The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1981/02/09Ctvtc Cente~ Anshelm~ l:eliforn3~ Februa~y g~ 1g$1 REGULAR M~ETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PIIWNONC COMMISSION REGULAP, - 7ha reguler maating af the An+~helm City Plannl~g Commisston wes MEETII~G celled to ordar by th~irma~ Tolar at 1:3Q p.m.~ February 9~ 19$1 In the Cauncll Ch Mnbar~ e quorum being pro~ent. PRESENI - Chsirma~ Tol~r Commissidners: Barnss~ Bouss~ Dushore~ Fry, Herbst' Kin~ ABSE~IT - Commlssloner: NONE ALSO PRESENT - Anntka Sentalshti Assistant Qirector for Zonl~g Jack White A:sistent City Attorney Jay Tltus Office Enqineer Dean Sherar Asstst~nt ~lanner Edtth Harris Pl~nning Commisslon Secreta~y PLEDGE OF • The Pledge of A~legisnc~ to the Fleg wes led by Cortx~~fssianer Nerbst, ALlEG1ANCE APPROVAL 0~' - CommlssianQr King of~*~rd a n+otton. seconded by Commissloner Fry end TNE MtNUTES MOTION CARRIEQ (Con~*~~ ~~oner Herbst abatatning)~ that the minutes of Jsnuary 2fi~ 198' '~ ~rrovRd as submttted. M N0. 1: EIR CA 1. WAIVER OF CODE . PUBLIC HEARtNG. OI~INER: ZLAKE7. ~~~N 15~+~ Irvine, CA ~2715. A~ENTc ~~~'~` Orange~ CA 9266G. Property d~es•c.~~ ~~+:i = ~onststing of approxfmately 2,~+ a•-t+~r~. Straet and East Street. 2p1 +~a+~t°~• -~t (RESIDENTIAI., MULT'IPLE•~AMILY) _'$~E. ~Q QUIST. 2081 Business Centar Drive~ SuTte ~. MICKELSON~ 134 South Glassell Street, ~s a rectangul~rly-sh~ped percel of land i+ocated at the southwest corner of Cypress St~eet. Property presentiy clissified RM-1200 CaNDI'PIONAL USE PERM17 REQUEST: ~ i!"fRMIT A ONE-LOT, 63•~NIT, 25X AFFORDABLE CONDOMINiUM CONVERSION WITH WAl1l~ 'OF: (a) ~IINIMUM LOT AREA PER DWELLING UNIT. (b~ MAXIMUM SiTE COVERAGE~ (c) 1~lNH~-~ ~OOR AREA, (d) MIt~IMUM LANOSCAPED SETBACK~ (e) MINIMUM RECREATIONAI•lE1SWtE A~~R,. (f) pERM1TTED ARIENTATION OF BUIl01NGS AND (g) M t N I MUM NUMBER AND TYPE QF P411M4Y'!i~ S PACES . SubJect petition aes continwsd ~n th~ meeting af December 15~ 1980 at the request of the petttianar. 'iT~ere wsa a-e pe+yon I r-di u; tr-~q her prasence In oppos i t lo~ to subJect reques t~ and although th~e scaf!~ r~art ~wrs not rsad~ {t is referred to and ~nade a p~~t of the minutes. Bob wi~kelson~ i}~ South Glas~ell Ssr~et~ O~ange~ CA.~ agent~ ststed a wnttnuance r+ss gaa~nted ~R ~ier far the petitioner ta ~evleiw the proJect in ~n attea~t to provtde nars aR`~ordMdle w~tcs; that they have done that snd thought they hsd reached en agre~ent ~ith tbual~g snd )~~st leerned this awr~ing that there ts son~ confuston. Ha statsr! tn sdditio~, he h+~i been infonaed thot there is a Joint m~eti~g with the Plenning Commission~ City ~C~uncil and staff to eonsider conversions and condoa+lnium stanaerds on Fsbruary 18~ 1981~ •nd telt It wo~td ba tn their best interest to reques~ a c.mnttnuance of this matter unti) aftar that ~otnt meetin9. 81-78 2/9I81 ~ ;+ ~ lIINU~ES~ ANAHEIM CITtl PLANNING COMMISSiON~ ~EBIIUARY g~ 1981 81-79 Chalrm+~n Tolar stetad it is custanary for the Cam~nisston ta grsnt co~tlnusnces and he ~greed it wouid ba advisabte In thls case until ~fter the mesting wtth the Clty Counci) becaute possible cl~an9es to the ordln~nce w111 be discussed •t that meeting. Na st~ted he would hear from the opposition today. Commiasio~c~ Bushorr offerod ~r motton~ ~ecanded by Commissioner Kl~g, thst conslderation of the abova•ma~tio~ed item be continued to th~, febrwry 23- 19$~ meeting. P~lor ta the Commission vottng on the previous m~tion~ P~tr{cia Clancy, 303 North 6ush~ stuted the City Council did indicete at thelr last meeting that they thought tt wnuld teke more thsn on~- ~olnt session to ~rrtve at e solutlon and she felt (t adviaeble to continue the matte~ Innger thon Mo weeks. Ms. Clency presented photographs sha+tng the watQr at the end of Cypress Street taken today and axplsined the aater is dumped from sub,lect property a~d even though It had rained thls morning~ this is th~ wey it usualiy looks. Ms. Clancy stated she w{I1 ba present when thts is heard again beceuse she questlon~~ "What is affordable hausing3" Mr. Mickeisan steted tha petltioner would be amendable io whatever reaso~able continuance the Commisslon feels is appropriate. Ne st~ted they feel they have a solution tn the dratnage problenn and wiil attempt te meet wfth the nelghbors a~nd explaln the plen du~i~g this contlnua~ce period. Chairnwn Tolar asked if the petitlo~e~ ha~ beer+ meeting with the tensnts and has ~ny information as to the nwaber of tenants who Nould be interested in buytng o~e of thase unlts. Mr. Mlckelson replied they heve m~t with thr te~snts. but not since the last hearing; that he does not have a specific nun~er of ten~nts i~terasted in buying a unit~ but some have indicated a very definite interest. Chairman 7olar stated he understonds cl~ven tenants have n~ved out because of rent increases and those would ba tha people who v+ould quatify for affordable houstng~ sa this conversto~ vrould bo for ne+v people rather thAn satisfying the needs of exfsting tenan ts . Mr. Micketson wss~'t sure all 11 tenants had rtwvec~ because of the announced rent Increases, buc some mi~ht have moved be~ause of tFie proposed conversion. Chairma~ Tolar suggested s stx-week continuance ar~d Commtssioner Bushore wsnted to !et his anotion stand fnr two weeks to give the pe:itioner the option of ooming back or postpon~ng tt because it is n~t kna+n what wili happen at the Jolnt meeting. Chsirmen 7oiar did net think it is fai~ to the tena~ts becaus~+ they beconKS alarmed ancl ~ove out and if the chsnge doesn't tak~e plsce, they would have moved unnecessari ly. Cammissio~er Bushore steted tha petitioner has noC taiked to Che residents since the Isst meeting and there a~re no tenants pro$ent and he saw no ~eason to walt tonger than b+a weeks . The Qrece~ding motion for a two-wsek contin~ance carried unanlnwusly. 2/9/81 _.~ 4 ". ~ 7 -~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNiNG CAMMISSION, FEBRUARY 9~ i981 N0. 2i EI VI . D VARI 81•80 REAOVERTISEQ PUBLIC HEAaING. OWNER: OILL Z. AND BETTY F. WEHUNT~ 2130 West llth Street~ 5ants Ane~ CA 9Z709. P~o~+~rty described ae a recCangutarly-shsped parcel of land consisttng of approxlmately ~245 square feet louted at the northeast Gorn~r of Vslencie Avenue and Claudtn• Street~ x11 E~st V~la~cla Avenue. Property presently classifled RM-1200 (aESIDENTIAL~ MULTIPLE•FAMiLY) 20NE. VARIANCE REQUEST: WA~VERS OF (a) MINIMUM LANDSCAPED SETtiACK~ (b) REQUIaED SI'fE SCREENING. (C) REQUIRED VEHiCULAR ACCESS TO CONS?RUCT A 4-UNIT APARTMENT COMPL~X. SubJect raquest was denied by the Planning Commisslon o~ Januaryr 12~ 19$1, and ~evised plans were sub mitted durfng the appea) pertod. There was one person indicating his presence in oppositton to aubJect request~ snd although the staff raport was not read~ it ts referred to and mede a part of the minutes. Biil Wehunt~ awner, exptal~ed revtssd plans are s~mittnd for fou~ unlts rathe~ than fiye wtth the arae taken fr~m the north and the spaca between the garages o~d property line e11m{nated. with 10 and 15-foot 3etbacks on Velentle Avenue. Paul Brace~ 2G21 Jackson Avenue~ questionad tha location of the garages on the north property line aecausa of the house ~n back of the Claudln~ Street property. He steted he felt with this twa•~tory apsrtment on the north, that houae will be rlght in a valtey. Chafrman Talar stated ona of thn Comnissioners had recormiended p~evtously that the garages be on the property line to altminate the "dead space" and pointed out the unlts are nat two story. Mr. 6rec,~ rovf~ewed the plans and then stated he woul~! net be opposed since the u~its are nat two story. ACTION: Commissioner King offered a mation~ seconded by Commissioner Nerbst and MOTIOF~ CARRIE~, thet the Anaheim City Pianning Commission has ~evlewed the proposal to co~str~ct a 4-unit apsrtme~t b~ildtng wtth walvers of mtnimum lendsca~ped setback~ requlred site screentng and requlred v~ehtcular access on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land conststing of approximately 7285 square feet located at the northe+ast corner of ValencEa Avenue a~d Claudina Straet~ having a front~ge of approximately 155 feet on the north slde of Valencia Avenue and 47 feet on the east side of Claudina St~eet (211 Esst Valencla Avenue); and cbes hereby epprove the Negative Decla~ation from the nquirement to pr~oa~e an envirorn+~entai impact report on tha besis that there wouid be no stgnifican; individu~l or cumulative adverse envl~onmentel tmpact due to xh e approval of thia Nc~getive Oeclaratlvn since the Ansheim Ganera) Pls~ desiynates the subjett property for mediurtr-dens(ty residential land uses coomensurate with the proposai; that no sensitive environn~ental lmpacts are involved in the proposal; that thn Initiai Study submitted by the potitio~er Indtcates no significant i~dividual or cumulative edverse environmentai impacts; and thst the Negative Declaration s~b stsntlating the foregoing find~ngs ts or- file in the City of Maheim Planning Department. 2/9/81 E MINUTCS~ ANAHEIM CITY P~ANNING COMMISSION~ FE9kUARY ~~ 1981 s~-a~ Commla:toner Kinq offered Resolutio~ No. PC81•33 and naved for fts pas~sqe and adoptton that th• A~~h~tm Ctty Planntnq Commis~lo~ does hereby gr~nt Varlance No. 3175, in pert~ ~r~ntinq walvers (a)~ (c) a~d (d) on the basis th~t denial would deprive •ubJsct proparty of a privfl~ge enJoyed by other prope~ttes in tha aame tone and vtcinity, and denying w~iver (b) on tha bssis th~t revised plans deleted s~fd w~fver; and aubJect to I~terdepartmental Corrmlttee rerommendattona. On roil ca11~ the fora9etng resolution was passed by thc following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ BOUAS~ 6USNQRE~ FRY~ HERWST. KING~ TOLAR NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSs NONE Jack White~ Asslatent Clty Attorney~ preaentnd the writt~n riyht to appeal thR Pianning Commtssfon's decision withln 22 daya~ to the City Councll. M N0. 3: ENYIRONMENTAL IMPAC7 REPORT N0. ZO (PREViQUSLY APPROVED~ D ~F'-1'~C T_ 05 . 960 2 an d- : OWNERS: ANANEIM N1t,~5. INC.~ 380 Aneheim N111a RA~d. Anahelm~ CA 92807. Property descrtbed as an (rregutarly-shaped parcel of land conststing of approximately 45.8 acres~ haviny e frontage of approxlmately 1~700 feet on the south side of lbhl R~nch Road~ having a meximum depth of appraximately 1~300 feet~ and baing located approximately 400 feat west of the centerline af M dover prive. Propnrty presently classified RS-HS-43~OOQ(SC) (RESIDENTtAL~ SINGLE-FAMILY HILLSIDf SCENIC CORttIDOR OVEaLAY) 20NE. TENTATIVE TRACT FtEQUEST; TO ESTABLISII A 4g-LOT~ AND A 3b-LQT (2 OPEN SPACE LATS) SUBDIVIS1011. The~e wes no one indicsttng their presan u in opposttion to subJect request, ar~d although the staff report w~s not read, it is ~eferred to and made a part of tht minutes. Oan Salceda. Anaheim Nt11s~ Inc.~ was present to answer any queations and explained these tracts wil) exptre on February 15, 1g81 and thst the maps are exactly the same as previously approven an~ only Condition No. 24 is different. Daan Sherer~ Assistant Plannc:r, and Jay Titus~ Offtce Engineer, expia~ned staff is requesting that Condition !b. 20 be emended to read es follows: "That irrigated lsndacaping of all median and parlr.rays shall be installed by the developer snd upon acceptance by the City. the landscaping wi11 ~e mat~tained by the Clty." Jay Tttus clarified that the homeowner~s association wili be respnnsibie for m~intensnce of the landscaped tslands in cul•de-sacs and Just the medlana In the streets and parkways, bohyeen the street and sidewslk~ will be mstntained by the Ci ty. Chairrtwn Tolar clarified the nur~b~er of units was reduced and prevlously approved by the Ci ty Cou~cl l. it was noted Envtronmental Impact Repart No. 703 (supplement to EIR No. 80)was app~oved by the Planning Conno-.sion on August 15~ fq77 for subJe~t crscts. 2/9/81 MiNUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COPWISSION~ FEBRUARY g~ tg8t 81-82 ACTIONs Commisstone~ Ne~bst offerad a motto~, seconded by Commissloner Fry snd ~A CARRIED~ that th• An~helm City Planning Commission does hereby find that the proposed aubdivlsions, toqeCher with their design and improvement are conststent with the Ctty of Anahetm General Plan and comply with the p~ovtsiona conteined In Government Code Sactiens 66473.5~ 6647W~ ~nd 6G474.6~ and does~ tharetore, approve Tantative Mep af Tract Nos. 96A2 and 9864 to re-establish a 49-lot end ;4-1ot (2 op~n space lots) RS-115•10~000(SC) subdivislons~ subJect to the following condttlons: i. That the approval ~f Tent~tive Map uf Tract No. 9602 Is granted subJect to the completlon of Recl~ssific~tlon No. 77-78-i~ nuw pendinc~. Z. That should this subdivision be developed es more than one subdivislon~ e~ch subdtvision thereof shail be submitted in tentative form for epprnval. 3. That in accordance with City Council policy. a 6-foot htgh~ open decorattvo wsil shall ba constructed at the top of slope on thz northw~st property it~e separating Lot IJos. 1 through 12 from Nohl Ranch Road. aeasonable landscaping~ tncluding irrigatton fdcilitles, shall be installed tri the unceme~ted portlon af the arterlal highway parkway the full dtstenco of said wall; plans for said landscaping to be submltted to and subJect to the approval of the Supe~intendent of Parlarey MalntenanGe. Following installetlon and acceptance~ the Ctt; af Anahelm shall assume the rasponsibiltty for meintenance of said landscaping. A. Th~t all lots withln this trect shall be served by underground utllities. 5. Yhat a fin~l tract map of subJect property shall be submitted to and apprnved by the Ctty Councll and then be recorded in the Office of th~ Orange Cou~ty Recorder. 6. That the covenants~ conditions. and restrictlons shal) be submitted to and sppruved by the City Atto~ney's Offtce and the City Enginee~ prior to City Council approvai ~f the final tract mep~ that ail "native" slope desiqn~tions shall be a~praved by the Pianning ~epartment and Flre Chtef prior to Council approva) af the r'tn~l trect map and, further, that the approved covenents ~ conditio~s. snd restrtctions shal) :c recorded concu~rently with the fin~l tract map. 7. That prio~ to flling the final tracx m~p. the applicant shall submlt ta the City Atto~ney for approval or denial s romplete synopsts of the p~oposed functtoning of the operating corporation including~ but not Itmitad to, the articles of incorporation, bylaws~ preposed methods of management~ bonding to Insuro maintenance of common property and buildings~ ~nd such other information as the City Attorney may deslre to protect the City, Its citizens~ and the purchasers of the prcject. 8. That street names shall ba approved by the City Planning Department prlor to app~oval of a fina! tract map. 9. In tt~e e ve~t that subJect p~operty is to be divided for the purpose~ af sele~ lease~ or financing. a parcel map~ to record the spproved divtsion of s~bject p roperty shail be submitted to and app~oved by the Clty of Mahetm and then be recorded in the offfce of the Orange Couniy Recorder. 2/9/81 ~1. ' MINUTES. ANIWEIM CIT~I PLANNING COMMISSION~ FEBRUAaY 9~ 1g8t 81-83 10. That tha awner of subJect property shall pay to th• City of Anahelm tha appropriate ps~k and recreation In•11eu fees as determined to be ~pproprt~te by the City Council~ said fees to bs patd at the time the butiding permit is 1 ssued. 11. 7hat d~alnsge of satd property shsl) be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. If~ in the prepar~tion of the s~te~ sufftcient grading is requlred to necessitste o g~~ding permit~ na work on grading wtil be permftted bstween Octobar 15th and Apri1 '-yth unless ail requtred off- site~ d~alnege facllities have been installed snd are operattve. Positlve assurance shall be provtded the CitY that such dralnage fatilttles will be completad prior to October 15th. Necesss ry- ~ight-of•way for off-sits drainaga facliittes ahail be dedicated to the Ctty~ or the Ctty Councii shall heve intttated condemnation p~oceedSngs therefor (the costs of which al~all be borne by th~ devetoper) prt~r to the commencemnnt of grading operations. The requlred drainage fecilitins shall be of a stze and type sufflctent to carry runoff waters o~tginating from higher pro{,:~ties tSa1d9I~ sald property to ulttmate disposal as apProved by the City Engine~r. dra~inage facilitles ahall be che f(~st item of canstruction a~d shall be completed and be functional throughouc the trect and from the downstream boundery of the prop:;':Y to the ultimate pol~t of disposal prior to thn issuanca of any final building insPRCcions or occupancy permits. Orainage distrtct ~imbursement sgreemants msy be n-ade avalle~ble to the dnvelope~s of said property upon thel r request. 12. That grading~ excavatian, and ~11 other constructto~ activitles ahall be conducted in auch a n+anner so as to minimize the possiblitty of any s11t o~iginattng from this proJect batng carried into the Santa Ana River by storm water origtnsting from or fiaving through this pro~ect. ~3. If ~ermanent straet ~ame signs have not been instelled, temporary at~eet name signs shail be Inst~iled prio~ to any occupancy. 14. That the developer of s~bjQCt tract shall enter Into a special facilitias agroement with tha Cicy for water faciiities in the High Elevation System, as requtred by Rule 1y8 of the Water Utility Ptates, aulas and Regulatlons prtor co app roval of a ftnal tract msp as stipulated by the petltioner. 15. That fi ~e b~eaks shA11 be provided as requi red by the Fi re Chief. 16. That any "flag~shaped" lots shall have a minim~xn dlmension of 2Q feet. 17. In accordanGe with the requirements of Section 18.02.0+~7 ptrtaini~g to the initial sale of residential homes in the Clty of M ahnlm Plenning Area "B", the sellar shall provide each b uyer with written informatton concerning the P.naheim General Plan and the existing zoning withln 300 feet of the bounda~ies of s ~ject tract. 18. That any specimen tree remove) shall be subJect to the rogulations pertaining to tree preservation {n the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone. 2/9/81 ,: _ ._ _... _..,~ ~ ~ : MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBaUAIIY 9, 1981 81•84 1g. That f t re hydrants sha)1 b~ t nst~) iad and chsrged s: requt ~~d and d~t~rn+in~d to ba necsssary by tha Chl~:' of the FI ~~ Dep~rtn+ent prtor t~ oonn~ncement of structurat framing. 20. That trrl~~ted landecapinq of elt medlan and p~rla-sys~ thel) De instslled by the developer and upo~ acceptanoe by th• CitY. the l~ndscepin9 wi11 bs malnt~lnsd by th• City. 21. That all requt roments of Fira 7on~ 4~ ~therv+ise identifled es fire Administr~tive Order No. '~6-01, will ba met. Such requiroments tnclude~ but a~e not limitad to~ chimney sperk arrastors~ protected attlc ~nd under floor openingt~ Class C or better roofin9 meterlal and one hour flre resisttve const~uctlon of horizontel surface: if withln 200 feet ot' •dJacent b ruah 1 and. 22. "No perking for street sweeping" stgns shail be instelled prior to ftnal st~eet Inspectlon as requtrad by tho Public Works Executiw Otrector tn sccordence with specificatto~s on file with the Straet Melntenance Olvislon. 23. That appropri~te water assessment fees as determined by the Offtce of Utilitioa General Man~ger ahali ba paid to the City af Maheim prlo~ to the issuance of a bullding permtt. TENTATlVE T M CT OF N0. 9664: ._~ 1. That the approval of T~ntatlvn Map of Tr~ct No. 9864 Is grsnted subJect to the comptetto~ of Reclassificatio~ N~. 77-1~1~ na+ pending. 2. Thst should this s~b divisfon be developad aa nare than one subdlvlston~ each s~bdlvialon thereof shati be submitted in tentative form for approval. 3. That in scco ~da~ce wtth Gity Co uncil policY~ e 6-foot high, open deco rative Hall shall be constructed ~t thc top of slope on the northwest property line separating Lot Nos. 1 through 12 from Nohl Ranch Road. Reasonsble landscapi~g. including l~rigetion facllltfes. shel) be installed in the uncemented portlor~ of the a~terial htghway parkweY the ful) distance of said wall; plans for said landscaping to be sub mi:ted to and subJe~t to the epproval of the Superl ntendent of Parlaway Mai ntensnce. Fol lavi ng tnatallat(on and accept~r-ce, the City of AnaMim shall assun~e the ~eaponstb i l i ty for ma(ntene~+ce of sai d landscep ing. 4. That all lots wtthin this tract ahsll be served by undarg~ound utilities. 5. Thet a fTnal tr~ct awp of sub)ect prflperty shail be submttted to and app~ov~d by tha City Council and then be reoorded in the Office af ti~e Orange County Recorder. 6. Thet the covenants~ condittona. s~d n strtctiona shail be subn+ittad to e~d approved by the Clty Attorney's Offize and the Ctty Engineer prior to City Council spproval of the final t~act map~ that all "native" slope destgnations shail be app roved by tha Planning bepsrtment end Ftre Chief prlor ta Cou~cll approvai of the ftnal tract map a~d~ further~ that the 2/9/8~ I ~ + ~~ l MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ FEBRUARY 9~ t981 81-85 approved ~ condttlo~s. and ro~t~ictlons shall be ~ecord~d concur~ently with th• final t~~ct map. 7. That prlor to filing tha flnal tract nrp~ th~ appllcant sha11 s~sbmtt to tha City AtLo rney for app~oval or denl~l a canplet~ synopsl• of the proposed f unctto~i~g of th• ope~ating corpor~tton includtng~ but not llm ited to, the articles of Intorporatlon, bylaw=~ proposad rr~thad: of m~nsgement~ bondl~g to Insure maintenan~e of comiwn property and butldin9s~ ~nd sucFs othn~ informatlon aa the Ctty Attorney may desire to protect the City . Its citltans~ •nd the purchasers of tha project. 8. 7hat street names shall bc approved by tha City Planntng Depa~twient prlor to ~pprov~l of a final trsct map. 9. 1~ the event that tubJect propsrty Is tc be divided for the purpose af sele~ lasse~ or fina~cing, a parcel map~ to record the approved dtvl slon of s~bJect property sh~ll be submlttaA to and epproved by the Ctty of llnahelm and then be recorded in tha offica of the Orenqe County Recorde ~, 10. That the owner of subJect property shell psy to the Ctty of Anaheim the appropriste psrk and recreatlon trrlieu fees as determined to be~approprlate by the Clty Council ~ s~id fees tn be pald et the tlme the bullding pern~it is 1 ss ued. 11. That dratnage of seid prope~ty shall be disposed of in a msnne r satisfecto ry to ths City Englnear. if~ In the proparatlon of the site, sutf lcient grading Is requlred to necessitate a grading percnit~ no work on grading wll) be ,..:rmitted bsMeen October 15th and April i5th unless al) reqvired off- site d~alnage fscilitles have been inst~iled and ar~ oparative. Posttive assurance shal) be provided the City thst such dratnege factll~ ies will be completed prlor to October 15th. Necessary ~Ight-oF-w~y for off-site dratnage facillties shall be dedtcated to the City~ or the City Council shali havre initisted condenn ation proc~edings therefor (the cos ts of which shall be borne by the develoner) prlor to the commencement of grading operatlons. The requirod draln~ge focilities shall be of a str e and type sufflcient to carry runoff waters ortginatin~ from highe~ p~op~~tlas through seid property to ultimate disposal as approved by the City Engi neer. Sald drain~ge fscilitias shsi) be the first iten~ of construction and shal) be compieted and be fax~ctional throughout the trsct and fron~ the dawnstreens boundary of the property to the ulttmate polnt af dtsposal prto~ to the tssuence of eny final buiiding inspectiona or occupancy permit s. Oralnage distrtct relrtbursement agreements may be made avatiable to the dewlopen of said property upon their request. 12. That grading~ excavatlo~~ a~d all other u,natructton activities shali be conducted in such a msnner so es to mintmize the possibiltty of Sny s11L riginating from this proJect baing carried into the Santa Ana Alver by storm water ortgtnating from or flowing th~ough this proJect. 1;. I f permanent s treet name s igns heve ns-t been i nsta) led ~ temporary street nsrne signs shall be tnstalled prior to any occupaney. ~/9/81 ~ ~ r MINUTES, ANAHEIM C11Y PLANNING COMMISSION~ FE6RUARV 9. 1981 81•86 14. Thet th• de w lopar of s~bJ~ct tract shall wnter Into e speci~l facilltles agro~ms~t with th~ City for wat~~ facilitiet In the Nlqh Elevatlon Systam~ ss requtrod by Rule 158 of the W~ter Utillty a~tes~ Rulae end Regulattons p~lor to approv~l of a final t~act map es stipul~ted by the p~titlonar. 15. That fire br~aks shsll bt pravided +~s ~equlred by the Fire Chi~f. 16. That ~ny "f1~9-shaped" lats shall have s rninimum dlmensl~n af 20 teet. 17. In ~cco~dance with the requiromrnts of S eetion 18.02,047 pe~talninq to the tnitlsl sale of residentlal homes in the City of Mahelm Planning Area "B"~ the seliar sh~ll provide each buyer with v+rittan infc,rn+etion concerntng ths Anaheim Gene~al Plan and the ~xtsting zantng wtthin ;00 feet of the bound~rles af s~ ~ect t~~ct. 18. That any speclmen t~e• removal shal) be s ubJect to the re~ulatlona pertalning to trne preservation In the Seenic Corrldor Ove, lay Zo~a. lg. ThAt fi re hydrants sha) 1 ae t nstsl led end cherqed es requl red and determin~d to be necessary by che Chlef of th~ Fire Departnunt prlor to commencement of st~uctural framinq. 20. That 1•rlgated lsndscaping of al) median and parkways. sheil be (nstslled by the .:~~ loper and upon accept~nce by the CI ty~ the la~dscsptng wi l l be melntalned by the ttty. 21. That a11 requi romenta of Ff re Zona 4, otheryvise Identlfled as Ftre Administrattve Orde~ No. 76-01~ w{11 be n+~et. Such requtremants tnclude~ but are not l imited t~, chlnney spark arres[ors, protected ~ttic end under floor cpenl~gs~ Cl~ss C Qr bettar roofing material end one hour flre rosistive constructia+ of ho~tzontsl su~fa~es If writhin 200 feet of adJacont bru~hland. 22. "No parking for street swee~ing" slgns s hall be irvstalled prior to final streQt inspeGtlon as roquired by the Pu bltc Works Executive Ol~ectar in accordance wlth specifi~ations on fti~ with the 5treet Malnten~n~e Division. 2/9/61 ~ ? 1 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ FEBRUAtIY 9~ 1981 81-8~ ITEM N0. 4s EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 21b9t _.,,,~...,~,~_. ~~_... OWHERS t ORAMGE COUNTY WATEft 01 STRI CT ~ P. 0. Box 8300 ~ Founte i n Val l ey ~ CA 92708. AGENTz DOUCLAS ELLIOTT~ 497 South Country NI 11 Ro~d, Anahetm~ CA 92807~ Property described as er, irragulerly-sheped parcel of lsnd consisting of approximately 1z5 acres. 4060 E~st la P~Ima Avenuo. Pruperty prosently ciassified RS-A-43~OJ0 (RFSIOENTIAL~ SINGLE-FAMILY) 20NE. CONDITIONAL USE REQU~ST: TO PERMIT A RRIVATE RECREATIONAL FISN 1NG FACIIITY W!TN ON- SALE BEER /~NO 1~INE~ Thara waa no one Indtc~ting their prese~ce I~ opposttlon to sub3ect request. and although the staff report was not read~ it is rofer~ed to and made a part of the minutes. Douglas Elliott. agent~ explained (t is their pla~ t~ open th~ee lakes }or recrestlonal ftshing~ wi th one smal l Iske especielly for chi Idren. He fel t with the gasol ine shortage~ theae faci l i ties ~~i l l provtde fishing close to home. THE PU~LIC HEARt NG 41AS CLOSEO. Commissicx~er Ktng referred to the Treffic Englneer's recAmmendatlon that the radlu9 of the driva+ay approach be I~cret~sed •nd the ~roposed tlcket trwoth relouted a~d M~. E1 l iott ropl ted th~t would not be a problem and he wouid aompl~r . Chalr~~an Toler elarifled that the property ts being leased from the Weter Oistrict and Mr. Elitott expla(ned the property is used by th~ wrter dtstrict for ponding and replenlshment of underground faci l ities and this uti 1 Izatlon of the propc~ty for fishing will not effect their needs. ACTION: Conmissio~er King offe~ed a motlon~ seconded by Commisslonar Herbst and MO~N CARRIED, that the Anaheim Ctty Planning Commisslon has ~evlew~d the proposal to permi t a prl vate rec~stional f i sh ing faci 11 ty wi th on-sale beer And wi ne a~ sn irregularly•shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 125 acrns~ having a fror+tage of app~oximately 5,617 faet on the sauth side of la Pa1ms Avenue, (40b0 East La Palme Avenue) ; and does hereby approve the Negative DaGlaration from the+ requlrement to prepare an enWironn~ntal impact ~eport on the basls that there wouiQ he no aignl flcant individual or cumulative adverse envtrormientsi i+apact due to the approva) of this Negattve Declaration since the Mshetm Genersl Plan dea:gnates the subJect property for wste~ uses carniensu~ate Kith the propos~l ; thet no sensittva envi ronmentel i ~sipacts a~e i nvol ved in the proposal ; that thc 1 niti al Study submi tted by the petitioner Indicates no aigntflcant individual or cumulattv~e adverse envl ~onrt~ental irnpacts; and th~x the I~kgative Dastaration substantiatlnc, the foregoing ~indinga ts on fila In the Ctty of Anshaim Pianntng Oepartment . Commisatoner King offered Rnsolutto~ No. PC81-34 and moved for Its passage and adoption that tfie Anaheim City Planning Commiasion does he~eby gra~t Conditional U~e Permlt No. 2169 tn compllance with Sectlons 18.03•0~; .031: -032+ •033: •034 and .035, Title 18 ef the Ane~heim Municipal Code, and subject to lnterdepart~aental Con~ittee recorwaendatlons. On roll cal l~ the foregoing resolution wss passed by the folla~ing vote: AYES: COh~ 1 SS IONEaS : BARNES, BOUAS, BUSHORE ~ FRY ~ kERBST ~ KI NG ~ TOLAR NOES: COMMISSIONEaS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE 2/9/81 ~, ; ' ~ MINUTES~ ANAMEIM CITY PLANNING COMNISSION~ FEBRUAIIY g. 1981 ON N0. 8A-81- 81-88 01ridERSs TITI.E INSURANCE b TitUST COMPANY, ~00 Wi lshir~a Boulev~rd~ P, 0. Box 5b998• Los Angeles~ CA gA05~+• AGENTt RUSSEI.L JAY~ 6g71 Lincoin Avenue, Sulte A~ 8uena Park, CA y0620. Propercy de scrlbed a~ a rectangularlyshaped parcel ot t~nd consisting of a~proxtmstoly 1 acre~ 147 Sauth Beach Boulevsrd. Proparty presently classifiod RS-A-Q3~000 (RESIDENTIAL~ SINCLE-FAMIL1l) ZONE. RECLASSIFICATION aEQUEST; CL CONOITIOt~AI USE REQUEST: TO PERMIT A 43-UNIT MOTEI. There waa one person indlcoting his presence in opposition to subJact request~ and el though the s taff report was not read ~ i t I s referred to dnd mede e peft of the mi nutes. Aussel! Jay. 1111 Oolphin Terracx~ Corona Del Mer~ agent~ stated his conpany awns and operat~s thc mobllehome park o-~ the north~ west and south of subJect p~opQrty ~nd thoi~ proposal Is to co~struct a 43-~~it motel. John Ds) ly ~ Space p 6~ stated h~ represents the peoplc in the mobi lehort~ park who arn opposed to chis reaontng becausc a two-story structurc would b~ a~ invaston of their p~ivacy and th~e proJect would incresae traffic on Beach Boulevard and it is difftcult naw for them co ~et out the t r dri ve+vay. He stated they feel th i s wou) d be qul te an imposition on the peopla In this park ~nd the Cherokee Mobllehar~ Park adjacent becaus~ of noise and fumes from the increesed automobtle trefftc cominq In and out a 1) haur~ of the day a~d ni ght. Mr, Dai iy stated hts coach is rlght ~ sinst wall on the north side adJaeent ta subject property which ts where A porttc rnote) parkinq is located; and that there wiil ~e a ~onsta~t fivw of traffic ar, '' -';~ b~ very disturbing to the I 1 festy ie he has ~tc:r. r~]oy tng f• 13 year! . Kr. Deil~r statPd ~'~are ere planty of motels in thts area~ wtth Mo directiy across the street. He r•,Ked the Commisslon to carefully constder this request for zone chanqe. Mr. Jay stated the Wa-ttory st~uccure meets code; that there will not be an inc~ease i n the t~affl c and he fel t the motel wi l I reduce the da~ger At tha ant~ance to the mobilehome perk because some of the traffic would be siowed to go into the motel. He explai~ed this wlli be a u-shaped butlding with all the trafftc to :he inside so nolse would not be a problem. t1e felt the mobilehane park residents will be protected from the traff(c noise from Beach Boul~vard with the motAi between as a buffer. He stated the motel was dcsigned to protect the ten~ents as much aa possible and potnted out again that they are aperators of the park. THE PUSIIC HEARING yA5 CLOSED. Chairman Totar statad a buffer ha~ been provided on the south and west sldes but the parking is abutti ng the north s ide.. Nr. Jay stated there is a six-faot hiqh block Nali on th~ north and the number of un t ts woul d have to be roduced to provi de a 20-foot buf fer. He expl a i ned +t~-e 2/9/81 ~ I ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PIANNiNG COMIIISSION~ Feeauna~r 9~ 1981 81•Sg Mobi tnhonis n~rk surrounds s~bJ~ct property on thre• sides and lh~re Is a 25~~oot wide stroat~ p~us a 6-toot htgh wall •nd 25~f~t setback o~ th• wast side. Commistic~er Ne~bst st~ted if th~se nqbl lehomes were sl~gle-f~ni ly resid~nces a 24- foot wlda buffer wauld b• -aqul~ed and th~se residents deserve the same protactlon. Na stated he felt e 2A•foot wide buffe~ would bo necessary end • six-foot htgh block wall would not protect thsm f~om nolae of eutomobiles parking on the other side. He stated he did not feel Just because these ~n~idents elready have the traffic noise f ~om 8sach Boulevard~ thst they should be burJaned wtth n~re ~olse. He suggeet~d revening the plan. Commissicx~or Barnos stated she would not obJect ta moving the bullding Co the west to arcomnedate mo~e parking tn the canter end provide a larger setback o~ the north. Chairman Tolar polnted out there ara 14 parking spaces on th~ north and the petl t loner has p~oposed 51 par~:i ng spaces (7 ~re then requ) red) . Ben Rochella~ motel ope~~tor~ stated hl~ experience has been that with 100$ occupanry~ an ave~ege of 75$ of the parking spaces are uCilized. Ne explatned a manager will reside on-site to watch for noisa +~nd disturbences at night and they -+ould average three ma{ds. Ne stated they Hould nqt pursue the Ide~ of the mate) if he thaught there would be a disturbance to the netghbors. Ile stated ha has had a lot of experience in motel operation and felt this would be a good use for tha land. He po(nted out this vacant land is a fire hazard and the motel would be sn improvement. Commissioner Herbst stated he has no abjectlc. to the usa, but is concer~ed about protectlon far the people next door. He asked if the plan could be approved pr~viding some parallei parking sp~ces along the stde~ c1lminetiRg some spaces without readvertising. Jack Nhite~ Aasistant City Attorney~ stated a veriance wauld have to be properly adverti sed. Chetrrr~~ Tolar suggested a continusnce in order that the pi ~s can be redeslgned to provtde a 20-foot buffer. Ne atat+ad in the past parking variances h~ve been allowed because of the nunb er of people who arrive by bus or alrplane. He felt the plans could be redeslgned to provide a 20-foot wide landscap~d buffer. and 6•foot high wall with four o~ five parallel parking spsces which would provide some p~otection. Mr. Jay stated guest~ at a motel want to park as close to their rooe- as possible end he ¢eli sure rr~st would park in the center. Commissioner Barnes suggested designating the parking :~r north for employees. She folt more parl:ing 1s prc ~osed than wi11 be used. Chairmsn Tolar stated ;2$ perking varia~ces have been allowed many times in the .'~t. Ha stated he realixes psopie wil) want to perk ciose to their rooms~ but this :~ the only opportunity to build the buffer and he felt it is necessa ry to protect tf~e mobllehome residents. Ne stated this is a nice p~o]ect snd wilt benefit the cammunity. Mr. Jay requested a 4-week continuanca. ACTION: Commisslorter Barnes offered s motion~ seconde~d by Commissioner King and OT10N CARRIED~ that the A~ahein+ City Planning Conreission does hereby grant a four- week conttnwnc~ to tfie a~eating of March 9, 1q81 at the request of the petitto~er in order to s~mit ~AVised plans. z/9/8~ ~ ~' `t MIHUT~S~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNIHG COMMISSION~ FEBaUA11Y 9~ 1981 81•90 iTEM N0. bs EIR NEGATIVE OECLARATION ANO CONDITIONAL USE PERMiT N0. 2174; .w~~~. a`~~ ~~~~~~~w ri~.~~~.~~~~~r.~r~r~~ ir~~n ~ ~r.~ ~~ ^~Jr1ERS: WATT COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES~ INC.~ 2716 Ocean Pa~k Boulevard~ Santa M~ntca~ CA 90405. AGENT: PIONEER TAKE•OUT CORP.~ c/o RUSSEL JAMES, ;663 West 6th Street, Los Angs:os~ CA 90020. Prop~rtY da~crtbed •s an irregulerly-sheped parcel of land conststing of approxtmat~ly 0.5 ac~e~ loc~ted at the southeest corner of Ltncoin Avenue snd Clemsnttne Street~ 209 We~t llncoln Avenue. Prope~ty prese~tly classifled CL (COMMERCIAL. LIMITEO) ZONE. CQNOITIONAL USE REQUEST: TO PERMIT A DRIVE-THROUGH RESTAURANT. The~e was no one indicati~g thair presence !n opposttlon to subJact requsst, and although the staff r~pr~rt was n~t read~ It is referred to and made a part of the mtnutes. Walt Mitchell~ Dasign Manager, Pionee~ Teke•out Cor~oration~ wes prasent to enswer sny questlons. TIIE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSEU. Commissloner Herbst stated he dtd not fee) a drivrthrough restaursnt at tha entrancaway to Anaheim is an approprlate use; that he ia not implytng anything against the petitinnrr. but wouid ilke to see a nico resteurant at thla location whi~h is sbutting a maJor ftnanclal center; and that the petttioner has the right to request anything he wants and tM~e ptens do mcat code requtrement~ but he did ~ot fee) this use fits in the new downtown a~ea. Commissloner Barnes agreed wlth Cammissloner Ilerb~t and stated she r~talizes this hss alroady been planned~ but cfid not fnei it should be loceted on Lincoln whlch is supposed to be an entrance to dawntavn Anehelm. She stated she is very disturbed snd wil) ~ot support the request; that she would like fo~ the Redevelopment Agnncy to tako a better look at planning for the ce~tral city; and that there is already a parktng problem for the senlor citir~n complex which has not been add~essed. ShE stated she felt It is time for the Planning Commissloners to state thelr ob)ectlons to what she considers as a lack of careful plannl~g for that corridor. Commisaloner 6ushore stated there was re-dlrection for redevetopment in 1976 and thst na(ghborhood center was mascer planr-ed fcr e drive-through r~staurant. Me stated he would iike to have seen a diffe~ent type of restaur~nt in this locetlon, but it ts part of the re-directlon end felt it ~s unfair to thls pctitio~er since a drive- th rough resteurant was maste~ plenned for that location and he dtd not thtnk a neyative vote wouid be Justifled. ACTION: Connsissioner King offered a mc~tlon. seconded by Co~rm(ssloner Fry and MOTtON A(~. RR~D (Commissioner ~ushore absteining)~ that the Maheim City Plsnning Cammission hss reviev+ed the proF.sel to permit • drtve-throu;.i restaurant on an irregularly- shaped parcel of land consisting of a~proxtmataly Q.5 acrc located at the southeaat corner af Lincoln Avenue end Clen~er+tine Street, (209 Weat Li~coln Avenue); and does hereby app~ova tha t~legative Declaratlon fraa the regulrement to prepa~e an environmental impact report on Lha basis thet there would be no stgnificant tndividual or cuneulative sdverse envi~onmental impact due to the approva) of this Negstive Declaratlo~ si~ce the Anahalm General Plan designates tha subJect property for general eonwnerzial tand uses cam~ensurate with the prvposal; that no sensittve envi~onmental tmpacts a~e involved in the proposal; that the Inittal Study submtttad by the petitio~ar tndicata~ no aignificant individual or cumulstive adverse 2!9/8t ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CQMMISSION, FEBRUARY 9~ 1981 81-91 environmsntai tmpectsi a~d that the N~gative D~eclaratton substantiating the foreqaing findings Is on file in the City of Anah~im Planninfl Department. Commissioner King offe~ed a rosolution and maved for Its passage and edoption that the Anahetm City Pls~ni~9 Commisslon does he~eby g~ent Conditlo~al Use Permit No. 2171~, ln compitAnce NIRh Sactio~a 18.~3.A30; 031: .A32i •033i .034 snd .035 of Title 18 of the An~helm Munlc~p~i Code; snd subJect to Interdepa~tment~l Connilttee r~ conKnenda t~ on s. Ch~irmen To1ar agreed with Cominisiioner: Barnes snd Nerb~t~ Lut stated the Planning Commissio~ had a hand 1n designing that center snd if they dld not feel there should hsve bnen a fast food rasteur~nt tn that center~ it should heve been remc~ved originaily. Commissioner Herbst atated h~ had origiaally indtc~ted he thought ths! weuld be a poor place for a drive-througs~ restourant +~nd it had been sald then th~t thG proJect was in the pla~ning stagas end aince a canditionsl use permit would be requtred anywey~ the Plann4ng Commisslon could do sc~mething abaut it then. He ststed he Is surprl9ed the Redevelopment Agency ts parmitting this rec~ue9t because the redevelopment of da+nta+n has been going on many yeara and he felt this wauld be a fine corne~ for a nice restaurant and nat a drive-through. He state~ he 1~ very dissppotnted with the Red~evelopment Ag+ency. Commissloner Bushora st~ted the Redevelopment Cammission doosn't h~ve the same conststency as preyiously Nhen 4hose Involved we~e frcxn the doantown area and thet same current menb e n are not directty assoclated w{th th~ downta+n area. Commissto~e~ B~rnes agreed that the plans previausly presenttd were tentative t~r~d It was tndicated then that th~ey would probab1y changa and a conditlona) use pe~mit would be required. She stated sht would like to see a nicr sit-dawn tYpe restaurant because i t i s neeck cl. Mr. Mi tc~~el i xt~ted this restaurant r+t l i have a dining rc~om an~ they do sel t rtare then Just p~~- cooked chicken • ssndMicfias. flsh a~d shrimp, ctc.~ and the food is exceltbnt and eve~ thou9h the restaNrant is nvt classifled s!~ a dinner-hause, tt is a nlce restaurant. 0~ roll call, the for~egoing resalutton FAILED TO CARRY Dy tha followtng vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES; COMMISSIONER'i: Af3S7A1N: COM~115510NER: ABSENT: COMMtSSIONERS: FRY. KI NG, T01»AR BARNES~ 80UAS~ HER85T BUSNORE NONE Jeck trhitc~ R_slstant City Attorney~ askad Co~ornisslaner 8ushor~ tf he had a ingal conf9ict of (ntnr~st. Corani~sione~ Bu~hore re~plled he was not sure whather or not he had a conflict~ but did not wa~t to take a chancn. Jackl~lhite explain~ad ~InGe ail Conmissianers ere present and the~e Is no way to braak the t~e vote uniess one of tha Cfla+a~isstar~ers wlshbs to chanqe his vote, tha matter wtil awto~aticalty go :o th• Ctty Council fcr o dectston. ACTIQN: Caanissla~e~ Barnes offered a natlon. seconded by Commissloner Herbst and MOTI~QN CARRIEO~ that conside~ato~~ af Cor-dition~l Use Pe nntt no. 2174 be referred to tha Cicy Council for action an the bsats of the tie vate by tfie Pl~nning Con~mission. RECESS - 2:30 p.m• RECONVENE - S:''~ p.m. : .'~3.s".. {-, ~~,, - ~'..e~•`;,:.x:....1.''., ~.. ~,: l.~ ~i~' ~ a / 2/9/81 / MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY P~ANNING COMMISSION~ FEBRUARY 9~ 1981 a~•92 ITE~M N~O~ 7.t EIa NEGATIVE OECLARATI01~ ANO CONOITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2175: OWNERSs WINSTON INOUSTRIAL PROPERTIES~ 2201 Esst Winaton Rosd~ NA~ Ansheim~ CA 92806. AGENT: ROBERT W. M17CNELL~ 2Z21 East Winston Rosd~ ~K~ Anaheim, CA 9280G. Property described ~s a ~ectangui~rly-shaped parcnl of Isnd consisting of app roxim~tley 4.7 ~cres~ 2221 East Winston Road. Property prasently clasaitied Ml (INDUSTaIAL, LIMITED) ZONE. CON DITIONAL USE REQUEST: TO PERMIT AN EXT~RMINATING SERVICE IN THE ML ZONE. Tharo was no one indicatin9 thelr presenco In oppositlon to subJect request~ snd although the staff rnport wes not resd~ it ts referred to and made a pert of thc minutea. It was notcd the petitlener wes not present. THE PUBLIC H~ARING WAS CLOSED. ACTION: Conxntsstoner K;ng offured a motion~ seconded by Commlagloner Fry end MOTION ~~D~ that the Anahet~~ City Plannfng Commisston has revteiwed the proposa) ta permit an extermtnating sei~!(ce in tha ML (Industrial~ Ltmlted) Zone on e rectangulariy-shaped Parcel of land consisting of approximetely 4.7 acres~ heving a fronta~ge of approximately 330 feet on the north slde of Winston Road~ having s maxlmum depth af approxtm~tely G2Q feet and betng located app~oxin-~tely 980 feet aast of the ce~terline of State College Bouleverd (2221 Edst Wt~ston Road); and does hereby epprove the Negative beclaratfon fram the rec~uiroment to prcpare an envlronmental (mpact report on tf~e ~asts that the~e would be na stgnificant tndivtdual o~ cumuiat(ve adverse environmental Impsct due to the approval of this Negetive Declaration s(nce the Anaheim Gendral Plan deslgnAtes the aubJect property for gGneral lndustrtsl land uses commensurate wlth the proposal; that no sensitive envtronmental Impects are Involved in th~ propnsal; ~hat the Initisi Study submltted by the petltione~ (ndicatcs no slgnif(cant indivldua) or curtiuletive edverse ~nvironmental impacts; and that the Negative Declaretton substanttating the fo~egaing ftndtngs is on file in the Ctty of Anehelm Planntng Department. Con~miasloner Ktng offered Resolutton No. PC81-35 snd moved for its passage and adoptlon thet the Anshetm Cliy Plsnning Commission does herby grant Conditlo~al Use Permtt No. 2175 tn compliance with Sactlonx 18.03•a30i •~31; .032; .033~ .03W and .035~ Tltle 19 of the Anahelm Municipal Codc,, and subject to Interdepartmentsl Committee recommendattons. On roll call~ ~he foreyoing resolutinn wea passed by the folla+ing vote: AYES: CQMMISStONERS: BARNES, 90UAS~ BUSHORE. FRY, NERBST~ KING, TOIAR NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSfONERS: NONE 2/9/81 ~A,,,.` MINUTES~ IWAHEIM CITY P~ANNING COMMISSION~ FEBRUARY 9, 1981 81-93 ITEM N0. 8: EIq NEGATIVE DECLARATION RECLASSIFICATION N0. 80•81•2G. WAIVER OF CODE A I~I u'~ u~t e uTi "'~'~'~'RT~{"~"'~~T~'a7 !d~lTe ~l7~~:~.. ~... __ . OWNERS: MAURICE PINTO~ P. 0. Dox 3421~ Mahelm~ CA 92a03. AGENTs JERRY ORUKIN, 128~ East Flower Street, Anoheim~ CA 92805. Property described as e rectdngulsrly- shaped parcel of land conaisting of approxtmately 0.~~ acre~ 406 West Verrt~nt Avenuo. Property presently classtfted RS-7200 (RESIDENTIAL~ SINGLE-FAMILY) ZON~. RECLASSIFICATION REQUEST: CL CONUITIONAL USE REQUEST: TO PERMIT COMMERCIAL USE OF A RESIpENTIAI STRUCTUaE WITH WAIVERS OF; (a) PERNITTED LOCATIQN OF REQUIRED PARKING~ (b) MAXIMUM STRUCTURAL F~EIGtiT~ (c) MINIMUM LANOSCAPED SET6ACK~ AND (d) MINIMUM WALL HEIGNT. There we~e two people indicatinc~ thelr A~$sence in opposltion to aubJect request~ end although thc staff report w as not read~ It 1~ refcrrcd to s~d mAda a port of the minutes. Je rry Orukin~ a~ent. stntcd this ~equest Is ta change thc zoninq to permlt a commerc~al use ard pointed out propertles immediately to tha west ~re zoned for commercia) uses; and Lhat the avners propose to offar a service to the conrnuntty whtch wlil be~~rt'!t th~e surroundiny neighbors. Michsel Johnscr, 358 West Hampshire~ steted he Is bcinf~ provid~d and telt there ts am~le ro~m al s~ fcr I s ti~e s~bmt t ted 1 i st of proposcd uses trend seams te be toward cortniercfalisatlon of houstn~ and he wanted the Commission to ~evi~v thfs 1s ra~lly what (s wented. dld not feei an adequatc buffer zone for parking tr~ th~ rear. He steted he is very vaquc. fl~ steted the general the area, but there is a sho~tage of che situatlon to determine whether norls Sr~eltzc~, bl; 11est Ve~mont~ stated she and hcr husband feel tha p~tftione~ has not glv~n any reai cor~sideration tu thc (r-psct on thelr residential neighbnrhood; thot thay unde n tand he has the right to develop his property~ but they wauld not want Co decrease the value of the nalgt~borhood; thst if the property must be ca~mercially zoned~ they are specificially concerned about. (1) the parking - noting there is an~le room in the ~ear and they feel it would be aesthetically pleasing to have the parking in the rcar; (2) the 3-1/2 foot high wall (n front because it would do ltttle to redute noise snd a si~foot high wa11 would help mittgate the noise and help preserve the ~esidentia) character of the nsighborhood and protect them from viawing constant commercial activlties; (3) the itst of requested uses because it ls amblguous and covers a l~rge spectrum of unretated uses such as an animal hospital, pawn shop~ ch11d-care facillty~ me~Y market. boardtng house o~ Jewetry store. She statad she fait this llst of 31 usas would pose trtMnense problems becausc st least 8 Nould not conply with parktng requlremants and 15 are not compatibie wtth the residential netghborhood and would grestiy increase traffic on Vermont and they ~re concernod about the safety of the ( r ch t 1 dren; that some of the uses have kF-t potential of late business hours and there wlll ba nolse f~om traffic and alsa lights f rom vehicles tn the avening. Ms. Smeltzer steted they fee) without restralnts, the tenants could be undestrable and roferroci to the buiiding avned by Mr. Pinto which faces Na~bor, but is visible to thet r hornes ~ which is leased to s pfnball enterprise whicF~ ope~ates froen 11 ;00 a.m. to mid~t~t waekday~ and 10:00 a.~n. to ;:00 a.m. o~ weeke~ds and t~ey fee) the cltentele this estabiishme~t attracts leaWes s lot to be desired, and there has baen ~ 2/S/81 i ~ ~ ~ i 1 MINUT~S~ ANAHEIM CITY PLIWNINC COMIMiSS10N~ PEBRUARY 9~ 1981 81-94 •n I~cre~se in the numbs~ of qua~tlonable characlars walking by thetr house to go to Lht: pinball establishment. Ms. Smelt=e~ stated thay v+ould like to see a list o~ spectflc uses that would ba compstible with thetr nolghbo~hoad; that they knaw cortn+erctal uses cen be competibie because of the dental laboratory In tha sr~a with thetr hours ot operetlon, etc. She asked the Commtsslon to constder thelr requeat as conce~ne~i citlzans snd perents ]ust as they would lf thts was being propased acros= the strcet from thetr proporty. Mr. Orukin refnrred to the con~nents concerning p~rking proposad in the front of the butlding rather than the rear and exrlo~n~d the butidtng is r~ constderebla distence from Vernant Stroet and it wlll be m~re conv~nlent ~o have parkt~g in frant for the restdents and pcople using the commer~:tal estabilshments. Ne referred to the 42" high wa11 proposed and stated the property to the youth stde ts slightly elevated and a six•foat hlgh block wall would not ba pleasing, and polnted out a 42"-high wall ts the maximum allowed in a residentlsl xone. Ne addcd they feel the landscaping In ffont of the wall~ plus the walt~ will provide adequate buffering, Mr. Drukin referred to a comment ra9ardtng Iow (~come houstng end stated it Is not ft~Anclally feaslble to bulld ona unlt and they have not considcred multi-family devetopment. He stated they would like somc flexibtlity In the uses allowed but are wtlling to discu~ss eltminating some of the proposed uses. TNE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commtsston~r Herbat clarifled that Mr. Pinto owns the vacant lot to the west and th~t he hed prevf~usiy requested a bar and night.club and had indicated then that thts property would act as a buffer for the residenttal use. He stated he is drasticalty opposed to any further entroachnrent of comnercial usns into the residential area. He stated if this request is granted~ there w(il be furthe~ requests; that there is a lot of surplus ccxnner~tal land in Anahelm~ but very ltttle restdentlel property where law cost housing cen be devcloped. Ne felt commerciai zoning is wrong for this area and felt it should rematn residential. Chairman Tolar agreed and stated he couid not support cormmerctal zoning and nated that suggestion was previously made to Mr. Pinto. Cammissioner Ilerbst suggested an Area Devclopment Plan for Lhis erea ta determine whst ty pe rnsidential uses would be allvwed. Commissioner Bushore did not think an Area Development Plan Is necessary beceuge the area is developing ve ry weli Nithout government t~terference and havi~g a public fieartng wauld probably just upaet the reside~ts. Mr. Drukin stated the a+ner deslres to develop this property for oommercia) umes; but that it is possible a different configuration would ptrmit residential uses and that a oontinuance would be necessary to analyxe differe~t tdeas. Cha~irman Tolar felt the biggest problem ts ingress and egress onto a residentiat street and dtd not think the Commtsalon has ever allowed a commercial venture to intrude into a resldentiai zone. He stated the petitioner has the rtght to ~~equest a w~tinua~c~. but that he, as one Commissloner~ wili not s~port further commnrcial e s t ab 1 i sh men t oe~ Ve rmo~ t. 2/9/8t ' MiNUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNINO COMMISSION~ FEBRUARY g~ 19$1 81-95 Mr. q~uktn stated they would heve acce~cs to Narbor for el) three propertl~s and he is wtllirrg to try and work aut e solutton when the three properties e~e combined. Comniaslonar Nerbst clsrifted that the potitlonor is l~dicating that with the three properttes conbtned~ a develapment wouid be deaignad wlth el) access an Harber with a block wall along Vermont wtth no ~ccess to Varnant end lendscaped buffers pravlded in con Forman ce w f th a~de . Mr. Orukin stated they would like pedestrian eccess onto Vermont. Comm~ssionor 8ushore felt the discusslon should not go any further without specific plans. CommisstonQr Bernes steted snn~ Commissloners are oppoaed to commarclel development of thts property~ but others are not opposad if th~e developn+ant will be totally isolated from the community wlth no access onto Vermont and there is no such proposal before the Gommtsslon. She stated she felt reclassiftcrtton to commercial Is premeture~ but sha would not be opposed ta e continuance in ~~de~ Por the daveloper to present a revised nlan. Sho stated she also felt thc neighbors would not be opposed to cortmercial uses. but are concerned ebout the type~ of us~s and ~he impact they would h~ve on the cammunity. She stated she felt thfs request wtil be denied~ but wASn't su~e if a p~oposal tncluded the whole area from subJnct property north to Harb~r, witli no access on Vermant~ whathe~ or not (t would be d~nied. Commissioner Oushore statec he fclt the Commtsslo~ should qo ahead wlth the Issue at hand for a commercial devcloprt~nt with ~ccess onto Vermont with a proposed list of users. ACTION: Commtssianer Bushore offered a rt+otion. secor.ded by Commissloncr I~erbst and MO ON FAlLEO TO CARRY~ that the negattve declaratlon be denlcd on the basis that some of the uses as proposed would have a dctrtmental effect on the surroundl~g p ~ope rt i es . Chairman Tolar statec~ he would nat support the motion for denial of the nngative declaratlo~ for this smoc ~:.:.:~+ercial development becausc a continuance cAnnot be gre~ted i f this nwtion is passed. Jack White, A~slstant CitY Attorney~ explainad the Commisslon can deny the ~~egative declaratt~n and deny the request for reclassification, but ca~not grant the reciassiftcation; and that denial of the negative deciaration would requtre an envtronmentsl impact report. Chairman Tolar stated the petltioner has requested a contlnuance to c~y and assemble tha land and put togethar a~ better pro)ect ahich might be beneficial to the netghbo~s and he would suggest he be given that opportu~lty. ~ ... . ~ J ': i' . t.. f... a ~ . ~~~ma~`n~TorTe-r o~fercd a m~tion~ seconded by Conxnissioner Fry and MOTION CARRIED~ that conaldert+tion of the aforementioned ttem be continued to the meetfng of March 23~ 1981 at the request og the petittoner. Cammissioner ssrnes stated she would be in favor of saeing a~ pla~ for the whote parcel with no sccesa to Vermont; that she would not be in favor of this ktnd of proposal; thot she wouid want to see specific uses p~oposed which would be compatible with the neighborhood. Chairna~ Talar pointed out no furthar natlces will be sent on this matter. 2/9/81 ~ j, ~ MINUTES~ ANAIIEIM CITY P4ANNING COMMISSION~ FEBRUARY 9~ 1~81 81-g6 ITEM N0. 9t EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WAIVER OF CODE_REQUIREHENT_A~~O CQNDITIOHAL USE OWNEaS: RAYNOND li. AND THEODORA R. SIEGELE~ 50f1 South Atchison St~cet. Ant~helm, CA 92fs05. AGENT: E. E. ROUNDS~ LEaCY 0. OWCN COHPANY, y00 Soutl~ Maln Sc~eet~ Sutte 50oGT~ Oran~e~ CA 9?.E~68. Proparty deacribed as e rectangularly-sheped parcel of lend cAnslating of approxim~taly 1~3 acres, loceted at the southeast corner of Santa Ana Straet end Atchison Stroet~ 5~~ Soutl~ Atchiso~ Street. Prop~rty presentiy classiflad ML (I~~DUSTRIAL~ LIMITEp) ZONE. CONDITIONAL USE aEQUEST: TO PERMIT A~1 NUTOM061LE REPAIR FACILITY IN TNE ML 20NE WITH WAIV~RS OF (e) MINIMUM IANDSCAPEU SETOACK, (b) MINIMUM NU1~IBER OF PpRKINR SPACES, ANU (c) REQUIRED ENCLOSURE QF AN OUTp00R USE. There was no on~ indicatiny thelr presente In opposition to sub)ect request~ and althougli the steff report was ~ot resd, (t Is refcrred t~ and mt~de a part of the minutes. Gene Rounds~ ag~nt~ explained tt~e uscr I~~s been in business for a long time and is being disploced by redevelopment. TNC PU~LIC NEARINC 41hS CIOSED. Commissloner Ktng askod if the plans cr~uld bc revtsed to provlde the requlred parking. M~. Rounds replted the present condittonal use permit provides 12 or 13 spaces and they are ~roposing Lo use the same number. Nc stated the us~r repr~sents two or three automabiles clubs and they rre tryfng to consalldate them and do not feel reduciny tl,e compound area would bc feaslble; that thcy have only 10 employees and thert will be r~o signiftcant st~eet parktne~ and cuatomers wlll not be the~e very long and thcy fecl the spaces p~oposed arc ~deQuste. He stated thcy would prefer to continue tl~e operation witf~ sheeting rati~er than slatting in the fe~ce because of the expensc because ti~e property ts surrounded by high industria) uses and other users do not have slatting. Commissioner King felt the operation woul~! be better withaut slats for security purposes. Mr. Rounds agreed. Commissia~e~ King referred to Condiclon No. S requiring that the use shall not comrnence until all recycling op~ratlan is stopped and Mr. Rounds steted they stipulate to tomply. Commissloner Ktng offered a motion~ seconded by Camitasioner tlerbst and MOT10N CARRlED, thet the Anaheim City Planntng Cammia~ton has rcviewed the proposa) to permit an automoblle rep~ir facility with watvers of minimum landscdpcd setback~ minimum number of parking spoces and required enclosure of outdoor use on a rectanyularly-shaped ~-arcei of land consisting of approxlmately 1.3 acres located at the southeast corner of Santa M a Street and Atchison Street (S~n South Atchtson Street); snd does hereby approvs the Negative Declaracion from the requiranent to prepare a~ anvtro~menta) impact report on th~e basis that there wculd be no sig~ificant indlviduai or cumulative adverse environmental lmpact due to the approval of this Negative Decleration since the Anaheim Generai Plan designates the subJect property far ge~e~~) industrtal land uses canrKnau~Ate aith the proposat; that na senslttve environmental impacts are involved In the propos~+l; that the Initia! Study 2/9/81 ~ 6 t ~ MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINC COMMISSION~ FEBRUARY 9~ 1981 81-97 :ubmlttcd by the petittoner indicates no signiPicent tndlvidual o~ cumulative edverse u~vtronmentel tmpects; end th~t the Negative Decleretion s~abstantt~ting the foregoing findings is on ftle in the City of Anahetm Planning Departmont. ACTION: Cc~n~mt~sloner King offcred e motian, th~t the Anehelm Ctty Planning orran ssinn do~~ hereby grant ~reivers (e) and (b) on the besis that denta) would deprive subJ~ct {~roperty of privtl~gcs en)oyed by other properttes (n the same z~ne and vlcinltY and granting wolver (c) pe nnttting t-o slatting on the bas(s that better sc~urtty wou-d be prov(ded. Gommisslo~o~ ~ry reminclcd the Commission that they havo alwnys requiresd slatting tn tho Northaast Industrlel Area and stated hc did not cAre whether tt is w~od or aluminum, but felt the aame reASOning should apply here~ Commission~r Qarnes agreed and explalned wood slats are requtrcd because if they aro :~lt by veliicles~ less damage is done and they last longer and look better. G~mmiss(nne~ FiQrbst disac~reed and stated woad slats brcak~ get stalned and ug1Y and aluminur~ slats la~t 2~ yoars witho~t pAln'fng and arc baked emm~el and arc h~avy. He stated he would not want to ~equlre slats ai*,~ng thc reilroad track. Chairman Talar stoted h~ felt slnce th~ slats are requ(red because of vtsibtlity~ the f~nce sh~uld be slatted ell the Nay around, and he had no probl~m with ~luminum slats. Cornntssioner Kiny am~nded his motion which was seconded by Commisstoner Herbst and MOTIOtI CARRIE,O~ that the Anaholm CltY Plenning Commission does hereby grant walv~r (c)~ In pert, allowing alumin un slats on tha south, west and nQrth property Itnes and wetving the requtrement for screening on the east property line abuttinq the rallroad riyht-of-way on the bas~is that denisl would deprive subJect property of a prtvllege enJoyecJ by other p~opertles tn the same zone and vicinity. Comm(ssiancr King offc~ad Resolutfon N4. PC81-3G and moved for its passage and adoptian that the Anaf~etm City Planning Cq+rnlsslon does hereby grant Conditional Use Permtt No. 2176 in conform~nce wtth Sections 18.03•~3!~; .~31; .~32: .f133; .03~~ and .03~ of Tltic 1~ of the Anaheim Municipbl Code and subJect to (nterdepartmenta) CammOttec recoamendatlons. amendtng Conditiar~ No. 10 requiring Co~dition Nas. 1 b 7 to be complied with prior ta commencement ~f activity. On roll call~ the forogoing resol~tio~ was passed by the foliowing vote: AYES: C0~lM15510NERS: BARNES. BOUAS~ BUSNORE. FRY, HER85T, KING~ TOLAR NOES: COMi~tl SS I OMERS: NONE ABSENT: COMNISSIONERS: NOtJE Commfssloner 9ushore stated he thaught the codo was going to bc emended to atlow alum~num slatting. pean Sherer~ Aasistant Planner~ scated there was pr@vious discuss{on concernina that matter ond it was decided to leave Lhe code as is a~d review each request indtvidually. Annika Santalahti~ Assistant Directnr for Zoning, explalned sr.~'f has samples of a plestic sletttng Nhich cen be reviewed by the Commisslo~ and t;--.~ ~vhole siatting matter can b~e reviawed ~galn. 2/9/~t i F l MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PI.ANNIHO COMMISSION, F~eRU~ar 9~ 1981 81•g8 ITEM H0. lOt EIR CATEGORICAL BXEMPTIAN•CLASS 3 ANO VARIANCE N0. ~197t w..~n ~~..r..... w~w~.~~r~. ~.~~ OWNERS: RAYMUI~00 1. AND CHARLOTTE H. RIWOS~ Zh18 E~st Oshkaeh Avanue~ An~heim~ CA 92806. Property descrtbed •s a rect~ngularly-~haped percel af land consisting of •pproximately .22 acre~ 2418 E~st O~hkosh IlvenuQ. Propert nresently classlfted RS- 7200 (RESIDENTIlII.~ SINGIE-F/WILY) 20NE. VARIANCE REQUEST: WAIVER OF MAXIMUM FE;~E NEIGHT TO RETAIN A FENCE. The~e was no ona indicAtl~~ their prcannce in oppositlon to subJect re~uest, and although the ataff rr.port was not rcod~ It Is refe~red to end made a pert of the minutes. Armando Uiaz, transiator for awner, stacea the request ts for welver of fence hefght and tha fenca was built in 1~1G8 for the protection of the aaner's wife. TNE PUBIIC IIEARING WAS CLOSED~ Commisstoncr Bushore clerifted that the f~nce wa~s constructed (n 1~63. He stated there have baon save~~l of tl~ase rcauests recantly and some h~ve been qr~nted end st leost one danfed and sugyested that the code should be reviewed and rav(sr.d or should be upheld. Na was con.;erned about the fencing c:ontractors wha Are not gptting tha proper permits. Chalrman Toler stated he dtd not tl~ink the code shoulcl be chsngcd and the requests t~hould be reviewed on a case-by-casc bssis. Ha polntad out evtryone has the right to request enything they wish. It was nucad the Plannfng Director or hts authorl=ed represantative has determined that the proposed proJect falis within the definltion of Cateqaricai Exemptlnns~ Lless 3~ as deftnrd in paragrdph 2 of the City of Anahe{m Envir~nmente) Impa~t aeport Guldollnes and is~ ~herefore~ cecegoricelly exempt from the requiren+ent to prepare an EtR. ACTIOt~: Conxntssloner Nerbst offered Resolutton No. PC81-37 snd meved for its passage a~ ption that the Anahetm City Planning Camnission does hereby grant Vertence No. 3t97 on the basis that the fence ts existing •nd hes had no adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood and dcntal would deprive subJect property of a privilage being enjoyed by ather properties In the same zone and vtcinity and subJect to interdepartme~ta) Commlttee reca+Mnendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the rollavtng vote: AYES: COMMIS510NER5: BARNES~ BOUAS, FRY, HERSST, KING~ TOLAR NOES; COMMISSi0NER5: BUSHORE ABSENT: COMMISSIOfiERS: NONE 2/g/81 ~ ~ ) 111NUTES, ANANEIM CITY P~ANNING COMNISSIpN~ F~~~uAaY 9~ 1g81 81-99 ITEM N0. 11t EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 3 A~10 VAP.IANCE N0. ;19~3; ..~...._.... .~ OHNERSt ANGEL AND CELIA A. URENO~ 504 North Vlne Strect~ Anahelm~ CA 92805. Property deac~ibsd as ~ rectanpularly-ihaped psrcel of Iend consisting of •pp~oximately 5W95 square teet~ 50A North Vine Str~et. Property presently cla~sified RS•r20~ (RESIOENTInI~ SINGLE-FAMILI') 1.ONE. VARIANCE REQUEST; WAIVER OF MAXIMUM FENCE HEIGHT TO RCTAIN A FENCE. There was no one Indtcecing tl~eir presence In oppasitio~ to subject request. and although tho steff report wos not ~ead~ tt is referred ta and mede a part of the minutos. Ange) Ureno~ owner, was prasent to enswcr any questl~ns. TNE PU9LIC NEARING WAS CLOSEQ. Commt~sioner gusho~e ~eferred to the rods sticking up tn the fence end clarified that the fence was co~~structed before the owner purchased th~ property. Cammisaloner Ktng stated the concr~te blocks ere only 26 Inches hiqh wtth wrought tron above and visinn Is nat obstructed end stmllar requests hrve becn ~rant~d in the pest. It was notad the Planning Oiroctor or his authorized representet(ve has determinad that the proposed proJect falls wtthin the defl~itton of Catec~o~ical Exemptions~ ~lass ~~ as defined tn paragraph 2 of the Clty af l~nehelm Environmental Impact Report Guidelines and is~ the~cfore~ categarically exempt from the ~equirement to p~epa~e an EIR. ACTION: Commissioncr King offered Resoluiion No. PC81•38 and moved for its passage sn a optian that the Anahetm City Planning Commtsston doe~ hcreby qrant Variance No. 31~8 on the basis that dcnial would deprive subject property af privileges enJoyed by other prope~tiea in the same zone and vtcfnity, and subJect to Interdepa~tm~nta) Committee recommendations. Qn roll call~ the foreyatng r~solutian was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: SARNES~ BOUAS, FRY, IiERBST~ KING~ TOLAR~„ NOES: C~MM15510NERS: NANfflv.f~•:,r..: ~-~' ' _. x~ ~ - , . .:~. ABSENi: COMMISSIONERS: B~flE~~ ~..: Conmisstoner Barnes steted she would like for the fencing contractars to be aware that the Commission will not automatically approve al) roquests which come before them. Commissioner Herbst felt the neighbor who complained should be prese~t. Cortim(ssioner Bushore felt unttl the ~des are being enforced, the builders and contractors will nat get permits because if they do not get permits~ then the City wi11 not know tt is there and will not inspect. He further explaindd this is why he is vpting no. 2/9/81 .~ f MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CONItISS10N, FEBRUAaY 9, 1981 ~~'~~4 1 TEM N0. 12 t E 1 R 01EGAT I VE CECLARAT I ON AND VARI A-~C~ N0. 319~ s OWNERS: RAMMOHAN S. PATEL. Et AL~ 121t South West Street~ Anehelm, CA ~2802. Proparty descrfbed es ~~tZ~~~South,Mlesta5treetrCePrpP~*~YdP esentlynclasstfled CR approximatelY 0.4 acre, (COMMERCIAL~ aECREATIQ~I) ZONE~ VARIANCC REQUEST: WAIVER OF MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKtI~f; SPACES TQ EXPANQ AN EXISTING MQTEL. Thereuwhs th~e s taf fn~eportnwaehnot road~nl t i s~efarred totandun+~detarpartgof tho altha g minutes. John Swlnt, 707 West North Strcet, a•'enC~ stated the arqun+ents he has used on simllar requests in the pest are st i l l vai i d. lie referred to the bus loading/unloedinq aroa mentlonad In thr st~ff repo ~t anc andtthet~wtelwoperatorbwould picksuprguest~ tours to th i s mote 1 beceusc of i ts s I z arrtving at tlie bus dcpot. TNE PUBLIC HEARiNG 1dA5 CLOSEU. Commissioner King refer~rd to tiie wide entrance on West Strcet and Mr. Swint noted if buses did enter thc prope~ty~ they couid get o~.,t, t~ut the petitloner wl ll not be seeking bus tours. ACTI ON : Ccrmmi ss ioner KI ng of fered a mot ton ~ secanded by tomm) ss Ioner Bouas snd MO~~N CARRIED that the Mal~alm Ci ty Planning Commlssion has revicwed thf proposal to expand bn existing mc~tel w i th wel ver of ;n~nlmum number of ~~~~_ ~ 1~9 spaces or+ an irregularly-shaped parcel of lnnd cansisting of approxtmate~~ ,~+ ~c~e loceted south and west of the southwest corner of 6ai1 Road end West St~eet; and does hereby approve tl~e Negative Decla~ation from the ~equlr~nant to prepare an environmental Impac . report o~ the basis that there would be no signif(cant Individual or c~mul~tive Adverse enviro~nontal impact due to tha spproval of thts Negative peclaration sincp the Anahelm Genera1 Plan designetes the subJecC property for commerclal rec~eation l+~nd uses c,ommensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive anvi~onmental impacts arr invoive d in the proposal; that the initia{ Study submitted by the petitloner indicates no 9ignificant individual o~~ cumula;ive sdverse enviro~mental impscts; an d that tfi o Negetive Declaretlon substantiattng the foregoing findings is nn fi le in the City of Maheim Planning Departn~ent. Commisslo~er King offered Resolutlon No. PC81-39 and moved for Its passage and edop:ion tt~at the A~aheim Ctty P1 anning Cc~nmisslon does hereby g~ant Vartance No. 3139 on ~he basts that a certein percentage of gueats arrtve by transportetion modes other than private autort+obile end denl~l would deprive subJect aroperty of a privi lagc enJoyed by oth~r prope~tfes t~ th~ aeme 3i1~-~ w~!° vi2intty ah8 sd8~ect to Interdepartmentai Con~ittee re ~omnendatfons. 0~ roll cell. the foregoing resolution was paased by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, 60UAS, BUSHORE~ FRY. NERBST, KING~ TOLAR NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NON~ Prior to voting on the resolutio~, De~n Sherer~ Assistant Pla~nnar~ asked that a conditlon be added requi rln~ tha t prior ta fin~) zonl~g~ the exlsting drivewsy servi ct ng the prop~rty shal t be r+i dened i n accordence wi th the Ci ty T~af f 1 c Engineer's recommendation. z/9/a~ { ~~ S MINUTES, ANAH~IM CITY PLANNINQ COMMISSION. FEBRUARY 9. ~~81 81•101 ITEM N0. 13: E iR CATEGORI CAl EXEMPTION-CLASS 3 AND VARIANCE N4. 3204; OWN~RS; ANNETT~1 M. CASEGLA~ ET AL, 2124 V~lley Glen Lane~ Or~nc~e~ CA 926U7. AGENT: LA CAdANA•ANAHEIM~ 32g1 Ml~aloma Avenue. Anehetm~ CA q~846. Property describcd as a rectangula~ly-shap~d p~rcal of land cons isting of app~oxin~tely 0.6 acre~ 3093 East Hirelort~ AVenue. Property p~etently clsssified ML (INGUSTRtAL, LIMIT:D) ZONE. VARIANCE REQUEST: WAIVER OF MINIMUM ~ + A ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ r ~i !' "' ' r ~ ' ' ~N1@tiB-~A-~fr~IN1A°~All~f~1f~18i~1 NG r M0~! . There was one perso~ indicsti~g his pres~~co in oppo.ttion to sub.ject request~ and although the staff report was not reed. it (s ref@rred to and mede a psrt of the minutos. Joe T'avera~ general manager af restaurant et 30y3 East Mtralona Avenue~ stated he purchesed this resteurant approximetely 1-1/2 years sgo and that customers do not know where it Is located, -le steted he has done extenslve ~dvortisinq and about two months ego mad~ errangements with the lessee of property on the corner of Miralome and Kraen-cr to instell a sign giving the location and direction of the reataurant. He stated he hes refurbish~d thia rostaurant and made it into a ntce place. He statecJ he hr~d cantacted the Plannfng Departnront and explelned the s(tuatton and wa! toid no permlt would be necessary; that after he had gene to the nxpense of repaintinc~ tf~e existing sign~ en (nspector had cc>me ta the property snd told htm to ~emove the sl~n. Ne stated hts business is lost~g money every :nonth and thts dlrectlona) sign Is neaded and he dtd not feel It is frlr stnce he was told he co~~ld do thts. Jim Roundtree stated he awns th~ce bulldings on the northeatt corne~ of Mlraloina and Kraemer and subJect property is on the north~vest corne~. Ne steted he feels it is bad enough to have an abandoned service stAtlon on that corner wtthaut having a stgn pointing dawn the streat te a restAUrant. He stated the stqn fs located very close to the sidewalk and to the Intersection a~d is qulte large. t1e stated he wishes the restaurant the best ~ but fe 1 t tl~i s sl gn i s out of charecter for ~h ( s ne ighbo~hood and should not be on that corner. lie stated it Is unfortunate the restaurant cioes not heve the traffic flow~ but thought having a sign on this vacant sa~vice station property would have a detrin~ntal effect on the intersection and entire area. Mr. Tavera stated he did not think the sic~n is bed~ especlally slnce Mr. Roundtree had not aven noticed it fo~ three months. Ile stated he needs the sign and would Iike permission to leave tt there, and noted the sign was exlsttng and he atmply had it pai nted and wou 1 d not have gone to the expensc i f he had not be~:n to id thst i t was allowed. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr. Tavera answered Comnissioner ~ushore that his business has tmproved since the sign was painted. Ha explained the 2oning Enforcement Offtcer had been checking the i andscap i ng and sew the s i g~ wh i ch was the re~son for the ~~ques t. He exp l a( ned the sign was installed in October and he got the nottce of vtolatlon in December. Commtsstoner Herbst steted he felc a majo~ problemwouid be created if the Commisston sta~ts allawing oFf.site advertising, He asked how staff could heve indicated the sig~ was permttted. ~, ,; . si w/wiA ~ Y MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNIN6 COMNISSION, FEBRUARY 9~ 1981 y` 81-10~ A~nika S~ntalehti~ Assist~~t Dir~ctor ter l_oning~ st~t~d nff-site adveirtising in the form of s blllboard ts permtssible~ but wauld be requtred *o be set beck from the Intersactton. She ~tated st~ff~s answer would depend on how the questton wss posed. She ststed the only off.site edvertising allawed is a billbo~~d in a legitimate billboard loc~tton. Cammittto~er He ~bst st~ted he recognizes th e Impect on thls bustness~ but he muat conaider the entl~e ctty •nd the people wha see this off-site advertising and want the seme for thelr business. Ils ststed Mtralome is one of ~he most populer (ndustrial str~ets in Anahelm end t~~ere Is a aign ordinance and granting thia request would set a procedent fo~ off-site edvertlaing. He st~ted he felt th~ ordina~ce must b~ upheld especiatly with op~osition frnm su~roundinc~ owners. Commissioner Kl~g asked if the siyn can be moved back fifty feet and M~. Tavers replied he coulei not afford to do that~ stattng agein he had ~cted upon instructio~a f rom ci ty staff . Jack White~ 11ss(stant City Attorney~ statnd if the sign Is set beck 5~ feet. A veriance would not be neeck d. Commtssioncr ~usl~ore stated A pEl'f111t would stlli be needed and asked if t~ permit was tssued and Deon Sherer, Assistant Planner~ stAted there ts no rccord of a stgn permtt bcing iss~ed. Commisstoner Busho~e stated he f~lt the member of staff thc pctttioner talked to wvuld hav~ instructed him thr~t a pe~mit 1s requlred; th~t the sign co:+~pany wes at f~ult for not coming In for a permit; end th~t he woulci like to give the petittoner an oppc,rtunity to recover a po~tion of his expense for painting the siqn ~nd suygested six tranths to abate the prablcm. Jack Whtte stoted the Conmission can either deny or ap~~ove tha request and no~mally if the request is denied~ action wlll be tak e~ in 3n days. Mr. Tavera stated he was tnformed he did no*_ need a pcrmtt because he was only changtng the facr of the sign and this (s an eatabliahed hlgFwvay for billboards. Annika Santalahti stated typically if a slgn face is changed, a permit is not req•~irnd but she cauld certainly understend ha+ this misunderstendtng occurred. ACTI~N: Commissioner Herbst offcred R~solution No. PC81-40 end ivioved fur fts passage and a ption that the Anahefm Ctty Planning Commission does hereby deny Variance No. 3200 on the basts that no hardshlp was demanstrated due to the slze~ shape~ locatian and topography of sueJecc prope~ty and that the petitioner must remove the stgn within 60 days. Commlasloner Oushore suggested 18~ days to ~emc~ve the sign a~d Jack White explatned the maximum would be G~ days; that he could JustEfy deferring ~e-cxaminaLion of the premises for 6A days, but could nat Justify failing to enforce the situation fo~ 6 nwnths. He suggested gra~ttng the verlance for a period of slx months and then re- as~essing tt, Commissioner ~ushore stated the only reason he fs concerned is that the petitioner spent the m~ney and h~ wauid 11ke to give him an opportunity to recover som~ of it. ~/4/81 1) ~~ MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLAtINING COMMISSION~ FEBRUARY 9~ 1981 81•103 Commi~sioner Barnas st~ted sh• Is sorry this hoppened snd she could not rem~mbar • stMtlar ir-ttancn and sha felt there wsf e wmmunicatlo~ gsp of some so~t and •he woutd be in favor of giving him as inuch tlme as potsible to renrave tt. Mr. Tavera ~ttated ha sees much worse signs ail over tha city and Chalrnwn Tolar ~tated most stg~s are adverttsing existing businesses on the site. Commiistoner Nerbst polnted out the pet~tto~er cen eppeal the dacistan to the City Counci l. Mr. Tevora anawered Conrnissloner Fry that he purchased the property 1-1/x yaars ago, after the cutbacks in personnel et Roclavell and that he repalr~d the bullding and uppraded tha restaurant. buc does gct 7 to 10 pho~e calls a day from people trying to locate tt~e property. On roil cali~ thc~ foregoing resolutlon for dental~ with 60 d~ya to ~emove the sign was approved by the falirn+ing vnte. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ BOUAS~ BUSIiORE~ FRY. IIERBST~ KINC, TOLAR NOES: COMMI~SIONEaSt NONE ABSENT; COMMISSIONERS; NONE Jack White~ Assistent City Attorney. prese~ted the written right to appesl the Planning Conmisston'a declsion within 22 dAys to the Ctty Council. 2/9/81 , ~ . ~~..~.....,.... ~'rfi~ l. 1 j ! f MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PIANNIHG COMMISSION~ fEBRUA~Y 9~ 1981 81•104 4t EIR NEGA7IVE DECLARATION AND REQUEST FOR aEMOVAL FOR SPECIMEN OWNEaSs HOMCS RY JOHN LYTTLE~ 12831 Newport Avenue. Tustin, CA g2680. P~ape~ty described as an Irregularly-:haped parcel of land co~ststing of epproximet~ly 6.12 screa~ hsvinA ~pproximate frontages ot 1600 feet o~ the west side of Cauntry tlli) Road~ •nd 1075 feat on Che eest side of Old Brldga Road~ hsving a rtu+xtmum depth of approximately 4$0 feet~ and being loceted ~pproxtmately 670 feet south of rhe centerilne of Mohlar Drtve. PETITIONER aEQUESTS APPROVAL FOR TNE REMOVAL OF SEVEN (7) SPECIMEN TREES. There was one persan i~dicattng her presence tn oppositton to sub)ect request~ and elthough the staff report was not read~ it is rcferred to end msde e part of the minutes. Bob Sucoff, Homes by John Lyttie~ stated the request Is to remove 7 Eucalyptus trees to facilttate vehicular access and they would be replaced with 7 Californ}a Sycamore trees. Olene Hesketh~ President of Senta Ana Canyon Property Owners Aasocistion~ 33~ South Timken Road~ stated she did not k~ow (f they ere opposed because they were never shown the plan. She then briefly revicwed the plans and further stated she Is not apposed to the tr*es being removed es long as they will be repleced. She esked to be contacted when th~ final plans are bafort the Plannfng Commisslon. Jack White~ Assistant City Attorney~ explatn~d this tract ma~ w~s appraved - May 19~ 1g80 a~d there will not be a~y further revicw by the Commission and the only thing being revle~wed todey Is the removal of t~ees. Ms. Hesketh asked why their t~omepwner's association ls not being notifted of thase hearings. Annika Santalahtt~ Assistent Director for Zoning, steted once a year the hcxnevwner's 85SOCI8LIOf1 malling Iist ts updated and it is posstble the new names heve not been added. ACTION: Comnissfoner King offered a m~tion. seconded by Commisslo~er Bouas and MOTION CARRIED~ that the Anaheim C(ty Planning Commission has r~evlewed the proposa) to remove seven (7) specirtwen trees within Tract No. 11122 which ls an irregulerly-shaped parcel of land consisting oF approximately 6.12 acres having a frontage of approximately 1600 feet on tha west side of Country Hilis Road and a frontage of approximately 1075 feet on the ~ast side of Old Br(dge Road; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration from the raquirement to p~tpare an e~vironmental impact report on the basls that there would be no stgniftcent indivtdual or cumulative advers~ envtronmental impact due to the approval of this Negotive Declaratlon since the Anahetm Genrrai Plan designates the subJect property for stngie-family resldentiel lend uses caranensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive e~vtronments) impacts are involved in the proposal; that the Initta) Study submitted by the petitioner indtcates no signlficant individual or cumulative adverse envtrorn-enta) impacts; and thdt the Negattve Declaration substantlating the foregoing findtngs (s on file in the City of M ahelm Planni~g Department. Commissioncr IGtng offered a motian~ seconded by Commisstoner tkrbst and MOT14N CARRIED, that the M aheim City Planntng Commission does hereby grant the request for approval of rem~val of seven (7) specimen trees withi~ Tentative Tract No. 11122 on the basis that rem4vml of the trees is necessary to provtde vehicular access and a reasona~le and practical development of the property and specimen trees shall be replaced wtth the planttng an the same pa~cel ef an equal number of trees from a specifted iist. 2/9/81 k 1 MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ FEB~UARY 9~ 1981 ~1-lOS iTEM Nd. 1 1I~~R~~ ~ECOMMENDATIONS The follawing Rspo~ts and Recortn~ndattons staff reAorts were presented but not reads A. ABANDONMENT N0. 80•~A - Reauest by Steven Long~ Lsrmor Developmsnt Company, to i~anda a~orms~ Ediaon Canp~ny's easement located north of Cerrttas Avanue, west of State Coliege Bouleverd. ACTION: Commiaslona~ King of{ered a motlon~ seco~ded by Commtssloner Herbst an~M0710N CAaR1ED, that the the Anahelm City Planning Conmtsston does hareby reconMnend to the Ctty Counci) that Abandonment No. 80-5A be approved as recommended by tl~e City Engiree~. 8. CONDITIONAI, USE_PE_RMIT_N0.__~9Q - Request fur retroactive extension of tima r~n~ov ~c c orparat an or property et 6501 Eest Ser~a~nb Avenua. ACTION: Commissioner King offe~ed s motlan~ secnnded by Comnlss(o~er Herbst anc M ION CARRIED~ th~t the Anshetm Clty Pl~nning Commtssion does hereby grant retroactiva extenston of time to Conditlona! Use Pa~mit No. 1799~ to expire January 30. 19a2. C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 21 0- Nunc pro tunc resolutton to sme~d ~n error n the cond t ons o epproval o~ a 157•foac high hotel and accessory uses loc~ted at the north-rest corner of Conventlon Way and Hsrbor doulevard. ACTION: Commissioner King offered R~soluclon No. PC81-k1 and movnd for (ts p~ssAqe a~d adoptlon that the Anahetm City Planni~g Commisston dr~es hereby amend Condttion No. 20 nunc pro tunc of Resolutlon No. PC81-2 to read as follaws: "5. That subJect property shall be developed substanttelly in accordan~e w(th pla~s and speciFications on flle with the City of Mahelm n-srked Exhibtt Nos. 1 throuyh 17~ provided~ havevcr~ (e) that the destgn and location of ail drtveways and parbvay~ shall be tn accordsnce wtth requlrements of the City Traffic Eng(neer~ (b) that the mex3mun+ ove~ail buliding hetght shall not exceed xhe height apocifted by the A~aheim Commertial Recreattan Area Hetght StandArd Guidelt~G, and (c) that parking sh~+il be provided for a minimum of stxty- elght percent (68~) of the 3854 parking sp~ces repulred for the specific developn~ent proposal." On roll call~ the foregaing resolution was passed by the follaving vote: AY~S: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, 60UA5~ BUSHORE~ FR1f~ HERBST. KING, TOLAR NOES: COMMISSIONERS; NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ADJOURNMENT There betng no fu~th~r business~ Ccmmissioner Nerbst offered s motio~, seconded by Comaissioner Bushora and MQTlON CARRIEQ~ that the me~ting be adjourned to the wo~k session to be held Februa ry 18. 1981 at 7:00 p.m. with the Glty Council. The meeting was adJourned at W:00 p.m. Respectfulty subm(tted~ ~ aC ~ /~r ~4~ Edi L. Hsrris~ Sec~ets ryr ELH:Im Maheim City Planning Coaniission ~9/81