The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1981/10/19~ Y ~ Civic Cent~r Anah~in-~ C~11for~la OctoDe~ 19, 1981 REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNiNG COMMISSI~"1 -~~...._... RCGULAR Th• regul~r meeting of the Anahnim City Plenninq Commissto~ MEETING was celled to ordar by Chalnnan R~ Tempore Fry at 10:G0 a,m,~ October 19 ~ 1q81 ~ in tha Counel I Chanber~ s c~uor~xn being present. and the Commisston revlew~d plans af the ftems on todey's aqends. Recess: 11:00 e.m. Reconvene: 1:35 P•m. for puhlic: testimony. PRESENT Chalrman Chelrmxn Pro Tempore Fry Commtsstoners: Eioues~ Kinc~~ Tolar ABSENT Cammissioners: 9arnes~ ltushere~ Ilerbst ALSO PRESENT Annika Santelahti Joe 1 F' i ck Jack Whtte Jay TI tus Jay Tashtro Psui Singer Dean Sherer Pamelo Starnes Assistsnt Otrector for Zoning Asststant Dfrector for Planntn~ Assistant City Attorney dffice Engtnee~ Assocl~te Planner T~effic Engineer Asslstant Planner Pisnntng Cc~mt~si~n Secretary P~o Tempore PLEDG~ OF ALLEGIANCE TO Th1E FLAG LED DY - Conmisstoner Tolar, APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner King offered ~ iratio~~ seconded by Commissloner fb uas and MOTION CARRIF.D (Chairmen Bushore and Commissioners Barnes and I~erbat betng a:+sent), th~t the minutes of the meetings of ~~ptember 21. 1981~ be approved as .c-~rQCtcd to show three persons in opposition and six pea~~le tn 1`avor to Va~laroce No. ;.~3) instead of nlne as recorded o~ page 5q8 a~d the minutes of October 5. 19A1, b~ approved as submitted. M N0. 1: EIR N0. 113 (PREVIOUSLY APPROVEO).`RECLASSIFICATI~N N0. 81-$T- ~_~~ N~• 323 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 11 ;7; PUBLIC HEI..'.ING. OWNER: THE FIElDS70NE COMPAHY~ 17qi1 Mitchell Avenue~ Irvine~ CA 92714. P~operty descr(bad as an irregularly•shaped parcel of land consisting of ~pproxlmately 9.g6 acres located at thc northwest corner of Romneya Drive and Coronet ';venue, havtng approximete fro~t~gea of 2A0 feet on the north sldr of Rdrneya Drive and 149$ feet on the sAUth sick of Coronet Avenue. RECLASSI~ICATION REQI'"' ~: RS-A•43~OOA AND P.M-11~0 TO RM-3000. VARIANCE REQUEST: uA1VER OF MINIMUM LOT Ar~cq PER O~IELIING UNIT. TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: TO ESTABLISt~ A 1'Wl?-LOT. tOs-UNIT CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISIOPl. "•bz9 t 0/ t 9/ 81 ~~ ~~ i -~ MINUTES~ ANAIIEIM CITY PLANNINO COMMISSIAN~ OCTOBER 19~ 1981 81-G3o There were approximitely thirty people tndiceting their rr~sence in oppositlon to subJect request~ end although the steff report was not read~ It ts refer~ed to end m~de e psrt of the minutes. Dave Lanqlols~ 12422 l~ Bella~ Sant• An~~ w~s prasent ropresenting the owne~s. He stated they would be building a two-lot~ 1~S-unlt ccmdomtnlum complex consisting of Mo and thrse bedroom~. f1e said th~t the orle~inel planned community zoninc~ on tha property permltted 11~ units. !le noted they are in conformsnce with code on parkfng requtrements end recreational•lei~ure areas. Ne steted they felt the proJect created a nice transttlon in the community from the m~Allehome park on the north and the offlce prafess(ona) and coRn~ercial to the eest. Ile also noted there would be no vehicula~ traffic f~om the camplex through tf~e existing single-femily hom~s. Mr. Langlols also made reference to the renderings of the pro~~ct placed on the Chamber well. James Parker~ 12f11 Dove Street, Newport Bedch~ setd he was the spekesman for tfie Anehelm Shoras Ilomcowners Assocl+~tlon and gavr A brief history of the Anahelm Sf~res proJect dattn~~ hack to 1~77. N~ stet~d IC wus origlnally intended an~l lndlcate~ in dll the b~ocl~ure~~ materlAls~ and even the ~ep~rtment of Res) Estate Publtc R~parts, that thero would be seven incr~ments~ tota~iing 394 lats. f1e sald in four y~ar~~ thore have been only three tncrements wtth 17; lots bull~ snd he understoncf thert Nas recent ~pproval of an additlonal 12y lots I~ringing the thtal to 300 lots ah~n Anarielm Shores i s f 1 ne 1 ly f i n 1 sl,ed. fie noted that s i x r~on ths a~o the Commi ss lo~ approved tfie hospital's rcquest to cxpend its pa~lcing lot which tc~ok up ~~2 lots of the o~iginal planned total. F~e callcd the Commisslon's attentton to the rendering cm the wall whtch showed a men-made lake with the creek feeding into the lake from the ee~t side of thc development runntng more or less along the proprrty Ilne around to Rc~mneya. Mr. Parker c(rculated photos amongst the Commissioners to show them th~ crcek. landscaped area~ and brawn f(eld that ts to be covered by the condominlum pro)etL. Ne stated lt was understood homes would be built o~ the eppllcants property, becomtng a pert of the Ilomeowner~s Associetion, enjoy the creek and lake and help by contributtng towards thelr malntenanc.e. N~. Parke~ sefd the develo~er ststed condom)niums are unique and not consistent or compatihle with the Anahelr- Shores Ifomernvner's Assoclation and, the~efore. the condaminlums will not becon~e a part of their assoclation. 1~e sald thts means thetr association wi~l continue to n+aintain the creek. and the l~ke. Mr. PArker express~d c~ncern about the affect [he development mtght have o~ the value of thelr propzrty. He noted there is a large berm along the bounde ry varying tn hel~ht f~om tr+o to three feet cresttng e natural barrie~ and they felt che essoctation ~to be formed for the condaninium proJect) should ba requlred tu maintain the landscaping on both sides of the berns. Ne stated they we rc concerned about the li~btltty assoclated wtth chlldren trepassing in order to play or fish tn the creek and lake. He said becausc of this they would 'ike to see a six to eight-foot soltd wali built along [he pro~erty line betwaen Anahelm Sh~~es and the condominlum pro.ject. Dr. Cllfford Harper of 1975 Bayshore Drive cailed the Co~+n~ission's attentlo~ Co the fect five years aga~ when Anahe~m Shores was Inltieily hrough~t before the Comnission. 1Q/19/81 MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLIWNING COMMISSION~ OCTQ6ER 19~ 1981 81'~31 they dlrected the develaper to redosign tho proJect snd come up with something ~f a i~~s dnnse naturr.. Ile st~tad he wouid Ilke the Commission to impose this seme raqulrement o~ the current development betng aroposed. I~e seld he w~s elso opposed to the use of the neme A~ehelm Shores T~wnhon~s for this development as It Implted th~y were a pa~t of Anahetm Shores. Ile not~d his concern ebout the chlld~en t...spassing but ateted I~e dtd ~oc thlnk bu'iding a wall would solve the problam. He noted he was +~ membe~ of the ~o~rd of ^~~ectors and they hsd offe~ed Fleldsto~b an opportunity to Joln the ~ssoctatlon~ which was refused. Or. Marper also expressed concarn about the affact tt~a development might have on the vslue of thelr property. Hele~ Carter of 1945 Dayside stated sha w~s (n support of Or. Nerpe~'s c~ncerns. Mr. Longlots st~ted he hes hsd three rt~etings wlth the Anahelm Shor~i' Boa~d of Oiractars end ~ne opem m~etlnc~ at whlch all tl~e homeowners were tnvited to attend~ where the plans for this proJect were disclosed. Nr. stated this property was ~ot originatly tntendad ta become a~ert of the Anr~heim Shores Ilc~meowner's Associatian and noted it had alwoys been desic~nated as a hlghor density land use. Ho satd the affer to Join the ~ssoc~atlon was rG.iected becausR of the dtfference in houstnc~ types. Ile sta!~•i -heir a:sociatlon will cover campiete exterfo~ n+atntenance of the builrling and roof~ as wa'1 ~s fire insu~o~ce and al) of the servicca rendered in a condorninium type of homeowner assoclatton. Petitloner stated they made seve~al offers ta the horr~avne~'s assoclation In return for thelr support of the plans be:tng prasented tuday. 11e indicated an ar~a on the proJect rendering displeyed on the Chartber wall they were wtiltng to landscape. He said th~y did not feel a b~ock w~ll wauld ultimately solve the problem of trespassing but that tt would destroy same of the communlty's appeal. Mr. Langlois acknawtedged fleldston~ restdents wauld have the benefit of laoking out at the lake, hdw~ver. they woul~ on the,AnaheimsShoresn the CCbR's that thelr awners would not havc the right to g property. tle atated thts way it wouid be the responsibtlity of the 1lomea~mer Associsttons to work together. Ile said some people tn the Anahelm Shores Homeowner's Associatton dtd not want Fieidstone annaxed. F1e stated they have met the zontng requ~ r+ements and have made a~ honest a~tten+pt to meet th~e concerns of the Anehetm Shores 1lomeavn~r's Associatton and thst they were willtng to continue working with the association to try snd alleviate any t~espassing problems. THE F'iJBI I C N EARI NG WAS CLOSE D. Cammisslo~er Fry not~d that son+e of the oppositton were of the opinlon tne condominium concept was ~ot compatihle with their home ownership but wanted them to join the assaclatton and others were of the apfnlon that it was competible but that (t was never intanded io bc part of the Anaheim Shores. He stated sane wanted a wall and scxne did not. I~e said the~e atso appeared to be a potentlal maintenance problem between the two homeowr+er's associatlons. Commissioner Tolar asked steff how many untts were originally proposed for the parcet of land in questlo~. ,o/,9/a~ ~ , F MINUTES~ ANAFI~IM CiTY PLf1NNING COMMISS10~1, OCTQf3ER 19~ 1~181 8t"63~ An~ika 9antelahti~Assistant Di~ecto~ fo~ Zoning~ referred to the original exhibtt the Planning Comnis~ton and City Council haci eeen in 1974 and stated at that time It w~t actually one entire R3 proposal which wes me~nt to be apa~tments but subsequent Cou~cil action denled that usa. She aatd th• easterly sacticm was basically to have a tota~l ofthin uaroundnittand a~dewa~ torhaved185t~+ttssswith denstty~~+~nging from plus very 9 9.6 to 25•7. Commtssioner Tolar s~td the RM-3400 xo~e wes competible with single-family use. Ne sald it had been usad successfully in numY cc~mmunities such es Anaheim Hills where a tremendou~ amou~t of candaminium and tow~house development Inteqrated with sin9le- family dweilings. Ile noted It had not been cktrimental to the vslue of the property. He stated he did not feel a fence wuuld~ in reality, give the hemeowners protection from tr.espasscrse~tering the lake And creQk. Commissioner King stated he felt thts pro)ect would serve as a good buffer between the mebilehames on the north and the An~helrn Shores development on the south. Commtssloner ~ouas stated she was in accord wlth Conmissl~ner TolAr and that she fei+t the peopie buying the tawnhon+es would henefit from lool:tng out over thc lake, Sha said it should be macie part of thetr respansibility to help in the melnten~ncc. '~-~~a suggested the 'homeowners ~+ssoclatlon ~nd the owners of the townhanes get toqether and werk on a solution. Conmissianer Tolar stated he wss aware of the dlff~r~!r~t tv~es of homcown~r assoctattons referred to earlier in the dlscusston; howev~r~ any restric~ton~s imposed on the owrc ~s of the tawnhomes would need to be tled to so~-~thinc~ strongcr than CC6R's. M~. Parker stated the~e (s a landscaped bn rn+ along Creacent anc~ on top of the berm Is a block wall extendin9 the entire length of the m~bl3ehort~ P~rk. Hr,pointed this out to the homeawners of Anahcim Shores and sugc~ested they may not wigh 'to see that sen+e type of wall along their 1ake. tle said the~/ stated they would nat mind seeing that type of wall atong thelr lake but they would rather it ~rould be a soltd wall and not have breaks in ~t as tfie wall alang Crescent. Mr. Parker stated they felt that it was Just and Catr for Ffeldstone to erect the ti~,all and maintatn the lanclscapl~g; however. if Fieldstona wi1) nat~ tfiey are prepared to do it themseives. At Mr. Tolar's request, Mr. Pa~ker went to the rendering of the proJect and showed the Conxn~ssion they wanted the wall along thn entire southern bounda~y . ~ommissioner Tolar noted thet Mr. Parker wes representing the -lomeowners' Associat~bateet in onnindthe~a5sociation~withnresPeC~a whethe~ethey~should or~d to be a 9 9 shoutdn't have a wail. Mr. Parkcr~said he did net feel the debete was wlth respect t the wall but to tov+nhomes being annexed into their associAtion. tq/19/At MINUTES~ ANAIIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ OCTOBER 19~ 1981 81-6;~ Chalrman Pro Tempore Fry axplained if the w~11 were requtred it would be bullt ~nttrely on the Fieldstone property. Ne steted, in his optnlon everyone in the hr~neewner'a assoclatton dtd not wa~t ~ s~x to eight•foot so11d well which would most likely attract graffitt a~ttats. Commisaloner Tolar inquirnd as to the validity of heving a m~ster homeawner plen aimiler to the one in Anahelm Nills. Jsck Nhtte steted that a master homeawner's plen Is crested hafore p~operty ts subdtvided and sold to tndivtdual developers. Commissioner Tolar asked if there would be some way of requlring so much per unit be pald to Anahelm Shores ~lomeawner's Assoclatton for the li~bility and Malntenence of the open space~ stresms ~nd lakes~ by the owners of the townhomes. Jack White stated that we could not ~equtre this as a nbtter of law. 41e satd, however~ If they w+anted to snnex to lln~heim Shores or create a new set of CCER's that would be mutuetly beneftclal, they could cart~inly dc~ so. Jsck Nhite ~lso noted that CCbR's are a contractual obilgation and a llability tssu~ in the eycs ~f the law and yx}s the responsibility of the owners. Mr. Langlois stated Fieldstone had offered the following to the Annheim Shores liomeown~er's Association if they would support thetr proSect. 1. They would lands~ape the l~oundary which is just under 1 acre of ground costing In the neighbo~hood of S100~000 or a~proximately S2.A~ to S2.50 a foot. 2. Thelr assoclatton would maintain the landscaping. 3• 1'hey acknowledged the visual beneflt of the lakc~ and were prepared to make a contribution to its maTntenance. Ile sald they dld some rough calculations with the 9oard ~f Dtrectars os to what thc pro rata share of the mai~tenance would be and Fie!dstone came up with a ftgure which wuuld give the assoclation a one time lump su~.~ fee of S20~~~A. fie sald the assoctation could in turn deposit this in a long te~m interest bearing account and the intGrest from this accou~t would cover the pro rata share hased on Anaheim Shore's own budget. 4. They agreed to put a provtston in the CCbR's addressing the tr.espassirg tssue. fle stated he would like to s~e a cor+promise worked out rather than erectTng a block wail and after a time if the compromtse did not wo~k, Anal~eim Shores could still erect the walt. Chalrman Pro T~:mpore Fry stated ha was interested to learn of the offer Fieldstone had mede the Anaheim Shores 1'.omeawner's Associatton. He asked Mr. Parker if all of the offer~ were unacceptable to tl~e Homeowne~s and Mr. Parker stated yes because they needed security. Chairman Pro Tempore Fry pointed out that Mr. Parker had~ in fact~ himself stbted he didn't feel the wall would give than the security theY actually needed. Chatrman Pro Tempore Fry suggested perhaps the petitioner would like to consider a two week continuance so a fult Commtsston could be present because he felt this proJect deserved the tnput of all the Commissioners. Chairman Pro Tempore Fry noted that he was i~ favor of the proJect a~d would tike to see the landscaping, maintenance and block wall issues resalved. 10/19/81 MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING C4MMISSION~ OCTO~ER 19, 1981 81-f~34 Mr. Lenglot~ said ho would Ilke to rcquest e two week conttnusnce 4o the msetlnq of Novembor 2. Commissloner Tolar a~ked if the S20~A06 lump sum would pay fc~ the coat of the fence and Mr. Langi4ls satd it wouid ~ot bec~use the fence was 14g0 line~r feet and the appraximate cost w~s S2a to S30 pe~ foot o~ somewhere between 535.~~A snd S45,OQ~ to lnstall the fencc. ACTION: Commisslo~er King offered a motlon, se~co~ded by Commissloner pouas end M~~ CARRIED (Chat~msn Oushore and Commissioners E3arnes and He~bst being absent)~ that the meettnq be cnntinued until Novembar 2~ 1~81. Chairman Pro Tempo~e Fry Informed the audtence no furthar notice would be malled on thls item and advtsed them to call the Plsnning Depertn+ent tl~e mornt~cl of November 2~ 1981~ to be sure the Item was still on the agenda. ITEM N0. 2: EIR I~EGATIVE DECLARATiON AND CONDITIQNAI USE PERMIT NQ. 22G8: ..~...- PllBLIC f1EARiNG. ONNER: ARMNID A. STEPNMIIAN, ET AL, 3316h Acapulco Dr.~ Dana Point, CA 92629. AGENT: DANIEI J. aARRETT. 9~1 N. Euclld Street~ Anahetm~ CA 92801. Property desc~ibad es an irregulsriy-shaped parcel of l~nd co~sisting af approxtmately 1.2 acres on the south sfde of Lincoln Ave~ue~ 2440 West Lincoin Avanuc. Property presently classified Cl. (COMMERCIAL~ LIMITED) ZONE. COHDITIONAL USE REQUCST: TO PERMIT AN AUTO IMPOUND YARD IN TNE Cl zONE. There we re twelve people indtcating th~ir p~es~nce In opposltlon to subject request, and although the st~ff report was not read~ It ts referred t~ and m++de +~ part of the minutes. Daniel Barrett. broker and property rnanager with Itighlands P~operty Corporation, 901 North Euclid, stated the mo~ton for the condiCional use permit was self expirnatory and hc was present to answer any questians. -le noted he had not expected any oppositlon. Alma Kabltnski~ president oF the Board of Directors of the condominium proJesct known as The Pfnes, 13~ South Magnolta, stated they obJected to this proJect because it w ould be detrimental to the area. She said cars are parked on the p~operty and dogs, f rom the p roJect~ bark at night cresttng a disturbance. John Uilder. 134 South Magnolla stattd they were also bothered by the noise from tow trucks brin~ing wrecked cars tn durtng the night. Ile said an auto impound yard would not be corr~atlble wtt~ the surrounding area. Ile said the property was bcginntng to look like a Junk ysrd. 8ernard 61oom, 2630 West Ball Roed said hia property was west, adJacent to the development. Ns said there w~s a ch+~in-ilnk fence between the properties, teaving the unsightly auto impound yard ve ry visible. Ne stated it would not be compatible 1n/19/81 MINUTES~ ANIW~IM CITY PLANNiNG COMMISSIQN~ OCtOBER 19~ 1Q81 81-635 with the retatl uses elong Lincoln or the office professlonal bulldinc,+ he w~a pi~nning, He noted tha auto impound yard woutd he a ZG hour use and Lhe ~rea was nct peved. He said In order to avold both nolse and ssfety factors he would llke to aee • six-foot block wal) bstween the properttes and the area ~aved ca avr~id dust problemt. James Beins, 2SGQ Ll~coln~ awner of praperty adJ~r.ent to the propoaed development stated he waa an accou~tant and it would be ve ry dtfficuit for hlm to work with ell tha noise created by en auto Impound yard. He sald the cars would be loAded and unloaded ~tght by his area a~nd the drivewey would be alnng hls ~rope~ty itne. Ha sald a block wall mtght abate soe+e of the nolse. I~e noted he did not iive on the prope~ty. Jahn Wildnr stated he dtd not knav If they were going to have guard dog~~ hut if they we ro he was ve ry much In opposttlon. Mr. Barrett s~td the-+~ would not be any gu~~d dogs ac the locetlon. 'le seld the autas could rx>t be seen from the front of the pr~~erty and they would be blocked from vlew at the back with the w~lt of garQges and the extstiny chain-link fence would be ribbed. Potitloner i~dic~ted the property hed t~een used ln th~ past As a wrecktng yerd and the proposed use would not be any worse than whet had been ailowed p~evious~Y. TNE PUBLI C~1CARING WAS CLOSED. Chairmsn Pro Tempore Fry asked staff if the plans we~e correct which sho~vecl a ten foot high wal) the full length of th~ souch of th~ p~operty and Dean Sherer~ Assistant Plrnner~ sald that was whst was tndiceted on the submitted pl~ns. Mr. Oarre~t ghowed a photograph which indicated that it was ectuslly a serles of ga~ages a11 ecross the ~+~ck of the ~~~pe~ty. Commtsslone~ Toler stated he didn't feel an auto impound wrecking yard this close to reside~tjal property was a good use even though tt had a similar use in the psst. Ne then noted there was residentta) uses to the south and the east with commerci~l devetopme~t along bath sldes snE to his knawledge they had never Allowed an aut~ wreckinc~ ys~d in an area so densely populated. !le said it was further oomplicated by the fact thet an auto impou~d yard has a 24 hour use and once the conditional use permit was granted they could have guard dogs even tfiough they state they wlll not. Petiti4ner indicated it had been a starage yerd of one type or another for Lhe past etght years. He stated thit the praposed use would not be as unattractive as the uses in the past. Commisstoner Toler sgaln stated that he dtd not feet an suto impound yard was a compatible use with the surrounding ares. Commissioner King sAid he a,reed a~tth Commissioner Tolar's statement. to/19/81 MINUTES. ANl1HEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ OCT09ER 19~ 1981 81'636 ACTION: Commisaloner Toler offered a motion~ seconded by Commissianer King and t l~l CARRIED (Chatrn-an Bushoro and Commisaionera 8arnoa ~nd Flerbst belnq abs~nt) ~ thst the Anaheim Clty Plannln; Commtsslan has reviewed the proposal to establish a 12~000 squera•foot auto Impound yard for 24 autoa on +~n irregularly-sh~ped parcal cf land conslating of spproximataly 1.2 acres~ havtng a fr~ntage of app~c~ximately 1y3 feet on the south sid~ of Lincoin Avenue, h~vtng a maximum depth of approxtmatelY 26~ fset and being located approxlmately S10 feet oast of the centerline of Magnollo Avenua, and further ckscrlbed ~s 2540 West l.incoln Avenue; and does he~eby drny the Negatlve Declaratlo~ from the requirement to p~epere an envirc.nmentt' impsct report on the basts that the ro would be signiftcant indivtduai or cumulattve adve~sn environmental trt-pact due Ra tl~e approval of thts ~~egstive Decleratlon since the Anaheim Ge~eral Plan designates the subJect property fo~ low-medium density land uses commensuratc wtth the propos~+l; tf~at sensitive environmentsl impacts are involved in the proposai; that the Initlei Study submitted by the patitlone~ indlcates slgnificant indtvidual o~ cumulative adverse environn+entel impacts; and that the Negative Declaration substanttsting the foregotng findtngs is on filo In the Ctty of Anaheim Plan~ing ~epartment. Commiss(onar Tolar oFfered Resolutio~ No. PC81-211 and moved for tts passa~e and adoptton that the Anaheim City Planning Commisston does herehy ckny the request to permit an auto Impound yerd in the CL zona bas~d an the fact it is not a compatibl~ use for the area and it would have advtrse affect on the haalth~ safety and ganeral welfare of tt~e people su~roundtng the pro]ect. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by thc fo~lawtng vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS; BOUAS~ FRY. F:ING, TOLAR IiOES: COHMIS510NERS; NO~~E ABSEt17; COMMI SS I ANERS : BARNES, 9USHORE ~ IIERnST Jeck Vhtte, Assistant City Attorney~ presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision withln 22 days to the CitY ~~cil. ITEM N0. : EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIO~i-CLASS 1 AMD CQNOITIOr1ALUSF. pfRMIT NO. 2269: PUEiLIC HEARiNG. 0`~JNER: THE GALLERY PARTNERSNIP, 1725 South Dcwglass~ Sulte C. Anaheim. CA 92806. Proparty descrihed as an i~regularly-shat~ed parcel of la~d consisting of approximately 2.0 acres located at the southwest corner of Katella Avenue and Douglass Street~ 2560 East Katella Avenue ( The Sports Gallery). Property prese~tly classtfied ML (INQUSTRIAL~ IIMITEO) ZONE. CONOtTIONAL USE REQI~ ST: TO RETAIN A MASSACE SERVICE !N AN EXISTING RECREATIONAL FACILITY. There was no one indlcating thelr ~resence in oppositton te subject requast. and althaugh the staff repart was not read, it is referred tn and made a part of the ml~uteS. to/19/81 ` , ~ MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY P~ANNING COMMiSSION~ octoe~a ~9~ 1981 81-63~ Steva Grott, 1725 South Douglas~ Road~ ststed he had conie befor~ the Pianntng Commlsston in May of 1~77, to propose plans for a 2A-court ~acquetbsll henith facility fo~ men snd women whlch Included different smenities~ one of them betng a maasage se rvice. He `aid prlor to opentng, and ehch ye~+~ thereafter~ they have appltad for anJ been grentRd busin~~a licenses for xhe Spo~ts Gallery snd the outsida operators af the smanities c.!fered. 11a satd outsid~ operators ere free agents not actuslly omployed by the Sports Rallery. 11e said (t was Indtcated to thelr outslde masseusa a conditlonal use permlt could be grant~d f~r the message service. TIIE PUBLI C HEAR1 NG NAS CLOSED. Commtsstoner Esouas asked Mr. Groth to explatn what he meant by outstde masseuse . tte said they aro not emplqyees of the Sports Gallery~ however. they a~e screened as to thei r moral character. lie said wh,tever fnes they receive from the mam'o~rshlp is theira and thelrs alone. Chal~man Pro Tampore Fry sstd that in other words. Lhey ~~e like contractors. Commissioner To1sr rtot~d the City af Anaheim had problpms with maasage parlors ln the past, Ile said these had been substantlated by police reports~ and inquired if there had been any such rrp~rts about this uper~tion. Dean Sher~er stated there had not. Jack Whtte asked the petttioner haw many masseuses were on the premtses at one tirt-e. The petitloner stated tl~ey have oniy had onG who had been With thdn approximately 2- 1/2 years. Jack White asked the petttloner if he w~ouid be willing to stiputate to heving only one masseuse contract to work on the premises at any given tfine. Mr. Groth stated they would be rri111ng to stipulate t~ that ~equest. It was noted the Planning Director or hts authortzed representative has daterminfd that the proposed proJect falls wfthin the definltion of Categorica) Exemptions, Class 1, as defined in ps~agraph 2 of the City of Anahelm Envfronmentai Impect ~epo~t Guidell~es and ts~ therefore~ categorically exempt frcxn the requirement to prepsre an EIR. ACTION: Comr,+issloner King offered Resolutlan No. PC81-212 and moved for its passage an~c a~doptlon that the Anaheim City Planning Co~simission does hereby grant Cc~nditional Use Permit No. 2269 sut,Ject to the patttioner's sttpulation that only one mbssause will be contracted to w~ark on tha premises at any given ttme and In compliance wtth Se ctlons 18.03.0 30; .Q31; .032: .~33; .03~+ and .0 35~ Title 1$ of the Anahelm Municipal Code and subJect to InterdeperLmenC'al Committee•reccxnmendations. t0/19/81 ~ ~ ~ ~ ,' MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PIANNING COMMISSIAN~ OCT48ER 19~ 1981 On ro11 ca11, ths foregoing resolutton wes psssed by the fo11ow1nq vote: AY 't COMNISSIONERS: OOUAS~ FRY~ KINC~ TOLAR NOE:+: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIbNERS: 9ARNES. BUSNORE~ IIERBST RFCESS There w~s a ten-minute recesa et 3:20 p.m~ _.~ RECO_ NV_ The maeting was reconv~ned at 3:30 p.m. ITEM N0. 4; EIR CATEG4RICAL EXEt~i'TION-CLASS 3 AN~ VARIANCE N0. 3z33: ~_ .-- ---- -- -~._. 81•63A ?UBI,IC -iEARiNG. OWNFQ: LEON A. ANO DORIS p. CRAOY~ 4335 Balnbridge Avenue~ Anahetm~ Ch 92807~ R~operty descrthed as a rect~ngularly-shaped pa~cel of land consisting of appraximately 7326 squara feet~ 4335 East 8sinbridc~e 1lvenue. Preperty presently clesstfted RS•7200(SC) (Residanttal Stngle-Fsmtly) Zone. VARIANCE REQUEST: IJAiVE4 OF REQUIRED FENCE IIEIGHT TO RETAIN A FENCE. Thare was one p~~so~ Indiceting thet~ presence in oppositlo;+ to sub)ect request, and although the st.~f report was not ~•esd~ It ls referred to and made a pa~t of the minutes. It was noted the Planning Director or his euthorised i^epresent~+tive h~s determined that the proposed proj~ct falis withtn the ~aftnitto~ of Cnt~norlca) Exempttons, Class 3r as defined in oar~graph 2 of the Ctty of Anshetm Envt~onmental (mpact Report Y Guldelines and is~ therefore~ cateyortcslly exempt fmm the requiren~ent to prepare an t E 1 R. t ~ Mr. Leon Crady~ 4335 fiainbridge Avenue~ stated he would like to ~etaln the six-foot ? high wooden fente and s~ate located in his front setback ad,jacent to Balnbrl~ige Avenue ~ used to enclose his 26-foc~t motorhonx3. tie sald at one tfine he had A t~ailer in a ~ storage yard broken into and the dam~ge was nut cov~ered hy his insurance. Ne said he ~ built the fenc~ to protect hls motorhome against melicious mischief by ths naighbo fiood chitdren on thetr way to and from school. He stated up unttl the time ~ he received a notice from the city he was not aaare the fenc~ was causing any problem. He said the neighbors he hed spoken with did not seem bothered by the fence. Ile said he did not knaw until a few ~ni~utes ago thst his next door nelohbor dld not like the fence. Ne stated he didn't believe his fence and motorhome we~e visibie from his neighbor's h~use. He said he ran the fence to the street because he thaught it would look batter. He ssid he dtd not have enpugh ~oom to put hts traller in the back y~rd llke his neighbor on the corner ecross the street unless he cauld have acCass off Riverdale. fte stated to the Commisslon that he would do whatever they recammended but he would definttair iike to be able to protect his property whether they let him retetn the fence in front or let fiim have access off Riverdale. Ken McGregor, 4~41 East aainbridge, sald he ltved next door to Leon and his obJeGtton to the fence is: 1. It was not checked ~out with the Planntng Cortrnission bef~are 10/19/81 ~ ; ~ ~ ~~ 1 ~' MINUTES, ANAHEIM CiTY PI.IWNING COMMISSIAN~ ocr~aEa ~g~ l98) 81-639 s b~tn9 bui l t to •se that (t compl ied wf th Cade. 2. Th~s~e ere sctua) ly two fence~t~ ane being ~harod +~i~ng the propmrty 1 tne and one tn the 1'ront ~ncloeing the ~notofiome. Ha •~Id enyone couid cllmh onto the nwto~how~e snd have acces~ to the seeond story of hts hou~a. ~. He s~id (n his opinton a~y fence or (tams put tn the front yard shauld enh~~ce th~ nsighborhoad. Nr. Crady steted he dtd nat know If anyone could c11mb on his mcatorhame and qain acc~ss to hl~ nelghbo~'s secAnd story. He sald to holp enhance the appearance of the front of t he prope~ty he would be happy to shorten the lenqth of the fQnc~. THE PUBIIC HEARING NAS CLOSEO. Commtssloner Ktngstated that thts request w~s for a va~i ance snd in ordar to grant a varia~ce It waa ne~ssary to show a h~rdshtp. He asked Mr. Crsdy to stste wh4t the hardshtp was on hls property. Mr. Crady stated he felt the hardshtp was In trying to protect his motorhqne from vandalia m. Commtssionar King oxplained to Mr. Credy thNt hardships were limlted to speclal clreumstances sppl (cabie to property such es size~ shape ~ topography~ locatlons or surroundings which do not epply to other identically zoned proRerttes tn the vlctnitY and thit ~ctrict application of the za~ing cod~ deariv~ea the prope~ty of privileges enJoyed by othe~ propertles undcr tdentical zoninq t~ th ~ vicinity. M r. Crady said his netghbor ssross the street on the co rner could put his trailer in the beckyerd but that he oould not bec~use of the ~ize o f his property. Cheirman P~o Tempo~e Fry nsted the neighbor's property N:s a co~ner lnt end Mr. Crady's was nat, so they could not compere the two. ~ommissioner Toiar stated he was in sympathy with Mr. Crady l~ut would not like to sea evrery I~ouse have that type of fenctng. Cammlssi~ner Tfllar asked if CodA aliowed that s ize matorhorne to be parked on the front of the property . ,la~k Nh ( te satc! the motorhon~e r-eeded to be parked cl ther in the rear ya~d or on the ~aar third ~f the proQerty. Cortimissiona~ Tola~ said thare eppeared to be s blgger problem than Just the fence. M~. McGregor stat~ed he fe 1 t the ~n ly sol ution w~u) d be to gl ve Mr. Crady access to his property f rom Riverdale. Jay Titus~Officn Engineer, said access rights ta Riv~e rdaie had been dedieated to tha city. so there was no legel sccess availeble to Rive rdale. 10l19/81 % ~ MINUTES. ANNIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION.~ OCT~ttER 1q~ 1~181 81-640 Jack Nite s~id 15.28.2~b of tha Anshelm Municipal Code prohihits the psrking of moto~homes o~ tralle~~~ otherwiss c~11~d ce~pcar~~ u~de~ our definl~lan of tho code withtn any araa of priwte prop'tty~ except t~ the ~~r yard er unde~ cover~ meaning ~oof cove~. Thereforo~ under strlct InteTrotation of the code, it wouid not be parmissable to store a motorhome In the f~ont or side yerd. ACTION: Commisaloner King offered Resolutlo~ No. PCA1•213 end mc~ved for Its passage an a tion that the llnahelm Ctty Pl~+nntng Commis~ f o~ does hereby deny Varlanc~ No~ 3233 d.~e to the fact patttioner did not demo~strete that a hardship exists and that epp~ova 1 cou) d set sn undea 1 r~b 1 e precedent . On rol l ca11~ the forogoing rosolution was pessed b~r the follawing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONEP,St BOUAS~ FRY~ KING~ TOIAR NOES: COMM15510NERS; NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS; OARNES~ BUSHQRE. HERBST Jack Whlte~ Aaatstant City Attorney~ presented the written right to appea) the Pianning Commtaslon's doclsion withln 22 days to the Cfty Counctl. ITEM N0. 5: EIR NEGATIVE DECLAaATION. RECLASSIFICATIOfJ tl~. A1-82-2: ~~~ ~.. +.~~ r~~~r~~ PUBLIC FiEARING. OWNER; E. 0. At~D P1IYLLIS M. RODEFFER~ 1820 Esst farry Avenue~ 1~1A6, Santa Ana~ CA 927~5. AG~1~T: 11ARRY SCNREY~ c/o RODEFf~R INVESTME!ITS, 18?0 East Garry Avenue, A106, Senta AnA~ CA g2705. Prapertv dnsc~i5ed as an irregularly-shaped parcel of l~nd consisting of approxtm~tely (~.1 acres~ located north end east of the n:~rc'~ •- s~t corner of Ora~gewaod Avenue and Santa CruZ Street~ ty01 East OrangeKOOd Aven~r . RE CLASS 1 F 1 CAT I ON REQt1E ST : ML TO C0. Thcre was no one indicating the(r p~esence in opposition to subJect request~ and although the staff r~port was not ~ed, it is referred ta end n-~de a part af the mfnutss. Harry Schrey, 1$20 East Garry Avenue, Santa Ana, indicated hts presence rep~esenting the avners, M~. and Mrs. Kodeffer. He stated they concurred wtth the staff reoor! for the negative decl~ration and reciassiftcatlan but would like to clarify twa item~. The first betng tha traff!c study. He said Paul Singer~ Traffic Engtnee~, sugges ted they ftnd solutions to what they bc~th agreed would t+e a cumulative effeet to traf f i c t ~ the area whe~ the proposQd two mt i l ian square feet of off 1 ce sp~ce i s develope~d. f1e said they had Nalland F~remen. engt~ers on traffic proDlems~ make a compieto :eport. I~e setd che in~ersection ca~actty utilizatior+ snalysis for State College And Orangewood is .78 Nith existing traffie ancl .82 with thelr p~oJect. He sstd when cc3nsider-~g development downstream It n,lcxht climb to .97. He said th,ey would 11ke to go on record as betng In complete favor of a Joint effo~t to mitigate any potenttal trafftc problems. He stat~d the poss ibllity of car and van poois. and worlcing with other businesses in the o~eo to create staggered wo~king heurs. Ne ~aid the secorci iteM was the prlvste streets. He satd they had acsess to ~he property to/19/81 ~ t MINUT~S. ANANEIM CITY PLIWNING COMMISBION~ OCTOAER 1'.',, 1981 81-641 from "Se~te Cru: on ths west and Oranc~ewood on the aouth nnd noted these were not easen~en~s but part ot ths pa~cei. Ne s~td they p~ferred not to have prtvate et~eets becsu~e they w~nte+d to h~ve driveway widths of 2~ feet with 3 feet of land~captnq. THE P UBIIC HEARINC wAS CLOSED. Commt ~s~oner To1ar s~id he feit It Nas a good pro.)ect ~nd would ilke a sttpulatlon from the •ppllcenL on the tr~fflc Issue in orde~ to move an the proJect. Paul Singer aaid th~ traffic report waa taken as e cumulative effact of this proposal and ~ae e substantiel Impaet o~ treffic. He sald the re~ort df d not substantte) ly add~es ml tigstlan meaeures requl rod for the future Impact of additionel development. Ne ssid if we do not do something now ~~e will h~ve to catch up at A leter de~te with a publ t c transit system. Ne said there ls na lnexpensive or simple solution to the massi ve trdfftc prablems we will facQ durinq the daytime working houra. Commi esioner Tolar seld the city has rlways ~ncouraged bustness development and he would 1 ik~ to see some tvPe of sttpulatton ~dded so they would be able to approve th Is pro~ect. Pau) Sl~qer seid thts proJect is very complex bacruse !t is a eondomfnium proJect end ther~ will be diversifled owners. Ile s~id he foresees the possibility af a distrtct beinq forrned In the future which should be made a part af the sales agreement. Jack White stated he cio~ted the vaiidity of a current avners agreement betng binding o n f ut u re ow~e rs . Chatrmsn Pro Tempore Fry asked the pe+titioner If tihis was to he a condomtnlum proJect and t'-ie seid yes~ with each aFfice heing an individual condc~minium. ChairmanPro Ten~ier~ Fry noted that the traffit engineer felt they shoutd requlre mttigating t~af'~ie measures. Jeck White sald they could ~ot ~pprove the negative declaratio^ without showtng adeqa~ate traffic mitigatton measures. Commissioner King ssked if there wss a hus lina nearb~- and the petitioner stated ther+~~as a bus 11ne on 5tate CoilAge, a half block an~ay fran t~~e pro)ect~ but was unce rtaln about Orangewood. JacK Whlte satd there wer+e two ~ssible ways to go whlch~ unfA~tunately~ would not ~esu lt in a declaton today. 1. Ask the developer to come bae~c with spectfic meas ~res ~h~t could be enforced, with regards to mltigatton of the Lrafftc~ and 2. woul ~1 be to require the prepar~tio~ of an environmentel impact report which wouid addness a 1 I the i ssues and at that t tmd ~ I f there were no ml t T gat io~ meaaures poss ibia, the Planning Commisston and ttty Councii wuuld stt l i have the optlon to app~ve the proJect~ upon thelr ftndings of ~verriding constde ~atlons. 10/19/81 a f MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNINC COMMISSION, OCTABER iq~ 1q$1 81•642 Commlsaloner Toler a~ked the p~titlona~ to revi~e tho trafflc report to tnclu~!~ mitigstin g measures that would ~esalve the traffic problems. Tho petittone~ st~ted thet he had ~ good r.i~ otre with Paut ~inger and that he would work wtth him to resolve the (ssue. Pau) Singe ~ st~ted he would be mora than happy tu help. The patttioner requested a two-week cantinuancc. ACTION: Cammissioner Tolar offered a metio~, ser,onded by Commissioner Bouas a~d MO I CARRIED (Chalrmen 6ushore and Cortmissianers aarnes and Nerb~r being ebsent), that the item be cantinued for two-weeks u~ttl the meeting of t~lnvember 2~ 1981. Chalrman P ~o Tempore Fry indicsted to the audience~ that no furthtr notice would be mailed on thts item and advised them to cali tl~e Plenning Department on November 2~d to be sure the (tem was gotng to be heard. 6: E1R NEGATIVE ._ 2272: WAIVER OF CODE RE UIREMENT A1~0 CONDITIONAL USF PUBLIC HEARINC. OWNER: ORAttGC COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTP,ICT~ gi1 North Broadway~ Santa Ana~ CA 9Z702. aGENT; VIKING FREIGlIT SYST~K~ INC.. STEVfN THORTON~ Termina) Manager, 1379 North Mlller Street, A~aheim~ GA 928A6. Property de~crtbed as an irr~gulerly-shaped parcel of land conalatinc~ of approximately 7.~q acres~ 1379 North Miller otreet (Viking Fretght System~ Inc.). Property p~sently classffted R5-A- 43~00~ (RE SIDENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL) ZONE. CONOIT~ONAI USE REQUEST: TO EXP1Wp At~ EXISTINC TRUCK FREf GIIT TERNINAL UIT}~ IlA1VER OF REQUI RED ENCLOSURE GF OUTOOOR USES. The ro was no one indicating thelr presence in opposition to subJett request, and although the staff repo~t was not read~ tt is referred to and nwde a pa~t of the minutea. John Gienn , 20aG7 Canyon View Driv~~ Saratoga, Caltfornle, Executtve Vice-President ~f Vtkiny Freight~ was present to answer any questfons. THE PUBLIC NEARING 41A5 ClOSEO. A brlef discussion indicated tF~e Conmisston was in agreen~nt wi~h the resquest. ACTION; Commisstoner King offered s motlon~ seconckd by Commtssioner Bouas anc~ MO ON CARRIED (Chairr--~n Bushore and Commissioners Barnes artd 11erh~t betng absent)~ that the Anat~etm City Pianntng Commission has reviewed the proposal to ~xpand an ~xlating truck freight terminal wlth walver of requlr~d screening an an irregularly- shaped pdreei of land consis~ing of approxtmately ).09 acres~ locsted approxtmstely 330 feet west of the centerl tne of Mi l ler Street, a~d further desc~ibed as 1319 North to/ ~y/81 MiNUTES~ ANIWEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ OCTOt~ER 19~ 1A81 81•643 Mitler Street (Viking Freight Systams~ tnc.~; •~d does hereby ~pRrove the Negativa Declaration from the roqutrement to prepare a~ environmental Inp~ct repo~t on the ba~is that thero aould be no algntflcant indivtdu~i or cumulative adverse anvironmental Inpact due to the approval of this Nsgattve Dacla~atio~ since the Ansheim General Plen designatce the subJect property tor general Industrial tand uses commensurete wtth the nrnposal; that no senslttve environmsntei Impects are lnvotved In the p~oposal; th~t the Initlal Study submttted by the petitloner indtcatea ~o significsnt lndivtdual or cumulettve adverse e~vironmental Impects; end that the Negattve Ueclaratlon subttenttating the foregotnc~ ftndings Is o~ ftle in the City of Anaheim Plannt~g popar;ment~ Conmissloner King offr~red t+ metlor+~ seconded hy Chalrm~+n Pro Tert+pore Fry and MOTIAN CARRIED (Chatrman Uuehore and Carimissloners Barnes and Herbstbeing ~hsent)~ that the Anahetm Ctty Planning Commisslon does herehy grant the request for wstver of code requlroments on the basis of the locatian of tha property relative to thn sur~ou~ding land uses. Commissioner King offered Rnsolutlon No. PC81-214 and moved for its passaqe and adoption that the Anehetm City Planning Commisston does her~y grant Conditional Use PermitNa. 2272 in compliance with Sections 18.~3.~3A; .A31; .~32; .Q33; .A;4 and •Q35~ Title 18 of the 11nAheim Municipel Code end subJect to I~terdQprrtmental Committe~ recommendettons. On roll call, the foregoing resolutlon was pessed by the followtng vote: NYES: COMMiSS14NER5: DOUAS~ FRY, KiNC~ TOLAR NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: CbMMI5SI0tJERS: aARNES~ DUSNORE, t1ERbST ITEM NO;_7: CIR NEGATIVE ~ECLARATION_ AND CONDIi'IONAL USE PERMIT K0._ 2_267: PUBLIC IIEARIPlG. pWNER: ST. MICHAEL'S EPISCOPAL CNURCH, 311 ~~est South Street, Anaheim, CA 92805. AGENT: THOMAS b CLAUDIA L. CNRISTENSEN~ 25042 Via De) Rto, E1 Toro~ CA ~2630. Property de~crtbed ~s ~ rectangularly-shaped parcel of ls~d~ conslsting of approximately 0.36 ac~e, 129 South Ollv~e St~~t. Property presently classlfted RM-12~p (RESIDENTIAL~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY) ZONE. CONOITI~'7AL tJSE REQUfST: TO PERMIT A BED ANO BREAKFAST INN IN THE RM-12(f0 Zone. There were four people indlcating their presence in opposltion to subJect requeat~ and although the stefF report was not read, it is referred to and made a pa~t cf the minutes. Jack Whtte, Assistant Cit~~ Atto rney~ stated this proposal was tn the proJect of the Redevelopment area and any decislon the Planning CommissTon would make on the pro,ject today, r+ould have no affecr on their requlreme~t that they~ also obtain the nacessary app~oval as being in cr~mpliance wlth the Redevelopment ptan artd th~ approval is to/19l81 , ~ t ; MINIlTES~ 11NANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIAN~ OCtQaER 19. 1981 AI-644 requirod by the Executive Dt~actor of the Redevalopment Agency. Ha teid the city Is one agency that ts roqulred to ~pprove It and thet~ actfon todey would be on t~'e behsif of tha city. The proJect would sttl) have to be appreved by the Redevelapment Agen cy . Claudla Christle~~ 25nW2 ~1~ Dal Rlo, E1 Toro~ statod she anA hcr husbsnd had made an offer to buy 12~ 9~uth Olive Street~ contlnqRnt upon thei~ ~cetvinq epprova) for thalr proJect, to be located tn the nxisttng rrsidence~ with four guest rooma and expandtng to elght with the reconstructto~ of tha cArrt~ge house. She said the staff report st~ted a cer~tage house was there; howeve~, only the foundation exists. She said they might also huild A cottegs of the turn of the centu ryr vinteqe. She said their tntentton was to restore and preserve the a3-yea~ old Qoyd tiouse, whfch has htstortcal ~lyniftGAnce to the City of Aneheim. She seid the type of people frequenting thelr inn would be th~se seel:ing a qulet atrt+osphero. She sald it would be by reservatlon only and they would not ~-ccept 'b+elk-1~" guests. She ssid thelr type of inn would nor be suitahle for people with chlldren or thase traveling with pets. She satd they plan to have the parktng on the r~er of the property which is a~~fassible by public a~ley. She st+~ted their use of the p mperty would create leas treffic tha~ an apartment, as thetr guests would bastcally not be arriving or deperting during poak traffic periads. She satd it was their intention to enter Into an agreement wtth trie Redevelo~m~ent Agency. She sald she h~d pi~tures with her of the p roperty, as wtli as other pictur~s of ~laces ~hat had been turned into bed and breakfast tnns. Chsirman Pro 7ernporc Fry said they would receTve the pictures not as evidence, hut for inforn+etive pu~poses. Steve F. Gallac~her~ 1400 East Alto Lane~ Fullerton~ stated he p~esentlY owns a 4- plex~ located at 2A2 South Philadeiph~ia. He said the problem was the abll-ty of the alley to handle additional traffic. I~e satd the alley runs behtnd the church, located on 9r4adwey~ s~d then makes a teft-hand turn to the north and connects wlth another alley that runs east and west to the gouth of Old lincoln Avenue. He stated he felt the pro}ect should have trafflc entertn9 off 011ve Street. Mr. Keiley~ 214 South Olive Strcet, said he agreed with Nr. Gallagher's statement about the traffic In the alley. tle said the church created a lot of t~affic and that sometimes people were at the church from fi unti) 11 ar 12 at night. Mr. Tom Christensen~ 25042 Via Del RIo~~` said he felt the main ooncPrn ~f the neighbors was the traffic problem tn the area. IIn said thei~ pro)ect woutd create canside rab~y less traffic than other potential uses of the property. li~ said Tf they were going to buiid apartments on thts property, they would ~e allow~d to have 12 to 13-units, which would be 12 ta 13 cars going in and out daily. H~~ said their plsn is to have only 8-units~ plus one parking space for an employee~ makin~ only 9 vehicles traveling in and eut. Ne sald arrtval time for their guests would be approximately 3:~0 p.m. and dep~rture tir+~ would he approximately 1~:Q0 a.m. whtc.h would not be during peak trafftc pertods. 1o/t9/81 MINtlTES~ ANAFIEIM CITV PLANNING COMMiSSIL1y, ACT06ER 19~ 1981 81-G45 7HE PUBLIC IIFARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman i'ro Tempore Fry ~atd he was awar~ of the bed and b~e~kfast type situations~ as they are prevelent in the East a~d Northsrn Cslifornis. Ila asked how they would be getting guests. The t~etitio~er ststed they would be advertisinq In different books~ megr~zinas and newspaper trsva) sectlons. Commissioner Talar sald one of the problan~s he was concerned with wes controliing a place that hed kitchen facilitles so people would not use it like a permanent reaid~nce. The petittoner stated th~ only meel avdilabie was bre~kfast and that ~uests would not have kttchen privileges. She said the cnst of staying would be slm(la~ to steying at the Disneyland ~lotel. Commissione~ Tol~r satd he would lika ~ stipulation put on tl~a property that the co~dltlona) use pe rn+it would be for ~ 5-yc+er time perlod wttt, possible tlme extensions, and that guests would not stay longor than 14 consecutive days in eny 90- day period. The reason for thts request bei~g th~ candittonal use permit qoes wlth the p~operty~ rather tl~an wlth the awners of the property and (f after y yea~s~ there were no p~oblems in the netghborhood, the conditlanal use permit could outomatically be re~ewed- Chafrman Pro Tempor~ Fry asked the petlttoners if they would he willlne~ to accept these stipulations and they said they woulci. ACTION: Co+nmissioner 7olar offered a rrbtlon~ seconded by Commisstoner 9oues and M~0'~ION CARRIED (Chairman Dushore and Commtssioners 9ornes and Ilerbst being absent) ~ that the Anaheim Ctty Plann(ng Commisston has revlewed the proposal to permit a bed and b raakfast I~n ln the RM-1200 (Residenti~l~ Multlple•Family) Zone on a rectangularly-shaped parce) of tand conststing of apnroxtmet~ly ~.3~ acre~ having a frontage of approximately 100 fcat on the west side of Olive Str~et, having a maxlmdxn depth of approximately 15S feet and betng locatrd a~proximately 35~ feet south of the centerline of Old Lincoln Avenue and furcher described as 129 South Olive St~eet; and does hereby approv~ the NQgative Declaratlon from the requlren+ent to prepare r~n envlronmentai EmpACt ~~port on the basis that there would be no slgnificAnt indtvicfual or cumulative adverse cnvironmental in~act dut t~ the approval of this Negettve Declaration since the Anaheim General Pian desiQnates the subJect property for mediurrrdenstty residentlsl land us~s commensurate wtth the proposal; thst no sensitlve environmental impacts ere lnvolvcd in the proposal; that the Initial Study submttted by the petitioner indicates no signiflca~t individual or cumutative advPrse envi ronmental tmpacts; and that the Negative DeclAration sut~stantlating the fo~egoing findings is on f11e ln the City of Anaheim Pla~ning Deps~tn+ent. Cummtssloner Tolar offered Resolution No. PC81-215 and moved fo~ Its passage and adoptlo~ that the Anaheim City Planning Conmission does her~by grant Condttional Use Permlt No. 2267 wtth the stipulatlon that there wlil be a 5-Year ttme period on the canditional use pe~mtt with possible time extensions and ~hat guests wil) not stay longer than 1~ consecuttve days in any 90-day perlod and that nothi~q contatned heroln shall be dee~ned to authortze a use not otherwise in cn~formance with the ~e/tg/8~ NINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMI~ISSION~ OCTOBER 1A~ 1981 81-6~+6 ae deve)opment pian for ik devetopn~nt ProJect Alpha~ ~or Ae deemed a ftnding or d~termtnatlon that the use descrlbed herein Is in co~forme~ce wfth seid RedevAtopn~ant plans snd (n compitance atth Sections 18.f13.0;A; .031; .~32: •~33i •~31~ a~d .t135, Tttle 18 of tha Anahaim Munlcipal Code and subJect to Interdep~rtmental Commtttee ~etommend~tions. On roll call~ the foregoing resalutton was passed by the following vote: AYE~: COMMISSIONERS; BOUAS~ FRY~ Y.ING~ TOI.AR NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES. BUSHORE, 11ERBST Commisstoner Tolar noteA to the eudtRnce that if the p mperty rematned intact the way it is~ they would continue to have rrore problems than they have right naw~ aith trenstenta and different types of people nwvtng tn, and if ~n epartment complex were to movG into that location they would I~eve more trafftc than with th~ current proposal. Jack Whlte, Assistant City Att~rney, presentcd the written ric~ht to appeat the Planning Commission's decision wtthln 22 deys to the Ctty Councit. ITEM N0. $: EIR NEGATIVE OECIARATlO~J AND CONOITIOHAI USE PERM~T N0. ?.262: .~_....._..~ rUE3LIC HEARING. OWNER: VERN~!~ w. MONROE~ 520~ Seashare D~lve~ Newport de~ch, CA 92660. Property descrtGed ~.~~ an irre9utarly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 3.4 acras. 2232 Wes~ Sequola Avenue. Property p~ese~tly classified CL (COMhE RCIAL~ LIMITEO) 20NE. COI~DITIOt~AL USE REQUEST: TO PERMIT ON-SALE ALCOiiOLIC QEVERAGES IN A PROPOSEO M005~ LODGE. Thero was one person present tndicoting hts prasence in oppositton to sub)ect request~ a~d althou~h the staff report was nat read. ti is refe~red to and made a part of the minutes. Vern Manroe, 1620 ClemenCine, stated they were proposing to relocat~ an existing Moose Lodge that is currently at Brookhurst snd Katella to the location at 2232 Sequ~ia Avenue. David Clsussen~ g28 North Siesta Street~ satd the staff report states the centerline is 200 fert and. in fact. the centeritne Is 165 feet. FIe sAid he Is speaktnq for three other pr~perty owners. two lte c~ the north of his property and one on the south. N~. Vtnce and Vickie 8ernard wh4 could not be here and Mr. Weliever, who ts present and owns property at 936 North Siesta and Mr. Joe Car~lsosa who owns property t 924 North Siesta~ 11e satd when xhe Camelot was Lher~ they had nothOng but problen~ with respect to trash and gerbage heing th rown tn t~eir backyards. E~e satd he is nat saying that the hbose Lodge would dupltcate the Cameiot, but that he felt any placs servtng aicohoiic bev~a~ages would he a problem. Ne satd the hours fo~ the t0/19/81 ~ NINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY P~ANNING COMMISSiON~ QCT06ER 19~ 1981 81-647 Moose Lodge would b~ 11:00 a.m. untti 2:00 e~m~ and they dtd not want the disturbance caused by people coming end goinq untii 2:00 tn the mo rning. Mr. hbnroe satd the~e w as a 30•foot eiley and they would t~e butlding a 10•foot block wa11 between the Mooae Lodge and Mr. Claussen's proper~y. I~e srid there would be ~o parking tn the altey and that the alley was used for tnyrass And ~gress by the other tenants and for tresh ptck-up. Ilo s~id there would be a dumpster againat thelr butlding ani there was no reasan to throw t~ash ove~ the wali. 11a satd thetr parking would he contsined on the 3-1/2 acres he had out in front. He said It wouid be we11-itt~ strip~ed and have curb cuts. tle sald there hav+e been no ohJectfons from the other tenants. TNE PUDLI C 11EARING WAS CL~SED. Commissione~ King called the petitloner's attention to Item 13 tn the staff report which reads "Th e Traffic Engtne~r has reviewed the s~bmitted plens and ~ecommends that the~ proposed additlonsl driveway (Drlveway D) on SequotA Avenue rematn closed. The Traffic Engi~eer further recommends the existing d~tvcwiey (Drive,way A) on Sequois Avenue be realigned perpendicular to the st~eet". Petttioner statecl he would be happy to conform a,ith thts request. Commtssioner Bouas askad if the Moose Lodgc w~s open to the puhlic or )ust members and the petitlo~e~ stated it was only opesn to n~ertbers. Chairman Pro Tempore Fry asked whet the ~perating hours would ~~e and the petittoner stated they would b~ 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. weekdays, and 11:00 a.m. till 2:00 e.m. an weekends. Ile sald occaslonally a weddtng is held on tf,e weekend. Conxnissioner Y.ing asked what the applicant might do to address the potential trash problem and the applitant stated the only prohlem !~e has ever had wtth tr~sh Is people dropping off trash~ such as old sofas Lhat he has had to hau) away to the d tmip . Jack White~ Assistant City Attorney, asked tf they would ever be holding bingo gamos and the ~etitlaner said that was a~osslbility. ACTIOt~: Commiss~oner King offered a motion~ seconded by ~onmissioner Totar and MOTION CARRIED (Chairman dushore and Commtsstoners Carnes and Hc~bst hetng absent), that the Anaheim City Planr~ing Commissicx~ has revicwed the propos~l to permit on-sale alcoholic beverages in a proposed Moose Lodge o~ an trregutarly-sha~ed parcel of iand consisting of app~oximately 3.4 acres, having a frontage of approximately 550 feet on the south side of Sequota Avenue~ having a maximum depth of approximately 540 feet and being located approximately 165 feet southeast af the centerline of Siesta Street and further described as 2232 West Sequoia Avenue; and does hereby approve the IJegative Declaration from the roqutrement to preparr, en environmental impact report on ~he basis that thnre would be na significant (ndividual or cumulattve adverse environmenta) impact d~e to the approval of thts Negative Declarattan since the Anahetm General Plan dzsignates the subJect proparty for general commerciAl land uses commensurate wlth the proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the propasal; that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no 10/19/81 ~..a; ~ d ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PIANNiNG COMMISSION, OCTQBER 19~ 1981 81-648 significant fndividuel or c~nulative adve ~se enviranmental tmpecta; and that the ~~egativs Declaratlon substanttating !he foregolnc~ findings is o~ file tn the City of llnaheim Planning Dopartment. Commissione~ King affered Rasolutlo~ No. PCn1-216 and rtbved for tts passage and adoption that the Anahetm City Plenntnq Cammisston doaa hereby ~rant Conditiana) Use Pe~mit ~b. 2262 with tha stipuletlon th+~t the proposed addittanal driveway on Sequote Avenue remain closed and the existing driveway o~ Sequola Avenue be resligned perpendlcular to the street and tn compllance wtth Sections 18.~3.o3e; .031; .032; .o33i .03~+ and .035~ Tltle 18 of the A,riehr.im Municlpal Code and sub)ect to fnterdepartmental Committee recommendatlo~s. On roll cail~ the foregoing resolutton was passed by the following vota: AYE5: COMMISSIONERS: DOUAS~ fRY~ KING. TOLAR NOES; COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMI~SIONERS: BARNES~ 4USIIORE~ IIERBST Jack White~ Assist~nt City Atto rney~ presented the wrttten right to appeal the Planning Commission's dectsion a,Ithin 22 days to the City Council. N0. 9: FIR CATEfORI -CLASS 11. WAIVER OF CODE REQUI REMENT PUBLIC IIEARING. OWNER: ROBERT N. AND JANET M. WI~ITE, $A6 ~lorth Brookhurst Street~ Anahelm, CA 92t341. AGENT; JAY KINGRY, METROPOLITAN OUTDO~R AOVERTISING, 100-9 N~st Nuntington Drivr, Arcadla, Ca 91606. Prope~ty ~Jescrtbed as an irregularly-shaped p~rcel of land consisting of approxtmateiy 2.0 acres, 806 North Brookhurst Street. Property presently classified ML (INDUST-tlAl., LIMITED) ZONE. CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST: TO PERMIT A BlLLBOARO IN THE ML ZONE tiJiTN wAIVERS OF: (A) PERMITI'ED LOCATIQN~ (b) MAXIMUM SIZE, (c) MAXIMUM FiE1GlIT. There was no one indicating their presence in opposltion to subJect request~ and although the staff report a~as not rcad, it ~s refe~red to and made ~ part of the minutes. Jay Kingry, representing MeLropolitan Outdoor Advertising~ 100 -B, West fiuntingto~ Driv~e~ Arcadta~ Cb 91006, said when he searches for a sign location he keeps in mind that he must come before the Qlanning Commissian and he feels this location is a compatible use for the sign. lie said this siqn ts allowed under Che code wlth a condltionel use permit and they we^~ observing the 5~1-foot setback as required. He said the biliboard is 35 feet high because of ~he existing house an ;he p roperty. He noted that this wouid just be an interim use stnc~ tt is a valuabie piece of property and Mr. White, the owner, has had many offers From potential buyers to purchase the property. He said he dic! not axpect tfi e sign to stay longer than 3 to 5 years. He said he would aiso like to point out that should the Comnission decide to grant hig 10/19/81 ?t ~ ' ~ ) ~ ,: . MINUTES~ ANAIIEIM CiTY PLANNIN~ COMMISSIAN~ OCT06ER 19~ 1981 81•6k9 requast, that he did not feel they should be subJect to the Interdepa~rtment~) Committee recommendations~ as thsy would not be uaing water, street ltghts ar create a traffic p~obiem wtth Lheir bilibos~d. TNE PUBL I C 11EAR1 NG WAS CLOSED. Commissloner Toler stated ha did nat feel tl,is was e good location for a billbaerd. lie setd the proposed b11)baard was t-vle~ the slze allowed. Mr. Kingry stated the sixe of the billboard wauld be ellowed under a conditfona) use parmit snd he felt this was a goad use for the loc~t(on. Commisslaner King said he dld not fevor thn btllboard. It was nated the Planning Dtrecto~ or hts authorized representattv~c has determined that the p roposed pro,ject falls within the definttion of Cateyorical Exemptions~ Closs 11, as defined tn paragraph 2 of the Ctty of Anah~im Envtronmental impatt Repo~t Guidelines and is~ therefore~ categorlcally exempt from the requlrement to prepare en EIR. Commissione~ Tolar offered a motion for denial for wetver of code requl~ements~ seconded by Commlssioner King and MOTION CARRIED (Chalrman Bushore and Commisstonars aarnes end tierbst being absent), based on the fact there are no unusual circumstances applicable to tf~e property by way of topogrephy or shape, petittoner did not demonstrete a hardship exists and approva) could set An undesirable precedent. Cortmisstonnr Tolar offered Resoluttan No. PC81-217 and moved for its pessage and adoptlon that the Anahetm City Planning Commission does hereby deny Conditlonsl Use Permtt ~40. 2270 based on the fact waivers werr~ dented. 0~ roll call~ the foregot~g resolutlon was passed by the followtng vote: AYES; COMMISSIONERS: BOUAS. FRY, KING, TOLAR NOES: COMMlSSIONERS: NON~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: RARNES, QUSNORE, FIERBST Jack White, l~ssistant City Attorney, presented the~ written right to appeal the Planning Commisslon's decislon wlthi~ 22 dAys to the City Council. ITEM N0. 10: EIR NE6ATIVE DECLARATION AND GENERAL PLAN ANENDM~NT N0. 170.; PUBLIC HEARING. To canside~ amenslment ta the Land Use Element text of the General Plan tn permlt higher density developments in certain medium density rosidentially designated areas and to update the curront General Plan 1~ thls regard. Th~re was no one indicating i•.helr presence in oppositton to subJect request~ and although the staff report wpt not read~ it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. 10/19/81 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ OCTOBER 1~~ 1981 81-650 Jay Tashiro~ Asaocietm Planne~~ stAted that the Plen hnendment was to the lend Use Elerront Text. Ne said tt wss to permit htghar density developmnnt in ce rtain arees designsted for medlunrdsnatty restdential lAnd use and to update the current c~enera) plen I~ this rogard. Ile ststed the intent ~f the sme!ndment wa~ to permit a hlgher density land use only In the dawntown area end othe~ ere~s havin~ ~n edequate infrastructure and meeting certein speclfted conditione. Ite noted the changes wQre Identlfiad in the steff report and he would be I~appy ta enswer any questlons the Commission might heve. A brief discussion indicated the Commisston was tn agreement wlth the request. !-CTION: Commissio~er Ktng offered a mntton~ seconded by Commissioner Daues end M f.ARRIEU (ChAirman Dushore t~nd Co~m~issianers Uarnes and lierbst being ebsent), that the Anahcim Clty Plenninc~ Commisston hAS conslder~d the proposAl to amnnd the Text of the General Plen to permlt hlgt~er denslty devrelopment in certain drees, destgnated for medtum denstty r~stdenttal l~nd uses and to u~dat~ thQ current General Plan In this regard; and docs he ro by appraves the Negrtive Decleration from the requt rement to prepare an envt ronmental Impact repart on the bASts that there ~rould be no sig~iflcant individua) ~r cumulative adverse envtronnr_ntal impnct due to the epproval of this Negat(ve Dectar~tion; thet no sensltive environmr.ntal tmpacts arc involved in the proposal; tliat th~ Inltta) Study submitted by the petitl~ner Indicates no signlFicant Ind~vidua) o~ cumuletivc adverse environrt~nt~+l im~acts; end thAt the Negative Declaratlon substantinting the fore~otng ftndtngs ts on file in the City of Anahelm Planning Uepartment. Gonrnissio~cr King offered Resolutlon No. PC81-218 and moved for Its passage end adopttun th~t the Anaheim Ctty Planning C~mmisston does herehy recommend to the City Council that Gene~el Plan 1lmendme~t No. 17A be granted~ and the amendment ta the Land Use Element Text of the General Plan be edopted. On roli call, the foregotng resolutlon was nessed hy the followin~ vote: AY~S: COMMISSIONERS: BOUAS. ~RY~ KING~ TOLAR NOES: COMMISSIO~IERS: N~NE ABSENT: C~MMISSIOr~ERS: BARNES~ BUSNORE, I~ERDST ITEM N0. 11 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDIITIONS The fallawtng Reports a~d RACOmrne~dations staff reports were presenfed but nat read: A. PROPOSED RM-1000 RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE-FAMILY ZONE - To conslder a new r~s nt a con om n um zone w t g er ens ty t an is cur~ently permitted. ACTlMJ: Commissione~ Tolar affered a motlon, secondGd by Commtssio~er Bouas an M TiOH CARRIED (Chainnb~ Rushore and Commissioners aarnes and Nerbst being absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commisston does hereby roconKnend ta the City Counctl adoption of the proposrd ordtnance~ Chapter 1~•35~ "RM-1000", Fk stdent(a1~ Multiple-Family ZonP. 10/1.9/S1 MINUTES~ ANANEIM CiTY PLANNING COMMISSION~ OCTOB£R 19~ 1981 81•651 D. CONDITIONAL US~ PEaMIT N0. 2~11_6 - Requeat for ~etroactlve extenslan of time rom nn s~. ~ster or prope~•ty lecatcd et 22A1 East Winston Road. ACTION: Commissioner King offe~~ed a motlon, seconded by Commissionnr Tale~ a~'~`TION CARRIED (Chstrm~n Bushore and Commtssioners Bsrnes end 1lerbst being ebsent), tl,at the Anehelm Ctty Plsnninq Commis~len .ioes hereby grant a one-ye0r retradctivea extensio~ of time for Condttlonal Use Permit No. 2116 to expire on October ~~~ 19A2. C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT t10. 21~6 - Request for retroac~ive extension of time rom ern ce a tz an ut ng~lsh for pronerty locatecl ~c 2520 and 25~6 V~+st Cleerbrook lane. ACTlON: f,ommisslone~ King offered a natto~, seconded by Commisstoner Telar an M T10~~ CARRIEp (Cheirman Bushore and Commisstoners Barnes and 1lerhst being ebsent)~ thet the A~ahcim Cfty Planning Commisslon doas hereby grant a one-year retroacilve extenston of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 21AG to expt rc on Septemher 12 ~ 1~182. D. CONDITIONAL USE FERMIT NQ. 211~- - R~quest for .~ retr~active extenslon of tlr-~ rom P tp J, Schumaker or property located et 91~ tlorth Anahc+im aoulevard. ACTtOt~: Corronlssion~r Kinq offered a motion~ secanded by Commtsston~r Tolar ana MOTION CARRIEO (Ch~irman Qusl-ore and Commissianers 8arne~ and Ibrbst being abspnt)~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commisston does hereby grant a retroactive one-ycer extenslon of tlme to Conditlo~al Use Permtt No. 2114 to expiro on Octot~er G~ 1q82. E. ~!ARIl1NCE N0. 3~47 - Request from Jim A~nold for tcrmination of VAriance No. 30~i7~~or propertY located at 2050 South 1larbor Boulevard. ACTION: Commissionar King offered Resolution No. PC81-21~ and moved for its passage and adoptiAn that the Anahplm City Planning Commission does hereby terminate Varlance No. 3047. On roll call~ the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONEF;: QOUAS~ FRY, KING~ TOLAR NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: aARNES, E3USNORE. -1ER95T F. CONDIT{atJAL_ USE PEItMiT N0. 2Q0 - Req~est from Kaye F. Pillsbury to term~nate Con t onal Use ~erm t No. 2~05 for property located at ~i44 North Lakevtaw Avenue. AC~ Y_ION_: Commissloner Ktng offc red Reselutio~ No. PC81-224 and maved for tts paasage and adoptlon that the Ansheim Gity planntng Commisston does hereby termtnate Condittonsl Use Permit No. 200$. On roll cell~ the forcg~'ng resolution w~s p~ssed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOUAS~ FRY, KING~ TOLAR NOES: COt1MISSi0NER5: NONE ABS EkT: CONMI S,° t n~,;RS ; BAEtNES ~ BUSNORf ~ 1~ER95T tol19/St I` / \ ' ~ M I NUTES, 11NANE I M C I TY PI.ANNI NG COMM I SS I ON ~ OCTQIiE R 19 ~ 1961 81 •652 ~ G. AsANDONMENT N0. 8t~laA - Request fmm Mr. Edw~rd Sh~a~tn t~ abandon a - port on o t e ex ~t nq 15.00 faot wide electrtc+~1 es~ement loceted at the r~~~ of the prorer~y at 4flx5 Wesatch ~rive~ ec.)ecent to the Riverside _ Freeway and east of Lakaview Drive. ACTIONs Commisslone~ Ktng etf~red e motton~ seco~ded by Commis~ ianer Talar an I ON CARRI ED ( Chei rman Busho~e end Commi ss toners Barnes snd Herbst being sbsent). th~t tho Anehelm Clty Pl~nning Commia~ston does he~eby recortrnend to the Clty Councl) th~t Abandonment No. R1-1QA he approved as reca-mended by the Ctty E~gineer. ~I. CONOITIONAL USE PEAMIT N0. 1__Of+~ - Request from R. A. McNees for ~+ r~troaci ve ext~ ~s on o t me ~or pro~~erty located at 1721 South Manchester A•ienue. (The Cowboy) . ACTION: Commissioner Tolar offere~d ~ rr~tlon~ seeonded hy Commtssloner King ~+n~T10N CARaiFO (Chairman Cushore and Cortmissloners B~rnes and Herbst belnri absent)~ thet the Anaheim Ctty Ptannin~ f.ommtsston does hereby grent a ane-yeer rctroa~tive extension of ttme for Conditlanai Use Perini t Nc~. IOF~3 te exp i re ~c tobe r I~ 1~182 . I. VARIMi~_ N0. 264~ • Request from Timothy tl. We! lace for an ex~ension of time o property loceted on the northeazt Go~ner of Center Street and Manchester Avenue. ACTION: Commissione~ Y~Ing off~~ed a n+~tion, seca~ded by CcMnmissioner Tolar a~ MOTIOt~ CARRIED (l:heirm~n Uushore and Commissione~s f3arnes a~d Herbst being ebsent) ~ that the Anaheim City Planntnct Comnisston dor- hereby grant e o~e•year extenslon of t ime for Var iance No. 2643 to tsxp( ~~ ~ctober 30. 1982~ J. VARI~t~CE N0. 284 - Request frbm Vic Pel~quln for e ret~uactivt extenston of t~me or property locatad st 3~~45 "C" East La Paima Avenue. ACTIbN: Commissioner King offe~ed a rnQtion~ seconded by Commisstoner Toler a~MQT10N CARRIED (Chairman 8ushare snd Comnisstaners Bernes and Herbst b~inq absent) ~ that the Mnaheim City Planning Commisston does hereby grant ~ re ~active one~yeer extenslo~ of timc for Varia~ce ~~o. 284g to exptre on S•~pteRber 27- 1~82, K. 'JARIANCE _NO_. 3237° ~q~st for a nunc pro tunc res~lutTon to cofrect err~~rs T~`e-s~utTon-io. PC81-204 pertalning to cienial of ground mounted antenna. ACTIOtI: Commissioner Tolar offered Resolutto~ Na. PC$1-221 and naved for tl-i ~assaga and ednptdon that the Anaheim City Planninq Commissiem daes hereby grant a nunc pro tunc resolutlon t~ correct trrors in Resolutfan NA. P t81~2o4 . On roll call, the foreqoing resolutlon was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMIS$~pNERS: BOUAS~ FRY~ KING, TQl.AR NOES: COkMISSIW~ERS: NOHE ABSENT: COt~MiSS!ONERS: BARNfS~ BUSHORE~ HERBSY t~/t9/81 ~; % ~ MINUTtS~ ANANEi M CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ OCTOBER 19~ 1981 S1•653 L. HINIMUM BUILDING 5ET9ACK5 AI.UN[i STATE ~u~~t~+e ow~avnnv vn.v.u~..w~ r..~~.~~ ND L M • r. n ar y~ o ar en ar , n+presant ng t~ owners o t a property at the corner of Orang~wood and Steta Coliege sald they a~e planning to put a hic~h-~ts~ offic~ building on the corner. Fle s+~ld he would Iike to see a 15•toot setbaek as his plen' for the prope~ty are Assecl upen e 1S-~aot tetba~ck for Lhe fir~t floor ~nd then the butlding ~tops in wlth the towera~ thoee storles above the first floor being set~ack 3~ feet. Ne said thla avoids a sheer v~eli th~t the high•rise mtc~ht otherwlse creete. Ne stated thelr proJ~et was one of ths few that would be affected by this ordtnance. ACTIdN: Conmissloner ?otar offered a motion~ seco~ded by Commisstoner King an MOTIAII CARRIED (Chstrman 8ushore and Commissle~ers 9arnes ~nd Nersbt being at~sent) tl~at tho Anahelm City Pisnning Comnisslon does hereby direct ataff to prepare an ordinance qiving a bullding s~tback optlo~ along the three st~eets (State College Boul~verd, O~angewood Avenue~ and AnahGim Boul~vard) ~ In stedium industrisl sres of; (1) minimum 50~f~ot building setback with minimun 10-fQet landscaped or (2) mtnimum 35-f~t butldinq setback fully landacaped. AOJOURNI~NT Thero being no further business~ Comnissioner King affGred a motton~ seconded by Commisstoner Toler and MOT10N CARalEO (Chalrmen aushere and Coenmisstoners Barnes and tlerbst betng aha~ent) ~ that the me~tinq be adJourned. The meeting was adJou~ned at 5:35 n.m. PS:Im Rest~ctfu) ly submi tted, ~ ~ Pame s tarnes, acretary Pra Ternpore Anaheim Clty Pla~ninq Commtssion ~o~»>s~