Loading...
Minutes-PC 1987/11/23J MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION November 23, 198'1 The regular meetiny of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to order at 10:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers by the Chairman in order to review the plans of the items on today's agenda. There was a discussion with the Fire Department pertaining to safety issues at gasoline sales facilities. No action was taken. RECESS: 11:45 P.M. REf,ONVENE: 1:35 P.M. PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: BOUAS, MESSE, ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HERBST OTHERS PRESENT: Annika Santalahti Malcolm Slaughter Joel Fick Gregory Hastings Leonard McGhee Jay Titus Don Dey Debbie Vagts Edith Harris BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAU~, MC BURNEY Zoning Administrator Deputy City Attorney Planning Director Senior Planner Associate Planner Office Enyineer Assistant Traffic Engineer Leasing Supervisor Secretary PUBLIC INPUT: Chairman Messe explained at the end of the scheduled hearings, members of the public will be allowed to speak on items of interest which are within the jurisdiction of the Planniny Commission, ~:nd/or agenda items. MINUTES FOR APPROVAL; Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney, and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Herbst absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the minutes of the meeting of October 26, 1987, as submitted. ITEM N0. !; E_IR _NEGATIVE DECLARATION (READVERTISED). WAIVER OF PUBLIC NEARING: OWNERS: LARRY R. SMITH AND JUDITH I. SMITH, 17046 Marina Bay Drive, Huntington Beach,CA 92649. AGENTS: SHELDON L. POLLACK CORPORATION., 429 Santa Monica Blvd., Santa Monica,CA 90401. ATTN: ALVIN Y. LEE. Property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 3.56 acres located north and east of the northwest corner of Ball koad and Knott Street, and further described as 919--959 Knott Street. There was one person indicating her presence in opposition to subject request and one interested person indicating his presence, and although the staff report 87-882 ?"' .~ ',~ .,, M~N1I~.;?.._ AN.~.~M_~~'~>?41~It?;~11~~t~1.1; S~I.4N.._N.OVFM$~.~.__2_~_._~ ~.8 7_--_---,_____.Q_7~~6~ was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to anti made a part of the minutes. Larry Smith, owner, stated revised plans show the driveway moved closer to the racquetball facility and that the {prior plan was changed to accommodate the apartment house by moving the wall further from the apartments. Alvin Lee, architect, stated as a result of the previous hearing, an updated parkiny study was submitted and the counts were taken on dates suyyested by the Planniny Commission and neighbors and that the City Traffic Engineer has accepted the report. Mr. Lee stated another concern was file passageway and they have moved the buildiny so that the opening between the two buildinys is approximately 30 feet wide. He stated people will have no problem seeinr, the racquetball facility because it is four stories high, and the proposed structure is one story. Joyce Keefer, 116 S. Kenmore, Anaheim, stated it has been n2 days since the last meeting on October 12 and it was her understandiny that the continuance was to provide an opportunity for the petitioner t.c solve the problems, but aside from shifting the building, nothiny has been accomplished, and that this change will further compound the problem by adding a second fast food restaurant and the shifted buildiny from the west to the south perimeter has given an additional two feet between her north property line and one o` the drive-throuyhs. Ms. Keefer stated there has not been any meetings with adjacent property owners and there continues to be three major problem areas; (1) the project still grossly overbuilds the property, (Z) and parkiny is not sufficient and (3) the petitioner is still in violation of a covenant on the land. She stated because of the close proximity to her property, anythin~~ developed ill have a direct impact on her property; that for years she has been the recipient of the overflow from inadequate parking and any future development of her property will be impaired with overbuildiny of this parcel, and any improvement of this property must be approached with good sound judgment; that Orange County is beiny swamped with mini-malls and if they ar•e not planned well with adequate parking, they will have a problem keeping tenants and would have a built-in failure. She stated this property can not accommodate two fast food restaurants. Ms. Keefer referred to the shared parking arrangement and stated there is a parking problem there now. She referred to the traffic study, page 3, and stated she has observed the parking on this property and the figures given are not consistent with want she has seen; that she did her cwn mini-sur~~~y of the parkiny and on Wednesday, November 18 at 11:30 a.m., there were 13 cars parked directly in front of Kartoons and Kapers, and on Sunday, November 22 at 8 p.m. there were 17 cars, on October 9 at 10:35 there were 77 cars parked directly in front of the lounye and 3 cars adjacent to it on the street. 11/23/87 ,.. M~I3>~8,_ ht~A~FZhL C~TX~~,AN~1?S _~4l~i.i.SS1<QN.,.._.NQY~~P~fi_? 3,__1`98?_ _-------__._..@?~8l1~ She explained on November 17 she received a telephone call from the petitioner to see the revised plans, and a second telephone call on November 19 after a letter from her attorney anti that was her first exposure to the petitioner ever having acknowledged he was in violation of the covenant, and that she asked the petitioner to contact her attorney and arrange to discuss th;s '.:sur; that she talked to fret attorney a~ 12:30 today and he has not heard from Larry Smith. She stated it seems the petitioner can submit revised plans forever and wr. can talk about this forever, but until this legal problem 1s resolved, this development will not become a fact grid that she intends to carry out this covenant to the fullest. C~rairman Messe .tated the covenant is a private civil matter between the two property owners. Ms. Keeter responded she realizes it is a private civil matter, but the plans well not be irnplPmented until this issue is resolved. Charles Hotel, El Toro, stated he was going to speak in favor of the project; ghat he looked at the changes made and it seems the petitioner is trying to handle all the problems he had addressed. He stated he has not seen the parking :study and was concerned because of the information given in lire staff report. Fle stated he is the largest owner of racquetball clubs in California and owns i'acili'~+~-~~ all over the state and he was not involved in any of the studies, but that tre ..ants the rights he previously had to operate his racquetball facility end have adequate parking, and if the parking is going to be reduced to what the staff report indicates, hie could not operate his facility. Mr. Smith stated three people o~jected to the plans in previous hearings and he 'is pleased Mr. Hotel nuw likes th? plans. He explained he contacted ~re apartment complex m~nayement company and understood they are pleased with the Erl ans ar!d tol ~+ him they wo;.~l d try grid get a 1 ettEr to the Commi 5s i on to that effect. He stated i;e did turn the letter from Ms. Kecter's attorney over to tiffs attorney. He stated the number of parkinc} spaces far the racquetball facililty I~as not changed. Chairman Messe ~,',a~ed the City lraffic Engineer has requested that the parking :paces be increased tom 7-1/~ feet to 8 feet as shown on page 1 of the staff report. Mr. Lee stated he received the staff report in this morning's mail and asked why that request was oracle because the spaces were designed in conformance with the Code. Commissioner Mc6urney stated the Traffic engineer felt there is plenty of room to increase the size of the spaces by cutting dawn on the landscaping. Mr. Lee responded he would increase the size if he could, and that he wi11 talk to Mr. Singer. Grey Hastings, Senior Planner, stated currently Code requ~~es the spaces to be 7-1/2 feet and the Traffic Engineer is looking to change the Code increasing that to 8 feet, and his reccmmendation is in anticipation of that Code change. Mr. gee stated again he will accommodate that request if possible. Mr. Lee stated the drive-through lane in their proposal does meet the City's 11/23/87 MINUTEST ANANE 1M CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~NOVEMfiER 23, 1907___ ____87_$85 requirement and they are only requesting a modification of what has been previously granted, He added 6.5 parking spaces per court are required for the racquetball facility and that is out of line for this particular self-serve racquetball facility. He stated in development of the traffic study for the racquetball facility, they needed to provide as much information as possible, but unfortunately Mr. Hohl did not provide the necessary information, so tiie study was based on past receipts during the peak months, etc. Chairman Messe stated the cocktail lounye perking requirements were more of a concern toiiim than the racquetball facility; and that this is a mixed use on the property and the lounge does use well over 70 spaces. Commissioner Mcaurney referred to the southerly driveway on Knott and Mated he did not think it would work with two driveways meryiny with each ~~tl~c~r , explairriny one driveway is to the service station. Jay Titus, Off~;.e tr~nineer, stated he thouyht the Traffic Enyineer looked at that and agreed driv~:way accesses cannot overlap. Commissioner Carusillo stated Ms. Keeter was co;~cerned about th. averflow of parking. Mr. Smith stated he thought Ms. Keeter's problem was with the three lounges when they were all three in operation doing business in the eveninys, and currently only une lounge is in operation and when the lease on that esi:a blishment is ui~, that property will be converted tp a retail use. Conc:erningthe traffic study as it pertained to the racquetball facility, he stated they diu have all the gross income statements from the time they began business, 5 - 6 years ayo, on a monthly basis showinr the income and number of people playing by the hour and all that information was supplied to the traffic consultant do i ng the study . Commissioner Bouas asked Mr. Hohl how many spaces he reeds in reality, Mr. Hohl responded their peak period is January, February and March and the peak time duriny that period is 7 p.m., and two spaces per stall would b~ 40 spaces a~~d at 7 p. m. there is a steady line of people coming in and his requirement is based cn those three busiest months, and 70 to 80 spares required ~, based on the peak and reducing the number of spaces will hurt his business. Chairman Messe pointed out the other parking will be available when the stores are closed, Mr.Hohl stated some of the stores are not closed at 7 p.m. and people come because it is con~~enient any the price is reasonable and if there was no parking there, it would not be convenient and they wouldn't come. Np stated Mr.Smith Iras every riyht to develop the property, but the parking ;,roFosed does not ~vork. Commi~siorrer Bouas stated he has the number of spaces required by City codes. Mr. Kohl stated this plan will reduce the parking he hay had for over 5 years arrd the proposal allows ~iim 30 spaces. Conpnissioner Carusillo responded that is not necessarily true because there are spaces in the area to the east. Mr. Hohl stated the 5O spaces in front of his facility will be full at peak and the overall center is 40~ overparked. 11/23/87 M.1~NSJ~Ii.~~~~H}y1:M_C~~lt_P~AN~?_1<-NG_ ~QI~MLSS.3.S~.N._N.Q~S~>~>~R-_23_.__ 12@.1_.._-.-----~Z.~k Commissioner Feldhaus asked why January, February and March are peak times and specifically why 7 p.m. Mr. Hohl stated perple play racquetball when there is no football to watch and when it 'is too cold to clo thinys outside. Commissioner Bouas stated it is tire unknown that is the problem and there are some businesses that will be closed and certainly parking is not adey44te for the nightclub. Chairman Messe stated the traffic study shows the bar peaks at about 10 p.m.for parking utilization, Commissioner Feldhaus stated lie is satisfied with what Mr. Smith has done irr trylny to solve the problems. ACT10N_ Commissioner Feldhaus offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Herbst absent) that. the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit two ciriv~-through walk-up restaurants with outdoor seating in conjunction wit~~ a commercial center expansion with waivers of minimum n~.;mber of parl;iny spaces, minimum drive-through lane dimensions, minim~~m distance between buildings and required site screening on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 3.56 acres locai.ed north and west of the northwest corner of Ba11 Road and Knott Street, and further described as 919-959 Knott Street; a...: does hereby approve the Negative Declaration on the basis that it has considered the proposed Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and furt~rer findi-~y 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 Feldhaus offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mc Burney and MOTION CA~ZRIED (Commissioner .'erbst absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Comrnission does hereby ~lrar~t waiver (a) 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 that the granting of the parking variance under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace. health, safety or general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Commissioner Feldhaus offered RESOluticn No. PC87-241 and moved fo~ its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning fommission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2925 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.030.030.035 and subject to interdepartmental Commitr~e Recommendations, wish the parking spaces to be increased to 8-feet wide, if possible. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, MESSE, MC GURNEY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ADS ENT: COMMISSIONERS: H~RBST Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council 11; 23/87 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, NOVEMBER_23, 19$7 ~_ 87~a87 ITEM N0. 2. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3707. PUBLIC BEARING. OWNERS RC7UERT L. MC GUINLEY AID GERALDiNE MC GINLEY, 1028 N. Mayflower Street, Anaheim , CA 92801. Property is a rectanyularly-st:~ped parcel of land ~onsistiny of app~^ozimately 7,795 square feet, loc,atecl at the southeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Mayflower Street, and further described as 1028 N. Mayflower Street. Request for waivers of maximum wall height, minimum side yard setback, and minimum rear yard setback to retain a 6-foot, 10-inch High block wa11 and a patio cover. There was no one indicati ng their presence in opposition t:o subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a p~--t of the minutes. Steven Cohen, Attorney, ~i ndicated his presence representing the owner, and Robert McGuinley, owner, explained the request is to retain the height of an existing wall on the north property line adjacent t.o La Palma because of th increase in traffic noise on La Palma and they do not feel this request is any different than other neighbors directly across the ~`.reet who have a fence at least 8 feet high. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Responding to Commissioner Bouas, Dr. McGuinley sated the fence was extended from 6 feet about 13 years ago to its current height exactly i n the same manner as the original wall. He responded t~~ Commissioner feldhaus that thr yate out to La Palma is used for taking out the trash. Responding to Chairman M else, Dr. McGuinley stated the wall was extended without building permits being issued. ACTION: Commissioner b~ydsturr offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Herbst absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to retain a 6-foot, 14-inch high block wall and a patio cover r+:th waivers cf maximum wall heiyht, minimum side yard setback, and minimum rear year setback on arectangularly-shaped parcel of land consistiny of approximately 7,795 square feet, located at the southeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Mayflower Street, and further described a ; 1023 North Mayflower Street; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration on the basis that it has considered the proposed Negative Dec? aration together with any comments received during the puhlic review process and further finding on the basis of :he Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Jay Ticus, Office Engineer, stated the exist~~~y street right of way on La Palma is 50 feet from centerl ine grid ttie ultimate right of way requirement would be 53 11/23/87 1987 87-886 wall is within that 43 feet and feet, and that Ise understands the existing ermits are required, they would if the wall has to be rebuilt and building p line at 53 feet. have to relocate th missionerhBouashthattifatherwall haswto intinbuthat outn He responded to Com it would have to be mthedconditions3 buttwouldtbetahbuildpng permit now and it is not in requirement. Deputy City Attorney, stated the wall was constructed Malcolm Slauyhter, ermits and the appropriate action now is to without benefit of building p inspections made and pay the request the permits and have the necessaryos~ibl~, that this wall cannot be appropriate fees and it is th~~retically p a roved and will have to be rebuilt and then v;,,uld have to be moved back 3 pp feet. Jay Titus explained this does not necessarily mean the widening of La Palma and 53 feet is the standard right of teytonthehultimatecriyhteofiwayein and the owner would be required to dedica order to obtain a building permit, Commissioner Fel~''~ us stated therelth tree o~erhangbonkthe northrwould bemen so that means the existing patio w violation an additional 2 feet. Jas withinstheeexisttny ptreet rightnof t ~ fence by more than 1 foot now, 'it way. Conunissioner Bouas stated waiver (b) pertains to the side yard setback and the house faces Mayflower, so thesetbackait exisn~~,o.Palma and a 5-foot setback is requires, and a 2-foot Malcolm Slauyhter explained theUerQSd and-thetCityttwillfrequire eneadditional property line and .: feet is req ermit. Ne 3-foot dedication as iblegalternati~e insthatethe dedication could be an added there is a ;joss irrevocable offer of dedication and the wall could remain in its presen~~~at location if it meets all the oth°rdcadcovenantsagainstuthelpropertyaagreeing the petitioner would have to reco to remove the fence when the City accepts the dedication. Mr. Cohen stated the petitioner i;tpispnot~ it will}beamadegsound,Sandpthis showing the wall is sound and if is a request for a waiver in ordendithetownerlistwillmngntonyive phesent location at its existing t~~~ght a it. is now. dedication when needed, if the wall is left the way Co;nmissioner Boystun offerad Resolution No. PC87-242 and moved for its t~, ~ planning Commission does hereby passage and adoption ,~t the Anaheim City grant Variance No. 3707 on the basis that ~ =re topography) locatmonaores applicable to the property s~,ch as size, shape, zoned properties in surroundings, which do not apply to other identically the vicinity; and that stria application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in identical zoning classification in the vicinity. 11/23/87 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMaER 23, 1987 87-888_ feel, and that ire understands tiie existing wall is within that 43 feet and if the wall has to be rebuilt and buildiny permits are required, they would have to relocate the wall behind the ultimate right of way line at 53 feet. ' has to be rebuilt then Ho responded to Commissioner Bouas that if the wale + it would hail notbinnthedconditions3 buttwouldtbetahbuildinynpermithat out now and it requirement. Malcolm Slaughtr~r-, peputy City Attorney, stated the wall was constructed without bene¢it ~f building permits and the appropriate action now is to request the permits and have the necessary inspections made and pay the appropriate fwillahavettosbeilrebuiltaand thenlwouldhhavehto belmovednbacke3 approved and feet. Jay Titus explained this does not necessarily mean the widening of La Palma and 53 feet i:~ the standard right of way and that is a code requirem~r~t and the owner would be required to dedicatE to the ultimate right of way in order to obtain a buildir~, permit. Commissioner Feldhaus stated there is a Z-foot setback at the present time, so that means the existing patio with the overhang on the north would be iri violation an additional 2 feet. Jay Titus stated if the patio overhangs the fence by more than 1 foot now, it is within the existing street right of way. Commissioner Bouas sta`eci waiver (b) pertains to the side yard setback and the house faces f~layflower, so the side yard is on La Palma and a 5-foot setback is required and a 2-foot setback is existing. Malcolm Slaughter explainer) there is a 2-foot setback from the present property line and 5 feet 'is require) and the City will require an additional 3-foot dedication as a requirement of issuance of a building permit. He adaed there is a possible alternative in that the dedication could be an irrevocable offer of dedication and the wall could remain in its present location if it meets all the other codes and is structural~y sound and that the petitioner would have to record a covenant against the property agreeing to remove the fence when the City accepts the dedication. Mr. Cohen st~~ted the petitioner is prepared to submit an engineer's report ahowing the wall s sound and if it is not, it will be made sound, and this is a request for a waiver in order for the wall to remain in its present location at its existing height and the owner is willing to give the dedication when needed, if the wall is left the way it is now. Commissioner Boy stun offered ResoluL~on No. PC87-242 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Variance No. 3707 on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which do not apply to other identically zoned properties in the vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of pri~~ileyes Nnjoyed by other properties in identical zoning classification in the vicinity. lli 7.3/87 MINUTES,_ANAHEIM_.CITY PLANNING COhMI5SI0N,_NOVfMBER 23, 1987~_______,.~____G7-889_. On rol call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELOHAUS, MEESE MCBURNEY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS HERBST Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the rlanniny Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. M N0. 3 EIR NEGAT'YE DECLAR~~TION READV uIREMENT AND CONDIIIONAI. USE PERMIf_N0. C PUBLIC NEARING: OWNERS: BURGER KING CORPORATION, 730 Brookhurst Street, Suite 250, Fountain Valley, CA 92728, ATTN RICHARD REIJNA. AGENT: STEVEN ROSENFIELD, 14772 Plaza Drive, 8202, Tustin, CA 92680 8 ROBERT FRIEDMAN, 900 E. First Street, N105, Los Angeles, CA 90012. Property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.7 acre, having a frontage of approximately 150 feet on the east side of Euclid Street and being located approximately 340 feet s~~~th of the centerline of Tedmar Avenue, and further described as 510 South Euclid Street (Burger King Restaurant). Request to expand a drive-"rough fast food restaurant with waivers o~f maximum number of parkir,~~ spaces and maximum fence height. There as one interested person indicating his presence at the public hearing anti although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of th~~ minutes. Commissioner h~c8urney declared .: conflict of interest as defined by Anaheim City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC76-157 adopting a conflict of interest Code far the Planning Commission and Government Code Section 367.5, et seq. in that this restaurant could have a financial imp<rct ~n his employer ant; pursuant to the provisions of the above codes declared to the Chairman that. he was withdrawing from the hearir~~; in connection with Conditional Use Permit No 2957 and would not take part in tither the discussion or voting thereon and had not discussed this matter with any member of the t'lanniny Commission. Thereupon, Commissioner McBurney left the Couric i 1 Chamber . Steven kose-rfield, agent, explained hc, has come to an agreement with t:~e neignbors and will construct an 8-foot high wail along the east and south to the end of the property of the house just southeast of the Burger King; and also the schedule for deliveries by the trucks has been changed and there will be no deliveries ea~~lier than 7 a.m. He responded to Chairman Messe that trey will be installing new order boa~•ds, with volume controls on the speaker system. A gentleman from the audience indicated he was present to say "thank you" to the Commission. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. 11/23/87 MINUTES,_ANAHEIM..r'~~Y PLANNING COMMISSIONa NOVEMBER 23 _1981_ Y„ 87-890 AC'I10N Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Carusillo and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Herbst and McE3urney absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission hay reviewed tie proposal to expand a drive-thr•~ugh fast food restau-•ant with waivers of minimu-n number of parkiny spaces and maximum fence height on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.7 acre, having a frontage of approximately 150 feet on the east side of Euclid Street, and brainy located approximately 340 feet south of the centerline of Tedmar Avenue and further described as 510 South Euclid Street (Burger Kirry Restaurant); and does hereby approve a Negative Declaration on the basis that it has considered tfre proposed Negative Declaration together vrith any comments received during file public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study anc! any comments receivr~d that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Carusillo and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Herbst and McBurney at,sent) that the Anaheim City Planing Commission does hereby grant waiver (a) on the basis that the parking variance will not cause an increase in traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity nor adversely affect any ad,ioininy land uses; and that the granting of the parkiny variance under the ~:onditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety or general welfare of the citizens of tiro City of Anaheim; and granting waiver (b) on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the property Such as size, scrape, topography, location or surroundings, which do not apply to other identically zoned properties in the vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives ~',^ property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in identical zoning cla=s~ficatiorr, Mr.Rosenfiel<1 asked about the condition r•eyardiry closure of the one driveway which he thought was deleted. Grey Hastings, Senior Planner, responded that was a previous condition and was !eleted and that the driveway does not have to be closed. Commissioner Bouas offered Resolution No. PC87-24'i and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planni~.g Connnission does hereby grant Conditional Use Perr.~it No. 2957 pursuant to Ano;,^i:n Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 thr~~ugh 18.!130.030.035, and subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOUAS, NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSEPIT: COMMISSIONERS: HERBST, BOY'DSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, MESSE MCBURNEY Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Atorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. Commiss~ ~rer McBurne} returned to the Council Chamber. 11/23/87 MINUTES,. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION,~_NOVEM(lER 23~1987_~___~ 87891 ITEM N0. 4. EIR NEGATIVE_DECLARAT_ION_AND VARIANCE N0. 3679 - READVERTISED, PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: PHiL1P W. GANONG, ET Al, 2307 Myrtle Street, Bakersfield, CA 93301, ATTN: JANET GANONG. AGENT: SAND DOLLAR INVESTMENT COMPANY, 17802 SKY1'ARK CIRCLE, SUITE 109, ;tVINE, CA. 92714. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land insisting of approximately ?..3 acres located at the southwest corner of Shor• Street and Kellogg Drive, and further described as 6000 North Kellogg Drive Request for waiver of required lot rontaye to establisi- a 10-lot, 8-unit, single-family residential subdivi ion. There was one interested person present, and although the staff report was not react at the public Bearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Bill Blanchard, Executive Vice President, Sand Uollar Development Company, stated they had approval of a 10-lot subdivision nn September 14, 1987, with a requirement to work with tiie neighbors and after meeting with the homeowners, have revised the plans to eight units, increased the lot si~r~s and the living area and are presently working with the homeowners to grant them access on a private street in the rear off Calle Mirador which would be less traffic coming in off Kelloyy. He stated they intend to have roll-up garage doors and will make that stipulation. Dick Oehlman stated he lives to the north and west and represents the homeowners iii the area and they have no objection to this project with the change. He asked that a letter of intent written to them by the developer be included in the record. He explained the letter agrees to an electronic gate onto the private road with the major portion of the cost t.u be borne by this developer, and landscaping on the private street so that it does not affect the value of their homes. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Malcolm Slauyh~er stated that letter is an ag~,eement between two private parties and he has no objection to it being included in the record but City staff would not enfur•ce i t . Mr. Oehlman stated this is a private road and he did contact the Planning Director of Yurba Linda and they would accept the setback on Short Street and that he felt it would enhance both properties. Chairman Messe stated the letter will be a part of the evidence as presented at the public hearing, but will not be included as a part of the City's action. It was noted the EIR Negative Declaration was previously approved. ACTION: CommissionE~r Boydstun offered Resolution No. PC 81-244 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant approval of revised p14ns in connection with Variance No. 3679 on the 11/23/87 ,.~ t M_I.USJ~IKiS~..._AN_ABExM__~~~~L~IN~.~C~ CQMhSI_S,~I.9L~.~...~'7.4V.F~L1Al^eli~_~_._._3~@.7._ ___~_...__..t~7~$9.?~ basis that there are special circumst~~~ces applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned properties in the vicinity and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in identical mooning classification in the vicinity, subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations. On roll call, the for•egoiny resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: C~MM]SSIONERS: 80UAS, 80YDSTUN, CARIISILLO, FELDHAUS, MESSE, MC GURNEY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HERBST Malcolm Slaughter presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision the City Council within 22 days. ITEM N0. 5: EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3729. PUSIiC HEARING. OWNERS: HOWARD LOUDON AND VICTORIA I. LOUDON, 404 & 420 N. LEMON STREET, ANAHEIM, CA 92805. AGENT: K. C. CHANG, P, O.Sox 2868, Anaheim, CA 92804. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.61 acre, having a frontage of approximately 20U 'feet: on the east side of Lemon Street, approximately 130 feet south of the renterl~ine of Sycamore Street, and further described as 40~i-420 North Lemon Street. Request for waivers of minimum building site area per dwelling unit, maximum structural height, maximum site coverage, and minimum distance between buildings to construct a 3-story, 26-unit, "affordable" apartment complex. There were twelve people indicating their presenc•_ in apposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read at the public ~~earing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Kent Boydst~~n, agent, explained these owners Have been residen+~_ of Anaheim for ever i5 years and own other apartments and have built several ot~ier projec~s in the area and went to build a 26-unit apartment complex. He stated he is giving the presentation because he believes in the property and the project proposed; that this is a .6 acre parcel and ~~ across the street from Pearson Park which is one of our pride and joy areas, and presented a brochure for the Commission to review showing the liighliyhts of the project and pictures of the neighborhood. Mr.Boydstun stated this is an application fnr a 26-unit, 3-story apartment complex and it is 27% affordable anc; they are asking for' a 17% density bonus. He stated ttie property is presently zoned RM 1200 which would allow 22 units and they are proposing 26 units; that the density permitted is 36 units per acre and they are proposing 42 and 65% lot coverage and are still well within the perimeters of the medium density designation. He added the recreational area is well over the requirements of the City. ]]/23/87 MI~?]l~S.._1~~FtE~M_C.I~~-.~_~~t?NI.N~. O.4i~11;S;_1W4t?~__NQY_~~F3~R- ;'~.._19Q~----_.___-----~-~~~3 He stated ~,,~~,y had a problem providing 65 parking spaces which really forced the parking garage underneath the building. Mr. ©~yastun statr.d ne feels the makeup of the neighborhood warrants a project like this anJ to tiie north there are two-story apartments owned by former Planning ~orrmissioner Glenn Fry and that he had reviewed the plans this morning and gave his apousinl inHtireYareanandtthatutreofeltngt~isndisuaew~~ldthouyht oh~re is a need for h 9 project. Dr. William Koun state~l he is a conmrunity representative of the North Anatreim (3oulevard Property Owners Association and a representative on the Community Development clock Grant committee and is present tc~ discuss "affordable" housing and is not speaking against the senior citizens, or ,thoseepstatedwheirhasrenjoyed difficulties or young mothers with latch-Ley children. Pearso~~ Park and concerts in the ~;ummer, but it is one of the three major drug distribution centers in central city" and that he tras personally been solicited that there is a high number of teenage drinkers there to purchase drays there; at all hours and that the Anaheim Police Department is understaffed and cannot do very much to combat these problems. He referr~ to other undesirable activities in the park and mentioned that it is a ~~ngout: for street people and bums and clarified he is making that distinction because they are nc)t the same as the "homeless" people. He stated he has worked with the management of the Safeway and Osco stores to assure that our senior citizens are not hassled in the shopping center. He stated they arc working to make their neighborhood safe and are not giving up on it, and referred to an article in today's paper regarding a stabbing in the 700 block of North Anaheim Qoulevar•d, and added there were five killings on North Anaheim Boulevard last year. He stated ti~ere are people living in the boa,~ec1-up Elks building. He explained he is asking that this projec~ not be designated as "affordable". ..rooks Hoffman, 122 W. Adele, stated the other apartments ground there look like a home, but this apartment would look like a large apartment building and his main objection is that '.t will stand out and not fit into the neiortorhood. Ne Stated he is a "bird watcher" and there are some rare Amazon-type parrots which have mated and made their roost on thy; property anc~ it would be rice to augment t~,~se parrots and explained there are about 4V there, t,ut building a prodect of this nature without the benefit of an environmental impact report, will destroy the future of those parrots 'in the United States. Keith Olesen, 321 N. Philadelphia, Chairman, ~, ~tral City Neighborhood Council and member of the Anaheim Neighborhood Count stated his main concern and the concern of some of the people is the number ~_~r these types of variances being requested, and he did not think this ~~ze development will fit on this size property and the Zorin, Cods are th2rE to prevent t!~is t.ypP of overbuildinc, and congestions and problems fir the neighborhood. He added Pearson Park is a pride and joy area but there is not a lot of landscaping proposed. He stated he thought three stories should not be permitted. He states Mr. goydstun is a realtor working on the project and thinks it is a good project and takes the ]]/23/87 l_~LT,}~I~~.B._..AN.~kiI~IM. ~~'L'x _[_i-ANxI~_G_~Q1~i~.S~S.~.S?.l~N4Y_irMl~.i~t? _?_3.~__..7_9Q'? ___.__._ ____!}.7~ttg4 approach that v+e could do worse; that the parking problem is a result of this project because it is too dense and this is the wrong place; that he clid not think people who own apartments will agree there is a need far housing because they have signs out trying to rent their units, so that argument really does not apply. He stated they arty trying to force an impossible building onto this property and it should not. be allowed. Bole McCorkle, 607 N.Zeyn, past secretary of Central City Nei;~hborhood Council, and Board of Directors of Anaheim ilistorical Society, and sl;eaking as a nearby 7-year resident, stated we need to reclaim that area and more is not going to help; that his lot is 50' x 120' and this is a very ~ngle••family neighborhood and putting a building of this mass into what is predominantly a residential area really stresses the 'infrastructure and variances to increase the density to this extent should not be eranted, and a 3-story building is n~~t needed. He stated ti~i~ massive project would overwhelm the area and the architecture does not blend with what is throughout the area and the residents are very concerned about it. Sr,lly Norton, 220 N. Claud~ina, ret,resentiny t:he Anaheim Neighborhood Association which is a political action committee formed by residents of the central city area, stater) they have an on-going effort in ;~royress to maintain tl;e integrity of the neighborhood and are in disagreement with this proposed project. She presented a petition signed by over 100 residents asking that this petition be denied. She stated the residential rreiyhborh~ods are constantly under siege by people who want to develop apartments and the same carrots are a~iways offered of makincJ a certain percentage affordable and that sounds uood, but unfortunately high Density apartments are nut what they need, and tha'. is evidenced by the large number of banners displayed advertising al,.:rtmerrts tc~ rent in that area. She stated it would be much better to put in condominiums and sell them to families as affordable. She stated she is concerned about this project across the street from Pearson Park which they are tr~~'ny to upgrade and putting a high density apartment complex across the street with no landscaping will crowd that neighborhood beyond belief. She added also there is not enough parking. She stated the developers a::k for variances and de-~sity bonuses and waivers of the recreational areas and `r•y tc push buildings right to tl~e lot lines; and that the zoning is there for a reason and trey wa~' to see it upheld. She stated this building structure could be lovely and parki~~g would nut be a problem and it could be landscaped and became a quality residence. She stated the property owners directly north on Sycamore where the property is zoned 1tS 1:00 signed the petition and do not want a hic;h density project 1/2 block away. Eva Phipps, 3?.0 N. Lemon, stated she also owns property at 324 N. Lemon which adjoins her home and is right across Adele from subject rroperty. She added she is very cone^rned because it is so near and that she has three rental properties at 324 N. Lemon and wants to be able to k?ep quality people in the area and she 11/23/87 MINUT_~S~_~NAJ~>~.~M_.C]..T~._t?~•.AI?t?1~~~ .~.4MM~_&&..~QH,._NOY~M~f.R._.~3...._>,Q@-~-------.--... ~Z-~~_~ •is not thrilled about tt~e overcrowding and the density and with a 26-unit complex, there will be a lot of people and that will not help the parking problem; and that affordable units would attract undesirabie people and degrau. her property. Shc stateWersethepstandardsmofsou~rlCodes denAn~heim,vandaitewould because approval gust to be advantayeou~ to everyone to uphold the Codes. Alice Hazlett, 41Fi N. Lemon, stated they were tolu a few years ago that tnese homes would be refurbished as a historical site and the area would be restored and they were assured they would not be torn down. She stated she has lived there for over 10 years arrcl many of them do not wish to have their homes torn down and somethiny modern built with so many people crammed into one area. Sr~e stated this project is not even close to restoring tine area. Ms. McFie, 302 N. Lemon, stated in December of this year, she will Piave lived there for 40 years and the property has been in her family since 1906. She stated she has seen many charryes in the area and unfortunat~:ly rrot all have been for the better, and that. she wanted to say that some years ago Mr. Loudon requested approval to build apartments and they were to be affordable and that she realized then that she lived in an area designated for multi-fa;nily units and they could not stop the buildiny of apartments, but did ask that tine Commission not waive the minimum building standards because it does increase traffic on Lemon Street and they certainly do not need anymore undesirables in the area. She stated last December her homy was invaded by a car a~~d although the person was not apprehended, it was thought he was one of the people from Pearson Park. Sipe stated she has learned abocrt a lot of drug and alcohol problems in that park, and ~1id not feel they reed any more undesirables and asked the Commission not to approve anything below the minimum building codes. Kent (3oydstun stated that property is under a Hl1D contract for affordable housiny now arrd that loan was put on the homE to rehabilitate it a few years aya. He stated it was ori5inally to be for senior citizens but in the last two years with all the new projects for senior citizens, many seniors have elected to rent a newer unit. Mr.Boydstun referred to other structures in the area which are two stories or iriyher and gated he thought the area warrants the height. He stated must of the signatures ~~n the petition am from residents in central city and they have concerns about the ycner,;l area ~jnd that he could not sayr.hcre would not be 100 residents in the immediate area who want something better on this property because it is old and neEds repair. He stated 2/3 of the residents in Orange i;ounty cannot afford to buy property arrd those are working people who need some place to live and more housiny is needed and he would not want to sEe apar~ments on every parcel, but scattered high density projects; and that he did nt,t thin4. the density is out of line; that four units are affordable and tfrase would not be rented to undesirables and he d-id not *,hink they would parking on the street because peoplr_ wf'ro ~Nruld rent these units do not have two cars. 87-096 MINUTES, ANAHCIM CITY PLANNINu CC'~!IMISS,DN _NOVEMB~'i 2323,_____ 987_~_,..~_ H~ stated in 1974 Mr. Loudon requested waivers as outlined in the staff report and 64 units were approved for this property and he thought that would be :verbui'iding the property, and that project was oat developed, but it would have put ton manU hti°Phisiisoatrwellrthoughtwout•dprojectiandtnotioverlyructure. He stated he tho q cumbersome for the area. PUBLIC HEARING WAS ~~LOSFD. Responding to Chairmen Messe, Mr.Boydstun stated the complex will have 18 two- bedroom, two-bath units, 7 two-bedroom, one-bath units and 1 one-bedroom,one- bath unit. Mr. Boydstun explained the affordable units will be two-bedroom, two-bath and tho': there will be stall heiehtaisg35 feetours a day. Concerniny the height, he expia~ned the ov g Respondiny to Chairman Messe reyardirrg the architectural appearance and how it will fit into the neighbori~ood, Mr. Boydstun stated there will a berm effect in the front of the property and that the trees -~~ould not be very tali in the heyinniny; however, he thouyht the City will possibly leave a couple of the trees in the parkwawillo loot larye trees that grow fasthto add somepcolor~ner has indicated they P but the Commissioner Boua_° stated she did not think it is the trees, architecture and style; that this seems to be the same as all their other projects and it does not fit in with what the neiyhbors are trying to accomplish for old Anaheim. She stated the affordable units will rent at $466 per month and ±he people who rent those units are screened by the Housing Department and the management I-as a say in wr~o the units are rented to and they do not have to just take anyone that is sent to them. Debbie Vayts, Leasing Supervisor, stated the Housing Department would refer applicants to the manager and they select from those clients and screen them, assuming there is no discrimination. Commissioner Bouas stated she did oat know what type of architecture they could use, but that she has seen some that would look better and fit in with the neighborhood better. Corn:nissioner McBurneyuotestedhsome woodctreatmenttofhsomeasori:eto breakhupPthe too much stucco and s ,,g monotony of the stucco. Commissioner Bouas stated frorn looking at the pictures submitted, it appears the neighbors keep up their properties and they are well maintained. Mr.Boydstun stated they could put wood shutters on the windows. Conttnissioner Bouas stated he would have to bring back revised plans. She added she thought there was some form of architectural committee in that area which has been 11/23/87 t'fINI!TES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. NOVEMBER 23,L 19E7 _„_,___,,._ 87-497 trying to put something together for the widening of Anaheim Boc-levard. Commissioner Feldhaus added he thought tt~. Committee is almost in complete accord, Mr. Boydstun stated Mr.Ta~^omina did cnntact them, but they could not change ttre plans without starting over. Commissioner Bouas stated she is not opposed to three stories and if she was going to move into that area, she would want to be on the second floor with parkins underneath; however, she understands the neighbors' concerns and they are trying to clean up this area and they want the park cleared up and are not against apartments, but the density is just too high. Mr. Boydstun stated he owns a complex a block away and also lives not far away and grew up close to Pearson Park and used to ride his bicycle there, but would not let his children go there without an adult today, but hopefully, he will be able to in the future. Chairman Messe asked if there will be a security gate on the parking structure, Mr.Boydstun responded one is nog ,,hown on ttie plans at this time, but they could provide one. Commissioner Carusillc stated he i~as some concerns about the height and the density and the architectural fit into the neighborhood and suggested they might review those areas and perhaps request a continuance and meet with the coalition end tr,y to mitigate their concerns. Chairman Mesee stated the density is mandated by the state codes and Commissioner Mc Burney stated i;~: did not think the density is that severe. Mr. Boydstun stated he has seen other projects and the 17`~ they have requested is far less than the 25% which is covered under the affordability rLles. Commissioner Carusillo stated this just seems to be pushing the height of the building up. iir, Boydstun stated the on'iy way to provide parking is with three stories. Commissioner McBurney stated 35 feet is not excessive, but using the term "three stories" sounds worse. Mr. Boydstun explained the structure is about 30 to 32 feet to the peak of the roof . Cortunissioner McBurney suggested they consider a security gate far the parking structure. Commissioner Feldhaus stated the-•e is concern in the neighborhood and from the cornmer.ts made, there are same problems with ingress and egress on Lemon and with Pearson Pa;k which he thought could be worked out, but he felt the project as being proposed is premature; and that after A~~aheim begins to rebuild the downtown and it can be seen what direction it is taking, maybe this project would be more acceptable; and that we do need residential development for the commercial uses and commercial uses for the residential. However, ha did not know what direction development of the downtown area is going to t~i;e and the int~yrity of these old homes must be maintained and they are in great 11 /23/87 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY_PLANNING COMMI`_'tiIONa NOVFMBER_23, 1987_,r~~lr 87--898 shape and will add flavor to the history of downtown, and he did not like to see somcthiny too modern ;,ome in. Mr. Boydstun asked if he could just work with staff regarding the architecture oecause there is no architectural committee. Commissioner Bouas stated there are lot of people in tine area opposed to this project but not apartments and that she is not opposed to this project but would like to see the homeowners happier. Jay Titus stated a security gate was mentioned and there may be some concern there if it backs traffic uN onto the public street. He suggested a condition be included that any security gates ;~e approved by the City Traffic, Engineer. Commissioner Carusil'lo stated this complex seems to have a contemporary look and doesn't fit with the overall neigtiborirood. Mr. Boydstun stated in the next 10 years the surroundiny properties will take on a contemporary look and that he did not think anybody will restorQ the Elks Building. Commissioner Bouas pointed out the Elks building faces another street. Mr. Boydstun stated there is RM 1200 on Sycamore and pointed out other similar projects and added he understands what the Commission is saying about the architectural character of tine neighborhood. Commissioner Bouas suyyested he take the plans back and talk to the architect and see what can be done; and that these plans look like a standard that can be done anywhere. Commissioner Feldhaus suggested he attend one of their meetings and painted out there are 100 signatures on a petition opposing this request and the people present today took off work to voice their concerns. He pointed out there will not be a meeting in two weeks so a continuance would have to be for six weeks, to January 4, 1988. Mr.Boydstun reques'~~d a continuance to January 4, 1988. ACTION: Commissioner Mc Burney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Herbst absent) that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of January 4, 1988, at the request of the petitioner. RECESS: 3:30 p.m. RECONVENE: 3:40 p.m. 11/23/87 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, NOVEMBER 23, 1987 _ 87-$9 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: WILLIAM AND JOAN TODD, 3620 SAVANNA STREET, ANAHEIM, CA 92804. JOHN AND ROBERTA WARD, 3620 SAVANNA STREET, ANAHEIM C A 92804. ROBERT ANG MARY BURKS, 3620 SAVANNA STREET, ANAiiEIM, CA 92804. RODNEY AND SHEILA HART, 3640 SAVANNA STREET, ANAHEIM, CA 92804. Property d e scribed as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.9 acres located at the southwest corner of Savanna Street and Marian Way, and further described as 3640 West Savanna Street. Property owner request fur General Plan Amendment to change the c urrerrt low-medium density residentia'I designation to medium density residential. Reclassification from RS-A-43,000 anti RS-7200 to RM-1200 Waiver of maximum structural height to construct a 70-unit, 3-story apartment complex There were ten people indicating their presence in oppostion to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Leonard McGhee, Associate Planner, presented the staff report regarding the General Plan Amendment for a change of designation from the current low-medium density residential to medium density residential; that subject property is currently developed with two single-family residences, a horse stable and is zoned RS-A-43,000; that circulation is proposed via Savanna Street which is not designated arr arterial highway on the Circulation Element; and t nat the applicant proposes redesignation to medium density residential which typically takes the form of apartment complexes with a potential of 68 units (36 dwelling units per S,~oss acre) . Mr. McGhee stated the Planning Commission may wish to consider that a number of public trearinys have been conducted on Savanna Street, east of s object study area, which have considered higher density land uses under requ a sted reclassifications, with resultant approvals establishing densiti es ranging from 9 to 36 units per acre; that said approvals have occurred between the intersection of Knott Street and Savanna Street, and 600 feet we st of Knott Street on Savanna Street; that considerable concern was expressed regarding existing and proposed traffic on twc dean-end streets (Savanna and Marian); that ingress and egress to Savanna Street and on-street parking were considered critical; and that a number of properties zoned RM-1200 in the early and mid-70's were redesignated medium density even though development densities averaged approximately 20 units per acre; that existing density on the north side of Savanna, east of subject area, is approximately 16 units to the acre while the density on the south side of the street, east of subj ect area, is 23 units to the acre; that approval for medium density residential land uses within subject study area could signal a potential request for similar 11;23/87 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. N~VEMEEk 23. 1987 _ 87-900 development on the four remaining parcels on the nortl! side of Savanna; and that the estimated number of average daily trips from subject study area would increase from 41 trips to 578. Magdy Hanna, Agent, 4000 MacArthur, Newport Beach, CA, stated t'ne staff report should be corrected to show they are proposing 70 units, not 68, and that thE~ height i s 30 feet from grade to the top of the roof , not 36 feet. Me stated the single-family residences in that area are in the process of converting to apartment uses and that this development would definitely be an improvement for the street; and development of this property would be the 1 ast of the single-family properties on the south side of Savanna; and that they will improve the curbs, gutters, sidewalks and drainage in the area. He stated the project is 65 feet from neighbors on the north. Al Marshall, 223 S. Solomon, Anaheim, architect, stated they are requesting lot coverage of 54~ and 55% is allowed, and they are providing 2-1/2 parking spaces per• unit, 148 covered and 28 open fora total of 176 parking spaces on site. Ne referred to the exhibit showing the previous and the current RM 1200 zone and this site and the units currently under construction. He stated when they met with the neighborhood, several considerations were discussed; cne was by apartment owners in the area that they were not allowed to build at RM 1200 ar~tl we would be allowed to do it now and when they made the request, there were more single family homes which would be impacted. Ne stated the main concern, however, was density and wizen dealing with single-family homes, that is always a concern; and that they are buying the last parcel of single family and the others are requesting a General Plan Amendment. Ne stated another concern was traffic; and that they are dedicating an additional 12 feet as required by the City for future widening and that will add greatly to tl~e accessibility, in and out of that tract. He stated they looked at why previous projects were denied and the concerns were traffic and ingress and egress on Savanna and the width of the street. He stated since the balance of the street is now being developed with apartments, the traffic concerns were addressed by the City '(riffic Engineer last week and he saw no traffic problem in that a turning lane will n~,~w be provided on Knott which adds to the ability to get. in and out of that street. Ne stated Paragraph 10 of the staff report indicates that various city departments have reviewed the proposed amendment and determined adequate facilities exist to service land uses that would be permitted. Mary Bater, 6701 Savanna, stated she was t}~e property oNner who was denied and their request was approved by Buena Park for two 6-unit compl exes, but the City of Anaheim refused to give them utilities, except for two 4-unit buildings, and they had only requested two 6-unit buildings; that in May 1977 the same proponents diligently sought petitions to have the property rezoned to RM 1200 because of the dead end street and traffic danger and s}re would still agree with that; that Savanna and Marian are still dead end streets and the only thing that has changed is the price of the land. She stated Mr. Stohavich just finished an 8-unit building and there is higher density towards Knott, but it is buffered with two condominiums projects. 11/23/87 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, NOVEMBER_23, 19~1~ 87-901 Todd Morton, 3561 Savanna, stated he has been there eight years and there have been many changes on Savanna; and that he is speaking in opposition to the proposed 70 units and everyone he has spoken with has many concerns and opinions against the project. Ne presented a petition with 47 signatures opposing this request. He asked the purpose of the general plan amendment and stated another question was the quality of life. He stated 'if this is approved, traffic from the west end of the street will increase from 41 to 578 trips per day; that tra`fic on Savanna is supposed to go 25 mph which is the speed limit on a residential street and they are concerned there will be an accident and added there are a great many children in the area and that this complex has underground parking and he thought the street parking will be increased, and every evening the east side of the street is used for parking now. He added the rise in loitering will continue and it is not uncommon now to find people sitting on tl~e curb drinking and tossing their empties on their lawns. He invited the Commissioners to personally visit their street and feel their frustrations. Sharron Cooley, 3569 Savanna, explained she has lived in the condominiums for 1-1/2 years; that sire previously lived in Cypress in a single-family home for 16 years and bought this home basically with an understanding that the area would remain the way it is; that she is for development and would like to see the area properly developed and believed it could be done under the r.urrent General Plan designation and did not believe a 70-unit apartment where it is proposed is appropriate. She stated there is additional property to be developed and combined wiil have a significant impact on all of them. She stated traffic on Savanna currently is reasonably heavy and traffic congestion at the corner of Savanna and Knott is heavy; and adding 12 feet to the end of Savanna is not going to help those who live east of the complex; that from 41 to 578 trips is a significant impact and one that those who live in the area and are homeowners will not find acceptable and they do have children who play in their front yards along the street and the traffic is heavy and they are endangered. She stated she belinved the density is just too much and increased density will increase crime as it has in other areas; and that the increase in density will increase her risk and her insurance and her frustrations. She stated she believed the Commission i-as an obligation to keep the General Plan to low to medium density and not approve any higher densities. Rick Converse, 3571 Savanna, stated he felt the proposed project is just a little too much far the area and leaving the designation at low medium density would be adequate; and there are no curbs or gutters in the area and it is a great traffic hazard, but 500 additional cars pose a greater traffic hazard. He stated he just purchased his home six months ago and did look at the plans and zoning to determine whether or not he would have a world trade center next to his home; that allowing 70 units on this site and the site at the end of the block would mean some 150 units next to his home. He added he felt we should stay within the current General Plan of low to medium density and that he is all for development but not for 500 additional cars on the block. Scott Hackworth, 6729 Yosemite, Quena Park, stated ho found out about this proposed project accidently; that he is one-half owner with his uncle who lives 11/23/87 i MINUTES,_ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, NOVEMBER 23, 1987 ____ ._a~~.2.-. in Anaheim and that tie talked to his neighbors an both sides who are homeowners in that area and they did not know about this proposal. He stated he does not object to development, but does object to the density and rezoning and the height. He stated he has a direct view of the proposed project and tyre density is his biggest objection. He stated he could not determine if tl~e traffic would affect his property value because it is a dead end street and he did not know what percentage increase there would be to the traffic flow. Art Stahovich stated he owns property at 3639 Savanna and just yot final completion of his units under RM 'Z400 zoniny and does not have any objection to improvement on that street, as lony as it conforms to the General Plan and zoninci. He stated they have problems with parking on that street and with enreryency equipment access because there is one way in and ore way out, and he was concerned for their safety in case of afire such as the one in Daldwin Hills and he did not think making the street 64 feet wide would solve the problem. Vle stated he had a choice of selling his property or building in conformance with Code and he was so sure the City of Anaheim would not be swayed to chance because in 1971 all these property owners came to City Hall and demanded that the designation be changed to a lower density, and now that the price of land has gone up, so has greed, and he did not think it is right to chanye it now. He stated the north side of the street from his property to the one-story condominiums could be developed with another 150 or' 200 units, and asked how it can be stopped and added he thought sticking to the General Plan would avoid it; and that street doesn't have the circulation or room to expand and these are rights that others have been denied and they should be allowed to enjoy what they have because they bought their properties and developed them with tyre intention that tY~is is tire way it is yoiny to be. ~ asked haw many handicapped parking spaces they will provide and stated also that he read chat two people and one small child per bedroom would be permitted and asked who would enforce that restriction. Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, stated the Code Enforcement Office would enforce that rule; that if there is a violation found througi~ whatever source of information they have, they would seek enforcement activities and if it is a violation of our ordinances, there could be prosecution, or a civil complaint filed, but there are different avenues, depending on the situation. Chairman Messe stated there would be an agreement between the owner and the City acrd we would expect manayement to enforce it. Mr. Stahovich stated now that the price of the land is up, it is not right to grant rights to some that were denied to others; and that it is not the owners pushir~y for this, but the developers who are offering this price. Joan ?odd, 3620 Savanna, stated she has been a resident there for 22 years; that when she moved there, she thought the area would remain the same, but unfortunately a lot of things have happened; that it was a nice place to raise 11/23/87 87.903 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING_COMMISSION, NOVEMBER ?3, 1987_~_..__.~__.__.r._._.--• her children, but progress does come and it came at the dead errd of Buena Park and she feels it is time to move on and let growth begin. Shc Mated the condominiums arc not a buffer and there are apartments right across the street from i~er re~ttloncthanhto see aoproject`1thatfis substandardror notsdoneoascwell ~n this loc as this one . Debbie Moyers, 839 Marian Way, stated the duplexes are all one story and with these apartments going in behind them, it means no privacy at all for the houses or yards. She stated a couple of duplex owners asked her to speak for them and they feel property values wily not increase because someone would not want to purchase a duplex with a big apartment complex towering over them. Sloe stated a lot of dupiex owners move into a unit like this because they cannot afford a private hume and want to get away from apartment living. She stated they do not think this will be a benefit to Marian Way. She added traffic is Lead and there are a lot of small children in the area. that the City Traffic Mr. Hanna stated he understands the neighbors' concerns; Engineer has said Savanna is wide enough to accommodatetht~~ onathecnorthrside~ even though several future developments Gan take place; of tree street, there are only six properties and tree total units that could be built under RM 1200 is g0 to 10U; that they will provide 176 parking spaces underneath the units so parking will not be a problem; and that there was a concern about someone standing outsicie and drinking beer and he did not think that will happen because this complex will have its own entertainment area on the upper level and they will provide a pool, spa, barbeques, etc. Concerning the quality of the tenants, he explained they will have on-site management and the tenants will be screened and approved for occupancy based on income, and the units will rent for approximately $800 a month and the tenants would have Lo earn 32,500 to $3,000 per month to qualify. Ha stated they are proud of their projects and they are quality project:; and that he thought the children would play inside the complex.. Concerning privacy to the duplexes vn Marian Way, he stated they are not required to provide anything for privacy between apartment complexes and multi-family units. Al Marshall referred to the concern expres:ed about access in case of a fire on the street, and stated they will have to conform to the 1985 Uniform Building Codes and every apartment unit and every part of the garage will have a fire sprinkler and the garage will nave a two-hour firewall. Regarding traffic, he stated they will be upgrading the streets. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. 11/23/87 MINUTES, AMANEI~1_CITY PLANNING COMMISSION,_NOVEMBE~t~23,_19a7_________8/-_904 Don Dey, Associate Traffic Engineer, stated he understands Mr. Singer has made the comment there would be no impact by this develoi:,ment on the surrounding street system and his reaction to that is that on an individual project. by project basis, this is not a large apartment complex and a development of this size will not dramatically impact this area or any other area. Ne add,ed, howeve~~, if the whole undeveloped area starts moving towarcls medium cl~~nsity, with Savanna being a cul de sac street, there could be some potential traffic problems, .such as a traffic signal could be required at the intersection of Knott. and Savanna in the future and also as the traffic builds up, there could be a need to remove some of the parking on Savanna. He stated the guidelines for traffic flow in a residential community is in a range of 3000 to 5000 vehicles per day which could be handled under general traffic impact standards, but also there is an environmental impact cor!cern for the children's safety, speeding traffic and the noise of vehicles traveling up and down the street. He stated he is not saying that all ~f this will come about, but the Commission is faced with the issue of the whole area going to that density. He stated tine Traffic Department has not done any clet;~iled analysis of that area at this time. Commissioner Mc Burney stated he feels this proposed zoning fs going to be quite severe on this street and the RM '2400 Zone which is existing is more in keeping with that end of the street, however, the RM 1200 Zone is more acceptable closer to Knott. Commissioner Bouas stated if this is approved, there is no reason for the rest of the street not to go RM 1200, ever! though the properties are developed and that she would not feel comfortable unless there is a study done by the Traffic Department to determine the ?ffect if the whole area was developed RM 1200. Commissioner McBurney added he thought the Commission needs to know the potential if the entire block goes RM 1't00. Chairman Messe stated he would be concerned if parking had to be eliminate+~; and that this project has tandem parking and people do not like to use tandem parking and will park outside on the street. Commissioner Bouas stated she would like to see street parking prohibite~~i in front of the apartment. Commissioner Feldhaus clarified the address of hi-. Stahovich's apartment complex and stated he had counted 14 units with a number on them and it was clarified there are eight units and t"n others are storage rooms. Co~nmissi~ner Feldhaus asked if those would be used as i;riny quarters and Mr. Stahovich responded they wo~!ld not. Mr.Stahovich explained that property was rerently rezcr:ed. Ne stated he is a developer and buildar and only builds projects he can be pr'e~~d of. Ne stated he has had offers to purchase the property. Responding to Mr. Stahovich's earlier question, Greg Hastings explained the Zoning Code has no standards for handicapped parkirg spaces, however, the state requirement is 1~. Mr. Stahovich responded to Commissioner Feldhaus that he had requested a 11/23/87 MINUTES~,_ANAHEIM_CITY_PLANNING_COMMISSION,_•NOVEMf1ER_ 23,_1987_~____________~7 9a',-- rezoning before constructing his complex and the Planning staff would not even accept the application. Ne added he values the opinion of the !'tanning Commission and they are supposed to protect the citizens grid do good for the community aril not just a few people. Chairman Messe stated Mr, Hanna has developed a lot of projects in Anaheim and they are nice and that doesn't mean he is in favor of this project. Commissiuner 13ouas stated Mr. Hanna has done quality projects and this would be a quality apartment complex in the area. She added she is concerned about •Nliat is going to be happening on the whole street and n~~t just this one propert~~ and once this property is allowed to be rezoned, there is no reason for the whale area not to be rezoned. Chairman Mese stated he has a lot of problems with rezoning this property to RM 1200 and changing the General Plan. Commissioner Mc Durney asked if staff had reviewed what the potential would be if all the undeveloped property on ~Lhat street was developed at RM 1200. Leonard McGhee stated there is a potential for approximately 109 units on the north side of Savanna; which in traffic Stan arils would be 925 trips, and combined with this project on the south sip! they wc:uld add 1500 additional trips on that one end of the street. Commissioner (3oydstun stated there are .°cr~l; ,just past of Marian Way which could be developed, and Mr. McGhee res •~•yv~lopments have been approved on those properties, but not developed, a~;_ ~ +i~r not included. Chairman Messe stated those properties should be inc' Malcolm Slaughter stated there is ~ - '- ~ ty that a presently developed property could be redeveloped at ~ ~ •4~n5ity, and Chairman Messe explained he is not interested in properties, ~~y ieveloped, but those undeveloped properties potentially being dev41lr;~~ -~ ~tM 1200. Leonard McGhee stated if the Gen~~r: ~ i; changed to medium density and the zoning to RM 1200, there are rouyhl _ .~:res on the north side which are not developed, not including the undeve'v~~~~ ,properties on the south side. He responded to Commissioner FeldhaWs t;~~' this is the last RSA 43,000 parcel. Mr. Hanna stated presently there arc: =. .•arcels that are existing with single family homes and everything else t~r~ '-_h sides has been developed. Chairman Messe referred to the lot on Marian ,~~rchas J by Mr. Hanna which is developed with a single-family residence ~r~', w~~Zl be .used for the guest parking for this project, and it was pointed out. that. is c~~nying to RM 1200 and Mr. Hanna stated there are no other single family hues. Chairman Messe referred to the duplexes which are about the sane aye as the home to be demolished and Mr. Hanna stated actually with the price of land, he could not afford to remove the duplexes; ar.d explained he figured this could work because t~~~~y could provide guest parking therE~. Mr. Hanna stated the Traffic Engineer has stated the street can accommodate 500 trips per day and Chairman Messe responded he has not heard that the street could accommodate the extra traffic that could be added. Mr. Hanna stated it can accommodate the additional 109 units on the north side. 11/23/87 87.. gof, MINUTE:Sa_ANAH~I.M_CITY_Pt_ANNING COMMiSSION,_NOVEMBER_23,19137_______._.___-.---------- ~~Ir. Dey responded to Chreetacouldsaccommodate the additmonalntraffic andtstaffd~ h~ did not think the st would have to review the situation. Chairman Messe suggested the petitioner request a continuance to tl~e meeting of Januar~~ 4, 1988, in order to submit additional traffic information. Mr. El~~nna stated that would be acceptable and give them time to complete the study. He stated they are developing 100% of the properties on the north side of the street and have submitted plans and are scheduled for an upcoming pry-file meeting. He explained they will be requesting RM 1200 on that property also. Chairman Messe stated the Co~reclassificationt andltheie9tiretareapshouldybenly because he considers ~t sp reviewed. Leonard McGhee stated staff recommended the applicant file an application for both sides but this application only covers 3 of the remaining undeveloped parcels and that staff would contact the property owners on the north side to see if they ar•e interested in supporting this application. p1r. Hanna stated they did contact all the prop^rty owners on the north side and all agreed to sign a petition for a general plan amendrtient; however, this application is only on three parcels. Chairman Messe stated the traffic and parking study need to be done with all tine parcels taken into consideration. Mr. Nanna agreed to request a continuance and submit a new traffic study. Responding to Commiss~oneMrB~~Hannatstapedpthelpeopleewhohliveian thetnorthrlside side of Savanna Stree of Savanna are the condominium owners. Al Marshall pointed out the area zoned RM 3000 where the condominiums are located and the three parcels next to that which they have in preliminary planning stages and the area currently under consideration. Mr. Hanna stated they have three Narcels and are working with the owner to purchase the fourth. ACTION: Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Herbst absent) that consideration of 'the aforementioned matter is hereby continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of January 4, 1988, at the request of the petitioner in crder to submit an additional traffic study. Commissioner Carusillo stated the traffic study should address the impact of rezoning ali the undE~veloped properties to RM 1200. Malcolm Siauyhter st~~ted the Corr~nission has continued consideration of the Generai Plan Amendment and Reclassification on this property and that there is to be a different application filed for a different GPA in the immediate area I1~23~a~ MINUTES _NNAHEIM_CITY,..PLANNING_CUMMISSION_, NOV~MBER__l3,_1987_____.___,_______.87-gp.? and anoth~~r• reclassificatiotheotwo tcombined intofoneeGeneral Plan Amendment to might be desirable to have t~e readver~t i sed and heard on January 4 , 1988. Leonard NcGhee stated staff can expand the study area to cover the whole west side of ~.avanna and not just this developer's proposal. Mr. Stahc,vich stated some uf~ the complexes in ti~at area were constructed prior to the code requiring 2.5 spaces per unit and asked what will happen to those people ii~ parking wat intoiconsiderati~~nna. Chairman MesSe stated the study wi 11 take. al 1 of ti ITEM N0. 7: ENVIRONMENTAL_IMPACT_REPORT__NO_._2fi6_~~'REVIOUSLY CERTIFIED~._AND RECiLASSII_JCATION NO__,87-88._26_` PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: ANAHEIM LANG ASSOCAAT~2660~ITPDropertyERsiian' 450 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, X304, NEWPORT BEACH, C roximately 2..5 acres, having irregularly-shaped parcEl of land consisting of app a fronta~ae of approximately 116 feet on the south side of Katella Avenue, appr•oximate1y 1800 feet east of the :enter•line of State College Boulevard, and further clescribrd as 2430 East Katella Avenue. Request for reclassification from CR to CL. Ttrere was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request, and although the staff report was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part .,f the minutes. Robert Neary, Vice President of Anaheim Land Associates, was present to answer any questions. Comm~issioner• McBurney painted out the staff report indicates this request is for reclassification to construct a restaurantlcommercial complex, and that the action of the Planning Commission pertains to the reclassicalltlwantedyto know Hastings ,Senior Planner. explained the Commission has typ Y what was being proposed and that information was included for informational purposes only. THE PUBLIC HEF~RING WAS C;.`~SED. Commissioner NlcBurney stated he thought this proposed zoning is in keeping with what we want to see developed in the Stadium area. Commissioner Feldhaus stated restaurants are permbuteheididhnotRl~keetonseeethed not know what commercial uses they have in mind, CR area rezoned and did not think the property should be rezoned until the Commission knows specifically what is being proposed for that property. He stated there is also the $36 million dollar shortfall to consider in that particular area. Commissioner F;c.Burney stated having the property zoned CR will not hep~ t~ is e balance that deficit and commercial limited would be a much more appr zone. ii/23/87 87 - ~ttA MINUTES ANAHEIM_CI_TY PLANNING COMMISSION,. NOVEMBER_2~,,. 1981 ____________.____- CorrmissionE~r McBurney stated having the property zoned CR will notp~e~~ia~e balance that d;.~icit and commercial limited would be a much more a r zone. Clairman Messe added that area is in transition now to hiyh••rise office developments. It was noted the enviMonmental impact report was previously approved. ACTION: Commissioner Carusillo offered Resolution No. PC87-245 and mov~cl for' its paReclassificatponoNoth87-98e26r,asubjectttopInterdepa~tmentalrrCommstteeeby grant Recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote AYES COMMISSIONERS: DOUAS, DOYDSTUN, CARUSiLLO, MESSE, MC BURNEY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: FELDHAUS ADSENT: COMMISSIONERS: FiERBST Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mc Burney ar~d M01ION CARRIED (Commissioner Herbst absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby instruct staff to initiate studies to establish a formalized mechanism to impose the "fa,r share" fees for future projects in the Anaheim Stadium B~~siness Center". Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's derision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0. 8: EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION __RECLASSIFICATION N0. 87_88-27, AND V,IRIANCr: N0~3728 PUBLIC NEARING. OWNERS: KATHERINE WESOLOSKY, 105 W. VICTOR AVENUE, ANAHEIM, CA 92801. AGENT: MARK KIAFAR, 300 N.TUSTIN AVENUE, N201, SANTA ANA, CA 92705 Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 60 feet on the north side of Victor P.venue, approximately :,000 feet west of the centerline of Harbor Boulevard and further described as 705 West Victor /'venue. Rec'assify from RM-2400 to RM-12uii. Waivers of maximum structural height, maximum site coverage, maximum number of bachelor units, minimum structural setback and permitted encroachments to construct a 2-story, $-unit, apartment building. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request, and although the staff report was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. ~~1ark Kiafar, agent, explained there is an old home located next to the apart~hetshoaa tlannedtto1constructel0 units bu~Obeca'use of the seze ofdthend that y p 11/23/81 87 909 MINUTE S~_I~N1iHE.IM_CITY PLANNING COMMISSION,_NOVEMQE_P,_23, 1987-___..____._-_____.._.__~~- property it was not possible so are proposing six 2-bedroom, 2-bath units and 2 bac;.el or units . THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Messe stated any project requiring this number of waivers 1s subject to 3 lot of scrutiny because they are requesting rezoniny to RM 1200 and still need several waivers which is an indication the project would be overbuilding the property. He stated there are a lot of rroblems existiny on that. street with parking and just yeneral housekeeping and this project would not be adding anything nice. Mr. Kiafar stated he thought the project would be an improvement and they have to be able to have eiyht or more units because of the price of the land. Chairman Messe stated the {planning Commission considers land use, not economics. Mr. Kiafar stated building this complex will improve that location. Commissioner Boydstun stated it will add a lot of traffic to that area which 'ls already heavy. Mr. Kiafar stated it wouldn't add a lot of traffic because there will only be six two-bedroom units and two bachelor units and the number of people would be limited to one person for each bedroom. Commissioner Boydstun pointed out the Code would permit two adults per bedroom so there could be four people in each two-bedroom u. it with potent;ally four vehicles per unit. Commissioner Feldhaus pointed out the two dwelling units just to the west are one story. Mr. Kiafar responded to Commissioner Boydstun that the existiny residence would be removed to construct the new building. He added he did not believe there would be two adults in each bedroom and that. the units will rent for approximately $600 per month. Commissioner Boydstun pointed out the payments on the small 3-bedroom houses across he street ar•e $900 per monttr. Commissioner Feldhaus asked about the abandonment of the col de sac. Jay Titus, Office Engineer, explained there is a condition included in the variance which should be included in the reclassification requiring the applicant to apply for and receive approval of the abandonment of the excess right of way of what used to be a col de sac and to post a bond to reconstruct improvements in the proper location prior to occupancy. He added if the City Council did not approve the abandonment, the applicant would have to measure setbacks from the existing right of way rather than from the proposed right of way created by the abandonment. He explained the applicant would have to make an application and that has not been done at this time. Commissioner Feldhaus stated maybe this request is premature and the abandonment should be approved first. Chairman Messe stated it appears from the plan that was not accommodated for and it would have to be redesigned. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, stated the condition would be moved from the variance to the reclassification and if the Council were to deny the 11/23/87 MINUTES _ANAHEIM__CITY PI.ANNIN~_COMMI_SSION~ NOVEMBER 23, 1987__________._, .__$7_19 abandonment, he would have to mod~,~y the plans and wording would be added to fire conditions requiring that revised plans would have to be submitted if the abandonment is not approved. Mr. Kiafar stated he intended to apply for the abandonment in order to straighten that portion of the sidewalk because drivers do not sne it and it 'is a hazard. Chairman Messe stated there is no question that. it is necessary for safety. Mr. Kiafar stated if the project is approved, he will agree to do whatever is necessary. Jay Titus stated he did not see any reason why the Council would not approve it. Commissioner McBurney agreed with the Chairman that this is really overbuilding the property and r:, would be willing to yo for RM 2400 but no~ RM 1200 because there is a terrible traffic situation with parkiny on that street and this would just add to that condition. Commissioner Carusillo ayreed and stated there is quite a bit of congestion on that street and a lot of pedestrian traffic and adding 8 units would be overbuilding and he rather see RM 2400. Commissioner Feldhaus stated when he was in the area here were r.ars parked bumper to bumper on both sides of the street. Chairman Messe asked if the petitioner would like a continuance in order to try and work within the existing RM 2400 zoning or if ire would prefer a vote on this project. Mr. Kiafar stated trying to provide 18 parkiny spaces is the problem and whether it will pencil out economically and that the zoning is RM 2400 and he could go ahead with a project meeting these requirements. ACTION: Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Herbst absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to reclassify subject property from the RM-2400 (Residential, htuitiple-Family) 7_one to the RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple-Familyj Zone to construct a 2-story, 8-unit. apar~iment building with waivers of maximum structural height, maximum site coverage, maximum number of bachelor units, minimum structural set.bark, and permitted encroachments on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.27 acre, having a frontage of approximately 6U feet on the north side of Victor Avenue, and being located approximately 1,000 feet west of the centerline of Harbor Boulev~~rd, and further described as 705 West Victor Avenue; and does hereby approve a Negative Declaration on the basis that it has considered the proposed Negative Declaration toget'r~er 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 ttie environment. Commissioner McBurney offered Resc,lution No. PC 87-246 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny Reclassification No. 87-88-27. I1/23/87 MINUTES,_ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMiSS10N.,_NOVEMBER_23,_.187_________,_,____ 81-_311 On roll call , the foregoing resolution was passed by the followiny vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, MESSE, MC BURNEY NOES : COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HERBST Commissioner McBurney offered Resolution No. PC 8)-247 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny Variance No. 312II on the basis that ti~ere are no special circumstances applicable to the property such 4s size, shape, topography, location or surroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned properties in the vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoni ny Code does not deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in identical zoning classification in tl~e vicinity. On roll call, the forey~irn resolution was passed by the followiny vote AYES: COMh1ISSI0NERS: BOUAS, BOYDSIUN, CARUSILLO, FELDfIAUS, MESSE, MC BURNEY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMh1I SS I ONERS: HERBST Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented tine written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the L'ity Council. ITEM N0. 9. EIR NEGIITI VE DE CLARATI~M1,_WAIVER_OF CODE_R_EQUIREMFNT.AND CONDITIONAL USE_PERM(T NU,_2964. PUBLIC NEARING. OWNERS: ROBERTSIiAW-FULTUN CONTROLS CO., 1701 BRYD AVENUE, RICHMOND, VA 23261-6544. AGENT: BF.RGSTROMS CHILDRENS STORES, 16862 REDHILL AVENUE, IR1r1NE, CA 927 i4, AND ROBERT D. MICKELSON, 327 N GLASSELL, ORANGE, CA 92666. Property described a s an irregul arl y-shaped parcel of 1 and consisting of approximately 1.5 acres, having a frontage of approximately 1632 feet on the north side of Al ro Way, approximately 115 feet east of the centerline of Clementine Street, and further described as 160 South Manchester Avenue. To permit a specialty retail use (Berystroms Childrens Store) with waiver of minimum number of park i ny spaces. There was no orre indicating their presence in opposition to subject request, and although the staff report was not read at tine public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of tine minutes. Robert Mickel son , agent, was present to answer any questions. THE PUBLIC HEARING lr'AS CLOSED. ACTION: Commissioner 13ouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Carusillo and MOTION CAkn.I cU (Commissioner Herbst absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit a specialty retail use (Bergstroms Chi 1 drens Stores) with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces on an irregular•~ly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.5 acres, having a frontage of approximately i63 feet on the south side of Alro Way, approximately 1 :5 feet east of the centerline of Clementine Street, and further 11/23/87 MINUTESa,_ANAHEIM CITY_PLANNING_COMMISSION1_NOVEM4ER 2.3,,_,1987 r37; 9l?_ described as 1601 South Manchester Avenue; and does hereby approve a Neyative Declaration on the basis it has considered the proposed Neyative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finn~ns ubstantialsevidenceethattthe projectnwillyhavemansignifican/t effecthone is the environment. Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Carusillo and M01ION CARRIED (Commissioner Herbst absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby yrant waiver of Code requirement on she basis that the parkirry variance will not cause an increase in traffic corrgestiorr in the immediate vicinity nor adversely affect any adjoininy land uses and that the granting of the parking variance under tl~e ronditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety or general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Commissioner Bouas offered Resolution No. PC 81-248 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anafreim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Condit ~30a030sthrought16~03?030~035randrlsubjectatoimnFterdepart.mendtalSCummittee 18.0 Recommendations, On roll tali, the foreyoiny resolution was passed by the followir-g vote: AYES COMMISSIONERS BOUA5, BOYDSTtiN, CARUSILLO, FELDriAUS, MESSE, MC BURNEY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: iIERBST Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written riyht to appeal the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council within 22 days. ITEM N0. 10. EIR_NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND CO(VDITIONAL USE PERMIT_N0. 2965. PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: ROSA MARY CASELLA ULIV1 AND ANGELO J. CASELLA, 9792 Sunderland Street, Santa Ana, CA 92705 and CHRIS AND ANASTASIA T. TSACHPINIS, 17952 IRVINE BLVD., N210, TUSTIN, CA X2680. AGENT: DANIEL L.RIORDAN, 233 S. LEMON, ~F, URANGE, CA 92666. Property described as a rectanyularly-shaped parcel of land consistiny of approximately 0.6 acre located at the northwest corner of Miraloma Avenue and Kraemer Boulevard, and `~~rtf~.~~ described as 3093 East Miraloma Avenue. To construct a drive-through restaurant with waiver of required landscaped setback area. Comrnissioner McBurney declared a conflict of interest as defined by Anaheim City Plan piny Commission Resolution No. PC76-157 adapting a conflict of interest code for the Planning Commission arrd Government Code Section 3625 et seq, in that he is employed by a fast food restaurant company and pursuant to the provisions of the above codes declared to the Chairman that he was withdrawiny from the hearing in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 2965 and would not take art in either the discussion or voting thereon and had not discussed this P 11/23/87 MINUTES _ANAHEIM CITY PLANNLNG COMMISSI0N,_NOVEM6Eft__23 _.1987_____.___87-_913 matter with any member of the Planning Commission. Thereupon, Commissioner McBurney left the Council Chamber. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was nut read at the public hearing, it is referred to anc; made a part of the minutes. Mr. Papadopoulos, agent, 11592 Irvin^ Boulevard, Tustin, was present to answer any questions. TIE PUBLIC NEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Feldhaus ~~sked if they will provide a buffer along the west property line to screen the Anaheim Wholesale Grocers facility. Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, explained screening is not required. Commissioner Feldhaus stated there is a driveway between the two properties. Commissioner Carusillo explained it ~s similar to the project at Lincoln and Dale. Commissioner Feldhaus asked i~f a reciprocal access agreement would be required. Mr. Papadopoulos stated they would not require ore and he clad not know whether Anaheim Wholesale Grocers would, but stated tFrey would provide one if required. Commissioner Feldhaus stated he thought it would help to screen it. Chairman Messe states it helps to allow traffic from one property to the other without going out onto the street. ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Carusillo and MOTION CARRIED (Corr;missioners Herbst and McBurney absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to construct a drive-through restaurant with waiver of required landscaped setback area on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.6 acre located at the northwest corner of Miraloma Avenue and Kraemer Boulevard, and further described as 3093 past Mirloma Avenue; and does hereby approve a Negative Declaration on the basis that it h a s considered the proposed 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 a rnotio n, seconded by Commissioner Carusillo and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Herbst antl McBurney absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant waiver of Code requirement on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to he property such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which do not apply to other identically zoned properties in the vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other aroperties under identical zoning classifies tion in the vicinity. Commissioner Bouas offered Resolution No. PC 87-249 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant 11/23!87 MMI SS ION NOVEMGER 23 1987 _~. _..._..__ 87 ~ ~-~± MINUTES,. AN1~HE1M_-CITY Fl11NN(NG_CO__-..-_____.~._____~_.._.------s-~--____.-----•-- Conditional Use Permit 18 03?030.035sandtstbjecthtominterdepartmentaleCommlttee 18.03.030.030 through Recommendations, On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the followi nq vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NONES' 80YOSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDt(AUS, ME SSE NOES: CUMMISSI AGSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HER(3ST, MC GU(tNEY Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written fyht to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council Commissioner McDurney returned to ttie meeting. ITEM N0,_-il___EIk_NEGATIVE DECLARIITLON, WAIVER_OF_CQDE_RCQUIRE,MENT,_ANO CONDITION,4L_USE PERMIT N0._2966: ~~ PUGLIC HEARING, OWNERS: THEODORE TODOROFF, 929 N.dAnat~cie~ ofvaandAcoFnsistiny of 92806. Property described as an irregularly-shaFe p approximately U,35 acre located at tine sout~~west corner of La Palma Avenue and Anaheim 'soulevard, and further described as 929 N.Anaheim Goul ~vard. To permit an automotnvc. repaallf carlspacest(deleted)oandiminimumuflooroarearofng aaces, minimum numL_r of sm ~,anayer' s unit. There was one interested per u~~icthearingt,lit ~isar•eferred totand9rnadeeaspart of report was not read at the p the minutes. Dan Rowland, 1290 N. Hancooc~heSu~oeertY'asnproposedtanddttiepstaffgreportriss needed in order to level p p p misleading in that the blroused the Hondarmotorcycleoagen~y haskcode~parkengaand that the building which is the largest building; anaheadtandeactua1lynthisaisaasresult ofxtherstre..tnd is in the process of yoiny widening program. Mr. Rowland referrednto tdestatcedtthespetgitioner hadethoughtt thatawastaepart of signal assessment fe_5 an tiie street widening program and not an expense he would have ; and i s requesting that he net be required to pay t'~ose fees. Ken Markham, 900 N . Zeyn, stated he has no objection to increasing business in the area and ti~at he used to1~orTrafficeEngineerchassdetermdi ~edrthatpthegnumbere staff report indicates the C y of parking spaces proposed would not be sufficient and he feels this developer should be required to comply with the rules; and that they would probably have to reduce the size of theownrallctheop~opertiespnow,dtheyecould sell some of it. stated even though they 11/23/87 .,..~... n... ,.i..--...-... ..-.. ... ... .. TES ANAHEIM., CITY PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 23,_1987_~~..._._______._87~=-~~' M 1 N ll~__-, ___.____..- Mr. Markham referrea to Condition No. '13 which says no outdoor storage oSenior work on vehicles or vehicu~hereahas not.lbeen aeproblem~witheanyaconditlonal use Planner, stated typically perrnit and that is a automobilesndand1~ifpthatboccurs~nfi.heytwouldsberineviolation overnight or work on of the conditions of the permit. Chairman Messe stated he is very concerned about parking. Mr.Rowland stated they would not propose to do any rktdinsidetorHeestatedrheociidenotlttrinkntheyat they have facilities to do all wo would have any impact on the neighborhood because an alleyanar`heirthnyressirandy on tine west and this property has no access to the alley, egress will be via two driveways on feetehasBbeenv removedeand~idedicated,forreal hardship parcel in that 5900 square ossible to accommodate the street widening. He stated they Have done everything p community and the r~eighbor~s. Commissioner [Bouas stated she thought the parking would be adegwauldastipulateif the manager's unith~weverbethecplanedubmMtted4,isnthetmost efficient. to increasing 'it, Commissioner Bouas the concern is that if one is permitted to be smaller, t ere will be mo~•e similar r•eyuests. raroy ~iastings explained the traffic siy~~al assessment fee is based on termitsare footing of the building and is a requirement for issuance ofibionernand Anr~ika Santalahti stated she had discussed tt~i~ withonhand it is conceivable exp'. a i r~~ c i t i s a requ i remer~t fns' a t l newt ho ,,re footage ;.oul d be subtracted , that since this is an existing facii~~,, ~~ Code to subtract anything ;~Idlcolr° S'laught~+' st.z*,'d there i~ no authur~~. c;ue to the tact that saniethiny ma; gave pre-existed. Commissioner Bouas pointed out the Com~i:.sio:, ''a~?not w:.ive ~:~e fees. Annika Santalahti suggested the petitioner may vrish to appeal this decision to the City Council if what is bei~9 w°sh to modifylor•oreviseAthe~ordBnanceaand widening and the City Council m Y ro ect. make provisions for this type of p J irman Messe stated the only thing not addressed is ort andkthe p;ojeCtfeonred Cha to the parking calculations on page 5 of the staf rep Lincoln used 5.5 spaces and the ientf1CAnngkaeSantalahtiestated shethade number of spaces proposed is not suff~c discussed this with Mr.Sirrger and thought the discussiono ertybethettotalY mightny this project in combination with the motorcycle shop p p be close. She responded to Ctrkinman Messe that she thouyht the motorcycle facility had code required pa 9 Responding to Commissioner BooydstHe,stiatedctheydreviewedttheutraffic study in radiator and transmissions p depth with the Traffic Engineee_off and Mr~nSingerrthoughththeoimpactfonnparking and egress and they are a trad Chairman Messe pointed out wouldisenotstheywaytthekstaffcreportr,~eadse alley. that il/231t37 87- 915 MINUTES,_ANAHEIM_C1.T., PLANNING COMMISSION,_NOVEMBERw23,_19a7__,._~-___..__._.___ _.__-- Mr. Markham referred to Condition No. 13 which gays no outdoor storage of or work on vehicles or vehicular parts shall be permitted. Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, stated typically there teas not been a problem with any conditional use permit and that is a standard condition prohibiting any outdoor storage overnight or work on automobiles, anti if that occurs, they would be in violation of the conditions of the permit. Chairman Messe stated he is very concerned about parkincJ. Mr.Rowland stated they would not propose to do any outdoor storage or work on vehicles; and that they have facilities to do all word, inside. He stated he did not think trey would have any impact on the neighborhood because an alley borders this property on tl~e west and this property has no access to the alley, and their ingress and egress will be via two driveways on Anaheim Eoulevard. He added this is a real hardship parcel in that 5900 square feat has been removed and dedicated for street ~rideniny. He stated they have done everything possible to accommodate the community and the neighbors. Commissioner Bouas stated she thought the parking would be adequate and asked if the manager's unit could be increased. Mr.Rowland stated they would stipulate to increasing it; however, the plan submitted is the most efficient. Commissioner Bouas ttie concern is that if one is permitted to be smaller, there will be more similar requests. Grey Hastings explained the traffic signal assessment fee is based on the square foot•iny of the building and is a requirement for issuance of building permits. Annika Santalahti stated she had discussed this with the petitioner and explained it is a requirement for all new construction and it is conceivable that since this is an existing facility, the square foctaye could be subtracted, Malcolm Slaughter stated there is no authority in tiie Code to subtract anytYring due to the fact that something may have pre-existed. Comrr,~~.~'~oner 8ouas pointed c,ut the Commission cannot waive the fees. Annika Santalahti suggested tiie petitioner may wish to appeal this decision to the City Council if what is being done is a result of the Anaheim Boulevard widening and the City Council may wish to modify or revise the or°dinance and make provisions far this type of project. Chairman Messe stated the only thing not addressed is ~~~~ narking. Ne referred to the parking calculations on page 5 of the staff ret ,end the project on Lincoln used 5.5 spaces and the Traffic Engineer has °- ~~ined that the number of spaces proposed is not sufficient. Annika Santalahti stated she had discussed this with Mr.Singer and thought the discussion had been that by taking this project in combination with the motorcycle shop property, the total might be close. She responded to Chairman Messe that she thought the motorcycle facility had code required parking. Responding to Commissioner Boydstun, Mr. Rowland stated the use will be a radiator and transmission shop. He stated they reviewed tFre traffic study in depth with the Traffic Engineer and his main concern was the points of ingress and egress and they are a trade-off and Mr. Singer thought the impact on parking would be less by not taking access from the alley. Chairman Messe pointed out that is no'` the way the staff report reads. 11/23/81 a7-~L~, MINUTES,_ANAHEIM_CITY_ PI_ANNING_COMMISSION NO!IEMBER 23,,,.]987___._..V_...__...r._ Commissioner Carusiill enhancehtheharea,tandethatathereslspadequate pa~kingy and that this project w ACTION: Commissioner Carusillo offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Herbst absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit an automotive repair facility with waivers of minimum number of parking spaces, maximum number of small car spaces (deleted) and minimum floor area of manager's unit on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.3'`~ndrfurthered at the southwest earner of La Palma Avenue and Anaheim Boulevard, described as 929 N. Anaheim Baulevard; and does hereby approvr_ a Negative Declaration on the basis that it has considered the proposed Negative Declaration together with any comments received during ttie public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is na substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment, Commissioner Carusillo offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Herbst absent) that the Anaheim City Planniny Commissioner does hereby grant waiver (a) on the basis that the parking variance will not cause an increase in traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity nor adversely affect any adjoining land uses; and that the yrantirry of the parking variance under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety or general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim; and denying waiver (b) on the basis that it was deleted 5y recalculation; and denying waiver (c) an the basis that the petitioner stipulated to conform to code requirement. Commissioner Carusillo offered Resolution No. PC87-250 and n-oved far its passage and adoption that tl~e Anaheim City Planniny Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2966, in part, pursuant to Ana{~eim Municipal Code Section 18.03.030.030 through 1.8.03.030.035 subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS:: BOUAS, gOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, 1~ESSE, MCBURNEY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HERBSI~ Placolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, prese:rted the written right of appeal to the Citv Ccuncil within 22 days. 11/23/87 aR MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMLSSION, NOVEMBER 23, 1987 87- 91J-_ ITEM N0. 12 REPORTS AND RI:COMMENDATiONS A. FENCING REGULATION IN SCENiC CORFtiDOR - An analysis inir.iated by the City of Anaheim of fencing regulations in the Scenic Corric: Overlay Zone to enhance viewshed protection. ACTION: Commissioner I~ouas offered a mot ton, seconded by Commissioner Boyc]stun and MUTTON CARRIED (Commissioner Carusillo ab:~ent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission doer hereby direct staff to prepare the necessary ordinances for Planniny Commission consideration to morn effectively address fencing provisions in the Scenic Corridor to enhance the protection of prominenC viewsheds. 8. OFFICE OF THE TAX COLLF:CTOR•-TREASURER -- Not ice of application f rom the County of Orange, Off ire of the Tax Collector-Treasurer, requesting a separate tar, bill fat ,property located on the noutheasterly side of Evelyn Drive. (Information item only) NO ACTION - iNFORt4aT[ON ONt.Y C. ITEMS FOF2 INL~QRMATION ONLY: (a) Revised Public Hearing Notices (b) Planning Cammission Letterhead (c) Ciry Ide;itif.i.cation f.or Commi:3sionc~rr NO AC`PION - iNP4RMATION ONLY ADJOUFttiMENT: The meet ing was adjourned at 5 : 3:i p. m. Respectively submitted, i Pdith L. Eiarria, 5LCretary Anaheim City Planning Commission