Loading...
PC 1984/11/14REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAEIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIAN REGULAR ~EETING The regular meetir~g af the Anaheim City PlAnniny Commission was called to order by Chairman Harbet at 10;00 a.m., November 14, 1984, in the Council Chamber, a quurum being pceaent and the Commisaion reviewed pl~ns of thR ithmA on today's agenda. RECESS: 11:30 a.m. RECONVENED: 1:30 p.m. PRE5ENT Chairman: HerbsL Commissionets: Qouas, euahore, Fry, K~ng.• La C181re, McBurney ABSENT: Commissioner: None ALSO PRESENT Annika SAntalahti Joel Pick Jack White Jay Titu~ Paul Singer JaX TashLra Greg Na$tings Pam Starnes Aasiat~nt DiGector tor Zoning ARSietant Director for Planning Assistant City Attocney Gffice Engineer Traffic Engineer Associake P~anner AssociatQ Planner Planning Commission Secretary Pro Tempore ITEM N0. l. EIK NEGATIVE DECLARATIQN, RECLASSIFICA'rION NO. 84-85-A (REAAV.), WAIVF.R OF CODE REQUIREMENT, AND CONQITIONAL USE P~RMIT N0. 2605 (READV.) PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: CHESTER PETERSAN & HEVERL~Y ANN COMPTON~ 327 N. Shattuck Place, Ocange, CA 92666. Propecty described as an icregularly-sha~ed parcel of land consisting of ~p~roximately 4.4 acres located nocth and west of the northwest corner of Ln Palma Avenue and imperial Highway. Keclassification from R3-A-43,QOOtSC) to CL(SC). To permit a multi-screen indoor theatre and a 47-foat high semi~enclosed r.estaurant with on-sale beer and wine and with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Continued from thp meetinga of August G, 20, September 17, flctobec 1, 15 and 29, 1984. There were two people indicating their presence in oppasition to suaject requeat and although the staff [epott was not read, it is ceferred to and made a part of the minutes. Bruce Sanborn, 13 Corporate Plaza, Newport Aeach, said they are the applicant in that they propose to lease the land in question and develop a movie theatre und sublease a pad on which a restaucant will be constructed. He said they proposed to build a multi-:~t:~aen thebtre wir.h 1800 seata. 721 11/14/84 MINUTBS, ANANEIM GITY PL~NNING COMMISSION. NOVEMHER 14, 1984__ 84-722 Mel Kapson, Vice Pcea.ident of Mercucy Savings, 7812 Edinger ~venue, Huntington Beach, stated he had a letter to distribute to the Commisgion and th~t he h~d given a copy to Mc. Sanborn. Mr. Kapson read r.he lettec and ~ copy is on file in th~ rlanning Department. He also stated tL~~ hed nol• learned of this project until e few days a~o. Commissionec HP.C~Ft a:.k~~d why thQy hed not been noti.fied. Greg Haatings, A,aeociete Plannec, stated thAt notification goea to the property ownec and that the pcoperty owner w~+s notified kwice. He atated the property was poated and tt~e item was advertised in the newepaper. He also statRd staff hacl met with repceaentatives Ecom Mercury Snvinga in the pest few monthet however, he did not know their namea. Mr. Kapson stated he was only c+w~re of one m~eting which wAS hel.d wit.h Mr. Singer five or six montha ago regarding the median stri.p on LA Palma Avenue. Paul 5ingec, Traffic Engineer, AAid he hbd met with re~resentAtives from Meccucy Savinga on three occasi~ns. tle said he met one L•ime with Mr. Kapson and twice with Mr. Kapson's son or son-in-law, He said they discuesed the theatce and Knollwood's Resta~rant. tfe said there wer.e qu: ^+a ~ew things that had not been resolved at the m~etings. Russ Wilaun, Managec of Sutherland Lumber Company, 5635 E~ La Palma Avenue, eaid they were opposed to this pcuject becauae oE the tremendous amount of traffic thAt cuc~entlY exists due to their awn busine~s. He eaid they feel that this type of us~ would create a greater bmount of traffic and impacC their cuatomers r~s well as the normal f.low oE trafEic on La Palma Aven:~e and Imperial Highway. He said the traffic at the intersection La ,lma Avenue and Imperial Highway atar~ing Araund 4:00 p.m. is a complete mese and nothing nas been done to reaolve this problem. Eie said the addition of the theatre will only increase trafffc and possibly create a sa~ety problem. He said they aid have a. meeting with Hr. Singer and thF people developing the theatre and no cnnclusion to the problem was reached. He eaid wikh the theatre in the back, and more traffic going in and out, it is just going to make it that much harder far people that might want to shop at their loc:ation or ga to the reataurant or theatre. He stated they alao were concerned about possible vandalism to their pcoperty with a Cheatre next door. Mr. Sanborn said they present].y have a place in West Covina with Mercury Savings next door, and they have been very goad neighors. He said he felt Mercury's main concerns wece with tt,e cestaurant h~ight, being located right next door to them, and the trash beinq so clc~se. He st.ated they sAw no reason why ttiese issues could not be resolved. Commissioner La Claire arrived at 1:40 p.m. Mr. Sanbocn atated that Mercury Savings preferred that the restaurant be located nocth of the existing ones however, that idea had been discu~sed and rejected by staff becauae of tr.affic prob.lpms. He said he had communicated this to Metcury Savings. Commissioner Herbst aaked Paul Singer if he had any comments. 11/14/84 M~NUTES, ~N~HEIM CITY PLANNING CGMMISSION, NOVEMBER 14. 1984 d4-723 peul Singer said ~t tlie timo they were working w~th the traC[ic consultants and the Sanborn representativea, it was decided thet thie layout m~de fo: the most eEflcient pezking. Commiesionec Herbet askod if the applicant hnd applied fur acceas to Imperia.l tlighwe~y. Paul Singer said the traffic consultant Eor tho Applicant, Linscott, Lnw and Greonspan, had made tentative contact with CALTRANS. Paul Singer eaid, unfortunately, CALTRi~NS told them they would not talk to anyone until Lhey talk to the City and thQ City saye they first heve to talk to CALTRANS. Ne aaid because oE thie it waa our recommendation that the City consider this with the ~ccesa to imperial and then condi~ion it in surh a manner so th~t CALTRANS would have to give a~proval pcior to the Acceas point being ingtalled. He ~aid in thin way, CALTRANS hae the Cil•y's nod. Cor.~miesioner McBurnPy asked applict~nt i.f he had any contact with the State reyacding sccesa to Imp~rial and if thece wa~ any timo period when he mi.ght• receive an onswer. Mc. Sanborn said his consultent had made contact and lie would Ask him ta speak. Don Rarker, Gin!zcott, Law and Gceenspan, 150 ':." Paulacino, CostA Mesa, stated ttiey have submitted to Mr. Rosenthall, Area T:nfEic ~;ngineer fuc CAZTRANS, a copy of both the site plans, and the plane Eor improvements of imperial Hi~hway that included a cight-turn in and rf.qht-turn out, as well as the information cegarding the median ieland modification that Mr. Singer had discussed with them at a meetiny regacdiny the problems foced on La palma Avenue. He said CAI.TRANS maps curcently provide for reRtrictions along Imperial Highway= however, Mr. Rasenthall informed khem that when the City approves this project and an encro~chment pecmft is applied for showing access on Imperial Hfghway, thPy will be forced to make a decision. H~ r~aid we should note that on the right-of-way plar.s for Imperial Highway, access has been given to the shopping centec on the southwest cocner via a throat-type control by CALTRANS, with an opening to the shopping cent~r parcel. He noted that the La Palma Avenue median plans wace to solve exis~ing and future tcuEfic pcoblema in that area. He also stated that in their ceport, they recommended to Mr. Sanborn that if at all possi5le, a common joink property line driveway be negotiated with Sutherland Lumber Com~any to provide for better controlled acceas to both parcele. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissionez Fry asked the consultant if Suthecland Lumber Company had been contactecl regarding shacing a drive and the consultant thought they had. He said Mr. Pettis would be able to answer that. Mc. .pettis of Grubb & Ellie said they have had discuseions with Sutherland trying to come to a solution reg~arding a common driveway and so far have had a negative cesponse. 11/14!84 MxNUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMI~SION, NQVEMBER 1 4. 1980 8~-724 Commiseioner Bushore noter~ tha1t rhe configuration of tho pla~na diapleyed on the wall were different than tt~o ones in the Commiseion packet, And said he could aee whece Mercucy Savinc~~ could tiave been led asttay becauea oE thi~e if they had nut come to ttie meetis~g today. He said the pldna on ~ho wall etiould b~ consiatont with the plens t~ney recE•ived. He also nated there should be a drop-oEE point foc parenta to leave their childron ou t eo go tu the moviea. Commieaioner Herbst asked wha t the diffecence woulcl be between ttiie type of kreffic end induetrial use trA f~ic. Paul Singec said the kotal vo] ume of trr~Efic would probably be lower if it wer~ an indu~trial developmen t like warehouses oc man ufactu~ingt h~wever, he said thAt th~ae buildings on f tontages roads seem to become retail many timeg and therefoce, the trafflc impact aould b~ equal or greater than a thestre type oE use since retail uae i s gr.e~tet during thP day hours wherea$ a theatce impack is usually in r_he Even i ng• Ge~eg Haetings informed the Corami8sion that staff in the offica had received revised hnuKS for the theatre to read: 12:00 noon t o 11:30 p.m~ weekenda, 6:30 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. weekd ays and that the aemi-e nclosed YeBhd~!r.A~t would be open seven days a week from 10;30 a.m. ko 9;00 p.m. Mr. Sanborn safd that when ch ildren arr out of ech~o 1, they are normally op~n during the day. Commiseioner eushore told app2lcant that ~~ ~~ ''•patre and restautent would be tied to the hour3 stated in tt~e conditional ~.~ :.armit mnd Mr. Sanborn said they wece not awaze oE that. Commissioner La Claire said h e should be sure of wha t houra he wants put into the conditiona] use permit. She stated she was AlAO agains t high atructures in the Scenic Corridor area and nated the Commisaion had beer. quite £irm on this issu~. Considerable discussion ensue d And it was the consen sus of the planning Commission that Mc. Sanborn st~~~uld ask £or a continu~nce and meet with his neighbors ~in ocder. to resolv e the problems addcesaed here today and then retur.~ with reviasd plans. Mr. Sanborn a~ked the Commiss ion to pleace clarify and give him directions on their areas of concern. Commiasion noted the t'olloMing; 1, They dicl not like the del ivery entrance and trash for the restaurant ad jacent ko the main driveway serving the theatre, cestaurant and Mercury Savinqs. 2. They needed a drop-off area for the tr~eatre. 3. They were concerned abou t th~ restaurant heigt~t. 11/14/84 MINUTES, AN~H~IM CITY PL~NNING COMMISSION, NOVBMBER 14i 1y84 _84-725 4. They were concerned with the circulekion from oEf••aite to on-site cegacdiny the number and lacation of drivewaye on La Palmn Avenue, and woulc] like to have them get toqether wit h Mercury Savinga and Sutherland Lumber CompanX to negotiate the placemen t of the drivewaya. 5. ~hey would like to know whece the outdoe r seating £or the cestauzant was propoec~d. AC'rION: Cammiasioner Bushore offered a mot i on, socond~d by Commissioner McfiurnQy and MOTION CARRIED, F.hat conslderat i~on of the aforementioned matter bQ continued to khe cegularly-sch~dulNd mee t ing of Decembec 10, 1984, sa petitioneK could meet with h~s n~ighbors enci aubmit cr.vised plana. I'rEM NU. 2. EIR CA'PEGORTCAL ~XEMPTInDI-CLASS 3 AND VARIANCE N0. 3427 PUBLIC HEARING. OWt•JERS: GR~1ND CARE, LTA., 1060 - 8th Avenue, 5uite 405, San Diego, CA 92101. AGENT: DAVIp LUCAS, 2829 Canon Street, San Di~go, CA 921U6. Property described as an irregularl y-shaped parcel oE land consisting of approximarely 0.89 acre, 20A0 South Eucl i d Straet (G[and Cace Canvalescent Hospital). Waiver of minimurt~ sGructutal setback to const.ruct an entrAnce canopy. Continued from the meeting of October 1.5, 1984. AC~ION: Commiaeionec Mck3uxney offeced a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bc+uas and MOTION CARRIBA l•hat consideratio n of the aforementioned matter be withdrawn at the petikionec's cequest. ITEM N0. 3. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CO~DITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2619 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: SCONONY HOBILE O I L COMPANY~ ZNC., 17822 Eest 17th Street, Tustfn, CA 92680, ATTN: H. C. ERI CSON AND MRS. ANNE HENNING PAULUS, ~ast Lake Shore, Big Fork, Montana 59y1I. Pro~etty described ag an ircegu~arly-shaped parcel of land conaiatirsg oE approximately 0.63 acre, located at the southeast corner of .Lincoln Avenue and Rio Vista Street, and Lurthec described es 2800 East Lincoln Ave n ue (Mobil 011). Request to permit convenience retail sales in an existing service station. Cuntinued from the meetings of October 15 a nd 29r 1984. ACTION: Commissioner King offerQd a motio n, aeconded by Commisaioner Fry and MOTION CARRIED that considecakion of the a f o[ementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of Novemb e s 26, 1984, at the request of ~he bpplicant. ITEM N0, 4 WAS HEARD AFTER ITEM N0. 10. 11/14/84 MINU~~S ANAHEYM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIQN NOVEMBER 14 1984 84-726 ____.. .... . ~,., .,~...m,~~r nvrr.ionTrhN AND cONDITIONAL U8E_ PBRMIT N0. 2599 PUBLIC HEI~RING. OWNER: COMMONWEJ-LTH FINANCIAL (:ORPORA~'ION, P. 0. Box 76478, Los An~elea, CA 90076. AG~NT: UNITED SUITES OP AMERICA, INC., 450 Newport Canter Drivn, Newport Reach, CA 92660. Pcoperty desct~bed aA An irreyularly-sha~~ed parcel of lAnd conaieting o~ approximately 6.34 ACC@B located at the aoutheaat cornec of Fror.tera Street and Glassell Stceet. Continued fram the meeting of October 24, 1984. There was no one indicating tt~eir preaence in oppusition to aubject requeat and although the stAff report was not read, it is referced to and made a part oE the minutes. Robert F. Fuller, 848 N. Ameliu, 5an Dimas, Cali[ocnia, said he was hece requesting approval of a 29-foot high industrial staraqe builcling thut w~uld be uaed in conjunction with a hot~l they are planning. He noted they own sevecal hotels and this would be a good place for stocage. He said h~.s boes would also be stocing eome of his personal belonginys in thig building. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CL.OSED. Commissioner Bouas a~sked if they plan only to store hotel and pecsonal iteme. Applicant said that was their curcent plan, bui: they neve~ tie property to one particular use Eoceveri howevec, since they are currently renting storage, he eaw n~ reaeon why they wouldn't keep it foc that. Commiesioner Bushore asked why it had to be 29-feet hiyh. Applicant said that was what his boas wanted. Commissionar Bushoc~ said he would need aome justification to approve a 29-fo~t high structure. Commisaionec Hecbst asked what type of building it would be• ~+pplicant said it would be concrete with 29 foot hiyh sides~ an~ a flat [oof which will be deQreased so neighbora should be botheced by it. Commissioner Herbst asked what the height was inside the building and applicant said approximately 24 feet. Several of the Commissioners indicated they did not aee anything wrong with the cequested hQight. Commissionec King asked if they could act on both issues witt~ one reaolution. Jack White~ AssiBtant City Attorney, responded they cauld. ACTION: Commissioner King offered a resolution and r~esulution FAILRD TO CARRY to amend PYanning Commission Resolution No. PC84-147 to waive the maximum structural height aad amend Condition No. 21 on the basis that the proposed modification wa~s necessary to pexmit reasonable operation under the conditional u~e permit as gra~~ted. 11/14/84 MINUT~S, ~NAHEIM CITY PLANNSNG COMMISSION~ NOVEMBER 14, 1984_ _ 84-12~ Commi~sionec ~c Cleire aeked if they were voting on the weiver only. Jack WhiGe ateted they were amending the previouo reeolutian that approved previous waiver nnd conditional u8~ permit and nrR Amendi~g thnt reaolution in two waye: (1) amending the waiver portion of the cesolution to ~llow 29 and G6 foot hiyh buildinge and, l2? amending Condition No. 21 to refer to rovised plena by a Reviaion No. ~ of Exhibit 12 which shows the buildings with their increASed buildi.ng height. Commiseioner I~a Claire said she would .like one of the c:ondiki~na to be that thiu buildinq could not be rentcd and that it be for the use of the hotel and cestaurant only. Commisaioner Bushore staked thia was one of th~ reasons he wac~ concerned about the building height. A~plir.ant said he did not want to be involved if thsy added khat condition as his boss may want to store peroonal items in the building. Commissioner Boua~ said tliat wa~ not llke ~enting it out. Applicant said his boss was uaually fn joint partner ventures and Chat the people who own the hotel will not own the cestaurant ~r thie building and said this ie why he did not want the added condition. Commisoioner Lb Claire :~aid that wao one of the thinge they were afraid of. Commiesioner Herbst said he did not feel thio building was out of line. Commissioner Herbst called for the quesl•ion. On roll call, the Eoregoing reaolution FAILED TO PA~S by lhe following vote: AYES: FRY, HERBST~ KING NOES: BOUAS~ BUSHORE~ LA CLAIRE, MC BUFtNEY ABSENT: NONE Commissfoner La Claire offered resolution including all that was included in Commissioner King's Kesolution with the additional condition that the use of the indu~trial storage building be only for the use of the hotel and restaurant and this would include other hotels that they own, but no leasing or renting to Anyone else. Applicant said he would rather withdraw request for the 29 foot building and go wikh the 20 foot building so they cauld use it anyway they chose. Commiesioner La Claire noted there was a re~olution on the floor an~ it should be voted on. " ~an Hetbst called for Lhe question. 11/1~/84 MINUT~S, AN~NBIM CITY PL~NNING COMMISSION, NOVF.MBBR 14. 1984 84-728 On roll cal1, the foregoing resolukiun FAILEp TO P~SS by the follnwing vote: AYES: BQUAS~ LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY NOES: BUSHORE~ FRY~ H?RBST, KING A6SENT: NONE Chuirman Her~n~ said that to build the building will cost e lot of money and hR did not think it fair to say khat ik could not be rented at a later ~ate. Commiesioner Herbst ofEered the eame resolutlon that CommiesionNr King offe;ed indicating the same findings. On roll call, the foregoing re3olution FAILED TO PASS by the following vote; AY~S; FRY, HERBST, KING NOES: BOUAS, BUSHORF, LA CLAIR~, MC DURNEY ABSENT: NONE Chairman Herb$t offered Resolution No. PC84-232 and moved for il•s passage and adoption that th~ Anaheim City Planning Commission doeA herebx deny Conditional U~e PPrmit No. 2599 on the bASis that the proposed modiFications are not necessary to pecmit reasonable operation under the conditional uae permit as granted. On roll call, the foregoing re~olutlon was pasaed by the following vate: AYES: BOUAS, BUSHOREi FRY~ HERBSTi KING, MC 6URNEY NOES: LA CLAIRE ABSENT: NOtaE Jack White, Asaistartt City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal :~.he Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City CounciZ. Commissioner Bouas left the Council Chamber. RECESS: 3:00 p.m. RECONVENE; 3:10 p.m. ITEM N0. 5._ EIR NEGATIVB DECLARATION. WAIVER Ofi CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2631 PUBLIC HEARING. UWNER: PACESETTER HOMES, INC.~ 45A0 Campus Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660. AGENT: CALMARK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, 2121 Cloverfield eoulevard, Y. 0. Box 2128, Santa Monica, CA 90406. Property described as a rectangular~y-shaped parcel of land consisting of appsoximately 5.13 acres located at the noctheast cocnec of Santa Ana Street and Citzon Street, further deaccibed as the southerly portion of the formet Fremont Junior High School playfield. Request to permit a 1~6-unit affordable s~nior citizen's apartment complex with waiver of required type of parking spaces. Continued from the meeting of October 29, 1y84. 11/14/84 f ~~ i / / MINUTES. ANAH~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIONf NOVEMBER 14. 1984 84-729 There wds no one ~ridicet~ng their preeence ~n opposition to eub~ect roquesk and although the staff ceport was not read, it ie refecred to And made a part of the minutea. Neil Singer, project Manager of Calmark ~QVelo~ment Corporation, 2121 Cloverfie.td Boulevard, Sant~ Mon~ca, sAid they are proposiny a 196-unit eenior c:ltizen apactment complex on the northeaflt corner of Sr~nta Ana Street and Citron Street (the southec].;~ poct~on af the former Premont Junior High ~choal PJ.ayfipld). At the pctober 29th Plann.ing Commiesi.an meeting, the Commi.esf.oners voi.ced their items of concern and the hoering waa continued to today's meeting. He safd they have subsequently met with staff and eite p:ans have been revised to meet the concerna of the Commission. 7'HE PUBLIC H~ARING WAS Ci.OSED. Commi$si~ner Mc6urney aaked if they had lost any units after revising their plans. Applicant said l•hey reduced the open space area for each apartments therefore, there w~-s no loos of untts ar parking spaces. Commissioner McBurney asked tf appltcant had seen a aopy aE the commenta ~rom the Senior Citizen Commission regarding the parking. A~plicant stated he had attended the meeting, but had not aeen any dra.ft comments. Commissionec McBurney said they had made two commentsf (1) they would like the parking spacea for senior citizen projects to be 100~ open and unass•tgned and, (2) that the one-bedroom units be cequired one pz~rking space per unit tnstead of 0.8 per unit as propoaed by the ordinance w{-ich would provide an addi.tional 39 parking opaces. Comm~~s~.oner King noted the above had been approved by Paul Singer, TrafEtc Engtneer. Commi.sstoner Herbst said he would like to know why they wanCed unassigned parki.ng spaces. Greg Hustings, AssociutQ Planner, stated he had attended the meeting and the ceason was that they felt it wou.ld be snfair for some seniors tio have to park further away from their units than other aeniors. He said they indicated, but did not mak~ any~ recommendation~, that the on~y assigned parking should be the State of Cali.fornfa Handicapped spaces. Appli~aant said they had proposed the Handicapped spaces b~ assigned. He also stated the reas~n the seniors did not want covered pack.ing wa~ f.or security reasons and thrat the Police Department had concurced. Commissionsr eushore stated he felt if they moved the rec~eation area closer to the Police Department, it would help buffer the sound from the Police cars. Applicant stated that with the revision of the circulatton system, the strip would provide an additional buffer as well as a 6-foot block wall that wi.ll be conskructed on the e~st pcoperty line. 11/14/84 MINUTEB, ANAHEIM CITX PLANNING CQMM_ ISSION~ NOVEMB~R 14, 1984 84-730 Commtseionec Herbst wented to be sure everyone was aware the Pnlice Department would be relocating their heliport pad. He als~ ronfirmed the project would meet the new 55 yeer age ldw goi~g .in~o oEEect January lst. Jack White, Assiatant City Attorney, atated that was correct because the pcoject was over 115 un~ts. Ne said you meet the senior citizen reguirementa at ~ge 55 if the complex is over. 115 unita and at nge ti2 if the complex is under 115 unita. Comm~e~ioner La Claire atated she would like to have infocmation regarding the noise factor given to all those coming to rent an apartment since senior ci,tlxens are on a limited budget and ~t wnuld be too expensi.ve for them to move in and f.ind they cnuld not live with the noise and have to move out agatn. Applicant stated he wnuld be willing to notify them in writing about the noise fact•or by including it .in the cental Agceement. Comm~ss~on~r Herbst expresaed his concecn about the packtng requirements w~l•h the change of sentor citizan age by khe State from 62 ta 55 becauae of tl~e a~ount of ~eople still driving at 55. He noted in many cases both hu3b~nds and wives are still working. Paul S~nger stated this was an area of concern, although he did not have any statistics on this at the pr«aent time, buk did feel the 55 year age made this c~mplex like any othec complex. Applicant nuted the parking provi.ded in this project is 0.8 Eor one-bedroom and 1.6 for two-bedrooms. He ataCed the project at Gilbert and 8a11 Road with ages being 57 years have 1.6 spaces pQr unit thraughout the enttre sike. ACTION; Commissioner. King offered a motion, aeconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bouas a5sent) that the Anaheim City Pla~ning Commission has reviewed the proposal to pec~~~it 196-unit affardable senior citizen's apartment complex with waivers of the required type of ~arking spaces on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land cons~sting of approximately 5.13 acres located at the northeast cornec of S$nta Ana Street and Citron Street; and does hereby apprave the Negotive Declaration upon finding that it hae c~nsideced the Negative Declaration together with any comments recei.ved during the public review pcocess and fucther finding on the basis of the In.it~al Study and any comments recetved that there is no aubatAnttal ev~dence that the project will have a s~gnificant effect ~~n the environment. Commissioner King o£faced a mot.ton, seconded by Commissioner E~erbst and MOTION CARRIED (Cammissioner Bouas ~bsent) that the ~nahe~m City Planning Comm~ssLon doe~ hereby grant waiver of Code sequirement un the basts that it would give security protection for tenants and that the pArk~ng waiver will not causE an increase ~n ttaff~c congestion in the ~mtnediate vicinity noc adversely affect any adjaxning land uses and granting of the parking wa~ver under the condit.ton~ ~mposed, if any, will rYOt b~ detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welf~re of the citf~ena of the City of Anaheim. 11/14/84 MINUTES, AN~HEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, NOVEMBER 14, 1984 84-731 Commisaioner King offered Re~alukion No. PC84~233 and moved ~or ita paseage and adopt!,on thet the Anehei,m City Plann~ng Commisaion doee hereby grant Conditional Use Permik No. 2631 subject to petitioner'e atipulation to includ~ lnfarmation regArding the surrounding naiae in the renkel agreement ~nd tha~ there will ba parking apaces mark9d for the Handicapped a~~d pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Codo Sections 18.0~.030.030 thruugh 18.03.030.035 and subject to Interdepartmental Committee r.ecommandatione. On roll call, the Euregoing cesolution was paeRed by khe follcwing vote: AX~S: HERBST~ KING~ LA CLAIRE~ MC BURNEY NOES: BUSHORE~ ~RY ABSENT; 80UAS ITEM N0. 6. ENVIRO~MENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 264 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 187 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: RICHARD A. WALLACE, ET AL, P.O. Box 11626, Santa Ana, CA 92711. AGENT: RUTAN & T~~CKER, c/o James Moore and Scott Rogers, P.O. dox 1950, Coata Mesa, CA 92626. Property described as approximately 325 acres bounded on the notth by the pauer Ranch and Santa Ana Canyon Road, east by the Irvine Company property, south by the Uak Hills Ranch, and west by the An~heim Hflls Develo~ment Corporation praperty and the ~auer Ranch. Amendment to the Land Use F.lement of the General Pl.an: Alternate proposals of ultimate land uses including, but not limited to Hillside Estate Density Residential, Hillside Low Density Residenti~l, Hillside Medium Density Kesldentibl, General Commercial, and General Open 5pace. Conl•inued from the meeting of October 29, 1984. ACTION; Commissioner King offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fry and MUTION CARRIED (Commissionec Bouas ab~ent) that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of November 26, 1984. ITEM N0. 7. EIR N0. 267 (PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED, GENERAL PLAN AMENllMENT N0. 196, RECLASSIFICATION N0. 84-85-12. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2636 AND R~QUEST FUR CITY CAUNCIL TO REVIEW RECLASSIFICATION AND COHDITIONAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: CITY OF ANAHEIM, 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805, Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 10.5 acres located at the northwest corner of Taft Avenue and Wrangler Trail, 2790 East Ball Road. GPA l~b: To change the current genecal open space to general industrial to devel~p the study area for use as an automobile sale.s center. RECLASSIFICATION: RS-A-43,OQ0 to ML. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: To permit an automobile sales center. There were several indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a pa~t of the minutes. 11/14/84 MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION,_ NOVEMBER 14, 1984 84-~32 Jay Tdshiro, Asaociate Planner, atal•Rd there weKe thcee City-initiated items before the Commi9aion today= (1) Genecal Plan Amendment No. 196 to Amend the lend use and open spACa elemont fcom the current general open space designation to genecal industrial, (2) requesl• for reclassification of su~ject prop~rty from RS-A-43,000 (Res~dential, Agriculturel) xone to ML (Limited, IndueCrial) Zone and (3) approval of Conditional UsE permit No. 2636 to permit an a~atomobile sales center. It Ahould b~~ noted by the Commiaeion that the ~:ity Council certified uIR No. 267 foc the aubject proposal on Octobec 23, 1984. He stated the area is cucrently vacant and consists of an evacuated pit focmecly mined for band and gravel. He said ~he site wa3 purchased by the Cil•y of Anaheim in .1975, and wa» intended to be used for landfi.ll consistiny of construction related wastet however, the site was never uaed foc landfill ond ha~ remained vacant in the interim. He stated thP site is pre~ently contem~lated for leas~ by the City Eor an automobile dealership, ~nd th~ purpoae of the propoeed project is to obtain revenue £or the City without imposing additional taxes, fees And assessments. He said reven~ies received by the City from the sales tax and 1Qase will ~rovide funds for public services and facilities. Donna Mackiewicz, (did not g~ve an address), Conservation Chairperson for lhe Sea and Sage Audobon and cepresenting Anaheim residents also o~posed to the development, stated they fell this site had great biological significance and that there were 50 to 75 species of birds using this site, notably the Yellow Headed Black bird which ne3ts nowhiece else i,n Orange County. She said thece are numerous mammals, two species of fish in the pond and riparian flora, and that this was the last remaining wetlands habitat open in Anaheim so they felt the City should be preserving it. She said the EIk showed site at dtyest conditions due to the grading of the Burcis sand pit that controls the water level. She submitted two photographs Eor review taken May 1982, showing the caised water levels and vegetation. She stated there was r-o place for the species t~ go. She also submitted a petieion with 100 signatures. Bdith Hoagc, 1617 N. Shaffer, Orange, California, noted that the latest i.ssue of the National Geographic had a larqQ portion of the magazine devoted to water fowl und the survival problem. The major concern oF this article was the lnss of thousands of ~cces of small ponds necessary for the survival of water foul. Nancy Hollis, 1715 S. Nutwood, Anaheim, skated a lot of scouting troops use this wetland area to study and eacn merit badges. She expressed concerti about how the City intends to fill the area because oF underground water flow. She also noted the fact tl,ak three oE the car dealerships were cvrrently operating in Anaheim, so felt we wouid not be getting a significant increase in revenue by their relocating to another. area. She suggested the City might look into purchasing the old dump site south of the 91 Freeway between Kruemer and Tustin which ia owned by the County. 11/14/84 M~NUTE&. ANAHEIM CITY Pi•ANNING COMMISSION. NOVEMBER 14,.1984 ~_,,,,84-733 Chuck Werner, 2548 ~. Geltd, st~ted that he has apent time, along with e few thoueand othet penple, g~ing down the 5anta Ana River trdil ~nd noted this piece of land was like d gceenbelt ecea and ahould be preaerved. Ne alao nated he hae apent many hours stu~ying bicds at thie locdtion and has i,dentified 54 species. He noted this was the only pla~e along the river that was undisturbed. ' Ken Meas, (did not give add[~esa), a Newport eeach reaident, sLated he has a constcuction ynrc] next to the proposal and has noted for the past 4 to 5 yeare the water level has gone up and down, and i.n another L•hree months a big change could be noted in the area. Ne satd befoce anything was dane with this eite, it ahould be oboerved during the wet season. Cecelia Bebek, 1127 N. Chantilly, said she And her sister were the ones thAt got khe names on the petition. She said even though they did only about one-thicd oE the neighborhood, 958 of the people did not want the area disturbed and did nat want a car agency or the aigns and traffic that car agenciea wo~tld brinq. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CL~~SED. Commisaioner Bouas returned to the Council Chamber. C~mmissioneG Bushore stated that there were new car dEalers taki,ng the place of the dealera moving to the new location. Thi~ would give us additional r~venue ftom the ne~w car sale~ as well as the exi.sting car sales. Commissioner Bu3hoce Rtated that {le was also looking at it frorn the fact that he fs on the Parks ~nd Recreati~n Cammission and he knows the budget constraints and said they are inftiating more and more innovnrive ideas just to keep the curcent park programs open in the City to provide recceation for our citizens. He also noted that the City is currently liable for any problems that occur on thic~ property. He stated he would be happy to so.licit input from the Parks and Recreation Commi~aion if the Commission was interested. ACTION: Commissioner King off~red a motion, secnnded by Commissioner Fry and MOTI~N CARRIED (Commissioner Bouas abstaining) that the rertification of EIR N0. 267 by the City Cc+uncil has been reviewed and is conaidered the final EIR N0. Z67 and adopts Statement of Overridin9 Consideratior.s: Staff is oresently studyin~ po~sible locetions for establishment of a•wetlands' habitat comparable to the project site. TF~is would provide a miti.gation measure which may be acceptable to the Army Corps of Engineers, Uo S. Fieh and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fi~h s Game. At the present time staff has not determined whether sites evaluated in the EIR will prave to be aCCeptable to the Corps or financially feasible to be utflized for that purpcse. Staff therefore recommends that lhe Planning Commissfon make the ffndings indicated, 3n the staCf report as Item C on Page 7-D. 11/14/84 MINUT~S. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING GOMMISSION NOVEMBER lA 1984 84-734 Commisaioner King offered Reeolution No. PC84-234 and moved Eor ira pAesage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commiasion does heredy grdnt Genecal Plan ~mendment No. 1~6 on the basis that the area would be campatible with the exieting general inauatriaJ deai.gnetion oE the surrounding area. On roll call, the foregoing reaolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BUSHORE, FRY, KING~ MC BURNBY NOES: NERBST~ LA CLAIRE ARSENT: NONE AB~TAIN; BOUAS Commissioner King offered Resolution No. PC84-235 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission doe$ hereby grant Reclassification No. 84-~5-12 subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommen~ations. On c~ll call, the foregaing resolution was passed by the Eollowing vote: AYES: BUSHORE~ NOES: HERBST~ ABSENT: NUNE ABSTAIN; BOUAS FRY, KING, MC BURNEY LA CLAIRE Commissioner King oftered Resolution No. PC84-236 and moved for its passage and ad~ption that th~ Anuheim City Planning Commiosian does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2635 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.03.Q30.030 thcough 16.03.030.035 and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendakions. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the folloWing vote: AYES: ~USHORE, NOES: HERBST, ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: BOUAS FRY, KING, MC BURNEY LA CLAIRE Commibsioner King offered a motion, seconded by Commissfoner Pry and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bouas abstaining) khat the Anaheim City Planning Commission dops hereby requesr. City Council to review Items 7c snd 7d (Reclassification No. 84-85-12 and Conditionsl Use Permit No. 2636) in conjunction with GPA No. 196. Joel Fick, Assistant Director for Planning, stated he would like to make a very brief comment. Tt,_ staf£, as you brQ awarP, have completed detailed biological assessments out on the site and have involved the Packs De~actment. I believe as Commisaioner Bushor~ properly repcesented that staff is not in a position based upon present Park needs and surrounding industrial uses to recommen~ preservation of this site as being a Park's priority. The City historically has provid~d quite a few places such a~ Oak Canyon Nature Center wher~ there has been a demonstrated concern about preserving areas, actually even creating areas simi~ar to this. 11/1~/84 MINUTE6, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ~10~" MHER 14_,,. 1984 H4-735 W~ have been working vary closely with thc Corps of Engineeca, U. 5. Fi~h and Wildlife Service, F:nvironmentc+l Protection Ag~ncy and the California Department nf Fish and Game ta consider poeaibilitiea fo[ poasible teplacement of this erea, perhaps in anoChec location. At thia moment in time, quite frankly, it is unknown whether that will be [inancially feasible to do, but we're workiny very c.loaely with the Corps and the othec f.ederal and state ag~ncies. Gommies.ioner La Claire stated that she was thinking of making a motion to the Ci.ty Council that we do something like thAt and asked staf~ iE they were meetin9 oEt.en about this7 Joel Fick reE~lied that we have formally filed A'404 Permit' with khe Army Cocps of Engineers. The Corps assumed juri~dictior of this site and as p~rt of their Permit proceas thece are aeveral demonatrations t•he CiLy has to make. They evaluate the eite and determine what the t~iological value is and whethec the Nermit should be ap[~roved or condition~lly approved ~pon the City supplying some type af habitat replacement. The Cocps hasn't yPt made that detecmination, but we're working witt~ them on a weekly basi.s to do that. Commi~~sioner La C~aire atated she would like to aee the City develop some aort of plan as Co what areas we are going to keep as the wetlands. In reaponse Joel Ftck stated it was quite unknown to us that the City hac? any w~tlands habilats and it's been deb~ted yuite feve[iahly whether this site is, in fact, a wetlands. The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers believes that it falls under their jurisdiction ar~ci has indicated it is the only site of this Lype in thc vicinity and the :.'ity has been trying to comply with their requirements. Commissionet tierbst stated that his point was if we ar~ going to havE to replece this at a cost to the taxpayers, he woulc] ~suyges~ lea+ring it alone. CommissionAt La Claire stated that she agreed with Ccmrni~ssioner Herbst and felt that this was a benefit for most people and that we are having a problem in this countcy wi~h wetlands and we are seeing them disappear at a capid rate. She noted that some cities were even buying wetlands to protect the wildlife ai_d that in this case the City a.lready owns the pcoperty and wou.ld not have ko buy it. She said even if this developmPnt would bring additional revenue into the City, she was lc~okiny at the Puture generations and thinki.ng of the children that wer~ not going to be able to en~oy this wildlife. She stated she had read the EIR very ca~eFully and since she had been to the site did nat agree that there was only one nesting bird or~ fh~ site. Commissioner Bushore sta~ed that in 35 states the wetlands have actually increased. Commissioner King stated he agreed with C~mmissioner Bushore. ITEM N0. 8. EIR CATEGORICAL EX~MPTiON-CLA$S 3 AND VARIANCE N0. 3438 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER~: ROBERT A. AND RO~EMARIE SMIxH, 13729 E. Rosec~.ans Avenue, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670. AGENT: MIKE ALDERSON, P.O. Box 3~9, Atwood, CA 92601. Property described as an irrF:gularly-sha{~ed pa:cel of land consisting of approximately x.3 acres, 1a31 South Sunkist Stree~ !~••Store). lI/14/84 MINUTES, AN~EIBIM CITY PLANNING GOMMIS3ION, NOVBMQ~R 14, 1984 61-736 WAivere of inexirnum fRnce height to conatruck e co~~cceke block fence. xhece waa n~ ono indicating their ~reaence in oppoaition r.o gubject rey~eat And elthough L•he stefE teport waa not read, it is reFecred to and made a part oE the minutes. Mike Alderapn, P.O. Bax 399, Akwood, agent and generul contcactor of pcojecl•, atated they were propoaing to build a block wall fence around the back yArd of the manager's unit Eor reasone oE securilty and to buEfer noise from the traffic on Sunkist. tIe submitted two photogrAphs ehowin~ property !n the surrounding Area includiny the landsca~ing of ott~er block walls in Che a[ea. He said part of the complaint wae th~ block wall wae to be conatrucr~~r3 with d 50-foot landacaped area. He noted there wae a block wall acroes fhe atreet conatrucked approximatel.y 22 feet of.f the stroet and further down on SunkiBt .here wr~a one 8 foot which is ahown in picturee~ 2, 3 snd 5. lie said they propose to landscape ttieira in grass and ~reee like the surrounding area. Gdmond ltichman, 1431 S. Sunkist, said he wr~r; the manager. He said they have between 10 and ~20,000 at a tima at thia facility and oa t~e needed the block wall for securi.ty reasona and to buffer the i~oise aince the Orange grove was no longec there. He asid he had talked with his neighbors and they were not opposed to the block wall. THE PUBLIC tfE~\RING F1P.S CLOSED. Commissioner 6ush~re asked if the block wall would keep the sound out und Coiamissioner Herbst said it would to a degree; however, he noted trees would not. Commissioner eushore stated tiie manager could make night deposita, thereby alleviating the pcoblem. E~e also steted he felt an 8-faot block wall wuuld be more of an incentive ~iecause oncp someone was over the block waal, they could not be seen. Mr. Richman said some oE the unlts rent foc ~20G to $300, and he in unaole to go right to the bank upon receiat of this cash. Commissioner McIIurney asked if there were any other 8-foot high block walls in the area. Paul 5inger, Tcaffic Engineer, said he did not know aboat any other fences in the area, but that this particular block wall would create a traffic hazard because it is so close to an adjacent driveway that vision would be seriously impaired. Jack White, Assistent City Attorney, said having heard Mc. Singer's statement, ~aid that he had a legal concern on the part of the Ciky if this is approved. The most recant case Iaw indicates that visual abstcuctions that are permitted on private property which cause ~bstructfan ~f vehicular traffic, either from ~ public stceet or from a private accesa way onto a public street at an intersection, that the ~ity could be held legally Ziable for damages for collisions or accidentr~ that occur as a result of those typeR of obstructi~ns. 11/14/84 MINUTE3, ~NAH~IM CITY P4ANNING COMMISSI_, ON, N~)V~MBER 1~._1984 84-737 Commisaioner Pcy etated hie concern. Commiesioner eouas aoked iE khe whole wall cauaed a line-of-eight prob~em or just the front section of the wall. Psul Singec sa~d the wAll would t~ave to be a minimum of 8 feet away fram the property line in ordQr to mit~gAte sight obatruction. Commissionec H~rbst eaked if they loweted the wall in that partieular i~cea, would iL• meke a di~ference. Paul Singer stated the wall could not be higher than 2A inches. Ap~licant noted that the wall from the drive approach goes out app~oximately 27 feet ak 3 feek high and then stepa up to 8 feeC. Paul Singer said it would need to be reduced to 24 inches maximum b~~cause you cAnnot $ee over e 3-f~ot high block wAll when you are aitting in a car. Applicunt said the part of ihe wall tt~at is designated 3 feet !s for appearance only, not aecu:~ity. Cammission inquired of etaff if there was any problem with the 8 foot fence, if the Erant pottion was lowered to the 24 inch height. Paial Singer stated the rnap on the aall, showa the block wall is adjacent to an existing driveway and extends up to thE property line, then gaes along the property line and to the street r.ight-of-wAy for so~n~ distance. He said he di~ not know what the height was as it wae not indicated, but it doea create a visual obstruction to tcaff.ic exiting the driveway. Greg Hastinga, Associate Planner., stated that in the first 10 feet of the propecty adjacent to the stceet, Code doea noh permit any fence whatsoever, and then to the point that would be 10 to 50 feet back inko the property, Code permits a 36 inch t~igh wall, and then fcom thete back they can go higher. Commission expressed concern atout the safety pcoblems. Applicant said he would like to have a contir.uance in order to meet with City staff and work out any problems that existed. ACTION: Commissioner McDurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner La Clafre and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of December 10, 1984, in order for ~he applicant t~ submit revised plar,s., ITEM N0. 9. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3437 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: SOUTH BROOKHURST DEVELOPMENT, 6415 Katella Avenue, Cypcess, CA 90630. AG~NT: EDUCATIONAL DESIGNS, INC., dba CHA'lEZ & ASSOCIATES INSTITUTE, 7668 Telegrapl~ Road, City of Commerce, CA 90040. rcoperty is desecibed ae an irregularly-shaped parcel of land con~isting of approximat~ly 1.67 acres, 631 South Brookhurst Street. I1/14/84 MIN UTES, ~NAHEIM CITY PLANNING CQMMISSION, NOVEMBER 14. 1984 _ 84-73$ Wei ver of minimum number of parkiny Apaces to e$kabliah a vocAtional training achool. The r e wae na one indicating their pcesence in opposition to subject request and although the staff ropoct was not cead, it is r.eEerred to a d made a part of thQ mi.nutee. Her bc~rt H~liker, agent, ~duc~tional Aeaigna, Inc.~ stated they propose a seco ndary adult educational school at an existing eite at 631 S. Broakhurst Str e~:t, Anahoim. Ne said they would be oEfering cour~es in word-proces~ing, pci v~te inveotigation and automated buninesss [fnance Eielda. He n ated thoy have the use of an 18 pACSenger van to help alleviate any per king problem~. He stated they include in their teaching, ooaitive mental att i tudes and f eels tnis i~ one oE the r.eaaona they ace able to place 728 of the ir studente. He said they have been in an exisring facility in the County of Los Anyelea for 10 ysara and this would be tneir tirst achuol in Orange Cou n ty. !ie stated they were funded Gy JTPA which 1A the ~ob Training Par ticipation Act, and ETP which :s the CaliforniA Training Panel, the Depa rtment of Labor and the Department of RehAbili.tation. He ssid their basic tar g~~L• areas are khe underemployed, unemployed and handicap~ed persons. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commieaioner King stated he liked the project. Commi~~sioner Bushore asked if he could use the 30 spaces allocaked to him anyw here in the facillty. Applicant said they had no desig ited pa:-cing ~9t the present time, but their lease asaures them of 30 apaces. ACT ION: C~mmissioner King offered a motion, seconded by Comm:ssionec La Cla ice and MOTIUN CAItRIEU, that the Anaheim City Planning Commiesion has rev i e~ed the proposal to establish a vocational training school with waivers of t he mini,mum numbez oF parking sn~ces on an irregulacly-shaped paccel of land consisting of apProximately 1.67 ac:ea having a frontage of appcoximately lOQ feet on the wea:. side of Brookhurst Street, having a maximum depth of appr aximately 600 feet and bein~ located approximately 445 feet south of the cen t erline of Orange Avenue and ~u:ther described as 631 South Brookhurst Str eett and does hereby approNe tre Negative Declaration upon findiny khat it has conaidered tne Negative Declaration together with any comments received dur i ng the public review process and further finding on the baais of the ini t ial Study and any commenta receiv~d that there is no substantial evidence tha t the project will have a sfgnificant eEfect on the environment. Commissioner King offer~d Resolution No. PC84~-237 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anahpim City Pla~~ning Cnmmi~ssion does hereby grant Var iance No. 3437 on the basis that the parking demand atudy has been approvec~ by t he City Tra~fic Engineer that the parking waivec will not cause an inc r ease in tcaffic congeskion :n the immediate vicini~y nar adversely affect any adjaining land uses and gcanting of the parking waiyer under the cortditions imposed, if sny, will not be detrimen~al to the peace, health, saf e ty and ganeral welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim and subject to I ntexdepartmental CommittQe recommendatfons. 11/14/84 MINUTES ~NAH~IM C ITX PLANNING COMMISSION NUVBMBER 14 1984 84-739 On roll call, the foregoing resolution wee paesed by the f all~wing vote: AYES: BUUAS~ BUSk1URB~ FRY~ HERB5T~ KING~ ~A CLAIR~~ MC aURNF.Y NOES: NONE A9SEN'P: NONE ITEM N0. 10. E~IR NBGATIVE DECLARATION WAIVER OF CODE RE~UIRF.MEWT AND GUNDITIONAL USE p ERMIT N0. 2532 PUBLIC N~ARING. OWNERS: AtJGELA L. K. LIU, 12U52 Garden Gcove Buulevard, Garden Gcove, CA 92643. AGENT: NICK t2ANYERI, 62U Nocth 6rookhucat Stceet, Anaheim, CA 928U 1. Pcaperty described As A rectangularly--shaped pArcel of land consiating o f a~ptoximately 0.68 acre lacated at the c~outheast corner of Gramercy Avenue a nd Broakhurst Street- 620 North erookh~arat Street (Job~ Now). To rekain an emp 1 oYment agency in the ML Zone with waiv~r oE mi.nimum number o~ p~rking spaces. There was one pe = son indicating his ~reaence in oppor,ition to nubject requeat and although the staLf report was not cead- it is referred to and made a part oE the minutes. Nick Ranieci, 6 2 O N. Brookhurst Str.eet, Anaheim, said he had ~SatCen a business license and ope n ed his employment agencies 'Job3 Now'. He said he had been open fur a~prox i mAt~ly G weeks when he received a cit.ation saying he was there illegally. He s aid he thouyht the only problem he hAd ~to tak~ care of was the parking situatio n and he hired Carlat Engineeriny to do a parking demand study. He said when he npplied for his buainess licenae no one told him he was in the wrong zone. Cortwissioner He r bet said it wAS up to the applicant to be sure he was in the correct zone f o r his bu~inesg. Greg Hastinge, Aasaciate Planner, said this was one of the c ases whec~ the ap~J.icant's bur~iness license was distributed ptior to zoning appCOVal. When the Zoning Di.vision checked his license and found he needed a conditiuna2 use pecmit, they notified the applicant. Commissioner Bu shore noted there was a discl~imer to that effect printed on the busi.ness licenae. Jerry Carlat of Carlat Engineering, 3303 Harbor Boulevard, Coaka M~sa, Heid he did the parking study for the applicant and a proposec~ steiping plan. noted it was q uite apparent this was an une$~81a9i~ecandithe stceetsuwere not fact the area h ad been developed so many y up ko current City Codes even though they were functional. He stated it would make an effici e nt parking aceu if it were cle4:~ed up and stripped. He said they did theic study tor a period of one week, and at any given time there wece only lU t u 20 vehiclea parked on the lot. H~ said he did not feel the Applicant shou ld have to do anything about bui]ding renovation or street redevelopment. IIill Kiker, s a id he leas~d the space immediately south af the applicant and would like to know how many apaces would `~e used by the applicant. He~ said he was not oppos ed ka applicant's business. 11/14/84 MINUTES. ~NANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, NOVEMB~R 14, 1984 84-740 ~pplicAnt said he be].ieved his lease allowed him 5 Co 7 eE>aaes. Angela I,iu, 747 S. Richfield Rand, ownec, said he~ tenante are adviaed they have limited packing and that they will be ~llowed kheir ~roportionete ahace of parking. She eaid ehe haa had no tenanta complein to her about packing probleins . Commissioner tierbst said he felt Mr. Kiker wa~ concerned about. his own parking and aeked owner if she had assigned him any parking apaces. Owner s~id they chdnged the rulea a few yRars ago and the tenAnta parking was tho spacea in fcont and in back of their building. THE PUBLIC eIEARItJG WAS CLOSED~ Commieaioner Herbst asked if Che owner ot applicant would be willing to clean up the area and strip the parking lot. Applicant said he would restripe the parking lot. Commissionor Bouas asked Mr. Kiker how many parking spaces he was assigned and how many did he need for his business. Mr. Kiker stated he h~d been thern 8 y~ears and did not tiave a certain number of parkir.g apaces, but felt he needed 8 to 9 spaces. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, state~d at the presenk time none of the area was marked f or parking and a lot of the area was being used to store makecial. He noted that very ~ew of the users parkecl on khe propecty, but they parked in an adjacent area. Commissic..er Bushare asked the propecty awner if she were willing to make the chan~PS to meet the Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. The owner said she wa8 not willing to meet the cequirements at this time. Commiseioner La Claice said no one was really complaining about the parking, but were ~ust concerned thec~ might be a problem. She also noted the fact the owner did not want to comply with the conditions of the staff report. Commissioner Bouas a~ked how much longer the applicant had to go on his lease and applicant eaid approximately 6 months. ACTION: Commissioner King offered a motion, seaonded by Commissioner Fry and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commisrion has reviewed thQ proposal to re~~in an employment agency in the ML (Industrial, Limited) 2one w.ith waiver of minimum number of parking spaces on a tectang~larly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximate2y 0.68 acre located at the southeast corner of Gramercy Avenue and Brookhuret and £urther described as 620 North Brookhurst Street (Jobs Now)j and does hereby approve the Negative Declarat.on upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments ceceived during the public review procesa and further finding on the basis of the Initial St~~•"f and any commente received that there is na substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. 11/14/84 MINUTES. ~N~FiEIM CITY P1~ANNING COMMISSION, NOVEMDER 14. 1984 84-741 Gommiaeioner King affered o motion, socondeG by Commiasioner Fry and MOTION CARRIEU that tho Anaheim City Planning Commisaion does h~reby grant thR wAivec of Code cequirement for a peciod of 6 monthe on the basis that denial would deprive subject property of privilegRS enjoyed by othec pcopertiea in the same zone ~nd vicinity. Comrniseioner King offered Regolution Na. PC84-238 and maved Eor it~ passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Rl~nning Commis~ion does heceby grant Canditional Use Pormit No. 2632, deleting Condition Noa. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 10 and adding the Eollowing conditiane: '4. Tt~at the parking ereas on the subject property sha11 ba cestriped to clearly indicate the parking spACes•= and Condition No. "6. That the use ia approved for a period of six (6) months to expire on May 14, 1985'. On rcll call, the foregoing reaolution waa passed by the fol:owing vote: AYES: BOUAS~ BUSHO~E~ FRY~ H~RSST~ KING, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY NQES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ITEM N0. 11. EIR N0. 254 (PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED), WAIVER OC CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONDITIUNAL U5E PERMIT N0. 2634 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: DOUGLAS E. JONES, ET AL., 2Q45 S, Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92802. AGENT: ANAHEIM REGBNCX HOTEL, 2045 S. Harboc Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92802, ATmN: WAL'T~It HONG, JR. Property described as an irregularly-sha~ed parcel of land consisting of approximately 3.3 mcres, 2045 South Harbor Boulevard. To permit a 318-room hotel wfth accessory uses including a~estaurant, outdoor eating area and on-aale alc~holic beverages with waiver oE minimum number of parking spaces. ACTION: Commi~ssioner Herbst off~:red a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fry and MOTION CAARIED that considerAtion of Che aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-sct~eduled meeting of December 10, 1984, in ocder for the applicant to be present. ITEM NO. 12. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY RPPROVED) AND CONDITIO:IAL USE PERMIT N0. 2106 (kEADVERTISEp) PUBLIC HEARING - TIME EXTENSION. OWNERS: RU2'H J. ENr,LISH, 2520 Clearbrook Lane, Anaheim, CA 92804. Ptoperky described as a rectangu~acly-shaped paccel of land consibting of approximatel! 7200 aquare feet, 2520 West Clearbrook Lane. Request for a one-year (2-aiontha reL•roactiye) extensian of tfine to retain a bird aviary. There was no one indicating their presence in Apposition to subject request and a].though the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a pact o~' the minutes. Ruth English, 2520 Clearbcook Lane, Anaheim, stated she would like an extension of time to keep her aviary. 5he noted she had only one aviary and her neighbor's aviary had been torn down. "~e said she would like to keep her p~rmit and have 12 Wax-billed Finches. MINUTB8, AN~HEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. NOVEM_HER ~4. 1984 B4-742 TNE PUBLIC EIEARING WAS CLOS~D. The Cnmmisnion noked they had received no complaints per.teining to the aviariee on thie property. Commisai~ner 4e Claire offered Resolution No. PC84-239 and moved for ita passege end adoption tl~a~ the Anaheim City PlAnning Commis~ion does hpreby granC A one-yeat (2-month retro~ctlve) exteneion of time on Conditional Uae Permit• No. 2106 upon finding that sAid permit iK being exerciaed in a manner not detrimental to the particular area end surrounding land uaQS nor ta the public's peace, health, safety and general welfore. On roll call, the foregoing re~olution was pA88gd by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS~ BUSHORE, PRY, HERBSZ', KING, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY NOES; NONE ABSENT: NONE RECESS: 5;00 p.m. RECONVENE: 5;10 p.m. ITEM N0. 13. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATiONS A. VARIAl7CE NA. 2174 - Request fcom William E. Efughes for termination of Vac.anae No. 2174. Property located at 1221 North F.ast Street. ACTION: Commfssioner King offered Resolution No. PC84-24U and moved Eor its passage and adoption that Variance No. 217~ be terminated. On roll call, the Poregoing resolution was passed by the followinq vote: AYES: BOUAS~ BUSHORE, FRY, HERBST, KING, LA CLAIRE, MC BUFNEY NOES: NONE ABSENT; NONB 8. ~~NTRAL CITY NEIGHBURHOOD DESIGN GUIDEL2NES - it wa~ noted in a mema to the Planning Commission from the Planning Department/ZOniny Division ~taff, that cunsideration be given ta the addition~l time that will be requiced by ~oning staff and Planning Commission to implement and administer the Guidelines. Planning Commission may further wieh to reAlize what aspects of the Guidelines would be conaidered mandatory and what would be considered voluntary if the Guidelines are to b~ adopted. ACTION: Commissionet Bushore offered a motion, seconded by Cammiseioner King and MOTION CARi3IED thAt the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend thAt the City Council approve the Design Gui~elines for the Central City N~ighborhood area and approve creating a Design Review Board to implement these City guidelines foc a trial period of one year, and not allow any incentives. 11/14/84 MINUTES, ~NAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. NOVEMBER 14l 1964 84-743 C. PROPOSED ORDINANC~ AMENDING TITLE 18 "ZqNING" - pettdininy to family day cere homAS in Aingle-fAmily z~nee. Cammia8ioner Buehore was concerned becauae the Pamilx doy cAre centers would not be heard by the ~lanning Commiasion, but would be handl~d adminiatratively. It was aleo noted that in the ataEf report Paragraph 3 on Page 13-C (1), fifth line down, that it should read "individual homeowner• rather thAn "howevpc". ACTION; Commissioner King offered a motion, aeconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commiasion does hereby recommend to the City Council Adoption of. an ordinance amending ~itle 18, pertaining to fAmily day care homes in singl~-Eamily zones. D. CONAITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2500 - Request for clarification. Mark Hepp, repreaenting the owners, st~ted ~he original lPndar. backed out before documents were to be signed. He said it took three montha to get ~ new constcuction loan and by this time costs had gone up. He said even thaugh they had taken measures to reduce costs, it was a hardahip to fund the elevator at this time, but they would puC the elevator in at some future date when funding was available. He stated they were looking at a five year negative cash flow. Considerable diacussion enaued by the Commission regarding the fact that it was becnuse of the installation of the elevator tha~ the Planning Commission had granted the requested density and parking waiver and felt the elevator made the project a true senior citizen complex. Mc. He~p was asked if he would commit to a two year time limit and he naid he could not. He said he had wanted to be able to commit to a time limit, but the ~nly person that could give hfm that authority was out of town, snd couldn't be reached. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motian, seconded by Commtssioner Bushore and MOTIUN CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commfssion does hereby recommend to the City Counciz that the elevator installation be required as wa~ Part of the original approval by the Anaheim City Planning Commission. ADJOURNMENT; There being no further business, Commissioner King offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that the me~ting be adjourned. The meeting was adjourned At 5:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, u~ ' .Eiy Pamela Starnes, Secretary Pro Tempore Anaheim City Planning Commission PS:lm 0088m 11/14/84