The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1985/11/13 h R6GULAR MEETING OE THE ANAHEIM CITY PI,ANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING The regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called Co order by Chaicwoman La Claire at 10:U0 a.m., November 13, 198~, in the Council C:hAmaer, a q~orum bein~ pceaent, and the Commission reviewed plana of. ttie itema on todray's agenda. TtECF.SS: 11; 30 a.m. RECONVENED: 1:35 p.m. PRESENZ' Chairwoman: i,a Claire Commisaioners: Douas, Fry, tlerbst, i,awicki, Messe, McBucnPy AB~LNT: C~mmissioner: None ALSO PRESENT Annika Santalahti Malcolm Slaughter Joseph ('letcher ~ay ~'itus uan Shiada Kendra Morries ~dith Harris Assistant Directoc for Zoning Deputy City Attorney Deputy City Attorney UELir.e Engineer Aasociated Traffic Enqineer Ass.istant Planner Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES FUR APPkOVAL; Comm3.ssioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Cum~m~ssione~ Rouas an~ "~"~C~N CARRIEll that khe minutes of thw meeting of October 28, ly. , hP uved as submitted. IT~~M Np._ EIR NEGA'i~,. ',; '~RATION,L RECLASSI~ICATION N0. 84-85-43 AND ','ARIANCE t~ _~ 3499_ PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: LUCION W. MYLES, JR. AND BARBARA B. MYLES, 3609 W. Savanna Street, Anaheim, CA 92804 and ROBERT 7. AND LINDA L. ADAIR, 3613 W. Savanna Street, Anaheim, CA 92804 and JAMES A. AND KATHLEEN ANN PICKART, 3621 W. Savanna Stceet, Anahefm, CA 92804. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximatel5~ 1.76 acr.es, 3609, 3613 and 3621 West Savanna Street. RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200 or a lpss ir,tense zone. Waivers of maximum structu~al height to construct a 45-unit apartment complex. C~ntinued fcom the meetings of .1uly 22, August 19 and October 14, 1985. IT WAS NOTED THE EOLLOWING ACTION WAS TAKGN A'P THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING. ACTION: Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner E3ouas and MOTION CARP.IED that con~ideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of January 6, 1986, at the request of the petitiQner in ordec to submit revised plans. 85-603 I1/13/85 MINU'PES, ANAhEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, NOV~MHER. 13, 1985 85-604 I'PEM N0. 2 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, RECLASSICICATION N0. 85-86-7 AND VARIANCE N0. 3511 PUBLIC HE.ARING. OWNERS: BC INVESTMENTS a5-2, 3471 Via Lido, 4213, Newpo[t 3each, CA 92663. AG~NT: BALALIS COkPORATION, 3471 Via Lido, ~213, Newport Beach, CA 92663~ Pcopprty descr.ibed as a cectanyulacly-ahaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 150 feet on the north si~e of Bcnac9way, 2545 West Broadway. CL to RM-1200. Waiver of maximum atructural height ~o construct a 36-unir. apartmenl• cumplex. Continued from the meetinga of September 30 and Uct~ber 28, 19~5. There were four persons indicating their pre~ence in opposition to subjer.t request and although ehe staff cepoct was net read, it is referrPd to and made a part of the minutes. Paul Balalis~ agent, explaine~ he did meet with twelve of the adj~ining property owners and explained to them that the properl-y cannot remain a~ it is t~day and the choices are to either change the zoning to permit the praposed residential development or to continue the non-canfocming use for perhapa a 15,000-square foot strip commercial center for uses such as vocationa.l school, etc. whicti would maximize utilization of the property and prubably there would not be a development with people coming and going from 9 to °.~. Mr. Balalis stated the neighbacs were concerned about the existing traffic problem caused by the Eioliday Health Spa, but there is nothing the developer can do about that problem; and that r,e neighbors wece concerned th~t the propoaed project would add addir_iur. : traffic and parking problems. He stated they explained to the neighbors that the .lower~t use of any land is cesidential. He added concerning noisr_, that the parkir~g .gor this project will be underground and the noise will be less than th~ noise generaked from their own condominium traft'ic. Mr. Balalis stated the neighbors were also crncerned about security and it was explained that the proposed pro~-~t has totai security and is a gated community with automatic garaw, ,' ~.~~'s tt-at lock. He stated people fcom the single-family area were concexned about the r~location of the pool and elimination of the parking and with the redesign, they have moved the pool 22 feet from the property line .,~? eliminated the oarking spaces immediately adjacent to the single-fami~; ~3rea and lo~t 3 parking spaces as a cesult, ana are providing a total of 27 parking spaces. He stated th~ residents of the condominium projec~ requested h.hat those parking spaces not be eliminated because parking is at a premium in that area. He added they feel the pc~~PCt will not adversely affect the area and that there is a 25-coot driveway and a 20-foot garage between the proposed project and the adjacent condcaminium project. E;e added they will ceplace the block wall so it will be uniform and have removed some of the existing shrubbery. 1.1%13/0~ ANAHEIM CITY PL~ANNING COMMISSION, NOVEMBER 13, 1985 _85-605 MINUT~S, -- Frank Aylesworth, 220 Acon Place, Anaheim, atated they have already aubmitted a petition signed by 77 people opposing thia projPCt and added he ~poke to about 20 ~f theee ceaidenta and thcy all agree this will be a nice building, but ace still concecned abaut den~ity and traffic. He atated there ia a tremendous traEfic problem between d;00 p.m an~ B:00 p.m. because of: the Holiday Ne~lth Spa and people are parking .in the Eire lAnes And anywhece thp.y can fi.nd a s~ace, even in theic condominium project and on the residential streets in the acea. tie stated be~~ween A and 6 p.rti. a lot of people in the area are getting home from work or leaving tu go out to dinner ar a movie. He stated it seems there are more tcaffic tc?ps per day fr.om the residents of apactmenta than the condominium residents, so they felt this apartment complex would add ~ven more traftic. 4ie stated they know n 7-E1evQn will not be developr~d on that pcopecty, but a r,ommercial development, even though it would have more ~raffic throughout the d~y, would l~ave le~s traffic between 4 and 8 p.m. Efe state~ if the Commi~sion decides to approve apartments on this property, they Would request that the variance not be granted t~ permit 2 Atociea within 150 feet of single-fatnily residence~ because this is not a special property and no variance is warranted. Mr. ealalis stated the traffic problem is alceady existing in that area and he did not think they should be penalized f~bu~hthere~aremother ~mailer~chaEnsven would not be developed on this propecty, which would welcome the opportunity because of the traffic al~eady generated by the Holiday Health Spa. He stated they I~ave talked to some pe'CSpective tenants, in the event this does not get appcoved, and ~hose tenants indicate they would try to capitalize on the young adults wh~ already freque-~t the health spa~ He added the suggestion ~hat this be single-story apartments is totally unacceptable to them a~:d tt~ey feel the width of the property w~uld make it a special property warcanting ~ vaciance. Tt3E PUBLiC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chaicw~man La Claice stated she viewed the property and pointed out there is no oAposition from the single-family homes to the east and the opposition is from the condominium project whi.ch is a 2-story development, 55 feet from the property line. She stated she felt this would be a good use af the property and actually the property, as it is currently developed, is 'spot" zoning with commercial right in the middle of residential and it ahould aossible~toa residentially. She added the applicant has done everything p protect the single-family residenL•s and the project wi11 be nicer than mo~t apartment projects with adequate ;,arking. She stated several years ago the Corunission and City Council deteemined after a study that the 150-foot setback was really outdated, in view of today's property values, and decided ratt~er than changing it from 150 feet to 75 feet or 50 feet, tOrantedW each project on a case-by-case basis and _hat variances are usually g Commissioner Herbst stated variances have been granted up to 50 feet. ACTION: Commissionec Herbst offered a motion, 3econded by Commissionec McBurney and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to reclassify subject property from the CL (Commercial, 11/13/85 MINU7'ES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CUMMISSIUN, NOVEMBCR 13, 1985 85-606 Limited) ?,one to the RM-12q0 (Reaidential, MultipJ.e-Fnmily) zone to construct a 36-unit Apartment complex with waiver ot maximum stcuctural height on a rect~ngularly-~haped parcel of land con~i~ting of Approximately 0.99 acce, having a EronCage of apprqximately 1' £eet un the north side oE Broadway and further de~cribed ns 2545 W. Bro~dwayj and doe~ her~by apprave tY~r. Negative Decl~ration u~on ftnding that it has consideced Che Negative neclacation together with any commenta received during the public review process and Eurtlier finding on the basis oE the InitiAl Study and any r.omments recei.ved that there iA no substantial evldence that the project will have a significant effNCt on the enviCanment. Commi:~sionec Herbst o£fered Resolutian No. i?C85-'lA0 and moved for its passnge and adoption that the Anaheim Cfty P.lanning Coinml.s~ion does hereby grant Reclassi.fication No. 85-86-7 suhject to IRterdepaGtmenka.l Cornmittee recommendations. Un co;l call, khe f.oregoiny resolution was passed by the Po.llowing vote: ~Y~S: f30UAS, FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE N(1ES: NUNE; A9SE'NT: NONE ~:ommiss~onec Herbst offered Resol~~tion No. ~C85-241 and maved for its passage and adoption that the Anat}eim City Pl~nning Commission does hereby qrant Veriance No. 35~1 on ttie basis t~~at therE are ypecial circumstances applicable ta the pcoperty such as sice, sha~e, tnpograp}iy, location and surroundings wtaich do not apply tu other identically zoned property in the samE vicinity; and that strict applicat.ian of the Zo~ing Code deprives the property o£ privi.leges enjoyed by o!t!~er propecties in the idenr,ical zone and classification in the vicinity and subjeck t•o Interdepartmental Committee reco~nmendat~ons. On rull call, the foregoing resolukion was passed by the following vote: AYES: 60UAS, FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, I.AWICKI, MC BUKNEY, MESSE NOES: NQNE ABaENT: NONE Malcolm Slaughler, Deputy City Attorney, pre:~ented the written right to appeal the Planniny Commission's decision wittiin 22 days to the City Council. IT~M N0. 3 E7R NEGATIVE DECf,ARATION AND RECLF,SSIFICATION N0. 85-86-8 ~UBLIC HEAkING. OWNERS: LARRY ALVIN AND DINA LYNNE TORGERSON, 216 N. Claudina Street, Anaheim, CA 92805, R. BGRENICE DENEAU, P.O. Box 286, San Juan ~apistrano, CA 92693, DONALU G. BROOKS, 220 N. Claudina Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 AND l.IBSELOTTB STUMPF, 612 5. Grove AvEnue, Anaheim, CA 92805. Propert~ described as a cectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.63 acre located at the southpask cozner of Cypress Street and Claudana 5treet, and Eurther described as 210, 216, 220 and 226 North Claudina Street. CG to RM-1200 oc a less intense zone. 1]./13/85 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PI~ANNING COMMISSION, NOV~M$ER 13, 1985 65-607 Cantin~ed fram the meeting of October 14, .1985. THE FOLLOWTNG ACTION WAS 'PAKEN AT THE B~GTNNING OF THE MEETINC. AC~I~ION: Commissioner Bou~; aftered ~ motion, seconded by Commiasioner Me~urney and MOTION CARRIEp that connideration of the Aforemenkioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting oC December 9, 1985, at the requeAt of etaff in order ta readvertise the petition. ITEM N0. 4 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE NO. 3512 (kEADVERTIS~D) PUaLIC HEARING. OWNERS: NORTliWEST MOTUR WELDING, 1429 S. Eastern Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90022. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped paccel of land consisting af appror.imately 0.95 acre, located at the norl•hwe~t corner of La Palma Avenue and Pauline Street, 517 and 519 East i~a Palma Avenue (Northwest Motor Keldinq). Waiver of required impr~~~ements of right•-of-way ard minimum structural aetback lo construct an office expaneion to an industrial building. There was no one i.ndicatiny their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part ~f the minutes. William Hughes, 444 Tu~tin Avenue, Newport ~each, 92663, agent, stated they arQ requesting a setback variance because none of the buildings on La Palma in that area meet the ~aning requirements; and also they would like to have a waiver of the required improvements on Pauline; however, they will do the improvementa on La Palma. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst stated he thought the waiver ~f engineering zequirements should bQ granted since this is an existing de~~•:lopment and they simply want an expansion. Com~issioner E'ry agreed. ACTIO~: Commissionec Fty offeced a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to construct an office expansion to an existing industri.al building with waivers of requiced improvements of right-of-way and minimum stru~tural setback on a rectangularly~shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.95 acres located at the northeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Pauline Street and further described as 517 and 519 East La Palma Avenue; and does heceby approve t•he Negative Declarati~n upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration togeth~r with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of khe Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effecE on the enviranment. Commissioner Fry offered Recolution No. PC85-242 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby gr.ant Variance No. 3512 on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the property such as si2e, shape, topography, location and surroundings which do 11/13/85 ~ ~ ~ 85-608 ~ MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION NQVGMBER 13 1985 f i not apply t~ other identically zoned proper.ty in the same vicinit;yt and that etrict a~plication of the Zoning ~O~dentpcal~zoneeandoclassificationlinpthe enjoyed by other pcoperties iri the i vicinity and aubject to Interdepactmental Committee recommendations. On roll call, the faregoing reaulukion waa passed by the following vote: AYE;S: 60UAS~ FRY~ NERB~T~ LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI~ MC 9URNEX, MBSSE NnES: NONE APS~NT: NONE Ma~.c~~lm Slaughter, tiep~nt8 decision~withinp2e~daysdtohthetCitynC~uncilto appeal th~ P1anninq Commisei ITGM NU. 5 EIR NEGATIV~ UECLARATION. RECLASSIFICATION N0. 85-86-5 AND 'JARIANCF~ N0. 3509 PUBLIC HEAFtING. QH'NERS: CORNELIUS W. AND MARY ALICB DERUYTER, 530 N. Colgate Street, Anaheim, CA 92801 and HACIENQA UNIT~D C~6191S9~LiveeOaktAriveet, ~lr Los Angeles, CA 90U25. AGENT: HUGO A VA2C2UG2, 8hA ed ~arcel of Anaheim~ CA 92805. Property described a~ a rectangul.arly- P E land consisting of appcoximately 1.05 acre~, 2230 West Lincoln Avenue. CL to the RM-1200 ar a less intensE zone. Waiver~ of minimum struct4ral setback (deleteh~'~deleted)banddmaximumesite~coveragelldeleted)~ maximum structural heig IT WAS NOTEU Tk{E FOLLOWING ACTION WA5 TAKEN AT THE B~GINNING OE THE MEETING. ACT10N: Commissioner Buuas off.ered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED thak consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of November 25, 1985, at staff's request in ordec for applicant lo submit revised plans. ITEM N0. 6 E1R NEGA'PIVE DECLARATION AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 12576 w SCHMUKAR, TRUSTEE OF AMERICAti HOME PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: DCNNIS E~. MORTGAGE, 666 Baker Street, ~263, Custa Mesa, CA 92626. AGENT: VIC PELOQUIN, 3445 E. La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806. Prapecty described as an irregularly-shaped parcel o;E land consisting of approximately 38.7 acres, having a f~ontage of approximately 3,230 feet on the nocth side of Nohl Ranch Road, approximately 30U feet northeasterly of the centerline of Old Bucket Lane. To estal~lish a 44-lot, 41-unit (RS-HS-22,000(SC) Zone single-femily subdivision. There was one pecson indicating his presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff rep~rt was not read, it i:~ referred to and made a part of the minutes. Commissioner Messe declared a conflict of interest asaaCanflictyofnInterestty Planning Com~nission Resolution No. PC76-157 adopting 11/13/85 _ ~1 _. ._. .._.... ... ~ MINUTES. ANAH~IM GITY PLANNING COMMISSION, NOVF.MBER 13, 1985 85-60Q Code fac t!~e Planning Commisa~on and Government Codo Section 3625, ek seq., in Chat he ia a tenant of the developer and pursuant to the provieions of the abovQ Codea, declared to the Chairm~in that he was withdrawing from the hearing in connection with Tentative Map of Tr~ct No. 12576, and would not take part in either the discussion or the voting th~ceon and ha~ nvt discus~ed this mAtter witl~ any member of the Planniny Commission. Thereupon Commissioner Messe left the Council ChAmber. Vic Peloqu?n, agent, was present tc an~wer any questions. Dick Morciston, representing Four Corners Pipeline Company, 5900 Cherry Avenue, Long Beach, 90805, stated they are not against thi~ narticular projec~, but do have concerns about their 16-inch high-presaure crude line goiny through a 30-foot easement which is throiagh the developmenL•. He staked it ha~ been thece since 1957 and they curr~ntly E~ump 55,000 t~ 60,QOU barrels a day through that line and the ~ressure is about 11,000 pounds per square inch. He stated tf~eir concern would be that someone would install a spa or. the rear of their property and damage their crude line and it would be a very dangerous situation and could cause contamination of the water supply, etc. He stated, ideally, they would like that if an equestrian easement is required that it could be enlarged to include their pipeline easemen~. I~e stated the develo~er feels the need to cross-vent their ea~ement through backyards with fences across it and they have no ob~ection to that as long as they have ingre~s and egress and yates large enougt~ for tt~eir equipme~t. He slated there is a potential danger with lack of. maintenance also and they patrol that line at least once a week and are concecned if Eences hide their view and they do not have access, that could be a problem. Mr. Morriston stated the developer shows as pact of their project, a portion of their fee propecty and alth~ugh it is re.latively s-nall, they would request that be removed from the development. Commissioner Fry asked the depth of the line and Mr. Morriston sfated in some places it is 12 feet deep and the requirement is for 3 feet and it was laid at 3 feet; however, they t~ave not checked it recently and with erosion, it could be less. Mr. Peloquin stated he has mst with Mr. Morriston on several occasions and they have accommodated some of hi.s concerns and one is that they do not fill aver the pipelines or use the easement for any of their subdivision; at~d also the concern about the fQe title has been dealt with. He skated this map was originally done by A1 Salavar for American Home Mortgage and that fee title was included only because the title rep~rt was incorrect and has nothing to c3o with their subdivision. He sta~ed his partner's property abuts that portion of the property and they will work it out. He stated there aze 45-foot slopes in sume of ~he areas ana thought it very unlikely that someone would go down the slope to install a spa and those lots are all more tnan 3/4 of an acre and have plenty of pad area. Mr. Peloquin stated they have discussed the equestrian trail issue with City staff and indicated the horse trails are not practical for this development at this time because Four Corners have laid tl-~eir pipes in some areas which made the tcail unusable for both horses and bikes and they will be applying for a General Plan Amendment to relor_ate that horse trail. He stated at this time 11/13/85 85-610 MZNUT~S. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CUMMIS5IUN NOVEMBER 13 19A5 indic~ted they are willing to put in the trail aA sh~wn, but will be coming before the Co~niasion at a latec time witti that iasue. CommissionEr McBurney ~tated Four Corners Pipeline ia northerlY oE this propecty and fe on a nrivate road wt~ich ~eople use for Access to their parcels. F1e atated he doubted iE someone did decide to install a spa that it w~uld affect the pipe.line any more than the trucka which~ use it now. Chairwomrzn La Claire stAted accotding to lhe tract tnap and statement of. the applicant, she did not think there would be a problem with the pipeline easement. 5he asked if tests would be done to determine the de~th. Mr. Morriston ~tated tt~at will be done and •~ormally the developer would have it done and they wi11 have an ins~ector on site. fie staked when ttie line was originally laid, they probably did not reali.ze the property would ultimately be developed for residential purpUSes, b~t having it located in backyards, could be ~ conce[n. He add~d l.rucks o£ normal weight ah~uld not be a probl~m and they are nor concerned with a hot tub, but uaing a back-hoe could be a problem and it is very dangerous because uf the pressure. He stated th~y feel it is a totally sa£e line and he would Eeel safe liv.ing in one oE thez~ lots. He staked t~is only real concern is their ability to control tha~ pi~eline. Cha~rwoman La Claire ascectained that there wi1Z be gat.es along th~ pipeline ease-nent and Mc. Peloquin stated having vehicular access on an on-going basis will not be necessary for inspections. tie stated in an ^mergency they would need to drive on the easement, but Eor regular inspecti~~s, that would not be a problem. Chairwoman La Clai~e asked t-oa ~eople buyiny these homes will know that there is an easement. Mr. Peloquin stated the title policy will show the easement and it will be impossible to liave a hol tub installed because of the restrictions included in the CC&R's. Comrtiissionec btc6urney state~ pcobably the Four Corners Pipeline can post warning stakes in the area. Commissioner Fry felt there should be deed restr~ction~ p[ohibiting solid I~,,, masonry walls in the easement areas. ACTION: Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commicsionec Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Messe absent due to a conflict of interest), L•hat the Anaheim City Planning Commission does heceby find that the proposed subdivision, together with its design and improvement, is consistent with the City of Anaheim General Plan, pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5; and does, therefore, appcove Tentative Map of Tract No. 12576 €or a ~,;. .,.,;: , 44-1~t, 91-unit RS-HS-22-000(SC? CondomYnium suYi~~i4isi'on subject to the fallowing conditions: 1. That. the owner of subjectuProsestai ng1NohlyRanchhRoadtin~thenamount a£ee for tree planting p p as determined by the City Council prior to approval of the final map. 2. That prior to final tract map approval, appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an am~unt as determined by the City Council. 11/13/85 o~- M CITY gLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 13 198 the appropc.i~te tcaffic 3. That prior to approval of the final map, of Anaheim in an aignal assessment fee Ah~h~ CityaCouncilhforieach new dwelling unit. amount as detecmined bY q. That prior to final tracr map aPproval, the ownec of subject propert•y shall pay the apPc~Priate drai.nage ag~heeCity Lngineer~he City of Anaheim in an amaunr as determined by 5. That the owner. uf subject property shallof~landc331feetfandtvaciable dedicate to lhe City of Anaheim a strip as required by the CitY Engineer in width from theure oseslinSaid the stceet along Nohl Ranch Road for s~rQCOValaofithepfinal map. dedication shall be made prior to app 6~ Ttiat the veh~$slaoin~sesshallhbe dedicatedato1theaCityCO£tAnaheim. appcoved acc P Said de~ication shall be made prior L•o approval of the fina map. requirements of the City of An~heim along Nohl 7~ That all engineering Ranch Koad, including preparation of improvement plens an~ installation of all improvements such as curb~ anavement,ssewer and sidewalks, water Eacilities, gtCeurtenantnworkdshall be complied drainage facilitiPS, or othec app with as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with specificationa on filefia bond',fcertificate of~depo iteeletter ofat security in the focm o ctedit, oe cash, in an amount and form satiuarante~ thetsatisfactory Anaheim, shall be posted with the City ~~ g shall be posted with completiori oE sald imp~uvements. Said securitY uarantee the the City prior to final tract map approval, to g installation of the a~nve-cequired improvements prior to occupancy. g, That all private streets shall be developed in accordance with the City of Anaheim's Etandard for Peralta Hills. 9. That prior to final tcact map approval, street names shal: be approved by the City Planning Uepartment. 10. ~hat tempnCary street name signs shall be installed prior to any occupancy if permanent street name signs have not been inatalled. , ublic o~ private street grades shall exceed 108 except by 1~. Zhat no p prior approva~ of the Chief of the Fire Depactment and t e Engineering Division. 12. That all lockable vehicular access gates shall be equipped with a "knox box" device to the satis£action of the Chief of Police and the City Pire Marshall. 13. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner Engineer, including approval of helght of satisfactory to the City roval of fill over the Burrell and Lakeview storm drains prior to app grading Flan. 11/13/85 MINUTF,S~ ANAHFIM CITY PLANNINC COM[_,~ISSIpN, NOVBMBER 13. 1985 BS~f12 .__._~-_.-..- 14. ThAC should this 9ubdiviaion be developed ~o more than one aubdivision, each subdivision therec+f ahall be aubmitted in tentative £ocm for approvul. 15. That str~et .lighting facilities along Nohl Ranch Road shall be inatal.led as required by the Utililies General Manager !n accordance with specification~ on tile in the Office of Utilities General Managec, and that security in the form of a bond, certiEicate of depoait, lettec oE credit, or ca~h, in ar~ amount and form satisfactu~:~ to the Gity of Anaheim, ahall be poated with the City to guarantee the sa:tefaclory completi.on oF the above-mentioned improvementa. Said aecurity shall be posted with the Ci.ty of. Anaheim pcior to £inal tcaet map approval. The at~ove••r.equired improvements shall be i.nstalled prioc to occupancy. 16. 'i'hat all lots within 'this tcact shall be served by underground utilities. 17. Thal• prior to commencement of ~tructural framing, fire hyc~ranta sha11 be installed ~nd charged as required and determined to be necessary by the Chief of the rice Department. 18. That prior to approval of the final map, primary water main fees shall be paid to the City of Anaheim, in an amoun~ as detecmined by the Office of the Utilities General Manager. 19. That pr.ior to final tract map approval, the originll documents of the covenants, conditions, and restrictions, and ~a let.L•er addressed tu the developer's title campany authorizing recordati.~n thereof, shall be submitted to the City Attorney's Office and approved by the City Attorney's Cffice and Engineeriny Division. Said documents, as approved, will then be filed and recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder. 2U. That prior to the approval oF the final map a landscape plan for subject property shall be submitted to the Planning Departmpnt for review and approval. 21. Tk~at prior to final tract map approval, the petiti~ner shall make some provision, acceptable to the City Counci.l, for landscaping and maintenanc~ of the slopes within and/or created by the develooment of this property. 22. That the location anc~ design ~f all access gates and the proposed "tu:n acound' acea shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 23. That in accordance with the requirements of Section 18.02.047 of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to the initial sale of residences in the City of Anaheim ~'.~..~r~ning Area •B•, the seller sY~all provide each buyer with written i~~cormation concerning the Anaheim General Plan and the existing zoning ~~ithin 300 feet of the boundaries oE sub7ect tract. 11/13/85 MINUTGS, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIUN, NOVF.MB~R_13, 1985 85-613 24. Tha~ prioG to appcoval of the final -~p all appliceble requirements of tho [~our Corners Pipzline Company iiall be met. Said requiroments shall include th~ placement ot lot lines, access ri.ghts to the eas~ment and home~wnera reatrictions for conatrur,tion and maintenance of fenc~a and othec atcucturea in or near the ea~ement, and further that no ~olid m~soncy block wall shall be construcked in the easement ar.ea. Bvidence of compllance with the Above ahall be submitted to and appraved by the City Engineec ~rior to appcoval of the Einal map. 25. 'rhat the owner of subject property ahall execute and record a covenant obligating the Homeownera Ae~ociation oE aubject tract to: maintain ~nd repair the hiking and ~~quesL•rian trail, ir~~emnify and hold the City of Anaheim harmless for damage~ resulting therefrom, and mai.ntain llability insurance for said trAil naming thP City as an additianal insured. The form of said covenant shall be appraved by the City Act~rney'~ oEtice and shall be recordEd concurcenily with the £inal tract map. The developer of the subject tract shall impcove and maintain the hiking and equ~strian trail as ~hown on ~he tract map, including Froviding the abo+~e speciFi~ insurance, until ~uch time a~a the Homeownerg Associatio~i becomes legally obliga~ted therefor ar~ hereinabove provided. The developer shall post a bond in an amount and form satisfac~ory to the City uf Anaheim to guacantee perEorrnanae of the deve~oper's obligations herein described. Evidence of the cequired insurance ~nd bond ~hall be submitted to and appcoved by the Cir.y Attotney'3 Office prior to approva.l of the findl tract map. K~ndra Mocries ~~resented the 10-day right o£ appeal. Commissioner Mec~e returned to the meetinq. ITEM N0. 7 F1R NEGATIVE DECI.ARATION, WAIVER_OF CODE F.EpUIREMENT ANn CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2736 P~BLIC HEARING. OWNERS: LIGHTNING EXPRESS, INC., 9I8 East Vermont Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805, ATTN: JOSEPH FARGO. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.87 acre, having a frontage of approximately 77 feet an the south side of Vermont Avenue, approximately 745 feet west of the centeiline of East Stceet, 918 Eaat Vermont Avenue. To permit automobi.~e towing, repair and an irtipound yard wikh wai~er of mini.mum number of parking spaces. Th~r~ was no one indicating thefr presence in oppu~ition Co sub;Qct request and although the staff ceport was not read, it is refer.red to ana ~nade a part of the minutes. Garison C. Knox, agent, 734 Rivecview Drive, OrangQ, and Joseph Fargo, 91d E. Vermont, Anaheim, owner, were present to answer any questions., THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOS~D. Commisaioner Herbst asked if the general public would be allowed to di.smantle cars on the praperty or wt~at types of repairs would be done on the premises. 11/13/85 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIUN NpVEMBER 13,1945 85-614 Mr. Knox explainod they plan to operate the Orange County Towing and SL•ocaqe Yard at this locetiun and the only repaic wock will be done on their own vehiclea, if necessary, and there will be no outaide rapairg to the public. Commiasionac Herbst stAted he would t~ave no proUlem with that type of use, but some storage yards would let the ~ublic come in And diomantle cars And take the parts . Mr. I(nox stated they are n~t an automobile dismantling, auCOmobile wrecking or automobile repair ope[ati~on and they wi11 tow t~nd atoce only for tho Police Depactment dnc; private ownecs. He staLed they tow Lor the highway patrol, the City oE Anaheim and the City oE Placentia, in addition to private owners. Responding to Commission~r Mcaurney, he stated they inte~d to move the gate back 21 feet and have a chain link slatted gal:e and remove the 30-fc~ot sliding qate so that they can use 1/2 or all oE the drivewAy and a vehicle bet.ng L•owed will :~e oft the street. ACTION; Commisaioner Herbst offeced ~ motiion, seconded by Commissionec Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the pcoposal lo permil• automor~ile towing, repair and an impound yard on a rectangulacly-shaped parcel of lAncl consisti.ny of. approximately U.87 acre, haviny a fronl•age of approximately 77 feet on the aouth side of Vecmont Avenue ar.d fur~*~er described a~ 918 East ~ermont A;enue; and does hereby approve the Negative Declarati.un upon f indinq that it has con~idered the Negatfve Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further Einding on the basis of the Initial Study and any com~r,ents receive~ that there is no substantial evidence that the pro ject wi11 have a significant eff~ct on the environment. It was r.oted in the staff ceport that the waiver peKtaining to the mini.mum number of parking spaces has been deleted. Commissioner Nerbat offered Resolutiun No. PC85-243 and moved for its passage and adoption that ttie Anaheim City Planning Commi~sion does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2736, in part, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sectior~s 18.03.030.030 thr.ough 18.03.030.035, denying watver of Code requirement on the basis that revised plans delete the need for said waiver pursuant to legal advertisementr and subject to th~ stipulation by the petitio~er that all repair work performed on the pre~nises will be rest[icted to the petitioner's own vehicles and subject to Interdepartmental Committee r~commendations. On roll call, the Eoregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY~ HERBST, LA CLAIR~, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT : I~ONE Malcolm Sl~ughter, Deputy City Aktorney, presented the written riyht io appeaJ. l•he P~anning Commis- :~n's decision within 22 days to the City Council. 11/13/85 MINUTBS ANAHBIM CITY NI,ANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER .13 1985 85-615 ZmF,•~ p~ g EIR NEGATIV~ DEC:4ARA'rION. WAIVER OE COQE RE UIREMENTi CONDITIONAL USE PGRMIT NO. 2734 AN~ RE U3S; N'OR SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL N0. 85-07 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNBRfi: CHURCN 0~ J~SUS CtIRIST OF LATTER DAY SAAGENT:,OLARUE North Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah 84150, ATTN: FRGD A. BAKER. F1t~Y INC., 12171 Coun~ry Laner Santa Ana, CA 92705. Property described as an irreqularly-shApe~ paccel oE land coneistiny of approxima~ely 11.13 acres, having a frontage oE approximately 1,U50 feet on the southwest side of Fairmor~k Boulevard, opproximately 260 feet southeast o£ the centerline of Canyon Hills Road• ~o permit a church with waivers of '~inimum landscaped setback, maximum structurAl height and pe:mitted satellite di~h. Request for removal of 124 s~ecimen trees. There were three peraons indic:ati.ng their presence in f.avosikionUboesubjecteS~ and thirCy eight perauns indicating their preaence in app requect and altliough the st~ff report wa~ not read, it is tefecred to and made a part oE the minutes, David Ipaon, architect, p[esented additional exhibits showing the existing designated specimen trces and propoaed trees to be added to the aite. Hp stated a lot of enginer_r.ing tests, soils te8tne and•theyehaveespent ahlotpofn and they feel it is the best ttiat could be time meeting with ata[E getking their input. ~.tated they feel the waivecg requested are consistent wi.th what has been app. ved by the Planning Commission. He referred to the additinnal 8 feet of height £oc the proposed building and stated they feel it is very Smportant in ordec foc them to usF their standard building design. He stated the tower height is necessary at 50 feet and noted othec waivars have been granted in the area to other churches; however, they are flexible on that issue; and that the sateliite request is extcemely important to the complete oPeration of the church because they do have constant need with different broadcasts, etc. and they have alceady designed a masonry scteening which they feel will make it viztually invisible and not i.ntrusive to peop~e driving down F~irmont Bo~ilevard or from any other vanta~~e point. Mr. Ipson statec3 their major cancern is traffi.c safet,y and it is one of their n~ighboes' concerns and they have spent conside[able time with the City Traffic Engi.neer and will constantly be wurking with him until they feel they have the absolutp best traffic situation on Fairu~ont. He stated there is definitely going to be an additional traffic burden on that street with this use and they are very concerned with the safety of those u~~ng the facility. [ie stated one three-lane entry on Fairmont is, at this time, the Traffic 5ngineer's best solution. He stated he concurs with the recommended conditions, except possibly the requirement for the mainten.ance of the equestrian crail and the requicement ta hold the City harmless and to provide He stated the owner will insurance, and they feel that is almost impossible~ probably not use t.hat e4uestr.ian trail and 'nas na protleta granting it to the City, but they would have a problem providing the maintenance and holding the City harmless againat someo~e else who might use the property and possibly causing harm to someone for which the City wnu.'.d be r.esponsible, and they think it would be extremely unfair for them to assume that kind af responsibility and would hope that requirement would be delell/13/85 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. NOVEMgER 13 1985 85-616 Mr. I~son added the other item oE concern wua the tree raplacement requicements, t+nd referced to tho exhiUita ~ointing out Whero ose toire~lace treea are located and the proposed tr.ees. Ne sttated they p p the treer~ o~i a rAti.o of mare than 3 to ]. and have tr.ted to enhance the He atated pro~erty rather ~t~an cleAtroy any natural beauty that may be there. staLt has suggested tt~at the trees be replaced within 60 daya and they would like that modified to ~llow 300 daya aEt~c issuance of t,uilding pe~mite to totally replace the treea, becauae after a contcactor is selected and begina work, he then has 1 year to completa the ~roject. Chairwoman La Cl.aire declared a fitteen-minute recess in order £or the petsons pcesent to review the disp~ayed exhibits. Rt;CESSED: 2:A0 p.m. RECUNV~NED: 2:55 F.m. Di~k J~nes, landacape architect, referred to Che Exhibits displayed, Pointing out ~ne shows the existing trees which will be r~mov e d and have been designated as specimen treer~ which are 8 inches in d i ameter or larger and the other pl~n showitrees exis~iny whi~h wi11 remain regardless of size and the proposed trees to be added to thc development. He s tated he thought there are 124 specimen trees to be removed and replacpd with 4 6 6 trees. ~'e stated this is an 11-acce site, 4 acres will be la.ndacaped, 3-1/ 2 acres will remaln natural, mostly at the western end- 3 acces for driv eways and parking areas, and 1/2 ac:e will occupy the building for a total of 11 acres. He stated the peo~~le atkending this church are basically Erom the community a~nd generally peopie do not travel long distances to go to their c hurch. He ~tated the parking areas closest to Fairmont are A concern to e veryone and will be heavi~y landscaped so that from the street, they will be obscured and also the satellite dish will be obscuced by the building itse lf and it is located almost in the center of the parcel and will virtuall y disappear fcom the neighboring lots. Willi.am C. Per~on, 3 231 Marywood Arive, Orange, Ecc 1 eaiastical Leader of the Anaheim c:ali£ornia Eastern Stake of the Church of J e sus Christ of the Latter Day Saints, explained there are 2500 ~~:mbers under his jurisdiction and 450 members who live in the conti.guous areas ~f the pcoposed project who wi11 attend this facility undec his leadership. He stat ed the pro~osed project exists entirely because of the desices of the membe rs of the community and they have tried to be considerate of the members wh o live in the area and the building proposed here is being built throughout So uthern Califocnia on 3.6 acres and t•his site is 11.1 acres and it will fit i nto the community; that the pcopecty has been owned by the church for 7 or 8 years with an intent to build a chapel; that they have been involved in specific planning for 1-1/2 years and typically, their church adds to the community a nd their center in Orange just received a commendation from the city for landscapir~g and their chapel in Anaheim Hi11s on Nohl Ranch Road and Royal Oak within the past two Year s received a beautification award from the City of An aheim. He stated th ey are the largest supporter of Boy Scouts of America and tihere will be 2 to 4 boy scouts troops h~used in this facility. He stated they do not run now nor do they intend to run pce-schools or such facilities in the chapel and they f~el this does meet the needs of the people in the area. 11/13/85 a5-617 MIN UTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSZON NQVEMBER 13 1985 _ Bil 1 Fink, 3110 Old eridge Road, ~tated he is a m~mber of the Old Del Georglo Pla ce liomeowners, and khought a lo~ of peo~le Hre focuaing on the remova]. uf the tcQes, but he thou~t~t the ceal point is that thi~ is A massive project foc th e area. He stated tie takea exception with the ata£f's Lindinga and ~hc rec ommendatio~ for Approval of the negative declaration because of the trnffic problem which ia exi~ting. He atated their [~omeowner's Aasociation has been working with the ~ta£f for 5 or 6 yeare ta find out what can be done about the L•raffic, particul~rly on Old Bridge RoAd, and pointed out speed and volume are th e main pcoblems. He stated the tcuffic generated by the proposed Use will imp ose an undue bucden on the atreets designed to carry the traEt`ic in ~he areat and ~t~at the r.caffic on Fairmont and Old Bridge Ro~d is a danqer nuw. He »~ate~ the church will have p~rkirig for 300 vehicles and thought that w~u1d be a noise pcoblem beeauae this is a semi-cural cesidential area already zoned to r single-family residences; and that there will be evening dances and othe~ so cial functiona, as well as datly servicea, and he wou1~9 suggest that the C~ mmission questior~ the applicant thoroughly regarding the time of usAge. Mr. ~ink stat~d the removal of specimen trees and a wooded settiny in return foc a project which does nol meet present zoning, will necessitate massive gr ading and create a large atructure not conducive to the areaj thar. a 50-foot t ower, starting from an elevated pad, will create an intrusion and there will b e a large parking lot. He noted satellite dishes are not permitl•ed in this a rea whether they car, be seen or not. M r. Fink stated he would question the applicant's initial study findinga p ertaining to; 1) whether or not this wnuld change the proposed ~isns on the 1 and, 2) whethec noi~e, duFt, fumes, vibrations or radiation during c onstcuction or after construction would be a pcoblem, 3) would there be any d eviation fcom any est~blished environmental standards pertaining to air, w ater, noise, light, ~tc., 4) would the project cr.eate a traffic hazard, 5) affect the recreational areas, and 6) whether the effects of the project on a c umulatlve basis would have significant adverse impacts on the environment. H e stated the applicant indicates the church i~ for the members of the c ommunity and noted he knows of ~ne family in the three adjacent homeowners ascociation who ace members of the ctiurch. J udy Palmieri, 945 eridge View Drive, stated her house dfrectly backs up to F airmont 6oulevard. She presented picture~ of the property for Commission's r eview and state~ she represents her community of Old Bridge which is directly affected by this project and stated they have had very little time to prepare f or today's meeting. She stated they bought their house he~e oriyinally because of the countcy~ide, the big trees, hoc~es and the blue sky and have made a lot of impro~ements. She explained she is a cub master for ~ boy scout troop for Nohl Canyon School ana skated they meet usually at her houce in the back yard. She ~+_ated she has had other community function~ there and they feel they will be deprived of something they bought into if this is approved. She statad they have horses in the area and there are historical buildings which have been preserved and the City has established hocse trails and the builders were aware of those tra~ls. She state' there is a horse trail and park on subject property and that lhe opposition is not against just the fact ~hat this wou~d be a commercial development on that site, but feel that site does not really have the capabilities for massive structures and the roads do not provide for a lot of traffic or public use of the area and it is hard for 11/13/85 g 85- I homeowners in the area to cope with a lacge parking lot £acility thAt may sarvice rnore than 300 familiQS in their reaidentiAl area. Mra. Palmieri stated tt~ece waa a fire About 3 years a9or and the people in Old ~ridge community could not 9et hoodshandimostBpeoPle~hadVtouQ~~cuateuon taothe Lraffic fcom the othe[ neighbor , She atated aince they have l~Ved 8herundersL•andsVth`erenaref51001vehicle3euandg behind her houae on raicmont and Pairmont du[~hg a 24-ho-~oadeCiShe~~statedrrhe~Cityoputfcu~ba~innonteacha~ide of ~rucka speed down that r Fairmont and made ~t even more danqerous. ~nd it is hacd to Mra. Palmie~r.i ~tated they ace aplar chcommercialefacility~d f~~ re$identia and might be changed to al].ow 9 a large imagine that their praceful ~urroundinys could be interruptedhat hac~ been building khal• was not designed for this area and a buildin9 built in sevetal other locatione an~Utla° f°~lansntooputi in treestatnaoraL•iorof neighborh~od. Shu added they were 4 tn 1 and today they hear iC will be a 3 to 1 ratio; and that they hear to~lay the petitioner i~ r.equestinq 3~0 days ~o Cepea~y and will~be under~ded this p~oject is a horrendouc project foc that proP construction for one year with heavY e9uipment using Fair.mont, and lansheaping beiny destroyed and they will have noiae and du~t for one full yeat. stated they have a church in Anaheim kii.lls alceady and rhe neighbors d~ not understand why thece is a need for another one so close. She bu~t~heyhhavere willing to compromise and do the best for ev~rY°arecwilling~to comPromise and not hea[d anything from the developer that they she did not think that is faiC. Mrs. Palmieri slated she would liie gur °~8te~he~Commissio~htakeatimeptot~tudy to voice their opposition and wou d 59 the tcaffic eituation. Sh~ stated she only had 5-days notice of this meeting and they would like more time verponeawantsatoobedsafeuwhetherOtheyrliveton study this situation because e Y Faicmont, drive on Fai[montnvironmenrtal~impactd~eP~rtdcould beFprepared S e stated they would hope an e because of the birds, plar+ts, Qtc. and bPcause thi~,is t~o preserveaand cke in Orange County and thought it would be worth figh..ing protect the rural atmosphere. James Randell, attorney with Fted Nunter's office, stated they have been asked to give some l.egal support to this issue, and one concern is the traffic because it is dangerous right now and thpy would request a 90 to 120-day morakorium to perhaps consider tnoteditheshom~ownersa acec willingttoecompromise there should be r.ompr~mises and on some of the iss~es. Palmieri presented a resolitiheckalista by tihe Old Bridge Homeowners' iation and an environmenta stated the big problem is safety with Warcen Wozniak, 7361 E. Stonecreek, tcaffic on Fairmont and statedtheeexistingttcafficeproblemcforgOlcleBri~gebeen able to come up with to solve 11/13/85 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PI.ANNING COMMTSSION,_NOVEMBER 13 1985 85-619 Roadt that the atr.eeL• ia winding, and r~pidly dcopping in elevation, wfth no lights and no sidewalks and for the lask 7 yeare they have expreased concern ovec the amount oE lraffic using O~d aridge Raud as a natucal short cut tn O.ld Santa Ana Canyon Road and to the high achool. He stated if this church is allowed, it may be able ko work out the pr.oblem wikh the traffic on Faicmont, but there are people coming down from C~n,yon Rim who use Old Bridge Road He Atated right because of the b~ttleneck at Falrmont and Old Bridge Road. now they have 5100 vehicles per day usi.ng that street and on ~undays there would~b~o a~as~aeahortccut and heldid~notmknow oftanythingptt~at couldscontrol Br idg the traftic. Mr. Wozniak added last night at the meeti.ng, the ~uestian was asked about long cange plane for the church and how thUSe plan3 woulc] af~ect the neighborhood and thece was no answer and the neighbors want to know r~ow what is going to happen in the future, !~e added the developer aGmitted there would be prublems, but it was suggested L•hosp would be the neighbor.s' pr~blems and they would have ta abaorb them. He stated Chey bought tt~eir homes for the tural a~mosphere in order to bring up their children in a relatively safe environment and L-hat iy now questionable. He stated when this propecty was originally sold, some cancern should have been expressed regarding the impact on the area and there is very little coom foc anything to be developed, other than a few homes, and asked why an established area should he made to accept a chapel consisting of 90,000 square feet of asphalt and 24,000 aquace feet of Ced tile building. He stated a project like thi~ should be put in an t~rea that is not yet developed so the people who move into an area have the option oL• moving ~here knowing the situation instead of tryin<~ to encroach intn an already established area. He stated they are asking the neighbors t~ make all the concessions. He stated in any situation when there is growth in a city, there t~as to be some give and take and in this situation, there is no long range benefit to be gained by ~he cesidpnts and they are being asked to accept it and live with it. He stated if this meeting could 1~ave been hela nosed9to/ there would have been a lot more people present who ace vehemently op. this development. Jane Miller, 6694 Paseo del Marte, Anaheim, stated she is on the oseddtofthee Broadmoor Ri.dgeview Homeowners Association and 227 people are opp project and stated they would only want sfngle-family hames on this property and noted this is a natural amphitheater with noise traveling up the canyon. Tom Strand, 6685 Ganyon Hills Road, st-ated he is president of Union Asphalt Paviny Company and has worked on Fairmont Boulevard and Canyon Hills Road and is familiar ~ith those problems. He added he has not studied the topo of the proposed facility- but with 90,000 square feet of asphalt and 20,000+ square feet of coof areas, he thought the water run-off from those areas should be considered and asked if it has been designed to go in~o an existing catch basin or down the street. He stated there could be con~ider.able erosion problems, noting the becm was i.nstalled on Fairmont Boulevard partly because of the erosion and additional water going down the street would be an additional burden. He stated yestecday he took measurements from where Old Bridge Road goes into Fairmont and that there is a small bend that goes uphill and the whole road drops very radically and traveling at the speed of 35 miles per hour cominq around the small curve, it is less than 76 feet befoce a 11/13/85 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 13 19A5 85-620 driver has t~ make a deciAion of what to do at that intersection and it ia impoasible with the grade. John Prager, 44U Ridge View Drive, Anaheim, stated hia home is approximately 350 Ceet fcom the propoaed development; that he and his wife are totally opposed to this developme~t and that some people have indicated Ehey will be wil~ing to comprom~se, but he is not willing to compcomiae the rural, aesthetic and rusl-ic character of khe canyon. He stated l•hat ~roperty can be developed a~ residPntial to keep that chAr.acter and that is what the Planning Commission and City Council have done in the past. He added it is his understanding that the Planning Commisaion and City CounciL have adopted the acenic Corridor Overlay Zone for that area and i~ the inten~ of that Overlay Zone was to protect the characCec of the canyon environment, in his judgemen~ the propoaed development of this propexty would destroy the intent of khat zune. Mr. Ptager presented a written preaentation to the City Planning Commission for their review and summarized its major points referring to the applicant's initial study and ~he Planniny De~artment's recommendation that a neyative declacation is apprnpriate for adopkion. He stated the wooded nature of that property and the wildlife that would be distur.bed by this development indicates there will be a~ignificant im~act upon the environment, therefore, as proposed, a negative declaration would not be appropciate. He stated more importantly, the California Environmental 4uality Guidelinee indicate that the public ie supposed r_o t~ave ~~ reasonable opportunity to review the initial Study an~ the proposed negativ~ declaration and notice of this hearinq was published on November 1, 1985, for the first time ~nd there have been only 6 business day~ available for people to come in to the Planning Department to find a copy of the negative declarakion and it 1.s his opinion ~hat is not a reasonable period of time. He stated in addition, a~tached to his material is f.actual material concerning the environmental check list and whether ar not the pcoject wi11 have a significant impact on the enviconment which he believes challenges and contradicts the applicant's representations which were not reptesented by the applicant, but by his architect and merely adopted by the Planning Department. Concerning the satellite dish, Mr. Prager stated the apolicant justifies his request from the Code based merely on the fact that he wants to have the satellite dish and that the applicant has a church at Nohl Ranch Road and Royal Uak Drive and that facility does not have a satellite di~h and as far as he knows no other facility in the area has a satellite dish because the Code prohibite it. He stated they have requested a waiver of minimum setback from 25 feet to 20 feet and some of their site will not be developed and asked why they need packing that close to Fairmont Boulevard just because that is what they want and stated there seems to be no substantial ~ustificatien for granting that waiver since all the other resident~al property owners had to meet the setback requirements and pointed out this property is zoned for residential uses. Concerniny the structucal height, Mr. Prager stated since the character of the community will be disturted substantially~ if this proposal is adopted, he would auggest that the ane issue important to the people is the height of the structure and the fact that this church has a pre-engineered design building 11/13/85 85-G21 MINU'i~BS ANAHEIM CI'PY ~LANNING COMMISSION NQVEMBEH 13 1985 should not be ~uatification £or disccimination against u.il the other property ownera in this vicini.ty. Concerning the cemoval oi specimen trees, he atated aince this is in the Sc~nic Corridor Overlay Zone, luetific~tion for removAl of treen requirea evidence to be ~hown to juatify the remova~ of treea ano the applicant must [eplace the trees and findings muak be made from one of three thing~ listed; (a) thal either the trees are diseased or in danger to ather healthy trees, (2) that the tree~ are in danqer of Ealling on existing or propoaed atructures and (3) thnt they are weakened by nar.ural or unnatural disaster which requires the removalt and noted that none of those three £actocs t~ave been ~resented by the Applicant. He stated the ~pplicant states the elevation of the trees interferes witli grading and buflding and that doesn't juskify the removal of the trees and he Felt if. the trees are actually removed, that would be a signifi~ant impact on the environment and he did not think the project should be approved without a full environmental impact report. Mr. Yrager state~l the trafEic icsues i~ave been brought to Ghe Planning Commission's attention and because traffic from this projecti will cause a problert~ in ;he vicinity, it appears that a mitigation measure is required, yet all the apr'.xcant propoaes is to control traffic if necessary. He st.ated if traffic on Fairmont is a~~roblem today, it will be n problem later on, a~ well, and referred to the exhibit• which s'nows only one access i:o the proposed development directly acruss the street from Old Bridge Road and asked what happens to the traffic ttying to enter or leave this develapment, pointing out E'airtnont is hilly and winding and that Fairmunt crests about 75 Eeet from that proposed intersectfon and traff.ic coming down Fairmont would have to make a left-turn into the proposed development and there would not be sufficient time foc the traffic following to be able to stop to permit lef.t-hand turns in and out of the development. He state~ traffic makinq right-hand turns onto Eairmont would be a hazard to the people coming in and out uf the development and also to people tcaveling on the street and also people who live on Old Bridge Road trying to gain access ta Fa:rmont Boulevard, which is alreacly only a two-lane road, and maybe widening it to four. lanes with a tcaffic signal at Fairmont might be a better way of controlling the traffic, and if that is the case, it should be includ~d in the conditi~ns of the conditional u~e permit. Robert Jones, 5650 Canyon Hills Road, stated the area over the years has been noted for its ppaceful serene weeke~ds and it is wonderful to be able to escape fcom the hectic evecyday liEe to those weekends and thought this development will end tho~e peaceful weeken~is. He stated the homes on all sides are xonerl RS-22,000 for low density and it is very pleasant, and this project is eimpl.y too large and tt~e lieight, because of the grade, will be 65 feet. He preoented petitions containing signatuces of about 25$ of the Canyon Hills Estate Homeownecs Association and stated they will want to add additional signatures in the future if possible. He stated he did nat understand how a conditi~nal use permit could be granted because the requirements are not being met. Greg Guilfoyle, 65~3 Via Arboles, stated his prope[ty is just south of this progerty on the hillside above and he purchased the property about 1-1/2 yeats ago and made the decisi~n to purchase after seeing the view at night with the beautiful lights and the serene sEtting and £elt t!~is proposal would eliminate that and he would have a;~arking lot beneath his property with lights on all 11/13/85 MINUTES, ANAHGIM CITY PLAtJNING COMMISSIUN, NOVEMBER 13, 1985 85-622 night and traEfic in and out evexy evening. He added he paid a premiun L•or his property Eor a cucal setting and ia concerned this project wou.ld affect hie pcoperty values. Sonja Gcewal, AUO S. Canyon Ridge Drive, sL•ated there ia already a church to be located at the eocnec of Santa Ana Cenyon Road and Fairm~~nt Boulevacd and that ahould be considered in any L•raffic studiea and that the treen cAnnak really bc rQplaced becauae some of them are 4 teet in diameter end 75 feet tall. She atated st~e did not feel there is enough civil anyineering background in the preliminacy studies to make a judgement on the safaty of the location of the building becauae it is right where a ravine is lo be filled whicti i.s an established drainage path and ahe h~e talked Go an engineer who has questioned the wisdom of the location of the building. She atated uhe felt before any deciaion i~ made, there should be a t~ydrology study and complete ~oils test because of the exiscing drainage patterns. Lennard Casey, 6683 Paseo Fiesta, Anaheim, stated I~e is in education and realizes FairmonL• eoulevard is very dangecous and pointed out there i~ one middle school in the ~rea and a church is bein~ developed on tt~e cornec with major development going on in the east area of Anaheim klills and the OrAnge Unified School Uistrict is nok going to build any new achool~s anc~ ~here are hundreda of young people attending the ychool on the east side of Fairmonk and he was concern~d about their safety. He stated busing is available, but it ir an additional expense to the pazents. Steven West, 45U Canyon Ridge, stated his property abuts to the ce~r o£ the propecties in the Broadmoor tract and he purchased his property 3 years ago. He stated he checked the zor~ing before purchasing and was pleasec] to see the 11 acres was zoned f~r residential usesF that this aite is sucrounded on 4 sides by residential homes valued at $350,000 and the owners ~~ould not have purchased their homes if they had known this was going to be developed as a large commercial structure in their back yards on an extremely curvey street which is nlready dangerous. He ~tated with additional traffic and with the possibility of the other church at the bottom of the hill, noise will b~ a problem, pointing out they can hear the noise from tt~e park in Yorba Linda which is over 1 mile away now because the noise tcavels up through the canyon. He added drainaye would be a prablem with that much a~phalt. He etated a commercial structure does not belong in an area surrounded by residential units in that price range, and that he would n4t have considered buying in this area if he had thought the zone woul~ bn changed, and that he did check the zoning befoce purchasing his property. 19r. Ipson stated typically, the heavy use of Fairm~nt is during the week days and the use of ~his facility will be on weekE~nds with ve:y little or victually no use on Mondays; and on Tuesdays throuyh Fridays there will be very light evening usage between 6 and 10 p.m. He stated on Saturday afternoons there will. be bashetball games, etc. and primarily the use will be on Sundays. He stated he feels in this cegard the church does harmonize with the peak use of the street. He added there is no pre-school or school uses proposed during the week. He stated the traffic problem is not an easy issup and the problem was not created ovpr-night and they will work with the City Traffic Engineer to design the best possible solution. He stated the plans before the Commission are a result of City input on the traffic problems. 11/13/85 MINUTES, ANAH~IM CITY PLANNING CUMMISSION. NOVEMBFR 13~__19~5 85-623 Concer.ning an environmantal impact repott, he stated thece ia highly qualified ataff in ~his City and they have th~ ability to make An assessment whether ar not an environmental impact report is necessary. fie ~dded if this ie not to be a ct~urch development, there will be a number o~ homes developed here that would have an impact on th~ environment. Respon~ing to Chairwoman La Claire, he stated L•he dtainaqe issue has been addressed by the City Engineering Department and they t~ave directed the developer to design hydrology plans and inatructed them to work closely in developing A plan of taking all the water underqround into an existing storm drain, and it will not be going onto Eairmont or adjacent propecties and they would collect aome of their neighburs' watec and all their own water and depoait it into the drainage system at ~heir own expense. Mr. Ipson stated regarding the lony range plans For the church, that normally Che church will yo int~ an area su~h as ttiis, 10 years !n advance, and tty and projPCt the growth of the member.shlp in a given area and if they feel there is a need ~or a church in t.he future, they purchnse the property and bNgin a buildiny program and it was determined 7 or 6 years ago that there would be a n~ed in this area and they purchased the property and every owner ~ubsequent to that has had an opportunity to access the tax roles and detecmine who owns the property and +~hought it would be obvious to any prosper,tive buyer that the church nwna the property and at. some t.ime in the futuce, they may want to develop it as a church. Malcolm Slaughtec stated the Planning Commission has been presented with a great deal of information this afternoon; that he doe~ not share the concerns or position af Mr. Prager pectaining to the removal of trees ir the Scenic Corridor Oveclay and the section he referred to pertained to the ser,tion where no permit is required; and that the Commission is considering an application which is coveced by a differenk section of the Code and they must make one of four different findings, other than those referred to by Mc. Prager in his letter. He stated it appeacs that satellite dishes are prohibited in the Scenic Corridor overlay Zcnc~ and a variance would be a use vaciance and not sustainable if cr,allenged. He stated while staff's initial evaluation of the enviconmental imp~~ct inf.or-nation presented seems entirely appropriate, the staff is of some opinion that based on the information presented today, the Commission would do quite well to r,onsider requiring a full environmental impact report on tt,is particular application. Mr. Ipson stated they feel in all fairness, the community needs t~ appreciate the fact that for the past 9 years churches have been approved in similar situations and he did not know whether or not they were required to provide an environmental impact ceport and the City l~as approved this use in some situations and found it can work harmoniously with the community ar~d they will cooperate with the Commission's findings and recornmendations. THE PUgLIC HEARING WA5 CLOSED. Chairwoman La Claire stated she knows this property is 2oned RS-22,000 which means single-family 1/2 acce lots, and the Commission is aware of the trafFic problem and the accident~ that have occurred, and there are some environmental problems and some impo~tant 5afety factors to be consideced and that is what 11/13/85 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMIS5ION NOVEMBER 13 1985 85-624 the environmental impact repork procesa is all about. She etated she doesn't feel there are mitigAtion meaaures that could be taken Co alleviaCe the traffic problems and this project would be introduc~ng too much burden on those ~eople who are already living ther.e and she would like to ~ee the property remain RS-22,000 or at le~s~ residential t~ give tt~e least impact to the neighbora. Commissioner Messe he does not rl~are Ct~airwomAn La Claire's opinion wholeheattedly and before a cc~nclusion is reached, he felt th~ applicant st~ould be givpn an opportuni;;y to provide an environmental. repart. Chairwoman L~ Claire stated an envir.onmental impact repott costs a lot of money and she wanted the developer to knuw shc did not think this is a proper development for L•hat residenGial neighborhood and even if an EIR is prepAred, her £eelings are that ehis is nat the kind of development thak should be al.lowed in t.hat acea. Commission~r Her.bst Hl•.ated the applicant made a remark that the perspective buyers wece able to look up the owners of that property and explained he has been on the Cortunission for more than 20 years and did not know khe church owned that ~roperty and that he still views this property as being properly zoned fot: RS-22,000 becauye it due~ abut pcopecty zoned RS-22,000, and the homes are valued at over $350,000. He stated as a land planner, kt~is pa:ticular ~roperty does not warrant an investment of this type by the church because oE the encroachment it w~uld make on the hames that have been there and he would not expect a praspec~ive buyer to check ownerstiip of property when it i.s zoned for residenlial uses. kie stated the r,onditional use permit ordinance allows churches in residential areas with approval of a conditional uae permit and that permit allnws the use to come before the City to be reviewed to see what impacC it wi.ll t~ave on the neighhorhood and if it does not fit, it is not allowed. He stated as long as Fairmont is as danqerous as it is today, with one lane o£ tcaffic each way and with the traffic problems on Old Bridge Road, he could not support additional traffic being added by this project. He stated one chuCCli has alread,y been ap~roved at th~ corner and it was not kn~wn aL the time that church was approved that this church was being proposed on thi~ ptoperty. He suggested maybe this church shAUld consider developing furthet east in Anaheim Hills which has not been completely developecl. He stated he £elt this development could affect the property values of the homes in that area ana a chucch is not conducive to that nQighborhood and even if a full environmental impac:t ceport was prepared, it would not reflect any changes. Commissioner Bouas stated the property is 11 acres and the developmznt will not be that close to any one. Commissioner Herbsk stated the plan shows Parcels 1 and 2 and asked what the plans ace for Parcel 2, with Mr. Ipson responding there is nothing planned al this time. ChaiCwoman La Claire stated there really is a problem because the road is ~~ery dangerous. Commissioner Bouas stated at this point nothing should be developed then which is what the people really want until something is done about the road. Commissioner Messe stated an accident report should be made available for that location. 11/13/85 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 13 1985 85-625 Commiasioner Fcy atated since he haa been on the Planning Commission, a church has never bec~n approved in the hill and canyon area that has been so completely and denaely aurrounded by single-family homea o£ thir~ nature and w~th a 128 yrade COAd approximately 1500 feet £rom the pc~pecL•y and unfoctunately~ is goir~~ downhill in the wrony dicection. Eie atated any development on this propecty with that kind of extreme hazard fa not ~cceptabl~ anc7 he cr~uld not r~upport this type of development for thia particular property. Chairwoman Lra Cla:lre stated she is not recommending preparatic+n of an environment~l impact repoct because r~he does not feel this itt the right development for this property and it does not Iit into the community and is not what was promised tu those people purchasing property in the area. Commisafoner Messe ~tated he wauld noC support this pro~ect today, but if the pet.itioner wants to prepare an environmental impact renort and show what mitigation measures could be taken, he would give him that opportunity. Commissioner Fcy stated he thouyht that would be an unnecessary expense. Commissionec M~BUrney stated he has personally prepaced environmental impact reports ever: thouyh not Eor a severe condition such afi this, and did not think the petiLi~ner should go to the expense of having one prepared because he did not feel the cunditions ayainst the property could be mitigated. A(:TIGN: Commissioner E'ry offeced a motion, seconded by CommissioneC Messe and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim C1ty P~3nning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit a church with waivers of minimum landscaped setback, maxi.mum structucal setback and permitted satellite dish on ari irregularly-shaped parce.l oE land consisting of approximately 11.13 acres, having a Lrontage of appcoximately 1,050 feet on thP southwest side of Fairmont Boulevard- approximatp.ly 260 feet southwest of the centerline of Canyan Hills Road; and does hereby disapprove L•he Negative Declaration from the requicement to prepare an environmental impact report on the basis that there would be signi.Ficant individuai or cu~ulative adverse environmPntal impacts involved in this proposal; and that an environmental impact report would be cequired prior to approval of this project. Flalcolm Slaughter stated the applicant could request a c~ntinuance in order to consider an environmental impact report or revision cf plans, if he so desires. Mr. Perron explained it would be their desire to withdraw khe applic~tion since it appears the project will not be approved. ACTION: Commissioner tlerbst oLEered a r~otion, secunded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby accept the petftioner's request to withd[aw Conditional Use Permit No. 2739. Chairwaman La Claire thanked everyone for attending the meeting and explained night meetings are not scheduled as a rule due to the lengkh uf the meetings. Commissi.~ner Fry complimented those people present in opposition for being the be~t-behaved opponer.ts he }~as : een. 11/13/85 MINUT~S. A~ NAHEIM CITY PJ~ANNING COMMISSION. NuVFM~ER 13, 1985 85-626 RECESSEU: 4:20 p.m. RECONVGNED: 4:30 p.m. ITEM N0. 9 EiR NEGATI'JE UCCI.ARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3521 PUBLIC HEARING. OWN~RS: MAkTIN LUTHER HOSPITAL M~UICAI. C~NTER~ 1830 W. Romneya Urive, Anaheim, CA 92801 AND PARRY PROFESSIONAL dUILDINC, GIMITED, 1801 W. R~mneya Drive, M6U21, An~heim, CA 92801, ATTN: NANCY PARRX, M.D. a managing gpneral p~rtner. Property described as a recLangulacly-shaped parcel of land consi~ting of approximakely 5 acres, located north and east oE the noctheast corner of Romneya Drive and Coronet Avenue, 1801 West Romneya Drive. Ttiere was no one indicating their presence in opposition to rubject request and although the stafE report wa~ not read, it is r.eferred to and made a part of the minutes. Bhrouge Ehdaie, architec~, and Janet Parr~.~, agent, were present to answer any questions. THE PUBLIC HEAkING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Messe question~d the signs on the slte advertising leasii~g since the Qarking study indicated the site is 1008 leased. Janet Parry, vice president of Parry Development Company, explained there is about 85A squ~~re feet to be leased. ACTION: Commissioner McBurney offered a mol•ion, seconde~ by Commissioner Bouas and MOTIAN CARRIED that the Anat~eim City Planning Commission has reviewed ':he proposal to construct a one-~tory autpatient surgical far.ility with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces on a rectangularly-sheped parcel of land consisting of appreximately fiv~ acres located north and east of the northeast corner of ~omneya Drive and ~oronet Avenue; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has conaidered the Negative Declaration together with any comme~ts received ducing l•he public review proce~s 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 significant effect on the environment. Commissioner McBurney offered Resolution No. PCR5-244 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby yrant Variance No. 3521 on tl~e basis thar the parking waiver will not cause an increase in traffic congestion in the immcdiate vicinity nor adversely affect any adjoining land uses and granting of the parking waiver under the conditions imposed, if any, will noL• be ~etrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City oE Anat-eim and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the ~ollowi~~g vote: AYES: BOUAS~ FRY, HERBST~ LA CLAIRE~ 1,AWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Malcolm Slaughker, Leputy City Attorney, presei ~u ctie w:.:~ •~n right to appeal the Planning Commission's Uecision within 22 da:; t:o *h^ City ~ouncil. MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, NOVEMB~R_13, 1985 ~ 85v627, IT~M N0. 10 EIR CATFGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 5 AND VARIANCE N0. 3520 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: WILBF.RT KAY St41Tt1 ANU LOIS SMITFI~ R29 Httl] iday Street, Anaheim, CA 92604. A~ENm: SUN BOSS CURP., 1155 Staay Ct., Riverside, CA 92507, AT'PN: JUHN KAIN. ;roperty ia described as a rect~nqularly~~haped pdreel of land consiating of approximately 7,200 ayuare feet, 424 Halliday S~reet. 'Waiver of rninimum reac y~r.d se~.back to conaCruct an encloaed patio addition. There was rio one indicating their prer~ence in opposition to subject ~eyu~st an~i although the ataEf ceport wag not read, it is refer.red I.u ~~ricl madA a part of .:I~e minutes. Uavid Kain, agent, was present to answer any questions. 'PH~ PUHLIC N~ARING WAS CLUSED. It was noL•ed the i~lanning llirector oc his authorized representative has determined tt~at the proposed project fal.ls within the d~~finition of Categorical Lxemptions, Claas 5, as deEined in tt~e State Environmental Impact Report Guideline:~ and is, therefora, categurically exempt f.rom the requirement to prepare an EIR. ACTIUN: Commiasioner Fierbst offered Reaolution No. ~C85-245 and moved for its passage and ~doption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby gran~ Variance ::o. 352U on the basis that there are special cfrcumstances applicable to the property auch as size, shape, ~opograpi~y, location and surroundings which da not apply to other identically zoned property in the sam~ vicinity; and that str~ict applfcation of the Zoning Code deprivea the property of nrivilegea enjoyed by other properties in the identiral zone and classification in the vicinity and subject to Interdepartmental Ccmmittee recominendations. Un roll call, the foregoing resoJution was passpd by the tollowfng vote: AYES: BUUAS, FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSR NOES: NC~NE ABSENZ': NONE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal thE Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. LTEM NO. 11 EIR NEGATIVF DECGARATION RECLASSIFICATION NO. 85-86-13 AND VAkIANCE N0. 3517 PUBLZC HEARINC. OWNFRS: ANAHEIM HILLS DEVk;1,UPMENT CORP., c/o THE GUNSTUt~ HALL COMPANY, INC., 6507 Serrano Ave., Suite B, Anaheim, ~A 92807, ATTN: GEORGE P. MASON, JR. AG°NT: CHAPARAL DEVELOPMENT, INC., 2194]. Herencia, Mission Viejo, CA 92692, ATTN: RICHARD N. I~UDSON. Property is a~andlockpd, irregularly-shaped parce: of land conaisting af approximately 3.35 acres located appcoxim~tel.y 600 feet east of the centerline of 'tmperial Highway, appraximately 280 feet south of the south~cly terminus of Frontier Court, and immediately northeaet of the Southern California Edison Cornpany easement. 11/13/85 MINUT~S ANANCIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION NOVFMBF:R 13 1985 85-G28 RS-NS-A3,U00(SC) to RM-3000(6C) ur a less int~ns~ zone. Waivern of maximum atrucLucal height and minimum lAndscaped setback to construct a 2-story, 16-unit condominium subdivieion. IT WAS NUTED TNE EOLLOWING ACTTON WAS TAKEN AT Tl1F BEGINNING OE TNE MGETINC. ACTION: Commissioner ~ouas otfered a motion, ~econded by r.ommissionec T~awicki and MOTION CARkIBU that conaideration oE the nEoremenGioned matter be continued to the regular.ly-scheduled meeting of November 25, 1985, at the petitioner'8 requeat in order to readvertiae ~n additional waiver. ITEM N0. 12 ESR N£GATIVE DE~I,ARA'PION WAIV~R OF COUE_R~UIRF.M~NT ANU CONAITIONAI. Uf;E PERMIT N0. 2735 PUaLIC HEAFtiNG. UWNEkS: LEUERER-ANAHFIM, LTU., 1990 Westwood Doulevard, Third E'l~or, Los Angeles, CA 90U25-4614, A'PTN: UES E. 1~EDERER. AGENT: MICHAEL h'1tAZ1EFt 6 ASSOC., 47i2 Tucana, Yorba Ginda, CA 92686, AT~PN: MICHAF:T. FRAZIER. Pcoperty is desccibed as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approxiinately 12 acres, loca~ed north and ~~ast of the northeast cocner of Cerritos Avenue and Anaheim Boulevard, 333 East Cerritos Avenue (Vtneyard Ct~cistian Fellow~hip). There was no ane indicatiny theic presence in opposition to subject ~'P.QUP.St and although the stafL repoct was not read, it is referred to and macle a part of the minutes. Mi.chael Frazier, agent, explained this chur.ch has been in operation at this location For two years and this request is for expansion of that use. Z~HE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLUuED. Respanding to Commissioner McBUrney regarding the recommended conditions, Mr. Pra2ler stated they are submitting a request to the City Engineer for a waiver of the sidewalk requirement, and that he understands the Traffic Engineer wante one driveway on eaGh stceet closed and that they would have no problem with the closure of the one on Anaheim Boulevar.d; that ~urcently they have 10 people acting as parking attendants who are staff inembers of the church, supervised by a qualified traffic supecinkendant, and they di.rect parking for the services. He explained L•he attendants would probably be on duty 45 minutes before the first service at 0:45 a.m. and that they would request not to be required to ciose any of the driveways on Cerritos because ~.hey do have control with the parking atL•endants. He stated some of the attendants would be on duky at all times on the lot. Commisaioner McBurney suggested temporariiy closing the middle driveway with chains on Cecritos to see how the traffic f].ows. Responding to Commissionec Herbst, Pastor Sam Thompson, 21:7 S. Della Lane, Aneheim, stateJ they have a 5-year lease which has cun for 2 years and 5 months and the new lease will run concurrently with the existing main lease for approximately 2 years and 7 r~onths and they have two 2-1/2 year options beyond that main tease date. 11/13/65 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION NOVGMBER 13 1985 85-629 Commiesioner Herbst atatQd the Tcaffic Engineer ie very concerned abuut the traffic, not pucticuldcly on the propcrty iteElf, but on the City stceQta and he thought wlth the longth of the lea$e and the number of peo~le attending the services, closing the driveway is very im~ortant and a necea~i.ty Comm~ssioner Fry stated because of the people r,oming in at the same tirtie people are trying ta leave, instead of the people egressing at~cking up on the p[opecty itaelf, those trying to gek in will be sLacktng up on the City atrect waiting to gel in this same d:ivewAy and Chougtit that would create moce of a hAxard and he would be not be in favor of cloaing t:he driveweeo le innandhout situation and did not think it is possible to get tl~at many p P of the same driveway. Dan Shiada, Assistant Tratfic rngineer, atated the pl~na show four driveways on Cerritos and f.our driveways on Anaheim Boulevard and he thougt~t it would not be that inconvenient to have 3 driveways on each major street. Pastor Thompaon stated there a[e only 3 drivewaya on Cerrit~s an~ closing one wou.lc9 be a traffic hardship. Chairwoman i.a Claire suggested clos:ng one drivewey on Cerritos temporarily with chains to see how it tvorks and Pastoc Thompson stated they wi11 be glad to try it, but it will be a hardship because Pacific Stereo h3s a retail operation open on Sunday and the easiest one Eor th~m to close would be the one the people use for Pacific Stereo. He stated if they close the second driveway on Cerritos, it would be a hardship becauae it has the right size openings and c~rbs and is ni.ce for them to use during the week. Commissi~ner Fry suggested leaving it the way it is since it has been in operation for two years without majoc problems and noted they only have ~wo years to go on this lease and if there is a problem created, the permit could be changed at tl~at time. Chairwuman La Claire suggested lea~•ing it u~ l•o the ~rafEic Engineer. ACTIONN: Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Gommissioner Mcaurney an~ MOTION CARRTED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the ~ruposal to permit the expansion ..x a church in the ML (I~dustrial, Limited) Zone with waiver of minimum numbEr ~f parking spaces on an irregularly-shaped pa~cel of land consisting of approximately 12 acces located north and east of the northeast corner of Ceccitos Avenue and further described as 333 E. Cerritos Avenue (Viney~rd Christain Fellowship); and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon f9nding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on tt-e basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no ~ubstantial evidence that the project wi11 have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Fry ofEered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION C~RRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Cornmission sloes hereby grant waiver of Code requirement on the basia that the parkiny waiver will not ca~se an increase in traffic congesticn in the immediat~ vicinity nor adversely affect any adjoining land u~es and granting of the parking waiver under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, sa~ety and general welfa:e of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. 11/13/85 MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING CUMMISSION, NOVBMBER 13~ 1985__ H5-630 Commissioner Fry offered Reaolution No. PC85-246 and m~ved foc its paesage and adoption that the Anaheim CiCy Planning Commiseion doe~ heceby grant Conditional Uae Permit No. 2735 for a period of 2-1/2 yeara to expirc on August 1, 19@8, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal C~de Secrions 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 and ~ubject l•o Interdepartmentol Cammittee cecommendations, includiny the condition that the driveways be approved by ~he City Traffic Engineer. On ro11 call, the foreyoing resolution was pasaed by the £ollowing vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY~ HERBST, LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI, MC BURNEY~ MESS E NOES: NONB ABSEN'P: NONE Prior to voting on the ~bove resolutio~, the petitioner asked if C ondition No. 6 aould be deleted requlring the payment of tcaffic aignel assessment fees. Annika Santalahti, A~rsi3tant UirecLor foc zoning, explained that is ~art of the City Code and cannot be deleted and they will be required to ~+ay the difference only on the converted portion for the additional squar e footage. Malcolm slauyhter, peputy City Attorney, preaented thP written right to appeal the Pl~nning Commission's decision wir.hin 22 days to the City Cauncil. ITEM NU. 13 REPURTS AND RECUMMEtJDATIONS: A. RECLASSIFICATION N0. 82-83-14 - Request from Jules Swimmec, Pi e[co Development, Inc. for an extension of time for Reclassification No. 82-~3-14, property located at 522 West Vermont Avenue. ACTIUN: Commissioner FLy offered a motion, ~econded by Commissioner McBurney that the Ana~eim City Planning Commission does hereby grant a two-year extension of time (one year retcoactive) for Reclassification No. 82-83-14, ~o expire on ,lanuary 10, 1987. Commissioner Hecbst leEt the meeting. B. RECLASSIFICATION N0. 84-85-4 - Request from Planning Commission secretary f~r a nunc pco tunc resolution amending Resolution No. PC85-22, pertaining to Condition No. 1. ACTION: Commissioner Fry offered Recolution yo. PC85-247 and moved for i~s passage and adoption that the Anahefm City Planniny ~ommission does hereby grant a nunc pro tunc in connection with Reclassification No. 84-85-4. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the f ollowing vote: AY£S: BOUAS, FRY, LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI, MC BURNBY~ MESSE NOES : NOt~E ABSENT: HERBST 1t/13/85 MINUT ES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMM':5&ION, NOVEMBER 13. 1985 85-631 ADJOU RNMENT: Commissionet Fry offered a motion, u«-~onded by C~mmissioner Bouas (Commieaioner Herbot absent) that the meeting be ad~ourned. The meeting was adjourned ak 4:55 p.m. Rea ctfully su4mitt d, Ed1`C~[tls 5e re ary Anaheim City Planning Commission ELH : lm 0151m 11/13/85