. OWNER: DANIEL E. AND NORMA R. DUNC~N, 5020 East Holbrook Strett~ A~aheim~ CA 92Eb7. AGENT: BLUE R1880N BUILDER'S, INC., 1135 West Katella Aver,ua~ Orange~ CA 926f~7. Property descrlbed as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisttng of approximate)y 5,~00 square feet~ 5020 East Holbrook Street. Property presentiy classifted RS-5000. VARIANCE REQUEST: WAIVER OF MAXIMUM I.OT COVERACE TO CONSTRUCT A ROOM ADOITION. there was no one Indicating th~ir presence In oppositlon to ~ub)ect request~ and although the steff ~eport wss nc~t read~ it is referred to and made a part of the ~inutes. Dan ~uncan, owner. was present to ansrver any questions. THE PUBLlC HEARING WAS ~LOSED. 6/t/8~ ~_ t NINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JUNE i~ 1981 81-32y It was noted the Ptanntng Oirector or his aukho~ixed representa~tvr has determtnnd th't the p~opased p roJect fells within the definitton of Categorlcel Exemptlo~s, Clas. 5• as deftned in p~~ag~aph 2 of the City of M ahetm Envl~o~nwntal Impact Report Guldalines and Is~ therefor~~ categortcally exempt from the requirement to preper• an EIR. ACTIOW: Comnissioner King offered Resolution Na. PC81-118 end naved for tts paasaga ~n a ption th at the Anahelm City Planning Commlasion cbes hereby g~ant Va~tance No. 3~2Q on the basts that danlal would deprive subJect property of prtvileqes enJoyed by other p~opertles In the same rona and victnity and subJect to Inte~rdeps~tmontal Committee recommendatlons. On roll call, the for~goi~g resolutton wes paased by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIOt~ERS: BARt~ES~ 90UAS~ BUSNORE~ FaY~ HERBST~ KING~ TOLAR NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMI5SIONERS: NONE ITE~ M N0. ~; EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION ANO VARIANCE N0. ~21~: PUBLIC HEARING. OuN~R: WALDRON GO55~ 732; East Atondra~ Paramount~ CA 90723. AGENT: RICNARD TIMBOE~ 1018 Narth Eaststde, Santa Ma~ CA 927~1. Property described c.s an i~ragularly-ahaped parcel of lend co~sisftnr, of approxtmately S200 square feet~ lacated at the southeast corner ot Riverdale Avenue and Ste~ling W~y~ having a frontege of approxtmately 32 feet on the south stde af Riverdaie Avenue and a frontage of 36 feet on the east side of Stariing Way. Property presently classified RS- 7200. VARIANCE REQUEST: WAIVERS OF; (a) MINIMU~ lOT h~~A, (b) NINIMUM LOT W;OTN AND FR4NTAGE~ (c) MINIMUM LANpSCAPED SETBACK ANO (d) PE :~'TTED ORIENTATION TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE-FAMiLY RESIDENCE. It was noted the petitianer has requested a continuance to the moeting of June 29~ 1981 in order to cry end allevlate some of the conce~rn ~f the sur~ounding nelghbors. AC_ TION: Co mnissioner King offered a motion~ seconded by Cortmissioner lierbst and MOTION CARRIEn. that conslderatior~ of thc aforementio~ed 'tem be conttnued to the rngulariy-scheduied meeting of Ju~c 29~ 1981 at the request ^f the petitloner. ItCM N0. 8: EIR N£GATIVE DECLARATION ANO VARIANCE N0. ;219: PUBIIC HEARING. 041NER: BILL J. AND FAY RARDON, 3!2 East 8roadway~ Mahetm~ CA g2805. Property destribed as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisttng of approximateiy 0.2 mcre. 312 East Broadway. Properxy presently cl~+sstfied aM-1200. VkRIANCE REQUEST: ~IAIVERS OF; {a) MINIMUM FLOOR AREA. (b) MINIMUM STRUCTURAL HEIGHT~ (c) MIHIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEt~ BUILDINGS 1W0 (d) MINIMUM NUMB~R AND T1/PE OF PARK I ~1G S PACE 5 TO ESTABL I SN A1~ APARTMENT UN I T. 6/1!81 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CONMISSION~ JUNE 1~ 1981 $~-326 There were two pe n ona tndicAtiny thelr prosence tn oppositlon to subJect request~ and elthough the staff repor• was not ~esd~ (t Is refe~red to end made e pa~t of the minutas. 811) Rardon~ owner~ ~tated he rosides at subJr t prope~ty which he purchased 5 yesrs ago and ot thst ttme he had m~de tl~et~ samc• oquett end it was opposed and since he hed a I~t of work to do~ he withdrew that ~~quest~ but during the le~t 5 yea~s he has done enough work to show what he (s capab'e of doing; that th~c property la 9Q years old snd that he has restored thc f~ont -.,use and it has bean ~eported in the Orange Cnunty Illustrated~ The Newpc~rter~ etc ~ and the c(ty has asked thet it be registered with the Nationa) Nistoric Saclety; .hat he has not worked (n the past year and the llttle butldtng (pumphouae) In thR b.~ck hes been used as a guest house. Ne prese~ted photogrephs of the structure a~d of the work he has cione. Th~ f.ommission reviawed the photogreplis alth4ugh they were nat presented as offlcla) evtdence. He atated the pum~hous• building (a old but he felt (t could be madc li ~ble ond would comply with the city codas. Ne steted it had been used as ~ ciwelling for 35 years end In 1967 the neighbors complained and tho tenants moved out efter Itving there 10 yeers; that thC atructure was in bad condition and 10 years eno the neighbor's insurance company refus~d ta provlde tnsurance on their proporty because of thls buildtng~ but he has laarnad this morning that this same compa~y dc~es write th~ir Insu~ance today and the structure be(ng that close to tha(r prope~ty Ilne has notht~g to do wlth thelr premium. He stated alony wtth the ronndeling~ he Is adding ~e bathroom and laundry; and that wh~n he is through~ he wlll put a watnr tank and a wtndmill on top and he plans to rerro ve t~ces on the sldc so when people look beck there~ they will see the old tower build(n~~ a small gazebo, a tar9e bl~d house~ a water tank and windmill and tt wfl) laok authenic. Joan Fundum~ 2$08 TrAnstt Placa~ stated she Is rep~asenting her mother. Stella Atlen~ 316 East Broadway~ who was also p~esent ac thC podlum. Sha statad her pa~ents a~m the property ncxt door to subject praperty and chat her fether ts physically unable~ to attencl thls meeting end requcsted she read the foliowing statement: "Prtor to thc last va~tance be(ng dented ay thc Planntng Con+missfon in 1976~ the pumphause- was condemned. We had requestacf the condemnatlon because we ha~: Deen v+tthout insurance on our butlding ~~ months due to the fl~e haxard created by tfi e pumphouse only 2-1/2 feet from the property line. The c~wner ~f Lhe pun-phause started reconstructlon of the pumphous• pr(or to the last variance request end has continued constructian to the present time, he ralsed plqeons in the building after he was denled the last vert~nce. We reported thls to the city es the pigeons were 7'-t/2 fset from our kitchen wtndow and donr. Since that tirt~e the buiiding has been used as en office~ a sewing room~ a 1 aund~y room and a guest house. The a~-~+ner of the pwaphause has cleaned the weeds and thn grass from the 2-1/2 feet of property between the pumphousn and property line only 2 or j tlme~ since he has owned the pr4perty. As rccently es two weeks ego we told fi1m about seeing lizar~s and a rat tn the debris, At the present tirt~ the weeds~ gra~s and deb rts are s-ill Lhera. There is a pipe coming out of aech side of the pumphouse and we were told by a worker on thls buildln' that it was used for dratnage. We have objected to the building in the past 6~1/81 MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLAHNING COMMISSION~ JUNE 1~ 1981 81•327 due to the fire hazerd a~d the 2-1/T foat setb~ck. We alt~o obJect now dua to the condttlons that exist. The owner of th• buliding taid us that the city is (nte~astsd In the property ~s a histortcal landmerk. 1~h •u~gsst that whelha~ o~ not th~t is the casb, that thQ p,,~~a~se b~ ~em~ved f rom Its pra:ent locatlon and request that the Planning Commisslon deny this va~lence." Mrs. John 0. A) len stated they h~ve had s problem with •~+oe:1s e~d vin~s and have hed to hir. e man to come tn and trim ~n~ toke the leaves off the roof. She stated they elso had the sarne problem with the pravious owner; and that the prnvious awner had tenents Itving in tha pumphouse and that when they moved~ the mattresaes were placed against the fence ebout 7 feet from thely dining area and th~y h~+d to ask~ the health department to come and take care of It. Mr. Rardon stated he cAnnot ~espond to connients about the past ~ut felt the plcturea will show he trl~as to keep the aree clean and neet; that when he 'earned hls v(nes were getting on the Allen's property. he put up a double fence so he could have honeysuckle vines and that he has told her that he dtd not plan for her to spend any money to have trees trtmmed or the a~ea clean~d and if they wauld Just let hiR ~:now~ he would dd it. Mr. Rardon stated he thought he has been nelc~hborly. and would conttnue to be neighbarly and probably 90~ of the hous~s on thet street do not comply with current codes. but thero Is a housing shortege. Ne statrd he can assure the Commlaston that he keeps 8 neAt place and that he did get rtd of thc pigaons~ but hc cannot stop the ants from golny on their property when the frult falis on the ground~ and he~eennot orevent the rnice from jumpinn from on~ l~t to anath~r. H~ ~" stated he feels he has trled to be en asset to thn Gommunlty and hF dces r-ot fee) lt is unreasonable to ask for thts variance. Ha stated the hlstoricei society has wa~ted to spor~ser him in thls federal regtstrAtlon and asked Ms. hl~rah to speak in his behalf, ptane Marsh, 321 North Philedelphta~ stated M~, end Mrs. Rerdon have done a bdeutlful job in ~estoring this haus~ approprtate to the pertod and have done very little to d!sturb the exte•ier facade and heve baen very generous tn sharing it witfi other pevple and twice ha~ allawed i,000 strange F~eople to tour it. She stared people knc~w where ttiat hn~se i s located and i t has been widely wrt tten up i~ naw~~apers and magazines because tt is beautlful. She stated tt takes a long time to restore property and it is a lot of hard wo~k and cannot ail be done at onte. She stated in the last ye+~r Mr. Rardon has had severe health probldns and has had several major su~gerl~s end thak he has kept the proper:y up beautifully considering that. She stated everything has been done in ve ry good t~ste and the property ts reatl~ ~~ery nice. She stat~d if Mr. Rardon decided to sell ~this property and gtve up, ic ould become a prablem with sever~! f~anlilas moving (n and letting it become run down. She atatod the neighbors shauld be realiy happy that the Rardons bought this property and rescored it and that they are nice q ui~t neighhors, She statec! tf the pumphouse is removed~ the historicol value of rhQ p~opc:rty wouid not ~e as great. TNE PUBt,IC HEARING WAS CLOSEp. 6/1/8i MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSI01~~ JUNE i, 1981 81-328 Commissionnr Ki~g referred to Item 4 of the staff report ~equirtng the pumphouse be brought up to ~'nimum standerds of tha 8uildtng De~rtmer,t end asked tf that would ba a prablem anJ Mr. aerdon ~aplted it would be done. Comrnissloner Dushore referrod to tha attpulatlon tn the s~~ff report that tha existing ga~age storega facility would be removod so thet tl~e p,arki~q spaces wauld be sccessibte a~~d M~. Rerdon replled thst ts co~rect. Commtssioner Kin~ inJtcsted I~e couid not justify the lack of parktng bacause 9roadway is e busy st~e~t and Commissioner Fry point~d out that the driveway :~ qultc+ lo~g at the side of the house~ with Mr. Rardon cl~~rtfying thet they could pe~k throe cera thera end four tn the rear. Commtssloner Fry indiceted he h~d not been concerned ~hout pArktng unttl he heard what Ms. Marsh had sald about tho tours ar,d it w~s clariFied that thnse are once•a- yaar fund-ralsing type cvents~ with tho Nlstorlcel Soclety chd~ging people to tour th.,se old housas. Commlaslonar Barnes indic.eted she wau~d w~nt the petittoner to stipulete that the weeds bebween the p~imphousE and the ~~opcrty llne would be remuved and Mr. Rardon tndtcated he would take those out and ha would kesep the w~eds dow~ wtth a weed killer or something stmtlar. Commissioner pouas asked about the nroblem with insurance and Mr. Rardon explalnad that 10 years ago tt~e neiyhbors cauld n~t ~et insurance betausa of the pumphouse but that has slncc been reso~~vcd end they now have Insur~nce with the same firm. Commisstoner Barres st~ted she thought Nr. Rarcion is doing a c~oad Job. ACTION: Commissioner Barnes offered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner King and 1 1 T CAi1RIED~ that the Anaheim Ci •~ Planning ~:ommlssion has revinwed the p~c~osal to establish an opartmenc unit with weivars of rr,inimum floor a~ea. mi~•imum structural setback~ minimum distance batween bulldings and ~ninimum nurt~ber and t.ype of parking apaces ~,~ a rectangularly-shap~d p~rcel of land constting of apprnximetely 0.2 ac~e, havt~, a frontage of approxlmately 63 f~et an the south side of Broadwey (312 East Broa~way); and does hereby approv~ the Negativ~ Oeclaration from the requi.ement to preparc an environn-ental impact report on th~ bssis thaC there would he no stgniftcant tndividual or cumul~tive adv~rse environme-ta! Impact ~:~e to tt~e approval of th(s Negative DeclAratlo~ sin~e the Anahelm Genere~l P~en desiqnates the subJect p mpcrty tor medlurtrdensity residentia) land uses canniensurate with the p~opos~l; that no sensitive environmental Impacts are fnvolv~d tn the ~roposal; that the Initlal Study submitted by the petitioner ind;cates no :ignificant individual ur cumuiative ad~re~se environmental impacts; and thst th~ Negative Dacla~rbtion substantiating the faregoiny fin~l~gs is ~n fila ~n ~ City of Anaheim Pi~~ning Department. Wnmissloner Barnes offerec Resolution No. PCb'•-119 and moved for its p~ssage and adoptlon that the Anaheim City Planntng Commission do~s hereby grant Variance No. 3219 ~ the basis that the g'~-year o!d pumphouse is existtng and h~,~ a significant 5/1/$1 ~ ~ MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY NLANNING GOMM15510N~ JUNE 1~ 198) 81-329 histo~ica) impo~tenco snd wi11 ~ot ba detrimentel to ~he erea and aubJect to Interdepartme~tal Commfttee recommendattons. Chairmen Tolar st~ted he would supc~ort the resolution o~ the basis that denlai would deprive tha prope~ty of prlvila9as anJoyed by othe~ p~opertlos tn the same zone a~d victnity a~d becauae the property ha~ been there for many yea~s and was bulit under the ol d cocie . Commisst~n~r tlerbst steted ha is bothered because he likes what he se~~~~ ~ng as thls gentlemen owns the property and as long as the Htstortcal Socic an Inte~et~t In the property~ hawever, there is a chance thfs per~on couf~ I tha property en~i it could be d~trimental to the ar,~c with the llvtn~ structure there. N~ steted he would like to s~ee sonre conditt~n req~iring that as long as the Htstorica) Suctety ts behind the project~ this use would be aiivwed. Chetrma~ Toler stated he caulci not support thrt type stipulation beca~s:c evary pro,~ertV c~wner tmp~oves his pr~~erty and there is no guarsnt~e that tho neighbors next dwr Nt 11 take care of thei r prap~rty o~~ that the peaple who buy the property will maintain it in tts present conditlon. He stated he felt property owners wlth a property which ~~as a historicnl vatue like this has an addit~ona~ incenttve to kaep tha propcrty up. On roll call~ thc foregofng rcaolutlon was ~assed by the followtng vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARI+ES, BOUAS~ BUSNORE, FRY~ HERBST. KING, TOLAa NOFS: COMMI SS IONERS : NONE f ENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE RECESS There was a ten-minut~c recess at 3:~0 p.m. _.._.. RECO~ The meattng was reoonvened at 3:10 p.m. ITEM N0. 9: EIR NEGATIVE DECLAMTI0~1 AND VARIANCE N0. 3222: .~_ .._..~. ~.~..__...~. ... PUBLIti NEAR~NG. OWNER; MARV11~ C. MOORE~ 9ati C~estwood lane~ Apartment 1~ Anaheim~ CA 92t3~4. Property described as e~n trregulerly-sheped parcel of land consistl~g of approximately 0.32 ~cre, 1811 Cres.wood L~ne. Property presently classlfted RF4-1200. VARIA~tCE REQUEST: WAIVERS OF: (a) HAXIMUM STRUCTURAi. HEIGHT~ (b) MINtMUM LANRSCAPED SETBACK, (c) MINIMUM SIDEYARO SETBACK AND (d) MINI;IUN NUMBER AND TYPE OF PARKING SPACES TO CONSTRUCT A 4-UNIT AD~ITIQN TO AN EXISTING APARTMENT BUILDING. Thore was no one ~ndica~ting their presence in opposition to subJect requ~st~ and although the staff report was not read~ it is ~eferred to and r.a de a part of the mt~utes. Marvin Moore~ aw~er, stated he resides in Apartment Na. 1 end would iike to fully develop the property and add 4 more units on top of the present units and reduce the lewer :~nits to meke parking spaces. providing 1-t/2 spaces per unic. 6/1/81 MINUTES~ ANANEIM Cltll PLANNING COMHISSIW~l~ JUNE 1, 1981 THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS ClO5E0. 41~330 Commissioner Bushore asked if there was a parking problem in this area and Mr. Mc-~,r;: raplicd that narmelly his prassnt tenants only have one cAr ~nd thst there is no pmblem on street sweeping day~ etc. ACTION: Commissloner 6ushore offered e motion~ seconded by CommisYioner King and ~t'T CARRIED~ that the Maheim Cit~,~ Planning Cc~mmission has review~d a propo~al to construct e 4-unit additto~ to an existtng apartment buildtng with watvers of inexim~um atructura) heigi~t~ minimum landscaped setback, minimum sicieyard setback end minimum nur-ber and type of ~a~ktng spaces an ~n trregularly-shaped parce) of land conaisting af epp~oxtmately .32 ac~e~ heving a frontac~ ~f Approximately 47 feet on the narth ~ide of Crestwood Lane~ heving a max~mum dcpth of rpproximately 162 feet (1811 Crestwood Lene); end does here~by approve tl~e Hegative Declaration from che requirement to preparc an environmentsl impact re~ort on tha basis that there would bo ~o significant tndtvidual or cumu~ative edverse environmentel impact due to the approval of tl~is Negattve Decla~ation since tha Meheim Genoral Plan destgnates the s~ubJect prope~ty for mcdtum-denslty residentiai lend usas conmensuretc wtth the proposal; that no sensitlve environmental (mpacts sre Involved In the proposal; that the Inltlal Study aubmitted by the petitloner indicates no signiftcant individual or cumulative adue~se environ+nental impacts; and thet the Negatfve Daciaratton s~bstantiating the foregotng findings is on file tn thc Clty of Anahetm Planning Departmenc. Commissioner Bushorc offercd Resolution No. PC$i-12n and moved far its passaye and adoptfon tht+t ttic Ana-eim Clty Planning Commisslon does here~y grant Yariance No. 3222 on the basts of the unusual shape of tha property and on tht bas!s tha~ the proposed addition wlll be done on the top of the existtng structure making gaod use of the propcrty and on thc bssis that therc are exist(ng similar units in the area directly ac~oss the street anc! denial would deprive subJect pro~erty of a prlvilege being enJayed by other properttes in the seme zone and vlcin~ty snd subJect to Interdepa~tmental Committee recommendaticros. On roll zall~ che forcc~oing resolution was passed by the foilowtng vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARt~ES~ 80UA5, BUSHORE, FRY~ HERBST~ KIMG, TOLAR NQES: COMMISSIOlIERS: ~~ONE A8St1~1': COM~~I SS I Or~ERS : NONE Dean Sherer~ Ass{stant Planncr~ polnted out to the petitloner that Waiver of Council Policy No. 542 would be necessary which requires that no structurc be located less than 100 feet from a railroad track, and that the proposed addltion wlll be 70 feet from thc rai{road right-of-way and that this should be done before the end of the 22- day appeel period. Comnissioner Nerbst asked the ststus of the arn~ndme~t to the code and pean Sherer replied staff is worktng on thc ordinance and sre nxpPCting tu have it te the Commisslon 1~ four ta slx weeks. 6/t/8t MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMIS~ION~ JUNE 1~ 1981 ~1'~31 ITEM N0. 10: EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONpITIONAI USE PERMIT N0. 2214: PUBLiC HEARING. Ob1N[R: WENDE~L a. FINLEY, ET AL~ t479 Mustang~ Ora~ge~ CA g2669. AGENT: WILLIAM S. HAkVEY, 205 West First Street~ Sulte 203~ TusLtn, cn 92680. P~op~rty described as a rectenp~larty•sha~ed ~~rcel of l~nd consisting of ~pproxtmstely O.~G e~res~ 1320 A~ North Miller Street. P roporty prese~tiy ctassff{ed ML. CONDITONAI USC REQUE~7: TO PERMiT AN AUTO RESTORATION FACILITY IN TNE ML 20NE. There was ~o o~e Indicati~g their presenc~ In appostttan to subJect request~ and although Che stsff rcport was not read~ tt is roferred to and rnade a part of the minutes. R1^.hard '-~tterlGe~ stated he Is rep~esenti~y the people who presently occupy tha proparcy~ that as a result of the applicatlon for a bustness 1lcensG they found out they w~ere in a rnn•co~fo~ming zone and have been operating an automobtle restoratton business in a zone not necessartly designeted for such e use and would Itke to reyuest a cnnditi~nal use permit. TI~E PUBLIC IiEARING WAS Ct,OSEO. Cammisstoner Herbst pointed out tt~e condltlons requirc that al) work be done inside a~d all vehicles be stor~d Ins~de and Mr. Saiterlee Indicated he understands that condition and the petltioner wil) cfxnply. Co ,ssioner Bushore stated he wanted the petltioner to clearly unde~stand there wlll be no storage of vehicles outside overnight and Mr. Satteriee ~eplied he had informed the tenants thst no vehlcles couid be stured outside. Mr. Satterlee asked a5out the condit(on rcqulring the prope~ty owncr to pay the difference bebween the industribl and commerct~l traffic signal assessment fees, noting that ccuid be a burden on the owner. Conanissianer Nerbst steted in the past those fees have been -+alved on the basis thet the Planning Cortmission has conside red automattve uses in the industria) srea as npte indust~tal than commerctal. Jack Whlte, Assistant City Attorney~ pointed out the Plsnning Commisston can delote that conditlon ,~nd Chairmon Tolar ir~dtcated he felt tt wauld be ~ustified tn th~s instance. ACTIaN: Commisstoner King offered a moCion~ seconded by Commlssio~er Herbst and MO CARRIED~ that the M aheim City Planning Coirmtssion has revieaed the roposal to retsin ~+n automotive restoration facil~ty tn the ML (Q~dustrial~ limited~ Zone on e rectanguiarly-shaped parcel of land co~sisting of approxtmately .86 acres, h~ving e frontege of approximately 132 faet ort the east side of Miller Street, approximately 260 feet no~th of the centeriine of M;ra~o~ Avenua (1;20-A Miller Street); and does hereby apprave the Nagative Oeclaratton f rom the ~equirement to p~epa~e on envi~onmental impact re port on the basts that there would be no significant indivtdual or cumutativ~s adve~se environmentdi impact due to the approval of this Negative Oeclaration stnce tha Mshefm 6eneral P1an designates the s~bject property 6/t/8ti MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNINO COMMISSION~ JUNE 1~ 1981 S1•;;2 for general i~dustrlal land uses cammensurate wtth the proposal; that no =ensitive envircmmental tmpects a~e involved In the propoaal; that th• Initial Study submlttad by tha petitionar indicates no signiftcant i~dividual or cumulattve advers~ •nvironmental Impact~; and thet the Negative Dscle~atlon substentlating the foregoing finding~ Is on ftte in the Cit'y of Mah~im Plsnninfl Depa~tment. Gommissloner King offered Resolution No. PL81-121 and moved for its passsge and edaptlon thet the Anahetm Ctty Planning Commisston daes hereby grant Condittona) Use Perrntt No. 2214 s~bJact to the petittoner's stipulatton that there wlil be no outdoor Ytorage uf vehicles snd all work wlll be conducted wholly inside th~e fact)ity pu~suant to Sectlons 18.~3.030; .031; .h3Z~ .~33; .034 and ,n3S, Title 18 of the Aneheim Nunicipal Code and subJect to Interdepa~tmental Committee reconxnendations deletiny Condttion No. 1 on the basis thet the Wmmisslon has determfned that automotive uses are indusLriA1 uaes. On roll cell, the foregoing resolutlon was passed by the follaving vote; AYES: COMMISSIOt~ERS: BARNES. BOUAS. BUSHORC~ FRY~ HEaBST. KINC, TOLAR NOE S: COMN i SS I O~~E RS : NOt1E ABSEWT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ITEM N0. 11: EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1. WaIVER OF CO~E REQUIRE ~nknirin~,ni ucG DGDIAI7 u~ "~~. PUDLI~ NEARING. 011NER: Pf11t.LIP SPERLING. ET AL, 2664 South la Ctenega~ Lus Mgeies, CA g0031,, AGENT; J~E AMASN, 2745 West Lincoln AvQnue~ Anaheim~ CA 92801. Praperty dascrlbed as a rQCtar~gulerly-shared parcel of land conststl~g of approximately 1.2 acres~ located at the northwcst corner of LtnGOln Avenue ~nd Syracuse Street, 2745 West l.incaln Avenue (Papa Joes). Property presently classifled CL Zone. CONDITONAL USE REQUEST: TO PERMIT ON-SALE BEEa ANO WiNE IN AN EXISTING RESTAURA~IT WITti WAIVER OF MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKINC SPACES. It was noted the applicant wag not present and there was rw one indicating their presence in opposition to subject rGquest~ ahd althAUC,~ the staff report w~s not ~ead~ (t is referred to and made a part of the minutes. THE PU(iLIC HEARING WAS C~OSED. It wbs noted the Planning Director or hts authorlZed representative has determined that the proposed project falls within the defi~itton of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1~ as defined in paragraph 2 of the City of Anahetm Environmental Impact Report Guidellnes and is~ therefore~ categorically nxempt from the requiremant to prepare an EIR. A~TION: Commtssioner King offered a motion, sec.~nded by Commissioner Bauas and M0~ TION CARRIED~ that the Anaheim City Plannin~ Commisston does hereby grant the request for weiver of code requirement on the basis that the customer parking needs wil) vary which means a peak hour demai~d will seldom occur. E/1/81 MINUT~S. ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMM~IISSI~N, JUNE 1~ 1981 81•333 Comni=sioner King offerRd Resotutton No. PC81-122 and moved f~r It~ passage and ~doption that the Anahalm City Plsnning Commission dc~s hsreby grant Conditio~al Use Pmrmit Nc~. '1220 in compilance with 5ections 18.03.03A; .Q;1; .0~2; .A;3; .034 and .035~ Title 18 of the Anahefm Municip~l Code •nd subject to Interdepa~tmentil Com,t ttee recommandations• On rol) cell, the forngr.ing resolutian was passed by the follav~ng vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ BOUAS~ BUSIiORE, FRY. NERBST, KItJG. TOIAR NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE AEiSENT: COMMISSIONERS: `IONE ITEM N0. 17: EIR NEGATiVE DECLARATIAN ANO CQNDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO~. 2_221: PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: JOHN AND ELIZAt~ETII TIEFENTNALEa~ 200 Mo:t Ball Rosd, Aneheim~ CA 928U5• Property described as a rectangula~ly•shaped parcal of land consis ting of approximatety 6336 square fee~, 200 Wost del l Road. Property presnntly classi fted RS•720A (RESIOENTIAL~ SINGLE•FAMl~Y) ZONE. (.ONOITIONAI. USE REQUEST; TO PERMIT A LA~INM011ER REPAIa AND SAW SNARPENING SHOP. 7here was no one indicating tt~eir presenc~ in oppositlon to subJact request~ and elthouyh the staff report was not read, it is referr~d to and made a part of the minutes. John Tiefenthaler, owner~ was present to answcr any questions and stated he h as two garages ~nd wishes to use one for -epeiring lawnmower= and saw sharpening shop. TNE PUBI i C tiEARI NG WAS GLOS~D. Chai~n~n Tolar stated he has a questlon pertaining to the noise of the lawnmowers and asked if the enginGS a~e tested afte~ they are repalrod. He stated that area hes a resolutton of intent for commercial offlce uses and he wes co~ce rned with allawing an industrial ty~~e u~e and felt the naise would affect the restdenttal area and adJoining praperty uwners. Mr. Ttefenthaler stated if thcre is any noise~ tt could not ~o heard because of the existing noise from tra~fic on Ball Road. He stated h~: lives on chis property and has no tntention of dlsturbtng his nelghbors. Ile stated the~a wtil not be a ~y more noise thAn a neighbor mowing his lawn. Commissioner King stated *.hic noiss would be going o~ all dey and Mr. Ttefen thaler stated he is not able to work a!1 day. Commisstoner Nerbst suggestad the permit be granted with the condition that the use be limited to the petittoner's use onty and could not be sold. ACTION: Cammissioner Herbst offerQd a motion, seconded by Conmissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED, that the M aheim Ctty Planning Commission has reviewed the p roposa) to y~ermit a lawnmower repai~ and sere sharpentng shop on a rectangularly-shaped parcel 6/ t181 , MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNif~G CQMMISSION. JUNE 1~ 1981 $1-334 of I~nd consisting of approximately 6~336 square feet havinfl a frontege of +~pproximitely 66 fnet on the south side of Bali Ro~d ~200 West Bal 1 Roed); and does he~eby ~pprove th~ Nagstiw Oeclaratlo~ from tha requl~ement to prepare an onvi ronmental Impsct roport on the basis that there would be no s i g~l fi cant individuel or cumulatlve advorse env~ronmental tmpact due ta the approval of thle Negative Declaretlon since the Anshelm Genersl Plsn designates the subjact property ¢or ccm~merct~l professlonsi land uses com~ensurate with the proposat; that no sensitlva cnvtronmental Imp~cts are involv~d In the p~opoael; that the Initiel Study submltted by the petitioner Indlcates no significant individual or cumulative adve~se e~vl ronma~tal tmpacts; end that the Negat t ve Decl arat ton aubstent i at) ng the foregoi ng findtnga is on file t~ the City of Anahetm Plenning Dapertmont. Commtssioner Herbst offered Reso~~~tion No. PL81•123 and maved far its passage and adoptton thmt the A~~aheim City Planning Commisslon doo~ heroby g~ant Condttiona) Use Permit No. 2221 for a period of 2 years to be revtewed by the Planning Carmisalon upo~ written request by the petitloner to det~rmine if the use has had a detrimental effect on the su~r~unding ares and pursuant to Sacttons 14.03.0;0; ,031; .032; ,033: .034 and .035~ Ti tle 18 of the Anahcim Nun icipal Code and sub)ect to Interdepartmental Committoe recommendations. On roll cal1~ the foregoing ~esolutton was passed by the foliowing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES. BOUAS~ BUSIIORE. FRY~ HEaBST~ KIN~. TOLAa NOES : COW~S 1 SS I ONERS : NONE +~dSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Commt ss loner Herbst expl at ned that i f the use t,scon~s a prob lem~ the permt t can bc revtewed for revocation and that it wi 11 be revte~oed tn twa y~ears autometicatly~ ITEM NO_ 1~: EIR_NEGATIVE DECIARATION. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT ANO CONDITIONAL USE ~ERMIT N0. 2223: PUaLIC HEARING. OWNER: 5liYN HUANG LEE~ ET Al~ 2173 Seaview Orive, Fullerton~ CA 92b33. P~operty described as a rectangularly-shaped parce) of land consisting of approximately 1.74 acres, 1600 East lineoln Avenue (Lincoln Palms Apartment Motel). Property presently ~lassified CL (COMMERCIAL, tiMITED) ZONE. CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST: TO EXPANO AN EXl STING MOTEL WITH WAIYER OF MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES. There was one interested ~erso~ i~dicating thetr pres~nce to subject request~ and although the staff report was not fead. it ts referred to and made a part of tha minutes . Virginia Smith~ manager, and Shyh Huang Lee, owner, were present ta answer any nuestions and Ms. Smith explained the desire is to divide the uniLs and provtda addittonal units at this motel. She explained they have 45 units v+hich currently have k i tchens. bathrooms , and a bedroan i n the 11 vi ng room area and that the change wi 1 1 simply be to divide the bedroom from the 1 iving room. She ststed they propose 95~ pa~ktng spaces and 79 are extsting; that 1/3 of their customers a~e from forelgn 6/t/81 MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PI,ANNING COMMISSION~ JUNE 1~ 1981 81-335 countrlas ~nd do not drtve and use publlc t~rnspartatlon and that 60x of thei r bustnose Is f~om lerge co~po~atlons who car pcwl. Ms. Smi Lh stated they pay 51500 to 51700 per month i n taxea and tho additlon~l un~ts wi l l lnc~~~se these taxes a~d the hotel wlll be even more af an asset ta the city. She steted the landscaptng is old and somo of the piants naad to be repiaced and that they Intend to do that i f thls ~equest le granted. Sha stated they hnvG alway~ maintaf ned e law lavel of e~erqy and i t wi i I bc even lvwer wi th one person in each room. Hugh Faulkner~ 1631 East Oek Pla~e, steted he is not really o~~osed to thn p~oJect but wants to ftnd out what is proposed on the southeast corner of the parki~g ares~ expielnin~ the p1Ans shvw e big garden arca and that every summer they hsve had problams with chi ldren c) imbing over the fence ar thraving thinga over It. He wes concernnd that t f the garden area i s landacaped wi th grass ~ there wi 1 1 be people plcnicing and th~owing trash ovor tl~Q fc~ce. Dean Sh~rer, Assi~tont Planner~ statr.d the plans show the existing landscaping wili remei n and po( nted out the ~rea unJer dl scuss (on to Ms. Smt th and she expl a i ned they will be planting. sArubbery tr~;es and flowers in that area and that no ptcntciny will be allowed. TIIE PUBLIC HEAItING WAS CLOSEO. ACTIOtJ: Commi ss i oner Ki ng of fered a moc ion ~ saconded by Commisstoner Herbs t and IJ CARRIEU, that the Anahoim City Planning Commission has revlawed the proposa) to oxpand an existing note) with wa(ver of mtntmum number of parking spaces o~ a rectanyulorly-shaped parcoi of land consisting of approximately 1.74 acres~ havtng a frontage of approxim~tely 371 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue (1600 East Lincoln Avenue); and does hcreby approve the Negative Decleratlon from the requlrement ta prepare an environmcnta) Impact report on the basls that there would be no signiftcant Individual or cumulative adverse anvlronmentai tmpact due to the approval of thls Negative Declaration sfnce the Anahaim Gennral Plan designates the subJect property for genera) cormx~rcia) land uses commensurate with the praposal; thet no Senstt i ve envl ronn~ntal impacts arc involved in the proposal ; that the Initial Study submltted by the petitlonar indtcates no stgntficant Indlvidual or cumulatlve adverse enviran~enta) Impacts; and that the Negative Declaration substantiating the foregoing findings Is on flle in the City nf Anaheim Pla~ning Department. Commissloner King offet~ed a motlon~ saconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED~ that the Anaheln, City Planning Cammission does hereby grant the walver of code requiroment on the basis that the request is mtnimal and that a certain percentAge of the guests use transportation m~des other than private autonabi le. Commtssloner Ki ng offered Resolution No. PC81-124 and moved for its passage a~d adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commlssion does hereby grant Conditional Uxe Pe~mit No. 2223 sub,ject to the petttioner's ~tipulatton that the areA in the southe~st cornsr shal 1 be heavt ly landscaRed and that no picni cing wi 11 be al lowed pursuant to Sect~o~s 18,03.030; .031; ,032: •~33; .034 anJ .035, Tltle 18 of the Anaheim M~nicipal Code and subje:t ta Interdepartmental Committee racommendations. 6/1l81 ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLAriNING COMMISSION~ JUME !~ 1981 On rolt csll~ the foregoing re~olutton w~s passed by the fotlowing vote; AYES: COMMISSIQNERS: BARNES, BQUAS~ 9lISHORE~ FRY, NERBST, KING~ TOLAR I~OES : COMMI SS I ONERS : NONf ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS : NONE 81-336 Jeck White~ Assistant City Attorney~ prosented the w~ltten right to appeal the Planntng Commisslon's decision within 22 days to the Clty Cauncil. i4: EIR NEGATIV ~NO . ~ : ION. WAI~IER OF COOE REQUrREMENT AND CON PUaLIC N~ARING. OWNER: HERBERT E. ANO EL12A8fT11 C. CNRISTENSEN~ 73~) Southe~n Avenue~ Orange, LA 926G5. ProperCy descrtbed as a r<:ctengulariy-shaped parcel of land conslating of approximekely 0.3 acre, locatec~ at the southwest corner of Cerritas Avenue end Wslnut Street, 1200 Wes~ Cerritos Avenue. P~operty presantly clessified Rh4-120(1 (RESIOENTIAL. MULTIpLE•FAMILY} ZONE. CA~IDITIOFlAL USE REQUESTo TO PERMIT A pRIVE-'~11ROUCH RESTAURANT WITII WAIVER OF MINIMUM I~UMBER OF PARKING SPACES. 1 t w~s noted the peti tioner had requested e ca~ttnu~c~ (ur two weeks. ACTIOt~: Commtssloner King offered a mocton~ s~~conded by ~~mnissioner Harbst end ~r? CARRIED, that eonsideration of the ~foremenYToned itlem be continued to the rec~ularly-scheduled n~eting of June 15~ 1~a1 at the request of the petittoner. ITEM N0. 1y : EHVI RONMENTA~L 1 MPACT REPOitT 1~0. 24k AND GENER~!L PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 164 : PUBLIC HEARIHG. TO AMEND TF1E CtTY'S NOUSING ELEMEHt INCLUDtNG N~EDS~ GOALS~ OBJECTIVES, PlANS AND PROGRAMS CIT'I1dI0E. There Nas no one indicating their presence in opposttlo~ ~o subject reguest, end although the staff report wss not read~ tt Is refer~ed to and made a psrt of the minutes. Joel Flck, Assistant Oirectc~ for Plsnning, presented the staff report to the Pla~ntng Commission dated June 1. 1981 and explained members of the Planning and Community Housing Departments staff a~d the consultants are present to answer any questions. He explained the ctty's present Housing Element was adopted in May 1973 anci i n Nove~er 1g77 the Ca 1 t forni e Depsrtment a f Hous 1 ng and Connw~ i ty Deve) opment adc~pted revised guldelines for tocal Housing Element p~eparation and in September ~98o ne28,3 (aoos) was sdopted which contained u~rxain provisions of the guidel inea and codifted them into law and also requlred compliance by October of this year, efther under the guidelfnes or the pravfaions of AB2853. in July 1979 the firm of Castanecia-Berg and Associates was elected to prepare a revtsed Housing Elen~ent a~d a d~aft elemcnt And £IR w~re p~epared In complianu: with tha guidei(nes under the directton of city staff a~d the city's Nousing Elernent Advisory Cortimittee comRrised of 18 citizens. He explsined the draft element was fon,arded to the state in October of last year and a lettar recelved fram the staxe in April indicated they were in a 6/1/81 ~ ti MINUTES~ ANAHEIN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JtlNE t~ 1981 81-337 positlo~ to certtfy this document under the guldelinea essumtng adoption by tha city of the Houaing Elemsnt Itself anJ also Incorporatton by reference of a study of undeveloped sltes a~d residentie) lpnd uses in the City of Anahelm including stsndards end plans for proviston of adequate sites for menufactured housing. He stated there ere only !wa O~enge County cittas to date and twenty-eight cltles statewtdc thet have gottnn certifted elements by the stete. He stated the p~ese~t p~ograms identlfted In the Housing Elenwnt a~d the st~~<a's abillty to certlfy thls Element I~dtcate the city~s ongotng cammitment by the r,anning Commisslon end Clty Councii to provide housing for all the citiz~ns. He stated (t ts the Intention of th~ ateff te have periodic updates ta the Ilousing Elert~ nt and thc~t those updates wl11 be br~ught to the Co mniss(on and Council for revtew. He raferred ta Thursday's two- hour public meeting wlth the Plannl~g Commission and roprnsentative~ of the Hou~ing Commission in o~de~ to informally discuss the elem~nt and pruvlde citizen tnput and at that mecting tl~e neQds~ strength~ goals and obJectlves were reviewed and also progrems that are identifled nnd indicated staff f~lt that was e ve~y successfui mectl~g. Jean Blackwe) l~ 507 Plymouth Place~ Anali~lc~, stated sl~e is the Chairwoman of the Hous i ng E 1 emen t Comni t te~ o~d ti~are were rtwny peop 1 c on the cammt t tee f rom many different segnxsnts of the population including sanior citiznns~ devalopers~ the Leayue of 4loman Votars~ corporations and the Chart~ er of Commerce. She stated they all worked toyether to try to present something they felt would beneflt the City of Anahelm, Chai~man Tolar scated the Commiss(on had statRd Thursday nlght ~t th~ wark session that they fe 1 t the Advi sory Cc~mmi t tee ~ as wel 1 as the Hous t ng Commi ss lon ~ has done a~~ excnllent Jab and the I~ousing Element was wet) done ond the w-,,rk and effarts of b~th the Commtttee and tl~e Co mnisslon we~e ap~reciate0. Ne statod having looked at other cltias' Flousin Elen~encs~this Elcrr~nt r~aily does not only answer the scate's concern. but 9~~eathe P)anning Commiss(dn sar,~ of the directton they ~eed in maki~g their declslons. He asked Ms. Blacbrell to cc~nvey the Commisslon's app~ectation to the other mnnbers of the committee. h4s. Blaclavall stated the comnl ttee hrd a grGat staff to work with. Cartmtsstoner fierbst stated h~ did ~ot thi~k any addittonal testtmony is necessary since this Housing Element Nas c~mpletely reviaved at tha work session. ACTION; Commissioner Ne rbst offercd a motlon~ seconded by Conmissioner Bouas and M~T ON CARRIED. that the Anaheim Clty Planning Conmission has reviewed EIR No. 244 for thc Houstng Elesnent of the General Plan and having been consldered this date and evidence both w ritten and ore) having been ~r~sented to supplement the draft EIR No. 744 finds that sny SlgnificAnt enviro~menai impacts would be mitigated by the requlrement f~r conformance with established city and state codes poltcies~ plans and ordinanccs and therefore~ the Planning Commisalon further flnds and recommends to the City Councti that they certify EIR No. 244 ts in compliance with Celifornia Environmental Qualtty Act and with the city and scate EIR guideltnes. 6/1/81 ~ MINUTES~ IWAHEIM tiTY PIANNING COMMISSION~ JUNE 1~ 1981 81-338 Commissioner Herbst offered Resalution No. PC81-125 a~d moved f~~r its p~ssage and adaptio~ th~L the Anahelm C1ty Planniny Commisaton does I~ereby re~ommend to the City Councll adoptio~ of Ganeral Plan Amendment No. 15~+ snd smendment to tha City of Anahelm's Hou~ing Element with the revlslon that the Inca~por~tl~m by reference of a study of unde r davelopod sites and residential land us~ea in the City of Anahetm~ noting that sites tdentified in the study would be approp~i~ta for rtbnufacturad housing tn compliance with ctty codes and that non-substantu-.tive timtng and status changes to progr~ms as noted in ettached exhibits labeled "p~~og~ams Implemented~ to be implemented and to be s~udied" and the Planning Commtsaton racommends ta Lhe City Council that staff ae dtr~cted to notify the State Dapa~tment of Housing and Communicy Development of th(s ac:tlon for cartificatlo~ of ame~dme~~t to the city's adopting the Houslny Elcme~t ~rlor ta October 1~ 1q81. On roll call~ the fo~againg resolutton was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIOt~ERS: BARNES, NOES: COHMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMI SS I OIIERS t NONE 1 TEM N0. 16 ND RECOMI~ENDATIOiJS BOUAS~ BUSHOaE. FRY~ NERB~T~ KING. TpLAR The follawing Reports and RecomrKndations staff reports wcre preseneed but not resd: A. CONOITiONAL USE PE~MlT N0. 1$3$ - Request far one-year extension ~f time rom M~ke l n, Cheo~ Inc.~ or property at 333 and 47S West Ball aoad. AC, TION: Cortmissioner King offered e motion seco~ck d by Commissloner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED~ Lhat the M ehetm City Pianning Coa~misston does hereby grant extensior+ of ttme for Condittonal Use Permit No. 1838~ tc exptre on May 22, 1982. ~. ABANDOHMENT N0. 80-1(1A - Requcst from Mr. John Ingals to abandon a portion o an ex st ng~~.0 oot wide publlc utlltty easem~nt lying within lot 97 in 7ract No. 1202 located at the east termtnus of Yalinda Street, south of La Palrt-a Avenue. AC~T_tON: Commts~t~ner King offered a motion~ se wnded by Commissianer Nerbst and MOTION CARRIEO~ that the Anahalm Clty Planning Cammission does hereby recommend to the Ctty Co uncll that Abandonment No. 80-10A be approved. 6/t/81 MINUTES~ ANIWEIM CITY PLANNING CQMMISSION~ JUNE i~ tg8t 81 • 339 C. CONDITIQNAL USE PERMIT N0. 18 •~equeat fo~ termtnstlon fram Dale Fowier or property acate at t e southwest corner of la Pa1ma Avanue and Shspard Stre.t~ tOG1 Shapard Stra~t. AC_, TIONs Commtssloner King offered Reaolution PC81-126 a~d moved for Its pa~s~gm ~nd adopklon that the Anahelm City Plannin9 Commisslan does hereby t~rminate Co~ditional Us• Permit No, 1837. On roll cal1~ the foregoing resolution was passad by the following vote: AYES: COMMI~SIONERS: BARNES~ BOUAS. BUSHQRE~ FRY, NERBST~ KING~ TOLAR NOES: COMMhSSIONERS: NONE ABSENI': COMM~SSIONERS: NONE ADJOURNMENT Thera be(ng no further business~ Commtssloner Fry offered e motion, seconded by Commissioner King and MOTION CARRIED that the meeting be adJourned. The maetiny was adJourncd at 3:45 p.m. Respectfully submltted~ `~~~ ~° Edith L. Harris, S~ec~etary Anahelm Clty Plsnning Commission ELH;Im 6/t/81