Loading...
Minutes-PC 1985/01/21REGULAR MEETING OF TNE ANA}iEIM CITY PI,ANNING COMMTSSION REGULAR ME:Em1NG The regulbr m~eting of the Anaheim City Planning Commisaion was ca.lled t~ orde~ by Chairman tlerbot at 10:00 a.m., January 21, 1985, in ti~e Council Chamber, a ruorum being present and rhe Commiasion reviewed plana of the f.tems on today's agFnc]a. kECESS; 11:30 a.m. R~CUNVENE:D: 1:33 p.m. PRESENT Chai~man; t~erbst Commi~sionera: f3ouas, Bushore, Fry, King, I.a ::laire, McBUrney Commiasioner Buahore artived at 1:45 p.m. ABSENT; Commissioner: None ALSU PRESENT Annika Santalahti Jack White .lay Titus Brooke 5hipley 5hirley Land Greg Hastings Edith Harris AssistAnt Director tor Zoning AaAistant City Attorney Office Engineer Assistant Tr<iffic Engineer F.ngineering Assistant Associate Planner Planning Commission Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Bouas offered a motfon, seconded by Commissioner Fry and MOTTON CARRIED, that the minutes oC the meeting of January 7, 1985, be apprcved as submitte~. lTEM NJ. l. EIR N~GATTVE DECLAkAT_ION, RECLAS5IFICATION N0. 84-85-4 sREADVERTISED), WAIVER OF CODE R~QUIREMENT AND CONDITiONAL USE PBRMIT N0. 2605 READV.) PUBLIC HEARING. UWNERS: CHESTER PETERSON AND 'dEVERLY ANN COMPTON, 327 N. Shattu.:k Place, Orange, CA 92666. Property described as a~ irregularly-shaped parcel of land consiating of approximately 4.4 acres located north and west oL- the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Imperial Fiighway. x5-A-43,OOU(SC) to CL(SC). To permit a multi-screen indoor theatre and a semi-enclosed restaurant with on-sale bee: and wine and with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces and minxmum structural setback. Continued from the meetings af Augus~ 6, 20~ September 17, October l, 15, 29, November 14, 26, and December 10, 19E4. There was no one indtceting thei[ presence in opposition to aubject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. 85-40 1/21/85 MINUTES AI~ANEIM CI'PY PI.ANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 2J.. 190S ~ _ _ 85-41 eruce Sar~born, agent, ext~lained khe cevised plans basically moved the cestaurart closer to Imperi.A1 Highaay and thAC the two ad~acent property ~wnera are eppArontly satiafie~i with the cevised plans THE PUBLIC HFARINC WAS CLUS~p. commissioner eust~ore refecred to Conditi~n No. 26 reyuiri.ng that a covenant be recorded guaranteeiny that addltional. parking will be provide~d if a parking demand study indicates a parking deficiency exi~ta within 3 ye~rs after occupancy and asked how the petitioner wo~:ld ~~rapoae ~o provide that ~ddit;ional parking. Mr. •;ariborn stated r~e just learned about this condition today and it was not discusoed in the interde~artmentel Cortimittee meeting and was not included in t}ie last two staEf r~ports. Commiesioner Bouas stated ~he would assum~ the petitioner h~s enough cont-idence Sn their parking study to believe that they have adequate parF;ing and she did nr~t see this conditLon as a problem. Commissioner f~ushore skated parking has always t,een a concern of the Planning Commie3ion and as this has gone thcough the procesa, staff has taken A closec look at the plans and more things have come t•o light and they have br~ught this to the Planning Commission'.s attention. Mr. Sanbocn stated the parking plan as shown provided the maximum number of spaces and the ~lan sati:~fies all 3 ptoperty owners and to get more parking spaces would make c:ne of tha praperty owners diasatisfied. Commiasioner Bushore referred tn Patagraph No. 24 of the s:aPf report pertaining to the waiver of minimum setback rPquirements witl~ a suggestian that the Planntng Commission require a 20-foot wide landsc~ped setback area adjacent to Imperial Highway and asked if that could be accomplished. Mr. Sanborn cesponded that would require moving the restaurant an additional 5 feet which would mes~ up the parking lanes to the west. Commissirner La Claire stated stie thought the projecr. as presented is a good project and she did n~t aee any problem with the 5-Foot setback difference and noted the present Knowlwood restaurant fs only about 5 or 10 feet from Imperi.al Highway. She c~ngratulated t1~e petitioner for working out an acceptable plan with the adjacent praperty owners. ACTION: Commissioner La Clatre offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fry and MOTION CARRI~D that the Anaheim City planr.in~ Commtssion has reviewed the proposal to reclassify subject property From tt~_ x5-A-43,000(SC) (Residential, Agricultural (Sc~enic Corridor overlay)) 2one to the CL(SC) iCommercial., Limited (Scenic Corridor Overlay)) 'Lone t.~ permit a multiple-screen indoor theakre and semi-enclosed restaurant wi.th on-sale beer and wine with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces and minimum structural setback on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consiEting of approximately 4.4 acrea located north and west oF the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Imperial Highway; and does hereby approve the Neg~tive Declaratiun upon finding that i.t has considered the Negative Declar~tion together with any commentfi [eceived 1/21/b5 MINUT~S. ANAtIEIM CITY PLANNING CnMMISSION. JANUARY 21, 1985 85-41 ocuce Sanborn, agent, explained the r~vised plane besicdlly movnd hhP restaurant clo~er to Imperial Highway and that r.he two Adjncent pro~ert y ownQrs are apparently sAtiafied with the revised plana. Z'HE PUUI.IC t:EARING WAS CL,US~D. Commis~ionec Bu~i~ore referred to Condition No. 26 requicing khat n cove nr~nt bk recorded guacanteeing that additi~nal porking will be ~rovided if a p~rking demend study indicates a~arking deficier.cy exists within 3 yeara aEter occupancy and asked how the petitioner. would proE~os~ to pr~vide that ad~litional ~erki.ny. Mr. 5anborn atated he just leacned about thfo Gor,~icion today and it wa s not diacussed in the Interdepartmental Commlttee meeting and was not incl~~dF-d in the last two statf report^,. Commfssioner 9ouas stal•ed st~e would assume the petitianer ha3 ~~nough confidence in their parkiny study lo belie~~e that they have ~dequate pa rking and t~he did not oee this condition as a prublem. Commis~ioner Bushore ~tated ~acking has always been a concern of the P1 anning Commission and ac this hac yone through the process, staff has taken a closer look ~t the plans and moce things have came ta light and they ha~~e brou ght thi~~ to tt~e Planning c.ommi.ssi:>n's attention. Mr. Sanborn stated the parking plan as shown provided the maximum numbe r of s~,aces and tt~e ~:~lAn satisfies all 3 propetty owners and to get more parking apaces would make one of the propecty ownera dissatisfied. C~mminsioner Bushore ceEerred to Paragr.aph No. 24 of the staff repott pertaining to the waiver of tninimum setback cequirements with a suggest ion that the Planning Commission require a 20-foot wide landscaped setback area adjacent to Imperial Highway and asked if that could be accomplished. Mr. Sanborn resp~nded that would tequire moving the restburant an additiona 2 5 feet whicli would mess up the parking lanes ~o the west. Commissioner Lb C1airE stated 3he thnught the ~roject as presented is a good project and she did not seP any problem with the 5-Eoot setback differe nce and noted thP present Knowlwood resta~rant is only about 5 ar 10 feet fcom Impecial Nighway. She congr.atulxted the petitioner for working out an acceptable plan with the adjacent property owners. ACTION; Commissioner La Claire offered a motion, seconded by Commissio ner Fry and MOTION CAR~;IED that the Anat~eim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to reclassify subject property from the RS-A-~13,OOQ(SC) (Resid ential, Agricultural (Scenic Corcidar Overlay)) Zone to the CL(SC) (Commercial, Limited (Scenic Corridor Overlay)) Zane to permiti a multiple-screen ind ooc theatr~ and semi-~nclASed restaurant with on-sale beer and wine wfth wai~er of minimum number of parki.~g spaces and minimum structural seCback on an ircegularly-shaped parcel of land cnnsisting of appr~ximately 4.4 acres located nnrth and west of the northwesl• corner of La Palma Avenue and I mperial Highway; and does hereby approve the Negative AeclaraCion upon finding that it haa considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments rec eived 1/21/85 MINUTES1 ANAHE.M CITY PLANNING COMlIISSIUN, JANUAkY 21~_ 1_985_ 85-42 during thQ ~ublic review praceae and furl•her Einciing on the basie of the Initial Stucly dnd any c~mments received that there !e no substantiel ev.denc.e that tt~a pcoject will hava a s ignfficant Pffect on the envi.ronment. Greg tia~tingo asked that Cond i tion No. 4 of Che reclnasif.ication be tied into final building and zoning int~p ectiona cathe: than tho building permit. Commissioner La Claice offered tiesolution No. PC95-22 and moved for its passage end adoption tl~at the Anaheim City Planning Commisaion does hereb~~ grant ReclassiEication 04-85- 4 eub~ect to InterdE~partmental Committee recommendations ir,cluding mod ification ko Condition No. 4. Un roll call, tt~e E~regoing res~lutior, was passed by the followi~y vote: AYES: DUUAS~ BUSHORk;, FRY ~ FIERBST, KING, LA CLATRE:~ MC BURNEY NUES: NONE ABSENT: NQNE Commis~ic,ner Ls ~:laire oEEece d a motion, secanded by Commis~ioner Bouas and MOTIUN CARRIED tl~at the Anahe i m City Pl~+nning Commisaion does hereby grant waiver (a) on the basis that t he parking waiver will not cause an increa~e in traffic congestion in the imme diate vicinity nar advprsely affe~t any adjoining land uses and granti ng of the parking waiver under the condition~ impcsed, if any, will not be d ettimental t~ Che peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citize n s of the City oE Anaheim, and further o~ the basis that the petitioner has stipulated to re.r.ord a covenant guaranteeing that if a pcr{~iny def.iciency .~ccurs within three years, ba~ed on the determination ~f a pArking demand skudy, that additior:al parking will be provided; and granting waiver (b) on the basis that there are spec,ial circumstances applicable to t h e proper.ty such as size, ahape, topography, location and surroundinys whic h do not apply to other. identically zoned pro~erty in the same vicinity~ and that strict application of the ?,oning Code dgprives the propecty of priv i leges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zune and classiEica tion in the vicinity. Commissionec La Claire offered Resol~ti~n No. PC85-23 and moved for iks passage and adoptior~ that the Anaheini City Planning Commission caes hexeby yrant Condi!:funal Use Permit tso. 2b05 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 througt~ 18.03.030.035 and subject to Interdepartmental Comtnittee recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution waa passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUASi BUSHORE, FRY, HERBST, KING, I,A CLAIRE, MC BURN~Y NUES: I3UNE ABSENT: NONE Jack White, Assistant City At t orney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decisio n within 22 days to the City Council. 1/21/$5 zs; ~ MINUTE;S, ANAHEIM C3'CY PLANNINC COMMISSION, JANUARX 21~ 1985 85 43 ITEM N0. 2. EI12 NEGATIVE DE;CLAFtATION AND VARIANCG N0~ 3450 __-.._..,.__r. PUB1,I(; HEARxNG. Oi.iN~RS: F,MKAX D~VF.LUPMENT AMD REAl,TY CO. ~ INC., .1500 QuAil Street, Nrwpqrk Beach, CA 92660, ATTN; RICNARD SMI.TII. AGENT; LANG-I.AMPERT AkCHITECTS, 3152 Redhill, Suite 200, Coata Mesa, CA y2626, ATTN; p~,VIb N. LAN~. Pro~erty descc ibcd AA an irregularly-AhB~Qd ~dtCRl of land consisting of approximatoly a_37 acte located at the sautheost corner of PaciEico Avenue and Annheim tioulevard, 1950 South Analieim -,oulevard. Waiver of minimum required front yACd setback to conatruct a warehous~ facility. Continued f~om the meeting ~E JAnuary 7, 19N5. There was no one i ntlicAting their pcesen~~e in oppaaition to subject requeat and althougti the stdf f report was not read, it ia reEerred to t~nd made n part of the minutes. David Lang, agent, r~tated Lhi~ is a diCficult parcel to develo~ and there is ~~ 50-foot setback requitement Along Anaheim Bou]evard ;,nd they would like a variance for a 10-foot 3f?rbACk to permit them to conatruct a warehou3e building. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ACTIUN: Commiseioner Kiny ofLered u motion, seconded by Commissfoner Fry and MUTIUN CARRIED that the Anaheim Ci.ty F~lanning Commission has reviewe~ the proposal to constr uct a warehouse facility witr waiver ~f r.:i nimum required front setback on a irregulerly-shaped parcel oi .land consist ing of appcoximately 0.37 acre located at the southeast corner o: ~-aclfico Avenue And Anaheim Boulevard and fucrtier described as 1950 South Anaheim F3oulevard; and doNS hereby approv e the Negative Declaration upan finding t h~t it has considered the l~egative Declacation together with eny commertts received during the ~iL'bI1C review proces~ and ~urther finding on the baais of the Initial Study and any comnent. received that there is no substantiai evidence that the project will have a signiffcant effect on the environment. Commissioner King offered a res~lution granting Variance No. 3450 on the basis that there are spe cial circumstances applicable to the prope rty such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicini~y; and that s t rict application af the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges en,vy ed by other pruperties in the identical zane and classificntion in the v icinity and subject to Inter:~epartmental Committee recommendatior~s. Commissioner Bu~ho z-e asked if the parking requirementa would bE changed if this petitioner ha s warehou~e sales~pointing out this proper ty is so close to the freeway. Greg Hastings stated the cequi.rements would change from 2-1/~ spaces per 1,000 square feAt to 5-1/2 spacea per 1,Q90 ~quare ~eet and expl.ained 10$ retail sales are allowed where they are manufacturing the product on the pr0mises and then they can only retail 108 of wha t is being manufactu red on the property and they would be permitted one free--etanding sign or one ro~f sign and 208 oE each wa Z 1. 1/21/85 MINUT~S, ANAHF._IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIQN, JANUARY 21, 1985 __ 85-44 Commisuioner Bus h ore deked the petitioner whet type uoe ia proposed. Mr. Geng reaponded the us e will be primarily for warQhouaing ond a ahowroom for copiers and that 99.98 would be for wacehousiny and that right now the buainees lo located about 1 block away from subj~ct pc~~erty. Cotnm.~.asioner eushora stated thAt nperation is more retail than warehouse. He atated t~e bough t a copier at the ~ther location ab~ut 2 months ago and ik ia cetail and he th aught thi.s is fully intended not t~ be warehousing, but more Lor sAles, and t hat was his fEnr since it ia so cloc~e to the freeway and he could not suppor t the requeat. Comrtiissioner La c:laire atated she la conaerned hecause on ~he plane submitted, no ahowroo~~ is i ndicated and the plans only show the warehouse, rertcoom and oEt ice. M~ , Lang atated t~gain i.t i~ }~is -ander:•4anding thin i s to be tor wa~ehousing. Commissioner E'r y stated he will vote for the proj~ct aince the plr~na show it i~ to be r~ warehouse and tiiere is nothing about it being cetail and if he thought it wAS g oing to be rel•ail on th~t small site, he would vote Against it. Commisbioner Bu share stated he i.~ aure they will be coming in for retail uses because of its 1 or.ation next to the fceeway. ~omminEioner La Claire 3tnfed the Commission has to vote on the E>coject before them And 1E that is the case, it o:ill have t o be exclusively warekiouse. Mr. Lany state d if they want to do retbiling, khey will have to come back to the Planning C ammission Lor approval. Commis3ioner F~ushore stated they would have to manufac:ture the product on the pcemises in order to have retail sales and khat their copie~s are made in Japan. Mc. I.ang explained if he used the word 'showroom', it wt~s because they fe,~l that as people drive by on the freeway, they will see it. Commi.ssioner Bushoce stated right now the siyn says '100 Copiers Showcoom'. Mr. Lang stated he dic: not me:~n there will be people coming i.n trying to buy copiers. CommissionPr :.a Claice at~ked if a representative of the operation is present to answer the C ommission's questians. Larry Merrihew explainEd t~e tias been employed by Copierland to cepresent them in the purchas e of land as a consultant and real estate agent. He stated they do not manufac t ure aC the location, but they do make repaics. Cammissioner B ushore stated he bought a copier at the other locatian and he had asked them if the freeway made a difference, even though access to it is difficult, and he thought this wa~ one of their busiest locations and he thought they p lan to buy this proFerty and move their operation 3ust one block down. Commissioner La Claice clarified that Mr. Merrihew is not involved in the actual operat i on uE the facility. Mr. Merrihew stated they have about 15 to 20 representa t ives who basically pick up copiers at thia facility and go out to make sales, but if an individual came in off the street, they would not turn away a s a le and he thought th~re would be only about 1 nr 2 people per day coming in off the street. 1/21/85 MINUTES. ANAN~IM CITY PLANNINC COMMISS_ION~_JANUARY 21. 19~5 ______ _85-45 Commie~iioner Buehore atatod he went to the other buainesa because it s~id 100 copiers and gives the impresaion that rhey have lU0 different brands and he thought it wae a massive ahowroom, but they nnly carried two brande. Fie staked the parking requirement ia based on a warehouse o~eration and not on cetail and it ia n~t besed on 15 salesmen coming in and out and aervice trucks coming in and out. Commission~r l.a Claire stated she would .like to talk to the people who will be uperatiny the busines~ because it sounds like they carry variouo brands of ~~piera anc9 the bnlesmen go o~t and try to sell various bcanda and it aounds like it is a retail operation because of the showroum. Commisaioner aushore asked if the pelitioner would ~ike a continuance and Mr. Merrihew ceaponded he would like a voke on the requeat today. Chairman Fierbat asked if the ~etitioner could contact the owner to come to the meeting later on todAy's agenda. Tt~e matter waa t,emporarily postponed. Conti.nued after the cecesa at 3:05 p.m. Mr. Merrihew, agent, stated tt~e owner was not able to come to this meeting today and would request a two-week continuanre. ACTION: Commiasioner Flcfiurney offered a motiun, seconded by Commissioner Fry and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City F~lanning Commission d~es hereby continue consideration of the aforementioned matter to the regularly-scheduled meeting of February 4, 1985, at the request of the petitioner. ITEM NU. 3. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OP GOAE REQUIREI4ENT AND CUNDITIONAL USE~ PERMIT N0. 2643 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: LAZARE P. BERNHARD, 1800 Avenue ot ths Stars, 5uite 500, Los Angeles, CA 90067 and KENNETH W. HOI.T AND HELBN L. HOLT, c/o HOLT FAMILY TkUST, 1557 W. Mable Str.eet, Anaheim, ~A 92802. AGF.'NT: DA~'ID JACKSON, 1557 W. Mable Street~ Anaheim, CA 92bU2. Propert,y described as an irregulacly-shaped parcel of land consloting of approximately 2.b acces lacated at the southeast corner of Mable Street and Loara Street, 1595 West eroadway and 1550 West Mable Street (Fairmont School). To permit expansion of a priv~te school to include a school bus yard and a pr~ school with a maximum of 125 skudents with waivers of minimum structural setback, minimum landscaped setback, maximum fence height and ~aermitted enccoachment into required setback area. Continued from the meeting of January 7, 1985. It was noted the petitioner has requested a two-week continuance. ACTIUN: Commissioner King offeced a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTIUN CARFtIED that the abovementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of Febxuary 20, 1985, at the requeat of the petitionez in order to subrnit revised plans. 1/21/85 MINUTES, ANAHF.I~1 CITY PLANNING CnMMISS20N, JANUARY 21~ 1965 85-46 ITEM N0. 4. EI~ NEGATIVE DECLARA'rJUN__AHD_RECLASSIFICATION N0. 84-85-19 PUDLI~: HEARING. OWNERS: RABERT E. GUNZAGES, 100 Vsn Neas (19th flooc), S~n ~ranci.sco, CA 94.102. AGFNT: JEROMF. R. DRUKIN, 1280 E. Flo~er Street, Anaheim, CA 92805. Propecty desccibed ae ~ rectangularly-shaned parcel of land cunaisting of approximately 0.23 acce, 328 South Vine Street. RM-240U to RM-120U to construck a 6-unit apartment complex. There was no one indicating their pcesence in opposition to aubject tequest and ai~hough tt~e staLf report was not read, it is refecced to and made a part oE thQ minutes. Jetry Urukin, 1280 ~:. Flower, Anaheim, explained ch~ requeat ia to build a 6-unit ape+rtment complex on Vine ~treet, about .15U fpet south of eroadway, and that the complex will r.onsist of Eour 3-bedroom units and two 4-hedroom units= that all packing is at grr~de level c~nd me~ets the Code~ cequirements of the RM-120U Zone. He r.eferred to C~ndition No. 4 zequiring that all lot~ within the tract be served by undecground utilit'_Qs and clarified that thia pertains only to this property. THE PUDLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. CommissioneK Uushoce indicated he was concerned about the population in this area and stated there is RM-2400 2oning all aro~nd this property and if this is approved foc RM-1200 Zoninq, there arP 4 or ~i so:id blocks which wil.l be subject to the same chrang~. Commissioner La Claire stated there is RM-2~S00 7,oning all around the property and she thought it looked like a very livable project and ie well designed. ACTION: Commissioner La C~aice offered a motion, s~conded hy Commissioner Fry and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim Gity Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to reclassif~_ subject property from the RM-2400 (Rpsidential, Multiple-Family) 2one to the RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zone tc constcuct a 6-unit ~partment complex on a rectangularly-shaped parcel nf land consisting oE approximately 0.23 acre having a~rontage of approximately 66 feet on the east side of Vine Street and further described as 328 S. Vine Street; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon Finding that it has considered the Negative Declarakion together with any comments received duriny the public review process and further finding on the basis o£ the Initial Study and any comments ceceived that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the envizonment. Commissioner La Claire offered a resolution and moved for its passage a~d adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commissi.on does hereby grant Reclassification No. 84-85-19 subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendakians. On roll ca11, the foregoing resolution was gassed by the following vote: AYES: HOUAS, BUSHORE, FRY, yERBST~ KING, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY NOES : NUIJE ABSIsNT: NONE 1/21/85 MINUTE51 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNiNr, COMMISSION, JANUARY ~l, 1985 85-47 There was a queation frort~ the audience asking why the oppo~ition wes not allowed to epeak. Chairman Fferbst p~inted out he h~d nsked if anyone waa ~resent in oppositio~ and there was nn response. Th~ pecson in the audience reaponded khat they could not hear whAt was b~in~~ s~id by the Planning Commisaionets. Jack White stated the petitioner is ~till preaent and the hearing could be reo~ened if the petitioner is agxeeable. Mr. Dcuki.n stated he would not object to rea~ening th~ henri~g. Commiasione~ Boua~ offered a molion, ~~econded by Commissioner McBucney and MOTION CARRIEU (Commiseioners ~ushore, Fry and La Claire voking no) to ce~cind tt~e ~reviuuc~ resolution yranting R~classification No, 84-85-19. TH~ PUBLIC IiEARING WAS REOPENE:D. MAry Feliz stated ahe owns property next door to subjecl- propcrty &nd she ~bjecta to the 6 a~artments because of the traEfic and par~ing in the Alley and in tt~e immediate Area, and ~lso ther~ is no way to tell who is going to be moving in and out of the~e units and tha~ -~k~ighborhood is pretty quiet now because I:he houses are mostly on one side of the street and the other sidc has indu~trial uses. Ms. Peliz stated she lives at 1113 South Chantilly, but owns the property at .OU S. Vine and that is whete her mother lives. Patricia Lopez Mesa stated che haa lived at 325-1J2 S. Bush for 31 ~ears; that she has 4 children, alZ under 14 years of age, and most of khe neighbors have children and they do play in the alley and there is a lot of traffic in the area now. She atate~ 20 bedcoams are prop~~ed and if thece are two people in each bedroom, that would make an additian~l 40 people .in the area and it would be like allowing a hotel or motel to move into the area. She stated thece are no other apartments in that area and added she is concerned f.or the safety of the childcQr~. Chairman Herbst statec9 the size of the a~artments meets the Code requirements and that it will n~t be a mot~l. Ms. Mesa stated tnere will be parking problems with people vifiiting and there are not en~ugh parking space~ now and that is a big problem for everyone living in the neighborhood. Victoria Gonzales stated she lives down the ~treet and there are new apactments which just went in in the neighborhood, but they are two-bedroom apartments and thi~ petitioner is tryiny ta put 20 bedrooms on a smAller, 1ot. She stated the petitioner Would have to build a fence or do something because oE her mother's pro~erty and noted there was an existing fence on the property, buk it was knocked down and was never replaced, and the petitioner will be losing one foot oE property because of the fence. She added this would be too many ~edrooms for the a:ea. She stated they would not object to 6 apartments with 2 bedro~ms each. Mary Perez, motyer of Mcs. Gonzales, stated if khey are going to build the units, she wants the fence bu~lt because she does not want people in h~r yard. She stated hec fence has been destroyed and with morA people, the situation wi~l get worse. 1/21/85 MINUTBS, ANAHEIM CITY_PLANNINC COMMISSI~N~ JANUARY 21, 1985 a5-48 Mr. Urukin, agent, stated the opposition aeems to be cun~~~rned about the number of people in the bedroomH and that the units they pr~poHe do meet the $tAndards Eur 3 and 4 b~drootna and they are good ai~ed unitst and that the ~~roject ia being planne~ ~s a fatnily~oriented apartment complex And thdy will ~e providing a laundry iacility on site ~nd there will b~ .l2 packing spaces, in conformance with Code, with 3 visitnr spaces, and noted there ie street parking available on botti sides of Vine Street and it is not a henvily traveled etreet. Cancerning the fence, Mr. Dr~kin sLated they intend to build a f.ence on both sides of the proporty whicti will be in conEormance wikh Code stnndards nnd L•hat it will be a 6-foot wooden Eence and they had not in~endecl At thia time to bui].d a block wall. Fte responded ta Chairman Herbat. thAt he would be willing to pr~~vide a b.lock wall. He ~tated Aince this is planned as a family unit, it will complement the orea and is confliatent with the area with parking and recreaCional faci.litie~ provided on flite. Tki~ PURLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commisaioner l.a Clalre Etated this whale area i~ designated for medium density land uses and is ~n area of transition and eventually it will become ~an area for apartments because i~ has been zoned that way and anlone can come in and ask to buil~ aparlments. Greg Hastings explained the oriyznal zoniny was done in 1951. Commissioner La Claire continued that if an apartment complex does go in, it will increase the value of other proper.ties. She added she c:an understand khe neighbor's cancern with more people coming into the area; however, the State of California pror~ibits the City from limiting the number of peaple who can live in one ~nit and that this project does meet all the Code requirements. Commissioner aushore stated he voted not to cehear this and had voted in favoc of the project- althougt~ he did voice some concecna about changing the zoning. tie stated t~e would oppose the zone changN now because the project could have been desigried to the standards of the RM~2400 Zone. He stated before he thought there was qoing to be 12 bedrooms, but there are going to be 20 bedrooms and if this property is rezoned to RN-1200, everykhing else in that area cou?d be changed and these are goir.g to be family unita and there will be a lnt of children. He pointed out he has been i~ the 2-bedroom units on Hall Street whece Chere are 3 to 6 children in each unit and realizes khere is a need for units with 3 or 4 bedrooms which will be renked to families with childcen, but it will impact this whole area, so he would vote against this reclassification now. Chairman Herbat compared the pcoposed project againsk Code requirementa and stated the praject is well under Code requirements. Commissioner Buohore stated the Cade requirements are for RM-2400 Zoning and he would rather see the pzoject propoaed under the RM-240Q standarda with 2 affordable units. 1/21/85 MINUTES~,~NAHEIM~ CITY PLANNING CAMMISSIUN. JANUARY 21. 1985 85-49 Chaixman tierbst etated tt~is area hao been undergoing redevelupment for qui.te same time and as lnng as the project meeta the Code requiremenls, he did not see any reascn for denidl. ACTIUN: Commisaioner La C.laire ofEpred Reaolution No. PCBS-24 and m~ved for ita passnge adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commisaion does hereby granl• Reclassffication No. 84-85-19 aubj~ct to lnter~9epartmental Committee recommendationa on the basi~ th~t this hAS been in the general plan fur mediurn denc ~:y land uses since 1951. Tt was pointed out tt:at the 6-Poot high block wal] will be required rathpr lhan wooden fences. Un roll call, ttie foreyoing rpsolution was pasaed by the following vote: AYBS: HERBS.T, KING, LA CLAI}2E, MC EjURNEX NOES: BOUAS~ EiUSNORE, FRY ABS~NT: NUNE Jack White, A~sistant City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0. 5. EIR NE;GATTVE DECLARATION, RECLASSIFICATIUN NO 84-85-~21 AND VARIANCE NU. 3456 PUBLIC H~AKING. OWtJERS: 02tANGE CUUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, 8].1 N. Broadway, Santa Ana, CA 92702, ATTN: JONN SHADDY. AGENT: ACCESS WE;STMINSTER, INC., H100 Garden Grove Blvd., Gacden Grove, CA g2644, ATTN: MARGARET KII.E, F~AULA MARGESUN. Property is described as (Parcel A) an irregulurly-ahaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.7 acres, 3~50 East Frontera Street and an irregularly-shapeci parcel of land conaisting of approximately 1.45 acre, 3U60 East Frantera Street, RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200. Waivecs of minimum number and type of parking spaces and minimum floor area to ccnstruct a].4-unit (Portion A) and a 26-unit (Portion B) handicap apartment comp].ex. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and althaugh the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Paula Margesan, 3311 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, explained ~he is representing the Dale Mcintosh CenteG foc the Disabled and they are co-sponsors with the Retirement Housing Foundation and are proposing to bufld 40 units for disabled persons and their families and are primarily interested in persons who have physical disabilities and physical limitations or sensory disabilities. She explained they have had a hard time finding housing that meets the needs of the disabled persons, especially housing that is desiyned for those individuals. TFfE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOS~A. 1/21/85 MINUTBS, ANAHEIM CITY_PI,ANNING CQMMZSS~UN. JANUARY 21L 1985 85-50 Don I~hil].i~pa, fcrmerly the DirecCoc of Nousing which is a department oE HUD in l.os Anyeles, and naw is a houaing consultant helping to put these pro~ectg together, reEe~red ta Condition Nu. 2 of the reclassification requiring an fr.revoceble oEtec of dedicati~on oE praperty to the City of Anahetm prior to the introducti~n of an ordinance rexoning the property and expl~ined r.his is a non-~rofit project and they do not own the land until the HUD loan closea and asked if they could bond far the dedicc-tion. Jt~ck White otated probably it is p~asible t~ pllow the dedfcation -:o be bonded foc, although !t ia highly unusual. C~mmissioner Bushore stated it could be handled very simply in ~:he Eact that on the day escrow closea, all documents would be recarded eancucrently. Jack White replied I~e ie hearing that the ardinance needs to be efEective before the transaction closes, but if it isn't,concucrent recordation of documents would solve~ the problem. He atate~:l it is possible ttUD is goiny to rQquire proot that the zoniny is in place which means the ocdinance mu~t be ef.fective. Con-misGioner. Bushore suygested approaching the Cnunty about irrevacably dedicating the property because impcovements will be required alony with r_onstruction and he did not think they would have a problem with that cequest. aack White ~clari£ied that th~ City is not aaking for the current dedication, but for an offec to dedicate. Mr. Phillips asked if. it would be accepta5le if the petitioner gives a letter to the City sayi.ny they will dedicate. He stated EiUD will ask them to get a letter from the City saying that the znning complies and he thought it could say the zoniny complies as long as the following covenant is cecorded against the prop~rty. Jack WhitN stated the deed will be recorded just like any other deed, but the difference ia that the City does nat take the de~ication curcently and it is a continuing on-going ofter tnat could be accepted by tlie City at any point in the future. Commissioner Bust~ore stated the HUD loan is ~o different th~~, any other type of construction lo.jn. Mr. Phillips referred to Condition No. 15 requiring that a covenant be recorded pr.ior to issuance of building permit guaranteeing they will restrip~ the parking area if a packing inadequacy is determined followiny a parking study and asked if that timing could be changed to read: `prior to occupancy' rather than •ptior to issuance of building permit' and noted the covenant would yet recotded with all the other documents. Commissioner La Claire suygested that the condition read: 'That when khe title to the property is taken, a covenant wiil be recorded". ~ack White stated the problem is that once the building is built, it i~ ~ little d.ifficult to enforce yetting the covenant cecorded~ ~o ti~e City would never accept 9etting the covenant recorded a~ter the building is constructed. Commissioner La Claire pointed out they have to close escrow before starting construction. Commisaioner Fry atated the Commission is sugyesting modifying the condition to s~y that: •upon transfec of title, they woulii record the covznant". 1/21/85 J MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JANUARY 21. 1985 85-51 Jack WhitP atatad that it is fine, but there would be no building permiCs i~~ued until it ia cecorded. Ete stetpd he thuug~t it could be handled with an amendm t iri the escraw that at the time the deeds will be recorded concucrenlly. He atated Condition No, 1 could bP changed so the ocdinance would be adopted, but ttiat a bond would be posted by the applicant in an amount as approved by the City Engineec and in a form appcoved by the City Attorney ta guacontee the acquieition of the necesaary riyht-of-way ~s Retforth in Condition No. 1. F:~ Frated he would have to det~rmine the value and tt~e bond would be in an pmount equal to wt~at it would cost the City to acquire the prol~erty in Cr]A~ thc applicant doea not take title ta the property. ChAirman Herbat stated it would be be~t !f the Orange County Flood Control District would yive an uffer of dedicntion c~ighr E~:om the beginning. Mcv Phillips stated they are williny to bond for the dedication, but cannot record cove~ants when they do not have title Lo ttie praperty. Jack White stated Condition No. ~5 cuuld bc~ changed to r~ad: "That pripr to or concurrently with isauance ~f the building permit' and khat woiald cover the situation where the permit would be escrowed along with the cavenant and when the deed is cecorded changing uwnership, the building permit would pass into the hands of the new ownec, and the ~ovenant would be recorded concurrently with the recurdation of the d~ed. Mr. Phi.llips ceferred to Condition No. 16 pertaining ~o restrictions oE tenancy to peraons of low-income ~nd stated he has a problem with that because while ~eople moving into the project musC be low-income, if af.ter they move zn, their income goes up, they can remain and they would like khe 'low-income' as~ect of this condition removed; and also they would like to add the words •or elderly' behind disabled persons because HUD feels if f.oX some reason they cannot rent the units to enough disabled persuns, they would then rent them to the eldecly people at age 62 which is the minimum age Lor th~NSe 202 funded pCO~nCts. Jack White stated tie has great resErvations ~bout enforcing the condition if there is not a definition included ~tating what a disabled person is. M:. Phillips stated the EiUD quidclines tiave a def.inition of a disabled person, but he did not have it with him ak this meeting, but thought it is a physically handicapped person which any doctor would say is less than 808 physically fit. Commissio~ec La Claire a~reed a de~inition is necessAry. Chairman Herbst stated the ceaeon for the concern is t~at a numbec of the tenants might be able to drive a vehicle and that would affect tr~? parking spacPS required. Paula Flargeson explained their definition is any individual who has one or more life functions affected and she thou~l~t NUD is a little more limited. Jack White stated he would recommend having something in writing included in this condition. This makter was cor~*_i.nued to later in the meeting in order for someone in the Community Housiny Department to bring over a copy of the definition of •disabled E~ers~ns' from the hUD guidelfnes. 1/21~85 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CUMMISSdON, JANUARY 21, 1965 85-52 RECE5S: 2;55 p.m. R~~UNVENF.: 3;U5 p.m. Uon Yhilllps read a defin~tion of a diaebled person from khe I~UD HAndbo~k No. 4571.1 A.evision 2 a~ follows: 'A handicapped peraon means any adult who has any impairment which is expected to be ot long continued and indefinite duration and is a aubstantial impediment to his or her ability to move independontly and is of a nature tha~ such ability could be improved by having satisfactory houaing conditionF'. Jack White atated havin~ read the def.inition and heard it again, he cannot guarantee thAt A peraon who fits within that defi~-ition would not be driving an autom~bile. Mr. Phillips stated they Are not sayim7 the persons would not be driving automobiles and that, in fact, ar.e defi~~itely ~ayinq that a ~~od number of them will be driving automobiles and they i~avc provided adequ<3te p~rking spaces and if the situalion ceally geta serious, they could restrip the patkiny lot and have almost two spacea for evcry unit and the handicap parking ia primarily foc wheel ct~airs and khere will be blind, dNaf and other type~ of handicapped pecaons in this pcoject. He added they have done ~urveys to prove a one to one ratio in handicap projects is adequate. Etesponding to Cummis~ioner La Claire, ClifE Allen, architect with Kurt Meyer ~artners, Architects, s~ated they have a total of 67 parking spaces that will provide 2H spaces on one side and 39 spaces on the other side, two parking spaces have been provided for the 2-and 3-bedroom unitf. and 1-1/2 S~~CP.R per unit for the one-bedroom units. Comtnissioner Lu Claire stated if Condition No. 16 ia ceworded to allow disabled persons or elderly wha a[e 62 yeors of aqe or older, the parking would be adequate and would conform to the proposed senior citi2en housing ocdinance. She added if thls pcaject fails, it could be used as a senior citizen housing and meet the senior ritizen standards. Chairman Herbst atated the question he would have is who would be living in the 3-b~droom units, indicating concern that there would be kwu teenagecs who would be driviny autotnobiles, etc. Mr. Phillips res~onded khak is a good possibility, but typically they w~uld nat expect that situation and pointed out there are two parking space~ er unit or~ khat side of the project. Chairman Herbst stated studies have shown that after age 62, the need for parking spaces drastically drops. ACTION: Commissioner Ming affered a motion, seconded by Commissiorier Fry and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to reclassify aubject property ftom the RS-A-Q3,OOU (Residential, Agricultural) Zone to the RM-1200 (Residenrial, Multiple-Family) Zone to construct a 14-uni*_ and 26-unit handicap apartment complex with waiver of number and typ~ of parking spaces and minimum f~oor ~cea on an ircegulmrly-shaped parcel oi land cansisting of approximately 1.7 acres having a frontage of approximately 243 feet on the south side of Frontera Street and further described as 3060 and 3Q50 ~ast Frontera Street; and does hereby appcove Che Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the 1/21/85 MINUT~S, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING_COMMISSION, JANUARY 21 1985 85-53 Negative Beclaration togethcr with any comments received during tho public review process ~nd Eur~h~r findiny on the baoia of the Initlel Study and Any camment~ rece~ved that there is no n.ubbtantial evidence that. the ~~oject will have a signii~cant eLfect on the environment. Commiasion~r King otfered Resolution No. kC~S-25 nnd moved for ita paseage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commisoion doe~ hereby yrent Reclassificotion No. 84-85-21 Bubject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendationa, including modification to Condition Na. 2. pn Gull call, the foreycing resolution was paRSed by the Following vote: AYGS: BUUA5, ~RY~ ti~R85T~ KING~ LA CJ.r:RE, MC ~URtJEY NOEs: NUN~ ABSENT: NUNE ABSTAIN: BUSFiURC Commissi~ner Kiny afEered Itesolution No. PC85-26 and mpver.] for its pASSaqe and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Com~nla:3lon doea hereby gcank Variance No. 3456 waivec (a) on the basi~ that tt~e paricing waiver will not cause nn increase in traEfic congestion in the immediate vicinity nor adversely aEfect any adjoining land usea and granting of the parking w~iver under the conditiona imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfar~ of the citizena of the City of An~heim and further on the basis that the open parking spaces will increase viait~ility and security and t.Ilr3t it wil~ pr~vide easier access for the handicap; and granting waiver (b} on the basis that there ace specibl circumctances applicatale to the propecty such as size, shape, topagraphy, location and surroundings which do not apply to other. identically zoned property in the ~ame vicinity= and that strict applicatior~ of the Zoniny Code deprives~ the p:operty of pcivileges enjoyed by othec pc~pecties a.n the icientical zone and r_lasaification in the vicinity and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recummendations including modifications to Condition No. 16 as indicated by Jbck White. Un roll ca11, the foregoing resolutic~n was passed by the f.ollowing vote: AYES: BOUAS~ FRY, HEP.BST~ KING, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY NUES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: BUSHURE Commissioner Bushore asked that his vote be changed to yes on the reclassification and nbstention on the variance as indicated. Jack Wl~ite, A~aistant City Attorn~y, preaented the written right to appeal the Planning Cnmmission's decisian wit.nin 22 days to the City Council. i'~'E~M N0. 6. EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMP~i'ION•-CLASS 3, WAIVER C~P COD~ REQUIREMENT AND CONDI~IONAL USE PERMIT t~C1. 2654 PUBLIC ~iEARING, OWNERS: ANGEL GUERRERO ANll JOSE B. GUERRERO, 837 N. Dickel Street, Anaheim, CA 92805. Property described as a rectrangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 5359 square feet, 837 N. DicY.el Street. 1/21/85 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JAhUARY 21, 1985 05-54 ~o conatruct a second-family (granny) unit with waiver of maximum lot c~verage. There was ten to twelve people indicating theic presence in nppoeition to subjecC cequQSt and although the ~l•aff report was not read, it ia referred to and made a pact ot the rtiinuCes. Anyel Guereero, 837 N. Dickel, stated he has l.ived at this pcoperty for 11 years and he and his father bought the pro~ecty and his fathec ia now 60 yeara ~ld and they wi~h to consk~uct a granny unit between the house and gnrage and thece will be 5 parkinq spdcca availaUle. Brad Fowlec, 828 N. Aickel, stated he i~ opposed to this request becnuse of the lot coverage and a~so bec~uae ttie zoning i.n the area is ~or RS-7'l00 aingle-family and this will make two dwelling units on the property and the second unit is not a amall unit, but has ~ bedroom, kitchen, bath end living roam. He added he is primacily opposed because it would be very difficult to monikoc who is living in the unit and could ~et a precedent in the area. Gertrude Rigtay stated when Chey built their home in 1946, they had a gacage house on the rear of the lot, and then in 1954 when they built tt~eir present home on the front portion oE the p:operky, they weee required to remove the sink from the rear house. 5he stated ahe is concerne~ khere will be a lot more children in the area playing in the street and the other property uwners will be a~king to build another unit on the ceac of their pcoperties. Grey Hastinys, Associate Planner, explained about two years aqo thE State of Calif~rnia passed legislakxon allowing a person to construct a granny unit on an existinq sin~le-family zoned lot, provided the unit is less than 640 square feet and houses two or less persons 60 years of age or older. He added he thought the opposition is concezned about a second apartment unit on the pr.operty which is an Altoyethec different thing and is r~ot allowed in a single-family zone. Chairman HQrbsr stated this particular project ,~ in additior. to the existing house and the only variance is far the 68 over lot ~ovecage and that variance has been granted beEore in that area. He stated every propecty owner has the right to te4i~es: to build a yranny unit if they have the need for one. Jack White, Assistant City AtLOrney, stated the State law in question act~ally mandatQS all the cities to consider granny units, which ace residentiAl units consisting of 640 square feet or less in size and limited in occupancy to one or ~oc`e persons both ~f whom must be at least 6C years of age, as conditional uses in all single-family residential zones, so the Plannin~ Commission still has t.he discretion of denying or ~pgcoving the permit request; but that the City is mandated to considpr it as being a conditional use allo~~ed so the appli~ants can file for a permit. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr. Guerrero stated he and his father bought this property 10 xears ago and his father is no longec working and is 60 years~`and his mother is 59 years old, but will be 60 by the time this structure is finished. 1/21/85 MINUT~S. ANAH~IM CITY_PLANNING COMMISSION, ~ANUARY 21, 1985 85-55 Greg Nast~ngg responded to commiseioner La Cldire tt;at a conditional uae permit would still be neceeoary if tt~e loC coveragP w~s redu~ed to 409 to meeC Code cequirementR. ~ommissioner Le Clair.e asked if thc: petitioner's pa renta clrive. Mc, Cuerrero respond his fathor drives and explained they are no t pce&enGly livinq on the property And explafned he is going t.u ~dd another 6 1'eet to the gArage s~ the vet~icles can be kept innide c~nd thQ~e N~uld be pack ing a~ac~a in the rea~ Ile atated he has kwo cars and explained hia r.hildren ,~re 3 and ', yea:s old. NP explained the atruckure will be attachhd tu his ces idence, but therewill not be a dooc between the two reaidencec. C~mmiseionr_r La C1Aire cl~rified ~hAt the op~~osition had seen t~he plnns and :ur.kher explained the addition wi.ll be attached to ihe e.isting struct~re between the garage and house au~ that he could have expanded the exi~ting houxe without coming before the Planning Commission if t~e ditl nat exceed the 4U~ lut covera~~e, so h~ c:ould liave expanded it and hAd hin family move in withouc approval. Conimiasioner Eiouas noted he could not put in a kiL~hc.~. Commissioner Buahore stated if he did not provide the extra parking spa c es, there would be no need Eoe the variance- Commir.sionec I~a Claire added shP thought the real. concern is that the unit could be rente~ out in the future; however, ttiere Is a safeyuard to preven~ that, and Commissioner Bushore stated the best police in a situation like this would be the neighbors. Mr. Guerrero stated }~is parents were living in the converted yarage and he 1„~d ~~ut a bedroom in the gacage, but now he wants to g et it approved. Commissioner Bushore ~tatec] people can a.jd ~.~ thei= houses and then after. the inspection i~ over, add kitchen~, doors, etc. and t~~ot-leg the whole conversion in. Commissionec I.a Claire stated the City has na cont rol ove: how many people live in a t~ouse and there is house in her neigt,borhoad where 20 to 30 people live and there is nothing that can be done about i t. She suggested the ne_ghbors write t•o their representat:ves in Congre se, etc. 5he etate~ she underbtands the prob)em, but does not have a solut ion and if this req~~eat is denied, the petitioner could still build on and ha ve his relatives move in; however, he is usking for permi~sion. Commissioner Bouas sCated the garage w~.s a living unit and asked it it has been converted back. Mr. Guerrero stated he t~as n ot converted it hack yet, but he has remuved thE walls inside and t.he garag e door has not been opened. tie explained he is rarking hia cacs in frcnt of hi fl house on the driveway. He ex~lained this is a tWO-bedroom house and ic used to have a 10 by 20-foot garage which was converted to a!'~+mily room when t he new garage was constructed. It was noted the Planning Dire~.tor or his authori zed repcesentatlve has determ£ned that the proposed project falls within l:he definition of Cat~gorica; Exemptions, Class 3, as defined in th e State EnvironmPnt~l Impact Report Guidelines and is, therefore, categoricall y exempt fcom the requirement to prepare an ~IR. 1% 21/85 MINUTES, ANAH EIM CI'PY PLANNING COMMISSION. JANUARY 21. 198S 85- 56 ACTION: Comm ~ssioner King ~Efered e motion, s~conded by Commisaionar Fry an d MUTION CAkRI E D thdt the Anaheim Cit.y Planning Commienion does hereby grant waiver of Code requirement on the baaie thet there are spFCial circumstances app].icable to the property ~uct~ as ~ize, shape, topoqraphy, locetion and surroundingc~ which do not ap~ly t~ othec identically z~ned property i n the same vicinity~ and t1~at strict appllcation oE the 2oning Code deFrives lhe pcopecty of p rivileges anjayed by othoc propertiea in the i.dentie~l z ane and clasAificati on in the vicinity. Cnmmissi.oner Ki.ng offpred Resol~tion No. PC85-25 and moved for its pa ssage and adoption tt~a t the AnAheim City Planning Commis~ton does hereby grant Conditional U se Permit No. 2G54 purauant• ku California Government Cod e Section No. 6585~.1 a nd subject ~o Interde~~arCmenCal Committee recommendation s, Commissioner dushore asked ab~~~t Conditfon No. 6 r~r~d Greg flaatings resp~nded that Condition No. 7 sh~uld be deleted and Condi~ion No. 6 amended t o read; "That the ow ners o£ ~ubject property shall r~str'ct the occupancy of tfie granny unit t o une or two adults both of wham ax~ cver 60 years of a g e and record a cov en~nt againsk khe property so cestcicti-~g tne occupancy .~f said unit and sttid covenant should be aubmitted ko the Plannirg Departmen t for transmittal to the City F~torney's Oftice Ear review and approval pri or to recordation". Chairman Ner bat stated if this ir, apFroved, the petitioner. mu~t abid e by all the conditione an9 if nut, the Planning Commission hAS the authority to revoke the permit. on roll call ~ the foregoing resolution wAa passed by the foll^wing v ote: AYES: BOUAS, BUSHORE, FRY~ HERBST~ KING, LA CLAIRB, !~C BURIvEY -JOES: NUNE ABSENT: NON E Jack White, Assi~tant City Attorney, presec,tc~d the written right to a~pe~l the Planning Cammission's decision withi~ 22 dz~ys to the City Council. ITED1 N0. 7. EIR NEGA'PIVE DECLARATI~N, RECLASSIFICATION N0. $4-85-22 AND CO~JDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2555 PUBLIC NEARING. UWN~KS: JOSEPN P. GLEASOt~, 1655 W. Broadway, Anaheim, CA 92802. AGEN T; W. SOMERS, 7342 Orangethorpe Avenue, Buena Park~ CA 90621. Property described ~s a re~tangularly--shaped pArcel of• land ,r.onsistir~g of approximately 7,080 square feet 'ocated at the northeast corner of 5um~c Lane and Euclid A~-enue, 1695 W. ~umac Lane. RS-72011 to CG. To p~rmit an office use in a residential structure. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to sub~ecr request and although the staff report was nok read, it is referred to and ma de a pa rt of the minut es. Bill Somers, agen~, was preeent to answer any questi.on-. 1/21/8 S MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINC COMMISSION, JANUARY 21~ 1985 85-57 TME PUBLIC NEARING WA5 CLUSED~ Commiosianer La Claire asked what type o£ buaineos is propo~ed for th atructure and how many ca~s there will be pes day. Mr. Somece ree.ponded it will be an advert.ising buainess with five employ ees and peuple wili nur. be cominy into the oEfice. ACTIUN: Commisa:oner King ufter.~d a motion, seconded by Commiasioner E~r y and MUTION CARRIED that the Aneheim City Planning Commission has reviewed th e proposal ko rNClasaify suhject property fcom the RS-7200 (Rr.sidential, Single-~Amily) Z~ne to the Ca (Commercxal, Uffice and Professianal) or a less intene~e zonP to permit an oEfice uae in a r.esidential atructure on a rectangulacly-shaped parcel of. land consiating of approximately 7080 sq u are f:eet located at ~he northeast corner of: Sumac Lane and F.uc.lid Street and Eurtl~er deacribed se 1695 West Sumac Streetj and does hereby Appro~:r th e Negative Declacation up~n f:indiny that it has considered the NegAtive Ueclurakion togFther with any comments received ducing the public rev:e w process and Eurther finding on the ba~is ~f the Initial Stuc~y and any c ommenta c~~:eivecl thet there is nu subatantial evidence that the pcoject witl ha v e a siynificanl cEfect on the enviranmen~. i:ommisaioner Kiny o£fered Re~olution No. PC85-18 and mc~ved far its passage and adoption tt~at the Anaheim City Planning Commiasion does hereby grant Reclassificakion No. 84-85-22 subject to Interdepa:tmenLal Committee recommend:~ r + ~!~ s , On roll call, th~~ focegoin9 resolution wa~ passed by the following votF AYES: BOUAS~ BUSHORY:, FRY, HERBST, KJNG, LA CLAIRE, MC B(1RNEY RUES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ~ack White, Assi~tan~ City Attorriey, asked if the Planning Commi~aion i ntends to limit the proposed us2s of the property to exclude medical and denta 1 office uses and clarified that Condition No. 2 of the conditional use p er.mit should be expanded to ~rovide that a covenant be recorded against the p roperty so restricti.ng sucl. uses. Commisaioner King oPfered Resoluti~n No. PCGS-29 and moved for its pas s age and adopti~n that the Anaheim City Planniny Cc,mmiseion does nereby grant Conditior~al Use Permit Nc. 2655 purauant to Anaheim Manicipal Cod~ Sec tion 18.03.030.030 through 1a.03.030.035 and subject to Int~~rdepartmental Committea recommendations including an addition to Condition No. 2 requirir•~ tha t a covenant b~ recocded sestricting uses of the property. Un roll call, th~ foreyoing resolution was pas~ed by the following vot e: AYES: BOUAS, BUSHORE~ FRY~ HERBST, KING~ LA CLAIR~~ MC BURNEY NOES: NUNE 7,B5ENT: NONE 2/21/85 MINUT~S, ANAHEIM C ITY PLANNING COMMI_S5ION. JANUARY 21.~, 1985 85-56 IxEM N0. 8. EIR N EGATIVE AECLAkATION~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. 84-85-20 AND VARIANCE N0. 3454 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER5: WILI.IAM J. MURPHY, 90~9 W. Wasl~ington Blvd., Culver City, CA 90230. AC~NT: MIRIAM MIRANDA, 2323 Weat aern Lano, Senta Ana, CA 927U6. T~rc~perty deacribed ar~ an icregularly-.hnped parcel of land consisting of approximakely 3.74 acres, 162d South Anaheim Boulevard~ Cti to ML. Waiver af minimum numbcr oE p~rking apaces to construct a aelf-storage faciliLy. There was no one i ndicating their pceaence in oppoeition ro suUiect request and althnugh the s taff ~eport was not read, it is referrc: to And made a part oP the minukps. Miriam Miranda, a y ent, was pcec~ent to nnaw~r an;~ questions. THL PUBLIC Fi~ARING WAS CLOS~;U. Responding ta Commissioner Bushure, Ms. Miranda explained a parkin,y study was done which indica t ed r,hat minimum packing is requir~~. uecause people are cominy in at various times of the day and the month and re:sponded ko Commissioner l3ush ore that ah~~ operates more than one uf these facilities. ACTIUt~: Commissi oner King ofEeKed a motion, seconded by Comrnis~ioner F and MOTION CARRIED th at the Anaheim City Planning Commiseion has reviewed the propot~al to cecla ssify subject property from CK (Commercial, tteavy) to CL (Commercial, Limited) or less intense zone to construct a se.l£-sr_orage facility with waiver of minimum number of parking spacec on a irregularly-shape d parcel of land consisting of approximately 3.74 acres having a fror;tag ~ of approximately 360 feet on r_he east side of Anaheim eoulevar.d and fur ther desccibed as 1628 South Anaheim Boulevard; and do~~s hereby approve th e Negative Declaration up~n finding that it nas cor-sidered th~ Negative Decl aration togethec with any commrnts received ~uring the public review ~rocess a n d fur.ther finding on the basls af the Initisl 5tudy and any c:omments received that there is no aubstantial evidence that the project will have a significan t effect on the environment. Commissia.~er King offered Resolution No. P~85-30 and moved for its passage and adoption that th e An~~heim City Planninq Commission does hereby grant Reclassification Na. 84-85-20 unconditionally. On roll call, th e foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BUuHORE~ PRY, EIEkAST, KING, L}1 CLAIRE, MC BURNEY NUE&: NQNE AB5ENT: NON~ Commissioner Kin g offered Itesolution No. PC85-3: an~ moved f~r its passage and adoption that the Anah •:m City Plannir~g Commissior~ does hereby grant Varianr.e No. 3454 on the basis that the packing waiver will not causA an i.ncrease in traffic congesti on in the immediate vicinity nor adversely affect any adjoining 1$nd u ses and granting of the parking waiver under the conditions 1/21/85 r ~ ;~ MINUTES, ANAHBIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JANUAkY 21 1985 85-59 imposed, if eny, will not be detrimental to the pedce- health, saEety and genecal welfare oE the citizens oE the City of Anaheim and aubject to InterdRpartmental Commikte~ recommendetions. Un roll call, thQ f.oregoing ceeolution was passed by L•he following vote: AYES: BUUAS~ BUSHORF~ FRY~ HGRBST~ KiNG, LA CLAIRR~ MC P~IRNEY NO~S: NONE ABSENT: NONE I'PEM NU. 9. EIR CATEC;URICAI~ ~XEMP'PION-CLASu 1.1 AN~ VARIANCE NU. 3455 PUBLIC H~AR'"JG. OWNERS: CHPrT~ES A. BONNETT, 10990 Wa[ner, ~D, ~ounhaiMonica Valley, CA 91708. AGENR~: U~~:AL NEON CO., 16G0 Stanford Street, - CA 90404, AT'TN: J AIME WNITE. Property deaccibed as a recCanyularly-shAped parcel of land consistLny of approximately 1.6 acres locatea at the eouthwFat corner oE Lincoln Avenue and F~each F3oulevard, 3000-3020 West Uincoln Avenue. Waiver cf maximum hright oE Ereeatanding sign to construct a freestanding sign. There was nu one indicating their gresence in opposi~ion to subject request .~nd although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a par~ ~i the minutes. .!aimc White, agent, was preaent to an~~wer any yuesr_ions. THE PUFiLIC: HEARING WAS CLU~ED. Commissi.onec Bushore asked whaL the ayent would consider as junti£ication Eor t,ie vaciance. Ms. White responurd she `~ad taken pictures of Aeveral ai.gns in the same are~ which are over 25 feet high; and that they have to have an 8-ko 9-foot clear.ance Erom the ground level. Commissioner Bu~hore asked why they neen a hefyht of 2i feet above that 9 feet. MA. White answerec9 t:hat the sign is for a shopping center and each tenant needs identifi.cation and will only t~ave a two-faot sign on the reader board and there i3 no way to make it smaller. Commissionec La Claire stated the Planning Commission has been trying to adhere to the sig n ordinance an8 every petitioner could use the same acgument. She ~ointed out the sign for khe ~izza restaurant is 6 foot 4 inches high anc3 the rest of the signa are only 2~eet. Ms. White res~onded the pizza restaurant wants to display t;heir logo. 'l~here was a brief discussion regarding othe~ signs in the area, with Cammissioner Bust~ore pointing out thosQ signs went in before the present sign ordinance waA adoNted and stated he was not ustificati n foriapproval~ofVthis since then. He added he rould not see any j Narian~c. Commissioner La Claire skated ~he ~anderstands the petition~r'~ position, but. the Planning Commission has been trying to keep the signs r~ther uniform and also studiea have shown that people will see khe sf.gns anyway and yet everyone wants a larger sign. 1/21/85 MINUTES, ANAHFIM CITY PLANNIt~:~ CUMMISSION, JANUARY 21, 1985 85-60 Chairman Herbst etated thie particular location ia close to a reaidential ecea and the ordinance prohibita aigna at this height beca~~~e oF the liqhk intruaion. He Etated the ordinance was adopted for specific reasons aEter atud~es and agreed that one of the tenAnts shuuld not have a 6-foot sign and others have two-foot aigns and added he thought the ~ign could be reduced to meet Code. Ne stated this site can be well seen from either direction an~, in fact, higher signs are harder to see. ~oncerning the vacant portion of the proposed sign, Greg Hastings, explain~~3 that areA is reserved for futur.e tenants af the vacant units. It waa noted the Planning Director or his authorized representative has deterinined that the ~roposed project falls wikhin the definiti.on of Cateyorical Exempkions, Claaa 11, as defined in the State ~nvironmental Impact keport Guidelines and is, therefore, categoric~l]y exempt from ~he cequirement to prEpace an ~IR. ACTION: commissioner l,a ~lair4 oft.ered Resolu~ion No. PC85-32 and moved for itc E~ass~~~~e and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny Vaciance No. 3455 on the ba3is that there ace no 3pecial circumstances applicable to the property such ao size, shape, topography, location and surroundings which do not apply Co other identically 7oned propprty in the same vicinity; and that Atrict application of the 2on~ng Code doe~ not deprive the property ~f privileges enjoyed by other propcrtie~ in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity. On roll cal]., the focegoing resolution wa:; passed by the tollowing vote: AXES: BOUA~, B~1SkiOKE, FRY, HERBST, Y.ING, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY NUES: NUNE ABSBNT: NONE ,lack White, Assistant City Attorne,y, presented the wcitten right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision withi~~ 22 Jays to the City Council. ITEM NO 10 EIR NEGA"1VE DECLARAZ'IaN, wAIVER OF CODE REQUIRBMENT AND CONDITIUNAL USE PERMIT NU. 2648 PUBLIC HEARING. OwNERS: JP.Y U. COWAN ANU BARBARA E. COWAN, 3030 Breakers Drive, Cotona del M~+r, CA 92625. Pcoperty deECribed as an irregularly-shaped ~~arcel of land consisting of approximately 1.5 acres, 2760 West Lincoln Avenue (7-11 Motel and Trailer Park). To expand a tcavel-txailer park with waiver of permitted eneruachment into r.equiced yard. ACTIUN: Commissioner. Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Gommissioner King and MOTION CARRIED that considerakion of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-sc:heduled meeting of February 4, 1985, in order for the applicant to submit further i.nformation. 1/21/8~ MINUTES, AN~N~IM CTTY PLANNING ('OMMISSi0N1 JnNUARY 21. 19A5 __ 85-61 ITEM N0. 11. REPORTS ANU RECOMMF:NDATIONS: A. CUNDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 943 - Request from :~ene Callens Vermeulen, Carl K~ccher Enterprigea, foc termination of Condition~l Use Permil No. 943, property lac~ted at 313 F:ast Katella Way. ACTION; Commiasianer King ntEered Resolution No. PC85-33 ~nd moved fac ite pasaage and adoption that the Anaheim City Fianr-inq Commiasion doea hereby terminate Conditional Use Pertnit No. 943. Un roll call, the forego:ng re~ulution was passed by the following vote: AYtiS: BOUAS, BUSHU}t~, FR~, HERBST~ KING, I,A CI,AIRE, MC BURNEY NOES: NONE Ab~ENT~ NON~ H. TENTATIVE TRACT NG. 1U975 (RFV. N0. 2) - Request [rom AnAheim Hills Uevelopment Corporation for a~~~proval of speeific plans (Area 19, Anahcim tii l ls ) . ACTION: Commissioner La Claice otfered a m~tion, ~econded by Commisaioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIF.D that the Anaheim City Planning Commission doea hereby ~ind tl~at specific plans for Tentative Tract N~. 10975 (Revisior~ No. 2) ~s in substanti.al ~~ni~.rmance with originally ap~:oved plans and therefore, does heceby approve the ~specific plans as submitted by tt~e applicant. C. CONUITIONAL USE PF.RMIT NU. 2160 - Request from Hanan 5tanley, Sunwesl Metals, for review and approval of a 10-foat high fence for property located at 1874 South Anaheim Boulevard. Hanan Stanley, Sunset Me~als, applicant, responded to Commissioner Bust~ore regacding loadiny and unloading on the public street, as well as vehicles beiny parked and loaded and unloaded in tn~ landscaped ~etback area outside the Eenced area, that they are not unloading any vehicle outside the fe~cej that all the materials go into containers and they t~ave some of large haul-away containers parked on a private coad that belongs to the landlocd on the nocth side of the property. He stated they h~3v,~ had a lot of 3crap matErials come in the last 3 mnnths and are doing everythiny possible to get back to normal. He gtated the Planning Department was taking pictures oE his operation to use as an exAmple of how an oper~tion such as this should run, but in May or June last year he got a large ~~vernment contract which increased the material coming in. He st~ted at one time they had lar,ye aemi-trailers parked in their driveway. Commi~sioner Bushore stated he has seen trucks between the street aRd the fence. Mr. Stanley sL•ated they had trucks our. there about 30 days ago. Commisaionec Fry stated they were there at 9:45 a.m. today and they were being loaded, 1/21/85 MINUTES. AN~HEIM CITY ~LANNING COMMIS~ION. JANUARY 21. 1985 85-62 C~mmiaeioner euahore stated it r~ny be that rt~ic~ use tius outgrown ~ faeiliCy and these same things were discussed ~n April 19, 1983, when the Commiasion approved recycliny of bath f~~ro~~ And non-~~rrous metal~. He added thi~ has been an on-going problem and the petitioner wes cited for putting tnntecials above the height of thc~ fen~e. Mr. Stenley stated he ia here to find out: whettier he can hAVe thase semis parked in the drivew~y and not on the public street. c:omtniasioner Fiushore stated blocking circulation mPans the customers are inconvenienced and have difficulty getting into t.he properky and asked how tt~e £ire truck would yet in in an emecgency. Mr. Stanl~y reaponded he has never had any complatnts. He ~tated occ~sionally they have a Fyroblem, b~t if the Commission doesn`t want him to use the drivewr~y, he will. have to make changes. Commissioner Bushore stated todby's rpquest is Eor epproval of a 10-foot hiqh fence. Commission4r Fry st:aLec3 thece is nothing in the formec Action prohibiti~y loading and unloading in the setback area and it only refers to the public street. Commissioner La Claire stated she remembers the original plans and the discussi~ns; and that ttie operation was srtiall then, but now it has yrowri anc' there are some problems. She referred to the ~taff repoct which ir:~:~ates thak letters wece sent. hir. Stanley sl•ated he has nPVec received a letter, but he did have conversation on Janu<ry 19~ 1984, regardiny an abandoned vehiclP, whict~ he had rem~ved; and that t~e had conversation on June 19, 1984, reqarding material st~red above the fence and also he Was told that unloading should be i~ the rear.. He explained he got a citation in November after he wAS given 20 days to remove some of the ma~terial, and tt~at they c~emoved 3-1/2 million puunds of material~, but they didn't get it all f±nishr; because of the weather, hotidays, ekc. Uo^ Yourstone, ,.~ode Enforcement Officer, explained he conducted an in~pec~lon on November 27, 1984, and found they were loading trai~~rs outside the fenced portion of thA setback area and makerial was stacked higher than the ~creeniii~, and he explained to Mr. Stanley what he had to do and a notice of violation to comply within 20 days was issued; and that a re-inspection wa~ made and it was found that tr,e trailer and storage bin in the front setback area were removed, but material was still stacked higher thart the fEnce and a ci.tation was issued. Chairman Herbst asked if Mr. Yourstone felt the 10-fo~k high fence would solve the problem. Mc. Yo~rstone responded that ~,e thought the operation has outgrown th~: facility, but the additional height on the fence would probably help rectify the situation. 1/21/85 MINUTE5, ~N~HGIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. JANUARY 211 1985 85-G3 ~ohn Poole, Code Enforcement Supervieor, stoted problema have actuolly gona on since January of 1984, end clarified that the lettec rgferred to wae actually sent to the pr~oecty owners, Mr. And Mra. Ralph Alexander and th~ citation and numerous notices were ixaued to Mr. ~tdnley. Commissioner Buehore ~ead [rom the minutes of the meeting oE January 12, 19d1, M~erein he had asked the petitioner to stipulate that the operati~~ will be conducted inside the boundarie~ o£ the aite so there w~il be no unloRding outaide the gate oc on Che street.....and thak r~~ petitioner had made that stipulation. Mr. st~nley stated the resolut.ion only ind~cated this apFlied to the p~ ~lic street. ,lohn PouJ.e stated basically the problems have been during fhe past ypa•. Respondiny t•u Commiasioner La Claice, Mr. Stanley stated it is not feabible for him t.o move to a l~rger facility at this timet however, hN will do whatever is nece~sary to rectify the situation and now since il: has been clarified, he can unload insic~e the gates. Chairman Hecbst asked iE the petitioner can abide by all the conditions. Mr. Stanley responded he can and the only problem has been stacking the material abave the £ence. Mr. St;anley stated some of the aemis have 50-foot trailers and they would like to unload them on the drivew~y which i:~ outside the £ence, but not on the ~stceet and it only katies about 30 minuCes. He stated, at the most~ they would have one or two trucks a day. Commisaior,er La Claire atated this property i.s irregularly-shaped and she has no problem with the trailers beiny loaded and unloaded ~n the driveway. Mr. Stanley asked about leaving four or five c~~ntainers outside on the private road and Commissioner eushore cespondea he could not vote for any e~;pansion of this use; and that it is a prablem because of its natur~~ and it is located cight next to the freeway and a motel. Jack White, Asaistant City Attorney, stated Che action should be to clarifl ~he previous conditians of approval to find thpt increasing thQ height of the fence to ten (10) faet is in substar..ial conformance with the conditior~al use pecmit. ACrION; Cortunissioner La C.laire offered a motion, seconded by Cotnmiesioner Fry and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bushore votfng no) that the Anaheim City Planr~fag Commission does hereby f:nd that f~creasing the rieight of th~ fence to ten (ln) f~et is in substantial conformance with the originally approved conditional use permitt and that loading and unloading c~an take place on the drivewayj and that r-'tiing will be stored outAide the fence. 1/21/85 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CI'PY P~ANNING COMMISSION. JANUAi' 21. 1995 `_ 85-6~ Commiu~ionec eushore indicated conce~n about loading ond unlo~ding on the driveway and thought the Fire Depactment miyht have an objection. Chairman Nerbsk pointad out the Commission can revoke thio pecmit if. the condition~ are not met. J~ek White clarified that the only requenl• granted to~ay wa~ to increase th~~ fence height and the original con~:~ions will remain tte same. However, i~ tht Commiebion feels there is an inacc~~racy :~ t~~e conditiona, they ~an, with four vote~, set ki~is for a public hParir.g to change those conditions. It wa~ cl~rifiec~ tt~at if there io a Code prohibition reqarding loading and unlo~ding in the driveway, he will noL• be allowed to ~lo it. U. ANAHEIM 5TALIUM AREA ASSESSMEt'T DISTRICT - 5TANDARD ~''~NDITIOt+ StaEf report pres~nted foc intormational ~urposes only. No action was taken. E. PKUYOSED URUINANCE AMENDING TI'PLE 14 - Pertaining to Commpr.cial Sales Business and Office uses .tn the ML Zone. Annika Santalahti, Assistant Uirector for Zoning, expla~ned this is a proposed Code Amendment to eJlow offices in the industcial areas and there are Leve~al developers interested in having affice buildings in the industr~lal areas. She statPd o~aff would prefer to have it apelled out in ttie Code to allow it with approval of a conditional use permik or hear ~rom Commiseion und Couneil t~~at they do not wish to even consider an activity like this in the in~'ustrial areas. Andy Shutz, UUnn Pr~~e ties, owner of ~pproximately 30 acres purchased irom Warner Lambert fronting an La Palma, stated they are currently developing a project at the corner of xel3.ogg and La Palma which they characterize as a research and developmenL• pro3ect, and they would like the flexibility to do cer.tain type of office tenancies in that project. Chairman Herbst statcd hc recognizes thaC area is becoming a high tech ~rea, but he thought whatever goes in still must provide some servi~:e to the industrial zone. Jeff Smith, Cabot, Cabot and Forbes, sta .f they recently purchaEed property at Richfield and La Palma and plans ace in fo~ appro~~al now under the R b D concept, but they sPe the potential need and deaire to havP office space. Mc. Smith stated they have reviewed the list of uses c~nsidered compatible with the industrial uses by the P~anning Commiasion and w~uld add aeven uses ~hich would meet th~ir needs. Chairman t.erbst stateo this is tye ~yF~e of input the Planniag Commiesion needs b~cause the industrial land is rapidly disappearing. 1/21/85 MINUTE5 ANAH~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISS20N JANUARY 21 1945 8h-b5 Ne responded to Mr. Smith that the Pl~nning Commiasi~n doea not have a specific rat:o tl~et th~y wauld like r.~ see in ~ffice space veraus induatcial uP:s in the induscrial areao. Eie ~tated the Commi.esion has tried to maintein the induHtrial epace for industrial E~urpasea ko cceate the imnge ~nd ;~bs that the industrtal area~ create And there is a lot of commeKCial property that could be redeveloped with o~fice buildings, including tl~e downtown are~. Ele stated, however, the Commission realizPS ~he induetrial area is changing more to high tech or ceaearch and developme~t type uaQa and thak is the reason for this study. Commisaioner La Clbire stated the problem has not been to protect the oft'ice develupments, Gut to protact the industrial pr~pertyT tFat thE (:ity formed a commi.ttee ~on~l~ting ot some oi the industrialists fn this City and they came up with the cecommendation that the i.nduetrial property is rapidlv being used up and the rest shou.lJ b~ kept for induA4ria1 u~ea ~nly. 5he clarified that Mr. Smith i~ tAlking abouk a regular ~~ifice buildiny with multiple users. Mr. sn~ith adaed they have a potential of 199,U00 syuare feet of. office space, or R s D space, and they tiave rQlculated they coul~ pur 129,000 square f:eet of oEfice epace at ths 4 to 1 ratio Und still have suf£icient parF,i;y and office ~pace for ~ight industKial uses or P. & L type use~. Ne tated they feel khey would like to have the flexibility tu tiaue oifice s~ace. He explain~d their proE7erty is at the nocttiwest c:orner of La Palma a~d Richfield. Chairman t;erbst stal•ed he would bs opposed to purely office usFb if they did not servH the industrial community. Mr. Smith stated he felt if the list in the staff repart represents th~ ~.in~s cF use:: the City would `eel are compatible, they would see na pKOblem. Commissioner Bu~hore stated khe Co~mission kn~ws where thifi E~r~poned change is co~niny from and the Cumr~i~sio~~ has always been an upholder of the integrity of the i.ndustrial property, e~pecially in the Canyon Inciustrir~l Area, but it doe:; disturb h~.m that no one has the right to ask for c:ertain uses in that area and ~,~ thought that segregates that area from the rest ot the ~ity. Cort~missionpr Bus~,ore added he would recommend that the :.ity Council canside~ this prop~sed ordinance on its own mecits. He stated the Commission has its o~rn pl~ilosophy on this ~asue snd their decisions are based ~urely on land use and land plan~iing ar,d the Commission wiil continue to ~i.:~old that philoso~hy. Gene Eiogan, Sant~ Fe Land Improvement Compeny, Froject manager of 26 acres at ttie corner of Tustin and La Palma, sta~ed they are cucrently dozng so:ne plannin9 work on that ML Zoned propecty vhich is ad~~:cent to the Riverside Freeway at a major off-ranp and they see it as a higher use than light industri~l or wa:ehoueing and wtll be coming in with a plan in the futur.e. ~e ~tated he thought it is unwise to have a prohibition againat certain ~ses such as office use on that property and ~hay feel havi.ng a conditional use permit procedure will allow the Commission the discretion t~ decide if it is an appropriatP use and wil.l allow for f.lexibility. 1/21/85 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CUMMISSION, .1ANUARY 21._1985 $5-~6 Clyde Stoff, Vice-President, Seeley Company, industrial and r.eal eat.ate bcokerage, explai.ned they ace experieneing A movement f.rom tl~e traditional induatcial wacehouse and diatcibuti~n users to electronic manufacturinq, and insurance, accaunting usea~ etc. ~nd thia is being seen on the ~najor atreet cocridora in khe canyon acea such as La Fulmn, Micalnma, TuHttn, etc. He stated they like to asaure the~r clienta that what they are ~~ing is within thc ordinances and like to get a conditional uae permit th~t ie noC suspect ko interpretations. tie added they feel this ie a very degirable evolution and allowing developments such as these gentlemen are Pl~nning on La Palma would be a much better uae. He stated valuea established in AnAheim Are vecy high And ~~n ap~c~ l the sucplus 20 acrea of Kwikset property ttet the price at ~;~ ow end at $240,000 per acre an~ the tradition~l industrial client cannot afford those rentals or purchaae prices. Brvon Pinckerd, Hill, Pinckerd, arrhitects, stated they are curr.ently wo[king on ~~ lot o~ pcojects in the area, incluc3ing thN Maoter Plan of the SAVI Rancti property, and there are a lot oE diffetent type developments and ~hey have found the kind of u~er defined ~s industrial or res~acch and developtnent are office users because they are doing their work in an offic:e type enviranment and that there ia a lot of assembly manufacturing yoiny on where the product is assemblecl and not actually manufactured at that facility. Annika Santalahti ex~lained this matter will be on the City Counci~ agenda in 22 days. ACTIUN: Commissioner Fry oEf.ered a motion, sec~nded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIBD that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the Cxty C~uncil conaider and approve the prop~sed ordinance ~ertaining to commercial sales business and office uses in lhe ML 2one. F. CONUITIONAL USE PERMIT NG. 2533 - Requebt from Corky Bradley, Coleman/Caskey Architects, re~resenzing the Salvation Army, that Condition No. 14 of City Council Resolution No. 84R-105 be amende~i to permit an outdoor swimming povl and deck in connection with the pending Salvation Army adult rehabilita~ian center at 131C South Lewis Street. Annika Santalahti, Assistant Uirector for Zoning, explained the Salvation Army has submitted plans Eor plan check which included an out.door swimming pool ar-d deek ~rea to the ~outh. She pointed out the two drawings on the wa'1 ceflect the original plan and the revised plan. She stated tt~ey have determined t.hQ ovec-all sfze of the residential facility would be about 46,U00 square feet compared to 44,000 square feet for the firat stage building; and that the parking wa~ reduced from 23 co 20 spaces. She explained this matter has to be cor~sidered by the City Council at a public hearing and she would like some input from the Planning Commission. 1/21/85 ~ MINUT~S ANAHEIM CITY PLANNZNG COMM7SSION JANUAkX 21 1985 gg_6~ Commissioner Bushore atated he had a aonflict on thie ma~ter originally and would not L•ake par~ in this ~iscussion and left the Council Chambet. Annika S~ntalahti atatea the original structure waR proposed to be squAre on the westerly portian oP the property and now ~here is a propose~ rectangularly-shaped building r;fiicl~ pretty well covers the over-all sike and includes t:~e outdoor swimming p~ol and dec:k area and it is a 2-story building. Cammissioner La Claire stated there would not be any tratfi~, except Eot the deliv~ry trucks, und the reaidents will nol• have a vehicle and ahe did not think tt~e revised plan l~ substar~tial.ly 4i.flerent and would not affect the use oF the property. Annika Santelahti stated the outdoor ~wimming pool wa~ a bit different and it is enclosed with a G-fout high fence and cannot be seen and it is tr, the reac of the property and that was the one ch~nge staff Pelt was more drast.ic and would ne~d to be ~cnaidered at a public hearing. ACT10N: Chairman Flerbst offered a motion, aeconded by Commissioner La Claire and MOTYON CARRIED (Commissioner Dushore absent) ti~at the Anaheim City Planning Commission doe~ hereby recommend that City Council approve the revised plans for Conditional Use Permit No. 1533. ~tiJJUURNM~NZ': Commissioner Fry flffered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIEll (~ommisaioner Bushare absent) tl7at the meeting be adjourned. The meeting was adjourned at 5:55 p.m. Respe tfully submitted, ~ ~ • Edith L. Harris, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission EL!! : lm 0098m 1/21/85