Loading...
PC 1984/10/15J~ REGULAR MEETING dE~ THE ANI~H~IM CITY PLANNING COMMI~„SSION REGULAR ME~TING The regular meeting of the Andheitn CiL•y Planning Commiesion was called to ocder by Chairman Herbat at 10:00 a.m., October 15, 1984, in the Council ChembeK, a quorum being present and the Commis~ion reviewad plana of the i*ems on today's agenda. RECESS: 11:30 a.m. RECONVENBD: 1:30 p.m. PItESENT Chairman: Herbst Commisaioners: Buahore, Fry, King, La Claire, A6SE-VT: Commissionets: F3ouas, McBurney ALSO PRF.SENT Annika Santalahti Asaistant Director for Zoning Jack White Assistant City Attorney Malcolm Slaughter Deputy City Attorney Jay Titue Of£ice Engineer Paul Singer TraEfic Enginesr Barcy Dee Traffic Engineering Asaistant Pat Whitaker Neighborhood Restoration 5Peci.alist Lisa St:ipkovich Asst. Executive Dit. Redevelopment Greg Hzistings Associate Planner Bdith Harcis ~lanning Commiasion Secretary ITEM N0. 1. EIR NEGATIVE D~CLARATION AN, kEQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF SPECIMEN TREES PUBLIC HEAFtING. OWNERS: PARAMJEET S. D,ARGAN, 5040 S. Cresr.ent Drive, Anaheim, CA 92807, Property described as an icregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.2 acres, having a frontage of approximately 200 feet on the sot;th side of Crescent Drive, and fucther described as 5040 East Crescent Drive. RE~2U~;ST: Approval foc removal of ten (lU) specimen tree3 previously cut clown by petitioner on May 14, 1984, withaut benef.it of a permit. Continued from meetings of June il, Auguat 6 and Septembsr 5, 1984. There was no one indicating their presence in uppasition ta subject request and although the sta£f repo:t was not xead, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Commissioner La Claire declared a conElic.t of interesk as defined by Anaheim Cxty Planning Commission Reaolution No. PC76-157 adoptin~ a Con£lict of Interest Code for the Planning Commission and Government Code Section 3625, el- ~645- 10/15/84 MINUTE5, ANAyEIM CITY ~LANNING COMMISSION, ~ctUber 15, 1984 84-64E aeq., in tt~at ahe has ~ financi~l interest ~n khe properr.,y, and purauant ta the provinions oE the above Codes, ~eclnred to the ChairmAn that she was withdr~winy fcom ~tie hearing in c~nner.tion wlth requeat for specim~n tree removal, and would not take part in either the discusFion or the votinq Ll~ereon and had not diacussed th,i.~ matter with any member oi chc Planning Commission. ThE~ceupan Commiasiuner Ln Claire 1~~t the Cauneil Chambec. Paramjeet S. Dargan, own~r, expl.Ained hc ha~ repZant~d ttie kCer~H And the Plann~ny De~~rtmenl: stafP did veri[y that bnd he did everytliing he w~a told to C~ U . THE PUBGIC H~Ai2ING WA~ GLOSE:D. Comrnissioner Du:hare rtated he wUS unoer the impression thra~ the Planning Commi~szon had inst:ructecJ thr appaicAnt. to re~lant all t:he tcees. Mr. Dargan responded tti<a~ four of the lrees are regcowiny ko such a heighk that Che Planniny Uepartment staff ayr.eed khey wuu.ld Ge acceptAble. Gr~g Hartings, Assoc.iAte Plannec, explained t.he actiun of the Planning Commif>Hiun ot ,1une 11, 19~4, had been that i[ it could be certified l•hat the tre~~ could be rejuvenated, they would nok have to be repl.aced. Ne stated the Cod~+ Enforcer~enr_ ,taff h~~9 in~pected the property ~ind tnund khe ttees to be eithez reyruwing adequately ot replanted, and that phatoyKapha were taken ACTIUN: Corr,mi~sioner King ottered a rnotion, f3E'(;onded by Commissioner Fr.y and MUTIUN CARRIEU (Commissioners Bouae, La Claire and McF3urney absent), that the Anahefnn Cflty Planniny Commission ha~ [EV1~'k.~d the proposal to remove t~n (10) ~p~cim~en tx'~es on an icregularly-shaped pArc~l of' land con,isLing of a~pprox~imat~.~ly 1.2 acre, having a front~ge of approxirnakely 200 f.eet on the routh side c~f Cresc~nt Drfve and beirig appraximately 75U feet east of the centerlir~e af Peralt.a Ni].is Drive and f.urther e1~GCribed ar~ 5U4U E. Crescent Drive; and daes heceby ~pprot~e the P:egative Declaration upon finciing that it has consictiered khe Neyative Decla:at~~n together with any c:omments received durir~g t'he public review pr~~cess and Eurthec finding on the basi~ of the Initial Skudy and any comments received thaC there is no substantial evidence that t•he f~roject will. have a sign:ficant effecc o~ c'~e en4irc~nment. Commissioner F,ing oEfpred a motion, seconded by Commissicner Fry and MOTION CARRIF.D (Commis:ioners Bouas, La Claire and McBurney absent), that the Anaheim City Flarining Cnrnmissio:~ does h~reby grank approval for ttie removal of ten (10) specimen trees (84-U3) which were pr~viausly cuC duwn by the petitioner without benefiC of a permik on tt~e bASis khat four of the t.rees are regrowing and replacement ttees have been planted on the property. Mr. Dargan statr~ he haa asked the F~lanning Department if he could remave one ~if ~he trees and plant it sor~eplace else on the pcopert;~ and also if he c~uld trim one of the large trees. Greg Hastirgs re~ponded the Cod~ aliows c:he trees to be trimmed to a height of 25 feet. Mr. Dargan stated he would satiafy Code requirements, but the only ques~ion is abaut one tree. Chairman Herbst stated if there were problems with the trees, the petikioner can have a tree surgeon submlt a report indicating the trees are detrimental to the pcoperty or dangerous to the health and permits should be obtained from the Ciky first. 10/~5/84 .,. ,.._ .,. ,. ._._.. . _ __ _. __.... __.. _..__ . _ .__ _..._ 1 ii 1,- MINUT~S, ANAH~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION1 October 15, 1984 84-647 Commiseionec La Cleire returned tn thQ Council Chember. ITEM N0. 2. BIR NEGATTVE D~CLARATION, RECGASSIE`ICATION NU. 84-85-4 (READV.), WAIVER OF CnDE R~t~UIREMENT AND CONDITIONAI, USE PERMIT N0. 2605 (REApV.) PU9LIC HEARING. OWNERS: CHFSTER P~TERSON AND QEVERLY ANN COMPTON, 327 N. Shuttuck Plac~, Orenge, CA y2666. P~uperty described as an irregularly-shapPd parcel of land consiating of Approximately 4.4 acres located north And west of the northweot corner oF La Pa.ima Avenu~ .and Imperial Highway. RS-A-43,000(SC) to the CL(SC) Zone. To permit a multi-screen indoor theakre and a 47-~oot high semi-encloaed ceataurant with waiver of minimum number o[ ~arking apaces. Continued frum the meetings of Auguat 6, 2U, arid Sepkember 5, 1984. ACTION: Commiasioner King oEfereci a motinn, seconded by Commissioner Fry and MOTION CARRIb:D (Com~nissioners Bouas anci McBucney absent), that consideration of the aforementianed matter be cantinued to the reyularly-acheduled meeting of October 29, 19n4, in order for L•he applicant to submit revised plana. ITEM N0. 3. EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 5 ANU VARIANCE N0. 3418 PUBi~IC HEARING. OWNERS; JAMES D. EAGAN & NANCY H. EAGAN, 1857 W. Katella Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92804. Propecty described es a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 5,033 square feet, having a frontage of ap~roximately 50 f6et on the south sid~ of Alexis Avenue, and furthpr described as 1534 t~est Alexis Avenue. To retain a sundeck and fence addition with waivers of minirrum sideyarc3 setback and maximum fence height. Continued from the meetfngs of August 20 and September 17, 1984. tt was noted the applicanr. was not present. Thete was one person indicating his presence in opposition to subject request an~ ~~though the staff report was not read~ it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Following the recess at 3:20,it was the general cansensus of the Planning Commisa~on that the public hearing should be held afte~ Greg Hast~.ngs explained the staff had not been able to contact the applicant. He Eurther explained that a revised plan was submitted and suggested the Commisaion diacuse the revised plan and ask the opposition for his comments. Mr. Hastings explained the revised plans show the aundeck is to remain since there was no oppoaition at the previaus meeting; that the original fence heiqht was 7 feet 9 inches and that has been reduced to 6 feet 3 inches on the revised plan3 which will be a 5-foot block w~ll with 1 foot 3 inch wrought iron on top. It was noted it ia only 3 inches higher than Code allows. 10/15/84 ti y MINUTES. ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 15. .1984 84-648 RoberL• Curcier, 1547 W. Tedmar, Anaheim, explained the sundeck doean't reAlly bokher him that much ~nd his only real ob~ection was to the fence. Ne explpined hia propPCty is 3 feet lower thAn subject property so the fence is actually 10 feet high on his aide. He ataked the petitioner has not started wock on the fence r~ducing it to the height tt~ey agreed on and reaponded to Cliairman HerbAt that he would be natiafied with the revised plana when the work is done. Regarding the aundeck, hE expla.ined the petitioner has not used the sund~ck in a lony time, even though when I~e did sit out there, he could look right into tiis windows. Chairman Hecbst asked whether or not Mr. CurriNr would object to the intrusion if the sundeck wr,s n~t already constructed and the pekitioner was making a reque~t tor it taday. Mr. Currier responded he probably would be aqainct it. Chairman Kerl~st offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner K~ng th~t a two-week ~or~tinuance be grantea because he would want the petitioner to be present so Lhe Commission can be assured the work will be accomplished. Greg Hast•iny~+ pointed ~ut there is a proposed condition included requiring that the woc~ i~e c~mpletFd within 6U days. t:e stated there seemc t~ be an Agreement betwe~n the pco~erty owner and neighE~or pertaining to khe revised plan~. Cnmmissaoner Bushore noted l•he petitioner would not want to do the wark until h~e gets approval of the revised plans. He ~tated it really irritates him when somenn~ does something wikhout permit~ and then asks the Commissinn to appcove it and now the Commission is considering going ahead and a~>proving rhis cequest; that he probably would not have had a p~oblem with the fence, even though there are ol•her ways the petitioner could have accomplished the sam~ thing, but when he considers whekher. or not he would t~ave approved the sunder_k if. it had been Cequested originally, tie would have to say he would not becauoe it would be an intrusion to the ne.ighbors' pr.ivacy. fie added he thought the Planning Commission makes a big mistake by appcovinq somethina after the fact and if the contractor had been Zegi.timate, he would have gotten pcoper permih.s prior to construction. He stated some day the neighbor will sell his property and prospective buyers will see the sundeck and he thought that would be detrimental and devalue khe neighbor's property. Commissioner La Claire stated she agrees witl~ Commissioner dushore; and that this petitioner has created his nwn problem and she thought this is a good example of a property owner not paying any attention to his neighboc And doing somethiny tatally against the Code. Chairman Herbst. witt~drew his mation fot a two-week continuance pnd Commissionec King withdrryw his second. It was noted the Planning Uirector or his authorized representative has determined that the proposed project Ealls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 11, as defined in the State Environmental Impact Report Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. 10/15/84 MINUT~S, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMI5SION, October 15, 1984 _____ _~ 49 ACTIpN: ~ommisaioner ~ushoce aifered Reaolution No. PC84-206 and moved for ita ~Aasage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny Vnciance No. 3A10 on ~hP basis there Are no epecial ciccumstancea appllcablE to the property such as Go size, 3hape, topography, location su[r~undings which do not apply to other ident.ically zoned prnperties in the vicinity and strict apPlication af the Zoning Code does not deprive the property af privileges en~uyed by other properties in identical zoned class:fications in the vicinity. PC10C to voting on the resoluti~n, it was nated the p~titior~er could rem~ve khe 3 inches fcom the fe~ce and not have to have a variAnce and could also reduce the aize of the sui~der•k to comply with Code. On roll call, the foregoxng resolution wae passed by the folluwing voCe: AYE5: BUSHORE~ KING, LA CLAIRE NUES: EiERBST ABSENT: BOUAS, FRX, MC BURNCY Commissioner La Claire explained she had ~•~ted in favor of denial because nothing has been done since the original he~ring and the applicAnt was not present today and because the hardships wece created by the petitioner. Chairman Herbst explained he had voted against the denial because he felt the 3 inches on top of l•he fence was acceptable, even though he thought the sundeck should be r~duced to comply witn Code. Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written riqht to appeal the Planning Commission's decision wi.thin 22 days to the City Council. ITEM NQ. 4. EIR NEGATIV~ DECLARATIUN AND VARIANCE N0. 3429 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: QUINTON R. BARNES, 2666 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 928U5 and HARVEY W. AND GRACE M. SCHENK, 21t ~. Ohio Street, Anaheim, CA 92805. AGENT: EMBASSY PARK DEVELOPMENT CO., 5480 Uincoln Avenue, Cypress, CA 90b3U, ATTN: WILLIAM FIFIELD. Property desccibed as a cectangul~rly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.53 acre, 205-211 South Ohio Street. Waivers of permitted encroschm~nt into front and sid~ yards (Deleted), minimum building site area per dwelling unit and minimum structucal height (Deleted) to cons~cuct a 24-unit affordable aoactment complex. There was one person indicatiny his pcesence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and ma~e a part of the minutes. Wi'lliam Fitield, agent, explained the revised plan~ and stated the only thing they are requesting is a density banus aa covered in Paragraph 18 of the staff repork. 10/15/84 _ ~ October 1~, ~984 84-650 MINUTES, ANAHEIM C;TY PLANNZNG COMMISSIO_N ~~_.._ Susan Kocsis, 20K S. Ohio Stre@t, Anaheim, skated the stef~ ceport implios that e11 the immediate surcounding e~cea is multi~le-family reaidencea and that is not true becauae sh~ livea in a aingle-fnmily rea.idence diceatly Accosa the ~ttreot. Ghe stated her chieF objection is to the denait.y and she has lived there for thr~e ,yeara and the area is genernlly nice, but. ehe flrmly believes this density wf11 cceate a vecy bad change in the neighbochood and that h~r neighbora feel the same wayt tha~ they already have apartments in the erea and moet of the problems have occurred because of them. She stated she was undec the aasumption the Zoning lawa wete created in order to maintdin atandards and ehe f.elt any time a variance ia ne~ded, it does r.esult in lo~vering the atandarda. She stated there has been an increase in crime in the area and she thought more apartments will increase the ccime Eurth?r and affor!~able apartmente do not attract the same type of people as othec kinda of develo-~menta . Commiasioner 'iushore explt-ined the praPerGy Ms. Kocsie lives in is zoned ItM-1200 f~r apartments. Ms. Kocsis replied ahe ie awace of that and atated therQ ar~ a numbec of houses in the area still single-family with peaple living in them And she wanted to make Rure the Commiseion underatood that the subjeck propecty is not enticely surrounded by apartment usPS. Chai[man Herbst explained the approval for a density bonus is mandated by the State of California because oF the affordable housing ~qreement~if they meet certain standacd criteria. Ms. Kocsis s~atec~ if this project is approved, she and some oF the neighbocs would like the area between the subject prop~rty over to the commpn driveway rPViewed because sound is channelec3 through that aren. Mr. Fifield stated Ms. Kocsis' comments are justified= however, Commisaion has already explained the property is alceady zoned RM-1200 and he ia only asking for the 258 denaity bonus and they will make every unit an affordable unit. ye added this pcoject will improve ttre tcaffic situation from a safety standpoint and it will increase ehe property values in the ar~a. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commiesioner Bushoce asked the term of the proposed affociiable housing agreement and Mr. Flfield responded he will make it any length of time the Cortunission wishes. Commis8ionec Bushore noted the previous pcoject was approved with restrictions for 20 years. Greg Hastings pointed ou*_ Condition No. 19 incorporates that 20--yea~ time limit on this petition. Responding to Chairman Herbst, Greg Hastings explained the project will have to meet the sound at.tenuatian policy with the City and the allowable sound teading at the property line will be 60 decibels. MC. rifield responded they wi.I1 ~omQly with r~hat the City Engineer feels is adequate and they would do a sound study if the City desires. 10~15/84 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY_PLANNING COMMZSSION, OCtober ~5. 1984 8~-650 Susan Kocais, 206 S. Ohio Street, Anaheim, statad the staff report implies that all the immediete sucrounding ~ree ie multiple-family residences and that i.s not tcue because she Zives in a single~fumily residQnce directly acrosa the street. She etated her chief objection i~ t~ the denaity and ahe has lived there for thcee yenrs end the area 1A gener.ally nice, but she fiKmly believeo thiR denaity will create a very bAd change in the neighborh~od an~ that hex neighbors feel the same wayt that they alceedy have ~partments in the area and most of the prublemR have occurred because of them. She stated ahe was under the aesumption the Zoning laws were eceated in order to maintain etandacds and she felt any time a variance is needed, it doea rpault in lowering the atandards. She stated there has been an increb~e in crime in tlie area and she thought more apartments will increaae the crime further and affordable apartments do not attract the same type of people as other kinda oE developments. Commissioner Bushc:e explained the propecty Ma. Koesis lives in iR zoned RM-1200 foc apartment~. Ms. Kocsis replied she is aware of that and atated thece ar.e a number of houses in ttiE acea atill ~in~le-£amily with people living in them and ahe wanted to make sure the C~mmiasion undecstood that the subject pro~erty i~ not entirely surraunded by apArtment uses. Chairman Herbet explained the approval Eoc a denstty bonus ia mandal•ed by the State of California becau~e of the affordable housing agreement~if khey meet certain st.andard cciteria. M$. hocsis stated if this project is approved, she and some of the neighbars would like the area between the sub~ect. property over to the common dciveway reviewed becauaA sound is channeled througt~ that area. Mr. Fifield ataLed Ms. Kocais' commenta Are juatifiedt however, Commission has already explained the propErty is already zoned RM-1200 and he is only asking for the 258 density bonus and they will make every uni.t an affordable unit. He added this project will impcove Che traftic ~ituakion from a safety standpaint and it wi11 inccease the property yalues in the areA. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bushoce asked the term of the proposed affor.dable housing agreement and Mr. Fifield responded he wi12 make it any length af time the Commission wishes. Cnmmissioner ~ushore noted the pi•evious project wa~ approved with restrictions for 20 yeacs. Greg Hastings pointed out Condition No. 19 incorporates that 20-year time limit on this petition. R~spon~ing tn Chairman Herbst, Greg Haatinys explained the pr~ject will have to meet the ~ound attenuation policy with the City and the allowabl~ sound reading at the property line will be 6q decibels. Mr. Pifield ceaponded they will comply with what the City Engineec feels is adequ~te and ~hey aQUld do a saund study if the City desires. 10/1~/84 -- ~4 ~, , , , M7NUTES, ANAHEIM C1TY PGANNIN~ COMMI~SION, OctobEr 151 1984 84-651 ACTION: Commiasionez Kinq oEfeced a motion, seconded by Commi~afoner Fry And MOTION CARRIED (Commieaionecs Bouas and Mcaucney absent), that the Anaheim Citiy Pl~nning Comm~ssion hae reviewed khe propos~l to construct a 24-uni~ af~ordable apartment complex with waiver of minimum buil.ding site area per d~velling unit on a rectangularly-sh~ped perr,el of lend consisting of approximately 0.53 acre, having a frontage of approximately 150 feet on the southwest cornec oi Ohio Street and ~uckhec deacribed as 205-211 South Ohio Streetj and does horeby appro~e ttie Negative Declarati~n upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together witt~ any comments received during the public review process and Further finding on thR bagis of the Initi.al Study and any coniments ceceived that there ia no aubstantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner King offered Reaolution No. PC84-~207 end moved £or ite paseage and adoption ~hat the Anaheim City Planning Commisaian does hereby grant Variance No.3429, in part, denying waiver~ (a and c) on the basis the petitioner aubmitked reviaed plans deleting said waivers and grAnting waiver (b? pursuant to Government Code Section 65915 or~ the basis that the petikioner stipulated that 25~ of the units will be made Available to fAmi.liea or peraons with low or moderate incomes for a period of 20 years and also on the basis that thece are special circumstances a~plicable to the property auch ~s size, shape, topography, location and t~urroundings which do not ap~ly to other identically zoned pcoperty in the same vicinityt and that stcict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privilegec~ enjoyec] by other properties in the identical zone and claESification in the vicinity and Hubject to Inkerdepartmental Committee recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BUSHORE, FRY, HERBST, KTNG~ LA CLAIRE NOES: NONE ABSENT: 80UA5~ MC BUHNEY Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days t.o the City Council. ITEM N0. 5. EIR NEGATIVE QEC?~ARATION RECLASSIFICATION N0. E4-85-9 and VARIANCE N0. 3426. PUBLIC H~;ARING. OWNERS: BANK OF CALZFORNIA, N.A., 845 S. Figueroa, Los Angeles, CA 90017. AGENT: FLOYD L. FARANO, 100 S. Anahein Boalevard, ~304, Anaheim, CA 92~05. Property described as an i.rregulacly-shaped parcel of land con~isting of approximately 5.3 acces located nor'th and east of the northeast corncr of Wilken Way and Harbor Houlevard, and fucther described as 2170 South Harbor Bou].evard (westwinds Trailer Lodge). Reclassification fr4m RS-A-43r000 to RM-:200 or a less intense zone to construct a 134-unit apartment complex with waivers of maximum structural height, maximum number of bachelor units~ minimum landscaped setback and minimum number and type of parking spacea. 10/15/84 MINUT~S, ANANBIM CITY P_LANNING COMMISSION, Ockober 15, 1994 84-652 There was n~ one indicating their pceaenco in opposition to sub~ect requesk and although the ateEf roport was not read, it ie roEerred to and made a part of the minutes. ~loyd 1.. Farbno, Attocney, 11~0 S. Anahei~. eoulevarci, Suite 304, Anehoim, i.ntroduced Uan Rowland, architect, Richacu 5klaar, repc~csenting thE property owner, Mike Eiade, Weatern Natio~al Prup~rties and Kclly Camp~ell, Mdnager of the propc~sed pcojeck. He explained slidea of 22 develo~ment:c~ in the City nf Anaheim which ar.e operated Qnd owned by Wentern National Pr~pertiee wpre preaented at the previous hearing and are available if the 4ommission wiahea to see them ayain and the purpoae of those alides was to show that more ttian adequete parking spaces were provided in all oF tt~ose complexea. He stbted WesCern NAtionr~l PropertiP3 Vehicular Parking Availability/Utilization Study was preaented to ltie Commission, together with copies o[ ir..iividual atudies of eac~~ unit, which shows those 22 complexe~ wtiictti r.anye in age Erom 1 year 13 monkhs to ptobably 15 yeArs anci havz parking ratios ranging from 1.21 ::0 2.8Q have adequate parking; tt~at the study shows thn~e 22 develo~ments uttlize 2,863 apaces at a parking retio of 1,24 and they ~ould submit. that t.he parking rbtio af 2.U they ace pro~o~ing for this p:oject ia mure than aufficient. He stated he actually surve,yed L•he projects tiimaelf to del•ermine wl~ether or not he was wrong on behalE of his client to expect the Commission fo ~eriouE; consider this type of waiver and aEtec looking at. it, not only in his client's developments, t,ut in ~ther developments in the City, he found there was an exces~ number of parking spaces; however, in aome pru~ects thece wece ~ehicles packing on the street which he could not explain. He atated he did not think the Commission should impQSe the r.equiremenh of 2.3 Epaces per unit on this deve].opment. Mr. Farano referred to the waiver of landscaping on tjarbor Boulevard ancl stateci that area is a driveway and could not be landscaped. Greg Harttings responded that waiver is required because there is a packiny space praposed next to the dciveway which should be landscaped and is appraximately 10 feet wide. yr. ['arano stated they are proposing 30 bachel.or units and only 27 are allo~ec~. He explained this projeck will be operated as a closed (walled an~] gated) coinmunity w}iich wil~ make a lo: of diffecence in the parking requirernents and the tenants will park inside. He stated this development does comply with the most crucial porti~ns of the Code pertaining to the number of units, land area ~er dwelling unit, density, lot coverage and recreational ar~a ana the waivers they have requested are not ceally as great aE those granted in connection with the condomfniums previously approved on this praperty. He explained the management of the units wiil be such that only one person will be allowed to occupy the bachelor units. Mr. Farano stated they have found literally hundreds of parking space~ available in the 22 pr~jects and believe khat ~act alone should be sufficient cause ~o at least maice tt~e ~ommission take a goo~ look at the parking requirements for this project. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. IO/15/84 MINUTES, 1-NAHEIM C1TY PI.ANNING COMMISSION, Octobar 15, 1984 84-653 Commiseioner Bushnre askec~ i f el l~he tenanta have been Caken cdre of undor th~ M~bilehome PArk Ordinance with the oxception of one. Mc. F~cano rer~ponded that is correct and they have campliocl with all the requeaCe fcom the City Atta~ney's Office And have been told the Commiaeion may qo ahead and vot.e on thia project today. Respunding tu Commiasioner Huahor~, Greg Hastings explained Cwo oarking ~pacea are cequirc~d for a bachelor unit And one mus~ be cavered. Cor;miKeioner Buet~ore skated with 3U propoaed bachelor units, the parking io brcught u little closec to a realistic fig~re ao maybe there is aome ~ustificatiun for e waiver f or the bachelar units, and also due to the fact that the applicant has 22 d e velopments in the City and they are nok going ~o ovecbuild the property and n ot provide Adequate p~rking spacQa. Commissioner HerbsC atated even though the applicant ifi going tu own and manage tf~e units, it is pos sible they could declde to sell thr_ property and the new awner may not carry out their Qoli.cy at alloWing only one peraon to accupy the ba~lielor units a nd he did not know how something like that could bE~ controlled, pointing out a brachelor living in a unit could qet married and hi~ wife could work and there c ould be twa vehiclea~ He atated he ia not going to deviate tr.om the 2.5 spaces for a 2-bedroom unit, b~t would consider 1.5 spaces for e bachel~r unit. Ne stal•ed he could show the applir.ant wtierc there iH nor enough parking in th e aE~artment complex~s throughout ~he Cicy, depen~iny on their lacation. He stated he feels th^ Code reflects the results of a vecy long xtudy and a need for the parking spaces and approval o[ this request would be digressing back to the old standards and until there i~ hetter public tcansportatio n in Anaheim, he though~ the ordinance is cealistic, except for the b achelor units. He stated since this is to be a closed complex, and the[e will be no park:ng on Wilken Way, there will bp a n~ed fnr mor- par.king s~ace s, pointing out m~al: other apartment complexes have street park,ing. He asked w hAt the petitioner would do if they found they were wrong and the City was rig h t, aftet the complex was bui2t. Mr. Farano stated he does n ot h ave an answer to that questlon. Chairman Herbst stated the Commissio n has to justify a variance and in looking at the si2e and shape of the property, he could not see a hardship. Mr. Farano asked for a few minutes to discuss this matter Mith his client. Following the heacing on I t em No. 6, Mr. Fasano returned and stated in cesponding to the Chairman'~ question, he would have to say they would nat be able to construct any more parking spaces on the site. He stated they are only requesting a 14~ ~raiv~er and believed there is ample precedent for approval of this request. He explained th~ units will range in size from 560 sq. fC. to 952 sq. ft. and would rent £rom $500 to $800 per month. He stated he thought the hardship is tliat it will bQ necesaary ta have a long narrow dr.iveway to Harbor 6ouleva rd and it is between residential units and commercial property and th e physical at.tributes of the property make it a difficult land use and no ~ommercial '_~~d use would ever be adequate on that property. 10/15/84 ;, ,! 84-654 MINUTES, ANANBIM CITX PI.ANNING COMMISSION OCtobeC 15 1984 Mr. Facano atated tt~ie pro3ect la en ar.tempt t.o provide non-suboidized housing with the quantity and quality t.hat ie not fo~~nd an every atreet .in Anaheimt that the C:ity Codes have conkributed to part o~ the hardahip in that whi~e they are well within the density r~qui[ements, they are not able to deve.lap He etated he the number oE unita all~wed because ot the p~~~King requiremente. thought the Commiseion should look at the atudie~ that I1dVN been conductedt tha~ khe parking etudy done by Gree~sPan di.cl noh count any parking ApACeA or take any physical eurv~ys in Anr~heim and the only Aurvey conducl•ed was what o`.her citiee were rrquiring. Fle stated the City's parking etudy 81so lumpa m~~ltipl.e-fbmily residentibl in with ainyle-fAmi.ly detached hou~i~g and the two cannot be lumpad together. Commiasioner t3ushore stated the Crmmission found a hardstiip themselves in 1981 when the;~ approved the 1U4 units anJ n~inted out Paye 5 of the st~ff report indi^_aties theae are not af.fordable units and this k.nd of project in not being bui:t in this City onymc~rP and the uniyuenese in the fact th~t the tenants He added the cannot park on Wilken Way makes the nr~~ject stand on itn own. open carport type apaces will preclude a tenant fr~m storing couchec~ or any other itema in that space. It wua indicated these will noC be Aosigned apaces. Commiasioner Bushore suggested if only cne c~pace was assiqned, it would be justified. t1e stated he reviewed lhe 22 sitea ar<~und t•he City anci thought because of thi3 pdrticular location ~~nd the compuny's experience in the businesa, the reques~ is j~~stified. tle stated t.his is actually less Chan what the Commis~ion was approving ~n vaciances three years ago. Chairman Hecbst atated the City would not have increaaed the parking requirenents unles3 it was proven ther.e wus a need; that i t~~~her~kteia firm the City had a parking study conducted by Greenspan and they .- • recnmmendation and then the same firm made a recommendation for ., much sma~ler number to the applicant. He staCed t~e does not agree with some of the things in the tudy, particula:ly ceyacding multiple-family housing and he was disappo ~ted in the stur~y, pointing out thin is the first time he has seen it in its entirety, and he alao felt they should have actually counted spaces in Anaheim. Paul Singer, Traffic Enaineer, stated khe Commission should seriously consider. this parking wai.ver and iE they decide to approve it, they might as well just change the Code because everyone will want the same request. He stated this Cit,~ has a seriou~ pa:king pcoblem in all th~ high density areas. Commissioner Bushore stated this is not a higl~ density residential area and neither is this project. Mr. Singer stated he felt this would stArt a precedent. Commisaioner La Claire stated st~e inspected so~r,e of the projects on rriday evening and Sa~urday and Sunday and there were empty spaces and she fe]t t'~= repoct Mr. Earanv presented louks right ~n this pr.oject, but that i~ not to say Mr. Singec ia not right and she realizes there is a pcoblem in the high denaity areas. She stated the question is whether or not ouc ordinances are fair to both developsrs and residents. She skated ahe felt one of the pcoblems is due to the fact that the City h~8 na cont:el over how many people can move into one dwelling unit and there are tnultiple families living in 10/15/84 MINU^'F.S. ~NAHEIM CITY PI~ANNING COMMISSION, October 15, 1984 84-655 ane unit in certai.n A[CdA ot tlie City snd in oth~c areaa that is not the problem. She ata ted thia compAny seema to represant good mana,yement and thar would not bN a pro blem in the propoaed pro j~ct, but that was one of the reasona for udopting the ordinancea, and n ow the Commiseiun has aeen that maybe it is too s tringent in eome of ~he lesser dense areas. Commissioner Herbs t stated in che hill and canyon area there is na ctreet parkf.ng and it w.:a Proven more pArkiny wa s ne~ded ~~ site and that w as another reason for ineceas ing the packiny cequire ments. Ne atated he woulcl ay~ee that 2 parking apaces Eor a bacl~elor unit is too high and that probably should be 1-]./2 spaceo. He stated he wnuld agrce wi th the rest o[ the park.ing requirementr in th e City's ordinances and that probably the requirement for 15 spaces is too many for the bachelot units, but that anly brings the total do~+n to 305 inskead of 268. PAUl 5inger a~ked the Ccmmisoion to viaua lize what would h~ppen if the developer of Ite m No. 4 on loday's agenda had requeated a variance like this and stated he is L•erribly afraid af the p r ecedent thaL• would be set with appraval of this reque~t. Ctiairman Flerbst stated the pAKking will be needed here because they have no atreet parking. C omm.issioner Fry stated the only access is ~•ia the 39-foot access easement and trer~ is no street pa rkiny nnd everything must be contained within t he perimeters of the de velopment itaelf. He stated if this was on a cornec lot with wide etreets and on-atreet parkiny, it mig ht be acceptable, but this is a Relf-contained c~mplex and all the units must be provided with the ir own parking [~lus any guest parking. Commis~~.oner La C laire stated thi~ is the first timc the Ccmmission has been made aware of this situation and has alwa ys cunsidered the ordinanc e to be very adequate. S he btated she has no dou bt the parking ordinance should be reviewed because her review of the projec ts indicated th~t there were empty spaces at all times; howpver, tiiat is not true in other parts of the Ciky. Chairman Hecbst s tated variances have bee n allowed in certain pcojects with the stipulation that if additional parking is needed, it will be supplied ii~ some manne~ such as a parking structuce, but this develop~r says there is no way to supply adciitional parking and he f elt there is no way `he Commission can deviate this f ar from the ordinance. Annika Santalahti stated in the last 2 t o 3 years in which the current parking ordinance has bee n in effect, there have pcobably been 5 to 15 pro jects before the Planning Comm ission and she did not t hink parking variances ha d been granted in any of those projects except those prepACed to deed res trict the property for seni or citizena use only, which is a totally separate issue and the ordinance is being prepared for that right now. She st,ated the traffic consultant who originally prepared the park~ng ordinance indicated his recor.unendations for apartment parking were made because of the condominium convecaions and f elt it woul.d be appropr iate to est~blish separate parking standacds for apartments and condominiums; how~ver, there have been recent court cases wherein the court has stated that apartments and condominiums 10/15/84 MINUTES. J1N1-NEIM CI'PY PI,ANNING COMM_ISSION~_Octobec 15~_ 1984________ __. 8A-656 should ~ot he coneidered separetely which means we will have to t~ke a me~or look at our ordinances becauae we have separate condominium atendnrda dnd other then building ae tbacks, packing ie tt~e only other ~tandard that ia not coneistent between the two. Chaicman Herb,st painted out Chis City used to have a 150-foot aetback cequirement to single-familY residential areas and now they nre grantinq projects d~wn to G5 Ee et oc even in aome areas to 50 Ceet and th~t has given the d~veloper more den sity and latitude in tlieir projects. Mr. Farano stated Chey would be williny to accept a dAed restriction which would prohibft condomi r~ium cc~nverAions and also pointed out there is an entcance on Cliffwood so Nacbor E3oulevacd ia not the only cagress and ingress, Commiasioner Lb Claire stated she Eelt in this F~~jr~icular inatanr,e, some kind of pArking waivcr is w arranted hecauge of the cost involved in getting the land ready Eax development, etc. and also it is unique becauae of the area, but• she was not sure s2ie would considec a variance this big because the Commissian does not re ally know all the anawers. Mr. Farana stated they have been working on thia project since last February and part oE the problem has been with the conversion expenses oE the mobilehome pack and h e tt~ought the pehitionzr hae done all he can and they would like a vote today. Chairman Nerbet etate d he did what he considered a Chorough review of the situation and he recog nizes thete are some apattment complexes that are not full; but that moat of the projects in Anaheim are ovecloaded and the only problem he can see wit h tlie parking ordinance pertains to the bachelor units. He agreed approval of thia project would set a~recedent because developers do reseacch all previous acti~ns of the Planning Commisaion. He stated if the developer wanta to taEce this on to the City Council, mAybe they will aee it from a different viewpoint~ but the Commission cannot look at economics ac pact of kheir decision. Respondiny to Commiss i onec 4a Claire, Mr. Farano atated the parking rati~ fs 2.0 with 134 uniCs anc3 268 parking spaces and noted even Chatham Woods, which is only 1 y~ar old, has a 1.80 tatio. He stated maybe this is a signal to take another look at the parking ordinance and the parkir~g situations araund the City. He atated he tho~~ght the areas whe:e the cArs are parked on the street ace the 25-yea r old neighborhoods which were developed under completely different standards a nd he thought anything that developed under current standards within the laet ten years is not a pcoblem. He stated also Western National Propertfes h as indicated that anather contributi.ng factor to this situation is the 3-be droom unit. He suggested the C~mmission approve the use and deny the variance and they could appsal that portion. Jack White, Assistant City Attorney, stat~ed regardlese of whether or not the pro~ect is appraved, t~e would like to suggest certain changes to the following conditions: Conditio n ho. 1 of the reclassiEication to include recm~nation of Reclassificatian 80- 8~-14 and Tentative Tract No. 11305 which were approvals relating to the previ Qusly approved pro~ect; that Condition No. 22 of the 10/15/84 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CAMMISSION, October 1~, 19~4 8A-657 VOt1AnCe be dmended to reeid: "Th~t notwithstandinq any hermination of reclnsaification pcoceedfnga No. 80-01-14, thoad certnin tenant relocation aseietance benefite identified in City Council Resolution No. 81R-356, Conditirm No. l:, as an~encled by Ciky Council Resolutl.on No. 81R-469, ahall be p+~id by the develoger and that proof of compliance, in e form aatiafectory to the City Attorney's Office, ahall be z~ubmitted prior to the iseuance of any buildiny psrmits." He ar.e~ted he would suggQat the same condition be added as a new condition, Condition No. 5, of the cecla~sification with th~ change to be thet it would be prior to thc intcoduction o~ an ordinance rezoning the pcoperty, etc. Mr. Farano responded he would havE no pcoblem wil•h thoae modifications or addit~ons to the conditions. Commiasioner La Clai~e atated she would like to see one parking epace provided for eac~~ bachelor unit and 2.5 spaces for each of the othpr units. Chairman HerbRt added if the developer provided apaces ae recommended by t.he traEfic consultant, 368 s~aces would be requiced and that would ~e providing 1/4 apace pet unit Eor guest pa~!cing. Commiesianer La Claire stated Ahe did nut know if khe ordinance i~ totally right, but Ahe would offer a motion later to begin a review of the parking ordinance. ACTION; Commissionec ~ry o~fered a moCion, seconded by Commissioner King and MOTIUN CARItI~b fCommissioners Bouas an~ McElurney absent), ti.at the Anaheirn CIty Planning Commissiun has considered a pcopoaal to ceclaasify subject property from the RS-A-43,000 (Residential, Agricultural) Zone to the RM-1200 (Rpsidential~ Multiple-Fa;nily) Zone to construct a 134-unit aparLment complex wir.h waivers of maximum structural height, maximur~~ number of bachelor units, minimum landscaped setback and minimum number and type of parking spaces on an irregularly-~haped parcel of land consieting of approximately 5.3 acres located nocth and east of the northeast corner of Wilken Way and Harbor Boulevard and further deacribed as 2120 S. Harbor Boulevard; and does hereby approve the Negative Declacation upon fir..ling that it has considered the Negative Decleratian together with any comments received during the public review pcocess and £urther finding on the basis of the Initial Stuc~y ~nd any comments received that the~re is nu substantial evic~ence that the project will have a significant ePfect on the environment. Commissioner Fry offered Resolution No. PC84-208 and moved for ita passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Cnmmission does hereby grant Reclassification No. 84-85-9 subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendatimns, including mrdification to Condition No. 1 of the reclassi£ication pertaining to termination of Reclassification 80-81-14 and Tentative T:acL• 11305, and an ac:ditional condition requiring payment of rplocation benefits to th~- tenants ~:rior to issuance of building permits. On roll call, t' ~going resolution was passed by the following vote; AYES: BUSHOR~~ '•:,, HE;RSST, KING, LA CLAIRF NOES: NONE ASSENT: BOUAS~ MC BURNEY 10/15/84 MINUTE5,_ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COM~I3&IUN. OctobeC 15, 1984 8d-658 Commiesioner Fry offeCed RRBOlutiu~i No. FCBA-209 and moved for ite paseage and ado~tion tihat the Aneh~im City Plenning Commiesion doea hereby deny VaKiance No. 3426 on the basim that there are no apecial circumstance~ e~plicable t~ the prape~ty auch as eize, ahape, lapography, location and eurroundings which do noL• apply to other identically zuned praperty in the sdme vicinityr and that etrict applicAtion of l•he Zoning Code does not deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other propecties in the id9nkical zone rnd classification in the vi~inity and further denyiny waiver (d) on the b~a1A thAt the parking variance would c~use a~ increase in the traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity And advecaely afEect any adjoining l~nd uses and would be detrimental ~o the peace, health, safeky and generel welfare of the citizena of the City of Anaheim. on roll call, the foregoing reso~ution was passed by the following vote: Ay$S: aUSHORE, FRYr HER9ST~ KING, LA CLAIRE NOES; NONE ABSENT: BOUAS~ MC ~URNEY Commissioner La Claice stated ahe felt the project is justified fo~ some variance, but not as much as reyuested. ~hairman Hecbst stated he had voted foc denial of the pcoject because he felt revised plans dEleting the p~rking waiver should be reviewed by the Planning Commiasion becauae it would change the entire project. Jack White, Asaistant City Attorney, preaented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. Mr. Farano thanked the Commission and staff [or their work and suppnrt on this pzoject. RECESS: 3;10 p.m. RECONVENE: 3:20 p.m. Commis;ioner Fry di~ not rer.urn to the meeting. ITEM NO. 6. EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 11 AND VARIANCE N0. 3428. PUBGIC HEARING. OWNERS: RAYMOND G. SPEHAR, ET AL, 6937 Avenida de Santiago, Anaheim, CA 92807. AGENT: GUS AND JUUITH MARIE CHRISTOPOULOS, 5750 E. La Palma Avenue, Anah~im, CA 92807. Propexty is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land cons~sting of approximakely 1.8 acres, having a fronkage of approximately 273 feet on the south side uf La Palma Avenue, and further described as 5750 East La Palma Avenue (Keno's Restaurant). Waivers of permitted number of wall signa and prohibited sign lighting to erect four (4) wall signa. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff repoct was not read, it is r.eferred to and made a part of the minutes. 10/15/84 ~ MINUxES. ANANEIM CITY PGANNING COMMISSION, ~ctober 15~ 1_984__ _ 84-659 Frank Lowry, Attorney, l0U S. Anaheim BouJ.evacd, Suita 304, ~nAheim, steted Lhe problem with thie particulac requeat is l•hat this is ~ highly auccesafu). reat~urant fcom 4:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., but it ie open 24 t~ours a~ay ~nd ia t.he only such resGeurant in the Canyon area end it is dying foc breakfast end lunch businesst that people on the Eree~ay can $ee the Keno sign, but when they got into the area, it is blocked by the motel end nureery. He stated stafF has indicsted the request is Eor 5 wall aigns, but he hes appcoved plans indicating they t~ave 1 wa].l aign And 2 di.pckional signst however, they are asking for two additional wall aigr.a. He stated they examined the Meccur,y Savinge and Loan slgn, and, unfortunately, it is not poasible to do this same wcap-around type situation with thia typp sign because this restaurant ia facirig the opposite direcr,ton. He ~tated they feel they have a definite hard~hip and the hardshiE~ ie because of thP location of the pcoperty and Ghe direction the building is Eacing and they are urgin~ the Commisaion to ~onaider that hardship. He statsd the rest~urant facea north and the freeway ia to the south and the sign im blocked by a matel on the west and the nurs~ry on the east and there is no visibility to the existing sign. Z'HE PUBLII' HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner L~ Claire stated this re~taucant ia located in the Scenic Corridor and the Commission has done everything to try to pcotect the sign ocdinance. She stated she goes to KenoR quite often and it ia doing a very good business and ahe goea thece for breakfaat quite often and it is busy. Mr. Lowry etated he was there for. breakfask Saturday m~rning and lt was not busy at all. CommisEfoner La Claire ~tated r-ne understands Che problem and did not thir~k the Commission ahould gtant this ~~etitioner anything more than whak was granted to others and she did nok see why they coul~ not incorpocate Kenos Restaurant in a wrap-ar~und sign, and then the two directiona2 signs on the west side of the building should be eliminated becauae l•hey are workhless as dir~ctional signs and are merely adve~r.isements. 5he stated a wrep-around sign would serve the pucpose and be seen fr~m the north and west which is exactly what they wanted. She stated if they put the wrap-around sign on the west and maintain the one on the south, it would constitute two signs and if they eliminated the two directional signs and keep the monument si~n, the petikioner's wishes would b~ met. Commissioner Fr~ stated he would agcee with Commissioner La Claire and that would still be in conformance with what has heen allowed fo: others. Ctiairman Herbst stated the sign facing the freeway says 'Kenos' and that reElects some sort of gambling name and he would suggest adding xhe word 'restaurant' on that sign. Mr. I,owry responded they would be more than happy to add the word "restaurant" and he would accept Cor.unissioner La Claire's praposal to remove the two small signs and accept the wrap-around sign on ~he northwest corner. Responding to Cammissionec La Claire, Gceg Hastinga explained ten square feet is allowed and they are not even close to thar. 10/15/84 MiNUTES, AN~HETM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Uctober 15. 1984 8A-660 I~ was nol•ed the Planning Dicector or I~is authorized repreaentative hao determined Chat the propose~ projecl• falls within the definition of Categociaal Exemptions, Claos 11, as de~ined in the State Environmental Impdct Report Guidelinea and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepere an EIR. ACTION: Commisaionet La Cleice of~eced Resolution No. PC84-2]0 and moved for ito passage and adoption that the Anaheim ~ity Planning Commisaion does hereby grant Variance No. 3428, in ~art, to permit one wcap-arour~d wall sign on the nocthwest corner of the bui.lding and that the two exieting directional signs (restaurant and cac:ktail) shall be removed and the one existtng well sign shall remain with the addition of the word 'reataurant• on the basis that there are special circumatances opplicable to the property such as eize, shape, toFngraphy, lacat~.on and eurroundinqe which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the aame vf~inity= and that atrict application of the Zoning Code deprives the prAperty of privileges enjoyad by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity and further granting waiver (b) on ~he basis this is a 2a-hour restaurant and there are no residenkial u~es in the a[~a which would be affecte~ and subject to Interdepartmen~al Committee cec~mmendakions. On roll call, the f.oregoing resolution was passed by lhe following vote AXES: BUSHARE, FRY~ KERBST~ KING~ LA CLAIrE NOES: NONE ABSENT: BOUAS, MC BURNEY ,1ack White, Assistant City Attorney, preaented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to khe City Coui~cil. ITEM N0. 7. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION~ WAIVER OF GODE REQUIREMENT ANA CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2627 PUBJ~IC HEARING. OWNERS: JAMES E. OUSTERHOUT, ET AL, 4334 E. La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92807. AGENT: MARKO E. BOTICH, 1426 E. R~mneye Place, Anahefm, CA 92806. Pzoperty described as an ircegularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of appcoximately 1.52 acres, 2020 'A' Howell Avenue. To permit a semi-enclosed restaurant with on-sale beer and wine with waivers of minimum number of parking spaces and maximum fence height. There was no one indicatfng their preaence in opposition to subject requeat and although the staff report was not cead, it is referred to and made a part af the minutes. Mark Botich, agent, explained his wife operates this business and lost her lease where she is currentZy located and wishes to re~ocake to subject pcoperty; that she has been ~n business for five years an~ the restaurbnt services the Goldenwest industrial Park and surruunding industries in the same area= and they searched far about 4 months before finding this site. He stated they have no problems with any of the conditions except the widening of the street and that would be quite a hardshfp for such a small business; that 10/15/84 MINUTES,_ANAHEiM C1TY PLANNING COMMxSSION, October 15, 1984 844661 khe ~roperty owner ie willing to dedicat~ the propQrty, but not ahar~ the expense of antual constcu~tiont that this property i~ 20U Eeet away from the intersectio~ and they would request to be able to postpone thls requirement. TNE PU9LIC HBARING WA9 CLUSED. Reaponding to Chaitman Herbat, Jay Titus, Oftice Engineer, stAted if the street could be widened all the way to State College, it would elimtnnte the boCtl~neck on Howe,ll Street~ and that the City might conaider taking a b~nd for the improvements E~r a specific peciod of time. f1e asked how much time the ~etitioner needa. Mt. Botich responded he thought a t.wo-yPar period would be adequate or sooner if the rest of the pr.opecties to the west are developed. Mr. Titus stated he thought a bond far the improvementr would be accepkable foc relocating the existing curb and installing new cucbs, aidewAlks and ~treet within a period of twa years unless demanded by the City Engineer prior to that time if. the adjacent properr.ie~ are develoj~e~. Mr. Botich ~tated one of the condit.ions refecs ~o the Anaheim Stadium study or the potential rezoning of thH property for Affice use and it is obvious that if the pcoperty ia rezoned tor office uses, iL• would be more valuable to everyone, including the landlord and he thought there wauld be nn problem with the widening at that time; that the maintenance oE the property has been very poor and that it is an old center and doe~n't have the appeal of a new center and the property is burderied because ft is long and narrow, but the fac.ilit.y they ace planning will be attractive and an assek to the area. Jack White, Assistant City Attocney, stated the additional condition ehould include a requirement that the developer will recocd a covenaat executed by the property owner to be secured by the bond in an amount satisfactory ta the City Engineer which would specify that the impcovements will be installed wittiin two years or eatlier upon demand by the City Engineer as spelled out previously. Cortunissioner Bushore stated this will reyui.re the developer to post n bond for a two-year period unless the adjacent property is developed earlier, but that if it does not develop earlier, he will have to in~tall the improvements at the end of the two years. He st~ted Condition No. 5 refecs to an assessment district that may be f.ormed regardless of what hAppens i.n ttie acea. Mr. Botich skated if the ~tudy is approve~, it doe~ not mean it will be implemenked on this particular area; and that he understands the property owner still has the right to discuss the boundaries and amounts, etc. Mc. B~tich responded to Commissioner Bushore that his wife is currently opsrating a business at 1266 E. Katella jusk soutli of. State College and thE business primarily secvices the industrial acea and they are requestfng they be allowcd to be open seven days a week because they hope to get some business from ttie sporting events at ~he Stadium. 10/15/84 MTNUTES. ANANEIM CITY PLANNYNG COMMIS5ION~ Octob_e_r 15, 1984 _ 84-662 Commiseioner Buehore etated he atrongly disagrees with the eale of be~r And wine in the industrial area. Mr. Botich stated thPy have been in buaine~s for flve yaacs and have been serving beer and wfne and it ie A amall portion af their business and it is not a beer parlor. Commisaioner La Claire atated othec similar requeats have been granted to other people in the industrSal area. AC~'ION: Commiasiuner King utfgred a mation~ secon~ed by Chairman Herbst and MO'rION CARRIED (Commissioners aouas, Fry and McBurnPy abaent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the ~topoeal to permit a aemi~enclosed re~taucant with on-sale beer and wine with waiverR of minimum number of parking spaces and maxi~um fence height on An irregu].arly-atiaped parcel of land consistin4 oi' approxim.lte~y .1.52 ar.res having A frontage of Ap~roximAtely 115 feet on Ehe aouth side oE Nowell Avenue and furthez described a~ 2020 'A" Nowell Street; an~ doea hereby spprove the Negative Declaration upun finding that it has conaidered *_he Negative beclaration toyether with any comments received during the public review pr~cess and fuzther finding on the basis of the lnitial Study and any comments received that there is no substantia~ evider.c~ th~t the project will have a significank effect on the environment. Commissioner King ofEered ~ motion, sec~~nd~d by Commissi~ner Herbst and M~TION CARRTEp (Commisaioners B~uas, Fry and Mceurney abaent), that the Anaheim Ciky Planning Co~~mission does hereb,y 9rant waiver (a.) on the basis that the parking waiver will not cause an increase ;n traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity nor adverEely affect any adjotriiig land uses and granting of thQ parking waiver under the conditions impo~~d, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, ~afet.y and yPr.~cal welfare ot the citizens of the City of Anaheims and granting waivec (b) on the basis that there are special circumstarices applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, locatiun and surroundinys which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicinity; and that r,trict application cf the Zoning Code deprives the property uE pri~~ileges enj~yed b)~ okher properties in the identical 2one and classifi.cation in the vicinity. Commisaioner Kirig offe;ed Resolution N~. PC84-211 and moved For its passage and adopti.on that the Anaheiin Ci~y Planning Commissi,or. doea hereby grant Conditiont~l [1se Permit No. 2627 pursuant to Anahei.m Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 thtough 18.03.O:,U.G35 and suhject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations i.ncluding an additional condition requiring that a bond be posted and recorded guaranteeing a;treet .:mpr~vements for the widening of Howell Street within a kwo-year period ac sooner upon damand by the City ~ngineer if the property tu the west ~eveloFs yrior to that time. On roll call, the foregofng tesolution was pas4ed by the following vote; AYE&: HERSST~ KING, LA CLAIkE NOES: BUSHORE AbSBNT: BOUAS, FRY, MC BURNEY 10/15/84 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. October 15 L1984 84-663 Chairman Herbst stated he really doe~n't Approve of the aale of beet and wir~e in the induatrial areao, but that this reat~urant has been in existence in th$t aeme acea with the snle of beer and wine and also this ty~e requeat has been granted for others in the industrial area. ~tack White, Aseistant City Attorney~ pteaented the written right to ap~eal the Planning Commiasion's decision within 22 dAys to the City Council. ITEM N0. 8. EIR NEGATIVE DE(:LARATIQN ANU CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2626 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNBRS: SAM J. WILLIAMS, 112 East Commonwealth Avenue, Fulle[ton, CA 92632. AGENT; TONY MARGERUM, 2131 West Lincoln Avenue, Anuheim, CA 928U1. Property is described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of l~nd consisting ~f approximately 2.4 acces, 2131 Weat Lincoln Avenue (Orange County Sport~ Arena). To permit on-sale beer in an exisCing amusement center. There was no one indicating their presence in o~posiFiun to subject requeat and although the staff report waF not read, it is reierred tu and made a part of the minutes. x~ony Matg~rum, agent, ex~lained his business is doing well and they have been gekting a lat of nationaJ. attention ~nd want to try to attcact some national tournaments for darts, F~ool, etc. l~e skated 998 of Cheir crowd is adults and they are requesting the sale o~ heer And they would need to have that in order to attract the large tournaments. THE P~BLIC HEARING WAS CI~OSED. Commissioner King pointed out the agent had indicated to the City Council that they werQ wittidrawing their request fot the sA1e of beer and wine at the original hearing and that they had no intention of sprving alcoholic bevecages. Mr. Margerum responded they had made those deci$ions prior to opening the facility, but now L•ind it is an adull crowd and have chanyed their minds and would like to have the right to sell beer. He etated they invited the Police D~partment, Cire Department and ~thers to visit l-hAir facility and they had nothing but good comments ~bout the facility and they have been encouraging them and helping them to attract people to Anaheim. Commissioner Bushore no~ed the Pol~ce Department had originally had negative comments about the sale of beer and wine and asked if the petitioner had discussed that possibility with them. Mr. Margerum responded that the Police Department originally had some concerns about lighting and security and they have complied with all those requests. Commissioner La Clair.e pointed out khe Commission's concecn would be tha~ there wo~xld be children and young people coming to the facility and asked to see ~ layout of the inside of the opeXation. She reviewed the plans with the agent. Commissioner Bushore asked about the sale and service of food. Mr. Margerum responded they do have hot sandwict~es, hot dogs, etc., but it is not a sit-dow~ restaurant. 10/15/84 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLAt~NING_COMMISSION,_October 15~ 1984 84-664 Respondinq to Commis~ioner Buehore, Mr. M~rgerum etated he did not think he cou.td aktcact the large tournaments without the sAle of beer. Responding ka Chairman Herbet, he stated they would only want ta sell beer and not wine and he would make that etipulation. Commisaioner La Claire stated her concern would still be A bar-like atm~aphere with chi.ldren prESent. She a~dad maybe cti~ could go along with the reyueat if thE petitioner could st~pulatP that 99~ of hi; business ic adults. Mr. Margerum stated actuall,y he thought pcobably this should be called a "ep~rts center" instead oE an amusement center. He atated there are bome young people who do come into the facility and ~hey do have arcade g~mPS, but they also have a very stricL dre~s code. He explained there is good visibility te the arcade acea with in-house clased circuit TV, so they do manitor the ~rcade area. Respandin~; to Commiasioner King, Mr. Margerum atated they da havQ a uniformed security gu~cd at the reat door d~~ring peak opera~ing hours. Commissioner King stttted Lhe original ~taff report indicated there would be a unifarmed guard on duty at all times during operating hours. Commiasioner Bushore pointed out that i~ part uf the original conditional u8e permit and the Commiasion cannot change that without another public hearing and pointed out the petitianer will have to comply witl~ all those requirements. Mr. Margerum st~ted there would be absolutely no need for a unlformed secur3ty guard except during the peak hours. Commissioner Bushore stated he could not go along witt~ this request and his oriyinal vote waa for denial because of the beer cequest. Mr. Marqerum suggested granting Che conditional use permit Eor a one-year period with a review every 9Q days. Commissioner Bushore responded he could go along with it for a~ne-year period. tie explained at the end of the one year, the petitfoner will have to come back fur another public heacing and it would not be automatically exten8ed and also there is no guarantee it would be grante~ at the end cf the one-year period. He pointed out right now the petitioner ia reqvired to have a guard on duty during operating hours. ACTION: Commissioner King offered a motions secended by Commissionec La C1 and MOTION CARRIED (Commissipners Bouas, Fry and McBurney absent), that the Anaheim City Planning ~ommission has reviewed the proposal to permi~ on-sale beer in an existing amusement centet on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approxima~ely 2.4 acres, having 3 frontage of a~proximately 168 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue; and does hereby approve the Ne9ative Declaration upon tinding that ~t has considered the Negative Declaration kogether with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comment~ received that there is no ~ubstantial evidence that the project will have a signif.icant eff.ect on the environment. 10/15/84 MINU~'ES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMI~SION,~ OcGobar 15, 1984~~~ C_4-_ 6b5 Comn~iesioner King offered kesolution No. PC84-212 and moved for i~a passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commisaion doea heceby grnnt Conditional Use Permit No. 2626 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sec~ion 18.U3.03Q.030 through 18.03.030.035 for e period of one yedr and subject to InterdQpactment~~l Committee recommendationa. Greg Haskinga, Aseociake Planner, asked that Cond3tion No. 2 be corcected to note that no alc~holic beverages except beer shall 5e aold or consumed on the premises. On coll call, the faregoing resolution was passed by khe following vote: AYES: BUSHORE, HERBS2'~ KING, ~A CLAIRE NOES: NUN~ ABSENT; 60UA5~ FRY~ MC DURNEY ITEM N0. 9. RIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 3 ANA VARIANCE N0. 3427 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS; GRAND CAR~, LTD., 1060 - Sth Avenue, 5uite 405, SAn Uiego, CA 92101. AGENT; DAVID LUCAS, 2829 Canon Street, San Diego, CA 92106. Property deacribed as an irregularly-shnped parcel of land consiating of approximately 0.89 acce, 2U40 South Euclid Street (Grand Care Convalescent Hospikal). Waiver of minimum structural setback ~o co~~truct an entrance canopy. It was noted the applicant was not p^eaent. Grey Hastings, Asaociate Plannet, pointed out staf~ had contacted the applicant and he wa~ts a four-week continuance. Commissioner Bushore pointed out he would like f~r staff to investigake and make sure the long narrow piece ~f property Fias been cleaned up. ACTION: Commissioner Bushoce offered a motion, seconded by Commimsianer La Claire and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Bouas, Fry and McBurney absent), that cansideration of the afocementioned matter be continued~to the regu~arly-scheduled meeting of November 14, 198~~ at the request of the petftioner. I'PEM N0. 10. EIR NEGi~'rIVE DECLAItATION A~7D CONDITIONAL JSE PERMIT N0. Z619 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: SCONONY MOBILE OIL COMPANY, INC., 17822 East 17th Street, Tustin, CA 92680, ATTN: H. C. ~RICSON AIVD MRS. ANNE HENNING PAULUS, East Lake Shore, Big Fork, Montana 59911. Property ~escribed as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of appr~ximately 0.63 acre, located at the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Rio Vista Street, 2800 East Lincoln Avenue (Mobil Otl). To permit convenience retail sales in an existing service ~tation. There was no one indicating their presence in oppositian to Eubjeat request and although the staff report was not sead, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. •,~~ MINUTES, ~NA_HEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Octobe[ 15. 1984 __84-666 Hacold Cricson, Fi~ld ~ngineeG, Mobil Corporekion, 3328 ~labamA Circle, Coeta Meae, explained their on]y concecn ie with Ghe requeak for cloauce of che drivewayst that this ia an exisring service atation and they teel it would be unsafe to cloae tho corner driveways, pecticularly on Lincoin going e~st becaus~ dcivera will have to make an un~afe u-tucn to get to the i~land and also it afEocts the gasoline delivery krucks. Bruce Magness, Eranchiae doalec, etated the mechanics of closing those twa drivewaya would maka it almo~l impoasible for him to operate as he has been for the past 15 years at that locatiun. He atated he is a sworn public safety o~ficer and has tr~ining in accident investigation and preven~ion nnd he has looked at khis Erom bokh aspects and he believe~ closing thoae driveways would add to the hazardous condition tt~at already exists in that acpa. THE PUBL.IC HEARIN ~ ~+~-5 CLOSEU. Responding to CummisAioner Buahvre, Mr. Magnens stAted the gasoline delivery t[uck makes deliveriea at diEf~rent timea of the day and night and the fill atation ia on the ea.st aide of the secvice station next to carl's Restaurant and the truck has to come in the northerly driveway on Rio Vista because it cannot make the turn using the southerly driveway and cannoC go behind the service station because that ie where the customers park .for servicej that the ialand on Rio Viska is a fnlZ-aervice island and i~ onN or two vehiclea enter the southerly entrance and there are t~ro vehicleA aiready at khat full-service island, they would have to wait in line until the full-aervice customer ia finished in ord~r to get to the self-service pump. Responding to Commissioner Bushocer Greg Hastings atated thi3 aite does meet the recotrmended site standards oi 150 feet by 150 £eet. Commisaionec Bushore a~ked the Traffic Engineer :~ow many acctdenta could be attributed to those close$t driveways at khis corner. Mr. Singer cesponded he has not done a specific study on this site. Mr. Magness stated he believed the fill truck would have to back onto I~incaln. Paul Singer responded he did not know why the truck would have t back out since he could drive acound the station. Tc was noted the truck could not 9o around the atation because that is where the vehicles would park for s~:rvice. Mr. Maqness also explained they cannot have access thxough the vacant pcoperty at: 1:he rear because that is not owned by Mobil Oil. Commiseionec Bushore stated the City Traffic Engin~er has been consistent in asking for the closure of those driveways for reasonable reasons. Mr. Magness stated he, as u public servant, realizes th^ potent3al that ducfng the rush hour a customer would be inconvenienced by l•he people trying to get in Off Lincoln on the eaeterly dciveway. He explained he has been a Reserve ~olice Officec for the past b years for khe City of Anaheim. Commissioner Bushore pointed out tne City Traffic E~~9ineer ha: been doing this type of work fnr 30 years and tl~at is his whole job and he haa been consistent in making these requests. He asked Mr. Magnese if he couid provide the Commission with r~ome statistica to counteract what the City Traffic Engineer has said. ld/15/84 MINUTGS. ANAHEIM CITY PGANNING COMMISSION, Oc:obec 15J 2984 84-6 67 Chaicman Eierbat etated thic eit~ was desi.gned to aervice ga8oline ~nd they are now aeking far a dual uae for rot~il seles to be in ~ompetition with the etores in the area and he fe1L• it should be deeigned to take care of eny pcab~ema, and that tha ail companies don't want ta do it ~nd it is known th ooe driveways da cause accid~nts. tle etated as far as he ie concerned, khe pla ne will have to be changed, Mr. Ecicaon stated Mobil 011 has made a lot of tests and ~tudies regardinq traftic fluw ~round »ervice atations becauae they want them to be eafe and the safest method is to hava those dciveways whece people can get through. Commissioner Buehore btAted the Plar~ning Commission would like to see thos ~ studies and will grant n con~inuance in ordec fur him to provide them. He etated the Planning Commission does mske miatakes and if the petitionec ca n furnish studie~ and the Traffic Engineer agreea with them, then they will g et a favorAble votF. Commis~ionec La Claire stated ahe appreciates Mobil 011 not asking to aell beer and wine and she is tempted to qive them nnything they want because it is refreshing to see Chem sc conr_erned for the citi~ens. She atated if they do have any infurmation pertaining to the driveways, she would appceciate see ing it, but tha~ slie would alao like to aee uny studies ~hey might t~ave that are for publication concetniny accidents where beer and wine is sold. Concern ing the driveways, she stated she was concerned beca~se the operutor haa said people cannot get through and the distance is 43 Leet. 6 inches, with an additional undesignated area, and she thought cars ehould be ab.le to get thcouyh to t:~e pump on the south ei.de on Rio Viata. Mr. Magness skated if he had two full-ser;~ice customecs at thet island, a customer would have to wa it to get through. Paul Singer staled the average street is 4Q feet wide and this ia 46 feet wide and the average ntreeL has three travel lane~ and 46 feet should be able t o accommodate at lear~t three lanes with two cars stopped at the island and another car should beable to go pas~ them and he did not see a real hardship. Mr. Magnese and Mr. Ericaon reviewed the plans at the po-~ium w i th the Commiasion. It was noted there could be an erc~r in the dimensions s h own ,,. on the plan. Mr. Ericson stated they have had to develop secundary uses for fiervice stations in order forthe dealers to make a profit and be competitive in tuday's macket. Chairman Hecbst stated the Commission has cequired othes service atations to close those driveways. Mr. Ericson stated the cost of cloeing the driveways isn't the problem, but it daes affect the operation of the station. Mr. Bricson stat.ed they woul~ be willing to provide studies conduct~d by MoLil and they would like a two-week confinuance. ACTTQN: Commissioner Buehore offered ~ motion, seconded by Commissioner King and MOTION CARRIED (Commi~sioners Bouas, Pry and McBurney absent), that considerat'_on of the aforementioned mattec b~ continued to the re~u2arly-scheduled meeting of October 29, 1984, at khe rrquest of the applicant in order to provide traffic atudies for the Planning Commissio n's review. 10l15/84 l9INUTBB~ ~-NAUEIM CITY PI.1-NNINC COMMISSION. OckobeC 15, 1984 84-668 ZTFM N0,_._ll. __B_IR_ NEGA_T_I_V_E__ UECL_AI~11TI0_N__J~N_D Vl-RII~NCE Np. 3431 PUSLIC HEl-RING. OWNBRS: HOME PBAEI21-L SAVINGS 1~NA LOJ-N ASSOCIATION~ 701 Hroadway, SAn Diego, CA 92112. AGLHT; ROBERT NQRAEN, 1335 Knollwood Circle, ~nahdim, CA 92801. Property described as an icregularly-~hAped pr~rcel oE' land consieting of approxi.mately 1.1 acre, 1335 North Knollwood Ciccle. Weivera of m~ximum structural height a nd mi.nimum structucal aetbac k to expand ~n induatriel building. There waa no one indicAting their pres ence in oppasition to aubject ~equost and although the ateff report was not read, it ia ceferred to and made a part af the minutea. ~:ommisai~ner King declared a conflict ~f intErest es deEined by Anaheim City planniny Commisai.on Resolution No. PC7 6-157 adopting A ConElict of Int.ereat Code Eor the Planning Commission and Govecnment. Code Section 3625, et seq., ln that he owne etock in PaCifir. LighCing and pureuant to the provisiona of the above Codea, declared to the Chairman that he wHS ti~ithc~~awing from the hearing 3n connection with Variance No. 3431, and would not l•ake part in either the discussion or the vating thereon ~~nd had not discuased this mattec with any member of the Planning Commiasian. Jack Whll-e, Assistant City Attorney, pointed aut for the purposes of having a yuorum, Commissioner King should remei n in the Cnuncil Chamber. Mark Norden, agent, was preaent to an swer any questions. THE PU~LIC HEARING WAS CLUSED. Chairman Herbat pointed out the Plann i ng Commission hafl received a letter from the City of Buena Park with thre~ rec ommended conditiona. Greg Hastings, Associate Planner, rea d the aforementioned letter and said leCter is in the Planning Department's files. Mr. Norden responded they would have n o problem complying with those conditions. AC~ION: Commissioner La ilaire offer ed a motion, seconded by Camm~esioner Aushore and MOTI~JN CARRIED (Commission ers Bouas, Fry and McBurney abstnt and Commiasioner King abstaining), that the Anaheim Cit~+ Planning Commiasion has reviewed the proposal to expand an inc3ustrial building with waive ra of maximum ettucl•ural height and minimum str~ctu r al se~back on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land cc;nsisting of appraximately 1.1 acres having a frontage of approxim~tely 22S feet on the east side of Knollwood Ci:cle snd further described as 1335 Nocth Knollwood Cir c le; and does hereby appcove the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has ~onside+^ed the Negative Declac3ti~n together with any comments recsived d uring the public review process and further finding on the bas~s of khe Initial Study anc] any comments received that khere is no substanti.al evidence that the project will have ~ significant effect on the environment. 10/15/84 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CUMMIGSION, October 15, 198A 84-669 Commisaioner ~a Claire offared Resoluti~n No. PC84-213 and moved for its paeeage and adoption that the A naheim City Plenning Commiasion does hereby gre~t Veriance No. 3431 on the basis thAt there are spe cial circumatences appl,icable to the property such as siz~, ah~pe, topogra phy, location and sucroundings which da not ~pply to other identically z o n~d property in the eame vicinity~ and that strict application of th~ Zonin g Code deprivea the property of privileges enjoyed by otlier pro~erties in t he identical zone end olassification in the vicinity ~nd ~ubject to Interdepartmental Commitr.ee recommendationR includin~ a condiCion that the double w all created by the new constcuction abutting the exi~ ting wall at the prr.pert; line bH adequately aealed to pceclude accumulation of wee~s, debris, verm i n or the entrapment of children ar animalst that the barbed-wire on the top of the existing wall be removed in the area oF th~ new wal.l and if the new buil ding wall is constr.ucted of common yrey black, it ~hall have atriped iointA and be stained, stuccoed or otherwiae treated Lo mAkch the exiating f~u ilding. Un roll call, the foregoing cesolution wAa pr~ssed by tl:e fol.lowing vote: AYES: BUSHORE, HERBST~ I,A C LAIRE NOES: NOt~E ABSENT: BOUAS, FRY~ MC BUI2NEY ABSTAIN: KING ITEM N0. 12. EIR_ NEGATiVE DEC LARATION AND REQUEST F'OR REMUVAL OF SPECIMEN TREES PUBLIC HEARiNG. OWNERS: SCOTT MC CURDEY, 1739 N. Cas e Street, Orange, CA 92665. AGENT; SALKIN ENGINEERING CpRPORATION, 1215 E. Chapman Avenue, Orange, CA 92666, ATTN: GEORG E KERNS. Property descr ibed as an irregularly-shaped parcel of 1 ancl consiating of approx imately 0.8 acre, located at the southwest corner of Ccescent Drive and Chrisalta Way, 205 South Chrisalta Way. Approval for removal oE two (2) specimen trees. There was no one indicating th eir pcesence in oppositi an ko subject request and although the staff report waE n~t read, it is ref e zred to ~nd made a part of the minutes. Scott McCurdey, owner, explain ed he would be willing *_o comply with plan*ing additional trees ducing their landsc~,ping procedures. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ACTION: Commissioner King off ered a motion, seconded by Commissioner La Claire dnd MOTION CARRIED (Commisbioners Bouas, Fry an d McBurney absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the propusal for the removal of two (2) specimen trees on an irregularly-shaped par cel oP land consisting of approximately 0.8 acre, located at the southwest c o rnec of Crescent Drive and Chrisalta Way and further d~scribed as 205 5outh Chrisalta Way= and does hereby ~pprove khe Negative De claration upon findfng t hat it has considered 10/15/84 M INUTES- ~NAIiEIM CITY PLANNING COMMI85ION, Actober 15, 1984 d4-670 t he Negative Declaration together with eny comments received during the public r eview proceas si;d further finding on the bAais af the Initial Study and any c ommenta ceceived thet there ie no substrntial evid~nce that the projoct will have a aignif icc-nt r:ffect on tl~e enviconment. C ommissioner King offered a moti.on, aeconded by Commisaionec La Claire and MOTION CA1tRiED (Commisgionero Buuas, Fry And McDurney absent), thal the Anoheim citX Qlannii~y rommission doas hecoby grant dpproval foc cemoval of two (2) ~pecimen treea on the bAA~B that a reasonable anc] practical development of t he pcoperty on whlch the treea are located requlres cemovdl of the tceea and that any s~ecimen tree removed ohall be replaced with the planting An the sAme parcel with an equal number of trees Prom the apeciEled list in the Scenic C arridor Overlay Zone , and sub7ect to the f.ollowing conditions: 1. That within 30 days from the rem~val uf the specimen trees, ~aid trees shall be replaced wi~h the planting on the samc parcel of an equal number of treeo from the list as s~ecified ln the Scenic Corridor Uverlay 2one Ordinance. 2. That subject property ohall be developed aubstantially in accordance with planu ~nd specification~ on ftle with tt~e City of Rnalie~.m marked Exhibik No. 1. I'fEhi NU. 13. EIR CA'I'EGURICAL EXEMP'PION-CL~55 11 AND VARIANCE N0. 3430 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNGRS: SHUWA COMPANY, LTD., 507 Kouji-MdChi, Chiyada-KU, Tokyo, Japan. AGENT: SHUWA INVE~TMENTS CURFORATTON, 13441 Dalewood Street, Baldwin Park, CA 917U6, ATTP~ JOJI WATANABE DREYFUS. Pcoperty described as an irragularly-shaped parcel of lz+nd consisting of approximately 18 acres located at the southweat corner of Nohl Ranch Road and Shannon S~reet, Tract 8J.16 (Canyon Terrace Estates). Waivers oE maximum numbec of flage and permitted days of display to retain the display of ter~~orary flags Cor a new residential suhdivfsi~n. Ther~e was no one indicating their presence in oppasition to aubject request and although the staff report was not read, it ie ref~rced to and made a part af the minuten. JoJi Watanabe Dreyfus, agent, explained the project io in Anaheim Hills off Nohl Runch Road and located in a steep canyon off the main thoroughfare and they are requesting a waiver for t,=ir Flags and that ataft has recommended they have 10 flags and their ~riginal proposal wz+s for 26. THG PUBLIC HEARING WAS CI.OSED. Chairman Herbst pointed out he felt flying 10 fl~gs wauld be adequate and that evpryone else has been abiding with that requirement. Commissioner Bushore pointed out the maximum allowed in the CodF is ten. Commissioner La Claice pointed out that cecent upprovals have been given for ten flags for seven days for a 6-month period. 10/15/84 MINUTEB, ANAHEiM CITY PLANNINC CQMMISSION. October 15, 1984 84-G71 Mc. OreyEus painted out ttiey ere Auggest~ng mor~ than 10 f1Ags becauae they will have Elaga in fro~t of their model.s and they are net back in th~ project in a cul-de-eac And he telt the 26 Elegs ace neceea~ry. CommiseionRr ~ushore pointed nut tho Planning Commies~on does not limit where they put the flags ~nd they could put them on Nohl Ranch Road if they like, providing they are not in the right-of-way. Chaicman Herbst pointed out the Planning Commissian has denied other developecs ~nore than ten and F~e w~uld not be willing to qrant more than ten for Chie petitioner. Commiesioner La Claire pointed out the Planning Commission hAS been tnld by the developers that Llags do nok affect their sales end she felk ten would be adequete to draw attention to the project. IL• was n~ted the ~lanning Directoc or his authorized repreaentative has detecmined l•hat the proposed pro~ect falls within the de:inition ~f Categorical Exemptions, Class 11, as defined in the State Enviconmental Impact Report Guidelines and is, therefare, catego~ically exempt Erom the requi.reme~t to pcepare an EIR. ACTION: Commisei~n~r La Claire offeced Reaolution No. PC84-214 and moved for its passage ar:d adoption that the Anahei~ City Planning Commission daea hereb~ grant Variance No. 3430 on the basis that there are special ciccumst~nces applicable to the property such as Rize, shape, topography, location and surroundinga which do not ap~ly ta other identically zoned property in the same vicin~tyt and that ~trict application of the 2oning Gode deprives tf~e property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicin~ty and subject variance is granted for a maxfmum oE ten Flaga to be permit~ed foc seven days per week for a period of 6-month coterminus with the permit as grt~nted by the City Council pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.05.085 plus any extensions ~f time appcoved by khe City Council and subject to Inteccepartmental Commit~cae recommendatians. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AY~o: HERBST~ KI~~, L~ CLAIRE NOES: BUSHORE ABSENT: BOUAS, FRY, MC BURNEY ITEM N0. 14. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 261~ PUBLIC HEARING. OW~ER: LUCILLE M. PER~YMAN, 210 W. V~rmont Avenue, Anaheim, CA 928U5. AGENT: ~MBAS5Y PARK DEVELOPhENT COMPANY, 59A0 Linr,oln Avenue, Cypress, CA 90630, ATTN: WI~LIAM FIFIELD. Property described as a rectangularly-ahaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.9 acre, 210 WesL- Vermont Avenue. To permit a 36-unit senior citiaen'~ apartment c~mplex. 10/15/84 MTNUTES, ANAHBIM CITY nLANNING_COMMISSION, Octobe[ 15, 1984 84-672 Thece were thKee persone indicating their preaPnce in opposition to aubject requeAt dnd elthough the steff report was not r~ad, it is ceferred to and made a pact of the minutes. Dave Ameatoy, architeck, explained the er,aff report indicates the projPC~ doea not meet the RM-1200 Codes in s~uere footage of the site area. per dwelling unit, maximum lot coverage, minimum floor area, minimum rear yord setback and minimum cecreational-lei~ure area per unit. Chairm~n Herbat atated staff has recommended that thia matter be continued beca»ae a senior citizen complex ardinance ia being pcepbred and this project is not even close to wh~t ia beiny proposed in that ordinance and he thought the applicant should review that ordinance and try to work within ita guidelines. Mr. Amestoy stated he reviewed the ordinance nnd felt the pcoject they have pcoposed is of mufEicient merit to be reviewed by the Planning Commissian. He stated they gave rhe Planning Department today a mb~ which ehows that ~he project does meet the locational critetia of khe proposed senior citiz ns otdinance -- there should be stores wikhin 2 to 3 blocks and thece is a convenience st~re located just down the strQet from thia site; th~t thece should be transiC stops 1 or 2 blocks away and they hAVe four trAnait stops within one-half block of this sitef that the medical services should be available within 1/4 to 1/2 mile and there is a hospital within .2 of a mile and a pharmacy and medical cen~er wikhin .2 of a milet that there should be banks within 1/4 tu 1/2 mile and thEre are banks within .6 of a mil~j thAC there ahould be a poat office witt~~n 1/2 mile and there is one within .8 of a mile= that there should be a shopping center within 1/2 mile and the Town Cente~ is within 1 mile of this sitej that ttiere should be a library within 1 mile and there is one within .8 of ~ mile~ and that the Senior Citizens Club is within one mile of this project. Mr. Amestoy stated khe next item add:essed in the report is the den~ity and it indicates a number of units per acre and he £elt it would be fair ko them ta represent density more than just a plain numbec of ~nits per acre; that he did studies of neacby facilities and the populatian density for a one-bedroom type complex with 1.13 persona per unit would mean 40 neople on this site; that a standard RM-1200 apactment wauld mean 19 uni~.s with an average density per unit of 2.74 persons which would bQ 38,36 persons in an apa~tmenk projecti and thak they would be looking at increasing the density £or ap~rtmenis by pxovidin9 affordable housing allowfng a~otal of 18 unit~ and that would mean a possible 49 people under the RM-120Q C~de. Chairman Hertsk poi~ted aut the petitioner is assuming things that would have to be appcoved by the Planning Commission and they may or may not be allowed. Mr. Amestoy stated the affordability is A state mandated cr:lteria and it has been the City's expecience to allow affordable density bonuses. Concerning the unit eize, Mr. Amestoy stated ths pcoposed senior citizen's ordinance indicates minimum unit sizes of 55U square feet for a one-bedroom unit and they proQosed dime~aions that conform to the Uniform Building Codes 10/15/84 MINUTES, ANA_H_EIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 15R 1984 84_-673 ~nd ace a sufficient aize and he thought the 55U•syu~re taot figur~ is somewhat acb.itra[y. NQ pointed out the walls will be per.ty wallat that the parking erea is encloaedt that the RM-1200 Code requirements do not include cecr~ational building and fAC~litiea in Cheir sitc coverage calculatians, eo he wes not auro how etaff came up with the 80~ Eigure and by his calculations, they have a 56a site covecage and 55~ is allowed by Coder that ttiey have proposed 5-1/2 foot balconies to facilitate senior citizeno using walkers, etc. which inc:eAae~ the aite coverage and that could be reduced to 3 feett khat the RM-1200 Code requires 200 aquare feet of recre~tional-leisuce open space and they have propoaed 142 aquare feet per unit or. 127 ~qunce feet of open space pec peraonj that there will be en inter,~or courtyard whi.ch could be secuced because it can be seen from virtually every unit in the complex and tl~ey will have an inteccom syste~ at the yate and a rolling gake for the packing area and security gates al the frunt. He stated they will Eollow a.ll ceeommendations of the report as fac as non-slip Elooring, additional lighting foc aenioc citizens, etc. and that 18 of the unita will t~ave handicap accessibility with r~ ramp to r.he ~+arking garage which services the lower deck. M,r. Ame~toy stated the ~taff report indicates that none of the uni*.s would be within the aEfordable category and they have a letter from the City Council dated, Rugust 7th stating that 25 of these uni.l•s will be of an affordable category, with a p[ice range of $28Q. He staked they could provlde the Commission with a co~y oE that letter. He stated they have filed papers and do intend to make 258 of the unita affordable and also they have done a atudy of similac type facilities in the area and they range from $405 to $560 per montti and the highest priced unit in their pcoject would be $365 and they are tryiny to get all the units :ln a range that would be considered affordable. He stated the price range is $280 to $3G5 per manth. Regacdiny the rear yard setback, Mr. Ame~koy stated the building setback is 5 feet and Code indicates the building sha11 have a yard having a minimum de~th of 5 feet, so he did not know whAt the staff report is refercing to. Gte~3 Hasting~, Associate Planner, stated anything attached to the building is not considered an accessory building and i~as to maintain a 5 to 8 foot setback and an accesaory building would have to be detached and th~ parking struct~re is a part of the building. Me. Ameatoy stated the packing skructure is recessed 2 to 3 feet and that is a cetaining wall and xs not pert c,f the strueture. George Beals, 2225 W. Vermont, stated he feels 3b units on this size lot is far too much and the denaity is too high for that area and even under the ret~~ons given, he dici not think it coul~ be justified and the units are below the standards deeired by the City in the new senior citizen's ordinance. He stated Vermont is a heavily traveled street and these senior citizens would have people viRiting th2m and people will not pack in those apecified spaces if there is a space on ~he street and addLtfonal parking increases the chances for accide~nts and there is a haaard there already for the rQSidents to back out onto the street. He stated he feels ffie density in this area should t~e kept down beceuse thiE street 1s uaed L•or traffic going acrusF tawn and increased density creates a probZem with tr.afficj that the lot adjacent to 1D/15/84 MINUT~S, ANAHFZ~ CITY PLANNING COMM~S51oN. Uctober 15, 1984 84-674 subject ptoperty is on equal aize and he felt, withaut question, they will be wanting to do the Aeme thing on that pcoperty. Ne stated the kraEfic in this area ia high opeed and thov have quite a few accidents in thdt are~ and alao approvAl of this pro~ect would eet an undesir~ble precedenk end make the situation wocse and warae. pete Pietrok, G05 Peralta Hi1is, Anaheim, stated he owna property to the east of the proposed pcoject and is or ~aad to Che density becauae it will create ~ traffic and parking problem. Ne pceaented a petition containing 18 signatures of people ~ho agree with him. He ekated thia might be called a aenior citizen complex, but it resemblea a motel to t~im. Mr. Amestoy sta-.ed they ace proposing 29 packing ap~cea and from their. experi~nce, the traffic cceated by a aenior citfzen type facility is not a significant problem because genecally they don't have cars. Ne stated they can redesign the units and make them efficiency uniks if that is desired by the Commission. THE FUBLIC HEAkING WAS CLOSED. Responding to Commiasioner Hushore, Bi.ll F:field, agent, explained Pat Whitaker, City of Aneheim, prepaced the letter that Mr. Ameatoy had presented. He explalned he h~d given at•aff a copy of that letter and thought ft had been pcesented to the Commiseion. Cortun~ssioner Bushore stated the letter says that 1E there is to be tax exempt bond financing, this develnper might possibly ~e incl.uded. Ik was noted that is the same circum~tances as the Ohio Street property and this just means they are on the list. Mr. Fifield atated they do have a resolution on this particular property. Commissioner Bushore continued that he would question the Commission's ability to even enter. into discussions on this project and asked if the City Council has even seen the plans. Mr. ~ifield replied everything is based on approval of plans. The term of the agreement was discussed and also the term of the County bond program with Commissionec Bushorp pointing out this aqreement requices a 30-year term. Commissioner La Claire ststed the real issue is the project itself; and the Commission knows exactly what this agreement i~; thak the Commission and City Council met sevecal timea to develop A senior citizens housing ordina~~ce because the Commission was approviny vaciances and the Council did not want those approved; that there was a].ot of input from the Senior Citizen Housing Commission, etc. and she was not suce the f.igur~s are right on the proposed ordiriance, but she knows densities like this are not wanted; that the project is good, but there is no guarantee the rents will remain the ~ame and also the project lacks certain khings the Council and Senior ~itizen Cammission felt were very important, such aa the recreational-leisure area, larger units and parking. It was pointed out the new ordinance will requitQ efficiency unite to be 405 square feet. Mr. Fifield stated they are willing to revise thio plan and make these efficiency units. 10/15/84 ~ 7~ .' MINUTGS, ANAHEIM CITX PLANNING CUMMISSIUN, Oct~t~er 15, 1984 n4-675 Commiesioner La Cleire continued that evon if thi~ project was appcoved by the Plenning CommioPion, it would not yet approved by the City Council because of khoae thinys= and that aome incceaee in density is ~vorthwhi.le, but not this m~ch and thie projc~ct is not going ro ~ceally benefit anyone because the rents Are not guaranteed. Mr. Fifie.ld stated t;hey wiJ.l execute whatever contracts the Commisbion desirea ~a guarantPe the centa and reatri~t the uae of the f.acilil•y to aertior citizena or whatevor age the City requires. Jack White explained the original draft ordinance sta~ed that both occupants must be 62 years of age, but state law will now require ~ome changesj that 62 is the minimurti defir.ition of a senior citizen, except in projects containing not less than 150 unfts and then it wi.ll be 55 yeAr~ of age undec a nEw stat~ law thet takes effect in January oE 1985. Commissioner Bushore referred to ParagrAph 14 ce.lating to the City Council Poli~y N~. 5A3 pettaining to density bonusesj however, nothing was mentioned in the whole staf.f report abouk any affordability and now the petitioner says it is going to be 2~~ af£ordable, but there is no c-gceemenL• or conditions or anyone present from HouAing to veriE;r that. Mr. Fifield stated he is not tryinq to convince ~h~ Commission of anything a~ the laat minute oc that they just made up the papers an~ the fact that the City oE Anaheim was behind this and Ghe City Council did make that particular location a part of their letter to the County eoacd of Supervisars tY~at if approved, they should include this area in their consideration. Fle stated he I~as been negotiating foc over 3 months with the City for an affordable project. He 3tated he assumed the Commission had the papers from khe City regarding affordability. Comrnissioner Bushore asked if the City Council had really ever seen this and spnt such a letter to the County ta incluoe this on theic liat for the bond iesue. Annika Santalahti stated th~at could be true and it could have been a pact of a tentative proposalt that there are various atages of development and the Planning Departmenk prepared the sta£f repork based nn the information they had at the time and the density banus issue was apparently not proposed, but in the interim four weeks ago, they may have been dealing with the Community Development Department. She stated the City Council doec get tentative items which says there is a proposal which is going to be coming ~hco~gh at that location and asked if they would like to be ~,ut on the list, but it is a very tentative ~hing and it does not have any guarantees whatsoevec that something is going to happen and those are all subject to the approval of the necessary zoning actions or zoning permits, etc. Commissioner Bushore stated in the past the figure for affotdability has been 80~ oF median income level and then it was 658 anci now this indicates it is at 508 Gf inedian income level. He stated he felt we should learn what the ~ounty rules are to be included in those atandards and they shoulc] be uniform to everyone. He stated thi~ really does do the develuper and the Commission a disservice. He stated he would suggest there be some sort of a written agreement indicating they do understand. 10/15/84 MTNUTES. ANAHEIM CITX PLANNING COMMISSIQNr OCtObe_C_15 _1984_____ 84-676 Commisaionec La Claire stated she fel~ this pcoject ia t~a dense for tho property, even if iti wae 100~ a` nrdable. She stated the developer conaidered ~Art of the ocdinance reieting to L•he location of c~rtain faci3ities, but hg obviously doe~n't agcee with the proposed senioc citizen's ordinanee and maybe he should heve some inpnt to khe City Councll. Mc. Fifield atated the only disagraement would be wi~h the density. He ceFerred to another project approved by the Cit,y with a 100~ increase in density that was n~~er built. Paul Singer, mraftic Engineer, stated the parking atructure would pcubably lose between 5 and 7 ap~cea ~ue to the inability to park on the camp and also the width of the structure haa to be widened ko accommodate the walls on the outaide rather than on the inside and that the s~aff ceport cle~rl.y indicatea that there ah~ll be no gates, yek it was r.epresented that gates would be instAlled and should gAtes be inat~lled, another two parking spacea would be l~st. He atated he thought the Commisaion shuuld be very cAreEul with this project. Chaicman Herbst stated this project has s~me spvere pcoblems. Mr. Amestoy stated he tias atudied the parking areas and by rearranging where the atruature comes within the parking qar.aye, the same number of packing spacea can be achieved by goiny L-o a combination of 10 foot and 8-1/'l spaces which i~ allowable by Code. Chairman Hecbst stated the developer is referring to the RM-1200 st~ndards and this is a different ball~ame for senior citizen's parking with wider stalls possibly being required for some of the spaces in arder to aacommodate the senior citize~s, etc. Mc. Ameatoy referred ta a Ap[il 3, 1984 report which is a recommendation on khe senioc citizen standards and st4ted he ~id not see anything that would indicate those parking changes. Greg Hastings stated the Cquncil did not wish ta have any compact spaceB invalved fn senior citizen projects. He stated this project shows parking spaces that ace 9 foot widr, and they shoul~ be 10 feet wide, so ~nother 2 spaces would probably be lost. Mr. Amestoy stated they can pcovide 10 foot wide spaces by adjusting where the structure comes into the packing garage. He stated Code says any parking space adjacent to a stcucture needs to be 10 feet. Chairma~ Herbst stated he would recommend a continuance for revised plans so the developer can bring che project closer to tt~e requicements and satisfy the parking requirements and ahow any gates that are to be install~d. He stated there is a problem with density, parking, the alleyv e~c. Commiasionec La Claire statied the problems ace listed on Page 14-a of the staff report and this pro~ect is not even close ko the ordinances and is just too dense. Mr. Amestoy stated density is all relative to what is pos~ible for thiA site. Chairman derbst atated right now the project look~ like a hotel and doesn't even come ~lase to what is being discuased. Mr. Fifield etated they would cequest a six-week continusnce. 10/15/84 ~ Y~ MINUT~S, 1-NAHEIM CITY PI.ANNING_COMMISSIONI Octob~r 15. 1984 Q4-677 ACTION: Comniasionec LA Clt~ire oi-fered a motion, seconded by Commisaioner King and MOTION CARRIED (Commiaeioners Bouas; Fry and McBucney absent), that conaideratian of the aForementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of Novem~ier 2ti, 1964, at the requost of the petitioner. ITEM N0. 15. GIR NEGATIVF DECLARATION1 WAIVER 0~ CODE RE~UIRF,Ni~NT AND COIiDITIO~~AL (3SE PGRMIT N0. 2628 PUBLIC HEARING. UWNERS: BARBARA A. KOONZ, F"P AL, c/o ARTHUR W. GRAY, JR., Attocney, 914 West Gincolr, Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805 and BARHARA A. KOONZ, 137 Olstead Itoad, Sequim, WA 9d382. AGENT: CALIPORNIA REFkIGERATED SERVICE, INC., 711 E. Sycamore SkrPet, Anaheim, CA 938U5. Property deacribed as an irr.egulaxly-shaped par.cel of land consisting of approximately 1.6 accea, 711 East Sycaniore Street (California Refrigerated Service). To retain a truck repuir facility in lhe ML Zone with waiver oE minimum number of parkinq spaces. There was no one indicating their pcesence in op~:~~ition to ~u~ject request and although the staff report was not read, it is ceferred to and made a part of the minutes. Mark Baker, 12136 Coronado, Downey, was present to anawer any queations. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Herbst aeked about the beer diskribution that was involved in this propecty. Mr. Baket cesponded that operation is no langer in existence. Responding to Comr.~isaionec Huslioce, Mr. Baker stated their lease is for 5 years and responded to Commissioner King that a 5-year limit on the permit would be acceptable. ACTION: Commissioner King of.fered a moti~n, seconded by Commissioner I.a Claire and MOTION CARRIGD (Commissioners Bouas, Fry and McBurney absent), khat the An~heim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to retain a truck repair facility in the ML Zane with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces on an irregularly-shaped parcel of lbnd consisting of approximately 1.6 acres having a frontage of approximately 150 feet on the nor~`~ side of Sycamore StrEet and Curther described as 711 East Sycamore S reet; and doea hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon Finding that it has considered the Negative Declatation togethec with any comments ceceived during the public review process and furthe[ finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is na subst~ntial evidence that the project will have a signifi=:ant effect on the environment. Commissioner King offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner La Claire and MOTION CARRTED (Commisei~ners Bouas, Fry and McBurney absent), that tt~e Anaheim City Planning Commis~rion doe~ hereby gr~nt waiver of Code requirement on the basis that the parking waiver will not cause an increase in treffic congestion in the immediate vicinity nor adversely affect any adjoining land uses und granting of the parking waiver under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. 10/15/84 F MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PL~NNING COMMISSION, Octobec 15, 1984 84-6_78 Commiesioner King offered Reeolution No. PC84-215 and moved for its passa~e and adoption khat the Anaheim City Planning Commiss~on does hereby grant Conditional Uae Permit No. 2628 purauent to Anaheim Municipal Code 5oction 18.03.030.030 thcough 18.03.030.035 for A period of five years and Rub~eck t~ interdepartmentdl Committee recommendations. Un roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by tl~e following vot.e: AYE5: BU&HORE~ HERB~T~ KING, LA CLAIRE NOES: NONE ABSF.NT: BOUAS, FRY, MC BURNEY ITEM NC). 16 REPORTS AND RECOMMEN~ATIONS: A. TENTATIV~ TRACT N0. 1OH17 - Request fram Paul J. Giuntini. fo[ a one-year extension oE time for Tentative TrACt No. 10617. Propcrty is approximately lA acres having a frantage of approx~mately 968 teet on the east eide ~f Im~e~ial Eiighway, and being located approximately 1650 feet south of the centerline of Nohl Ranch koad. It was noted the petiti~ner has withdrawn subject request. ACTION: Com-niasioner Buahore offered a motian, eeconded by Commis~ioner King and MUTIGN C.ARRIED (Comm~ssioners Bouas, Fry and McBurney absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commissiun does heceby grant the petitionec's requeAt to withdraw his request fur the extenaion of time for Tentative Tract No. 10617. B. CONDITIONAL USG PERMIT N0. 1226 - Reque~t from Jack Jenkins fnr termination of Conditional Use Permit Na. 1226. Propecty located at 1290 NoXth Lakeview Avpnue. ACTION: Commisaioner Bushore offered Resolution No. PC84-216 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim Ci~y Planning Commission does hereby terminate Conditional Use Permit No. 1226. On rol]. call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BUSHORE, HERBST~ KING, LA CLAIRE NOES: NONE A3SENT: BOUAS, FRY, MC BURNEY C. SZ'ATUS OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE i$ 'ZONING', PERTAINING TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF SENIOR CITI2ENS' APARTMENT PROJECTS. It was noted that staff has tecomrnended that the staff report be conkinued indefinitely until the appropziate revisions to the dr~ft ordinance have been made and after the Senior Citizen's Commission has reviewed some of the revisionss therefore~ no action was taken by the Planning Commission since staff will resct~edule the matter when the revisinns have been made. 10/15/84 MINU`PF.S. AN_ AH~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCtObCr 15 1984 84-679 p. CITY OF ANAHEIM HILLSIDB GRADTNG ORDINANCE - Requeet Erom Kaugman And ~coad oF Southern California, Inc. for e wAiver of the re~ui~ement as it relates to the lacation of a tract boundacy (mract No. 10981) at the top of a slope. Jay Tit.us, Office Engineer, explainQd in this inatance the slopes weze conatructe~ adjace~t to ~~he fire etation aite and pdrt of the alope ie on the Wa11ACe Ranch and pArt is on the Dauer RAnch and an agrecment h~s been worked out between the two pectaining to maintenance, etc. ~nd the Engineeriny Division would recomm~nd approval of lhis request. ACTION: Chaicman Hetbat offeced a motion, seconded by Commiseioner King and MOTION CARRZED (Commissioneca Bouar, Fry and McBurney absent~-L~~al the Anaheim City Planning Commission doe~ hereby recommend the app' of the requested Waiver of Hillside Gcading Ordinance to the City Cou~icilr subject ko the approval of the agreement for maintenance of slopes on the park and fire station aites, as it relate~ to the locating af a trnct bound~ry (T[act 10981) at thN top of a slope. REC~SS: 5:40 p.m. RECONVENE: 5:45 p,m. E. AFFORDAHLE RENTAL HU~SING PRQGF2AM5 AFFURDABLE RBNT POLICY - Reporr from Community Houeing Lisa Stipkovich, Assistant Executive pirector- DevelopmenttDeQartment, Neighborhood Kestoration Specialist, Community presented a staff repori and requeated th~t the Plannin9affordablencents recommend a policy to the City Council for establishing for cectain rental projects. Ms. Stipkovich briefly reviewed the charts included in the staff ceport. Commissionec aushore ~tated he wauld recommend that the Commission forward this zeport to the City Council without comment. Ms. Stipkovich stated they did takp their report ta the Housing ~ for Commi9+~',on for their input. She explained a developer could app y tax eY~:~~Ft financing and also want a density bonus; and that if more than one program is involved, the ctiteria of the more stringent program would *_~ke precedence, but a densi.ty bonus would not be an additfonal 258 over and above, and the same khing would apply to the numbec of years. She explained the confusion in an earlier heacing today related to a developer who agreed to their affordable tents in order ~o be included in the County bond issue. Chaitman Herbst r~eferred to the square footage approach of calculating cents, pointing out ttie developer today had much smxller unit sfzpR so his rents were not really lowec using that approaeh. Ms. Stipkovicn responded it would be whichever is higher (square foot appraach or income approach). 10/15/84 MTNUTcS. ANANEIM CiTY PLANNING C~MMISSION, October 15, 1984 8A•-690 Commis~ioner Dushore Huggested in order to oliminate eome of khe con~usion, the duvelopec be required to sign an agreement of. und~catdnding. Jeck White, A~aiatant Ci.ty Attorney, explained the proposed ~enlor citixen ~rdinance will rQquire that every ann~or citizen project heve 258 attordable houaing and in a~idition, ur-der ttie ataCe lew, they would have to pcovide an addicional 258 af.Eordable houeing in ocder to get an additional density bonus ancl the state law, ef.fective Jenuary 1, 1985, will prov.ide that senior citizhn hou~inq, juet like affordeble, is alsa yoing to be entitled to a 250 density b~nus. Chairman Herbat rsl•atod Ct~e ~raposPd apnior citizen ardinance botl~eca him !~n tha: only one ~f the occuNants has to be 62 yeare of age and ~he otl~er one could be 25, and the younger one wauld probably atill be workinq and drivin,y a~:ar, which will r~fLzct tt~e p~rrking requicamenta. .lack White stated undec the atate law a younger person living with a senior c:tizen as 8&~OUflE`, companion, etc., can continu~ lo ].ive in the~t unit if. the aenior citi:.en dies. Ma. Stipkovich explained the tax exetnpt financing conceNt and pointed out cight now Anaheim ha [ive ~roposals for the bond issue. She stated the policy will blways tiave to be reviewed for changes; thal much of it is dictated by federa2 and s~ate laws, however, there is some flexibility und Anatic~im aets iC own 'affordable" definili.on. Chairman Herbat clarified thet the Commi3sic,n will still bE able to revtew all the projects. Commissioner La Claire stated she wbs glad to aee the 508 figure for senior citizen pro~ects becA~s~ bpactmenta renting for over 4400.00 per month don't really benefit anyboc3y because she knows thrr.e ace apartmente that rent f~r that anyway, ever. thoug~~ r.hey are not new construction projects. Annika Santalahti auggested the Commiscion make a recummer~datic~n to City Counr.il for a c~nsister.t policy. Ms. Stipko~ich explAined their thinking in establiAhfng th~ 658 of mpdian income level and stuted they havE ~ difficult time negotiating h.hase tents with the develo~ers because of their land and im~rovement costs. She added she thought the rento are eignificantly below market £or new cunstruction. Ccnuni.ssioner eushore pointed out Commissi.on has required a 20-year hime limit on the last two approved afforduble projects. Ms. Stipkovich respo.nded they would concur. 10/15/ 84 ~`~ ~ MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Octobec 15, 1994 A4-681 Cheirm~n Herbat etated he would like to aee 30 years of control on ~enior citizvns housing and 20 ye~rs for the denaity bonus because he Eelt the developer aeta a windf~ll at thr: end o~ the ter m. Ms. Stipkavich etated ahe would put thet recammendation in t he ata~E re~ort t~ the City Council, but thaught 2U yee r e would hodift•icult on the tax exampt finAncing becau~te oC federel law. ChairmAn HeYbsG ~tated he would like the 7.0 yeers changed to 20 yer~rs for th~ denaity bonus. Commissioner f3uahore stated the staff repor.te t o the Pla;tning Commission shauld r.eally apell ik ~ut if the developer is g~ing Eor Che bond iasue ae w~ll a:, the denc~ity bonue. ACTION; ChAirman Herbst offered u motion, seco nded by Commisaioner La Claire and MOTION CARRIED (Commisaianers Bouas, Fry and McUurney absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby :ecommend to the City Council adaption Eor un Affordable Rental. Housing Progcam/A£fordable kHnt Policy ae rpcomrnended by thc~ Community Development Uopartme~it with ~uodification of the "yPars undec control' Folicy from 10 yeacs to 20 years for the density banus. OTHER QISCUSSIUN: Cummissioner La Claire stated ahe would li~.e to see the parking ~rdfnance cev:ewed. AC'PION: Chairman Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commiseloner La Claire und MOTION CARRIED (Commissionera Aouas, Fry and Mc BurneX absent), rec3uesting City Council to r.eview the parking ordinance pertaining to bachelor units and passibly lower that requitecnent to 1.5 spnces rier u nit rAtherthan 2.0, and poa~sibly have a meeting t~ discusR :t. Annika Santalahti stated she has been working on a r eport mainly to do with specitic desiyns (fully enclosed oc not and tandem s pacea), and staff can add this reguest to that cepart. Commissionec La C1Aire asked that the sepork include some figures on apartment complexes. Annika Santalahti stated ahe has a report, prepared by an oute!de consaltant.• comparing California city akandards, and surprising ly, the majority is very cloae to Anaheim's standa-ds in multiple-family uni ts. 10/15/84 ~ , Y • MINUT~&. ANAtiBIM CITY PLJ-NNING COMMISSION. Octobec 15, 1984 , 84-682 ADJUURNMENT: Theco being no furth~c buainee8, Cheirmen Herbst offared motion, eeconded by Commiseioner King snd MOTION C1IRRIED (Commisaionere sousa, Fry nnd McBurney ebsent), thet the meeting be Ad~ournod. The meeting w~s ~djourned a~t 6;20 p.m. Reapectfully aubmitte , • / ~ . ~ ~J Rdith L. Harris, Secretety Andt~eim City Planning Commiasion ELH : lrt' 0075m 10/15/84