Loading...
Minutes-PC 1982/05/03j Civfc Center Anahelm, California May 3, 1982 REGULAR MEETING OF TNE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR The regular meettng of the Anaheim City Plannfng Comm(sslon MEETING was cailed to ordar by Chalrman Bushore at 10;00 a,m., May 3~ 1982, in the Council Chamber, a quorum being present, and the Commission revic~ved plans of the items on today's agenda. Recesss 11:30 a.m. Reconvene: 1:30 p.m, for public testimony. PRESE'IT Chairma~: Bushore Commiss(oners: Barnes, Bouas, Fry~ Herbst~ King, McBurncy Commissloners. NONE ALSO PRESENT Annika Santalahci Jack 41h i te Jay Titus Dean Shcrer Edith Harris Asslstant Cirector for Zoning Assistant City Attorney Office Enginear Assistant Planner Planning Commission 5ecretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO TNE FLAG LED BY - Commissioner Bouas. ITEM N0. l: EIR NEGATIVE OECLARATION, REClAS51FICATION N0. 81-82-18, AND VAaIANCE N0. 2 ~ PUBLIC HfARING. OWNER: THELMA M. AND HENRY 8. WESSELN. i71~ W. Lincoln Avenue, An~heim, Ca. 92801. Property described as a ~ect+angularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately .46 acre, 141 South Dale Avenue. RECLASSIFICATION REQUEST: RS-A-43,000 td RM-1200 V~~RIANCE REQUEST: 4laivers of minlmum building site area per unit, maximum structural height and minimum landscapeQ setback to construct a 16-unit apartment complex. Cnntinuecl from tha meetings ~f April 5 and April 19. 1982• ACTION; Commissioner King offered a motion~ seconded by Commissio~er 8ouas and M~TION CARRIEO, thac consideration of the aforsmentioned ma[ter be continued ta the regularly scheduled meeting of May 17, 1982 at the r~quest of the petitioner. ITEM N0. 2: EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT. AND CONOtT10NAL USf PERMIT N0. 2325 PUBLIC HEARING. AWNER: CRESCENT SOUTHERN BAPTIST CHURCH, 622 N. Gllbert Street, Rnaheim, Ca. 92801. Property described a~ a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approxime~tely 1.9 acres, 622 N. ~ilberi Street. COND1710NAL USE REQUEST: TO EXPANO AN ~XISTING CHURCH FACILI7Y WITN WAIVER OF MAXIMUM STRUCTURAL HEIGHT. 32-250 5/3/82 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ May 3~ 1982 82-251 There was no one indicating thelr p~esa~ce in oppoattlon to sub)ect request~ snd although the steff report was not read, it is referred to a~d mede a part of the mtnutes. Pastar John Jackson, explaincd tho proposel is to erect a gymneslum an the back psrking lot~ with pa~king underneath to faciittate their total church ptan And thst offices wfll be relacated to the new structure. He steted he has baen the pasto~ at this church for 1; years and this was a high crlme area~ but the church has been a posittve influence in the community rnd thay would like to continue that ~oal with t~iis gym for thelr own young people and the people of the community. Concerning tha parking~ he expleined they have rented space fr~-m Savanna High Schooi, but are not using it currently; thot pedestrlan trr~f~ic from the school to the church is a concern~ but he did not thlnk that would ~~ a problem beceuse they have about 500 chlldren pass the church eve~yday going to schools tn the area, He expleined there are about 43 spaces at Gauer Elementary School and they have sh~red p~rking for six years. Pastor Jack~on stated the church wili allow the schools to use the gym at no cost because they ere (nterested in good relationshlps with their nefghbors. He stated they are currently considerfng purchasing a 14-s~at shuttle bus from Budgct Rent-a-Car to use in their senior Gitizen programs and it could be used to transport people to and from Savanna High Schoal. He also explained it wili probably be twc~ years before the expansi~n takes place. THE PUBLIC NEARING WAS CLOSEO Responding to Commissioner King, Pastor Jackson stated the extsting new building is about 33 feet high. Chairman Bushore asiced if there would be a conflict using the Savanna parking since there is a church graup meeting there. Pastor Jackson replied they are a smail group and there wou~d be no conflitt. He explained 75 spaces have been leased For their Use. CommisiionEr McBurney suggested that the parking plan be redrawn tn order to provida compact car spaces. Pastor Jeckson stated thty feel the Rarking Code Revision Stu~iy by Linscott, Lbw and Greenspan~ Inc. is tou extrm~e for most churches. Ne stated th~ average at their church is usually three persons arriving in Gath vehicle. Commissionar King stated ho felt the requested weiver of maxlmum structural height is minimal amow~ting to about 5 feet above the existing building. ACTlON: Cortmissioner Herbst offered a motion, secon~ed by Commissioner King and MOTlOM CARRIEO, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to expan' an existing church fac3lity with waivPr of maximurt~ structural height on a rectangularly-shaped parcel af land consisting oF approximately 1.9 acres, having a frontage of approximately 132 feat on the east side of Gtlbert Street~ approxi- ma'toly 330 fee: north of the cer~terline of Crescent Avenue (622 N. Gilbert Street '~:escent Southar~ Baptlst Church)); and does heraby approve the Negetive Oeclaration 5/3/82 ~ ' MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CI~Y PLANNING COMMISStON~ May 3- 1982 82-252 from the requirement to preparr an e~vtronmental impact report on tho basis that there would be no stgniflcent individ~~el or c~nulAtiv~+ odv~rse environmentel impact due to ~he approvel oF thia Negative Oecla ~ aclon slnce the A~sheim Genersl Plsn designates the subJnct property for medium denslty residential lend uses commensurate wlth the proposel; that no sensitive envlro~mental impacts a~e invalved i~ thc proposal; that the inltfsl Study submitted by the petitioner Indfcates no signtficant individuel or cumulattve adverse environmentel Impacts; and that the Negative Declaration substantisting the foregoinq findings is on file in the City of Anaheim Planning Depar~ment. Ccx~xnlssioner Herbst offcred a motlon~ stconded by Commissioner 8ouos end MOTION CARR~Fp. thAt the Anaheim City Pianning Commission does hereby grAnt walver of code re~quirement on the basis th~+t sub)ect property is a long narrow pt+rcel and on the basis th~t other churches in the area have been granted similar waivers and denial would deprivu subJect property of a privilege granted nther properties~ and on the basis that It wil) not have a detrimental effect on adJoining properties. Comm(ssioner Merbst offered Resolutlon No. PC82•!1 and moved for its passage and adoptlon that the Anaheim City Planning f.ommission does heret~y grant Condltlonal Use Pernit No. 2325 subj~cc to Interdepart mentAl Comnittee Recommendations. nean Sherer, Assistant Planner, ~sked whe t her or rot the Comrnission wishes t~ recuire that shuttle bus service bc u~ovid ed be[ween Savanna Hlgh School and the cnurch and lf they wish t~ require a revis ed drewing showing campact spaces. Commissioner Herbst stated the propused r e vised parking code would increase the parking requi~~ments. He stated he did not think the revised plans or the shuttle bus nerd to be included as conditions beca use thu expansion is i~creasing the use of land end nat increasing the congregatian. Jack White,~sistant Clty Att~~rncy, asked that Condition Nos. 2 and 4 be deleted. On roll call the foregoing resolution wa s passed by the following vate: AYES: COMMISSIOI~ERS: BARNES, BOUAS~ BUSHORE, FRY~ HERBST, KING, MC BURNEY NOES: COMMISSIQN~RS: NONE ABSENT: COMM~SSIONERS: NONE ITEM N0. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, RE CLASSIFI~ATION N0. 81-82-19 AND VARIANCE N0. 2 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: RICHARD A. ANO LOTTIE HEITSHUSEN, 3529 Sevanna Street, Anaheim, Ca. 92804. Property described a s an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consf~ting of approximately 1.2. acres~ 3 5 Z9 w~ Savanna Street. RECLASSIFICATION REQUEST: RS-A-43,000 to RM-3000 VARIANCE REQUEST: WAIVERS OF REQUIRED L07 FRONTAGE, MAXIMUM STRUCTURAL HEIGHT~ AND MINIMUM LANDSCAPEL SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A IS'~MIT CONDOMINIUM CQMPLEX. The.•e was no one indicating their presene e in opposition to subject request, and a1tFAUgh the staff report was nct read, it Is referred to and made a part of the minutes. 5/3/82 :_~ MINUTES, ANAHE IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ May 3~ 1982 82-253 David Lorlnaln i, A~chltect~ Werre~ Development~ stated this property is long and n~rrow and ha a unique problems; that thare is single-femlly zonad property on the esst requiring a large satback and pushing the bulldings together creates a more dense look(ng proJect, He stated the request for w~ivers is not for the purpose of increasing the density but to provid~ A qu~elity proJect. He stated they ere under code an the density and building cover~ge and are providtng more open space than required. He stated the staff report indicates a 15-to 20-foot wide landscaped erea in the f ront and that has been increased to 16 feet; ~nd that the gener~) character of L he vicinity is multiple-family and similar variances have been grented in th~ viclnity. THE PUBL i C HEARI NG WAS CLOSED It was clarif ied a tract map will be submitted for the next meeting. ~,~,,j~,Qj~: Cortm i ss ioner Barnes of fare:d a mot ion ~ seconded by Commi ss i oner McBurney end MOTION CARRIED~ that the Anahelm City PlAnning Cam~ission has reviewed the proposel to r eclassify sub,ject property from the RS•A-43~OU0 (Residentlal-Agri- cultural) zon e to the RM-3000 (RPSidentiai, Multiple-Family) zane to construct a 15-unlt condo~nlnium complex with waivers of requlreci lot frontage, maximum structural hefght and minimum landscaped setback on an irreguleriy-shaped or.irrw~tel 1120 feet consisting of approximately 1.2 acres~ having a frontage of app Y on the north slde of Savanna Street~ approximately 42S feet Wrove thehNecative,ine of Knott Str eet (3529 w• Savanna SCrett); and does hereby app y Declaration From the requlrement to prepare an enviror~n~ental lmpact repart on the basis that t here would be no significant individual or cumulative adverse environ- mental impac L due to the approval of this N~gative Declarati~~n since the Anaheim Genera4 Plan designates the s~bject property for medlum and l~w-meclium density residential land uses comnensurate with the proposal; that no sensitiv^ enviranmental impacts are involved In the pruposal; that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant Individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; an d that the Negative Oeclaratlon sub~tantiating the foregoing findings is on file in t he City of Anaheim Planning Department. Cammissione r Barnes affered Resolution No. PC82-78 and moved for its passage and adoption tha t the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Reclassification No. 81-82-19 subJect to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations. On roll call the foregoing resolutic,n was passad by the following vote: AYES: CONMISSIONERS: BARNES~ BOUAS~ BUSHORE. FRY~ HERBST~ KING~ MC BURNEY NQES : COMM 1 SS I ONERS : NONE ABSENT: COriMISSIONERS: NQNE Comni~sionc r Barnes offered Resolutio~ No. PC82-79 and moved forrant VarianceeNo. adoption t hat the Anaheim City Planning Commissio~ does hereby g 3269 on the basis thet denial wouid deprive sub)ect property of privileges en,joysd by other p roperties in the same zone and vicinity, and on the basis of the unusual shape of t he property, and subJect to Int~rdepartmental Cartmittee Recommendations. On roll ca1 1 the foregoiny resolution was F~ssed by the following vote: AYES: C OMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ 80UAS~ BUSHORE~ FRY~ NERBST, KING, MC BURNEY NOES: ~OMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSEN7: CQMM 1 SS IONERS : NONE 5/3/82 ~ MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PIANNING COMM1 SSION, Mey 3~ 1982 82~2 54 ITEM N0. 4: EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATI DN AND VARIANCE N0. 3268 ._.~._. . .. W._..... __..._...,._._.~ PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: JOHN PRIEM. 832 s. Knott AvenuQ~ Anahetm~ Ca, 92804 Property described es e rectangular~ y-shaped parcel of lend cons(sting af epproxi- rtwitely .68 ecrd~ 3701 West Mungall Drive. VARIANCE aEQUEST: WAIVERS OF MAXIMIiM STRUCTURAL HEIGHT~ MINIMUM LANOSCAPED SETBAC K~ MINIMUM SYRUCTURAL SETBACK AN~ MINIKl1M NUMBER AND TYPE OF PARKING SPACES TO CONSTRUCT A 21-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX. There we~e two persons Indicacing th-el~ presence in opposition to subJect request, and aithough the slaff report was no t read~ it is referred to and made a part of che minutes. John Priem stated this pr:> :ct was prcv(ously apprnved for 18 two-bedroom, 2-Story units~ +~nd this request is for 6 on~-bedroorn and 14 two-bedroom unlts. Ne stated parking is 3 spaces short and they would like to be able to provide spaces for compact cars. Irwin Newhouse, owner ~r propcrty d irectly across thc street~ stated fn al) the ycar~ he hes been in the co~struction bus iness, I~e trled to design the bui ldings to meet code~ that unless parking is allowed in the landscaped erea, the project will be 4 speces short and he dtd not think parking should be allowed in •he front setbac k. He stated he also obJacts to trash ~nclosures in the f~ont,6 feet !ram the sldewelk~ because paople drtve into them and Lhe trash trucks hit them and people throw tra sh over the top. He steted he felt the setback waiver requested in the rear is too muGh and they are tryi~9 to put too much on the property. Mr. Newhouse stated this owne~ wili be yctting a break becausc when he put in his project~he provided services for a ful) street and now this owner will get the benefitS. Bit) Phelps~ 1259 N. Batavia. Orang ~, stated he has an interest (n ad,jacent prope rtles and !~e felt the waivers requested a re axcassive, He stated in the past he has requested setback waivers~ but has never been able to convince the Commission to grant one and folt if this is approved~ it wauld be a tremendous giving on the pa ~. of the Commission. He stated sever al waiverg were ~equired for the 18 units previously approved and this request is for 2 additional units. Mr. Priem stated the adjacent prape rty to the rear is a chu~ch parking lot and their only concern was that there would be a f ence. He staeed he thou4ht the previous approval allowed parking in the front 15-fa~t setback which would be more of an eyesore t han this because the rarking for thi, ~rojec t would be screened. THE PUBLIC HEAa1NG WAS CLOSED Dean Sherer~ Assictant Plen~er~ sta ted the proiect pr~viously appraved on this propa~ty had waIvers of max~mum bui )ding height and vehicular access and na waive rs were g~~anted for the distance to th~ north property line or for parking, Commissio~er Herbst agreed with Mr. Phelps and stated he has never voted for an epartment complex with parkinq in t t~a setbeck. He stated this is a rectangular- shaped pa~cel and the develcoer is ,~ust trying to put too much on the ~roperty. according tn prese~t codes, He ~~ot~d a revised code is currently under c~nslderation 5/3/82 ~~ MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 3~ 198z 82-255 which would allow compaict car spaces which couid possibly add two spaces. He stated he has no problem with the walver of struccursl height because it does ebut a psrking lot. but does heve a problem with the pa~king and doesn't agree with the trash enclosure locatlons. He stated he cannot )ustify a hardship on this size parcal, Mr. Pr(em stated the alley doesn't go straight chrough which creates e hardship and noted agaln the previous plans approved showod parking in the fronC setback. Chalrman BusF~ore cla~ifled trash trucks comc down the alley now to the other epsrtments and Mr. Priem stated the trash enclosures will be i~cated on the alley. A~nika Santalahti, Assistant Director for toning. explained the Sanitation Division has a standard for determining the nurt~ber of cantainers required and also the lacation so that people will actualty use them. Dean Sherer~ Assistant Planner~ ~tated the proposed revised parking code will lncrease the number of parking spaces reyu(red for apartmencs (2.5 spACCS per unit) however, 50$ of the tota) number of spaces required could be small car spaces (8' x 15'). Chairmen Bushore su~gestsd the trash ~:nclosur•es be located on each end of the project on the alley. Desn Sherer explained the number and locatton of enclosures, and thelr accessibility are determined by che Santtati~n Divist~n And this particular property does enJoy an advantage because it Is bounded on one slde by an alley where trash trucks can manuevtr and xhe plan could b~ redesigned to provide for thet kind of plck up. Chairman Bushare stated he has no problem w~th the height waiver because of the church parking lot~ or with the setback as lonq as it is properly lands. d and maintained~ but docs have diffic~~lty with the parking~ yet doesn't think this is overbutlding the prop~~ty because there is no problem with the density. Commissioner Herbst stated many aparcme~t complex developers have not been able to achieve the density and stlll meet all the cades. Dean Sherer clarified there is no resolution of intent on the proptrty to the west and it is toned Residentic'-Agricult~ral; however, it is designated o~ [he Gencral Plan for medium density resic.ential land uses. Commissioner Barnes indicated concern that when the ~roperty to the west develo~e, they will also request a parking variance and lf this is epproved~ the Commission would have difficulty denying other requests. Mr. Priem stated most of that arca is developed with 1.25 parking spaces per unit. Ne added he intends to build and keep these units anc! wants to enhance the a~ea and not create problems and this aill be a much nicer plan than the previous approved plan, Canmissioner Barnes statad she thaug ht the Commisslon would agree that it fs a n(cer plan~ but that she is worried about the parking. Mr. Priem clarified compact sp ces have not been incarporated in this pian. Oean Sherer explained 36 spacns are required under current cade, wlth 18 covered; however, under the proposGd Code~ 4S spaces would be neGessary. He explained this 5/3/82 MINUTES~ -~NAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Mey ~. 1982 8Z-256 proJect is thrae speces short of the current code requirements which is based on twa spece~ for a two-badroom unlt and 1.5 ~paces for a one-bedroom un1t; and thst the new study proposes 2.5 spaces per untt req~rdless oF the number of badrooms because they found the number of people driving vahicles in apartments is the same es condominlums. He stated the Cemmlsston wlll discuss the proposed changes later, but staff hss been including their recommendations in the staff reports. Chairman Bushore suggested thsl the area betwecn the garagcs and entrance on aach end of the proJect be used as open space rath~r than an open walkway. Oean Sherer explained cada requtres sn 8-foot passageway between the bulidings for pedestrian access. Chelrmsn Bushorr suggested reducing cha density or planning a difforent bedroom conflguratlon by changing the one-bedroom units to two-bedroom units~ and suggested the petitioner request a cantinuance in ord~r to sut~m{t revised plen~. Oean Sherer clarified that the Commisston is suqgesEing revised plans to ~emove parking spacas from th~ lend~icaped s~tGack adjacent to Mungall Drive and the tr~sh enclosures relocated out of the front setback, Chairmon 8ughore suggested the crash containers be r~located next to the alley. Mr. Pr(em stated if p~rking is not allowed in Lhe setback~ even 18 units will not be feasible. Dean Sherer statcd the original 18-unlt compiex approved had parking teken directly off Mungall Drive and the full landsc?ned area was provided in fronc. Chairman Bushore stated he has no problem M~ith the height o~ the rear setback, but the concern is with the parkina. ACTION: Commissioner King offered a mo~~on, seconded by Commissioner 6ouas and MOTION CARalEO, that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continucd to the regularly-scheduled meeting uf May 17, 1982 at th~ request of the petitio~er in order to submit revlsad plans. I7EM N0. 5:' ~~R NECATINf DECLAFtATiON ANO TENI'ATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 11786: _,_,_._.,__... ____..~ .~~._ PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: IiU8ANK5 INT~RNATIONAL, 2716 Acean Park 8oulevard~ Suite 1005, Santa Montce~ fA 9u406. AGEhT: ANACAL ENGI~lEERING. 222 E. Old Ltncoln Avenue~ P. 0. Box 36~0, "u~eneim, CA 92803• Prop~erty is described as an irregutariy-shaped parcel of isnd con sisting of appra ximately 9•5 ecres having a frontagn of approximately 1400 reet on the northwest slde of Andhetm H{lla ttoad, south of Nohl Rench Road. There was no cx~e indiceting their presence tn c~pposition to subJect ~equest end aithough the staff report to the Planning Commissio~ dated May 3, 1982~ was n~t read at the publlc hearing. it is referred to end mede a part of the mtnutes. Pau) Coombs~ Nubanks lntnrnational~ expiain~d thl~ is a ~equest to ~e-subdivtdc pre- viously spproved T~act No. 10585 to establish a 2-lot~ 50-unit condominium subdivision ~nd that the plans are ide~ttcaiin ail re~pects a~d they pian to devel~p 2n units at this tinw and ;0 units in the future. TNE PUBLIC HEARING MAS CIOSED. 5/3/82 ~ MIN~TES~ ANAHEIM C1TY PLANNING COMMISSION~ May 3, 1962 82-257 ACT_, tON: Cammisslaner King offered s motton~ seconded by Commissloner Bouas snd MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Plsnninq Commission h~s revlewed the proposal to re•subdlvtde previausly approved Tract No. 10585 to establis~ ~ 2-lot, 50-unit condomintum subdivision on an irreguterly-shapQd parcel of land c,~nsisttng of approxi- mstely 9•5 acres havinq a frontage of ~pproximately 140A feet on ttie northwest sida of An~heim Hllls Road snd being located epproximetely 70 feet south of the centerline af Nohl Ranch Road; and daes hereby app~ove the Negetlve Decleretion from the requtre- ment to prepare an environmenta) impact report on the basis lhat there wouid be no signtftcent indlvldual or cumulative ddv~rse envtronmental impact due to the approval of this NQgetive Drcleration since the Anaheim General Plan designates the sub_ject property for hlllstde medlum density land uses canmensurate with the proposai; that no sensittve envtronmental tmpects are involved in the propos~l; that the Inltlal Study submitted by the petitioner Indicates no 4ignlftcant individual or cumulatfve adverse envtronmental impacts; and that the Negetive Declaratlon substantiattna the foregoing findings Is on flle (n the Clty of Anaheim Ptanntng Department. Commiss(oner King offered a motion, seconded by Comml~sioner Bouas and MOTIQN CARRIEO, th~t the Anahetm City Planning Commission daes htreby find that the proposed subdivtsion, Lo~ether w(th its design and improvement~ is consistsnt ~Nith the City of Anahe(m General P1an, pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5; end does~ therefore~ approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 11786 to re-subdivide previously a~proved Tract No. 10585 to establ(sh a 2-lat~ 50-unlt condominium suhdivislon~ subJcct to the follawtng condittons: 1, That should this subdivtsion be developed as mo~~ then one subdivtsion~ each subdivision thereof shall b~ submitted in tentativc form for approval. 2. That all lots wtthin this tract shall be served by underground u~'lities. 3. That the artginal documents of the covenants, conditions, and restrictions, and a letter addr~ssed to devcioper's title Compdny authorizing record~tian thereof~ shall be submitted to the City Attorney's office and approved by the City Attorney's Office, Pubtic Utilities Dep~rtment. Butlding ~Ivislo~~ and the Engin~ering Division prior to final tract map approval. Said documents, as approved~ shall be f(led and recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder. 4. That drainage of said aroperty shall be disposed of in a manner satlsfactory to the Ctt~ Engineer. If~ in the preparation of the site, sufficlent g~adlnq is rcquired to necessitate a gradfng permlt~ no work on grad(ng will be permitted between October 15th and April i5th unless all required off-site dralnage fecilities have been tnstalled and are operative. Positive assuranc~ shall be provided the City that such drainage faciiittes will be completed prior to October ISth. Necessary right-of-way for off-stte drainage facilities shalibe dedicated to the City, or the City Council sha)t have initiat~d condemnation proceedings therefor (the costs of which shall be bornP by the developer} prior to the commencement of grading operations. The required drainage facilities shall be of a size and type sufficlent to ca~ry runoff waters originating from higher properttes through said prop~rty to ultimate disposalas app~oved by the City Engineer. Said dralnege facililtes shall be the first item df construction and shall be completed snd be functional throughout the tract and from the downstream boundary ef the property to the ultimat~ pofnt of disposa! prior to the issuance of any final building insptctions or occupa~cy permits, prainag~ dist~tct reimbursement agreements may be made available to ~he developers of satd property upon their request. 5. That grading, excavation~ and all other const~uction activities shali be conducted in such a man~er so as to mintmize the possibility of any silt o~igtnating from this proJect being carried into the Santa A~a Riv~r by storm water origi~ating from ~r flowi~g through this project. 5/3/82 ~ MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May ~~ 1982 82'~5g 6. That street names shall ba app~oved by the GItY Planning Department prior co approvai af a ftnsl trsct map. 7. That If permenent st~eet nsme ~igns have nat been Inst~lled, tempore~y street name signs shsl) be Instailed pri~r to any occupancy. 8. That all prtvate streets shall be developed tn dccordance wlth the City of Anaheim's Standard Detai) No. 122 for prtvete st~eets, includtng installatioh of st~oet name signs. Pians for the private street ltghting, as requlred by the stendard detaii~ shail be submitted ta the Building Divtslon for approval ai-d i~clusion wlth the building plans prlor to tnm issuanco of bullding permits. (Prtvate streets are those which provlde prlmery access end/or circulation within the pro}ec~. 9. That the own~r ~r subJect propcrty shail pay to the City of Anehetm the appropr(ate park and recreatton In-Ileu fees as determined to be approprlate by the City Council, satd fres to be pafd at the time the building permtt is issued, 10. That an eroslon plan must be submttted to and approved bv the Cel(fornia Reglonal Water Qual(ty tontrol Boerd~ Santa Ana aegion~ prior to tssusnce of a g~ad(ng permit. 11. That the sight distance at atl a~cess polnts to Anaheim Hllls Ruad shall be approved by the Clty Traffic Engineer prior to beginning canstruction on any wall or other structures at these lacations. 12. Thet fire hydrants shsll be installed and charged as ~equlred and determined to be nacessary by the Chief of the Flre Depertrt+ent prior to commencemnnt of structura) framing. 13• That a11 requirements of Fire Zo~e 4, otherwise idtntified as Fire Adminstrative Or.~er No. 76-01, will bc met. Such requirements include~ but are not limited to, chire~ey spark arrestors, protected altic and under floor openings, Class C or better roofing material and one hour fire resistive constructi~m of horizontel su~faces if within 200 feet of adJacent brushiand. 14. That nmttve slopes adJacent to newl~~ canstructed homes shall be hydroseeded with a low fuel combustible secd mix. Such slopes ~hal{ be sprinklered and w~eded as required to establish lOQ feet separation of flamrnable vegetation from any structure. 15. Thet in r,ccordante with the requirernents of Section 18.02.047 pertatning to the initia) sale of residenkial hor-~es in the City of Anaheim Planning Area "B", the seller shell providQ each buyer wlth written information concerning the Anaheim General Pian and tha existing aoning wtthin 300 fcet of the boundaries of sub}ect tract. 16. 'fhat any specimen tree removal shail be subJect to the regulations pertaining to tree preservation in the Scenic Corridor Overiay tcx~e. 17. That the seller shall provide the purchaser of each co~domintum unit with wriCten informetion concerning Anaheim Municipal Code 14.32•500 pertatning to "parking restricted to facilitate street sweaping". Such written info~mation will claarly Indicate when on-street parking is prohibited and the penalty for vlolation. 5/3/82 ~ ~. ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PIANNING COMMISSION~ Msy 3, ~982 8. "7hat "no p~rking for stre~t swemping" ~tgns snail flnel street tnspeetton ~~ requtred by the Public Works with spaclficattons An file with the Street Mei~tenance 82-259 be instelled prlor ta Exacutive Girector in accordar-ce Dlviston. 19. That tha ow~ers of the subJect property shail execute snd ~ecord e covensnt obtigsting the homeownara aasoclatlon to (1) malnt~in and repair the hlktnq •nd equestrlan trall~ (2) l~demnify and hold the City hs~mless for damsges resulting therefram~ snd (;) m~intatn liabiltty insuT~nca far said trail ~aming tha City es an sddttional tnsured. The form of said covenant shali be approved by t~e City Attorney's Office and shall be ~ecorded conc~rre~tly with tha final tract map. The daveloper of tha subJect trdct shall improve and maiint~in the herelnabove descrlbed hiking and equestien trsil, including provtding the above spectfied insurance. untll such time as the homeowner~ essociatlon becomes leqaliy obilgated therefor as hereinabove provided. The developar shall post a bond In an ~mount and form satisfactory to the Clty of Anahelm to guar~ntee performs~ce of developer"s obilgations hereunder. Evidence of tha requtred insurance and bond shall be submittod to~ and approvad by~ the Ctty Attarney's affice prior to spprovel of tha final msp. 20. Thst prior to Issu~ance of building pe~mits~ the spplicant shall presene evidence ~atlsfactory to the Chief Building Inspector that the proposed pro,ject is in conformance with Cou~cil Policy Number 542~ Sound Attonuation In Residentiel Pro~jects. Jack whiCe, Assistant Clty Attorney~ presented the written ~ight of appeal of the Planntng Commisslon's decision within 10 days to the City Council. 5/3/82 ~~ __ -:.~ ~ ~ } t; MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ May 3~ 1982 82-260 ITEM N0. 6: EIR NEGATIVE DECLAMTION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2320 ~._.. ___,. PUBLIC HEARING. 01rNERs LA PALMA EAST PROPERTIES~ 3921 E. La Pelma AvenuQ~ Unit C~ Anahe~im~ Ca. 92806. Property d~scribed as an irregulerly-sheped parcel of land conaist;ng of approximately 4.0 acres~ 3911 E. La Pelma Avenue. Unit C. CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST: TO PERMIT AN AUTOMOBILE REPAIR FACILITY IN THE ML ZONE There was no one indicating thelr presence In opposition to subje~t request, and althcaugh thG staff report was not read, it (s r~frrred to and mada a pt~rt of thc minutes. Pat Mandarino, La Palma E~st Prope~ties, explained this is en industr(al complex and tha buildings are sprinklered and have adequate parking .,nd he did not see any reason for denlal of this requcst. THE PU6LIC NEARING WAS CLOSED~ Chairman Bushore clarifled that all work and storage will be inside. AC710N: Commissionnr King offer+ed a motion~ seconded by Commissioner Fry and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anahe(m City Planniny Cor~mission has reviewed thc proposal to permit an automobile rcpai~ facility in the NL (Industrial, Limited) zone on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 4.0 acres, having a frontage of approximately 335 feet on the northwest sid~ of La Pelma Avenue, approximately 117Q feet east of the centerline of Tustin Ave~nue (3911 East La Palma Avenue~ Unit C); and does hereby approve the Ne4ative Occlaration from the requi~ement to prepare an Pnvironmental impact report on the besis that t.here would be no significant individual or cumulative adverse enviranmental impact due to the approval of this Negative Declaration since the Anaheim Genaral Plan designates the subJect property far general induatrial land uses commensutate with the proposal; that no sansitive environmental impects are involved in the proposol; that the Inittal Study submitted by the petieioner indicates no significant individual o~ cumulative adverse environ- mental impacts; and that [he Negative Declaration substa~tiating the foregoing findings is on filr in the City of Anaheim Planning Department. Commissio~cr King o`fered Resolution No. PC82-80 and moved for its passage and adoption that the A~~~-heim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2326~ subJect to Interdepartmental Committee Reccx~mendations. On roll call~ the foregoing resolutfon was passed by the following vote; AYE5: COMM15510NERS: BARNES~ BO.AS, BUSHORE, FRY. HERBST, KING, MC BURNEY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE A9SENT: COMMISSIQNERS: NONE ITEM N0. 7: EIR NEGA'flVE OEC USE PEfIM 1 T N0. 2323 T_ION, MAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT, AND CONDITIONAI PUBLIC NEARING. OWNER: LEi PAIMA EAST PROPERT{ES, 3q21 E. La Palma Avenue, Unit C~ Anaheim, Ca. q2806. Property doscrtbed as an irregula~ly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 4.0 acres, 3921 East La Palma Avenue, Unit D. S/3/82 I f j l ~. ` f ~ az-26~ ~, MiNUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMI5SION~ May 3, ~9a2 CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST: TO PERMIT A SANDWICH SHOP IN THE ML tONE WITN WAIVER OF MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES. There was no oneffndeco~`"Weshnot peadenit is refe~red~tate^du"~'ad~tarPa~~s°f the although the sta p minu~es. Pat Mandarino~ Le Palma East Prope~t(es~ was present to answer any questions, THE PUBIIC HEAaING WAS CLOSED. ACTION: Commissioner King offered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner Bouas a~d ` MOTION CARRIEU, that the A~aheim City Planning C~mmissian has reviewed the proposal ta permit e sandwich shop in thc ML (Industrfal, Limited) zone with waiver of minimum number of parkiny spaces on an irregularly-shaped parce) of land consistin9 of approximately 4.0 acres, having a frontage of approximatcly 335 ~ect on the north• west side of la Palma Avenue~ epproximately 1170 feec east of tht centerline of Tustin Avenue (3921 East La Palma Avtnue~ Unit D); and does hareby approve the Negative Oeclaration from the requirement to p~epare an environmental impact report on the basis that ther~ would be no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impect due to the approval oF thts Negative Oelcaration since the Anaheim General Plan deslgnates the subject praperty for ganeral industria) land uss~ commenaurate with the proposal; that no sensitive envi~onmental impacts are invalved in the propos~l; that th~ Initial 5~udy submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant individual or cumulative adverse envirf~^~dinas ispontfj~~ndnthae City Negative Declaration substantiating the foregoing 9 of Anaheim Planning Department. Commissioner King c-ffered a motion, seconded by Comnissioner B.arnes and MQTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Pl~nning Gornnission dues h~reby grant waiver of code requirement on the basn~ iteak dema dewillnseldom occurkand on,the bastseof the the variety of businesse~ a p unusual shape of sub}ect property. Corm~issioner King offered ResolPiannin~ CPorr~nisalonndoesvhereby qrant~Conditional adoption thet the AnasubJecttto Interdepartmental Cortmittee ~ecommendations. Use Permit No. 2323~ oin resolutfon was passed by the following vote: On roll call~ the foreg 9 AYES: COMMISSION~RS: BARNES, BOUAS, BUSHORE, FRY, HERBST, 1'ING, MG BURNEY NOES: COMM1551~NER5: NONE A85EN7: COMMISSIONERS: NONE 5~3~az MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITV PLANNING COMMISSION~ May 3~ 19$2 82-262 ITE___ M N0; 6: EIR NEGATIYE DECLARATION AN~ COKOITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1304 PUBLiC HEAAING. OWNER: RICHARO C. HUNSAKER~ 1~761 Mitchell~ Irvine~ Ca. 92714 Property described as e ~ectangularly-shaped peircel of land consisting of approxi- mately 0.3 acre~ 2760 East Regel Park Drive. CONDITIONAI USE REQUEST: TO RETAIN AN AUTOMOSILE RESTAaATION FACIIITY IN THE ML tONE There was no one indicating their presenr.e In opposition to subject request, and although the staff report was not read~ it is refer~ed t~ end made a part of the minutes. Bud Williems, agent~ stated thay propose to retain an automobilc restoration and construction of new equlpment faciltty~ with possible modifications~but this will not be a repair shop for tune-ups~etc, He explained there would be no more chan 15 vehlcles there at any one time and that 8 or 9 of chem belong to him and his partne~ for display; that the average 1Gngth of stay for customer's ~ars would be 8 to 10 days. He stated chis use is co~sistent wich the area. THE PUBLIC NEARING WAS CLOSED~ It was clarified by the petitioner that all work and storage will be inside the fa~ility. ~L,Qb: Commissioner King offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Pianning Commission has revicwed the propoa~l to retain an autamnbile restoration a~d construct(on of new vehicles facility in the ML (Industrial, Limited) zo~e on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.3 acre~ having a Frontage of approximately 65 feet on the south Side of Regal Park Orive, approximately 37~ feet west of the centerline of Blue Gum Street, 2760 East Regal Park Drive; and does hereby approve the Negative Decleration from the revuirement to prepare an enviro~mental impact report on the basis that there would be no significant individual or cumulative adverse enNironmental impact due to the approval of this Negative Declaration since the Anaheim General Plan designetes the SubJect property for gcneral industrial land uses c~mnensuratc with the proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are invalved in the propasal; that the Initial Study submitted by the pttitioner indicates no stgnificant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact~; and that the Negative Oeclaration substantiating the foregoing findings is an file in the City of Anaheim Ptanning Department. Cammissioner King offered Resqlution No. PC82-82 and moved far its passage and adoption that the A~aheim City Planning Corm~iss3on dnes hereby grant Conditlo~al Use Permit No. 230~, subject to the petitioner's stipulation that ell work and storage shall be confined to inside the facility and subject to I~terdepartmantal Committee Recammendntlons. 0~ rolt cal) the foregoing resalution was passed by tne fallowing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ BOUAS~ BUSHORE~ FRY, H~RBST, KING, MC BUaNEY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMIS510NERS: NONE 5/3/82 -~ ~ 'r ~. ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEiM CITY PLANNING CQMMI:SION~ May 3~ 1982 82-263 ITEM NO 9: EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3270 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: OMEGA HOMES, 11622 Seacrest Drlve, Garden Grove~ Ce. 92640 Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approxi- mately 5485 aquare feet having a frontage of approximately 50 feet on the west Side of Waverly Orlve~ having a maximum depth of approximately 109 faet and being locatod epproximakely 105 fnet south of the centerline of Ora~qawood Avenue~ 2115 South Waverly D~ive. VARIANCE REQUEST: WAIVERS OF MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE AND MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A SINGIE-FAMILY RE5IQENCE. There wes no one ind(cating their presence in opposition to subject request, ancl although the staff repdrt was not read, ic is referred to ~nd made a part of the minutas. Tom Shelton, agent, explained the plans for the or(glnally submitted tract showed all two-story homes and this purchascr dasires a vne-story hou~e in this neighbor- hood of comparable size. Ne explained in orcier to comply wir.h his cllents' request~ the plens have been slightly changed,increasing the lot coverage by 1$ and reduci~g the rear yard setbeck to 18 feet. THE PUBLIC HEARfNG WAS CLOSED CortmissionQr Barnes asked what the purchaser plans to do witf, this much living space indicating she felt with four bedrooms~ an office~ etc., it appears to be dn instiCution. Mr. Shelton replied the purchasers are an older couple ar-d the husband will use the office space (or study) and the wife wil) have a sewing room, etc. He stated to his knowledge, they would not be using the home for any business anci no o~e else would be living there; and that they are semi-retired and do not want yard work. Commissioners Barnes steted her concern would be that the home could be c aiverted to a convatescent hospital or rest home and she would not want to see that type situation in this neighborhoad. Mr. Shelton explained the purchaser is in inv~estment gnd real estate businesscs. Cortmissioner McBurney stated the most southerly house in this development has a 10-foot setback and aske.d if a variance was granted. Commissioner Herbs[ st~ted he is concerned about the lot coverage end even when the Commissian has ellowed expansions in tha past, lot coverage has never been this high and he fe~lt this could set an undesirable precedant. Chairman 8ushore potnted out this lot alresdy had variances granted on it when the tract was ortginally approved, pointing out tha si2e does not meet coeie requireloe~ts. Conmissioner Herbst scated he cannot see a hardship. Mr. Shelton stated he would be hardpressed to show a hardship; however, his cltent lived in Anaheim for a long ttme and is sdni-retired and conducts his business fran Buena Park, and wants to move to this neighbarhood and vacant buildable lots are difficult to find~ 5/3/82 ~ ' ~ ~ MINUTES, ANAHEIM CItY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Msy 3~ 1982 82-264 Canmissioner Herbst statcd futu~a petitioners will resoerch the ~eaords and tf thls size house is allowed on thts lot, thay will expect tha same consideration. He skated thts oldar couple could sell to a youngar family with chtldren and there would be no place for th~m to piay. He stated this housR prectically covers the whole lot and looks lika a retirement home, Comnissioner Fry agreed and stated he could not vote for that kind of lot coverage. Mr. Shelton ststed the size of thls house would be basically the same as the other houses in this davelopment~ all on one level. He state:d the yard area would be comparable with others In the aroa. He added he does build a good quality product and when th~ original tract was submitted, he had an unsolic(ted petition containing signatures o'' 8 people in the neighborhood supporting the proJect. ~ommissioner Herbst asked if Mr. Shelton wr~uld like a continuance in order to confer with his cltents. Cortimissloner Mc9urney suggested a dlfferent lot~ pointing out there is a Isrger one atross the street. Mr. Sheldon requested a two waek continuance. ACTION: Cammisstoner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and M0710N CARRIED, that cansideration of the aforerr,entlaned matter be conti~ued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of May 17~ 1982 at the request of thn petiCioner. ITEM N0. 10: EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2326 PUBLIC HEARING. OVMER: ANTRANIK AND YERCIN OtBAG, 1 Plymouth, Irvine, Ca. 92714 Property described as a rectanqulariy-shaped parcel of land consisting of approxi- mately 0.32 acre, 116 Su.~th Magnolia Street. CONDITIONAL U5E REQUEST: TO PERMIT A VETERINARY HOSPiTAL IN THE CL ZONE There were 22 persons indicating their presence in Apposition to subJect request, and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to nnd made a part of the minutes. Robert Rife, agent, stated they are proposing a veC~i;~ary hospital and it will not be a kennel or board and care facility and all operations wil) be inside the facility. He statea they feel there will be adequate separation between the hospital and adJacent property owners with two driveways and a biock wall. He stated the floor plan will provide m~ximum separation between any animals in the building and adJoining residential uses, with animal rooms E~ing primarily on the north and east sides and there would be no windows fn those roc~ms. He stated they do not feel they will be adversely affecting or altering the character of the neighborfiood and thls will be adding a service to the animal papulation of the neighborhood. He stated these doctors have an existing operation i~ a~commercial zone in Anaheim and nn every occasion when he hes v(sited, he has not heard any noise outside the building. Alma Kobl}nsky, President, Pines Condominium Association~ p~~sented petitio~s containing 64 signatures and read the foliowing: 5/3/82 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMM15510N~ nay 3~ 1982 82-265 "We, the undersigned a~mers and residents of the P(nes condominiums located at 134 South Magnolfe Avenuo~ Anaheim, Ca. 92904~ respectfully requcst that you deny CUP 2326. When we purchased ou~ homes in this residential neighborhood we did not expect a devietian from the applicable zoniny to allow a veterinary hospital next door with its attendant nolse, sanitary problems and congestion. Additionally~ some of our residents have health and sleoping problems which would be adversely affected by a number of confined animals in close proximity to thei~ homes. In the best interests of the enti~e community~ we pet{tion you to deny CuP 2326." Ms. Koblinsky stated they did nut g~t a notice of this hearing until e resident notlced the posting and after calliny the Planning DepArtment~ ~otices were received an Wednesday. Oscar Grebner~ Unit 1C, 134 S. Magnolla~ stated his btdroom is 35 feet from the pro- posed hospita) and the wall b~twenn is abuut shoul~er high and is not a sound ba~rier and the wall belongs to the condominium, He stated a veterinary hospital would be involved in treating sick animals and the animals will be kept overnight and sounds are intensi~led at night. He stated they are objecting to the housing of sick animals in a bu+lding in a residential neighbc~rhuod. He stated other than the two service stations in the area, this building is entireiy surrounded by residences. He stated he does nnt see a hardship except on the residen[s and this veterinary t~~spital could be located in anoth~r area. Ne state~ ~ven though the petitioner indicates this wFlt not be a board and care facility, chere is no guarantee that it won't become one~~ the futu~e. Mr. Steele~ resident of 134 S. Magnolla, stated his office in Glen~ale is Iocated 35 feet f~om a veterinary hospital which does not board animals and he tistens to barking dogs all day long and he perso~ally does not think this is the area to have this facility. He stated there are those in the Pines who have animals that would naturally be aroused by animal sounds. Ne stated he is speaking for 22 af 64 home- owners who, on short notice, showed up at this meeting to request that this permEt ba denied. Mr. Rif~ stated they have more than normal seperation between buildings and that veterinary hospitals are e permltted :S~e irs the Cl Zone upor+ approva) of a conditional use permit and roted a pet store woulo be permitted at [his location without a conditlonal use permit. He pointed out again ail activities will b~ inside the facility and the animai rooms are located away from the residential uses. Chairman Bushore explained notice of publlc hea~rings are given in three ways: posted o~ tha property, advertised in the newspaper and notices to property owners within 300 feet. He stated a vetorinary hospital is a use that is allnwed in the CL Zone sub,ject to the approval of a tonditional use permit and the reason for the conditionai use permit is to make sure that a11 the c~ncerns ara taken into consid- eration so that activities do not disturb the neighbars. Ne stated s hospital is different than a kennel. He stated ff a conditional use permit is granted, it can be revoked at any time ehe yxtitlo~er doss not live up to the co~ditions. He noted there witl be 51 feet between the buil~ljngs and the animal roams are lacated away from residential use. 5/3/82 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ May 3. 19a2 82-266 Mr. Rife noted the animals wauld no~ have extend~d tare and would nnt star ove~nlght for long pe~fods of tim~. Ha explslned there are two entmal rooms (10' x 10"). He (~d(cated he wauld stipulate to provide sound buffering for thase two rooms. He alsa clarif(ed revfsed plsns were submltted complying with tFie Traffic Engineer's r~ccxnmendetfons. Commission±~ Herbst staced the Planning Cartmisqion appreclates the number of people who have attended this mect~.~g, He explal~ed after r~vtewing other uses whish would be pe rniitt~d by right in the commercial xone, he felt this use with sound proofing the anlmal rooms, would be a less intanse use. Ne polnted out agaln If the use becometi a nulsance, the p~rmlt can be revoked. He noted this facility would be closed by 6:00 p,m,~ and there would be no activities on Sunday. Jack Whtte~ ~~ssiatant City Attorney~ suggested thre~ additlonal c~nditions; (i) that no animal board and care facllit{es, other chan that re uired in connectiryn wfth the narmal hospital functions~ will be mainta(ned on site; ~2) that all animals shal) be kept inside the closr~ buildtnq ac all times; and (3) that sound Attenuatlon measures shAll be taken insEde th~~ buildin9 to insure no animal nolse or sounds o~ the prcmises shall br discernibl~ at the property line. Mr, Rife agrced to the additional conditlons, Commiss(oner Barnes stated she knows the oppositinn is probably all chinking that none af the Comm(ssioners would want to livc next dc~r to a veterinary hosh~tal~ but there are seven Commissioners and she hasn't heard any nbjectiona from any of them because r.hcy facl if this i~ done oropcrly~ thr.re will be na harm. She stated she ~hough~ it only fair to give the p~titioner a chance to show it can be dane properly~ understa~ding tha pPrmit could be rr.~.oked. ~~~: Gommissioner Herbst offered a motion, scconded by Gomnlssioner King and M~i~ON ~ARRIED, that the Anaheim Clty Planning Cc~mmission has reviewed the pr~posal to pr.rmit a veterinary hospital in t~.r CL (Commerciai~ Limited) Zone on a rectangular•ly- shaped parce) of land consisting of appr~ximately 0.3~ acre~ having a frontage af approximately 79 fcet on the e~~st side of Megnr,lia Avenue~ approximately 250 feec south of the centerline of Lincoln Aven~~e~ 116 South Magnolia Ave~ ~e; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration from th~ requirem~:nt to ~repare ~n environmental impact report on the ~asis that there waul~ be na significant individual or cumuia[ive adve rse environmental impact due to the approval ~f this Negative D~claration since the Anaheim General Plan desiqnates the subJect property for commercial professional land uses commensurate with the p~oposai; that no s~nsitive environmental impacts are involved (n the propc~sal; that the Initial Study submltted by the petitioner indicates no significant indlvidual or cumulative adverse environn~ntal impacts; and that the Negative Dacla~ation substantiatinq the foregoing findings is on fite in the City of Anaheim Plenninq DeparXrnent. Commissioner Herbst offered Rasulution No. PC82-83 and moved for its passage and adopcion that the Anaheim City P1«n7ing Commission does herrF~y grant Conditional Us~ Permit No. 2326, for a period of one (!) year~ subject t~., review, and subject ta the petitioner's st(pulations that no animel board and care facliities, other than required In connection with the normal hosptial funr.~i~ns~ shall be mainiained on site; that ~ll animals shail be kept inside the cioged building at all times; and that sound attenuatlon measuras shall be taken inside the bullding to insure no e~imal noiscs or sound5 on the premises stu-Il be discernible at the property line; And subJect to Incerdepartmental Conmi ttee Recomrnendat tons. 5/3/82 ~ t ; ; . \ 82-267 MINUTfS, ANAHEIM CIT~ PLANNING COMMISSION. May 3~ ~982 On rQil call~ the foregolnq resolutian wss paised by the follc~rt~g vo~e; AVES: CQMMISSIONERS: BARNES, BOUAS~ BUSMORE, FRY. KING~ MC BURNEY~ HERBST NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMkISS10N~R5: NQNE Choirman Bushore explein~ed thi~ metter w(11 be rev{av+ed in one year to determine whethe r or not it ha; ~dthcd~haveeany'ccxnplAi~~s.the surrnunding area and advised the re sidents to cel Y Jack Mhlte presented the written right to appea~l the Planning Ccxm~{sslon's decislon wl thi n 22 days to the C i ty Counci 1. ITCM N0. I1: EIR CATEGORIC-,L EX6MPTION-CLASS 1~ WAIVEa OF CODF REQUIREMEN___ T AND r_~Nn ~ T I oV,1L USE P~Eat~~ I T_ k0 . 2 27 PUaIIC HEAiiING. OWNER: G. JACK AND YOLANDA ZANCHI, ~39k1 S~nde~stead Road~ Sant.q A~~a~ Ca. 92705. Property described as a recta~gularly-shaped parcel of land consistinr, of approxfmatelv 1,4 acrea, 345~ West Orange Avenue. CONUITIUNAL USE REQUEST: TO PERMIT RKING~SPACES~AMAX~IMUM NUMBEREOFSFREESTANOINGANT WITH WAIVERS OF MINIMUM NUM9ER OF PA SiGNS AND MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN FREESTANDING SIGNS. Th~ e was no onc indicating their presence {n opposition to gubject request~ and altho ugh the staff report was not read. it is reforred to and made a part of the minutes. Moh+~nmed F. Thara~ agent~ axplained 40$ to 50~ of the businesses are closed when h~ he ne eds the ~arking snaces, and pointed out he only has seating capicity for 1 to 2 0~eopie and did nut see ~ problem. Ne scacedkie hSdacesdathc~r beerrand wi~ehe two miles aro~-nd this lacation co sec how manY P 9 P esca bllshments havc and they very from 25 ta 39 sPaces. Conc erning the freestanding slgn, he explained the hamburger place has a stgn at the c~rner of Oreh95 ~,usinesstisnl.~catedsin~thedreart bu~heyaaretnottinteresteds own sign because TNE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Commissio~er Herbst stated he is nat concern,~d about the ~arking~ but does object to t he signs. tie sug~ested thfs owner get tugether with thr, shoppiny center owner and other businesses and put up one gc~od si~n and every business participate. He sta ted if ~his sign is ellowed~ ~il businesses aould expect the samc approval. Mr. 7hara as'.ced if the pole could be exte~ded to permit a sign. Ne stated he has talkcd Lo s4n-e of the or ~r and they are not interested b~cause a good sign costs $2pp to S30C• He stated the center owner wants to remodel the center when the existing leases are up. Ne added the sign he is proposing will cost S3S0 and wuuld be a wooden sign and noted there is one e.xisting. It was noted tha Pianning Director or his authoriz~d repreae~tative has determined that the ^~ ~osed project fdlls within the definit!an of Categorical Exemptio~s, CIa ss l~ 'scatetoricaltyhex~npt fEvmithe~req~iranenttto~prepar~esian,Elas and is. ~hcrefo e. g 5/3/82 ~t ~ ~ ~ MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PIANNiNG COMMISSION. May ;- 198z 82-268 ACTION: Ccara(ssloner M~rbst offe~ed Resolutlon No. PC82-8~ ~nd maved for ita passage an a~ ptian that the Anbh m City Pl~nninq Commissio~ doe s hereby grant Conditio~sl U~s Permit No. Z3~1~ ~~ Pd~~~ 9ranting waiver (A) o~ the ba sis that deniel would dap~ive subJ~tt property of a privii~g~ en~~oyad by other propertles In t~ aeme =one and vicinity ~nd denying wstvers (b) and (c) an the besis t het no hardship was demon~tratmd applic~blA to the properCy. including siza~ s~pe, topoq~aphy~ lxatlan or surrou~dl~9s ~nd sub)ect to Inter~lep~rtmental Caanittee Recam~endatlons. On roll cali the foregoing resolution was psssed by the fo 1lowing vote: AIIES: COMMISStONERS: BARNES. BOUAS~ BUSHORE~ HERBST, F RY, KING~ MCBURNEY NOES: COMMISSIONEaS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Jack White~ A~si~ts~t Gtty Attorney~ presonted tht wrltten riqht tc appeal (inciuding any condittons) the Planning Cc~nmissio~i'a d~cision withir. 22 days to xhe City Council. MtNUTES~ ANANEIM CI'TY PGANNING CAMMISSION, Msy 3~ 1982 82'~69 ITEM N0. 12 ~~ RECOMMENQATIONS The follawing Reports and Recom~~ndatlon s staff reports were presented but not road: A. PROPOSED CODE AMEt~D!!:NT - Addi t fon of Subsection .~~~ to Sectlon .,.. • an aman ment to Sectlon G.~2,A8~ of Ch~pter ~~,~2 ef Tttle ~+ of the Code ~nrtelntng to Special Evencs. ACTION: Commisslaner King affe ~ ed a mc~tlan~ seconded by Con~isstoner rT y~nd NnTION CARRIE~1~ that the An~he!Im City ~'lanning Corr~isston Aoes her~`~y recc>nmend to the City Council ndditlen of Subsectlon .f1~~ to Sect on 4.02.~R~ and amendment of Sectlon y.~17..~~~ ~f Chahter ~~.~2 ef Titie ~~ of the Anahelm Municipe 1 Code pertatninq ta Speclat Events. ~. CAPIDITI~NA~ USE PERM_IT N0. 13;8 - Request for exte~nsion of tir+c frcxn MTI;e L~n ao~ Inc.. on propertY lnc~ted at 333 Anci 475 ~Jest Dall Roe~1. ACTIOIJ: Commissioner Y.ing offered d nnti~n secondeci by Commtssloner ~riy end M~'TION CARRIEp (Ch~nirm.~n Elushcre abstalnlnh). that th~ Anahelm ~~ ty Planning -.ammisslon cbes h~rGby r rant a one-year extenslon of tlme for Conditlona) Use Permlt Mo. 1a38 t~ expir~ on May 22, 19g3. C. CO~J01710Nf11 USE PERNIT N~. 161$ - Request f~r extenstan of ttrne frc~m Mary ove on prope~.y~oc~d r~t 733 5outh State Colleqe B~ul~vard. ACT~ON: Commisstone•• King offe ~ed a motton seconded by C~mmissToner Fry and MOT1~1N CARRIED (Chair~n~an Bushor~ abst~+intn~). thnt the A~ahetm G i ty P lann! n~ Ca.nmi ss lon dors hereby grant a three-year extens lon af tir~e for Conditlonal Use PermTt Na. if~1q to expire on May 10, 1~K5. D. CONDITIONO,I. USE PERMIT N~. 1623 - Reciuest for extenslon o~ time fran No~row J. McC ure on property loc.,ted on Ari Irre~ularly-sh~c~ed parcrl of land consisting of epproximately 3.3 acre~. hsvinq .~ frontag~ af ~pproximately 29~ feet on the southr+eaterly stde of Howell St~tet, epproximately 52~ feet northw~sterly of thc centerl ine of Katel ia Avenue. AC'fION: Commissi~ner M,ing off~red a matton secended by ~~mmissioner r~y and MOTI(1N CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Pla~ninn . mission cbes herrby graa~t a two-year extens i on of tlrne for Condi tio~a. Use PermT t I~o. 1623 to expi re on May 2~+, 1~8~+. E. RECLASSIFICATION Nt1. 7•78-61 CQND1710NAL USE PERMIT N0. 1~51+ AND V NC . ~ equest or extens ons o t m! rc~m N. D. M~Nu) ty on praperty at 31b4 -~est Oranq~ Avenue. I1CTi0N: Conmissianer King aff~red a motlo seconded by Carr+issione~ r~y and MOTiAN CARRIED~ that the Aru~heim C~ty Planning Cc~+misslon doRs hereby grant two-year retraACtive axtensians of time for Reclessificatlon No. 77-7~-t~1, C~~ditionaf Uae Permit Na. !l',r,b and Variance No. 3~27 to expire an June 5. 1983. 5/3/82 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PI,ANNING COMMISSION~ May 3~ 1A82 82-27~ F. ADANDONMENT N0. 81• A- Request from Jim C111 to eh ~don a portton of qev ew ot~d~ south of Lookout Ler~e~ to n-eke the ;r~et conR~rm te propaaed lot ilne. it was rated the Plenning 0{rector or hts ~uthorize~~ repres~ntative hes d~etermined that the proposed proJect ft~lls within the deftnltion of Catggc~rical Exemptions~ Class ~~ ea defined In the Stnte Environmental Impoct Report Guldelines and is~ therefor~. cat~gnricAlly exempt from tho requirement to p~e~are an EIR. ACTtON: Commisstoner King offered a mntion~ seconded by Ccwnmis~;i~~ner r~ y and MOTION CARRI~D~ th~t the AnAhelm Clty Planning Gommisst~n does hereby recommend to the C) ty Counci 1 epproval of 1lbarcbnment No. q1-9A a5 recommcnJeJ L•y the Ctty Enntneer. G. ABANDONMENT N~. $1-2 A- Re~ucst fr~ Georg~ ti, Kubo to abAC+~ton a por~on o~ Naywer treet from between 272 feet to annr~xir+~,tely 473 feet north of the centerline intersectto~ of Qor~ ~venue and Nayward Street. It was noted the Pi,~nning Director or his ~uthorizad representatfve hAs determtned that Che pro~sed profect fa11s withtn the definltton of Cetec~orlcal Exemptlons~ Class a~ as defined in the Stete Environm~ntal Impact Report Guidelincs ~nd Is~ therefore~ catec~oric~-lly exen+pt from the requirement to prQpArc an EIR~ ACTIO'~: Commissioner King offQrad ~ rmtlon~ seconded by Commissioner r~~ y an'd MOTION CARRfED~ thst the Anahelm Clty Pl~~nninc~ Comrnissfon does hereby recorm~end to the Ctty Council approvrl of AbAn<b nment No. 81-2?A as recc~mmended by the City F.ngtneer. 11. ApANDOrlMENT ~~0. 81-17A - Reques t f rom J i m C 1 1 1 to abandon a porti on of Sa ~bac Lane north of Oakvf~w Lane to rt~ke the strect conform to propased lot llne. It was nc~ted the Planning Director or his auth~rized representative has determtned that the prnposed proJcct falls within the definitlan of Categorical Exemptions~ Cl~ss 5~ as defined in the Stat~ Environmenta) Impa~ct P,epo~t Guldelines and is~ therr_fore, cate~or~cally exempt fram the rcqul remant to prepare an C I R. ACTION: Co,missianer King offered A rmtton~ secondcd by Commissione~ r~y and MOTION CARRIED~ that the Anahetm Ctiy Plannina Canmtssion dces hareby recemmnnd ta tfie Ci xy Counci 1 approvr~f of Abancic±nmpnt Na. ~1-17A as recommendnd b y~he City Enqt~eer. ADJOURNMENT There belrtg no furthtr busin~ss. Commissioc~er Nerbst offrred a motion~ seconded by Commissi~ner Bouas and MQTI0~1 CARRIEO, that the meeti~g be adjourned. The meeting was adj~urned at 3:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted. ~~ .~ - i~i~~,~,~-se. Edi th l. H~rris. Secretary Anaheim City Planning Canmission Ea~ l~