The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1986/08/04REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETZNG The regular meeting of the Anaheim r_ity Planning Commission was callPd to ordPr by Chatcman McBUrnPy at 10:00 a.m., A~gust 4, 1986, in the Council Chamber, a quorum bPtng prPSPnt, and thP Commisston LPV{PWPa plans of the items on today's agenda. RECESS: .i1:30 a.m. RECONVENED: 1:35 p.m. PRESENT: Chairman: McBucnPy Commissioners: Bouas, Fry, Herbst, La ClatcP, MPSSP ABSENT: Commissioner: Lawicki. ALSO PRESENT: Anntka Santalahtt Malcolm Slaughter Jay Titus Paul Singer Larry Cabrera Greg Hastings Linda Ri.os Edith L. 8accis Assisl-ant Diroctor f~r Zoni.ng Deputy City Attotney II OfftcP Engir.PPr Traffic EnginPPt Housing RPhabilitation Supprvis~r Associate Planner Planning AidP Pla!:.^.;r~g ::ommission Secretary MINUTES FOR APPROVAL - C~mmissionPr INPSSP askPd that thP mtnutPs b~ c~rrPctpd on Pages 484 and 485 to show that Dan O'Conner or pon Fears spoke rather than Leonar.d Smtth. Commissi.onPc MpssP offPrPd a motion, sPCOndPd by C~mmisstonPr Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Lawicki absent) that the minutes of thP meeking ~f July 2l, 1986, bP approvPd as c~rrPCtPd on PagPs 484 and 485. ITEM N0. 1 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMZT N0. 2805 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: RICHARD G. AND BARBARA L. SAYLOR, 804 W. Broadway Street, Anaheim, CA 92805. Ptoperty dPSCribed as a rectangularly-shapPd parcel of land consisting of approximatPly 0.32 acrPs, locatpd at thP ~outhwest cornez of Broadway and Citcon Stceet, and fucther described as 604 West Broadway. WaivPrs ~f minimum rpar yard sPtback and rPqutcpd typP ~f parktng spacPS to permit a bpd and breakfast inn in the R[d-2400 zonP. ContinuPd from thP mPPtings of JunP 9, 23 and Jul.y 7, 1986. It was tioted the petitionec has requested that subject petition be withdrawn. ACTION: CommisstonPr Bouas offPtPd a moti.on, sPCOndPd by Commtssi.onPr H~rbst and MOTION CARRIEA (Commissioner Lawicki absent) that subject petition bP withdtawn at tha applicant's rPquPSt. 86-515 8/4/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, AUGUST 4~ 1986 86-516 ITEM N0. 2 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2774 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: HOLLY WADE DAVIDSON, P. 0. Box 325, Ho.lualoa, HI 96725. AGENTS: ORANGE COUNTY STEEL SALVAGE, INC., 3200 E. Fronteta Street, Anaheim, CA 92806, ATTN: GEORGE ADAMS. PropPrty dPscribPd as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 6.4 acres, 3200 East ErontPra StrPPt (OrangP County StPPI SalvagP). To permit a private heliport in conjunction with a resoucce recovery operation (OrangP County StPP7. SalvagP). It was noted the petitioner has requested a continuancp. ACTION: CommissionPr Bouas ofiPrPd a motion, sPcondPd bp CnmmtssionPr HPrbst and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Lawicki absent) that cor.sideration of thP aforPmPntionPd mattPr bP conti.nuPd to thP mPPting of Octob~r 13, 1°86, at thP requFSt of thF petitioner. ITEM N0. 3 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 28J.9 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: FAR WEST SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOC. (AMERICAN FIDELITY CORP,), 4001 MacArthur Boulevard, Newport B?ach, CA 92660. AGENTS: LIVING FAITH CHURCH, 12862 'H" GardPn GcnvP B~ulPvard, GardPn Gr~vP, CA 92643. Property described as an ic:egu.larly-shapPd parcel of land consisting of approxi.matP.ly 9.5 acrPS, 3584 EntPrprisP DrtvP. To permit a chucch in the ML Zone with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. ContinuPd fcom thP mPPttng ~f July 7, ).986. It was noted the petitioner has requested subject petition be continued. ACTION: CommissionPr HPrbst offPrPd a m~tion, sPCOndpd by CommissionPr MPSSP and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Lawicki absent) that the aforementioned mattPr bP c~ntinuPd ta thP rPgularly-schPdulPd mPPti.ng ~f August 18, 1.9d6, at the petitioner's request. ITEM N0. 4 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2785 PUBLIC HEARING. CWNERS: SEYMOUR ADLER, 16608 ParklanP Drivp, Lns AngP.lPS, CA 90049. AGENT: LEE C. HUNTER, 1807 N. Raymond Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801. PropPrty dPscribPd as a fPCtangular.ly-shapPd parcP.l of land c~nsi.sti.ng nf approximate'_y 3.2 acres, 1807 North Raymond AvenuP. To permit a sales officP in conjunction with an Pxtst3ng wholPSalP carpPt business. ContinuPd from thP mPPttng of Ju.ly 7, 1986. It was noted the petitionec has requested subject petition be continued. 8/4/86 86-517 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4 1986 ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a mation, seconded by Commissioner Hecbst and MOTION CARRIED (CommissionPr Lawicki absPnt) that thP af~r~mPntionpd matter be continued to the regulac.ly-scheduled meeting of September 3, 1985, at the p~titi.onPr's rPquPst. ITEM ND_5 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAIVER OF CODE REQUIkEMENT AND CONDZTIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2820 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: GULAB AND LAIWANTI KANAL, 625 S. Harbor Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805. AGENT: KENNETH H. CHANG, 8550 Gacden Grove Blvd., #Z10, Ga~dPn GrovP, CA 92644. PropPtty dPscri.bPd as a rPctangularly-shapPd parcP.l of land consisting of appcoximately 0.13 acre, 625 South Harbor Boulevard. To pPrmi.t an animal h~spital with waivPrs ~f m~.nimum dimpnsi~n ~f vPhiclP accessways, minimum number of patking spaces and requirPd ttash enclosurP. ContinuPd from thP mPPti.ng ~f July 2l, 1986. ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offeced a motion, seconded by CommiP~i~j~n bPrbst and MOTION CARRIED (C~mmissionPr Lawi.cki absPnt) that subjPct p withdrawn at the petitioner's request. ITEM N0. 6 EIR NtGA•rlvc YGVUnn~+~ ~~r~nv ~ uFCr.aSSIFICATION N0. B5- PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: CLAUDIA KINNE, ET AL, c/~ KIRK H. FINLEY, 1502 N. Broadway, Santa Ana, CA 92701. AGENT: TONY WATNPONnr~ABPaOh,RCAL9Z660TE INVESTMENTS, 840 NPwpnrt CPntPr Dr., Suit Pa40atcP~pof land consisting of Propecty described as a rectangularly-shap- P". approximatPl.y 3 acrPs locatPd at thP northPast CnLnPr of KatPlla AvPnuP and Claudina Way, 509 E. Katella. GPA - rPquPSt to consi.dPr amPndmPnt to thP Land UsP EIPmPnt of thP GPnPral. Plan to consider alternative proposal of land use from the current general industrial. dPsi.gnations to thP gPnPcat c~mmPrcial dPstgnation. ML to CL o" a less intPnse zonp. Waiver of mintmum landscapPd a~Pa t~ Pxpand rPtai.l usPs in an Pxisttng retail/warehouse building. ContinuPd from thP mPPti.ngs ~f May 12 and 28, 1986. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and alth~ugh thP staff rPpoct was n~t rPad, i-t ts rPfPrrPd to and madp a part of the minutes. James Bohan, 12431 Lotus StrPPt, SuitP 201, GardPn GrovP, pxplainPd thPy arP requesting a General Plan Amendment in ordec to rezone the ptoperty at 509 East KatPlla; that thP pcoPPrtY is cu~~oXimatelyP15M000nsquate{feetaofuretail permits have been g~anted to allow app uses on thP Qr~pPtty; and that thP p~~pPrty is currPntly occuptPd by PiPr .l, Radio Shack and Fabcic Warehouse. He stated there is an additional 28,~00 8/4/86 MII~UTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNIVG COtdb7ISS:ON AUGUST 4 1986 86-518 square feet which is still under industcial tegu.lations and they would likP that propPrty rPzonPd to commPe'cial., limttPd in ~rdpr to pPrmi.t additional retail and commercial uses on the property. He pointed out there are OtI1PT pcopPrttPs ~n KatP.lla z~nPd h1L which havP conditional usP pPCmits foc commercial or retail uses such as restaucants, hotels, office buildings, etc. He statPd thP propPrty is sui.tablP foc rPtatl us?s UPcausP i.t is l~,catPd on Katella Avenue, adjacent to the freeway. Concerning thP pa~king waivPr, hP Pxplai.nPd thPy arP rPquirPd to dPdicatP property alon9 Claudina which will Pliminate some of thP parking when the City accepts thP dedicati.nn. Mr. Bohan prPSPntPd a colorPd rPndPring and PxplainPd thPy will bP kPPping thP currPnt tenants and will improve the building, givin9 it a cetail characker and currantly havP sPvPral rPtai.lPrs i.ntPrPStPd i.n lpasing th1.s propPrty. Mr. Bonan stated the uses along Katella are mostly commercial, and although he has not sPPn thP Stadium ArPa Study, was t~ld by staff in thP P1.anni.ng DPpartmPnt tl~at there is going to be a need for commercial parcels in the stadium area and th?y feel this parcP7. would bP idPal as a commprcial si.tP. THE PUBI,IC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Responding t~ Commissi.onPr F~y, Mr. B~han statPd currPntly thPy havA CodP required parking spaces, but when Claudina StrePt is widaned, 143 parking spaces wtl.l bP lost, iPavi~•ig 1?6 spacPs and thP Trarfic EnginPP~ fPPls that should be adequaCP. Chairman McBUrnPy askPd if this propP~ty is dPsignatPd for commP~cial. usPs in the Stadium Ar?a Study. Greg Hastin9s, Ass~~ciate Planner, explainPd thP Stadium ArPa Study addrPssPs cnmmprcial i.n r~PnPra] and thP fact that 1.t wi.ll be need?d to support the commercial office uses, but no cectain properties oc arPas havA bPPn i.dPnti.fiPd f~~ c~mmPrcial usPs. Commissioner Herbst stated he is not in favor of this typP 'spot zoning' which is in thP midd.iP of an i.ndustrtal arRa and fP].t tho applicant shou~.d sttll bp required to apply for a conditional use permit for any of the specific usPs becausP ~f thP traffic in thP arPa. HP addPd hp would l.ikP to ~PP a complPtP study on Katella from the freeway to State College to see if the trend is to commPrci.al and L-~ dPtPrmi.nP what ts going to happPn to thP othPr industrial property owners who bou9ht their properties for industrial uses. He stated this propPrty abuts an i.ndustrial arPa and hP did nnt thtnk it i~ right to interject this type of traffic onto those industrial users; and that he did not know how many of thP propPrty ~wnars in that ar?a want to rPZOnP thPic propecties to commercial and he thought the study should be done befoce this •spot zontng' is appr~vPd. Mr. Bohan statPd hP would agrPP it wou.ld bP 'spot zoning' from thP GPnPral Plan aspect, but lookin9 at the land uses in the area, there are morP commPrcial usPS than i.ndustriat usPS. HP statPd hP undPrstands thP Planntng Commission is not allowing any conditional use permits for commercial uses in the ML Zo:~ and that prohibtts him from adding any rPtail usPS• 8/A/86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4 1986 86-519 He stated they are interested in buying the proper.ty and improving it, but if they cannot havP addtti.onal commPrcial usPs, thPy would n~t buy thP propPrty and it is not an asset to the community in its present condition. CommissionPr Fry statPd n~rmal.ly hp woul.d agrPP wi.th not al.lowing "~p~t zoning`; however, in this instance, a lot of prope~cy is going to be lost to LhP wid?ning ~f Claudi.na and thPrP are othPr commPrcial usPs ~n KatPlla in that area and this appears to be a logical transition from the industcial zonP to a high-bred commercial znnP and hP would not want to h~7.d thP applicant up for 3 L-o 6 months while a study is conducted. He stated a study would probably sh~w that thi.s propprty sh~uld bP c~mmp~cial anyway. HP statPd in this case, hP would bP in favor of the application. CommissionPr Herbsr. statPd with changPs that c~uld bP madP on KatP~la, this property could b?comF isolated to a certain dPgCPP wiCh limited access. HP addPd accPss tn thi.s sitP i.s n~t vPry gnnd anyway. C~mmi.ssi.onPr Fry statPd hP thought th? access is excPllent from Claudina with the controllPd traffi.c signal. CommisstonPr La C1.airP statPd thi.s is p~~bably a g~~d arPa f~r th~s typP usP and it is being us?d commercially anyway. She clarifiPd that th? existing Pi?r 1 warPh~usP will bP rPl~catPd to thPir warPh~usP ~n La Pal.ma and expl~ined th? mozatorium ~n conditional use permit-s has put the Planning Commtssi.on in thp mi.ddlP with thP study bPing conductP~. Shp statPd having discussPd this with City staff and in looking at the properties on KatPlla, she b?li.PvPd PvPntually KatP].la will bP m~stly cnmmPrcial businPssPs and commercial office uses from Disney.land to the Stadium. She stated she wou.id vote in favoc of this cequest, ~vPn th~ugh i.t is "spot z~ning'; and that thPrP is a study bPing conduct?d which shP bPlievPd will indicate that in thP futuce, this pcopPrCy wil.l bP c~mmPrci.al.~~r c~mmPrcial offtcP. ShP askPd about the plans for landscaping. Mc. B~han statpd thPy wi].L bP using ~.ow shrubs wi.th landscaping along thp front and sides in ocder to scteen the building. He stated there is somP landscaping sh~wn ~n thP pl.ans. Linda Rtos statPd thP pcPvi.ous app].tcant, Tony Wattson, indicatPd they wou]~ be ~illing to landscape the City's right-of-way along KatP.ila tn Pti.minatP thP dtrt arPa nPxt to thP parki.ng lot. Mc. Bohan responded they would be wil.lin9 to comply with that stipulation by th~ prPVious dPvPJ.opPr• Mal.c~.lm S].aughtPr statPd i.f thP ptPSPntly dPdi.catPd right-of-way is thP arPa bPing discussed, the devPloper would have to obtain an encroachment pPrmit fcom thP City; h~wPvPC, thP arPa to bP trrPvocably ~ffPrPd for dedi.cationremains the pcoperty of the property owner until such time the City actually accepts the dedication. Commissioner Messe asked if the area currently bPtrq usPd foT warPhou.^P spacP would have both fcont and reac entrances aftec the i~uilding is remodeled. Mr. Bohan stated the eastPrn ~nP-half ~f thP butldtng ~~uld bP usPd for loading and parking and all the entrances would be orientated toward Claudina. Commissioner MPSSP statFd retatl customPrs parking nn L-hP Past sidP would havP to walk all the way acound the building. 8/4/86 86-520 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSTON, AUGUST 4 1986 Mr. Bohan stated they would have employees park in that acPa and have accePd7s through thP CPaC doors. CommissionPr MPgML.sBohan resp ndedhm st{ofnthepp to be on the east side of the building. parking is on the south side of the b~ilding or the rear of the sitP. Commissionet Bouas stated this .emodeled buildin9 would make a bPtter looking entrancP to thP City off thP frePway and mayb~ i.t wou~d bP thP sta!t t° ozar improvin9 all of that area and added she tho~ight this was probably a temp Y measure until thP final dPc'sion is madP 10 y?az leasesPwithlPiet lnandaRadio arPa. Mr. Bohan stated they are signing 8hack and arP looking at this as a long tPrm invPStmPnt bPcausP it i.s an ontKatella;rhowever~CthaynfPltathPrPfistp~pbablylayb?ttPreandPhighPrnusPefog the property. CommissionPr La ClaisP statPd shP would votP in favor of this bacausP it ts the 9ateaay to the area and she is also interested in seeing that the ptopecty is improvPd, pspPcially with somP nicP .landscaptng. ShP n~tPd thP~p is vPry little landscapin9 shown on the plans and Wa~npKatPllaeand~nPxt1totthP and wanted to kn~w if thPYP will bP landscaptng building. John Lundstrom, a!chitPct, p~intPd ~ut arPas that woul.d bP landscapPd on th? plans and pointed out pres?ntly there is no landscaping on the propecty and they will landscape the City right-of-way on Katella and add landscaping at the entrances and in the 5-foot strip along Claudina, noting there would be a 2-foot oveshan9 of vehicles in that strip. HP statPd thP 1.andscaping wil.l bP in isolated pockets throughout the sitp. Commissioner La Claire stated she is concerned about the study being conducC?d, but fe.lt eventiial.ly this area would be commeccial and did not want tO dPlay thP aPVP.LnpPT• CnmmtssionPr Fry Pxpl.ainPd thPrP is not .-Pally a~otatorium ~n grantin9 conditional use permits in that area, but the Commission has elected not to gzant any conditional use pesmits uncil a study is conducted to determin~~ w1~at the future of that area is goin9 to be and noted this is only in the Anahpim Stadium Area. ACTION: Commissionec Fty offered a motion, seconded by Commissionec Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Lawicki absent) that the Anaheim City P].anning Commission has ~eviewe~ thP proposa.l to redesignate subject psoperty from r.he currant genezal, industrial designation to a general commercial designation on the Land Use Element of the General Plan on an icregularly-shaped parc?1 of land consisting of approximately 3 acres located on the noctheast corner of Katella Avenue and Claudina Way and fucther described as 509 East Kat?lla Avenue; and to reclassify subject pcope~ty f~om ML (Industrial, Limited) to CL (CommPrcial, Limited) Zone to expand retail uses in an existing reCail warehouse buzlding with waivers of minimum nCObe the NegativeSDeclar.ation upon minimum landscaped asea; and does heteby app finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments seceived duting the public review pcocess and fuzther finding on L-he basis of the Initial Study and any comments ceceived that thete is no 8/4/86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4 1986 86-521 substantial evidence that the project will have a si9nificant effect on thP environment. Commissioner Fry offered Resolution No. PC86-203 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission ~~es hereby recommend adoption of the Genezal Plan Amendment No. 213 to tP~e Cit~ Council to r?deszgnate subject property from the general, industri~l to general, commeccial designation. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY~ LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY~ MESSE NOES: HERBST ABSENT: LAWICKI Commissioner Fry offered Resolution No. PC86-204 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commisszon does hereby 9rant R~classification No. 85-86-33 subject to Interdepart~ental Committee recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing cesolution was passed by th? following vote: AYES: BOUASr FRY~ LA CLAIRE~ MC BURNEY~ MESSE NOES: HERBST ABSENT: LAWICKI Commissioner Fry offeted Resolution No. PC86-205 and moved fos its passage and adoption that the Anah~im City Planning Commission doPS hereby grant Variance No. 3568, granting waiver (al on the basis that the parking waiver will not cause an incr?ase in traffic congestion in the immPdiate vicinity nor adversely affect any adjoining Xand uses and granting of the pazking waiver undet Che conditions imposed, if any, will n~t be detsimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim and gtanting waiver (b) on the basis that that there are special ciccumstances applicable to the ptoper.ty such as size, shape, topogtaphy, l.ocation and surroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicinity; and that sttict application of the Zoning Code deprives the propesty of privileges enjoyed by othec properties in the identical zone and subject to Interdepartmenta~ Committee cecommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following ~ote: AYES: BOUAS~ ERY~ LA CLAIRE~ MC BURNEY~ MESSE NOES: HERBST ABSENT: LAWICKI Commissioner Fry offeLed a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Lawicki absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council review Reclassification No. 85-86-33 and Variance No. 3568 in conjunction with General Plan Amendment tJo. 213. 8/4/86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4 1986 86-522 ITEM NO. 7 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION (READV. ) G1;dY:1(AL YLHp nric.~.ur,....~ .•..• -- (READV.) RECLASSIFICATION NO. 86-B7-3 (READV.) AND VARIANCE N0. 3588 READV. PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: D& D DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, 711 E. Imperia.l Highway, Suite 200, Brea, CA 92621, ATTN: BRUCE H. DOHRMANT AND CAMILLE H. COURTNEY. Property described as an irregula~ly-shaped parcel of land consisting of appsoximately 7.5 acres , 2900-2920 East Linco.in Avenue. GPA - To consider amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan ptoposing a redesignation from the low density residential and low-medium density residential to a medium density residential designation. RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200 or a less intense zon?. Waivers of maximum struccusa.l height and minimum structura.l setback and yard requirement to construct a 220-unit, 2-stocy apactmPnt complex. Continued from the meeting of July 21, 1986. There were appcoximately thirty pecsons indicatin9 their presence in opposition with eight people indicatin9 their desire to speak in opposition to subject request and although che staff repoct was not read, it is referred to and made a pact of the minutes. Commissioner Fry d?clared a conflict of interest as defined by Anaheim City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC76-157 adopting a Conflict of Interest Code for the Ylanning Commission and Government Code Section 3625, et seq., in that his employer may be involvPd in this pt~ject and pursuant to the provisions of tt~e above Codes, declatPd to the Chairman that he was withdrawing from the hearing in connecCion with subject request, and would not take part in either the discussion or the voting theceon and had not discussed this matter with any member of the Plannin9 Commission. Theceupon Commissionec Fry left the Council Chamber. Camille Courtney, applicant, stated they are contributin9 508 a'f the cost of installation for a traffic signal on Lincoln and Condicion No. 6:equices the traffic signal assessmPnt fees to be paid. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated in lieu ~f the fees, the developer will participate 50B tin the cost of the signal. Ms. Courtney referred to Condition No. 11 and noted that wall should be on the west property line instead of the Past psoperty line as indicated. Linda Rios responded that is correct. Ms. Couctney stated l•he proposed project more than meets Code in most of the development standards. She stated on ~July 27th they had a community meeting with the nei9hboCS and several issues were taise, one with tegard to any access wnich may be takPn to South Street. She stated they do not intend to have a dir:ect access to South Street and there will be an emer9ency crash gate only; and that traffic impacts on the nei9hborhood ar.e essentially nil since they will be adding traffic to Lincoln Avenue with no direct access to the adjacent neighborhood. She stated the Tzaffic Engineer has determined that the additional traffic is not si9nificant. 8/4/86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4 1986 86-523 Ms. Courtney stated the project will b? two stories in hei9ht which has bePn a concern for the neighboshood and chere is an avetage of 50 feet from the property line with a minimum of 40 feet; and that the previously approved project for 99 townhome~ was two stories and was approximately 50 feet away from the property line. °hP stated the neighborhood consists of single-family homes and apartments and this project is adjacent to single-family residenc?s only on the wPstern boundary; and that the project wi11 b~ two-stor.y units over tuck-under parking 4-1/2 feet below the exlstin9 grade. She stated the project will b? at market rates and thece will be two types of apactments, with the smaller 1-bedroom unit at 700 square feet and the 2-bedroom unit at 920 square feet; and that this is t~ be a quality project with a tennis court, pool and two spas. She stated they havP had letters ftom n?ighbors in thP area who are unable L-o attend the meeting in suppor.t of the pr~jPCt; and that the p~oject wil.l block a lot of th? traffic noisP fcom Lincoln and sh~uld also d?cceas? threats of vandalism because the site is curr?ntly accessible from the civer. Salli Kosek, 2882 E. Standish, Anaheim, prPSented letters from nPighbors who could :.~t attend the meeting and a pPt.ition with 260 signatur?s. Sh? stated she cepres,~nts thP 'East Anaheim Citizens for a Better Community' which has approximately 100 members and that they oppose thP project. She statPd they are not opposing the developmPnt of thP property, but EPPZ this 220-unit ap~rtment complPx is not within the qual.ity and caliber of the existiny neighborhood. Eugen? L. Kosek, 2882 E. Standish, stated the request for a change in the GPnecal P.lan raises a quPStion of 'wascing tax d~llars' by having thP original Genecal Plan preparad and then having constant proposals to change it; that the original Genecal Plan was an award winner for th? City of Anaheim; and that che original concPpt o~ the 99-unit condominium concept was acceptable co the surroundin9 homeowners. He r?ad a letter datPd August 1, 1965, from the devPloper advising resid?nts of the condominium project and of th? fact that one-story units would bP locatPd behind the homes on W?stgate: 'D 6 D Development Company has pucchased app~oximately 7 acrPs at 2900 and 2920 East Lincoln Avenue and is p.lanning to develop River Run Townhomes. ApproximatP.ly 9a one- and two-story meditesranean style townhomes will be buflt, along with a pool and cecreation acea. The townhomes wi'~1 have attached garages and substantial back yards, som? large enough for swimming pools. All a.long the west boundary, adjacent to the existing homes on WPStgate, will be one story. The entire sic~ will be left as close to ?xisting grad? as possiblP; therefore, the privacy of you~ yard will be maintained. Tlie entrance ~o the project will be off Lincoln Av?nue near the west propetty line. There will be no access onto South Stceet. When we purchased the pcoperty, iC was intended to be developed as apactments, but we felt quality "for sale' housing would be more in keeping with your nei9hborhood and hope you agree.• S/4/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSZON, AUGUST 4, 1986 86-524 Mr. Kosek stated this project went from 99 units to 214 units and now co 220 units, and the lattec increase (214 to 220) occurred within one week. He asked if they can expect escalations of this pcojecc on a weekly basis; that cutrent.ly the market is betcer for a condominium project since low intPrest lows are available for the firsc time and with 'ficst-time' homebuyers, vacancy rates in apactment complexPs have increased. Kimberly Keys, 614 W?stgate, adjacent to che p!operty, stated she wou.ld like to addcess thLBB concerns; 1) the complex izself is bAing builc in a flood area, according to the Orange County Water Distric~; and to add to the possible problems L-hat may occur because of this being in a flood zone, there will be underground parking, 4-1/2 feet below gcound, and there are people in th? neighborhood who can explain che damage that occur.red during a 1970 rainy season, includin9 thP destruction of thP nearby Linco.ln Avenue brid9e; 2) the proximity of these apactments co th? Bur.ris sand pic arPa; that with a chainlink f?nc? and crash gate at thP southPrn Pnd of thP pcopPrty, childr?n in the compl?x would have easy access to the existing three lakes, and using generation faccors from a local school district, this project would hav? a possible 100 0: more kindergart?n through 6th grad? aged children, and that doesn't include preschool ag?d children, and this would subject them to the dangers of dtowning in that area, and there have a.lready been sPveral drownings thete; and 3) is thP wa.lk the school children will hav? to make from ~his complex; that as a teachPr she was extremPly upse~ co learn che school dist~ict doesn'~ provide buses for cheir neighbo~hood childrPn which is .8 of a mile from school, and the chi.idren from this compl?x would have co walk approximately one mile to the elemPntacy school; that currently the stud?nts use South Screet which is a fairly well-traveled street; and the deve.lopers are proposing the crash gate will n~t be opPn and the neighbors EPP1 ?ventually they will get pressu~e from the people in the complex co open it and that means possibly 500 cars which will furth?r ?ndangPr thP chi.ldren. She stated South street is the only way the childcen can go L~> school and w.ithout chP opPning of the crash gat?, their relatively quiPt, tcaffic-free neiyhborhood will constant.ly be exposed to overflow parkin9 because of the crash gate, and additional rraffic during evenings and weekPnds. She asked the Commission to please consider the effects this project will have on chei~ peace, safety and privacy. Steve Stockstil.l, 542 South Westgate, scated one of his main concerns zs that the original plan that was adopted by most of t.h? community residents was for the 99 single-family condominiums and in their meeting with the developers, they asked why the change and cheir answer was economics, etc.; and also a question was raised whPther the tcaffic signa'_, widening of Lincoln, etc. would have been necessary if this had stayP~ as a 99-unit complex, and at that time che Traffic Engineec had said they w~~uld not be necessary. He added puttiny these aparzments on the ptoperty will cause congestion and tcaffic flow pcoblems. Mr. Stockstill statPd a person picks a place to live for various reasons -- community atmosphere, and certainly safety, and above all, wants ta make sure the com~unity is as safe as it can possibly be, and there wi11 b? a six-foot wa.il backing up to the neighbor~ six-foot walls and directly next to that wall is the patkinq for this complex and that has him extremely concerned with the possibilities of vandalism, auto theft, etc. which usually occurs in a high 8/4/86 HINJTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4 1986 86-525 density area, with renters noc really having a concern fot the safety and we11-being of the community. He stated in talking to some of the police officers who live in the community regarding butglaries, theft and crime, they expressed concern with hi9h densicy apartments in an area where they are not justified and indicatPd that just adds to the possibilities for all kinds of problems. He staced ociginal.ly that area was a greenbelt and now ~here wi.ll bP easy access into their backyards, an3 he thinks that is a concern which has noi been addressed by the developers and a concern zhat rests heavy with every propercy owner. Joyce Emery, 536 South Westgate, scated it appears het property is going to back up to a pool with over 500 people using i~; and also one of her concerns is che fire hazard; thac she has a wood shake roof and she understands a favorite pasttime of young apart~ent dwellecs is sPtting the t:ash bins on fire. She stated she feels this is a far cry from the 99 units they were promised a yPar ago; and noted no one spoke a9ainst that and she wondeced if they aee being "sold out" fot half ~he cost of a Lraffic signal. She staLed she drives down La Pa1ma every day and there are a lot of apartmPnt vacanciPS; and that she has seen hec boys gzow up and move to M~ntclair and Riverside because they cou].d not afford sin9le-family homes in Anaheim and she wondered if we ate eliminating che young people who want to own property and replacin9 them with those who are wi.l.lin9 co shaze cencs or subsidizpd housing in these aparcme~it units. She stated she was in anothez apactment complex yesterday and the tcash was overflowing and chat is a sanicacion problem, as well as a fire hazard. She added she is ve:y opposed to this request. Hamit Khacrac, 321 S. State Co.ileg?, stated he is a real estate broker and has worked in this neighborhood for the past 7-1/2 years and is opposed to this projecc becausP che propezty values will be adversely affectad because of the noise created by the use of the pool, che increased tcaffic, the high density, the lack of pcivacy for people who live dicectly behind Westgate Dcive, and because of the p:oblems created with high crime caused by high density. Norman Csomie, 516 West9ate Drive, staced he has lived at this address for 24 years and when he purchased his home was told the greenbelt area would become a park. He stated he felc this was a sound invescmPnt for him and his family; however, in 1983, che ci~y intcoduced a plan co relocate a mobi.lehome park to chis propercy and that the Planning Commission recommended denial of that project; and thac the Orange County Water Districc wenc on record opposing any developmenc in this area and referred *_o che staff report dated October 7, 1983, regarding that proposal. He added when the Orange County Wate~ Diszricc was recently contacced, they still maintained their vieas regacding this ptoperty. tie stated they are concerned abouc the impact on the environmenc which chis complex might have; thac che change in densicy with additional noise fcom cacs and people wil.l affect the wildlife in che area and the animal and birds will most likely relocaze. ~e presented a list of birds which can be found in chis river atea adjacent to this site and 11 of those are birds on the endazgered list. HP stated this site was considered as a wetland acea due to che casual water. which was located on the propeccy prior to the initial grading and with approval of the auto center on Ball Road, many of the bi~ds have not relocated co this general area. He asked the Commission to think about whaz 220 apartments will do to che envisonment and asked if the Cicy will be willing to incur additional expenses co protect the bird life or co 8/4/86 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, AUGUST 4~ 1986 86-526 replace this lost wetland area. He asked why an environmental impacc repott was not prepared for this project and statPd hp r~atizPS rPntPrs havP thp samP rights as property owners to a clean, safe and hPalthy environmPnt and ovpr the years for ChP m~st part, this has nccurrPd bPcausP ~f thP s~und l.~ng-rangP Cit.y planning. He stated when D& D Development purchased this property, hP kn?w a park was n~t p~ssibl.P bPcausP of thP high cnst ~f l.and t~day and fP].t condominiums would be the best answer with single stories adjacent to his ptoperty and thP 2-st~ry units fur~hpr away; and alsn that. wnuld bP morP in keeping with the present envir~nment of the neighborhood, but has now learned they are proposing 220 units. HP sta*.Pd this w~ul.d inf-ing~ ~n thPir ppacP, safety and privacy and waiver of the 150-foot setback for 2-siories adjacent tn singl?-famil.y rPsidPncps sh~ul.d nnr bP appr~vpd. HP statPd hP is r~tirPd and has enjoyed 24 years of a good life in AnahPim and zecognizes that therP has to be compr~misPS and ask<d that thP cnmprnmisPs bP cnntinuPd in fairnpss to the private homeowners and not to the exclusion of the renters. He statPd after retiring, h~ npPds thP sPcuriry nf his hnmP and has invPstpd in this home and worked hard to have it. He asked that the rights of all citizPns ~~f Anaheim b? protActPd. Mr. Thoms~n, 291.2 Cnl.].yPr LanP, sta*.Pd his hnmP is in tY~P tract ~n th~ nnCth side of Lincoln and he will b? looking down on this project. He stated he was n~t notified whe~ the 99-unit. c~ndnminium pr~jPct was approvPd, but bPliPvPd that project might WP~1 b? the most logical use for this propert~ and notPd thP cost of propprty is high and thP aPVP~.npP~ has tn bP giv~n s~mP consideration and he realizPS it will never be approved as a sin9le-family developmPnt, but that cnnd~miniums might w~ll bA ~hp bPSt tradp-nff. Conceznin9 the traffic .5ignal, Mr. Thomson stated the traffic fr~~m the trac+. to the north m~~t].y usPs Kingsl.Py and it is a bad c~rnPr and }I~pTP is a petition being circulated at the pzesent time requesting a tzaffic signal at Kingsley and if a signal. is nPPdPd n~w, onp wil.l. dpfinitPl.y bp Rppd~a with an additional 220 units. He statPd the basic problem with this is the RM-1200 Zoning nex*. to a singt.P-famit.y a~pa bPCausP that is an PxtrPmPt.y ir,tPnsP znnP for that property. He refetred to the restriction of 150 feet fzom single-fa~il.y residential zones and stated hP dnPS not 7.ikP that part of th~ Zonin9 Code because 2-story residences can be built in a single-family area, but fP].t RM-1.200 z~ning is to~ dPnsP f~r that a-Pa. Camille Courtney stated D 6 D Development is a family-owned business, and has been in businPss sincP 1.947 and buil.ds invPstmPnt pr~pPrt.iPS to rPtain; that they purchased this propPrty from the City and fully intended to develop it and retain it, but that intPrPSt ratPs wPrP not what thPy arP now and thPy could not find any Eunding for that project, but now have funding for th.is project. ConcPrning safPty, Ms. Cnu-tnPy statPd thP widPning nf Lincnl.n wi1J. bP a p7.us for everybody concerned and the traffic signal should satisfy some of the concPrns of propFrty ~wnPrs ~n thP north. ShP statPd paying 508 t~ward thP cost of the traffic signal was not a condition of the previous project. ShP stat~d thP sitP wi1.l. bP drnpping approximat,Pl.y 4-7./2 fPPt bpl.nw pxisting gradP and they have agreed to extend the six-foot hi9h wall to eight feet; howevPr, s~me neighbors dnn't want pight EPPt wal.ls and snmP do. ShP statPd thprP wil7. be the wall, a slope down 4-1/2 feet and, and guest parking spaces, the 8/4/86 86-527 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4 1986 dciveway and then the units, so the un3cs a~e 40 to 50 feet from the property line, and she did noc undetstand the safetyrconcerns telative co people crossing the walls. She staced the guest parking spaces are noc coveted; and that managPaLSt Withn aparcment complex has a lot to do with safety; and in over thircy y- approximately 750 apartment unics which chey own and manage, chey have never had atiy fites. She invited the nei9hbors and Commissioners to see their projects, noting they manage the units thPmselves and take a lot of pcide in them. She staced having one manager to contacc when therP is a problem cercainly is a plus and an open si_te to che tiver provid~s no safety and no buffet and she thought this project would help that sicuation. She stated che effect of an apartment complex on pcoperty values is questionab.lP and that she has calkP~ to several appraisers about this issue_ Ms. Courtney scaced an environmental impact ceport was done when Lhe property was sold co cheir company and it was prepared for a much more int?nse project; and chac chis ptoject has been significancly scaled down and she zhoughc scaff could explain why thac EIR was accepted. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chaiznan McBUrney asked if the grade wi11 be maintained from the boctom of the parking s'tructure. Ms. Couttney tesponded the bottom of the parkin9 structure would be 4-1/2 feet below whac iz is now, and che dirt removed co consccucc the parking will be put between che apactments . She explained they cleaned ihe sice and shP thouyhs ic is about one foot lower. Cqmmissiones Hecbst stated he thoughc theze has been less consideration given co the neighbors in chis development than any apaccment ptoject he has seen come befote the Planning Commission in some cime; chat they have given no consideration to che 12 homes backin9 up Lo this site, with the parking fot the apastmencs and the swimming pool aad cennis coucts adjacent to cheir fences; that he recognizes the driveway is located where ic has co be located, but Planning Commission has cried to require a 20-foot buffer and chere is none and chat all the windows ate facing inco che neighbors' backyards and he would noc vote for 3 project like chis. He scaced Commission has nevez approved an apartmenc projecc wichin 40~ne~he~neighborsgandrhavingka.llathend tttat this projecc would be encroaching recceacional facilities adjacent io cheir backyards will create a~OOOlfis noise. He stated he lives in a planned community and the swimming p heavily used; and thac the project approved a few months ago was for 99 unics and chis proposed projecc is cotally unacceptable and is coca.lly ovecbuilc. He asked who would pay the ocher 508 Eot che tcaffic s.ignal. Paul Singet tesponded the City of Anaheim would pay che oihec 50$, and Commissioner Herbst noted chat would be she caxpayers. Camille Cou~cney scated she was told thac after che 99-unic condominium projecc was apptoved, additional traffic scadies on Lincoln were conducced and it was determined ~hac che ttaffic signal was needed with the existing ttaffic. She scated they presented this new projecc and wece told a signal 8/4/86 86-528 MINUTES~_ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4 1986 was going co be installed and they were asked co pay 508 of the cost. She added the signal was requized by the City prior co their pr~jeci. Paul Singec, Traffic Engineer, stated a cre.ffic signal at thac location (Kingsley) is warranced at this time; howeverr ltrovaldof thislprojecte the inscalled for anothet two years, buc with the app pciority would be shifced because of che added ctips, and since ihe Cicy does not have the funds, che developez was asked co participace. He added a signal will be going in wichin the next two years, with or without chis projecc. Commissioner Herbst asked the ccaffic impacc difference becween che 99 condominium units and this 220-unit aparcmenc complex. Paul Singer scated 99 condominium units would generace 1040 ccips and 220 aparcment unics would generate 1650 trips. Ms. Courtney stated chey have bent over backwards to incotporace che communicy's concerns, othe:wise, they would not have had a community meecing and wou.id noc have wriccen leccers; and chat chey have included a buffer and put the guest parking adjacenc co che fence. She explained the unic patking is al.l underneach the units and every unic has cwo parking spaces; and chac the parking adjacenc co che property .line is only guest parking. She staced the acea where chey are only 40 feec aShe scacedhnotreveryybuilding can be modified co achieve 50 feec all the way. faces the single-family area and che windows are high bedcoom windows and most people don't spend much 'time in cheiz bedrooms. She scated chis is an adu.lc-orienced project with no playground atea and chese are lar9er apariments and certain types of projects accracc certain cypes of people and chaL there could be childten, but she did noc chink thece would be very many. Commissioner LaClaire scated she is concetned abouc the density because ihis propeccy was apprcved fo: only 99 unics and she can understand how the people feel because chis is 'theiz home and chey would like co see condominiums so chere would be "pride of ownership" and she would tend to agcee. She staced she undetstands why che developers wanc thP aparcments and thac excavati.an has been very coscly, and aparcmencs are very lucracive righc now. She staced she got a distusbing letter which sounded like the wrices thought che City of Anahaim is proposing this ptojecc and she ownecahas thePright~toraskafochis is not the City's prnject and every ptoper.ty whatever they want before the Planning Commission. Commissioner La Ciaire scated she though't this project is too dense and thac she would like to see the condominium concept carried chrough and an apartmenc complex has to be better designed and to afford the people in the acea ihe proteccion chey need, and the pool has co be moved and che design has to be more like the condominium project. Camille Courcney scaced this psoject is designed aimost identically ~o the condominium projecc; thai the reczeacion atea is in the same location, and the screets and sidewalks are very similar; and that thece was che two-story condition befoce and the only differPnce is that setback area was not for packin9. 8/4/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ AUGUST 4~ 1986 86-529 Commission briefly reviewed plans of the previously-approved 99-unit condominium orojPct. CommissionPr MPSSP askPd if OrangA C~unty WatPr District was notifiPd ~f this change in plar.s. Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, exp.lained they are typica.l.ly notifiPd and PVPLy pr~pPrty nwnPr within 300 fpPt of thp property are notified. Commissionet Messe stated there was a reference that the watPr district ~bjPCtPd to thP pr?vious pr~jPct, Camille Courtney stated they are working with the wate: district in getting several easements and arP in cnntact with thPm and thPy havP rPViPwPd thp site plans and they have not objected. She explained D 5 D Development is trying to negotiatP with thPm tn purchasP thp nursPry propPrty. Linda Rio, Planning Aide, exp'lained the Orange County Water District was notified nf this hPating. RPSpnnding tn CnmmissinnPr MP55P~ Mr. CromiP statPd thP Wa*.Pr District was opposed to the environmental impact report in 1983 and they talked to thP Director nf PropartiPs and hP said thPy arP stiJ.]. oppnsPd t~ it. Cnmmissionpr Bouas clarified the EIR was prepared in connection with the proposed mobilehom? park. CommissionPr Bouas statQd shP th~ught part ~f thP pr~b~Pm is that th~ neighbors thought they were goin9 to have a park there and it is hard to accept anything P1.sP. ShP addPd thP nPighbors wPr~ wil.l.ing to accPpt thP candominiums and that was a big concession, but to accept so many apattment units is just ton much and thP projpct woul.d bP ovpr impacting thP arpa. Commissioner HPrbst stated he is not in favor of RM-1200 Zoning on that property becausP it just ron dPnsP, but. possi5ly RM-2400 w~ul.d bP acc?ptaU].P. Linda Rios responded approximately 112 units could be constructed under thQ RM-2400 Zone, and that cnul.d p~ssibl.y be incrPasPd if thP strPPt.s wPrP decreased. She explained under the RM-3000 Zone, 109 units wou.ld be pe[mitted. CommissionPz La C1.airP statPd shP woul.d 1.ikP to sPe thP dPnsir.y rPducPd t~ thP 99 units p~eviously apptoved and she would like to see the same amenities providpd such as thP sPtback, noting sha rPalizPS it is hacd bPCausA a l.nt of effort and money has been spent to excavate the property. Commissioner Bouas added th? dPvP7.opPrs knPw thP dump was thPr? whpn thPy pu-chasPd thP ptopPrty. Ms. Couctney stated a setback is an unbuildable ar~a and asked what type setback tbe Commission is rPfPrring to. CommissionPr LaCl.airP PxplainPd sh~ was zeferring to the two-story units within 50 feet and that she would likP what was prop~sPd nn thP prPVious projPct, with no parking allowed in the setback. CommissionPr HPrbst statPd thPLQ w?re onl.y thrPP units within 50 EPPt of thP property line on the pzevious p-oject. Ms. Courtney stated there arP definitely a few mnrP units within 50 PPPt on this plan, but ~hPYP arP al.so a lot more that are further away. Commissioner Herbst statPd variances have been allowPd in many arPas for up to 50 fPPt, but in that 5U fPet, thPrP have been no apattment windows or views into the backyards of the neighbors. HP suggested they consider RM-2400 which would al.low about 11.2 units, and addPd 8/4/86 a ,.. MINUTPS, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ AUGUST 4~ 1986 __ a6-530 he would have problem with aparcments, as long as ic is done in good castP wich che amen.'.ies o£ che neighborhood protected. He stated the proper'ty owners were there firsc and che projecc is encro,:~~ir~9 on cheir privacy. Ele scated the Commission can go ahead wich a voce right now, or che p?titiener can requess a concinuance and consider revising che plans. Camille Courtney asked for a cwo week concinuance. ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED (CommissionPrs Fi~y and Lawtcki absenc) thac consideration o£ the aforementioned matter be continued co the regularly-scheduled m~?cing of Augusc 18, 1986, at che requesc of che pecitioner in ordec i:o consider revising che plans. Chairman McBUtney explained this matcer wi].l. noc be readvercised. CommissionPr Bouas asked thac che neighbors have a chance co see the revised plans and Ms. Courtney responded chey have worked wich che neighbocs a21 along. Commissioner HPrbst stated he would ?xpect to seP a p.lan, if it is for apatcm?ncs o~ condominiums, somewherP n?ar. che 99-unic condominium project previously approved. Commissioner LaClaire sugg?sted che neighbors cal.l che day of che hearing co make sure ic is going to be h?a~d because che plans may not be completed in iime. RECESS: 3:05 P.M. RECONVENE: 3:15 P.M. Commissionec Fry returned co che meecing. ITEM N0. 8 EIR NEGATIVE DBCLARATION~ WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2797 OWNERS: LUCO D. AND MADELINE D. CALIANO, 16055 Ga1laLin, Fountain Va11Py, CA 92708. AGF.NTS: tLIZABETH HALAHAN OR MARK CALIANO, 1379 N. Jasmine, Anaheim, CA 92801. Propercy describ?d as an irregu.larly-shaped parc?1 of land consisting of approximacely 5515 square feec locaced at che southwesc corner of Coronec Avenue and JasminP Place, 1329 Jasmine Place. To expand a board and care facility for a maximum of 10 developmentally disabled pecsons and with waiver of maximum fence heighc. Continued from che meecing of May 12, 1986. There were six persons indicating cheir presence in op~osition co subject request and although the staff ceport was not read, ic is referred co and made s parc of the minut?s. Elizabech Halahan, 2455 Harriet Lane, agent, explainedersonsnand she has asked licensed for a developmentally disabled home for six p in che applicacion for an expansion Eoz a maximum of ten, however, she would like co lower that number to eighc. She referced co the request for waiver of 8/4/86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4 1986 86-531 fence height and explained she did not know why the fence is five feet high inscead of. three feet, but thac is the way she putchased the propercy. She staced on September 26 and 27, a tour of homes fot developmenzally disabled persons is being conducted by 'the Co.uncy oF Ocange and this home wi11 be on that zouce and she would like co have the nei9hbocs visit the home on 'shose days. She staced she would also like to have che neighbors more invo.lved wich these people and to see how che program is run and to see how they live. She scaced one of the representatives from the Regional Cencer in supporc of this requesc was unable to atcend today's meecing and chac she would .like co tequesi a continuance in ordec co a11ow the Commissioner.s and neighbors co cour the facilicy on September 26 or 27, from 1 co 5 p.m. both days, and in order for the Regional Center reptesencacive co be presenc. Chairman McBUrney indicaced he thoughc a concinuance would be appropriate and Commissioner Fry agreed. Chairman McBUrney explained che tequest has been reduced to eighc and asked if the opposicion would be in favor of concinuing this macter until after Sepcember 27. Commissioner Bouas scaced che continuance was origina.ily grant?d in order for the petitioners co meet wich the neighbors and she did noc chink chac had occurred. Ms. Ha.lahan stated she had not sufficiently contaccPd the neighbors, buc chat che Open House on Sepcember 26 and 27 is offi.cial and she would make sure flyers are distribuced co the neighbors. Commissionec Bouas staced i't is possible chac some of che neighbo~s are on vacation and would prefer co have chis macter conttnuPd for chac reason. Edmond W. Harder, 1309 N. Locus Place, scated chis macces was continued from che May 12th meecing so che applicant could contacc the neighbors and try to chan9e their minds abouc someching like zhis being forced on ci,em wich che Stace allowing che use co bPgin wich, buc none of the immediate neighbors have been approached ot contacced by ihe applicanc. He stated chere is one neighboc presenc who has info~macion co present which che Commission should have, and felt che Commission, as cheir duly apZ~oinced represencatives, should hear his cescimony now. Chairman Mcsurney siaced che Commission is considering 9canting a continuance of this maccer to September 29, 1986, and asked if chere is anyone opposed to that requesc. There was no opposicion from ihe audience. ACTION: Commissioner Fry offered a moiion, seconded by Commissioner Souas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Lawicki absenc) chac consideracion of che aforemencioned matter be continued io che regularly-scheduled meeting of Sepcember 29, 1986, ac che request of che peticioner. Commissioner Messe stated the reason for che continuance is not only for the open house, buc so che neigh~ors can meec with che applicanc co learn more abouc the accivities of the home, etc. Ic was c.larified chac che nefghbors will noc be renotified of che September 29, 1986 heacing. Mr. Harder stated someching seems to be amiss in che manner of advercising for these hearings and explained originally chey were upsec 8/4/86 86-532 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ AUGUST 4~986 when they zeceived notice 10 or 12 days in advance and had co arrange time off wotk~ ecc. in order co appear. He scated he received a letter mailed July 31st on Au9usc 2, and that is really short notice. He scaced many people weze notified of ihe firsc heating and not che second. Chairman McBUrney suggested Ms. Halahan include che date of che nexc hearing on the flyers io be distcibuced. Commissioner Bouas suggesced che applicant assume the tesponsibility of nocifying che neighbors and asked if che problem wiih the vans have been resolved. Ms. Halahan responded chete wi.l.l be only one van parked ac this location. Mr. Harder scaced otiginally he choughc che intencions of the Commission were to see if this business opetator was willing zo go ouc and meet wich the neighbors, etc., and now the Commission wancs che neighbo~s to come in and meec che business operacos. Chaitman McBurney scated che applicanc will make the first contacc wich che neighbors. Commissioner LaClaire explained the Cicy of Anaheim nocifies che public by postin9 the ptopeccy, advetcisin9 in the newspaper and as a couccesy, nocices are senc to all propeccy owners within a 300-fooc radius, and inceiescinyly enough chis seems to work because people do find out about che hearings. She scaied the cicy does not send out notices of che continued public hearin9s because it does cosc the taxpaye[s excra money. She explained maccezs are always concinued co a date certain, so the neighbors should know che dace and should always call in on chat day to make sure che matter is noc being consideced £or continuance again. She suggesced che neighbors should azcend che open house and cell al.l cheic neighbors whac is happening. ITE_ M N~• 9 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAIVER OF CODE REQUIR~MENT AND CONDITIONAL GSE PERMIT N0. 2767 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: ROBERT C. AND LOIS STOVALL~ STOVALL INN/B£ST WESTERN, 1110 E. Kace.ila, Anaheim, CA 92802. AGENT: FRANK CALTA, 1160 N. parr.el ofeland consiscingAof2approximacelyY0a94cacrea 11.60nNorchgTUSCin Avenue. To permic a non-ferrous mecal recycling facilicy wich oucdoot scorage wich waiv~r of minimum numbet of parking spaces. Concinu?d from the meetin9 of July 7, 1986. ~here was one pe~son indicating his pcesence in opposicion io subjecC requesc and a.lchough che scaff reporc was noc sead, it is referced co and made a pari of the minuzes. Frank Calca, Vi-Chem Meca.ls, President, explained chis is a mecal wacehouse o etation and they ~?~:' up industrial scrap metal, bting ic into chis P facilicy, packa9e it, ar.~ ship ic out and ate requescing a condiciona use permic for the next six months. He scaced they are currencly consctuccing a new facilicy in Oran9e. He scaced a parking scudy was done and a waiver is requested. 8/4/86 86-533 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4 1986 Charley B1acY., ~ana9et, 1150 N. Tustin, stated cheir concern is the storage of the bins of inetal in the rear lot whir:h would prevenc access by emergency equipment in case of a fire to either subject property o[ their propetcy; Lhat che loc is filled wich these bins, limicing access and 'chey ate also concetned about the materials that might be scored 'there with tespecc to toxicicy and they do experience some vibrations ftom heavy items being dropped and chac adversely affects their business which is micro-photography. Mr. Calta scaced they have ceased dcop~ing heavy macerials on che ground as of the last Commission meeting when chey were made aware of thac problem, and would have s'topped before, if they had bPen informed. He sca'ted they have nothing coxic in the concainezs and chey have been inspected by the appropriace agencies in chac regard. He stated access for fire vehicles is provided in accordance with F1!P Departmenc regulacions, and they do have fire access lanes. He staied the storage facil.icie~ are all porcable. He clarified che propezty nexc door has separace access. Commissioner Messe asked about dropping heavy materials. Mr. Calca responded they had previously been dropping heavy aluminum so.lids which wete inside the building, buc are no longec doing that and are noc dropping anything on ihat side of the property, and that problem has been resolved. Mt. Calca scated che Conciete slabs for che buildfng in Orange were starced chis WPPk and thought ic should be finished in about Chle? months, buc a permic for six monchs would accommodace any delays. Commissioner Bouas asked Mr.. Black if fite access co che rear of cheic building is ptovided on ch?ir property. Mr. Black responded che:e is access and it is gaced and explained cheir concern is che access co the pecicioner's pcopercy. Mr. Black responded co Commis~ionPr Messe chac che vibracions have diminished since che lasc meecing, buc there were vibrations on Fciday. ACTION: Commissioner Hetbsc offered a mocion, seconded by Commissioner Fcy and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Lawicki absenc) that the Anaheim Cicy Planning Commission has reviewed che proposal to permit a non-ferrous meca.l recycling facilicy wich oucdoor storage wiih waiver of minimum number of required paiking spaces on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consistin9 of approximately 0.94 acces, having a froncage of approximately 148 feet on the easi side of Tustin Avenue, approximately 825 feet north of the centerline of La Palma Avenue, and furcher described as 1160 North Tustin AvPnue; and does heseby approve the Negacive Declazation upon finding chac it has considered the Negative Declaracion cogether with any comments received during the public review process and fuccher finding on che basis of che Inicial Scudy and any comments received that chere is no substancial evidence chat the projecc will have a signi.ficanc effect on che environment. Commissioner Hetbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Lawicki absent) chat che Anaheim City Planning Commission dues hereby granc waiver of code requirement on the basis that the pasking waiver will not cause an inccease in traffic con9escion in the immediace vicinity nor adversely affecc any adjoining land uWillanot9bentin9 of the parking waiver undez the condicions imposed, if any, ,8/4/86 86-534 MINUTES ANA~EIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4 1986 decr.imental to the peace, health, safecy and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Commissioner Aerbst offered Resolucion No. PC86-206 and moved for ics passage and adoption thac che Anaheim City Planning Commission do~zs heceby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2797 pursuanc co Anaheim t4unicipal Code Section 18.03.030.030 through 16.03.030.035 fot a peLiod of six (6) months co ?xpire February 4, 1987, and subjecc co Interdepartmental Commictee Recommendations. On rol.l call, the foregoin9 resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY~ HERBST~ LA CLAIRE~ MC BURNEY~ MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: LAWICKI Malcolm SlaughcPr, Depucy City Attorney, pcesenced che wticcen righc co appeal the Planning Commission's decision wichin 22 days co che Cicy Council. ITEM N0. 10 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, RECLASSIFICATION N0. 8~-86-38 AND VARIANCE N0. 3571 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: MARTHA SCHUMACHER, P. O. Box 191, Anaheim, CA 92805. AGENTS: CORNICHE DEVELOPMENT CORP., 1681 Loma Roja Drive, San~shaned Casceloof ATTN: DANIEL 0'CONNER. Propercy described as ~ rectangulatly- p P land consiscing of app:oximat?ly 0.36 acre located ac che soucheasc cotner of South Stteec and Harbor Boulevacd, 800 South Harbor Boulevard. RS-7200 to CO (Parcel A) or a lPSS intense zone. Waivers of (a) permicced business signs, (b) t~aximum number of small car spaces, (c) maximum number of parking spaces, (d) maximum scruccural heighc, (e) minimum yatd requirements &(f? maximum wa.ll heighc to conscrucc a 2-story office building. Continued from the meecings of JunP 9 and July 21, 1986. There was no one indicating theit presence in opposition co subjecc request and alchough che staff repot~ was not read, ic is referred co and made a parc of the minutes. Don Fears, Archicecc, scated zhey w~uld like co provide a economica.lly viable commercial office building chat is compacible with chp neighbors and they have concacted the neighbors and provided chem wich plans and informacion, and have designed the project 'to have the leas~ impact on the neighbors and still provide a project they can be proud of. He explained chis would be a cwo-stoty office buildin9 and presenced an Plevacion of che building facin9 Harbot and pointed ouc the telationship of the adjacent house to the south (in che CO Zone) which is the ceason foz the request foc che variance. He presented a souch elevation showing che view of the building from the residential houses on Helena Screet. He stated they have used a lot of residential charactezistics in che design such as fireplaces, balconies and materials. 8/4/86 86-535 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4 1986 Mr. Fears stated Item No. 19 in the steff report petiains to the sign on Hatbor and added he undersiands Commission's concerns about che signs on Harbor and that has been a problem for a long time. He explained this is 4-foot high monument sign and that he did discuss visibility with che Traffic Engineer. Concerning the small car spaces, Mr. Feazs stated Mr. Singer wanted chat number redsced and they have changed the buildin9 size co help improve ihat situation and ic is 29.98 and they statced ac 41.78 smal.l cac spaces. Mr. Fears referred to ItPm No. 24 regarding the wall hei9ht facin9 Helena and presenced an east elevation and explained they felt having some highet seccions and lower sections would be more aesthecically pleasing zhan having the wal.l cne same height. He pointed out the 18-fooc landscaped area adjacent to the neighbot on Helena Screet. He added chey would be happy to provide the three feei high fence requiced by Code, if che Commission feels chat is necessary. Mr~ Fears stated the petitioner does not incend co lease co medical uses and intends to lease zo businesses wich a low employee ratio such as professlonal corporations, attorneys, enyineets, consultants, and psivace financia.l zrust founda~ions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chaitman McBUrney scaced dimensions of some of che park~ng spaces which have the posis are not large enough and 7 of che parking spaces are automatically discegarded, and a.iso some of che ozhec spaces apgear co b? undersized. Paul Singer, TrafEic Engineer, stated the packing spaces shown on tlte plans were not dimensioned and he came up wich spaces which do not meec code. Lindz Rios stated the size of the building has been scaled down fCOm the original proposal and 77 spaces are requited and the plans, includin9 ~he spaces that ar? noc dimensioned, indicates 71 spaces. Chairman McBUCney stated che drawings of ihe building are absolucely beauciful and would complement the neighbuchood, but he wanted the size of the parking spaces clarified. Commissioner LaClaire staced par'~.in9, signing and che access are a~l probZems, and asked why the problems were not resolved since che macter was concinued fot that puspose. Mr. Fears stated eicher his iiming was bad or Mr. Singer was involved in anothez meecing . Commissioner La Claite stated she could vote for chis projecc but not for waivers A and B. Sh? clarified che plan would have to be revised and added she thought this was the ~ame plan previously submitted. Mr. Fears stated the staff report explains che differences between ihe plans as; 1) reduced the east/wesc dimension of che building in otder co gec the buildin9 away from Helena Stre~c; 2) reduced the gross building area ftom 20,000 co 19,250 square feet; 3) pcovided a tocal of 71 parking spaces (77 requfred); 4) reduced total number of small car spaces from 29 co 22, oc 318; 8/4/86 86-536 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4 1986 5) a.ltered the building dimensions io~p~ovide thac the dcivointtof thetcurb noctheast cornec of che propetcy ac 9 3 from the tangent p radius; and 6) reduced the acea of zhe proaosed monumenc si9n io provide an It was~clacifieduchecchanges arefnot reflectedHonbtbeBfirstapageLOf che staff rPpOIL. Commissionet Bouas stated the applicant has ag=eed 'co a 4-foot monumenc sign. Linda Rios stated the sign is scill located in the area chat would bearking~ed for dedication; and clarified the small car racio is now at 318; 7~• P spaces proposed and the st~uctural heighc is the same. Commissioner LaC.laire staied she could voce for approva~ of Waiver B if zhe spaces meet the T~affic Engineer's sacisfaccion, buc until the decLnsions of the patkin9 spaces are v~rified, she could not voce for che ptoj Mt. Feats siaced he knows they meei all the smaloucarandathaieQhetposcssinnthe he used the City's standards for the parking laY parking facility between the spaces were discussed, wich Mr. FeaLS scacing che Cicy requi[es an extra fooc for ihe posc and chis is che first cime he has heatd 'chis discussion and only r?ceived his staff [eport chis morn.ing. He stated the poszs are behind the vehicle and che concerns are ihe cucning radius and swinging doors on the vehicle. Pau.l Singet, TrafEic En9ineer, stated che scandatds regarding poszs apply no matter where the posc is located and the post has to be 2-1/2 feec inco the car space in °~ost incoethecdzivewayna:eaawould requireievenwmorelspacePchanng and putting a p che posc. the 6 inches norma.l.ly requir.ed for clearing Chaicman MeBUrney asked what the cequicemenc would be from che outside of the post for a standatd size car space and Mr. Singer responded ic would have co be 9 feec from che outside of the post. Mt. Fears staced they have 9 feec wich the posc and chac ihey have a 27-foot driveway coming off Harbor and could spread the spaces ouc adding 2 feet, but would still be 3 inches short fo~ each one. Chairman Mc9u~ney scated he would hesitate to apprave a couple of these requesced waivets and thoughc ~he packing space dimensions should be resolved. Mr Fears staced chey could have zaken cate of this problem if chey had known Parlier. Commissioner La Claite scated she understands che constsainis, buc if this is approved, the buildin9 will be conscructed and the people would noc park on intendatoschange theaparkingdspace dimensionsstoemeet the Cicysstandaadshey Commissionet Hezbst staced the driveway is still vezy dangerous and is much closer than usually allowed today an~ hPtoVa~9WOUldabe cceacin9Waudangerousd moze chan the one on ~acbor and chac app intersection. Chaitman McBUrney SeOtiP WouldrnocWbe comingbftom9ihetuin ingcess and lefc turn egress and p P B/4/86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4).986 86-537 tesidPntial. arPa int~ thP sitP. CommissionPr MPSSP statPd anyonP going south on Hatbor would use the South Street access. CommissionPr La C).airP statPd *hP co~nPr of Harb~r and SnUth StLPP~ is vPry busy and any use that is developed on that property would have a driveway and ttaffic probl.Pm and ~.t ia g~ing t~ bP very dang~rous. Commissionet Heibst suggested a drive-thzough building design. Paul. Singpr statPd from thP curb-].inP of th? adjacPnt intPrsoction, 1.1.0 fPpt is r~quicPd and 100 feet from the ptopeity line. It was noted the property is only 196 feet deep. Mr. FPars statPd a driv?-through buil.ding ~ff South Strp?t would eliminate the entite fitst floot. Commissionet Hecbst stated as a land planner, he would havP a prob].am appc~ving a dang~rous intPrsPCtion and ic could cause someone to get killed. Commissionet La C].aire asked why thP Tsaffic EnginPPr th~ught a dtivPway 7.00 fPPt away w^ul.d b? safPr than thP proposed location. Paul Singer explained people coming atound the cornet from Helena would havP thP abi].ity t~ straightPn ~ut bPf~rP running into conflicting movements fcom the driveway. He explained the 110-foot s:andard also applies i.n th? county and addPd his rec~•h.,~ndation w~u1d bP that thP dziveway be on Helena Stteet and not on South Street. Commissionezs La ClairP and Fcy agcPPd. Mr. FPa°.s p~intPd ~ut thP ~riginal. dPSign had thP drivPway ~n Helena. Malc~lm S].aughtPr sr_ar.Pd Spcti~n 1.2.42.340 ~f thP Municipal. C~dP providPecmits the City En9ineer is autho[ized to iss~e curb cut pPrmits and drivewaY P only undez cPttain cnnditi~ns and ~nP ~f thns? c~nditions is if hp has detezmined that the health, safety and 9pnezal welface of the public will not be unreasonably impairPd. HP statPd hP thnught that mPans it is ul.timat?1.y up to the City Engineet to detezmine whetePthr p°CPrmit w~ul.danntebPYissuPdbPn~ safe and if hR dPtPrminPs it is n~t saf ~=oVPa, ge stated apparently thP mattet what the Planning Commission has app Traffic EnginPPr is cnncPrnPd ab~ut thP 1.~cati~n ~f thP drivPway as sh~wn ~n these p.lans and assuming the City Engineer would follow the Traffic Engineer's suggestion, thP curb cut w~ul.d not bp issupd for that drivPway 1.ocatinn. Mr. Fears stated the staff report in ParagPapf 2arkingcspacPStprop~sPdTaaPfic EnginPPr's r,.~i~~.'~n that thP numbPr and typ P sufficient. ~irman McBurney stated unfortunately~ c~arPct at thPObPginning staff rPp~rt .iich thp P1.anning Cnmmission fail.ed of the heating and the word sufficiPnt should be changed to lPl.iminatPnab~utr4 FPars continuPd that rPl.ncating thP drivPway t~ Hpl.Pna woul.d of the parking spaces. Commissi~nPr Fty statPd it is p~ssibl.P th? applicant is trying t~ put t~~ much building on this ~mall lot. Commissioner La C1a~zPLP°~al.ong~HatbnrtandPHPlPna. ptopPrty nwnPr doPS havP to dPdiCatP a 1.ot of p' p Y Dan 0'Connet stated they weze confused when they zeceived theit copyPofbutP staff rPp~rt bPCausP thP changPs WPTP nnr_ rPflpctPd ~n thP front pa9 r whete addzessed fuzthet on in the repott. He stated they had a tiaffic study and patking dPmand study pPrformPd by a City nf AnahPim tPC~mmPndPd independent engineeting gLOUp and the consulL•ant had the benefit of an identical.l.y d?signPd buil.ding, pvPn though thP atchitPCturP was diEfPrPnt, and 8/4/86 MINUTES ANAHEZM CITY PLANNING COt4MISSION AUGUST 4 1986 86^538 their findings wete similaz to the C.ity of Ar~aheim Tcaffic Depactment; that the peak .load pa-king ~PquirPm~nts fnr thP facil.ity was appr~ximatPl.y 70 and the size and numbet of pazking spaces weze totally adequate. He added with respect to thp Pntry ~f£ S~uth StrPet, that was al.s~ a cnncPrn tn thPm and they attempted to al~eviate that by teducing the ovetall size of the bui.iding by 750 squar.P fPPt, to movP it back frnm HP1.Pna and tn givP thPm m~rP r~~m fLOm the cutb tadius. He stated they zntend to alleviate the pzoblem by indicatinq r,hat thp ingrPss ~n S~uth StrPPr_ w~u1.d bP •7.Pft tu-ns nnl.y" which would take the tiaffic fcom the project back to Harboz and anyone going south on Harbor l.ogica].ly ~~u1.d usP that accPSS. HP skatPd thP traffic gPnaratPd from this project would not be in the zesidential atea and added it is possiblP t~ Pxit thP propPCty ~n Ha-.bor and go snuth sincP thPrP atP n~ medians. CommissionPr Fry starPd that woul.d bP suicidp and Pau~ SingPr statPd thP petitionez is cozrect in that there are no median islands in Ha~bot south of South StrPpt. Mr. O'C~nnPr statod *.hPy rPC~gnizP it is an unsafP conditi~n and tha*. is why it is impoctant to have the access off the rear of the pcopPrty and they wou].d install a'left tucn on.ly" sign cnming ~ut nf thp Snuth SCTPPt Pxit. H? stated they can ptobably tedesign something to e-xit on Hel~na, as they had originatly pr~p~sPd; hnw?vPt, rPal.izPd thPy w~ul.d facing hpavy c~mmunity opposition. He stated they need an answer as soon as possible and would likP a dPtPrminar_ion ~n this prop~sal. tnday. Mr. 0'Conner pointed out the project pzeviously appcoved on this propetty c?rtainl.y nPgativ~l.y impactPd thP community morP than this p~~jPct wnul.d, but that project was not impacted with the loss of 4,000 square feet in City dedication. CommissionPr LaCl.aitP statPd sincP thPrP is n~ onP prPsPnt in ~pp~sition, if the petitionet had gotten together with the staff and made the suggestPd changes, the approval. w~ul.d pcobabl.y havP bPPn givPn t~day, and it wi1.l. takP some time to appeal the decision and suggested he zeconsidec his decision to ask for an action today. Mc. FPars statPd tnPy havP 1RvPPa workPd with staff and thPy wPrP CnnpPLdt1VP~ but they seem to be getting conflicting stories and thought access off Helena was not accPprablP. Hp statPd thPy mPt with thP c~mmunity and thPy arP not ptesent t.o opoose the ptoject because they were informed that there would not bP any access on HPlPna. HP statPd thPy atP facPd with cnnstraints; how~ver, he would request a two-week continuancA. He stated thPy arP prPpa-Pd to p7.iminatP thP r~qu~st for a m~numPnt sign on Harbor Boulevatd; howevet, he does not agree with the objection ot undecstand it and rhprP ~Prtain].y havP bPPn n~tabl.~ Pxcaptions in this City. Commissionet La Claire suggested the petitionet wotk with the Tzaffic Engineer to tesolve these piob].Pms. Pau7. SingPr s~atPd hP w~ul.d bP availabl.P at ].:00 p.m. tomozcow, Augusr. 5th for a meeting in his office and would be happy to work with the developPr. 8/4/86 MINUT~S ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4 1986 66-539 Commissioner Herbst stated it appears this ptoject will have access on H?lPna and he wanted t.o know if the tesidents have been told thexe would not b~ access thete. Annika Santalahti stated since there was no objection from the neighbothood, she had checked the advettisement listing and over 25 not.ices wece sent to the residents on Helena. C~mmissioner Herbst pointed out those neighboxs were shown dtawings with no accNss on Helena. ACTION: Commissionet La Cl.aice offeted a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Lawicki absent) that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the zegularly-scheduled meeting of August 18, 1986, at the tequPSt of the pecitionei. Commissionet La Claire temporatily left thP meeting. ITEM N0. 11 GIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2802 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: MUNKYO CHO AND EiYON SUN CHO, 806 N. Bcookhutst Stzeet, Anaheim, CA 92801. Pzoperty described as an ircegulatly-shaped parcel of land consisting of appcoximately 1.9 acre, 806 Nozth Brookhuist Stteet. To retain an auto t~wing, impound and tepair facility w.ith waivers of structural setback, pecmitted enctoachments and yard re9uirements, minimum dimensions of parking spaces and minimum number and type of parking spaces. Continued from the meetings of June 9, July 7 and 21, 1966. Thete was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject cequest and although the staff repott was not read, it is referted to and made a patt of the minutes. Latty Denning, 2301 E. Santa Fe, # 5, Fullerton, stated this mattet was continued itom two weeks ago in ordet to ptovide par.kin9 dimensions and appacently appt~val was 9iven of theit plans by the Ttaffic Engineez. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Hetbst teferted to the 3iscussion at the ptevious meeting re9arding a fence or barriet between subject pcopetty and the Lear Sieglet pcopeity. Mr. Denning stated patt of theic alterations would be to move management parking in~o that acea between the two pcopecties so that ttaffic could not go thzough. CommissionPr Hetbst stated he thought some sort of bar~ier should be installed ~~ that the vehicles could not go eve[ the cutb. Mr. Dennin9 stated they have not consideced that at this time. Commissioner Herbst asked if they would be willin9 to provide the battiei and Mr. Denning tesponded they would. Commissionet Messe aske~ if the notthetnmost driveway will be tepaiced. Mt. Denning responded the entice notthern half of the ftont pasking lot will be paved. Paul Sin9ec stated if the new pazking spaces are painted the way they ace shown on the plans, they will mPet Code. 8/4/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITX PLANNING COMMISSIOl4~ AUGUST 4, 1986 86-540 ACTION: Commissionet HeLbst offe[ed a motion, secended by Commis~ioner MessP and MOTION CT,RRIED (Commissionet La Claire and Lawicki absent) that the Anaheim City Plannin9 Commission has revie~ed the pcoposal to retain an auco towin9, impound and repaic facility with waiv~cs of minimum sttuctural setback and minimum yatd requicements and minimum number and type of packing spaces on an itregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.9 acres, having a ftonta9e of appcoximaiely 250 feet on the east si~e of Brookhurst Stteet, approximately 800 feet north of the centerline of Crescent Avenue and fucther desctibed as 806 No~th Brookhuzst; and does heteby approvP the NegativP Declaration upon finding that ic has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments [eceived du[ing the publi.c review ptocess and futthez find.ing on the basis of th? Init.ial Study and any ca ~~ents teceived that theze is no substantial evidence that the project wiJ.l have a significant effect on the environment. Commissi.oner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commiss.ionet Messe and MOTZON CARRIED (Commissioner Lawicki absent) that tne Anaheim City Planning Commission does hezeby g.ant waivec (a) on the basis tF.at thPre are soecial circumstances applicable to the ptopezty such as size, shape, topography, location and surtoundings which do not apply to othet identically zoned property ~n the same vicinity; and chat stcict application of the Zoning Code deptives the p.operty of privile9es enjoyed by othet pcoperties in the identica.l zone and classification in the vicinity; and yranting waiver (c) on the basis that r,he parking waivec wil.l not cause an increase in tcaffic congestion in the immediate vicinity nor adversely affect any adjoi.ning land uses and 9ranting of ~he packing waiver under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and 9eneral welfate of th? citizens of the City of AnahFim and denying waiver ~b) on the basis that cevised plans de].eted said waivez. Commissionet Hezbst ~ffeced ResoJ.ution No. PC86-207 and moved for its passage and adoption that the AnahPim City Planniny Commission does hezeby g~ant Conditional Use Petmic No. 2802 in pazt pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 and subject to Intezdepaetmenta~ Committee cecommendations including an additional condition chat a batrier will be provided bPtween subject property and the aajacent pzopetty to the south to p[event vehicles fron going between the two properties. On roll call, the fozegoing resolution was passed by thp following vote: AYES: BOUAS~ FRY, HERBST~ MC B'JRNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attocney, presented the wcitten zight to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0. 12 EIR NEGATIVE llECLARATION AND RECLASSIFICATION NO. 86-87-2 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: GENE L. FELLING, 2220 S. Loara Street, Anaheim, CA 92802. Propecty dPSCCibed as a reatangularly-shaped patcel of land consisting of appcoximately 0.77 acze, 222~ South Loata Stceet. 8/4/86 MTNUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PIANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4 1986 86-541 RM-1200 to RS-7200 or a less intense zone. Continiied fcom che meetings of July 7 and 2.1, i986. It was noted che applicant was not present. Annika Sant.alahci, Assistant Dicector ~ur Zoning, explained thF applicant came in, buc could not stay fo: the meeting and indic~ted he woul~' like a continuance to the firsc meeting in September; however, if che Commission does not wish to grant a continuance, he would like co withdraw the petitioa. Zhere wece three people indicating thei' presence in opposition co subjecc request and although the staff report was not read, ic ts referxed co and made a pari of zhe minuces. Commissionet Messe staced he would prefe~ co have che maccez withdcawn and readvercised in the fucure. ACTI9N: Commis~ion?c Bouas offered a mocion, secc.~ded by Commissioner Fry and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners La Clair° and Lawicki absent) chac Condicional Use Permit No. 2602 be wichdrawn at ct~ • auesc of che peticionec. ITEM N0. 13 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATIO_N9 ~yc\IVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2829 PUBLIC FIEARING. U'r1NERS: MAGNOLIA BAPTIST CHDRC:'; 720 S. Magnol.ia Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92804. AGENT: CHARLRS NORDELL, 72C S. Magnolia At~~n~ie, Anaheiui, CA 92804. Ptopercy described as an ircegularly-shaped patcel of .land consisting of appcoximately 4.4 acres, 720 So~'.;i Magnolia. To permit a p_*eschool/elementaty school in conjuncc.ion with an exiscing church with waivers of minimum numbe: of packing spaces and maximum :ence height. There were fonr persons indica'ting cheir presence in opposic.ion co subjecc requesc and al;hough che staff rPport was noc read, ic is referred to and made a garc of che minutes. Pascor Bra.dcick, Ma9nolia Bapcist Church, 720 S. Magnolia, stated cheir chutch was offered the opportunicy co have che school thac was formerly ac the Euclid Stree't Bapcisc Church because chac school needed to relocace. He scated theiL facility is considerably latgec than where che school is presently locaied and that they ace asking 'to begin the school this September wich approximacely 72 pteschool children and approximately 175 to 200 elemencary school age children, gtad?s 1 thcough o. He scaced 'chis school will offer considerably more ministry to the co;amunicy, pointing ouc chete is a conscant need for preschools. He stated ihey a.lready have a waicing list fot che preschool; and chat t.hey have 300 to 400 members in cheir church and maincain a counseling service, a food resoutce center and feel the pteschool and school will add co theic total miniscry. He st:ced they feel responsibility co cheir neighbors and sent ouc lettecs with quescions and answers to the neiqhboss and received thereLwilJ.nbPSapptoximately 275 children onsthe~premiaesXPchereawil.ln nlyube abnuc 44 children on thP playgLOUnd at any one time~ and the playground will be limi~ed so tney are noc any closet than 75 feet io che neighbor's fences. 8/4/86 86-542 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CO[9MISSION AUGUST 4 1986 He stated, in general, the neighbors he has spoken with have supported 'che cequest. He stated theze was concern abouc the number of cars dropping childcen off and chat very few people bring cheir childten at 6:00 a.m. and those childten wi.ll be kept inside, and the maximum numbec of ~overatheVperiod aftec 8:30 will be abouc 70, and caPSnumbesbofccacs9atnoneJtime• fle scaced of the day, buc there is not a laz9- they will not a.ilow vehicles to drop ofE studenemisesmathany one~~ime,at the most 25 co 30 vehicles wi.ll be parked on ihe p. Malcolm Slaughter stated he has checked the legal advectisandRChenstaff report advercisement did desceibe the pcoper parcel of pcopeccy, indicaced che addtess as 820 S. Magn~Iia rather chan 720 S. Magnolia. Thomas DonPy~ [eptesencing hzs parentoctivecofkchis requesc dOdPhaV?1WdRCPaLL~ Courc, staced his family is vety supp have a Chriszian School in chat church for several years. Keith Karn~, 644 S. ~.'P.lare, staced their main concern was the craffic on Velace S*.reec, espec.ial.ly wich the Women's Bible Group ~n 3~PsPOfachebchutch there are so many women there. He stated s.ince the back g arelinPfavor mote1now~thanatheypwereiPceviouslyatoPhavin9ea schoolschete, they E.laine Harden, 2555abouc 7~or,8shouseshwhichuarebaf`ectPdtandhthey do notowant and chete are only a school behind their ptopercy; thac her husband works nights and s?eps days. She stated the church is rencing toe ~ear buildin9 co another chucch and they put cheic nuzsecy right nexc io the back fence. She presented a piccuce of che nucsery fcom her backyazd and exp.lained thpy acrive as che building at 9:00 a.m. on Sundays and leave abouc 12:00 noon o: 1:00 and ace back again abouc 5 and do noc leave until 8:45 p.m. and yPSterday a child scream=oved, theuLwill~havelchildr?nCatncheia backndooccfromV6n00 aama to bh00 is app y p.m., Monday chtou9h Friday, and the church groups in che evenings an on Sundays. She scaced they have co close the windows in theic living room on Sundays in order co hear the television or co calk• chisscanddchatYshe no` fee.l the church is being fair zo even consider doing concacced a real escate agenc who conficmed chat cheir propercy va.lues will depreciace with this use. She scaced ctaffic on Magno.lia is heavy now and this wil.l noc help that sicuacion. Ralph Fedda-Jahnke, 2579 W. Rome~ scaced she has lived at chis address sir.ce 1957 ai:d she ag[eed with the neighbor's oppos.tcion. She stac?d she informed che paszor chat she was very disturbed abouc che craffichPSe schoolssaWdthhnoe would be only 75 cars, but with 175 children actending bus services p[ovided, she thought chete would be tnore chan 75 vehicles. She stated she lives on che corner and the tsaffic ^oise is terrible now and with chis addition of cars, ic will be even wors~• ~ne added she is also concetne3 about the noise f~oundhethat~meansathere will~'bezchildreno uttthere all day time on the playg long. 5he stated .last week there was a basketbail game ac che teac of c ~ churrh and that was so loud, and ung~PeOPaetP~aying.stshetstatea sherh ped noise and that was wich on1Y 25 Y che Commission would voce a9ainsc the app~oval of this 5choo~%4/86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4 1986 So-543 Ruth English, 2520 W. C.learbrook Lane, stated her propecty is not wichin 300 feet of the church, but she is on tne first street into che ccacc and she is also conceined about che craffic. She stated they have a walk-in 9ate at the rear and if there is no concrol over that gate, she was concerned parents will drop off their children and thought at least 308 of the craffic would be using chat back gate. She stated if they close che wa.lk-in gate, then che people who live in the area will have to walk three blocks around. She added she would like co see a stipulati~n ihat chece will be no delive[y or pick-up of children ac that gate because of the noise and the traffic in the screet. She rPferred co the open gara9es which have been appzoved for fou: apartment complexes in the area and exp.lained those tenants are park.ing in the screet because chP managArs wi.l.l not lec them park old veh.tcles in che spaces. She stated there are 3 streecs which dead-end .into Velare and she would lik.e a cond.it.ion included that the back gate wil.l be contcol.led. Shirley Berglin, 2569 Rome, stated her propercy is disectly behind the church, and the playground will be directly behind her fence. She scated she .is concerned abouc the heighc of the fPnce because things are thrown over it now; and that che.e aze a.lot oE accivities going on which have noching to do with the church, with te?na9ers chere at night and beer cans be.ing th:own over che fence, ecc., and wich a playground,sho~thought chere would be balls, etc. She stated she is concerned about the facc this will be a cwelve monch operacion, ~vith chi.idren chere year round. She stated she has noc objeccion to che church being there whatsoever, and th? pastor has bePn very nice, but she would prefer chat the school noc be located at this chucch. Pascor Bradrtck stated chey are very conce~n?d abouc their neighbors and there are somP th.ings chey cannot al.leviate, buc will try co minimize; that Mr. 6 Mrs. Harden are the ones mosc affected since he sleeps during the day, and cheir pro~ercy is at the far corner of che pcoperty on the souch side and the playgcour~d will not be there, but he was sure chey wxZl hear the chi.ldcen, however, there wil.l only 40 co 50 children out chere ac one ctme, not all 300 childcen. He staced thac Mcs. Jahnke lives ~ight on the corner uf Magnolia, and that is consider~bly removed £rom the playgzound and her qreatest concern was traffic, and poinced out between 8 and 8:30, the major drop-off time for che chi.ldten and then again at 3:00 p.m., chete would be appcoximately 75 vehicles; howevec, some children come earliPr and some laier, so there will not be a tremendous influx of traffic all at once. 8e stated the entcance and exit is .100 yards from Mrs. Jahnke's property. He statPd che tcaffic on Magnolia is heavy, but che increase would not be that heavy. He stated they have a 9roup of Romanians who lease the chucch for their own services and there a*e approximately 150 members of their congregation. Pastor Bradrick stated in talking with neighbors on Ve.lare, theze are a lot of feelings in che neighborhood about the apartments ~nd the increase in trafflc and parking. He stated they wanted 'co assure the nei9hbors they wi.il not have vehicles going out the rear exics becaus~ of school, and that Mcs. English has referrPd to the gate and entrance allowing pedestrian access to the propetcy; and that the neighbors have allowed their chi.idren co Qlay on the church playgcound, and originally they proposed to close that gate, but thac would eliminate anyone in the nei9hborhood from coming onto ihe propercy and them frum being able to go into the neighboshood, so they will 2robably keep ic open and tel.l the parents chey cannot drop the childten off there. He 8/4/86 MINUTES ANAHETM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4 1986 86-543 Ruth English, 2520 W. Clearbrook Lane, stated her property is noc wichin 300 feet of the r.hurch, but she is on the first streei inco the ttact and she is also concezned aboui the traffic. She scated they have a walk-i.n gate ac the rear and if there is no conzcol over that gat?, she was concezned parents will drop off their childten and thought at least 30$ of che ccaffic riould be using chat back gate. She stated if they close the walk-in gate, then ihe people wno liae in the area will have co walk thcee blocks around. She added she would like co see a stipulacion that chece will be no delivery or pick-up of children ac that gace because of che noise and the craf£ic in the ~creet. She teferced to the open garages which have been approved for fou~ apartment complexes ?n the acea and explained those tenancs are park.ing in the screet because che managers will not let them park old veh.icles in zhe spaces. She stated there are 3 streecs which d?ad-end into Velare and she w~uld .like a condit.ion included that the back gate will be control.led. Shirley Bezglin, 2569 Rome, stated her proper'ty is direccly behind the Chttrch, and the plaY9round will b? direccly behind her fence. She scated she is concerned abouc the heighc of the fence because things are thrown over ic now; and ~hac chere are a J.ot of accivities going on wh.ich have noching to do wich the church, with teenagers there ac night and beer cans being chrown over che fence, ecc., and wich a playground,she~choughc chere would be balls, etc. She stated she is concerned about che fact this will be a twelve monih operation, witlt chi.ldren the[e yea~ round. She stated she has noc objeccion co che church being there uhatsoever, and che pastor has been very nice, but she would prefer chat ttie school noc be located ac this church. Pastor Bradrtck statPd they are very conce~ned abouc the?.r neighbors and there are some thin9s chey cannoc alleviate, buc will try co minimize; thac Mr. 6 Mrs. Harden are the ones mosc aff?cced since he sleeps durin9 the day, and chPir p~opetcy is at zhe faz corner of che propet~y on the south side and the playgtound will not be there, but he was sure chey will hear the children, howevec, there wi11 only 40 co 50 children ouc chere at one ctme, not all 30Q childcen. He staced chac Mrs. Jahnke lives right on che corner of Magnolia, and that is considerably removed from ~he playground and het gceatest concern was traffic, and po.inced ouc between 8 and 8:30, che major dr~p-off cime fos che children and then a9ain at 3:00 p.m., ihete would be approximacely 75 vehicles; however, some children come eaclier and som? lacez, so there will not be a tremendous influx of ctaffic aolea~ oncHe statedathe ttafficronce and exic is .100 yards fcom Mrs. Jahnke's p= p Y• Magnolia is heavy, but ihe inc~ease would noc be that heavy. He scated t:.~y have a gsoup of Romanians who lease the chucch for theit own services and there a~e apptoximately 150 members of their con9tega'tion. Pastor Bradrick scated in ialking with neighbors on Velace, there are a lot of feelings in the neighborhood about the apaccmencs and the increase in traffic and parking. He stated they wanted co assure the neighbors they ~i.il not have vehicl•:s going out the rear exics because of school, and that Mrs. English has referred co the gace and entcance allowing pedestrian access to the propercy; and that the neighbocs have allowed cheit children to play on the church ~layground, and original.ly they pr~posed io close thai gate, but that would eliminate anyonP in the neighbochocd from comi.ng onto the ptoperty and them fzom being able to go into the nei.ghbo:hood, so they will probably keep ic open and tell the parents chey cannoc drop ihe chi.ldcen off there. He 8/4/86 MINUTES ANAHEIM C1TY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4 1986 86-544 stated occasionally someone may do it, but they can go to the parents and te.il them not to do ic again and ii they insist, they can have them take the child eut of the school. He stated they want to maintain the privacy foc the neighbors on Velare and not increase their ctaffic; that ac night there has been a concetn with people, usually teenagezs, driving onio the rear of their property and pazcying and ofcen times do deposic cheir bottles anu c.ans ovP: the back fence, and ~hey wou.id like c~ put gates in Eo~ afcer hours so people cennot go back there. Pastoz Sradrick staced at cimes the yourig people in cheir church do have activities such as volleyba.ll, basketba~l, etc., and chey have a gtowing teenage group, and sometimes ic is noisy. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commission=: Bouas asked if ihe nursery for the P.omanian church Could be relocaied away fcom the neighbors. Pastor Bzadrick scaced he would ca1K with the Romanian pastor and explained chat iheir nu:sery could be where the preschool will be, removed from the neighbors. He staced chey have other faciestedsutilizingPthedc.lassroom for~that nutserysbecauseo'thoseihouseseare sugg dicectly impacied. Commissioner Messe stated droppin9 of children on Velace Scceec wil.l be very dangerous and thac will have co be monicored very closely. Pasior BradticK scated thPy do not want the parents to drop che children off ac chat location. He stat~ed chey do nave a few childcen who walk co school. Commissioner Messe statPd ic would be accepcable co use that as a pedesccian gate, but to impose craffic and children in and out of cars there would not be good. Commissioner Messe scazed the scaff repozt indicates 250 maximum elementary studenis entolled. Pastor Bradrtck answered chac wou.ld be the absoluce maximum and right now they have about 193 lst through 6ch grade students registeted, and che maximum preschool scudents permitced by the State is 7~. Commissioner Bouas sugg°sted a limit on che number of students co eli~iinate any problems like we have had with the other school. Commissioner Herbsc stated the playground between ihe nozch and south annexes appears to be the problem and suggested co decrease che noise co the south, that a wa.l.l be conscructe6 excending around the CO~nP.L. He asked if they intend to use ~he parking lot for basketball, etc. Pascor Bradrick staced eveniual.ly ihey will try to put a baske'tball coutc chete. Commissioner Herbsi responded co Pascor Bradtick that a wall as su9gested should not affect their parking because packing is not shown whete the playground is located. Pastor Sradrick scated they will provide a 6-foot hiqh masonry o=~1 nnofhthe westetly portion of the north property ttoundnisttightubehind Mrs. Bezg~in's east property line. He stated ihe playg buc the nouse. He siaced the playground would stil.l be striped fot parking, chi2dren would still be able to play there. He stated they will rope of€ that area so the children will have cc stay thece, but that will noc do anything for the sound. B/4/86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4 1986 86-545 Commissioner Messe stated he is really concerned about the playground area. Chairman McBurney asked if the playgrolnd could be mdved to another acea where it could be walled because he is really concerned abouc the noise. Commissionet Messe asked if the children from the Romanian congregation could be moved on Wednesday nights and Sundays to the preschool playground. Pastoc Btadrick stated ihat would definitely not be a ptoblem. Commissioner Bouas pointed out the nucsezy is inside a bui.lding and the crying child was heard ftom inside che building. Pastoc Bradcick staied he thought chac problem could be alleviated. Commissio~ec Messe stated some mo:e thought has to be puc inco 'the noise and how it will a.•`.fect the neighbo:s to the souih. He suggesced moving the playground area. Pastor Btadtick stated chey could remove it fzom the souch side and stated they are williny to do anything to buffer che sound. He stated the gzassy area is 40' x 60' and Commissioner Herbsc felc that certainly would be an adequate area Eor a playground. Pastor Bradrick stated they are presently renovacing a house which is on their church propecty, and when missionaries are home, chey can occupy that facilicy and relocating the playground would make a lictle moce noise for che missionaries. Commissioner Bouas ~ated ~he missionaries would unde:siand the situation a littl? better than che neighbors. Commissioner Herbst stated wich che wrapped-around wal.l as suggesced, he could voce for che project. Commissioner Messe scated he choughc a cime l.imit should be included so che situation can be reviewed to see .ff 'there arP any ptoblems with che neighbors. ACTION: Commissionet Hecbsc offeced a motion, seconded by Commisstoner Bouas and MOTION CARR7ED (Commissione:s La Claire and Lawicki absent) thac che Anaheim Cicy Planning Commission has reviewed ch? aroposal co permit a preschool and elemencary schnol (kindergarten thcough 6th grade) in conjunction with an existing chuzch wich waivecs of minimum numbet of parking spaces and maximum fPnce height on an lrregu.LarlYroximatepfrontageslofd363 consistin9 of approximacely 4.4 acres, having app feet on the east side of Magnolia Avenue and 293 feet on the wesc side of Velare Street, apptoximate.ly B80 feet south of the centerline of Orange Avenue and furthec described as I20 Souch Magnolia; a~id does he~eby approve che Negacive Declarat.ton upon finding that ic has considesed the Negacive Declasation togethe: wich any commencs received during the public review process and further finding on =he basis of ihe Initial Scudy and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence thac the project will have a significant effecc on the environment. Commissioner Herbst offeced a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED (Commiss!nners La Claite and Lawicki absent) ihat che Anaheim City Planning Comm.isa'.%~: does hereby q~'ant waiver (a) on che basis thai the parking waiver will not cause an inccease in traffic congescfon in the immediate vicinity no: adversp.ly affect any adjoinin9 .land uses and granti,_, of the parkin9 waives undet the cond~tions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental co the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens 8/4/86 86-546 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4 1986 of the City of Anaheim; and grantin9 wa9.ver (b) on the basis that there are special cizcumstances applicable to the property such as ~oZOthetaidentically topography, location and surroundings which do not app1ylication of the Zoning zonEd property in the e~~P ofCirivileges enjoyedrby othet ptoperties in the Code deprives the prop y P identical zone and classification in the vicinity. Commissionet Herbst offered Resolution No. PC86-208 and moved for it=anLSSa9e and adoQtion that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does heteby 9 Conditional Use Permit No. 2829, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.03.030.030 thtough 18.03.030.035 for a maximum of 250 entolled elementaty school students (kinder~~a~ten through 6th gtades) and 72 pteschool studencs at any one iime, and with the playground located between the north and south annexes to have ~ 6-foot high masonry wall between che striped parkin9 lot area abutting the south annex and wrapping the corner at least 50 feet, and that no playground equipment wxll be installed in the parkin9 lo't, and subjecc to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations. Commissionet Messe asked that a time limit be included on this approval and Commissionec Herbst noted if there ace problems or the church does not comply wi"th the conditions, the Commission can set cue mattec for a public hearing to consider tevocation. On roll ca.ll, c.he fotegoing zesolucion was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS~ FRY~ HERBST~ MC BURNEY~ MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI Malcolm Slaughtec, Depucy Cicy Attorney, presented the written right io appeal the Plannin9 Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. COMMISSIONER LA CLAIRE RETURNED TO THE MEETING ITEM~ 4 EIR NEGATIVE DECI~ARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2830 PUBLIC HEARIN~. OWNERS: LONNIE D'JNN III, DUNFORD PRQPERTIES, 1600 Dove Street, #100, Newport Beach, CA 92660. AGENT: HULEN PROPERTIES, 2021 3rd, parcel•ofilandiconsistingOof approximacelyc1i35dacres,r2130RSouth~State ed College Boulevatd. To petmii induscrially-related office u~• > in a 3-story building Ln che ML Zone. There was no one indicating cheic presence in opposition co subj?ct cequest and although the staff report was not tead, it is refecred to and made a part of the minutes. Martin S. Cox, 1600 Dove Street, Ste. 100, Newport eeach~ 92660, stated they are requesting induscrially-related office uses in a proposed 3-story building a~id ptesenced a rendering of the sttuctu~e• 8/4/86 MI[iUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4 1986 86-547 T8E PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Responding to Commissionec La Claire, Linda Ries, P.lanning Aide, explained the list of uses proposad is the one Qreviously appzoved. ACTION: Commissionet La Claice offered a motion, seconded by Commissione[ Messe and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Lawicki abs?nt) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit industcially-related office uses in a proposed 3-story building in the ML Zone on a rectangulary- shaped parcel of land consisting of appro::imately 289 feet on zhe east side of State Colleae Boulevacd, approximately 280 feet south of the centerline of Orangewood Avenu? and further described as 2130 S~uth Scate Col.lege Boulevard;and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments teceived during the pub.lic review p:ocess and further findin9 on the basis of the Initia.l Scudy and any comments received ihat there is no substantial evidence thac the project will have a significartt effect on the environment. Commissloner La Claire offered Resolucion No. PC86-209 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City P.lanning Commission does hereby grant Condicional Use Permii No. 2830, pursuant ko Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035, subject co Interdepartmental Committee Recommendat.tons• On roll cal.l, the foregoing rPSOlution was passed by che fol.lowing vote: AYES: BOUAS~ FRY~ HERBST, LA CLAIRE~ MC BURNEY~ MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: LAWICKI Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Atcorney, pcesented che wrizten right co appeal the Planniny Commission's decision wichin 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0. 15 EIR NGGATIVE DECLARATION WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2831 PUB~IC HEARING. OWNERS: BRADMORE REALTY INVESTMENT COMPANY, LTU. 72.1 Santa Monica Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 90401, ATTN: JOHN M. BOHN, GENERAL PARTNER. AGENTS: A-L EINANCIAL CORP., 220 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805, ATTN: ALLAN LOBEL. Property described =~ an irregularly-shaped parce.l of land consisting of approximacely 4.7 acres, 280 East Palais Road. To permit an automobile storage and wholesale sales lot with a temporary trailer and oucdoor automobile repair and carwash and with waivers of prohibited outdoor uses, required enclosure of outdoor uses and required 'crash enclosure. There was no one indicating th?ir 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. Masian 8offman, agent, er.Qlained they are tequesting a storage lot for repossessed automobiles which chey must keep for 15 days before selling; that 8/4/86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4 1986 86-548 they do minimal tune-ups and wash the cars before selling them; and thac John Gilbert, Sanitation Division, approved the trash enclosuze; and that they have two employees on the loc from 9 to 5. She ceferced to the requirement for slats in the fence and stated the use is really noc visible and is not an eyesote. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Responding to Commissioner Herbst, James Hurst, employee of A. L. Financial, stated the veh3.cles are sold to whole~alets or dealers; and that abouc 15 or 20 cars are sold and they have the sales twice a week, Monday and Thursday, and pzobably 6 to 10 people attend the sale. He stated their scorage area is currently at Orangechorpe and Raymond in ?ul.lerton. Commiss~~ner Herbst stated there have been problems with this type use in the past and asked if they have parking spaces on the lot for che purchasers. Mr. Hurst responded they have park;ng areas on the lot. Annika Santa.lahti, Assistant L~irector for 2on.ing, staced the problem wich ihis use is that automotive Lf.~ai: work has always been required to be insidP a building and there is no build.ing on chis property. Commissioner Fry sta'ted with the shape of chis loi, there is a very small fronca9e and he did not think it would presenc a problem. Commissioner La C.laire stated thete is an inaustrial building to the norch and a chainl.ink fence. Mr. Hurst ?xplained the people from that indust~ial propecty cannoc look onco this property because that is cheir bui.lding wal~ wich no windows. Commissionez Messe c.lazified che southern boundary is che parking lot of the nexc door neighbor and that could be a problem and ask?d if the pecitioner would be wil.ling to slat that fence. Mr. Hurst stated he did not ihink that would be necessary. Commiss:Loner Messe pointed ouc the Commission received a letter from the industria.list nexc door 'to the west obj?cting co the use as a nuisance. Mr. Hurst stated there is an induscrial school next door. Commissioner ~esse siated the use could be an eyesare. CommissioneL La Claice stated she was concerned abouc the same thing and would like t~ see the chainlink f?nce slatced. She explained there is suppos~d to be a building to do the work in and she did not remember any variances ever being granted permitting the work outside and she would not vote for this un.less =he petitionet agrees co che slatt.ing. She clarified she would want slatting on the west and south side, and it was clacified the fence ad;acenc to the school parking lot .is the on? under discussion and Mr. Hurst teplied he would slat that fence. ACTION: Commissionez La Claire offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Lawicki absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to oermit an automobile storage and wholesale sales loc with a temporary crailer and oucdoor automobile repair and catwash with waivers of prohibited outdoor uses, requiied enclosure of outdaor uses and required trash enclosure on an isregularly-shaped parcel of 8/4/86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4 1986 86-549 land consisting of approximately 4.7 acres, having a fronta9e of approximately 75 feet on the south side of Palais Road, approximately 710 feet east of the centerline of Anaheim Boulevard, and furchec described as 280 East Palais Road; and does hereby appcove tne Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative llecla:ation together with any comments received during the public ceview pcocess and further findin9 on ihe basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that thete is no substantial evidence that the pr~ject will have a significant effect on che environment. Commissioner La Claire offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Lawicki absent) ihat the Anah?im City Planning Commission does heceby grant waivers (a) and (c) on the basis thac there are special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, lo~ation and surcoundings which do not apply to other identically zoned property in ihe same vicinity; and that strict applicat.ion of zhe Zoning Code deprives the property of ptivileges enjoyed by other properties in che identical zone and classi.Cication in the vicinity; and approval of waive: (b) in part, with slatting required in the chainlink fencin9 on the south and nast property lin~~s, adjacenc to the industrial school park.ing loc. Paul Singer, Ttaffic EnginePr, stated there is a traffic signal assessment feo due foc open spaces prior co rhe commencement of che activity. Concerning the trash enclosure waiver, Annika Santalahci exp.lained that ahould be included as a condit.ton and if the Sanitation Division approves, no waivet would be nec?ssary. Cnmmi~sioner La Claire expiained this propercy is very unusua.l in size and shape and that is the reason foc the approval. Commiss.ioner La Claire offered ResoZucion No. PC86-210 and moved foc its passage and adoption that che Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2831, iu parc, pucsuant to Anaheim Mun.icipal Code Sectior. 18.03.030.030 through 18.030.030.035, and subject to Interdepatcmental Committee Recommendations. On tol.l call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the followin9 v~te: AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST~ LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI~ MC BURNEY~ MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Malcolc: Slaughte•r, Deputy City Actorney, pcesented the wricten tight to appeal the Plannirt9 Commission's decision within 2'l days to the Cicy Council. ITEM N0. 16 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, >AIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2832 PUBLIC BEARING. O~i7NERS: DAISY ELLIS, MAY G. YIP~ MORRIS YEP AND GAIL B. YIP~ c/o THOt•fAS C. Y~P, 1322 S. Winterwood Lane, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. AGENT: JAMES R. WALKER, 24 Sundance Drive, Polona, CA 91766. Propeccy described as a iectangulatly-shaped paccel o£ land consiscing of approximately 0.93 acre, 3024 West Ball Road. 8/4/86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4 I986 86-550 To pecmit on-sale beer and wine in a pzoposed Japanese Noodle Restaurant with waivec of minimum numbPr of parking spacPs. Thece aras no one indicating theit pzesence in*opSO~PfP~TPa°t~uandcmadPqaepart and a.l.thnugh thP staff tPp~rt was n~t rPad, of the minutes. Jim WaJ.kPr, 24 Sundanc.P DcivP, Pom~na, agPnt, Pxp?.ain~d th~ rPquPSt is for a beer and wine license and that the sale of bPBL and wine would be incidental. to the food sal.?s, and wnuld bP apprnximatPly 5 to 7$ ~f thP total. salPs. T8E PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Resp~nding t~ C~mmissionPr MPSSP, Mr. Wal.kPr statPd •`.hPy r.an sPat ab~ut 85 t~ 90 peoplP. Mr~ Wal.kPt rPfPrrPd to C~ndition N~. 1 rPgarding an PasPmpnt and statPd thPTP is alt~ady an easement on the west side of the propezty; and the side closest to 3each BoulPVard did havP an accPss, bu~ thP 1.andl.oto nPxt dn~r instal.iPd concrete wheel stops and that access has been closPd. Chaitnan McBUCnpy sr_atPd thP numbP: nf parking spacPS wnul.d bP a cnnc.prn. Paul. Singez, Ttaffic Engineez, statPd he undecstood that the entite patking lot had acc?ss f mm Baach BoulPVard and Ba1.1. Road and hP was d'zsturbPd tn hPar there is no acces~ to d~ach. He stated if thPre is a ceciptocal access and pazking pas~mQnt, which r.hP:P ~bviousl.y has t~ bP in ~rdPr fnr thP parking layoi:°c showr, io wotk, che adjacent ptopecty owner rea.lly did not have thP righ4 tn cl.~so that accPss. q~~m yi~, -aprPSNnting thp ~wnPrs, stakPd thP acr.PSS from BPach ~riginal.ly was open a.~~ ab~s~t two years ago the ownez of the pzoperty installed the whePl. stops for pa-.king purp~sPs and hP did n~t kn~w ~f any acr.Pss ftnm BPach. Chaicman MceurnPy asKed if ihe titie repoit designates an ingress and egtess easemPnt fnr that pr~pPrty and Mr. Yip rPSp~ndPd hP did n~t think was an easement and ~xplained they bought the ptopecty last yeat and thece was an easem~nt ~n thA wPst sidP whPtP thp mPdical. buil.ding .is t~carPd. Paul Singer stated thete is a recipt6cal access and patkin9 easement on thP propPrty an~ +hPrP sh~ul.d bP n~ barriPr and suggpstpd thP C~dp EnfotcPmPnt Officets review the situation because that would make a lot of patking spaces inaccessib7.a. Mal.c~l.m Sl.aughtPr skatpd hP did nnt kn~w if thP PasPmPnt was necessacy to meet City requiiements and if it was simply a pcivate agreement between gtivatP partiPS, thP City w~u7.d hav~ nn intPrPSt in it. Commissionez La Claire asKed if the appzoval can be gtanted, subject to thP conditi~ns, and thPn thP p~C1~1nRPT cnul.d w~rk it out pcinr t~ obtaining a building petmit. Annika Santalahti stated the intent is to get accass to thP 71 parking spacPs. Mr, yip p~intPd ~ut the parking spacas atP a7.1. ar.cPssib].P from Ba7.1 R~ad and theze is no need foz access fcon B?ach, and the easement on the we=ivatPf~~ the parking area on that sidP and statPd hP was nnt awarP ~f any p easements. 8/4/86 MINUTES. ANA~6IM CITY PLANNID'iG COMMISSION, AUGUST 4. 1986 86-551 Mr. Singer stated the access is needed for c'.rr.ulation. Commfs~ioner McBU~cney stated these issues should he res~~lved before che b~_ilding permits are issued. Comm;.ssioner La Ci.~~ziA tiOICPC~i if the condicion could requtre satisfactinn of the TsafE:.c Er~gifi~:ei so the applicant would n%t i,a,yP to appe~~ again. Mr. w;,ixer reierr•' co Cordition N~s. 3 chtough ?.0 ar,~ stated as long as che co:ts are noc prnhi.~ltive, tnose cc.-aditior.~ uould L~ be acceptabSe. Annika Santalahti stated c.he cree plantin9 fees ace about ~2.90 per .lineal foot and st~reec liyhts are about $6.SQ per linFal foot, .and the City nas no record thaz tUey have been paid. Annika Santalahti staced r~ndition No. 2 should read: •Thai in accozdance with Genetal P.lan Amendment No. 210, pertainiu5 to Critica.l In'terseccions, the owner of the propetty shall irrevocable offer io dedicate co che City a scrip of land decreasin9 in width from 12 feet. T.h~ u?dication 'to comply with the sta~~dards of che proposed General Plsn Amendment No. 210. In the event the Genera~ P~.an amendment is not adopted, ihis condicion sha11 ue considesed null and void. ' Sbe explained thac means at the eascer.ly propercy liner the~ additional 12 feet of right-of-way is being asked foi and gotentially d!oppiny to something undet 12 feet. Paul Singer clacified at 300 feec from che intersect.Lon, ihe re,uiteme, t~.G for 12 feet and decr?asing fnt the additiona.'1 30G feet. Mr. Yip stated they do not see what che d~dication has to do wich th~~ ;a,*.ui4t~::a1 use permit; that they nePd that -space for parking and if they dedicaLe 12 feei;,• tk,ey will lose chose parkin9 spaces and would teques~ chat that condition not be imp~s?d. Chairma^ Mc BucnPy s'cat?d ~h= criti:a.l inc~~r~eccion designacion 'Zaa n~t been appraved and tte condition reads t'~t~t i.f it i.s approved, they wou.id make the dedication alo;,? c:~e front o£• the ps'op<c'ty for a riaht-turn lane~ He explait~ed :he unly ~~ay the City has to get thi,s properi:y is when someone wan•t:: to obtain a buildin~ petmic. Mr. Yip stated th~ Ciiy l~as the .ighc to eminent domai:~ if needeo., ar~ that is psotab~.y thP psocess the Ctt~• sGould follow rathet tl::3n i:nposln9 t:he ..•~nd~.cion on this use. Commissioner Herbst scated as the intensity of the ;:se oz ~?^nsit:y of the property is .increas?d, it causes the need t~~ widen the stzeets, ecc. Mr. Yip stated chis shopping cent,ez was butlt in. 1979 and ever~~thing was apgzoved bY the Ciiy and yet this pei.itioT~er wancs to open a noodl~ shop ,+ith beec artd wine, and noted this loc~,tion was appcaved ior a restautant or commer^.it.l limited uses, and the prr~blF^ was crear,ed when the centc+r was consztu~i:ed.. Commissioner Messe stater:l part ~f *.`~e business is going to come from the increased usage of the scre?ts. Linda Rios stated if the tenant came in with a request for a tesiaucant, a waiver would be necessary for parking and an addltional Les~a4ranc is n•~t 6/4/86 MiNUTES, A_SIAHEIM CITY PLANNING CUMMISSION, AUGUST 4, 1986 Q6-552 permitted on this lot :~~icF<~,~i a.~~+sing ~atiance. Ste stated a restaurant is :~ o4rmitted use and t h•z ~~;~tk ~,g t~qu3 rement for a.ll the uses must meet wi~st is cucrently existing. Malcolm Slaugl:cer stated this proEezty may be develo~~rl M~ity`''~~erauses which only certa3.n types of us~y permitt.~d by Code and therP may :equi!e a ~igher. number ~: parkirtg soaces. .:, zip ~t?ted if thi~ co:td.ition is imposed, :hey would noc•. ~e willing to dedicate the land and if the tenant cannot obtain this cos~c;:tional, use permi~, unfortunat~rly, he might n~t starc the busines~s. Commissioner Fry explained the City is askin9 ci~e ownee to enter into an agreement ~naL in the fui:ure, .tf this 12 feet is rec2ssary f^r this critical intersection, to dedicate it at chat time. Commtssior.er LaClaire asked if tk:e owner wou:~d li.ke a concinuance in order to consider these condttion~ and also to r,°v{^w the ease~,er~t situatlon. She siated no mattet what ;.y~e us~ ls dev~lnp~J on this pr~~pptty, the dedication will be requir^_•~ un.less ii 4s ,s use allowed by Code wi'.h~ut any waivecs tequited. iAr, yip requestPd a two-we~>k concinuance. nC1ION: Conmissioner La Claice offered a motion, secondAd by CommL~sioner Messe an~l MUTIUN CARRIED (Comm:.ssionet Lawic4 i~4,senc) 'that considecation of the afotementioned mattec is hereby cor.tinuec to the cegularly-scneduled meett.ng of Aug:ast. .iS, 198E, a_ the tequnst of the pet.itionet. I9'.EM NO. 1? EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION~_WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND CGND:TIONAL U~t PERMIT N0. 2833 PURL•:~ HEARI[vG. OWNERS: ERIC T. AND DOLORES 1. txICKSONr P.7. Box 5130, Rezo, Nevada 89513. AGENT: RICHARD HEAR, 7415 Ear.ldom Aven~~, P.laya del Rey, CA 90293. Property described as an irregularly-shap?d parcel of lan~ consisti~ia of app_ox'~natelp t;.35 acces locat=oxtmateeiconcagesto£ .i18L`eet on Gra~ge Aver~~e and We~tern A.venue, having app the ~~est side of OrangF• Avenue and 103 feet on the south side of WestPrn AVe!~42. To oecmit an automotivF sezvice f~ci.lic; ~aith waivers of n:inimum number of tequiced parking spaces and minimum iand~capFd ~etback~ There were four persans indicating Che:~.c presence in opposition to subject r?quesL and although the staff repott wtts r.ut read, It ls referced 'co and made a part of the minuLes. Larry Hofiman, agent, expJ.ained they are ptoposing a three-bay auto service cPnter and there will not be an~ mechanical wozk done hete, and basically the primary opetation is oil filter/lubrication activity. Mr. Hoffman referced to Page 17-b and noted t''.ere is a 4-fooc wide landscape9 buffer os~ Western and North Street instead of 3 feet as indicated. He stated 8/4/85 MINUTES~ ANAAEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4 1986 86-553 they do not have the 10 Eeet between the residential area and this business. He explained they have slanted parking which 9ives a staggeted area b?tween and 12 for landscaping. He stated they will provide additional trees to create more separation. Merlyn Wi.esner, Monticello Ptoperty Management which manages the apartment complex at 3210 W. Oran9e, stated they feel this business wi.ll generate noise and fume pollution and interfere with the peace and quiec of the tenants; that this is a new complex with 21 un.its and every tenant in the apartments ~~n the east side wil.l have a view of this business. She stated this will int?rfere wlth their abilily to rent these units at the rate they are currently gettin9 and they w.Lll pr~bably lose some o£ the tenants they now have. Colleen Stephenson, 3220 W. Orang?, next door to the new apartment complex, stated the parking will be slanted next the apartments and the apartments will buffer i~er property, but right now the subject pcopetty is an eyesore and with a business such as this, thece will be lines of vehicles wait.ing fot services and she did not think it would be a good situation. She added there is an Econo Lube facility just dodn the stceet end that is a very similar operation and they hav? ca:s parked all over the p.lace all the time. She scated her children wil.l have to walk past this facility L-o and fcom school and the hours of opezation are S to 8, Monday through Friday, 7 to 12 on Saturday and to 12 to 5 or~ Sunday, which is seven days a week. She scated this will be a commercial business in this s.ingle-famx~y rFSid?ntial area. Ch~itman Mc Bur~:ey ask?d if Ms. Stephenson had seen the plans and she rssponded she had and added the appllcant says they will have 5 employePs which means five vehicles n?eding parking c•pace; and that ccaf.fLc is a problem and het son has be?n hit by a vehicle .in that arPa and lt is a dangerous int?csPction, and she thought the addlt.ional traffic fr.om this use wil.l have an impact. patc_~ia 9aske1l, 222 S. G.and, statNd she lives in the tract directly across Westz'n and her main concern is the childr?n; that Western High School is dlrectll acros:> thF stceet and there are also two elementazy schools on Oranoe'~oocl and childcen have to walk to three schools past that intersection. She stated thesF are zesidential homes in this neighboshood, and the General Plan deslgnat~s that corner as resid?ntial which permits apartments and it is n«t commercia!., even though it has been spot zoned for com.mercial uses; and ~:hat shA has liv~:' in that area ~ince 1961 and did n~t know how it ever got rezoned. ShA ~taced this will be a drive-through establishment and asked how the tzaffic will flow thzough the facility. She added it .is almost impossible to o,Pt out the driveway facing Western and turn left. She stated there are children constantly in that area; and ~hey feel a commercta.l e~tablishment in a residential area does btin9 the property values down and they dun't want it in their residential atea. Mr. Hoffman stated this propecty is an eyesoc~ right now and the new ounets r?alize it. He stated the new tenants are from an established firm currently operati~ig in Oregon, and explained any fluids drained out of the vehicl~~.. (oil, transmission fluid, etc.) are kept undezgzound and will be pumped at cegular intervals; that the noise is not loud; that no mechanical work will be 8/4/86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY FLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4 1986 86-554 done, and theze wi.ll be ao banging; that all work is done inside the facility and the whole operation usually takes about 10 minutes; thac there will be no on-site parking for a customer to drop th?iz vehiclP off, and the owner will sit in the vehicle while it is being sPrviced for insurance purposes. Concerning the t:affic studies, he explained studies were pcovided of similar operations and counts were taken every 15 minutes ~~i cats waiting in line and the most waiting in Zine at any one time was fou~. He presented a letter from the owr.ez describing the operation and indicating a good volume would be 35 to 40 cars a day which would be about 5 cars an hour. He stated at that volume, tzaffic would not be a concern for the ch:ildzen's safety. He eaplained a vehicle could come into ihe site at either driveway, proceed through the facility and probably ca-s on t~ ~ right side of the building would exit back onto Orange and the cars on the lefc would use Western, buc they cuu~d go Pither direction and still not have any conflict with cars coming in. THE PUBLIC HEARING ~AS CLOSED. Mr. Hoffman responded to Commlssioner Hetbst chat the hou:s of opecation wou.ld be 8 t~ B, Monday chto~gh Friday, 8 to 7 on Satucday, 12 to 5 on 3unday. It was clarified the pr.~PertY Was zon?d commPrcial limiced in 1964 for a service station and the General Plan designates the property foz m?dium density resid?ncial land uses. Commissi^nez e^ry stated a convenience market could be built on this property. Malcolm SLaughtAr stated th? code would permit a 9ceat zange af zetail type uses which could be builc as a mattPr of ci9ht without comin9 before the Planning Commiss:lon for a hearing. Commissioner La Claire stated she understands how the residents feel about commercial uses cn that corner, but unfortunatel.y that property is zoned for commercial uses and th?re are a multitudP of uses which cou.id be develope~ which would be more detrim?ntal ~o thp nPighbozs, such as 7-11's which ar? open late, etc. She suggested ?xtending thP wall for about one more car lengtti, and Mr. Soffman sug9ested some larger trees which would mature within about a yeaz. AGTION: Commis:ionez Fry offered a motion, second?d by Commissioner aerbsr. and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Lawicki absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal. to permit an automotive service facility with waivers of minimum number of parking spaces and minimum landscaped setback on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.35 acres lo~ated at the southwest corne: of Orange Avenue and Weste:n Avenue,and does hezeby approve the Negattve Declaration upon finding that !~ has cr;~3idered the Neqative Declaration together with any commPnts received durin9 the public review ptocess and firther finding on the basis of the Initial Stndy and any cor.unents zeceived that there is no substantial evidence that tt~e psoject will have a significant effect on the environment. 6/4/86 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMZSSION, AUGUST 4~ 198_6__ _ 86-555 Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commission?z Herbst and MOTIOh CARRIED (Co;nmissioner Lawicki absent) that the Anaheim City P.lanning Commission does hereby grant waiver (b) on the basis thac there are special ciccumstances applicable to the property socn as size, shape, topo9raphy, location and surroundings which do not apply to other identically zon?d proFercy in the sa.me vicinity; ar.d 'chat strict apFlication of the Zoning Codp deprives the ~roperty of privileges enjoyEd by other propettiFs in the identical zone and classification in the vicinicy; and denying wui~er (a) on che basis that said waivec was deleted by revised plans submictWd by ti~e petitionec prior to the public hearing. Commissionec Fry offerFd Resolut.ion No. PCBo-211 and moved fo: its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditicnal Use Permic No. 2833, in part, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 Gh:ough 18.03.030.035, subjeck to Interdepartmenca.l Committee Recbmmendatians, including an additional condi;.?on to plant meture trees, and subject to the stipulations that there shall be no mechar:ical aark such as tuneups or engine overhauls, and that all custom?rs sha.il remain in vehir,l?s while service is being danA and the hou:s of ope:ation shall be as stipulated. Commissioner Fry c:~kPd abouc emission tests and what stPps wou.ld be takAn if a vehicle doesn't pass thH test. Mr. H.:~man stated the i?tter sta;~es thPy do not do tune-up„ and pcobably che vehi.~lP would havP t~ go someplace else fox any wcrk to be done. On rol~ call, the foregoing reso~utioa was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS~ FRYi H~RBST~ Ll CLAIRE~MC BURNEY~ MESSE NOES: NUNE ABSENT; 7AWI~KI Commissioner Herbsi stated he voted for chis project 4ecause of the existing zoning and the number ~: vPhicles wh.lch could be added with any othec use and any development would have to have driveways and this project probably has the least amount of traffic of any use that could be developed on that corner. Commissioner La Claire added this use would have the least amount of noise. Malcolm Sl,aughter, Deputy City Attorney, present?d tha wcitten cight to appeal ihe Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0. ].8 EIR NEGATYVE DF.CLARATION (PREV. APPROVED), WAIVER OF ~ODE REQUIRLMENT (PREV. APPROVED) AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2341 (READVERTISF.D) PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPRQVAL OF REVISED PLANS. REQUESTED BY: CITY OF ANAHEZMr 200 S. Anah?im Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92N05. AGENTS: WESTERN NATIONAL PROPERTIES, P. 0. Box 6348, Oran9e, CA 92667, ATTN: KELLY CANiPBELL. Property described as an irregu.larly-shaped gazcel of land consisting of approximately 4.4 acres, 730-810 North Loara Street. To pezmi~ a 100 unit senior citizens' apartmenz complex with waivet of maximum structural height (previously appzoved). 8/4j 86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4 1°36 86-556 There were eigh* peoplP indlcating ~heit presence in opposition to subj?ct request and although the staff report was not r?ad, it is rpfe:red to and made a Fart of thP minutes. Michael Hayde, 030 The City D:ive, Orange, 92668, explained the staff repo:t noted that thP previously approved pr~~7ect had a dPnsity of 19.4 units pec acte and that the cutrent project has a density oL 25.34 units pPr acre, and one of the reasons for the change in the s.ite plan is that there is one acrN less of property than what was previously submitced to the Plann.ing Commission. He stated in t:ying to accommodatP the p:oject, they have changed the mix from all one-bedroom units co approximately 50$ two-bedroom and 508 one-bedroom unit, and have reversed the sice plan which is pcobably going to be the concezn of most of the n?ighbocs presenc tcday. H? stated chey are still within Code, except for onQ variance whlch they are sti.ll rPquesting. Commissioner PrY left the meeti.ng at 6:25 p.m. and did not return. Guy Farris, Architect, 1795.'. Mitchell, S~uth, Irvine, explained three buildings are proposed and each one has been destgnPd to be cesidentia`. in character to be compatible with thP surzounding neighbo-hood. He presented a re~d?cing of the projPCt and stated th? site is v?ry ir:e9ularly-shaped and is difficult to work with, and that they are pcoposing 100 unZOVpWOfctrees andlY less than p?Lmitted by Code. He teferred to an Pxisting g stat?d they wi.ll continue thosR tre?s which will obs~ure the viPw of thP existiny residential fcom th? ~roject, and 'chey wil.l k?ep ti~ose ttees in the recrPational/opPn space. Mr. Fatris presented fcuz sections showing the relationship b?tween the two p~ojects and the adjacent sesidences and notPd the resid?nces hav? lacge rear yard~, and th~y are providing a 56-fooc setback and th? closest would be 22 fBPt with a 54-foot separatlon. Veza Erickson, 1270 W. Catalpa, stat?d she h~s lived there 26 yeats, and he: backyard abuts this project; that they WPC? ~~ld this property would be a patk and shP did :~ot know how they could build thASe units with this busy street; that tnere is a school and YMCA close by and they are all against this project because there is too much tzaff.ic now. Sh~ presented a petition of neighbors in opposi.tion and a pho~ogtaph of an accid?nt which occurred yestetday. Richard Coner, 1270 W. Catalpa. stated al.l the peopl~ who si9ned the pet.ition did not hesitate because of the traffic concerns. He stated he can count 10 to 18 cars going by in one minute in che morning and late afternoon (peak hours) and this project shows 122 patking spaces for 100 units and if those people go out only twice a day, ii would put 400 to 500 more vehicles ~n that street a day and the only outlet is on Loara which is a busy stzeet. William Bongiovanni, 1248 Laguna Place, staced this project is p:oposed r2ght b~hind the houses ~n the north and the trees they teferred to are really bushes and are not very high and he did not think ti,?y will get that hi9h. He stated a two-story building thete just seems to take away theit p~ivacy and their bedrooms are located cn the rear of their houses. 8/4/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION1 AU•~UST 4, 1986 86-557 Su,~ Sceven5 stated sh? does not live in +:.nat area, but lives in Anaheim and is pres?nt to h?lp zPp~?sent her family who lives at 1274 Catalpa, on the cocner of Cata.lpa and Loara. She staced there is an extreme parking and traffic probletn in this area and when she visits her sister, she cannot flnd a p.lace to park close to their home, and it is usually two co three blocks away. Sh? stated they ate proposing 32.4 parking spaces for 48 one-b?d*_oom units, and 115.6 spaces for the two-bedroom units, which leaves6.6 fo- any staff o: guest, and she thought there vill be a greatet park.in9 problem in that area; and tha~ the school, YMCA, post office, and a small market also add extensive traffic. She stat?d she does not feal it is in the best interest of anyone to add th.is project; and that traffic could be a decrimPnt to th? child~en in the neighborhood, the child:en of the people resid.ing in the project, or anyone visiting thP peoplP in ~.his facility, and it could also be a detriment to th? eldezly people livin9 in the facility. She stat?d if the propercy was a landfill, pucting two-story units on this property could be vezy dangerous. Kacherine Matchews, 1238 Laguna Place, stated her backyard is adjacent to this property which th?y call ihP 'dump'. Sh? stated there a:e no irees, sh-_ubs, etc. and the tYees they referrPd to ace accually shrubs, and ic would be years b~fore they get as larye as the drawin9s showed. Sh? scated chese cwo-story apartments would be loakiny right down ir.to hP- back yacd and sh? has livPd there fo~ 10 years and they spend a lot of time in che backyard and don't want this project on that property. She ~tat?d she works at Prfc? Elementary School and chere are many children walking on Loara to get co school and theze is a lot of traffic, and the elderly drivers may not be as cautious with children in the azea. Carolyn Forgeone, 1261 H. Catalpa, stated the compl?x will be directly behind their back yard; and that she would agree the crees referrPd to are not trees and she does not wish to have anybody looking in her backyard. She stated ever since they have statt?d cleaning subject property, the gophers have come into their yard; and they have three cars and have to occasionally park down the street; and that the apartments across the street do not have sufficient parking spaces and those t~;~nants park in their area. Nick Scra, 1222 Claridge Drive, stated adding 100 units would increase the traffic tremendously and Loara Street today is a:ace tcack and pe~~le use Claridg~ DrivP to get to the hospita.l and La Palma. He stat~d his back yard faces the property and the trees ceferced to are not on the subjFCr property, but are on the neighbors' properties.He stated a 10 to 12 foot fence woul~ be ceq~ired to close it off unless the 6 fooc fence is at the top of che 4 co 6 fooc d=op-off. Mr. Farris stated traffic, trees, parkfng and the landfill wece the issues rais?d; and presented photographs of the trees and add?d he cannot verify that every tree is on the property they will be acquiring; however, they measured those trees shown on psoperty lines end they are approximately 5 or 6 feet tzll, dnd they do not extend the entire property line, but do extend 658 to 708 of the len9th of the property and they would extend that row of tzees fo: che entire properiy line. Concerning the ttaffic, he did not think any of the senio~s would be driving fast, and added s?nior citizen projects genezate less traffic than a 8/4/86 86-558 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4 1986 single-family developmPnt and sincP the ps~ppttY is ZBStT1CCP4 by dPPd c~venant f~r sPnioL citizPns, khPrP is n~ way f~r thP usP ~f this pt~PPrrY }n change to a ynunget tPnant complPx. Mr. FaYris sr_atPd it is truP thP prnpP-ty was a landfil.l and that was takPn into considezation in thPiz purchase ftom thP City and thPy have had testing donP thPLP and thPtP sPPms to bP nn t~xicir.y and a gtPat dPal ~f s~il will. have to bP removPd and thP soil rPCOmpact?d. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman M~PUrnPy askPd if r.hPy ~~nsidPrPd running ~hP r~ad ~n thP n~r+.hPriY ptopPrty line and Mt. Fartis stacpd that pas}tPp *~lbuild POOnunits a~at~a isP agraPmant with thp City ~f Anahpim TPquir s h m a design pc~blPm and this sPPmPd to be thP most pfficienc way to accomplish it. Mr. Fa:ris skarpd this will bp sPr.urity ~"iPntPd c~mplPx wirh d SPCU~ity gate and hP did not think the sPnioss will bP parking ~n the strePt• C~mmissionAr HPrbsk s~atpd hP rPa~iz~s this is a vPry hard parcPl t~ wnrk with, but chis is pzobably onP of r,hP worst sPniot citizens projPCts he has sPPn; that thP pa~king is l~car.ad r~~ faz fT~m ~hP units; andhPhnPihhbots'a not bP in favot of pati~s ftom the sPCOnd stozy ovPrlooking p 9Y backyazds; that hP did n~t chink khP Commissi~n PasL~vPLtapplnP~aand with two-stozy apartmPnt pz~jpct only 15 fP?c ft~m th P p oPY Wind~ws arP not apaztmPnt units facing thP rPsidPnrPs, ~vPn wir_hin 50 f , dt1nWPa t0 facP LhP singlP-family cPSidPntial pr~pPtties. HP StdLPd hP ala n~t know whak ag~pAmPn~ thPy hav~ with thP City, but if thP unirs cann~t bP developed with~ut inftinging ~n thp nPighbothood, somPthin9 is wzong with it. Mr. FacTi.s statPd r.hP parking is at thP samP distancP as thP prPVi~usl.y appcoved site plan. CommissionPr LaClai:e stated the ptimary diffP=ence is thar. r.hP drivPway was PrPVi~usl.y locakpd ar_ r_hP rPar. Commissioner Messe askPd why thP dtivPway cnuld noc be located the same as it was in thP ~riginal pl.an. Mr. Farris rpspnndPd thPy had changPd thP unita sizes sincP the osiginal plan had all 540 sq. ft. units. Latry Cabtzera, Housing RPhabilitation SupPrviso~, statPd rhP p'npnsPd pt~jPCt w~u1.d bP 25B affozdable, and thP ptoject appcoved in 1982 was Hud-sponsot?d and would havP been 1008 affnrdabJ~. Mal.cntm Sl.aughtPt, DPpu*_y City Ar.r~rnPY, statPd thP prnpPrty is in Pscrow with the City of Anaheim. Mc. Farris statPd thPrP arP snmP strurtural pr~bl.Pms with putting thP buildings next to the flood control channel. Commissioner La Claite stated this is to bP housing fot sPninr citizpns and thP p'~jPCt w~ul.d impact all thP neighbots, and if it was possible co build without impacting the neighbozs and if it was ].008 affnrdablP, shP would think it is a grPat p'~]°ct, but it dnPs impact the neighbots and has a lot of ptoblems. Mi.Farris statPd r_hPy havP spPnt ~f 1.~t ~f m~nPy in PnginPPYing ~n thP sitP and they have had thsPe soils pngineets, and all the soil will havP to bP tPmoved, sortPd and rPCnmpactPd with probably 4 fPPr ~f E1L~. CPQu1LPa. HP 8J4/86 86-559 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNIN~ COMMISSION AUGUST 4 1986 stated this project will be no more dense than the pcevious p=oject and Commissionet La Claire pointed out that project would have been 1008 affozdable. Malcolm Slaughter stated he did not zecall any specific limitation :egarding the number of units in the agreement and Mr. Fatris read itom the agreement: •that the developer agrees to construct not less an a 100-unit apartment complex on site in accordance ~ith the t~cros of this agreement. Commissionet Herbst stated even thougi, ~he propetty bolP~BS t~WOhstories high did not agree with tzyin9 t~ put 100 units on this p P- Y. and infringing upon the neighbothood. Mt. Farris respondPd to Chairmo~ASalurnChairmantMcBUrnPyfstatedPmayb? and cwo-bed.oom units was their p P different ratio of units would get tihe units away from the proPPtty line, an suggested placing them down along the channPl. Mz. Farris stated they can tcy agaia~control.ledtaccessa~hetdidLnotfthink there Chairman McBUZney stated by having will be a tzaffic p_oblem. it was noted senior citizPn p:ojects do not cause ttaffic ptoblems and that many senior cir.izens do not have vehicles. Mr. Farris stated if the inst:uction is to movossiblenttheylcouldttryhtofdo d conttol channel and pr~vide as many units as p that, but not to r?ducP the numb~r of unlts because ttau~ias1manyounits on the problem. Commissione: Herbst stated they sh~uld only p property as would not impact thP neighborhood. overlooked thPtbackyazdseVbucsthey]wetewfurthe•_SawayPS and ihe units Commissionez La Claire stated she did noc chink the neighbors could get better use than a sPnior citizens complPx, that it isbest projeccambuttitfhasatoic, the lowest amount of noise and it is the vety p~otect everybody there and should not look into thei. backyards. She stated it would be a gated-community and che senLor cLtizens wil.l not park around the block and walk into their gatPd community, and they would probably have assigned spaces, and in 1982 a senior citizens apartment comp.lex was appcoved on this property. Shp stated these units nP?d to face the other direction so they ate not an inctusion on these people and she chou9ht that could be accomplished with no balconies or windows. Mr. Fa:ris explained it would be a central corridor building and these would be no other place to have windows•bu~etheatdidhn ththgnk thac wasla gooad what has been apptoved on the pcoperty Y ptoject and it has windows on both sides. He stated they could not eliminate all the windows facing the no~th. CommissionPt HPLbst asked how much time the developet needs. Mr. Farris asked for a fouz-week continuunce. 8/4/86 86-560 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4 1986 Commissionez La Claire explained the developer could go ahead and bulld what has already been appLOV?d, but the Commission is ttying to get a better development. Paul Singer, Ttaffic En9ineer, refe:red to Condition No. 11 and stated thete has been some discussia~PSbshould9confocmmtonEngineeringrSiandard NotP402hown on the plans and any g ACTION: Commissione~ Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissicaer Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Fry and Lawicki absent) that consideratlon of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled me?ting of September 3, 1986, at the request of the petitioner. ITEM N0. 19 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. RECLASSIFICATION N0. 84-85-33 - requPSt from th? Planning Commission Secretary for a nunc pro tunc resolution amending Resolution No. PCSS-119 in connection with Reclassification No. 84-85-33, pcoperty located at the southPast corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Fairmont Boulevard. ACTION: CommissioneL H?rbst offe:ed Resoluiion No. PC86C~~issa n~doesf~. its passage and adoption that the AnahPim City Planning hereby grant a nune pco tunc resol~t.ion amending R?solution No. PC85-119 in connection with Reclassification No. 84-85-33. On rull cal.l, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS~ HE~.BST~ LA CLAIRE~ MC BURNEY~ MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: FRY~ LAWICKI B. CODE AMENDMEhT - R?quPst from Fiank Lowry, Jr., Farano and Kieviet, that the City consider amending the Code to .include recail and wholesale carpet and pettoleum based floor covezings as a conditional use in the ML (ind~strial, Limit?d) Zone, Pxcluding the Anaheim Canyon Industrial Acea. Ftank Lowry, Att~tney, pxplain?d thP requesi that the Zonin9 Code be amended to permit retail and wholesale carpPt pet~ol~um based floot covering in the ML (Industtial, Limited) except in the Anaheim Canyon industrial nrea in connection wiCh approval of a conditional use permit and explained the reasons for the request because carpet and linoleum sales do not fit in commercial a:eas bFcause of the space required to display and store their merchandisP and the salespersons complete the majotity of thei: orders and sales outside transactions in the customer's homes. He stated hP is reptesenting a carpet business and asked whete that type operation should be allowed because a te~ail facilxty would be too expensive and over 508 of their business is storage which is there for 2 to 3 w~eks wheie it is stored until it is shipped to a cu~tomers' home and the sales are made in the homes of their customecs. He stated they need to flnd a place for this type use. Commissionet Herbsi stated he would agree that theze aze placPS for certain types of quasi-commercial uses and he would have no Qroblem 8/4/86 , 86-561 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COI3MISSIUN~ AUGUST 4, 1986 appcoving this as long as a conditional use pecmit is requiced foc the actual use on a specific parcel. He agreed it should be eliminated from the Canyon Industcial acea because that acea is pcesently being devoted more and more to high-tech industry and there are some of these uses existiny which shuuld not be in the b!~ilding with 1/4 of a million square feet. Commissioner He~bst suggested boundaries be determined where these uses would be suitable, noting thete ace areas in the Canyon fcom Katella west where there are some existing similar uses. Mr. Lowry responded that is cotrect and thought those type businesses there ate the ceasons fo~ the Code being amended prohibiting them and he would agree these uses do not belong in that area, but they ace thece. Annika Santalahti stated the ceason for elimina~^autiousCabout thatsateal A[ea is because City Council is Deing extremely and retail furniture and flooring businesses were allowed a number of years ago and that is the ceason that aCea is limited now and the Otange Fteeway is designated as the western boundary of the Canyon industrial Acea. Malcolm Slaughter stated the Code ultimately provides that enly specific and conditional uses are per.mitted by a conditional use permit in that acea and this proposal would simply continue that pattern and any change would requice another variation of the Code. Fcank Lowry stated the proposed Code amendment he submitted deals with the ML Zones in general, excluding the noctheast canyon area. ACTIUN: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissionec Messe and MO'tION CARItIED (COmmissioners Fcy and LawicKi absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby :ecommend to the City Council that the Zoniny Code ee amended to allow subject use as a conditional use in the Industrial Zone, excluding the Anaheim Canyon Industrial Area. C. GPA At9ENDMENT - PLANNZNG CUMMISSION - INTTIA'PED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT - iteyuest fot clarification from Planning staff to determine boundarie:s of Ger,e[al Plan Study area adjacent to west side of Anaheim Hills Road between N~hl Ranch Road and Santa Ana Canyon Road. Coinmissionet La Claire stated she teyuested a Genesal Plan Amendment to include areas (a, b and c) to be designated as open space because the ownec of the tennis club wanted it that way and he intenas to continue opetating the tennis club and this would serve as a wa[ning to any potential buyers oc the owner that that ptopecty is designated and nothing can be built on it. Commissioner Herbst stated the study area should be ftom Sanca Ana Canyon Road to Nohl Ranch Road oc to the new apartment complex. Annika Santalahti statEd this matter goes on the City Council Agenda within 21 days and they would normally set the heacing fot 2 to 3 weeks. ACTIUN: Commissioner La Claire offered a motion, seconded by Commi.ssior,~er Hecbst and MOT.ION CARRIED (Comm:ssioners Fty and Lawicki absent) that the. Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Areas a, b and c be included in the Genecal Plan Amendment Study for considetation foc redesignation as open space. 8/4/86 ; ` ~ r: MINUTES ANP.HEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4 1986 86-562 D. TENTATIVF, TRACT MAP t.~S. 10969 AND 10970 - Request from Kaz Katayama, Boulevard Development, Inc. £or extensions of time for subject maps, property located on the east side of Stage Coach Road and Camino Gtande and on both sides of Hackamote Lane (southwest of the intersection of Nohl Ranch Road and Sezrano Avenue). ACTION: Commissioner Messe offezed a motion, seconded by Commi~sioner La Claire (Commissioners Fry and Lawicki absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commissi.on does hereby appteve extension of time foz Revision No. 2 of Tentative Map Nos. 10969 and 10970 to expire on August 22, 1987. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Herbst offeted a motion, seconded by Commissioner La Claire and MOTION CARRIEt~ (Commissioners Fzy and Lawicki absent) that the meetin9 be adjou:ned. The meeting was adjournPd at 7:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~ ,~,a%.,..~ Edith L. Harris, Secretazy Anaheim City Planning Commission ELH:lm ~212m 8/4/86