Loading...
Minutes-PC 1981/02/23Civic Gente~ A~~hetm~ Cslifornla Fabruary 23, 1981 REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAI~EIM CITY PLANNING COMM15510N REGULAR - The r~gulsr moatinq of the Anahetm Ctty Plenntng Commisslon wes MEETING called to order by Chatrmen Tolar ~t 1:3(1 p.m., February 23~ 1901 in the Councl) Chamber~ e quc~rum beinq present. PRESENT - Chairmon Tolsr Commissioners: Oarnes~ Oouas~ Bu~hore, Fry~ Nerbst~ Ktng ABSENT • Commi ss t~ne r: NONE I1LS0 PRESENT - An~~t1;a Santalahtt Assistant Dircctor for Zoninq F~ank Low ry Senior Asalstent City Attorney Jay Tltus Office Enginecr Uean Sherer Assistent Planner Edith Narris Planning Cortmisslon Secretary PLEOGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO TNE FLAG LED BY - Commlssloner King. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: - Commlsstoner Huahore offered a motlon~ se conded by Coiran ss oner ry an MO ION CARRIEO~ that the ml~utes of the February 3. 1~81 meetin,y be approved sut~Ject to a correction on page ~1 that th~ meetinq reconvenad at 2:35 p.m. rather th~n 3:3a p.m.; page 95 to clarlfy the ACTtON that the hearing wt~s continued; pAge 99 to show Commisstoner Bushore v~ting no on Resolution No. PC81-38~ "~eriance ~~a. 31g8; mnd on page 101 the second pAraqraph to show the varianze request wes for waiver of minimum setback from Intcrscctlon to retatn a billboard. ITEM N0. 1: EIR CATEGORICAL EX~MPTION-ClASS 1 WAIVER OF CODE RE UIREMENT ~'b'~'aTT~Tafi~CL U . . : _~_____ ~_. ___._ _ _ PUaLIC HEARING. OIINER: ILAKET. JENSEN ANO QUIST. 2081 Busfness Center Drlve~ Sulte 15~+. Irvtne~ CA 9271;. AGENT: RODERT 0. MICKELSON~ 13b Sauth Glassell Street, Orange~ CA 92666. Property described as s rectangularly-shapeC aarcel of land cAnsisting of approximately 2.44 acres located at the southwest corner of Cypress Street and East Street~ tQ1 North :est Street. Prope~tY P~esently classlfied RM-1200 (RESIDE~ITIAL, MUL'fIPLE-FAMIIY) ZO~~E. COtIRIT10Nl~L USE PERMIT REQUEST: TO PERMIT A ON~-LOT, 63~UMIT~ 25$ AFFORDABLE CONDOMlNI~M C WlVERSION WITH WAIVERS OF: (a) HINIMilM lOT AREA PER DNELLING UNIT~ (b) MAXIMUM SITE COVERAGE, (c) NINIMUM FLOOR AR~A, {d) MINIMUM LANDSCAPEU SETBACK, (e) MINIPIUM R~CREATIOtiAL-LEISURE AREA~ (f) PERMtTTEO ORIENTATION Of BUILDiNGS AND (g) MINIMUM NUM9CR AND TYPE OF PARKING SPACES. TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: TO ESTABLIStI A 1-LOT~ 63'UNIT CONDO-~INIUM SUBDIVISION (25~ afforda~ble). Subject petttton wss continued fro~+n the nr~eti~gs of Decemb~r 15, 19fiQ and Februa~y 9' 1981 at tl~e request of the ~etittoner. 81-106 2/23/81 ._~ ~ NINUTES~ ANANEIM CiTY PLANNING CONMISSION~ FEBRUARY 23, 1991 81-10) There wss ono per~on Indicatt~g his presence ln oppoaltlon to subject request, end although the steff rQAnrt ws: not read~ tt ts rofar~ed ta and made a part of the minutea. Dob Mickelson~ 134 South Glassell~ O~~n9e~ steted they ag~eed to the centlnuance because of the )otnt meettng wtth the Ctty Council to consider possibly ch~ngtng ihe concbmintum ~tandards; and that Fx had ettended most ef thr~t rieeting~ but wasn't sure what Is going to happen. He stated he felt progress was n~ade but it may take a long time tf the standards a~re changed. Mr. Nickelson stated he had talked to Ms. Clancy after the last nKettng and she had informed him that there was no point tn discussing the metter any further because she is strongly opposed to converslons; tiowever~ t~e felt tt is safc ta say Ms. Clancy accepts tl~etr pian to take care of the nulsance weter drelnage problems. Mr. Mickelscn stated they can~ up wtth a plan that would make the proJect t0A$ affordeble with all units to be sold co peo~le whoso tncomes are 12Q$ or less of medten, He stated edmlttedly their s~les prices ~re at the high end of the effordeble range betausc thls (s a fairly new proJect; that staff was concerned beceuse lOn$ of the uni~s tnto the affordbble range puts a numbe~ of the tenants tn en "over-qualifle d' classiflcation and this would conflict with state law requirtng a 180- dey flrst rtght of refusal for those tenants. Ne exploine~ after ca~eful revtew~ they have dec(ded that their o~iglnal proposal is more viable end an analysis was done by Houstng staff and the only cancern is the four untts proposed to be held for ane year as rentals rather than being sold as 1ow cost units. Mr. Mickelsc~n stated tenants in e naw proJect wtl) not hav~ established a neighborhood identity as compared to tenants tn an oldcr p~oJkct. Ne stated they have strived to structura the program for the leest passible tnconvenience to every one including those in the medlAn incar~e range and thase who make more money would have adequate tirne and assistance to relocate If And when the sales p~ogrem starts; thot he felt it w(11 b~ several r,onths bcfore serious constde~etion ts given to epplying for the Department af Re~i Estate Report; that each new tenant is inforn~d that a conversion is being tonsidered; end that nottftcatlon must be given when the repo~t ls filed and when they get the final mt~p. etc. He stated they fee! the notificatton with thc financial assistsnce conststing of ewa nwnth's rent~ return of depostts~ atc. and the assistance of a fulltlme r.mployee to pravide updated Info~matton on avatlable units tn the ares, will provide the tenants with every beneflt possible. John Colitns~ 2Q1 Nortt~ East Strset. read a stetement from Pat Clancy because she is unable to be present as foilaws: "Good efcernoon Cornmission Menb ers: My nar~ is Patricia Clancy - more k~own as Pat. t awn and ~eside En an apartmcnt bullding at 3~3 North Bush Street~ Anahe~m. I fee! quita surc thet arhen Mr. Mtckelson saw that 1 was not in the audience hc gavc a sigh of rellef as he has approached m~ on two different occe~ions. Naturaily I can understand hts concrrn - if the conv~rsion daes not 9o through he will lose a great deal tn commisston plus the epportunity to gain oth~r canverslons In A~shetm. Even though 1, ~s an apartm~e~t owner have nare to gain with conversions. 1 am violently against th an. tlhy do i have na re to gain? The stmpl~ mstter of s upply and dan~nd. The lass apartments the re are~ the more I can rent mine for. z~2~a~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ '-. ,r ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PIANNING COMfMISSION~ FEBRUARY 23~ 1981 81-108 H~. Mickeison has said tha ownera are having financial problems. Whtle the b uilding was under construction~ I was told thet the avners expected to operata ln the red for a mtnimum of flve ye~rs. It hasn't even been a full yaar stnce the bullding was ready for the fir~e accupant end liere ts the request. Meny people, including rtrysQlf~ felt that th(s w~uld be happening. Naturally, mentlon was made of so many vscsncles. This ts a natural reaction when a rent tncreaae is c~iven to people~ especiaily when they haven't eve~ occupled the(r unit for e year. My understandtng is~ there aren't the nurM~er of vacancies as stated. Lat ua go back to che supposedly flnanciel problems the awners are having. They don t reslly know what flnsnclal problents ere unless they were i~volved (n the rcnta) market durtng the early And middle sixtlea. My husband and I, es grcenhorns, purchased tl~e buildtnq I~m llving in. Due to the extren~ly high vacancy rate~ we had to sell our home to move Into the butldtng. This caused my dauyhter to heve to qive up her dog whtch wes heart-breaking to all af us. I went to bed many a night wondering tf all the worries and hard work of doing thinys I had never done before were worth the efforts. Now that I have been alon~ for the pest 12 years contrlbuting for the well b~ing of othr.rs instead of h~ving my hsnd out for assistance I know those hard years are peying off. Forgot to say that I had a strokc in the nxsantime whlch makes me unemplayable. Affordable housing - Just wh~t does that meanl In order to purchase housing thc i ~~come has to be what f s tc~ me an exorb ( tsnt amount. Where are the penple who mak~s under S20~~0~ to ItveY In ertbngst thesQ people are most of our teachers~ pollcemen~ offlce workers. etc. At taday's housing cost the only thtng evalla~,le to them are rentals. Pleas4 consider th~ proud people who are not maklnq the inoomr. to afford the supposedly "affordable housing", i feel very sc~ongly about haw the housing costs have climbed. It kept my son-in-law f~om being able to be transferred Gack ta Orange County. Allowing canverslons ts not a way to help eliminate the soaring costs. 4lhenever a hvuschald finds themsclv~s short of funds to meet all their obligatlans~ just by putting part of thtir funds (n another pocket ts n~t goiny to bring about sdditJonal funds. 8y the same token, removing some of the units from the rentai market and placing them on the sales n-arket are more living unlts going to appear. As less r+~ntals are avallable Nith the rents ~ising~ the greater the dema~d will t+ecome for rent controis. As most of you realit.e rent eontrols will discourege any additional ~o~struction end decerio~ation of the present untts. Our present Ctty Counctl rt~nt~ers have said numeraus times they were opposed to rent cont~ais. Do nat allaw arry rental units to be converted until such a time that the vacanty factor is higher." I thank you for )tstening. Ve ry so~ry (t was not pQSSible fo~ me ta be present." Mr. Collins added he agrees with Ms. Clancy. He ststed he is elso conce~ned about the density pointtng out th~ RM-300c~ zor~e pe~-mits ik.5 units per acra and Lhis proJect ts 26 units per acre. 2/23/89 MINUTES, ANAHEIN CITY PLANNING COMMISSIQN~ FEBRUARY 23~ 1981 81-109 Chalrmsn Tolar stated Ms. Clancy's atatemdnt Is not sdmissable since she is not present~ but it will beoome part of the record. Mr. Mickelaon stated hc feels tha oppositton ts sin~ty a different philosphy. He rrfe ~red tn atatistics tn the staff report regarding previous canve~a(ons and stated the total approved would ba a~mall portlon of the rent~l market and would hbve an insignificant Impact on tha rentel market i~ ail ere developed. Ne stetecl he agr~ea with Ms. Glsncy sbout rent controls; but that these ownera must aet up e rent schedule that will escalate In order to I~andle the proJect nare comfartably; and that the alternative to hlgh rents for thase people would be to purchase a unlt to stabillse thelr houslny costs. M~. Mlckelson steted tf the Commisslon feela strongly about the Houatng steff's position to sell those four ur,its at S34~7A~ rather th~n renting them for ane yea~~ the petltioner is willing to comply. I~e stated~ however, prtctng the units low without long term resele cont~ols, creates a sttuation where the original buyer can makc a big p~ofit and tl~at wauld not be falr to other buye~s in the project. TNE PUBLIC NEARING WAS CLOSEO. Commisstoner Herbat steted he felt the economics for the proJect aere warked out before constructton a~d questloned the reason for t-~is request. Hr. Mickelson expleined this r~quest is bocause of the cost overruns of the project; that a logical conclusian would be thrt the petittoner got the p~oJect approved as apartrrents a~d as snon as tho ~~nits were rente~. requested co~ver=ion. Hc bssured the Commtsslcn that was not che case and th~c this was simply a sltuation where the uwner did sinc~rely intend to build ~~nd hold the p~oJect as a rental but because of the cost of con~truction. escalating interest rdtes~ etc.~ haa requested thls conver4lon. Ne explalned the owner ts s~ill under a cnnstructlan loan status with an interest rete 3~1/2 polnts over prlrr~ which Is rec~elc.ulated every 30 days. Commissloner tiarbst stated he has revlawed ttie minutes of prevtous meetings and that i~e has a probtdn with a pro,ject iike this; that condo-~inlums ~vould have been considered orfginalty If reques~ed, b~t this is hard to consicler becauss the proJect is built unde r one code and now thr a~rner expects to tear enother codt apart for a converslon; that thts is a new apartment complex built under apartment code§ and many variances would bG necessery to convert ft ta condominiums. Ne stated he feels the project is too far rert~oved from condominium code ~equlrements and since tt is hardly one year old, something is wrong. He steted there is a possibility the co~domtnium code will be changed, but this proJect wc;uld noC b~ ave~ clasa to the reviaed code and he f~lt it should remain apartrt~nts. ile stated the Commission ts not supposed to be involved tn econar.ics and are to revicw the proJect as it pertaTns to land use only. M~. Mickelson stated they recognize the project is a long a~y from the present condorainium standa~ds and they sre of the opinton that they are creating the righ* to a+n your own apsrtment; and that his son lives in a 475•squere faot car~domtnium end it is not substandard. Ne stated he felt ihis is a matter of te~minology a~d attitude. Comnissioner King asked if the density sharn or+ page tb on the staPf report is correct and Dean Sherer~ Assistant Planner~ repliad that figure should be 31.5. 2/23/8t i MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ FEBRUARY 2;~ 1981 81•110 Chatrmen Tolar stated he ~hares Commissloner Harbst's cancerns and it is difficult to dactde where tc~ drew the lino witt~ condominium converslons; that three years ega tha Commtsfion was conservattve~ but recogntzing the houstng needt~ the City Counctl and Planning Comr+ilssian tried to answer os best they could son-e of tho co~cerns by reducing some af the roquirements; that when he lookad at this proJect ~nd compe~ed it with what wauld heve been allowed e yea~ syo~ he felt the vsriances are too fer from the o~dinances. He stated the Comml ss ton has to dt varce I tse 1 f f rom tl-a aconomi c factors and cons I d~r wh-ether thts proJect wouid hava been permitted and he dtd not think It would~ oven tn vtaw of the current trend towards reJuction of the requirements. Cha(rman Tolar steted he cannot suppc~rt the request bec~use It is n~t even close to code stendarcis and al) proJects are suppased ta be eble to stend on their awn merits; that condomtnlums are suppased to provide th~ amentttes such as recreational/ope n spaces which Is one of the advantages of awning a condnminlum a~ opposed to ronting an aparcment. -~e ste~ed fie understnnds the economtc hardships end pressurea on the owner. but cannot support thls type proJ~ct on this property; rhat the denslty is toa heevy; that n+ore anenitles a~e n~eded and could have been providad ariginaliy; and that the rental supply ts being dtminished. Mr. Mickelson stated he respects the Chalrman's opinlon; that they did not want to submlt thc financlAl blight of the awncr d5 reasons for meking the request for conversion. Responding to Chalrman Tolar as to Nhether or not this request would have been made If tha proJcct dld not have e neqatlve cesh flow. N~. Hickelson statcd he hss asked the awners that same questian and they responded it was their lncent from the beginning to retain the p~oJect es apartments. Ile furth~r stated the only resson for ralsing the economic issue was ta answer the qtwstlon wh}~ this naw proJect (s being requestcd fo~ wnversion; that he hed also asked the owners if co~domin(ums were considered origtnally ~nd they respondad they were not because the standar~is were so high ihey fett it would not be feasible. Ne stated tf che standards had been reduced to what is currently being considered~ It is possible a co~dominlum pro~~ct would have been cansiciered originai ly. Ch~irman Taler stated tharc wes nothing to stop the owner from making a request and that many condc~mtniums have been allawed with reduced requir~ments for parking~ open space~ etc. Commissloner Barnes stated sh~ doesnat believes it wes the awner'S originel intent to ~onvert because the densitY bonua is 113$ and the ne:t density per ecre is 31•5 which is much hlgher than others epproved. She stated~ hc~wever. she feeis ths denstty is too high and that this proJect is caught In the middle of the affordable hnustng concrovorsy. The stated she wished the Commisslon hed more expertisc and more di~ectlon frons the City Council regarding oondomtnlum wnvenians; and that everyone o~ the Counc(1 end Commission ts ctincerned about any condominium conv~erston. Chai-man Tolar stated he felt the Corr~lssion doez have some guldelines; that proJects with 2.5 parkiRg speces p~r un~~~ srr~{ler unlts. less open space~ etc. have beert spproved; that the Commission is aware of the different llfe~iyles and a~e a lot fu~ther down the road than they were three years age; that the o~dtnance hasn't been changed because a ~aw ordtnance would have beeR entiquated before ado~~ted, but there are some fairly gaod guidelinas; and thae p~oblems of the houstng crisis have not been snu~rered by t~e Cammtssion~ but that ts not the 2/23/81 { ,~' . ~ .O MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMNISSION~ FEBRUARY 2j~ 1981 81-111 Cammissta~'a respunsibilfty. Ne stated this proJect wea bullt es an apartment com~lex an~f that is exactly what it is Loday and shouldn't be changed. Mr. Mickelson stated hs and the ow~ers have diacussed the optlon of making the one-bedrnom untts into two-bedroom units which would chenga th4 whole pr~Ject by prnviding more o~en spece~ perking~ Iarger unlts, etc. Chalrman Tola~ stated the Commission has to act on the plans prnsented. Fran{~ Low ry~ Senlor Assistant City Attorney~ stated the petittone~ can request e continuance to rcvise the pla~s so that nuw welvers can be rdvertlsnd if ~ecessary. Mr. Mickelso~ stated he und~rstands an alternate proposa) cannot be acted upon by the Commission end asked for a st~arr vote to determtne whether or not the Commtssion would constder such a proposel. Chalrmen Tolar steted the Commisslon is not allowed th~ latituds of giving a st~aw vote. Commtssinntr King pointeJ out the Commissian wii) be meeting with the Councl) again on March 5th ta discuss condominium converstans. Conxn(ssto~er Nerbst steted he would not obJect to a conttnuance wlth one stipuletton and th~t ts thet the pro,ject wiil ccxne closer to the ordinanca~ realizing the condominlun ordinance will be mc~dlfled. Ne statad he ts concerned because e ven though the Ptanning Commisstoners are~ not supposed to set precedent, developers da polnt to previous acttons and request the same thing and hn feit this project decimates the ordi~~ance so far, ~thers would construct apartment p~oJects and then ask for conversion. Ile stated he f~lt a conttnuance shouid be two or three months. Mr. Micke.lson asked fo~ a~-day contfr.~ance. ACTION: Commissloner Herbst offered a motion~ seconded by Commtssipner aushare and MOTION CARRIEO~ that cansideration of the abovr-mcntianed mett~r be continued ta tl~e ~egularly-scheduled meeting of March 23, 1981 at the request of the peti t toner. 2/~~ •, , ~~ ; ~ 111NUTES~ ANANEIN CITY PLIINNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY ..,~ 1981 81-112 ITEM N0. 2= EIR NEGATIVE OECLARATION AND RECLASSIFICATION NQ. 80-81-25: ...~~.._._..~..----- PUBLIC N~ARING. ONNER: CITY OF ANANEIM~ 2~0 South A~ehelm 8oulevard~ Anahefm~ CA 92805. AGENT: CARMEN L. JONES/GOLDRICH~ KEST 6 ASSOCIATES~ 1;233 ~~~tur~ Bouisv~~d, ~$16~ Shc ~men O~ks~ CA 914Q;. PrOrerty descrlbad as an i~reg~~i~rly-shaped parcel of land consistin~ of approxlmetety 3~~ dGres~ located north end wost of the northwest cor~er of Orangethorpe Avenue end Imperiat Nig"way. Proparty prasently clasatfied RS~A-43~0~0 (RESIDENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL) ZONE. RECLASSIFICATION REQUEST: RM-24~0 Thore was no nne i~di~ating tl~elr presenc~ in opposttlon to subJect r~quest~ and dlthough tho staff report w~s nnt re~d~ it Is referred to and nx+de e part of the minutes, Commissloner Dushor~• declered e conflict of interest a~ defined by Anahelm CICy Pla~ning tonmissia Resolucion ~~o. PC7h•157 Adopting a canflict a` interest code for thc Planning Commisslan a~d Gavern mont Code Sectir~n 3G25 et srq.. in that he has a contrt~cturel ac~~eement wlth tha Cammunity Itousing l4uthority as a real estato ac~ent and pursuant t~ thc pro~istar~s of ~he abovc Codes~ declsred to the Chalrman th~t he woa wt thdrawing from the hesring ln connection with Reclesslficati4n No. 80•61-25 end would not ta~e part in elther the dtscussion or the voting thereon end has not discussed thts matter wtth sny member of the Planning Commisston. Thereupon Commissloncr Dushorc left che Counci 1 Chamber at 2:15 p.m. Carman L. Jones~ AssociaCe Oirector of Dev~l~pment~ Goldrtch~ Kest E Aasociates~ agent. ex{~lalned thetr ~Irm was selcctcd lest fal) by the Clty of Anehelm to develop this slte for 44 unlts af Se ction ~S housing; that thely design was submitted to the Clty anJ the design crtterta was specifled by the City of Anrheim perteintng to the nunb cr of units. etc. She stateu they have designed what chcy think will be e ve ry a~tractlv~e proJec[ and that lt docs compiy with the buildtng and zoning codas and wil) be comp~tibl~ wtth the surraunding area. Ma. Jones continued that the Goldrtch~ Kast Co~any has been in the residentle) de v~lopment business aince 1951 and has a reputation as one of the state's leading developer5 of governme~t•subsl~iized apr~~tments ~nd that they have butlt c+ver 15~000 untts and do i~xcnd to hold [his proporty es a lon~-term inve~tment and m: ge tt then~elves. She explained they do have a mansgement subsidiary thet manages their residentlal propcrtles whlch has e reputation wiih the Houstng and Urben Development Department for maintalning thelr propcrtte~ i~ s quallty manner. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bernes stated she is fdrt+fliar with tho proJact and think, ~~ (s a good proJect. She statcd the City has bean walt'nq for this becausc Seciton $ h~using is needad. Ch alrm~n 7olar explained this p~oJeGt Is for Snction 8 housing~ but the prima ry functlon of the Conmtasion is consi~i~ration of the reclessifica*.lon for the land use. Dean Shere~~ Assistsnt Plan~er~ explained this proJect 1s in conformsnce with the Gena~al Plan and the plans presented today do cAnfor~a t~ the aM-2400 tone. Ch~irman Tolar clarl fiad that hta support v+ould be of the recisssificatton and not the Sectton 8 hcusinp and Comnissionar King agreod. 2/23/81 ~ M 1 ~ ' } MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PU4NNINQ COMMISSION~ FEBRUARY Z3~ 1g81 81•113 ACTIONt Commlsslon~r B~rn~s ot}e~ed a motion~ secondad by Ccn~nlssfoner Ktng •~d R~T'T~'~T CARRIED (Commisslon~r 8ushore being ab~~nt)~ that th• An~hetm City Plsn~ing Commisslon has ravlew~d the proposa) to r~clesflfy subJect property from the RS-A- ~~3.000 (Rssidentiat/Agricuitural) Zone !o the RM-2400 (Rasidentlal~ Multfpla•F~mtly) Zone to cont~truct a 40•unit apsrtmant proJact on an irregulariysh~ped ps~cel of lsnd consistinq of approximately 3.6 ecros. lo c~ted north and west of the northwast corner of Orangethorpo Avonue •nd Impertsl NigM+~y; end does hereby approve the NeAative (kcleration from the requirement to proparo an environmentai impact report on the b~sls that there wauld be na signific~nt individuel or cumuletive adve~se envtronmental impact due to the a~provai of thls Negatlve Oeclaratlon stnce the A~ahelm General Plan designates the subJect property for medtum density residential land uses commsnsurate wlth the proposal; that no senstttve environmenta) impacts arQ involved In the propoc~l; that the Initial Study ~ubmitted by the petitioner Indicates no signlficant IndividuAl or cumulAtive +edverse envlronmental Impacts; ~nd tha! the Negetiva Declaretlon substmntieting the fo ~egotng findings ts on f11e In the City of Anaheim Pla~ning Department. Conxniaatoner Barnos offered Rosoiutton No. PC81-42 and moved for Its passage and edoptio~ that tho Anahelm Cf ty Planning Commis~lon does he~cby grant Reclassification No. 80-81-25, s~bJect to Intordepartmantal Com~ittee ~ec~nn~ndatlons. Commtsstoner Herbst pointed out that the proJect must comply wtth sc-und attentua~lon requl remants of tt~e CI ty Cou~ct 1 pol ( cy No. 5742 and wanted t t understood that a 6- foot wall would not pravide adequatc soun d Attenuation. Dean Sheror polnted out Chat is one of the conditions of approval, On roi) call~ the Foregotng ~esolution was p~ssad by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ BOUAS~ FRY~ NERBST~ KING~ TOIAR NOES: COMMISSIQNERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMI SS i ONEiS : 6USI~ORE Gommissloner Bushore return~d to the Counci I Chambe~. 2/23/81 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CiTY PI.ANNiNG COMMISSION. FEBRUARY 23r 198t ITEM N0. : EIR CATEGORICAI. EXEMPTION-CLASS 5 AND VARIANCE N0. 3201 t 81-ttk PUDLIC HEARING. OwNER: GEORGE GARCIA~ ET nl,~ qs~ Sauth Cep~an Street~ Anahsim~ CA 92802. AGENT: ROBERT M. HAYES~ 1Ax7 Oakdale~ Co~one, CA 91720. Property descrtbed ea •n Irrogularly-shaped parcel of Iend cansistfng of epproximstely 72$0 squa~e feet~ 957 South Captan Streat. Property presently clsss ifled RS-7200 (RESIDENTIAL. SINGLE- FAMILY) ZONE. VARIANCE REQUEST: WAIVER OF M~NIMUM REAR YARD SET9ACK TO CONSTRUCT A ROOM ADDITION. There was no one Indfcating thelr presence i~ opposltion to subJect request~ and a 1 though the s taf f report was not reed ~ t t t s refe ~red to and made a part of the minutes. Robert Hayes~ agent~ explained the request is to b uild e femily roam to the rear of this property and pointed out there are three oth e r dwellings on thia street which havc 5~foot setbacks. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissloner Ktng asked if the neiqhbo~s to tha w~st have beon contacted and haw they fecl about the proposal. Mr. Nayes repl ted that he has not contacced the n~ighbors but that the owner has. Chairman Tolar stated the nc6ghbars obvtously are contont or would be present in opposttton. lie stated he feit the Planning Commt~slon wlll be seeing more ~+nd mo~~ requests of this type. 1 t was noted tfie P 1 ann i ng 01 rec tor or h 1 s author i zed representat i ve has det~ ~m) ned that the proposed proJect falls within the defini tlo~ of Categorical Exemptions, Class 5- as deflned in ~aragraph 2 of the City of Anaheim Envtronmental Impact Rapart Gutdelines and is~ therefore~ catagc~rically exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. Commtsstoner King offered Resolution No. PC81•43 a~~a moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commissio~ daes fie~eby grant Varlance No. 32Q1 on the basis that denial would deprtve subject property af privileges e~joyed by other properties in the same zone and vlcinity a~ d subJect to Interdepartmental Committee reco~m~endations. On ro11 call, the foregoing resotution was pesse d by the following vote: AYES: COMNISSIONERS: BARNES, BOUAS, BUSHORE, FRY~ HERBST. KINC, TOLAR NQFS : COM~~11 SS l ONEaS : ~lONE ABSENTc COMMISSIONERS: NONE 2/23,l8i ~ ~ ~ i 9 MINUTES. ANAIi~IM CITY PLANNING CONMISSION~ FEBRUAAY 23~ 19~1 81•115 ITEM N0. Wt EIR NEGATIVE DECLARIlTION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 21 2; PUOLIC HEARING. OWNER: RALPN M. YOUNG~ ET AL~ 620 Plorth Pi onQer Street~ Anahetm, CA 92805. Property described aa ~ ~ectangulerly-9haped parcel of iand c~nststtng of app~oxin-ately 520q •quare fe~t~ 116~ No~th Lomon Street. P~operty presantly cl8saifi~d RM-120Q (RESIDENTIAL. MUITIPLE-FAMILY) ZONE. CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST: TO PERMIT A CONTRIICTOR~S STORAGE AND OFFICE FACILITY IN TNE CR ZONE. There was on~ intsrestod p~rson present~ and although th~ s taff report wes nat read~ ( t ( s ro ferred to and m~de a pari af the mi nutes, Raiph Young~ awner~ was present to answer any questions. Tony Chteo~ 1177 North Lemen~ indicated that hQ Is che next door neighbor and w~s p~eaent because he wanted to k~vw if the petitloner is Inte~ested in buying his p ropc rty . Chairman Toler pointed out the proposed plans are for a~ conzractor~s storage f~cility and explained that the petitioner Is only interested tn sub3ect property. Commissioner Ilerbst pointeJ out anyone living wfthin 30~1 fe~t of thc adJacent property is ttotitled of th~ publ i c hearing. TNE PUBLIC HEARI~~G NAS CLOSED. Commtssioner King offer~d a m~tlo~~ seconded by Conmissioner poues and MOTION CARRIED~ that the Anahetm Ctty Planning Comnisslon has revicwed the proposal to permit a eontractor's stora~e yard and office facllity In t~ CG (Commercial, Ge~eral) Zone on a rectengula~ly-shaped parcel of land consF sting of approximately 520~ sc~uare feet, havtng a frontage of app~oximately h5 feet on the west side of Lemon S t reet (1164 North I.emon S t reet) ; and does hereby approve the Negat i ve ~eclaration from the requtrement to prepare an environmentat Impact report on the basis th~t th~:re would be no signi ficant indivldual or cumul ative adverse environmentai tmpact due to the approval of thls Negative DeClaration stnce the Anahe f m G~nera I P 1 an des i gnate s the s ub jsct p~..perty for ger-era 1 commerci a 1 1 and uses commensu~ate with the proposal; that no sensitlve environmental impacts are tnvolved tn the proposal; thst the Initial Study submltted by the pet itione~ indtcates no s 1 gn t f i can t i nd I vi dua I or cumul at i ve adversE envi ranmenta 1 i snpacts ; and that the Negative Deciaratton substantteting tf~e fo~egoing findings i s on file In the Ctty of Anahe t m P i ann i ng Depe ~tmen t. Commi s s 1 oner KI ng of fered Resol ut i on ~~o. PC81•4~i and moved f ar i ts passage and adoption that the Anahctm City Planntng Commission daes hereby arent Conditlonal Use Permit No. 2i72~ pursuant to Sectians 18.03.030; .031; .032; ,033 .034 and .03S, Tttle 1~ of the Anahelm Municipal Code and sub,Ject to Interd~pertmental Cortmittee recommenda t lons . On roll cai1. the foregotng rosolution was passed by the fal lqving vote: AYES: COMMlSSIONERS; BARNES, 80UAS, BUSHORE~ FRY~ HERBST~ KING, 70LAR NOES: COMMI SSIONERS: NONE ABS~NT: G OMM 1 SS I ONERS ; NONE ~ ti MINUTES~ ANAIIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ FEBRUARY 23~ 1981 81•116 IR NEGATIVE DECLARATIOtI s NT ANU CQN DITI PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: RUT11 FEUERSTEII~~ ET At~ 22~3 Wast Ball aoad, Mehelm~ CA 9280~+. AGENT: VOLUNTEER CAPITAL WEST~ INC.. 18433 Amtstad Street~ Fountein V~tley~ CA 92]08. Propcrty described as a rectengularly-shaped parcel ot land conststing of approximetely 0.44 acre~ locatad st the northwest corner of Bal) Road and Brookhurst Street~ 999 South 9rookhurst Street. Preperty presently classifled Cl ~COMMERCIAL, LIMITED) ZOrIE. COr~DITIONhI USE REQUEST: TO PERMIT A QRIV~-THaoUGi~ RESTAURA~~T wtTH wAIVER OF MtNIMUM IiUMBER OF PARKING SPACES. There was no one Indtcati~g tfielr presence In oppc~sitton to subJect request~ and elthough the staff re port wes not ~eed, It is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Patty Soaton, representing Wesndy's~ Volunteer Capital West~ was present to answer any questions. THE PUDLIC NCARING WAS CLOSED. Commisslaner King asked if a signed ~eciprocal parking agreert~nt has been filed. Ms. Se~ton indicAted that they have a verba! agreement and that the representativn is present from the Brookhurst Shopping Ccnter. Ralph Lovett, Brookhurst Shapping Center~ explsined one of the conditions of approval i s that they record a mut~~^' use agteement and that they ere wt 11 1 ng to do so. ACTION: Cammisstoncr King offered a motlon. seconded by Conmtsslaner Bouss and ~{b'~T~~ CARRIEp, that the Anaheim City P{enninq Commtssion has rev~ewed the proposal to permit a drive-through restaurant with watver of minimum number of pa~king spaces on a rectangulariy-shap~d parcel of land consisting of approximetaly O.li4 acre located at the northwest corner of Ball Road and 8rookhurst Street (999 South Brookhurst Stre@t); and does hercby epprove tho Negative Declaration from the requi nement to prepare an envi ronmente) impact repart Qn the bast~ that there would be no significant indi~~idual or cumulatlve ~dverse environmental impact due to the approval of this Negative Declaration slnce the Anaheim General Plan designates th~ s ubject property for general commercial land usas corm~ nsurate with the proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the propasal; that the Initial Stucfy submlCted by the petitioner indicates no si4niftcant t~dividuel nr cumulative edverse environmental impacts; a~d thet the Negatlve Declaration substantieting the foregoi~g finaings is on ftie in the City of Anahe(m Planning Department. Commissianer H~rbst q uestioned the nr.ed for the parking waiver stnce a reciprocal parking agreen~nt is going to be provided. Dean Sherer, Asststant Planner, oxpiained '.~e proposal would provide 27 spaces on site end that the code requires 43 spaces and they are praposing to make up the differance th rough a r~ciprocal parkinq agreert+ent with the rest of the shopping car~ te r . Chairman Tolar stated he sees no problem at that locatlon. 2/23/81 I ' ~ : ~ MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNINO COMMISSION~ FEBRUARY 23~ 1g81 81•117 Commtssioner King offered • motion~ seeonded by Commissloner Ilerbs! and MATIQN CARRIED~ that the watver of code requirement ba g~anted o~ the basis that a reclprocal parktng •greament wiil be record~d to provide off-slte parking spacea on the ~dJacent shopping center parktng lot. Commisstonor King offered Resolutlon No. PC81•45 and moved for its passage and adopklon thet tha M ahelm Ctty Planning Commission does hereby grant Condlttonai U:e Permlt No. 2173~ pursuant to Sections 18.03.03~J; .~31; .032; •033; .034 and .035~ Title 18 of the Anahetm Munictpal Code and subJect to Interdepartmental Committee recommonda t tons . On roll call~ the foregoing resolution was p~saed by tl~e follawtng vote: AYES: COMMI SS I ONERS: BARNES ~ 6QUA5, BUSIIORE ~ FRY ~ FIERaST ~ KI Nf; ~ TOLAR NOES: C-)MMISS IONERS: NOI~E AUSENT: C~~MMISSIONERS: NONE iTEM 1~0. G; EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAIVER OF CADE RE UIREI~ENT AND CONDlTIONAL USE ~~i~. 21 : PUBLIC H~ARING. ONNER: THE TAPPIUI COMPANY, 42~+0 ~ast La Palma Avenue~ Anaheim~ CA 92807. AGENT: St1AW AND TALBOT~ 1303 Avocado Street~ Newport Beach~ CA ~2660. Property described as a reatangularly-shaped parce) of land consisttng of appror.imately 4.6 atres~ lacattd at the soucheast corner of La Palma Avenue and Richfteld Road. Property presantly classified RS-A-43~~04 (RESIDENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL) ZOt~E. CONOITIOHAL USE REQUEST: TO PERMIT A 13-LOT~ 12-UNIT INOUSTaIl1L CONDOMINIUM COMPt.EX WITl~ WAIVER OF REQUiRED LOT FRONTAGE. Ther~ was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subJect request, and although the staff repor;! was not re~d, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Howard Thompson, architect, representing Shew a-+J Talbot~ explained the proJect is an industrial condominium complex to service the 5ma11 businessmen in the area; that they have exceitant circulation and access ar~~~ parking in excess of code reauirements and each bui lding has a separate and dtsti~tict deslgn. TtiE PUgLIC NEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst indicated concern that truck circulation in some areas is very 11 mi ted. Chairman Tolar stated he felt this type industrial park will free up some of the traffic from other areas and he does not see the heavy truck traffic usage ano did not think the larger industrial users wtll want these type facilitles. Cornmtssioner Herbst pointe~d out these units are larger than some of the others and he felt there will be some large trucks. Ne stated he did not thtnk thls will be a big problem in thts particular case, but is something that should be tonsidered. Mr. Thomp~on stated his offfce is in s proJect exactly ltke thts in Irvlne and the circulatian there is not quite as good as this and there ls an occasionai truck~ but there have been no problems. lie stated the developer has const~ucted about 35A of 2/23/81 ~ ~ MINUTES, ANAIiE1M CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ FEBRUARY 2;~ 1981 81-118 theae proJects with units ran~ing from 4,Or10 to 10~(100 ~quere teet and they have been qulte successful wtth virtu+~lty no prabler,~. AC710N; Commisstoner Barnes offered a motion~ ~econded by Commissloner Fry an~f ~SN CARRIEQ~ thst tha An~hatm City Planning Commlsslon has revtawed the propoasl to permit a 13~1ot~ 12-untt Industrial comdominlum complex with waiver of requlred lot f rontage on e rectan9ularly~thaped parcel of land conststtng of spproximately 4.6 ecres located at the aoutheast corner ~f L~+ Pa1ms Avenue end Richfleld Roed; and does hereby app~ova the Negative Declaratlon from the requtrement to prepare an anvironmental impact roport on the basts that tho~e would bn no signiftcant indivtduel or cumulatlve adverse environmental impact due to the approval of this Negativ~e Declaration since the Anaheim General Plan designa~tes the subJ~ct property for general tndustrlal land uscs commensurate with the proposal; that na sensitlve mnvironmental impacts are involved in the proposal; thet the Initial Study submttted by the petitioner indicates no signific~nt Indivtdual or cumulative adverse envtronmonts) impacts; and that the Negetive Daclaration substantiating the foregoing flndings is on flle tn the Clty of A~aheim Planning Department. Lommlaslon~r Barnes offered a motton, seoonded by Ccxnmissioner "ry and MOTION CARRIED~ that the Aneheim City Plenning Commission does hereby grant request Tor watver of ~equlrec: lot frantage on the basi- that dental w4uld deprive subJect property of a privilege en,joyed by other properttes ln the san~e zone and victnity. Cornmisstoner Barnes offered Resolution ~b. PC81-~-6 and nx~ved for (ts passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby granlt Conditlonel Use Permit No. 2177~ pursuant to Sectlons 1Q.03•030; .0~1; .032: •~33: •~34 and .03S, Tttle 18 of the Anaheim Munlci al Code and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recomrtiendations. Prior to voting~ Conmissloncr tlerbst reminded the petltloner thst no retail sale uses are permttted nn the property and that the petitlaner's stipulation to that e~ffect will be one of the condttions of approval. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the follawing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, 80UAS~ BUSIIORE, FRY~ NERBST~ KING~ TOLAR NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NON~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE 2/23/81 MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMiSS10N~ FEBRUARY 2~, 1981 t Ela NEGATIVE R OF ) 81-119 ANQ CANDITIQNAI i'SE PUSLIC HEARING. OWNEat VAN IIORNE~ LTD., 17~~06 Mt. Cltffwood Circle~ Fountaln Valley, CA g2708. AGENT: -iALL ~ FOREMAN~ INC.~ ATTENTIO~+: RICt1ARO oOOLITTLE, 3~86-L Atn,ay Avenue~ Costa M~s~~ CA ~262G. Property dascrfbsd as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 3~E acres~ hoving a frantage of approximately 264 feet on th• norch atde of Coronado Street. and being loceted opt~roximataly ~~00 feet east of the centerline of Red Gum Stroot. Prope~ty presontly classlfled RS-A-43•000 (RESIDENTIAI/AGRICULTURAL) ZONE. CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST: TO PEitF1i7 l11~ 11-LOT~ 10-UNIT INDUSTRIAL CO~IDOMINIUM COMPIEX WITIi WAIVER OF REpUIRCD LOT FRONTAGE. There was no one IndlcAting thelr presence in upposttion ta subJect request, and aithough the staff report was not read~ It is referred to end made a part of the mtnutes. Richard Dool(tt'.e, agent~ was present to answer any questlons. TNC PUDLIC NEARIt~G 4lAS CLOSE~. Commissinner He~bst stated he felt this proJect hes a wors~ truck ctrculatlon prablem than the prevtous on~~ depending on where the doors wlll bc locatcd. and there is no turntng radlus fur even smail trucks with cars pa~ked there. Mr. Doolittle exptalned e~cli building has a private yard and the overhead doo~s will be located in those private yerds and that trucks cauld either back tn or pull tn and then back into the prtvate street. fle stated they have been very successful with thls kype proJect throughout thc county. I1e polnted out these will be Iight industrlal users. Commts5ioner Herbst stated he does not understand this type development with trucks batkiny out into the $treet and he thought even a small bobtail type truck would have circulation difftculties~ Dean Sherer, Assistant Planner, stated the Traffic Englneer hes reviewed the plsns and had no problem with truck circulation. Mr. Doolittle explained there h~d bean a meet;ng this morning to discuss the tentative map to create the three lnts and no access ~rob~ems we~e discussed and the width and turnt~~g radlus of the cul-de-sac are based on the ctty's specificatio~s and meet the Fire Department rcquireme~ts. Dean Sherer axplalned the city's review perCains to trash truck and emergency vehicle access and does not canslder truck circulation. Respondin9 t~ Cammissioner Barnzs, Mr. Dooiittle stated a similar proJect ls located in Montclair (Montcletr Industrtal Pl~za) and there arc numerous proJects throughout Orenge and Rtverside counti~s. Commtssioner Barnes stated she is familiar with a lot of tndustrial complexes and kncws of a lot of delivery problems similar to this and asked if the development comp~ny has always used the same archi~ect. z/23/8~ ~ ~j MiNUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMIISSION~ FEBRUARY 2;, 1981 81•120 Mr. Doolittla replted they have used the same a~chitect and h~vo nxpertenced no problems; hc~ever~ there may be isotated instAnces where a truck has hod to b~ck out. He stated the prtvata street Is wide enough to pe rtnit curbside pnrking for qulck s mall deliveriea. Conxntsstoner Barnes stated siia is als~~ concerneJ sbout the backup ereAS where the parktng ts located. Mr. Doolittle replied the yard arQes are not tntended as turn- around arees. Commissloner Busl~ore sl•ated ~ie doesn't think ti~ls is any dtfferent than lndlvtdual lots on the public streets (lance Lene end Simmon Circlcj. Commisstoner Barnes stated she felt the property could havc bean destgned better; a~d Lhat she will probably suppnrt the requcst but would be surnrtsed if no trafflc problems a~e croated. Commissioner Bushore asked the petitloner to stlpulnte that no retall uses wtll be permltted an this property. Mr. Doolittle clld so sttpulate. ACT10~~; Commissi~ner ~ushore offered a motfon~ sccranded by Commtsstoner Fry and ~1~ CARRIED, thAt the Anaheim CItY Planning Commission hAS revleweci the proposal to permit an 11-lot~ 1~-unit industrial conci~minium complex wtth walver of requlred lot frontage on e rectengularly-shaped ~arcel of land conststing of approximately 3.8 acres havinc~ a frontage of app~oximately 2G4 feet on the north side of Coranado Strset~ approxi~ately 4~0 fcet east of the ccnterlinc of Red Gum Street; And does hereby approve the N~gative UeclaraCion from the requtrement to prepare an environmental impact report nn the basis that there would bc na stgnificant individual or cumulotive adverse environmental impact due to the Ap~roval of thls NegAttve Deciaration stnce tt~e AnAheim Generat Plan destqnatcs the subJect property for general industrial land uses cortxnensurate with the pr~posal; that r-o sensitive envlronmental impacts arc Involved in the p~oposal; that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no signlficant (ndlvtduAl or cumulattve adverse environmental impacts; and that the Negative Declaration substantiating the foregoing findtngs is on file in the City of Anaheim Planning Department. Commissioner Qushore offered a mc~tton, second~d by Commtssioner Fry and MOTION CARRIED. that the Mahelm City Pianning Conmission does hereby grant wa(ver of required lot frontage on the basis that de~ta) would deprtve subject property of a privilege enJvyed by other properties tn the same zone and vicinity. Commissioner Bushore offered Resolution No. PC81-47 and movCd for (ts passage and adoptton that the llnaheim City Planning Commission dees hereby grant Conditional Use Pe rmit No. 21II0, purs uant to Sections 1a.03.A30; .031~ .~32- .~33: .0;4 and .~35~ Tttle ta of the Anaheim Munlcipal Code and subJ~ct to the conditlon that there shall be no retail sales permitted and sub,ject to Interdepartmental Cornntttee recon~ndations. On roll call. the foregning resolution was pessed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, BOUAS, BUSHQRE. FRY~ KING~ TOLAR NOES: COMMISSIOt~ERS: HER9ST ABSENT: GOMMISSIONERS: NONE 2/23/SI ~ ' MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CQMMISSION~ FEBaUARY 23~ tg81 IT~M N0. 8: EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATIOH AND CONDITIONA~ USE PERMIT N0. 2178t ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~r.~ ~~~~~w~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~~r~~~ ~ 81-121 PUBLIC NEARING. OWNER: WS - ANANEI~+~ 1400 No~th Brtstol~ No. 245, Nawpart Be~ch, CA 92GG0. AGENT: MEYER INVESTMENT PROPERTIES~ INC.~ 12f11 South Beach Boulevard~ Suite 2A3~ La Habra~ CA gQG31. Prope~ty described as a~ Irregularly-sh~ped parcel of land conslsting of epproxtm~tely ;.8 acras~ 88a south West Stre~t. Proparty presently classified CR (COMMERCIAI~ RCCREATION) 20NE. CONDITIONAI. USE REQUEST: TO PERMIT AN OFFICE BUIIDiNC IN TIIE CR ZONE. There were two persons Indtcatinc~ thelr presence in oppositian ta subJect request~ and Although the staff rerc,rt was not reed~ (t Is refarred to and made a psrt af the mi nutes . Mlchael At~dcrs~n~ egent~ w~s pres~nt to answer any questlans. i~arry Borton~ 1112 West Nampshirc~ presentsd a retition cn~tatning approxtmately 37 slgnatures and read the follawing statemGnt: "We the undersigned, ~ealizing the c~rawing developMent of cortmerciA) businesses along West 5trect north of ~oll RaAd and thP heavy trafflc this has created cansisting nf seml trucF,s. buses~ etc., into our tract. propose the closing of 1lampsi~tre Avenue at uest ~trPet. As homcawners~ we feel without this se~aration of comrncrcial and reslciential property~ aur nef ghborliood wi 1 I contt nuc to cleteriorate. We thcre-~ore oppose any ne+v construction of cc~m-ercial b~Ilciings on West Street north of Ball Road withuut thls closin~i." M~. Borton continued he has owned hls oronerty for approximately tt~rea years And has watched the area deterio~atc with g~affitti an the block wal) along West Aven~k~ etc; that the Saga Motal seams to cat~r to lonc~-distance truck drtvers which continuaily use Ilampsl~ire Avenue; that the Traffic Department posted the strset with a wetght restrlctlon, but that has not curtailed the large trucks; that there are a int of small chtldren in the arca and they feel tne only solution is closing Nan~shire ~lvenue. Ne stated they also feel adding thts offtce butlding wtll create more tratffc on tlampshir~ and the surrounding area. Stev~e Mouson, 111~ West Hampshfre~ stAted he signed the petltion and agr~es with the points made; that he has been tt~ere 5-1/2 years and during thet ttn~ the traffic has incrtased imnensely ~n Hampshi~e Street wtth busas. automoblies and trucks who use the street as a tho~aughfare between West and Walnut; that there are a lot of ctiild~en In th(s area~ prc~bably y~ children under 10 years of age ~••~o walk to school and play in the area and he felt the addttlon of offices on West Street will creata addition~i hazards for the children. Mr. Ht~~on stated he (s a peramedic and has seen a lot of accidents involvtng children and has Found residential areas with hesvily traveled thoroughtares and a lot of young cf~ildren have the highest number of accidents involMing chlldren; that there Is an automabile dealershtp in the area and the service department representetives have test•driv~n tho cars on this street using htgh spaed to LESL the brakes, etc.; a~d that he urunted $t! buses a~sy for a week (n P~ovdnber using this st~eet to gn to a u~nventian at the Sheraton. Ne stated thare is parking of semi-trucks all siong 41est Streest every night ~nd ta avoid tur~ing around in the morning they use Hampshire Ave~ue to qet to the signt~l on Walnut. 2/23/81 t ` .' MINUTES, ANAHEIM CiTY PLANNING COMMISSION~ FE9RUAIlY 23~ 1981 81-122 Ne stated they •ro against +~ny conditl~nal use p~rmit until H~mpshtre is closed. Mr. Huson steted a previous ~Aquc•*_ from the homec~+ners for tlenipshi~e clnsu~e w a~ deRled because of en~rgency e~cess. tlawever~ there ~re nav five accessea tnto the area and he did not thtnk ciostng Ilampsht~e woutd creet~ ~ny problems for omergency vahicles. Nuyett Ge1neS~ 899 South Flest St~eet~ stated he built the Stardust Motel in 1955 end retired In 19G3 and is def(nltely tn favor of thls ~fflce bullding; that the wetsr slide has had qu(Ce a detrlmental effect on the ared and that the offica building wili brtng an entt~ely different c~raup of people to the areo than the young pQapla ~ttractad by the weter slidc. Mr. Gatncs stated he fecls the trucks in the arca are a srparetc tssue and pointed out the oFfice bufidtng wlll not be bringing truck trafftc to the erea. Ile agreed the big trucks on West Strect ere qulte ~xc~ssive ~nd althouyh citattons a~e Issued~ they ere tgnored by the truck drivers and they are difficult to enforce. M~. Gaines stated he felt the motcls In tf~c area would beneflt more f~cxn the office buildings with out of town business thAn '`rom the overnight truckers and also the cltY would benef(t wtth a great deal marP taxes tha~ the water slide produces with no buliding on the property. Mr. Mayronne~ 111F West H~mpshire Avenue~ stated his concern ls that autamobiles pass throuah the ar~a excessively fast and hp has chlldre~ wh~ play tn the area. He stateJ he would not object t~ the buildtng tf the fcnce requested is pravided. Mr. Anderson scated they iiad discussed the traffic situatton with staff wtth regard to the change in traffic betwr.en the w~+ter slide operati~n and the proposed offlce building; that he dtd check with tl~e State Department of Hiyhways and they plan to eveluate the overcrossing of Bnll and Ns~bor and will take into consideration the trefflc capacities of adJolning streets and the city has asked tt~et they evaluate the ramps; thet the recently approved traffic circulatlon study by JNY.~ traffic consultants for the city~ made verious reoommendations~ including changes to West St~eet,to facilitate access to the freaways. He stated tt appears the co~cerns all relate to present traffic trends wh(ch will change because the water siide facility generated traffic from the younger people only duri~g certain times of the year and thG pcople utillziny this presti~lour office buildtng would be different and would not add to the distress of the netyhhorhaod. He stated without the benefit of a complete study, he would thlnk they would benefit from the closure af HertQshire as much as the homeowners; and that the cntrance off Hampshire was purposely designed to ellminate congsstion of left-turn movements in concurrence wlth the Traffic Engineer's recommendation. TNE PUBLIC NEARIt~G WAS CLOSED. Chatrman Tolar scated he thought this is a~ extremely good proJect and thr p roperty awners ere not really opposed to the pro,ject; and that he would like to approve the request and make a reconMnendatlon to the City Council that Hsmpshi~e bes closed b~cause he thought the concerns are ve ry valid. He pointed out the p~oJect provtdes 35$ on-sitc parking spates which wtll h~lp the area~ but felt thn p roJe~t wdlt burden Haropshire with further traffic. 2123/ 81 ~ ~ 1, i s NINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBitUARY 23~ 1g81 81-123 Jay Titus~ Office Engtnecr~ steted he would not w~nt to see the clostnq of Hampshl~e es a conditlon of approval because furttier study needn to be done ond the City Counctl wtll make the declsion. Cheirman Tolar steted the propQrty awners can petttlon the Councll for the closu~e end tho Pianntng Commisslon cAn mal;e a recnmmendation to the Councfl thet Hampshl~e be closed. He statcd there ts adequate time wlth the eppea) pertod and the tirr~ involved for fin~nci~g~ eec. fo~ the Council to make a decislon on the Hampshire closure. Na sug,yested the Cor+misslon ect on the ~equest for a 5-story office buildlnq and then make a strong recomn-~ndatton to the Council on the closure to seperate the residenttal area fror~ the canmerclal a rea . Commisstoner Barnes (ndtcated co~cern regarding the funding for Ilampshlre closure and stated st~e ts in favor of the closure. Jay Titus st~ted there is no money tn Engineering's budc~et for thc tl~mpshire Street closing. Commissioner aarnes stated developrrs are requlred to p~y for all kinds of improvements on other projects and suggested thls developer participate tn funding f~r the Hampshirc closure stnce~ by his c~wn admisston, he wnuld also benef i t . Conxnlssioner dushore stated he thou~ht the proJect~ as proposed~ wtil (mprcve the cxisting sltuation and the problec, is already there and he did ~ot th(nk the developer should be aske~f !o pay for Chfs; and [hat he likes tlie proJect and agrees that Ilampshtre should probabiy be closed but not at this developer's nxpense because the trucks are from other businesses in the areA. Ghairman Tol~r stated tf the petitioner ts agreeable and is w1111ng to sttpulate to participate In the cast of clostnr~ of tlampshire~ if approveci by the Council, the Commission should not bc trying to "put words into his mouth". Ne stated he felt the Commtssion Is wey off besc to eNen be discussing thi~ matter, Mr. Anderson stated the petitio~er would be willing to canxribu~e to the cost of clostr+g Nampshtre; that he has expertence as o traffic engineer and felt they could contrtbute to the cost fnr const~ucti~n af a laft turn median~ but not for a cul-de-sac. Commissio~er Barnes stated the spectfics would be up to the (' ty Traffic Engincer. ACTION: Commissioner King offered a m~ttan~ second~d by Conmissloner Oouas and MO IT Of+ CARRI~~~ that the Anaheim Clty Planning Commissioin has revtewed the proposai to permtt an office build(ng in the CR (Comrt~erciai, Recreation) tflne on an irragularly-shaped parcel of lend conslsttng of approximately 3.8 acres on the east sicie of West Street. approxlmately 7fih feet north of the centerline of fiall Road (88$ South Nest Street); and does hereby approvc the Negrtive Declaration from the requirement to prepare an environmenta) impact report on the besis that there would be no significanY individual ~r cumul~tlve adverse ~snvironmental impact due to the apprav~i of thts Negattve Declaratlon since the Anaheim Genernl P1sn designates the subjezC property for c~nmerctai recreation land uses commensurate with the propos~l; that no sensitive environmental dmpects are tnvolved in the proposal; that the Initial Study submttted by the petitloner indlcates no significant individual or cumulative adverse Z/23/81 (~ , l. ' i ! MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ FEBRUARY 23. 1981 81-124 enviro~msnLel impacts; and that the Negstive Dsclaretton substdntlating the forsgoing findl~gs Is on file tn the Ctty of Ansheim Planning Qeps~tment. Commisstoner King offered Res~lutton No. PC81•4$ and moved for Its pa~ssage and adaption that the A~sheim Ctty Planning Commlssion doe~ hereby gra~t Candttional Ute Permlt No. 2178~ pursuant to Sections 18.03.03A; .431; .032; .O:i3i •034 s~d .035~ Title 18 nf the M aheim Municipa) Coda and sub.)ect to Interdep~rtmental Cammittee rccommen~atlo~s. On roll csll~ the foregoing resalutlon wss passed by the follawing vote; AYES: LOMMISSIONERS: aARNES~ SOUAS, 9USHORE~ FRY~ HERE357, KINr,~ TOLAR NOES: COMMIS514NERS: UONE ADSEI~T; COMMI SS I ONERS : NONE Chstrman Tolar offered a motion~ seconded by Commiaslone~ Herbst ~nd MOt10~~ CARRIEO~ th~t the Anaheim City Pla~~~ng Conmissic~n dc~es hereby strongly recommond to the City Councii that the closing of fiampshire Avenue at West Street bR atudied because testlmony presentcd ~t the publlc heA~ing ln connectton with Condltional Use Pormlt No. 2178 indicated that a division ts needed between restdential and corrwnercial uses; thet traftic is s dntrlmant to the residentiel area and additipnr~l development wi11 add more oc~mmercial traffic to residential streets; and th+~t clos~re witl odd to the health and safety of the citizens. Commtssioner Bu~hore stated he feels requesting this petitloner to contrlbute a portion of the cost is an act of "government rape" because his proJect is not contributing to the problan. Chalrman Tolar felt a 5~sto ry bullding wtll increase the problem that exists. Commtssioner Barnas pointed out th~ develorar admitted htmself chat the closu~e would heip his project. 2/23/81 -~ _. _.... ,.. , ,_. _ _..__ ._.M , {~ , k ; ~ ~ MIN~TES~ AHAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMiSSION~ FEBRUARY 2~, 1981 81.~Z~ ITEM.NO ~ 9s fIR NECATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAI. USE P~RMIT NO 217~ PUBLIC NEARING: ONNER: WATT fOMM~RCIAL PROPERTIES~ ,NC.~ 271G Oceen Fark Boulevard~ Sento MonicA~ CA g~~05. AGENT: TWO GUYS PIZZA GRINDER, 24x West Lincoln Avenue~ Anahelm~ CA g2805. Praperty describod es an irro9ularly-shaped percel of land conalating of epproxtmately 1n.5 ecres~ locate~ or, the southwest corner of lincoln Avenue and Anahetm Boulevard~ 2~2 west llncoln Avenue. Property presently classtfied CL (COMr1ERCIAI~ LIMITED) 2(~NE. CONCITIONAI uSE REQuEST; To PERr11T oN-SALE BEER nND NINE IN A PROPOSEQ SEMI-ENCLOSEp RESTAURA~~T. T?~ere was no ane indtcating the(r pressence tn nppc~s(tion to subject request~ and aithaugh the staff report was not read~ tt is referred to nnd r.~ade a part of the minutcs . Paul flend(far~ representing Two Guys PIZ=~ Grtnd~cr~ was present to answe~ any questtons. ACTIO~~: Commisstoner Bushorc offcred a motTon~ seconded by Chairman Tolar and MOTION CAR'~ED, that the An~helm City Planning Commisslon has revlewed the pruposal to perm(t on-sale beer and wlne in a proposed semf-encloscd restauranc on an irregularly-shaped parce) of land conststin~,~ of appraxlmst^ly 10.5 acres located at the southwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Anahetm 8oulevard (2~2 West Llncoln Avenuc); and does hereby app rovc thc Neqative Declaratian fram the requlrert~ nt to prQpare an environmcntal tmpaci rePort on the besls that there would be no stgnificant tndividual or cumulative adverse environmental impact due to the apr~rova) of this Negati~e Declaretinn slnce th~ Anaheim Genera{ Plen designates the subject p~operty for general cdnmercial land uses commensurate wt~h the proposal; that no sensitive environrtr!ntal impacts are invnlvcd in the ~ropasal; that the initial Study s ubmitted by the petitioner t~dicates no sl.ynificant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and that the Negative D~c{aration substanttating the Foregotng findings ts on f11c (n th~ City of Anahetm ?lanning Departrt~nt. Commtssioner Bushore offered Resolutlon No. PC81-4? and moved for its passage and adoption that the M aheim City Planning Commissio~ does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit r~o. 2179~ pursuant to Secttons 18.03•~3~; .031: .~32: .0;3; .c~34 end .~35. Titl~ 1~ of the Anahefm Munlcttsal Code anrl subject to Interdepflrtmental Carmittee recomme ndat~i ~-s . On rol) call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the follaving vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: DARNES~ BOUAS, BUSNORE, FRY, HERSST~ KING, TOLAR NOES; COMMISSfONERS: MONE A85ENT: COMMISSIQNERS: NONE 2/2~/81 ~ ; ~-,. ' MIiIUThS~ ANAHEIM I.ITY PLANNING COMMISS~ON~ FCt1aUARY 23~ 1981 81-126 ITEN N0. 10 '~;~ aECOH~~~DATIONS The following Reports snd Rocommendations staff reports were presented but not read: f1. COHUITIO~~AL USE PERMIT N0. 17~3 • Request fram R. G. Reeder for approv~l of spe~~ c use ~or . acres oceted rt che cul-de-sac tarminus of White Star Avenues to permit e dlapo~~~ truck storaae a~nd office faclttty. R. G. Recder~ applicant, wes present to AnswQr rny quQStlons. Commisstoner Bustiore asked about sitc screeninc~. Mr, Reeder stated he has discussed the screening with Cal T~ans and the/ do not went any screening in the fence ~nd they do not want trces plnnted which cannot be trimmed because the r:cPSS elong the transltion r~a~d from the 91 Fre~way to the 57 Freeway is vc r, narrow. 11e explalned he has not met the condixlons requlring redwood statcing (n the fence and the trees; tha: Ca) Trans (s aware of thesc ~equirPments bec+~use he had to ask thelr ~ermission aince thelr fe~ce is located on his proparty. ~~e respon~ed to Commissloner Bushorc's questlon that he belleved a letter was sent to Ralph Comptun from Cal Trans. He stated he supposed he could butld a new fence. pean Sherar. llsslst~int Planner. steted he has not seer. the lettor. Ne exptained the orlctln~l conditlon statcd tnat che ~etitioner st(pulated to rrovtdtng +~ six-fc~ot hlgh redwaod sletted chalnlink fence along Ifilte Star ~nd the frceway and siz~le trees planted on 15-foot. high centers to vlsually screen the site; and that in conversatlon wtth the app-icant~ It has been indicated that the exlstin~ Cai Trans fence is actually on subJect property end the cnnfu3lon rezulted i~ wh~t~ie~ or not the screenin~, would accur in ~he Cal Trans right-of-way or subject praperty and he did not see whst objection Cel Trans would t~ave as long as th~ screenl~ ; actu~lly accurrec! or ihe subject property~ Commis~ione~ Bushore statcd hc fclt sitc screening (s neeck d. Mr. Reeder stated h~s would pr~v(de th~ site screening~ but pointed out ISO feet aw~y~ an aut~mobile wauld be 15 feet higher th~n the p~op~rty and trees that :.~nnot be topned are not a1lar~ed. Chnirman 'fola- s:ated he rgrees totr,ily with requiring slte st~eentg and has never supportE~ any storage f~cilities withaut site screening but did not fea) it rrtnkes sertse to require this appticant to spend the money when the cars witl be 1; feet above the fence. Comnissioner Herbst agreed. but suggested tall trees on 15-f~t centers because he drlves by this site everyday and felt tall trees that would gra~- to 20 feet would soften thc vicw. Mr. Reeder staLed he has instalied c drip sprin~'Cr system and plentec9 5• gallon olean~ers on 1~-foot centers whirh ar.. sbout stx-feet tall now and aill probablY graw to tA or 12 feet tall. He agreed ~vith Commissloner Nerbst b~c statPd Csl Trans has said they do nat went ar+y type +tree~ such as an evergr~een,whtch ca~not be topped beceuse blg tre~ could cause a fatality in case of an accidenc. 2/23/81 a .~ 1 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ FEBRUARY 23~ tggt g~_1~7 Chetrn+an Totar felt the oleanders will rec~ ify the situation. Responding to Comml~atoner Bushore's quoati on~ Mr. Reeder explained the trucks using the site are the t~ash bin typa trucks. ACTION: Commisalonor King offered e mc,tlon ~ seconded by Conmisstoner Fry an ION CARRIED~ thet the the A~ahelm City Plannt~g Commisslon does hereby find that a disposai truck storage and off ice f~ci 1 Ity ts In conformance wi th the prevl ous use spproveci under Co~dt t i~nai Use Permi C 1743 end thet thc landscaping provid~d ts adequste along the freewAy (consisting of oleanders on 10-foot centers) end daos fulfill the original Conditlons of Approval. 8. RCCOMI~lIDED COOE AMENOMENT - Am~-nding SectTans it3.A5.OGG,~;~1 of Chapte~ i. ~'~ and 1, i.0 .05~ o Chapter 18,46~ pertaining to r~quired parking in the CC (Comni~rclal~ Genernl) and CH (Corm~rcla~~ Fleavy? Zones. ACTIOtf: Commissloner W.Ing offered a motlan . seconded by Comnlss.~ner Fry an- OTION CARRiEQ~ thet ttie Anaf~eim flty P lanning Commission ~+~x~, F~ereby reaxnr-~nd to the C(ty Co~mci) thet the drafZ ordtnance be adoptcd ~,nendtng Code Se.r.tion 13.4;.066~ Subsectlon .n54 and Section 1~~46.AGG, Subsectton .0~0. C. A~ANDQNMENT N0. 80-4A - Reques t by Andhet m Redeve loprr~ent Agency to abendc,n IielcnA StrQet between Chartr~s Street And tf~e new al tgnment of Llncoln Avenue ~ the ad io i n( ng ~ 1 1 cy ~ runn i nq east and wes t between fle le~ • and Lincaln and thc acijointng allcy running north and sou:h between ,,e above- described alley and Chartres Street. It was n~ted the Pi~nning Qfrectar or his sLthorized represcnt~ttve has detcrmtned that the proposcd p~oject falls ~.rlthin the deftnitlon of Categorical ExeR~,tions. Class 5, as defined In nb~agraph 2 of the City of Anatieim Envl ronmental Impact Resport Guldcl i nes and is. therefore~ categorically exempt f~om the requirement to prepare an EIR, ACT'I~ .: Cammt~sioner Herbst offe~ed a m~tlon~ seconded by Commissioner ~n:s and MOTIO~ CARRiED (Cammtssio~er Bushore and King abstaining)~ that the Ansheim Ctty Planning Commissio~ does h~reby recommend to thc Ctty Council that Abandonment No. 80~-+~A be a~proved as recommended by the City Engineer. D. Y~NTATINE MAP OF TRACT NOS. 104A 1~A~ .'~Np ~~q~~ - Request for extenstons o c rr~ rom Dan e . a cc a, ~a e m H .s,~nc. fo~ property consisting of approximattly G6 acres located ~~ the south si.ie of Ni i loalck Drive, approximatety 865 feet south c~f the cent~~l ine of Nah! Ranch Road. ACTION: Commisstonesr King offe~ed ~+ motlonw seconded ~y Cam~~issioner Fry ~n-d Fi0710N CARRIED, that the Anaheim tlty Planning Commisslon does he~eby grant one-yea~ extensions of time for Tentatlve Tract Nos. 10407~ 1040g gnd 1041~ to expt re on February 2$. 1982. E. liQU1D INDUSTRIAL WASTE TRANSFER STATION - 7?~e staff report noted three s'f tes i n a e ~+ arc u~ e~`r cons derat an by the County af Orange for a liquid industri~l waste transfer st~ti~n t~ provide a pla~a Nh~re the:._ meterials wuuld be rccetYed frcam io~rl Industries. 3tared in holding tanks w Jw~ iA :~ ~ ~ e ~ 5 MINUTES. ANAMEIM CITY PLANNINC COMMIISSION~ FEBRUARY 2~~ 1981 81•128 •nd trensferred xo lar9e tank truc~s for shipment to Cl~ss 1 dlspo~t~l eltes. The sttas under conside~atlo~ ar• N~kirlc Qwnp Site et the ~ast end of Fronte~ra Streeti e 10.4 scre di:poa~,) ~tfte for Inert material southnast of the ~sil tbad •~d Or~nge fraes+ay interiectlon; end e A.~ aere privste ownarship perce) on th• touth ~tdo of Wlnston Ro~d approxin+ate+iy G00 feat esst ot State Coi lage Bou1e~ a~d. La~ry Slerk, represcnting the Anahetm Ch~mber of Commerce. was present nnd stated th~r would 11ke to be informec of eny artion on thls proJe+ct and Chairmsn Totar explained this report ts s~rictiy for tnformation and no recoirmendatlon or ection Is betng ren~rssted. It wa~ noted, howev~r~ the Newkirk dump site could prasent water problemm becausc It is In Anaheim'a pe~coletion basin, Ch~ 1 rman To 1 ar reques ted tht~t s taf f not i fy the Chamber of Cam-~rce i f any eddtttonal (nformatfon becomes avatlable regarding the liquid Industrla) wastQ trans`~r stetlon. Commissloner 6erne~ statad she would be interested in any informetton the Ch~-nber may hava on th ( s proJect. ADJ~ OU~ M7 There being no further businesa~ Commtasioner Fry offe~ed a motion, sec;onded ~~y Commissloner Herbst and NOTION CARRIEO, that the meeting be adJourned to the achedulod work scsslon to be hald Ma~ch a, 1981 et 7:00 p.m, wlth thc City Cauncil. The meetl~g w,ts adjourned at 3'3~ p.m. Respettfully subm(tted~ ~,~.~ '~ • ~ Edlth L. Harris~ Secretary Itnaheim Clty Planning Canrnisslon ELH:Im 2Iz3/8~