Loading...
Minutes-PC 1985/10/28~ __ R~GUGAR MLETING 0~_TN6 ANAHGIM CITY PLANNING COMMI~ _,~ r~ REGULAIt MEETING The regular meeting ot the Anaheim City planning Cammiasi~n wan called to order by ChnirwomAn La Claire at lU:OU a.m.~ Uctober 28, 1985, in the Council Chamber, a quorum being ~reAent, and the Commission ~eviewed plana of the items on today's agendA. k~CESS: RECONVENEU: 11:3U a.m. 1:30 p.m. PItBS~NT ~haicwoman: comm:lasionecs: pgg~;Nq~ ; Commissioner : La C~aire Houae, Fry, Iierbst- Lawicki, Mes~e, McBurney None AL50 PRESEN't' Annika Santalahti Malcolm 5laughter Jay Titue Paul Singer ~at Whitaker Kendra Morries ~dith Harris Asaistant Director Eor Zoning peputy City Attorney Office ~ngineer City TrafEic Engineer NeighbazhUOd Itestoration Special.ist A~sistaht Planner Planning Commission Secretary MINUTt;S FOR APPRUVAL: Commiasioner E'ry offered a motian, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki and MOTION CARRI~D (Commissioners Bouas, Herbst and McBurney abstaining) that the minutes of the meeting of October 14, 1985, be approved as submitt~d. ITF,M Npw 1 E;IR NEGATIVE UECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2314 (kEAUVERTISED) PUBLIC HEARItJG. OWNERS: ROVI PACIFIC CORPORATION, 1801 Century Park East, ~111~ Los Angelss, CA 90067, ATTN: DANIEL WEBER. AGENT: FARANO 6 KIVIET, lOp S. Anaheim Blvd., Anai~eim, CA 92805, ATTN: FRANK A. LOWRY, JR. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 3.0 acce located at the northeast corner of Serrano Avenue and Nohl Ranch Road, 6513 Serrano Avenue (Town and Country Early Education Centec). Request for amendment of Condition No. 2 of Planning Commission Resolution No. PCa2-68 for approval of revised plans (No. 1) foc expansion of an exi.sting pr:vate day care and elementary educational facility (ages 2-I/Z years Ghrough third grade). Continued from the meetings of June 24, July 22, Sepl•ember 4, and October 14, 1985. There were four persons indicating their presence in onposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is ref.erred to and made a part of the minutes. 85-564 10/28/85 ANAH~IM CI'PY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES UCTOBER 28 19a5 85-565 Floyd FArano, attorney, 100 Sauth Anaheim ~oulevard, Anaheim, explained petiti.ons and letterA w~re submitted on Fri~ay of people ~up~orking this [equesl and khe persons signing the letters af ~uppnrt live within 1/4 mile radius of the school and a11 are netghbora in the immediate pcoximity oE the school or are pACents of atudents in the school. H~ presented An addit~onal ~~etition o£ people in ~upport. t~e stated the ~urpose of the signatuct~ of people who were iminediately adj~cent to or near the sch~ol was to demonstcate t~ the Commi3sion that the noise dnes not bother tl~em and the signatures ~E the people not immediatel.y adjacenL to the sr.hool would demonstrate the manner in which the school is operated and the decorum tt~at ia maintained. F1r. Farano explained the applicafion wa~ originaliy granted in 1942, for a total entollment of 26~ students and at this time the enroll.ment is ap(~roximately 186 students and the average daiiy attendance is approximately 130 s~udents and this request is to .increase tl~e classroom~ by 2200 square feet; however the enrollment wfll not be increased and if the request is denied, there will be no change in the physical operation of the school, except in the use of those two cla~srooms. Mt. Earano stated the~e has bten som~ rumors th~t the school intends to take over the entire shop~~ing c:ent;er and that is not tcue; that the school ie licensed by the skate not to exceed 2U0 studenta in attendance at any one time and there is no application pending that would increase that enrollment or total daily attendance and Che applicant is williny to stiE~ulate not to allow its average Jaily attendance to exceed 200 stiudents. lie explained the ariginal pPCmit allows them to have a total enrollment of 2G0 students and they anticipate that wc~ul~l ~~roclucc appcoximately 20U students average daily aktendance. Mr. Farar~o stated tlie school is open from 7:00 a.m. to 6:OU p.m. and outside activities are cestricted to 1-1/2 hours in the morning from 9:15 to 11:OU and 1-3/4 hours in the afternoon from 2:15 to 4:00 p.m. and tt~ece are no students outside after 4:00 p.m. and the students~ages are .from 2-~/2 years old to third grade and there i.s one teacher for every 12 students with a maximum of 40 students in the yard at one time with 3 or 4 teachers in attendance to supervise the children. Mt. Farano explained thece are 2 play yards, one on the north and one an the east, and the children are not allowed off the school campus anc3 children who attend the public school across the street must arrive after school within a certain lime period. He stated the church issue relates to the 2 classrooms being proposed for use at this time by the school and wanted to make sure it is known that th~~ church utilizes 2 classrooms only on Sunday for Sunday School classes and they are not permitted to use the outside yards at all on Sundays. Mr. Farano presented a series of photographs that were taken of the premises showing the yard and L-he 2U~by 20~foot area which the sound engineer has ~ecommended be fenced to help the noise factor and to make sure no one throwe anything over into adjoining yards. He referced to ~ recommendation by the sound engineec that toys have rubber wheels and explained there are no toys, tricycles, etc. that do not have rubber 10/28/85 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CUMMISSIUN MINII~ES, OCTOBFR 28, 19a5 85-566 wheels. He referced to a brown playhouse which will most likely be cemoved and pointed out the locatian of the Peck's cesidence und ~he schaol nbutting the reaidences. He stated the Peck's residence AbuCa the ach~ol for a diatAnce of approximately 2U feet with a~arking lot ~~buttinq the property Lor a distance oE approximately 60 to 80 feet. Mr. Farano explained the sound study clearly indicates the level.s of sound are within the limits acceptable to the City of Anaheim and to the County of Ocange. He explained the Cests were conducted at 991 South ~uincy and 6524 E. Carnegie and projectiun~ were tnade by the conaultant with 20, 30 or 40 children in attendance; and that the school does make noise, but the ~evel of sound from L•hat school is not significant: when compared with the ambient levels existing in the area. Mr. Farano stated in order to reach an agreement, the pekitioners are willing to: (1) limit their daily attendance to 200 students, (2) remove the brown plAyhouse, (3) construct the fence recommended by the sound engineer in the northeast corner uf the property, (4) use only toys with rubbet wheels, (5) divide the children between the two play are~+s, (6) not use the playground ~n week~nds nr holidays, (7) not use the yard earlier than 8:3U in the morning or later Lh~n 4:30 in the afternuon, (8) not allow more than 40 students in the yacd at one time, (9) maintain the propec ratio of students and tear.hers in order to maintain the ~raper control, (lU) not permit paging or other equi.pmQnt that would be distracting and produce sound tc the neighbors, (11) not allow any ct~ildren off the campus, and (12) comply with all the recommendations made by the sound engineer. Mr. Farano stated there is a rougli drawinq in the ex}ill,il showing the relationship of the various residences to the school yard. Responding to a request from the petitioner, Chairwoman La Claire teopened the public heara.ng for additional testimony. Esther Peck, 991 South Quincy Circle, Anaheim, stated she is against the existence and expansion of this school and asked what happened to the petitions she presented in opposition and noted the wt~ole neighborhood surrounding the school is being represented by her. Kendra Morries, Assistant Planner, stated all petitions submiktec~ arf~ a part of the public record, with Commissioner Fry explaining the Commission has reviewed these petitions that were submitted. Ms. Peck stated she would disagree with the noise level tests because the school was notified when the consultai~t was coming out to takE the rests and there was a ceduction in noise and it does not give a true pic*uce of what they really hear in the neighborhood. She added she would like the Commission to check on their comments that the students are 2-1/2 years old through third grade because she was sure l•hey have students there in the fourth and fifth grades because she has seen them being bused with their lunches possibly to a park and their complaints about children climbing over the wall pertain to older children. She stated Mr. Farano stated there is no noise after 4:30 and that is not true. She stated it makes her sad to have to come here and defend her right as a citizen to live in her home 10/28/85 ANAH~IM CITY PLANNINC+ COMMIS510N MINUTES, OCTOBER 28, 1585_ ___ 85-567 and be abl~ co enjoy it and not~d she has not been able to enjoy it since tl~e school t~as come into th~ neighb~r.hnod and she is not a trouble maker, but wants the Cammiaaion l•o dv something about the sil•uation. She stated she realizea one Commiosioner came out and did not hear the noise And she wAS sure iE this is approved- rhe ne.tghbora will be in for a tough time. She stated they are asking the C.ommission not to allow tY~is because there are plenty of placa~ L•o have pre-sehools and ceferred to sehonls thak ace cloning all over the are~ which could be utilized and stated they do not Leel this belongs in ~heir neigt~borhoo~. Ms. Peck reierred to the playtiouse which causes noise and asked about the other equipment which t1~e schoal children climb on and even the amall ct~ildren when they climb on it are tallcr tt~an the wall and the noise from their screaming comes ri9ht over the wall. Ms. Peck referred to ~he commercial limited hillside zone requicementa which prohibits the uae of: equiPment which will be objectlon~ble because of sound ot sight and sl~e objects ~o the noise and ho~es the Commisaion will do something about it. Fcank Peck, 991 Sout:~ Quinc~, stated he tias been to every meeting co fac and this is the first tir.,~ he has expressed his views because af his h~alth. He stated .~~r ii retired and is out i.n his yard every day working on his lawn and last Ap.il, he picked up 14 rocks from hi~ lawn and it made him really an9cy and he climbed up on a ladder and yelled at ti~e ct~ildren and pointed out he did not see any adults in the play area. He st~ted he has called the school before, but nothing has been done and pointed out later that night he had a heact attack and he £elt it was partly due to the angec he had experienced that day. He stated putting a wall between the sct~oo], and his back yard woul.d be like a prison. He expl~ined when he pur.chased his home, he wa~ guaranteed thece were no schaols, churches, et~. in that area and that is one reason he purchased it. He stated if he wanted tu sell hi.s hort~e, he would have to take at least a$10U,0UU depreciation because of the noise from that school. He stated he does not want to compromise. Mr. Johnson, 6524 Carnegie, stated his propecty is adjacent to the school and L•hey hear all the noise and he really thought that is the only bu~~.nPSS in tt~at whole centec which should not have been allowed in the first place. He stated the school referred to across the street is ov~r 1,OOU feet away and the people who signed the petitiun suppocting the request and live within 1/A mile of the school is irrelevant because they ace talking about noise in thetr backyards. He stated he did not think this request sh~uld be approved and if a wooden fence is constructed, that would be the only wooden fence in the whole neighborhood and the existing emergency gate is really uyly. He stated he did not know where the sound engineec got his figures, but the noise is very loud twice a day and he felt he would have to take a reductic~ in price if he wanted to sell his house anc! he did not think that is fair. Flora Johnson, 6524 Carnegie, stated the noise is still there and she heats lots of noise inside her house and some even ~his morning. 5he stated the people who wprk at this school are naturally in favur of this 10/28/85 ANAH~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, OCTOB~R 28,_1985_ 8S„~i568 request, but the people who live in the neighborhood ~re not be~ng listened to and the residents have something to gain by the schoo] not being there and whan they purchased their homes, they wete told there would be a shopping centPr there, not a school, and that wauld have made a difference when pucchasing their residence~ She stated ~he whole thing is not fAir to the neighborhood. Floyd Facano referced to a letter from Theresa Anderman, 6516 E. Carneyie, in support aE this requeat, noting that prior to the Town and Country Scho~l going in, the high school students used to yathE~ behind the shop~ing center and play their radios loud and make noise and now that has stopped and the noise from tt~e pre-school is not disturbing at all. He teferred to a letter from Susar~ Snell. dealing with the question of property values and explained when she wanted ~o relocate to this area, she located the school first and then ~urchased a home close to the sct~oul (there was a cesp4nse from Che audi~~nce ttiat Ms. Snell is a teacher at the school). It was noted hec address is 1U51 Pine Canyon and Chairwoman La Claire stated that i.a not n~ar the schoo~. Mc. Farano stated the fence they are thinKing about constructing is a wooden fence inside the yard whict~ surrounds the 20' by 20' area or~ the northeaster.ly corner and would be inside the wall and not be seen by the neighbors. Mr. Earano stated they tiave tcied to be good neighbors and will continue to try to be good neighbors and have signatures on the petition from merchants in this shopping center in favor of this request. He stated the existence of the school is not really the issue and the only thing that would change if this is denied would be the use of those two classrooms. He explained Fteverend Timothy van EieesC was present to answer any que~tions about the use of the premises on Sunday by the church and also Mr. Van Elouten is present to answer questions about the sound stUdy. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. c'~~mmissioner Messe stated aL• the last hearing the petitioner had indicated they did not want to Gomply with the mitigation measures recommended by the sound consultant and now they are 4 lling to perform those mitigation measutes ctow and Mr. Farano indicated ~nat is co;rect. Commissioner Fry stated there were allegations made that there are children at this school in higher grades and they are being bused. He asked if the school was n~tified when the sound tests were going to be made. Mr. Farano stated they are licensed for students through the third grade and l•.o the best of his knowledge, the school does not have a classroom and does nor conduct an educational faci.lity for fifth and sixth grade children. He staLed there aLe no fourth and fifth grade students on the premises for educational purposes and responded tio Commissioner eouas that there are a lot of latch-key childcen in the neiqhborhood and a few atrend the school and some come from across the street after that school closes and stay at tt~is facillty until their parents pick them up. He explained tiiey pay for the baby-sitting after school. 10/28/85 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING,,,,.,,, C~MMISSION MINUTES, OCTOBER 28, 1985_ __ ___ ____85-569 Chairwoman La Claire stated she went to the school one morning and two afternoons to watch the atudents and she saw 12 children come over from the elementary act~~ol and they all appeared to be About third gradera and they ]eft their books inside and went out back and were supervised on the playground. She explained she atayed there until Abo!it 2:50 p.m. and they were all well behaved children, but thece ate children coming from other schools on bicyc~,es who hang around the liquor store and ride bicycles in the area, but none of ttie childcen who w~nt into the school wece rnisbehaving. Commissioner Bouas state~ the older children probably do not get out of their school until 3:00 p.m. Mr. Far~no sl:ated this is an early educatiun center and some students are only there part of the day and othecs are there all day, but he did not think therE are any fourl•t~ or tifth yradets there, but if l•here are, it would be only a few who would come across from the elementary school across rhe street and btay until 5:00, but they do not have an educational prograt~ for the o~der kidg. Commissioner Herb~t stated no one in any of the houses abutti~g the school sig~ied the petition in favor of thi:~ reguest and they did sign the petition in opposi.tion. He as~ed why the neighbors abutting ttie school pro~erty were nat contacted because they are the people who will be dcastically affected. Mr. Fa~ano stated he has not seen Ms. Peck's petition and would like to review it. Ne sCated they think some of the information that has ca~~sed these petitions to be executed is a little bit misleading because one of the people obtaining sig«atures in favox of the request was told they did not sign a petition in favor ~ecause the school is going ko increase the number oF students and take over the whole ~hopping center and none of tho~e things are tcue. Comrnissioner Bouas asked Ms. Peck what she thought this request entails. tdso Peck stated including the changes and adding more students, it has already been a horrenduus thing for them to have to put up with for these three years and has reached a point where they cannot tolerate it any more and something has to be done about it. Responding to Commis~ioner Bouas, Ms. Peck stated she thought they would be enrolling more students. Commissioner Bouas stated L•hey are not going ~o enroll any more students and they are allowed 260 students by the previously approved permit. Ms. Peck stated they have permission to nave more students than they have now and it is intolerable now. She stated her home is not a place of peace thak it should be and was and she cannot enjoy her home since the school has been there. She stated from 9:30 a.m. there are students out in the yard for about 1-1/2 to 2 hours and again at lunch time and again in the afternoon and it goes on for about 2 hours and *_hat she has seen children being bused that were not third graders. SYie stated the children were taken out from the school with their lunches and she understood they were being taNen to a park. She explained she has lived there for 10 years. She explained she saw those ol~iet children on Thursday of last week. 10/28/85 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES. ACTOBER 28, 1985 85-570 John Van Houten, reg~atered professional engineer, 1260 East Katella Avenue, Anaheim, responded ~o Commisaioner Me~se's question regarding what effect the mitigation measures wlll have on the noi~e level in the neiyl~bora' homes, that the problem is one of having to come up with a quantitative estimate of the noise and ~:here have been a number of studies in day-caxe ce~~ters and educational facilities, includinq high schools, where a potentiai noise pxoblem might exist and it is extremely difficult to go in on a~~y particular day and claim they mea~ured a typical situAtion. tie stated the school was n~tif•ied because there was a man stationed in ttie play yard writing down on a 10-minute bat~is what activities were taking place so they coulcJ relate that to the naise monitors which were placed at two location3, one to thc east of ~he play yard and one to the north, and wanted the school to know why the man was tiiere. He stated obviously it could have been a staged situation and could have b~en very quiet. fie ~tated L•hey did a rather intensive study in 1979 wikh children playing and chilclren activities of all kinds and they have a good data bas~ ta show how much noise 20 to 30 children will make and the worst of the sam~ling with children screaminy, crying, et•c. and from their obsecvations of what was going on at this educational facility, it. is typical of what children af that age could do and they did take into account the barriers that were existing auch as wall.s, the size of the play yatds and how spread out they wece and came up with a very good estimate of the quantitative assessment of sound fr~m vaxious locations in relationship to khe play graund and they found under the worst cunditions that th~ provi~ions of the Urange County Noise Ordinance would be met. Mr. Van Houten continued regarding the mitiqation measures, that applying the analysis with the existing walls, they found that under the set of conditions that normally exist with the way the ~lay yards ace configured that the noise lavels would not er.ceed the standa~ds and the mitigation measures will assure that is the wav the conditions would be and the conditions that ~ould actually uccur and the worst place would be that one corner where there is an existing 2U' x 20' acea which has b~en built up as much as 3 feet so that a child on top of the mound of dirt actually would be looking over the Wall, defeating the effect of the wall and therefore, the mitiyaticn measure suggested was tu put a fence aro~~nd the mound of dirt to keep the kids off the mound and also that thE dirt could be taken out and replanted with trees, etc. He stated those mitigation measures are to con,train the set of canditions to thase which were analyzed. Commissiunec Messe asked if the analysis considered frequenr.y such as would a higher frequency irritate people more than a lower frequency. Mr. Van Houten stated they did take the f[equenci ~ of the noise levels into consideration and if it is a high frequency noise such as violins or children screaming~it penalizes that noise more severely than low frequency noises. Chairwoman La Claire stated she was conce~ned about this school when ik first went in, but there was no one in opposition and also, she is concerned now because of the neighbors' objections; however, she went to the school and was there when the kidc were there and she was oUtside and 10/28/85 ANAHLIM CI:['Y Pl~ANNING CUMMIS520N MINUTES. OCTOB~it 28, 1985 85-571 walked arljacen-: to ~hN Pe~:k's property and the kids could be hearcl and r~he alco wal-ced alo.iy side the house on Serran~ and the n~ise level wae really J.ow there. She stated the one objectinnAble thing she really heard was the kids play~ng in ~:he ~~layhouae und that s~undecl ] ike a big drum and the eound does tcc+vel and tha~. is the hause tr,ey have said they would cemuve. She stated ahe ir~ c~ncerned ~bout the nuise level inccease And would like ~a see thc mitigation mea~zure~ taken and in addih.ion, would wAnt to see sume time limits on Che tim~a the kids are out in the yard Ruch as Eirat thing in the morning and also that no children be a]lowed outside after 4:UU ~.m. She stated many o: th~ n.:~~~hb.~rs have children in Lhe r~c:hool and i~ very valuable to them because i,t it~ a safe place to leave their ct~il.dren ~nd ir. is very well supervised. 5he staced flhe nt~o~l outside and liatened to the kids in the classrooms and the kids on the p~aygcaund aud even ttie ones outside were well behaved. She atated she did not see anybody loading ar unloading and ghe thc~ught it in~eresting that none of th~; ott~er neigt~bors are presenk in opposition and felt if th.ls Nas rea.l.ly a problemr they woulcl have Leen here. She stated ahe l.iought limiting the hourr~ and number of children o~~ the playground and complyiny with the mitiqation mea~ures would help the situation and alsc the fence along the side of the properly on (t~inc;y rhould be increased to at l~ast 6 feet high. Mc. Farano st-ated they have disr.ussed increasing rhe height oL the fence with the Sound ~ngineec anr3 arc wil.ling to compl} within the ordinance limitations and thought they could possibly add two rows of bloc~cs on top o£• that wall. He adaed Mr. Van Elouten kl~ought increasing the height of the wall would nor make any significant irnprovement. He stated th::se problerns are being caused tnostlv by kids outside the fence line o£ the school and they have Cestimony from peop~e in the schvAl who have seen children in L•i~e parki~.g lo~ and they have no cont~ol over that. He ~tated the children in the schooa do not have anything to thcow over the fence. He stated they have no problem with taking the childr~n in~ide at 4;00 p.m. Susan Etheridge, Uirectur of the school, ec;~lained there are about 10 children ir~ the yard from 8:15 to 8:30 and ~n~n f.~om 9:15 to 11:00 there are varying classes o~t there fcom 15 to 30 minute increments, and there is no one in the yard between 11:Q0 and 12:00 and then from 12:00 t~ 12:45 is the lunch periad and the pre-schoolers eat inside and only the kindergarten through third yr.aders are outside and no one is in the yard f:rom 12:45 to 2:15 and then they are outside from 2:15 unr.il 4:00 p.m. Commissioner Herbst stated the petitioner has indicated that there was confusion about tt~e number of students allowed in the original permit and Co~dition No. 4 of the permi~. originally approved in 1982 stated "when the enrollment reaches 140 children, the petitioner shall ~ubmit a sounu study prepared by a qualified engineer". He stated it is very clear thak thi, study w~s required when the enrollment reached 14U ~h~ildren in 1983. Mr. ~arano stated at that time there was con£usion because enrollment has no necessary r~lation^hip to average daily attendance and during the discussion~ at that meeting, t'~~re was concern over the number of students at the sGhool at one time, .~ut to solve the problem a sound study has been done. 10/28/85 ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMI~SION MINUTES, OCTOdER 28, 1985 85-572 Commisaianer Herbst atated the Commis~ion was concerned and thought when the echool reached that enrollment, they wanted to know what the impact would be on the ad~oining propacl:ies. HP stated attendance has been 133, but the permit waa appr~ved for 260 st~idente, an~ he thouyht the Commiaeion was considering reviewing it when it reached 140 becau~E 26U may be too mAny and he felt 140 et~auld be the maximum. Mr.. F~rano atated basPd on their experience, 260 students enrollod will produce approximately 'lU0 students average daily att.endance and they would sti~ulate to limit tt~e attendance tn that Eiguce. tHey~WOUld probably6hAVe s~udents showed up at the school on thP same day, to send some of them home. it was noted a neg~tive declaratian was previously approved in conjunction with this permit. ACTION: Chairwoman I.a Claire uffer.ed Rerolution No. PC85-227 and noved for its passaye and adopti~~ that Condition No, 2 oL Planning ~ommission Resq.lution No. PC82-265 shuuld be amended Fo; a~proval of revise~] plans (Revision No. 1) to expand an existinq privat~: day-cace and elemEntary educational facility; however, limiting t1~F n~..~~~her of students to be presenk on the pr.emises at any one time to a r~~aximum of 200 wiL•h the maximum enro?lment limited ta 260 students and also that t;he hours of the playground use should bc limitEd tc 1-~~~ liours beCween 9:30 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. and 45 minu~es between 12:U. and 12:45 p.m. and 1 hour and 45 minutes between 2:15 and 4:U0 p.m• with no childcen permitted in the playground area befoce 9:30 a.m. or afterrou~nd atmanynonehtitne andlthalof 4U students wuuld be allawed on the playg the recommended mitigation measures recommended by the Saund Bngineer should be complied wilh and the height of the wall along Quincy should be inr,reased to tihe minimum of 6 feet and that the existing brown playhouse should be cemoved and that no use of the~ playground area should be permitted on weel;ends on c~lidays and subject to Interdepartn~~ental Committee recommendations. Chairwoman La Claire stated 5he was at I:.he school and did not feel th~: noise was that bad and the children wer~~ very well-behaved and felt with the limits placed on ~he hours in the playground and with th~ length oi time the children would be out on the pl.ayground, it would be an acceptable use. Prior to votin9 cn the above resolution, the average daily attendance was discus~eci with Chairwoman La Claire clarif.ying her resolution would be for a maximum of 'lU0 students to be a~ the school on any one day and it was felt the maximum student enrollment should be left in the resolution at 260. Cha;rwoman La Claire -tated she wants to lhPlconditional use pecmit. neighbocs but d,.~es not want to have to cancel t Commissioner Elerbst stated he would vo:e in suppor! of this motion even though he disapproved of the maximum of 200 stu~ents and thoue.~' ..tiat is too many for that property, but felt denying the request ~++ould leave the school ~o operate as it is and 'tf these mitigation limits do not relieve the problem, he would be wi.lling to consi.der revocation of this pexmit. 10/28/85 ANAHEIM CI'PY PLANNING COMMISSIUN MINU"' ~S. OCTOEiER_ 28, 1985 85-573 Un rol.l call, the Eoregoing resolutian was passed by the follawing vote: AYES: E30UAS, FRY ~ kI~RBST ~ LA CLA IRE ~ LAWICKI ~ MC HURNCY ~ MESSt: NO~S: NONE ABSENT: NUNE A time limit for compliAnce to tt~e conditions was discussed with Malcolm Sl~ughter stating before the petit i oner could exercise any rights qranted bX approval of khis permil they wo u_ld hAVe to comply with th~ conc]iti~ns, so before they can use those two classroome, they woulc9 have ta compJ.,y. Cummissionec Mest~e :~tated it the a pplicant wishes to be a good neighbor, they should make sure rhat they ~1c~ something about tt~e neiyhbora that are immediAtely abutting the property t o attenuat~ the noi3e whlch seem~ to be bUthering those neighbors. Malcolm Slaughter, De~+uty City Attorney, preaent.ed the writken right to a~~peal the Planning Cammission's decision within 22 days to tt~e Ci.ty Gouncil. HECESSEU: 3:05 p.m. FtECONV~NEU: 3:15 p.m. ITEM N0. 2 ENVIRQNMENTAI. IMPACT ~tEPURT NU. 268, KECLASSIFJCATIUN PIO. 85-86-2, :':~.IVER OF C~IiE REQUIRE:MENT AND CONDI'PIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 27,13 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: 5'PATE C~~iiLF.GE PAR1'NI:l2S, c/o ~UNN PROPERTIES, 28 Brookhollow Drive, Santa Ana, CA 9 2802. I~GENT: BTLt. SINGER & ASSOC., 5?UO Birch Street, Newport Beach, CA 92660. Property described ~s a r~ctar.gularly-stiaped par~el ~f la n d consisting of apprUximately ?.67 acr.es located at tl~e northwest corner of Orangewooct Avenue and St.ate Coll.e9e Boulevard. h!:.,(EP) to the CU(FP?• Z'o perrnit a 10-story and 12-story cu~r4~nercia.l office complex with waivers oE minimum n u mUer of parking spaces, rt~aximam structural height and minimum lan d scaped setback. THE FULLUh'ING ACT10N WAS TAKEN AT THE BEGINNING OE THE MEETING. AC'PIOt:: Commissioner Herbst offe red a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boua~ and MOTION CARRIED that can sideration of the aforementioned matter be con*inue~ to the regularly-sch eduled meeting of Novembez 25, 1985, at the oetitioner's request in order for th~ applicant and staff to resolve issues relatEd t•o recommended co n ditions of app~oval. ITEM N0. 3 EIR NEGATIVE DBCLARATION, RECLASS_IFICATION NO. `l5-$6•-7 AND VARIANCE N0. 3511 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: BC INVE STMENTS 85-2, 3471 Via Lido, ~213, t~ewport Beach, CA 92663. AG;:NT: BALALIS CORPORATION, 3471 Via Lidc, ~213, Newpoct eeach, CA 92663. P roperty described as a rectangularly-shaped parce7. of 1 a ad consisting of apprcximately C.99 3cre, having a frontage of approximate 1 150 feet on the north side of Brouuway, 2545 West Broadway. 10/28/85 85-574 ANANEIM CITY k~LANNING COMMISSION MItJUTES OCTOBER 28 1985 CL t.o RM-1200. Waiver of maxitnum atructur~l height ~o conatcuck a 36-unit apartment complex. THC FOLLOWING ACTIUN WAS TAKEN AT TNE F3BGINNING UE TfIF: MEETING. AC'.CION: Commissioner bouAa ~fEered a m~tion, }~econded by Commissioner Lawick i and MU'liuN CARRIEU that consider~tion of the r~torementianed matter be con t in~ied to the r~gularly-scheduled meeting of November 13, 1985, at the petitioner's request in order to submit revised ~lana. 85-86-5 AND ImEM_NO. 4 EIR N~GATIVE U~CLARATIUN RECLASSIEICATIUN N0. VARIANC~ N0. 3509 pUtiLIC HEARING. OWNERS: CORNEI.IUS W. AND bIARY Ai~I~I; DGP.UYT~R, 530 N. Colgate Street, Anaheim, CA 926Q1 and HACIENDA UN!'I' D CORP. , 946 Everetl Live SL•reet, 91, Los Angeles, Cn 90U26. AGENT: HUGO A. VAZ('~UEZ, 619 S. Uak Dr ive- Anaheim, CA 92805. Property deaccibed as a rectan gularly-shaped parcel of land c~m sisting of approximately 1.05 acrES, having a frontaqe of approximately 164 Eeet on the sc~uth side of Lincoln Avenue, and Eurther described ab 2230 West Lincoln Aven~e. CL to Rb1-1200 or a less intence zcne. Waiverc ~~f minimum structural setback, minimuni building site area per dwelli~~y unit, ma46~1unittructural heigh t and mAximum sit~ coverage to construct a 3-story, aftordable apartment complax. Continued frotn the ineetiny of October 14, 1985. THE FOLLOWINC; ACTIOIJ WAS TAKEN AT TF1E BEGINNING OF TF1E h1EETINC. ACTION: Commissioner nouns off ered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawic kt and MUTION CARRIED that consideration of the afor~mentioned matter be co ntinuAd to the regulaLiy-scheduled meeking of Nuvemb~r 13, 1985, at the p etitionec's request in orde[ Lo submit revised plans. IT~:M NO.~ 5 EIR NEGATiVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3512 PUBL IC HEARING. OWNERS: NORTH WEST MQTOR WELAING, INC., 1429 S. Ga~tQrn Aven ue, Commerce, CA 90022, ATTN: LEONARD S. BACA. Prroximatelyc0195d as a=ectangularly-sY-aped parcel of land consisting of app acre, located at the northwe~t corner of La Palma Avenue and Pauline Stre et, and further described as ~17 and 519 East La Palma Avenue (Nor thwest Motor Welding)• Waiv er of minimum struetural setback to construct an off ice expansior~ to an industrial building. Con tinued from the meeting of ~ctober ].4, 1985. THE FOLLOWING ACTIUN WAS iAKEN AT THE BEGINNING OF iHE MEE'PING. lU/28/85 ANANEIM CI'i'Y PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES~ OCTOBER 2a~ 1985 _85-575 AC:ION: Commisaionec Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commiesioner Herbat and MOTIUN CARRIED tha~ considec'ation of the aforementioned mAtter oe continued to the regularly-echeduled meeting of Nnvember .13, 1985, ~t staff's recommendation in order tor the petition to bz reAdvertised !:o include waivers requeated by the applic~nt. I'PGM N0. 6 EIk NEG~TIVG D~CLARATION ANO VARIANCC N0~^3514 PUBLIC HCARING. OWNF'.RS: PABLO W. ROSAS, 2115 East Rec~eda Place, An~heim, CA 92906 ANL JOSEPH A. T~Df~UNT~R~ 8549 La Daya Avenue, Fountain Valley, CA 9270a. Property descr~bed as a rectangulacly-shaped Parcel of land consisting of aE~proximately 7,057 square fcet, havinq a front~ge af a~proximately 50 f-eet on the we~t side uf MElrose :~tGeet, ~nd further d~:.:ribed as 123 So~' n Melrose Street. Waivers of minimum building site Acea per dwelling unit (deleted), maximum structural heiytit, ma~cimum site coverage, minimum f.loor area (deleted), minimum structucal setback (iieleted), minimum recreational-leisure area (deleted) and minimum pedestrian accessway (deleted) to con~truct a 3-story, 6-unit affordable apartmPnt complex. Continued Prom tre meeting of October 14, 1985. There was no one indicating their presence in oppovition to subject reyuest and although the staff reporL was not read, lt is refer=ed to and made a~ar.t of the minutes. Jerry Drukin, 1280 E. Elower, Anaheim, presented :e~~ised plans reducing the nutnber of units from 6 to 5 with two waivers requESted and explained they are noh. requestina ~. density bonus since af.fordable units will not be provided. THE PUBLIC HEARIHG WAS CLC)SEU. Chairwoman La Claire stat~d she likes the revised p.lans because the tandem parking has been eliminated and the number of units has been reduced. Mr. Drukin explained tne c:xisting 1-bedronm u~~its in the x'ear will be coinbined into one, 3-bedroom unit. ACTION: Commissio~er Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissionec Ery and MUTION CARRI£D that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to construct a 3-stocy, 5-unit apa~tment complex with waivers of maximum structural height and maximum sit•e coverage on a c~:ctangularly-shaped parcel of lat~d consisting of approximately 7,057 square f.eet h~ving a frontage of approximately 50 feet on the west side of Melcose Street and further described as 123 S. Melrose; and doe3 hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that xt has considered the N~gativ~ Declarat.•~n together wi~h any comments received during the public review process ana fucther finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received thaL• there is no substantial evidence that the pr~ject will have a significant effect on the environment. 10/28/85 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CUM::IaSION MINUT~S. OCTOBrR 2N,__19f35 H5-576 Cammisaian~c Herbst o[fered Reaolution No. PC85-228 and moved £or its p~se~,ge ~nd adoption that ~he Anahei~n City Planning Commiasion does hereby grant Variance tJo. 3514, in part, denying waivers (a, d, e, f And g) on the bnaie tirat revised plan~ deleted sai.d wa±vera, thereby deleting the noed foc the variancea and yrantiny waivera (b and c) on the baeis th~t there are special circumstances applicable to khe property such as size, shape, topography, locetion and surrour,dings wh~.c.h do not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicini~yj and that stricL application ot tt~e Zoning Code deprives the pro~ecty of privileges enjoyed by other propertiea in the identical zone and classification in the viciniky and subject to Interde~arCmental Commiktee recommendation•~. On roll call, the Eocegoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS~ FRY~ NERBST~ LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI, MC E3URIJEY, MESSC NOES: NUNG ABSENT: NUNE; Malcolm ~laughteC, Ueputy city Attorney, pcesent?~t the writ~en right to aE~peal khe Planning Cotnmission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. IT~M NO. 7 EIR NEGATIVG UECLARATIUN AND RECI~ASSIFTCA'PJON N0. 85-86-12 PUBLIC HEARZNG. OWNERS: MACNOLIA PLAZA, 1010 E. Chestnut Avenue, Santa Ana, CA 927U1, ATTN: ERGU E. HARTMAN, .JR. ~~opecty de~cribed as a rectanyularly-shaped parcel oi land consisr.ing of approximately 3.29 acres, having a frontaye af approximately 4G6 £eet on the south ~ide of La Pa1ma Avenue, appraximately 200 feet east of the centerline of Magnulia Avenue. CL to RM-1200 to construct an 84-unit, 2-story apartment complex. There was no one indicating their presence in oppositi.on to subject request and although the staff ~eport was not read, it is refecred to and tnade a part of the minutes. Bill Uhl, 272y 'A" Saturn Stree~, Brea, explained the project site has an existin9 fast-fuod restaurant and an abandoned miniature golf course and the owner tried for 6 years to develop it in some commercial manner, but has now decided to develop it as residential use in conformance with the General Placi designa~ion for medium density residential. THE PUBLIC HGARIN~ WAS CLUSED. ACTION: Cortunissioner Fc,y offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McF~urney and MUTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed tue proposal to reclassify subject property Lrom the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone to RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple-Family) 2one or a lesc intense zone on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 3.29 acres, having a frontage of approximately 466 ~eet on the south side of La Palma Avenue; and does hereby approve the Negative Decla=ation upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration 10/28/85 85-577 ANAHEIM CI'PX PLANNING CUMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBCR 28 1985 rogether with any commenta received during the public review pcocess and Eurther f.indin5 on the basis of ~he initial Study and any comments received that there is no subskantial t'~idence ~hat the project will have a significant effecl on the er~vironment. Cotnmisaionet Fry offered Resolution No. PCE5-229 and moved foc its pas8age and adoptiun tha~ the Anaheim City Planning Commi~sion does hereby grant Reclaasification No. 85-85-12 and subject to Interdepartm~~ntA1 Committee recummendations. Un roll call, the foregoing resolution was p~3spd by the following vote: pyg~; FiUUAS ,~~ ~tY , H~;RBS'I' ~ LA CLAIR~, LAWICKJ , MC BURNEY ~ MESSE NUky: NONE ABSENT: NUNE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attocney, ~ce~ented the writter ight to appeal the ~lanning Commissian's decision within 22 days to tt~ City Council. I'PEM ~~U~CgCODERRE~UIl2EMENTEANDRCONDITIONALAUSEFPEP.MITNNO •282586-10 W.AIVER PUElLIC NEARING. ~WNGRS: RAJNZ B. PATEL, ET AL, 1600 ;'~. Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim- CA 9~802. Prupecty deacribed as a rectangularly-~haped parcel of land consistiny of approximately U.80 ar_re, 2125 Soul:h i~arboc Boulevard. RS-A-43,OU0 to CL. To construct a 3-story, 51-unit motel in addition to an existing commercial building with waiver of minimum number and type ot parking spaces. Tliere w~~s no one indicating their presence in opposition t~ subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is ceferred to and ma,ie a~art of the minutes. Commissioner N~cE3urney declared a conf:ict of interest as defi.ned by AnaY~eim City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC7~-157 ado~~ting a Conflict of Interest Code for the Planning Commission and Go~iernment Code Section 3625, et seq.. in that he has a financial interest in the outcome of the proposed development and psrsuant to the provisions of the above Codes, declared to the Chuirman that he was withdcawing from the nearing in connection with Reclassification Na. 85-86-10 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2725, and would not take pact in either the discussion or the voting theteon and had not discussed thi.s matter with any member of the Planning Commission. Thereupon Commissic.~er t4cBurney left the Council Chamber. Ftajni Patel, ow«er, referred to Condi~ion Nos. ~ast~severalayearseandhhave have been devel.oping hotels in Anaheim foc the p' approvals for parking variances of up to 668 of Code requicement and aze applying for a 76$ vaciance rrith this proaect, but in trying to keep the retail buileinQ~ neededeforttheWtwoeapartmentssasltheyCOnlacplan to haveed 5 spaces ar 10/28/85 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING 40MMI5SIUN MINUTES, OCTO~E~ 2~, ]'~85 65-578 two vehicles there. Regarding Conditi~n Nu. ~1, he stated L•hey will be keeping the commercial buildir~~ foc the wig r=r.~~re Gha~ has been ~~ ere for a lony time and that they would requeat tha~ Condition No. 11 be changed tu permiL• either a retail wig storP as ir. e,cist~ tocjUy ~r somethinq simil~r. in parkinq r.equiremenl•s. T!!E PUBL`.C HEARING WAS C:LOSEU. Commissioner Fry asked i[ ~.he 408 small car space~ are a park oE the 48 s~aces proposed and it was noted they are. :?espondiny to Commissionc~r ~oua~, Mr. Patel st~ted currently there is a wig store and another store that is pact of the comrnercia.l building, in addition tu the Ca~cades restaurantj however, they plan to demolish the restaurant ~nd 1/2 of the retail building and tl~e wig building will be the only one left and thel have 28U0 squt~:e L•eet and never tiave more than 2 oc 3 c~rs and the door iy kept locked duriny the day most of the time a~id tt~eir busines~ is mostly mai.l ordec. He stated if thece was h~avy retail traffic, il would be detr.imental to the motel and they would not: allow it. ffe stated the wiy busines~ is in operat.ion from B;00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m on weekd~ys and most oE the motel parking reyuirements are an weekends and duriny the eveni.ngs. He added they wou.l.c: like Condition P7o. 11 changed to permit somethiny r~imilar. Commissioner Herbst asked why they are bui.lc3ing L•wo apartment units and pointed out that t~as never been ~ll~~wed before and they are nok meeting the parking requirement~ for apartm:nts and n~ted r.hose units could be rented out separately. Mr. Pakel stated he plans to live ther~ himself. Commissionc•~ HerbsC stated the units could be sold in the futuce and the new owner miyh~ want to rent thoee units out ar~d the parkinq cequirements should be met. ~~ added he felt they should stay within Code, Commissioner Fry a~[eed they are trying to put too much on this site. Paul Singer, Traff~c Engineer, stated the wig shop is a very unique use and the entire studr was based on thai; use as is and it should nr~t be changed or a new pa'king study and a conditional use permit would have to be requested. Comm:ssioner Messe stated he would be very much against elimi.nating Conditici No. 11. Chairwoman La r_laire was concerned about the dual use on the pr~perty already and Lhought probably a small parking waiver would be in arder. Mr. Singe[ stateci there st~ould not be more than 258 small c~r st~aces. ~hairwoman La Claire stated the Commission has never approved a~„~,tel with two managers units because of the parkin9 requicements and if those units were rented out separately,it would create a major parking prablem. Commissianer Bouas stated one of the units can only be enteced fr.om the outside. Commissioner Herbst a~ked if the petitianec would like a continuan~e in order to submit revised p13ns to b~ in conformance witt~ parking cequirements. Kendra Morries stated one of the manayer's units does have a bedroom that i~ acce.sed from the outside only which could be a separate rentable room. 10/28/85 ANAHEIM CITY P~ANNING ~OMMISSiON MINUTES, OCTOBEIt 28, 1985_ 85-579 Jorin 5wint, 7U7 W. North Street, Anah~im, stAted V~e only qoC a copy oE the stAtf. report today and Condition No. 10 requires revised plan~ l•o be oubmitL•ecl and app[oved by ttie 'rraffic Engineer indicatiny a mAxirnum oE 258 small car spaces and thAt t~e did try L-o contacl• the TcaEtic Cnyineer this murning, but he waa unavailtfble, but he did revise the plans to pravide 258 compACt apaces and bs a ceault looL 1~arking space. He stated if it wa~~'t f~. tlie wig sho~~, which is a wholeaale business, there would no~ be a ~hu•~.age of parking apaces. Com~lssioner Ilerbat stated the use af Lhal cet~il rhoE.~ cauld be changed in tF: future und pointed out Cc~ndition No. 11 r.:rauirea that the vaci~ance ~~.11 terminate if that use is changed. Concerning the two a~artments, Mr. Swint stated thi~ is not the Lirat time this hac been done and referred to ttie Derart Inn at 580U Soiath Beach Boulevard, which has two a~artmentfi and is a Lnosl the same as t.his ~~n~l stated the ceason t~• this is because both owners opecate the mote' and can relieve each othec. Commissioner ;ierbst sl-ated he would t~ave no problem witt; that as long as the pazkiny reyuirements are rnet. Mr. Swint stated he can find at least 1'l mo~els built in Anaheim with GQ8 parking. Mr. 5inger stated at the tirnt~ lhey reviewPd the parkinq study, it was assumed Lhat the reyuired parking would b,~ as~igned for the motel and the rtianayers' units and the only variance really being requested is for the wig sho~ and only 'l spaces t~ave been assigned ~o that area and that i~ why Condition No. 11 is ptoposed and without the wig ahop the Code could be met. !ie added the 15 space short~ge is the Code requirement, but the study indicates the spaces wuuld be adequate with only the 2 spacec for the wig shop because of the nature of their of~eration since it is moatly closed. He stated he has no problem with the proposed parking, but subject to ttie Conditic,n No. 11 being retained, and also that only 258 compact spaces be permil-ted and Mr. Swint has indicated tha~ can be dane with the loss of one parking space. Mr. Swint stated duriny the day the m~l•el ~arking lot is almost empty and there i~ adequate parking Eor the wiy sh~p. Commissionec Bouas asked if the width of the parking spaces war changed ana Mr. Swint stated all the spaces w~uld conform to Code cequSrements and sta~c~d he now is proposing 12 compact car spaces an~ a total of 47 parking spaces. Mr. Swint stated the unit with the access to the hedroom from the outside is on the second Eloor and responded he could chanye the access and it was noted ttiat neithec of the managers units should have outside access from the bedroom so they cannot be rented separately. Commit~sioner E'ry clarified that the TraPfic Engineer felt that the parking is adequale with the wig shop as it is currently being used and Paul Sinyer noted that Commission should be careful to guarantee that the use 'oes not chang in the future. 10/28/85 ANAHETM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, OCTOBGR 20._1985 _____ 85-~80 Chairwoman La Claire atated if the wig sh~N changes, the CUF will be tecminated And askPd how that wuulc t~e policed and how it cAn be guArar~t.eed. Malcolm 5lauqhter r.esponded the varianca ior th~ f>ackin~ will termtnate if the use change~ ~nd not the conaitional uae permit wh~ch Allows the mokel and note~9 if an application is made [or a use at. th~t location, the planning ataft will chcck the zoning to c~ee if^;trictiunPSa~covena~ttwill. en~ure that ttie future owner is aware of the be recorded against the r.,roperty. Commissioner Hecbst• ~t.ated thi~ property will be cezoned t~ comm~~rcial and asked what would stop the owner from getting a licen~e withour the Planning Uepartmenr knuwing it. Kend[a Morrie~ stated L•he upproval of this conditional use permit with the stipa~;.ation that only the r~iy shop will be allowed will tie the properly to ~ny zoni~y or business lic~en~e applications by the ~lanning staEi:. ACTIUN: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, sec,.,.ded by Commissioner I,awicki and MOTION CARRIEU that the Anah~im City Planning Commiscion has ceviewed the E~roposal to reclassify the ~zortherl, 51 £eet of. subject property from tr~e ItS-43,000 (Itesidential, Ayricultural) Zo~e to Ci, (Commercial, Limited) Zone to conslruct a 3-story, 51-unit rnotel in addition to an existi.ng cammercial building with waiver of minimum num5ec and type of parl;ing spaces on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.8U acre, having a icontage af approximately 120 feet on thP south side of Harbor Boulevar~ and f~rttier describe~ as 2125 South Iiarbor; and does hereby a~.~rove the Negal-ive Ueclaration upon finding that it has considered L„e Negative Declar.ation together with any comments received during the publi~ review pro.:ess and f.u[ther L•inding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that thece is no substantial evidence that tlie project will hav~ a significant effect on the environment. Commi.ssioner Herbst af•fered Resolution No. PC85-230 and moved Eor its passaye and adoption that :.he Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Reclassification No. 85-86-10 subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommenciations. On co21 call, the forego?ng re~olution was passed by the followiny vote: AYF:5: BOUAS~ FRY~ HERB5T~ T~A CLAIRF:~ LAWICKI~ MEaSE NG:.S : NONE ABSENT: MCEURNEY Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fry and MOTION CARRI~D that the Anaheim City Planni~g Commiasion does hcreby grant waiver of c:ode requirement on the basis that L•he parking waiver will not cause an increase in traffic congestion xn the imme9iac~ vicinity nor adversely affect any adjoining land uses and granting of the parkina waiver undet the conditions imposed, if G.;y. will not be detrimental to thP peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens o~: the City of Anaheim; and further on ~he bas~.s that the approval is based on the 10/2S/85 ANAH~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MINU'1'ES, OCTOBER 28, 1985 ?5-58.1 cantinued i~se oF the wiq sho~ as it ia currently being operated and oaid v~riance ahall te:rtiinate upon the change o[ use of the eaisting retall wig shnp and ~~:Xther on the k:asis thAt a covenant ahull be record~d Against tt~e ptoperly guaranteeing F~aid reL•ail wig ahap ure and 9UbjE?Cr to approval of revioed F~].ans ~•;~Nroved by the City Truffic En~ineer indicating a maximum ot 258 small car. :~paees. Commissioner E~erbst offered Re~olution No. PC85-231 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planninq Commis~ion does hereby grant Conditional U3e Permit No. 2725 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.03.030.030 thr~ugh 18.03.U30.U35 and subject to Interdepar*_mental Committee recammendations, including revision to c:onditioii No. 16 requiring revised plans to be ap~~r.oved by Che City Traffic ~ngineer for the parking showing 25$ small car t;par.es and uhowing deletion oL the outside acc~RS ~o the bedr.aoms uf the managers units. Un roll call, the forPyoiny r.esolution was passed by th~~ Pcllowing vote: AYES: BUUAS, FRY, HE1tDST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI~ MESS~: NUL•'S: NONE AE~S~NT: MC[3URNE;Y Malcolm Slaughte:, lleputy City Attorney, preser.'_ed the written rigt~t to appeal the ~lanning c:ommission's decision within 'l2 days to the r.ity council. Commiasioner Mceurney returned to the Council Chamber. IT~;M NU. 9 EIR N~;GATTVE DECLARATIUN, WAIVEFt OF COll~ REQUI~E:MENT AND CuNDIT:UNAL USE PERMIT N0. 2726 PUk3LIC ;-fEARIPIG. OWNERS: CAI.iFORtdIA LUTHERAN HOMES, 2312 S. Premont Avenue, Alhambra, CA 91803. AGENT: T. A. ;JNES `. AS~UC., 485 E. 17th, y608, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Prnperty described ~s a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consi~ting of approximakelv 7.Y8 acres located at the nor~hwest corner of Ball Road and '~Ialnut Street, 891 Soutf, Walnut Street (Walnut Manor). 'lo permit a 134-unit, 4-story, senior citizens afforaable apartment complex with waivers ot ~~~inimu~n building site area per dwe.-ling unit and maximum structural `:eight. There wece tk, persons indicating their presence in opposition and twenty seven persc indicatin~) tl~eir prP~er,ce in fa~~or of subject request and although tt~~: staff report was not rea5, it is referced to and made a part of t`e minutes. Gerald Bushore, 721 i~. Euclid, Suite 202, Anaheim, stated Wal.nut Manor ha.s been at this location sinc.: 1937 and explained the people ~resent in favor of this request ca:ne of their own freP will. H~ explained tliey plan to double the capacity uP what is existing an the pcoperty now and that the property was expanded the 'laAt time in the late 70's and these shoulc; be the last plans for expansion. He stated there is a 3-story senior cilizen lU/28/85 ANAN~IM C17`Y ~LANNING cc~MMISSIUN MINUT~S, UCTUBER 281 1985 85-562 building adjacent to the site which huuaea 85 ~eople with a full kit~hen and dining room on ~he ficst F1o~r and L•he apartment projecC proposed wi.ll be somewhat the same, but will not have a dining room and thoae people .in the new ~roject will be able to buy meal tickets and eat at the existing dining ruomj and theGe are 29 amall cot~ages where a husband and wife can live or ~ust one person and t•.t~e .average number. of people in those cottagea is 1.7 f~r a total of 49 people, ~nd in addition to ~hat, there is a-nore meaninyful care facility wliich houses a9 people Eor immediate or full care and that will be reduced by 13 with the proposed expansion and the new convalescent home. t~e stat~' ~ ef~ect wfll be tripling the size of that type care and t~at the} '~ people in the prer.ent facility and 49 in the catkages for ~ total oL , and the~ are asking for an~ther 134, 1-bedroom uniCs. tie stated the new facility will h~ve a recreation roou~, a doctor's ~ffice (pointiny ou~ right naw there is tiealtli care in the othec buildin~) and they ~dill t~ave the:r. own pcivate balco ies and there will be a 4-f~ot deep swimtninn oool and jacuzzi. Fie atated lhis wi11 be something for the active senior c.i.tia.en and one ~acility will f.eed the other. He stated ttie convalescent fiome will be up front closest to Lhe existiny skilled nursiny facilities and to the reae will be the l34 units which is the purpo~e of this tiearing. He stated when th~y ::L•arted on this p[oj~ct, there was no senior citizen ordinance and there is a concern of settinq a precedent. He puinred c~ut tnese are three pieces of real estate and maybe should be pr~sented as one, but the 134 units will be finance~3 separately. He staLed he knows the height of thP buildin~ will be a concern, but there wil.l be no visual intrusion into the rear properties and they are looking f~r a way to get the project approved without sel-ting a precedent, !Ie stat~d there are a lot oJ: s~nior citize+. ~rojects around town, but he did n~t thi-~k any ot th~m ha~~e a convalescent home next door and none of them offer full secvices, meals, etc. James Lee, 914 S. Hampstead, first str~et west of what is noW the strawbecry field, st.ated he represents a yroup of homeowners and presented a petition containing signalures of 24 families and read their statement of opposition to a 4-stocy eomplex indicating they ace not against senior citizen housing, but feel it is in the best inter.est of a residential neighborhood that such structures be 'l stories or .less. He ~tat~d he talked to a lot of people in th~ neighborhood who feel if 4 stories are allowed, especially those ~eople on Beacon, that they will just sell their property becaus• they do not want to look at a 4-stary building. He noted the existing 3-story building is no1: really close to any residential area. He stated he thought if the building is permitL•ed, it will be as high as a telephor,e pole and the people will be able to look into r.lieir backyards and with air conditioning on top, it will essen~ially ba a 5-sLory buildi.ng. H~~ stated they like the seniors as neig'-~bors, but do not. want 4 stories and feel that skilled nursing facility should be 1 story and they d~ not want it to expand. He stated in most areas where farms have gone for construction of apartments, they have not been more than 2 stories high. Harry Duval, tepresenting khe Lutheran Church juet west of the property, stated he is nor totally against this property and that they purchased tl~eir property originally from Walnut Manor. He stated he under~tands tt~is will be a separate operation from the hame and he was concerned a~out 10/28/85 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIUN MINL:ES, UCTOBER 2~. 19n5 85-583 the hei~ht and traffic with 134 units. t~e stated theas are to be active seniors and he felt a lot uf them woul~ have c~rs and there could be 2 or 3 people in eacli unit. Fie stated tr,ttic is a concern because khey operate a~chool At their church and twice ~ day there is a lol• of kr~ffic in and out oE their pr~perty. htr.. Aushore stated ttiere will be n~ air conditioning units on the roof since each unit will have indivi~3ua1 air confitioners ~nd that he was not aware oE anything ttiat would be ~n top of the building. He stated the property ha~ been zoned for FtS-A•-43,OOG for many year~ and there hAS never bcen any other zoni~g action and the onP-story cottages will remain. Concer.ning the yuestion about more than l•wo people liv:iig in one unit, he stated ehe units will be de~igned for a maximum of "wa peop.le and would not be auitable for a tt~ird person. fle stated khis is a uni~ue piece of property and there rnuot bn. a way to solve the dEnsity pr~blem. THE PUBLIC H~AFtINC WAS CLOS~U. Responding to Commissioner McBurr~ey, Mr. eushore stated elevators are provided in the existing 3-story facility and the new proposed 4-story facility. Commis~ioner McBurney asked if all 3 parcels are owned by ttie same owner and explained the Commission is just reviewiny a 1.69-acre portiun of the pcoperty wiL•h 134 units. Mr. Rust~ore stated for financing purposes, the pro~erty will be subdivided and the problem is how to get 258 units plus all the beds on the pro~erty bc~cbuse the maximum allowed would be 259 uni.ts over the whole 7 acres. He stated the progosed fucility wi.ll be sold and managed separately and he understands it will convert back to Walnut Manor after a few years and there will be certaici ackivities done together with Walnut Manor providing the housekeeping services for the total s+te and the meals will be provided next door and oL•k~e[ services will be traded back and forth. Mr. eushore stated each unit will have its own cooking facilities. He stated there are kitchen units in the cottages and t!-~e other 85 units. He stated the Walnut Manor Corporation manages other facilities which they do not own, but they will nat be mana~ing this facility. Ct~airwoman La Claire st~~ted one question is whether or not this project can stand on its own an~9 the second question is thE 4-storie~ within close proximity to the residential neighborhood. She stated this is unusual because it is between a~?artments and a congregate cace facility. Mr.. Bushoce stated the projec:i. needs to be looked at as to whether or not it can stand on its own and he wa~ sure a reciprocal parking agreement can be wor.ked out and Walnut Manor will nat allow anything that is r.ot compatible with the?r use and which they cannot have cnntrol over. Commissioner Herbst stated 4 stories have always been a concern of the Cr.~,.~,~nission and he did not see how a proje~t of this size could be approved tnis close ~o cesidential areas and pointed out it is abutting an Rs-7200 resi~iential area and is an encroachment. He stated he cannot vote for it the way it is proposed. 10/28/85 ANANEIM ~1TY PLANNING COMMISSIUN_MINUTE5. OCTOAER 28, 1985___ 85-584 Chaicwoman La Claire stated the 4 stories are 45 fcet high with Kendra Mnrries stating thc3 property is zoned RS-A-43,000 and the bu'lding propo~~.:~i is 50 feet away trom the aingle-fami.lf residences tc the no[th and tt~e building will be 44 feet high. Mc. I~uahore stated it is poasible Co move tVie buil~ing furward ~nd have parkiny Lo the rear and noted when they firbt ~tarted witt~ the pl.ans, they thuught the propetty was over 5 acres. c;ummisei~net Nerb~l stated recently 2 stories ~~avE been allowed within 50 f:eet and 3 atories at 75 feet, but 4 stories have ne~•er been allowed. Mr. Bushoee atated an alternative ma,y be to step tt~e un.its u~ i.n heighl: to move them Further away fcom the property 1Lne. He asked how the densiry could be approvcd without setting a precedent even if he could accomPli~h that by ~te~ping the buildings up and maving the pruject back. Cotnmissioner Herbst stated 3 stocies were allowed on I.a Nalma. ~1[. Bu~hoCe slated ~here is nu problem with 1U08 affordable because ttie~! will all be better than af~ordable units. Commiseioner Eierbst asked how many of the seniars preser~t own automobiles with a res~onse Lrom less than 508 of the people present caising their hands. Commicsioner Herbst pointed out it hac been faund that many people living at seniar citi2en projects do no~ own automobiles. It was noted the aqe requirement for seniors by the City is 62 y?ars and Mr. Bushore gointed out these units will be rented to people G5 yeacs or older. CommissioneC McBurney asked if ~he land could be leased rather than being sold so the lot line could be removed. Mr. BusF~oce stated that will not generate enaugh up front for them to ~tart on r.he convalescent home and iF th~y could have owned the land and develo~ed it themselves, *_hat i~ the way th~y would have done it, but this is an alternative they have come up with in order to accomplish this. Chairwo~iian La Claire suggested a reclassi£ication because the R5-A-43,000 is a holding zone. Kendra Morries stated the proposed senioc citizen complex and a skilled nutsing facility are allowed as permitted uaes in the RS-A-43,000 2one. Chairwomnn La Claire stated the Commission has not left properties in tt~e holding zone before and when they have been developed, they have been rezonPd to the proper zone. Kendra Morcies sL-ated Planning Commission can reques~ the property uwner to rezone the property. Annika Santalahti stated the senior citizen's ordinar~ce permits projects developed in the RS-A-43,U00 zone and commecaial zones ta be under t'ne 10/28/a5 ANAHL•'IM CITY PLANNIN~ COMMISSIU~__I~'INUmE5, UCTOBER 28, 1985 85-585 etandards oE the RM-120(1 Zone And does not re~.~uire that L•he propert,y be rezoned, but they do have to rneet the develapment r~tandarcis of the RM••1200 zone. She alated since this i~ a conditional uae permit, nnce the project i.s cieveloped, ChHy cannot make cevieions without coming back far a new public hearing and ~cocessing a conditional use permit wns appropriate and it is lceated exact'ly like the 1tM-1200 'Lone and they ha~~c to meet r.he density of that zone, etc. Ch~irwomAn La Clt~ire ntated in the pa~t everythiny was taken out of ttie lt;;-A-43,ODU Zone because it is a zone for single-f~mily residences ~n 1 acre o1 land ~-nd :~he Ee1t the pcoperty should be ceioned. Annika Sant4lahti stAted this is a conditional use permit and was reall.y a method t:u nc~t discourage an ~pplication for senior citizr_n housing, noting Lhere is a cust for a reclassificat.iun. Mr. Bushore asked ~.L this would be a potential area far L•he ftM-100~ Zone with devel~pment tied to Lhe plans. Annika Santalah~i stated a variance will still bc needeci b~cause tl~e difier.ence is only one sixth and the KM-lUOL' ~c>ne is intended to addre~s cec~tain ~ites lhat Ace difficulk to develop and the only one Commission has seen was a landfill site. Chairwoman l.a Claire suggested a continuance in order fuc the petitionEr to request ~^. reclassif=r.ation. Mr. t~ushore slated the heigtit pcablem is on the nocth and the building could be maved with parki!~g on the north to get another 60 feet and in combination with no visual .intrusion, with heavy landscaning being proposed, it should probably h,e acceptable. Commissioner McBurney stated he felt acreage should be aQded to this parcel. Mr. Hushore stated zeciprocal ~arking could be required over ~11 the parcels. He stated the best appr.oacli would be to add to this parcel. Kendra Murries stated staff would request a mini.mum 4-week continuance. Mr. Bushore asked for a 4-week cantinuance and asked if item No. 10 could be consideced at this time because the lot line could be affected and also the parking could be affected. Chairwoman T.a Claire stated she would likc~ to continue t,oth the matters, but would be willing to discuss the changes at thi~ time. Mr. eushore stated he had made an error in that he thought there were 7-1/2 acres existing, but there are overall 10 acres in the whole site. Commissionec McBurney stated that will have some bE~aring on the project. ACTION: Commissioner Fry offeced a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-schedu~ed meeting of Novembec 25, 1985. 10/28/85 A~IAN~IM CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSIUN MINU'PE5 Ui:'rOilEF2 28 1905 ~5-58h ITk;M NU. 10 EIR NEGA"'~VE AECLARATION ANU CUNDITIONAL USE PFRMIT NO. 2727 PUBLIC N~ARING. OWNERS: CALIfORNIA LUTHGRAN fIOM~S, 2312 S. Fremont Avenue, Alhambra, CA 91803. AGENT: C. L. SEN~F6~Dr ARCHITCCT, 476 S. Marengo Avenue, Paaadena, CA 91101. Propecty describcox~nately 7.18 acres rectangularly-shaped p~rc:e1 af land conai~tin g ot ~pp locatQd at th~.~ nocthweat coCner oE Ba]1 Roc-d and Walnut Stceet, 891 South Walnut Street (Wa1nuL• M~,iior ) . To permit a yy-bed akilled nursi.ng tacility in conjunction with the existiny senior citizen retirement facility. There weee a~proxiniately twe~ty seven pecsons in £avoc of subjecl rec~ueat and no one indicating ttieir presence in oppo sition to aubject request and although the staff report was nok read, it i s reterred to and made a part af khe minutes. Uz. John StEinhau~, president and chief. execul:ive officer of California Luthecan Homes, 841 S. Walnut, ~tated they tzave been in operation nince 1937 as a re~icement home, but the pcoject h aa never been c~.mpleted; thak their corporation hae lU first class retire m ent facilities in Southern California which they own, o~er.ate or tnanage and todt~y the ideal kind of cotnmunity for old~r peop~e is a communit~~ where mare l•lian one level of service czn be c,fEered. tIe stated if an ordinacy apartment project is ~iesired, of course it could stand on its own, but they arortscand~ because each one of tt~e four levels oE care on that property supp inteyrates with tf~e other three. He stated they have an arrangemeiit with the developer that if the pcoposed project is built, they will h~ve to ay:ee to certain conditions and thcse are tt~e same conditions which they h~ve on thei!' existing facilities. THE PUBLIC HGARING WAS CI,OSED. Chairwom~n La Claire stated r~he did not th i nk any of the Commissioners have any objections to the skilled nucsing facilities or the other u~e on the ~roperty, but are concerned about the i ntrusion on the abutting neighbors ana also ghe felt the property stzould be re2oned. Kendra Morries e;,plained the Ceneral Plan for this property is for low density residential land uses; however, bo th af these applications could be accomp~ished by conditional i~se permits in the commercial or RM-1200 Zones, but those designations would be in conflict with the existing General Plan whict~ is low density resident ial which would Q2rmit RM-7200 or less density f.or single-family resident ial development. Commissioner Lawicki stated the Commissiocz is in sympathy with the concept, but the problem is the density w i th the neighbors t~ the north and the proposal sounds good, but the que s tion is whether or not it would be over-impacting the immediate area. Malcolm Slaughter stated the RS-A-43,000 Z one is a less intence single-famil~ zane and would comply with the Cenecal Plan and the Code dues authorize a conditlo~al use pecmit f oc this use in that zune. 10/28/85 ANANBIM CITY PLANNING CUMMISSIUti MINU'r~S UCTUB~R 20 1985 85-587 Chairwoman I~a Claire stated the development ia in conflict with the Generul Plan And it renlly ehould be chan~~ed and thc E~rupecty Yezoned. I~r. Steinhaua ~toted ~n ideal si~e community .ts About 300 t~~ 4Ui1 people un one campus which would I~e abl.e to aecve alder people a1: maxiinum eEfi~iency. Chairwoman La C].aire stated there iK no acyuinent witl~ the u~e, but the Commiaefon is concerned abuut lhe 4~toriec and feel that would not be fair to the E~eopl~ in the neight~orhoud. St~e stated ahe is concerned about ap~coving high denaity an rhi~ property whicl~ ic deaignated for low density on the Genecal Plan and f.elt it shoul~~' t~e changed :~o it is done the N~oper way. 5he addecl ahe realizes Chis is Eo[ ~enior citizens and rhe would be giving them ~pecial consideration ~.~d felk l.his is a good ~roject and is in tavor of the c~oncept and developtnenk. Commi~si.oner ye~bst r;tated tt~ere is no ubjection to the ur~e, bu~ it :;hould not be done at the expen~E o£ the neiyhbors. Com-nissioneK Fry asked why th~~ CommisAi~n shuuld not act on this F~ro~osal and it was noted since L•he previously discusiaed Nr.oject wuuld have to be rede~igned and the bui.lcjing moved, it conld affect this property and also a Ueneral klan AmPndment should be E~ror.essed on this property. Annika Santalatiti stated if th.is is the Commisc;ion's teeling, the 3enior citizen's ordinance st~ould be amended to delete the provision allowing tt~ese prujects in ttie RS-A-43,UpU. Kendra Morries explaineci if the property was cezaned L•o RM-].200 it w~uld not change the density limitations. Commissioner. Nerbst stated lie thinks tt~e applicant underskandc ~he Commission is cancerned about the 4 stories and the density and by modifyinq thE 4 staries, lhe dPnsity would be ceduced. Mr. Bushore sugyested a General Plan Amendment for tt~e whole 10-acre parcel and explained that originally they thc~ught they were applying for an expansion of the existing cond.itional use permit and never discussed a General 1'lan Amendment. Kendra Morries stated the applicant needs to meet wikh staff immediately in order to get the General Plan Amendment and xone change filed. Mr. eushore asked the Planning Commissiun to make a recommendation to staff that the General Plan Amendment be a City-initiated procedure foc at least one-half of. the parcel. He stated rhey are willing to hring the whole prope[ty into conformance, but it would be very expensive for them to do it all at once and it would be helpful if the City would initiate the GPA on the existing facility. Kendra Morcies stated ~t would be easier for the Planning Commission to either direct staff to inftiate a General Plan Amendment on the whole project or for the applicant to initiate it foc the whole pzoject and the difference is the filing fees which would be about $500 for the General Pl.an Amendment and $800 or $900 for the recias~ification. 10/28/85 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING GOMMISSIUN MINUTES,__nCTOHER 28, 1985 __85-5$8 Annika SanCalahti atated it i~ appropriat e fur the applicant to p~ay Cor tlie change because it i~ their development actieme wi~ich necese~itai:en the chanye and it will involve only their pro perty. AGIiuN: Commisaloner Fry offered a m~ti~:n, aeconded by Conimission~er tdcBu[ney and MOTIUN CAR}tlfsU th~'~t coneidEr ~t.ion vf rhe aforemention~~d m~~tt.er be continued to the Kegulacly-nch~duled meetiny of Novernber. 25, 1985. RL•'CESSEU: 4:45 p.m. RECONVE:NEll: 4:55 p.m. I`PEM t~U. 11 ~IR N_.:~ATIVL UGCLARATIUN, WAIV~k_ OF CODE RF.QUIREMENI' ANU CCNDI'PIONAL USF PERMIT NU. 2729 PUBLIC tfEARING. OWNERS: SYI:AMC)RE PROPERTILS, 7Ei2 S. Rancho Santa Ee~ Road, San Marcos, CA 92U69, AT7'N: C;k:ORGE: KUOPMAN. AG~NT: ROY AYACHE, 1504 S. Euclid 5treet, 4A. Anaheim, c:A 9 2802. l~roperty de3cribed as a rectangularly-shaped Naccel UC land con,ir~tin4 of approximately U.42 r~cre loc.ated at Lhe aout•heast co[nc~r o[ Cercitos Avenue and Euc.lid Streek, 1504 S. E;uclid Streek, NA. To permit on-sale beer and wine in an e x iating restaurant with waiver of minimum number of parkiny spaceE. The~e was one pecson indicating his pre s ence in opposition t.o aubject request and although the staft report w a s nok read, it is referred to ~:nd made a part of Lhe minutes. Roy Ayache, agent, was pceEent to answe r any que:~tions. Eila Page, 1686 W. Mells Lane, Anaheitn, asked about the surrounding land use pacagraph of the staff report indic ating there is a dwelling unit acrosa Citron to the north. Kendra Morries explained there are two existing ~~.ngle-family residences to th e north adjacent tn the thrift store and £urther noted Loara High School is 2ocated an the narthwest curner. Ms. Page stated there is a 5top-and-Go market there now which sells beec' and wine and she was concerned about th e pizza parlor Aelling beer and wine in addition to that store with th e high school that close and her second concern is that if the pizza is good and this operatiun is a success, the parking will become a pcoblem. She explained right now thF karate shop is in the process of repav i ng their packing lot and people are parking on the residential atreets and she did not know whether oc not they will have a problem ai•ter the park ing lot is L-inished. She added she is cuncerned about the parking and the sale of beer and wine, with the high scho~l being so close and also sh c. was concerned about their property values in the area. Mr. Ayache stated he does sell good pizza. He stal:ed it is true that trie karate shop is repairing the parking 1 ot and they have been using the parking lot at this facility, but it h as been sufficient foc bokh places. 10/78/~5 ANAHEIM CITX PNANNING CQMMISSION MINUTES UCTOBFR 28 1985 85-549 He added he did nat think his business would i.ncceaas dramaticAlly with ttie sale ~E beer and wine and that parkiny will not be significantly affected. tle ~dded tt~at 708 of. their Uusiness ie take-out and the mini-market i~~next door and the car8arlornis clor,ed i'nethefeveningelwhen ~erioda of timc and that the beauty p h~ requires more packing. THL: PUBLTC N~AkING WAS CLOSED. Cpmmisaione~ Mcgucney e n a ~ ~ l n e b premisea if and roved this is app thought he added e aa the requires pizza oE beec and wine and he did not think it would be a problem. Commissioner hlesse asked if Loar a Hiyh School was notified of ttiis requeat and Kendra Morries rEplie~3 khey were notified and there was no response from them. Chairwom~n La Claire Ntah.ed the 7-Eleven is alceady selLing beer and wine and at least in this iristance, the people would have to ~it down and drink tl~e beer and wine which wauld create less dangec and the waiver is only for 3 parking spaces. pc.~TION; Commissioner Fry ~££ered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MUTiON CARKIED that the Analieim CLty Ylanning Commission has reviewed the proPosal to permit on-sale beer and wine in an existing restaurant with waiver of minimum number of pasking sFaces on a rectangularly-shaped ~,arcel oi land cun~isting of approximately 0.42 acce located at the suutheast corner of Cerritos Avenue and Euclid Street and £urthe= described as 1504 S. Euclid Street; and doe~ hereby approve the Negative Ueclaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Ueclaration together with any comments received durin~ the public [eview process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that thece is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect un the environment. Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McDurney and MOTICN CARRIED that the Anaheim Ciky Planning Commission does hereby grant waiver nf Code requirement on the basis that the parking waivEr will not cause an increase in traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity not adversely affect any adjoining land uses and Will~not be detrimental to waiver under the conditions imposed, if any, ttie peace, healCh, sa£ety and gener.al welfare of the citizens of the City uf Anaheim. Commissione[ Fry offered Resolution No. PC85-232 and moved for it~ passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2727 ~ursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Seceion 18.03.030.03U through 18.03.030.035 and subject to inter~epartmental Committee recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the follo;aing vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY~ HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONF. ABSENT: NONE 10/28/,85 __ ,._.i ANAtIGIM ~I'1`Y PLANNIN~ ~OMMI~SION MINUTES UCTUB~R 28 1985 85-590 __~_ Malcolm S.laughter, Ueputy City Attorney, presented th~ written right to appeal the Ylanning Commission's decision within 22 days to the Ci~y Council. 1T~M N0. 12 ~IR NEGATIVF D~CLARATION~ WAIV~k2 UF COpE KE4USkBMGNT AND CONDITIONAL USf: PGRMIT NU. 2730 PUBLIC H~ARING. OWNEKS: AMLRICAN MEAICORP U6:VELOPMENT CO., 1 River Front P1AZa, Louisville, KY 402U1, AT'1'N: MARCIA BAKEit. AGF'NT: COLDRICti, KEST ANU ASSOCIATCS, 15233 Ventura Boulevard, M816, Sherrnan paka, CA 91403, AT'1'N: MANNY A1~T~RGUT. Pcoperty ~eacribed as a rectangulacly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximat~ly 1.18 acre, 637 Soutti Aeach Boulevard. To con~truct a.100-unit senior ~itizena' reticemc~nt faci].ity wit}i waivec of minimum number and type of ~arkiny snaces. ITEM NU. 13 EIR NEGATIVE ULCLARATION, WAIVL~:R OF CODE RF,4UIRGMENT AND CONDI'PIONAL USE k'ERMI'P N0. 2731 PUBLIC EIEARING. OWNEF.S: AMEI2Ic:AN MEUICORP DEVELOPMFNT CO., 1 River Fcont Plaza, Louisville, KY 4U201, AT7'N: MAKCIA BAKEIt. AGE:NT: G~LARICtI, K~5T ANll ASSOCTATES, 15233 Ven*ura i~oulevard, t816, 5hecman Uaks, CA 91403, ATTN: MANNY AF'PERGUT. t'roperty descri.bed as a rectangulacly~•shaped parcel oE land consistt~ig oF ~~p~roximately 2.84 acre, 641 South aeach Boulevard. To construct a 138-beca convalescent home witti waivers af required lot Frontage and minimum numbec of parkiny spaces. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and althouyh the staff report wac~ not read, it is referced to and made a park ~f the minutc~s. Manny Afterqut, agent, asked that Item Nos. 12 and 13 be consideced together and explained this will be their Ath o[ 5th project in the City ~ of Anaheim and they have looked for a locatiun foc some tirt~e 1:o construct ~ a congregate care facility. He presented an exhibit of photographs ~ showing the propQ[ty. He stated tt~e tlumana hospital just to the north and ~ that the front parcel, consisting of 1.2 acres, wi).1 be developed as a lU0-room, 3-story congregate cace facility for frail, elderly seniors with A4 parkin9 spaces and immediately to the west of that will. be a 69-room convalescent home for bedric3den patients. He statPd there was a ~; condominium owne~ present earlier at the meeting, but t~ad no opposition 'k after reviewing the staf£ report and findi.ng out that a 6-faot high wall t will be c~nstructed on the south. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLUSED. Commissianer McBurney asked what the plans ace for the 1-acre parcel on the rear oE the property. Mr. Aftergut responded they are only acquicing 3 of the 4 aGres and there is a parcel map in the process for financing purpo~es and Humana will retain control of the 1-acre parcel and they do not have any plans ati the present time for development. 10/26/85 85-591 ANAHEIM CI'~Y YI.ANNING CGMMISSIUN MINUTF.S OC~OBER 28 1985 Chairwom~heLA~tient3 will~n thbehdcivingrand did~nottseep~nythinq~wrong bea~uae p with this pro3ect. ACTION; Chairwoman I.a C~aire offeced a motiopl~nningdComminsionihasoner Fry ~ncf MUTIUN CAI2RIGU that the Anahei.m City reviewed the praposal to canstruct a lU0-unit senior citize~~aceatoneaQnt facility with waiver oi- minimum number and tyE~e of par.kin9 p rectangularly-stiaped parcel of land consiatiny of aPproxima~ely 1.18 acre, having a frontage of approxi.mately 281 feet on the west side of F~each Boulevard and £urther described as G31 South f3each E3oulevard; a~d doe~ tiereay approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Dec.laration together with any comments received ducfng the public review process and furth~r f:indin~~ on th~. basis of the Ir~itial StucJy and any comments received that r.h~re is no substantial evidence that the ~coject will have a ci9nlficant eEfect on ti~e enviconment. Chairwoman 1,a c:laire ofEered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fry and MUTIUN CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Cammis~ian doeh he[eby grant waiver of Code requiremenC on the basis that ~he parking waiver will not cause an increase in traffic congestion in the i-nmediate vicinity noc advecc~ely a~fect any ad;joining land usea and yranting of the parking waiver under the conclil•iona impused, if any, will not be detrimental to ttie peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Commissiuner Herbst asked about the percentage of small car spaces indicating thaL- could be a prohlem for visitors. Mr. Attergut explained thet~ ate not that many visitors and the pati~enks usually leave with their visitors and do not stay at the facility and there ic a loading zone provided. He stated the real demand fur parking is Eor staff. Chaixwoman La Claire offered Resoiution No. PC85-233 and moved for its passage and adoption that ~he Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2730 pursuAnt r_o An?heim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 th[ough 18.U3.030.035 and subjecr. to interdepartmental Committee recammen~ations. On coll call, the faregoing cesolution was passed by the following vote: AYLu: BUUAS~ FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWiCKI~ MC BURNEY~ MESSE NUES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ACTTON UN I'PEM N0. 13. Chairwoman La Claite offered a motion, seconded by Commissionec Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that the P.naheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to construct a 1,38-bed convalescent home with waiver of required lot Pcontage and minimum number of parking spaces on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 2.a4 acres located appcoximately 222 feek west of the centerline of OrangeBAvenuerandafurther~desccibed3as 641t5~~Beachf the centetl 10/28/65 ANANEIM CYTY PI.ANNING CUMMI55IUN MItJUTES~ UCTO____,BE12 28,y 1985 ___85-5C.~2 ~oulevatdt and does hereby approve the Negative lleclaration upon Einding that it has considered the Negative Declaration ~agether with any comments received during the public review ~+roce~s und Lur.ther f.inding on the bas~.s o~ the Initial St~~dy and any commr~nts received Chat there is no aubatanti.al evidence that L-tie project will riave a siqnificant eEfect on the environment. Chairwom~n La Claire ofEered a motion, seconded by Cammissioner 8ouas and MOTIC~N CARRIED that the Anat~eim City Planniny does hereby grant waivez: al Code requirement (a) on the basi~ that there are special circumstanr.e:s applicable to the pcoperty auch as size, shape, tapograptyy, location and surroundings whict~ du not apply to other identically zon~~d property in the same viciniCyt and that strict apk~l.ication of the Zoning Cade deprives the propecty of privileyes en~oyed by other properties in khe identica.l zonF and classification in the vicinity and waiver (G) on the basis t.hat the parking waiver will not cause an increase in traffic ~on~3estion in the i.mmediate vicinity noc ~clver~ely ~ffect any adjoining land uses and granting of the parki.ng wa~ver under the conditions imposed, if ~rny, will not be detrimental ko the peace, health, sat-ety and gena:ral welfare of the citizens of ti~e CiCy of Anaheim. Commissioner Herbst asked abaut the recipcocal parking a3reement wiCh Mr. Aftergut explaining ttiey are in the process of recording a marster reciprocal agreement ~hat will cover l•hat property to thn rea.r with Commissioner Herbst statiny they only have 14 feek of back-~~ space for the cear parking. Chairwoman La Claire offered Resolution No. PC85-234 and m~~ved far its pa~sage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planni.ny CommiF~~ion does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2731 pursuant to Anaheim Muni '~~1 Code Sec~ion 18.03.030.03U through 18.03.03U.035 and subject t.o Interdepactmental CommittPe recommendation~. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by thc~ following vote: AYES: }30UAS~ FRY~ HERBST, Ll~ CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BI!}tNEY, b1ESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Malcolm Slaughtec, Deputy C:ty Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision on Items :.2 and 13 within 22 days to +the City C~uncil. ITEM NU. 14 E:iP NEGATIVE D£CLARATIUN, WAIVER OE GODE RE UIRE~MENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PER~dIT N0. 2732 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: SANUERSON J. F2AY DEVELUPMENT, 26a9 White Road, ~15J, Irvine, CA 92714. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 6.2 acres, having a frontage of approximately 207 feet on the southeasterly side of Sanderson Avenue, approximately 3Q0 feet south of tt~e centerline of Taft Avenue. 10/28/85 J ANAHEIM CITY PI.ANNING COMMIRS~ON MINUTE;S, OC'PUBEK 28_, 1905 85-593 __._._._._._... To constcuct a curporate oftice with a non-industrial traini.ng facilily wi.th waiver of tninlmum number of Nacking apac~s. There was no one indi.cating their preaence in oppuaftion t4~ sub;~ect request ~nd ulthough ~he :~tAff re~'~ort was not read, ih ia r~ferred ~o and mad~ a part of the minutes. Case Sanderson, agent, explafned tliis will be a sing].e-tc~nant ceqional iacility Eor Coldwell eanker for ufiices, tra.ining and s~:orage and the waivcr is required b~ecause of the training Eaci!.ity and a traffic r~tudy was conducted indir.ating 9U spaces would be adeyuate an~~ thoae 90 apuces have beem prc~vided. 'PHE °UBLIC NEAF2INC~ WA5 CLOSEU. Responding t~ Chaicwoman La Claire, Mr.. 5anderson stak.ed the[e would be 30 students on an on-goinq dail, basis and onr.e ar twice a month, thece would be 60 student~ and l•hat is 'Me most there would be at any one time. He stated the students would i-- employcec of Cnldwell Banker Coc tr~ining. Chairwoman La Claire st- •~ ~- E. ~he would have ubjF~c:tions to a large real estate type school, bu ~ : no c~t,je~tions to what has bee n stipulated L•o br Mr. Sanderson. Mr ~ x~.~F~son stated parkin~ w~uld be one ~f their concerns also. ACTIOtd; Commission~- ~ c~•~` c.:fered a motion, ~econded by Commissianer Mcl~urney and Mo'PIc=, . ~ --~~-~: ek,at the Anaheim City Planning Commission ha3 rNviewed the prot~-.: •;- rmit construction oE a cocporate oEfice with a non-industrial tra: ~~~, ~~,,~:ility with waiver of. minimum number of parking spaces on an irz~:.~~~~k ~'~'~~~~ped ~arcel of land consisting of approximately 6.2 acres, hc7V1Ry • . r"~~+^' d9e oP approximately 207 feet on the - eoutheastecly sidr ~_ ~anderson Avenue and being located ~pproximately 340 feet south of r_he ~f rr:~-r ~ ine of Taft Avenue; and does hereby approve khe Negative Declarat~~^ ~,~:~~~~ finding that i.t has considered the Negative Declaration tog~tt~~: »itt- any comments received during the public review pr~cess and further .t;~~~:ing on r_he basis of the Tnitial Study and any comments receivea :~r at there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a signifir~c+~t effect on the environment. Cammissioner H~erkTsr ofL•ere : a motion, seconded by Comtnissionez McBurney and MU.ION CAR.v:r:~ ~hat t:e Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby granC waiver ot Code requirement on the basis th~t the parking waiver will nor. caus~ an incrc.3se in traFfic congestion in the immediate vicinity nor advecse~ly aff+ect any adjoining land uses and granting of the parking waiver under the condiL•ionb imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and genecal welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC85-235 and moved for its passage and adoption that tt~e Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2732 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 and subject to Interdepattmental Committee recommendations. 10/28/85 M N 8 5- ~n roll call, the foreyoing reaolution was passed by the ~ollowing vote: AYES: BQUAS~ ~RY~ HERBST~ LA CLAIK~~ LAWICKI~ MC BURNEY~ MESSE NUFS: NUN~ AnSENT: NONE ~lalcolm Slaughtet, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written cight to appeul the Planning Commisaion's decision within 22 daYs to the City Council. IT~M Np. 15 EIR NEGATIVC UECLARATION WAIVER OF CUDE RE~UIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2733 PUBLIC HEARING~ OWNERS: J. WILLIAMS, 1030 Kemp Strpearcelaof~landA 92805. PropertY dUximatelya0.23CacrenQ1U34~andh1U38 Kemp Streec. consisting of app To permit an 8-unit aenior citixessand~minimum arealof privatelvers of minirtium distance between building recreational-lsisure area. There Wd° n~althounh~thelstaffereportswasenot cead51it~istreferredcLo and reyue~t and 9 made a part of the minutes. Julius Williams, owner, statec'. he has been living at land the~neighbocsor 4U years and has had no comp'.aints about his property would like to seedthhereeislapt~ospikaleaboutatwodblocks away.bus stap just one b1ock away an TH~; PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Ch~irwoman La Claire pointed out there is no packing variance requested. Commissioner. Herbst stated the Commission is concerned that this projEect may not really qualify as a senior citizen project and noted the minimum age for a senior citi2en is 62 years of age and the distance to the shopping center for this properly does not meet the criteria esta~lished. Mr. Williams stated there is a bank at East Street and Orangethorpe. Commissz.oner Fry stated he did not think this is a proper loc~tion for a seni,or citizen project and most of the criteria establi~hed for the seniar Chairwoman La Claire citi2en projects are not met with ttiis ulareatartments in accordance with suggested the units be devel~ped as reg P the RM-1200 standards. Kendra Morries explained the owner could possibly develop 5 units in that 2one. Chai~:woman La Claire stated she is concecned because if these type unirs are allowed with lESS parking than required for regueatanerrwillthavef~ohrentlto othertpeoplenwho do needor citizens, then th parking spaces. Mr. Williams stated he has considered cegular apartments, but found there is a 5-year waiting list for senior citizen apartments. 10/28/85 ANAIIEIM CIZ'Y 1~1.ANNING COMMISSION I~INUTCS, U(;TQBEk 28, 1985 85-595 Comm~.ssioner Fry stated he has no objectiona to apartmenta, but not under the defini~ion of a senior citizen ~rojcct. ChAiCwoman La Claire etated she would vote i.n favar of this project becauae tt~e Comrnisaion has voted in Eavc~r of senior citizen projech.s a11 over this Ciky and here is a small owner just trying to make it and iC i~ so sma11, she did not think f.t wou.ld be a problem. Commissioner lierbst stated the Commisaion just aaproved a 5-unit a~artment project wt~ich was to be built on a 5U' by l~l].' lot and r.his praperty is 75' by 13A' and l~e thought t~hc: clevelope~r could put in more than the 5 units and still meet the Codes. ACTION: Commi.ssioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Cummissioner McBurney and ht0'PION CARRIEU that the Anaheim City l~lanning Commission has revier+ed ttie proposal l•o permit an 8-unit, seniar citizen a~~arkment ~roject with waivecs of mi.nimum distance between buildings and minimum area oC private recreational-leisure area an a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of ap~roximal-ely 0.23 acres, having a frontaqe of rZp~ro~iniately 75 fePt on the ea~t side of Kemp Street and turther qESCribed as 1U34 and 1038 Kemp Street; and does hereby aPprove the tvegative Ueclaration upon finding that it has cansidered the Negative UeclaratiUn l•ogether with any comments received duriny the public review process and fuctt-er finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any com-nents received that t}iere is no substantial evidence that• the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Kendra Morries suggested that it miyht be appropriate to qrant the petitionec a continuance in order to revise his plans for apartmenk units cather than denying the project since it does have to be revised and sugyested a G-week continua~ce. Mr. Williams indicated he would like to reque~t a continuance. ACZ~ZON: Commissioner Herbsk offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBucney and MOTIOtJ CAFtRIE:D that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of December 9, 1985, i.n ordet Far the applicant to submit revised plans. ITEM NO. 16 EIR NE,GA7'TVE I)ECLARATION, RECLRSSI~ICATIUN N0. 85-86-9 AND VARIANC~ N0. 3513 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: AMERICAN NATIONAL PItUPERTIES, INC., P.O. Box 1U077, Santa Ana, CA 92711-0077, ATTN: JAMES E. TWEEDT. AGENT: AMERICAN DIVERaIEIED CAPITAL CORP., 3200 Park Center Dr., Costa Mesa, CA 92626, AT'PN: JAMES CARTER, and PHILLIPS BRANDT REDDICK, 18012 Sky Park Circle, Irvine, CA 92714, ATTN: KEN RYAN. Property describc:d as an irregularly••shaped parcel of land consisting of appcoximately 5.9 acres located north and west of the northwe~t corner of Orangewood Avenue and Manchester ;,venue, 801 East Orangewoud Avenue (Orangewood Acres RV Park). RS-A-43,OU0(MHP) to RM-1200 or a less intense zone. 10/28/85 ANAH~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES. OCTOBER 28, ?.985 85-596 Waivers of minimum building s~te area per dwelling unit, maximum structural height, minimum landacaped setback and maximum Cence height to aonstruct a'lUh-unit a£fordAble apartment complex. There was no one indxcating their preaence in opposition to subject request and although the ~ta£E rePort wa~ noL• cead, it is ceferred to and made a part of rhe rninutes. Ken Ryan, Phillips Brandt Reddick, ag~nl-, w4s present• to answer any questiona. THE PUHLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commis~ioner Hecbst stated he wanted to be aure Chc applicant was aware oE the required dedication and Mx. Ryan indicated he was aware of that condition. ACTION: Commisr~i~ner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTIUN CARRI~U that the Anaheim City Pl~~nning Commission has reviewed the proposal t~ reclas~ity subject property f:om the RS-A-43,000(MHP) (Residential, Ayricu.ltural, Mobilehome Park Overlay) Zone to the RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple-~amily) oe a less intense zone to construct a 204-unit affordable ap~rtment complex wikh waivers of minimum building site are~ per dwelling unil, maximum structural tieight, minimum landscaped setback and maximum fence height on :+n irregularly-shaped parcel of land consi~ting of approxirtiately 5.9 acres, located north and west of the nortt~weat cocner of OrangeNOOd Avenue and Manr,hester Avenue and £urt•her described as $O1 ~;. Orangewood Avenue; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon f.inding that it has considered the Negative Declaration toqether with any comments received during the public review process and further findii.3 on the basis oE the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substanL•ial evidence that the project will have a significant effeck on khe environment. Commissioner Fry offerEd Resolution No. P~BS-236 and moved for its passage and adoptinn that the Anaheim City Planniny Commission does hereby grant Reclassificati~n No. a5-86-9 subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the folXowing vote: AtES: BOUAS, FRY, HER6ST, LA CLAIRE~ LAi~ICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE NUES: NONE A135E;NT: NONE Commissioner Fry of£ered Resolution No. PC85-237 and moved for its passage and adoption t.hat the Anaheim City Plann~ng Commission does hereby grant Variance No. 3513 on the basic that there are special circum~tances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicinitX; and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classiffcation in the vicinity and subject to Interdepar~mental Committee recommendations. 10/28/85 85-597 ANAHGIM CITX PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE5 L,GCTOBL•'R 24, 198~~~ On roll call, the foregoing recolukion wae paeaed h~ the Eollowing vote: AYES: BUU~S~ FRY~ HF.RBST~ LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI~ MC BURNEYr MF.SSE NU~S: NONE AHSENT: NONE Malcolm Slaughter. ~`ommission'stdeciafonPwithine72~daysrtotth~r~ghY ~~ appeal the Pl.annin~ Cauncil. ITEM N0. 1'7 FIR NEGA'PIVE UECLARATIUN AND RECLASSIFICATIUN N0. 85-86-1.1 PUBLIC kt~ARING. UWNERS: DENNIS B. SCHMUKAR~ 'I'RUSTEG OF AI+IT:RI~AN fiOME MORTGAGE, 666 Baher 5t., ~263r ~n$ta Me~a, CA 92626. AGEN7': VIC p~I~OQUIN, 3445 E. La Palma Ave., Anaheim, ~n g28U6' Pcoximately838~bed as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land conaisting of app acres, having a fr~ntage uf approximately 3,230 feet on the north ~ide of Nohl Ranch Road- apNroximately 300 feet northeacterly of the centerline of Uld f3ucket Lane. RS-A-43,OU0(SC) to kS-HS-22,U00(SC) or a less lncesidentialtcustonblotr~ a 43-lot, 41-unit, xS-HS-22,UOU(SC) single-family development. 7'here was no or~e indicaring their nresence in oppasition to s;ubject cequest ard alkhough the staf.L report was not read, it is reFerred to and made a part of the minutes. commissioner Messe declared a conflict of intere~t as def•.ined by Anaheim City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC76-157 adopting a Confli.ct of IntPrest Code for the Planning Commission and Government Cade Section 3625, et seq., in that he is a tenant of the developer and pur~;ua.nt to the provisions oE the abov~ Codes, declared to the Chairman that he was withdrawing from the hearing in connection with Reclassificaton [~o. 85-86-11, and would not take part in either the discussxon or t:~e vpting thereon and had not discussed this matter with any member of the Planning Commission. Thereu~on Commissi.oner Messe left the C~uncil Chamber. Victor Peloquin, agent, was ~re~ent to answec any questions. THE 1~U8LIC H~ARING WAS CLOSED. ACTION: Chairwoman La Claire offered a mo~ion, seconded by Commissioner Fry and MOTION CARRIEA (Commissioner Messe absent) that the Anaheim City nlanning Commission has reviewed the proposal to recl.assify subject pro~erty from the RS-A-43,OOO;SC) (Residential, Agricultural, Scenic Corridor) 2one to the RS-A-22,OOOtSC) (Residential, Single-Family, Hillside Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone or a less intense zone to establish a 43-lot, 41-unit single-family re~idential custom ~oximatelyP38n7 acres, irregularly-shaped parcei of land consisting of app having a frontage of approximately 3230 feet on the north side of Nohl kanch iine ofd lc~c$ucketPRoadlmand~doesoherebynapprovetthe Negative center 10/28/85 ANAHEIM CITY rLANNING CQMMI5SION MINUTES OCTOBER 28 1985 85-59a lleclaration ui~on finding that it hae considered the Negative Declaration toge~her with uny comments received du.ring the public review process and further Finding on the basia of the Initial Study and any comments cecaived that thece ia no subatan4ial evidence tl~at the ~roject will have a siynificant effect on the environment. ChairwomAn La Claire ofEered Resolutian No. PC~5-238 and moved for iL•e paasage an~i ~doption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission doea hereby ;arant Reclassification No. 85-86-11 subject to interdep~ctmental C~mmittEe recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing Cesolution was passed by the follow:ng vote; AY~S: BUUAS- FRYr yERBST~ LA CLAIItE~ LAWICKI~ MC BURN~Y NOES: NON~ AH5ENT: MESS~ Malcolm 5laughter, Deput.y City Attorney, presented the written right ta app~al the Planning C~mmiosion's decisiu within 22 d~~y~ to ~he City Cauncil. Commissione[ Messe ~eturned to the Council Chamber. ITEM NO. 18 NEGATIVE LECLARA'PI.ON (PREV. APPROVEU) AND CUNDITIONAL USE PERMIT NU. 2104 (REApV~RTISEU) PUBLIC HEARING FOR EXTENSION OF TIME. OWNERS: LARRY ROGER SMITH~ 17046 Marina ~ay Urive, Huntingto7 Beach, CA 92646. AGENT: AOYL ANdes1~ribed as CARGILL, 210 City Bcul~vard West, Orange, CA 92668• pcoximately 1.6 acres an ircegularly-shaped parael of land consisting of app located north and west of the northweat cor~FrenchBQuartera~and Knott Street, 919 uoukh Knott Street (pceviouflly Request for a 1-yea[ (2-month cet[oactive) exten~ion of time and deletion of Condition No. 5 of Resolution No. PC80-157 pertaining to requiced extensions of time to ret.ain a public dance hall. Continued from the meeting of Octobec 14, 1985. There was no one indicatin9 their presence in opp~sition to subject request e.nd although the staff report was not read, ik is referred to arid made a part of the minutes. Georgine Shaver, 98 Raosevel*, Irvine, was present to answer an;~ questions. THE ~UBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offeced Resolution No. PC85-239 and moved for its passage and adoption th~t the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve a 1-year (2-monLh retroactive) ex~ension of time for Ccnditional Use Permit No. 2]04 on the basis the use is bsing exercised in a manner riot ~etrimPnta'_ to the particular area and surrounding land use~ nor to the public peace, health, sa£ety and general welfare. 10/28/85 ANAH~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MINU'rk~S1 UC'rOBER 20. 1985_ __ __ __ 85-599 Un roll cAll, the fuceyoing resalutio~~ waa passed by the Eollowing vote: AYE;i: E30UA5~ ERY~ Hl:RB5T~ LA CLAIRF~ I.AWICKI, MC E3URNEY, MESSE NUES: NUNE AFiSENT: NONE, ~talculm Slaughter, Deputy City At:torney, prESented the written right to appeal L•he ~lanning Commisaion's decision within 22 days ka the City Coun~il. I'PEM N0. ly FtEPOR'r5 AND RECOMMENDATI0IJS: A. RBCLASSIE'ICA:'.[UN Np. 84-85-4 ANll CONpITIUNAL USF. PERMIT NU. 2605 - Requeat for approval of revised plans (No. 3), property located norCh and west of the northwest corn~r of La PAlma Avenue and imperial Highway. ACTIUN: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fry and MUTION CARRIED thal the Anraheim City k~lanning Commissiun does hereby approve revised plans (Revision No. 3) for Reclasssification No. a4-85••4 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2605. Aftec the vote it was noted there were people pre~ent who wished to be heard on the previously approved matter. Annika Santalahti explained thc revised plans delete the driveway to Irtiperial; however, the petitioner still has to get the wrikten concurrence of the ott~Er property owners involved in the access to La Palma Avenue and the City does not have anything in writing from the other property owners concurring with sharing an access. Kendra Morries stated the action of the Planning Commissi.on today does not in anyway affect the conditions of approval previously imposed and s~,ecifically Condition No. 1 says that a reciprocal parking and vehicular access parking agreement between the property owners ahall be submitted and that sondition remains i.n effect. Mel Kapson, vice president of Mercur,y Savings and Loan Association, stated Mercury Savi.ngs and Loan is not on record as opposing the project and explained that Sutherland Lumber and Mercury Savings were both requested to give up some of the convenie~ices to their customers as a benefit to the total project and they agreed, based on the fact that traffic problems on La Palma would be mitigated by opening the driveway on Imperial and now that Imperial driveway has been denied by CA~TRANS. He stated traffic problems as a result of peak theatre hours in the evenings when Me[cury Savings isn't even open could create traffic problems on La Palma and if the City sees that their only recourse and an inexpensive way of solving the problem is the closing of the median strip on La Palma, it could have a drastic effect on Mercury Savings. He stated Lhey have done a survey which indicated that could cause as much as a 308 reduction in their. savinqs base and he wanted to call that to t~e attention o£ the Commissian and ~erhaps some conditions could be established relating to that issue. 10/28/85 ANANEIM CITX PI,ANNING COMMI3SION MINU2F:Sj UCTOBER 28_, 19~5 85-fi00 Bruce Sanborn, Sanborn Theatres, ~xplAined thio reyuost tod~y is to change the plan that was p[eviously approved to ~l iminate the Im~erial driveway which CALTRAIJS did not approve a nd the only c~cceas Chey ~~an have is of£ La Palma. eob Millec, Sutherland i,umber Comp~ny, stAted the ir 188~ meeting waA to discuss ~he drivewuy on Imp~rial and they ente rod into eome leuae agreementA with the t;heat;re representative~ in oraer to keep the median s',.rip open on La Palma Avenue t~ecausp it is critical to their busines:,t however, since thc driveway un impecial was not r~pproved, all the trafELc in and out aF that property will be on Sutherland's ~cuperty, so they still have the ~ame two problem s, parking and traffic. He stated there was a condition approve d[equiring ~ traffic stur9y within 3 yc:urs after the theatre wa s opened and asked iL that condition was still a reyuicement. Kendr a Morries responded it i3. ~1[. Mi.ller asked what the 3olution would be if traEfic becomes a pro~~lPm. Annika Santalahti stated possibly the d riveway could be redPsigned or the median stip ~~n I,a Palma would be cloned if the trafEic fa euch that street traffic i:~ a£fected. Chaicwoman La Claire stated ttie number of theatres allowed to show movies at particular ti.mes could be limited and t he hours of operation could be chanyei etc. Mr. Mi.l.ler stated l•hey were concerned about the parking and traffic fluw and the traffic is all on one common driveway and if the median is clo~ed, it will be a problem because everyone would have to turn cight. He added they ace not against the develo pment of the property. Commi.ssioner tierbst stated ther.e are other uses wliich could go on that pcoperty by right which could possibly caus e more traffic and impact the area during the day r3ther than in th e evenings. Chairwoman La Claire stated commercial office us es could create a lot of traffic in that driveway every night with a 1 ot of cars in and out all day long and stated this is a hard prope[ty to develop. She stated a tra£fic signal could not be installed b ecause there is one at the intersection at Imperial and [.a Palma an d another one could not be added thiF close. She stated the pr.opert y owner has the right ko develop this ~roperty and if they are limite d to this driveway, that means there are three driveways next to ea ch othec which could create a tremendous traffic hazard and in order to mitigate that, the median would have to be blocked off wit;~ right-turna only. She added the propecty ownecs got toge~:her in urder to ma ke a common driveway in order I:a keep the median ~~pen. Sh~ stated scse would like to see them get a dr.iveway on Imperial and suggested ttie property owners should have gotten involved in those negotiations, Malcolm Slaughtec stated n~rmally, access right s to a public skreet, if granted, extend or~ly to the abutting propert y and they do not approve sevecal other accesses. 10!28/85 85-•60 AH~IM CITX PLANNING (:OMMIS5IUN MINUTES OCTOI~G}t 2$ 1985 Me. Kapso.~ stated they are tenan~.s and not ~r~perty ownQra And were not a part ot the negot.intiona. He atated Cheir property ia ownPd by the sAme owner who owns subject pkopect.y. Commisaioner tierb~t ~uygeated the City have CALTItANS relinquish the aCreet all the waY to Orungethorpe because it is nor gaing to be •z tceeway. Malc~.:lm Slauyhtar atated apparently CAI.TRANS takea a different viewpoint and ap~~arently made th~ ~~t:rermination that it wil.l n~t be a freewAy over Santa Ana Canyon Raad, but thought it may be a freeway to tl~e existing Riverside tr.eewaY• Juy TituB st;ated wt-en CALTRAN~ telinquist~es a street to the Ciky, it is usually they want lo to yet out Erom under maintenance, etc. and the City may ayree to acr.ept it based on ert~in conditi~nfl thet CALTRNNS do certain work or take care of certain problc~m~ c-nd usually theCe are yeacs of neyotiationr~. He ~~hut~itni}sistillnde~ignated ast likely Imperi~ ~ill become a E~eeway, a tceeway roule oy CA1.T1tANS and until they ct~ange that designakion, they will not consider relinquishment~ Malc~lm Slauyhtec stated he was not; sure Chat :f CAI.TKANS wanted to relinquish it, that the City of Anaheim wauld wa~`r. to ac~ept it and that aftec traffic studies ar.e done, the City may not want tu allow other accesses either. C~mmissioner Nerbst stated a motion was made and ~assed to approve '.he revised plans and F~ossibly he could withdcaw that motion and ask [oc further. studies with the Traffic Engineer. Commissioner. Fry stated that wo'.l.d be moot because CALTRANS is not go.ing to approve ttiat acce~s and the an~wer would be the same and the City has no choice. Commissioner Herbst stated it is the Tratfic Gngineer's opinion l•hat there will have to be a median put in on La Palma and these prnperty owners are saying that wiJ.l reduce their business by 308. Kendra Morries stated the media~ Wwi~hoan a9reement onlsharedhe property owners could not come uP access. Cammissioner Herb~t stated he would let hi~ mOOSed toathed5 approved. Mr. Kapson stated Mercury 5avings is not opp ~~oject the way i.t is proposed as long as the median remains open on La Palma. Commissioner Messe asked if it would be he~Por1to~usean9Annika condition~ and asked for a traffic study p Santalahti responded that once the businesses are in and operating, the uses can be evaluated. Mr. Miller skated their concern was in getti-~g the driveway on Imperial; however, they have come to an agreement on the use of the common driveway and will work with any developer of that property to make it .+ork for them, but their concern was traffic and parking. He stated he realizes that no matter what goes in on chat property, it 10/28/85 ANAH~ ~IM CITY pL~ NNING CUMMISSION MINU_T_ES~ OCTO$EK 28. 1985 _ 85-602 could create probl.ema for them and wanted tn make sure the tr.~ffic atudy would sti.ll be roquirod in three year.s. B. TENTATIVE TRACT NU. 10973 - Requeat Erom Tho Gunaton K all Company, Inc., for a waivor oE Lhe tiillaide Gr.ading Ordinanc~ as it r~lates to th e location o~ the manu£ar,tured slopes wi~hin resid en tial lota in Tr act No. 10973, property located weaterly of Camino Grande, south of Nohl Ranch Road~ ACTION: Commiseioner HerUat ~ffered a m~tion, seconded by C ommiasloner L~ry and MOTIUN CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commisaion doeA hereby recommend to the City Council that the request oE the Hillside Gr~ding Urdinance as it relates to th e location of manufactured slopas within reaidential lata in Tract No. 10973 be granted. Ox'NER DISCUSSION: it was noted a meeting ie scheduled fnr the AnahPim City Planning Commission on Uecember 23, 1985, and fucther it ie poseib 1 e there will not be a quorum £or thAt meeting. AllJOURNMBNT: Commisaioner Fry offered a moCion, seconde d by Commis~ioner Eierbet and MU'PION CARRIED that the meeting be ad journed. The mr,etir~g was ad joucned at 6:.10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ,~ , ~ ~ Edith L. Harris, Secre tary Anaheim City Planning Commis~ion ELH :1 m 0149m 10/28/85