The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1985/03/04REGUl~AR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING ~~ NI` SSIUN REGULAR MEETihG The reguldr meeting oF thQ Anaheim City Planning Commisaion was called to order b}~ Chairwoman Pro Tempore La Claire At 10:00 a.m., March 4, 1985, in the Council Chamber a quorum being preaent a nd the Commi~aion CpV~@WQQ P1AnA of the itema on to~ay's agenda. RECESS: 11:30 a.m. RRCONVEtdED: 1:30 p.m. PRk'5ENT Cl~aicwoman Pro Tempore: I,a Claire Commiss£nners: Bouas, Bushoce, Fry, King, McE~urr~~y ABSCNT; Comr~isaioner: Herbat hLSO PRESEN't' Annika Santalahti Jack White .ray ~ritus Paul Singer Joel Fick JAy Tashico Greg Eiastings ~dith Harris Asaistr~nt Director for Zoni.ng A~sistant City Attorney Office Enginee r Ci~y Trgffic E nqineec Assistank Dice ctor for Plan^ing Associate Plan ner Asaociate Plan nec Planning Commi soion Secretary 1'PEM N0. 1. EIR NEGA'PIVE DECLARATION, WA~VBR OF CODE REQUIRBMENT AND CONDITInNAL USE PERMIT N0~ 2658 PUBLI~ HEARING. OWNERS: ATLANTIC RICHFIELD CO., 300 W. G1 41l O~kE Blvd., Glendale, CA 91202, ATTN. Mc. Eric Cahn. AGBNT; HOME ~ED ERAL SAVINGS, 625 Hroadway StreeL•~ Suite 525, San Diego, CA 92101, AT'TN: MICIiAEL SLAVEN. Property desccibed as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land conaisting of approxfmateJ.y 0.5 Acre, locat~d at the southeast corner of ~,a Palma r~venue and ImpArial Highway, 570U East La Palma A~~enue tARC~ AM/PM Min i Market). To p?rmit a freestanding automatic teller m~chine kiosk in conjunction with an existing convenience market with gasolinp sales and wai.ver v~ minimum number of parking spaces, Continued from khe meeting of Febcuary 20, :QHS. Ther~ was no one indicating their presence in apposition t o aubject request and 3lthough the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the min~~t:.. 85-126 3/4/85 ~_. . ___ MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISS_ION~ MARC:H A1 1985 85-127 Mike Slaven, agent for Ifome Federal, explt~inQd they wish to inetall one of their automatic leller machinea on 75 aquare Eeet of auhject property for the purpoaee of banking. He statpd the Tcaffic Bngineer asked foc a detailed traffic imract report and found th~+t the banking machine would nok impact Rignificantly ttie traf.fic canges~ion that is currently At that atatfon. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ReHponding to Commissi4ner Buahore as to what criteria was used to seleat this eite, Mr. Slaven stated they try to ~elect a aite based on visibili~y ~~f the atation and also at a point a certain diskan~'`from other areas they serve. Commissioner Bushore asked if they intend t~ put tt~ese machines in convenience maxkets in the futuce. Mr. Slaven atAted h~~ey only c~ntract wiL•h ARCO And L•hey do not intend to replr~ce their branchea and the~e facilities are to provide a convenience for their cuA-omers. He further st~ted th~ey are currently .looking at 30 stations throughout k.he state, but this is the only one in Anaheim. Commissioner Buahore stated ~here ia a lot of trAffic congestion at thiU location now and he would assume that i one r.e~son ~hey selected this site. Mr. Slaven stated the main reason they selec~ed this site was bECause it is a pcime di~tance ,~:~tween two existing branches~ and obviously they would not pick a station that in hurtinct for business. He stated h.here is a facility in Fullerton and one in Santa Ana. Ele explained right naw tr •~ are anticipating appzoximately 3000 persons to use this facility per month. Commissione: Bushore noted that would be about 100 people per day and ~;ttted he realizes the peak period would be on weekends. Mr. Slaven stated right now they have two sit~s at AkCO stations in San Diego ~nd have approximately 20 other building permits throughout the :;kat~. Chairwoman Pro Tempore La Claire stated she is disturbed because there is already a mini-market with gasoline sales at this location and they also sell beer and wine and many times trafLi.c is backed out onto La Palma waiting to get gas and that corner is overburdened now. She stated she would have a pcoblem approvinq this third use on the property, especially because of the shopping center and Carl's Jr. across the at~eet. She stated ahe read the traffic rep~rt, but has been ttiere many times herself anci nas seen the rra£fic backed up and she did not think this would be a good location. She added if this was being proposed at another l~cation, she would probably not be opposed. Mr. Slaven stated a good pez~entage of the people who are cominy to the station anyway would be using the machine and even if the nachine was not there, they still weuld have to c.ome to that location and many of the yasoline stationTs existing customers become customers of the machine, su it is not fair to say there would be 3000 additional people oer month using the machine. Chairwomen Pro Tempore La Claire pointed out there is already a traffic problem at tha~ particular locaticn at certair, hours. Commiosioner King pointed out the staff report indicates there ic often congestion with only a combfnation of gasoline sales and convenien~ market. 3/4/85 i~ n' I~ a. ~ ?`. MINUTES, ?~NA,HEIM CI'lY ALANNING COMMISSION, MARCH 4. 1985 85-129 Commisc~ioner Fry st~ted he ia teking a different view, but w~u.ld AgreP that the tcaffic at thie~ corner is a hazardt but that thin concept of banki~g is here to stay and thak he i~ juat cu:ious enough to want to try i.k to Eee how iG would work f.or about 1 year. and thougt~t that is the anly way to really get a foothold ~n tl~is tyF~ facility as l:o the responAe and r~action of the customers. E;e stated he would take exception to the peti.tioner'~ statem~nt that it is not fair to asaume thAk they would h~rve 30U0 new customers and L•hougl~t if there ure 3Q0 people u~ing thAt. stetion today~ maybe 5 would be using the tellNr and this would have a potenkinl of creating more people khan the petitioner. ia estimating. He responded to Commisaioner Bushure that this location would be tlie ultimate test for this typr_ facility since it is very busy. Chairwoman Pro Tempore La Claire stated ahe would Agree, but that location extremely bad and she would rather t~ave them tear it at Another location. she statEd she ia not aqainst this type use, but did nc~t want to use r_his location as a pilot program. Commissioner Bushore stated he would view thia as being similar to the pho~o places in tlie shopping centecs, but tho~se are placed away from the other uses and approval of thia would burden the ~eaple usi.ng that intersection wikh an experiment. He added he would rather do it at an~r_-~er location c~r come up with some criteria; an~? that he thouyht thi$ would add moce congestion And though~ it would be -~ mistake. He stated in order ta monitor such a Eacility, it wou.ld have to be done on a 2~4-t~our basis ~-nd ~tated he thought it would be a compati.ble use in most servic~a stations, but would oppose this location und Commissioner King agreed. Mc. Slaven stated Home h'ederul ;Ls not against a tri~~l peciod and they have agreed tu having an 18-month study in anokher city to see how tt~e uae works. Chairwoman Pro Tempore La Claire stated she understands that but this l.ocatior is a reai mess and blocks tcaffic on imperial at times. Commissioner Bushore stated, basea on his years of exptrience as a Commissioner, when a use is granted with a time limit, it ia very hard to get rid of it in the future even if ft is a prok~lem because of the expense of putti.ng in the facilities and then having to remove them. He added he would rather take a cha~ice at another location. Mr. Slaven skated thE buildings are pre-fabcicated .;~adulars which a:e meant to be relocatable and state~ the cost for the site w~rk is between $12,0~0 and $2U,000 dollars and the modular is $18,000. ACTION: Cammiasioner 6ushore offered a motior,, seconded by Commissiuner McBUrney and MOTION CARRIED (Chairman Herbst absent), that the Anat~eim City Planning Com!^ission has reviewed the proposal to per.mit a freestanding autom~tic te:'er machine kiosk in c~njunction with an existing convenience market with gaaoline sales ~ith waiver of mfnirtium number of parking spaces on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximatel5~ 0.5 acre located at the southeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Imperial Highway and further described as 5700 E. La Palma Avenue; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it hae consider.ed the Negat:ve Declaration together with any comments ceceived during the public review procESS and further finding on the basis of the initial Study and any comments recef.ved that there is no subslankia~ evidence that the project will have a siynificant effect on khe environment. MIMUTES, ANAHEIN ~ITY PLANNING COMMISSIQN, MARCti 4, 1985 85-129 Commisaioner Buaho:.e offeced a motion, seconded by Commisaioner eoues and MO~rIGN CARRIED (Chairman Herbst absen~ and Commissioner Fr~ voting no), that the Anaheim City Planning Commiasion does hereby deny waiver of Code requicement on the basi~ thae thia location is congested already and ndding mor.e uaes to the pcoE~erty would further impact the corner and thAt the parking waiver will cause an incceaa~ in t~affir, congQS~ion in the immediate vicinity and adversely affect any adjoining land use~ and grAnt:ng of the parking waivec will be detriment~l to thE p~ace, health, eafety ~nd general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Commissioner Bushore offered Resolution No. PC85-61 and moved for iCs passage And ~doption that the nnaheim City Planning Commisoion does hereby deny Condikional Use Per.mit No. 2658 on the b~sis that the use will. impact the area and further on the basis that there are no apecial circumatances applicable to the pcopecty such a~ ~ize, shape, topography, location And Rurroundings which do not apply to okher identically zonQd property in the same vicinity; an~ that strict A~plication of the Zoning Code does not deprive the properly of privileges enjoyed by ~ther pra~~ecties in the idkntical zone and classifi4ation in the vicinity. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BUSHORE~ KING, Li~ CLAIRE~ MC BURNEY NOES: FRY A~SENT: HERBST Jack White, Assistant City Attorney, preHented the written right to appeal the Planni.ng Commission'J decision within 22 days to the City Council. YTEM N0. 2. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION ANU VAF.IANCE N0. 3450 PUBLIC HEARING. AWNGRS: EMKAY DEVELOPMENT AMD RFALTY CO., INC.~ 1500 Qudil S~reet, Wewport Beach~ CA 92660, ATTN; RICHARG SMITH. AGENT: LANG-LAMPF.RT ARCHITECTS, 3152 Redhill, Suite 200, Costa Mesa, CA 92626, ATTN: DAVID H. LANG. Property deacribed as an irregularly-sh~ped parcel of land consi~ting of approximately 0.37 acre locatpd at the ~outheast corner of ~acifico Avenue and Anaheim Soulevard, 1950 Scuth Anaheim Boulevnrd. Wuiv~~r of minimum requ~red front yard setback to construct a warehouse faci2ity. Continued from the meetings of January 7, 21, and February 4, 1985. Chairwoman Pro mempore La Claire atated the hearings on Item Nos. 2 end 3 wauld be held at the same time since they relate to khe same ~roperty. There w~s no one indicating their presence in opposikion to subject requests and all-hough the staf.f reports were not read, thEy are refecred to and made a part of the mir-utes. David Lang, agent, stated they are applying for a conditional use permit and did prepare a traffic study showing the traffic vol~me they will be doing everyday. 3/4/85 ir.r~.w.-,._.......~....._..__...... ..... ...~~ .... .......... ............_.«...,..-. . ....,......,....-.._~._...._.,,. ..r._....~....-,_,........ . .,,. ....._ ... . ., .. . .. , -. ..... ....-... .. ~..ro ue v . a.u. .~~.NrwH.. .. MINUTES, ANAIIEIM CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSION, MA~CN 4. 19H5 85-130 THE PUBLIC HEA~ING WAS CLOSED. CommiReionec Mcaurney staked he rea~ly haa a problem qr8nting a var.iance to canstruc:t a warehouse since it is known it will be used Lor rer,ail sAlea. Jack Wtiite, A~~lotant City Attorney, stnted the matter beEore *_he Commiasion is only for a waivec of the Code requirement foc the 50-foot setback and if the petitioner met that requirement, he could can~truct a wacehouae as permitted in ~he zone; And that the question is the use to go into the building and the only uses would be thoae permitted in the zone. He stated Item No will relate to permitted additiunal ua~s. Greg Hastings responded to Commissioner Bushore that th~ conditions l•ie the plana to thia appcoval. Cha.ir.woman Pro Tempore La C.laire ~Lated she thought the public heAring ahould b~ opened for Item Nu. 3 and seQarate motion~ offered on ench ite~. ~ac~ White explained he is concerned thar the Planni.ng Commissioner.s are confusing the requested use in Item No. 3 in the.r decision on Item Na. 2 which is whether oc not te allow construction of the building encroaching into the required aetb~ck area. He explained the app).icant could have come in on two separate occasions and technically the Commission bho~ld be looking at these seperately. Commissionec Bushore asked if the .loading and unloading area would be satisfactory to the City Traffic ~ngineer if khe c~ui.lding was being constructed as a warehouse with a variance. Paul Singer, 7'raffic Engineer, atated he did not see how a truck cnuld make deliveries with tP~e parking as proposed and the locati~~n ot the truck dock. Commissioner Bushore stated the applicant had indicated ttiat they would bE using this facility far warehouse storage and they would be doing some asaembly work. Mr. Merrihear, representing the owner of the proposed busi~ess, stated the copie~rs ace not very large and ar.e delivered in a van. Commissioner "ing pointed out the otaff repart indicates the loading and unluading area is .inadequate. Commiuaioner Bushrr.e staked his concern is that if this applicant moves out and se11A the property, the next user might want to use the property as a warehouse. He stated this will be a prime place for users to want pure retail. Mr. Lang staLed he thought they could change the design to provide a standard loading bay that would handle a bob-kuil truck. Paul Singer stated he would have no ~rablem with that, if the Planning Commiasion w~~ild include i*. as a condition. Greg Hast3.ngs statPd Condi:ion No. 18 requires the loading and u~~~loading area be approved by the City Traffic Engineer. ACT?ON: Commissioner King offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fry and MOTION c'ARRIED (Chairman Herbst absent) that the ~naheim City Planning Commission has revfewed the proposal to construct a wacehouse facility with 3/4/85 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLAI~NING COMMISSION, MARCH 4, 1985______~ 85-131 waivor of minimum required fcont yard a~tback on an ircegular7y-ahaped parcel of land conaiating of appcoximatelv U.37 acre locr,t~~~ at thP soutlieast corner of Pecifico Avei~ue and Anaheim ~aulevACd and fucCher described as 1950 S. Anaheim Boulevatd= ar~d does hereby approve the Neg~tive DeclAration uPon fit~ding that it has cansidered the Negative Declaration together with any comment~ received during the public review procesR and further Eind,tng on the basis of the initial Study and any comments r~ceived thdt there 18 no subotantial evidence that the ~r.oject will have a significant effect on ~he environment. Commisaioner King offered Resoluti~n No. PCBS-62 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commiasion does hereby qrant Variance No. 34~0 on the basie that there are special circumstances applicable to the pcoperty such as aize, shape, topogra~hy, location And surroundinga which do nut apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicinity; .~nd that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the ptoperty of ~rivileges enjoyed by other pr~pertiea in the identical zone ~nd classification {n the vicinity and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. On roll call, the for?goiny resoluti.~n was passed by the [nllowing vote: AY,_S: BOUAS~ BUSHORE, FRY, KING, LA CL~AIRE NOES: MC 9URNEY ABSENT: HERBST ITEM t'0. 3. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIkEMENT AND CONDIZ:~NAL U$B P~RMIT N0. 2665 PUBLIC l1EARi~;. OWNERS: EMKAY DEVELOPMENT AND REALTY CO., 150p Quail Street, Newpark Beach, CA 92G6~, ATTN: RICHARD SMITB. AGENT: LANG-LAMPERT ARCHIT~CTS, 3]52 Redhill Avenue, Suite 200, Costa Mesa, CA 92626, ATTN: AAVID LANG. Propert~ descrihed as an irregulacly~shaped p~rcel of land consisting of appruximate y p.37 acre located at the southeast corner of Pacifico Avenue and Anaheim Botlevard, 195~ South Anaheim eoulevArd (Copierland). To permit retai, sales uf copiers in the ML Zone with w~iver of minimum number of parking spaces. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. IT WAS NOTED THIS MATTER WAS DISCUSSED DUEtING T~E HEARING FUR ITEM N0. 2. ~hairwoman Pro Tempote La Claire clarified that right now ther~ are three salesmen workii~g from this facility and the~Mr. Merrihew, represer.ting the owner of the proposed business, stated there would be no more than seven salesmen maximurn, an~ that only 10 to ]5A of the buNiness is retail sales. Commissioner Bu~hore pointe6 ~ut that signage is not a part of this approval. ACTION: Commissioner King offered ~ motion, secQnded by Commissioner Fry and MOmION CARRTED (Chairman Herbst absent) that the An3he~m City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to pe~mit retail sales of copiers in the ML (Industrial, Limited) Zone wfL•h waiver of mi~imum number o£ parking spaces 3/4/85 ~INUTBS ~NAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MARCH 4, 19Q5 65-132 on an iccegularly-shaped parcel of land conalsting of approximately 0.37 acre located at tho southeast cornEC of Pacifico Avenue nnd Anaheim Boulev~rd and further described as 1950 South Anaheim Boulevardt and does hereby approve the Negative Declurati~n upon finding that it haa consideced the Negative Der~.~ration togethpr with any commenrs received during the public review ~~cess and furtner finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments eceived thAt thpre is r.o substAntial evidence that the projECt will have a aig~ificant effect ~n the environment. Commissioner King offered a motion, seconded b,y Commisaioner Aouas and MOTIpN CAR~IEb (Chairman Herbst abcent) L•hat the Anaheim City planning Commission does hereby gra~t waiver o£ Code requirement on the basis that the parking wai~er will nol• cauoe an increase in tratfic cAngeation in Che immediate vi~inity nor adversely affect any adjoining land u~es and gran~-.'~g of the parking waiver ~~nder the conditions impoaed, if any, will not be detrimental to th~ peace, health, saf.ety and genecal w~lEare of t}~e citizens of the City ot Anaheim. Commissioner King ofEered F.~solution No. PC85-63 and m~ved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2665 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Coue Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 and aubject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was pa~sed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BUSHORE, FRY, KING, LA CLAIRE NOES: MC ~URNEY ABSENT: HFRaST Jack White, Assistant City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decisi~n within 22 days to the Clty Council. ITEM N0. 4. EIR N~GATIVE DECLARATION, GENERAL PLAN AMENOMENZ' N0. 201 RND RECLASSIPICATION N0. 84••85-27 PUBLIC HEARING. OWN~RS: SOUTHERN PACIFIC INDUSTRIAL DEVELOFMENT COMPANY, 5200 E. Sheila Street, 0316, Los Angeles, CA 90040. AGiNT: CENTURY AM~RICAN CORP., 1428 c. Chapman Avenue, Orange, Ch 92666. Property described as a reetangularly-shaped parcel of land consiating of approximately 1.8 a~reE locat~d on khe northwest cocner of Katella AvE ae and Lewis Street. To change the current general indust-rial desi~nation to commercial profeasional. ML to CO to construct a 3-story commercial office building. J~y Tashiro, Associate Planner, presented the staff report pointing out this is a property owner ~.nitiated General Plan Amendment to change the current general industcial designation to commercial prof~ssional office on an area consisting of approximately 1.8 acre located on ~.,e northwesk corner o£ Katella Avenue and Lewis Stceet, and that it is the intent ~f the property owner to con~truct a 3-story, 40,OOC square foot office bui.lding. He referred 3/4/85 ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMI55_ N~ MARCH 4_ 198`.~_ E35-1Z3 to *h~ four factors as .lieted in the ataff report which the Planning ~:ommi~sion may winh to consider in determining ~.he feasibility of the propoeed amendment: J,) the area ie surrounded by general induatrial usesj 2) the area ~s located within the Anz+heim S~adium Study Area and said atudy was a~proved by th~ Planning Commissic,n in January 1984, and is anticipated to be completed in May; 3) thc~re ~are no commerciel use3 in the areas however, tt:~re are commercial uses BUCh z+e reatauranks and hutels which were perm'tted by conditional. use per.mikat and 4) the General Plan t.ext sl•~tes tt~at •adequate amounts of l~nd ehall be preaerved by zoning ~xclusively for fu~ure industrial usecs." He bdded, if this amendmr.nt is approved, it could establ.ish an office-oriented precedent in the area or become an iao7~tn~ land use type. Barry Cottle, Century Americ~n, ~428 B. Chapman, Orange, ~xplained they are purchaaing thia property from the Southern Pacific Railroad. H4 presented a rendering of the propou.~d 3-story b~iilding and stated ~ p ouilding will meet all the City Code requir~~~enta and they plr~n tr ove their awn corporate officea into the secc+nd floor of the building and feel it will be a real asaet to the area. Bob Mickelson, 3823 Glassell, Orange, stated this property i.s telatively isolated, bounded by Katella, Lewis, the railroad and an existing huilding to thP north; and that also due to its size, he felt it does lend itselE to an office building. He st~ted a few yea~s ago office buildings were permitted in this zone, wi::h the approv~l of a condikional use pecm.tt; however, that is no longer an alternative and that is the reason foc the requested General Plan Amendment. Ne stated they feel the tenants that w~~.ild be Attracted to this building would be complimentary to the indu~trial area and they think this wil] be an appropriate use for that zone because of the locatior., size, and shape. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CGQSED. RESponding to Chairwoman Pro Tempore La Claxre, Mr. Cottle stated they tiave an insurance company interested in renting another floor of the building, but they have not started any other leaaing actlvity. Commissioner Bushore stated he would likp to be able to appr.ove this with a canditional use permit in the industrial zone, but he was ccncerned a~aout changing this one particulac proper.ty, especially when there is a study go'~~ on in the Stadium Area. E~e stated because of its location, the pr.operty is certainly not industrial, but felt there Mill L~ a problem renting some of the s~ace and he did nut think there ~ ld be a heavy demand for industrial users of the office space in that area. Mr. Cottl.e stated they have dane a market research study and feel the tenants r+ill be the sales type who wi11 be callinq on the in~ustrial customQrs in the 74naheim area. Commission~r B~shore stated if this ia a.~pcoved, he would not want to see them come back in later asking for a showraom on the first floor ~r retai.l t~•;= uses. He staLed this rommerci~'. type office use would be reasonable for the property, but he was cuncerne~i about changing the Genecal Plan for just one property. He stated there is a small 2-story building across the street and they had an extremely hard time finding tenants. 3/4/85 MINUTES, ANAHEIM C2TY PLI~NNING COMMISSION, MARCN 4, 1985 85_____,___._.134 Mr. Cottle stat~d th~y ~re planning on uaing one-half of the building with their own officea and :he inc~ur.ance company. Commissiuner Fry r~tated that makea a majo~ difference in his vote and he was not concerned with i.t being vacant onP year or longer. He added he thought thia would be An excellent use for the site at that location. Commiasioner Bouas referre:~ to the Stc~dium Acea Study ane~ asked if this propecty is in~luded. Jay TaAhiro stated the StAdium :~rea doe3 include thi~ property and the overall boundaries are from Orangewood nurth to 8a11 Road, but the major Pocus extends from Orangew~od to Katella and tre ~areliminary studies indicAte th'_s ar.ea wil~ remain industcial. He atated the Com~nission could den}~ the General Plan Amendment and still a~p~ove the reclar~sification since the City nf Anaheir~ is a Charter City and tne zoning does not have to conEarm to the Genera'_ Pl~n, or. ~hey could wait unci.l the Stadium Area Study is completed or the area to the north and east could be reviewed bs an additional G~nera; Plan Amendment study area since there are additiona: qua~i-commercial ~res locatec; .n that vicinity. Commissioner McE~rney stated he has a problem •~ith changing the Gene*al Plan and would consicer it "apot zoning" and would ~refer to aFprove khe reclassification anc~ deny the General Plan Amc~ndment until a larger acea :s studied. Chairwoman Pro Tempoce La Claire stated this would be a~7 ir~provement in that area and that Katella is being upgraded slowl,y and she would hesitate to .~ppr4•~e anything before the study is com~.leled, but did not think this area would be incliiderl in thrat study. Shp atated if rhat study upcn completion did recomm,5nd whak we want to see in that area, she thought t.h,is woul~ still be such a-i improvement to thar area, and she :id no: set ar,y hacm to the City and sees a lot of beneEik. She sdded she did not t`~ink this shoul.d be denied simply because we are waiting foK the 3tudy to be completed. P.CTLON: Chairwo~nan Pro Ten~~.ure La Claire offered a motion, seconded b~ Commissionec Fry and MOTInt~ CARF:ZED (Chairman Herbst absent) that the Anaheim City Plann~hg Com;nis.~ion has rPviewed the proposal to change the GPneral Pl.an designation from ge~era_ induEtrial to commercial, profesrional on a rectangularly-shapQd par~el of land .onsisting c~f appr.oximately 1.8 acres loce`.ed on Lttie nor'..hwest corner of K. .:el.la Avenue and Lewis Street; and does heceby appro•~~ the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negati~• ~e~laral•fon together wi~h any ccmmenks received during the public review pro~~ss and further finding or. the basis of the initial Study and any commants received that there is no substa~~tial evider~ce that th~ project will ha~•e ~ significant effect on the environment. Chairwoman Fro Tempore La •~laire offered R~solution No. PCSS-64 and movec~ for its pasEage and adop~io~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commissian does hereby deny Genetal Plan Anandment No. 201 on the ba~is that commerciel, professional uses would not be appr.opriate f.or the whole area and changing the de~ignation on this ~articular property would nat be appropriate since the property is surrounded by industcial uses. 3!4/85 ( ~ MINUTBS, AIVAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIQN, MARCH 4 1985 45-135 ... ~., ,._,,,.^.,.._..........~_. , . ..,. ._.. ~._._ On roll call, tl~e foregoing resolution was passed by Che following vote: AY~uS; BOUAS~ $(lSHORE, ~RY, KING~ I~A CI,AIRE, MC f3URNF.Y NOES; NON~ ABSENT: HERBST Chaitwoman Pco Tempore La C1Aire o£fered ke~olution No. PC85-65 and moved for. its paeaage and adoption t:~at khe AnahQim City Planning Commianion does hereby grant Reclassificotion No. ~~-~" "' ~}ubject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations: Qn soll call, the foregoing reEUlution w~s passed by the followinq voke: AYES: BOUAS, BUSHORE~ PRY, HERBST~ KING~ LA CLAIRF,, MC 4'1RNEY NOES: NONG ABSENT; HERf3S"' Jack White, Assistant City Attorney, stated the Planning CommisRion may not wiah to cecommen~ tha~ the City Council ceview the reclassification since the General rlan Amendment was denied and pointed out the actions are final unless appealed~ Commissioner Bushore stated he would still like to make a motion that the City Council review the Planning Commission'a actions because he would conaider this "spot zoning". Chairwoman Pro '^empore La Claire added she would like to see a study of the entire area adjacent to Katel.la because there are a lot of commercial uses such as restaurants and motels in that area at tt~e present time. Commiysioner Bushore stated it is his feeling that the area along Katella from the Stadium to Disneyla~d should probably be ti~d together in the commercial. recreational zone because of the motels and restaurants and there has been a transition in that area. Chuiiwoman Pro Tempore La r,laire stated she was not sure whether commercial recreation would be the proper zone and ahe would like for staff to make a recommendation. Mr. Mickelson stated he is more accustomed to working in G~neral Law cities than Chartec cities and was not comfortable with the General Plan bPing denied and the ceclassification being approved; however, the Cit}r Attorney has answered that concern. He asked if thia is the final acti.on. Jack Whike explained the app~oval of a Geraeral Plan Amendment is a cecommendation to t.he City Counril; however, the denial is a fi~al action of the Planning Commis~ion unless it is appealed by the applicant or someone else, so this dPnia.Z will be final unless within 2i days an appeal is filed with the City Clerk. He stated there is no legal mandate that any charter city in California, other than the Ciry of Los Angeles, has to have zonina in conformance wit,h thQir General Plan and although this denial of the General Plan Amendment and sppr~val af the reclassification is not illegal, it seems fnconsistent. 3/4/85 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY P~ANNING COMMISSION, MARCH 4, 1985 85-136 ACTION: CommisEioner Bushore oEEece~ a motion requestiny City rouncil revie~,v the Commission's action on the reclasaificat~on since it is epot zoni.ng. Jeck White explained the Commi~sion can aEfer ~ motion cequeoting the City Council review of the de~ial af the General plan Amendment and approval oE the reclasaification, if tf~ey so desice, and the applicant ehould understand that the motion ia a recomm~ndn~ion to the City Council which they can concur with and set tt~e matter Far public hearinq, or they can let it at~nd as is. Ne added the applicant should check with the r.ity Clerk. Commiasionec Bushore stated his motion that the City Coun~~l review the Commission'e action was made becauae the reclassifica~ion wae r~iade right in the middle of ~n industcial zone and that i.s conr.ideced spot zoning and that is something the Commission dues not usually do. He sLated he thought a second motion ahould De made to dicPCt ata[f to do a study of ki~e area hetween Disneyland and the Stadium and that he had made that motion at least ~ne year ag~. Chairwoman ~`ro T~mpore La Claire seconded the motion that th~ City Cour~r_il review the Planning Commissiar.'s actions on Reclasaificatton No. 84-85-27, and MOTION CARRI~D (Chairman HesbsL• bei~g absent). OTHER DISCUSSION: Chairwoman Pro T~mpare La ~l~ire :tated she thought the study ~hould include Katella. Jay Tashiro stated ~s part of khe Anaheim Stadium Study, staff could have the consultant look sptcifically at the acea of Lewis and Katella and include ~hat ab part of the study. Joel Fick, AssiEtant Directot for Planning, statPd there have been some discussi7ns about putentially m~rging a commercial recreation type study and the Stadium Acea Study, and that came up with thF Rive[a project and it was discussed in detail at tt~e City Council level. E~e stated staff recommende~ to the City Council that the Stadium Area Study has progr.essed to a point where gainy back and merging the two would almost bring the whoie study back to the startinq point. He ~tated staff ~grees that the same type study needs to be done for the commercial recceationa~ area; however, that is a very expensive study to undQrtake; that the consulta~t contract for the Stadium Area Study was $80,000 and the commercial recreational area is nuch more ~omplex ber_ause of the unknowns with the land uaes, ~roperties held in a number of inter~sts, Land use proposals that have nut been made public, and tranaport.ation issues. Commissinner Bu~hore stated the firet questio-~ was h~w long has it been since we have rea~l.y studied the commercfal recreational area as to wi~at is ;~appening ~nd how it really conforms to the boundaries that wer~ set; and .*.he second question was whether we want a comprphensivp st~dy or ~ust a generalized staEf study based an the uses and some oovious thinge that have occurredt and that the Commission said they wanted just the obvious as to the boun~ar.ies an~ uses in the areas becau~e some had deveZoped beyond the preEent boun3aries; and thst Katella between Disneyland and the Stadium was spe~ifically talked about. He stated he did nok think en $50,000 study is needed to tell the Commiesion how the acea has develope~, and that the City doe~ have land use ma~s and othar sources available in-house. 3/4/85 MINUTES~, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNTNG COMMISSION, MAKCH 4, 1985 85-137 Chairwoman Pro Tempare J~a Claire sfAted instead of making a r,~tion, the Commisaion should let ekaff convey to the City Counci.l that the C~mmiasion would like the commercial re~reational area to be reviewed. Joel Fick atated the City has a very good handle as to the uses we have, but the impacta of eome oi the land uses and the real im~ortant planning to~l information that needs to be developed is what we shuuld oe striving for in terms of ~trategically msximizing the len~ uses And that is what is the co~nplex iasue. Commissioner Bushore atated the Commission r~ade a motion to do a study and bring il back ko the Commianion for further direction. ITEM N0. ~. EIR NEGATIVE A~CLARATION AND GENERAL PLAN AMENAMGN'P N0. 200 YUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: MARJORIE ANTtIF.S, 626 S. Sunkist Str~et, Anaheirn, CA 928U6, MARGARE'P PETER, 610 S. Sunkist Str~et, Anahei~n, CA 92806, ARNE ATKINSON, 6a0 S. Sunkist Street, Anaheim, CA 92806 and CIT'! INITIATED. AGENT: N.W. RA~IILL, 1023 Fairway Ar., Orange, CA 92666 and VIRf;IL FLIPPEN, 52'Z S. Hilda Court, Anaheim, CA 92806. Property deacribed ~.a "L-shaped" a~d consists of approximakely 3.2 acres loca~ed on tl~e northeast corner of South Street and Sunkist Street. Tp consider alternate proposals of ultimate l.and use~ including, but noC limited to low clensity and low-medium density residentipl designations. There w~as~appcoximately thirty people indicating their preaence ir. opposition L•o aubject request and although the staff report was not cead, it is ceferred to and made a~art of the minutes. Tom Gonzalez, 3151 Airaay, Costa Mesa, stuted he cepcesents some of the people involved. He stated he thought this was simoly a reclassification for a sinyle lot located at 680 S. Sunkist. Jay Tashiro, Associate Planner, presented the staff report noting this is a property owner/City'initiated project to consider alternate proposal~ of ultimate land usPs i.ncluding but not limited to low density and l~w-medium density designation on an •L" ~haped area consisting of appresximately 3.2 acres located on the norti~east c~rn~r of South Street and Sunkist Strnet. He sL•ated Exhibit A is the applicant's pcoposal and proposes low-medium density resic2ential which would permit apartmentE, condominiums, townhouses and single-family uses and theorehically, there could be up to 57 units on the property. S~an2ey kosen, attorney, representing i:he estal•e of Verla W. Brown, owner of Parcel No. 6 which is ah undevelopecl parcel, stated this property is the major asset of the estate. He stated he would be conCerned if he was a resident living in this area because of the large number of units that could be built on this property; however, the estat~ has found a purchaspr who wants t.o develop a 4-plex on the property which is 120 feet by 175 fePt. He stat~~ they only wanted that one parcel reclassified and it was at the urging of th~ Ciry planning Staff that there be a consicleratic+n of the entire area. I;e skated a 4-plex on Lot 6 would be logical because that is a hiyhly tray~led 3/4/85 MINU'I'ES, ANAtjEIM CITY PGANNIN~MMZSSIONJ MARCH 4, 19a5 85-138 atceet and it haA be~t- +~p~rdiaed nt $80,000 and bera~se of he~+vy tra[fic, no one would wdnt ha b~}i.ld nn oxpeneive home on that property. He atated the pcoperty is a r^:^~~nance pr~blem now and a 4-plex would not be an eyesore. Ne atated he wanted to be dure tha opposition knew they are not proposing 57 unita on the proper.ty, but only a 4-plex for one lot. Mr. Gonzalez stated i t ic a ~Pry low-proEile single-story comp:ex unik an~ they heve considered theicneighbora to tho rear ~nd wuuld nnt, propose a 2-atury unit to intrude inta thelr privacy. Virgil Plippen, agen~., steted he livea in thak neighbochood and is representing Parcels 2 and 4 and n~ted those ac•e the only undeveloped propecties in that area and the tc~ntatlve plans for P~rc:el 2 are for A sinyle-At~ry 4-plex and on Parcel 4, they are {~r~pasinq 3 units and fe.it because of th~ land vnluea, it i~ not tea~ible ta build ningle-fr~mily homes. He added he wo~ld not want 5: units on l•h~ proE:~osed pr.opertie~ either. Francis Nutto, 021 Jambolaya 5treet , explained he is n Ci.ty employee and asked if the Planning CommioEion Eound Any ethical or legal impropriely in him speaking for himself and hls neiglibors. Chairwuman Pco Tempore La Claire responded 'iio". Mr. NukLo stated they would reapect£ully requeat thAt the Cornmiseiun denv both r.equents; thit all contacta with neighbors indicate khey favo~ owner/uccupied ninyle-family residential zoning and tt~e General Plan, at thia time, ahowa ]ow-denslty residential as the u~propriate land use And they would agree with that d~siynationt ttiat those ni.ne properties in the petitioned area are in ;he middle of aingle-famil,y residences ond wfthin the petitioned areas 5 of khe 9 properties are n~w developed witn single-family residences and there are only 3 vac•~nt parcela and they fepl this rezoning would be considered as '~pot 2oning". He a~ated thPre are no compellinq reasons for apartmentx un Sunkist and na hardship on any proper.ty owner along Sunkist in keeping the Gener~~l Plan designation of law-density residential; that the vacant property can be developed easily with two aingle-famil.y re~idences, one Eacing SunY,i~t and one on a flag-lot. He added iE these properties are develaped with apartmenta, there would be a pr.oblem with trash pick-up because trash trucks would have to back out onto Sunkist and that would be dangezous t~ children and to other vehicles. Mr. ~lutto stated or.e parcel is proposed for cezoning at this time and plans subm~tted show a 4-plex ap~rtment with a 20-foot aetback at the rear and while it may be Planning `ommtssion ~,olicy to require a?0-foot buffer between multiple and single-fami2y r~esidences, that policy is not binding on the petitioner and furthermorer the petitioner is not requiced to devPlop according to khe plans submi tted~ Mr. Nutto ~resented a petition aigned by approximately 250 persons in the neighborhood and asked that the reauest be denied and further, that khe property be rezon~d to RS-7200 since F.he natice indicated RM-2400 ar a less intense xone. Shirley Sawyer, 2528 Diana Drive, stated she has four children and right now traffic is vecy hea:ry on Sunkiat and at 4:30 in the afternuon she has a difficul~ time makfng a saEe turn onto Sunkist and she felt adding more traffic would be very dangerous to her children. 3/4/85 MINUTES,_ ANAH~IM CITY PGANNING COMMISSION, MAHCH 4, l9@5 85-139 Mr. Gonxalez stal•e~ the trash tcuck~ would not have lo bACk o nto 5unkiat. Regarding the commonts t•hat the deve,loper does not have to d e vp:~N 1n accordance with the plan~ submittedP he Rtated theX ~~auld ha v e no problem it approval in tied to thoAe apecific plans und they would go a 1 ong with whntever recommendationa are plac~d on the approval. He add~d thia w i 11 bp rental prcperty ~nd he would assume most tenants wouJ.d be warking a t 4:30 in the afternoon, so would not add signifi~antly to the traEfic at t hnt timp. Mr. Flippen fur~her clarif.ie~ that the traah tr~cks would no t have to back onto ~unkist and ntated h~ did not know of any single-family developec who would not construct in accocdance with the plan3 approved by the Planning Commission or City Council. tis added he co~~ld understAnd th e concerns oE the neighbora regarding the construction, but that the applicants do have ra hardship And if this is no~ a~proved, he wou.id question what could be clone with that propecty. He stated the City has a reaponsibility to .•-o citizens to have proper development and tF~ey wauld cry out again~t ~e n seless "spot zoning", but these are khree unc9eveloped properties and would n~t be higtier density and the one lot they are interested in wiil not caus e an increase of t;raffic intru~sion on the neighbors. He r~tated the 4-unit com~lex will have a residential character and asked tne P1Anning Commis~ion ko lo ok at that parcel witn respec'. to the pcoposed development and cont~ider it apa rt from the proposed increased density of the entire area. THE PUBL7C HEARING WAS CLOS~D. Responding tu Chairwoman Prn :empore La Claire, Rict~ard Voge 1 etated he resides at 564 S. Sunkist, which i~ Lot No. 1 on Sunkist, or the northeclymost lot, and stated he can attest to the traffic situation and m any times at 4:30 in the afternoon, traffic i, actuall}• stopped in front of his house with vehicles just idlin~ and ~here have been numerous accidents i n frant of his t~ouse with people sto~ping ;.o make left turns and the traffic is high ~peed. He stated he plana to atay in tnis location and that the 4-p l ex prop~sed is not that objectionable and they knew when they moved in therE would be a development next door, even though they could not envision a partments and he is afrald of rezoning to allow apartments in the future. He stated he realizes it is out of the question to expect a single-family residence because this is a lacge lot and they had visualized maybe two units on that property. Fie stated they did not like the idEa of 100 windows on that side peering into their property. He stated they did look at the zoning maps when they purchased the property and did not see any problem and never expected to see apartments pro~osed on that property. Chuck Yerman, 250~ Viryinia, expleined his side yard is on ~ unkist and that is a heavily traveled street and that he purchased the property becaus~ the next door neighbor had a large yard and 'ne does have a lo't of pri vacy in his back yard. He skated he doeb have trouble pulling into and out of his driveway because of tcaffic. He added it is also very noisy there be cause of the traffic. He added h~ thaught the proposal was to put his ne ighbor out of his property to build apactments; and that he did not want to se e apartments because that would lowe: the prop~rty value. Chairwoman Pro TeR~pore La Claire statpd those are large lot:. anc some are vacant and she did not think a single-fr~mily home coul.d be c onstructed at a reasonable cost. Mr. Yermxn stated 'e would rather see a siragle-f amily residence constructed in order to keep ~he neic~hborhood the way it is now. r i 85-~40 MINUTES, ANl-HEIM CITY PLANNING CpMMIl+SION MARCH 4 1995 Rosponding to Commiasioner Buahore, Mc. Vogel ..~~'~P~1 h{e property is pcobably worth bekween $150,000 to 4.175,000 and that he purchAaec it in bad condition and cr~~aired it . Com~nisaioner Buahore r~tated in hin opinion, it that one lot was reclnssif ipd, it wuuld he consideced 'BPot zoning" t that the roptesentative had indicated that the tax appraiaer tiad valued the propErty at $80,l100 which would hflv~ peen ba~ed cn tha use for a single-Eamily residence and the aize of the lot. Hc~ atated there is not one 7200-squAre foot lot in thia City which could be purcha~ed for. $40,000 and ther~ is n big m~rket [or this type lot, especially where a~lag-lot could t~e cteated because a f1Ag-lot giver~ security, and there is a big demand Eor homes which are movcd by the developectt from other are~s to a lot like this. He added t~e felt if thia property iR rezoned to RM-2400, it wi~ll be econamically benef ici~l Eor a developer to purchaRe Lot No. 1 for q1 50,000 and put in multiple-family units. IIe added l-hose three undeveloped l a t s could be easily developed into 6-s ing le- L a m i l y r e s i d e n c e s o n 7 2 0 0- s q u Are [oot lots. He ntated if the deve.loper had pre~ented an Aren Deve l o p m e n t ?~ l a n and proposed a 1-story complex with garaye door openers, etc., he pro bab l y would have gone along with it, but thought there must be a problem when a lot cannot be sold tor $80,000 for two homeR. He atated hE thouyiit if it i:~ rez~~ned, it will cause many of the lots to t~urn aver and become RM-2400 lots and then when the pc ice of the land goes up, the owners will be reque~tinq variances to make the projects Ceasible. Ne stated he thought the propertY should be lef t as i.s or reclas~ified to RS-500U or RS-7200. Chairwoman Pr~ 'Pempore La Claire agreed anc9 etated ~he did not want to see apartments an~ it ~eems reasonable to reclaa~ify the property to RS-7'l00 and asked if those lots could be r~zoned. Gceg Hastings stated it appears under RS-72U0 zoning, Lot No. 4 would rec~uire a variance of the lot area and if the othec lots are c19.vided, they would most 1 ikely need a lot width waiver which has been 9~would all~either~exceedr orsbef the Cfty. He stated in terms of lot size, the,y very close to Code. Chairwoman Pro Tempore La Claire stated she know3 thE street is busy and this area may n~ed more than it is right now because the lots are large, but she did not think apactments are warranted and perhaps condominiuins are feasible, but she would be willing to reclassify the property to RS-7200 at this time. Joel Eick stated the General Plan designation is currently low-density with Chairwoman Pro Tempar~? La Claire noting it would not be necessary to change the General Plan to reclassify tt~e property to RS-7200. Mr. Flippen atated he develaped the two parcels on the corner of Sunkist and Sr~uth with rwo single-family reFidencen with Parcels 7 and 8 and i.t cast him in ~976 in excess of 58,000 to pcocess the 1ot split. He stated at this point, they have not ~one far enough to ~et their costs through the City, but thought to develop flag--lots on either one of the parcels would probably cost ~S,OUO to $ 10,000 per lot for parcel map, title work and fees involved ~ so he thoUght the price of $40,000 for a single-family lot would more l.ikely be ~50,000 to S60,U00. Commis~ioner Bushore polnted out a$50,000, 7200 square toot lot is eti~l a vecy reasonable grice. 3/4/85 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITX PLANNING COMMISSIONI MARCH 4, 1985_ 85-.141 Mr. Roaen statod he lives in a 4-plex unit and it i.s very well krpt And ~R eaeily kept more immaculate than some single-fam.ily homes And ChEy are usu~lly owned by one pe[aan who lives i.n one oi the unita or at least mai~~agea the units, not turning it over to the managemenr company. He added, in thi~ case, this would be a aingle-utocy comp].ex and he did not betieve there would be much of an intru~ion or any major tcaffic problema and ~ecause of the tr~f.fic, h~ did not think anyone would purchase A aingle-f.amily home fronting on that atreet. ChairwomAn Pro Tempore La Clair.e atated she thought the rezoning oE this p~rticular area wou.ld be a mistake Pven though therP is heavy traffic, but there ace some b~auCiful homes in that area too. ACTZGN: Commiaaioner B~ahoce ofEered a motion, aeconded by Commi~~ioner McBurney and MUTION CARRI~D (Chai.rman HerbKt abaent) that the Anahei~ City Planning Commi~sion has reviewed the pc~opoeal to change ttie cucrent ~~eneral Plan designr+tion to low-denaity and .low-medium density land uRes or~ ein 'L-shaped" parcel of. lAnd consiaking of Approximately 3.2 a~ces loc~ted at Lhe northEast corner uf South Street and sunki~t Streets and daea heceby approve the Negatxve Declaration upon finding thak it has r.on~idered the Negar.ive Declar.ation together with any c~mmenta rE~ceived during the public rev.iew process ~nd further findirig on the basis of ti~e Initial Study and Any comments ceceivec~ that th~re is n~ substantial evidence that the project wlll. t,ave A sfgnificc+nt ~eEEect on ~he environment. Commisr~ion~;r Bushore offered Reaolution No. PC85-66 and moved for its ;aassage and adaption that the Ar~aheim City Planning Cnmmiasion due~ herel~y den;~ General Plan Amendment No. 2U0 on Che basis that thr_ ch~nge is nok app~'opriate~ at this time. On roll call, l•he Eoreyofng resolution was passed by the following vc~te: AYES: BOUAS, BUSHORE, FRY, KING, LA CGAIR'~, MC BURNEY NOES: NONE ABSENT: HERBST J~ck White, Assistant City Al•torney, presented the written right t4 app~aal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to tt~e City Council. ITEM NQ. 6. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND P.ECLASBIFICATION N0. 84-85-26 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: ~rERLA W. BROWN, c/o Stanley Rasen, Atty., 151~• Cabrillo Yark Drive, Santa Ana, CA 92801, ATTN; ARNE ATKINSON, ADMIN2STRATOR, AGENm: N.W, RANILL, 1023 E. Fairway Drive, Orange, CA 42666. Propert,y described a~ a rectangularly-shaped pareel oi land consioting of approximately 0.4 acre, 680 South Sunkist Street. RS-A-43,000 to RM-2400 or a les~ inten~e zone to construct a 4-unit aoartment comp2ex. IT WAS NOTEU THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS HELD WITH TNE DISCUSSION OF I2'EM N0. 5. 3/4/85 MINUT~S. ~NAHEIM CITY PLANNTNG COMMISSION, MARCN 4, 1985 $5-142 ACTION: Cnmmi~aloneK Buahore offered a motion, seconded by Commiesionpr Ring and MUTION CARRIED (Ct»irman Herbst abaent) that the An~heim City Planning Comm ission has review~d the proposal to reclasalEy subject ~ropQrty from the R5-A -43,000 (Residential, Agcicultucal) xone to the RM-2400 (Reaidentia], Multiple-Family) Zone nr a leas intense zone to conatruct A 4-unit apartmenC comp lex on a rectangularly-shaped pArcel of lnnd consisting of appcoximAtely U.4 acre, having a fr4ntAge of approximntely 100 EeEt on the east side of Sunkist Stree~ and further deacribed as 680 S~uth Sunkistt and does hereby appr ove the Nega~ive Declaration upon finaing that it has consiaered the Negu tive Declaration together with any comments received during the public revi ew process and further finding on the baAis of the Initial Study and any commanta received that there is no aubst~ntial evidence that the project will have A aignificant effect on ~he environment. Commissioner aust~ore asked if the petitioner would like to have the property rezoned to RS-7200, with the petitioner responding they w~ul~ not be able to develnp in any zor under RM-3U00. Commfseianer Bushore ~.tfered nesolution No. PC85~67 and moved for its passaue and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commissi.on does hereby deny Rec 1 assification No. 84-85-26. Un roll call, the foregoing r.eaolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: gUUAS, BUSt10RE, FRY, KING, t.A CLAIRE, MC BURNEY NUES; NONE ABu ENT: HERBST Jack White. Assistant City AttornPy, presented the written right to appeal the Pla nning Commission's deciaion within 22 days to the City Council. RECESS: 3:20 p.m. RECONVENED: 3:30 p.m. ITEM NO. 7. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2666 PUB LIC FiEARING. OWNERS: ANAHEYM COUNTRY INN, 856 S. Walnut, Anaheim, CA 928 02, ATTN: MARILYN WATSON/LOIS M. RAMONT. ~roperty described aa an irregularly-shaped paccel of land consisting of approximately 0.7 acre lncated at the northeast corner of Beacon Avenue and Walnut Street, 856 Soutt~ w,ir,ut Street (AnahEim Country inn). To permit wedding ser,vices/receptions and meeting/seminar functions in con~unction with an existing bed and breakfast inn. The re was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff ceport was not read, it is re£erred to and made a part of the minutes. Lois Ramont, 2516 Ames, Anaheim, agent~ explained they would like to be aksle to as~ the Anaheim Country Inn (a Bed and 9reakfast Inn) for wedding services and/or receptions and also for meetings and seminars. She stated the weddings wc~uld accommodate no more than 75 people and ne more than 20 to 25 people foc lunches. 3/4/85 MINUTES. ~NANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. MARCH At 1985 85-143_ THE PUI3LIC HEARING WAS CLo:3FA. Responding to Commiasioner eushore, Ms. Ramont stated they hbv~ met with khe nei.ghbor;'e and there wAS no opposition. Commiaeioner aushore asked about the parking agreement with the church and painked out he thaught it waf; rAther loose compared to what is normally reyuired, notLng it contains a 30~day cancellation notice. Greg Hastinga explained Condition No. 4 require~x a garking agreement between the aub3ect property ownera and the church located at 257 S. W~lnut guaranteeing the use of. a minimum of 42 of the chucch'a purking spACes nnd khat agreement would be subject to the City Akt.orney'a Office approval and would have l•o ne rpcorded. Respanding ta Chairwortian Pro Tempore i~a Cl~ire, Ms. Ramnnt stated they wau:d probably have w~ddinga abo;~t L•wice a mon~i-. She st~ted khe weddings would be sublect to the church's schedule. M~. Ramont referred to Condikion No. 1 regarding ~.nnsumption an~ serving of alaoholic beverages in canjunction with th~ weddingn and explained they do nat wish to se.ll alcoholic beverages, but that !:he wedding participants like to oe able to bring their own to be cervr~. Commissioner E3ushore pointed out a aEs~~cial permit ia required fcom the Alcoholic B~verage Con~.ro: Board in arder to do that and it was clarifiec~ that the wedding participant.s r~ould 1~r~ve to get that special permik for that one day. Concerniny the p~rking agree~+en~, Juck White, Assistant City Attozney, stated the requirement in ti±e ronc9tt.ton is that they obtain and continue to have in existence a parking ayrecment; that he hasn't read the agreement, but even if it contains a 30--day provision f.or cancellation, that does not mean it is not sufficient L•o meet the condition, but if the agreement is terminaled, they would not be in compliance and would have to obtain the cequired packing elsewhece or obtain a new agceement oc discontinue the use. Commissionec eushore atated he thought it would be a problem if the church knows the wedding participants wi11 bring in their own alcoholic beverages, indic.ating concern that thP wedding guests will be drinking and leaving beer cans oc bottles in the church parking lot. Ms. Ramont explained the bride would bring the beveragea to be served a~ the wedding reception a~d the guests would not be bringing their own. 5he explained they would only be serving beer, wine and champagne. Ms. Ramont explained they will be providing a valet scr.vice for parking cars so the guests will not be going on the ahucch parkinc~ lot themselves. ~ Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, explained the whole eonditional use permit is ~ predicated on the use of valet parking services. because they do not have suEficient parking on-aite and adjacent streets would be used for parking. He , explained thert are 10 spaces on site. ' Commiss~oner Bushore atated he knows the petitioner and knows she operates a { good bu~inesa, b~t wanted to be suce everythfng is coveced. Responding to i Commissioner Bouas, Ms. R.~mont stipulated they woul.d only be serving beer and ~ wine. E 3/4/85 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANKING COMMISSION MARCN 4 1985 85-144 Commiaeionet Bushore suggea~ed the w~rding be changed in Condition No. 1 to read that no elcoholic beveragea ahall be .3old, rathec than served. crrg Hasl•inga renponded that atafF would not hnve a pcoblem with that changp. Jack White euggested An ddd:tion t:~ Condition No. 4 to r.eAd; 'That Ehe ptoperty owner shnll maintain ~aid 42 a[f-site parking spaces at all timeo during the exercise uf this ~onditional use ~ermit', And Condition No. 3 should be modiLied chanying th~ word •gi~arantee" to "encourage` thAt the automobilec will be parked in loc~tions other than the public stree~•t that the petitioner ~ould be required to have vnlet parking, but there is no way to guacantee thAt a person coming to ~ wedd.ing recept.ton would not park on the public street. Commiseioner 9ushore stated they have agreed to put up •no wedding parking" sign~ and inr.lude that in the weddiny invitations. Chairwoman Pro 'Pempore [.a Claire statPd tiiis is a rPSidential area and she thought the petitioner could talk to the wedding participants and make sure tliey know there will be valet: parking And tt~At cauld be included in the invitations. Jack White ~tated it woul~3 be fine to include a conditibn thAt the wedding invitations include tl~e information that th~re i::• valet park~ny services provided and that thP guests should n~t park on the street; however, sl•aff would n~t recommend ceyuirinq the postirig oC signs in the right-of-way. ACTION: Commissioner Fry offered a mot.ion, seconded by Commissioner McBur.ney and MUTION CAkRIED (Chaicman 1lerbst abr~nt), L•liat 'the Anaheim City Planning (.ommission has :eviewed t.he propo~al to permit wedding servicec~/receptions and meeting/seminar functions fn ronjunction with a bed and bceAk£ast inn on an irregularly-ahaped parcel ~~f land consiEting pE approximately 0.78 acres located at the nurtheast cornpr of Beaco~ Avenue and Walnut S~reet and further desc~ibed as 856 S. Walnut; and does hereby approve the Negative Deelar.ation upon finding that it has consider~d the Negative Aeclarakion together with any comments received dur.~ing the ~ublic review process and further. finding on the basis of the Initial Studf and any comments rec~fved that there is no aubstantial evidence khak the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Fry offered Resolution No. PC85-68 and moved for its passage and ad~ption that the Anaheim City Plartning Commission does hereby yrAnt Conditi.onal Use Permi~ No. 2666 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.U3.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 and sub~ect t~ the st:pulations of the petitioner at the public hearing to require the wedding participants to include informarion in the wedding invitations that valek parking services will be provided and that wedding guests should not park on the public streets and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations, including the madification to Condition No. 1 that no alcoholic beverages shall be sold rather than served or consumed, and Condition No. 3 modified to change the word 'guarantee' to 'encourage", and modification af ^ondition No. 4 with an additional sentence: "That the propecty ownez st~all ohtain and conti*~ue to have in existence a parking agreement' f.or f.orty-two (42) off-site p~rking spaces at all tim_Q ~~~ring the exercise of this conditional use permit.• 3/4/85 MiNUTE" ~NAHGIM GIT't PLANN?Nr CUMMISSI0~7. MARCH 4. 1985 95-145 Commiss~~ner Bushore pointed out the approval inc.ludes the stipulation r.het the number of weddinq que~ts nhall be i~~mitea to a maximum of 75 and luncheons ahall be a maximum of 20 t~ 25 ~eopXe. Jack White stAted if thAt is a matetinl portion of the Approval, it should be included as a condition. Commissioner ~ry felt that would be an impractic~l condit~on. Cammissionpr Bushore stated the applicant suggeated that number and !t is baned on the number of p~rking s~aces available. Chairwoman Pro 7'empore La Claire agreen and stated thP petikioner has to cet a limit somewhere. Commisaioner Bushore stated plans have to be made for A c~rtain number of quests and I~e felt *hl.n limit is ceasonab].e. Ms. Ramont stated mo~t weddi~gs would be second weddingo and L•hey are normally smaller, so she wo~~ld have no problem with the restcicticn. It was detecmined t~y Jack White that the limite~ numt~er of gueahs should be included in ~he rear~Yution ae a mr~xfmum of 75~ for weddiriga and rer.eptiona and 25 foc meekings, seminars and luncheons. On roll call, the foregoiny r.eaalution was passed by the fol.lawing vote:: AYES: BnUAS, BUSHORE~ FRY, KING, LA CJ~AIRF.~ MC BURNEY N~ES: NONE ABSENT: HERAST Jpck White, AssistAnk City Attorney, ~~rNrented the written cight to appeal the Planniny Commisston's decision within 22 days to the City Cour~.cil. I'PEM N0. 8. EIR NEGATIVE DECI.ARATION AND CC?NDITIONAL USE PERMIT ~~0. 2664 PUgLiC HEARING. OWNERS: BURTON ZOU1., P. Q. Box 1529, Fallbrook,, CA 92~28. AGENT: R:CHAkD ~ELEINB, F. 0. Box 5'i6, Silverado, CA 92676. Pcoperty desccib~d aa ar. i.rregularly-shaPed parcel of i~nd consisting of approximately 0.43 acre located at the northwert corner of Ball Road and AnaF.f:in~E3AUlevacd, 101 West Sall Road (7-Eleven t'ood St.ore). To permic a convenience market with gasolin~ sales and otf-sale beer and wine. There was no one indicating their E.~resence in opposition to aubject request and although ttie staff report wtts not read, ik is referred -:o and made a part of the minutes. Richard Seleine, agent- explained they ~gree with all the conditions except ~~o. 13 pertaining to separate m~n and women restrooms and stated the gas~line sales is meant to be an additiona~l service o£fered by thP 7-E.leven and should not be looked at as a full secvice atation. He ad8ed they presently have 127 stores that sell gasoline in thls dis*_rict and tt~ey do n~t have separate men and women restrooms ana chat is not a part of their ~star,dard plans and they would rather not get into provi.ding and maintaining the;n. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLCISED. It was noted by Chairwoman Pro Tempore I,a Claire that the City has never had a teguest from 7-Eleven foc ga~oline sa~es. It was noked there is one at Gilbert and E3a1], and this will be a new facility. C~~mmissianer Bouas stated 7-Elpven stores sell beet and wine and those type requeats from other com~r~nies have been denied and she dfd not see why 7-El~ven sh~uld be granted the privilege over the othera. 3/4/85 MINUTES. ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMI~SIONl_MARCH 4, 19$5 ____ __85-146 _..._...._._._.~ CommiseioneX Buahore st•ated he thuught .it was just common decency tu hr~ve separate men and women reetrooms when ther£ ia the nale of geaolin~? and other items, including the potentiAl for the sale oE el.coholic beveregea. He Akated he would vote against tt~e proposal because of the r~ale of beEr ancl wine. M[. Seleine etat~d there have been a number oE similar requer.ts before the Planning Commisaion e~nd the number denied by the Planning ~Commislsion and approved by the City Council should be reviewed since they seem to be an acceptnble uae by lhe City. He added tie though~ 7-~leven now t~ns tive stores in Anaheim and he knows that they work vecy hacd on their image and try ta do a good jok~ for the City. Commisaioner E3umhore atated if ore is approved, ther.e will b~ a l~t ut requests in the future and the Commission d~es not want to all.ow the eale o[ gasoline with the su:e oE beer nnd wine because it is too convenient.. Commissioner BouAS stated she did nc,* r~ee why 7-E.leven shoul~3 ep considered any ditferen~ than ~n ARCO and tho~,w~ requeat~ have been denied. Chairwoman Pco Tempore La Clai.r~~ ~:~ted ~he felt they r,hould be allowed to have ~asoline sales; however, ~~~. 'ommissianer Fry agreed, Commissioner King asked iti they would provide a ~:r. water for ~he vehicles and Mr. Seleine staCed at the present time t•~• ~~ noc ~rovide Chat s~rvi.ce, but thouyht in the futuce it is being disc ~~=-•-- L'~mm:ssionec MeBucney pointed ou! ~~at i.s a ~eguitement now of a rccent:;;• ~rat~;~~~i :~tatE law. Co;nmissioner Rushoc~ a~kr ;- •rl~~ ~~u::zles will have Automatic shut-off valves. Paul Mueller, Mvision Ga -~ :._~~, ~~,n~ager, Southland Corporacion for this area, ._ ,_ explained they cemove the ~n•- -_~er~ clips, although it is no longer requiced by law foc their own s•~E~~~ _~- the safety of their customers. He stated they cemove them so nozzles w~'-. ^~c,r_ stay on withaut the ac~ual pressure. He added they have f.ound, in the _=E~ ~--=.~-~rvice busines~, people will sometimes turn the nozr.le on inadvertently a~rw ~~~~m remove it and it will cantinue to pump gasoline. Cammis~ioner Bushore ~tat~a r.ne safety catch is there for a reason and he ~hought in removing l.he~m, i~•_ was mor~ inconvenient for the people to use self-service stations_ Mc ~Iuell~r skated up until January of last yeac, it was illegal to have a hoic~pen c,ip on a oelf-servfce nozzle and the convenience i~ with a l~o:c~--open lip, so the patron does nok have to hold their l~and on the nozzle. He stated many jurisdictions still require them to remove the hol~-open clirs which is a device which will allow gasoline to flow withowt the hand actaally teing on the nozzle and it is a little less c~nvenient for the customers because they have to pay attention t4 what they ~se doing. ~:hairworoan Pra Tempore La Claice stated the patron can take off their gas cap if thre nozzle does not have the safety cap, and put the gas cap between the handle. Mc. Mueller stated when the device i.s defeated by inssrting the gas cap, their employees are instructed to shut off the equipment from inside the station. 3/4/85 MINUTESy.ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMIS~ION, MARCEi__41_1985 ~85-147 Commisaionec King aeked if the petitioner is willing to eliminnte the requeat for aelling beer and wine. Mr. Mueller reaponded he is not in a poAitian to answer that quealion and explained they are preaently ~perating in excesa ~f 125 7-Eleven atores with gas~line and virtu~lly everyone of thQm has khe anle af beer And wine. ACTION; CommiEaioner Bushore offere~l a mption, aP.:ondac~ by Commissioner Fry and MOTION CARRIED (Chairman Nerbst abAenty that the Anaheim City Planning Commiesion haR revieweci the proposal to permit a convenience market with yasoline sales and o£f-sale bcer and wine on an irregularly-shagecl parcel of land cansiating of approximately 0.43 acres located at the northweat corner. of Ball Road und Anaheim Bnulevard and further described ~s 101 Weat Aall Road (7-Eleven Food Store); and does hereby approve the NegAtive Decl~rakion upon finding that it has cansidered the Negati.ve Declaration together with any comtrenta received durin~ the public review pr~cess and Eurther Eindinc~ on th~: basis of the Inil•ial Study ar.d any comments recc~ived that there is no subatantial evidence that the rroject will have a~;ignificant efEect on the environment. C~~mmissioner Bushore of.fered Resolution No. P~85-69 and moved for ita p~ssage and adopti.on that the Anaheim City Planniny Commission does hereby dpny Conditional Use Permit No. 2664 on the b~sis that the approval of the sale of beer and wine would cceste an undeairable precedent and wot,ia be dettimental to the public's peace, ez~fety and welface. On roll call, the foreqoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, bUSHORE, FR]', KING, I~A CLAIRE, MC E3URNEY NOES: NONE ABSENT: HERBST Jack White, A~sistant City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal ~:he Planning Commissio:~'s decision within 22 days to L•he City Council. ITEM N0. 9. ~IR NEGATIVE D~~LARATIUN AND VARIANCE N0. 3461 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: ROBERT ALLAN AND CATHERIN~ GREIG DENHOLM, 67100 E. .lotinstown Circ"le, Anaheim, CA 92807. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consistin~3 of approximately 0.37 acre, 6710 East :tohnstown Circle. Waivers of minim~m lot area and minimum lot. width and frontage to establish a :2-lot RS-7200(SC) single-family subdivision. There were three >>ersuns indicating their pr~sence in opposition to subject request and alth~ugh the staff report was nat read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. B~D Denholm, agent, explained he is requesting to split his lot and build another home because of his failing heall•h and he cannot maintain the slopes; that they do not bel~ng to the homeowner's association and when he puzchased the homa, he was aware of the slopea, but his health was good then. He stated if this is granted, he w~ll be able to builcj a home and sell that portion of 3/4/85 MINUTE_S~ ANAHEIM CI~Y ALANNING COMMISSION._MAP.CH 4, 1985 85-148 khe propecty and remain in hin exisking home wh~re the mai.ntenance will be much .leas. He staCed the amaller iot will be about the same Aize as the other lots in the tract since they were built on u variance originally. He stAtPd if thi~ ia grant•ed, they will do their best to ensure that the new structure blenda in with the exioting tiomeF in ttie area. Mr. Boramanar~d, 6711 8wackhmore Drive, staLed his pcoperty is on eop of the slope and he has been l~ving ~.here for appror.imakely 8 yearA and they moved there because this was a plenned c~mmunS.ty with nicely lAndscaped slopec and greenbelta and they feel the variance would al.ter the cohesive aeathetic aEfcct of the hillside hom~~a, pnd khat the plan Eor. the second lot does not truly reflect the situation because it was constructed on an extremely steep aacending landsca~ed slope and altPring the topography of the community would affect the value ~f his propecty. He staled I~e p~id p lot premium of about $10,000 to preservt hi~ view and if this is granted, t.hat view would be altered. He stated he was also concerned about the stability of the slopes; that the slope is about 25 feet high and pointed out the pcesent home is only 15 feet from the bottom of tti~ s'lope and the second lot is ptoposed to be con~tructed out of the clope which means carving out of the slope, Ne pointed out his home on the exhibit and s:ated the builders put the single-story homes on th~3C site in arder not to block hls view And another home would block part of his ~iew. A,a~ Kahn, 6707 Swarthmore, stated he lives next door ko Mr. Boramanar~d, and he wauld second everything hP said. Mr. Denholm stated the heighL• of the slope is 25 feet and he is propasing a 2-story hame and they would be looking riyht over the top of it. Fie stated he would leave khe engineering of the s].opes up to the City ~f Anaheirn Engineering Department; and that he is suggesting a retaining wall at the bottom and noted the home would actually be on the second s~ory because the lower level would be the garage and he could park thre•e cars in the garage. He stated the CC&R~ clearly state 'that each ownerr by accepting a deed to a lot, hereby acknowledges that the construction by the declarant {S&S at the time) ir.ay impair the view of sub~ect lot and the owner hereby consents to such impairment`. He a~ded hfs neigh~or's view w~uld not be imgaired because of the height of the hill and he would be looking right over the top of the new ~tructure. THE PURLIC HEARING WAS CLC~SED. Responding to CommfssiQner BuRhore, Mr. Denholm explained the last Eew homes ~~ere built in the parking area and that is why they were excluded from the h~meowners association and that the owners have to maintain the slopes. He stated he has not worked with an enginear, because he really does not have the funds and figured if this was acceptable to the Planning Commission, he would go ahead with his engineering plans and he would accept a condition that the engineering wo-ild be satisfactory. Commfssionec Bushore stated ik would have been better to have sp~ent so.ne money on enginEering reports because he would be ver•y leery about approvinq this, not knowing the details. He stated this is a steep slope and on the original 3/4/85 MiNUTES. ANAHEIM ~ITY PLANNTNG COMMrSSION, MAKCH 4, :985 85-149 mar there was some fill that waa brougl~t in aiid askNd if there was an engineering report an the subsoils. He stated he ia concetned about the stability of the alopes and he did nat feel he ~ould approve this becauae ot the liability. Mr. Uenholm stated he would only be cuttinc into a small portion of the slop~ for the two-car gArAge. He stated he had seen some retaining wa.lls which are 6 or 7 feet high with dirt all the way to the L•op and thir wall wou)d be 6 or 7 Eeet high with dirt only about 3 or A feet up. Jay Titus, OfEice Engineer, stated in tt~e original gr.ading oE ti~e slopes, the supplemental grading plan indicates stabilizar.ion fill was used in that elope whic:. tend~ to indicate there was a st~bfllty problem L•o begin with and it does refer to a soils report which would detail the problt~m, but he has not been able ta loca~e a copy of that soils report. Chairwoman Pro Tempore La Claire stated probably one ot the ~easons thi~ lot ~~as so large was becauae of the znstability of the rlopes and the compaction required. She stated ahe was on the Commission when this tract originally came in and she did remernber the whole area had a problem with soil stabillty and foc that reason, she could not vote in favor of this request. ACTION: Chairwoman Pra Tempore L~ Claire offered a motion, seCOn~ed by Commisaioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED (Ch~irman Herbst absent) khat the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the F>roposal tn establish a two-lot RS-7200(SC? (Residential, Single-Family) subdivision with waivers of minimum lot area and minimum lot frontage un an icregularly-st~a~ed parcel of land consiating of approximate'ly 0.37 acces, having a frontage of approximately 114 feet on the south side of JohnaCown Circle. and further described as 6710 E. Johnstown Cir~le; and doea hereby approve the Negative Declaration upo~~ finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any commPnts received ducing the public review proceas and further finding on the 1~asis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial Pvidencp that the pcoject will have a si~nificant effect on the environment. Chairwoman Pro Tempore La Clairp offered Resolution No. PC85-70 and moved for it~ passage and edoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny Variance No. 3461 due to the potent.ial in~tability of the slopes and futther on the basis that there are no apecial ciccumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, ].ocation and surcoundings which do not apply lo other identically zoned property in the same vicinity; and that strict applicatfon of the Zoning Code does not deprive the property of privilegee enjoyed by other properties in the ?dentical 2one and classification in the vicinity. On ro.ll call, the foreguing resolution wAS passed by tne following vote: AYES: BOURS, BUSHORE, FRY~ ~ING~ LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY NOES: NONE ABSENT: HERB5T Jack White, Assistant ~ity ALtornpy, gresented the written right ta appeal the Planning Commission'~ decision within 22 days to the City Council. 3/4/85 MINUTESJ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. MARCN 4, 1985 _ 85-150 ITEM N0. 10. EIR NEGATIVE D~CLARATION AND VARIANC~ N0. 3464 PUaLI~ HEARING. OWNERS: nOYLE E. AND MARJQRIE L. SMITH, 285A4 Nuevo Valley Drive, Nuevo, CA g2367. ACFNT: LYNN F. TtIOMSF.N, 1433 W. J~neen WAy, Anaheim, CA 92801. Proper~y described as a rectangularly-ahaped p~r~el c~f land conaisting of ~pproximately 0.75 acce, 164J Wes~. Cerritos Avenue. Requirad l~t frontage, minimum lot area, minimum lut width and frontage, minimum front yard aetback, mirifmum rear yatd aetback, and permitted orientation of ~tructures to establiah a 5-lot RS-7200 aingle-Eamily subdivision. IT IS NOTED THF. FOLLOWING ACTION WAS TAKEN A`P THFi BEGINNING OF TEIE MEETING. ACTION: Commissioner King otfered a motion, secanded by Commissio~ec Bouas and MOZ'ION CARR'tED (~hairman Herbst abs~nt) that consider.ation of the aforementfoned matter be continued ko the regularly-scheduled rtieel:inq of April 11, 1985, at che requegt of. the peti~ioner. I'PEM NO 11. EIR NEGATIVE D~CLARATION~_WAIVER OF CQDE RE~UIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2599 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAI. CORP., P. 0. Box 76478~ L~s Angeles, CA 90076. AGF.'NT: UNITED SUITES OF AMGRICA, INC., ~50 New~?ort Center Drive, Newport eeach, CA 92660. ~roperty deicribed as an irregulac.ly•-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 6.34 acres located at the~ sot~th~~est corner of Frontere Street and Glassell Stceet. To Fermit a 7-ntory, 224-room hotel complex with on-sale ~f alcohol~c~ beverages and waiver of minimum number of parkin5 spaces and maximum sl•ructural height adjacent to single-family zoning. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition tn subject rec.~ue3t and although the staff report w~s not read, .it is refercNd to and made a part of the minutes. Bob Fuller, 848 North Amelia, San Dimas, was prpsent to answer any questions. TIiE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. It was noted a nPgative declaration wa~ previously appro~~ed, July 23, 1984, in conjunction with the original approval oE Conditional Use Permit No. 2599. ACTTON: Commissioner King ofteced a motion, seconded b,y Commissioner Bouas and MOTiON CARRIED (Chairman Herbst absent) that tne Anaheim City Planninq Commission does herela;~ grant waivec la) on the basis that the parking waiver will not cause an increase in traffi.c congestion In the immediatp vicinity nor advecsely affect. any adjoining land uses and granting of the parking waiver under the canditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of khe citizens oE the City of Anaheim and gcanting waiver (b) on the basis that there are special circumstances applicat~le ko the property such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings whirh do not t+pply to other identically zoned ptoperty ir~ the 3/4/85 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MARCH 4, 1985 85-151 same vicinitiyj and thal strict application of the Zoning Code deprtves the property oE pcivileges enjoyed t,y other properties in the identical ~one and classificetion in the vicinity. Commissioner King offered Reeolu~ion No. PC85-71 and moved Eor it~ passage and ad~ption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission docs heceby approve reviaed plans for. Cund.it~onal Use Permit No. 2599 p~~rsuent ~a Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 and subject to Snterdepartinent~l Commirtep recommendations: On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the follawing vote: AYES: BUUAS~ BUSHORE, FRY, KINV, LA CLAIRE, MC BURN~Y NOES: NONE ABSENT: HERItiST Mr, Fuller explained this hotel will be located in an industrial area and they havP a national foLlowing of salesmen who use their hotels and s~ay as long as a week at a time and set up their goods in the £ront of the suite and ahaw them to customers ~nd many fly into the area and their choice of places tu eal• is somewhat limited since this ia an industrial area. He added they will have a nice restauranc in the hotel, but in most areas where they have these hotels~ they have a restaurant i~e•rby where their guests can go to eat. He stated they will eventually be coming back in for an additional restaurant on the co[ner of Glassell and Frontera, but that will be considered separately. Paul Singer, TrafEic Engineer, stat~d staff has discussed l•his and the rcason they could not gropose the irePStanding restaurant at the pre~ent time was because of parking problems ttiat coul~ be created. He added he has recammended that after the hotei is in operation, the parking demand can be louked a~ to see if the hotel could accommodate a freestanding cestaurant. Mr. Fuller stated the Engfneers also suggested they bond $7000 for every extra arking spaces needed. Paul Singer stated that could be an alternative, and ;~'i~ a precedent already set by the Red Lion Inn. Jack White, Assistant City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the P.Ianning Commission's decision ~i~hin 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0. 12. EIR Iv~GATIVE DECLARATION (PREV. APPROVED) AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2132 PUELIC HEARING-EXTENSION OF TIME. OWNERS: GLENDON AND SHIRLFY MILLER, 2121 Skyline Drive, Fullerton, CA 92631. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.86 acre, 2830 E. Miraloma Avenue. Request fox approval af a 2-year (3-mont.h retroactive) extension of time or deletion of Conditian No. 9 of Re3olution No. PCgO-198. ACTION: Commissioner King offered a motion, seconded by CommissiAner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Chairman Herbst absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Cammission dnes hereby continue consideration of the aforementioned matter to the regularly-s~heduled meeting of March 18, 1985, at the request af the petitioner. ~ ~~ MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PT,ANNTNG COMMISSInN, MARCH 4, 1985_,., 85-152 IT~M NO~ 13. REPORTS_AND RECOMM~NDATIONS: A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMI'~ N0. 2350 - Request [rom Theodore Andereon foc e one~year extension of time for Conditional Uae Permit No. 2350, prop~rty located at 819 South Euclia Street. Commiasioner Buahore atated this was npproved in 1982, ~nd the petitionec has not done anything. Gr.eg Hastinga, AASOCiate Planner, stated he underatAnds the applicant bocame ill and did not proceed with anything on the propecty and now is caming back in Eoc an extension. t1e atated the uae thAt was existing before thie use permit hAS been an ongoing uae and the pcevious use was a restaucant wiF.h on-sale beer ~nd wine which became a cock~ail lounge. Commisaioner Bushore stated that ha~ been a cocktail loungQ for many yParn. Greg Hastings r~tated they aerve me~ls. Commiasioner Burhore stated he will not vote for en extension if this goes past July 1985 becauae he Eelt three .yearA to comply with condi.tior~a is sufficient. AC'~ION: Commissionec King offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McDurney and MGTION CARRIED (Chaicman Herbst absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commisaion doea I~ereby grant a one-yeac (one-yeac retroactive) extension of time foc Conditional Use Permit No. 2350 to expire on July 12, 1985. OTHER DISCUSSION: Commissioner Buahore stated he did not attend Ghe last Packs and Recreati~n Commission meeting. ACTION: Commissioner Fry offer.ed A moti.on, seconded by Commiasioner McBucney and MOTION CARRIED (Chairman Herbst absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission cioes t~ereby request that th~ City Council cEView the Planning ~ommission's representation to the Parks and Recreation Commission and would hereby reco~rJnend that they eliminate the mandatory attendance by a member of the Planning Commissi~~n. ADJOURNMGNT: Cummissioner McBurney offeced a motion, seconded by Com;nisafonec King and MOTION CARRIED (Chairman Herbst absent), that the meeting be adjourned. The meeting was adjourned at 4:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, G~i~ ~ ~~l~c/~-'~-s.i Bdith L. Harris, Secretary Anaheim CiL-y Planning Commiseton ELH:lm 0].04m 3/4/85