Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Minutes-PC 1987/08/31
/~ REGULAR ME~;TING OE THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MINU'PES - August 31, 1987 The regular me~:ting of the Anaheim City Planning commission was called to order by Chairman Mesiae at 10:00 a. m., August 31, 1987, :n tine Council Chamber, a quorum being present. The rornrnission reviewed plans of the items on today's agenda. RECESS: 11:30 a.m. RECONVBNF.D: 1:32 p. m. PRESENT: ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: Chairman: Messe Commissioners: E3ouas, t3oydatun, Carusillo, Feldhaus, Herbst, McRurn~y Commissioners: None Annika Santalahti Joel Fick Malcolm 5l augtiter Jay Titus Paul Finger Debbie I~'ank Debbie Vagts Mary McCloskey Leonard McGhee John Poole Doug Faulkner Edith Harris Zoning Administrator Planniny Director Deputy City Attorney Office Engineer 'Prat. f is Enginee r Assistant Traffic Engineer Leasing Supervisor Senior Planner Associate Planner Code Enforcement Supervisor Assistant Planner Commission Secretary PRESENTATION: Chairman Messe thanked the following former Planning Commissioners for their various number of years of service o n the Planning Commission on behalf of the City of Anaheim Planning Department and the Planning Cornmissiorr. Chairman Messe stated the Commissioners all worked diligently in their duties and have given many hours of service to the City and to the citizens of Anaheim. Leonard Lawicki 2 years Glenn Fry 8 years Charlene La Claire 1'L years RECOGNI'PION OF AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION STATE HONOR: Chairman Messe congratulated Commissioner Lewis Herbst for being honored recently by the California Chapter of the American Planning Association at their conference in San Diego as one of 17 winners in a state-wide contest recognizing excellence in tt~e field of Planniny for his consistent outstanding leadership in Planning and service to the community of AnGh eim with 22 years on the Planning Commission, from 1965 t.o press ~OO16m 87-585 8/31/87 . ~~ N 1H .IM COY PLA.N~ING COlR4~S3.4N.._..AUStI~LS~ ~~--~9.~--_---.-..-.-.~~_-5_@.4 ~GEt7UA PO&T ISIS: - A complete copy of the Planning Corraair~sion agenda was posted at 9t45 a.m., August end also/inntheeoutsides displaysKioskated in the foyer of the Council Chamber, FUflL~..~~_ - Chairman Messe explained at the end of the agenda any member of the public woOfdthe PlanningtCommission~normany agendanitemst within the jurisdiction ~L~._N_4.1--~. ~?$-•N~Sza~~~~.1E~1~.R~~.9~~.g•-~--C`Q.P~.ii~.4LL~IiEMENT AND ~Q~p~9NAI,~USE ~~~1~N.~---~~? PUBLIC HEARING. OW7,16RSt THRIFTY OIL COMPANY, 10000 Lakewood B1vdAnahoimeyCA CA 90240. AGENTS TAIT & ASSOCIATES, INC., 900 Orangefair Lane, 92803. Property des3r~cre,alocatedtatgthernorthwest corner of SouthcStreeting of approximately 0.4 and East Street, 727 Sottth East Street. To permit a convenience market with gasoline 3a1es and off-Sala hoer and wine with waivers of (a) maximum number of small car spaces and (b) minimum landscape area. Continued from the meetings of August 3 and 17, 1987. It was noted the petitioner has requested a contin~xance to the September 14, 1987, meeting. Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissiont:~ '.ierbst ACT I 0~1 and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter e continued to r'.e regularly-scheduled meeting of September 14, 1987, at the request of the Uetitioner; and since this project has been continued several times, if the plans are not ready for presentation at the September 14th meeting, the petitioner should withdraw the application. ITEM N~2 E R E~ATIVE DE(:LAR~TION, E~SSIFICATI~1 NO 87-88-01, WAIVER F ~ DE RE IjIREME:IT, C4~~.~-y-APE-~tMI,~ N0. 2920 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: I-HSIUNG RUO AND SCHUCHIH LIAO KUO, 10650 E1 Toro Avenue, Fountain Valley, CA 92708. AGENT: ANH5IUNG HENRY HSU, 15761 Pasadena, Tustin, CA 92680. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of apnr.oximately 0.81 acre, 1556 West Katella Avenue. RS-A-43,000 (Residential, Single-Family/Agricultural) zone to the CL (Commercial, Limited) or a less intense zone. To permit a two-story, 50-unit motel with waivers of maximum structural height, maximum fence height and minimum number of parking spaces. Continued from the meetings o: July 6, August 3 and August 17, 1987. It was noted the petitioner has requested a continuance to the September 14, 1987, meeting in order to submit revised plans. 8/31/$7 -;LBJ~iKAJd.S1~.~.1:J.~..Jt~~~M~SL..S,3C1tl:lhliJLiYh7.-t~SLYvu ~...~ i.Z.Y.l- _.-- .~-5t1--=~Y1. Cynthia Brooks stated she has been to the so meAtings four times and did not think that is reasonable, and asked how many morn times the petitioner car- request a continuance. She added she also has a petition signed by other people fn the neighborhood who could not be present. Chairman Meese stated the Commission wou 1 d also request that the petitioner withdraw his request if the plane are not ready for the next mooting. g~QNt Commissioner Boaas offered a mo tion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney acid MOTIOIi CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled mee tang of September. 14, 1987, at the request of the petitioners and that the position be withdrawn if plans are not ready for the meeting. Commissioner Herbst suggested the neighbors should call the Planning Department before attending L•he meeting to make sure the mntsor w.jll b© scheduled. William Lamb, 1356 Nottingham, stated he has been here four same s ko discuss this project and it has always been continued. Chairman Messe stated the request for a continuance has been granted in this case and the apposition should call the Planning Department to find out if it is going to be heard on that date. He stated the Commission wi 11 ask the petisioner to withdraw the request if revised plans are not submitted in time for the September 19th meeting. Malcolm Slaughter, Uoputy City Attorney. stated the Commission should request staff to notify these petitioners of the Commission's suggessions, STEM 170. 3. FIR NEGATIVE LE~~ATIgii AND~,ENERAL PLAN ~t?D~.,,F~l.~ NQ,_?~Q. PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: THOMAS P. WALKER, RIDO INVESTMENTS, SIXPENCE INNS OF AMERICA, INC. c/o THOMAS WALKER 2855 C Coast Highway, Corona Del Mar, CA 92625. AGENT: DAVID GUNDERMAN, 17782 Sky Park Blvd., Irvine, C A 92714. Property described as seven parcels to t sling approximately 7.7 acres located on the east side of State College Boule!yard from the 91 Freeway to approximately 600 feet north of the in t ersection of State college Boulevard and Via Burton Street. To consider an amendment to the Land U s e Element of the General Plan, proposing redesignation from General Industrial to General Commercial. Continued from the meeting of August 1 7, 1987. There was one person indicating his presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Leonard McGhee, Associate Planner, pre sented the staff report and stated this matter was continued in order to include additional properties in the study ar©.~ and that those property owners we re notified of this hearing. He stated the study area consists of 7 parcels totaling approximately 7.7 acres located on the east side of State College Bou 1 evard from the 91 Freeway to 8/31/87 .rs '#r MINUTES,_~,N~f~~~L_C,iTY~&$~I3IN_~~~hl~~I4N,._.$USzIZST~.]~..._~.2~7____ __________~Z_~@@ approximately 600 feet north of the intersection of State College Boulevard and Via Burton. He explained the properties north of Via Burton are developed with a computer store, a light fixture store and 2 furniture stores and properties to the south of Via Burton are developed with a restaurant, a motel and a warehouse and the area is currently zoned ML and the current General Plan designation i.s General, Industrial. Ho stated the applicant's request is for a designation of General, Commercial which is intended to provide for an orderly development of a wide variety of commercial uses such as rhopping canters and small businesses and could be implemented by the CL, CG and CH Zones with CL. being the most common and an alternative has been requested in order to construct a multi-tenant commercial development. Terry Knudson, Bryan Properties, 146 E. Orangethorpe, stated they are very concerned about the addition of their property in this General Plan Amendment and pointed out t..^v own properties at 1536, 1540 and 1542 North State College. He stated the property mentioned in the request has a 21,600-square foot building built in 1973, and is well maintained with 62 parking spaces which have always been more than adequate. He stated the proposed amendment to change the designation from industrial to commercial would adversely impact this property; and that it has been used for commercial warehousing and assembly and this amendment would change the parking requirements drastically, and they could not be met without substantially cutting down the size of the building. He stated they would urge the Commission not to change the zoning. He stated the property is being used for industrial purposes and the home f•arnishing uses are incidental and are allowed in the industrial zone and there has never been an impact on L-he property. He stated this is not a commercial business and should not be included, Chairman Messe pointed out this would not be changing the zone at the present time. Mr. Knudson stated he understands, but by changing the General Plan, the zoning would have to be changed soon and that would have a serious impact on their property and they do not want that to happen. Commissioner Boydstun asked what types of businesses are located in their buildings. Mr. Knudson responded they have a warehouse, and Al's Woodcraft which is a distributor of unfinished furniture, and businesses with offices and a show room, warehouse and distribution of computers, and a bar stool warehouse. Responding to Commissioner Boydstun he explained Al's Woodcraft has been there since 1980 and they have a 3--year lease, and all the businesses have 3-year leases which are usually renewed. Thomas Walker stated he personally visited this area yesterday and three businessmen were open for business; and he took pictures of them. He stated he went in and they quoted him prices, and they were open on Sundays for business, so it is difficult for him to believe they are industrially-related or warehouse-type uses. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Responding to Commissioner Bouas, Mr. Knudson stated these uses have previously approved conditional use permits. 8/31/87 MINUTES, A~~..~~.T~PLANNING COMh1ISS.,~.q21.,r1~1J.~lLS.T~3,,.._.1..9~1__......._.__._~~.....~Z.S_$2 Commissioner Bouas questioned how these furniture-related uses could bo considereC~ industrially related, and how many businesses would use bar stools in thou business. Mr. Knudson stated these uses are compatible with the industrial zone. Commissioner Bouas stated those uses are there with conditional use permits which wore approved because there wore supposed to be doing some assembling or something else was going on. Mr. Knudson responded the bar stools are allowed there because the operation is considered a warehouse, Commissioner Bouas stated they do sell to the public, so it is really a retail use. Chairman Messe stated since these buildings were put in, Stare College Boulevard has changed and is a heavily-traveled street and these are industrial properties being used for commercial purposes and the Commission is trying to bring them into conformance with the General Plan and there is no intent to change any of the zoning. Mr. Knudson responded their concern is the impact if the General Plan is changed and the legal consequences of having a General Plan and then not changing the zoning fairly soon. Malcolm Slaughter, DepuL•y City Attorney, stated that law relates to general law cities and to his lcnowledge, the theory that the zoning must conform to the General Plan does not apply to s Charter Cfty, such as Anaheim, and there is no intonti.on of changing the zoning because of the General Plan Amendment. Mr. Knudson stated he still does not think the General Plan Amendment is necessary. Commissioner Herbst stated he was the one who had suggested this change to include the entire area; that he goes by that area every day and he has been in those places of business and they are purely commercial. He stated conditional use permits were granted because it was felt they would not impact the industrial area. He stated if the General Plan Amendment is approved, the buildings will remain and the conditional use permits would still ba valid until the owner changes the use. He stated he is in favor of bringing the General Plan into conformance with what is there and since those businesses are commercial, that is what the Gecieral Plan should show. Commissioner McBurney asked the traffic count on State College Boulevard. Debbie Fank, Assistant Traffic Engineer, stated she thought the count was around 20,000 vehicle trips per day. Commissioner McBurney stated the traffic count differences are astronomical, but he felt changing this would affect the west side of State Collage eventually because those property owners would want to go commercial and he felt by leaving it as is, the Commission would have a handle on controlling the traffic through the approval of conditional use permits. He stated he felt this would open up that area and a lot of uses could than go in without the approval of a conditional use permit. He added he is concerned about the traffic. Commissioner Herbst stated only one business would be affected across the street because ever 31se is already commercial. Leonard McGhee stated ~ ML Zone allows a certain amount and type of commercial uses, if they nre found not to adversely affect the industrial area or cause a traffic problem and all the commercial uses were allowed after 8/31/87 hl~N1I~F,G. ANAHEIM CITY PLApNIN C_ C0 I SIQ 1~,.~, A GUST 3l, ly@Z_ 87-59Q those determinations were mado, and that Code door allow commercial uses in a non-commercial zone, subject to the approval of the Planning Commission and/ or City Council. ACTIO,~s Chairman Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Feldhaus and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to amend the General Plan Land Use ELement to consider an alternate proposal of land use from the current General, Industrial designation to the General, Commercial designation in a study area consisting of seven parcels having a total area of approximately 7.7 acres located on the east side of State College Boulevard from the 91 Freeway to approximately 600 feet north of the intersection of State College Boulevard and Via Burton Street; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the publir. review 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 significant effect on the environment. Chairman Messe offered Resolution No. PC87-165 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby adopt and recommend adoption of the General Plan Amendment No. 230, Exhibit A redesignating the property from General Industrial to General Commercial. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the L•ollowing votes AYESs BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC GURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Chairman Messe offered a motion, seconded by Conunissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that tiie Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby request that the City Council review the Reclassification No. 87-88-05 in conjunction with General Plan Amendment No. 230. Malcolm Slatghter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Pl~~ning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0, 4 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND RECLASSIFICATION N~ 87_~~ PUBLIC HEARIi1G. OWNERS: THOMAS P. WALKER, et al., 2855 E. Coast Highway, Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 and SIXPENCE INNS OF AMERICA, INC., 2020 Via Burton, Anaheim, CA 92805 ATTN: DONALD E. SODARO, President. AGENT: ROBERT C. SUNDSTROM, 17782 Sky Park Blvd, Irvine, CA 92714. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 2.2 acres located at the southeast corner of Via Burton Street and State College Boulevard and further described as 2020 East Via Burton Street (Sixpence Inn Motel), 1420 N. State College Boulevard (Danny's) and 1440 N. State College Boulevard (vacant). ML to CL or a less intense zone. Continued from the meeting of August 17, 1987. 8!31/87 ~~jJT •S. AI~A_t'~E1M_S,~Ty PLANNING CO ISSIONt.~~S'tt~S~--~-~. 7-~` There was no one indicating their presence in opposition t.o subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred L•o and made n part of the minutes. Thomas Walker, petitioner, referred to Condition No. 1 requiring the driveway to have 10-foot radius curb returns. He stated there are four driveways now and they are required to remove two and pointed out they would construct the other two driveways within 90 to 120 days when they construct the building. He stated he would be happy to post a bond to insure that they would be doing the improvements at the proper time. He asked about Condition No. 3, which refers to the trash storage areas and stated the restaurant and motel have trash storage areas. Comrissioner Feldhaus pointed out if they have complied with the condition, thon they would not be required to put in another trash storage area. Mr. Walker referred to Condition No. 4 and explained the two properties have the same owner and he did not know how they could have a reciprocal access agreement with themselves. Ho pointed out Condition No. 5 requires approval of General Plan Amendment No. 230 and that has just been recommended for approval. He pointed out they are also required to do the concrete work before they are granted the zoning. TFIE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Debbie Fank, Assistant Traffic Engineer, pointed out the 10-foot radius curb returns for the driveways would have to be clone prior to occupancy of any new buildings or within 1 year, but it does not have to be done right away. Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, pointed out the zoning is not commercial at this time and the way this condition is worded, it would require improvements prior to rezoning and the petitioner is requesting that they not be required to place improvements on the property until they get the building permits and he would recommend that per*_ion of the condition be deleted. Mr. Slaughter explained Condition No. 5 says this reclassification is granted subject to the approval of General Plan Amendment No. 230 and that technically speaking, if the City Council were to adopt only a portion of the General Plan Amendment, then this condition ~.auld not be complied with and he would suggest it be modified to read that reclassification of subject property is granted subject to the property being placed in the General, Commercial designation on the General Plan, rather than it being tied to the entire General Amendment. Mr. Walker stated he has several people interested in developing this groperty, but he could not tell them v;hat tha zoning is. Chairman Messe pointed out there is a 22-day appeal period on the Planning Commission's action. TI N: Comtnissionsr Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to reclassify subject property from the ML (Industrial, Limited) to the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of. approximately 2.2 acres located at the southeast8%31%87 of Via M~ TES ANA~~CITY PL.ji,NNING COMMISSION. ,,~JGUST 31~_ ly$7 _.`.8Z_.59_~ Burton SL•reet and State College Boulevard and further described as 2020 EasC Via Burton Street, 1420 North State College Boulevard and 1440 North State College; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of tha IniL•ial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Malcolm Slaughter suggested Condition No. 6 be modified by deleting the reference to Condition No. hand that a new condition be added that Condition No. 1 be complie•~] with prior to occupancy and that a bond be posted prior to introduction of the ordinance rezoning the property. Concerning Condition No. 4, Mr. Slaughter suggested it be modified to require that a document be recorded agreeing to reserve easements in the event of the sale of either property. Commissioner Bouas offered Resolution No. PC87-166 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Reclassification No. 87-88-05 subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations with Condition No. 5 being modified to read: "That this reclassification is granted subject to the property being placed in the General, Commercial designation of t2ie General Plan", and Condition No. 1 modified to require the proper radius of the driveway prior to occupancy of any new buildings; and Condition No. 6 modified by the deletion of reference to Condition No. 1. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC GURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right, to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N,Q~_~ EIR NEGATIVE DE~LARATIQ~I WA VEit~F CODE REQUIREME t~T AND CQNDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2936 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: JOSE VALDIVIA AND BONNIE VALDIVIA, 1075 N. Harbor Blvd., Anaheim, CA. AGENT: RUDY VALDIVIA, 2910 N. Grand, Santa Ana, CA 927J6. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.68 acre, 1095 North Harbor Boulevard (Specialized Auto Repair). To retain an auto repair facility with waivers of (a) minimum number of parking spaces, (b) maximum number of compact stalls. Continued from the meeting of August 17, 1987. Olan Hayes, applicant, was present and Chairman Messe pointed out that Denis Craig, adjacent property owner to the south, has requesr.ed this matter not be heard until after 4:00 p.m. and asked if that would be acceptable to Mr. Hayes. Mr. Hayes pointed out he had a doctor's appointment and would probably 8/31/87 HE~L~ZTY P_(~I3IdSz~OMMTSS_I~_A~u,~T 31.~,LQB] 8_7_:~t2.3 be back by 4:30 p.m. Chairman Messe gave Mr. Hayes a copy of tho letter of opposition from Mr. Craig. There was one person indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. gg~QwING THE~F~E.SS__,.~T_ 535 p,M_u_CS2~~~.Qd._RF_~~I.l1NE.~~Q~QN~IDERATI~NVQ~ ITEM N0. ~. Olen Hayes, agent, presented pictures he had taken this afternoon showing the parking lots. He stated Dr. Tsoong is not unhappy and that they cleared all the vehicles from the area against the fence and some of those vehicles belong to others, and they will continue to keep that area clear. He stated they do not have very much traffic. He referred to pictures of Mr. Craig's property showing how many cars are parked and stated quite a few of Mr. Craig's customers park or, his property because they don't want to drive to the rear. Concerning the conditions, he stated the driveway was discussed at the previous meeting and he thought Condition No. 1 was to be doleted because there is not very much they can do to the driveway approach because of existing street light standards, otc. Concerning Condition No. 2 pertaining to street lighting, he stated they are willing to pay the fee for frontage, but this condition has been changed to require installation of the light and there are now three within a distance of 180 feet and ore on the frontage and they do not even use the front, but enter through the alley. Regarding signs, he stated they will not put up any additional signs and the existing sign has been there for 15 years. He stated the parking lot lights will not reflect or shine on anyone's property. Mr. Hayes stated they will change the parking if it becomes necessary to have additional spaces and referred to a traffic count showing in three days there were approximately 110 vehicles in and out of the driveway. Denis Craig, owner of property immediately adjacent, thanked the Commissior. for waiting until 4 p.m. to hear this matter and referred to the letter he had submitted. EIe stated he does see a lot of traffic entering this automobile repair facility from Victor Street and they enter through his property and his parking lot, and sometimes they use his parking lot, some for a brief period of time and some overnight. He stated he did not think they have sufficient parking and thought they will continue to use his parking lot. He stated he has had problems for a long time and that John Poole of the Code Enforcement Office has been out to help him deal with the operators. He stated they have cross easements to get between their buildings and there is a driveway on the north. He stated he thought the parking problem will not be eliminated and asked the Commission to deny this request. Mr. Hayes stated Mr, Cromwell took over this property over a year ago and the partner has left who restored old vehicles and had a lot of vehicles sitting around waiting for repairs and there are no old cars stored on the property and there has not been any for over a year. He stated Mr. Craig has not 8/31/87 4N~_~L~Si;z~_~_.~.28 7 approached Mr. Cromwell in ovor one year to remove any vehicles. He stated they have had people from the alcoholic's rehabilitation facility parking on their property, but that is fine because they havo adequate parking. Denis Craig stated they have no parking behind the building. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Responding to Commissioner Bouas, Mr. Craig stated he has 43 or 44 parking spaces; and that he has five different businesses on the property, and they are all quick-in and quick-out type business. He explained he has parking east and west of the building and behind the building; and that sometimes his parking is full and it is partly because of the rehabilitation center clients who park there. Commissioner Bouas stated the photographs showed hardly any parking on the site. Mr. Craig stated there has been less parking just since the first hcarinc~ and that the parked cars were just taken away preceding that hearing. He added his concern is that th© improvement is just a temporary change and after the permit is granted, parking would become a problem again and added it has been a continuing problem. Mr. Hayes stated they can park behind their shop or in front facing Harbor as needed, however, they ]nave not needed additional parking since the partner left and the parked cars ware removed. He added they definitely will not be parking there again. John Poole, Code Enforcement Supervisor, stated there has been an improvement in the last year, and prior to ghat there was a continual problem with the auto repair facility parking vehicles on the property. Commissioner Boydstun stated parking in the alley was discussed at the first hearing with the neighbor to the north objecting, and asked if that area has been posted with "no parking" signs. Mr. Hayes stated signs are already posted there. Commissioner Boydstun responded she was by the site nn Saturday and cars were parked along the wall acid they were working on a motorcycle in the driveway, and there was hardly room to pass. Mr. Hayes responded they are only open to noon on Saturday and they do not work on motorcycles unless someone was working on his awn, but he will make sure they do not park there again. Commissioner Boydstun stated they were working in the paint booth and added she thought the "no parking" signs need to be larger. Mr. Hayes stated he is trying to improve the property and make it as nice as possible and that ho does want to be a good neighbor. Commissioner Feldhaus stated he noticed in the pictures there were no parked cars, but there wore a lot of oil spots where cars had obviously been parked and asked what is being done about that problem. 8/31/87 ~x~~,,._}~ZAHE i M C I Tx ~.4A23~T.N~..S_QMNiI~.~.L4~3._~.G~~T.._.3 L-]~.~ Z._._ __ ._._$3=~`.~ Mr. Cromwell, property owner representative, stated they were making every effort to improve the property until they ran into this variance situation. Commissioner Feldhaun stated Mr, Craig's letter dated August 26th indicates he still has some concerns and that he has not seen the results of those efforts to clear up the problems. Mr. Cromwell stated Mr. Craig did approach him once before when they still had the other partner, but that he has not approached them since February 1986, and there has not been a parking problem since 1986, and everything has been completely moved or put inside. Commissioner Feldhaus stated he was surprised when he received Mr. Craig's letter after Mr. Hayes had indicated they wore attempting to the care of all the problems. Mr. Cromwell stated Mr. Poole dial indicate that Codo Enforcement has not come to the property since Juno 1986. Commissioner Feldhaus stated there are two sides to the story and he would not want to restrict anyone from doing business as long as they can do it in compliance with codes and sL•ill get alany with Choir neighbors. He asked if Mr. Craig's letter is the result of all the previous problems as he recalls them, or of recent problems. Mr. Craig stated past experience and the current history prompted his letter, but predominantly it was the past history; and that he is not sure who the parked cars belong to now. Commissioner Feldhaus stated it seems they are at least trying to solve some of the problems experienced in the past and the situation has been better. Mr. Craig stated it is definitely better but there have been same recent problems and his tenants have complained. Chairman Messe stated if the Commission does grant this permit to continue the use, it can be reviewed at. any time if there are problems and if there are complaints to the Code Enforcement Office. Mr. Craig stated he did not know previously that the Commission does have the right to review the use and if Code Enforcement Officers are going to monitor the situation, he would have no problem with approval, an6 if problems continue, he will report them. Commic~nioner Feldhaus stated the petitioner indicated he would do whatever is necessary to take care of the problem and obviously he is doing something; that there are visible signs of his efforts and Code Enforcement reports fewer calls and the photographs show no parking problem. He stated he would not want to restrict him from contin~iing his business as long as there are no problems. Malcolm Slaughter stated Code does provide that any variances and conditional use permits granted by the Planning Commission can be terminated on a number of grounds, including violations in the exercise of the permit. He stated a public hearing would be required and Mr. Craig would probably rave to come in and give evidence. 8/31/87 .4N_1__B~US~IS~~--~~~-- 8 7_-~.~i Mr. Hayes stated they have tried to clean up the property. lie thanked Mr. Craig for gutting rid of one bad business which was really a problem to L•he area. He stated they will abide by the permit and continue to make the situation better all the Lime. AC,~ION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to retain an automobile repair facility with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces and permitted outdoor use on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of ]and consisting of approximately 0.68 acre, having a frontage of approximately 90 feet on the west side of Harbor Boulevard, approximately 300 feet south of the centerline of Romneya Drive and further describedparove7the North Harbor Boulevard (Specialized Auto Repair)1 and does hereb a p Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any cortunonts received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that ther~~ is no substantial evidence thaL• the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Herbst stated he would offer a motion granting waiver of code requirement with the work to be done outdoors restricted to the hoists and explained the vehicles could not be taken off the hoists and then worked on outside. Mr. Hayes stated they take the vehicles of.f the hoist and then finish the work, and referred to putting the transmission into the vehicle and then removing it from the hoist to finish the job. He stated there is no way to mov<< the vehicle if it is n.ot running and he thought this permit was going to allow them to work on the vehicles on the hoists and in that area. Commissioner Feldhaus stated there would be times when they might need to replace a radiator hose or something minor and all the bays are full inside. Commissioner Herbst stated he would not want to approve that because it would open the door for outdoor work on vehicles and all other automobile repair facilities have been restricted to inside work only. Chairman Messe asked how muclx time it takes to finish a job after thA vehicle is removed from the hoists. Mr. Hayes stated the time can vary, but if that is a restriction, they will have to leave the vehicle on the hoist to finish it. Responding to Commissioner Feldhaus, Mr. Hayes stated they can work on four or five vehicles inside and three outside. He responded to Commissioner Bouas that they have four mechanics who work on the ~~hiclos. Mr. Cromwell stated if someone comas in for a quick repair job and the stalls are all filled inside, the operator could not make the quick money necessary to keep the business operating, and explained the quick jobs usually take about one hour. Commissioner Carusillo stated he thought the proposed limits are too restrictive. Commissioner Herbst stated he is trying to eliminate major repairs outside and all other garages have to do all their work inside. 8/31/87 ~• .. ,.,. ~N~_fi• 7+NAHEIMSS~.Y~'..teAN~~GS9.M~I~S..LQ.tL_~LGlL~T.~I.e~~:L____ ___.-~1-.`~'. Cortunissioner Bouas stated service stations are permitted to do minor repairs ouch as to replace a radiator hose outside, and Commissioner Boydstun stated sho felt minor repairs should bo permitted. Commissioner Carusillo stated r-e was sure i.f it became a problem, the City would hear about it. Commissioner Feldhaus stated they should not be alloweghouldabe termitgedes out, but that minor things like changing a spark plug P Malcolm Slaughter referred to a Code provision in the CL Zone, Section 18.44.025, restricting all uses except normal service station operations to be conducted wholly within the building, and L•hat does r,ot necessarily mean only a service station and that is a question of interpretation which the Planning Commission can mako. Responding to Chairman Messe, Annika Santalahti stated the City has been relatively strict requiring all activities and storage to be indoors. Mr. Hayes stated they do not leave one vehicle out at night. Chairman Messe stated he was by there Sunday and there wore six vehicles in and around this facility. Mr. Hayes stated they are not open on Sunday and everything was cleared up before they left on Saturday. Commissioner Bouas stated Instant-Tune businesses do not do all their work inside. Cocunissioner Herbst stated he would modify his motion. ACTIO~J: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that waiver (a) is hereby granted on the basis that the parking waiver will not cause an increase in traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity nor adversely affect any adjoining land uses and granting of the parking waiver under the conditions imposed, if any, will nct be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the Ci".~ uz Anaheim; and further on the basis that tho petitioner stipulated to post "no parking" signs on the wall prohibiting parking in the alley, and that all vehicles will be stored inside overnight; and granting waiver (b) on the basis that permitted outdoor uses will be restricted to mine repairs similar to those permitted in Section 18.87.022.095 of the Anaheim Municipal, Code and no major repairs will be permitted outdoors and all storage will be inside the facility. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC 87-167 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2936, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.03.030.030 through 16.03.030.035, for a period of one year, with the outdoor activities limited to work on vehicles on the outside hoists and to minor repairs which can be accomplished in a short period of time, similar to those permitted in Section 18.87.022.095 of the Anaheim Municipal Cade, and subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations. 8/31/87 r uT ~7 r ~*~~ r ~~ /+~WT~~T/~~7 ~11~.t~c.}~ p' .,^.~$~-598 .•.a~TES, ~~l~yli]6L~~k~1Y~.LYINJ,~.lili_t-Y1V.~YSZV•Vi ~~~y' Prior to the vote, Mr. Hayes asked if the ona year limit .~uld be eliminated becauseonaliusetoermittis veryedifficultresMrroHayes asked if th~shusexcould be conditi P extended without more public hearings. Mr. Slaughter pointed out the Commissir: could review the use at anytime i.f there are violations, even within that ono year period. He coaert towners could not be extended without a public hearing because the p p Y have to be given notice. Chairman Messe stated this business has been a problem and that is the mason for limiting it to one year. Concerning .h3 proposed conditions, Com:niss:.oner Herbst asked about the driveway P^a Commissioner Feldhaus stated he t:~ought that had been eliminated at the previous public hearing. Mr. Hayes stated Condition No. 2 reauiros that street lights be installed and that atreet is to be widened in the iuturr~ and there are three street lights within 200 feet now and one is on this property. He stated he is willing to pay the X684.00 fee, but thought installation would be unneceas ary. Jay Titus, Office Engineer, sated that condition was requested by the Utilities Department and he did not have any information regarding Lhe change from fees to installation. Annika Santalahti stated since the permit is only granted for one year, that condition could be excluded and the applicant can make a determination between now and the end of the one year what he wants to do about the lights. Chairman Messe stated Condition No. 1 should be deleted and Condition No. 2 modified to require the fee rather than installation. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDF;AUS, HERBST, MC BURNEY tESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 2'l days to the City Council. I'r'E3_ tq N0. 6 EIR~_C~ATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY APPROVED) . WAIV .RAF CODE ~EntirR~EMENT~ND CQNDITI NALt~SE PErcMIT NO 2750 - RF~VISION NO 2 (READY.) 20100 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: SSP PROPERTIES, JOHN k. SCHANTZ ET. AL, ^c;~,,~har:,t, H~:ntirgton Beach, CA 92646. AGENTS: LEE AND SAICAHARA ASSOCIATES, 3:~0 ;; Air•j;;,. r. Loop, Corte Mesa, CA 92626. Property described as an it;nhularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 2.9 acres located southeast of the intersection of the Riverside Freeway and Imperial Highway. 8/31/87 ~NV'rES, t~A~,tL~C3.~.x_FL~IYCI.~G S4~L[.5.~~.4.~A1t~_11~T~_~._ _~.9~Z__`_ _____Q.Z-x.4.4. To perrnit a 46.3-foot high, 164-unit motel with waivers of (a) required site screening (b) maximum structural height, (c) minimum structural setback, an~~ (d) minimum landscaped setback. Continuod from the mooting of August 17, 1987. Thore was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is reforred to and mado a part of L•he minutes. Ronald Sakahara, agent, stated this is a minor revision with 2 meeting rooms replacing 4 motel units. He stated the motel was approvocl for 171 rooms and this is less at 164. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst stated h© has no problem with this request and it is similar to what was previously approved. It was noted the EIR Negative Declaration was previously approved. j~.'~ON: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, secondod by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planr~inq Commission does hereby grant waiver of Code requirement on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and s.trroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the same i~i.cinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC87-168 and moved f.or its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commissiun does hereby approve revised plans for Conditional Use Permit No. 2750 to permit a 4G.3-foot high, 164-unit motel with waivers of required site screening, maximum structural height, minimum structural setback and minimum landscaped setback which were previously approved and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. Responding to Chairman Messe, Douglas Faulkner, Assistant Planner, explained the conditions are the same as previously approved and Mr. Sakahara agreed they are generally the same. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, FTERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOE5: NONE ABSENT: NONE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City CoLncil. 8/31/87 MI~_.~14 CITY p~,ANt ING ~QMMISSIO it ~AUG3~T 31~, 1~..QZ_. ..._.______~~5..04 ~F~j~J N~ 7 EIR NEGAT~I.VE_~~T~ON. RECLASSIFI~AT~ON N0. 8?-fIB-Q.~.~11? VARIANCE NO x.3679 PUBT,IC HEARING. OWNERS: PKILIP W. GANONG, ET AL, 2307 Myrtle Street, Bakersfield, CA 43301. AGENTS SAND DOLLAR DEVELOPMENT, INC., 17802 ~cypark Circle, SuiL•e 109, Irvine, CA 92714, ATTN: JOHN W. ULLOM. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 2.3 acres located at the southwest corner of Short Street and Kellogg Drive, 6000 North Kellogg Drive. RS-A-43,000 (Residential-Agricultural) zone to the RS-5000 (Residential, Single-Family) or a less intense zone. Waivers of required lot frontage and minimum lot width to establish a 12-lot, 10-unit single-family residential subdivision. It was noted the petitioner has requested a continuance to the meeting of September 14, 1987. ACT ONs Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of :he aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of September 14, 1987, at the request of the petitioner. ITEM N0. 8 ~R NEGATIVE DECLA$ATIO~i,, PEC.~, S.A SIFI~~TION N0. 8Z_~8--•04, W~V~Q.~ CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONDI_T 0~ NAL (j,~E PERMIT N0. 294 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: SMART AND FINAL IRIS REALTY CORPORATIO; 5933 West Century Boulevard, Suite 900, Los Angeles, CA 90095. AGENT: NANU C. PATEL, 2932 East Nutwood Avenue, Fullerton, CA 92631. Property is deseribec~. as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.68 acres located at the northwest corner of Orangewood Avenue and Harbor Boulevard (former Thriftimart parking lot}. C1 ro CR or a less intense zone. Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to permit a 12-story, 105-foot high, 200-room hotel complex. There were three people indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staf.E report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Dan Van Dorp, Partner, VCA Engineers, 295 Rampart, Orange, representing National Capital Development Corporation, stated they met with 30 neighbors at a meeting last Wednesday and one of their concerns was the existing Thriftimart building which is vacant and is an eyesore. Fie explained Condition No. 18 of this report >:equires that the Thriftimart building shall be demolished within six months of occupancy of the hotel, and added it is in the best interest of the developer to demolish that building, and they will be using it during construction as an affice and storage area for materials and equipment. 8/31/87 [~.N.~lTES. I~NAHEIM ~~T~I~~LN.I.~~4LR~I.~4.~5~,_.L+SLGSI.S.T..._~1.~ log? --- He stated a parking study has been performed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer to show the effect of the proposed parking on the neighborhoods and that a parking structure will be built adjacent to the hotel for the exclusive use of the hotel. Mr. Schoening, property owner just west of subject property, stated the letter they received from the City regarding this meeL•inq indicated the request is for a 4-level parking structure and they had unders toed from the developer that it was to be a three-level structure. He added he is not in opposition, but concerning t}~o parking waiver, he explained the: re is no on-street parking and if the 225 spaces are no L• adequate, there would be no place to park. Ile asked if increasing the structure to four levels wo uld increase tha noise factor to the west, referring to a noise problem t o the Sherwood Village residents caused by the Marriott Hotel with L•heir five-lev©'_ parking structure. He asked when the proposed restaurant and other towers will be built and added he thought the Planning Commission should really 1 0 ok at the situation so parking does not become a problem, and also the added traffic would make the corner of Orangewood and Harbor very difficult. Chairman Messe stated the Commission was concerned about the parking and a condition will be added to insure that parking wil 1 not become a problem for the area. Jay Shah, Gl0 W. Orangewood, owner of property just south of subject property, presented a written copy of his Presentation Indic sting concern because of the setbacks. He stated motels were built south of his motel and they have created problems; and that he thought it is a mistake to divide this property into three parcels because with the three combined, a large setback could be provided in front which would be better, but he felt three separate parcels will create parking, noise, and traffic problems; and noted parking is not permitted on Harbor and any ovh•flow will be a problem. He stated the height is too much for this small site and three parcels combined would be more suitable for a hotel this high. He referred to other hotels currently on Harbor which have setbacks of 1F0 feet and added he felt this hotel should have the proper setbacks from Harbor and Orangewood and that the property should not be divided. Mr. Shah pointed out the location of this site and his property on the exhibit and indicated concern since it is not known when the other portions will be completed. He stated the parking structure will be facing his motel and it will look like a prison and cause a noise problem at night with Lires squealing, Rtc., and added he thought they should change their design, and asked why they want the parking structure. Commissioner McBurney asked how far Mr. Shah's mo tel is set back from Harbor. Mr. Shah responded he constructed his building n i ne years ago and thought the setback is 45 feet, and suggested the Commission look at the setbacks of other hotels along Harbor Boulevard. Cliff Rediger, 2131 S. Malloy, Apt. 4, explained Malloy is a short street one block west of Harbor of,f Orangewood and there are 56 one-•bedroom units on that street and his family owns 16 and manage an additional 40 units. He stated he g/31/87 ~k ~IUTES.,.~NAHEIM CITY PLANNING ~.Qi~t'LIS_SYO~,.~UG1L~Z.~,_~.293~_ @3-=~9-~ is present to speak for the tenants on that streets that they have a severe parking problem ar-d many of those apartments are occupied by working couples who Y-ave two cars and even with a slight overflow from the Convention Center, they have people parking in their alloys and on the aL•r.oot. He asked if "permit parking" for that street is possible. (It was pointed out that' is a different issue and not within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission.) Mr. Rediger stated if parking is close to marginal at this site, the residents in this area will suffer the consequences. He stated if the parking structure is located in the proposed location, there could be a noise problem and suggested it be relocated. Mr. Van Dorp stated the parking study indicates the proposed 225 parking spaces are 134 of that recommended by the Institute of Traffic and Transportation Engineers and the parking problem will be less than if the property was developed with apartments. He explained the parking structure has one story below grade with three levels above grade. He stated the Parcel Map has boon approved and the two adjacent parcels are not to be developed at this time and to the north there is an undeveloped parcel. He added the setback has been established in conformance with the Fire Department's requirements in order to provide access for fire purposes utilizing their ladder trucks. Mr. Van Dorp stated access to the parking structure and the main access to the hotel will be aff Harbor and there will be a reciprocal easement to the property to the north and when it is developed, it will also be accessed from Harbor and the cars would exit on Harbor, and there will only be 20-foot wide emergency acces~ 1 Orangewood. Mr. Gonzalez, architect, 123 Mission Drive, San Gabriel, pointed out the hotel and parking structure on the displayed model, and explained they are approximately 263 feet away from the nearest residential property line and 50 feet from the curb on Harbor and approximately 40 feet from Orangewood, including bus bays. Responding to Commissioner Bouas, he stated the parking structure is set back 25 feet from the curb on Orangewood and there will be sidewalks and landscaping. He stated the parking structure is 36 feet high. Commissioner Bouas asked about the noise from the parking structure. Mr. Gonzalez responded because of the distance to the residential area and motel and the apartments are further than 300 feet away, hg did not think the noise from the parking structure will compare to the noise from the street. Commissioner Herbst pointed out the ambient noise level after midnight is higher and asked if they could provide some s~iund attenuation on the Orangewood side because the noise at night could be problem for the motel guests. Chairman Masse suggested that side be treated somehow to alleviate noise. Mr. Van Dorp stated they have '., provide for ventilation and they intend to enclose the walls as much as allowed by code and ir: addition, will do some landscaping which will assist with the noise problem. He added they will have to have two sides open. 8/31/8? ~INUTES._$~I.}iHE]',M czTY Pj~NN~I .~OMMI SIQ.I~A~Sru,S~3.1.~..~987 _____.__$1~4.~.~ Commissioner Herbst stated parking studies have shown hotels and motels do bring quests in by bus and airplane, thereby requiring 'loss parking; and a1.so the Commission will add a condition that, an evaluation will be made after three years and if the parking is not adequate, they will be required to post a bond to increase the parking. Mr. Van Dorp stated they would have no problem agreeing to that condition and it was recommended by the Traffic Engineer. Chairman Messe read L•he progosed condition, "That the developer shall implement the mitigation measures identified in the traffic impact study and the parking demand atudy submitted by the applicant; and that a bond will b© posted to insure construction of the additional parking spaces prior to the issuance of building permits." He added he thinks that condition should satisfy the parking concerns. Mr. Schoening atated the engineer spoke about a greenbelt on the west and asked when it would be planted because it takes trees a long time to grow tall enough to provide any screening. He stated also .f the traffic exits onto Harbor, it will add congestion to the intersection of Harbor and Orangewood and he did not think that will work. Debbie Fank, Assistant Traffic Engineer, stated thin is a suite hotel and is not a peak hour use like an office building, so the trips will be staggered throughout the day and there will be less impact than the Thriftimart was and definitely less than a commercial office use. Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City AtY,orney, stated he was not sure what is intended by posting a bond to guarantee the parking requirement; that in the past hotels with both structural and surface parking have been required that if a traffic study shows after three years that additional parking is necessary, to construct additional parking structures on the site, where there might be only surface parking, and he did not think there is any surface parking available on which to place additional parking. He suggested requiring them to design and constru~~t the first levels of the parking structure to meet the possibility of additional levels in the future, should they be necessary, and post the bond to guarantee the installation. Mr. Van Dorp stated they intend to construct the structure so that the additional levels could be added. Commissioner Herbst asked if an easement will be dedicated from Harbor to the northerly parcel. Mr.. Van Dorp stated they have a mutual easement and he was not sure if the other parcel would be sold, but all three parcels are currently owned by the same owner. Commissioner Herbst asked if the condition concerning the Thriftimart parcel would still be in effect after the parcel is sold or has been subdivided. Malcolm Slaughter stated if it was sold and the new owner was not given notice of the condition, he would probably he free of that condition and a condition requiring a recorded covenant should be added retaining that requirement and an irrevocable covenant should be recorded to enter the property. Mr. Van 8/31/87 MINUTES. _AN~I~I~LG~.T7L__E.L~11~T*'r COMMISSION. AtJ.~(~T....~.,L.`.~,.~9.Z._._ -----~Z=§-~ Dorp stated they would agree with that condition and added a similar condition has been included on the parcel map. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator., stated the parcel map is currently pending and requires that the parking issue be rosolved. She stated the reason for Condition No. 18 is that once the parcelization is done and those are separate parcels, the City wanted that condition to appear specifically in the conditional use permit so that withi» a reasonable period of time, and six months has bean suggested, after occupancy of the hoL•el, to have the Thriftimart property taken care of, and added if six months is not adequate, the petitioner can request a time extension. She added sho would like for that condition to be included, with the additions made by the attorney. Mr. Van Dorp stated he would have no problem with that condition. Mr. Schoening stated the property is currently divided into three parcels and Parcel No. 1 is being developed now and Parcel No. 3 is the one closest to the residences on the west and the developer has stated they are willing to put in the grass and greenbelt in Phase 3; however, the property could be sold and he thought if the requirement for the greenbelt and landscaping is not included in this approval and the property 9a sold, the new owner coul~ gay the landscaping is not his problem, and he thought the greenbelt and landscaping should be done now. Mr. Gonzalez stated they have suggested that after the Thriftimart property is cleared, they would create a grass area and provide additional landscaping at the wall. Chairman Messe stated the conditions require that it bo done six months after occupancy of the hotel and that will be added to Condition No. 18. Cliff Rediger asked if the condition requiring the west and south sides of the parking structure to be enclosed will be included. Mr. Gonzalez responded if two sides of the parking structure are completely enclosed, it will look like a massive concrete building and suggested the condition read that they will have minimum openings and place them according to the requirements. Iie added he did not think the neighbors would like a plain wall and they will mitigate noise and comply with Fire Codes. Commissioner Herbst suggested louvering which which direct the sound downward. Mr. Van Dorp responded they would like to have the flexibility to provide something such as louvering and stated they will have to meet all requirements of the Building, Fiz•e end Noise Codes regarding the ventilation and access. Mr. Shah stated there was discussion that they would be required to provide additional parking if necessary and he did not know where they could put more parking. He stated he did not think a high-rise building should be allowed so close to the street. He asked if they will be required to have structural engineering studies to determine the effect the construction Will have on adjacent properties, such as cracks in the foundations or floors, etc., 8/31/87 ~ >,xNING C0~_S.~.IS2~.`~11SL1,~T.-X11--x-4-87 - ~~-~~~ ~ , AN~Fi~U~~.X_PI~.~.~-- pointing out ho had structural damage to his rnotel due to disturbance of the ground when another property was being developed. Mr. Gonzalez stated that concern is legitimate but is not well-founded and the construction will be done with the proper materials and will be done right. ~GT~I: Comrnisaioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit a 12-story, 105-foot high, 200-room hotel complex with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.68 acres located at the northwest corner of Orangewood Avenue and Harbor Boulevard, and further described as the former Thrif.tfmart parking lots and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that i1• has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments receive-1 during the public review 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 significant effect on the environment. Annika Santalahti asked the Commission's intent regarding the landscaped area along the westerly property line, and asked if they are considering a 10-foot wide landscaped area. Chairman Messe stated he is thinking of glantinq the whole area with grass and planting trees next to the wall. Mr. bran Dorp stated they agree the Thriftimart property is an eyesore and in order to have a successful hotel whore people will be paying fairly high room rates, it cannot be located next to an eyesore, and once the hotel is open and occupied, they intend to landscape that area. He stated they do not have any landscape plans, but did indicate to the neighbors that they will plant grass and trees and then the future developer of that property can be required to put in exkensive landscaping, but that he would like to leave it up to the Commission as to what should be planted. Commissioner Herbst stated he would suggest a 20-foot wide buffer along the west property line with 15-gallon trees planted on 20-foot centers. Mr. Van Dorp responded that sounds reasonable, and Commissioner Herbst added that will be a part of the covenant. Malcolm Slaughter asked the length of the term of this landscaped buffer, and whether it is intended only for the interim until that property is developed, and not necessarily a perpetual park in that area. Commissioner Herbst responded he is thinking of a covenant for a 20-foot buffer zone that would remain there permanently and ttie law owners would be required to maintain the area. Mr. Slaughter stated that is not a code requirement, but that he would have no problem with requiring that condition, as long as the Commission agrees that a covenant will be recorded. Mr. Van Dorp stated obviously when Parcel No. 3 is developed, there are required setbacks by zoning, but ho does have a problem putting/31p87petual r MIrIU1C1~ S..~N AID ~2 M CITY PLA~1L..z N C; C c~MM I S S_ I ~N ~gvStLLS.~.3~1~~--.].4.~ 7 .____.._.~Z4S1ir 20-foot requirement on that property because it may affect plans future owners might have for the development of the property. Commissioner Herbst stated that property does abut a residential area and it would have to have more setback and having it landscaped will be a benefit to the people buying the property. Annika Santalahti clarified a 20-foot wide landscaped area is required by Code on commercial property next to residential property, with a 6-fo~~ High wall, and part of that setback can be used for parking. Commissioner Herbst stated he would be opposed to parking next to somebody's back yard. Mr. Van Dorp suggested the condition be worded that tl~e future development- have the necessary setbacks as required by the Zoning Code, buL• that the landscaped setback be installed as a part of this development, and upon completion of this development. Chairman Messe added the landscaping would have to bo maintained and watered. Commissioner Bouas asked what would be the situation if the property was sold before the hotel is completed. Mr. Van Dorp stated this condition would stay with the land and eventually that property is going to be developed and will have to meet the standards applir_able, and until it is developed, it could be a condition of this approval that that area be maintained by this applicant until such time it is developed. He stated the 20-foot wide buffer is no problem but putting a condition on a future developer may not be appropriate or could be a problem. Commissioner Herbst stated there would be public hearings at that time to discuss any proposed development not in conformance with the General Plan and Zoning. Mr. Slaughter stated a covenant. will be recorded against the property requiring future owners to landscape, maintain and irrigate that property. He added there are projects which could be done without coming before the Planning Commission, and the Commission would not have an opportunity to impose that as a condition. He stated Code does not require a 20-foot landscaped buffer, and the area can be used for open parking, etc. Annika Santalahti stated the Coae says there shall be trees on 20-foot centers, so staff assumes they need a planter for those trees and at least 3 feet is required. Commissioner Bouas stated even if it is not a code requirement, these developers told the homeowners they would provide tY-at landscaped buffer, and the homeowners have asked the Commission to include it as a condition. Mr. Van Dorp stated they would do the landscaping now rather than waiting for tY-e development of that property; and that there is an existing 10-foot rude utilities easement and they would landscape it by putting in trees and grass, but do not want to impose it as a condition on some future developer who has not sal~mitted plans yet. Commissioner Feldhaus agreed. 8/31/87 N~N3i.T~~..~NAHF..~M.S..IT.~.4BL~.N~.Si3.S~._.~9I~1I.S.~.~4~~. A ]GUST ..31~.._..~.9$~. @.Z.~..i~Q2 Commissioner Boydstun stared she assumed they would be able to develop in the easement area, and asked if they would be able to pack over it. Mr. Slaughter stated they would not be able to put anything .in the easemont area which would interfere with the City's use of the easement for utility purposes. He stated he thought they could park over the easemont, however. Commissioner Herbst asked if the rezoning to commercial recreation applies only to the corner property. It was noted it just applies to the corner property. He also asked about the easement to the northern parcel for ingress and egress and wheL•her a reciprocal agreement to use the driveway for both parcels will be executed. Annika Santalahti stated the legal description is for just under two acres and that would be just the corner property. She stated the easement is on the parcel map and a condition of: this conditional use permit requires the establishment of a reciprocal parking and access agreement. Commissioner Herbst asked if the properties having different zoning would make any difference and Ms. Santalahti explained that would not be a problem. ~C~ION CONTINUED: Commissioner Fiorbst offered Resolution No. PC87-169 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Reclassification No. 87-88-09, subject to Interdepartmental Conunittee Recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant waiver of Code requirement on the basis that the parking waiver will not cause an increase in traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity nor adversely affect any adjoining land uses and granting of the parking waiver under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of. Anaheim; and furthez• on the basis that the petitioner has stipulated to record a covenant against the property agreeing to design and construct the parking structure to accommodate additional levels if a parking demand study conducted three years after occupancy of the hotel determines that additional parking is needed, and to construct additional levels to accommodate parking spaces in conformance with Code requirements, or an additional 89 spaces. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC 87-170 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2943, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035, and subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations, including an additional condition requiring that a covenant be recorded against the property, including all three parcels, that the developer agrees to provide and maintain a 20-font wide landscaped buffer with 15-gallon trees planted on 20-foot centers along the west property line, and that the west and south sides of the parking structure shall conform to 8/31/87 1 Y~ r.~e 'M ~~~,z~ C.~x_P4AN.13~HS~ COMMI ~ZQ~,_.~~~LST.~.~~3.~..Z__._.._._._.__ .~7~.G~ sound attonuatfon measures with some treatment such es louvering, etc. to attenuate sound fror *he structure to the adjacont residential areas. On roll call, t2ie foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELUHAUS, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT' NONE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, pre,tented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 27 days to the City Cos:ncil. RECESSED: 3115 P.M. RECONVENEDs 3125 P.M. El R N E G,~Y~D~.Ci~IiAT~~I._..~L~S.E F~ C.g'Ci.Q.~~._ 8 7- 8 8~ 10 ~I~ VAR I A~~E__~1.Q.~S;.~ PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: RONALD THOMAS BOSWELL, 2033 Parkridge, Norco, CA 91763. AGENT: KAFAT SAMAN, SAMAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, 1240 N. Van Buren Street, N101, Anaheim, CA 92807. Property is described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.78 acre, 2011 and 2017 West Ball Road. RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200 or a less intense zone. Wcivera of minimum building site aro per dwelling unit, maximum structural height and maximum site coverage to construct a 34-unit affordable apartment complex. There were approximately 10 persons indicating their presence in opposition to subject request r,nd although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Kafat Saman, agent, explained they are requesting reclassification from RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200 and that the existing Code requires 150 feet from any single family residential zone, but th~it would be a hardship on this development; and that they are requesting two and three stories, which are actually one and two stories above a partial subterranean garage. He stated they have me° with some of the neighbors, and have taken their privacy into consideration by not allowing any openings on the east sido, excopt two patios with o-foot high solid walls on the front. He stated some homeowners also had a concern about the location of the trash containers only nine feet from the property line, but they are willing to work with the Planning Department to relocate the trash containers, and are willing '-o work with any suggestions of the Planning Commission. Don Haiker, 939 S. Agate, stated this is a neighborhood of single-family homes and they feel this will adversely impact the area; and that they would expect an increase in traffic. He stated his property backs up to parking lot of the Methodist Church on Ball Road and they have problems now from that parking lot because it is not well Iit, and there are drug problems, etc. with teenagers 831/87 M.aLU.~s.~N~IM CIT,1~PLl~N INS G C0~1I,S~S.LON~A~GLST g1,, loA7 ___`..~3r:542 hanging out there, and added that can be confirmed through the Police Department. He stated they are proposing underground parking at this project and thought that will just add more area to increase t}-e problem, and added if the structure is not gated, it would add an additional area for L•heae inappropriate activities to take place which means more police protection. HR referred to the Negative Declaration and stated they feel there are grounds to warrant an environmental impact report. He stated he also feels L•here would be additional trash in the area. He stated they did circulate a petition in the neighborhood and presented copies for the Commission's review. Responding to Commissioner Feldhaus, Mr. Haiker stated his is the corner house on Ball and Agate and is the last house which touches the parking lot of the church. He stated if there are windows that fare north, they would be looking right into his back yard. Tammie Tran, 951 S. Agate, stated she owns the property right behind subject property and this is considered a very quiet area; that she does not oppose development in the area, as l.onq as it is not apartments right behind her back yard. She stated 24 units could mean about 100 people added to the area and that would increase the crime rate. She stated there are a lot of problems now in the church parking lot. She stated if the comglex is 2 stories, they could look right into her bathroom and 2 stories would block the sun to her home. She stated she did not believe they will have enough parking spaces and that right now the people coming to the church are parking on the residential streets and with added people, there would be a lot mare problems. Ms. Pam Tran, 955 S. Agate, stated her property is right on the corner of Ball and Agate and she agreed with what the previous speaker had said. She stated they have had several discussions with the builder and she absolutely does not agree with having this right behind her property, and the 2 stories would be looking right into her property and would be taking away the sun from her property. She stated another concern is noise and that 34 units would create a to*. of noise and sYie did not feel it would be agreeable to have that many units in that area. Carl J. Frank, 1443 Easy Way, Anaheim, stated he owns property at 2013 Juno Place, which is right behind subject property and that he has owned it for 26 years and is familiar with the neighborhood and the problems discussed regarding crime, drugs, etc. which are going on because he has seen the kids after school in the church parking lot. He stated there is a lot of parking on the street now when the church has anything going on because the church does not have enough parking. He stated also Keys School is located directly across the street and he understands it w:.ll be reopening and in the future the Trident School will be reopening and the St. Justin School is in that area and he felt additional traffic will be a problem with the children in the area. He stated he kncws it is hard to get people to park on their own property and they do have a problem on Juno now. Hubert Gonzalez, 948 Emerald, stated where there is now two homes, there will be four places to live and additional cars will add to the parking problems, and he considered this to be just too much. He stated Ball Road is about the 8/31/87 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITX PLANNIN_Cz_COMh1Z,"~,~,j~N. AUGUST 31,_.~~07 ~..._____8.7~5~,SZ fastest street around and this added traffic will just be adding more problems to what they already have. Bea Berenstein, 944 Agate, stated her property is just across the street from whore they are going to build and pointed out she knows other property owners . in the area who are going to sell and want to have apartments on their property also. She stated ahe did not know how many the City could allow and asked if that is what they have to look forward to. Mable Hall, 926 Agate, stated if the petitioner wants to rezone this single-family residential area for apartments and she did not consider that a residential use and asked 1~ow her property is classified. Chairman Messe stated there is no request for reclassificakion and L•his application only applies to that one particular property. Ms. Hall continued if it was located on Hall Road, it might be more acceptable because Ball Road is zoned for multiple-family units, but their area is zoned for single-family residences. Commissioner Hoydstun stated the progertias will stay just as they are now and just this one lot would be rezoned. Chairman Messe pointed out the request is for those lots shown on the location map. Mr. Saman stated he can see everyone is concerned about traffic and they will be required to abide by the City Codes to provide on-site parking which is 77 spaces and they feel that is more than adequate. Ho stated if there is a parking problem on that street now and if the Traffic Department feels a traffic study is needed, they will provide that as a condition of approval. He stated the second concern is to the number of people and they have a signed agreement that no more than two persons are permitted to occupy each bedroom in the apartment; and they will provide an on-site manager to maintain the noise and security and if there is any crime existing now in the church parking lot, it could possibly be reduced by having the on-site manager. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner McBurney stated it appears the density is whaL• is requiring the variance. Doug Faulkner, Assistant Planner, stated a correction needs to be made ~o Condition No. 16 in that they are proposing affordable units and because of their affordable agreement with the Housing Department, Condition No. 16 should be changed to lOb and the fourth line changed to read low income rather than low medium. He stated that is 3 units for a period of 20 years and they are applying for a density bonus under State law for affordable housing. He stated Paragraph 19 of the staff report should be eliminated which refers to a parking waiver since there is no parking waiver as a part of this request. Commissioner Herbst stated the Planning Commission does have a policy to require a 20-foot setback between this project and a single-family property and Mr. Saman responded they are willing to provide that setback. 8/31/87 ~t~.GIB..~&L+N-L1II9S~4[~I~,~~.IQ'C~~~tS1I~~.~..~1.4~ _._.___..._Q?.-~~_~ Commissioner Herbst stated this is one of the worsL• plena ho has ever seen before the Planning Commission because it is very vague. He stated he could not agree with the setbacks, the trash storage area, swimming pool, etc. Ho stated the setbacks adjoining single-family homes were enacted to protect the homeowners) that he recognizes the property owner ht+s a ri.yht to build on the property, but they arA proposing too many units rnd just impacting the area too much and are asking for too many waivers. Mr. Saman stated they will provide the buffer zone and will take out two units adjacent to the single-family homes. Commissioner Herbst stated RS-A-43,000 is a holding zone for properties that used to be agricultural and L•here are areas where RS-A-43,000 zoned properties could go wither way, and along Ball Road could be developed with apartments. He stated the plane are very vague and proposes tandem parking fur practically every unit and that does allow the parking to impact the area more than it should. He asked if the swimming pool is proposed at grade level and Mr. Saman stated the swimming pool is 5 fey+t lower than grade. Commissicner Herbst stated cross-section plans wore not provided and the Planning Commission is charged with the health, safety, and general wolf are of the people in the area. Mr. Saman stated he is willing to take out two units and relocate L•he pool, parking and trash areas. Chairman Messe asked if they can have revised plans by this Friday in order to be heard in two weeks. Mr. Saman responded he could. Commissioner McBurney asked if the petitioner could meet with the neighbors. Commissioner Feldhaus stated this petitioner is not responsible for the problems that are going on in the church parking lot and that an on-site manger would not be very effective in trying to abate the noise and crime on that property and the Police Department should be called to i:.,estigate those problems. He stated the petitioner should try to address some of the other concerns of the neighbors and they seem to imply that putting in apartments is going to exaggerate even further the crime and noise problems. He stated as long as they are going to be revising the plans, maybe the neighbors could be consulted. Commissioner Herbst stated he would like to see a line-of-sight drawing showing the backyards of the people. Mr. Saman stated there are no windows on that side o£ the building. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, stated the Planning Commission and City Council previously have felt comfortable with a 2-story unit 50 feet from the property line and anything other than 50 feet has not had any winder •s or balconies or anything that could look into the single-family residence yards. She stated she thought anything else would guarantee a public hearing before the City Council and she would suggest any 2-story units be at least 50 feet from the property line. She pointed out there is a holiday coming up and the revised plans would have to be in by this Thursday, otherwise, a four-week continuance would be necessary. Mr. Saman stated they would like a two-week continuance and the new drawing will eliminate the 2-story units and revise 8/31/87 hiI1~~S1~.?~~!E.,~M CITY ALAS?.I.dS~.S.41~1I~.4~-.li~I.~l1~.T~..~1.,~9.~7 _ --Q-7--§- ~,-~. the location of the trash container and swimming pool and provide at least a 20-foot buffer zone. Commissioner Feldhaus suggested the petitioner get a copy of that list of people opposed before he .leaves. Commissioner Herhnt st..ted when a line-of-sight plan is done from the patios, the uniL-s may have to bo moved back further than 20 feet. He stated he c•ealizes the parking structure is 5-feet below grade with 1 and 2 story apartments above the garaga, and that the City Council has said that that is 3 stories, so it would have to be further than 50 feet away. Mr. Saman stated there are no doors or windows on that side and that the patios will be eliminated. Commissioner Herbst stated yo would like for the dAVeloper to come back with a better set of plans which are no so vague. ACTION: Commissioner McBurney offered p motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter b~ considered to the regularly-scheduled meeting of September 14, 1987, at the request of the petitioner in order to submit revised plans. Malc~'^~ Slaughter stated there was a question earlier by Commissioner McBurney regar~:,ng the density requirement and ainre it exceeded the Code maximum, why it was not advertised. He stated it was not advertised because that wAs covered under the waiver of minimum building site area per dwelling unit. :I~.~~" ~9 • _ d +2 ~R~~%.SzAT.~ ~~P~S A R A.~ I ON .~~~A~ 53~~~_L~9 . 8 7 - 8 8-_l.~l~P VAlti,'.NCE NQ. 3699 PUBLIC HF,AkING. OAIJERS: RONALD THOMAS BOSWELL, 2033 Parkridge, No..;u, Ca 91763. AGENT: K7+FAT SAMAN, SAMAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, 1240 N. Van Buren Street., 1101, Anaheim, CA y2807. Property is described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.48 acre, 700 S. Magnolia Avenue. RS-A-43,000 Lo RM•1200 or a less intense zone. Waivers of maximum building height to construct a 3-story, 16-unit apartment building. There was no one i:~dicatinq their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Dwyer Beesley, 125 N. Gilbert, explained this is a reclassification t.~ P.Dt-120 and a waiver of maximum building height to construct a '~-story, 16-;~n~~` apartment building. He stated he missed two filing dates because he did not lika the e]evation and floor plans submitted by his architect. He stated 17 units could be built in the RM-1200 Zone, but they are only requesting 16 units and they will all be 2 bedrooms, 2 bath and are larger than the minimum standards. He stated these will be c?eluxe units and will be set back 60 feet with a 6-foot decorative wall. He stated the waiver would affect only one property owner and he has a letter from that owner indicating 8h31/87 has MI~1.1L~F,S.`.B~H1~iM. CITY~~,I~~1XJ3~._..S~S1J~~fiS~4~3.._..~Li.S~U.ST.._~1.,._19~Z~~_. ~.~.QL-.~ reviewed tl~e plans and is willing to support them, but was out of town and could not attend this mooting and explained that is a property immediately to the north. Commissioner Feldhaus pointed out probably about 100 feet from Magnolia and immediately to the north, there is another senior citizens apartment project. THE rUBLIC HEARING ~'~S CLOSED. gCTIONs Chairman Mesa offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to reclassify subject property from the RS-A-40,000 (Residential, A.gricultural`• Zane to the RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zono in order to construct a 3-story, 16-unit apartment building with waiver of maximum building height on a rectangularly-shaped parcP] of land consisting of approximately 0.48 acre, having a frontage of approximately 85 feet on t•he oast aide of Magnolia Street, approximately 48 feet south of Orange AVQn•ae and further described as 700 Sauth Magnolia AvAnue; and does hereby appr~vb she Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considorecl the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review procoas and further finding on the basis of the l.~itial Study anc: any comments received that there is no substantial evidance that the project will have a significant effect o:~ the environment. Chairman Messe offered Resolution No. PC87-171 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Ana,-eim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Reclassification No. 87-88-11 subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. On roll cAll, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE The applicant asked if a General plan Amendment encompassing this property would hold up the development of this project. Chairman Messe responded that would not hold up this project. Chairman Messe offered Resolution No. PC87-172 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning fbmmissi~n doss hereby grant Variance No. 3644 on t~.c basiQ ~;;at there art: special circumstances applicable to the property such as sloe, shape, topography, location and surroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicinity and that attic: application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyFd Ly utter Prcperties in ttie idenl.ical zone and classification in the vicinity a:;d subject. to Interdepartmental Committee reco...mendations. On roll tail, *h~. Laregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE 8/31/87 .,l M~.. MISIS~TE~_AL~AxEIM_CITX_.1'.LAt3u~..s4r~z~_s~~.o~~us~s_~~...~.~~3 ._~. ~x.~~.a_ Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal. the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council, Commissioner Herbst stated this might be t1tA right time to discuss a major confusion which the Commission is having regarding the definition of a story when there is a subterranean garage. He stated now the Council is calling that a story and he would like for staff to review conaider.ing the height of a building rather than a classification of a story. tte stated this is 3 stories because the parking is at grade level and if they went below the grauu for a portion of the structure, it would still be considered a story and he thinks that gives the public a misinterpretation. Chairman Messe asked what Commission needs to do in order to initiate that study. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, stated the Code states within 150 feet of a single-family zone, and there is a basement or garage, it is a story and if it is further than 150 feoL•, than it is not a story. She stated the City Council went along with a Code cl:ango which relates to what a basement and garage include and a garage does not have t~ have a mechanical ventilation system. She stated the developers want to have parking structures as high as possible so the ventilation system +s not necessary, so the City would never get a below grade parking structure. She stated she thought it would be reasonable to have a maximum height limit, as well as the stories, but iL• has not been a problem. Comrt~issiuner Herbst stated there are a lot of: below grade parking structures in Southern California. Annika Santalahti stated she would not disagree, but that developers will build the structures the cheapest way possible and a venting system is not required if they are one/third the depth of a story, and there are other factors that come into play which is the reason we do not see below grade parking that is truly below grade. Commissioner Herbst stated the new parking codes allow tandem parking which allows a lot more density than before and he would have no problem with having it below grade 100 and not considered a livable area and that it would need to be clarified, but if it goes above grade, then it would be considered a story. Annik.^^. Santalahti stated when the City Council made their recommendation, they were concerned about one particular project and wanted to prevent 't from happening again. She stated she could show the Commission many units which are 2-1/2 stories under Code, and that an average person would say they are 3-stories high. ATE, N 11 IR NE ATIVE D~~LARAT~Qr1 A D,,,SONDITIUNA~., USE PERMIT N0. 239 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: CHRISTIAN J. PLOUM AND LENA S. PLOUM, 305 N. Brookhurst, Street, Anaheim, CA 92805. AGENTS: BRIAN D. HULTON, 305 N. Brookhurst St., Anaheim, CA 92805. Property is described as a rectangularly-shaped parcal of land consisting of approximately 0.13 acre, 305 North. Brookhurst Street (C a-nd B Interiors). 8/31/87 ~~,~,~5. ANAHEIM CITY p~~t1U._5;91~L~SSION. ~LGU~ST...~.1,.._1.2$~._ ..r~~.1:si.3~~ To retain the commercial use of a residential structure. There was no ono in~9icating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report wsa not read, !t is referred to and mado a part of the r.._...._-.. Brian Bolton, agent, explained this is a retail property for flooring anu window covering and thoy have no problem complying with all the conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Messe asked what the parking is like in the area and Mr. Bolton stated they could not count the on-street parking and the properties to the south and north have all their customers parking on the street. Commissioner Feldhaus stated there i s a problem with the gale on the property and the vehicles having to park at an angle. Mr. Bolton stated 50~ of the Lr.ont area has to be landscaped and they will not be able to park in that portion and would have to park in the rear rsnd ho does have ample parking in the rear. Commissioner Feldhaus stated he was by there today and there was parking in the front. Mr, Bolton stated he would put up a "no parking" sign which would help to prevent that and besides the re will be a planter in that area ar-d he would net want anyone to park there because it would be right in his living room. He responded to Chairman Messe that he does have 6 parking spaces on site. ~_~is Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded br Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to retain the commercial u s e of a residential structure on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.13 acre, having a frontage of apF~'oximately 7 0 feet on the west side of Brookhurst, being located approximately 1000 fee t north of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue and further described as 305 North Brookhurst; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of t;~e Initial Study and any comments received that there is no suhstanti al evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Bouas offered Resolution No. PC87-173 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission dies hereby grant Conditional Use Permit D'o. 2939, pu rs~:ant to Anaheim Municipal code Section 1.8.03.030.030 and 18.03.030.035 subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was pas.~9d by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARU5ILL0, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ~+BSENT: NONE 8/31/87 rSIN~E.S~ ANAHEIMCI•'T~.PLANNING C(2~1I.~9Ii..~Ar~-.-31. 14@Z_...~ 87'6-~.ft Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to t-ppeal they Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. Mr. Bolton referred to the condition giving him 120 days to pay the traffic signal assessment fee and Debbie Fanks, Assistant Traffic Engineer, stated the Building Department has the foe schedule and it would be based on square footage. Responding to Mr. Bolton, Annika Santalahti explained he could request an extension of time in order to comply with the conditions and that is just a report to the Commission and not a public hearing. ~TF,rJ N0. ~ ~'IR NEGAT.~V~ p,FCLAR~T_~413• WAIVER ..4~...~O~~F~4~~~F~--~ ~QS1T-~TIONAL USE PERMIT N0, 299. PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: RICHARD iI. MITTEN, 1375 Brasher St., Anaheim, CA 9 2 807. AGENTS: BRUCE MACKIE, 1211 N. Batavia, Orange, CA 92662. Property is described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately G.57 acre, 1375 North Brasher Street. Ta retain an automobi.l repair facility with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Bruce Mackie, Agent, explained L•his is a roqu~~st for a ape ialty collision repair facility and the biggesL• concern was the parking and a traffic study was submitted to the City Traffic Engineer. M r. Mackie asked snout tY.e condition pertaining to the _: ash enclosure 1 ocation and stated there is an ears*.ing trash storage area which was built when the building was constr~acted. (Chairman Masse stated the odds are that i t will be fine with the Maintenance Department). Mr. Mackie stated during the day all vehicles would be behind the building in a fenced area, with no public view and no work would be done outside. Doug Faulkner, Assistant Planner, sated they originally proposed a yard area which is part of the parking area for customers and employees and they cannot create a fenced yard area without increasing the variance. He stated the Traffic Engineer req~lires the parking to bo available during operating hours z.nd the Code prohibits outdoor storage overnight. He responded to Chairman Meese that those spaces do not comply with Code requirement because they are not supposed to be fence: and that takes up parking available for customers and employees and those 15 spaces are part of the 25. He pointed out they cannot have the fenced-in storage area without another variance. Mr. Mackie responded that condition pertained to mother fence which has to be moved 60 feet from the property line and they wily '.lave to come back for approval. Doug Faulkner stated it was pointe~' out to the applicant that the fenced-in yard area constitutes a storage area and would require a variance. 8/31/87 ~NV•rE~, p,..,t~~M__C.~~. ~L,~~I~G.~4h4l3.,4~4t~- AUr~T 31,~2@1__..~ __-~Z.4.~.Z Commissioner Bouas clarified thoy roal].y only have 15 parking spaces available and Chairman Mesae asked if they are willing to remove that '-once. Mr. Mackie responded hn would remove it if necessary, but that it is just for omployee parking. Commissioner Herbst suggested the gate remain open during the day, and then the fence would not have to be removed. Doug Faulkner stated there is also a condition prohibiting outdoor storage and work on vehicles or vehicle parts and all storage has to be inside. N,r. Mackie responded he would be willing to comply with that condition. Commissioner Feldhaus asked if this repair facility is still ex.clusivoly for Mercedes and Mr. Mackie answered it is for Mercedes or comparable vehicles such as BD4W's and Ferraris. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~TION: Commissioner Mc$vrney offered motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas end MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewod the proposal to retain an automobile repair facility with waiver of minimum numbor of parking spaces on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.57 acre, having a frontage of approximately 130 feet on the west side of Brasher Street, and further described as 1375 North Brasher Stroeti and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration. upon finding that it has 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 evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTIOti CARKIEL that waiver of code requirement be granted on the basis that the parking waiver will not cause an increase in traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity nor adversely affect any adjoining land uses and granting of the parking waiver under the conditions imposod, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Conunissioner McBurney offered Resolution No. PC87-174 and moved for its passage anti adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2940 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.0?G•030 through 18.03.030.035, subject to Interdepartmental Committee :?RCOrtu;~endations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. 8/31/87 ~~~~_.;'~IiEIM CI,~Y .~LANi1i~C~~QMM~.SSION. AUGUST 31 •~,.~~3..._._~_~._. 87-61@ ITEM N.Q,_.1~. ~.18_.I3FSi~I~ PAC.L~bBA:~~4.t1_A~I~YI~.S-T.A~~F.~Q..~.~.;i.4~~ PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: ROGER L. WILLIAMSON, ot. al, 3450 E. La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806. Property is described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 81 acres located southwest of the terminus of Avo:iida de Santiago, approximately 800 ft. southeast of the intersection of Nohl Ranch Road and Serrano Avenue. Waiver of required lot frontage to establish a 3-lot, RS-A-43,000(SC) single-family subdivision. There was no one indfcat~ng L•heir presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. David Boyle explained the variance is for an interior parcel, Parcel 2, which will gain access by an easement to the public street and clarified they propose to establish 3 lots, but not 3 lots plus 1 open-sF~ace lot as indicated in the staff report. ~:^ explained there is an existing open space easement on the property. H© referred to the conditions and stated ho thought it was unusual that there were conditions required on a variance and that Condition No. 1 discusses the water system improvement plans and if this is adopted, they would like that condition amended so the fees would be paid prior to issuance of building permits for any one of the parcels, rather than being paid at the time the water plans may or may not be drawn. fie stated when they come forward to build a home on one of the parcels is when the water would be needed and that is when they would like to pay the fees. Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, stated he was not sure that would be consistent with the water regulations because it is possible for someone to pay for and secure water service and never get a building permit any' the City would never get the fees and he thoughk the fees relate to the signing of the water plans and not to the permit process. He state0 he would not object to the requirement that the fees be paid at a time which is in accordance with the rules of the water utility, whenever that may .,e. Mr. Boyle stated he has discussed this problem with Yablo Rodriquez in the Water Department and he does not see a problem and it has been his intention for over a year in talking to that department that the fees would be paid at the time the building permits are taken out to build a home on any one of the lots. Chairman Messe stared he thought that is what the condition is saying. Mr. Boyle stared if a proposal is presented for PazcQl 1, there would not be a water plan because they world just hook up to the water system, and the same on Parce~ 3, and on Parcel 2, a line would be installed along the easement. Mz. Boyle asked the purpose of Condition No. 2. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, pointed out Exhibit No. 1 is the tentative garcel map that was submitted with the request. 8/31/87 h ~,_~AHEIM CI~,~Pj~N~NG COMMIS~.~1._.AILGILS.~.~1,_ X987 _-....--~-~~ ~rHE FrUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst stated that is a nice big hill and asked why the access road is shown into Parcel 2 and why Parcel 2 did not include the area down to the road rather than having Parcel 3 split by the easemersk. Mr. Boyle stated the easement is following an existing ranch road. He stated the easement to Serve Parcel 2 bisects Parcel 3 and that is because of the terrain and that t2ie owners have selected home sites on Parcels '1 and 2 and Parcel 3 is the frontage they want to leave. Malcolm Slaughter stated the road oasement does not create separate parcels. Commissioner ilerbst stated he thought it would be a lit better not to separa~e Parcel 3. Mr. Boyle stated thoy did talk a lot about that issues and thak this was a compromise. Commissioner Herbst asked if there are any plans to subdivide the remaining area since there are about 30 acres, recognizing that it is a steep hill and a lot of grading would be required. He stated if that did happen, there would not be enough access. Mr. Boyle stated he was not aware of any discussi~.ns regarding subdividing that property and they do understand there would not be adequate access and that has been C.iscuased by Mr. Singer. Mr. Boyle asked if the water fees would become due when they decide to build something. He asked that the condition be worded that the fees would be paid in compliance with the rules and regulations other than upon signature of the water system improvement plans. Chairman Messe stated the Commission has no i~ontr~•l over that and that the rules and regulations cf the Utility Degartment will be followed. He stated the first portion of the condition could be delete9 thereby requiring them to comply with the rules. ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, secoz.ded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to establish a 3-lot, RS-A-43,000(SC) (Siny~e-Family Residential, Scenic Corridor Overlay) subdivision with waiver of required lot frontage on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 84 acres, located southwest of the westerly terminus of Avenue De Santiago and being located approximately 800 feet southeast of the centerpoint of Nohl Ranch Road/5errano Avenue intersection; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any commments 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 evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Corvnissioner Bouas offered Resolution No. PC87-175 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Variance No. 3692 on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the pror rty such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings which do n~_ apply to other identically zoned grogex•ty in the same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of 8/31/87 "~: MINUTES ANAHEIM ~.]~T.Y~L$~ING COMMA,~.I.4~L.._.~~S.SI&T-~-~--~$~---- privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity and subject to Interdepartmenr.al Committee recommendations with Condition No. 1 be modified to read: "That the appropriate fens due for primary, secondary and firo protection shall be paid to the Water Utility Division by the owneridevelopor in accordance with rules 15a and 20, of the Water Utilities Ratr^ Rules and Regulations. On roll call, the foregoing resolutir:~ was passed by the following vote: AYE5s BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILt), FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENTS NONE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented tho written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days t.~ the City Council. aT~1 N0. 14 F,~~g.. NEGA's'TVE DECLAR~~0~1 (PREV~.APPl3.4~DL• WAI~~P.~ REO i~I~ENT, CONDITIONAL USE PER~9~~~-~~ (REV N0. 1) ( READV ) AND W~VE$ OF COUNCIL PQ~,,ICX N0~~43 _ PE$TAIN NG TO DF.T ..$I~N~E~ OWNERSs CALIFORNIA LUTHERAN HOMES, 2312 S. Fremont Street, Alhambra, CA 91803, ATTN: EDGAR A DOERING. AGENTS: FRANK DE LUNA & CO., INC., 18019 Sky Park Circle, Suite E, Irvine, CA 92714. Property is described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximaL•ely 10.6 acres located west of the northwest corner of Ball Road and Walnut Street. To permit a 3-story, 123-unit senior citizen's apartment complex with waiver of minimum building site area per dwelling unit. There was one interested person indicating his presence and although the staff report was riot read, it i~ referred to and made a part of the minutes. Reverend Edgar Doering, 2312 S. Fremont, Tlhambra, representing the California Lutheran Home and Walnut Manor was present to answer any questions. Frank De Luna, developer, 1801Ss Sky Park Circl©, Irvine, explained this project is being br~:~ught back t;o the Commission for review becaus6 after the plans were submitted to the Building Department, the architect realized a mistake was made on the original plans; and that the original project was f•or 134 units and it was lowered to 121 units, but the plans actually had 123 units. James Lee, 914 Hampstead, stated he waa not really opposed to the project, but wanted to know exactly what the changes are. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, stated brssically, what the applicant said was true, that the building and parking plans are the same end that the plans they originally submitted were the first floor only and what the neighbors will see will be what was originally proposed, but the unit count has chrnged. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Che~~mau Messe stated since were fortuna'.s enough to find two additional unit he would like to se. _n of those units offered as aff 8~3~b87s. Mr. j~INUTES, ANAIi~~LC~E3tAi3~.~N~9~T.~~.~Q13..~LiGlIS~.~.~.~1.28Z__.~_.._~._ @.Z..Z6.~ De Luna stated they originally srrive~d at 30 affordable unite through a long process of negotiations and he has had a difficult time obtaining the proper financing for thi8 project and the number of affordable units was thA main reason the 134 unit project did not work out. He stated the project was redesigned and the subterranean parking eliminated and in the last discussion with the Housing Department, they ogre©d to have 31 affordable units rather than 30. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PCG7-176 and moved f'or its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve revised plans to permit a 2-story, 123-unit senior citizens apartment complex with waiver of minimum building site area per dwelling unit and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recomrnendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following veto: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUNr CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, FiER$ST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE AHSENT: NONE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. gC_TION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council waive Council Policy No. 543 pertaining to density bonuses in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 2tl57. ITE NI~O. 15 ~R N TA IVE p,~~L.~A~ON (PREV. APPF~QVED). WAIVER Q~ CODE REQUIREMENT (PREV. APPR yip) ANp__ CQNDIT30NAL USE PERMIT N0. X195 FV Q, 1 ,(R E V PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: THRIFTY OIL CO., 10000 Lakeview Boulevard, Downey, CA 90240. AGENT: CIRCLE K CORPORATION, 17781 Cowan St=rest, Irvine, CA 92714 and TAIT 6 ASSOCIATES, 7NC., 900 Oranqefair Lane, Anahiaim, CA 92801. Property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approxi-ately 0.56 acre located at the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and llale A~anue, 2801 west Lincoln Avenue. Req::est for approval of revised plans (Revision No. 1) to permit a convenience market with gasoline sales and ofi-sale beer and wino. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject ~ ;uest and although L•he staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Mike Xenos, Tait Associates, stated in 1985, the City approved permits for Circa K to add an addition of approximately 500 square feet to the existing site on Lincoln and Dale and a permit. was granted to have a mixed use of a service station and food mart with the inclusion ~f off-sale beer and wine. He stated they have decided to demolish the existing station and build a new building and that would increase the square footage by only A0~ square feet and increase the number of parking spaces by 8 spaces for a total of 17 and, 8/31/87 also that additional landscaping will be provided. THR PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner McBurney asked if they plan to servo hot or cold sandwiches. Mr. Xenos stated there would be some items such as sandwiches that the customer Gould obtt.in on their own and there would be no service from the person behind the countec• and there would be a small microwave oven to heat up an item such as a hamburger or hot dog. Commissioner McBurney stated, in his opinion, that falls under the category of a take-out restaurant and he is opposed L•o this type facility not having adequate parking when other take-out: restaurants have to abide by Code regulations. He stated h© thought there would not be adequate parking and he could not support this request. He explained he thougt:t they will have the luxury of being able to sell gasoline, foot' and other marketable items, but not have to meet the same parking requirements. Commissioner Herbst asked about the driveway off Lincoln right in front of the pump area and stated it appears they have 17 feet to the islands and then the vehicles would be out in the street and he thouryhr people would be backing onto Lincoln Avenue. Debbie Fank, Assistant Traffic EngineeL, stated one of the conditi~~ns requires the driveway to be located 110 feet west of the intersection so tY.at it does not align with the gasoline pumps. Mr. Xenos stated they would agree to comply with t}:at condition and that he thought the plans already show that and slated the two existing driveways ~~n Lincoln will not remain and `.hey will only have one driveway. Debbie Fank explained that driveway would have to be moved 110 feet from the corner and added that is included in Condition 16. She stated they can access from Dalc. Chairman Messe stated the plans show the driveway opposite she pumps and it would have to be moved to the west 110 feat from the corner. Debbie Fank stated this parcel is 150 feet. long and the driveway at 110 feet trill be on tre t;esterly edge of the property. Chairman Messe stated he thought the driveway on Dale wo.~d have to be moved and Mr. Xenos asked how many parking spaces would be lost by moving ttie driveway. Debbie Fank responded it appears t}~e; wo~•ld probably lose spares. Commissioner Feldhaus suggested changing the cation of the pumps. Mr. Xenos stated he did not think there wou13 be a pr<.lem and thought they coul.~i find other parking spaces. He stated they would prefer not to move the pumps. Commissioner Herbst suggested a continuance in order to revise the plans. Mr. Xenos requested a two-week continuance. A I N: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Feldhaus and bi0TI0N CAR:2IED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of September 14, 1987, at the request of the petitioner to submit revised plans. 8/31/87 MINUTES, ~ 1~~lEIM ~IeAN~_CO I S10Iis_.~V.~t11S.T~-~87 RECESSED: 5s35 p.m. RECONVENED: 5:40 p.m. ITEM N0. 3 WAS HEARD BEFORE ITEM N0. 16. ITFM No. 16 ~_t~_~.?.~tPsD~P~i.11_..$;zI..E.~.S~~~9~._.~4~.@?-~.~ ~RF~_.~4~ 1) (~EA~V_,~` 'V ~V~t~S9.~..~S1UIR~MFL~ AND CON ~7 ~QN_Aie__lI$~ ~ta~~tIT N0. 288 SR VE N0. 1 (REAUV.) PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: HARTMANN CORPORATION, 536 Wost Linc• ie, Anaheim, CA 92805. AGENT: PENCO DEVELOPMENT GROUP, 4201 Long Blvd., Suite 403, Lonq Beach, CA 90807. Property described as an irregul~•rly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 2.86 acres located south and east of the southeast corner of Katella Avenue and State College Boulevard. ML to CO or a less intense zone. ~o l.ermit a 1^.8-foot high, 13-story office building on Parcel 1 and a fr~:estanding restaurant on Parcel 2 with waiver of minimum structural height. There was one person indicating his presence in opposition to subject request and )though the staff report was not read, it is roferred to and made a part of the minutes. Debbie Fank, Assistant Traffic Engineer, stated earlier today, staff had indicated to the Planning Commission that there was a potential problem with the funding of all the improvements; however, since then, staff has reali.aed that the right-of-way costs were not includod in thos9 calculations for the petitioner's contributions far the improvements and as it turns out the funding shortfall for the Stadium Area has been recalculated at a little over $34,000,000 and earlier it was stated to be X30,000,000; and that this project's fair share is X645,000, and they aro contributing X625,000 and staff now feels they are contributing their fair share and are iio longer contributing to the funding shortfall deficit. She added the figures are not exact, however. Joan Virginia Allen, Attornoy, Farano and Kieviet, 100 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 390, Anaheim, stated they were here in February 1987 on behalf of Benco when thoy requested approval of a shopping center E about 40,000 square feet exclusively designed to support commercial and industrial uses and that request was denied by the Planning Commission and City Council and the City expressed its desire to have commercial offices in that. area. She stated Benco revi=od the proposal and are requesting approval for a new project for a 13-story office building, a 7-level parking structure a•d a 5,000-square foot restaurant. She stated this is a small L-shaped property on the southeast corner of Katella and State College Boulevard and t~ the north is a 2-story offico building and a McDonald's restaurant under construction and to the south is the Stadium parking lot and to the east is another 2-story commercial building. Ms. Allen stated the office building will be 188 feet high, with 238,500 square feet and the parking structure will provide Code required parking of 8/31/87 (~.~3II~FS~ ANA~M CITY PLg~I ,~5~.0.9~1~.AUS~.S~_3~.._...~.9_87 87~~Q 801 spaces and access will be by two driveways on State Collogo and one on Katella. She stated they are requesting approval for reclassification of one-half of the parcel from ML to CO which would allow the office building as a permitted primary uses and also they are requestiny apprcva. of a conditional use permit to allow the excess height of the building from 150 feet to .188 feet and a conditional usA permit to allow a restaurant with waiver of the 50-font required setback to a 35-foot fully landscaped setback in compliance with the future special setback area standards. Ms. Allen stated staff did an outstanding job evaluating the Program Environmental Impact Report and the Addendum to the GIR which points out possible impacts of the Bonco project. Sne added Bence will be taking all possible measures to mitigate the project's impacts and the Bence project impacts will be relatively minimal compared to the other projects coming in in the future. She stated the ?.mprovement of the north-bouc~d right-turn lane to 8 lanes with 2 left-turn lanes will raise the level of service at the intersection of State College and Katella from F to E. Ms. Allen referred to Condition No. 7 requiring that Condition Nis, 1 througYi 6 be completed before introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject property and they would request that Condition No. 5 be eliminakod from that condition. She stated the way Condition No. 5 is worded, it indicates that Aenco would have to complete construction of the critical intersection before the ordinance could be approved to rezone the property and they would request that Conditio No, 5 be reworded to require that prier to occupancy, they would complete the critical intersection. She referred to Condition No. 7 again and added they would like to have that condition modified with a time period of a minimum of 2 years and if at all possible, a 3-year period because it will not be possible Eor Bence to finance this project and be able to complete the conditions within 1 year. Regarding Condition No. 5, she stated they are assuming that all dedications have been made to allow Bence to do the construction on the •ritical intersection and that condition should include wording to that effect. She referred to Condition No. 11 of the conditional use permit and stated at the Interdeparunental Committee Meeting last Monday, it was their un3erstanding that they would only h~ required to mcva the power polo on the corner of State College and Katella, in order to put in the critical intersection; however, this condition now states L-hat they are to put in all underground utllitios and they believe that is excessive. She stated Condition No. 27 a]so gives them a 1-year period of time and they would like to have that changed to 2 to 3 years. She explained Tom Holm from PBR, Larry Greer, Traffic Consultant, and Robert Murrin, from Albert C. Martin and Asso~iaL•es, Architects and Greg Stewart from Bence are also present to answer any questions. Doi: Kiely, KAYCO, owners of the 2-story office building immediately to the east at 2110 E. Katella, stated they have a concern with the parking structure being 7 stories high so close to their property line and feel it will dwarf their building and have a negative impact on the general appearance of the area. He stated they are also concerned about what the finish will be on the 8/S1/87 N.II.~~es• ANAHEIM ~.ITY 1 N_~G_~QC'~1S~4I3~_..at~.!ti'~.3~, 1987 ~ ~~~ parking structure, po~.nting out the applicant is not required to supply information about the final design or materials to be used and this action could be the final app•oval unless the matter is appealed to the City Council. Chairman Messe stated this project will go before the Cfty Council. Mr. Kiely stated there was no design submitted for the restaurant and how it wi'1 be laid e!tr on t1' property and their specific concern is about the parking and the location of the restaurant in the northern part of tha "L" and stated people generally prefer cot to park in a parking structure and their lot is just to the east and it w~~ild be very easy for the patrons of the restaurant to park on their lot ana walk to the restaurant. Mr. Kie1y stated he could not get any information about what is going to happen along the easterly boundary of the project and that there is a block wt,ll existing about one fourth the length of the property with a chain link fence for the balance and asked if there will be a block wall or landscaping. He stated he thought that area has the potential of becoming a litter-strewn area. 'Bob Murrin, architect, stated There is a 5-foot setback from the property line to the east and they anti^ipate that will be a fully landscaped 5 feet and also that the treatment of the parking structure on the east will be a solid wall which is required by Code with no visual openings or ventilation openings and the material will probably be some sort of precast concrete, and they think they can treat that wall aesthetically and that is the most logical place to put the parking structure on that site, so the massive wall will not be on the street. He stated they have no specific tenant for the restaurant, but are looking at a Sizzler-type restaurant. He stared they see the customers of the restaurant coming in from the south znd there will be a certain number of. parking stalls allocated for the restaurant in the lower portion of the parking structure closest to the restaurant. He added if it ever became necessary to pay for parking, tokens would be given ou*_ for the restaurant and any restaurant that comes in will want to make sure that parking is easily accessed for their clients and he thought they could mitigate Mr. Kiely's concerns about restaurant patrons parking on their lot by the placement of some signs, etc. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Floyd Farano, Attorney, stated parking for the restaurant and building will all be in the parking structure and there will be some specially designated spaces reserved for the restaurant on the first floor. He stated he thought this project will be isolated enough, so they will not have to worry about the patrons par. king next door. Mr. Kiely responded to Chairman Messe that their only concern is that the parking restrictions for the restaurant are not made a part of the conditions or that there is any commitment on the petitioner's part to actually meet the requirements and when the leases are signed, L•heir needs may change. He stated his concern is more that their parking is right on the other side of the wall to the east and it would be closer for the restaurant patrons to park 8/31/87 .,. I~~t1SJ~._A~1A~iEIM czTY PL~NNINC__~.9~1I~.&.i~4E3s~I.S~~iST_~3.9~.Z_ _~Z-St~~ on their lot. He stated that is w: at is happening right now with the fans for the Stadium who park in a dirt lot and walk through their property to get to the Stadium. Ha stated the answers that were given today are fine, but unless they are included in the conditions and are enforced, there could be a problem in the future. Commissioner Herbst referred to the storm casement and asked if it is underground and whether or not something could be planted along that side of the building. He suggested Cypress trees that could reach 20-feet high within a short period of time which would block their view of the wall of the parking structure. Jay Titus, Office Enginoar, stated that is an Orange County Flood Control Easement and has a reinforced concrete box within the easement and he did not think they would permit anykhing such as large trues to be planted in that easement area. Ne stated he was nut sure how deep the box is, but planting large trees could raise a concern. Commissioner Herbst staked Cypress trees could be planted in a 2-foot area and the root system is not that great. He stated if planting is not passible, possibly the building could be shifted to allow a planting area along that east side. Mr. Murrin stated they deal with casements quite often and they cannot build over them, but most of the time they are allowed L•o park over them or plant over them and the culver~s are fairly substantial. Jay Titus sL•ated it would depend on the type of planting. Malcolm Slaughter stated the Commission could impose ~ condition that would be conditioned upon the approval of the Orange County Flood Control District.. Commissioner McBurney stated some shallow-rooted trees could be planted. Debbie Fank state3 Mcbonald's did dedicate the corner parcel; and that there is a condition which requires the developer to acquire the right-of-way for the improvement of the entire southeast corner. Commissioner McBurney asked what would be the situation if the property owner does not want to get rid of his property. Jay Titus stated in the past there have been cases where the City has loaned the developer the power of eminent domain, and the developer paid the cost of such and that is a possibility. Chairman Messe stated that is the only open spot he sees and otherwise all dedications have been made. He added he would have nc problem in removing the reference to Condition No. 5 from No. 7 and adding a modification that it be done prior to occupancy. Doug Faulkner stated Condition No. 4 should be deleted and Condition No. 5 should be modified by combining the wording of 6 into 5 to reads "That the owner of subject property shall be required to improve the entire southeast corner of Katella Avenue and State College Boulevard to a critical intersection standard and that all engineering requirements, etc. ..." and continue with the wording of Condition No. 6; and that says in order to get the zoning changed, they post a bond to guarantee the improvements and the 8/31/87 ~ t7UT,~;,S , AN~..IM_~ITY P L~NN_I N G ~ Q~~.~~-~--~9 8 7 ..__~~~ ~• improvements would not have L•o be completed until occupancy. He stated they would have to get the dedication for the entire corner and post a bead for the improvements in order to get the zoning and then the improvements would have to be completed prior to occupancy. Chairman Messe referred to the request to extend the one-year period of time and stated that is normally renewed by the Planning Commissian without any problem. Ms. Allen stated tY~eir concern wou1~9 bo the cost of having to come back and request an extension since it is possible for them to tell the Commission up front that they cannot meet that time period, and they would like to have it for a longer period time. Chairman Messe stated he thought a time period of 2 years could be allowed. Commissioner Feldh arts agreed that a project of this magnitude should have a lonyer period of time, Chairman Messe referred to Condition No. 11 and asked if undergrounding applies to the entire area in the public right-of-way. Malcolm Slaughter stated the interpretation would be that any work that has to ba done in moving those utilities back to widen the critical intersection would require the undergrounding of the City's utilities in the City right-of-way. Mr. Farano stated that represents a serious concern and it was their understanding at the IDC meeting that there was a pole right on the corner in the setback area which they would have to relocate. He stated they anderstand undergro~~nding their own utilities, but L•o underground the entire corner is very expensive and he was not sure it was fair for them to carry that burden. Commissioner Feldhaus stated he thought the Commission needs to have an interpretation from the Engineering Department and Utilities Department as to what was intended with that condition. Mr. Farano stated the intention last Monday was to have them move the pole and this wording rep resents a change. Debbie Fank stated this condition was requested by the Utilities Department and apparently Mr. Farano's recollection of the discussion last Monday is correct, but the Utilities Department gives staff the conditions for the staff report and no c,~.e is present to explain the difference. Joel Fick, Planning Director, stated Darrell Ament from the Utilities Department was present earlier, but had to leave for another meeting and this particular issue has not come up on most other office buildings because most property owners have wanted to underground utilities adjacent to their project and he understands on this project, this is discussing some of the off-site utilities as well. Commissioner Feldhaus stated he thought the Commission needs some clarification as to why the condition was changed. Mr. Farano stated it was probably changed in order to get some more utilities underground and explained they have 268 feet of frontage on State College and 9'l f ee t on Katella and the McDonald's frontage to the north of this building substantially exceeds their total frontage. He stated he did not know the exact cost but thought utility undergrounding costs 4 or 5 times the amount of moving the pole Commissioner Feldhaus stated Ms. Allen raised the question and now he is curious why the Utilities Department did change the condition. Chairman Messe asked if the condition could be worded so that the underg round8/31/871d be S,_.ItI~AHEIM CITY PGg~~.S~Z~'1ISSION~_.j1jl.C.ll,~~._.~.~,.~.QZ.~....._.. --..-~1=-~~~ done to the satisfaction of the Utilities Department. Commissioner Bouas stated there is iio question but that it has to be underground. Commissioner Herbst stated this problem could probably be discussed at the City Council hearing. Joel Fick suggested one way to resolve the issue is to place the item under the discretion of the General Manager of the Utilities Department and recognize that if this cannot be resolved before the City Council meeting, it could be dealt with before the City ~ouiicil. Mr. Farano state~l they know what the General Manager of Utilities is going to say, but that is probably all that can be done at this time and if it was not such a significant expense and if this project was not already doing significant irtiprovemei~ts, they would not argue about it, but somehow it does nut seem to be fair to this property owner. Debbie Fa:ik stated when the costs for Benco's fair share contribution was calculated, the estimate included improving the southeast corner of State College and Katella to critical intersection standards, and the relocation of utilities and partial undergrounding were included. She explained that is a general average used for intersections by the Utilities and Engineering Departments and does include utility relocation. Chairman Masse stated it seems the physical impact was calculated with the undergrounding of utilities included. Mr. Farano stated he would surrender. Malcolm Slaughter referred to Condition No. 6 and as it is worded, the developer would only be obligated to complete the installation of the improvements at such time they occupy the property and the problem with that is that they would have already received the benefit of the zoning ordinance and suggested that condition should read: "That installation of the above-required improvements be completed prior to occupancy or within 2 years whichever occurs first. Commissioner Herbst stated he would have no problem with that modification. Mr. Farano stated he would have to see the precise language. He added they have already asked the Commission to give them a minimum of 2 to 3 years and they have to do the engineering and construction drawings and get permits, etc. and thought that could take the better part of a year and he did not want to have the financial obligations delayed and find the client in a position of having to do these improvements notwithstanding, and if that is the net effect of the wording suggested by Mr. Slaughter, he would not have a problem with the change. Malcolm Slaughter stated the way the condition is structured, the City would have placed the zoning on the property and tY~e client will not be obligated to install the improvements until he decides to go ahead and exercise the rights under a conditional use permit and it seems Mr. Farano wants an extended period of time to exercise those rights, but to protect the City, we will want to make sure they are obligated to install those improvements, that the City can look to the bond to see if that is done within a reasonable period of time of enacL•ing the zoning. Mr. Farano stated it is his understanding that Condition No. 7 requires that before the ordinance is introduced, all the conditions would have to be 8/31/87 ~INUTSS,~~~HFIM CITX PLANNI~,..~OMMISS~4,~.~.._.~11G.~.~.~..~.~R---~~-$~-- ----~~-=~~ completed. Malcolm Slaughter stated the only condition that would have to bo completed is posting the bond prior to introduction of the ordinance of rezoning and they can meet that condition by posting the bond and when the property is rezoned, it becomes a question of• when they have to put in the physical improvements and under this con dition as presently drafted, the; are only obligated to install the improvemen to at such time as they occupy the property and he is suggesting that there should be the obligation to eom~~lete the improvements oven if they elect not Co go forward wiL•h the project. Mr. Faranu stated that is acceptable subject to the language, but after the change in the Utilities condition language, he is apprehensive. Mr. Farano referred to Condition No. 27 regarding the time period and asked if that can be changed to 2 or 3 years. Ch. airman Meese stated he would approve two years. Commissioner Herbst stated the environme ntal impact report says that the water system is going to be needing some impr Q vements and asked what that means to this project and he realizes this developer has to pay certain fees. Ne asked if the Utilities will be able to do what they need to do with the amount of fees they will be collecting. Joel Fick stated he did discuss that item wi~.t- Mr. Ament specifically and his comment was that there are no water service problems for t.~is project and with the enactment of Rule 15-D and also the Water Service Fee Tier Program and the water plan which was approved by the City Council, they do not have a service problem and are fully prepared to service this project. He responded that statement is included in the environmental impact report because that was a program environmental impact report for the overall Stadium area and the plans enacted by the Utilites ar~~ the mitigation measures and the conditi ens for this project do serve to mitigate the identified service problem s, Commissioner Herbst asked when we will reach capacity. Mr. Fick stated i n terms of water, Utilities is very confident that the fee program and in some cases advancement of improvements with reimbursement agreements and this program will take care of the ultimate water service capacity. Commissioner Herbst stated there is a need for an electrical substation and asked where that would be located. Joel Fick stated the substation is being accommodated through the Utilities rates and they have been working with the development community to locate a subs tat ion site, but it is funded through the rate program. Mr. Farano stated Condition No. 20 say s, "to the extent feasible" and they would like the Commission to understand that they do not interpret that condition as requiring them to hold back the development of this project in order to comply with that condition. Iie stated to the extent possible, they will do their part and do not think th at means they will have to delay the project for 6 months. Commissioners t~cBurney and Feldhaus concurred, Tom Holm, PBR, Director of Environmental Planning, stated that particular mitigation measure in Condition No. 2 O is a recommended mitigation measure from the Air Quality Management Distr ict and is more applicable in their opinion, for hillside projects and re sidential projects and they do not feel the timing requirement indicated is necessary or applicable to this project. 8/31/87 ~,. MINUTES, ANAHEIM CI;~y PLA NN ING CO IS~,Zp~, AUGUS~~~ - ~ oa7 X630 Malcolm Slaughter stated one of the mitigation moasures under the electrical service was the undergrounding of electrical utilities necessitated by this project and the critical intersection at Katella and State College and that is on Page 6 of the environmental document and added maybo that is whore that condition came from. Commissioner Herbst stated he understands this particular project is not having a shortfall and wanted to be surd that has been discussed thoroughly. Debbie Fank stated at this time, Benco does not contribute to the shortfall and they are paying their fair share of the necessary improvements in the area. She stated Commission will probably still need to discuss other developments with the City Council because they will be contributing to the shortfall. Commissioner Herbst asked if all t:ie infrastructures we have will service this projec~ without indebtedness to the taxpayer, and Debbie Fank stated that is correct. She stated staff is happy with the '.figures xnd everything was included in the first calculation, except the right-of-way, which was an omission on staff's part. Commissioner Herbst asked how far the dedication is required. Ms. Fank stated within the first 300 feet, the dedication is 12 feet back from the existing ultimate right-of-way line which is 60 feet. Jay Titus stated the existing right-of--way is 53 feet so they would have to take it from that point. It was noted when McDonald's came in, the critical intersection was not being considered, so they dedicated 53 feat and will have to dedicate to 72 feet which is another 19 feet. Chairman Messe added it is Benco's responsibility to get that right-of-way. Malcolm Slaughter stated tho City would allow the developer to pay if the City exercises the right of eminent domain. Commissioner Herbst asked if the 19 feet for dedication had been considered in the cost. Ms. Fank stated the cost for right-of-way is a city-wide average and that State College was recently changed from a primary to a major and 53 feet used to be the standard but because of the Stadium General Plan Amendment it is now a major arterial and 7 additional feet are required and the critical intersection requires 12 additional feet. She added the average is just for the 12 feet and not the additional 7 feet. Commissioner Herbst stated this developer will have to pay for that property in order to put in the improvements and that will be a substantial amount of money. Debbie Fank stated they will need 19 feet and the cost for 12 feet was included in the estimate, but the additional 7 feet was not included. She added again that that estimate is a ballpark figure. Chairman Messe stated he felt the Planning Commission needs to meet with the City Council relative to the $34,000,000 shortfall for the overall areawide improvements. He asked if that request could b® arranged. Mr. Fick stated the Hanover Development will be coming before the Commission in two weeks which is a substantial project and another project will be coming in in about one month. 8/31/87 X~.LIlN ~.Cz.~.4.LR1Ifi~.4.~a~SI.S~._.~~~.4~ T_____._.____. 8 7 - 6 31 Commissioner Herbst atateci this project appears to be standing on its own, but the next one probably won't. gQS,~Qgs Chairman Meese offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that the Planning Commiss.on requests a joint work session with the City Council to discuss the Stadium Area improvement: and the $34,000,000 expected shortfall. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Corrunissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that after reviewing Environmental Impact Report No. 274 and the Addendum as they apply to this proposed development and reviewing evidence both written and oral presented to supplement program E1R No. 274 and the Addendum, the Planning Commission does Hereby find that Environmental Impact Report No. 274 and ttse Addendum do comply with the California Environmental Quality Act and the State and City Guidelines and the Addendum for the proposed development indicates that the project mitigation measures can reduce all project impacts to an acceptable level and although the projects will incrementally contribute to the significant unavoidable adverse impacts which were identified in Program EIR pto. 274, the City Council previously acknowledge these impacts and adopt a Statemenk of Overriding Considerations with a certified Program Environmental Impact No. 274 on March 17, 1987; therefore, the Planning Commission does hereby certify Program EIR No. 274 and the Addendum for the proposed development. Commissioner Herbst added that the Commission has reviewed this project very thoroughly and staff has stated there is no shortfall from this particular project and therA will be no cost to the taxpayers. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC87-177 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Reclassification No. 87-88-22, Revision No. 2 subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations as modified and the changes as discussed. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSTLLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Corrunissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC87-178 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2883 (Rev. No. 1) pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations as modified and with an additional condition that they consider some aesthetic treatment to the east side of the parking structure adjacent to the 2-story office building, and to provide some fast-growing, shallow-rooted type trees along the basterly property line and if approval cannot bo obtainEd from the Orange County Flood Control District, the building shall be relocated to accommodate proposed planting of trees, and that signs shall be posted to discourage the restaurant patrons f.r.om parking on the adjacent paricinq lot and that parking spaces shall be designated on the first floor of the parking structure closest to the restaarant for the proposed restaurant. si31~e7 ~. ..~~ MI~1ZE~.~I~IE.I.d...S1xY.~.LA,~Lt~L~G_S.RMdISE..~.4.~.~1lSSI~~._.~.1.._..]~.~.Z___~_ __ ~_~? -~.~~?. On roll call, the foregoing resolution carts passed by the following votes AYESs BOUAS, SOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, PEI.DHAUS, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOESs NONE ABSENTS NONE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented tkse written riyht to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 dnys to the City Council. Malcolm Slaughter suggested since there is a matter coming before the Commission at their September 14th meeting, Commission should adjourn this meeting to the Council meeting of September 8, 1987, and he would suggest 10:00 a.m. so Council does not have to call a special moeL-ing. Commissioner Herbrst stated the Commission would request the meeting on the 8th with the City Council to discuss the problems they have been confronting with t}se expected funding shortfall for areawide improvements in the Stadium Area. ITEM LS2.,_.~ 8E PO~~~_1i~COMMEi?PAT I ONS A. ~4~E~E~2.M..~3.~ - To amend the CO (Comrnorcial, Office and Professional) Zone requiring the approval of a conditional use permit. for any development over two stories or 30 feet in height within the boundaries of the Anaheim Stadium Business Center; and to acid a definition to Title 18 of the Anaheim Stadium Business Center. Mary McCloskey presented the staff report and stated this is a staff initiated request to amend Title 18 of the Municipal Code to require approval of a condi*_ional use permit for buildings and structures exceeding 2 stories or 30-feet high in the CO Zone within the boundaries of the Anaheim Stadium Business Center and to add a definition to Title 18. She staL•ed the City Council approved a General Plan Amendment for the Business Center in March and with that approval it became evident that there would have to be a substantial amount of infrastructure and service improvements to the area and currently most of the property is zoned ML. She stated staff would anticipate the properties will be coming in to be reclassified to CO to accommodate the commercial office typo uses and currently the CO Zone sets the maximum structures at 150 feet theoretically, with the current standards, a building could be approved without any discretionary action up to 150 feet high and these buildings would have impacts to the area which should be mitigated and with the proposed Code amendment, staff could analyze each project and add conditions to provide mitigation accordingly. Joel Fick stated this report was intended to give Commission an advance notice of staff's thinking. ACTIONS Chairman Mesae offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and tdOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission dose hereby direct staff to prepare an ordinance for Commission's review to amend the 7.oning Code (CO) to require buildings and structures exceeding two stories or 30 feet in height within the boundaries of the Anaheim Stadium Business $/31/87 s k MINI T~._:BZ~i~.iM..~.T,~C~'LAN~3~S_S~.OMMI SION,_.A1ZG3I~T~~.<,....14.~.T ~_____~?~~. Center to obtain approval of a Conditional Uae Permitt and to add a definition of the Anaheim Stadium Buai.neas Center. B. [WAIVER OF HILL~IDRSRBIZ,TNG ORDINAN~F. - Request on b©half of Trifler Corporation for a waiver of the Anaht+im Hillside Grading Ordinance as it relates to the location of manufactured alopos adjacent to residential Lots in Tract 12665. g~,~,Q~;, Commissioner Herbst offerRd a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission dons hereby recommend that the City Council grant a waiver of the Hillside Grading Ordinance as it relates to the location of the manufactured slopes adjacent to the residential lots in Tract No. 12665. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Edith L. Harris, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission ELH:lm 0016m S/31/87 ~+ ._ ~~ MINUTES,.ANAHI;IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 31 1~(i7 87^633A ITEM N0. 17 EIR CATEGORICAL F,XEMP'f10N CLASS I1 ANU VARIANCE N0. 3(i96 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER."a; AUTOMOBILE CLUB VF SUUTHF:RN CALIFORNIA, '260 SOUth Figueroa Street, I.os Angeles, CA y0f)7, A'I'TN: LARRY 1,DAMSON. Properly described as an irregularly-shap~ad parcel of land consisting of apprr~ximately 2.9 acres located at Lhe southwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Avenida Margarita (Autornohi.le Club of Southern Cal ifornla). Waivers of type of sign area and display surEacf~s to construct a monument sign. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subjeo~ request. and allhouyh the sl.aff report was nol rettd, it i:~ referred to and made apart of the minutes. Al Sloto, representing Automobile Cluh of. Southern California, slated they are requesting a monument sign on Santa Ana Canyon Road. THE PUBLIC EIE:ARING WAS CLOSf;p. Commissioner McBurney asked if tt- -.ign would in in Cront of or behind the horse trail with Mr. Sloto resp~~~.. ~~; it would be behind the hr~rse frail. Commi.ctsioner. McBUrney indicat.e~ .~~"en whether the sign could be seen because of the fend. Mr. Sloto gtalr ~ ~~~n,rr~Hnt sign would be located on a small hill which in about 3-1/2 fee+ ~~->: '~'°+n the horse trail. 'lt was nol.ed the Planning !~ ~ ~.s authorized representative has determined that the prof%os~ ~~ falls within the definition of CaR.eyorical Exemptions, ~;,- _: defined in the State Environmental Impart. Report Guidelines and is, - ~ '~%•~, categcrically exempt from the reyuirement to prepare an EIR. ACTION: Commissioner Hf~rb- ,i :,,r~=d Resolution No. PC87-179 and moved for its passage and adoption tha! ~ '•.r • ~~.~~neim City 71ar+ning Commission does hereby r~ grant Variance No. 3696 on : ~~asis that there are special circumstances applicable to t_he property ~-!;". as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings which do not ;~C,r>.~;~ to other identically zoned property in the same vicinity; and t.ha~ stc:c applir•,ation of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privilege: e~n;~~y ~. by other properties in the identical zone and classification in Lhe vicin~ r and ubject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. On roll .^.all, the foreyoin~Y resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BnXDS'1"JN, CAF'.USILLO, FF.LpHAU5, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE Ai#.a£NT: NONE t~kalcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presente~9 the written right t.o appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. 0190a