The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1985/04/01RBCULAR MEETING OF THE ANANBIM CITY FLANNI NG COMMISSION RGGULAR MEE~ING The regular meeting of the Anat~eim ~i.ty Planning Commi.~aion was called to order by Chairman E~erbat at 10:00 a.m., April 1, 1985, in th e Council Chamber a quorum being pcesent and the C ommi~Rion reviewed plans of the itema on today's agenda. RECBSS: 11:30 b.m. RECONVENED: I:30 p.m. PRESENT Chairmar~: Herbst Commissioners: BGU88~ Duahore, Fry, King, Larlaire~ McBurney Af3SENT: Commissioner: None ALSO PRESENT Annika Santalahti Jack White Jay Titus Paul 5inger 6hirley Land Drooke Shipley Ja,y Tashiro Kendra Morries Greg Nastings ~dith Harris Assistant Director Eor Zoning Aasi~tant City Attorney Of f ice Enginee~ City Trafffc Enyirseer Traffic Engineering Associate A~sistant Traffic Engineer 1-ssociate Planner Assistant Planner Associate Planner Plannf ng Commission Secretacy APPROYAL OP MINU'P~:S: Cammissioner hing ofFered a mo tion, seconded by Co;nmissfoner Boues an~1 MOTION CARRIED that the minu tes of khe meeting of March 18, 1985, be approved as submitted. ITEM N0. l. EIR NEGATIVE D6CLARATION AND VA~2IANCE N0. 3464 (REVISION N0. lj (READVERTISED) PU6LIC HEARINC. OWNERS: DOYLE £. AND MARJORIE L. S~MITH, 28544 Nue~•o Valley Drive, Nuevo, CA 92367. AGENT: LYNN E. THOMS~N, 1433 W. Janeen Way, Anaheim, CA 92801. Pcoperty described as a rectangularly-sh aped parcel of land conaistin9 0€ approximately 0.75 acre, 1643 West C erritoa Avenue. Requ.ired ?at frontage, minimum l~t width and fronta ge, minimum front yard aetback, minimum rear yard setback, and permitted orientation of atructures to establish a 4-l0~ kS-7200 single-family subdivision. Continued fcom tl~e meeting of March 4, 1985. 85-142 4/1/85 MINUTE5. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, AC'RIL 1. 1985 85-143 There were approximatQly eleven peraona indicatiny theic presen~e in oppo~ition t~ sub~ect C~qUNBt a nd Although the sCa~f repact waa not read, it is refprred to and made a part oE thc minutes. Lynn Thomaon, agent, wa~ preaer~t to answer any questions. Mra. Nocgan, 1635 W. Cerritos, Anaheim, asked iE the street will be widened just in front of subject property. ChairmAn Herbst responded that the owner will offer to dedicate a atrip oE land to thN City for atreet widening purpoaes in Lront of the prapecty only. Mra. Morgan atated Chis project will create extra traffic in the area and they cUn hardly get into their driveways n~w with oll the trafEic on Cerritos and it is a very narrow street and no parking is permitted on the alreet. She stated there should be sidewal.kr, along Gerritos becauae the children hAVe to walk in the street. She asked if there will be fencing around the project. She stated it looks like the struclure will be two stories and there are no two-story residence~ nn the stteet. Phylli~ Killin9swarth, 1625 W. Cerritos, stated she bought her propexty in 1949 ~ith the assurance that it wfil be single-family residential and they have put s lot ~f money into t heir. property. She stated there are 8 loi:s the same size in a row and if this is approved, ft will detPriorate the whole neighbo[hood beaau~e the ones adjacent ~rill wank tc~ do the same thing and the whole area will be changed and she did not think tt:~t would be fair. Euger~e Dunham, 164'l W. Eiuena vista, staked he ~wns tha property immediately nocth and adjacent to subject property and i~ opposed to this request; that he purch~sed his property in 1966 because all the ~ther homes were aingle-Eamily homes and most were aingle storyt that potentially if this variance is granted, iG coul~.~ add 32 pdditional homes on the north side of Cerritos within a distance of 90U l.ineal feet; that Cerritos is alceady too busy with traffic becaus~ of the condominiums, a pacr,ments, and hotels in the area and this request, if granted, will open the entire b1ocY, to a kind of Code-breaking with its added noi~e, congestion and confusian and will not a~d to the quality of lif e in ~he area; that openness is one of Anaheim's attractions snd t51s variance is opening a wedge that will aE£ect the entire block with 8 similar lots on the nor.th side of Cerritos. He referred to Para~raph 23 of the staff report and stated the necessary findings for approval of the variance do not apply to this prope=ty and the variance should be denied. John Helps, 167U Cerritos, stated this was not vacant land and thQre war a house on the property and it wao purchased as a sir~gle-famfly residence and the buyer then removed the structure and now is trying to treat it as if it wete deve.lopable land, but that he could rebuild a residence on the property; and that a previnus cequest t a allow 2 units was denied a.nd he Feels thi.s is •block busting'. He stated the report indicates there will be no parking on the cul-de-cac which means the people will be parking on Cerritos and that side has not been widened as yet and parking will be a problem. He stated if the Conunission wants to overcrowd the street and cheapen th~ area, the whole ~rea should be rezoned. 4/1/85 MINUTE5. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CpMMISSIUN~_APRIL_1~__.1985__ _ 85-144 Mr. Thomasn atated a block wall 1A cequired and will be conatructed and alsa zxplained the no packing restriction is on Cezritoe ~nd not nn the cul-de-eac. He stat~d they will pcovide Additional off-street perking ad~acent to e~ch dciveway. He ~tated the hou~e aill be an 1800-square foot, 2-story structure and he plana to build thAt es a model and pce-sell th~ balance oE the three lote and the plans have not been drawn a~ thia tim~ for those structuces and he did not know if they will be single stoty or two atory. He stated the property is general planned for RS-7200 r.oning. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSEta. Responding to Commi~sioner La Claire, Mr. Ttiomsen stated the traffic will be increased with additional homea, but he did not think 8 to 10 cars would be thal much of an impacL. Ne atated widening Cerritoa just at this poinl• would create a treffic problemt however, there would be sidewalka along the cul-de-3ac ~n the eaat sidP of thc stceet and that all the lota contain at least 7200 aqubre feet. Gceg N~3tings, Associate Pl~nner, explained the plana indicate gross lot Rizes ranging from 7,752 to 8,55U aquace feet which is w~ell over the minimum requirements and the net sizes would be from 4,966 to 6,415 squace feet and that is deducting the private street. Responding to Commissioner Ery a~ to maintenance of the private street, Mr. ThGmsen stated thece would have to be a maintenance assessment of the four homeownecs and that would be a pact of the CC&Rs for Lhe pareel map. Commissioner La C1airE~ stated this is RS-7200 z~ning and each lot has at least 7200 syuare Eeet and the Commission has to look ak the zoning and ir has been this way since 1951. She stated this is not really a change in zone and the owner has the right to develop t.he proper~y, but because of the ~onfiguration vf the proper.ty, a private streat is required and all the variances on this project are of a technical nature which would be allowed on other lots. She stated it is not pcactical to provide one uingle-family home and a person has a cigf~t to develop his ~raperty according to the 2oning ocdinances. 5he stated ahe did not see how the traffic from these residences would impact th~ area that much. ACTION: Commissioner La C~aire offered a motion, Eeconded by Commissioner Fry and MOTION CARRIED that Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to establish a 4-lot, RS-7200 (Singl~-Family) subdivision with waivecs of required lot frontage, minimum lot width frontage, minimum front yar@ setback, minimum r.ear yard ~etback and permitted orientation of structuce on a cectangularly-shaped parcel of land coneisting of approximately 0.75 acre, haviny a frontage of approximately 114 feet on the north stde of Cerritas Avenue and :urther described as 1643 W. Cerritos Avenue; ~nd does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration ~o~ether with any comments received ducing the pub2fc review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial. Study and any coa~ment~ ived that there is no subetantial evidence that the project wi11 have a cant effect on the environment. 4/1/85 ...~. 3 , ~ MINUTES, J-NAHEIM CITY PLANNINC_COMMISSIONI_ APRIL 'l. .198~ 85-145 Cummisaionar Ln Claire o[fered Reeolution No. pC85-82 and moved Eor its passage r~nd adoption that the Anaheim City Plenning Commission doea hereby gc~nt Varience No. 3464 (Reviaian No. 1) on the bAeie khat there ~+te epecial circumatances applicable to the property auch es size, shape (eapeciel:y due to the narcowness of ch~ pcopecty), topography, lor_dti~n and surroundinga which do not app.ly to other identically zonecl pcaperty in the e~me vicinity~ and that strict application oE the Zc-ning Code deprives the property of privileges en~oyed by other. properties in the i.dc~ntical zone and classi~icetion in the vicinity and aubject to Interdepactmentel Committee recommendations. Un roll call, the foregoing reaolution was paAaed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS~ BUSFIORE~ FRY, HGRBST, KING, LA CLAIR~, MC 9URN~Y NOES: NUNE ABSENT; NONE Jack White, Assietank City Attorney, presented the written right to app~sdl the Planninq Commiseion's dgciaion within 22 days ta the Ciky Council. IT~M N0. 2. EIR NEGATIVF. UECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3466 PUBLIC Fl~ARING. OWNER: LUCILE M. PERRYMAN, 210 Weat Vermont Avenue, An~heim, CA 92805. AGENT: KENNEDY & liAUSL', 504 West Cha,~man Avenue, Suite F, Orange, CA 92668. Property described as a rectangularly-ahaped parcel of land consisting of approaimately 0.4 acre, 210 West Vermont Avenue. Waiver of maximum structur.al height to ~:~~struct a 14-unit apa~tment complex. Continued From the mpeting of March 18, 1985. Thece were two ~,ersons indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a par.t of khe minutes. Scott Vos with Kennedy and Hause, agent, explaineci this i.s the identical plan as previously submitte~, except it t~a~ been lowered 4-1/2 Peet and they have kept the parking ramp at a 58 grade. C.M. Thompson, architect, explained this is a compromise in that the Eike has single-family residential property on tw~ sid~s and they had to desigr~ the project so there would not be an impact on tt~ose properties. He stated £rom the outside, the buil~ing will eppear as a one-atory bui.lding over the~ parking and probably those units should have been placed on the front of the building. He stated the redesi.gn doea aot change the physical, livabl.e area and the number of par:cing apaces required determines the number of uni.ts and the project was designed in this manner in order. to present an attract:ive building and provide parkir~g, He stated he has lived with 108 gradE ciriveways and did not like them and thought this pro~osal would be better. He f;tated where the driveway enters under the first portion of the building, they are 4-1/2 feet duwn. 4/1/85 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING_GU_MMI5SION_~ APR_IL 1, 1985 85-146 Geocge Beale, 225 W. VeXmont, Anaheim, stnted it aeened that some of the ayent's statemente sounded like thraeta ~nd he did not appreciate tha~. tte atated he thinka thio whole thing revolvea acound trying to violate requicetnents tti~t were well thought out uver a long period oE time foc the boneEit af the City by technically dropping down a few foet so they cAn put two or three-atory unita in the aetback limit and he did not think that would benefit the acea or the City. He atated they would oppoae any development that was strictly "junk" and done ~Qliberately with tt~e expresa purpose oE blackmdiling anyone in the c~mmunity who opposes the requeat. Hugo Vazquez, 619 S. Live oak Drlve, AnAheimr $tated tie has had an opportunity to work a great deal with Mr. Vos and in ceviewing these plans as an individual, hQ would say the interlor design of thr_ romplex is com~leLely weli thought out and would encich and upgrade the neigt~bochood and will set the trend for that parkicular otreet. tie stated 30 ~]ays ago the Commission voted in L-avoc of rezoning the entire south side af the st•reet to RM-1200. He stated he could understand the needs of the people whc~ reside on the north side of the akreet and it is the developer's r~spansibility to meet those needs of the sing.le-family residents. Jean Dealv, 225 W. Vermont, stated they t~ave owned their property for 30 yeara and have imptoved it twice= that trafEfc an the street is terrible becau~e of the exiating aparkments and it is very hazardous ta get out of their driveways and they are asking that the Planning Commissi~n follow the rules that were set down and consider the residents. She stated they are not opposing apartments, but are opposing the density and the 3-~tory units. Mr. Thompson skated the permitk~d der.sit.}~ is 14 units and that is what they are requesting. lie stated he wA~ not sure what was meant by the statement that they were making khreata and that was not his intention. Commissioner Fry stated he did not heac any threats or any form of blackmail; tt~at under the present exisking zoning, a rnbximum of 14 units is permitted and the project meets all the standarda except the 2 story at 81 feet and 3 sl•ories at 104 feet and he did not see how thak could be a big problem in the area. Commissioner Bouas stated she would agree and agked about the teduction of 4-1/2 feet. Mr. Thompson stated if the lower fYoor is below grade by 1/2 the height, then it is no long2r a floor. He staked the question in this r.ase is the amount of slant to the r~mps; and that originaliy they had proposed a flat driveway, but now are p:oposing a camp. He stated puLting the parking below grade i~ a very expensfve way to build apartments. Gceg Hastinqs stated the portion of the pro~erty where there is a camp is 3 stories high because the ramp is not set below grade level, so the very front of the property is 2-stories high with the middle partion at 3 stories and as the ramp continues to descend, it is 2 stories. He explained the 3-atory portion ends about 150 feet from the aingle-family residenti.al praperty and a waiver is nece8sary for the front portion of the property where it i.s 3 st~ries. Responding to Commissioner Bushore, Creg Hastings st~ted he thought the maximum height is 34 or 35 feet to the apex of the roof. He stated there is actually no height requirement fn terms of footage in the Code, but the restriction is in tprms of etories. 4/1/85 M_INUTES, ANAN~IM CITY PLANNING COMMTSSION, APRIL 1, 1985 85-147 Commie~ioner La Clairp steted the averaye 2-story home is 2a to-35 feet high. Sh~ stated this variance applies tio the 2 storiea, even if thece was no 3-story portiun. ACT10N: Commisaioner Fry oEEered a motion, seconded by Commisaioner King and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to construct a 14-unit apartment complex wikh waiver o~ maximum structur.al height on a rectanyularly~shaped paccel of land consiating of approximatelf 0.4 acre, having a ftontage ot approximAtely 108 feet on the south aide of Vermont Avenue and further described ~s 210 West Vermont Avenuej and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has consi~ered the P~egative Declarakion togethec with any comments rer.eived during khe publlc review ~rocesa and further Linding on the basis of the Initial St~dy and any comments received that there is no substantiAl evidence th~t the pro~ect wiLi have a significant effect on the environment. Commfseioner Fry ofEere~ Resolution No. PC85-83 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Variance No. 3466 on the basis th~t chece are special circumstances applicable to the property such as sfze, shape, topography, location and sucroundinqs which do not apply to othec identically zoned property in the same vicinity; and that strict application oE the 2oning Code depcives the property of pcivileges enjoyed b,y othec properties in the identical zone and claesi£ication in the vicinity and sub~ect to Interdepartm~ntal Commitr_ee recommendations. Chaicman Herbst pointed ~ut the net buildzng area is 17,378 square f.eet and the total number of units allowed is 14 and there are 14 proposed; that the land area per dwelling unik is ~ropaAed at 1,241 square feet and the CodQ requirement is 1,200 square feett that the net. density is 35 dwelling units per net acre and the Code allnws 36 dwelling units per net accet that the proposed grass floor area is 9,348 syuare feet and the Co~e requicement is 9,558 square fee~ maximum; propased building coverage is at ~48 with 55~ permitted by Code and recreational-leisure area i~ proposed at 249 square feet per dwelling unit with 200 square feet required. He stated they are meeting all the requirements except the height limitation for single-family residential area and althouyh the Code has not been ch~nged, it has been left up to the discretion of the Planning Commiasion and the City Council to decide whether or not it should be permitted and as low as 758 has been approved in the past. ~~ roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the £ollawing vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST~ KING, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY NUES: BUSHORE ABSEt~T: NpNE .1ack White, Assistant City Att~rney, grsaentec? the written right to appeal the Planning Cammission's decision ~rithin 22 days to the City Council. 4/1/A5 ~~ MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY FLANNING COMMISSIUN. APRTL 1, 1985 a5-lA8 ITEM N0~ 3. EIR NEG1lTIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2674 FUBLIC EIEARING. OWNERS: RQBCRTSNAW-PULTON CONTROLS ~OMPIINY, ATTN: G. RICHAftD MAKTIN, 333 Nnrth Euclid Wey, Anaheim, CA 92803. AGBNT: ROD EMERY, c/o COVE DEVELUPME;NT, 3737 Birch Street, Newpork Beach, CA 92660. Propecty ie an irregularly-~haped parce? of land consisting of approximAtely 11.6A acres, 333 North ~uclid Way. To permit an indoor swap meet facility. Continued from the meeting of April 4/1/85. THE FOLLOWING ACTIUN WAS TAKEN AT Tk1E BBGINNTNG OF TNE MEETTNG. ACTIUN: Commiaeioner BOllBE offered a motion, seconded by Commiasioner King and MOTION CARRTED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-schedulpd meetiny of April 29, 1985, at the request oF the petitioner. ITEM N0. 4. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OF COAE REQUIREMF.NT AND CUNDITIONAL USE PF:RMIT NU. 2672 PUBLIC HEARING. UWNERS: E.D.G.A. ENTERPRI~ES, 1990 Westwood Bouleva[d, Los Angeles, CA 90025, ATTN: LES E. LEDEREk. AGENT: JOHN SCHROEDER, 1839 Bayless Street, Anaheim, CA 92802. Pr~perty described as an irregularly-ahaped parcel of land consistiny of approximately 0.95 acre located at the northeast corner of Cerritos Avenue and Anaheim Boulevar.d. To permit an entertainment facility far teenagers with waiver of minimum number of patking spaces. There was no one indi.cating their presence !n opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it ia refErred to and made a part of the minutes. John 5chroeder, ayent, explained this is a cequ~st for an under-21 club; that he currently has an entectainmenC center far young adults from 16 to 20 years of age in Santa Ana; that he pers~nally operates r_he establishment to provide a safe and well-kept environment for young adults where they can socialize, dance and have fun. He stated bettec than 90B of the clfentele is of high school age. He stated there is a neec] for this type facility, pointing out there ace 3 public dances being held at the Anaheim Convention Center t;o meet that need this weekend. He refQrced to the recommended denial of this application by the Anaheim Chief of Police, and stated he discussed this with the sergeant in Santa Ana's Crime Prevention Unit who answered Anaheim's inguiry about Nightscape's performance in Santa Ana, and wa~~ tuld the questions were strictly asking if they had many problems with the operation. He stated Set~eant Ensley had indicated he answered all Anaheim questions fr~m a computer ~rint-out of law enforcement activities in or around Nightscape and no further questions wese,asked and that no attention was given to the fact that most of the inciden~Qs reported to the Police Department were by him or his personnel. He stated Sergeant Ensley indicated that things were nevec better. ~/1/85 ~p , i 'l .' MINUTES, ANANETM CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSION, APRIt~ 1. 1~ 985 i __ 65-1A9 Mr. Schroeder compared Nightacape to another no alc~holic entettainment facility in A~aheim with a computer print-out aheet of the follow.ing inciden~es: drfnking in public, gcand theft, petty theft, ~saault and brattery, assault with a deadly weapon, bomb threat, fire with ~r+~on suapected, bucglary, bnd posaession of dcuga. He stated if tt~is was the only information giv~n of this busineas when it c~me into tne City, he doubted the Commission would have allowed it, and pointed out that businese is Uisneyland. Mr. Schroeder otated Cher.e is no way to guarantee that ~roblems will not arine at the praposed location in the future, but he can assurc the Commiasion that he ia committed to dHal with the problema immediately and effectively and that he haa had no drug pcoblr.ms at the facilities in Santa Ana ar Orange and thouyht there may havp been more information in favor of Nigtitscape than what has been presenCed to the c;ommisaion. fie stated Nightacape is difEerent than other similAr placer and i~ doe~ co~t a lot oE money ta run this type facility aince he hag 8 ntate licenned security yuards and each guard has a two-way radio. Fle staled they d~ not and will not serve alcotiolic beverages to anyone under 21 years of aye and no one over 21 years of aye is allnwed in and they do not a~l~ow anyone to leave once th~y entec the place for the evening. fie stated the 5~nta Ana Police Aepactmenk has not complained to him ~bout Nightscape and wanted to ahow that the image presented i~ not entirely accurate. Mc. Schroeder explained they offer pre-recorded entertainment and there are no live bands whi~h helpv discouraye a particular L•ype people and they do not play punk rock, or heavy m~tal type music and that dictates the type of audience they will attract. Fie stated any one allowed into Nightscape must pass a dress code which prohibits certain hair styles or outrageaus clothing and makeu~ and no weapons, drugs ur alcohol are permitted and each pPrson mu~t submit to a physical budy search by the appropriake sPx security guard to aasure that nothing goes into the facility. He added smokfng is not allowed inside the facility and each person must show identification to get in. He stated the proposed site is a freestanding building with no residential tracts nearty and that he has more than enough par.king. He skated considering the other entertainment facilities such ac Disneyland and Bandstand, Melodyland, etc. in addition to the faGt khere is an existing conditional use permit for the sale of alcoholic bevecages on the premises, he did not see a canflict with the sucroundinq businesses. Mr. Schroeder stated he t~as a degree in business from Cal State Fullerton and is a past member af the Orange County Sheciff's Department and is currently a Captain with the Army Reserves and is also a member of Mensa. He stated he has survived in this business for 5 years because he has learned how to avoid most of the problema before they stact and khat is evidenced in a letter from his current landlord which e,~plains he does not have any problems with Nightscape. Kazen English, Anaheim Police Aepartment, stated the recommendation for det~ial from the Chief ~f Police was based on information the Police Department received which determf.ned that this business would be detrimental to that particular area and to the peace, health, safeky and general welfare of the cirizens. 4/1/85 MINUT~S, ANAHEIM CITX PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 1, 1985 ~ _~ 85-150 Victori~ Gonzalez, 422 S. Vine, Anaheim, stated she is apeaking in fAVOr of thia requestJ that stie has lived in Anaheit,~ for moat of hec life and when she was a teenager, there w~s a teenage entertainment cent~r downtown and that was a gaod thing because there was no drtnking allowed, etc., and that there was ~n entertainment center in Huena Park when her children were teenagers which was auperviaed and she hoped this information would help thia petitioner get approval. Eric Alvacez, 1598 W. Katella, Anaheim, stated he has been a resident oE Anaheim for most of his lite and ie currently a Renerve Police Officer for the City of S~nta Ana and althouqh not officLally speaking Eor the Santa Ana Police DPpartment, wanted to qive his pcofesaional opinion of Nightscape as he h~s seen it while on duty. He atated there will alwuys be ~ little bit of a problem w~th teenageKS, but he thought that 1PSa than 5~ of them are real troublemakers and most are good kids; that they may drens strange~ etc., but allowing a facility o~ this type means they havc a place to have a goad time and at leasL on a Friday or Saturday night, ik is known whece 5U0 to 1,000 teenagers are. He stated this place does help Santa Ana with theiz juvenile delinquent calls and tie thought the Anaheim F~lice bepartment received a condensed version and explained most nf the calls do come in from Mr. Schroedec ur his emE~loyees. THE PUdi.IC HEARING WAS CLOSTD. Cammis~ioner La ~:laire stated she understands what the petitionet ia tryin~ to do and she felt it is necessary for teenagers to have some place to go, but her concerrs are with parking lot surveillance, whdt kinds of security they would have in the park:ng lot, and h~w the parking lot is cleared out k~hen the buEine~s is closed ta make sure the teenagers do not stay there in their car and drinko etc. before leaving the premises. Mr. Schroeder stated he is thexe most ~f the t.ime and doea nok spend any of his time inside the club, but ata,ys outside because that is where the big,est control problems occur; that his current fac~lity in Santa Ana has 8 security guards and 4 are dedicaked to the parking lot and oLtside areas. He explained they make a point of bringing every employee, except the disc jockey and cashier, out when it is time for the busine~s to close and there would be a total of 6 employees on the outside and the se~urity guards are uniformed and have 2-way radios. He stated 2 officers would be dedicated to the front of khe club where most of the teenagers would be .tining up while wait~n,q foc their friends and 4 would be uniform~d in the parking lots. Responding to Chairman herbst, Mr. Schro~der stated the capacity of subject building has not yet been determined and will bP determined by the Fire Department and he assumed it would be about 600 p~apl~. He stated fr~m a business standpoint, if 800 teenagers showed up, it would bQ good for business, but that has never I~appened and that once the capacity is reached, they wauld b~ doing a one-for- one trade with one person being allowed in when one left. He explained again that patrons are not allowed to come back in once they leave. He explained that is controlled basically through khe $5.00 dooc charge and they do not receive a handstamp or a ticket. 4/~/85 MINUTE5, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSSON, APRIL 1, 1985 85-151 Commissianec 9ushore stated the park.ing lot is very large and ~sked how they would con~rol the cest of the areas. He atated tie could so~ a problem with teenagecs congregating on the other propecties tE they did not have the $5.00 to came in. Mr. Schroeder stated he knows exactly what it takes to control that type b~havior= that if the teenageca show up without the money to come in, they will not tolerate loikering and they t~ave a firm hand on the aituation. He stated he is leaving Sa7ta Ana because they piaii tu exgand Fashion Square and referred to A letter Fcom his present landlord which addrPSSes those same problems ~nd indiaatea the security is fine. He atated there are 27 acres at this location and he Chought it would be easier to manage becauae there is not another building foc about 6U0 feet. Commissioner Bouas stated she sees a reA1 problem with the keenagers gathering in the vicinity, Mr. schroeder stated the security guardn will not allow gathering on other people's propecty. He stated the fact they have had ao f.ew complainL•e in a center where thete are 17 other businesses in 5anta Ana provea that they are doing an admirable job. Karen English stated the Police Department did not contact Sergeant Ensley and went dicectly to the Santa Ana vice Detail and determined that whi~e they were there a very short time (6 months), in and around the location the~e have been 67 crime reporta or incidents and in terms of law enforcement agencies responding, that is a very high rate of respon~e for a wide vaciety of crimes. She atated there wPre two complaints by business ownecs directly related to problems due to the patrons of Nightscape and ik was costing at least $50.00 a weekend to tAke off the spray painting that was done while Nightscape was open and indicated vandalisrn to vehicles, petty t•heft, drinking in public and arrests oP that nature wece noted. Commissioner McSurney stated there was a comment that the 3ant.a Ana Planning Commission recently denied a similar petition in that City based cn the problems and complaints associated with the petitioner's existing Santa Ana busineas. Mr. Schroeder stated ha talked to Sergeant ~i11 Sherer who actual7.y issued the license foc th~ Santa Ana facility an~ he expressed cancern over the image tt~at was heing conveyed about Nightscape because he has never been contactPd by the Police Department at all. He atated Sergeant Sherer's answer when he was asked about the Planning Commission's a~tion regarding the other club, was that apparently si.nce he had come into Santa Ana, they were having a rash of people thinking that if Santa Ana would allow this type establishment, maybe they could try to I,ave similar operations, and that was their main concern. Commissioner La CZaire referred to the recommendations from the Anaheim Police Department if this is approved, that the operator shall ente~ into a written agreernent for overflow off-aite parking with surrounding businesses which Mr. Schroeder indicated they already have; and that no alcoholic beverages be served; a~d that the owner must meet physica~ security requirements deemed necessary and approved by the Chief of Police pcior Co opening the business to the public; that the hours uf operatior, shall be limited to Friday a~d Saturday ni9hts 8:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m.; and that lighting shall be at a 1-foot 4/1/85 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNTNG CUMMISSION~_~PRII._1, 19H5 85-152 cendlelight minimum, maintained et ground level in the parking 1ot area utilized by the patrons. Mr. Schroedet atated they hAVe been tAlking to other engineors wh~ think that could be accompiiahed without heving to tear out the parking lot end could be done fcom the building itRelf. Commisaioner I,a Claire atated thero Wd~ a cp~ommendation that the petitloner enter into an agreement with thP City oE Anahsim to yuerantee reimbursement of any cost created by tcafEic or other secucity control measures. Mr. Schroeder explained that was his suggestion. Responding to Chafrrnbn Herbst, Mr. Scht~eder atated at this point, aince he in not sure whether they will purchese the property or enter into a lease, he has a letter nf intent fcom the property ownere to rendec the necessary number of parking spaces (250) on the adjoining parkiny lot. Concern.ing uae o[ the facilities for okher functi~ns, Mr. Schroeder stated the building is actually only used Eor 9 hours per week and originally he had thought it would be possible to have functions at the same timet however, he has determined that that could never happen because of the oppogition he haa had to that idea. Pau.l Singer, TrefEic Engineer, stated ~he parking study canducted hy Farm~r Consultants indicated there is going to be A~equate park~ng on-site and there are no siynificant conflicting kimes with the churchJ however, he is concerned about teenagera parking across the street because of the aecurity pcovisions on the applicant's parking lot and croRSinq the atreet would create a dangerous situation and also ~:hat parking is per.mitted on A:,eheirn ~oulevard. Mr. Schroeder stated it is at lsast 600 feet between thi~ building and any oth~r building and in his experience, the tr.enagers par.k as close to the door as they can and because a number of the teenagers don't have cars oc drivers lice-~ses, they are act~ally dropped off in front and then picked up. He added security does pr~hibit the patron from coming onto the lot and then drinking or doing vandalism to the vehicle~. He added he did not see that a~ a problem. He ~tated the entrance will remAin on the north side of the building. ~~~rIUN: Commissioner HushorP offered a motion, seconded by Com~missioner King and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commissifln h~s teviewed the proposal to permit an entertainment facility for teenagers with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces on a irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.95 acre, located at the northeast corner of Cerritoa Avenue and Anaheim aoulevard and further described as 1490 S. Anaheim Boulevard; and does hereby approve the Negati~~e Declacation upon ffnding that it has consideced the Negative Declaration togethec with any commente received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and ~ny comments received that there ia no substankial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Bushore offered a motion, that waiver of Code r.equirement be denied on the basis that ie will caus~ an increase in kraffic congeation in the immediate vfcinity and adversely affect any a~~oining land uses and granting of the parking waiver will be detrimental to thP peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of. the City nf Anaheim. 4~ 'o a MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINC COMMISSION,_aPRIL 1, 1985 __ 85-153 Responding to Commiseioner La Claire, Jack White explAined this motion ie C o d~ny the pdrking waiver which meana that if the conditional use p~rmit 18 approved, the petitioner would have to meet the Code requicementa foc ~arkin g. Chaitmen fierk~at staked the petitioner has reriprocal parking agreeme~its .~nd he could not approve~ the pflrking waiver aince the petitioner can meet the requicements. CAmmissioner Rushore steted he cannot go Along with the +~pprovdl of the parking weiv~r because he felt the way the pArking is set u p and thQ way it will be hand~~d will not be adequate. tie staked he did not think the parking is adequate foc the church on Sundays sometimea now. Commisaioner King sugger~ted aE:proval for one yeac. Commiasianer McBurney aeconded Commissioner Bushore's motion for denial of the ~arking wai~. ~- an d MOTION CARRIED (Commiasionecs La Claire, tlerbst and King voting no). C~ misaioner 8ushore offered a resolution denying Conditional Use Pecmit No. 2~~2 based on his experience and obaerval•ion of similar facilities in other c.ti.es, inc:luding Buena Park, and felt it would be detrimenCal to the surrounding area and w111 not benefit either the pcoperty ownera or the ci.tizena in the area and he thoughC the teenagers will ccoss the etreet creating a danyeroua situation. He stated problema come wit'ri this type business no mattec how hard they try to control it and he did noC think this is the place for this type business. Commisaioner Ga Claire stated she ~rould like, in all tairness to this petitinner, to see the existing operation and ahe woul~ like to reguext a two-week continuance in order to qive herself c~ chance to view this operat:o n ficst hand and to talk to the Santa Ana Police Department bnd the people in the neighborhood because it sounds like it is a very legitimate business and sha felt there ~s a need Eor teenagErs to have a place to go without gettin ;~ ~runk. She asked if the pelitioner would be opposed to a two-week contini~a n c e. Commissioner Bushore s~ated he would like his resolution acted on firat. Chairman Herbst stated he looked at this siCe and if the City is going to ha v e any teenage entertainment centers, this would probably be about as good a location as any because there are no humes near it, but h.;ac listened to t h e reports and realizea that probably ~e of tt~e teenagers would have a problem regardless of where they are located, but L•hat denial would be denying 958 of the teenager~~ a place to go. He stated he thought he would agree that a two-week aontinuance should be granted so the matter could be fucther studied. On roll call, the foregoing resolution FAILED TO CARRY by the following vote: AYES: BUSNORE~ FRY, MC BUitNEY NOES: HERBST, KING, LA Ci,AIRE ABSENT: NON~ ABSTA?N: BOUAS Jack White explained if, in the opir.ion of the Commission, they were unable to makE a determination based on the evidence preeented, they can, without tk~e applicank's permission, grant a continuance. 4/1/85 ~ 'r. MINUT~S. AN~NBIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. APRIL lt 1985 85-154 ACTION; Commissioner La Claire aEfeced A motion, aeconded by Commisaioner King and MOTION CARRIED (Commis~ioners sushore, Fry votiny no) that consider~tion of the c~forementioned matter b~s continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting oL• 1~pri1 X5, 1985, in ocder for the Commiealon to fucther etudy t•he situetion. Jack White steted the matter hns bean continuedt however, tlie Commission haa already acted on the reques t foc pArking waiver and thrt if evidence is preaented at the next me~tin g and the Commiasion wishes ko rPSCind the previous action, the public hr.aring can b~ reopened for additional tostimony to possibly reconaider the parking waiver. Chairman Herbat atated he would vote in favor of the parking wai~~er, if the patitioner can meet the requice+menta with reciprocal ~arking agreementa und that has been allowed in other parts of the City. .la ck White oteted unless hc hears otherwiRe he will assume that at the next Comm ission meeting~ the C~mmission will ceserve the right ta furth^r consider bo ~h the cnnditional use permit and the parking waiver which doe:~, not mean t he deciaion will be reversed. Chair.man Flecbst a~ked i[ th e Commiasinn would be i~ favor of tiavinr another vote on the perking waiver a t the next• meeting. All the Commiesioners indicated they would f.avoc h aving another vote on the parking, except Commissioner Bushore. Jack White stated the m~ttec will be continued in its entirety, ~ven though a motion wa~ adoptEd regardin g the parking waiver. He stated he would assume the hearing would be contin u ed as an open public t~earing in ocder to hear additional evidence, based u pon the C~mmisaion's field surveys. h~CESSED: 3:00 Q.m. RE;CONVENED: 3:10 p.m. I'i'~M NU. 5. EIFt NEGATIVE UECLARATION, WAIVER OF CODE REpUIREMENT ANp C:INDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2673 PUDLIC HEARING. OWNERS: D UTCH CLUB, A.V.I.O., INC., 1557 Weat Katella Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92802. AGENT: ROBERT BAX, 6624 Naomi Avenue, Buena Pa:k, CA 9062Q. Froperty describ ed as a rectangularly-sl~apPd parcel of land conaisting of approximately 0.72 acre, 1557 W. Katella Avenue (Dutch Club, A.V.I.O.). To expand an existing priva te club with alcoholic beuerages with waivec of minimum number of parking s pacee. There were faur peraons ind icating their presence in opposition to subject request and alkhouyh the a t aff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Robert Bax, agent, explain e d they wish to encloAe the existing open patio in order to entertain the Dut c h people and even though this is a priv~+te club, it is open to everyone who wa n ts to become a member; and that they havQ open house every Friday and Sat u rday anc~ everyone who comes must eithe: be a membec or be a guest of a member. 4/1/85 7~~; MINUTES, ANAHEIM C~TY PLANNING COMMISSiON. APRIL 1~ .1985 ` 85-155 Ted HAncock, 825 N. Rose, l~naheim, stated he ie representing Mr. and Mra. Ambroae Robinson, 1771 t~aylese 5treet, and stated they have lived there Ear 28 years and this club ie new to the neighborhuod and the owners of the club do not live near the place o~ busineas~ that there heve been numccoua police ceparts made by tho sucrounding citixens regarding noiae, etc. and severAt timen the club haH had to be closed and, in fack, one time the Pol;ce Department, ~ncluding the helicopters and etQel-helmeted officera, were there because of a diatutbAnce. He atated iE parking plACea are eliminaCed, the peaple would have to park in the surrounding area in Eront oE their res~d~ncea, c~o there wlll not only be the noise from the club, but noise from the patrona getting into their vehicleo and leaving aEter the club closea. He atated Che nPighbors would like ta strongly objeck to the ar.tivities aA listed by the club and would like to make a~oint that thiR expanaion iA not to accommodate an increase in at.tend~nce ~o the ct~o9r rehear.sal or Bible studies with only about 15 members lieted, bu~ cather i-- will be to accommodate r.heir Eriday ~nd Saturday night activities for 60 ~c '70 people which in ceality is the ex~ansion of a night club. William Remy, 1545 W. Katella, Anahcim, stated f~e c~wnc the property which is shown in t1~e str~ff report as the flood contr~l channel and further stated the club members use his lawn for pArking and he finds beer bottles and other items which are left an his property. He atated his residence is just back of khe club and at the time of r.he rafd, there were about 15 or 20 ~~aung people coming over hia fence hiding from the Police. He stated they neglected to say what they ar.e doing to his property and noted when they cannot. get into rhe elub, they spill over ontc. his property And he did not think it is appropciate to have that kind of clu~ in this acea. Mr. Robinaon, 1771 Baylers, Anaheim, staeed his pro~erty ia east of the cl.ub and that the Police Department has been called in many times and there is a definite problem and the citizens in that area wonder why they were not given some information that such a club was going to be allowed; and that it is surrounded ko the north and east by residence5 and most o[ them are retired and like to htlve peace and quiet and do not want to hear rhe nuise from the patrons at 1 oc 2:00 a.m. as they le~ve the club. He stated last weekend on Friday night, there was a pa[ty and tt~ere was construction work going on at the north end after the music atopped. He stated he and his neighbors have been trying to get something done since this club stacted and he has recefved some help in getting the height of a wall raised. He stated he can hear the people on the other side of the wall tAlking and that the predominant breeze ~_omes frort~ the west and carries sound very well. :ie suggested that the building be insulated so they dc not have to listen to the musfc at night. He stated he understands they are not allowed t~ have parties out in the open, but there are people in the back drinking, etc. and last Saturday night there was a party until 2:42 a.m. with e lot of noise. concerning parking, Mr. Robinson stated they have parking spaces in the rear, but tF~ey do not use them and ~he back lot is still ~~en and he felt the club should use their authority to d,irect people where to park in the rear. He stated he cannot get them to cooperate and that he understands the Police calls cost someone a lot of monPy and it is cnsting a lot of money to maintain that club and is costing the City of Anaheim a 10* of money for the convenience of a small group of people. 4/1/85 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNxNG_CUMMISSION, APRIL__1_, 1985 65-156 Raymond Knecht, 1775 ~eyleae, stated he hra lived there since 1958 And has no quucrel with the Dutch Club except when th~y rent the facility out on Friday, 5aturday and Sunduye; and hia property is adjecenl to the easr. and when they rent the building and play music unr.il 1 or ?. in th~ morn~ng, the neighhors have ko go to the Police Daparkment and file a complaint and it is a real problem. He stated they pACk on the residential streeta and leav~ beer bohtles all over the neighborhoud. F!e stated tliere was ~ party which was re~orted to the Police DepArtment and when they arrived, they called in more officera becauae there were young people using druqs and alcoholic beverages. He added this has been going on f ot quite a number of years and .it should not be Allowed to continue because th e neighbors can't en~oy being out in their yerds when there Are activities g oing on at the club. FIe stated the club should not be cented out unless they can control it an~ be reeaonsible for it when it is rented out to anol•her yroup. Jean Vigna stated qhe lives ocross ta the aouth And can veriEy what the last two gentlemen have just said about the noise on Saturduy nights; and that she had no yuarrel with the Dutch people until they started renting the club out and since then it has just been a rr~iaery and the main complaint is that her huaband has to go to work and man y times geks up at 3:OU or 4;00 in the mornings so if he has had tu lis~.en to mu<~ic to 2:00 in the mocr.i.ng, it affects his sleep and that is aff ecting her peace and health. Mr. Bax statea they tiave never been raided or closed down by the Police as far as he knows. tie atated one neighbor always complains and other neighbors never complain. He stated he ta Iked to some of the neiyhbors and at least one said he never hears anything tha t ia out of line Erom the cl:~b. He stated they have been trying to keep the noise down and that is one reason f.or wanting to enclose the patfo. He stated the dances end at midnight and that is the agreement they make with the Alcoholic Beverage Contr~l Boarci. t~e stated no one has Ccied to ~ontact them and there is always an officer there and if the r~usic is too loud, th ey ace told to yuiet down. He stated they do not rent the building to non--~embers and they c~nnot tell the people whece to park. He stated he did not think theca ~ould be a problem with beer cans, etc. He stated they have a gent Ieman ~~ho sleeps there and watchea the propecty and will call the Falice for any noises and ttiey have never heard a complaint about the kids smoking, etc. He stated they have a good standinq with the Police Department as far as he knows. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissionec dushore stated the property was zoned CL in .1963, but the skaff report does not mention a conditional uae permit for a private club in the CL Zone wikh the service of ralcoholic bevecege&. He .stated Paragraph 12 ~f Page 5-b indicates that Code permits private lodgea oc clubs with alcoholic beverages in CL 2unes subject to the approval of a conditional use permit. Annika Santalahti, Assi.stant Director for Zoning, stated private clubs are a permitte~ use i.n that zone. She 3tated a number of yeacs ago the Code was recodified or rearrar.ged and prior to that, each zone had a list of pertnitted uses with a conditional uae perm it provision which added that the following uses are conditional uses unless otherwise permitted in the zone and this type use was allowed as a permitted u se. 4/1/85 ;k MINU'P~S. AN)1HEIM CITY PLANNING COliMISS~ON. APRII. 1, 1985 85-157 Chaicman Herbst asked if. renting pri.vate clubs out for other uaes is pecmiesible. Annika St~ntalahti atated the Cade does not dddresa thar pacticular isaue and thAt can bo qulte e pcablem. She ~dded a conditi.onal uae permit would not even be rec~uired todsy and thece is an error in Che ~taff repurt. She stated the Commiesion may want to review the situation to see if the club becomea a rental hall when it is rented out. Commioaioner BushocQ naked tf thece are any restrietions in the CL Zone as to how they can operate os a club as to the hours of operation, riumber of parking spaces, etc. Annika Santalahti stated the parking epuces are addressed. Commiasioner Bushare aeked if tt~e number of propoRed space meets the Code requicements. Annika Santalahti atated nppacently it does not meet the Code now with the expansion oE the ayuare Eoutage. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated the current stcucture dnea not meet parking Cod~ and that the current r~quirement is for 43 packing spaces and they now have 38. Chairmr-n Herbst stated he doea not ].il;e the agent's attikude perteining to the neighbor's complaints= thAt there is packing on the property and it can be controlled and more than one ncighbor complAined and he did not think the agen~. is making the efCort neces~ary to satisfy the aafety, health and weltare of the communil.y. Mr. Bax stated he tells everyone wt~~ rents the hall what the conditions are. Chairman Hecbst stated he will ask the City Attor.ney to make a ruling as to whethec or not a private club would meet the criteria if it is rented out to others. He stated it appears aith khe normal operation of the club there is no pcoblem, but when it is cented out, it becomes a pr~blem. He stat.ed they can talk to t_ members and tell tt~em to pack in the ~ear dnd he can see no ceason for granting a var.iance from tt~e parking Code when the citizens say there is already a parking pcoblem. He ~stated this needs to be studied furttier. Commissioner Fry stated the applicant is either ill-informed or extcemely naive because he has heard at least 5 people with the same story regarding the packing and noise and it has been stated thdt there has been music after midnight. He stated evidently there is no problem with the club itself, but when it is rented out, there is a problem and he thought they are not monitocing it properly when it is rented~ Commissioner Bushore asked about the service of alcoholic beverages for a private club. Mr. '+ax stated each party who rents the facility has their own license. He stated they do not serve drinks, and they just rent the ha11 and ttie bar is not open. Reaponding to Commissioner Bouas, he stated that they do check to cee if they have a license fxom the A[iC and a board member is always present when the £acility is rented. He stated they pay $10.U[1 an hour to a Santa Ana Marshull to be presen+: and they pay the next door neighbor for additional parking when necessary. ReEponding to Commissioner 1•~cBurney, Greg Hastings, Associate i~lanner, explained the Po:ice Department did not make any comments relative to this request and it was suggested khat the Police Aepartment be questioned further about this location. Commissionec Bushore added he would suggest a two-week continuancp. 4/1/85 ,~~•t ~ ~ p .,'p MINUT~S, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. APRIL 1, 1985 65-158 AcTION: Commieaionec Hushore offeced a motion, aeconded by Commiasioner King and MOTION CARRIED khAt consideration of the aforementione~ matEer be cantinued to the cegulacly-echedulQd meeting of April 15, 19b5, Eoc further study and infocmation. Commiasioner LA Claice stated to thoae present in oppoaition thAt they ahoul~ keep e record of tha problema and things that ere gaing on at the club and khet the petiti.onor should also keep recordo. Commissioner Fry acated he would li.ke for ataff to check with the Police Department. ITEM N0. 6. EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 267U PUBLIC HEARING. OW~JERS: ROBERT F. MILLS, 1600 W. Lincoln Avenue, AnAheim, CA 92801. AGENT: JEANA GIANAKAKUS, 117 S. Verde Street, Anaheim, CA 92805. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped pArcel of land consisting of ap~raxfmately 1.12 acrcB located at the southeast corner of La ~almr~ Avenue and Mot~ican Avenue, 1750 West La Palma Avenue. To pecmit on-sale alcoholic beverages in an exlsting semi-encloaed restaurant. There was no one indi.cating their presence in oppusition to subject request and although the ataEf repoct wa8 not rQad, it ia referred to and made a part of the minutes. Jeana Gianakakos, r~gent, was present to answer any questions. THE PUBLIC H~ARING WAS CLOSED. Responding to Commisaioner McHurney, Mc. Gianakakos explained they will be serving steaks, seafood and aome Greek food. it was noted the Planning Director ~r his authorized cepresentative has determined thai: the proposed project falls within the deffnition of Categorical Exemption~, Class 1, as defined in the State ~nviror~mental Impact Report Gufdelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requiretnent to prepare an EIR. ACTION: Commissioner King offered Resolution No. PC85-84 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Cnmmiasion does heceby grant Canditional Use permit No. 2670 purauant to Anaheim Municipa.l Code Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. On roll call, thE focegoing resolutior+ was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS~ BUSHORE, FRY, HERBST~ KING~ LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY NUES: NONE AGSENT: NONE Jack White, Assistant City Attocney, presented the written rfght to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. 4/1/85 MINUTBS. ANAHE~M CITY PLANNING CUMMISSION. APRIL 1. 1985 85-159 ITEM N0. 7. EIR NEGATIVE UECLARhTION._WAIV~R C1F CODE REQUIREMBNT AND CONDITIOtJAL USE PERMIT N0. 2675 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: THE F.'UCLID-RUMNEYA COMPANY~ AT~'N: LAk:Y CTSNMAN~ 505 N. Tu~tin Avenue, 121y, Santa AnA, CA 92705. AG~NT; J~FF 6~IiRNS, 1252 N. Euclid Stceet, Anaheim, CA 92801. Property described as an irregularly-ahape~ parcel of land consistfng oE approximately 2.8 acrea located norrh and east of the northeask corner of. Romneya Drive and Euclid Street, 1252 Nortl~ Euclid Street (Barco's Pizza). To permit on-sale beer and wine in An Nxisting restaurant with waiver of minimum numb~r of parkLny apaces. Thece were tour per~ons indicatiny ttieir presence in opposition to subject requeat and although the ataff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minute~. JeEf eehrns, eyent, stated he has been in this business at this location for 6-1/2 years and theGe have been no problems and their customera have requested the sale of beer and wine. He asked about Gondition N~. 3 pectAining to aigns. He also referred t4 the trash areas and tree pla.~.ing fee conditions. Chafrman Iierbsk explained these are standard conditi~ns And if they have been complied with, there are no problems. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSEG. It was noted khere was someone else present in opposition and the public hearing was reopened. Frank Ariza, stated he nwns the buildingo at 1237 and 1243 Dresden and they back up to the stiopping ccnter; that there is a Aituatian in that area with a lot of unwanted trespassing pedeEtrian traffic through their complexes from east of the area, and from ihe duplexes across Dresden Place and from the Chevy Chase area, and much of the traffic filters down a long drainage channel that runs acro~s the north end of Dresden Place and they axe seeing an increas~~in vandalism, graffiti, litter and roWdiness and there has been an increase in break-ins. He stated thex get a lot of speeding trafEic in the a11ey and they believ~ that the beer and wine license would increase thoae type activities in the area. E~e stat~d this area hae been targeted for uP9rade by the City of Anaheim Neighborhood Preservation Agency and taxpayers funda have be~n spent to improve this area and apgroval oE this cequest would nullify the good already done snd take them ir~ th~ opposite directian. P1r. ~ehrns state~ the pedestri~n traffic problem does not have much to do with the restaurant since it comee ftom the opposite direction. THF. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. 4/1/85 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING_COMMISSION, APRIL 1, 1985 85-160 Responding to Commissioner Buahore, Mr. Bahrns stated the restaurant wtll have seating for about 30 people ~ince moat af his bueiness iu take out. ACTION: Commisaioner King af£ered a motion, aeconded by Commissioner Fry and MOTION CARRIEU that the AnAheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit on-sale beer and wine in an existing restaurant with waiver of minimum number. of parking spaces on an irregularly-ehaped p~rcel of land eonoisting of appcoximet~ly 2.8 aeces located nocth and eaet of th~ noctheast corner of Romneya Dri.ve and Euclid Street and further described as 1252 North Euclid 5treet; and does hereby aE~pCOVe the Negative Declarntion upon £inding thak it has considered the NNqative Declaratian logether with eny comments received ducing Che public review process and Eurther finding on the basie of thp initial Study and any commenta received that there i~ no subaLantial evidence that the proje~t wi11 have a aignificant effect on the enviconment. Commissioner Kiny offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fry and MOTION CARRIEll that the Anaheim City Plenning Commissi.on does hereby qrant waiver of Code cequirement on the basis that the parking waiver will nat cause an increase in traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity nor adversely affect any adjofning land uses and yranting of the parking w~ive; un~er the conditions imposed, iE any, wi11 not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and yeneral welface of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Cammissioner Kiny offered Resolution No. PC85-85 and moved Eor its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Cort~mission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No 2675 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Secti.ons 18.03.030.03U through 18.030.030.035 and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BUSHORE~ FRY, NERBST, KING, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Commissioner Bushore stated when the hotel was proposed on the other end of Chevy Chase, these same problems were disc~~ssed with people walking thcougt, the area and suggested staff review that situation to see if there is some way to cut the traffic off. ~ack White, Assistant City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commiss~an's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM NU. 8. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3471 PUBLIC HEARINGv OWNER5: STEWART, GREEh ASSOCIATES, 2914-330 5th Avenue, S.W., Calyary, Alberta, Canada T2POL4. AGENT; KART~ MEAAER, P.O. Box 6371, Anaheim, CA 92806. Property dESCribed as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 27.11 acres, located at the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and State College Boulevard, 214 South State Coll.ege Boulevard (New Meji). 4/1/85 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNTNG COMMISSION, APRIL 1, 19a5 85-161 Waiver of minimum numbec of parking spacea to permit a restaurant. THE FOLLOWING ACTIUN WAS TAKEN AT THE BEGINNING OE TH~ MEETING. ACTION; Commiasioner King ofEered a motion, seconded by Commissian~c Bouas ~nd MoTION CARRIED that conaideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduaed meetiny of April 15, 1985, at ataff's requeat in order Eor the petitioner to aubmit an updated parking study. ITEM N0. 9. ~IR NEGATIVE DBCLARATIUN, WAI~l~li UE CQDE REQUIREMENT AND CONDITIUNAL USE PERMIT NC. 2671 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: WII.~IAM C. AND CYNTNIA L. TAORMINA, P.U. BoX 309~ Anaheim, CA 92805. AGENT: SET FREE CHRISTIAN F'ELLOWSHIP, 320 North Anaheim aoulevard, Anatieim, CA 92805. Property described ds an irceyularly-shaped parcel of .land conaiating of approximately 0.78 acre, loca~ed at the southeast cocner cf Adele Street and Anaheim Boulevard, 320 North Anaheim 9oulevard (Set Free Chriatian Fellowship). To retain a church ~ellowahip center with waivec of minimum number of parking spaces. There was one person fndicatiny her presence in opposition to subject request and although the ataff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part oE the minutes. Philip Aguilar, pastor of the Set Free Christian Fellowship, explained they were given a conditional use permit to be reevaluated khis year an~ they are requesting a waiver of parking spaces; that in the 15 months they havQ been in this location, thece has never been any complaints from the neighbors and explained they help distribute food to the needy. He explained the majority of people who come to the church walk or are given a ride and a lot of people ride bicyalea. Pastor Aguilar stated they have raised enough money during the past 4 months to meet every Cude requirement necessary including walls, electrical, new bathrooms, etc. Ann Bausman, 4U7 N. Anaheim Boulevard, stated ~he lives at thi~ address and ope~ates an antique shog at this address and she has no quarrel ~ith the church itself and what they are doing, but she fs concerned about the parking because she has abnut 2 parking space~ in front ~f her business where her customers can park and since the church has been in operation, there are cars parked there most of the time and hec cuatomers cannot get in and her business has suffered. Sh~ state~ ahe is concerned about the parking on the west side of the street and suggested a 1-hour parking restriction~ on that side of the street to eliminate some of the parking problems. She explained she is open fr~m 11:Q0 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. everyday except Sunday. Pastoc Ayuilar determined that Ms. Bausman has never complained to him and stated he would guarantee there will not be a problem in the future because they have volunteers wha will monitor the situation. 4/1/85 MINUTB5 4 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING_CUMMISSION. APRIL 1~ 1985 85-162 TNE PU6LIC NEARING WAS CLOSEU. Commissioner Bouae stated thp people aeem to be ~tsnding in tt~e middle of the street when churcti ie over and she was concerned thak someone wi.il gek hit. She stated people are also pack.iny in the red zone along Anaheim ~oulevard and they are parking in the driveways ~nd al~o there are bicycles on the ~idewalk. She asked if the children are there durinq khe week and if they are rur~ning a nureery echool. Pastor Aguilac staked GheirA is a compleL~ non-pcofit ~rganization uperated hy full-time volunteers and they do have a tutoring progcam to help any skudent with their educationt that ~hey have had Ghe Fire and Code Inspectars out to ins~ect the premiaes and right now they~ have a kindergarten program wi~h 7 children, a first yrade program with approximntely 5 children and 3 children in Che second and third grade levpl. He stated all the teachers ere volunteers and have their credential~. He explained in the rear. of. the building, they help 30 to 50 needy people a day who are referred from various gocial agencies. He stated there are 4 major raoms in the middle ot• the building and they were in violarion ther.e becauae oP no mechanical ventilation syskem qofny in~o L•hose rooms, but those wece all made into storage area~ for their books, food, s~~~plies, etc. Eie stated they do have a license to Ceach the children. He exp.lained right now they lease approximately 9 tiomea from the City Redevelopment Agency as tempocary shelCecs and tliat is where most of the people live. He stated they do not .~se Federal tnonies of any kind auch a~ block grants, etc. and everything is done an a volunteer basis. He stated there ace only a maximum of 4 or 5 cars there at any one time and he has not had a problem, except on Sundays. Responding to ~ommissioner Mc~urney, Pastoc Aguilar stated no one lives on the premises~ but they do have someune there at all Gimes ro anawer the telephone. He sl•ated this has proven ta be good for the neighbors and they have not had any graffiti oc other problems. Reapondiny to Commissioner King, Pastor Aguilar stated they have taken care of all t~eir Code-related pcoblems. ACTION: Commissioner King offeced a motion, secnnded by Commissioner Fry and MUTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the pcoposal to retain a church fellowship center with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces on ar irre9ularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.78 acre, located at the southeaat corner of Adele Street and Anaheim Boulevard and fucther described as 230 N. Anaheim Boulevard (Set Fr.ee Christian Fellawship)s and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments recei~ed during the public review process and further Einding on t'~e basia of the Initial Study and any comments ceceived that there is no substantial evidence thal• the project will have a sfgnificant effect on the enviconment. Commissioner King offered a motion, seconded by Commissi~ner Fry ar~d MOTION CARRIED that the Anahefm Ciky ~lanning Commission does hereby grant waiver of Code requi~ement on the basis that the parking waiver wil~ not cause an incre~~e in traffi<: congeskion in the immediate vicinity nor adversely af£ect any adjoinin9 land uEes and gran~ing of the parking waiver under the conditfons imposed, if any, wi21 not be detcimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. 4/1/85 ~ M_INUT~S, ANAHEIM CITX PLANNING COMMIS6ION, APRIL 1, 1y85 85-163 Commieaionec King of,fered Resolution No. PC85-86 and moved for its passage and edoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commiesion doe~ hereby grdnt Canditional Us permit No. Z671 purauant to Anahoim Municipal Code 5ections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 for a period of one yeac subject to Interdepertmental Committee recommendationa. Pastor Aguiler asked about the filing tees to have this matter reconsidered in one year. ~Iack White, Assietant City Attorney, stated the Code hae been r~vlsed during the past yeac to require exteneions of time foc permits that naw expire to have to go through the applicstion procedure For a new public hearinq. He explained rhe City Council would be the only authority to waive that fee. Chairman Hecbst suggested the ~ermit be granted for 2 yeArs and explained if thece are violations, the permit can be revoked at any time. C~mmissioner Kiny added a 2-year time limit to his rpsolution. On roll call, the foreyoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, PKY, H~RBST~ KING, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNF.Y NI~ES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: BUSHOR~ Jack Wt~ite, AUSistant City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Flanning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM NU. 10. EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 5 AND VARIA~ICE N0. 3472 PU6LIC HEARING. OWNERS: WILLIAM R. AND PAMELA E. HUFFSTUTTER, 1749 North Woodwind Lane, Anaheim, CA 928U7. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 5,000 square feet, 1740 North Floodwind Lane. Waiver af maximum lot coverage to constcuct a coom addition ta a single-family residence. Commissioner La Claire temporarily left the Council Chamber. There wa~ no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff repoct was not read, it is referred Co and made a part of the minutes. Wayne Huffstutter, 1749 N. Woodwine Lane, Anaheim, agent, explained the lots in this tiract are smaller than the average lot in the area and any type of addition would require a v~riancE and their madel had the smallertt floor plan in the tract and they are surrounded by larger 2-story homes with a lot more floor space and thEy dn not have a din~ng area. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOS~D. 4/~/85 ;; MxNUTES ` ANANEIM CITY PLANNING CnMMISSION, APRIL 1, 1985 85-16A it was noted the Planning Dicector or his authorized representative hes determined thet the proposed pro~ect [alls within the definition of ~: Categorical Exempkiona, Clasa 5, as dafined in khe state F.nvironmental impact Report Guidelines and is, thecefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to E~cepare an EIR. Cammissioner King offered Resolution No. PC85-B7 and moved Eor ita passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commi.aeion doea hereby qrant Variance No. 3472 on the ba~is that there are s~ecir~l circumetance3 applicable to the property auch as size, shape, topography, location and sucroundinga which do nut apply to other identically zoned property in the sam~ vicinil•y= and that strict appllcation of the Zoning Code deprive~ khe praper~y of privilegea enjoyed by other ~roperties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity and aubject to Interdegartmenta.l Committee recommendationa. On roll call, the f~r~going re$olution was pASSed by }hc Eollowing vote: AYES: 60UAS~ SUSHORE, FHY, FiERBS~, KING, MC E3URN~Y NGES: NUNE ABSENT: LA CLAIkE .Tack White, Assistant City Attorney, presented thQ written right to appeal the Planning Commission's deciaion within 22 ~ays ko the City Council. Commissianec La Claire returned to the Council Chamber. ITEM N0. 11. EIR NEGATIV~ UECLARATION, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 202, LAND USE AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT, RECLASSIFICATION NO. 84-85-28. VAFtIANCE N0. 3465 AND APPRUVAL FOR REMUVI+L OF ONE SPF.CIMEN TREE (No. 85-03) PUBLIC HEARING. OWNEI2S: JUN NISHINO, D.D.S. & MARCIA J. NSSHINO, 1780 Winlack Street, Urange, CA 92665. At~ENT; MERIUZAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., 14912 Minnetonka Boulevard, Minnetonka, Minnesota 55345. Property desccibed as an irregulacly-shaped parcel of l.a~d consisting of ap~Loximately '° 2.0 acres located on the northeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Pinney r D[ive. To chanye the current hillside low-density residential designation to commercial professional. RS-A-43,000(SC) to CO(SC) to construct two, ~9-foot hiyh, one-story comriercial office b~~ildirg~ with waivezs of minimum building setback and minimum landscaped setback. There were eight persons pcesent indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read~ it i~ referred to and made a part ~f the minutes. Paul Noyes, agent, presented a landacaped drawing shawfng the two buildings totali~g 16,250 square feet and explained they are elininating the request foc a variance by reducing the size of the building on the right and placing it 20 Eeet from the propecty Iine. ~/1/85 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PL,ANNING COMMIS5ION. APRIL 1, 1985_ ___85-165 ~ercy Grotle, 113 ocange Hi]1 LAne, Anaheim, etated hia pr~perty will overlook aubject propRrtyl that he bought his property 17 .yQara ago and one af the impoctant things he conai~ered waA the xoning i~ tt~e area since he had just moved from an area that was zoned Eor comm~rcial uses next to his liome; that he now has a lovely home and this is A pride-of-awnership neighborhood which can be evidenced by every house on thAt strept and he haa inveske~ more than ~~U,000 additional dollacs in improvemenls and if the area b~low him is rexoned to coir.mercial uses, accarding to leading real estate agents, it will reduce the value of his property. !ie atated khis would create a commerciat acea right in ttie middle of a reaidential acea and this pr~perty is surcounded by cesidential use~ and it will change the entire neighborhood. He stated he is worried aUout the Scenic Corridor and did not want ~o see more and more commeccial uses along 5anta Ana Canyon Road. t{e stated the developer wants to remove an old lovely Pepper tree. He stated there is discussion th~t this developmen~ wi1.l improve an unsightly area and he did nat see why it has to be an unsightly area because if he does not mow his weeds, he is cited for it and this property could be laken care of in the same manner. Ne stated this project will have 65 parking spaces and he thought ovec 1/2 of the spaces will be used by tenants in the buildiny and dnubted if the balance could accommodate the clientele 3nd thought eventually the patror~s will find parking on adjacent streets. He stated the inter~ection at Santa Ana Cat~yon Road ha~ a loL• of accidents and he thuught that should be a concern. He stated 1E the developer did put residences in there as it is zoned, there would not be any complaints from the neignbors and that hE was never noti~ied oi• any previaus hearings to consider cesidential uses. Ben Rogers, lU7 Orange Hill 1~ane, Anaheim, stated he has been at his pcopecty for about 17 yeacs and subject property would be in his line of sight and they fe~l their property values will be affected. He stated his wife talked tc 3 diff~°rent re~l estate companies and 3 bank organizatians as to whether or not property values of residential properties bordering commercial propecties would be affected and learned that property values would be lowered by 5 to lU8 and the property would be harder to sezl. He stated his wife also determined that there is not really a need for additiona] commercial office spaces in this area, however, there is a need for moderate priced homes. AmeliaE Clark, 5349 E. Qusil Ridge Terrace, Anaheim, stated she represents 50 people, as shown on the petition she will submit, and that she had walked the community hecself and received a very positive response to the fact that she had taken the time to let them know what was being proposed and she talked to some who wete adamantly opposed to any developm~nt on that property. She stated children pass by that pcoperty on their way to school and tne intecsection is a.lrpady busy and there are freguent acci.dents. She stated she feels this development would not be compatible with the area and a13o she ceal3y resents anyone coming in and robbing her of her enviconment and noted she loves the birds and trees. Mike Connell, 5250 Gerda Drive, Anaheirti, stated his property is direc~ly behind the ~argest building proposed and he was concerned about the value of his property and did ~ot think a reclassification would be of any benefit to 4/1/85 MZNUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISStON, APRIL 1, 1985 85-166 -.~_. any of the ~coperty awners. He atated he pucchASed his home because it wae zoned for residontial land uses and wat~ located in the Scenic Corridor and if ther~e buildinga are canatructed, he will be looking at: A w~ll. Jack Conway, 531d Gerda, Anaheim, stated he is in f.avor of khis project; that he opposed the previous pru~ect because the buildings wou.ld have been 35 feet hiyh and would b1UCk aome people's views and the petition cont~ining 163 signatures in oppoeition w~s preaented ut that time. E!e al•ated he distributed copies oF the preliminary plans to the neighbors, bul• since then the developers have made changes and he has given copies of the revised plana to his neighbors on Gercla Drive. He etated the people who llve above the property on Urange Hill may be oppoaed, but they dn noC have to look ak this propexty right now and there is tra3h, beeG cnna, ekc. on the property and it io also a hang out Eor young people and he thought it should be considered as a fire hazard. tie stated he b~ught his home 9 yeArs ago and knew that prnperty waa vaaant and knew he was taking a chance; and that he is not thrilled with the proposal, 5uL• does not like the property the way it is now. He stated there are very Few childrer~ who walk past this pcoperty. Jack Younger, 5244 Getda Drive, stated one of the buildings will bf• right in his back yard and he is oppos~d to the proposal and that trees do make the area look nice. Marie Schill.ing, 112 Orange Hill, stated when she purchased her property, she knew there was an electrical company eaoement where powec lines go, but she can r,ot build on that property or even put up a fence, but she ha~ to maintai.n the property and if the weeds and trash are not removed, she would be fined and she thought every prapecty owner should be expected to live up to those same requirements. Stan Hafer, 1151 Dove, Newpoct 6each, attorney representing the developer, stated the project will have a residential ;:haracter and will not be a strict commercial type project. He stated the aic conditioning units will be scceened from view and the trees and landsceging will make the project pleasing to the neighbors and stated the oniX tree to be relocated is the Pepper tree and thet an adult tcee will be planted in that area. He stated they feel this pcoject will certainly enhance the areu and not decrease propprty values. He added the property is now unsightly and the question is what could be done with that property. Paul Noyes stated there will be more trees aEter the project is completed than what is ~here now. Concecning the comments abou;: children walking past the property, he stated they will be providin9 sidewalks along Pinney Drive and Santa Ana Canyon Road. THE PUBLIC H~ARING WAS CLOSED. Responding to Commissioner Bushore, Mr. Noyes explained these will be professional offices. Commissioner Bushore stated the park:ng ratio i~ 1 space for 25U square feet and medical uses w~u~d require more parking and that the atafi teport was prepared for the praposed uses a~ general ofFice uses, but the intent is to have any and all professional users, including medical. Mr. Noyes stated they have not requested a parking waiver and whatever uses 4/1/£~5 MINUTES, AIJAH~IM CTTY P~ANNING CG~~IMIaSIUNi APRIL 1~ .1985 85-167 th~y have Will have to camply with the packing requirementa and etated they do no~ intend t~ request a~nrking waiver. Gommisaioner Fry afated the owner hae the right to develop aomething on the ~GOperty and some of. the o~poaition has sAid they do not want anything devela~~ed on the property and somQOno else said ~hey a~ould like to aee moderate priced hausing and he would agre~ there is ~ need Lor moderate pciced t~ousing, hut that would not be dovelu~ed nn tl~i:~ ~itN because of the acquisition co~ts af ~he land itself. He etat~d therc was a Nroposal ~~n thia ~ropPrty Eoc a project about Cwice the eize of this one and the Commieaion reaponded to the opposition'R concerns by denying that requeat on th~ basis that thece would be too much development on thc propertyt and that there was a pr.evioue reque~t for aingle-family homea which tt~e n~ighbors alsa objected to. He stated he thought ~hfo is one of the best pcoposals Eor th+s property :~ecauae ot the propoaed •~r~iiitecture and ik is low profile and the landacaping will F~e attractive. He staked tie woul~ be in Eavar of this pro~osal. Commissioner La Claire atated 2-~tory houee, cuul.d be built on this property and oveclook the people on Gerdap however, ahe do~s not like commeraial uaes tt~ere at all. She ~tated she woul~ not be opp~sed to commercic~l oftice u~es because that would probably have the lenst impact. She stated this i~ A(1RCd pcoperty to develop, but it cannot r,tay vACant anr3 it doec n~t look like it is suit.~ble for residenti.al uses. Chairman Nerbst staCed this is a privately-owned property and tl~e owner ~ays taxes on it and has the right ko develop something. He skated hE was on the Commission when homes were ap~•:r,ved by the Cammission and then denied by the City Council because a high sound attenuation wall would be necessary adjacent to ;;anta Ana Canlon Road. He ~tated allowtng commercial office uses would be limited and the offi~;es would be closed at 5 or 6 in rtie evenings, so he did not ttiink it would be an impact nn the neighbur~. He s~~ted t~e fs oppased to commeccial in that area, but that this is a hard parcel to dev~lop and the Planning Commission, as land planners, must come up with a decision and if the neighbors don't want the property to be developed at ~il, they can purchase it and uee it as a park. Ete stated he will vote in f.3vor of this pcoposal. ::c•mn~isaioner 9u~hore stated he w±ll oppose the pcoposal and thought it would ue rno ~ logical to develop residen~ial home» there since suund attenuation could be done without a high wall and access t~ould be off- PinnPy Drive rather ~han Santa Ana Canyon Road, creating lesa tcaffic and impact on the nelghborhood. Comm+esioner La Claire Asked if the developec haa con.siderPd any ~ther mitigation measuces and asked if there eould be moce trees in the parking area so that they will not be lcoking down on a sea o£ asphalt. Commissioner Bushore stated if this i.s approved, he would guarantee that they will be back in lookiny for a parking waivec for medi.cal uses. ACTION: c:ommiseioner Fry off~red a mot,~n, seconded by Commi~sioner McBurney ar.d MOTIGN CARF2IED that the Anaheim City P2~nning Commission has reviewed r.he pro~osal t~ chano,e the cucrent hillside low der~sity resid~ential designation of the General Plan to conunercial office usas and ta rezone subject property from the RS-A-43,000(SC) (Residential, Agricultucal Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone 4/1/85 MINUTBSf AN~HBIM CITY PLANNING CUMMIS6ION, APRIL 1~ 1985 65-,166 to COIsC) (Commercial, UEFice and Profession~l, Scenic Corridor O~erley) Zone tv conatruct 2, 19-foot high one-ator,y office buildings witl~ wnivers of minimum building setback end minimum landacaped setback on a trregularl,y-shapea par~el of land coneisting of approximately 1.8 acces located et the northe~st cocner of 5anta Ana Canyon Road and Pinney Drive~ an~ dues hereby AppCOV@ khe NQ9At~V8 DeC.tAKBkiOn upon finding that it has cnnsidered th~ Negetive Declaration together with Any commonta zece~v~d durinq the public review procesa and Eurther Einding on the basis of the Initial Study and Any comments received that thero ia no aubstantial evidence tt~at the pro~ect ~~ill heve a alyniEicant efEeck ~n the environment. Jay Tdshiro, Ana~ciate Planner, explained the o~propriaCe action on the Gonecal Plan Amendmant would be a~proval of Exhibit A fur the land use element and Bxhibit B foc the circu.lation element, pointing out thie is a revision to the Bxhibit No. 7 of the Santa Ana Cenyon Raad access atudy. Commiesioner Pry ofEered Resolution No. PC85-88 and m~ved f~: its passage and adoption that the Anaheim C±ty Planning Commisaion does approve General Plan Amendment No. 202, Exhibit A far the land use element an~ ~x:~ihit D for Che circulation element. Un roll call, the Eoregoing resulutian was pasaed by the faliowing vote: AYES: BOUAS~ FRY, HF~IIST, KING, LA CLAIRE, MC BURN~Y tJUES : E3USHORE AkiS~NT: NONE Jay Titus, Office F,ngineer, asked that an additional canditiAn be added to the recl~~saification ~hat the ownPr of subject propecty sha~.l irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of Anaheim a strip of. lana as cec~uired by the City Engineec for construction of sidewalks on Santa Ana Canyon Road and Pinney Drive. Commi.ssionec Fry offered Resolution No. PCB~-89 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commiasion does tiereby grant Reclassiffcation No. 84-85-28 subject ko Interdepartmental Committee recommendations including the additianal condition tequiring dPdication for sidewalka. On roll call, the fo~eqoing reso'lution was passed by the following t~ote; AYES: BOUAS, PRY, HERBST~ KING, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY NOES: BU~HORF' ABSENT: N9NE Commissioner Fry offered Re~~~olution Na. PC85-90 and moved for its passage and adoption thak the Anaheim City Planning Commissi~n due.z hereby gc~nt Variance No. 3465 on the basis that there are special ciccumstancer~ appllcable to the property such as size, shape, t~pography, location and surroun~ings whi~h do not apply to other identi~ally z~~ned property in the same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code depr+.ves the pr~pecty of privileges er.joyed by other propertiea in the identical zone and classifi~ation in th~ 4/1/85 MINUTBS, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CUMMISSION. APRTL 1, 1985 85-169 vicinity and aub~ect tu mndificationa that the eaot building shall be moved 20 Peot ~way from the property lin~ and subject to Interdepartmental Committee rec~mmendations. On coll call, the furegoinq :csolution waa passed by the following voCe; AYES: BOUAS~ FRY, )1L•:fii!ST. !; ~ ~:;;. LA CLAIRE~ MC BURNEY NOES : ElUSHORE ABS~NT: NON~; Commissionec Fry off.ered a motion, aeconded b} Commiasioner hing enc' MOTION CARRIEU (Commissi4ner Buahoce votinc~ no) that the Anaheim C.ky Planning Commisrion daea hereby yrant the request for removal ~f one ,apecimen tree on Lhe baele that a ceaeonable and pracl•icable development of the E~roperty on which the tree is located requirea removai oE tree. Jdy Tashiro atated since the Genecal Plan Amendment hgs been recommendNd for approval, it wi:l au~cmatically be aet f.~r public hearing by khe City Council and he would suygest that the Commission recammend that the City Council also considec the actions on ~I~e rectassification, variance and removal of specimen tree removal. (:ommiasiuner ~ry oEfered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does he-~by recommpnd that the City Council consider their actians cn Reclassificakion 84-85-28, Variance No. 34G5 and the request f.or approvbl af cemuval of specimen tree in cnnjunction with their considEratio~ of General Plan Amendment No. 202. IT^cM N0. 12. ~IR NEGATIVE DECLARATIUN AND VARIANCE NO. 3474 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: VINCENT P. PEITROK, 21b W. Vermont Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805. AGEN:: HUGU A. VAZQUEZ, 619 Sou*_h Live Oak Drive, Anaheim, CA 92805. Property desc:ibed as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting af approximately 0.4 acre, 218 W. Vermonk Aversue. Waivecs of minimum building site area per dwelling unit and maximum structural height to conslruct a 16-uni.t affordable aPartment complex. There was no one indicating theic presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff repcct was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutps. Hugo Vazquez, 619 S. Live Oak Dcive, Anaheim, was present to answec any questf.ns and explained the variancea are neceseary to provide aifordable units. He stated he met with the neighbors and the people on the south agree wiEh the project and there was some concerns from the people cn the north side because of the previous actiona on that ~stceet. ~HE PUBLIC HEARING WT+S CLOSED. Commissianer Bouas asked if this is a two or ~hrc~-story project. Greg Hastings, Associate Planner, st~ted the original plans w~re submitted for a one-story and two-story pcojec~t however, since khe ram~ does not work on the 4/1/85 ~ MINUTFS, ANAHEIM GITY PI,ANNING COMMIS3IQN, AP1tIL 1. 1985 85-170 submitted pldns, thio ands up b~ing a tW~~ and three-rtor;~ }.~:~j~c:~, '.'pi'y similar to khe one approved earliec c~day. Chaicman Hecbst stated he is conr.Ar.neri r~b~ut t~~~ lncrenoed density since that acea Alceady has a prohlPm. Commissioner auai~ora s~ated he had that same aoncern when the Generel Plan Amondment wAS approv ed about one month Aqo and now, t he Commisai~n"s worst feacs are happening on that gtreet and thiA will tota lly devastate the north side of Vermont. Ctiairman Herbst stated he has no problem with the Apartmente, and recognizi.ng t•here are affordable units involved and that thr developer is ent: .led to variancea, but the vacianc:e thr.y ate reque~ting ie for density and th~t is the nezghbor's concern and what they are complairiing ahout. Commiesioner Fry stated he t~ad A litL•le difficulty with the ~revious a~pcoval for 14 units, but now feels this cequeat is the one breaking hia back fot 2 more unita and he se~s no problem with the foot.age and heigt~t waivers, but thought 16 unit.s is too much fot this small parcel. Commissioner La Cla i re stated this is a 1A.38 increa s e in density and that there is an ayreement for 258 uffordR'>>.e units. Greg Fiastings stated r.here are 2 bonus unitr~ b e ing requeated. Jack White, Assistant City Atkorney, stated the Stat e law ~ravides that when a developer agrees to provide not leos than 25~ oE the total number of the units as afEocdable, the C ity is obliyated to provide eith er a density bonus of not less than 25~ or t.wo other bonuses of equivalent Einancial value, so the Commission is not legally obligated t~ provide a den sity bonus, but to ~rovide some sort of financiaJ. incentive to the ~level4per who wiahes to construct aEfordable housing. He ac~ded the aareetnent would be exeauted after approval b,y the Planning Commission and City Counci.l. Commisaioner Fry as ked if the two variances requested would qualify with J~ck White res~.onding that waiver (a) is, in fact, the density waiver. Pat Whitaker, Neigh bochood Restoration :~pecialiat in Community Development, state' the agreeme~t was just a letter of underotanding agreeing that specific conditions would be adheced to if a dent~ity bonus is included, including an affordable cent schedule and that thece was no menkion of a term which is totally up to the P lanning Commission and C ity Cou~c il. Chairman Herbst sta ted he has a problem with the den sity. Mr. Vazquez stated he c~rtainly respects the input and staL•ed thece is a tremendous difficulty and tremendous responsibility to provide affordable housing for the neighborhood ~nd a lo~ of builders are not pro~idin g the extras but he is putting in extras because he wants the City to look at the dpsign and quality instead oE the dens ity. He stated this parcel is largec than the one previuusly approved and that 4~~~.its are beii~y designated as affordable. tie asked iE the City is interested in providing afford able housing. Chairman Herbst stated he is concerned about the density right across the street from single-family resid ences and asked if the p etitione r would like a continuance or vote. 4/1/85 MINUTES. ANANEIM C_Im__Y_ P1..ANNING CUMMISSION. APRIL 1. 1985 85-171 Responding to Commisaioner La Claire regarding cu~ting down khe size of the units to meet the density requfrement, Mc. Vazquez atate~ in thdt caae, he would cunstruct 14 units with no affordnble housing. He edded he can under~tand that the Planniny Commiasion iA not looking f.or affordAble housing, but that the City Council is. Chairman tierbat atated the Commisaion has to look at land planniny for the beneiit. of the ~eighbors and not just on this one property. Mr. Vazque2 atated tfere is na opposition present. ACTIUN: Commissioner BushorQ offer~d A motion, seconded by Commissianer ~ry and MOTION CARKI~D that Che Anaheim City Planniny Commission has reviewed the proposal to consr.rucl• a 16-unit affordable apartmenC complex under authority of S~ate Governmenk Code Section 65915 with waivers of minimum building site area per c9wellin~ .~nit and maximum ~ tructurel height on a rectangulArly-~h~~ped parcel ot land con~iRtin~ of approximately 0.4 acr~s, haviny A frontage of epproxlmately 11U feet on the~ south aide of Vermont AvenuE and located approximately 213 feet west of the aenterline of Lemon Street and Eurther desccibed as Z18 W. Vermont Avenue; and does hereby appcove the Negative Ueclaration upon flnding thz-t it haa consideced the Negakive Declaration together with any commer~ts received during the publ;c r.e~~iew proceas and further finding on the basie oF the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no subatantial evidence that the project will have a significant effec~ i- Che environment, Commissioner Bushore a offered resolution for denial uf Variance No. 3474 on the baais that the property is not unusua'ty at~aped and is identical to other properties in the acea and can be developed without the variances. Commissioner Fry stated the Commisaion just approved a height variance for the property next door and he could not vc'.•~ for dPn.tal of this request on that basis. He stated he would vote for dei~ial on the basis of the incre~ased density, with Commissioner Bu~hore euplaining he is saying the 16 unit$ is not exacr_ly what was approved next door and denial is on that basis. Chairman 'lerbat cecummended approval oF waiver (a) an~ denial of waiver (b) which would be t:~e same as the project next doAr. Huga Vazquez stated he is committed to try and provide for affordable housing, but it doea not seem like he will be able to do that at tt~is location. Commissioner La Claice stated the problem is the Planning Commission has given den~ity bonu^es for affordab].e projects in other areas many times in t~e past and they have been appealed and denied by the City Council and in this particular instance the Commission is worried about Vermont Street and ff this project was any other place, the Commiasion would not be opposed. She sL•ated she realizes there are 4 afEordable ur.'ts here and L•he C~mmission has appraved larger density bonuses in the past, but maybe th~ Commi.ssion is saying this is not the F~lace fox uffordable units. Hugo Vazyuez cequested a two-week continuance and Commissioner Bush~re stated he would not withdraw his resolution. Jack White s~ated a motion for continuance takes pCEr~a@pC@ over the main motion. Commissioner Fry ofteced a motion for a two-week continuance and the motion was seconded by Commissioner La Claire and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementi~^ed m~ther be continued ta the regularly-scheduled meeting of April 15, 1985, at the request of the petitioner. 4/1/85 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PI.ANNING COMMI5SIONl APRIi. 1. 1985 85-172 ITEM N~._ 13. EIR NF.GA9'IVF. DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3470 PUa~IC HE;ARING. UWNERS: BERNARp .T. STAHL ANU BILL J. NICKEL, P. 0. aox 225, Stanton, CA 90680. AGENT: STEVB SPECK, 314U Red liill Avenue, ~200, Coeta Mesa, CA 92626. PropecL•y described as a rectangularly-shaped p~ccel oE lnnd conei~ting of a~proximately 1.0 acre, 1668 Snuth Nutwood Street. Waivec of maximum structural hei~~ht ko conat[uct n 2P-unit Apartment complex. Thece w<~ce seven persona indicating their Nresence in opposition to aubject reques~ and although the staf[ report was not ceaa, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Steve 5peck, agent, explaine~ the reque~t is for waiver of maximum atructural hei9ht foc two 1-bedroom apartment unlts, in Additinn to the 26 previously approved units which are under construct~on. tie atated this request iR unique and there is no incrraae to the building height and approval would not in a~~yway alter tt~e design oE the ~roject or the ~coject's elevation. He explai.ned the tw~~ additional units will be located where thece would have othecwi~c Ueen ex~_ensive storage areas. Eie stHted buiiding ~ermits have alreAdy been issued foc 26 unita which comply witt~ all the standards ~nd that they are currently under constcuction. He stated at 28 units, the building is sti11 under the allowable density for the site. t!e stated one of the units exceeds the 150-foot setback requirement f~om adjacent single-family zones and the other units is in excess ot 100 feet and is ~eparated from `.he single-family residences by Nutwood and a~ing of the apartment complex. Nancy kiol.lis .~haffer stated she was here about one yeat ago when the 26-unit apartme:~t complex was first proposed. She read from the minute~ of that mQetiny where Commissionec Bushore had indicated that this was actually a 2-1/2 story building because of ~he subtecr~nean parking, and Annika Santalaliti explained that the 2 stories would bP permitted without any waivers and clarified if the project meets Code, khere would be 25 to 308 fewer units but 2b ~nits w~re approved anyway; and thAt one Commissioner was concerned about the parking and visual intrusion an~ wanted to keep this area as nice as possible. She stated Chairman (iecbst sugyested the petitioner contact the neighboss prior to submittal of zevise~ plans and she wanted the Cor.-mission to kno~ they we[e never contacted. Ms, Shaffer submittPd a picture showing her home with a 13-foot high roof line and stated even at 1-1/2 stories, thece may be some visual intrueion. She ataeed st:~ had submftted ovPr 200 si~natures at the hearing the last time and wanted to submit additional petitions of a11 the adjacent property owners, with the exception of two. She read the petition which is avai~able in the Planning Department's files. She p~esented a petition from the residEnts in the Heritage Village and also a letter signed by the Board of Directors of Heritage Village. Ms. Shaffer referred to thQ 1982 fire in that area and stated there are 4U0 cars coming out of the Heritage Village driveway on Nutwood, which is their only access, and this proposed driveway with 65 v~hiclea is proposed less than 100 feet away, makin~ a total of 465 vehicles coming out onto Nutwood which is le~s than a 6U-foot wide street and stated they can not get out on the street now and if there was an emergency~ no one could get in. 4/1/85 MINUT~5, ~NAHEIM CITY PLANNING CUMMISSION- ApRIL 1. 1;35 85-173 She skated thia will set a precedent be:auae it is locate~ within 1S0 feet of ~ingle-family and when the unitH are used as living spa^P, the aubterranean portion is considered as a story and tlie rest of the devel~ppra wi11 want the aame thing. Patriek Pepper, ~668 Neritage Circle, stat~d he is a mcmbQr of the Board of Dire~tnrs of tiecikage VillAqe A~aociAtion, ond their main cuncern ia that this will set a danyerous precedent in the aGea for 3-story units, even though this is conaidered subr.ertanean packing, noling khie ia a 2 seory And aingle-story areA. Ne statEd they will have to add mare l~~ndscapinq on the paekecn pecimeter of their propecty adjbeent to this development; and it will bring additfonal prob.lems with peopl~ ~uming into Heritage Village to use theic recreatic al facilitiea sincE ll~ey wili not have any. He stated there is also a concern about parking elong Nutwood. Ms. Shaffer atated the trouble haa already started with thia pcoject and constcuction has been atopped becauae of dust a~d dirt in Che Atreets and an accident has been caused and the developer ~~as cited and received numerous Code violations and citations. Patricia Huth, 1701 5. Nutwood, stated she lives directly west of sub~e~~t property and is oppoaed to the density and traffic becauae getting in And aut of her driveway is very difficult right now becauae of cars parked on t~utwood and that tt~is will only add to that problem. Mrs. Bjorn, 17 1 S. Nutwood, stated she is very co~cerned bECauae it is hard to get out ~~~to Nutwood with cara parked on both sides of the street right now and since the fire on Ball Road, they have had a lot more traffic down Nutw~od than before. Mrs. Hanano, 171G S. NutWOUd, stated her propE~rty is next door end she did not think the Commission should grant the 2 additior~al units since she did not feel even the 26 ur,its wns riqht Rince the whole area was single-family residential. Steve 5peck stated the project before the Commission ~ne year ago waa withdrawn by the applicant and went through a complete redesign which deleted the driveway adjacent to the Heril•a,ye Village driveway. He added the redesign of that project did not requfre Planning Commission action and met Code requirements. He skated the 26-unit pcoject ia a.lre~dy there and these two units will be in the subtecranean area and the height of the structure will not be any different. He atated they more than exceed by comparison the Code requirements and arP bel~~ t~ie density allowed. THE PUBLIC NEARTNG WA5 CLOSED. Ccmmissi~ner eushore stated building permits have beQn isaued and the project is under construction and there are no vatiances, but the two units being added in the subterranean garage makes this a 3-skory project and asked when a 2-story project was approved within 150 feet of single-family residentfal zoning. 4/ 1/~3 ~~ MiN~l'ES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 1~1985 85-174 Greg Hastings, Associake Planner, explained a 2~•etory pcoject waa not approved within 150 feet oE aingle-family cesidential end tliat the devPloper ie actually addiny onto the bottom of the building rather rhan rhe top and th~: lawer poction ig considpred eubkerraneUn, but does not count as an oxtra atocy if it is uaed Eor parking, but as a Iivahle unit, it will be counted as a story whether it is above ot bel~w grade. M~.. 5peck stated at one location within the 150-foot limit, there wauld be one unit abave nnd that would make it a 2-story pco~ect. He futther explainpd essentially they are taking the two skora~e AC@8A and convertin9 them into two one-bedroom units. Responding to Commissioner Bushorp abaut ventilatinn ~f subject subterranean uni~s, Mr. Speck stated all regulationa will De met. Commiseioner Bouas aeked when it was decided with these plans that they could put in these two units. Mr. Speck stated it was not a audden decision, but through a redesign of the packing and the reviaion ~f the Cily'a parking Code, it allowed them to meet all Cade requirements and to elim~nate any excesa space. Kendra Morries, Assi~tnnt Planner, ~:tate~ the building pecmit is~ued was for a 26-unit project ~nd ttie t.ro areas xn question were approvQd as storage areas only and the garage was not counted as a story as curr~ntly being bullt bec4use it is 508 belaw t}ie grade l~vel which woul~ be about 4-1/2 feet. Ward U'awsan, 2808 E. Katella, Orange, stated the parking is subterranean in terms of level, but it is not ~n enclosed Rubterranean garage and it doPS not count as a story. Greg Hastiny: ~tated the livatlE units will be caunted as a stor~ even though they are totally ~nderground, ~ut a parkinq area would not be counted as a story and explained :he location of these two additional units is the problem. Kenara Mocries stated the pro~osed tMO-story units would be within 106 feet, but the existing 2-story unit are to :he northeaeterly cocner of the property which would a'low 2~t~ries because i~ is beyond the 150-foot limit. She stated they do meet Code requirements °or a 26-unit project.. Chairman Herbs~t statEd he thought there is a problem with the way the staff report is ~+~ocded and the addikional 2 units do not change the height at a11. Commiasioner La Claire pointed out parking meets Code requicements. Commissioner La Claire stated she did not want anyone to think that this is going L•o be a standard fur the City and she did not want to impact the area that much with traffic, but felt there will be adc]itf.onal requestc for similar approvals in the future, if this is granted. Chairman tierbst referred to the rePerence on Page 13a of the staff repo:*_ indicating concern thaL- someone else reading it would think the Commission has allowed 2-story units within 106 feet instead of 150 feet of single-fa~*jly residential zone boundary. Greg Hastings stated staff would have to explain that to ar.y interested petiitioners. 9/1/65 eS-175 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINC COMMISSION APkIL 1 1985 Commiasioner ~ou~s statad ahe did not Chink people in oppoeition ace c~nfused and that oh~o andlifhthietpropoaalkh~d been submittedpori~tnallynAitWwoulde planned ~ have pcobably been denied. ACTION; Commissioner Fcy oEfered a motion, seconded by Commiasionec King and MUTION CARRIED tl~at the Anahe'~~ City Planning Commission hde reviewed the proposal Co construct a 28 ~~it apartment complex with waivec of maximum structural height on a rec ~ngulacly-shaped paccel of land consteting of approximately 1.U acre, `aving a frontage of ePpCOOximatel 1375ffeet~north of Qast side of Nutwood St.Pet and being located app Y the centerline of Tam ~a Lane and further described as 1668 S. Nutwood Street; and doea hereby appr,ve the Negative Declaration upon Eindiny that it has considered the t~ega_i~e Ueclaration toqethec with any commenta received during the Nublic review ~rocess And fucthec tinding on the baeia of the Initisl Study ~nd any coR~ments received that thenethe enviconment~al evidence that the pcoject wil: have a aignific~nt eftecC Commiasionec Fry oFfered Resolution No. PC85-91 and move~ fcr its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City planning Commission does hereby gcanC Variance No. 347U on the basis that the two additional units will not increase the height of the atructure nor bring them any cl~s~c to the single-family zoned p~opertiea And further on the basis that that there are ~neClocatiunuandances applicable to the property such as ~ixe, shape, topography, surcoun~ings which do not apply to other idenkica.lly zoned property in the same vicinity; and that strict application oE ~he Zoning Code depcives the propecty af privi.leges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classffication in the vici.nity and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. Commissioner Bushore asked if the watec table level and moiatuce pcoblems have been che~ked for the units below gcade. Annika Santalahti stated with any below grade parking, a pump has to be prov?ded and the Bui.l~inq Department does have Codes which have to be met. Commis~ioner Bushore indicated concern that the units could flood if it rained and the drains and pi~^es are not working propecly. Commissloner McBurney 8tated ther~ is a vapo: barrier around the o~tside of the r~tructiare an~ a vapor barrier at the bottam. On coll call, the foregoir,g resolution was passed by the following vo~e: AYES: FRY~ HERBST, KING, MC BURNBY NOES: BOUAS~ BUSNORE, LA CLAIRE ABSENT : I~ONE Jack Whir_e, Assistant City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning C~mmission's decision within 22 days to the City Cfluncil. ITEM N0. 14. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION VARIANCE N0. ~~69 AND RE UEST FOR APPROVA:. OF REVISGA SPECIFIC PLANS FOR TBNTATIIIE TRAC'= N0. 10975 (REV. ii0. 1) PUBLIC HEARING. ANAHEIM HILLS DEVELUPMENT CARPORATION, 6507 SeXrano Avenue, 'B', Anaheim~ CA 928U7• AGENT: GUNSTON HALL COt4PANY, INC., 6507 Serrano Avenue, 'Bi$n~°~ igting9ofOapproximatelyd37c2~acress Tentative1TractSNOPed parcel of 10975 (Revisic c. 2) Area 19-Anahei.m Hills. 4/1/85 MINUTGS, ANAHEIM C1TY PLANNING COMMISSIONI APRIL 1, 1985 85-~76 Waiver uf minimum aidc yard oetback to permit an 83-~nit attactied condominium aubdivision. The following actlon was taken in conjunction with appcoval of an E1R Negative Declarati~n and Variance No. 3457. ~here was no one indicating their presence in oppaaition to subjec~ request and elthough the atatf report w~s not read, it is reEecred to P,,~ made a part of thp minu~es. George Maaon, applicant, was preaent to an~wer any questions. TF1E PU~LIC NE.ARING WAS CI,OSEU. ACTIUN: Commissionec King oElered a motion, seconded by CommiRSion~r ~ry and MUTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Plannin~ Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit an 83-unit attached ~onduminium subdivision with M~ iv~rs of minimum side yard aetback and approval oL• speciEic plana for a tentative tract on an irregulacly-shaF>ed parcel. of land r.onsisting of approximately 37.2 acres located approximately 815 feet southwEStecly of khe intersection oi Nohl Ranch Rc.~ad and proposed Stage Co~ch Road and further described as Tentative Tract No. 1U975 and does hereby approve the Negative Ueclacatiun upon finding that it has considered tl~e Negative Declacation together with any cor.unents ceceived during the pubiic reviea proces~ and further finding on the hasis of the Initia.l Study and any camments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner King offered Stesolution No. PC85-92 an~ moved foc it~ passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby yrant Variance No. 3469 on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and sucraundir~s which do not appl.y to ather identically zoned property in the same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning CodP .~pr:ves the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identi.cal zone and cla~sification in the vicinity and subject to interdepartmental Comr~ittee recomniendations. On roll call, the foregoiny resolution was passed h~i khe following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BUSHORE, PRY~ HERBST, KING~ LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Commissioner King offered a motion, seconded by Commissi ~~r Fry and MOTZON CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commisaion does he by approve revised specific plans (Revision No. 1) for Tentative Tract Na. 10975 (Revisior No. 2) to pesmit an 83-unit attached ccndominium subdivisi~n with waiver of minimum side yard setback sub~f~ct to previously approved conditions. ITEM N0. 15. EIR NEGA'PIVE Uk:CLARATION (PREV. APPROVED) ANU CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT M0. 2~32 (READVERTISED) PUBLIC HEARING FOR EX'PENSION OF TIME. OWNERS: GLENIICN AND SHIRLEY MILLER, 2121 Skyline Drive, Fullerton, CA 92631. Property ~•:scribed ~s a rectangutarly-shaped paccel of land con~isting of approximately 0.86 acre, 2a30 E. .iraloma Avenue. 4/1/FS MINUTES, ANA~EIM CITY ~LANNTNG COMMISSION. APRIL 1, 1985 85-177 Request for a 2-yeac (S-month r.etroactive) ex~ensi~n of l•ime or deletion of Condition No. 9 nf Resolution No. PC80-198 p~~rtaining t~ requtred extensiona of tim~ ka retain a truck r.e~air Ea~ility in the ML 2one. Thece was no one indicating their preLence in opposition to subjecr tequest and although the staft report was no~ reAd, it is re:erced to and made a part of the minutea. Greg Hastings, Asaoci~te Planner, explAined the applicant waa notiEied of this hearing and ia not present and it was pointed ouc the problems have not been resolved. 4CTIAN: Commiss~onec La Ciaire o~fered Itesolution No. PC85-93 and moved foc ita psssage and ndoptian that the AnAhei~n City Planning Commission does deny Che reque~t for extension of time to retain a truck repait facility in the ML Zone located ~t 2830 E. Miraloma Avenue. On roll call, the foregoing resolution ~~as pasaed by the following vote: AY~S: BOUA5, BUSHaRE~ FkY, HER85T, KING, LA CLAIRR, MC BURNEY NUES: NUNE ABSENT: NUNE ITEM N0. 15. RGPURTS AND RECOMMCNDATIUNS A. TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 9601 -~equest from John N. Sarracino for an ex~ension of time for Tcact No. 9601, property located at the northeask corner of Canyon Rim Ruad and Fairmo-~t aoulevard. ACTION: Commi~sioner King offered a motion, aeconded by Commissioner Bouas and .~OTION CARftIES that the Anaheim City Plann:,ng Commission does hereby approve a one-y~~ar timp extension for Tentative Map ~f Tract No. 9601, to expice on June 28, 1986. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMZT N0. 2~23 - Request from George H. Lu, for review and ai~pr~val of re~ised plans orjginally sub~itt~~d in conjunction with Conditx~nal Use Permit No< 22Z3, to constri.^t a 20-:oom add~tion to an existing 69-ro~,m motel, pro~~rty ~ocated a~ 1600 Ea~t Lincoln Avenue (Lincoln Palma Apartment Motel). ACTYON: Commissioner King o.°.fered a motion, seconde~' by rommissioner Fry and MJTtON CARRIED that the r.~aheim City Planning Commission does hereby cecommend to the City Counc.' approval of revised plans submitted in c~njunction with Condition Use Permit No. 2223. C. TENTATIVE MAP OF TRA'T N0. 10968 (REV. N0, 2~ - Request f~.~om Anaheim Nt..ll• Development ~or,~oration for approvat of specific plans, propert•y located aE~proximately 1,720 feet southwest of the intersection of Nohl Ran.;h Road and proposed ~tage Coach Roan. ACTION: Commissioner King offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fry and MOTION CARRIED that thc Anahr_~.m City Planning Commission does hereby approve the specific plans as submit~ed by the applicant based upon finding that t:ie plana are in substantlal compliance with previously appsoved Tentative TS':c:t Map No. 10968 (Revision No. 2). 4/1/85 MINUTES, ~N~f~EIM CITY PLANNINC COMMISSION, AARIL 1, 1985 85-178 D. TEMTATIYB MAP OE TRACT NO. 10973 (REV. N0. 2) - R~guoat from Anahci.m Hilla Development Corporetion f~i appzoval ~f epecific plena, pcoperty lacAted approximately 1,230 feet nocthweatecly uE the exiating westerly terminu~ of C~mino Grande. ACTIOh: C~mmiasioner King offered a motion, seconded by Commisoioner ~aua~ and MO'1'ION CARRIED that thQ Anaheim City Planning Commission doea heceby Approve the specific plans as submikted by the applicant baeed upnn finding that the ~lans are in subatantlal conformance with previouuly appcoved Tentative Tcact Map No. ' evieion No. 2). G. CUNllITIONAL USE PERMIT N~. 2546 - Reyuesl E[o~, ~c~w C. Shut2, for t~cmination of Conditional Uae Permit No. 2546, pcoperty located at the northweat corner of Ocangewood Avenue und State Col~ege Boulevard. ACTI~N: Commiaaioner Fry offered Reaulution No. PC85-94 and moved for its pas~age and adoption that che Anaheim City Planning Commission doea heret,y terminate Conditional Use Permit No. 2546. on coll ca.il, tl~e foreyoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: ~7UAS, BUStiORE, ~RY~ HEkBST, LA CGAIRE~ MC BUi2NEY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: KING F. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 26~0 - Request f.rom Karl Meader for termination of Conditionel Use ~ermit No. 2630, p~operty located at 2134 E3at Lincoln Avenue (East Anaheim Center.). ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered Resulutiors No. PCS`-95 and moved for iks passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hezeby terminate Conditional Use Permit No. 2630. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was pasaed by the following vote: AYES: PnUAS, BUSHORE, FRY, HERBST, KING, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEX NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE OTHER DISCUSSION: Commissioner La Claire stated the Planning Commissioners have been receiving a lot of letters €rom the Anaheim Hi11s area about the propoaed development and General Plan Amendment L•a change the golf courae ~nd perhaps tt~e Planning Commission should let the City Council know they are interested in what transpires 4n *_his property. 4/1/85 MINUTE51, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 1~ 1985 85-179 Chafrman Herbet auggested the Commissioners have e joint work aession wit.h the City Council to discu8o the project becauae he c~n aee wl~ere the property next to the fire s~Ation which is City-owned could be developed anJ the opposition to development of the golf courae ia subatantial. Annika Santelrhr~ stated the minutes uf the meeting will reflect the ~ommiseioners concerne and Clty Councfl should know what ia going on Erom ceading the minutea. ADJOURNMENT: Commisaioner Le Claire offer~d a motion, seconded h;- Commiesinner Bushoce and MOTION CARRIED that the meeking be adjourned. The meeting waa adjourned at 6:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~C.T~, •~ .° i~_/a~.,.~. Edith L. Har.cis, Secretary Ar~aheim City Planning Commisaion ELH:lm 0108m 4/1/85