Loading...
Minutes-PC 1981/08/10Civtc Center Anahelm~ caiitornla August lU, 1981 REGULAR ME~TINC PRESENT ABSCNT ALSO PRESENT REGULAR MEETING OF TNE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ~ Tha rec~ular meQting of the Anahelm Ctty Planntng Commtsslo~ was cslled to order by Chairman Bushore at 1:;~ p.m.~ August 10~ 1381 in the Council Chamber~ a quorum being present. - Chatrmsn gushore Commisstoners: ~erncs~ - Commtssloner: Tolar - Annika Santalahtl Joel Ftck Jack Whtte Jay Titus Chrls Jarvl Pam Kaiser U4an Sherer P~mG1A StarneR Qouas, Fry~ Ilerbst, Kln~ AaststAnt Director for Zoning Asststrnt Oirectar for Planning Asslstant City Attorney Office Engtneer Parks Superintendent Mousing Qevelapment Coordinatar Assistant Planner Planning Carimisston Secretary Pro Tempare PLEDGE OF ALLE~GIA~iCE TO THE FLAG LED BY - Commissloner Herbst APpROVAL OF MINUTES - Cortvnl~stoner Klny offered a motion~ secAnded by Cammtsstonc~ Bouaa and MOTION CARalEO (Commissloner Tolnr being absent)~ thet the minutes of the meeting of Juiy 27~ 1981 b4 approved as submttted. ITEM N0. 1: EIR. NEGATIYE QECLARATION AND RECLASSIFICIITION N0. 80-t31-4;: --_.__...~ __._....~....~ _.__._ _.~..._ PUBLIC NEARING. OuNER: JOSEPH C. AND DOROTIIEA N. STEPIiEN50N~ tf22 Jade Way~ Anahetm~ CA 92$05• AGENT: JAMES R. NEEOHAM. 94qZ Sandra Circle~ Vtlla Park. CA 92667. Prope~ty descrlbed as a reCtangularly-sha~ped parcel of land consixting of approximately O.k3 ac~e~ 921 North Citra~ Street. RECLASSIFlCATION AEQUEST; RS-10~000 TO RN-2b40. Subject petltion wF~s continued from the meettng of July 1;~ 19$1. at the reauest of the petitioner. There were approximaCely etght persons indicating their p~esence tn oppositlon to subJect reque~t. and al*.tiaugh the staff ~eport aas not read, it is referrer~ to a~d made a part of the minutes. Jim Necdham~ agent~ was present to answer any questions. Chairman Bushore esked the petitioner if he would like to clt+rify ~he changes he had made since the last meeting and Mr. Needhsm replied that the msjor change wes increasing the re~r setback on the p roperty f~om 14 to 20 feet, to permlt a 20-foot ciearance from the praperty line to the rear of the building. He stated other zoning requirementa have been met. 81-~84 8/to/8t MiNUTES~ ANMIEIM C11Y hLANNINa C~MMISSION~ AUGUST 10~ 1981 ~1~4bS Chsirm~n Bushore asked tf there wauld stttl be 7~~nita and Mr. Needhem sald that waa cor~eck. Nancy t3rewbaker~ g~~3 Na~th Cltron~ expressed he~ cancerns ~bout the remarks made ab~ut the neighborhood at the last meeting. She siso potnted out there were menY othe~ a~eas in Ansheim zoned fo~ multlple-family dwelltngs where Mr. Needham could build liis epartmsnts; hawever~ if this particular property is going ta be rezoned~ then she wcyuld I i;ce the whole block rozo~ed. Chai~~en Nustiore satd it would be mnre appropriate to hear all the people tn favor at one time and al) the people opposeJ at ane timG. Mrs. Wtilieim Ci~eil (sacretary wuld not verify nsme)~ 9S6 North Winte~, aaid she had mtxed emottons about thts proJect becaut• shn has worked wtth many of the people Invoived. She aaid she and har husband iike the Araa very much because af the close proximity to the hospital, doctor~ dentist, ~us Iines, shopping and schools. Mrs. Gi~ell steted she understands chet wlth the high east of land It would be imposstble fo~ aomeone to bulid a singie-fsmily house on thts property~ so wtth thi+t 1~ mind she would like to v+lthdraw he~ prevlous obJecttons~ ~~ith the stipuletlon they bulld one- stc ry untCs and have no all~ys. Gnrtrude Pert. a member of the Boerd of Olrectors of the Flrst Church of Christ Sclentist~ ecross the street from the subJect property~ stated the Roard has no obJections to this proJect. Ruth Mount, 923 Ncrth ~icron~ stated she was opposed to this "spot zoning". She said her mortgage lander would not lend meney on hen c~xne with R-3 property next door~ so she would like to see the whole area rezoned. Ed~a Olsen. 912 North Citron~ stetad ghe did not obJect to the enttre proJect. only eo the end units having carpnrts ~s they couiw beccxn~ a place fo~ refuse and vt~ndalism. She stated she would like to see the area remaln R-1. She also noted they have a traffic problem on Citron. Jack 4fhite, Assistent City Attorney~ scated the applicAnt could address the t~sffic situatian alo~g with any other questions during the rebuttal phase of the heart~g. Jack Oick~ 9~+9 Citron, said ne felt as Ruth Mount did. and he would rather the zoning be changed for the ~ntire block. Ciyde Brawn~ 937 North Citron~ sald he wa~ted to regtster his vote against the p roject at 921 North Citron Street; however~ if tt~e zoning is changed he would Ilke (C to i~clude the enttre block. Mr. Needham staCed they have met ell the zoning, setback, and area requl~e~nents necessary for the rec~essification. Ha said it was his understandtng that some trafftc was temporarily using Citron as P detaur and thst may be having a bearing on ai~oia, MINUTES. ANAl1E1M CITY PLANNING COt+i11SS ION~ AUGUST 10, 1981 81-N86 the tra!fic problem. H~ ~lso nc-ted this wat~ not e"sp~t zoning" situetion~ es the p~operty next door i~ son~d -nultiple-fernity. TME PuBll C IIEARI N~ WAS CI.OSED~ Chetrma~ Bushore Indicated the pl~ns display~d on the Gouncit Chamber wall ~horved no sllnye er two-story untts. M~. Needham stated that waa co~roct theY would ell b~ single-story units with no elleys. Cha) rman Bwhore •sked the appl icant abaut the cerparts and Mr. Needham responded he would be wi111ng to make them al! gs r ages. Chalrman Bushore atated lots on Ctt~o n Street were not like lots an North West Street. therefore~ lt would be Imp~sctical to subdivide ta grant flag lots~ Joel Fick~ Assistant Dlr~ctor for P1~ nning, nated sfte r he~ring testlmony todsy, there appeared to ba a mixod reapons• es to what the epprop~late land use In this area should be. Ne said if this Item i~ approveJ, the entlre area should be studlad and staff would be happy to do so If that is the de~ire of the Planning Canmisslon. Commissiona~ Ile~bst stated ha felt an area developa~ent study would show thls lend suitable for multiple-fsmily homes. Ne sald p~rheps it should be a reclass of all the property on Citron so that each 1~omeowner could have the option of staying single•family or going multiple-fami ly. Cornmissianer tlerbst notcd the peti t 1 oner hed submt ttad revi sed plans showing a 20- foot fully landscaped area adJ~cent ~o the west bovnda ry whlch adequately pratects the singlG-famlly residence next doo r. Commissloner Y.'ng sald a six-foot high wall will be bui it on the p~oporty line:with 14-feet of landscaped area to the ~orth stde anJ s driveway to the aouth side of the prope~ty. Th~s~e landsceped setback provisions are g~eater thsn even those between two single-fami ly proparties. Commi ssioner K(ng ~eferred ta the point he mede at the last mceting that less ths~ 15$ of Cal ifo~nia households can afford the medlum priced home on today's market. Ca:xnissio~er Barnes said it was apparent from the testimony the property owners had given a tot of thought to the possibility of hevtng the entire block rezoned. She said reclassiFytn,~ the property for multiple-femity unTts would increase the market value and be flnar.cialiy benefictai to the property owners. J~el Fick satd if the Commission appr~ves this today. he would suggest thay direct staff to prepare a GPA for the Citron Street area. He noted it would be readvertised as a pub) ic hearing and the property aNners would be abie to express their vtews. Ne satJ tt would be a comprehensive study including infra~tructure and traffic. a~~o~a~ ~ + MINUTES~ ~NANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ AUGUST 10~ 1A81 ~1'~07 ~a~+~misalone~ Barnei noted this property wes ad)acent to other multtple-famtly z~tng. thalrma~ Bushore asksd Ruth Mount to stap forwsrd and asked if she woutd prefer the entire biock betnq rezoned rethsr then one parcel. She s~id that was correct. She also stated her concarn about tha dratnsge p~oblem on Cttron Street •s during the ralny •se~an it Is like a rtver~ She seid thera was a starm dr~in tnstalled not too fsr fram them and she v+ondered why (t h~d not been InstAlled on Citro~ Street. Chairman Bushore steted th~t Cltron Street does not have curha and guttars snd unfortunately this ts necassery 1n order co Instatl a sto~m dratn. Conmiasioner Herbst notod It was tha respo~~ib111ty of the property owners snd developers of a pro)ett tn put in curbs an~ 9utter ~ not all the proph~ty a+~ers of tha clty. ACTION: Commissio~o~ King offered a motlon~ seconded by Commtssioner Herbat and ~~ CARRIEO (Commtssloner To1ar being absont). thet the Anahelm City Plenning Commission has reviaved the proposa) to reclessify subJect property from RS•1A.000 (Residontl~l, Sln~~e-famlly) Zone to the RM-2400 (kesidenctal. Multiple-famfly) Zone to construct a 7-unit apertment complex on a rPCtangulorly-shaped parce) of land consisting of approximotnly O.G3 acres, locsted at 921 North Citron Street; and doas hereby approve tlie Negetive Declarat{on from the requirement to prepare an envi~onmental Impact report on the basi~ th~t there would be~ no aigniflcant Individual or cumulatlve advers~ envlr.,nme~tal impact due to ;h~ approvat of thts Negattve Decleratton since the ~1naf~eim Genaral Plan designates the subJect p~operty for low danslty land uses comme~surate wlth th~ proc+o~~l; that no se~sitive environmental impscts arc tnvolved fn ~he proposal; that tt~e Initlal Study submitted by the petitioner indtcates no significant tndividual ~r cumulative adverse environment~l Impscts; and that the Negetive Q~eclar~tlon substantlatln9 the foregoing finding: is o~ file in the Clty of M ahelm Pia~nin9 Department. Commisslaner King offered Resolution No. PC81-iG8 and moved for its passsge and adoption that the Anahelm City Plsnning Commlssion does hereby g~ant Reclassificstion tb. 80-81-4;, subject to Inte~departmentai Committee recommendations end with the stipulation thcy have garages instead of carports. Commlssinner Barnes offered a motion~ secanded by Commlsstoner Boues and MOTION CARRIEQ (Commisslone~ Tolsr being ab~ent), thet the Anahelm City Planning Commisslon directs staff to prepere a General Plan Amen~nent br the west sl~e of Cttron Street. Commisstoner flerbst expressed hts cencern about the remainder of the street. Joel Fick said In or~ier to resalve this tssu~, they could send out a~uestionnaire t~ a number cf the property awners affording them the opportunity to exp~ess their views reyardtng a Genersl Plon Amendement. 8/iQ/81 t MINUTES~ ANAII~IM CITY PLANNINC COMMISSION~ A11GU3T 10~ 1g81 81-488 Ch~ i rman Bu~horo fa ( t th 1 ft aou 1 d b~ a goc~d i dea snd sugges ted the qu~s t I onna I re (nclude whethor or not they would ilke ona c-r two•stary u~its, carports o~ enclosed ga~~ga~. Canmisslot~e~ Nerbst stated hs folc •11 th~ homeavners i~ the area deservo the same typa of pratactlar- wt th respsct to stngle-etory uni ta •nd 20-faot buffer~. On roll call~ the fo~egoing resolutlon was passed by the followi~g vota; AYES: COMM155 I ONERS : BARNES~ BOUAS ~ gUSNORE ~ FRY ~ IiERBST~ KI NG NOES: COMMiSSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TALAR Jack Whtte~ Assistent Clty Atto~nay~ presented the written riqht to appeel the Pianning Commisslon's ck cislon within 22 days to the City Council. Chai~man Bushore Informed the auclience they would be receiving a questlonnalre and be notifled of the publtc heariny. He urged tl~am co comple~e the questlonnaire ~ tfie Plen~in,y Commtssion would appreciato recelving their Input. ITEM N0. 2: EIR NEGATlVE DECL11RI1TION RECLASSIFICATI0~1 N0, 80-81-44 AND CONDITIONliL U~RMI~'IT N0. 2 : PUpLiC HEARING. OWNER: ANT-IONY AND LEA GOUYEIA~ 837 South Beach Boulevard, ~~aheim, CA 92804. AGENT: LA CRESTA aU I LDG RS ~ J I M FREDI NDU~G ~ 8322 Cl a i ~emsnt Mesa Boulevard, San Dte~~o~ CA 92111. Property described as a ractsngularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximatcly 0.75 scre~ t337 South Be~ch Boulevard. RECLASSIFICATION REQUEST: a5-A-43~000 TO ... CONDITIONAL USE ~EQUEST: TO PEaMIT A 45-UNIT MOTEL. Subject ~etitlon wes continued from ttie mee:ing of July 1~, 1981, at the request of the petitioner. It was noted the petttioner has requasted the ~etitlor~ be continued to the n-eettng of August 2b, ig81• ACTION: Commiasioner King offered a motlan~ seconded by Commissioner Fry and MQTION C R IEU (Comm~ssioner 'alar being absent), thst the aforementto~ed item be cantinued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of Augusc 24~ 1981, at the request of the petttlo~er. 17EM N0. 3: EIR NEGATIYE DECLARATION RECLASSIFICA710N N0. 80-81-41 WAIVF.Ii OF COOE ~u"t~T e . : PUBLIC NEARIMG. OWNE~: FONG TZE WU; 25~40 Ksilogg St~e et~ ~oma Linda, CA 9235k• AGENT: DAVID CHE~~G~ 6981 Country Club Lana, Anahelm. CA 92607. Property described 8/ 10I81 ^ ~ t ,f ^ MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY P~ANNINti COMMISSION~ AUGUST 14~ 1981 g1-4H9 es e ~ectangulerly-~hAped p~rcel of land consisking of opproximately 0.66 ecre, ~31 South Bsa~h Boulevard~ RECLASSIFICATION REQUESTS RS-A-43~000 TO CL. CQNOITIONAL USE aEQUEST; TO PERMIT A b3-UNIT MOTEI WITII WAIVER OF MAXfMUM STRUCTURAL HEI GHT. Sub]~ct petitio~ wes continued fram the me~ting of July 13~ 19b1 ~ st th~ request of the petitioner. Th~•re ware app~oximataly six persons TndicAting thelr presence In oppositlon to subJect request. and although the staff report was not reaa, it is ~eferrea to and maae a~art of the minutes. tsi I I Dampf ~ zbsy ~~orcn ~Inwooa~ yent~ A~e~ egent ~ sald thr,y had car+pited with the request to redesign the r~ar property 1 ine and add a tU-foot lendseaped buffer. ne noced~ haw~ver~ If thay install a 6-foc~c hlqn tence~ it w~~~ ~e 9-feet hlghcr chan ther sd,jacent g~aoe. Stave Mviny~ 8~d South Hayward stre~t. sCetad s~nce tne prrvious n+eeting I'ianning s~att naa oeen out co ~nvastiga~e ~~~e a~nas of nis ~o~c~rn ana wer~ awares of ~ne problems thc resldents have been facing. Me the.n reaa a letter datea Msy ~P,~ 19tl1, co Oimitrls Itas~eurant. "lo wnan i t may concern: we Arn wr I t ~ ng to you at tn i s t i me ~t tne rcques t of n~. George Janel, manager ot your restaurant o~ tseacn noulev~rd. 1 met wftn Mr. James at you~ restaurant one even~ng aroune tne t ir~t w!!Qk In Janu~ry, after a rock hed becn thrown trom your parKing lot through ~ur sliding qlass door, at that tlrn~ I was to chock into what alternativas we mlght heve in reference Lo ra i s I ng the tence ~rauna your park i ng tat ~rc~ . My hus~and end I Q i d contact the cl ty and we~e to I d a surveyo~ wou I d t i rst have to cama out and do ihe surveying. Needicss to say our datiy Ilves kevt us b.~sY, we are both employed full tlrr~ and did not pursue it furth~~'. perhap' ~e f~lt our bad l uck was ove r. 41e 11 ~ i t was not .~ny hus~and and I heve had many unfortun:, .. experiences since moving here four years l+oo. ls~t Tc+~sday~ wt:ich i~s got~~; bsck as far as May f9~ 19~1, we exper{enced our fourch bur~ ~ry, eaeh time thc burglars have ente~ed our hamc through ou~ backyerd by cl tmbing over your t@i1CP.. Be°ore this last robbery took piace we had everythSng sxcured and tocke~i to thc best of our sbi 1 ity~ wh~+~ cx~ May 19th a burglar simply taoY. out a windn+~ aut of the wai l and antered our home. We fo~nd thei r tool s on the t~ of our fence i n our backyard next to yaur parking tot. Mr. James suggested we write to you in reference to our requesst. 8oth my husband an4 1 would iike to meet r+lth you personally in our home ~r whe~evar convenient for you to come and discuss this annoytng problem. We would like f~r you to come a~d see the fence that has been discussed in this letter. ~/10/~i MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMNISSION~ AU~UST 1A, 1981 81•490 It is very e~sy for a~yone to climb over your fence to ou~s and be dtrectly I~ our beckyard. It is almost Ilka a stepladds~ ~pp~oach. We are thtnking that aftar this fourth burglary~ that our home Is too ecce~sible for would ba burglans. We sre asktng you to con~ider halni~g us ellminete this p roblem by rsisin~ the height of ths fe~ce and also puttl~g In a solid wali instead of a ehatnltnk gate. I might mentlon at thls ttme that our nei9hbors~ Mr. and Mrs. Ken Hoffm~n have also have h~d one burglary sinc~ th~t time. I spoke to them yeste~day and we got two ar three nn~e edded on top af that. We wouid lika to have your fenco ratsed for thelr protection ~s wall. in cese you would Iike th~re is the number. We realized th~t this Is not any 1'mult of you~s~ but with crimes continuing happeniny •t the seme access af as:epe, we ali have to work together to keep this frr~~ recurring tn thla nelgt:borhood. We a~e al) neighbors and aven though yours Is a cammercl~l busineas~ perhaps all of us working together~ we wlll bn a~ble to make a bette~ community far oll. Thsnk you for reading thla letter. Jim and Ulano Wation~ 832 South Naywarcl Street." Mr. Wo~ny said the preceding letter wss dtscussc~ at thetr neighborhaad meeting yeaterdey. He said he would now like to resd to the Commission the letter they had drefted afcer th~lr meeting. "Ta the Plenning Commtssion of the Clty of Anaheim: f~onorabie Members: We have been natified that the City Planning Canmtssio~ wlil hold a meeting to request our prope~ty 4n Baoch 8ouleverd south to allaw construction of a motel f~r Reclaasificetion 8~-81-~1 and $0~81-G4. also Reclassificatto~ 80- 81-W1 ts to allaw parmittfng conatructto~ of e b3-unit matel snd 80-81-GW ta atlow ~5. On Beach Boulevard in the &10 block south~ there are siready a motels~ 6 0~ tha west side of the strect a~d 2 on the east side. With tha 2 additto~al motels. there wil) be 8 on the west sidc of the st~eet~ creating many probiems. It ts Aur opinion that the addttional motels wili greatly affect the prope~ty vslues of the privately adjolning property in a ~egative wsy~ ~specfelly ~he single-f~nily ~eeldences to the immedlatr west. it would slso be detrlmental to the peace~ qutet. health and safety of the neighborhood. We therefore, petiticM that the Anahelm Planning Commisslon refuse ta grent the requesi for the variance and leave the above prop~e~ty in its present form and use pe nnit. Respectfully submitted a~d swo rn to •s tha wish of thc balow signeJ petitloners" and the contlnustlon petttian is signed by Ali the property oMmers an~ peopio wh~o 1 tv~e right bahind tt, which Is seve~ ind{vidual fsmiltes, tha maJority is here today. 8/t0/81 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY P~ANNING COMMISSION~ AUGUST 10~ 1981 ~t-490 It is very sasy fo~ ~nyons to cltmb Aver your tanwe to ours and be directly in our backyard. it 1~ almost like a:tepladdsr spproach. We ere thtnking that after this ~ourth burglary~ that our home 1~ too ~ccessible for would be burglarg. M~ are eskiny you to conside~ helping us elimtnate this problem by ratsing the hetght of th• fence ~nd ~1to putttng tn e solid wall instead ot a chainlink g~te. 1 mtght mentlon at this time that our neiphbora~ Mr. ~nd Mrs. Ken Noffm~n h~ve elso hav~ ~~sd one bu~~la~y since that time. 1 spoke to them ye~terday ~nd we got two o~ three more sdded on top of th~t. We wouid Itke to h~ve your fencc ~aissd for thelr protectto~ as well. In ce~e yau would ltks there is the number. We re+~ltzad ~hat thls (s ~ot ~ny fault of yours~ but with crimas conttnuing happening at the same access of esc~pe, we ell have to work together co keep this froan recurrtng in thls n~ighborhoad. We are al) netghbore and even though yours Is a cortundrelal business. perhaps a11 of us worktng together, we wti) be able to make e bctte~ community for all. Thank you for resding this tetter. .itm snd Diane Watson~ 83Z South Nsywe~d Street." Mr. Wo=ny said the preceding letter was dtscussed at their netghborhood maeting yesterday. He sald he would na+ llka to reacf to the Commisston tho le~ter they hed d~efted efter tl»Ir meet(ng. "To the Plenning Cornmisston of the City of Anahelm: tlonarab 1 c Membe rs : We have been notified thAt the City Plan~ing Cc~m+isslon will hold a meettng to raquext our prop~rty on Beech Boulevard south to dllow co~st~uction of a motel far Reclassificatto~ &)-81-41 and SO-81-41~. Also Reclassificatton 80- $1-41 is to allaw permitting constructlon of e~43-unit motel and SO-81-b4 to allow 45. On Beach Bouleverd (n the fI~O black south~ there ere a1~eAdy a motels. 6 on the west side of the street and 2~n the east side. With tha 2 additionai motels. there M~~11 be 8 on the west ~ide of the street~ creattng many p roblems. It is our oplnion that the addi+tional motels will greatly affect the property values af the privstaly sdjnining prope~ty in a negmtive way. aspecially the singie•famtiy residences to the immadiate west. It would elso be detrlmental ta the pesce, quiet, heslth a~d safety of the neighborhoad. We therefnre, petitlo~ that the ~nahetm Planning Commission reFus~ t~n grant the request for the varisnce an~~ leave the sbove property in I ts prese~t form and usa penr+it. Respectfully submltted and saro rn to as the wish of the below signed petitioners" and the co~tln wtion petition is slgned by ~11 the property owne~s and paople who liva right behind it. whtc:h is ~even individual fami 1 ies. the ~r.ajo~ity is here tod,y. ai~oie~ MINU7~S, ANANCIM CiTY PLANNlNti COMMISSION~ AUGUST 10~ 1981 a~-~9~ Mr. Wo:ny present~d pictures to shav the Commissto~ whet ~ two-story buildinq 1oc~k: itke from the backya~ds of th~ee of the p~operty a+ns~s. Ne expressed concern with respact to ~n incre~se in nolse and loss of privacy. Mrs. K~ols~ig. 828 South H~yw~rd. expressed her conGe~~ •bout tf~e problems they werre currentlY heving with res~:~ct to tl~eir ye~da bel~g littered and the childr~en betng h~rrassed by the tensnta of tha motels. She stated the poilcc havc steked out the motel fram her house beGause of alleged drug problems. 5he sala she would prefer ta sea multipte•family units ~ather tnen a~otner motei. 1 Mt PUt~l.l t, M~AKI NG MA5 I.LUStU. ~halrman nusnore askecl if thn~e were wlnaaws to the west si4e of the motel tacing dcwn o~to the residents and Mr. Uampt stated there ~r~ no winaows on tnat slae pf the bullaing en4 elso notea thet In Crcating that 'Lt1-foot setbacY.~ the Duilainc~ wes mCtvea baCk dL te~t tt'0111 Lhe p~operty 1111E. ~n~lrm~n eushore suggestea Cna same thing be aone on tnls pro~ect es was aone on Walnut an~ Kateil~~ which Is to put ~n eaaitional cheinllnk f~nce wlth gates et the ef10 Of tne park i ng 4~a 1 1 S~ that wdy y0u f18VC t~e t+~ fOUt b 1 OCk we l I~ e ~ anascaped a~rea and then a chainlink tence and any trash would end up in the IanOscapea are~ between the chainlink ~ence and the black wall. Mr. Dampf Steted th~t weS d'~aEOn~ble ~equeSt. l:ainniasioner Ba rnes cs~lea tne aualcnce's ectentlo~ ta the tect tnere wns a~u-foot Dutte~ tonc~ then tne parking staiis sna tne aul~aing wlll ac sct esck ot reet trdn the property ~ine. ~he asKed tne applicant if he wou~a be using trees as e duffar bna he reptlea tnat ne woula ana tne trees vroula nlee tne can~lex tran the nelqhDO~s. She also noted the Mo fences w~u~a maKe It more alfflcult tc~ enter the ne~ghbors' yaras. ~halrman lfushore ststea thet trces which are not bus~y ~l the battom wou~d be suitable landscaping, ta aiscourage someone trom hiding In tfie a~ca. ~ie sa(d staff would be happy to assist Tn making an approprlste selactlon. Conmissiv~er MerDst pointea out tnat all motels nave to come aetor~ tne ~ianning Commission tor the~r use permlt. Me notea cnls property was zanea ~t w~tn a resoiutlon ot ~ntent, so mar~y altterent cc~mnerclai uses coula be raqwstea over whlch they wAUld have no controi. Chatrman ~ushore ~skeo Mr. Ilor_ny if he haa any otner suggesticx-s that woule help and Mr. Motny requested the swtmming pvol be rtlocatea t+ehind the manager's apartmesnt ln oraer to climinate some of the notse. Ne staceu ne woula als~ Ilke to nave un~torm~cy ~etween tne sp~iicar~cs r~~~r a~~y ~ne tenc~ ~f the Razzmstazz Motef ana unlformity with the fenGe of tS~-~1-4+- when it Comes befare thc Planning Commission on August 2~~, 1981. $/10/81 MINUTES~ ANAFIEIM CITY PIANNING COMMISSION~ AUGUST 10, ~9a~ 81-A92 ACTION: Commiastoner King offered a matlo~~ seconded by Cammis~loner Bouas and M ON CARRIED (Commtssioner Tolar being ab~ent)~ that the Anahelm City Planning Comml~slon has revtewsd the p ropasal to reclassify subJect property from RS-A-43~000 (Residentlal/Agricuitural) Zone to t~~e CL (Commerclet~ Limited) Zona to permit a 41- unit nwtel wtth a walve~ of maxtmum structurui helght, an a rectangula~ly-shaped parcel of land consisttng of ~pproxtmately O.G6 acres~ havfng e f~onta,ye of appraximacety gG faet on the west sido of Beach Bouteverd~ I,avtng e maximum depth of epproxlmately 2Q8 feet and baing located approxim~tely t3~+0 fect north of the centerline of tia11 Road (a31 South Deach ~oul~vard); and do~s hereby epprove the Negattve Ueclaratlon from the requirement to p~eper~ an envi~onmental impact report on the besis thst there would br no significant indtvidual or cumulative adverse ~nvironmentel Impsct due to the approv~l of this Negative DAClaratlon since the Anaheirn Generei Plan Jealgnatea the subJect prope~ty for gen~sral camrt~rcial land uses commensu~ate wtth tt~c proposal; thet no sensitive enviranme~tal tmpacts are tnvolved in the praposai; thet the inittal Study submitted by the petitioner Indicates no slgnificent indtv(dual or cumulatlve adve~se envlranmental (maects; and thet the Negattve Decleration substantlatlny the foregoing findings is on file In the City of Anahetm PlannTng Department. Cominisslonr_r King offered kesolutlon No. PCa1-169 and moved for tts passage and adoption that the Anahefm Ctcy Planning Camnlsslon does he~eby grant Reclasstficatton No. ti0-~t-41 subject t~ Interdepartr-~ ntal Canmittee recomnKnd~tlons with additto~al candltions of increesing che height of the westerly block wall to six (6) feet as measured from the highest adJacent g~ade leyel, addtng a cha(n Ilnk fence, and a landsca~ing buffcr consisting of trees, and relocatfng the swimmin~ pool easterly rway from th~ nrarby residenccs. On roli eall~ th~ fc~regoin9 resolution was passed by thc fallowinn vot~e: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: bARNES* E3pUA5. BUSIiORE~ FRY~ IIEROST~ KINf NOES: GOMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COHMISSIONERS: TOLAR Commissioncr King offered a motiqn~ seconded by Cammissiontr Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Tolar being absent), t~~at the Anahelm City Plenning Cortmtssion does hereby grant waiver of code requirernent on the basis that dPnial would depr!ve sub,iect propcrty of a prlvllege enjoycd by other propertics in the same zone and vicinfty and the fact that if the adjoining property to the south is develope.d into the proposed rtatol, chen thls p~operty would be ln cqnform~nce with the General Plan ~nd a wa i ve r wc~u 1 d noL be nea~ded. ~~~~~~ f ~ 1f~~~~~t~ ~ Commi ss toner Ki ~g offared Resoi ut i~n No. PC81-170 and moved for i ts passage and ~~ adoption that the Anahe(m C~Cy Planning Cannission does hereby grant ~anditlona) Use ~~~ Permit No. 22~?', pursuAnt to Sections 1$.03•~30; .Q31: •~32; .~33; .034 and .035. Title la of the Anahelm Muntcipa) Code. subject to interdepartmentel Committee r~con~r+endatio~s and additianal stipulattons of Increasing the fence h~ight to a six (6) foot htgh mason ry wall~ as rneasur~d from the highest adj~c~i~t grede levet~ shall b~ c,flnst~ucted along the west property line; that subject fence and the fence of the Rezzmatazz Motei will heve design untformlty; that the westerly landscaped buffer area wili consist of trees and will be enclosed with a 6-foot high chain iink fence with gotes to discourage prowlers and to relocate the swlnming pool easterly away from the nearby residencxs. 8/10/81 MiNUTES~ ANAHEIN CITY PLANWING COMMISSION~ AUGUST 10~ 1981 81-493 On roll call~ the foreyoing resolutlo~ wss passed by the followinfl vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ BOUAS~ BUSHORE~ FRY~ HERBST~ KING NOESt COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENTs COMMI5SIONERS: TOLAR Jack 1~lhite, Assistant Ctty Attorney~ presented the written right to •ppea) the Plannt~g Commission's decislon within 22 days to the City Council. Chairman Bushore tha~ked the neighbors for thair eppearancr and suggestlons and advtsed them to call Ctty Hall o~ August 2~t to insur~ the othar appltcatian wtll be heard on that day. Ne also noted the Co mmtssion would try to do the same things on thst proJect as they did on th ts one. iTEM N0. 4: EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONOITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2246: -__._~..~...._ PUBLIC IIEARING. OWNEa: TNOMAS J. AND YOLANDA M.TALSOT, 15732 Tustin Vlil~ge Way~ Tustin~ CA g26A0. AGENT: CUSHMAN 6 WAKf FIELD OF CALIFORNIA, IN~.~ 1717 South State College Qoutevs~d. Suite 100~ Anaheim~ CA 928d6. P~aperty descrlba~ as ~ ~ectengularly-shaped parce) of land oonsisting of approximately 1.~ acre~ 618 East 6a11 Roed. Property presently classifled ML (INOUSTRIAL, LIMITEQ) 24Nf.. CONDITIONAL U~E aEQUEST: TO PERMIT RETAIL SALES OF AUTO PARTS IN T'FIE l~~ 20NE. The~e was no one indtcating their presence in oppositfon to sub.ject ~equest~ and slthcugh the 'taff report was not reed. it is rafer~ed to a~d ma~ts a part of the minutes. Gregg ariggs. agent~ Cuahma~ b Wak~field~ stated the facility la currently occupied by Mr. Talbot's retatl sales and ehey would lika to extenJ the use to permit retal) sales of automotive parts. TNE PUOLIC HEARING WAS CI.OSED. Commissioner King stated he would iike • guarantee fra~a the applicant that the retail sales would not exceed 25$ of the tdtai of t~e sal~s ~md the applicant agreed to thts condi tt~. Commisslcm er Herbst esked what the applica~t woul~ be msnufacturing at this location and the appiicant replted a portio~ of the parts would be manufsctured at this locatio~ with the balance of the parts coming from 8razil. Chairman Bushore asked haw he would keep the reeall sales do-~n to the 25; dnd Mr. Sriggs stated they had a nnw mai) order busineas and the 25$ Mas a sales proJectinn. Commisstoner Iiarbsi asked tf thia was going to be a regular auto suppty sto~e ltke the type you ase in the commerctei areas and Mr. Briggs repiied they would ~/10/St ~ MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY Pi.ANNINO COMMISSION, AUGUST 10. 1~81 ~~~49y ma~uf~cture specific typ~s of p~rts and offered a-~rochure to the Canmisstoners for thet~ pe~usal. Ths genera) manager of the company Hho is to occupy S0~ of the bulldtng came fo~wa~d to enswo~ questlons. Ne stated tha p~imary obJecttve of this locetion would be to liave s mail order business and that tha ms~ufactu~ing would bssically be ~ modiftcetian of parts which would be accomplishad by ltght machine work. Ne said they wauld carry some specislity items used for souping up stock cars~ racing c~rs~ and otf-road vehicles. Chat~ma~n Uu~hore aaked what type of adverttsing they dtd and the general manager stated they advertised tn three nationsl magezlnes. ~~e aiso stated they wil) not be Inatailt~g parts or doln~ any automotlve work on the premises~ other than peraonal v+hich wauld be contalned inside the factlity. Commissianer Barnes wss concernad ebout the impect this businnss might have on traffic as wall as tl~e fACt they hove baen crying to limit the amount of commercia) uses granted in ~he Industrlsl area. She wes elso concerned about the signing. The applicant statad he felt he needed some kind Af signing~ especially for his grend apening. Dedn Shnrer~ Assistant Planner~ steted the slgning wauld heve to be In conformance with the tndustrl~l sign requlrements thet are stipulated in the coda and with the provisions fo~ special events permits. Jeck ~lhite, Assistant City Atto~ney. said we have a flag and banner ordinance ahich gives permtssion for temporery flag: snd banners fo~ 14 days and allows two permits per year. He noted these permtts were issued through the Planning Department. Jack 1fi Ite indicated unless the Planning Con~misston p~oposes a more lenient require ment~ the sign requtrement of tha industriei zone w~uld apply to thls operation. Mr. Briggs stated he wo4'd like to address the issue of stdewalks and the i~dustrlal and commerctal traffic si9nal assessment fees. Chairmen Bushore noted these wnre standerd items of approval. however~ he inqutred if we aere sctuslly asking far nfdeti+aiks at this tlme and Jay Tftus~ Office Enytn~er~ stated it was e atsndard condition but they do have the option of requesting a temporarlr sidewalk walver. Chalrman Bushore said in other words tt might be wa~ved untfl the city felt sidcwelka were needed at that locatton snd Mr. 8riggs stated it would be a ftnancial burden on the a+ners tn t~stall sickwslks at th~s time. 8/ i0/81 MINUTES, AHAHEIM CITY PLANNINQ COMMISSION~ AUGUST 10, 1q81 t!1•495 Cha{rn-an Bushore askad Jay Titus lf the fee~ might be watved and Mr. Titus ropllad h• thought the w~tve~ might b• granted but It would bR up to tha Cicy Enginae~ to n-ake the decision. Chalrman aushore ststed tha traffic sir,nal assessmant fee far the commercial zons wa~ differe~t than the industrial zone and stnc~ theY were aaking for a conMnercial use they would pay the commerctel fee. Mr. Brigg~ ~sked if this were true If only e portion af the property waa a ca~xnerclsl usa. Chelrman f3ushc~re aaked Jay Titus If tha fees were based on the entire building and he replled that was correct. Annika S~ntalehti~ Assistant Director for T.oning~ stated she thought the coat wes app roxfmately S130 per 1,000 square feet of fioor Area. She stated that dividad bustnesa uses were difficult to police so for that reason the assassment made is normally commercial. Sh~ noted thls wes a one time fee u~less ti~e use would change and becomc m~re intense. Cammissione~ Nerbst asked if tt was possible the fes ha~ alre~dy been paid. Jay 1'ttus statad according to the records It had not been pald and stated again tt (s a standa~d fee for st~eet iighting and is assessed on each plece of property I~ the cl ty. ACTION: Commtssioner Bar~es offered a motion~ setonded by Cortmissloner Nerbst and M0~ TION CARalEO (Canmissloner Tolar being absent)~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commisston has rQVtewad tho proposal ta permit retatl sales of automotiv~ parts in the ML (Industriai~ Llmtted) Zone on a rectengularly-shaped percel of land conalsting of app~oximately 1 acre, havtng a frontage of app~oximately 204 fset on ~he south side at Ball Road, having a mextmum dapth of approximately 179 fcet and being located approxtmately 300 feet east af the centerline af Allec Street (618 East Batl Road); and does hereby app~ove tha NQgative Declaratton from the requirerne~t to prepare a~ environmental impact r~port on the basis that there would be no signiflcant lndividual or cumulativ~e adve n e environmental impact due to the approval of this Negative Deciaration stnce the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property fo~ gene~al industria) land usas Gon~niensurate wlth the proposal; that no sensttive environmental impacts are involved in the proposal; thst the Initlal Study submitted by the petitioner indicstes no slgnifica~t tndividual or tumutative adverse environmenta) lmpects; and th~t thQ Negative Declaration subatanti:~ing tht foregoing findings is on file in the City of Anaheim Planning Depsrtment. Commissioner aarnes offered aesatution No. PC81-171 and moved for Its passage and ad9ptic~ that the Anahelm City Pla~ning Commission does hereby gra~t Conditionat Use Parmit No. 2246. subject to the stiputation that ret~ii salea occupy o~ly 25$ of the ftoor area, pursusnt to Sectians 18.03.030; .031; •032; •033; .03b and .035, Title 18 of the Anaheim Munic~,~al Code and subject to Intercenartmental Committee recommendatlons. a~~o~s~ t_~~ MINUTES. ANAHEIM CItY PLANNINQ COMMISSION~ IUJGUST 1Q~ 1981 d~'~96 On roll aall. th• foregoin9 rosolutlo~ w~~ p~ssed by the followin9 vota: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ BOUAS~ gUSNORE, FRY~ NEaBST~ KING NOES: COMMIS5~ONERS: NONE ABSENTt COMMISSIONERS: TOLAR ITEM N0. : E R CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS i AND CON~ITIONAL USE PERMIT NO_, 224 t PU9L1 C N~Aa) NG. OWNER: HANS J. AND GRI GGA K, EIRENN ~ 21-~0 Ocaan Way, Laguna Beac h, CA 92651. AGENT: PHILIP AND NAE TAN21N1~ 34t4~~ w~st Bal) Road~ A~aheim, CA 92804. Property described es an trregularly-shaped parccl cf lend conststing of approximately 10~ faet on che south slde of Da11 Road~ 3~+1W W~st aal) Fbad (Guldc's Italian Delt~~. CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST: TO PfaMIT ON-SALE BEER ANO WINE IN AN EXiSTING RESTAURANT. There~was he steffnaeportnwashnot read~nic is referredptotandumadetarpartsof the Aitho gh t mtnutes. Mae 7anzint~ agent~ was present to answer any questions. TNE PUBLIC NEARING WAS CLOSEO. Tha Plann~~~rantmhave~beentapp~oved and h~vernotQbeengdetrimentaleto~theasu~roundin9s ptzza resta areas. It was noted the Planning Otrector or hls +~uthorized representative hss determined that the proposed proJect falls wtthin thn deflnitlon of Categortcal Exemptlons~ ~Class 1, •san~fig~dtherefore~acategoricallytex~emptAfrom'thenrequl ement to prepere~an Guidelines , EtR. AC~ N: Commissioner tlerbst offered Resolution No. PC81-17z and moved far its psssage and adoptlnn th~t the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby gra~t Canditional Use Permit No. 2Z47~ Pursuant to Sectlons 1~.~3•~30: •0~1; .032; .033; .034 and .035~ Title 18 of the A~aheins Municipal Code and sub,~~ct to Interdepartmental Cammittee recommendations. On roil call, the foregoing resolution was passed by th~e fatlowin~ vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ BOUAS~ OUSHORE~ FRY, NERBST~ KING NOES : COMMI SS I Ot~ERS : NONE ABSENT: CAMMISSIONERS: TOLAR SI~alB~ MINtJTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ AUGUST 10~.1981 81•497 17EN N0. 6: EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VA_R_IANCE N0. 3Z34s PUBIIC NEARING. Ow'NER: D b D DEVELOPMENT CQMPANY~ 11A08 ~lorwalk 8oulavard~ Santa Fe Springs~ CA 90670. AGENT: JOHN F. SWINT~ 707 West No~th Street~ Anaheim~ CA q2E30S. Property described es a rectangulsrly-shaped parcal af land consisting of approximatety 2.9 acres~ 2050 South Ilarbor Boulevard. Property presently classifled CR (COMhE RCIAI-RECREATION) ZONE. VARIANCE REQUEST: WAIVER QF MININUM NUf~ER OF PARKING SPACES. There was no cne indicattng thelr presence (n oppositlon to sub)ect request~ and although the staff re;x:rt was not read, it is referred to end made a pdrt of the minutes. John Swint~ agent~ was present to enswer eny qurstton~ and steted he hed read all the conditlons and found them to be ~easonable and noted a~ addttion to Item 13 of e motel across the street from this proJect~ which has a parking waive~ of 66~. Dave Thort-as stated he lives in tluntingtun Beach end his interest In the motel was in reiation to the parking. He agreed a businegs should be treeted Itke thelr competitors~ howrver~ In tha event there were more than 76 custome~s at the motel~ he would like to know whe'e they would park. Mr. Swint stat~d he has askcd for eleve~ prevtous variances~ the first one being fifteen-years ago, to date no one has ever fiad more cars than parking stails. Tt1E PUBLIC 11EARINC WAS CLOSEO. Chalrman Bushare asked Mr. Swint the nart~e of the motel across the streat that the Commission had app roved and he replled it r~es a vacant bank bulldtng and the m~tel had not becn built yet as the people were waittng for f~nanctny. Chairman Bushore asked for son-e assurances chat ~+ould Justify thts variance. Mr. Swint said that almost half of the traffic coming into the area today~ comas from alrlines~ buses and bus tours. Chairman 9ushore stated the Planning Conmisston did a~tudy a few yeers back, even check~ng into motei records regarding where business wss coming from in the Otsneyland area end the ftndings showed a n+eJor portion of the business wss coming from the airlines and buses. This study was done prlor to the approval of parkinq waivers. ACTION: Commissioner Kl~g offe~cd a mation~ seconded b~ Commissioner Bouas and MO ION CARRIED (CommissionRr TolAr being absent), that the Anah~in City Planning Commfsslon has review8d the proposal ta construct a 111-unlt m4te1 with a wsiver of parking spaces an e re ctanguterly-shaped p~rce) af la~d consisting of epproximately 2.9 acres, having a frontage of approxtmatety 500 feet an the eaat stda of Harbor Boulevard, having a maximum depth of approximateiy 250 feet and being tocated approximately 160 feet north of the centeri ine of Orangewood (2050 South Ilarbor t!/10/$1 t MINUTES~ ANNiE1M CITY P~ANNINQ COMMISStON. AUGUST 10~ 1981 ~~'49~ Gouleva~d); and daes heroby approve the N~gattve Deciaratlon from the requirement to prepa~a an anvironn~nt~l impacL report on th• basia thet there would bs no elgnific~nt tndividusl or cumulative edverae anvironmental Impact due to the epproval of thia Neflattva Osclaretton sin a~ the A~ahelm General Pian d~~ignates the :ub,j'ct property for general oonnrrci~l l~nd use• cam~nsuratc with the propo:al; that na ~ansitlva environmental Impacts are tnvolved i~ the proposal; th~t the Initlal Study submitted by tha petitlone~ Indtcates ~a stg~~ific~nt Indtvidual or cumulative advers • environmantal imp~cts; a~d that the Negattvo Declsr~tlo~ ~ubstantlating the for~gotng flndings Is on file in the City of An~helm Plenning dspartment. Commissioner King offered Resolutlon No. PC~1-173 and moved far Its p~ssage and sdoptlon thst the Anaheim Ctty Plenning Commission does hereby grant Variance No. 3234 Qn thn bosis of the p rovtous parking study that was done to supporr t~is woiver and that the request is minimal and denial would deprive subJect property from a privilege en~oyed by other propertias in the same zone and vlclnitY and subJect to interdepartmentel Committee recanmendetions. On r411 cell~ the foregoi~g resolutlan was passed by tha foliowing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, OOUAS~ BUSNaRE~ FaY~ I~ERBST~ KINC NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIQNERS: TOLAR Jack Whitc~ Asslstent City Attorney, prGSe~ted the written rlght to appeal the Planning Commissio~'s deciston within 22 dAys to the City Council. ITEM N0. : EIR_NEGATIVE DECLARATI~N AND VARIANCE NO_. 3223: PUBLIC IIEARIFIG. 01JH~R: SNIil151~ tl. PA'TEL~ ET AL~ 1604 South liarbor 9oulcvard~ Anaheim, CA 92802. AGEN7: VAN DORPE 6 ASSOCIATES~ 1820 Oranyewood Avenue, 1~107~ Oranga, CA 92660• Proparty descrtbed as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land conslating of app~oxirtu~tely 0.62 acre~ 1b04 South 1larbor Boulevsrd (Marco Polo Motel). Propo~ty presently cla~stfted RS-A-43~000 (RESIDENTIAL/AGRICULTl1RE) ZONE with a Resolution of intent to CR (CQMNERCIAL-RECREATION) 20NE. VARIANCE REQUEST: WAIVER OF MINIMUM NUMSER OF ~ARKING SPACES. It was noted subJect petitio~ Nas continued to the~ n+eecing of August 2~+, 1981~ at the request of tha p~titloner to readvertise to include a sign waiver. ACTI~N: Commissioncr King o~!`ered motlon, seconded by Commissloner fry and MQTION C~ED (Cammissloner Tolar betng absent). that the ma~ter be continued to the meeting of Au9•~st 2q, 1~81 ~ at the reyuest of the ~.etittoner. 8/to/81 r ~~~?S4F~f.r1~i^_1lt ~~ :e~X31.•~.~.A ~ :I~WdL..~ •~w,ari~'~i.~-~V4~ MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ AUGUST 10~ 1981 RECLASSIFICATION aEQU~ST: RS-11•4;.000 t0 RM-3000. 81-W99 TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: 70 ESTAf3LIS11 A 1-LOT. 18-UNIT CONdOMIN1UH SUBQIVISION. ThnrQ,w`' u~hhthe stefferenortawas~not~resd~~lcnts referrtd'lo~end madejacpart ofsthe and a t ~ minutcs. Bruce ~lfeff, ~ge~t, st++t~d thoy had met all of the RM-3~~~ cnde requlrements and hev~ planned a nice proJect~ a rendering of which was posted on tha we11. Mr. El ieff satd that even ~t~ougf~ tl~e shape nf the Ic-t was a problem~ e~p~clal ly the widtt~~ they I~ave done cvc rythln~ possible to mitigat~ any pote~tia) problems wlth the residents to the narth in Buena Park. ~~e stated only one wlnda~ In the ~roJect faced onto che cul-de-sac to the north. tSob Pamptnee (secretery could noc verlfy name)~ t10A1 Buchanen Circle, auena Park. stated lie felt ~{eeaskedY/fo~WClnriflcAtlontofswhat3sig tficant` fmpact,actuallY ~ant• r~o 1 ghborhoc~d. Jack White. Asslstant CItY Attarney~ steted the negatlve oeclaration was bASed upan a procedure ~dopted by the city for processtny these appllcrttons and in the oplnton of the Envirr~nmental Review Com:~lttce this would not have an adverse impact on the conr~unlcy. Mr. Nhite told Mr. Pampinee th~t If he felt ft had an adve~se Impact he shauld make it known tn the Comn(ssion ~nd he advised him of his rtght tn thls regard~ and to tf~e fact that he could p~esent evidence to the Cun+misslan to substantiatc his fcelings on che matter. Mr. Pamptnee asked hoar sameone co~id bulld a proJect using twa d{fferent clttes' codes (Buena Park and Anaheim)~ with resp~ct to buffering~ EiR's, atc. He noted the City Af Anaheim had input fror+ the Clty of auena Park and he hoped their viewa would be taken into co~sideration. Ne told the CAmmisston he wes conctrned because thts property was haa mawasacanccrned about~haw this would sffactphiswprop rty'smarketnd the meetEng to y, value. Mr. Pampinee stated he would like a 20-foot landscaped area snd a minimum 54-foot structural setback sclJ~ce~t to the single-family residencas~ Just as it would occur ;f he lived in the City of Anaheim~ as well as a revtew of the Envlronmenta.l Impact Report. He st+ated there were faur or ~ive Families impacted by this development, in~uestnthehdecisionb e post o~ed untll~thisegentlyanenHcoulddatte duthe,meeting. req PU9LIC 11EARING. 0~lMER: DONALO G. HEYDENOAHI~ ET AL~ 205'21) ~~arth Wastern Avenua~ Anaheim~ ~A 92801. AGENT: SUN•CAL iNVESTMfNTS~ ATTENTIONs aRUCE ELIEFF~ ?.~06 N~rth Brosdvay~ N12' SnststtnA~ofAappraximetelyelt- ecres,~2~SaZ1lnNorthg4lesternsAvenue. parcal of lAnd co 9 r 9 \ V~~7~/~ MINUTES, ANANEiM CIT`~ PLANNING CONMIS510N~ AUOUST ~~~ ~9$~ Barbar• gesch (s~cretery w~ld not va~ifY name~• 8~ ~ohnson Ctrcle~ Bugna P~~k~ stated the impacL on her ProP~rty `'rou1~ imtact.~fHeremaln:conce9nnHasmthathattwo•t She said It wou spoke~ but thAro definitelY wou~d be d p ttory structure would be e~ectad withi~ 3fl~ feet of her proparty. Interfare with her privacy as well as fncrea~'ihes^o°~~oseeta1hereProPertYtmighttk~s locatlon. She w~s also concorned thst R-3 Z 9 sffect the rosale velue. trustee uf the property et lS~380 Steve Worral l(secretary eould not verify name) ~ GarftalJ Ci~cle and ownar at ~a~~~L°f~om,his'bedroom and this~wastdefinitelYsaLhe units wouid be located or+lY ~SHe°~tQd there were no other tr+o-=tory emits !n Infringertient o~ hl9 priv~cy. tract. Ne stated he wouid elther ~heesin~;cGSLo~ develeped es o~e"story or ave . femily resldenc~. He al~o noted 50-foot distance between this end h~s concern about haw this wo~~ld affect the vA1ue of hls p~operty. Jack Whtte stated that from the ~~for code~walvers~Tn~that1the~singlehfamllYs e- petition be eontinued to readv~ertise rasidents In Quena P~rk are protected by ~n`~ ~~ 1tQmCbaecontinued~to september g,n~ fam) ly rosi dents in Anehelm. 11e suggested 19~1. TNE PUBLI C NEARING WAS CLOSEO. Conmtssloner Herbt stated he feit s~ ~nirwag~d~scussed at thc P1an~in9 ~Ve,~per'hin such as the fact this type of devei p Commission/City Councll wark sesslans and tt was declded nc~t to a11ow anythin9 wit 50-feet of a singla•fam11Y residence. Chairman Bushore noted the Conmission had ~~^~uidsbc°continuedpto the meteting af city they lived 1n and atated he fcit thls ltem sho September 9. 19~1, 9lving the applic;ant tlmc to come in with some revised plans. R. S. Jones, the dosigner of the proprrty~ said he had gi~~.n much consideratian to designing this property and feln~i~ awhat type~~ ~revislo~s theePlannln9e~^~"houih^ He stated he would ~pprec1d~e k 9 had In min~. He noted the projecttw; indewag~Q~ feet,~hich~is the1haightvof a ona- ~ t w~ two. g=ory. He ss) d the r~ ~ story building. G. ~n Sherer, Asslstant Planner~ said thstto ~rkhWith thetdesigner9andbw111 takeelnto Planning Department, staff w~il be happy consi+deration the citizens of Buena Park as well as Anaheim tn the reviston o t e planti. Commisaioner Barnes notRd he~ concesrns wlth the tocatlan of che recreational area because of the noise factor. si~oia~ ~~.. ^ MINUTES~ AN/tNEIN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, AUCUST 10~ 1981 81'S01 Mr. E{tAff raquetted a fourw~ek conci~wnc~. ACTION: Cowimiselon~~ H~rbst offe~ed a motton~ saccnded b~, Con~nissio~er Barnes and 'A'~' CARRIED (Conmtsslo~er Toi~r belny abse~t). that con~tde~ation of the above- mcntionsd 1 tem be continued to th• ragularlY-scheduled meettng of September 9~ 1981~ at the request of tha patitioner. Chalrman Bushore atated that if the revised ple~s did not have ~ny w~ive~s and mat a1) Anahetm•~ Cod~~.the proJect would not be readvartised~ so inte~ested partles should call the Plsnning Oep~rtmcnt the mor~ing of SepCember 9th to make su~e thl~ p~o)ect w~s on the agenda. RCCESS There was e ten-minute reccss et 2:55 P•m• _....._.. RECONVENC The maet 1 ng was reco~vened at 3:05 p.m. ITEM N0. : CIR HEGATIVf Df.CLARATION, VARIANCE N~..3232 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT . . N • PU9LIC F~EARING. Ob1NER: LYNN K. ANu ~~CLEN E. KELLEY, 1g19 Co~onet~ Space 1Q7, Anahelm~ CA g2801~ AGENT: NARREN OEVELOPMENT (KfN WARREN)~ 444-E3~ North Newport aouleva~d, Newport Beach. CA 92663. P~operty desc~lbed as e rectangularly~•shaped parce) of land consisting of epproxtmotely ~.; acra~ ~58 South Webster Avenue. Rasolutio~ of Intent to RM-1200. VARIANCE REQUEST: wAIVERS OF: (a) REQUIRED LOT FRONTAGE AND (b) MINIMUM LANDSCAPED SETgACK. TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: TO ESTAaLISt1 AN 8-LOT. 7-UNIT CONDOMlNIUM SU6DIVISION IN TNE Rh4-1200 ZONE, There was ~o one indtcaking their ~~esence in opposition to subJect request, and although tho staff report was not read~ it i s referred ta And made s part of the minutes. David Lore~zini, a~chitect~ noted thay had worked on the project closely with Plenning staff and tried to mcet al l af the requi rements. I~e stated the staff report indicated an edditionai item that they were unewere of, with fespect to ttie driveway. Cha i rman f3ushore asked h 1 m wh t ct~ i tem he was re fe rr i ng to and he sa i d I tem No. 14. TNE PUBLI C NEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Bushore stated it appeared to be a well destgnod proJect and he did not feel the frontaga on the street or the setbacks were ~ny different tha~ what they had allawed other property owners. S/1Q/81 ~ MINtl1'ES, ANAHE I M C ITY PLANNI NG COMMI SS I ON. AUGUST 1A ~ 1981 81•502 ACTtON: Commissloner Barnes offered a motion~ seconded by Cannisslane~ King and ~N CAaR1ED (Comnisaioner Toler befng abaent)~ tl~at tha Anaheim City Pl~nning Commission hes revlaved tha proposal to estebiish an 8-loc~ 7-untt co~dominlum subdivision with walvers of required lot frontage and minimum landsceped setback ar, e rectengulariyahaped parce) of land consisttng of approximately 0~5 ecre~ having s frontage~ af approxtmately 7g feet o~ the east side of Webster Avenue. having a maximum depth of approximately 210 feet +~nd being located approxtmately 410 feet south of the ce~terline of Clearb~ook LanA (658 South Webster Avenue); and does hereby approve the Negat t ve Dec) aret ion f rom the requl rement to prepare sn environmental impact report on tha basis that there would be no significant ir.dtvidual o~ cumulative edverse environmenta) Impsct due to the approval of thts Negative Daclar~tion sfnca the Anahoim General Plan dasignetes the subJect property for medium ~lensity residenttal land usas comrnensurate with thc ~roposal; thet no sensitlve envlronmental impacts are tnvolvod tn the proposal; that the Inltla) Study submitted by the pstitioner tndicates no signtficant indtvtdual or cumulative adverse envlronmanta) imp~cts; and that the Negativ~ Declaration substantlating the foregotng findings Is on fi le In the C1 ty of Aneheim f'lanning aepartment. Commi ss i oner Barnes of fered Roso) utlon No. PC81-174 and moved for i i~ passege ond adoptlor~ that the Anahelm City Planning Comrnission doos hereby grant Vartance ~~o. 3232 on the basis of the stze end sha~e of the property and that the request is minimal and denial would deprl ve subJect property fmm a privt lega anJoyed by other propertiea In the same zone and vici~lty and subJect to interdepartmenta) CunmitteQ recomme~dations. On ro1 1 cal l~ the foregoing resolutlon was passed by the fo) lowing votc: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: u.4RNE5~ BOUAS~ E3USHORE, FRY~ IIERtIST, KING NOES : COMMI SS I Ot~ERS : NONE ABSEp~T: COMMISSIONERS: TOtAR Commtssioner Ba~nes offered a mc~tion~ seconded by Commissio~e~ King and MOTION CARRIED (Commisstoner 7olar being absent)~ that the Analreim City Planntng Commisston does hereby find that the proposed subdivtsion tagether wlth Its destgn and impr+ovmment is consistent with the City of Anahelm General Plan pursuant to Govarnment Code Settion 66473•5 end does therefore approve Tentative Mop af Tract No. 115tS3 for an !S-lot~ 7~unit condomtnium suhd{vislon, subject to the followtng conditions. TENTA7IVE M/~P OF T_RACT N0. 1158~: ~._ ... - 1. That the dpp~oval of Tentative Nap of Tract No. >>5a3 ~s granted subject to tha approvai of Varionce No~ 3232• 2. 1'hat should thts subdivision be dev~alopad as more than one subdivision, esch subdtvision thereof shall be submltted in tentative form for approval. 3. That all iots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. 8/ ~o/a~ ~ ~. I~INUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLAHNIN6 COMHISSION. AUGUST 10~ i~tll ~~•503 4. Thet the originel docunisnta of Lhe cove~ant~~ conditlons~ and reslrictior~t~ and a lettsr addreaaed to developer's title cc+mpsny ~uthortzing recordatlon thsreaf, sh~ll be submttted to tha City Attorney'a office and approved by the City Attorney's Offica~ Pubitc Utilltiea Dep+~rtment~ Dutlding Division~ and tha Engineering Oivlston prior to final tract map approval. Sald doGUments~ es approved~ shall be ffled and recorded in the Affice of the Orange County Recorder. 5. That street names shail be app roved by the City Plenning Department prior to approvai of ~ final tract m~p. 6. Thst trssh storac~e erees shail be pravided In accordance with approved plana on file wtth the Offtce of the Executive Oirecto~ of Publlc Works. 7. That fire hydrents shsll be I~stalled and charged es required and deta~mined to be necessa ryr by the Chlef of the Fire Department prior tA commencement of structura) freming. !f. That drslnage of sub)ect property shall be disposad of in A manner satisfactory to the City EnginQer. 9. Thet the awner of subJect property sh~il pay to the City of Anaheim the apprapriate park and recreatlon In-tleu fees es determined xo be approp~Iate by the City Council, said fccs to be psld at the time the buliding pe~mit is lasued. 10. That the ow~er(s) of subject p roperty shall pay the trafftc signal aasessment fee (Qrdinsnce No. 38~6) in an amount as destermined by th~ Ctty Councit, for each ne~w dwelling untt prior to the tssuance of a butlding permi t. 11. Th~t app~oprlate a~ater assessment fees as determi~ed by tho Offtce of Uttlictes General Manager shall be paid to the City of Anaheim prior to the issuance of a butlding permit. 12. The selter sheli provide the purchaser of each condantnium unit with wrftten informatton conce~ning Anshelm Nuntcipal Code 14.32.5~0 pertaining to "parktng restricted to fectlftate street sweeping". Such wrltcen information will clearty indicate when on-street perking !s prohlbited and the penalty far vialation. 13. That the proposed subdivision shbll provide~ to the extent feastbl~e, for passive and/or natura) heaing and cooiing opportunittes. 14. Prior to Issuance of buiiding pn~mtts, the applicant shall present evidence satisfacto ry to the Chlef Building Inspector that the uniCs will be i~ conformsnce with Nolse Insulatton Standards spectfted 1~ the Ca{ifornia Administrative Code, Tltle 25. 8/10/81 MINUTES~ ANA~IEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ AUGUST 10~ 1981 81•504 ITEM N0. 10s EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS AND VARIANCE N0. 2 1: PUaLIC 11EARING. OWNER: ANAHEIM HQUSING AUTNORiTY, 76 South C1AUdlna~ Sulte 500, Anaheim~ CA 92805• Property described as a ractangularly-shaped parcel of land aonststing of approxtmstely 0.45 sere~ locat~d at the northesst co~ner of L~ Palma Avenue a~d Patt Street~ having a frontage of approximately 1y0 feet on the north side of L+~ Palna Avenue end 13S feet on the eest atde of Patt Street. Property p~esently classtfied RM-1200. VARIANCE REQt1~ST: WAIVERS OF: (a) MINIMUM FL40R AREA AND (b) MINIMUM LANOSCAPED SETBACK. Thare wes no one indtcating their presence ln oppositlon to subJect ~equoat~ and although the staff report wss not read~ it Is refer~ed to and mede s pArt of the minutes. Pam Kaiser~ Ilausing Dev~lopment Coordlnator for the Clty of Moheim~ Communtty Uevelopment~ steted the proJect is a 4-untt condominium complex~ with 4-bed~oom u~its~ and affordable with special FHA financing af 235 and Z45-b. She satd they were esktng fo~ two watvers~ one being the squ~re footage of the untts. because they did meet FI~A standards, which are slightly lower than the City of Anahalms and the ~econd is the setback from L~ Palma Street. Chalrman 8ushore notod that there were four p~ople t~ favor of the proJect. THE PUaLlC IiEARING WAS CLOSEb. It was the concensus of the Plann{ng Commission thet tl~is was a good proJect in meettng the needs for affordable housing in the City of Anahelm. It wes noted the Planning Director or his authortzed representative has determinod that the proposed proJect falis within the de¢inltion of Categorical Exemptions~ Clas~ 3~ as defined in parag~aph 2 of the City of Anaheim Envtronmental Impact Raport Guidelines and is. therafore, categorically exempt from the requlrement to pr~epare sn EIR. ACTlON: Commtssioner King offered Resolution No. PC81-175 and moved for tts passage anc~aaoption that the City of Aneheirt~ Planning Commtssion does hereby grant Variance No. 3231 on the basts thst Lhe request is mintmal and similar properties in the area have setGecks less then 20 feet and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recomnendatians. On roll call~ the fo~egoing resolution was passed by tha followinq vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, BOUAS~ BUSH04tE, FRY, HEROST~ KING NOES: CQMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMIS5{AN~RS; TOLAR 8/10/81 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLItNNING COMMISSION~ AUGUST 10~ 1981 81-505 ITEN N0. 11 R~OR ~T1t~ RECOMM~NDATIONS The following Reports snd Recommendetions staff reports were p~esented but not resd: A. CONDITIQNA~ USE PERMIT N0. 20 - aequest fAr an extanslon af ttme from r s . use e ra e nst tute for prapa~ty lacetod at ~41 No~th Oale Avenuc. ACTION: Commlssioner King off~red a motion, seconded by Commissionor Fry an M TION CARRIEO (Commtsslone~ Tolar being ahsent)~ that the Anahelm City P1Anning Cnmmission docs horeby y~ant e a~e•year extenslon of time for Condltlonal Use Permlt No. 20~; to expire Auyust 11, 1~92. D. CONDITIANAL USE PERMIT N0. 20 0• Request for retroective extenston of tlme ~rom Nervey~n ~or p roperty ocated at tt6n North Kraemer pouleva~d (Oscar' ~) . ACTION: Commlsstoner Y.Ing off~red a ~notlon~ s~conded by Commissio~or Fry an~d M~O~TION CIIRRIED (Commissioner Toler betng absont)~ thet the Anaheim Ctty Planning Commisslon doQS hereby grant a retro~ctive one-year cxtonsion af tiRe for Conditlanat Use Permit No. 1Q90 to expi~e on June 2~ 19H2. C. CONDITIQNAI USE PERMIT ~~0. 2100 - Request for an extension of time from ert eyes~ c ona s orporation for propert~~ located at 119 West 8a11 Road (McUonald's). ACTION: Cam~issio~er M.tng c~ffered a mntion, seconded by Commtsstoner Fry an~MOTIOt~ Cl,°.°.~~'n (Commtssloner Tola~ bafng absent)~ that the Anahetm City Planning Commission does hereby grant a one-yeor Cxtenslon of ttn+e for Condittona) Use Permit No. 2100 to exp{re on August il~ 19~2. 0. RECLASSIFICATION N0._7~7?•4~, CONDITIONAI USE PERMIT N0._1 2 AND VARIANCE NO_ 3092 • Raquest ~or retroact vic extens ons o time rom re D. Pa no ~or property (Portion A) having A frontsge of approximatety 140 feet on the east side of flaywArd Street and being locsted appraximat~ly 1.190 feet south of the centerline of Orange Avenue and (Partton B) loGated at 727 South Beach ~oulevard. ACTION: Cvmmissfone~ King offerrd a motion~ ~econded by Commissioner Fry an~MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner 7olar being absent). that the Anahelm [ity Planntng Commisston does hereby grant ane-year ~etroactive extensions of ttme for ReclASSiftcatlon No. 7tl-79-43~ Conditlona) Use Pe~mit No. 1972 and Varlance No. 3~92 io exptre on July Z. 1962. 8/t~/~1 MINtlTES, ANANEIM CiTY PLANNING COMMISSION, AU~UST 1A~ 1~~1 81-50b E. LOCAL PARK SITE SElECT10N CRITERIA • Request from James D. Ruth~ Qeputy Ctty Manager or ann ng ommiss o~ appro~ai of the Locai Park Stte Selectlon Crite~ia Policy. ACTION: Conmissioner ~lerbst otfered a mutlon~ seconded by Car~n+issi~ner Ba` e and MOTION CARRIED (Commtssloner Toiar being ab~pnt)~ that the Anaheim City Plannin~ Commisston does hQ~eby approve the Local Park Site Selactlo~ C~iter~a for the City of Anahelm wtth ~rovtsions they bring park sites before the Planning Commisslon. F. CODE AMENOMENT - Re~aaltng Subsections .160 and .6D6 of Section 1~.61.Oy0 an add ng new Subsection .105 to Sectton 18.61.020~ pertalning to exte~minating and disinfecting servlcos ln the Ml Zone. ACTION: Commissloner Herbst offe~ad a rtntlon, secondcd by Commlasio~er aushore and MOt10~1 CARRIEO (Commissioner Tolar being Absent)~ that the !-nahutm City P18nnt~g Commfssion does hereby recortn+end ta the City Councll that the draf~ ardinan ce be adoatod repealing Subsectio~~ .1a0 ~nd .606 of Section 1$.G1.Q5~ and adding new Subsectton .1~0 to Section 18.b1.020 pertaining to exte nninating and dislnfecting se~vtces In the -tl tone. G. CODE ANENDMENT - Amending Subsectlons .101 and .102 of Section 1~.04.043; ubsect on .0262 of Sectton 18.31.063; Subscctton .021 of Sectlon 18.31.068; Subsection .0272 of Section 18,32.063; Subsection .021 of Sectlon 18.32.068; Subsectlon .0272 of 5ection 18.34.063; Subsaction .~21 of Sectlon 18.3~+.068; and, repealing Subsectton .02f>3 of Section 1fl.31.oG3; Subsection .0273 of 5ection 18.32.063; and~ Subsection .0273 of Soction 18.34.063. pertaining to maximum fence heights 1n frant setback areas in resldential zones. ACTION: Commissioner Ilerbst offered a motlon, seconded by Commtssioner King anc~M~TION CAaRIEO ~Chairman Bushore voting no and Commissioner Tolar betng absent)~ that the Anahe{m City Planning Comnissinn does he~eby reca~mend to the City Council that the d~aft ordtnance be adopted amending Subsections .101 and .102 of Section 18.04.043; Subsectlon .0262 of Section 1t~.31.063; Subsection .Q21 of Section 18.31.~68; Subsection .0272 of Section 18.32.063: Subsection .021 of Section i$.32.068; Subsection .0272 af Sectlo~ 1f3.34.063~ Subsectlon .021 of Section 1$.34.068; and~ repealing Subsection .0263 of Sectlon 18.31.Ob3; Subsectlon .0273 af Section 18.32.063; and~ Subsection .0273 of Section 18.34.063. P~rtaining to maximum fenc~ heights in front setback a~aas ln residential zones. ADJOURNMENT There befng no further business, Commissioncr King offered a motion~ seconckd by Commisslone~ Ilerbst a~d MOTION CARRIEb (Chairman Tolar bei~g absent), that the meeting be adjourned. The meeting was adJourned at 3:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~ ~~ Pame a tarraes, S~ecretary Pro Tempore Anaheim City Planning Cammisslan PS:Im 8/10/81