Loading...
Minutes-PC 1985/09/30REGULAR M~ETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING The regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to or.der by Chair~aoman La Claice at 10;00 d.m., Septemb~r 3U, 1985, in th~ Council Chamber, a quorum being present, F.:d the Commia~ion r~viewed plana of the items on today's agenda. R~C~SS: RECONVEl:FU: PRESENT Chairwoman: Commissioners: ABS~,NT: AI~SO PRESENT Cotnmissianer : Norman Priest 11:30 a.m. 1:32 p.m. La Clai.re Rouas, Fry, Hecbst, Mc Durney, Lawicki, Messe ;~one Annika 5antalahti Malcolm Slaughter Carl Fiarrison Paul Singer Daniel Shiada Pat Whitaker Gr~g tiastinys Kendra Morries F.'dith Hac[is llirectar of Communi.ty Deve~opmenti~lanning Dept. Aasistant Director for Zuning Deputy City Attorney Civil Engineering Assistant City Traffic Gngineer Ass4ciate 'i'raffic Engineer Neighborhood Restoration Specialist A.;sociate Pianner Assistant Planner Planning Cr,mmission Secretary MINUTES FUR APPROVAL: Commissioner Bouas of~ered a mot'on, seconded by Commissioner Nerbst ar,d MOTION CARRiEU (Comrr~issioner Messe abstaininq) that the minutes of the ment:~g ef September 16, 1985, be approved as submitted. ITF,M N0. 1 Elft N~GATIVE D~'CLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2314 (kEAUVERTISED) PUHLIC HEARING. OWN~:RS: ROVI PACTEIC CORPGRATION, 1801 Century Park East, #111, Los Angeles, CA 90U67, ATTN: DANIEL WEBER, AGENT: FARANO & KIVIET, 100 S. Ariaheim Hlvd., Y34U, Anaheim, CA 92805, ATTN: FRANK A. LOWRY, .TR. ~coperty describE~i as a recr_angularly-shaped parc~l of land consistiny of approximately 3.0 acres located .,' the nortneast corner of Serrano Avenue and Nohl Ranch Road, 6509, 6511 :~ 6`,13 Serrano Avenue (Town and Country Early Education Center). Request for amendment of Condition No. 2 of Planning Commiasion Resolution No. 82-68 for upp[oval oc rev~sed plans (No. 1) for. expansio~~ af an existiny private day care and elementary educational facility (ayes 2-1/2 ~~ears through third yrade). Cantinued frorn the meetings of June 24, July 2l, and September 4, 1985 85-5].2 9/30/85 MINUTES. ANAHBIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION SGPTEMBER 30 1985 65-513 It wA8 noted staff h~s requested a conGinuance to the meeting of October 14, 1985, in order to review the sound etudy submitted by the applicant on September 23~ 1985. ACTION: Commiscioner Bou~s oGf.ered a motion, :;~~~~nded by Commissioner Mceurney and MO'1'ION CARRIEU thaL consideration of the aforementioned matter. be continued to the regularly-sci~e~ule~ meetinq of October 14, 198ti, as requested by staff. ITEM NU. 2 E_IR ~10. 2~8. R~CLASSIF'1CATION NU. 85-$6-2, WAIVER p_t CODE RE~UIkEM~NT ANU CONQITIONAL USE PERMIT NU. 2713 ~'UBLIC HEARING. OWNEItS: STATr COLLhGE PARTNERS, c/o DUNN PROP~RTIES, 28 Brookl~ol~ow Drive, Santa Ana CA 9280?• AGENT: ~II.L SINGER & ASSOC., 5100 ~irch Strcet, Newport eeach, CA "266U. Prnperty described as a rectangularly-shaped ~~arcel of ~and cnnsisting of approximately 7.67 acres located at the northwest cornec of Oranyewood Avenue and 5tate College Boulevard (StatF College Pla2a). ML(FP) to CU(EP) or a less i~tense zone to permiC a 1D•-story and 12-story commercial officz complex wi*=h waiver.s of (a) minimum number of parkiny spaces, (b) maximum sLructura7. t~eight and (c) minimum landscaped setback. Continued from L-he meetinqs af August 19- September 4, an~ 16, 1985. It was noted the petitioner has ~equesked a continu~nce to the meeting of October 28, ~.985, in aruer for the applicant and staff to -eso~ve issu~s relating to :ecomn~ended conditions of approv~l. ACTION: Commissio:~er McBUrney o£fered a moCion, seconded by Commissionec Bouas and MOTtUN CARRIEU that considecation oi the Gforem2nti~ned matter be continued to the regularly-f:cheduled meeting of Octobsr 28, 1985, at the petitioner'~ reque~t. IT~M N0. 3 EIR NEGATIV~' DEGLARATIQN A'JG VARIANCE N0. ~504 PUBLIC HEARI!+G. OWNER5: GRAY S. AP'0 PAULA S. KILMER, 6U7 S. Harbor Boul2vard, Anaheitn, CA 52805, A"t'TN: MARY VERDUNCK/HUGO VAZQUEZ. Property described as a rectangu;a~]Y-shaped parcel of la~~d consisting of ap~roximately 0.43 acre t2U and 224 North OlivE Strcet. Waivers of minimum bu. ~ing site area per dw~iling unit, maximum structural height, maximurt~ site covetage, minimu:n flo~r area and minimum structural sekb ~k to construct a 19-unit afEordable apartment complex. C~n~lnued from th~ meetings o£ Augu~st 19 and September 16, 1985. There was no one indicating their presence in ~pposition to subject rNquest and although the staff rep~rt Mas not read, it is referred to and made a part of the mi~,utes. Commissioner Mes~e declared a conflict of interest as defined by Anaheim City Planning '.ommission Resolution No. PC76-157 adopting a C~nflict of ~ 9/30/85 MINUTES. ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. SEPTEMBER 30, 1985 a5-514_ Interest Code for the Planning Commiasi~n an~ Government Code Section 3615, et seq., in ktat his firm provides a service tor the petikianer and purauant tu the provisions of the above C~des, ~~claced to the Chairwoman that lie was withdrawing from the heariny in conr.~ction with Variance No. 35U4, and would nok take part in eitti~r. the discussion or the voting thercon and had nol discussed this maLter with any member of the Pl~~nning Commission. Thereupon Commiasioner Mes~~ ~~f~ ~h~ Council C~~amber at 1:36 p.m. ~ugo Vazquez, agent, explained khe revise~ ~~lanc are foc a 2-and 3~arory, 19-unit afEordable apar.tment complex rakher than a 3-st~ry project as previously submitted. rie explained the garages will be 4-1/2 feet be~ow the natural grade so tt~e parking area is not counked ~s a sL•ory; however, on~ portion of th~ building is sti11 ce~~ai4~r.ed as 3 story because of the ramp to the parking. Fle stated they will kee~ the proposed central courtyard which does provide secucity and an outdoor lfvinq area for the tenants. THE NU6LIC NEARING WAS CLOSF.D. Commissioner kiecbst stated he skill does nat agree with the pco~osed density and that was discussed when the original ~lan was submitted and nothing has been done to reduce the density ~f the project and that is a concecn af the neighbors and tne ~cedPVelopment Commission. Mr. Vazquez stated there is a stronq need to pr~vide affordable housing in oranye County and in order to provicle that housing with a lU-year commitment for a£fordable units to rent a 2-bedroom unit f.or $493 pPc month when the market rate is $685 per month, theY need the density. Commissioner Herbst stated he is concerned about people who live in the area because of the impact ~his density will bring; that affordable hausing is needed, but not if it is provided at the expense of the peoit.e who are alrea~y' living there; and that this proJect will be an impact with 3 stories. Mr. ~azquez stated he has i,~~t with the people in the neighborhood and is currently building similar units at 1~9 South Olive and 129 South Melcose and has gotten r~othing but praise from the existing neighbors and they are very happy with the type of stcuctures being built and the amenities being offered. He explained he has 50 a~plications just on the 7-uni.~ compl.ex he is constructing. Ne stated t~ would disagtee Chat this project would be impacting the area because he is doing business in the area and has had no complaintz from the existing neighbors and the only complaint was t,lirough ttedevelopment. He stated the Redevelopment Agency is a competitor for buying properties in that area. Commissioner !•lerbst st~ted the Redevelopment Co;nmission recommended denial because they felt the project would be ~verbuilding the property. Mr. Vazquez stated the Redevelopment Agency wants to buy this property. He stated there is no uppasiti~n from the nexghbors at this hearing today. 9/3Q/85 MINUTL'S~ ANAHEI~1 CI'PY PLANNING COMMISSIUN, SEPTeMB~R 301 1985 85-515 Commisaioner Fry stated he Leelo tt~is i~ a goa~ pro~ect tor khis area; that haviny to rna!;e ded.icafiona un Ulive, Cypceae and SAnta he Street~ places a tremendous b~irden on the praperl;y= and als~ there is no opposition Eresent. lie stated a chan3e has taken p1ACe iii the downtown area and there ute qoing to be a lot more ch~nges. Commissioner tlerbsl• stated he has no p[oblem with apartment~, but felt ttiis project would be overbuilding the pcoperty and that is evident by the number of v~riances ceyuired. Fte stal:ed there are ~ lot o£ prop~rties in that area which will be rebuilt. Commissioner E'ry stated he did nut think this pro~ect will be ove-bui:lding the ~roperty and that this proE~Prty is sutrounded on three sides by stteets and proposes a v~ry uniyue building situation. Norman ~riesh,, Uirector of Community Develo~~ment/Planning Department, stated he is Lamiliar witt~ this property and it was a proper~y u~on which tt~e Redevelopment Agency made an offer, before the prese-it owner~hip was involved, and he would deny that there i5 any rel~tionship between the Agency's thoughCs or intent to acquire thaL property and any comments he ha5 made in the past, present or future ori the design proposed. tie stated thN design propused, in Agency staff':s judg~ment, overcrowds the site and the Redevelo~~mert Agency could acquire that property, but does not need to arquire it, in that it is in kh~ Neighborhood Preaervation Area and, in ;act, if develo~ed at a standard compatible with the surroundi.ng development, they would not have a prohlem. Ne added, however, the Agency did m~.ke an offer on the pr.operty to a prior ownE~r who was at one time consideriny selling ttie structure to the Agency and holding the la~. and he did talk to the present owner, Mr. Kilmer, early in this process, a~c there was not a cc~petition, except, perhaps, if tl~e prior owner was talking witti the Ag~ncy and tF~e ultimate pur.chase of the property in an atLempt to get a bckter deal. tfe :~ atec~ lt~ey wo~ld always seek to discourage that because they are not inter.es~ed in getting into a b.c~ding situation and their comments at this tiime have nothing to do with the acquisition or any negotiations which may have gone on relative to this property. Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, stated :n further clarification, regardless of what the PlanninU Commission o~ c:ity Council does on this, the Agency, under the Redevelupment plan, still has ttie authority to determine whethec th,e pzoject is an enhancement to the Redevelopment pcoject, pursuant to procedures that are set farth in that plan, so it is conceivable that even if :.he variances are approved, if it is determined to be ina~E~r~or.iate for the Redevelopment are~-~, the permit could ultimately be deniEd. C~mmissioner. Fry stated he respects Mr. Priest hiyFily, but finds it difL-icult to say that thi.s project will be oveterowding a site when the senior citize;: project downtown is a 3 to 4-story project with many more units. He ~ointed out he was on the Redevelopment Commission when that ptoject was approved. 9/30/85 MINU:'~'~l AIJAki~IM CITY PI.ANNING CUMMISSTUN SEPTF.MBER 30 198~ ~5-516 Idr.. Pr.ieat atated the distinction is tl~at that seni~r citizen project rF:ferred to is on the south sid~ ot Lincoln in an Area designal•ed for higher intenEiCy use~ and this parcel ia in their Neighborl~ood No. 2 which ~,3s design~ted by ttie Redevelopment Commission ~nd Cour,cil f:or Neighborhood Preaezvation whece ecanomicelly and phy~ically possible. He stated when the plan was adopted specific language wus dratted in it which said tt~e uses Chere would, in tact, be compatible wil•h surroundii~y uses and in this instancE- the uses are either very low ir.tensity multiple-family u~e8 or sinyle-Eami.ly residentic~l uses. ue stated the distinctfon is that this is a different area nf the project area and an a diEferent side of Lincoln and on Lincoln they are seek;.ny to apecific~lly buffer so that the sl•reets suci~ a~ Claudina anc3 othe[ streets do not come inta Lin~,oln and are n~t that accessik~le. Fle stated they were directed by Council and C:ommi~sion anci tie thouyht to a certain degree by the Planning Commission, althouyh th~ir role was spec:ifically c:ompatibiliky wi~h the General Plan, ar~d comments c~lative tn hhe ovecall. layouk were mad~ when the ~lan was amended in 1976. Chairwuman La Claire ceferred to the af[ordable units ~~nd ~t~e den~ity bncius at J.9.6 for this project ancl noteci the density bonus for the project at 1~9 S. Ulive was 8•5, and a~lded she thought even though 19.8 is a lot .less than some of the density bonuses which have been granted, it, is a lot higter tr~an the one on Olive. She clarified that the 4 unf.t~ will be rented at $493 per month. Res~onding to Commissioner eouas, Mr. Vazquez stated there will be no difEerence in these units and the tenants do rior even know who rents the aEfocdable unil•s. He atated he has not any problems with one tenant findino out trom another tenant who is paying less for tt~, same type u;1it. He stated at 129 S. Olive ttie tenants like the fact ~hat they can wall; up to their Qecond level and no cne can get up there unless they are tenants oc admitted by tenanl•s as yuests. Fle stated ha has not had a problem with tenants discussing their rents in tht. past. Commissioner Bauas stated the Commission received a letter from the Cenkral City Neighborhood Council opposing the pzoj°ct. Mr. Vazquez stated they also vpposed tne projects on Olive and MelrosE, and ttiat the entire neighborhooci was against the project on Melrose, but he has petitions signed by neighbors approving it afler it was built and they ace very happY with the complex. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, ~econded by Comrnissioner E'ry and htUTION CARRIEU (Commissioner Messe ~+bsent) th~t the Anahe.m City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to cunstruct a 19-unit affordable apartmen~ complex witti waivers of (a) minimum building site area per dwel.ling unit, (b) maximum structural t~eight, and (c) maximum site ~uverage- consisting of approximately 0.43 acre, located at the southeast corner of Cypress Street and Olive Stteet, and further deacribed as 220 and 224 North Olive 5treet; and does hereby approve tt~e Negative Ueclaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any corr~ments received ducing the public review process and fi~rther fi~~:iing on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments receivea *'.~at i:here is no substantial evidence that the project will have a signifieant ~ffect on tt~e environment. 9/30~85 MINUT~u, ANAkI~IM CI'PY PLANNING CUMMISSIUN, SEPT~MBER 30,_1985 85-517 Commissioner tiecbFt offered a resalution and moved far its pa~sage and adoption Lhat the Annheim City Plann~ng Commi~aion does hereby <leny VArtAnce No. 3!'~q4 on the bac~ig there arc na a~~ecial circumstance~s applicable to the proper.ty such aa size, ehape, topography, locAtion and aurroundings ~+hic.h da not Apply to okher identical zoning in the ~~icinit,y and st~ict application of the Zoning Code does not deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other ~ropertiQS in identical zoning clAasificutions in the vicinfky and fucthec that the Redevelopment Corcmisfiion has cecommended denial on Che baAis that the project would be ouerbuilding the site, a~ evidenced by t;he signiflcant numbers of waivE~c~ requested, and als~ that it would set an undesirAble precedcn~. Un roll call, the forc~going resolution FAILED 'I'0 CARRY BY the [ollowing vote: AYES: H~:EtB57', LA CLAIkE: NOES: E~UUAS, CRY~ LAWIC:RI, MCBUkNEY ABSENT; MESSB Cornm:ssianer Fry oEtered Resolution No. PC85-211 and moved for its passage and adoption that ttie Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Variance No. 3504 on the basis that subjecl property is surrounded by thcee atreets and dedication for ~treet wideniny purpnse~ make~ it a difficull parcel to deve~op and that there are special circumstances ap~licable to the property r~uch as size, shape, topograf~hy, locatian and surr.oundings wt~ir.h d~ nut apply to other. identically zoned prop~rty in the same vicinity; and that strict application oi the Zoning Code deprives the property of privlleges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and c'la.s~ification in the viciniry and 3~bject to interdepartmental Commi.:tee recomrnendations. Chairwoman La ~laire stated she is cancerned the City is becoming saturatecl with aFfordable units and in lookiny at the ones which are already bui.lt, sh~ is afraid the density in t.he City is getting higher and there will be moce and more affordable units going in. She stated she thoughk the Commission should discuss this proulem af.ter the meeting today and make s~me re~omme~dations to staif. Commissioner Herbst asked about a time limit for the affordable units and it was noted Con~lition tJa. 10 imposes a time limit of 20 years. Malcolm Slauyhter stated apparently the developer has entered into an ayreement with the Huusing Authority for lU years of that 20 year period, bu~ that is not to say that after the 10 years the agreement expires, and that the project will be free of that requiremenc, and even if tt~ey do not have a subsidized pro;ec~, the project will still be subject to making those units available for affurdable housing. On roll ca11, the foregoing resolution was pa~sed by the following vote: AYES: BUUAS, ERY, HER$6S, LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI, MC BURNEY NOES : NONE ~'.,': 1-.~, .! ABSEN7': MESSE 9/30/85 s MINUTCS~ ANAHEIM CITX PLANNING COMMISSION~ SEPT E MBER 30r 1985 $5-518 Malcolm Sl~~aghter, Ueputy City Atl•orneyr {~reaen t ed the written right to a~pPal the F~lanning comrni~si~n's deciainn within 22 dAys to the City c:ouncil. Commiasioner Me~se returnr.d t~ lhe meetiny. ITEM NU. 4 E:IFt NG`. 'l59 (PRE:VIOUSLY CF:R'1'I?I~U) ANU kF1C1,A5SIFICA'fION NU~ 85-86-3 PUBI,IC H~;ARINC. UWNk;RS: U& p 1~L•'V~LUPMF.NT, 11aUA Nocwalk Roulevard, Santa Fe Springs, CA 9U67U, ATTN: CAMILI.L•' CUURTN~:Y. Yroperty described as ar~ ic[egularly-ahaped parcel c~£ land conais ting of approximAtely 7.5 acres, haviny a Erontage oF a~~proxi.mately 513 f eet on the south side. of. Li.naoln Avenue, ap~roximately ].,340 feet eas4 of the centecline of Rio Vista Street. kS-A-43,UUU ~o kM-3UU0 or a less intense zone t o c~nstruct a 99-uni-:, RM-3UU0 condominium subdivision. Continued trom rhe meeting~ of Auyust 19, Se~t Emher 4 and 16, 1985. There wa~ one interested Qersun indicating his presence at the meeting and although the staff report was not read, it is eeferred ta and made a part of the minutes. Cotnmissionec Fry declared a conflicl of intere st a~ defined by Anaheim City Pl~nning c;ommission Resolution No. PC76- 1 57 adopting a Conflict of: Interest Code Lor the Planninq Commissian and Government Code Sectiun 3625, et sey., in that his employer may be providing financial assistance in this prnject ano nurs~ant to the provision s of the above Codes, declare~i to the ~hair:w~man that he was withdrawinq fr~im the V~iearing in connectian wikh Reclassi°ication Na. 85-86-:, and would not take part in either the discussion or .i~e voting there~n a n d had not discussed ttiis matter with any member ~F the Planning Commis sion. There~~pon Commissinner Ezy lef~ the Council ~'.~ambec at 2:05 p.m. Camille Courtney, representing p& D Devel.opment, presented a color exhibit of the ptoposal and was pcesent any q uestions. Vincent Block explained he resides on Sauth S treet in Anaheim and reFerred to the staff report- references to widening of ~outh Streek and added he thought khe entrance would be an Lincoln and asked why Soukh Street was mentioned. He asked it there are any plans t o deve].op the property where the nursery is located to the south and asked who owns that nursery property. Ms. Courtney stated they also had a question about the widening af South Street and wer.e t~ld by the City they could n ot take access off South street. She added the nursery proper.ty is owned by the Orange ~ounty Water District and they had a~tively pursued purchasing that property, but were unsuccessful. She referred to Condition No. 9 regarding standard stre~t detaila requiring sidewalks on both s i des of the street and indic;ted they would like to have that requi r ement waived~requiring them 9/30/85 MINUTES~ ANAH~IM CI7'Y PLANNINC~ CUMMlSSION, SEPT~MBE~ 30, 1985 85 - 519 to have sidewalks on on~ nide only, pointiny out th.is is not a veCy 1 arge pruject and the str.eets Are only 28 fe~t wide. PAUl Singer, Traffic Gngineer, explained ttie etandarcl ~lana ace an ~nginoering requirement and the City Engincec may gr~nt A~++a~iver, Ke ndra Morriea, Assiattant Planner, expl.ained the develope:~ has been working with the ~;ngineering nep~rtment pureuing a ~aiver ot that condition. Malcalm Slaughter stated if it is the Commission':~ intent to allow at aEf t•he flexibi.~ity from the deoign de~ail~, he would auygest the revision be included authorizing the City Engin~er t~ 9rant such flexibility. IL• was noted ~;nvironmental Im~act Report No. 259 wac previously certif'i,ed for aubject propecty by the City Council on December 6, 1983. ACTION: Commissioner McE3urney ~ffered Ftesolution No. PC85-212 and muved for its pa~sage and adoption that the Anaheim Cit•y Planning Commiasio n does hereby yrant Reclassificat:ion Nu. 85-86-3 subject ta Interdepartmen~al Committee cecommendations including an amendment to Condition No. 9. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was par.:aed by the following v o te; AXBS: HUUAS~ HE:RBST~ LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI~ MC BURNEY~ Mh~SSE NUES: NONE ADSENT: FxY Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written riyht to appeal the Plannir-g Commission's deci~ion within 22 days to the City Council. Commissioner Fry relurned tn the meeting at 2:14 p.m. ITEM N0. 5 BIR NEGATIVE U~CLARATION, WAIVEFt OF CODE REQUIF2EMENT AND CONUITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2721 PUBLZC HEARING. OWN~;RS: LEUERER-ANr1FIEIM, LTD., 1990 WPslwood Boule v ard, Third Fl.oor, Los Angeles, CA 9U025-46.14, ATTN: I~ES E. LEDERER. AGEN T: MICHAEI. FRAZIER AND ASSOCIATES, 4712 Tucana, Y.orba Linda, CA 92686. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel u£ land consistin g of approximately 12 acres~ located north and east of the northeast cotn ~r ot Cerritos Avenue and Anaheim Boulevard, 333 East Cerritos Avenue (Vin e yard Christian Fellowst:ip). To permit the ex~ansion of a church in the ML Zone with waiver of mi nimum number of parking spaces. Continued from the meeting of September 16, 1985. At the end of the meeting, Kendra Morries, Assistant Planner, explai n ed staff had received a letter from the petitionec requesting withdrawa 1 of this request. 9/30/85 MINU'P.~S. ANAHL•'IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SEPTEMBER 30, 1985 85-520 ACTIUN: Commissioner Fry offered a motion, ~ec~nded by Cammisaioner Hecbat and MGTIUN CARRIED thut ttia~ appli~a~ion for Conditional U~e Permit No. L721 be WITHURAWN at the cequeat oE the Petitioner. I7'EM N0. 6 EIk NG. "148-AUULNDUM, GENERAI. PLAN AM[:NbMENT N0. 203, H.~;CLA5SI1~'TCATTON N0. 85-8G-11 WAIVEIt UF CODE REQUIREMEN'" ANU CONDI'PIONAI.~ USE PF~E2MIT NU. 2'l18 PUE3LIC HE;ARING. OWNERS: PACESE'P'1'I:R N~ME;S, INC., 4540 Campus brive, Newport Ijeach, CA 9'166U, ATTN: MICHAEI. T. ftAPHAE;L. Properl:.y is described as an irregular.ly-shaped parcel o[ land consisting of ~pprox.imakcly 2.5 acres, having ~ frontage of a~proximately 198 f:ect on ttie aaF:t. ei.de of Citcon SLreet, approxim~tely 430 feet south of the cr_nter].ine of I.incul.n Avenue. To consider an amendment to the Gand Use Element• from the curient low-mediurn density residentiai designation to mediurn density resi.dentidl RM-30U0 t~ FtM-1'lOQ or a 14ss intense zone. To ~ermit an 82-unit senior citizens' apartment complex wiLh wziiver. of reyuired site screening. There was ane person it~dicatirig his presence in oppo3ition to subject reques~ and one interested k~erson present and although the staf~: report was not read, il is referred to and made a part of the rninutPs. Landon k;xley, i'resident of Pacesetter Nomes, explained when they purchased the ~rnperky~it had an underly:ng zone of kM-120U and they recla~sified it to kM-3UUU for their condominium project, af which Phase 1 cnnsisting of 57 units ha~ been built. H~ stated they macle a marketing error in their decision to huild the condominium pr.ojects at that location and ~~+erQ unable to ~ell any of the units and all of them are rented at th~ pces~nt time and they fee.l a good project for the remaindec of the propei-ty would be a s~nic~r citizens' apartment project. Jim Lester, architect, 23025 Millcreek, Laguna tii]ls, pointed out colored exhibits showing the project and reviewed the proposal expl~ining the parking meets Code requirements, etc. He added they tried to make this project compatible with the project t~ tt~e north which is the existing condominiums. He atated thi~ is a private community with controlled gat2s and is a walled-in project for privacy and security. He stated they have maintained good p~cking distributi.on on the site so tenants will not have to walk very far L•o their units. Mr. Exley stated they want to stress the compa~ibiliCy of this nr.flject with the surrounding area ai7d that it is bounder3 on the no:~tl~~ by RM-3U00, on the east and west by RM-1200 and on the south by t1~e alley and the First Ba~tist Church. Httgh Faulkner, 1631 E. Oak Place, Anaheim, stated he owns propert~~ at Sd::~ and 541-1/2 West Chestnut. He sl•ated the original proposal does c~ot have driveways into the alley and now there are two driveways shown coming ~~ut 9/30/85 MINUT~;S ANAHE;IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SEPTk:MBER 301 1985 85"__21 onto the Al.1eY• Ile s~ated the trash are~ ha~ been moved 7.U feet ~way and tliatthis ~1Hn1N1aces~th~mdabout~:30tto14UUtcet awayfc~lea~lsofquesCinnedme, t~ u t k tl~e ]andscAping pr.opored. Joe White, BU9 W. BroadwaYr 3tated the completed conlominium project is not nearly ~s beautiful as the p.lans ariginally E~rASented with the waterscape:~, atc. tle referred to statements in thE~ stafE report indicatin.y that Citron Strc~et is a local street which currently aerves a minimal number ef: vet~icular trips and asked whaf. the traE[ic count is on Citron 5t~eet. tie stated he is 137 feet £rom one o[ the tK~~Etic aignals and it i~ Cea11y di.[ficult [or him to ye~ out his dciveway in the tnorning or eveniny. Mr. White sl:ated Uomeone left a plan on his doorstep, but h~ is more confu~eU now t1~an hE~ was because all it shows is trees ~nd that the trees thar. have he~n ~lanted in khe condominium project are only about 1 inch in diameter. Ue stated he does r~ot l~ave any faith at all in E'~cesetter kfolnes; that they were told ttie same landscapiny would be requir.ecl as exists on Flacbor and that there would be a heavily landscaF.~:: berm; and that wtien tie checked the plans approved in tt~e Nlanning Uepartment and the ones being used to i:;sue ~ermits by the I~uildiny Uepartment, they were not the sauie E~lan, one had a 12-foot landscaped ~etback ~-r-d the other had 8 feet. tie stated the berm ended up to be about 1-1/2 inches hi,yh and the trees are about 1 inch in diameter and there is a wooden fence instead o~ wrought iron and block as pcoposed. Fle stated they want to an~n9ha~he original plans because they paid too much for the property; oeiginally they agreed to one access, but hc cann~t tell. Erom these plans how many accesses there are going to be. Paul Sinyer, TraEfic Engineer, stated in rESponse to M[. Wh.ite's question about the traffic on Citran, the AUT is 4140 and that 9~c, oc less than 400 cars, would be the count during the p.m. peak hour. }~e stated there are 3 access ~oints on this proYer.ty, one on Citron Street clo~e to the alley and that is connected to a by-pass area and tt~e yecond access is connectiny the unit~ to th~ north for emer.gencies. Cotn~nission reviewed plans of the original condominium ~roject. Joe White pointed out there was a proposed access on kiarbor in that proposal and none on the alley~ and the access point shown on Citron i~ the existing driveway as it is now, an~3 the new ~roposal has another access on Citron so they can provide more units, 82 instead of 40 as originalJ.y proposed. Chairwoman La Claire summarized that Mr. White is oppased to the access and density. Mr. WhiLe stated the staff report says the plans indicate there will be a 20-foot wide landscaped setback adjacent to Citron Street and he wants an assurance, not an indication in the staf£ repoet, b~cause the amenities as shown in the original plans such as berms, landsa~ped serback, wall, etc. have not been pro~~ided. t4r. White ceferred tu the 3-foot high block wall proposed on Cit[on and added he thouqht that would be quite a reduction from the promised berm with a 20-foot wide landscaped setback and a block wall with wrought iron 9/30/85 MINUT~S. ANAN~IM CITY PLANNING CUMMISSION, SrPTEMBER 30, 1985 85-522_ on top. He referred to the parking and asked how mAny epaces they are providing And it w~s noted the par.king will meet Code requirements. Mr. White stated thece will b~ no guNSt parking spaces provid~d and thPre is no an-sike E~acking and rNterced to the open parking ~paces pcoposed because, According to the Police UepartmenL, those are saf.er. Ne stated they have t~ad a lot o[ accidents and khefts Lr.om cars in that area. Mr. White referred to khe indicatian in the staff report that residents will be allowed lo be 45 years o[ age and asked if that is the definition oE a~enior clti2en now. Annika Sankalahti explained the minimum age fur senior citizens is 60 years and if there is a second person living in the unit, they can be 45 year~ old and that is 5tate regulation whict~ the City must follow. Kendca Morries ex~lained khe Cily's Zoning Code defines a senlor citizen as a~erson at leask 62 year~ of age or older an~ in this project, the minitnum age would be 62 or older; how~ver, a tempocary second tenant could be 45 years of age or older. Joe White stated t~e would be opposed to the General Plan Amendment and to the whole prnject. Mr. Exley ska~ed the Naplcs waterscape Project just won the National Sweepstakes Lor the Anaheim Beautiful conl•est. Fle stated thEy wou.ld work out an acceptat+le trasl7 lncation with Mr. h'aulkner and he thought it is ab~ut SU or 90 feet away from the easterly property line and that the easterly pcoperly .line will tie landscaped and plantEd wtth trees. He ~tated the traf.fir and E~arkiny situation is im~orL-ant and l•hey will generate less daily trigs with a senior citi•r.en project than they would witt~ the 4U unit~ proN~~ed in a condortiinium praject, from 369 trips down to 177 tri.~s, t;e ~tal-ed they do comply with parking cequirements and they feel the impact aL tt~is type of project is minimal because it does not impact the schools, traffic, parks, ~olice, etc. He stated they are pCOposing a 3-foot berm with a 3-foot high masonry wall with heavy landscaping. He added the fence on the bank between the two projects is a temporacy fEnce which will be removed. He stated they feel the project i~ well conceiv~d and conforms to City ordinances. THE PUI3LIC H~;ARING WAS (:LUSED. Comrnissioner McBurney asked if parking ~pacea will be designated to a particular uni.t. Mr. Exley responded they have discussed that and intended to do it, even though othec senior citizen projects do not assign parkiny spaces. He stated they can 2ssi,gn spaces iF Commission wishes. Commissioner McBurney stated he feels it is necessary. He atated he would question h.he access off the alley closest to Citron and asked why they need that access. Mr. Exley stated they want this to be a gate-guarded communit,y and they want equal distribution of parking and the parking is u~ed as a buffer to the area and the church; and that a back-up lane is required in order for a person to get out who k,as made a mistake and entered into the project. He pointed out there are guest parking spaces in the front area. Commissioner McBurney sugyested one-way traffic in the al].ey. 9/30/85 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CIZ'Y PLANNING COMMISSION~ SEPTEMDEk 30, 1985 85-523 Commisaioner ~ouas asked for ~n answer t~ Mr. Faulkner'a queslion About• Building No. 6 being closer than the original design. Mr. Gxley sCated the driveway in the previous condominium pro~ect was in tl~e same 1oc~tion and thak access ~oint is merely an extension of the exiskin~ driveway and the building might be 5 or lU feet closet. Ftesponding to Commissianer ~ouAS, he ~lated there is a 3-foot wide ~tri~ of landscapf~~g. Responding to Commissioner Fry, he Htated the oiily guests parking spaces would be those proposed out frunt. Kendra Morries stated Code does not require additional calcu~ation fur gueat parkiny and the number proposed include tenants and guects. Commis~ioner E'r; ataled although parking may t~e in confocmance with Code, he thought it is very imprac~ical and only 6 yuest parking spaces for an 82-unit seniur citi2en project is not accep~able. }~e stated he agr.ees with Mr. White that the impact on thc area wir.h 82 units will be insu£Eerable. Ne stated t~e finds i.t difficult to bel.ieve that 82 units will not generate as much ~raffic a:; the or~ginal d0 units planned for that area and he will not vote for it. Mr. Exley stated the guest parking outside the ~ate will be for people to park in order to gain ar.cess to the entire parki.ng lot. Mr. Exley stated they can assign parking s~aces and Commissioner Messe added, in that case, there would be no guest packing sp~cPS inside the facility. Commissioner Eierbst stated the Planning Commission has discussed the situation where parking spaces should not he over 200 f.eet from the units and if these were not assigned, spaces could be over 50U feet away from the unit~. He stated he thougiit the handicapped stalls should be in an area where they are needed and he thought their parking layout for a senior citizen complex is terrible. Mr. Exley stated no one has to walk over 30U feet and furthec explained there is no unit more than 150 feet a~~ay from the nearest parking space. Commi~sioner Herbst pointed out if a tenant cannot find a space in one area and has to park at the en~ of the other acea, it wou~d be ~boat 500 feel• away from these u~its. Mr. Exley stated he wuuld accept the condition requiring the spaces be assigned. Commissioner eouas s~ated staff has indicated that senior citizens do not have as many vehicles as people who live in aparl•ments and the project mests the requirernents established by the City for Eenior citizen complexes. Commissioner Herbst pflinted out the State cegulations require that a younger person be allowed to live in these units which would increase the parking requirement and that was done after the City adopted their ordinances. Chaicwoman La Claire stated she feels this is an idea.l senior citizen complex and she did not khink ther~ would be a problem with the parking if the spaces are assigned. She statpd if there is a guarrel about the number af spaces, it is with the Code and not the development, and this project does conform ta our Codes. She added with only 4 parking spaces outside~ visitors will only visit once i£ tkiey cannot find a place to park. She asked about the trash enclosures and Mr. Exley stated they do not empty onto the allex and they have a masonry wall with wings on each side extending beyond the trash enclosure. 9/3G/85 MINU'rFS, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING,CUMMISSION, S~PT~MBER 30, 1985 85-524 Commissioner tlerbst asked how many a~artment units could be develoE~ed on ttiis properry if: the rezoniny is approved, if the develo~er decide~ riot to construct this ~enior citizen praject. Kendra Mocriea stated lhe co~~idominium code wou~d ~ilow approximately 36 units, but ItM-12q0 would allow the 82 units proposed today. Chairw~man I,a Clr~ir.e staled the parkiny rE~quicements Por an apartmenL complex wou.id be much hi.gher at 2.5 spaces p~~;r unil. Commissioner Ery stated by calling this a seni.or citizen complex based on L-he theory that aenior citizens I~ave fewer atitomobi.les than apartment dwellers, they are peemitted r_o come in with 42 units with fewer packing [eyuirements and that is what concPrns him. Mal.c~lm 5laugt~ter explained L•he General Pla~ Amendm~ent c.annot be tied to plans fo[ tl~is paCticular project. Cammissionec Herbst stated khe changes that have laken place on thi.s proper~y bother him and he recogt~izea that Chey cnuld not b~;ild the 82 units unless they wc~re designated for senior citizens; however, once the zone change is mad~ on this property, the im~act co~ld be tremendous. He stated this is a good looking project to a point, but haviny to have a General ~lan Amendment makes it questionable, because if khere is a change in economics and lhey decide not to buil.d the units, apactments co~ild be constructed creat:inq a tremendous impack on the area. Chairwoman La Claire statPd she thinks this area is sui'cable for regu.lar apartments becau~e it is zoned to the east and west For RM-120U and to the south for RM-24Ui) anri RM-300U t~ the north. She stated the Traf£ic Engineer has said if the property is developed with a;~arL•merits, there would not be a tratfic problem in the area. She addc:l she is not opposed ko changiny l•he Genecal Plan for this area. Respondiny to Commissioner McHurney, Mr. Slaughter :atated the conditional use permit can be exercised if the undeclying aoniny applicatiot; for RM-12U0 is granted. He stat•ed technically, the Corr,missiun has 3 separate issues to discuss and the applications are for a c:hange in the Ceneral Plan to increase the density to that proposEd, th~~ second issue is wt~ether or not the property should be cezoned to RM-1200 and if the rezoniny is approved, shoul~l they grant the use Qermit. He :stated the rec.lassi.ficatian and ~onditional use permit applications are tied toyether, but the Genecal Plan Amendment could be approved, and both the athers coulci be denied, and if all three ace granted, the de~aeloper has the authority to exeCCise those cights, but is not cequired to do that, and he could only exe[cise the re2oning and forget about the conditional use permit ~nd pracPed by tight and develop in the RM-1200 7.one. Chairwoma:~ La Claire stated he could develop apaxtments with the required parking as a mat~er of right. She stated if apartments do not belong in the area they should not be permitted. Dan Shiada, Associate Traffic Engineer, stated the number of vehicles generated for an apartment complex would not i.mpact Citron or Lincoln 9/30/85 MINU7'ES ANAHEIM CITY PGANNING COMMIS~IbN, 5EPT~MBER 30, 1985 85-525 advercely and the onl.Y concern would be to have a sufEicient number of off-strec~t parking spacea. Commis3ioner Herb~t srated the tra."fic fcc~m ~hia project i~ almnat doubling the trafiic from the apartmenl• complexes. Mc. :~hiada ~tated if the properky wac deve~oped with 72 apartment units, the streete would be able to handle the additional traffic. Commi~sioner Bouas stated the streel•s would be able to h~ndle the car~ in this area as wu11 as the streets in the area for high-cise of[ice buildings beir~g pro~~^ed. Ctia~rwc~man La Claire stated ubviously ti~ere is no prot~lem with tl~e traffic and ~t is prnbably true that Mr. White cannot get out ot his driveway at certain times of the day. 5he added she did not see .~ny ~roblo~~:~ with rezoning for apactments because it is surraundE~d with RM-120U and RM-240~ Zoniny and if an apart.ment ~,ro~ect is proposed with adec~uate parkinq, it wi11 not have 82 uniks. She added ;;he thought it might even be better to have apartmer~ts than a senior citizen complex. ACTION: Chairwoman La Cl~ire offEred a motion, sec:anded by Commissioner McBurney and MO`i'ION CARR.IE:~ that the An~hF~im City Planning Commission does hereb7 ap~rove the Adder^um to Environmental Impact Report No. 248. Chairwoman La Clair.E~ -'~~ced Resolution tJo. PC85-21z and rnoved for its passage and adoptio~ -~: the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby xecommend a~proval '~~.~~c~~1 Plan .~mendrnent No. 203, Exhibit A, to redesignate subje~ ~-~t-~-'-:, ~o medium dencity cesidential land uses. On roll call, th~ ~-~~-~y !'~4~ resolution was pasaed hy the following voke: AYES• BOUAS . ~~.f~ !:i~, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY NUES: [~RY, ,. •~~ . , K~r3S~E ABS~NT: NONE Chairwoman L~, :_-_r.- c,ifered Recol.ution No. PC85-214 and moved for its passuge and aa-;~t'~y~ ~-~~ ~hat the Anaheim Cil•y Planning Commission daes heceby gxant Reclassifa.>~•~~~='>~~ Nn. 85-86-.1, subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendation:. On roll call, th*_ i~reyoin9 resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES• BQWAS, ~+ CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES : FFt+ , H!'_ _-~.~ST ABS~NT : NC~:~ E- Chairwoman La c:laire oFfered a motion, seconded by Conimissioner Lawicki and MUTION CActRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby granc waivec of Code requirement on the bani.s that there are special cir~umstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings which do not apply to ather identically zoned praperty in the same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the proper~y of privileges enjoyed by other proper.ties in khe iaentical zone and classification in the vicinity. 9/30/85 MINU7'E~ ANANEIM CI'PY PI,ANNING COMMISSIUN, SEP'T~MBER 3~, 1985 f35-526 KendrA Morriea stated ataff woul.d reeommend thak Conditic>n No. 15 be revised t~ read: "'Phat prior to isauance of building permits, the deve~oper shall enter into a r~corded agreement witl~ the City ot Ant~heim pursuAnt t~ Chapter 1f~.94.04U to provide that twenty-five ~ercent (25R1 nf the pecmitted nuniber of residential units shall be rented ba low or moderate income housing as deL-ined in Guvernment Code Section 65915 ~znd with appropriate rental contrul: as ~pproved by r,he City of AnAtieim Eor a period of n~t leas than thicty (3U) years from the date c~f issuanee of occupancy permits." Chairwoman I.a Claire offered Resoluti~n No. PC85-215 and moved L•ar its pASaage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Cotnmiesion does hereby granl- Conditional Use Permit No. 2718 pur~uant to Anaheim Municipal Code Section~ 18.U3.03U.U3U through 18.03.030.U35 ~ubject to Interdepattment•.al Committee recommendations, including modification to Condil:ion No. 15. Un roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed ;~y the followinq vote: AYES: BC~UAS~ LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC E~URNEY, MESSE NU~S: FRY, H~RBST ABSEN'1': t~OIJE Chairwoman La Claire otfered a rtiotion~ seconded by Commissioner McRucney and MUTION CAkRIEU that the Anaheim City P.lanning Commission c9oes hereby request that the Gity Council review Reclassification No. 85-b6-1 and Canditi.onal Use Permit lJo. 2718 in conjunction with ~eneral Plan Am~ndment No. 203 purt~uant tu Anaheim Municipal Code Sec:tion 18.03.080. Commissionen c~Burney stat:ed he voted in favoc of this request e~ven though the Commission is con4f~cned about economics goina thP okher way, and that econumics could dictake that they come back in to change the senioc citizen project tu an apartment ~rojecL, however, they would havE~ to meet Code. Ptalcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the wri.ttsn r:yht tc appeal the Planniny Comtnission'a decision within 22 days to the City Council. RECESSEU: 3:15 p.m. RECUNVENED: 3:25 p.m. I7'EM NO. 7 ETR NEGATIVE BECLARA'.;'ION, WAIVER OF' CODE REQUIKBM~:NT AND CONAI'PIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2720 PUBLIC NEARING. UWNERS: CORPOFU'~TTON OF THG PRESIDENT OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LA'PTER-DAY SAINT~S, 50 E. North Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah 89150. AGENT: WESTPORT ~E,N^`ERS, INC., 1601 Dove Stteet, Suite 155, Newport Beach, GA 9266U. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 7 acres, approximately 585 feet west of the cent~rline of Euclid Street. To construct a 179-unit senior citizens' retirement facility and a 99-bed skilled nursing facility with waiver of required lot frontage. 9/30/85 MINUTES~ ANAl1~IM CIZ'Y PLAtJNING COMMISSION, SEPTEM~ER 30, 1985 85-527 John Chriateson, ~xecu~ive Uirector of Weatport Centers, Inc., agent, explair~ed thi.~ pcoject was auwmitted in March for 165 unit~ of aenior citizen housing and a 99-bed convalescent care Eacility and 1U,000 syuare teet of inedical office building spa~e~ with L•he 165-unit seninr h~using being on the north side ni the ~ite, as currently pcoponed, and the skilled nursing Lacility and medical ot-fice building r.ombined in a~ingle 3-story building on ~he front portion oL the site. tie ~tated the change basical].y is the deletion of the lO,UUU square Loot medical office space and haviny th~ convalescent ~are on a single level and adding 14 senior citizen housiny units. He stated Fhe height ot the project is 35 feet and not 50 feet as indicate~ in the staff report. THE PUBI,IC H~ARINC WAS CLOSF".U. Chairwoman La Claire asked how the patients ior the :~killed riursing will be referred. Mr. Chri3teson stated the facility will ~redominantly derive its patieni:s trom t~ospital referrals of people who require a recu~erati.on period, ttierapy, etc. for a pe:iod of 4 to 6 weeks and they will work closel,y with the Marlin Luttier Flospital. He stated as Lhe tenants in the senior hausiny facility age, it will be comforting t:o know, if they require convalescent care, it will be available at tt~is facili~y on their same site. He added it will Ue a licensed facility where dcugs can be administeced and witt~ re~~ular calls by physicians, e~c• Kendra Morries, Assistant Planner, stated a conditic,nal use permit is required in this instance Eor the relicement facility and nursing f.acility and the waiver is because they intend to par.celir,e the property resulting in 1 lot with~~ut frnntage in tl~e future. ACTIUN: Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconc~ed by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRILV that the Anaheim Ciky Planning Commission hac reviewed the proposal to construct a 179-unit senior citizens' retirement facility and a 99-bed skilled nursing facility with w~iver of required lot frontage on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of app[oXimately 7 acres having a frontage of approximaL•ely 46(~ fe~~t on the north side of Medical Center Ative, and beiny located aE~~roximately 585 feet west of the cente[line of Euclid 5treet; and does hereby approve the Neqative Declaration upon f,inding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with ar~y comments received during the public review process and f.urther findin9 on the basi.s of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence tha1; the project will have a signi~fi.cant effect on the environment. Commissioner Fry otfered a motion, aeconded by Commissioner Bouas and t90'PION CARFIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby gr.ant waiver of Code requirement on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and sutroundings which do ~tot apply to okher identically zoned propecty in the same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other propertiea in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity. 9/30/85 M yUTESi ANAH~IM f:ITY PLANNING CUMMISSIUN, SGPTEMBER 3U~ 1985 a5-528 Commisaionar Fry offered RQsolution No. PC85~216 ~.nd moved for iCs passAge And adopti~n that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2720 pursuar~t to Anaheim MunicipAl Code 5ections 18.U3.03U.U30 through 1~.03.U30.U35 and subject to Interdep~rtmental Committee recommendation~. On roll call, the foregoing resolutton wAS pa~sed by the followinq vote: AY~S; HUUAS~ FRY~ N~RBST~ LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI~ MC BURNEY, MESSE NUES: NONE AB5GNT: NONB Malcolm 5laughter, Ae~uty City Attor.ney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days ta the City Council. ITEM NU. 8 EIR NEGATIVE QECLARATION, WAIV_ER OF C4DE REQUIREMF.NT AND CONAITIUNAL USE PERMI'P N0. 2722 PUBLIC HEARIN~. OWNERS: BR PROPERTIES LIMITEU PARTNERStIIP, 450 Newport Center Urive, Newport Beach, CA 92660-7640. AGENT: PBS BUILDINC SYSTEMS, 3031 La Jolla Street, Anahei~, CA 92806, ATTN: DON ~RAVITTS. Property descCihed as an irregularly-shaped parcel ^F land r_on~isting of approximately 1.6 acres located at the no~thwast cornEr of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Riverview llrive. To permit a 3-story, 41-foot hi~h commer~ial office building with waivers of minimum structural setback and minimum landsr~p~d setback. 7'here was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff repurt was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the rtiinutes. Jonn Harty, PBS Building Systems, agent, explained this sing].e-occupant building will be their headquarters and they are requesting tiie variance for the height to 41 feet instead of 35 and there is a precede~it sek wi~h the building across the street; and that pertaining to the setback along San~a Ana Canyon Road, tYiey are re~uESting 80 feet instead oP 100 and a 10-foot landscaped setback on Riverview instPad of 14 feet and the setbac~ waivers are being reyuested because of the terrain and configuration of the property. THE ~UBLJC HEARiNG WAS CLOSED. Crairwoman La Claire stated she thought khe building w:ll. be an asset to the area, but was conce:ned about the landscaped setback frorn Santa Ana Canyon Road at 20 feet ~ith a 3-s`ory building. She added she was n~t thinking about a 100-foot setbackr but something more than 20 feet. Mr. Harty stated the design of the building is staggered and also the lot falls off very r•harply from Santa Ana Canyon Road down to the building pad, so much of the first story of the building will be below the grade level of. Santa Ana Canyon Road. 9/30/85 MINUrE5 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SLP2'EMBF;k 30. 1985 85-529 Reaponding to ChairwomAn La C1Aire, Kendra Morrie~ atated PAragraph3 16, 17, 18 and ]9 explain variances which have been nr~nted in the Are~ and the original ~roposal grAnted on thifi property wae For a 10-lot, 10-building subdivision, pri.marily 1 and 2 stories in height, w~th a 1-atory building and a 20-fout setback and a 3-foot high berm Approved on santa Ana Canyon Road. Responding to Commissioner Herbst, Mr. Harty stated ther.e will be no roof-mounted e~uipment on thi~ building. Mr. klaxty stated there was a 3^story building approved across Riverview at 1 much higher heigh~. ChAirwoman La Clair.e stated 1:hat is diEferent than Santa Ana Canyon Road because it is tow~ards the Riverside Freeway. Commissioner Mc~urney stated because of the elevation ot this buildirig and with the grade differencc to Santa Ana Canyon Road, he thougt~t this would be an acceptable pr~ject and would not ok,struct anyone's view of ~hr: canyon. Chairwoman La c:.laire stated stie would like to see a line-oP-sight drewing for the people across the street. Mr. Harty stated in Lerms oE the pritr~acy view coming in their direction towards the hills, a line~of.-sight would be Ear abnve their builrling because it drop~ of.1` irom Santa Ana Canyon Road and Lhose hames are considerably above tF~c.~ rc,ad. Chairwoman La Claite stated she is concernEd about the 3-sko~y building at 2U feet with 2~tories visible and the overall effect .it would have if okhers are granked along that same street. She added t.here i~ primarily a residential area accoss the 3treet and although this project miyht not afFect the residents, she is concerned abouL• the overall effect. James McMett, Geisler As~ociates, ~449 Century Blvd., architect, presented elevations oE the drawiny and the Commission reviewed those exhibits. ACTIUN: Cort~missione~ Hecbst offered a,notion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED thak the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit a 3-story, 41-foot high c~mmercial office t~uildinq with waivers o£ minimum structural setback, and minirtium landscaped setback on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of. approximately 1.6 acres located at the northwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Rxverview Drive; and dQes hereby a.pprovr~ the Negative Ueclacation upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration togethet with any comments received during the public -:eview process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that ther~_~ is no substantial evidence that the project; will have a significant eff.ect on the environment. Commi~sioner Herbst offered ~ moti.on, seconded by Cornmissioner Bouas and MUTION CAR~tIEA that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does here~y grant waivers of Code requirement on the basis of the hilly terrain of subject prop=cty and the gcade difference to the road and further on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and surr.oundings which do not apply to 9/30/85 MINUTGS~ ANAkiEIM CI7'Y PLANN_I_NG COMMISSIONy SEPTEMBER 30, 1995 85-530 other identically zoned praperty in the ~Ame vicinityt and that atrict application of khe 'Loning Code deprives the pronerty of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identic~l zone and ~1.HKSification in the vicinity. Commissionec Herbst offer~d Resolution No. PC85-217 and moved f.or its pAasage adoption that ~.he Anaheim Gity Planninq Commi~sion does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2~'22 hurouant to Anaheim Municipal Cude Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.03U.U35 and subject to InterdepartmentaJ Cormnittee r~a~:o~rmendations. On roll call, th~ foregoing resolution was pas~eci by the following vote: AY~:S: E30UAS, F12Y, I~~,RUST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI~ MG 9UR~~Y, MrSSF. NOES: NUNE; ABSBNT: NONE Malcolm S]aughter, Deputy City Attorney, Presented lhe written cight ta appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM NU. 9 EIk CAT~;GURICAL ~XEMP'TION-CLASS 5 APIU VARIANCE N0. 3508 PUk~LIC HEARING. OWNERS: SAN'PIAGU D. & SALVADOR D. DUENAS, 519 E. Adele Street, Anaheim, CA 92805. ~roperty desccibed as a rectangularly-shaped parcel ~f land c~nsisting of ~pproximately 8,221 square feet, 519 East Adele Street. Waiver of minimum side yard setbacks to construct a second attached dwelling to create a duplex. Thece was no one indicating their presence in opposition to sub~ect request and although the staff report wa~ not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Maria Dueras, owner, was present to answer any questions. THE PUBLIC H~,ARING WAS CLOSED. it was noted the Planning Director or his authorized representative h..s determined tha~ the proposed project falls with~n the definition of Categorical Ex~mptians, Class 5, as defined in the State Environmental Impact Rpl~ort Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst affered Resolution No. PC85-218 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Ana~eim City Planning Commisaion does hereby grant Variance No. 3508 on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the propecty such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings which do nat apply to oth~r identically zoned property in the same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of pzivileges enjoyed by ~ther properties in the identical 2one and classification in the vicinity and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. 9/3U/85 MINUTES, ANAkIEIM CITY PLANNING COM6IISSION SLPTF:M~~R 30 1985 85-531 Un roll call, the foregoing resolution wda paaeed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS~ FRY~ HERBST~ LA CLnIRE~ UAWICKI~ MC HU~NEY~ MLSSE NO~S: NUN~ A~SGNT: NONE Malcolm Slaugl~ter, Ueputy City Attorney, presented the written rignt to appeal r.he Planning Commi3s~on's decision within 22 days to the City Ceuncil. I7'BM NU. 10 EIR NEGA'PIVE D~CLARATION, RECLASSIE'ICA:ZON NU. E35-86-6 AND VARIANCL NU. 3510 PUBI~IC HEARING. OWNEkS: ELAINF. L. RUR'~CN, 300U Grover, Boise, Id~do 837U5. AGENT: HUGU A. VAZ(~UE'L, 619 S. Live Oak Drive, An~heim, CA 928U5. Pro~erty de~cribed As a rectangularly-sha~ed parcel of l~nd consisting of aHptoxi,mately 0.38 acre, 32(- W. Vermont Avenue. RS-A-43,ODU to RM-1200 ur a less intense zone. Waiver~ of minimum building stte area and maximum structural height to construct a 1~-unit af£ordable apartment complex. There was no one indic.atiny their presence in oppo~ition to subject request and althouyh the ~ta£f reporl• w~s not cead, it is referred to and made a~act of the minutes. Hugo Vazquex, agent, was present to answer any questions. THE YUBi~IC HEAKING WA5 CLOSEU. ACTIUN: Commissioner McBurney offer^d a mation, seconded by Commissioner. Bouas and MUTION CARRIEU that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the pcoposal to rezone subject property from R5-A-43,000 (Residential, Agcicultural~ to r_he kM-1200 (Residential, Multiple-Eamily) Zone to canstruct a 15-unit affordable apartinent complex with waivers of minimum building site area per dwelling unit and maximum structural height on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consistiny of approximately 0.38 acre, having a frontage of approximately 75 feet on the wouth side of Vermont Avenue, and Eurther described as 320 West Vermort Avenue; and daes hereby approve the Negative Declaration upoi~ finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Ir~itial Study and any comr,~ents received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner McBUrney offered Resolution No. PC45-219 and moved for its passage and adoptian that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Reclassifi.cation No. 85-86-6 subject to interdepartmental Committee recommendations. 9/30/85 MZNUT~S. ANAHEIM CITX PLANNING COMMISSION, S~PT~MB~~ 30,_1985__~_85-532 On roll call, the foreg~ing r~solution wao paeAed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS~ FRY~ NERBST~ LA CLATRE, LAWICKI~ MC BURNGY~ MrSSE NOES: NUNE ABS~NT: NONE Commissioner McDurney oFfered Reaolution No. PC85-220 and moved for its passAgo and adopl-ion that the Anaheim City Planning Commission doea her.eby grAnt Variance No. 3h1U on the basis that there arP 3pQCia1 circumstances applicable to the property such as aize, shape, topoyraE~hy, l~~cation and surraundings wl~ich do not apply to other identically zoned pro~erty in ~he same vlcinityt and that stcict application ot the 2oning Code depcives the pro~erly of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and cl~~sification ln lhe ~~icinity and sub3ect to Interdepartmental Committee recommendatiuns. Un roll call- the foregoinq re~olution was passed by the £ollowing votP: AYLS: BUUA.S~ rRY~ NERBST, LA ~:LAIRE~ LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, HESSE NOES: NUNB ABSENT: NUNE Malcolm Slaughter, Aeputy City Attorney, pre~ented the written right to a~peal Che P]anning Commission's dACision within 22 days to the City CounaiJ.. ITEM PlU. 11 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATTON, RE:CGASSTE'ICATION_NU._ 85-A6-7 AND VARIANCE N0. 3511 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: BC INVESTMENTS 85-2, 3471 Via Lido, Y213, Newport Beach, CA 92663. AGENT: BALALIS CORPORATION, 3471 Via Lido, #213, Newport eeach, CA 92663. t~roperty described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel oE land consisting of approximately 0.99 acre, 2545 41est Braadway. CL to RM-1200 or a less intense zone. Waiver of maximum structural height to construct a 36-unit apartment complex. Thece were approximatel.y fifteen persons indicating theic presence in opposition to su~,lect request and although the staff report was not cead, it is referred to and made a p~rt of the minutes. Paul Balalxs, agent, stated they have attempted to lease this propecty over the past year and also have attempted to se11 it; and that the area is undergoing some changes and commercial is not the best use for this property, so they ace requesting a zone change f or an apartment complex. He explained all new apartment units will be facing inward and they have minimized the number of windows facing properties to the west and north and have located L•he complexes as far away as possible from the single-family residential area and they hope ~o minimize the impact even further with landscaping. 9/30/B5 MINUm~S, ANAN~IM CITX PI.ANNING COMMISSIUN, SGPT~M~ER 3U, 1985 85-533 ~r.nnk Ayloewarth~ 22U Aron Place, Anaheim, presented peti*.ians conkaining 77 aignaturea of people agAinst thia cequest. H~ atAted this is not a s~ecial propecty in need oi waivers Or variancea and the preaent commcrcial uAe ia ideal with low traffic during the day ~nd none at niyht. He stated traffic is a problem in thp neighborhood caused by th~ Noliday Health S~a acroos the atreet and they cannot park on BroadwAy at all. He Rtated '~ecause of the additional hrAffic in the area, there are consL•ant~y near-accidents and accidents and they do not feel they nePd An Additional lUU vehicles in and out of. that neighborhood. He stated they woul~ requ~st L•haL no waivera be yranted an~ tt~e zoning on the pro~erty be ~ lntained as ts. Steve Guilford, 248 Aron PJ.ace, Anaheirn, s~ated the Holiday F~eal.th SFa is pcobably the biygest pr.oblem causing a lot ~[ their concern over the idea ~i an apartmen~ complex, but having addit.~onal rental units in that unit is appalling to ~hPm. tie stated there are areas in this City whece it looks like there .s a planned growth with both rental units and sing.le-family ho~nes which is wha~ they feel keeps certain areas of the Ci.ty looking the way they do because there i.s a positive influence Erom ~rivate home ownership and apartrnent complexes do not seem `o l.end themselves to good maintenance. t!e stated he agrees with Charlene La Claire that there is ~~n over-abundanc~ of rnultiple-Eamily complexes in thi.s City and all areas will suEEer with additional encroachments of rental properties. He stated they have ~pent a lot of rnoney impcoving their properties; and tt~at many of Che nwners in the condominium complex will sell their property if this is approved. t!e stated they have made a lot af complaints to the TrafEic Department concer.ning the t~affic problems on Broadway, just ea~t of Magnolia, and there are already a lot of accidents in that area and having 100 additional cars per day in and out of that complex would be adding a kr.emendaus risk to what they already see as a t~azard. He stated he thought the density is entirely too hiyh. He statPd he was glac] when he moved L•here and learned that subject property was zoned for commercial uses ~dhich would allow 15 or 20 small commercial u.ses which would be thece during the day and he did not th;nk having traffic during the day w~~uld be that bad. He stated they have also had a trespassing problem with tenants from the high-density apartments immediately to the north of their project and at their own expense, have extended the rear wall to 12-feet high to prevent people from climbing over it. He stated they feel they have been totally ignored in their request to have something done about the over-crowdin9 at the hea].th spa; and that th~ey do not have enough parking spaces and typically they have 401 to 450 cars parked on their parking lot in the afternoon arcund cne intersection across from their condominium on eitnec side of the sCreet and even have cars parked in their ow-i condominium parking spaces. He stated taey have twice gone over and cleaned off shcubs from subject property and they do not like what khey see there now, b~at would rather 9/30/85 MINUTEu, AiIAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISS ION, SCPTCMRE~ 30, 1985 45-534 see that than havt 36 apartment uni~s. tle statQd sub~ect property is not well mAintained and he did not think t he ownera demon~trated nny intere~t on their behalf by maintaining the pro perty. tie added he thought they had not been able to se11 or leaAe it bccau;~e oE the hi~ih E~rice. He Added they would request that the p robletns they are experlen~ing right now not be increased; and that they t h ink the traf[ic co~ants would have been higher when the traffic study wa s done if the counters had been placed ~t the ttoliday fiealth Spa driveways to the east rather. tha~~ on Magnalia 5U feet to the east. tle stated even witl~ a trafLic signal or a left-turn lar-e which would require re moval of the on-street parking, khis would not be in their best interest. Fie Gtated he is not saying anything against the plan, but f.elt it would n ot be appropriate at this time. FIe stated single-fami.ly reaic]enCial area s~hould he retained in the City and condominiums could be constcucted on t hal: property. Carolyn St~anahan, 235 S. Gain St:reet, qtated there are 15 ar 20 vehiclea every night maki.ng u-turns on t.he corner because they could not find a packin9 space and thern are a lot of n ear accidents because the clients at L•he spa are always in a hurry. She s tated the building behind tier has been abandoned and a loh. of times sh e is frightened beiny home alone with ~eople vandalizing t•he building, etc. She stated she did not want to ~ee subject property stay the way it is b ecause it makes her. property look really bad and if this projec~ is app roved at 2-1/2 stories hiqt~, she would like to see trees planted along the boundary lines alang the east side adjacent ko the aingle-family re sidential homes in order to provide more privacy. She stated undergroun d garages are proposed with a parking lot for the visitors and indicated h e z concern becau~e the tcash truck will use the driveway in the rear of her unit and she was concecned whece the trash bins will be located. Kath].een Pepper, 226 Aron Place, sta t ed she is opposed to th~. construction of high•-density housiny on the property adjacent to their ~~ndc,~i~~iu:~ compler..; that the density ratio for h ousing un+ts in L-ne west lnahei.m area has already reached excessive proport ions and the proposal for ~5 aparttinent units on IeEG than 1 acre w ill be Einancially di~astrous an~ will decrease property values. She s tated the increased tra£f.ic, noise and pollution which will be generate d will be irreversible and the traffic and parking pr~~blems already imposed on them by the Holiday Health Spa wi11 be exasperating in the future, a nd entering and exiting from the driv ~~ays which is already difficult, will only grow worse. She stated she ..as concerned about obstr~ction of air and light into their homes taking away their quality o£ life. S he stated the proximity of these units to their living and sleeping a r eas with their loud radios, tv's and parties will result in an abundance of sleepless nights. She stated as a resident of Anaheim for 36 years, sh e knows this proposal is not in keeping w~th sound physical and envi r onmental policy anc3 she would urge the Planning Commission to carefully consider the quality of life that is synonymous with living in Anaheim an d not grant any waivers. Patrick Shanahan, 235 S. Gain, Anah e im, stated t~e is against thir project and wanted ta point out thece is a s chool about 2 blocks away and a lot of children will be crossing in front e f this proposed project and traffic 9/30/85 F MINU7'ES ANAHE;IM CI~Y PGANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMI3ER 30 1985_ 85-535 wi 1 1 bo a definite safety haxard es~ecially bec~uae of L•he ramp out of the ya r age. Ne atated he doeA not 11 ke the height oP th~ pro ject and does not agree ir should be ~his clone to the conduminium ~roject bec~uae it will b~ an invasion of pri.vacy in their boVk~Y~aWa~h higher~wallshandWplantingeof 1;o have more privucy iL this .ia app tr~es. He atated they are gel•.ting a lot of noise now from the ~pn and wi11 evenrually get a lot of noise fr.orn thece apartments becau:~e their swimming ~ool will be cloae to their area with a cabanA higher t17an tl~e swimming pool, and the people will be able t~ laok over into thPir yards and al~a there will be more traffic. RQbert Flowers, 218 Gain Strest, atated traffic from the health spa p~i[ks on their street And throws bottles and cnns ontc~ the curbs, erc. and ralso a 1oL oi the neighbors wtio could not attend this meeting, ar.e against this prcject. He statPd the children frum the apartments adjacent to their p~operty come over the fence into thefr complex area, g~ over the carports and steal from the vetiicles and var,dalize the carports- eLc. and they can st.ill clim~ over the walls no matter how high they are. He stahed if tt~ere was a fire in the rear of lhe apartment complex, they would not t~ave accea~ to get nut. i-cvbert Mar~•:~- ettorney cepresenting Mr. Dido, 217 W. orang~ Avenue, stated hE: did not think a G-toot wall would be adequate to mitigate any of the ciamages that thesP. ~~pPl~' wili suffer and he would recommend a minimum 8 -fAOt hiah wall Beverly G[~} ,_ .:~n Place, s tated she concurs with what has been :~aid in o~osition aii. if an area is heavy with high density complexes; 3,~ c,.~.~ [ibutes t•o a v~Ky pool c;uality a~ life and ahe hoped the variance r~+ouln not be a~proved. She presented a letter nf opposition. I{endCa Morries, Assistant Plannec, stated the Code Enforcement Uivision 3~as been receiviny complaints about the condition of the property and they did make an ins~ection and iss~ed a notice ot violation for storage of lumbec, junk, tcash, debcis, dry and dead shrubs creating a Eire hazard, overgrown vegetation and the buildinq was only partially boarded up and there wa3 evidence of vandalism. Mr. ealalis staterl he obtained Litle to this property on August 29th 3nd did not know oE any Code violations until this mocning when he saw the staff teport. He stated regardless cE the outcome of today's meeting, they will be sending a landscaper ove[ ta take care of the weeds and problems and t~iey will take care of any items on the property that are offensiv~ to the neighbors. He stated he did not expect this much opposition from the neighbors and it seems the pcimary problem is the k{oliday Health Spa and he did nc%t really address that because most people normally object to commercial uses because they create many traffic problems during the day and normally apartment dwellers leave in the mocniny and come back in thE evening and trips yeneratec.~ on a daily basis are much less than a 10,0U0-square foot comc~~tcial business. He stated they are providing for twc ( 2) covered parici, ;~F~aces per unit and 18 off-site parking spaces on tt~eir property an~~ thex will attempt to build a girst class project with security gates, sprinklers and the rear uniL•s of 9/JO/85 MINUTES. ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION,_SEPTEMBGR 30~ 1985 ~5-536 the projecL will be Eire sprinklered and the trash enclosure is in the garage and will not he visible ~nd the krucks will not have to come through anyone's ~~roperty to get to the tr~sh encloaures. fie stated ~hey will be inveating a3 much money into these units as they would in cundominiuma. rle statad they are not propo~ing condominiums because they have built condominiums in other parts of Ornng~~ County and have not l~een able to sell them. He star.ed the t~ealth spa is the problem and is a problem foc them Als~ and there is a lot of tra£fic and ~arkfng problems as a resulh nf that bu~inr.ss and he did not ~now what tho sulution is. He stated the design oE this buildiny will match the design of the condominium project next door and rhey are r~ot building something that would create "instant slums' and L•hey intend to keep and operate th.is ~roject. EIe stated he would be moce than happy to meet with the neighbors and alleviate any concern~ they might have. Hk ~tated they need tt~e density in order to make the project viable and if Lnis ~.s not approved, obviously what is ther~~ t~day can stay or they will ha~e to co~sider aome other kind of use in the commerctal aKea. He stated staff should make the neighbors aware of what uses could go in as a mattet of right. He state~ they have attempted to put as many trees as possible on the east side and will do tha~ all the way around for evecy~ne's privacy, including tt~pir tenants. Fte stated they would be happy to constcuct an 8-foot wall, but was not sure whet.her a variance is required. He staL•ed the property will be cleaned up within t}ie next two weeks and will be maintained and they will probably fence it for their own prote~tfon because the people from the Eloliday tiealth Spa are using their area for parking. T1iE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLUS~U. Kendca Mocries responded to Commissioner Herbst that the commereial, limited zone allows for the basic variety of commercial office and retail type uses such as lawyers office~, doc~ors offices, grocery markets, 7-11's or anything of a retail natuce• incladiny an off-sale liqu~r store. Commissioner HP'}~~' atated the staff report indicateU it is khe Planning Commission's ~.~• to require a 10-foot landscaped setback adjacent to single-fam:,_ `1'~ies and there are areas on l•his p~an where there is no landscaped setback. Bob Siren, 504 35th Street, Newport Beach, Califarnia, stated the pool could be brought back to the 20-foot li~e, but the parking area is for guests, a~d he .~ not think there is a Code requirement for no parking in the setback G~:•:s. Commission~r Herbst stated when the Planning Commission ~ays they want a 20-foot landscaped area, that does not mean it can include parking. Mr. Siren stated ther~ was nn controversy to the parking by the Plar.ning Department staff. Kendra Morries stated the distinction here is that this is a Planning Commission policy for a 20-foot wide ~andscaped area and not a written Code requirement mandating it. Commissioner Herbst stated the Commission feels the people living thcare have the right to some kind of protection rather than havir.g vehicles ~;,"s0/85 MINUTE5 ANAHE;IM CITY PI~ANNING COMMISSIQN SEPTEMRER 30 1985 $5-537 backing up tt~ere 24 hours a day And he thought that ia somekhing that has to be corcected~ He ~tated this swimminq pool acea could create A problem for the people in thr summer. Mr. Siren st~ted it would be just like a backyard swimminq pool in a single-Eamily area. Commissionet tierbst stated this fa for 36 apartment units And there would be a lot mnre people thQre. Mr. Siren stated they could briny the pool back 20 teet from Lhe property line and explained the units in the rear are 6 feet Ecom the property line and that is permitted in that area just like a house in a single-£amily area wi.th 1 story. tie stated concerning the 50-foot setback, there ure no windows or balconies to intrude on people's privacy in their backyards and the parking area at 4-1/l feet is at stteet level so people could not look over t:he fence. Mr. E~alali~ expl~ined the Z'-turn ar.ound is reyuired by thc~ City for tcash truck kurn around and they can get in and out without ~iny problems and that has been appcoved by the Sanitation Uepartment. Commissioner Messe 3tated he ha~ a problem with the waiver of maximum structural height and could not find a hardship for yranting that req~lest;. Mr. ealalis stated they are still under the 25-foot hei.ght limit and that waiver. ia cequexted because they are tryfnq to establich a certain number of units to make the ~roject viable. Chairwoman La Claite state~ stie has been on the Commis~ion for. 11 Years and people always oppose apartments and when a go~d apartment project has been denied, in tnany in~Cances, the neiyhbors t~ave come back and said they wish the apartments Fiad been developed because now they have a use such as the Holiday Health Spa. She addpd she will have staff look into the problems caused by the health ~pa. She stated usually the Commission tries to have some ki~:d of continuity of zoning and it would appear they have nut done a gond job here with this commercial property right in the middle of residential p[operty and she felt subject property should have some kind of residentia.l development and it should be a project that protects the neighbor's privacy and security and eliminate~ some of ~'e probletns they have been having. 5he suggested a two-week continuance in o[der for the developer t~ meet with the neighbors. Mr. Balalis stated he has setvEd on a Planning Commission for 8 years with another city and many times the lack of communication is t.he bigqest problem and it one of these neople would be kind enough to host a meeting, he wi11 be ~nore than happy to show them what is proposEd and to assure tliern what this project will look like when he is finished and to listen to their concerns and try t. change the project to meet their concerns. He stated he was not awace of the Plar,ning Comtnissi.on policy for a 20-foot wide landscaped buffer adjacent to single-family homes and thought parking wa~ allowed. Chai:woman La Claire stated the Commission is interested in the be&t possible arrangement for the people in the area and the property cannot be left as is. Kendra Morries stated staff would recommend a four-week continuance in order ko give the developer kime to schedule a meeting and submit revised plans for staff's review. 9/30/85 _ _~ _ _ -- - a _ -- - - - INUTES~ A g ~5- ACTIUN: Ghairwoman I,~RRIEDrthatfconaideration/ f~the afabementioned ner McBucney and MUTION ~ of Uctober 28r natte[ bn continued to the reyularly-~acheduled mee41ng 1985, in order for the petitioner to meet with the neighbors and poasibly submit cevised plans. Chairwoman La Claire suggested thi~ item be first on the agenda so the peopl~ do not have to Whearing.af~ommissi ner~Fcy~remindedhthe resi.dents~ ~urth~.[ notice~ ~~F ~h~ in the ar~a that the pr.oper~y is pxesently zo~edc~e~ ~o thecapartm~ntsn ~uggeyted that befor.e they become vehemenCly PP ublic hearing. He they should look at what coul~ be develop~d without a p reyu~sted staff in t~e Code GnforHe~lth SEaiandndeterminetwh~ethPrhor not parking situation at the Hulid~y there was a parking ayreement. Chairwoman La Claice asked stafi to check ir~to the parking situah.ryfn~hat~condom niumipr jeeteas toshownmanykspaces standar s statistics nn a~pcoval they wEie required to hav~. Annika Santa].ahti ~tated parking For the health ~F~~& Ke~~ated~o~~thehspauandWasta~[eau,lthPthemCodelal zone wi.tt~ a large syuare fo 9 s aces req~lirement for parking was chang~d so that health spas parking p wece based on a certain size. She stated ap(~arently people will came i.n ~nd out with multiple activitiev anc] wait and ther~ are a lot of people in there at one time. Commissioner Fry skated he wovld like to ~ee iE they stipul.~ted to certain hours also and Malcol~n Slaughter stated ttie use is permitted by right in that zone. Malc~lm Slaughte; state~l the comment~ made concerning parking were pertaining to the use o£ tselfc sChairwoman[LanClaireh statedtshepwants the the condominiuin pr~ject i project examined because if these people aao no°kWaptfto paakeinttheir , ir ~s because something is wrong and they project, and she would ~ike to know what is wrong so it can be avoided in futurF developments. ChaiLwoman La Claite explained this hearing will be held on the 28th at the beginniny o[ the meeting and the residents will not be notified any Purthec and they should check with the Planning Departt~~ent on that day to mak~ 5~te the mar~er is going to be hPard. Commissioner Bouas o~.9e9e~oeaCrangehaVmeetingktopreviewfthetplansoup to meet with the devEl p OTlfEFt DISCUSSION: p. Affordable Housing - Uensity bonuses - Annika Santalahti explair~,.:d the state requires rhi~ lthe CitYlshalllprouidena bonu~oequal2to 25$% the units as affordab . rant additional waivers and that tl~e Commission may i£ it chooses. g es of waivers cou~d be and instead of the density bonuses, other typ g[anted. She stated if the developer doesn't want the density 9/30/85 MINUTES, ANAH~IM CITY PLANNING CUMMTSSIUN~ 5~PTEMHEK 30, 1965 Q5-538 ACTIUN: Chairwoman La Claire offered a motion, seconded by Commi3ainner Mc~urney and MUTION CARRIEU that consideration of the aEorementioned mAtter be continued to the regularly-scheduled rneeting of Uctoher 28, 1985, in order for the peti.tioner to meet wikh the neighbors and p~saibly submi.t revised plan~. Chairwoman La Claire augyested this item be first on the ~g2ndA so thE people do not have to wAit all af.ternoon and p~inted out khere will be n~ furthec notices of tt~e liearing. Cammi3sioner ~ry reminded the resi.dents in the area thak the properly is prenen~ly zoned for. commercia7. uses and suggested that befote they become vehemently opposed to t•he a~~artment~s, they should look at what could be develnped wiL•hout a public tiearing. He reyuested statf in the Code Enforcement Givisicn L•o investiyate the parking situation at the Haliday HPalth Spa and detecmine whether or not there was a parking ayreetnent. Chairwoman I~a Claire ask~d stafE to check intn the parkiny ~iCuation at the condominium project also and asked for skakistics on a~proval of thal condomir~ium pr~jecL- as to how many s~aces Chey were required to have. Annika Sankalahti stated parking standards foc the health spas re~ulted when that use went in in the commercial zone with a large square footage for the spa and as a result, the Code requirement for parking was changed so that health 3pas parking spaces were based on a certain size. She stated anparently ~,eople will cotne in and out with mult?.ple activities and wait. and there are a 1ot of peo~lE in there at one titne. Commissianer Fry stated he would like to see if they sti~~ulated to certain hour.s also and Malcolm Slauyhter stated the use is permitted by right in that zon~. Malcolm Slaughter stated the comments made concPrning parking were pertaining to the use oE public stceets surrounding the health ~pa and not the condortiinium project itself. Chairwoman :.a C1airP stated she wants the project examined because if these people are looking for placey to park, it is because something is wtong and they do not want to pack in their ~roject, and she would like to knaw w;,at is wrong so it can be avoided in future dF~velopments. Chairwoman La C'laire explained this hearing will be held on the 28th at l•h~ beginning of Lhe meeting and the residents will not be notified any further and they should check with the Planning Department an that day to make sure the matter is going to be heard. Commissioner Bou~s suggested thEy have a spokesperson for the group to meet with the developer to arrange a meeting to rsview the plans. OTH~;R DISCUSSION: A. Affordable Housing - Density bonuses - Annika Santalahti explained the state requires that if a developer is willing to provide 258 of the units as affordable, the City shall provide a bonus ec,~al to 258; and that the Commission may if it chooses, grant additional waivers and instead of tha density bonuses, other types of waivers cou18 be granted. She stated if the developer doESn't want the density 9/30/85 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION S~PTEMBER 30 1985 85-539 bonuses And wanL•s certain other waivers, tl~e Commission may accept another alternativa and one area that ian't apecific is the term for the agreement. for the affordable units and Commiasion has been going with 20 yeArs typically, and eome were approved at only 5 yenrs at khe beginning, but tne Commisoion hae b~en consisterit recently and the City Council has genprally upheld that deci.sion. Commissioner Herbst atated if the project would Adveraely af~ect the neighbortiood, the Commiss~~n do~s not have to grant the waivera. Malcolm slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, explained the provisions regarding density bonuses are found in 5ection 65915 of the government Code. AUJOURNMENT: Commissionec ery ofLered a motion, seconded hy Commissioner McBucney and MOxIUN CAR~IED that the meeting be adjourned. The meeting was adjourned at 4:50 p.m. Respectfully 3ubmit~ed, ~' ~ ~uG Edith L. Harris, S~ccetary Anaheim City Planning Commissi.on E~,H : lm 014Am 9/30/85