Loading...
Minutes-PC 2000/11/20~• '~'HE IM C,`, O ~` = CITY OF ANAHEIM " ' PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES A~4NDED ~6~1 DATE: MONDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2000 MORNING SESSION: Chairperson Koos called the Morning Session to order 10:00 a.m. in the Council Chamber. 10:00 A.M. • Workshop regarding Draft Housing Element • consideration of Resolution to establish procedures and rules of order for Planning Commission subject to approval of City Council (Continued From Commission Meeting Of October23, 2000.) • Staff update to Commission of various City developments and issues (as requested by Planning Commission) • Preliminary Plan Review PUBLIC HEARING: i• 1:30 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT: Chairperson Koos called the Public Hearing to order at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber and welcomed those in attendance. • Public Hearing Testimony The Pledge Allegiance was led by Commissioner Bristol. Arnold, Bostwick, Boydstun, Bristol, Koos, Napoles, Vanderbilt Selma Mann Greg Hastings Linda Johnson Greg McCafferty Karen Dudley Don Yourstone Brent Schultz Alfred Yalda Mefanie Adams Margarita Solorio Ossie Edmundson Assistant City Attorney Zoning Division Manager Principal Planner Senior Planner Associate Planner Senior Code Enforcement Officer Redevelopment Manager Principal Transportation Planner Associate Engineer Planning Commission Secretary Senior Secretary AGENDA POSTING: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at 9:00 a.m. on Friday, November 17, 2000, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chambers, and also in the outside display kiosk. PUBLISHED: Anaheim Bulletin Newspaper on Thursday, October 26, 2000. • ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------•----......--------------------------------•-------~ H:\DOCS\CLERICAUMINUTESWC112000.DOC planninqcommission(a~anaheim.net 11-20-00 Page 1 NOVEMBER 20, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~r ~ Terminated (Vote: 7-0) SR1159JD.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this a request for a termination for Conditional Use Permit No. 2071, for property located at 1290 Sunshine Way. I• ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: None RECEIVING AND APPROVING THE MINUTES FOR THE PLANNING II Approved, as COMMISSION MEETiNG OF NOVEMBER 6, 2000. (Motion) corrected ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission (Vote: 7-0) does hereby approve the minutes for the Planning Commission meeting of November 6, 2000 with the following correction to Page 31: Corrected the 1 St sentence of the 4th paragraph as follows: "Mr. Nguyen stated on Saturday they do not start dinner until 8:00 ~ p.m., which would give them only two hours, which is not enough time." The Commission directed staff to agendize the discussion points for a possible granny unit ordinance. 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2071 (CUP Tracking No. 2000-04288) - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Bucky Gillett, Gillett Commercial Real Estate Services, 765 Baker Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92626, requests termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 2071 (to permit an automotive and truck repair facility in the ML Zone). Property is located at 1290 Sunshine Way (Hewlett Packard). TERMINATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-127 11-20-00 Page 2 NOVEMBER 20, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES I~J B. a) CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 11 b) FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2000-00020: Signs and Services Company, Attn: Rick Denman, 10980 Boatman Avenue, Stanton, CA 90680, requests review and approval of Final Site Plan to install one (1) wall-mounted hotel identification sign. Property is located at 1650 South Harbor Boulevard (Ramada Maingate Motel). Concurred with staff Approved (Vote: 7-0) ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 11, as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additionaf environmental documentation. Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Final Site Plan (identified as Exhibit Nos. 1 through 13 on file in the Planning Department) on the basis that the Final Site Plan is in conformance with the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2. SR7843DH.DOC ~. Karen Dudley, Associate Planner, introduced this item stating this is a request to install a new 189- square foot wall-mounted sign consisting of a maximum letter height of 40 inches, reading, "Ramada Maingate", located at 1650 South Harbor Boulevard. The sign will be installed in the south building elevation of the existing 4-story hotel facing Disney Way. Staff reviewed the plans and finds that the project is in conformance with the site development standards and the design guidelines as set forth in The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan. StafF further determined that the project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions under Class 11 of the CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) Guidelines, which exempts construction or replacement of minor structures accessory to existing commercial facilities including on-premise signs from CEQA requirements. Staff, therefore, recommended that Commission find that the project is Categorical Exempt under Class 11 of the CEQA Guidelines and that the Commission approve the final site plan. Rick Denman, representing Ramada Maingate, did not speak, but indicated (from the audience) that he was available to answer any questions. ~ 11-20-00 Page 3 NOVEMBER 20, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (. C. a) CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 11 b) FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2000-00021: Sign Max, Attn: Moses Saberi, 3002-A South Halladay Street, Santa Ana, CA 92705, requests review and approval of Final Site Plan to install one (1) new wall-mounted hotel identification sign. Property is located at 915 South Disneyland Drive (Super 8 Motel). Concurred with staff Approved (Vote: 7-0) ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 11, as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Final Site Plan (identified as Exhibit Nos. 1 through 3 on file in the Planning Department) based upon a finding that the Final Site Plan is in conformance with the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2. ~ SR7851 KD.DOC Karen Dudley, Associate Planner, introduced this item stating this is a request to install one 34 square foot wall-mounted sign having a maximum letter height of 30 inches reading, "Super 8 Motel", on property located at 915 Disneyland Drive (formerly West Street). The sign would be installed on a north facing building elevation of the existing 3-story hotel. Staff reviewed the plans and found that the project is in conformance with the site development standards and the design guidelines as set forth in The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan. Staff also determined that the project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemption, Class 11 of CEQA Guidelines, which exempts construction or replacement of minor structures accessory to existing commercial facilities including on-premise signs from CEQA requirements. Staff, therefore, recommended that Commission find that the project is Categorical Exempt under Class 11 of the CEQA Guidelines and that Commission approve the Final Site Plan. i 11-20-00 Page 4 NOVEMBER 20, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2000-00039 2c. VARIANCE NO. 2000-04416 2d. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16171 OWNER: Anaheim Redevelopment Agency (Attn: Elisa Stipkovich, Executive Director), 201 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 1003, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 604-626 South Lemon Street, 123 and 133 West Stueckle Avenue, 122-142 West Water Street:" Property is 2.4 acres located at the southeast corner of Lemon Street and Water Street. Reclassification No. 2000-00039 - Requests reclassification of subject property from the RM-2400 (Residential, Multiple-Family) and CH (Commercial, Heavy) Zones to the RS-5000 (Residential, Single-Family) Zone. (• Variance No. 2000-04416 - Waiver of (a) minimum number of parking spaces, (b) minimum building site and pad area, (c) maximum lot coverage, (d) minimum building site width and (e) minimum side yard setback, to establish a single-family residential subdivision. Tentative Tract Map No. 16171 - To establish a 9-lot (8 numbered, 1 lettered) single-family residential subdivision. " Originally advertised incorrectly as `Anahe+m Boulevard" and was subsequently readvertised correctly. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. Continued to 12-18-2000 SR1077TW.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is a request for Reclassification No. 2000-00039, Variance No. 2000-04416, Tentative Tract Map No. 16171, for property located at the southeast corner of Lemon Street and Water Street. Brent Schultz, Redevelopment and Housing Development Manager, stated that this is a request from the Anaheim Community Development Department. They are requesting a rezoning of property at the 600 block of South Lemon Street. This is a property that the City purchased approximately a year ago. They are trying to create the lots and then give the ability for a developer to restore the homes to meet the Anaheim Colony Historic District Guidelines. They are excited about the project and hope it will benefit the neighborhood with new housing. • Robert P. Moore, 560 South Lemon Street, Anaheim, stated that he has no objections to the reclassification, however, he has strong objections to the variance regarding parking. The Redevelopment Agency is requesting that the parking requirements be reduced from 2 to 1, which he felt is unacceptable. During the day they have a parking problem on Water Street. Adding 2 parking spaces for each home proposed will add to the existing parking problem. 11-20-00 Page 5 NOVEMBER 20, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . His other concern is the reduction in the site requirements. Across the street from his home it is a very ( small lot which they are proposing to "shoe-horn" those old homes onto. He does not see how they are going to have adequate space between homes and what the homes squeezed onto that lot will look like. There are good reasons for the current setback requirements, lot coverage and lot widths and he does not feel it should be any different for their neighborhood than for other neighborhoods. He asked that those requirements be maintained. ApplicanYs Rebuttal: Brent Schultz explained that regarding Waiver (a), they can place 2 parking spaces on Lots 1 and 3 without having the homes "shoe-horned" in. The homes built in the 1920's are very small in width. The 2 homes on the site are actually 30 to 35 feet in width, which means there will be adequate side yard setbacks that will meet the Code. One of the problems of the project has been the duplex on the property that they are going to be preparing as a"for sale" home which will determine how large those lots will be on either side of it, since there needs to be a 5-foot setback. The middle lot is 54 feet wide, which is not a typical single-family lot and has caused the other lots on the side to be a little smaller. Fortunately, those homes are smaller so they will not need as large of a lot width. There are other lots in the area that are that size. Greg McCafferty advised that the Planning staff is recommending denial of Waiver (a). They checked with the Redevelopment Agency and they agreed with the recommendation. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Koos asked staff to commerat on Mr. Moore's concern regarding the appearance of the proposal and to compare it to a similar project in the City. ~. Brent Schultz gave the example of Atchison Street, from Center Street to Broadway, and the similarity of how those homes are laid out. They are 20 feet in width which is consistent with that neighborhood. Commissioner Bostwick felt that the lots can be made deeper by 5 or 10 feet and avoid the maximum lot coverage Waiver (c). He hoped that they would be willing to make that change in their plans and not simply apply for waivers. They would still have Waiver (b) and (d), not affect the outcome of the lots to the east, and still have plenty of width to build residential lots there as well. Chairperson Koos asked whether the Community Development Department could accomplish that. Brent Schultz felt it would be extremely difficult. They have worked with their historic architect and feel that these are consistent lot sizes. They are trying to design it in compliance with the Anaheim Colony Historic District Guidelines and also make sure that they have sufficient size lots. He also needs to plan for future developments of the other lots that the City owns to ensure that they have a viable lot to develop and build onto. If the alley is pushed back then that lot would potentially be unable to be developed. Chairperson Koos asked whether his reasoning was that they would need to add a public street in the middle of the block. Brent Schultz stated that they might possibly need to add other smail private street to access the lots. If they start reducing lot sizes any more, it will be difficult to build there. Commissioner Boydstun asked how much width is needed for a public street. u 11-20-00 Page 6 NOVEMBER 20, 2000 CI7Y OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Melanie Adams, Associate Engineer, replied that a public residential street would require 60 feet of right- (~ of-way and 20 feet for a public or a private alley. A private street with parking on both sides and private sidewalk on both sides is 45 feet of right-of-way. Commissioner Bostwick emphasized that there are 191 feet and if they were to build 3 lots (3, 50-foot lots) would total 150 feet with 40 feet left over which would not make another lot. However, if they were to move the alley to the east by 10 feet, there would be 181 feet available and they could divide that between the three lots. They are going to actually have 6 lots because there are 3 lots on each street (Water and Stueckle Street). They are going to have 6 developable lots with an alley behind them that would give plenty of square footage and will not need the extra waiver regarding the maximum lot coverage. Brent Schultz stated that he would appreciate if those lots coufd remain as proposed, otherwise it is going to lessen his options in the future. Commissioner Arnold asked Mr. Schultz to explain why he would prefer to keep the lots as proposed. Brent Schultz stated that they reviewed that carefully with their historic consultants and also looked at a number of different options before they submitted their proposal. They need to come up with a design for the vacant lot to ensure that they have an adequate size lot to design homes. There would be 190 feet left from east to west. If one takes away 40 feet from 190 feet there would be 150 feet left on either side. Commissioner Arnold corrected Mr. Schultz that Commissioner Bostwick indicated 10 feet and not 40 feet. Brent Schultz stated if that were taken down to 181 feet and take 40 feet off and that would be 140 feet. • He explained that 40 feet would be to allow for a street to access the lots. He was not certain whether ' they would use that approach. They have not done that analysis yet with the traffic engineer. Although, one approach he has considered is installing a private street running north and south on the lot and access the lots off of that. Every foot that is taken off reduces those lots. Commissioner Arnold asked Mr. Schultz to clarify whether he is asking Commission to approve the Tentative Tract Map and Reclassification without knowing what is going to happen with the streets, traffic, etc. on Lot 2 and 4(east lots). Brent Schultz confirmed that was correct. They are specifically looking at the lots that would be the historic lots along the frontage. Commissioner Arnold indicated that the site plan does not show sidewalks on it, but he assumed they are in agreement with Condition No. 4, which provides that sidewalks will be installed along the frontage of the street. Brent Schultz verified that the developer would include sidewalks and make necessary repairs as directed by the Public Works Department. Commissioner Bristol stated that Mr. Moore testified that there is a parking problem on Water Street. Lorna Moore explained that people park along there during the day in order to catch the bus. They park all along their street, some days are busier than other days. Commissioner Boydstun agreed with Commissioner Bostwick that it should go back 10 feet which would make a major difference. • 11-20-00 Page 7 NOVEMBER 20, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Chairperson Koos stated that in their decision-making process, they are establishing the orientation of the (• lots (widths and lengths), yet Mr. Schultz is pointing to those very dimensions as part of their rationale for justifying waivers. Greg McCafferty stated that the duplex on Lot 2 dictates the lot width and lot area of Lots 1 and 3. After that, every single lot to the south of that on Lemon Street (except for the cut-of~ complies with the width and the lot area the RS-5000 Zone. Essentially, the placement of the duplex effects the lot width on either side of Lot 2. Brent Schultz initially asked the engineer to set the property line at 5 feet from the duplex and Lot 1 at 45 feet. If they were to make Lots 1 and 3 at 45 feet, they can make all the others 50 feet wide. Thus the duplex lot and the other 4 lots would meet the 50 feet width standard, but the other lots would not. Chairperson Koos asked whether they could have only 6 lots fronting Lemon Street, since one of the waivers is for maximum lot coverage. He wondered whether it has been thought out thoroughly, in terms of all of the dimensions. Chairperson Koos indicated that he is having difficulty reconciling the findings that need to be made. Commissioner Arnold stated that the problem is that they cannot grant a variance on the basis of their desired site development plans or on the basis of a self-created hardship or financial hardship. It needs to be something regarding the nature of the property itself. If they are creating the nature of the property itself with the tentative tract map then it is a self-created hardship. Commissioner Bristol asked if this property was at one time zoned single-family then was later upzoned, and now they are asking that it be downzoned again. He asked if that zoning change is the reason for the problem with Lot 1. ~• Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, advised that Reclassification No. 89-90-32 was a downzoning that was done throughout the entire downtown area. That would indicate that it was likely zoned RM- 1200 and brought down to RM-2400 along with the rest of the neighborhood. It was probably not downzoned to single-family because the philosophy of the City at the time was that they were interested in multi-family for the downtown area. His recollection is that this has never been developed with anything and has been vacant and been in one family. It appears to be equivalent to 7%2 lots directly across the street from this. Across the street there are 2 or 3 lots that do not meet the 50-foot dimensions. Brent Schultz stated that the other area where the fots are smaller are located on Zeyn Street, which was part of his justification for these lot widths. Commissioner Arnold asked Mr. Schultz about his statement of being entitled to two waivers and the justifications. Brent Schlutz replied that Commission could consider granting waivers for a project because it is an affordable project. Commissioner Arnold explained that in order for Commission to grant the waivers they would need evidence that it is affordable, but there is nothing before them, other than Mr. Schultz's statement, which suggests that. Selma Mann stated that this was not advertised as affordable housing which would have been of interest to surrounding property owners in determining whether they wish to comment on the project. Brent Schultz explained that it has a disposition agreement that states it will be an affordable project and • the sales prices are set accordingly. He then requested a continuance to have this advertised as an ~ "affordable projecY'. 11-20-00 Page 8 NOVEMBER 20, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~. Commissioner Bostwick asked Mr. Schultz to return with a plan that showed 6 lots along Lemon Street. Also perhaps a possible concept proposal of what will be done with Lot 8. Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion for continuance to December 18, 2000, seconded by Commissioner Arnold, vote taken and motion carried. • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ ~ OPPOSITION: 2 people spoke with concerns. ACTION: Continued subject request to the December 18, 2000 Planning Commission meeting in order to advertise the project as an "affordable project" and for Redevelopment staff to submit a plan showing the 6 lots along Lemon Street and a"possibfe" proposal for lot 8 for Commission's review. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: 40 minutes (1:38-2:18) (. (. 11-20-00 Page 9 NOVEMBER 20, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 3a. CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV.-APPROVED) 3b. VARIANCE NO. 4364 (PREV.-APPROVED) (VAR TRACKING NO. 2000-04418) 3c. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15837 (PREV.-APPROVED) (SUB TRACKING NO. 2000-00001) OWNER: Heath Terrace, A California Limited Partnership, c/o Woodbridge Development, Attn: Jon Head, 27285 Las Ramblas, Suite 230, Mission Viejo, CA 92691-6325 Approved Approved amendment to conditions of approval Approved amendment to conditions of approval AGENT: Hunsaker and Associates, 3 Hughes, Irvine, CA 92618 LOCATION: 195 South Heath Terrace. Property is 7.0 acres located on the south side of Heath Terrace, 331 feet south of the centerline of Rio Grande Drive. Variance No. 4364 (Var Tracking No. 2000-04418) - To amend or delete conditions of approval pertaining to the required minimum number of guest parking spaces, for a previously-approved waiver of minimum private accessway requirements, for a previously-approved 8-lot (6 numbered and 2-lettered) six-unit, single-family residential subdivision. Tentative Tract Map No.15837 - Request to amend or delete conditions of approval for a previously-approved 8-lot (6 numbered and 2-lettered) six-unit, single-family residential subdivision. I. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-128 SR1074TW. DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this item was continued in order to advertise the variance along with the tract map which was accomplished. Staff recommended approval of the amendment to the conditions on both the tract map and variance. The tract map and the conditions will provide 28 parking spaces, but due to Fire Department access concerns those were reduced down to 8 spaces on turn-outs on the private road. In addition to the developer demonstrating that additional parking spaces could be placed within the driveways of each of the respective lots. Based on that and the Fire Department concurring with the revised plans, staff recommended approval and amendment to the condition. Jon Head indicated that he was available to answer any questions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. ' I• OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Determined that the previously-approved Mitigated Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved amendment to the Conditions of approval of Variance No. 4364 (VAR Tracking No. 2000-04418). Amended Resolution No. PC99-124, in its entirety, and replaced it with a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval: 11-20-00 Page 10 NOVEMBER 20, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1. That any tree or other landscaping planted on-site shall be replaced in a . ( timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dead. 2. That landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Zoning Division for review and approval specifying the species, size and location of the proposed landscaping and the proposed irrigation system, in compliance with the approved exhibits. Following approval, the landscaping shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the plan. 3. That gates shall not be installed across any driveway in a manner which may adversely affect vehicular traffic in the nearby public street. Installation of any gates shall conform to Engineering Standard Plan No. 609 and shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic and Transportation Manager prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. That a minimum of three (3) open parking spaces shall be provided for each residential parcel; that the parking surtace for all three (3) spaces shall be paved; and that the dimensions of each space shall comply with Section 18.06.050.011 of the Anaheim Municipal Code (parking for single-family dwellings), including: (a) If any of the open spaces are tandem to the enclosed spaces in the garage and located between a tilt_up garage door and the property line, the minimum dimensions of each of those open space(s) shall be eight (8) feet wide by twenty five (25) feet long. (b) If any of the open spaces are tandem to the enclosed spaces in the garage and located between a roll_up garage door and the property line, the minimum dimensions of each of those open spaces shall be eight (8) feet wide by finrenty . ( (20) feet long. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. 5. That trash storage areas shall be provided and maintained in location(s) acceptable to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division, and in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. Said storage areas shall be designed, located and screened so as not to be readily identifiable from nearby roadways. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. 6. That the mitigation measures identified in Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 109 shall be complied with. 7. That the subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Revision No. 1 of Exhibit No. 1, Exhibit Nos. 2, 3, and Revision No. 1 of Exhibit No 4; and as conditioned herein. 8. That the property owner shall record Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC & R) for this subdivision, including the following: (a) Prohibiting homeowners from parking on the private street; and (b) Providing eight (8) common guest parking spaces, as shown on approved Exhibit No. 4; Revision No. 1, and that a minimum number of parking spaces shall be available on each lot as follows: (r 11-20-00 Page 11 NOVEMBER 20, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (. (c) Requiring that homeowners who invite more guests than can park in the parking spaces designated herein, provide valet parking services; and (d) Installing and maintaining a traffic sign stating the maximum speed limit in this subdivision is fifteen (15) miles per hour; and (e) Specifying that tree clearance on the private accessway (Lot A) shall be maintained at a minimum of fourteen (14) feet above the roadway. (. Prior to recordation of the CC & R's with the Office of the Orange County Recorder, the proposed agreement shall be submitted to the City Attorney for review and approval. A copy of the recorded agreement shall be submitted to the Planning Department. 9. That the final map of Tract Map No. 15837 shall be recorded with the Office of the Orange County Recorder. 10. That prior to the issuance of a building permit or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 9, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 11. That prior to finai zoning and building inspections, Condition No. 7, above- mentioned, shall be complied with. 12. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or ~ndings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. MOTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the request to amend a condition of approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 15837 pertaining to the minimum number of required guest parking spaces based on the revised parking layout plan which provides additional parking spaces on the individual single-family residential lots. Said condition is hereby incorporated into the prior conditions of approval for Tentative Tract No. 15837 as follows: That all residential dwellings shall be assigned street addresses by the Building Division. The street name for the new private street shall be "Heath Terrace." (. ~°C~:,F ~ ~(~~1"`~~;.~ C' ~I~~; , ~~9 , ;~i~~~ 1 3 4 2 3 5 3 3 7 4 3 5 5 3 3 6 3 4 2. That the legal property owner shall furnish a Subdivision Agreement, in a form approved by the City Attorney, to the City of Anaheim agreeing to complete the public improvements required as conditions of the map at the legal property owner's expense. Said agreement shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim and shall then be recorded concurrently with the final tract map. 11-20-00 Page 12 NOVEMBER 20, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3. That Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC & R's) shall be submitted to (~ the Subdivision Section of the Public Works Department and approved by the City Attorney's office. The CC & R's shall include provisions for maintenance of private facilities including compliance with the approved Water Quality Management Plan and maintenance exhibit. The CC & R's shall be recorded concurrently with the final map. 4. That a private access easement shall be reserved on the final parcel map for the benefit of the City of Anaheim for public utilities, ingress and egress of maintenance and emergency vehicles, and for other public purposes throughout the entirety of Parcel A. 5. That street improvement plans shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Development Services Division, for the new private street proposed through this development. The private street shall be constructed in accordance with all applicable City standards, except as waived in connection with Variance No. 4364 (approved concurrently with this tentative tract map) or other subsequent variance. 6. That the developer shall improve the private street access on Heath Terrace from Rio Grande Drive to the proposed development. The private street shall be constructed to standards that are satisfactory to the City Engineer. The maintenance responsibility for the entire length of Heath Terrace from Rio Grande Drive shall be incorporated into the CC & R's of the master association. The CC & R's shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division, for review and approval of language pertaining to the release of liability for trash service. (. 7. That the developer shall submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) specifically identifying best management practices that will be used on-site to control predictable pollutants from storm water runoff. The WQMP shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Development Services Division, for review and approval. The approved WQMP shall be incorporated into the CC & R's of the master association. 8. That the legal owner of this property shall irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of Anaheim (Water Engineering Division) an easement twenty (20) feet in width for water service mains and/or and easement for large meters or firelines. 9. That any required relocation of City electrical facilities shall be at the developer's expense. 10. That this property shall be served by underground utilities in accordance with the Electrical Rates, Rules, and Regulations (the most current fees shall apply) and the City of Anaheim Underground Policy. 11. That the legal owner of this property shall provide the City of Anaheim with a pubfic utilities easement to be determined as the electrical design is completed. Said easement shall be submitted to the City of Anaheim prior to issuance of building permits. 12. That the mitigation measures identified in Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 109 shall be complied with. (. 11-20-00 Page 13 NOVEMBER 20, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 13. That a final map to record the subdivision of subject property shall be (. submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim, and shall then be recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder. 14. That the City of Anaheim park and recreation in-lieu fee shall be paid. 15. That the property owner shall include requirements in the CC & R's to the satisfaction of the Planning Department and City Attorney's office to prohibit the removal or disturbance of existing Coastal Sage Scrub. 16. That the property owner shall record CC & R's for this subdivision, including the following: (a) Prohibiting homeowners from parking on the private street; and (b) Providing eight (8) common guest parking spaces, as shown on approved Exhibit No. 4; Revision No. 1, and that a minimum number of parking spaces shall be available on each lot as follows: (c) Requiring that homeowners who invite more guests than can park in the (, parking spaces designated herein, provide valet parking services; and (d) Installing and maintaining a traffic sign stating the maximum speed limit in this subdivision is fifteen (15) miles per hour; and (e) Specifying that tree clearance on the private accessway (Lot A) shall be maintained at a minimum of fourteen (14) feet above the roadway. Prior to recordation of the CC & R's with the O~ce of the Orange County Recorder, the proposed agreement shall be submitted to the City Attorney for review and approval. A copy of the recorded agreement shall be submitted to the Planning Department. 17. That prior to final map approval, Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 14, 15 and 16, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. 18. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights for Variance No. 4364 and the 10-day appeal rights for Tentative Tract Map No. 15837. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 minute (2:19-2:20) (. 11-20-00 Page 14 NOVEMBER 20, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 4b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 4c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04272 Continued to 12-4-2000 OWNER: Ellas Properties, Attn: Don Bering, 5395 East La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92807 Canyon Commercial Center, Attn: Mark Poochigian, 5000 Birch Street, #510 East Tower, Newport Beach, CA 92660 LOCATION: Portion A: 5375 East La Palma Avenue. Property is 1.1 acre located at the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Brasher Street. Portion B: 5395 East La Palma Avenue and 1370- 1400 North Brasher Street. Property is 5.02 acres located at the northeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Brasher Street. Portion C: 5401 East La Palma Avenue * Property is 12.2 acres located on the north side of La Palma Avenue, 270 feet east of the centerline of Brasher Street. (. To permit an expansion to an existing automotive dealership facility with waiver of (a) maximum number of monument signs, (b) minimum distance between monument signs, (c) maximum floor area ratio and (d) permitted encroachments into required yards. Continued from the Commission meeting of October 23, and November 6, 2000. * Originally advertised as 5401, 5403 and 5405 East La Palma Avenue. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR7774KB.DOC Commissioner Napoles offered a motion for continuance to December 4, 2000, seconded by Commissioner Bristol, vote taken and motion carried. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the December 4, 2000 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow the petitioner additional time to finalize outstanding leasing issues. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. (. 11-20-00 Page 15 NOVEMBER 20, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (. 5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 5b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2973 (CUP TRACKING NO. 2000-04270) Continued to 12-4-2000 OWNER: Thrifty Oil Company, 13539 Foster Road, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90650 AGENT: The Regents Group, Attn: David Rose, 420 McKinley Street, Suite 111, Corona, CA 92879 LOCATION: 304 South Maqnolia Avenue. Property is 0.52 acres located at the southeast corner of Broadway and Magnolia Avenue (Arco Gasoline Service Station and Food Store). To amend or delete a condition of approval pertaining to the license for the retail sale of beer and wine for off-premises consumption for a previously-approved service station with a convenience market. Continued from the Commission meetings of October 23, and November 6, 2000. (. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Commissioner Bosfinrick offered a motion for continuance to December 4, 2000, seconded by Commissioner Bristol, vote taken and motion carried. SR7855KP. DOC FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the December 4, 2000 Planning Commission meeting as requested by the petitioner. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. (. 11-20-00 Page 16 NOVEMBER 20, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (. 6a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 3 6b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 6c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04259 Denied Granted, in part OWNER: Robert A. Little and Mary Ellen Mahan, 1590 West Flippen Way, Anaheim, CA 92802 AGENT: Wendy Calhoun, 23120 Lyons Avenue #462, Santa Clarita, CA 91321 LOCATION: 1590 West Flippen Way• Property is 0.33 acre located on the south side of Flippen Way, 269 feet west of the centerline of Flippen Drive. To permit a granny unit in conjunction with an existing single-family residence with waiver of minimum rear yard setback (waiver deleted). Continued from the Commission meeting of October 9, 2000. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-129 ~~ SR7$31VN.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is a continued item for request of a granny unit. Since the last meeting the unit size was reduced to 708 square feet, and from 3 bedrooms to 2 bedrooms. Staff provided a comparison of State law requirements with the petitian before Commission. (. Staff recommended approval of the granny unit. Susan Amroyan, from Clarban Homes, representing the applicant/owner. Since the last meeting they have reduced the size of the proposed granny unit from 994 square feet to 708 square feet. Bedrooms were reduced from 3 to 2. The owner would like her mother to live on the property in order to be closer to her. The owner has compiled a convenent agreement stating that they will not be using this unit as a rental and that it will strictly be used as a granny unit. The second bedroom will be used as a craft room or a bedroom for one of the daughters to visit her mother. Public Testimony: James Murphy, 1887 Eileen Drive, Anaheim, stated he lives north of subject property. His concern is what will happen to this property in the future. A commercial area, Garden Grove, and a drainage ditch surround the area. Due to the expansion of Disneyland there will be a need for low-income housing in the area. He felt that there would be a precedent set if this proposal were approved. If approved there should be conditions attached to this proposal. Condition No. 1 should state that a relative to the owner must occupy the unit. He wondered if the present owner should sell the house would the person living there need to vacate. Condition No. 2. He asked if the person living in the back should wish to buy the property, can they do so and continue to live in the unit. The front home is not dealt with and it is then the property owner's prerogative to rent the main house out. His concerns have more to do with the stringent conditions that would preclude that any part of the property from ever becoming a renta{ unit. '. Frank Haselton, 1881 South Eileen Drive, Anaheim, stated he lives next door to Mr. Murphy and four homes north of subject property. He submitted a letter dated November 13, 2000, which outlines his 11-20-00 Page 17 NOVEMBER 20, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . concerns. This is a very close neighborhood. He is concerned that approval of this proposal would set ~ precedent, which would have a negative impact to their neighborhood. He appreciates the applicant reducing the proposal, but still wonders why an elderly woman needs a 2 bedroom/ 2 bathroom, 708 square-foot unit. He does not know how Condition Nos. 1 and 2 are going to be enforced and is concerned that the enforcement will be the responsibility of the neighborhood. He indicated that the City does not have to approve a detached unit, that is not the way the State government code is written. They have to approve a granny flat and have the option between the attached and detached unit. He suggested adding on to the home instead to accommodate the elderly relative that way. If an occupancy change occurs in either the primary or secondary unit, the secondary unit would have no more use, according to their intent, and should then be removed. Richard Inskeep, 1893 South Eileen, Anaheim, addressed page 6 of the staff report under Recommendation (ii), which indicates that the unit will not be visible to adjacent resident and would be confined to the rear portion of the yard. However, according to the map it appears it will be located to the side portion of the yard which is visible from the street. ApplicanYs Rebuttal: Susan Amroyan, responded that the covenant goes with the property. Whoever purchases it wil! have a record stating that this is for an elderly person over the age of 62. The owner has a home based business in her home and if the elderly woman is no longer living, she intends to use it as an office. The owners want to keep the unit within the family and not have other people living on the property with them. The unit will be located 11 feet from the flood channel, which is to one side of the residence and is not • completely visible. I THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Arnold indicated he would be proposing a condition that requires the legal owner of the property to submit annually a signed affidavit that the owner and any occupant is in compliance with all the conditions including occupancy. That affidavit would be submitted to the Zoning Division. It is clear that Code Enforcement is aware of these issues and will be attentive to them. The staff report does a good job but the discretion that the City has on this matter is somewhat limited given the State statute. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated at the morning session there was discussion about the need to address this type of proposal in the future since there will probably be more of these types of projects proposed. I~ was felt that they needed to review the issue comprehensively. His tendency is to wait until they are able to discuss the topic in depth and come up with a proposed ordinance that addresses these types of developments. The neighbors' concerns of preserving the character of the neighborhood are an important consideration. He felt that a separate structure does not guarantee a change of character from single-family homes to multiple-family. Commissioner Arnold stated that Commissioner Vanderbilt makes excellent points about the need to review.at this comprehensively. Unfortunately, this is a situation where there is a proposal before Commission with the rules in place at the time of the proposal. It is unfortunate that they have not moved more proactively as a City to adopt standards. The City's position has been that the State standards are what control and therefore, it would be unfair to the applicant to hold off until they adopt standards. It is important to assure residents that Commission does want to move forward proactively and develop very clear standards regarding this issue as far as the State statute will allow them to go. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked Commissioner Arnold if it is his feeling that because the State would • allow such a development that the Commission should approve it even though there is a CUP process that has discretion. 11-20-00 Page 18 NOVEMBER 20, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (. Commissioner Arnold explained that his understanding of the State statute is that this becomes the default standard under which they have to evaluate these issues unless they adopt their own standards. They only have certain limited discretion even in adopting their own standards. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, agreed. There is a specific provision in State statute (Planning and Zoning Law, Chapter 4) that addresses the timing of approval or disapproval (Section 65852.2, Subsection (b). There is a 120-day limitation on making a decision after an application is received. She did not feel it would be appropriate to hold up the process, and in addition there would be some issues regarding the "Permit Streamlining Act" that may come into play. Chairperson Koos asked Ms. Mann if she was asserting that there are no grounds to deny this project. If so, this would not be discretionary. Selma Mann replied that there would be greater discretion had the Cify adopted its own ordinance, but absent the City's adopting its own ordinance and having it default to the State standards then there is very limited discretion. Commissioner Bostwick read, "The legislative body of any City or County shall not enact an ordinance which has the affect of prohibiting or of unreasonably resfricting the use." Commissioner Bristol stated that he understood Mr. Murphy and Mr. Haselton's concerns because Commission also expressed those concerns at their morning session. This is a use that will probably become more prevalent in Anaheim as time goes on. He assured residents present that Commission is going to take a proactive look at this use throughout the City and ensure that the use is not rented in the way the neighbors expressed their concerns. • Chairperson Koos was not comfortable that what is being proposed is enforceable. Asked Mr. Little, the owner, why not simply add on to the house as suggested by one of his neighbors. Robert Little replied that the house has already been added on to. The way it is laid out now would be very inconvenient and he would prefer not to be living under the same roof as his mother-in-law. Commissioner Arnold suggested that one of the things that the City can do in developing the computerized system of tracking CUP's is that they could adopt some mechanism for tracking these type of uses in the future and whether or not the signed affidavits are filed. Selma Mann made a correction regarding her previous comment regarding 120 days. It is applicable only to the first application that the City receives and not to the subsequent ones. However, there are some constraints in view of the fact that this is a Categorica! Exemption with regard to the Permit Streamlining Act. The "shall" that she discussed was in the Section 65852.2 (b) that states "not withstanding Section 65901 every local agency shall grant a special use or a conditional use permit for the creation of a second unit if the second unit complies with all of the following" and those findings are listed in paragraph 20, page 3 of the staff report. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated that in light of the legal opinion he felt obligated to act despite his previous concerns and would, therefore, vote in favor of proposal. Chairperson Koos indicated he is also voting in favor of the proposal even though he does not like the affect it may have on the integrity of the single-family neighborhood. It is unfortunate that it is one of those issues that has "slipped through the cracks" in terms of how to judge projects such as this one. Commissioner Bristol disagreed. If he were not comfortable with this proposal and thought it would impact the neighborhood then he would not vote for it. However, he felt that the applicant has revised • their proposal and addressed Commission's concerns and complies with the State statutes. 11-20-00 Page 19 NOVEMBER 20, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . Commissioner Bostwick stated that it is true that there is going to be much pressure on this neighborhood ( as the need for housing increases in the City. He is surprised that there are not currently more rental units and felt that the impact of rental units is much more devastating then having a granny unit. He commended the neighbors for maintaining the neighborhood to this point. • • ~- • • • ~ OPPOSITION: 3 people spoke with concerns ACTION: Concurred with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 3, as defined in the State EIR Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare an EIR. Denied Waiver of Code Requirement on the basis that the requested waiver was deleted following public notification. Granted, in part, Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04259 wifh the following added condition: That within a period of one year from the date of this resolution, and annually on the anniversary date thereafter, the legal owner of subject property shall submit a signed affidavit that the owner and any occupant is in compliance with all conditions of the conditional use permit including those concerning occupancy. The affidavit shall be submitted to the Zoning Division of the Planning Department. VOTE: 7-0 • Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. I DISCUSSION TIME: 35 minutes (2:21-2:56) ~ 11-20-00 Page 20 NOVEMBER 20, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~J 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 7b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4069 (CUP TRACKING NO. 2000-04275) OWNER: Khoda B. Ostowari, 6263 East Twin Peak Circle, Anaheim, CA 92807 Request for amendment to the conditions of approval was withdrawn LOCATION: 805 South Harbor Boulevard and 510 West South Street. Property is 0.8 acre located at the southwest corner of South Street and Harbor Boulevard. Request to amend or delete a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation to obtain an ABC license for the sale of beer and wine for off- premises consumption in conjunction with a previously-approved service station with a convenience market and car wash. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR2043DS. DOC Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion for withdrawal, seconded by Commissioner Napoles, vote taken and motion carried. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. (. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: MOTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby accept the request to withdraw the request to amend or delete a condition of approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 4069 pertaining to a time limitation to obtain an ABC license for the sale of beer and wine for off-premises consumption in conjunction with a previously-approved service station with a convenience market and car wash. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: 1 minute (1:36-1:37) I~ 11-20-00 Page 21 NOVEMBER 20, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 8a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION ~8b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2000-00382 8c. RECLASStFICATION NO. 77-78-64 (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) (RCL Tracking No. 2000-00034) 8d. SYCAMORE CANYON SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 88-1 (AMENDMENT NO. 3) 8e. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF ITEM 8c OWNER: City-initiated (Planning Department), 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: Portion A: Currently designated as a Branch Library site. Property is 2.27 acres located at the northwesterly corner of Bauer Road and Monte Vista Road. Portion B: 8186 South Dream Street. Property is 1.87 acres located at the southern terminus of Dream Street, 344 feet south of the centerline of Monte Vista Road. Currently designated as a Police Sub-station site. Portion C: 8155 East Santa Ana Canyon Road. Property is 0.52 acre located on the south side of the Riverside (SR-91) Freeway, 790 feet west of the centerline of Roosevelt Road. Currently designated for an Electrical Sub-station site. Portion D: 8165-8195 East Santa Ana Canvon Road. Property is 6.0 acres located on the north side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, 50 feet west of the centerline of Roosevelt Road. Currently used as a Police Sub-station and the location for the proposed future Regional Library site. General Plan Amendment No. 2000-00382: To amend portions of the Anaheim General Plan Land Use Element Map in order to relocate the Library and Utility sites (from Weir Canyon Road south of Santa Ana Canyon Road to Santa Ana Canyon Road west of Weir Canyon Road) and the Police Sub-station site (from Dream Street south of Monte Vista Road to Santa Ana Canyon Road west of Weir Canyon Road); and redesignate the current Police Sub-station site to the Open Space land use designation. Reclassification No. 77-78-64 (Previously-Approved) (RCL Tracking No. 2000- 00034): To amend the Planned Community (Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone and Exhibit No. 1 to delete the Branch Library site and designate this area for single- family detached residences in order to allow the reclassification of Portion A (Branch Library Site) from the RS-A-43,000(SC} (Residential/Agriculturai; Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone to the RS-5000(SC) (Residential, Single-Family; Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone or less intense zone. Sycamore Canyon Specific Plan No. 88-1, Amendment No. 3: To amend Exhibit Nos. 4 and 12, and to amend the Public Facilities Plan (including Exhibit No. 6) to allow for the removal of the Police Sub-station site designation described as Portion B and redesignate the area as Open Space within the Sycamore Canyon Specific Plan No. 88-1. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-130 RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-131 Approved Rec. adopt. of Exh. A to City Council Approved amendment, unconditionally Rec. Approval to City Council Approved SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLU710N NO. PC2000-132 II SR7773KB.DOC 11-20-00 Page 22 NOVEMBER 20, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES f. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is a City-initiated request with several actions. One is a recommendation for approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2000-00382 (Exhibit A), approval of amendment to Reclassification No. 77-78-64, approval of Amendment No. 3 to the Sycamore Canyon Specific Plan No. 88-1, and also request that Commission recommend that City Council review Item 8c. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Greg McCafferty stated a correction to the staff report on page 1, Portion A, the last sentence should read, (currently designed as a Branch Library site ^^ +"~ ~n~+hoim P`_cncr~+l o~.,~ currently designed as a branch library site on Exhibit No. 1 of the Baurer Ranch PC(SC) (Planned Community Corridor Overlay Zone). • • • •- • • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Recommended adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 2000-00382 (Exhibit A) to City Council. Approved Reclassification No. 77-78-64 (as readvertised) (RCL Tracking No. 2000-00034), unconditionally. Recommended to City Council the approval of Amendment No. 3 to Sycamore ~• Canyon Specific Plan No. 88-1. MOTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Chairman Koos and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Reclassification No. 77-78-64 (RCL Tracking No. 2000-00034) be reviewed by the Council in conjunction with the Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment No. 2000-00382 and Sycamore Canyon Specific Pian No. 88-1, Amendment No. 3. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated this item will be set for a public hearing before the City Council at an undetermined future date. DISCUSSION TIME: 3 minutes (2:57-3:00) ~ 11-20-00 Page 23 NOVEMBER 20, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (! (. ~ THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 3:05 P.M. TO MONDAY, DECEMBER 4, 2000 AT 10:30 A.M. FOR NODES (EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURES) WORKSHOP Respectfully submitted: O•~ Ossie Edmundson Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on ?~- 1~-~ c~ 11-20-00 Page 24