The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1981/12/14~ Civic Gente~ Anshaim, C~ltfor~la Oecember {4, 19$1 aEGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGUTAR The regular meeting of the Anah~im City Plann{~g Commisslon was MEETING catled to order by Cha(rman Bushore at 10:00 e.m.~ D~cember 14, 1981~ in the Cou~ctl Chamber, a quorum being present (C~mmissloner Fry beinq absent), and the Comnfsslon reviewed plans of the ttems on today's agenda. RECESS: 11:30 a.m. RECONVENE: 1:3A p.m, for public testimony, PRESENT: ALSO PRE5ENT: CHAIRMAN: Bushore COMMISSIONERS: 8~rnes~ Gouas~ Fry~ Nnrbst, King~ McBurney Annika Santalahti Joei Fick Jack Whlte Jay Titus Paul Singer Jay Tasl~ i r~ Dean Sherer fdith Harr(s Assistant Director for Zoning Assistant Director for Planning Assistant C(ty Attarney Office Engineer tra~fftc Engineer Assaciate PIARREf AsSistant Planner Planning Commission Secretary PLEOGE OF ALLEGIANCE TQ TNE FLAG 1.ED BY: Chairman Busho~e APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commtssioner King offered a motion~ stconded by Commissio~er McBurney Canmissloner Herbst abstainir,~ on the November 16th minutes) that the minutes af the Noverber 16, 1981 meeting be approved as corrected to show Chairman 9ushare absent on Page 134 for the vote on Resolution No. PC81-2~6; and that the minutes of the Navember 30. 1901 meeting be approved as submitted. ITFM N0. 1- EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 and CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2260. PU~LIC' HE~TRING: R: FI AT ON BA K OF Oa NG UN Y. 7 W lshire Bou evard~ Los Angeles~ CA 90017. AGENT: ANTHONY STRAMMlELlO, 511 SouCh State College Boulevard~ Anaheim, CA 92806. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of lend consisting of approximately 3.g acres located south ~nd west of thc south- west corner of Santa Ana Street end State College Boulevard 1511 South State College Boulevard (Angelo's). PROPERSY PRESENTLY ZON£D CL. CcnditEonal Use Request: To permit on-sale beer and wine in an existing drive- through restaurant. SubJect petitirn was continued from the meetings of Nuvember 2, 16 a~d 30, 1981~ at the request of petitioner. There was no one indicating their presence in opposltion to subject requesR and although the staff report to the Planning Commission dated Gecember 14~ 1981~ was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Dennis williams, Manager of subJect restaurant' was pres~~t to answer any questions. THE PUBIiC HEARING WAS CLOS~D. $1-754 12/i4/$1 ~~ ~ k MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 14~ 1981 81-755 The Plannin~'Dircctor or his a~+th~rixcd representativ4 h9s determined that the propo~a0 proJact felle wtthin the definition of Categorlcal Cxamptiona~ Clnss 1~ as dsftnod in the St~te EIR Guidmilnes s»d is, therefo~e, categortcally exempt from the requir~msnt to prepare an EIR. ACTION: Commissloner Herbat offered Resolution No. PCS1-255 and rmved for tts p~ss~ge and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission daes h~ereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2260, subJect to Interdepartmental Committae Recommendetions. On roll cal) the foregoing resolutlon w~s passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ BOUAS~ BUSHORC, FRY~ HERBST~ KING~ MC BURNEY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ITEh{ N0. 2- Ela NEGATIVE DECIARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3244. _...._.__...~ ~ PUBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: PETER F. STRANO~ et al~ 131-+ South Euclid Street, Ste. 3+ Anahelm~ CA 92802. AGENT: WHITHEY R. SMITH~ 1517 Fair Oaks Avenue, South Pasadena~ CA 91030. Property described a rectangularly-shap~d parcel of land consisting of appraximataly A,9 acre located ,. the southeast corner of Palm Lane and Euc11d Street (1300 South Euclid Street). Property presently zoned C0. Varlance Request: Waivers of minlmum number of perking spaces and maxtmum fence height to construct a 3-story medical officc buildtng. Subject petition was continued from the Planning Cmm~issian meeting of November 16, 1981, at the request of the petitioner In order to submit rev(sed plans. There was one person indicating his presence at the public hearing, and although the staff report was not r~ad ~t the public hearing~ it is referred co and made a pert of the minutes. Whit~ey Smith~ agent, was present to answer any questions. TNE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSEO. Joe Rochelle, 1669 Beacon, indicated he has lived in this residence for 2Q years and was cancerned about the project. Chatrm~an 6usho~e re-openedthe pubiic hearing and it was determined that Mr. Rochelae was conterned about Item No. 8 rather than this project. The public hearing was closed again. ACTION: Conmissioner King offered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTI N CARRIEO UNANIMOUSLY that the Anaheim City P{anning Conmission has reviewed the proposal to construct a three-story medical office building with waivers of minimum number of parking spa ces and maximum fence helght an a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately G.9 acre located at the southeast corner of Palm Lane snd Euclid Street (1300 South Euclid Street); and daes hereby approve the Negative ~eciaration from the requirement to prepare an environmenta) impact report on thG basis that there wouid be no significant individual or cumulative adverse enviro~mental impact due to the apcroval of thls Negative Decla~ation since the Maheim Genrral:Plan designates the subject property for comnereial profeslianal land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive enviranmental impacts are involved in the p roposal; that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates na significent individuai or cumutative adve~se environmental impacts; and that the Negative Declaration substanttating the foregoing findings is on file in the City of Anaheim Pla~ning Department. ~zi~aia~ t MINUT~S~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Decembar 14, 1981 81-756 Commissioner King offered aesolution No. PC81-256 and moved for its psasdga and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commtsston daes hereby grant Variance No. 3244 on the b~sis that the request for waiv~er (a) is minimel snd deniel of bath waivsrs would daprive subJact property of privileges enjoyed by other properttes in tha same zone end vtcinity~ and subJect ta Interdepartrr~ntai Committee Recommendatians. On ~oll call the foregaing ~esolution was pa~ssed by the fallawing vate: AYES: COMMISSION~RS: BARNES~ BOUAS~ BUSHORE~ FRY~ HERBST~ KiNG, MC BURNEY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABS~NT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ITEM~NO, _3 - EIR 1VEGATlVE DECLARATION AND RECLASSIFICATION N0. 81-82-IA. PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: BRIAN J. 0'NEIL~ et al~ 1014 North Farker. Orange~ CA 926fi7. Property descritred as an Irraqularly-shaped percel of land consisting of approxtmately 1.1 acres located at the northeast corner of the Rlverside F~eeway and Lemon Street (1420 North Ler.~on Street). RECLASSIFICATION aEQUEST: RS-A-43~000 to Ml. SubjeCt petition was continued from the meeting of November 30. 1981. It was noted the petiti~nsr has requested that subJect pe[ition be continued ta the regula~ly-scheduled meettng of January 11, 1982. ACTION: fommissione~ King off~ered a motion, seconded by Commissloner Herbst and MOT ON~CA~RIED that cAnsideratior~ of thG aforementioned matter be continued to the meeting r,f January I1, 1982, at the request of tht petitto~er. iTEM N0. 4- Ellt NEGATIVE DECLARATION. VARIANCE N0. 3246, TENTATIVE M1AP OF TRACT N0. PUBIIC. HEARING; 01~MERS: FRED L. STEVENS, et al~ 3180 Frontera Street, A~aheim, CA 328U6, AGENT: ANACAL ENGINEERINf COMPANY, P. 0, Box 3668, Anaheim, CA. 92803. P ropE~•ty described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximairly 7.3 ~~cres, having a frontage of appraximately 127 feet on the north side of Mart~lla Lane, approximately 850 feet east of the centerline of Martin Road. VARIANCE REQU~ST: Waiver of minimum lot srea. TE~iTAT1YE TRACT REQUEST: To establish a 13-lot. RS-HS-22,000(SC) subdivision. SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL REQUEST: To re~ave two (2) specimen trees. 'fhere were two persons indicating their presence in opposition to swb)~ect r~sqnrsL, and although the staff report was not read at the public hearing~ it is refe r~ to~ and made a part of the minutes. Pete Carpenter, applicant, was present to answer any questions an~d introcku~ed the engineer~ Cal Queyral. Cal Queyral~ Maca) Enginee~ing Company. explained Mr. GarpenCer origina~0y hsd started to develop fihis property as an iRdividual but bacause of t~he odd configuration of the ad,joining property. he got togethe~ with Mr. SC~rens to deveiop both sites. Fk stated the property was being proceased through ~the County when it became appa~ent 12l14181 S MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY P V1NNiNG COMMISSION~ Oecember 14, iq81 81-757 there wasn't sufficient fire facilities~ water flow or ac~ess into the ares~ so the owner of the two lots fronting on Martelaa Lane~ locate~! in the CitY of Aneheim~ entered into the develApment with the understandtng th~,t he wc~uld be abla to enjay two lots; and ihat he would grant acceys through his ~roperty, pr~viding a~econdary access inr,o the p~ap~rty For fire servtces; end also that sewer and water factlitles wouid be provided through the City of Anaheim. He explained th~ variance is betng requested on thcse two lots beceuse of the size; thet both lots had ample gross area, but after granting the 3treet access, they do not sneet code. Mr. Queyrai sta[ed thc Fire Qepertment has said they definltely would not app~ove the ~+ev~lopment without secondary access becaus~_ there is a 20~ gr~de ~nd with only one access, they fetc there would b~e a hazard. He stated Eucalyptus p~ive is very close ~.o the hills and the brush area. He explained the Senitation Department has said they wouid not pick up the trasF~ in the area wtthout tha secondary access, so this access is critic~~l and beneficial to th,e heolth and well'are of the residents in the 8r'P,d. He stated this is the oniy mean~~ fqr a secondary access Into the existing 35 hanes, Ne explain~d all othcr lats conform to the zoning requirernents a~d also that they concur with the proposed ccnditions of approval, Helen Simons stated she lives on Eucalyptus Drive and is a shareholder in the Vista Del Rio Rancho watar Company and they will be very happy to ~ee this development but do request a condieion of appro~ial. She statr,Q Mr. Carpenter has indicated that on December 18th he will post a perfarmance bond and they would request that a condition of approvai be included for that bond between the Vista Del Rio aancho Watcr Company and the developers prior to the final approval. Jack White. ~ssistant City Attorney~ explained this weuld be a matter between the wate~ company and the property awners and is not befare tht Planning Commissio~. He stated the Planning Commissivn n.~~st determine if the proJett meets the General Plan requirements and whether the desiqn is approprfate. Chairman Bushare further explafned the Planning Commission dces noc have the authority to make that a condition of app~oval and suggested Ms. Simons telk with the city staff regarding this problem. Tony 6arksdale, 181 Possum Hollow. stated his property is adjacent to the two lots referred to on which the varinnce is being requested. He poinced out a similar request was denied in 1977 and that fie is oppo~ed to this variance t1l:C0:15t the requirements in thts area are for 22,000-square foot lots and to h!s knowledge. no similar var(ance has ever been qranted and he fclt approvel of this would be detrimental to the area. Ne added he is also opposed tn the road that is going to be adJacent to his property because it takes his privacy. Ne stated his whole iiving area is facing this view; and that the plan propo5es to raise tF+e road abovt pa~t of his fenceline. He stated tir had talked with the Fire Department and was informed the road would be nice,but it was not a requirement and their only requiren+ent would be that the hydrants are in and charged before construction. He stated he had talked with Mr. Stollo and Mr. Carpenter and they indicated they would rather not have thc road and if the road dcesn't go tfiere, tl~e tots would be an acceptable site~ with one Facing Eucaiyptus and one facing Martelia, and it ts also possibte to brtng utilities across the horse trail easement. Mr. Barksdale stated he also talked with the Police Departmenc and was inf4rrntd his security would be much better without the road. He stated he knaws the hbhler Drive association does not wa~t this variance granted, He noted these developers do not )ive in the a~ea and stated he felt his suggestion wauld satisfy the developer's problem. 12/14/81 ~ , MIMUTES~ ANAWEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Oecember 14, 1981 81-758 Mr. Berksdale palnted out his propnrty on the map ~nd furthar stated his house faces the cui-dn-s~c with a fence comptetely surroundtng it and the plan proposes o retaininq wall and if tt ts raised even 1 foot, there is a drastic drop and his ~ecurity would be destroyed. He added he did not betieve these devetopers have the right to ingress snd egress because Martella Lane ts a pr(vate road and the roed Is on hts d~ed and he felt in order for them to have ingress and egress~ they wc~uld need approval of everyone who has rights to the roed and he knew of five or six owners who would refuse to sign. Farrell Webnr, President of Santa Ana Canyon Property Qwners Assoclation, stated he orlginally saw a tract m~p several months ago and was under the impression that iC had.been withdrawn, but chis appears to be the same tract map with exactly the same lot siz~s and those lot sizes are totally unacceptable for the rurai neighborhood in whlch the tract (s propcsed. Ne stated people in the entire area Ilke to have horses and like the rural community and potnted out one af these lots ts 16,000 square feet which is ~~tally inconsistent wlth the neighborl~ood and that they would oppoae th(s request on ~hat ground. ~ary Jpnes, 161 S. Canyon Crest Orivr~ stated he had discussed this situatio~ witfi Mr. Barksdale and that he is in favor of the dcvelopment; however~ is opposcd to the ecr,ess to the site. He explatned he lives at the intersection of Martin Place and Martella Lane and there is an easement on the rear of the property over whlch the pro~osed ingress and egress would occur and he was cancerned a!~aut overburdPning the easement and there is alse a yuestion of legality. N~ explained there i3 another dev~lopment which will double the traffic on the rear ot his property and „~w this development would daublc Lhat ameunt. He siated he purchasCd the propcrty with a rural atmosphere ai~d he thaught the access sh~uld be on Eucatyptus. Mr. Queyral stated unfortunately if this entire area had bee~ devclopr_d in the City of Anaheim~there would have been adequate access into the area~ but most of the develnpment was processed throuqh the County and thev were a little lax in providing access. He stated they do not need Chat road connectio~ and can front one lot onto Martelle and one into the I~teriar ~f the t~act and a variance would not be needed~ but because the access is required for the sefety and welfare of this tract and the existing residents in the area, Lhe road is necessary. He pointed out again Chese two lots are the onty ~nes which dc~ not conform to code requirements. Commissioner McBurney asked if the lot line could be adjusted wiChin the interior b~tween the second lot to acquire the requl~~d square footege. Mr. Queyral replied they have adjusted the ~o~s by about 2,000 square feet~ but the owner doesn't want to give up tvo much property because his property value would be hurt by decreasing the frontage of his property. Ht explained they could not be adjusted enough to provide both lots with adequate square footage, but could be brought closer. THE PUBI,IC HEARING WAS CLOSED. M~. Queyral stated there are a numbcr of lots in the surrounding area in the County which are smalier and they are not really asking for anything that is not enJoyed tn the area. He explained these two lots ere being anr~exed to the city. He stated there were some lots less than 19~000 square feet approved in a cul-de- sac street abava. Chairman Bushore asked about the neighbor's concern rega~di~g the g~ade difference and Mr. Queyrai reptied they would work with him o~ the fenc~llne a~d would be willing to pay the costs of raising his fence. 12/14/S1 ~ ~ ~ 1 MINUTES. ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMiSS10N~ Decembe+r 14, 1g81 81-759 Cortmiseione~ Fry pointed out technically the only considnration before the Planning Commission is the variance for these two lots and the remov~l af two Eucalyptus trees and approval of the tract map. Conmissioner Me6urney esked st~ff if there are other lots in the surrounding erea whieh are of smaller size. Anntka Santalehti~ Assistant Gtrector of Zoni~g~ replied she was not aware of any ~arlanGes whtch have baen qranted by the ctty~ but that the code was changed 3 0~ 4 years aqa secting net iot a~eas as the dimension to be calculated a~d it is poasible priar to that time some of tha lots ware smalter. Commissioner McBurney stated his first question was whether some adJustment along the suutherly tter of lots could be made to bring the square foatages closer to rtketing code requirement, but that would mea~~ adjusting existing property li~es whlch separate the property. Mr. Queyral stated there is also e notural water course here and a home built on this property would be bullt on higher ground and the property drops down about 20 feet in elevation and by adding edd(tionAl area~ they wouid not be adding to the net area of the building site because they do not intenc' to fill that natural g~sl ley. Chairman Bushore stated maybe this would be cr~ating a sub-standard lot and Mr. Queyral stated the va~iance is required bacaus~ of the street connection and the lots could conform with a cul-de-sac street, but they have been req~~es*ed hy the City nf Anaheim to provide chat street fo~ thP puhlic. safetv and welfare of the area. He stated Mr, St~evens plans to build a home an his hilltop and by moving the lot line, It would take part of that hilltop. He explained Che Sanitation Department has said they would not come up Eucalyptus Drive and that atso applles to other homes in the area. Ne clarified for Commissioner Herbst that that area is serviced by the Co~~ty Fire Distrlct. Commissioner Herbst noted this secondary eccess w~ll make it posslble for the trash trucks to service those two lots and the uther lots in the a~ea and also provide fire protection for the area. He stated he ~~d not think a variance on only two lots is asktng too much of the city to provtde e service to the community. He stated if thts property ts gotng to b~ annexed, th~ city has a responstbility to service tt. He stated there are 10,000-square foot lots which have horses in the ci ty. Commissioner Mc9urney asked staff if they would accept an easement for that street wherein ir could be improved with some type material which would allow the trash truck and fire vehicles to go over it and it wouid still look like natural terrain so that it would not come off the net acreage and refrrred to a"waffle-type conc~ete". Jack White replied normally the city would be happy to accept the dedication of an easement for street purposes, but that wouid not change the gross acreage. He stated he could not speak for the Fire Department or Sanitation Division regarding their requirements for the improvement. Cortmissioner NcBurney clarified he was not thinking of using the easement for access purposes, except for the Sanitation and Fire Departments and Jack White replied in that case, it would p robably not be deducted from the gross acreage. Jay Titus~ Office Engineer, stated the Sanitation Department has been reluctant to use those types of materiels in the past ar~d indicated he thought tt was very expensive. He st~ted he was sure there would br. other alternatives that could be explored, but that would have to be dtscussed with the Sanitation Divtsion. 12/14/81 ~ t i MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISS~ON, December 14, 1981 a~-~6o ACTION; Commissloner Herbst offered a motlon, seconded bv Commissloner King and M I N CARRIED that the An~h~im City Planning Cammtssion hes rovlewed the proposal to estahlish a 13-lot, RS-NS-22,000 (SC) (Residential, Single-Family. Hillstde- Scenie Corrtdor Overlay) tone subdtvision with waiver of minimum lot area and rerto~val of two (2) speclmen trees on an irregularly-shapad parce) of land conslsting of approximately 7.3 acres, havtng a frontaqe of approximetely 127 feet pn the nortM side of flartclla Lane, ~pproxlmecety 850 feet east of thc ~enterilne oF Mertin Road; and does he~eby app~ove the Nng~tive Decleration from the requlre• ment to prepa~e an environmental impact report an the besis that there would be no signlficant ind(vidual or cumulative adverse envtronmQntal impacts due to che ap; ,val of this Negettve Decleretion since the Anaheim Ganerei Plon designatas the subject prop::rty for hillside estate denstty residentiel land uses commensurate with thc proposal; that no sensitive environmental tmpacts are involved in the prnposal; that the i~itlal Study submitted by the petittoner indicates no slgnific~~t fndivtduai or cumulativa adverse environmental impacts; and that the Negatlve Decloration substentiating the foregoing findings is on file tn the C(ty of Anaheim Planntng Department. Commisaioner Herbst offered Resolut(on No. PC81-257 and maved for tts pass~ge and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Cortmission does hereby grant Variance No. 3246 on the basis that there are special circumstances eppliceble to this pro)ect, includiny size~ shape and locacion~ which do n~t apply to other p•operty under identical zoning classifications in the viclnity. Lot Nos. 9 and 10 will be reduced in size by a fire access ro~d for the benefit of all surrounding pr~perties; that because of these special circumstances~ fulty described in the record, a strict application of the Zoning Code would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other proparty in che immediate vicinity under identlcal zoning classifications (RS-HS-22,000(SG)); that the variance action does not significantly affect the proJect's consistency with the general land uses described in the general plan, and the Planning Cortmission's interpretation of that policy quide. The gener~l plan findings for the tentative tr~ct are tntorporated herein by this reference; th~t the granting of this varlance does not authorize a use in conflict with the use or uses authorized in the area. The varianr.e will permit a use consistent with surraur~din9 land uses to the Wcst~ North ar.d East, and undeveloped property to the Sout.h; and subJ~ect to Interdepartmer~tal Committee Recommendation5. On rall call the forego(ng resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, BOUAS~ BUSHORE, FRY~ HERBST, KING, MC BURNEY NOES: COMMISSI0NER5: NONE ABSENT: COi~1MI5Si0NERS: NONF Jack White stated a condition should be added ta appraval of the tratt map and that this condition has baen discussed with and agreed to by tht petitioner ~nd the condition should read as follnws: "7h~t the develaper shall. prior to approval or the final map, demonstrate lhe source and sufficiency of the water supply to the reasonable satisfaction of the city." Chairman Bushore asked that the stipulation of the petitioner concerning the grade and fence height of the neighbor be In~luded. 12/14/81 ~.. MIWUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMM{SSION, December 14, 1981 81-76) Commisstone~ Herost offered a motian, seconded by Commfsslcner King and MOTION CARRIED that the Anahetm Ctty Plenning Canmisston does hereby find that the propoSad subdivlston~ together wlth Its deqign end improvement~ is con~istent with the Clty of A~aheim Genersl Plan~ pursuant to Gowsrnrtrent Cade Sectlon 66473.5; and does, theraform~ approvn Tentative IIAp ot Trect No. 10674 for a 13~1ot~ RS-HS-li.,000(SC) Zone subdiv(slon~ on the basis of the following findings as submltted by the petttioner, and subJect to the Interdepartmental Committae Recommendetions: I. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENLY, The m~p~ design end improvement of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the Anaheim General Plen, es set forth below~ A. Nousin and Residentlal Areas, (1) The foilow(ng goals and ~olicies apply tu this pro ect: (a) To oncourage the development and melnee~nance of a residential living environment that preServes the amenities of hillside: living; (b) To encourage the development of a vartecy of dwelitng types and densities wh(ch provid~*. housing for differe~t family sizes and age groups; (c) To preserve the Ir~tegrity af ~esidential areas by separating them from incompatibl~ zoning and land uses; (d) '~~o encourage the development af attractive residential arcas through the applicatic~n of appropriate s(te development standArds; (e) Tr~ design street systems in residential areas which discourage use by through or nonresidential traffic; yet providing all residential area, and sites with adequate access to thoroughfares and transportation faciitties~ fire and poltce protecti~n, pubitc utilities~ and other community se~vices; 2. P roject implementatlon of Goals and Policies. (a) 7he NroJect will provide high quality residerittal housing which will encourage the de~~etnpment and maintenance of a resid~ntial living environment; (b) The proJect encourages ful) utilizatio~ of hillside living for different family aizes whtle preserving the intent oE the residential densities intendsd for the a rea ; (c) The pro,ject fully preasrves the Integrity of the rest~.;er~tial area. There will be full separation from incompatible zoning and land uses; (d) The project encourages the development of attrACtive residential areas thr4ugh appropriote site development standards~ including grading requirements, protection af trail e~s~rn~nts, provision of appropriate drainage facilities (See e.g. Recommendation Nos. 13 and 16); t3) The street system praposed for the proJecc strfkes an app~opriate belance between the discouragement of through or nonresldential traffic and the pravision of an essential link in fire and other public serviaeaccess. B. Circulat(on Systern. '~) The foilowing goa1s and policfes apply to this proJect: (a) Yo providc a system of trafflcways r.~hich is related ta the planned residentia) densitfes and lend use and the antltipated need for rroving people and goods; (b) To provide t~afficways which will enh: :.e the appea~ance and quality of the residential and commerciai areas through which they travel; 12/14/81 ~' MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COHMISSION~Dacember 14, 1981 (2) Pro~ect im~._.amentatlon of Goals and Pollcies, 81-762 (ai The proJect aa dasigned ts a carefully planned mep destgned to antici- pate tht nPed ro~ movlnq p~ople ~nd gaods thraugh and into the area, p~~ttcularly the provisian for ftre snd other publlc aervices In ~n efficlent way; the developer will pay troffic xignal assessment fee; (b) Tho p roJect provides ~rtv~t• readways which Are carefully planned to preierve and enhance the appeerence af the aroa. The quatity of the residential aree will be much enhance,i by the contours of the roadways, (C) Water ;istrl~buti+on Systam._ (1) The following goals and policies apply to this pro ect~ (a) To provide for the efficient end econom(c distribution of an adequate waker supply to all residentia) areas served by the munitipal water dlstribution sysiem at a minimum pressure of 55 pounds per square inch; (b) To e~stabllsh anJ enforce requ(rements for a municlpal water servtce which meet or exceed stat~ heaith standards; (2) Pro~jec~lmplementation of Goals and Policies, The proJect anticipates annexation into the City o Anahe m and t~e resotut an of past w~ter provision problems In the Vista Del Rio Rancho Water Company area. 7he implemente+tion of the proJect will encourage the efficient and oconamic distr(bution of an adequate water s~pply from the City of Anaheim to a newly annex~ed area; (O) Electr(cal Distribution S stem. (i) The following goals and po~icies apply to th s pro,~ecc: (a) To serve electrical energy to all electrtcal c~nsumers In Anaheim in an efficient manner; (b) To encous•age and provide for the installation of underground facilfties ta enhance the aesthetic appearance of the community, the developer to pay the cost of undCrgrounding; (2) Pro~ect Inple_men_t~tion of Goals and Policies. The proJect anticipates the service o el~ tctr~cal energy to e~ectr~ca consurt+~rs~n a newiy annexed area. The project plans cail f~r the undergrounding of electrical facilities at developer expense. E. Sew~~e System, (1) The following goals and polictes apply to this ~roject: (a) To insure that the necessary systems of drains, sanitary sewers, pu+nps, and treatment plants ~o collect and adequately dispose of the liquid waste of the comnunity are provided; (2) Project Irn~plemsn_taticxi of Goals and Policies. The proJect insures that the developer will insta~Tl the necessary systems o dra ns and sanitary sewers to coliect and adaquately dispase of the liquid wastes of the residential comrnunity. (See Recorm~endetions of appraval.) F. Storm prain System. (1) The following goels and poiicies are applicable to this pro ect: (a) To pravide a storm drainage system wFich wilt p-event devastating fiood drainage end adequately dispose of rainfall and subscquent runoff from a ten year frequency storm; (b) To relat~ Anahesim's flood control system to multipurpose usas whenever practfcal end financieily feas(bie; ~ ~' i ! MINUTES~ ANAMEIM C1TY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Decembar 14, 19$1 81-763 (1) Pro •ct I lam~ntatton of Goals ~~d Polictas. The proJect e~couragas rtw~xtmum collnctio~ a~ r~tent on o storm runo or r~c arg ng into the u~derground wate r basi~ and the use af ltreet Improvert~nts to t~ke full a~dvsntsge of the potential draina9a control. Thw dretnaga recomir~ndettons for tha proJect are adequate to p rotect the hillsida ch~recteristlcs of thts ~esid~ntl~i area. (See Recomrtiendation N~~mbers 6~ ~, 11, 13 and 17.? Daveloper wi11 pay drein~ge sssessment fees. G. Schoola. (1) The follawing goels and paltctes apply to this proJect: (a) To provido comprehensive proJections of the communities poputatton and long-range use of land. (2) Pro eGt 1 len~entatlon of Goals a~d Policies. Long-~enge planning for schools tncludes res ent a deve ~pment n t e pro ect aree. H. Parks Recraatian, ~nd Open Spa~e. (1) The following goals and pollcies apply to t~iTs pro act: (a) To assure that the current pol(cy of providing !.5 acres of perk per one thousand persons be contlnued; (b) That each park be developad to serve the particular needs of its servica area; (2) Prolect Impiementation of Goals and P~~ticies. (a) The strategy for implementatlon a~ ~t applies co this proJGCt include s the implementation of County's Naster Plan of Ridi~g and Hikinq t~ails. This proJe ct preserves the natural beauty of the hill areas ~nd a~cess for the public through ~iding and hiking trails~ improved by the developer. Tha project is not lotated in an a rea designated as a cnmmunity park site; (b) Developer will be required to pay park and r~creation tn-lieu fees determined by City Council. I. Cumulatlve Consistency. (a) The prnject is consistent with the zoning Reclassif(cation No. $1-82 - 7, approved Octob~r 5~ 1981. That ReclassifiGation was required to be consistent wit h the obJectives~ policies and generel land uses contsined In the general plan (Government Code 65860.) The Reclassification was n~t appealed. (b) Ti~e proJect is c~nsistent with Recla~sification No. 81-82-7 and is therefore consiatent with the general land uses contai~ed in the Anaheim General Plan. J. Ne ative Declaration. That an Inttial Study has been naticed and complete d~ and on the as s o t~at study this proJect as planne~, proposed and tho~cughly mitigated (pursuant to eppropriate Conditions of Approval {including Staff Recomme~ d- t~ons)) wi11 not have a significant effect on the environment. 12/14/81 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINC CONMtSS1011~ Decert~ber 14, I9A1 51-76y INTERDEPIIRTMENTAL COMMITTEE RECOM_NENOATIANS IF TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 1ff674 15 APP RUYk D S 1. Th~t the approval of T~nt~+tive Ma~ o~ Tract No. in674 ts qr~nted sub)ect to the approvsl of Variance N~. 3T46. 2. That ~hould this subdivislon be developed as more the~ one subdtvfslon. each :ul~divtslo~ thereaf shall he submitted tn tentacive for-n fo~ app~ovai. ;. That all lots within thla tract shell be served by unde~ground utilitles. 4. That the o~tginat documents of the covenar.s~ con~ltio~s. and ~nstricttons. ~nd a letter sddressed to developer's titiG company euthortz~~-g re,cordatlon thereof~ shail be submitted to the City Attarney's off!ce and epproved by the City Attorney's Offic~~ Puh11c Utiltttes Oepartment~ Bulldinq Divtsion. and the Englneering Divlslon prlar to fInA1 tr~ct ms-~ approvsl. S~Id documonts~ as apprqved. shell be flle~i ~nd recorded t~ th~ Office of the Orange County Recorde~. 5. Thet st~eet n~mes shall be a~pproved by the City Pianning tMpartment priar to approvai of a final trrct mep, 6. That drainAge of said property ahall be disposed of 1.~ a manner satlsfactory to the City Enginear. If~ f~ the preparatio~ ~f the site, sufftctent greding is requlred to necessitate s grading permtt~ nc~ work on greding wtll be perm{tCed betwaen Octobar 15th and April iSth unless ail required off- site drainage facliities have baen Instaited and are operative. Positive assurance shall be provlded the Clty that such drsinaqe fectilt~e~ wiil be completed prtor to October 15th. Neussary rtght-of•way for of:-site drainage facilittes ahall be dedicated to the Ctty~ or the City :ounctl shall have i~itiated eondemnatlon proceedings ther~for (the casts of which shall be borne by the developer) prlor to the cortn~en~ement of grading operations. The requtred dralnaqe facilttles shell be of a size a~d type suffictent to cerry runoff wat6rs originating fran htqher propartless through sald property to ultimate dt~posal ss ~ppraved Ay the City Cnginee~. Sald drainage faciltttes shell be the fi~st ltem of construction and she11 be compieted and bQ functiona) throughout the tract and from the downstream boundary oF the property to the uttlmate polnt of disposal prior to the lssuance of any final bulidin9 Inspectlons or occup~+ncy permits. Or~inage district ~eirtburs~ment sgre enwnts may be made svaitable to the developers of said property upon their request. 7. That greding, excavatlon~ end all other conatruction activtties shail be conductad in ~uch a rnsnne r so as to minimixe the possibility of any silt orlginattng from this pro!ect betng carrted into the Sa~ts Me Riv~er by storn- wate~ ort5inattng from ar flc~+~ng through this pmject. 8. That appropri~te water essesa~+ent fees as deter+eT~ed Sy the Office of Utilittes General Managcr shall bc pald to the City of Anaheim prtor to the issuance of e building pern~it. 12/14l81 4 ~ / MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ December 14~ 1981 81-765 9. Th~t flr~ hydrants shal) bt in~tafled and cha~ged a~ requlred end deterTlned to be nec~~sary by tha Chla} of the Fir~ D~partment p~lo~ to caim~ncement af st~uctural framing. 10. That th~ awner of ~ub,jaet property ~hs1) p~r ta the Ctty of Ansheim the appropriate psrk ~nd recn~atton In-t lsu fdes ns d~!termined to be approp~iate by tha City Counctl~ sald tees to be paid at the time the butlding permit Is t ssued. il. That the sligrn+~nt and terminal point of ~torm drelns shavn on thts tontetive e~act map shaii not be wnsidered final. These drelns shall be t ub)ect to precise design constderetions end r~paroval of the City Engineer. 12• ~f p~rmanant street n~me slgns hdve not been ir+at~lled~ tempora~y street name sig~s sha11 be installed p~lo~ ta any occupency. 13. That the owner(s) of subJact property sh~l) pay appropriate drstnage a~sessment feea to tha Ctty of Anahetm as determined by the C~ty Engineer prtor ta approv~l of • ftn~l trect map. 14. Thst all ~equlroments of Fire Zone 4, ethe nvise identified ss Ftr~ Admintstratlve Order No. 76-Q1~ wi11 ba met. Such ~equi~ements includa~ but are not Ilmlted to~ chimn~y spark arrastors, protected attic and under floor openings~ Claas C or bettn~ roofing mater~el and one hour fir~ reaistive conatructlon of horisontal surfaces if wtthtn 200 feet of adJacen~ b rushland. 15. ThaC fuet breaks ahsi! be provi..ed es determined to be required by the Fire Chief. 16. That no grades shal) exceed ibt exc.ept by prtor a~proval of the Fire Departmrnt a~nd the Engineering piviston. 17• That nAtive siopes adJacent to newly wnstructed hanes shall be hydroseeded with a low fuel coMbNSsibla seed mix. 5uch slopes shall be 'prinklered and weedad ss requl~ed to establtsh 1f10 ftet separatio~ of flammsble ~rogetatlon f rom any structure. ~ 18. That the a+r-er(s) of xubject property ahall pay the t~affic signal ,~ assessment fee (Ordinance No. ;sg6) in an amount as determi~ed by the City Council, for each new dws111ng unit prlor te the isauance of a butiding p~ rmt t . 19. Yhat the private straets shall be developed in aco~rdance wtth the City of Anahe~m's atandard for private street$ in the Moinier Drive a~ea. 20. That the cul-de-asc in the northvrest corner of the tract shall be constructed in such ~ raa~~e~ th+~t the con~plete cul-de-sac wtil be completed with tfi e imRrovements for thl~ tract. 21. Thet the cwner(s) af subject property sha11 irrev~ocablY offe~ to dedicate bnd tmprove s 10 foot wide equ~strisn snd hiktng trsil as shavn on tha Equestrian a~d Hiktng Tratls Coa~ponent of the Anah~in~ C~~eral P1sn; and that 12/14/$1 ~ MINUtE5, ANAHEIM CITY PIANNIi~G COMMISSIQN, Oecemb~r I~+, 1981 81-7b6 imp~ownrnt pla~~. In ~ccordance with st+~ndard pla~~ snd epecitic~tlan~ an f I 1• 1 n the Otf tca of the Ci tY Enginea~. ~hai l be submi tted in con~unctton with the ~~adir~g pi~n; and/or ~h~t a bond in •n emount and form a~tl~factory to ths City of An~h~lm ~hal1 b~ posted with che City t~ gu~rantee the inttall~*~.,~~ of the above-mentio~ed requir~nsnts prier to occupancy. 22. Tha~t prlor to app~ova) of thi fin~l tract n~p, tha avne~a of subJact property shall tubmit evldance satisfactory to the City Attorne~y's Office showing that secess is avall~ble ever those Drivate rcwds leading to the proposad develo~ments. 23. ThAt app~ovsl of Tant~tive ~~ap af Tract No. 1A67~+ is subJact to canpletion of annex~tton of subJect property to the CitY of Anaheim. 2G. That the p~oposad subdivisla~ shall provide~ to the extent fessibla~ for passive or netural he~ting and cooling opportunitles. 25. That ar~- sp~cimen t~ee ren~val shall ba subject to the requi~tton• pertaining to tree prese~vatlon In the ScenlG Corridar Ove~lay Zone. 26. That the developer shal I~ priar co approval of the final map~ demonstrate tho source •nd sufficlency of the w~te~r supply ta the reeso~able satiafacCio~ of tM city. 27. That the owne~ of subject prope~ty shall war!c with th~: Qwncr of the adJaccnt ~roperty to the east for the construction of a mutually acceptable fence. Commissio~er Herbst offered a motton, second~d by Commissi~;,r_r King and MOTIOt~ CAG• .~ thet the Anahelm City Planning Lommissior dues tsAreby gr,^~ the requtst fo approval of removal of cwo (2) specimen trees in Tract r~c~ 10674 on the ~~:sts Lhat • easanab'e and practical developme~t of thc property on which the trees Are loc>ted rr~auires removal of the tree or trees whose removal is seught and t!~. any trecs ~cmoved shalt be. replaced w+ th the planting on the same parcel of i;roper~y of an equai number of t-t;:; from a~peci fied 1 ist. Jeck White aresa~t~d the writcen right of appea~ of tye P1~nni~g Commission's decision withir, 15 days ~"~_~a'~'di^a the Tract Mep and 2Z days pertnining to the other rea,ucsts. Don C1 inebe' 1, Fulup~ 6 Hardee Law Corporat tan, asked that thet r letter of December 11 ~ 1981 be incorporated i~to the administrative record. 12/14/81 ~ t ~ ~ MINUTES. ANAH~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. Oecembar 14, 1981 61-767 ITEM N0. - Eltt NEGATlVE DECLARATION RECLASSIfiCATION N0. 81-82-11 VARIANCE N0, NTA 1 V . ~ PUBLIC HEARIWG: OWNER:TERRA FIRMA PROPERTIES INC.~ 438 E. Ketalla~ Suite 209~ Orenge, CA 92667, AGENT: INVESTORS DEVELOPMENT OF ORANGE COUNTY INC.~ 1345 N. Grand Avenue, Sante Ana~ CA 9Z701. Property deacribed ss an trragularly-shapad parcel af land consisttng of epproximately 0,9 acre~ having a froi~tage of approximately 1~90 feet on the south stde of Wilkan Wey, epprox~mst~~ly 430 feet east of the centerline of Harbor Bou-everd, RECtASSIFICATtON REQUE ST: CG t~ aM-3000 VARIANCE REQUEST: Minimum lot area per untt and minlmum rrcreat(onal/leisure aree per unt t. TENTATIVE TaACT REQUEST: One-lot~ 15-unit condominlum subdiviston, There was one person indicating her pres~nce in oppositton to subJect request and although the staff report to the Planning Commission dated Oecember 14, 1981~ was not read at the public hesriny, it is referred to and mede a part of the minutes. Chai~man Bushare declared a conftic[ of P~terast as defined by Anaheim City Planning Commlssion Resolutton No.PC76-151 adopting a Confllct of Interest Code for the Planning Commisston and Gove~nment Code Sect(fln 3b25~ et seq,~ in that Investors Develnpment of Orange Co.. Inc. are clients of his real estaxe corporation and pursuant ta the provisions of the above Codes. declared that he was withdrawing from the hearing in connection wich this item and wouid not take part in e(ther the dlscussion or the voting thereon and h~d not discussed this matter wicli any member of the Planning Commission. THEREUPON, Chairman Bushore left the Counci) Chamber at 2:41 p,m. Chairman Pro 7empore F~y assumed the chair, Richard Pierce~ Investors Development, 1345 i~. Grand~ Santa Ana. was present tu answ~er questions. Rlta Ray~ 1927 Chateau, Anaheim~ stated she attended a number of ineetings concerning the revision of the RM-3000 Code ~nd when that revision was approved~ it was stated there would be no va riances granted becausa that was the rea~on for revising the Code and now the requests are coming in for additional waivers. She asked if CUP 2121 was granted for aFfordable housing which would bc the reason for grantinq a 35~ density bonus. Dean Sherer~ Assistant Planner~ explained that cunditianal use permit was for 20~ units at the Westwinds Mobilehome Park, north of subject property, and it was not for afFordable hnusing~ but dtd provide units for ~existtng mobilehome park tcnants. He clarified that was approved after the RM-3000 Code was amended. Mrs. Ray continued that a year ag~ density bonuses were being approved for as high as 144$ and she thought ailowing bonuscs for increased density unde~ the revisad code wauld set a bad precedent and would have to be grante~l to anyone who made a ~equest and she thought quite a few re~tdents of Anaheim wr~uld obJQCt. She also stated she did not see a hardship for gra~ting this request. 12/14/81 ~. MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CIrY PLANNING COMMISSIQhI, December 14~ 1981 ; 8~-768 Mr. Pisrca stat~d thay ere nat raqusstin9 anything more than wes gr~nted to the properties to thn south and east by the Planntng Commtssian end City Counctl, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Comniss(~ner Barnas and Bouas asked if the requast is for 1Q or 1S unlts. Dean Sher~r expidlned the ortginal prop~sa) was to~ 15 units; hawnvar~ subs4quent plans ware submitted for 14 unfts and both pians were a~elysed for Commlssian revtew. Responding to Conxntssion Herbst's request~ Dean Sherer expleined there heve baen recent revlsions to the RM-3000 Code and the projects referred to are Tract No. 10476 to the south of the ToysR Us Store and Trect No. 10956 immediately ta the eest and bath of these tracis were approvad when the RM-3000 standards did dsduct square footeges for the net lot aree per unit and in analysing these proJects c~mparattvely~ it was found if they were submitted today, they would meet the current Rt1-3000 revised standards. t;ammissioner McBurncy stated he revlewed bnth p~oposals and felt the 14-unit plan ts much more workable and that it was good plan and Commissioners Barnes and Hcrbst agreed, ACTION: Commissioner Barnes offered a motion~ setonded by Commissioner King and MQ-'Tj01~CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has rcvlewed the propasei ta reclassify subJect praperty from the CG (Carxnercial, General) Zone ta the RM-3000 (Residentlal~ Multiple-Family) Zono to establtsh a one-lot, 14-unit condominium subdiv(ston with watvers of minimum lot area pcr unit and minlmum r~creattonal/leisure area per unit ~n an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approxin-ately 0.9 acre, havtng a frontage af approximately 180 f~et on the south side of Wilken Way~ approximately 430 feet east of the centerline of Harbar Boulevard; and dces hereby ~pprove the Negattve Declaration from the requircment to prepare an environmenta) impact report on the basls that there would be n~ slg~ificant individual ~r cumulative adverse environmental impa_t due to the approval of th(s NGgative Declaratlon since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subJect property for me;dium denslty residential land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive envtronmental impacts are involved in the proposal; tha: the Initiai Scudy submitted by the petitioner indicetes no signiftcant individual or cumul~tive adverse environmentai impacts; and that the Negative Declaration substantiating the foregoing findings is on file in the City of Anaheim Planniny Department. Dean Sherer pointed out Cor+dition No. 14 of the Interdepartmental Commtttee Recommendations should be amended to show Revision No. 1 of the plans. Commissioner Barnes offered Resolution No. PC81-258 an~ moved far its passage and adoption that the Anaheim Gity Pta~ning Conmission does hereby grant Reclassification Wa ~1-82-11~ subJect to ~~~e~departmental Committee Recommend:tions, as amended. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by thC following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS, BARNES~ BOUAS, FRY, NERBST, KING~ MC BURNEY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NOI~E ABSENT: COMMlSSIONERS: 9USHORE ~Zi~aia~ ~r ~~ l MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLAWNING COMMISSION~ December 14, 1981 a1-769 Comntsaloner Barnes offered Resolution No. PC81-259 snd moved for its passage and adaption that the Anahelm Ctty Planning Commisslon does hereby grant ~lari~nce No. 3249 on the basis that the property Is irregulsr!y.shaped and the requests are mtnimel and there is a drdsttc n~~d fo~ houaing, ~nd subJect to Interdapartmentai Cammlttee R~eomnendattans, wtth Conditton No. 2 amended to read Revtston No, 1, On roll cal) the fore9oing resalutton was passed by the follow(~g vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ BOUAS~ FRY~ NER95T~ KING~ 11C 9URNEY NOES; COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 4USHORE Commissioner Barnes offered s motlon~ seconded by Commissianer King and MOTION CA~RIED (C~mmissioner Bushore be(ny absenC) that the Anaheim City Piannin+~ Cortmis!cio~ does hereby find that the proposed subdivlsion~ together with ics design and Improvert~nc, Is consistent with the City of Anaheim Generel Plan, pursuent to Govern~~ent Code Soct(on 66473.5; and does, therefore~ approve Tentatlve Map of Tract No, 11463. Rev, No. l~ fc,r A ona,-lot, 14-unit c4ndominium subdtvision, subJect to the following cpnditions: 1. That the approwl of Tentatiw M~p nf Tr~ct !b. t t~+3 is ~~antad sub)~ct ta the app~ovai of Reclaasiftcation No. 81•82-11. 2. That the •pprovsl of Tentative Map of Tract No. ilb6; Is granted sul~]ect ta the app~ova) of Yariance No. 3249. 3. That should this subdtviston be developed es more than anc subdivision, e~ch subdivtsicx~ thereof shall be submittad In tentatfvr' form fo~ a~pprovai. 4. That all lota within thls tract shali be servrd by underground utilities. 5. That the origtnal docu~ents of the covenants~ condltions, and ~estrictions~ and a letter addressed to d~veloper's title con~peny Authorizing rec~rdaticm tha~eof~ ahall be submitted to the City Attarney's office and approved by th~ City Attorney's Offtc~~ Pubilc Utiltties Dep~~tment, Bullding Divtsion, and the Engineering Divisicx~ prior to finei tract msp spprovai. Said doeunbnts, as approved~ shail be ~11ed and recordad in tne Office of the Or~nge Coua~ty Recorder. 6. That trash stc+~age aress shall be provlded in accorda~ce +vtth approved pisns on ftle Kith the Office of the Executive 'Director of Public Works. 7. That firr hydrants shall be installed and chsrqed es required and determine~d to be naceasary by the ~hlef of the Fire Departn+ent prlar to cro+~e~ecnce~+nt of structurdl frsming, 8. That drainage of sub)ect prc~p~erty shsll be disposed of in a ma~ner satisfactory eo the City Engineer. 9~ That the avne~ of sub)ect proparty shail pay to the City of Anah~et~ the approprtate pi~k ~end recreation in•lteu fee: as deterenin,ed to be approa~late by the City Council. satd fees to be paid et thr time the buliding pee~oiit is tssued. ~~i~~-~~r ~. MINtlTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISS104~ Qecember 14~ 198) 81-77Q 10. That all prlvate stre~t• ~ha11 b~ d~v~lvp~d in accc~rdanc• with tha Cit~r of Anahelm's Standard Detai) No. 1~2 for private •treets~ including Inslall~ttan of ~.tr~~t n~aia siqns. Pl~ns for tha priv~te str~et Ilghting~ as requirod ~~ ch~ standard datell~ ~h~11 bt subMittad to the Butiding Divtsio~ for approval a~d incluslon with the butlding plens prlor to the l~=uanca of bulidt~g permlts. (Privata streats s~~ those v,htch provide prlmsry eccess and/o~ circul~ti«+ wtthin the proJect. 11. That th• awner~s) of sub)act property •hall pey the t~affic signal assestment faa (Ordtnan ce Nc~. 3896) In An anwunt a~ determined by the City Cauntil~ for each new dwelling unit prtor to the issuAnc~ of b butlding permit. 12. That tha proposed subdtviston shall provtde~ to the extent feasible~ for -oastve or natar~l ha~tin9 a~d ~ootinq opportwiitt a. 13. P~lo~ to ts~wnq of buildin9 p~~its~ th~ appiteant ~hall p~N~nt evidMO~ sattsfactory to the Chief Building Inspector that the proposed proJect is in c.~nformenca wlth Councii Policy Number 542. Sound Attenuation In Restddntidl pro~eCts. 14. prtor to issuance of buitdtng pa rn,its~ the applica~t shall present evidence satisfacto ry to the Chlef Buiiding Inspector that the units will be in confo~mance wtth Notse Insulation Standards spocifted tn the Californla Administrattve Code~ Title 25. 15. That all proposad driveway locattons on subJect property shall be subJect to approval by the City Trafftc Engineer prior to issuance of building permit. Jack 1fi ita presented the wrltten of appeal of the Planning Comnission decisio~rlthin 15 days regarding the Tract Map and within 22 days regarding the other approvals. Chairman Bushore returned to the Gauncil Chamber. ITEM N0. 6- EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONOITIQNAL USE PERMIT N0. 2281. PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: RiCHARD C. BROWNE~ et al, 3191-A Airport Loop, Costa Mesa~ CA 92626. AGEN7: ALPNA BFTA COMPANY, ATfN: HELEN DODGE, 777 5. Harbor Boulevard, La Harba~ CA y0631. Proparty describ~d as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.4 acres~ having a frontage of approxirnately 227 feet on tha east side of Euclid Sr.reet, approximately 255 fe~2 south of the centeritne of Lincoln Avenue (210 South Euclid Street (Alphy's Restaurant~). Property presently zonad CL. The~e was no one indicating th~ir presence in oppositfon to subject request and although the staff report to the Planring Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. 12/14/81 ~ :~ ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 14, 1981 a~ -»> Helen DAdge~ sgent, exptained the Alphy's rest+~urants have heen upgrAded to family- type restaurants r~ther than coffee shops And they wc+uld rec~vest A beer and wine Ilcanse. She explalned there will ~ot be a bar; that there is a counter with approximately 7 stools; that they have 45 of these rostaurants in Southern California. THE PUBLIC NEARING WAS CLOSED. It was noted the Ptanning Olrector or his authorized representative has determined that the proposed ~roject falls within the dafinition of Categorical Exemptio~s, Class l~ as defined In the State EIR Guldelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. ACTION: Commissioner King offered Resoluti~n tJo. PC81-260 end moved for its possage and adoptian that the Anahelm City Planning Commission has revlewed lhe proposa) to permit on-sale beer and w(ne in an existing restaurant. subjecc to Interdepartmental Commlttee Recommendattons, On roll calt the foregoinq resnlution was passed by th~ follc~winq vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, BOUAS, BUSHORE, FRY~ HERBST, x~NG, tIC dURNEY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NQNE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ITEM N0. 7- ENVIRONMtNTAI IMPACT REPORT N0. 218 ( reviou~4 a~J,roved~ AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 10 07 REVISIO~~ NQ. 2 keadverttsed . PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: AMERICAN NATIONAL GR4UP. et .~1~ "~45 S, Beverly Qrive, Beverly Nills, CA 90112. Property described as ~~ irrc~gularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 18.2 acres, having a fr~ntage of approxlmately 900 k feet on the north side of Irr~erial Highway~ ap~raximately 1610 feet south of the ~ centerline of Nohi Qa~ch Road. P~titioner requesCs deletion of i,ondition N~. 3 Qf Tra~.t Map No. 10407 (Rtvision No, 2) pertaining to ~ required 6-foot high biock wa{1. There was no one indicatina their presente in opposition to subject r~quest and although the staff repo~t to the Planning Commission dated December 1~~, 1981. was not r~ad at the public heari~g, (t is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Dean Sherer~Assistant Planner~ stated staff w~~uld request that Condition No. 3 as spelled out on page 7a of the staff report be modifi~d rather than deleted; that the first portion of the condition related [o the required wall and staff feels it woutd be reasonable to not delete the entire condition, but to amend it by removing the first sentence, with the condition modified to read as follows: "3. That reason- able landscaping, incl~ding (rrlgation facilities, shall be installed in the uncemented portion of the arterial highway parkway the full distance of said wall; plans for said landscaping ta be submitted tn and subJect to the approval of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance; and following installation and acceptanc~, the City of Anaheim sha11 assume the responsibitity for maintenance of said iandscaping." 12/1~/81 ~ ' MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY PIANNING COMMISSION~ December 14, 1981 01-772 Martha Schneiders~ American Notional Group~ stated this condltton requires a well whtch Is entirely dependent upon the tnstallation of Impe~ial Highway and that atreet is not scheduled for improvement at this time and the wall would serve no purpose. She stated~ In addition, two desilting basins have been canstructed tn the p~tr af the proposed wai) and would have to be removed. She stated they would like to h~ve this requirement effective at the same time Imperlal Highway is improved wltn sidewalks~ stroet lights~ curb~ gutter and pavin~. Commissioner McBurney asked if the improvert~nts for Imperial Highway were bonded for and Jay Titus~ Office Engineer~ replled he was sure most of those improvements were bonded; tha[ somr years ago when the area first started developing, there was a condition on some of the tracts that the city would put tn the center part of th~ str~et under an FHP program and tho developer wouid construct the r~mainder~ but at this time there is no FHP prngram or funds budgeted fa~ the street. Commissloner Mc9urney stated if they are responsible for that portion which fronts that tract~ would there be some way ta guarantee the construction of thc wall at the time the street is installad. Dean Sherer stated there is a letter (n thc file f~om Nora Ch~mberlain, Assistant to hlartha Schneiders~ which states the required 6-foot high masonry wall between their property and ImpGrial Highway has been bonded For and the tract map has been recorded and the letter also indicates representatives of the Englneering Department heve (ndicated they do not feel the wali is needed at this time and when it is constructed~ only certa{n portions need to be constructed. Commissioner Fry asked how these bonds are monitored. Jay Titus stated the street wlll eventually be Inscalled and once th~sc imrr•~~vemencs are bonded. the bonding companies will send inquiries to tne city as to whether c.r not the Improvements are stt11 needed or if rhe bcm d is still needed. He stated when the st~•eet is installed~ the city h.~: the record that this tract developer is responslble for putting those improvements in. Jack White~ Assistant City Attorney, stated the bond will efcher have a provision saying that within a certain number of years from the date of the bond or approval of the proJect, and in any event, it is a written contract and if the improvements are notinsLAlied in a timely manner or as specified~ the city would cait the bond~ and the time limit is 4 years from the date of the default. Commissioner Mc Burney suggested tl~e candition should ee modified to postpone it rather than deleting it and Dean Sherer agreed. Jay Titus suggested the condition b~ amended t~ read: "...until such time as improvements an Imperial Nighway are constructed and the City af Anaheim r~quests tho improvements.." Ccxnmissi~ner Barnes stated this would be a temporary postponement. 12/14/81 \, MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PIANNING COMMISSION~ December 14~ 1981 81-773 ACTION: Commisslone~ McBurney offered a motion~ seconded by Commissionar Fry and hl~fla~l CARRIED thet tha Ansheim City Planning Commission does hereby modify Conditlon No. 3 of Tentative Trect Map No. 10407 (Revision No, 3) to raad as follows; "3. That in accordance with City Council Policy~ e 6-foot high masonry wall shall be constructed on the southeast property Iine separatt~g Lot Mos, i~ 2~ 4 and 6 through 18 and Imperlal Highway at such time as impravements are constructed on Imperial Hlghway and the City of Meheim requests said wall. Reasonabie landscaping, inciuding irrigation faclltties~ shali b~ installed (n the uncemented portion of the Arterial Highway parkway thes fuil distance of sald w~ll: plans for said landscaping to be submitted to and sub,iect to the approval of the Superintendent nf Parkway Maintenance; and follow(ng installation and accepta~ce+~ the Clty of Aneheim shall essume the r~sponsibility f;,r maintenance of said landscaping." ITEM N0. $^ EIR NEGATIVE DECL_ ARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 324~. PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER DOYLE AND SHIEl.Q5, INC., P. 0. Box 13~, Wcstminster, CA 92fi03. AGENT: f. PATRICK DOYLE, P. 0. Box 130~ Westminster, CA 92683. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land cunsisting of approximacely 2.98 acres located at the northeast corner of Ball Road and Euc11d Street~ having approxim~te frontages of 265 feet on the north side nf Ball Raad and 490 fecc on the east side of Euclid Street. P~titionQr requests waiver of minimurn numbpr ~f parking spaces to expand an existing shopping center, There were three persons indicating ti,ctr presenc~ at the public hearino and although xhe staff report to the Pianninq Commission dated December 14, 1981, was not read at the public hearing~ it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Mike Gesler. 10561 Grove Oak Orive~ Santa Ana. Architect, stated tfie existing 28,OQ0~ square foot shopping csnter is approximately 20 yrars old and it wiit be upgraded with new landscaping, etc., and the parking lot wiil be upgraded with interior planters and ~ 3-foot wide landstaping st-'ip the en[i~e {enath of Euclid. He referred to Condition No. 3 and stated chere is an existinr~ driveway and asked that they be allowed to ke~p that acce•:s. Chairman B~shore stated the Traffic Engineer has indicated he vx~uld be willing to delete that recommend~tion for cloaing the driveway. Jce Rochelle, 16G~ Beacon, stated he lives ad,jacent to the parking lot and wes concerned. Chair~nan 6ushore pointed out the new Spires restaurant wil) be located rrhere the old gas station was locarad with additio~al commercial spaces next to the ald Spires restrurant and exptained the property including the market ad,jacent to his propert~r is not a parc of this oroposal. 11r. Rochelle stated he has na objection to the proposal and indicated he was not aware that the service station would be removed. 1'NE PUBIIC HEARING WAS CIOSED. Commis~ioner ticBurney asked if the ~etitioner was aware of the required media~ along Ba11 Road. Mr. Gesler asked if that is for a raised median or a~ainted median. Paul 12/lb/81 _.~1 4 } MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY P~ANNING COMMISSION~ December 14, 1981 81'77k Singer~ Trafflc Enqlneer, replying tt is a ratsed median. Responding to Mr. Geyler~ Mr. Singer stbtod the city has standards ~nd wlll work w(th tha co~tractor on the installatian of the n~edlan. ACTION: Commissloner King offerad a mut~nn~ seconded hy Commisstoner Herbst and ~~1 CARRIEO that the Anaheim City Plenning Commlssion has revlcwed the proposal to expand an exlsting shopptng center with watver of rninimum number of parking spaces on a rectangularly-shep~ed parcel ~f land consisting of a~pproxirt-ately 2.98 acres located at the northeast corner of Bail Road and Euclid Street; end does hereby approve the I~eqative Declaratlon from the requlrement to prepare an environmental im{~act report ~n the basis that there would be no significant lndivtdual or cumulative adverse envlronmantal impACt due to the approval of thls Negetive Desclaration since the Anaheim General P1an deslgnates the subJect property for general comn~ercial land uses commensurate with the proposal;that no 5ensitive environmental impacts are involved In the proposal; that lhe Initlal 5tudy submitted by the retitioner indicetes no s(qnificant individual or cumulative adverse environmentc+l impacts; anci that the Negative Declaration substant(ating the foregoing findings is on file in the City uf Anaheim Ptanning De~artment. Commissioner King offered Resolutlon No. PCS1-26) and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anahelm City Planning Commisslon does hereby grant Varlance No. 3247 on the basis that custon~ers needs for parking will vary due to the variety nf businesses and the: peak demand will ~eldom occur and the request is minlmal and subJect to Interdepartsnental Committee Recommendations~ delettng Condition Na. 3. On rc,ll call the fc~regr~ing resolution was passed by the fotlowing vote: AYES: COMMISSIOt~F.RS: ~ARt~ES~ BOUAS~ Bi15NORE, FaY~ NERgST, KI~iG, r~C HuRNEY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMM15540NERS: NONE ITEM N0. 9. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION and VARIANCE N0. 250. PUBLIC HEARiNG. OWNERS: TSUN-TSAI IIU, ET AL~ 1126 IJest Katcila Avanue, Anahelm, Ca. 92a02. AGENT: PETER lI.C. YU, 2133 Paseo Del Mar~ Palos Vcrdes Estates~ CA 9027~+. PraperCy described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.7~ acre, having a frontage of approximately 130 feet on the south side oF Katella Avenue (1126 West Katella Avenue (Skyview Motel)). Property zoned CR. There was no one indicating thelr presence at public hearinq in opposition, and althaugh the staff report to tha Planntng Commission dated December 14, 19a1~ was nat r~ad atthe public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Peter Yu~ agent, stated the Skyview Motel currentiy has 3U units with 30 parking spaces and prapase to add 4 units and are rRquesting a waiver because they are short 5 parking spaces, or approximately 16$. He steted ln the summer there is a shortage of rooms, more than a shortaqe of parkin~g because more than 50$ of the travelers c~me with families in one vehicle and several waivers have been granted in the area~ some as low as 709~ of the required parking and the~ propose a4$. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLdSED. ACTION: Commissioner King offered a motion~ seconded by Conmissioner Herbst and MOTIQN CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Ptanning Conmission has revlewed the propcsal 12/14/81 ~~ '~ . ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY pIANNING COMMISSION~ Oacember 14, 1981 81-775 to expand an existlnc~ motel with waiver of mfnfmum numf~er of park(ng spaces on a ~ectangularly-shapad parcel of land consieting of approximately 0.73 acre, having a frontage af approximately 1~0 f@et on the sout'• stde of Katella Avenue (1126 West Katella Avenue (Skyview Motal)); end does hereby approve the Negative Declaratio~ from the requiremant to prepare an environmental in~act report on ~hG basis that there wt~uld be na significant Indlvidual or cumulative adverse anvironmental impect due to the approval of this Negative Declaration si~~c~ the Anahetm Generai Plen deslgnates the subJect property for cor.merclal recreation land uses co~•mensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive environmental imracts are involved in the proposal; ttat the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner i~dica'ss no significant Indivtdual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and that the Negative Declaration substantiating the foregoing findings is on file in the City of Anaheim Planning Department. Comrnissianer King offered Resolution No. PC81-262 and moved for for if.s pa~sagc and adoption that the Anaheim Cicy Planning Commiasion does hereby grant Variance No. 3250 on the basis that a certain percenta~e of guests arrive by transportation modes other chan privace vehicle and dcnial would deprivc subjcct property of a privilege en,joyed by other properties in the same zane and vicinity and subject to Interdepart- mental Committee RecortNnendations. On roll call the foregoing resolutlon was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ BOUAS, BUSHORE, FRY~ HERBST, KING, MC BURNEY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSEN7: COMMISSIONERS: NONE RECESS: 2:55 a.m• RECONVENE:3~05 p.m. ITEN N0. 10. EIR NEGATIVE DECIARATION AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 171, PUBLIC HEARING. Property owner initiated General Plan Ar~ ndment to change the current General Commercial designation to Lnw-Medium Desnity Residential. Froperty described as an irregularly-shaped parcel having an area of approximately 5.S gross acres lacated on the northeast corner af La Pa{ma Avenue and Romneya Orivs. Jay Tashiro~ Associate Planner, presented the staff report tc, the Planning Commission dated Qecember 14~ 1981~ and although the report ~,as not read in its entirety, ik is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Frank Hughes~ 14771 Plaza Grive, Tustin, stated their cortrpany was attracted to thts site because it offers flexibilicy relative to its use; that it is designsted as cAmmercial property~ but also has the potential for reSidential use. Ne stated the~/ have studied the area and the market and would prefer ta build resldential providing it coutd be affordabie units and indicated their company has the capabiltty of doing both commerciat and residential. He explained they will be bringing i~ a request for reclassification tn RM-3000 and a traet map for perhaps 60 to 70 dwelling units. He stat~d Maheim Shores is an extreme)y attractiv~ comnunity and they hope ~a Compliment it and this community would have a security walt surrounding it and it will cater to smaller Psouseholds with smalle~ units. 12/14/81 MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PIANNING COMMISSION. December lA~ 19A1 a~-~76 Mr, kughes sr~,ted they hava a s~igned Msmcr~ndum of Agreement with the Anaheim Shores Asso~i<.'.~~~ whi~h addreases thei~ co~cerns as to ide~titificetion of thetr proJect SEpB-ACc~ r,oM r'~1; community and Indicated a copy of that agreement will be provided f~~ th~~ rr,;~,fn; ;~ on and explatned this agreement Is not a positinn of advocatinc,~ the pr~Ject, "vi ~_ an tndication of no oppositlo~ to them proceeding. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CI.OSED. Commissloner King stated he felt Exhibit A would be acceptable and Commfssioner Herbst stated he would have no opposition as long asthey do not try ;o use the shape of the property as a herdship for a varlance (n the future. Commissioner Barnes stated this Is an arca which can take more cammercia' uses and it makes sense ta have more restdential and all the surrounding area has low to medium density residential uses. Cheirmen Bushore stated he would support thc change and noted some of the changes which have ta~:en place in that ar~a have not always been for the betterment of the Anaheim Shores Community, but felt hc~mes on that site will improve the community and make it more valueble and he did not view this site as neighborhood commercial as originally planntd. ACTION: Commissione~ Barnes offered a motion~ secondcd by Comnissioner King and MOTION CARRIE~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the prop~sel to change the currant General Plan designation from generAl commercial [o tow-medium density on an ir~egul~~ly-shaped parcel of land having an area of approximately 5.8 gross ecres located on the northeast corner of LaPalma llvenue and Rc~mneya Drive; and does hereby approvc the Negaiive Declaration from the requlrement to prepare an environmental impact report on the basis that there wo~~ld be no significant individuai ur cunwlative adverse environmental impact due to the approval of this Negative Declaration since the Anahelm Gener~t Plan designates subJect property for general commercial land uses conn+ensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the proposal; that the InitialStudy submitted by the petitioner indicates no significiant individual or c:u~nulative adverse environmental impacts; end tt.at ti,~ Negativc Declaratior. substantijting the f~~egoing findings is on file in the City of Anaheim Planning Department. Commissioner Barnes offered Resol~tion Mo. PC81-263 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Pianning Commission does her~by recommend to the City Council that General Plan Art~endme~t Mo. 171 - Land Use Element be adopted~ Exhibit A. On roll call the foregoing resolutinn was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS; BaRMES~ BOUAS~ BUSHORE, FRY~ HER85T, KING, MC BURNEY NOES: COMMIS510NER5: NONE ABSENT: COhWISSI0NER5: NONE 12/14/81 ~ ~ MINUfES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMiSSION~ December 14, 1981 A1-777 ` ITEM N0. 11- EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION ANO GENERAI PIAN AMEN OMENT NQ. 173~ PuBLIC HEARING. Initiated by the City of An~heim Cammunity ~avelopment and > Enginaering Dlvision to chanqe the current deaignatlon of Pa tt Streat betwaen t Commerclel StreQt and La Palma Avenue from e Secondary Arte r iel Highway to ~ locai Strset in arder c~ Implament the Patt Stroet Area Imh rovement Pian. ; There was no one indtcating their prasence in oppositlon to sub,ject request. ; Jay Taahiro~ Associate Planner, presonted the ~taff repo~t t o the Plannin~ Gomm(ssion datad December 14~ 1981~ and although the steff r~port was not presented in its ~ntirety~ it is referred ta a~d mede a part of th~ minutes. Pri~~ to presantation nf the staff report~ Cheirman Bushore declared a conflict of interest as defined by Mahe{m City Planning Comm(sslon Reso lution No. PC 76-157 adapting a Confllct of Interest Code for the Planning Commis slon and Government Code Section 3625~ et seq.~in that he h~s acted as aqent with th~ Community Development Dapartment and pursuant to the provisfons of the above Cade s~ d~clared that he was withdrawing from the heuring in connectfon with Genarel Plan Amendment No. 113 end would ~ot tak.e part In Cither the discussion ar the voti ny th~reon and has not ; 'iscussed this matter with ar~y member of the Planning Commiss(on. TNEREUPON, ChAiRMAN BUSHORE LEFT TNE COUNCIL CHAMBER AT 3:15 p.m. Chalrmen Pro Tempore Fry assun-td che+ chatr. THE PUBLiC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Respcmding Co Chai rman Pro Tempore Fry's question~ Jay Tash i ro explained the are t between the knuc~:le and cul-de-sac wi I1 be expansian of ~n exlst(ng park si te. .Joel Fick~ Assistant Director for Planning, explained when ~'att Street was designatad as an Arterial Highway~ that Area was generally Qlanned fo r induscrlal uses; however~ the GeneralPlan was amended severai years ago for residGnt ial land uses. ACTIpN: Commissioner Barnes offered a motion. seconded by Commissioner 9ouas and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposa) to amend the Anaheim Generat Plan to change the current desig~ ation of Patt Strt~et between Comnercial Street and La Pr~ima Avenue frflm a Secondary Arcerial Hlghway to a Local Street in order to implement the Patt Street Area Imp ~ovement Plan; and does he reby apprave rhe Negat i ve ~ec 1 arat ion f rcxn the requi remen t t~ prepare an envi ro~- mental impact ro pc~rt on the basis Chat the~e wauld be no si gnificant indivtdual or cumuletive adverse environmental impact due to the approval of this Negative Declara- tipn 5ince nb 5ensitive cnvJronmental impacts Are tnv~olved in the ~r~posat; that the Initial Study submitted by the petitianer indfcates no siynificant individual or cumuletive adverse envi~onmental impacts; and that the Negative ~eclaration substantiating the furegatng findings is on file in the Cic y of Anahelm Planning Departn-ent . Commissio~er Barnes offerad Rssolutlon No. PC81-264 and maved for its passage and edoptlon thai tha A~aheim City Planntng Commission does hereby recomr,end to the City Council approval of General Pla~ Amendment No. 173 - Ctrculation Element, Exhibit A. On ro11 cali the foregoing resolution was pasaed by the fo Zlowing vete: ~z~~aia~ ~~ ~ M I NUTE S~ ANANE I M C t TY PIANN I ~IG COMM 1 SS I Oi~ ~ Oecen~be r 14 ~ 1 g81 81-778 AYES: COMMISSIONERS; 9ARNES, BOUAS~ FRY, MEaBST~ KING~• MC BURNEY NOES: COf1MISSIONERS: NONE A6SENT: COMMISSIONERS: BUSHORE Chat rman Bushoro roturned to the Counci I Chemh~r at 3:18 p.m. 1 TEM N0. 12 . ENV 1 RQNMENTA~ I 14PACT REPQRT NO . 226 (P rev i ous 1 e roved) end r,El~ L M I~DMENT . 1 - C i rcu i at on E ament . PUBIIC NEARING. INITIATED BY ENCINEEftING DIVISIUN OF THE CITY OF AfaANEIM. Request to delete a portion of Conventton Wa•~ which is currently desi~nated es a MeJor Arterlal Highway. There was no one indicating thelr ~resence in opposltion to subj.ect request. Jay Tashiro, Assoclate Planner, presented the steff report. to the Pl~nning Commission dated December 14~ 19a1~ and although the entire report was not read~ it is referred to and made a part of the Tinutes. THE PUBL I C NEAR I NG I~AS CLOSEO. It was noted Environmental Impact Repart No. 266 was previously certified by the City Councli in conJunction with the Convention Center's ~etterment II Program. ACTION: Commissionar 6arnes offered Resnlutio~ ~to. PC81-265 and moved for its pessage and adoption that the Anahelr City Planning Comnission does hereby recomnend to the City Council that ~eneral Plan Amendmen! No. 17G •• Circutation Element -, Exhibit A be approved. On roll call the foregoin~ resolutlon was pass~d by the following vote: AYES: COMHISSIONERS: BARNES, 80UAS, BUSHOR:~ FP,Y~ F RBST~ KING, t1C BURNEY NaES: COHf11 S51 ONERS : FJQNE ABSENT: COMHISSIONERS: NONE ~~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLA~NN~NG CO~MISSION, Oecember 1W~ 19$1 81~779 ITEN N0. i 'EE~'l~l'~ RECONMENOAT ~ ONS ~ The follawtng R•ports and ae corm+endetla+a staff rep~rts were pre~e~ted but not read: A. CONDITIONAL USE PERr~t N0. 1Q6~ - Rectuest from Herry C. Schrey/Redeffer Investma~nt= or terrw nat on o Conditiona) Use Permit No. ~q6n fo~ property lacatad n~rth and aaat of on the nc~rtheast corner af Orengewood Avenue and S~nta Crut Street. ACTION: Chairman B uahore offered Resolutlon No. PC81-2h(, and n+oved for tts passige And adoptlon thet the Anahetm CILy Planning Commissian does hereby termtnate Conditlonal Uae Permit Na. 1qE~0. On roll call~ the foregotng resoiutton was n~ssed by the felic~winq vote: AYES: CAMMISSIOKERS; DARNES~ 40UA5~ BUSHORE~ FRY. IIERBST~ KIN~~ McBI~RNEY NOES: COMMISSIONERS; NONE Aa5ENT: COMM155I ON~RS ; NQNE 6. CONDITIONAL USE PER~11T N0. 106 - Request for termtnatton frc~m Narry C. c rey ode er nv~est,.°nts or Condt tlo~Al Use Perml t No. 1~63 for property located nortl~ and east ~f the northeast c~ornar of Ks~tella Avenue and Sante Cruz Streat. ACTiON: Chairman 8 ushare offered Resolutta- No. PC81-2~7 and moved for its passage and adopttcsn that the Anaheim City Plenning Commission cio~s hereby terminate Candtttonal Use Permit No. 1Q6~. On ~oll call, the fcrec~oing resolution was prssed hy the following voLe: A1fE5: COMMISSI~NE~S; BAaHES. 80UAS, DUSNORE~ fRY~ t1ER8ST~ KIlIR, McBURNEY NOES: COMMISSIOt.IERS; NONE A85ENT: COMMIS510t~ERS: NQNE C. CONDITIO~IAL USE PERMIT H0. 1~ - Request from Alfred D. Psino to termTnate Zo dTTenaT~l7s t e~m t No. , for ~roperty (Port i on A) . tocat~d o~ the east sidc of NayNS~rd Street. south of Orange Avenue~ and (Portion ~)~ loca'ted at 727 South 6each ~ouleva~d. ACTIiDN: Chairman 6ushores offered Resolution Nc~. PC81-26R and moved for Its pa`s g ~nd adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Coi+r+~ission does hereby trrminste Conditio~a~ Use Permit No. 1972. On roil caill. the fo~egoing resa{utton was passad by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIt~iR~: BAaNES, BOUAS. BUSIIORE~ FRY~ NERBST, KINC~ McBURNEY NOES; COtiMI SS 1 dNERS: NONE A85ENT: COMM1S510f1ERS: NdNE 12/14/81 -_~._.,~ ~' MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINQ COMMISSION, December 14, 1981 81-780 D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2116 - Requeat f rom Qennis G. Foster to tArminate Con t ona Use erm t No. for pr~perty l~cated et 22~1 Eest Wt~ston Road. AC,_ TION: Chalrman 6ushore offared Re~o{ution No. PC81-2(,Q end moved fo~ its passege and adaptlon th~t the Anaheim City Planning Cammtsston does hereby terminste Co~ditlonal Us~ Permit Ho. 211F. On rall celi~ the f~regoing resolutlon was passed by the fc-llowing vote: AYES: GOMMIS510NERS: BARNES~ BOUAS~ BUSIIORE. FRY~ HfRDST~ KIN~, McBURNEY NOES; COMMISSIONCRS: NONE ABSE~~T; Cfk~Ml SS I ONERS ; NONE E. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIt N0. 1 - Raquest from L~c+ Freedmsn for extenslon o t me or property ocnted at 17f10 South Harbor BouleNard. ACTION: Chairman f3ushore offered a motlen~ aecond~d by Commissioner Ktng an 0 ION CARRIEO~ thac the Anahelm City P1Annfng f,cxnmisstan daes hereby grant a o~ r yser extension of time for Conditta~~i Use Permtt !M. 1359 to a xA t re o~ De cemk, e r 2 7~ 19 82 . F. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N~. 1670 - Request for retrQactlve extension of time rom N~rren W. and Nency J. Jaycox fo r p~operty loceted at 1A1h Eest Katella Avenue. ACTION: Chal~ma~n Dushore offered a motton~ seconded by Conxnisstone~ King a~o`~OTION LARRtED, that the Anaheim City Plenning Commtsston daes hereby grant a one-year retroactive ext~nsion of ttme for ConditionAl Use Permtt No. 1G7~ to expire on December N~ 1~82. G. CONpITIQNAL USE PERMIT N0. 1 8 - Requast for s one-ycar extenston of time rom .. May e d udget ent-A-Car for property located at 3Z00 Wost Lincoln Avenue. ACTION: Chairman Bushore offered a motion~ sec,onded by Cam+isstone~ Ktng and MOTION CARRIEJ that the Anaheln- Ctty Planni~g Commisslon cloes hereby grant a o~e-year extension of time to Conditfo~al U~e Permit No. 17$3 t~ exptre on Qocember 19, 1~82. N. ApANDONI# NT N0. $1-t4A - Request from Jerry G. Slater to abandon a 2 x 1/2- ao! cvsr e p c uti i t ty easement l~c+~ted wi thin lot S2. T~act No. 5427, tocated an tha south side of Jeneen Way. 10~ feet + east of Lancer Orive~ 65Q feet + south of Narth Street. ACTIOM: Chsi~man Bushare offered a n+otion, seconded by Comnissioner Klnq ana MOTIOH CARRtED, tliat the Anaheim Cify Planninq Commissic~n does hereby reromnend to the City Council that Abanrlonment No. 8t-1~tA be approved as reconmended by the Clty Enginecr. 12/14/$i ~~ MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ December 1~E, 1981 81-781 I. AB11Np0UMENT N0. a1•12A • Requett from clarie Rowe to at~andon a former Sauthern C~1 orn a E ison Compeny publtc uttltty eASement acaut~ed by the city~ as ~uccessor~ loceted •t the southeest corner of Sente Ana Csnyon Roed and Fairnant Boulevard. ACTION: Chairman Uushore affe~ed a mation~ seconded 5y Lommisslone~ Kinh an ION CARRIED~ that th~ An~helm Ctty Planni~~ Commisslon does hereby reconniend tn the CitY Council th~t Absndonment No. R1-12A be epproved es recommended by the Clty Enginee~. J. A_I~ANpONMENT N0. 81-1;A - Requast from Richard J. Meyer to abendon en exist~p`u~Tc ut1~Ty easement loc~ted hetwPen Host Street and Sante Ana Fresway, north of Vermont Avenue. ACTION: Chalrman Dushore offered a motion. seco~ded by Cemmtssioner King and MOTION CARRIEO, thet the Anah~etm City Plannin~ Commisstrx~ does hereby recom+nend to the City Council that Abendonment No. 01-13A be epproved sa reca-xnended by tha Clty Cnginacr. K. RECLASSIFICATION N0. f31-82-8 - Rec~uest for e nu~c pro tunc resolutlon to correct error n Reso ut an No. PC81-233 changinq Conditlon No. 1 to read: "That damaged ~nd/or hazardous aldewalks shall be remcwed and/or reconstructed alo~g Velare Street as requtred by .he City Englneer and tn accordance with standard plans and snecificatlons on file in the Office of the Clty Engtneer." ACT~ION.s Chalrman Ou~hore offered Resolution No. PC~1-27n and mc,ved for tts passage and ecioption that the kn~helm Ctty Pl~nning Commisslon does hereby grent a nunc pro tunc resolutlon to correct errors in Resolution No. PCL~1- 233. On roll cAil~ the foregaing r~solution was passed by the followinq vc~te: AYES: COMl~ISSIOI~ERS: UARNES~ QOUAS, BUSNO4E, FRY~ N[R95T~ KIt1r,, McBURNEY NOES: CtN1MI5S10NERS: NOI~E ABSEIlT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE L. PROPOSED AMENDNENTS TO ADD PERFIITTEO ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES: - Staff proposes to ad certa n us ness o ce uses to erm tte ccesso ry tlses and Structures" in thc "CL-t15" lone. AGTION: Chairman pusho~•e nffered a rrntlon, seconded by Commissioner Ktng an ION CARRIED thet the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recanxr~nd ta the City Counci 1, adaptic>n of en ordinance amending the "CL-NS" Zone to add the follawing uses to Secttan 18.43.030 "Permttted Accessory Uses snd Structures": 12/14/81 , ~. ~ {- J ' MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ bec~mbe~ 14~ 1981 SI-782 .... Busin~ss Apenales incrudinfl adverLisfnq~ t~avei~ and other similar •panci~~. .... Bu~inass Offtcas Inctuding ~ccounting~ bookk~sping~ i~sur~nce~ law ar teyal servtces. ~eat ~stat~~ cansuttents and other similer ofttces." ADJOURNMENT The~e baing nh further business~ Cc~nmisslo~er Kl~g ot~Fared e motio~~ ~econci~d 6y Comrntssion~r Bouas snd MQTIAN CARRIED~ ths~ the nieeting b~ ad)ourned. The menting wss ad~ou~ned et ~:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted~ ~~~~ ~ ~~~ Edtth L. Harrts, Secretary Anahelm Clty Pianning Cort+misston EH:Im ~:zi~~ia~