Loading...
Minutes-PC 1991/03/11 PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING (PUBLIC TF..STIMONY) 10:00 A.M. 1:00 P.M. PROCEDURE TO EXPEDITE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: BOYDSTUN, FELOHAUS, HELLYER, HENNINGER MESSE, PERAZA COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: BOUAS 1. The proponents in applications which are not contestad will have five minutes to present their evidence. Additional time will be granted upon request if, in the opinion of the Commission, ouch additional time will produce evidence important to the Commission's consideration. 2. In contested applications, the proponents and opponent will each be given ''"'`~ ten minutes to present his case unless additional time is requested and the ~-•--~ complexity of the matter warrants. The Commission's considerations are not determined by the length of time a participant speaks, but rather by what he says. 3. Staff Reports are part of the evidence deemed received by the Commieeicr. in each hearing. Copies are available to the public prior to the meeting. 4. The Commission will o:ithhold questions until the public hearing ie closed. 5. The Commission reserves the right to deviate from the foregoing if, in its opinion, the ends of fairness to all concerned will be served. 6. All documents are presented to the Planning Commission for review in connection with any hearing, including photogra~s or other acceptable ~~„ visual representations of non-documentary evidence, shall be retained by 4~•• the Commission for the public record and shall be available for public ~; inspections , ~~ 7. At the end of the scheduled hearings, members of the public will be allowed to speak on items of interest which are within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission, and or agenda items. Each speaker will be allotted a ~ maximum of five (5) minutes to speak. .~ CA1032OE -1- 03/11/91 U r, .j-.n . ~-.~~'~'Sf4.~ r~ ~ y~+. ... la. CEgA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION .I Approved Denied lb. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3378 ~. OWNER: DAH'S SERVICE CENTER, 519 W. Ball Rd., Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: ARTHUR H. SHIPLEY, 1728 W. Bay Ave., Newport Beach, CA 92663 LOCATION: 519 W. Ball Rd. Property is approximately .30 acres located at the northeast corner of Harbor Blvd. and Ball Rd. To retain rental truck service ae an accessory uee to an existing service station. Continued from January 28, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. ~~j~~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC91-31 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: None PETITLON'R'S COMMENTS: Car sales have been stopped; if keep truck rental, it would be moved away from Harbor; if wash trucks they will recycle the /'`. water; would like to put in an information center; talked about extending ~~ the lease, but nothing has happened; COMMISSION COMMENTS: This ie not the right place for what they were asking for; never found that corner to be neat and clean and have passed there on several occasions; previously agreed only to have 1 or 2 trucks; has been a lack of follow through and a lack of commitment; could be future problems; once this is designated as CR zone then this uee would not be allowed. STAFF COMMENTS: Bruce Freeman, Code Enforcement, stated they have no control over a one-way truck rental. CA TYONa CEQA Mitigated Negative Declaration - Approved Conditional Uee Permit No. 3378 - Denied VOTE: (Resolution was for denial of CUP) ~'++~ 3-1 (Boydstun, Henninger and Mesas - yes for denial) (Commissioner Peraza NO for denial) (Commissioner Hellyer declared a conflict) (Commissioner Feldhaus abstained) (Commissioner Bouas Absent) ~~ _2_ 3/11/9 - - - .... _.~__ __.__ _, ... _ . ,;~s~x _ - ~~~ 2a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 2b. RECLASSIFICATION N0. 90-91-23 Granted /1, OWNER: INITIATED BY THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, 200 E. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92803 LOCATION 928-1120 South Harbor Blvd. and 333-521 Weat Ball Rd• Property is approximately 11.1 acres located at the northeast corner of Harbor Boulevard and Ball Road. CL, CG & CH TO CR. City-initiated reclassification of property. Continued from the February 11, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION N0. PC91-32 ~,~~ FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. NOT IN OPPOSITION BUT CONCERNED: One member of the City of Anaheim School District and Dirsctor of Planning for the Anaheim City School District. According to information, the reassigning of this piece of land to CR is i to accommodate hotels and motels and this kind of development impacts the acheol district heavily. She did an informal survey of the hotels and 'i '1' motels and for every 100 rooms that are built, 100 employees are hired and I -- within 2 or 3 years, 508 of those employees will mov= into the community and those employees will bring their families with them. They estimate that these employees will generate 20 children from kindergarten and sixth I grade. STAFF COMMENTS: This is continued from a previous meeting for Commission's action to rezone the property at the northeast corner of Harbor and Ball from the CH, CG and CL zones to the CR zone in compliance with the General Plan which was amended about 3 years ago. There is no development plan in conjunction with this. ACTION: CEQA Negative Declaration - Approved Reclaeaificatian No. 90-91-23 - Granted VOTE• 5-0 ^"h (Commissioners Hellyer and Bouae absent) ~~J -3- 3/11/ 1 ;-~:' ;+ _,~~ ~tir~ Y,~1N ~ t ~~. y~41 SSS ~,~~' ^~ ... ~ ryti.L`ik. ,~.:. e ,.~y~s' X .,.3 ~i ;. ~h ` ~:7..~b-[~. ~`c/ :..r,~: - ':~d%. --,';f~: ' ~~ ~. /~ ~-- 3a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3b. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO 11780-REVISION #2 OWNER: 8ORTI5 ET AL, C/O Stefan Wambach, 1482 E. Lincoln Ava., P.naheim, CA 9280 LOCATION: rro rtv is aparoximately 4 47 acres with a frontace_of a roximatel 85 feet o the south aide of Rio Grande Drive and located approximately 306 feet east of the centerline of Ch:intana Drive. To re-establish an expired 7-lot (plus one lot for a private roadway) RS-HS-22,000 (SC) Zone, si::gle-family residential subdivision. Continued from the December 17, 7.990, and January 14, and February 11, 1991 Planning Commission meetings. -4- 3/ Continued to 4/22/91 4~~~ I ~:~~ ~: ;~ ., S-y <~sa.. ~~ .~, ~~H ~ ~f~~, '~~i t "~'~ (i~~; ~": ~:. yJ f u~~. }:j. ... ~:~ ,^,,~4,. ~~ 4a. CE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION 4b. RECLASSIFICATION NO 90-91-18 4c. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 4d. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3364 4e. WAIVER OF COUNCIL POLICY NO. 543 I OWNER: DR. MYRON SIMON/MR. STANLEY, P.O. Box 3182, Anaheim, CA 92803 AGENT: JOHN 0. COTTON, 1408 Third Street Promenade, Third Floor, Santa Monica, CA 90401 LOCATION: 1334 West La Palma Ave. Property ie approximately 0.72 acre located on the south aide of La Palma Ave. and 75 feet on the northerly terminus of Loara Street approximately 131 feet west of the centerline of Hermosa Drive. RS-7200 to RS-A-43,000. To construct a 55-unit deck type "affordable" senior citizen apartment building with waivers of minimum lot area, maximum structural height and minimum site area per dwelling unit. Continued from the December 3, 1990 and February 11, 1991, Planning Commission meetings. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. -5- 3/ ~~:y'~. t 5a. CEOA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 5b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Sc. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3389 OWNER: MECCA LEISURE (CAL), INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION DBA, Orlando Entertains, 1556 E. Katella Ave., Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: L. A. ENTERTAINS, INC., Attn: Gordon Lucas, 1556 E. Katella Ave., Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 1859 S. Manchester Ave. Property is approximately 2.93 acres located on the southwest aide of Manchester Ave. and approximately 780 feet south of the centerline of Katella Way. To permit a 750-seat theme-type dinner theatre with on premise sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages, and conditionally permitted signs, including two electronic, digital, changeable copy message board signs with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces, maximum number of wall signs, maximum structural h9ight adjacent to single-family residential, minimum landscaped screening abutting residential property, prohibited signs and permitted encroachments in front setback. Continued from the February 25, 1990 Planning Commission meeting. ^1 l ,- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC91-33 iOLLfi!9ING iS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSID'c'RED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: None PETITIONERS COMMENTS: Project originally submitted in early 1990; they had anticipated that this project would be under construction by 8/90 and finished in 12/90; they were unable to do that because City enacted a building moratorium in the CR zone; in the interim the City adopted new zoning and design guidelines for the CR area and as a result the area went under some major redesign; parking was affected ae a result of the new standards; some eignage regulations were changed as well. A elide presentation was given by Frank Elfend. Originally there was a 30-minute overlap between shows and will extend it to 45 minutes between ehowa to provide some additional time for parking; will be a matinee and evening show on Sunday; there wil'1 be some exceptions during the summertime; more activity is anticipated and there will be 2 ehowa nightly on Monday through Thursday and during Easter there will be some additional ehowa and they will all end by 11:00 P.M.; evening shows will be 6:15 p.m. and 9:00 p.m.; single shows will be from approximately 6:00 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. ya; Approved Approved Granted -6- i I Will be a high quality building with extensiva landscaping; from the freeway the project will look tremendous; you would only see 2 signs and ~ one of which would be the lettering over the draw bridge; it ie a ' compliment to the building; there is a dragon and a knight statue and would attract people to the theme; the more people that come to the attraction, the more revenue and economic impact it will have upon the City; statues are not intended to be a part of the signage, but to compliment the architecture; WAIVER o - Minimum landscape screening abutting residential property; setback requirement is to be sensitive to the adjoining residential use; site plan hoe been designed with a positive interface; they have agreed to increase the setback adjacent to the northerly boundary from 5 to 10 feet and that ie a fully landscaped area and it hoe 15 gallon and 24" box trees that will be planted densely; have agreed to increase the wall height from 6 feet to 8 feet and it will be planted with vines; landscaping will be increased around the entire site; truck loading areas will be screened; will protect the line-of-eight by having an 8' wall and accompanying vegetation; lighting will be directed away from residential area; will increase the building setbacks from the current building in excess of another 50 feet so the buildings will be further away from the one land use which is of concern; dilapidated buildings will be removed and will be a benefit to the neighborhood. WAIVER E - Maximum structural height - this ie a unique waiver; the theatre part of the entertainment use is 38' which is a few feet higher than what is permitted by Code; all other heights are projections above the roof line. r. -~ Page 11, condition no. 2 - Suggested to remove the word "unsubordinated"; Page 12, condition no. 16 - Suggested to add to end of condition the following: "Payment of said fees shall constitute full payment of any and all traffic improvement fees currently in force which may thereafter be established." Page 13, condition nos. 24 and 25 - eased on traffic study, would prefer that both of these conditions be deleted. Page 14, condition no. 31 - Change to (S)-foot high masonry block wall. Page 14, condition no. 33 - If look at design guidelines, the wording regarding landscaping ie somewhat permissive to the extent that the word should is used ae opposed to must. They would like some additional :,,,, flexibility; according to the architect, he would like to have a palette 's which hoe some additional evergreens that would probably provide a better interface; the palette that is provided in the design auidelinea ie somewhat limiting; would like to come in with a plant palette that would ~~ vary for approval as well; as they read the guidelines, they are somewhat permissive rather than mandatory. i -7- 3/11/ 1 7 Page 14, condition no. 34 - Suggest that this be deleted in its entirety; they have gone through a process whereby staff has reviewed the design ~, guidelines and they have reviewed the design guidelines and generally agree that the project is consistent; design guidelines are guidelines as opposed to a rule or regulation and this condition would make it more of a rule or regulation and because this hoe been found to be consistent, then this condition ie unnecessary. Page 15, condition no. 36 - Referenced conditions 1, 3, 5, 9, 16, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, and 33; do not object to having these complied with prior to issuance of a building permit, but some of these do require the payment of a fee which may not be completed within one-year and if they are not, they would prefer not to come back before the Commission and ask for an extension; they would prefer to delete the "one (1) year" because the control ie there. COMMISSION. STAFF AND PETITIONER COMMENTS: Page 8 of staff report regarding design guidelines was referenced; first item talks about vents and pipes painted to match color of walla and screening of roof-mounted equipment; just wanted to make aura they were conforming to that. Second item re setbacks; asking for a waiver for those Third item is design of parking areas; looks like they have a large asphalt area with a normal striping plan; this does not allow a normal striping plan; this requires that where wheel stops would be put in that there be a full curb and a planting area. n ~ Mr. Eifend indicated that will be provided for. Commission - Clarification needed as to whether they will be using normal colored concrete for hardecape? Architect - The enhanced pavement would be a colored concrete that would have a stamped impression in a flagstone pattern and would be in a brownish sand earth color and would not be a terra-cotta color. Commission - Asked if they were planning on conforming on the parking area curbing and the architect indicated that they were. Commission - Asked if there will be a planter in the middle and the architect explained along the perimeter of the property, they would have a full curb and the large parking area to the left of the structure behind the wall, the planting areas for those trees that are shown would have a curb planting area and that would be circular in shape at the any intersections of the parking isles. He added it is not a continuous single landscaped planter. Commission: Asked if cars would be able to head into each other with no wheel curb32 Architect - Stated that is their preference because of the maintenance of it in terms of sweep cleaning the parking lot. 3/11/ 1 ~..~ _g_ ' 7 Commission - Then you do not want to meet this guideline? The guideline envisions having a curb at every parking area, i.e., in between the bays of parking, the guideline suggests a rained planter. i ..*.rchitect - They could accommodate that. A contiguous planter will provide for a wheel stop and they agree to conform to the design guidelines as explained to them. Commission - Referenced condition no. 34; applicant stipulated to all of those things except for the ones that may be waived later in the hearing. Hoydstun- Has a problem with condition no. 25 on page 13; does not have a problem with the parking study but does with the 90 days; not very practical; should be 6 to 12 months; if they do have a problem then they can provide some off-site parking. Applicant desires to eliminate. this entirely. Henninger - Zf they d~ decide on 12 months then they do not need condition no. 24. Public Works-Engineering (PWE) - eeferenced page 4; there ie a sewer capacity problem; other projects in the CR area were required to construct the sewer improvements; given the nature of the improvements that were required and the area in front of Disneyland and in heart of CR area, the city has reconsidered that they need to have maximum control on when those improvements go in and coordinate them at the proper time so that no longer will one developer be required to put in stages of their ~ improvements, and that the Ciry would coordinate this activity and ~ actually be in charge of the construction. Each applicant would be paying v their fair share in terms of a cash payment to rlleviate the sewer problem. Conuniaeion - This would be part of the mitigated negative declaration and the sewer fee would be the mitigation. PWE - They would be offering a fair share contribution to the upgrade of the Katella line or payment of a CR sewer assessment fee that will be established by the City Council in the future. The following condition was read into the record: "That prier to the issuance of a building permit, a cash payment shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in the amount of $14,570.40 for their fair share contribution to the Katella Avenue sewer upgrade subject to inflationary adjustment in accordance with the Engineering Wawa record construction cost index for the Loe Angeles area or that a sewer assessment fee shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an amount to be established by the City Council for the Commercial Recreation Area." The fee that they already determined would be directly for the Katella Avenue line whereas when the City Council establishes an assessment area, it may include upgrades of other lines besides the Katella Avenue and the coat would be different; the applicant would be given the lower of those 2 amounts. 3 11 9 -9- ~ / I;Y~ `'tc. ,~,< ~~~ ~ .. ~, l__,~ V r ::r3 en .uSM Meese - For clarification this would be a new condition that would fall someplace with the list of conditions. Elfend - Suspect this would replace condition no. 5, however, this ie different from what he understood. Understands right now that the City has a fee in place. PWE - The City currently has a city-wide sewer assessment fee in the amount of S350.00 per acre; tha amount that the developer would be paying would be an amount in addition to this for their specific impact on the sewer line. Meese - The applicant ie taking away 3 industrial building and has that been taken into account, i.e., he is removing capacity and adding capacity and ie the S14,000 the differential? PWE - The S14,000 is the fair share for the upgrade of the Ratella line; that ie his new generation factor and his base rate ie currently $350.00 an acre which would take care of those 3 industrial buildings. Elfend - He clarified it is $350.00 an acre and there are approximately 3 acres and approximately 51,000. In addition there is a new fee which the City, in this last half hour, has just developed and that is the $14,000 fee? PWE - The $14,000 would not be a fee, but rather their fair share contribution to the sewer line upgrade; the new fee has not been established by the City Council and that would be area wide for the entire CR area. Elfend - The total between those 2 would be $15,000. He added that was fine; he was just trying to understand it. Henninger - Glad to see they were able to enlarge the landscaped buffer next to the mobile home park; the 8-foot wall will be a good improvement over the 6-foot wall. Henninger - If eliminate condition no. 24 and if keep 25, that would give them ability to have a full parking load. Traffic - Extensively analyzed the traffic itr.~act that was submitted to them and the study did not mention that the:••e ;te approximately 40 employees; in one location parking calla for 2.9 and in another section it calls for 3.3. Elfend - LSA prepared the traffic study and they indicate that the 40 employees were included in the study. Traffic - Wae not in mentioned traffic study unless he missed it. Henninger •• Staff recommended 290 spaces. -10- ^`~3~ ,;,`^ f . ~Y j A ~.'~': {; Traffic - Recommended 290 spaces provided not to exceed 120 days; at such a time they would like the applicant to do a traffic parking study that ~` will tell them the true no. of the needed parking on-site and at that time ~ `.~' if they only need 250 spaces, then they do not have to provide the j additional 40 epacea. At this point they feel uncomfortable with the 250 parking spaces Henninger - If had 290 spaces, would they have adequate parking for all of their customers and employees? Traffic - Still would have asked for additional parking; because !:hey do not have the 40 spaces. They are asking for an actual study when open and in operation. Henninger - Gete the sense that Traffic thinks it is debateable if they need 290 or 250 spaces. Traffic -That ie correct. Henninger - They have 250 and may need 40 more. Will relieve them of that requirement if Traffic finds out through the study that there ie not a need? Traffic - That is correct; also regarding the 60K fee (condition no. 16) just checked with City Traffic and Transportation Manager and they would like to keep that condition the way it ie and not make any changes on it. Hellyer - They just wanted to add language that said that ie all they owe. `' Traffic - They may not build it in one, two or 3 years and at that time they may have some other fees in place that they will be able to collect to make the improvements. Boydstun - if they have not paid the fees and started construction within one-year then it will die. Elfend - The City has come up with a condition of approval regarding an exaction and an amount of money related to that exaction which they agreed to. if the City dose a subsequent study based on other uses which are not known at the current time, and may not be know for some time in the future, it would be cumulative. This ie why they are asking for that condition to be worded the way it is. Henninger - How many seats are we dealing with? "~~~ Elfend - 750 seats. i Hellyer - Traffic's calculations are based on worst case scenario. Traffic - They have no other facility like this in this area, so must be careful when providing for the number of parking spaces. Elfend - City has a tremendous track record with Disneyland in terms of occupancy and the types of usages they get and there are a suff c ant number of parking epacea. I -11- 3/11/9 ~", _,/ -12- 3/ .=;~' na~ °Ik ~; •'r~~~ Hellyer - Make a requirement that after 6 months of opening, do a park±ng study to find out exactly where they are on this. By Traffic's own admission, their approach is a worse case scenario; must give applicant the benefit of the doubt; would support the elimination of condition no. 24 and to alter the 90 days to 6 months. Hellyer - the testimony that they have heard ie that Medieval Times has 1100 seats and 356 epacee which ie 3.1 spaces per seat and the proposal is for 750 seats with 250 parking epacee which ie 3.0; the other thing is the spread between shows; Medieval times does not have much of a spread between shows and it causes some problems; they have agreed to a 45 minute spread and wanted to know if that was enough. Boydetun - Prefers a 1 hr. spread. Elfend - 45 minutes would work best in terms of neighbors, etc. Meaee - You are asking patrons to be there 1/2 hr. before show time, eo this gives them 15 minutes to empty the parking lot and refill it. Boydetun - Suggest they start the show at 6:00 p.m. instead of 6:15 p.m. Elfend - Agreed to 55 minutes between shows. Chief of Advanced Planning of Caltrane - Reviewed this in December and their major concern was that it was outside the right-of-way line, to staff in January, they suggested that a decision on this particular project be postponed until the right-of-way line was established and finalized. Since then because of various other matters, they have been able to take a firmer position and at thi.e time they wanted to let them know that their position is that it is outside of the right-of-way line. In the letter Caltrane sent to staff on January 27, 1991, they would like to delete the second sentence of the last paragraph which says they would like them to postpone the decision. Meaee - Asked about elevations regarding the electronic eigne. Boydetun - Stated if the 2 eigne were on a pole they would be one sign and it does look better the way they have it. She added she does not consider this one a waiver. Elfend - Other eignage is part of the architecture. Henninger - opposed to statues. Statues are the sort of thing that he thought they were trying to eliminate from the City of Anaheim Feldhaus - Statues are a theme idea and they seem to fit. Meese - In comparison to the Ring Henry facility in Orlando, there are no statues such as dragons, etc., and it ie a very clean nice looking buildiny. Elfend - A hotel theme ie different then an attraction and the more successful this use ie, the more successful it ie to the City of Anaheim on an economic basis. He added people are attracted to the statues. Mesas - Can see where the banners would be part of the feeling of the building and he could go along with that portion of the variance. Boydetun - Water will be recycled? Elfend - Yee. Henninger - Would like to strike the word "unsubordinated" in condition no. 2. Deputy City Attor:iey - Their office has no problem with striking the word; this is a conditional use permit and the conditional use process would permit sufficient enforcement of that condition. Henninger - Petitioner had question regarding relocation of power poles and abandonment of easements. age (Z M - Thia is a standard condition and if it is required then this would be imposed and if there a no , en be. Elfend - Would like to create wording which stipulates that it ie not mandatory, but permissive. Hellyer - Regarding condition no. 16. Supports applicant's language, i. e., it constitutes full payment. Henninger - On the other side of that argument is that many times they have programs that are put in place to get existing property owners that develop properties to participate in some upgrades and this would let them off that. Meese - Willing to delete condition no. 24 and amend condition no. 25 to 180 days. Henninger - Condition no. 31 - change to 8-foot wall] regarding condition no. 33, are those species listed on the plane? Architect - in developing the palette, the screen landscaping along the edge ie an evergreen and a cypress and that gives them a maximum vertical screening and it will be dense, i.e., 15-foot on center. Landscape is not listed on the current plane. ZDM - The Code actually dose require conformance with the plant palette and the plant palette is located in the design guidelines which was adapted by the Commission and the Council. Those could be changed if there was a problem. They could apply for a variance to vary from those or amend the design guidelines to bring in different types of landscaping. -13- 3/11/S Mesas - For clarification in the area of the design guidelines having to do with the plant palette, it is not a suggestion, rather it is part of the ordinance? ZDM - That is correct. Elfend - Referred to the wording in the design guidelines because he interpreted it differently. He referenced page 24, no. 5, Plant Palette and read: Selections for private properties in the C-R Area "should" be made from the following: He stated the word "ghoul." provides some degree of flexibility and they are ,.eking to come in with some trees that make more sense then having to go through some varianc3 process. Would like to provide something that would potentially be better. Boydstun - Could we make it that any changes made be subject to staff approval? Hellyer - Perhaps should give some flexibility given the water aitua`.ion that there would be some sort of landscaping that would be less water intensive. Henninger - From testimony heard, it sounds like they will be in substantial conformance. rr.w.........~....._... ... De ut Cit Atttrrt~ .~d t the..^^°-~°r"=,na r_w or-ia~~'r comply and that would give sufficient flexibility for the minor variations -~ that are being discussed. The use of the word "should" was deliberately included throughout the guidelines to differentiate from the Code requirements, otherwise the guidelines could have been included in the Code and they were intended to provide for minimal flexibility. Henninger - Referenced condition no. 34. Covered design guidelines and basically they stipulated to all of them. 'Imagine they do not have any trouble with the condition. Elfend - If that is true, then there ie no reason to keep it. ZDM -The purpose of the condition is to ensure that the property, through the years, would maintain these, i.e., there would not be any changes contrary to the design guidelines. Melee - Suggest they Ieave that. l.J~ Henninger - Condition no. 36 ie a standard condition that they normally use and when people have not been able to meet these things within one-year they generally have given them an extension of time. It does cover the possibility that you will not be building this for a period of 5 years and many things could change. This ie an important ability for the City to have in order to review this type of thing. -14- 3/il/9~ ', ~~ ,a'> Elfend - Have seen this condition worded different ways. Hellyer - How would you like it worded? Elfend - Take out "within a period of one (1) year." As long as City has control over the building permit, that is sufficient control. Henninger - The wording provides a sunset provision. Mesas - Agrees that must be left in. ZDM - Code requires that. a time period be specified in the resolution and it suggests one-year or within any lesser or greater time limits as specified in the resolution. ' Elfend - On one of their projects in the Hills, they extended that from one-year to two-years. Meese - Leave as one-year. ~~ -15- ..,.., _. ~.. . . ;'"; ~~ ~~ t N y(j i ~~ ACTION: CEQA Mitigated Negative Declarztion - Approved (With conditions that relate to the sewer capacity problems in the CR urea and that those conditions require a payment of a fee to enlarge certain sewer lines). Waiver of Code Reauir.F,gent - Approved Waiver A - Subject to condition no. 25 wits study required after 6 months and submitted to staff within 240 days. Delete condition nu. 24. Waiver B - To allow signs as shown on the plans. Waiver C - Make finding that the adjacent area is planned fur other than single-family uses and that the major part of the building is not affected. Waiver D - Subject to stipulations heard, and that there will be an 8-foes wall; that the landscape buffer is going to be 10 feet and not 5 feet and that it is Going to be planted with 24" box trees, 15-foot on center. Waiver E - To allow banners and remcve tha statues. Conditional Use Yern.it tJo. 3349 - Granted Nq~`~ _Rcmwe word "unsubordineced." _ - -° - - .r.r..rrrr ~" Condition No. 3: Add language at beginning that says "if ~~ there is a requirement to abandon any utility easements or relocate any power poles, then the legal owner shall", etc. Add a condition between nos. 5 and 6 regarding the sewer capacity. Leave condition no. 16 the way it is. Eliminate condition no. 24 and substitute a condition that reads "that on those days that they are proposing 2 shows, there will be a minimum 55 minute space between the ending of one show and the starting time of the next show." Condition no. 25: Change 90 days to 180 days; and 120 days to 240 days. Condition no. 31: Change +.0 8 feet. Condition no. 33: Next to the last line insert the word "substantial" (before the word conformance). Condition no. 34: Leave in. Condition No. 36: Leave as written. Note: Some of the numbers in condition nos. 35 and 36 will ~./ change. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bouas absent) -16- 3/11, i . ,~~~~ 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION bb. CONDITIONAL IISE PERMIT NO. 3381 OW'N ER: 51'EWART GREEN ANC ASSOCIATES, At t.n: Rosalie McCormick, 2180 E. Lincoln Ave., Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: "[_134 E. Lincoln Ave.. Property ie approximatel}' 27.1 acres located at the southeast corner of Lincol;i Ave. and State College Blvd. T~ permit. the rii~:ision of an existing retail unit. Continued from tt~e February 11, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NG. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL t1INUTES. OPPOSITION: None PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Request for a 3,44' sq. ft. unit that they would like to divide; have complied with conditions. Regarding State College Blvd., the}• have submitted one set of plans; it has made it through the second pass. They are dialing with Ralph's and Stewart Green and rtw Traffic and moat of the plane were agreed upon] there were only some ~ alight variations that they needed to work out between Ralph's who has ~~-.- major control over the parking area and the lot. COMMISSION COMMENTS: What happened to plane for state College? There was a condition imposed on this and there was a time frame and that time frame expired last July; maybe they need to look at all of the conditional use permits along with the one they are currently asking for and look at the cumulative effect in terms of revoking some of these if the improvements regarding this median cannot be implemented. Any intensification of the use would cause a problem at State College and Lincoln. STAFF coMMEHTS: Melanie Adams, Public Works-Engineering, indicated the agent stated they had submitted plane for the median i.elanda and that they have been through 2 checks, however, they have not been submitted to the City for Plan Check. Alfred Yalda, Traffic Engineering, stated they have not received any plane; they met with them twice in July of last year and the condition of the project is that they complete the median island within 180 days and since that time they have not had any discussions with the applicant or their agent. He added usually improvement plans go to the Engineering section first and they distribute them to the other sections for review and they have not seen anything. Co r.t i Hued Lo 4/9j9i `;~- ~ ~,/ -17- 3/11, ^~~ r, ~~ Li ACTION: Continued to 4/8/91 for agent to go back and check on statue of completion of median island. In addition, the following motion was made: Chairwoman Boydatun offered a motion, ruconded by Commissioner Hellyer and MOTION CARRIED that staff ie hereby directed to pull all cope in conjunction with this item and; Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Peraza and MOTION CARRIED that staff examine all cups in conjunction with the above item and bring back t., the Planning Commission a report to see which of these cups should be considered for revocation if these improvements cannot be put in place in a timely manner and that the parking be looked at cumulatively. -18- 3 ..," -' . ~7: .;`Y"~`: `:r t;._ ;;:~- -`s ~.. ~ ~~ 7a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Conanued 7b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT to 4/8/91 ^, 7c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3382 OWNER: HARVEY OWEN, P.O. BOX 1034, Tustin, CA 92680 ' LOCATION: 1152 North Kraemer Blvd. Property is approximately 0.17 acre located on the east aide of Kraemer Blvd. approximately 580 feet south of the centerline of Coronado Street. To permit an industrially-related office building with waiver of minimum structural setback. Continued from the February 11, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. N0 /~~~~ Q~/6""" . CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION• None PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Have applied for rezoning to comply with the General Plan designation from Residential to Industrial; they have met all of the requirements for this zoning change except for the trash enclosure for the office bldg. Need a 50-foot setback for trash enclosure and a ~ turn-around for the truck on the property; from a design point of view, it `~ is impossible to do this due to the width of the property; requests a waiver. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Discussion took place as to how many lanes it takes for a truck to back out onto the street; Sanitation, Utilities and applicant need to get together to work this out. STAFF COMMENTS: Rod Hallock, Sanitation. On an arterial Street as busy as this, the trash truck should not provide service on the street; there is no parking on the street and hie recommendation ie to rework the plan ' or find other means to allow the truck to service the site off-street. Alfred Yalda, no parking permitted on either side of the street and the average speed is above 45 mph, therefore, they do not recommend that any sanitation truck stop at any time to pick up trash because it is a safety ~ hazard. ACTION: Continued to 4/8/91 for applicant to get together with Utilities and Sanitation Departments. ~ ~. 8a. CEOA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 8b. VARIANCE NO. 4113 Continued to 3/25/91 OWNER: AMEDCO, HUMANA WEST ANAHEIM COMMUNITY HOSPITAL INC., 3030 West Orange Ave. Anaheim, CA AGENT: KAISER HEALTH PLAN, INC., Attns Property P.cquieition, 393 ~~~"-""' E. Walnut St., Pasadena, CA 91188 LOCATION: 3030 Weat Orange Ave. Property is approximately 3.27 acres located on the south aide of Orange Ave. and approximately 387 feet west of the centerlinr, of Heach Blvd. Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces, maximum structural height and minimum required setback adjacent to residential zone boundary to construct a 5-story, 140,000 square foot medical multi-specialty office building with 2 levels of subterranean parking and a detached 5-level parking structure. Continued from the February 25, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. ~, l_./ r...., -20- 9a. CEOA MIT.LGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 9b. VARIANCE NO. 4115 ~ 9c. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP N0. 90-107 OWNER: BROOKHOLLOW APARTMENTS (ANAHEIM) ASSOCIATES, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, 4490 Von xarman, Newport Beach, CA 92660; ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, 400 Civic Center West, Santa Ana, CA 92701; City of Anaheim, 200 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92803 Approved Granted Approved LM'ATION: Prooertv ie aooroximately 5.59 acres located at the northeast corner of Crescent Avenue and 6rookhuret Street. Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces, maximum structural height and required elevators to construct a 124-unit, "affordable", 2 and 3 story, apartment complex and to establish a 2-lot subdivision. ~~ ~ ~~W VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC91-34 ~~/~ ~ ~ I ~ FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANP:ING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: 1 concerned individual from the Anaheim City School District. OPPOSITION i.ONCERNS: Their situation has changed since the original application; they feel the down sizing improves the situation, however, ~-. the City School District is in a situation where this will definitely 1~~ impact them; they are not sure where they will house children from this pro jec~;. Short term would mean some additional busing and addititnal portable units being brought in; running out of places to put additional affordable units and they are well exceeding the capacity of what they think ie a desirable school size; making a major impact on the education facilities in this community. PETITIONER',^^ COMMENTS: Propose 124-unit project; 208 of unite will be affordable tc very low income families; there are no single family residences around the site, however, there are some condos and apartments across Crescent. Because of configuration of buildings, it would be a hardship to put in elevators and they are doing the affordable housing which is the basis for asking for this variance; they are within 27 spaces of what they need on the site; they are unable to put in those additional 27 spaces on the site; they met with traffic, housing and planning to try to mitigate this; could provide subsidization of 20 bus passes (or 504); target people with lase than the no. of care that would be required for that type of a unit; would like to get together with the department within the City who is involved in ride sharing; require that the 3-bedroom units have only 2 cars and they would police this on site with their management company and it hoe proven effective on 1 or 2 other sites that they purchased with inadequate parking. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Discussion took place ae to what the average number of children per unit was and it was determined that they use a generation factor of .4 children per unit which would be around 60 children from this project. -21- 3/11/ 1 ~~, STAFF COMMENTS: Eric Nicoll, Housing Development Manager, stated the Anaheim Housing Authority has a disposition development agreement that the ~ ~` housing authority approved about a year and half ago to build between 176-228 apartment units on the site. The project did not work out when it was bid out due to amount of available financing and therefore, could not be built; Anaheim Housing Authority was issuer for 24 million dollars of tax exempt bonds to construct the project ae well as providr, financing for. the land; will give very low income households a chance to experience the ~~, quality housing that a higher income household would experience. Commissioner Henninger asked if the Planning staff could give a recommendation on the negative declaration? Greg McCafferty, Planning, stated when new information is presented during the initial study process, CEQA generally requires that the Negative Declaration be based on that information and be recirculated. Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, stated there is case law for going either way on the matter. She sited a Long Beach case in which the court of appeals said that the steps that are being taken to make this a mitigated negative declaration do not constitute a fundamental reorganization of the negative declaration. We do not have a problem, but there ie no definition of a fundamental reorganization so it is a judgment call that ::cede to be made; the more conservative positien ie to recirculate the negative declaration. Nicoll - In the Disposition Development Agreement (D~A1 which was public ~., information and which they held 2 public hearings, it was mentioned that i prior to conveyance of land to the developer that the site would be ~~ cleaned of all known hazardous elements and contaminates. So far as disclosure, they made adequate pro~~ieions in public hearings of the project to disclose that there was information through the DDA. Boydstun - It is a City owned project and a City Department ie taking responsibility for it; they have agreed to clean it up to meet County standards, therefore, it seems like they should be able to make this a mitigated negative declaration. Shirley , Housing - They would like them to approve the project, but understand the dilemma that the Commission is going through. She stated there is a time period in wh:~ch they could be challenged if the project is approved today. The financing ie a concern to them if the project ie delayed. Hellyer - Asked for brief description of contamination. Mr. McCafferty stated basically it ie within the first 24 inches of soil strata and it is minor lead contamination as well as petroleum hydrocarbons. Discussion took place ae to who the lead agency was on this. Eric Nicoll stated they Have been working with John Hills, Environmental Specialist, and he has coordinated all of their clean-up activities on the site; have `J removed all lead contaminates and all of the asbestos; have received final clearance from the County of Orange; have hesitated cleaning the hydrocarbons which are just on the surface layer because there ie still street sweeping operations taking place. -22- 3/11/9 ;;~a .; :, ~~;;: -_~: ~M~$~. County of Orange is the lead agency and John Hill would coordinate final approval letter from them and they are confident that there ie nothing /'~ significant regarding a health hazard. Need to clear surface approximately 2 feet] contaminates are not under any houainq, but on a surface paved area and will be surfaced with an asphalt cap. Melee - Cannot see any conditions listed under the variance relative to the bus passes and people being moved into the second and third floor. Should be a condition if it is to be considered. Nicoll - Agreed to put it in an amended Disposition Development Agreement, but would support it ae a condition of approval to be in the resolution. Melee - How would S17 per month bus pass work? Shirley - Make person aware that a program ie in place and hand out literature; a requirement would be that they have a leaser no. of cars per unit than what the City requirement is for the site. Feldhaua - Could you limit the rentals of 3-bedroom unite to tenants with no more than 2 vehicles? What are rentals going for? Shirley - For a very low income studio approximately $430; 2-bdrm would be j $530 for very low income and 51,000 for market rate; 3-bdrm approximately S1200 - $1300 for market rate and $600 for very low income. Nicoll - Also take into consideration that these are over sized units, eo will be a higher rent range than the rest of the market. / _~ Feldhaus - Providing larger unite and requiring waivers on parking. Hellyer - Waivers are in lieu of other incentives because they are not asking for density bonus. Nicoll - Asking for incentives to develop this for affordable houainq and make these units available. Hellyer - Cut density back nearly in half from the original plan. Melanie Adams - Public Works-Engineering. Made the following corrections to the conditions of approval: Condition no. 4, Page 30: Ask that condition no. 4 be deleted. Condition no. 7, page il: Strike second sentence " Condition no. 8, page 12 should read as follows: "That prior to final building and zoning inspections, the existing striping on Gramercy Avenue, from Srookhurst Street to Valley Street, shall be removed. The new 1 striping plane shall provide two way left-turn lanes with appropriate signing and markings. The new striping, marking and signing shall be submitted to the City Traffic Manager for hie review and approval. Said i striping shall be completed prior to final building and zoning ~ , t ~ inspections." 1/9 3/] . -23- Add the following new condition: *"That full sidewalks and parkway landscaping shall be installed along Gramercy ae required by the City ~ Engineer in accordance with the standard plans and specifications on file - in the office of the City Engineer." Leonard McGhee - Correction condition no. 9: should read on the south aide of Gramercy Avenue not the right side. ACTION: CEQA Mitigated Negative Declaration - Approved Tie mitigation to the variance. Variance No. 4115 - Granted (TO include stipulation by applicant to lease a certain no. of 3-bedroom apartments with 2 care; providing bus passes at a maximum coat of $340 per month subject to the changes; promotion of ride sharing; helping second and third floor residents to move and to remove themselves ae required). '4o be included in DDA. To include the changes to condition nos. 8 and 9 and add raw condition per Melanie Adams ae shown above.* Add following condition to the variance (per Greq McCafferty): That prior to issuance of a building permit, all site contamination shall be remediated to the satisfaction of the ~-., County of Orange Health Care Agency. Proof shall be submitted to the Zoning Divielon." Tentative Parcel Mac No. 90-107 - Approved Delete condition no. 4 on page 10 and change condition no. 7 on page 11, by deleting the last eentence. VOTE: 5-1 (Commissioner Feldhaus voting NO and Commissioner Bouas absent) Chairwoman Boydatun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Melee and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission schedule a Work Seeaion for April 1, 1991, to include a presentation from City School District. +'d ,.-. U -24- 3/ ~;~: :~ h, 10a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO 273 (PREV.CERT.1 lOb. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 12694 AND SITE PLAN ~. OWNER: PRESLEY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, Attn: Steve Riggs, 19 Corporate Plaza, Newport Beach, CA 92660 LOCATION: Hills Development Area 102 to the east The Hiahlanda at A aheim Hills Development Areas 7 and 8 to the south and The Hiahlanda at Anaheim Hills Development Area 3 to the west and further described ae Development Area 6 of The Hiahlanda at Anaheim Hills Specific Plan_tsP87-11. To establish a 30-lot (including 11 lettered lots), 276-unit air apace condominium subdivision and requests site plan review and approval. ~. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: None PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Currently getting ready to start construction on the very .last phase of the 132 units that are in tract 12700; this is a condominium air space project and there are 30-lots; there are 30-lots because they are doing some infrastructure improvements that will be dedicated to the city and these are on separate lots; there is an underground reservoir and the other reason for individual lots is only to facilitate their Department of Real Estate processing and to be able to build in phases through the project. He referenced pages 24 and 25 of the staff report. Asked for clarification on condition no. 1, i.e., he wants to verify that this language does apply to this case. Condition no. 9: Staff has done some research on this and wanted to know if there is some amended language. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Approve condition no. 1 as written and it can be worked out with the applicant. STAFF COMMENTS: Discussion took place regarding condition no. 1 and the traffic signal fees; Mr. Yalda to get further clarification on this condition from the City Traffic and Transportation Manager and will work it out with the applicant. Approved Approved ~~~ -25- 3/ ~. :~~~: ~:rn~;. ~~ ~`, r' ~4 i ~i rr 1fi k:, >~ iii ~~,_ ?x.a W~~ r .,3-,. Y':. n i ~,.. ACTION• EIR No r Tentative Tract Map No. 12694 - Approved (With the amended condition no. 9 with language as presented by staff as shown above) VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Souse absent) Melanie Adams - Regarding condition no. 9, the issue is providing a turn-around area for street sweeping equipment within the public right-of-way. Applicant has several options and it appears they are moving to an area of agreement, however, it is not firm at this time. Has a recommended condition of approval that will make for a broad allowance for them to come to some agreement. The condition would read as follows: "That a turn-around area shall be provided on Horizon View Drive for street sweeping equipment (to further define the area, it would be near the entrance to the apartment site and commercial site and before the entrance to the condominium area) ae approved by the Department of I Maintenance and the Public Works Department." Applicant - Would like to modify this to say "sweepable turn-around area." Me. Adams - The additional wording would be good for clarification. 273 tP eviously Certified) - Approved -26- 3/ I r lla. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued llb. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT to 3/25/91 ~'` 11C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3390 lld. WAVER OF COUNCIL POLICY NO. 543 OWNER: DWYER HEES?,EY, X200, 300 N. TUSTIN, Santa Ana, CA 92705 LOCATION: 209 North Gilbert Street. Property ie approximately 0.23 acre located on the west aide of Gilbert Street and approximately 550 feet north of the centerline of Lincoln Ave. To permit a 9-unit "affordable" senior citizen's apartment complex with waivers of minimum building site area per dwelling unit, minimum setback to single family zone, maximum structural height and minimum ~/~ structural setback from the street. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: None PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Increased size of unite; added fireplaces to 5 of the unite; there were 2 residences that caused them to have these 2 i~ waivers; requests modification of 2 conditions of approval. He referenced r condition no. 18 and stated hie neighbor prefers to keep the 4.5' block wall rather than to construct a 6-foot block wall and that is at the neighbor's request. He referenced condition no. 5 regarding the trash truck turn-around area; their lot is only 78 feet wide and it takes up 1/3 of the lot to put in a turn-around area. Trash trucks currently atop in the traffic lane to pick up the trash for the single-family dwellings. His proposal is for the trash truck to actually pull into hie property where the truck is out of the traffic, pick up the trash and then back out onto Gilbert. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Can unite be serviced by robotics; 3 black barrels could take care of the whole complex; discussion took place regarding acquisition of Mr. Hill's property and wanted to know if they had made any overtures about acquiring his land. Hellyer indicated he would not vote for the intensification of this lot the way it ie planned, but would be willing to look at some way to assemble more of these parcels. U -27- 3/ °'~4„~ :..N - ~ fF ~'~, t ~41•„~ G 1 t r d N.• "s~:: ~ rr i~ ~4 t$.. 3 ly '. 4 r . ,y.~t: h.~ ,. (~ i~ /~, v ..•... ..: t -~.w'!0'MA~S"+w10' 'S:•'~~t 1 ~ ~t`Y ~l.. .. , ?~Y-~3~, ~V M ~1 7,,; •~~ f C ACTION: CSQA Negative Declaration - (T a vo ) (Feldhaus, Hellyer and Peraza NO) Continued to 3/25/91 until all Commissioners are present STAFF COMMENTS: Sanitation - They placed the condition for aturn-around ~ during the IDC process and reel they cannot approve stopping or backing uut onto an arterial; need room where they can provide a 3 point turn or some kind of loop or semi-circle; this is what they feel is safe in commercial and multi-family developments; could possibly service with robotics i.e., they are looking at options for providing recycling for commercial and multi-family type dwellings and buildings. Laura - Housing - There is a long waiting list for affordables. ~ i to failed to carry 3-3 •• .--, -28- 3/ ;; ,r. `~' ~~~., '~~-~~~ a-~ r~ r~~~ -'r, '~~> ~ -~#" t ~r j ~;^ 3 ~~~: S , ~.. ti ;u h _ . _;,:~,,, 4~; ;{ ~. 1 ~~ ;/ t../ 12a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued 12b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT to 3/25/91 12c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3391 OWNER: FRANK & JULE NOBLES, 18901 Watson Street, Cerritos, CA 90701 AGENT: HELEN GAY, 1180 S. Belhaven, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 1180 s. Belhaven street. Property is approximately 0.2 acre located on the east aide of Belhaven Street and approximately 270 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road. To expand an existing board and care facility from 6 to 10 residents with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. " /~L/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: 1 person present ACTION: Continued to 3/25/91 -29- .. `'AR . 1 j'~ .;~;- Y ;. . ' } MKS; ~ .4y?• y~ .l ..~ ^. 13a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 13b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved ~ 13c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3392 Granted OWNER: DAVID CHAVE2, 4420 E. La Palma Ave., Anaheim, CA 92807 AGENT: PAC TEL, Attn: Ernie Courter, POST OFFICE HOX 19707, ' Irvine, CA 92713-9707 LOCATIONS 4420 East La Palma Ave. Property is approximately 1.8 acres located on the south aide of La Palma Ave. and approximately 300 feet west of the centerline of Lakeview Ave. To permit a cellular telephone facility with a 60-foot tower in an existing RV storage park with waivers of max. height, minimum aide yard and min. rear yard. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC91-35 ~.~~ V~,~(~ FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION• 1 i OPPOSITION CONCERNS: Property has never been developed; never have made any improvements; asking for waivers that are a detriment to the t neighborhood. PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Project dose not present a safety hazard; the area ie ideal; agrees with all conditions of approval; leasing a small portion of the property; keeping tower ae unobtrusive ae possible. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Discussion took place as to why owner requested a CUP rather than a zone change and it was determined that the owner would not be able to keep a single-family residence there if it were rezoned; if changed to ML zone they could build a 100-foot tower without coming before the Commission. STAFF COMMENTS: ACTION: CE4A Negative Declaration - Approved Waiver of Code Requirement - Approved Conditional Uee Permit No. 3392 - Granted VOTE: 5-0 (Commiaeionere Bouas and Feldhaue absent) ' ,.~.. -30- 3 .: Ai', .:yy~Y:~,:,, _ ~~~,~, 148. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 90-91-24 ~. OWNER: Initiated By The City of Anaheim, 200 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92803 LOCATION: 1680 West Broadway. Property is approximately 0.49 acre located at the southeast corner of Broadway and Euclid Street. CG to CL. ACity-initiated reclassification of property. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION N0. PC91-36 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: CEQA Negative Declaration - Approved Reclassification No. 90-91-94 - Granted VOTE: 5-0 (Commiesianere Bouas and Feldhaue absent) .~~4 1~ ' . ;' !^ t `~ 5 - ~.w~ 1 ~ ,hn=~~i p~M1 y~: yfy ~~ T ~~~ _. l~; ~ ~~~ 1 ~y '~[!: ;~~~, ix Y ~~, ~r:,eu ~€~ a..; ~ ~; ; ~,. ~ ., . I ~`: -.'[ Approved Granted ~~jw~° ry~~ '~~ .^. U -31- 3/11/ ;.2 `,-:. ~3. ~, 15a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 15b. VARIANCE N0. 4111 Denied f OWNER: NUTWOOD PARK APARTMENTS, A CALIFORNIA LTD. PARTNERSHIP, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 AGENT: DON CHALK c/o The PRS Group, 27132 B Paseo Espada, Ste. 1222, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 LOCATION: 1668 South Nutwood Street. Property is approximately 1.0 acre located on the east aide of Nutwood Street and approximately 325 feet north of the centerline of Tamara Lane. Waiver of minimum structural setback, minimum number of parking spaces and minimum floor area per dwelling unit to retain two illegally constructed apartment unite. ~//. ~,((/ VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC91-37 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION• 1 OPPOSITION CONCERNS: Request Planning Commission deny this project. ~ PETITIONERS COMMENTS: Propose to retain 2 existing unite (29 and 30) ~ which were converted from area previously used as storage; There is adequate parking; willing for 2 units to be affordable COMMISSION COMMENTS: This ie second time they have come in with illegal unite; tandem parking is not convenient; owner knew apartments were bootlegged; should consider 4 unite as affordable. STAFF COMMENTS: Hruce Freeman, Code Enforcement, stated they knew units were illegal,: their business license shows only 28 units. Alfred Yalda, Traffic Engineering, stated if project is improved, should pay fees for traffic signal for these 2 units; Traffic recommends denial of parking waiver. ~ i ACTION: CEQA Negativ© Declaration - Approved Variance No. 4111 - Denied VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners B~uas and Feldhaus absent) I ~.. -32- 3/11/ 1 ~~ . 1'} tj*; ,~. ~~ }x-ng M1~t: 4~.•~i"M1 ~~. ~~ T- r ~t,q?c ;~ ~~ m~ `;. }i~r ~`i~, fY~~r ,. ~•,; ;[i 16. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ~~ A. SPECIFIC PLAN 88-~(PACIFICENTER-ANAHEIM1t- -- A. C. Atherton, Langdon Wilson requests for review of precise plane for Phase 2. Property i.s located on the southwest corner of La Palma Ave. and Tustin Ave. Continued from the February 25, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. :nyx~x-tClM~ti[ Continued to 4/8/91 H. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3262 - REQUEST FOR NUNC PRO TUNC Granted RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. PC 91-21 ~ RE65OLU 0. ~LPC91-38 '~~~ ~ '~ ,_y~ ~fiYF~ ]Q.'r2.t" ~C~CeCL~tv+tJ tD C'C iLC~'~• L(/ VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Eouae and Feldhaue absent) The meeting adjourned at 7:07 p.m. .~ 5~~ 4~~. ~r-1 ~~ -33- 3/11/