Loading...
Minutes-PC 1987/10/26r ~ MI~LT.F& $~.~SI1aPiR~MFe~-~~--~AHFu,,~ CIT' ~PL$~NS~.4.~~S~4N Q~t,Q~@L~_.194-Z The regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Cornmissiin the Councdlto order by Chairman Meese aTesento and•thecCommissionlreviewad plans of the Chamber, a quorum being p items on today's agenda. RECESS: 11:30 a.m. RECONVENED: is30 p.m• PRESENT: ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: Chairman: Meese Commissioners: Bouas, Boydstun, Carusillo, Feldraus, Herbst, McBurney Commissioners: Annika Santalahti Joel Fick Malcolm Slaughter „ay Titus Paul Singer Gary Johnson Debbie Vagts Greg Hastings Edith Harris Zoning Administrator Planning Director Assistant City Attorney Office Engineer 'praff•ic Engineer City Engineer Leasing Supervisor Senior Planner Commission Secretary AGENn$.~0`'TIN - A complete copy of the Planning Commission agenda was posted at 10:00 a.m., October 23, 1987, inside the display rase located in the foyer of the Council Chamber, and also in the outside display Riosk. t~IN TES FOR APPAQ~-L: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Feldhaus and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner McBurney abstaining) that the minutpg ~i the meeting of Se,titember 28, 1987, be approved as submitted. Commissioner Herbst osseoneraBo asoabstaining) thatut~hesminutesFofdthesmeetinq M0TI0:1 CARRIED (Comm of October 12, 1987, be approved as submitted. ITEM N0. 1 - INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION - regarding street dedication and improvement of public streets. 87-802 10/26/87 i» MI~?U'~~.S., ANA}l~.~M. C_1x~i..~LAt~?I.NU__C_QMMISyI_(~N.,..._4.~.~9~kR__~~.,__]9Q?.__.__ _~ 87.-~.4~. City Engineer Gary Johnson, explained in May the City Council expressed an interest in reviewing a proposed ordinance pertaining to street dedications and improvements, and had a number of public hea-ings resulting in the adoption of a new ordinance on October 13th. He sated the revisions Include two new components: (1) providing an exemption far minor building and (?.) a vari.anco procedure to come before the Planning Commission. tie stated the (:ity Council felt the ordinance needed further work And established November 10th for a workshop. He stated staff .is preparing a survey of other Southern California c;tins to determine how they are handling dedication and improvements for public streets as required for building permits. FFe stated the City Council ind ~ated they would like input from the Planning Commission which is the reason .or this discussion today. Commissioner Herbst suygosted the wording be modified in Section 2, Subsection 070, Exemptions, Section B L-o allow the expansion of no more than 1,000 square foe L•, rather than 10~, and possibly changing 1 year to 2 years. Commissioner Feldhaus suggested some wording be added some place in the ordinance with some definitive reference to the developer of raw property versus a builder requesting a permit fur some cosmetic const:rurtion to an existing development. Gary Johnsen stated ho was not clear on the suggestion and explained the ordinance deals with anything that requires a building permit, other than those two changes discussed previously pertaining to the 1,000 square feet and variance process. Commissioner Feldhaus referred to the reference on Paqe 2 that developers be allowed to bond for the required street improvements and srat~±d he wants it_- to be clear that a developer who buys a raw piece of property knows and understands that this ordinance is in effect and i.f someone wants a simple building permit, they are not in the same classification. Mr. Johnson stated the term "developer" applies to anyone who needs a building permit, and there is no distinction between a homeowner and a developer of a larger parcel. A~TIy9i?: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTIUN CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Exhibit A of the proposed ordinance pertaining to required improvements and waivers be modified on PTge 2, Section 2 (t3) to read as followst "(B) Building permits wherein a minor addition is being added to an existing structure or building "minor addition" shall include any expansion of asingle-family residence or any expansion of a commercial, multiple-family or industrial use, wherein the square footage of all buildings on the property is not being extended by more than 1,0000 square feet, within any (2) year period." 10/26/87 ~L,~ISLTE.S..~H.~.iM_C.I~X._EL1~1t~1NG C~1IS~.I4TL~~Q.B.F~.?~....~9@?_.__.__._. _.~Z-.~94 ITEM N0.,~1, Fe~Z1I:GATIVE DEC4~@$TI~Q.~. iPgFY.~AP.PR.QYF~~?)-.A~N-1? S92~IT.~4~.--ZI,~-F PIJBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: DARLE HALE, 3910 E. Coronado, Unit B, Anaheim, CA 92307. AGF.NTs JAMES KINDERMAN, 3910 Coronado, Anaheim, CA 92807. Property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.63 acres, having a frontage of approximately 207 feet on the south aide of Coronado Street, and further described as 3910 East Coronado Street (Units F, H, I AND J). Request for deletion or modification of Condition No. 1 pertaining to payment of traffic signal assessment fee of Resolution No. PC87-108. Continued from the meeting of October 12, 1987. Tho applicant was not present and this matter was trailed until following the action on ;tam No. 7. Chairman Masse explained the applicant had just submitted a letter requesting this conditional. use permit be termiratod on t2zo basis they are vacating the premises. ~c,rzoS.I: Chairman Masse offered Resolution No. PC87-216 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission dues hereby terminate all proceedings in connecticn with Conditional Use Permit No. 2882 On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES : iiONE ABSENT: NONE Malcolm Slaughter, Depuc;• City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. STEM NO 3 ~.H._NF~AT~Y~~ES.~a.8.L8~3.ON AND V,~tIANCE~IO. 3707 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: ROBERT L. AND GERALDINE MC GINLEY, 1028 N. tayflower Street, Anaheim, CA 92801. Property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 7,795 square feet, located at the southeast cor aer of La Palma Avenue and Mayflower Street, having approximate frontages of 10 O feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue and 78 feet on the east side of Mayflower Street and further described as 1028 North Mayflower Street. Waivers of (a) maximum wall height, (b) minimum side yard setback and (c) minimum rear yard setback to retain a 6-foot, 10-inch high block wall and a patio rover. There was 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. Dr. Robert McGinley, owner, stated when they first purchased this property. La Palma was a narrow two-lane street and had a wide buffer between the property and the streets however, since then La Palma has been changed into a major 10/26/87 T~ .~5, Ag~~~.~P~t3KI,f1~ C9~SMS~.~.~.4.N..~G~4.~~.ft~fr..._.~9@?_.~_ _.._.____$?..~.9~ arterial highway with a lot of traffic and noise, including semi-trailers which park across the street. Ele stated after calling the Planning Department, they raised the wall to give butter noise protection and this request is to allow the wall to remain on the north property line bordering La Palma. Ho stated there is also a patio cover. He explained the block wall is 1 foot inside the property line and there is en additional 2-112 foot setback, ao them is about 3-1/2 feet inside the side wall and that a 5 foot setback is reruired for a setback. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Boydstun pointed out the Planning Commission received a letter and asked if a business is operated out of that residence. Dr. McGinley responded them is no business operating from that residence; that he floes operate a business a little further down on La Palma which is properly zoned fir an office. Chairman Messe asked if there are any activities going on on that property an a weekly or semi-weekly basis which would upset the neighbors with parking, etc. Dr. McGinley responded he does have quite a few private parties which he thought he was entitled to and asked if that is the contention here. Chairman Messe pointed out that is not the contention, but the Commission did receive the letter. Dr. McGinley responded he did not know anything about the letter. Commissioner Herbst asked if a building permit was obtained when the wall was constructed. Dr. McGinley responded no building permit was obtained; and that due to the increase in traffic, they wanted to increase the wall, similar to what the neighbors had done across the street which is 8 feet tall. He stated they called the City of Anaheim and talked to someone, he could not remember who, and was told the simplest thing to do was to go ahead and do it. He responded to Commissioner Herbst that the wall was 6 feet high to begin with. Commissioner Herbst- stated they are allowed 72 inches by right and anything aver that becomes a structural wall and they would .ued building permits and it would have to be properly engineered and he did not understand why anyone in City Hall would tell them they did not need a building permit because that requirement has beer in the Code for a long time. P.esponding to Commissioner Bouas, Mr. McGinley responded he did not remember exactly when ti~•7 wall was built, but it was after La Palma was widened and he has owned and lived on this property since July of '72 or '73. Commissioner Boydstun pointed out the roof hags over the wall, according to the pictures. Dr. McGinley responded it does, but it is inside their property line, pointing out again that the outer face of the wall is 1 foot inside the property line. He stated no water from that roof falls into the public thoroughfare. Commissioner Bouas stated the minimum rear yard setback should re 10 feet and Dr. McGinley responded he was not aware of that when he put the pa~io in and ':hat it is 5 feet 3 inches inside the property line and actually they are quite a distance from any dwellings because of the cul-de-sac. He responded to Commissioner Bouas that his aeighbors had never complained about the wall or patio aad that ha thought he always had good relationshil0/26/87his r~. h11.N1~T~r~AHEIM CITY.~'1e~il3N~.I~S~ C.QM~i.~~.r._45,~.4.~FeR_..~_~.~? _._._..~.4Z~9Q.fl. neighbors, He said he asked his neighbors about this and Choy said it would be fine and that b of his 6 immediate neighbors have patio roofs that do exactly the same thing within 5 feet of the property wall. Commissioner Herbst pointed out the patio posts may bA 5 feet back, but the structure goes over the wa 11. Dr. McGinley responded it dies, but it is still well wit2•iin their property .line. Comrnissioner Herbst stated the roof hangs over the property line and according to the drawings, it looks like they have added o ne big room along tYie back. Dr. McGinley responded 'it is not a room and is open on all sides, except for the wall side. Commissioner Herbst pointed out the roof comes within a few fnrhes of the top of the wall.. Dr. McGinley responded that is correct. Commissioner Carraeillo asked if there is any fee to attend L•he parties referred to, Dr, McGinley responded there is no fee and Commissioner Bouas asked if a donation is made and Dr. McGinley responded a donation is made and they are not open to the public and the public may not attend, only his friends. and by lnvitatio n only. Commissioner Bouas pointed out it has bean in the newspaper. Dr. McGinle•~ stated the}• operate a private club; however, it is a private membership social club. Commissioner Bouas asked if they notify their members that there is going to be a party by putting it in the newspaper or if they solicit uew members. Dr. McGinley stated anyone who wishes to seek membership in the club, may corns to see them and that is the means t2.3ey use to contac t them. Commissioner Bouas asked if it is a singles club and Dr. McGinley responded it is mostly couples. He staled they do many things, that they put on conventions, own a travel agency, do trips and that the sec ial club is a part of that activity. Ho stated tlxey hold a convention in Las Vegas every year and they design their own trips and cruises and tours through the travel agency . He responded to Commissioner Carusillo that the travel agency is located at the corner of La Palma and Sequoia. Commis sioner Herbst asked if the social club or private club would be classif ied as a business_ Malcolm Slaughter, Assistant City Attorney, stated he is not so concerned whether or eat it is classified as a business, but whether or eat it is permitted in a residential zone. He stated he would have to look into it to find out just what the factual issues are. He stated he is more interested in the so called donation and whether or not a person who is invited and doesn't make a donation would be invited back to ttre next party. Dr. McGinley responded the parties are only open to those member- of their own club and any member may attend at any time whether they make a donation or not and the public may not attend andor any conditions. Commissioner Herbst stated he has some reservations about what is going an on this property with the t raffic it has created and he would like to see this matte r continued and have staff look at this further to find out what is actua 1 ly going on. He sfi,ated there have not been any building permits and he thought it is strictly i n violation of the Duildinq Codes and the wall might have .:o come down to make it a structural wall because it is over six feet high. 10/25/87 ~' t'ld~l` v a rill, f ~llltl~ ~+ t.-~M~ a .. v~.LMM A-!±S + v a`.t~L.}t.l.]G4iMfY~~J~Y~ v ~ ...- .Y.1=.Y.Y1 ~SQH: Commi.ssi.onor Herbst offered a motion for a continuance. Mr. Slaughter stated he would like for the Commission to ask the purpose of this club and whether it is an association or a social club. Dr. McGinley responded he called it asocial club, and that he is confused because he thought he was here to talk about a variance for a wall height. Chairman Messe pointed out the Commission needs to know whether or not the use for which they are using the land is legal or not. Dr. McGinley responded the wall has nothing to do with the business or anything else he does and was simply built because of the noise from La Palma. Mr. Slaughter staked the property is zoned for a RS-7200-square foot single-family residential lot and the Code requires any private club, lodge, fraternity or sorority to be approved by a conditional use permit for the zone and a club is described as an association of persons for some common non-profit purpose, and then the Cod© goes on to talk about businesses not being included, etc. He stated from what he has heard. it sounds as if this particular use would require a conditional use permit to conduct a club in a single-family residential zone. Dr. McGinley responded the club fs not conducted out of this address and all the business activities having to do with the club take place out of the office which is properly zoned and for which they have a license. Chairman Messe asked if thei ~~~eetings take place at this residence. Dr. McGinley responded some meetings do take place here on a fairly regular basis. Chairman Messe stated a motion is on the floor for a continuance in order for staff to look into whether or not the use is one which would require a conditional use permit. Commissioner McBurney seconded the motion for a continuance. Commissioner Bouas asked if the continuance is to allow staff to check the wall. Commissioner Herbst stated if he were to make a motion right now, it would be for denial, bur, wanted to be sure what is going on because from the pictures and the plans, it appears the whole back yard has been made into an area for a meeting place. Dr. McG~nley stated the back yard has a swimming pool and patio. Commissioner Feldhaus asked if this is a charter membership club or just a social gathering for friends. Dr. McGinley responded it is not a membership club and is more than a social gathering and they do many things and a pars of it has to do with their travel agency. ACTION: Conunissioner Herbst stated he would like to re-offer his motion for a continuance in order to give staff a chance to look at the use and see what is going on on this residential property. Commissioner McBurney seconded the motion and MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY for a 4-week continuance. 10/26/87 j~~,~tAHEIM~TX_p,~,,ANNING OMMIS.~.IS~3,.~C.T9~~..._._~.~.7._. 87-@9~. Mr. Slaughter asked the Commission to request the applicant to give names of: the officers of this club or the people in charge. Chairman Messe pointed out the City staff would be in contact with the applicant and could get it at that time. Chairman Messe pointed out the matter has been continued to November 23, 1987, and asked ff that would be acceptable to Dr. McGinley. Commissioner Bouas asked staff to chock on the wall structure. Commissioner Feldhaus asked how far the offire is from the residence where they have the parties. Dr. McGinley responded about one-half a mile or a little further. Greg Hastings asked for clarification regarding the Commission's request for checking the wall and pointed out a condition is proposed whereby if th;.s is approved, they must submit plans to tt:e Building Department. commissioner Herbst stated if it is over 6 feet, they would have to submit plans, drawings and engineering calculations. He stated he wanted the wall checked to be sure if it is approved, the Commission would not be approving something that would keep causi.nq problems in the area. He stated in looking aL' the whole project, it. appears they have developed a meeting place along the wall in the back yard, totally under cover, with quite a few tables involved. He stated he did not think this use belongs in the R-1 area and that is what he would like far staff to check. He stated the patio roof and tt:e wall do not meet Code and the Planning Commission is going to have to make a decision whether that patio roof should come down and whether the wall should come down to the regular height. Chairman Messe pointed out again that this matter has been continued to November 23, 1987, and asked Dr. McGinley to make himself available to staff to provide information on the officers of the club. Dr. McGinley responded that is acceptable. . CIO. 4 SIR NEGATIVE U~~~~~4N~ ~"I~VBR OF CODE REQUIREMENT ~ CONDITI01~$I~, US~~R~3~-~.._~.9.~2 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: STEWART GREEN ASSOCIATES, 2914 330 5th Avenue, S.W., Calgary, Alberta Canada TZP OL4. AGENT: ERLANDSON-HIBBS & ASSOCIATES, 6200 E. Canyon Rim Road, Suite 212 E, Anaheim, CA 92807, ATTN: ALLEN HI6BS. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 27.1 acres located at the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and State College Boulevard, and further described as 2280 East Lincoln Avenue. To permit a 22,000-square foot physical fitness center with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. There was 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. Alien Hibbs, agent, explained this project is a 22,000-square foot health facility which includes aerobics, gym, juice bar and accessory areas. 10~ ,,/87 b~i~.~,~~.a~c~c~~~.xK~__~Q~txs~.~an,_Q~TO~~~3.~,~~~.~ _ _~z..:~4.~ THE PUE3[,IC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Meese naked if State Collego and Lincoln is a critical intersection and Paul Singer responded it. ia. Chairman Messe pointod out the dedications have nut bean included in the conditions. Mr, Singer responded they did not request dedications with this project becauso there are some buildings in t1~e way of the dedication. Malcolm Slaughter stated the City ciid propose to require dedication of the intersection on a different zoning matter, not related to this request and that is acceptable to the City. Responding to Commissioner Bouas, Mr. Hibbs stated they have 131 spaces in the unused area at the roar of the post office building, which they would use. Commissioner Bouas asked the maximum number of people they could service at one time. Mr. Hibbs explained a traffic report was prepared by Weston Pringle which shows the available spaces in the center which era not being utilized. Chairman Messe pointed out the plans show there are no courts for racquotL.'1 and there is no pool or Jacuzzi and asked if the applicant would agree with that restriction if this is approved. Mr. Hibbs responded he would. Commissioner Herbst pointod out other health clubs have had. higher parking requirements becauso people stay longer and the parking requirements are different at different times and that does become a problem. He stated the Commissior. would want to see a stipulation that tY,e use would not includA racquetball facilities ar a spa which ar.e the types of things which keep the people there longer. Mr. Hibbs responded he would have no problem with that stipulation. ~,TION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit a 22,000-square foot physical fitness center with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 27.1 acres located at the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and State Collego Boulevard and further described as 2280 E. Lincoln Avenue) and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that ik has considered the Negative Declaration togAther with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Herbst offered n motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTIOti CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning (:omm.ission dons hereby grant waiver of Code requirement on the basis that the parking waiver will not cause an increase in traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity nor adversely affect any adjoining land uses and granting of the parking waiver under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim; and further on the basis that the building is on the rear portion of the property and the parking is not in the major shopping center and that the access from the adjacent apartment complex will be closed off with a 6-foot high black wall. 10/26/87 t Commissioner Herbsa asdwouldabecincludedpinhthetresolutgontball unite, swimming pool and p Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC87-•217 and moved for it~an~ssage and adoption that the An++heim City Planning Commission does hereby g Conditional Use Permht18o032030.035sendtaubjecthtominterdepartmentaleCommittoe 18.03.030.030 throng recommendations including an additionagl olddnd thetas covenant8aha11 bg racquetball courts or. spas or swimmin p recorded to preclude those uses. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES; BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, C'ttUSILLO, FEL~D}1AUS, HERBST, MC pURNEY, MESSE NOES: NUKE ABSENT: NONE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. F1R NEGAT~Y.E_.P-~~1r_~SA~.~-..~~~4~t~~~ONAL Ste. E PEQMi_T..~91--~~ ~.~t' NO • .~. PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: LAURANCE N. MUNSON, 16480 Har3701BNu1Potrero~DOive, Fountain Valley, CA 92708. AGEiBSdescribedLasa nOirreqularly-shaped parcel of Fullerton, CA 92635. Property land consisting of approximately 1.1 acres and generally located north and west of a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land approximately '110 feet by 135 feet at the northwest ofr140 feetionothe north sideGofbLincolneAvenue,handn46 approximak.e frontages feet ors the west side of Gilbert Street, 2415 W. Lincoln Avenue (Units B an C). To permit. can-sale alcoholic beverages in an enclosed restaurant. There was no one inaffarenorthwas notsread,lit isoreferred touandcmadegaepart ar_d although the at P of the minutes. Russell Mangold, agent, explained he is currently operating two businesses, one in Anaheim and onQOiiePlaHengtatednhelhasrbeeniin thetrestaurant business address to seat 110 p p since 1948. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Boydstun asked the names of his restaurants. Mr. Mangold stated he ownSteak HouaeninaPlacentia andhthat thiso i111bettheEls Lodge and also Russell's a foods. same type restaurant with the same typ Commissioner McBuraey stated this particular corner seems t10b26/g~quented by i MINUTES,.~iA~LM,S~1Y_.~LB~Zi.I~3S.-44M~1,I~&I-0.~44.TQ.~ER 26. 1.Q,Q~_ ~_~Z~.$14 Commissioner Herbst added that covenant prohibiting racquetball unite, swimming pool and apes would bo included in the resolution. Conuniasioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC87-217 anfl moved foc its paseage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2959 r rsuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations including an additional condition that thare shall be no racquetball courts or spas or swimming pool and thal• a covenant shall be recorded to preclude those uses. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following veto: AYES: BOUA5, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FF.LDHAUS, HERBST, MC IIURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITf;t~, N0. 5 ~~, NEG~IVE DECLARATION AND ~OND~~.IONAL USF HERMIT N 2951 FUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: LAURANCE N. MUNSON, 16480 Harbor Boulevard, #102, Fountain Valley, CA 92708. AGENTS: RUSSEI.I~ MANGOGD, 3701 N. Potrero Drive, Fullerton, CA 92635. ProperL•y is described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.1 acres and generally located north and west of a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land approximately 110 feet by 135 feet at the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Gilbert Street and having approximate frontages of 140 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, and 46 feet on the west side of Gilbert Street, 2415 W. Lincoln Avenue (Units B and C). To permit on-sale alcoholic beverages in an enclosed restaurant. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to end made a part of the minutes. Russell Mangold, agent, explained he is currenL•ly operating two businesses, one in Anaheim and one in Placentia, and is proposing another one at this address to seat 110 people. He stated he has been in the restaurant business since 1948. THE PUBLIC HEARI27G WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Boydstun asked the names of his restaurants. Mr. Mangold stated he owns The Inn on East Miraloma which was formerly the Els Lodge and also Russell's Steak House in Placentia and that this will be the same type restaurant with the same type foods. Commissioner McBurney stated this particular corner seems to be frequented by 10/26/87 M1~UTF,S.~ A~AKEIM CITY PL1-NNING COMMI~4.t~.,~~.T9~EH.3St._.1,41-_---------.~•~=-~~.1 students from Savannah High School and he would be concerned about the sale of alcoholic beverages so close to the school. Commissioner Herbst stated in the past a business with the license to sell alcoholic beverages had to be a certain distance from a school. He asked if the petitioner has approval from the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board. Mr. Russell responded he does not have approval as yet, but it has been posted for 20 days and letters have been sent to residents within 500 feet. He staled he has a letter signed by the principal of Savannah High School which indicates no objection as long as the alcohol is served inside the restaurant. Mr. Mangold explained the food would be similar to the Russell Steak House and they will have a merchant's lunch with the steaks, iarime rib and seafood dinners. Commissioner Boydstun stated this type restaurant will not attract studAnts. ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Carusillo and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit on-sale alcoholic beverages in an enclosed restaurant on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.1 acres and generally located north and west of a rectangularly-shaped parcel of .land approximately 110 feet by 135 feet at the ::orthwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Gilbert Street and further described as 2415 West Lincoln Avenue (Units B and C); and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon 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 Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Bouas offered Resolution No. PC87-218 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2951 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AWES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERHST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NUES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM~10. 6 FTR NEGATIVE DECLARATION RECLASSIFICATION.,~1Q.,,_ 87-88-],8 AND ~RIANCE N0. 3710 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: SPIROS GIANNOUTSOS, 1469 Alabama Ln, PGH 15216 Pennsylvania, WILLIAM T. & MELANIE C. BRAND, 10712 Hastings Dr., Villa Park, CA 92667, & RAYMOND JAMES S ELSA PARADA LINEHAN, 741 N. East St., Anaheim, CA 92805. AGENTS: NARAYAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, 12b31 Newport Avenue, 10/26/87 «~- lJl.~lY~iV.Y.t....~11L]li4/~63J-Y+~21-L.6fI)I211A~LX ~YI"~'1i ~11A VAll.~l1,l~_1illil+ll7~~_Y.1..~~-Y-(-__.~....-___~~-_..57 i Suite 204, Tustin, CA 92680 ATTU: BANJIT NARAYAN. Property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.7 acre, 741, 747, and 'l 55 North East Streot•. RS-7200 to RM-1200 or a loss intense zono. Waiver of maximum structural height to construct a 3-story (including below grade parking ]evel), 25-unit apartment complex. There were fourteen persons indicating their preaonce in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Mr. Bahar, agent, stated this project has 20~ more than required for open spaco recreation and is 7 stories even though they would be allowed a semi-subterranean garage. He stated the required parking is 63 spaces and they are providing 6b spaces. He explained the waiver of Cude is necessary because of the deffni.tion of a story concerning the subterranean garage. Lloyd Lassley, 738 N. Rosa Street, directly behind this property, stated this is a single-family neighborhood and they are practically surrounded with apartments and referred to new apartment buildings with.fn a short distance on La Palma. He stated people who live in the area are boing forced to move out and they are losing everything they have in the area. He stated his property backs up to this and he has a swimming pool right along the side yard where this project will be built and he would not want to swim in his pool with those units that close with windows overlooking his property. He stated the developer has indicated he will plant trees 25 feet apart and asked what good that would do. He atatod there is a petition to be submitted with 146 names of peoplo in tree neighborhood against this project. Kathryn Lingle, 715 N. Bush, stated she is an original owner in the area and raised 5 children there and ]gas lived there for 34 years. She stated they feel apartments on East St.reot would generate a multitude of more problems and as the situation is now, without more apartments, traffic accidents occur frequently and all southbound traffic has problems because of the realignment of the street and compound the problem, cars often stop to make left-hand turns into the day-care c$nter across the street from where the apartments would be located and them have been a number of rear-arid accidents in that area, as well as major smash-ups. She stated there have been several near-misses in and out of the convenience stare at the intersection of North and East and La Palma. She stated there is heavy foot traffic now across North Street from the apartments going to the convenience store; and that since the City blocked off North Street to the west many years ago, this intersection has become extremely hazardous. She asked where the visitors of these tenants would park and pointed out tenants and their guests would frequent the nearby convenience store, increasing the problems. She stated East Street is always busy and any children from these apartments would likely filter into their surrounding neighborhood and could get involved in activities detrimental to their p6ace and quiet such as vandalism, noise, and litter. 10/26,'87 MINUTES, EIM C~~~3_TrA~J3I~l.QrC.4.~M.I.~S.~QL~..~'.CTQ~F~3_~6• X87 _ _._-.~--~T.~.~~. She stated it is very hard for a person who owns their home and tries to live peacefully in a neighborhood to watch what is happening. She stated there have been a lot of had things happening there, such as killings, and that the apartments on Mavis Street, which the City built without approval, have become instant slums and uo one is safe to walk down the street theret and they feel they will be completely cloned in with those apartments. She stated A.:aheirt~ is tou nice to allow all of these buildings and the people who wc:.id live in these apartments will be law income people and they will ruin the area. She stated this area is considered "older Anaheim" and that is really a shame. Grace Ward, 734 N. Bush, stated she has lived there since 1974 and she is opposed L-o a 3-story apartment complex. She stated there are trucks coming from East over to Bush every day and her house is shaking day and night. Sh~3 asked where these people are going to park their cars; and that she felt a 3-story building and the additional traffic on East and North Streets will be a mess and she did not think it would be a good project. She stated she lives almost on Lliv corner of North Street and there are motor~yclea going up and down Bosh Street at BO mph and she has called the Police, but by the time they get there, the motorcycles are gone; and that they have had killings in the area and do not need any more buildings of this type on North Street. She stated the Planning Commissioners do not live there and do not know what is it like to live on North Street or East Streot, etc. She stated she is very much opposed to these apartments. Trent Wilson, 1001 E. North Street, stated he was here about ono month ago when they were discussing an 11-unit project right next to this; that he was against it then and he has been asked to speak for quite a few people who could not attend the meeting today. He presented a petition with 146 names, all basically opposed and expressing the same frustrations which have been heard today. He asked what they can do about these apartment proposals which are coming in almost monthly. He explained he has heard the property just across the street is going into escrow witt'. a contingency for snottier group of apartments and they feel their humes are not only being surrounded by apartments, but are being pushed out and asked if that is progress. He asked if the voices in protest from 150 people are enough to sway the attitude away from this request, or do they have to resign themselves to the fact they now face a slum, oven though they are brand new in construction, but old and negative in lifestyle to single-family homes. Mr. Wilson stated the 4-unit apartment project which is exist: :g on N. East Street leas at least 15 parked cars on the street and un the s.dewalk; and that there are a number of bachelors who live in the units and by counting the cars, he felt there are more than two persons per bedroom. He stated he knows it is necessary for them to live together in order to pool their money to afford these apartments because the rents are about $900 per month and that is quite a contrast to low-income or affordable housing and it just adds to the crime and congestion in the area. He stated the units are 525 square feet which is about the size of a garage and stated this is counter to their direction of maintaining a peaceful single-family residential area. He stated they would guess he would continue to come to these meetings and say basically the same things they are saying now to the people who want to develop these apartment projects. 10/26/bl - ~II1~U.T.~&.~.AN~~IT~C..~~A~.tLG_.59..~~9~~4.C.~4.~~_.~~.-_~~'L. __~~ Z-.9 ~4. Thomas Gelker, 1025 E. North, stated there are 4 apartments across the street now and and they have 14 cars and 2 trucks and none of them park in the garage and keep the garage for vehicle recreation or a partf room and park on the street or on their yard or in the driveway and invited tltie Planning Commissioners to come over any evening. He sL•atod the 8eveloper will build a project like this and then sell it and it goes downhill and if this was allowed, it could become another Mavis Street situation on East Street. He stated he is very much opposed to this and thought it would be detrimental to the area which is now a sinyle-family residential area and that is the way it should remain because the renters do not have a real interest .in the property and L•he people who own homes who are putting 'their mosey into their homes to keep them up and make it a morn desirable piece of property, but renters do not seem to have that same interest and the property just deteriorates. Elizabeth East, 734 N. Rose Street, stated her property is right behind the proposed apartments and she has lived in her home for 25 years and has raised her ck~ildren there •~nd the last 15 years has been a single parent and She planned to pay for her home and remain there, bL`. the neighborhood has deteriorated so badly, she is oat sure she can stay. She stated traffic is horrible and when she comes home from work at 4 or 4:30 p.m., she does not want to go back out again until after 7:00 p.m. She stated she did not know what the City could do about the traffic, but these additional units will increase the problems and she did not think it would be a benefit to the people who live in that neighborhood, and would only benefit the developer who has no long term interest in the area. Ray Linehan, 741 N. East Street, stated he would agree with the developer's point of view because he lives on East Street where the problems are and has lived there for 11 years and has raised 3 boys there and it is a real hazard with cars out of control, etc. He stated if a developer offered to buy his property, even through he would not be able to replace it with this size of lot, he would jump at the chance to sell it. He stated h© thought that would be an improvement for the area and that i.t needs someone to spend a lot of money *_o get the type og units which would get the rents up and bring the type of people in there who would take carp of the property. He stated he knows it is difficult to tell people that probably 5 homes have been bought or will be bought and are just waiting for the right price. He stated people will not be fixing up their properties, and explained he started to fix up his property, but it was surrounded by rental units and he did not see any need to spend any more money on it and if someone offered to purchase his property, he would sell and felt if someone took dawn some of the older homes and put in a nice compley, the people would stay and it would be a benefit for everyone. He suggested the Commissioners drive by that area on their way home and stated they will see homes that need a lot of repairs. Mr. Bahar, developer, stated the citizens in this area who live in single-family homes do not like multiple-complexes adjacent to their area, but it has nothing to do with the design of the units and that only one waiver is involved. He stated that area on East Street is subject to change from RM•-7200 to RM-1200 and there have been plans submitted and they have worked out most of the problems and the project does look good and he does want to improve that area on East Street. 10/26/67 ri~NSI~'.E~AN~HEI~(_S~.T~-~N.~?~--S:9I~1I.S.S.~..413.~ OCTOBF~.~G 1987 .____$Z~1~` 1'HE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Responding to Commissioner Carusillo, Greg Hastings explained the Code the he i.ght o f the requires that within 150 feet of any single-family zone, building can not exceed 1 story and Code defines this as a 3-story building located approximately 11 feet from the west property line and 19 feet from the south property line. He stated although the parking is below grade, it is considered a storyt however, from grade level, only 2 stories are above level. Responding to Commissioner Carusillo, Mr. Hastings explained the height of the building is 24 feet. Commissioner Carusillo stated there arcs concerns with traffic safety, especially with left turns into the project, and the penetration on the neighbor's privacy to the west. Responding to Commissioner Boydstun, Mr. Bahar explained there would be windows on the west side of the project. Commissioner Boydstun pointed out they would be looking right into those people's backyards. Chairman Messe asked if the developer was aware of the Commission's policy to have a 20-foot landscaped buffer adjacent to single-family homes. Mr. Bahar responded that was mentioned and that he could provide 20 feet; h~~wever, moving it would sacrifice the inner courtyard which is meant as recreational area. Commissioner Herbst asked why he chose to develop to the RM-1200 zone standards rather than RM-2400. Mr. Bahar responded RM-1200 is what staff gave him. Commissioner Herbst stated that is the General Plan designation and the property is zoned RS-7200 and there is RM-1200 developed on the corner. He stated he has very severe reservations about this project and Lgreed with the neighbors that the traffic on North Street is very bad. He explained he liven on Liberty Lane for 27 years and is very familiar with that area and that is one of the worst corners in Anaheim and unfortunately, when North Street was cut off, it created an unsafe situation. Ho stated a 24-apartment project that close to ~1R corner would be overbuilding the property and he would not want to start precedent along East Street, even though apartments are already nearby on Sycamore Street, but they are 4-plexes and not a 24 unit complex. He stated he would is adamantly opposed to invading the privacy of the other properties by having views down into their backyards. He stated the plans do not show the line-of-sight and that is one of the things that has to be considered. He stated those homes have been there for a long time and those people can not get out of the commitments of their homes easily; and that things are changing, but the changes should not interfere with people's homes. He stated it could be done without overbuilding the property and still s*_ay in line with what is there and he could go along with something, but not 24 units where there had been 3 homes previously. Ms. Bahar stated the price of the land has to be considered and Commissioner Herbst responded the Commission is not concerned about economics or the price of the land and are more concerned about zoning and the use of the land and how it affects the people around it. Mr. Bahar stated the Commission should consider everything and this area is going to grow. 10/26/87 ~Ni1xES. _A~1.~F~~~.~.~~..El~elitlLil.NS~_~.4M~ID~~C~T~~+R~6. 19_@.ZZ._..Y..__.___...~@?~ @i.4 Commissioner Bouaa staled lose unite would be the same situation as the complex on the cornet and that was a mistake and it there was some other kind of unite ther~•, that r-umbor of people would not he laving in those units. Sho added Code Enforcement ahou.ld check that ouL• to see what is going on there and clear It up and thorn should not be 14 cars parked there for the number of people who are living in those units. Commissioner Bouas stated the signal at La Palma and cast Street is going to be changed; and that there are accidents there everyday. She stated certainly East Street is a changing street and she thought th9 people in the neighborhood are r.oncerned because of what is happening with the other units and the i-umber of people living there and until they are sure this will bo cleaned up, they will bo concerned, and she did not blame them for not wantin, apartments in the :r .ire A, but sooner or later, apartments are going to go in and single-family homes are not going to be built on Last Street and people will need to realize that this is going to happen. Sho s+sked if the developer planned to keep the property or sell it. Mr. Dakar responded he is just the architect and the complex is not designed Co be a trashy project and i.t has more than ample parking, wT-ich is secured and t-nderground, and no ono can park there because i~ w.ill be enclosed. Commissioner Bouas stated it sounds like this will be a good project ax-d would att ct the type of people they want there. Mr. Behar stated every apt-rtment unit has c,nough parking and he did not think the people will be parkincT in the street and this is not a low income project. Commissioner Bouas stated the concerns of opposition are because of thin high rents that will be charged, requiring more people ~.o live toget''~r, an-i there is also a concern with traffic and she thought until the traffic problcams on East Street are .zettlod, this is goir~q to be a concern. Mr. liahar stated he did rot think this project would create a significant amount of traffic and the Negative Declaration shows no significant impact. He pointed out a nice apartment project could be a buffer to the single-family area from t:~P ~-er-vy traffic and this project will provide a buffer. Commissioner Bouas stated she thought the project needs to he redesigned to provide the 2~J-foot landscaped buffer, so it would not Le overlooking the single-family homes. Chairman Messo pointed out the City Council rerontly denied a project 65 feet from single-family zone because they felt it was too close. Mr. Behar asked if he stayed 20 feat fror+ the property line and took out the windc,wa, if the project could be approved, or if this is a concern because of the Density. Commissioner McBurney stated he felt the density is definitely a problem and *sked how many units could be constructed at RM-2400. Greg Hastings responded probably 12 to 15. l:ommissioner McBurney stated that would be more equitable to }aim and he would rather look at that than a 25-unit project. 10/26/87 i ~" ~, ,. { . .~,, ;,,. S ANANE~M C_TY.34ANNIHG CQfi1.Qt1~QS~Q@Fi~-~~---L9~ 97-817 MIt~IiZE • . Malcolm Slaught~+r, Assistant City Attorney, stated the Planning Cummiaeion should not assure the applicant that they might approve a new plan. Ho stated the Commission has two requests, one is that the req~lest is to rezone the property to RM-1200 or a leas intense zones and the other request is for a variance and the Commission could act favora'~ly on one and not the other. Chairman Messe stated they could rezone the property to RM-2400. Malcolm Slaughter responded that would tell the applicant what kind of project the Commission would be willing to consider. Commissioner Herbst stated he does not like rezoning 3 properties and felt there should be a public hearing, pcssibly for rezoning the whole block to RM-2400 and getting the public input concerning that issue, but rezoning 3 lots to RM^au00OU8uldHerstated heobgem and felt the Planning Commission should be very opposed to this protect. Chairman Mosso stated the General Plan designates it as Medium neiisity. Commissioner Herbst pointed out that Commission could approve this one ~~t a time or change the General Plan to Low Medium Density. Malcolm Slaughter stated the Commission has the ability to rezone this property under this application and could set a public hearing for the rest of the block and then determine that no one else wants to rezone th~rii property, and t'•t could be a problem. Commissioner Herbst stated he thought there should be a General Plan Amendment stua;~ with public hearings and the possibility of rezoning both sides of the street; that there i~ RS-7200 with some businesses and that it needs to be reviewed as an area. He stated on East Street there will be same changes due to traffic, but those changes should be compatible with everybody and that public hearings should be held to see what people want to have there. Ma:.colm Slaughter stated at the present time, the General Plan indicates Cho Medium Density designation which permits up to 36 units per acre and that the Commission co~ild initiate an amendment and ask staff to include the entire frontage, or rezone it to RM-2400 which could be accommodated under the present General Plan designation or request a General Plan study be done to change the General Plan designation from Medium Density to Low Medium Density a~td in either case, there will be public hearings. Greg fiastings stated if the Commission wishes to rezone the property withouL• a 3eneral Plan Amendment some one could still bring in an RM-1200 project. Commissioner Herbst stated that is his concern and applicants do look at the General Plan and if is shows Medium Density, that is what they want to propose. He stated he felt the General Plan should b~ amended because of the traffic and density problems in that area should look at what is really happening and the ronge'stion that would be created with allowing apartments witho~it the facilities to handle the traffic. He asked how long it would taY.e to do a General Plan Amendment to change it to Low Density for that area ~n both sides of the street. Greg Hastings'responded it would take approximately 6 to 7 rceeks and 6 weeks would bring it to the meeting of necember 7th. Commissioner Herbst stated he would like to continue this hearing until after the public hearing is held to consider the General Plaa Amendment and then the develoger would have an opportunity to redesign the project after the input is received. 10/26/H7 -u MI,.t3IiT.F~,S.~...AL4.IiH.FIM CITY PLAIN.~NSa_~9MM1~,S,~~.4Ny..S2~T.4.~B_26~.3.9~_----._.._~?_-.~.@ Commissioner Herbst stated he thought the General Plan Amendmment should be prepared f or kho December 7th meeting. Malcolm Sleugtiter stated he has heard the Commission refer to both sides of East Street and there are some RM-1200 development on the east aide of East Stroat. Commissioner Herbst asked the maximum circulation and how much traffic that street can hold. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, responded it is a. capacity during peak hours now. He responded he did not think this apartment would affect the traffic that much and the problem is affecting East Street is that there is no alternative north/south arterial and it is thrr~ugh traffic, rather than local reaider~t3.a1 traffic. He stated it makes no difference whether the groperty is developed RM-2400 or RM-1?.00, and whop this area is developed and the street is recor_atructod to fts ultimate width, that will provide capacity for the proposed now units and through traffic and left-turns can be accomplished from the reserve lane rather than the travel lane. He stated there are no left-turn lanes at this time, but if Easl• Street is redeveloped, it could ba widened to a~~ortunodate tl~e additional lane and there is not enough room to put .in both lanes unless both sides are widened to ultimate and there is no street parking allowed at this time. He stated East Street has heavy traffic and it will not get any batter, but ttte apartments will not make a lot of difference. He stated the Improvements should be done to Lincoln. He stated the signal at La Palma and East Street .s scheduled for reconstruction in the current fiscal year and there is going to be separate left-turn indicators. Commissioner Carusillo asked how far the General Plan study should go on East Street. Commissioner Herbs h. stated there are apartments near Sycamore and the study should be to the RS-7200 area. Greg Hastings stated the General Plan designation is for Medium Density from La Palma to Wilhelmina and then it becomes commercial and then Medium Density at Lincoln. Commissioner Herbst stated the people present in opposition should consider the fact that this property will not be developed at RS-7200 and felt if it is rezoned to RM-2400, there is a better possibility of getting the street widened to provide the left-turn lanes and that would be a benefit to everyone. ACTIQN: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled mAeting of January 4, 1988, in order to consider a General Plan Amendment for both sides of East Street. Commissioner Herbst stated he would offer ~- motion to direct staff to init~.ate a General Plan Amc:idment study for both side of East Street from North Street to Wilhelmina Street, in order to reduce the General Plan designation to Loy: Medium Density. Greg Hastings stated if the Commission is only requesting a General Plan Amendment, staff could seat the public hearing for December 7, 1987. He asked if the study should bE: to Wilhelmina on both sides of the street. Commissioner Herbst responded it should be done on both sides. A~~QN: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by C~~mmissioner Bcuas and MOTION CARRIED to set the public hearing for the General Plan Amendment for the meeting of December 7, 1987. 10/26/87 ~` M.~I~11~E~._._AN~iFrSMSI.~~~$~.~I,I~C~.Q1~M~S~..~Qk~ OCTO~R_2.G....~.R$1......~ .~.~.Z._41.2 Chairman Messe stated staff has indicated both hearings could be held on December 7th and Commissioner Herbst stated he had wanted to get the hearing past t1~e holiday season. Mr. Bahar asked if the pormanant•ly zoning would be sat at that hearing. ~~T~.QL•?: Commissioner He rbat offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouae and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of Reclassification No. 67-88-]P and Variance No. 3710 be changed to December 7, 1987, rather than January 4, 1988, as previous]y moved. RECESSED: 3:15 p.m. RECONVENED: 3:25 p.m. r„'~M_1~. 7 ~,IR NEGATIVE Df~,ARATION, RE~1rg~SIF'ICATION N0. 87-8@=],9~ ~iAIVER Q.~ ~QpE REQuIREM,~1 ~NDITJO~$L_.ll~p~RMj,'~~0. 29,53._ANp_~.Ly~R 0~~.S?1ZL,~P4~~ gyp. 5a3 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: M. DAVID LEWIS, M.D., c/o STAN PRICE, 2800 28th Street, Suite 315, Santa Monica, CA 90405. AGENT: MAGDY HANNA, 4000 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 680, Newport Beach, CA 92667. Property is descr;.bed as an irregularly-shaped parce 1 of land consisting of a~~proximately 3.13 acres, 1660 1664 West Broadway. CL to RM-120U or a less intense zone. To permit a 179-unit senior citizens apartment complex plus a resident managers unit with waivers of (a) required type of parking spaces and (b) minimum building site area per dwelling ~~nit. Waiver of Council Policy No. 543 pertaining to density bonuses. There were five persons 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. Magdy Hanna, agent, stated this is a difficult property to develop and he thought after a lot of study, that they have provided ;. good project and that the variance is l:,r 1 unit mc:e than allowed by Code. He stated he met with the neighbors and did not see very much opposition and did encourage them to attend this meeting today. He stated ho could provide a buffer between this project and the single -family homes because they are sensitiv; to those concerns and a 20-foot wide landscaped buffer is proposed, with the first unit 100 feet from the single-family homes. Alan Marshall, architect, stated this is a 179-unit, plus 1. manager's unit, senior citizen project and the single-family homes were their greatest concerr, and L'hey feel the 20-foot wide 'landscaped buffer will satisfy those concerns and protect their privacy. He stated the Code requires the setback to be twice the height of the building and the b~::ldinq is proposed at 35 feet so the setback would be required at 70 feet, but they are proposing 100 feet. He stated they had include d a pond in the central courtyard which will be 10/26/87 ~, MILZIT~~.._~l~~t~~'~C~b~.~~1.I~..~.Q1~M.T~S.39~i~...9_G~.4.9ER__~_~2Q~. _._$_Z:~~Q recreational leisure area with a gazebo setting and there is a spa proposed, but no swimming pool is included. Ho stated there are 5 stairway systems within the entire project with a large recreational room on the first floor and described other amenities proposed for the project. Paul E'lanY~agan, 1637 Tedmar, stated the developer referred to 5 access points and there are only 2. He stated Code would permit. 95 units and they are proposing 180 units which is about 8a~ more than allowed ar' with the bonus, they could build Z5~ more subsidized units which would permit 119 units, and still is 50~ more than allowed. He pointed out the developer had indicated there would be only 1 bedroom units in the comr'ex, but the staff report refers to 2-bedroom units, wlth no more than 2 parsons permitted to live in the units. He asked what a senior citizen is since there is a condition permitt.inq a person to to 45 years of age and stated he was concerned a senior citizen with a lot of relatives could change relat3.vea every 60 days. Mr. Flannigan stated he has not seen the complete plans, but was concerned about the trash pick-up area because trash was picked up when the hospital was there at 6100 a.m. He stated the project is not supposed to affect surrounding properties, but felt approving a 3-story project would deprive other people who .ve tried to do similar things to their property of that privilege. Fie stated he did n study concerning the 100-foot setback and with a 35-foot high structure and a 6-foot tall persor. and even with the trees, the occupants would have a complete view of their backya: s. He stated the existing trees wore referred to and the developer has indicated those trees would remain and addiL•ional trees would be planted, but. in the winter when the leaves are gone, their privacy would bo violated. t?e stated also 15-gallon trees are not very ;arge and would not provide muci- benefit. Ho stated he understands there would be 5-feet high walls ot~ their balconies with glass insets which would give occupants a complete view of their area and he felt patio walls on the outside portions facing their homes should be 6 feat high and should 'i.e solid and not have a view through them. He stated there is a 6-foot high block wall on the property line and the de.dlopar has agreed to replace it, but with a 35-foot high building, a 6-foot high wall serves no purpose. Marie Pittman, 1543 W. Tedmar, asked the age limit for senior citizens. Chairman Messe stated in this case, the age restriction is 55. Ms. Pittman asked if this complex could be changed from a senior citizens complex in the future. Chairman Messe stated the project would not meet the City Codes and could not be changed. Commissioner Carusillo suggested staff explain the senior citizen criteria. Debbie Vagts stated the term is 30 ysars and it could possibly be changed at the and of that 30-year period. Ms. Pittman staked it would take a .long time :..~r the trees to grow tall enough to be effective in providing privacy and felt their house values would drop with a complex such as this behind their property. She stated she purchased her property for an investment and the area is completely surrounded as it is now and with this complex, she would have no privacy whatsoever. 10/26/87 MIhrIJ~ES.._~HF~MS.~X LAS NN~NG ~41$1~~i.~.~Q~~~.~34.._~287 _~@2-@.~.~. Commissioner Boydstun stated Page B, Paragraph 15 of the staff report refers to a senior citizen as being 45 years of age and that must be an error. It was cl..cified that refers to a person living with a senior citizen providing support, etc. Greg Hastings stated the Anaheim Code defines a senior citizen as a person 55 yearn of age in a project over 150 units. Commissioner Herbst further explained the Anaheim Code required a senior citizen be 62 years of ages however, the Sr.ate pry ompted the City and mandated that when a project has more than 150 units, the senior citizen can be 55 years of age. Commissioner Bouas stated the Commission should request staff to review the parking codas fc+r a senior citizen project when the age restriction i.s 55 and it should be changed. She referred to the Anaheim Hills project which provides buses and senior type complexes which does not need as much parking as a complex with seniors at 55. She noted the Pacesetter project for seniors does not have adequate parking and stated seniors at 55 still drive their cars and do need parking. Malcolm Slaughter slated the 30-year limit pertains to the period of time the developer must provide and agree there will be affordable units in the complex, but the designation of senior citizen complex does not change at the end of the 30-year period, and it will always be a senior citizen's project. Debbie Bjornson, 435 S. Arden, stated she is concerned about their privacy with balconies overlooking their yards and oven with the 5-foot high wall at 35 feet high, the occupants could still look down on their yards and that would be an invasion of their privacy. She staL•ed she is concerned about the parking also because 55 year old senior citizens do drive and also, the additional person in the unit could be 45 years of age and asked where those people will park. Mr. Flannagan stated there are 144 parking spaces proposed and they are all open with only 2 covered and stated he is 58 years old and still drives a car and h:s mother is 79 and still drives. Mr. Hanna stated there is only one access point and it is on Broadway. He stated t}io 5 entries mentioned are to the building and explained there is only one Luilding with several entrances; and thaL• they are providing 1 bedroom, 1 bath units and according to Code, no more than 2 persons can reside in these units and they are willing to abide by Lhat restriction. He stated there are trash enclosures thrnugho~it the project and are convenient for the occupants. He stated they plau to maintain the existing mature trees on the west6rn boundary and will be adding more trees to provide privacy along thaL• south houndary and there are no views where the senior citizens could look down into their backyards. He stated they will build a new block wall between the single-family homes and the project anu will place more trees along that wall iL• needed. He stated he is not requesting a waiver for the height of the building. Mr. Hanna stated the 35 fool height is to the top of the roof and actually, to the bottom of the third floor, the heig}-.t is 'L2 feet maximum and there are balconies on the third floor and they are over 100 feet from the single-family homes. 10/26/87 y` ~• ~, MINUTES=.ANgHEIM C~TY_P.i.A~l~C9I~lI~~I~41i._.._Q~.ZQk~R_.~.~..,_.~.4.~Z-...~______..._~?.~1.~.$_ Commissioner Carusillo clarified a 6-foot tall person standing on the balcony of the third floor would be 22 feet from the ground level or eye level. Mr. Hanna stated the project on Ball and Walnut (Acadia Woods by the Lutheran Church) has a similar density and this is something that has been approved by the Commission before. He stated they are offering the units to senior citizens and do not intend to change them ~o regular apartments and the Code would not a:low that. He added t}iey plan to retain the units for a long time and will provide 72 uniL•s of affordable hour~ing which is badly needed in this City, and 45 units would rent at X388 per mon~ir. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAy CLOSED. Chairman Messe stated the line-of-sight from the balconies nn the southern part of the building to the south was not discussed and also the tree screen and parking were not discussed. }Fe stated he realizes they are meeting Code with .8 parking space pe: unit, but the concern was the 55-year old senior citizen who might have a vehicle. Mr. Hanna stated a lot of. seniors do not have cars and that is why the Code allows less parking. He stated he was sure when the Code was established studies were probably not done on actual senior projects and that he would like to see a study don© again on existing senior citizen projects to see if there are parking problems. He stated they visited all the senior projects in Anaheim and did not see a problem. Chairman Messe asked if they had reviewed projects without cafeterias and dining rooms, and Commissioner Houas asked how many projects they visited which wou1R have people at age 55, indicating that is her concern; and that sh~s thought this is a beautiful project and one that is certainly needed, but until a study is done to determine whether the parking is adequate, this is a totally different issue. Al Marshall stated they cairnot anticipate how many 55 year olds there would be in the project. He stated L•hey did an accessibility study of services within one mile as a part of this application to deterrine how many people would need automobiles for their daily needs and services, and also there are transportation services available to pick up the senior citizens and take them whore they neeQ to go. He stated the study shows there are ample services in the area, within a mile of the projec t Concerning the availability of a major market, Chairman Messe pointed gut there ar.a no major markets and Mr. Marshall responded a supermarket is not located within one mile, but there is a variety market. Mr. Marshall stated there are medical and professional services available across the street. He stated in order to to provide pedestrian safety in some areas of senior citizen projects, a slow signal has been incorporated to give the slower person time to cross the street and that is something that can be done here. He stated if the services are accessible, the senior citizen would probably walk rather than drive their vehicle. lie stated the shape of the project was important to him because it give the senior project some relief from Broadway and the small front will actually be a benefit to the project and give some privacy to the seniors and allows them to walk within the complex without going onto Broadway, except by choice. ,. MI.~I1i~'.E.~• ANAHEIM CITY GANNI~(~~QI~I.$.5.~911~.~~9~.FE3.~~~~~_____..._._____.~7_-@~.~ Commissioner Carusillo stated he thought quite a few 55 year old people wo;.ld have at least one car regardless how convenient the services are to the project and asked staff how the .8 space was calculated, and whether it was based on seniors at 55 or 62 years of r?e. Paul Singer, Trafffc Engineer stated the Code was calculated originally on a full care facility and for some reason it was changed to covor all seniors and he thought it came into play at the time the State changed the Codo to permit 55 year old seniors in projects over 150 unite in size. He stated L•he City Codes were based on 62 years of age Rnd were limited basically to board and care facilities. He added with the age dropped, there is a problem and the Code has to be amended accordingly. Commissioner Bouas asked the ages of the seniors on the waiting lists for low income nousing. Debbie Vagta responded basically the majority of seniors un the waiting list are over 62 years of age. Chairman Meese stated at least the affordable portion of the complex would be filled with persons 62 and above. Commissioner Herbst asked what the qualifications are for ranting one of the units at 5388 per month. Debbie Vagts responded their income cann~,t exceed 521,000 per year for one person, but the majority have incomes of :>::~ut 59,000 to 512,000 a year. Commissioner Herbst asked if there are many on .'ocial Security and whether or not they would qualify to rent a unit before the ones with incomes of $21,000. Debbie Vagts stated those seniors on Social Security probably would not meet the minimum qualifications whi4h the developer would impose. She explained their Department gods on the date they filed for the assistance and does not give priority based on in~•ome. She explained nor,ially a developer requires an income of twice the monthly rental rate, and poini.~d out she is nat speaking for this developer. Commissioner Boydstun stated if people on Social Security cannot qualify to rent low income units, that defeats the purpose of the program. Debbie Vagts responded originally Section 8 program requirements ware dropped and only people below 50~ of the medium income could qualify, and that eliminated a whole group of people in the 5Q°~ and 80~ range who previously qualified for rental assistance, so this program was originally designated for that group, and hopefully, pecple below 50~ qualify for the Section 8 Program and that has a long waiting list of several years. She stated very low income seniors many times have families who provide a letter to t2~e develaper that they will provide the extra income. Commissioner Herbst stated a lot of 55-year old people could qualify at the $21,000 ~ come range .:nd is is not what the City is looking for in affordable 10/26/87 ,. w MINUTES, _~.IM..~.I~P~+A~.IC~AM~l7SsIQ~, ~cTO@ER 2b, 19.QZ _._.y_.~.Z=Q~ housing. He asked the developer's restrictions Eor peoplo on So ri.ai Security. Mr. Hanna reapon~ad they could be very reasonable and permit peoplo who have an income twice the monthly rental rate. Commissioner 8ouas stated certainly at ''~ a lot of people would be pleased to rent one of these units because them ~ruuld no t• be any children. She stated it is a senior citizen complex, but Bally nat quite for senior citizens, but with the affordablR units being rer•Led to those seniors on the Housin3 Department's waiting list, the r~•t of the tenants could all have 2 or 3 vehicles. Commissioner Feldhaus stated ge cannot be legislated; that he is 59 years old and plays softball every weed and knows a lot of people at that age are still workii~q and are very active. and 55 is still young. Commissioner IIoydstun stated if they must have an i~icome of $776 per month to qualify, would any of the peoplo on the Housing's waiting list qualify. Debbie Vagrs responded there are many people with Social Security and then a pension from their company. She stated they have no problem filling the affordable units. Commissioner Herbst stated if all 72 units wore affordable, it would eliminate a lot of the cars that he knows from past experience in visiting senior citizen projects, there are a lot of widows with about half the income they previously had and many don't have cars, because just the insurance expense would be prohibitive. Commissioner Herbst stated this is the only the second project of this size the Commission has seen and he thought the Code should be reviewed. He stated landscaping could be eliminated to provide more parking. He stated ho would like to see a line of sight drawing from the balconies to the fence and if this is approved, that plan could be approved by staff and if there is a visual intrusion, it must be screened. Commissioner Herbst explained to the opposition that this property is zoned for commercial uses and there could be a commercial project gu in right next the fence azid thin Commission would not, even see it and it could have more traffic than a senior citizens complex. He stated studies have shown that a senior citizen complex is about the lightest use that could be put on a property; pointing out that there are no children, except those visiting, and that seniors are very quiet and don't have a lot of parties; and that also the zoning could be changed to RM-1200 which would allow apartments which would be -nore people and a lot more cars. He sdded if the developer will agree to provide and comply with a line of sight drawing, he would be in favor of the project, and. also that the developer would agree to quality seniors with incomes double the monthly rent, and that the affordable units would be for a term of 30 years. Debbie Vagts stated 45 units at the low provide 24 units at peg month. under the senior ordinance, the developer has to provide rents which are $388, but with the density bonus he has to rents af' fable to 80~ of the medium income which is 5492 10/26/87 ... M~N1~T.~~AZLL~JiL.1.M._~ITY_P.L~t~.L~..i.LG..._C.424iIBS.x4lL_._45.~4~ER~St~..3.2.~.? @~_.. Commissioner Herbst asked if he would Agree to have all units affordable to the low income because seniors in the higher income range would have a car and that would create a parking problem. Mr. Hanna stated that would put *..he project in a difficult position. He stated ha calculated the project based on 45 units at X388. Commissioner Herbst pointed out the increase in units is abovo normal and more should be at the low income range. Mr. Hanna stated he would agreo to designate 59 units for low income and 13 at the 80~ range. Commissioner Houas stated there was a concern about tha trash pick up and stated she tho~iaht it could bo arranged that tho trash will not be picked up at 6 a.m. because that would also bother the seniors. Mr. Hanna stated the trash will be picked up at the front of the project. Commissioner McBurney pointed out it the trash pick up is as far away from the residential area as it could be. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated the adjacent nursery school shares access with this property and the property line is in the middle of thR driveway and asked what this project will do the access and circulation of the church and the school, pointing out they will not have access. Ho presented an exhibit showing the access. Mr.Marshall stated the alleyway was originally provided from Broadway to the property in the rear which they assembled as part of the land package they purchased and the school next door has parking in front anu access to it from the front and tho church is the sam6 and it was not dedicated for that and was dedicated for this property they have purchased. Chairman Messe stated the parking for the school is in the front and aske8 if that is all their parking. Mr. Singer stated the nuiseiy school will not have enough parking and the church will have no parking. He stated he realizes that is not this developer's problem, but it is a problem. Commissioner Bouas stated that problem would be there no matter what is developed on that property. Mr. Singer stated there was a psychiatric hospital proposed oii thi:,~proper~y and one of the conditions was reciprocal parking with the chu~~ch and this is the same property witihout that stipulation. Commissioner Feldhaus asked if there is a recorded easement o~i that property. Mr. Marshall responded there is a recorded easement to the property i• ~-he rear which is this property they are purchasing, and there is no recii. =cal agreement and the hospital proposed an excess of parking and the purpose was rind o: a trade because it was not a desirable use. Chairman Messe stated he was sure the church was mailed a notice of this meeting and asked if the developer had spoken with the church leaders. Mr. Marshall stated they did not come to the meeting on Thursday night, but tiie lady who owns the school next door did attend and ~'id voice her concern about not being able to access the back part of her property, but said ie was possible to continue her parking through. the front. 10/26/87 MT~N.TES..~~IM~ITY_.PS,~t3N.~.L~C~S~1~iISSION._.Q~.TQ~.~FL3~..__.1~9~ ._.. ~~.Z~~.6. j~CTIQtj: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, secnnded by Commissioner McBiirney :....1 MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the propose] to reclas3ify subject property from the CL (Commercial, Limited) ZOne to the RM-7.200 (Residential, Multiple-Familyl zone to permit a 179-r.nit, senior citizens apartment complex plus ~ resident manager's unit with waivers ~f ninimum building site area and required type of parking spaces on an ir~eg~ilarly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 3.13 acres, having a frontage of approximately BO feet on the south side of Broadway, approximately 560 feet west of the centerline of Loara Street, and further described as 1660-1664 West Broadway; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaratian upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration tcyether with any comments received during the public review pr.ocesa and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is uo substantial evidence that the project will k~sve a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC87-219 acid moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Reclassification No. 87-88-19 subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed ~y the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUu, iiERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Plan.linq Commission does hereby grant waiver (a) on the basis that ,:here are special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topographi-, location and surrourAC.ings which do not apply to other identically zoned prop»rty in the same vicinity; and that trict application of the Zoning Cade depraves the property of privileges Pnjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity; and granting waiver (b) nn the basir+ that the parkins waiver will no L• cause an increase in traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity nor adversely affect. any adjoining l:ai uses and yr.,nting of the ~arkiug waiver un~er the conditions imposed, if arty, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC87-.120 and moved for its i,assage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning C~m,ission dons hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2952 pursuant to t .e aectior. 18.03.030.;,30 through 18.03.030.035 and subject to stipulations mads by ttie developer to provide 59 units for low income senior citizens a' S0~ o.f medium income and 13 units f~~r seniors with income ~t d0~ of the mecliwa and also that a line of sight drawing will be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department showing the line of sight from the balcony of the third story to the fence or, the south property line and if there is a visual intrusion as shown on the line of sight drawing, as determined by the Planning Department staff, the developer shall 10/26/87 .,• ~,INUTES, ANAHEIM .CITY. PLANNIN~Q~,~$.Z.Q~OCTOBER 1,~_...~.Q$.L_ _. .~.Z-.$2?. provide screening to mitigate that concern, and also that a senior citizen with an income of twice the monthly rental rate of $388 shall bo qualified to rent one of the low inromo snits fur a period of 30 yearsi and that all affordable units shall bR so designated for a term of 30 years; and subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations. On roll call., the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYESi BOUAS, BOYD5TUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST. MC BUR; :i£ NOES: NONE A$SENTs NONE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. Commissioner Bouas asked if staff will conduct a study on senior parking. Eollawinq the hearing on Item No. 8, it was noted a motion on the waiver of Council Policy F93 was required. Commissioner Herbst offered n motion, seconded by Chairman Messe and MOTLON CARRIET~ thaL• the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend waiver of Council Policy No. 543 pertaining t~ the density bonus. ITEb;~IQ,,,$ ~ CATEGOR~tIb~X~ME~.4~_S~A.S~~~R_~$3~~4~~~ PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: URIC D. AND JUDITH S. i;~LSON, 1430 Westmont Drive, Anaheim, CA 92801. Property is described as a rczctanyularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.31 acre, 1430 Westmont Drive. Waiver of minimum side yard setback to expand a garage. There was one person indicating his presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and mane a part of the minutes. Judy Nelson, r,wner, was presAnt to answer any questions. Gerald Bushore, 4085 E. LaPalma, Anaheim, stated he is not necessarily opposed to this project; that he tried to contact the owners and talked with staff in the Building and Planning Departments and is puzzled because the Building Department says they have a set of plans that was approved by Planning on September ZSth and that was after this application was filed for this hearing and the garage is almost completed, except for the atucc~. He a*_ated Ms. Nelson prob~hly got a Policy of Title Insurance when she purchased the property and there are a set of restrictions which were originally filed with Tract 1420, which this property :s a part of, and those restrictions were renewed on September 1, 1987, for another 10 years. He stated he has two copies, one for Ms. Nelson, and one for the Commission if they Want to see it. He stated it states no yarage shall be erected on the premises until the plans have been aubmittc3 and approved by the architectural committee and to his knowledge he was not aware of any other previora variances approved in 10'26/87 ~! ~Tt3y~F~.._~IAiiFIrLLS~LT~C_P.~~IINsi CQ~~.&.i.O~I~_QC,~.4~BR._~6~_l~~Z._._.. @?=..$-~-~. that tract, although the staff report indicates there were aom®. He stated he was under the impression the plans were wiL•hin 34 feet of the street and '_t,.. iestr.tctions states the width the property must be set back from the atraet in addition to the City's requirement. He asked if Variance Nos. 1514 and 1624 were ever built. He stated if this appears to be a reasonable project and the neighbors next door are not opposed, he would not have a problem. He stated the lady who handles the deed restrictions would be beyond the 300 feet notification area. He stated he did not think the neighbors are upset, but that he was concerned whether it was done with a permit and if it wasn't, why not, and if it needs to go through the architectural committee, that should be done, especially since it is already there. Ms. Nelson stated when she ai;plied for the permit, she was given the permit for the westerly wall. and to build the two garage doors in the front; that the garage was originally 26 feet wide and the overhang was 42 inches on the front and on both sides and by extending the two sides two feet, they had the 30 feet necessary for a 3-car garage, and the variance is only for the easterly wall; and that the Building inspector who signed off the first section told them to qo as far ss the wrapping because he could still. see everything the+: was one at that point and that would at least allow the structure to be enclosed and provide safety until this action was taken. She ad~ed she was surprised at the opposikion because her neighbors felt it was an improvement to the neighb.rhood to have a three-car garage. She stated she thought the original developer got variances for the setbacks when the homes were originally built and 4here have been no changes on the depth of the lot. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLUSED. Commissioner Herbst stated he has no problem with This and thought the three car garage adds to the value of the property and any problems with CC&Ra would have to be taken up with the neighbors. Commissioner Feldhaus stated next door to the east has the driveway contiguous to this driveway and asked if that neighbor is opposed. Ms. Nelson stated he is not here end is really the only one who would be affected. Commissioner Feldhaus asked if Ms. Nelson was required by the Building Department to get that neighbor's signature on the plans. Ms. Nelson responded she was not asked to get that signature, that she talked wit-h that neighbor before beginning the project and would not have gone to this expense if he was opposed. She stated this is next to their driveway, but not next to their garage. Malcolm Slaughter stated requiring a nsighbor's signature on the plans would be a highly unusual request. Co,~uniasioner Feldhaus stated he has been there and saw the garage has already been constructed. Ms. Nelson responder) that was done because the Huilding Inspector had indicated it could be doua and that she had a building permit lU/26/87 M~N.IJSF~..~N,~EIM... ~~C...E'' dN~_S.U~~S.~-4~.4.~ER_ 2 6. 19 8 7 __._..~~~-~2 and the other things have been signed uff; that apparently there was a mix up .and there are two different inspectors and one did not sign off the requirement for the footings and that is why they had proceeded as far as they did. Ms. Nelson responded gl;e did not know anything about an architectural committee and Commissioner Bouas stated she realized the Commission cannot get i-:to CC&Rs restriction;, bvt suggested Ms. Nelson should look into it to find out if there are restrictions. Tt was noted the Planning Director ar his authorized representative has determined that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 5, as defined in the State EIR Guidelines and is, thereL•oro, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. ~~~.'-',~4N.1. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC 87-221 and moved for its passage enc. adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Variance No. 3711 on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings which cYo not appl}• to other identically zoned property in the same vicinity; and that strut application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties i.n the identical zone and classification in the vicinity and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: $OUAS, DOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES : t70NE ABSENT: NONE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Pla~ining Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. Comm:assioner Bouas asked Mr. Bushore to give Ms. Nelson a copy of the deed restrictions and also that she would like for the Commission to have a copy. Mr.Bushore stated the deed restrictions were recorded at the Orange County Recorder's Office. He explained there is a person who lives on Beverly Drive who watches out for this type of thing. He stated his question was never answered and asked if there was a permit issued prior to September 25th because construction stated prior to that date. Malcolm Slaughter stated the existence or non-existence of building permits, which could be a violation if somebody did something without having a building germit is totally irrelevant to the consideration of the Commission as to whether or not to grant or not grant a variance, and the person could be in violation to the building code and get a variance to meet the Zoning Code requirements and still have to accommodate the Building Department for a building permit. 10/26/87 f CSI.NI~ES~.JiL~tiE1rLS~i~X.~kA-21N_IH.(iS9M~'iI.&~:;.QN.---4S~Q~FFL~~._~43 _.___._____Q1_~03Q Mr. F3uehore stated it hes been hie experience that when the.ro is not a n~iilding permit, tt-ere is a atop work order issued and no more work is done ~~:thout a holrl!:armleaa release. Mr. Slaughter aLatod that is a problem for tY.e Chief Aiiildinq Inspector to review. Commissioner Carusillo stated the concern is that if wo are going to approve something Lhat is not permitted, it seems somewhat backwards. Ms. Nelson stated rthe went r.c, the Planning Department and tl:e Building Department and was In tine process of receiving the permit when she learned only the garage door and westerly wall could be approved, because of the side setback restrictions. She stated when she learned there would be a one month delay to go before the Zoning Administrator, she paid the adc'ition f.ee to come before Cho Planning Commission. She ask9d if she could get a permit now for the easterly wall. She explained when the Building Inspector learned about the restriction, and she did not realize that was a problem either, the inspector told them to leave it wrapped so he could see what was being done, and that is why it was stopped at that point. She explained the roof was not moved and the garage was not movou forw+~rd anal she ~:esponded to Commissioner Feldhaus that they did this as an owner/builder. Commissioner Cartisillo stated he is satisfied she did not try to circumvent the system. Mr. Bushore stated as originally state<<, he is not neceasar.ily opposed, and just wanted to know how it got this far. Ms. Nelson stated Westmont is heavily traveled anti at that point the speed is high and it would be nice to enclose their cars and have friends park in their driveway, rather than par.kinq on the street. ~~NO. 9 F,~,iR~1EGATIVE UECLAR~TION AND~QNDITI017AG y~E PERMIT NQ. 29~.Q_ PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: KEE WHAN HA AND KYUNG HEE HA, 3670 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90010. AG°.NT: T 6 T AUTO SALES, 11~~ West Avenue, MC, Fullerton, CA 92633, ATTN: TADEUSZ WALINOWIC7.. Pref~erty is uascribed as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.8 acre located at the northwest corner of Orangethorpe AVenue and Orangethorpe Park, 1713 N. Orangethoxpe Park (T ~ T Auto/Sales). To retain an automobile sales and detailing facility. There was no one indicating L•heir 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. Elizabeth Reschke, representing T & T Auto Sales, stated they would like to have ~ conditional use permit for detailing the cars; that basically it is wholesale with occasional retail, selling the cars to private parties and they do not sell the car on the property, and they detail the cars and usually deliver them to the auction. 10/26/87 ~R ,r' M~tiSLTF~~~1~~i~.IM.~.IT'L.~~.l~1NI .~~41~'i~S~Q~..,.4~T43~~R_ ~.5. 19Q~.~.,___~___.____$Z~$~~, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Mersa asked what is meant by occasional retail salsa, and where they got the vehicles to sell. Ms. Reschke stated they buy cars and sometimes a friend wishes to purchase a car and this would give them the right to sell to the private party, as opposed to a dealer. She at.atod this would not be the some as the dealer who has cars on a lot and pooplc~ come in to 1 oak A*. the cars, and they would like to be permitted to just sell cars to people who wish to buy prom thorn directly. She stated this is not a constant ttii nq and there is no showroom. She explained they are cars that people would t reds in as a down payment on a new car and they buy them from the dealers and detail thorn and sell them to the dealers, and they mostly buy them at the auction and that somdtimos a friend wou13 tell them they want to purchase a car. Commissioner Bouas stated she has no problem and is ready to offered a zesolu Lion, Chairman Meese stated the Commission has received a letter in opposition and Commissioner Bouas stated she is aware of that letter, but did net think this is really going to impact the areal and that all work will be do ne inside and they will be not be detailing outside. Commissioner Boydstun asked how many cars they would have on the premises on an average basis. Ms. Reschke stated they would usually have th roe or four cars on the premises and they can keep three inside. Commissioner Herbst stated he has no problem with the detailing, but does have a problem creating a used car sales lot in a residential area. Commissioner Bouas stated this is different) that they buy a car, then detail it and deliver i.t to the customer and the customer does not qo there to look at a lot of cars because they don't have a lot of cars there for sale. Commissioner Herbst stated tt.~.y are in the business of buying and selling used cars. Commissioner Boydstun stated most of their sales are bulk, and that they buy the cars, detail them and sell them to the dealers. Commissioner Bouas stated the car doesn't stay on the premises and is only there long eno ugh for them to detail it and sell it. Commissioner Carusillo asked if they have a designated buyer for the car when they get it. Ms. ..^.eschke responded usually they deliver it to the buyer and they do not sell to the public and it is usually a friend who has indicated they want a car. Commissioner Carusillo asked if the Commission would see a car in front of their property with a sign indicating it is for sale. Ms. Res cl~ke stated they would not. Responding to Commissioner Feldhaus, Ms. Reschke stated they do not advertise in the newspaper at this time, but might in the future if this is permitted. 10/26/87 '~: ~, MI2iZiT.~S~~-,~.T1~P1~AI~1 I NG_C~~.S~~S~L._4~-2Q@~B--~-St~_].9.~.Z.--_ Ms. Reschko stated they usually sell wi-ulesalo to tt2~ordcaler~ofnote intendato they never havo people coming there to iuuk -+~ L~',': ~.,m,+h~.~..• do that because they do not have the spaces and that occaaional^YA; ~q85 if t:he tells them they want to purchase a 1791 Honda but w~url.avgcom© across one that price was right, they will keep that in mind and i t ~' arson's pause, ~--u tl.l is priced right, they would drive the vehicle to that p permit would allow thorn to do favors for friends mostly. Commissioner Bouas asked if they could take a pars on to the auction to look at the care and Ms. Roschke r9aponded they cannot do that. Commissioner Feldhaus stated they could run a leader type ad in the newspaper no to to coma to the property. Ms. Re schke stated they wauld not and entice p p do that because they do not have vehicles there to show them. She stated t oy only have the cars there long enoeOhleotoecome andmlook andemaybe theyhwill auction and don t havo time for p P ortunity and it is much buy and maybe they won' t and they havo a bigger oPP faster to sell it at the auction. Commissioner Feldh sus asked if detailing means body work, or me co kn~ndlit is• Ms. Reschkelbtatandtifyadcaroneedsapaintingnithe Y takeoitbsome place else. just detail g. Malcolm Slaughter suggested the Commission consi der adding some wording to Condition No. 9 ..thatrsoon thelproperty,bandlthought thatrwouldlresolversome inspection by purchase of the concerns. Commissioner kierb st stated shbmebodinslhouse toe sell themsand that heewoulddbe take them to the auction or s there, but they could not sell anything there in favor of the auto detailing Malcolm Slaughter stated hbb displayedecrcinspe cteZsonuthetproperty,of that problem since they cannot Commissioner ~~= Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Mcgurnoy and MOTION CARRIED that the Aom bile` s alealandidetai3ingsfacility on reviewed the proposal to retain an aut roximately 0.8 acre a rectanqulary-shaped parcel of land consisting of app located at the northwest corne~•oOranaethorpep Parke(TeSaTdAOtOnSales)peandrk and further described as 1713 g does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon findco ants receaved during considered the Negative Declaration together with any the public review pracess and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments receivb~ effecthoneths e~nvironmential evidence that the project will have a significa Commissioner Bouas offered Resolution No. PC8? -222 and moved for itsr~bbsage and adoption that the Anaheim Citursuantlto Aaaheim1MunicipaleCode Section Conditional Use Permit Na. 2960 P ect to Interdepartmental 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035, and sub? Committee Recommendations, including the addition to Condition No. 9 that no vehicles shall be displayed or inspected on the property. 10/26/87 ,~ T P - NIiING COMMIS.S.I.(~li._45~-9~.Q--~--~9-~-'-.-- Q~ ^, ~' ,~~I.ffiI- E S. A~1-1i~ I M C 'TX.,.__I.~--_- Ms. Reschke stated they usually sell wholesale to the detilerR for resale and they r-ever havo people coming there to look at the curs and clo not lrr.anrl ho do that because they do not havo the space? and that occasionally if Homebody tells them they want to purchase a 1981 Honda bul• would go up to n 1985 if th^ price was right, thoy will keep that in mind and if they come across one that is priced right, they would drive the vehicle to that person's liouso, and LI:1~ permit would allow them to do favors for friends meetly, Commissioner Bouas asked if they could take a person to the auction to look at the c a rs and Ms. Reschke responded they cannot do that. Commissioner Foldhaus stated they could run a leader type ad in the newspaper and entice people to come to the property. Ms. Reschke stated they would not do that because they do not have vehicles there to show them. She stated they only havo the cars there long enough to detail them and take them to the auction and don't have time for people to come and look and mayb© L•hey will buy and maybe they won't and they have a bigger opportunity and is is much fasts r to sell it at the auction. Commissioner Feldhaus asked if detailing moans body work, or mechanical work. Ms. Reschke stated they do not ~:.o any mechanical work or L•ody work and it is just detailing, and if a car needs painting, they take it some place else. Malco lm Slaughter suggested the Commission consider adding some wording to Condition No. 4 ..that no vehicles shall be displayed on or available for inspection by purchasers on the property, and thought that would resolve same of the concerns. Commissioner Herbst stated she has indicated they do not sell cars there and take them to the auction or somobody's house to sell them and that he would be in favor of the auto detailing thero, but they could not sell anything there. Malcolm Slaughter stated his recommended condition should take care of that problem since they cannot be displayed or inspected on they property. ~I ON: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBu rney and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to retain an automobile sales and detailing facility on a r e cL•anqulary-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.8 acre located at the northwest corner of Orangethorpe Avenue and Orangethorpe Park and further described as 1713 N. Orangethorpe Park (T & T Auto Sales); and doe s hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon 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 Initial Study and any comments received that there is no Substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Bouas offered Resolution No. PC87-222 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2960 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035, and subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations, including the addition to Condition No. 9 that no vehicles shall be displayed or inspected on the property. 10/26/87 .,, ~: ,,t ~],.N.~.~il.~.a AN~~IM ~„'ITY PLANNIII~_.~.Q~~~.Q~Q~'t~~..~i.~.s~Z_...._.-- ~Z~.~. Commissioner lierbat asked that a one year time limit be imposed. Greg Hastings atatod in one year the applicant would havA to refile and that might be a financial burden in terms of the filing fees. Malcolm Slaughter stated also they should apply for the new conditional use permit sufficiently in advance of the end of the one-year period, so that it is in place before it terminates. ~omn~isaioner Herbst stated th« reason for his concern is t.ho ]ester of opposition. Chairman Messe gave Ms. Reschke a copy of the letter the Commission received regarding problems in the area. Commissioner Bouas stated she did not think this use wc.~1d be a concern and added she would add a two-year time limit to the resolution. Com:niasianer Feldhaus pointed out if the conditions of the conditional use permit are violated, the permit can be reviewed for revocation at any time. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERB5T, MC GURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ASSENTS NONE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0. 10 gEPOR_~5__AND RECOMMENDD~TION~ A. ~~~ASSIFICATION N0. 87-88-11 anS~ VARIANCE~Q 3694 - Nune pro tune resolution amending Resolution Nos. PC87-171 and PC87-172 as to number of people attending public hearing on August 3 1, 1987. Property located at 700 S. Magnolia Avenue. Reclassification of property to permit construction of 3-story, 16-unit apartment building. B. CONDITI~iA~. USE PERMIT 2i0. 2623 - Request from Jaffrey C. Smith for a retroactive Rxtension of. time to comply with conditions of approval on property located at 2201 East Orangewood Avenue. 'I Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Feldhaus and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheiri City Planning Commission does hereby approve an extension of time (retroactive to October 1, 1987) for Conditional Use Permit No. 2623 to expire on October 1, 1988, in order to comply with conditions of approval. C. VARIANCE N0. 3538 - Request from Eve Millar for retroactive extension of time to comply with conditions of approval on property located as 111 South Martin Road. 10/26/87 _......... ... .... .__._.... ._. ......,,, yrn+eB~B :i+J[.fuy.6i8ai..4G.M.'H ~"N`~w'ei'-. ..1 ~~$.,.. ANAHEIM~:I~Y PLANNINQ ~QLdML~.S.SON, OCT9~R..~_1~.~.T -$~$ gCTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Feldhaua and MOTION CARRIED thnt the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve a 1-year extension of time (retroactive to March 3, 1987) for Variance no. 3538, to expire on March 3, 1988, in order to comply with conditions of approval. D. ~'(1DE AMENDMF~t~ - To amend portions of Chapter 17.28 Flood Hazard Feduction as necessary to comply with mandated "Revisions to National Flood Insurance Program Floodplain Management Criterias recently promulgated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and also as necessary to comply with findings of a review of the City's Ordinances recently conducted by the State Department of Water Resources. ACTIUN: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Feldhaus and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council adopk the proposed Code Amendment to amend portions of Chapter 17.28 "Flood Hazard Reduction". E, gROPOSFn cnnF~~NDMENT - Amendment to Title 18 for compliance with Provision of Assembly Bill 2020 concerning recycling center where constuners can redeem for cash their glass, aluminum, plastic, and non-aluminum metal beverage containers. ACTION: Commissioner Boydatun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend adoption of the proposed Code Amendment to amend Title 18 for compliance with Provision of Assembly Bi]1 2020 concerning recycling centers. F. ~QUNTY OF ORANG~-TAX COi:LECT9R-TR~i$~U~ - Notification from Roberk Citron, Orange County Tax Collector-Treasure, of his application filed requesting a separate tax bill on a portion of property located at the southwest corner of Freedman Way and Hester Street (occupied by IBIS Hotel). PUBLIC INPUT: None Judy Nelson returned to the meeting and stated she has now read the deed restrictions and apparently in 1952 there was an architectural committee established that may have been re-established in 1987 and was certain she did not receive any information regarding this committee. She asked if she has to wait 22 days before finishing the garage. It was pointed out the 22 day apgeal period does apply. S}te asked where the 15 copies of the plans are and it was pointed out the l ~mrnissioners have seven and several were returned to her. THE ~ct:S.ION: Commissioner Herbst stated he would like an inspection of the apartments at. the corner of East and North Street because there were complaints today of up to 14 automobiles parking there and the passibility of people living in the garages. 10/26/87 ir.... 1 ~ M„ ~1TES. _pg~+,~M CITY PLAN~2I~}_~ MISS Oki. OC~nns~R 26. 1fl8~ 87-835 John Poole, Code Enforcement Supervisor, responded he heard that and had already planned to investigate. He stated there is a lot of overcrowding occurring due ~o the high rents being charged. ADJO~ENTt The meeting wag adjourned at 5sO5.p.m Respectfully submitted, ~.-luL /i , , ~~a- Edith L. Harris, Secretary $0031m 10/26/87