The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1983/08/08R60ULAR MBlTiNG OF THB ~NAHEIM CI~Y PL~NNING COMMI88ION RB~ULAR MEBTING The cegular m~etinq of the Aneh~im Ciky Plen~~lnq Commisaion waa call~d to order by Cheirman Fry at 10:00 a.m., ~uqust 8, 1983, in the Counr.il Chamber, a quocum b~inq pce~ent and the Commiasion raviawed plane o! the itema on -..odey's eyenda. RECE88: 11;30 a.m. RECUNVENE: 1:30 p.m. PRESENT Cheirmen: Fry Commiseionecs: Bouas, Nerbet, King, La Claire, McBucney ~BSBNT Commiaeionere: Buehoce ~LSO PRESENT Annika Sentalahti Jdck White Jay Titus Shirley Land Hecry Dee Denn Sl~ecer Edith Narrie Aeaistan-. ~irector foc Zoning ~asiatarit City ~ttorney OfEi~e Engineer Traffic Engineecing ~asociate Traffic EngineeGing Assistdnt 1-asociete Planner Planning Commiasion Secretery APPROVAL OP MINUTES: ~om~niasionec King oEfered a motion, seconded by Commieaioner McBurney and NOTION CARRIED (Commisaionec Buahore rbsent) thAt the minutes from the meet:r.~ of July 25, 1983, be approved as eubmitted. ITEM N0. 1. ~IR NEGA'PIVE DECLARIITIONy WAIVER OE~ CODE REQUIREMENT, CONDITIO_NJ1L USE PERMIT N0. 2459 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNEitS: KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITIILS, 333 South Gcand 1-venue, ~3400, Los Angelea, CA 90071. Property des~ribed aa an iccegularly-ehaped parcel of land consiating of Approximately 9.b accea located at the northweet cornec of Riverdale l-venue and Lakeview l~venue, having a frontage of approximately 628 feet on the north side of Rivecdale Avenue and a frontege of approximately 670 feet on the weet siae of Lakeview Avenue and further described as 441 North Lakeview Avenue (Keiser Foundation Eloapital). To permit exPansion of an existing hoepital with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Continued from June 27, and July 25, 1983. It was note~ the petitioner has requested a two-week continuance in order to complete a parking demand study. ACTION: Commissioner McBurney offeced a motion, se~conded by Commissioner Ring an ION CARRIED (Comnissioner eushore absent), that cons:ueration of the aforemention~d mattec be continued to the ceyularly-seheduled meeting of ~-uguet 22, 1983, at the request of the petitioner in ord~r that a parking demand study can be comgleted. 83-420 8/8/83 MINUT88. AN~H~IM CITY PLIINNING COMMISS I ON~ UA QUBT s. 1~83 83-4Z~ ITBM N0~ Z. BIR N~OATIV6 D~CLJIRATION, W~IVBR OE CODB RB4UIRSM~NT AND CONOITION~L U~B P6RMI~ N0. 2169 PUBLIC N~ARING. OWNERB: BROOKSIOB BNTERPRISEB, INC., Old Ouaeti, CA 91743. ACENTB= U. E. BJ-USR, J-RCHITBCT, 17390 McAllister, Riverside, CA 92503 and MR. 11ND MR3. MYt1NG 3HIK YUN, 735 S. Beach 6ouleverd, 1-neheim, CA 92804. Pxoperty deacribed aa a cectanqularly-ahapad pa rcel of lend conaisting of eppcoximately 1.73 ecrea, havinq e frontage of epproximetely 198 feet on the weat side of Btookhucet Street end further described as 71l &outh B~ookhucet Street. To permit a 107-unit motel and restauc ant with on-aale of Alcoholic beveceges in the CI. Zone with waivere of maximum etructural height, minimum front landeceped setback and minimum land~ceped eetbeck adj4cent to reaid~ntial zor~ boundery. Revised plans were submitted eliminating all thcee waivera. Continued from July 11, 1983. There were fouc pereona indicating the ir preaence in oppoeition to aubject cequeat and although the ateff cepoct wae not. re4d, it ia referred to and made a part of the minutee. Ulyases eauer, erchitect, explained they met with the neighbore who were opposed to Lhe project end revi~~wed th eic concerna and made certein commitments to alleviate those concecn s, He explained the oppos~tion's major concern .related to the vieual intrusio n tnto their bac:kyecda end homea and that the petitioner has agreed to plac e an eluminum ptivacy screen about four feet nway from the windowa on the thir d etory which would not interfere with air circulation, etc. and khat the acr eene would detet any person from the third L•looc from looking into any yards, Mr. eauer explained they hed also met with three adjacent propetty ownere to the south A~d did put up an 8-foot hiy h barriec and determined an 8-foot wall would eliminate any view frum the second etory. He alao referred to the third floor balconies and pointed out on the exhibit thet a 6-foot tall person stending on the belcony would not be a ble to see ovet the top of the screen into their yards and added. however, i f that is a major concern, they wou16 be willing L•o increase the height of the sc~een. Ellsworth Gonce, 9911 Stonybrook Drive, atated they cooper.ated with the petitioner and listened to their proposal. He added they are concerned about their privacy and property velues and the amenities such as air flow that would be restricted by the propoaed 8- foot wall and noted the wall would be 10 feet on the p~oPerty owners' level because th~y are 2 feet below the exi~ting grede. He state~9 i~ has not been ~emonetreted that 107 units could be conattucted and still protect their p ropetty values, privacy, air flow, odors from the kitchen and bar and the unsig htly prison-like wall which would eliminate what little vi~w they have of the mountaina to the north. He stated thpce would also be noise and fumes f r om the cars parking behind their homes and it would mean added congestion on Brookhurst. He stated they feel n building on this lot ahould confocm to the exiating businessea auch as the 32-unit Brookhurst Lodge and the 28-un it Polynesian Motel. 8/8/83 INUTS&,_A_N~HSIM CITY PLANNING COMMI88I0_N, _AUGUST 8. 1983 83-42~ ~udr~y Jackaon, 9911 StonybcooK, ask~d if a co~dition could be eddsd to tha approval of thia ua~ permit r~quirinq that i! it is epparant during conetruction that ~heir privacy ie not b~inq mainteined, thet louv~rs would be edded to the eecond-atory windows. ehe atated they heve alao saked that thn 8-foot wall ~~but theic •xiatinq walle with grout between them and sh• thought the peCition~r had sgceed to thet. She etsted they would aleo like to cequeat thet the w~ll ba conatcucted beEo[e conatruction of the motel begina. Mr. eauer eteted thsy heve already agreed that they would be willing to pcovide louvera un the edcond-etory windows if it ia Eound they ~re needed ko mainCein the privecy and tl~et he did not see eny reason why they could not constcuct the wall prioc to begi~ning conetcuction oE the motel. Concerning Mr. Gonce's conceri~s cegntding the eir flow, he etated he did not think this pcoject would affect the eir flow boceuae Mc. Gonce hae a lar~e backyard end he did not think t~~i8 would block che view of the mountaina. Ne added they have steted they would be willing to encloae the atairway on the west eo there will be no poseibility of anyone looking into the neighbora' yards ta the weat and noted thece Are no windowa on tiiat side. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr. eauer atiE~ulated that the petitionec would be willing to put louvers on the aecond-atory windowa, if necessery, and tt~ey would be wi.l.ling to conetruct the wall before construction of the motel begina. Commissionec La Claire stated she felt the petitioner a~d the neighbors had worked out most of their pr~blema and this is A good approach and ehe ~ought everyone concerned has been very reasonable. Chaicman Fry pointed out the original ceque~ted waivere af code requicement have been deleted. ACTION: Commissioner King Affered a motion, seconded by Commiasioner Bouaa and MOTION CARRIGC (Commiseioner Bushoce absent), thet the An~heim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit a 107-unit moCel and restau~ant with on-sale of elcoholic bevera~es in e CL (CommerciAl, Limited) Zone on a rectangul~rly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approxlmately 1.73 acres, having b frontage of approximately 198 feet ~n the west aide of Brookhurst Street, having a maximum depth of approximAtely 380 feet And further described as 711 South Brookhurst Streett and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact ceport on the ~asis that there would be no sig~ificant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact due to the approval of this NegativP Declaration afnce the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for genecal commerciel land uaes commensurate with the proposel= that no sensitive env~ronmental impacte are involved in the propoeals that the initial Study submitted by the petitioner indic~tes no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impactss and that the Negative Declaration aubatantfating the foregoing findinge is on file in the City of Anaheim Planning Department. 8/8/83 ~ i MINUTaB. 11NAHEIM CITX PLJINNINti COMMIBl420N, AUGUSr 8. 1983 _8_3-423 Commiaolon~t King oftecsd Re~olut~ion No. pC83- 134 and movad fot ita paaseqe and adoption Chat th• ~1neh~im City Plenning Commiaaion doea heraby gtent Condition+al Uae P~rmit No. 2469, in pert, eubjact to int~rdepartmentel committ~e recommendationa end eubj~ct to Lhe pe~itioner'a atipulation to provide elumi~num louv~red scroening on the thi rd-~tory wlndowa ar~! on the second-story windawa, if it i• dstermined khey ere nec~~sary, ano to provide 4n 8-fo~r high block wall p~tor to baginning a~ conetruction of Che motel. On roll cell, the foregoing resolution w~s pea eed by the following vote: 11YE5: BUUAS~ PRY~ HERBST~ KING~ LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY NOEB: NONE 1~8&ENT: BUSNORE Jeck White, 1lsaiatant Ciky Attorney, presented the written right to eppeal the Plenning Conuniseion's deci~ion within 22 day~ to khe City Council. ITEM N0. 3. EIR NEGAT~ IVE DECL1UtATION, WJ~-IVER OF CODB REQUIREMENT AIVD CONDITIONAI. USB PERMIT N0. 2A73 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: WAMEO MEDICAL P1UtTNERSHIP, 3~33 W. Oranqe Avenue~ Anaheim, CA 92801. EN ASSOCTATES INC., 3 916 Sepulveda Boulevard, Culver Cicy, CA 90230, ATTN: EDWARD BNDO. Property is deac ribed es an irregulerly-s haped percel of land consisting of approximately 9.2 acres located at the~ nocthweat corner of Orenge Avenue and Beach eouleva rd an d further described as 3033 Weat Orange Avenue (Weat Anaheim Community Hospital). To expend an exieting hoapital fe-cility with waiver of minimum number oE pecking spaces. Continued from the meeti~g of ~uly 25, 1883. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to ~ubject request and although the Ataff report wes not cead, it is ceferred to and made a part of the minutea. Edward Endo, a~gent, exp'Yinp~ the~ are ~tanntr~ a 5700-square foot eddition to the hoapital and to remodel the exiating obate trics (OB) areat that they have preliminary approval f rom the Orangv County He allh Pldnning Council end the Sta~e Conatruction and PLanning Departme~ t and havo applied for the Certificate of Need. He steted they are beking f or a pdrking waiver un~er the new parking cequirementei and that they are not increasinq the total bed count, but are ehifting some beda fcom medical autgery to Oe. He stated employee parking is provided across Orange Aven ue. THE PUBLIC IiBJ~RING WAS CLOSED. Responding to Cheirmen Pry, Mr. Endo ateted the total number of beds remains at 243 nnd they are merely shifting beds from medical surgery to OBi that they have cleare~r~ce for County approvAl and explained the entire OB area will be rearra-nged. 8/8/8'i UT88. ~N~HbIM CITY PLANI~iING COMM288ION, AUOUST 8. 1983_ _____ _ 83- 4Z~ Ch~icman !cy atated thi~ r~qu~~t ie !or a trsmendous pecking di!ler~nce end it hea be~n hia exp~rience th:t OB patients require more p~rking then medicel surgery patienta. Raaponding to Commieaioner Nerbet ae to the perc~nteq e of cspacity when the parkiny atudy wee conducted, Gugtauv Rodriguex, J-aeociate Executive Director, Weet l~neheim Community Hospital, ateted he though~ thece were ebout lU0 patiente et that time~ Commi~eionec Herbar eteted he h~a n problem beceuae hoepitals, ae e rule, heve parking pcoblema end thia r equeat ia for 471 spaces or 48t with 992 apecee cequiredr khet the Mertin Luthar Hospital has 4.4 pa rking specea per bed, Anaheim Memociel Hoapital hds Z.9 apecee pec bed, and Anaheim Hills (propos ed) hAS 2.68 specea pet bed and thia request is for 1.3 s peces p~r bed and the parking study wae conducted et lese~ then 501 capacit y. He etated he could not egree with the wr~iver requ~et because the hoapitdl could become very busy and there would be no place f o r the visitora tu perk. Mr. Rodriguez eteted 1E th~ number of p~+tienta increasea, there would be additional pereonnel, but the numbet of administrativ e peraonnel would remain the same. Commiesioner Herbst stated t~e has no opposition to t his requsst, but the Commiseion should get a cou~nitme~t Erom the petitioner to take c~re of eny parking problema that may arise in the future such as a perking atructure, becauae t~ would expect this hospitel to grow end if adequate pe~rking ie nAt ~rovided, it would create a problem for the neighbora in thie area. Mr. Rodriguez replied they wou ld make that cnmmitment end stated they have adjacent land t~ the hnapital that could be ueed for addiriona~l parking spac~s ++1 if need be, they could pcovide a pdcking structu re. Mc. Endo stated there ia a medical building and perk ing lot acrosa Orange Street and adjac~nk to the south is a v~cant piece of property which their corporation currently owns where additional parking could be provided. Commissionec Herbat asked sf they would be will~ng t o enter into an agreement with the City to provide a dditional packing in the f uture if it ia needed. Mr. Endo ceplied that they have that flexibilitv. Commissioner Bouas clarif i ed that the hoapital o~~ns the current parking lot. Responding to Chairman Fry , Mr. Endo expleined they now have nine OB beds and thie project would increas e tbat to 25. ACTION: Commiasioner Herbst offeced a motion, aeconded by Commissioner King and MOTION CARRIED (Commi seioner Bushore absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has r eviewed the propoeal to expand an exisking hospital. facility with waiver of mi nimum number of parking apaces on an irregulacly-shaped percel ef land conaisting of dppr oximetely 9.2 acrea located at the norkhwest cvrner of Orange Avenue and eeach Boulevard and further desccibed as 3033 West Orange 1-venue ~West 1-naheim Community Hospital)i and does hereb~r dppcove the Negative Decl aration from the requirement to prepare a~ -snvironmental impact repor t on the basis that there would be no significent irxslividual or cumulative adverse environmental impact 8/8/83 INUTB~,_ANAHBIM C~TY PLANNING COMMISSIQN. AUGUBT 8. 1983 63-125 due to th~ spprovel of thia NQqetive Declaretian •incs the Anaheim afnerel Plan dseiqnetea th~ eubject property for qeneral commercial lend usee commenaurate with the pcopoaelt that no aenoitive enviconmental impacta are involved in khe pcopoealj thet tht Initial Study $ubmittad by the petitioner indicetee no significnnt individual or cumulative adverse enviconmentel impactei and that the Nagetive Declaration subatentiating the foregoing findinge is on file in the City of Aneheim Planning Department. ~CTION: Commiesioner Herbst offered e motion that the Anaheim City Planning Commiseion does hereby grant weiver of Code requirement on the bdsia that the petitioner hae ekipuleted to enter into an ayreement to provide additional perking in the future if it ia found that the exiating parking is not edequate and that eny parking plana propoaed would be subject to approval by the City TrAffie Engineerj and that the perking verience will not cause an increase !n treffic congeation in the immediate vicinity nor adveraely affect any adjoining lend uaeat and qranting the pdrking variance under the conditions imposed, if rny, will not be detcime~tal to the peace, health, eafety or generel welEare af the citizens of the City oE Anaheim. Jack White, Assiatant City ~ttotney, expl~ined thet et leAat on one other occasion, the City hae requiced thdt a covenent be recorded to provide thet 1E in the future the City conducts a traff.ic atudy which indicates that off-street parking is not adequate for exiating uses, the owner would either constcuct a parking stcucture or otherwise provide additionAl parking in a number and manner satlsfackory to the City Traffic Engineer. He added on another occaeion, the City has cequired thet a faitt~ful perf ormance bond be posted to guarantee satisfaction of that condition. He explained even though the petitioner currently owns the adjacent property, there is no guarantee they will still own it when the perking is needed oc that it will be avallable for p~rking and khere would be no way foc the City to enforce that type covenant whir', is the reason foc requiring that a bond be poated to provide that in the =~nt of default on the covenant, the principle amount of the bond would be cec;~~iced ae liquidated damagee to guarantee that the faeilities would be inetalled. Comtt~issioner Hecbat stated requiring a bond botheca him because it is possible they may npver need additional perking spacea. Jack Wh~te stated the Commission can require that the covenant be recorded, but it ,~~ be open-ended and the manner in which the City would go ebout requir , rQ parking might not end up in the reault the Planning Commiasion ia lookiay for. Commissioner La Claice stated th'~ is quite a large vari.~ncE and she thought in the future there will be inc•_,ved patients at this hoapital and the property the hoapital owns to the south looks like a pcime site for a medical office building and she ~id not thin~ ehe could vote i`~z the variance without cequiring a bond because if the hospital decided to ub~- that pruperty, the City could not legally force them to build a parking et~ucture. Jack White stated a covenant could be recorded on the prc,perty on which the hoapital wae conatructed but could not be recorded on any property that was not a part of this application. 8/6/83 INUTB~._AN~NBIM CITY PLANNING COMMI88ION. AUOUBT 8. ~983 83-426 Jack Whit• r~plied to Commisoionor Kinq that this vovenAnt would be s wtitten aqre~ment by the pcopacty owner thet in the fueur~, if an independent perkinq demend study found a d~ficiQncy, that th~ adairional peckiny would then ba provided and tsilure to provide thst parking would conaCitut~ A violation of the conditione and allow the City to declere ~ Lnri~itur~ ot the amount of the bond. He eteted the bond would give the hoepiral rheir own ince~tive ta pravide the parking aince it would be in the beat int~rest of their busin~ee. Responding to Commiasionec H~cbet, Mr. Endo steted they have no objection to providing the bond, with M~. Rodciguez ~tetinq they would like to have the covenant tied to rhe hospital pcoperey and the employee parking lota ~nly end if neceasary they will build a perking etructure on the employee Fecking lot end would not tie up the vacant property to the aouth. Commisaioner Le Claire steteJ ahe wanted to meke it clear tha~ khe bond ia going to m~ke a big difference in the way ehe votee. Commiasioner Herbat atated he would include in hia motion that the amount of th~ bond would be detecmined by the C1ty Engineer. Jack White added the amount would relate to conetruction coats of edditional perking. Commissioner McBurney alacified that the covenant will be recorded o~ the property and any subseguent pur~:heser of the propetty will have actual notice of the obligation. ACTION (CONTINUED): Commiasionec Bouee seconded the motion, and the MOTION C1-RRIED (Commisaioner Bushore absent). Commiaeioner Herbst offered Rea~lution No. PC83-135 end moved for ite passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission doee hereby gr~nt Conditional Uae Permit No. 2473 eubject to the conditiona end stipulationa of the applicant including the additional condition regarding the parking and bonding, and aubject to Interdepartmenta~ Committee recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOU~S, FRY~ HERBST, KING, LI- CL1-IRE~ MC BURNEY NOES: NONE ABSENT; BUSHORE ITEM N0. 4. EIR NEG~TIVE DECLAR~TION ANA RECI.ASSIFIC~TION NO. 83-84-1 rUBLiC HEARING. OWNBR: NOfiBERT A. WATERS, 12132 Morrie Lane, Garden Grove, CA 92640. Propecty described as an irregularly-shAped paccel of land consietln~ of approximately 0.40 acre on the north 8ide of Ball Road, apptoximetely 280 feet east of the centerline of Sunkiat Street and immediately weat of the Oranqe (57) Freeway. ~S-A-43,000 to CL. 8I8/83 MINUT68. ~NAH~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, AUGU$T 8. 1983 83-417 ITSM N0. 5. ~IR NBGATIV~ pBCL11RATI_ ON. WAIVBR OP CODE RBDUIRBMENT ANp CONDITIONAL USE PERMYT N0. 1475 PUBLIC HBARING. OWNERS: NORB~RT A. AND RUTH M. WATERS, 12132 Marrie Lane, Garden Gcove, C~ 92~40. P:operty dosc~ibed na an ircegulerly-ahaped percel of land coneiating of appcoximatel~ 1.40 ncres on the north side of Ball Roed, immediete2y w• t of the Ocange (57) Freeway. To pecmik an d0-unit motel and cocktail lounge with wnivece of minimum atructucal aetback, maximum atructural height and permittad locetion of Eree~tanding sign. There wece thirty-five persons indicating their pceaencp in oppoeition to aubject request and although the eteff report waa nok read, it is referred to and made a pack of the minutes. Jeck Whlte explained this will be a combined public hearing for Items 4 And 5t however, sepdrate ectiona will be teken. John Cetalane, 134 Dolphin street, Seal B~ach, California 90740, was pcesent to anawec any questLons. Elwood Traviu, 1191 S. Hilda~ Anaheim, steted hia property backa-up to aubject prepecty and pcesented petition~ contafning 260 aignaturea of reai.dent~ in the immediate area on both sides of Ball Road who are opposed to the cequeeted change and ttielr reasons for opposftion were th~ propoaed grosa height, in~rease~ traEfic, limited accesa and decreaee in their property values. He pcesenteu a drewing which he called ~ine-of-sight and stated standing an the third-stury balcony of the new motel, eye-level from the parking lot would be 25 feek and from the north property line to the new structuce, it will be 110 feet and tbe line-af-sight to their backyards i8 direct and thece is no ~rivacy .leEt at all and even on the second flooc with eye level at 17 oc 18 f~eek, khe gueeta could look directly inta the rear of their homes. He stated during the pea~ hour tcaffic, there ie exceasive traffic on Ball and Sunkiat and with limited acce~a to the new ette and existing traffic conditions, there will be many hazacdous traffic conditians. He stated there are three elementary schoolR on Sunkist r~orth of Ball Road and there are many children who live south of this project who attend those schoola. He stated they are concerned about their property values with a three-story motel at the rear and pointed out the entrancea to the units face their property and not Ball Road. He stated thete is an existing 6-foot h~gh block wall between tFeir property and the proposed motel and it hae no structural inteqrtty and the traffic lane for access to the new motel ia adjacent to the property line and he realizes there ie ~ 10-foot planter proposed between the pcoperty line and the parking aceas, but he did not think that would stop vehicles which were goinq too faet. He stated they are also concerned about the cocktail lounge. Tom ~lser, 1176 S. Hilda, stated he is concerned about crime and the eafety and welfare of the neighbochood and atated they began a Neighborhood Watch progxam to the nocth and east about three years ng~ because of the crime rate which was approximately 33t, but now their crime rate is down to vittually nothing partly bec~uae of the Neighborhood Watch program end pertly because of the walls bordering the freeway. ~e stated one of their concerns is that if S/8/83 ; ,E MINUTBS ANIIHEIM CITY PLANNINa COMMi8SI0N. All0U8T 8. 1983 83-418 thia proj~ct i• not succ~aaiul a~ a morel, they will De 1Rft with something that would attract s lesa deaicable cli~ntele. He etated they are alsa concerned about the cocktsil lounqe with anly a 6-Eoot wall 8eperating them and they feel that would edd to Cheir crime rete. Mt. Elaer ceferrad to the request !or approval of a Negative Decleration and etated they fael khie project will create a traffic hezard end congeation end the initial study aubmitted by the petitionec atatee it would not. He pregented photogra~ha taken of the traffic end aleo a chert showing the entrance to the projc~t and the main thorouyhfe~es in the erea end expleined the only entrance to the project from Sunkiet would be inko an elready congeated drea and there ia no acceae through the center dividec on Ball Roed. He atated thia chert will clearly indicete there is An impect on the neighborhood and they would cequest the Commisaion not appcove thia project. Richard Perd, 2623 Whidby Gnne, ~-neheim, atated he ettended Planning Commieaion/City Council meEting~ 15 or 16 yeara ago when two-atory apactmenta were pcoposed on this eite and the request was denied becauAe it was Eelt thet two-atory atructures were not appropriate in th:a reaidential drea and he felt the Cummisaion should continue with that deciaion ~nd meintain the property as it is. He etated a cuetomer at the liquor atore dcove through the building and he felt a bar in thia neighborhood would be detcimental, especielly since it would be open frnm 10:00 a.m. and there ere children going to achool past the liquor store and bar. Frank Zemlinger, 1199 S. Hilda, ceferred t~ a relative who livea in Garden Grove where a 1-story motel was constructed directly behind her praperty and Rxplained a guest on the firet floor balcony could look right into their baekyacds and about three months ago theic two doga were stebbed to death and their house was robbed and the burglar got access from the motel end he was concecned that that could happen in theic neighborhood if this is epproved. He was also concecned about e 3-story motel looking into his backyard and bedroom and did not like it. He alao indicated concern re~erding the trAffic And suggested the Commissioners go to this corner during rush-houc traffic. He stated there ace cucrently problems wfth water in the atreet, etc. Bob Stone, 1194 S. Hilda, atated evecyone in the neighborhood agrees with everything that has teen said and backs them 1Q0~. Mr. Catalona stated they understand the concerns and are wiiling to addresa them directly. He stated they we~t to the immediate neighborhood adjacent to the proposed development and apoke ta the reeidents and asked them to share their concerns because they are concerned about public relations. He stated they plan to franchise with either the Quality Inn or Travelodge and are talking about an upgraded type motel that would be an addikion to Anaheim and something to be pcoud of And will compliment the kind of growth and spirit that should come from a commercial develoFment. He stated they did not receive any direct questions after viaiting the neighborhood and the concerns discuased today by the oppoeition are also their concerns. Regarding the view into the property from the third level, he stated they have visited other motele and commercial developments in the area dnd have been doing a lot of 8/8/83 - MINUTEB, ~NAH62M CITY PL~NNING COMMI8SION. AOaUBT 8. 1983 __ _83-429 thinking elong thoae linaa. H~ preaented photogrepha ehowing the enawfr to that problem by Relph'e Merket end atated thet ia one approach th~y coul~ uae. He etated they are tuned in and are intereatad in listening to the total community involvement end that 1~ the reason they preaenCed their pl~ne and those concerna can be addreased as they develop the pcoperty. THE PUBLIC HEARING W~3 CLOSED. Commiesioner Herbet steted the Commieaion has appcoved a lot of motels in thie City, but he did not think there hes been one so obvious aa this one with ell the accesa dooca facing into the cesidential erea and referred to the one juat approved whece an 8-Loot scceen was cequired. He etated this pcoject is completely bACkwarda and a 3-etory unit is probably juat too much for thie pcoperty and if it has to be done et the expense of the adjoining property owners, thece is something wrong with the plana. He eteted accesa to the site is limited, and the elley that will pcobably be used will be limited, and the parking againat the 6-foot fpnca would be detriin~ntal because a motel is a 24-hour operation~ end a 6-foot wdll doea not attenuete eound, ~nd the cocktail lounge would be open until 2:00 a.m. and people would be t~lking in the parking lot and leaving in their vehicles and that could diaturb the neighbora. He atated the aite will be suitable for e motel, but not one this large. He stated all the propecty, except one portion, is commercial now, so it will be probably be built with something commercial and e propecly designed motel would pcobably work with the least effect. He etated the project should be redesigned with a lot of thought given to the neighbocs as to the intcusion into their privacy and landscaped bufFPrs ehould be considered eyen though they do not buffer sound and the design with walkways and doocs ehauld be changed. Commissioner La Claice stated sh~ hears the neighbora comments about not wanting a motel in their areas however, something is going to be developed and it will not be single-Eamily homes and probably will be commercial and could be ~ ahopping center or more of what is already there. She ateted the neighbora ehould give the benefits of this motel a lot of conaiderat~on, especially since it will be a first-class motel. She stated a motel would have sompone thece all the time and a ahopping centec would not. She stated when a pereon livea adjacent to a vacant lot, they get used to having it thece and would like to keep it, but that is not going to ha~pen on this propetty and she also ~ealizes that Ball Road is a noisy atreet and she could undetatand why the developer designed the pcoject in the manner proposed because it would buffer the trAffic noise from edll Road to the residents. She stated she wants tv see the neighbora' rights protected, but also wants to protect the properi:y owner's right to develop this property and would like to see a solution between the two. She atated she did not think the neighbors have given this motel very much thouqht and she would like Eo see the developer redeaign it and work with the neighbors. She suggested the neighbors work with the developer because they could see e much worse development on that property than a motel. She atated ahe realizes they are concerned about noise, crime nnd safety and she understanda this is a busy corner. She added ehe is al~o concerned about the signing and would want to see the signing included on the revised plana showing the location to make sure it doea not intxude i~lto the neighbor's property. She stated she did not think the location of the swimming pool is ideal since it backs up to the neighbora' homes and would want to see that relocated and also the location of the trash storage area should be moved. 8/8/83 . ,.,.~ INUT68. ANAHBIM CITY PLANNING COMMI88ION, AUOUST 8. 1983 83-430 Commi~~~onec King suyg~ated thet ~lena be redeaignsd with thm waiver• elimi~etad. Res~onding to Commiaeioner Bouea, Mr. Catelons steted thia la their tiret motel endeevoc and explained they heve been contacted by eoverel lerge motel compAniea and heve lettecs of commiCment from the Quslity ~nn end Travelodge end they feel thio ie an nutatanding site foc a m~tel and that there is a needt h~wever, they are atill negotiating end have narcowed it down to juat these two. He also respanded thece will be no kitchen unite in thie motel. Commiseionec Bau~s steted she undecatends the concerna of the neighbare if the fcanchise ie not with either one of theee first-cless motels, becauae there have been some motels developed ln Anaheim which are not firat clasa motels end thoae type motel8 are not wanted in any aroa, and once they ace there, you cannot get rid of them end ehe felt the neighbors need to be asaured of the type of franchise. Mr. Catalone requeated a two-week continuence. Commiasioner La Cleice pointed out the revised plans must be subm:tted by r'ridAy oE this waek. Mc. Cetalond responded that they are wotking on thie full time end now that they have heard the concerna, are prepared to move forward ea fast aa posaible and if they need anothec continuance, khey will m~ke anothec request. ACTION: Commisaioner King offered e motion, aeconded by Commiaeioner McBurney and MGTION CARRIED (Commieai~~ner Bushore abaent), that consideration of the aforementioned matter (Items 4 and 5) be continued to the ~eyularly-scheduled meeting of August 22, 1983, et the request ~f the petitioner. Mt. Catalona requested that the neighbors contACt Mr. Watets at 991-8080 so a meeting can be organized to answer their ~oncprns. ITEM NO. 6. EIR NEGATIVE DECLAFUTION AND CONDITIONAL USS PERMIT N0. 24~6 PUBL~C HEARiNG. OWNERS: MAURICE PINiO, P.O. Box 3421, Anaheim, CA 92803. AGENT: LOYAL ORDER OF TH~ MOOSE, ANAHEIM IADGE t1853, 2135 E. Ball Road, Anaheim, CA 92806. Property described a8 An icregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.06 acrea located south and edst of the southeast corner of Vermont ~venue and Harbox Boulevard, 912, 914 and 916 South Harbor Boulevacd. To permit on-sale alcoholic beverages in a proF~aed Moose Lodge. There were two persona indicating their presence in opposition to aubject r~quest and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minute8. Charles Ford, 1945~ earrett Lane, Santa Ana, Secretary of the Anaheim Moose Lodge, was present to anawer any questions. Louis Pollard stated he owns the service etation immediately north and west of sub~ect pcoperty and that the petitioner has been a very poor neighbor becauae he has ettempted to encroach on his property. He asked if this is a subt~rfuge to get a video palace on the property aqain aince the owner seems 8/8/83 MINUT88~_~N~HBIM CITY PLI~NNING COMMISSION UO T 8 1983 83- ~3 to be det~rmined to heve thae typ~ op~cation in that locetion and eleo aaked if this will be e private club or op~n to the public (Chairman Fry explained thia will ba e pciNate club). Mc. Pollacd stated that the petltioner h~d continuad to establieh a cight-ol-way ovec the beck of hia property and shows a dciveway off Vacmont wh~ch i$ not used. He pcegented photogrephs tekQn Ecom Vetmont and from Harbor. He atated he hae trisd to talk to the property ownet, but got no cooperation. He at~ted el~nq the front of their pcopecty there ia a bad eituation becauee of a food etamp EACiliky ~nd people park on tiis property and hia bueiness has declinRd beceuae of the packing situekion. He auqgeated extending the grillwork an the north aide of the petitioner's pcopeCty to pcevent the people from using his property aiid aleo fencing the weat prnperty line f[nm Vermont to the drivewey on the service atation propecty and from thet corner weat to hia buil~ing. He etat~d he felt this would eliminete the traffic problem. He atated when the foud et~mp bueineas came in, he had to hire guacde to etop people from perking on his pcoperty becauae they felt they ahould be allowed to park behind the stet~on and the truck delivering gASOline had to wait for someone to move their .ar. He pointed out the two parking specea shown on t.~e plan on Vermont which are not paved and etated it ie e tercible pcoblem cight now and he felt with a fence, the problems would be eliminated. He preaented othec photographa ehowing the grillwork facing H~rboc. Lealie Gardnec, 400 W. Vermont, Anaheim, stated hia pcoperty is right up to the fence and he is not in favor of anything with alcoholic bevecages because their bedrooma are right next to the parking lot and he would not appreciate people t~lking and keeping him awake at night. He read a letter of oppoaition from a neighbor, Doria Sneltzer, 413 W. Vermont, stating they are opposed becauae of the s~le of alcoholic beverages and traffic congeEStion and ~re concerned that the fecilities will be rented out= and that the quality of their neighborhood ha~ been currently sliding downhill and thia will speed it up. haurice Pinto, owner of subject property, atated he bought the pcoEecty about 6 years ago and the accesa to the property cannot be changedt that the gas station was there when he purchaaed the property and he did not creat~ the traffic problem. He atated when the building was built there was no pla~,~ing, but he should not be pennlized for thats that the traffic that comes to the gas station ia euppose to be to the station, but Nr. Pollard put up a fence that closed the entrance tn the perking lot which he believed was illegal because he felt sure he has "preacriptive rights' to use that pcoperty becauae he thought after accesa to a property ie uaed for a certai~ number of years, it becomes like public praperty. He stat.ed if he puts up a fence, the aituation will be worae because cars will not be ~ble to go into hi~ packing lot and will etay on the service station property. He stated he did put up signs showfng where the parking is located. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Pry pointed out the applicar.t is the Moose Lodge and the requeat is for a Moose Lodge at this location and he felt the Cammission's c~mments should be confined to thak request only at this time. 8/8/83 ~INUTE3. AN~HEIM CITY PL~NNING CONMISBION AUGUST 8. 1983 83 432 Mr. Pord pointed out th~re is anothet entrenc~ off Harboc. Ne expleined they have 235 membera and uaually only have about 5Q member~ pceeent et sny one tim~l however, ik ia poesible there will be 5 oc 6 tamily membera present eG their family ~ffairs euch es the Hdlloween end Fester parties. Mr. Ford explained khey have no kitchen f~cilities nt their pteeent location end would like to heve kitchen fecilitiea and thie facility is e littlo hit larger because of tl~e kitchen~ however, they do not expect to inccease chair memberehip. He explAinQd they have ~ gteat deal of. dancing on Fcid~y end Seturday nights with about 30 couples. He explained they would not be aerving any alcoholic bevetegee to the public and would not cent the facilitiee to outeiders. Ne reaponded to Commieaioner King thet they have looked at other propertiea and think this ie a good location. Mr. ~ord resgonded to Commisaioner Bouae that he did not think the perking situation would be e problem becauae they do heve adequete parking. He atated they average 10 to 15 pereons during the day, so rhat would nat be a problem with the food etamp buaineae beceuse of the hours of operetion. Commieaionec Herbat steked to Mr. Pinto that thia property hes been before the Planning Commission many times and there has been a lot of opposition from the neighbors and he thought it was bec~use Mr. Pinto has not been a good neighbor. He stated he th~ught Mr. Pinto waa wrong about heving an easement beceuse if there is an easement, it would ahow on the map. He atated the only wuy he could vote Eor additional uee on the propecty would be if the pcoperty was brought up to Code and the conditions imposed on the previous conditional use permit, such es landscaping, fe~cing, etc. complied with. He stated he would be one of the first ones to see that Che previous conditional use permits are revoked if thia property ie not brought up to Code. He stated he would like to see a fence across the front with 10 feet of landscaping and also a fence behind the service etation and a fence to the cocner to block off the corner and he theught if thia ie done and the lot is paved and landscaped, a lot of the problems would be resulved. HA atated the property doea adjoin a cesidential acea and that he has no opposition to thP Moose Lodge because it faces Harbar, but the dcawings show access to Vermo~t and that ia the wAy it should remain, so the access queation accoas the service station is moot. Chairman Fry agreed and stated it is time the property owner got the property brought up to Code and that the reference to 'prescriptfve rights• has to be settled by a court of law. Mr. Pinto st~ted he did not create the •pteacriptive easement" and is not asking to use it, but did not think other people could be stopped from using it. Ghairm~n Fry stated fencing the area will atop people from using it. Commissionez La Claire stated none of the existing traffic is going to the Moase Lodge, but that eome traffic in tbe past has traversed the atAtion property and the aervice station operator has the rfght to put up a fence. She stated in her opin~on, the Moose Lodge will have no adverse impact on the erea and will prooably be a benefit. She agreed it ie time to improve the property for adequate accesa. 8/8/83 ~~ ;: lIINUTBB, AN1-HLIM CITY PLANNING C IS ION A G ST 1983 83-433 Mr. Pinto ateCed he is wo[king on impcovin9 the proper~y. He stated he cen not underatand why he has bAd relation, with hia neighbora, beceuse he never te].ked to any of them end hsa not dona anything to huct th~m. Commiesionec Herbst stated the vi9eo palaca ceused e lot ot probleme in the aree dnd the pcoperty owner hae control ovec the property and aeked if Mr. Pinto would be willing to landdcaPe the nork.h, west end south property linea end construct 6-foot wall8. Mr. Pinto reeponded he will be willing to provide the wells nnd do whetevec ie nece8sary to improve relationahips. Commiesioner Hecbst eteted the Commiesion has told the property owner before what the reyuirements are end they have n~t been done, including landacaping, fencing, etc. dnd now he ia asking for moce use on the property when he has not complied with hia previoua commitments. Mr. Pinto atated he ie improving the buildinqs on Harbor and is working on the two houaes and is trying to improve the pcoperty And the area. Responding to Commiasioner Herbst, Mr. Pinto atated he would do enything, including the fencing and landacaping, with Cummieaioner Herbst stating he would want the 6-foot wa~ll to be continu~d fram the aervice atAtion. Dean Sherer, Associate Planner, stated it would be eppcopriste to tie khe conditions requiring the improvemente to the commencement oE activitiea of the Moose Lodge and thet all the conditions requiring imptovemente ahould be complied with prioc to the isauance of the Businssa Licenae for the Lodge and the approval of the ABC licenae. ACTION: Commieaioner Herbst offeced a motion, seconded by Commissioner King and MUTION CARRIED fCommiseioner Bushore ebaent), tliat the Anaheim City Planning Commieaion has reviewed the pcopoea] to pecmit on-aale alcoholic bevprages in a pcoposed Mo~ae Lodge on en ircegularly-ahaped parcel of land cnnaisting of approximately 1.06 acres located south and ea-st of the southeast corner of Vermont Avenu~ and Hacbor Bouleverd and further described ea 912, 914, and 916 South Harbor BoulevArd= and does heceby a~QcuvE the Negative Declaration from the requirement to prepace an environmental impact report on the beais that there would be no significant indiv~dual or cumultttive adverse environmental imQact due to the approval oE this Negative Der.laration since the Anaheim General Plan designetes the subject pcopecty for general commercial land uses commenAUrete with the proposalt that no sensitive environmental fmpacts are involved in the pxoposals thet the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates na significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impactst and that the Negative Declaration aubstantiating the foregoing findings ia on file in the City of Anaheim Planning Department. Commiesioner Herbat offered Resolution No. PC83-136 and moved for fta passage and adoption that the 1-naheim City Planning Commiseion does hereby grant Conditional Uae Permit No. 2476 aubject to the ~tipulations of the property owner to pravide fencing and landscaping as previoualy teyuiced on the north, south and west property line6 prior to the commencement of ectivities by the woose Lodge and subject to Interdepartmental Commit~ee recommendations. 8/8/83 INUTES, 11N~HRIM CI~Y PJrJ11~NIN0 COMMI$BION~ ~~GUST 8. 1983 83-{34 Da~n 8h~r~r ~~k~d khat kh~ condition b~ ~dd~d r~quirinq thar ehe afoc~mention~d condition~ 1» compliod with prior to ehe io~u~nc• o! th• bu~insss licena• [ar r.he Moo~e Lodq• ana eppcoval oF the 1-BC lic~ns~. Comm!ooionec ~a Clai.ce indicrC~d conc~cn c~9srdinq the well to the aouth with Commi ~ion~c Herb~t indicating h~ i~ r~quaetinq a wall only to th• buildinq. On roll call, the Par~going r~solution wee psoaed by the ~ollowing vote: J1YES: BOUAS~ FRX~ HERBST~ RING~ LA CLAIRE~ MC BURNBY NOBS: NONL ABSBNT: BUSHORE Mc. 1?into etAted thece .vae e chein link fer~e along the eauth eide of the service atetion when he purcheeed the pcopectY• but it wes removed. Mr. Pocd stated th~ir leeae was co~tingent upon dpprovel of thie permit r_o beqin on Saptember 1, 1983, and deked if Che 22-dsy Appeal period would be delayed until after the conditions Ace met. Jeck White and Chairmen Fcy explainer', ~he eppeel rights r~nd Je+ck White atated no permits would be ieaued prior to t~~e action becoming finel. Mr. Pollard eteted there is a bad tcaffic aituation thece dnd there are two vacant buildings and the aituation will be woceened when they ace rented. He etnted, however, he did like evecything he has henrd today. RECBSS: 3:20 p.m. RECONVENE: 3:30 p.m. Commissionec McBurney left the meeting and did not rRtucn. ITEM NO. 7~ R NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARII-NCE NO. 3343 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: ALAN J. AND CARMEN 1-. KOREN, 6000 1-venida 11cbo1, Anahefm, CA 92807~ 1-GENT: RIK ZY9ER, 212 Renoak, J-naheim, CA 92804. Pcoperty desccibed an an irregularly-shaped paccel of land coneisting of approximately 5,505 square feet, 6000 Avenida 11rbo1. waiver of maximum number of bedrooma to retein a two-etory addition to an exiating aingle-family reai~lence. There was one person ir9iceting her preaence in opposition to aubject request and although the etaff repoct we$ not read, it is referced to and made a pdrt of the minutes. J-lan Kocen, owner, explained the requeat is to allow an office-den on the lowec floor of hie presenC raeidencei that he plenned to move the bedroom aceas to the aecond Eloor to en~ble him to aonduct 25t of his insarance busineas in this office. He explained the biggeet queetion is whether or not to coneidar this as a b~droom or as an office/den. He also explained he has two small children and needs the privncy and with the wall removed, he would not hav~ any privacy. t~e stated he underatande the precedent eetting concern end ie looking for approval becauae of the nature of his buainesa and hie peraona2 harclahip. 8/8/83 MINUT68. ANAHRIM CITY PLANNING COMNI8820N. AUGUBT 8~ 1963 63-435 ~~lly J~cob, 1818 W. Gr~tton atated •h~ does not livo in this n~ighborhooQ, but waa conc~rn~d abaut setting pcec~d~nte with this approvai. ChaiKmen Pcy expl~ined the soniny on this pcop~cty reotrictr the numbfr of bedrooma allow~d end that i4 ths reaaon toc thia heering. ~NE POBLlC H~~KlNG W~S CiA8BD. Commiaeionec NerbBt etated thie ection ia a reault of ection Caken by e building ine~ector eEter he diecovered the second-atury eddition being conetcucted without b.nefit of building permits. Mr. Koren axplained he hed the ptana drawn by en acchitect end was not ewere that building permits were required nnd thet he ie acting es his own contractor ~nd was ill-advieed and wae totelly wrong. He etated the architect disappeered af-er he drew t he plans. He steted th~ Building Department hda bee~ very helpful and he n vw undetAtende the permite ace neceseAry foc the ownec's own eefety. Commissioner Herbat steted the qveation is whethet o~ ~~ot to conaider t hie as an edditional bedroomt thaC there was e good reaeon the Planning Commis sion and City Council made thet rule and there is an ordinance which the Plenning Commiasion ehell uphold. He atated from looking at the plana, thia cou 1 d be considered a bedroom. Responding to Commiseioner Hecb~t as to whether ar not he hea e home occupetion permit, Mr. Koce~~ explained he cannot get a li cense from the City unlesa he ~ets this permit and explained he has been e licensed ineurance agent ~or 14 yeacs and can conduct bueinesa in othEr people's homee without a license enywhere in Cal:fornie. Commiasioner King eahed Whet would stop other neighbora from doing the same thing if this is approved. Mc. Kacen stated he ia looking for an exception end atated h~ would be ~-illing to make a recording thet upon sele of the property, he would comply wit ?~ all Codes. Dean Sherec, ~esociate Planner, explained the Code diacussee dwellings in thie zone with maximum lot covecage of 35t with 3 bedrooma or leas and 2 par king spaces in a gacage and nlao requires that the open space requitement s hall be increesed by 850-squace feet for eech additional bedcoom abovp the 3. He stated the Code explains that all rooms othec than the living coom, dining room, family coom, kitchen, bath .~oms and closets shall be considered bedrooma ~nd by Code definition the office/den ia a bedcoom and that i s the way ataff viewe it. He added staff feels thie would be a dangeroua precedent setting eituation in this area. Responding to Commisaioner Hecb$t, Dean sherer explained the additional 850 square feet of open space is not av ailable in thie situation. Jack White explained the Code does not say you cannot have 4 bedcoome, but that in ordet to have that many bedrooms, the open apece requirements ~ust be increased and in this particular eituation the 3-bedroom unit is right at 35~ meximum lot covecage and adding the 4th bedtoom does nut increase the lot c~~•~erage, but undec the Code it does requice the additional open gpace ~ He stated Planning Commiasion is not beinq asked to detecmine if this wil 1 ot will not be used as a bedroo~ because the Code clearly defines roome. He stated the Commission ia being aaked to qrant a variance on that provi sion of Code that would require the additional 850 square feet of ope~ spdce a rea. 8/8/83 INUTBS, ANAHSIM CZTY PL~NN2_NG CO MI8$IqN. AUGU&T 8, 1983 ___ 83-436 ~r. Koran c~apond~d to Com~iaoion~r Bou~a thar ho would be ~illing to cecord a coven~^n~ becauae he hea no intention of ealling o r renting out that room. Commi..+oloner Hecbat atated thinga have changsd ~in cs thet ocdinenca wea pessed due tu the cost of houainq, etc. and many r~om add itiona have been ellowed. He atated thia zone used to be suiteble f or multip le-family houaea and the ocdinance was edoptmd bacsuse the contcactoce wer e taking ddventege by building lerge houaes on amcll lots. He stated ma ybe the Code ehoulC be changed and he did not th.`nk snothec bedroom would be thek big e Eector. Commiseionere Bouaa end King egceed. Commiesioner L~ C1Aice atated this addition does n ot decreaee the open area he currently has, but, in any caee, ahe wee concerned and if this is epproved, it should be on rhe basis that the open space wee no t decreased to prevent other peopl~ from doing the seme thing. She stated ehe agrees thd~ theee attuetions have to be looked at individudlly, but did not th i nk the Code ehould ~e changed. Dean Sherer atated when this dwel2ing ie completed, it will havP over 3,000 square feet which ia more thnn double the minimum floor ecea cequired which is 1,225 squace feet in this xone. H~ stated he cou ld guarantee thak if thie is approved, the Commiasion will see this request ov er end over aynin and the Planning Department scaff has knowledge th~t othe rs in this neighbochood heve been told thak this kin~ of ~ption is availeble t o them. Ne akated he thought it would be mfsleadi~~~f ~o ellow this variance wit hout letting thie pekitioner and future petitionerb •, ~:~w that this is not opening the door fot this kind of expension bucause it does ~ircumvent the Code whi ch is to keep houaes at a ceasonAble aize on the lot. Responding to Commiasioner La Claicg, Dean Sherer explained thece is ~ot a squace footage limitetian in the RS-5,000 Zone and that the only limitations relete to lot coverage, bedroums and etruc:tutal height. Commissioner La C2aire etar.ed the pcoperty ownec could make theee additions and add squere footage as long as he did not make enother bedcoom. Comm.i.ssioner Herbst etated there were homee first allowed in this aone with 7 bedrooms. Com.~nissioner La Claicg st~ted ahe wae on the Commiaeion when this tcact was approved, but her concern is thet the Commiseion doea not have e hAndle on this type sftuation becauee square foot age ia not limited. Dean Sherer steted the petitioner could add another f amily room onto thia second-story addition and inccease the size of the dwelling to 5,000 SGjUdP@ feet end etill meet the lot covera~e requirement, ao the Commission has to be very careful with this kind of cequest. Commiseioner Hecbst stated he ia not in favor of the propecty owner having to tear down the addition. Dean Sherer stated the f irat plans preaented lebeled that office/den as a bedroom, but beceuse of the Code, khe plan was denied at the counter and staff worked with the architect and tried to pecauade him to r~move a wall to eliminate the need for this vari ance. 8/8/63 2NLTTR$, AN~~~IM CITY PL~NNINC CONKI88x9~. AUGUST , 198 3 83-137 Mr. xarRn ~xplain~d Cher~ wa~ a misund~cstandiny and aEter it wa• d~tocmined tha t th~ Cade would not p~cmit a b~droom, he had expleined to the ~rchitect tha t it wa~ not goinq to be a b~dcoom enyway and it we• goinq to D~ ua~d dp an o~f tce. Cha irman Fry stetsd the probl~m ie thet it could vecy easily be e bedcoom, sap~cial,ly witl~ the bathr thet he obviouoly does not like the idee Chst the pet itioner haa gone thie fac without building permite, buk could qo along with khe request if the wsll i~ removed. He steted he ia ve ry concecned ebout opening thie 'pnndoca'a box' end riiminating that wall aou].d reeolve the problem and he would not want to chanqe the Code beceue• that would be en impos~ible situation to monitor. Coeamiesionec Ld Claire etated there ie A packing pcoblem in tha~t Area alreedy and the dCQA is built to capecity and she would not want to see everyone doing the eame thing. N t. Kocen atated there dre very few profasaional people who have a need such es thie and he felt thia ehould be an exception end he would be willing to re c ord a covenant. Couuniasionec La ClAire stated ahe did not see how the Cammiaeion could appr~ve th ist that the peti.tionet made e big mistake by not getting permite eo that e t aff could explain the uituation and he apent d lot of money and now the Commiseion doea not want to see him have o cemove the addition, but he has g i ven the Commiaeion and his neighboce a prob].em and the commiaeion has to ff nd the solution which would not nllow this to t-appen to anyone else. She s t ated the only aoluCion ehe could see ia to open the bedroom and change the Code. M r. Koren stated that would be a hardahlp for running his bueineas end asked again if he could cecord a coven~-nt. Commisafonec Herbst suggeeted a 10-foot archWay or oomething aimilar. He s t ated he hoped the addition wae built according to Code. ACTION: Commisaioner Herbst offered e motion, seconded by Commisaioner King and MOTION CARRIED (Commissionere Buetioce and McBurney ebsent), that the Anaheim City Pla:~ning Commission has reviewed the pcoposal to retain n s econd-atory eddition *o an exiating eingle-family dwe lling with waiver of maximum number oF bedrooms on an irregulr.=ly-shaped parcel of land conais~ing of Appcoximately 5,505 equare feet, having a ftontage of approximately 58 feet on the aouth aide of Avenida 1-rbol, having a mnximum depth of approxima~tely 1 02 feet and being located approximately 310 feet southwest of the centecline o f AvenidA Bncina and further deaccibed As 6000 Avenida Acbolt and does hereby appcove the Negative Declaration from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact LEpOCt on the baeis that thece would be no significent i ndividual oc cumulative adver8e environmental impact due to the approval of t his Negative Declaration since the 1-naheita Gertecal Plan designates the s ubject ptoperty for hillside, low-medium residential land uaes coauneneurdte r+ith the proposalt that no seneitive environmental impacts ere involved in the p ropoealt that the Initial Seudy eubmitted by the petitioner indicates no s ignificant individual or c umulative advecae environmentel impacts= and that t he Negative Decleration substantiating the foregoing findings is on file in t he City of 1-nahelm Planning Department. 8/8/83 ~INUT68. ~NAH~IM CITY,_ PWINNING COMMI88ION, AUaUBT 8. 196~ 83-438 Jack White ~xplained it the vari~nc~ i~ de~i~d, the patition~r can •till do whet he want• by r~moving the wall. Commiasioner Herbst ofFecad R~anlutian No. PC93-137 anG moved !oc its passage And sdoption that th• ~naha~m City Planning Commia~ion doRa hereby deny Vaciance No. 3343 on the baeis thAt no herd~hip was demonstsated due to tha site, ehape, topography or eurrou~dings of subject pcoperty. On coll call, the foregoing reaolution aae pe~eed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS~ FRY~ ti~RBBT~ KING~ L71 CLAIRE NOE3: NONE ABSENT; BUSHORE~ MCBURNEY .Jack White, Aseietant City Attocney, Fresented the wcitten right to appaal the Planning Commisaion'e deciaion within 22 day$ to the City Council. ITL!! N0. 8. EIR NEGIITIVE ABCLAR7ITION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2477 PUBLIC HSARING. OWNERS: WILLIAM SHBJ- 11ND SHIH-YEN CHIANG, 2418 Gceenwich Orive, Fulla[ton, C1- 92633. AGENT; RICHARD E~GETT, 842 S. Knott Street, Anaheim, CA 92804. Property described as a rectangu2arly-shaped parcel of land consiating of approximately 1.05 ecres, 842 South Knott Street. To permit a 42-space recreational vehicle park. There were nine persons indicating their presence in opposition to subject requeat and although khe ataff report wds not cead, it is refecred to and made a part of the minutes. Richard Eggett, agent, was present to answer any queetions. Dennie Glowniak, 845 Cxnoga, Anaheim, presented a petition signed by 50 homeownere oppoeing the proposed recceational vehicle park on the basis of the (a) noise pointing out the French Quarter, Woodstock and Redio City night clubs are in the area anc also thece is a pack in the area, (b) appearaace, (c) cnngestion, (d) services (Police, Fire 6 Utilitiee), (e) respect (tcansient population), (f) crime and (g) location. lCopy of the petition is in the Planning Department f iles). He steted this pdrk would be 2 miles from Knotte Becry Farm and this stceet ie not a mein artecy and ie 5 miles from Dieneyland and they believed thie proposal would advecaely affect the pcoperty valuess that the only entcance into their neighbochood is Rome Street and this RV park would be seen. He added they are also concecned beca~use this would be a 24-hour opecatton and in nll respecta Would be a commercial establishment and they do not believe it s hould be placed in a cesidential area. He pointed out an apartment. was proposed a few yeare ago and the zoning wne changed to thz low medium density residential and they want it to cemein that way. Mr. Eggett stated he has been working on thia plan for two years and this is a good lxation, being only 2 miles from Knotts Berry Ferm and 1 mile from Los l~lnmitos Rece Track= that it will be a nice park with good improvemente and there will not be any ptoblema and it will not be noisy because of the wallss and that he hea an option on the other property to build another 80 unita. He 8/8/83 ~ { ~ r 11INUTEB. 1-N1IHBIM CITY PLJ-NNING COMMISSION. AUGU~T _8. 1983 83-439 indic~Eed he ialked to most of the paople in ~he n~ighborhood and he hae a petition aiqn~d by peopl~ who ar• in tavor of the r~queet end would b~ willing to aak for mor• tLme to work it out. TH& PUBLIC HBIIRING WAS CLO$ED. Etesponding to Cammie8loner Bouea, Mc. Eygekt eteted the clienta would be overnighters, lete-night ~rcivals, and there are people who would want to stay 6 months, but he thought there wes en ordinance by the CiCy concerning the length uf time people could atay. Ne edded h• could keep the perk 80t full at all timea. Commieaioner Herbst stated he ia concerned beceuee perke dpproved in the pest have beeome permenent ceaident packa with eome people living in the trailera over 20 yeare. He stated he felt thie particuler locetion is just not suitable foc a RV perk beceuse it ie encroaching into the reeidential erea and the people eround do not want it. He ateted the RV parke eround Dianeyland ace busy and ere needed, but this acea eould beeome one foc more permanent-type reaidents. Commiasioner Le Claire etated the General Plen calxs f~r low-medium density residential which would permit c~ndominiums or apartments and khere is a defi.nite ahortage of apartmenta in Aneheim and eeked if the pgtitioner had eoneidered apartmenta. Mr. Eggett ceaponded that a 2-etory apartment pcojeet was turned down on this property severel yeacs ~+go dnd he thought with a 6-foot fence at an 8-Eoot level, these RV's would be completely out of sight and ~his would be a good pcoject for khia area. Dean Sherer explained the varianae request on this property was to permit outdoor atorage of heevy equipment and he did not believe there wea focmal applicatiort made for a 2-etory apattment pcojeck on this property. Commissionec King pointed out certein findinga muat be made in order to apprave thia request and he could not agree that the proposed use would not advecsely affect th~ adjoini.ng land uRes and grawth and developme~t of the acea. Mr. ~ggett etated something needs tn be done ebout this property becauae it is a fir~ hezard right now and he would work nut eny conditiona imposed. Commiasioner La Claire ste~ted the General Plan calls for low-medium density reaidential and the property would be appropciate for an apartment complex and that would be a good buffer to the single-family xesidential area and according to City etaff, that would be the best use of the property. Sne stated right now apartment projecte are being con8tcucted eo ehe felt it would be a feaeible pr4ject. Commiaeioner Herbet atated variances have been granted for the 150-foot setback and buildings have been allowed closer then they were three years ago. He atated he thought the three properties should be developed together as one condominium or apactment develApment which would be a far better uee of this propecty. 8/8/83 INUTaS. ~N~~~IM CITY PLJINNING COMMI$BION. AUGU8T 8. 1983 83-44 Mc. Egq~tt okated he hes an option on th~ oth~r prop~rty tor an RV perk and believed thet p~ople on vacstio~ n~ea~d a plac• to perk th~ir racceetional vehiclea end that thia could be a place whece peopla could atay foc 6 months on a seaaonal basis. AGTxON: Commissioner Herbet oifeced a motion, •ocond~d by Commis8loner King end MOTION C1-RRI~D (Commiseionera Bu~hore and McBucney abeent), thet the ~oaheim City Plenning Commiseion haa reviewed the propoael to pecmit a 42-apace recreationnl vehicle park on a rectengularly-ehaped parcel of land conaisting of approximetely 1.05 acre, h~vi~g A frontage of Approximet~ly 158 feet on the eaat aide of Knott Street end further described ae 842 3outh Knott &treetj and does heceby approve the Negative Decleretion from the requirement to prepace en environmental impect report on the baeie that thece would be no significant individual or cumuletive adveree environmental impect due to the dpproval of thia Negetive Declaration since the Anaheim General Plan deaignaLes the eubject pcoperty for low-medium density reaidential l~nd ueea commensurate with the proposali th~t no aensitive environmental :mpecta dre involved in the proposalt thAt Che Inltial ~tudy aubmitted by the petitioner indicetea no aiynificent individual or cumulative adverse ~nvironmental impactst and that the Negetive Declaration eubstentietiny the foregoing findings is on file in the City of ~naheim Planning pepartmenG. Commisaioner Hecbat offered Resolution No. PC83-138 and moved for ita passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Plann.ing Commisaion does hereby deny Conditionel Use Permit No. 2477 on the besis that the use would advecaely affect the adjoining land uses and gcowth end development of tt~e area. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was paseed by the following vote: AYES: ~OUAS~ PRY~ HERBST~ RING~ LA CLAIRE NOES: NONB AsSENT: BUSHORE, MCBURNEY Mr. Bggett stated he has tried foc an RV park for two yeara end at one time considered an RV storage lot and had 100~ signaturea on a petition in favor of it. Chairman Fry steted he could work with staff on that proposal. Commiseioner Herbst atated if thes~ pcopecties were combined, it wou1J make a suftable site for a nice condominium or apartment project. Dean Sherer atated the Generel Plan ia for low-~edium density and that would allow 18 unite per acre. He atated dlrectly across the street on Savanna, there are aevecal apartmente or condominium projects which have been developed or are curcently being developed and this property is khe same eiz~ as those properties, so it does lend itself to that type of development and this area ie drawing a lot of inveetare toward that type housing and ataff would be happy to work with the applicant. Jack White, Assietant City ~ttorney, presented the written tight to appeal the Planning Commiseion's decision within 22 days to the City Council. 8/8/83 MIN~T68, ~ AHBI~1 CITY PWIN NTNa COMMI88ION. AUQUBT 8. 1983 83-14 , T~~QL~ ~„ dIR NBQATIVB D6CL J-RI-TION J1ND CONDITI,~ N11L USE PER MIT ~10. 2478 PUBLIC HBARiNG. OWNBR&i MiNT M. VICWS, L~D., 1335 State StraeE:, 8snte Bacbera, C1- 93101. 811MB0'8 RBSTAURANTS, iNC., 6400 Cindy Lan~, Cecpi~teria, C1- 93013. Pcoperry d~scr.ibed a4 0.92 ecrs on th• eaet aide of Harbor eoulevard, appcoximet~ly 200 south of the centecline ot Ocangewood l-venue, 2110 South Necbor Boulevard (8~aaon'e Reeteurent). To pecmit on-aele beer end wine in en exieting reataurant. Thece wae no one indiceting their presence in opposition to subject requeet end although the eteff ceport wes not read, it is referced to end made e part of the minutes. 8teve Gees, 16623 Daisy Avenue, Fountein Velley, wea present to enewer any q-.estione. THE PUBLIC NEARING WAS CLOSBA. Commiesionec Ring offeced a motion, seconded by Commiesioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners 9ushoce and Meeucney ebsent), thet the AnAheim City Planning Commisaion has reviewed the proposal to pecmit on-sale beer end wine in nn existi~g restaurant on a rectangularly-eheped percel of land consisting of appcoximately 0.92 acce, having a fcontage of eppcoximately 200 feet on the eest side of Hd~boc Boulevard, approximatoly 200 feet eouth of the centerline of Orana~wood 1-venue and further desaribed e-s 2110 Sauth Harbor Boulevard (Se~scn's Reataurent)t and doee hereby approve the Negetive Declaration from thp requirement to prepdre dn environmental impact repork on the baais that there would be no significant fndtviduel or cumulative advecse environmenkal impa~ct due to the ~pproval of thie Negative Declaration aince the Anaheim General Plan deaignates the subject pcoperty for general commercial land uees commensurate with the proposalt that no seneitive enviconmental impacts are involved in the proposali that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indica~tes no aignificant individuel or cumulative advetae environmentel impactaj and that the Negative Declnration aub8tentiating the foregoing findin4s is on file in the City oE J-naheim Plenning Department. Commissianer King offered Resolution No. PC83-139 and mov~d for ita paseage and adoption that the I-naheim City Planning Commission does heceby grant Conditional Uae Permit No. 2478 eubject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing reeolution wea paesed by the following voke: AYEB: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, KING~ LA CL1-IRE NOES: NONE ABSENT: BUSHORE, MCBURNEY 8/8/83 ~ . ~bNUT68. ANAHBIM CYTY PL~NNxNG COMMxaSION. AUG~°T °a 1983 _ 83-44Z ITBM _N0. 10. EIR NEG~TIVB DBCLJ1R11TION ~ND VARIANC~ N0.334Z PUBLIC HE~RING. OWNBRB: IBIS/DISNEYLI-ND PARTNBRBHiP L~D., 2535 Marlcops Strtet, Torrence, CA 90503. Properky deecrib~d as an irregulerly-ahaped parcel of land conaiating of epproximetely 5.7 ecce~ loceted at th• eouthwaat corner of Fceedman Way and Hester Stceet, 100 West Fxeedman Way (Hotel Ibie>. Waivece of minimum number of parking sp~c~s and minimum landscaped aetbeck to conatcuct a 3 end 4-etory, 224-room hotel complex. Thece wne one pereon indicating hie preeence in oppoaition to aubjecti cequeet and elthough the atef.f report wea not read, it ie refecred to end mede e pert of the minutes. Gale Turner, D~v1d Jacobson Aesociates Inc., ~rchitecta, 650 W. Duarte Road, Arcedia, Ca~iforni~, explained they are proposing a 22a-coom hotel and a smell coffee ahop, restaurant, b~r and meeting room And are r~questing a waiver for packing on the baeis that the pcopoaed perking wi11 meet the needs of the projgct. He stated they hnve agreed to conetruct a median elong Katella from Haster to Clementine to prevent left-turns to and from Zeyn Street and also they ere going to canstruct a modified cul-de-sec to allow free eccesa to their propecty via a 30-foot roadway which will be jointly used by Paccels 1 and 2. Bill Kobineon, own~c of 1733 end 1730 Zeyn Str.eet, stated his question perkeins to tr~ffic pcoblems which are in the erea at this time. He stated almoet all the hotels, especially around the Convention Center area, have been granted parking varianceo and the etaff repoct stakes that all propertiea muat be treeted the same end if that is the case, thece will be tremendoua traffic and parking problems. He atated now when there is A ballgdme and something going on at the Conventior~ Center, t~affic cannot use Kdtella ~venue. He stated he is not oppoaed to the hotel, but felt thio t.raffic situation should be brought to the attention flf the Commiesion. He atated if the acceas to this hotel is a private road with trucks using it, thece could be a problem. Mr. Tucner atated he asaumed a11 the othec hotel parking waivera were based on traffic studies made showing the actual Code requirement was somewhat excessive a~ far as it relatea to bus traffic, etc. to the hotels and motela. Concerning the private street, he stated they will be providing sign$ at the entrance which will clearly indicate this is a private street ta the hotel and they will want free accese to the property for emergency vehiclea, etc. He staCed the Traffic Depar~ment was concerned about the traffic on Katella which is the reason for the median. THE PUBLIC HBARINr WAS CLOSED. Chairmnn Pry atated the main accesa will be off ~reedman way and the median will be on KAtslla from Haeter to Clementine in a weaterly dicection, so anyone coming ouk of Zeyn Street will have to make a right turn heading west. r.ommiesioner Herbst atated parking variances have been gra~ted because the parking studies sho~ that people do come in by bus, plane and tcaint however, he would definitely want the petitioner to atipuldte to add additional parking 1E it is needed in the future. 8/8/83 MINUTBS, J1N~bB2~1 CITY PLANNING COMMI88ION. AUQUST 8. 1983 83-443 Mr. Turner etated they will hav• ths u$e of th• packinq on the adj~cent property even though they do not know how it wi.ll be developed. Cammieaioner Hecbet etsted the weivec requested ie more than haa been ellowed to any hntel and he thought it wae too much and aince thia hotel ie furth.r away, thece will be a need for more rental vehiclas, etc. and every requeet ie just a little bik more then the previous one and it ia just too much unleea the petitioner ie willing to atipulete to put in a perking etructure or provide additionel pecking whe~ it is needed in the future. Mr. Turner eteted th~ rgataurant will not generate eny outaide kraffic and it will be there primacily to service the hotel guests. Dan eark~r, Ginacott, Law and Greenspen, parkinq conaultant, etated the skudy foc this hotel was ~ased on the atudy mede for the Remada Inn on Katelle which ia located cloaec to the Aneheim 6tadium thAn to Disneyland and there are 240 rooma in the Ramada Inn and elso a fceeskending reataurant a~d thAt hhey acrived at a.63 perking bpace ratio based on 100~ occupancy which incJ.uded the resteurant patrona as well. He stated they had utilized thet figure for thia 224-room hotel. He atated they had looked at two aeparete usea of khe meeting room including non-hotel guesta. He stated the .63 apace per coom figuce wes used and adding the proposed occupency of che internal reetaurant and a portion for pn-site guesta with eome off-eite gueat~ being included, the net reault for the late evening traf~ic parking demAnd showed there would be a parking aurplus. He stated the Ibis Elotel parking study, based on the hard data from the Ramada Inn, indicates thece would be a parking surplus. Commissionec Herbat asked what they propose to do if it turns out they are wrong and additiondl parking apaces are needed, expleining the Emerald Hotel wae required to deaign their parking etructure to accommod~te additional spacee in the event additionel spacea wece cequired and that is the kind of cammitment he wanta to hear befoce he can vote for appcoval of this variance. Dean Sherer pointed out Condition No. 10 of the staff report zequicea thet the property owner execute and cecord a covenant agreeing if the City conducts a tiraffic study which indicates that the off-street parking provided ia inadequate, that th~y shall construct a parking structure on the hotel propecty or otherwise provide additional parking in the numbec and d~s.~... satisfactory to the City Engineer. Tim Walsh, 2535 Maricopa Street, Torrance, ge~erdl pactnec, stated this is a Prench Hotel and is a large chain in France and this is their second hotel in the United &tates end the majority of the guests will be fcom Prench tours and they did not take that aspect into consideration in their packing studys that khey are very aware of Condition 10 and do have several queetions, but are willing to ~ost a bond or letter of credit to agree to the conditions and want t~ meet with the ataff and the Planning and Traffic Departmente to ascertain the true figure and want to be very cooperative. He stated they do not want a parking problem and thie is the fourth hotel their company hes built in Aneheim and they were auccessful wfth the Ramada Inn and are awere of the traffic and parking problems in Anaheim. 8/8/83 ~. MINUTB$. ~NA~BIM CITY RLl1NNING COMMIB,~,ION, AUGUBT 6. 1983 83-/44 Commiaaionec La Claire atared along Fr~edman Way thete is a 9coen line shown on rhe plan, but it do~en't look lika ther~ is adequete epace for lAndscaping. Mr. Welah ahawed the Commiaeion an exhibit, but did not prs~ant it for evidence, thet ehowed the gteenbelt areaa in better det~il. Deen Shecer atatRd the epplicanC hee agreed to install the landsceping in tha public riqht-of-wsy edjecent to Preedmen and Haeter and they will meintain that landecsping in perpatuity. Mr. Walah atated kh~y cen not Agree to a bond in perpetuity and auggeated it ahould be a requirement before the iseuance of a Certificd~e of Occupency and they Would like that bond posted foc a one-year period from the dete they o~en which would serve Aa a guide for the datetmin~tion of the uee of the parking facilitiea. Chairmen Pry steted he would go e~ong with a bond being poeted at the time of occupancy, but would objec~ to e perio~: of one year beceuee he thought it would teke longer than that to find out what ie going to happen. Commiasioner Ld Cleire clacified that a letter of ccedit would be acceptable with Jack White explaining lettere of credik are norm~lly iaeued for e one yeer period and a time limit ehould be set. Chairman Fcy atated he would compromise and allow a bond for a three-year period and Mr. Walah suggested a bond ahould be tied to the occupancy rate. Jack White stated Condition No, 10 ahould be modified to provide that if Che City conducts a traffic atudy within thcee years ~fter approval of Cectific~te of Occupency and that a bond oc letter of ccedit would be requiced.. Mr. Walsh atated plans are now in the Building Department and they hope to begin conatruction in September and have the pcoject completed by ~ext May. ACTION: Commiseioner La Claire offered a motion, aecqnded by Commissionec King and MOT.ION CARRIED (Commissionere Bushoce and McBucney absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Cortunisaion has reviewed the proposal to construct e 3 and 4-atory, 224-room hotel complex with waivers nf minimum number of parking epaces and minimum landacaped s~tback on an irregularly-shaped paccel af land consisting of approximately 5.7 acres located ~t the southwest cocner of Freedman Way and Haster Street and further deacribed ae lOG W. Preedman Way (Hotel ibis)j end does heteby approve the Negative Declaration fcom the requirement to pr9pere AR environmental impect r=:port on the basis thet there would be no significant individual or cumul~tive adverse environmental impact due to the approval of this Negative Declaretion since the ~ndheim General Plan designates the eubject property for commeccial recc~ation la~,d uses commensurate with the proposals that no senait~ve environmental ±~pacta are involved in the prcpoealt that the Initial Study submieted by the petitioner indicatea no significant individual or cumulative adverae environmental impacta= and that the Negative Declaration substantiating the foreqoing findinga i~ on file in the City of Anaheim Plenning Department. S/8/83 ~ INUT88. AN7-HBIM_CITY PLANNING COMM188ION, 1~U(iU~T 8. 1983 83-~45 Deen Sher~r expl,ained thati Condition No. 7 ahoulQ ba modili~d end thak Condition No. 6 ahould be deleted. Commiseionec La Cleire offered Rasolution No. PC83-140 and movsd for ita paesage and edoption thet tha 1-naheim City Planning Commieaion ~ioes heceby grant Varianco No. 3342 on the he01e there ace epecial circumetencea applicable to the property euch ae eize, ahApe, topography, locetion or aurcoundings which do not apply to other ide~ticelly zoned propertiee in the vicinity end that atcict epplication of the Zoning Code deprivea the property of privileg~a enjoyed by othec propertiea in identicel zone and claeaification in the vicinity end the perking verinnce will not cause an increase in tceffic congeation .in the immediete vicinity nor edveraely affect any ed~oining land uses and the parking variance under canditione impoaed, if any, will not be detrimentel to the peace, health, an~ety or general welfa~re of the citizena of the City of l~neheim end aubject to IntQrdepertmental Committee recon:mendations. On roll cell, the foregoing resolution wae paseed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST~ KING~ LA CLAIRE NOLS : NON~; ABSENT: BUSHORE, MCBURNLY Jack White, Asaist~nt City Attorney, presented the written cight to appedl the Planning Commiasfon's deciaion within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0. 11. EIR NBGATIVE QECLARATION AND TENTRTIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 11975 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: JACK A. AND CHARLOTTE A. DICK, 949 N. Citron Street, Anaheim, CA 92805. AGENTS: GOLDMAN 6 RHODES, 8535 Knott J-ven~•,e, Buena Pack, CA 90620 and BOB GILBERT, 4552 Lincoln Avenue, Suite 261, Cyresa, CA 90630. Property deacribed au an icregularly-shaped paccel of lend consiating of approximately 0.68 acre, 949 North Citron Street. To eatablish a 1-lot, 9-unit RS-3000 (Residential, Multiple-Family? 2one condominium su:~divisian. There were several intecested persons indicating their presence at the public hearing and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Bob Gilbert, Engineer, was present to answec any questions. William Jollisaint, 1001 N. Citr4n Stire~t, Aneheim asked what thia hearing ia all about. Chafrman Fry explained this hearing pertains to the tract map £or the condominium pcoject which has already been approvgd by the City Cou~cil and there ia no change to the plane as approved. THE PUBLIC HEARING W1~S CLOSED. It wr~e noted the EIR Negative Declaration was previously epproved in conjunction with Reclasaification No. 82-83-29 and Variance No, 3325. 8/8/~33 MINUTE$. 11ti~HEIM CITY PLANNIN~ COMM28S24N. ~OQ08T 8, 1983 83-4~6 Jack Whit~, ~oiiaten~ City Attorn~y, •xplained Candition Nos. 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, lZ, 13, and 15 w~r• all included in th~ approval of th• r~c~aasification and varianG• and er• not enforcedbls through thi• tract map. Ne added h~ thou9ht it would b~ a b~ttpr prectice to deleL~ thoe• conditione trom the l•rect mep approvsl, but wss nct pdrticularly conc~cned aince tt~ey will be complied with thcough the othec diacretionery permite. ACTION: Commieeioner King otfered e motion, •econded by Commissioner Bouas end MOTION CARRIED (Commiesionera 8ushore and Mceurney absent), that the ~naheim City Planning Commiasion does hereby find that the propoaed subdivision, rogekher with ite deaiqn and improvement, ie conaistent with tho City of Aneheim Gener~l Plan~ pursuAnt ta Government Code &ection 66473.5t and does, thecefore, epprove Tentative Ma~ of Tract No. 11975 foc a 1-lot, 9-unit RM-3000 (Residential, Multiple-Femily) Zone condom'n;um subdivisior. subject Zn the following conditians: 1. That should thia eubdivision be ueveloped as more than one aubdivision, each subdiviaion ther~of ahell be eubmitted in tentative form for approval. 2. That prior to final kract mep appcoval, the owner of subject property 8ha11 pay to the City ~f i,neheim a fee for tree planting purpoeea along Citron Street in an emount as determined by the City Council. 3. That prior to final tcaet map appcoval, a~propridte watec assessment fees shall bo paid to the City of Anaheim, in an amount ae determined by the nf~~ce of the Utilities General Manager. 4. That prior to final tract map ~pproval, appropriate park and recreation in-lieu feea shail be pald to the City of Anaheim in an amount as determined by the City Council. 5. That prior to final tract map approval, the appropriate traffic signal assessment fee ehall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an amount as detezmine~ by the City Council for each new dwelling unit. 6. That all private streets shall be developed in accordance with the City of Anabeim's Stdndard Detail No. 122 for private etreets, including installation of street name eigns. Plans for the private street lighting, as required by the standard detail, ahall be submitted to the Building Diviaion for approval and included with the building plans prior to the ieauance of building permits. (Private streets are those which provide primary eccess and/oc circulation within the project. 7. That prior to final tract map approval, st:~et names ahall be approved by the Ci~y Planning Department. 8. That temporary street name signa shall be installed prior to any occupancy if permanent etreet name aigns have not been inatalled. 8/8/83 MI~UT~B._ANAHBIM CITY_PLAN~'INQ CONM28SION. AUBU8T e. 1983 83- N7 9. That gataa ahall not be in~tallad accoa~ eny driveway or ptiveL• arceet in a manne~ which m4y sdvera~ly alfect vetiicular tcaffic in the edjecent public atceets. installetf.on o! eny getes within a di~tanae of torty (40) feet fcam eaid public atceet cighto-ot-way shall be eubjecC to the ceview and appcovel of the City Tretfic ~ngineec. 10. Thet dreineg~ of eubject pcopetty ehall be dieposad of in a menner eatiafectory to the City Engineer. 11. That subject property shall be served by underground utilitiee. 12. Thet pcior to commencement of structucel framing, fire hydranta ehall be inatalled and charged ee required and determined Co be neceasery by the Chief of the Fire Depertment. 13. That trash atorage areae ahall be provided in aacordance with appcoved plana on file with the Street Meintenance and Sanitation Diviaian. 14. Th~t prior to finnl tract map epproval, the original documente of the covenanta, conditiona, and restrictions, and a letter addresaed to the developer's title company authocizing recordation theceof, ah~ll be submitted to the C~ty Atrorney's Office and approved by the Citl Attorney's Office dnd Bngineering D:.vision. Sdid documente, as approved, will then be filed and recorded in the Office of the Orenge County Recorder. 15. That in ~he event the existin~ water main on Citron Street is deemed inadequa~e to serve subject propert,y, said main ahall be replaced by the ownec(s) of aubject property in Accordance with the City of anaheim's Public Uti2lty Rates, Rules and RegulAtions. 16. That the owngr(s) of subject praperty shall convey by a lot line adjuetment or grant en easement foc the northerly two f2) feet of the easterly portion of aubject propecty to the property owner to the north for maintenance purposes. 17. That prior to final tract map approval, ths applicant shall preaent evidence satisfactory to the Chief Building inspector that the reaidential units wil~ be in conformance with Noise ineulatian Standacda specified in the California Administr~tive Code, Title 25. 18. That prior to final tract map approval, the applicant shall pLesent ~vidence satisfectory to the Chief Building inspector that the proposed project ie in conformance with Council Policy Numbec 542 'Sound Attenuation in Residential Projects'. 8/8/83 a :„ .. . .... _...... _. __ ..._ ,. . ~ ~INUTBS. ANAH6IM CITY PL~NNIN4 COMMI88IpN. ~UG~&T 8. 1983 83-448 1' BM N~,_, 0_ 1? ~~PORTS AND RBCONM~NDJ1~ IONB A. CON ITxON1-L U86 PSRM2~ N,Q.~ - Requ~at lcom John TiRfsnthel~r !or e tetcoectivo ~xt~nsion o! time !oc propecty locat~d at ZO O Weet Ball Road. ACTIpN: Commis~i~nec Kiny oft~ted e motion, s~conded by Commis s ion~r Boue~ and MOTZON C1-RRIED lCommi,~aio~~re Bushore and McBurney ebaent), that the l~nAheim City Plenning Commisaion doea her•by gc ante r~troective two-year axt~nsion of time for Conditional Use Pecmit No. Z221 t o expire June 1, 1985. B. CONDITIONAL USE P~RMIT N0. 210 - Request from Mike Welc h Eor t ~ rmination of ~onditionel Uae Pecmit No. 210 for property loceted a t the e outhe~at corner of Lincoln Avanue and l-nAheim Boulevard, further de~ecr~bed a,s 90 South 1-na~heim Boulevard. AC_ TION: Commiesioner King offeced Resolution No. PC83-1 41and moved [or its pesange end adoption thet tne /-naheim Ciry Plenning Commi+ssion doea hereby kerminete Conditional Uae Permie No. 210. On roll cell, the foregoing ceaolution was pesae~ by the follow ing vote: AYES: BOUAS~ FRY~ HERBST, KING, LA CLI-IRE NOES: NONE A9SENT: BUSHORE, MCBURNEY C. VJ-RIANCE N0. 645 - Request from Donna P. Drddehaw for termination of Variance No. 645 for pcoper~.y loceted at 24C3 West eall Road. 1-CTION: Commiseioner King offered Reaolution No. PC83- 142and moved for its paesage and adoption that the l~naheim City Planning Conun£eaion does hereby terminate Yariance Ho. 645. On roll call, the foregc.i~~ reaolution wda paesed by the following vote: 1-YE5: BOU115, FRY~ HERBST, KING, Ll- CI.~IIRE NOES: NONE ABSENT: BUSHORB~ MCBURNEY p. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1965 - Requeat from Edwacd R.Finney for termination of Conditional Use Pecmit No. 1965 for prope[ty located a~t 214 west Chestnut Stceet. 1~CTION: Commissioner King offered Reaolution No. PC83-143 and moved for its pee~age and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Comr.~iseion doea hereby terminete Conditienel Use Permit No. 1965. On roll call, the foregoing cesolution was pAesed by t hefol lowing vote: AYE6: BOUI~S~ PRY, BERBST~ KING~ L1~-- 4LAIRE NOES : N10NE ABSBNT: 8US80RE~ MCBURNSY 8/8/83 ~,INOTB~, 11NA~~IM CITY ~L~IiNINO COM!lI~BION. AUaU6T ~. 1983 83-149 ~. COND~TIONAL USB P~RM~IT N0. T402 - R~qu~at lrom J~rrv Mactin for t~cmination oi Conditional U~• P~rmit No. ~402 !or property loc~t~d ae 1695 Weat Cr~scont Avenu~. 11CTi N: Commia~iontr King o!l~red R~~olutlon No. PC83-144 And moved foc ita psa~eqe and edoption that the 1-naheim City Planninq Commisoion doeo hereby terminate Conditlonal Uae Permit No. 2402. On roll cell, the focsgoing ce~olution wae pessed by Che tollowing votes A't~8: BOUl-S~ PRY~ HERBBT~ RING~ LA CLAIRE NOES: NONE ABSENT: BUSHORL, MCBURNEY OTHER DISCUS3ION: There wae a brief dipcuesion regarding the R&~5000 Zone pecteining to the maximum number of bedcooma permitted. Commiasionecs La Cleire and Herbst felt A:aff should ceviaw the Code and offer auggeations to prevent property ownera arom ndding e aecond story And incceasing the dwelling size es long ae enothec bedcoom was no*. added. Dean Shecar steted one answer could be to limit the size of the dwelling and ~tated etnff would ceview the Code and bring several suggestions to the Commieaion for their review. Commisaioner La Claire stated ahe felk thie bedroom limitation ehould remain. ELLCTION OF OPFICBRSs Commissioner King nominated Commis8loner Bouas as Chairwoman and C~mmissioner Herbet as Chairman Pro Tempore. Commiasioner La Claire offered a motion, aeconded by Commissioner King and NOTION CARRIED (Commisaioners Buehore and McBurney absent), that the nominr.~tions be clased and that Commiasioner Bouae be and hereby is elected Chairwomen of the Anaheim City Planning Cammission for the 1983-84 fiecal yeaz and that Commiesioner Herbst be and hereby is elected Chairman Pro Tempore of the 1~naheim City Planning Commission for the 1983-84 fiacal year. l-D.JOURNMBNT: There being no fucther businesa Commissioner King offered e motion, aeconded by Commiseioner Boues and MOTION CARRIED ~Commissionecs Buahore and ticBurney absent), that the meeting be adjourned. The meetin~ was edjourned at 5;04 p.m. Reepectfully submitted, . ~ ~ ~ . Edith L. Elacris, Secretary Anaheim City Plenning Commiseion BLEi : lm OOOlm 8/8/s3