The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1981/08/24„ 5 ~ Clvic Center A~ahetm, C~llfarnla August 24, 1981 REGUTAR MEETING OF THE ANANEIM CITY PLANNINC COMMISSION aEGULAR Thn regula~ meeting of the M ehelm City Planni~c~ Commissi~n !1EETINf we~ called to order by thalrmsn Pro Tempore Fry at 10:0y a.m~, August 24~ 1981~ in the Counc~l Cha~nber~ a quorum betng present. The Commission brlefly r~viewed plans af items on today's agende. Recess: 11:OJ a.m, Reconvene: 1:3A p.m, far publlc testtmony. PRESENT Chalrman Pro Tempore Fry Commissloners: de~nes~ 6ouas, Herbst~ King~ To1ar A9SENT Comr~isstoner; 6usho~e ALSO PRESENT Anntka Sentalahti Jack White Jay Titus Paul Stnger Dean Sherer Edtth Harrfs Assistant DI rectc*r for T.oni~g Assistdnt City Attorney Office Engineer Traffic Englnc~r Aasistant Pl~+nner Planning Commission Secretary PIEUGE OF ALLECIANCE 70 TNE FIAG LED BY - peen Sherer~ Assistant Planner. p~, CONTINUED ITEMS: `'' ~ ITEM NQ._9: EIR NErATIVE DECLARATION. TENTA7!vE MAP OF TRACT NO. 11600 AND R_EQUEST FOR APPROVAL FOR REMQVAI OF SPECIMEN TREES: ~- ~- ~~; PUEiLIC NEARiNG. ONNER: CASTILLE 9UILDERS, LTO.~ 1~69 East Lincoln Avenue, Orange~ r;~. CA 92665. AGENT: JACK P. NORRIS~ R.C.E.. 160 South Centennia) 41ay, Sulte 3- Tustin, ~~+# CA 92680 and KEETON K. KREITZER~ THE PLANNING CENTER~ 240 Newport Center Drive. Suite 215. Newport Beach, CA 92660. Pr~perty descrtbed as an lrregularly-shaped -'~~;~, parcel of land consisting of epp~oximataly ~.3 acres. located on the east side of -- Henntng 41ay, approximatety 1100 feet south of Arboretum Ro~d. Property presently - classified RS-HS•22~OQ0(SC) (RESIDENTIAL~ SINGLE-FAMILY ~~ILLSIDE SCENIC CORRIDOR OVERLAY) tONE. TEt~TATIVE TRACT REQUEST: TO ESTABLi5h1 A 13-LOT. RS-HS-22,000(SC) ZONED SUBDIVISION. It was noted the City Attorney's Office ha: requested that this Iten: be continued to the regularly-sehaduled n~etiru~ of Sepeemb~r 9. 1.981. ACTIOt~s CarMni~ston~r King offered a motton, seconded by Commtssion~er Bouas snd MOTION CARRIED (Chalrmsn Buahora being absent)~ that the Anahalm City Planning Commtsaton doea he~eby grant a two-woak continuance of the above-mentioned item to the regulerly•scheduted m~eting of September 9~ tq81~ et the request of tha City Attorney's Office. ; s~~s~~ 8/~b/81 ,, ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINC COMMISSIQN~ AUGUST 2~~ 19$1 81-508 ITEM N0, 11: ~!R_NEGATIVE OECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PE~MIT N0. 2252: PUbLIC HEARING. OWNER: CARL H. AND JUDY A. BURRIS~ 3g aocking Ilorse Road~ Rancho Palos Verdes. CA 9~2~4. ACENTs MONTE SiLVEaBERC~ 303y La Mess Avenue~ Anaheim~ CA 92~A6 and LAW OFFICES OF FLOYD L. FARANO~ 2SS5 East Chepman Avenue, Sulta 415~ Fullerton~ CA 92631. ATTENTION: CIIARLES M. FARANO. Property described as a rectangulerly-sheped pa~cel of land consistiny of ap~roximetely 1.47 a~res~ 3035 ~a Mesa Avenue (NEw YORK CARPETS)~ Pro~~rty presently clessifted ML (INDUSTRIAL~ LINITEU) 20NE. CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST: TO RETAIN RETAIL CARPET !~ALES FACILITY IN TNE ML ZONE. It waa noted the petittoner has requested a four-w~eek continuance to the meeting of Septembtr 21~ 1981. ACTION: Commissfoner King offered e mrtlon~ seconded by Commissloner Bouas and M ON CARRIED (Chelrman E3ushore being abse~t)~ that the Anehelm City Planntng Commisslon cloes hereby grant a four-week continuance of tha above-menttoned matter to the regularly-SCheduled meeting of September 21~ 1981~ et the request of ~he patltioner. ITEM N0. 1: EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION RECLASSIFICATIO~~ N0. 8~•81-~G AtIQ CONDITIOMAL l. E C~I I i20. : PUEiLIC NEARtNf,. OUNER: ANTNONY AND LEA GOUVEIA~ ~37 South Beach Boulevard~ Anaheim~ CA 92804. AGENT: LA CRESTA DUILOERS~ JIM FREOINIiURG~ 6322 Cl~ircmont Mesa fioulevarcl~ San Qiego~ CA 92111. Property described as a rectengularly-shaped percel of land conststiny of approxtmstely 0.75 acre~ ~37 South Beach Boulevard. RECI.ASSIFICAT101~ REQUEST: RS-A-43,000 TO Cl. CONOITIONAL USE REQU~ST: TQ PERM17 A 45-UNIT NOTEL. SubJect petitian was conttnued from the meettngs of July 13. 1931. and August 10, 1g81~ at the request af tl~e petittoner. There were app~oxtmately six persons Indicattng thatr presence tn opposition to subJect request~ ar.d althouyh the staff report was not read, it is referred to and medc a pprt of the minut~s, Pote Caatro~ 234~ RaEltng p~ive~ San ptego. representing La Cresta ~uilders~ ex~+lained the revised plens include a 20-foot wlde setback to the pool~ wlth the pool ope~ating hours to be B:OQ s.m. to g:00 p.m., and a six•foot high fence on the west property line wlth no windc~s facing the ad,jacent residences. Steve idozny~ 818 So~~th Naywa~d. referred to petitior-s and letters previously submitted regarciing the property st 831 South Beach Boulevard ~nd noted since t~~ese 8/24/81 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PIANNIkG COMMISStON~ AUGUST 2~~~ 1~81 81-5og requosts are simliar~ ha did not thlnk it nec~s~ary to reed those lette~s and petttlons ag~in and ~oted the petitiens prntesting the construction of the mc~te) wer~ signed by ev~ ryone In tha nefghborhood directly behind subJect property, brt since that proJe~t wss approved~ they wouid make those same obJectiona. Ila also referred to a previ~,•~ly submitted letter from Mr. and Mrs. N~tson~ ~32 South Hayward~ regerdi ng t~.~~ number of bury i ar i ea 1 n tlie ar~ A. Ha s tated he has te I ked wl th the neighbors directly behind the proJect and they ell find these plans~ as submttted~ totally unecceptable. He pointed out their ohJections an the plans end expleined they can haar the hoise from another motei in the area at a11 hours of the ntght and day anJ suygested the swimming pool bA nwved to the ~ASt side ~f th~ praperty. He suygested the storage aree snd wasliroom be relc~cated behind the trash disposa) area. He also suggestad that the two west end units be turneJ to face th~ center of the p~oject with no windows pe rn-itted to the west. He su~,~gest~d the parking that would be lost cauld be placed ln the 20-foc~t are~ wh~re the pool Is currently show~ ,;nd that a F~-foot hlyh chain Iink fence completely enclase the perking erea similar to the prevlously approved proJect. Mr. Csstro resspondcd that tl~e trASh ~nclosurc cannot be moved. TNE PUE3LIC NEARING 41A5 CLOSfO. Commtssioner Herbst stated he felt Mr. Woz~Y's suc~gesttons are good and agreed the swt:~ning pool should be moved end thought tt might even be more convenient tf tt were moved and thet area used for parking and then the pool hours would not hAVe ta be as c~ntro~led. Ne referred to the previous plans for a sln~il~r motel end agreed that a 6-foat high chain 1{nk fence would help allevtate che c~ime probiem, It was nofed tF~e current plans da not show wlndoas facing west a~d Commisstoner Bouas clarlfled that she thouyht the opposltton was dlscussing the windows of the two e~d units if they arP turned. Commissioner ~arnes er,platned Mr. Wozny had s~~ggested those two end units be turned to provide more privecy in hts y++rd and ha~1 indicated he would not have arsy obJetti~n to parking in that area. She :;tated she felt the Commission ts (n egreement with the suggestions ancl esked Mr. ~astro 1t he would likc a continuance )n order to rsvtse the plans to relocate the swimming pool and storage a~d laundry rc~om ta the front of the p~operty. noting there would probably be a savings by putting the plumbinc~ togetl~e~. She noted the plans woutd have to be submitted bv Friday of this weck in order for the matter to be heard In tao weeks. Commissioner King asked if the revisad plans should {nclude turning those two units and Ganmissloner Barnes agreed (t would be better if thet could he done. Commissioner Ne!rbst suygested the property owners be given ms much protectlon as posstble and felt it would Just be a matter of rearronging the proJect. Mr. Castro aaked for a tko-week continuance. 8/24181 MINUTES~ AN~HEIM CITY PLANNiNG COMMISSION~ AUGUST 24~ 1981 ~1~510 ACTION: Commissloner 8arnes offered a motion~ seconded by Commi~sloner Nerbst and M ON CAR~IEO (Che~rman ~uahore belnq absont)~ that consideretion of the ~forementloned matter be amtinued to the reguleriy-scheduled meettng of September 9~ 1981~ In ordar that the patitione~ may submtt revised plans. Mr. wozny atated the two uhtts could be eilminated entirely and pointcd out the previous motel had requested ~3 units~ and only 41 units were app~ovnd. Ne stated if the two unlts csnnot be turned, then the 62-foot ~etbsck should be matnteined because of its praxtmity to thelr backya~ds. Jack White~ Assistont Clty ~ttorney~ explalned there will b~ no new noticQS of this conttnued hearing. ITE_ Mi NO_ 2: EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATtON ANO VARIA~~CE N0. 3ZZ3 (REAOVERTISEO): PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: SHIRISIi H. PATEL~ ET AL. 1F~4 South Harbor t3oulevard~ Anahelm~ CA 92802. IIGENT: VAN DORPf. G ASSOCIA7ES~ la~~ Orangewaocf 4venue~ 1-1(17~ Orange~ CA 92F,6Q. Property described as e rectangulariy-shepad percel of land consisting af approximatety 1.21~ acres~ 1C0~+ South Ilarbor Boulevard (Marco Polo Motel). Praperty presently claasifled RS-A-~~3~OQ0 (aESI0ENTIALlAGRICULTUaAI) ZONE with a Resalutian af Intent to CR ~COMbERCIAL•RECREATION) ZOI~E. VARIANC~ REQUEST; 41AIVERS OF: (a) MIt11MUM NUMBER OF PARKIN~ SPACES, (b) MAXIMUM NUMBER OF FREESTANDING SIGNS, (c) PEiWITTED LOCATION OF FP.EESTANDING SIrNS ANO (d) MINIMUM DISTANCE BET~EN FREEST~INOINC SIG~lS. SubJeGt petition was continued from the Meeting of August 10, tqt~l, to perm(t readvertising for signs, There was no one indicating thei~ presence tn opposltlon to subject request~ and atthough the staff report was not read, it ts referrc~ to and made a pa~t of the minutes. Oan Van Do~pe~ 863 SoUth Jaspor Clrcie. Anaheim. representing Yan Dorpr. and Assotiates~ exrleined both a+ners of the rnr~tel are present. IIe stated the plan is to add l~+ edditional roams to the existinc~ ~+~-room motel; that the occupancy of the motel at the present ttme is ebaut b0 to 7~$ d~ring the Freavlest tlme of the year. He passed out statistits for the month of June, showing the occupancy and registretton. He stated with 62$ occupancy~ only 41~ of the parking is used and if the occupancy went up ta 100$~ only 36 parkinq spaces would be needed. Ne explained the reason they are asking for the watver is because this parttcular motel backs up to the GrAnd Note) which hrs airport bus service and this mc~tel has dlrect access to that hotel end there is a larg~ number of overseas cltentele. Mr. Van Uorpe Ytated thc~ other request pertalns to the sign an~l there la en existing sign wl~ich is actuaily on the Denny's property because this motel has no frontage an Harbor Eb ulevard. h~e explained thesy heve a 20-foot wide edsement across Denny's 8/24/81 HINUT'ES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ AUGUST 24~ 1981 81~5~1 proparty end there (s an extsting Identificatlon sign fo~ both Denny'~ end the motel. lie explalnad a lot of people miss the drtveway; that there we~ a sign at thls l~c~tio~ attached to the extstl~c~ fence~ but tha ?.oninq Enforcement Officer requlred that it bo rnmovod and they would Iike ta ~eplace thet sign; and thAt staff hAs sugyested since ~hay w~nt ta move tho slgn. thet it be 10 feet hlqh, but th~y would rather h~ve tt 12 ta 15 feet from the sidewalk end kaep it low to the ground because ~eople looktng f~r a drtvew+~y are looking et ~Idewalk level. Ne explelned the owners intend to Improve the front of the matel and have prepared lendscaptng and modlFied pl+~ns to Improve the appearance of the mr~tel~ but th~t Is not part of this spplicattan. THE PUOLI C NEARI NG WAS CLOSED. Commissione~ Herbst esked why eddltio~al rooms ere needed wlth only G2$ occupsncy. Ne noted the Planniny Commisston haa epproved parking variences at G7$ of code requtrement for ott~er matels and this requast ts for ~5$ end he feit that would be tuo law and would aiso set a precedent. Roger Petel stated the seattstlcs w~re based on averages and with the average occupancy, there would only be need for ~~i~ of the parktng requi~em~ent. Commisalo~er Herbst esked whare the cars would park if the accupency reacltied 10A$ a~d Mr. Pate' replied they would have to take people without c~rs~ end stAted most itkely the meximum they would reaci~ wr~uld be 8c1$ and that 1-e has n~ver reached 100~ for a period of days. Commisslonrr Herbst asked again why they want to add ma~e ruans wlr.h that occupancy rate Afld M!. Patel replted they want more rooms because they do hit SOZ occupancy and also the addition would add to the value of the property and they want to plan for future growth. Mr. U~n Dorpe stated he belteved the unique feature of thls motel Is the bus transportatlon directly to the ai~port and that these owners would like to grow by bringtng people in frar. out of the country end Commissioner Nerbst stated that ~s the sartie argument used by other motels ln the area. Mr. Van Dorpe replied this Is a comme~ctal bus line witli regulariy-operated and scheduled sto~s and stops o~ly at the Disneyland and Grend Hotels and this motel ts the ~nly motel with that access. Replying to Commissioner Barnes's questton~ Dean She~er~ Assistant Planner. explained typicaliy most moteis have been granted 6y$ parking varia~c~s. Commissioner Barnes stated uaing that G7~ figure~ this matei would need 37 spaces and askecl if the developer had studied the plans to provlde thos~ 37 spaces. Mr. Van Oorpe stated they could look at ~evised plAns~ but for eve ry parking space they provide~ they tose Mo ~ooms. beceuse this is r two•sto ry structure and bec.ause of the cksign of the motel. Fie explained the plans are for an Ei-room addition on the end of the building and the other rooms are Just filting In spece~ and the 8-room 8/24/81 MINUTES~ ANAI~EIM CITY PLANNtNG COMMISSOON~ AUGUST 2-~~ 1~81 $1-512 eddition would have to be cut back to ~ or less; however~ they f~it this (s the pl~n they went to request snd if the Commisslon granted 67$ rather than 55$~ then they would cvmply; hawever~ he felt they have a special circumstance beceusa of the eccess to the bus service. Wmmisaloner Tolar stated he dtd not heve sny objectlon to the sign beceuse of the unique ecceas to th~ pro~erty with the 20-foot easemant~ but agreed wtth Comm~ssloner I~erbst that he could not support the p~rking variance for more then 67$ as prevtously approved because the Commisstun haa felt that Is a reasonable and Justifirble variance because of the trensportatlon with buses~ atrplanes~ taxis~ etc. Ne steted the Commtssion cen approve tha projcct If the petitloner wilt stipulata to provide 3~ parktng spaces or they csn ask for a continuance to submit revtsed plans. Mr. Ven Dorpe repited they ~~.~ld stipulete to provid~ the 37 spaces. Commisslo~er Barnas aaked if th• siyn will be a dtrectto~al monumental sign and Commfssloner Fry as~ed tno helght of the stgn from the ground and Mr. Van Dorpe replte~ they would ltke the stgn to be ahout h inches from the ground. ~ea~ Sherer explained this stgn proposal is a ilttle diffcrent than ~.he proposal before the Commissi~n; however~ no additfone) varlances wauld be re:~u~rad~ but he would suggest If the styn Is approved~ tt b~ sub}ect to the 7reffic Engineer's approvA) becfluse there are certaln distAnce r~qulrements from intersect~ons, drivewbys, etc.~ so that the sign ~oes not obstruct trafflc vlsibility, Mr. Van Dor~e polnted out the sign is 11 square feet rnther then ~0 s~uere feet as previously requested. ACTIO!~: Comm(ssionet Tolar offered a motion, seconciecl by Cormnissioner King end ~MOTION CARRIED (Chalrman Bushore being absent)~ chat the A~aheim City Planniny Commisston has revlewed the proposal to expand an existtng m~te) wlth watvers of mtntmum nunb er of parking spaccs~ maximum number of freestanding signs~ pe nnitted locatian of freestandtng signs and rr,l~tmum distance between freestandtng signs on a rectangularly-shaped parcel cf land consisting of app~oxfmt+tely 1.2b acres, having a frontage of 90 fcet on the east side of tlarbor Boulevard (1604 Sa~~th Harbor Boulevard - Marco Polo Motel); and does hereby epp~ove the Negatfve Declaration fram the ~equlrement to prepare an en~;ironmenta) Impact report on the basis that there would be no slgnificanL tr~dtvidual or cumulative adverse environmentat (mpact due to the approval of thls Negativa Declaration since the Anaheim General Plan desig~ates the subJect property for r,a-mercial recreatlon land uses camiensurAte with tfie proposai; that no se~sitive environmental lnpacts are lnvolved In the prop~sel; that the Initial Study submttted by the petitloner indicates no significent lndividual or cumuletive sdverse environmental impacts; and that the Negative Declaratlon substantieting the for~going ftndings ts on file in the City of Anahelm Planning Department. 8/24/$t MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNINC COMMISSION~ AUCUST 2~~~ 1981 81-513 Jack White, Assistant Ctty Attor~ey~ •~ked that Conditton No. 6 be nwdified to includ~ revised plans shawing the additlonal psrking spsces as sttpulated. Comml~sla-e~ lul~r offered Re~olutlon No. P''a1~17F •nd moved FA~ tt~ passage and adoptio~ that the Anahsim City Ptanning Commi~slon does hereby grant Vsriance No. 3223~ In p~rt~ aubject to the petittoner's stipulotton ta p~ovide G7$ (;7 spaces) of tha ~equtrod p~rking and on the hesis that a certetn percentage of the auests erriva by tranaportetton modes other than privata autom~hile; end grenting walvers b. c and d on the besis that due to the unlque cl~cumst~nces of the acc~as being provided by the 20-faot wtde ~aseme~t across onothar property end on the ba~is of the size snd shepe of the pro~erty and subJ~ct co Interdepertn+entAl Cc~mmittee recommendstlons. On roll ceil, the foregoing resolution was passed by the followtng vote: AYES: COMMIS510N~RS: aARNES~ 60UAS~ FRY~ NERBST~ KINf~ TOLAR NOES; COMMISSIONERS: NpNE AE35ENT; COMMI SS I OIIERS : BUSIIORE Commtssionar Tole~ temporarily left the Councll Chamber. ITEH NOi 3: EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS t AND CC_NOiTIONAL USE PERMtT N0. 22S1: PU4LIC HEARING. OwNER: EDDIE R. FISCf1Ek. aE,10 Cenc~al Avc~ue~ Stanton~ CA 94680. AGENT: IRMA f1NISI1IE AND J011N KORT. b5~ Sauth Brc~okhurst Streat~ Ant~helm~ CA 9280~+. Prop~rty described es a rectangulerly-shsped parcel of lend conslsttng of app~oximately 2.4 acres~ G5G South 6roakhurst Street (Bage) Wa~ks). SubJect prope~ty presently classtfled CL ~COMMERCIAL~ LINITED) TQNE. CONUI710NAL USE REQUEST: TO PERMli QN-SALE BEER AND WINE IN AN EXISTING RESTAURANT. TF ere wa' nn one indtcating their prese~ce in oppoaltlun to subJect request~ and although the staff report wes not reac'~ It i~ ~eferred to and mrde a part of the minutes. I~ma Mahshie~ egent~ was prtsent to snswer any qucattons. ''HE PUallt HEARI NG WAS C105~0. It wes noted tha Planning Oirector or hls authorlsed representative has ~fetermined thet the proposed proJect felts wtt:hin the definitfon of C:.tegorlca) Exemptians. Llass 1, as defined tn parag~sph 2 of the City of Mahetm Envtrc~nment.~l Impact Report ;uidelines and is~ therefore, categortcelly exempt from the requlrement to prepare an EIR. AC~ION: Commissioner King affered Resolution No. PC8S-177 and moved for its passage an~ac~optlon th~t the M ahotm City Planning Commisaton does hereby grant Condittonal Use Permlt No. 2251 purauant to Sectlo~s 1~.03.030; .031; .032: .033; .034 and .035. 8/2b/81 z ANANEIM CITY PLANNINti COMMISSION~ AUGUST 24~ 1981 81•51k ; MINUTES~ ~ Titl• 18 of th~ An~helm Munictpsl Cods and •ubJect to Interdepertrt~~tel Committee ~: rec.flmmendatlons. On roll c~ll~ the foregoing resolutlon wss passad by the following vote: AYFS: COMMISSIONE~S: BARNES~ BOUAS~ FRY, HERBST~ KINC NOES: COMMISSIONERSt NONE ItBSENT: COMMI SS IONERS : BUS110RE ~ TOLAR SHEPIIER~ 3220 Yorba Linds PU8L1 C I~EARI Nf+. OWNE A: JERRY N. AND IAUaEEN A. ~ Bouleverd. Fullerton. CA 92b3~. ACENT; A4AM LIPINSKI. 595 South Knatt Street~ Anehalm, CA 928(IG• Proparty dascribed es a rectangul8rly-shaped ~~rcel of land consisting of approximatef1ed'Cte(COMMERCIAL~,tLIMITEb)SZONEt ~Florentla Ptzzerla). Property presently clas~l CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST: TO PERMIT ON-SALE BEER AND WINE IN AN EXISTING RESTAURANT. Therc w~s no ane indlco~~^washnot readentt is re erred totandumadeterpa~tsaf the a 1 though the s tef f ep minutes. Adam lipinski~ egant, w~s P~esent to answer any questions. TNE PU4L IC NEARING WAS CIOSED. tt wa~s noted the Planning Director o~ t~is autharised representative has detenn~ned that the propo~ed proJect falis within the definition of Categorical Exemptio~s~ C1ASS 1, as dofl~ed he~eforerecate4ortcal ly' exer-ptAfrom~ thenrequi r~ement topp~epare~an Guidelines and is~ t ~ EIR. ACTION; Commissioner Ne~bst offered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner Bouas end MOTION CARRIED (Chalranan Bushore betng absent), that the Anaheim City P1a~~~~9 Corimission does h~s~~ha~rthe restauranttis~e isting andmnoiparking problemsrhave been spaces en tha baa created. Commisstonar Ne~bst offered Resolution No. PC81-178 and moved for its passage and adcption that tha Anaheim City Planning Commission does~j2rebyo3~rant03~ andti035~ Use Permit No. 2250 pursuant to Sectio~s 18.03•Q3~: .031; . +~ .• ' Ti tla t 8 of the Anahetm Muni ci pal Code and subJect to 1 nterdepartmenta1 Commi ttee rec.anmen da t i ons . 8/24/81 Commisslor~er Tolar retur~ed to the Councll Chamber. MINUTfS, ANAHEIN CITY PIANNING COMMISSION~ AUGUST 24~ tg81 81-515 On roll call. the foregotng ~esalutlo~ w~s passed by tha followtng vote: AYESt COHMISSIONERS; E~ARNES~ BOUP.S~ FRY~ NERBST~ KING~ TOLAR NOES t COMMI SS I ONERS t NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BUSIIORE ITEM NO . 5t EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION ANO VARIANCE N0. 3236: , _... ....~~_ _.,.._..__.__.._ _...__. .-._. PUBLI . HEAAINC. OWNER: ROBERT M. LLOYD~ 10$00 Gele~ Space 323• StAnton~ CA 90G80. AGENT: ELHER MEACItER~ 1~141 H~rbor Bouleverd~ Garden Grove~ CA g2640. Property descrtb ed aa a rectangularly-sheped p~rcel of lsnd consistinc~ af approx-mstely 7~140 square feet, 875 South Claudina Straet, Property ~res~ntly classifled RM-2400 (RESIDENTIAL. MULTIPLE-FAMILY) ZONE. VAaIANCE REQUEST: WAIVE~t OF MINIMUM BUILOINC, SITE AREA PER DWELIINC UNIT. There was ~ne person indiceting h;.; presence In opposttton to subJect raquest~ end although the staff report was not read~ it Is referred to and made a part of the minutes . C. M. Thomso~. 625 Nest Katella~ Orenge. expietned the proposal is to add two untts behtnci an existtnq house and that the varl~nce is necessary because the lot is 7144 square faet~ whtch (s Sb f~et short of the requlred 7200 feet which Is mintmal. He explainedthe plens meet all other code requtrements a~d noted these two units will provide more needed housiny in thls ares of Anehelm. Min~te Teet~ 876 South Cla~dina. steted she lives across tt~e street and does not know where ~ny additiona) veh(cles would park. She stated there are 10 vehicles at the two house~ next door on tha north and abnut 6 or 7 nwre vehicles at the property to the south~ She stated there are a lot ~f children !n the area and she feit this ~•oject wc~ulcs c~eate G to 9 more cars that would want to park on the street because people don'~ ~ike to pa~k in their garayes. She stated also there are no Itghts in the alley an d so she does not use her garage. She stated Mr. Meagher owns the proper ty next deor ta the south and never comes ove~ and does not know how many people live in one unit and stated she thought the~e were 8 to 10 people Ilvinq tn the dor+nstairs apartment wlth 5 or 6 in the unstairs aps~tment. Chairman Pro Tcmpore Fry s~~ated it ls his understanding that the plans meet code requi r~ments ~cyarding the parktng spaces and stated the nwnber of people 1 iving tn a unlt o r the ~urtb er of cars th~y avn cannot be regutated; that he understands her concerns and fel t that smne concern t s shared by m~ny people ~ but that i s not tha Planning Commisslon's prerogative. Elmer Mea~il~e r stated h~ is the manager end part owner of thc units referred to and that t ho lownstalrs unit of the front house is occupied by a husband and wife and two chlldren and a husbs~d and wffe end one chtld in the ciownstairs untt to the rear and a woma~ wlth two childron upstairs in the reer. 8/24/81 NINUT~S~ ANAtIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ AUGUST 24. 1Q81 81-516 TIIE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissloner Bernes st~ted the p mJeGt cbes moet the cede and doe~ provide six additionat p~rking spaces on the property. She edded she fclt the perking problem on the rest of the block Is probably the result of the units being co~structed before the current ordlnences were adoptad and if eech house had the required number of parking sp~a~~s~tLhis propnrtyttfethepdrlveway iseused fortparkingeond shemdidritotra than six c think this proJect would add to the existing problem. ACTION: Commissioner Bernes offered a motion~ seconded by Wmmissione~ King and MO~TION CARRIED (Chatrman f3ushore bning absent). that the Mahelm City Planning Commiss~o~ has revt~wed the proposa) to construct a 3•untt epertment with weivnr of minimum bullJing stte are~ por dwelling unit on e rectAngulrrly-shaped parcel of land consiating af epproxtmetely 7140 square feet~ heving a frontsge of approximatelY k7 feet on the wast s i de of C1 audl na (875 South C1 eud) na) ; and does he~eby approve the Negative Daclaratlon from the requiremant ta prepare an environr~enta) impact report on the basts th at there would be no significant indtvidual or cumulative advorse anvtronmenta) impact due to the approval of thta Negative Decleration since the Anaheim General Pian daslg~ates the subJect proporty for medfum density re~identi~i land uses commensurate wtth the praposel; th~t no sensitive envl~onmental Impacts are involved in the proposal; thet the Initia) Study submitted by the petitioner indicatesNe ative'Declaratl~nvsubstantlati~getheeforegoingeftndtn~snis~o~mfile~inathe that the g Ctty of Anaheim Planntng Department. Cortmissionnr Barnes offe rcd Resolution No. PC81-179 and moved for its passage and adoption that the M aheim City Planntny Commission does heraby grant Va~iance No. 3236 pn the basis that the request Is mintmal and derTal wauld deprive subJect property of a privilege enJoyed by othcr p mperties in the s~me zone and vtcinity and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendatlons. On roll call~ the foreyoiny resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: CQMHISSIONERS: BARNES, BOUAS~ FRY~ NERBST~ KING~ TOLAR NOES : COMMI SS I ONERS : NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BUSHORE PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIElY Avenue of the Amertces, New York~ New York, 1Q019. AGENT: ATTENTION: GAaY D. SMITH, Marrtott Orive, Washingto~~ D. OF TNE UNI TED STATES ~ 1285 MARRIOT'~ CORPORA710N~ C. 20058. Prope~ty 8/24/81 Jack White, Assistant City Attorney~ presented the written right Co appeal [hc Planntng Commission's decisian withln 22 days to the City Council. MINUTES~ ANAIiEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ AUGUST 24~ 1981 81~517 descrtbed as en (rregul~rly-shaped parcel of land cflnslsting of approxtmately i~ acres~ 700 Convantton Way (Marrlott ~iotel). Property prnsently cl~ssifta6 CR (COMM~RCIAL- RECREATION) ZONE. CONOITI~NAL USE REQuEST: TO PERMtT A~6-ST~RY~ 1yo-FOOT i~IGH, ~0o-ROOM HOTEL EXPANSION WIT11 WAIVER OF MINIMUM NUMOER QF PARKING SPACES. There were ten pe~sons Indicating their presence in ~ppositlon to subJect request, and aithough the st~ff report was ~ot read, it is referred to end mscle a pert of the minutes. Phll Schw~rtze~ Philllps a~andt Reddick~ explained they have prepared Envtronmentel ,.: llmpact Report No. 242 an d wil) be tiappy 4o answer any qu~stions regarding that ~'~ dacument. . a~i4~ oc~- ~- ~1`~~ ~}I Rothmsn~ rcpr~sentating the Marr~ott ~lotal~ axplatned their proposal consists of ~~ three phases~ the flrst being s 300-~uest room tower to be locatcd north of the existinq building and the second phase would be e 25.~00•square foot exhibit hall dtrectly to the west connecting to ~he main building and the thtrd phese being a 5- story parktng structu~e. He stated the purpose Is to provide ftrst-cless hotel , rooms for ctty-wide conventions. pelight Nease. 701 Lamark Drlve~ stated she represents a group of homeowners Just south of the existing Marriott Hotel and their camnents are ~eally not In opposition to the expansion. but they would like app roval qualifted to soive some of the problems that resuitcd during construction af the o~igina) hote) and may result from expansion. She referred to the letter sent by their yroup wh(ch made the following four requests: (1) If the clty daes app rove the cx~ansion, the Marriott Notel be required to take whatever steps ere necessary ta correct any inte~ference of television raception fo r residents of the single-family dwellings and residents of Sherwood Village~ in a responsible and pr~fes~~unal manner; (2) that Mar~iott provide continual maintenance af the existin~ master antenne on wfiich 9 to 11 homes are depcndent for television reception and noted tl~at antenna is on the Marriott p roperty and they are requesting thPt rier~tott pro~ide continual malntenance for that antenna or any antenna which would be requi~ed tr, correct television receptfon problems; (3} that they adhere strictly to clty approved daily starting ttmes for construction work; and (4) that they be ve ry dillgent in thetr efforts to minimize fugitive dirt by freque nt aratering and covering any large dtrt mounds. She stated those were the maJor problems encountered during and followtng construction af the existinc~ f~ci 1 ity. Mr. Newbury stated he lives tn Sherwood Villan , south of the proposed expenslon and is on the board of dire cto~s for tl~e 221 ptanned unit development of individually owned homes. He presented a petitlon co~taining A5 signatures of people in opposition and also presanted photographs of the existtng wel) showing the Sherwood V111age side and the Marriott's side os the wall and noted the height of the wall above his head on the Sherwaod Village sfde which is 7 feet 9 inches high and an the si2aiati MINUTES, ANAlIEIM CITY PLAINNINf, CONMISSION, AUGUST 2W~ 1981 81-518 Marrtott's side~ the wall is 6 feet 5 Inchea~ whtch is reslly the effectlv~ helght of the wall. He explained two yesrs ~ga the Planntng Commtssten hdd app~oved a ~squest for the hote) on the basis of compllanc~ to certsln conditions~ onp heing the installatio~ of s 1~-foot high solid w~ll; however~ through v~rlous problems ~~hlch arose durlny enylneering~ tlis Sherwood Village residents accepted~ not preferred as stated in the report~ o'.l~foc~t high wa11 because the Nnrrlatt Notel indtcetec! they could r~t lncrnase the height of the exlsting wall. H~ refe~red t~ p++ge 12 uf the EIR addendum wherc the statement fs msde that the Sherwood Vitlage residents preferred the 9-foot wall and stated syaln they did not prefe~ the ~-f~t wall, but accepted tt by try ing to essist the Marrlott peopie with thelr problems. 11e stated the 9-foot well ~ as agreed to~ wos supposed to be nr:asured from the faotings but tHet the MArrlott added 3 feet of dirt on thair side~ ~ra~ctng tt a 6-foot S~~~Ch wall. stdteci the existing 4-~~ory h~te) was bullt 100 feet from the properties represonted by Ms. Nease and that It ts an attractive bu(idl~g tn appearance ~nd is no more notsy than an apartment complex. He stated. however~ this request is to pl~ce a 5-story parking structu~c within 67 feet of the Sherwood Village property line with only e G- foot high wAtt. Ne steted they ~re requesting t~ minimum of 150 feet between the parktng structure and Sherwood Vtllage hanes and clarifted they are not abJecttng to Che expansion~ but saw no reison why the sl~yle-family homes should have more constderatlon and pratection than She ~vood Vlilage. lie stated hG hes Itved there for S years and does not v~ant this perking strur.ture thet close. Ne stated a 4-story hote) complex is entirely different thAn a 5-story parking structure whlch would have const~nt noise and dtsturbences. Mr. Nev+bury stated the conditions of approvai of the orlginal Marrlott project requtred that the truck deliveries be llmlted to daytlght hours and this conditton is absolutely not being c~nformed ++ICh and hasn't been confarmeJ with slnce the hote) opened and naw another ioading dock is being proposed 60 feet to the north. He noted also that the starting times for construction We~e not acihe~ed to as conditloned in the ortginal approval~ with constructlon crews beginnfng work at 5:0~ and G:O~ a.m. Ile noted he had called the pollce obJetting to this n~ise and nothing was done a~d they had ~Istened to the naise fo~ two Years. Mr. Newbury stated if this ls approved. the permit must tnclude a solutlon to Any interference problem with tclevision reception and noted the Sherwood Village has 221 homes~ which would be ve ry much affected. He tndicated concerr~ regarding the parking situatic-n since the Marriott is proposing a larger facility and fewer parking spaces. 1ie stated since Convention Way has been closed~ Orangerrood has become a greater traffic problem since tt was not designed f~r this heavy traffic load. Ne stated he had taliced to the City Traffic Engineer about the sttuetion a~d he indicated the only solution would be a trafftc slgnal. Mr. Newbury sumnarized hts carments indicating they are not opposed to the expansion. but do oppose the y-story parking structu~e that Ciose to the property line and would request that Lhe prevlous conditians be adhe~ed to conce~ning truck deliverles during dayltght hours~ etc. 8/24/81 MINUTES~ ANAfiE1M CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSION~ AUGUST 24~ 1981 81-51g Emery Kander~ 747 Eugena Place~ stated his house! ts right behtnd the loading dock and they do rtw~ke deliverlas in tha event~g et f,~ 7 ar At00 p.m. and leavo the enginms ~unning for 4 nr ; hours. He expl~ined alao that 'ome wo~k waa done incorrectly and he haa unplugged his naighbor's televtston set tn the past. Hr, Rothman stated the palnts ralaed are certainly reasonable ~nd are genulne ceuaea for cance~n~ however~ some of tha prablems were with the people bullding the o~iginal hote~ Concerning the telavisl~n recoptlon~ he explalned as soon as they beceme aware nf the problems~ they had a meettng with the homeown~rs And hired a specialtst and at thelr own expense without any leg~+) obltgation~ had satisfled tl~e problems wlth televiston receptlon to the best of his knawledge. Ile axplelned they do maintain the maste r antenna because it Is on their property and that the antennas instailed on their ne(ghbors' prapertias had a one-yenr warrrnty and rfter that,it would be up to th~ neighbors to maintain them. Ne stated they tried to do what is fair~ equiteble end reasonabie and be goad netghbors and ho~ed that is the way they wauld conttnue to deal with the problems. Ne stated dally starttng times fo~ const~uction work end fugitive dirt are legitimate compleints and he did not thlnk there will be a problem dur~ng this exp~nsion because the hotel operetors will be present to handle th~ cnmplalnts. Mr. Rothman Indicated he h~d no knavledge of the wall~ but understood che city had been involved In thet sltuatlon. Concerning the ev~ning delivertes~ he explalned the employea's entrance is adJacent to the loading dock a~d he lerves by that entrance everyd~y around 7:00 p.m. and was at a loss ta know where the trucks are caninq from because daylight deltverles are encouraged unless there (s an emergenc~v~ etc. Ne askad that the nelghbors call htm if this cantinues to b~e a problem because tt could be something different. He explained the p~oposed loading dock would be for the exhibit hall and that is a heavy-unianed operatlon end he did not thtnk there would be a prablem. Concerning parki~g on Orangewood~ Mr. Rothman did not think anyo~e steying in the hotel would park on O~a~gewood because tf chat was the case~ they would not be staytng at that hotel~ Mr. Schwertae stated all the comments which have been given todey have been previously submitted in a wrltten form a~d hav~ been responded to 1~ the environmental document as wel) as being responded to through the mitigatlon measures whtch are conteined in the recommr.nded conditions of approval. THE PUBI.I C HEARI NG WAS CLOSED. Commissioner King ~eferred to the Trafftc Engineer's recommendation and Mr. Schwartze responded that the~y did meet wtth Mr. Singer, Traffic Enginser, and he had tndicated that the drivcways and -,edians should be redesigned and that is ~ conditton of app~oval and they are wilitng to comply with tl-~e Traffic Engineer's rzconmendatlon. Concerning the relocation of the security g~te and loading dock, he stated staff had indtcated that they did not think the loading docks were of sufficient size but he felt they are. Ne explained the condittons oF app~aval require Chat revised plans be submitteci and approved by staff. 8/24/a1 ~` MINU1'ES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ AUGUST 24~ 1981 81-520 Commissioner Ha~bst atated ha h~s been to exhibits of heevy machinery~ etc.~ end that they d~ wo~k s1) hours of the night when they load and unload equlpment and he thought thls wauld be a prohlem. tle stated siso he thought enother problem would be the nolse f~om tha p~rking g~rage. Mr. Sc, ~tze exptatned tha e~vironmentel document Indic~tes the closest potnt of epproach of ~ars to the structure ts 67 feet and the structure~ is attually 5 levels of parking~ whtch ts 4-storie~ hl~h snd there Is also a parapet wall. Conmissioncr Ilerbst respo~ded th~t the parapet wall would not do any good. tle stated he is f~miliar with sound mitiqetlan meaaures end with the open spaces of the structure~ tt would need to be least lA0 feet ewey fram the homes to keep the nolse from those horr~s. Mr. Sct~wsrtze steted they had expertment~d wtth the design~ but because of che shape of the property and because of Conventton Way, and An expansto~ of the Conventlon Center, there tsn't any other place for the parking structure to be located and they fee) the notse wili be mittgated by the dtst~nce~ the parapet wall and the landscaping. Commtssiona~ Nerbst stated he did not thlnk this woutd wark and unless they could come in with a solution~ he could not support the request because he knows there wil) be a lot of noise unless there Is a soltd w~ll. Nr. Schwartze stated if that ts the Cc~mmtsslon's Intent, then they may wi~h to condltio~ the approval thet If tha pro)ect does nat rneet the noise code after constructlon, then tliey would be responsible to come back in and do whatever mitigetton Is required to eliminate the sound, Mr. Rothman stated the architect did not thtnk a solid wail would 9ook good to the neighbors anci thry would llke to prapose to provide heevy bushy type pienting. Commissioner Herbst stated landscaping would not mittgate the sound because sound travels In a st~atght line. Ile explained he has bee~ involv~ed 1~ sound buffering of freew~ys and knows whst ktnds of noise will be created and they should be concerned about that especially with the parking structure that close; howeve~, he d{d not like the atructure that close because these people will be looking st a 40-foot tall butldtng and particularly in the eveninQs when the decibel ~e~di~gs are low~ the sound wtli be accentuated right through the gerage. t4e stated he would like to see some ~~chitectural control As opposed to butidtng a sotid wall. Mr. ~thman stated they would hdve no objection to bullding a solld walt. Gommissioner Tolar stated he felt with the st=e of the property~ the parking structure could be moved 20 0~ 30 feet towards the front of the property with adequate landscaping provided. He stated a parking structure of thls slze cannot be 8/24/81 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING ~OMMISSION~ AUGUST Z4~ 1981 81-521 dtsyuited ~o metter whara tt Is located~ but thought It would be much bstter towards the front of the p~opcrty end h~e felt the neighbors hed some very vultd cancerns~ Commissioner He~b=t suggnsted ~e fi-stary atructure rather than a 5~story structura and relocating it further sway from ths homet end Conmisaloner Taler sgreed~ rnd stated he thought It was wel) snd gaad to state they will coma back in and teke care of • problam leter on snd indfcated h~ has +~ trr.mendaus emount of respect for the Merrlott pe~pla end what xhey ere trying t~ do~ but once the structure is there and the p~obiem ts extsting~ the hardshlp would h.ve been created by not elimineting it In tha beginning. Mr. R~thmfln ste+ted if they hpd ,yiven that commttment to the ctty in writing~ he did ~ot think there wtll be a problem. Commlsa(oner Tolar stated the Commisslon would be hard-pre~sed ta ask tham to remove a structur~ af thts size lf nt a later dote they sald they could not da anything about the prdblem. Reeponding to Commissioner Barnes' questton concerniny the pe~king heing p~oposed~ Dean Sherer stated 75$ of tha code requlreneent Is proposed with Commisstoner Darnes noting that (s over what is normelly rt~uired of hatels. Commissioner Nerbat asked staff whst h~d happened rec~Arding the original fence which wes to be a~-foot high wall end which should heve been measured from the I~tghest l~evel and polnted out the purpose of thet fence was to allevtate sound. Deen Sherer explatned h~ does not knaw why the dtscrepancy exists at this time but when the spprova) was ortginally qranted there were varytng heights of the fence and o~ October 19~ 1979. the Marrtott requested a revialon and read the following condttton; that the peticlo^e~ has reprasented that al! ad)acenc single-family property awners to the aouth pref~r a 6•foot hfgh solid block w~ll rather than s 9- foot high walt as originslly approved and thet ehe multipte-famtly pr~perty owners prefer a q-foot hiyh solid block wali rether than a 1~-foot high block wall and that the adJace~t nro~erty awner to the west has plans for a cA~tl~uatton of the wall tn order that tho height of tha two walls m~tch~ the 9-foot high wal) being measured from the tap of the footings. ~1e stated r+ppar~ntlY ther~e is some discrepency ss to where the top of tl~e foottngs actually occurs. Conmtssianer Nerbst stated it is obvious the ground leve) was rslaed after the wal) wss constructed and that the wall should be measured from the highest finished grade. Connetastone~ darnes stated the ordin~nce states thac the watl is to be measured from the highast ftnished grade. t~ an Sherer responded that thls conditlon probably should heve read that the wali :,e measure~ from the highest grade. Cortmtsaioner ~arnea IndEcated she remembered the discussiun and elso remembered that there was no one present from the homeawners assoctation a~d t~r. Newbury respond~d from the audle~ce that thsy hed gone along v+lth the recomcnendation. 8/24/SI MINUTES, ANAI~EIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ AUGUST 24~ 198{ 81-522 Commissloner Barnes stated ahe fett that Is where the misunderstending occurred; and that it wes the Commts~ton's unde~standing that the wal) would be 9 feet from the hi~hest point. She stated she remmmberad the dts~usslo~ end thouqht the reason far the request was dun to a controversy with verlous people In the neighborhood wanttny 9•foot htgh fencea and others wanting 6-or ~-foot htgh fences and finally everyone got togatl~er end agreed end tt w~s har opinion that s1) thn fences would be th~ aame hetght. She stated sha thought ths Commtsslon wss really voting on a 9-foot high fence at the highest point and Commis~to~er 1lerbst agreed and stated a 6-faot h'~h wall would not attenuate sound at ground lav~l because the sound goes right ovc~ ths top. Mr. Schwartze explelned the fence wea a varying h~ight with a 6-foot fence along ~he single-family tract and n 9-font hfgh fence ~butttng Sherwood Village. Ne referred to a letter dated, Au~ust 3, 1q81~ addressed to Walter Kirkha~t~ Chief Buildtng Inspeetor~ Clty of Anahaim~ from the secretdry of the Board of Directors~ Sherwood Vtllage, indicating they had measured the fence on either side and found the discrepency was not sig~ificant and tha~t ttie g~ading as It now exists was ~atisfactpry. 11e explalnod the elevatlon changes are to accommadate landscaping. Commissto~er Fry stated he wented to take exceptlon to one cortn+~nt made by Mr. Rothman and thet wes Chat tha Marriott had no legal obllgati~n to take care of the television receptlon tnterference problem end strted In thts case the hotei (s the invader and Is tnvading the integ~tty of thesc homes in the area and though there may not be a lagal obligation to resolve the ~roblem~ therc is a moral abltgatlon whlch is much stronger. Ne stated he would not be in favor of this proposal until he can be assured that tt~e Marriott tlotel ts lcgally responsible for at leas[ the maste~ a~tenn~. Mr. Rothman repiled he is on record with the city As assuming the responsibtlity for the master antenna and lt was pointcd aut that Is also a conditlon of appruval and the question was ~atsed by someone tn the auclience regarding the ampltfter which is part ~of the master antenna and Mr. Rothman cl~rified that they are responsible for the maste~ antenna and all iks parts. Commissioner Bouas asked what plans I~ave been made for parktng whlle construction is ~oing on and Mr. aothman replted he does not have a well defined answer fo~ that problem at this time. I~e stated the ~eople who park at the hotei are sanewhat different then those who psrk at the Conventlon Center and the hotel's responsibllity goes beyond a~lace to park because if the guests are not happy, they will not oome back and then this edditlon would not be neeckd. Conmissianer Barnes aaked what Mr. ftothman's plans are concerning the conscructlon crews starting work at 6:00 a.m. and Mr. ibthnwn replied he certainly thought 6:00 a.m~was an unreasonable time a~d Lhey would go alortg with the local constructi~n union rules. ai2aia, MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNIN4 COMMISSION, AUGUST 24~ ig81 51-523 Mr. Schwartze noted the cnndittons of approvat requtre constructlon hours to be 7;00 e.m. to 7:00 p.m. Cortantasionar Barnes asked Mr. Rothnu+n what he personaity pl~ns to do about construction which starta~ ot 6:~0 a.m. and Mr. Rothman replled~ Mar~lott Is it's awn gar~ra) con tractor and he assumed they wouid fire anyone who did not know the differance between G:00 a.m. and 7:00 e.m. Commissloner Ba~nes esked Mr. Rothman tf he will be on the premiaes so the nelghba~s can contect htm and he raplted that he will not be there at 6:00 a.m. but hls porsonal telephor~e nu~nber is in the Newport Qeach telephone boc~k and they can contact him if there is e problem. Comnissioner Tolar stated he wil) not suppart the parking structurc at tts present loc~tion and asked if any studtes have been done reloc~ttng It further away from the residenttal area. Phil Schwartze repiled there have been a nurtber of studies end It (s possible to move the st~ucture further to the north. Commtssioner Tolar stated these residznts have some very valid concerns and he thouyht, with some redesig~~ they can be protectod by relocattng the parking structure and stated he thought the Marriott people are very concerned nelghbors and want to create a good nelghborhood environment. tle stated understand~+bty const~uctlen crews are gaing to create p roblems dnd he did not thtnk the people in the area would not bn understandtng about that situatton, but they can try to protect them as much as possible. He stated he knows the oost of construction money ~nd does not wa~t to delay thls proJect. but can~at support it without the structure being moved to provlde a buffer for all those homes. Comm(ssioner Herbst indicated he would agree and 3cated he did not think enough thought had been given to cn~stderatlon of these residents in the area and noted the hotel will be there from now on and so wlll these neighbors. He stated if a problem is creat~d, it will depreclate the value of their praperty. I~e stat~d he realizes this hote) will be bringtng a lot of money tnta the city~ but it should not be done at the expense of these peoplc in the neighborhood and they do deserve the city's proteeelon. Chairmen Pro Tempore F~y asked if the petitioner would 11k~ a continuance in ord~~ to revlse thc plans. Mr. Schwartze asked if lt would be to the Commission's satisfactEon to incorporate a condttlon requfring the parking structure be ~ved no less than 20 feet to the ~orth and that the walls along the mosc southern portlon of the structure would be solid. Chalrmen Pro Tempc~re ~ry inditated that would rwt be ~cceptable to hfm and Conmissioner Nerbst indicated he would wont to see the revlsed pians. 8/24/81 ~ MINUTES, ANAt1E1M CITY PI.ANNIN~ COMMISSION. AUGUST 24~ 1981 Si•52W Mr. Schwartxe Indic~ted th~y would ltke to request ~ continuance ~nd that thR archlteGt has tndicated he could have a plan to the Planning Departme~t by Friday. ACTION: Commissioner tlerbst offe~~d a motlon~ aeconded hy Commisafoner esrnes and M 01 CARRIED (Chalrmsn Buahore being ebsent)~ that consideratlon c~f the ~bove- me~tloned item be centinued to tha ~egularly•scheduled meeting of September 9~ 1981~ at the ~equest of the petitloner in order that revtsed plsns may be submitted. Commisslone~ Tolar pointed out no new nottces will be sent. RECESS There wa~ a ten-minute recess at 3:00 p.m. REC_ ONVENE The meeting was ~econvened at 3~1~ p.m. Commtssloner Tolar did not raturn to Caurictl Charrd~er imaiediatelY after racess. ITE' M N_ 4_,7: EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND COND1710NAL USE PERMIT N0._ 2234: PUBLIC f1EARING. OwNER: LUGARO ENTERPRISES~ INC.~ 51b North Magnolia Avenue, , Anahalm~ CA g2801. Prope,rty doscribed as a rectangularly-shaped pareel of land consisting of approximately 1.5 ecres, 436 North 1u+gnolla Avenue. Property pres~ently cleasifled CL (COMMERCIAL, LIMITED) 10NE. CONDITIONAL USE RF.QU~ST: TO PERMIT A a~iOLESaLE PLANT NURSERY IN TNE f.l 2oNE. The~e was no one indicating their pr~sence in opposltlon to subject ~equest. end although the staff repo~t was not read~ it is referred ta and made t~ part of !he minutes. John t3erg,representing J.M.W. Nholesale Nursery~ 2724 Nest Lincoin, explAlned they have outg rown thelr present locatlon and wish to expand their business a~d eliml~ate an eye-sore on subJect property. 'fHE PUBLIC NEARING WAS CLOSED. ACTiON: Commtssloner King offered a mot(on~ seconded by Commisstoner Bouas and ~ CARRIED (Cheirmsn Bushore and Commissto~er 7olar being abs~nt), that the A~aheim Clty Planning Conmission haa reviewed the p~oposal to permit a wholesele plant nu~sery in the CL (Comrr~ rclsl~ Llmited) 2one on a rectengularly-shaped pa~cel of land consisting of approximatety 1.5 acres, having a frontage of spproximstely 290 feec on the aast stde of Megnolia Avenue, app~oxlmately 63$ feet south of the centerline of Crescent Avenue (43G No~th Magnolia Avenue); and does hereby approve the Negativ~ Declaration from the requlrement to prepare an envtronmtntal Impact raport on the basis that there would be n4 sis~nificant indivldual or cumulative adversc environmental impact due to the app~aval of this Negative Declaratlon since the Anaheim Ganerat Plan designates the s~ject property for general commercla) land uaes comnensurate wlth the p~oposai; that no sensitive environmental tmpacts are 8l24/81 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINf C011MISSION~ AUGIlST ~4, 1~181 E11-525 Inwlved In the proposai; that the Initl~l Stucfy submittad hy the pettttw~er Indicates no s~9~~f~c~^t individual or ~ua~ulattve adverse e~in~~ ^js~onmfilasln~the that thn Neg~tivo Dacl~ratio~ substantl~ting tha foreq~lnq City of Anaheim Pl~nning DoPertr+~+nt. Committsioner King offe~d Resolutlon No. PC81-180 and n+ovcd for Its qassa9e A^d adoptlot~ Chst the AnahQim C~ tY Pl~nning Lorn+l3sion does heret~y grent Ccx~dltlonal Uae Permit No. 1234 P~rsuant to Sections 18.0~.~3d; .031; •~3x: .~33~ .0;~+ and .035. TI tle 18 c~f the Ana~helm Municlpel Code snd s~bJect t~~ ~nterdepertn~nta) Con*nl ttee rc cvm+~ n da t i cx+s . qn ro11 c~l l~ the foregoing resolutio~ Nis ~assed by the fo{ ic~+tn~ vate: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: bARNES~ HOUAS~ FPY. ~iERBSt~ -;I~~G NOES: COMMISSIONER5: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: E~USNORE, TOLRR ITEM t~0._a: EIR NEGNT~VE ~kLIARATtON AHO CQNDITiONA~ USE P~ItMIT H0. 214A: PUBLIC IIEAFtING. OWNE: . GE1~~ A. ALEiIN~ Sa., ANd KATIE M. AISIN. 35u Esat Oranqewaod Avenue, Anahalm~ CA 92802. Property describsd as a ~~ctsngula~ly-shaped parcal ot land conststtny of ~pproxtmatelY ~•38 ecrr.~ 35~+ E~st ~~enge~d 11~a^ue• property prese~tlY c1ASSlfled aS-~-43~00~ (RESic~-~TIAL/nG~ItUITUN-l)• CQNQITIONAL USE REQUEST: TO EXPANO AN EXISTIHG flOAa~ ANO CAR.~ FIICILITY. There was one p~rson 1ndiGAt~ng h15 prescnce In ot~po+itlon to subj~ct re4~st. snd although the staff report wss not r~ad~ it Is re~erred to a~d mad4 a part of the minutes. Mr. Albt~~ petitioner, was present to answer any quastions. Tom Voorhis~ 313 East B~uebell ~lace, stated he shares r conr+o~ fence+ to the rea~ af the pmposed estsblishmerit; that he is nat oppased to the expsnschc-ps~io~~na ^carned about potentia) nolse because his bedroc~m is ebout 25 feet frrxr televtsion set is uscd ec nighc on the patlo and is usuelly shut off by ~~he~wouid~ but if the patio is gQing to be used with the increased ~wrber of peopln~ like the televiston tu~ned off at 10:00 p.m• Resp~ondi ng to Chel rman Pra Tempore Fry's quest Icm as to whether or ~ot he hed evrlr voiced hts concerns ta Mr. Albin, Nr. Yoorhis repiled up to this pNenstatedahe~as been a ma,Jnr problem and he daes no~ want to be a fussy neighbor. been before the Cammisslon befo~e about Orangewood and referred to a shopping center at the corncrime ~r'ob~i+m in the a~eataa~ndVtherehlsher~aughtnotse,now from~thepalice there i s a p helicopter, etc., and he does ndt rrent any nnre notxe. si2aia~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM C'*Y PLANNING COMNISSI011. AUf.UST 24~ 1981 81-526 Mrs. 11bin stated somo of the elderly people Ilke to watch the news at nfght and asked if they could leav~ the televlalon on u~ti) iqt30 p.m. and It ass sgreed thls would be accaptable. Chbirman Pro Tempore Fry indtcated he dtd nat think ~nyone ts going to dicke~ about thirty mtnutes~ but naw the pntltloner is mr~re of the nelqhbor's concerns and it Is thel~ obllgatla~ to teke c~re of It. TfIE PUUIIC EIEARING WAS CLOSEO. ACTION: Commissloner King offPrGd e motion~ s~u+ndcd by Cc~n~,isxlor-er Bnues ~nd M~'f~~ CARRIEO (Chdfnr-An 9ushore and Commissloner Tolar being obsent~• that the An~helm Ctty Pianni~g Comni~sfon hes ~viewed the pro~ssl tn e~end ~in existing board end c~re faclltty on .~ rectanyularly-shAped ~ercel of IenA ccx,slsting of approxlme~tely 0.3~ acre~ having e frontage of e~proxir+~trly 1;7 teet on the south slde of ~~an~aYe;od Avenue, approxlr+ately 335 f~~t a~4t of thc centerilne of Mc~untsln V 1 ew Avenue ( 354 Er~st Oranc,~wood Avenuc) ; and ~inrs hereby np~rovr the Ne~~~t ( ve D~claratton f~om the requt rement tn ~r~pare nn envl ron+nental In~p~ct re~+ort on t~o basis th~t thare would be no stynlflcAnt indivlduei or cun~ul~tlv~ adv~rse envl ronmental (m~ACt dut to tlie aprroval of thls Negative becler~tion sl~ce the Anaheim Gene~a) Plerv destgnates the subJect property for lrnr-n~edlun- denslty residentla) land uses comn~nsuratc with tha propossl; that ~ scnsitive ~nviranmental im~ects aro involved ln the propc~sal; tt-at the Inltial Study sut~mitted by the p~tttloner Indlcates no signtficent Ind(vidual or cumul~tlve aAvrrse envirana~nt+~) impscts; and that the Neyatlve Oeclaratlon substanilating the foregoing findings Is on flle In the Clty of Anahelm Plann(ng Depsrtmcnt. Cortmfssioner King offered Resolution lici. PC81-181 and e+oved for (ts pessege and adoptlon that thr M ahelm City Planning Cc-mmtsslon doea her~by grant Canditlonai Use Permlt No. 2248 for a maxtmun of ly persons subjnct to the stipulatlan that the televislon set or other notse producing devices used on the outside petla wlll be turned off no late~ than 10:30 p.m. and pursuant to Sections 1a.03•030; .031; .032; .033; .034 and .0~5, Title 18 of the Msheim 1lunitipal Code and subJecx to Inttrdepartmental Committee reconwnendatlons. Dean Sherer, Ass(stant Planner~ noted that Conditlon No. 1 should be deleted and Jeck Whtte noted that the maxtmum occupancy should be 15 persons. On rot) call~ the foregoinc~ resolution was passed by the following vote; AYES: COMMISSIONERS: E3ARNE5, DOUAS~ FRY~ 11ERf1ST~ KINf NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSEt~T: COMMI 55 IONERS: DUSIIORE ~ TOLAR Jack White, Assistant City Attorney~ presented the w~itten rlght to appebl the Planning Comnission's d~cision withln 22 days to the City Counctl. 8/24/81 MIHUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. AUGUST Z4~ 19 81 Commissioner TolAr retu~ned ta ths Council Chamber, N0. ION RECLASSIFI ~~ . : t-8z-4~ WA~ $1-527 PUt3LIC HEARING. 011~tER; GLQRIA RO'WE~ 1611 C1 tff Drive~ r~eaport Oeach~ CA 92663. AGENT: QAVID S. COLlINS. 1077 Waat Ba11 Road. An~helr , CA 92802, Pro~arty described •s an t~rcgutarly-ahaped ps~ce) of lend cohslsting Af ap proximetciy 5.6 acre~. loc~ted at the ~outheast corner of Sant++ Ma Canyon Ibad end F~irmo~t Boulevard. RECLASSIFICATION REQUtST: RS-A-43~000(SC) TO Cl(SC). CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST: TO F'ERMIT A CNURpI~ PRESCt10AL Al~~ OFFICE COMPIEX W11'F1 ,lAIVERS OF: (e) MININUM LANDSCAPEO SETBACK~ (b) MAXIMUM STRUtTURAI ~iElc.~~T~ (c) MINIMUM NUME3ER OF ~ARKING SPACES~ (d) PERMITTED NUMBER. TYPE AN6 SI;E OF 51GNS. Th ere wes no one Indiceting thelr presence In o~pos'•ton to subjecL re~,unst~ •~d although the staff re~ort was not read~ it Is refcrred to and mede n prrt o1 ta-e mtnu~es. Uavid S. C~l~lns~ 1077 Wrst Ball Road~ explalned thls ~~op~rty Is cur~ently In escraw~ to be purchased hy the church ds a chu~ch site; that thit ~ropossl Is something u~fque In terms of use of the property becaus e it aeens wasteful to heve 2 acres of parking not bel~g used and they ,(~fA(XlSing to diversify the p~rking with the devetopment of an office ~~ulldinc, that would use the parkinn during the waekdoys; anc! that thero would be suff{c(ent par~~.ing fo~ !he church use durf~g the day for their preschool and dey-care center staff~ In additfon to the perking for the office building and the church would hrv~e permisslon to use the pur~~ng in thc ev~nin~,~~t and on Sundaya' . Joe .'illatt, archltcct, SB P~a=~ Square, ~rAnge~ Fresented slides xhowing rhe siCe And tnr. propased develaprnent. Mr. Co111ns stated after tha slides r,erc show~, they Kould 11ke to Nave the egress ~nto Fairn~a~t as shown because the markettng people tetl them that It wil) be easler to market Lhe property with that access :o Fairmo~t. TNE PU~LIC HEARING 41AS CLOSED. Mr. Collins pointed aut tha flood control easement and noted nothing tan be built over it and it wtli be surfaccd. Commissioner Ktng asked the Traffic Enginee~ 1 f the egr~ess on Fai rnx~nt is necessary and Paul Singer, 7raffic Enginee~~ replled that it is r+ot necossary and that he feels s ince the majorl ty of the vehi cl es exi ti ng at th is dr i veaay closest ta Santa Ana Canyon Road wt 11 gr~~vitate tr~+ards tha west end wl l i have to make thei r way through 8/24/81 MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ AUGUST 24~ 1981 g1•S28 two lanes of tl~rough trsff~~. (n orde~ to qe~t Into the teft tu~n lenes right Inslde the left tu~n pocket~ he belleved that would cre~te a serlous treffic conflict. Commissloner Totar ssked if both pheaes of thls FroJect wlll be bullt st onc~ •nd Mr. Co111ns ~ptled tt depends on ha~ they can merket the cortnrrcla) office building. Commlssio~e~ Tolar stated ff it Is done In two phases~ a parcel map would be n~eded for the eommercial off ice bui lding and Mr. Col l i ns repl Ir.d th~y expect to dsvalop tha parcel mep when t!~e office butldin~ devctopment oc~urs. Commisstoner Tolar stated thls is an unusuel pi~ce of property; hewever~ the~e a~e s lot of students passing through thst aree end any developn~nt should be considered careful ty. Ile stated he ts bothered because of the v~rlances and dtd rat thlnk he could support tt~is request because he thought each parcel shauid stnnd on its ~+n ar+d he fe) t th i s i s j ust an over-deve lopment of a smal 1 na~cel o~ e ve~y bus{ and hezsrdous e~rne~. He stated he thought the er~um~nts thet the church would not D~ ~~sing the p~~rking during the office hours arc valid~ but If thR church facility does grow, thel -• servicas would not ba l imited ta Sundsys and ovon{ngs snd there co~~ld be a lot rrpre woekday acttvity at the ~snctuary. cspecl~ily r~ith schooltng~ and if the parking lot i~c fu) l, the cars would c?c- across ct~e street to the commerctet camplex and that wc~uld be inf~inging cn tlieir neighbors .?Ic stated he is not opposed ta the church o~ t'~e comne~ctal offtu builrltnq~ b,~t i~ concerned because he considers It duo 1 zon i n~. Mr. Col l i~s stated they are al~o concerned sinee tl~~re Is no precedence for thle type of design. even tl~ough the Ci ty of I rvlne f s considering allowing churches to use shoppln~ =enter pd~king lots and wa(ving thel r pa~king rr.qui ~mnnts. tie sdded he thouyht ~ney would need Lo establish very clear right5 of parking for both the church and the offlce bullding and it Is their i~tent to giv+~ Che office yullding the rtght to the pa~king during *.he dey and there would be deed restrictions to restrict them from eveni ng use of that property. Ne statcd the church parking needs In the evenings would not bc nearly as great as on Su~day morning a~d that it s~en+s purely was:etui t~ havc ?. acres Af S10 per squarc foot parking sitting there not use~d except for 3 hou~s A week. lie stated they do not think thls is ~n unreeso~~ble request and i f the church grows to the polnt where thay nead two o~ three scrvices n~ Sundays, that would not be a prablem, I~ut that does nat mean they wil t not be using the parktng on wcekdays. Ne stated ther+e wnuld zat be a probiem with parking tn the evenings and if the situation got to where they exceeded the ~a~king, arrangements Nould have to be madr with the peopte across the street or else they could nat sxpand thel ~ s~r-vlces. Corm~issioner ~folar stated he would not su~port t'els ~eq~~est predicatsd an the owner having to go across the street and nake arrangecnents for parktr~ in the future or hnving to iimit the acttvities or pr,rl:ing. He expialned it is the Planning Commission's Job to help plan developr~ent in thls :.t:y and that ~~a ts not opposed to the projeet it~elf~ but is apposed ta thc: siz~ of the development and feit it shouid 8/24/81 ~.~ MiNUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNiNG C4MMISSION, AUGUST 24~ 1g81 81-529 be developed In acco~dance with code. 11e statod he belleved Mr. Collins is prob~bly more In tune with the city codes than any other developer In tht• city. M~. Calli~s stated he thought Me was In tune wtth city codes~ but obviousty Is not qulte In tune. He stated he hes been looking for a church site tn the Canyon area for W yeers and due to t~~e apr :tation of property value af a prevlously purchaaed church sit~ he was dble to ftnd this property; that he h~s talked to Mr. Ruth of tha city sbout the prope~ty on Ib h) Ranch Road and it is not av~ileble yet and that Is the only other stte he has been able to find. Ile referred to the recent talk by Pe ter Kreeme~ of the Irvlne Company~ regording various elements necesss~y for goed communlty planning and one of the things he ssid was th~t plenn~rs need to provide s paco for Institutlons. Mr. Collins stated he would submit that this city has not p~ovided space for instituttons in the canyon area and that this is a chance to de velop a reasonable Institutlon in An unwasteful mnnnc~. Cammissioner Toler str.tec! the r~st of tlie Conxnlssioners have nat votced their opinlons~ but ht did not think anyone is opposad ta t1~E church or an tnstitution. Mr. Collins clarified thet f~ls conment wss thAt the ctty has rot provtded suffictant s~race for instl tutions tn that arce. Co mm(ssidnar tierbst stated he thought the zoning should be LO (Commerclal~ Gffice) rather than CL as request~d becaus~ the Cl 7one would leavG the door open far anything allawed In that zo!~e ~hen the prap..:ty is soid and he did not want that on thts corner. Ne stated also -~e would like to see the divislon oF thr two propertles ptannnd righC now so there would not be any vartanc~s requested in tl~e futura because he would rrt want hardships built into the proJect. Ne stated he would not vote for a varlance fn the future and stated loaking at these plans~ tt would appea~ if It 1s divlded~ vnrlances would be necessary. Commissloner Herbst cantinued that he thouc~ht the Planninq Comnisslon needs to look at innovative ways of deaiing with parking requlrements and fe1C 1f the parcel is soldjthere could be a ~eci~rocal a~~re~t ~ howevcr~ he would agree with Cartmiss(onar Talar that thls property will be impacted to a dcg~ee. tie stated he travels Fairmont eve ryday and it Is getting worse and he did not think pa~king would be ailowed on the street because thAt is one of the steepes: hills in the city. Ne agreed the exit ~ic~ht in tha middle of tho left turn lane would not be practical and they would have xo ilve with just ~ne exlt. Concerning the steeple height~ he noted the Santa ~'1na Canyon pr~party awcters hsve alway3 opposed church steeples and pll steeples have bee~~ limited,with Li~e tall~st being about 48 feet hlgh and indicetco he would nat vota for a steeple nny higher tha~ that which has heen allowed for any other churche~ in the area and noted he thought thts steeple could probably be seen f r~m tha frewray. Mr. Callins i~dicated thei~ concern was that the church be identifiable from Santa Ana Canyo~ R~oad oecause tt is on the rear portion of the property. f1e noted the staeple is only 6 feet w) .'.e. fle stated they al~o fetl ths steeple should be measured 8Iz4~~~ ~. MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ AUGUST 24~ 1981 81•530 from a-,Igher elevation and Commias~onar Nerbst noted the steeple is to be measured from the footings of the church. Cornmisstonnr Barne~c atated the highest steeple allowed In the canyon aro • has besn 48 feet; havever~ another church on fucalyptus brlve hes a higher steeple~ but tha mitigatlny clrcumstances there were that the church is in a hollow and the steeple Is leas thdn 10 feet higher than g~sde. She stated the Commisslon Is requesting that the church comply with whatev~r haa bee~ allowed in the past. She stated she is opposed to sll steeples and bell towers in the cenyon. She indicated she agrees with both Commissloners Nerbst and To~~r~ howevcr~ sh~ does ~ot Iike to grdnt dual uses~ beca:~se whe~~ the propsrty Is divided or sold~ there will be sane prablems and she wanted the property di vided now and designed so tharc wi l l not be any variancas requested. Commisslon~~ Qarne~ steted she w~s also concerned about the 166 students coming in and leeving in con;.~r,ctlon with the office+ huilding trefftc and thought there will be a treffic problem. especially with the access less thdn 120 feet from the inte rsettlon. She stAted she wa~ted to see that access closed ano would want to see a pa~cel map f(led so that the properttes stand on thelr awn and thet she would be wiiling t~ yo along with e+ rec~nrocal parking agreement because there wfll be some spaces ~evk~i lable du~ing the w~ek. M~. Collin~ st.~~^d he did r~ot see why there wtll be my confiict with parking durtng the weelc bec~+use sufflcient spaces ~rP provlded for the church's administratlve ~ses, the day cAre center and the preschool . Ne potnted out the property is destgnatf ' for cammerclal uses on the General Pla~~ and that thts dev~lot~ment would create less traffic on a continual basts thar if the property was all developed commerciel. Fle atated t;he mai~ church traffic wouid be on Sunrley. Cheirnbn Pru Tempore Fry indicated co~cern regarding traffic for the preschool if it Is developed t~ its msximum with traffit tn and out in the morning and afternoon. Wnmi ss i oner Narnes asked why they di d not submi t two separat~e proJects and Mr. Coll ina steted that would be a wasteful use of pt~rking because generally churcfi parking !s o~ly for a fr.w h~urs ~ week and they felt this wauld maximixe the use of Chc parking. Commissioner Barnes replied two separate p~ojects would not preclude the Joint use of the parking ~nd Mr. Coilins stated thcy have no probidn with the development of the perce 1 m~p but I t ml ght haWe to be mod 1 f f ed when the property i s marketed. Commissio~er Tolar a~re ed the rontng shauld be CO instead of CL and s: ~d he will nove ~ suppo~t CL an that corr.er because that woul d perml t a l lquor store or restaurant, e tc . 11e asked i f the mat te r shou 1 d be readve rt t sed to be app roved for CO rsth er than Cl and it was noted that would be a down-zoning and could be approved. 8/24/81 ~ MINUTES~ ANAt1EIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ 11UGUST 24~ 1981 81-531 J~ck White ~xplatned the legal ~ottce was specificaliy fo r CL 2oning~ however~ if the zone approved ls a less tntense zona~ then the-~ would not be e tegal problem. Mr. Cotlins aaked lf tha pro,ject couid ba approvnd if thay w~ould st' ~late to a~;cept the GL 2oning snd also stiputate to accept e maxlmum helght of the S~eeple stnca there a~e no residencea et grade. It was noted tha church Is not locatad I~ e hotlow but ts actually on a hlll. Mr. Collins stated ~hey can stipulate to whatever height the Commisslo~ allows ebove 48 fnet and also they oould stipulate to ilminete the exlt driveway and a~so they would agree to Irmrediately file a parcel map satisl`actory to the City Engineer. Commissioner Ilerbst stated he was alsa concerned about any additiana) walvars thAt wauld b e necessary and Mr. Collins clarif~ed he does not anttcipate that any addttional waivers wilt be necessary. Commissioner Herbst statcd he thought thts plan ts an (nnovative wey of using the parking spaces And f~lt lt deserves a try and asked if the petitloner would like a contl~uance in order to submit revised plans a~d it • s noted the pe~titioner has stipulated to comply r~ith certain requests m~+de. Gc ~issto~er Nerbst indicated hts only concern would bt whether ar not nny addltional weivers would be requtrod tf a parcel rt~p ts filed er~d Anntka 58ntalahtt~ Asststant Otrector far 7.oning. replied she dld not thlnk there woulc! be a prablem. Commissioner Ktng asked tf the one driveway veould be adequatc and noted if the properttes are divided~ that would be a mutua~ drlveway. Paul Singer, Trafftc Englneer, respondeci to Commlsslone~ aarnas` question thet he had not done any studies conce rning generation of t~afflc far the preachool espnctally slnce this would he a church school and typlcAtly the st~dents are bused, so he would not fo roses a heavy influx of trafFic~ but certainly n~ m~re then ;A$ of the students would be driven tndivtdually bacause most wouid be bused. Mr. Collins stated thetr plans have not been fully developed~ but they would certainly encourage people to car pool. He stated there is ~ great need for a day care faciltty in that area. Commissioner Ilerbst asked if the waiver of pe nnitted number, type and size of stgns would be requlrod if the zoning Is ct~anged to CO and Annika Santalahtl explained the cortNncrcial site would automatically hav~ a right ta a small ground-m~unted stgn; hawev~r, the church wauld need a varianc~ for a free-sta~dinq sign. Oean Sherer. Assistant Planner~ pointed out the location of the proposed signs an the plans and Paul Singer stated he would have a problom with stte distences and the approva) of the sic~ns shou! 1 be subJect to the approval of the Trafft: Engineer and ~eferred to a previously approvcd sign at Canyon Plaza which hdd to be moved. 8/24/81 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNIr~G COMMISSION, AUGUST 2q~ 1981 81-532 ACTION: Commissioncr Horbst offered a motion~ secor+dcd by Commtssloner Bouas and ~0'~aN CARRIED (Chairman 9ushore being absant), thet the Anahelm City Planning Cammission has reviewed the proposal to ro claasify subJect property from the RS-A- ~+3~~00(SC) (Residantlal/Agrlcultura) Scenic Corridor Q•~erl~iy) T.one t~~ CO(SC) (Commerciat~ Offi~.e Corridor Overlay) 7.one t~ permit a church~ presc~~ool and office complex wtth walvers of minlmum landse~ped sett~eck~ maxlmum structural height~ Mlntmum number of parking spaces end permitted number~ type and sizf of signs on an trregularly-shaped purcel of 18nd consistl~g of approximately 5.~ acres locatad at the southeast corner of Sa~ta Ana Canyon Road ond Fairmont Boulevard end does hereby app~ove the tlegat) va Declaration f rom the r~qut rert~ent to prepnre an envl ronmental impact report on the basis thet there would L•: no significont indivtdual o~ cumulative adverse environmentol Imp~tt due to the approval af thts Negative Declaratton since the Anaheim Genera~ Plan dest9natas the ~~ubJect p~operty for ger-eral commercial land uses cortrnensurete with the proposal; that no sen4ltive environnentat impects era fnvolved In the proposal; that the Initiat Study submitted by the petitioner Indicates no s(gn:ficant individual or cumutative edverse environment~il impacts; and that the ~~egattve Decleration substantiating the foregoing findtngs ts on ftle in the CitY of Anahetm Planning Departmant. Prlor to voting on the prsvious mot~un. !'ommisstoner Totar stated he would support the mation hut wanted to know what the gutdelinQS nre whtch khe Cammfttee used to dete-mine chat there was no negative impact from this proJect beceuse he thought there wou'~d t~e a tremendous impact tn the amount of tr~ffic into the area. Dean Sherer pointed out there is a ~otie in the file from the Commtttee and that they recommend~d that a negattve cleclaration coutd be p~ocessed; that the tnitial study indicated mitigatlon measu~es fo~ the traffic and surrounding land use impacts end noted the 3radi~~;~ would require a seporate ev~eluatlon and this negative declaration will not apply to the grading but that the Committee's primary concern had to do wtth the mitigat~on of the traffic congestion in che area. Jack White explained the criteria used is whether or not it is reasonabiy foreseeable that the project as proposed would have a significant adverse environmental impact and that it is som'w+hat lcft up to the deciding hody to determine wh~.ther or not the impacts could be handled based on the pro)ect as described. He further exp~ained thPt when the Planning Commtssion approves a negattve declaration, khey are required to ftnd spectfically the lack of stgnlficant impacts and they must also fin~t that the praject would not have a significant cumulative adverse in~a=t G~ther and if they could not support that finding, then they should dtsapprove that negativ~ de~laration witn the understending thet if the negative declaration is not approved, then the proJe~t cannot be approved unti 1 an envi ronmentai irr~act has bee~ prepared and certifted by the approving body. Conmissioner lierbst stated he did not feel the day care center would crcate that much of a traffic problem. 8/T.4/81 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSIQN~ AUGUST 24~ 1981 81-533 Commt~stoner Nerbat offe red Resolution No. PC61-182 and moved for its passege and sdoptiort~ thet the Anahalm City Plannl~g Conmisalon dc~es heroby grant aectassificatlan No. 81•82-4~ In part~ for a CO(SC) (Commerclal, Offlce Scenic Corridor Overia~~1 Zone rather than CL(~C) (Commerctsl~ Ltmited) as ~que~ted and aubJoct to InterdeRartmentef Committee recanwrondatlons. On r~~l i cai l. the foregoing resolution wes passed by t!~e `~l lowin9 vote: AYES: COMM15S14t~E1~: BARNES, 60UA5~ FRY~ HERDST, KING~ TULAR WOES: COMMISSIONERS; NANE AQSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 4USI~ORE Commissioner NerbsC offered a motton~ seconded by Commisstoner Bauas rnd MOTION CAaR1E~ (Chatrmen Bueho re betng absent)~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does he roby gran: walver (a) on the bssls that the request Is minimal end denisi would deprive subJoGt property of prtvile~ces en)oyr.d by other propertles in the same zana end vicinity and granting waiver (b) tn pert~ to pe~mlt a church steepte no hlgher than 48-feet as rn~asur~d from the church foo~ings~ on the beais that denlal would deprive subJect property ~ e privllege enJoyed by other propertics In the semo zone and vicinity and grantiny atver (c) on t`~P b~:ls that a reciprocal psrking agreement shall be app roved by the City Attorney's office a~d racor•+~d and denyt~g waiver (d) on the basls that subJect p~operty is lacated in the Scen(c C~rricior Overiay Zone and approva) could set an undcstrable precedent. Commissianer Flerbs~ off~~red Resolution 1~. PC81-18~ and moved for Its passage and adoption that the AnahEim Clty Planning Comml~slon does hereby grant Co~ditlonal Use Permtt No. 2249~ in part~ subject to the petitloner's °tlpuletlon to submlt a parcel map showing a dlvision be Me~n the two pr~pet~ties and to climinat~ the western most driveway cl~sest to Fairmont g~ulevard and pursuant to Sections 18.03.~34~ •fl31: .032~ •~33; .03~+ and .035~ T1tle 18 of the Anaheim Munlctpal Code and subject to Intcrdepartmentai Co~m-Ittee ~comnendaticx~s. P~ior to voting ~ the resolutton. Jack Whitp asked that an addtttonr~l condition be incorporate~ which woutd require that cantemporaneous with the recerdation of any p~rcei map olviding the property, the eppllcant shali record a ~eciprocal parking covenant for the ,joint use of the parktng facilttl~es by both the church and th~ office camplex and that the driveway shsil be a rnutual d~ivewny. On roll call~ the fo°zgoiny resotutio~ was passed by the follawing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: QARNES~ BOUAS. FRY~ HERBST, KING~ TOLAR NOF.S: COMM15510NERS: NONE ABSENT: CQMNISSIONERS: 6USHORE 8/24i81 M{NUTES~ ANNIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ AUGUST x4~ 1981 A~-534 ITEM N0. 12t EIR NEGATIVE OECLARATI4N AND AMENOMENT TO TITLE 16~ZANING, 11NANEIM M~ 1 I l ODE i "--- P~BLIC HEARING. PCTiTIONER: CITY OF ANANEIM - To amend Tltle 18, Zoning~ AnAhetm Municipat Code t~ o~tablish a Floodplein OvQrlay (FP) Zone fa~ those ++reas of the Santa Ana Rlver locetad wlthtn the ' aheim City ltmtts. There was no one lndtca~tin~ :heir presence tn oppositl~n to subJect request~ and althouc~h the staff report was not read~ lt is refe~red to end mnde a part of the minutes. Annika Sartalahti , AssistAnt Ot rector for Zoning, noted khat the legal advertising was handled in e diffe~ent -n~+~ner than ts normeily done for regular zaning items, and a querter page advcrtisement was publlshEd tn the Anahelm Butletln on August 14, t9$1. ACTION: Comnissloner King offered a n+~tlon~ seconded yy Commlssloner Nerbst end MO N CARRIED (Chalrman Dushora Geing absent)~ that th~• Anehetm City Planning Commisston has reviewed the p~oposal to amend Tltlc 18, Zaning, of the Anahetm Munlcl~al Code to establish a Floadplain Overlay (FP) 2c-nc for thASe areas af the Santa Ana Rtve~ located wlthin the Anshefm City ilmits ~nd ~vhich a~e desiqnated on the maps described as Flood Boundary and Fic~odwey Map Car~nunt ty Panel 060213 0005 a effectiv~e June 1+~ 1980~ as publist~ed by the Federa) insurance Administration; and Sa~ta Ana Rtver Right•of-Way prept+red by the Orange County Environmental Management Agency~ more ~articularly d~scrtbed as Map Nos. 22~ 23 and 2~+ effecttve May 1979; and does hereb~• re a~mmend to the Ctty Council that a Negatlve Declarotton be spproved since no sensltive environmental impacts are in wlved tn the proposal; thet the Initia) Study subml~tcd indicates no significsnt individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; end that Che Negattve Declarati~n substantiating the foregoing findings is on file in the City 4f Ar.aheim. Comrr~issioner King offercd a motton~ seconded by Comnlssioner t~erbst and MOTION CARRIED (Chatrman Bushore betng absent)~ ti~at the Anaheim Clr.y Planning Comnlsston dues hereby recommend to the CitY Counctl that the accompanying ordinance be edopted addtng Chapter 18.90 to Title 1B of the Anaheim Muntcipal Codc establishing s Floodplain Overlay (FP) Zone. 8/24/81 ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PIANNING COMMISSION~ AUGUST 24~ 1981 81-535 ITEM N0. 1 RECOMMENQATtQNS The following Reports snd Reconmendetlons ataff repo~ts were pretented but na~ read: A. V1IRIANCE N0. 8 • Request for termination frcam E. J. Tyromen~ ~ ustee yrem+~n Famtly Trust for p~operty loc~t~d et 1~06 West La Palm~ Avenue . ACTION: tommtssioner King offered aesolution Nc~. PC~1-184 end m~ved for its pa ss a~ge end adoptlon that the Anaheim City Planning Commisstan does hereby termi~ate Variancn No. 89 5. On rotl cell, the fo rogoing resolutton was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMHISSIONERS; BARNES~ 80UA5~ FRY~ hERUST, KING~ TOLAR NOES: CONMISSIONERS: NONE AEiSENT: COMMI SS I ONERS ; aUSF10Rt B. VARlANCE_NU. 1468 • Requcst {:~ terminatian from Badruddin A. Damani for p raperty ocated at 1200 WE•;t Cerritos Avenue. ACTION: Commtssioner King offered R~csolutlon No. PC~31-105 and mov~d for its pa~ssage and adaption that the An~helm City Planning Commission daes hereby Carmtnate b'arlance No. 1968. On roll c~11, the foregoing resolutto~ was passed by the followtng vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ BOUAS, FRY~ It[RBST~ KING~ T~LAR NOES: COMMISSIQNERS: NONE ABSEMT: COMMISSIONERS: BUSHORE C. RECLAS5IFICATiON N0._80-81-9 - Request for an extenaton of time from Horst J Schor Anahetm F~ s~ Inc.. fo~ prope~ty located at the southwest corner of Avenid~ de Senttago snd Hidden Canyon Rosd. ACTION: Comnisslonr~ King offered a motio~~ seconded by Commissioner Tolar an ION CARRIED (Chalrman Bu~ho~e being abs~nt). that the Maheim City P;,~nning Commission does h^reby grant a one•year extension of time for Reclassiftcation N0. 80-$1-9 to expi~e on ~ctober 6, 1982. 0. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1769 - Rayuest for retroactive extenston of ttme rom r e~bert _ or p~operty at 12$7' "D" East Llncaln Avenue. ACTION: Commissio~cr King Aife ~d a rnotion~ seconded by Cammlssio~er Tolar an~R~7tON CARRIEO (Chairnian 8usho~e being absent). that the Anaheten City Planning Conmissio~ does heroby g~ant e one-year retroectt~re extenslon of time for G~dttlonal Use Permit No. 17E~9 to e~cpire on November 21, ig81. 8>z4is~ MINUTES~ ANaiEIM C1TY PLANNING ~:~MISSION~ AUGUST 24~ 1981 81-536 E. fON_DiTIONAI, USE PERM17 NOS, t~G6 nNO ~6-,~ - Request for rotroactl ve ~extena ons o t me ~rom M c~ae . a en Town T~ur Fun au~ Comp~ny for prope~ty at 3~~ Katella Wey anc 1825 ~~taln Vtuw Avenue. ACTIONs Commtssloner King offe red e motlon~ seconded by Commisst~ner Totar e~ MOTION C.'.RRIEQ (u~alrman aushore betng ab~ent)~ that the Anah~im City Plsnntng Commtssion does he~by grant one-year extenslons of time for Canditlonel Use Permits 1166 and 1645 to expl~e on August 16~ 1982. F. ORANGE COuNTY ~NVIRONMENTAL MANAG~MENT AGENCY - Request from Envlro~mental anagement ~~ency to eterm ne con ormance w th the General Plan to construct flood cont~ol lmprovemerts in Esperanza Chann~l from La Palma Aven~~e to Sante Ana Rivnr iniet. ACYlu~1: Gommissloner I:iny offered Resoluti~n No. PC81-1$6 ~nd muved for lts passage and adoptto~ that the An~heim City Planning Comm;ssian does hereby adopt ~+nd transmlt a r~solutlon of findtnq that the const~uction of flood contrnl imp rovenrents in Esperanze Chann~l would be in canl`ormance with the City of Anahelm G~~nero) Plan. On rol) call, the foregotng resolutta~ was psssed by the folicrwing vo;e: AYES: COMMIS51''}EnS: BARNES, BOUAS~ FRY~ I~ERaS7~ KING, T4LAR NOES: ~^'~MISSIU~~~RS; NONE ABSENT: LOMMISSIONCRS: 43USFtORE G. ADANDONMENT N0. 81-1A - P.equest from Check Wlnc~ Cheng to obandon e former Southern Ca ornia Edison Company public utiltty eesement acqulreci by the city. as suc~essor~ locnted ar~ the west sidr of Beach Bouleverd south of Oranye Avenue. IICTION: Comr.lssioner ~ing offcred ~+ matf~n, secanded by Commissioner Tolar end MO ION CARRtED (Cheirman Dushore being absent). thst the Anaheim City Planning Camm) ~slon does hereby recan~++rnd ca the City Cauncil that llbandonment No. 81-1A be approved. !1. ABAND~NMENT N0. 81-~6A - Raquest from 4/dllace Wong to ~bancbn 388.14 feet of en cx~ st ng .0 oot vride h~y 606.64 foot long sewer easement located ad~acent to the norch p rc,perty line at 810 No~th Euclid Street. ACTION: Commtssioner King offe ned a motlo~~ sec~++~ed by Cortmtssio~er Tolar an~1~lON CARRIED (Chairman Bushore being abs )~ that the 4nahetm City Plann{ng Commlssi~n does hareby recomnend to ~e CitY Councli that Abandonment No. 81-16A be approved. ADJOUR!lMENT There bei~g ~o furthar busl~isss~ Commissto~~er Kfng offered a mctton, seconded by Comm~ssioner Nerbst w.d MlOTION CAi.R1E0 (Chairman Bushc:re being absent). that the meetinq be adjourned. The me~ting was adjaurned at 4:12 p.m. Respectfully submttted~ ~~ ~ . fdith L. Hsrris, Sec~etary ELH:l~c Anaheim City Planntng Coa~anission ~. $/24/S1 J "n'vr~+°- -,xrl~*b~'4'j 1P~m m~ i .: wc _ ~ e',,; ~ 1,_ t n ~ . - . 1~. ~ _~~ ~ ~ , ~.` ~ . i~ r'~:~' . .. ., ~ ~ ~ . . .~ . . ~ .. . .~ . , ~ ~ ~ . . . . ~. . . . . . : , . , . , .' `. . . , . . ~ M ~ ~ , g ~ ~ .'.y