Loading...
Minutes-PC 1985/02/201 REGULAR MEETING OF TNE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSTON ItEGULAR MEE~rING The regulac meeting of k.hF Anaheim City PZanning Commission was called l•o order by Chairman Elerbat at 10:00 a.m., Febcuar.y 20, 1985, in the Council Cht~mber, a quorum being present snd the Commiasion reviewed plnns of the items ~n today's agenda. RECES5: 11:30 a.m. RF.CONVENED: 1:32 p.m. PRE;S~NT Ct~airman: Herbst Commissioners: Douas, Aushore, Fry, King, La Clairp, McBurney AnSENT; Commissioner: None ALSO PRESENT Ar~nika Santalahti Jack White Jay 'Pitus Paul 5inger erooke Shipley Jay Tashiro Gceg Hastings E~ith t~arris A~si.stant Dicector foc Zoning Assistant City Attorn~y Office Engineer CiL•y Traffic Engincer Assistant Traffic EnyineFr Associate Planner Asaociate Planner. Planning Commiasion Secretary APPROVAI. OF MINUTES: Commissioner ~'ry offered a motion, secanded by Commissioner Rouas and MOTION CARRIED (Cotnmissioner King kemporarily out of the Council Chamber) that the minutea of the meeti.ng of Cebruary 4, 1985, be approved as submitted. ~RANGE COUNTY T BOULEVAkD FiUPER COMMISSIUN PRESENTATION- ~NSTFtATION PROJECT: Commi~sionec King aKrived ducing the following presentation. Lisa Mills, Senior Planner of the OrangP County Transpoctation Commission, made a brief presentation relating to t1~P proposed Beach Boulevard super street demonstration project, explaining thP study will begin in March and will take about 13 montha to complete and will cover the boulevard fr~m Pacific Goast tiighway to Imperi.al (19-1/2 miles? involving eleven agencies with 3 intersections in Anaheim including Lincoln, Ball and Orange. She explained they are asking the City of A;iaheim City C~uncil to adopt the memorandum of understanding as presented to the Planning Commission suppotting the study and they will be back in about 6 months to show the prr~posed improvements which will probably i.nclude what is known as fly-overs or grade separations of ma~or intersectiona, pointing out no fly-overs are being pcoposed in the intersections mentfoned in Anaheim. Oth~r improvements 85-94 2/20/85 \ 1 ,'\ ~ MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. FEBF2UARY 20, 1985 85-95 ankicipated el~~~. ,tude parking r~etrictions, traffic ~ignal sy,~hronization, access conse .detio~._, widening of certain interaections to provide dual lefC-turna, etc. She aCaCed the stndy will consist oE conceptual. denign plans, environmental impact report, cost eatimates and a phasing ~lnn for the improvements and a financial package and the study will include t}~e impact on busineases exi8ting on that stceet. She stated the improvements will range f.rom 5 to 40 mi.llian dollars. Commisaioner Fry Asked the ciifEerence between the Atudy done in July of 1984 referced to in the firat pr~ge of the memorandum, Paragraph 3,and thfs propoAed study. Ma. Mills recponded that Beach E3oulevard has been cansidered as a future freew~ay coute for a long time and thak study conaidered altern~tives and iC was det.ermined A frc~eway would cost between 3300 to 5500 mill~on dollars becauae of ti~e bus~nesseo and hotnes which are existing and that is not feasible and r.hfs pro~osed study will eonsidec the super. stceet alternatives and the cost of this pro[~osed study wi.ll be abeut $170,OOQ and will be financed by the Commission. ITEM ~10. 1. EIR NEGATIV~ T)ECLARATION, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2643 (READVERT.IS~D) PU9LIC HEARING. OWNERS: LAZARE F. BERNHARD, 1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 500, Los Angeles, CA 90~67 and KENNETH W. tIOLT AND HE;LEN L. HOLT, c/o HOLT FAMILY TRUST, 1557 W. Mable Street, Anaheim, CA 92802. AGENT: DAVID JACKSON, 1557 W. Mable Street, Anaheim, CA 92802. Property desccibed as an irregularly-3haped parcel of land consisting of approximately 2.G acre~ located at the southeast corner of Mable Street and Loara Street, 1595 West Broadway and 1550 West Mable Street (Fairmont School). To permit expansion of a private school to include a school bus yard and additional classrooms foc a maximum of 12S students Mith waivera of minimum stcuctural setback, maximum fence height and permitted encroacl~ment into required setback area. Continued from the meetinas of January 7 and 21, 1985. There were two persons indicating rheir preaence in oppo~ition to subject request and although the ataff report was not rebd, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. David Jackson, Director and President of Faicmont School, explained their main objective is to impc~ove the school. He explainerl he received a couple of calls from neighbors who misinterpreted this notice and thought ttiey were planning to expand the school in size, but that is not the case; that they presently have approximately 500 students and do not plan ta increase the enrollment. He stated they have entered into a Lea~se Agreement for the property on the corner af Loara and Bcoadway to relocate their bus maintenance and parking area. Mr. Jackson stated the stAff report is not correct relating to the 5,750-square foot expansion of an approximately 8,050-square foot cafeteria in that the ex:sting cafeteria is 7,OOQ square fbbt making a total of 12,000 square feet, including the expansion. 2~20/85 E~RUARY 20 1985 85- Cacol Jackgon, 333 High~De~~~~~~gQroadwaythtihat1aherhAS/no objection~ta8the~ property ~d~acent to th. proposal, but that for a number of yeara they have had prob1emA WShe addedrthe on the aehool pcoperty with .leaves Ealling onto thoic pr.operty. children thro~ trash Qndetrieveltheic~balls,~etciewhichnweakenatthecbricksnin climb ovec tt~e wall t the wall and she i8 afc~i~e~Weenntheitwo propert;e8~her side of. the wall. S e suggeeted a higher fen Doyle Hil]., 141~ JtheBSChoolAaerecreational areAWandtthat8theyehave~had propecty abutting problema for 1S ypar$oblem withiMg.1Jacksonrandthe has~AgCPedpto trynande ha juat discussed th_ pr resolve that problemto ~heVSCh ol andtth~~yohave~beenigood~neighbors.He state he has no objection t Mr. Jackson stated Aftec the neighbors mentioned the problem W~~'howeverPaheBl he has looked into the problem ahd they have trimmed the tcPes; r.annnt quac~ntee there Wihe ~~~eS~ mH~eexplainedatheygwer~o~~teawayerthAtnthee does r~ot want to cemove t leaves were a prob=oblem~t tHeYexpl3inedkitiis againattthe culestfor'~students take care oE the p Fte stated they are to climb over the fence or to throw anything over. investigating the possibility of increasing the height of the wall and t~e did not think even an 8-fout fence wouldWbilhbehconskantly watchinq the studenL-sm throwing thiny~ overp however, they ka see tr,ak the problem is taken c~re of as mucharound&sible. Ne st•ated they want t~ make thi~ the best educational facility THE PUSLZC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner King ~~hed Mr. JacY.son to stipulate that the maxim~~maR~hatLthe buses to be stored ovecnight would be 12 and Mr. Jacksor~ res~on.e buses are taken homn thetharerallrinaat or-ertimenandCalsoYtheynwill/allWbeein there are times whe Y for a few days whentrall the buses,~butntheybdo~haveaplentYiofHspacey pHerU because they inspec stated they want to rnake the cornec the window to their school wit landscaping~ eti~• Chairman Herbst asked ~.f the petitionec will stipulate there will be no buses stored except those being used by the school. Mr. Jackrzon cesponded they do not intent~ to be in~~olved with any buses other than those used by theic school. Responding t~ Commissioner Bouas, Mr. Jackson stated they will probably come up withParebuildingaa~blockawall asfaboveltheir budgetbiaHeof the block wall becaus_ explained they haneo ,ectivelwillfbeCto haveiadequateastaffetoiprevent theA• He stated the mai ~ children from*cl8mbsn9n the industrial zone9 theyiwill not~needeaPvariance to stated since .`-i install an b 4~~at high chain link fence. 2/20/85 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CQMMISSION, FEBRUARY 20. 1985 95-97 ACTION: Commisaioner King ofEered a mot~on, aeconded by Commiasionec McBurney And MOTION CARRIED thnt the Anaheim City Plrnning CommisKion has reviewed the proposal to permit expansion ~f a pr~~»te ~chool ta include a achool bue yerd and additionAl classro ~s for a maximum of 500 atudenta with waivers of minimum atructural set~wck, mAximum fence height, permitted encraAChment into rec.~ired setbeck areA on an irr~yularly-ahaped parcel of land consisttng oE apploximately 0.29 acre, having a frantage of approximately 195 feet on the nurth side of MAble Street and further described as 1557 West Mable Strect (The Pairmont School), and an irregularly-ohaped parcel of ~and cnnsisting of appr.oximately 2.6 acce~, loceted at the southeast corner oC Mable Street and Loara Street and further described ae 1595 West Broadway And 1550 West Mable 5treet (The Fairmont School)t and does hereby approve ttie Negative Declaration upan finding that it has considexed the Negative Declaration together with any comments r~r.eived duriny the public revi~w proces~ and Curther f.~nding on the basis of the initial ::tudy and any commenta received that there is no aubstantial evidence that the pcoject will have a~ignificant effect on the environment. Commiasioner King offer~d a motion, aeconded by Commiafiioner Bouas and MOTI~N CARRIF,D that the Anaheim City Planning Commiasion doea hereby grant waivera of Cod~: requirement on the bUSis that ~hece are special c4rcumstances applicuble to the property such as size, r~hape, copography, locat:un and surroundinga which do not apply to other identically zoned pro~erty in the same vicinity; and that strict applicati~n of the 2oning Code deQrives the property of privileges enjoyed by other Propertiea in the identical zone And classification in the vicinity and subject to lnterdepartmental Committee recommendations. Commissioner King offered Resolution No PC85-47 an9 mo'/P.d for it~ passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning ~ommissior. does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 264~ pursubnt to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.03U thraugh 18.03.030.035 and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations incZuding an additional condition requiring that all busea to be stored on the property shall be buses used in the operation of the Fairmont School and further on the basis that ~he petitf.oner has stipulated to re~olve the problems with trash and leaves on the adjacent neighbor's property by canstructing an 8-fook high chain link fence inside the existing block wall on subject property. On roll call, the foregoing reso2ution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BUSHORE, FRY, HERBST, KING~ LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY i~OES : NONE ABSENT: NUNE Jack White, Assistant City Attorney, presented trie written right to appeal the Planning Commission's declsinn +.•ithin 22 days to the City Council. Chai.rman HQZbst stated thia is a conditional use permit ar~d if the conditions are not complied with and the neighbor's complain, the permit can be reviewed for revocation. 2/20/85 MINUTES. ANAHEIM_CI'rY PLANNTNG COMMISSION, PF.BRUARY 20 `1985 $5-98 ITEM N0. 2. ErR NEC~T.IV~ DECLARATION ~,WAIVER OF CODE REQUIR~MENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2661 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: ORANGE PROPERTiES, 9100 Wil.shire Boulevard, Sv~te 333, 8eveely Hills, CA 90210 end A& D Development, 11008 t7orwalk Boi~levard, Smnta Pe Springsr CA 90670. Property de~cribed as an ircegulArly-ahaped parcel of land conAiating of approximately 6.2 acrea, locAt~d south And east oE the s~utheast corner of hancheeter Avenue and Harbor Boulevard, ~414 and 1460 South Harbor Boulevard (Red i,ion Inn). Ta permit a 9-story, 78-foot high, 366-room hotel with accessory uses including on-sale of alcoholic bevereges and waiver~ of maximum structural heighL• and minimu~ number of parking spacea. Thsre were two persona ii~dicating their preaence in upposition to aubject regueat And although the Rtaff report was not read, it is referced to and made a part nf the minutea. Commisaioner Fry declared a conflict of interest as defined by Anaheitn City ~l~nning Commission Resolution N~. PC76-157 adopking a ConfllCt of Interest CAde fox the Planning Commission and Gavprr~ment Code Section 3625, et seq., in that hie employ~r is involved in the development of this property and pucsuant to the provisions o£ the above CodeR, declared to the Chairman that he was withorawing fcom ~he hearing in connectiun with Conditional Use Pecmit No. 2661, and would not take part in either the discuasion or the voting theceon and t~ad not d~.acusaed this matter with any meraber of the Planning Commf.ssion. Thereupon Commissioner Fry left the Council ChamUer at 2:00 p.m. eruce Dohrman, D& D Development Coinpany, agent, explained the building will actually be 80 feet tall as meASUred to the uppermost level in~s+:ead of 78 feet as :eferred to in the Rteff report~ Cecil Sanders, 20631 Paisly Lane, Huntington F3each, California, representing George Atkinsan, property owne~ of the property adjacent to the east, 1477 S. ManchesCer, ~tatec they would like their property included as a succounding proper~y in the sta€f rpport. He stated they are cor~cerned because when the McDonald's facility waa developed, the praperty was graded on the east in a manner that caus~d a drainage problem along with the natural drainage towards Harbor that crosses eubject prap rty; and that when it rains they have q~~ite a lat of water and added they would also question ~he approval of a negati.: declaration on this praject because o~ the drainage problem. Jay Titus, Office Engineer, responded to Chairman Herbst that Condi~tion No. 8 of this proposal requires that drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer and that includea aceeptance of and disposal of dralnage water from ~roperties to the east of subject property. He stated he did not know how they pcopose to grade thei.c pcoperty and could nc:~ address the existing problem until this project is completed. R~•~ponding to Commissioner Bt~shore, Mr. Sanders stated l•he existing problem was probably there prior to the grading of the McDonald's site. Jay Titus responded to Commissioner Bushore thar part of the problem is that dirt has been dumped on the site for various reason~s ansl he inspected the site several weeks ago and it ia obvious th'e problem exSsted prior to conetcuction of McDonald's faciYity. 2/20/85 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, PEBRUARY 2U. 1985 65-99 Tom MArsden, representing Dieneyldnd, stated l•hey are not opposed to the projhc: end tho only cec~uicement they would suggest ib lhat any signage to be placed on the structure or above the structure shall be done in a manner thet woul•l not be visible from within ~he Disneyland Park. Mr. Dohrman std~ed the City Engineer hao informed khem of the clrAinage problems and they have i.nformed their Civil Engineer to make a hydrology atudy of the properties And that the w~ll will be designed to allow s~~epage. He added Any siqne ~hould conform to the requirementR and tt~ey are proposed on the hui.lding and not abuve it. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSF.G, Responding t~ Commissioner Lb Claire, Mr. Dohrman exp.lained the ~~All will be constcucted in a mannec that water can se~p through i~. Mr. SanBers stated ~he grading h~s raised tt~e level of khe earth on the we~t side of the fence probably 1 to 2 feet higher than their parking lot and he did not think ~he seep~gc through the wall would take care of the problem. CommiFCioner Bu~horP stated they will not hAVe the riqht to allow the water to drain onto ottier properties and that they would not have the right to go onto someone else's property and make impcovementa and they Will have to solve the drainage problem in some manner. Jay Tituo stated lhe gropecty ko the east drains to the west t~ their properky line and when subject ~roperty is develop~d, they will have to provide some facility to ~ccept !~~^ water and pass it through their property snd he could not say right now hoM t'. ~^.ould be accomplished, but it will be up to their civil engineer, and that .~111 be a requirement before their gcading permit is approved. Mr. Dohcman responded they will take care oL the dcainage. Cammiscioner King pointed aut one of the condit:ona requices written approval of the balloon test from the DisneS•land repres~n~atives. Mr. Mars~en ce~ponded a balloon test was cunducted a~d he thouqht there was an agreement that it was acceptable and there was an attempt to get the written agreement fr.om the Leqal Aepactment; however, due to vacatians, he has not been able to d~ that as yet, but it will be provided. Commisaioner gushore pointed nut that no roof mounted equipment or signs can be visible within Disneyland indicaking concern bpcause other hotels have been restricted in that area; however, he indicated he would not have a pr~blem as long as Dianey,tand feels it will not be an intrusion. Commissioner Bushore stated other hotels wer.e required to provide full enviconmental impact reports and asked why this nne did not have that reguirement. Greg Hastings responde~ thi~ partfc~~~ac pcojec~ did not have a focused environmental impact repork and he thought that deci~ion was based on the number of rooms proposed. Annikb Santalahti added she thought traffic was the only concern and it was felt with the proper traf.fic mitigAtions, a full teport would not be necessary. There was a brief discussion regarding parking with Commissioner Bouas as~cing if they will be allowing group functions in theic ballroom. Mr. Dohrman responded h~ would not want to eay they would not allow community Eunctions 2/20/85 MINUTE S, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSTON. FE9NUARY 20, 1985 85-100 and ex pluined Lhero will be a limited menu [or service of ineals in the ballroom and L•he moat tliat could be served in the ballcoom would be approx imakely 70U people. The co ndition cequiring the conetruction of th~ p~arking atructure was discu s aed, propoood Condition No. 13. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineec, stated if wit hin 3 yeaca aEtec the notel is opened, it is detecmined thece is a parkin g problem, the City will ask the apFlicant to c:onduct a parking stuQf And c o nstruct a pArking ntcuctuxe for the deficiency and also to provide bondi n g for the conatruction of ~h~~t atructure. Commiasioner Bushoxe referred to pa rking problema a t the Marriott: Hotel and ataked he geta very upset when he goes anY place and there is no E~arking, even if it is at one of their peak peciods. He indicated concern because he thouyht the packing calculations were oased on the wocsk situation peak times. Annika santalAhti exFlained the calcu lationo satiafy the avArage times and it is not typical for a derign to be fo r the worst aitustion, assuming the wocat aituation occurs cr~rely. Commi saioner Bushore stated he thaughk they always looked at the worst sikuation bec~ure there have bPen urguments in the past on that sarne i~ssue with other developers and he thought that w~s the way the parking -~as always been calculated. Annilca Santalahri atated the Parking Code is a minimum cequ i rement and ia not intended to addreas the maximum usage. Paul 5inger atat e d this hotel will nat be closE~ to the Convention Center a~ it should not have the same problems as th~ Marriott and others in that area. Comm i seioner Buahore asked :l[ they woulc have to apply for another conditionbl use p e[mit~if they d ecide to turn the ballrnom into a public ballroom in the futu r e. Greg Hastings responded that would be a violation of the present CU~ and t hey would t~ave to apply for a new permil and that parking would be calctilnted on that par.ticular uae. ACTIC7N; Commissioner King offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIBD that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the prop osal to permit a 9-story, 78-foot hi.gh, 368-room hotel with accessory uses incl uding on-sale of alcoholic beverages witti waiver of maximum s~ructural heig?~t and minimum numbec of parking spaces on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consissting of approximately 6.2 acre~ located sou':h and east of the souti~east corner of Manchestec Avenue and Narbor Boulevard and fucther desc ribed as 1414 1460 South Harbor Aoulevard (Red Lion Inn); ~nd does hereby appr ove the Negative D~claration upon finding that it has considered the Neg a tive Declarati.o n together with any comments ceceived during the public rev i ew process and further finding on the basia of the Initial Study and any comments teceived that there is no subatantial evidence that the project will hav e a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner King offered a motfon, seconded by Commissioner McBuXney and MUT Z ON CARRIED (Commissioner Bushore voting no) that the AnahQim City Planning Comm3ssion does hereby qcant waiver la) on the basis that there are special circ umstances ~ppli cable to the property such as size, shape, topography, locati~on and surrou ndings which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicinityt and thak atrict application of the 2aning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by otl~er properties in the ide ntical zone and classification in the vici~iity and granting waiver (b) on th~ basis the parking waiver will nok cause an increase in traffic congeation 2/20/85 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FE9RUARY 20, 1985 _ 85-101 in the immediat~ viciniCy nor ~dveroely affeat any Adjoining land usea ~nd granting of the parking wriver under the conditions imposed, if any, wi11 not be detcimental to the poace, health, sefety and general welface of the citizens of the City o£ Anaheim And aubjeck to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. Prior to voting on the motion, Greg Hastinge pointed our_ rhe actu~l height of. th~ ~uilding will be 100 feet to Che very tup. Commiesioner King ofEered ResoluCion No. PC85-48 and rnoved for its passege and adoption that the Anal~eim City Planning Commiesion does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2661 purauant to Anaheim Municipal Code Section 19.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 and sub~ect to Interdeparrmental Committee cecommendation~. Jack Whire sugyestE~d that Condition No. 13 be nmended by adding another aentence as followa: •Compliance with the terms of the ~furesaid covenant is an expresse~ and continuing condition oE thia permit". He explained this wi.ll not only cover the c~venant relating tu the parkiny structuce, but tt~at the terms of tt~e covenant shall be complied with as an onqoing obligatlon. He added that Condition No. 17 requires that all aigning comply with the aigning requirements of the CR 2one unless a vari~nc:e is granted to allow sign variances and that could be modified to r~ad: "provided, however, that no signing, either lighted or unlighted, shall be visible from the interior of Disneyland.n Commissionec King stated those modificationC should be inr.luded in the above resolution. On roll call, the foregoing renolution was ~assed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS~ BUSHORE, HERBST, KING~ LA CLe~IRE, MC BURNEY NOES; NONE ABSENT: FRY Jack White, Assistant City Attorney, presented the written right to aroeal the Planning Commiasion's decision within 22 days to the City Council. Commissioner Fry returned to the meeting at 2:31 p.m. ITEM N0. 3. ENVIRONM~NTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 250(PRBV. CERTIPIED) AND VARIANCE N0. 3462 PUBLIC hEARING. OWNFRS: DUNN PROPERTI~S CORP., 28 Brookhollow Drive, Santa Ana, CA 92702, ATTN: DANIEL L. McGREGOR. AGENT: BILL SINGER AND ASSOCIATES, 5100 Birch Street, Newport Beach, CA 92660, ATTN: BILL SINGER. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consistinq of approximately 3.a acres located at the nocthwest cornec of Orangewood Avenue and State Collegp Boulevar@ (State College Plaza). Waivers of minimum numbec of parking spaceA and maximum structural height t~ construct a G-story commercial affice building. 2/20/85 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEHRUARY 20, 1985 85-102 There was no ~ne indiceting their preoence in opposition t~ subjact reyu~~t and although the ataff report waa noC read, it ia referred to and made a Part of the minutes. Commiseioner King declared a conflict of. intere~t ea deEined hy Anaheim City Planning Commieaion Resolution No. PC~6-157 adopting a Conflict of '[nterest Co~e for the Planntng Cnmmiseion and Government Code Section 3625, et ~eq., in that he owns stock in Dunn Pro~ertie~ and ~ursuant to lhe proviaions of the above Codes, declAred to tlie Chairman that h~ was withdrawing from the heAring in connection with Variar-ce No. 3462, and wauld nak take parL in either the diocussion oc the voting theceon And ha~ not discussed this matter with any member of the Planning Commiaelon. Thereupon Commiasionec King left the Counr.il Chamher at 2:32 p.m. Andy Schutz, agent, explained the flrm has acquired the propecty at the northwest corner of State College and Ocangewood and the revised plans are to reduce the square footage ot the project f.rom 360,000 square feet to 126,000 s~uare feet and another application will be filed in the future for the project on the adjacent pro~erty which they have purchased. He stated the variance is necessary for the proposed 6-stocy buildiny and they have an er.isking conditional use permit. He stated one concern is the p~rking waiver; howevec, they do contcol the adjacent property and will provide parking when that pcoperty is vacated and explained they have a lease termination agreement with G1oba1 that they will vacate the property by January 1986. Annika Santalahti explained this ia a new application because ataff felt the changes are oubstantial enough to require a new conditinnal use permit. George eernharth represen~ing Dunn Properties, refecre~ to the City Trafffc Engfneer's recommendation ~hat prior to the is3uance of build.ing permits, the developer shall pay the sum of S5Q,000 to the signal assessment fund, and that they would agree to that prfur to the occupancy permit for Phase 1; or that the developer shall furnish the City with a letter of credit in the amount of $50,000. PaUl Singer, Traffic Engineer. responded he has discussed this with the developer and it is acceptable and added thal the ctandard condition should be added requiring the traffic signal ~ssessment fees and a letter. of credit would be acceptable for Condition No. 7. Mr. Bernharth stated thece was also a cequirement for the installation of a median on State College soulevard fr~m Orangewoo~ to 100 feet nor.th of the northerly propertx line that wou~d cross the railcoad tracks and suggested that condition be modified to read: "..from Orangewood to the railroad riyht-of way'. Paul 3inger stated that would be correct. Mr. Becnharth stated there College in both directions and pointed out there is a the study proves that is a howevec, if the study find required ta provide .tt. is a requirement for a dual left-t.urn lane on State to the satisfaction of the City Traffic Engineer atudy being done by th~ir traffic ~cnsultant and if necessary requirement, they would install it; s it is not absolute~~necessary, they should not be Greg Hastings stated those requirements are included in Candition No. G., with Pau~ Singer stating the petitionet's recommendati~n is satisEactory to the City Traffic Engfneer. 2/20/85 6a-103 MTNU~ES, ANAHEIM CI'fY PLANNING CUMMISSIUN, F~dRUARY 20, 1985 M~. ~er~harth referred to Conditi~n N~. 1 perkaininy t~ dcainagP And asked when that ie requixed and ~uggeated maybN that sh~uld be in conjunction with the reyuixements of Condition No. 3 which is prior to accupancy of Phase 2. Jay Titue stated that condltion could be modified to provide that the hond would be provided prior to buildi~g permits and conatruction prior to occu~ancy of Phese 2, noting that would be acceptable. Ne state~ Condition No. 13 pertaining to ~treet ~1gh~grnlteuandbin~tallgtionh~ri.oretoaPha,yep2ovide £or the bond pcior to building p Mc. Bernharth atated ti~ay would like the last partion of Conclltion No. 4 to be deleted which required Che improvements to be made within a period oi three years from the date the security is poated becauae they do not know the exact timing of PhaAe 2• Paul Singer stated the ttir~e year requirement ia really in conflict with Pi~ase 2 and if Phaae 2 goes after the thcee years, then the im~r~vements will not be constructed. Jay Titus stated i~ Phaae 2 is not constcucted, then they will be reyuired to construct tl~e improvements at the end of three years because it is passible they may never construct Phaae 2 and then the impcovemento will still be neces~ary. He stated thought that portion of the condition should not be dele~ed. Commissioner La Claire stated actually the improvements are needed in this area And if they wece nevec to conatruct Phase 2 and the improvements were really needed for Yhase lr the City woUld never get thoae improvements. She asked if these improvements are needed. Paul Singer stAted the drainage and atreeC lightQ are obviously needed; however, thp full improvements cannot be done un'•jl the fu11 ~roject is developed. Mr. Bernharth stated they wuuld compromis~ and leave this con~ition as is, with an additfon that the time can be extended by the City Engineer. Jay Titus stated that would be accep~aoie to the Engineering staf.f. Mr. BErnharth referred to Condition No. 5 and asked that an ~dditior be made that one median break is acceptable in that extended median. Paul Singer atated it would be agreeAble for a left-turn acces3 p~int. Mr. Bernharth asked ~hat an addition be made to Condition No. 6 as follows: `That unless extended by the City Eng~neer', with Jay Titus responding that would be acceptable. Mr.. Bernhacth atate~ C~ndition No. 7 should permit a lettec ~f credit instead of the $50,000 payment and Condition No. 8 should have an addition thak it can be extended by the City Engineer. Jay Titus stated tho~e would be acceptable rtiodifiGations and explained an extended bond would be required if the time is extended. 'fHE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED• Commissioner La Claire atated she thought tt~is fs a good project and is less dense tt~an the previously approve8 project. It was noted Environmental Impact Report No. 250 was nrediously certified for subject property by the Planning Conunission November 30, 1981, in conjunction with Reclagsification No. 81-82-9 and Conditional Use Permit Na. 2265. 2/20/85 ~ MINUTE5, ANAHEIM GITY PLANNING COMMI55ION, FEBRU~RY 20, 1985 _ 85-104 ACTION: Commiesioner ~A Claire qfferod Reaolution No~ P~85-49 and moved for ita passage And Adoption that the AnahQim City ~lanning Commisaion aOP.A heceby grant Vari~nc~ No. 3462, gcenting waiver (a) on the ba~is thAt the adjACe~t property will be available for ~arking by the time the str~cture is completed and furCher on thQ basie thdt the perkl.ng waiver wl11 not cause an increase in troffic con~eation in the immediate vicinity nor advecsely affect any ad~oining land uoes and granting of the parking waiver under the conditions imE~aed, if any, wlll not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and gNneral welEare of the citizens of the City of Anah~im and granting waiver (b) on the bas~a that there ~re special ciccumstances applicable t.~ the pcoperty such as eize, shape, topography, location and eu:roundings which do not apply ko other identically roned property in the same vicinityj nnd thAt strict applicat~on ~f the 2oning Code deprives ~he property of pcivileges enjoyed by other properties in the id~ntical zone and classification in the viciriity and aubjeck to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations incorporating all the modifications previously stated and inciu~9ing a condiCion requiring payment ef the regular traffic signal as3essment fEes. Jack White recommended that an additional senkence be added to Condition No. 8 as Eollows: "that compliance with the terms of aforesaid covenant is an expressed and continuing condition oE this permit`. Commissioner I,a Claire stated that should be included. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was pASaed by the Eollowing vote; AYES: DOUAS~ BUSHORE, FRY~ HERBST, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY NOES: NONE ABSENT; KING Jack White, Assistant City Attorney, presented t;~e written right to appeal the Planning Commfssion's decision with~n 2~ days to the CiCy Council. Commissioner King returned tu the Cuuncil Chamber at 2:51 p.m. ITEM NO._4. EIR NEGATIVE AECLARATION AND CONDATIONAL USE PERMCT_N0. 2660 PUBLIC HEARING. OWN~RS: C G& r LA PALMA INVESTMENTS CO,, 2390 E. Ocangewaod Avenue, #380, Anaheim, CA 92806, ATTN; JEFF SMITH. Property described as a rectangu~arly-shaped parcel of land consisting o£ approximately 8.64 acres located at the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Rir_hfield Road. To permit an industcially-related, twu-story office complex in the ML(SC) Zone. There was no one indicating their presEnce in ogposition to sub~ect request and although the staff report was not read, it is reEerred to and made a paet of the minutes. Bill Dunlap, agent, explained this request is proceoS~ng a proposed ordinance amendment to permit commercial sales business and offices which primarily serve and are compntible with induotrial customers. Chairman Herb~t stated he has a problem with acting o~ this cequeat before the Code is changed. Mr. Dunlap stated he understood the Planni.ng Commission had 2/20J85 MINUTF.S, ANAHBIM CITY PLANNING COMMISS~ON ` PEHRUAkY 20, 1985 85-105 i:ec~mmended approval uE the Code amendmentt however, the City Council continued the matter in ur.der to get input fron 3 difEerent bodies and if this ie approved, it would be aubject to the approval oE that ~'mendment by the Ciky Council and he thought that was to be before the City Council on March 5. Cha~cman Herbat stated he also has a prublem with the liat of uaea propoaed becauae it is too broad. Mr. Uunlap atated he aent a let.ter to thc City Council and thought a copy was aubmitted to the Planning Comrt~isaion exp.laining that the list is based on usea they have seen in the past And other developmenta the,y have done in ~range C~unt•y and in Los Angeles County relating to research And developm~nt type uae~ which are now taking place in Anaheim Huch aa E~ughes, Rockwell, ekc. and stated the proposed ~sers wont to be in the area because they will be getting business Crom the major uaers and they are all service companies related Cowarda Chose major users and that is what ia taking place in Tustin, 5ante A~a, Irvine and Costa Mesd. Commisaioner ~ustiore stated he woul.d not agree with that argument= that yesterday he went t.o lhe Finlcy Reports in erea which is a banking publication produced by some attarneys and that it is located fn a Brea industrial complex and that he asked them how they got in and they responded that they got fn becauae the next door facility dAes their printing and that by right they should not be there and they are ~rimarily there because af the cheap cent in the fnduatrial acea and that they do not serve the industrial area at all and da ser~e the banking industry. Ete ~tated he alsa has a pcoblem hearing thiA at this time because the Commission has no authority to grant the use pecmit and in the past tias not even allowPd the heacing prior ta the amendment. Mr. Dunlap stated they are not trying to put the cart befoce the horse; that the City Council was auppoaed to heac khis matter 2ASt week, but continued it because they di~ not feel khey had enough information from the Redevelopme~t Industcial Rev#ew Board and Chamber of Co~merce. + • .r ,.:_li .H.; -.~. Chairman Herbst sta~a; the Plonning C~mmission wants the office buildir,gs to have businesses there that will service the industcial area. He added he thought tihis list as proposed would open thak whole area up to any type nf office buildings and he a•ould not vote Eor it. Mt. Dunlap stat~d the list should be reviewed and .if there are items the Planniny Commiesion object~ to, they can be dealt with. Commissioner Bouas asked about pcoposed Civic organizations and Mr. Dunlap stated they included Civic organi2ations and governmental offices and public agencies co as not t~ exclude the City of Anaheim from relocating in that area if they so desire. Mr. Dunlap stated he has been involved in the discussiona regarding that area in the past and ~lso was aware of che input from the Redevelopment Agency with regard to ahat is considered an industrial use. Commissicaner La Claire stated the criteria, even with an amendment, will include that ~he use must be compatible ~ith the industrial area and that any use approved ~rould primarily service those in the indastrial area and ik will be enforced by the Commission not approving ~ists such as this. 2/20/85 MINUTES, ~NANEIM CI'fY PLANNING COMMISSIUN. FEHRUARY 20, 1985 8~-106 Mr. Dunlap stated he did not underatand what the City is trying to protect in th~t area. ~~ommi.ssioner Buatiore stated the real iasuc is tlie jo~ baAe and tax base, etc. end if 8 acres is p~r.mikted to be u~ed Eor commercial office usee right next door to induatrial uaes, the industrial user wanta to do the aomP thing because of the higher rate he can charge and then the land prices escalate. Mr. Dunlap stAted the usrs for that Area have chanqed and it is no longer a m~nufacturing urea nnd is now a re3eaKCh and development area. Ne used the E'luor Corporation ae an example, stating t1,Qy are an engineering and research development type company And they do nat manutacture anything on site. Chairm~n Nerbst deterR,ined that the City Council is expecled ko act on this Code amendment on March 5. Jack White, Assiatant City Attorney, explAined if the ordinance is adopCed that amends the usea which are permitted, or conditionally permitte~. in the Cnnyon Jnduntrial Area or the ML 7one, Chat ordinance will take two readings befoce the City Council and 30 days aLter the aecond reading and adoption, it w+.ll become effectivet that thn ocdinance currently beEore lhe Cicy Co~ncil only adds commercial ofLice uses along with commercial sales as conaitional uses in the Canyon Industria'1 Area; however, in its curcent Eorm, it still contain~ the restrictive language that Commissioner La Claire referred to requirin9 that a finding mus~ be made khat the particular uses ace compatible with and primarily servF induetrfal customecs. He stated in ordEr to get to where this applicant wants to go the City Council would have to change their philosophy and change khe ordinance ta allow eommerci~l sales and commercial office uses as ~onditional uses in the Canyon Induytri.al Acea and noti relate them to the industrial customers and having to primacily be serviny ir.dustrial uaea. Chafrman Herbsl stated he did nat see how the Commiasion can make a judgement until they know what the City C.ouncil ia goiny to do with the ordinance and suggested the matte[ be continued u~til the City Council adopts the ordinance. ACTION: Commissioner La Claire offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of April 15, 1985. RECESS: 3:15 p.m. RECONVENE: 3:25 p.m. Commissioner La Claire did not return to the meeting. ITEM PiO. 5. EIH NEGATIVE DECLARATION, RECI.ASSIFICATION N0. 84-85-25 AND VARIANCE N0. 3463 PUBLIC HEARING. UWN~RS: Lir•t.IAN BARNA, ET AL, 9104 Wimbiedon N.E., Albuquerque, N. M, 87111. AGENT: J. R. DRUKIN, 1280 E. Flower Street, Anaheim, CA 92805. Property ~escribed ao an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of appruximately 0.86 acre, 3633 West 6a11 Road. RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200 or a less intense zone. Waivers of minimum build~ng aite acea per dwelling unit and maximum building height to construct a 20-unit affordable apartment complex. 2/20/85 MINUT~S. ANAHEIM CTTY PLANNING COMMISSI01~, F~BRUARY 20, 1985 _... __85_-107 There w~s one person indicating his presence in o~posit~on to aub~ect request and Although the atafE repart wae nok read, it ia referred to and made a part of the minu~es. ~lerry Arukin, agent, explained aubject property is located cight on thp City limits of Anaheim with t.he CiLy of Buena Park adjacent to it. He reviewed the proFosal and was present to anawer any questions. Mr. Williams, 341 Avenida Granada, ~ong neach, stated }~e owns the property adjacent to the west in Buena Park= that their recreational area ia in front of the pcopoaed project and he felt unless it is fenr.ed, it• will lend itself to off stteet lrnffic and sidewalk traffic= that this project would add 75 automobiles to the exiAting traffic and he thought that is quite heavyt that 12 condominiumr were approved on subject nropecty And he had reviewed ~he property ~nd felt approximately 18 to 2p units could be developed. He stated he was concerned about lhe low-income unitst that there arE other apartments in the area with rents varyinq from $580 to $680 ~er mor~th and they are all two-bedroom units and this is n~t a low-income area. He refecred to the wall on the west and st~ted hP would l.ike to request ~n additional 4 feek on ttiat wall because of the grade ~ifferences and since the pool equipment is right next to the fence. He stated he did not know what thr City of Anahei.m requirements are, but he had to ~rovid~ a 6-foot cul-de-sac for fire truck tur.n-mr~und. He stated he thought the property lends itself to only about 18 units because of its size. Mr. Drukin stated the aEfocdable units are beneficial to khe City and that the State has indicated a~esire to have affordable units in the various jurisdictions and rents are not the issue and those are quidelines set up hy HUD. He stated they would be willing tc put up a 6-foot higti wall in the area of the pool ta protect Mr. William's recreational area along the property lfne an~ that the wAll would be approximately 10 feet high because of the grade differences and would extend the lengtl•i of the recreational area. THE PUaLIC HEARING WAS CLpSED. Chairman Herbst ~sked where guests would park. Mr. DruY.in stated there are appcoximately 20 to 12 spaces at the end of the building which would be designated for guest parkiny. Respanding t~ Commissianer Bouas, ~1r. Drukin stated they t~ave a 20-foot requiced setback fcom Ball Road and that was to maintain the 15U-foot setbuck to the single-family residences to the south. He added they could provide a decorative wrought i~on fence with landscaping or a blo~~k fence and explained the entrance to thP recreational area faces the side ~3~ii~.en`~ of the front. He atated there is a play area for the children in the rear where the spa~ 4re located. He stated this is also adjacent to the laundry area and explained they have not discuss~d any playground equipment as yet, but that iE a possibility. He stated it would be closed off with a wrought iron fence. He stated they have anticipated having families with the 3-bedroom units. He stated each unit will also have an area where children could play because there are of£-sets in the buildings. 2/20/85 MIN~ U'rES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 20. 1985 85-108 ACTION: Commiaeioner King offeced ~ motion, aeconded by Commisaioner Fry and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner La Cleire absent), that r.he Anaheim ~:ty Planning Commiasion hes ceviewed the proposa~ to ceclaesify aubject property from the RS-A-43,000 (Ro~idential, Agricultural) 2one to RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple-Family) 2~ne or ~ lesa inter~se zone to constcuct a r30-unit affordable aparkment complex under the authority of Skate GovernmQnt Code S~~tion 65915 with waiver of minimum building site area ~er dwel.ling unit and maximum building height on an irregularly-ahaped p~ccel af, land consisting of approximately 0.86 acre~, having a ftontage of appcoximat~ly 74 feet on the north side of eall Ro~d and further dPSCCibed as 3633 West Ball Road; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaratio~ upon finding tt~at it has considered the Negative DeclaraCion togethe~ with any commenks received during the public review procesa And further finding oh the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received thAt there is no subatantial eviden~e that the project will have a significant effect on the envitonment. Commissioner King offered Re~~lution No. PC45-50 ~nd moved for its passagE and adoption that khe Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Reclasaification no. 84-85-25 eubject to Interdep~rtmental Committee recommendations: On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BUSt~OKE, FRY, HEftBST, KING, MC DURNEY NUES: NONE ABSBNT: LA CLAIRE Commissioner M.ing offered Rer.olution No. PC85•-51 and moved for its passage and ndoption thaC the Anaheim City Planning commission does heceby grant Vaciance No. 3463 on the basis that there are special ciccumstances applicable to the proFerty such as size, shape, topograQhy, location and surroundings which do not apply to other idPntically ~oned property in the r~ame vicinity; and that strict application oE the Zoning Code deprives the pcoperty of privileges enjoyed by other propeities in ~he identical zone and classification in the vicinlty and s~bject to Interdepartmental Committee cecommendetSons including a condition that the wall shall be 6 feet high on the west property ].ine as measured itom the highest grade of subj~ct property. On eoll call, the foregoing cPsalution was passec3 ty the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BUSHORE, FRY, HERF35T, KING, M~ BURNEY NOES: NONE ABSENT: LA CLAIRE Chairman Herbst pointed out the State has mandated affordable units which is different tha~ when the neighbora built their apartm~nt units. Mr. Drukin stated it was their intent to have a 6-faot hi~h block wall above the f=nished gtade level on the west property line along the area of khe neighbar's recreation area. Jbck White, Assfs~ant City Attorney, presenked the wcitten right to appeal the Planning Cnmmissia~n's decision within 22 days to the City Council. 2/20/85 MINU~ES~ ANAHEIM CITX PGANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 20, 1985 85-109 ITEM N0. 6. EIR N~GATIVE DECLARATION ANQ CONDITZONAG USE PERMIT N0. 2663 PIIBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: NORBERT A. AND RUTH M. WATERS~ 2501 E. Ball Road~ Anaheim, CA 92006. A~ENT: JA~K BRIT'PON/GUSmAV RIKER, 2520 ~. Omeya AvPnue, Anaheim, CA 92806. Property described as an irrr~ulacly-shaped parcel of land conaisting ot Approximately 1.4 acze located at the northeast corner of Ball Road and S~tnkiat Street, 2523-E. eall Road. To permit on-sale bcer ~nd wine in a pro~oaed reataurant. There was no one indic~ting their presence in oppUeition to ~ubject request and although the ataff report was not read, it !s referred to and made a part of the minutes. Mr. Covert, 3535 Aqua Drive, Loa Alamitos, stated they have no objection to the staf.f report. Ne stated tl~~e dooc on t}~e north wall i~ an emergency exit and will be closPd during buainess hours and the other dooc ia the delivery doo:. He atated the owner would like the remaining triangular ~ortion of the property reLOned to CL wi.tt~~ut presenting a speciEic plan, if it i$ poasible. He 9tated thia will be a barbecue cestaurant with on-4ale beer and wine. Greg Hastings, Associate Planner, stated khe appli~ant r.ould submit an application for rezoning that pcoperty and not bring in a plan aincp it will only be the patking lot; however, Ghe the Planning Commisaion may wish ta oee plans on the remaining property, if he bringa fn an application foc the entire property. THE PUDLIC HEARING WAS CLOSEQ. Commissioner King stated even though the bar will be cloaed at 10:00 p.m., he would want to be sure the rear doors are kept closed during business hours. Mr. Covect stated the deli.very door will be locked at all times and the othec door has an emergency bar on it for egress in case of fire, etc. ACTION: Commission2r King offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fry and MOTION CARRIED (CommisFioner La Claire absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit on-sale beer and wine ir a proposed testaurant on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of appr~ximately 1.4 acres located at the northeast aocner o~ eall Road and Sunkist Street and further described as 2523 to 2525 East Ball Road; and does hereby appcove the Negative Declaration upon finding that it ha3 considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of: the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evi.dence that the project wi11 have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner King offered Resolution No. PC85-52 and moved for its passage and adoption that khe Anahe~m City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permi~ No. 2663 pursuant to Anaheim MuniCipal Code Sections 18.03.03U.030 thrcugh 18.03.030.035 and subject ko Interdepartmental Committee recommendations: On roll ca11, the foregoing resolution was passed by the followiny vote: AYES: BOUAS~ BUSHORE, FRY, HERBST~ KING~ MC BURNEY NOES: NO~E ABSENT: LA CLAIRE 2/20/~ 5 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITX PL~NNING COMMZSSION. P~BRUARY 20, 1985 85-110 Jack White, AasistQnt City Attorney, preaenl•ed the wcitten right to appPA1 the Pldnning Commieaion's deciaion within 22 days ho the City Council. ITEM N0. 7. EIR NEGATIVF DCCLARATIUN, W~IV~R OF CODE RE9UIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE P~RMI'P N0. 2659 PUBGIC HEARING. OWNERS: POMONA TRUCK ELECTRIC~ INC.~ 3204 130th N. E. Bellevue, WA 940Q5, ATTN; K~RT GU~HR~PRESIDENT. AG~NT; LEONARU MORRIS, 4452 La Paz Circle, Yorb~ Linda, CA 9268b. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped percel of land consisting of approximakely 0.86 acre, 2880 East Miraloma Avenue. To permit an autornobile and tcuck repair facility with waivec of minimum number of parking spac~s. 'Phere was n~ one indicating their presence in oppnsition to subject request and although the ataff report was not read, it ia r.eferred L-o and made a part of the minutes. Earl Mellott, architect, 1035 Armando Street, Suite S, Anaheim, explained the property has an existing truck facility and they propose to construct a new 15000-aquare foot truck and automotfve repair facility on the property and when L•he buildi,~g is completed~they ~:ill demolfeh thc exi~ting building within 6U days. He stated they wi11 have about 2000 s~uace feet of office ~pace and the rest will be used for parkiny, repair and painting o~ automobiles and trucks. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSEU. Responding to Cnairman Hecbst, Mr. Mellott sta~ed he would like the right to lease out a portion of the building to aimilac related uses and the same office spaces would be divided except foc possibly a smaller affice in the r~ar. Commissioner Bushore asked the type of a~~tomotive uaes they are talking about, pointing out thak they have indicated 60 cacs could be parked inside the building. Mr. Mellott stated his client has disr_;;ssed having a detailer come into the huilding because he has tu send his vehicles out to be detailed and Also, the ~ossibility of an upholsterer. Ne explained his client does body and fender work and painting. Cornmissioner Bushore stated he was concerned they would have to be mov:ng vehfcles outaide dur.ing buainess hours. Mr. Mellott stated they would be moving some care out, but they do have adequate space within the building. Commiasionet Bushore state~ he could not vote for this kind of varidnce for automobile usea in an industrial area with more than one user in the building and felt if it is done for one~ thece will be other requests. I~e stated he has no problem with the use, pcovided they do have a~equate parking. He stated normally it is required that a~l work be don~r inside the facility and there be no outdoor ~tocage. 2/20i'8:~ ~INUTF.S. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CQMMISSION, FEBRUARY 20, 1Q85 ~ 85-111 ACTIUN: Commisaioner King offered a motion, seconded by Commiasion~c Fry and MOTION CAR~IED (C~mmissioner La Claire absent) that the Anaheim City Pla.^,ning Commisaion has reviewed the proposal for nr ~utomobile and truck facility with waiver of minimum number of parkiny spaces on a rectengularly-ahAped parael of land con~iating of appcoximately 0.86 acres, h~ving a fcontage oE appcoximately 132 feet ~n the Routh side of Miral~ma Avenue and further described ns 28U0 East Miraloma Avenuet an~ does hereby approve the Negetive Declaration upon finding thaC it has consideced the Negative beclarati.on together with nny commenta received during the public ceview pr.ocess and furthpr finding on the basis of L•he Initial Study and any camments received that khere is no nubstantial evidence that the project ~ill have a significant effect on the enviranment. Commisaionec King affered a motion, seconded by CnmmiASioner Fcy and MOTION CARRLED (Commisaioner Bushore votiny no and Commisaioner La Claire abaEnt) ~hat kh~ Anaheim City Planning C~mmiasion does hereby grant waiver of Co.~ requirement on the basis that the ~arking waiver will not cauae an increase in trefEic congestion in khe immediate vicinity nor adveraely affect any ad~oining land uaes and granting of the pbrking waiver under the aanditions impoaFd, if any, will not be detrimental to lhe peace, hsalth, aafety and genecal welfare of tt~e citizens of the City of AnQl~eim. Commissioner King offered ~;eAOlution No. PC;,S-53 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim C1ty ~lanning Commission does heceby grant Conaitional Use Permit Nn. 2b59 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code sections 18.03.03U.G30 through 18.03~03U.035 and subject to InterdeparCmental Committee rec~mmendation~: Greg Hastings stated ukaff would recomrnend that Condition No. 16 be modified to read: •Tha~ prior to iseuance af a buildi~~y permit, the owners shAll post a bond, certificate of deposit or letter of credit or cash in an ~imount and focro satiafactory to the City of Anaheim to guar~ntee the removAl of the exiating building located on the northerly portian of subject property within 60 day~ following iasuance of certificate of occupancy for khe proposed building'. On toll call, the foregoing .esolution was passed by the f.ollowing vote: AYES: UOUAS, FRY~ HERBST, KING, MC BURNEY NOES: BUSHORE ABSENT: LA CLAIRE ,7ack White, Assistant City Attorney, presented the written r.ight to appeal the Planning Commissian's deciaion within 22 days Co the City Council. ITEM N0.8. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2662 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT OF O.~tANGE COUNTY, 1950 E. 17th Stceet, 5uite I50, 5ar,ta Ana, CA 92705-0229, ATTN: STALEY E. SPRAGUE. AGENT: GEORGE A. KENTNER, 7 N. Fifth Avenue, Arcadia, CA 91006. Praperty described as an ir.regularly-shaped percel of lAnd conaistfng of approximatsly 0.57 acre, 5800 East La Palma Avenue. 2/20/85 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION,L FEBRUARY_ 20_,_ 1985_ 85-112 To permit en automobile car wash with waiver of minimum structura~l serback. There was no ~ne indiaating t}~eir presence in opposition to subject reque~t and although the staff cepoct wae not cead, it is referred to and made a part of Che minuteo. Geocqe Kentner, agenl•, explained he is ~urchaeing the property from the wt-ter disCrict and becauae of the aize and shape only 36B of the property is buildable area and ~he landacaping will cov er 2~8 of r.he property. He explained hQ will manage the car wash himself. Z'HE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Cha,irmAn Herbat asked if thece will be detailern, wilh Mr. Kentner atating this wi11 be a full service car washj that the crar~ wi.ll be vr~cuumed and washed and then hand dried. Commissioner Bushure stated there is not very much Area in which to do the detailing at the end oE the car wash. Duane Younker, YES Industries, stated he h as been in this indu~try au A manufacturec, develo~er and operator foc the past 25 yearst that this was a tough location and one of the reasons for the length of the tunnel is because they plan to detai]. the windows while the vehicle is going through the tunnel which will elimina~e the need for some of the detailing area at the end of the tunnel. He stated the egress driveway is located to allow 12 vehicleR foc detailing which is more than sufficient. He atated they will process more than 1 car ~i minute and they can stack 11 vehicles at the entrance. Commissioner King stated the car wash on W est Lincoln uses the same procedure and it Beems to be working very well. CommfaEioner Bushore suggested reducing the area at the entrance so there would be mare room at the end for detailing. Commisaioner Fry sugges~ed reversing the facility so the cacs would come in from the east driveway and drive wesl. Mr. Younkers reaponded that was their first consideration, but th e problem was the 180 degree turn fcom the east bound r.raffic. Commissioner King stated he was sure they would not put a cac wash on a site if they had not reseatched the property and knew it could work. ACTION: Cornmissioner King offered a motion, seconded by Cortunissioner Fry and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner La Claire absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit an automobile car wash with waiver of minimum structucal setback on a irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting ~f approximately 0.57 acre, having a frontage of approximdtely 600 feek on the south side of La Palma Avenue and further desccibed as 5800 E. La ~alma Aven~,~; and does hereby ~pprove the Neqative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Dec1a ration together with any comments received duting the public rEView process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments recei~ed that there is no xubstantial evidence that the projecG will have a significant ef£ect on the environment. Commissioner King offered a m~tica, seconded by Commissioner t'ry and MOTIUN CARRTED (Commissioner La Claire absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby qrant waiver of Code requirement on the basis that there ace special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, 2/20/85 MINUTES, AN~HFIM CITY C~ANNING COMMISSIUN~ FGBRUARY 20, 15a5 85-113 shape, topography, location and sucrounding~ which do not apply ko other identically zaned ~ropecty in the eAm~ vicinit yt and that etrict dppllcation af the 2oning Code deprivea the propecty of privilegoa enjoyed t,y other propertiea in the identicAl zone and classification in the vicinity and subject tu InterdeparLmentAl Committoe recommendntions. C~mmisc~ionec King offered Resolul-on No. PCaS- 54 and moved f~r ito pessage and adoption that Clie Anaheim City Planning Commission does heceby qrant Condltional Uae Permit No. 2662 pureuant to Anaheim Muni~cipal Code 5eationn 18.03.03Q.030 through 1H.03.030.035 and aubject to InterdaperL•mental Comtnittee recommc~ndationa; On rol!. call, the Eoregoing resoluti4n we~s ~a~sspd by the Collowl.ng vote; AYES: BOUAS~ DUStiORE~ FRY~ NERBST, KING, MC E3URNEY NOES: NON~ AHS~NT: LA C1.AIftE Jack Wtiite, Ac~s.istant City AtGorney, presented the written right to Appeal the PlAnning Commiesian's decision within 22 days tn the City Co~incil. IZ'EM N0. 9. EIR NEGATIVE UECLARATION AND VA RIANCE N0. 3457 1~UBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: MARK AND SUE ANN CKOSS, 599 PASeo de Luna, Anaheim, CA 92807. AGF.NT: SALKIN ~NGINEERING CORP., 1215 E. Chapmen Avonue, Orange, CA 92666, ATTN: GEQRGE KERNS. Aropetty deacribed aa an irregularly-ahaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.46 acre located at the southecly terminus of Paseo de Luna, 599 Pbaeo de Luna. Waiver of bui.lding aite widti~ for cul-de-sac lots to establiah A two lot, RS-5000(~C) sinyle-family aubdiv.si~n. There was no one indicating their presence in opposit.ion to eub~ect request and although the ~staff report wae not ~ead, it is referced to and made a part of the minutes. George Ke:ns, Salkin F.ngineering, explained both lots will exceed khe minimum lots in this vlcinity and the pads are over F3,000 square fe~et and the variance is for the minimum width of the lot. THE PUBLIC HEAFtING WAS CLOSED. Responding ko Commisaioner Bushore, Ms. Kecns atated there will be some grading required in occ~er to develo~ the building pad, but they will not have to import any earth and thr~t they are anticipating a balanced project. He atated there will be a 5-fc+ot retaining wall beside the driv~~wa}~ fac approximately 40 feet in length on the downhill nide. Commissioner herbe* atated it appears the pa d is proposed rir,ht in the middle of the gulley. He stat~d he was concerned becauae a certdin amount of khe lnnd wa~s s~ippose~d to remain in open space when the originml tracta were approved end aeked to se@ the original. tract map. 2/20/ 8 5 47~ l'ITY PLANNING COMMISSZON FEDHUAEtY 20 Commi,saioner Huahore ~tated there ere lota al.l ~vec the canyon like this and the Commiasion hae hVQdreqhere~willeb~h mnnyemore requestscfromepropert y~owners and i~ thia is appro ~ wanting to sepArete their lots. MArk Ccoss, prope~ty owner, skated th e idea i~ to build a houae on this lot and khen sell it and hp has lookcd et the area and the idea came from the many flag-lots ~us~ off C~nyun Rim Road. H e atated he hae talked to all his neighbocs involvad and they ace not oppoaed. fie atated there are very few lots in the atea which cauld have acc psa~ He r~aponded ta Commissioner Busho[e ~het the driveway would be sl oped d own at about a 208 grade. Commiasioner aQkedcifsantAmbulance co uld enter and exitothetdrivewaye and qet back out and Mr. Croas stated~~ed.~£Nehceapondedm L•hat khe~engineecDhasrindicated therethe house be sprink would be no pcoblem with acceae for a n nmbulance. Mr. Kerns stated the driveway is approximatNly ~00 feet long aco (ertytl8nefand le sloped. He exPlained there is a gully along the e~ isting p P another slight gully off to the righ t And they are propoainq to put the pad on the raised ground between the two gu llies. Responding to CommiASioner Bush~re, Mr. Croas stated his previous home an Mohler Drive was burned in Lhe Gypsu m Canyon [ice and when he pur~:hased this property he found out he nlso owned the proper~y all the way to the golf courae. tie added the neighbors are glad he is going to do something about that property because the exce~s pro perty is quit~ a trash collpctor and fire hazard anif is n°hanenaturalnslopes•andekeeplltncleanere are no requirements to maintain other t Commissioner McBurney st~ted b~tf~ sewage and c~rainage would have to be pumped b~~ck up to the fitreet. .TaX Titus, Office Engineer, responded to Conimiasioner Fcy that the grade limit for public streets in the Canyon Area is a mAximum of 108 and noted this is a private driveway. Commiasioner Mc Burney noinked out the State of California will allow a maximum 15e grade. Cor~missioner Bushore stated in his opinion, this l.ot should not be uuilt on; that he looks at this as a liabiiity becau~e if. someone buys this house and there is a fire, and a fire truck c annot get down ro the fire and someone loses their life, they will sue any body and everybody and he would be one of the pe[sons givin~ appraval to build. He sCated he was also cAncerned about or_hec lots in he area that could be developed in the same manner. Commissioner Fry stated he has no problem with the let split- aut was concerned about. the steepness of the driveway. Chairman Herbst stated he would be concerned because cities have been sued in the past for apPraving const:uctiona such as this, and also bacause of the grade and the se~ais not buildabl eWandaheafelt~it~ahould~remainsopendspaceis opinion, that lo 2/20/85 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. FEBRUARY 20, 1965 85-115 Mr. Kerns steted they hav~ telk~d to the Fi~e Marshall and he ib ~atiafied with the safety ~E thp atructure, if the house ie aprinkleced, nnd ~xplained he hae wocked an othe: projecta in other perta of. Ocen~e County with 208 grdded driveways and he has had no ~roblems. Mr. Croes stated the house he lived in on Mohlec Dcive had a dri.veway with 10a grade and he thought relocating the house closer to the rear slopes would accommoda~e creati.ng an 189 slope driveway and that he lived with a 188 sloped driveway for 18 yeare with no pccblems. ACTION: Commiaeioner King offered a mokion, seconded by Commisaioner Fry a~d MOTION CARRIED (Commiasioner La Clatre abaent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the prop~sal to establiah a 2-lot, RS-5,000(SC) single-family subdivieion with a waiver of minimum eite width for cul-de-sac lots on a irregularly-ahaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.46 aares located at the southerly terminus ~f Paseo de Lune and furthec deecribPd as 599 Pase~ de Lunar And d~es hereby approve the Negative Declarati~n upon finding that it has conaidered the Negative Declaration together with eny comments ceceived during t~e public review process and Eurkher Einding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that therE is no substanCial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the enviconment. Commissior.er King offered a reso.lution ~hat the Anaheim City Plenning Commission does hereby grant Variance No. 3457 on the basis that there are apecial. circumstances applicable to the praperty such as si~e, shape, topography, locatian and surroundings which do n~t apply to other identically zoned property in ihe samp vicinityt and that stcict application of the Zcning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other propsrtiea in the identical zone and clasaification in the ~icinity and sub~ect to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. On roll call, the fore9oing resolution failed to carry by the following vote: AXES: BOUAS, KING NOES: BUSHORE, HERBST~ MCBURNEY ABSENT: I,A CLAIKE Commissioner Bushore offeced Resolution No. PC85-55 and moved for its passage and adoption that ttie AnahPim City Planning Commission does deny variance No. 3457 on the basi~ that due to the topography thia ia an unusable and unbuildable lot especiAlly because of the proposed 209 graded driveway which would be necessary and it would also be necessary to pump sewage and drainage up to the street. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was p~ss.a by the Pollowing vote: AYES: BUSHORE, FRYo HERBST~ KING~ MC 9URNBY NOES: BpUAS ABSENT: LA CZAIRE Jack White, Assistant City Attorney, presented the written right ro appeal the Planning Commission's decisi.on within 22 dBya to the City Council. 2/20/85 MINUTES, ANAFlEIM CITY PLANNING COMMIS5ION. FEBRUARY 20. 1985 85-116 ITEM N0. 10. E7R C~TEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 11 AND VARIANCE NO. 3460 PUB4IC HEARING. OWNERS: AMVE'IS pEPARTMF•NT OF CALIFORNIA SF.RVICE ~OUNDATION, 1213 S. Dale Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92804, ATTN; ED W. BRANUM. Property described es a rectAngulerly-shaped paccel of land conn:ating of apptoximahely 9000 squace fEal, 1213 South Dale Avenue. Waiver oE maximum are~ of wall sign to retain a~ainted wall sign. There was no one indicating their pcenence in oppoaition to subject request and althougl~ the staff report waa not read, it is referred to and made a port of the minutes. Ed Branum, ~gent, exp~ained the w~ll wa~ paint.ed to cover grafEiti problema. TtIE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissionwr Buahore aeked iE variances have been g_anted Eor orher mucals auch as An~heim aoulevard and Weet Lincoln. Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director. Eor Zoning, stated she did not cecall any previously approved vartances and if this p~inting had simply been the American Flag, staE£ wou.ld have accepted it, but it does have wording and that is the reason ~ vaciance was requiced. She added a muca.l ia eimply a picture, and a variance would not be required. Commi~sioner Bushore stated he woi~ld not want to see too much of this type painting throughout the City and suggested when it is time to repaint the walls, it could be changed. He stated, however, he would be concerned if thi~ organization sold the pcoperty and the new owner pAinted somettiing else. He added it would be hard nok to approve thia because he seeA the traditions they are tryinq to uphold. Commi^sioner Fry stated he i~as no problem with this requeat. Anni~a Santalahti stated if the Commission approves this, it will be for this sNu~:ific exhibit and if someone elae comes in and wants to paint something different, they will have to have another ~ublic hearing. Commisaioner Bushore suggested a covenant be recorded requicing that if the property is sold, the painting will be deleted. Commissioner Pry suggeAted a time limit. Mr. Branum stated they have owned rhe building ~oc about 2 years and the wall has been painted for about 2 monihs. It was noted the Planning Director oc his authorized representative has determined that tl~e proposed project falla within the definition af Categorical Exemptions, Class 11, as d~fined in the State Envir.onmental Impact Report Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt Erom the requirement to prepare an EIk. ACTZ~N: Commissioner King offered Resolution No. PC85-56 and movsd for. itR passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Variance No. 3460 on the basis Lhat therE are special circumstancAs applicable t~ the property such es size, shape, topography, location and 2/20/85 2 U S- autroundingg which do not app1Y ro other identically zoned pcoperty in the same vic~nityt ~nd that strict application oti the zoning Code deprivae thc prop~rCy of privileges enjoyed by ottiec pcoQerties iri the identical zone and clasaification in the vicinity ar~a ^~ibject to interdepartmental Committee recommendationa. There was discuasion perka~n:n; ro a ttme limit approval on this particular exhibit. Jack White explained the Cammisaion could by condition require the sign not t~ be repainted and any new aign would have to conform to the requirements. Commiasioner Bushore stated he would want khe appraval tied to the sign Greg presented in tfie plcture RuamiL•ted and approval be for lU yeers. Hastings stat~~ B~atPditheNtime limit~should1be~lUhyeacsnar.duthat~was agreed Chairman Herb to. Commis~ioner King stated the time lanstauhmitteae added to the reaolution and also that ik muat cu~£orm to the p On ro11 call, the foregoi ~~ re8olution waa paesed by the following vot.e: AYES: BOUAS~ BUSHORE, P~Y, I1ER.8S~, K:NG~ MC BURNEY NOES: NONE ABSENT: LA CLAIRE Jack White, Assistan~ City Attorney~ presented tne written right to apPpa~ the Plbnning Commission's decision within 22 daYs to the City Council. AND ITEM NO• 11• E` G~TIV~ UECLARATION WAIVBR OP CODE RF UIREMENT CONDITIOl~A1~ USE k'ERMI'I' N0. 2658 300 W. Glen Oaks elvd., PUBLIC HEARZNG. OWNERS: ATLANTIC RZCFIFIELD CO., Glendale, CA 91202, ATTN. Mc. Eric Cahn. AGENT: HOME PEDERAL SAVINGS, 625 Broadway Street, Suite 525, San Diego, CA 92101, ATTN: MICHAEL SLAVEi7. Property desccibed as an irregularly-shaped parcel of. land consistin9 of app[oximately 0.5 acre, ].ocated at the northeast corner of La Palma Avenue ~nc~ Imperial Highway, 5700 East La Palma Avenue (A~tCO AM/PM Min~ Mar.ket). To permit a freestr~ndmarkettwithigasoline salesnandiwaiver ofnminimumnnumberan e~ciRting convenience of parking spaces. THE FOLLOWING ACTION WAS TAKEN AT T!]E BEGINNING OF THE MEETING. It was noted the petitioner was not present. ACTI~N: Commission~er Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOT.ION CARRion ofothesafocementionedmmatterlbe continued touthPl Chamber) that consideca regularly-BCheduled meeting of March 4, 1985, at the request of the pe~itioner in ordec to aubmit revise~ plans. 2/20/85 ~ f- MINUTES,~ ANAHEIM CI~':' PLANNING COMMI~STON PEBRUARY 20 1985 F35-118 ITEM N0. 12. EIR N0. 211 (PREV. CERTIETED) AND TENTATIVE M~~,P OF TRACT N0. 8520 (REY. N0. 2) PUBLIC NBARING. OWNERS: PRADO CORPORATTOtJ, 1156 N. Tustin Avenue, Orang~, CA 92667. AGENT: SALKIN ENGIN~ERING CORP., 1215 E. Chapman Avenue, Orange, CA 92666, ATTN: GEORGE KEFtNS. Pc~perty described as an irregulacly-chapQd parcel of land consisting of npproximately 31 acres loaated at the aouthwest and southeast corners of Serrano Avenue and Hidden Canyon Road. To ce-astablish an 18-lot (plu~ one open space lot) RS-HS-22,000(SC) 2~ne Aubdivision. ACTION: Commisaianer hing offered e~ motion, second~d by Commisr~ioner Fry and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner La Claire Absent), thaC the Anaheim City Planning Commisaion doea heceby ffnd that the ncopcaed subdiviaion, togekher with ita design and improvement, iR conslstent with the City of Anaheim C~eneral plan, nursuant to Government Co~e Section G6473.5t and cioea, thprefore, approve Tentative ~tap of Tract No. 8520 (Rev. h'o. 2) for an 18-lot (Plus one open space lot), RS-HS-22,000(SC) ~one subdivision subject to the following canditions: 1. Z'hat should this subdivi~ion be developed a~ more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be aubmitted in tentative form for approval. 2. That sub~ect property shall be served by undecground utilities. 3. That prior to finel tract map appro~~al, the original documents of c:he covenants, conditiona, and restrictions, and s letter addressed to the developer's title company authorizing recocdation thereo~, shall be submitted to the City Attorney's Office and appcoved by the City Attorney's Office and Engineering Division. Said documents, as approved, will then be filed and recorded in the Office of thA Orange County Recorder. 4. That prior to final tract map approval, street names shall be approved by the City Planning Department. 5. That prior to final tract map approval, appropr.iate p~rk and recreatton in-lieu fee8 shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an amount as determined by the City Council. 6. That drainage a£ subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satis£actory to the City Engineec. If, in the preparation nf the site, sufficient grading is required to nec~essitate a grading permit, no work on ~rading will be permitCed bptween October 15th And April 15~h unless all r~quired off-site drainage faci].iti~s have been installed and are operative. Positiv~ assurance shall be provided to the Cfty that such drainage facilities will be completed prior to actober 15th. Necessary right-of-way foc off-site drainage facilicies shall bp dedicated to the City, or the City Council shall have initiated condemnation proceedings therefor (the costs of which shall be borne by the developer) prior to f:he commencement of 2/20/85 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, EEBRUARY 20, 1985 85-119 grading operat~o~e. The required drainege facilities ehall be of a eixe an~ type sufficient to carry cunoff wAtera origineting from higher properties thcough subject property to ultimate dispoadl as approved by the C~ty Engineer. Said drainage facilitiee sh411 be the L•irst item of conatruction and shall be completed and be functional throughout tt~e tract and from the downetream boundary of the property to Che ultimate point of disposal pcior to the isauance of any final building inspectiono or occupancy permits. Drainage district reimbursement agreements may be made available to the developeru of said property upon theic cequest. 7. mhat grading, excavAtion, a d all other construction Activities shall be conducted in such a manner so as to minimize the possibility oE any silt oc.iginating from this pruject being cnrried into the Santa Ana River by storm water originaking from or flowing through thia project. 8. That the Alignment and terminal point of storm draine shown on this tentative tract map shall not be considered final. Theae drains shall be subject to precise design considerations and the Appcoval of the City Engineer. 9. That tempor~ry ~L•reet name signa shall be installed prioc to Any occupancy if permanent street name signs have not been instal.led. 10. That prior to ffnal tract map appcoval, the petitioner shall make some provision, acceptable to the Cfty Council, for landECa~ing and maintenance of the slopes within and/or created by the develo~ment of this property. Said provision shsll include ~n easement to allow for maintenance of Lot No. 17. 11. That the minimum design speed far Avenida De Santiago shall be 25 miles per hour. 12. ThA: all requirements of Fire Zone 4, otherwise identified as Fire Administca~,ive Order No. 76-01, shall be met. Su~h requirements includ~, but are not limited to: chimney spark arcestors, protected attic and under floor openings, Class C or better roofinq materi~l and o~P hour fire resistive constcuction of horfzontal surfaces if ].ocated within 200 feet of adjacent brushland. 13. That native slcpes adjacent to newly constructed homes shall be hydroseeded with a low fuel combustible seed mix. Such slo~es sha31 be sprinklered and weeded as requi:ed to establish a minimum of 100 1'eet of separation between flammable vegetation and any structure. 14. That fuel bceaks shall be provided ~s dztermined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department. 15. That prior to final tract map Approval, special facilities fees shall be paid to the WatQr Ukility Division by the developer in accordance with Rule 15B of the Water Utility Rates, Rules and Regulations. 2/20/85 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CQMMISSION FEDRUARY 20. 1985 85-~120 16. ThAt prior to any development on Lot No. 17, acceptable vehiculac access for eaid lot shall be provided. 17. That in accordance with the requirementa of Section 1H.02.047 of the Anaheim Municipal Code per.taining to the initial »ale of residences in the Ci,ty of Anaheim Planning Area "B", the seller ahell prnvide each buyec with written information concerning the Anaheim General Plan and the exis~ing zoning within 300 feet of the boundaries o~ subjec~ tract. 18. That minimum street lighting consisting of aa£ety lighting approved by the City Traffic Engineer and the Electricsl Division of the Public Utilities Department m~y be constructed aubject to a bond being poated prior to finA1 map approval to guarantee inatallation of complete street lighting at any time during the two-year period Eollowing recordation of the final tract map, if auch lighting is determined to be nPCeasacy foc the health, satety, and welfare of the residente in subjec:t tract. 19. `rhat priar to commencement of etcuctural framing, fire hydrants shall be inatalled and cha~yed as required and determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department. 20. Th~~t prioc to issuanr.e of a building permit, primary water main fees ahall be paid to the City of Anaheim, in an amount as determined by the Office of the Utilities General Manager. 21. That prioc to issuance of a building permit, the appropriate trafEic si.gnal assessme~t fee ahall be paid to the City o£ Anaheim in an amount as determined by the Cit,y Council for each new dwelling unit. 22. That the owner(s) of subject p[operty shall dedicate and improve a 10-foot wfde equsstrian an~ hiking trail as shown on the Equestrian and Hiking Trails Component of the Anaheim General Plant and that improvement plans, Sn accordance with standard plans and specificatians on file in the Office of the City ~ngineer, ~hall be submitted in conjunction with the grading plan; an~ that prior to final map approval that a bond in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim shall be posted with the City to gUarantee the installatian of the above-mentioned requirements prior to occuQancy. 23. That the owners of the subject property shall execute and record a covenant obligating the homeow~ers asaociation to (1) mainta~n and repair the hiking ana equesttian trail, (2) indemnify and hold the City harmless for damages resulting therefrom, and (3) maintain liability insurance for said trail naming the City as an additional insured. The form of said covenant chall be approved by the City Attorney'$ Office and shall be re.orded concurrently with the final tract tnap. The developet of the subject tract shall imptove and maintain the hereinabove described hiking and equestcian trail, including providing the above specified insurance, until such tfine as the homeowners associatio~ becomes legally obligated therefore as hereinabove provided. The developer shall paat a bond in an Amount 2/20/85 MINUTES, ANAHESM CJTX PLANNING COMMISSxUN. FEBRUARY 20,_ 1985 85-121 and foKm satisfactory to the City of Aneheim to guarantee perf.ormance of developer's obllgaLiona hereunder. Evidence of. the required insurance and bond shrll be aubmitted t~, and approve by the City Attocney's Off~ce prior to approval of the Einal map. 2A. That prior to final etreet inspections, "No parking for street sweeping" siqns ahall be instelled a~ cequired by the Street Maintenance and Sanitati~n Division ancl in acr,ordance with specifications on file wiLh said diviaion. 25. That the seller ~hall provide the purchaser of each rpsidential da~el.ling with written information concerning Anaheim Municipal Code Section 14.32.500 pectaining to "Parking restricted to facilitate street sweeping". Such wcitten information shall clearly indicate when on-atreet parking is prohibiked and the penalty for violation. 26. That prior to f.inal map approval, the cequireme~ts set forth in Conditl~n Nos. 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, ll, 12, 13, .14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 24 and 25, above-mentioned, shall be ~et forth on the face of the final map in a focro satisfactory to the City Engineer. I'fEM N0. 13. EIR NEGATIVE DBCLARATION AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. :99 - LAND USE ELEMENT PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY: ELAINE L. BURTCH, 300 Grover, Boise, Idaho, 83705 AND LESLIE & VELMA GARDNBR, 400 W. Vermont Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 AND CITY OF ANAHEIM. AGENT: HUGU A. VAZQUE2, 619 S. Live Oak Drive, Anaheim, CA 92805. Property is described as a rectangularly-st~aped parcel of land consisting of approximately 5.3 acres located on the south side of Vermont Avenue between Harbor Boulevard and Lemon Street. To considec alternate proposals of ultimate land uses including, but not lfmited to low-medium density, medium density residential and genezal commercial designations. There were three persons indicating ~heir interest to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. ~ay Tashiro, Associate Planner, presented the staff ceport n~ting this is a City initiated Genecal Plan Amendment reque~tii~g alternate proposals of alternate land uses including but not limited to low-medium density and medium density residential and general commercial designetions on a rectan,yularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 5.3 acres located on the south side of Vermont Avenue between Harbor Boulevard and Lemnn Street. Velva Gardner, 400 W. Vermont, stated if the property is rezoned, it will be worth more if *hey decide to s~ll and asked if they can continue to live on it until they decide to sell, noting they are in favor of the rezoning. Responding to Commissioner Bushoce as to how thfs rPZOning can help the community, Ms. Gardner stated there arQ single-family homes across the street, but on their side of the street there are commercial uses and multiple-family uses already. 2/20/85 ~ 4 f tA MINIiTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNYNG COMMISSION, FEDRUARY 20, 1985 ___85-12'l Bill Gabaldon, 330 W. Vermont, stated they are more or lesa in favor of thls request and he ie thinking of Aelling his pcopecky and thought it would be better to have a big develapment rather than just developing one parcel at a time. He referred to khe newly developed ~ciplex oc~ a 40 foot by 124 foot lot and stated there are now a lot of cars in thP area and this ia certainly not good for the community. CommiRSioner auehore atated thAt development would have been un Lot No. 10. Cnmmissioner Bush~re staeed if this change to a higher density is permitted, thece will be more developmenta like that one referred to on Lot 10 and pointed out if e~ffordable units are developed, there could be 258 more units. Mr. Gabaldon stated if devel~pmen~s ace done one lot at a time, that would not add anything to the ,~ommunity and that developeca are not inteceated in developing these smal! lots. Commiasioner euahore stated if Mr. Gabaldon Already has ~ unitu, a new owner would have to not only consider the worth of the property right now, but what is is goiny to cost to demolish those units and add the costs of the new development, so there would have to be a lot of units just to make the p~o~ect ~encil out and he did not think thiR would benefit hi.m At all. He atated the only thf.ng the developec wil~ gain would be some setback variances because he could eliminate sfde yatds. Chairman Herbat stated the Cortunisafon would like to see land ass~mbly so that much finer complexes could be built. Commissioner Fry atated he would pereonally like to see Gxhibit A approved which leaves Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 as general commercial and Lots 5 through 15 as medium density residentiial land uses. CommiESioner ~ushace stated he favors the existing General Plan designati.on bpcause l•hece is nothing to prevent land assembly now and the change would be creating higher density and with density bonuses, etc. there could be a lot of units and he thought it should be left as low densiky. He atated that area is teetering between a reasonable area anc3 going very sour ri~ht now and putting a higher ciensity on it along with the affocdability aspect, Vermont on the north side would definitely go sour and he based that opinion on what he has seen happening in the past. ACTION: Commi:sioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CAitRIED (Commissioner La Claire abaent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to amend the General Plan desfgnation to include but not limited to low-medium density, medium density residential and general commercial land use designations on a rectanqularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 5.3 acrea l~cated on the south side of Vermont Stteet between Harbor Boul~vard and Lemon Strpetj and does heret,y approve th~ Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration k~gether wi.th any comments received during the public revier~ process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a signlficant eEfect on the environment. 2/20/85 } 4 MINUTBS. ANAHBIM CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 20,~ 19B5 85-123 Commieaioner Fry offer.ed Resalution No. PC85-57 and moved for itg pasoege and adopkion thAt the Anaheim City Planning ~ommission does hereDy recommend to the City Council approval of Cenecal Plan Amendment 199 - Land Use Element, Exhibit A approving Lots ,l, 2, 3 and 4 for general commercial IAhd uses and Ln~a 5 thcough 15 for medium den~ity residentiel land us~s. On roll call, the foregoing reaolution was pASSed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS~ FltY, HERBST~ KING, MC BURNF.Y NOES: HUSHORE ABSENT: LA CLAIRE Jack White explained this matter will. automatically go to the City Council far a public hearing and notices of that hearing will be given in the sam~ manner as tod~y's hearing. ImEM NQ. 14. BIR NFGATIV~ DECLARATION PRGV. APPROVED) AND CONDlTIONAL US~ PERMIT N0. 2132(READVERTTSED) PUBLIC HEARING-TIME EXTENSION. OWNER~: GLENDQN ANU SNIRLEY MILLER, 2121 Skyline llrive, Fullerton, CA 92631. Property is describe~ as a rectangularly-r~haped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.86 acre, 2830 E. Mira].oma Avenue. Request for a 2~year (~-month retroactive) extension of time or deletion of Conditian No. 9 of Resolution No. PC80-198 pertaining to rec~uired extensians of time to retain a tr.uck repair facility in the ML Zone. There was no one indicating their presence in oppasition to subjeat request and althou9h the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. It was noted the applicant was not present. Cammissioner King pointed out Paragraph 4 of the stafE report indicates a Iack of landscaping and there appears to be boat storage. Commissioner Fry suggested the mattec be continued in or.der f.or the applicant to be present. ACTION: Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mc(3urney and MGTION CARRI~D (Commissioner La Claire absent) that the An~heim City Planning Commission doea hereby continue consider~tion of the gforemenkioned matter to the regularly-schedu'led meeting ~f March 4, 1985, in crrder for the a~plicant to be present in order ko answer any questions. ITEM N0. 15. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. CONDITIaNAL USE PERMIT N0. 2312 - Request from Michael T. R ohael for a one year (2-year retroactive) extension of time for ~onditic~nal Use Permit No. 2312, property located south and ~ast of the soutk~east carner of Lincoln Avenue and Citron S~reet (northerly portion of ehe former Fremont .lunior High School site). ACTTON; Commiseioner King offered a rnotion, secanded by Conuni3sioner Fry and MOTION CARRIED tCommissioner La Claire absent end Bushore ~isbstaining) to apprave a one-year (2-year retroactive) extension of time ta Conditional Use Permit No. 2312 to expire on March 22, 1986. MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY__PLANNING COMMTSSION, FEaRUARY 2Q, 198!i 85-124 B. TENT~TIVE TRACT OF MAP N0. 11727 (REV. N0. 1) - Requesl• from Jim Bianca for a one-year extenaion of time for Tentetive Map of Traat No. 11727(Rev. No. 1), property located on the saukh side of CKeacent Avenue, approximat~ly 330 feet weat of the cen~etline of Brookhurst Street. ACTION: Commiesionec King ofEered a motion, seconded by Commisaioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED (Cotnmiasioner La Claire obaent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commiaeion does hereby grant a one-year extension of time for Tentative Map of Trbct Nu. 1172' (REV. No. 1) to expire on March 8, 1986. C. VARIANCE N0. 3~34 - Request from Duane Nlavnicka fac a one-year extension of time for Varisnce No. 3134, pro~erty l~cated ~t 2648 Russell Avenue. ACmION; Commi.ssioner King offered a motion, seconded by Commiasioner Mc.Burney and MOTION CARRIED (Commissionec T.a Claix~e abaent) that the Anaheim city Planning Commission ~oes hereby grant a ane-year extension ef time for Variance No. 3134 to expire on Pebruary 25, 1986. D. VARIANCE N0. 2535 - Request from Ali ~azi for termination of VAriance No. 2535, property located at 1235 E. t.incoln Avenue. ACTION: Commi~sioner King offered Resolution No. PCdS-58 and moved for its passage and adop~ion that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby terminate Vaxiance No. 2535. On roll call~ the foregoing cesolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BUSEIORE, FRY, HEN.BST, KING, MC BURNEY NOES: NONE ABSGNT: GA CLAIRE E. VARIANCE N0. 975 - Reque.c from Lauretta ~. Maaha for termination of Variance No. 975, property located at 3233 W. Lincoln Avenue. ACTION: ~ommissioner King offered Resolution No. PC85-59 and moved fpr its pass~~ge and adoption that the Anaheim City ~lanning Commission does hereby terminate Variance No. 975. On roll call, the foregoing resolukion was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, QUSHORE, FRY, HERBST, KING. LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY NOES: NONE ABSENT: LA CLAIRE F. VRRIANCE N0. 3456 - nequest for nunc pro tunc resolution amending Resolution No. PC85-2v, 3050 and 3060 E. Frontera Street. ACTION: Commissioner King offered Resolution No. PC85-60 and moved for ita pasaage and sdoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby amend Resolution Na. PC85-26 nun~ pro tunc, in connection with Variance No. 3456. 2/20/85 On coll ca11, the foregoing reso~ution wae p~$s ed by the ~ollowing vore : ,py~g; BOUAS~ 9USHORE~ FRY~ HERBST~ KING, MC BUItNEY NOES: NONE ABSENT: LA CLAZRE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSJ.ON: Commiesionor Bushoce stated he is atill looking for some~ne to repl~cR him on the Parks and Recreation Commiasion. it was note d commission requeated that City Council review the repreae;~tative'e position from the Pla~ning Corttmisaion on the~CO~endationrwaa1EorwardedAtontheSCity Counciltructed to make eure their r pu.JOURNMENT: '~here being no further hueiness, Commiasioner Fry offeced a motion, seconded by Commiasionec Kin g And MOTION CARRIED (Commissionpr La Clalrp abPent) that the meeting be adjourn~d. The meet.ing was ad3ourned at 4:55 p.rn~ Resp~ctfully submitted, ~G~~!e~t(~ ~`` L~~s.- ~ Edith C.. Harris, Secretary pnaheim City Pl anning Commission ELH : lm ~ 102m 2/2U/85 On roll c~l 1, the faregoing resolution w~s p~esed by the following vote: AY~S: BOU A8, BUSHORE~ FRY~ HERBST, KING~ MC BURNEY NOES: NONE AB3ENT: LA CGAIRE P?1RK AND R~CREATION COMMISSION~ C~mmL~sioner Bu st~oce stated he is still looking cor someone to ceplace him on thc~ PArka and Recrertion Commission. It wae noted Commission cequeated that City Councf 1 review the representative's PaBitS~3Ef wastinstructed9to Commisaion on the Park and Recreation Con-mission. make sure their recommendation was forwarded to the City Council. AuJOURNMENT: Thaxe being no further bueiness, Commissianer Fry offRred a motion, seconded Uy Commiseioner t~i.ng and NOTION CARRIED (Commiss.loner G~ Claire absPnt) that the meeting be adjourned. The meeting wna adjoucned at 4:55 p.m. Reapectfully ~bmitted, ~~J~Z~G ' -` d~~ Edith L. Harri~c, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commiesion ELH:lm 0102m 2/20/8~ _ . . ... .: . _.,.,..~..i