Loading...
Minutes-PC 1986/03/31REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING The regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning der by Chairwoman La Claice Con~ission was called to or in the Council Chamber, 1986 h 31 , , at 10:00 a.m.. Marc present, and the Commission teviewed bein g a quorum plans of the items on today's agenda. RECESS: 11:30 a.m. RECONVENED: 1:35 p.m. YRESENT: ~haicwoman: La Claire Hetbst, Fry s r , CommissioneLS: Boua Lawicki, Messe, McBurney ABSENT: Commissioner: None Director, Community ALSO PRESENT: Norm Priest Uevelopment/Planning Department Annika Santalahti Assistant Dicector for 2oning Malcolm Slaughter Deputy City Attorney Jay Titus Office Engineer Tcaffic Engineer Paul Singer Associate PlannPr Greg Hastings Associate Plannec Leonard !9~Ghee Planning Commission Secretary Edith tiarcis MINUTES FUR APPROVAL: Commissioner Bouas otfered a motion, seconded by Commissionec McBurney and MU:ION CARRIED that the minutes of the meeting of Match 17, 158ti, be appLOVed as submitted. ITEM NO. 1 EIR NE~ATIV6 D~CLARATION (READV.I AND RECLASSIFICATIOP7 N0. ~5-86-24lREADV.) PUBLIC HEARING. OWN~RS: ROBEkT E. FINLEY, 3520 W. Sa~CAn92805aheAGENTA 92804 AND HUGO A. VASQUEZ, ET AL 2U2-1/2 S. Olive, Anaheim, CAROLYN iNGRAM SEITZ, P•0• ~ox 4321, Long Eeach, CA 9U8d4'roximately pe~8ribed as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of app Streetha3512 WestoSavannaf(Lot~l)lande35205WesteSavannae(Lott2~side of Savanna RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200 or a less intense zone to construct a 28-unit apactment cotnplex. Subject petition was withdrawn at the meeting of Macch 3, 1986, in order for the applicant to acquire adjacent property and submit revised plans and in ordec foc the petition to be ceadvectised. There were seven pe[sons indicating theit presence in opposition to subject request and although the staft report was not read, it is refecred to and made a pact of the minutes. 86-201 3/31/86 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. MARCH 31, 1986 86-202 Carolyn Seitz, a9ent, explained these are the last two remaining parcels on the easte[ly end of Savanna Street which could be developed in this manner and are succ•~unded by RM-1200 Zoning, Commercial Zoning and RDS-2400 7,oning. She stated tt~ey feel this development will be an attractive addition to the area and will serve as a buffer between the commercial uses on Knott Avenue and the less intense condominium development to the west. She presented a lettec from the neighbors supporting this request. Ms. Seitz explained they sent a letter to the residents in the area asking ~o meet with them to review the plans. She explained the list of residents was provided to them by the Planning Department and that no one came to the meeting they scheduled for last Thurs~ay night. Ted Norton, 3561 Savanna, Anaheim, presented a patition with 27 signatures in opposition to this request because they do not feel there will be enough parking arid it is too dense. He stated they feel the parking from that complex will just spill over into the street which is already overcrowded. He stated thece are a lot ot apartments in that area and the tenants are parking on the stceet now. He stated many of the residents did not make it to the meeting on Tiiursday night because they were out of town for the Easter holidays. Mr. Norton stated the tratYic situation on Savanna Street is relativell heavy now and they have a problem getting out onto Knott Street heading ~iorth. He stated ttie complex appears to be three stories with parking underneath and they felt that would set a precedent in the neighborhood. He stated the project ::ould just be too dense and would not fit in with the surrounding area. Bill Yhelps, 1259 N. Batavia, Orange, explained he is re~resenting Mr. Stahovich who owns property on Savanna Stceet and they are confused because the original proposal was for 18 units with only 17 allowed and now they are r~questing 2~ units. He stated he did not think ~he parking had been counted against the lot coverage and stated the parking structure is more than 50& of the lot. Chairwuman La Claire pointed out the petitioner purchased additional property and it was determined the total property is .78 acre. Mr. Phelps stated the General Plan designation for that area is for low medivm to medium density and when Mr. Stahovich requested a change two years ago, the area was not considered transitional and was just RM-2400 and they do not understand how someone could now request a chanye of this nature, pointing out there still has not been a General Plan Amendment to change the designation. He explained the prop~rty is general planned for RM-2400, not RM-1200. Mr. Yhelps stated he was concerned because they are c_ying to construct Mr. Stahovich's ~roject under the RM-2400 regulations and approval of this complex puts them at a disadvantage because this petitione_ will be renting the units tha same as they are. Acthur Stahovich, 8U5 Ramblewood Urive, sta.red he owns property at 3639 West Savanna and ex~lained when his propertf was rezoned, the traffic problem was 3/31/86 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MARCH 31, 1986 86-203 discussed and there was a lot of concern and he felt if any more development is allowed on that street, there will be additional traffic problems. He stated with more units, there is a pcssibility of overloading and there will be more traffic and parking problems. He stated he believed the street will be widened, but there will be a bottleneck at Knott Avenue. He stated there is only one wa,y in and one way out of this street and he ~as under the impression th~.~ the area was zoned RM-2400. Joan Todd, 3n2U Savanna, stated she has been the spokesperson for several years on this stceet and explained she did not receive any notices of thi~ hearing or an invitation to a meeting with the developer. She stated she would like to address the fact that when Mr. Stahovich requested his project, she was not notiYied and she was within the 300-foot radius. She explained they were granted a rehearing before the Council because they were not noti.fied and she was told she would be notified of any rescheduled hearings. Ms.Todd stated she had presented a petition signed by a large number of residents on that st~eet at that last hearing and they did request a left-turn lane on Savanna; and that the City indicated that developers of any new projects daveloped on that street would absorb the costs of that left-turn lane, as well as the dr.ain at the end of the street. She stated the City has indicated tnat i1 thF left-turn lane was ~ut in, they would lose the parking on Knott Street and the residenrs from the apartments on Knott Street would be parking on Savanna Street; and that they feel with this additional density, there would be additional parking on Savanna. She stated she would like to ensure tha~ whatever the decision is, if this property is developed, that a ieft-tucn lane would be added to the reg4;irements as indicated by the City Council at the last meeting she atte~ded. Mary Baderr 6i01 Saranna, stated the prime vaiue is in the land on Savanna Street and there ace a number of residents on the north side and 'cwo large parcels ort the sout:, side, a;~d those property oarners would want the same thing iY this is approced ane~ chat wuuld set a precedenL. Ms. Seitz stated tnis property is the closest to Knott on Savanna Street and they will be required to widen Savanna at Knott which would open up the flow of traffic. She stated there are properties Lurther down Sa~:anna which have been reclassified to RM-1200; however, she did not think they have been developed. She stated the City sL•ill has some control over density further down Savanna Street and those cases will come before Commission in the future, but she did not think it will have any affect on this request. She stated tliey feel this will be a good development and ~n attractive addition to the neighbothood. THE PUBLIC HtARING WAS CLOSED. Chairwoman La Claire asked the zonir~ on the surrounding properties. Annika Santalahti stated the surrounding pro,~rties are a combination of RM-2400 and xM-3UOU and that a number of years ago there was a General Plan designation tor medium density which would have allowed RM-1200, but that was modified subsequently and the zoning is basically RM-2400 or less. She stated she thought prupecties immediately nurth are zoned Rt4-1200 (the northwest cornec 3/31/86 86-204 ~INUTES, ANF.HEIM CITY PLANNIru COMMISSION, MARCti 31, 1986 _ of Knot-t and Savanna) because those prope~ties fronting on Knott were not considered as critical as those Lrontiny ort '~avanna Street because ~f the access to that arteriail highway and were allowed a highe~ n~tential density. Regarding the lisc of surrounding pxoperty zoning in che stazf ~ep~~t, Annika Santalahti expiained the records would have to .~e researci~z:: ic~ ~t~er to detecmine ~he cesultan*. actual densicy and even if :.he zonir,g :,v' R~-'Z400~ the density doesn'*_ have to c.° 36 units ~c~r acre. Chairwoman La Claite staterl s::.- thougl±t the Commission has s`uck t~, R;:~-2400 in that area. Co~nmissioner Fry s~...~.ed according t~+ the s~aff cepu «, there ace four paccels which are zoned RM-1'100. Paul Singec stated there is a norttbour.d lane on Xnott a~ Savanna which was installed wi~en. the previous developm~~:~. c:ame in r~nd that was accomplished without removing the parking. He stai.~d he did not thinF: there needs to be anything else done at t•his time; and that it would bC tielpful if Savanna was improved, pacticulacly in front of this parcel, which would widen that intecsection at this point. Jay Titu~ stated Savann.a Street has been improved in front of aJ.l the other pro~ects which have been con.structed and thece are scme sectiot~s of the street which have not been improved, but it has been a condition on ail the ptojects which have been approved. He responded to Commissioner Fry that the ultimat~ wiath of Savanna Street is b4' right-of-way to right-of-way and 40' curb-to-curb. Paul Singer sk~Eeri the thereowilllbesroom f~reanle1astbound stated once the widening takes place, left-turn lane. Concecning d.c?in~:~a: Jay Titus stai:ed every project has nad the condition included t~: pcovide draina~e; biit to date those projects which have been appcoved hc3ve not beer. construct~d. Responding to commi~sioner Messe, Malcol~ S1au5h*ec expL~ined the City or Anaheim ptovides three ni.thods of notifia~tion ~f public hearings: (1) posting the ptoperty, ('lr -4vertisement in the new~~apez and (3) sending notices to propErtp oMlers as ahown on the tax ussessor's roles within 300 feet of subject pcopert}~. He explained noki.ces are not sent to tenants since the City has no way of knowing who tne tenants are. Chairwoman La Claice s:ated the Conmission limited the RM-1200 Znning on a pcevious approval to a certain number of units beca~se of the traftic on Knott Street and it was to provide a buffer to the c•~st af the projects. She pointed out there is RM-3000 Zonin9 adjacent to RM-1200 acru5~ the strPet, and also adjacent to this propecty there is RM-:.'000 Zer::n9• Annika Santalahti stated there is RM-1200 ~onin~ immediat~ly to tY,e nort:- of subject pcoperty, and also propecty just west oE s~~bjer,t property i; RN;-'..200 Zoning, but the density was held RM-,t40~ on thatiocationymaanshowing~thoseare three RM-12U0 lots on Savanna. She ~rese^ted P properties. 3/31/86 ~~.~ .` ~ ~-; s~o-aas ':4INUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY ?1_ANNING COMMISSI~N~ MAR~•H 31, 1986 _ Commissionec Fry asked ho~~ mar.y units could have been :eveloped on that property prior to pucchise of the additional property. Annika Santalahti stated it this propetty was cczoned ro RN,-i+Cl rather tha~ RM-120G', less than lti unit: would be allowed. She Stc~[PO 12M-2~Gu permil•, la ;;~its per acre a~d this is 3/4 of. an acte. Commissioner Messe cefecred *_o Varianee No. 3:i8•} 3[1CI COiilifllSS10f1E'LLOr2Ctn,dRO stated tne :>t.:ff report iaaicates 28 units WHeestatedeat thisaend of the that is th~: same s9.ze as subject prope `•y• street, the zoning is ba:ically RM-1~~Q and the si~e of the lots are t3si~a.?y the same an6 :~P ~~^" ty is about the same as is bei~g rec ested today ar,d this projeet cequires no wsivers undec the Rt4-1200 Zor~~ng. Chaitwoman L+3 Claire stated when the project on the cornec o£ Savanna 2rid Macian Way w~3s submitted previously, there was a lot of disc•.!ssion aboiit the AnniicaYSantalahtiostated~thateptoFerLYlhastRMn2400rZOning1andEhasmaboukol8s• units gcr. dC.C2. Commissioner r^r; stated he sees ro bia p~oblem with ;his request ba~ca~se there are no waiv•rs requested and the~e is ali:eady R~-~1200o e`~ng on otfEr proper.ties i~+ the area and hP th~~nght it is a g P~ ACTIG:!- Comrissioner Fry offeeed a c,~t.~c~.~, seconded by Commissioner s~uas and MOTIOId CARR1Ell that the Ananeim Gity Pla~~ning Commission has reviewed the proposal to c~r_~:ass:.fy ~~=~le~r P~oPeLty fcom the RS-A-a3,000 (ResidenLial, Agricultur-~:? ~6ne to the R!4-1200 (Residential, t4ultiple-Fhai~.j~ a~celtof land consttuct a 28-uni.t apartm.ent complex °~~vingcaaf9ontage :~.~ an ror.imately 158 coximat~ly 0.78 acc:r p consistin9 ut app feet on the south side •,f S~'aanna Sk~ove the Negative DeclacGti~n upon finding 3520 W. Savanna; and dc:~s herPby app that it has considered ct~e ~egative Declaration togethez with arey comments recei.ved duriny the publ;c r.eview process and further finding on .:he basis of the Init~.al SCudy and any :.omments received that there is no substantial evidence that thE ~~toject wi11 have a significant effect on t:~e enviconment. Commissionec Pcy offered Resolution No• PC86-69 and moved foc its passage and adoption that the Ana~.ei- L'iry :~lannin; C~m~esdeoartmentalCConmittee Reclassification No. 85-86-24 subject to P recommendaticns. On r.oll call, the focegoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS~ FRY, F:ERBST, LA CLAIRE,• LAWICFI, M:: BU°NEY, MESSE NUES: NONE T'.u.'~iLI~T: h")Ni: Malcaln Slaughtec, Deputy :.ity Attotney, presented t;~e written tight to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to tt;e City Council. Chaicwoman La Claire stated she voted in ~av^r of this request because of the property location and because there i~ RM-1200 Zoning accoss the stceet and 3/31/86 MINUT~S, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 31 1986 86-205 because no waivecs were requested; howevec, this will be the last RM-1200 lot she will considec fcom the RM-3000 Zoned properties to the end of the street where the sin9le-family residences will be affected alocg Marian Way. She stated the next pcoperty is RDf-3000 and the rest of the block is very low density and she thought this project would serve as a decent buffer. ITEM N0. 2 EIk NEGAlIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE I~O. 3542 PUBLIC H~ARING. OWNERS: GARY L. FAHLER, 2725 Gretta Lane, Anaheim, CA 92806. AGENT: YEFIM HOFFMAN~ 2725 GCettd Lane, Anaheim, CA 92806. Propetty described as an irregulacly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately U.86 acre, having a frontage of appcoximately 107 feet on the northwest side of the terminus of Gcetta Lane, approximately 430 feet west of the centerline of Blue Gum Street, and further described as 2715-"L725 Gretta Lane. Waiver of minimum numbec of parking spaces to construct an indust!ial storage building. ~ontinuea from the meetings of t•larch 3 and 17, 1986. Thece war no one indicating their p[ese~~e in opposition to sub}ect request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part oY the minutes. Gary Kahlpr, ownec, reterred to his letter containing the information requestAd on Piarch 17th., and also a letter to Sylvia ~Ien~oz of the Anaheim Fire Department azd added he would stipulate to comply with all cules and regu:~ations and explain~d th^y have 17 differer.t permits. T!i~ PU~LIC HEARING '+~AS CLUSED. Chairwuman La Claire asked if the business is opecating at full capacity at this lucaticn. h;r. Kahler responded they would expect to add no more than 208 add~tional business at this location. c:hairwoman La Claire stated th? City is vezy concerned about hazardou: waste and ~hanked N~r. Kar~?ec for his cooperation in providing the information. She .isked for any sugge,stiuns or recommendations that may be helpful to the City in the future after he nas been in operation for awhile. ^;c. Kahler stated all the business people in this field are very concerned ab~ut hazaraous waste and a~:vmbec have gone out of business recently because hey ciid nut understand evPrytning that has to be done and that there is a lot of paperwork and regulation.> to comply with. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fry anc't^OTION CARItIED that :.he Anaheim City Planning Commission has ceviewed the proposal to construct an industrial stocage building with waiver. of minimum number o£ parking spaces on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land co~isisting of approximately Q.86 acre, having a frontage of approximately 107 feet on the nocthwest side of the terminus of Gretta Lane and further described as 2715-2725 G~etta Lane; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon 3/31/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CUMMI73SI~N MARCH 31 1986 86-207 Linding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received dusing the public review process and further finding on the basis oi tl~e Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effec~ on the environment. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC86-70 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City planning Commission does hereby grant Variance No. 3542 on the basis that the parking waiver will not cause an inccease in traffic congestion in the immediate vicin=ty noc adversely affect any adjoining land uses and granting of the parking waiver under the conditiuns imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and genecal welfa:e of the citiz~ns of the City of Anaheim and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. Un roll call, the foregeing cesoluticn was passed by the following vote: AY~S: BUUAS~ FRY~ HER~ST~ LA CLAIKE~ LAWICKI~ MC RURNEY~ MF.SSE NOES: NO[~~ ABSENT: NONE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to apneal the Planning c:ommission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. THL•' FOLLU~JING IiEM WAS t!;•:ARU AT i.HE EEGINNING Oc THE MEETING ITEM IdO. 3 k~IR ::ATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 11 AP1D VARIANCF. N0. 3544 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: CZiY O:' hNAHEIM, 200 S. Anaheim IIoulevard, Anaheim, CA 928U5. AGENT: J.R.H. INC., 5101 E. Independerce Blvd., Charlotte, NC Zg212, Pzoperty clescribed as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 5.3 acres located at the no~theasterly corner of La Palma Avertue antl Weir Canyon koad, having approximate fronteges of 910 feet on the north side of La Palma Avenue and 758 feet on the east side of Weir Canyon Road. Waivecs of maximum number and type of signs, maximum sign area and display surfaces and limi.tations on s.ign lighting to construct 3 freestanding signs and 3 wall signs. continued trom the meeting of Macch 17, 1586. AC:'!'ION: Commissioner Eouas oftered a notion, seconded by Commis.sioner Herbst and MOTIOti c:ARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matte~ be continued to the zegularly-scheduled meeting of April 14, 1986, at the petitioner's request in order to submit revised plans. IL~t9 N0. 4 EIR NBGATIVE DECLARATION AND RECLASSIFICATION N0. 65-86-26 PUktLlc: HEARING. OWNk~RS: IRAJ EFTEKHARI, 1850 E. 17th Stceet, #113, Santa Ana, CA 9270I. Property desccibed as a rec*_angularly-shaped ~arcel of land consistin9 ot approximately 0.41 acre, having a fcontage of approximately 30 teet on tt,e east side of East Stceet, 408 5. East Stree~. 3/31/86 PIINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MARCH 31, 1986 86-208 RM-24UU to kM-12Q0 nc a less intense zone to construct a 13-unit apartment complex. There was no one indicatin9 their presence in oFgosition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is ~eferced to and made a part oi the minutes. IRAJ EFTEKHARI, owner, was present to answer any questions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. A~TION: ~ommissionec Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to reclassify subject property from the RM-2400 (Residential, t•]ultiple-Family) Zone to the RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zone to construct a 13-unit apartment building on a rectangularly-shaped parc~l of land consisting of appcoximately 0.41 acre, having a frontage of approximately 5U feet on the east side of East Street and further desc[ibed as 408 S. Ea~t Street; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has ccnsidered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public revie'~~ process and fucthec finding on the basis di the initial Study and any c~mments ceceived that thece is no substantial evidenca that the project will ha~~e a significant effect on the environment. Commissionec Fry oYfered Resolution No. PC86-`i; and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commi~sion does heceby g[ant Reclassification No. b5-86-26 subject to Intecdepartmental Committee recommendations. Un ioll call, the foregoing tesolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY~ HERBST, LA CLAIRE~ LAWiCKI~ MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NCNE ABSENT: N~1JE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. IZ'EM NO. 5 EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 11 AND VARIANCE NO. 3525 PUBLIC HEAFING. OWNERS: EUCLID-BALL A.S.C. LTD., 1045 W. Katella, ~320, Ocange, CA 92663., AGENT: ARTECH SIGNS, 1640 W. Commerce St., Corona, CA 51720, ATTN: DA'VID GEORGE~ Pcoperty described as a cectanqularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.59 acre, having a frontage ef approximately 245 feet on the east sioe of Euclid Street, 1324 South Euclid Street (Anaheim Surgical Center). Waivec of permitted business si9ns to erect a freestanding sing. There was no one indicating t~eir pcesence in opposition to subject request ~:-± although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part cf the minutes. 3/31/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIUN~ MARCH 31, 1986 86-209 Richatd D. George, agent, explained this siyn is requested in the CO Zcne and is surrounded by cortimercialiretail uses, multiple-famil}~ uses, a fire station and cffice and professional uses. He stated the building is set back 40 feet behind another building and the permitte~ wall signs would be of little value to pedestrian and vehicle traffic. Dc. William Loskota, Medical Director for the Anaheim Surgical Cer.ter, exp2ained this will be a four-operating room, freestan~ing surgical center which is essentially a hospital without beds; that they can do about 1/2 of the surgeries that are normally done in hospitals, at about 1/2 the cost. F3e explained this tacility can function in a disaster or emer9ency situation as an additional four opetating rooms for the City and is located immediately adjacent tu the tice station and is ideally situated for a disaste[ site. He stated the sign is just a column and all they are requesting is an identification sign on the street to allow patients to be able to find the surgical center. He stated they will probably do about 2,000 to 4,000 surgeries a year at this cente[. TH~ PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissionec McBurney stated he did not think this type of signage is really aimed at persons driving by, hut to people lookiny for this particular site, and a petson could possibly drive ~ight by the sign. 6e stated he thought a low monument si9n would be more apptopriate. Dr. Loskota stated they are set back about 40 feet from Euclid and the site is not visible to traffic traveling north because of the building sitting to the nocth. Commissioner Herbst asked if there will be any copy below the name of the cente~. Dr. Loskota responded they will only have the address below the name and it is merely an identification sign for their patients. Chairwoman La Claice stated she thought it would be bettec to have ~ low munument sign also because that would be at eye level of the driver of the car. Dr. Loskota stated th?y like the pillar look and think the sign would be very attractive, and they would rather have the sign up so it can be seen and noted it is a small sign. He stated, in addition, they would have to remove some trees if they installed a lower sign. Commissioner Lawicki stated he zs familiac with that acea a~d it is difficult to see the building and people do go past it. He stated he did not see a problem because of the narcowness and size of the sign and thought it would be something he could live with. ~ommissioner Herbst stated he feels there is a hardship ana w~uld go along with this request, as lon9 a:s the petitioner does not have a reader board. it was noted the Planning Director oc his authorized cepresenta~:ive has determined that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 11, as defined in the State Environmental Impact Report Guidelines and is, therefore, categ~rically exempt from the cequirement to prepare an EZR. 3/'sl/86 MINUiES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMZSSION, MARCH 31, 1986 $6-210 ACTION: Commissioner Fry offered Resolution No. :'~86-72 and moved for its pas~age a~1d adopti_n that the Anaheim City Plaru~.ing Commission does hereby grant Vaciaace No. 3525 on the basis that there ~oeospachal 1 cationaands applicable to the pcoperty such as size, shape, P 9 P Y. surcoundings which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicinity; and that strict applieation of the 2oning Code deprives the property oL• privileges enjoyed by othec properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity; and subject to the petitioner's stipulation that no additional copy will be added to the sign and subject to Intecdepartmental Committee recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the f~llowing vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBSi, LA CLAIRE, LAWILKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABS~NT: NONE Malcolm Slaughter, D~puly City Attocney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. Chairwoman La Claire stated she voted in favor of this cequest because there is an obstruction from the north; howevec, she does not usually vote for any increase in the si9nage. IiEM NU. b EiR NEGATIVE D~CLARATION AND VARIANCE NO. 3540 PU~LIC HEARIN~. OWNERS: JACK 0. AND MARILYN ANN BROIJN, 7630 Corto Road, Anaheim, CA y2806. AGENT: GERALD R. ANDERSON, 1442 E. Irvine Blvd., ~126, Tustin, CA y2b80. Property described as an icregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.95 acre, having a frontage of approximately 191 Eeet on the south side of Cocto Road, and furthec described as 7630 Corto Road. Waivets of minimum lot area and density and minimum lot width to establish a 2-lot, RS-HS-22,U00 (SC) Zone residential subdivision. There was no one indicating theii presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not cead, it is ceferred to and made a pact of the tninutes. Jack Brown, owner, stated he wishes to split his ~.~roperty into two half-acre parcels; that the lots will have all the net area requieed and only lack 1,009 square feet ot gross area; that all the properties around them are one-half or slightly Larger, but theirs is the only almost full acre pcopecty. He stated they can meet all setbar.k requiremen~s and recreational-leisure area and the proposed new structuce would be 40 feet fcom the existing house. He stated Corto Road is a private road; and that they have discussed this with the neighbors on Corto Road and received no opposition. He presented a statement signed by his neighbors suppocting this request. Mr. Brown stated he feels this request should be granted because: (1) the minimum net area requicement of at least 19,000 square feet for each parcel has been met, (G) the new ene-half acre parcels would be compatible with the surcoundin~~ area, (3) the newly created parcel would make a good building site and (4) the neighbor.s have no objections. 3/31/Bo MIt~UTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSZON, MARCH 31, 1986 86-211 THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst stated he thought this is a good design. Chairwoman La Claire stated the request is minimal and similar variances have been granted in the area. ACiIUN: Commissionec Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBUrney and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to estabiish a 2-lot RS-HS-22,000 (SC) Zoned subdivision with waivecs of minimum lot area and density and minimum lot width on an icre9ularly-shaped paccel of land consisting of app~oximately 0.99 acre, having a frontage ot approximately 191 feet on the south side of Corto Road, apptoximately 350 feet west of the centerline of Mohler Drive and further described as 7630 Cocto Road; and does hereby approve the Negative Deelacation upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments receive~ during the public review process and further finding on the basis of tne lnitial Study and any comnents received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the er.viconment. Commissioner Hecbst oftered Resolution No. PC8b-71 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Variance No. 3540 on the basis that the req~ests is minimal and that there are special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings which do not apply to othec identically zoned property in the sartie vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code depcives the propecty af privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity and subjec~ to Intecdepartmental Committee recommendations. On roll call, the fo[egoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BUUAS, FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, oresented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITBM N0. 7 EIR ~:A~EGORICAL EXEMPiION-CLASS 5 AND VARIANCE NO. 3545 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: CHARLES E. 6 LOURDES B. ROGERS, 3118 W. Monroe Ave., Anaheim, CA 928U1. Property described as a:ectangulazly•-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 7245 square feet, having a frontage of apptoximately 63 feet on the south side of Monroe Stceet, and further described as 3116 W. Monroe Avenue. Waivers of minimum side and rear yard structural setback, permitted encroachments into requiced yacds and minimum number, type, dimension and location of oarking spaces to constcuct a 2-room addition to an existing single-family cesidence. 3/31/86 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CZTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 31 1986 86-212 Theze were two persons indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and a~though the staff ceport was not read, it is referced to and made a part of the minutes. Charles Rogers, owner, stated they prooo~e to build a 2-bedroom addition for sleeping quarters foc their family so the front house can be used for the care of six elderly cesidents. He explained the buildiny is 16 years old. Bacbara Lewis, 3119 W. i~•ler Avenue, Anaheim, stated the existing building was etected as a gacage 16 yeazs ago and that she undecstands these petitioners want to add two rooms to that garage and the neighbocs think that would be too much building in the reac of the house. Skie added the petitioner also wants to build a garage in front of the house and there is a carpoct there now and thece are numero~s vehicles on the street and if this is allowed, everyone else wuuld want to put gacages in f:ont of their houses. Mr. Rogers stated the records show that structuce as a workshop and not a garage. idrs. Rogers, ttie ownec's wife, stated they p~:LChased this p~operty two months ago, as is, because the building had the possibility of being convected into a place for their family to sleep. She stated the people who lived there before used that building as a wotkshop and it wa:; never licensed as a garage. She stated she is in the board and care home business and plans to convert the stcucture for sleeping quacters and the front will be convetted into a cace home for the eldezly. She stated there ~~ill be no packing on the street because the[e is plenty of room to park on the prope~ty. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLUSED. Commissioner Herbst stated this seems to be a duplex instead of aunit with one sinyle-family cesidence and it could be made into another living being rented. It was pointed out thece will be no k.itchen in the addition. Annika Santalahti stated if the second building doesn't have a kitchen, it has not been considered as a dwelling. She added she does not have the cegulations before her for a small gcoup home, but thought with the cight license, there c~uld be a certain number of adult people in a residence. Commissionet Hecbst stated he thought this could be developed into another home or an apartment. Commissioner Bouas stated nothin9 is being added to the structure except walls to provide two additional rooms. Chaicwoman La Claire stated actually the addition is to allow for a board and care facility and asked if a conditional use p~rmit is required for that use. Annika Santalahti stated she thought if thece were more than 6 people, a conditional use permit would be reauired, but six or less would not require a permit. Ms. Rogers stated the application is already in the State Department for a cace home with six eldecly people and according to them, she does not ~eed a conditional use permit from the City, but they do need additional bedrooms for the family. 3/31/86 86-213 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 31 1986 Malcolm Slaughter stated the only thing before the Commission today is the variance requested and there is no request for any kind of a group home and that the applicant would have to comply with the State codes in that regard. Commissione~ Messe stated the problem is that bedrooms are being added and no parking spaces are being added. Leonard I~cGhee, Associate Plannec, stated the required number of parking spaces is four with two open and two covered and they aee providing one covered space. Ms. Reger.s stated there is parking on the long driveway on the side of the house. She stated she has thre~tieseandrthatttherenishroometo nd has not had a carport on any of those prop patk five cars on this ptoperty. It was noted the Planning Dicector or his authorized representative has determined that the pcoposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 5, as defined in the State Environmental Impact keport Guidelines and is, therefoce, categocically er.empt from the requirement to p[e~a[e an EIR• ACT10N: Commissioner Messe offeced Resolution No. PC86-74 and moved for its passage and adoption that the hnaheim City Planning Com.mission does hereby gcant Variance No. 3545 granting waivers (a and b) on the basisshaae the~e are special circumstances applicable to the ptoperty such as size, P~ topography, location and suetoundings which do not apply to other identically 2oned p~operty in the same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the pcopecty oY pcivileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classitication in the vicinity; and g:anting waiver (c) on the basis that the parking waiver will not cause an increase in traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity nor adversely affect any adjoining land uses and gcanting ot the packing waiver under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the ~ity of Anaheim and subject to Interdepartmental Committee cecommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FR~~ HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NO[J~ ABS~:NT: NONE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy C:ity Attorney, pcesented the written right to appeal the Ylanning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. RECESSED: 1:54 p•m• RECONVENED: 3:05 p•m• Commissioner McSUrney returned to the meeting following Ztem No. $• 3/31/86 I9INUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MAP.CH 31 1986 86-214 ITEM NO. 8 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3546 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: GARY ALLEN AND CAROL MARY COLLINS, 2400 E. Lincoln Avenne, #135, Anaheim, CA 92806. AGENT: NICAEL-STAHL DEVELOPMENT, P.O. Box '125, Stanton, CA 90680, ATTN: BILL J. NICY.EL/BERNARD J. STAHL. Property desccibed as a rectangulacly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.63 acce, having a frontage of approximately 94 feet on the south side of Romneya Dr., aporoximately 38U feet west of the centerline of Harbor Soulevard. Waivers of maximum stcuctacal height, minimum structural setback, mi~imum sideyard setbacks and minimum distance between buildings to construct a 2-story, 17-unit apartment complex. There we[e two persons indicating the:r presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff _*eport was not read, it is referred to and made a patt of the minutes. Ward Dawson, 2808 E. Katella, architect, explained they have proposed these units above the cacports within the 150-foot setback required from the single-family residential area to the north. He added the other waivers are minot and ace the result of trying to enhance the units and those could be reduced co meet khe Code by reducing the size of the units. Bill Nickel, 8151 Katella, Stanton, stated he is one of the developers and the main cequest is foc the 150-foot setback waivec and explained they could build something to meet all the requirements, but it would not be as nice a project. Wilsey Vance (secretary could not verify name), 608 W. Romneya Dcive, stated she is against this project because Romneya is a heavily-traveled street without these 17 units, and it is difficult to get out onto Harbor Boulevard traveling east now. She stated about one half of the residents in the area did not get a notice of this heacing. She presented a petition containing about 40 signatures of people in opposition. She asked if the front of the complex will be facing Romneya. She added the residents who live there now are concerned about being displaced and asked t,ow long befoze they have to move, if this is approved. Dale Chestnut, 613 Reed Avenue, stated he is opposed because of the traffic congestion and Romneya is a heavily-traveled street and it is difficult to get in and out o£ the acea and an apartment on this site would only add to an already bad sikuation. t•ir. Dawson stated the driveways are 28 feet wide and they are only required to be 26 feet wide and stated the circulation has been reviewed by staff. Mr. Nickel stated this property is permitted to have 20 units and they are only ptoposing 17, which is well below the density permitted. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Responding to Commissioner Herbst, Annika Santalahti explained parking spaces are typically 10 foot by 20 foot inside a garage, but is pussible to have them B-1/2 feet wide when adjacent to a 10-foot space if they are 20 feet deep. 3/31/86 MINUTES~ ANAHEZM_CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MARCH 32~ i986 86-215 Commissioner Herbst stated the garage identified as NQ. 1 on the plans shows 37 feet to the outside wall nd 21 feet to centecline of the wall, with a cetutn which he did not believe would be adequate; and added looking at the tandem spaces inside the structure with cars parked side by side, he thought it would be very hard to get out of the building. Paul Singec stated originally the plans came in with garages and staff indicated that the garage would have to be 10 foot by 20 foot and the applicant agreed to convert them to carports and explained there will be no doors which will qualify them as carports, but they will have thE same dimensions as a garage. Mt. Nickels stated when they learned that the garages should be carports, they only had 1-1/2 days to revise the plans, so they simply removed the garage doors, but they can widen the opening, which will elim.inate some of the landscaping between the openings. He stated they ace a little wider than a standard gacage at 21 feet 3 inches. Commissioner fierbst stated with two station wagons in one space, a person would not be able to get out, and a station wagon needs 19 feet and they are only providing 37 feet for two vehicles. Mr. Nickels pointed out there is an extra 2 feet in the driveway. Mr. Dawson stated Code allows tandem parking with 37 feet. Commissioner Herbst stated the stall will have to be assigned to individual units and that tenants in one unit may have two large cacs. Mr. Dawson stated they can reduce the 28-foot wide driveway, which exceeds Code requicements, and add '2 feet to the carpoct. Commissioner Herbst stated he could not find justification for approval of the variance and thought the}~ are just puttin9 too many units on this site. Mr. Dawson stated the Code allows a 1S-foot minimum or an avecage 20-foot setback and they had originally thought that meant over the width of the entire property, but now understand that is the width of the building and the building is only one third the width of the property. He stated the building could be moved and that woula only affect the open space. Chairwoman La Claire stated she is concerned because most of the parking spaces ate for tandem packing and 13 open parking spaces were pointed out on the plans. Mc. Dawson stated they were trying to pcovide more open space, bu'- they can move the building and ceduce the dciveway. Mr. Nickels stated originally they wanted the tandem spaces t•o be aarages because they feel gacages make a better project. Chairwoman La Claire stated people use garages for stocage and park their vehicles on the street, especially in rental units, but with carports, they actually park in the spaces; however, she was concerned that half of the people would be parking on Romneya. Mr. Nickels stated the requiced parking is provided. 3/31/8b MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINC COMMISSION MARCH 31 1986 86-216 Paul Sin9er stated he believes the City's parking code is generous enough and •. since the parking is covered, people will use the spaces. He pointed out thece are no doors so thece is little opportunity for storage. He stated if these were garages, there would be a parking impact on Romneaces doswork,ng to Commissioner Messe, Mr. Singer stated that tandem parking sp Mr. Nickels stated fcom their past experience in apartment coeQli~ehavehplenty tandem spaces will work very well and with cac sizes today, p p of room. Chairwoman La Clai~e stated the Commission has been very consistent in requiciny the 15-foet setback. Mr. Nickels responded they can move the building and comply with the set5ack requirement which will reduce the leisure space and put moce green atea in the front. Chairwoman La Claire stated the neighbors are concerned about traffic on Romneya and the density of the project. Mr. Nickels stated he has not been on Romneya when there was a traffic pcoblem. He stated he is working on acquiring an easement so the trash trucks can go down the alley and then the trash would not have to be out f~ont, and that will relieve some of the excess traffic with tratfic going in and out other directions, instead of all on Romrteya. Commissioner Messe pointed out there is a signal at Harbor and Romneya and one at ~uclid. Mr. Nickels stated fiatbo[ Boulevacd creates the traffic problen, not Romneya. He stated they will do evecything they can to make sure that they are not creating additional traffic problems. Chai~woman La Claire stated she feels this project will serve as a buffer between the commercial and single-family areas and that it could not be developed as a single-family residential project. She stated the project does Qrovide ade~uate parkin9 and the Traffic Engineec feels t:,e tandem parking will work. Commissioner Fcy stated he would a9ree that Romneya is a heavily-traveled street, but it is not a blocked acea and thece are othec means of ingress and egcess to and from Romneya, Citcon to La Palma whete there is a signal, or West Stteet to La Palma where there is a signal. Commissioner Herbst asked if carports are counted the same as garages against the building coverage. He explained he still feels this propetty is being overbuilt. Annika Santalahti stated the RM-1200 Zone does allow 558 lot cove[age and it does include balcony overhangs, covered carports and garages, but would not include a recreational building by itself. Chaitwoman La Claire stated she is concecned abo~t the waiver oE minimum st~uctural setback and thought it should be denied until the ordinances are chan9ed. 3/31~86 86-217 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 31 1986 ACTION: Chairwoman La Claire offeted a motion, seconded by Commissionet Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to construct a 2-story, 17-unit apa~tment complex with waivers of maximum structutal height, minimum structural setback, minimum sideshaaed setbacks and minimun distance between buildings on a rectangularly- P parcel of land consistin9 of approximately 0.63 acre, having a frontage of approximately 94 feet on the south side of Rcmneya Arive, approximately 380 feet west of the centerline of Harboc buulevacd; and does he~eby approve the Negative Declacation upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review pcocess and further finding on the basis of the Initial S~o ectnwillyhavemants received that there is no substantial evidence that the p 7 significant effect on the environment. Chaicwoman La Claire offered xesolution No. PCSo-75 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby gcant Variance No. 3546, in part, granting waivers (a, c and d) on the basis that there are special ciccumstances applicable to the property S~ih to other shape, topography, location and surroundings which do not aPP y lication identically zoned pcopecty in the same vicinity; and that sLrict app of the Zonin9 Code deprives the pcoperty of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity; and denying waiver (b) on the basis that the petitioner stipulated to relocate the stzucture to p[ovide a 15-foot setback along Romneya in conformance with Code and subject to interdepartmental Committee recommendations. Gn coll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by ttie following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY~ HERBST, LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI~ FIESSE ROES: NONE ABSENl: MC BURNEY Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. Commissionec McBUrney returned to the meeting. ITEM N0. 9 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2772 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: EARL H. HARDAGE, 201 Paularino Avenue, Costa Mesa, CA 92b2ti. AGENT: CARLSON DESIGN, P.O. Box 819, Anaheim, CA 92805, A^•TN: kOBERT W. MERRIAM. Propecty is described as an ircegularly-shaped paccel of land consisting of approximately 0.62 acre, having a frontage of appcoximately 118 feet on the nocth side of Ball Road, appcoximately 350 feet west of the centerline of Anaheim Soulevard, and Eurther described as 129 West Ball Road (Kentucky Fried Chicken). To permit the construction of a new drive-thcough restaurant. There was no one indicating theic presence in opposition to subject zequest and although the staff repoct was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. 3/31/86 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MARCH 31. 1986 86-218 ~ob t9erciam, P.O. Box 819, Anaheim, California 92805, exglained they are representing Kentucky Fried Chicken and agreed with the conditions recommended. THE PUBLI~ HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairwoman La Claire stated there seems to be a question about the dedication required on Ball Road and there is a possibility that Ball Road will be widEned and that the property owners will have to relocate the facilities; however, et this time thece are no such plans. Paui Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated by the time this project goes to the Building Department foc building permits, there may be the necessity for the dedication. He added he would suggest a condition requirin~ the dedication of a strip ot land that would fall within the critical intersection widening criteria in the transition portiori of the procedure, and the full 12-Eoot deoncation would not be cequired and that the actual width would have to be ;alculated at a later date. He refecred to Condition No. 3 in Item 11 which is similac and explained that is for dedication enly and not for construction. He stated this would be an irrevocable offer of dedication for a strip of land along Ball Road which woul~ be determined at a later date. Mr. Merriam stated they would agcee to the dedication because it doesn't affect the site plan since they have a considerable landscaped set5ack. He asked how it would be handled and asked if they would have to post a cash deposit foc the installation or improvement. Paul Singer stated the City is going through the painful procedure to get this critical intersection designation and the new recommendation is for an irrevocable offer only, and the City is not asking the adjacent property owners to construct, so there will be no bonding or cash deposits, or no money involved. Chaicwoman La Claire stated this condition protects the City so they do not have to buy additional properties in the future, if the intersections are widened. Malcolm Slaughter stated while the Commission is only imposing a requ:rement for dedication, if the General Plan is amended pcioc to the issuance of building permits, the City Codes would require the impcovements and dedication as a condition of the issuance of the building permits, or one of the alternativrs, which would be posting cash with the City or bonding for st[eet improvements. He stated he did not want the applicant to necessarily have the impression that the Commission's determination to only accept dedication means that is going to be it because it may oc may not be that way depending on what happens. Paul Singer stated he did not intend to discuss this issue today; however, he thought with the way the City is .leaning at the present time, this particular Generai Plan Amendment would not necessarily require the construction by ;he adjacent property owner. He stated he is sure there must be some way to accomplish that and that he did not think it was appropriate to discuss it at this time. 3/31/86 86-219 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 31 1986 Malcolm Slaughter stated he would advise the applicant and staff that if it is their intention to change the City's requirement, as a condition of the issuance of the building permit, it will require amendment to the Zoning Code because the Code requires both dedication and improvements. Chairwoman La Claire stated all the Commission is trying to do is add a condition for an irrevocable offer of dedication. Mr. Mer~iam asked if the property W~'1 be taken, no matter what happens to the ordinanr,e, if he agrees to the ~L1~: oY dedication. it was clarified this is only an offec °Willdnever~accept'~theadedicationCity never dces anything with the coad, they Mr. Merriam stated if this is appcoved today, presumably they would be ready foc Building Petmits in two to three weeks. Commissionec Fry stated they would have to wait 22 days, providing there is no appeal of this action. Mr. Merriam stated he agcees with the proposed condition foc an iccevocable offer. ACiION: Commissionec Fcy offeced a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit the construction of a drive-thcough restaurant on an irregularly-shaped patcel of land consisting of approximately 0.62 acce, having a fcontage of approximately 118 feet on the north side of Band does and further described as 129 West Ball Road (Kentucky Fried Chicken), he~eby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declacation together with any comments received during the public [eview process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a signiYicant effect on the environment. Commissionec Fry offeced Resolution No. PC86-76 and moved for its passage and ado;:~..ion that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Cor~~~.tional Use Permit No. 2772 pursuant to Ar.aheim Municipal Code Sections 18.~3,030.030 thcough 18.03.030.035 and subject to Interdeparaneirrevocabletee cecommendations, including an additional condition requiring offec of dedication f.or a strip of property along Ball Road in a width not to exceed 12 feet as determined by the Cicy Engineer at a future date. Un coll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS~ FRY~ HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI~ MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NOP7E Mal~olm Slaughtec, Deputy City Attorney, p~esented c,`.~ wcitten right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. 3/31/86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MARrH 31 1986 86-220 IT~I4 NO. 1Q EIR NEGATiVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2774 PUBLIC HEAkING. OWNEP.S: HOLLY WADE DAVIDSON, P. O. Box 325, Holualoa, HI 96725. AGENTS: ORANGE COUNTY STEEL SALVAGE, INC., 3200 E. Frontera Street, Anaheim, CA 92806, ATTN: GEORGE ADAMS. Property described as an icreguiarly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 6.4 acres, 3200 East Frontera 5treet (Orange County Steel Salvage). To permit a private heliport in conjunction with a resource recovecy operation (Orange County Steel Salvage). A~TION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McB~tney and MOTION CARRIED that considecation of the above-mentioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of t4ay 12, 1986, in ozder that the negative declaration to the State Cleacing House for a thirty-day ceview period can be submitted according to State CEQA Guidelines (California Administtative Coae 15205.) ITEM N0. 11 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AN~ CONDiTIUNAL USE PERt•iT NO. ?.775 PUBLIC H~;ARING. OWNERS: WURLD OIL COMPANY, 9302 S. Ga~field Ave., South Gate, CA 9Q280-3896, ATTN: BERNARD ROTH. AGENTS: EL POLLO LOCO, INC. 14111 Freeway Drive, Santa Fe Spcings, CA 90670, ATTN: RICHARD EC(;ALANTE. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel oY land consisting of approximately 0.70 acre located at the southwest corner of Ball Road and Beach Boulevard. To permit a drive-through restaurant with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. There was no one ir.dicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. JetYrey Smith, representing E1 Pollo Loco Inc., explained he would like to discuss the same condition as discussed at the last hearing regarding the dedication. He refecced to Condition No. 3 pertaining to the irrevoWe~hethe offEr of dedication and stated they have tcied to work very closely l;ity and their main cencern is that t:~ey are also being asked to make any improvements. Yaul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated this is the same as the previous item and at this time the staff is planniny to present their request to the City Counc:il with the deletion of Co~.~ition i:o. 4. Mr. Smith stated they have requested a waiver of the required parking and the parking study was based ~~n a comparable use and a cecently opened E1 Pollo Loco restaucant was one uf their comparables and also a convenience stoce was used. Paul Singer stated the recommendation is shown in Paragtaph 15 that the proposed parking is adequate to serve the requested use. 3/31/86 8b-22i MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSZON MARCH 31 1986 Mc. Smith referred to Condition No. 9 requiring fice hydcants and explained he just visited the site today, and there is a fire hydcant within 6U feet of the property line. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner rry stated the traffic study indicates the parking cuunts were conducted on Monday through Wednesday and asked if that would indicate there is no traffic problem on Satucday oc Sunday. Mr. Singec ~esponded that genecally packing on week2nds is not neacly as demanding as on weekdays and also, they t~ad a very short time in which to prepare the t:affic study. He stated he thought the typical weekdays are adequate to determine what the packing impacts will be; and from ovet 100 parking studies the City has conducted, weekends are not nearly as significant, unless the use is for a church or a recreational activity. Commissioner McBurney asked if the Commission would have a chance to review a request for a convenience market proposed for this site. Leonard McGhee explained the convenience store is include~ in the staff ceport and that off-sale alcoY,olic bevecages are allowed by right and they would not be coming before the Commission, unless there is a variance requested. A~TION: Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Souas and MUTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the pcoposal to permit a drive-thtougi~ cestaurant with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces on an irregula~ly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.70 acce, located at the southwest co~ner of Ball Road and Beach Boul.evacd; and does hereby approve the Negative Declacakion upan finding that it has considered the Negative Declacation together with any comments received during the public review process and furthac finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the pcoject will have a significant effect on the envitonment. Commissionez Fry o~fered a motion, seconded by Commissioner BOU~ant theOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby 9 Waiver will requested waiver or parking spaces on the basis that the parking not cause an increase in trafEic congestion in the immediate ~~LkintyWa,°ver adversely affect any adjoining land uses and granting of the p~ 9 under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welface of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Commissioner Fry offered Resolution No. PC86-77 and moved for its passaae and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2725 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.C3.030.030 th~ough 18.03.030.035 and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations, including the deletion of Condition No. 4 pertaining to engineering cequirements along Hall Road. On roll call, the focegoing resolucion was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKZ, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENi: NONE 3/31/86 86-222 PSINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 31 1986 Malcolm Slau9htec, Deputy City Attorney, presented the wcitten right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM NO. 12 EIR NtiGAiIVE DtiCI~n.RATION WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREPIENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2776 PUBLIC H~ARING. OWNERS: D& D DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, A CORPORATZON, 711 East Imperial Highway, Brea, CA 92621. AGE~1S: ROGER MANFRED, PRESIDENT, THE MANFRED COMPANY, A PARTNER ~O. IN SEAPORT MANERED CO•r 62401eWestrABStceetsan Diego, CA 92101 and HOPE CONSULTING GROUP-HEBER J. HURD, Suite SOU, San Diego, CA 9'L101• roximatelyd4s3caccesaswi~h1acfrontage ofaped parcel of land consistin9 0` app approximately 'l51 feet on the east side of. Harboc Boulevacd, 1460 S. Harbor Boulevard (Harbor Inn). To permit an 8 and 9-story, 75.5 to 91-foot high, 470-coom hotel with accessety uses including on-sale of alcoholic beverages with waivec of minimum number of parking spaces. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and althuugh the staff repoct was not read, it is ceferred to and made a part of the minutes. Heber Hurd, Hope ~onsulting Gcoup, agent, was present to answer any questions. 9efore openiny the heacing, Chairwoman La Claire asked the applicant if he wauld agree to a two-week continuance at the Commission's request. Malcolm Slaughter, Assistant City Attorney. Sdsses fromSDisneylandsand asg that various Planning Commissioners do have p~ such, will have to declate a gift of a certain amount fcom Lisneyland and in view of the documents that have been suomitted f~°cSD~o himanafteotasvery certain aspects of this proposed pcoject, it app• quick legal review, that ct~e ~ommission's action might have ~n impact upon Disneyland's financial interest in the opecation of its park, and there may be a potential con£lict of interest in this matter because of the Commissioners' possession of those passes. He stated he is thatmeachgof theaC mmissioners this, but did not realize until this morning have these passes. He stated the Political Pzactices Commission has ruled that such passes have a value based not on actual usage, but on maximum potential use and that is in the neighborhood of $600 or $700 pec year and accotding to the Conflicts Code, if a Commissionec oc any other public official has received a gift of $250 or moce i.n the paon~theedonor oftthose on an item that might have a material financial impact up gifts. He cecommended the Commission not take any action on this until the City Attorney"s Office can get back with a final legal review and suggested a two-week continuance. Chairwoman La Claire stated the Commission cannot continue this matter unless it is requested by the petitioner. 3/31/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 31 1986 86-223 Roget Manfred, President o.f The Manfred Company, stated he understands the point the Commission is making, but wanted to advise the Commission that since the repott was prepared, the Disneyland repcesentativAs and he have discussed the various matters and have reached an agreement and ,~~.cept the various conditions, with the exception of the 8 or 9 stories. He stated he did not think Disneyland or the Seaport M.enfred Company have any disagreement or dispute. Mr. Bonnec and Dir. Kumer representing Disneyland were present in the audience. Malcolm Slaughter stated "che fact that the private parties may or may not have resolved an issue, does not protect the Planning Commission as to whether or not they would have a potential conflict and considecing the mattez which is before the Commission, he recommended the two-week continuance. Chaiswoman La Claire stated she thought it would be ruled that there is no conflict of interest and the Commission can considec the matter; however, until the detetmination is made, she would like for the applicant to request a continuance. Mr. Hurd asked if there is anything they can do to help in the next two weeks. Commissioner fiecbst stated if there is an agreement in writing from Disneyland, he did not think the Commission would have a conflict. Mr. xumer stated from the audience they would be willing to give such an agteement in writing. Mr. Manfced ask~d for a two-week continuance. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the afocementioned matter be continued to the regulacly-scheduled meeting of April 14, 1986, at the request of tt~e petitioner. Chai~woman La Claire stated this matter will be Item No. 2 on the April 19th agenda. ITEM N0. 13 EIR N~GATiVE AECLARATION WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT_ AND CONDIiIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2777 PUBLIC NEARING. OWNEkS: BURNETT-EHLINE PROPERTIES, 2050 S. Santa Cruz, #100, Anaheim, CA 92805, ATTN: C. L. BURNETT, AND BENTALL PROPERTIES, 2050 S. Santa Cruz, #100, Anaheim, CA 928~5, ATTN: DAVID C. BENTALL. AGENT: HARTY & HARTY, 14 Mountain View, Irvine, CA. 92715. Property described as an icregularly-shaped paccel of land consisting of approximately 0.45 acre located at the southeast corner of Orangewood Avenue and State College Bouleva~d, 2100 South State College Boulevard. To permit an industrial related office building. ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the cegularly-scheduled meeting of April 14, 1986, in order to readvertise a packing waiver. 3/31/86 PSINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CQMMISSZON, MARCH 31, 1986 86-224 ITEM NO. 19 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VESTING TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 12658 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: CHAPARRAL DEVELOPMENT, 21941 Herencia, Mission Viejo, CA 92692. Property is a landlocked irregularly-shaped paccel of land consisting of approximately 3.35 acres located approximately 600 feet east of the centerline of Imperial Highway, approximately 230 feet south of the southecly terminus of Frontier Court, and immediately northwest of the Southern Califotnia Edison Company easement. i'o establish a 1-lot, 16-unit, RM-3000 iResidential, Multiple-Family) Zone air space condominium subdivision. There were two persons indicating their presence in opposition and two persons indicating their pres~nce in favor of subject request and although the staff report was not cead, it ls retecred to and made a part of the minutes. Richard Hudson, ~hapacral Development, owner, ceferred to Condition No. 22 and asked if that has been cemoved. Annika SantaJ.ahti stated staff did receive information this morning that the hocse trails are being accommodated through another tract and therefore, the condition will not be required in connection with ~:s project and Condition No. 22 should be deleted. Mr. Hudson asked the timing on Condition Nos. 13, 14 and 18. Annika Santalahti explained Condition 18 pertains to the gtadin9 and the timing would be prior to map approval. She explained 13 and 14 pertain to fuel breaY.s and hydroseeding and would be requiced prior to occupancy of the units. Mr. Hudson referred to Condition No. 21 indicating Conditions 1, 2 and 3 must be complied witt; prior to final tract map aoproval. Leonard t7cGhee stated staff is awace of that ecror and the refer.ence to Conditions 1, 2 and 3 should be deleted Erom Condition No. 21. Michael Charles stated he owns Lot No. 7 in this tract and thought this structure would be a plus to his property and the surcounding area. He stated the road will yo through this tract and everyone in this tract likes the idea. Ms. tdontgomery, 5767 Hudson Bay Drive, stated they pu~chased their home in the first phase of this development and they have reviewed the plans foc this tract and think it is ve[y nice. She stated they feel it would add quite a bit to the area and it will have a recreational center which will benefit everyone. Paul 3oohey, 673 S. Pathfinder Trail, Vice-President of Scoutfinders Association which is directly below part of this project being discussed, stated they have some majoc reservations because of the high density in direct relationship to theic neightorhood and also, they have concerns about the drainage because they have a major drainage problem now in one of the lots dicectly down the hill fr~m this development. He referred to Condition No. 9 pertainin9 to drainage and stated they do not know who will be responsible for the dcainage coming down into the canyon which affects their subdivision. Mr. Toohey pointed out the area of their subdivision on the map and stated Lots 31, 25, 29 and 27 are affected and explained they have drainage problems in 3/31/86 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 31~ 1986 _ 86-225 Lots 31 and 25 with major cun-off and that Lot 31 has been flooded several times and they are talking with the Haven Hills Subdivision about the drainage and stated they ace seeing pcoblems coming from above. He pointed out the areas where certient drainage facilities are located and stated the water drainage into their subdivision is from that area. He pointed out the slopes referred to in the staff ceport and stated their concern is with the vegetation to be planted and the drainage and how it will affect their subdivision. He stated they are trying to determine who is responsihle for that drainage. ~hairwoman La Claire stated thece is a natucal dcainage in that area and clarified the epposition is concerned about additional drainage and what it will do to their property. Mr. Toohey stated they are interested in finding out if this new tract will tie in with the CC6Rs of the existing tract because of the small numbec of homeowners in this tract, and they are concecned about the responsibility for the transi.tional slopes once the builder is gone. Richard Pike, stated he owns Lot 25 in Tract 9250 which is ak the base of the canyon and moved there 2-1/'l years ago and has experienced a lot of drainage problems in his backyard. tie stated engineers have determined that the t•ercace drains on the tup of the hill are increasing the water flow into the canyon and thece is problem with soil that has been washing down. He stated they have had several meetings with ttie Engineecing Department and there was a question as to who actually owns the property where the terrace drains are located and they have just found out Chaparral actually owns the property. He stated he was not sure if all these issues have been answered in the environmental impact report and asked whether tiie action taken today would pceclude the opportunity to analyze these issues later. He cefecred to Conditions 9 and 14 which would affect the drainage into the Canyon. He stated they have hired a law firm to reseacch this and will probably go into litiyation on this matter. 14r. Hudson stated Chaparral Development ju:~t recently purchased this pcoperty from Ariaheim Hills Development Company. Concernin9 the question of high density, he explained this is 4.8 units per acre and they think that is low densit.y for air space condominiums. Regarding the association, he stated the lb un~ts will be included with the existing 25 units in the adjacent tract. Dennis Nelson, Irvine Civil ~ngineering, 3187 "C" Airway Avenue, Costa Mesa, pointed out the drainage facilities proposed and explained they will be intercepting a portion of the rut~-off water currently draining below and taking it to Imperial Highway, which will mitigate som2 of the existing drainage problems. THE PUBLIC H~AkING WAS CLOSGD. Responding to Commissionec Messe, Jay :itus, Office Engineer, ~xplained the vesting designation on t;iis tentative map is something the State Law ptovided for beginning January of this year, and it means that once a map is approved, it is subject to conditions, laws and re9ulations whicli exist at the time of approval for one year, so if they come in with a final map one year from now, they are still subject to the existing regulations, as of today; and normally when a Einal map comes in, the developer may be faced with new regulations, laws oc fees. 3/31/86 86-226 MINUTES~ AC7AHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 31 1986 Mc. Titus stated tega~din~t the drainage, the existing drainage area which drains into those down drains will be reduced considerably by the gtading of this tract and conside~abl~e run-off will be dive~ted into the storm drain at Imperial. He added he was definitely concerned about drainage when the map first came in and asked the developer to provide a system that would not add to the existing burden. Mr. Pike stated his address is 689 S. Scout Trail and he has lived there since 1y82, and in the winter of 1983 they had a severe dcainage problem and then again during heavy rains this past wintec. He stated t~heirnhometanHetadded had been some problems on this lot pcior to purchasing he hopes it is true that the run-off will be reduced by this tract, but not having access to the plans, he was not sure. He explained there is an existing culvert which all the pcoperties ~jcain into. He stated also there is a lot of silt washing down with the watec which clogs up the drains and cequices a lot of maintenance. Responding to Chairwoman La Claire, Mr. Nelson er.plained approximately 908 of the watec to the tecrace drain will be dive~ted and the area below that will temain natucal. He stated about 30 to 408 of the water which now drains down to Lots 31 and 25 below will be divetted. Chaitwoman La Claire stated she thinks this will be an impeovement and that a lot of the silt is from the hillsides which have notthere willtbe and with tiiis development, if the conditions are adheced to, impcovement. A~TZOf7: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner F~r_Bucney and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the ptoposal to establish a 1-lot, 16 unit RM-3000 (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zone ait space condominium su£daviioximately13n35 acres, ic~egularly-shaped parcel of land consisting PP located appcoximately 600 feet east of the centerline of Imperial Highway, approximately 280 feet south o£ the southerly tecminus of Frantleasement.and immediately northwest of the Southern Califocnia Edison Comp Y tay Titus asked that a condition be added guacanteein~ that the 15 units of this tract will be included in the association's CC&RS on the adjacent 25-unit tract. ACTION: Commissioner Hecbst offeced a motion, seconded by Commissionec idcBUCney and MOTZON CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find that che pLOposed subdivision, together with its desig~ursuant to impcovement, is consistent with the City of Anaheim Gener~ove Tentative Map of Government Code Section 66473.5; and does, thecefore, app Tract No. 12658 for a 1-lot, 16-unit RM-3000 (Residential, Multiple-Family) 2one air space condominium subdivision subject to the following conditions, including the deletion of Condition tio. 22 and modification to the Condition 21 deleting the reference to Conditions 1, 2 and 3 and including an additional condition that the 16 units of this ttact will be included in the association CC&Rs of the adjacent 25 unit tract: 3/31/86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CO~MISSION MARCH 31 1986 a6-22~ 1. That prior to issuance of a building permit, primary water main fees shall be paid to the City of Anaheim, in an amount as detecmined 5y the Office of the Utilities General Manager. 2. That prior to issuance of a building permit, apgropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an amouat as determined by the City Council. 3. That prior to issuance of a building permit, the appropriate traffic signal assessment fee shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an amount as determined by the City Council for each new dwelling unit. 4. That prior to final tract map approval, the owner oE subject pcopecty shall pay the appropriate drainage assessment and sewe* assessment fees to the City of Anaheim in an amount as determined by the City Engineer. 5. That all private streets shall be developed in accordar~ce with the City of Anaheim's Standard Detail No. 122 for private streets, including installation of street name signs. Plans for the private street lighting, as required by the standard detail, shall be submitted to the Building Division for approval and included with the building plans pcior to the issuance of building permits. (PCivate streets are those which provide primary access and/or circulation within the project. 6. ihat prior to final tract map approval, street names shall be approved by the City Planning Department. 7. That temporary street name signs shall be installed prior to any occupancy if permanenk stceet name siyns have not been installed. S. That no public or private stceet grades shall exceed 108 except by prior approval of the Chief of the Fice Deoartment and the Engineering Division. 9. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer and shall be substantially as shown on the tentative map of tract. 10. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form foc approval. 11. That prior to commencement of structural iraming, fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department. 12. That all tequirements of Fire Zone 4, otherwise identified as Fire Administrative Order No. 76-01, shall be met. Such requirements include, but aze not limited to: chimney spark arrestors, protected 3/31/86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 31 1986 86'z28 attic and under floor openings, Class C oc better roofing material and one hou~ fire resistive construction of horizontal surfaces if located within 200 feet of adjacent brushland. 13. That prior to the occupancy of the units, fuel breaks shall be p~ovided as detecmined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Depactment. 14. That prior to occupancy of the units, native slopes adjacent to newly constructed home~ shall be hydroseeded with a low fuel combustible seed mix. Such slopes shall be sprinkleced and weeded as required to establish a minimum of 100 feet of separation between flammable vegetation and any structure. 15. That. all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. 16. That prior to final tract map approval, the petitioner shall submit iinal specific floo~ plans and elevations to the Planning Commission for approval. 17. That any specimen tree removal shall be subject to the tree presetvation cegulations in Chapter 18.84 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, the 'SC" Scenic Corcidor Ove~lay Zone. 16. That a lan~scape plan for subject pcoperty shall be submitted to the Planr.ing D~partment foc review and approval, as stipulated to by the petitionet. Any decision made by the Planning Depactment regarding said plan may be appealed to the Planning Commission and/~r City Cour.cil. 19. That pcioc to final tcact ma? approval, the petitioner shall make some provision, acceptable to the City Council, for landscaping and maintenance of the slopes within and/or created by the development of this propezty. 20. That prior to final tract map approval, the original documents of the covenants, conditions, and restrictions, and a letter addcessed to the developer's title company authorizing recordation thereof, shall be submitted to the City Attorney's Office and approved by the City Atto[ney's Office and Engineering Division. Said documents, as approved, will then be filed and recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder; and f.urther that said covenants, conditions, and restrictions, shall include information guacanteeing that the 16 units in this Tract No. 12648 have been incorporated into the association foc the adjacent 25-unit Tract No. 10617. 21. That prior to final tract map approval, Condition No. 4, 5, 6, 9, 15, 16, 19 and 20, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Malcolm Slaughter presented the written rig!~t to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 10 days to the City Council. 3/31/86 .;ifi •?•°!~I MINUTES ANAHEZM CITY PLANNING CQPiMISSION MARCH 31 191_:, _..,, ..~ - ITEM~15 EIR NEGATIV.`' ~~~LARATION AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT ~1U. 12665 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNt~RS: MOHLER FP.MILY TRUST, 4471 Lakeview Ave.~ Yo[ba Linda, CA 92686. A~ENT: HUNSAKER 5 ASSOCIATES, 3 Hughes, Itvine, CA 92718• propecty is an icregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of appro;cimately 7.3 acres, 270 S. Mohler Drive. To establish an 8-lot, HS-HS-22.U00(SC), single-family subdivision. Thece wete two persons indicating theic presence in opposition to subject cequest and although the staff ceport was not read, it is ceferred to and made a patt ot the minutes. Stewart McPherson, 1408 Yorba Stc?et, Tustin, c:alifocnia, representing the Mohler Family Z~ust, stated they believe this project is in total confocmance with all aspects of the 3oning ordirances and the General Plan. He stated this development is for 8 units and the Code permits 13 or 14 single-family residences and the land use designation would permit 1-1/2 units pec acte ;' 11 lots. Ne pointed out the average gross square footage and avetage net squace footage figures shown in the staff report are wron9 and should read: 3y,356 average gross squace feet and 38,525 average net Saving,fcurbs and expl ined this plan also proposes an additional lane of P in need of better gutc~~ts on Mohlec Dcive an~ they believe that area is badly raads. He stated they ace including a 10-f°uestrianetcailowhicheconformsyto bounda[y of the p[operty designated as an eq the Maste[ Plan of the Equest[ian and Hiking Tcail. Mr. McPherson referced co the proposed Condition No. 5 pertaining to drainage facilities and explained there is an er.isting natural o~ semi-natural drainage course to the north of subject prope~ty which is totally cemoved fcom the pcoperty and thece have beenundevelopedtandeonlynhas~oneahome.andeitthasdhad their pcopetty is basicallears into tne canyon, but on a very limited basis. some sheet tlow over the Y Will be along the southern boundaty of the He stated the grading of this map back for the tec~aced pcoperty, along Mohle~ Dtive, and will include clacento the notth end of the designed pads with victually no 9rading taking p property, so this tentative map proPoses no ch«nge whatsoever to the characteristi.cs of the dcainage into the existing Canyon and once developed, the lots will not sheet flow ko the no~th. He stated they are not building within the existing watec course and in theic opinion the p=oposed drainage improvements which staff is recommending ace not requi~ed to p~otect in anYwaY the future homeownets fcom flooding. Mr. McPhetson asked how the City could justify placing a condition on a tentative map when it is really of no benefit to the subdivision and the subdivision will not be placing a burden on the existing facilities. He stated the pcoposed subdivision does not change the dcainage of the existing channe~ abovehtheoCanyonswhichhhasathendcai.nage problemslonHeraddedrtheyadolY 50 te not object to the payment of the drainage fees which staff ineerncalculated~ be a requiiement foc this development. He stated their eng 3/31/86 86-230 4INUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNZNG COMMISSION MARCH 31 1986 y which the costs of these proposed facilities fcom the northwest cocner of their propecty to the intecsection of Mohler Dcive and Santa Ana Can on Roa ~ ineer has estimated the costs will be and the eng arcel and would be 140U lineal feet, burden to place between $100,000 to $200,OOU. He pointed out this is a 7.2 acce the proPosal is foc a 8-lot subdivision and this will be a big e fees will be about $17,000 based on wete required to constcuct the facilities on 8 lots. He stated the notmal drainag thete would have g2~2yp per acce. He stated if theY an assessment distcictr ed in that atea and if they were reimbursed thcough to be betwecn 40 ar:~ 8U acces of additional land to be deve op acres ~emaining to be develo~ed. and they do not believe thete are 40 to 8 ro osing to discharge any additional water run-off He stated they a[e not P p Will not benefit fcom the drainage on and this p=oPeCty e align~ent which goes directly into the cany Lo o~Q~ drainag facilities. He stated the p P 1 with nurth and then makes a 9U degcee turn into Mattella Lane stcaight tl tely intessection of Mohler Drive and Santa Ana Canyon Road does not comp e coucse and in fact, dive[ts water into a comp the existing dcainag diffecent dicection. Condition He ~tated in addition to the above-mentioned drainage far_ilitles' feel they ~ovements ta the curcently so they ~~o, 5 also tequices additional storm dcain 1mP ee that ttiey exi•ting Lacilities in Mohler Drive to the south and west, hit fcom both sides. He stated they do not disag~ a=f_ getting in with the existing shou~d pCOVide d[ainage facilities in Mohler Drive tying improvem~nts. Code and He stated they a'e proposing a map that confotms to the ZWhich could be Gene~al Plan and they ace proposing 8 lots instead of 14 are p~oPosing minimal grading to allow the lots as mu~ove developed ard they ossible and would request the Commission to app ceal usable lot acea as p this pc~Je~t with the deletion of Condition No. 5• foc his parents, Mr. and Mrs. Ralph Dankec, eaking which is below the ~yryan Danke~ stated hat11y8pS. Mohler Drive, Anaheim, ro ecty, who own the pro~°-Cty ainst development of the p P proposed project. He stated they are not ag the northwest cocnec e which er.ists along ment was but a~e conce~ned a~out the d[ainag have met with the oY the propettY and along Mohlec Drive. He staand theYlot deve oP to the north, S in that atea will appcoved in 1`J85 on the propectY gngineecing Depa~tment and were told that whoever develop the watec fcom th~he 4~lot.proPosedtdevelopmentato the have to take care ot ro erty ( oW~ec for approval, the ownec of that p P ro osed propecty atents have been thece for 39 years and notth) has grented a 25-foot easement to the p drainage and sewecs. He stated his p their property is zoned for a9cicultural uses. dis la ed and Mt, Dankec pointed out the dicection of the drainage on the map P ments have occurted in the area, the ptoblem explained as more and more develop occurted and rown. lle stated this proposal will allow all the cun-off to dcain o^ o has 9 ointed out damage feom d[ainage has already co ecty and P rove the request, subject to the theit P P he would cecommend the Commission aPp a=tment, and pointed out whece he ~ecommendations ~f ehfacilitieslshould be located. thought the drainag 3/31/86 86-231 MINUTES~ ANAHEIP7 CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 31 1986 Paul Simpson, 241 Willdan, Anaheim, stated he would be i.n favor of the development, but if they propose to raise the elevation and obstriict his view, he would oppose the project. Dick Hunsaker, Civil Engineer, 33 Hughes, Irvine, stated there is a portion of an existing hill that sheet flows through the Daads, whichrwillhthenWCarcy the intercepted by the cutting and leveling of the p waCer to the street, and that is one of the reasons fot the cuCb and gutters proposed in the street. He pointed out the ridge and area ofrohertatwouldobe on the map and the Dankec residence and pointed out how the p P Y graded and the dicection of the dcainage willrbehinterceptednsolthereewillebe curtently going onto the Danker prope~ty less water problems after the project is developed. N,r. Hunsaker stated in o[dec to take access off Mohler Drive, they will be i•aising the yrade and he did not know if Mc. Simpson's view will be obstructed. THE YUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. kesponding to Chaicwoman La Claire, Mr. Hunsakec stated the grade will be raised from 8 to 15 feet. Chairwoman La Claire stated it is the responsibility of the upper landowner to keep additional water from draining onto lower peopecties and that is the reason for this proposed condition. She stated in this case, thece have been single-family residences developed one at a time which is why the problem has occu~~ed in that area and it has always been the problem of the upper landowners when developing a tcact not to drain the water onto the lower pcop?rties. She stated this is a development for a tract of homes and due to rooflines, cement and othec imorovements, tracts do increase the watec run-off. She stated theje is a drainage Pbublthere are area and it is not all this property owner cesponsibility, reimbursement ag[eements and anyone who develops in the area would contribute to the costs of the facilities. She stated this developer will be reimbursed. Mr. Hunsaker stated they are not contesting the condition for the extension for the drainage in Mohler Drive because that is where additional should be run-off from the roofs ~:ould be. He stated they do not fewouldereceive no required to construct facilities off site from which they benefit and if anything, this development will decrease the amount of water that is sheet fluwing down into that area, and that there is a sheet flow condition today and thece will be a sheet flow condition after this tract is developed, and they are not changing the form of drainage leaving their property . Chairwoman La Claire stated this property will not ~eceive any benefit, but othec propecty owners should not receive additional water dcainage from this property. Mc. Hunsaker stated that dcainage is not being changed. Commissioner Lawicki asked if thece ace any deed cestrictions on the property to prohibit the individual owners ftom changing the course of the land by building tennis courts, etc., which would modify the course of the drainage. 3/31/86 86-232 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 31 1986 P1r. Hunsaker stated the City has grading ordinances, building codes, etc. and when someone comes in for a pecmit, the City can monitor that situain°tne He stated they cannot answer what is going to happen on this property futuce, but think it would be very unfair to u~k an 8-lot subdivision to build 700 to 1400 lineal feet of off-site storm drains. Commissioner Lawicki statea there is recovecy through reimbursement. Commissionec blcBUrney asked staff how much developable acceage is left which eould be assessed through the ceimbucsement agreement fo~ these storm drains. Jay Titus responded he would guess there is about 40 or 50 acres left for developmEnt in that drainage distcict. Commissionec McBurney stated with one-half acre oc full acte development, there would be about 100 homes that would pay for Lhat storm drain, so over a fifteen year periWOUldhbe recovered an assessment for $15,000 pec home and asked how the money Titus it aftet those fifteen years, those homes were not developed. JaY stated that fifteen year period could be modified. Commissioner Herbst referred to a recently apptoved development which would also be cequired to put in this storm drain. Jay Titus stated this particular arain is included on r_he city's Master p~~~get easementsaandithetfacilities sevecal years, the City has been t:ying constructed; that M[. Curry recently had approval for a pcoject on the nocth side ot this propetty, fconting on Martella ronectantoagartella LaneC3andathat easement from the northwest cornet of that p P Y Mr. and Nrs. Millec had a parcel map aQproved for three parcels on the property just ~o the west ~ide of Martin Road between Martin Road and Santa Ana Canyon Road, and they also had a variance aPProfedhe parcellmaplan~ Commission and a condition was included as a p ro ert variance app~ovals foc dedication for an easement along the south p P Y line and to construct a portion of this storm drain from the intersection of Mohler Drive and Santa Ana Canyon Road to Ma~tin Road, and assuming they utilize their vaciance and pcoceed with theWhichCleavespabout 7001feet from be constcucted by the Millecs to Martin Road, that point to the boundary of subject propecty. He indicated the condition as written indicates taking the dtainage all the way to Mohler Drive and Santa Ana Canyon Road, in the event the Millecs don't pcoceed with their proposal. Mr. Titus stated he has not looked into the detailed cost estimate, but based on some ot the pcices the City has been getting fo~ storavementstonremove and stzeets whe~e there is traffic control to worry about, p zo ert for tcenches to be resu[faced, he estimated the~0o000oandhthMslsecti n is abo~~t about 500 lineal feet to be approximately $ 70U teet, so he would estimate that ~o be appruximately $60,000, so the total dcainage estimate would be about 3100,000, but with the Millers puttiny their portion in, it would be about $60,U00 as a burden to this property owner. He stated the Millers appealed that condition to the City Council and the Council upheld the condition and requited them to put the drainage in, so Council recognizes the need foc the drainage. He stated maybe it is notu~ait in and one paccel to have to put in that drainage, but someone has to p n~rmally, it is the highec property ownet who has to install it and the City does have the Reimbursement Dist~ict and agreements with the developers to 3/31/86 MI:JUTES,_ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 31, 1986 86-233 help alleviate the burden and it might be a few years before they get the money back and every dollar may not be gotten back, but it does alleviate part of the burden. Responding to Commissioner Herbst about the fund that has accumulated, Mr. Titus stated thece have been considerable storm drains built in that distcict and those drains have been paid off on a reimbursement basis from that fund and currently there is approximately $24,000 in that reimbursement fund which would be available to go towards the cost of this drainage and whoevec develaps first would get the advantage of using that money. Chairwoman La Claire stated this has been cequired of every other developer and this developer is not being asked to do anything that other devartPcularl have not done. She stated $60,000 would be a small price to paY~ P y when they will be reimbursed for at least a patt of it. She pointed out this acreaye is in a very lucrative area. Commissioner Fcy stated this area has been an on-going saga every time someone has wanted to develop and agreed this development is probably not adding to the existing situation, but in looking at the topographical map, the drop is aporoximately 25 feet and he did not think this developer wants to do anything to correct much of the problem that is alceady existing. He added if they wish to proceed with development, they will have to put in the drainage tacilities. Jay Titus responded to Commissioner Messe that the hlillers would have to install and pay for a storm dtain fcom the easter.n boundary of their property to Santa Ana Canyon Road and Mohlec Drive which is about 500 feet and from that point up to the noctheast corner of this property, it is another 700 feet. He futthec explained if tfQPClwhensthe ndo develop whichlwouldebet$2290 will have to pay the assessment Y per acre. Mr. Hunsaker suggested limiting this development to the 700 feet from the intersect~on of Mactin Road and Mactella Lane to their property and not go all the way to the intersection. Commissioner Hecbst agreed the Millers should not be assessed the $2290 per acce fee which will be about $6000 foc theit property and this developer be required to put in the whole dcainage facilities. Jay Titus stated if the Commission desires to limit tt:e development of khe storm drain to the 700 feet on this property, that would be a compconise the Engineering Depactment could accept. Commissioner Bouas asked why there was no storm drain in Martella Lane. Jay Titus responded those properties were developed one at a time with no tracts and it would be difficult to put that burden on one particular lot. xe stated those individual owners have paid their acreage fees. Chairwoman La Claite agceed sincE the Millers had the condition cequiring dcainage on their ptoperty, this developec should be required to do the same thing to Martin Road and Martella Lane. 3/31/86 86-234 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION PIARCH 31 1986 Responding to Commissione~ Douas, Jay Titus stated if the drai~age is already in place and the Danker pcoperty develops, they would be required to pay the acreage fees. He explained the fees were originally established by estimating the costs of the drainage facilities necessary in this district and dividing that by the total developable acceage. He stated if the dcainage was not in and the Dankers came in ficst, they would have had to install the facilities. Commissioner Herbst stated he thought the Engineering Departm~:nt should review that entire area to determine if that $2290 per acre fee is r~dequate. He stated if this property owner puts in the facilities, he sho~ld be able to recover those costs and the total developable acreage should be ceviewed. Malcolm Slaught2r stated existing homeowners could come in for expansions and they would be required to conccibute to that Eee. Jay Titus stated the figure is adequate to cover the cost of drainage at this time. Chairwoman La Claire stated eliminating this requirement for the drainage will eliminate the cooperation between the two developers, and eventually those two developers should get together to install it and they could do it at the same time and share the cost. ACi'ION: Commissioner He[bst offeced a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBUCney and MOTION CARRIED th3t the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the ptoposal to establish an 8-1ot, RS-HS-22,000(SC) (Residential, Single-Family, Hillside (Scenic Corcidor Overlay)) Zone subdivision on an irregularly-shaped paccel of land consisting of approximately 7.3 acres, having a frontage of approximately 912 feet on the north side of t=oVee~hDrive and further described as 270 S. Mohlec Drive; and does hereby app Negative Declacation upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration togethet with any coinments received during the public review process and fucther finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments ceceived that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MUTIUN CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereDy find that the pcoposed subdivision, to9ethec with its design and improve~ent, is consistent with the City of .Anaheim General Ylan, pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5; and does, the[efore, appcove Tentative Map of Tract No. 12665 for a b-lotr RS-HS-22,000(SC) Zone single-fart~ily condominium subdivision subject to the following conditions: 1. That prior to issuance of a building permit, primary water main fees shall be paid to the City of Anaheim, in an amount as determined by the Office of the Utilities General Ptanager. 2. That prior to issuance of a building permit, appropriate park and recceation in-lieu fees shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an amount as determined by the City Council. 3/31/86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 31 1986 86-235 3, :hat prior to issuance of a bvilding pecmit, the appropriate traftic signal assessment fee shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an amount as determined by the City Council for each new dwelling u~~it. 4, That pcior to final tract map approval, the owner of subject property shall pay the appropciate drainage assessment and sewer assessment fees to the City o1 Anaheim in an amount as determired by the City ~ngineer. 5. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a mannet satisfactory to the City Engineer and shall i.nclude construction of a storm drain fcom the nocthwest cocner of subject property tu the intersection of Martin Road and Martella Lane, as determined by the ~ity Engineec. Also, included shall be a storm drain from the intersection of Mohler Dcive and Country Hill Drive to a point in Mohler Drive, as detecmined to be necessary by the City Engineer from a hydrology study to be provided by the owner/developer. That security in the form of a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or cash, in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim, shall be posted with the City to guarantee the satisfactory completion of sai.d improvements. Said security shall be posted with the City prioc to final tcact map approval, to guarantee the installation of the abave-required impcovements prior to occupancy. 6, That shou.ld this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form foc approval. 7, That all lots within this tract shall be served by undergcound utilities. 8. That prior to commencement of structural framing, fire hyd[ants shall be installed and ~harged as ~equired and determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department. y, That prior to final tcact map approval, the petitioner shall submit final specific floor plans and elevations to the Planning Commission for approval. 10. That any specimen tree removal shall be subject to the tree preservation regulations in Chapter 18.84 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, the "SC" Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone. 11. That subject propecty shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans an~ specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked EXhibit No. 1. 12. That pcior to fina3. tract map approval, Condition Nos. 9, above-mentioned, shiall be complied with. Responding to Mr. Hunsaker, Jay Titus explained the developer will get credit for the cost of the installz~tiun. of the storm drains toward the requirement fot the fees. Malcolm Slaughter ptesented the written tight of appeal within 10 days to the City Council. 3/31/&6 ~ 86-236 MINUTES ANAHEZM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 31 1986 ITEM N0. 16 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 212 INITIAiED BY THE CITY OF ANAHisMdescribed~asltheRentioeslengtheof Hiddenard, Anaheim, CA 5~805. Property Canyon Road. To considec amendment to the circulation element text and map for redesignation oE Hidden Canyon Road from a hillside commuter arterial highway designation to a local street. Thece was no one indicating theic presence in ooposition to subject request and although the staff ceport was not read, it is refecred to and made a part of the minutes. Greg Hastings, Associate Planner, explalned this is a Tcaffic Enginee: ~equest fot an amendment to the Cicculation Element text and map fo~ redesignation of Hidden Canyon Road from a hillside commutec arterial highway to a local stceet due to the realignment of Weir Canyon Road and the addition of the study area for the proposed Eastern Transportation Corridor and in addition, the topography of the acea at the southerly terminus of Hidden Canyon Road precludes extension without substantial grading. He stated if the Planning Commission adopts this redesignation, he would cecommend that tYie General Plan Text be amended to accommodate the cedesignation as described in Paragraph 8 of the staff report. THE PUB:,IC HEARING ~~1AS CLOSED. ACT.ION: Commissioner McBu~ney offered a motion~PlanninedCommissionshaser Herbst and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City 9 ceviewed the proposal tu change the cucren~odaSlocal1streetHandeto changeRthe from a hillside commuter ar_erial highway text of the Circulation Element of the GenativepDeclaoationeuponhfindingsthat ar.;endment; and does hereby approve the Neg it has consideced the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public ceview process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner McBUrney offered Resolution No. PC86-76 and moved foc its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby cecommend to the City Council amendment to 1:he Circulation Element text and map of the General Plan cedesignating Hidden Canyon Road from a hillside arterial highway to a local street. On ~oll call, the £ocegoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS~ FRY, HERBST~ LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI~ MC BURNEY, MESSE NUES: NONE ABSENT: NONF~ Malcolm Slaughr.er, Deputy c:ity Attotney, presented the written right to appeal 'he Planning Commission's decisi.on within 22 days to the City Council. 3j31/86 MINUTES, ANAHtIM CZTY PLANNIN~ COMMISSION, MARCH 31~ 1986 86-237 ITEM NO. 17 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 210 INITIATED BY THE C1TY OE ANAHEIM TRAFFIC ENGINEER, 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 To consider amendment to the circulation element text and map for designation of the following intersections as critical intersections: Anaheim/Ball Anaheim/Harbo[ Anaheim/Lincoln Ball/Beact~ Ball/~uclid Ball/Harbor Ball/Magnolia Ball/State College Beach/Lincoln Brookhurst/Katella Brookhurst/Lincoln Chapman/Harbor Convention/Hastec Euclid/Katella Euclid/Lincoln Harbor/xatella Harbor/Lincoln Haster/Katella Knott/Lincoln Kcaemer/La Palma La Palma/Magnolia La Palma/State College Lincoln/Magnolia Lincoln/State College Orangethorpe/TUStin Orangewood/State College La Palma/Imperial Orangethorpe/Lakeview Santa Ana Canyon/Lakeview Santa Ana Canyon/Imperial Santa Ana Canyon/COal Canyon Anaheim/La Palma Ball/Brookhurst Ball/Knott Ball/west Bcookhurst/La Palma Convention/Hacbor Euclid/La Palma Euclid/La Palma Katella/State College Kraemer/Orangethorpe La Palma/Tustin Orangethorpe/State Colle9e La Palma/Lakeview Orangethorpe/Imperial Santa Ana Canyon/Gypsum Canyon ACTION: Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissionec t9cBurney and MOTION CARRZED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the cegu].arly-scheduled meeting of April 28, 1986, at the request oY the Engineering Depactment staff for further staff analysis. ITEM NU. 18. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: C. ~ODE AMENDMENi TO ALLOW PROCESSING OF 'SPECIFIC PLANS" - Request from ~lfend and Associa~es, Inc, to ~evelop a procedure for approving and administering specific plans. Continued fcom the meeting of March 17, 1986. Annika Santalahti stated this requested Code amendment to allow processing of specific plans was continued from the meeting two weeks ago in order for the Commission to review the ordinance. She stated a revised draft ordinance is attached with a few minor changes. Chairwoman La Claire stated she feels this is a good change and will help alleviate some of the prublems with the larger developments. Commissioner t4cBUrney stated he felt this is a good tool and something the Commission has been looking foc Eor a long time. ACTION: Commission~r McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED that the Anahein City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt the draft ordinance, adding Chaptec 16.932, Title 18 of Anaheim Municipal Code, and to certify a ne9ative declaration thereto, allowin9 processing of "specific plans.'. 3/31/86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 31 1986 86-238 OTHER DISCUSSIOt7: Norman Priest, Executive Director of Community Development and Planning, explained the Plan~ing Commissioners were each invited to attend an April 18th Housing Focum. He explained they would expect about 100 to 120 leadars from the community to get together for a day and have a series of problem solving sessions to focus attention on the housing problem and try to increase the level of communication and develop some speci~ic action items by which they could go focward in seeking to not only solve the housing problems, but to get identification of what the housing pcoblems ace. He stated this is expected to be a group of people, some fcom Commissions within the City, people from businesses in the City and people from across the City. He stated bas~cally, they would break up into problem solving groups and then come back together foc discussion. tie stated they have invited each Planning Commissioner because they think it is tremendously important and the only request is that whoevec plans to attend should attend the whole session because it is difficult to have people come and go throughout the day. He stated the Planning Commission meeting is on the 14th and this will be the Friday tollowin9 that meeting. He stated they have been doing this with the League ot Cities in other parts of the state and found that in many cities there was not a common awareness of the housing proble~ and it the aim is to inctease the awaceness and communications and develop a network around the community to start communicating all the housing issue~. ADJOURMENT: Commissioner Herbst offeced a motion, ~econded by Commissioner pLy and MOilON CARRIED that the meeting be adjourned. The meeting was adjourned at 5:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ,~~ ,~J ,~~- Edith L. Harris, Secretacy Anaheim City Planning Commission ELH:lm 018Um 3/31; 86