Loading...
PC 1984/08/20~ Y RBGULAR M~EZ'ING OF 'CHB ANAHF.IM CITY PLANNINC COMMZSSION RFGULAR MBBTING The cegular moeting oE the ~na~heim City P].enn~ng Commisaion was callod to order by ChAirmen Herbst at 10:00 a.m., Auguet 20, 1984, in the Council Chamber, a c~uorum bein~ preaant and the Comm~asion rQViewod plans oE the iteme on today's ag~nda. RECESS: 11:30 A.m. REC:ONVENED; 1:25 p.m. PRESENZ' Ctiairman: Herbst Commissioners: Bouaa, Hushore, Fry, Kl.ng, La C1airP, ~ McBurney ABSENT: Commiseioners: None ALSO PRESENT Annika Santala~~t.i Assistant Dicector for Zoning Malca~hm SlAUghter Deputy City Attorney Jay Titus Office Bngineer Paul Singer Traffic Enginee.r. Greq Hastings Assistant P2r~nner Edith tlarris Planning C~mmiasion Secretary APPROVAI. OE' MINUTES: Commiesioner King c~ffered a motion, secnnded by Commiasionec 8o uas and MOPION CARRIED (Commiseioners Bu~shore and McBurney abstaining) c:~at tt~e minutes of tt~p meeting of Auguat 6, 1984, be approved as submitt~d. ITEM N0. 1. EIR IJEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OE' CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 258:, PUBLIC HEAkING. OWNEkS: RIDER INVESTORS, LTD., 18552 MacActhur Boulevard, Irvine, CA 927 15, ATTN: DAVID MADRIGAL~ AGF.lVT: R. V. MORSE, 1287 'A" North Jefferaon, An ai~eim, CA 92607. Propecty described as an irregularly-shaped paccel of land consisting of approx~mately 0.87 acre located at the southeast cornec of Mira loma Avenue and Jeff ecson Street, 1287 "A" end "B" North Jeffecson atreet (Morse Brothers R.V. an~ Dave's Auto Wrecking?. To rstain a re creational vehicle upholstery shop witl~ waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Continued from the meeting of July 9, 1984. There was no one indicating kheir presence in opposition to aubject request and although t he staff report was not read, it is ceferred to and made a part of the minutes . R. V. Morse, agento explainPd the request is far a conditional use permit to permit his rec reakional vehicle upholstery repair shop. He stated the parking problem has b e en resolved. 84-516 8/20/84 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PL~NNING CAMMISSIQN. AUGUST 20, 1984 8A-517 THE PUBLIC NEARING W~S CLOSED. Mc. Morse reaponded to Commisei.oner King thet the pcoperty will ba mainteined in the aeme clean condition it is now and thet all wprk erid storage will be ineide. Commiasion~r ~ushore aaked about the automobile di~mantling business. Mr. MoreP reepondad he was representing them and they have agreed to comply with the conditiona. Mc. Morae atated he had just rKCently moved from another city and had not a~plied for his business licenae yet and explained Dave's Auto Wcecking bu~ine~s wan there when he moved in. Responding to Commiesioner McBurney, Malcolm :;laughter, Deputy City AttorneY, explained automobile dismantling or wrecking ia not n permitted use in this zone and ~~ermit could not be yranted. Commiseioner Bushore atated thin is the Canyon Industrial Area And the Commisaion just approved khe ex~ansion of a dismantling busine~s on Lakeview and he thought aulomobile dism~ntling wae one of the apecific uaes permitted in this zone. Mr. Slaughter stated he was not sure that that area wao technically in the Canyon Industrial Area and it is posaible that automobile dismantling could have been allowed undec the general section of the Code. Commissioner 6ushore asked if l•he applicant was aware that the Commiasion could not approve this permit for automobile dismantling. Mr. Morse stated he was not aware of that restriction. commis&ioner Dushore atated that poction of the request will have to be denied. Commissioner La Claire stated she thougFt this type use should really be in an industrial zone and the Code should be amended or there should be some mechanism whereby this type use would be allowed in the ML Zone legally. Malcolm Slaughter stated the Commisslon can recommend a Code umendment to the ~:ity Council to permit this tyge use with approval of a conditional use permit. Chairman Herbst asked why staff did nat bring this to the Commisaion's attention, pointing out this application does cover both uses. Mr. Slaughter stated a petitioner can file an application for anything he wants. Commissioner Bushore stated there was a recent instance where a petitioner could not even file a petition because the use was not ~pecifically included in the Code (the Elks at the La Cabana). Mr. Slaughter stated anyone can file a petition; however, the Cammission may no~ have the discretion to approve it, so it is a useless act. 8/20/84 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY_PLANNING CUMMISSION, AUGUST 20. 1984 54-518 Commisaloner Buahore stated in thie ceae, the pekitioner filed to have a public heac~ny and r_he Commiasion cannot even allow the use anyway. Malcolm Slaughter atat~d it is up ko the pet~tioner to determine whether or not he is leqally ent~tled to the per.mit and it ie not up to the City to make that dotArmin~tion or adviae them. He resj~onded to Commiaeioner euehore thdt the recreational vehicle upholstery ahop is a peKmitted uae in that zone. He read a seckion of the Code which indicatea that automobile repaLr or overhauling is ~~ecmitted, included but not limited to mechanical bady or fendec work or peinting of automobi~es, bo~ta, or motorcycles. Commiaeloner La Claire stated she thought it could be the Commiseion's intecpretation that the use is permitted undec the aut~mobile repAir or overhauling portion, depending on the use and the deRCription oE what is being done thece. Mr. Morae atated Dave's Auto Wrecking is primarily concerned with trking auComobile parts off the vehicle and repairing them and then the parts go out to dealers and explained they do not stote Automobile badies ~t this propecty. Commiesioner Bush~re reaponded to Commiasioner L~~ C1Aire that this use ia permitted in the other ML Zones, but not in the Canyon in~uetrial Area. Malcolm Slaughter stated he could Eind no p1ACe in the Code where automobile wrecking is permitted, but, cor~ceivably, it could be permitted under the general conditional uce permit section, wherein, if thp use is not listed in any other Zone, the Planninq Director can make a determinatian that it is similat to other uses, except in the Canyon Industrial Area which has its own epecific standards. Commisaioner La Claice stated she is sure automobiles are taken in and cepaired at tt~e Mercedes' dealership and th~n shipped out again. Malcolm S).aughter responded in this situAtlon, the parte aze taken off the vehicles, repaired and then shipped out. Commfssioner Bushor~ stated appcoval oi this would be the same as creating a wcecking yard which would open the door for anyone to make an application fn the future in the Canyan Industrial Area and he thought the intent was that if a use was not specifically named, it is noC permikted in the Canyon Industrial Area. Responding to Commissionec Bouas, Mr. Morse stated Dave's Auto Wrecktng has a wrecking yacd in ~nother area and this is a specialized business where they aend pacts to this shop to be repaired and then they are sold wholesale to dealers. He stated very rare?y is there an actual car on thP premises and if there is, ik comes ~n and is repaired and is sent back to thA wrecking area. He stated he would call the business an automobile parts repair shop rather than a wrecking yard because there are not wrecked cars around. Commissioner Bushore pointed out the staff report says the petitioner has indicated that a maximum of five autumobiles will be in the building at any one time for auromobi~e dismantling. He stated he thought a representative from Dave's Aut~ ~.ng should be present tn answer these type questions. Commi~sioner Bo~• ed she would agree that a representative should be present and woulu •~~~est this matter be continued. 8/20/84 MINUTES, ANAHEIM C1TY PLHNNI~G COMMISSION, ~UGUST 20,_1984 84-519 Cammisoioner ~a Claire aeeted she did not think the Commission aeea Anything wrong with the upholstecy ehop, but ia concerned about Deve'a Auto Wrecking and aince the uses ace tied together, it would be hard ta grant one and nat the other. She suggested tha ~swtLer be continued in arder for the representative to be prosen~ aEter reviewiny the situation with atafP pcior to the meeting. she ~dded the steff repork doea not reElect exac~ly whnt is beiny ~one there and pecha~Q fh~re has been Aome mieunderetand~nge. She stated she would Aleo 11ke that aectlon of the Cod~ included in the ~tAff repork foc the next meeting. Com~i~oioner Bushore ask~d why the twa are tied together because that means if pave's Auko Wrecking violatea the conditfona, the u~holstery ahop is in trouble or visa versa. Mc~ Morse state~ oriqinally he Eiled alone, but was told it would probebly not be considered. Gr~g Hastings skated the Zoning ataf£ recommended it be done this way in view of what happQned with the 'Mild Ta Wild" situakion on North Red Gum and the Planning Commiasion determined that the automobile uses on the property ahould be brought in together. C~mmissioner La Claire stated ehe thought the continuance is needed in order for the othec representative to be presenL• and explain fully what he does. She otated maybe thie could all be cleared up quickly and if not, the petLtioner uould discuse it with staff to see whether or not the two uses could be se~areted. ACTION: Comrtiiasioner La Claice offered a motion, ~econded by Commissioner King and MOTIUN CARRIEA, that consideration oF the aforementioned matter be continued to ttiP Kegularly-scheduled meeting of September 5, 1984. Greg Hastings ce~ponded to Mr. Morse that staff wauld contact Dave's Auto Wrecking. Cvmmissioner La Claire pointed ouL• a11 inf•otmation must be submitted to tt,e staff by Friday, August 24, 1984. ITEM NO 2. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, RECLASSIFICATION N0. 84-8_5-4~_WAIVER OF CODF REQUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2605 PUaLIC HEARING. OWNERS: CEIESTER PETERSON ANU DEVERLY ANN COMPTON, 327 N. Shattuck Place, Oranye, CA 92666. Property described as an irregulacly-shaped parcel of land cnnsisting of approximately 4.4 acres located north and west of the ~orthwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Impecial Highway. RS-A-43,000(SC) to the CL(SC) Zone. To permit a multi-acreen indoor theatre and a 47-fook high aemi-enclosed restaurant with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Continued from the meeting of August 6, 1984. ACTION: Commissioner King offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED, that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of September 5, 1994, at the request of the p~titionec in order to submit zevised plans. 8/20/84 ! MINUTES1_ ANANEIM CI~Y PLHNNING COMMIS~;ON. 1-UGUST 2p~ 1984 84-520 ITEM N0. 3. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION L WAIVER OP CODE REQUTABM~KT ANb CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2607 PUgGIC HEARING. OWNERS; ANAHEIM CITY SCHOOL DISTI2ICT, 890 S. Olive 5treet, Anaheim, CA 92805. AGENT: CHINESE BAPTIST CHURCH, ATTN; ANDY CH~;UNG, 1275 E. eroadway, Anaheim, CA 92804. Property described ae an irregulerly-ahaped percel oE lend consiating of approximately 1.6 acres located at the southeast corner of Broadway and O.live Street, 412 East Broadwby Skreet. To permit a church in the RM-1200 zone wikh waiver of minimum landscaped eetback. :here wab hu one indicating theic presence in oppositi~n to aubject request and although the staff report was nut r.ead, it is roEerred to and made a nart of the minutes. Ray Martinez- Goodman Church Builders Westerr~ Inc., J.1642 Knott Street, Suite 9, Garden Grove, 92641, explained they are planning to build an ap~roximately G,000-aquare foot multiple~use facility For ttie congregation of the Chinese eaptist Chucch. He stated khe pcoperty ia presently owned k~y the school district and they are in escrow to purchase it. THE PUHLIC H~ARING WAS CLOSBD. CommiRSioner La Claire asked if the 1,111 square feet proposed for classroom areas will be devoted to a school. Mr. Martinez responded thece is no school preaently planned for this facility and the p:oposed classrooms axe for Sunday School purposes only. Jacob Slagle, 328 S. Olive, stated he would have no opposition to the church, but he would request that no school use be permitted at thia location. Mr. Martinez responded there is no c~chool of any kind planned now or fn the future. Commissioner Buahore stated a condition should be added to the approval that this permit is for church purposes only and tnere should be no schaol activities. Mr. Martinez refecced to Con~]ition No. 5 pertaining to fire sprinklers and stated in the development review meeting, it was stated that fire sprinklers are reguired for any buildings 6,000 square feet or over and their buildiny is 5,940 square feet and asked if they would be still be required to provide the fire eprinklera. Chairman Herbst pointed out that deciaion would be up to the Pire Departmenk. Mc. Martinez stated they were told at the development review meeting that only one street light would be requirpd and asked if the street lights re~erred to in the conditzon sti.ll relate to only one li9hk. Jay 'ritus, Offiae Engineer, stated as far as he knows, there would only be one light, but this is a standar~ condition and that would be determined by the Electrical Division. 8/20/84 MINUTES,_ ANAHEIM CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSION. AUGUST 20. 1994 ~ _ 84-521 Mr. MQxtinez referced to Condition No. 11 requi:ing that the existing structuce be brought up to minimum Code stendeGda. H8 stated Code Section 18.08.~90 etatea that '~rovided further that where there is an exi~tinq buildin9 er etructurea prapoaed for morP intensive development, no buiJ.ding pecmits sh~ll be iBSUed until the Building Ci~y inspectocs and the Fire Chief have cecL•ified that the exieting buildings or etructuces erp sa£e for occupanc,y and for human habitation." He stated they would like Condition Na. 11 replaced with that etatement of the Code. Commiesionec eushore pointed out the ~chool diatrict is selling the building because it ha~ been detecmined it is not s~fe. He added he would not even c~nsider waiving that requirement. Mr. Mactinez staled they are more than wi111ng to havc the inspectors come through and review khe building and the building will be brought up to standards. Commisaio-~er Pcy stated rhe Commiasion does not even have the authority to aubatitute Code Sections. Annika Santalahti, Assiatant Director ivr Zoning, atated that is a~L•andArd condition and it is worded that way on pu[pose and ahe did not think the petitioner should be concecned about it. Mc. Martinez stated they are not propnsing a more intense use and they will be using the buildinga for offices and storager And that the congregation is thinking about a second phase of construction and thE exiat.ing building wil.l be tot~lly demolished nnd another aanctuary built. ACTION: Commissioner King offered a motion, seconded by C.ommisaioner Fry and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit a church in the RM-1200 (Reaidential, Multiple-Family) Zone w±th waiver of minimum landacaped setback on a ircegularly-ahaped parcel of land conai~ting of approximately 1.6 acres located at the southeast curnec of Broadway and Olive Sttcet and further de~cribed as 412 East BroadwAy; and aoes hereby approve the Negative Ueclaration upon finding that it has consid~red tt~e Negative Declaration together with any commente received during the public revi.ew process and fucthec Einding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no aubstantial evidence thnt the project will have a significant effect on the environment. ~ Commissioner King offered a mo~ion, aeconded by Commissioner ~,in~ and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commissior~ does hereby grant waiver of Code requirement on the basis that thece ar.e special circumstan~es applicable to the property such as size, shape, to~ogeaphy~ location and surroundinga which do not ap~ly to other identically z~ned pr.nperty in the sa:ne vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the nruperty of privilegas enjoyed by othet oroperties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity and ~ubject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendati.ons. Commissioner King offered Resolution No. PC84-169 and moved for its passage and adoption thak the Maheim City Plcnning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2607 pursuant to Anaheim Munfcipal Code Section 18.03.030.030 throuyh 18.03.030.035 subject to interdep~rtmental Committee recommendations and an additional condition that the structure sha11 be used s/2oJsa MZNUT~S. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, AUGUST 20. 19$4 64-522 £or church purpo8es only and that no achool activitiea of any type shall be permitte~. On roll call, the Eoregoing cesolution was paesed by the follawing vote; AYES: BOUAS~ BUSHORE~ FKX~ HERBST~ KING~ LA CLAIRB~ MC BURNEY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Malcolm S1AUghter- Doputy City Attorney, presented the written right to Appeal the Planning Commieaion'o deciaion within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0. 4. EIR NEGRTIVE DECLARATiON~ WAIV~R 0~ CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2603 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: RETIRBMEN7' FUND TRUST OF TNE PLUMHING~ HEATING AND PIPING INDUSTRY OF SOUTH~RN CALINARNIA, c/o Southern Calif~rnia P.ipe Trades Tcust Eunds, 501 Shatto Pl~ce, 5th Floor, I.oa Angelea, CA 90020. AGENT; SROWN DEVELOPMENT CURPORA'PION, ATTN: RICHARD T. BROWN, 3595 Presley Avenue, Riverside, CA 92507. Property described as a rectangularly~shaped paccel of land conaisting of approximately 10 acres, having a front~ge of approximately 440 feet on the south side of Wilken Way, approximately 770 feet east of thQ centecline of Iiarbar noulevacd. To permit a aelf-skorage facility in the CG 2one with waivers of minimum number of parking spaces and minimum required public parking area. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and althougti the staff report was not read, it is tefetced to and made a pact oE the minutea. Commissioner Buahore pointed out ther~ is a pcoblem with hearing this request beEoce tt~e ordinance is adopted permitting this use in this zone. Malcolm Slaughtec fucther explained, teehnically, the Planning Commission is n~t in a positian to approve the requeste~ co~dition~l uae permit because the use is pr~sently prohibited in the zone and one of the findings the Commission must make in order to appr~ve it is that the use is permitte~ in the zone and until the City Council changes the Code, the use is prohibited and therefote, that finding could not be made. He stated he thought th~ Planning Commission has some limited alternatives; that they could hold the hearing and th~n continue the matter until the ordinance is adopted by the City Council or they could continue the matter without having a hearing oc they could deny the matter. He pointed out the ordir.ance would not be firoal for 30 days after it is adopted. Richacd T. erown, agent, stated it is his understanding that if the Planning Commfssion agrees lhey are an the right track, they could approve it in a tentativP manner so if the City Council does take action, they cau'd move forward. He Rtated thay have approached the City Council and it was ir~dicated they would ~avor the ordinance. Commissioner 8ouas responded to Commisstoner Bushore that the Commission did ~pprovE a drive-through restaurant at the last meeting before the ordinance was adopted. Commissioner La Claire pointed out Che City Council did not like 8/20/84 M7.NUxE5. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, AUGUST 20, 1984 84-523 the Commiasion'e action. She suggested the Commisaion ahould go back to their old policy o~ not sccept~ng or eppcoving any o[ these requesta until there ie an ocdinance permittiny the use because the Counc~l felt 1E the Commiseion approves it ~lr~t, it puta preeaure on them ta approve the ordinance. She suggeated this rtiattec be continued until after the ordinance takes affect which would be around the first of October. Mr. Brown stated they were not aware of all the mechanics they had to go through when they started ~nd that time ia easential. He added he would understand if the Cnmmissioc- chooaes to continue the matter, but it would be very injuriouo to them. He stated they have done everything they can to satisFy r.he n~ighbors and tt~e neighbors have informed them that they would not reaist the cequest. Commissioner La Claire stated nothing can be done until the ordinance takes eEfect anyway and it would only be a mattec of one or two d~ys, if the City C~uncil approves it on Auyust 21st and it bec~mes effective by September 21bt. Malcolm Slaughter explained the ordinance is up for ~doption tomorrow And theoretically, it will become effective in thirty days with no £urth~r action required by th~ City Council. It wAS noted the firat Commission meeting after September 21~t would be October lst and ik was also noted there would be a 22-~ay appeal period after the Planning Commission action. Chairman Herbst auggested continuing thia matter for two we~ks to the meeting of Septembec 5, 1984, and by that time the Commission will know if tl~e ordinance has been adopLed by the City Council and with the appeal per.iod, it would become effective within the proper time period aftec the ordinance is adopked. Malcolm Slaughter stated iE the Planning Commission Approves something which is not authocized by the Code, that appcoval is subject to legal attack by outaide parties and that the applicant is ultimately the one who would bear the burden of that litigation. Commissioner eust~ore stated the Commis3ion will be in the same position ir~ two weeks. Chairman Her.bst stated he is willing to go ahead after the City Council hearin9 in order to save che petitioner's money. ACTION: Commissianer King offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Pry and MOTION CARRIED (Cammisaioner La Claire voting no), that consideration uf the aforementioned mattes be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting o~ September 5, 1984. Commissfoner La Claire stated she had voted no on the motion For a continuance because she really felt the Commission st,oiild go back to their original policy of not approving anykhing not permitled in the Code, Commissioner Bushore stated he had voted in favor of the continuance, but would not vote in favor of this requzst at the next meeting because the ordinance would not be effective. 8/20/84 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ ~UGUST 2U, 198d _ 84-524 I~~M N0. 5. F.IR NEGATIVE DEC~ARATION_~ND_CUNDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2612 PUBLIC H6ARING. OWNERS: EDWARA L. AND P~7'RIC2A B. SC~NLAN, 1112 Wakefield Plac~, Anaheim, CA 92802. Pcoperty deacribed as ~ rectengulacly-sh~ned parcel of land consisting of appzoximately 0.2 acre, 328 North Vin~ Stceet. To expand an existing board and cace Eaciliky for a. maximum of 15 adult~. Thece was no one indicating their preaence in oppositiun to aubjeck cequest and s.lthou~h the staff report was not read, it is referr~d ko and made ~ part of the minutes. Patricia 5canlAn, petitioner, stated she would queatiun prop~~ed Condition No. 4 becauae it wao noked in the stafE report, ParAgraph 17, that the existing packing is adeyuate for the propoaed expanaion and she felt to place that con~ition on a pecmit may at some time cause someone elae a hard~hip. She s~ated they have had calls during the past nine years from people who did have automobi.leat that they do have 4 gArages tl~at are virtually unused; tliat the manager does not even own a car and has neve~ owned a car in the last nine years and nhe felt that condition would be an unnecNSSacy burden. Chaicman Hecbst ask~d if she would be willing to limit it to the numbec of spaaes they have and Ms. Scanlan cesponded she would agree to that limftati.on and added that interested persons ace usually only interested if there is a garage because they would not want to pArk L•heir cars on tl~e stceet. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLUSED. Cummissioner Fry stated he would only he in favor of this request with lhat restriction, but he would not be aUVerse to voting in favor iE it was limited to three rPSidents who could have a vehicle, pointing out in the future a manager might need a gArage. Ms. Scanlan ce~ponded she would be agreeable to that restriction. Responding to Commissioner Bouas, Ms. Scanlan atated they are licensed fo~ the elderly, buk becauae of the very strict cequirements they have to meet in order to have the elderly, they are allowed to take other pPOple as long as they ace compatible and to be compatible with an elderly per3on, they must not be a very active person. She expl~ined most of the cesidents are over 65 years of age and that there is a housekeeping couple who lives there 24 hours a day and takes care of the facilitiea, the meals and all the needs of the clientst ~nd t~at the residents take care a# their own personal hygiene and the managers take care of their mea~s, laundry and housekeeping. ~esponding to Commissionec souas, Ms. 5canlan expls~ned there ace no other employees who come in to clean or do the laundry and t.hat t~e gzoceries are delivered once a wesk by an outside person. She statad they have never had a manager in the last nine years who has had a car. She stated the person who drops off the groceries, ~arks on the lapel of the garage abutting the alley and they are there for about 1-1/2 hours about 10:30 p.m, on Friday nights. Responding to Cotnmissio~er Bauas, Ms. 5canlan stated right now they are licensed for 10 residents and there are 6 bedrooms with the housekeeping 8/20/94 ',; . ., ~ MINUTES. ~NAH~IM CITY PLANNING_COMMISSIQN, _AUGU$T_20_, 1984___ ____ ___ 84-5_25 couple ueing one. Ms. Scanlan atated they ace actudlly going to use apace th~t is preoently not being usedt that they do have a large area for all their residenta to congregate and they ci~ rangrogate in one area for their meals. She steted thia ia a vety organized opecation and they have had no p~oblema with any of the peopl~ or with the licensing agency. Cornmissioner King Aaked if the petitioner could gur~rantee there would be no on-shreet parking. Ms. Scanlan reeponded they Are enl•itled to have some on-street parking and ahe would agree that the residento or opecotora would not park on the etreet. Commissioner Fry nated khis is a four-plex and each unit has a I;itchen. Ms. Scanlan explained the current plan ia that the kitchens will remain, but that they a[e not operable and not used bec~use they do cause some fire problema. She stated they have had a fir.e spcinkler aysLem installedt and that they ace very conce~ned about the healrh and weltare ~F the people. She stated there ace four bpdrooms and that the one-bedroom units ar.e approximately 900 square feet and the bedrooms all exceed the requiKements of licensing agency. It was noted the square footage of the wholN complex is appcoximntely 4500 to 5000 aquace L•eet, including the garages. Gceg Hastings noted the Planning Department staff has estimated that the livable area is approximately 3500 ~s~uare feet which Mould be approximately 205 syuar.e feet of living space per person including the live-in managers. Commissioner La Claire atated the City Council has been vecy concerned about the square Eootage allowe~ for the people who live in these type facilities; and that the problem is that the Commission does nat see this type thing very often; however, an ordinance is currently being reviewed pertaining to senior citizen apartment complexes which would have all kinda of amenities. Ms. w~anlan stated this is more like ~ boarding house and is nat a facility where people have to have cooking fdcilities. Commissioner La Claire stated the project she is thinking about would not have cooking facilfties either and the pcop~sed 340 square feet of living space was a concern foc the Council. Responding to Commissionec Rouas, Ms. Scanlan stated the State does not have squate footage requirements for the total facility and their only requirement is that any bedroom has -:o be at least 144 aquare feet and all their bedcooms do meet that requirement and they are for two peop:e. Commissioner F3ushore stated that State requirement has to do with the licensing of gcoup homes and Ms. Scanlan responded that this is a group home. Commissioner eushore s~ated he still do~es not understand the operation; and that it is f.or seni.or citizens, yet peoplP ~~ho are compatible are a~cepted. He asked if the senior citizens are referred to l•his facility by an agency and if they have a specific problem. He stated adding the bedroams will be taking away from a certnin other area and he did nok understand Erom the plans where the other area is locatQd and if it wi11 ~ffect the operation that is there now. Ms. Scanlan ntated the facility more than meetR the requirements of the State of California Lice~isic~g Agency. She stated she dea~s with the Fire 8/20/84 MINUTES. ~N~NEIM CITY P1~11NNING COMMISSION,_AUGUST 20. 1984 84-526 D~Jpartment, and tf~e State ~ire Marshall and they indpect th~ facility and interview mll the reeidenta ko make eure thak they are the type of residente they should have. Sho atated they have fice sprinkl.ers no they Could have a peraon who uses A walker in the £acility. Reepon~ing to Commissioner ~uahore, Ma. Scanlan stated the Social 5ervices Deparkment is not in a licensing capacity and etated sI~P thought the Aepartment of Human Services for the State of CaliEornia is the one who issuea the licenae and the name of the facility is 'Anaheim Leiaure Villa" and they do get referrals Lrum the Social Services bepertment and they alao inapect the fscility. She stated they have probably had about 10 tnove-outs during the nine years they have been in business and that ~t-e obtained the original conditional use permit in 1975. She etAtecl there ia no age limit and ehe define~ a aenior cikizen as a person who nceds to have what they have to offer and t~ not an active young person and at ti~e present time the youngest person they r,~ve is 58 years old and has one limb amputated And has been there for about 6 years. Commissioner Bushore asked if they would accept any pecson with mental or emotional problems. Ms. Scanlan responded that some people ak khe aye of 60 have experienced a very traumatic experience and have to rake tranguillizers and medicakion, but tt~ey do not have anyone with erratic 5ehavior; and that the Social Services Department would send those kinds of residents and they are people wha have been rehabilltated. She explainA~ the residents go to the doctor onGe a m~nth and the licenaing agency requires that they have a complete physical once a year and they review khem once a year to make sure that the residents are compatible. She stated s'.~e has one gentlemen who is there under a public guardianship progr~m. Commissloner Buahore stated this ~s not really a boacd and care home, but a group home and there is a real difference in his mind. Ms. Scanlan s~ated the State has changed the dnfinition several timea since they were originally licensed as a board and care home and then a residentfal care home and then just a care home and now it is called just a group home. 5he stated they have another Eacility in Garden Grove and it is cailed a residential group home. Commissioner Bushore stated t~e is sure there have been no problems with this use since it has been there for nine years wlth no complaints. Commiasioner La Claire stated she thought City Council would want to review this request and she thought the petitioner would have a real hard time at that level and she would sugyest that the Commission go ahead and approve it and send it nn to the City Council with a recommendation that the staff look at the State criteria and recommend what they feel the City criteria should be as to the square footage for a group home, board and care home, etc., whatever it may be called, so khe Commission will have a better handl~ since none of the Commissioners or City Councilpersons are experta in this field. M~. Scanlan stated the review procESS they have to go through with the State licensing offices is vecy stringent as far as the activity and the kind of. peopie they have and the way they conduct their business and she ~elt adding square foot~ge requirements is really not necessarX. 8/20/89 MINUTES, ~-NAHEIM CITY _PGIINNINU COMMIS8ION. AUGUST 20, 1~84 84-527 Commissioner. Buahor~ atated iG it ia ca.iled e group home rAthec than e boerd a~nd care home, he did not think the petitioner wauld have a pr~blem with tha aquace f~otage iasue be[ore tha City Council. He added he felt if thie iR approved, it will hava ko ~e tied ta this particular applicant foc thia pacticulnr use becauae if it ie approved, ao requeated, anyone off the atreet could pucchase it and it could Ue a completely different Lype facility. He added he is not concerned about thia partic~~ler petitioner and the type of oporation ahQ IIAA~ but is concerned nbout t~~e unknown that could hnppen. C'ommisaionec Buahoce suggesCed approv!.ny this as a se~~ioc citizen group home inskead of a baacd and cace home. Ann~ka SAntalahti statec~ she sees no pr~blem with the Commisaion yranting thia permit a$ they deaire with clarification or the.ir ini•ent, ACTION: Commiarioner Hushore offered o motion, Recor.ded by Commissioner King and MUTION CARR: f:D, that th~ Maheim City Planning ~ammisaion ha~ reviewed the propnsal tu exl ,nd ~n existing board and care fecility foc a rt,aximum of 15 adulta on a rectangulnrly-shaped parcel of lan~ conaieking of approximately 0.2 acres, having a Erontage of appcoxi.mstely 65 feet on the oast side of Vine Street and further doscribed aA 328 North Vinet and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered tF~e Negative Declaration tog~ther with any comments received during the publi~ review procesa and further finding on the basis of the Tnitial Study and any comments ceceived that there ie no substantiAl evidence that the project will have a sign±ficant ePfect on the envlronment. Commisaioner euahore oEf•ered Keaolution No. PC84-170 and moved for its pASSage and adoption that ttie Mahelm City F~lanning Commission does hereby yrant Conditiunal Use Permit No. 2612 pucsuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.03.030.030 throuqh 18.03.030.035 and subjact to the restriction that no more thun three residents ahali have an automobile with one apaa~ available for e live-in managec n;td that the permit is restcicted to this particulac petftioner to ~perate ~ senior citizen group home under the broad categocy oP ~ board and care facility and that the residents must be referred through the proper licensing agencies. Ms. Scanlan stated she can takp residents withu~t refe:rals and explai 9~nust of the cesidents are there through word-of-moutti advertising through their friends from other places who do not provide a homelike environment, but that kt~ey do get some referrals. She st~ted anyone could call the C~unty to find out what type faci lity t:zey run. Chairman Herbst stated the resolution should not reetrict the residents to teferrala ~rom agencies only~ Malcolm Slauyhter stated the application to be considered by the Commission is for a specific use under a specific section of the Code, which, if granted, pecmitA a limitpd use of a boarding hottise and r~e thought the Commiesion is attempting to yr~nt somethiny which has not been applied for and may fa11 undec some vther section of the Co~e and asked tl~e Commission's i~kent. Ch~irman H~rbst st~ated he ia satisfiec3 ~ith the existing board and care home category. 8/20/84 ti MINUTES. ANJ-HEIM CITY PLANNING COMM7SSION, AUGUST_ 20~_ 1984 _______, 84-528 Commieaioner Buohoce etatod his m~in concern is khet he wanta to limit the use to thie [~dCt~Cl1~8C apNlicant who is obviously running a reaaoneble type ~dcility end it hae not had an edverae ,~fecC in the neighborhpod, but if ghe no longer owna it, he does not want someone elae to come in and run a different type boecd end cace home because oE the typa oE neighborhood and the trenaf.ent~ in the area and hQ does not went a motel opereted here. Commieaionor I~a Claire stdked Commi.s$ioner Buahore ahould describe what he means by a board and cAre fec ility such ae for elderly people who are in eome way incapacitated or unable t o take complete care of themselves oc need the kind of help that thie tacili ty offers auch as laundry, cooking and cleaning. Commisaioner Bushore stated t~e would like it to stand aa it is with a board and cace facility deacription. Malcolm Slaughtec stated he u nderstands it ia Commisatoner ~ushore's intent to yrant a conditional use permi t Eor a board And care facility nat to exceed 15 people anc~ the applicant hbs stipulated that thQ use would terminake upan her terminati.on of ownec~hip oF t he property or the facility, ancl, further, there would be no more than three r esidents wha could havc sutomobilea. Responding to Commia~eioner Bu shoce, Ms. ~canlan atated she ia ~•ery u~set with the teatrictionb because they have a considerable inveeCment, in exceas uf $25,000, in the facilit.ies with the fire eprinklers, etc. and if for some reason thsy want to sell this facility as a residential care home, they would nat want the owner nnt to h~ v e the cight to aperate it becAUSe it would reduce the property value. Commissinne: Hushoce atated s uch a eale could be made eubject to the new buyec obtaininy a new use permit f or the same type o~ operatian. He stated the Commission i~ heving a probl em wjth someone being able to purchase the facility and run a board unc3 care facility catering to othec types of residents tt~at are in the ar ea now which could cause conaiderable problems in that area. He s~ated the ex isting facility ia great, but under the broad terms of the conditional use permit, the worst he could £ear could happen and the Commission would have no control. M~. Scanlan stated she reali zes a lot of her neighbocs are nol in conformance with the ordinances as far a s the nut~ber of residents in their homes. She addecl she was also concerned that if they wantecl to get a loan, this might interfe~e. Commissi~ner 13us hore responded he c~id not th~nk this restriction wou~d intecfere with them qu alffyfng for a loan. He atatrd the petitioner is tryfng to look ahead from he r own abpECt and the Commiesion is trying to look ahead from their aspect and oy tying the permit to this specific applicant, it would prohibit someone else from doing that. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the follcwing vote: AYES: BOUAS~ BUSHORE, FRY, 4iERBST, KING, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE d/2C/84 MINUTES, ~NAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ AUGUST 20, 1984 ~_ 84'S29 CheicmAn Herbst stated thr Commiesion could ~~ery eaaily put a time limit on this permit and if the pcoPerty ie 8old, the new owner cou~d epply for a permit And he did not see a prob.lem iE they ace quAlifi~d. Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, prosented the wcitten cight to appeel the Plenning Commiesion's docision within 22 ddye to the City Counc~l. IT~H NO. 6.__EIR NEGATIVE D~CLARATION ANU CONDJTIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2609 PUBLIG HE~RING. OWNERS: KARCHER ANO ASSOCIATES, 1200 N. llarboc Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92801. AGENT: CARL KARCHER EN'CERPRISES, ATTN; RICHARU RENNA, P.O. Box 4349, Anaheim, CA 92803. Property deacribed as an irr^gularly-shaped paccel of land consisting of approximately 1.07 acres located al the southeast corner of La Palma Avenue arid Kraemer Boulevard, 31]0 East La Palma Avenue (Carl's Jr. Restaurank). To expand a drive~through cestaurant and add an outdoor dining acea. There was one person indicating hic prea~nce fn opposltion to ~ubject request and although the staff report was not read, it is ceferced ta an~ made a part of the minutes. Commiesioner Bushore declaced a conflict ot interest as defined by AnahNirt~ City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC76-157 adopting a Conf~ict of Interest Cude £or the P1Anniny Commisaion and Government Code Section 3625, ek seq., in that hP is a real estate agent for the applicdnt and Qwna atock in the company and pursuant k~ the prcvisions oi the above Codes, declared to the Ctiairman that he wa~ withdrawing from tt~E hearing in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 2609, and would not take part ~n either the discuseion or the v~ting theteon and had not. di~cussed this matter w+.t~. any membec oE the Planning Commission. Thereupon Commissioner Bushore left the Counc: i 1 Ct~amber . Commisnioner aouas declareo a conflict of interest as defined by Anaheim City Planning commission Resolution No. PC76-157 ~dopting a ConElict of Interest Code for the Planning Commiesion and Governme;c Code Section 3625, et seq.- in that she owns stock in the company and ~~rsuant to the provisions of the above Codes, declared to the Chairman that~he was withdrar+ing from the heari.ng in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 2609, and wauld not take part in either the diacussion or the voking theceon and had not discussed thi~ matter with any member of the Planning Commission. Thereupon Commissioner Bouas left the Council Chamber. Commissiuner McBUrney declared a conflict of interesk as deffned by Anaheim City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC76-157 adopting a Conflict of Interest Code for khe Planning Commission and Government Code Section 3625, et seq., in that he has a financial interest in thP development and pursuant to the pravisions o£ the above Codes, declared to the Chaizman that he was withdrawiny from the hearing in connection with ronditional Uee Permit No. 2609, and would not t~ke part in eitt~er the discussion az tt~e voting thereon and had not discussed this matter with any membec of the Planning Commission. Thereupon Commissionec McBUrney left the Council Chamber. 8/20/84 MINUTES~ AN~NEIM__CITY PLANNING_ COM_[r!I_S_SION, AUGUST 20, 19a4 84-530 Richard Ranna, ~gcnt, explained th e request is to expand the exiating facility with An 82c1-aquare foot eddLtion tc~ include a larger dining room nnd extrr el•ocage 8pltiC@j that additi~nal par king and circulation will be pr~vid~d and thak l•hey a~re in agroement wiCh th ~ conditiona included in th~ atdfE repoct. Carl 8atoc, S& S InveskmenLa, ex p loined they havo a buniness camplex immediately to the east and there i~ a unique pcoblem i.n thie erea with the youth con~regating on weekenda a~d holidays and they have A problem with them loitering, littering, bre~king in, and other problema associated with the hang-out at Carl's Jr. He explain ed the youth travel fram Carl's Jr. to the Hamily Fun Center. He stated ther e~~re numErous police reportA on filer and that he has nothing against the re staucant, but eomething h~s to be done to alleviatA these problems. He st~ted the restaurant ie o(~en 24 hours A day and their pr~blema slart r~bout 9 or .:0 in the evening; and khat this is an induatrial area and is spAraely populated on che weekends and when they come into work on Mo~day mornings, the y hAVe to pick up a coneidecable amount of trash in front of the building, including paper cups with Carl's Jr's. name on them. Ne stated he cAlled Carl's .7r, Saturday morning And asked the manager to cotne over and look at the situ a tion and the m~nager aAid they knew what was going on. He slated he talked to the District Manager And they are willing to work aut somethfng, but at this moment ti~ey are in opposition. Mr. Renna stated they ~re somewha t aware of thi~ problem and appacently the biggeat ptoblem occucs on weekend s and evenings; that they have contracted with a security ~ampany for a sec u rity guard to be on the premises and during the weekend lASt week, they had t w o aecurity guacdo on duty from approximately 10:00 p.m. to 2;00 a.m. with one o utside bnd one inside nnd the situation was definitely improved. He stated they maintai~- their own lot as far as the litter goes and hheir employees d o police i.t, but he understands that many customers purchase drinks and tak e them otf the premi.ses and once they leave the premises, they have no contro 1 ove r theic behavior. Ne statpd it has been brought to their attention that s ome of the youths are bri.nging alcoholic beverages ontu the site and litter in~ and di3posing of the bottles and cans and are throwing the refuse over t he f ence onto the Flood Control property to the reac~ He stated the Police a r e aware of the prablem and the manager does call when there is a problem. He stated generally they try to be a good neighbor in the area and apparent 1 y they are the only operation that is open at that time, besides the Family F un Center, and they are apen to any suygestions. He stated the reaso n£oc this conditional use permit fs primacily to take care of their b u siness at lunch time and it would have no effect on tt~e nighttime operation and the dining room is not required at that time of night. He stated they ha v e canaidered closing khe dining room aftec midnight~ Responding to Chairman Her.bst, Mr _ Renna stated they do n~ t feel thia expansion will necessarily allevi a te any of those probler~s, but they do not feel it will increase the problems. He stated apparently most of the activity takea place in the packing lot. THE PUBLIC HEARTNG WAS CLOSE~. Commisaioner Ls Claire asked if a ny consideration has b~en given to fencing off or gating the driveway,s ~f the businesses next door. 8/20/84 MINUTE&.__ANAHEIM CITY PL~NNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20 1984 84-531 Pau.l Singotr Tcaffic Enqineet, sGate~ thia i$ an induatcial area and any gates would hAVe to be 60 Esot back from the property line. Commisaiongr Ld Claire etatad th~~re wae a eimilar pcoblem a~coae the atreet fr~m the Stadium end they cheined off the driveways to the industrial pcopertie~. Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, atated it is poesible that gatea or barriec~ wete establiehed prior to the City Code requirements that the gates must be back sufficient dista^ce to prevent the atacking proUlems the TraEfic ~ngineec is aoncerned with. Commieaioner Fry stated thece would not be any stacking probloms at 2:00 a.m. Commissioner La Claire stAted the neighbocs do have a problem, but they Aeem to be working it out the beat they can and ahe tt-ought they would continue to do so. She atated the problem io not a11 from Carl's Jr., even though the litter is, ~nd ahe thought the problem ia maybe due to the PAmily Pun Center. Mr. Sator atated the problem is unique to the area and he did not know why the youth congregate there and just last weekend theKe must have been 200 youtha there and it is because oE the recreational area and Car1's Jc. And they yather thece and walk back and Eorth and their property is located in the middle. He stated he would auggest L•hat Carl's Jr. cloae at 10:00 p.m. becauae the buainess during the day and evening is ~o problem. Commisaicner L~ Claire auggeated Mr. SAtor talk to the peopie at Camelot, with Mr. Sator responding they did have a meetinq last week ~n the Council Ch~mber becauae Family Fun Center wanted to expand and that rPquest was denied becau$e of theoe problems and oince this is a prime industrial area. He stated he realizes restaurents are needed in the area, but not after 10:00 p.m. because then they just becom hangout and cceate problerns Eor the industcial acea. Chairman Herbat stated the pcoblem is not just going to go away and all Carl's Jr. wants to do is expand their dining room for more sit-down lunches. Mr. Sator stated they have no problem with the day-time busineas and the Carl's Jr. manager told them that Carl's Jr. has had considerable problems and the Police have been called several times. He [esponded to Ch~frman He:bst that the problem has been worse this summer. ACTION: Commissioner King offered a motion, seconded by C~mmissioner Fry and MO'PION CARRIED (Commisaioners Bouas, Bushore and Mcaurney absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commissian has ceviewed the proposal to expand a drive-through restaurant and add an outdoor dining area on an icregularly-shaped paccel ~_ land consi~ting of approximat2ly 1.07 acres located at thp southeast corner of La Palma Avenue ~nd Kraemer Boulevard and further described as 3110 E. La Palma Avenue (Carl's ~r. Restaurant); and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has consfdered the Negative Decl~ratfon together with any comm~nts received aueing t-ie public review procesa and further finding un the bas s of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no aubstantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the en ~rnnment. Commissioner King offeced Resol~~tion No. PC84-171 and moved for its passage and a~optinn that th~ Anaheim C~ty Planning Commission does hereby grant Condilional Use Permit No. 2609 purauant to Anahefm Municipal Code Section 18.03.03U.03Q through 28.03.030.035 and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. $/20/84 ~.... , a 1984 84-532 MINUTES,~_ ANAHBIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, AUGUST 20. CommiBSioner La Cl~ire etated gh~ thinks that there ia e pcoblem t~ece, but it ~s not All Carl's Jr. feult ~+nd ig pattly Camelot'e fault enr~ having that r.ype usp in the industrial area ia probably not rightj however, Cdcl's Jr. ia going ta provide guards on their own pr~perty end Aaked i.E they would ekipulate to help clean up the IiCter on the noighbor'a propocty. Mr. Renna respanded they will police their. lot, but have no contral over kheic customera aCter they leave the premi.aes• Ne etated this wvuld be no different than a convenience market or liquor store wherein a pecson could make a purchase and then drive to some other location And consume the beverage and thrc.w out the conteiner. He atated he did not see any obligatiQn to control the customera. Commisaioner La Claire atated it ia the~neighbors' contentio~`e~na24thours~ar problem comes after 10:00 p.m. anc~ Carl s,Ir. wants to stay day and their businese is causing A problem f.oc the neighbocs. ShP atated in other instances, petitioners heve been willing to hElp clean up the mess. Commissionec Fry sugge3ted including a time reatcietion rsquicing thom to close at 10:00 p.m. since thix i~ an induatrial ~rpa. Mr. Renna reaponded they would really have a problem with a restriction on ~heir operating hours. He stated they wauld be willing to offer to possibly help clean up the neighbor's property on a weekly basis if. it does cauae a problem. Commissioner Ga Claire clarified she would make that a part of her resolution. On roll call, the foreq~ing resolution was pasaed by the following vote: AY~S: FRY, HERBST~ KING, LA CLAIRE NOES: NONE AHSBNT: 60UA5~ BUSHORE, MC BURNEY Malcolm Slaughter, veputy City AttornQy- pcesented the writted right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. RECESS: 3:10 p.m. RECO;JVENED: 3:25 p.m. Commissioners ~souas, Bushoce and McBnrney r~turned to the Cauncil Chamber. ITEM N0. 7. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATZON AND CONUITIO[3AL USE PERMIT N0. 2611 PUFlLIC NF.ARING. OWN~RS: WILLIAM C. AND MARGARET N. SANGSTER~ 2133 W. Chapman, Orange, CA 92666. AG~NT: NAUGLES, INC., ATTN: ROGER BARBOSA, 2932 E. Nutrrood, Fullerton, CA 92634. Property described as an irregularly-shaped par.el of land conaisting of approximately 0.78 acre, 2112 South State College Boulevard. To permit a semi-enclosed, drive-thraugh restaurant in the ML Zone. ACTION: Commissionet Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fry and MOTION CARRIED, that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meetinq of Se~tembet 5, 1984, in order far subject petition to be readvertised to include a waiver. 8/20/84 MINUTES. ~NAHEIM CITY PL~NNING COMMISSION, AUGUST 20~ 1984 84-533 ITEM N0. 8. EIR N~GATIVE UECLARATION, WAIVER OF CODE RBQUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2613 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: JOHN KOCYLA, 120 Lakeview ~venue, ~nAheim, CA 9280%. AGENT: LANTERN REALTY, 8586 Merced, D-1009, t~untington Beach, CA 92646. Property de~cribed as an ircegularly-shaped parcel of lend consisting of approximately 1.06 acres located eouth and eaet oE the Aoutheast cocnec of Vermont Avenue and Harbor Boulevard, 406 W. Vermont. To pecmit a aemi-encloeed restaucant with on-sale beer and wine with waiver of minim~~m number of parking spaces. There was one pecson inr3lcating his presence in oppasition to eubject request and although the ataff report wss not reAd, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Mickey Warden, 100 N. Tustin, ~anl•a Ana, agent, explained the plan la to convert an existing building into a semi-enclosed cestaurant with on-sale beer end wine and pointed out ir is on the eastern portion oE the p~rcel. She explained the restaurant will serve Indian fo~d. Lealie Gardner, 400 W. ~'ermont, stated his property is adjacent to the proposed cestaurant= thst he is not opposed Co the restaurant, but this proposal is to l~ave indoor and outdoor eati.ng areas and he was n~t sure if that portion wc~uld be next to his pronerty and some of hi~ bedrooms are 4 to 6 feet away fcom the buiiding. He atated he is slightly against any sale af b~~ec and wine and pointed out he has lived there since 1968 and has had problems in the past having to pick up beer and wine bottles from his property. Ms. Warden atated she can appceciate what the neighboc is concerned about and she undecstood there wece some problems with the fotmer owner. She atated because his property was so clo~e, the k±tchen will not be on that side and there shauld not be any noise. She utated this will be bEer and wine ~nly on the inside and since the building is vacant, now there ia no one to protect it and developing it will allevfate sor~e oE the problems. She stated she did not think there will be a problem working together with the neighbors. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CGOSF:D. Chairman Herb~t asked about the open area to the ceaG and Ms. Ward~en reaponded that is for people who want to sit autside and eat and pointed out the area on the plans. Greg Hastings, Aasistant Pianner, explained that area was taken into consideration in the parking calc~lation~. He responded that if that open area was deleted, the par8cing requicements would be teduced by 8 spaces, bringing it into conformanc~. Ms. Watden explai.ned the open area wou].d be just outside the back door. Commissioner McBurney pointed our the patio azea is completely enclosed with a roof and an open grfll on one side only. 8/20/84 MINU'PE&. ANAH~IM_CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, AUGUST 20, 1984 84-534 Ma. Warden explained th~ operating hours will bo from 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 n.m., seven days per week. She explained thece is a vacant building on the left and that will be developed with oEfic~s and the Moos~ Ladge is e~eperate parcel on H~rbar. She explain~d they do heve a reciprocol parking agrQemPnt. she reoponded to Commiaeioner La Claice that they would not have any entectainment at the reataurant. Ms. Wacden reEecred to Condition No. 9 requiring t~rmination oE Conditional Use Permit No. 2307 and explained that permit has already been terminatAd. Ms. Warden responded to Commiasionec Bust~ore that this uae will not change the ociginal driveway atructure on Vermont. Commiasioner Bushoce stated he thought the Commission hdd conditionally ~imited access to that driveway, eittier in or out, on the o1d CUP. Paul Singer, Traffin Fngineer, stated the driveway access was diacusaed at the time, buk the L•ina; deciaion was not tu make it ane way. ACTION: Commissianer King oEfered a motion, seconded by Cammiesioner Fry and MOTION CARRIED, that the An~heim CiLy Planniny Commission has reviewed the ~roQosal to permit a semi-enclosed restaurant with on-sale beer and w.{ne and waiver oE min~mum number of parking apaces on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approxim~tely 1.06 acrea located south and e~at of the southeust corner of Vermont Avenue and Harbor Boulevard and furthec deacribed as 406 West Vermont Avenue; and ~oes hereby approve the Nega~ive Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negatfve Declaration together with any commenta received during khe public revfew prace~$ and furthec finding on the basis of the Initial Study And any comments received that l•here is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner King offeKed a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fry and MOTION CAR~IED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commisai~n does hereby grant waiver of Code requirement on the basis that the packing waiver will not cause an increase in traffic conge~tion in the immediate vicfnity nor adversely affect any adjoining land uses and granting of the parking waiver under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and genetal welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Commissioner King offered Resolution No. PC84-172 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grent Conditional Uae Permit No. 2613 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Cade Section 18.03.030.030 through 18.03~030.035 subject to Interdep~rtmental Committee recommendationa. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES; BOUAS~ ~USHORE~ FRY~ HBRBST~ KING, LA CLAIRE~ MC BURNEY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the •vritten right to appea]. the Planning Commission's decfsion witnin 22 days to the City Council. 8/20/84 ~ MINUTE~, ANIIHEZM CiTY PI,ANNING COMMISSIQN, AUGU&T 20. 1984 84-535 ITEM NU. 9. EIR NEGATIVE DECLJ-RA7`'ION WAIVER 0~' CODE R~QUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERpIIT N0. 2610 PUBLIC H~ARING. OWNERS: ORANGEWOOQ ASSOCIATE5~ ATTN: STEPNEN Bl~IIE, 3737 Bitch Stroet, 4th floor, Newport Beach, CA 92660. Pcoperty deacribed es an ircegularly-shaped paccel of land consiating oE approximately 2.03 acres located north and east oE the nocthenst cornec of Orangewood Avenue and E~clid Street, 2054 •B" 5outh Euclid Street. To permit on-sale beer and wine in a pcoposed cest~urant with waiver of minimum number of pdr.king spacea. There wAS no one indicatinq theic presence in opposition to sub~ect reyuest and alChough the sta~f teport was not read, it is referced to and made a parC of the minutes. Steve eowie, agent, was present to anawer any queations. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commisaioner King asked if the petitioner would be willing to cqmply with Condition No. 1 pertaining to trash enclosuces. Mr. Bowie stated he understands there is a traeh er~closure which nEeds to have the ~ioors replaced and they ace willing to comply with that requicement. ACTION: Commisaioner King offered a motion, seconded by Camrii~sioner Pry and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anahe±.m City Planning Commission has ceviewed the ~coposal to permit. on-eale beer and win~ in a proposed restaurant with waiver of minimum numbec of parking apaces on a irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 2.03 acres located nc~rth and east of the northeast corner of Urangewood Avenue and Euclid Stxeet and further described as 2054 "B' South Euclid Street; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considerPd the Negati.ve Declaration together with any comments received during ~he public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no subatantial evidence that the pco~ect will have a signific3nt ef£e~t on the environment. Commissioner King offeced a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fry and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Conunission doeR hereby grant waiver of Code requirement on the bas~s that ~he parking waiver ~ill not cause an increaee in traffic congestion in th~e immediate vicinity nor advert~ely affect any adjoi~ni.ng 1a.nd uses snd granting of th~ Farking waiver under the conditions imposed- if any, will not be detrimental to the peace~ health, safety and general welPare of the citizens of the City ~f Anaheim. Commissioner King offered Resolukion No. PC84-173 and moved f~r its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permik No. 2610 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.03.Q30 through 18.03.030.035 subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommer.dations. Cn roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BUSHORE, FRY, BERBST, KING, LA CLAIRE, MC 3URNEY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE 5 ~' } MINUTES ANAHBIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20 1984 84-536 Jack White, Asaistant City Attocney, presented the written cight tu appeel the planning Commission's deciai.on within 22 days to the Ciky Council. ITEM N0. 10. BIR NEGATIVE DECI,ARATION. WAIVER Ok~ CODE RE4UIR~MBNT AND CONDITT4N71L USE_PERMZT N0. 2608 PUBLIC HEA1tiNG. OWNERS: A.G. AND 6 DORIS K. RICHTER, 3640 Meadow Lane, Sacramenlo, CA 9582~~. AG~NT: ARMANDO 6 JUANITA SANCHEZ, c/o STEVEN A. SILVERSTBIN, 2Q01 E. I'irat 3treet, Suite G, Santa Ana, CA 92705 and C.C. HUMPNRIFS, 30001 Crown Valley Packway, Suite P, Lagune Niquel, CA o2677. Property described ao an irregulacly-shaped paceel of land consisting of approxima~tely 8.8 acrea located north and eaat of the northeast cornec of La Palma Avenue and State Cnllege Boulevard, 1086 "A" North State College Boulevard. To permit on-sale alcohol in a propooed restaurant and cocktail lounge with waiver of minimum number of packing apaces. There was no one indicating kheir preaence in apposition to subject requeat and althouqh the staff repoct was not cead, it is ceferred to and made a part of the minutes. Acmando Sanchez, 123 Ma11 Lane, Anahein, agent, was present to answer any questions. THE PUBL'SC HEAFtING WAS CLOSED. Responding to Commissioner Bushore, Mr. Sancher. responded they will have entertainment. tie was not sure whekher or not they wauld have dancing. He explained they plan to have live music Thursday through Sunday oc Wednesday through Saturday and they will be open from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. It was clarified that if they do have dancing in the futuce, they will have to apply for khe appropriate entertainment permit under other Code sections. ACmION: Commi.esioner King offered a mot;ion, seconded by Commiosioner Fry an8 MUTION CARRIED, that the Anahefm City Planni.ng Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit on-sale alcohol in a proposed restaurant and cacktail lounge with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces on an irregularly-shaped parcel of Zand cansisting of approximately 8.8 acte~ locatEd north and east of the northeast corner of La Pal.ma Aver-ue and State College Boulevard and further described as 1086 "A' North State College Boulevardj and does hereby approve the Negative neclaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review pracess and further finding on the basis of the initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence th~t the project will hAVe a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner King offered a motion, seconded by Cammissioner Frv an9 MOTYON CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does heceby grant ~aaiver of Code xe9uirement that the parking waiver will not cause an increase in traffic congestion in the imm~diate vi.cinity nor adversely affect any adjoining land uses and granting af the parking waiver uns~er the conditions impnsed, if any, 8/20/84 ~ ; MINUxE5, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING t;UMMISSION. AUGUST 20, 1984 84-53" will not be detrimental to the peace, heelth, safety ond general welEare of the citizene of the City of Anaheim. Cnmmieaioner King offered Reaolutio~ No. PC84-174 ond moved for ita paseage and ad~ption that the J~nahei.m City Planning Commission doea hereby gcant Condition~l Uae Permit No. 26U8 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.Q3.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 and subject to Intecdepartmental Committee recommendationa. Commissione~ '.ushore stated his concern is that there are problema on the property now with entertainment in the eveninga and with the other shope i~~,~~.~--- the businesaes that are closed and uther restaucants and bueineasea that are open, and he was concerned that if they wnnt to hAVe dancing in the future, there could be a problem, and he would want the Planning Commisaion to hold anothec public hearing. Chairman Herbst pointed out a dance permit is issued by the City Council. Malcolm Slaughtec stated ultimately the City Council would have to issue the public dance permit And he did not k~elleve there would be a noticed public hearing. Commisaioner Buahoce statad he would tecommend thia permit be tied to that condition and if they desire to have dancing in the future, they would have to have another public hearing before the P.lanning Commissi~n, pointing out there are na current plans to h~ive dancing. Commissioner Bushore stated rhere ace some problems in tr~is center now because the Black Angus does attract a lot of people and he thought there could be additional problems with the combinatian and that dancing does attract more people. He stated if dancing is excluded from thia permit, the petitioner could always come back to amend the permit. Mr. Sanchez stated he had experience in the restaurant business about 10 years ago and many people want to have special parties and require dancing aEter they have a dinner. Malcolm Slaughter st~ted there are diEferenk kinds of dance permits, depending on what the applicant wants to do, and the City Council issues those permits. On roll call, the foregoing cesolution was passed by the following vute: AYES: 60UA5, FRY, HERBST, KING, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY NOES: BUSHORE ABSENT: NONE Malcolm Slaughter, Assistant City Attorney, presented the written righ~ to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. Chairmen Herbst pointed out to the petitioner that he cannot have dancing until h~ gets a dance permit from the City Council; how~ver, that is not a part of this resolutipn. ~/7.0/84 MINUT~S, ~NAHEIM CITY_PLANNING COMMISSION, AUGUST 20, 1984 84-538 ITEM NO. 11. EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION=CL~ASB 5 AND_V~R7.ANCE N0. 341Q PqgLIC HEARING. OWNER5: JAMBS D. AND NANCY H. EAGAN, 1857 W. Katella Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92804. Property described as a rectangularly-~hapod parcel of land consiating of approximate~y 5033 square feet, 1534 West Alexis Avenue. Waivers of minimum side yard setback and maximum fence height to retain a aundeck and Eence addition. There we.re t~ao persong indicating their presence in oppositio~ to subject requeat and although the staff report was not read, it is refecred to and mAde a pact of the minutea. Jamea Eagan, petitioner, stated he ie r~questing a variance to put a 2-foot 8-inch extension on the exiating block wall and to expand his gundeck. Ch~irman Herbst pointed out the photographs s~bmitted indicate it has already been dUne and aeked why lt w~s done without permits. Mc. Eagan responded he put the wrought iron railing across the block wall because they have a show dog and he was cauyht l•wice r.rying to ~ump over the wall and the dog's size is over 100 pounds and when he stands on his bock legs, he is ovec 6 feet tall and he does not want to ~ose this ahow dog and he does not want to acare the neighbors or cause any problem3 by having hfm ~ump out of the yard. eob Currier, 1547 W. Tedmar, Anaheim, Anaheim, stated he ia only objecting to the fence; that the dag is kept in a pen and there ia an elevation difference of about 3 feet between Lhe petitioner's yard and his yard, which makes the fence 10 feet high on his side without the exkenaion, so if the dog jumps over, he would break his legs. He atated if the petitioner had asked him ubout the Eence, maybe they could have worked out a design that could have bePn more beneficial and not quite so ugly. He stated he only has the fence going half way down his property line. He stated the dog is kept in a per. at all times and is not runniny around the yard, so he sees no reason for the extension on top of the 6-foot wall. He stated the extra patio is an invasion of their privacy, but it is already up and there is nothing they can do about that, and he really only cares about the fence and felt it cauld have been designed a little differently and could have kept the dog in just as well. ~at Currier, 1547 W. Tedmar, presented photographs of the fence fcom their side of the property and indicated it is almost 100 inci s high on their side. She pointed out the dog pen as shown in the pict~res. Philip Tread, 1554 W. Alexis, stated he is a neighbor of Mr. Eagan an@ that Mr. Eagan probably has one of the fineat looking homes in this tract and definitely has put a lot of effort into this ~~roperty and the Building DepArtment has approved everything he haA done on the construction pcoject and there are other neighbors present to support his request. He stated Mr. Eagan and hi~ family have been a credit to the neighborhood and there is nothing unsightly or qu~stionable about the project and whak he did was to protect his d~g. He stated he has put in a lot of very expensive landscaping with waterfalls, etc. Chairman Herbst pointed out it has been done illegally and the fence is illegal and any fence over 6 feet must be atructurally designed. 6/20/84 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY P~ANNING CUMMISSI~N, A~ 5;20. 1984 84-539 Mr. Tread stated the extenaion ie wrought ~ron on top of a block wall end there is no faundation problem and he waa sure Mr. Eagan would ba wi~ling to make any modiflcationa to acoomplish both structural and ~esign security and make it more aegthetically ~cceptahle to the community. Mx. Currier retur.ned And A~ated Mr. Eagan doe~ have a besutiEul home, but Mr. Tread is nok living bchind thar. Eence looking at those bars and if the purpose ie to keep the dag in, he aeked why it does not run the f.ull lengc~~ ~f the walls. Chairman Herbat atated the f.ence seems to be thE on~y prob.lr_m and asked what could be done to alleviate the problem. Mr. Eagan responde~ he would be glad ko do anythingt tt~nt the dog ia in a cage, but the dog must be execciaed and it ia allowed to run around the backyard. He stated he hired a professional company and assumed they had gotten the propec permits and After he found out they did not get the permita, he tr~ed to gPt them and found out what he must do and they will do what muat be done. tie stated the wrought iron is very decorative. He stated it ia cuatomary when you move in to bQ reimbursed for one-halE oE the cost of the wall and he has never ~eei~ reimbursed for any part of the wall, so he felt if they don't want to pay him foc his t~alf., he would not approach his neighbor regarding this extension. He stated he will do wt~atever the Commission decides, eithec take it down or have it redesigned, etc. CommisFioner La Claire asked why the extenaion on the fence was builk only part way down the wall. Mr. E~gan explained there is a waterfall and the dog can climb up on that portion and jump ovec and on the otl~er side, there is a swimming pool and he cannot jump over an that side and there xs the dog-cage on the ather wall. Commissioner La Claire stated the design is thp result of the configuration of the landscaping and tt~e Eilling in of th~ planter. THE PUBLIC H~ARING WAS CLOSED. Commissianer Bushore stated this hearing also concerns the patio; that even though it is already there, maybe it $hould not be there. He stated if the wrought iron poction of the fence is on ihe property line or a little bit over on the neighbar's property, the neighbor would have aome recourse through othec avenues. Malcolm Slaughter stated if the fence is encroach~ng onto someone else's property, the neiyhbors could seek, through appropriZte legal proceedings, to have it remuved or to receive compensation. Commissianer Bushore stated even if this permit is granted, it does not take away the neighbor's rights ta seek ~atisfaction. He atated he would ask himself if he would have voted in favor of th~s if ik had been presented prior to construction and evpn though the peti.tioner may be the nicest homeowner in the whole area, as the neighbors have said, he would not vote for something like this unless all four neighbors had agreed. He atated the patio is not just a oecortd-story patio, but is a huge area and a considerable portion of it will look right down fnto more than one neighbnr's yard. 8/20/84 MINUTES,_~NANEIM CI~Y PGANNING CUMMISSION AUGUST 20 1984 84-54~ Commiesionec Bouas clnrifiod thet the wrought iron portion aE the fo~ce covere 2/3 of the neighboe's wall. Mr. Curcier eteted he would still object to the fence if it went all the way becauae it ia ~uet like looY,i~g at bare. Responding to Commiesio~Rr eouas, Mc. Cucrier atated h~ does have trees that are about 7 feet tall. CommiBaioner McBUrney auggpsted putting the bare horizontally about 1 foot high so tt~e dog could ii~t get over it, yek the fence would noG be extended any higher. Mr. Eagan stated they hired a c~mpany to give them plans foc the best wny to deal with this problem and thia is what they suggested. Commiseioner Hushore atated looking at the photographe, it ap~ears on the west aide there is a 3-foot aetb~ck with a decking and asked why the doy would not jump out there. Mr. Gagan st~ted there is wcought iron underneath that and that is whece the dog cage is located and explained it was built to provide protection for ~he d~g from the rain, etc. Resp~nding to Commissioner Bushore, Mr. Eaqan stated th~ dog did not get out yet, but hie wife has caught h~m on three different occasiona try~ng to get out. Nancy Eegan, petitioner, atated the dog is vPry smart and just cecently leaxned tu open doora. She stated with or without the decking, the neighboc's home is a single-sto[f structure and theirs is a two-story stcuctuce und they could still look right into Che neighbor's hume. She etated mairily the purpoae of the patio i~ tn save the drapea and carpets and provide shad~ for the dag. She sugg~8ted maybe they could point the wrought iron ratling more towards their own yard. She stated she was concerned because the neighbors also have children and the dog c~uld cause harm and the fence i~ nzcessary also because they have a poul. Commissioner Buahoce stated the n~ighbor'e children on the okher side could jump the fence as aell. He stated there ace stairs go~ng up to the second story patio and if it was just a roof extending into the setback, and the neighbors did not object, he would not object, but this is a full second-story deck ~:',th a point extended out where a pprson coul.d w~lk. Mr. Eagan stated the neighbors on the side where the extension is locate~ are on vacation, but are wrflling to sign an affidavit that the patio daes not bother them beca~se they realize Ehe dog needs a place to be sheltered. Chairman Herb~et suggested a continuance in order for the petitioner l•o redesign the fence to the satisfaction of the neighboca and the Commission. Commissioner Bushora asked if the neighboca would c~bject to the patio. Ms. Currier responded thQ only part of L-he patio that is a concern i~ the 5-foot sectic~n that extenda out closest to the fence which is the newest part of the patio. Commissioner Bushorp suggestecl the nefghbors get together and work out a design acceptable to all parties. 8/20/84 MINUT~S1 AN~NEIM CITY P~ANNItiG COMMIS5ION~, ~UGUST 20, 1984 84~541 AC~PIAN: Cartuniesionec McB~~rney oifered d motion, seconder] by Commi~sioner King and MOTION CARRIED, that considerakiAn of the aforementioned matter be conl•lnued to the cegulerly-ar.heduled meeting of September 17, 1984, in order .for l•he ~et+ti~-nec to aubmit i•evised plt~na. Ma. Eagan atated the new p~rt o[ the patio is 5 or 6 fpek Erom tt~e f~nce. Commiasioner L~ Cleire at.et~d she hab had ahow dogs and has h~d the aAme problems and had to put in a dug cun 9nd go out and exe[ciae the ~log and atay with him so he would not qet dway, but when she got tho dog ahE assumPd the reaponsibility Eor it and did not build ~ higher Eence that would b~e objectianable to the neighbors. She atAtc~d h~t problem ie that ehe is not on~ly thinking of these neighbors thet are ther~ now, but of the neighbors thdt axc going tu :ive ther~ in thP future and the encroachment into their privacy for something the c:ommission approves which is against ~he ordinance. She scated the o~dinances are to protect all properi:y Awners, past, present and fukure. She stated ahe hupes they work oul• bo~h Qroblems, and even though the neighbor next door does not complain ri~ht now, it could affect property values and people in the future. She stated she will not vote for an extenslon an lhe fence and ie c~ebating very serioualy whe~hec or not she will v~te in fav~r of the encroxct~ment into the setback, bue that she might votp foc it since n~ one is obj~cting. ITEM NO. 12. REPOFtTS AND R~CONMENUA7'IONS:. A. VARIANCE NU. 2823 - Requesk from Plorence E. Hdn~mond for a r~..roactive 8-year extenFion of time for Variance Na. 2823. Property loc~zt~~d at 1730 S. Anut~eim Bo~levard. Chairman Hecbst indicated concern with granting an 8-year extensi~~n of time, even though there ha~9 been no cor~~plainta. Commissio~~e: t'cy stated if l•hey wantPd to change the uae of the proper.ty, they wouid ha p to comE back to the Planning Commisaion and since it hras been this wny for 8 years with no problpmsr with this type of use in this locatior~, l~~e saw no problem with this extension. Annika Santaiahti explained the 8-year limit was placed on the permit because of t.t~e ~oncezn regarding the type of development that would occur in the neighborhood and the induatrial project lo the south had just gone in and there was some concern whether the use would have an adverse effect. ACTION: Commissioner King offeced a~~otion, secon ~d by Commissioner Pry and MOTiON CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planr.:ng Cammission does hereby grant a rptroactive E-year extension of time for Variance No. 2823 to ex~ire un July 7, 1992. B. RECLASSIFICATION N0. 82-83-14 - Request from Edward A. Struthers for a retrnaekive exter,sion uf time fur Reclassification Ho. 61-83-14. Property located at 5i2 W. Vermont 1-venue. 8/20/84 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, AUGUST 20,_1984_ 84-542 Commigeioner Buehore declared ~ conflict of intoreet ae defined by Anaheim City Planning Commiss.ton Resolution No. PC76-157 adopting a CanElict of Interest C~de far tho Planning Commiseion and Government Code Section 3625, et seq., in that he was acting as real estate agont on auaject property nnd pursuant to the pcoviaions of the above Codes, declared to the Chairman that he was withdrawing from the heacing in connection with Reclassification No. 82-83-14, and would nor tAke pert in either the discussion or the voting theceon and had not diacussed thin mattec with any .nember of the Pl~nniny Commission. He explaine~ originally when khis was approved, he dld not have a conflict. ACTIUN: C~mmisaioner Fry offered A motion, seconde~ by Commissi~nec King and MO'rzpN CA~RIED (Commissioner Bushoce abat.ainingl, L•hat the Anaheim City Plannir~g Cortun.ission does hereby gr~nt a retroactive extenslon ~f time tor Reclasaification No. 82-83-14, to expire January 10, 1985. C. 'rENTATIVE MAP OE TRACT NO. 11780 - kequest f[om Stuart Ledinghan; for an extension nf time for Tentative Tract No. ].1?80. Property is appc<~x~mately 4.47 ~crea, h~ving a Erontage of approximately 85 Feet or. the south side oE Rio Grande Urive, approximAtely 1200 feet eouthwest of the centetllne of Fairmont Roulevard. AC'PION: Commissioner King offered a motion, seconded by Comm..sioner Fry end MOTION CARKIEU, that. the Anaheim City Planning Commiasinn does herEby ~rant a one-year cxten~io~ of time fnc Tentative Map of Tract r;o. 11780, to expire Auyu~~ 9, 1985. U. COND1TtONAI~ USE PERMIT N0. 1787 - Request fCOm R. S. Hoyk, J[. for te~rmination of Conditional Use Permit No. 1787. Propert,y is appr~ximately 0.9 a~re located at the northeast cornes of Orangethnrpe Ave~~ue and Lemon 5treet. ACTION: Commissionec Kiny offered Resolution No. PC84~175 and moved f.or its passa9e and adoptiun that the Anaheim City Plan~ing Commission does hereby terminate Conditiona: Use Per.mit No. ;787. Gn roll call, the foregoing resolutiun was passed by the following vote: AYF.S: BOUAS~ 3USHORE, FRY, HERBST, KING, LA CLAIRE~ MC BURNEY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE E. VARTANCE N0. 221 - Request from R. S. Hoyt, Jr. fo~ termination of Variance No. 22~. Property is spproximate].y 0.9 acre located at the nort>>east corne: of oca~gethorpe Avenue and Lemon Stceet. AC'^IUN: Commissioner King off~red Resolukion 'No. PC84-176 and movPd for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Pla.nning Commission does hereby terminake Vari~nce Na. 221. On roll call, the foreyoing cps~lution was passed by the following voke: AYES: BOUAS~ BUSHQRE~ FRY, HERBST, KING~ LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE 8/20/84 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMM23SION, AUGUST 20. 1904 84-543 OTHER DISCUS5YON: (l) Commieaioner Bushoce askod about the Park and Recreation Fee Ordinan~e which wao sent to the City Council. AnnikA Santalahti explained th~ City Council approved the Park and R~:reation stnff taking the ordinanae baak f~r Purther study and th~ urdinn~:ce wae not actuelly approved. Slie explained the decision for fucther study wa~ based on the Nroblema the Plenning Commiasion had with the propoaed ordinance. (2) Anntka Santalahti referred ko the pcupezty at the southwest corner of Imperial and La Palma where the Texaco service atation i~ lucated explaining that is the sole indust•rial piQCe of property in that area and she would like to get the Planniny Commission's concurrence to pracese a rezoning to commecci~l. She explained the main problem ia with signing and the limited acc~se. It was the general consensus oE the Commieaion that a rezoniny should be proceased. (3) Commi.saioner La Claire ceferred to the pcoblems that Commission had with the board and care facilitiea and stated ahe woul~ lik^ Lo ask the City Council to look at the StAte criteria to see 1E the Ci~y cAn adopt those standards since tt~ey seem to be very atrenuous. Annika Santalahti atated thie i~ a lot li~e hotels, mot.ela or hospilals and they are nok conRidered cesid~ntibl in ttie sense of the parkin; requirements and the same equare footage does not apply and the Counci~ is concerned when they are similar to Apartments. She stated ahe was never p~rticularly bothered becauae she Pelt the State preempta to some extent t,~e City's requirements. St~e stated staff cauld bcing the Star.e guidelines to the Commiasion for their review. Commisaiuner La Claire suggested having an expect come in during a work sessi~n to discuss the ai~~uation and stated she thouyht the Commissian will be aeeing mare and more of these type requests. Malcom Slaughter stated the State guidelines are normally concerned with the living conditions and requirements oE the facility in which they will pecmit a petson under their care to reside and they may or R,3y not have A:;ything to do with baarding homes. ADJOURNMENZ': TherQ being no further business, Chairman Herbst offered a mokion, seconded by Commissioner Fry and t40TI0N CARRIED, that the meeting be adjoucned. The meeting was adj~urned at 4:20 p,m. RespE~ctfull,y submitted, ~~~ ~ . Edith L. earris, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission ELH:lm 0062m 8/20/8S