Loading...
Minutes-PC 1983/06/01RBatl~~ BTINa OP THB AN~HBIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULJIR MBBTINC Th~ reguler meeting ot the AnAheim City Plenninq Commiaoion wae called to order by Chairman Pry at 10:00 a.m., June 1, 1983, in the Council Chamber, a quocum bfinq preaent and the Commiaeion reviewed plane of the itema on todAy'e egende. R~CESB: 11;30 a.m. RECONVENE: 1:35 p.m. PRL'SENT 118SENT 1-GSO PRESENT Ghaicman: Fry Commissionera: Ki~g, La Cleire, McBurney Commiseioners: Herbet (Commiasionera eou~-s and Bushore arrived at 1:40 p.m.) 1lnnika Santalehti Jae1 Pick Jack White Paul Singer Jay Titus Jay Tashiro Dean Sherec Edith Haccie A$eistant Directoc for Zoning 1-asietent Director for Planning Aeaietant City Attorney zraffic Engin~ec Office Engineer Associate Planner 1-eaociate Planner rlanning Commieaion 3ecretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commieaioner Ring offeced a motion, seaonded by Commieaioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED (Cortmiisaionecs Bouas, Buahore and Herbet absent) that the minutea from the meeting of May 16, 1983, be epproved as submitted. ITEM N0. 1. EIR CJ-TEGORICAL EXL'MPTION-CL/-.SS 21 P.NJ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2366 PUBLIC HEAFtZNG. OWNERS: ~-NTONIO H. MNGEL, ET 1-L, 318 N. Stetdust l~venue, placentia, CA 92670. Property deacribed as a rectangularly-ahaped paccel of land consistinq of approximately 1.5 acres, having a frontage of Approximately 150 feet on the east side of Red Gum street, and furthec described as 1450 North Red Gum Street. To aons:der revoc~tion af Condi~ional Use Permit No. 2366. Cantinued from the meeting of Ap~il 4, 1983. Hugh Swanaon, 1301 Dove Street, 3uite 400, Newpoct Beach, CA 92660, attorney, stated they nre requesting that this matter be continuedt that one of the owners ig in the process of resolving the problems and the cemper shelle have been removed, the people living there have moved~ the animals have bepn moved, slate have bee~ insta~led in the fence and the inopere~ble vehicles heve been moved. He stated Tony Rangel is only one of the ownere and he ie more than willing to cooperete~ but there is another brokher involved and he ia not willinq to cooperate, but tihey are tcying to resolve the problem. He atated with the cooperation of the City Attorney, he thoughe they could file a criminel complaint againet the brother and a 30-day continuence would be required. 0546H 83-305 6/1/83 ~ ~ t ~ , Commis~ion~ra 8ouaa end Bushoc~ ecxiv~d. Raaponding to Commlesi~ner King, Tony Rengel expleined he owne the eaatern portion o! the propecty and a 20-foot etreet Erontage. Dean Sherec, 1-aaociete Plenner, expleined to Commiesioner Buahore thak the title to '~hg p~npEorYthe conditionnl~us~8permitej however, only one owner is cequired to sig kespondin9 to Commiesianer Buehore, Mr. Swanaon explained he h~s not spoken with Mr. RAngel's brother and thet the property is actually two seperete percels, buf they have not had the levecage re9uired to force the one brother to comply. He eteted ~s far as the City ia concerned there is not a le~al lot split and he thought it could be rasolved through the couct. Cheicman Pry explained as fec as the City is concerned, the pcopecty He a 150' by 400' parcel and the citation ia to clean up the entire property. pointed ounother 30gdaYec ntinuance$wouldbjuatebepaddinghinsultetohinjucy. gr~nting a Mr. Swanaon stated the two brothera g+~ined aeparate tltles lonq before this permit was initieteaintNehetdiddnotlthink@there9wastanY~WaYtf°t~therCity to~d on a cximinal compl - ever get this reaolved. Commissioner euahore atated it is pcobably in the City's best intereat to gcant a continuance so this can be reaolved, bec~uae to atart another procesa such as revoking thisn~'anditakedeven~longe~uisance complaint would atart the procesa all aver agai ACTION: Commis~aionec La Cleire offeced a motion, seconded by Commiseloner Mc- g~r~ey and MOTIOt~ CARRI~D (Commiealonec Herbs~ absent)r that conaideration of the above-mentioned matter be continued to the meeting of June 27, 1983, at the request of the petfti.oner. Mc. Swanson explaincoulc: submit~r- letteriexplafninguwhat7pr.ogtesso asebeener Bushoce replied he made at that time. ITEM N0. 2. EIR NBGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARI1-NCE N0. 3332 Harbor Boulevard, PUBLIC HEARYNG. OWNERS: Sw~-~1EI CHAI, ET 1-L, 921 S. ANAHEIM, G 92805. ]~GENT: K.K. CHANG, P.O. Box 8064. Anaheim, CA 92802. Property deacribed as an irregularly-ah~ped paccel of land consiatinq of approximntely 1.6 acre, 921 S. Harbor 6oulevard tSandman Inn)• Waiver of minimum numbec of parking spACes to expand an exiating motel. Continued from the meetings of May 2, and May 16, 1983. There was no one S~affBreporthwaa notsread,iit ie~referr~d to andcmaae dePart anc] although the of the minutes. 6/1/83 MINUTE~. ANAHBIM_ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. JUNE 1~ 1983 83'3~7 K.R. Cheng, agent, explainad they hsve reduced the n~ambex of unita fcom Z4 to 18 and combined with thR reetaurent, they will provide 72t of the cequired packing end the motel alon~ would be providing 90t of the raquired packing. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. C~mmiasioner King pointed out the City Treffic Engineer has reviewed the aubmitted traffic study and has eppcoved the packing situation. Commissioner 6uahore indicated concern that thia property ia nAt located in the commeccial rec~eetion zone ~nd eeked if veri~ncea have been previousiy approved which were not located in that zone. Annika Santelehti, 1-ssistent Director for Zoning, responded ehe wae under the impreasion that there have been aome variances granted for motels under the previoue atandards. Commi~sioner Bushore atated he ia not aure that the motels north of Ball Road would have the same influence oi~the touriat area that others would have that ar.e located closer to the Disneyland area. Commiseioner Bouse pointed out the petitionec I~ae indicated a l~rge percentage of his business ia through the tours. Commissioner Bushoce etated he would be moce comfortable granting these requpats if the boundaries of the commercfal recreatio-~al zone were moved to include this property because of the precedent that could be aet since treditionally these waivere have been in tt~at zone. Commissioner McButney atated he did ~ot think thie would set a precedent and Chaicman Fcy agreed. ACTION: Commiasioner King offered a motion, seconded by Commiesioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED (Commiasioner Herbst absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the pcoposal to expand an exi$ting motel with waiver of minimum number of pdrking spaces on an irreqularly-shaped parcel of lan6 consisting of approximately 1..6 acces, having a frontage of approximately 180 feet on the west side of Harbor Boulevard and futther described as 921 S. Harbor Boulevard (Sanaman Inn)t and does hereby approve the Negetive Declaration from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report o~ the baais that there would be no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact due to the approval of this Negative Decl~ration since the Anaheim General Plan deaignates the subject property for commercial recreation land uses commensurate with the propasalt that nn sensitive enviranmental impacts are involved in the proposalf that the Initial Study submi~ted by the petitioner indicates no signific~nt individuAl or cumulative edverse environmental imgactst and that the Negative D<<~:arati~n subatantiating the foregoing findings is on file in the City of. Anaheim Planning DeQartment. Commiasioner King offered Resolution No. PC83-101 and moved for its passage and adopkion that the Anaheim City Planning Commiasion does hereby grant Varfance No. 3332 on the baeis the perking atudy submitted indicated that the 6/1/83 MIN~T6~. ~NAHBIM CITY PLANNING COMMI88ION. JUNB 1. 1983 83-308 parkinq v~riance will not ceua~ an incceee• in tref~ic congestion in th• immediate vicinity nor advecsely ettect Any of the adjoining land uaea and under the conditione imposed, i! any~ will not be detrimental to the peac~, he~lth, eaffty and genersl walfere of the citizena of the City of Anaheim and subjact to intecdepactmentel Committee cecomm~ndatione. Jeck White, Aseiatant City Attotney, expleined that Peraqreph 16 on the skeff report i$ incorrect end the findings required under ~od~ Section 18.06.OB0 ahould have been included. On roll cell, the foregoing reaolution wea pesaed by the following vote: ~YEB: BOUAB~ FRY, KING~ LA CLAIRE~ MC BURNE'1 NOES: NONE )1B3ENT; H~RBST ABSTAIN: BUSHORE ITEM N0. 3. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION RECLASSIFICl~TION N0. 82-83-31 AND VARIANCE N0. 3336 PUBLIC HBARING. OWNLRS: LIUO LANB PROPERTIFS, INC., ET l-L, 361 Loe Altos Avenue, Long Beach, CA 90814. 1~GENT: D1-VID W. CORNISH, 14804 Rayfield Drive, La Mirdda, CA 90638. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped percel of land consisting of approximat~ly .~ C.75 acre, 3040 W. Ball Road. CL (COmmercial, Limited) to RM-3000 (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zone. Waivers of required lut frontage, minimum lot area pec dwelling unit, minim~m aideyard aetback and ~r!nimum recreational-leisure area to conatrucc a 12-unit affordable condnminium complex. Continued fram the meeting of May 16, 1983. There was no one indicating their preaence in opposition to subjPCt requeat and although the staff repart was not read, it ie referred to and made a part of the minutes. Randy Morris, agent, explained they have met with the Community Development Department and renegoti.ated the affocdability unitg and will meet the guidel:nea se set forth by that department. THE PUBLIC HBARING WP-S CLOSBD. Reepondf.ng to Commiasioner Bushore, Mr. Morris explained three of the units were renegotiated on a lower level for a maximum allowable monthly gayment= that originelly they had met the requiremenk8 for a four or five peraon houaehold and will now be meeting the requirements for a thr~e person househ~ld which reduced the price of the unita by ~20,000. Commisaioner MeBurney indicated he felt the petitioner had accomplished what the Co:nmission wanted and that he could suppork th~ p~9ject. 6/1/83 MINtJT68. 11N11HBIM CTTY PLIINNINa COMMI$BIQN. JUNE 1!. 1983 83-309 AGTI N: Commis~ion~c McBucney o!l~~ed a motion, se~onded by Commi~~ion~r King end MOTION C1IRRIED (Commieaianer Hecbat ab~eent), that the l-neheim City Planning Commiaaion has r~viswed tha proposel to reclaa~ity dub~ect pcopecky from the CL (Commeraiel, Limited) Zone to khe RM-3000 (Residential, Muleiple-~emily) Zone to conetruct s 12-unit dffordable condominium complex with waivera o! requir~d lot frontega, minimum lot exee per dwelling unit and minimum cecreationr. -lelaure ereA on A rectan~ulerly-8h~1pld PdR'Ce~. of lend co~aieting of approximately 0.75 acrea, having e fronteqe of approximately 118 feet o~ the aouth side of Be~l.l Road •nd further described ae 3040 W. esll Road~ end does heceby appcove the Negetive Declaration from the requicement to prepere an enviconmental impaat ceport on the basis thet there would be no aignificant individuAl or cumulative adverse enviconmentel imnact due to the epprov~l of thia Negative Decla~cation eince the Anaheim Genacal Plan dee+iqnatea the subject property foc low-medium reaidential land usea commenaurete with the proposelr that no sensitive enviconmentel impacta ere involved in the pcopoealt that the Initiel Stuc~y submittpd by the petitioner indicetea no aignificant individual or cumulative adverae enviconment~l impecte= and that the Negative Declaration aubstdntiating the foregoing findinge ia on file in the City of J-naheim Planning Department. Commiseioner McBurney offered Reaolution No. PC83-102 end moved for its pessage and adoptio~ khat the Anaheim City Planning Commieaion does hereby grant Reclessification N~. 82-83-31 aubject to Interdepartmental~ Committee recommendat~ons. On coll call, the foregoing resolukion aas paseed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BUSHORE~ PRY, KING, LA CLJIIRE, MC BURNEY NOES: NONE 7~8SENT: HERBST Cvmmiesioner McB~~rney offered Reaolution passage and adoption that thp Anaheim Ci~ grant Vatiance No. 3.i36 on the basia tha~ to the aize, ahape, topogcaphy and locat basis that the petitionAr has entered in residential units as low or moderate inc~ interdepartmental Committee recommendati developer shall enter into an agreement ~ Government Code Section 65915 to provide shall be aold as low or moderate income Sectian 65915 and with appropriate resal Anaheim. No. pCe3-103 and moved foc ita y Planning Commisaion does hereby there are apecial circumstances due on of aubject pcoperty and on the o en a~-eement to provide 25• of the me houding and subject to ns including the condition that the ith the City of Anaheim pursuant to that 25i of the residential units ~oueiag as defined in Government Code ~ controls ae approved by the City of On roll cell, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BUSHORE, FRY, KING, LI- CLAIRE, MC BURNEY NOES: NONE ?~BSBNT: HERBST 6/1/83 ~ [~,INUT6IR. J-N1IHRIM CITY P.LANNINQ CGMMI$9IAN~ JIIN~ 1, 19l13 8~-310 IT3~ ::~. ;. BNVZ,~ONMENTAG IMP7ICT RBPORm NO. 189(PR~VIOU8LY 11PFR01-BD) J1ND ..._~_.._... R6CL719$T!'ICATION ~,10. 82-8,_,_,3,-,~3? PUBLIC N$ARING. OWNER9: 1-N/~NEIM REDEVEGOPM~NT J~GENCY, 76 S. Claudins Street, /300, Anaheimr Cl- 9Z805. AtiENT: CROWELL CQRPORATiON, 150 3. Loe Robiee, ~400, Pesadene, CA 91101. PcopertX described ae~ an irregulerly-ahaped parcel. o! land consieting of approximately 1.3 acces located at the eoutheast corner of Li~coln l~venu~ and Anaheim Bouleverd, 90 South Anaheim Boulevard. CG to CL to cons truct a 2 dnd 3-erory commerciel center. There was no on~ indiceting theic preeenae in oppoaition ~n subject request and elthough th~ eteff ceport was not read, it ie referred to ~nd ~~~ede a part of the minutes. Cvmmisaioner Bus hore declared a conflict of inter~et as defined by 1-ndheim City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC76-157 edopting a Conflict of Interest Code for the Plenning Commiaeion and Government Code Section 3625, et eeq. r in thet tAe propecty is in the Redevelopment ltrea and he ie a contracturel acquieition agent for the Redevelopment J-gency and pucauent to the provieions of the above Codes, declared to the Chairman that he was withdrawing fcona the hearing in connectlon with Reclessification No. 82-83-32, and would not t ake part in eithec the discussion or the voting thereon end had not discuesed ttiis matter with any member of the Pl~nning Commiesion. Thereupon Commiseioner Bushore left theCouncil Chamber. MiY,e Welch repr esenting the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency explained the Agency - is ecting as property owner and agent end they are aubmitting this rec~uest for reclASSificatio n so that the project can be developed under the CG Zone and upgraded to meet their criteria. t ~ Chairman Fry a s~ced where the Jaekson Dcug Stoce will be lviceted when khis ~ pro~ect ia deve loped, with Mc. Welch polnting out the present location of the ~ Jackson Drug St ore is on the parking lot and thak it will remain in that ~ locetion until the structure is finiahed. f It was noted En vironmental Impact Report No. 189 was previously certified by the City Counci 1 on November 23, 1976, in con~unction with Redevelopment Project Alph~. ACTION: Commis siv~ec Ring offered Resolution No. PC83-104 and ~noved for its passage and adoption that the ~lnaheim Clty Planninq Commission does hereby grant Reclaseif ication 82-83-32 subject to interdepartmental Committee reconanendations. On roll call, the focegoi~g reaolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOU~-S~ FRX, KING, GA CI.~IIRE, MC BURNEY NOBS: NONE 1-BSENT: BUSHORBr HERBST Conaniasioner Ba~shore returned to the Council Chamber at i:10 p.m. 6/1/83 MINl1TB8. AN~-N1CIM_ CITY__ P~11NN~(i COt4MI88I0N. JUNB 1. 1983 83-31 ITBM N0~ 5~ ~IR N~d11TIVIC DBCI~~-RATION. WAIV6R Ol~ CODB REQUIREMLNT AND CONDITIONAL IlBE PERMIT N0. Z443 PUBLIC HEAR2NG. OWNBR$: AHIRISHB~-BU H. PAT6L, ET 11L, 2145 8~ Hacbor eoul~vacd, A-naheim, CA 92802. Pcaperty deeacibed e$ a rect a ngulerly-aheped parcel of land conaiating of r,pproximetely .7 ecre, h*ving a fronte~ge o! epproximetely 100 leet on the werrt eide of Herb~r Bou~leverd and further described ~e 2145 S. Narbor Bouleverd (Modernaire Motel). To Rxpend an exieting motel with waiver of minimum numbec of perking apaces. Thece wae one peraon indicating hie presence in oppoeition t o subject cequest and although the ataff cepurt wAS not ceAd, it ~a refecred t o a~id made a pact oE the minutes. Dan Van Dorpe, e~gineer, expleinrd they pr~poae to add to A n existing m~tel and generelly upgrade tt~e propecty and improve ita overall a ppe4rence end ere requesting a conditional uae permit with a waiver of tw~ pa rking apaces~ that undec the ald ordinences they would heve been pcoviding 78~ of the requiced park.ingi end that a parking study wae submitted which indicates the parking was adequate. Anve Collina, 1077 W. Ball Road, explained his property is i mmediately to the north and a[ea:surant is loc~ted on that property and he w a a concerned about parking aince packing has been eliminated along Harbor 8ou1 ~vard. THE PUBLIC Hk.ARING WAS CLOSED. Commisaioner Buehore indicated he did not think 'he waive: oi two spaces is eignificant. He added he is concerned sa to wnether or no t thie property is outside the commercial recreation zone aith Dean Sherer exp 2ain~Ing it is located within the commercial cecreati.on e~ree. ACTION; Commiasioner King offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Rou+-s and MOTION CARRIED (Commi.asionec Hecbeti ebsent), that thP ~~tiaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal ta expand an existi.ng motel ~+ith weiver of minimum number of parking apaces on a rectangular ly-shaped parcel o€ land consisting of approximately .7 acre, having a frontage of approximately 100 feet on the west si~'e of Hacbor Boulevard and furtti~c described as 2145 S. Hacbor eoulevard (Modernaire Motel)t and daes heceby approve the Negative Declaration f.rom the requirement to prepare an enviconment a 1 impact report on the basis that there wc~ld be no eignificant individual or cumuletive adverae environmentel impact due to the appcovel of this Negative Declaratian since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property f o r general commercial land usea commensurate with the propoealt that n o senaitive environmental impacts are involved in the pcoposalr that t he Initiel Study submitted by the petitioner indicatea no significa~t indiv i~ual ~~ cumuletive adverse environmental impactst and that the Negative Decla r ation aubetantiating the foregoing findinya ia on file in the Ci t y of Anaheim Planning Depertment. Commisaioner King offered a motinn, seconded by Comm±sslon P- ~o~;a^ and MGT.zOH C1IRRIED (Commiasioner Herbet absent), that the Anarric; ~ii:y Planning 6/1/83 MIN,_ UT68! ~N~HdIM CITY PLIINNZN~, 0 COMMI88ION. JUNS 1. 1983 83-312 Commio~eion do~• hereby qrent waiver of coQ~ requicement on the baeia thati the parking study oubmitted indicated thet ehe pdcking variance will not cauee An incr~aoe in treffic congeation in the immedi~te area nor ~dversely alfect eny ad~oining l~nd u~ea and rhat the granting of the perking varienc~ ~inder the conditiona impoaed, iF any, will not be detrimental to the peecer health, eafety or general welEa re of the citizene o~ the Cit~ of Anaheim. Commiasioner King offer ed Reeoluti~n No. PC83-105 and moved for its paseaqe end edopkion thet the 1-r~aheim City Plenning Commieaion doee hereby grent Conditional Uee Permit No. 2443 subject to Interdepactmental Committee recommendatione. On roll cA;l, the foreg oing reaolukion was pasaed by the following v~te: AYES: 90Ul13~ BUSHOR E, FRY, KING, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY NOEB: NONE ABSENT s HEI2BST .reck White, Aseistant City Attorney, preaented tt~e written right to appeal the Planning Commiseion'a d eciai~n within 22 deys to the City Council. 'TEM N0. 6. EIR NBGATZVE DECLJ~RI-TION 1-ND CONDITIONAI. USE PERMIT NO. 2444 PUBLIG HF:ARING. uWNF.RS: NICHOLAS J. & LILLIAN DOVALIS, 1624 W. Chanticleec Road, Anaheim, CA 9280 2. AGENT: BOBBI W~NDSOR H/-YES, 4779 Lacwin, Cypresd, CA 90630. Property de s cribed ae a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consiating of ap~roximately 0.~ acre, having a frontage of approximr+tely 120 feet on the north aide of eall Road and fucther described as 2561 West Ball Roed. To permit on-sale beer and wine in a pcoposed restaucant. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject requeat and although tt,. akaff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Bobbi Hayes, agent, wa s present to anewer any queations. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ACTION: Commieaioner Ring offered e motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOmiON CARRIED (Commiasionec He~bst absent), that th~e Anaheim City Plenning C~mmiseion ha s reviewed the pcoposal to permit on-sale beer and wine in a propoae6 ceeteur ant on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of ldnd conaisting of approximately 0.5 acre, having a frontage of epproximately 120 feet on the nocth etde of Bell Road and further described as 2561 W. Bell Roads end doea hQreby dpprove the Negative Declaretion Prom the requirement to prepare an environmental impact r eport on the besis that there would be no significant individual or cumul~at i ve adverae environment~l impact due to the approval of thia Negative Declaration aince the Aneheim General Plan dea~gnates the subject properCy for genere~l commercial land uses commensurate with the proposal= that no sensitive env•ror,mental impacta are involved in the propoealt that the In itial Study suba~itted by the petikioner indicates no 6/1/83 \ ~ MINUT~B~_AN~HBIM CITY PLIINNINO COMMI88ION. J~NS l. 1983 83-313 aiqnilicent individual or cumulatiiv• adv~cae environmentel impectet and that the N~gstiv~ Decleration subatantiirting the toreyoi~g lindinge ie on lile in the City of l~naheim planning Depect.m~nt. Gommiaeionmr Kinq offered Reaolution No. PC83-106 And moved for ite passege and adoption thet the Anaheim City Plenning Commiasion doee hereby grant Conditional Uee Permit No. 2444 aubject to intecdepsctmental Committee recommendAtiona. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was pessed by the following vote: AYE3: BOUJIS~ BUSHORE~ FRY, KING, LA CLAIRE~ MG BURNEY NOES; NONF. 1-BSENT: HERB~4T ITEM N0. 7. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARI-TION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2445 PUDLIC HEARING. OWNER: MARGOT E. WRIGHT~ 1327 S. Hickory Street, Anaheim, CA 92805. Property described ae a rectangularly-aheprd paccel of lAnd caneisting of approximately 7,320 squere feet, having a frontag~ of approximately 60 feet on the west eide of Hickory Stceet anc'. further describpd as 1327 3outh Hickory Street. To permit a bed and breakfeat inn in the RS-7200 Zone. There was no one indicating theic presence in ~ppoaition to aubject cequest and although the ste£f report was not read, it i8 referced to and made a~art of the minutes. Margot Wrighk, owner, expl~-ined ahe wishea to uae two bedre-oms of her four-bedcoom hone to accommodate occasional paying guesta aimilar to what ia done in Europe ae Se~! and Breakfast Inns. She atated there will be no signs or changee to the structure and khet the establiehment will be included in e Register of Bed and Breakfast facilities and atated the Chamber of Commerce was delighted with the idea because there are people who just 6o not like to etay in a hotel or motel. She stated she would prefec to have all women guesta, but there would be occasional men guests. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Dean Shecer, Associate Planner, ceaponded Lo Commissioner King that all prc; ~rty owners within 300 E~et were notified of thie hearing. Jack White, Assfatant City l~ttorney, explained that Chapter 2.12 of the 1-naheim Municipel Code requiree that the City's Occupancy Bed Tax '~e Gollected from each of the guests which is 8t as of July lst and explained .~~ore information can be obteined from the City's License Collector Oftice. Ma. Wright e'.ted ehe would comply with a11 City regulations and explained again she would not be having gueste ell the time and would anticipate having them once or twice a month. 6/I/83 MINUTBB. AN~HEIM CITY PI.IINNI~G COMMI8bI0N. JONB 1. 1983 83-314 ACTIONs Commio~ioner McBurn~y olf~red a mokion, aeconded by Commisaionec Boua• snd MOTZON CARRI~D (Conaniaeioner Hocbet nb.ent), thAt Ch~ Anehelm City Plenning CommiB~ion ha• r~viewed the pcoposal to pecmit ~ b~d end breakfaat inn in the RS-7200 (Reaidential, 3ingle-Pemily) Zone on a rectanqulerly-eheped peccel of ldnd coneiating of appcoxlmately 73Z0 squere feet, having a frontage o~ ~~proximetely 60 ~eet on the weat eide of Hickocy Stceet and AppcoximAtely 285 ffet north oP the centerline of Winaton Roed end further deecribed ae 1327 S. Hickory Str~ett and does heceby epprove the NegAtive Decleration fcom the cequirement to prepece an environmentAl impect rsport on the baeis thdt there would be no significank individuel oc cumuletive ~dveree environmental impact due to the epproval of thie Negative Declaretion eince the Anaheim General Plan desi~nates the eubject praperty foc low denaity residential lend uaea com~ensurdte with the proposels that no sensitive envico~mentel impacta ere involved in the propooelt thet the Ini~ial Study submitted by the petitioner indicatea no aignificant individuel oc cumulative adverse environmental imp~cts~ end that the Neg~kive Declacetion a~bstantieting the foregoing findinga ia on file in the City of Anaheim Planning Aepertment. Commiseioner McBurney offeced Reaolution N~. PC83-107 and moved foc ite peseage and adoption thet the Anzheirn City P1Anning Commiasion doea hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2445 subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendetions. On rall ~dll, the foregoing resolution wae pasaed by the following vote: AY~S: BOUAS, BUSHORE, FRY, RING, LA CLIIIRE, MC BURNEY NOES: NONE ABSENT: HERBST ITEM NO. 8. EIR NEGATIVS DECLI~RATION 11ND VJ1RI11NCE N0. 3337 PUBLIC HEARTNG. OWNER: ELIZABETH C. EDWIIRDS, 831 S. Webster llvenue, Anaheim, CI- 92804. AGENTS: MR. & MRS. HBNRY WESSELN, 1717 W. Lincoln 1-venue, 1-naheim, CA 92801. Property de~cribed ae a rectangularly-shaped parcel of lend coneiating of e~ppcoximately 0.87 acre, having a fcontage of appcoxim~kely 127 feet on the west siae of Webat~r 1lvenue and furthec described as 831 South Webster 1-venue. Waiver of maximum structucal hei4ht to constcuct a 25-unit apartment building. There was no one indicating their presence in oppoaition to subjec.t request and although the staff repoct was not read, it is referred to and made a paet af the minutes. Stan Wise, agent, atated they are planning a 25-unit epartment complex on this property and will meet all Codea except the meximum stcuctural height with 2-etories proposed within 150 feet of single-family reeidential pcoperty. He etated they did meet with homeowners west of subject property end their big concern was the treea proposed for the rear of the property and he believed tbey have satisfied thet concern. E~e atated they were also concerned about the color of the building and wanted it to be compatible with their area. He stated there will be no upper story windows facing the single-f~imily area to the west. 6/1/83 MINUT , AN~NBIM CITY PLANNI~Q COMMI88ION, JUNE 1. 1983 83-315 Ther~ wea e~eaponee lrom e peraon in the eudi~nce reyerd~ng the sgreement to do eomething about the codent problem end Mr. Wiae steted the owner hae agceed to have an exterminator prepare the eoil prior to conatruction. TN~ PUBLIG HEARING WAS CLOSED. Dean Sherer, Associate Plann~c, explained Variance No. 2113 was grented fo~ a two-etory sttuetur~ at 639 S. Webetec, to pecmiC a two-etory, 53-unit apartment complex within 77 feet of aingle-family zoned ecee and also VACiance No. 3212 was granted ~or property et 655 S. Webeter to permit ~ 16-unit apartment complex 408 feet from aingle-family zoned proper~y. ACTION: Commissioner King ~ffered a motion, seconded by Commiesionec Bruas and MOTION CARRIED (Commieaioner Herbst absent), thet the Anaheim City Plenning Commiaeion has reviewed a propoedl to conatruct a 25-unit epertment building with weiver of maximum atructural height on a rectangulArly-ehaped parcel of land coneiating of Approximdtely 0.87 acre, having a frontage of approximately 127 feet on the west s~de of Webetec StrePt ~nd Eurther deacribed as 831 S. Webeter Avenuet a, ~ doea herpby approve the Negative DeclecAtion from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report on the basis that there would be no significent individudl or cumulative adverse environmental impact due to the approval of this Negative Declaretion since the Aneheim Gener~l Plan designetea the aubject property for medium deneity residential land uses commensurate with the proposalJ that no sensitfve environmental impects ere involved in the proposali that the Initial Study aubmitted by the petitioner indicates no aignificant individual or cumulative adverae enviconmental impacta; and tt-at the Negetive Declaration subst~ntiating the foregoing findings is on file in the City of Anaheim Plan~iny Oepartment. Commissionec King offered Reaolution No. P~83-108 and moved for ita passage and adoption thst the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Varianee No. 3337 on the basis that this property does diffec fcom other properties in the same zone and vicinity as to aize, shape, topography, or location of eurroundings and deniel would deprive subject property from privilegea enjoyed by other propecty in the same zone and vicinity and subject to Interdeparkmental Committee recommendations. On roll cali, the focegoing resolution wns passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BUSHORE, FRY, KING~ LA CL~IRE, MC BURNEY NOES; NONE ABSENT: HERBST Jack White, Assistant City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planninq Commiasian's deciaion within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0. 9. EIR NLGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE NC. 3339 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: CITY OF HNAHEIM, 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard~ Anaheim, CA 92805. AGEN~; HUGO A. VAZQUEx, 619 S. Live Oak Dcive, Anaheim, CA 92805. Property described as a rectangularly-ahaped parcel of land consisting of epproximate.ly 0.2 acre located at the southeast aorner of Wilhelmina Street and Anaheim Aoulevard and further described as 630 Nocth ~-naheim Bou.levard. 6/1/83 ; , MINUT88. AN~HEIM CITY PLIINNINO COMMI88ION. JUNE 1. 1983 83-316 Weiv~r o~ minimum number of parking 8pecee to e~~ab~ia~ e reteil/ottice complex. Thera wece two pereona indicati~g theit preaence in oppooition to aubject requeet and although the steff report wes n~t read, it ~a reterred to end madf s part of the minutes. Huqo Vazq~~'~, egent, wae Freeent to anawer ~ny queatione. Nancy Renzo, 114 E. Wilhelmina• stated ehe wents to maintein a good reletionahip with whetever bueinese goeR int~ khis propecty, but would like to know how meny people would be employed there with the combined ueea and alao if they cen be essured that the employees will be required to park in t.helr own parking lots rather then ~n the stceete. She auggeated arcengemente be made to uae the medical office parking lot, if there is a pecking ovsrfiow. Dr. Acthur C. Elliott, 624 N. ~nAheim BoulevArd, etated he has been located at this locati~n aince 1942, and he is concerned about the parking in fcont of his office becauae many times his elderly patients need help to walk end right now there ia a painted cucb whe~e they r.dn park right Sn fcont. He stated he is not objecting to the proposed uaes, but is concerned about the othet people on the street. He stated there ia congeetion and parking pcoblems in the ~reA now and he will not tolerate the petikioner's clients parking in his parking lot in the reac. Mr. Vazquez replied the unly way to provide more parking ia to blacktop the whole front area. He added he was nat suce how they could police the on-street packing in front of the medical office. He stated there will be 6 to 8 maximum employees and thdt the briddl ehop would require more parking because the real eatate people do most of their businesa away from the office. He explained there will be nbout 5 ceal eatate agents employed et thie facility. THE PUBLIC HEIIRING WAS CLOSED. Responding to Commisaioner Bouas, Mr. Vazquez stated they wfll not be holdinq weddings at this site. Responding to Commiseionec Bushore, Dean Sherer explained slightly leas parking is required for office uses and further explained 21 spacea would be requiced for offices rather than 26, including the additlon. Jack White, Asaiet~nt City ~ttornex, explained when property abuts a public etreet, it does not have any righta to the apaces in front of the property and they are there for the uae of the general gublic and there is no legal way the City could control those spaces and they are availeble on a first come/first served basis. Commissioner eouas clarified that if the curb is painted gresn, it aimply deaignates a time limit with Paul Sinqer, Traffic Engineer, alarifying that a green curb permits 30-minut~ parking. 6/1/83 ._ _ .. .._.... _ lI1NUTB3,_~~-HSIM CITY PLIINNING CqMMt~4$ION. JDN~ l. 1983 ,~~,83-317 Dr. Blliott ~eated it is routin~ly felt thet a 30-minute tim~ limit for loading and unladding is ad~quatw !or his patients and they hev• b~~n operatin9 like that for meny y~ara with no problems. Commiseioner Buohoce ete~tad h• ia concezned becauae of the two usme eince this va~isnce gc~es with the property. He etet.ed he felt it would be better if ik would be Allowed under a conditional use permit ap it could be reviawed. ~.a~k White nnd D~een Sherer explained a conditional uee permit could not be required because the uaes are p~rmitted by right in thia zon~+. Commissionec Bushore atated there is no other plrce for people to perk and Chairman Pry pointed out the employees will be utiliz~ng moac of the parking spaces. Commiesionec euehore atated evecy Friday morning any real eatete office has the agents come into the office at the aame time to aacevan to the varioua new lietings. Commissioner La Claire stated as long as the other portion is used ae a bridal ehop, dnd with 5 redl eeteCe agenta, ahe Eelt the two uaee would probably work, but if approved, it could be uaed for enything approved in the CG zone. Jeck White pointed out any use allowed in the CG Zone would be permitked, but they would have to have a vari~+nce for any perking deficiency. Commiasioner La Claire asked if thece are any uses which would meet the parking requitementa foc this proper~y. Dean Sherer stated in thie caee Pla~nning staff would "flag" th~t particular property on the Zoning Maps indicating th~t it was approved for e bridal ehop and real estate office only end any new businees license applica~tiona would be reviewed. Commisaioner Le Claire stated she really does not have any objection to a bridal shop because it would not have that much w~lk-in tcaffic and the real eatate offices may accasionally get two or thcee care in and asked the applicant to stipulete to only five real estete agents. Mr. Vezyuez replied it would be difficult to say what would happen in the future, but he knowa many other real estate offices who have more employee~ wikh less parking. Commissioner Bouas pointed out the other agencies would not have another use on the same property. Commisaione~ eushore 8tated he thought khere would be a lot of in and out traffic with the bridal ahop, eapecially since they will be centing tuxedos and that this would be a rather large shop. It was clarified that parking spaces would be added at tha front of the building and right now there are no spaces at all. Commissioner Bushore asked why t~ variance ia needed when it it existing zoning and in an existing building. Dean Sherer replied it is existing non-conforminq and it was a City-owned property being uaed for Parks and Recreation and no parking was provided and now the ctructure will be brought up to Cod~. 6/1/~3 MINUTB$. lU'1~HBIM CITY P1.11NNINa COMM1$$ION, JUN~ 1. 1983 83-318 Conaniosionec King atsted h~ could ee~ problama for Dr. Elliotta' patients. Paul singer etated ell on-stteet pecking ia public parking end ia not reserved !or occupants of an edjoining building. He stAted anyone haa the right to perk there !oc the tlme limit anQ thec~ are no curbaide apaces epecitied foc any patients. Chairman Fcy etated he ia not aure about thia prop~e?+1, becauae there ace only 8 parking spacea And the applicant hae alceady indicated there could be ten employees. Commiesioner Buahore asked why thie ia neceseacy, with Mr. Vazquez r@plyi.ng the building doea not meet Codes for $afety or eacthquakea and pointed out the properky never had any parking. Dean 3herer atated he has not seen the appraisal of this praperty but thought one was probably prePared and th~t the property was marketed with the understanding that it w~s 2oned commercially, but improvements would have to be made to the etructure. It wa~s noted there were a lot of employees thece when the property was used by the Parks and Reccea~tion Department. Paul Singer pointpd out when the City owned the property, there were two parking apaces ad~acent to the alley, which are not shown on this plen. He atated there wece 10 apaces otiginally on che lot, but the City is going to maintain enough property to widen the stceet in the future. s Commissioner Bushore etated thia property was put out foc bid on more than two occat~ions And aaked if it would be put out foc bid agein if this is approved ; with the person knowing that it could be used for these proposed uaes with the spaces as ehown. Jack White stated he understands that the pcoperty otiginally was assigned a fair market value based upon appraisdl of the land and structures, as is, and that the property was put up foc bid based on the fair market value at e minimum bid price and the City received no bidst and then the property was reappraised and came back at a lesser market value and again the City received no bidss and that this aqent• subsequently, aubmitted an offer to pucchase the prapecty and is trying to make sure he will be able to use the propecty as pcopoaed and is seeking a vatiance prior to the completion of the eacrow and that th~ decision is up to the Pldnning Commiasion. He stAted if this veriance is approved, the offer will be taken to the City Council for the sale of the property and he did not think the property will be put up for bid again. Commissioner Sushore atated the Planning Gommission is cepresenting the City as the Planning Commisaion and at the same time the City of Anaheim is the applicant, wi~h Jeck White advieing th~t the Commieaion ahould not bp infiuenced by the fact that this is a Cit~-owned property and their decision as a Planning Commission should be based on whether or not the use meets the cr±teria of the Code. 6/1/63 MINUT~S~ ANAH~IM CITY PI.J-NNING COMMI~SYON, JUNE 1._ 1983 _ 83-319 Commis~ion~r Le ClA1re ateteQ eh• t~oughr the Planning staE! could 'flag' the property on the mape as indiceted by Dean Shaxec, which will glve the City a ha~jle on the •ituation. She aqein esked the petitioner to stipul~te to limit the numb~r of reel eatate ~genta to a maximum of 5. Paul 8ingec stated e perking etudy w~a done on thia property and it doesn't matter how mAny agenta the ceel eatete agency employs es long as there are only two there at any one timet And with 10 apaces available end 5 apecea being utilized by employeea f2 ce~l eatate ~nd 3 bridal ahop), the remaining 5 epaces would be used by cuatomers and viaitore. He eteted it wea felt efter reviewing the packing etudy that the parking would be adequate. There wae a brief diRCUasian with Commiasionec Bushore indiceting he felt there was no way to control real eatete agente there would be employed or how many customers there would ber but if there wds e pr.oblem, the neighbors would cepoct it. Jack White auggested the Ci,ty could require thet a covenant be recorded limiting the uaes of the propecty to those pcoposed, a real eatate office and bridal ehop or any other uae which would comply with theae pdrking requirementa as aet forth in the Code or additional approval of d veriance, so it would be clear to any subaequent pucchaser that they do h~ve actual knowledge ~f the l~mited parking aituation. Paul Singer clerified that upon widening of Anaheim Boulevard, there would be five lanes plus parking on both sides, however, parking may be limited in the future when capacity on the atceet becomes inadequate to handle the traffic. Responding to Commissioner La Claice as to what wouid be done if it turns out there are too many real eatate agenta uaing up the parking and causing problems for the neighbars, Mr. Vazquez stated if he were to occuFy the building today, he would be the only agent= howevec, he c~uld not pinpoint the actual numbec of agents in thp future. He stated the busiest time for the ceal estate office would be Friday mornings, but most of the time they would be out in the field. He atated it wauld be a Redhill Real Estate Office end stated he would agree that if there is a comglaint, he would take care of the complaint and he does not want to have any problema with his neighbors and if there ate changea, he would have to yet a new license which would take care of any problems. He stated he does not aee any parking pcoblems. Commissioner King suggeated eliminating the bridal shop with Mr. Vazquez reaponding that one of the main reASVns he wanted to buy the building was to open the bridal ehop. He stated if there is a parking problem he would be forced to eliminate one of the bueinesses. He stated there is na parking provided on any of the lota on this street and thie property will have more parking than the othera and the street is qoing to be widened and the Commission will have the same problem when any othec property in the area develops and that theae two bus~nesses as ptoposed, will have very little tcaffic. Annika Santalahti atA~ed when a building permik is sought for one of the propecties which was developed many years ago undec the old ordinances, the staff takes a vecy careful look at th~ u~ea proposed and the structures and 6/1/83 ~~~-~.~ , MINUTES ~1N11H~IM CITY PLANNING COMMI$SION JUNE 1 1983 83-320 tiypicelly triea to get eome improvement in the exiating eituation snd although it may not meet CodA, it would be better then it w~e before and that ia baelcally what has heppened on 1-neheim eoulevacd. 1-CTION: Commiseionec Bushore oftered a motion~ eeconded by Commisaioner Bouas end MOTION CARRIED (Commiaeioner Herbet Absent), thAt the Anaheim ~ity Planning Commiaeion has reviewed the pcorosal to eatabliah a ceteil/office complex with wa~iver of minimum numt~er of packing spacea on a rectangularly-ahaped pdreel of land coneisting of eppro~rimately 0.2 acce located et t1-e eoutheast corner of Wilhelmina Street and Anaheim Boulev~rd and further deacribed as 630 N. Aneheim Bouleverdt and doee he~eby approve the Negative Declar~tion fram the requirement to prepare an environmental impa~ct report on the besis thet there would be no significent individual or cumulative adveree environmental impact due to the approval of thia Negative Aeclecation since the Anaheim Genernl Plan deeignates the subjECt property for general commercial land ueea commenaurete with the proposal= that no senaitive environmentel impacts Ace lnvolved in the proposalr thet the Initial Study submitted by the petitionec indicateR na aignificant individual or cumulative edverse environmenta.l impactst and thet the Negative Declsration subatantiating the focegoing findings is on file in the City of Anaheim Planning Department. Commiasioner Bushore offered Reaolution No. PC83-109 and moved for ite paseage a~d adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commieaion does hereby gcan~ Veriance No. 3339 on the basis that the structuce is existing and was constructed undec different Codes and the zoning is for genecal commercial land uses and the uaea will be limited to a real estate office and a bridal shop, subject to the petitioner's stipulation that thie owner will record a covenant limiting the uses and any other uses would have to be appcoved by the City of Anaheim, and on the basis of the paricing study submitted and aubject to Interdepartmental Committee cecommendations. On coll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BUSHORE, FRY, KYNG, LA CLIIIRE, MC BURNEY NOES: NONE ABSENT: HERBST Chairman Fry asked that che Pa•^ing Study be included fn the minutes so the records will show a study was aubmitted. RECESS: 3:10 p.m. RECONYENE: 3:25 p.m. ITEM N0. 10. EIR NBGATIVE DECLARATION AND GENBRAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 180 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: BVANGEL CHURCH OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC., 1530 W. Lincoln 1lvenue, A,neheim, CA 92805. AG~NT: GERALD R. BUSHORE, 702 W. Lincaln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805. Property described as an irregularly-shaped Parcel of land cansisting of approximately 2.9 actes bounded on the north and east by the Riversic]e (91) Preeway, south by Santa Ana Canyon Road, and west by a aingle-family ttact. 6/1/83 MINUTEB. ANANEIM CITY PLANNING CQMIMI88~ON~ JUNB 1 1983 83-321 ~o chenge the cucrent Hilleide Low-Denaity Residential designarion to Ge~ecal Commercial to develop commerciel land ueee. There wee ~o one indicating their presence in oppoeition to eubject cequeat and although the ataff report was not read, it i.s referred to and made e part of the minutes. Commissioner guahore declared e conflict of intereat as deEined by Anaheim City Planning Commiseion Reaolution No. PC76-157 edopting a Conflict of Intereat CQdp for the Planning Commisaion end Government Code 3ection 3625, et seq., !n thAt he is the agent foc the appli~~nt and pursuant to the pcovieiona of the above Codea, declared to the Chairman that he was withdrawing f.rom the heAting in connection with Generel Plan Amendment No. 180, and wou~' not take part in either the discuesion or the voting thereon and hdd not diacussed thia matter with any member of the Planning Commiseion. Jay Tashiro, Associate Planner, atate~ the ataff report Pacagraph 12 on Page 10-d ehould be corrected to ahow that the 100-foot eetback requiremente along both Sante Ana Canyon Road and the Riveraide Freeway would mean the entire property is not developdble unleas vaciances are approved. Kenneth Kallman, agent, stated the aite will be uaed for smell commercial uaes. He stAked steff has included a 1-acre parcel directly to tt~e weat in this amendmrnt which has a culvert and a natural drainage area to the drainage channel below Santa Ana Canyon Road out to the County Plood Contcol facilities and etated he would like to ask that the Engineering Department reconeider the i~ea of having to put in a stotm dcain eystem with respect to the 2-ecce parcel they ~lan to develop. He alated that parcel, when it is developed, will have no change on the exiating drainage. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSEU. Responding to Commieaioner La Clsire, Jay Tashiro expl.ained fn 1975, Anaheim Hills, Inc. requeaked a waiver of the public facilities plan for the 800-acre Ueer Canyon Area and ~ne of the conditions appGOVed by City Council was that An~heim Hills wuuld construct a dreinage facility on the subject site at the time development occura and also that whoever develops first wnuld have to develop the plans and get any approvala from any other jurisdictions that are necessacy. He stated the problem here is that if khie p~operty is going to be developed at this time, the developer would have to p[epare plans and get approval before consttuctinn is pecmitted. Jay Titus, Office Engineer, atated the waiver that was granted by the City Council fn 1975 had the condition that if Anaheim Hills, inc. developed any further within that dtainage area or if any properties downstream developed, then the owners of property downstream wuuld prepare the plans and Aneheim Hills, Inc. was to construct the facilitys and that Anaheim Hille, inc. has not developed any further and they have not initiated anything that would neceasitate the fecility, but if the properLy downetream ia developed, the condition ie in effect. 6/1/83 MINUTBB~ ~NAH~IM CITY PLIINNING C MI88ION JUNB 1 83 8_ j-3ZZ It waa noted thera waa no repreaen~ativ~ pc~sent from Aneheim Hille, inc. end Jay Titua eteted thbre ia a netural flow .line which datecminee whece the dcainage ahould go, but there haa not ~aen eny designe or engineeting plena developed. Mr. Kellmen eteted the flow line cefecred to ie the 1 acre parcel ~uet to the weet of subject propetty dnd he thought engineering plana were eubmitted to the City by Anaheim Nille, Inc. for d etorm dcain. He clarified that the condition requires thet the developec pcovide engineering plena ~nd that ~naheim Hills, inc. would be requiced to conetruct the etorm drein. Jay Titue eteted th~t is the waY the candition waa written as approved by the City Council in 1975. He atAted when the property on the aouth eide of Santa ~na Canyon Roed was pcoposed for development kwo yeara ego, thie condition question was raiaed and the developery of the church were prPpered to h~ve the plana drawn and they did discuss it with Aneheim Hills, Inc.r howeve-, he w~s not aure wh~t~~ecision had been. He stated he believed in 1975, Anaheim Hills, inc. did submit some preliminary plans. Chairman Fry pointed ouc thece are two separake properties and drainage would be acroas the other properry to the west. Reaponding to Chairman Fry concerning acceas, Mr. Kallman stated from hia understanding, he would have tu have ~ aeparate lbne for access from Santa Ana Canyon Roed. Paul Singer stated this property was intended to gain accese from A cul-de-sac that ia on a reaidential Etreet to be developed with single-family homes which would be on the 2 acres immediately to the weat of aubject p[operty. He stated it would require r.he conatruction of a bridge oc a culvert to bypass the drainage facilitiess and that there is no official acceas point on Santa Ana Canyon Ro~d; that the City Council has a study for specific acceas pointa to Santa A~a Canyon Road and those are the only approved ~ccess points and if an acceas point was permitted to this property from Santa Ana Canyon Road, that map would have to be amended by the City Council an~ should that happen, it would moat likely be requiced by the developer to widen Santa Ana Canyon Road to its ultimate width whfch is three westbound travel lahes and a deceleration lan~to accesa the propecty itselfs and this wduld include provisions for the bike trail and in any case there would be no accese across the median islanda. Chairman Fry stated it would appear that this Generdl Plan Amendment is prematuce because it is not know~ whece the access is going to be or what the drainaqe will be. Joel Fick, Aesistant Director for Pianning, stated both those statements are corcect and without apecific plana, ataff has no way to determine what the impact would be because of aetbacks on San': P-na Canyon Road. Jack White etated the question is what is the moet appropriate land use for this property and if the Commisaion feels they do not have enaugh informAtion to make that detecmination, khey are entitled to say they wi11 not change the lend uae designation at this time; however, it is not necessary to disApprove it aimply becau~e they do not have the information. 6/1/83 J i ! MINOTESL11NJ1H1EIM CI'LY_ PLANNINO COMMI8820N. JUNS 1. 1983 83-3Z3 Cheirmen Fry etst~d h~ does not feel cumfortebl~ without knowin9 what th~ ACC~80 and dcsineg~e will be without heving a¢pecific plen And CommiAaioner La Cloire egreed and etated thoae ere two factors thAt will eEtect futur~ ueea on that pcopertyt thet ahe is not oppoped to commercisl uaea, but at thie point, she does not have enough inEormetion becauae if ~here ia onl.y one ecceae thcough ~ residentisl aree, aha clid n~t think it would work a~nd if the drAinege cuta up the p~operty ao the:u ia nathing left foc commercia~l development, ~het would be a bad aituation. Commis~ioner Mc9~~cney agreed and ateted the dcainage end acceea wil.l he very criticAl. Mr. Kallmrn stated he will requeat a postPonQment in order to provide specific plana and nlso to prove that dceinage ie not e pcoblem with this one percel. Commianioner Le Cleire stated she thought the property ie draining pcoperly, but there ere 800 acres thet heve to drein that way and thet is the pcoblem. Mr. Kallman atated dr~inage is already thece on a percel directly to the west whece there are two culverta and a net:urel dcainage culvert which ~~xtendr to the county dcainage facilities. Mr. Titus stated that existing drainage fecility can hanclle the present flowj however, the facility has to be d~eRigned to hendle the ultimate development and whether or not thia pro{~osed storm drafn goes across thia parcel, ie not the queation becauae the condition says iE any parcel downstream develops, the condition will be in effect. Mr. Kallman atated he thaught khe Council was talking in terma of the acreage ~south of Santa Ana Canyon Road and not neceasarily in terme of this pr.operty. He etated it ia true that future dpv~lopmen~ would create a dreinaga hazacd and if there ia going to be future developme ~, obviously the conditions impoaed in 1975 would have to be met, but the '-acre parcel they are planning to develop wil2 nnt change the exlating drainage of the 800 acces dicectly south, but he would like to have an oppactunity to study the situa~ion end also to research the question regbcding 1-naheim Hills' responsibility to bear ttie bucden of construction of lhe starm drain. He added they would iike a continuance t~~ be held in the next meeting or two. ACTION: Commissioner King offeced a motion, seconded by Commissioner La Claire and MOTION C~-RRIED (Commissi•~ner Herbst absent)~ that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regulacly-scheduled meeting of June 27, 19ti3, et the request of tt~e petitioner. ITEM NO. 11. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. VaRiANCE NO. 3328 - Request from Statewide Developeca, Inc. for review and approval of revised plans. Pr~perty desccib~d as a cectangularly-shaped parrel of ~and conaisting of approximately 18.6 acres, having a frontage of approximately 1320 feet on the west eide of Knott Street (~-pollo Junior High School). The stbff report to the Planning Commission ddted June 1, 1983, was preaertted noting that General Plan Amendment No. 184 and Reclassification No. 82-83-27 to permit RM-3000 zoning and a medium-density residential 6/1/83 MINUT88~ANJIH~IM CITY PLl1NNING CGMMI$SION. JUNB 1. ~~83 83-3Z4 land uae deaiqnation on th~ 1-pollo 8chool site a~r• granted by the Planning Cammi~aiont how~ver, V~riance No. 3328 weo d~nied. Subaequ~ntly, revised plan+~ w~rt submitt~d and the Commisaion'a deaieion was appealed to the City Councili and thak Council continued th~ metter untiil June 7 in ocd~c eo give C~nunis~ion an appo~tunity to review the revieed plane for 332 unite (TSt atEoc~a-ble)• ACTIONs Commi~sioner Buahore otfered a motion, seaonded by Commioeioner Mc~ Bucney ~nd MOTION Cl-Rit1ED (Commiaeioner Herbst eb~ent), thet the l-naheim City Pienning Commiaeion doee hereby recommend to the City Council epproval of the revieed plane for 332 unita on the bssie that the requested weivers and extreme dAnsity were eliminated, prov~ded, however~ that the petitionec be c~equired to aonclude d written egreement w'th the Community Deve]opment Depactiment aeCting eside a minimum n! 2St (83 units) for sele to low and moderate income tan~iliee~ and that City Council carefully consider the architacture ..f the proposed unite to inauce that the project will not appear dR a~lock c~r box-type structure. Cheirman Pry bdded he felt the acchitect of tt~fa pcoject uaed very little imagination ot creati~ity and, as propose~l, t!~e pcoject has e berrnaks look and the architecLUrr leavea a lot to be desired. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further buain s, Commies;~ner King offered e motion, seconded by Connnissi~nec McBurney ar;d MOTION CARRIED (Commiasionec Herbat abeenr,), that the meetin~i be ad~oucned. The m~cting wae adjourned at 3:55 p.m. AespeC fully submitted, . ~ . Edi h . Hercis, 6ecretery 1-naheim Cir.y Planning Commission ELH:lm 0546H 6/1/83