Loading...
Minutes-PC 1985/10/14kEGULAR MEETI~JG UE TNF. ANANEIM CI7'Y PLANNINC; CUMMISSIUN R~GULAR MF.'ET1NG The regular meeting oE the Anaheim City Planning Commi.saion was called to order by ChairwomAn I~a C1Aire al .10:U0 a.m., Octobec 14, 19t35, in the Council Chamber, a yuorum being present, and the Commission reviPwed plans ot the items on koday's agenda. RECESS: 1?.:3U a.m. ItE;CONVENE,D: ] : ~35 p•m. PRL•'SENT Chairwoman: Ga Claire Commissi.or~ers; Fry, Lawicki, Meare ABSBNT: Commissiuner: Bouas, flerl~st, McE3urney ALSO PRESENT Anni.ka Santalahti Malcolm Sl.aughl•er Carl Harrison Paul Singec Uaniel Shi~,da Pal• Whitaker. Kendca Morries Edith fiarris Ascistant: Director for ~oning Ueputy City Attorney Civil Engineering Assi~~ant Ci.ty Trafti~ Engineer Associate TraEfic Engineec Neighboriiood Restoration Specialisk AssisCant Planner Planning Commission Secretary DIINUTES FOR APPROVAL: Commissioner Fry ottered a rtiotion, seconded by CortimissioneC Lawicki and MOTIUN CARItIEU (Commi.ssioners Douas, tlerbst and Mceurney absent) that the minutes of the meeting uE September 30, 1985, be a~pcuved as submitted. ITEM NU. 1 E12t tJ~GATIVE DECLARATION ANL CONUITIUNAI. USE FERNfI'T N0. 2314 (REAUVERTISED) PUBLIC Ef~ARING. OWNERS: ROVI PACIEIC CORPUkATZON, 1801 Century Park Ea~t, illl, Los Angeles, CA 90067, ATTN: DANIEL WEBER. AGENT: EARANO & KIVIET, l0U S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805, ATTN: FRANK A. LOWRY, JR. Yroperky described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consistfng o: apprcximately 3.U acre located at the northeast corner of Serrano Avenue and Nohl Ranch Koad, 6509, 6511 and G513 Serrano Avenue (Town and Country Early E:ducation Center). Request for amendment of Condition No. 2 of Planning Commission Resolution No. PC82-68 for appcoval of revised plan~ (No. 1) for expansion of an existing private day care and elementary educational facility (age~ 2-1/2 years through third grade). Continued from the meetings of June 24, July 22 and September 4, 1985. There were four persons indicating their presence in opposition to subjec~ request ~nd although the staff report was nct read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. 85-540 10/14/85 MINU'P~S. ANAHEIM CITY PI.ANNING ~uMMISSION, 4CTONER 14. 1985_ 45-541 Eloyd Earan~, attorney/agent, stated this meetiny has been continued for approxiinately 3 month~ in ordcK tu obtain a saund ~tudy; that it was ociginally approved in 1982 nnd this request is to inccease the area o[ property l•o Ue used in the administrption oC this ~choolt and that tliis is not n child day-care cenLer, but an eArly ~aducation center. He s~ated there was a conditiori imposed in 1982 that the number ot sludtnts would not exceed 26U and thece was a further condition that in the event the enr.ollmenl• exceeded cr equaled 140 students, a,ounG ~~tucly would bc~ pertormed by the ap~licant. He stated at the first heacing on thi~ r~quesL- they t~ad indicated ther.e were more students than allowed befure tt~e sound study was to be conducted; howevF~r, the average daily attendance was ~nly 133 and L•hat is rea:ly the import~~nt number of gtudents to be considered. t•1r. FaKanu stated tt~e sound study clear.ly indicates that the noise emitted fcom this ~roperty aoes nut equal, much les;~ exceed, the noise limits permitteri by the Anaheim City Ordi.nances and lhe proposed expansion is we11 within the tr.amework of E~ecmitted uses on this property, pointing out C:onditional Use Permit No. 2~U4 was yranted in 1983 permitting a church on that property, and the premises that were ko be oriyinally occupied by the c:hurch is a porlion of the premises before the Commission today. He stated this is an expansion ~f ~~~e use that has already heen ~ermitted. He explained they are ~ro~,osing the use of an additional 2200 squace feet, but that. the number of students will not bp i.ncreased. h1r. Farano presented a newspaper article regarn'_:~y ~his school and stal-ed it is a highly regarded and well-oF~erated sct~oo.l. ~.ather Peck, 991 South Quincy, skated ;~ec property backs up to ttiis business center and there has been a lot of noise and it has upset her whole way of life. She added she thought they are busing children in from pther areas afte[ they ar~ uut of school and she thoughC that does make it a day-care center and that it is entirely too noisy. She stated when they made the noi~e level tests, it was ver; q~iiet at the schaol; and that there are still rocks coming over into her backyard. She stated she was sure there are chilc~ren in that school who are possibly in the Sth grade and there is not enough playground area for them to play and there is not enough parking. She stated on Sundays, the premises are rented to a church and last Sunday there was a football game goino on. She referred to the previously submitted petitions conCaining aparoximal•ely 80 siynatures and indicated she has Unother petition to 5ubmit and asked if it means nothing that all these people were willing to sign this petition and be cepresented by her in opposition to this proposal. She added this is their home and if the petitioner wants a presct~o~l, they should put it in the proper place and not next to their homes. She added the whale neighborhood abjects to this request. Flora Johnson, 6524 E. Carnegie, stated the noise was not checked in her yard and that all day she is listening to children scream be~ause they have no discipline at the school and today with the wind blowing, they h~d all their winc:ows and doors closed, but could still hear the noise. She added the property values will be decreased because they could not sell if a potential buyer heard the children scream. She stated they object because of the decrer~se in property value arid because of the noise. 10/14/85 MINUTE5, ANAN_EIM_CITY PLANNING CUMMISSIUN, UCTOBER 14~ 1985 65-547. Judy Reynolda atated she opecate~ the business next door at 6511 E. Serrano Avenue, Unit B, and ABk~~ if a churct~ is allowed to operatc~~~t khat locati~n. St~e pointed out ther~ is also a liquor store at the other end of the busi.ness c~anter ancl thoughk perhapo children wanderinq arourid the area ie not good witt~ a liquo= store that cloae. St~e stated the preschool is ~~verly noisyJ however, her buginess is a swim school next door and ther.c is noiae from tt~at at times. She stated she objects to them harassing her in her t~usiness and she Ee.lt as a friend tu tt~e neighborhood, she should object to Ctie noise and Also to the liquor stoce in tt~is vicinity. Floyd Earano read a letter from Sue Ftandolf regarding disturbances created by ~re-teens a[ound the center ridiny bicyclrs recklessly, jumping over tlie Lence in~o tt~e back parkiny lot, etc. and they are obviously not• from this school because they are older and t~ecause of the hours o~ the di~turbanees. kte reEerred to another letter pertaining to other children in the neighborhood tt~rowing rocks into Fhe neighbors' backyards and the scl~ool yards. Rega;ding lt~e football game on Sunday, Mr. Farano stated that has nothing to do with this school and they cannot control what other people do. He statzd the sound study clear.ly proves that the noise from ttiis iise does not equal the levels permitted by ocdinance. Mr. Farano stated adrnittedly the sound study was taken ak a time when there was between :Fi and 20 children present in the yard and there was some lig;~t usage days invalved and on fcequent occasions therP are as many as 35 to 50 children present in the yard at one kime; and the sound con~ultant ~tated on Fage 4 oP the report that even if there were 30 to 40 children present in that play area ak one time, the noise ~till wculd not exceed or equal tt-~e sound lirtiits permitted by ordinance. !ie stated the sound study was done within 2U to 25 feet on a direct line fcom inside the yard and it states the fence, that are there reduce the noise level ap~roximately 30 to 358 oelow the ordinance level and Chat the ceport states ak times it wa~ not possible to measure the noise coming from that yard because of noise Lrom vehicles passing in the street, air conditioning units and aircraft flying over. He stated that neighborhood has noise without this u~e. Mr. Earano stated the sound study consultant recommended certain ma.tigating measures, one being a 6-foot high wooden fence to be constructed arouncJ the northeasterly corner of the property adiacent to the gr~ssy area and added the ceport does not say the waoden fence is needed to attenuate noise, but to prevent the children from throwing anything over the fence during play time. fle stated that g:as~y area is a sm~ll axea in the cornec, 2U' x 20', with some trees and other vegetation and really is not used for anything and he thought putting a fence there would not be wise because it ~++ould create a corner which would become a maintenance problem more than anything else and suggested extending the existing fences instead. He referred to the statements in the letter regarding children jumping over the fence and presenked nhotoyraphs showing that along the north side there is approximately a 40-foot drop to the neighburs' property. Eie referred to the s~~.ggested mitigation neasure of limiting the number of c}iildren to J5 or 40 at any one tima on the playground area and stated they do not feel that is necessary because the 10/14/85 MINUTESJ ANAHLIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, OCTOBER 14, 1985 85-543 ce~ort clearly indicates tha~ even wit}i 40 children, there isn't a noise problem. kle ceferred to the auggestion tha~ the use ~f toys produciny excessive noisc not be permitted on cemenC, asphalt, gravel surPaces and that tric:yclea should have cubber wheels anc~ nok plastic wheels, and re£erred to a cammonly used tricycle with btg plas~ic wheels and stated children in the neiyhborhood C~lay with that type tricycle and he did not thi~k thal• recommendation sh~uld bc implemented. Mr. Fatano apologi.zed ~o the owner of L•he swim sci~oal L~r any concern~ cau~ed and added he thought ttiat situ~tion could be strai~htened out and was a misunderstanding. TNE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLO5~D. Chairwoman Ua Claire a~kNd l~ow often the children are out in the play area. Mr. [arano respon~ed tt~at the children are out there evFry day probably 1-1/2 houzs in the morning the 1-1/2 t~ours in tt~e afl•ernoon and noh. all the children are present .in Chp yard aL or~e time. Chairwoman La Claire stated if. there is a pcoblem with noise, it doesn'l seem reasunable that it is just 1-1/2 hours in the mocni,ng and afternoon. Ms. Peck responaed to Chairwoman La Claire that the children are out there troui about lU to 11:3U a.m. and again after school from about 2:3U until. tliey are picked up. Sh~ stated if the noise l.evel tests did not show anything 25 feet Protn the tence, she would like for them to measure thc sound Lrom her house because it has been a terrible problem Lor them. She stated the ch~.ldren are also out in the yard duriny the lunct~ hour and t•here are usually 40 to 50 children in the yard. She stated they can hardly hear the telPVision inside their house. 5he added other noises in tf~e neighborhood are not a problem and she felt the petitioners are just using that as an excuse. She stated they have strong objections to this use, but they feel they have been ignored and if this ifi allowed, it will make iti impossible ~or thetn to live in the neighborhood. She added they do not have enough playground area or enough parking spaces for a school and stie did not think this was a proper place for a school. She :~tated when this was first proposed, the neighbors thoughC it was to ~e across the street Erom the shopping center where thece is already a ar.ade school and they would have been at the public hearing if they had known it was to be in their backyards. She st~ted all the signatures are from ~eople who live in hou~es backing up to this preschool. She added she would like to ask the Commissioner~ and the petitioners if they would like to have this school in their backyard, Mrs. Johnson stated the neighbors have never indicated tr~e noise was from tricycles, but is from the kids screaming and that no one at the school trie~ to keep them quiet. She stated sh~ lives right behind the school and she could hear them today even with the doors and windows closc:d, a„d it is impossib?.e to enjoX sitting on their patios. Commissioner tdesse statE: ~:.he petitioner does not seem to want to comply with the mitigation rneasures suygasted by the sound consultant and he thought Mr. Van Houten must have felt there were sorne sound pcoblems in order to make those recommendations. Mr. Farano stated Page 4 of the 10/14/85 MINUTES;y ANAN~,IM CITY PLAtJNINC COMMISSIUN UC'i'UB~R 14 1985 65-544 ~tudy indicaCeg the measurea would ceduce the level of :lntrusive n~ir~e rand Added accordi.ng l•o the ~tatements, the CencP i~ mo to keep things from beiny tt~rawn over the wall. than [or noi~e. Ite addeo they r~re nok c~uggeating rhe fence t.~~ elimina d altogether, but inatend of crer~ting an area tt~at is not usak,Je, add t~eight to lhe exiatiny wAl.l at ttie northeaAterly co~ner oE the pro(>erty. Commissiuner Messe atated he thouyht the round consultant had an idea ~f attenuating aome acoueCical ~rub.lem:~ and tfiat i3 why he made ~hose ~ecommendations. hlr. Farano stated he yot the i.mpression from the reporl• l•hat the ~ound conau.ltant was not ~artlcularly c~ncerned about the noise in any regard because it is less, eveii with more nhildren in the yar~~ by lii t~ 12~, than what i~ alloued by the City ordi.nances. Cotnmissioner Fry stated the petitianer is saying it is not a large prablem, hut khose ~eo~l~ who live ir. the area, es~eciallf abutting an~ Adjoining thi~ Nro~>erty, .~ay it is a larye problem and it has ~~vidently created inconvenience and he did not knUw whet•.her it could bc mitigated or not. He stated the neighbors are saying the ~ciiool is not beir a good ~~eighbor and those neighbors are entitled to be heur~~ and entit..e.l to have ans~ers to their que~tiuns and he has not heaxd anytt~xng with respect to solving their E~roblems. He :stated iie did not know how chlldr.en could be cnnLrolled ai~d prevented from tt~rowiny things uver the t~ance and that when he uriginally reviewed this use, he th~uqht it would be acceptal~l.e because the school representatives had assured the Commission it. wauld be contrulled, k~ut now here is the E>roblem. hlr. Farano stated iL they tiave portrayed an attitude uf non-cooperation, they want ta currect that feeliny and they are willing to rake whatever measures ace necessary to control the sit~~ation sn it does not bec~me a nuisance. He stated there is a big problem heing made about noise but Gelying on th~ sound study which indicates anyone can emit 108 more noise on their own E~coperty than this use does at its t~ighest level of ope[atio~, tte would conclude thak not all the noise .is from the schaol. Comt~issioner Messe stated the peti.tioner is willing to accept the sound study prepared by Mr. Van Houten and admit it was taken on a particularly light day, but tt~ey are not willing to accept the recommended measures of mitigati.on. Mr. Farano r.efer~ed to Page 4 whir.h indicates r.h~t ik was a light day and the consull•ant projected the sound levels with 20, 30 0* 40 children present. He stated the sound levels were 54 decibels at the highest level which is 6 decibels lower than permitted by ordinance. Chairwoman La Claire stated she is hearing two sides to this situation and when this was originally pcoposed, she had doubts abou~ putting a school in that location, and Che Commis~ion at that time had great doubts about the number of students, etc. and there was a lot of opposition. She stated now she doesn't know what tc, believe and lias been to that shopping center on many occasions and has never heard any children, but she does see ~ 10* of children c:ome into the neighborhood aftec 2:30. She stated in order to make the right decision, she would like to visit the homes in 10/14/65 MINU'PE5 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSTON UG':J~ ER 14 1985 85-545 Ct~e area herself during the peak hour8 ~o find ou t what the pcoblem is and suggested a two-week r.ontinuance. Mr. Facan~ atAted tt~ey want to be cooperative and would welec~me Chairwornan La Claire oc any ot tt~e uthec Commtasionern nnd they do not w~nt to be bad neighbors. He Added Lhere have beNn no complain ts filed in l•hE 3 years they have been in thia location. Chairwoman I.a Claire atsted a 2 ot of people do not complain bec.. ae they do not know if it will do any good and she would .llke lo see the situation herself. ACTION: C:ommissioner Fry offered a rnoti~n, seconded by Comtnisaioner Meflse and MOTION CARRI~D (Commissione~s Bouas, lierbst and NcBurney abaent) tl~nt consld~~ration ot the afocementioned mattPr be c o ntinued to the reyularly-scheduled meeting of october 28, 1985, in ordec Eor the Commis~ioners to individually investigate tt~e s.ituation if they so desire. Chairwornan La Claire stuted this hEOCing will be held at 1:30 on t1•~e 28th and no new notices will be mailed. ITEM NU. 2 EIR NL•'W~~.tVG DL'CLARATION RBCI,ASSIE'I+:ATIUN IJU. 44-E35-43 AND VAFtIANCl: NU. 3499 PIJBLIC HEARING. OWNER5: LUCIUN W. MYLL•'S, JR. RND F3ARBARA B. MYLCS, 3609 W. Savanna Street, Anaheim, CA 92804 and ROBERT Z. ANp LINDA L. AUAIR, 3613 W. Savanna Stceet, Anaheim, CA 9"l$U4 and J AMES A. ANQ KATHLEEN ANN PICKAFtT, 3621 W. Savanna Strent, Anaheim~ CA 92 804. Properly described as ^~ irregularly-shaped parcel oE land consisting of aE~proximate'ly 1.76 acres, 36U9, 3613 and 3621 West ~avanna Street. RS-A-43,~100 to RP1-12U0 or a lesb intense zone. Waivers of maximum atructural height to construcL- a 45-unit apartment complex. Continued from the meetings of .1uly 22 and Auq u st 19, 1.985. THE FULLOWING ACTION WAS TAKEN Am THE E~EGINNTNG OE THE MEl.'fING. ACTIUN: Commissioner Fry oEfered a motion, ae conded by Commissioner Mes~e and MUZ'ION CARRIEU (Commissicners Douas, kierbs t and McBUrney absent) that consideration of the aforementioned mattec be continued to the regularly-schedulec~ meeting of November 13, 19 85, at the eequest of L•he petitioner in order to submit revised plans. ITEM NO. 3 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OF CODE RE:QUIREMENT AND CONDITIUNAL USE PERMIT N0. 2694 (READVERTISEU) PUbLIC H~A::ING. OWNERS: .~EDERICK 2. AND MAU RICE ZI~GLER, 9889 Sant2100 Monica Boulevard, E3everly Flills, CA 90212, AGENT; COLDW~LI. BANKER, West Orangewood Avenue, ~uite 100, Orange, CA 92668, ATTN: JAMES KEANE. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 3.1 acres located at the ~outheast corner of Miraloma Avenue and Red Gum Street, 1280 and 1290 North Red Gum Street and 2970 East Miraloma Avenue. 10/14/85 MINUT~6, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSTON, OCTOBF.K 14, 1985 a 5-~46 To permit an autotnobile body r~nd detail ahop in an existing induatria 1 complox witl~ waiver of mi~imu;:i number oE parking epacea. Continued trom the meetinga oE August 19, September 4, and 16, 1985. 'Phere was no one indicating their pre~ence in op~osition to subject request and althougt~ the ataff report was nor_ read, lt is re£erred to and made a part of tt~e minuteE. Gommia~ioner hte~se declared a conElict of interest as uefined by Ana heim City Ylanni.ng Commission Reaolution No. E~C76-157 adop~ing a Conflict o[ Interest Code for the l~lanniny Commi~~ion and Grver.nmenk Code Seckio n 3625, et seq., in that he provides a service for tY~e petitionFlr and pursuant to the provisions of the above Codcs, declared to the Chairrnan that he was withdrawing Yrom the t~earing in connection with Conditio nnl Use E~ermi~ No. 2694, and would not take part in either r_he discussio n or the voting thereon and r,a~i not discusced this matter with any rnember of the Planniny Commission. Ther.eupon Commissioner Messe left the Coun cil Chamber at 2:23 p.m. Patrick Smith, tenant/ayent, 198U L. htiral~ma, explained they are no longer requesting a conditional use perm.it foc 297U E. Miraloma. Z'H~ F~Uf3LIC N~:ARING WAS CLOSL•'U. AC7'IUN: Chairwoman La Claire offered a rnotion, se..onded by Commissi vn~r ~[y dnd MOTION CAKRIEU (Commi~sioners Eiouas, Nerbst and McBurney abs ent and Comrnissioner Messe absent due to con£lict of interest) that the Anaheim City Planniny Commission has reviewed Che propo3al to permit an automobile body and detail shop in an existing industrial com~lex w i th waiver of minimum r~umber and type o~ parkiny spaces on a rectangular ly~- shaped parcel ~f land consisting of approximateJy 3.1 acres located at the southeast corner oF Miraloma Avenue and Red Gum Skxeet; and does he c eby approve the Negative Declaration u~on finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comm~nts received during the publi.c review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Stud y~nd any comments received that there is no substantiaJ. evidence thaL• th e project will have a significant effect on the environmen~. Chairwoman La Claire offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fry and MUTION CARRIED (CommissionPrs Bouas, Herbst and McBurney absent and Commissioner Messe absent due to confli~t of interest) that thE~ Anat~eim City Planning Commission does hereby grant waiver of Code req~ireme nl:on the basis that the parking waiver will not cause an increase in tra fcfic conqestion in the immediat.e vicinity nor adversely affect any adjoi n1.ng la~;d uses and granting of the parking waiver under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and ge nera.l welfare of the citizens of the City of AnahQim. Chairwoman La Claire offered Resolution tJo. PC8~-221 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby gtant Conditiunal Use Permit No. 2694 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code 10/14/8 5 MINUTES, ANAIiE1M CITY PGANNTNG COMt4ISSIUN, OC'1'UBER 14, 1985 $5-547 5ections 1~.U3.U30.030 through 18.03.U30.035 and aubject to interdepactmenl•al Committee recommendatioris, Gn roll cnll, rhe faregaing rer~olution was pae:~ed by the folluwing vote: AYES: FHY, LA CLAIR~, I.AWICKI NUB5: NUNE ' A135ENT: dOUAS, HEF2BST, MCHURN~Y (MES;3F: abAent to due to conflict ot interest) hialcolm Slaughter, Ueputy City Attorney, presented the written right t o appeal the Planning Comrnissi~n'a decision wlthln 22 days to the City Council. ITE;M N0. 4 E:Ik NQ. 258 (PREV. t;ERTIFIf;U) ~ WAIVER UF CODG FEQUIREMFNT AND CONUITIONAL US~; PEitMIZ' NU. 2716 PUHLIC HfsARING. UWN~:RS: CITX Ur" ANAHEIM, 2UU S. Anaheim Eilvd., Anahei.m, CA 928U5. AGGN`i': J.k.H. Inc., 51U1 Independence Blvd., Charlotke, N.C. 28212 and '1'ALLAS MARGRAVE, 65U3 Serrano Av~nuo, Anaheim, CA 92807. Property described as an irreyu].acly-sha p ed parcel of .land r.onsisting oE a~~proximately 9.29 acre~, located at the northeasterly corner c c the pcoposed eastcrl.y extension of La Palma A venue and Weir Canyon Road. 'Po perrnit 3 new and used automobi:e sales Eacility (Canyon flond~) witri waiver of maximum fence l~eight. 'Phere was no one indicating their presen c e in oppo,ition to ~ubject request and although the staEf report wa s not read, it is referced to and made a part of ttie minul•es. Ta.llas Margrave, agent, stated the weste rly poction of the propPC~y w ill be developed with the <:anyon Eianda dealer ship and that they siyned a lease with the City of Anaheim to develop all t he propert.y and intend to have an additional dealership on the eastern part of the property. He referr ed to the recotnmended Condition No. 10 requiLin g the parking area lighting fixtures to be down-lighted with a maximum height of 12 feet ard to be directed away from arijacent property lin e s to protect the residentia 1 int~grity ot the area and stated there a r e no residential areas in th at vicinity. Eie stated they propnse 20-foo t high lights and wouid requ e st that condition be modified allowing the lights to be 20 feet high. Mr. Margraves referred to Condition No. 15 an~l stated it would be impossible to comply with that con~ition until they have leased the easterly portion of the ~roperty and developed plans for the client aftet determing what type building they want. Kendra Morries, Assistant ~lanner, explained that condition could betnodified ta read: "That prior to issuance of building permits for Phas ~ 2, final specific plans fo r Phase 2 shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Commission". Mr. Margrave indicated that would be accepta ble. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. 10/14/85 MINUT~S. ANAHEIM 4I'rY PLANNI_N_G_COMMI5SIONf OC'PUB~R 14, 1985 45-548 Commis~ioner t~ry atated there are only the railroad tracks and street adjacent to this property. There was a briei diRCUSSion regacding the 9rades and the line-ot-sight, with Mr. Margcave puinting out the line-of-sight drnwings and explaining the only homes are at the east end of the proPerty acrosg the railroad tracko and acrosc ~he vacant ~arcel. Commisaioner ~tesse cef.er[eu t~ a letter from a concerned citizen ot~ Woodnboro and Kendra Morcies pointed out Woodsboro is to the west acro~s Weir Canyon R~ad with single-family homes adjacent to the vacant paccel. Chairwoman l,a c:laire stated she ihought this w~uld be a goacl use for l•his property and a good addition to the City of Anaheim and is located in an ar.ea where it would not harm anyone. It was noted there was no sign plan submitted. It was noted Gnv.ironmental Im~~acL• keport No. 256 was certi£ied by the City Council on December 14, .1982, in r.on3unction with Gener2l Plan Amendtnent No. 178. ACTION: Commissioner E'ry offered a mol•ion, seconded by Commi~sioner Messe and MOTION CARR?EU (Conuniscioners f3ouas, Herbst and McHur.ney absent) that the Anaheim City Planniny Commission does hereby gcant waiver of Code requirement on the basis tt~a~ there are spPCial circumstances applicable to the property suct~ as size, shape, topography, location and surroundinqs which do not apply to other identically 2oned property in the same vicinity; and that skrict application of the Zoning Code deprives Lhe property of privileges enjoyed by other propertie~ in the id~ntical zone and classification in the vicinity. Commissioner Fry oEfered Resolution No. PC85-222 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planniny Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permil: No. 2716 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.U3.030.U3U through 18.03~030.035 and subject to Interdepartrnental Conunittee recommendations including modi.fication to Condition No. 10 changing the maximum height of any lighting to 20 feet inskead of 12 feet and adding ttie words 'Phase 2" to Condition No. 15 as indicated. Un roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: FFiY~ LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI~ h1ESSE~ NOF:S: NONE ABSENT; BOUAS, HER6ST, MCBUkNEY Malcolm ~laughter, Ueputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Plar~ning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. lU/14/85 MINU'PES, ANANLIM CI'rY PLANNING CUMMISSION ~OCTOB~R 1A,~ 1985 85-549 ITEM NU. 5~IK NB~ATIVG U~CLARA'rION, WAIVER OE CUDF. RE UIREMENT ANU CUNllITIONAL U5E PERMIT NU. 2723 PUBLIC NEARING. UWNERS: ANANEIM M~MORIAI, HOSPZTAL, 1111 W. La P~lm~ Avenue, Anohei.m, CA 92802. AG~N'P: TAYi,OR & A55UCIATES AI2CNI'fECTS, '1811 Villa Way, Newport Beach, CA 92663. Property de~cribed as tan irreyularly-shaped E>arcel o£ land con~isting of ap~roximately 11.0 acres located at Gt~e northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Wesr. Street, 1.121 WesL La Palma Avenue (Anaheim Memocia.l Elospital). 'Po permi~ expansion of a tios~ital with ~ storage building and with waiver~ of minimum landscaped aetback and minimum number of parking ~paces. There was no one indicatiny theic pre3ence in oppo~ition to cubj~ct request and a.lthougn the staFf re~ort was not read, i.t is referred to and n~ade a{~art ot th~ minutes. Commi~aioner hry declaced a contlict of interest as de~ined by Anal~eim City Planniny Commission Rc~olution No. PC76-157 adopting a ConElict of. Interest Code Eor the Planning Commiasion and G~vernment Coc]e Section 36"l5, et seq.r in that lie ir~ Chair.man ot lhe Boarci for Anaheim Memorial Hospital and ~ursuant to tt~e provisi~ns of L•he abovE Codes, decla[ed ro the Chairman that t~e was withdrawing from the hearir~y in connection with Conditivnal Use Permit P~o. 2723, and would not take F~art in eithec the discussion or the voting thereon and tiad not discusst~d this matter with any rnember of r.he Planning Commission. Thereupon Comrnissioner Fry left the Counci~. Chamber. Uave YE~d~r, reprt~senting Anatieim Memorial Hospikal, stated the utaf.~ report i.ndicates rhis i:~ a 254-bed hospital, but it only has 24U be~9s which would affect the numbec of requiced parking spaces and also thc staff report indic~~tes the doctor's offices consist of 79,935 square feet and that figure should be 77,659 square feet. Kendra Moccies, Assistant P.lanner, explained those Eigures Nere fucnished by the architect. Mr. Yedor referred to the condition requfring the replacement of damaged sidewalks and asked where those sidewalks are located. Carl Harrison, Civil Engineering Assistant, explained that information came from the field inspector's repurt indicating the sidewalk should be rPpaiced in an area where some steel plates were located. Mr. Yedor explained that would be the City's water vault and asked if they would be required to repair the City's sidewalk. It was noted that would have to be discussed with staff in the City ~n~~ineer's office. ~' dor referred to the reccmmended condition pertaining to a traffic study and vehiculac access and parki.ng design plan and indicated he .,,. understand that condition :.ince a traffic stud,y was submitted to the _ ty. Kendra Morries explained the traffic study identified some problems and recommended that study and a plan to be worked out to improve circulation on the site. Mr. Yedor otated they would be happy to comply with that if they could do it prior to final approval rather than pcior to issuance of building permits. 10/14/85 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CUMMISSION, OCTOBER 14, 1985 85-550 TH~ ~UBLIC HEARING WAS CGOSED. keaponding to Chaicwoman L~ Claire, Mr. Yedor stated rhe stocage building will be used to house their X-cay [ilms and explained ~hey are reyuired to retain the film~ for 10 years. Chairwoman I.~ Cl~ire aRked abaut the waiver of minimum landacaped setback lU feet f-rom the interior peoperty lines. Kenclra Morries explained due to tt~e irregular ehA~e of the property, the 10••foot lAndscaped setback is required adjacent to the single-family homes and the church property. Responding to Commisaloner Meese, Mr. Yedor explained the building will be 1-story high and there will be a 6-~oot high fence adjacent to the chur.ch property parking lor. Ne re~panded to ~hairwomAn La Claire that they have not had any negative respon~e from the church and expl~ined that area is used by the church for recreational vehicle storage. Chairwoman La C].aire stated her concern is that that property may not always be used for a parking lot for the chur.ch or foc storage and without the setback, there could be a pcoblem in the future if there was a desice to develop a driveway f.'or another use. Responda.ng ta Chairwoman La Claire, Kendra Morries ex[~lained the chucch was notified of this reyuest. and there was no comment trom them. Chairwoman La Claice stated she wou'_d prefer to see the dEVelopment meet Code. Mr. Yedor stated the~ ..~.ruld move the building 10 feet away Lrom the proNerty line, but that would eliminate more parking spaces. Chairwoman La Claire stated perhaps they are jusr trying to overbuild the property and suggested maybe the X-rays could bP stored some other place. Mr. Yedor stated that is what they are presently doiny and it is r,osting a considerable sum of money and expl.ained they take apptoximately 1 quarter million X-rays a year. Chairwoman La Claire stated ~he waiver qoes with the land and the number of parking spaces was discussed. t7r. Yedoc stated they are willing to move the buildiny and eliminate the landscapec: setback waiver cequest which would eliminate 4 or 5 more parkiny spaces and explained at their heaviest peak time, they still have a3most 258 available parking. Chairwoman La Claire asked what type construction the building will be since this is for temporary s~orage. Mr. Yedor stated it will be a me~al building; however, he would consider it a permanent building. Regarding the previous parking problem, Mr. Yedor stated they did have a problem ducing construction, but that has been resolved and the parking consultant did not find any evidence of employees parkinq on public streets, etc. Responding to Commissioner Messe, Mr. Yedor stated the staff repork indicated they are required to have 1622 parking spaces, but they calculate that to be 1550 spaces and they currently have 1025 spaces rather than 1012 as indicated in the staff report. 10/14/85 MINUT~S_. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING C0~IMISSIUN, UCTOBER 14~ 1905 85-551 ACTIUN: Chairwoman La Claire offerQd a motion, seconded by Commiesionor Mease and MUTIAN CARRiED (Commi~sionera Bouas, Herbst and McBurney absent and ~ommisaioner Fry abaent due to a conflict of interest) that the Anaheim Ciky Planning Comrni~~ion has reviewed the propoHal to permit an expansion of a hofipitnl witti a storage building with waivers o£ minimum landscaped setback and mini~um number ot ~~Arkinq aP~ces on a irregularly-sha~~ed ~arcel of land consistiny of aE~proximately 11.U acre^ located at the northwest cocner of La I~a1mA Avenue and West Street and further described as 1111 West La Palma Avenue (Anpheim Memotia.l tiospit~l); and does heceby approve the Negative Declar.ation upon finding that it has considered the Neqative Ueclaration togeth~r witt~ any commentc received dur.ing the pub.lic review process and further findiny on the basis ~f the Tnitial Study and any comments received tt~at there is no substantial evidence that the projecL• will have a ~ignificant eEfecC on the environm~nt- Chairwoman La Claice oLEered a rnotion, seconded by Commissioner. Messe and t4UZ'ION CARRIED lCommissfoners Bouas, lierbst and McBurney and Commissioner Mes~e absent due to a conflict of interest) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby granl waiver ot Code requirement (b) on the basis that the pa[king waiver will not cause an increase in traffic ~ongesti.on in the immediate vicinity nor adversely aEfect any adjoining land uses and gr.anting oi the parking waiver under the canditions imposed, if any, will not be detr.imental to Lhe peace- health, safety and genecal welfa:e of the citizens vf the Cit•y oE Anahei•n; and denial of waiver (a) on the basis thak the petitioner sl•i~~ulated tc~ celocate thF proposed structure to comply with Code reyuiremen~s. Regarding Condition No. 1 pertaininy to the damaged sidewalks, Mr. kiarrison stated he would have the Field Engineer staff chzck into the situation to determine what caused the damage and if it is a City responsibility, the City will take care oE it. Malcolm Slaughter suggested the condition be left in as shown. Chairwoman La C1air.e offered Resolution No. PC85-223 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2723 pursuant t~ Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.03U.U3U through 18.03.U30.035 ar~d subject to In1_erdepartmental Committee recommendations. Mr. Yedor asked about the condition regacding the traffic demand study. Kend[e Morries explained that was in l•he recommendation for mitigation measures included in the traf.fic study submitted by the applicant and he coulri work with tl~e Traffic Engineer to comply with that condition. On coll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: NOES: pBSENT: LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MESSE NOhG BOUAS, HERSST, (Commissioner MCBJRNEY Fry absent due to conflict of interest) 10/14/85 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMb1ISSI0N, UCTOBFR 14, 1985 85-553 desr,ribed as 20f~ West ~reedman Wayj ~nd d~es hereby ~pprove the Negative beclaration upon findinq that il• hAa considered Che Negative AeclarAtion together with any comments received duriny th~ public review process and further finding on the baeie oP the initial Study and any comments received that there is no substan~~al evidence tha.t the pco~ecl will have a significant effect on hhe environment. Commissioner Fry offered Resolution No. PC85-224 and moved Eor its pa~sage and ad~ption that the Anaheim City Plann.ing Commission dues hereby grant c:onditional Use Permit No. 2724 pucsuant to Anaheim Municig~al C~de Sections 18.U3.U30.030 through 1B.U3.030.035 and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. On roll call, the foregoinq resolukion was passed by Lhe following vole: AY~;S: FFtY, L~A CLAIRE~ LAWICKI, MESSE: NOES: NONE ABSENT: BOUAS, li~RBST, MCBURN~;Y Malcolm Slaughter, DQputy City Atturney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 d'ay:, t.o the City Council. I'PEM N0. 7 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL U5E PERMIT N0. 2728 PUi3LIC H~;AI2ING. OWNERS: E.I.I. REALTY CORP., P.O. Box 21C0, Chino, CA 9170$, ATTN: WM. MICIIAEL HILL. AG~:NT; KA~MPFER/WOLFE INVESTMENT BUILUERS, INC., 600 Wilshire E31vd., Suite 140U, Los Angeles, CA 90017, ATTN: TFiOMAS C. WOLF~~ JR., and HUWARQ F. THOMP50N & ASSOC., 16520 Aston Street, Irvine, CA 92714, ATTN: HOWARD E. THUMF~SON. Propecty described as an irregulacly-shaped parcel of land consistinq of approximately 8.7 acres, having a frontage of approximately 421 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue, and further described as 5460 East La Palma Avenue (formerly Gxecut-ive Motorhomes). To permit an industrially-related, two-story office complex in the ML(SC) Zone. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the ~taff ceport was not .:ead, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Alan Orsb~rne, 560 Peralta :iills Drive, Anaheim, agent, was present to ar,swer any question. Tom Wo1fe, President and Chief ExecuLive Officer, 56 Royal St. George Road, Newpart Beach, agent, stated he appeared before the Redevelopment Commission last week and they voted in favor of this projecL•. He referred to the condition prohit~iting coof-MOUnted equipment and stated in an industri.al-commercial office building of this type, roof-mounted equipment is standard. He referred to a City Council resolution for a Cabot, Cabot and Forbes project which is very similar to this project and a condition in that resolution which reads, 'All air-conditioning and other roof and 10/14/85 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 14 1985 85-552 Malcolm SlaughL•er, i~eputy Ciky Al•torney, ~resented the written right to appeal the Flanning Commiasion's decision within 22 ~ays to the City Council. RGCL~SBll: 3:OU E:~.m. RECUNVLNL•'ll: 3:1U p.m. ITEM NU._6_ EIR NLGATIVE UECLARATIUN AND CONUITIONA[. US~: PERMIT N0. 2724 PUBLIC NEARING. UWNERS: IEiI5 ANAHEIM, LTD., c/o ABCO CONSTRUCTION CU., 2535 Ma[icopa St[eet, Tocrance- C~ 905U3, ATTN: AL[3ERT G. GEIGELE;. AGENT: AMERICAN UIVERSIFIED CAPITAL CORP., 32U0 Park Center Urive, Costa Mesa, CT+ 92b'lb, A'1'TN: JAMES CART.ER, and PHII,LIPS BRANDT REDUICK, 18012 Sky Park Circle, Irvine, CA 92714, ATTN: KEN RYAN. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land .:onsisting of approximately 2~h acres, having a frontaye of approximately 119 feet on the south side of Fteedman Way and a frontage o~ aE-;~roximately 9C feet on the northeasterly side of the northerly terminus of Zeyn Street, approximately 100 feet east at the ccnterline oi Clementine Street and fucther described as 200 West Ereedman Way. To permit a 15Z-unit senioc citizens conyreqate care £acility. There was no one indicating theic presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff [eport was not read, it is eeferred to and made a part of the minute~. Ken Ryan, agent, explained this facility will be f.or heal.thy, m<~bile senior citizens who have a desicp to stay independent and the facility could clo~ely be identified with a hotel in that it will have a common dining room faciliLy and housekeeping services and also othec secvices available such as a van foc residents to yo to the sture, doctors, etc. He stated they would be provided two meal~ a day and a continental breakfast with brunch and dinner an Sundays. He stated there will be a nurse on call 24-hours a day and arrangements will be made with the University of Califurnia irvine t4edical Facility for emergency needs and they will have recorc]s on file for swift emeryency medical services. He stated they will be located near the Ibis t~otel which will provide lodging for visitors a~nd they will have easy access to the freeways and will not generate a significant amount of traffic since most of the residents wil]. not drive. Fae noted there is also public transportation close by. THE PUBLIC HEARINC; WAS CLOSED. Chairwoman La Claire stated this is a needed faci:ity and she thought this is an excellent location and no waivers are being requested. ACTIUN: Commissioner Fry offereci a motion, seconded hy Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIEU (Commissioners Bouas, Herbst and McBurney absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit a 152-unit senlor citizens congregate care facility an a irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 2.6 acres, having a frontage of approximately 129 feel on L•he south side of Freedman Way and further 10/14/85 a5-5sa MINUTES, ANAH~IM_CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, OCTOBFR 14, a985___ __ yround mounted equiptnent ahall be properly shielded from view", and added they have every intention of acreening the roof-mounted equipment and would requeat that Condition No. 10 be moditied to read the eame as the Cabot, Cabot and ho[bes condition. Kendra hiorriea stated staff would have no objection to that condilion since roof-mounted equipment is not a reatriction for induAlrial usea in ttie Scenic Corridor. THL PUHLIG Ii~ARIN~ WA5 CLOSEU. Malcolm Slaughter. Deputy City Attorney, stated he believed the agent indicated it was the developer's intention only tu have office-type uses in the fruul. buil~ing and he l:houghl: the conditional use permit should be granted for unly the northerly one-lhirci portion ot the proF~erty. Mr.. Wolfe responded th~t would be acceptable. Mc. Orsborne stated their only concern would be ktiat il- is understood that offices ancillary to the industrial uses in Dui.ldings 2 and 3 would not be E~recluded. Malcolm 5laughter staLed office u~es for the permitted industrial use:~ are permitted a~ a matter af right. Mr. Wolfe stated most ot the R& D buildings in Orange County and Los Angeles County are nearly alway~ fully air-conditioned and are used for light manufacturing and repairs and frequently there are more of.fices than manufacturiny Us~s in these buildinys. AC'PIUN: CommissioneC Fry offered a motion, s~conded by Commissioner Lawicki and MOTION CARRIED (Cornmissiuners Bouas, Herbst and McBurney absent) that t}~e Anal~Pim City Ylanning Commission has reviewed the proNosal Lo permit an industrially-related, two-story ofiicf- comple: in ttie ML(SC) (industrial, Limited, Scenic-Corridor Uverlay) Zone on ar irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 8.7 acres, haviny a frontage of approximately 421 feet on the ,outh side of La Palma Avenue and £urthet described as 7460 °. Larovemthe~NegativerDeclacation Execukive Mol-orhomes); and does hereby app upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during rhe public rpview process and furlher finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments ceceived that there is no substantial evidence that tt~e project will have a significant effect on the environment• Co~~unissione[ Fry offered Fesolution No. PCB5-225 and moved foc its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planninq Commission does hereby grant Conditional Uae Permit No. 2728 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.03a.U30 through 16.03.030.035 and subject to Interdepartmental Cornmittee recommendations including modification to Condition No. lU to read "That all aic conditioning eqtaipment and other roof and ground mounted equipment shall be pr~perly shi.elded L-rom view.' On roll call, the foregoiny cesolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: FF.Y, ~A CLAIRE, LAWI(:KI, MESSE NUBS: NUNE ,ABSENT: BOUAS~ HERBST, MCPUFcNEY 10/14/85 MINUTES, ANAFiEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIUtJ, OCTOBBR_14 1985 85-555 Malcolm 5laughter, Deputy City Att~rney, pr.esented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's deciaion within 22 days to the City Council. ITLM NU. 8 EIR NEGA`PIVE llECLARATIONi RECUASSIEICATION N0. 85-86-5 AND -._______r._. - VARIANCl; N0. 35U9 PURLIC; HEARING. OWN~;RS: CORNELIUS W. ANU MARY ALICE DEHUYTCR, 530 N. Colgate Street, Anaheim, CA 92Fi01 and HACIGNAA UNITED COKP., 946 Ever.ett Street, 111, Los Angeles, CA 90U26. AGENT: HUGO A. VAZ(~UE2, 619 S. Live Uak Drive, Anaheim, CA 928Q5. Pcoperty descrihed as a rectangularly-31~a~~ed parcel ot land consisting of ap~~roximately 1.05 acres, having a frontaqe of appcoximately 164 feel on the snuth side of Lincoln Avenue, and furthec de~cribed as 2230 West Lincoln Avenue. c:L to RM-•1200 or a less intense zone. Waivers of minimum str~ctural setback, minimum building site acea per dwelling unit, maximum structural hei.ght and maximum site coverage to construct a 3-story, 46-unit affordable apartment com~l~x. 'Phere was no one indicatirg t-~eir presence in opposition to eubject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a;~art of the mi.nutes. FSuga Vazquez- agent, explained lU units of this 46-unit project will be affordable and 115 parking spaces ace provided. He ~tated waiver (a} is necessaty to ~ro~:idE easy access to the trash enclosure on Lincoln and waivers (b, c and d) are necessary to provide affordable units and adequate parking spaces. He added they decided not to dro~ the building 4-1/'l feet below grade to provide subterranean parking because it is very expensive. He referred to the culored rendering and explained he would leave an 8-1/2" by 11" copy wo~ld be corwarded for the file. THE PUBLIC HEAP,ING WAS CLOSED. Mr. Vazquez stated tt~e minimum str-~ctural setback waiver was necessar.y because the trash is right out front and the trash truck could ~ick up the trash and get ~ight back onto Lincoln very easily and that Mr. Singer appr.oved the driveway to accommodate that access and a covenant will be recorded against the property next door so the median in the middle of Lincoln for L•he l~ft-lurn lane will go right into the cumplex. He stated tt~ey would be able to move the tra~h location back to the 35-foot setback limit, if necessary. Commissioner Fry sLated his fitst rPaction to this project is that it is overbuilding the property and that is evident by the number of waivers requested. Mr. Vazquez stated thece will be quite a distance between the buildings and there will be a feeliny oF open space because of the central courtyard area. He explained this is a concept used a lot ir~ the beach areas. 10/14/85 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CI7'Y PLANNING COMMISSION, OCTOBER 14, 1985 85-556 CommiESioner ~ry stated he has an uneasy feeling that Anaheim is ~tarting to rape thia "affurdable" concept ahd is rnaybe pushing too far And he ttiought we will regret some of theae things t~e admitted he has vot~d in favor o£ theEe requsats in th~ paat undec t.he pretensc or guise of needed affordable units. Chairwoman La C?.aire stated the state requic•~s the City to give a'l58 density bonus, but it doesn't require any variances in addition. She statec~ this developer was clever enough to find out how to build under this concept with 3 stor.ie3 and parkii~g underneath, buk. she i.s heginning to think it will creatF a diEfe[ent kind of look i~~ ttie City. She stal:ed the other projects Mr.. Vazquez hds built really do look good, but with this type of project all along the stteet, it coul~i become a problem becauae of the density and she did nut h_hink the density Uonuses allowed in the previous pcojects could be compated t~ thi~ project because of rhe tuck-under parking, et~. Kendra Morries, Assietant Planner, explained the chart attached with the stafi repor.t breaks down some of l-he other projects which have been approved such as lat coverages, etc. Chairwoman La Claire sta~ed Lhis is 75$ lot coverage and Mr. Vazquez stated the project at 129 5. Melz~se, 359 S. Olive and also the project at 1~1 S. Dale are all 3-story with the tUCk-undec parking. He agreed they are all below the 758 lot caverage and the onlY rat.ionale for making this reguest is oecause of what is surrounding the i~ropecty and since there are 3-ytory builclings in the area, bu~ they do not provide 2.5 parking spaces and they tiave nice setbacks, etc. which the Commission and others are acc~stomed to ~eeing. Ne stated he could drop the building 4-1/2 feet below yrade level which would reduce the site coverage and maximum structural heiyht. Ne explained the couctyards are not counted in the calculation. Kendca ~locries explained the above-ground couttyard is counted towards the recceational area and i3 also counted towards site coverage because it is nat at 4-1/'l feet or 508 above tt~e natural grade level of the property. Commissioner Fry stated he is more concerned abour. ttie 44 units on this site when technically thera should only be 36. He stated h? did not think he could go along with this "affordable" concept anymore. Chairwoman La C1aicP skated xf the Commission feels the project would not bt in the spirit of the ordinances, or if they felt it would endanger the health, safety and we'°are of the citi2ens, they do not have to grant the density bonuses. She added the projects Mr. Vazquez has already built have been good projects. Cotnmissioner Messe asked Mr. Vazquez if he would be coming back in with a project proposing subterranean parking. rtr. Vazquez stated he would consider the Commissior~'s opinion regatding the density. He stated the only alternative to make the project wotk would be to adjust the pr~ject to 36 units to the acre ~r dro~ the building 4-1/2 feet and have the additiunal units. He stat~9 this proposal would be providing affordable housing for the City and providing the same style of unit which is renting for $695 per month, with 10 units renting for $493 per month. 10/14/a5 MINUZ'ES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CUMMISSION O~rOBFR 14 1965 85-557 Cummis~ioner Fry statad he hae confidencP that Mr. Vazquez will be able to come u~ with a bet~er plan and auggeaked a two-week continuAnce. Mr. Vazque2 st~ted he could either drop the buildinq 4-1/2 feet and ~elete tho waivecs, except for the density bonus, but he would need the extra units, or he could provide 36 units to the Acre and a 3-story build.ing and not reyiaest a density bonus and not have the expense ot lowering the building. Commissioner ~ry atated he would not object to the height waiver on Lincoln Avenue, but he does have <~ problem with ttie number of unita proposed. Chair.woman La Claire stated she has mixed emotions about the sub;erranean garages because they are good since they provide safe, off-street parking and they are open eno~ayh so people cannot use them for storage and affordable housing is needed, buk looking at huw c1o~e ttiey ~re and how larye lhey will be and i~ow many peop~e will be living in the units, ~he was concerned. she atated also the parking does not look as n~ce when it is underneath the units. Mr. Vazquez stated there is no way L•o ptovide af'fordable housing withour the density. AcTioN: Cnmmi.ssianer ~'ry offered a mation, seconded by Commissioner Lawick~. and bi0TI0N CARRIED (Commissioners Bouas, Herbst and McF3urney absent) that considecation of the aforementioned matter be continued to the cegularly-sche~luled meeting of Uctober 28, 1985, in order for the petitioner L•o submit revised plans. Kendra Morries rioted that revised plans will have to be submitted by Friday in orde~ f.or staff to review them. ITEM NQ. 9 EIR NEGAmIVF DECLARATION AND RECLASSIFICATION N0. 85-86-B PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: LARRY ALVIN AND DINA LYNNE TORGERSON, 216 N. Claudina Street, Anaheim, CA 92805, R. BERENI~E DENEAU, P.O. Box 286, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92693, DONALD G. BRUOKS, 220 N. Claudina Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 AND T~IESELU'rTE STUMPE, 612 S. Grove Avenue, Aitah~im, ~A 92805. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.63 acre located at the southeast corner of Cypress Streek and Claudi;na Street, and further de~~cribed as 21U, 216, 220 and 226 North Claudina Street. CG to RM-120U or a less intense zone. THE FOLLOWING AC`PION WAS TAKEN AT THE BEGII~NING OF THE MEETING. ACTION: Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissior~er Lawicki and MOTIUN CARRIEU (Commissioners Bouas, Herbst and McBurney absent) that consideration of the aforementioned matter be cuntinued ':o the regularly-sched~~led meeting of November 13, 1985, a't the pet.itic:~er's request in order for the City Council ta act on a request that may affect the ~,ublic ~dvertisement for this petition. " t?~14/85 T ISSION1 OCTOBER ~4, 1985 IT~M tJU. lU F:IR NEGATIVE QECLARATION AND VARIANC~ NU_„_,351~ INC., 1429 S• Ea~tern p~KLIC H~ARIN~. OWNEKS: NU1tTE1 WEST MUTOK W~~BACA. Proper.ty describ~d as Avenue, Comm~rce, CA 9~022, ATTN: LL•'ONARD s~ ruximately 0.95 a rectangularly-shA~ed parce' ot land conaial•ing ~f ~PP acce, l~cated at the nOCr`ibedtASO517rand 519PEast LanPalmanAvEnGeine Streelr and Lurthec des (Nortt~west Motor Weldingl. Waiver. of minitnum structural setback to construct an otfice er.panaion to an industrial building. ',.i~eCe was no one indicati.ng their presence in oppo3lkion to subject equest and although the staff repoc~ waa not read, it is ref~rrecl to and made a part ot ttie minule~. Willi.am tiuyhey, agent, stated they want ~o increase the total area of this building by less than 2B to add 650 syuare f-eet of r~dditional off:ice cp~cr in ordec to properly enclose the'm~~na9ementencaoachinqaintoathe sekback. explained the existing building is alcea~~y T,a Palma and Paul.ne He ytated Conditiori No. 1 requires improv~ment~ along and they fe~1 i~ wo~:ld not be ~air to require khese improvFments for this size addition which would c~sr, approximately $14,OOU and 'che oEf-site He stated they would im~[ovements would ~o:.t at least ~20,000 0[ mare• like certainly Lo ~mppaulinedandlwould like~tokhavedthat~conditio~ La Palma, but not alony modified. He stated the trafficusignal assessment feeslandnasked hownmuch regardiny water fees and those fees would be. Commissioner Fry stated those are standacd fees and he could find out from city slaff how much they arc., but they are required °ainll Mr~.~tlughes and if they have been paid, t}~cy w~uld not be required ag stated the setback requirementb~~idingfset backg50afea~malcnguLa Palna,ved because there is virtually no THE PUBLiC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairwoman La Claice staLtd it appears this is simply a b50-square foot addition to an existing b~hadlstreet.the setback will oe the same as the exist~.ng buildings along Concerning im~rovements along Pauline, Malcolm Slaughter statedrmitsZandna Code requires the improvemen ~o delptetthatscequirementlandnthe'present variance wou.d be necessary application before ave to be$processed for thisumatterttoabe~advertised to application would h include that waiver. Kendra Mocries explained n~sland theadedicationml~as beenhmadetonoLa Palma, have the street improveme but the improvement~ have not been made. 10/14/85 MINUT~S ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSiUN OCTOBEK 14 1985 ~5-559 Raspond ing to Commiseioner Fry, Mr. Slaught~r explained therN is a ~ropose d Code ~mend mQnL which would allow tho Gity Engineer the diecrotion oi worki.ny out dif:ferent methods of compliance ~ur Che ineL•Allation of impcovementa suct~ as permitting the applicAnt to pAy the Lse now wf.th the improvemPnl•s to be made laL•er by the City, etc., bul• right now tliore is no such proviaion. Kendra hlorriea explained thie particulAr petition could be readvertis~ed to ~.nclude that waiver. Mr. Huyhes stated he would likP to request a cantinuance in order to readvertioe thi~ petition. ACTIUN: Commissioner F[y of:fererj ~a motion, seconded by Comtni~eioner Mease and MoTIUN CARItIL•'U (Cainmissioi~er~ Bouas, Herbstc and Mct3urney Absent) that consideraLlon of L-t~e a£oremenrioned matter be continued lo the regularly-echeduled meeting of October 28, 1985, in order to be readvertiaed to include an additional waiver. of street improvements. ITEM NO~ 11 ~Ilt N~GATIV~ DECLAItATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3514 PUBLIC NLARING. OWNLRS: PA8L0 W. RG~AS, 2115 East Reseda Place, Anaheim, CA y2$U6 AND JOSLPH A. 'PGDtIUNTER, a549 La Baya Avenue, Fountain Valley, CA 927U8. Property described as a rec~anyularly-sha~~d parcel of land consisting of ap~roximately 7,Q57 square feet, having a frontage of approxi.mately 5U £eet on the ~dest sfde of Melrose Street, and Eurther described as 123 5outh Melrose Street. Waivera of minimum building ~ite area per dwelling unit, maxitnum structural height, maximum site coveraye, minimum floor area, minimum structural setback, minimum recreationa.l-leisure area and minimutn pedestrian accessway to construct a 3-story, 6-unit aff.ordable apartment complex~ There was one interested per~on indicating his presencp and although the staff report was not read, it is ceferred to and made a part of the minute~~ J~rr,y Urukin, 1'L80 E. ~lower, Anaheim, agent, explained subject propertf is currently developed with a duplex with a parking garage underneath; that tt~ere is a 2-story structure to the north, primarily 1- and 2-story single-family dwellings to tt~e east, and a 3-story complex to the south, and the acea in general is in tcansition. He stated they are proposing a 6-unit complex with yrade 2eve1 parking taking access along Melrnse and tt~e alley to the rear of the properYy. He stated the existing units are 1-bedroom and will be extenaively rehabilitated. tie skated they are proposing two units to be affordablc which is 403 of the t~ta1 number and only bedrooms will be located on the third floor; and that there are other 3-story units in the area and a lot of the older strucL•ures in the area have high roo~-lines. He pointed out two of the seven reelueated waivers have beer, deleced and reviewed the other waivers requestPd. Mr. Drukin stated sl•aff wrote a letter suggesiing they would not recommend approval of this project based on the seven waivecs which has now been reduced to five w!~ich he thought would be morF favorable. 10/14/85 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY_PLAt~NZNG CUMMISSION, OCTOBtiR 14, 1985_ 85-56U Gene Tilkins, 115 Melcose, Anaheitn, etated he ia happy to ~ee that something is going to be done on thia property t~ecause it is an ~yesore righl• now. He atatod there w~s a pro3ect constructed just south which must have had sever~l wAivera and tt~is would prohAbly not t^ any worse th~n that proj~ct. Ne etated his main questian would bo ab~~ut the ~arking because he has never aeQn anyone pArk in the existing gacages and there are a lot of vQhicles parked on this property now and the garages are difficult ta get inl•o. Mr. Drukin pointed out the proposed parking rn the exhi.bit and exrlain~d there ~~re 4 cuvered parking apaces about lU feek off the alley and tie is propo~ing to extend thoae space~ and enlAKye them ii•~to tAndem spaces and there will be uverhead do~rs. Ne atated therE wi.ll be acces~ t;o the remainder of the sPaces from Melrose whicli inclu~ea two tandem sp~ce~ and three single apaces. ~r~i~ PUE3LIC HEAkING WAS CLUSEU. C~tnmissiuner Fry clatified there are two existing unit, and ~_here will be four additional ur,its. c;ommis:~ioner Messe clarified that tt~e existing spaces will be made into tandem apaces with Mr. llrukin explaining the tt+ndF:rn sE~aces will be assigned to one unit and there will be three gues~ spaces. Kendra Morries atated the property at 129 S. Melrose was approved for. a 7-unit affordable complex with height waiver for 3 stories and a side yard setback and the project did not t~ave a waiver for den:'ty or s:te acea per dwelling unit. Responding tc~ Commis~ioner Messe, Mr. Drukin stated he thought the 3-story unit on the adjacent property is abaut 10 feet away from the property line and this one will be about 13 fFet away, for a tota'_ of 20 to 25 feet between the twu. Chairwoman La Claire stated she had never seen a parking arrangement such as this and there are a lot of problems with this parking plan with people coming into the parking ~tru.:ture and tandem spaces with very .little room to turn araund. Mr. Drukin stated he worked out the parking arrangements with the Traffic Engineer and he approved it. Commissioner Fry stated he thought the developer is trying to put too much on this sma].1 lot and -:he parking is atrocious and he coul.d not support it. Chairwoman La Claire suggested a continuance in order ta revise th~ plans and suggested removing the existiny units and providing adequate circulation. Mr. Drukin stated it is imposaible with the width of the site and the setback cequirement and a'l0-foot ~riveway. Chairwoman La Claire suggested fewec units. Mr.. Drukin stated he would have to talk with his clien~s and would bring back a plan khat both his clients and the Ci.ty could live with. He stated he would like a two-week continuance. ACTION: Chairwoman La Claire offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fry and MOTIUN CARRIED (Commissioners Bouas, Herbst and McB~~.rney absent) that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of October 28, .1985, at t:~e request of the petitioner. MINUTF.S, ANAtIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIUN, UCR'OBCR_14,_1985 85-561 ITEM N0. 12 ~IR NEGATIVE DECT~AKATIUN (PRFVIOUSLY APPROVED AND CUNDITIONAL U5~;1~ERMIT N0. 2J.04 (RGAUVERTISEU) PU~LIC HEAtt1NG FUFt TTME EXTENSION. OWNERS: I,ARR~' ROGEF, SMITH~ 17046 Marina BAy Drive, tiuntington I3eaeh, CA y2646. ACENT: ~OYD ANn ELAIN~ GARGII~L, 21U City Boulevard West, Urange, CA 926fi8. Pcoperty ~eaeribed as an irreqularly-aha~ed parcel ot land consisting of apNroximately 1.6 acres, located north and west oE the nc~rtl~west corner o[ aall Road and Knott 5treet, and furtt~er described as 919 South Knott Street (previously th~ "French uuArte~"). Request tor apE~roval of a 1-ye~[ (2-month retroactive) exten:~ion of time and deletian of ::ondition No. !i of Resolution No. PC80-157 pertaining to req~ired exr.en4ions of time to retain a public dance hall. 'PHL•' FOLLUWING ACTIUN WAS TAK~N AT 'Tk1E E3LCINNINC UF THF. MF.~TING. ACTION: Commissioner Fry ofEeted a motlon, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki and MUTIUN CAFt}tIED carried (Commissianers eouas, klerbst and McB~_ney absent) that r,onsideration oE the aforementioned matter be cont_~~ued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of October. 2H, 1985, at the request of ~tafl in arder for applicant to aubmit additional inf.ormatior: requested. ITk;M N0. 13 EIR NECATIV~: DECI,ARATION (~R~:V. APPROVED) ANU CONUITZONAL USE PERMIT NU. 2155 (RtiADV~R7'ISED) PUBLIC NEARING. UWNERS: CANYOP7 DEVE:LOPERS, 4041 MacArthur Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92681. AGEP~T: VINEYARU CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP, 4854 Main 5tceet "F", Yorba linda, CA 92686. Property described as an irregularly-shaped ~arcel ~~f. land consisting of approximately 12.2 acres, having a frontage of appror.imately 500 feet an the norkh side of La Palma Avenue, and further described afi 54U1 East I.a Palma Avenue (previously Anaheim Hills Community Church). Request for a 2-yea~ extEnsion of time ar-d deletion of Condition No. 5 of Resolutiori No. PC80-333 pectaining to required extensions ot time to retain a church in the ML(SC) Zone. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and althougt~ the staff report was not read, it is referted to and made a part of the minutes. Edward Johnson, 1092 Promenade, Placentia, explained there is an existing conditio~ial use permit For a chucch at 5401 East La Palma and that church has relocated and they would like to retain this permit for a 3-year period for the Vineyard Christian E'ellowship. He stated they have a congtegation of about 500 to 600 people and this is a new church in the area with services from 9:30 to 11:00 a.m. on Sunday mornings and Erom 6:00 to E:00 on Sunday evenings wh:ch ~re difierent hours than the industrial usea in the area. E!e presented a letter signed by the users in the area indicatiny no objections and presented slides sl~owing traffic in the area on Sundays. He stat~d they hope to relocate in 3 years to another pecmanent location in the Canyon area. 10/14/85 MIDIUTES- ANAtIEIM CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSIUN~ UCTUBER 141 19a5 85-561 I~GM N0. 12 EIK NEGATIVE DECLARATIUN (PREVI_USLY APPROVED~ AND CONDITIONAL US~ PERMIT NU. 2104 (RGAUVLRTISEU) PUBLIC NEARING FOK TIME EXTGNSION. OWN~12S: I~ARRY ROGER SMITH~ 17QA6 Marina BAy Urive, tiuntington Aeacti, CA 92646. AGEN't`: BOYD AND ~LAINI: GARGiI.L, 21U Cfty Bnulevard Weat, UrAnge, CA 92666~ Prope[ty described as an irregu.larly-shaped parcel of land consi~ti.ng oF approximately 1.6 a~refi, located nocth and west of the northwPst c~rner of Ball Road and Kn~tt 5treet, and further described +as 919 South Knott Street (previously the 'E'rench S~uarter"). Requesc tor approval of a 1-year (2-month retr.oactive) extension of timP and ~elP~ion of Condition No. 5 af Resolution No. PC80-157 pertaining ~o reguired extensions of time to retain a E~ublic dance 1ia11. TH~ FOLLOWING ACT10N WAS TAKE;N A'P TN~: BEGINNING OF TNE MEETING. Ac:TTUN: CotnmissionEr Fry offered a mc~tiun, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki and t~tOTION CARI:.IEU c.arried (Commissioners Bouas, Herbst and Plct3ucney absent) that consideraLion of the aforementioned matter be continued to the reyularly-sct~eduled meeting of Or,tober 26, 1985, at ktie request of ~taff in orr~er for applicant to submit additional infor.mation reyuested. ITEM NU. 13 GII2 NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV. APPROVED) AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2155 (t~[;ADVLRTISE~D) PUBLIC HEARING. pWNE[tS: CANYON UEVELOPERS, 4091. MacArthur Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92681. AGENT; VINEYARD CHRISTIAN EELLOWSHIP, 4854 Main Street "E", Yorba linda, CA 92686. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting oE approximately 12.2 acre~, having a frantage of approximately 500 feek on the nocth side of La Palma Avenue, and furth~r described as 5401 East La Palna Avenue (previously Anaheim Hill.s Community Church). Request for a 2-year extension of time and deletion of Condition No. 5 of Resolution No. PC80-333 pertaining to required extensions of time to retai.n a church in the ML(SC) Zone. There w~•s no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Edward Johnson, 1U92 Promeciade, Placentia, explained tt~ere is an exia*ing conclitional use permit Eor a church at 5401 East La Palma and that c.urch has relocated and they would like to retain this permil- for a 3-year period for the Vi•~ayard Christian Fellowship. He stated they have a congregation of about 500 to 600 people and khis is a new church in the area with services from 9:30 to 11:00 a.t~. on Sunday tnornings and from 6:00 to 8:U0 0~~ Sunday evenings which are different hours than the industrial uses in the area. He ~resented a letteL signed by the users in the area indicatinq no ohjections and pceeented slides showing traffic in the area on Sundays. He stated they hope to relocate in 3 years to another permanent location in the Canyon area. 10/14/85 MINU'rES. ANANEIM CITY PLANNING CUMMISSION, OCTOBER 14, 1985 a5-562 TNE PUBLIC NEARING WAS CLUSED. A~'rION: Chaicwoman La Claire offered ResoLution No. PC85-27.E and moved for ita pasaAge and adoption thAt the Anaheim City Pla~ning Commission does hereby granl A 3 year extension of time Eor Conditional Use Permit No. '1155. On rull call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the folluwin9 vote; AY~S: FRY, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MCSS~ NOES: NUNE; ABSENT: BOUAS, HERBST, MCI3URNEY Malcolm Slaughter, Ueputy City ACtorney, ~.~resented tt~e writt.en right to a~peal the Planning Commission's decisi~n within 22 days to Lhe City Council. I`1'k:M NU. 14 ItEPURTS ANU RECOMMENDATIONS: A. CUNDI'1'IUt~AL USL PE.Rhtl'P Nu. 2377 ( REV. NU. 2) - Request f rom Frank A. Lowry fo[ approval of revised sign plans, pr.operty located at khe northeasC c.orne: of La Palma Avenue and tirasher 5treel. ~[ank Lowry, dttorney, ].OU S. Anaheim E3ouleaard, suite 3A0, Anaheim, stated the C;ity Co~~ncil approved a pale sign close to F3rasher Street and because o£ the location, it was never construcr.ed, and they would like to relocate ttiat pole sign to the frunt of the properl•y along La Palma and to add two logo signs on the wall because people are having a difiicult time finding the Mercedes Benz dcaler. He stated all the signs are just .logos. Responding to Chairwoman La Claire, Mc. Lo~~ry stated the wall sign will not be illumina~_ed and the pole sign will have a light. It was clarified tt~e wall signs are 16 squar.e feet each. Comm:ssiuner Fry stated he thought the petitioner had done a good job in getti.ng the QO-foot high sign approved for the Srasher Street location; however, he thought if a person could not find this dealership, they should not be driving and he would not vote for approval of the 4U-foot sign. Commissioner Messe stated he did not know of any other signs on La Palma that are tha~ tall. Mr. Lowry pointed out the Sutherland sign is lU to 15 feet wide a.^.d 18 feek tall. Cotnmissioner Fry stated he did not think they need anymore signs. Kendra Morries stated Parayraph 7 of tF~e staEf report identifies the 3 signs and changes being requested. Chairwoman La Claire statpd this is the same kind of thiny discussed with the Keno's Restaurant and suggested keeping the signs on the buildings and even illuminating them and pointed out Sutherland is zoned for commercial uses and this is an industrial property and she felt if this i~ allowed, they would have to allow every other business alon9 that street to do the same thing. She stated she was not opposed to having the logos on the wa11. 10/~4/85 MINUT~S~ ANANEIM CITY PGANNING CUMMISSION, OCTOBER I4. 1985 85-56_3 Kendra Morriea ~tated none ot the eiyns being requeared require new variances fr~m the ~ode And the reaaon this ia befnr.e the Commisaion i~ bec~uae the aign pragcam was tied to the conditlonal uae permit and has to be reviewed be~ore any revision oc additiang are made. Il was clarified the 40-Eoot high pole sign was granted for the driveway on Brasher and it would meet Code i£ it was on La Palma. Annika 5antalahti atated ycnerAlly speaking in an induotrial ar~~a, a ~ign simply identiEies a use ~n the F~ro~erty and they yenerally do not seek to attract tcaffic on the ~treet; and if there are any signs on L~ Palma, they are probably in connection wi~h a restaurant and are pcobably in the neighborhood ~E 25 feet high. A~TION: Commissioner ECy o~fered a motion, :econded by Chairwoman La Claire and MOTIUN FAILEU 'PC~ CARRY due ta tie vote (Commis~ioners Lawicki and t4esse voting no and Cornmissioners Bauas, Hert~r~t and McBurney absent) tha~ the Anaheim City Planning c.ummission does hereby recnmmend to the City Council ak~E ~val of two wall-mounted logo signs on the building and denial of tc~e request to relocate the for~y feet (4U') high ~~ole sign f.rom Brasher Street to La Pa1ma Avenue. Comrnissioners Lawicki and Messe indicated thay had voted against this motion since the sign is permi~ted by Code. Chairwoman I~a Claire stated she tl~ougY~t this would set a precedent for businesses in the ML zone. Malcolm Slaughter stated according to Code, anyane alony that street Cdfl cun~~ in and get a building permit for any siyr~ up to 75 teet high as a matter ot right because there are no residential aceas in the vicinity. ADJUURNM~NT: Commissionec FCy offered a motion, ~econded by Commi&sioner Lawicki and MUTION CARRIED (Commissianers Bouas, Herbst and McBurney absent) that the meeting be adjourned. The meeting wes adjourried at 4:55 p.m. Ttespectfully submitted, „~~.(~ ~ J~;~G~-t/ Edith I,. Harris, Secretary Anaheim City I'lanning Commission ELH:lm 0147m 10/14/85