Loading...
Minutes-PC 1981/11/30Civic Center A~ahaim Cellfornia November 30, 1981 REGULAR MEETING Of THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANHING COMMISSION REGULAR The regular meeting of the Anehetm City Pl~nning Commisslon wes MEETING called to order by Chairman Bushore at 10:15 a.m., November 30~ 1981~ In the Council Chember~ a quorum being prnsent~ and the Cornmisston reviewed plans of the ttems on taday's agenda. RECESS: 11:30 a.m. RECONVENE: I:~O p.m, for public testimony. PRESENT: CNAIRMAN: Bushore COMMISSIONEkS: Barnes~ Bouas~ Fry~ Nerbst~ King, McBurney AL50 PRCSENT: Anntka Santslahti Asststant Oirecto~ for Zoning Joei Fick Assistant Dlrector for Pl~nning Jack White Assistan, ticy Attorney Jay Titus Office Eng{ncar Rabert Kelley Associate Ptanner Paul Singer Traffic Engineer Desn Sh~~er Assistant Planner Ed~th Harrts Planning Commisslon Secr~tary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO TNE '"LAG LED BY - Commissioner Barnes APPROVAI ~F MINUTES: Commisstoner Bouas offered a motion, sec~nded by C~mmisslone~ K ng an M CARRIEO that the minutes o` the meeting of November 2~ 1q81, be approvnd as submirted. t'TEM N0. 1: EIR CATEu~RICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2260. ___.-- PUBLIC HEARING. OWI~ER: FiRST NATIpNAI BANK OF ORANCE COUNTY, ~70 Wilshire Bou{evard, Los Mgeles~ CA 90017. AGEkT: ANTHONY STRAMMIELLO, 511 South State tollege 8aulevard, Aneheim, CA 928ob• P roperty described as an irregularly-shaped Rarcet of la~d cons(sting of appr~ximately 3•9 acres located south and west of ths southwest corner of Srnx~ Ana Street and State College 8oulevard (511 South State College Boulevard (Anqelo's))• PROPERTY PRESENTIY ZONED CL. COIi~IT14NAl USE REQUEST: TG PERMIT ON-S.aLE BEER 11N0 WINE IN AN EXISTING ORIVE- IHRUUGH RESTAURANT. It was noted the petiti~nerhas requested a twc~-week continuance. ACTION: Commisstcx~ar Fry off~red a metton~ seconded by Commissioner MtBurney and ~OR CARRIEQ UNANIMOUSLY that considerstion of the afo~ementioned maxtor be continued to the ragulariy-scheduled meeting of Oecember 14~ 1981. at the r•equ~est of the petiticmer. a~-~~5 ~~i3ois~ ~. ~~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY P~ANNING COMMiSS10N, Novomber ~Q, 1981 81-736 ITE~MwNO, Z; EIR NEGATIVE pECIARATION AND CONDITIONAt, USF PERMST N0. 2215. PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: C. V, HICKS~ ATLANTIC RICHFIEID COMPAIrY , 300 West Glen Oaks Boulsvard. Giendsie, CA 91202, Property deacribed as a rects~gularly-shaped parcel of la~d conststtng of approxim~t~ly 0.47 acre located at the southeast corner of South Str~et and State Colltge Bouleverd (700 South State Coil Cge Boulevard (Arco Service Station)). PROPERTY PRESENTLY ZONED CL. CONDITIONAL USE R~QUEST: To permit a convenience merket with gesoline sales. Sub,ject petttion wes continued from the Planning Commission metting of November 16, 1981, due ta a tte vote. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subJect request and Although tht: staff report was not re~d at the publlc hearinq, it is referred to and mede a pert of the minutcs. Commisstaner ~,erbst stated he was not present at the November 16th meeting~ howeve~~ he hes reviewed a draft of the minutes and will oppose thts request because service stations were granced a privilege not granted any other buslne ss by beinq t~llr~wed close Cn the street to servr the tr~veling publ(c; and that b y converting this to a conventence market, it wc~uld prov(de two usas on the prop~rty and rhat ts r~ot normally allowed anyone else. He stated he felt th~ lot is too small to servtce two uses withouc endangering the traveting pubitc. He indicate d he did not feel any additlonal testimcny would be necessary. THE F'UBLIC HEARING WAS NOT RE-OPENEp. Chairman Bushore callad for the vote on Commissione~ Kiny's re solution offered at the Nove~nber 16th meetir.g to grant the Conditional Use Permit without any tlme limlts or restricttons on the d~iveways. On rol l cal l~ the resolution fai led to car~y by the fnl la~ing vote: AYE5: BAKNES~ KING, MC BURNEY NOES: BOUAS, 9USHORL', FRY~ HERBST h~SENT: NONE ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC81-249 a nd moved for its passage and adoption thaC the Anahelm City Plsnning Commission does he teby deny Conditional Use P•_rmit No. 22i3 on the ba~is that aF~provai would allow two uses on the property~ a privilege not nnrrr~liy grantad any othcr propr~ty in the sen~e zone and vicinity; and on the basis that th~ subJect property size is not adequa t~ to permlt ;:vo uses without endengering the travelirg public. On roll call, the f~regoing re~.olu;lon was passed by the fo{lo•wing vota: AYES: COMMISSi~MERS: 30UAS. SUSHORE~ FRY~ HERBST NOES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ KIaG~ MC BURliEY ;~BSENT: COMMI~SIt1NERS: NON~ J~ek k'hlte~ Asaistsnt City Atto ~ney, presen~ed tha written rig~fit ~f appeal. Thoma~ Goad~nan, Agent, clarifiad thut the Negattve Declsraticx+ wes Approved at the November 16, 1981 m~eting. 11/30/81 A , 4 MiNUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMHISSION~ Novc~ber 30~ 1981 81-737 T I VE DECLARAT I ON. MIA I VER OF CODE REQU I REMENT AND CON01 T I PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: BENNER SHEET METAI~ INC,~ ?.871 East l.a Cresta, Anehelm, CA 92805. AGENT: LOUIS A. BENNER~ 219 5outh I.emon Street, Anaheim, CA 92805. Property desc~ibad as y rectangularly-shupe d parcel of land consisting of appraximately 1.7 acres, hav~~ _ a frontage of approximately 265 feet on the south stde of Mireloma Avenue~ approxinbtely 920 faet wcst of the centerl tne of Red Gum Street (2860 and 2870 Eaat Mi ralama Avenue) . Preperty presently z~ned Ml. CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST: To permit a metal I'etyeling cente~ in the ML Z~e with walver of rnsximum fence hetght. Subject petit(on was continued frum tha meeting of No vember 16~ r98i, at the request of the petitloner in orde~ to re-advertise. There was no one indicAting their p ~esence in opposition to subject request and although th~ staff repo~t was not read at the public heartng, it ts referred to and made a part of the minutes. Louis Benner ~ agent, referred tn th~ condition r~qui r(ng that the existing eastarly driveway on Mir.;loma be r.losed and explained the decislon to put in two driveways was made upon recommendation of the Planning Departrtrent and after they got approval from Paul Stnger, T~affi- Enginee r. M~. 8enner refe~red to Condition No. 15 regarding ;ire hydrants and expl~ined he does have approval from the Fi~e De partment for two hydrants. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSEp. Comnissioner King cirrified that the two driveways were approved by th~ Traffic Engineer and that the thi~d driveway sarves an existing residence. He also clarified that Mr. Be~ner is aware of the con dition requiring that the trafflc slgnal assess- ment fee be paid wtthin sixty days. Dean Sherer~Assistant Pianner, stated staff has checked with ihe F(re Marshall and It has been rec:ommended that Condition Mo. 15 be deleted in that hydrants located near the Nroperty are sufflcient. Ma further explained it is requested that Condition No. 3 be deieted in that the existing structures o~ tl~e property nave been brought up to the minimum standards of the Clty of Anaheim Buil•'~ng Codes. Mr. Sherer stated Paragraph l7 should be corrected that the Traffic E~qineer recommends that the easterly drivewsy on Mirafoma Avenue be cinsed, ra~her than the westerly driveway. He stated it is correct the applicant ~pproached tt~e Planning Department and it was recommendad that two driveways should serve the property to p~ovide adequate circulation for s metal re cycling operation. Paul Sirder, Traffic Engineer, stated he belteved the driv~way recomn~endation was snade for some other use to provtde turn-around for t rssh trucks. Dean Sherar stated on the bas~s +~f previaus rocycl ing faci 1 ities which have been apprQVed, the Pla~ning Depa~tn+ent stsff reco~xne~ded to the applicant that two driveways should ~erve thr property snd upon that recommendatian~he went to the trafftc Enginee~ to obtain permits for the two curb tuts a~d now it is the Trsffic Engineer's feeling that perhapg bo th a 44-foot wide and a 30-foat wide d~iveway are not needed. 110~Q/81 '+1...:. MINUTES, ANAMEIM CITY PLANNiNG COMMISSION~ Novemb~r 30, 198~ 81-738 Chairman Bushora stAted he wes going to support the 44-foot drtveway no~ knowing that tha 30-foot drtveway was extsting and he felt there probek~ly shauld be two driveways. He stated he felt it wouid be grossly unfatr to ask him to c~o~e It now and polnted out Miralome (s a fal rly well trav~eled streer and tbR only problem Is with those two driveways so closo togethe~. Mr. Stnge r stated the rdJacent p roperty driveway and thts one are very close and he had approved it prlor to kno~w(ng there would be a fence. He stated the sppllcant has been notified that he wili have to keep t.he gate 60 feet from the sidewalk. He stated es a gencral rule they us~eily do not recomrand two industrial drlveways sa c'ose together beca us e they could causQ serious conflicts. Chalrman Bushore noted the epplicant has said there would probably be 20 vehicle trlps per day at the adJecent property and he thought the recycling operation w(11 have fdr more vehicles exiting their drivewey. r~r. Singerpointad out the uses of xhe property co~ld change to a more intense use and the adJ~cant driveway could be co me more frequently used. Chairmen Bushore suggested approval and (f the use becomcs e pr~blem~ the drivewey could ba ~lo~ed with a berm~ etc. Mr, Bcnner indlceted he would agrew with chat stipulation. Jack Whtte~ Assistant City Atta rn~ y, s~39ested delating the condition since ehe Comnissio~ has the right,if there is a problem~to revlew the use. Commiss(oner Ba rnes asked ff thc waiver pertains to extension af the proposed 6-foot high block w~l~ Mr. Benner state d he will move the fer.ce back to 50 feet and they would llke to park the(r priv~te cars in front of thc fence. Mr,Sh~rer stated the Planning sta ff reviewed thc pt~ns with the applicant and his basic proposal is to locate the gate 60 feet fram the property line on Msralama and he wil! have a 10-foot w(de landscr~ped area adJacent to Miratoma~ but no fence which wi 11 delete the need for th is waivcr. Mr. Btnner clarified the exlstin g slatted chsinlink fence is bac~ h0 f~eet and they would like tr~ mova it forward 10 fGet. Mr, Singer clariFied only the gate has to be set 5ack 6o feet. Commissione~ Bernes clar(fiad she wanced to be sure t~+at no materials will bc stored outside the fence and Mr. 8enner stated Ctty cod~s mandate that all recyclable materials must be stored behind the sla~ ' fence. ACTION: Commissioner K(ng offe re d a mation, secondtd by Commissionar Fry and MOTION CARRIED UNANIMO~SLY that the Ana h~lm Cit'y Planning Commissim has reviewed the proposal to perm3t a metal r~cycl +ng center in the NL (Industrial, Ltmited) Zone wl th a waiver of maximum fence he ight on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of ;and consisting of approximetaly 1.7 ~cres~ having a frontage of approximately 265 feet on the south s ide oF Mi ~aloma Ave~ue (2860 and 2870 East Mi ralca+na Ave~ue) ; and does hereby approve the Negative Dncia ratia~ from the roquirement to prepara an environ- n~entai impact roport an the basis that there would be ~o sig~ificsnt individuai or cumulative adverse environmental impact due to the approval of this Negativr Declsration since the Anaheim ~.e~ral Plan designdtes thc subject property for general industri~i lend uses coa~ewensurate wtth the propossl; that no sensitive envirenments) impacts are fnvolv~ed in the proposal; ihat tfie Initital Study 11/30/S1 ~ _,; MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Novembar 30. 1981 81-7~9 aubmitted by the petlttoner indicatea no signiffc~nt indivtduel or c~~mulative advarse envlronmental impacts; and Lhat th~ Nagative Declaration substentiating the fo~•egoing findir~gs i~ on file In the Clty of An~heim Planntng Department. It was noted the requested waiver has baen del~ted by revised plans. Commissloner King offered Resolutlon No. PC81-250 and moved for its pa~sage and sd~ption that the Anehetm City Planning Comniss;~~ does hereby grent Condltional Use Permit No. 2276~ tn psrt~ danying the waiver on the basis that it was deleted by revised plens and subJect to Interdepartmentai Committee Recommendetions. Dean Shere r suggested a condtt(on be added requiring thet r~~~Ised plans be submitted showing the relocation of the gste and fence end approved hy tl~e City Pl~nning Department and Traffic Engineer. On ro11 cr.ll, the foregoing resolution wes passed by the foilowing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES. 40U~1S~ BUSHORE~ FRY~ HERBST~ KING~ MC BURNEY NOES: COMM15510NER5: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ~_ N0. 4; EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION ANO ~;APIANCE NO ~245 PUBLIC HEbRING. OWNER: RAYMONO l1. MASCIEL~ ET Al~ 1127 West North Street~ A~aheim~ CA g2801. AGENT: GARY MASCtAI, 1127 West North Strret~ Anaheim~ ~A 92801. Praperty descri~d as a rectengular)y-shaped parcel of land consist(ng of approxi- n~trly .24 acre located at the northwest corner of Santa Ma Strert and 8ush Street ~923 East Santa Ana Street). Property presently zoned RM-1200. VARIANCE REQUEST: Waiver of minimum landscaped setback and maximum fence height to construct a 6-unit apartment complex. There was ~o ont tndicating thetr presence in oppv~ition to subJect request and although the staff report to the Planntng Commission dated November 30. 1981, was not read at the publtc hearing~ it is refcrred to and rt-ede a part of the minutes. Gary Masclal~ agent,pointad out thls is a corner tot which ts the reason for the walv~rs requested. THE PUBI.IC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Cortimissioner King stated he felt this project will upgrade the area and Comnissioner McBurney ag~eed, noting thera is a lot of opan space proposed. ACTION: Commtssioner King offered a motion, seconaed by Commisstoner Bouas and MOTIQN CA'RRIED UNA1~lIMOUSLY that the Anaheim Ctty Planning Commission has revlewed the proposal ':o construct ~ 6-unit apartment comalex with waivers of rt~intmum landscaped setback and meximum fence height on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting~ af appruximately .24 acre located at the nnrthwest carnsr of Santa Rna Strect and Bush Street (923 East Santa Ma Street); and does ~ereby app~ove the Negative Declaratlon from the requi rsn~~t to prepare an envt ranmental impact repo~t on the basts that there would be no significant indtvidu~al or cumulakive adverse environn~ntai imaact due ta the approvai qf thls Negative Deciaration since the Maheim Generel Plan designates the sub,~ect property for medium density residential I~nd uses commensurate wtth the p roposal; thae no sensitive environmentat in~acts 11/30/8t ~ ~ ~ MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY p~AWNING COMMISSION, November 30~ ig81 81-740 • ro invoived in the propoael; that the Initlal Study submftted by thc pet~tloner indtcstes no signtftcant tndivtdual or cum~alative adverse enviornmantai ir~pects; end that the Negative Oeclaration substantiating the foregoing ftndinr~, is on file in the City of Anahelm Planning Dapertment. Canmissloner King offerad Resolution No, Pr81-25 and moved for its passage and edoptlon that the Anahelm Clty Planning Commlssion d~es hereby grant Verlor;ce No. 3245, granting waiver (a) on the basis thst dental would deprive subJect property of a prlvilege enJoyed by other propertles In the sartx! zone and vlcinity and on the basis 'that the request is minimal; and granting waiver (b) on the basis thst denia) wouid deprive subJect propertY of a privilege en}oyed by other propertl~5 in the same zone and vtcinlty and due tu the surroundings, the fence w(11 provide needed security and subJect to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations. On roll call the rtoregoing resolution was passed by che following vote: AYES: COMMIS510NERS: BARNES, BOUaS, BUSHORE, FRY~ HERBST, KtNG~ MC BURNEY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSEN'f ; COMM I SS I~1~ERS: NONE ITE~ M Np~S, ElR NEGATIVE DECLARAi~ON ANO RECLASSIFICATION N0. 81-82-1Q, PUBLIC HEARING. 0l~MER; BR~AN J. 0'NEIL~ ET AL~ 1014 North Pari.cr, Orange~ CA 92667. Property described as an i~regularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.1 ac res located at the northtast corner ~f che itiverside Freeway and Lemon Street (1420 Ncrth Lemon Street). RECLASSIFICATION REQUEST: RS-A-~~3~000 (RESIDENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL) TO ML (INDUSTRIAL~ L1~~11TED) It was noted the petitioner has requested a two-week continuance. ACTION; Commissione~ Fry offered a motion, seconded by Con+missioner McBurney and M 0 CARRIEO UNI~NIM4USLY that cansideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the rcgularly-scheduled meeting oT December 14, 1981, at the reauest of the petitioner. M N0. 6- ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 250. WAtVER OF ~;ODE ftEQUIREMENT AND DITI~A7LT' ~5E RM1T 0. 22 0. PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: BURNETT-EHLiNE PROPERTIES~ 2050 Santa Cruz, Suite 100~ Anahefm, CA 92805. AGENT: SHAMROGK VENTURES~ INC.~ !4 Mountain View~ Irvine, CA 9Z71S. Propertw described as a rectangularly-shaped ptlrce) af land consisting of approximate)y 3,8 acres located at the northwest corner of Orangewood Avenue and State College Boulevard~ Property presently zaned ML. CONDiT1pNA1 USE REQU~ST: To permit a 15-story, 20g-1'oot high cornmercial office complex in the ML tc~e with waivers of maximum st,•uctural height and minimum landscaped setback. and ITE__ M Np, 7- ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAGT REPORT N0. 2 0. ~ RECLASSIFICATION NO 81-82- WA i V~ R O~i CODE REOIIi R~M W n n~ r~7 . _ PU9LIC HEARING. OWMER/AGENT/~ROPER'TY DESCRIPTInN SAME AS ITEM N0. 6. >>/3o~a~ ~ i MINU'1'ES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNiNG COMMISSION, November 30, 1981 g~"~''~ RECLASSIFICATION REQUEST: h1l TO CO CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST: To perrrit a 15~story, 209-foot hi~h ..ommercial offtc~ ccxnplex with wetvers af maxtmum structurel helght and mtnimum landscapad setback. There w~re five tnte~ested persons In4icpt~ng their presence at the uublic hearing and although the staff report was not rnad .t the oubiic haaring, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Jack Harty~ agent~ explained renderings and e three dimensional model ere dls~layed~ that the proJect is one buildinq wtth two towers, one 10 stortes and one IS sturies and a parktng structure; that the co~ner of Orangewood and State College is a landmark corner and they have tried to achieve a hiq~ quality building with an ;ntern~l courtyerd with a wdterfall, etc., surrounded by a restaurant and lt will be a very attractive pro}ect. H~ stated they will provide amentities aimed toward professional tenan~s who are motivated to go into a high-rise office building which is more expensive. He explained thc ftrst floor is brick and the tower is set in 15 feet from th~ face of the brlck portion and this design provides a transition from the street to t towers to avotd thP impacc of just a sheer glass building from ground to sky. Mr. Harty stated the enviro~mental irnpact report indicates tF~at this pro,ject by itself will not create any majar environmental problems~ including traffic~ and with the conditions recommended by staff~ thGy feel they are addressing and mltigating the cumulative impacts. He stated staff has recommend~~d a right-hand turn lane on State Collcge onto Orangewood if the time ever comes when an overpass i~ canstructed over the Santa Ana Freeway on Orangewoo~i a~d the Traf~ic Engineer has indicated until the overpass is canstructed~ the lane is not really nee~ed, but since it may happen in the future, the dedication is being rcquested. He axpla(ned that a strip 12-13 fect wide would be dedicated along Sta[e Coltege which makes the setback tssue even more crttical; that ihey are asking for a setb~ck waiver under the conditional use permit request in the ML xone and currently under the CO zone on the artcrial streets, a setback waiver is not needed; however, the City Council is considering the sFtback issue for offices in this area on December 8. He stated with the 12-13-foot dedication along State College. they would like to be allnwed a{0-foot setback from the new ~roperty line which wvuld provide a total setback Af 23 feeC from the current property line which would be rr~tntained as a landscaped ar~a. He stated they feal the setbacks as they have proposed would solve problems for the community as well as them because it would allaw the transition wtth the first floor brick treatment up to the tov+er and it would allaw a good treatment of ths courtyard area. Mr. Harty pointed o~t the propertv just to the sauth of this property is in the County and is zoned Professional Administ~ative Office and the satback requirement is 10 feet. He stated one of the offices being built currently on Orangewofld towards the 5' Freeway has a 10-foot setback. Ne stated thoy have sigr.r,d statements from various propertv owners in tF~e area ~esponding to a questi~on whether or not they obJect to the setbacks proposed and uniformly of those who have signed. they have no objectior~s. Concerning the 12-13-~~t dedication, he stated they would like to work out a legal ag~eement whereb! the city gets the dedication and futl cantrol of the property~ yet at the same time, Yf the~ city ever determinGS to abandon it, that it can be abandoned back to them. He stated they had discussed the possibility of dedtcation of an easement rathar thsn fee ownership which weuld accomplish the city's pu~~oses and put the maintenance burden o~ the current awner. il/30lS1 ~ r MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANN!NG COMMISS{ON, November 3Q. 19~~ 81-~42 Mr. Harty referred to the requtrement for tl~em to fund a report to determina treffic Impacts In the event of maximum development and ~lso the cost and how to fund the i~pr~vemnnts dictated by maxtmum davelopment. He steted they are the first developer In the aree and the ,1y developer with ~ kno~m buiiding size and the only daveloper under a specific time frsme and would suggest t~st any a9reement to fund thalr appropriate tharn of tmprovement costs be Iimtted by some ceiling amount so they are not making an open-ended commitment. Ne stated they would like for the city to cnnslder,as an element of thefr contribution the vatue of the land that would be dedicated for the right•turn lane whlch is 2~6 feet x 12-13 feet. Ne stated they wouid also want the cost of the study to dete~min~ tmprovements needed considerea as part of thelr contribution slnce any developer in that erea would have benefit "' the report. He explaincd they need to know at some point what thelr overall fina ~ial commitment to the property will be. TNE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Barnes asked if any type reimbursement ~olicy has been corsid~red for both the study and the improvements. Joe) Fick, Assistant Directo~~ of Planning, sCated Mr. Harty had indicated t~~ey need~d to know a specific time when th~se things would occur and he would propose that Conditian tlo. 14 of Ite~n No. 6 and Condition No. 15 of Item No. 7 which reads in part that in order to achteve tirr~ly completion of such improvements c~ncurrent with the developrr~ent of the sub}ect site~ the developer shall enter inta an ag~eement to pay his/her appropriate share of the cost of such traffic and water facility improvements... be modified to read as follows:"In order to achieve timelY completion oF such improvements concurrent wieh the development of the ~ubjectsite, the developer prior to final buildi,ig and zoning inspectlons shall pay his/her appropriate share of the cost of such traffic and water facility improvements as determincd by the study necessary to serve the subJect property o~ made necessary due to the cumulative develapment of the Stadium area. He added the first portlon of the condition could be modified to include a cost not exceeding S5~,000 for the comprehensive traffic study and a water facilities study. lis explained Paul Singer has made estimaCes fram consulta~ts for a study and the ballpark ftgure is about $25,000 for the traffic portion, plus or minus $1Q,Q00 dependin~ upon what is required. Concerning M~.Harty's desire th~t the study cost~ as well as the improvement portion caused by the extra dedication,be included as partlcipation toward traffic improvements. Mr. Fick stated fram Traffic Engineering and Planning Department staff standp~ints~ staff would view those as being contributions towards the overall tr.ffic problem and they would be added to thP overatl improvement costs to be pro rated so they would be credited toward their ~articipacion. Mr. Harty stated that would be sntisfactory to them, however, he w~uld like to request that the ~~~~u~issi~n c~nside~ a ceiling on what their con+tributions would be~ such as not more than S20~,000~ after having been given credit for the repvrt. and dedication, etc. He noted this is a 350~000 square foot proJect and if it is determined that there will be 3.5 miltion square feet maximum developable area, their portio~ would be 1~~ of the total and with a ceiling of S200,000 for their c~ntributi~n. it wouid mean abo4t 2 million dollars wo~th of improvements for that area and it would allc~w them to know their outside ~isk. ~1/30/81 ~,,.. MINUTES, ANAHEIM CItY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 30, 1981 g~_~y3 Chairm~n Buahare asked how to determtne thd velue of xhe rig~it-turn lane, Paul Singer~ Treffic Engineer~ repllad t~~~ value could be detormined by today's appraisa~l. He stated the study ts intended to determine the maximum devetopable area b~tied on traffic generatfan~ whst mitigation measures couid be instituted tn order to maxlmize the use of the area~ what the boundarles of thts area wtll be and what improver~~antg are goin9 ta be necessary ss vartous stages of development take place. He stated the appl(canl is a~sking the city to put a cetltng on sonwthing they wi11 not knaw because the study has not been done. He stated cvan after the study makes che determinatton, tim(ng will also be criticai end an inPlatlonary factor would have to be built in and he did not think it csn be determined at this time or upon completion of the study what the price would ba; however,it would be exp~essed as percentages of contribution. Chalrn-en Bushore stated this is reaity a situatton of the cart before the ~orse and eve ryon~ realizes there is gc,(ng to be a probl~m becausa of the Stadtum and future development. Commissioner Nerbst stated city staff cennot expect this developer ~o get financing for a building and th.;:: At the time of occupancy come up with a figure to devolop ' the sewers and every;hing else involved and hc felt staff has to come up with a figure, Mr. 5inger stated the figures will be evailahte at today's dollars; how~ver~ some of the improvements wi11 be constructed in the future and the f(gures wi11 be dlfferent. Commissioner H~rbst stated the develop~r cannot get a laan cortmitment on Chat kind nf theory. Concerning the right-turn lane~ he did not think it should be left open for construction in the futura, but should be dcx,e when the project is constructed t~ecause it wi11 cosc less and it would mean tearing up the corner after development if it ls done in the future. Comm'ssioner Barn~s stated she understands the problem and realizes the developer n~eds the figures; howevar, those tigures are not known and an overpass may be nceded in the fut~re an~ the study may indicate that if the wholc area is developed with high-rise off~-e buildings or whatevcr, other irt~rovements may be needed. and the traffic will dictate what can be built and she wouid tike as much development as possible therc, but the city dc~:s not have the money to do a1S the improvement. She stated she first thaught that if the devel~per puts !n the turn lanc and dedtcates the property and also a9rees te participate in the improvements for a certain area~ that would adequate; howeve~, it is not really knowr, what the figure wiit be. Comnissi~ner Herbst stated he felt the decision should be predicated on ;odey's prices and on fuii oecupancy of the whole area. Jack White, Assistant City Attorney, explained tht conditian as proposed dces not prec~~de thle suggestian by Commtssioner Nerbst and it gives the developer the right to o'tai~ ~buiiding permits prfor to campletinn of the study. Ne explained the condition gives the developer the optian to go ahead prior to completion of the study an~ after it is compteted and it is kr~own wF-at is required~ the develaper wiil be aske~ for his contr~butian. He stated it wes neve- staff's intention to leave it open-ended. Commissioner Herbst stated the only problem is Chat total financing must be obtained by Che t~~ne butid'r~g permtts ara abCained. J~ck White stateo it msy be that the develope~ wtll have to have the study ~.ompleted first. Faul Singer stattd the study could take 3 to a r.onths to conplate after a co~suitant has been selected. 11 / 3t~/$1 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ November 30, 198~ 81-744 Chairman 9ushore -~atad the C~bot, Cabot 6 Forbes proposdl has been goi~g on for ~bout two years ^nd they puiled back becduse of tr~ffic wncerns, access to t~~e site~ psrking and other eoncerns and have e.ven reduead ehe proJeet and tha eity has knawn for some tlme that thls development was going to take place end the Ceneral Plan was recentlti~ changod to +allow thts type developmont. He .~ked wt~y thls traffic study has ~ot elready been done. Mr. Singer stated there Is no development alreedy gotng on in that area. Chairman Bushore asked if traffic studies were dc~ne for~ the Rems, t1r. Singer replied t•affic study was done for the entire corm~ercial recreetion area~ including Disneyland~ Dut this ~s now a very spectfic a~za e~d th~ questlon is being asked for the first time ss to what the maximum possiDle development of the area wlll be. Ne stated the demend For office construction will be quite high in the area and this is a refinement of the original recreational a~a traffic study. Ghairman Bushore stated he wants to see this type developme~t in the city and that maybe that right turn lane should be developed now becauseft would be good for the uses exist~~g he suggestcd requiring this develaper to put ln che curb and dedicat~ the p~~,~erty and provide t!~e traffic stu~dy. Mr. Singer stated tF~e whole point af the study is to make surc the developer is not ~~ifairly asaessed for something that ma~~ not be needed and at this point it is not known if his contribution will be 525,000 or $250,000, Commissiono~ He~bst stated he feels the developer is asking for the maximum figure and then if the other developments around the area do not c+ccur~ hP will be reimbursed. Commissioner Fry pointed out Condition No. 14 covers ali this discusslon and it is very clear and he felt the developer can work wlth staff for the figures. Mr, liarty Stated he would lik~ for the Commission t~ ~onsider a figure similar to what wa: suggested for the maximum cost of the study as a maximum ceiting cost of the improvements and suggested $200,000 as their maxtmum contribution for imp•.vements. He stated it is possibl~ the total cost of improvements couid be a l~t higher, buk he did ~ot think that is likely; and that any s~lution wouid not be very precise, but it could he workable and he felt S100~0~~ _ontribution fo~ a 350,000 square foot proJect would be close. Comnissioner McBur~,ey asked how long it will he before the develaper is ready to obtain building ~ermits. Mr. Hart:y stated they have a major tenant l~ned up for the building which is a financial institution and th~y are unde~ an abligetion to commence conscruction by mid-1962. He stated Lime is money and they have to get the propert~/ productive and if they have ta wait 3 or 4 months for re~ults of the study~ it would really be a crisis. Maureen Harty. partner, stated concerning the ballpark figure~ their worsC case situation in~bives over 3 miilion square feet of space and it is her understanding that the improvements Cabot~ Cabot 6 Forbes might have to puk in would be somewhere in the range of S~i million and in thetr case, the dedica`ion would ba arowid $100~000 and a$75,000 contrtbution to a traffic signal so with these two proJects~ there will be a total of $1.S mlllion worth of improvements so 5250~000 from them is A good esC~mate. Si~e stated Tf there are more expensive improvements, there would be more development in the area so their share would be less. 11/30/~1 ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PI,ANNING COMMISSION, Novomber ;0, i981 81-~jp5 Canmis:lon~r McBurney asked if a numbe~ could be raached and/or a perc~ntage which would be applicable to both pertles. Chs~rn~an 8ushare stet~d he ~oes not 11ke setting dollar limits on 4~kn~~.ns ~nd he did not think Conditlon 14 totally soives the ~robl~m, Commissioner Herbst osked if thera are any figures av~ilable as to the square footege cos: of this type building and suggested S1 per squere foot might be a reasonable figure. Paul S(nger stated there is a dAnger of overescirr~ating ihe cost wh(ch would not be fair to the devesloper. lie stated he thought e ceiitng figure could be established and It should ba high enaugh that it proba~ty would nat be excecded. but it doesn't really matter as long es it is lower than the teiling figure. Chair~an Bushore askPd the cost of putting in the right turn lane at today's doliars and Mr. Harty replied they had not considered that because tt was the thought that wlth the dedicetion of the land, il wo~ld sit until needed when the overpass would be constructed, i f ever. Chairman aushore stated hr was not so s-.re that tt is not needed now with the existi~g and proposed development and he thought it is Nossible p~tting it in now would hclp the area, He stated this is b normal requirernent on proposals com(ng before the city f~r approval. He suggested requirii~g the right turn lane to be fully improved and that a study in t~rms of a maxtmurr of S50,000 be required~ with staFf pick(ng th~ ;,onsultant, and that credit for that study bc given t~wards the contribution. Paul Singer stated the trafftc s'gnal assessment fees cannot be used for anything except traffi~ signals. He stated the $50,000 study is part of the satisfaction of the mitigatic,n measures ~f the cumUl~~ttve impact of the p~oject. Commissi~ner Herbst stated the Stadi ~evelopment may not take place for 10 years and he felt it wlil take at least that long for the enttre area to be developed, and the $1 per square foot Tigure he had used was based on today's dollars and in 10 years it may be S2 per square footbecause of inflation and thls developer cannot be expected ~o see what can happen downstream. Mr. Singe r stated Commission should consider that they are trying to do some pre- planning rathe-- than post-planning so the last drveloper does ~ot have to bear all the costs. Ne stated he thought an estimated cost could be established~ but not a rrore fi rm one unti 1 after the study is done because it ~1i 11 ake that determination. Mr, Fick stated it is diffi~ult to came up with a ceiling because (n staff's discussions with Cabot~ Cabot b Forbes, it has been determined that 17 off-site improvements are necessitated as a result of cumulative development in the arGa and since ~othing has b~en submitted, staff doesn't know what those improvements are~ where they occur or what the dollar amounts are and thgt Ss ths purpose c.+ the study. He stated staff did not ha ve a problem consldering this as part of the contribution~ but it is rather unusual becausf it is r~quested by the Treffic f yineer abnve and beyond the dedication that w~uld typicaliy be requtred. Mr. Harty stated the suggestion has been made that the applicant dedicate and imp~ove the right turn lane an~+ bear the cost of the study and that has an appeal to them because it is cartain. 11/30/81 ~ ~ ~' ! MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 30, 1981 81-746 ~~ Commi~slone~ Herbst asked if there ~re adequate faciiities there now to h~ndle thia ; proJect with Mr, Singer replying the ro are adequate erefftc factlities ~nd Joel ~> Fick Indicsted there is a need for addttlanal water feciltties st~dy, Jay Titus, ; Office Engineer, stated thare is a meJor sewer itne in State College end tt ia his :' opinion there ts sdequate capacity for this proJnct. Commission~r Barnes statnd this butldl~g can ba butit and services era avetlable for this ane building, but this is the flrst tlme there has been any pre-planning which !s t~e best step whlch has been taken and that she does not want this developer to participata more than his feir shere. She referred to the sugqestion that this developer pay for tmprovement oP the right turn lane and aiso to pay for the study. Mr. Stnger steted the cost of the rl~ht Curn ldne is less than 520~000 and it is totelly unnecessary unttl the overpess ts built and he would suggest th~t the rlght of way be rese~•ved in case the overpass is ever buiit~ but not to put in improvements which may not `e necessary. Commissioner Herbst felt S20~OOQ to a proJect under construction is not very much and It could probably cc.::t $50~000 to S100,000 in 10 years, Mr. Harty stated the cost of the l~nd has to be considered which Is the btggest element. He explained they wc,uld be contrlbuting $2A~000 for the right turn lane~ up to $$0,000 for the study and the land would be wo~th S100~000, Jay Titus stated the city is looking for an additional dedication of 10 feet beyond the standar•d dedication required on State Collega which is 53 feet and the cfty is requesting a total of 63 feet of dedication. Commissioner +~e~;bst steted the developer should be iooking at some gi•re and taka on that issue betause it depends upon where the Planning Commission ailaws him to place the building. Cortmisstoner Barnes suggestcd approving the request with a ceiting of S250~000. Paul Stnger stated a determination sheuld be made as to the w~orth af the 10 additianal feet of dedication becau3e it is not a~ in-fee dedication and is merely an easement and its worth depends on the sctback. Mr. Harty stated if the buildtng is moved in~ it will affect what can be done to the inside. He pointed out if t~he curren! 10-foot setback for offices is retained, the dedication does take something away because ac that point they would not need a variance. Commissioner Herbsc asked if a variance would be required if the 10-foot dedication is requlred and the building is l~ft where tt is~ with che 10 feet tak~n off the landscaped area. Jack White stated the ftnished product must be considered to dGtermine the setbacks after the dedication is taken. Mnika Santalaht(, Assistant Direr~or fnr Zoni~g, stared the waiv~rs take into account the ultim~ate right of way designated c:nder the General Plan, so if the property ~emains industrial~ a 50-foot tatback would be requtred and the applicant is requesting a 15-foc~t setback whichis a 70$ deviatian; and if the property is rezoned to CO wY:ich Council wi11 be considering, a 35-foot fu11y landseaped setback would be required and at 15 fect~ it w~ould be a 57$ deviatl4n which means all that square footage will be leasable space far tha deYaloper. 11/30/81 u ~" ~ . r MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMi5SI0N~ Novmmber 30, lggl 81-; 47 Chairrr~an Dushare polntad out when the Commi~alon discussed the G'' ~ spectft~ lend~ceped setback was discu~sed. Annika Santelahci explained tne reco~,.~~rndation ta Counctl is for a 50•foot setback ~;, pr~ngewoad and Scate Cailege and if there is parkin~ in that 50 feet, ;5 feet must De fully landscaped. She st~ted the current CO zone requtres 10 feet. She stated Council will see A m(ntm~~~ c,f 35 feet on both Siete College and Orangewood, Chairm~n Bushore stated thls request etther w,oy is qutt~ a varian~., Ho st~ted he remembers specifically chat is ~,~hat wes recommen~led ixacause the Commission felt t~~is is a sensitive area and is going to be a showplace, He ststed th~t Is the issue that shuuld have bee~ ciiscussed firs~ because tf it is all~wed once, the seme request will be made all atong State Collage and Orangewond. Commissioner Herbst stated unfortunately thn Council has noc anprove:d the ComR~ission's recommen~ati~n yet so this reque5t Is a iittle prerrwture and if it is approved~ a variance would be required for this proJect, Chairman 8ushore stated he thought this mat;er should be conttnucd for two weeks until ~fter the Councii ha5 made ;he;r deci,ion, Mr. Harty stated he had spoke in opposicton at the Pl~nning Comnission hearing when the 35-foot satback was recommended, a~d it was sugge5ted to him by eha Cammtsson that rather than seeking a blanket prohihition against this 35-foot setback~ if he felt th,.y had mitigating circum~tances or hardships on the property, they should not oppose the whole recammendation and should Just came in with cheir project and request a waiver. Chairman Bushore stated this is a nice flat rectanyularly-shaped piece of property and there are no hardships. Mr. Harty stated no r.~atter what zoning is placed on this praperty, Just ta the south there will be a 10-foot setback, He st~ted if the obJective of the setback was to provide some continuity~ unfortunately there is buiit-tn discantinuity. Ne stated the Sunset project Is already building an office building amidst indu~trial with a 10-foot setback. Annika Santaiahti explained that fs the p~operty n~xt to the fire traintng center immediateiy south of the Stadium And the property was zoned CO which allows a i0- foot setback. Commissioner Herbst pointad out that property atso backs up to a mobile home park and this subJect proparty is probably the heaviest in+~acted corner in Anaheim, Chalrman Bushore asked why the did not propose a 11 sto~y ~and 16 story tower wfiich would provide the same space without variences. Lee Stearns~ Architect, Orange, stated the origtnal design was based on a set of desi~n tdeas and was not an attempt to devlate from setbacks and they wanted to pro- ~~ide an alternative to a glass b~ix and that is the reasan for proJtcting the ground floor forwerd and adding tF~e brick. etc. which would prc~vtde a much stronger impact. He explalned the ground floor wil) be ciear glass. He stated as an alternativc. an 11-story and i6-story buildir-g with the whole base taken off would not be a bette~ buiiding. He stated the courtyard area is 80 square feet on the corner and that was designed to provide e strong4r i~npact because this is a gateway ta the city and i t cbes open up that corner. il/3o/8t HINUTES~ ANANEIM CiTY PLANNING COMMiSSIpN~ Novembar 3d~ 1981 81-748 ChNirman Buahore steted he th~nks thls is a flne projnct t~but he doesn't agren with the ergument that the elternative would have tu be a gloss box building because of the size of the property~ noting there would ba many alternatlves. tle steted he would 11ke to hava ~+ore time co consider thl~ proposal. Conmissioner Herbst stat~d the City Council s~oul~ ba ew~+re that ff they approve the ordt~ance, this p'oJect w~uld ~equire a veriance. He strted the spplicant wants credit for land he {s dedicattng, yet he ts requesttng a variance in order to use 30 feet of the ground, He stated again this has to be e give and teke situatlon and ~uggested they should go baek to the drAwing bo~rd and also the Cammission shculd wait to see the Countii's dectsion on the proposed ordinanc~. Me steted the spplicant should evaluate what they will be gatning wtth the variance, versus what will b~ gtven away. Mr. Harty ~sked for a recess becau~e the owner of the property would like to discuss ~ome suggestions with them. He stated timing is their problem and ehey would like the mattcr resolved today. Commiss(oner Barnes asked how much landscaping would be left after the right turn lane is dedicated~ with Dean Shere~ nat(ng there would be about 6 feet of landscaping. Chairman Bushore stated this is a big difference in net rental space g~nerated by the setback. He ~tated he wants to see the proJect developed but daes not want to see the city shortct~anged. Commissioner McBurney suggesteci che brick facade could be pulled back 10 feet and go up two stories which w~ould accomplish the same n~al. Cortm(ssioner Fry stated he has a problem with che setbacks and reminded the Commi~s+on they have spent a lot of time ~iscussing their recommendation co the City Council and intended to stick to that 30-foer req~irement. Chairman Bustiore stated part of ti~e problems with develapers today is the fact that the p~operty owners dictate what can be done by the develope~ in his haste to acquire property and thcn the developer has a problem and wants the commission to help. He stated everytime a proJect is appruvEJ around the Stadium, the dvwnto~m area is hurt because of the office space proposed there and referred to the master plan approved for th~c downtown area. He stated he does want ta s~e this type development in Anaheim. ~ Mr, Harty stated they are not suggesting a 6-foot landscaped a~ea and will move the building back 10 feee which would co~~form to the current CO standards. RECESS: 3:20 p.m, RECONVENE: 3:30 p•m• Mr, Harty s:ated they have been working on this proJect for 3} years and would like a decision to~~ay. He st~ted they wilt withdraw the setback waiver request and will abide by the City Council's decision rcgarding the setbacks. Annika Santalahti explai~ed th~ rn~ximum building height ~as advertised so conceivebly there could be anothe~ publtc hesaring required if they wanted to move the b~ilding, but revtsed plans would be subr~itted, 11/30/81 ~~ ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 3~~ 1981 81-749 Mr. Horty stdted they will stay with a 10-story end 15-sto~y tower and wilt run the rtsk of losin~ some spacn. Concerning the future improvemants, he steted they propose to dadicaCe tha 13•foot right turn l~ne and improve thet turn lane and fund the study far trefftc and weter~ up to a rr~ximum of S50,000. ln return for whtch they would be deemed as having sattsfied their fatr share requlrement toward cumulative tmpact. Ne stated tha question wes a~ked as to adequate munictpa) servtces Just ta handle this buildi~g and their environmontal impact repo~t indicAtes there are adequete services, sa they ere eddressing t!e cumutettve imp~ct with these conc~ssions. A representatiye of Cabot~ Cabot b FarDes (CC6F) indicated ~e would ltke to speak. Following a brief discussion with Mr. Herty indicating he did nut think lt would be f~ir to hear from CCbF sln~e this Is their pubiic haaring and following a general consen~us of the Planntng Commtssion that they woul~ like to hear from tlx CCbf representattva, the public hearing was re-opencd. David Gens~mer~ Cabnt~ Cabot b Forbes~ stated his reaso~ for wanting to speak is thst he has some specif'c daca on what the traffic mitigation~~ will cost since they spent about 1# years on that topic and based on their Traffic Engi~~eer's studies, for 2 m(111on square feet of deveiopment~ the cost for traffic i~~~pravements will be S4 milli~n in 1981 dollars; and that this proJect wi11 be 350,000 square feet ~nd using t~~at same formula in 19B1 dollars, thcir cont~ibutlon v~ouid bt S750,000. He explained the traffic study was done for their project only ~nd this mitigation includes widening of streecs~ completion and widening of bridge~~ etc., and his oniy point is that for a building today~ the cost woutd be S2 a square foot, including creffic i~,iprov~ments. He stated they do not fe~l that they (Cabot~ Cabot b Forbes) should pay for all thc improvements for ather developmeRts, Na exptained they have 90 acres ta develop in tF»t area. It was ~otEd this subject pro)ect is on 3.B acres. Commlssioner Barnes stated she did not think this can k-e answercd today. Mr, Harty stated they are trying to avoi.i a discussion of the CCbF proJect~ bur. he wanted to point out that their Traffic Engineer, Wes Pringle~ requested this informatton from the CCbF Traffic Engineer and was informed that he was Instructed by hfs client not to aliow them privy to that information. He stated he felt It is unfair tnat this informetian is now being introduced as some sort of persuasion on the merits of their proJect. He stated he hoped their proposal to eliminete the waiver request would be satisfactory and s~ated the question of future improvements was difficult and their s~qgestion is that they dc~ the dedication~ improvemants. and pay for the study. He further e~:plained that dors not rnean that staff's recommendation is not acceptable to them, buc it does prtsent real problems. He statcd tf thc Commission feels their proposal is wa~:hwhile. they wouid like to resolve the i:sues today. Chairr!ien Bushore stated he thought th.: suggestlons are vaiid pnJ he realizes CCbf has done the study and he knows staff and nther peuple have asked for the lnformation and agreed it is unfalr~ for the figures to be presented at this time. He stated ha has a good idea whet is betr~g paid for the property and knows the~e were a lot of enticements made and che ~roperty acrass the street was leasad with ~~~tions and there were certain write•downs to entice davelope rs into the area. Comm3ssioner Herb~t agreed and ststed he would reconn+e~d that the Conm(ssio~ suggest to the City Council that a cetting Ptpure bs astabltshed at $i pe~ square foet whicn tha Counci) c~n eithe~ ralse or lower. 11/;0/81 1 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIQN~ Navember 30. 198~ 81-750 Chairman Bushore stated he felt thes~ proposals will heip mitigate the probiems~ but the environmental tmpact ~eports for futurs developments should cwne up wlth gaod mikigati~n measures whtch the taxp~yers s~e not gotnq tu have to pay, Cnrtmissioner Barnes agroed the S1 per square foot flgure ts reaa~nable snd the total touid bes less. Ci~airman Bushore dld not khlnk e doller smount should be placed on the squa~e faotsga, Lammissionar Barnes ststed she could not vote on the tmprovements mentianed without a dollsr amount because she felt it would ba a disservice co the city and t~xpayers. She stated sha does not want this devaloper to pay moro than his feir share~ but does not want khe city to pay more than thelr fatr share and suggested the recommendaclon should read SI per square foot or less. Chairman Buahore pointed out the city will be getting S3S0~000 ~nd probably a SSO to 560 m(lll~an dctlur valuation on which property taxes will be pald~ Nlus tnere will be ervloyment c~pportunitles fo~ people whtch wlll be an addittonal benefit. Annika Santatahtl stated if the Ptanning Commission grants these rcquests, approvAl will be ~ood far a period of one year and Are suDJect to renewal with time ~xtensions if thay have not commenced construction and thst SI amount c~uld be inciuded for ~ev(ew so tf they seek exte~sfo~s of time , the figure may be re-evaluated, Commissloner Herbst stated his recommendat:ion to City Council would be nat to excead th(s amount and the Councfl has the prerogative of Ghenqing it. Annika Santalahtl expla(ned this item wouid not be heard before tha City Councii unless It is appeeled. Commissloner Herbst gtated his r~commendation would be that it qu ta the City Councii because it depends on the outcome of the pro~ased ordinance to be heard on December 8. Annika SAntalahti pointed out the setback waive~r has been w~thdrewn so that would not perta(n to this issue. Jack IJhite stated if the Planning Commisslon sets dallar emaunts, they have to realize those amounts will ba as set uniess che matter is appeated or City Council sets it for publi~: hearing on its owri motton. Co-nmiss(oner 8,~~nes stated that is why she felt a continuanee would be the quicke~t way to proceed because fn the n~antime staff tould avaluate the matter and the material could be obtained from CC6F, She ind~cated she was sure that information would be offered now since it has been introd~ced as evidence, She stated she felt su~a Council wiil set this for pubiic hearirg. Mr. Harty steted the ceiling on the fe~es is a devlce they need because the report may take 3 or 5 r+~nth~ and they still w~ould nat know even with a two-week continuance. He steted the proposal means tfie clty has sameone now to pay for the report anc! if that ts not arceptable~ then the staff recammendatfon is a better app~oach for Lhem because it does nat requjre them ta pay 100$ of the cost of the study. 11/30/A1 ~._ i< 1 ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINC G4MMISSION, Novamber 30, 1981 81-?51 ACTION: Commissloner Nerbst affarad a motion~ aeconded by Comntssioner Bouas and 1~~R CARaIED that sfker consldertng EIR Nu. 250 for the proposed conmercial complex localed ~-t the northwest corn~r of State Coilege Bouleva~d and Orangewood Avenue and revlewing evidance~ both writtan and or~t. to supplemenc the d~•aft EIR, the Planntng Commission Finds that Oraft EIR No, 250 ts tn compliai~ce with the Californla Envlronmental Quality Act and with the Cfty and Stste EIR Gu(drlines; that the foliawing e~nvironmental Impacts have be~n Identified tn association with the proJect: (a) there will be temporary Inconvenience to surrounding pror,erties as a result of noise~ dust and trutks during construction; (b) the proje~:t wEll cause en in- crert-ental incraose in trefflc, air pollution and noise levels; (there is traffic congastion in the area before and after meJor events at Aneheim Stadtum); (c) the p~oJect wi11 inc~ease the demand for low and moderate income housing which is already in very short supply throughout the County; that the following mitigation rr~asures wiil be empioyed to reduce these environrn~ntai impacts: {1) compilance with ctty codes~conditions, palictes and procedures; (2) the proJect applicant will participate in an area traffic study and will provide mitigotlon meesures for reducing the traffic Impacts of the proJect which are identified in the study; therefore~ Planning Commission certifies EIR No. 250 and adopts the foliowing Statement of Overriding Cansideratiais~ "The approval of ConditlonAl Use Parmit No. 2265 f~~r the ~roposed construction of a commercial complex on the north~est corner of State College Boulevard and Orangewood Avenue could result ii~ the significanc environmental impacts which have been identifiad above. Howev~r~ the pro,ject wili bring economic benefits to the city by providing employment rtor residents of Anaheim and the surrounding area." Concerning approval of Condlti~onal Use Permit Ho. 2280, Annik~ S~ntalahti pointcd out the petittonar has withdrawn the request for waiver (b) - minimum landscapPd setback; therefore, the approval could be in parl witt, that waiver having been withdrawn rather than wording the resolution for denial. Commissioner Herbst offered a motlon, secondad by Commissioner Barn~s and MOTION CAliRIED that the Anahcim City Planning Commisston dces hereby grant waiver (a) on the basis that the sing;e-family residential area is located in the Cnunty of Orange and there are no simitar requi~ements; therefore, de~-ial wouid deprive subJect property af a privilege enJoyed by other properties in the same zone and vicinity; and that waiver (b) is hereby withdrawn k~y the petitioner at the public hearing on the basis that all city code requlrements relating to setbacks will be complied with. Commissioner Herbst offered fksolution No. PC81-252 and moved for its passege and adoptior~ that the Anaheim City Ptanning CommisSion does hereby g~ant Conditional Use Permit No. 22$0 subJ~ct to the petitioner's stiputations to install the right turn lene on State College goulevard and to abide by alt ctty code requirements relating to setbacks And subJect ta Conditian No. 14 ~eing modified tc include a maximum of $1 per square foot for future improvemenis and that the petitioner wiil pay up to a maximurn of S50~000 towards the traffic and water facilities study. Joel Fic~, steted the wording of Condition No. 14 can be worked out ta provide those stipulations. He also pointed out that the t~stirrony p~asented by CCbf could ~e included as e finding subst~rntiating the S1 per square foot . .lack Nhtte noted Condttion No. 1 should be modified to show that an ee~ement couid be provided rmther than • deed~ noting the city wtll be happy to take an easement ~-s opposed ko a deed. 1i/30/81 ~ M I NUTES ~ ANAHE I M C 1 TY PLANN I NG COMM 1 SS I ON ~ Novembe r 30 , 1981 81-752 Comnisaloner 8ou~s asked i f the developer wi ll get credi t for the cost of the study tow~rd hls participstlon in the imp-avement costs. Com,lssioner Herbst replied they would ge~ credit fo r the cost of tha study. Maureen Harty stated the setback waiver is not requi~ed ~nd she understdnds they wi I1 be requi red to de~ilcate an addt tionsl 10 feet which wt 11 not be credited tow~rd thet r contribution to the cumulative impacts. Paul Singer ~ xplained ~teff wouid co~ slder the right turn lane and the study costs as pa ~ t of the mir,igatton meas u ~es so they wouid be qiven far both~ but the dedication would not be considered as part of their perticipation. On rol l cal 1 the foregoing resout ton was passsd by the fol ldwi ng vote : AYES: COMMI SS I ONERS; BA'tNES ~ BOUAS ~ BUSHORE , FRY ~ H4RBST, KING ~ MC BURNEY NOES: COMMIS5lONERS; NONE ABSENT: COMMI SS I ONERS; NONE Jack Wh 1 te p ~esented the wr i t ten r i gh t of appea 1, Commissioner Herbst offered Resoluticsn No. PC81-253 and moved for its passage a~d adoption thst the Anahelm City Plenning Comm(ssion does hereby grant Reclassificatior No. 81-82-9, subJect to In;erdepsrtme,~tal Committee Recormrr.ndattons with Conditions No. 1 and 14 be i ng modi f i ec~ the same ~s 1 n Re9o1 ut i on PC81-252 . On rol I cal i ~ the foregoing resolution w~~s passed by the fot lowing vote; AYES: COMMISSIONERS; Bf~RNES, BOUAS, BUSHORE , FRY~ HERBST~ KING, MC BURNEY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NCNE ABSEN7; COMMISSIONEAS; NONE Deen Sharerexplained walver (b) of Item No. 7 pertains to a setback of tha proposed pa~king garage from an interior property 'ine a~~d is necessary, Comnissioner Herbst offered a~ motian~ seconded ~y Cemmissioner Souas and MOTION CARRIED that the Anahelm City Plenning Cornmissior: does hereby grant watver (a) t~n the basis that the single-family residenttal property is located in the C~~ty of Orange anC there are no simi lar requirements and denial would deprive subJect property af a priv( iege enJoyed by other prvperties in the same zo~e and vicinity and gr~nting waiver (b) c+n th~s basis that the request is minimal and denial would deprive subject property of a Drivitege enJayed by other properties in the same zone and vic inity. Commtssioner Nerbst affered Re:salutian No. PC81-254 and moved for its passago and adoption that the Mahelm City Planning Conmission does hnreby grant Conditional tls~ Permit No. 2Z65. subJact to Interdepartmental Cor~mittee Recortsnendations. On ral l ca! 1 the f~,regoing reaolution was passed by the fol towtng vote: AYE5: C~ISSIONERS; BARNES, BOUAS~ BUSHORE, FRY~ HERBST~ KING. MC BURNEY NOES : CQ!!11 SS 1 ANEAS t NflN6 A85ENt: CQMMISSIONERS; NONE Jack whi te pr~sente-d the wri tten right of appeai , 11/30/$1 ~ ~~ ~_ ,: ~ ~ MiNUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMi1SSiON~ Novemb~r 30, 1981 81•753 Chairnwn Bushors st~ted th~ Orange County Tronsit Ol~trict had ~ecommanded certain conditions with reqard ta bus-turn outs~ ~~c. and statad when the Di~trlct wants to mak~ auch req w sts, thay should app~sr bsfora the Planning Commisaton to explai~ the raasons for !h~ r~qu~~ts. Commisalon4r 8a~nes complimsnted the deveinper and 9tated it may have Appeared the Commisslonars did not itke the pro~ect~ but they do. RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION Chairman Buahore presented d Resolutton of Apprecletfon to former Commisslo~ner Harcid Tolar fo r his seven years service as a Planning Commiaatoner. Mr. Yol~~ thanked the Commission and stated it Is nice to heer all these ni~e things and it hes baen a pleasure to work wtth the Pianning Commfssionera and thst he thtnks this Commtsson is not only ona af the mast prafeasional Planning Commissions in the state~ but this ctty h~s one af the finest staffs in the state which mekes the Commisstoner's Job easier. ADJOURNMENT There ba~ng no fu~ther business, Commissioner lierbsc offered a metion~ seconded by Commiasloner Bouas and MOTIQN CARRIED that the menting be adJourned. The rneeting was adJourned at 4:20 p.m. Respectfuliy submitted~ ~ ~~a~~~ Edith Harris, Secreta~y Anaheim City Planning Canmisston