Loading...
Minutes-PC 1986/01/06REGULAR MEETING OE THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION RECULAR MEETING The regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairwoman La Claire at 10:00 a.m., January 6, 1986, in the Council Chamber, a quorum being present, and the Commission reviewed plans of the items ot~ today's agenda. RECESS: 11:30 a.m. RECONVENBD: 1:35 p.m. PRESENT: Chairwoman: La Claire Commissioners: Bouas, Fry, [?erbst, Messe, McBurney ABSENT: Commissioner: Lawicki ALSO PRESENT: Anni'~a San~alahti Assistant Director for Zoning Mdlcolm Slaughter Deputy City Attorney Joseph Fletcher Deputy City Attorney Jay Titus Office Engineer Paul S~n~er Traffic Engineer Greg Hastings Associate Planner Kendra hlorries Assistant Planner Edith Harris Planning Commissio^ Secretary MINUT~'S FOR APPROVAL: Cammissior.er McBUCney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Lawicki absent) that the minutes of the meetings of Novembec 25, and December 9, 1985, be approved a~ submitted. ITEM NU. 1 EIR NEGATIVE OECLARATION, RECLASSIFICATION N0. 84-85-43__AND VARIANCE NO. 34°U PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: LUCION W. AND BARBARA MYLES, 2609 W. Savanna Street, Anaheim, CA 92804 and ROBERT Z. AND LINDA L. ADAIR, 3623 {7. Savanna Street, Anaheim, CA 92804 and JAMES ~. AND KATHLEEN ANh PICKART, 3621 W. Savanna Street, Anaheim, CA 92804. AGENT: WESTERN PACIFIC 2ROPERTIES, ATTN: RAi SEMAZN, P.O. Box 5370-319, Santa Ana, CA 92804. Ptoperty described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.76 ~cres, 3609, 3613 and 3621 West Savanna Street. RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200. Waiver of maximum structural height to construct a 95-unit apattinenr complex. Continued fro~ the meetings of July 22, August 19, Novembec 13, 1985. Kendra Merries explained sta:f had received a letter requesting that subject petition be wi.thdrawn. ACTION: Comm:ssioner Herbst offeced a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Lawicki absent) that consideration of Reclassification No. 89-85-43 and Varzance No. 3499 be with~rawn at the cequest of the petitioner. 86-1 1/6/86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 6 1986 86-2 ITEM N0. 2 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION iREADV.) GENERAL PLAN AMENPMENT NO; 204, RECLASSIFICATION NO. 85-86-15, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENTl_ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2726 (READV.) CONDYTIONAL USE PERMZT N0. 2727 (READV.) AK^. REQUEST FOR WA:VER OF COUNCIL POLICY NO. ~43 OWNE~S: CALIFORNIA LUTHERAN HOMES, 2312 S. Fremont, Alhambca, 91603. AGENT: Ell A. STRUTHERS, 721 N. Euclid St., M307, Anaheim, CA 92801,T. A. Jone~ z Assoc., 485 E. 17th st.. ~608, Costa Mesa, 92627. Property described as a rectar.gulacly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximatel}~ 10.6 acres, located at the northwest corner of Ball Road and Walnut Street, 691 S. Walnut Street (Walnut Manor). To consider alternate pcoposals of ultimate land use, including, but not limited to low density cesidential, low medium density cesidential and medium density residential uesignation. RS-A-43,00~ to RM-1200 oc a less inr_ense zune. To permit a 3-stocy, 134-unit a~fordable senior citizens apartment complex and a 95-bed skilled nursing facility in conjunction with the existin~ senioc citizens retirement facility ~ith waivec of minimum building site acea per dw:lling unit. ACTION: C~.!issioner Herbst offeced a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney an~ MOTION CARRIED (COmmissioner Lawicki absent) that cons~deration ot subject petition be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeti.ng o: Januacy 20, 198G, at staff's request in order for petitions to he readvertised to include an additional waivec. ITEM NO. ~ EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONDI~IUNAL USE PERMI: NO. 2'.38 UWNERS: EUCLID STP.EE': BAPTZSl CHURCd OF ANAHEIM, INC., 1408 S. Euclid Street, Anaheim, CA 92&02, ATTN: CHRISTOPHER LOWTHER. AGENT: HOPE UNIVERSITY, P.O. Box 4818, Anaheim, CA 92802, ATTN: GEORGE NEWMAN, SR. Psoperty desccibed as an ircegularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 3 acre~s, located at the noctheast corner of Buena Vista Avenue and Euclid Stc°et; 1408 South Euclid Street (Euclid Street Baptist Church). ^v permit Hope Univecsity, an elementary schonl, a pre-school, and to construct a 2-story, 8-unit housing facility in conjunction with a church with wai~•ers of (a) required setback of playground area, (b) min. number of parking spaces, (c) max. fence height adjacent to Euclid Street and (d) max. stcuctural height adjac~nt to single-family 2oning. There were approximately thirty-nine persons indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and four persons indicating their presence in favoc cf subject request, with one person indicating she would like to speak in favor and approximately eight people indicating they would like to speak in opposition, and although the staff report was not read, it is refecred to and made a past of the minutes. 1~ 3/8E 8 6=3 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JANUARY 6, 1986 Gcegory w. Sandecs, ittocney, 3200 Park Center Dcive, Costa Mesa 92G26, representing Euclid Street Baptist Church, referced to a letter written to the Commission la.>t week asking for a two-week continuance in order for him to meet with some of the neighbors in the area to try and resolve some of the alleged pr.oblems. He explained he did meet with Mr. O'Neil from the neighborhood on two occasions, but would like the opportunity to meet with more of th~ neighbochood cesidents. rhaicwoman La Claice explained this matcer was co~tinued from the meeting of Novembet 25, 1985r in o[der for the petitioner to meet with the residents and she did not think the issues have changed and did not think a continuance would be beneficial. Mr. Sanders explained Mr. O'Neil i,°, a spokesman for a group of neighbocs and he did meet with him cn two occasions and the problem is that he was not present at the previous hearing in November and believed he could bring some fcesh ideas and approaches to the problem to help minimize some of the dif.ferences and thought a con::inuance would be beneficial foc him, the neighbors, the church and the Commission if some of the outstanding problems could be cesolved. Chai~woman La Claire statec' che Commission feels that they should go ahead with this hearing since a continuance was previously granted for this same purpose. She explained if it seemsevident after some of the testimony has been presented that a continuance should be granted, it could be granted later during the neeting. Mz. Sanders stated one of the main issues seems to be the traffic impact on the neighbochood; that apparently thece are a rumbec of drop-offs and pick-ups during the day fo~ students attending the pre-school and elementary school existing on the site and the favored ingress and egress point is Edda Lane at the ceac of the church pcoperty which is in the middle ot the ~esidential neighborhood. He stated in an attem1~t to minimize the Craffic impact on the neighborhood, they wuuld propase restricting the use of the Edda Lane access in an effoct to decrease the traffic using that access and all of the traffic would be required to use Euclid Avenne and that would reduce the impact on the nei9hbochood by about 658. Mr. Sanders stated the second alleged pcoblem concerns noise and that the playground is iargely responsible for most of the noise. He stated he understands the City of Anaheim and County of Ocange have both conducted sound tests to measure the amount of noise and there wece no violations of any noise ordinances and they do not think the noise is as big a problem as has been alleged. He stated in an attempt to fucther minimize prcblems with the ~eighborhood, they wouZd pcopose removing the playground from the parking lot, which impacts several lots, and move it to the cornec of Euclid and Buena Vista which would limit the impacts to about one oc two homes i~i the neighbochood and this would also make the drop-off and pick-up of the children much safer. M:. Sanders stated thece was a concecn regatding invasion of privacy and apparently that is the result of windows in the second stocy of a building 1/6/$6 86-4 MINUTES, AN1+HEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 6 1986 which t~.cks up to the [esidences in the neighborhood and he understands all of those windoHS on the second story are frosted glass and it is impossible to see into the backyards of tne neighbors and all the windows are supposed to be screwed shut and if they are not, they will be, and they will put an effort into seeiny that that situation is monitored to mahe sure they remain shut. Mr. Sanders stated in fairness to the Commission, the neighborhood and the church, the cather ccitical issue is the presence of the pre-school and elementary school on the property and all these problems flow from that situation. He stated the church would like to move the school to another location entirely out of this neighborhood and they would propose a condition included in the conditional use pecmit that would cestrict Che presence of the schools to no moce than 3-1/2 yeacs from the date of the conditional use permit and at the end of the 3-1/2 years, the pre-sctool and elementary school would no longer be permitted uses on the propeity. Mr. Sanders stated the property will probably be so2d to Hope University, and in about three years, Euclid Stceet Baptist Church and schools will be transitioned out to a new location in Anaheim Hi.lls, and Hope University would be tcansitioned in and they expect that the schools aill be gone much sooner that the 3-1/2 years, but they cannot foresee all contingencies and would like to be ablwouldhauarantee that both schoolsn that propecty, and then in 1989, they 9 would be gone and that most of the major problems would be 9one. Concernin9 the off-site parking issue, Mr. Sanders explained a study was prepared by Justin Farmec, a iraffic Engineer, who physically measured the impact of off-site parking in the neighborhood and found that on a typical Sunday morning, a maximum of 8 vehicles were parking off-sita on the residential street, and they did not think that was as lazge an impact as originally indicated; nowever, they do believe theic property is large enough to park all vehicles using the church pcoperty and propose to wotk with Hope Univecsity in testriping the parkin~ lot and making sure that there are e~ough spaces on-site for parking all vehicles and to constantly remind the people using the school to park on the school property. Mr. Sanders referced to Condition No. 5 proposed regarding removal of the southerii driveway on Euclid Street and added they feel that should be eliminated as a condition because if their traffic plan is instituted, they will have to have as much access on Euclid Street as possible an~. would like to have both access points on Euclid Street pceserved. He ceferred to Condition No. 14 regarding removal of the portable classroom trailers within 30 days and stated they would find that an intelerable burden on the school and would pcopose tt~e trailecs be allowed to remain to the conclusion of the current semester, ~l• which time they would be cemoved. Concerning Condition No. 15, regardinr cesttiping of the parking lot, Mr. Sanders stated they would like more time to comply with that condition in order to work with Hope University officials to make sure they maximize their efforts. Joyce Howerton, stated she own~ ptopecty at 1660 Chanticleer, and explained she moved in that house in 1972 and raised he[ children in that 1/E/86 86-5 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIUN .JANUARY 6 1986 neighborhood and is also in the process of purchasing another property on Chanticleer. She added she has seen this school since its inception :nd has had total cooperation from Reverend Bryan Crow. She added the City's own report indicates there is no noise ot tcaffic problems; that som~hat people who signed the petitions live over 1/2 mile from the school, she has had no problems with it; that it is directly across f~om Loara High School and theeacsVe She statedctheretwasfaccomplagnttabout £umeslat the time over the y 12 students at this 7•30 in tne motning and explair.ed thece are only school at 7:30 in the motning. She stated m~esent~because1Rev1dVCrowen hece to suFoort this petition, but ace not p that this announced in church yestecday and again at school this morning meeting was goin9 to be continued and there are people who have to work and did not take time off to come to this meeting. She explained Rev. Ccow is not present because he was told the meeting would be cancelled. She added there is suppoct foc this school and it has been a goodoundool and there are not more than 5 houses wtiich bacR up to that playg She added a show of hands in favoc and in opposition to this request at this time is not appcopciate. Joe O'Neil, 1408 S. Adria, referred to the wcitten correspondence submitted to summarize theic meetings with Hope University and explained it was a well-attended, good meeting and was very informetive toximately subsequent to that, the neighbors had anothec meeting with app 45 to 50 people attending and asked if CUP No. 1170 permits the school. Chairwoman La Claice explained this mattec has been discussed with the City Attocney's Office and the Commissioners have read the correspondence from the Planning staff and the Director of Planning to the chu~ch and it is the Commission's opinion that, although there is some q,uestion tegarding the day-cace centet, thece is no question that thece is no permit for the elementacy school. Mr. U'Neil stated the latest pruposal before the Commission seems to be a step in the opposite direction; that thece was indication for a thcee year phase-out pcogram at the beginning which is now being discussed for 3-1/2 years; and stated there is a problem getting such uses off the pcoperty once they are there. He stated they a~e especially concerned because the school is not an entitled use and they have not complied with the Codes. tdr. 0'Neil stated the traffic discussed today refe~red to on-street parking and that is not the peoblem, but cicculation is the ques~heceawill they believe as long as the entrance on Edda Lane remains open, be a p~oblem and the staff repoct does not even address that pcoblem; however, the staff did mention that and stated the use of that entrance should be discoucaged. Concerning moving the playground, he stated he did not know when the noise readings were taken, but he has heard some of the noise and it is vecy loud and moving the playground closec to the residents would be a problem which would not be solved for 3-1/2 or more years. He stated obviously the trailecs are a Code violatioa which needs to be addcessed immediately. 1/6/86 86-6 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 6 1986 Mr. O'Neil stated there ace ovet 300 signatures on the petitions in opposition and the neighbors ace conceraed fuatherl tHe addedethe n the site need to be addressed before going Y university is no longer an issue. Do~othy Rubin, 1574 Chanticleer, stated ~esentedlin oppositionrinsubmitted and petitions with 125 signatuces wece p November, and she is adding 21 additional letters and petitions containing 135 additional signatures for a total of 45 lettecs and 311 signatures and explained these ace the immediate residents adjacent to the subject propetty. She stated M~s. Howerton who spoke in favor of the tequeL~ aonS not live in the neighborhood at present, even though she owns prop Y Chanticleer. She stated she lives directly accoss the street £rom .1677 Chanticleer which is the pcivate cesidence owned by the church and she would want to question why this home has not been listQd in the request for CUP No. 2738 because resentedeat thedprevioussmeetmngfshowed 40 chairs and the Qhotogcaphs she p in that structure. She stated they believe those 40 children have been moved upstairs in that home and that the immediate neighbocs have seen and heacd them and that this has taken place since the November Planning Commission hearing and the Fire Department and neighbors are very concexned about the safety of those childrehaveStheSOptionHtoepurchaseity officials informed the neighbars that they that same house ana it has 4 bedrooms and~ol~s°oratecreationaleareas,Wall be used by Hope University for temporary guest home for toucists, etc. until the new dorms are built and they want that house ~eturned to its original use as a residence. She stated since the last heacing, the neighbors have noted a re-direction of traffic in the drop-off and oick-up of students and the neighbots on Bayless, Lullaby, Loara, Chanticleec and Edda Lane have noticed avaouesnandatheyn traffic and this cannot possibiy enhance their pcoperty would urge the Planning Commission to deny this ~equest. Bruce Newell, 1679 Buena Vista, stated he is speaking on behalf of the petition signers and letter writers on Buena Vista Avenueanotheron November 27, 1985, just tNO days after the last hearing, advertisement appeared in the PennySavec soliciting stude~ts for the Euclid Stceet Baptist Chu~ch School and presented a copy of that PennySaver as evidence. He stated it is cleac to the tesidents that Rev. C~ow does not plan to decrease the number of students or if he does, he plans to build the numbers up ficst and then make the promised ~eductions. He asked what would pr.event another school from legally starting in the place of the church school, if thwiLCOyole1Universityeonit is approved. Mr. Newell stated at their meeting P December yth, Mr. Vincent Lupo stated that Rev. Crow had offeced the p[operty fo[ sale to three othec sch~hesexistinglschooltandathe Hope condi~ional use permit is needed by Univetsity is incidental. Regarding school traffic, Mc. Newell explained Reverend Crow has made a proposal to make gceater usage of the entraxice on Euclid Street which will give some relief to the cesidents on Palai. Road and Edda LanQ, but will probably cceate a bottle-neck at the intersection; that the tcaffic ~epo[t 1/6/86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARi 6 1986 $6-~ indicates that in the first year between 7:30 and 8:30, 105 trips will be made into the ptoperty and 105 trips will be made out of the property for a total of 210 trips or 3.5 vehicles per minute during tliat peak traffic period and that is a heavily travelled road and is a great concecn. Concerning the request Yor the housing units on the corner of Buena Vista and euclid, he stated it is their request that no permit be granted because the residents of Buena Vista Avenue have cegularly conplained about the hospital staff and visitor's cars parked on both sides of the street causing real problems and ane resident reported a neac-miss on January 3, 1986. He stated moce vehicles using the street would only inccease this problem. He stated he did not want a pecmanently occupied hostel or docmitory building with 24-hour activities next to his home. He stated the Commission is well aware there was na school operating on the corner of Buena Vista and Euclid Street until 9 months aftec he purchased his home in 1y81, and, in fact, the school site was not on record until 1982, and after Rev. Crow was told to get a conditional use permit. He stat.ed John Poole, ~ode Enforcement Supervisor, can confirm the information that the church was informed to obtain a conditional use permit in 1982. Mr. Newell stated the code Enfoccenent Officers had the children removed from the field adjacent to his home in July of 1985, and that they were playing 15 feet from the property retained by a piece of rope stretched accoss the acea, which often was falling down and his gardener, Gary Deutsch, has written a letter stating that until July 1985, he could hear children yelling and screaming over the noise of his power equipment, and that now Rev. Crow's latest proposal is to put the children back into that area which is zoned CL with a 25-Eoot area between them. He submitted the gardener's let~ec for the recocd. Mr. Newell played a tape recording made trom Mrs. Jean Dyer's yard t~ show what they have to listen to 4 to 6 houcs a day, five days a week with children yelling, etc. He stated that was recorded with only a few day-care children pcesent on January 3, 1986. He stated if the Commission has any doubts about the noise, John Poole can confirm the level of noise. Mr. Newell stated Rev. C[ow is still operatin9 a school illegally, placing considerable undue stcess on the er,tice neighbochood and he would request this permit be denied. Marilyn Richey, 1655 Palais, Anaheim, stated the residents of this area have presented to the Commission, for the second time, a united L-ront with a total of 311 signatuces of p[otest and produced 45 letters and testimony of opposition to the school. She stated in a letter from the church's attorney to the Commission on December 30, 1985, it was stated in writin9 and it has been implied by Rev. Crow many times that there has been some confusion on the part of residents with regard to the traffic, noise, parking, etc. and stated tt;ey are an intelligent, well-educated neighborhood and there was no confusion on their part and they know exactly what the issues are and why they are here and if there is any confusion, it is on the pact of Rev. ~row. She stated in 1962~ Rev. Ccow went through the proper legal proceedings establishing his church by 1/6/86 86-B MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CUMMISSION JANUARY 6 1986 having neighborhood meetings, approval of the Planning Commission, etc.; however, since then he has expanded the uses without the usual legalitie.s by saying it was his 'ignocance'. She stated they came today to this meeting expecting the protection and help of the Planninq Commission, which the City is supposed to provide, and they look to the Commission to fol.low through with the cecognition of their problems. She stated the residents would ask that the Commission close the present illegal schools and thaC the pcoperty remain for a chucch as it is zoned and that Conditional Use Pe[mit No. 2738 be ~enied. Debbie Katz, 1678 w• Palais Road, explained he~ house backs up dicectly behind the 2-story classroom facility and it was stated the windows on the second floor ace screwed shut, but that is not true, and they are frosted, but can be opened. She stated childcen and adult men look out those windows in the ~ummer and she will not go into her backyard and the little girl ne~t doot, 7 years old, will not play in he: backya~d because the kids from the school laugh at her. She stated the noise is there from approximately 7:30 a.m. until afler 5:00 p.m. and if there are only 12 students available that early in the morr~ing, they are really noisy. She explained she does not wock and is home all day and she was not awace of the problems until she stacted staying home last year. Ms. Katz stated when the house was purchased, it was with the knowledge that the church was there and the church isn't the problem and the school would not be a problem, if it was not growing so rapidly and if the students behave as if they had some adult supervision. She added the adults who are there yell even loudec than the kids and that the Loara High School Band plays across the stceet and is dcownded out by the yells of the childcen. She added the lights ace left on in the second story of that building at least once a wee~ and it does disturo her sleep. She asked if the windows screwed shut Would create a fire hazard since there is no other exit fcom the classtooms. Howard Ritchey, 1655 Palais, cead a letter from Palma Vasile, 1694 W. Palais, indicating opposition ta the pre-school and elementary school existing on the property because of excessive noise, ~a~oblemmcausedeby fenee around her pcoperty, a flagrant fice and health p accumulation of pine needles, grass and tree ttimmings and general rubbish and papecs against her fence and an infestation of rats, burglaries, causing highec insurance p~emiums, broken water lines or malfunctioning sprinklers on the church property causing flooding on her property and decreasin9 pcoperty values. Lillian De Valis, 1624 W. Chanticleec, stated it is unclear what Hope University intends to use the property for and at the last meeting, it was undetstood that they would be using the property in conjunction with the Baptist Church. She stated it should be noted that the lady who apoke in favo~ of this use is a membeco backutohthesrhurcht~ithoutnthehchildrentwho the use of that pcoperty to g are there illegally. Mr. 3andecs stated they take the position that Conditional Us~ Permit No. 117U does allow for the presence of both the schools and the church and 1/6/86 86-9 MINUTES ANA.H~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 6 1986 thete has been a historical pattern of use over the past several years under the two conditional use permits on the pcoperty and the City has not objected nor have the neighbors objected to the existence of the school prior to this time and they ieel secure in the knowledge L•hat the use permits cucrently in effect validate the uses on the property. Concerning the question regarding the length of time the schools will be located on the pcoperty, he stated the plan is to phase out the schools over a period of 3-1/3 years and Mr. O'NEil indicated the assurance was given that the school would be gone within 3 years and they would be willing to eliminate the schools with:n 3 years, if 6 months makes that mucti difference. Mc. Sanders stated concerning the ingress and egcess at Edda Lane, that they have offered a traftic plan which will reduce the impact of traffic on the neighborhood by 658 and eliminate the use of Edda Lane access. Concerning noise, Mr. Sanders stated the City staff ineasured the levels of noise and found no violations oi any of the City's ordinances with respect to noise; that the presence of the trailers was mentiuned as a Code violation and indicated he was not awacP of any Code violations caused by the pcesence of the t[ailers; that all of the Code violations on site have been detailed by the Code Enforcement Officers who visited the site and all of those violations have been cuced; that the ~esidence located at 1667 Chanticleer has not been used by khe church for ovec 1 yeaz and certainly not been used for the last month. He stated he ~ill assure the Commission that the propecty will not be used by the church beyond the time the pecmit is issued for anything and they uould not vi.olate the conditional use permit. He explained they intend to abide strictly by the permit. Mr. Sanders stated he did not believe the issue of propecty values is a pcoper issue for this Commission to considet in their decision on this application foc a conditional use pecmit. He explained there is a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision regarding foster homes and the students w1~u will be attending Hope University are categorized as "special' by the U.S. Supteme Court and a:e granted special treatment under the Constitution and that impacts certain land use decisions nade by local governments. Regarding the issue of advectisements in the PennySav,er, Mr. Sanders statad is it natutal for the churct~ school to want to perpetuate itself and whether or not the school remains on the property or moves to another location has nothing to do w.ith the presence of PennySaver ads and the school is reccuiting students and it will move if the permit is condicioned to force it to move within 3-1/2 yeacs. He referred to comments made by a membec of the opposition cegarding his letter and clar;fied that his lettec said that the neighborhood seems to be confused about the intention of the church and wanted to make it clear that the chucch intends to sell the pccperty to Hope University and move to Anaheim Hills and also move the current pre-school and eiementary schools with the chucch and they would be willing to accept a condition on the conditional use permit that required the schools to move within 3 or 3-1/2 years. ~oncerning the windows and invasion of privacy issue, he stated the windows will be secured and thar. he was not aware of any Code violations resulting from that action. He added the issue of vandalism and tcash were taised and he did not think the presence of the church and school constitute a problem in that regard. ~e stated if vandalism is a problem, the chuzch would like to know the specifics and take appropciate measures to make sure tnat it does not happen again or te-occur while the chu~ch is transitioning out of the p~opecty. 1/6/86 as-ia MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COliMISSION JANUARY 6 1986 Mr. Sandecs stated they have attempted to meet all of the objecticns of the neighborhood in a reasonable manner and believe their plan is or wil.I be one that will minimize or mitigate many complaints of the neighborhood voiced today. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissionec Bouas asked how many pce-school students are enrolled at this time. Mc. Sanders responded there are approximately 250 total students encolled at this time, but did not know how many are pre-schoolecs. Mrs. Rubin stated they presented documentation at the previous meeting of seventy pre-school students and evidence that there are 260 students enrolled and explained those aff=davits wece from the Community Services Department of the County. Gerald Busyore, 721 N. Euclid, Suite 201, Anaheim, stated he has been workin9 with Rev. Crow foc the past three years and explained that the numbec of pte-school students is limited by the playground acea, with one student permitted pec 75 square feec of playground area and one student per 35 square feet of inside area; howeve~, he did not know the exact number of the enrollments, but they ace licensed fo: a maximum numbec of students and thought the pre-school is below 70. He stated he is employed to work for the school, but has trieuestion aboutttheVnumber fVStudentsd the only person who can answer the q is the school administrator. Mc. Sandecs explained he is the only person gresent today who can speak fac the school. Commissioner McBUrney asked how many students are being requested by Hope University. Mc. Sanders responded the University proposes a maximum of 100 students and a staff of 20. He stated the plan is to phase out the existin9 schools and phase-in Hope univetsity and that Hi~pe University plans would be restricted by their need to construct a facility on siHe and that structute would begin as the existin9 schools are leaving. stated they ace not proposing that all the uses be there simultaneously. Chairwoman La Claire asked the puspose of the proposed residential units. Mr. Sandecs stated that some of the parents of the students live quite a distance from the facility and it would be impossible to transport the students to the school daily, so tr~ey need to have a dormitory facility. He stated he does not know how many students would be in each unit and that pa~ents would stay with theic students in the residential units when they come to visit. Commissionec Messe stated a statement was made that no City or County U*dinances were violated for sound, but that the letter indicates the:e wete 66 times when the n~~se exceeded the County's limits. Commissioner Hetbst stated Mr. Sanders had stated they feel the church and schools are thete undez t~e authocity of Conditional Use Permit No. 1170 and that he has reviewed the cecocds which indicated the church was 1/6/86 86-11 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 6~ 1986 __ allowed with related activities, but that does not include an elementary school, and a specific conditional use permit is required for a~ elementary school from the Planning Commission. Mr. Sanders stated he believes the definition of 'related activitSes' includes the school. Commissioner Herbst stated he would disaaree. and that an elementary school with 250 students is a totally different ballgame. He stated a conditional use permit is requiced which gives some control over the use with conditions, etc. He added h2 has seen a lot o# requests come befoce the Commission, but has nevec seen one so vague with a chucch saying they are going to move in 3 to 3-1/2 years to Anaheim Hills, and that he lives in that acea and has never seen anythin9 cmme before the City that there is property available for tl~em to move to~and asked how they know a church would be approved in that area. He stated this request is too vague and he could not vote in favor of it ~ithout a specific idea as to times, where they are moving, and how they will move, etc. Mc. Sanders stated they would agtee to a condition in tne conditi4nal use petmit providing that the school must leave in 3 to 3-1/2 year~. Commissionet Hecbst asked what would happen if the church does not hav~a a place to relocate at that time and noted there have been several conditional use permits exteiided ovet the years under similar circumstances and that a lot of residents are affected by this use and he felt they ace entitled to know exactly what is going to happen. Mr• Sanders stated they are trying to pcovide a guarantee by saying they will accept a condition saying the school has to relocate and then the obligation will be on the church to find another site. He stated there is a site in Ananeim Hills owned by the National BapGist Organization which the chutch is going to acquice. Commissioner Herbst stated he did not think 3-1/2 yeacs was soon enough because these people have been putting up with this situation for a long time and they have not complained because it was a church, but the use has cut9rown the ptopecty and has out9rown its usefulness now and has to be changed. Mz. Sanders stated the 3-year time period was discussed with the neighbors and it was his understanding that the 3-year phase out progcam was acceptable with most of the neighbozs. He stated he had suggested that this matter be continued so he could meet with the neighbors to find out exactly what their problems were and pechaps come to a decision that would be satisfactozy to both sides. ~ommissioner Hecbst stated the same problems were expressed in November and the matter was continued at that time in order for the ct,urch to meet with the neighbors and take care of the problems and there are 39 or 40 people p~esent today who have taken off work etc. to attend this meeting and discuss the ptoblems. Commissionec Fry stated he thought Mc. Sandecs had just found out first hand what the neighbors really think and he agreed that 3 years is too 1/6/86 NIIdUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLAI~NING COMMISSION, JANUARY 6~ 1996 86-12 long and he thought if the church owns the single-family cesidence on Chanticleer and it is being used for purposes other than a residence, it should be stopped immediately. fie added he is not opposed to a church in this location or a pre-school, but he is vehemently cpposed to the elementary schoo]. and would vote no on Conditional Use Permit No. 2738. He stated he would not go along with a joint venture to add anything more to this site. He stated he thought the elementary school should be eliminated by the end of this semester in July of 1986. Chairwoman La Claire stated there are some real legal issues involved here; and that she has asked hecself khe question, 'what is the best the Commission can do for the peopl= who live in the neighborhood?"; and she is not asking that same question for the church because it is a business and so is Hope Univecsity, even though they aee providing services foc the community; and that the neighbors are the homeowners and desecve the Commission's first consideration. She stated if the Commission denies this request for a conditional use permit, the churci~ can continue to oper.ate as a church and a pre-school and iL they eliminate the stucents frcm th~ elementary school, they can increase the number of the pre-school students. She stated, however, if the Commission approves the permit in part, with some controls, such as eliminating the elementary school and day-care center and limiting the maximum number of students for the Hope University, the neighbors will be getting some relief of their current problems. She stated if this is granted in part, the Commission could cequire the closing of Edda Lane as an access and the trailers would have to be cemoved right away and the number of pre-school students could be frozen at 70 for a bcief period of time and that the elementary school could be allowed to the end of this term in order to allow the parents to find a new location for their students, and the constructiun of the housing complex would not be allowed until all the activities of the church are phased out, and no new students would be enrolled in the pre-school or day-care center, and within 6 months thece would be no school there, except Hope University for only 100 students. Commissioner Herbst stated he would not want to deny this request, but felt it should be granted in pact, denying the elementary school, pre-school and housing units and noted approval of this request as proposed, would make the existing schools legal. He stated he would want to see the elementary school phased out at thF end of this school year in 1586. He added because of the letter written by the Planning Director, the pre-school should be allowed as long as it is limited to 70 students. He suggested the permit should be to permit Hope University for a maximum of 100 students when the elementary school is phased out at the end of the school yeat and the construction of the 2-story building units would not be commenced until all the students and the church have relocated; and that the trailers are in violation and shouid be removed at the end of this term, July 1986; and all the Traffic Engineet'~ requirements should be met regarding the parking and citc~±7ation. Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, stated the ~ommission has 40 days in which to act after the public l~earing is closed and he would suggest :.hat because of the complexity of this issue the Commission disect staff to prepace a resolution for their consideration at the next meeting 1/6/86 86-13 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 6 1986 containing the Commission's intentions to make sure t~.ie intergretations have been pzoperly made. Commissioner McBU~ney asked about the cequired number of parking spaces, ~aith Kendra Morcies expiaining the number ~equired is a cumululati notal based on the square footage of the chutch and the student pop total. She explained the number of parking spaces required may havp to be amended with the proposed changes, but she would have to do some calculations. Chairwoman La Claire ex~lained it would be the Commission's intent to permit flope University for a maximum of 100 students, to deny the elementary school wich the existing school to be eliminated by the end of this school tezm in July of 86 and denying the pre-school and permitting the construction of the 2-story, 8-unit housing facility in conjuncti.on wi~th Hope University to be constructed after all students have been removed fcom the pcoperty, except the students elrolled in Hope University. Cotnmissione~ Hetbst stated there has been some indication that the chu~ch and Hope University intend to use the pLOperty as a dual use and explained the pre-school would be permitt~d for a maximum of 70 students in conjunetion with the church and the church would be enticely phased out within 3 years. Malcolm Slau9htec asked if the number of stu~ents being referred to is the number en:olled or the number in attendance on a particular day. It was noted the number referced to is the number of students enrolled. Concerning the trailers, Chaicwoman La Claire stated the krailers wou.ld be cemoved as of July 1966, and that the entrance on Edda Lane would be closed as of July 1986. Concecning ~.~ving the playground atea to the corner of Buena Vista and Euclid Stteet and that it should be fenced, Mr. Sandets exQla:ned the pte-school uses thE gymnasium andound to the cornerrbecausehthattisttheuld be apprepriate to move the playg neac~s'c legitimate playground area to the ~ym and church facilities. He explained the playg[ound was moved from that a[ea originally and placed on the parking lot. Commissionec Herbst stated this is a conditional use pecmit and if the condi*_ions are nut complied with, it can be considered for revocation ar.d wanted che church t~ know that after reading all theandcbrdsiantinls~ho$ feels that the Plementary school is there i.ilegally Y 9 9 conditior,al use perw?t. they are still khere illegally and must move out no latec than July, 1~86. ACTIOtd: Commissioner Herbst offered a motian, seconded by Commissionez Bouas ar.d MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Luwicki absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does here6y direct Planning Department staart,~to prepare a resolution gcanting Conditional Use Permit No. 2735, in p permit Hone ~niversity for a maximum of 100 mentally retarded adults with the elimination of the elementary school by the end of the present schoel 1/6/86 86-14 MINUTES AhAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 6 1986 term, July 1986, that the pre-school shall be pe~mitted for a maximum of 70 enrolled st~dents in conjunction with the church and thJanuar•c1989h and pce-school shall be eliminated by the end of 3 yea:s, i that the construction of the 2-story, 8-unit housing facility shall be permitted in conjunction with Hope University (constructi~~n not to commence unti? all school and church activities have been eliminated) with waivers of required setback of playgcound area, maximum fence height adjacent to Euclid Street and maximu~ scructucal height adjacent to single-family zoning, being granted on the basis that there are soe~aah circ~mstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, top g P Y. location and surroundings which do not apply to other identically zored ptoperty in the same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code depcives the property of pcivileges enjoyed by other p~operties in the identical zone and classificatio~ in the vicinity; and further that the waiver of minimum numbec of parking spaces be granted on the basis that the parking waiver will not cause an increase ir. traffi~land9uses~and in the immedial2 vicinity nor adversely affect any adjoining Will granting of the parking waivec under the safettland general,welfare,of the not be detrimental to the peace, healtY~, Y citizens of the City of Anaheim, and subject to the petitione~~sert to stipulation to record a covenant restric~ing tha nse of the prop Y Hope University for 100 gifted mentally retarded adults and fucther eliminating access to the site at Edda Lane, effective July 1986, and cemoval of the trailers by the end of the school term, July 1986. Mr. O'Neil stated the neighbors would like for the playground to stay whece it is located now because moving it back to the corner would piace it against the rteighbor~' p~operty again. Chairwoman La Claice stated this playground wauld not be phased out until the church is moved. John Poole, Code Enforcement Superviso~, stated the majority of the complaints wete ceceived when the playground was located at the corner of Buena Vista and tiuclid and moving it back to that area would have an impact on the neighborhood because it is a very small lot. Commissioner H~rbst stated he wouldwhatetheirtplansuare forSthelnext three cevised plan July 1986, indicating years. Regarding the playgzaund and circulation, John Poole explained ci[culation is rEStcicted now by the placement of cne of the trailerso Commissionec La Claire clacified the removal of both trailers should be accomplished by July 1986. Mr. Sanders stated if they ate required to close the access on Edda Lane, traffic has to use the two accesses on Euclid, and there would be a flow of traffic through the parking lot which is currently being used coLOSed playground which he felt would be a hazard and that is whY they p P tu move the playground. He cesponded to Commissioner Fry that the ciscular drive is part of this same packing area and the problem would be wk~en parents want to pack their •~ehicles and go inside to drop off ot pick up theit childten. 1/6/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING_CUMMISSION, JANUARY 6, 1°86 86-15 Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, stated the current situation may not show c~early on the plans, and that there is a circular drive off ~uclid for entering and exiting in the same direction and the playground, at leost several weeks ago, was fenced from the driveWay and if parents drop off students there is no probl:m, but if the parents parked to go inside, there would be a problem. Commissioner Messe stated pre-school parents usually do not just drop their children off. Annika Santalahti stated if Y.he parents were yoing to the building at the rear of the property which is at the Edda Lane entrance, there is a problem, which might be another reascn for the removal of one of the tzailers. Commissionec Herbst stated a condition should be included that all traffic circulation should be approved by thc Cil•y Traffic Engineer. Mr. Sanders stated they have a definite problem re5arding circulation and the piesence of the playground at tne current location and need the flexibility to move the playground to maximize circulation on the property, and if Edda Lane remains open as ]ong as the ore-school is operating, chece will be no problem, but by not using that access with cars accessin9 the site from Euclid, the cars would be causing a definite impact with childzen playing on the playground. Commissioner Fry stated the closing of Edda Lane and the ci~culation both shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer. Mr. Sanders requested that this decision be postponed to the next meeting or as sooa as possible so an appeal can Ge made quickly to facilitate tt~e closing of escrow. Mr. O'Neil asked if it is Commission's intention that after 3 years the only use on that site will be ~ope University and Chairwoman La Claire responded that it is Commission's intent and will be part of the resolution. Commissioner Herbst pointed out anyone still has the right to request a change. Chairwoman La Claire stated it is Conmission's intent that Hope University will be there with no moce than 100 studen~s. Mr. O'Ueil asked if the Commission would make a~otion stating speciEically that this conditional use permit is for Hope University exclusively and noted they plan to develop this site as a model for their universit~r. Malcolm Slaughter stated as a normal practice, a conditional use permit stays with the property unless it is tied co specific uwnership or time limitations and would continue normally until revoked; however, the Commission could require the cpplicant to record a covenant that the pecmit would terminate upon their vacating the property. Mr. O'Neil stated Mr. Lupo of Hope University has indicated they would be willing to record such a covenant. Chairwoman La Claire stated that would be included in the resolution. 1/6/86 86-16 MINUTES ANABEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 6 1986 Chairwoman La Claire stated the Commission will vote on this resolution at the beginning of the meeting of January 20, 1986, and the public hearing has been closed and thete will be no public testimony at that time. Commissioner Herbst noted copies of that resolution will be available prioc to that meeting for review. RECESSED: 3:25 p.m. RECONVENED: 3:40 p.m. ITEM NO. 4 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE NO. 3523 OWNERS: ORVILLE b. WO~DS, ET AL, 621 N. Pine Way, Anaheim, CA 92805. AGEN:: RONALD J. CROWLEY, 1700 Raintcee Rd., Fullerton, CA 92635. Property descrObBZ acren 1224gu1228yanda1236PEast1LafPalma Avenueting of approximately Waivers of (a) required type of Yacking spaces, ib) maximum structural height, (c) minimum structuzal setback and (d) maximum wall height to construc*_ a 20-unit apartment complex. Continued from the meeting of November 25, 1985. There was no one indicating thei~ presence in opposition to subject cequest a~d although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a patt of the minutes. Ron Crowley, agent, explained they have cevised the plans after working with the City Traffic Engi~eer, to rectify some of the problems and the new p.lans provide 50 parking spaces on site (33 covered an~ 17 open with 2 compact car spaces) and also p~ovide an 8 to 49-foot wide landscaped buffer adjacent to La Palma Avenue; however, they are still encroaching into the setback with tho corners of 2 parking spaces and explained one of those spaces is for the handicapped for easy access to the buildis9aces. explained the handicapped unit will be adjacent to those parking P THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ACTZON: Commissionet Fty offered a notion, seconded by Commissioner McButney and MOTION CARRIED (COmmissioner Lawir,ki absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to construct a 20-unit apa~tment complex in the RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zone with waiver of cequiced type of parking spaces, maximum structural height, minimum structural setback and maximum wall height on an ir~e9ularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.82 acres, having a ftontage of app~oximately 226 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue and further described as 1224, 1228 and 1236 East La Palma Avenue; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaiation upon findin9 that it has considered the Negative Declaration togethec with any comments received during the public review 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 on the envitonment. 1/6/86 f 86-17 MINUTnS ?~NAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMZSSION JANUARY 6 1986 . Commissioner Fry offered Resolution No. PC86-1 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Variance No. 3523, waivers (b), (c) and (d) on the basi_~ that there are special circumstances applicable to the propecty such as size, shape, topogtaphy, location and surroundings which do not apply to other identically zone;: property in the same viciniiy~:eL~a ofaprivileges enjoyed application of the Zoning Code deprives the p P Y by other properties in the identical zone and class:fication in the vicinitst and granting waiver (a) on the basis that the parking waiver will not cause an increase in traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity nor adversely affect any adjoining land uses and gtanting of the parking waivec undec the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim and subject to Interdepartmental Comnittee recommendations. On roll call, the faregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, MC BURPIEY, MESSE NOES: [~ONE ABSENT: LAWICKI Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attotney, pcesented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM NO. 5 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION RECLASSIFICATION NO. 65-86-14 AND VARIANCE NO. 3518 OwNERS: DOROTHY LEE MACDONALD, 925 S. Webstec Ave., Anaheim, CA 92804 and THOMAS CHRRI.ES CONWAY, 917 S. Webster Ave., Anaheim, CA 92804. AGENT: BLASH MOMENY, 25283 Cabot Road, Suite 205, Laguna Hills, CA 92653. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.87 acre, 917 and 925 South Webster Avenue. kS-A-43,000 to RM-1200 or a less intense zone. Waivers of maximum fence height and maximum structural height to construct a 25-unit apartment building. Continued from the meetings of November 25, and Decembec 9, 1985. ACTION: Commissionet Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissionet M~sse and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Lawicki absent) that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of January 20, 1986, at staff's request. ITk~M N0. 6 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 206 R~CLASSIFICATION NO 85 86 16 AND VARIANCE N0. 3524 AND REQUEST CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF 6a, 6b, 6c, and 6d PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: AHMED JAHANPANAH, ET AL, 520 N. Rexford Drive, Beverly Hils, CA 90210. AG~NT: MAGDY HANNA, 4000 MacACthur Boulevacd, ~680, Newport Beach, CA 92660. Ptopecty described as a 1/6/86 MINUiES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 6 1586 86-18 rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.35 acres, 1585 West Katella Avenue. RS-10,000 to RM-1200. Waivers of maximum structural height and minimum recreational-leisure aceas to consLCUCt a 48-unit apa~tment complex. There were five persons indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not cead, it is referred to and made a part oi the minutes. Magdy Hanna, agent, explained the reason for the request is to change the general plan desi~nation from commercial, professional to medium density re5identi3l because ~.nere is no need for office, pcofessional units in this area. He stated they zealize there are single-family homes in the reac and thi~ project is designed to pcesecve the privacy and enjoyment of their homes. He added there ace no openings in this project ca the north overlooking those homes. He explained there is a nursery school on the west which is actually designated for single-family residential uses and thece is a possibility that that property will also be rezoned from~. multipie-f.stnily uses in the futuce. He stated he talked to the propecty owners on Katella and some of them did express interest in seeing this prop ty developed because right now it is an eyesore. He stated the nearesk point to single-family homes is 62 feet and the City Council has approved projects at 49 feet. Joe Bryan, 1582 W. Sumac, explained his property is just north of subject property and that he has lived there for 17 yedrs and would like to see the propecty developed because it is a problere cight now. He stated every development proposed would have had an adverse affect on the properky owners to the rea:; and that he realizes this area has been designated for commercial uses and there are some older businesses which aze no lo~ger operating and stated he thought a business complex would be a boost to the area. He stated he tealizes it is not too far from the commercial acea of Disneyland with th~ hotels, etc. and from his backyard he could hear the traffic from that area and he sees a potential tcaffic problem with 48 additional u~its in this project and also having that many people living cight in the middle of a block could be a problem. He stated the petitionec had indicated they ieel this project would compliment the area, but he did not think it would because there are no other apartment complexes in that area and it w~uld set a precedent. Mt. Bryan referced to the setback between his property and the project and indicated the staff report indicates the setback would vary 48 feet to 62 Eeet and was concerned that the 48 feet would be adjacent to his ptoperty. He stated it is inte~ded to make Katella a 6-lane artecial stceet and constcuczing this pcoject with the additional traffic pcoblems would just add to the congestion. He added he was also concecned about the propecty values with a 2-story building behind his property. He stated two othec neighbors asked him to speak on their behalf because they could not get off work to attend this meeting and that those are owners of the ptopecties immediate?y behind the pcoposed project. 1/6/86 86-19 MINUTES ANAH6IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSZON JANUARY 6, 1986 Dorothy Purdue, 1782 S. Cacnelian Stceet, Anaheim, stated her pcoperty backs up to the pre-school and she was concerned about apartments bev~cse of the congestion on the street and also taki.ng away some andhthe Y• She stated thece are trees there now between her propercy pre-school which would be removed. She ptesoseddto thiseprojecther next door neighboc, Barbara Peck, who is also opp Rick Landrum, 1596 W. Sumac Lane, stated his property bocders the northern edge of the nursery school and he is concern~d that the propecty where the nursery school is located will be rezoned for similar apattr,ients and although this developet has taken great effort to design the units not to overlook his p*operty, he was concerned that future developers of other properties miqht not be as considerate. He added he could close his drapes in his residence, but was concerned about the security of his back yard because thece have been a loe activobYemight~inccease withlthishrough his propetty and he felt that typ apactment project as propo~ed. Clarence Hutchinson, 1813 Bayless, explained his properteL~s developeduth side of this project and they would like tu see the pcoP Y He added that is a highly traveled street and there a~e a lot of accidents at the intersection of Ninth and Katella and adding 48 apactments would inc~ease that hazard. He added parkin9ackinvlistnot allowed on Katellauld also create a parking problem because p 9 and they would tre patking on Ba}less. He added they do not object to peop2e using the public stteet for parking, but the visitors to their homes will not have a place to park. F:e stated with childcen in the project, it could be a real hazard beWOUld 4eedetrimentalytoothe areahe street and feel a complex this large Sill Droess.lec stated he has an office right across the street and is cectainly for growth i.n Anahei~a, but this acea is developed with businesses and he felt it should remain that way. He stated he felt this pcoperty should be developed with offices. Mr. Hanna stated the owner has tcied to sell this propecty e°use incthis but could not sell it because there is no need for that typ area. He stated he thought this is a good viable alternative and that he is also concerned about traffic on Katella, but did narkinel heestatedt fcom this project would be significant. Concerning p 9~ this ptoject will be providing 2.5 spaces per unit and it would be subtercanean parking with security provided and no one would park on the side streets and walk to the units. He stated he feels with the development of this project a lot of the other problems in the area, which are going on behind the nursery school, will be eliminated. THE PUSLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Fty stated some good questions have been raised by the opposition and ceferred to the petitioner's Statement os Jeallyleconomicst approval of variances in which he states the hardship and pointed out the Commission cannot consider economics in their decisiort. He stated he cannot find justification for approval of this 1/6/86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 6 1986 86-20 project and felt putting 48 units there would be an impact on the area because of additional traffic. Commissioner rlcBUrney stated he feels changing the General Plan would be in conflict with what is existing and he could not~spot zone something in this area. Chairwoman La Claite stated she understands that commercial office uses ace not really in demand at this time, but apartments are, and she has been on the Commission for a numbec of years and has seen things change a lot and a few years ago, apartments were not being buil.t because there was no demand and off9.ces were in demand and things are constantly changing and sometimes apactments can be good buffers to residential areas, but did nol• think this is the right place for rezoning. Commissioner Herbst stated the nursery school is zoned RS-10,000, even though it is developed with a nursery school, and subject property is RS-10,00t:, and he would like to see a review of the area because he thouyht a cul-de-sac could be constructed and pechaps both prooerties developed as RS-5,000 with single-family homes constructed. He stated combining these two properL•ies would make a good size paccel of property and would be more compatible with the neignborhood than the project as proposed. Commissionec Fry stated he would rather see a commercial development than single-family homes with traffic coming out onto Katella. Chairwoman La Claire stated the Stadium Acea is being developed and Katella will be one of the nicest stceets and, hopefully, it will be mostly professional and commercial and that maybe the rezoning of this property for commercial, professional would be the best move the City could make at this time and then it would be the same as the commetcial, professional uses in the area. She added she is concerned about putting houses thece because of the busy st.reet and the traffic will be increased on Katella without this development. She added she thought the best General Plan designation for this area would be commercial, pcofessionai instead of `spot zoning for apartments. Commissioners Fry and Messe agceed. Commissioner Fry offeted a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBUrney and MOTION CARRIED (Commissionec Lawicki absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the pcoposal to change the General Plan designation from commercial, professioral to medium density residential on a rectangulacly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.3 acres and approximately 190 feet of frontage on the north side of Katella and approximately 315 feet east of the centecline of Carnelian Street and ceclassifying subject property from RS-10,000 (Residential, Single-Family) zone to the RM-2200 (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zone to construct a 48-unit apartment complex with waiver of maximum structural height and further described as 1585 West Katella; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the pcoject will have a siynificant effect on the environment. 1~6/86 a6-ai MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 6 1986 Prioc to voting on the General Plan Amendment, Greg Hastings explained if the Commission does not wish to approve Exhibits A o[ B, the General Plan Amendment should be denied. Commissioner Fry offeted Resolution No. PC86-2 and moved fot its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does heteby deny General Plan Amendment No. 206 on the basis that medium dencommercial tesidential uses would not be compatible with the existing professional uses in the area and the Genecal Plan designation should remain commercial, professional. On coll call, the toregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS~ FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY~ MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: LAWICKI Commissioner Fxy offered Resolution No. PC86-3 and moved fo~ its passage and adoption that the Maheim City Planning Commission does deny Reclassification No. 85-86-16. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: LAWICKI Commissioner Fry offered &esolution No. PC86-4 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny Variance No. 3524 on the basis that there are no special ci~locationeand applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, sutroundinys which do not apply to other identically zoned prope~ty in the same vicinity; and that stzict application of the Zoning Code does not deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity; and further on the basis that the reclassification to multiple-family zoning was denied. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: LAWICKI Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, p~esented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City council. ITEM NO. 7 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2741 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: ANAHEIM HILLS DEVELOPMENT CORP., c/o GUNSZON HALL CO., 6507 E. Secrano Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92807, ATTN: GEORGE MASON. AGENT: ANDREW WILLIAM EDWARDS, PH.D., 6352 E. Nohl Ranch Road, Anaheim, CA 92807. Pcoperty described as an itregulaily-shaped paccel of land consistin9 of approximately 14.7 acres, 6352 East Nohl Ranchl/6/86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 6 1986 86-22 To permit expansion of an equesttian center. Thete wece fouc persons indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff repoct was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Andrew Edwards, agent, explained subject property has been conveyed to him and Anaheim Hills Development Corporation no longer owns the property. He explained there were several people present earlier to support this cequest, but had to leave due to the time. He stated thece is a dedicated trail Eor horse back riding in the Anaheim Hills Master Plan for Development and the trail connects with the South ozange County Trail System. He stated the riding center has very few new openings for bearding cpaces and there is a waiting list which is getting bigger and they cannot satisfy the need for boarding spaces for people living in the Anaheim Hills area and some peo^le have to wait as long as 3 or 4 months for a space. He added this is the only equest[ian center in Anaheim Hills and the property is deed restricted for equestrian uses. He stated the new facility will match the existing facilities in quality and appearance. William T. D. Taylor, 201U Royal Oak Road, stated the expansion of this facility is needed and explained he has been on the waiting list for a long time to get into the facilit}~ and there ace other members of his family who would like to get into the facility and also, there are other people in Anaheim Hills who would like to get into this facility. Ann Acquidino stated she presently has a horse at this center and they are expecting a new acrival and need a place for it. She sdded they are in the p:ocess of purchasing a home at Kings Meadow which is right above the stable and are in favor of this expansion. Jo Arnett, 1275 N. Chrisden, explained she has her horse in Carbon Canyon in Brea which is about 8 miles from this facility and would like to be able to transfer to this area and has been waiting sevecal months for space. She stated this is a beautifully maintained facility and there is a need for more spaces. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Fry asked what the expansion consists of because he felt the word"expansion'is very broad. Kendra Morries stated the south 10 acres of this entire site is currently undeveloped and the existing center is on the northern part of the propecty and the plans indicate a veterinarian hospital and clinic, additional holding stalls for the clinic and some foaling stalls, etc. Chairwoman La Claire stated she was on the task force committee when the Anaheim Hills plan was fizst developed and fought very hard to get this equestcian centet and is in ravor of the expansion. She asked about the new riding ring and whether or not :t would be regulation size so that horse shows could be held there. 1/6/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM ~T.SY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JANG.`-'"•.; __, ,,,;_t;'; 86-23 Mr. Edwards responded that they will need a new riding ring for the new spaces and explained they have had the first year of their own shows and they were very successful and a lot of outsidets have started coming in fur the shows. He explained regarding the hospital that there was some interest from two veterinarians in Yorba Linda in moving their 50 foot by 70 foot pre-fabricated building to this site which houses their surgery and pharmacy. Commissioner Messe clatified that this veterinarian hospital would just be for horses. Commissioner McBurney asked if the riding ring would be retained in front on Anaheim xills Road and it was responded that it is to remain and is quite good for their business. Responding to Chairwoman La Claire regarding screening of the metal buildings from the above and sucro~nding homes, Dr. Edwards state:9 ~here is a large clump of Oak trees which will screen the building and %..9ed he did not think anyone would be able to see it. ACTION: Commissiorec Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION C~RIED (COmmissionec Lawicki absent) that t;e Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit expansion of an equestrian centec located on an i~regularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 14.7 ac~es, having a fcontage of approximately 469 feet on the southwest side of Nohl Ranch Road and further desccibed as 6352 E. Nohl Ranch Road; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding tt,at it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received duriny- the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no su6stantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC86-5 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Flanning Commission does he~eby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2741 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Co3e Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 and subject to interdepartmental Committee recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing tesolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY~ MESSE NOES: NONE ABSBNT: LAWICKI Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City council. ITEM NO. 8 EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTZON-CLASS 3 AND CONDZTIONAI, USE PERMIT NO. 2744 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: TEMPLE BETH EMET, 1770 W. Cerritos Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805, SHIRLEY GLOWALLA. AGENT: JIM LEVY, 1596 W. Ccone Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92802. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped 1/6/86 66-24 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 6 1986 parcel of land consisting of approximately 4.8 acres, 1770 west Cerritos Avenue (Temple Beth Emet). To retain a residential trailer. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject cequest and although the staff ceport was not read, it is cef2rred to and made a part of the minutes. Shirley Glowalla, administcator, stated they have had this residential trailer on the premises for the past 3-1/2 yeacs and have had no security problems and the neighbors are pleased with it. THE PUBLZC HEARING WAS CLOSED. It was noted the Planning Directoc oc his authorized representative has detecmined that the proposed project falls within the definition of Ca~tegorical Exemptions, Class 3, as defined catehoticall Eexemptmfromlthe Impact Report Guideli~es and is, thexefore, 9 Y requirement to prepare an EIR. ACTION: Commissioner Fry offeced Resolution No. PC$6-6 and moved for its ?assa9e and adoptio^ that the Anaheim City Plannin9 Commission does hereby gcant Conditional Use Permit No. 2744 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code 5ections 18.03.030.030 thcough 18.U3.030.035 for a peciod of three years and subject to Interdepa~tmental Committee recommendations. On co?.1 call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FR't, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOF..S: NOhE AHSEI~T: ~.AWICKI Malcolm Slaugt,tec, Deputy City Attorney, p[esented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the Ci*_y Council. ITEM NO. 9 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2745 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: PABLO V. AND LAURA KNOWLTON DOMINQUEZ, 13572 Laurina Way, 5anta Ana, CA 92705, AiTN: RONALD DOMZNQUEZ, CO-EXECUTOR. AGENT: SHELL OIL CUMPANY, 511 N. Bcookhu~st Street, Anaheim, CA 92802, ATTN: RICHARD MEYERS. P[operty described as a cectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.52 acre, located at the suutheast corner of Ball Road and State College Boulevard, 1200 S. State College Boulevard (Shell Service Station). To permit a self-service car wash in conjunction with an existing service station. Thece were two persons indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff teport was not ~ead, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. 1/6/86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 6 1986 86-25 Gary Demele, architect with Clyde Carpenter 5 Associates, 2750 S. Harbor, Santa Ana, referced to Condition No. 2 requiring the removal of the westecly most dciveway on Ball Road or a median island to be constructed on Ball Road anu explained they would elect to construct the median island. Elizabeth Meyec, Pacific Coast Management Company, explained they manage an approximate 6,000-square foot office building on this same corner and are opposed to this request on the basis they feel a car wash would not be in the best interest of their tenants. She stated they feel people who use the car wash could pull into their parking lot and noted during the lunch hour there is a lot of congestion on that lot with the E1 Torrito a~id Benihana Restaurants and the customers would continue washing their cacs and waxing them and during the evening hours, since the car wash would be ogen 24 hours a day, they could come into their office building which is open until 11:00 p.m. for a computer school to us°: their facilities. She added they could also cause a security hazard to the tenants since there is a lot of very expensive equipment in that building which could be vandalized. Rick Crushion, 10592 Katella, P.naheim, explained he is a partner representing Sand Dollar Plaza and they are opposed to this request. He stated the tenants would all like to see this denied because of khe possibility of vandalism, etc. Mr. Demele stated in this opecation a customer would purchase gasoline and be 9iven a code number to get into the car wash and then drive through the car wash without getting out of the vehicle and then drive off because ttiece is no attendant on duty and thete are no dryers or blowers. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr. Demele pointed out the driveways to the car wash and service station on the exhibit displayed and [esponded to Commissioner Bouas that there are 4 parking spaces with vacuuming facilities in conjunction with the car wash. Commissioner Fry stated he thought the traffic situation would be intolerable because of the liquor store driveway and pointed out otiginally there was no driveway, but subsequently, an access has been constructed to that liquoc store parkin9 lot which is almost an impossible situation. He stated he thought adding one more use at that corner would be a traffic hazard because people would come out of the car wash and not want to turn right and will pull across several lanes of traffic. He added the site is just too small to accommodate this use. Commissioner Messe stated these ace two very busy streets and it will be extremely hazardous. Mr. Demele stated the driveway was reviewed by Paul Singer, City Traffic Engineer, and that was one of his recommendations. He stated the planter space has been added to buffer the next door neighbors. 1/6/86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 6 1986 86-26 Commissioner McBurney stated the Commission cannot dictate the driving habits of the public and he did not think this would be a severe impact because the number of cars will not be significantly increased. Commissioner ~erbst asked if this is similar to the facility on Lincoln and State College. ~Ir. Demele stated they are looking at this as an improvement to service their existing gasoline purchasers and not to add additional customers for just the cac wash. Commissioner Fry stated anyone can use the facility at Lincoln and State College. Mr. Demele stated this facility is 16 feet by 36 feet and will wash one vehicle at a time. Chairwoman La Claire stated she has used this type of car wash and Qeople do wash their car and then dcive away and she did not think it would be a problem with appcoval of this :equest. Mansour Roshan, owner of the Sand Dollar Financial Plaza, explained they have a computer training center in their complex with more than 300 students and explained he has been in this location for 25 years; that area at Ball and State College is vecy congested; and that the service station is open 24 hours a day and they do have vandalism and traffic problems. He stated this site is not 150 feet by 150 feet and it is really meant L•o be a service station only and none of his tenants approve of this. He stated there will be two driveways next to each other. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. F1r. Roshan clacified his property is 5 acres adjacent to the shoppir~g center at 124U State College exactly south of Benihana's. Chairwoman La Claire stated she did not understand the opposition's complaints; that she thought one of the reasons for the traffic problems was because of the computer center and not the restaurants. She stated she cannot understand why they are complaining about this request. Mr. Roshan stated in the evenings there is alsn congestion and the problem is there are too many peoole coming in and o~t of that southeast corner of Ball and State Colle9e and they have a continual problem with vandalism and people getting into theic building and bathrooms at night and they do not want any more uses on that corner. He stated a self-secvice car wash historically does bring in an undesirable type of people. Commissionec Herbst stated if a person buys gasoline and wants a car wash, he would drive through and go ~n out, and he did not see a problem with parking and traffic on the property. He stated the customer will not stay on the ptoperty. Mr. Roshan stated there will be two driveways next to each other and if this is allowed, the liquor store driveway should be closed. Paul Singer stated there is a problem with that drivew:ay to the liquoc store, but he did not think th~.s will be a serious problem because thece is a median and both driveways are going right in and right out and felt by creating a median on Ball Road the capacity at this intersection will be incceased with the elimination of left turns from any portion of that setvice station site. He stated the tcaffic volume caused by the car wash is negligible. 1/6/86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 6 1986 8~'27 Commissioner Fry stated he knows there is an island thece, but he would disagree with Paul Singer because he comes by that szte every day and sees people coming out the driveway from the liguor stoce, going across traffic so they do not have to make a right turn on Ball Road. He stated he thought the same problem will be created by this driveway. Commissioner Messe stated he did not understand the concern about vandalism because anyone leav:no the car wash would have to make a right turn on State College, a right turn onto Ball Road and go past the cestaurant and right turn again into the parking lot and drive up to the building to go in and he did not think that would increase vandalism. Mr. Roshan pointed out every morning there are lots of beer bottles, etc. on their parking lot. Chairwoman La Claire stated she thouyht this is a use that should be in a gas station. She stated the Commission is aware of the traffic problems in that area, but did not think this would add to those problems. Mc. Roshan stated there are no walls to the s2rvice station and the driveway will be close to the li?~;~~= store driveway and he felt one must be closed. Chaizwoman La Claire stated the plans show a wall. Mr. Demele stated there is a wall and a portion is just an open planter, and pointed out the stocage ~oom and fire wall would afford pcotection to the neighbors. Mr. Roshan stated thece are no walls on the east and south side of the service station and it was pointed out walls would be constructed. ACTION: Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and t40TION CARRZED (Commissioner Lawicki absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Corn,nission h.is reviewed the p~oposal to permit a self-service cac wash in conjunction with an existing service station on a rectangularly-shaped pa:cel of and consisting of approximately 0.52 acres located at the southea~st corner of Ball Road and State College Boulevard and further describe~] as 1200 South State College Boulevard; and does hereby appcove the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has consideced the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and furthec finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the enviconment. Commissioner~Pry~o,ffered Resulution No. PC86-7 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2745 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 and subject to Inl•erdepactmenkal Committee recommendations. On roll call, the fo[egoing resolution was passed by the follor+ing vote: AYES: BOUASr HERBST, LAWICKI~ MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: FRY ABSENT: LAWICKI 1/6/86 86-28 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 6 1986 Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. RECESS~D: 4:53 p.m. R~CONVENED: 5:00 p.m. ITEM NO. 10 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND COi~DITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2747 PUBLIC HEARING. Ob~NERS: McDONALn'S CORP., 8840 C<~mplex Dr., San Diego, CA 92123, A?TN: SKIP STERLING. AGENT: DONALD DUNKLEMAN, 940 E. Chapman 4venue, Orange, CA 92660. Property is described as a rectangularly-shaped paccel of land consisting of approximately 0.51 acre, 3210 W. Lincoln Avenue (MCDOnald's Restaurant). To expand an existing drive-thcough cestaurant with waiver minimum number of pa[king spaces. There wece two persons indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff zeport was not read, it is referred to and made a past ot the minutes. Don Dunkleman, agent, explained a parking waiver was approved when they a~ded the drive-through thcee years ago; and that this expansion will not inccease the traffic and is simply for their own convenience, except for impcovements to the men and women's cestrooms. Ken Bewley, 6217 Hill Avenue, Whittier, stated he owns the property where the car wash and restaurant ace located directly south of subject property and that he pu~chased the property and built the coin-operated car wash in 1974 and ducing construction of the car wasn noticed employees of McDOnald's were parking on his propecty and he offered to rent spaces to Mr. Dunkleman, but he was not interested. He stated the map shows MeDOnald's has ingress and egress ovzc his pcoperty, but that is not dicectly adjacent to subject property, but there is a 20-foot stcip that is his propecty where the vacuums are located 3nd whece custoTers park to dry their cars. He stated over the years he has had a constant battle with Mr. ~unkleman in trying to keep his customers and employees from parking on his propezty. He stated numerous times he has requested they help maimtain the driveway, which they use, and Mt. Dunk.leman has cefused. He stated when the people at McDonald's clean out the dumpster where they alsc stoce cooking fat, occasionally they wzsh the cooking fat across hi~ property onto the apartment complex property to the west and he t.as had to have the Health Department out to investigate and they have indicat~d they cannot do anything until they catch someone actually doing it. He statea his operators of the car wasl~ are still having numerous prc•blems with parking and he felt decreasing the parking cequirement will cause mo~re problems. He submitted copies of two letters, one he wrote to McDonaldl's Gorporation and one he received in answer which sayc they have legal draiaage cights, but cooking iats do create a hazard. 1/6/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLhNNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 6, 1986 86-29 Mr. Dunkleman stated he and Mr. Bewley have not seen eye-to-eye for many years and have had mazy problems; that Mr. Bewley has done things in violation on his property and his employecs and customers park on McDOnald's property and use the toilet facilities because they have none at the car wash and they are constantl~ asking for change because the change machine at the car wash is not working. He stated they do have an easement and he frankly cannot understand the problem. He stated they will not be losing any more parking and if his people are parking on the neighbor's property, it is not with his blessings and if they are towed away, it is at their own expense. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Responding to Chairwoman La Claire, Mr. Dunkleman stated the cooking oil is hauled away once a week and occasionally when the barrels are filled, before it is hauled away, some of it does spill and they mop it up rather than hosing it. He explained they have to discard the fat once or twice a week and it is hauled away and when the barrels are filled and perhaps when it is being hauled away some of it is spilled. He explained there is an opening in the barrel where they pour the oil. Concecning the dumpsters, he explained they usually call the City and tell them when the dumpsters are getting dirty and if *_hey do not bring one out right away, occasionally they do have to clean them and the water will flow to the adjacent property, but he did not think it is a problem. Commissioner Fry stated there is a 31-foot easement going wESt into che McDOnald's property and added he did not see any need for it. Mr. Dunkleman stated the easement is the entry to the property and noted there is a median strip on Lincoln and people traveling west on Lincoln can make a left turn at Western and enter through the rear, otherwise, would have to go past the site and come back one block. Chairwoman La Claire stated the Commission will not get into the property owner's problems with the easement situation, but would like the petitioner. to stipulate to making an effort to keep the oil from spilling and she hoped they would be able to work out the difficulties. She stated this expansion will not increase the packing and is a very minor change. AcTION: Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTIOt: CARRIED (COmmissioner Lawicki absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to expand the existing drive-through restaurant with waiver of minimum numbec of parking spaces on a rectangul3rly-shaped parcel of land consisting of appr.oximately 0.51 acre, having a frontage of approximately 165 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and further described as 3210 West Lincoln Avenue (McDonald's); and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on t:~e basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the enviconment, 1/6/86 86-30 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMNISSION JANUARY 6 1986 Commissioner Fty offeced a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Lawicki absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant waiver of Code [equirement on the basis tnat the parking waivec will not cause an increase in tcaffic congest:on in the immediate vicinity nor adveraely affect any adjoining land uses and granting of the patking waeace,uhealthhesafetytandsgenerald~ if any, will not be detrimental to the p welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Commissionec Fry offered Resolution No. PC86-8 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission doesaieCode 9rant Conditional Use Pecmit No. 2747 pucsuant to Anaheim Ftunicip Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 and subject to Interdepartmental Committee tecommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY, ME5SE NOES: NONE ABSENT: LAWICKI plalcolm Slaughtec, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 day~ to the City Council. IlEM N0. 11 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2748 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: STEINY & CO~iPANY, INC., 2230 E. Orangethorpe, Fullerton, CA 92631. AGENT: BAY DEVELOPMENT CORP., 19600 Fairchild, Suite 200, Icvine, CA 92715. Property is described as a 4,6 acces rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately located north of the northeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Lakeview Avenue. To pecmit constr~ction of an industrially-celated office complex in the ML(SC) (Industrial, Limited, Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone. There was no one indica*.ing their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is cei-esred to and made a part of the minutes. IIrian Poliquin, Sttock Architect~ uestionsine Avenue, Suite 312, Newport Seach, was present to answec any 9 THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Responding to Chairwoman La Claire, Paul Singer, T[affic Engineer, stated the ratio of pa~king requi~ements for an of:ice is coasiderably highet than for purely industrial building. Chairwoman La Clair~ stated she is really concerned about this area because the traffic on Lakeview and La Palma is really heaey many times during the day and evenings and traffic backs up all the way to 1/6/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 6~_1986 86-31 Orangethorpe. She stated she would vote against this project and felt this property should be developed for industrial uses. Commissioner Herbst agreed and stat~3 the attitude of the property owners in the whole canyon area seems to be for commercial uses and this project is for G2,489 square feet of office uses and only 1i,600 square feet of industrial uses and this is prime industrial property. He stated some industrial uses have been allowed, but this far exceeds what is needed to service the industrial community. Commissioner Messe stated t~e City has just lost some of its prime industrial land around the stadiu~ and he thought it should stop. Paul Singec stated this entire area is in Pcoject Alpha and the Redevelopment Agency is in the pcocess of hiring a consulti~g firm to do a total impact study, and they have hired a land use planning firm to determine the long-range uses to be proposed in that area which extends from about Red Gum or Blue Gum to Imperial Highway. He stated he is concerned about the a~ea because the office uses cause traffic impacts at very key locations with only 4 ramps serving the whole area,( Kraemer, Tustin, Lakeview and Imperial Highway) and to further compound that, larger developers constantly resist any TSM measures. He stated recently Rockwell, with a large employment force, issued a new directive that all employees as of Janua~y lst will work from B:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. with no deviation permitted. He added the office uses allowed into this area mean that 8 to 5 peak traffic will be impacted in the area and a study has to be cond~cted and the Redevelopment Agency recogniaes that and is engaging a traffic engineering firm to do such a study. Kendra t4orries stated staff cecommends that Condition No. 14 be deleted. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fry and MOTZON CARRIED (COmmissioner Lawicki absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit construckion of an industrially related office complex in the ML(SC) (Industria~, Limited, Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone on a rectan9ularly-shaped paccel of land consisting of approximately 4.6 acres, located north of the northeast corner oi La Palma Avenue Lakeview Avenue; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declatation together with any coinments received during the puhlic review process and further finding on the basis of the initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidenca that khe project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Herbst offeced Reaolution No. PCS6-9 and moved for its passaye and adoption that the Anaheirn Citl Planning Commission does hereby deny Conditional Use Permit No. 2748 on the basis that the use is not industrially oriented and compatible with the su:rounding industcial area and office uses create significantly more traffic. 1/6/86 86-32 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLT+NNING COMMISSION JANUARY 6 1986 On ~oll call, the foregoing resolution was aassed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY~ HERBST, LA CLAIRE, MC BUkNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: LAWICKI Malcolm Slaughter, DepuLy City Attorney, presented the writken right to appeal the Plannin9 Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N~• 12 EIR NEGATZVE DECLARATZON, WAIVER OF CODE R_EQUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2749 P~]sLIC HEARING. OWNERS: THE PRESBYTERY OF LOS ANGELES, c/o SYNOD OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA & HAWAII, 1501 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 9U017~ ATTN: A. W. GARRISON. AGENT: DARWIN MANUEL SERVICE CORP., 238 S. Orange Avenue, Suite 207, Brea, CA 92621. Property is described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 3.49 acres located at the southeast cornec of Orange Avenue and Magnolia Avenue, 2580 W. Orange Avenue (St. Pzul's Presbyterian Church). To permit a 51-unit senior citizen's apattment complex with waivers of minim~~m building site area and maximum stcuctural hei9ht. ACTION: Commissionet Bouas offeced a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBucney and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Lawicki absent) that consideration of the aforementioned matter be con~in~ed to the ~egulacly-scheduled meeting of January 20, 1986, at the petitioner's eequest in ordec to submit cevised plans. ITEM N0. 13 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT t•]O. 2751 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: JONATHAN ~. Y. YEH, ET AL, 1308 Elm Street, Alhambra, CA 918U3. Property is desc~ibed as a rectangularly-shaped paccel of land consisting of approximately 0.76 acre, 420 South Beach Boulevard (Arenal Ho~el). To construct an 18-unit addition to a 27-unit motel. There was na one indicating their presence in o~position to ~ubject request and althou~h the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Jonathan Yeh, 420 S. Beach Boulevard, Anaheim, was present to answer any questions. THE PUBLZC HEA~ING WAS CLOSED. ACTION: Commissionec McBUrney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fry and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Lawicki absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit construction of an 18-unit addition to a 2?-unit motel on a rectangularly-shaped parr.el of land consisting of approximately 0.76 acre, having a fcontage of 1/6/86 86-33 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLA~t7ING COMN.ISSION JI~NUARY 6 1986 approximately 137 feet on ttie east side o= Beach Boulevard, having a maximum depth of appcoximately 239 feet and further desccibed as 420 South Beach Boulevard (Arenal Motel); and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments teceived during the public review process and furthec finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments ceceived that the:e is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Jay Titus, Office Engineer, stated staf£ would recommend that Condition No. 2 be deleted requi[ing the reconstruction of driveways, inasmuch as Beach Boulevard is a state highway. Chairwoman La Claire asked about the satellite dish on L•he roof and felt a condition should be included that it be screened from view. Hc. Yeh stated the satellite dish will be set back and will not be seen. Commissioner McBurney offered Resolution P7o. PC86-10 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditioral Use Permit No. 2751 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 and subject to Interdapartmental Committee recommendations, deleting Condition No. 2. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, rRY~ HERBST, LP. CLAIRE, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: LAWICKI 6lalcolm Slaughtec, Deputy City Atto~ney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ZTEM 1J0. 14 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OF CODE REQU.IREMENT AND CONDITIONAL US~ PERMIT NO. 2752 PUBLIC HEARING. UWNERS: JEAN K. FOGHRTY, 6617 Canyon Hills Road, Anaheim, CA 92807. AGENT: HUGU VAZQUEZ, 619 S. Live Oak, Anaheim, CA 923U5. Property desccibed as an i.cregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.04 acres. 2860 East Lincoln Avenue. To permit an automobile ~epaic facility in the CL (COmmetcial, Limited) Zone with a waiver of minimum number o: parking spaces. lhete were five persons indicating their presEnce in opposition to subject request and although the staff cepott was not read, it is referced to and made a part of the rainutes. Robert A. Locke, agent, explained they plan to upgrade this propetty because it has been an eyesore for the community. He explained he has been in business in Anaheim for 13 years and has a business at Lincoln and Westezn. 1/6/86 86-34 ~INUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 6 1986 Betty Miller, 2857 Gerald Circle, Anaheim, 92806, stated she is very much against this pcoject; that 5 years ago there was a motorcycle business on this property and for 3 years she could not use hec backyard, swimming pool oc open her drapes and it tcok 3 years to get cid of them, and then a paint store moved in and that was a much better use, but now this will be a noisy operation; that Lincoln Avenue has a latge volume of traffic creating a lot of noise. She stated most of the work bays will be in the cear of the building. She stated she went over to their other facility and they have big steel doors in the tear and she thought they would be open in the summer. She asked the hours of operation and stated she understands they would be open 10 houcs a day. She added she noticed on the plans that the trash bins will be adjacent to her fence. She stated also there is a light there now which has been a problem and it lights up her pcoperty all night. She stated she would like to be able to enjoy her home. Dale Bradford, 2861 Gerald Circle, stated he has lived at this address for 23 years. He stated he would like to discuss the illegal landfill put in on that property 8 to 10 years ago; that when he moved to his house, he had a 6-1/2 foot high concrete block fence and complete privacy in his backyacd, but with the illegal landfill which was refuse, concrete blocks, asphalt, etc., he now has a 9-foot fence from the Lincoln side and he felt befoce anything is done on this propecty, they should be required to restore the propecty to its original gcade level because it takes away his privacy. He stated the noise and odors created by this use with the revving of engines will be unbearable. He stated there is a facility at Lincoln and Rio Vista which repaics vehicles and it is simply a'junk yard' with cars that have been there for a long time which will probably neve~ be moved and he is afraid this is what will happen on this packing area which is tight behind his home. He stated he was told thete would be an alley and landscaping, but from the plans he thought there is going to be park.ing spaces right up to the wall behind his property and there is no alley. Aileen Bradford, 2861 Gerald Circle, stated they were promised an 8-foot high fence and she heard that if there was going to be a wall it would only be 6 feet hi9h and that would not provide them any privacy. Mr. Locke stated the building adjacent to Mcs. Miller's property on the south will be a solid wall with no doors except one small door to a storage acea and that the noise Erom Lincoln Avenue will actually be buffered by the building and the noise from their operation will be inside the building. He stated the houes of operation will be 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Regarding the light fcom the sign, he explained that would also be blocked by the building itself. He stated it has always been one of their policies to keep any cats there for repairs inside the facility and they would nevet be parked outside avernight. Concerning the problem with the landfill, he stated he was not sure what they are talking about. He stated he believed the Bradford's pcoperty will be enhanced by the landscaQing prop~sed and that the residents of the community will be pleased. He stated it is their desire to get along with 1/6/86 86-3: NINUTSS ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 6 1986 their neighbors because they want them to be their customers. He stated they will constcuct a wall at whatever heiqht will be required by Code. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bouas pointed out there is a door on the plans on the south side of the building. Mr. Locke explained that goes into the storage area and will only be opened when the delivery trucks make a delivery and it does not open into any service bay. Commissioner Fry stated the word 'repair' is very broad permitting a lot of different types of uses and asked exactly what this operation will be. F1r. Locke stated basically 758 of their work is repai~s to brakes, front-end work, tune-ups, alignments, tire balancing, etc. and is in and out on the sane day, unless on a rare occasion, they would have a pzoblem getting parts. He stipulated there would be no outside overnight storage of vehicles. Responding to Chairwoman La Claire, Mr. Locke stated they do install tires and do use automatic tire changers and they have all the latest modern equipment. He explained they have 14 employees at their facility at Lincoln and Western and would er.pect to have 3 or 9 employees at this facility in the first phase of the project and after Phase 2 is completed, there would be 8 to 10 employees. Rasponding to Chairwoman La Claire, Mr. Locke stated there will be no windows on the south side of the building and only that one small door for deliveries to the stocage room and thete will be a architectutal treatment completely around the building which will benefit the homeowners to the rear. He explained they seldom do any work that will actually require revvin9 the engines. He responded to Commissioner Fry that they do not do any body work. Concecning the wall, he stated they will be constructing a wall at whatevec height is requiKed and explaine~, basically, they are expanding this building and ate extending 30 feet into the property and that the majority of the property being developed will be landscaping and parking lot. Kendca Morries explained the requirement is for a 6-foot high wall measured f[om the hi9hest grade; and that thece was a fish market proposed on this propecty a numbet of years ago and there was discussion at that time regarding the grade differential and the ~esidents to the south have a gcade differential of approximately 2 feet lower than subject property. Concerr.ing the lighting situation, Mc. Locke stated the sign in question is presently on a timer and they have it set to go off at 11:00 p.m. and he did not think it was that much bcighter than the neighbor's sign; however, he does wish to please the neighbocs. Chairwoman La Claire stated there have been complaints from two people and she felt lighting is a very serious intr~sion into someone's house. Mr. Locke stated right now there is nothing to block the light and it is in front cf the present 1/6/d6 HINUTES, ANABEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JANDARY 6, 1986 86-36 facility and when the new building 9oes in, it will block that light. He explained the only light in tha rear may be a light on the corner of the building which would be directed down to the ground. ACTION: Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Cr,,;;missionec Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (COmmissioner Lawicki absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit an aui:omobile repaic facility in the CL (Commercial, Limited) 2one on ar icregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.04 acres, having a frontage of aoproximately 691 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and futther describe~ as 2860 East Lincoln Avenue; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Ne9ative Declaration togethEr with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments rer.eived that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the enviconment. Commissioner Fry offered Resolution No. PC86-11 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2752 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.03D through 18.03.030.035, in part, denying the request for waiver of Code requirement on the basis that subsequent to advertisement the waiver was deleted by revised plans and subject to Interdepaztmental Committee recommendations. There was a brief discussiun pertaining to the alley prior to the vote and Kendra Morries explained that is a private access and not a public alley. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: LAWICKI Malcolm Slaughtec, Deputy City Attocney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decisio~ within 22 days to the City Council. RECESSED: 6:00 p.m. RECONVENED: 7:00 p.m. Commissioner McBurney left the meeting and did not return. Zi WAS NOTED THE FOLLOWING ITEP1 WAS HEARD AFTER ITEM NO. 16 ITEM NO. 15 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE NO. 3519 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: ARTHUR J. AND BARBARA C. POWELL, 613 S. Webster Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805. AGENT: HUGO VAZQUEZ, 619 S. Live Oak, Anaheim, CA 92805. Propecty described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 5,313 square feet, 613 South webster Avenue. 1/6/86 ~ .~ 86-37 I4INUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CO~IMISSZON JANUARY 6 1986 Waivecs of maximum structural height, maximum site coverage, minimum landscaped setback and minimum recreational-leisure area to construct ~ 3-story, 4-unit aiartment complex. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is ceferred to and made a part of the minutes. Jerry Drukin, 1280 E. Flower, Anaheim, was present to answe: any questions and explained the pcoject to the Commission. THE PUBLI(; HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner He~bst stated he th?nks this project is overbuilding the peoperty by tryin9 to put a 4-plex on an 60 foot by 60 foot lot with sevecal waivers being necessary. He stated he would not agree that a 3-story project will be an asset to the community. Commissioner Bouas and Chai[woman La Clai[e agreed. Commissioner Hecbst asked if the petitioner would like a continuance in crder to redesign the pians. Mr. Drukin responded he would like a two-week continuance. Kendra Morries explained revised plans would have to be submitted by Fciday of this week. ACTZON: Commissioner Herbst offeced a motion, seconded by Commissioner t•tesse and MOTZON CARRIED (Commissioners Frya Lawicki and McBucney absent) that consideration of the aforementioned mattec be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of January 20, 1986, at the request of the petitioner in order to submit revised plans. ITEM N0. 16 EIR NEGATIVE DE;CLARAiION AND VARIANCE N0. 3:26 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: JESSE AND GRACIELA GUTIERREZ, 11792 Della Lane, Gacden Grove, CA 92640. AGENT: ARTURO ~1IER, 11702 Della Lane, Garden Grove, CA 92640. Propezty described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of app[oximately 0.77 acte, 2230 South Loara Street. waivers of maximum structural height and minimum recreational-leisure areas to construct a 26-unit apartment complex. Thece were approximately thirty-one persons indicating their preser.ce in opposition to subject request and although the staf.f repoct was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Bob Williams, 17088 Button~ood, Fountain Valley, agent, explained they are proposin9 26 units with one pottion being 89 feet from a single-family residential boundary to the east; that this pcoject pcoposes two less units than permitted by Code and they are providing as much setback as possible on Loara Stceet due to the nice homes that are existing already; however, there will be no windows or balconies to look down on those single-family cesidences and there are 11 guest parking spaces in front. He stated they tried to talk with the immediate adjacent neighbors. 1/6/86 ~ _. MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLN.NNING COMMISSION JANUARY 6 1986 86-38 Gene Felling, 2220 S. Loara, Anaheim, stated he has lived at this addtess for 23 years which is adjacent to the north and it is a good neighborhood and is constantly being upgraded and the houses are valued itom $700,000 dcwn to $160,U00 with the average being $350,000 to $400,000. He stated Loata Street narrows and is only about 50 feet wide at one point which could create a bad situation. He presented a map showing the location of homes of people who signed the petition in opposition and stated all the neighbors do not want this project due to the density and the height. He stated subterranean parking is an excellent idea, but not in this single-family residential area and stated the first floor of this project would be 6 feet above gcade which would be cight at his fence line. He stated the design is nice, but this is the wrong location and it does not fit with the characteristics of the neighborhood. He stated there are 40 single-family residences on Loara Street and they are beautiful home~ and there are 80 single-family residences fcom streets leading into Loara. He stated there are 3 single-story apartment projects on the street. He stated 26 years ago there was a zoning change to allow some condominiums in the area and there was a 25-year restciction for single-stocy units and those 25 years have expired and now two stories are permitted. He stated they ace opposed to a 3-story project and feel it will not fit into this neighborhood. Mr. Felling presented petitions, maps and pictures of homes in the area. He stated tt.ere is a beautiful home on the propecty now which has a swimming pocl and tennis courts and they would like to see it remain as a sin9le-family residence. He presented maps showing all the residences on the street and also photographs of every house on the street. He stated the noise 9enerated in a subterranean garage which is extremely loud and there are two vents out of that parking garage for ventilation and his bedroom will be right next to one of the vents. Mike Fallon, 1531 Wakefield, stated he owns propecty that backs up to subject property and is also a ceal estate broker in the area and he agrees with everything that has been said; and that this is a lovely nei9hborhood and the psoperties are well maintained and this project would certainly change the characteristics of that neighborhood and he would strongly object to this development. Harry Morissey, 1623 Lorane Way, pointed out there is a school to the south of his property for crippled children and the buses cceate qaite a traffic proUlem and he felt added traffic fcom this apartment complex, will create a~remendous traffic hazard in that acea. Ray Walton, 1617 W. Larane, stated he also owns property located at 1510 Kimberly Street near the intersection of Ninth and Katella and in April, 1985, he purchased this property on Locane and one of the reasons was the desirability of the neighborhood and the surroundings with the quiet cul-de-sac. He explained he moved fcom the previous residence to escape the undesirable conditions of living near the very lar9e apartment complex located at th. cornec of Ninth, Cerritos and Walnut and thought Police ceports woulr! show there was a latge number of calls for Police action in that project and he sees the possibility of tt~at same thir.g occurring with this complex. He stated also, a lot of people who live in apactments walk 1/6/86 ~. MINUTES, ANAE3EIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 6, 1986 86-39 to local shopping areas and in his previous residence, in order *o get to the major shopping cenr.ers, they wo~ld go past his house and leave shopping carts, etc. in front of the houses and he could foresee that same problem here. He stated they also had vandalism and graffiti and a lot of people who resided in those apactments would drive recklessly. He stated he would strongly oppose high density apartment~ in thi.s neighborhood. Bob Williams explained concerning the question of densitp, that the property is zoned RM-1200 which would permit 28 units and they are only proposing 26. Regarding the height, he explained the neighbor to the north of subject property has a 2-story house which was built after 1959 with a variance. He stated the house on subject prooerty ri9ht now is in bad condition and that the propecty was sold for apartments with the zoning of RM-1200 for 28 units. He stated the units are all 2-bedroom, 2- baths aimed at adults. He stated the owner has no problem putting in a 6-foot high fence around the entir~ property. Regar~ing the 2-stories, he stated there are 4 units looking down onto the neighbor's property and they have agreed to screen the balconies so the residents cannot look down at all. He statetl the decks are only 60 square feet and are mainly for the owner's cunvenience and would not be a place where people would congregate and most of the living area is towards the center of the ptoject. He stated there is a tennis court and pool on the property right now and they could have kept those, but felt they would be too close tu the neighbor's property. Regardin9 the subterranean parking, he explained there would be no openings and the ventilation will be mechanical and he did not think t:iere would be a lot of noise and they would be providing a sound study to pcove that. He stated the entire project will be sprinklered and will be a high-quality project with a higher rent than normal because they are going to ma~e it really nice a~d also the owner will live in the project. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissionec Herbst stated this parcel is zoned RM-1200 and the only variance needed is for the 150-foot setback. Ke[idra Mocries stated the apolicant is requesting two waivers, maximum structural height and minimum recreational-leisure ar.ea. Commissioner Herbst staL•ed if the project met Code, they could t~uild it without coming before the Planning Commission. Chairwoman La Claire asked how far the project would be from the dwelling units on the opposite side of the street. Mr. Williams stated they would be 150 feet away. He stated the streets are 64 feet wide and they are set back anothez 32 feet to the 1-story portion of the buildings. Mr. Williams stated it is 149 feet, 7 inches to the stairwell which is 9 feet wide so it is actually more than 150 feet to the structures. Chairwoman La Claire stated she usually votes for some of the 2-story projects, but in this case there are no other 2-story projects on that block and this property is the same size as the others. Mr. Williams stated the one to the south was developed 24 years ago and if today's codes did not have such extensive open space requirements, he could develop a similar project, but because of the cost of the land today, it would not be feasible. 1/6/86 86-40 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 6. 1986 Chairwoman La Claire stated a lot of people are paying too much money for pcoperty and are not checking it before they purchase it. She stated when the Commission grants a variance, it is suppose to be because of the size, shape, oc topography of the property and this property is irregularly- shaped and flat and there is no justification for a waiver. Mr. Williams stated the property is between two single-family residences, even though the properties are zoned for multiple-family units. Chairwoman La Claice stated it is not the properties on either side which limits development of this property, and there is no diffecence between this pcoperty and other properties in the area. Mr. Williams stated in order to develop the property to its highest use, a waiver would be necessary and they have eliminated a lot of the waivers; and that there is a possibility they could develop 26 one-story units, but would need a lot coverage varianr.e. Chairwoman La Claire stated she is having a problem with this pcoject because the other projects in the acea are single-story. Mr. Williams stated there are othPc 2-story projects in the area, even though they are sin9le-family residences. ACTIUN: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fty and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Lawicki and McBUrney absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the pcoposal to construct a 26-unit apactment complex with waivers of maximum structural height and minimum recreational-leisure areas on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.77 acre, having a frontage of approximately 112 feet on `he east side of Loara Street and further described as 2230 SouL•h I.^,ara; and does hereby approve the Negative Declatation upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments ceceived ducing the public review ptocess and further finding on the basis of the Ir.itial Study and any comments received that khere is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissionec Herbst offered Resolution No. PC86-12 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny Variance No. 3526 on the basis that thece are no special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings which do apply to othe~ iden~ically zoned pcoperty in the same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code does not depcive the property of privileges enjoyed by other propetties in the identical zone and classification. Commissioner Herbst pointed out the devaloper could develop an apartment complex without a public hearing before the Planning Commission as long as he does not need a variance and that anyone can request a change. He stated many variances have peen granted in Anaheim at less than 150 feet. 1/6/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 6, 1986 86-41 On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by che following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY~ HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC-BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENi: NONE ~. ~ ~- ~- Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. Commissioner F'ry le:Er_ the meeting and did not return. ITEI~ NO. 17 EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 5 AND VAP,IANCE NO. 3527 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: GERALD R. AND BEVERELY V. BUSHORE, 721 N. Euclid Street, #2~2, Anaheim, CA 92801. Property described as an irreyularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.0 acres, 381 South Henning Way. Waivers of minimum side yard setback and minimum rear yard setback to construct a single-family residenc~, guest house and detached accessory garage. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is refe:red to and made a part of the minutes. Gerald Bushore, owner, explained this is a hardship piece of property and is irregularly-shaped and is smaller than other properties in the area; that this is a very unique area with only 5 houses developed and this will be the last one to be deve~oped. He explained he is requesting a variance due to the topography of the pcoperty and is placing the garage where is it proposed to all~w maximum use of the property and it is designed to compliment the main house and moving it one way or the other will cause circulation problems. He stated the nei9hbors have been given copies of tlie plans and they did not have any problems with the plans. He stated he has to put in a septic pit which will take a large piece of the property because there are no City sewers in that area. He stated there will be a pool, a water fall with a cobblestone creek running the e~tire width and most of the length of the property, a covered bridge, etc.; and that there is a guest house designed in such a location and manner that if the propetty is ever split, it can be a property unto itself. He stated the neighbors have garages with similar setbacks. He stated there is a large canyon behind the property and he has tried to buy other pioperties in the neighborhood. t9r. Bushore referred to conditions requiring that the project be constructed in accordance with plans and stated there may be some changes and also there is a condition reguiring that the guest house be used by persons employed on the premises or by temporary guests and shall not be rented separately or used fot commercial purposes and that he hoped that condition would not apply if the propetty is split in the futute. Eie referred to Condi~ion No. 9 requiring that fees be paid prior to issuance 1/6/86 86-42 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 6 1986 of building permits; howevet, he cannot pay the fees until he is ready =o get permits. Malcoln Slaugl~ter, Deputy City Attorney, stated the City is only entitled to req~ice the payment of the fees when they are necessary and if they were paid, the City would have to pay them back. He stated there are a couple of conditions which refer to specitic amounts and the otdinanc?s which impose those fees have some flexibility so at the time they ace paid, they could be more than the specific amount mentioned and the petitioner would be subject to the highec fees. Mr. Bushore stated the condition states, "whichevec occurs ficst', which means he has to pay tne fees within 1 year or bring in the plans within 1 year. Kendra Mocries stated if the building permits are not obtained within 1 year, the applicant has to request an extension of time for th.^ variar~ae and that is ttie intention of that condition. Malcolm Slaughter stated these conditions have to be construed in light of Code pcovisions and that they provide that the petitioner must execcise the rights unde: the permit within 1 year or it shall terminate. Commissioner Bonas asked where the creek will drain. Mr. Bushore stated it is a recirculating creek. Chairwomdn La Claire asked why the variance is needed for the setback. Mr. Busho~e stated the setback is a minimum of 9 feek. and may be more because it has to be far enough away from the ravine because of slippage, etc. He explained he has retaining problems on possibly thcee sides and could not move it because he would not have adequate back-up areas for the main garage or the accessory garage. He explained he studied several diEfecent configucations in o:der to get the main structure on the property and maximize his view and this is the best plan he has been able to come up with. Mr. Bushore stated he pcesented his plans to Mr. Stody, his neighbor to the south, and he had ~o problem. Chairwoman La Claire stated if tt~e propecty to l•he south wants a variance ir. the future 9 feet f~om suUject property, the Commission woul~ p[obably ha~re to gcant it. It was noted the Planning Director or his ~uthorized representative has determined that the proposed pcoject falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 5, as defined in the State Environmental Impact Repoct Guidelines and is, therefore, categorical.ly exempt from the requicement to prepare an EIR. ACTION: Commissioner La Claire offeced P.esolution No. PCSF-13 and moved for its passage and adoption thak the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby qrant Variance No. 3527 on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and sucroundings which do not apply to othec identically zoned pcoperty in the same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity and subject to Intezdepactmental Committee cecommendations. 1/6/86 MINUTES ANA~EIN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 6 1986 86-43 On roll call, the foregoing cesolution was passed by the following vote: AY~S: BOUAS, HERBST, LA CLAIRE~ MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: FRY, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY Malcolm Slaughtec, Deputy City Attorney, pcesented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0. 18 L•'NVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 259 (PREV. CERTIFIED) AND VARIANCE NO. 3529 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: D 6 D DEVELOPMENT CUMPANY, 711 E. Imperial Highway, 83, Brea, CA 92621, ATTN: CAMILLE COURTNEY. Property described as an ir~egularly-shaped pa~cel of land consisting of approximately 7.5 acres, approximately 1,340 feet south of the centerline of Rio Vista Street. Waivec of required lot frontagQ to permit a 4-lot, condominium subdivision. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Camille Couctney, agent, was present to answer any questions. THE PUB~IC HEARING WAS CLOSED. It was noted Enviconmental Impact Report No. 259 was previeusly certified for subject pcoperty by the City Council on December 6, 1983. A~TION: Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC86--14 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Plannin9 Commissi.on does hereby grant Variance No. 3529 on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned ptopecty in the same vicinity; and that stcict application of the Zoning Code deptives the property of privileges e~joyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity and subject to Intecdepartmental Committee recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the followin9 vote: AYES: BOUAS, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: FRY, LAWICKI~ MC BURNEY Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written zight to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. 1/6/86 86-44 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLP_NNING COAIMISSION JANUARY 6, 1986 ITEM NO. 19 EIR NEGATI4E DECLARATION AND VARIANCE NO. 3530 PUBLIC HEARING. Ol9NERS: SOUTH STREET PARTNERS, c/O THE HAYEu COMPANY, MANAGIi1G PARTNER, 150 Paularino, #142, Costa Msha/edA arcel~ fTland DAN S. HAYES. PXOperty described a20a4racresglocated atptheFnorthea~t cornec of consistiny of approximately South Street and 02ive St~eet. Wai~ers of maximum number of compact Qarking spaces and minimum number of psrking spaces to construct an industrial wacehouse facility. There was one person indicating hec presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff regort was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Dan Hayes, representing the owners, referced to Condition No. 8 pertaining to the abandonment of Water Stree~ on the northeastern portion of the property and pointed out Quikset was the owner of that property and at one time requested the abandonment of Water Street beginning at Olive Street, east to Atchison and it stopped just short of Atchison Street and they are in the process of filing for the abandonment for the balance of Watec Street for the full imp~ovement of the cui-de-sac. He refecred to Condition No. 11 pertaining to a reciprocal access and packing agreem~nt accoss a recorded parcel map lot and stated he would like to have it clacified that the ceason for that is to make certain all the lots have free emergency ar,c?ss available. He stated they do have a~roblem with vehiculat access between the lots and explained the end of Atchison Street terminates into a cul-de-sac and noted there is current flooding pr~blems when it rains, but allowing free access between the lots for vehicular traffic of a non-emergency nature means people employed on those lots could go through their building lots to the sc•itti on Olive Street aarkinat is not acceptable to them. He stated the issue of the reciprocal p 9 agreement is incocrect and that the lots should stand on their own and stated they recognize they cannot decrease the number of spaces on any one lot, but did not think it is the intention of staff to allow people leasiny Building No. 1 on the north to utilize the parking stalls in front of Building No. 2 0^ the south. Malcolm Slaughter stated Condition No. 8 is to cover two possible contingencies, one being the abandonment of Water Street b~°ing ~equested and approved or alternatively being denied•reviewedyby thetadjoining abandonment is bein9 pcepaced and is being property owners and they expect to have it signed by the end of this week. Jay Titus, Office Engineec, stated the 32 feet referced to is if the abandonment of Water Stceet is not approved, the petitioner would dedicate 32 feet from the centerline of Water Street and improve that. He add2d the dedication is for a cul-de-sac at the end of Atchison and if the dedication is approved it should be included as a condition and the standard radius for a cul-de-sac should be 50 feet. 1/6/86 ~. -- ~ v MINUTES, RNAHEZM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 6. 19b6 86-45 Mr. Hayes stated t:~e~• have cffeted to the adjoining property owners that if the abandonment is approved, they will remove the existing asphalt when they regrade the' property and repave the~r F~operty at the same time and will improve Atc~ .~on Street. He add~ed they are putting in a storm drain to cure the drai.age problem. Jay Titus stated a condition should be added that a 50-foot dedication for a cul-de-sac would be required if the abandonment is approved. Mr. Hayes stated the plans approvpa ,ray be less than 50 feet foc a cul-de-sac. Kendra Morries stated it wzs staff's incention re9arding Condikion No. 11 to require a reciprocal access agreement, but not a parking agreement. Angelina Veyna, 601 South Olive, stated she is not opposed to this request, but is concerned about the entrance near the intersection o£ Olive and Water Streets. She stated she would like to request further consideration for either a stop sign on Olive or a traffic signal at this intersection because if future traffic enters at this entrance, there is a concern with children walking tc and from Thomas Jefferson School and intense traffic movements alceady exist at that intecsection because of the thriving businesses at the market and cafe and the traffic movement generated by Quikset employees and with increased traffic from their employees and the railroad tr~ffi.c, she thougnt there could be a problem. She pointed out there are 5 or 6 train trips per day through there and that Olive Street is sometimes used as a drag strip. Paul Sinyer stated there is a stop sign presently at South and Olive and his staff will review the intersectian at Water and Olive to see whether or not it warrants a stop sign, but that does not have anything to do with this development. He explained there is a dciveway out to Olive in the vicinity of Water and it was noted Water Street has been abandoned. Malcolm Slaughter stated a parcel map would not come before the Ylanning Cummission unless *_here is a condition requiring that it be reviewed by the Commission. Jay Titus further explained if there is such a request, the conditioaal use permit or variance would come before tne Planning Commission, but not the parcel map. Chairwoman La Claire asked i£ eac5 property could stand on its own without a ceciprocal parkin9 a9reament and Kendra Morries responded that they could. Mt. Hayes responded to Commissioner Herbst that he did not think there would be any interstate trucking firms at thie location because they cannot get to that location and he did not think they are allowed on the City streets. Respondin9 to Chairwoman La Claire, Mr. Hayes stated the smallest building on the southeast corner is currently Quikset'~ powdered metal division which is in the process of being marketed for sale and the buyer may be closin9 that business and that building may become available. He stated he doES not have any specific tenant in mind for the other building, but they are typically warehousin9 distribution buildings capable of being 1/6/86 ~ ~` 86-46 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSZON JANUARY 6 1986 serviced by the Santa Fe railroad from the east rather than from the west by Southecn Pacific. xe stated there may be 1, 2 or 3 tenants in the facilities. Paul Singez stated plans showed futute openings i°.cant~to removelthen line with the driveway and he has worked with the app driveways from the front of those overhead doors and would like that added as a condition because that would encoucage large trucks to back onto South Stceet. Kr. Hayes stated they would agree. Chai~woman La Claire stated she is concerned about hazardous waste or chemicals since ehis is close to the cailroad. Mc. Hayes stated the Fire Marshall has control over that type of use and they would have tothere is before the City for a Business License a~ndh~ouoheand statednhe would a very rigorous exercise they have to g 9 stipulate to see that no lease is granted to anyone who has hazardous waste oc chemicals. Malcolm Slauyhter referced to Condition No. 15 pertaining to oversized vehicles and sug9ested a covenant be cequired to give notice to future buyecs of the property of the City's concbeingndonetbyetheaCityrinHthat asked if there was not something already regard. Paul Singer stated oversized vehicles are cegulated by the State; however, any company can make th~mselves available to accommodate oversized trucks or vehicles and the City of Anaheim is concerned about getting the oversized vehicles to and from the freeway. Mr. Hayes stated he would have no problem with a covenant and that they would suppott ceview of the stop signs on Watec Street. ACTION: Commissionec Herbst offe[ed a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Fry, Lawicki and McBurney absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the ptoPosal to construct an industrial warehousing facility with waivecs of maximum number of compact parking spaces and minimum number of parking spaces on a cectangulacly-shaped parcel of land c•~nsisting of approximately 20.4 acres located at the northeast corr,er of South Street and Olive Street; and does heteby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received du~ing the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comment.s received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC86-15 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Variance No. 3530 on the ba~is that the parking waiver will not cause an inccease in tcaffic congestion in the xmmediate vicinity nor adversely affect any adjoining land uses and granting oi the parking waiver unde~ tl~e conditions imposed, if any, will not be de:timental to the peace, health, safety and genezal ~relface of the citizens of the City of Anaheim and subjeck to the petitioner's stipulation to record a 1/6/86 ,~, _. MINUTES, ANAHEIM CiTY PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 6~ 1986 _ 86-47 covenant against the property wit:~ the Otange County Recorder's Office in a form approved by the City Attorney's Office to guarantee that no oversized vehicles will be accommodated at this facility as indicated in Condition No. 15 and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the iollowing vote: AYES: BOUAS, HERBST~ LP. CLAIRE, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENl: FRY, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy C?tv Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's aecision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0. 20 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARAT70N (PREV. APPRGVED) AND CONDIT70NAL USE PERMIT NO. 2274 ~READVERTISED) PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT, P. O. BoX Fountain Valley, CA 927U8. AG~NT: PAT WELSH OR ELLIOTT D. NEFF, Jr., 1124 N. Richfield P.oad, Anaheim, CA 92807. Propecty described as an ictegularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 19.2 acres, having a frontage of approximately 1,336 feet or. the east side of Richfield Road, 1124 North Richfield Road (walsh Engineering and Neff Contracting). To consider revised plans and conditions permitting expansion of a truck and heavy equipment storage yacd. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject tequest and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Elliott Neff, agent, stated when they came into the City for a Business License it was denied, so they ace requesting this conditional use permit. He stated basically, nothing in their operation will change, but they were tolcl by the Water District they would have to take all the back two acres adjoining this property because it was landlocked. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. It was r.oted a ~~gative Leclaration was previously approved on subject property on December 25, 1981, in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 2974. ACTZON: Chairwoman La Claire offered Resolution No. PC86-16 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to City Council approval of revised plans and conditions for permitting the expansion o£ a truck and heavy equipment storage yard, subject to the amended conditions. 1/6/86 6 8 on roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AY~S: BOUAS, dERBST, LA CLAIRE, MESSE NUES: NONE AIISBNT: FRY, LAWICKI~ MC BURNEY Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the wcitten right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. I:EM_ N_ ~_~_Z1 REPORiS AND RECOMMENDATZONS: p, TENTATIVE TRACT NO• f~AnaheimeHillside GcadingVOcdinance asSitfoL a waivec of the City celates to the location of manufactured slopes within residentia lots artd within the ttact boundary of Tcact No. 10968. ACTIOH: Commissionec He~bst offered a motion, seconded byLawicki and Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED ~Planning~Commission does McBUrney absent) that the Anaheim City asrityrelateswtoVthe locationtof~manufacturedlsl pesGwithin TractaNoe 10968. g, SENIOR CITIZEN CONDOMINIUMS - Request fcom State-Wide Developers, Inc., that the City consider Senior Citizens' Residential Condominiums unde~ the development standards for Senior Citizens' Apattments. Annika Santalahti, Assistant Dicector for Zoning, presented the staff cepo[t and explained the current Senioc Citizen Ordinance addresses apartments for senior citizens aneCtainingeto condominiumsmenotltoe there had not been any requests p include condominiums in thbe shouldebeadiffecent betweenlapartmentsy be some standards that may and condominiums. She add=o ecttfot1s~niorecitizens,ebutttheSCodeln developing a condominium p] uestin would have to be amended. She stated the developer is req attments these condominiums be allowed with the same swhethersorsnot the under tlie same ocdinance and Sofftheystandacds such as parking or Commission wishes to have any unit size reviewed and whether or not they should be different. Tom Tincher, 8442 Aspinwood, Westminstec, stated they believe thete is a va~iety of housing needs for senior citizens and a vari~he focus housing types in order to meet those needs; that p~imarily, has been on the vecy poot senior citizen through the government subsidized programs and recently, many cities have developed affordable cental stand6rbeyond that andetherelishasneednforcognized that the needs really 9 osed to rental units. He referred affordable 'for sale' units as oPP una Beach and Seal Beach and to the Leisure Wocld facilities in Lagton Beach have developed senior pointed out also Fullerton and Hunting 1/6/86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CZTY PLANNING COMMISuION JANUARY 6 1986 86-49 citizen condominium standards to allow such developments to move forward. He stated he was involved when the Huntington Beach standards were established for the Emerald Cove project and that pcoject plus the Fullerton project can be studied to help provide a standard for Anaheim. He stated the standards for Emerald Cove project were basically the same that are imposed on senior citizen rental projects with the option to provide open parking o[ covered parking and the parking standards for rental units were .6 space per unit and 1.15 space for condominium project. He stated the Fullerton project has .8 space per unit requirement which is consistent with Anaheim's rental project requirement. He stated they analyzed those projects and believed the .8 space per unit foc the stu~io and 1-bedcoom units is adequate based on the Fullerton project; however, do not believe 1.15 space per unit is acceptable for a 2-bedroom condominium unit and would recommend 1.6 space per unit for a 2-bedroom unit. He stated they feel comfortable with the City of Anaheim's parking standards for apartments based on theic e~perience. He stal-ed the question af affordability has been discussed and Anaheim Senior Citizen Code has a 258 affordable built in and neither Fullerton nor Huntington Beach have an affordable requirement, except when a density bonus is used. He explained they met with staff in an attempt to address the affordability issue and they feel the project as designed could support the 258 affordability requicement. He stated they ace trying to provide affordable senior citizen housing without a need f.or public subsidy and have looked at a lot of different concepts in ordec to put in a quality project and still have the affordabiliti. He stated under the shared housing option, there are 2-bedroom, 2-bath situations to accommodate a shared housing situction and that program has real advantages in that it allows the senior purchaser to have a steady revenue in the future and in addition, it oper.s up an affordable rPntal situution for another senioc citiaen and is an unique opportunity to work directly with the City and its shared t~ousing efforts currently undec way. He stated one of the major obscacles in shared housing is the fact that they aze usually established homes where regardless of early-on compatibility between the two persons involved, there is still the 'my liome' versus the 'your space' situation and the unit is designed to provide independence and separateness in the living areas and they would work directly with the City to market that product. He stated 62 of the units proposed for this site cauld provide affordable housing oppoctunities. He stated this concept was discussed with the Orange County Agency on Housing Advisory Committee and the response was very positive. Responding to Commissioner Messe, Annika Santalahti stated the minimum square footage for senior citizen apart~ents is about 100 feet smallec than for regular apartments. Commissioner Herbst stated he has a problem with using the same ocdinance for 1/6/86 86-50 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 6 1986 apartments as condominiums and does not agree with the proposed project because the parking is all at one end of the units and he thought they should be designed so each unit has its own parking spaces. Commissioner Messe stated he thought the location is questionable for senior citizen housin9 because there are no banks, post offices, shopping centers, etc. close by. Mt. Tincher stated they are requestin~ information as to the Commission's feelings on the shaced housing concept fo~ this particulac site because tF.ey alceady own :t. He stated this site has some very serious problem~ with the r"lood Control Channel which runs thcough it ar.s they have fo~nd, aftec a lot of research regarding what is happening in the senioc citizen housing f.ield, that the needs ace eeally mixed. He referred to the Orchard project of about 500 units in San Diego which received a lot of publicity and pointed out they have consolidated their parking to the pecimeter in order to maintain security and open space in the pcoject. He stated this project will be oriented towards the more active senior citizen, those who are mobile and not in a situation to need assistance. commissioner Herbst stated that is why he feels the City's ordinance will not meet the parking requirements for that type of living environment because the people who could buy those units will probably have one o~ two vehicles. He stated he is not concerned about the size of the units, but he will be concerned about the design with the common parking area a long way from the units, pacticularly to senior citizens when they go shoppin9 and have to bring in groceries. Mr. Tinchec stated the Com~issionecs should ~~isit the Emerald Cove project because it is a similar situation somewhat removed from the senio~ services, but there is a t:emen~ous market for that type quality pcoject and the units were sold before the project was developed. He stated affordabiliky is a primary concecn for the seniocs and most of those people are buying down, getting rid of their bigger homes. He staced a large number would probably have an automobile, especially in this location. Chairwoman La Claire stated she feels this is a good area, but has a problem with the size of the units. She stated if the ordinance remains the same as for apartments, thece will be a lot of people trying to co~vert to condominiums and she did not like the idea with that small unit and maybe the ordinance sl~ould be changed requiring higher parking requicements and largec sized units. Commissioner Messe agreed that both should be increased. Mr. Tincher stated they ace proposing 1.6 spaces per unit as compared to Huntington Beach at 1.15 and they are currently 1/6/86 86-51 MINUTES ANAHEIM CZTY PLANNING COMMISSZON JANUARY 6 1986 considecing thei~ requirements, but the developer feels comfortable with 1.6 for the 2-bedroom situations. The size of the condominiums were discussed and Mc. Tincher explained the project at Huntington Beach had 1-bedroom units at 60C square feet, 2-bedroom units with 720 square feet; however, the Fullerton p[oject had 508 studio units and 50$ 1-bedroom units, but there is a less demand for the studio units so their proposal is to minimize the number of studio units and noted the studio units in Fullerton are a little less than 400 sq~are feet. Commissioner Herbst suggested 450 sguare feet for a studio unit, and 600 square feet for a 1-bedroom, and S50 square feet foc 2-bedroom units and 1 parking space for each bedroom. Commissionec Messe stated that is exactly the apartment requi[ements and felt the square footage should be higher for condominiums and sug9ested 450, 700 and 800. Chairwoman La Claire suggested the studios at 500 square feet because those units will be purchased and after the senior has made the purchase, they woul.d not want to move if they do not like the size. Mr. Tincher pointed out tre affordability is the selling point and at SUO square feet the developer probably would eliminate the bachelor units. He stated some nice units can be developed at 450 square feet. it was suggested this matter be continued foc further consideration for two weeks. it was suggested the Commission visit the Fountains in Fullerton and the Enerald Cove project in Huntington Beach. ACTION: Commis~io~~~* Hecbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Aouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners F'ry, Lawicki and McBurney absent) that consideration of the aforementioned item be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of January 20, 1986. ADJOURNMENT: Commissiorier Souas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED (COmmissioners Fry, Lawicki and McBurney absent) that the meeting be adjourned. The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Respect£ully submitted, , , ~~~ E ith~s, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission ELH: lm 0162m 1/6/86