Loading...
PC 1984/09/17KF,GULAR MCETING QF THE ~NAH~IM CITY PLANNING COMMIS&ION REGU~AR MEETING mhe co~ul~c meeting of the ~nAh~lm City Planning Commiaeiun wda celled to ordor l~Y <<~~irmon Itorbat et 10:00 a.m., Sepkember ,17, 1984, in the Co~a~cil Ch~mner, ~a quocum being pres~nt. and tho Commieaion reviewed plane of the ikema on today'a cfgendA. RECE58: 'IECQNVE;~E~: PRESENx AaSENT: ALSO PliESENT Cl~airman: Commisaioner~: Commissioners: 11:30 a.m. 1:40 p.m. Herbat Bouas, Bur~hore, McDucnNy Nane Annik~ SanCalahti Jack White Jay Z'itus Pc~ul Singer Pak Whitaker Greg tfastings Edith Narria Fry, King, La Claire, As~iskant Director foc 2oning Aasietant City Attorney Office ~ngineNr Tra[Lic Engineer Neighbothood Reatorntion S~ecialist Aaeiatant Planner Planning Cammisaion Secretary IT WAS NOTED Tk~E~ SYSTEM CONTRULLING THE MICROpf10NES~ TAPE RECORQGRS AND VOTING YANEL WAS NOT WORKIN.3. APPROVAL 0~ MINUTE~S - Commiasioner King offered a motion, s~conded by Commis~ioner BouaR And MOTI(3N CARR.IEO that the minutes of the meeting Qf September 5, 1984, be approved as submitted. ITENS N0. 1. EIF NEGA'I'IVE DECLARATION RECLASSIFICATION NQ. 84-85-4 WAIVER OP CQDE RE UIREP'IENT AND CCINDI'I'IONAL USE PERMIi N0. 'L605 PUBLIC HGARING. OWNERS: CHESTER PETERSON AND HEVFRLY ANN COMPTON, 327 N. Shatruck ~lace~ Orange, CA 92b66. Property described ae an irregularly-shaped parcel of land conaisting of• approximately 4.4 acres located north and west of the northwest cornec ~f La Pa:ma Avenue and impecial Highway. RS-A-43,000(SC) to thQ CL(SC) Zone. T~ permit a multi-screen indoor theatre and s 47-foot high aemi-encloaed reataurant with waivec of minimum number of parking spaces. Continued from the meetinga of August 6, 20, and Septembec 5, ?984• ACTION: Commiasioner King offered a metion, seconded by Commissioner souas and MOTION CARRIED, fhat consideration af the afocementioned matter be continuQd to the regularly-scheduleu meeting of October 1, 1984, in order for the applicant to submit cevised plans. 84-571 9/17/84 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMIBSIAN, SEPT~MBER 17. 1984 84-5 72 ITEM NU. 2. E:IR CATEG_ORICAL ~XEMPTxON-C_L1i1$S_5_1~ND VAliI_ANCE_ N0.__34_1_8_ PUBLIC HEAI2IN~. OWA~ERS: JAMES u. AND NANCY H. EAGAN, 1957 W. Katellr Avenue, ~~naheim, CA 928U4. Property described as a recl•angulACly-ahaped parce~ of land cnncisting oE approximately 5033 eyu a ra feet, 1534 Alexis Avenue. Waivers of minimum sid~ yard aetback and maximum f~nce heigt~t to retain a aundeck and ~ence s ddl.tion. Continued from Aug u~C 20, 19~4. ACTION: Conunissioner Kinq nf~ered a motic~n, secanded hy Commir~sioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED, that conaldecatiun of tlie aforementioned mAtter be continued to the reyularly-scheduled meek i ng of Octobhr 1, 1984, in order for the e~pplicc+nt to meet with ttie ~djacent pcoperty ~wner a8 requested by the Planning Commi.ssion . ITEM N0. 3. EIR NEGAZIVE DECLARA'PION, RECLASSIPICAI'ION N0. 84-85-6 AND VARIANCB NO. 3420 PUHLIC HEARINU. OW N~RS: EU~LID QF.VELOPM EN7 PARTNERS, 8601 Wilehire Poulevard, ~601, BevsrlX kiills, CA 90211, ATTN: JOSEPN CHAATR. AGENT; LINCO CONSTRUC'1~UR5, INC., 1b8.1 Kette[ing St., Irvine, CA 92714, ATTN: GEORGE NOONAN. Property i s described as A recta nyularly-~haped paGCel of land conaisting o~ appr oximately U.86 acre loc ated at the southeast corner of Palm Lane and Euclid St reet, 1300 South Euclid Strept. CO to CL. Waivers oE minimum number of p~rking spaces, minimum structural setback and minimu m width of planter sCri p to construct a commercial retail complex. Thece was no one i ndicating Gheir presen c e in oppo~itton to aubject request and although the s ta[f report was not rea d, it is referred to an@ made a par t oE the minutes. George Noonan, age nt, was p:~esent to answer any questions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bush o ze skated he would lik P approval of the reclassification tied to the plans submitted. ACTIOtJ: Commiaaioner King offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fry and MOTION CARRIED, th at the Anaheim City PI a nning Commission has reviewed the proposal l-o recla s sify subject property f r~m the CO (COmmercial, UEfice and Frofessional) Zon e to the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone to aonstruct a commercial retail complex with waiver of minimum st.ructural setback on a rectangularly-shaFi~d parce2 of land cons i sting of approximately 0.86 acre located at the so u theast cocner of Palm Lane and Eucli.d Street and furthec described ae 1300 S, Euclid Streett and d oes hereby appcove the Negative Declaration upon f inding that it has con sideced the Negative Declaration together with any comments [eceived duri ng the public review process and 9/17/84 84-573 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITX PLANNING CAkMIS5I0N SEPTEMRER 17 198A _ Eurthec findl~~ an the baaia of the initial Study and any eomments coceived thak thece ie no subsrantial evidencQ thet the pcoject will have a significant effect on the envir.onmont. Commissioner King uffered Resolution No~ PC84-186 And moved for iea pAA~B~@ and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning CommiRSion does heceby grant Recl~ssifi~ation t~o. 84-85-G aubject to Int~rdepartmental Committee tecommend~tions including an additional condition that subject properky ehall be dev~loped subatantiall.y in accordAnce with plana ~nd specifications on file with the City of AnAheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2. On roll call, the foregoir.g resaluti~n waa passed by ktie following votp: AYBS: BOUAS~ BUSHnTtE~ FRY~ L~ERBS'P, KINGi LA CLAIRE~ MC BURNE't NOES: NUNE ABS~IVT : NON 6 Commissioner King offeced RESOlution No. PC84-187 and m~ved for its passage and adoption l•hat the Anaheim City Planning Commissian does hereby grr~nt Vaciance No. 342U, in pt~rt, denying waivers (a) and lc) on the ~a~ts that revased ~lans were submitted deleting the need for said waivers and granting waiver lb) on the basis that there are npecial circumstances ap~licable to the propcrty s~ich as size, shape, toponraphy, locatian and surroundings which do not apply to other identical].y zoned pcoperty in the same vicinity; and that srrict app~ication at the Zoning Code deEirB.ves the property ~f privilegeF enjoy~d t~y oti~wr properties in the identica.l 2.one and ~:lassification in th~ vicinity ancl subject to Interdep'~~tment- ~mmittpe cecommendations deleting C~ndltian ~o• 8 on the basis tt~at n~~ j waivec ia included in the request. :~colution w~. ~:ad by the following vote: ~n roll ca~l, tt:e foregoing Ay~~; gp~~~" HUSHOR~., E'Rl, HERBST, KING, I..A CLAIRE, MC BURNEY NOES : NGN'r ABSENT: NUNE ITE~~ N0. 4. EIF.NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2621 Anaheim Boulevard, PUBLIC HEAR:N~:. OWNEkS: WUC-D BRIDGE VYLLAGE, LTU., 50 S. P.O. Box 34d, Anaheim, CA 92805. Property ~escribed as an irreaa~larly-shaped parcQl of land consisting of approximately 1.3 acrPS located at the sautheast carner of Lincaln 7~venue and Anaheim Boulevard, 50 South Anaheim Boulevacd (Wuod Bridge Villa9e). To permit on-sale alcoholic beverages i.n a proposed semi-enclosed restaurant. ACZ'ION: ~ommissioner King offec~ed a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED, that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of October 1, 1984, in acder for subject petition to be .readve~tised to include a parking waiver. 9/17/8~ MINUTES, ANAtlBIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. SEPTEMBER 17. 1984 84-574 ITEM NOS. 5 and 6 WERE CONSI~ERED_TO_GETHER. ITEM N0. 5. EIR NEGATIV~ pECLARATION, WAIVER OF CODE RE~UIREMENT ANn CONUITIONAL USE PERMIT NU. 2618 PUBLIC HEARING. UWNER~; REUONUO INVESTM~NT CO., 296 Redondo Avenue, LonG Beach, CA 90803, ATTN: C. R08~KT LANGSL~T. ~roperty deac~ibed aa an itregularly-st~Aped parcel oE ~and consi8tinq of approximately 6.6 acres located at the southwest carner of Santa Ana Canyon Koad and Fairmont Boul.evard, 6324 EaAt Santa An~ Canyon Rood. Z'o permit on-~alt beer. and wins in a propoaed restauran~ witti waiver of minimum number oF parking apaces. I'rEM N0. 6. EIR NEGATIVE UECLARATIUN~ WA2VER OF CQDE REQUIREMENT ANb CUNDITIONAL USE PERMIT NU. 2620 PUBLIC HBARING. UWNERS: R~DUNUU INVES?~MChT CO., 296 Redondo Avenue, ~ong Beach, CA 90803, ATTN: C. ROBERZ' LANGSLET, ~coperty described as An irregular,ly-shaped parcel of land consisting oC approximately 6.6 acre~ lucated at the southwesterly corner of Santa Ana Cany~n Road and F~icmont Boulevard, 6304-U8 East ~anta Ana Canyon Road. To permit on-sale beer and wine in a propo~ed restaurant with waiver of minimum number of parkiny spacec. There was one ~ecson indicaCing his presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff repork was not read, i.t is referred to and made a pact of the minutes. Tim Cameron, 12211 E. Ocean elvd., Redondo Heach, CaJ.t•~~~nia, agent, was present to answer any questfons. Floyd Farano, attorney, 100 S. Anaheim aoulevard, Anaheirn, explained he is cepresenting Mr. and Mrs. Henry Rivera, 6283 E. Rio Gr.ande Drive, Anaheim, and their property i~ located i-nmediately to thE south oE subject property. He stated the developer and property owner have reached a tentative agreement so they will not be indicating any opposition to Conditional Use Pe:mit No. 2618. Mr. Farana continued that the Riveras are opposeci ..t~e proposed hour~ of operation for Conditi~nal Use Pecmit No. 2620, it~~•~:... 6, be~ause the proposed use is for a R~•~nd 'Pable Pizza paclor and they feel the hours of operation for Friday and Saturday nights sh~uld be cestricted to 12:00 midnight and on Sundaya to 11:00 p.m. Ne stated they ace concerned becauo~ subject property is below their property and thPy feel the noise would travel upwards. Joe lleFelice, repcesenting Round Table Pizza, 601 Montgomery Street, San Francisco, respanded they do not aee a problem with the hours of operatian as indicated, but w~uld be willing to comply with the City's ordinances in the area pertaining to any other pizza parlor in that area and further explained there is a Lamppost Pizza about 1 mile away and h~ thought they are open until about a.:OU a.m. 9/17/84 MII~U'fBS. ANAl1EIM CITY PLANNING COMMISB:ON~ SEPTEMBGR 17. 1984 _ 84~575 THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner La Claire atated the Lamppoat Piz2a parlor is a completely different eituatiun because the shop~ing center where it is locatQd backs up to the freeway And there ere no cesidential homes r~earby. Commissioner Fry continued that that ia completely differQnt bocnus~ Lamppost is locAted in a heavy commeccial area, cloae to a~reeway and a~reeway oEf-ram~. Chairman Hecbat atated Nughee M~cket clooes at midnight and he thought this opecation ahould al~a cloi3e at midnight. Commissioner La Claire stated thia shopping cenker hAS a long history and the Commission ha» tried very har.d to pr~tect the n~ighbora. She stated she thought the shopping center !s a beautiful dNSi.gn and is an asset to thc community. She stated the pizza parlor at ttie Albertsnn's shoppiny center cceates ~ lut of noise and zraffic and ahe thouqht this location would be too c.los~ to re~idential homes and they should not stay open past 11:00 p.m. on Sunday nighta to Thuraday nights and nor past midniyht on Eriday and Saturday nights because tl~e neighbors do deserve sorne protection. Mr. DeFelice eu~gested the request be approved with them being allowed to remain open until 1:OU a.m. and then i£ there are any pcoblems, they could ct~ange the hours in the future. Chairman Herbst stated he thought tl~e opposition's reguest was redsonable and asked if the petitioner would be willing L•o compromise. ACTION; Commissionec Kin~ offered a matian, seconded by Commi»sioner Fry and MO'PION CARRI~D, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal ko pecmit on-c~ale beer and wine in a propo~ed restaurant wikh waiver of minimum number of parking space$ on an icregula[ly-ahaped parcel of: la~d con~istiny of aF~proximately 6.6 acres lor.ated at the southwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Fairmont Boulevard and further desccibed as 6324 E. Santa Ana Canyon Road; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declpration together with any comments received during the public review prucess and furtt~er finding on the basis of the initial Study and any commente received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissic~ner King offer.ed a motiun, seconded by Commi~sioner McBurney an~ MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant waiver of Code reyuirement on the basiF that the packing waiver will nok cause an increase in traffic cong~stion in the immediate vicinity nor adversely affect any adjoining land uses and granting of the p'cking waiver under the conditions im~osed, if any, wi.ll noC be detrimental to the peace, health, ~afety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Commissioner King offered Resolution No. PC84-?88 and nioved for ita passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Pecmit No. 2618 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations including en additional condition that the hours of operation 9/17/84 MINUTES, ~NAHEIM CITX PLANNING COMMISSION, SEPTEMHER 17. 19d4 84-576 will be Monday thcouyh Fridays 11:OU b.m. to 2:00 p.m. and S:OQ ~.m. ~a 10;00 p.m. and Saturdays an~9 SundAya from 5:00 p.m. to 1U:~0 p.m. On rall call, the foregoing ranolution was p~s~ed by the following vote: AYES: DOUAS, BUSHpR~~ FRY~ N~~BST, hING, LA CLASR~, MC aUkNEY NC~Eu : NONE ABSF.NT; NONE ITEM N0. b: (Conditional Use E~ermit No. 2620) ACTION: ~:ommtsaioner King offared a motion, seconded by Commisaioner Fry and MUTIUN CARRIFO, khat th~~ Anaheim City Planniny Commission hAfl rEViewed the pcoposal to pecmit on-sale beer and wine in a proposed ce~taur<~n~ with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces on an irregulacly~sh~3ped f~arcel of le~nd conaisting ~f. appr~ximately 6.6 acres located at the sauthwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and rairmont E~oulevard and furthec described a3 6304-OB E. Santa Ana Canyon ltoad; And does hereby appcove the Neyative Aeclaration upon finding that it haa considQCed tre Negative Declarati.on ~ogether with any comments received during the publ.ic ceview ~ro~ess and fu~ther finding on ~he basis of tR~e lr~itial Stucly and any comments receiv~d ttiat khere fg n~ aubs*.antiel evidcnce that the project wi.ll have a~ignificant eEfect on the envir.onment. Commissianer King oEfered a motion, seconded by Commis~ionF:r Fry and MOTION GARRIED, that thp Anaheim City Planning Commissi~~ does hereby qrAnt waiver of Code reyuiremen~ ~zn the bast~ that the pnrMing waiver wili nat cause an inciease in traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity nnr adversely af£ect any adjai.nin,a, lan~ usea an~1 granting of the pArking waiver under the conditi~ens imposec~, if any~ will not be detrimental tu the peace, health, safety and 9ene~al welfare of the citizen.s of the City of Anaheim. Commissionec Ki~n~3 offered iteso.tutian No. PC84-189 and maved for ika passage and adoption tha+t the Anaheim City Planning Commis~ion doea hereby grant Conditianal Use Permit No. 2620 pursuant Ca Anaheim Wunicip~l Code Sections 18.U3.030.030 through 18.U3.030.U35 and subject to a condition that the hours of operation shall be Sunday through Thursday - 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. and Friday and Saturdays fro~n 11:00 a»m. to 12;OU midnight and subject to InterdepartmEntal Committee re~commendations. On roll call~ the foregoinq ceaolution was paqsed by the following vote: AYE~: BOUA$~ AUSHURE, ~RY~ ~iERf~ST, KZNG, LA CLAIRE, MC 9URNEY NOES: I~ONE ABSEDiT: I~ONE Jack White, Assistant Gity Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planni.ng Commissicn's decision within .22 days Lo the City Council. Cammissionec La Claire pointed out the Commission has not discusaed the parking waiver because the City Traffic Engineer had indicated there would be no parking problem created by these uses. 9/17/84 84-5'17 MINUT~'3. ANAHBIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION SEPT~MBER 17 1984 RECESS: 2:10 p.m. R~CONVENB: 2:15 p.m. (SYSTEM CONTROLLING MICROFH4NFS~ 'PAPE RECORDERS b VOTING PANEL REPAI1tED. SY5TEM NUW WORKING.I I'PEM N0. 7. E1R NEGATIVB AECLARATION AND VARIANC~ N0. 3922 PUBLIC HEARING. OWN~RS: PKALLE AND CASF. N0. L, 11a9-A, ~. imperi~l Nighway, Placentia, CA 9267U~ Property described as an icregulc~rly-shaped parcel of land consiating oE approximately 1.34 acrec, 146•! EasL• La Palma Avenue. Waiver of maxi.mum structucal height to constcuct a 44-uriit Apartment complex. There was no one indicating their presence in oppoailion to subject request and although tlie etaff report wae not read, it is ceferred to and made a part of the minutes. Philip c:ase, a9ent, was presNnt to anawer any questions. THE PUCiLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ACTION: Commissi~~ner King off~ered a motion, seconded by Commisa.ioi~er Sou~s and MOTIUN CARRIEU (Commissioner McBurney ~bsent)- that the Anaheir~~ Cir,y Planning Commicsion has reviewed l•he proposal to construct a 44-unit apartme:~t cotnplex with waiver of maximum structural heiy-.~ on an icreyularly-shaped parcel of land consistinq of approximately 195 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue and further described as 1464 East La Palma Avenuet enc~ does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it -ias considered the Negative Declacation together with ar,y commenra received during the public ceview process and further findir~g on the basis of the Initial Sr.udy and any comments received that ttiere is no substantial evidencP that the pcoject wi].1 have a si~nificant effect on the environment. Commissionec McBurney ceturned to the mPeting. Commissioner King offercd Resolution No. PC84-190 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim CLty Planning CommiBSion does hereby grant Variance No. 3422 on the basis that t~~ere are spelocationcandtsurroundingsable to the property such as size, shape, topography, in the same vicinity; which do nct apply to other identically zuned property and that strict application of the Zoniny Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other propecties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity and subjeck to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. On roll call, th~ foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, EiUSHORE~ ~RY~ HER~IST~ KING, LA CLAIRE NOES: NONE ABSEDIT: NONE ABST~IN: MC BURNEY Commissioner McBurney abstained on the basis he was not present foc the entire hearing. 9/17/84 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CTTY PLANNING COMMISSION,_ SBPTEMBER 17~ 1984~ 04-578_ ITEM N0. d. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VAkIANCE N0, 3419 PUBLIC NEARING. OWNERS: VGRNON W. EAMONUS, P.O. Box 1y0, An~heim, CA 92805. AGENT: NUGO A. VAZQUEZ, 619 S. Live Ouk Drive, Anat~eim, CA 92805. P[operky described as a rectangulacly-shaped parcel ~C land coneieting of app[oximakely U.43 acre, 9ZU South Weslern Avenue. Waiv~rs of maximum structural height and rnaximum site covernge t~ constcuct a 15-unit epartment complex. 't~here were twu person~ indicating thoir presr_nce in oppobition to subject request end althouqh the staEf ~eport was not read, it. is reterr~d to and made A part of the minuter~. Hugo Vazyuez, nqe-•,t., explained tl~ey are propoaing to conatruct a 15-•unit Apar~ment c~mplex on the east side of Western Avenue and preoentEd o coloced rendering qi -_he ~r.upaaed ~~roject. Ne »tated he did meet with the surcounding pcoperty r~wner~ ~nd bleo made an o£fer to purchase the 3 contiyuous properties that ace cux•cent]y available on 9~311 Road, bul they were already in egcrow with a.nather. devel~ppr. fie stated these will be 2-bedroom, l.-bath unita co~si~riny of 8~b square feet each with a spa area in the rear; and that tt~ere will be an e:lectrical security yate ta provide full security for L•he tenc+nts. Mr. Vazr7u~z ~tated he d.id meet with Mc. McGAUghy and that hia tnajor concern wA~ tt~e 22-foot setback. M. -.. McGaughy, 91G S. Western Avenue, Anaheim, stated the proposed [~COj@Ct is qo~ad except for a couple of things and explAined his property may be developed in the future foc one of his dauqhtecs. Ne stated he wouJ.d ]iY.e that structure adjac~nt to his property to be one story And aEter diRCUasing it w:.tt~ the builder concluded that the maximum that could be built on the r~roperty and stav within the ordinance is 11 units and he woul~ like for this project to bP reduced to only 11 units. He ad~ed thcre ie also a problem with traffic in Che front of this property and probably there should not be any parking allowed on the street aftec the pr~~ect is completed. He stated he chought there would be a 10-foot high wall adjac~nt to hia properCy. Tom I~ono~;an, 9U5 5. Western Avenue, Anaheim, stated he t~as lived at this address for 34 y~ars and is cancerned with this type oi development and how many units shou.ld be permitted. He ~tated they went through an extensive evaluation with the Planning Commission approximately 3-1/2 to 4 years ago and basically the same project was proposed and with the cooperation of the developer and the P].anning Commission, they are acting a~ a buffer zon~~ for the single-family homes. He stateci the existi.ng adjacent apartments were originally proposed as twu-story units, but were adjusted to one story with a 10-foot high dividing wall. He stated they are very concerned about increasing the tcaffic load on Weatern Avenue and there hc~ve been several Eatalities at that corner and they have requested that the City provide a left-turn signal, but that has not been accompliahed. He stated there is also a traffic hazard because of the school. He staked they are not in any way opposed to change and have aup~orted change in the paet and they have been there for a long time and have seen a lot of things happen and kno~ the property ha~ to be developEd to its best possible use, but they wuuld like the Planning Commission's consideration. 9/17/84 _ _ _ _ ,..., l MINUTE5, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNZNG COMMISSION, SEPTEMBER 17, 1984 8~79 Mc. Vazquez explained thex w~cked out ~he traffic concerna with the City Tr~ffic ~ngineer and Eound thece wa~ d need to resolve some of the tcaffic prablems in this nrea and they wc~:~'~ not be opposed to reatriping or pr.oviding a median and they would offet that aa a cequireme~t for developing the site. kie atated he is willing to increase the height of the wall on the north to 10 feek and also pruvide shrubbery and tr.ee$ Lhat would hide the wall. Dob Williams, Williatns De~ign Graup, explained they tcied to design tl~is project to meet everyone's need~ And their project was originally degi.gned with two driveways, but L•he Traffic Engineer And neighbarhaod did nc~t want ~hat design ~o it was change~r ~nd that they are 22 teet awaX from the single-family zone and tt~at ie because oE the ~ize oE the lvt and tne si2.e of the units. 'rHE PU~LIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Ch3ir.man Herbst asked if the developer was aware of Ghe Planning Commisaion's poli.cy requiring the setback to single-fami~y zoned prnperties. Mr. Wi11i~mE staked he did riot know a~out that policy. Chairman Nerbst stated the Commiasion has nevec allowed two-•story unita thbt close to single-family homes ar~d noted this property was previously approved for garden-type units. Mc. Williams stated they did a study on different req~.~ests apprnved next to single-iamily zones by the Pl~nning Commiaaion and pcesent~d A liat of the projects approved as close a~ 9 feet ta sinqle-family zones. Commibsioner Bushoce stated it d~esn't mattQr what has been done in the past, and that each p~oject has Lo stand on its own. Chairman Herbst stated if tt~ey ace ~oing to provide a setback, the whole project would have tn be moved; and that there is no ptotection provided Eor the single-fami.ly neighbors and he thought thece could be a compromise and the 20-foot setback waived if the wall is built and the two story is eliminated on that portion of the property. Commissioner La Claire stated she was sure the applicant had designed ttie project in good faith and she realized past pro~e~ts are reviewed by the developers. She stated the south side of the Propecty is ad~acent to commercial property and there is a 13-foot setback so she thought approximately 4 feet could be utilized for landscapiny. She stated this area ~as mostly apartnents and ehe thaught ~~partmenks would be a good buffer to that residential zone. Concerning the 150-foot setba~k, she explained several years ago the Commission and Council got to~ether t,o discusa whether or not that setUack should be changed or if it was reas~nable and discussed it at great lenyth and decided to leave it as it is so that ~ndividual pcojects could be reviewed by the Commission. She stated everyone realized when the ordinance was first established, the ].50 feet made sense and now it doesn't, especi.ally in an area that is already developed with RM-2200, with a resolution af intent to RM-1200 on the east side, and she thought there is some room for compromise in the 150-foot setback requirement. She stated ln this request they already have 22 feet which is a driveway where there is no ~arking and including the extra 4 feet gained fcom the other side, she felt this could be a reasonable request. 9/17/84 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PL~NNING C.OMMISbION, SEPTEMBER 17, 1984 84-580 Cheirman Herbet etat.Qd h~ did not see a hardship f~r approvAl of the waiver and aeked if the petitionPr would like a~ontinuance in order to redesign khe project to satiafy the neighbor~. Commissioner. La Claire stated she thought the projeet needs to be moved towards the commercial uses, even though it would ptAbably not be as goo~7 as the propoaed project, but would provide mo[e room Eor la~dscaping to help the neighbocs. She referred to the recreation room and added, however, ahe did not think that would gain enyone anything, excepk cutting d~wn the size of the unite the people would live in. She added she is not woreied obout the lot coverage, but would like to nee heavily-land~caped aetbacka slong the north eide of tNe property. Chairman Eierbst stated if i- ie the Commission's intent fo require an a-foot hiyh b1ocY, wall, it would be necessary f.or stafE to readvertise the wai~er. c:ommissioner La C.laire explAined a 10-foot hiyh wall would be con~idered a ~trur,tucal wall. Commissioner Bust~~,ce referred to the recreation room And aeked if the petitionec would be willing to record a covenant, approved by the City Attorney's Office, atipulating that that unit would not be converted to A liviny unit. Mr. Williams responded L•hey would be wi.lling to comply with that reque~t. Commissioner La Cl.aire clarified that the parking spaces woulc~ be assigned. Mr. Donovan stated this is not ~i two-story progosal, but actually a strong 2-1/2 atory pcopo~a]. becauae of the subterranean park~.ng which ~~ only 4 feet duwn. Mr. Vazquez stated they cou.i3 have revised plans b~ck into ataff by tomorrow in order that the project c:ould be readvertiaed for the October l, 1984, meeting. ACTION: Commissioner La Claire offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bauas and MOTION CARRIED, that consic~eration of the aEorementioned rnatter be continued tc Che regularly-scheduled meeting of October 1, 1984, at the requ~:Ft of the petitioner. ITEM N0. 9. EIR NEGATIVE DECT.ARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3429 (ADVERTTSED AS JARIANCB N0. 3424) PUBLIC HEARING. OWN~RS: QUINTON R. BAItNES, 2666 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805 and HARVEY W. ANU GRACE M. SCHENK, 211 S. Ohio Street, Anaheim, CA 92805. AGENT: EMBASSY PARK DEVELOPMENT CQ., 5480 Lincoln Avenue, Cypress, CA 9063U, ATTN; WILLIAM FIFIELD. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.53 acre, 205-211 South Oh~o Street. Thece was no one indicating their presence in opposition Eo subject requesl• and although the staff repork war~ not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. 4/17/84 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING,CUMMISSIQN, SEPTBMBER ]7~ 1984 84-581 Waivers of- permttted enccoachment ~nto front and side yards, minimum Guilding site area p~c dwelling unit and miriimum atructural height to construct a 24-unit ~fEordable apartment complex. ~il.l Fifield, agent, presented a colored rendering of the propoaed pro~ecC and explained iC does involve thc~e 50-foot wide lots with a frontage on Ohio of 150 feet. He sta~ed they ~re proposing 2-hedcoom, 2-bathroom unite. Ne fucl•her explained they have executed a letter oE underatanding with the City oE Anaheim and e~tered into sn a5reement with them to mnke this an affordable apartment complex. He sta~ed they will alsa be partici~ating in ~ bond program. Mr. ~ifield stated if. the Commi~sion does not want to ~pprove the variance Eur khe trash enclosure3, they would cansider moving them an additional 5 feet. He stated the request is for 24 units which ia 258 more than the zone allows, but they hope by making tt~em affordable units, that bonue will be gran~ed. He stated rather than a~idewalk, they have atepa becau~e of tuck-under ~arking. THE PUaLIC HEARING WAS CL05ED Commissioner Bushore asked iE the trash enclosures wauld be adequate volume-wise and location-wi3e. Greg Hastings cesponded t.here is a condition included requiring they meet standards of the Sanitati~n Division. Annika Santalahti stated it is po~sible they may have to expand and Paul Singer stated if that is the cASe, they wou.id have to intrude into a parking space. Mr. Fifield stated they will comply with ~f~al•ever the conditions of approval are. Commisaioner Bushore stated approving this in this area would be setting a standard for everything that will be developed in the future between Lincoln and Oroadway. He ~tated there will be a lot oE traffic taking acr,ess off the alley and Chat this is really a den3e project. Chairman Herbst stated he realizes the State allows a 258 density bonsus for a~fordable apartments and asked how long they intend to keep the project. Mr. Fifield statpd they have entered into an agreement with rhe City which will be foc 20 years or the life of the bond which w~uld be no less than 10 yeacs. Chairman Herbst stated some of khese affordablA projects which have been approved for just 5 years, certainly give tF~e property owner an advantage. Pat Whitakec, Con~munity Housing De~artmen'~, st~ted in fact, the 20-Xear period is in relationship to their agreement with the County of O~ange for a bond issue which may or may not take place and there would be a separate affordable agreement executed with the developer and the Community Development Department for the aff•~rdable unita fo: 5 years and explained thQir prior agreements have a.ll been for 5 years. Chairman Herbst stated he does nol• agtee with the 5-year periad because the project wilt be there focever and after the 5-year period, the developer can rent the units for any amour~t he wants. Commissioner Bushore stated based on the area and precedent *_ha*_ w~uld be set, this project is just overbuilding the groperty. 9/17/84 Chei~Herbet eta~ed h~"Bhorenhe daes not 1lkectheeaccesa offtChe alley aidewalk. Commise1onQr becduee thnt is a heavily used alley right now. Chairman HerbRt stated he did not think the lbndscaping and pru~ertiee ahould be sacrifi~ed bnd a precedent set for the benefit of a few extra units on the ~roperCY• Commisaioner Buehore s4atedeh~he°ehavetbeeneallowedlin khehpASt,rbut~th~ughthe subte[raneari paxking becaus Y the density for thie ar~aAllowemore unitstebut gettingethe~extranunits pluse lote is gU~n and it do~ compounds the density. He stated khe density bonus f~r afford~bility really even without the vACiances, the c~eveloper would ne~d to prav~de the affocdable units. Mr. Eifield stated iE they ~~~b~teconomically feasiblehandWif~thetbondeprogram property becausc it would n does not par~s, they could not drvelop the project. Commiesioner Bushore stated iE this prc~ject is based on aEfordability and County bond money, he did not think it would ~~ork. Mr. Eifield stated iE the ComeisWO~lddnot wantftolbehinvolvediinsthetprojectat will add to the cortununity, th y Chaicman Necbst stated the Commission has had quite a are developed andjm~ybe coming before thetn with a lot less than this and they the property owner will have to reduce the price of the property in ocder ta s~ll it. Comtnissioner Fry stated he doeF not like the vehicular acinahec~rightrmindnd packiny by only two alleya and he did not think any lady would gA down two alleys to get to the parking at night and, consequently, they would ~e parkin9 on Ohio Street. Cotnmissioner McBUrney statedrh~heaPa~c~i~andmusing two alleyshfoc acceas~isha the density is too severe £o very poor plan. He suggested the petitioner should cearrange thiR for better accesa and also uni~-w~se- iti Ls severely imPacted. Resppnding to Chairm&~Ohio Stcee~uwithncertain~cestrictionsrbecausea they could take access off underground parkiny r~as to mainl•ain a 20-foot setback at 20 before going under9cound. ' Commiasioner Bushoce umanumbecsof~4 unitsrandreombininyPthehoslots meansQl2eLs are permitted a maxin~ sed for this project and this would be units would be allowed, but 24 are propo setting a precedent. Commi~sioner La Claire stated thensitmiand theoprojec~8etspmoredaesthetically staked maybe if there was less d Y 9/17/84 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CI:Y PLANNING COMMISSIUN, S~PTEMBER 17 1984_ __ A4-583 pleasing, it wou~d be mare accept~ble. She added the access bothers hpr And al~o the diviaiana in the pdrking garagea must be eliminat.ed and a.'pd if khere is an alternative. Mr. Fifield atAted they havp ugreed ko delete tl,: divielons in the parking gatage and leave them op9n. ~hairman HerbaC aeked the petitionec if hP would like a ~ontinuanc~ in arder to redeaign the project. Mr. Fifield asked Eo: a 1-month continu~nce. ACTIUN: Commieaioner McBurney ofEered ~ motion, seconded by Commi,asi~ner Fry and MOTION CARRIED, that can~ideration of the aforementioned mattcr be continued to the regularly-scheduled mpeting oti OctobHr 15, 1984, at the rNquest of the E~etilioner in ocder to reconsidec khe project and posKibly aubmit revisNd plans. RECESS: 3;05 p.m. RECONVRNE: 3:15 p.m. ITEM N0. 10. EIR NE~ATIVE GECLARATION, WAIVEH OF CUDE REGI~IREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2622 PUBLIC HEARING. OWN~~S: CUNTINENTAL PACIEIC ~NTERFRIS~S, INC., 2301 Campu~ brive, P.O. Box C19529, irvine, CA 927!3, ATTN: P~TE RODRIQUE2. Propecty described as an irregulacly-shaped p~ircel of land consisting of approximately 7.1 acres located at lhe southwESt corner ot Nohl Ranch Road ..rd Anaheim Hills Roc~d~ 505 South Anaheim Hills Road. T~ conatruct a 45-Eoot high, 205-room senior citizens' retirement facility with waiver of minimum number and type of parkiny spacea. There were two persons i~dicating their pcesence in oppoeition to subject request and although the staff report wus nok read, it is ceferred to and made a part oE the minutes. Floyd L. Farano, attorney, 100 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, explained Ron Wells and Pete Qudriquez of VTN, Cnuck Terry, archit.ect, and Steve Hilton, engineer with Linscott, Law and Greenspan, Traf~ic Consultants, were al.~o present. Mr. Farano pcesented slides of a similar project. He explained the petitioner owns and operates three or four of these pcojects at khis time and this wfll be thE first one in Southern California. The slides presented showed areas of the country where more seniors live, income, life expectancy chart~ of senior citf.zens (noting women live longer than men generaily), and that women drive or possess fewer cara than men; thak the averaye age of the occupants wou:d be 73 years and that 85~ of khe occupants ace women. The sl~des presented also showed the private dining rooms that the residents r.an use f~r special occasions, and modei units with a kitchen and no ovens so that most meals are taken in the common dining raom. Mr. Farana stated their office did a survey of similar units and found .4 space per unit would be adequate. He stated thia development proposes to 9/17/84 MINUT~S_,_ANANEIN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. SEPTEMBER 17,_1984 ,,,_, s4-584 provide individual and cu~tomized on-demnnd tranaportation for the reaidenta. He ste~ed the density is fer less thnn what could otherwise be developed on this pcapdrty and reviewed ttie nther Code requicemente comper.ed with the proposa.l. Mr. Parano QaplainRd the unil sizes are 400-equare feet fuc a»tudio unit, 536-aguarQ Eeet Eur a onE-bedroom unit, 664-aquaro fePt fcr a one-bedro~m and dan unit and 83G-nqusre feet Eor a twc~-bedroom unit. Mc. F4rano atated Candition No. 22 deals with the parking and the applicanl• ia willing to L•ake care of any unsatisfied parking demand; that they have ttie ability to limit parking, but they do not think iL• will be neceseary nn~ would agree to the condition wher.eby a parking study might be conducl•ed within a two-yeac peciod and if it i.e found there is a parking shoctaye, thPy will do wt~atever is necessary to provide that parkiny. He stated Ct~e development ie aituated on the snuthweet corner of Nahl Ranch ltoa~ and Anaheim Hills Road and th~re is no place Eor anyone to park on the street, so a pArking problem would become apparent vecy c~uickly. Narlan Fick, 57U Golden Sky Lane, explained hts property i~ in the Carriage Hills tract which adjoins the proposed project on the west:. He stated they Qbject to the parking waiver becauae of a conr.ern that this could be converted in the future to some othet type use which would ~equire a lot more parking. He stated probably their greatP~t concern was that it appears from the line-of-eigtit, ~ome oE the rooflines would be 5 feet highe~ than some apots uf Brightun Lane and they would n~t object to that if there was an assurance that there would be maintained landscaping high enough to block tt~e view of the roof tops. William C. `~'al.ly, 6156 E. Morni~ngview Drive, Anat~eim, read a statement that he is a delegate o£ tFa Royal ~ircle Village Nomeowners' As,~c~ciation, which is comprised of 37 families liv:.ng adjacent to the proposed senior citizen facility and the homeowners' Assoaiatian requests that tociay's hearing be postp~ned for approximately 30 days wnich i~ the time needed to adequately study the proposed structure, its intended use and above all, what imPact it will have on the surrounding community. He stated the request is justified because of the limited amount of time between notificati~n to residents and today's hearing; and that a project of thia nature requires substantial in-depth study to realize all the ramifications the homeowners will be faced with in the future. He stated at face value and with no further inPormation, it is felt a stcucture of this size, wlth its intended use and possible uses in the future could seciously detract from the immediat.~ area causing undue hardship on the homeowners. He stated his association ie con£ident that in the spirit of cooperaLion and understanding, the applicant wi.ll concur with this request and the Commission's indulgence and understandfng cegarding this serious issue for the families of the Royal Circle village will be witnessed by the apNroval ot a 30-day poetponement. Barcy C~ttle, Century Ametica, 1428 E. Chapman, Orange, develop~cs of Embassy Point, p=esented a randering of the project t~~ey ace developi.ng directly south and adjacent to the proposed senior citizen housing pcoject. He stated they are in favor of aenior citizen housing, but have questions regarding the architectucal look, and will the air conditioning equipment be placed on the 9/17/84 M1NUT~S. ANAHE_IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIQN. SEPTEMHEP 17~ 1984 84-585 raot. Ne pointed ~ut they have to tell tl~eir homebu,~era what they will be luoking down onto, what the raoE meteri~l will be made oE, ekc. He stated also there will be ~ome actual cutting and grddi~g into the hill and it ie difficult to determine the height oL• the building. He pointed out because of ~he Ful]. pisr,loaure Act, they have to tell their future homebuyera overything about the Pr~P~rty and they are not aure what to tell them ak thia timP. He atated kh~X would request a continupnce so they will have an opportunity to meet wi~h the developer becAUSe they feel t.hece is also a passibilit.y ~f blockagF: of views. Chairman fierbat pointed aut t.hie property is zoned for commerci~l uses ~t the preaent timE an~ if the building met ell ~he Code requiremenks, this hearing would not be nece~sary. Mr. Cottle atated they are just concerned about the height and perhap~ some mitigation measures auuld be taken to alleviake those concerns. Mr. Facano stated n~ine oE the roof-linee exceed the height of Brighton I.ane. lie st~ted they have no problem with a continuance, however. Ron Wells, cepresenting CPE and uTN, atated t~e is in eharge of senior citizen pcojects throu-~hout the State of California and w~a no+~ aware there was any opposition by the people in the neighborhood and they wauld be receptive to a two-week continuance. He suggestpd the opposition contact him and let him know what their concern8 are And indicated he believed they could be mitig~ted. Cnairman Herbat stated he appceciates the developer's ayreement t~ ~~ continuance, but wanted the ~pposition to know that if the Planning ~~.~!•~~~.ission decidea to go ahea~ with this action today, the maCter Would possibly be heard before the City Counci.l. tle stated he does not like to sep a project delayed, recoyniziny ti cost to the developer, if at ull possible. He stated Ehi.s is probab:.y one o' the lightes~ uses that could go on this propartyt however, he was a little concerned about the parking. C~mmissioner ~cBurney offered a motion for a tw~-week continuance and Commissionec E'ry seconded the motiun. Commiasio~ec Bushoce stated he would lik~ to diseuss this a little bit more. He stated hP thou~ht a continuance may not be needed; that there is recourse f oc anyone dissatisEied and there is a cundition inc:luded that the roof equipment wi.ll be screened and also he has a letter from the Anaheim Hills Ylanned Community Association, dated August 20th, and he did not see any other homeownecs aasociation asking for a delay and there is certainly time to meet with the deve?.oper within the next three weeks and if they have a problem, they cauld aF:peal the matter to the City Council. He added he could not undecstand how the master association could ack on this one month ago and then one assoai.ation out of f.fve surrounding the property did not have time to meet and there is no opposition £rom any of the oLher associations. Cor.unissi~ner King stated the parking situation is taken care of unr~er the conditions. Commissioner La C1airQ stat~d she has no oppositfon to a two-week continuance and it was niGe of the developer to ofFer; however, ehe wanked to discuas the reference to transpartation provided for the occupante. 9/17/84 SEPTEM~ER 17 1984 8A-586 MINUTES. AN~Hf rM CI,TY PLANNING COMMISSIUN. ~ ~~-- Mr. wel.le st~ted full transportation will be o~fered 24 hours a day within th~ f.acility and they will nat raly on any public tr~+na~ortation. He etated this Ne i~ anothec reaaon they f eel the parking ratio proposed will be udeyuate. atated thvy can rely on their past record that they have been providing adeyuate packing facilitiea becuuse the people who mo~~e into these pr~Sects dn not h~~e ~dition+~lhpacking~i.n~thaafu`u[~a8ifcneedede but~dont~QEeeleitiwillgbe~ pcovide dd neceaeary. Mr. Wells ceapnnded L•o Comtnissianar L~ C1airE that this will be A gated community with a large cul-de-sac which providea adequate tuclanAtouht~vedl8 of security yuard and ~ g a te wi11 be provided. He stated th~y p these projects in Calif ornia within the next year~ Responding tio Commissio ner La Claire, Mr. We.lls explained they are atill wocking with the eleva tion grade plana and will be hnppy to acreen the upper area with landaca~ing s o the homeownern cannot. seQ the roofs. Commissioner La Claire was car.cerned that W~kod$~bmitha landsca~efplan and of pc~o~le. Mr. Wells stated hp would be happy thought rhat ia a cequ irement anyway. Chairman Herbst atated there are threr, lots inciua~a in their development and no developm~celimapCtQOeliminatePthe 1'at linea. MChairman HErbst add~dWlel be fi.ling a par P would like that aH a c ondition~ Res[~onding to Commis~ioner La Claire, Mr. Wells skated the average cents will be from $900 t~ $1400 per rtionth foc total services. ACTION: The vote was called for on the motiAn o£fered by Commiasloner McBurney and seconded by Co~r,missioner Fry AND MOTION CARRIED, that consideration of the aforementioned mattec is continued to the regularlY-sCheduled m~eti.ng of October 1, 1984, ak the request of the petitioner. ITEM NO 11 ~IR NO. 247 (PREV. CERTIFIED AND TENTATIVE MAP OP TRACT N0. 11y36 (Rev. No. 1) PUBLIC HEARING~ OWN ERS: STATE WIDE DEVELOPERS, 5182 Katella- 4106, Los Al.amitos, CA 90720. AGENT: SUN RAY ~NGINEBRING, 125 W. Green Street, Pasadena, CA 91105. Property described as a rectangularly-shaper~ parcel of land cansiatiny of approxtmately 18.6 acres, havi~g a fronta9ecoximately 655 approximately 1,320 f eet on the west side af Knott Street, app feet ~outh of the c enterline of Ball Road, the former Apullo Junior High School slte. To establish a 4-lo t, 332-unit RM-3000 Zoned condominium subdivision. Thece wasunh the staffareparthwas not8read,iit is~referred touandCmade a~part and altho g af the minutes. 9/17/84 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SEPTEMBER 17, 1984_ 84-587 Tar~q Shamma, 229 E~ Lincoln, ~naheim, Shammd Enterpciaes, Enyii~eers, repreaenting State W~de Aevelopera, explained they ace requeeting an amendment of the lo~ lines of the previoualy approved tentative tract mapr nnd that they are not requeating an inarease in denei.ty or waiver of Any af the conditions. He stated the applicant haa reyueated that one more eight-unit building be added ~o PhasQ 1 tor a total of 92 units inate~d of 84 becau~e af the construction noise eEter thoae people have moved into the units. Greg Nastings stated atatf hns not analyzed the outcome oE that request or what could occur with that change and they would be shifting deneities from one lor ~o another. He etaked he did not know of any in~mediate problems, but thou,yht staff wnuld want to take ~ look at the change. Commissioner Fry atated that is a change of l~t liner~ which could be major changes. Mt. shammA responded if ik ic~ not possible, they woiald accept ik the way it was proposed originally with 84 units in Phase 1, explaining they are juat trying to minimize probl~ms Eor the people in the units. .Tack white, Aasist~nt City Attorney, stated the pro~lem is thak slaff is now being put on the apot because they huve not reviewed revised plans and if the Commission wan~s to approve it~ a condition could be added requiring that the change be reviewed by staff. Mr. ShammA 4tated they would rather wait if L•h~ere ia a pcobl.em rathec than cont~nuing this request. Greg Ha~tings stated there could be a problem if a variance was neceaeitated by the change since t~e matter would have to be readvectised. He stated also thia is an affordable projPCt which requires a 258 density bonus and he wa~n't sure how L•hat 258 was divided up. Mr. Shamma stated when they talked to the Community Development Department, Ms. Pat Whitaker, was not quite s~.~re if the 25$ was calculated on the real density. Annika Santalahti stated the 25g is calculated on what is allowed by thA Code. Greg Hastings stated this project was approved for 83 units to be affordable which would be 258 of the total nur~ber. Chairman Herbst stated changing lot lines looks like it could cre~te some parking problems in the fu~ure and if the structures were ever sold, thexe could be a parking shortage. Mr. Shamma withdrew his request for a change and explained Phase 1 and 2 will have more parking than required and s~aff is recommending a condition currently that they be developed in a certain sequence. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. It was noted EIR No. 247 was previously certified by the City Coun~il December 8, 1981, in conjunction with General Plan Amendment No. ].66 and the Environmental Impact Report consider2d the maximum permissible density under the medium density residential land use designation (36 dwelling units per acce) establiahed by the General Plan Amendment. ACTION: Commissioner La Clafre offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does 9/17/84 MINUTES~_~NAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSiON, SEPTEMBER 17, 1984 __ 84-598 hQreby find t1~ac. the propoAed aubdivieion, togetl~er with ita design and improvement, is consistent with the City oE Aneheim General Plan, ~urauant to Govexnment Code Secti~n 66473.5t and does, therefoce, approve Tentetive Map of Tract No. 11936 for a 4-lot, 332-unit condominium aubdivieion subject to the Lollowing conditiona: 1. That prior to final L•ract map approvalv the owner of oubje~t property ahall record a covenant guuranleeing that as each pheae develops, that phase stiall contain the Code required minimum number and type oi parking spaces calculeted either independently or including previously developed phase(s). 2. That prior to final kcact map approval, the owner nf subject property shall agree to relocate any bus atops and bus aheltera adjacent to sub~ect property on Knott Skreet to the satistactian of the Ocange Caunty Transit Distcict. Said approval ahall be in the form of a written ayreement betwe~n the ownec and Ocange County Transit Di~trict, a copy oE which shall be pKesented to the Planning Department. 3. That a final tra~t map of aubject property shall be submitted to and appcoved by ~he City Council and then be recorded in the Off.ice of the Ocange County Recorder. 4. That prioc to f.inal trart m~p approval, street names shall be approved by the City Planning Department. 5. That temporary street name signs shall be inatalled prior t•o any oc~upancy if pe~manent ~tceet name aigna have not been installed. o. That prior to approval of the final map, the vehicular ~ccess right~ to Myra Avenue ~nd Kingsway Avenu2 shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim. 7. That prior to fi7a1 tract map approval, the original documents of the covenants, conditions, and rpstrictions, and a letter addressed to the developer's title company authotizing recordation thereoE, shall be submitted to the City Attorney's Office and approved by the City Attorney's Office and Engineering Division. Said documents, as approved will then be filed and recarded in the Office of the Ocange County Recorder. S. That should this subdivision b~ developed as more than one ~ubdivision, each subdivision theceof shall be submitted in tentative facm for approval. 9. That prior to approval af the f?nal map, th~ owner of subject property shall ~oat a bond to guaranteP the installakion of a modified ci!~ ' ic at the terminus of Kingsway Aven~ae and Myra Avenue as c by the City Engineer. Said installation ahall occur prioc _..al building and zonir~g insp~~cticns. 9/17/84 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY_PLANNING CQMMISSION, SEPTEMB~R 17, 1984 84-5@9 10. Thnt pricr to approval of the final map, the developer shall enter into an Agreement with the City oE Aneheim pursua~t to Government Code Section 65915 to provide that nat lesa then 83 oE the ceaidential unita ahall be sold a~ low or moderate income housing as defined in Government Code Secl•ion G5915 and wikh apprapriate resale controle ae approved by ttie City oE Anaheim. Nathan Uoboveky, 154U Ociole Street, asked why he had received a card inviting him to come to this meeting and then h~ was -iot allowed to apeak for or against tt~la project. Commission~:r Buahore explained all property owners are notified who live Within 300 feet of aubject pcoperty ~nd this project haa been going on f~r two years and the Action today was just to n,~ve some lot line~. Mr. Dobovsky stated he was concerned ahout *.he traffic and height o~ the etrur.ture. He stated, unfortunately, the Planning Commissian meets in khe afternoon and tnost of the men in L•he area work and cannot take time off to come to tt~e meeting. Commisaioner Busho~e atated a~l seven oF the Commi~sioners take time off from their jobs to attend ttiese meetings. Commiasioner t,a Claire atated, unf•ortunately, these meetir-gs lac~t fr.om 8 to 12 hours and if they had atarted thia meeting at 7:00 p.m., it would now be 1:00 a.m. And those peaple who would have to wait until 3 or 4 in the morning would not like it. ITEM N0. 12. EIR CATEGURICAL EXEMPTIUN-CI,ASS 11 AND VARIANCE N0. 3423 PUBLIC HEA.RING. AWNERS: IMPERIAL BANK, 9920 5. La Cienega Doulevard, Inglewood, CA 90301. AGENT: ED FRAZIER, 9920 S. L~t Cienega Boulevard, Inglewood, CA 90301. Property described as an irregularly-Ahaped parcel of land conaisting of approx.imately 3.73 acrea located at the southwest carner of Canyon Rim Road and 5errano Avenue and further described as Tract Na. 10941 (Rim Crest Vi11as). To retain the display of temporary flags for a new residential subdivision with waivers of maximum r~umber of flags and pecmitted days of display. There was no one indicating their presence in oE~position ko sub~ect cequest an~3 although the staff repart was not read, it is ref•erred to and made a part of the minutes. Walter Erazier, agent, exglained thEy are pcepared to revise the request to 10 flags instead nf 16. Greg Hastings stated they are allowed to fly two flags p~r di~splay model unit and in this case there is only 1 unit and in any case there would be a maximum of 10 flags permitted regardless of the number of units. THE PUBLIC H~ARING WAS CLOSED. Responding tc Commissfoner La Claire, Mr. Frazier stated they have 14 units left for sale. C~mmissioner Bushore asked if the agent really felt that flying f.lags helps sE.ll the units. Mr. Frazier stated they do not really help sall the units, but they do attract some attention. 9/17/84 7 Commiaeioner ~ry stated he hae no pcoblem with th~$ request. Chairman Hecbet stated he would cather eee fl.aga as signa. It was noted the Planning Dicectoc or his authoriz~d representative has determinRd that the pcopose.d pra~ect falls within the definition of Cakegorical Exem$t~ndgiscltt~ecefore~ categoricallyeexempt fromrtheerequirement Report Guidaline t~ prepare an EIR. pC84-191 and moved for AC'~ION; Commissione~ I,a Claice offered Resolutiun t~o. its passage and adoptioi~ that the Anaheim ~roxinatelyn6 monthe~coterminus~with grant Variance No. 2423 for a period of app the £lag permia@a b~ethe~CitydCounci.lgand~aubjectatoeIntecdepartmental but cauld be exten Y Committee recommendACions. On roll call, the focegoing recolution was paesed by thP following vote: AYES: BOUAS, NRY, HERHST, K1NG~ LA CLA_kE~ MC 6URNF.Y NO~S: BUSHORE ABSENT: NONE ITEM 13. EIIt NEGATIVB DBCLARATIQN AND RECLASSIFICATION N0. 84-85-7 Box 3233, Culver PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: PACIFIC LIGHTING LEASING CO., p•0• City~ CA 90230. AGEN'P: REQUESTED BY THE CITY OF ANAHEIM F~LANNING COMMISSION, 200 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805. Prope[ty de:3cribed as an icregularly-shaped parcel of land conaisting of approximately 0.93 acre located at the southwesl cornec of La Palma Avenue and Imperial Highway, 565U E. La Palma Avenue. ML(SC) to CL(SC). There was no ohe staffareporthwas notscead,iit~isoreferred~touandCmad~~~part and ulthough t of the minutea. Commissioner King declared a conflict of intereat as defined by Anaheim City Plannin9 Commission Resolution No. PC76-15'l adopting a Conflict of interest Code for the Planning Commission and Government Code Section 36?5, et seq., in I that he own~s common stock in Pacific Lighting and purauant to lhe provisions of the abave Codes, declared to the Chairman that he was withdrawing from Ehe hearing in connection with Reclassification No. 84-85-7, And would not take part in either the discussion or the voting thereon and had not discussed thia matter with any member of l•he Planning Commission. Thereupon Commissioner King left tbe Council Chambec. Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, ex~lained staff has spoken with rhe owner of this propecty and he has no problem with the reclassification. She further explained staff made this recommendation becAUSe this is the sole~etweenotheninduscrialrendreommercial zone.anShehnotedmther.e signing differs 9/17/84 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMM.tS5I0N, SEPTEMDER 17~ 1984 84-591 are two usea on the proper~y that could be encouceqed t~ wock together on their slgning prngrams. She explained the property is under a condit~onal use permit right now so khe zoning hos no effect, but it does aFfect their signing. ACTION: Commissioner La Claire o~[ered a iaotion, adconded by Cortuniesioner Mc~urney and MOTIUN CARRIED, that. the Anaheim City Planning Commission hAs reviewed the propoasl ta cecl~sai~y subjeet property from th~ ML (induetcial, Limited) Zone to the CI, (Commeccial~ Limitod) ~n an irregulArly-shaped parcel of land consisting of. appro~imately 0.93 acres locate~ at the sauthwest corner of La Pa1ma Avenue And Imperial Highway and further deac:ribed as 5650 E. La Palma Avenuet and does hereby apptove the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Decluration tugether with any comments received during the ~ublic review pcocesa and fucther Einding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is nu aubstantial evidence thnt the project wi.il have a~ignificar.'. effect on the environment. Commissioner La Claire offered Re~olutiun N~. PC84-192 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning CommiAaion does herehy grant Reclassification No. 84-85-7 uncnnditiunally. On roll call, the foregoing res~luti~n was pafsed by the fcllowing vote: AYES: BOUAS, BUSHOR~, FRY~ FIF.RBS'r, LA CLAIRE~ MC BURNEY NOES; NONE ABSENT: KING ITEM N0. 14. REPORTS ANQ RECOMMENDATION5; A. TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 11856 -Request from C. J. Queyrel for an extension of time for Tentative Tract No. 11856. Pruperty located at 616 Peralta Hills Drive. ACTION: Commis~ianer King offeced a motion, seco~ded by Commissioner Fry and MOTION CARRIED, thak the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant a one-year extension of time for Tentative Tract No. 11856 to expire October 4, 1965. ADJOURNMENT: There being no fur.ther business, Commiasioner Fry offered a motion, seccnded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CAFtRIED, tbat the meeting be adjourned. The meeting was ad~ourned at 4:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~(,Cl~K.- a( - /` L~~i.~~ .. Edith L. Ht~rris, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission ELH:lm 0066m 9/17/89