Loading...
PC 1984/10/29REGULAR MEETING OF THF. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISS ION REGU:.AR ME~TING The regular meeting of tl~e Ant~heim City Planning Commlesion wea c~lle~d :.o order by ChairmAn Herbo~ u~ 10 : 00 A.m. , October 29, 1984, in the CounciJ Chamher, ~ q uorum b~ing pceaent and the Commiseinn rPViewed plans uf the itema on today's agenda. kECESS: 11:30 a.m. RECONVENED: 1:30 p.m. PRESBNT ChuirmAn Pco Tempore : La Claire Commiaeianers: Bouae, bushore, Fry, King Commieaioner McBurney arriv ed at 2:30 P.m. ABSENT: Commissioner: Herbst ALSO PRESENT Annika Santalahti Jacl Pick Jack White Jay Titus Paul SinyEr JAy Tashiro Greg Haetingr~ Edith Harris A~sistant Uirecto r Eor Zoning Assistant DJ.rector for Planning Assistant City Attocn~y Office Engineer Traffic enqineer AssociAte Planner Assacinte Planner Planninq Commission SeGretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Connmissioner Ki.ng offered a motio.~, secon~ed by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Comniissianere Herbst an d McHurne y absent) that the minutes of thE meeting of October 1, 1984 be s pprov~~d as corrected on Page 84-613 to show that Cammissioner Bushore dec I ared a conflict of interesk on Item No. 7 on the basis that he ia a cont~actur al teul estate agent for the Redevelopment Agency and that subjQCt pzoperky i s locate d in ihe redevelopment area and that he left :he Council Chamber prior t o the discussion and voting on the matter. ITEM N0. 1. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, RECLASSIPICATION N0. 84 - 85-4 (R£ARV.), WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT. ANll CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 260 5(READV.) PUBLIC H6AR7NG. OWhERS: CHESTER PETERSO~~ & BEVERLY ANN COMPTON~ 327 N. Shattuck Place, Orange, CA 92666. Properry described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consieting of approximately 4.4 acre s located north and west of the northwest corner af La Palma Ave nue and Imperial Highway. Reclasaification fXOm RS-A-43,000(SC) to CL(SC). Waiver of minimum num~.er of parking s~pacea to permi.t a multi.-screen indoor theatre and a 47-foot high semi~enclosed restaurant with ~:.-s a le beer and wine. 683 10I29/84 ~4INUTFS, ANANEIM CITY I~LANNLNG COMMISSION_, JCTOBER 29, 1984 84-684 It was noled Che potitionec has cequeeted a rwo-week continuance. ACTION: Commiasioner pouas offered a motion, secondPd by Commissioner King and MOTION C~RRIED (Commiasionera Herb~t and Mcaurney absent) that considec~tion of the afocEmentioned mntter be conkinued to t~~e regulari_•- schedulpd meeting of November 14, 1984, in arder for the applicant to submit revi~ed pl~ne and furthec instructiny ateff to advi~N t.he ~~ppli~ant of the need to w~thdcaw Che ~etltlon from consideration should Linal p~ans nat b~ aubmitted Eor consideration at that. meeting. ITEM N0. 2. EIR NEGATIVE pECLARATION AND CONDITIUNAL USE PERMIT N0. 2619. PUBLIC tiEARJNG. UWNERS: SCpNONY MQHI~E OIL CUMPANY, INC.~ 17822 East 17th StreeC, Tuetin, CA 92680, ATTN: H. C~ ERICSON ANU MRS. ANNE HENNING PAULUS, East I.ake Shore, eig Fork, M~ntana 59911. Pro~erty described as an irregular.ly-ahaped parcel of land congieting of npproximately 0.63 acre, located at the aoutheast cornec of Lincoln Avenue and Rio Vista Stre~t, and further dencribed as 2d00 East Linc~ln Avenue (Mobil Uil). Req~~.:st tu permit convenience retail ~sales in an existing service station. It was noked the peti.tioryer has .~yueated a continuance to the meeting of. Novembec 14, 1984, in order to ~submit revispd plans and additional information relating to the closuce o[ existing driveways. ACTION; Commissioner eushure offered a motion, seconded by Commisaioner King and MOTION CARRIED (CommisAianFrs Herbst and McBurr.ey absent) lhat consideration of the aYorementioned mattec be continued to the regu2arly-scheduled meetinci of NovEmbet 1~5, 198d, in order for the applicant to s ubmit revised plans and additional information rela.ting to the closure of the existiny driveways. ITEM NO. 3. EIR NEGATIVE CECLARATIUN, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2629. OWNER: ANAHEIM GENERAL ~,TD., 22632 E. Go2den Springs Dcive, #300, Diamond Bar, CA 91765, ATTN: ~. . TAMB~. F.GENT: NAUGLES RESTAURANT, INC., 2932 E. Nutwood, P. 0. 8ox 4425, Fullerton, CA 92634, ATTN: MITCH HAASE. Ptoperty describ~ed as rectangularly-shaped parcel af land consisting of approximate)y 0.52 acre having a frontagc of approxfmat~ly 130 feet on the east aide of Euclid Street, and furthec described as 820 N. Euclid Street. Request for waivpc of minirnum number of parking spaces to permit the addition uf a drive-through lane to an exisEing semi-encloaed restaurant. There was no one irtdicating their presence in opposition to rubject request and although the staff report was not read, it is cefer.red t;- 9nd made a purt of ihe minutes. Mitch Haase, agent, explainPd the drive-throuah lane would be open 24 hours a day and the dining room would be closed between midn:ght and 6:00 a.m. He further explained he r~designed the site plan and can provide 32 parking opaces, rather than 30 as inrlicated in the staff report 10/29/84 ~" ~~ MxNUTES, ANAHEIM CZTY PI.ANNTNG COMMISSxON,_OCTOdER 29, 1984~_ 94-685 THE PU9LIC HEARING nA5 CL.05EU. ACTION: Commis~ionec King of~ered a motion, seconded by Commiaeione~ ~'ry and MG'rION CARRIED (Con~~~sei~mecs Herbst and McBurney ~bsent) that tl~e Anaheim City Planniny Commiesion has reviewed the proposal to permit the addition of a dcive~-thcough lane ro an oxi.sting oemi-enclosod restaurAnt with wRiver of minimum number of pArking spaces un a rectangulecly-shapnd ~arcel of land conaisting of approximately ~•`~z acre having a Crontaye u£ approximately 130 feet on the east side oP Euclid ~treet and turther deacribod as 820 N. Eur.lid StceetT ~nd does hereby Approv~ the Negative Dealaration upon finding tha~ it has conaidered the Negtttive Declaration togethFr with any comments ceceived during the public ceview procc.ss ~+nd further finding on the ba~is of the Ini.tial Study end any comments rece~vc~d that there is no substantial e~~i~ence th~ the project wi.ll have a eignif•icant effect on the envi.ronment. Commissionec King offered HeAOlution No. PC84-217 and mu~ved foc its passage and ado~tion that the Anaheim c:ity Planniny Commission doec hereby ycant Conditional Use Permit Na. 2629 pursuant ~c Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.03.030.03i, thtough 16.03.03U.OJ', and ~~~bject to Intecdepartmental C~ammittee Recommendations. Respondiny to Commisainner eushore, Greg Hastings, Associate Planner, explained the correction pertaining to the number oE parking spaces will be incocpocated into t.t~e resolution. On coll call, the fnreg~ing resol.ution was passed by the foilowing vote: AYES: 8C'JAS~ 6USHORE, FRY~ I;ING, LA CLAIRE NOES: NONE ABSENT: HGRE3ST, MC bURNEY Jack White, Assistant City Attocney, prr.cented the written right ko appeal the Flanning Commission's ~eciai.on within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM NO. 4. EIR NEGOTIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OF CODB REQUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PF.RMIT NU. 263U. PUBLIC HEAFING. OWNER: STEWART, GREEN AS50CIATES, P. 0. Box 6371, Anaheim, CA 92806, ATTN: KARL MEADER. Property described as an irregulacly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 27.11 acres located at the southeaat corner of Lincoln Aven~~~ and State College aoulevard, dnd further descri~ed a•~ 2134 East Lincoln Avenue (E:ast Anaheim Center). The~e was no ~ne indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff ceport was not read, it is referred lo and made a part of the minutes. Karl Meadec, agent, explained the only question cegardiny this request is Condition No. 4 requiring that access to th~ facility be lacatec] on the easterly side of the reakaurant only, ar,G the tenant has indicated that that wi.ll be a reaZ pcoblem; and that the space they intend to utilfze ia long and narrow and does not lend itselE wQll tn diviRion in ha?f and he would ask that 10/29/84 ~. MINUT~:S. ANAHEIM CI+Y PLANNING COMMISS1dN, OCTOBER 29, 19f~4 84-6d6 Condition No. 4 be ;leleted. Ne expl~inecl this i.s in tho old centec and a pereon cs~n Hnter E~um either eide, and they will be using entrences or. both eides. Cvmmiseioner Bouea stute~i the packing is g~kting heavy on thd west aide o~ the ehopQing aentec. Mr. Meader regaonded that a atioppe[ will eventually figure out whece the easieat end most r~vailab]e parking is lucated anc! will park there and he thought the r~ituation will be self-cc~rrecc.~ng. He ~statec9 they do not want to end up restrictcd to using that c~ntrance only because they have other tenanta that only Eace that side. Commissioner E3ushore stated he wnutd go alon~.~ with thi~ ,equest this timE, and although the sale of beer and wine doea chanye the parking r?quicements, it doeb nat really add that signiticant a diffecence, but this ifi ~n~~ of several requeats, and until the centcr is fully develaped And leased, he would prabably not give any rt~ore ~arking waivers until it is seen what is going t~o happen there. Ne etated the Commi~sion has bent ovec backwarda to al.low everything that is wanted in tl~e center, but to keep b~rdening it ~dith parking waivera will create a parking prob)em. Mr.. Mesder stated th~re is a future tenant they Arp currently negotiating wiCh and they will be in tor that v~lriance. Commissioner F3u:;hoce stated then they should not hr~ve askQd for all these ~arking waivers. Mr. Meader staCed they are currently ha~~~ng a new parking study prepared by the peoE~le wt~o did the original sludY. c;ommissioner Bouae 3tated she hoped a new parking study would be up-to-date and not based on the stores t.hat were in the center in 1983. ACTIUN: Commissioner King ofEered a moti~n, secc~nded by C~mmiasxoner Fry and MOTION CAI2RIED (Commissio~ers Herb~t and Mc Burney absent) that the Anai~eim City Planning Commission has reviewed ths pr~posal to permit on-sale beer and wine in a. proposed restaurant with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of appcoximately 27.11 acres located at t:~e sou~heast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Sta~e College Boulevard, and further described as 2134 East Lincoln Avenue (East Anaheim Center); and does hereby ~sF>prove the Negative Declaration upo~~ finding that it has considered the Negative ueclaration toqether with any comment~ received during the ~ublic rPview proceAS and further ffnding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that ~here is ne substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effe~t on the environment. Commissioner King ofierea a m~tion, seconoed by Commi,ssioner Fry and MOTION CARRIED (Commiss~iuners Herbst and Mc Burney absent) that the Anahefm City Plar.ning Commission does her.eby yrant waiver of code requirement on the basis Lhat the parking wai~ar will nok cause an increase in traffic conge~tian in the immec~iate vicinity nor adv~rsely affect any ad~oining land usps and grantfng of the par.:;iny waiver under the conditio~~s imposed, if any, will not be detcimental to the peace, health, safety and general weltare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Comminsioner King offered Fesolution No. PC84-218 and moved for its passage and adoption thst the Anaheim City Planning Commissi~n does hereby grant 10/29/8~ MINUTES,_Al_7AHF.IM CITY PLANNING COMMI55ION, OCTOBER 29, 1984 84-68? Conditi~~nal Use Permit No. 2630 pucauant to Anaheim MunicipAl Code Sectione 18.03.U30. 30 through 18.03.030.035, aubject to InterdepartmentAl Committee Recommenda~ione, deleting Condition No. 4. Un c~ll call, the foregoing resolutior was pasued hy the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BUSNORE~ FRY~ KING, LA CI,AIRE NOES: NUNE A~S~NT: NERBST~ MC BURN~Y Jack White, Assiatant CiCy AtL•ornay, presented the writton ~ight tu appeal the Planning Commission's deciaion wikhin 22 days to the City Council. ITEM NU. 5. EIR N6GATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY APPVD.) AND CONDITIONAL USB PEh"IT N0. 2613 (READVERT7SEU) OWN~R; JOHN KUCYLA, 120 Lakeview Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92807. AGENT; LANTERN R~~LTY, 8686 Merced D-1U09, Huntington Beach, CA 92b46, ATTN: NICKIE WARDEN. Property described as an i~rzgulacly-shAped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.06 acres, located south and Past of the southeast corner o£ Vermont Avenue and h;arboc Boulpvard, an~l further deaaribed ~is 406 West Vermont Avenue. John Kocyla, owner, stt~ted the pucpose of the requeak is to correct Resolution No. PC84-172's legal description which is incorrecC ber_ause the conditional use per.mit was ta Apply ~.o Parcel No. 3j and that un~~~c prior rPCla~sificatior to commercial uses, these p~rcels were handled as sep.arake parcels and they are three separate parcels with separate parcel number:•, etc. f!e stated the reclassification of 406 west Vermon~ was approve~ in 1981 ~~d the Ehared parkin9 was stated, but shaced parking at that time was neve, used to constcue in anyway that these parcel$ were not separate in all respect.s tu develop in the pcesent or future use or deveJ.opment for sale. He statec9 17 additiional parking space~ were added to Par.cel No. 3 for a proposed restturant in the past year and keeping the parcels separate ic imperstive foc 1~~ture development and 3ale and an undue hardship wou~d be placed on '~im dne to loss oE rents and building space, ~s well a~~ litigation ~rom tenant~~. He stated there is no basis for Condition No. 2 w~~ich deals with Parcel N~. 1, and others, aince the application was submitted for 4~6 W. Vermont only, -nd the Plannin5 Department added t.he other two parce:s. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOS~D. Commissioner eushore cl~rified that the current owner purchased the property trom Mr. Pinto a~zd that Mr. Pinto had submitted plans for all the properties and approval tied all three parcels together becausQ ot ~he access, and the Co~nmiasion came up with a list of usea and there was going tQ be shared parking, etc. Mr. Kocyla stated there is shared parking, but it is not a requicement for the Building Codes. Commissioner Bushore stated it was a requirement of the Ylanning Commis~ian in order to have the property developed in the manner khe owner desiT~~. He as d why the Cor,~ission would want to suddenly delete the cequirements. 1Q/29/84 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMIS5ION. OCTOaER 29, 1984 8A-688 Mc. Kocyla steted ti~ree diffecent owners could own the property and agree to share parking, but because theze ia only one ~wner, he should not t»ve to give up property on another parcel on ~n appraved projert. Commis~ioner 6ushore sl•ated if the praject has been tied to that property, then it does mean th~t he will have to give up that r~~oFerty since it is a condition of approval of all thone ~copertien. Mr. Kocxlb stated they alr~ady have approval oF ~<<e reciprocal parking and the problem is giving up 3100,OOU to $200,000 worl~ oE pronerty on Parcel 1 in order to have a restaurant an Yercel 3. He s ated r_hey have required patking and the property is zoned commercially. R~sponding to Commissioner euahore, Greg F~~stinqo, A~aociate Planner, stated the packing wa~ calculated for all three ~~arcels togetl;er. Commissioner Bushore stated thece is no reason the owner cannot sell one of the parcels as long as they are legally existing se~arate parcels. Mr. Kocyla stated the legal dQSCription cnvera all three parcel~. Commissioner Bushore rei~lied that was the basis on whict~ the Commission approve~ the restaurant. Mr. Kocyla stated thei wantPd the approval for the restaurant on Parcel No. 3 and with reciprocal parking, they have adequa~e parking, but now w~nt to aepnrate the leyal description for futur~ uses. Commissioner Bushore suggested the petitioner contact an attorney and atated he wauld be happy to contirue khia matter. Mr. Kocyla stated the City is backing him up against the wall by saying if he wants ko have the reataurant, hP has to give up $200,000 wocth af prope[ty at another location. Chairwoman Pro Tempore La Claire respondEd the City is going to widen Haxbor Boulevar.d someday and if these parcels could stand o~: their own, they would not have been apptoved togethec. Mr. Kocyl.a stated tie is not ~bject.ing to the widening of Harbor, but if these three parcels had been oWned by some~ne else, and he had a parking aoreement, he could have yotten the restaurant appr~ved, withaut heving to give up the property on another parcel. He stated the information he has gotten f.rom the ~ity is that thece ar~ no guarantees khat they will give him any kind of restitution, and only in this last repork has i~ taen said that the City would pay ~ar some remode].ing, but that leaves him in total jeopardy with the tenant who has a 5-year lease with a 5-year option whfch was signed by the previous owner. Commissioner auahore stated when the Planning C~mmission originally looked at this property before the restaurant ever came in, it was on all three parc~ls or nothing at all because of the access problems on Vermont. HE stated he would not change his decision. Mr. Kocyla stated they already have approval for a commercial office space that is khere now with the same parking situation, and that approval did not requi~~ the donation of property from Parcel No. 1. H explained che pcoperty ~rrently developed a~ an office 10/29/84 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIONI_OCTOBER 29_; 1984 84-689 building and the tenant wAnts to make khe off.ice building into a resteurant, and the donation of land w~s not a conditi~n at th~~~ time. Ha expl~ined he 1A not asking for anymoce perking apace~ and ia merelX ctianging the office apace to a restAUCent~ and that the traEfic studies have alrcady bsen ~ade and the parking epucee approved. Commissioner Bouas ~L•ated a rQStaur.ant requices more parking than an office use. Paul Singec, ~raffic Engineec, stated this was quite a skraightforward c~ses that the reataurant requ~red a parking waiver and due to that waiver, the pcopecties were tied together as one, not on'ly becau~e of packing, but elso becauae of access and circulation and wit:houk tnose two element~, the restaurAnt w~uld not have been approvable. Mr. Kocyla stated if this is disapproved, the property will remain as o,`fice spdce. He expleined they have had reciprocal parking aince 1978 for the office space. Chairwoman Pro Tempore La Clai:e explained more parking was needed for the cestaurant. Paul 5inger further expl~ined the approval ~E the restaurant wa~ based on all three parcela, and with a condition for dedication of Harbor. Mr. Kocyla stated khe dedicntion is totally unrelated to the restaurant and the City ±s saying that he can t~uve Zhe restaurant, if he will give the City the pr~pecty some place else which is unrelated. Chairwoman Pro Tempore La Claire stated the petiti~~nez i~ absolutely right and khe City d~es that because thece are changes going on all ovcr the City and he is not the only prope~~y owner that has bee~ a8ked to donate property for. atreet widening purposcs. Mr. Kocyla stated this will affect a building that i~ worth $448,000. He stated his recl prob2em is that from the beginniny he has been willing to dedicate a stcip of land and then wher. he measuced it, found that it went 10 to 15 feQt into a valuable building with no restitution offered from the Cit~ and the City is also saying that theX cannot guarantee him anything. Jay Titu~, Office Engineez, stated the City ie asking for an irre~ocAble uffer of dedication for widening of Harbor which is f•~reseen in the nex~ fi~•e years, and havE agreed not to accept that offer for five years, at such time the street wa~ widened, and the City wauld pay their cost of remodeling the structure to remove it from the ultimate right-of-way. Mr. Kocyla atated the City woul~ not put that agreement in wciting and on ti~ree diffezent occasions H•hen ~~e went t~ sign easement deeds, the City Would not put it in the deeds. Cn~nmissioner B~~shore suggested the petitioner should have an attor.ney; and tha~ if the Com-aission denies this tod~y, it will be an injustice to the petf t+.c~ner . Mr. Kocyla skatpd he has been trying to cooperate and was willing to de~licate the strip of land. Commissioner Busho:e stated the alternative is to not 10/29/84 :... ~ ~ • t MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, OC~`OD~R 29_,_198a 84-690 dedicate the etrip of land which wAa a condition of approval nn the r~staurant and then not go ahead with tha raoh.aurant. Mr. Kocyla staked rhaC means tt~at khe Cit;y does heve powee of eminent domain end when they do condemn aomEthing, they have to pa}• the property ownec. He atate~ the City haa said they will pay Eor retnodeling, b~t he was concecned that he would have a co-~?le of tenants who w~uld have lo~s of buainesa who might oue him foc r.hac los+~ of buAin~sa. Commiasioner Fry stated tt~e widen~.ny of Anaheim Boulevard required dedication of over 132 par.cels and buildings were remodeled, so the City knowa what t1~4y ~[~ doing and he did not think the tenants would suffer any irreparable l~as. Mr. KocylA atated his is th^ only building o~ Harbor that is going to be affected, and every other property owner will dedicate just a strip of land. Cha:rwumP~ Pco Tempore La Claire pointed out the City jusL• offered to pay Che costs ~E remodeling. Mc. Koc,yla asked about the tenant•'s liahility and stated that leaves him in jeopardy with the tenants. Commissioner [3ushore stated the netitiorer ia rnaking legal assumptions and the Cit;+ ,E just as~ing him to ircevocably otfer to dedicate a strip of land, and he wa,s suce th~re are certain law~ which will affect the struct~res. Responding to Chairwoman Pco Tempore La Claire, Mr. Kocyla stated he did not want a conkinurance and it would be cheaper for him to tell the doctora they can not hbve a restaurant and rent Lt as office apace and when the City wants the property, they will t~ave to pay the full price for land, buildings and damages. Commissioner Bushore asked if the condi.tions have been met on the original office uae. Mr. Kocyla stated they have ~ erything signed off. Commissioner Buahore explained he is requ~~ting staff to report back to the Cammission ir: twu weeks whether or not the conditians have been met. It was no~ ~ an EIR Neyative Declaration was previously conaidered and approved ii~ conjunction with the initial proposal. ACTIUN: Commission^r Fry of:ered Resolution N~. PC84-219 ~n' mcved ~or ita ~s--:age and adontion that t:ie Anaheim City Planning ~om~iEaion does hereby deny the r^quest far amendment to che legal descrf,ption in Planninc Conunission Resolution No. PC84-172 and deleticn of Condition No. 2 of said re~olution perkalning to the required dedicatio:~ for str.eet wiuening purpo~et, on the basiB that no new evidence was presented to change the oriG:~al decision which was based on parking access and circulation problems. On roll call, the foregoing resolution wa~ passed ~• the following vote: p,ygg; BOUAS~ SUSHORE, FRY, K1NG, LA CI.AZR~~ NOES: NONE r'~~ ~NT : HERBST ~ MC BURNEY Jack White, A~ststont City Attocney, presented the wri::tGn cight to appeal the planning Commissio~+'s d~cision within 22 days to the City Council. 10029/84 MINUTES, ANAHF.IM CITY P~ANIiING C~MMiS5I0N~ OCTOBER 29, 1984 ___ _ 04-b9] I~EM N0. 6. E.IR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL U5E P~RMIT NO. 2599 ~READVERTISED). PUBLIC HEARING. OWtJ~R: CQMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL CURPORATION, P. 0. Hox 76478, I~os Angeles, CA 90076. AGN.NT: UNITBD SUTTES OF AMERCIA, INC., 450 Newport Center Drlve, Newport eeach, CA 92660. Property described as an icragularly-shaped parcel of land consiating ~f approximately 6.JA acres ,located at the sauthe~at corner of Frontera Street And Glassell Street. ^tiere wae no ane indicating their presgnce in opposition t~ subject requc and although the ataff report was not ceAd, it is reEerred ta ar.d made a p~ of the minutes. It was noted the ~pplicant could not be preaent at today's hearing, but has requeated that the Commission go ahead and vote on the matt_r. THE YUBLIC HEARING WAS CLUSED. Commissioner 6~shore aaked why a hotel would need a 29-foot hiah industr.ial type storage ~acilf_ty. Greg Hastings, Associate Planner, stated it is ataff's understanding tt-at the building would n~t necessarily be used for the hotel ~urposes, but a~ n permitted use in the ;1L xone, they are enlitled to have a warehouse on the propect/. He stated he believe~ it will be separate from the hotel. It was t.he general consensus o£ the Commisxion thak the applicant sh~uld be pcesenr a answer Commission's qvestions. Greg ~,astings stated he thought they propose to use the structure for storage for the hotel chain and nat just tt~i,s hotel. Commissioner Bushore pointed out the nearest hotel in the chain is in West Covina and then to Arizona. ACTION: Commissioner Bushore of.fered a motion, Reconded by Commis;ioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIEA (Commissioners Herbst and McBurney absent) that consideration of the aforemeukioned matter be continued to the cegularl.y- scheduled mePtiny of t~ovember 14, 1984, in order f~r the applicant to be present. ITEM N0. 7. EIR NEGATI~E DECLARATION, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMi.'t AND CONU:TIUNAL USE PLRMIT N0. 2631. PUBLIC HF.ARING. OWNER: PACESETTER HOPfES, INC., 4540 Campus Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660. AGENT: CALMARK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, 2121 Cloverfield Boulevard, P. U. eox 211b, Santa Monica, CA 90406. Property descri•~d as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of lar~d consisting of approximately 5.13 aares locatecl at the northeast c~rner of Santa Ana Street and Citron Street, further described as che southerly portian of the fo~mer Fre~nont Junior High School playffeld. Requ~st to permit a 196-unit affordable senior citi.zen's apartment complex with waiver o~ required type of parkfng spaces. Neal Singer, agent, waa present to answer any questions. 10/29/84 MINUTES, ANAHE?M CI'rY PLANNING COMMISSION~ OCTOBER 29, 1984 04-692 THE PU~LIC Hr:ARING WAS CLOSED. Cummissioner euahore compared this prop~Hed pcoject to the one on Gilbert Street, pointing ~ut that one had covered carports and asked if thia company'8 other pro3ect.s thcoughouk Callfornia have coveced carporta. Neal Singe~ ceplied the major.ity of thoae projeats are 1009 apen spnceat th~t thia project w~s de~ig~led in compliance with lhe tentative sEnior ci~i2en hounin9 ordinance and the ts~ue Of G6V~CP_d or uncovered spa•~es had been undetermined. He explained the covered carpocts were a condiL•ion ~f financing on Gilbert Street. Neal 3ir~ger explained th.ey like Co give the~r projects a sense of open ~pace and enhance that by maintaining oper: carporta, And in ad~ition, it given greater security both foc the tenants and the surrounding areas with lesa hidden ~reas, and elso iii the tentative ocdinance, equal acc,ess oE parking spa~es to a11 tenanta ia desirabler and that they have found fcom their experience that carports have genr_rally baen uned for atorage ~paces. Commiaeioner Bouas stated manayemenC could take care ~f lhe pro~lem of people storing things in the carports. Commissionec Bu~hore stated for a lot of senior cit:iLens, that vehicle is theit last arm to independence and many ot them take great ~ride in the automobiles they own and he would tliink open carports would dis~o~rage certain people fcom wantiny to live in that project and maybe just a few carports are needed for those who would wAnt ta keep l•heir vehicle in good condition. Neal Sin~3er stated they have found in the projects whece same of the spaces ace covered, it would require that• they ct~acge a nominal amount of additional cent and have always found that they g~~ unuc~ed, and alno the tenanta would not have equal access to all the spACes. Commissioner Bouah stated if they did not charg~ addi.tional renl, then they would be used and if there were enough covered, they wo~~ld have equal access and maybe the answer is to have coveced carports. Commissioner Dushore ra.ferre~d to the packing space locations and atatad surely they are not egually ac~•+~sslble to all tenants. He stated the biggest clumps of cars ~ill be on the fac •iqht on both sides because Lhat is wherE the majority of the buildinys ~c¢ un~j, ~I~erefore, the senior citizen is g~ing to want t~ be as clos~ as poa~ible to theic lxving units. He atated the developer i~ going to have to move the Police Uepartment hQliport and pointed out when the police officere go througt~ theiW seven shift changes a~ay, they blow their sirens and asked how the developer will let the potential tenants know about that noise. Neal Singer stAted they are aware of t~e sound ar.tenuation measures required both on the southerly portion of the site and tu the east; and that the site layout, building orientation and the ~+structural changes to tt.e individual nuildings will mit.tgate any aound problems; and thaC they will be uaing double-paned windcws, a~ded insulation ~r~d a sound study will be performed to meet city requirements. 10/29/84 MINUri'ES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMJ^S10N. PCTUBER 29, 1984 84-693 CommisaiUnec Buahore asked why tf~is serior citizQn project is not proposed on the nor~herly portion of the pro~~erty since that is closeat to ti~e library, rQStaurants~ and to the bua $topa. Neal Singec stated the bus stops on Harbor, which is the main access ~o the projecr, are equally accesslble fr~m bo~h sidee of the site. Comrnissioner Bushore atatPd the ingrFSS and egreas ia on Olive Street, with Neal Singer. responding thece are entrances and exit~ ~n Citron and Santa Ana. Commieaioner Dusi~oce stated cight. now an east/west bus has to be caught on Li.ncoln at the cu:ner of Citrun and Lincoln or li~~rbor and ~inci~ln, pointing out it i.s a longer walk trom Santa Ana Street or Citron Street than it is frorn Citron and Broadway to [.incoln. ~a~Z Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated the Applicant is requi.red to impcove the traffic si.gnat. at Broadway and Citron to provide for pro~ected pedestri.an crcasinys. Chairwoman Pro 2'~mpore LA Claire atated there is a lut of money put inta improvement of Broadwby and ahe can understand why the developer wuuld wbnt the cond~miniums there. She stgted this i~ senior citizen housing, but it is a~n additional 350-foot walk from wherever }~ou live in either project. She stated senlor citizen housing ha~ been ap:~roved further away from downtowri shopping than this. Can~missioner Pry stated he ha~ a real ha:d Cima witt~ this packing situation with no cavsr.ed parking; that ther.e would be a certain loss of parking space~ with ~POrts on the perimeter, and thE way it is laid out, it will bp incon~enient for half the people ko get to a carpart anyway, but he f.elt requesting absolutely no covered parking is not ceasonable because we do have weather here r-ow where people wovld still like ta have s~me place to get kheir car out of the weather. Commissioner King stated he goes along with the cequest because of the aesthetfcs, security, menagement pr~blems, and the public service agencies preter it. etc. Commiss?oner Busr,ore asked iE a General Plan Amendment was processed originally ~hen Pacesett~r wanted to build their 169 units, from RM-12~J0 to low-medium density. Greg Hastinys, Associate Planner, explained the chanye was from a school designation to low tu medium density residential. Cominissioner Bushore stated right now the General Plan designates the propezty for low-medium density and it was clarified that the zoning is different than the General Plan designation, and it was noted this project would be considered a medium density designation and the under~ying zoning would permit it. Annika Santalahti, P.ssistant Director for Zonin9, explained one of the difficulties that occurs on a condominium project,were a Generdl Plan Amendment not processe~, ic that khe subdivision ko do the condominium requires conformance with the General Plan~ so it is a technicality when an apartment project or senior cf.tizen project is constructed, and the General Plan conaistency is not as serious as ik is under law were it a subdivision of the Iand. 10/29/84 MINUTE5, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, QC708ER 29~_1~84___ 8A-694 Commiss,ioner Dushoce asked if the pcopoasd denAity can be hAndled by the infrsetcuclura downtown with wtiat :a propoaed witt- the Meyer d~velopment, and some of the other areas, pointing out this ie almnst twice the denaity at 40 unite per acre. A~~nika 5antalahtl stated this particulac pro~oeal hAa been submitted to all the oepartmen~s ar.d no one haa bcought up a particular problem, except the heliport. Chairwoman Pro Tempore Ga Claire ~tated sh~ believes that the parking spaces should bo covered, but not encloaed because senior cf.tizen~ need something to stan~ under when it is raining and they are getting into kheir car and also the cAr,s yet awfully hot in th~ aummer. Neal Singer stated this senior project is very ~ensitive to any coste, howeve~, he wouid be willing to propose covered spa~:ea on the northecly portion of the aite, both as a cost measure and an aesthetica measure, but kelt coverin~ the SPBC@8 borderir.g either ~anta Ana or Citron would hinder the aeathetics of the project. c:ommiasioner La Claire Atated she thaught aomeone had given some thoughr, to the accessibility of the parking spaces, but noted no spaces will be assigned. Mr. SinyEr stated they have taken the position of eyua.l accessibility to ever.y parking space for. every tenant. Commiasioner Houa~ stated with the layout o~ thia projert, maybe it would be better lo have assigned spaces so the tenants can be closer to their unit. ~~mmissioner Bushore statad the di~tance ~o parking spaces would be a good thiny for thp City to ~~ddress in their nrdinance because theoretically those parking spaaes could be as much as 200 feet ~way. He ~tated in thia project, probably most of the seniors who did not have cara wauld want to be in the back units and in addition to the ,50 feet, thcy will have A distance ot 557 feet to get out of the project. Chaicwoma~ Pro Tem~c~re La Claire ~tated she is concerned abour. the lack of as~igned patking because some older senior citizens Etill dri~e and it could take them quite awhile ko get tu the spaces and if there is not assigned spaces, some of them migh~ wander ar~und because ~hey need a place that is theirs. She added her concerns are asstgned parking, covered spaces, nolse fr~m the police cars and also the helipoct. COMMTSSIONER MC BURNEY ARRIVED AT 2:30 p.m. Commissioner 9ushore stated the condominiums in Item No. 8 will be 1008 aE£ordable and i£ this project were ko stand on .tts own, which he thought it ahould, tlie Commission should be looking at that 58 as a£forda~le, even though the whole project is su~~posed to be affordable for seniors, and askpd why the~e is not an affordable agrAement. Sergio Alvarez stated they are ~roposing that 25B of ihe 72-unit ,r.ondominium project will be ~old as affordable units, and in the ~vent tl~e project participates in the Orange County bond, 1008 of the units will have to be affordable, but under the conditio^s stated here, 25$ of the units will be affordable. He stated they have volunteered that 258 of the senior units will be affordable. 10/29/84 ~ s ~,: MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNiNG COMMIS5ION,~,OCTOBCR 29. 1994 84-u95 Commiosioner BuehoKe ask~d tl~at steff contact Community fiousing to heve a ra~reaantative preaent b~~ca~ae he did nut see anything in tl~e n;:aff report on Item No. S. Chairwoman Pro Tempoce La Claire stated ohe thought this is o good project., even thaugh th~ C~mmissior. saunds negat ive. Mr. Alvarez stated the Commission has a list nf their pro~ects, and the e~arual usage by scrnic.: citizens of parking is abouk .55, so juat over half the residenta have vehiclest tliat they do n oC like for the reaidents to crosa any of the parki~g to get t~ the uthe: pc~rtiona of the projecG, so thet f~rcet~ them to design the project in cluster3 and s egarate the parking and keep it as convenient as possible to a numbPr of r he unita. He atatod aside Erum whnt has already been diacussed, economics i~ par t of the reASOn foc not covering the parking, and the projects that do h ave c overed p~rking, a premium is charged fur the covered a~~aces and Chey have found that the c~eniorb a~ . willing to park in an open space to sa v o as litlle as $5.00 pec month in rent. tfe stated khey have had test prc~jccts where they did ~ssign spaces and there is a problem with assigning sp~c e s~,~hera a tennnk who didn't have a vehicle leaves And the uni~: is rented t o someone else who does have a vehicle and is assigned <~ s~ace tt~at is furthe r away than an unassigned space would be if he happened ta get to it e~rly enou gh. Commis~ioner Bushure st~t.ed if a persa n could not find a pariciny opace un the south side of the pcoject, he would ha ve to dcive out of the projeck and around to the north side. Mr. Alvarez statecl thi~ project is des i gned to conform to the proposed ocdinance whicl~ call~ for .9 parking s paces per unit, and they have found in actual usage the need is .5~ ~nd it wo uld be rate that anyone would not find a space readily avallable. Commissioner Eushoce stnt~d F~e does no t see Lhe c,.~nvenience involvedj that this project xs based on a supPosed or dinanc e and variances are not idEntified of the densi ~, two-story height reskriction, etc. and if it iR to be somettiing we will de proud of downtawn, these are valid concerns. Mr. Alvacez stated they have been buil din9 s u~cessful projects since 197G and ace constankly impr~v~ng the projects and th ey believe by owning and operaking these projects, they are getttng const ant Ieedback and ~eel they are designing and meeting the seniors demands. Respondiny to Commissioner Bouas, Mr. Alvare z stated the minimum age as pc~posed in the staff report is 62; th at in moat projecta, they request an age limitation of 55, and in speaking with aeniara at Anaheim's Senior Citizen Center, they raised the same concern b ecaus e there r~re ackive seniora between the ages of 55 anc~ 52 and this project would not be able tc accommodate those people. Greg Hastings st~ted recent state legi slation zequires that on projects that are undec 150 units, the age requireme nt would be 62 or oider; however, a project such as this with nore than 15 O unita, the requicement would be ihat at least one of the peraons would hava to be 55 years of age or ol~er. 10/29/84 ~' ^~ MINUTES. ANANEIM CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSION. OCT~BER 29, 1984 84-696 Annika Santnlahti stated thaG def initely aEfects the parkingt ths~ the .8 requiGement ~ras foc the ~ge 62 and when the ordinance comea back, that ia yoing ro be reviewed and a det~.~cmination made whether we are going to be satiafied with .8 spnces pec uni t, o[ maybe w~ would a high~:r requitement. Cnmmi~aioner Huehore etated ther e ace a lot of unanoweced queskions becaus~ of the new stats requirements. Mr. 1-lvarez responded that etaff requeated thaC khe uniGs be affordabl~e Eor 20 yeare. Mr. Alvacez referred to Conditia n No. 1 and stated they did meet with Paul Singer and thie condition reques te a dedicaticn af 32 foet from tiie centerline on Citran and nrevious appco~~als were far a 30-foot dedication, and Mr. Singer agreed to the 3U Eeet. Mr. Sing er. atated originally the question was whether or nol• there should be b right-t urn lane fcom Citron, and it was del•ermined thai: the ri~ht-~turn lane wae no t needed thecet however, the width ~f Citron ia 32 teet to the centerline. Mr. Alvarez etated previous approvals had been £or a 30-foot ciedication and the 32-fc,ot dedication would affect the setback alung Citron. .Tay Titua, Office Engin eer, atated regardless of what was approved previously, the standacd stceet width ia 32 feet and that is what ia recommended here. Mr. Alvacez teferred to Conditio n Nos. 9, 1~, 12, 13 and stated they have submitted a letter to the Commi s sion addcessing the fees imposed on the site and would like t~ addr.esa that i~sue. Commissioner Fry stated the Commissian has no cunCrol over those items. Greg Hastings steted staff received a copy of the lettett however, Commissi~ner Fry ie corr~ct that these are called out as being requi~ed when they haven't been paid, pither through installatio n or a fee. Mr. AlvsrEZ s~ated they are pro poaing to do khe work, b~t this condition is talking about the fees. Annikb Santalahti explained the street light and street tcee fee~ are ct~arged when there are existin~ street lights or trees and they 3o not anticipate anything new, but if there were n't any, the developec would be required ta install them. She stated khe f e e is required along Citron, and Snnta Ana Street does have an ;.nstallation cequirement r and that the fees are a one-time fee paid on all properties and there is no record it was ever paid on this property and even though there might be trees there today, every property owner is going to pay the fee s omeday, ao it would be cheaper to pay it now; with it being the noted thQ fee fat trees is $i.10 per front foot and the street light fee is $6.00 per f ront foot. AnniY,a Santalahti fur~her expla ined the traffic signal asaessment fee is a etandard fee required by City Council ordinance foc all new construction ~nd the only exception is when exis ting buildi~ngs are converted to another u~e and then the difference is paid. Paul Singer stated the develope r is reyuired ta reconstruct the signal at Citron and Broadway and the est imated cost is probably going to be substantially greater than the siqnal assessment fee, therefore, it is ~+ossible to deduct such a fee f rom the total cost of the signal improvement, 10/29/84 MINU TES. ANAHE7M CITY P1~NNING COMMIfiSION. OCTOBER 29. 1984 ga-69~ so there would n~t be a double ~.exetion. He stated inatead of. paying tt~e fee when building pecmita ace obtaine~, A bond wiil be pooted tor the eonal:cuetion of the signal at Citron And BroadwAy. Neal Singer cefecred to Condition No~ 22 celaLing ta age rest.ri.ction and atated they would like thet changed to 55 yeAre old t that they have discussed Conditions 25 and 26 with the City repre~e~tatives ragarding relocation nE the Police Department heliport, an~ although a focmal agreement has not been drafr.ed, discuasiona IiavF been leaning to -'thnt pcioc to the atart of framing" - aR opposed to 'pKior to the issuance of building permite' that the heliport would be relocated and operational and they did not have a problem with the developer atartii~g grading. ~ACk White stated the enfotcability oE thAt cundi.tion is tying iC to buil,ding permits, but once the building permits are iasucd, it becomes an enforcement problem of determining when they nce gotng to structurally fc~me the etructure, and if that ia the case, there will have to be an exter~sive agceement to be recor~ed against the proPerty in ordec to assure tnat the conditinn is going to be satisfied. He stated he would suggent that it be tied to the ier~uanc:e of building permi.te. Annika Snntalahti stated grading permits are isaued by t.t~e Engineering Department and are not the yame as the buildin~ permit and typically people will get those before they stact gcading, and there is a span of time beEore the buildinq permil is issucd. Jack White stated he h~s no pcoblem with the grading, but does have a prob2em if we are gAing ta isoue a buildin~ permit and tt:en sit bar.k and say they cannot start framirtg oE the building. It was clarified that according to staCe law, the age limit must be changed tc~ 55 years of aget and Grey Hastings exPlained l•he condition should read that the tenancy of each unit in this facility shall be restricked to persons at least one whom in each unit is 55 years oF age and that a covenant r~hall be recorded by the property owner in a form approved by the City Attorney limiti.ng such occupancy and a copy of aaid covenant shall then be presented to tt~e P2anning Department. Jack White stated that age J.imit is mandated by the State of California, effective January 1, 1985, which means that any covenant recorded aqainst rea] property restricting occupancy of a residential unit, based on age~ will k~e severely limited and the purpose is t~ make sure the covenant will comply with the state law and be enfarceable; and that the current language of the condition limits the age to 62 and would not be enfocceable under the law that takes effect the lst of the year. Commissioner Fcy atat~:d he does not have to give a parking variance with the age limit at 55 and he can cequire covered parkingt that g~tting the age down to 55 cpens ~p a whole new r~alm; and that there ls a request for a parking variance and for no covered parking and he ia even more concerned about the parking. Commissionet Bushore atated all the narmally required variances are el.iminated by calliny these senior ci.tizen units; and that the required numbet of parking spaces is not considered a variance, nor the 150-foot. setback, etc. He stated 10/29/84 MINUTES. AN~HEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION_ . OCTOBER 29. 1984 8,_ 4_,_,_.b98 looking at where the unita aro en~ where the perking spar,ea dre, he did not think tt~ia aill do the senior citi2eno a fevor. R~sponding to Commiabion~r Bouas, Neal Singer Atated there are 106 parking a~acea pcopoaed, 1.6 spacea for the two-bedrooma and .8 for the ~ne-bedrooms. Annika Santalehti stated the current et~ndard is .8 spaces p~r unik, regardless of the aize; that the additional spaces reflect the new Code which h~s a lacger parking :equirQment ~y~ two times when the unit has an Pxtra bedroom, but that wa~ a1i cnnsidering both tenants at 62 years of age. She ~tated st~Pf does not really have any good suggestionc and i.t will make quite a difEerenaes that ws ~on't even have all tenants at age 55, and one-half the tenants co~ld be younyec. Chairwoman Pro Tempoce [,a Claire stated, unfortunAt~ly, the st~t~ came up with some lawe right in the middle of our p~oposed ordinance and now the City is cight back where thty were Bix months ago in trying to fiyure out what we are aupposed to do with the ordfnance and jus~ how much parking is needed because now there will be actu~lly a.ll ages in the units and unfortun~tely this developer got caught in this. Nea1 5inger btated their other p roj~ct on khe corner of Gilbert And eall was approved with an age limit of 60 and he would not have a problem with that same gpproval. Commissioner Fry st~ted it is feasible that they could r.ent to two adults, age 55, with a child 21 or 22 living witl~ them Neal Singer stated they do not permit any children in their conplexes. Co~misaioner Fcy stated he did not know how they can exclude t.hem unraer the new laws. Commissioner Bouas stated they could have a 2.1 year nld living there. Mr. Singer responded tha t is concei.vable but they have never had it happen in all of their projects and he wasn't sure what kind of litestyle that would be for a 21 yeac old because they have recceakional facilities geared at the elderly population. Commissioner Bushore stated since thi3 company has been in this business and is constantly imQroving the situation, their prajects should ~e revfewed to see how the traffic flows, what the actual ageg arP, how fac it is to their. units, etc.t that he is concerned that we are not just playing a numbers game with this term 'aenioc citizens• becau,;e very 3hort].y the majority of population is going L•o be seniors, and khere will be enough seniors looking [or housing that they will be able to rent the units rega~dless. Responding to Commissioner Boua s, Nea1 Singer stated with the uncertainties of the heliport relocat~on, etc., th~ costs for rents have not been finalized, but in their other ~roject at Gilbert and ~all, a one-bedroom unit is renting at $395. He explained they have financed most of the pcojects thcough tax-exempt bond financing end without that, the rents would be cansiderably higher. Chaicwoman Pro Tempore La Claire scated this Comm~ssion was just faced w:th new state laws, new requirements, etc, and they have not rpally Ir! thought of in terms of this project befr~re and she would noint out this is 58 above the 10/29/84 MINUTES, ANAHBIM CITY PLANNING COMMTSSION,_OCTOBER 29, 19~4 84-699 density proposed end will provide 25s aEfordable unitst thet ahe understAn~s thie has been neqotiated with Community Nousing~ ~nd thet this really does meol• the new ordinence ~s intended and th~ only veriance ia whather thece ahould be open or covered parking. Commiasionec Bushore pointed out thia City doea not have a new nrdinance And nothing has been adopked and if thia was bei~g proposed under khe RM-1260 ~tandards, rAther than a CUP, there w~uld be many waivers. He otaked he does not want to aee tbia project in ita pre~ent form eapecia.lly with the parking and confiyurAtion particularly since it is go~ng to be munr]ated that in projecta over 150 units, the Age limit will be 5ti rather than 62. He GtAE~d he would cather see Chis project north of this location and he would wAnt to see a configu[ation of parking closer to t.he units, with it being no more than 75 feet, and a few carports covered, and if ~ parking apot cannot be found on the n~rth side oE the property, a tenant would not have to drive dAwn Cikron Street to the other side of the pro~ecty. He asked if th~ ~roperty along Citcon will have any viaual eEfect on the proper*.y accu~~ the street. Commissioner Fry atated he would agree carports ar<~ needed and also that internal cicculation is necessary. Neal Sinyer stated they did not have int~~rna.l circulation because oE the way the project is laid out and because of the sound mitiqation measures along Santa Ana. Commiss.ianer Aushore statpd i.f we arF: goiny Co get stuck with an age limit of 55 or oldec as being classified as ~entos~ citizens, then there should be a recommendat.ion fcom staff regar~iny the numbec of parking apace~. Chairwoman Pro Tempore La Claire aaked if the petltionec would like to have a continuance Lo work out sume of these prablems, and addresa some of the issues, and to work with etaFf on what appears to be a new development feom the state. Mr. Singec staCed they would not have a problem with aome mitigating age restriction= that he understands the concern regarding the fnternal circulativn, however, he wo~ld like to yet a feel from the Commission as to the site plan in its present form. Sergio Alvarez stated if the Commfssinn wishes to condition the items and appcove the project, he would be happy to take that, but in the event the Commission wants them L•o meet with atafE, he would requeat a two-week continuance. He stated the Commission has brought up some valid points and they will provide whatever facts they can. Commiasioner Bushore stated he tnought if this ordinance is goiny before the Senior Citizen's Commission, there should be someth~ng about the parking requirements for projecrs over 150 units. 10/29/84 MINUTES, AN~HEIM CITY PGANNING COMMISSIQN, OCTUBER 29. 1984 _ , 84-70Q Chairwoman Pro Tempore Le Claire eteted she thought it might be beneEicial to po~tpone tbia until after November 8 su the Seniar Citizen'a Commiaeion wi~l have a chance to r~vi.ew it. Cnmmi~sioner Bouas stated tt~ia developer ie willing tp meet with sta£L to make some changes now and not weit for the ordinance. It wna noted the ordinance will be reviewed ~y t.he Senioc~ Citixen's Commi~sion on November 8~nd it might be beneficiel to preaent this plen to them, and this makter ahould probAbly be continued unCil November 14, 1964. Commissioner Buahor.e aek~d if the Senior Citizen's Commisaion is even aware of thf~ pcoject. Annikn 5antalahti s~Ated ataEf would not typically t~ke a pro~~ct like thie to that Commis~ion, and it would be beneficial to the devPlopers to come to the meeting. St~e expl.ained that Commission does r.ot typically work wil•h development plans, but: with the applicants b~ing present and interested, it migtit encourage the discussion. Commi~sluner ~ushore stated he would like ko heac from the Senior CiLizen Commission as Co what they would like t~ aee in some of these pro~ecrs= khat the Commission t~as not even gotten into what type o£ safety har.dware khey would wan~ to see because there is a whole line of different hardware that is available because of their problem in turnin~ off light switches, etc. Chairwoman Pro Tempoce La Claire stated that is a gocd idea and thtlt is why she wa~ appointed at the laat meeting to represent the Planning Cummission at the Senior Citizpn Commission to bring back exactly th~t in~~~t. She euggested thes~ developers come to the meeting also. AC'PION: Conimissionec Fry ~ffered a moCion, sPC~nded Uy Commisai~ner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissionec Herbst abaent and Commission~r Mc aur.ney abstaining) that conoideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to th~ regularly-ached~led meeting of NovemSer 14, 1984. I7'EM N0. 8. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, RECLASSIFICATIflN N0. 84-85-11 AND VARIANCE IJO. 3436. PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: PACESETTER HOMES, INC., 540 Cam~us A[ive, Newport Beach, CA 92660. AGENT~: CAI,MARK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, 2121 Cloverfield Boulevar~, P. A. 9ox 21~8, Santa Monica, CA 90406. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 4.97 acres lacated at the southeast corner of Broadway and Citron Street, and further described as the northerly por~ion of the former Fremont Junior High School P1ayEield. ~eclassificati.on from RM-1200 to RM-3000. Waiver oE minimum building site area per dwelling unit to construct a 72-unit affor.dable condominium complex under suthority of StatE Gov~rnment Code ~ection Na. 65915. 10/29/84 MINUTES. ANANEIM CITY_PLANNING COMMISSION, OCTUBrR 2y. 1984 84-701 There were rwo per~ona indicating their preeence in opp~aition to aub~ect request and ~lthough the ataff ropoct was not cead, it is refecced to and made a pA.ct of the minutea. Secyio A1vArez, ag~nt, explained thia ia a 7;r-unit condominium project adjoining the pco~ect. digcusAed in Item No. 'IJ tt~at 48 of tho units ace pCOpAB~d a8 two-be~room 950 sq.ft. units, and 24 three-bedroom unita conaiKting of 1224 eq. ft. He added they hr~ve ~ome of khe aame conditlon concerns an the ~cevious project and ~hat rhe 42-foot dedicatian required along Cikron for ~50 feek tzom aroAdway ~huuld be 32 feet. St~nley Backland, 1228 W. Gordon Place, stated he cepre~ent~ the Fir.st Baptist Church, 701 W. eroadway~ and they dce cancerned about the parking e~ong Broadway and Citrons and th~t at the present tlme the church is acqu~cing some off-street parking, but do n~t want ta losE~ the on-etr~ek parking they pcesently have. Paul 5inger, Truffic Enqineec, atak~d parking will b~a prohihiked on Broadwuy in fronl• of tFi.i~ projecC and probably far 1Q0 to 150 feet we~t of CiCcon on the south side only. ,7oe White, 8U9 W. 9roadway, Anaheim,, stated I;e has been living witn thP di.rt ar-d dust frotn the other Paceaette.; Homes de~vc~lopments that they di~cussed the setbacks for that development and they wece supposed t~ be 15 feet~, but F,re only about 8 feet. He staeed the plans in the Planniny Department and the Building Divis:.on are ~ot the same. He stated they pcomised to put in ~~eavy ~hr.ubbecy, but there is not enougt~ room and that PacePetter does not dc~ what they say they are going to do. He stated they cannot se:l the units i•~ ~he other development and are now trying to cent I:hem and the back portior~ is just a lot of dirt. He stated he does not know if it does any good to com%:. t~ these meetings or not becauce the developer dnes not p~y any attenti~~,n tu what they promire. He stated his concern ia that t:his developer will not camply with the plan~ and conditions specitied by the Plonni.ng Commis3ion. Comin~ssioner Bu~hore painted out Pacesetter eald this property and it will not be developed t~y Pacesetter. Kr. White stated hE does not know if the new owner will comply with the conditions Nither and that it does not do any good to complain ta the City and t-e did not know who could make the deve~loper comply with th~ cond~.tions. He state:~ also the wall they have pr.~uvided is not what they promised. Sergio Alvarez stated he is not connected with Paceeetter Homes and cannot speak about the otner develapm~nt and this pro~ect is ori the oF~posite side of the atreet. tie stated the streets will be widened and improvQd; and that the majority of the setbacks are much m~ore than the 15 feet and tt~at they do meet all the setback requiremer.ts. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr. Alvarez referred to Condition No. 2 0£ the reclassification zequiring a 42-foot wide d~dication and noted that should be a 32-foot dedic~-tion and explained hP had met with Mr. Singer and discusse~ this condition. 10/29/84 M. n d . ' ~ MZNIITES, ANAHEIM ~].'~Y PLANNING COMMISSIQN~ OCT48ER 29, 1984 84-7~2 Paul Singor, Traffic Gnginear, etated ociginally it wa~s fclt ra sepacatc: right-turn lane would be necosac+ry, but it har Aince bee~n determined tinat i~ wi.ll not be necessucy. He otated Condition No. 14 pertains to the traffic siynal assossment fee and etiould be reworded to state the fep~ will bn, applied towards reconetr4ctian of the aignal at C.itron And Broad~ray. Fie expl~ained Condition No. 7 should rer~d: "That khe developer sh~uld reconatruct thc signal at Ci.tron And F3roadwa}~ and that the traffic aignel Eee~ be apf~li~d towards the reconstcuction of the signal end that [ees need nok be paid at ttie time oE issuance uf building permitr~ and that a bond would be posted to guarantee that reconslruction." Mr. Alvarez stated the second conditian they were concezned about ~~~as the timing of the relocation of the heliport; that they are cucrently 'iaving meetings with both the Police bepartment end the City st~ff and, hopefully, will have a final ag~nement ta go to the City Council concurrently with this projecti and regardiny ~he timing ~a ko when the heliport should k~e in operation, there is a mutual concurrenc~ that the grading could beyin and that they can actually pour the Eounda~tions; and they w~uld like to get stacted with the grading on this sike and the ~rk on the heliport aite at the same time t~nd the condition calls for th~ ~~rk ~o be completed prior L•o the iesuance of building permits and a~.::ding permit would be npcessary prior to the pourir~g of foundatic~ns. Jack White stated he thought thr' -:.4y~r_•N~ out and that the discussior wag reyarding grading permits and thK~ ~~-;: ~;r,e same thiny as building permits, and if they complied with th~ nr•~---~ -r: :°::•~.)~.~ance, the Ci~y would issue a permit before the condition wa~ met ~~r r~'~,c~tion of the heliport, but the building permits would not bF- --~ ~Kt; .:,a~<j part of that i~ the foundation permit. He stat«zd he would r-r.~ e::aar•+r~,, ~:onditions 4 and 5 be combined to read: "That pri.or to introduction ~~t :_- >rain:~nce rezoning eu5ject property, the Police Department he2lport 5htt `]t ;P.IOCdt@C~ and operatiAnal and that the developer $hall pay all the cc:~~ :~~c relocation of the Police Department helipart prior to such kime c~.~a~=~~~s iny of, but n4t nece~s,~rily limited to such items as Environmental Assesgn~e.~-. Ne skated this would not stop the grading, but thought it would be to the c~~,y~s best int~rest to have that resolved before there is anythi.ng cons~c~l~~~-~c on t~,a ground. Mr. Alvar~z ^tatPd he wants some w~rding that the parties will ~e entering into an agreement and that ~thr_ r-~:rms of that agreement wtii be what they are conforming aith and the agre~mem~s wou d not be in confl.ict with each other in any way. Jack White atdt~d his concern is making sure the condition is satiafied prior. to the ordinance be-ing introd~ced. He stated those same commenks would apply to Condition No. 7 when it is c4nsidered at the next meeting, but it would not be tied to introducrion of an ordinance, but to the issuance of building permit~. He stated Condition No. 8 can be eliminated. Commi~sion~~r Bust~ore asked about the r.equiremenk fo~c recreati.onal-leisure areas. Greg Hastfngs cesponded that the requiremenk for condominiums is 1,000 squace feet. 10/29/94 1 MINU'.CSS, ANANEIM CITY PI,I~NNING COMMiSSION, OCTOBER 29~ 1984 _ 8~-703 Respanding la Cummioeionec Fry, Greg Hastings stated these Flana wece rev.lewed by the F'ire Ue~~Artment and the ~~nitation Diviaion and were acceptable. Ccrmm.ta~lonet Fry stated he did not know h~w a Eire truck could make the turns and :lf there ia one car ~arked in the drivewAy, the trr-ah trucks could nol: 9et in, E~ointing out there are really sha~p bends. ~ceg Hastings al•a~ed according ~.o the engine~ring standacd~, tw~ 28-fook wide ~;lveways tt~f,t inter.aect are suEficient for turning a tr.~ck. Ccmmisaioner Bushore atated that only 4 tcasli containerc f~re propoaed. Greg HasLinga stated there is a condition included which requirea tliat plans meet *_he satisfacti.~n of ttie 5anitation Division. Mr. Alvatez atated they did meet with Ed Nesa of the Sanitation Division and he reviewed the pl~zna both for number and location And he was also at the InterdEpartmentAl Committee meeting and approved the plans. Chaicwoman Pro Tempore La C1uirE 3tated obviounly th~ staEf hes reviewed ~he p.lan~ and they have the ~xperkise in thoae areas. Commissi~ner Buahore stated h~: is still concerned about the tur~-around areAs for the sani~ation trucks, noting the truck~ would have to back out if they entered at the one entranc:e otf Citron. Annikz Sankalahti stated ahe did not thi.nk the trucks woul~ be goiny up the legs where they would have to back out and t!^~ought they ~ould be doing a"y' tucn instead oE hammer-head. She explained the Sanitation Division did lock nt the plans and were not concecned and Nrobably felt rtiodifications could be made if required without seriously affecting lhe plans. ACTION: Commissioner King offered a motion, seconded by Commisaioner Fry and MO'PION CARRIEU (Commis~ioner Nerbsk sbsent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission ha~ reviewed the prnposal to recl::~asify ~ubject property ~rom the RM-1200 (Reaidential, Mu~tiple-Famtly) Zone to the FM-3000 (Multiple-~am:ly Residen*_ial) Zone to construct a 72-unit affordable condominium complex under authority of State Government Code Secti.un 65915 with waiver of minimum building site area per dwelling unit on a reckangu2arly-sraped parcel of land con~.isting of approximately 4.47 acres located at the southeast curner of Broadway and Citron 5treet and furthec described as the northerly portion of the for;ner Fremont Junior High Scho~l Playfield; and does hereby approve the Negative Decl~ration upon finding that it has considered the t7egative Declacation together with any comments receivpd duriny t.he public review process and further finding on the basis ~f the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substanti~l evidence tt~at the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner King offe~ed Resolution No. PC84-22Ci and moved for its passage and adoption that the A,iaheim City Planning Commi3sion does hereby grant Reclassification No. 64-85-11 si~bject to Interdepart.mental Committee recommendations with Condil•ion No. 1 being modified to require a 32-faot wide dedication and Condition No. 8 being del.eted. An roll call, the Eoregoing resolution was passed by the fallowiny vote: AYES: ~OUAS~ BUSHORE~ F'RY, KING~ LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY NOES: NONE aBSENT: HERBST 10/29/84 ; MINUTES, AN~HEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, OCTOBER 29. 1984 84-704 ~nmmiasiuner King offoced Resolution No. PC84-221 and moved fnc ita pe~s~ge and adoption khat the Anaheim City Planning Commiesion does hereby grant VariAnce No. 3436 on the basis ch~t thece are special clrcumstance~ Applicable to tt~e property 8uch as aize, shape, topogra~hy, location and surr.oundin~s which do not ap~ly to other identically zoned pr~per~y in the ~~me vicinityt and that at~ict Appl~cakion of the 2aning Code depcives the property of privilegeN enjoyed by other Fropertiea in the identical zonP and classi~ic~tion in the viciniky and subjECt to Interdeparkmental Committee recommendationa modifying Condition No. N and tha~ Conditfon No. 25 read: "That exercise of this vnriance is aubject to the Adoption of the zon~nq ordinance in ReclassiEfcakion No. 84-~5-11., now pendinq•J Condition No. 27 tu be deleted, Condition Na. 7 modified perta~ninq to ~he reconstruckion oE the aignal at Citron and ~ro,~dway. ~n roll call, khe foregoing resoluti.on was passed by the foll~wing vote: AXF~: BOUAS, BUSNORE~ RRY, KING, LA CLAIRE~ MC BURNFY NOES: NUNE ABSENT: HERaS'P Prioc t~ votir,g or- the above resolution, Commissioner Bushore ougge3ted that Condition No. 24 inclu~~e a 20-yeac af.fordability term. Annika Santalahti explained the Houainy Department had presented the affordable rent recommen~ation which was presented to the Planninq Commisfiion at the last City Council mceting ar.~ they had diacu~sed a tprm of 12 or 15 years. Ct,airwom~~n Pro T~m~o~e La Claice felt the terrns should be left up to the Community Hou~ing nepartment. Commissioner Buahore stated the last developer had indicated if they got the bond issue money, the project would be 1008 affotdable. He explained the C~unty has a regulation as to which p[ogram will overtide the other. CFiaicwoman Pro Tempore La Claire poi~ted out the Caunty rFrgulations are mare stringent Chan the City's and it was n~ted whichev~c prograa~ is more stringent, would be the one ti~ey would have t~ ab.~de by. It was felt the 20-year term should not be tncluded in the cor~dition and Jack White a~ated the Commission can include the 20-year term either in the condition for the resolution or through a separate action by m~tion recommen~ing the City Council cequire that as a term foc affardabilit~ agreement. He staCed if it is included in the condition, it is an absolute unless the City Council changes it. On roll call, the foregoing re~olution was passed by the following ~ote: AYESa BQUAS~ BUSHORE, FRY, KIP~G, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY NOES: NONE ABSENT: dERBST ACTION: Chairwoman Pro Tempore La Claire offered a motion, seconded by Commiasioner eouas an~ MOTION CARRIED (Cammis~ionEr Fry voting no and Commissionec Herbst abeent) that the A~~aheim City Planning Commission doeb hereby ,recommend to the City Council that the affordable housing agreement entered into between the developer and the City ,include a term on the resale controls of the affordable uniks as not being less than 20 ypars. Jack White, xssistant City Attorney, presented the wzitten right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. 10/29/84 MINUTES. ANANEIM C:T. PLANNING CUMMISSION, UCTQBER 29"„1984 _ H4-705 RECESS: 3:A0 p.m. RECON~'.~E: 3:50 p.m. IT~M N0. 9. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE NO___;__._3432• ----.--- PUBLIC H}'~ARING. OWNERS: DUNFORD PROP~RTxE~5~ ING.~ ATTN: MARTIN S. COX, 17702 Mitchell Stceet, North, Irvine, CA 92714. Propecty d~~scribed a~ a rectang~larly-ahAped parce]. of land consisting of appr~ximakely 1.35 acrea, and furthec described as 2130 Sauth State College eoul~vard. To conatruct a self-storage fACility with waivers of minimum number of parking spaces and maxi~um fence height. Martin S. Cox, ayenc, stated he noticed ataff doea not recommend epproval of this requeet; however, he feels thete iE a need fox thia type use in Anaheim and it will be of benefit to the City. He explained the conslruction plans and mr~terif,ls to be used and stated ktiey feel khe use will be cotn~akible with khe ~thec uaes in the arPa. THE PU6LIC HEARING WA: CLOSEU. C~mmissfoner Fry stated he would not tcy to sto~ any property owner fcom doing anythin9 he wants on his property which he has the right to build, but he did not feel thls use would be an enhancement ~o the City and the City ~annot stop him from building it, but they du not h~xve to grant a variance. He stated he would not vote for this use and did not think this was thp proper place for it. Responding to Commissioner Bushore, Mr. Cox stated security can be accomplished through a aecurity serviGa or, i£ neceas~+ry, each door can be inetalled with an alarm syatem and also the Police Department would be present. Commissioner Bushore and asked about a caretake~ foc this L~cility. Mr. Cox responded a caretaker was ovecculed because the si~e of the facility is celatively small. Commissioner Bushore nuted orher se1P-storage facilities which have been approved in Anaheim have been in a much mnre intense ind~strial zone, as well as having ma~or freeway visibility. Mr. Cox stated freeway acce~s is very important and that they have access uff State College, but most ~f their users are frc~m wurd-of-~~~outh or from the Yellow Pagea. Responding to Commissioner Bushore, Mr. Cox stated the t~:rm tk~at the units are "demountable" means that within a matter af hours, the unit can be lifted off its foundation and removed from the site ~nd *_hey are planned that way for tax advantages becauae it becomec persanal pro~erty. Respondiny to Comrnissioner gusho:e, Annika Sant~lahti stated ahe did not know of any athPr self-storage facflities which were considered demountable. 10/29/84 MINUT6S~ ANAI1_BIM_CITY PLANNING COM111SSION. OCTOHER 29. 1984 84-706 Chairwotnan Pro Tempare La Claire atat~d ehe thoughl thw Commission was concernad with the kind of. development and theae uees arp per.mitted in that zone, but it is etaff's opinion that the uaQ is noL• appropriate or competible with what has heQn approved or with the anti~:ipated p1a~R for the arear and that the staff report points out that well over 3 mil.lion dollars worth oE high qualiky, high-rise commerciAl office space has been aP~roved in the immediete acea and tt,at staff is receiving inquiriea uaily regarding other major development in tt~e immediate area. She asked if the propecty ~wnet haa considered thut this iR a prime industrial are~. Mr.. Cox atated they have looked at numecous projects for this properl•y, but this is only 1.3 Ficres and nothing to date has proven to be feasible because oE ~he size. Chairwoman Pro Temp~re La Claire stAted the property owner is a3king the Planniny Cummission to approve a temporary structure on a prime piece of property that will be detr.imental to ~he kind of users the City in looking Eor for that area. Mr. Cox sCated many of the users that will came to that area use this type of facility. He ~tated tney t~ave another similar type pr~~ect outside Atlanta and it is of similar type construction. ~ommissioner McBurney c1ar..iEied ttiat the construction is ko be plywood walls and a metal roof and aaked if that is what makea it demountabl~ with Mr. Cox r.esponding that is correct. Commissionec Bushor~ stated he would go Along with the rest of the Commission because he did not think the Eacility i:~ somethinq he would want to see any place in the City, -nuch less in this prime ir-duatrial area. ACTION: Commissioner t~u3l~ore offered a motion, seconded by Cammissioner McF3utney and MUTION CIRRIEU (Commissioner Hecbst absent) khat the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to construct a self-stocage faci].i,ty with wafvers of minimum numbec of parkinq spaces and maximum fence hei9ht on a rectangulacly-shaped parcel of land consisting af approximately 1.35 acres, having a fcontage of approximately 288 feet on the east side of State College eoulevard, ar~cJ further described as 2130 Sautt~ Stete College Boul.evard; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upor finding that it has considered the hegative Declaration together with any cortu::~~~ts recei.ved ducing the public ceview process and further ~inding on the basis cf the Initial Study and any commentc received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a aignificant effect on fhe envxronment. Commissioner Sushore offered Resolutior, No. PC84-222 and moved for its pe~ssage and adoption tl~at the Anaheim Citx Planning Commission does herehy deny Variance No. 3432 on the basis that there ace no special circutastances applicable to the property such as size, sha~e, topography, location and surrounaings which do not apply to other identically zoned pcoperty in the same vicini~y; and that strict application of the 7,~ning Cod~ does not depcive the proper.ty of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical 2one and classificatian. Jack White clarified that L•he par.king waiver should be denied on the basis thal• t.he variance will cause an fncrease in traffic cangestion in the immediate area and advecsely affect the adjoining land uses and would be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare ~f the citizens oF the City of Anaheim. 10/29/84 ~ ± MINUTES~ ANAHFIM C1TY FLANN~I'NG COMMISSION,f OCTOBER 29~ 1984 84-707 Commiseinnec Bushore added that wording to the reason for denial. On roll ca.ll, the foregoing reaolution was passed by the following vot•:: AYGS: BOUAS~ BU~HnRE~ FRY~ KING, LA CLAIRE, MC 3UkNEY NUE3: NONE ABSENT: HBI2BST Jack White, Assistant City Attorney, presenced the written cic~ht ~o appeal the Planniny Commissi~n's deciRion withi~n 2'l daya tA the Ciky Council. ITEM N0. 10. EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 11 AND VAx:IANCE N0. 3435. PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: CENTURY AMEkICAN CORPORATION~ ATTN; ROGER C. HOEBS AND DAN J. MOARE, 1428 E. Chapman Avenue, Orange, CA 92666. Prope[ty deacribed ss a reclangularly-shaped parcel of land cansi~~ing of. approximately 9.4 acrea, Trac:t No. 12~p2 (Stanford Courk). Waiver oF permitted days of diaplay to cetain the displAy of ten (10) temporary flags for a new reaident~~l subdivision. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject reyuesk and Although rhe staff ceport was nat read, :t ie referred to and made a part of the minutes• Dan Moore, agent, was present to anawer any questions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLGSED. Responding to Commissionec Bushore, J~ck Wtiite, Assistant City Attorney, explained Condition No. 2 of thi~ rermit restricts it to ten (10) temporary flags cotecmi.nus with the permit issued purauant to Anaheim Mun~cipal Code 18.085 piua any extensi~ns of time which may be approvpd by the City Council. Commissioner Bushore stated this site has a lot of visibility and he did not think there is a need for flags. It was noted the Planning Air.ectur or his suthorized rppreaentative has determined that the propoaed ~roject falls aithin the dpfinition of Cai:egorical Exemptions, Class 11, as defined in the State Environmenta~ Impact Report Guidelines ~nd is, therefore, categori.cally exempt from the requirement to ~repare an EIR. ACTION; Commissioner Fry offered Resalution No. PCBA-223 and moved foc its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Co~nmisei.on does hereby grant Varian.~ No. 3435 on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the propertv such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned propezty in the same vicinity; and that strict applfcation of the Zoning Code dspri.ves the property uf privileges enjoyed by other properties in the iclentical zone and classification in the vic3nity and subject to Int•erdepartmental Committee r~commendations. 10/29/84 ~ MINUTES, ~NAHBiM CITY PLANN2NG CnMMI3SSON,« ~CTOBCR i91 1 904 ~4-7~_3 un roll ca11, the foregoing rsoolution wAS Passed by th e following vote; AY~S: BOUAS~ FkY, KING, L~ CLAIRE, MC BURN~Y NO~S: BUSNORE ABSENT: HERDST Commisaioner Buehace dsked at.afE ~a investigate the flags displayed on CrQacent and determine whether or not they ar~ pncroach ing into the right-of.-way. I'rEM N0. 11. EIR CATEGORICAI, EXEMPTION-CLASS 11 AND V]hRIAP7CE N0. 3434~ ?U9LIC HEARING. 04iNERS: CENTURY AMEKICAN CORPORATION~ ATTN: ROGER C. NOBBS ANU DAN J. MUURE, 1428 E. Chapmen Avenue, Orange, CA 9 2 666. Property describ~~c' as an irregul~rly-ahaped parcel of land consisl•ing of approximately 9.5 acces, tiaving A Fcontage o£ approximately 1200 feet on r,he southweat side of Anaheim Nil~s Road, and further described as Tract N o. 10585 (Embasay Pointe). Waiver o~ pormilted days oE diaplAy to retain the displ ay of' ten (10) temporary f1Ags foc a new residential. subdivision. There waa no one indicAting their presence in opp~sitio n to subject request and although the etaff report was not read, it is refe r red to and made a part of the minutes. Dan Moore, agent, was present to answer any queakians. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. It was noted the Planning Director or his authorized r eprese~ita~ive hars determined that the propored projeck falls wilhin the d efinition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 11, as defined in the St ate Environmental Impact Report Guideli~es and is, theref~re, categ~rical].y exempt from the requiremen~ to prepare an EIR. ACTION: Commissionec King offered Resolutiun No. PC84--224 and moved for it~ passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Plannfng Commission does tiereby grant Variance No. 3434 on the basis khat there are spe cial aircumstances applicable to the pcoperty such as size, shapp, topogra;~hy, location and surroundings which do not apply to other identicall} z oned property in the s~.me vicinitys and that strict application of the Z~ni ng G~de deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in th~ identical. zone and classification in the vicinity and subject te Interdepartmental Commiktee recommendations. On roll c~ll, the focegoing resolution Was passed by t he following vote; AYES: BOUAS~ FRY~ KING, LA CLAIRB~ MC BURNEY NOES: gUSHORE RBSENT: HERB5T Commissioner McBurney stated sta~f shauld review the n rdinance to ascprtain whether or r.ot it should be changed and Greg Hastings responded staff is currently reviewing that procedur~. 10/29/84 ~+ ~ ~ MINUTES.,,~ AN1-HEIM C ITY~NING COMMISSION. OCTOBER 29, 1984 84-709 ITEM N0. 12. EIR CAT~GO~ 1~ ~XEMPTIw ON^CLA86 11 AND V11RIl~NCE N0. 3433. PUBLIC HE1-RING. ~WNERS: I.BO PREEDMAN FNT~RPRISE, 468 S. Roxbuty Dcive (PT N), eeverly Hi11A , CA 90212. Property desctibed an iccegulArly-ahapsd parcel of lAnd consiRring of approximAtely d.5 acres located south and east of the south~east corneK of Freedman WAy and Harboc Buulevard, and furthec desc[ibed As 1700 south Harbor Boulevard (Hyatt Anaheim). Weiver oL permitt ed number and type of flaga to retain 25 roof-mounted f].ags. 7'here was no one indicating their pre8ence in oppo~itlon t•o aubject request and although th~ scaff report was nnt read, it is referred to and made a part oE the minutes. Leo Preedman, age nl•, explained the requeat is to ret~in 25 f.lays which were installed lA year s ago and stated the flag~s are well-maintained. ~HE PUF3LIC HEARIN G WAS CLOSEp. Comr~iseioner F3~shc~re stated the approval of all these [lag reque~t is going to create a'circus° AtmospherP in Anaheim. Commiasioner King noted he thoug„t the tlags were pr ~tty. it was noted the planning Directo[ or his suthorized representative has determined that t3~e proposed project falls within the definition of Categocical Exemp tions, Clasa l~, as defined in the State ~nvironmental Impact Report Guideline s and is, theref ore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR . ACTION: Commiss i onec King offered Resolution No. PC84-225 anC moved for its passage and adapt ion that the Anaheim City P2anning Cummiasioil doea tier~eby grant Variance N o, 3433 on the basis thet khere are special circumstances applicable to th~ pro~erty such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings whi~h do not apply to other identically zoned groperty in the same vicinity; a nd that strict applicAtion o£ the Zoning CodA deprives the property af priv ~leges enjoyed 5y other properties in the identical zone and classification in the vic:init,y and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. On roll ca].1, th e foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, e'RY, KING~ LA CLAIRB. MC BURNEt NOBS: BUSHORE ABSENT: HERBST Commissioner Bus ~oce stated he did not think 25 flags is a reasonable request. IT~M N0. 13. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT_REPORT N0. 264 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 187. PUBLIC HEARINC. OWNEItS: RICHARD A. WALLACE, ET AL, P.O. Box 11626, Santa Ana, CA 92711. ~GENT: RUTAN b TUCKER, ~/o James Mcare and Scott Rogers~ P.O. Box 1950, Costa llesa, CA 92626. Property described as approximately 325 acres 10/29/84 MINUTES. AN~HEIM ~ITY PL~NNING COMMISSIUN, OCTOBER 29, 198 ~ H4-710 bounded on th~ north by the Bauer Ranch end Santa AnA Cdny on Road, eaot by the J:vine Company pcaperty, aouth by the Odk tiills Ranch, end weut by tho Anaheim Hills DQVelo~ment Cocpocation pcoperty and the Bauer Ranch _ Amendment to the Land Use Element ~~E the Gen~~al Plan: A1 ter~ate proposalA af ultimate land useA including, but n~~ limtt.ed to Hillaide Eetate Denaity Residential, Hillside Low Density Residential, ttillside Me dium Oenaity Reaidential, General Commeccial, and Genecal Gpen Space. There w~~ one person indi~ating his presence in opposition ko subjec t reque:,t and although the stafE report aas not ceAd, it ia reEerred to and made a part of the minutes. Jay Tashiro, Associate Plnnncr, stated it has been d~termi ned that the Planning L'ommiASion did not have an oppor•unity ko review the Environmental Impact Report; however, no action ic neceNs~cy by khe Comm iosion since khey are unly a recommendiny body in khis action. F~e etated if the Commiaeion wishes to review the re~ort pcior to any acCion, staff wou ld recommend that the act~on for the E1R and ttie ~eneral Plan Amendment bP c ontinued £or two weeks Co the meeting of November 14th, but it ic also rec ommended the p~.~blir hearing be conducted at this time. Chairwoman Pro Tempore La ~laice stated it was nn overeig h t that the F,IR was not submitted to the P1Ar,nirig Commisaion and she aould apo logize for that inconvpnience; however, she Mould not like the idea oE vo t ing on anytning, even if it is only a cecommendation. She ~tated perh~ps i t would be beneficial, however, to the develoE~er to hear from the opp oaition and the Planning Commission. ~ay Tashirc presented the staff rpport hnd stated the proposed amendment ia a p~o~ecty owner-initi~.ted request to change the current de signAtions t~ hilleide estate residential, hillside low-density cesiden tial, hillside-medium reaidential, general commercial, school site and yeneral open space and it is the intent of the applicant to develop a mix oE housing d eneities, neighborhood commeccial and school facilit•iQs inteyrated with an apen space system including an equestrian trail and parks. Jarod Ikeda, 18002 Cowan, stated the owners of Wallace Rar:ch are not developers, but planning of this arta t~ecame an issue wit h the pr~poaed development uf Lhe Oak Hills Ranch and the current de~+elopment of the Bauer Ranch. He presented slides of the area and surrounding r anches and showing the natural drainage, site characteristics of the 325-acr e Parcel, with 1/4 of the site being relatively steep and 1/4 of. the site being relatively flat, the grassland areas and woodlands, proposed ~chaol and park s ites, etc. Rogec Grable, 611 Anton, Coata Mesa, stated he knows the Commigsion and staff has expressed concern over the fact thal- this property is not being annexed ta the City at the present time. He stated tt~ey became invo lved in this process because of the planning that was guing c~n in the areas on either side and felt ic was impartant to bpcome a part of thAt process sc, that the plar~ning coul.d be done in ~z regional context and a11 the decisiuns would be gooc: plannfng ohjectives for all the properties. He sta~ed they are n o t deve].ope:s an~ do not intend to d~velop the property and have held the property for investment 10/29/84 r~~ ~~~~ s • MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLIINNING COMMISSIONj, OCTOBER 29~ 1984 _______,. 84-711 purpoaes end wr~nt to get c apital gain tceatmant on the land, rathor than income tr~c+tment and have b~en very esnaltiva about doing as little as posaible to protect thems elves fr~m the pla~ning atandpoint and not going any further than ncc~~sary an d be.ing characterized AA A d~velaper. He ntated the nexk obvioua step ~f devE 1 opment is annexation baca~~~e this property cannot be developed oxcept in thE C ity of Anaheim. Ne steted therp ia concern becauE~ ~ recent development came i nto the City und ttien was annAxed to another Citys but that they cannot deve 3 op in any other juciediction because they have to hAVe Anah~im's sewor and water facilitiea and poltce And fire protection. Georye Mason, 380 Anaheim Hills Road, Anaheim Hills Deve~opment Carporation, stated the pcoposed Genec al Plan Amendmcnt contemPl~~es the conatruction of 1190 dwelling unita on 13 4.2 acres uf land within 325 acrec ot the Wallace Rancht that the net den~i ty imPlied by those numbe:a is 8.8 units per acre= th~t only 418 uf the lan d area of ttie carch is beiny devuted Co reaidential uaes and the remaining 5 9$ is bei.ng devoted to othec uses, t.he moat siynificant being 32 acre s of general commeccial uae$; thnt a sutastantial nortion oE the Wellace R~ nch l~orders the eastern boundary of the Anaheim Hills Planr.ed C~mmunity wiiich conc{sts oE 4100 acre~, oE which 3100 ~~cres ~re located within the City of: Anaheim and out of that 3100 acr.es, 1891 acres t~~ave been subdivided to date f or residential purpo~ess that withfn that 1891 acrea, thece ace 4644 hauaing u n~ts, pcoviding for a ~et density of 2.46 uni~s per acre; that this means if a).1 tt~e housing tt~at iE in Anaheim Hills today, in that 1891 acres, was ccammed into 52a acres on th~ hillside, it would be the denaity being proposed h e~e at 8.8 unite per acre for the Wallace Ranch. He stated the highest densi t y project wi+khin the Anaheim Hill~ Development is the Rim Crer~t Villas on the corner oE Serrano and Can~+on Rim Road which is 24 dwelling units on 24.G2 9 acres oc a density of 6.43 units per acre; tha t there is a total of 216 dwell i ng units, ~ut oE 4,644 units, aubdivided to date which is less than 50 of the t okal which are At a denaity of 6 plu~ units per acre. He stated ther~ are onl y 40 acces wi.thin the City af Anaheim, of the 3100 acces in the Anaheim Ni.l ~s Planned Community, which have been designated for commeccial purposes. He stated thin latest ~eneral t~lan Amendment applicable ta the Anaheim Hi11s P1 a nned Community aas Genecal Plan Amendment No. 155 and cov~red 952 acres, a su b stantia~ poction immediately wester.ly of the W allace Ranch, and that amendme n t s~xpulated that within the 952 acse~, rl~~z~ shall not be more than '16U9 dw elling units conscructed on 59S acr~s of land, ~r a net density of 4.5 unit s per acre, compared to thia project propo~~d a.: 8.8 units per acre on the wallace Ranch. Concerning the okher u s es, Mr. Mason atated Wallace Ranch is goina to provi.de 31.48 of open space; wh ereas, the Analieim Hills Planned C~mmunity, on their Genecal Plan Amendment No. 155, provided 31.18 of Lheir 952 acres in a pen space and there were 13 ~cres designaled for commercial, uses in Ceneral Plan Amendment 155, and tha t was rec~uced from 16 acres requested, and this request includes 32 acres for c ommercial uses for the Wallace Ranch. He stated the highest density residen tial pr~jects this plan shows is immediately adjacent to their .5 unita per a cre designation within the Anaheim Hills Planned Community and no tcans i tion is provided and immediately north of th~~t is 32 acres of commercial us e s. He stated they feel this is not really good planning and the densi t y and intensity of urbanization of these plans are going to tax, to the absolute limits, the circulation systems and possibly cecLain utflities; tha t the Weir Canyon Traffic study included in the EIR 10/29/84 ~ MINUTES~_ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOFlER 29 1964 84-712 notes on Pdge 8 that wilhout a major connecting road to the aoulh lthe eaetern corridor) the Wafr Canyun Road/Santa Ana Canyon Road intersection will not opecetP at a eatiafactory level, etc. He reviewed other interc~ectiona and traffic counts included in the E1R. !ie atated in Auguat of 1983 when Anaheim Hills Planned Cammunity eppeared before the Planning Commiaeion in eftorta to reeskablish Tr~cts 1,0967 thcough 1Q97E3, it was th~ Foaikion of the City stafE tl~at the ICU At Santa Ana Canyon Road and Imperial and Imperial and Nohl Ranch Road could never oxceed 0.75 because enything in excess of that Eigure would not ~e acceptt~ble, yet tt-ia report states the ICU'a wauld b~e in exceAS of thaC, after the eastern carridor ls in, and lhat chis iQ an acceptr~bJe circulation system lying to the east oi Anaheim Nilla Planned Communil•y. Ne referred to the exhibit nn Page 13-r oE the staff repo[t relating to the residential ac[eages approved which st~ows thQ entire density of urbani~ation ir, changing in the acea and this may be periectly acceptable, but it must be undecatood, Anaheim Hills Corporation could not bui:ld projects that the densitits im~lied undec its General Plan Amendment economically immediately next to densitiea that are better then three times thor,e approved in Anaheim tiills and next to commeccia7 areasF and that it does ch~nqe the maKketing nature of this property and that future requeatQ maX have to come baGk for changes in tt~e land planning that has been done over the past 10 to 15 years and certainly thosE within the laat 5 or 6 yeara. tle stated they recognize, given the atipulation and calculation~ in the staff report, there is aome i~ference that can be drawn that the actual densities to be realized are probat,ly less ~han the -naximums stateds although ttiis was not the ca~e wlt.h [espect to the Bauer Ranch whece evecy one nf tt~e 946 units allowed by the General Pl.an were aclually committ d in ~ubdivision. .Tarod Ikeda s~at~~'' iason's concerns were compatibility of thia propoaed developmN~t witl~ _.~ ~~'°lopment and tca[fic. HE stated he thought it is hard to aw comparir, =_h one piece of property and another piece ot ~roperty i.cause L'.~e circumstances are different; that ~he Wallace Ranch pro~erty is adjacent to the Bauer. Ranch which has a major regional shopping center propased and that shopping center implies very high potential use and in order to properly plan the adjacent uses with that shopping center, they have had to cansider desirability and compatibility of putting low-density next to a regional shopping center. He stated they had tried to sup~ort commercial which lies adjacent to the regional sho~ping center and a parM. which is adjacent to the Bauer Ranch neiyhbochood park and then provide a density that they feel wculd be compatible wfth those commercial uses. I~le stated there is a majar ridge line along the eastern boundary between the Wal.lace Ranch and the Anaheim Hills praperky which provides a very distinct separation between the two; that the Wallace Ranch, Oak Hills Rdnch and the Bauer Ranch properkies probably have the closest relationship because their drainayes are all togethec and they are surrounded by to(~ography whfch creates a bow1. Mr. Ikeda stated they had tu analyze the inarket demands and the market potential ~or housi~~9 in the area and recognizec3 f~n order ta fulfill some of. the go~ls and requicements the General Plan, they had to have enough density to accommoda~.e that need. He stated Mr. Mason's comme~ts relating to the traffic counts were absolutely correct and as part ~f the public facilities plan which was prepaced and is part of the traff~,~~ study, it combined the Bauer Ranch, the Wallace Itanch, the Onk Hills Rhn~!1 and the Anaheim Hills Planned 10/29/84 MINUTES. ~NAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, OCTOBER 29, 1984 8A~7~3 Community and @8~dbl~8h~d a very pr~aise mon~toring progrem which would ellow tl~e Traffic Bngineer to analyze the pha8~s of development. Mr. Grable ~tated they hava concentrAted the nrea of development ~ignifican~ly because this site .is very heAVily impacted wtth public improvementa such as the extenaive rigtit-of-way they w~ll have to pcovid~ for the improvement.s of Weir Canyon R~ad, ar,d providing 19 acrea for sctiool sites, etc. He atsted the quality of developmant can be c~ntcolled through the City's regulations. Ele at~ted also the circumstances of. rhe housing macket are signiEicantly di~ferPnt now thAn they were when ~naheim Nills was developed. He added their contri~ution to the traffic problem will not be very signiL~cant. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOS~D. Joel Fick, Asalstant Lirectoc for Planning, expl~ined the ~taff repoct does addreas every ane of the developmental Lsaues that are addressed in the EIR and each department's comments h~ve bern included and also an analysis of. the EIR wus provided and it ie the scaff and City Attorney's opinion that if the Commiasion desices, based on staff's recommendation, to act on ~hie requeat, it can be done. Commissioner Bushore state~ he would withhold his comments until after he read the EIP.. Chairwoman Pro Tempure La Claice stated ahe thouyht the entire Commission wants to review the EIR before making a rec~mmendation. Jack White stated if the Commiasion wiahes ko take additional public testimany at the next hearing, it ahauld be indicated at thi~s time that the public hearing portion o£ thie hearing wil.l remain open for ~dditional input at khe continued hearing. ~:hairwoman PK~D .~mpore La Claire stated she felt the hearing should remain open. Paul Singec, TrafPic Engineer, stated traffic is going to be a problem with more development, not only of this property, but the Oak Hill~ Ranch, and that he did work with the consultants and developers to develop a mntrix for the development upon approval of the plans and mere specific plans will have to be submitted. He stated the only thing that h.~s not ever been resol.ved to date is the pcoblem of providing ~a ~~dltional arterial link should the eastern corridoc not materilize betr:~ :~ ..~>w and tt~e time this property develops. He stated hia concern is that t z~'-or not be closed by approving developments that would be in the aay of the possible link and that plans should show someplace whak an alternatie route would look like. He stated perhaps this could be resolved between now and the next meeting sir.~, *his matter will be continued anyway. Chairwoman Pro Tempote La Claire explained her concern is that this p;.opert~' is not annexed into the City and there is no intention aE annexing it, evEn though she understands the land investocs xeasons for not wanting to annex at thie kime, but sh~ wauld want to protect this City from the same thing happening that happened with the SAVI property. She stated she could forese~ the probability of such a problem. She added she is also concerned about tbe density and felt it is too high. l0/29/84 MINUTEBi_ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, OCTOHER 29, 1984 84-714 Commiesioner Fry etated he is nnt convinced the t~Affic will be adequately handled nnd ie concerned about th~ denaity bpcauoe it will create additional traffic. Chairwoman Pro Tempore ~a Claire ateted she underatan~o this is a General Plan Amendment and is deaigned primaci~y so that they can beat plan the use of the lAnd, but thia is the higheAt deneity ever approved in that are~. Responding to Chairwoman Pro Tempore Ln Claire~ Jay Taahiro steted 1190 unite is the maximum number ~f units that. could be developed. Commissionec Buahore ~tated that maximum is based on them not getting another General Plan Amendrnent and Another Amendment ~ould be ap~roved to al.law higher dpnsities. HN stated tying a number to thia Appra!~nl is his concern. Pablo Rodriquez, Water EngincerLng Division, City of Anaheim, stated in terms of the Wallace Ranch property owner's cur.rent re~uest versus their original requeat, it would not have a signif~c&nt impact on the water servicea becauae they basically just changed the make-uE~ oE the use. He stated the water cap~cities that were purchased wece bb~ed on th~ General Plan that wa~ adopt ' in 1977, and the concecn the Water Division has t~ad over the past couple of yeacs, wherP there tias been a definite trend of developers coming in with highec densities, is that as gceater densities are built in lhe Canyon area, khere will be a time when perhaps the water that was purchaaed for the 1977 Genecal Plan Amendment would not be sufficient. tle responded to Chairwoman Yro Tempo~e La Claire that it ~s their opinion that there is suEficient water at this time to meet the demands ~E thi» develo~ment. Chairwoman Pro Tempore La Claice ce-Qper~ed th~ public hearing. ACTION; Ch~i.rwoman Pro TemporQ La Clairp offered a motion, secanded by Commissioner King and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Herbsr. absentl that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continue@ to the regularly-scheduled meeting of November 14, 1984. ITEM N0. 14. PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR EXTEl~5I0N3 OP TIME A. CANAITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 1166 and ~645 - Request for a one-yea[ (2-month retroactive) extension of time to retain a bus terminal, a bus storage and repair facilitx, and the incidental rental of autamobiles at 304 Katella Way and 1825 Mountain View Avenue (Fun BuQ). Uave Carpenter, aqent, was present to answer any questions and noted they have added a car rental ope~ation to this f~cility. John Schultz, 1844 Naster, Anaheim, stated he is here to oppoae the deletion of conditione deleting the time extensions because they have had numerous problems with the Fun-eus aperatio~ in the past because of excessive noise and f~mes. He stated it has only been during the last 6 months thal those problems have been resolved and he felt deleting t}~ese conditions now for. th~ review would cause them to start creating the same problems again since they would not have to come before the Planiiing Commfasion every year for review. He referred to pr~vious repArts he has 10~29/84 `' N ' ~ ,~ MINUTE5~ ANAH~IM CITY PLANNING ~OMMISS20N, OCTOBBk 29,_138~1 84-715 filed with the Plannin,q Comminaian concerning ~11 the prub~.ems eince 1977 th~ough 1984 and otated 1984 has been pretty good, but it will only stay that way if he has the help of khe Planning Commieeion and tl~e Code Enforcement 4fficera. Mr. Schultz ceferr~d to the r'Prence in the ~taff report relatinq ta Che incidental te~~tel of auto;nobile~ and statad th~y had a probl~m in the past wiL•h the busea becAUae they do not have placea to store them, so they started atocing them on another pr~pecCy and he then found out they did nat have a permit to park them on that property and that proble~n was reaolved, out ik took 1-1/2 years end now the cars are in and out of that pcope~ty most of the day light houra. Ne asked who those caro belonged t~ and 1f this is the area that is going tu be ueQd. Mr. Carpenter. steted to his knowledge thece have been no compl~ints filed, Qxcc~pt by th.is one gent.lemen~ and he ha~ not reccived any calls or complain~s Ecom anyone clse at the anobilehome park and upon complaint about 6 months ago, he did move al]. the bu3es except three which do not have engines; that t•t~e last bus depacts out oE th~: terminal at 8:00 p.m. and there is one thAt I~~~~~es at S:OU a.m. which is the first departure and none c,f the tranaik buse~s start until aEter 8:00 a.m. Concerning the renta~ automobiles, Mr. Carpenter explained thosp belong to Budqet Rent a Car and there are only at,out 12 vehicles on the property at any one time and they only wash them un khe property and most oF them are stored on Katel].a. THE PUBLIC HEARING WA.S C..~SED. Co~rmisaioner Bu~hore asked if there was a requireme~t in the original use permit that the ~arking be ir. a certai.n area away from the Eence. Mr. Carpentet state~ there are na buse~ in the far lot where the complaints came from and the~~ are all at least 150 feet frum the fence. He stated the cacs are on tt.e east lot and not against the wall. c:ommis~inner eushore aske~ about the incidental rental of automobiles because it sounds like Chey are subleasfng the property for the rental of cars and they ~l~ nat have enough room for all Lheir buse~. Chairwoman Pro Tempore La Claire asked if they are complying with all the cdnditians oE the uae permit at thfs time and if they have a cop.y of thobe conditions. Mr. Carpenter res~.~onded he did not hare a co~y of the conditions with him, but they are in the office; however, he t~as not seen l•hem, but the buses have been moved in compliance with the conditions. He added the bu~es are not cun after 11:00 p.m. Responding to the Commiasion, Greg Hsstings, Associate Plr~nner, stated in the ori~inal appzovr~l o£ Conditional Uae Permit No. 1645 in 1976, there was a requiremen~ for 10 feet nf heavy landscaping adjacent to the west propertx line. ChairwomAn Pro Tempore La Claire stated she remembers there was a requiremeqt because of Che complaints regarding the reeving of the busee in the easly marning hours to warm them up; that they were r~skcicted and v~ere required to use the poztion of the property near Kate2la so it would not impact the mobilehome resident~. Mr. Carpenter responded that the buses hav~ all been moved since then and that lot is now empty, except for the three buses which do not run. 10/29/84 MINUT,,, ~S. ANAHEIM CITY PLANN.ING CAMMISSIONy OCTOBER 29. 1984 84-716 Chairwpman Pro T~mpore La Claire steted Mr. Schultz hao in4lcatad thek foc the last 6 month~ thinge have been better and he wants t~ be assured thia will continue and Chat ia what the Commisaion wants also. Jeck Whike, Aaeietant City Attorney, stet~d the Commiasion has the diacretion Co either grant the extensi~n f oc A given period o~ time And there is no limitation on that time, or they have the right to delete the condition entirely and make it the same as a permit without a time reatricti~n. Comtniasioner Buohore atated an sevetal o~casi.ans when this has come up for rPnewal thece have been other ppople present with the same probleme. He stated he felt this petitioner should be ptovided with a copy uf th~ aonditions. Chairwuman Pro Tampote La Claire s~ated since this has been a problem in the past, this ia one of thoae time3 when the time restrictiun was warranted and it does give the opposition an oaportunity to eay what they ne~d to aay. CommisaiQner King stated he would not w~nt to delete the condition. Commiss~oner Bush~ce atated he would ~till. question whethec oc not the incidenlal use cf cental automobiles is in compliAnce with the original une pPrmit. Greg Ha~tings stated thece was discussion in 1983 whirh re~~uired that no busea be atarted any closer than 50 feet Erum the property line and it was a skipulation of ti~e agent at that time. He stated rhe rental car request had not been inc.luded in the previous use peKmit and it was noted the Commission could not include it at this time. Juck White etat~~ the Commission can only extend what has been previously approved and iE there is some use that was not included, he is in violation of the previous approval and staff has the ability to enforce that rule. ACTION: Commissioner King offered Resolution No. PC84-226 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim C:ty Planning Commission does hereby grant a one-year (2-month retroact~ve) extension of ti.me for ~; Conditional Uae Permit Nos. i166 end 1645 to expire August 14, 1985. On coll call, the foregoing reaolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, aUSHORE~ FRYo KING, LA CI,AIR~,~ MC BURNEY NOES: NONE ABSENT: HERBST ~. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2104 - Request for b one-year (2-mon~h retroactive) extension of time to retain a public dance ha11 a~ 919 S. Knott Street (The FrenGh Quarter). F~atrici~ Beverage, applicant, stated they want a one-year extension of time bnd asked if this one year restriction was granted because of parking. She stated they have taken cate of all the noise proble~ne. THE PUBLIG HEARING WAS CLO5ED. 10/29/F34 $ ~~ ea-~i~ MINUTES, ANAHBIM CITY_PL~NNiNG COMMISSION OCTOBER 29 1964 Chaizwoman hro Tempore Ga Cleice atete~ this is a~ extension of time of a pcevioua conditionol use per.mit, and there heve been problems in tne past and she felt the condition ahould nok be deleted. ACZ_ ~IpN; Commiasioner King offered Resolution No. PC84-227 and moved for ita pa8sage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby gcant a one-year (2-month retroactivel extension of time for Conditional Uae Permit No. 21Q4 to expire September 2, 1985. On roll call, ttie foregoing resolu~ion was passed by the following vpte: ~yEy; BOUAS, BUSHORE~ FnYr hING, LA CLAIRE~ MC BURN~Y NUES: NONE AaSGNT: HERBS'P Commissioner Buahore suggested the agent be given a copy of the conditione because there have bePn problema in the pas~ And explained l•he applicant will have to reapply in one yenr. C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NU. 1969 ^ Request for a one-yeac (1-year retruactive ) extension of time to retain a van conver~ion facility at 183'l Gast Ball R~ad. There was no one indicating their presence in appoaition to subject requeat and although the staff report was not read, it ie refected to and made ~ part of the minutes. Paul Linta, Preci~ion Vans, stated they had no complainta ~ince the original permit was gcanted in 19'19 and would request the time restriction be deleted. TNE PUBLZC NFARING WAS Ci~OSED. ACTION; Commissioner King offered Resolutfon No. PCBA-228 and moved for ita passage and adoption that the Rnaheim City Planning Commissian does hereby deleke Condition No. 4 of Resolution No. PC79-72 pertaining 'to the regui[ed time extensian on the basis khere have been no complafnts and deletion of such time limitation is neceasacy ko permit reasonable operation of the perm3t as granted. On roll call• the foregoing resolution was passed by the followinq vote: AYES: BOUASr BUSHORE~ FRY~ KING~ LA CLAIRE~ MC BURNBY IiQES: NONE ABSENT: HERBST D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2100 - Request for a one-year (1-month retcoactive) exL•ension of time to [etain a drive-though restaurant at 119 West Hall Road (McDonald's) It was noted the app:icant was not present ~nd no complaints have been filed by the neighb~rs. THE PUBLIC HF•ARING WAS CLOSED. 10/29/84 MINUT~S. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, OCTOBER 29 `,198A 8A-718 Commisaioner Rushore stAted he had complained once when there wera paper~ blowing ovet the fence. ACTION: Commiaei~ner King oFfered Resolution No. PC84-229 end moved for ita paseage und adoption that the Anaheim City Plenning Commioeion doee hereby delete Condition Ho. ~1 aE Reaalution No. PC80-126 pertAining to the rRquired time extenslon on the basia that deletion of such a time limitation ia neeessacy to permit reasunable operation undec the permit ae grantp~. On rall ca11, the foregoing resolution was passed by ttie Eollowing vote: AYES: 6UUAS, FRY~ KING, LA CLAIRE~ MC BURNEY NOES: NONE ABSENT: HERBST ABSTAIN: aUSNORE E. CONDITIQNAL USE PERMIT N0. 1883 - Reques~ for a two-year (1-month retraactive) extension of timF to retain on-sAle beer and wine in an existing re~taurant at 1514 We~t Broadway (Pepper Tree Faire). There was no one indicating th~ir pcesence in opposition to subject request and although khe staff report was not read, it .is referred to and made A part of the minutes. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ACTION: Commissioner King offered Resolution No. PC84-23U and moved for its passage and adoption thak the Anaheim City Planning Cammi~sion does hereby delete Condition No. 2 of Resolution No. PC78-205 pertaining to the required time extensiona on the basis that deletion of auch tfine limitations is necessary to permit reasonable operation under the permit as gcanted. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was pasHed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS~ ~USHORE, FRY, KING, LA CLAIRE~ MC BURNEY NOES: NONE ABSENT: HERBST F. VARIANCE N0. 2849 - Request for a one-year (one-month retroactive) extension of time to retain retail sales of sandwiches with a waiver o~ minimum number of parking spaces at 3445 "C" East La Palma Avenue (The a<_g Sandwich). There was no one indicating their presence fn oppositfon to sub~ect requeat and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a pact af the minukes. TH~ PU6LIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. 1G/29/84 MINUT65~ ANAH~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, QCTOBER 29, 19a4 84-71~1 ;~CTION: Commisaionec King offeced Resolution No. PCg4-231 and moved for its passege and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commiss~on does hereby delete Condition No. 7 of Resolution No. PC76-189 pertaining to required time extension on the basis that the del.etion of auch time l~mit~tions is neceasary to permit reaaonable operetion of the permit as gtented. On roll call, the foregoiny resolution was pAased by the following voteo AYES: dOUAS~ BUSHORE~ FRY~ KING~ LA CLAIRE~ MC BURNEY NUES: NON~ ABSENT: HERBST ITF.M N0. 1:. RBPORTS AND RGCUMMENUATIUA'~: A. ANAtfEiM STADIUM AREA S7'UDY-PR~GRBSS REPORT - Information only Joel Fick, ABOistnnt Director for Plannfng, presen4ed the stafE repoxt to the Planning Cammiasion, dated Uctobec 29, 1984, and intraduced John McKenna, Phillipa, Brnndt and Reddick. Mr. McKenna ceviewed the progress of the St~~dium aren and stated they are in the pcocess of assessiny the development po~ential~ boCh ftom a market ~bsorption perspective an~ a service and infra~tructure constraints respective. He stated essentially the study comprises those areas shown in red on the exhibit and ia bounded by two f~eeways (57 and 5) and Ball Road on khe north. He stated they are now in the process of farmulating four alternative land use scenarios that will look at the potential development, range of development, intensity, and changes in us~ And intensification of development in the ~tudy area; and that product will be delivered to the City staEf for their evaluation on November 19th and At that time the City sta~f will analyze those scenarios And report back to the consulCant with respect t~ the servic~s for infrastructures and the ~ity staff review Nill consist of a 3-month period and they anticipate coming back to the Planning Commission and City Council with theic recommendations, based on City staff input, in May of 1985. Chaicwoman Fro Tempore La Claire asked about the assessment districts. Mr. McKenna steted the end product of the recommendation wi11 be a shopping liat From the consultant in terms of various courses of action that are available and certainly assessment district financing is ane that is more significant and pertinent to the atudy area. Mr. t•icKenna stated as evidenced by numerous inquiries to the City staff and project approvals over the past couple of years by the Pianning Commi~sion, there is an increasing interest in the change of use of property within the Stadium area and that has been s~pported by a very thorough market An~lyses and the results of the markQting analysis reenforces their earlier expections of the marketfng potential, the development potential and kransformal•ion of use in this area. He s~ated access to transpoctation is a unique feature of this area with the area being located at the junction of three major freeways and another unique feature is access to a lacge labor force. Mr. McKenna stated they would expect to come back to the Planning Commission with the end product about May 1985, for di~cussion and hearings. ~0/29/84 MINUTES, ANAHEIM Ci'~Y FLANNING COMMISSION. OCTOBFR_ 29y 19` 84 8A-720 Chairwaman Pro Tempore La Claice statod in the nedntime the Commission ahould be vecy ca:eful ~hout wtiat they allow in thie area. B. VARIANCE N0. 3358 - Request from Dave Gillett for a retrodctive extension of time for Variance No. 3358. Property located at the northeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon RoAd and Weir Canyon Road. ACTION: Commissionec Bushore oEfered a motion, secondpd by Commissioner McBucney and MOTION CARRIED (Commis~ioner Herbat absenk), that the Anahe~m City Planning Commiasion does hereby grAnt a one-year (1-month retroactive) extenaion of time for Variance No. 3358 to expir.e October 17, 1985. OTHFR DISCUSSION: 1. Commissioncr DuehoKe asked ta be replaced on the Park and Recreation Commi~eion since he has been secving in that caPacity for about 3-1/2 years and can no longec attend all the meetinge. He explained the Commission me~te on the laat Wednesday of every month at 5:00 p.m. No one was appointed and it wae decided to discuse this at the next meeting. 2. Concerning the Flouaing Department and Affordable Housing Agreements, it was noted that the Hou~ing Ueparkinent was not aware of the project that was discusaed on today's agenda. Chairwoman Pco Tempore La Claire stated tbat department should be notified of these mattecs. Commissioner Bushore sta~ed when the Hou:~i:+g staff is nnt present at the~e meetings, it means the applicant has only talked to them on a preliminary basis. Annika Santalahti pointed out the Housing Department does receive a copy of the Planning Commission agenda. 3. Mini Warehouse Storage. Annika 5antalahti stated the Planning Cammission Felt. it would be appropriate for an amendment to be prepared to make mini-w~rel~ouses a conditiunal use permit and include a parking standard ao that every application for a mini-warehouse would come before the Planning Commission and the Cortunission could con~ider whether or not the use is appropriate far the area witY, a parking standard built in. She explained staff will prepare the amend~~ient. ADJOURNMENT: Thece being no further busines~, Commissioner Boua$ offered a motion, seconded by Commissi~ner Fry and MOTION CARRIED (Commissior~ez HerbaL• absent) that the meeting be a~joutned. The meeting was adjoucned at 6:15 p.m. Respec.~£ully aubmitt~d, ~`- ' • ~ /l~Lt.-L/ ~ ~~-~~ ~ Edith L. Eiarris, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commisaion ELH:lm 0082m 10/29/84