Loading...
Minutes-PC 1983/09/19{, ~„~~UI.J-R M66TING__0- THB ANAHBIM CITY PL1-NNINC ~OMMISSION R~GULJ-R M~BTING Th~ r~yulac me~tinq of t.h• J-nah~im City Plenninq ~'otamiseion wa~ cslled ta ord~c by Cl~airwoman Boue• st lOsOQ e.m., SeptAm~ec 19, 1993, in th• Cuuncil Chsm~r, • quorum being prasent end the Commineion r~vl~wed plans oE the itsma on todey'a ~genda. RECES3: 11:30 a.m. RECONVLNE: 1:33 p.m. PRLSENT Chaicwomen: Boues Commiesioners: euahoce, Fcy, Herbot, King, Le Claicr ABSENT Commiseionera: Mceurney AL80 PRESBNT Annika Santalehti Joel Pick Jack White Jay 7~itua Paul Singec Jay Taehico Kendra Morriea Edith Ha[Cia Aeaietent Directoc for Zoning Aeaiatant Aicectoc for Planning Aosiatent City I-ttorney City Bngineer Traffia Engineer 1-ssociate Pl~enner 1-seocidte Planner Flenniny Co~~~mission Secretacy ITEM NU. 1. EIR NEGATIVE DECL11R1-TION AND VARIANCE NO. 3345 PUSLIC FIEI-RING. OWNGR: HUGU A. VALpUEZ, 619 South Live Oak Drive, Anaheim, CA 92H05. Ptoperty described ae ~ rectangularly-~aheped parcel of land consir~ting of approximately 0.2 a~~~ `~<~'ling a frontage of bpproximately 68 feet on the west side of Melcose Strt :, 129 South Melco~te Stceet. waivers of minimum lot erea per dwelling unit, maximum structural height, meximum site coverage and minimum eideyacd setback to conatruct an 8-uni.t affocdable apartment complex. Continued from August 22, 1983. ACTIpN; Commisaionec King offeced a motion, eeconded by Commiasioner Pry and MOTION CARRIED (~ommiesioner M^Burney abeent)~ that considecetion of tl~e aforementioned mettpr be continued to the cegularly-scheduled mE~eting of October 3, 1983, at the request of the applicant. ITEM N0. 2. EIR NEGATIVE DECLI-RJ~TION, Wl-IVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT, CONDITION~-L USE PERMIT N0._2459 .~_ PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: KAISER FUUNDATION HOSPITI-L3, 333 south Grand ]lvenue, /3400, Las Angelea, CA 90071. Propecty describe~' aa an irregulerly-sheped parcel conaisting of dpproximately 9.6 acres loceted at the northwest cocner of Riverdale Avenue and Lakeview Avenue, having a frontage of approximately 628 feet on the north aide of Riverdale 1-venue and a frontage ~f aFp~ox:mately 670 ~eet on the west side of Lekeview 1-venue and further described ~s 441 North Lakeview Avenue (Kaiser Foundation Hospit~ll. To pecmit expanaion of an exiating hospital with waiver of min.mum number of pa:king ep~ces. 83-576 9/19/83 , . ... _., ... .w., ~, s-~ ~;,~ t~ ~,IN~~7, T~8„~ 1~NJ-~lBIM CITY PLJ-NNI~1(i COMMI88ION . 83'S7~ Coniinuod lrcm Juns 27, July Z5~ •nd Auyuat 8, 1983. AC_ T IG~1~ Coasnie~ionac Kinq offeced s motion, aecond~d by Commia~ioner !ry e nd MOTZCN C1-RRI6D (Commisaionec Mcbucney abae~t), that consideration o! the ato sementiorfed mAtter be continued to the regularly-echeduloc me~ting of Octobec 17, 1983, at tha requaet of th• appliconC. AND ITBM N0, 3. BIR N~GATIVE DECLARATION ANO RECLASSIEICATION N0. 83-84-1 PUBLIC HEJIRZNG. OWNBR: NO~BBRT 1-. WATERB, 12132 Moccie Lan~, Garden Grove~ u1 9Z640. Prnpecty described ee A~ irregulsrly-~tiaped percel of lenC consieting of apptoximetely U~~O acce on the north aide of eell Road, epproximately 280 feet eASt af t.he centerline of Sunkiat Strept end immediekely west of the Grange (57) E'ceewey. RS-A-43,OU0 to CL ta constcucC en 80-unit motel end cocktail lounge.. Continued f rom August 8, 22, and September 7, 1983. ITEM NU. _ 4._ EIR NBGJ-TIVE DECLARATION. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2475(RGADVERTISED) PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: NORBE~T 1-. AND RUTH M. WATERS, 12132 Mo[cie Lane, Garden Grove, CA 92640. Propecly deaccibed ae an icregula:ly-ahaped percel of land coneisting of approximetely 1.40 acree on the north side of Ball Road, iaunedietely west of the Orange ( 57 ) Freewdy. To petmit an 80-unit notel and cockteil lounge with on-eale alcoholic beveceges ti+ith wa~ivera of minimum structural aetback, maximum atructural height and permitted location oE free-atanding sign and maximum fence height. Continued f rom Auguat 8, 22, and September 7, 1983. Item Nos. 3 and 4 were coneidered together. Thete were appcoximately t~elve persona indiceting their pcesence in opposition to subject request and although the ataEf report was not read, it is ceferred to and m~de a part of the minutes. John Catalano, 134 Dolphin 3treet, Seal Beach, California, agent, explained the proposal is foc an 80-unit motel and cocktail lounge at the cornec of Sunkiat and Ball; that they hed numeroue meetings with the neighbora and interested parties in the atee to try and mitigate their concerns and foun+d their concerna were: (1) gite intrueion inta the backyard ereas, (2) speeding traffic and traffic flow in the parking area And (3) buffering of the commercial area to the reaidential aree with landecaping. HR etAted they are propoaing to construct a 9~ i"-high block wAll to mitigate the site intrusion and noise into their backyerde and are prepared to go as high as 9~ 6~, if i:eceseacy. Concerning tcaffic tn the garking lot, he p._sented d gketch s3~oWing the parking lot area and the concecns of the ngighbors and explairaed t hey propoae to locate epeed bumps in thQ areaa identif ied along with the 9/19/83 ~ r MINUT E$j ANAHBIM CITY PL~NNING COMM28820N 83-578 norma ily plsaed apeed bumpa, ..o keep the treffic ep~ed down to 10 to 15-miles pec h ouc. He added the entcance at sunkiet end the elley behind the exiating etruc ture are epecifically identiEled es concerna. Mc. Cateleno ateted the motel will be e 24-houc operetion with managament snd ataf f there et all timea end the packing aree will be viaible to the manager's ofPic e~ Ne eCated they heve teken etQpe to idenkify very clearly that the entraince to the motel ie 8~11 Roed with eigning end directionel errowe and a clea r intent that r.rafEic ~hould flow in that menner. He e t ated initially they planned e 10-f oot wide lendsceped eree but have now cheng ed that to a 19-foot wide lendacaped area to beeutify and buffer any noiB e. He teferced to the Weston Pringle and Ae~ociatea treffic atudy done for a reataurant in the Anaheim eree which pointed ouc. the Linacott, Law and Gceer~apan atudy done for the City indicated d ratio of 0.36 apaces per unit Eoc motels in the early evening and af~ernoon end that the traffic does not reel 1 y increaee for a motel until late evening houra, ao that shauld elleviete the nelghbora' concerns regerding theit ahildren's safety. eob Stone, 1194 S. Nilda, steted he and his neighbors heve met with Mr. Wate ra, the owner, to discu~a thia project aevecal timea and have diecussed th~i r concerna end posaible resolutions to the problema. He eteted the increase f rom 10 feet to 19 feet for the landecape bufter along the northerly property line adjncent to the residentidl acea will provide a buffer for the nois e and $ome property procection and the 9 foot l0 10 foot solid block wall al~ng the same property line will help curb the, roise and si~ intrusiont howevec, they are still coneecned about the si,;l!'' intrusion into theic bac k yacds, living rooms and bedrooma of the si~~gle-et~ry dwellings and they are still concerned about the site intruaion into the aecond atocy wfndows from the second and third stor; walkways, doorways and windowa of the motel. He added they are aleo conce[ned about noise fcom the pool and spa areas end ala o from the cocktail lounge patking area with people leeving late et night and early morning hours. He stated they are very diatre8aed that a pcoject of this magnitude is even being considered in this residential area and thia wou 1 d be the only three-stoty btructure within milea and a motel and bar is not an appropriate use in this reaidential area. Tom Elaer, 1176 S. Hilda, pceaented pt~otoqraphe~with Jack White explaining any pho t ogcaphs aut,mitted will become part of the cecocd of this heecing. Mr. Els er stated they would have had more peo~le ptesent in oppoaition, but many people had to work and had already given up vacaCion days to attend previous mee tinga. He stated they expressgd several concerna at the l~st meetingt however, he was most concerned about traffic eafety in the aces and crime as a re s ult of access in and out of their reaidential area from the parking lot of the motel and the imposition of an undeairable element if the motel does not suc ceed. He atated he ia also concer ned about depreciation of their property va2 ues with a cocktail lounge and also the invasion of their pcivacy. Mr. Elaec stated the opposition had determined before the prevfous meeting not to voice concerns over ahat they thought were triviel matters~ howaver, at tha t meeting four Commiseioners indicated they felt a motel could be a de t riment ko the n~eighborhuod and one Commissioner pointed out there are other uae s which could be develop~d on this propecty which could have e more 9~19/83 MINUT~B, ~N~H~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 83-579 d~trimentsl effect on the nei~hborhood than e mot~l~ He •dded the appoaition hed conaid~red ths othec u4eo, but had felt thAt waa one of the khings that ehould not be diacuaaed and caf~rced ~o aeverel other uees which they had diacu~eed auch As medical, or d~ntal oEficea, etc. and stated they aleo hAd a liat of usee which would be moce auitable ihan a khree-story motel. He et~ted a comment wea made that the neighboc• should not ~xpect this propecty to remsin vacent fotever and noted thet none of them expected it would remain vacdnt. He atated one Commissionet referced to the detriment of the eign end that the oppoaition hed coneideced thdt so triviAl thet it was not even considered for discuesion. Mr. Elaer atated the developer did meet with the neighbore and aome reaolutiona wece ceached, which involved minor concerns but not the major cancecns. He stated the major problem is traffic in the erea end not in the pACking lot of the motel and the hezerd ia the tceEfic entering and exiting the site. He refe~red to photographa of the interaection at sall and Hilda end pointed out the only reasonable accose to the aite is weat-bound on Ball Ruad and he did not feel putting epeed bumpa !n the packing lot will help the pc~blem and pointed out the blind al.ley behind the liquor store And etated thece have been Aeveral accidents at rhat location. He atated the moat recent atudy indicates there ece 49,000 vehiclea per day through the intersection of Ball and Hilda now without the addition of this motel. Concerning the potentiei foc crime, Mc. Elaer stated a hotel auch as the Hilton, does not impact the neighborhood adversely on crime, but a lower quality motel such as a Motel 6, with truckecs in and out, could puse a potential ccime problem. He etated the occupancy rate for hotels end motels in Anaheim averages 70t, but thet pertains to those establiahments near Dianeylend or the tourist area and he did not think thia site is a Pcime location with only one acceae from the freeway and with no tourist attcactiona neacby. He etated if this motel is not succesaful, the owner-operator will want to do aomething to meke ende meet which could attract an undesireble clientele. He stated again the developer did tcy to work with the neighborhood to mitfgAte theic concerns, but the problem ie just too large and cannot be solve~ without a tremendous effort on the City's part by changing the intersection and putting in dividers, etc. end he could not see justification whatsoever for changfng the rules to accommodats a thtee-atocy skructure and asked the Commiseion not to approve this ceclaseification. Robert Beebe, 1196 S. Hilda, pointed out his propecty is dicectly in line with the entrance off Ball Road and pointed out ell cars would come straight into his backyard. He etated also, the 19-foot landscaped buffec ie not edjacent to h1s property and, conaequently~ vehicles will be coming in and out all night ~ith noise from doocs and tcunk$ being closed, etc. only 4 feet from the fence which is only 3 feet from his bedcoom. He atated elso~ there is a cocktail lounge approximately 20 feet from the wall with no landscaping pcopo8ed and there will be noise until the early morniny houra. He added he was also concerned about the traffic with only the one entcance and thought 90~ of the treffic will be off Sunkist atcaight down behind the existing buildings. 9/19/83 MINUT88, AN~HBIM CITY PLANNING COMM288ION 83 g80 Mr. B~~be csfecced to a naw~pap~r clipping with inEormekion trom the Anaheim euilding Department which indicet~e there are four new mo~els beinq conattucted e~d e 300-room expeneion at the Marciott, which le leeR than 3 milee sw~y end thia will add 3,000 new rooms and he wse concerned about the smdller m~tela efter the Olympica are over. Ne eubmitted the newapeper clipping for khe file. Concerning ~endeceping, Mr. Beebe oubmitted photog~aphe ehowing the petitioner'a existing facilities at Sunkiet end eell beceuae so much emphe8l~ is being placed on the propoaed lendacaped bufEera and pointed out the exiating lendaceping ~t his feciltty ie not being mainteined. He atated the photographa also ahow the concrete bumpers in the parking .lot ere not being meintdined. Mr. Beebe etated thie is lhe fourth time this matter wes acheduled And th~y are rRp~eeenting the 300 people who eigned the petitiona in oppoaition and they are 3ti11 totally againet the motel and would like to hAVe thia metter fin~lized. He added they do not object to the owne~ making a return on hie investment, but felt he could do it with d uae with far leas negative impect on their neighborhood. Mr. Cetalano explained they heve been contacted by puelity Inn and Beet Weatecn regarding franchising, so thie will be a quality operetion and it is their intent to improve the areej that the site ie close to ~naheim Stedium and they feel it is en excellent locetion and will be a auacessful operation. He explained the door ko the cocktail lounge ie located on Ball Road and traffic for the whole complex ia designed to flow in front af the bu8lnesses, not behind the buildings. He atated they heve done atudies and feel the higheaC end best use of this property is a cocktail lounge ~nd motel. Mr. Catalano stated they have agreed with khe neighbora to correct any ai~ intruaion problems into their backyerdsi however, he did not know how to protect eit~intrusion into third storiea and did not think there are very many three-story homea in this etea. He stated he wae eure if there ace traffic concerns, khe proper steps will be taken to correct them by the City and that is not something they can control. He stated the commeccially end has bPen intended foc cortnnercial uses foc a[longttime andeif traffic was e major concecn, the City Engtneer would have Fointed it out. He stated the large buffec zone will alleviate the si intrusion and that eome people feel this will be a better usE than a bowli~alley or aome other type uae which could be develored on the property. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Responding to Commieaioner Fry, Mr. Catelano explained the adjACent property to the west en~ thia property are co-owned, with Mr. Waters being principal owner. Commissioner Fcy stated he felt if the upkeep of the adjacent prope[ty ia ~ny indication of how the motel will be mai~tained, the neighbors have a legitimate cancern. He etated he wae by the property thia morning and it ie in bad candition. He etated he thought 984 of the people coming to this hotel would not even be aware of the el~ey ~nd he did not think thet should be a 9/19/83 MINUTBS. ANAHBIM CITY PLJINNINa CQMMISSION 83-580 Mr. Baob• refecred to s n~wapa~r clipping with information fcom the Anaheim Buildinq D~partm~nt which indicat~a thore ace four new matels beinq coneicucted and a 300-room expeneion at the Marriott, which is leas than 3 milea away snd thia will edd 3,000 ~ew rooms end he was concerned about tha amaller motala eFter the Olympica are over. He aubmitted the newspaper clipping for the tile. Concerning landeca~ing, Mr. Beebe eubmitted photogreplia ehowing khe p~titioner's exieting fecilitiea at Sunkist and eell because ao much emphesis ia being placed on the propoaed landaceped buffere and pointed out the existing landscaptng at hia fecility ie not being maintained. He ateted the photographa aleo ahow the concrete bumpere in the parking lot are not being meintdined. Mr. Beebe atated thia is thP fourth time thie mattec w~~ acheduled ~nd they are representing the 300 people who eigned the petitiona in oppoaition and they are atill totally againet the motel end would like to heve thia matter finalized. He added they do not object to the ownec m~king a return on hia inveat~enl•, but felt he could do it with a use with fdr lese negetive impect on their neighborhood. Mr. Cetelano e~plained they h~ave been contacted by ~uality Inn and Best weatern regerding Eranchiaing, so this will be a qu~lity operation and it is theit intent to improv~ the areaj that the aite ie clase to Anaheim Stedium and they feel it is an excellent location and will be a eucceaeful opecAtion. He explained thp door to t,ie cockt~il lounge ia located on Ball Road and traffic foc the wh~:le complex ie designe~ to flow in front of the busineasea, not behind the buildii~ga. He atatad they have done atudiea and feel the highest and best use of thie property ia a cockteil lounge and motel. Mc. Catalano stated they have agreed with the neighbora to correct eny aS~ intcuaion pcoblems into theie backyards; hawever, he did not know how to protect sik~intrueion into third stories and did not think there are very many three-story homes in thfe area. Ne stated he was sure if there are tcaffic concerns, the pcoper at~ps will be tdken to correct them by the City and that is not something they can control. He stated khe property is z~ned commgccially and hea been inter-ded for commercial uses for a long time and if traffic was a major concern, the City Engineer would heve pointed it out. He stated the large buffer zone will elleviate the si{~intrusion and that some people feel this will be a better use than a bowli~g alley or some otber type use which could be developed on the property. THE PUB~~IC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Responding to Commissioner Fry, Mr. Catalano explained the adjacen~ property to the west and thfs pro~erty are c a-owned, with Mr. Waters being principal owner. Camnisaioner Fry atated he felt if the upkeep of the adjacent property is any indication of how the motel will be maintained, the neighbora have a legitimete concern. He atated he wA8 by the property thie morning and it ie in bad condition. He stated he thought 98i of the people cominq to this hotel wQald i~ot even be aware of the alley and he did not think that should be a 9/19/83 ~~ r ~r ~NUT63. _1-Nl1HBIM CITY PLJINNING COM~IS$ION __ _ 83-58 concern. Regerdinq the comment that 3,000 n~w rooms ere being conatcucted in 1-neheim, he atat~d khey are catoring to a particular eegment of the populetion end this will b~ a~ diftarent typ~ ot oparetion. H~ steted he did not ese eny wey to stop s viaual intcueion into a two-story houee. Commissioner Buahore stsked he waa not preeent foc the firat hearingi however~ he io cancACnad ~bout e cocktail lounge edjacent to thie reeidential aree, eapecie-lly wikh a liquot etore next door. He atetecl he wa~a elso concerned about the pool ncea. Concerr~ing the 19-loot landecaped aetback on the north property line, Commisaioner Bushore ateted he did no~ think the 1-foot difference ie eignificant and with e cockteil lounge end the loceti.on of the pool, they ere juat barely meeting the requiremente. He ateted that he did not think thia is a good location for dn 80-unit motel, plue a cockCail lounge, with Ghe pool loceted eo close to two neighbora. Responding to Cortunissionet Nerbat, Mr. Catalano ceaponded thet the new fence will be acrosa the entire property to 3unkiat. C~mmissioner Herbst etated in the paet the Commieaion hAe required chat ewimming pools be limlted to certain hours oE operation. Commiaeioner Bushnre auggeated a fence right behind the lendscaped ecea so thet the lendscaped buffer is not violated and further explained he ie refecring to the fence around the pool And ~ot the 9-foot high block wall. Responding to Commisaioner Herbet, Mc. Catalano exploined the landecaping will be bcoadleaf, evergreen type plante with very low mal.n~enance. Commisaioner Herbst suggeated some very tall fast-gxowing Cypreea trees on 5-foot centeca that would eventually grow above the fence and break up the look end nnt provide a hedge. Mr. Catalano responded that is included in their landscaped progr~m. Reaponding to Chaicwoman Bouas, Mc. Waters end Mr. Cetalano explained there will be kitchen efficiency units in 25t of the units in accocdance with Code requirements. Commissioner La Claice atated if this ie e quality operation, the noise will be lesa than it would be with some ott~er types of uses, but ehe is concerned about the cocktail lounge becauee it could attract quite a few people from outside the motel and that it bothers her more than a three-story motel. She stated she is also dfsturbed because the cocktail lounqe is not attached to the matel. Mr. Catalano stated a cocktail l~unye ia tantemount to the operetion of a hotel/motel and the majority of the hotels or motels in Anaheim do offer the aervice of food and beverage. He atated the entrance will be at the front of the business and most of the other shops in the acea ~lose at 9:00 g.m., so they feel there will be ample parkin~. Responding to Commissioner La Claire concerni~g enkertainment in the cockt~il lounqe, Mc. Cat~lano explained the cocktail lounge will hnve a sports atmoephere with a big acreen television so people can watch the Rems and AngD~s games, etc. He explained he thought the cocktail lounge will serve about 50 people, but wae not sute of the capacity. ~/19/83 ~ ~ M,~INUTEB. ANAH~IM CITY PL~NNING COMMI88ION 83-582 K~ndca Mocriea, A4aociete Plennec, teaponded to Commi~~ioner ~d Claice that tachnically thia is coneid~ced a coakrail lounge becauee it doas not aerve food end in order to be deeignated ~ r~ataurant, 25~ oE the floor apece muet be devoted to a kitchen erea. Commiasionec La Claire ateted a cocktdil lounge with Monday night football would be fine if it wea noti edjacent to a rQeidentisl ~ree, but it 1s not even tied to the 80-unit motel and ahe felt thie will creete a dual uae on the property. She atated ehe hAS ateyed in ~ lot of hotels and motels end hee aeen motela aimiler to thia end also mo~els with e cockteil l~unge ettached end khose with the cockteil lounge attached to the motel ~ttracta a dilferent clientele dnd those with it not ettached, would attcaat outaideta. She added she thought thia would pcobebly be e gvod development for thie neighborhood, buk not with a cocktail lounge. Annika Santalahti stated the developer's exhibits ahow this fecility Aa e cocktail lounge with no details of the floor plena and explained the parking requ~rementa are aimiler foc a reataurant and cockteil lounge, but th~t e resteurant would have to hAVe full aervice of food with 1/4 of the floor area devoted to the kitct~en. Mc. Catalano explained he is an asaociate with Mr. Waters, the ownec, and ia a amall inveator and they have not developed oc operated motels in the past, but t~ave been involved in restaurant, cocktail lounges and retail businesse~. He explained they intend to operate this buainess themgelve$ with a Quelity inn or Beat Western franchise and the fcanchiser will eatablieh the guidelines and provide leadership. Commisaioner Bushore atated moat of the motel franchisers he has bean femiliar wfth would want the reataurent or cocktai~ lounge on the corner where it would attrect buainese froR~ the freeway and they would want a family-type operation rather than a cocktail lounge. He atated he thought a Quality Inn or geat Western would reject this plan bec~use they have very stringent signing ~equirements and this plan doea not even come close without several variances. Mr. Catalano explained the motel chains they have talked to understand the aituation and in order to have ingrese to the cackteil lounge and the busineas office, thie is the only plACe it could be lxatedt and to provide less than 80 unita, the project would not be feasfble, so this is a comptomise. He atated he would rather have the lounge available rlght off the street with a free-standing building, but that was not possible because of the ttaffic pattecn. Mr. Catalano atated they have letters fcom Seat Weatern end Quality Inn indicating thefr interest, based on the plans submitted. Commissioner Buahore stated he will not aupport the uae with the pool in that location and with the cocktail lounge becnuse it is not a restaurant and ia just a bar and that ia the ceason it is not attached to the motel. Commisaioner La Claire stated she lonks at thia as a dual use and she thought the Commiseion should affocd the propecty ownera in the area better proteetion than a cocktril lounge in their midet since they already have a liquor store. 9/19/83 ~INOx~B. ~N~HBIM CITY PL~NNINQ COMMISSION _ _ -.+=583 She qtatad ahe haa eoen mot~ls cight next to reeidentiAl ac~sa end f~it that would not be detrimental if ~11 the viaual intrueion ie blocked and if iti ia A high quelity operation end ~elt wiLh the hi~h cost o~ land snd conetruction, it will heve to be a high quality operation, but hec reel aoncetn ie the cocktail lounge. Sha eteted ehe diQ not think gusal•e would be ueing the alley for ACCa88 and that msybe thia uae would etop some of the uae of khe alley th~t ie taking pl~ce now. Commiesi~nec Hecbat etated he would not object to the cocktAil lounge ~nd reateurant if they were located ineide the motel, but the people from the motel walking to thair roome from the coaktail lounge at 2:00 a.m. could meke quiCe a lot of noise and there ie no intecn~l way to qet to their rooma from the cockteil lounge. Ne atated he has no problem with the motel bacause that is probably one of the lighteat uaes ee far as traffic ia con~erned. He pointed out this pcopecty ia zoned commercially and any commetciel use Will bcing tr~ffic to the nren, but this use cen be controlled thtough the conditional uae petmit and thet othec usea could go in without review of the Plenning Commieaion and without protection of the 9-Eoot wall. He stated guesta to a matel do not come in all at once~ so the impact would not be quite es great, but he could not vote foc the cocktail loun9e• Mr. Catelano asked for permisaion to consult with the propertY owner, Mr. Watecs. Commisaionec Bushore atated if the petitio~er decidea to eliminate the c4cktail lounge m~ybe the pool area could be moved to the west end of the building because he would want the pool moved cloaer to the building. Mr. Catalano atated they would pcopoae to build A second buffec wall by the pool area. Commisaioner Herbat asked the petitioner to etipulate to controlled hours of operation, not after 10:00 p.m. or befnre 9:00 a.m• for the pool. Mr. CatAlano stdted they wnuld be happy to comply. Mr. Catalano atated they have eome alternate plans for the existing commercia~ shopping complex and would like to withdr~w the proposal foc a cocktail lounge from this heacing. He atated they may want to add a coffee shop in the future, but would like to cemave it from eAnaideration at thie time and any future building plans would be submitted to the Planning Departmenk for review. Chairwoman eouas clarifipd that the entire building for the cocktail lounge will be completely eliminated and could not be conatruGted in the future and asked if they plan to convert one of the other busineases in the complex to a cocktail lounge. Mr. Catalano responded that that is not their intent and explained they have a dnnut ahop, pizx~ shop and 119uor stote exiating with long-tecm leases. ACTIpN: Commissioner Herbst offeted a motion, eeconded by Commissioner King and MOTION CARRIED (Commfssioner McBUrney ~bsent), that the ~naheim City Planning Commiseion has reviewed the propo$al to reclassify subject property from the RS-A-43,000 (Reaidentfal, ~gricultural) Zone to the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone on a irregulatly-8haped parcel of land consieting of approximately 0.4 acre, having a frontage of a~proximately 318 feet on the north side of Bal~ Road, approximatelY 280 feet east af the centerline of 9/19/83 , ---- -- --,......_.~..,....,..r.M., =;s--~--~•~v~°,...~..,..~...-...,,,~ INUT~B ANAH~IM CITY PLANN_INa COMMI88ION 83~584 sunkiet stceet and being located immadiately weat of the Orange (57) Fceewny~ and does h~reby epprova the Negetive Decleratiion upon finding thet it hsa coneideced the Negetive Declaration togethec with eny comments received during the public review proc~ae dnd further finding on the beaia of the Initiel Study end eny commente received thdt thece ia no subatentiel evidence that the projoct will heve e aignificent effect on the environment. Commiseioner Herbet offered Reaolution No. PC83-161 and moved For ite paeange end edoption that the ~naheim City Plenning Commisaion does heraby gr~nt Reeleasificetion No. 83-84-1 sub~ect to interdepactmental Committee recommendations and stipulations of the applicent to delete the cocktAil lounge. On coll call, the focegoing reaolution was paased by the following vote: AYE5: BUSNORE~ FRY, HERBST, KING, LA CLAIRE NOES: BOUAS AB5ENT: MCBURNEY Commisaioner Herbat offered a motion, seconded by Commiaeioner King and MOTION CARRIED (Cammissioner Mcsurney abaent), that the Aneheim City Planning Commiseion has reviewed the ~roposal to permit an 80-unit motel dnd cocktail lounge with on-sale alcoholic beverages in the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone with waivecs of minimum structural aetback, permitted lo~ation of free-standing aigns and maximum fence height on a icregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.40 acrea, having e frontage of approximately 392 feet on the ~orth side of 6a11 Road, having a maximum depth of approximately 215 feet and being locnted immediately west of the Orange (57) Freeways and doea hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has conaidered the Negative Decleratian togethec with any comments received ducing the public review end further finding on the basie of tte initial Study and any commente receLved that there is no aubetantial evid~nce that the pco~ect wfll have a eignificant effect on the environment. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fry and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Mc9urney abeent), that the ~naheim City Planning Commiaeion does heceby grant waivPrs of Code requirements (a), (b), and (d) on the basis that there ace special ciccumstances applicable to the prop~rty auch as size, ahape, topography, location or eurroundings which do not apply to other identicelly zoned ~roperties in the vicinity and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties under identical zoning clasaification in the vicinity. Commi~~ioner Herbst instructed ataff to make suce that the free-standing aigns do not violate the freeway off-ramp and that the aign shall be faced away from the residential area and fucther granting waiver (d) on the ba81s that the 9 foot 2 inch wall will provide protection from the commercial uaea to the residential property. Commissioner Herbst offered Reaolution No. PC83-162 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Plenning Commiseion does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2475 subject to the petitioner's stipulation that the hours of operation of the swimming pool ahall be limited to 9:00 a.m. to 9/19/83 f i ~ i .r~ INUT~B. J1NJ1kiBIM CITY PLl-NNINf3 COMMI$SION 83-585 r 10:00 p.m. and that a eecucity fence shall be pxovi~ded in the swimming pool ac~a to pcohibit encroachment i.nto the la~daceped sekback and thet 15-gsilon Ital~lan Cypraea tcaee ahall be planted on 5-toot ceater• along the northerly propecty line to pcovide a vieunl acceen to the cesidential propectiee and subject to the petitioner's atipulation to eliminate the cocktaii lounge propoaed end thAt any further dev~lopment on the property shell be subjeot to review by the Plenninq Commf~eaion, and subject to interdepertmentel Committee cecommendations. On roll ca~ll, the facegoing caso]ution was passed by the fallowing vote: AXES: BUSHORE~ FRY~ HLRBST~ KING~ L1- CLAIRE NOES : BOUI-S 1-8$ENT: MCBURNEY Jack White, Aeaistent City Attor.ney, presented the wcitten right to appedl the Plenning Commiaaion's decision within 22 deys to the ~Cit~~ Council. Jack White cla~rified that Condition No. 11 should be modified to pcovide thet khe cocktail lounge ehell be eliminated and the property shall be developed in accordance with plana mecked Exhibita 1 through 5, Reviaion No. 1 RBCESS: 2:45 p.m. RECONVENE: 2:55 p.m. ITEM N0. 5. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION. W1~IVER OF COb6 REQUIREMENT AND CONDITIQNAL USE PERMIT N0. 246T PUBLIC HEARING. OWNBRS: LUTHERAN BIBLE INSTITUTB IN CALIPORNII-~ 641 S. Western Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92804. AGENT: CLIFTON M. PEDERSON/RICHARD URIE, 641 S. Western Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92804. Property deacribed as e rectangularly-ehr+ped parcel of land conaisting of approxim~kely A.8 acres, having a frontage of approximately 337 feet on the west aide of Western 1-venue a~nsl fucther described as 641 South Western Avenue (Lutheran Bible InatituL•e). To permit temporary atudent housing (mobilehomes) in conjunction with a private junior college with waiver of minimum atructural setback. C~nt. inued f rom .TUly 11 and 25, 1983. ACT10N: Commissioner King offered a motioo, seconded by Commissioner Fry and MOT1pN CARRIED (Commiseioner Meeucney absent), that the afocementioned matter be withdrawn at the reguesk of the petitiorter. ITEM N0. 6. EIR N0. 253(PREV. CERT.), RECL1-SSIFICATION N0. 82-83-4(READVERTISED) AND V~-RIANCE NO. 3306(RE]~DVERTISED) PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: GDC III, 228 W. Main Street, Tuatin~ CA 92680, ATTBNTION: IULPH SPP-RGO. Property deRCribed as aeveral parcels totaling approximately 19.57 acres, 2925 Weet Lincoln Avenue (Lincoln eeach Mobile Manor Park). To reclaseify fcom RM-1200, CL, and RS-1~,43~000 to the RM-1000 Zone. 9/19/83 MINUTES ANAt1~IM CITY ~Ll-NNING C MI SION 83-586 We-ivera of (a) required lot frontAge, (b) meximum structural height, l~) minimum floor atee~ ld) minimum la~.isc~ped aetb~ck, (e) minimum [ecceatinnal-leieure aree ~nd (!) minimum diatance between builQinga, and ~g) mi~imum number and type of packing epacae ~o conetruct a 639-unit aohdominium complex. Thece was one pereon indicating hie preaence in opposition to subject cequeat and elthough the ~taff repoct was not read, it is ceferred to and made a part of the minutes. Ralph Spargo, dgent, explained thie le a cevieion to a site plan which was previously epprovedt and that the revision wae necessitated by a condition of the pcevious conditione which cequired thet the developer provide a revieRd site plan removing the tandem p~cking spaces which wece becking Anto other tandem parking spacer~ on majoc dcive areas. He explained the buildinga were renrcanged to accomplish this and they have been working with ataff to come up with a site plan which is aupetior to what was previously approved. He stated they have worked with Ponderoea Homes to the rear. to try to determine how to interface with the two propertiea aince they are propoeing to change their land use to a higher density for 2-story structuces. He explained none of the previoualy ~pproved condition8 are belnq changed and the reloc.~tion and phasing plana ~ce the seme and, in fact, the relocation pcogram has actually begun with ei9ht peoPle hsving moved and ceceived theic benefita. Rick Watsinski, Buena Park Planning DePartment, stated heoaitionCto thise the Pla~nning Commiasion one year ag~ voicing their City's opp particular project and their position has not aubatantially ~hanged. He stated their Planniny Commiseion recently heard a pruposal from P~nderosa Homes tu chan9e the land use deBiqnation from single-family homes en a 9-1/2 acre par~el to condominiums and that request was unanimously denied and he thought it had been appeale' to the City Council. He stated the ataff :epart indic~tes that poseibly Cceacent Ju~ioc High School wiJ.l be changed to multiple-family use, but that is not correct. He added some of their major concerns etem from the effect the condominium units would heve on the adjacent aingle-family homes which were being proposed by the Ponderosa Homess that the previous plana had parking sFacee and only one 2-story building in clase pcaximity to the single-f.amily homes in euena Parkt however, this plan altered that previous approval and places the 3-etory structure within 25 feet of single-family homes with balconies and windowa which they feel will be an invasion of theic privacy. He atated they are also concezned about reduction of the landscaped setback adjacent to their aingle-familY erea. He stated this property is not unusual and the granting of any variances would be completely unjustified. He atated the applicant has reviewed the plans to modify the patking and eliminntie tandem parking spaces on ma~or accesa driveways facin9 eech other, but now prect!cally every unit will have tandem parking e~aces. He stated they voiced their concecn fot this type of parking because of ~otential problems. He steted they feel pursuant tn State lawa and local ozdinancea, theae variances are completely unjustified and gcanting these variancea would be granting thia applicant special privileges not affotded ottier propecty ownera in the City of Anah~im. Mr. warsinski presented a letter of oppoaition fcom the Planning Director of the City of Buena Park. 9/19/83 ~ f INUTBB. ~-N1IHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISBION ,~. 83: ~P~ Mr. Sp~rgo ~tated th• veri~ncea a~e id~ntical to tho~• pcev~ouely •pptov~d and h• did not b~liev~ the 3-story unit is any ciosoc ~hen 20 leet ~nd the Z-atory units acs ~oeentially in th• aam~ conEi9uretion. H• aLateC th~y b~li~v• thie pcopertx doea have special ci.raumetAncea beceus• ot th• l~ndfill. N~ stated thay ha~ve been warking with Ponderosa Hemes an the dev~lopm~nt of th~ prop~rty edg~, ae far ae meintaining the methan~ migcetion for the peciod of time it will be thece ver the next threo yeers, and Chey hAVe come to e t.ntetive a-qr~ement on contcol of the property line. THE PUBLIC HEIIRING WAS CLOSED. Commiasinner Harbat stated he conaidere the 3-stocy atructur~ thie close to the propecty line a drastic chenge from the ociginal caa;:ept. Mr. Spnrgo stated it will be 30 feet from the propecty line to Che face of the 3-story ,atcuetuce end the plane indicete iC is 20 feet, plue or minus, but thAt wae the cequiced dietance. Responding to Commisaioner Le Claire, he atated the building will be dppcoximately 4Q feet tell, but they heve not completed the final design of the building and are not sure of the dimeneions. Commiaaioner LA Cleire atated ahe wad also concerned about the underground parking becauae sometimes it makea the buildinga highec. Commissionec Herbst steted the plens da not ahow any dimenaione and aeked whdt would heppen if a huyec had two standard-eize vehicles. He indi,c~ted hc did not think the parking plen would work because the tandem 8()4Cl-B ace in a tuck-under sitiuation. Mc. Spergo atAted they would deEer to the ordinences and it would be difficult ho answer that question a~d it might not work once o~ twice. Commisaioner Herbet stated 40 to 50t of the automobiles being s~ld taday are larger vehicles. He atated he could not vote for the plena with the tuck-unde r tandem packing spacee beceuae he knew they would not work. Pau1 Singec stat.ed small car spaces are limited to 25t of the entire proiect and in a residential e~teA can be accommo.~a`Qd in the guest parking ar~a only, and a compact cac ~t~ace cannot be Aasignea as a tandem parking space. He explained a compact space ia 7-1/2 feet !~y 15 feet and a cegular apace ie 8-1/2 feet by~9 feet. Commissioner necbBC atated thia isn't good pla~nning becauae it would be telling the buyer he would t~ave to heve a compact car. Mc. Spargo clarified that compact car spaces in that configuration would not be allowed in residential projects. Paul singer stated that hae alweys been the case. Mc. Spacgo atated they cen etill do the project because they wecg providing some extra space in the gArage for citculation, etc. and tbet Chey would be wil.ling to accept the atandArd tiandem parking apaces. He apologized becr~uae the plan did n..t show dimensiona and explain~ed originally they had come in with this as a preaentation to staff, but as a minor cevision, and staff had felt it should be preaented to the Planning Commiseian. ee stated he is convinced it will work, but they will make the modifica~tion. 9/19/83 i ~ f INU_T~ BI CITY tb MI I N 83-' Commi~~ion~r H~cbst st arad h• le conc~cn~d about th~ 3-story buildinq abuttinq the •in91~-l~mily homes in eu~ne P~ck~ Mr. BQarqo atat~d thsy ~re 30 feet from th• pcop~rty lin~ and thsce will b~ a minimum of windowe on that sid~ end the oniy windowr that ZAC~ out ia on• dinin9 room window and one high bathroom window. He eta~teQ th~ ocienteCion o! these unirs ia not in that dic~ction. Commieaionec La Clair~ etated tho a~djacent pcoperty ownera w~nt befoce the Buona Perk Plsnning Coenmiaeion end their requeat wag denied and aa oi now, there are no eingl~-f amily homea in thet ar~e and maybe there never will be and ~ven i! thare w~c~ , t he aetbecka hAV• baen provided end in the pAet, certAin variancea have been grent~d, dapending on the impect on rhe surr~undin~ propectie a end how the Commiseion feals tho ad~ecenk prop~rtiea will develop. She st ated rhece sre apecial circumatancea succ~unding this propecty since the pro~ect ia on e landEili end it would be very expaneive to develop tha ~rop~cty. eha etated theee veriencee ahould be considered on thie property beceuee removing the landfill henefita 1-naheim and Buene Peck beceuse it i~ e heelth ha~zard ~ S he added ehe felt the State guidelines allow the Cammiseion to grdnt v ariancea on propecties that have such special ciraumetancee. It waa noted Environm~ntal Impact Report No. 253 wae previously ceetified by the Planning Commiasi on on Januery 24, 1983. Commissioner La Clair ~ offeced Resolution No. PC83-163 and moved for ite passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commiesion doee hereby grnnt Reclaseificetion No. 82-83-4 aub~ect to Intetdepertmental Commlttee recommendations. On roll call, the foreguing resolution was pe~aeed by the following vote: AYE3: BOUAS, BU5HOR6, FRY~ HERBST~ KxNG, Ll- CL1-IRE, MC BURNBY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Jack White, J~saiatant Gity 1-ttorney, pcesented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission' $ decision within 22 days to the City Council. Jack Wlcite stated t here are two types of vari~nces in thia request, one ie for the waiver of perkiny spaces and tho findings ahoul~ be those required for the pnrking ordinance. be explained the findi~igs for the othec variancea should be the atanderd ones [equiced pecteining to the property itaelf. He added the reasona ace alteady conteined in the previoua discusalons. Commissianer Herbst stated he ha$ no problem with the windowe, but was concerned whether a r not there are balconiES or patioa overhnnging on the rea~r overlooking the bacicyerde. Commiesioner Ld Claire etated there are no houses on that propprty yet. Commieaioner Buahor e staLed he did not understand why the buildinga were changed and put in a location where the Com~aiFaion does not want them end aRked why the whole project has been cut-up in thia manner. 9/19/83 MINUTBB. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINO COMMISSION .. 83-589 Mr. G~o •tated th~y h~v~ drawn th• pcop~rey lin~• on th• t~neativ• map to call~ot thia contiguretion with th~ di!lac~nt building Lypes within e phaa~ and point~d ouk ons lot i~ r~quit~d !oc eh• recreational faciliti~s end the new coniiquration of building• i~ bec~use of the tend~m pscking situation And ia noC boing reconligucsd for fin~ncing. Commia~ioner Buohoca aaked why thia 3-ato;y atructuce ia being placed ebutting the euena Park aingle-family z~ne. Mr. C~iWo replied ths old plena ahowed tendem to tendem perking apscea on m~jar drivea end they nevec intended to chAnge the product. Commiseioner Buohoce etated now there ia e different configur4tion than originally pcopoaed with the 3-etocy stcucture in the reec nnd aeked why tbey did not move it towacda the frnnt. Mc. C~~i replied they tcied to spr•~_i the 3-story buildings out among the Aite and did not want a lacge meas of 3-atory buildinge. Commiesioner Duehore stated Ponderosa ia curcently building on the front portion af tha Creecent Junioc High 3chool eite and will be moving back towarde the reac. He etated he cnn underetend Buena P~ck's concecn. Commieaioner Hecbst stated if this was being proposed entirely in the City af Anaheim, dbutting si.ngle-family, the Commisaion would not allow 3 atocies within 30 E~et. He etated he cecognizes thie property has e lot of problems, but felt the Commiasion ahould conaider that some of the housea will be there foreve~ and he felt the developec can make thAt e 2-atory buildinq or celocate it. Commissioner Buehore stated he felt the Coi;.misaion has bent over backwarde working with the developar end he just cauld n~t aee wh~ they heve put 3-story buildinge in that location. Commissioner Herbat atated he felt this ie a drastic change from the original approval. Commisaioner 8uahore stated the height of the building can vary because with an underground facility, one-half of that fncility cdn be above the ground and the structuce could end up being 45 feek high. it was noted a 2-atory atructure could be 25 to 35 feet high. Commiesioner La Claire staLed some 2-etory houses ace higher than 3-stocy structures. Mr. C~o atated it neems the real isaue is the 3-story atructurea along the rear an~ etated they would be willing to make the building along the north pr4perty line e 2-etocy stcucture and khen step back up to a 3-story as it moves awny from the pcoperty line. He etated he would object to the massin~ of all the 3-etory atructures togethec into ane area. Respondir.g to Cotnmissioner Herbak, he explained they would atsp it beck 25-fert and take one unit off, eo there would be a 2-story unit 55 feet back From the pcoperty line end the windows from the third level would not be apparent. 9/19/83 ~ ! MINUTBB. AN~~6IM C~TY PLANNING COMMI88ION~_, ~ 83-590 ACTIONs commiarion~r La Claire oft~r~d R~aoluC~on No. PC83-16~ enQ moved for its paosage and adgption thet the Ansh~im City Plenning Commieai.on aoes her~by amend Re~olution No. PCBZ-211 pecrsining to Vecianae No. 3306 qranting waiv~ce (a), (b), (c), and (f) on th~ baa~o t het there are ap~cial circumst~nces ~pplicable to ~he property such as s~ ze, shap~, kopogcaphy, locdtion or aurroundinga whic h do not apply to ot her ide~tically xoned propectiea in khe vicinity and thet strict epplicetion oE the zoninq Code deprivea the property of privtlegea en~oy~C by other pcopertias in identical zone and cl~aeifications in the vicinikyt ~nd gcanting waiver (g> on the baeis thet the perking verisnce will not cnuae any i ncrease in treEfic congeation in the immedidte vicinit y nor adversely eEfect any edjoining land uaes snd thet the gKenting of the peckinq variance under the conditione imposed, if any, will not be dettimental to the peece, heelth, safety and generel welEere of the citizena cf the City oE Aneheim And aubject to interdepartmental Committee racommendations. Jeck White expldined the conditione will be modified to include the changes mede in C~ndition No. 2 to reed aR follows; "That eubject property ahall be developed substentially in eccordance with plens and specificationa on file wi,th the City of Aneheim marked Exhibit Noe. 1 through 12, Reviaion No. 3, excepr that the 3-atory etc~ctuce ehall be loceted a minimum of 5o feet fcom the noctherly pcoperty line and th~t reviaed pla~na ahell be aubmikted to and epproved by the Pldnning Department staff pcioc to the iaeuance of euilding Pecmits. He further expleined that Condition No. 29 of the reclaseification would be modif ied alea. On coll ~all, the Eocegoing reaolution wa~e passed b,y the following vote: AYES: BOU1~S, BUSHORE, PRY, HERBST, KING, I.A CLl-IRE NOES: NONE ABSENT: MCBURNEY ~ack White, Assistant City Attorney, pcesented the writ~en cight to appee~l the Plannin Commias ion's deciaion within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0. 7. EIR NO. 253 (PREV. CER~. ), VARYIINCE N0. 3346 11ND TBNTI-TIVE IM1~P OF TRACT N0. 11830 (REV. NO. 1) .._..__ PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: GFELL2R DEVELOPMENT COFIP~-NY, 228 W. Main Street, Tuetin, CA 92680, ATTENTION: RALpH SPARGO. Pro~erty described as a rectangularly-ehaped parcel of land conaieting of approximately 29.57 acres, 2925 West Lincol n Avenue (Lincoln eeach Mobile Manor Pa~rk). Waiver of required lot front-~ge to establish an 18-lot, 639-unit subdivision. Continued f rom SBptember 7, 1983, fo r revised plans to be aubmitted. There wns no one indicating their preeence in oppoaition to su5ject request and althoug h the stAff report wae not read, it ie referred to and made a part of the minutes. 9/19/83 '~.~ INUTB$1~6II1 CITY PLANNING COMMI88ION __ 83-59 J~ck White, J1a~i+~tent City 1lttotneyr QxPlsinod two ~~perat~ action• •r• pre~ented i~n the otaif c~port snd in order to qet th• two it~ma tu th~ C.lty Council at ths eAm~ time bt~cavse of th• dittorent appeal periods~ tha t~ntetiva msp 4hould ba continued for two w~eka. Ralph Spdrgo, ag~nt, was pceaent to anawer eny qusation. THE PUBI.IC HEARING WA& CLOSED. ACTIpN: Commiasioner Le Cleico offared Resolution N~. PC83-16~ and movad for ite peesage end adoption that the Anaheim Ctty Blanning Commiaeion does heceby grent Variance No. 3346 on the baeis there are epecial circumstancea applicAble to the property euch as size, ehape, topography, location or sucroundinye that do not apply ko other identically zoned properties in the vicinity and that etcict application of the Zoning Code depcivee the prapecty of privilegea enjoy~d by othec pcoperties in identicel zoning claaaification in the vicinity And subject to Interdepartmental Committee cecommendationa including the condition thet the 3-etory stcuctuce ahall be located a minimum of 50 feet from the northern pcoperty line. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BUSHORE~ FF2Y, HERBST, KING, LA CLIIIRE NOES: NONE ABSENT; MCBURNEY Commiasioner La Claice offered a motion, seconded by Commisaionee Herbst and MOTION CARRIED (Commiasioner McBucney abaent), that the Anaheim City Plnnning Commission does hereby cont~nue conaiCeration of Tentetive Map of Tract No. 11830 ta the cegulecly-scheduled meeting of Octobec 3, 1983. .TACk White, Asaietant City 1-ttorney, pceaented the written right to eppeal the Planning Commiseion's decision within 22 days to khe City Council. IT~Ni N0. 8. EIR NBGATIVE DECLARIITION (PREV. 11.PPROVED) 1~-NA TENTATIVE MAP OP TRACT N0. 7.1362 (Rev. No. 2) PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: CONRAD J. AND JOSEFHINE M. LETTER, 3102 Vallejo Dcive, Anaheim, C~1 9280~. AGBNT: Wl-LTER K. BOWMAN, 7936 Cerritoa Av~enue, stanton, CA 90680. Property deecribed as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land coneisting of dpproximately 0.47 acre, 1260 Bast La Pal!na 1-venue. To establish a 1-lot, 8-unit condominium subdivigian. it wae noted that the EIR Negative Decleration was previous)y approved in conjunction wi~th Variance No. 3341. J-CTION: Commisei~oner Ring offeced a motion, seconded by Commissioner Pcy and MOTION ~~RRIED (Commissioner McBUCney ebsent), that the ~-naheim City Planning Commis~ion doea heceby find that the proposed subdiviaion, together with its design and improvement, ia consiatent with the City of 1-naheim General Plan, pursuant to Governsae~t Code Section 66473.5t and does, therefore, approve 9/19/83 ~ } t~NIT~A- ~N~H~IM CITY PLANN2Na CO MISBION 83-59Z Tentetiva Map o! Tract No. 11362 (R~viaion No. 2) toc a 1-lot, 8 unit RM-3000 Zone condominium aubdivi;ion subi~ct to th~ ~ollowing conditiona: 1. That 8hould thia eubdiviaion be d~veloped ae mora than one aubdivision, each aubdivision ther~of shall b~ submitt~d in tantetive form for epproval.. 2. That prior to final tcact map approval, th• originAl documenta of the covenanta, conditiona, and restrictiona, and a lettec ~ddresaed ko dovelopec's title company authorizing recocdation thereof, ehall be submitted to the City Attotney's Offiae and approved by the ~ity Attorney's Office, Public Utilitiea Department and Engineering Divieion. Seid documents, aa appcoved• will then be Filed end recotded in the Offiae of the Orange County Racorder. 3. ThAt prior to finel tcact map ~pprov~l, etreet namea sha].1 be approved by the City Plan~ing Dep~ctmAnt. 4. Thet all private atceeta ahall be developed in accordence with thr City of Anaheim's Standard Detail No. 222 for private Atreets, including inekallation of street neme signe. Plana for the private etreet lighting, as required by the standard detdil, shall be aubmitted to the Building Divieion Eor approvdl and included with the building pians pcior to the iseu~nce of building permita. (Private atreeta ace those wh~ch provide pcimary acceas end/or circulation within the project. 5. That temporary street name eigna ahall be instelled prior to any occupancy if permanent etreet name signs have not been installed. 6. That prior to iasuance of a building permit, the appropciate treffic siqna~ assesement fee ehall be paid to the City of ~naheim in an amount as detecmined by the City Council foc each new dwelling unit. 7. That trr existing driveway ehall be cemoved and replaced with a standard cucb, gutter and sidewalk. 8. That trash atocage aceas ahall be provided in accordance with approved plana on file with the Stceet Maintenance and Sanitation ~ivision. 9. That prior to commencement of structucel frami~g, fire hydcAnts shall be inatalled and Gharged as required and determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Depactment. 10. That eubject property ahall be served by undecground utflitfes. 11. Th~t drainage of aubject property sh~~l be diaposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. 12. That prior to final tract map appcovnl, appropriete park and recreation in-lieu feea shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an amount es determined by the City Council. 9/19/83 ~ ~ ~,IN~TBB. AN~~BIM CITY PLJUiNING COMMI88ION 83-593 13. That prioc to linal trect map ~ppcoval, th~ applicent ehall pr~ssnti evid~nce setisEactocy to the Chi~f Bullding Inap~ctor that th~ propoeed project is in confocmence with Council Policy Number. 542 'Sou~d Atitenuation in Resid~ntial Proiecta'. 1~. That the pstitioner ehall pcovide, to the axtent teaaible, for paaeive oc nskucal heating end cool~ng opportunitiea in the pro~oaed aubdivieion. 15. That pcior to finel tract mep appcoval, the develo~er shall anter into ~n agreement with the City of ~nAheim pursuanc Co Government Code Section 65915 to provide that twenty-five peccent (25t) of the ceaidential unita ehell be aold as low oc moderate income housing ea defined in Government Code section 65915 and with ~ppropriar~~ ceeele con~role 4~ appcoved by the City of Aneheim. Jack White, Aseiatant City Attocney, pc~oented the wcitten right ta appeal the Planning Commiaeion's decision within 10 days to the City Council. ITEM NO. 9. EIR CATEGORIC~L BXEMPTt~V-CLASS 5~Np VAAIANCE N0. 3347 PUBLIC HE~RING. OWNER3: ROBBRT M. AND CONST~NCE S. ROSSO, 1100 C1iEpe[k Circle, ~naheim, CA 92805. Pcoperty deaccibed as e rectangularly-Ahaped parcel of land consisting of epproximately 5400 aquare feet, 1100 Clifpark csrcle. Waiver of minimum number and type of perking apacea to retein n qaraqe converaion. There was no one indicating their presence in oppoaition to subject request and elthougt~ the etaff report was n~t read, it is referced to end made e part of the minutes. Robect Raseo, nwner, explained he is requesting approval to cetafn the expansion of his master bedroom into the garage which reducea the number of parking s~aces i~ the garage to one instead of two. He expleined he purchaeed ~he house in this condikion and wae noC aware it would be a pcnblem until he ttied to cefinance the house. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. It was nnted the Plannfng Dicector or his authorized representative hae determined that the proposed project falls withii~ the definition of Categorical Exemptiona, Claes 3, as defined in the State Environmental Impact Report Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. ACTInN: Commiseioner ~ing offered Reaolution t~o. PC83-166 and moved for its paesage and adoption that the ~naheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Variance No. 3347 on the beefe that the parking variance will not cause an increase in traffic congestion in the immediate area nor adversely affect eny adjoining lAnd usea and the granting of a pairking waiver under the 9/19/83 ~ ~ ~INUT68. AN~~RYM GITY PWIIGNIN~ Ci~ _ I6&ION 83-59+ condikions impoa~d, i! any, will nok be d~ttlmer~-n' to th• p~ac~, h~alth, setety, or qen~cal w~li~re o~ th~ citie~na of khe ~~ty df Aneh~im end eubj~ct to intardepartm•ntal Committee cecommendation~. On roll call, the forego~ing reealution was pa~e~d by th~ tollowing vo~a: 1-YES : BOUAS ~ l-RY ~ HBRBST ~ KING ~ T.A CLI-IRB NOES: BUSHORE 1-BBENT: MiCBURNEY ITFM NO. 10. EIR_,CATBGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLJ1S8 5, 11ND VARIIINCE N0. 3348 PUBLIC HEIIRING. OWNER: [,INDA H. P1t8886L, 46~3 ~. Gteenwood Drive, Aneheim, CA 92807. Propetty deaccibed ae a~ cectangulacly-shaped percel of lend coneisting of approximetely 5,000 equace feet, 4643 2aet Gceenwood Drive. Waiver of ineximum lot coverdge to conatruct ~ room eddition. Thece wa$ no ona i~ndiceting their pcegence in oppoaition to aubject request and elthough the eteff repoct wea ~ot read, i.t is refecred to and made ~ part of the minutes. Fred Bcown, agent, explained neighbure on both eidea hav~e Appcoved this p2an and thet neighbora on the weat eide have submitted a letter of eppravel. He stated the addition is Co be a one story as there ace no two-etocy atcucturee on that eide of the atreet. He ceferred to the requicement foc a roll-up garage door and explained he had just inatalled a new gacage dooc and opener and can park two cara in the gardge and two en the drivewr~y and atill open the garege dooc and would like that cecommendation deleted. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CI.OSED. Commissio~er La Claire atdted she did not see anything wrong witt~ this requeet since the ~-eighbora heve ~11 approved it and alau thAt p~rking has been pcovided. It wae noted the Planning Directoc oz hie authocized cepresentative haa determfned that the pcoposed project falls within the definition of Cateqocical Exemptions, Class 5, as defined in the State Enviconmental Impect RQpoct Guidelinea end is, therefote, categarically exempt from the r~quirement to prep~re an EIR. J~CTION: CommiBSioner La Claire offered Reaolution No. PC83~167 and moved for its passage nnd adoption that the 1-naheim City Plenning Cammisaion does hereby grant Variance No. 3348 on th~ basis that it will not be a detriment to the neighborhood and on the baafe that thec~ are speci.al ciccumstences applicable to the property such as size, ehape, topography, location or aurroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned properties in the vicinity nnd that atrict epplication of the Zoning Code deprivee the property of privilegea 9/19/83 r ~ < ' ~ MINUTB$,_11N~-HEIN CITX PWINNING COMMISSION 83-S9S ~njoyod by other pr~p~rti~s in id~~ticel ~oniny c~aseitications i~ th• vicinity and eubjecti to int~rdepactm~ntal Conunittee c~comm~ndationa del~ting Condition No. 2. On roll ca11, th~ Eoregoing reaolution waa pe~s~d by th~ following vote: AYESt 90UAS~ BUSHORE, FRY~ HBRBST~ KING, LA CLl-IRE NOBS: NONE ~1BSENT: MCBURNEY ITBM N0. 11. BIR CATEGORICJIL EXEMPTION-CLJ-S3 _5, _J-ND VARIANCE N0. 3349 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: Dl1VID G. AND M1IACIA R. Pa11NZBN, 4805 Garland St[eet, 1~naheim, CA 92807. PcopecCy deacribed ae a rsctangularly-shaped parc~l of land conaiating of appcoximately 5,610 squore feet, 4805 GArland Street. Waiver of ineximum lot covec~ge to conatcuct e room addition. There wae no one indicnting their pcesence in opposition to aubject request and although the eteff repoct was not tead, it is cefe~rred to and made a part of the minutes. David Pranzen, owner, was preeent to answec any queations. THE PUBLIC HEI-RING WAS GLOSED. it was noted the Plenning Director or his authorized representative has determined that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptiona, Claes 5, es defined in the State Environmentdl impact Report Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the re,quicem!nt to prepare an EIR. 11CTION: Commissioner King offerpd Resolut~on No. PC83-168 an~] moved foc its passage and adoption that the AnAheim City Planning Commiseion does hereby grant Variance No. 3349 on the basis that there are special circumstancea epplicable to the pcoperty auch as eize, shape, topography or locetion of surroundinga which do not apply to other identically zoned propetties in the vicinity and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprivea the pr ~erty of pcfvileges enjoyed by other properties in identieal zone and classification in the vicinity and aubject to interdepertmental Committee recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution wae pasaed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BUSHORE, FRY, HERBST~ KING~ IJ- CLAIRE NOES: NONE ABSENT: MCBURNEY ITEM N0. 12. EIR NEGATSVB DECLARATION, WAIVER OF CODE REDUIRElIENT AND CONDITIONA7. USB PERl~IIT N0. 2488 PUBLIC HE~-RING. OWNERS: CHURCB OF JESUS CHRIST OF I.ATTER-Dl~Y SAINTS~ 50 E88t Nocth Temple Street, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84150. ~-GBNT: CORNWALL J-SSOCIATES, INC., 650 N. Sierra Madre V111a, ~300, Pasedena, CA 91107. 9/19/83 ~ _ ~,IINUTBB. ANAHBIM CITY PWINNING C~,~MISSION 83-596 r~~il~~~ 8copecty d~acribed as s rectangularly-~hep~d pACC~l o! land consiatin9 ef approximately 2.9 ecree, 4000 W. Orang• Av~nue (Church o! Jeaua Chcist AE Latter-Day 8einta). To expand dn sxisGing church lacility wiih waiver of minimum numbec o! parking epe~ces . There was no one indiceting th~ir praaence in oppoaition to eubject requeat end although the staff report wee not cead, it ie referred to end made A part of the minutea. Gary Bco~eon, Gornwall l~esociates, Inc., bgent, w~s preeenl• to anewer any questions. THE PU81.IC HEARING WAS CLOSBD. Jack White, /leaistent City 1-ttorney, auggeated a modificetion to Condition No. 2 to read as followe: "Thet the ownera of eubject property Rhe~l inetell and maintain one-way treffic directional aigna as approved by the City Tcaffic Engineec•. Mr. Bronson responded they would agree to comply with that condition. ACTION: Commiseioner King offered e motion, seconded by Commissiane~ Fcy and MOTION CARItIED ~Commiasionar McBurney absent), thet the Anaheim City Plenning Commiasion has ceviewed the proposal to expand an exiating chucch facility with waiver of minimum number. of parking epacea on a cectangularly-shaped paccel of land consiating of appcoximately 2.9 acrea, hav~ng e frontage of approximately 201 feet on the eouth aide of Orange Avenue, epproximetely 775 feet east of the centerline of Holder Street and further d~scribed ae 40Q0 West Orange Street (Church of Jesue Christ of Latter Day Sainta)t and daea hereby appcove the Negetive Declaration upon finding that it has conaidered the Negative Decla[ation together with bny commenta received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the initial Study and any comments received that thece ia no substantial evidence that the project will have a eignificant effect on the environment. Commiasioner King offered a motion, seconded by Commiasioner Fry and MOTION C1-RRIED (Commissioner McBurney absent), that the ~-naheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant weiver of Code requirement on the baais that the pdrking variance does not cauae nn increase in tcaffic congestion in the immediate vicinity nor Adversely affect any ddjoi.ning land uaea and grdnting of the parking variance undec the conditione ir~posed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety or general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Commissionet King offered Resolution No. PC83-169 and moved foc ita paesaqe and adoption that the 1-naheim City Planning Conuniasion does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2488 pucauant to 1-ndheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 through .035 and aubject to Interdepertmental Committee 9/19/83 ~~' , MINUTL$. ANAHLIM CITX PLJINNINC COMMIi~8I0N 83-597 reconunendetion4 including moditication to Conditiun No. Z sa sugg~~ted by th• City Attorney. On roll call, the foregoing reaolution wae pasaed by the following vote: 11YB3t BOUAB, BU&HORE, FRY, HER88T, KING, LA CL1-IRE NOBSt NONE 11BSENT t FlCBURNEY ITEpI N0. 13. BIR NEG1-TIVE pECL11RJ1TI0N, WAIVSR OF CODE RB4UIRBMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PBRMIT N0. 2492 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: WILLIIIM VA~1 DEN HURK, 1874 3anta Cruz Stceet, 1~nehmim, CA 92805. Property deactibed ae e rectengularly-shaped percel of land coneieting of approximately 0.38 acte, 1874 Sante Cruz Street (All Cat Equipment Compeny end Apple Auto Leasing). To cetain an automotive repair and leasing Eacility in the Mt, 2one wiCh waiver of minimum number of parking spacea. There was no one indiceking their preaence in opQoaition to subject request and although the ataff report, was not read, it ia referced to and made a part of the minutes. It was noted the applicant was not preaent. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CI.ASED. Commieafoner Bushore explainad he had checked the facility and this will ~ust be the leaeing office and the cara will be atored et another facility. He stated this facility will be ueed for etocage for the owner's pecsonal e~ntique and racing cars. Kendta Morries explained this ection is the result of a Buainess Licenae application for the 'leasing cumpany. ACTION: Commissioner Bushoc~ offeced a motion, 8econded by Commissioner King and MOTION C1-RRIED (Commissio~~er McBurney abaent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed tl~e pcoposal to retain an automotive repair end leaeing facility in the ML (induetrial, Limited) Zone with waiver of minimum number of parking epacea on a rectangularly-ahaped patcel of land conaisting of appcoximately 0.38 acre, hav~ng a frontage of approximately 100 feet on the east side of Santa Cruz Stceet, approximately 380 feet nocth of the centerline of Pecifico Avenue and further described as 1874 South Santa Cruz Streett and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding th~t it has considered the Negative Declacation togethec with any conanente received ducfng the public review procesa and further finding on the baeis of the Initial Study and a~y co~aments rereived that there is no substdntial evidence that the project will have a significent effect on the environment. Commiseioner Bushore offered a motion, seconded by Commfssioner King and MOTION CARRiED (Commissioner !lcBurn~y absent), that tt~e J-naheim City Planning Commi~sion does hereby grant waiver of Code requirement on the besis that the 9/19/83 t .~ 1 MIN~Tl~B. ANJ1d~IM CITY PT.ANNING COMMI BIDN 83-598 parki~q varianc~ will not csus~ an incr~see in tcsFtic aonq~ation in the immeQiate acae noc edv~raely alf~ct th~ ad~oining lend uass and th~ gcantinq oi th• parking vari~nce undoc th~ conditiona impos~d, i! any, will not bs dwtrim~rtal ~o the p~acs, health, aafety oc general welf.ure o! the cikizena of the City of 7-neheim. Commisaioner euahore offered Reaolution No. PC83-170 and moved foc ita paeeage and edoption that th• 1-naheim City PlAnning Commiaeion does hereby greni Conditional Uee Permit Nu. 2492 pureuent to Anaheim Municipal Code 8ectione 18.03.030.030 through .035 and aubject to Interdepertmentel Committee recommendetione. On roll call, the foregoing reaolution wae pdeaed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS~ BUSHORE, FRY~ HBRBST~ KING, L11 CLIIIRE NOES: NONE ABS~NT: MCBURNEY ITEM N0. 14. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARI-TION, WAIVER OP CODB REQUIR$MENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERI~IIT N0. 2493 PUBLiC HEARSNG. OWNER: SUSAN MANUEL, 2300 E. Edgemont, Lo~ Angeles, CA 90027. AGBN~': JACK T. CHU, 5031 'E' Baet Orangethorpe Avenue, llnaheim, C~ 92807. Property described sa an frregularly-shaped paccel of land coneiating of approximately 3.5 acres at the nacthweat corner of Orang~thorpe Avenue and Kellogg Drive, 5031 •E• E~at Urengethocpe 1-venue (Chu's Kitchen). xo permit on-s~le beer and wine in an exiating reataur~nt with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. There wes no one indicating th~eir presence in opposition to sub~ect rRquest and although the staff re~rt wes not read, it is referced to and mede a part of the minutes. Jack Chu, agent, was present to answec any queations. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSSD. Cammiesioner La Claite clarified that alcoholic bevecages would be aerved with food only. Jdck White, Assistant City Attorney, clerified that it is Commiseioner Ld Claire's intent to include that restriction as a condition in the resolation. ACTION: Couuaisaioner La Claire offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner King and MOTION CARRiLD (Commiesioner McBurney absent), thxt the Aneheim City Plnnning Commissio~n has ceviewed the proposal to permit on-sale beer and wine in an existing restaurent with waiver of minimum number of parkinq spaces on an irregularly-shaped percel of land consiating of epproximately 3.5 acrea loca~ted at the nocthwest corner of Orengethorpe Avenue ~nd Kellogg Drive and further described es 5031 "E" Eaat Orangethocpe Avenue (Chu's Kitchen)t and does hereby approve the Negative Declaretion upon fin8ing that it hes considered the Negetive Declaration together with any coamente received during 9/19/83 ~ : MINUTE N bBIM CITY PLJ-N ING Cq MI88ION 83-59 Eh~ public ceview proceea end furthec finding on th• b~ei• ot the lnitial 8tucly and eny commenta r~csived that theco ie no substentiel evid~nce thet ths projoct will hsve a significant eft~ct on ths environment. Commiasioner Le Claicf offered a m~tion, eeconded by Commisaionec Ring end MOTION ~J-RRIBD (Commiasioner McBurney sbsent), thet the Anaheim City Planninq Commioaion does her~by grant waivar of Cade requiramant on the baaie that the parking veriance will not ceuse an inctease in kcatfic congestion i.n the immediate vicinity nor advecsely affect eny edjoi~ing lend uaea and grdnting of the perking vacience undec any conditione impoeed, if any, will not be deCcimenta-1 to the peace, heelth, snfety, or generel welface oF the citizenr; of the City of Anaheim. Commiesioner Le Claire offered Resolution No. PC83-771 and movA~' foc ita paasage end adoption thet the Annheim City Planning Commiseio~~ uoea hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2493 purauent to Anaheim Nunicipal Code Sectione 18.03.030.030 through .035 and aubject Go Interdepdrtmental Committee racommendati.nns including an edditional condition th~t beec and wine will only be served in conjunction with the service of food. Responding to Commissioner La Claire, ~eck White explained that the Alcoholic Beverage Conkrol will not necessarlly take cAre of the provision that beec and wine only be aerved wi.th food becaus~ there ere several different types of licenses that can be applied for and that unlese it ie made a condition of a cesolution, it cennot be enforced. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was ~assed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BUSHORE, PRY, HERBST~ KING, LA CLAIRE NOES: NONE ABSENT: MCBURNEY ITEl1 N0. 15. EIP. NEGIITIVE DECLARI-TION AND GENERAL PW-N AMENDMENT NO. 180 OWNERS: EVANGEL CHURCH OF SOUTHERN C1ILIFORNIA, INC., 1530 W. Lincoln 1-venue, AnAheim, CA 92805. 1~GENT: G~RI-LD t~. 9USHORE, 702 W. Lincoln 1lvenue, Anaheim, CA 92805. Property described as an ircegularly-ehaped parcel of land coneisting of approximately 2.9 acces bounded on the north and east by the Riveraide Freeway, aouth by Santn Ana Canyon Road and weat by a single-family tCdCt. To change the curcent hillside low-density r~sidenti~l designati.on to general commercial to develop commercial land uses. The:e was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and ~lthough the staff repart was not cead, it ia refecred to and made a park of the minutes. It wr~s noted Coma!iasioner Buahore had decl8red a conflict of intereat at the previoue meeting. Gerald Buehore, agent, explained the cequest is for a change in the General Plan deeignation from the current hillaide, low-density residentiel to general 9/19/83 NUTBB~_ ANAHBIM CITY PLANNING COMMI68ION 8~-bQ0 comm~ccisl on epproximekely 1.7-sct~ pecc~l and furch~~ ~xplsined otalt haa incocporatad enothsr 1-ecr~ parc~l in the requeat w~are the dcainage ditch ia located. THB PUBLIC HBJIRING W/18 CiAB(:D. Commi.BSioner Herbst asked if tt~ere had be~n eny d~acuseion regatding acceae to sente ~1z~ Canyon Ruad pointing out the o~ly ecceas ia through the ceaidential area. Mr. Buahoce responded the property really doesn't have that ecceae because thece is the 1-acre pa~ccel separ~ting it and it hae the channel Chrough it. He explained the 1.75-acce paccel is owned by The Chrietia~n Communicetiona and wee originelly purchesed for the davelopment of a church fecility. He explained the ociginal intent waa to cover the dtain~ge channel and provide acceas from the cesidentiel street. He stated the ed~acent 1-dcce parcel doee heve acceas and without en easement over the 1-acce parcel, thie property would not have accesa. Commisaioner La Claice atated thie property has two pcobl~ma - accesa and dreinage and ahe did not think it !a e gond commeraial aite. She aeked the atatus of the drainege ieaue. Mr. Bushore stated it is his contention that th~ pcoper development of this particular piece of pcoperty should not ceuse eny effect on the uppex 750 acces because all thdt pcoperty drains to the 1-acre parcel edjacent to thia prnperty. He stnted there would ha~ve to be conaidered fill to bcing the propecky up to atceet level and the drainaqe would have to be taken care af at that point. He stated it is a problem piece of property. Mr. Bushore stated he cedlizes that accesa to Santa J-nn Canyon Road would have to t,e granted by the City Cou~cil. Commissioner Herbst asked how the property became land-locked with Mr. Bushore responding, it was originally an excess Cr'.TR1-NS parcel and portiona w~re uae~ for widening of Santa Ana canyon Road and the Riveraide Freeway. He expl~ined the 1 acre parcel creates the land-lock situation. Commiaeioner Le Claire etated ahe did not see any problem when the propecty was to be developed with 4 or 5 homes. She asked about the proposAl for a bridge acroas the dxainage ditch. Joel E'ick etated thdt poseibility was discussed a long ti.me ago. Mr. Buahore atated originally Classic Homes propoaed 4 to 5 single-family lotst however, after review, thoee plena were eliminated to enable them to sell theae as individual lots. Responding to Commissioner Herbst, Joel Fick atated all the proposals he remembers indicated improvements includec~ bridging of the channel and later thAt was changed to an open-epsce lat. Jay Tashiro steted when Clessic Homes :irat applied for that tract map, three property owners wece involved, but because o~ the drainage problem, they decided to eliminate that portion. 9/19/83 1 (, M~c. Bushoc~ stat~d Claasi~c Hola~~ aold t~h~idPP~P~~o~ ~h~ap~opertyn~ndhthenh1~9a1 title company approv~d th• deed, they mett~rs qot r~ally tanql~d snd e poctlo~ ot the pcop~tey wae sctu~lly so1C twice. H~ ~tat~d the 1-a~cce peccol would have tio be bri~dged t~ give accos~ io the 1.7-parcal •nd elso en ~s~~m~nt woul~l h+~ve to b~ qivon and th• 1-acr• paccel ie not Leo~lwsntuthelchannel covac~desnd•want italeEt~op~n~lor~f ang!.ne~ra do~a n acceasibility. Jey Titus, Office Engineec, etated he did not remember what the CorF of Bngineecs poaition was. He eteted a numbac of yaera ego, Texaco Hills, inc. did a preliminecy dceinAge atudy and the indication wea that there aro two culvecta under the fceeway end neithec one of t.hem ie ndequete to handle the dcainaqe fcam thoKderAtoagetctocthe~moce eaeteclyec8lvect,~theyiwould~have to culvecte anA in go through e postion of ttiie pcopecty. Mr. Buehore indic~ted tie thouqnt there was d 2-foot drainage easement on tha 1~7_ecre percel for drainaqe purpoees. Jay Titus explained ~here iu An eesement, but to handle khe wate~ there woulcl heve to be enother easement to teke i~ to the moc~ eaaterly culvert. Mr. Buehore stated ~here are no eaaemente for any property south of Senta Ana Canyon Road f ie a=diexistingena~kucalhdraina~geecourses8 here. Jay Titus ceaponded the Commiaaioner La Claice anked if there would be any run-ott through Euca2yptus when the pcopewt~~eLbaiV~atedlto8th~s area whenYaubeequent~developmentitakese would be more place above. Mr. Titus replied he did nok think ~+ny ~°~re w~ter would be diverted~ however, the aren to be developed will inie~iminacy atudy done•quite8aafew yearaiago.ae nnt been able to ~ind the very p Commisaionec La Claite etated she thought Aneheim Hills, Inc. should have a copy of that etudy. Mc. Mason, present in the nudience ftom Anaheim Hills, Inc., stated they do have a preliminary atudy for drawithea copy ofsthatestudyL~l Yeara ago. He added he would provide the City Reaponding to Commissioner Herbr~t re,~erding the timing foc future development in the Area. Mc. Mason atated ne could not really giva any indication at this timet however, in 1975 they did agtee that if there is development downatceam in District 41, the ultimate drainage aystem must be installed and if downatream development takes place off the Texaco, 1-naheim Hills pcoperty, the design muet be prepmred b~~ the owner of the ptoperty that is being developeds however, if it ia loca`ed in District 41, Texaco, Annheim HillHerstated itliebe responsible for development of the deaign and construction. under refmbursement district between them and ~he property owners downetream. 9/19/83 _ , r _.,.,- . , v.,.f,.,~ i ~ 5 ~ * ~ MINlIT68,_ N~1~~IM CITY PLJINNING COMMI8820N 83-602 Mr. Titua al~r ifiad t hera ia a c~imbursem~nt di~tcict which wd~ lormed end that som• of tha m~ney hea befn collectod, Commiesion~c Le Cleir • steted th~ Commiaeionecs, ae lAnd pla nnere, do not have all the qu~sticne enswoced a~nd ah• wea not eure thig ia a qood aree for commerciel d~v~lopmen~. 3he ateted ehe thouqht it waa proDaCly roo early to meke thee~ changee snd she could not vote foc chia without tl~e drainege study. Commi~eioner H~rbat asked about th~ ecceeaibility of thie propetty since it aeeme to be land-lockad. Paul sing~~, Tceffic Engineer, etated it would not be prectic~el tor commercial development to teke acceae through the residential arae and if it wae developed cesidenkielly, thece ehould be acceae from tha end of the cul-de-aac. He pointed out if it is decided it cvuld be uaed comme~ccially, there are th[ce recommendetions he has mdde in rhe etaff report Page 15-c, Pnragraph 10-b. Mc. Buahoce stated hia only cancecn is ti~r~t leaving the prop,etty with the cucrent general plan designation witl~ the development of 3 o r A houses, considerable variancee would be neceasrry becauae of the acc~es and the f reeway and Santa Ana Ce~nyon Road which are me jor Arterial h ighwaya with no buffering Available other thr~n high wAlls and hilleide, low-den~ity cesidential is re.911y eliminated, but with the General Plan de~ignntion of commeccinl, it is ,:lexible and the tools are pcovide through the rec2assification when the actual d~•~~lopment ia proposed. E~e thought ik wea premature to require a deceleratio~~ lane unril is knnwn what is to be developed un tho property because it could be juat an attorney's office or ceal estatA office. Mr. Singer stated eventually Santa Ana Canyon Road will requice three lanes for the west-bound tzaffic and a right-in, cight-out aituat~on ie the only one that could be reasonably tolerated on the expreesway becAUSP of the up-stream and down-stream development and it doe3n't mean this development is qoing to genecate the traffic, but it will provide enouyh interruption to rtirough traffic to requice safety measures. Mr. Bushore pointed out the city elready has ded:cetion foc thie third lene and is talking abo~~t an additional 20 feet f~r the deceleration lane. Mr. Singer stated he hds not mc.aRUred it and hae not prepar~d the design plan, but once the deaign ie aet, dedication would have to be sub ject to that pl.an anrl it i8 too early to discusa deaign, but in broad terma, 4hose ar.e his recommendatione to handle traffic. Mr. Buahore stateo he tt.~ught it was too early to require the deceleration laae eince all they are requesting is the Gen::al Plan Amer~dment dnd the Commission would still have the toola under the reclassification~ Jact: White, Asaie~ant City Attorney, stated this is a propc ad ueneral Plan 1-mendment end before khere is any develnpment, if it waa cammercial, there would have to be cezoninc and posaibly other diecretionary approvals where the control of precise deve2opme~t could be initiated. S/19/83 NUTBB, ~NAHB IM C1TY PLAN~INO COMMISSIAN 83-603 Commiaslon~r La ClAic• ~teted havinq sesn ell the General Plen Amendm~nts in tl~e canyan ac~a ~com th• bayinning and teom looking at thie proparty, ahe did not ~ee how t Aie prop~cty could be used for commerciel purpo~ g beceuae of ita dcainage and accose problAma. Mr. fuahoce s sked iE Commisaioner La Clalre felt hillaide, low-density resi~ential la propec for thie pcoperty. Commisaioner La Claire reepandad she felt reeident fal would be moce proper because when it wae originally approved, it wde i.n conjunctlon with the other development along the fc~ewa~y and coneiated of 5 houeea. She thought only 2 backed up to the freewey and that Chey had the se~ne protection. Kenneth Kollman, 1530 W. Lincoln, 1201, Annheim, stated they have this property in e~crow at the preaent time end there are eeveral contingenciea end one ie the approval of thie requeat. He stated there is a 20 to 22-foot height differ ence on thia propecty which mekee ecceas difficult and pad elevations wi 11 teke up o lot of the acea. He ateted it would be e tremandous bu[den on the ownor t~ have thie 1.7 acce parcel pay fo: a study checking the water flow Eo c ttie whole 700 acrea. He added also, they would have to have some type of acceae off Santa Ana Canyon Road. Commissioner Herbst stated this ia probably one ot the herdest paccela to develop he has sAOn and rezoning it to commercial would be, in hie opinion, •spot zoning s and at pceaent time, the present zoning is es corcect as it could bes that the ptoperty w~uld requi~.: access off Santd Ana Canyon Road and he is not in favor of that because it ie probebly ~ne of the highest speerl areas in this atee and it could be devel~ped with an eccese for homee through residential acea, He stated access mlght be more favoce~ble if the property is filled to st reet level. He atated he thouyht it would be beat to leave the propecty des ignat.ion ae it is end he is nct in favoc of commercia~ at this time, especially ei.nce the ~copel~owneG who starts developmer.t must come up with a lot o~ money• He stated there is still a lot of that hillside to be developed and ducing rnins the etreet becomes flooded and the drainage has to be detecmine d before development can occur and he thought this was pcemature. Commisaioner Ga Claire atated ahe wuuld look at this ea strip commercial and that i8 not ~eing alloaed anywhece in Anaheim. She atated ahe could not approve comns~rcial ~nd did not s~e how the Commission could approve the Negati~~e Dec laration because there are a lot of questions regarding drainage and accese. ACTION: Co~amiasioner La Claice offered a m~tion, seconded by Commissioner lierbst and N!0'tION CA~tR16D (Commiasioner McBurney absent and Buahore abstaining)~ that the 1-nsheim City Planning Commisaion has reviewed the pcoposal to ch~nge the current hillside, low-density reaidential designation to commercial on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consiating of approximate ly 2.9 acres, bounded on the north and east by the Rivetside Preeway, south by Santa Ana canyon Roed and weat by eingle-family tractj and does heceby disepprove the Negative Declaration from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report on the beais that there would b~ 9/19/83 ~ MINUTLB._ 11NAHBIM CITY ~LJINNINO COMMZS$ION 83-604 aigni~icant individual or cumulaLiv• adv~cee environmenesl impact~ involv~d in thia pcopooal~ and thet en anvironm~ntel impect r~poct would be required prior ta appcoval of thia project. Commissio~er La Clsire o!lered Reaolution No. PC83-172 and moved ~oc its pda8age and a~doption that the Anahe 1 m City Pldnning Commieaion doee hereby deny General Plan Amendment No. 18u - Lend Uae Element on the besia that th~ Commiaeion hes determined thet the current ler,d uae for hillaide, low-denaity reaidentisl ie more appr~priete at t he ~resent time because of drainaqe and eccese pcobleme and the aurrounding land uaea~ On coll call, the foregoing reeolution was passed by the following vote: AYE$: BOUAS~ FRY, NERBST~ KING~ L71 CLl-IRE NOES: NONE~ ABSENT: MCBURNEY ABSTAIN: BUSHORE Jack White explained since this is a reeolution for denial, actions of the Planning Commiseion are Einal unless appealed to the City Council within 22 days and presented the written right of a~+n~al~ 16. REPORTS AND RECOM_MENAATIONS A. CONDITIONI~-L USE PERMIT NO. 1890 - Request f rom Fcank KrogmAn for an sxtension of time, pcoperty loceted at 2610 Weat L.. Pdlma Avenue. ACTION: Commiesioner King o~fered a moti~n, seconde~j by Comm si sioner Fry and MOTZON CARRIED (Commisafonec McBurney abae~t), tha~ the Anaheim City P1 a nning Commiesion does hereby epprove a two-yeat extension of tir~e for Conditional Use Permit No. 1890 k o expire on Se~tember 25, 1 984. B. CONDITIONAL USE PEItMIT NO. 2106 - Request from Ruth English for an extenaforl oE time, property located at 2520 and 2526 West Clearbrook Lane. AGTION: Commisaioner King ofLeced a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fcy and MOTZON CARRIED (Commiss~oner McBurney abaent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve an extension of time for Conditional Uae Permit No. 2106 to expire on Septembe z 22, 1984. C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2104. - Reyuest from George T. Nichols fot an extension of time, property located at 919 Sauth Knott Street (The French Quarter ) . 1-CTION: Commisaioner King ~ffered a motion, eeconded by Commissioner Pry and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner McBurney ebsent), that the Anaheim City ~lanning Commiesion doee hereby approve a r~~roactive extensfon of time for Conditional Use Permit No. 2~04 to expire on September 2, 1984. 9/19/83 ~ 4 MINUTBB. AN~H~IM CITY rLANNING COMMI88ION _ 83-605 D. CONDiTIUN~L 08E PBRMiT N0. 2238 - Requett lcom Rogar C. Stull !or a retroactive extenaion o! time, property locatsd at 1776 Weet Penhall Way. ACTIaNs Commissioner King ofterad a motion, seconded by Commieei~ner P~y and MOTION CARRI~D (Commisaioner Mceurney abeent), that the An~heim City Planning Comn,leaion doee heceby epprove a retroective extenaian of time f~r Conditional Use Permit No. 2238 to expite on July 27~ 1984. E. TENTATIVE MAP& OF TI2ACT N08. 10996, 10997 and 10998 - Request from George Mason, Jr. for one-year exteneione of time, pcoperty ioceted on th~ southwesr cornec of Avenida de S~ntiag~ and Hidden Canyon Road, heving a frontage of approximdtely 1375 feet on the south aide of Avenida d~ Santiago end A frontege of 220 feet on the west eide of Hidden Canyon Road. ACTION: Commiesion~r King ofEered a motion, aeconded by Commiaeioner Fry and MOTION CARRIED (Commiasioner McBurney absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commiaeion does hereby approve one-year extensione of Cime for Tentative Map of Trdct Nos. 10996, 10997 and 10998 to expire on October 6, 1984. P. TENTATIV~ M~P OP TRACT N0. 10984 (REV.__N0. 1) - Requeat from K~ufman and Sroad, Inc. foc approvnl of revised specific plans, propecty located eas eide of Weic Canyon Road, having a maximum depth of approximately 1600 feet, and appcoxi~ately 720 feet south of the centerline of Santa Ana Canyon Road. ACTION: Commisr?oner King offered a motion, seco~ded by Commiaeior~er Pry ar.d MoTiON CARRIED (Commissioner McBucney absent), that the ~naheim City Planniny Commission does hereby approve the ceviaed ~pecific plans (Revision No. 1) as submitted by the applicant. G. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 81-82-17 - Request for n~nc pro tunc reaolution amending Reaolution No. PCB~-46 for property ]ocated south and east of the southeast corner ~f Lincoln Avenue and Citron St~eet. ACTION: Con~issioner King offered Reaolutian No. PC83-173 and moved for its paseage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant a nun~ pro tunc resolution amen~ing Plenning Commission Reaolution No. PC82-46. On soll call, the foregoing cesolutfan was passed by the follow~ng vote: AYE,. ~ flOUAS, BUSHORE, FRY~ HERBST~ KING, i.~ CL7-IRE~ MC BURNEY NOES: NONE 1-BSENT: NONE 9/19/83 ~~ ~ "'e ~~' MINUTBB. ANIIHLIM CiT_,Y PL~1-NN'INf3 COMMI$$ION _ 83-606 H. TB__ NT~-,T_:va M]-P OF TRAC~ NOB. 10983 11ND 10984 - Requ~~t lrom Richard L. Bieqle !or extensions of time !oc propRrty loceted ~t the aoutheaat corn~r of Sante l~~a Canyon Road and Weir Canyon Roed. ACTION: Commiasionar King otter~d e motion, s~condsd by Commiseioner P~ry end MOTION C1-RRIBD (Commiasioner McBurney abaent), ~hat ehe Aneheim City Planning Commiseion doee heceby dpprove extensions of tima for Tentativ~ Map of Tract Nos. 10983 and 10984 to expire on September 24, 198A. OTHER DISCUSSION: ~oint Work Session with the City Council. Annika santelahti explained the Ciky Councl.l will not be meeting on October 4th and there is d public hearing comi~ng up on d bed and bceakfdet fdcility acheduled foc October 18th and the Council ~robably would like to diacuss that !esue with the Commiasion prior to that rlate. She atnted it was eaggested that the joint work seasion be held on Uctober llt!~ at 7:00 p.m. Commieeioner Fry stated the City Council has the Commissian'e thinking on thie particulac iseue and he did nok think it !s pertinent thnt the Commisafon be there for thet hearing. Annika &antalahti stated severel Council membece do not appcove of this type uae and they have auggeated that alaff draft an ordinance regarding bed and breakfast facilities concerning parking, aigna, etc. so the Council wiil have a report with infArmation the Commisaion has nat seen prioc to the hea~ring. Commisaioner Herbst ateted when hietoricdl buildinga are involved, other Citiea have t~pproved tnem for Bed and Breakfaet Inns and he thought that ia one way they could be tied down. Annika Santalahti suggested if the Commiesion has any other iesues they would like to diacuas with th~ Ci'•y Council, they could contact eithec Dean Sherer oc her. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, Commisaloner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commiasioner King end MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner McBurney abeent), that the meeting be adjourned. The meeting was adjourned a~t 4:50 p.m. Respectfully aubmitted, ~ ~ ~,~~~ ,~ . . Edith L. Harcis, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commieaian ELH:lm 0006m 9/19/83 -5l 4 _ -- _....~_~~..~:..~~,, a