Loading...
Minutes-PC 1986/07/21~ REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETIt~G The regular meeting uf the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman McBUrney at 10:00 a.m., July 21, 1986, in the Counc'.1 Chambet, a quorum being present, and the Commission reviewed plans of the items on today's agenda. RGCESS: 11:30 a.m. RECONVENED: 1:30 p.m• PRESENT: Chaicman: McBurney Commissianecs: Buuas, Fry~ Herbst, La Claire, Lawicki, Messe ABSENT: Commissionec: None ALSO PRESENT: Annika Santalahti Joel Fick Malcolm Slaughter Jay Titu~ Paul Singer Larry Cabcera Greg Hastings Linda Rios Edlth L. Hdttis Assistant Director foc Zoning Assistant Director for Planning Deputy City Attorney II Offi.ce Engineec Traffic Engineec Housing Rehabilitation Supervisor Associate P'anner Planning Aide Plannino Commission Secretary MIRUTES EOR APPROVAL - Commissioner Messe asked that the minutes be modified on Page 465 to show that the petitioner indicated no stcucture existed on the southern portion of the property. Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded 5y Cammissionec Fey and t40TI0N CARRIED (Commissioner Herbst abstaining) that the minutes of the meeting of July 7, 1986, be approved as cotrected on Page 85-465. ITEM N0. 1 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION RECLASSIFICATION NO. 85-86-37 WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2809 AND RCQUEST FOR SP~CIMEN TREE REMOVAL NO. 86-04 PUBLIC HEARING. drINERS: ANAHEIM HZLLS RACQUET CLUB, 415 S. Anaheim Hills Road, Anaheim, CA 92807. AG~NTS: PHILLIPS, BRANDT, REDDICK, ATTN: PHILLiP R. SCHWARTZE, 18012 Sky Park Circle, Irvine, CA 92714 and AMERICAN DIVERSIFIED CAPITAL CORP., 3250 Wilshire Bouleva[d, Suite 2000, Los Angeles, CA 90010. Propecty described as an ircegularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of appcoximately 5.31 acres located at the northwest cornet of Nohl Ranch Road and Anaheim Hills Aoad, ane~ further described as 415 Anaheim Hills Road. Reclassification from RS-A-43,000(SC) to CR(SC). To permit a 2 and 3-storyr 125-unit senior citizen apactment pcoject with waivecs of (a) minimum structural setback, (b) requiced building location, tc) tequited rec~eation-leisure area, (d) tequired boundary screening and (e) requi[ed numbet of affordable units. (Revised to 118 units, all waivers deleted.) 2equest for removal of specimen trees. 66-479 7/21/86 ~. 86-480 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21 19Ei6 Continued from the meetings of June 9 and 23, 1986. There were four persons indicating their pcesence in opposition and three persons indicating their presence in favoc of subject cequest and although the staff ~eport was not read, it is referred to and made a pact of the minutes. Phillip Schwartze, Phillips BCandt Reddick, explained they have eliminated all waiver.s. He stated 40 parking spaces in excess of Code requitement are proposed and this will be the lowest density senior citizen project in Anaheim. He stated they will make changes to the access past the tennis club and that the restriping of the tennis club packing lot will provide more than the tequired parking for the tennis club. Rod Bryant, property ownec, stated he has been trying to make the tennis club a success, but it has not been feasible; that there are 11 courts and in a tennis club that is financially successful, there would be 30 to 35 playecs pec court, for a total of 400 club membets, but their club only has 150 membecs, and that he spent over ~200,000 addin9 the second story in an attempt to attract more members; however, in order to maintain the club, he is attempting to sell some of the excess propecty. He stated he feels this project would pcovide additional members for the club since it is adjacent to the cou~ts and ii: would also probably help the ~hopping center across the street and will assure the continued use of the adjacent praperty as a tennis club. Mary Dinndorf, 131 La Paz, Anaheim, stated this is the third time she has appeaced before the Planning Commission to pcotest this pcoject and almost everything has been said; that they feel the project is the same as previously submitted, after the revisions, and is not appcopriate for this congested area; that there is already a 130-unit mid-care facility for seniors near cornpletion in A~aheim Hills Road, and on the south side of Nonl Ranch Road, there is a 205-unit retirement community which has been approved, and adding anothec 118 units on the nocth side of Nohl Ranch Road and Anat~eim Hills Road would severely impact the traf£ic which is already overbucdened at this intersection and also, adding the traffic from the rejuvenated Alpha Beta Shopping center would create a lot of problems. She stated the size and density of this peoject, if approved as p[oposed, would be a disastec and Lefetted to 180 signatures on petitions previously submitted and pointed out there are people present today who are ooposed to this pruject. Pat Goodman, 6020 E. La Paz Way, adjacer,t to Walnut Creek Road which will be used for ingress and egcess fcom the tennis coucts, stated the access problem has not been addressed; and that not only people who live in the area will be causing the tcaffic problems~ but also the people trying to ciccumvent the con9estion on the freeway who use t}at road to go East to Weir Canyon, etc. and thought tiiis would seve~ely imp~:t the ar.ea with traffic; and also the traffic will incre=se because of the support services, with people who visit the senior citizen's facilities to deliver food, the barber, hairdressets, doctors, ?tc. and noted she is referring to the ptoject which is near completion. She stated there will be too many units for that s;nall area. Ara Call, 6015 E. Hillc:rest Citcle, stated the p~oblems he has previously discussed have not been addressed and that the petitioner is referring to 7/21/86 ~ ,~.. 86-481 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21~ 19$6 these as luxury senioc apa~tments, but to him they do not appeac to be luxury units and ate really not vecy large and the cecceational aceas are not vety lacge and there is no coveced parking and stated he thoughWl~hlWhatuis be a 'm~-ddle-of-the-coad" apartment complex and not in keeping p[oposed for this a[ea or in keeping with the nei9hborhood. Phil Schwart2e stated there will not be any deliveries of food to this complex since it will be apactments foc senior citizens and not a congregate oare - facility and thought the comments referred to the congregate care facility which is currently undec r_onstruction. He stated if it is Commission's desire, they can close the coad which runs along the eear of the tennis club to La Paz, or they could conduct a ttaffic study now and then aftec this senioc project is completed, if the traffic incceases significantly, the coad could be blocked at that time. Ha stated the Ttaffic Engineec doe~ not fe~^1 closing the road is necessary at this time, but they do unde~stand the concetns of the people who live there and particularly the people who live at grade with the road at the north end of the ~roperty. Regarding the size of the units, Mr. Schartmentstated the units will be larger than a~recag° and these will b..• .luxu~y ap THE PUR~IC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Cortunissioner. He:bst ~tated he was not previously been in favor ~f this project, but khe ce~lesigned pcoject is more acceptable, but he was concerned ab~ut ccvered packing. Ken Ryan pointed out the proposed catports on the With pi.an. Mr. Schwartze stated the design of the carpocts will be in keepin9 the atchitecture of the project, but the design has not been done as yet. Commi::~sionet Fcy asV.ed about the easement and Mc. Schwactze stated they will b~.tild ovec tYie fl~ad control channel and the easement is for egress and ingress for serviciug the char~nel anarking~willsbehbuiltVOVerCthe channelVice, the~e is no problem, and that An.ly p itself. Mr. Schwartze respunded to Commissioner Bouas that they would be willing to close the road. Commissionec Messe asked about the waivec of affordable units. Mr. Schwactze stated the number of affo~dable units has been a topic of diseussion; however, they have withdcawn that cequest because they undezstand it is not something that can be waived, and they will provide 258 of the total number of units as affo[dable. Commissionec La Claire stated she does not want to see a 3-sto[y stcucture on that stceet; howevec, she would like to keep the tennis courts and pceserve the o~en space and thi~ ~eneral P1antAmendmentainitiatedmtolcedesignatedethel she-would like to see a ace on the General Plan, pcoperty-where the tennis club is located as Open Sp with the zoning to cemain as RS-A-43,000. Mr. Schwartze stated he ciiscussed a guarantee for the continued use as a tennis elub with the property ownec and with staff and it was detecmined that ~ Gene~al Plan Amendment designating ti~e property for Open Space with the zoning temaining as RS-A-43,000 would be the best and added they would ba willing to have that condition added to the approval of this~/Zi~a6t- ... 86-482 MI[~UTES ANA:iEIM CITY PLANNING CUMMISSION JULY ?7 1986 Commissi~oner Herbst asked if ~he slope abutta.a4 iiillcrest wil] b,e ~.^dscape Mc. Schwartze ':=a'• all the acea :.,~~ludiny l•he and maintoined p°~manently. flat L.iateau will be landscaped. ~~oeacquice wheca Wi21/also bellandscaped. parcel which thF•y ace attempting Commissionec I:a Claire add.ed she was conce[^°~~ ~=•'~U~ the landscaping fzom L e r.ennis ecui~s to La Faz. Mc. Schwartze: sta~e.i thF:Y have pceviouslyto buft'e~ed !:~ s:.~d addit~ona7.dences'acrossathe floodtchanne•~ia c xetstatedPthey/only the .•xisting t_.' ,~,d no,< <i °;,;aintenance should be at r.--cently found ou+. who owned the rcoperty least equal to wh.~t it has been oc be~Le~ in the ~utuce. He stated they ean add additional landscaoing inside th•~ fence. c:ommissionecs Bouas a~~d -°;~ left the meeting at 1:50 p.m. t^ attend a funeral. Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorne7. stated he has not had any discussions cegarding any guarantees on the continuzd operation of the tennis club and wculd concur with comments about the ability o£ the agricultutal zoning and tr,< Genecal Plan which would preclude fut~~t~°- uses ~~h'-~uarar~.eetthetcontinuedb, howevs*, there is nothing in the present proposalven if the General Pla<< is ooecation of the existing use as a tennis club, amended and the zoning remains RS-A-43,000. He a~9ded if it is CoR:mission's intention to impose an affirmative obligation to continue the opera'.ior.. o` the tennis club, probably a Development Agreement would have to be entered into between the City ~^d the property ownets of both pcoperties and recotded against beth properties tc ohligate the present and future owne* to ~h~•• a c~ntinued operation of the tPnnis cl~b on Y_hat site. He added eveh - Developmen*_ Agreement, if the tennis club runs into financial diffi~e:lcy, r;-,e,,.~ is a good chance that that agcee:nent could be ignoced oc th~~:+wn o~It by a bankruptcy coutt. He stated without that Deve~c~n~~nt Agreement, tt:ere is ~~~ obligation to cont:nue to operatc the club. Cemmissioner La ~l~ie' spacedrysii =emainfislto changetthevGenecal Planthat the tennis co~~ts and op ~Csignati.on. ~~e stated shF• wou1~9 rather have the continuation of che tennis cl.sb tic-d to che development of tliis ptoJe~t ana d Development Agtee~nent ~::~h the Ci'ty t:o see tliat the tennis club remains or it jiist becomes open spaceoand she would not wanc to see any+:.hing else developed on that pzoPecty, and th,_ propecty owner has al[eady said he does not intent to ~evelop the temair..~et ~= the propercy. Annika Santalahti responded to Commissionet LaClaire; that the Open Space designation would pecmit certain types of recreational facilities, with possibly a ca[etaker's cesidence. Mr. Schwactze stated a Development Agreerr.ent would :nerely rcohibit them frue devoting the pcope~ty to ot:~~ec use„ b~;:: would not impos~: an affirmat:ive obligation to continue the tennis club. ACTION: Commissionec Messe offeced a motion, seconded by Commission~.:c H~~ibst and MOTION CARRIED th~:t the Anah~im City P~3nning Commission has reviewe~d tt:e proposal to petmit a two and three-sto:y, 125-~~nit senioc citizei: apar.r:nei.c pcoject with waivers of minimum st~~~tutai se':backr recuiced building location, requiced recceation-leisute area, required boundaty screeniny and 7/21/86 .T(1r.V ~ 3 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNZNG CGMM?SSION~ ~ 1986 required num~~r of afforci~~le u:~:4s~deactes locatedr3t9theC~ortnwest corner of land consisting of ap~:'`"'•~~}°tP~'~ :. Ranch Road and 1~.n~:i~1Ei." ?~~lls ~~~~r and fucihex described as 415 Ana.`.~=m Hills Road; and doe= ne~e~4Y ~P~LOVe ~he Negatic~ ~~=claration uoon finding that it has considerF.] the Ne5lative DeclataY.ion togethe: "~'~`hthzY~~simeofs~heceived du~ing the p~?~lic revieH p!'ocess and furthet findiny InitiaJ ~tudy and any co~ments cec~ived that there is nc :.uh~tantial evidence that che p~ojecL• will h2'+v a sig~ifi^ant effect on the er:vir~-•~~~e«~• ~Phe staff ~aport indicates the cequest ~f RP.lassification :~:,. 85-86-37 has been withdr3wn by the ~etiti~ner b~caus~> u senior citizen'~. ~9artment project is permit*,ed in the P:S-A-43,000(SC) 2one sub~ect to the :~~pcoval of a conditional us+e permit as outlined in Chapter 18.94 of ~t~e Anaheim Municip~l Code. Commissioner Messe offered ResoF1ain°ng°Commissla„ 9uPsmhereby4gcanl: passage and adoption tt.at :~naheim City Condition~l Use Pecmit No. 2809, in part~ for a 118-~~nit three-sto~y senior citi2en apactment pco~act, puc:suant to Ar-'~eim Mur,icipal Code Sections 1~.03.030.030 through i8.(.'i.0.G.035, with aaivers of code requirement being denied since thty ~+~e~e eli.,ninated by revised plans, ar.9 cucther on the basis L•h~t the Ananeim e:ity Pl.~r,n+.r.g Commission does he~eby find that evidence was ,~~esented shuwina that saii' project is reasonably accessible to the necessary ^:~*vices including 9cocecy st~res, transit stops, medical facilities and baaksA• and sub:iect to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendatier:. Co~missianec Hecbst ask?d that the applicant's sL•ipulation be inciuded to conduct a'craffic s*_udy and, if the~e is a t:<aEfi,c Problem, to cl.ose the access r~~~!~ Rncys~ as :aalr.ut Cceek Road, and also, that a conditia~ should be incl~9ed that p~rking spaces shall be assigned to inciividual unit:s, as close 2;; possibl? to the uni~s. On ro:i cali, the foregoing resolution was i~ds~~ed hy the following vote: ?.~'ES: BOUAS~ FRYr HERBST~ LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI~ MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: ksJUAS b FR:: Co~nmissionet Mes~e offeced a mcti:n,! seconded Commissior.ldoes hereby apptove :".O~PION CAkRIED that the Anaheim Cil;, Planning ~•us trees the request for cemoval of twenty-+.hiee (23) specimen E~calyp~ (including three (a) de4d tcees) an the basis that ceasor:able and ptactical development of the ptoPerty on which the trees aL~: located cequicz temoval of the ttee or tce". whose r.emoval is sc~yh`: and that any Specimer,'Pree cemoved shall '~e replace with the planting on the same paccel of an equal number of trees from the specified list in the S~:°nic Coc~idor Ove[lay Zone. Malcolm Slaughtet, Deput.y City Attotney, presented the written cight to appeal the Planning Commis~ion's decision within 22 days to the City Council. Jean Morse, 400 Torrey Pine Circle~ stated they have infarmation that ttie road is deeded ~c the County and asked how the petitione~ ean close the coad if they do not own it. Mt. Schwartze respondec' the Connty has an easement over 7/21/86 86•-484 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLAI~NING COMMISSION JOLY 21, 1986 the property for secvicing the channel and that easement can be moved as long as the County can get in with theorec~YlownertandetheCCountychasnan easement. stated the road belongs to the p= P Commissioner La Claire stated the applicant said they would close the road, but the crash gate is at the propecty l~ne of the ptoject itself and not on down at La Paz and asked if traffic ftoms~atedethesccasht9ateliseintended to La Paz. Paul Sin9er, Tcaffie Engineec, and be located at the edge of the propecty line not too far from the t~uilding; that at the ptesent time, access to the tennis court is primatily taken fcom La Paz and that will continue. [`iEM NO_Z EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION~ RECLASSIEICATION NO. 85-86-38 AND JARIANCE :~0. 3571 YUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: MARTHA SCHUMACHER, P. 0. Box 191, Anaheim, CA 92805. AGENTS: CORNICHE DEVELOPt4ENT CORP., 1661 Loma Roja Drive, Santa Anulacl 9z~05, ATTN: DANIEL O'C4NNER. Property describe~aimatelyP0r361acterlocated at the shaped parcel of land consisting of app southeast cotner of Sou~h StteeE and Hacbor Boulevard, 800 South Harbo~ approximatelya0(47racceBlocatedtat9thecsouthwest cocner of SouthcStreetland f Helena St[ePt. RS-7200 to CO (Parcel A) or a less intense 2one. Wai~iets of (a) pecmitted business signs, (b) maximum numbec of small car spar.es, (c) maximum number of patking spaces, (d) maximum structural height, (e) minim~m yard requirements & lf) maxin;um wall height to co~struct a 2-story office building on both Portions A and B. Continued fcom the meeting of June 9, 1986. The~e ~er.e five persons indicating their presence in opposition to subject req.:°st aud although the staff report was not ~ead, it is reEetced to and made a pars c.f the minutes. Don Fear:;, architect, and Leonard Smith, Agent and Dan 0'Conner, President of Cnrnicne Levelupment Corporation, were present to answec any questions. Leona~d Smith s~.ated their main aoal was to provide a project that would be compakible '++'.th the community and with the goals of the Gene~al Plan ar.d particularly in relationship to the neig~which amountedeto~aelo sa f 40001cate an extra 15 feet along Hacbot Boulevatd, square fe~t, and that has necessitated the requests for weivers. He explained one waivec celates to an existing cesidence in a CO 2one ~n Harbor eoulevard and they tried to minimize that effect as much as possible and presented an exhibit showing the residence, and pointed out the glide-slope line, roof projectiun, and stai~well projection. He stated the project will not have an influence on the pcoperties to the southeast, and only the one to the south is ic~fluenced and that is in a future CO Zone. 7/21/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANRIP7G COMMISSION, JULY 21, 1986 86-485 [dr. Smith presented another exhibit showing access on Harbor Boulevard and South Street, and explained Helena Street will be blocked and they will construct a wall which varies in height. He stated they are proposing a freestanding sign for street identification for the tenunts and a wall sign as the main building identification. He stated the low munumental sign would be in the 15-foot future right-of-way and when the City widens the street, the sign would be cemoved. He stated they are six parking spaces short and that is because of the loss of propecty for dedication. He added their experience has shown a pcofessional office pcoject attracts attorneys, insurance companies, etc. and those rsers h~ve a highec ratio of employees, compared to othec commarcial type users with a high catio of visitors and clients, and the high ratio of employees normally results in a higher catio of small cars. He stated their Traffic ~ngineer generally ag~eed wi y that finding and recommended that a 408 ratia of compact spaces is not unreasonable and also cecommended that visitor spaces be so designated and that 258 of those spaces be for small cats. He stated the traffic consultant has otated the proposed parkit~g should adequately support the demands normally as~ociated with this type of use. Mr. Smith referred to page 2-d of the staff report, Item 21, which indicates 79 spaces are required foc 21,000 square feet and earliec that n~mber was indicated as 19,750 square feet and that is the correct number; and that Item No. 24 cefers to the sixth waiver, pertaining to maximum wall height, and the wall along Helena has aesthetic value and that was discussed with staff. Dan 0'Connec, Corniche Development Cor~o~ation, stated primacy considecations were the physical and financial constraints relative to the property size and location; He stated they wece advised of the required dedication for the widening of Harbor Boulevard and Helena, which may take place in 10 or 15 years, and with that ceduction in the size of the property, a physical const[aint is placed on the project in providing ~arking and the amenities. 9e stated the City also wishes to be compensated for the cost of the improvemer,ts (cu~bs, gutters, sidewalks, street widening, utilities to be ~elocated, etc.) and in this instance, with the additional dedication required, a serious economic hardship is presented and they would respectfully request from the Plannin9 Commission some relie£ from those costs. He stated the improvements are to the total benefit of the comm„nity.Je:ry Grotle, 839 S. Harbor, Wu~ld Travel, stated he represents JNT Bnte*pcise, a joint ventuce enterprise which owns pcoperty from 839 to 855 South Harbor, and they, as property ownecs across the ~treeL•, are very much in favor of this ptoject; that they wete quite impr.essed with the way this devaloper approached the nei9hbors in the immediate area by sending out a letter advising of the project and then allowing appointments to be made to see the plans and discuss the project. He stated he has seen the plan of the and thinks this project will be a great enhancement ~o the City of Anahei~ and particularly to Harbor Boulevard, sometimes referced to as Anaheim's gateway to the city. He teferred to the pcoposed costs, including the additional dedication, and added there comes a time when the owner of land does have the right lo deve2op khe land within the confines of the reaalations o£ the community they live in and he would encuutage the Plannin9 Commission to appcove the plan and make it economically feasible. He added the developer of the project plans to retain the Q~ogecty and not sell it to someone else who doesn't really cace about the comTUnity. 7/21/86 86-48ti MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21 1986 Bill Erhle, 552 Shetwood Dcive, 9naheim, stated he is a potential tenant in this p[oposed development, and knows the developer and t~r. O'Conner and knows the type of building and structures they build and this is the type of developet we want in the City of Anaheim because they do considec the residents in the sutroundin~7 area. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissionec Hecbst stated he realizes this psoperty has soine economic rest~aints, especially the easements, but if it wasn't for this type of development, Harboc Boulevard wo~ld not have to be widened; that he doesn't like th_ access on South because it ucchasedrtodayaacetcompact,ebutndidsnot large number of the vehicles being p believe the total number of cacs on the road today reaches that percentage and he would be concecned about the compar.t car parking space tatio. Ccmmissionet Herbst stated the petitionec has admitted that with anduhendid companies usinackingfvatiancesshouldpbeS9=anted because`the employees will be not feel any p parking on Hele~a and othec residential stceets. He stated some v~~iances a justified but d~.d not feel it is up to the taxpaye~s of Anaheim to suppoct this development ny paying for the wid~ning of the stceet and the othe~ impcovements. He added maybe the cc, of the land was too high and felt this project would be overbuildin9 the pttipetty an~ added he felt the project can be redesigned and the South Street entrance could be cevised. Paul Singer, Traffic En9ineer, stat~:d the parking is not adequate for this pcojPCt and the ratio of compac~ car packing spaces is not ceasonable, and high employment uses such as insurance companies do cequire a lot of parking. He stated the driveway to South Street is a1Go a problem; and the third ptoblem is the monument sign in the proposed public [ighc-of-way and added the problem is not with the sign itself, pcovided it is moved far enough away to pcovide ~isibility for traffic exiting the dciveway. Commissionez Herbst stated thece is no hardship to justify apptoval of the sign, even though he cealiz~s it is a low monument sign, and he is not in favoc of it because several similar cequests have ~een denied. Mr. Smith stated they did discuss the sign o~ith Mr. Sinyer and he suggested a comptomise or a possible option that could easily be moved. Regardirig the driveway on Sosth Street, Mt. Smith stated they tried to get the buildin~3 as far away fcom residential as possible and that he had used the term "insutance companies' as an example, and doesn't know yet who the tenants will be. He stated a low employee ratio means the number oainedlthatSOpinion visitors at one time is not expected to exceed 60, and exp.. is based on their previous expecience with other similac project~. Commisaione~ La Claice stated she sympathizes with the propetty ownec having to give up so m~sch land and would li~e to gtant some of the waivers, but the problem is that this is just asking too much. She stated the main ptoblem is the packing and added the widening of Harboc Boulevard does benefit this pro~etty. 7/21/86 86-487 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21 1986 Commissionec Mc Butney agreed the project is just too b+.g for this prope[ty and added he likes the ptoject and aould li.ke to see a building of this nature on this site, but could not suppott it in the mannec propcsed~ He stated reducing the square footage nould eliminate a lot of Y.he waivers. Mr. Smith stated they did st~hroucnhdedicationsuilCOmmissionet Messe stated he due to the loss of properky did not think this would be appcoved as ptopased and suggested the petitioner requsst a continuance in ocde[ to cedesign of the plan~. Commissi.~ner La Claire asked if they could add Farking. Mt. Smith responded they did review that situation with the TcaffiWereginPkeepinghwittgthettYpeome othe~ alternatives but they did nat feel th°Y tenant they would want to attract. Paul Singec stated if ce[tain restrictions were imposed on this pcoject such as, 'no medical oustified ushowevec,tthat,doeshnot solveathe problemlef the spaces could be j dziveway on South Stre~t which will cequire th~ rPmoval of several packing spaces. He stated defieitely they ace proposing too many small car spa~ces, but if heavy packing users were prohibited, such as medical and dental offices, the parking ratio could be reduced and the dciveway ~n South Street could be eliminaked. Commissioner Herbst stated putting the dciveway on Helena ~ould open the door for people to ac*_ual park on Helena and he would not want to see that kind of parking on tesidential strHelena is•stilgethe closest stceetlfoc pa~kingeand parkina on this pcopecty, he did not. think the driveway beiny on Helena would make a lot of dif erence and it would make it a safer project. Mr. O'Conr~ec stated one of the delibetations in deciding to purchase this pzoperty for development was to ceview the pcevious appcoval by the Planning Commission, and the Code does permit a 70-foot high building, (7 stocies)• He stated the dciveway is a very secious pcoblem and initially they submitted a site plan with a proposed driveway off the southeast cocner on Helena and aftec it was teviewed, it was eliminated because of the tesidential natuce of the neighbochood. He added he would agrpe that an access on Helena would make the ptoject safer, however, tne 20-foot dedication has fotced them to put the access on South Street. He stated they would agree to the reduction of the wall height giving a e1Eac view fot ingress and egcess. He stated l•hey would also reconsidec che access at the southeast corner. Chaicman McBucney asked if the petitionec Would like a continuance to cedesign the project ot if they would pcefez a decision today. Commissioner Messe asked ii the pc`.iti~net WOwouldtaccepteatProhibition of petmitted tenant:,. Mr. O Connet tated tYiey medical or dental offices, and would stipulate to ':he list of uses as ptoposed. Mr. 0'Connet stated obviously there are some keciinical concecns they would like to teview and would like a two-week continua•:ice. 7/21/86 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JULY 21~ 1986 86-488 P3u1 Singet stated he will make himseli available to wotk with the petitioner. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki and MOTION CARRIED that considecation of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of August 4, 1986, at the request of the petitionex. ITEM N0. 3 EZR NEGATIVE DECLARATION (READV.I RECLASSIFICATION N0. 65-86-32 (READV.) AND VARIANCE NO. 3556 ~READV.) PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: YUK T. LAU AND SO Y.UEN LAU, 314 N. Beach Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92801. A.CENT: DENNIS MARCHAND, 17362 gothard Stteet, Huntington Beach, CA 92647. Pcopeety descri~eu as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land c~nsisting uf approximately 0.3 acce, 110-114 South Harding Dcive. RS-7200 to RM-1200 0[ a less intense 2one. Waivars of minimum yztd requirement, and required recreational-leisure acea to construct a one-story duplex. Continued from the meetings of. May 12, June 9 and July 7, 1986. There was no one indicating thei~ p=esence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not cead, it is cefe~red to and made a pa[t of the minutes. Dennis Marchand, agent, 2200 Canyon Drive, Costa Mesa, explained they proposed a 2-stury, 8-unit apartment complex on this site, together with an adjoining lot, but due to stcong neighborhood opposition, tedesigned the plan fot a duplex on 1/2 of the property. He stated the request is foc the RM-2400 density and basically the neighbors' concerns were that it was a 2-story ptojECt in this single-story, single-family area, and the neighbocs we[e concerned that two stocies would pechaps jeopardize the integrity of the area. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ACTION: Commissioner La Claire offeced a mation, seconded by Coinmissionec Messe and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission nas [eviewed the proposal to zeclassify subject property from the RS-7200 (^~sidential, Single-Family) Zone to the RM-2400 (Reside~tial, Multiple-Family) Zone to consttuct a one-story duplex with waivecs of minimum yard requirement and tequiced recreational-leisure area on a rectangularly-shaped paccel of land consisting of app~oximately 6,673 square feet, havin9 a fcontage of approximately 50 feet on the east side of Harding Avenue, and fucther described as 114 S. Hacding Avenue; and does heteby apptove the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative DeCla[ation to9ether with any comments received during the public review process and futthec finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments recei~ed that thece is no substantial evidence that the otoject will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissionet La Claire offered Resolution No. PC86-190 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby 7/21/86 DIINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JULY 21, 1986 _ 86-489 grant Reclassification No. 85-86-32, subject to Interdepactmental Committee Recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS~ FRY~ HERBST~ LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI~ MC BURNEY~ MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Commissioner La Claire offeced Resolution No. PC86-191 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim Clty Planning Commission does hereby grant Variance No. 3556 on the basis that the requests are vety minimal and that there are special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and su=roundings which do not apply to othec identically zoned property in the same vicinity; and that strict application o£ the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classificatioa in the vicinity and subject to Interdepartmental Committee cecommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS~ FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIkE~ LAWICKI~ MC BURNEY~ MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT; NONt Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days ta the City Council. RECESS: 2:55 p.m. RECONVENE: 3:05 P.M COMMISSIONERS BOUAS, FRY AND LA CLAIRE ABSENT. ITEM NO. 4 EIR NEGATIVE DECLAFtATION, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONDZTIONAL USE PERHLT N0. 2802 PUHLIC HEARING. OWNERS: MUNKYO CHO AND HYON SUN C~O, 806 N. Brookhuzst Street, Anaheim, CA 92801. Pcoperty described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.9 acte, 806 North erookhutst Street. To retain an auto towing; impound and cepait f.acility with waivets of structural setback, permitted encroachments and yard tequirements, minimum dimensions of parking spaces and minimum number and type of patking spaces. Continued from the meetings of June 9 and July 7, 1986. Thete were two persons indicating their prese~ce in opposition to subject request and although the staff ~epott was not read, it is refecced to and made a part of the minutes. Larry Denning, General Manager, 2301 E. Santa Fe, ~5, Fulletton, CA., stated their proposal is to continue operation of an impound facility to service the citizens of Anaheim. He stated they have been opetating for a numbet of 7/21/86 86-490 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21 1986 months without any pcoblems. He added they are entectaining bids to accomplish the paving; and that the rear ac2a is designated as 'employee parking" and that the areas will be properly landscaped and maintained. He stated the dimension of the packing spaces is 8' x 13'. Commissionets Fry and Bouas zeturned to the meeting. Gerald Decshem, 714 ~. Brookhurst, cepresenting Lear Sieglec, stated their patking is far inadequate and accessibility ftom Bcookhutst is very bad and thete have been some violations with cars being patked on their parking lot in front of the building; and that their driveway at the front of the building has been used occasionally by t~ucks going througn their pcoperty and onto subject property, not using the street. He stated he did not feel the accesses are propetly ma~ked; and that the ru~n lanes start at theic south driveway and the north dciveway into thei.r propecty is an exit only. He stated the freeway overpass is close to •:heir north driveway and street parking is eliminated in that location. Mc. Detshem stated pat~ons of this business occasionally use thei~ restrooms and telephones and the[e have been a number of distraught women using their facilities. 8e stated unless the parking is for employees, a visitor would nevec find it behind the existing home and gatage. Ron Dolce, 714 N. Brookhurst, tepresenting Lear SiegleC, stated on several occasions, the petitioner has had a ttactor trailet truck parked in the middle of the street to unioad vehicles and that does cause con9estion; and they do drive dicectly across the Lear Siegler ptopecty to subject ptopecty and occasionally theic patcons park on eithec Lear Sie9ler property and they have had to ask them to move. He explained there is no fence on the front portion of theic pcoperty and there is a place whece they can gain access tio the adjacent ptoperty. Mr. Denning stated this is the fitst time they have been made aware of any problems with the Lear Sieglet pcoperty and that he has seen cars packed on their property on occasion. He stated they would agree that the~e is a pcoblem with traffic southbound on etookhurst ttyin9 to make a left turn onto their ptopecty since the dtiveways have been moved. He explained the driveways were moved as required by the City and he did not think the[e is much that could be done about that situation. Commissioner La Claire ~eturned to the meeting at 3:17 p.m. Mt. Denning stated there is a point where traffic could go from propetty to propetty and he did not think anything other than a wall would prevent that situation. He added they wou=~ be agteeable to install a wall if cequired. He stated he would like to see somethin9 done about the southbound ttaffic and suggested prohibitin9 left tucns. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Responding to Commissioner Hetbst, Mr. Denning stated the;~ do have cestcooms which ate available during the day, but ate not open at ni9ht when the offices are locked and explained the cest~ooms are fo~ employees and ate not intended for public use. 7~21/86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIUN JllL'f 21 1986 86-491 Commissionec Hetbst suggested a 3-foot high block wall to block access between the two ptoperties and Mr. Denning responded they would be agceeable to providing the wall. Commissioner Bouas asked if telephones are available. Mr. Denning responde~ telephones are available duting office hours and noted there are no pay phones available at this facility foc use after office houcs. HP explained a telephone in the tow office would be available for customets ~ho might come in with a tow t[uck at night. Linda Rios, Assistant Plannec, read the memo fcom Bcuce Fceedmam, Code Enforcement Officet, pointing out recommendations to imp~ove tnis operation: (1) that all parking lots be redesigned to improve t[affic flow and customer parking, (2) that all zrucks be parked in the tear lot at all times, (3) that a11 wrecked or inoperable vehicles be parked oc sto~ed in the rear lot aL all times, (4) that the trash stozage areas be pcovided and maintained in accotdance with plans on file, (5) that subject propecty be landscaped with trees and/or shrubbery or other plant materials and permanently maintained, (6) that the automobile stocage area shall be site screened, (7) and that the gates to the rear storage area be closed at all times. Mr. Denning stated all of those thin9s are being taken care of and some have already been accomplished. He stated the site screening has beena~ems~atsdr the north and south gates are being kept closed and the central g Y open durin9 the day, all wrecked vehicles are stored in the ceat as soon as they ace psocessed, and outgoing cars are not left sittiny out front for mo[e than about 15 minutES. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineet, stated the staff teport indicates the size of the parking spaces as ? foot by 13 foot and tnat is totally unacceptable and isn't even close to City standacds and he would like to see a dimensioned parking lay-out to detecmine if it meets City standatds and still provides the same number of packin9 spaces indicated. Commissionec Messe stated that was an etror and the spaces are 8 foot by 13 foot. Paul Singer stated 8 feEt by 13 feet is still unacceptable and noted a standard parking space is 8-1/2 feet by 19 feet and S feet by 18 feet and small car spaces aze 7-1/2 by 15 feet minimum. He stated he could not recommend that the Planning Commission approve this plan with those parking space dimensions. Mr. Denning stated the 13-foot measurement is from the wheel stops and there is a 2-foot ovechang. Paul Singec stated that is still unacceptable. Mr. Denning responded he undecstood and addPd there is enough coom in the patking aceas for the spaces to be ptoperly dimensioned. Paul Singer stated he would like to see specific dimensions of the parking layout. Chairman McBUrney asked if the petitioner would like a continuance in otder to pcovide the layout for ttie Ttaffic En9ineer's review. Mr. nenning responded he could have that done by this Friday for a two-week continuance. Commissionec Herbst asked why a vaciance is being requested and stated with the size of the parcel, he could not see any justification fot approval of a parking variance. Mr. Denaing tesQonded thece ace 8 to 12 open patkinq spaces at all times and that the rear pottion Qf the ptoperty is used foc vehicle 7/21/86 86-492 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLAIiNING COMMISSION JULY 21 1986 stoca9e and impound purposes and essentially the southeastecn cocne[ is for vehicles waitin9 for cepaits and that acea is not. p3ved. He stated the biggest problem is with the destruction of asphalt paving and explained most of t~e vehicles ate wrecked, or have missing wheels or flat tires, bumpecs hangin9, etc. and that is very destcuctive to the pavement. Commissioner Herbst stated the plans should show the required parkatkingaces whethet they are paved ot not. Paul Singer stated Code cequices p spaces to be paved; howevec, he believed thete is adequate parking spaces on the site pzovided they are properly macked. Mt. Denning stated all the patking in front between the office building and Brookhurst is available for visitocs and the area behind the caretaket's residence is for employee parking. ACTION: Commissione~ Souas offeced a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the tegula[ly-scheduled meeting of Auyust 4, 1986, at the request of the petitioner. ITEM N0. 5 EIR NEGATIVE llECL?~ amiON AND RECLASSIFICATION NO. 86-87-2 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: GENE L. FELLING, ZZZsha•ed aarcelCOftlandaconsisting 92802. Property desccibed as a tectangula~ly- P P of approximately 0.77 acce, 2220 South Loara Street. RM-1200 to RS-7200 or a less intense zone. Continued itom the meeting of July 7, 1986. THE FOLLOWING ACTION WAS TAKEN AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING. it was noted the applicant has requested a two-week continuance. ACTTON: Commissionet Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Souas and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the afotementioned matter be continued to the regulatly-scheduled meeting of August 4, 1986, at the .Lequest of the petitioner. ITEM N0. 6 n riECATIVE DECLARamlr~~;~ ;Cc;i84?%~„L ~i•"9 AMENDMENT NO. 218L E'i ^ RECLASSIPZCH`"IOi+ NO. 86-87-3 AND Y?.cYANt:F 'N~?. 3588 PUBLIC HEARIM~~. ~7~~ERS: D 5 D DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, 711 E. Impe~ial Highway, Suite 200, Brr.a, CA 92621, ATTN: BRUCE H. DOHRMANT AND CAMILLE H. COURTNEY. pr~p~~*y described as an itregularly-shaped parcel of Iand consisting of approximately 7.5 ac~es , 2900-2920 East Lincoln Avenue. GPA - To considet amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan proposing a redesignation from the low density residential and low-medium density cesidential to a medium density residential di~signation. RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200 or a less intense zone. Waivers of maximum structutal height and minimumactmentucomplexback and yatd requirements to const[uct a 214-unit~ 2-story ap 7/21/86 86-493 MINUTES ANA6EIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21 1986 THE FOLLOWING ACTION WAS -'AKEN AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING. ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offeted a motion, seconded by Commissionet Fry and theloegularlyDscheduledSme=tingoof~AUgusta4oC1986tlatethearequest ofntheued to petitionec. ITEM NO. 7 EIR NEGATIVG DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3579 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: SID AND CHARLENE CROSSLEY, 1055 Rose Ave•~ Garden Springs, CA 92262. AGENT: ED SPATRISANO, 13149 Btookhucst Street, Grove, CA 92643. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consistin9 of approximately 1.05 ac*es located at the northwest cocnet of Rowland Avenue and Magnolia Avenue, 313-351 South Magnolia Avenue. 44aivec of minimum number of tequired parking spaces to construct an addition of 1,500 square feet to an existing restaurant. There was no one indicating their pcesence in opposition to subject cequest and although the stafE tepoct was not read, it is refecred to and made a paet of the minutes. Ed Spatrisano, agent, explained they wished to expand an existing restaurant by 1,500 squace feet and need a variance of the parking spaces. He explained the business of this restaurant ineceases in the evening when the othec businesses are closed. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Responding to Chairman McBUtney, Mr. Spatr.isano explained they have agreed to close the d~iveway on Rowland. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the ptoposal to construct an addition of 1,500 square feet to an existing restaurant with waiver of minimum number of requiced parking spaces on a rectan9ularly-shaped parcel of land consistin9 of approximately 1.05 acces located at the northwest corner of Rowland Avenue and Magnolia Avenue and further described as 313-341 South Magnolia; and does he[eby apptove the Negative Declaration ugon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration togethe~ with any comments received during the public review process and furthec finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments ceceived that there is no substantial evidence that the pcoject will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Herbst offezed Resolution No• PCOmmissionadoeseherebylgrantssage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Variance No. 3579 on the basis that the parking waiver will not cause an increase in traffic con9estion in the immediate vicinity nor advecsely affect any adjoining land uses and granting of the parking waiver undec the conditions inposed, if any, will not be detcimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim and subject to Interdepartmental Committee tecommendations including an additional condition that the existing dciveway on Rowland will be clos?dZ1~86 86-494 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21 1986 On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the fo~lowing vote: AYES: BOUAS~ FRY~ HERBST, LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Malcolm Slaughtec, Deputy City Attocaey, presented the written ri9ht to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0. 8 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3580 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: FRED R. AND JEANNE HUNTER, 224 East Btoadway, Anaheim, CA ~2805. Property de~cribed as a cectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 7,875 square feet, 721 North Lemon Stceet. Waivers of maximum stcuctural height, minimum sideyard setback and minimum recreational-leisure areas to construct a 1 and 2-story, 4-unit apartmerit building. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff cepott was not ~ead, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. William 5. Phelps, 159 N. Batavia, Orange, was present to answer any questions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman McBUSney asked about the the second story. Mr. Phelps stated the second story is 50 feet away and to the south there is a two-story sttucture which is on the north property line and the alley. He noted this is only a 50-foot lot and thete is no encroachment of pcivacy. H2 stated those are 2-bedroom units over garages to the south. It was noted by Commissioner Messe that there are single-family, singl~-stoty residences to the north. ACTION: Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has [eviewed the proposal to construct a 1 and 2-story, 4-unit apartment building with waivets of maximum structural height, minimum sideyard setback and minimum recreational-leisure area on a rectangularly-shaped pa~cel of land consisting of approximately 7875 square feet, having a fcontage of 50 feet on the west side of Lemon Street and further described as 721 Nocth Lemon Stteet; and does heteby approve the Negative Declacation upon finding that it has c~nsideced the Negative Declaration together with any comments received duting the public ceview process and fuzther finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that ttie project will have a significant effect on tne envitonment. Jay Titus, Office Engineer, asked that Condition No. 3 be modified deleting the last port, "and the Orange County Flood Conttol Distri~t.' Cc~mmissioner Fry offered Resolution No. PC86-193 and move~ for its passage and acloQtion that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does heceby gcant Va[iance Nc~. 3580 on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the 7~21/86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21 1986 86-495 property such as size, shape, topo9raphy, location and surtoundings which do not apply to other identicaily zoned property 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 Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. On roll call, the focegoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS~ ERY~ HERBST, LAWICKI~ MC BURNEY NOES: MESSE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: LA CLAIRE Commissionec La Claire explained she had abstained on the basis that both she and the applicant are candidates for the Anaheim City Council. Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written cight to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0. 9 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3581 PUALIC HEARING. OWNERS: CABRILLO PLAZA, 1650 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92802, ATTN: W. EARL GARR JR. Ptoperty described as a rectarjularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of appcoximately 1.24 acres loca~ed at the northwest corner of Orangethorpe Avenue and Post Lane. Waiver of minimum number of required parking spaces to construce an addition of 5,650 square feet to an existing commercial center. Thzre were three persons indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not ~ead, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Lee Dickinson, 7137 Monroe, Buena Park, stated the pcoposal is to construct an addition to an existing commetcial center at 5201 E. Otangethorpe; that to the south of the property there is a railroad track and no residential uses; however, they are surrounded oa three sides by residential. He stated this is not a major center and the parking lot rarely has more than 15 vehicles. He stated they had a traffic study conducted and the consultant came to the same conclusion that the major occupancy of the parking lot was 30 spaces and they estimated 48 spaces would be used at the maximum peak period which would mean 19 extra spaces ducing peak hours. He stated if the Commission does not feel there is enough pazking, they could reduce the proposed building addition site by 1440 squa!e feet to provide a total of 73 parking spaces; however, feel ftom their observations and the tca£fic study, that the full 6560 square foot addition proposed would be adequately secved with parking spaces. He read a letter from John Drexler, Fast Print, one of the tenants, utging that approval be granted. John Le Bou~illiec, 5223 Minuet Lane, Anaheim, stated unfortunatQly, this center backs up to residential uses on thLee sides and a lot of homeownets do not feel this is a good place for this cer.ter, but it is thece. He stated the 7/21/86 86-496 MINUTES. ~NAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21 1986 center is not really fully leased, with about one-half of the units being vacant, so that is one reason the parking lot is not full. He stated the centet was not there when he purchased his propetty and since it has been built, there have been problems because it seems to attract a lot of young people and his home has been burglarized twice and one of the young people ~~ho Uroke into his home tried to pawn his goods and was caught. He added there is also a karate school in that centec and evety evening within 15 feet of his property line, there are about 30 young people screaming katate chants outside in the alley area. He stated there has also been a lot of loud and fast cars and he constantly heacs them screeching in and out of the parking lot. He stated he has complained to the Anaheim Police Department because the alley is small and there is an B-foot area between the driveway and the fence where a lot of ,young people con9cegate and drink beer, etc. causing noise and debris ~coblems. He added he does not feel any more uses should be added to this center. Nancy Talley, 5219 E. Minuet, stated her property backs up to this property and she hats had the same problems w?th the katate school and people in the alley and they have had the police out once or twice a week; and that there isn't enough room there now and the centec is not even fully leased so there are plenty of parking spaces, but she did not think there should be any moce businesses. Bill Newton, 1719 N. Ballard, stated he concurs with the neighbors and would add that Esperanza Aigh School is just a block away and there aze a lot of youn9 people hangin9 out there at all hours of the day; and that his house has been burglar.ized twice. He added several neighbors wanted to be present today and indicated they would be glad to sign a petition indicating their o~position to this request ,if necessaty. He stated there is a pr.oblem with delivery trucks and it is a dangerous situation and from 1:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., there has been a lot of b~rglar ala~ms going off which were not turned off. He stated also, there has been fires started at that center in the telephone booths and boxes and there is a problem with young people climbing on his wall. He added he has not been able to contact the owners of the propetty and the leasin9 office simply takes his name and address and then there is never any action taken. He stated he does not feel they are properly maintaining the property at its present size and did not think anythin9 should be be added. Mc. Dickinson stated he was not aware of all the neighbor's concerns and suggested the Commission should look at the propecty and noted it is well kept. He stated he could not believe the burglaries and vandalism have anything to do with this centec and that there are a lot of teenagecs in the area because of the high school. He stated they think some of those problems miyht be solved with this ptoposal because they would be addin9 a buffec and landscaping; that the access aL• the east end would be closed off since the drivF~way is not a requirement and that access is a concern because they do not like having people in the rear of the complex. He stated they would bt happy to put a wall oGi the west end to prevent people from having access from behind the building. He added they have talked to some of the tenants and they ate agreeable to having a fence on the west side. He stated the centet is not vacant even though it has had a high vacancy rate a~id all the units have been cented at this time except one. 7/21/86 MINUT°S ANAHBIM CITY PLANNING CUMMISSION JULY 21 1986 86-497 THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr. Dickinson responded to Commissioner Bouas that the list of tenants is shown on the plans and the only change is the one listed as a travel agency which is no longer thete. Commissioner Bouas asked why the karate school is using the alley. Mr. Dickinson responded he did not know they wece using the alley in~' -~tated he would tell them to stay inside the building. Commissioner Messe asked where deliveries were normall~ made and stated if trucks make deliveries in the reat, he did not think closing the access would be a good idea because they would have to back out. Mr. Dickinson stated most of the deliveries are made to the liquor store which is directly on the west end of the project. Commissioner La Claire stated she is familiar with this center and othec commercial businesses on Oran9ethorpe and they have had a lot of problems getting tenants and there have been a lot of empty units and asked why they want to add moce units. Mr. Dickinson stated they realize this is a not a high volume center, but it do?s provide a service to the community and th? tenants have said they would not mind having moce businesses. He added the center is full now and it appears it is fairly stable, even though that was not true in the past. Commissioner La Claire stated she has a problem with the patking waiver. Annika Santalahti explained the parking requirements for a restaurant are 8 spaces for 1000 squace feet instead of 5 which is the tequirement fot the rest of the center. She stated she thought originally when the ptoject was built, the packin9 met Code and only recently the Code has been changed and the tenant changes has resulted in higher parking requirements. Commissioner La Claire stated only 67 parking spaces are beinc proposed and that is quite a variance ovet the 117 requited and they are pcoposin9 an increase in the number of tenants, and particulacly with residents testifying that there are noise problems, etc. She suggested the petitioner should ce..s~~lve some of the existing problems before requesting an addition; and that sh~~ is concerned there is no emecgency number to have a burglar alarm shut ofi; and stated she could not vote for this request today and suggested some of the problems be tesolved and that some concecn should be shown for the neighbors. Mr. Dickinson stated he is a partnet and is in~~olved quite regulatly in the management of the center and the tenants know how to get in touch with him. Commissioner L~wicki stated the neighbors have indicated they have tried several times to contact the owner and there has been no response. Mr. Dickinson stated he would have to contact the neighbor who made the complaint; and explained there is a leasing sign out front and ~.°. they were called, he did not understand why the call was not >eturned. Commissionee Herbst stated each unit has a rear door and he thought that is whece deliveries would be made. Mr. Dickinson most of the tenants in this center do not have a high volume of delivery and three or four of the proposed units are for general office space and not tetail. Commissioner Hetbst stated if theee are deliveries made to the ptesent facilities, they would have to back all the way out, and noted that bothers him because of fire protection, etc. He stated he does not agtee with the plan as ptoposed; however, if the 7/21/86 86-498 MINUTES A~AHEIM CITY PLAH[iING COMMISSION JULY 21 1986 driveway cauld be closed with wrought iron, or sortiething not climbable, to protect the neighbocs, or possibly a crash gate, and eliminate a~~y use of the rear area, and by eliminating three of the pcoposed additional u~iits, it possibly might wock. It was noted the t~ash enclosure is out front. Mr. Dickinson stated they would be amenable to the proposed cevision a~d to eliminating public access to the reac, anurcosest'ied the alley woula be ~losed, with a ccash gate foc emecgency p P Mc. Dickinson stated a one-month continuance would be acceptable. ACTION: Commissior.er Bouas of.fered a motion, Second~ed by Commissioner Lawicki and MOTION CARRIEi. that conside~ation of the f°Au~ust118ea1986teinbotder for continued to the regulatly-scheduled meeting 9 the petitionec to submit revised plans. Commissionec Messe cefecred to the parking study submitted and noted the sucvey looked at three days, but two of those days were in August 1985 and asked if tYat would be acceptable sinc2 thece were vacancies. He asked if the Tcaffic Engineec would want to see an amendment to that study. Mr. Bickinson stated the study was cecently amended, and Paul Singec stated it was approved with the type oE uses in this center being very light, according to the study, however, that could change with the tenants. Commissioner Bouas asked for a li°~t of tenants. Chairman Mc Burney stated there wi;l be no further advectisement of this ma~tec and Commissioner La Claire suggested the petitionec get togethec with the homeownecs. ITEM N^. 10 EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 3 AND VARIANCE NO. 3582 PUBLIC HEARING. OY;NERS: IVAN M. AND DAHLEN£ K. TURPIN AS TRUSTCAS92807HE TURPIN TRUST DATED AUGUST 1, 1985, 5330 Suncrest Road, Anaheim, Propecty described as an ic~egslarly-shaped parcel of land r.onsisting of appcoximateiy 4.7 acres located at the southerly terminus of Overlooic Terrace, 6905 E. Overlook Terrace. Waiver of ma°imum sttuctural height to construct a two-story, single-family residence. Thece was no one indicati.ng their p~esence in opposition to subject eequest and although the staff ceport was nct tead, it is ceferrFd to and made a part of the minutes. Darlene Turpin, owner, was present to answer any questic~ns. 'PHE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. It was noted the Planning Ditector oc his authorized representative has determined that the pcoposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 3, as defined in the State Environmental Impact Report Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. 7/21/86 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JULY 21~_ 1986 86-499 ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC86-194 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does heceby gtaat Variance No. 3582 on the basis that there ace special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned pcopetty in the same vicinity; and tnat strict application of the Zoning Code deptives the property of privile9es enjoyed by other ptoperties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity and subject to inte~departmental Committee [ecommendations. On toll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS~ FRY~ HERBST, LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI~ MC BURNEY~ MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the writter. right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision witnin 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0. 11 EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMYTION-CLASS 5 AND VARIANCE NO. 3583 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: MICHAEL AND CECELE POLING, 1827 Budlong Circle, Anaheim, CA 92807. AGENT: CASEY JURA~O - CALIFORNIA REMODELING, 2821 White Star, #C, Anaheim, CA 92806. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximatel.y 0.11 acce located at the terminus of Budlong Circle, 1827 Budlong Circle. Waivec of maximum lot coverage to conskruct a room addition. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and althouyh the staff report was not cead, it is referted to and made a part of the minutes. Casey Jurado, agent, was present to answer any questions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. It was noted the Planning Director or his authorized representative has determined that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 5, as defined in the State Environmental impact Report Guidelines and is, therefote, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC86-194 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Variance No. 3583 on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, lo:.ation and sucroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the pcoperty of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. 7/21/86 MZNUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JUiY 21 1986 86-500 ~n roll calJ., the focegoing resolution was passed by the followiny vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY~ HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY~ MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Pianning Commission's decision within 22 days to the~ City Council. ITEM N0. 12 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND 'YARIANCE N0. 3584 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: SHIH-YEN (STEVE) AND JUI-WA (JULIE) CHIANG, P. 0. Box 3428, Tustin, CA 92681. Property described as a rectangulacly-shapEd pascel of land consistiny of appeoximately 6956 squace feet located at the southeast cornec of South Street and Claudina Street, 200 East South Street. Waivers of maximum building height, minimum stcuctural setback and maximum fence height to construct a three-unit apartment complex. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject tequest and althouah the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Julie Chiang was p~esent to answer any questions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner La Claice stated she thought this lot would be more suitab'_e foc a duplex because it is so small, and with a duplex possibly the waivers could Ue reduced. She aske~ if the petitioner would lik.e to revise the plans to pcovide a duplex. Ms. Chung stated a duplex would still require the variances felt probably the existing residence would be retained if three units a~e not allowed. Commissione*_ McBurney stated he thought a duplex might be in order, but three units is qufte severe as attested by the waivers requested. Commissioner Herbst all the variances would be cequired even with a duplex due to the width of the property. Commissionec Fry stated he would not have a problem with approval of a height waiver for a duplex since there would only be two families on the property, but could not vote for apptoval of three units. Mr. Chiang stated the owner is out of town and he has not discussed the probability of a duplex. He stated a one month-continuance would be acceptable. ACTION: Commissioner La Claire offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki and MOTION CARRIED that considetation of the aforementioned mattec be continued to the cegularly-scheduled meeting of August 18, 1986, in order for the petitioner to consider revisin9 the plans to pe~mit a duplex instead of three units. 7/21/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JULY 21~ 1986 _ 86-501 ITEM N0. 13 EIR NEGATIV_E DECLARATIOiV AND VARIANCE N0. 3586 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: ELDEN W. AND SHARON ANN F{AINBRIDGE TRUSTEES OF THE ELDEN W. AND SHARON A:•7N BAINBRIDGE TRUST, 1U52 North Tustin Avenue, Anaheim, CA Q2807. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of appcoximately 1.2 acres located at the southwest corner of Kaisec Boulevard and Old Springs Rozd, 8190 East Kaiser Boulevard. Waiver of minimum sideyard setbacY, to construct a two-story office building. Thece was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject reauest and although the staff report was not read, it is referred Co and made a part af the minutes. Elden Bainbridge, owner, was oresent to an~wer any questions. He explained he has a letter from the adjoining property that they have no opposition to the request. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ACTION: Commissioner La Claire offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRZED th~t the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to construct a two-story office building with waiver of minimum sideyard setback on an irregula~ly-shaped parcel ot land consisting of approximately 1.2 acres, located at the southwest corne~ of Kaisec Boulevacd and Old Springs Road, and further described as 8190 East raiser Bouleva[d; and does hereby approve the t~egative 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 ceceived that there is no substantial evidence that the pcoject will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner La Claire offered Resolution No. PC86-196 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does heceby grant Variance No. 3586 on the basis that there a~e special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings which do not apply to othec identically zoned property in the same vicinity; and that sttict application of the 2oning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other p~ope~ties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity and subject to Interdepartmental Committee cecommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS~ FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. 7/21/86 86-502 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21 1986 ITEM N0. 14 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE NO. 3587 PUBLIC HEARING. ~WNERS: STATE COLLEGE PARTNERS, c/o DUNN PROPERTIES CORP., 28 Btookhollow Drive, Santa Ana, CA 92705. AGENTS: GEORGE K. BERNHARTH, SEABOARD ENGINEERING CO., 1100 S. Beverly D~ive, Los Angeles, CA 90035. Property described as a tectangulacly-shaped paccel oE land consisting of approximately 7.6 acres located at the notthwest corner of Orangewood Avenue and State College Boulevacd. Waive[ of requiced lot ft~ntage to establish a 5-lot subdivision. There was no one indicating theic 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. George Bernharth, Seaboatd Engineering Company, stated they are proposing a 5-paccel subdivision which is basically a pape[ subdivision, oc a commercial townhouse type of project whereby the three towers and parking garage would get an underlying fee title unde[ the footprint of the building and all the parking and common areas are owned as undivided interest by the pcoperty owners' association. He stated the problem is Anaheim's Codes cequice each parcel to have a legal frontage, and this project through an undivided interest in the propetty ownet's association would have all the frontages on State College and Orangewood. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr, Bernharth stated should the Commission decide to apptove this sequest, thete ace two c~e.ditions which should be modified. Condition No. 4 is a cequirement foc additional i~tevocable offet of dedication foc fut~re right-of-way and this is obviously in eeror because the same issue was brought up in the Paccel Map process and a condition was included (No. 3) which differs fcom this condition and requested the condition be changed to cead exactly as Condition No. 3 of the map approval. Jay Titus responded he would agree with that modification and the net res•zlt is the same dedication requicement. Mc. Becnharth stated Condition No. 5 requires compliance of Conditions 1, 2, 3 and 4 and Condition No. 1 is alceady complied with under the ~~rcel Map and No. 4 has already Geen done and 2 and 3 cannot be done until tecordation of the final map because they refer to Phase 2 and 3, and that condition should be amended to cead, 'That pcior to final paccel map approval, Condition Nos. 1 and 4, above-rentioned, shall be complied with.' Annika Santalahti stated staff would concur with that modification. Commissioner Herbst stated plans for this propeety have been cevised several times and asked how they will cootdinate the land uses with the patking garag~ and the open space, and stated when anothet building is built, thece will have to be some pazking. Mr. Becnhacdt stated this subdivision is st:ictly for marketing and nothing chan9es in the ptoject; and that the propecty owner's associatior, will assess the individual building owners foc maintenance, la~dscaping, etc. and instead 7/21/86 86-503 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSiON JULY 21 1986 of the three towets being owned 4y one individual, this will enable the ptopetty owner to sell each building. Commissioner Herbst asked if the landscapin9 and garages will be built before the second building is constructed. Mc. Bernhacdt responded that is a condition and the second and third phase cannot be built without the packing garage. Comm:ssioner Messe asked why there are two common lots, and Mr. Bernhardt responded one is the parking garage and the other is the open space parking and they are separated for tax purposes. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bo~as and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to establish a 5-parcel subdivision with waiver of cequiced lot ftontage on a cectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of app~oximately 7.6 acces located at the northwest cocnec of O~angewood Avenue and State Colle9e Boulevard; and does heceby appcove the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has consideced the Negative Declaration togethec with any comments received during the public review p[ocess and further findin9 on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments ceceived that thece is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effQCt on the envi~onment. Commissioner Hecbst offered Resolution No. PC86-197 and moved fo~ its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commissioa does hereby grant Variance No. 3587 on the basis that there ate special circumstances applicable to the pcoperty such as size, shape, topo9raphy, location and su~coundings which do not apply to othec identically zoned property in the same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code depcives the propecty of p~ivileges enjoyed by other propecties in the identicai zone and classification in the vicinity and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations, including modifications to Condition Nos. 5 and 3, as indicated previously. On toll call, the foregoing cesolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS~ FRY~ HERBST~ LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI~ MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONS Malcolm Slaughte~, Deputy City Attorney, pcesented the wcitten right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM NO. 15 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PE~4IT N0. 2820 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: GULAB AND LAIWANTI KAN'AL, 625 S. Hatboc Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805. AGENT: KENNETH H. CHANG, 8550 Garden Grove Blvd., ~210, Garden Grove, CA 92644. Property described as a tectangularly-shaped paccel of land consistin9 of approximately 0.13 acre, 625 South Hacbor Boulevard. To petmit an animal hospital with waivers of minimum dimension of vehicle accessways, minimum number of parking spaces and cequired ttash enclosure. 7/21/86 86-504 MINUTES, nNAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21 1986 Malcolm Slaughter explained the Planning Depactment staff has informed him that the legal advertisement, as pnblished, is in eccoc as to the location of the property, and due to that etror and because some propecty owne~s might have misconstrued the location of the pzoposal, oc may not have ceceived proper notice, suagested the matter be continued for ceadvertisement so that evetyone entitled has received ptoper notice. Laverne Wilson, 714 South Janss, indicated a lot of people from the neighborhood did not ceceive notice of this heacing and Chaicman McBUCney stated that is the reason for the continuance. ACTION: Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner La Claire and MOTION CP.RRIED that considecation of the aforementioned matter be continued to the ~egulacly-scheduled meeting of August 4, 1986, at the Cequest of the Planning staff in order that the p[oposal can be readvectised showing the correct location of subject ptoperty. ITEM N0. 16 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENI' AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2823 PU9LIC HEARING. OWNERS: LEO AND ALICE WALDMAN, 813 Royal Way, Anaheim, CA 92805. AGENT: TIM LEE, 830 N. Batavia Street, O[ange, CA 92668. Prope[ty desc[ibed as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of appcoximately 0.16 acre located at the no~theast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Topanga Drive, 3138 West Lincoln Avenue. To permit an addition to an existing restaurant with waivers of minimum stcuctural setback and minimum numbet of parking spaces. Thete was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referced to and made a part of the minutes. Tim Lee, agent, stated they are requesting a Conditional Use Permit fot a 14-foot atrium; that a parkin9 study was conducted and the consultant and City Traffic Engineer agtee that the pcoposed packing will be adequate for the use as proposed. He stated the main issue is the setback waiver and only three waive~s have been gcanted in this atea, the last being in 1973. He explained they have given over 508 of the ori9inal property to the City foc improvements and of what is left, 458 is taken up in building setbacks, so they only have 278 of the original property to build on. He stated the ftanchise of the Taco Bell is coming up this yeac and in ordet to renew the franchise they must eithet put in a d~ive-through or dining room addition and a drive-thtough would be impossible. Mr. Lee stated if the dining addition is not approved, the Taco Bell franchise will not be renewed and this restaurant will not be allowed to be competitive with other fast-food testaurants in the area. He stated they feel the landscaping on the cotner more than offsets the enctoachment into the setback at~a and they are only asking for ~he appoctunity to expand the r~staurant to remain competitive. He stated McDOnald's in that a[ea was gcanteu this vatiance. 7/21/86 86-505 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JULY 21 1986 THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mc. Lee cesponded to Chairman McBUrney that curtently there are fouc tables out ftont, or 24 seats, and they have a total of 32 seats and are pcoposin9 a total of 40, or an increase of 8 seats overall. Commissionec Hecbst stated the variance for McDOnald's was gcanted for khe setback, but they did not need a parking vatiance. Mr. Lee stated that is why they had a parking demand study done which showed there will be 30B surplus. He stated Mt. Singer was concerned that once the addition is added, there could be a parking pcoblem, so their consultant studied two additional similar facilities and they actually showed a lower demand than they originally had predicted. Paul Singec, Traffic Engineer, stated he was not sati.^•fied with the first study conducted, but because this is such an unusual Taco Bell, Mc. Pringle, the Traffic Consultant, studied two moce sites to evaluate the parking and came up with essentially the same numbec. He stated he feels fairly comfortable with the demand study. Commissionec La Claire stated if this is gtanted, she would want to tie approval to this Taco Bell, because the variance would go with the propetty and maybe othec businesses that might go in may be moce lucrative and attcact more people, and she did not want to create a pcoblem for the City in the future. Commissioners Herbst and Messe stated they were more concerned about the 35-foot setback than the parking waiver, and Commissioner Herbst stated the Commission has been trying to maintain the inte9rity of Lincoln Boulevard and noted some of the uses in that area may have 'grandfathec' cights. Comrt~issionec Messe stated looking up and down Lincoln Avenue from that property, thece are no other enccoachments. Mt. Lee stated the McDOnald's, one block away, goes right up to the stceet and this request is for only 14 feet. Commissioner La Claire stated the McDOnald's variance was approved by the Planning Commission in 1972 which was quite a long time ago and the other apptovals were in 1966 and 1973, so thece are no tecent variances gcanted and the Commission is tcying to keep the setback on Lincoln to keep the atea nice and eventually when the others come in for approval, those setbacks will be required. She stated her problems are with the setback and the parking and the fact that the building will be increased and if anything happens to this business and a new owner comes in, there could be a pcoblem and whatevet goes in could requice more parkin9. Mr. Lee stated they would be willing to tie this Conditional Use Petmit to the Taco Bell. Commissionet Bouas pointed out this patio a~ea is actually where the existing outdoor eating area is located, so the enccoachnent is already there. Chaicman McBUCney stated the pcoperty does have a lot of drawbacks and because of the way it will be constructed, it will not have a solid wall and can be seen thcough and it is actually enclosing the existing seating. Commissionet 7/21/86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CZTY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21 1986 86-506 Herbst the problem is in denying other people the same request and the City has been tcying to maintain that setback. Chairman McButney stated putting up a solid wall would be a pcoblem, but this is enclosing an existing situation, and if the petitionec had asked fo~ that same encroachment when the building was ficst constructed, it would be a pcoblem, but this building is existing. ACTION: Commissioner La Claice offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fry and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has teviewed the p~oposal to pecmit an addition to an existin9 restaurant with waivers of minimum structucal setback and minimum numbec of parking spaces on an irregulacly-shaped parcel of land consisting of appcoximately 0.16 acre located at the noctheast cotnec of Lincoln Avenue and Topanga Dcive, and further described as 3138 West Lincoln; and does hereby appcove the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has conside~ed the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public ceview process and fucther findin9 on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that the[e is no substantial evidence that the pcoject will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner La Claice offeced a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fty and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny waivec (a) on the basis that there are no special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topogtaphy, location and succoundings which do not apply to othe! identically zoned pcoperty in the same vicinity; and approval would be granting a privilege denied to other properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity; and denying waivec lb) on the basis that the parking vatiance will cause an increase in traffic con9estion in the immediate vicinity and adversely affect any adjoinin9 land uses; and that the gtanting of the parking vaciance under the conditions imposed, if any, will be detcimental to the peace, health, safety or 9enecal welfate of the citizei~s of the City of Anaheim. Commissionet La Claire offe~ed Resolution No. PC86-198 and moved foc its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does heteby deny Conditional Dse Permit No. 2823 on the basis that approval of the addition would be yranting an enctoachment into the setback along Lincoln Avenue and setting an undesitable precedent, and would adve~sely affect the adjoining land uses and growth and development of the area. On roll call, the focegoin9 resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRYe HERBST~ LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY~ MESSE NOES: LAWICKI ABSENT: NONE t4alcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attotney, ptesented the written ti9ht to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0. 17 EIR NEGATIVE DBCLARATION, WAIVER _0_F CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2824 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: DUI2ATECH INDUSTRIES, INC., 5180 E. Huntec Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92807, ATTN: JAMES M. TAYLOR. Ptopetty described as a rectan9ularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.34 acre, 5180 East Hunter Avenue. 7/21/86 ~.~~`~~'~~ 86-507 MINUTES~,A!dAEi:IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION :iuui ~. • iS86 To pecmit a chemical manufacturing facility With waiver of minimum number of requited parY.ing spaces. Thece was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject. tequest and altt~ough the staff• ~epott was not read, it is ceferred to and made a part of the minutes. Jim Taylot, owner, was pcesent to answet any questions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Responding to Commissionec Herbst, Mc. Tayloc stated they will be meeting all tequirements of the County of Otange ~nd that he will have five ertiployees. He stated occasionally a salesperson will come to this site, but the public does not come to this site. Responding to Commissioner La Claire, Mr. Taylor stated they provided a list of the chemicals to the Planning Depactment staff, and stated they have berms to contain the chemicals. Mr. Taylor ~esponded to Commissionet Messe thatsihny just recently moved into this facility and haven't had time to put up 9 ACTION: Commissioner HerbsL offeced a motion, seconded by Commissionec Messe and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning ComWi~hlWaivec ofVminimumhe proposal to permit a chemical manufacturing facility number of parking spaces on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of apptoximately 0.34 acte, having a ftontage of appcoximately 110 feet on the south side of Huntet Avenue, and furthec described as 5180 Eas~hatRit hasenue; and does heceby appcove the Ne9ative Declaration upon findin9 consideted the Negative Declatation togethec with any comments received ducing the public review process and fucther finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that the~e is no substantial evidence that the project will have a si9nificant effect on the environment. Commissioner Hecbst offeted a motion, seconded by Commissionec Messe and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby ytant waiver of code requirement on the basis that the patkiny vaciance will not cause an inccease in tcaffic congestion in the immediate vicinity no~ adversely affect any adjoining land uses; and that the gtanting of the pa~king peacenchealth, safetynoctgeneralpwelface ofnthe citizensbofathe1Cityaoft~ the Anaheim. Commissionet Hetbst offeced ResolutpianningPCommissionadoesehetebylgtantssage and adoption that the Anaheim City Conditional Use Pecmit No. 2824 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 thcough 1a.03.030.035, and subject to Intecdepattmental Committee Recommendations. On toll call, the foregoing tesolution was passed by tk;e followin9 vote: BOUAS~ FRY~ HERBST~ LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, M£SSE AYES: NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE 7J21/86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21 1986 86-508 Malcolm Slaughtec, Deputy City Attorney, pcesented the written tight t~ appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0. 18 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2825 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: BRYAN INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES~ INC.~ 146 E. Orangetho[pe Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801. A~ENT: JENNIFER C. HOYT, 146 E. Orangethorpe Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801. Property described as a tectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.86 acres, 145-151 East Orangethorpe Avenue. To permit industcially-zelated office uses in an existing one-story buildina in the ML Zone. There was no one indicating theit ptesence in opposition to subject request and although the staff zeport was not read, it is referred to and made a patt of the minutes. Richacd Catter, 2700 ~ssociated Road, Apt. 261, Fullerton, CA, stated this building was built some time ago and the uses should have been approved under a Conditional Use Permit; and that they tcied to lease it out as an industcial building with no success. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst stated this acea has been guasi-commercial for some time aiyd he has no problem with this use. Lind3 Rios, Assistant Plannec, cesponded to Commissionec Herbst that this list of uses is compatible with the approved list. ACTI~N: Commissionec He~bst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit industtially-related office uses in an existing one-story building in the M3, Zone on a rectangularly-shaped patcel of land consisting of approximately 1.86 acres, having a frontage of appcoximately 295 feet on the north side of Orangethorpe Avenue, and further described as 145-151 East Orangethorpe Avenue; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments teceived duting the public eeview ptocess and further finding on the basis of the initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the ptoject will have a significant effect on the enviconment. Commissionec Herbst offeted Resolution No. PC86-200 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Co:nmission does heceby grant Conditional Use Pecmit No. 2826 pucsua~t to Anaheim Municipal Code Se~tions 18.03.03.030 thcough 18.03.030.035 and subject to 7nterdepartmental Committee Recommendations. 3/21/86 86-509 MINUTES ANAHEIM CZTY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21 1986 On roll call, the foregoing tesolution was passed by the following vote: AYES• BOUAS, FRY~ HERBST~ LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI~ MC BURNEY~ MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Malcolm Slaughtec, Deputy City Attorney, ptesented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0. 19 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMZT N0~_Z8?6 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: JOSEPH WILLIAM AND MARY FRANCES ROACH~ 1506 E. Melody Lane, Fulle[ton, CA 92631. AGENT: MASCIEL DEVELUPMENT, P. 0• BoX 4241, Anaheim, CA 92801• Loximatelya6S465bsquaceafeet,a1627aEastSSycamote~cel of land consisting of app St~eet. To permit the constcuction of a 1-story, 4-unit senior citizen's apa~tment ptoject with waivers of minimum landscaped fcont setback, minimum floot area of dwelling units (deleted) and minimum width of private patios (deleted). There was no one indiCating thei[ presence in opposition to subject tequest and although the staff repott was not read, it is ~efetred to and made a part of the minutes. Gaty Masciel, agent, was pcesent to answec any questions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ACTION: Commissione[ La Claire offe[ed a motion, sc.^.onded by Commissioaec Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit the construction of a 1-stocy, 4-unit senior citizens' apactment project with waivet of minimum landscaped setback on a cectangulacly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 6,465 square feet, having a fcontage of approximately 60 feet on the nocth side of Sycamore Stteet, and fucther described as 1627 East Sy~amore St~eet; and does he~eby approve the Negative Declacation upon finding that it has conside~ea ublic Negative Declaration to9ethe[ with any comments received ducing the p ceview process and furthet finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments ceceived that thete is no substantial evidence that the pcoject will have a siynificant effect on the environmen•:. Jay Titus, Office Engineer, asked that Condition No. 4 be modified to ~ead: "That dcainage of subject property st~all be disposed of in a manner satisfactocy to the City Engineer." Commissionec La Claite offered a motion, seco~co~bssionmdoes hecebyugcanta MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning waiver of code cequitement on the basis that thete ace special ciccumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and surtoundings wh'sch do not apply to other identically zoned propetty in the same vicinity; and that sttict application of the Zoning Code depcives the 7/21/86 86-510 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ~ULY 21 1986 property of ptivileges enjoyed by other propatties in the identical zone and classification in the vicin:ty. Commissioner La Claire offered Resolution No. PC86-201 and moved foc its passage and adoption that the ~naheim City Planning Commission does heceby grant Conditional Use Petmit No. 2826 pu[suant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 thcough 18.030.030.035 and on the basis that evidence was presented showing that the pcoject is reasonably accessible to necessary services, including grocery stores, tcansit stops, medical facilities and banks, and subject to InterdepaLtmental Committee kecommendations, including a modificatian to Condition No. 4. On roll call, the foregoin9 resol~:tion was passed by the following vote: AYES• BOUASi FRY~ HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI~ MC 6'1RNEY~ MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Malcolm Slaughtec, Deputy City Attorney, ptesented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. RECESS: 4:55 P.M. RECONVENE: 5:05 P.M. ITEM NO. 20 E.I.R. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 217-LAND USE ELEMENT PUBLIC HEARING. This is a City-COUncil initiated General Plan Amendment to consider modifications of the boundarias of the Commeccial Recreation iCR) atea in the Disneyland/Convention Center a:ea. The following five study areas, totaiing approximately 55.2 acres, are being consideced for readjustment to the boundazies of the CR atea: Studv Area I: Appcoximately 3.1 acces bounded on the north by Vermont Avenue, east by a public alley, and southwest by the Santa Ana (5) Freeway. Currently designated for Commeccial Receeation land uses. Study Area II: Approximately 4.1 acces located on the south side of Vermont Avenue, apptoximately 190 feet east of the c~nterline of Citron Stteet and 285 feet west of the centerline of Hatbor Boulevard. Curtently designated fot Commercial Recreation land uses. Study Area IIi: Apptoximately 22.7 acres located on the northeast cocne[ of Ball Road and Harboc Boulevard. Cutcently designated for General Commetcial and Commercial Pcofessional land uses. Study Area IV: Apptoximately 8.5 acres located on the northwest cocner of Orangewood Avenue and Hacbor Boulevacd and 4.2 acres located on the no[theast corner of Orangewood Avenue and Hatbot Boulevacd. Cuc~ently designated for General Commeccial land uses. Stud_ Y A~_ea ~= APProximately 12.6 acres located on the northwest corner of Orangewood Avenue and Manchester Avenue, extending apptoximately 1550 feet north along Manchestec Avenue. Curcently designated for Commercial Recteation land uses. 7/21/86 ~ MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JULY 21~_ 1986 86-511 Greg Hastings, Associate Planner, presented the staff report to the Planning Commission dated July 21, 1986. Delight Neese, 701 Lamack Dcive, stated she is representing thtee homeowners in the area just west of the old Thciftimart, at the corner of Orangewood and Harbor, and they are not for oc against the request, but are interested in what is happening in that area. She stated she hoped the City would keep a little closer control over what is going on in that acea because theze have been some real problems and the p~operty whete the old Thriftimatt was is really an eye sore to the whole area. Amil Schoening, just west of the Thriftimart, stated the homeowners in his tract are very interested in what happens to this property; that it has been sitting there for about 1-1/2 years and they would like to have it developed because it doesn't look good and asked what this general plan amendment wiZl do and what changes will take place, and how it will affect the property owners on the west side. He asked why :his amendment was requested. Joel Fick, Assistant Director for Planning, explained as a part of the on- going studies for the commercial rec~eation area, City Council instructed staff to look at the CR desi9nations on the General Plan to see whether some of the the land uses within that area should mote appropriately be designated tn something else, or whether some of the ateas should be designated foc commeccial recreation. Mr. Fick explained the existing General Plan designation for Azea 4, which is the area Mr. Schoening would be interested in, is commercial geneeal which really allows a wide range of commercial type land uses. He added it is staff's opinion that commercial recceation is the designation that is really more consistent with what should be the ultimate land uses along Ha~bor Boulevard, and the continued uses going on from the Disneyland area; that a recommendation for approval of this genecal plan amendment from the Planninq Commission to the City Council will not dictate any specific land use or change the zoning or instigate any immediate development. He added the Commission is to recommend to the City Council what the long-cange land use policy is in that area and what the City would like to see and that is the intention of the City's General Plan. Mc. Schoening asked about the property on the east side of Harbor, right ac~oss from the old Thriftimatt, pointing out it has two large motels and a bank building on the c~tnec and asked why that property was included in this request. Gre9 Hastings cesponded the uses on the East side of Harbor are, in fact, the uses which would nocmally be found in the commercial cecreational zone and the intent here was to bring this area into conformance with the General Plan. Mt. Schoening asked if the Plaaning Commissian is trying to yet a tighter control in the whole Disneyland area, and Chairman McBUrney responded that is correct. Chuck Kaace, 828 Vermont, asked if the Planniny Depattment will be making any recommendations to the City Council. Greg Hastings explained all this property in Area 1 is currently designated foc Commeccial Recreation uses and 7/21/86 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JULY 21, 1986 __ 86-512 four exhib~ts are presented, and that staff is cecommendin9 that Exhibit A be approved, redesignating the atea f~om Commercial Recreation to General Commercial. Victor Weltman, 1024 Cambridge, asked about the Ball Road and Harboc Boulevard proper*_y. Greg Hastings explained that is Area 3 which would be redesignated from General Commeccial to Commercial Recteation. In response to Mt. Weltman, he stated at t5is time staff does not have any knowledge of any plans involving tiiat p*operty. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissionec Fty stated he agrees all the tecommendations, except Area 5, and thought some conside~ation should be given to splitting that area into two separate designations, with Commercial on the top portion. Joel °ick stated that propecty is actually split and that is pcobably the one area staff did ra;:+: make a recommendation on because they have not heard very much from the :. .etty owners and the propetty on the northerly one-half is existing commercial with an automobile sales lot, and the property on the south has been approved for an apartment project and perhaps another altetnative could be presented combining Exhibits A and B, and staff could support that altecnative, and noted staff would be comfortable with Commission approving this request today, and identifying the new Exhibit as Exhibit E, which would be a combination of Exhibits A and C, commercial on the noeth, and medium density residential on the south. ACTION: Commissionec La Claire offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki and I+lOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to ad~ust the boundaties of the CR (Disneyland/Convention Center) area, including five study areas: 1) approximately 3.1 acres bounded on the north by Vermont Avenue, east b~ a public alley, and southwest by the Santa Ana (5) Freeway, cucrently designated Commercial Rec~eation; 2) approximately 4.1 acces located ono the south side of Vermont Avenue, approximately 190 feet east of the centerline of Citcon Street and 285 feet west of the centerline of Harbot Boulevard, currently designated Commetcial Recteation; 3) approximately 22.7 acces located on the northeast corner of Ball Road and Hacbor Boulevard, currently designated Commercial Rec~eation; 4) approximately 8.5 acces located on the northwest cotner of Orangewood Avenue and Harbor Boulevard, curcently designated Genetal Commercial; 5) approximately 5.1 acces located on the nocthwest cornez of Orangewood Avenu~ and Manchester Avenue, currently designated Commercial recreation; and does hereby appcove the Ne9ative Declatation upon finding that it has consideted the Negative Declaration together with any comments teceived during the public ceview process and futther finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that thete is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner La Claire offered Resolution No. PC86-202 and moved foc its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Plannin9 Commission does hereby recommend adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 217, Exhibit A for Area 1, General Commercial; Area 2, EXhibit A, Medium Density Residential; Acea 3, Exhibit A, Commeccial Recreation; Area 4, Exhibit A, General Commetcial; and 7/21/86 86-513 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JULt 21 1986 Area 5, Exhibit E, Commercial on the north and Medium Density Residential on the south. On coll call, the foregoing resolution aas passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS~ FRY~ HERBST~ LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI~ MC BURNEY~ MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Malcolm Slaughter, Dep~ty ~ity Attorney, presented the written tight to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. Commissionet La Claire stated this action was basically to bting evetything into conformance wi~h what is existing and make sute we have conttol of development in the futuze. Commissioner Bouas stated the~e were no plans for a p~oposal on these properties. CommissionE:c Fty thanked staff fo~ a job well done. ITEM ND• 21 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS p, yARIANCE NO. 3534 - Request from Anaheim City Council for the Planning Commission to review revised plans (Revision No. 1) for a 27-unit affordable condominium complex located at 1916-1932 East Cypcess Street. Chaicman McBUrney stated this pcoject was pteviously a 40-unit apactment complex with waivecs of maximum strucY.ural hei9ht, minimum lot azea, minimum site coverage and minimum floor area and now it is a 27-unit affordable condominium complex, with a diffe~ent ingcess and egress with a drive through the center area underneath a common balcony. Commissioner Fry stated he feels they are just askinq for tou much. Linda Rios, Assistant Plunner, stated when this project was originally submitted with the first set of revised plans, it showed a 27-unit apartment complex, and ~efetced to the last page of the staff report comparing this ptoject and the standacds for RM-2400 which would allow apartment units; that if this were to cemain a 27-unit apartment complex, the petmitted density is 18.2 units pet acre and with a 258 density bonus, it would be permitted 22 units, oc 27 units with the density bonus and the applicant is pcoposing a density bonus of almost 638 undet the RM-3000 standards. She explained the cequest is now for condominiums tather than apattments which is a large density bonus under the RM-3000 standards. Commissioner Herbst stated the petitioner was told that the Comr~ission would want the project to stay within the RM-2400 standatds because thete is only one access to this site, and that is through Coffman to Lincoln, and also every p~operty owner along there will want the same thin9. Co~missionec Fry stated the access is £rom Cypcess onto Evelyn Drive, so everyone will have to come out onto Lincoln and putting more development will j~1st add to the problem at Coffman & Lincoln. Commissiones Hetbst stated if the ptopetty is going to ee developed, it could conform to the Zoning cequirements. ~~21/g6 , _,' 86-514 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNIN6 COMMISS70N JULY 21 1986 ACTION: Commissioner Fry offeced a motion, seconded by Commissionet Se[bst and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has ceviewed the revised plans (Revision No. 1) of Vati.ance No. 3534 and due to limited acce~s and density does hereby recommend to the City Council that the ptoject confotm to RM-2400 standards. OTHER DISCUSSION: Chairman McBUCney noted the Orange County Cities Planning Commission wotkshop is to be held August 24, 1:30 to 5:30 in Garden Grove, Pcincess Hotel, and noted it is a-half day wockshop and anyone interested should contact the Secretary. ADJOURNED: COMMISSION~R FRY OFFERED a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki and Motion Cac~ied that the meeting be adjoucned. The meeting was adjoutned 5:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ,~~ ,~/.~~~~~, Edith L. Ha~[is, Secretary Anah?im City Planning Commission ELH:lm 0207m 7/21/86