Loading...
Minutes-PC 1986/08/18REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING The regular meeting of. the Anah°im City Planninq Commission was call~d to ord~r by Chairman McBUrn~y at 10:U0 a.m., August 18, 1986, in the Council Chambec, a quorum being pcesent, and th= Commission r~vi~w°d plans of. the items on to~ay's agenda. xECESS: ]].:30 a.m. RECONVENED: 1:35 p,m. PRESENT: Chai"man: Mc9urn~y Commissione[s: Bouas, Fry, Hetbst, La C]air~, Lawicki, M~ss~ ABSENT: Commissioner: non~ ALSO PRESENT: Annika Santalahti Assistant DirectoT for Zoninq Malcolm Slaughter Deputy City Attorney II Jay Ti*_us Offic~ Enqin=~~ D°bbie Fank Assistani: Traf~f.ic Engineer L>ona~d McGh~~ Associat~ Plann=r Edith L. Harris Planning Commission Secretary ITEM NO. 1 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, RECLASSIFICATION N0. 65-86-34 AND VARIANCE N0. 3559 PC~BLIC HEARING. OWNERS: JOSEPH WILLIAM ROACH AND MARY FRANCES ROACH, 1506 E. M°lody Lane, Fullerton, CA 92b31. AGENT: MASCIEL DEVELOPMENT, P. O• Box 4'L41, Anah~im, CA 92801. Prop~rty dusrribed as a fnctanqularl_y-shap~d pa~c~l of land consisting of approximately 6,465 squace feet, 1627 East Sycamor~ Street. RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200 or a less intens~ zone. Waivers of maximum structural height and minimum structural setback to construct a 2-story, 4-unit apartm~nt buildinq. Continued from the meetings of May 2H and June 23, 19H6. It was noted th~ applicant has requ~st~d that subj~ct p~tition be withdrawn. ACTION: Cort~issioner Messe offe[ed a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION C'ARRIED ~hat petitions for R°classif.ication No. 85-86-34 and Vatiance No. 3559 be withdcawn at the applicant's ~equest. d6-563 8/18/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 18, 1986 86-564 IT£M N0. 2 EIR NEGATIVG DECLARATION~ RECLASSIFiCATION NU. 85-tlti-38 AND VARIANCE t~0. 3571 PUBLIC NEARING. OWNERS: MAR;HA SCHUMACHER, P• O• Box 191, Ahah?im, CA 92~U5. AGENTS: CURNICHE DEVELOPMGNT CORP., lbdl L~ma R~7a Dtiv~, Santa Ana, CA 92705, ATTN: DANIEL 0'CONNER. Prope[ty descrioed as a cectangularly-shaped parc?1 0£ land consisting of appcoximately U.36 ac~e lecated at the south?ast cocner of South Street ano Harbor Boulevard, ~UU South Har~or Boulevard. RS-7200 to CO (Pa[cel A) or a less int?ns? zon°. Waivers of (a) permitt=d business signs (del>ted), (b) maximum number of small car spaces, (c) minimum numbec of. parking spaces, (d) maximum structural height, (°) minirtium yard requirements b(f) maximum wall height lo constcuct a Z-story office buildinq. ~ontinued itom the meetings ~f June 9, July 21, and August 4, 19tl6. There were appccximately six (6) persons inaicating their presence in opposition to sub]ect ceyuest and although the staff ceport was not read, it is referred to and made a pact of the minutes. pon Fears, Architect, explained they have eliminated Lhe monument sign on Harboc, relocated the trash enclosuce onto Helena Stre?t, and made several o~he~ minor changes. Dan 0'Connoc, Presid?nt, Cotniche D?velopment Corpo*_ation, stated th?y have met with the staff and, hopefully, c?solv?d some of Commission's concerns; however, in their July '15th lettec to th? Planning Commission, they asked th? Commission for relief of the obligations in th? celocation of p~wer transmission lines and signalization, as might be necessary for th? future widenir.g of Harbor Boulevard which staff informed them may not occuc within th? next 10 to 15 years. K?n Holsaver, tl19 5. Helena, stated his property is ad~acent to the southeast boundary of this pro7ect and he does not ob7ect to the pro7ect as it was ficst Q[esented, but his od7ection is to the relocation of the driveway fcom So~th StCPPt to H?lena Street because that would put the dciveway iess than 30 feet from his d~iveway. getty Routh, 842 S. H?lena, ?xplain?d she has numerous documents, tapes, letters to the editor, photographs, etc. of their efforts in trying to retain the residential flavor of this neighbochood in 1y7~ and 1979. She stated the cucrent battle began on June 2 when they received a lette~ f~om Mr. 0'Connor which desccib?d a m~d?st two-stocy, commercial-professional office building with a well-concei~~?d landscape schem°; and that the neighbocs agreed tha~ if no one woula eve[ build single-family homes on this propecty, this would be a good alternati'/e. However, then they leatned an exit was proposed for Hel?na Street which is na[row and is fac too impacted with children and cacs ana she also noted a change is not acc?ptable to them. She stated they have compromised and agreed to accept, at face value, the original proposal, but do not accept the change of the acce~s on Helena ana asked the Commission to reject this pcoposal. 8/1~/86 N,INL~TES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 18, 1986 86-565 Mc. O'Connor stated in researching this propecty and its potential opportunities for commercial office aevelopment initially, they w>re impr~ss=d by the neighborhood and the market potential for the product they intended to produce, buE were more impressea aftet ceading the recocds of previous applications with the concerns of the immediate community in retaininq some of the t°sidential atmospher~ of that existing neigh~orhood and concurred with their concerns. He stated th~y pLesented to the Commission a p~oposal foc a low-profile, residential-appearing con~ercial office structure, dnd attempted to addtess the concerns of the neighbocs cegarding impacting the residential streets with traf.fic generated by this comm~rcial office d~velopm~nt, He stated the ptoposal befoce the Commission today was a compcomise, which they are not in agteement with, and rh~y would pr=f~r to hav~ *_h~ inqcess and ~q~ess to South Street foc technical and pcactical considetations, and staff advised that was not possible. H° stated they would not b= able to respond to the concerns of the neighbors and still meet the concerns of the Co~mission and staff. Mr. 0'Conno*_ respondAd to Cha~rman McBu*nPy that *_heir r~qu~st f.ot reli~f. cegacds dedication of 4,UU0 syuace feet of property for the possible ~uture widening fo~ 1S feet on Hartior Boulevard for the l~ngth of the property, and 5 feet on Helena Street, and noted that cepresents 1/7th of the total property pucchased. H~ stated th~y rPCOqniz~ th~ conc=rns of *_h° Traffic D°partm~nt and th°ir attempts to provide for f.uture tcaff.ic relief, but ace concernAd that th~y ar~ not the only ones tu b~n~fit ~v>ntual.]y from this str~~t widening, and are oeing asked to stand the total cost of the improvements which will be made at this time to satisfy the public cight-of-way, and also to ad~ance cash for the improvements that would ee made lU to 15 years from now. H° stated they are prepac~d to contcibute to the costs ofbutWare asking developments, such as cutbs, gutters, sidewalks, sewers, etc., that the City considec a celi~f of some of the costs, which would be ~80,000 to ~100,000, for aadition to ~b0,00U in prope~ty dedication. Chairman McBUrney stat~d th~ condition is f.or an irrevocabl~ offer to d>dicare and th~y are not cequired to dedicate at this time; and iE the Critical Intersection designation is adopted, the City would, hopefuily, be able to pick up those offecs of aedications. Jay Titus, Off.ice Enqin<~r, statAd th~ City ordinanc~ r~quires, p{ior to any building permits be;ng issued, that a~l streets ace fully dedicated and fully improv=d to their ultimate location, with the provision that if the street is goina to be widened within a fairly reasanable period oE time, the developec woulU be reyuired to post a bona to guarantee those improvements being relocated; howev=r, if those imptovements ace going to Ge maae sometime in the future, th>n the developer woulo pay khe City th~ costs of relocating those impcovements and when the street is widened, the City would tnake the improvements, Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, stated the stafE ceport ~onditions are merely reflective and to a degree redundant in that the Code reyuices the exttaction of these conditions as conditions of. the issuance of. a building permit under Section 18.04.Q80 of the Plunicipal Code, so even if this aQQlicant was not before the Planninq Commission for som~ special cor.sideration such as a vaciance or conditional use permit, he would be faced 8/18/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 18, 1986 86-566 with those conditions; that the Code does p~ovide that the petitioner may, in an application fo~ a conditional use permit or variance, s~ek r=1i~f. from provisions of the Zoning Code of which 18.04 is a poction, but in looking at the staff ceport, he did not s~e anythina indicatinq any request~d waivers or variances of that particular section and apparently it was not advertised as a L~,al '~• Mr. 0'COnnor stated there is no substance or definition to th~ fact that thes= street widening imptovements will be made wituin the next 10 to 15 years. Jay Titus stat~d the wid~ninq on Harbor is cArtainly qoinq to tak~ plac~, probably within the next five years, and the widening of Helena may be £urther in the future. Chairman Mct~ucney stated th~ Commission is not in a position to d=lete that contlition, but the petitioner could appeal that Gecision to the City Councii. Malcolm Slaughter explained he did n~t think an appeal to City Council would h>lp because the petitioner would be seeking a waivec f[om Code which does initially reyuire Planning Commission consideration and action; that af.ter that action, the petitioner could appeal the Planning Commission action, but at this point woul.d not hav~ anythinq to app~al. Commissioner ~ouas asked when Hardor was last widened. Jay Titus stated north of this area, b~tw~en Broadway and Vermont, Harbor is curre~tly b=inq widened a~d the contract is still in pcogress. Mr. U'C.onnor stated they did make a sp~cif.ic petition to the Planninq Commission on that issue in their correspondenc= dated July 25, although it may not have appearetl in the proper form, and they had no advic~ from staff. that it was not pcopecly app'lied foc or advertised. Malcolm Slaughter stated he has ch=ck~d the p=tition and finds no m~ntion of. the reference to S°ctian 18.04 concerning the improvements. THE YUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bouas stated th~ Traf.fic Engin~sr actually made the suqqsstion that the driveway be on Helena cather than South. Debbie F3~'sk, Assistant Traffic EnqineeT, stat~d oriqinally th~ petitioner proposed the dri.veway really close to the cocner of Helena and South which would create a lot of conf.licts; hoNever, they rould r~locate the driveway to a different part of the property on South, but their building was there and they were told it was not possibl~ to have th~ a~iveway on the corner, so th= next option was on Helena. Jay Titus s+:ated initia].ly th> Traf.fic Enqineer requested them to move the d[iveway fu,rthet to the west on South Street, away fro~n the corner, and the developer said tha~ was no*_ possible. Commissioner La Claire stated she lik~as the building and understands th=re is a pcoblem with the dedication; that prabably because this a nice-looking project, Commission wants to find a rea.son to grant th~ variances, but it is 8/ltl/Fi6 86-567 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, AuquSt 18 1986 disturbinq b~caus~ the~e is a possibility of havinq 60 employ~°s nn this site and only 68 parking spaces a~e proposed and 308 of those ace small car spaces, and CodA allnws nnly 25$. Sh~ sta*_~d as nic~ as this buildinq may b°, it could be redesigned to confocm to the Traffic Engineec's suggestions to reloca~~ the d~iv~way away f.rom th~ cnrnec on S~uth Str~et. Sh~ stat~d sh? went along with th~ suggestion that the driveway be telocated on Helena, but that is danq~rous. Sh~ add~d sh? thinks th< pPtition~~ can q=t ~v=rythinq he wants except expossre on both South and Hatbor and added she fe~ls thar is the reason thA proj~ct was d~siqn~d in this mann?r and that is why th~ driv=way cannot be relocated to a safer location. She stated this propecty is too small f.or this larq° a buildinq and coo mar,y variances ar~ need~d. Commissioner M°sse ag[eed and stated if parking met Code, he would be tnor~ likely tn approv> it. C~mmission~r H°~bst stated his main obj~ct~~n to this p~oj~ct has be~n th~ si2e and location of l-he building and he has been vecy adamant about th< driveway on S~uth and does nnt like it on H°l~na ~ith~r and th~uqht the project could be [edesigned in a safe manner, He stated the p[operty alonq Harbnr will p*~bably qo comm<rcial, bur he dnes not lik~ to s~~ a c~mm°~cial building constructed in a residential area that is going to be there fo[ever ar,d not~d this is a nic~ rectanaula~ly-shap~d parcAl ~f land with qood a~c~ss on HarboC and on Snuth and that the building should be designed around that so it will b~ saf.A. H° stat~d h~ is ~pp~s°d r~ puttir.q th~ traffi~ ir.t~ th< residential ac?a. R~spondinq tn C~~missinn~r Souas, M~. 0'C~nnnr sta~~d th~y would r~4u=s*_ a vc~te fot this p[oject as p[esented today, taking the Planning Commission's thoughts into consid~ration, ACTZON: Commissionar H°rbst ~ff.?rPd a motion~ s=cnnd~d by C~mmission~~ Lawicki and MOTION CARRIED (C~mmissionet Messe voting no) that the Anaheim City Planninq C~mmission has ~evi>w°d th~ proposal to roclassify subjsct• property from RS-7200 iResidential, Single-Family) Zone to the CO (Commeccial, Off.ice) Z~n° nn P~rtion B and to construct a 2-story offic~ buildinq rn~ both Parcels A and B of sub7ect site with waivers of petmitted business signs, maximum number of small car spac~s, maximum numb~r of. parkina spach~, na~Wnum structucal height, minimum yard cequiremer.ts and maximum wall heig parcels of prop~rry• (pa!c~l A) e*°ctanqula*~y-shaped parc~l nf land consisting of appLOximately U.36 acce locatea at the southeast corner of S~uth SL•reet and Ha~bor B~ul~t~ard an~d Furthnr d~scribed as 600 S~uth Harb~~; (Parc~l B) a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately U.47 acres locatpd at thA snuthw~st co~n~r ~f H°7°na S~r~~t and S~uth S~r~~t; and uees hereby disapprove the NeqaL•i.ve Declaration irom the c~quirement to prepar> a~ ~nvir~mm~ntal impact report ~n th~ basis that theYP would be significant individual or cumulative aavecse environmental impacts involved in this pcoposal; and thar an ~nvironm~ntal impact rep~rt would b~ required prior to appcoval of this pro7ect. C~mmission~r La Clai~e stated she had votPd for denial nf tha N°qativ~ Declatation with tesetvatior.s becaus? she did not fePl a full-blown Envitonm~ntal Impact RPp~~t would b~ n~cessary f.or thi.s pcnj~ct, ~ven th~4qh t~affic would have an adverse impact. Commissioner Herbst stated the health, 8/18/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 18, 1986 86-568 safety and genecal welfare of the community is involved and he had offeced th~ motion f.or denial of the neqative declaration becausn th~ probl~m is with the design of this patticular pcoject. CommissionAr H°Abst of.f.ered R~solution No. PC86-213 and mov~d fur its passaqe and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny Reclassification No. 85-86-38. On roll call, *_h~ foreqoinq resolution was oassed by the followinq vote: AYES: BOUAS~ FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE~ LAWiCKI, MC BURNEY~ MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Commission~r H°rbst of.fered R°solution No. PC86-214 and mov~d for its passaq~ and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny Varianc~ No. 3571 on *h= basis tha* R~cl.assification No. 65-86-38 permittinq said pcoject was denied and further denying waive~s (b and c) on the basis that th~ parking waiv~r wi].1 cause an increase in traf.fic congestion in thP immediate vicinity and adversely affect any adjoining land uses and grantinq oE the packang waiver undPr the conditions imposed, Mill be d~trimental to the peace, health, safety and general wel£are of the citi2ens of the City of Anaheim; and denyinq waivers (a, d, e and c) on th~ basis tha*_ there are no special ciccumstances applicable to the prope~ty such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings which do not apply to othec identically zoned pcopecty in the same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code does not deprive the property of. privileges enjoy~d 'oy oth=T prop°rties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity. On coll call, th~ f.oreqoinq r~solution was passed by *_he followinq vote: AYES: BUUP.S, :RY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURN~Yr MESSB NOES: NG:~E ABSENT: NONE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City AttornPy, pres~nted th? written riqht to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. Commissioner La Claire ask~d the City Council's policy reqarding rPVised plans when a pcoject has been denied by the Planning Commission and plans are submitted to City Council which significantly changes the project. Annika Santalahti stated when revisions ace made, the City Council does discuss at which point th~y miqht want to s~nd the project back f.or Commission review and quite often the developer is standing there ana asks that the pro7ect be processed as quickly as possible, and generally speaking, if there are positive changes, Council may not send it back to Commission and. the general inclination has been ko be sympathetic to the developer's concerns of timing. She added a total redesiyn oE the plans would pcobably be sent back to Commission. 8/18/66 86- CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 18, 1986 ____.~~r~rram mN NO. 85-96-35 F ITE_ M~3 •'' RASUL MOHAGHEGH, ET AL, 12652 Huston St. N. PUBLIC HEARING• OFINERS: HollyWO~d, CA 916U7. Pcoperty described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel o. land consistinq of approximately 0.22 acre, 314 West Elm Stt°°~• RM-Z400 to RM-1200 0~ a less intense zon~. Waivers of maximum buildinq h~i9ht, maximum sitP coveraqe and minimum J.andscaped setback to construct a b-unit apactment complex. Continued frorn the m~etinq of May 28 and Jun~ 23, 1986. THE FOLLOWING ACTION WAS TAKEN AT THS BEGINNING OE 'PHE MEETING. zt was noted the applicant has request?d rhat subj~ct petition b? continuad to the meeting of September 3, 1986. ACTIUN: Commissioner gouas off>red a motion, s~conded by Commissionec Messe and MUTION CARRIEll that consideration oE the aforementioned mattec e P tember 3, 1986, at thP continued to the regul.a~ly-scheduled meetinq of S-p applicant's reyuest in ocder to submit revised plans. ITE~ 4 EIR NEGATIVE DECLAkATION AND VARIANCE N0. 35~1 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: CABRILLO PLAZA, 1650 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92802r ATTN: W• EAItL GARR JR. Propecty desc[ibed as a rectangulatly-shaped parcel of. land consisting of appcoximately 1.~4 acres located at the nocthwest cornec of Ota~9ethorpe Avenue and Yust Lane. Waiver of minimum numbPr of rpquired parkinq spac~s to construct an addition of 4,17U squate feet to an existing comme~cial centet. Continued fcom the meeting of. July 21, 1986. There wece two persons indicating their pLesence in opposition to sub~PCt request and although the staff r~port was not read, it is ref.errsd to and made a part of. the minutes. Eatl Gacr, owner, explained they have reduced the size of the p~opose [esented cupies of. addition and incceased the parking by 10 spaces. He p the would not signed statements from every tenant in the buildinq indicating Y be inconvenienced if khe access was blookedo °c~hbecauseooftthingspthat a~e stated the neighbocs wete opposed to th_ p 7- going on behind the complex and th°y would have a 6-fook high chain link gate to eliminate people £com having access to the reac ana feel this, together with the inc~eased packing and Ehe addition, will help alleviate the pcoblems pceviously mentioned. H° stated he talk~d to the three n~esented ahlist~of in opposition at the last heacing about theit ptoblems and p the tenants and their activities. 8/18/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 1~, 19tl6 8tr-570 Bill N°Wton, 1719 N. Ballad, stated his oroperty is dicectly behind tha liquor store and th~y hav~ madA num~rou~ compla~~ts; that the r~presentativ~ a*_ th~ last mee~ing made his open statements, the opposition tnade their pcesentation and then th~ applicant had an opportunity to make a ~ebuttal and th~ opposition was opposed to at least 6 of the statements which were completely inaccur~c°. H° stated th~~e is nn listinq in th~ A~ahPim dir?ctory oc any sucrounding areas for the Cabrillo Plaza or Earl Garc, Jr. and that th~ repr?s~ntativ~ had said they w~re totally unawarP of any p*obl~ms. H° stat~d they have made numerous phone calls to the number listed for the ].easi~q office which is on on~ nf th~ storP siqns and the resp~ns~ is always v~ry ~ice and they always indicate the ownec will return the call, but he nevet does. He stated th~y havs indicat~d th~ c~mpl?x is maintainad and cl~an=d ~n a daily basis and that is not cocrect and there ace bottles, cans, glass and paper which ar? l~ft th~re for w~~ks at a tim~. Mr. N°W~~n stated there is a problem with the liquor store ana the high school stud~nts, p~intinq out th~ hiqh schnnl is just nn~ block away; that th< ~i_qu~~ store is open until midnight and on week-enas and total].y caters to the hiqh school students. H° stat~d Ch~re is a7sn a prnbl?m with nois~ with burqlar alarms going off and ringing all night long, and explained an alacm went off and ranq all niqht as r=c=nY1y as a w~=k aqn Sunday. H~ star~d they brouqht this matter up to some of the tenants and they have indicated they will check into th~ir s°curity syst~ms, i3° add?d 90$ ~f th~ d~liv~ri~s t•ha*_ ar~ mad~ in the cear are made to the liguor stor~. Mr. N°wt~n star~d th~ parkinq spar,os w~r~ pCeVlnUSly discuss~d and that this shopping center has never been fully occupied and at the last meeting, th~ C~mmission was 1=d to b>li~v~ there was only on~ vacancy in th~ complex and that is not the case. tie stated the photog~apher listed as a te~ant is leavinq at rh~ end ~f this mnnth and the rPStau~ant is up for sa1=. H~ stat<d they do r.ot think the addition should be made to this existing complex because of thA Pxistinq maintPnancA and nois~ prnbl~ms. Nancy Ta11ey, 5214 E. Minuet, stated her propert•y is directly behind the aut~ parts f.acility in this cnmplex and they havo daily d~liv~riAs. She stated this complex is not full and never has been and there are several complexes on La Palma, which is ~nly ~n~ str~>t ov?r, which arp empty and not~d at Lakavinw and Orangethorpe there is a complex which is 3/4 empty. She statea they do not think *hpr~ is a ~eed fnr this addition a~d that th~ parkinq lot is full with the students and that Post Street which goes to the high school has cars parked ~n both sidPs all day and all ~v°ninq from th~ apartm~nt complex and she did not think this variance for parking should be approved. She stat~d they hav> p*obl~ms al.most ~v=ry day and niqhl- and the polic~ a~e called and stated thj students have beer parties on Post Street and in the pa~king lot at the liquor st~~P. M'. Ga~r stated th~ proj~r_t is clean~d six days a w~~k; and that he nnly k~ows of one problem phone ^all and that he personally went to talk to that person. He add~d he wauld talk t~ th~ tenants about th~ burqlar alarms and that deliveries are mostly made to the liyuor store and the operator of the liqUO~ store is aqre=able to havinq tha fenr_o adjacent to their stoTP. H° stated this center is fully occupied, wiLh only one unit not currently being used. He st•at?d the auto parts ~p~ration has no p~oblem with thPir acc~ss beinq ~/18/86 86-571 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 19, 1986 closed; however, they will b? moving in May and h? has already leased that unit for additional spar_p to the ka~ate schonl. H° statpd parkinq has nevpr been a pcoblem and is only about one-half filled wQeoevecpQ? hasQ stat~dPth?Y and h~ was th~re two or thr?e tim~~ a weAk alm~st v_~y w k. H- hav? had two tr.affic studies perfncmnd with Weston Pringle and Associates and both tcaffic studies w~re verif.ied by staff. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ommission~r Lawicki s*_at~d he would like to know what th~ p?tition?~ proposes to do about the problem of th~~b,imhbol;Q ask doifgMaUlGerr'sAPhon? numb~~ is t?sp~nsible wh~n thp~e is a p r?adily avai).able. Mr, ~arr r>sp~ndwd th~y hav~ a 1~asinq siqn on thP prop~rty and it has b°Pn ther? ev?r. sinc? h? has owned the p~opertY in excess of 1-1/2 years and he has only been awarA ~f. only on° Ph^n° r_all from Mr. N°wti^^ ~bout the f.=nce and he did ta14: to Mc. N?wton about thal- proelem. He statPd he was not sure who owns that fenc? and would admit that if thpr~ was a problem, that is the propprty ~hat would ne the most af.fActed; howQ~~r'ifhit~isesr_r~=ned unl sso~heypclimbed would not b~ able t~ 9°r t^ th? prop- Y P stated ove~ the walls and that this change wnuld only help the situat•ion. H- he p?~sonally d~~sn't ].ik~ that spar_o in th~ r~a~ becaus~ th°r° a~° F'^bl?ms, but that was the way it was designed and he thoughl it had Lo be that way fo~ ~odo t?quirements, but has sinc~ learn~d that l•hat is not the cas=. ~ommissionPr La Clairs stated she knows when a pecson calls a leasing offic~, it is 7ust a chanc~ whether ~r not they will bP able ~oln°~`~ndo^to provideha owner; and that she would want to know what th_y ace g 9 Wdy fp~ thAS~ p°^P1~ ln the n~iqhborhnod t^ Q?t ln touch Wlth the own°~. Sh° st.ated it is not only the tenants, but tt~e ownec's prPP^PiPbwhouliv~PinWthothe propecty and th= tenants are makinq problems for th_ area. Mr. Gart stated he underslands h? ha'blem withsthe alarms anddt^ his up until now, he has never h?ard about this p knowledge, no one has evet call?d his off.ice; how~vec, he will give them a number wh~re thAy can reach him durinq thA day anonRbusinessshours.s Hedstat?d numbec where they can reach someone else duciPg Q ~ ~n and he would talk he will see that th? al.afms are turn~d off. wh_n th_y q. to ~he tenants about tha~ probl?m. g~spondinq to C~mmission~r B~uas, Mr. N?Wr^n stat~d th~ alaTm to thA l.iquor sror? was the one l-hat went off last Sunday night. Mc. N°Wtion stated on~ of. the thinqs that aqq~avates the n~ighb~rs is that the owner indicated khey wer° not aware of any oE these pcoblems and yet they r?port?d thes° same p[oblems fouc w?eks aqo and the owner is still sayinq this is the first tim° h> has hear.d about it. He explained he has called the leasing office and they are always vory nic~ and have said th~ owner will return the calls, but he never do?s. N? stated he has called the Police Depa[tment nume[~us tim?s, eut they say they cannot do anythinq about the alarms unless they have a conta~t person. He stated cecently the alarm rang from 12:55 l•0 7:U0 a.m. un~cil so~eone opened the store a~d shut it ~f.f, and then aqain f.rom 2:30 a.m. until th? store was opened and those were just Lhe most recent two incidences. 8/18/H6 u ust 18, 19~6 86-572 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMIS5ION~ A 9 MC. N°Wton stated the people Nho own oc ope[ate this shopping cente[ )ust d~ not seem to care; and stat~d th? compl~x iso °t Pastatedethenliquorlstorelis and there is glass there foc weekP aponaqoms•fcom th~ hiqh school, but th° pcobably not s~llinq liquor t~ rh t kids are hanging atound the area drinking and also they hang around the video and karat~ faciliti~s. H° stat~d th~rP is a pr~bl~m now with the karate school and he heard the petition?c say he is going to expand that operation and that will furth?r comp~und Lh? p~~blPms. H° stat<d the teenaq°rs are there all day evetyday and the~e ace gang proolems antl girls screaming at night, ~tc. ~onmissi~ner Mpss~ ask?d if th~ p~~j°cr, 3s it stands t~day, m~~ts th~ parkinq reyuir~ments. Annika Santalahl•i cesponded she b~lievod~twaspbuiltgandPthathp parkinq ~~qulations that w~re in ~f.fect wh~n the P•'~] the current standards a~° about lU~ higher, Commission~r M°sse ask~d if th~ mix ~f usPs cha~q~s a~d th?ro w~rP thr°e active cestaurants on the premises with a lot of customers, Wast~~nductedpf~r with th? parkinq study. Annika Santalahti srat~d th~ s_udy e; there would not a cectain typ? ~f use and as long as those uses ao not chang be a probl~m, bu~ if th~r? are rhanq=s, khe C~mmission r_ould r?cnnsid?f rh° previous approval. Commissionec ~ouas stated Q~naadcMcGh° aStat°dfa~va~ianc~ parKinq ~°quir~mAnts than thPs~ ~th~r us~s. L ~Sp a rime limit to would stay with the propecty, but the Commission could imp see if th<r~ ar~ f.u~th~r probl~ms. C~~issi~n~r M~ss~ stat~d it wnuld be dif£icult l•o cemedy the situation atte~ the fact. Commissi~n~r La Clair~ stat°d she can u~d°rstar.d rhP ~~blemsaalready~and shes~ the Dusiness, but she is heacinq there are a lot of p o robl~ms would wartt k~ Waan incceasef SShe statPdasSe~is~concecnednthat~the liyuor before gLanting o r_he r,eiqhbors' Store own~r is, p~~haps, ~ut of control and it is aff ctin9 properties and that she wou1d~16kmA^~hsaandathPner~submit th°er°4u°Stab°cause of th~ probl~ms fo• about 3 ~~blems. She stated she would vo~e she did not want to add to the existing p against this ~Pqu°sr at rhis tim?. Commissinr.er Fry staL•ed that sounds like a q~~d id~a, but it is not prac~ical because on? af the .main pCOblems is the dC~cossyw~uldnbett~ install th= compl~x and part of the probl~m-solvin4 P Yohibiting anyone Erom goinq sliding gates at the f~ont of the building p behind th~ r.ompl~x. Commission~r La ClairP stak~d the qat?s c~ul~ b° lcoolemsa nShetstated both the owner is willing to t~y to solve some of the p ends c~uld be qatPd v~ry easily and also, th~ ].iqunr stor~ situation could b~ sktaightened out and the alarm problem resolved. a~dIMOTION CARRIEDnthatatheaAnaheimPCityaPlanning Commissionyhasmreviewedcthey proposal to construct a~ addition ~~ aPa XarcelQOfPland consistingrofumb?r of parking spaces on a rectangularly-shap_ P approximat~ly 1.24 acres locat~d at th~ no~thwest corner of. Oranq~tihorpe 8/18/86 u ust 18, 1986 86-573 MINUTES, ANAHEIM •~ITY PLANNING CUMMISSION, A 9 pvenu° and Post Lane and fucther describea as 5"lUl 'n f.indinq Ohatgithhase, and do°s h~reby apprnv~ th~ id°4ativ~ D?cla~ation u~, considered tpe pegat^cosseandtfurth ~~f.indinqWOnhtheybasis of.sth?CInitiaduti.nq the public r vi.w P' Study and any comments received that thete is onvi~onm~ntial evidence that t.° ptoject will. hav~ a siqnificant ~ff~ct on th= ~ommisQiandcadoptionrthaffthedAnah im~CityNPlanninqzC~mroissi~~edoesth~r~by h P P passaq- udice noting the petitionet could cesubmit deny Variance N~. 3581 without pcej ~ rh~ waivef o~ th° the cequ~st aft~r existinq pr~bl~ms are r?solved and d~nyi~q basis that the parking va~iance will iauaff~crlanyeadj~ininqaland us~seSa~dn in th~ imm~dia*_> vicinity and adv~ Y that the granting of the packing va~iance will be detrimental to the peac~, health, saf?ty ~~ 4°~°ral w~lf.a~~ ~f th? citiz~ns of th~ City of Anaheim. pn coll call, the £ocegoing cesolution was passed by the following vote: FRY, HERBST~ LA CLA7RE, LAW7CKI~ MC BURN~Y AYES: I~OES: MESSE~ BOUAS ABSENT: NONE Malcolm Slauqhte~, D°PurY City Atit^T~°Y~ Pres~~t~d th~ wricten riqht to appeal the Planning Canmissi~n's decision within 2l days to the Cily C~uncil. ITE_ M~ 5 EIR NEGATTVE DECLARATION AND VAR7ANCE NO• 3584 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: SH7H-YEN !STEVE) AND JUI-WA (JULIE) CHIANG, P• ~• gox 34"l8, Tustin, CA y2b~i1• PLOP~Ximat~lyr6956 squae'Pef?~tglocat~dSatpth? Pa~cel of land consistinq of app gouth?ast coCne[ of South Stteet and Claudina Street, 2013 Gast S~uth Street. Wai~ers of maximum buildinq hPiqht, minimum st~uctu•al s=tback and maximum fence height l-o construct a thtee-unit apatttnent complex. ~ontinu~d from thP mP°rlnqs ~f July 21, 1986. Thece was no one indicating their presen~ce ii~ PS~~QfQ°r a t~~andcmade~aepa~t and al~houqh thA staff ~°p~"t was not r ad, of the minutes. ,7uli~ Chianq, aq°~t. °XPlainad when Y.hP own>r purchas~d this property, h° was informed that fou[ units would be pecmitted because of the zoning, but after workinq wilh City staff, they hav~ only propos~d three units r~quirinq thre~ variances and that after the last meeting, they d±d aiscuss the possitiility of two units and Pv~n with two units, th? varianc~s wi~leC~ti11 be required. She compated tihe C~de reyuitements with the ptoposed p] THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~hairman McBUrn?y askea stated sheQthoughlarhe~ownecnhasttalked~to one peY.itioner. Ms. Chiang neighbos. C~mmission?r Herbst stat?d th~ applicant indicated they wnuld b~ B/18/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 18~ 19ab 85-574 allowed four units, but that is true only if they can meet all the Cod~ requirements, so they a~~ not beinq d~ni~d somethinq th~y neve* had in the first place, H° noted three variances are requirAd for thcee units and the pcopecty is ~~ally only suitabl~ f~r two units and is too smal.l for what is proposed. He stated the lot is only 47 feet wiae and this would not create a good livinq envi~onment. Commissionsr La Clair~ s*_ated the u~its are very ].arq~ in size and ask~d if the owner plans to live in one of the units. She aaded the large units wocry her becaus~ of. th~ larqe numbPr of p~ople who miqht b~ livinq in each unit and if there is mo[e than one f.amily in each unit, it could cause a ma7or impact on th? n~iqhborho~d. Sh~ suqq~st~d r~ducinq the size of the buildinq with two 2-bedroom units downstaitis and one 1-bedroom unit ups~airs. Ms. Chiang stated they need to hav~ 8 parkinq spac~s und~rn~ath the units. Commissioner Fry stated it is admirable that units of this size are beinq propos~d, but that this prop~rty is just too small for th> development as ptoposed and that is the ceason the variances are necessary, even though h~ realiz~s it is a c~rn=r lot and th~ dsdications a~~ ~~qu<st?d. ACTION: C~mmissioner Fry offecea a motion, seconded by C~mmissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED that the Anah~im City Planninq C~mmission has r~view°d th~ pcoposal Lo constcuct a 3-unit apactment complex with waivers of maximum buildinq h~iqht, minimum s~*uctu*al s~tback and maximum f=nce hei9ht nn a ~ectangularly-shaped parcel of lana consisting of approximately 6956 squar= feet located at th~ southaast corn~~ of S~uth St~~~t and Claudxna Street and further described as 200 E. S~uth Street; and does hereby approve the Negativ~ Decla*a*_ion upon f.i~dinq that it has consid~red th~ N°4ativ~ D°claration togethec with any comments teceived during the public review process and furthPr findinq nn th? basis of th> Initial Study and any cnmments r~ceiv~d that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a sigr.ificant eff.ecr_ on th~ environm~nt. Commission>~ Fry ~f.f~rsd R°solution N~. PC86-216 and mov~d fo* its passaqe and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does heteby deny Vatianc? N~. 3584 ~n the basis that th~rs ars nn sp~cial circumstanc~s applicabls to the propetty such as size, shape, topography, location and sucroundings which do not apply to other identically zonsd property in th~ sam~ vicinity; a~d that st[ict application of the Zoning Code does not deprive the property of. privil~qAs ~nj~y~d by ~ther p~op~rti~s in th~ idpntical znne snd classification in the vicinity. pn roll call, the foreqoinq r~solution wa~ passed by the following vot~: AYES: FRY, HER9ST~ LA CLAIRE~ MC BURNEY~ MESSE NOES: BOUAS~ LAWICKI ABSENT: NONE Malcolm Slauqht~r, D~puty City Atitorney, present~d the writt~n riqht to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council, RECESSED: 2:50 p.m. RECONVENED: 3:00 p.m. 8/18/86 ~6-575 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 18, 1986 NO. ER UF CODE PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: FAR WEST SAVINGS fi LOAN ASSOC. (AMERICAN FIDELITY CORP.)~ 40U1 MacArthut Boulevard, N°Wpott IIeach, CA 92b60. AGENTS: LIVING FAITH CHURCH, 12862 "H" Gard=n Grov= Boulevard, Gard~n Gsove, CA 92643. property d~sc-ided as an irregularly-shaped parc>1 of land consisting of. approximately 9.5 acr~s, 3584 EnrP~prise Drive. To pecmit a church in the ML Zone with waiver of minimum numbec of parkin9 spaces. Continu~d from th~ me°tinq of Ju)y 7 and Auqust 4, 1986. THE FOLLUWING ACTION WAS TAKEN AT THE aEGINNING UF THE MEETING. It was noted the petition~~ has r~quest>d that subj~ct p~tition b~ continu~d to the meeting of September 3, 1986. ACTION: Commission~r Bouas of.f~r~d a motion, s°cond~d by Commission~r Lawicki and MOTION CARRIED tnat consideration of the aforementionea matter b~ continu~d to th~ rsqulafly-sch=dul~d m=~tinq of S°p*-°mb~r 3, 1986. 7 EiR NEGATIVE DECLA1tATIUN (HEADV.)~ ~ENERAL^PLANnAMENDMEaa ROanV18 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: D 5 D DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, 711 E. Imp~cia7 Hiqhway, Suite Z00, Br=a, CA 9262i, A'PTN: BRUCE H. DOHRMe~NT AND CAMILLE H. COURTNEY. prop~cty d~scribed as an irr~qularly-shap~d parc~l of land consistinq of appcoxzmately 7.5 acres , 29UU-292U Easc Lincoln Avenu~. GPA - To consider am~ndmAnt to the Land Us~ Elem~nt of th~ G°n?ral Plan proposing a cedesignation ftom tne low density cesidenkial ana low-medium density r>sidential to a m~dium density resid~ntial desiqnation. RS-A-43,000 to RM-120U o[ a less intense zone. Waiv~rs of. maximum sttuctural h~iqht and minimum stcuctural setback and yard reyui[ement to canstrur_t a 22U-unit, 2-story apartment complex. Continu~d from *_h~ m~etinqs of July 21 and Auqust 4, 7.986. There were twenty seven persons indicating their ptesence in oppositior. to sue7ect r~quest and althouqh th~ staff. r~port was not read, it is r~f.erTed to and made a part of the minutes. Commissior.er Fty declarea a conf.lict of interest as d~fined by Anah=im City Planning Commissior Resolution No. PC76-157 adopting a Conflict of Intecest Cod= for th° Planninq Commission and Gov~rnm°nt Cod° Section 3625, ~t seq., in that his employer may be involved in the d~velopment of this prope:ty and pursuant to th~ pfovisions of the abov~ Cod~s, d~clared to the Chairman that he was withdrawing f~om the heacing in connection wikh GPA 218~ Reclassification 86-87-3 and Varianc~ No. 3588, and would not take part in g/18/86 ~.~-~.. ,~..,~..~... MINUTES, ANAY.SIM ~'_ITY PLANNIP7G COMM7SSION, Auqust 16, 13fi6 86-576 ~ither th~ discussion or Lh~ votinq the~eon and had not discuss~d this matt~r with any membe~ of the Planning Commission, Thereupon Commissioner Fry left the C-uncil Chamb~r. Camill~ Cou~tn~y, 711 E. imperial Hiqhway, Suite 200, B~ea, ~xplained rovis=d plans have relocated the 2-story units to lU0 feet from the west property line, exc~pt in on~ location where they will b~ 82 f.~~t from the prnpotty line; that the 20-fo~t setback will be the cear yards of the units with patios and th~ numb~* of units has been redur_pd to 196. Sh~ stat~d the pool and cecceation areas have been relocated to the i~lerior of the complex and th~ open spac~, tennis c~urts and spas have b~=n ratain>d. ShA explained the one-story units adjacent to the property line will be 4-1/2 feet below gcade of. the adjaront sinq]~-family homes. Sh~ presAnt~d an ~xhibit showing a vi~w of someone driving along Lincoln Avenue and the driver would oe aeie to laok at the second st~*y 5alcony. Ms. C~urtnoy stat~d th~y had a community m=etinq on th~ 12th and two n~iqhbors attended and that sh? also communicated with the neighbors by 1?tter and had several conv «satinns with som? nf th? neiqhbo~s. She stated the proj~ct will benefit the community because they will be improving Lincoln and noted it is in an unsaf~ condition at the p*es~nt tim~, ~~tinq there was an accident th~r~ this morning, and because of the 8 to 10-foot slope, the roadway is above th~ backyacds ~f 3 or 4 of thA hom~s which a~e on Li~co].n and th~ street liqhtinq~ which they will ue installing, and also a 6-foot reinforced concrete wall alonq Lincoln should siqnificantly p~~v~nt p~ople from qninq nver the embankinent inC~ the backyards; that they are widening Lincoln and a 12-foot median will b~ constru~t~d and th? slop~ of the rnad is not cnrr~ct now and they wi11 be cocrecting that slope; and a sional will be installed. Sh~ stated as a ~esu]t ~f the wall a~d this p~oj~ct, the traffic noise wi11 be signif.icantly reducetl and a lot of the aust pcoblems will be eliminated. ShA stated she lhouqhl d°velopinq th~ sit~ and havinq a manaq~m~nt r_ompany would significantly decrease any threat of vandalism, etc. Ms. Couctney stat~d thes? ar~ mark>t ~at~ apartments and ar~ not consid~r~d afEo~dabl~ and ~il.l rent in the vicinity of ~60U to ~850 per month and will be attcactive units and refer~ed to thA elevations pres~nted. Sh~ stat~d their company always builds yuality apartments and maintains about 750 units currently ana thought the ben>f.it nf havinq on~ company to contact fo~ complaints when ther~ is a problem would be easier. She stated they have always been responsive to th~ neighbors and hop~d this woul.d b= a q~nd n?iqhbor project. Ms. Cou[tney submitted a letLer from the ad7acent property owner, in support of the proj~ct, who could ~ot att~nd tho mpetinq, Sally Kosek, 28Ft2 E. Standish, stated she is representing the East Anaheim Homeowne~'s Association with approximately 100 m~mb~rs a~d ask~d thos~ pres~nt in opposition to stand. She referted to the previously submitted letters of opp~siL•ion and petitinns with 260 siqnatur~s ~f thos~ hompowners whn could not attend. She stated this is an unusually high density apa[r_ment pro7ect althouqh the d~v~lop?r was requ~st~d by the Planninq Commission to decrease the densil•y and their Association does not feel that 196 units constitutes a substantial r~duction in the d=nsity. Sh? srat~d in hopinq to mitiqat? several sensitive items conceCning this pro~ect, the Association agreed t~ meel• with Ms. C~u~tney, but on Auqust Bth a copy of the revis~d plans was 8/18/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 16, 1986 ~6-577 submitted to Ms. KimDerly Keys showing 196 units inst?dd of the 220 and th~ n=w propasal led the Association to b?liev> they dn not wish to discuss teducing the density and prior to receipt of the plans, Ms. Keys haa fliers ~Cinted to ba ci*culat?d to the ~~iqhborho~d advisinq th~m of th~ me°tinq and a meeting room had been resecved and th=y had full int?ntion of ineeting in good f.aith to discuss a r~lative reduction in d~nsil•y, but f~lt th~ir plans wer~ abor.ted. She stated t9s. CoucL•ney dia go through the meeting on August 12th in spitA ~f. th~ fa~t that kh= H~m~own~~'s Association told Y.hoir m~mb~rs it was not necessaty to attend ana expla.ined t.hat Ms. Keys, Mr. A~detson and Mr.. Wagner were pr~s~nt with Ms. C~u•tney and h>r archit~ct. Sho stat~d the units were teported initially to be ftom ~500 to ~?50 a month, but now Ms. Gourtney says it will b° frnm ~650 to ~800 p~r mnnth. She asked the Planninq ~otnmission to act on behalf oF. the surrounding pcoperty owners in denial of this proj~ct. ~~n~ K~s~k, 2882 E. Sra~dish, thar.k~d th~ C~mmission for consid~rinq thei* privacy to be important. He referred t-o a dract of. the minutes of the meetinq of August 4th and to an artic.le in th~ R°4ist~r reqardinq hom~buildinq in ptange C~unty being up 48.68 for the ficst one half of the year, with the bulk of th~ buildinqs b~inq ne~ homes. H~ stated if thes~ f.iqu*.~s a~~ true, he did not know why D 6 D could not find funding for single-family homes o~ condominiums. HA r~f~rr~d to the minut~s aqain roqardinq an envir~nm~ntal impact report which was done when the prop?rty was sold to this developer and was prepared for a much mo~e int~ns~ proj~ct. H° stat~d the only envic~a~mental impact report he could fir.a was mentioned in a staff report to the Planning Commi.ssion dat=d October 17, 1983, r~qa~dinq ~IR N~. 259 p~epa~?d in conjunetion with GPA 177 to consider low-medium density cesidential foc a 6.4 acre site for ralocation for mobil?homes and h~ thnuqht thero w~uld b~ 50 mobilehomes and that would ~e much less intense than 196 apartment units. Vincent Blach, 2879 E. South Street, stat~d they are conc~rn~d abnut the many changes being proposetl by the developer; that at the last meeting they indicat>d they build and retain th~i! p~oj~cts and ma~aqe th?m th=mselves and apparently, they were r•:ferring to the apartment pro7ect tiecause about one year ago, thPy p~opos~d condominiums which they int~nd~d to s~ll, so thAy hav~ had a change in philosophy. tie stated he was also concerned that a proposal wauld be made in th? ~~ar futu•e fo* access on South Str~et a~d nnt?d the developer has approached the Watec District to buy the acea being used by a nur.sery and if that is appr~ved, the d~vplnper will probably be cominq back with anothec proposal with South Street as an access, He stated h> woula urg~ the Planninq C~mmission not to approv= this p*oj=ct and tn stick wikh the originally approved condominium project. Kimberly K~ys, 614 WAstqa~~ Drive, pr~s?nt~d an acticl~ from the Anah?im Bulletin indicating the Audubon Society is concerned about the wetlanas area; and also that she has spokon with the Ora~q> C~unty Wat~r District, a~d referced to a copy of the 1983 staff repo~r to the Planning Commission regardinq khis p~~pArty and stat~d th~ Water District indicat~d their position still stands in opposition to any development at all on this property. She stat?d sh~ feels this 196-unit compl?x is unreasonable to be built adjacent tn their single-family homes; that at the last hearing cegarding this property, the East AnahAim Citizens fo* a Bett~r C~mmunity addres~ed the many concerns of the hazardous traffic, increase in crime, vandalism, invasion of thei~ 8/1~/a6 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMI5SIUN, Auqust 18, 1986 tl6-578 peace and privacy, sat•ety haza~ds, pcoperty located in a flood inundation zone and the environmental impact- such a compler. might have on the unusual wildlife in the area. She stated most of these concerns stem from the density and if the density was close to the RM-3000 ptoject which was previously approved, most of those concerns would not apply. Ms. Keys statetl the neigh~orhood has been extremely responsive in accepling the original pcoposed y9 condominium units and they recognize the developer has a vested intecest in this propecty and to pe fair, they unaerstand they have the cight to a legitimate pro~ect; however, they do not feel that this projecL• should be approved because of the impacts on the neighbochood. She wrote them a letter dated Octooer 19, lyd5, fcom Camille Couctney, Vice President of D& D D°velopment, to the neighbornood, indicating when they purchased the propecty it was intendea to to ue developed as apactments, but they felt yualil•y •for sale• housing would ee more in Keeping with the neighborhood and the neighborhood would agree with that canment. .ioyce Emery, 536 S. W°stgate, stated she was transferred lo this area from South Carolina and looked at quite a few places before purchasing her home in this neighborhuod and one of the main ceasons for her decision in pucchasing this particulac home was after talkinq to the local Police Department who advised her that l•he Katella School Dist~ict was the best place for her children, Sh~ stated she has n=vec eeen sorcy for her decxsion until now; that she en~oys seeing th° sun rise over Nohl Ranch and does not want to have a 2-story complex to block that view; that th~y are willing to compromise and have the condominiums thece, eut there is a big diffetence bet•ween yy pcivately-owned condominiums and L00 apattmer.t units. She stal•ea she lives alone and has hatl a police off.icer living next door who has d=cided to sell his property because oE this proposal and he does not intend to have his wife and small children living thece with apartments in the reat. She statea even though the pool and tennis courts have been moved, they fe°.1 there will be a lot of. noise fcom this complex and lights on at night. She stated another neighbur, after a recent hard rain, could see water bu~bling up Erom the area that had been cleaned on suject property and L•hey feel that pcupecty could still be settling, She stated she did not like to come ko these meetings every other week and ~ould like to see this issue settleo and the condominium project that was originally approved constructea. C. M. ThomsOn, 2192 Collyer Lane, stated he is not a memb=c of the Homeowners Association and lives across the street; that he was not ociginally notified of. the ficst hearing, although the people behina him were and when he read the ceport of whal• had happened, he thought the condominiums were a compromise because they would be owner uccupied. y° explained the units previously ceferred to in Orange are technically a PUD of single-family homes on individual lots, except for some duplexes on a zeco lot line and they are not condominiums or apartments. H? stated when this developer purchased the propecty, it had b~en given a zoning designation and he thought probably they decided to ask for sotne sort of multiple-family designation when they asked f.or the condominiums and the neighbors all agreed and thouyht that was reasonaole, but now they ace asking that the density ee increased to 196 units; that he really doesn't care whethec the units ace 1 or 2 story as long as they are maintained as owner-occupied units, but allowing aparl•ments would give the dev~lopec some flexibility and he could qo to the staff and reyuest e b/ltl/tl6 86-579 MINUTES, ANAHETM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 18, 198b 258 density bonus for affordablP snits and it would be granled and he would object to that kind of development and thece is no control ovet it. Camille Courtney statea the OLange County Water Dist~ict has consistently denied selling the nursecy propetty to them; that there are no w°tlands in that area and there never has been and the environmental inpact ceport, in fact, indicates that same information and the site was cleaned one yeac ago and the[e a[e no trees on the property; that they have reduced the density along with single-family property boundary and lost units in aoing that and if there are significant impacts which can be mitigated, th>y would oe willing to design a project that would include those mitigations. THE PU~LIC HEARING WAS CLUS~D. Chairman MeBU[ney asKed what the cents will ~e foc these ur_its. Camille Courtney stated the letter submitted is coctect and the cents will be ~575 to ~775 and she had merely rounded tnose figuces out to ~6UU ana ~80U. Commissioner Hetbst clacified this prope~ty was pu~chased from the City and asked what zoning the City Council had designated £or this property. Camille Courtney stated thete was a resolution of intent to ~ezone to F.M-2400. Commissiohec Herbst stated that is correct and noted that would b~ a maximum of 115 units and that is what he thought should oe tleveloped there; that he has no problem with apartment units versu~ condominiums, as lonq as the density is retained, and pcimarily that would cesolve most of the concerns of the neighbucs. Chaitman McButney stated the developer has done an admirable )ob in mitigating a lot of adv~cse impacts, but he was concecned a~out the density. He stated he was concerned because the hom°owners did not take the time to listen to what the developec had to say about the redesign oecause sometimes listening to the acguments is necessacy and without heacing those argumenis excepl- to 7ust be opposed is not enough. He stated he would be in favor of the pcoject as presented and would like to see less density, oul• unde[stands the significant factors involved. Commissioner H°Lbst stated one problem with the density would be the traffic; that the RM-2400 2one would permit 0 to 18 unxts per acce and 731 to 969 vehicle trips pec day would be generated; ana in the RM-2400 Zone, 1734 to "1U95 t~ips would be generated which is an incr_ase of aoout tlUU trips pec day. He stated he recognizes D& D Development is an apattment complex builder, but if the ptopecty is cezoned to xM-1200, they coula sell the property and a new ownec could want 270 units because that is the maximum allowed, and could build as many units as allowed by the Code; and that the City Council had intended fo[ the property to oe d~veloped as Iti~-2400. Commissioner Messe asked where the parkir.g is located fot the single-story units. Camille Courtney stated they a[e coveced carpo[ts on the intetioc side of the one-story units, pointing out the locations on the exhibit and noted there is no subte[ranean parking for the single-story units. Commissione[ Messe stated it is unfortunate the propecty owners did not attend 8/18/86 ae-Sao MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIUN, August 18, 1986 the meetings and it is evident they did not negotiate with the developer; howevec, this is just too much density Eor that parcel. Camille Couctney stated the neighbors had seen the plans ana she had contacted them, but they chose not to come to that particulac meeting. Commissionec La Clait° stated it distuxbs her that the homeowners did not attend the meeting because it has tieen the Commission's experience during the last 11 yeacs khat when the homeowne~s and developers do get together, it does work and she was sotry that did not happen in this case. Responding to Commissionec La Clai[e, seven persons indicated they live on Westgate. She stated she was concerned aoout those residents because they were really next dooc. 5he stated she would prefer that the City had not sola this propecty in the f.irst place and teferred to a let.tet from the Wat~r llistrict opposing the mo~ilehome development. She stated a lot of these same homeowners were present to oppose that development and a lot of the same people were present to oppose the condominium dev=lopment and she ~ealizes they have had a tiig fight on their hands and she does sympathize with theic concerns. Sh> stated she thought the developer has done everything possible to eliminate the impacts on the propecties on Westgate. She pointed out since the majority of the propecties on Westgate are higher than subject property and since the wall will be built on the high side of the property, they probably will not be able to see the building for about 12U feet antl then would only see the roof top and no one would b= looking down onto theit properties. Betty Cromie, 516 Westgate, tesponded to Commissione[ La Claite that her propecty is not that r~uch lowec than sub~ect p~opecty and if the structure is only 4-1/2 feet lowet, she did not s~e how it would be below the fence line. Commissionec La Ciaire stated th° neighboCS should have attended th° meeting so that some of these things could be explained to them and that is why she was upset that they did not go. It was clarified that Ms. Cromie's propettv would be the third house from Lincoln in the cul•de-sac. Commissioner La Claite pointed out that is where the units begin and accordir.g to the plan, that is the prope~ty that was illustrated i~~ the line-of-sight and looking o~t any window, they would not be able to see any buildings, except the [oof of a s=cond story building and thal- is even doubtful. Camille Couctney stated the sif.e will be graded 4-1/2 feet when the pcoject is constr.ucted; howevec, no gcading has been don~ yet. She explained the line-of-sight to M~. Cromie. Commissionet Lawicki stat~d he has no problem with the RM-"1400 Zone, but felt an RM-120U pcoject would be impacring the neighbochood. H° stated the yuestion had come up about the market for condominiums and wanted to note that condominiums are not selling very well today and there is a surplus of condominiums on the matket and that is probably•the reason the developer did not want to pursue that pa~ticular condominium pro)ect. S/18/~6 MINUTE5, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIUN, August 18, 1986 86-581 Commissioner Bouas asked if there was anyway to construct condominium~ rather than apartments. Ms. C~u*tney stated as lonq as int>rest rat~s are down, a buyer would rather purchase a single-family home at ~140,OOU than a condominium. Commission~r Bnuas statad sh~ could und~rstand that and understands that is why they want to develop apartments. She pointed out if they constructed condominiums and then could not s~ll th~m, th>y would probably b~ rsnted nut anyway. She stat?d she understands the neighbors wanting individually-owned units cather than apartments, but th=r= is no qua*ant~~ if th~ cond~miniums are consttucted that they would be sold and not rented. She stated the other concern sh> has is the density. Commissioner La Claire skated she do~s have a real problAm with the hiqh density, but if they do constcuct condominiums, there could de 2-stocy units right next to the neiqhbors' back yards and they would have p~ople lookinq down into their yacds. She stated she would rather have apartments with no one looking into h~r ~;:ck yard than condominiums where p~op?~ w~uld be lookinq down onto her prop ~•_ She sl•aL•ed she thinks people have ~ real strange view ~~f apartment dwsllers and s~?m to think that apartment dwe].lers a~e less than good citizens; and that she has been in many apartment complexes and cents ar= not cheap and they reyuire f.i~st and last month rent, includinq a dsposit, so moving into an apartment costs about ~1300 which eliminates a lot of peopls. She stated sh~ realizes a lot of p>opls~ her son and dauqhtAr included, and sons and daughtecs of people in the neighborhood, live in apartnents and they are upstartdinq citizens with good jo5s and a lot nf y~unq p~opl~ who cannot afford ~4U,000 for a down payment, are moving into a nice apartment becaus~ there is a problem in this country and rh? y~unq penp].e cannnt aff.ord a plac~ to live. She statea this proposal represents a nice pcoduct and is even nicer than some ~f. the h~mes that ar~ b?inq built h_nday; howev~r, sh~ was concerned about the density. ACTION: C~mmissioner H°rbst nffered a motion, s~cond?d by C~mmissioner Bouas and MOTION CA1tRIED (Commissioner Fry absent) that the Anaheim City Planninq Commissinn has review~d the proposal to consid~r an amendm~nt to the Land Use Element of the General Plan proposing a redesignation from the curcent low density r?sid?ntial and low medium density residAntial d~siqnations to m~dium density cesidential designation and 'zo ceclassify sub~ect property from the RS-A-43,OOU (R?sidential, Agcicultural) Zone to RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple-pamily) Zone to construct a 196-unit, 1 a~d 2-story apactment complex with waivers of. maximum structural heiqht, minimum structu~al setbar_k and yard r?yuirement on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 7.5 acres havinq a frontaq~ of. approximately 57.3 f~~t on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and SO feet on the north side of. South Street, approximat~ly 1,34Q fe?t east of the cent~rline of Rio Vista Street and further descrined as 29U0 to 292p East Lincoln Avenue; and does hereby approv? the Negative Declacation upon finding that it has consid~red the Negative Declacation togethec with any comments received during the public revisw process and fur.thec findinq ~n the basis of the Initial Study and any comm~nts receiv?d that thece is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on th? environment. 8/18/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 18~ 19tlG 86-582 Commissioner Hetbst asked if the Planning Commission can rezone Lhe property to RM-2400 rather than RM-1200 as requ?sted. Annika Santalahti stated the area is curcently designated on the General Plan foc low m~dium density which wauld accommodate the RM-24U0 Z~ning. She suqqest°a that ths area on the northwest corner be cedesignated to low medium aensity cesidential, pointinq out it is cucrently desiqnat~d low d~nsity resid~ntial. Greg Hastings pointe~ out the Co~ission could interpcet the General Plan as including tnat parcel. H° stated th~ zoninq could be approved at RM-2400 since it is a less intense zon>; however, the Genecal Plan is curcently low medium density resid?ntial and the C^!nmission could interpret the smaller parcel shown in gold as being a pa[t of the low density designakion, Commission?r H°'bst stat~~d he wouZd lik~ to hav= ~ha ~ntir= a~~a, includinq the portion th? Watec District owns, designated as low medium density. pnnika Santalahti stat?d only the portion shown in bcown and yellow were advertised, and staff could initia~e a zonin~ action to re2one the prop?rty fot a f.uture C~mmission m?eti:g. Malcolm S'lau4ht~r stat>d the ad~pt°d G°neral Plan does have a distinctive portion on the noctheastern corner of the acea and he would recommend that the enti[e parcel be d~siqnated low m~dium density with an amend~d ~xhibit t~ change that poCtion lo low m?dium density. Commissionec Herost offered Resolution No. PC86-217 and moved f.o~ its passaqe and ad~ption that the Anaheim City Planning C~mmission does h?reby recommend adoption of G°n?ral Plan Amendment N~. 218, Land Us° Elem?nt, Exhibit A Amended, to redesigr.ate the ?ntire parcel to low medium d?nsity residential. pn ro11 c~.il, th~ f~reqninq r~solution was pass?d by th= f.ollowinq vote: AYES: BUUAS~ HERBST, LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI, MESSE NOES: MC HURNEY ABSENT: FRY Commissioner H°rbst nf.f.?~?d RAs~lution N~. PC86-218 and moved for its passaqe and adoprion that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Reclassif.icati~~ N~. 86-87-3 as modified, to RM-2400 and subject to Zntetdepartmental Committee recommendations. qn [oll call, the fotegoing resolution was pass?d by th? followinq vote: AYES: BOUAS~ HER~~T, LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI, MESSE NOES: MC 3URNEY ABSENT: FRY Commissioner Herbst off.?red RAs~lution No. PC86-219 and mov=d f.o~ its passaq~ and adoption that tk:e Anaheim City Planning Commission does her>by deny Variance No. 3588 ori the basis that there are no special circumstances applicable to the p~opetty suct~ as size, shape, topography, location and succoundinqs which cl~ no.t apply to othec identically zoned property in the same vicinity; and i:hat strict application of the Zoning Code does not deptive 8/18/86 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CIiY PLANNING COMMISS.ION, August 18~ 1986 86-583 the pcoperty of privileges enjoyed by other p~operties in the identical zon~ and classif.ication in the vicinity, and f.ur.th?r ~n th? basis that Recl.assification Na. ~6-~7-3 to rezone the propetty to permit subject project was deni?d. On roll call, the f.or~qoinq r?solution was passed by the f.ollowinq vot~: AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST~ LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI, MC BURNEY~ MESSE NOES: MC BURNEY ABSENT: FRY Commissioner Herbst off.ered a motinn, s=cond~d by C~mmissi.onsr B~uas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Fiy absent) that the Anaheim City Planninq Commission d~es hereby rAcomm?nd that the City C~u~cil ~eview Reclassification No, 86-87-3 and Variance No. 35~~ in conjunction with General Plan Amenament No. 218. Malcolm Slauqhtec, Deputy City Attocn?y, pres~nt<d th° writt=n riqht to app~al the Planning Commission's decision within "l2 days to the CiL•y C~uncil. ~ommissionec Fry returned to the m?eting, ITEM N0. 8 EZR NEGATIVE DECLARA'PIUN, WAIVER OF COD~ RE~UIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2832 PU~LIC HEARING. UWNERS: UAISY ELLIS~ MAY G. YIP~ MURFtIS YEP AND GF.IL B. YIP, c/o THOMAS C. YIP, 1322 S. Winterwood Lane, Diamond ~ac, CA 91765. AGENT: JAMES R. WALKER, "l4 Sundance Drive, pomona, CA 917t6• Pcoperty described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of app~oximately 0.93 acre, 3U"l4 West Ball Road. To pecmit on-sale beer and wine in a proposed Japanese Noodle Restaucant with waiver of minimum number of pa~king spaces. Continu?d f.com the meeting of August 4, 19b6. There was no one inaicating their presence in opp~sition to sub)Pct request and although the sta£f report was not read, it is ceferr?d to and made a part of the minutes. James Walker, agent, stat?d he had come to certain agreements with the landlo~d and they agre? to the proposed conditions, ?xcept No. 1, and they would like to have that ccndition deleted reyuiring egress and ingress from Beach Boulevard because th?y already have a reco~ded easement on the west sitle. THE PU~LIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. pnnika Santalahti stated she did not cecall why that particu].ar requirement was included for access on the easte~ly sitle, but it appears from the exhibit that it is not necessa[y, unless ther.e was a fire protection concern. Commissionec Messe stated cight now that access is closed. 8/ltl/tl6 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CZTY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 18, 1986 86-584 Chairman McBUrney stated that condition could tie modxEied to delete the reference to the east. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded ey Commissioner La Claire and MOTLON CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has teviewed the proposal to permit on-sale beec and wine in a proposed Japanese Noodle Restaurant in an existing commercial center with waiver of minimum numbec of parking spaces on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.93 ac~e having a frontage o£ approximately 146 feet on the south side oE Ball Road and located appcoximately 260 f.eet west of the centerline of Beach Boulevard and furthec described as 3024 W. Ball xoad; and does herepy approve the Ne9ative Declaration upon £inding that it has consideced the Negative Declacation together with any comments received during tha: public review p[ocess and furthec finding un the basis of the I~itial Sti~dy and any comments [eceived that there is no substantial evidence that th> project will have a significant effecl- on the environment. Commissioner Herbst oEfered a motion, seconded by Commissioner La Claire and MOTIUN CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant waiver of Code requirement on the basis that the parking waiver will not cause an increase in traffic congestion in Che immediate vicinity nor advetsely affect any adjoining land uses and granting of the parkinq waiver unda~ Eii~ conditions imposed~ iE any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare o£ the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Comrtiissionec Herbst offered Resolution No. PCtl6-22U and moved for its passage and adoption that the A~aheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2~3"l pursuant to f,naheim Municipal Code S°ctions 18.03.030.U3U through 18.U3.U3U.035 and sub~ect to Interdepartmental Cominittee recommendations, modif.ying Condition No. 1 deleti~g the ceference to the east. On roll call, the foregoing cesolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HER~ST~ LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY~ MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Atto~ney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning ConMission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM NO. 9 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, RECLASSIFICATION N0. Bb-67-4 AND VAKIANCE NO. 3585 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: DONALD AND OPAL HEYDENllAHL, 205-211 N. Westecn Avenue, Anaheim, CA 928U5. AGENT: HUGO A. VAZUUE'L, 2290 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 9'1~U5. Propecties descrieed as ircegulacly-sFaped parcels of land l•utalling approximately 1.4 acces, having a fcontage of approximately 152 feet on the west side of Western Avenue, apptoximately 590 feet north of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue and fu~thec described as 2U5 and 211 North Western A~enue. RS-A-43,ODU to RM-1200 or a less intense zone. 6/1~/H6 MtNU:ESr ANAHEIM CITY PLnNNING COMMISSTON, August 18, 1986 86-585 Waivecs of minimum nu[nber of parking spaces (aeleted), maximum structural height, maximum sit< cov=rage and mirimum distanc~ hekw_en buildings (del~tsd). There were twenty one persons i.ndicating their pcesence in opposition to sub7ect reyuest and although the staff repock was not read, it is referred to and mad? a part of the minutes. Hugo Vazquez, agent, stated they will provid? a 3,000-square foot lap pool with a maximum depth of 5 feet and the~e will be ^o diving board ana also, there will be a nice spa ir, the recreational area; and along th? northern ooundary there is a 20-to 25-foot greenbelt area, and they are willing to p1anL matuce ~rees along that northern ~oundary. ;de noted th? single-story units are located ad3acent to the nocthern boundacy with the 2-story units being approximately 3U feet away from the single-fami].y residences. Mr. Vazyuez exp]_ained they just compleked a 15-unit compl?x two blocks south at y2U South Westerr,, just off Ball and Western, with a single-family cesidential area to the north uith about the same general circumstances. gick Warsinski, Senioc Planner, City of Buena Pack, bb50 ~each Boulevard, presen~ed wcit.t.en co~cespondence from tneir oEfic? detailing their specific opposition to this pro~ect. He stated their opposition is to tne density and variances r?qu?s~ed and feel the project would hav° some signif.icant impacts on the adjacent single-family hornes locatetl in BuPna Park and find it unfortunate the developer is seeking a change in th? zone to RM-1200 and immediately requesting variances from that zoning and it would appear a better course of action would be to identify a zoning categoty which might b? a bit mate compatible with surrounding land uses and developed in accordance wi.th the City of Ar.aheim cegulations. He urged the Planning Commission to deny this ~eyuest. He clacif.ied he is sp?aking for the City of Buena Park. Gloria Hess=, 8857 Garfield Circle, Buena ra~k, p~?s?nt?d petitions signed by ?very cesid?nt on Huchanan, Gtant, Gacfield, Pierc?, Johnson and Monroe and explained. the petition refers to their four odjections: (1) the cesidents in the neightiorhood are awace of all the other ~esidents in the area and are confidenL• with their children playing outside, etc, and with new people in th? acea, th?y will los? that confidene?, (2) that th?ce is congestion on W?st?cn pvenue with a lot of accidents at the intersect•ion of Mon[oe and Western and with th? additional traffic, there will ne an atlditional increase to this problem ana there will ~e more traf.fic on Moncoe which is an access street between Western and Knott and (3) their pcivacy will be eliminated with the multiple-story structure, (4) the pcoperty values will decrease and (5) there will b= the chance of robbecies, tiurglaries and drugs and they thought the schools which ate still open will be overcrowded. She stated they hoped the Planning Cammission will deny this reyuest. Ste~e Worrell, 881 Garfield Cicc).e, stat?d the single-story units which ace to be within 20 feet of his propetty are actually 1-1/2 stories and theic patios will be overlooking his backyard and the traffic on Western now is vety heavy and they feel this will impact Ehe area ?ven more and they felt 50 units on this small parcel would be too many people creating a lot of noise that close to his house, ge stated the 2-story units appear to have a pacio atea oc recceational area on the second floor which extends to within 26 feet of the 8/lb/86 tl6-586 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMI5SION. August 18, 19H6 propecty line which compounds the problem. He stated there is a pool area within 5 feet of the property line and he thought drainage would be a problem. He presented photographs of his pr.ope~ty and subject property. Mr, W~ctell statpd the applicant ref.erred to othec projects in Anaheim which were dQ~~elop?d this close to residential property, but he has toured the City and could not Eind any property this clos?. He stated he does not think the envi[onmental impact report addresses the citizen's living in Buena Park. He stated he was also present in 19ri1 when the 17-unit condominium pro7ect was approved f~~r this property and they came to a compromise with that developec and feel this proj?ct with 5U units is not reasonable. HeleR Bohen, 8821 GdCf.l~ld CirCle~ stdt~d th? proposed proj?ct will b~ aqainst their single-family home and their privacy will definil•ely be invaded and they have pride in their hom~s and d~ not think apa~tm~nt dwellers will respect their pcide or privacy and there will be additional traffic along the road. Sh? sta~ed rhe children play on the streets now and did not think it would be saf?, if this is approved. She stated accocding to ths Buena Pack Police DepactmenL, on Westecn Avenue thece are ~,y55 vehi~les pec day and Lhis p~oject would increase the tca£fic and acciaent-s. She stated right now thece are 10 hotnes per cul-d?-sac and there are a minimum of three vehicles p?r residence and anymore vehicles on those cul-de-sac streets could not be tole[ated; that there is no pa[king allow?d on W°st?rn Avenu? and they feel the overflow packing will b? on the ~esidential sl-reets. She asked if there would b? any access between the complex and the homes, if there should be a f.ire, and asked if thece would be ample toom for Fire DeparL•ment- vehicl_ access if there was a fire in theic pa~king structu~e. She stated ehe schools are crowded now and ?xplained there ate two schnols closed in th? district and ?ventually, they will have to [eop?n. She stated they only indicated the southecn side of tne project on the plans and asked what would be located on the north side of the uuilding such as laundry facilities, etc. gob Papina, 8881 Ke^ Circle, pc?sented a letter from C?ntury 21 Realty which indicates the prop?[ty values in the cul-de-sac street will decrease lU to 15~ with th? euildiny of this complex. H° also teferc?d to a lettec written by his neighbor outlir.ing h?r otijections to this project. He stated one area of concecn is th? drainage of th? property and added theit propecty. He stated the plans indicate the structure will oe ~uilt with subterranean parking which is facilitat?d with a 5-foot wall and even though it is called 1-story, it is acL•ually 4-1/2 feet above the existing g*ound g~ade level and thak is wh?re his bed~oom is located and a person on the patio five feet off the ground will qe adle to see into his bedcoom windows. ~e stated th:s pco~ect has an environmental impact as fat as ?xposu[e is concerned; that there is a pool proposed 5 feel- fcom the property line whieh is 10 feet from his bedcoom window and they have had p[oblems in the past and when they have called the pnaheim Police Depactment, they would not respona to anyone calling from Buena park, and if they call the Buena Park Police Depattment, they have no juci~diction in the Anaheim area and do not tespond and they would like to have that pool removed from that area. Fle stated they feel there will be security ptoblems and know whete the[e is high aensity, there is a possibility of increased crime in the ar?a. He stated a 6-foot high wall would not be 8/18/86 u ust 18, 1986 86-587 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ A 9 ade9uate and the 2-story building is 5 feet fcom the properl-y line and th~ ~od? requites 150 fPet. He stated accocdin9 to the staff repo~t the ptoPeitiY is 590 feet noith of the centetlin? of Lincoln Avenue ar.d Weste[n Avenue and heethoughtathere wouldube considecablertraffic backed-upcatethe p?akehoucs,and Jim Uoulames, 8~68 Garfield Citcle, asked if tCO~ectasfrom th>nschool to developer will be attempting to pucchase the p p Y expand the facility oc would this eliminate any possibility of expanding the school. He stat?d he was not notified until about four days ago of this hea[ing. He stated thece is no demand for a pro~ect like this because thete are new apattments in that area which have not been rented. He stated this would cause ove: population and not ~nough privacy due to the 2-story units. gu9p Vazyuez stat?d he thought the major difficuity here is th? diffec?nce between Anaheim's and Buena Park's Codes; and thatelstated lheyBdonnotaeven propetty, there would not ue the sam? problems. H build in Buena Pack b?cause thei[ standa[ds are too difficult toS~atedwth°yln relationship to the land values and they ate not realistic. H° resentl have one 3U-unit apartment aeutting Bu?na Patk on Ball Road whichQ stat?a they being built and the propert;~ is 75 feet wide by SOU feet deep. H- will not have any impact on Monro?, Gacfield ot Buchanan because the cnly access is on Western AvenuA and none of ~hPptpnpR~S woula `S~~h~°fPelingnfrom park on these residential streets. PVP~SOne ofhtheseaunits ace teccible people the opposition that the tenants in y rivac for themselves. H° explained who deal with drugs and do not want any p Y they have pcovided a central 1~-foot wide ecactyard to pcovide pcivacy foc their tenants. H° statetl there wi11 b? a central intercom syst?m which is an additional ~300 pec unit so that any guests coula not get into the complex unless allowed access by a tenant. He stated the patio ateas will have a 6-foot wall and the PenPxceedath?`recreationalhat?aaandlhave LdbnsyuaDe~feet yatds. H° stated ~h-Y p s in the pa~king of deck atea. HP stated there will b? subt_rcanian pump standacds structure which can handle a 25-year Elood and that is the City which have to b? met. Mr. Vazyuez stat•ed the entire gatage and complex has to be fire sprinklered because there are ur.its beyond the 15U-foot lonc?rnine decreasingdpropettyknow anything about khe closing of the schools. C 9 values, h? stated he would like lo see some tlocumentation vetifPC~9 ~alue of a apa:tments ad7acent rOesstatetlf7ustytwosbl cksJawayutheyhhaveobuilt a similar singl2-family home. H complex next door to a single-family home which is wocth about one-hal million dollars. He stated the pool would be at the new g~atle Loblem~e1Mt.the ad7acent ptopetty gcade and he does not think that wou.ld ue a p Vazquez stated he talked to as many of the owners as he could which abut the propocty, and left cards foc the homeownets who were notrivac awasnstillma~~ contact him. He stated he had told those neighbots if p Y concetn, he would not be opposed to installing an H-foot high fence instead of 6 feet. THE PU~LIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. 8/18/~6 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 1~, 19tl6 86-588 Commissione[ Fcy stated he recognizes this is a difficult parcel to develop, but he could r.ot vote fo[ this kind of development in the backyards of single-family homes and it doesn't matter if Buena Park's zoning ~equirements ace different than Anaheim. He stated this is just too much d=velopment fot this size propecty abutting single-family homes. ML. Vazquez stated two biocks from this site, they have a project constructed with the same densi~y under the same 2oning ceyuicements and those plans were revised three times at an additional cost of ~700U to please the adjacent neighbo[ and that neighbor states he is happy with that project. Commissioner Hecbst stated that project did not have a swimming pool 5 feet from another person's backyard and bedcoom. Mr. Vazquez stated those single-stocy units are 25 feet from the propecty line and the 2-stocy units ace 50 feet Erom the pcoperty line and he would be willing to acc=pt that as a condition fo~ approval of this project. Commissioner Lawicki stated thece are always diEferent circumstances foc development of any property and no two are ever the same such as location, area, housing abutting it, cul-de-sacs, traffic, etc. Mr. Vazquez stated there is slight difference. Convnissionec La Claire skated she agcees with some of the statements; how>ver, she would like to see the pcoject turned around to~ards th= school. She stated she thought the 4-foot 6-inch downgcade for subtecranean packing is what is causing the problem because it makes the pro)ect a litL-le higher. She stated he has aeiaed by the Code with a 25-foot setback and the second story is 50 feet back and according to th> Anaheim Code, a 150-foot setback for single-family is reyuiced; however, many variances have been granted fcom that requitement and a decision was made to ceview each case individually and the Ccmmission does t[y to provide protection for the single-family homes. She stated, in fact, she thinKS that Code neeas to oe change; and that the 25-foot and 50-foot settiacKS are fine and would afford the property owners next dooc a buf£er; however, she does not like the pool location and it should be relocated which could mean losing a£ew units. She added dense landscaping should be provided along the north property line. pnnika Santalahti responded to Commissionec La Claire that there is a resolution of intent on this property to RM-240U for the 18-unit condominium project approved in 1981. Mr. Vazquez stated the General Plan calls fo~ RM-1200 and Annika Santalahti responded the General Plan permits, but does not call fo[ RM-1200. Commissioner La Claire stated the property is still zoned RS-A-43,U00 and the General Plan designation is fc: medium aensity ~esidential land uses wnich would permit up to 36 units pe~ acce and that is Anaheim's highest designation. She stated the RM-12UU would be an appropriate zone for this propecty; however, she would like to see a pcoject somewhere between 19 and 50 units. Mc, Vazquez stated he is willing to consttuct an 8-fool- high block wall along the notth ptopecty line which would ceyuire a va~iance that would have to be appcoved and eliminate the pool alcogethet and place the spa in the cenEcal S/lb/86 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM C:TY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 18, 1986 86-589 courtyard area and specify the size t[ees to be planted along the 8-foot hign block wall and he felt that wou].d be signi£icant in meeting the privacy of the homeownecs to the nocth in Buena Park. Commissioner H°rbst refe[[ed to the garage wall 10 fee~ from the propecty line and asked if th= patios will be on top of the gacages. Mr. Vazyuez stated rhat is open packing. Commissionec Messe pointed out the Commission jus' aenied a project which was almost exactly the same situation where the development was abutting single-family cesidences. Mr, Vazquez stated when that developer bought that property on Lincoln, they knew they were buying xM-2400 pcoperty and it was nevet designated on the Genecal Plan fo[ medium density. He stated this pcopecty is designated for medium density which permits 36 units pec acre. He stared he has Cedesigned this pcojeck four times and has hired three different architects to provide the best design to address the density issue of setback to single family. Commissioner Lawicki pointed out the pcoject• is designed f.or 1tM-1200 standards, but vaciances are being reyuested and he could not build 50 units on this prope[ty without apptoval of those variances. Mc. Vazquez stated they have approval of those sam~ variances at 92U S. Western. Chair~nan McBurney asked if Mr. Vazyuez had approached the school about obtaining their ptoperty in ocdet to keep those units as fac away from the houses as possible. Mr. Vazyuez responded he had contacted the school and also the pcoperty owner he is purchasing the property from had approached the school district about pucchasing thei: property; thak right now the school is leased and they know in the future the land values will increase and hope to sell the ptope~ty for development. Commissioner La Claice asked if the[e is a view fcom the 2-stocy units on the north side. ML. Vazquez stated they will not hav> a view because they will have a 6-foot wall and a person cannot look ove~ crom the patio unless they are over 6 feet tall. He stated he wants to give the tenant his own privacy. Commissioner Bouas asked if a person could view a neighbo~'s pVepertatio wille second story units fcom the inside and Mr. Vazque2 responded y p have a 6-foot wall. Mr. Vazquez stated the patio is an enclosed area, only open from the top, and explained he did not meet with all the neighbors, but left cards asking them to contact him. He stated he knew from the beginning that he would have an adve~se ceaction from the Huena Pack residents ~ecause they have nothing to gain fcom this development and they would prefer to see nothing developed ther.e. Commissionet La Claite stated she would like to see the developer request a two-week continuance in order to talk with the cesidents and in otder for her to get a bettet un~erstanding of this .location and she would like to see revised plans. 5he added he has done a good job with this project eecause the single-stocy units are 25 feet away and the two-story units a~e 5U feet away and there is a difference on this property and the one on Lincoln decause this B/ltl/86 8o-59U MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION August 1B 1986 property is designated for vecy high density and it does affocd pcivacy and nune of the units look down into single-family residential homes. She stated the plans ate conf.using and she would like the pool moved. She asked if P1r. Vazquez would like a two-week continuance. Mr. Vazyuez stated the escr.ow is closing and he ~ouedta9owners and ifotheyX ownecs to the north wete not all single-f.amily p P Y com+° were not in the City of Buena Park. He stated he would be attempting to up with a compromise that is not thece b=cause those propecties will alw~ys be in L•he City of Buena Park and that the school is going to sell their property to a developer eventually for RM-1200 development. He stated he did not see any reason to continue this maltec for two weeks. He stated he would sL•ipulate to the S-foot high blocK wall, heavy dense landscaping along ~he nocth pcoperty lin~ which would cesolve those issues and removing th? lap pool all•oyether and placing some spas in th~ centet courtyatd which would resolve that issue. Leonacd McGhee stated an 8-f.oot high block wall would require a variance and the matter would have to be ceadvertised. Chairman McBurney s~ated hP lhought thore is co~st[ucturetandna couplenof abutting the nort-h about the top of ~h_ parking cross secL•ions would help. He suggested Mr. Vazyuez reconsider a two-week continuance. He stated he knows from personal knowledge that the C~rY of Buena Park is not di£ficult to deal with. Commissionet Hecbst stated the plans do no~ SWallton Lheklatios solno onenwill Mr.. Vazquez stated thece will be 6-foot high P be looking down on the parking. He stated thete is a tremenaous cost to produce cross sections and a 6-foot well can be put into the minutes as oeing a reyuired condition of approval. He staLed he oelieves L•he Commissione~s fully undecstand what he is stipulating to ?nd that is that every patio will have a 6-foot high block wall so no tenant can have a view of the parking area oc look into the .^.~iynbor's ya~ds. He tesponded to Commissioner Bouas that the oatios a~e minimum of lUU syuare feet which meets the City Code. Commissioner Bouas asked if the units at 920 S. Western have a 6-foot wall on L•he patios. [3r. Vazyuez responded that wall isatiouarea forfeveryone.and it is on a stcucture ~hich is a central cocridor P Cominissioner Herbst stated an 8-f.oot high f.ence would have to be readvertised. Mr. Vazquez stated the Commission can app~ove the S-foot fence and explained the Ci.~y Council approved an ~-foot wall whireehandRhe believed advectised on the basis that all pcopeCtWlth°ansrihfoot~wall, if they do not the Buena Pack residents would be happy have to pay for iti. Malcolm Slaughte~ stated Code requices a waivet and the proper way to handle it is to ceadvertise the mal•tet. Chairma~eSQB~~~ day~soeheCt ought theamatter be assuced that eve~y property ownet is p should be readvertised. Commissionet La Claire stated the property is designated on the Genecal Plan fot medium density which peemits up to 36 units per acre and l•his is a 50-unit ~/18/86 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August ld, 1986 86-5y1 apartment complex and the only waivers are fo~ the 2-story within 15U feet which has not ceally been aahe*_ed to fot a long time, and the maximum site coverage is only Sk more than allowed. She stated one of the problems in ~his City is the undecground parking st~ucLure and she thought that is what is enabling the develope~s to get more units on the p[operly and is causing some ptoblams with the neighbors. She stated this complex is not looking down into the neighbors' pcoperty and the 20-foot setback is the same as normally required and the 2-story units are 50 feet away and no one can look down into the neighbors' property and there is no parkxng waivec [eyuested and parking problems in the neighborhood will not be caused by this pro~ect, She stated this would add to the ttaffic on Western Avenue 7ust like any other development built in this City or Buena Park. She stated there is already KM-24UU development to the south of this pcoperty and the pcopecl•y is designated for this densicy on the Genetal Plan and she thought it would be a good development. Commissionet Fry offered a motion, secondPd by Commissioner Bouas cnd MUTTON CAHRIEU that the Anaheim City Planning Commxssion has reviewed the proposal to reclassify sub7e_^l• propecty from the RS-A-43,OU0 (Residen~ial, Agricultural) to RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zone to construct a 50-unit apartmenl• compl~x with waivers of minim~m number of parking spaces, maximum structucal height, maximum site coverage and minimum distance between buildings on an icregularly-shaped pa[cel of and consisting of appCOximately 1.4 acres, having a fcontage of approximately 152 feet on the west side of Western Avenue and beiny located approximately 59U feet north of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue and fucthec descrined as 20S and 'L11 h. Western pvenue; and does heceoy approv= l•he NPgative lleclaration upon finding that it has consideced the Negative Declaration together with any commenis ceceivea during the public review process and Eurther Einding on lhe nasis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no suostantial evidence that the project will have a signif.icant effect on the environment~ Commissioner Fcy offeced Resolution No. PC66-221 and movea for its passag~ and adoption l-hat the Anaheim City Planniny Cor,unission does hereby grant Reclassification No. d6-~7-4 subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommenaations. Un roll call, the foregoing resolution was passea by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY~ HERBST~ LA CLAIRE, MC ~URNEY~ MESSE NOES: LAWICKI ABSENT: NONE Commissioner F~y offe~ed Reso~ution No. PC86-2'22 and moved for its passaye and adoption that the Anaheim CiLy Planning Commission does hereby gcant Vacianee No. 35tl5, in part, qenying waivers (a and d) on the basis they were deleted by revised plans and granting waivers (b and c) on the basis that there are special ciccumstances applicablfe to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and surrou~ndings which do not apply t•o other identically zoned propecty in the same vicinity; and l•hat stcict application of the Zoning Code deprives the pcoperty of privileges en~oyed ey other propecties in the identical zone and classification in the •~icinity; and fu~thet subject to the petitioner's stipulation to provide an B-foot high block wall and heavy dense e/18/~6 P7INUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMI5SION August 1~, 1986 86-592 landscaping along th? nor.thern ptoperty line in the 25-foot setback at?a a~d to eliminate th? lap po~l and rel~cat~ the c?~tra1 spa t~ thA c~~tcal couctyard area and sub7ect to Inter.a?par.tmental Committ?e r?commendations. Qn Loll Cdll~ th~ for~q~i~q res~lution waS paSS~d by tho followlnq V~t?: AYES: 90UA5, FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY NOES: LAWICKI~ MESSE ASSENT: NONE Malcolm Slauqht~r, D°puty City Attornoy, prosent~d th~ writt~~ riqhc t~ appeal Lhe Planning C~~tunission's d?cision within 22 days to the City C~uncil ~ommissioner La C1airA referr~d t~ the 150-s~tback r?QUlromqnr a~d s*_at~d she thought the Ccde should b? amended. Annika Santalahli stated the City Council has recPiv?d a r_opy of the d*aft ~rdina~cp to r~quir? that subtPrra~~an patking should be considered as a story, ~egar.dless o£ the depth in the groUnd. Sh> Stat~d dboUt tw~ y?arS dq~ tih~ City C^u^cll wd5 ~~t wllll~q to chang? the 15U-foot setback. Commissioner S~uas stated she thouqht the mattAr should be rpsubmitt~d f~r th?it t°view again and Malcolin SlaughL'eT. stated with the changes oeinq discuss?d, a~y~~A who built a p-~j~ct mp~ti~q the 150-fo~t s~tback w^uld bA coming back in to reyuest petmission to build more units in that area in already ~stablish~d noiqhborhood. RECESSEU: 5:15 p.m. RECONVENED: 5:20 p.m. ITEM N0. 10 EIR NEGATTVE DECLARATTON AND VARIAt::E N0. 3589 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: HENRY AND JUANA ULLOA, 1513 E. B*^adway, A~ah~im, CA 92805. AGENT: MARIO A. ULLOA, 1513 E. Brradway, Anaheim, CA 928U5. Proper.ty describ?d as a recta~qula*ly-shap?d parcel ~f land c~~sistinq of appr~ximatPly 0.16 acr.e located at the northw~_st cor.ner of Elm StiL?Pt and Clzmentine Srceet, having a frontaq~ ~f. approximatply 138 fP~~ ^~ th~ ~orth side of E1m Stre?t and a frontage of SU teet on the west side of Clementine and fu[ther described as 327 S^uth Cl~m~nti~A St~Pet. Waiv~rs ~f minimum yard *pquir?ment ~~d minimum rocreal-i~nal-l~isure area t~ c~nstr.uct two additional units and retain a single-family dwelling for a total of. 3 units. The~? was ~ne person indir_ati~g his presencP in ~pp~sitio~ to subj~ct requ~st and altheugh the staff r.eport was not read, iL is referred to and made a par.t of Ghe minutes. Mario Ulloa, aqent, stated h~ would like to impr~ve th? ar?a; and L•hat th?y tr.ied te g?t four units on the pr~perty, but have decided to reduce it becausA of. the high density, a~d th? varia~c?s ar? f.or 5 feet from the church's parking lot to the nor.th and five feet from the adjacent apartment complex to the w?st, and to reduce th~ recr?ation-leisuro ar?a. 8/1~/86 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSlON, August 18~ 19Hb 86-593 Roeect L. Doty, 1506 Flippen Court, Anaheim, OYerations Chairman of the Ficst Presbyterian Chucch located at 31U West Broadway, stated they are opposed to this reyuest because they a~e concerned about the additional packing in an already-congested area. He stated at any given time adout 258 of the church's parking lot is occupied by non-ch~rrh people's vehicles and that presents a hardship, particulatly on Sunday and in eveninos when they have services. He stated the other concern is the lack of recreational area proposed Eor this complex which will mean small childcen will be forced to play either in the chucch parking lot or to invade the child[en's center playground of the church which has about 15U young children durinq the school hours £rom ti:30 a.m. to 6:3U p.m., and there are indications that the playgrouna is used in the ev=nings by other young people with damages and equipment missing. ML. Ulloa stated there wi.Ll e= ample parking for this pro)ect and this property has a 6-foot high chainlink fence covered with vines at this time and there is no way for the children from this property to get to the church prope~ty, and also there is a small park at the cocner of Elm and Clemer.tine, He stated he did not ~elieve th=y will put a burden or. the chutch, ana he was not aware they are having problems now. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLUSEll. Commissionec La Claire stated the property is currently zoned RM-12U0 and could have f.ive units and the proposed project is a much better project than an RP1-1200 pro7ect. Commissionet Bouas asked how this pro~ect differs f.com the one on ~outh Street which was denied today. Chairman Mc~urney statea this pro7ect is not borde[ed by anothec eesiaence but is bordered oy a church parking lot. Commissioner Fcy stated a 15-f.oot setback would be reyuired ad~acent to the northerly pcoperty line and they are proposing 5 feet and that is the chucch parkinq lot; and a 9-foot wide setback is reyuired adjacent to the east property line and that would be Clementine Street; and they are p~oposing 5 feet; and a 15-foot wide setback is tequired aa~acent to the south property line which would be Elm and they are proposing 10 feet. Chairman c4c~urney stated if they followed the setback ceyuirements on ooth the north and south, they would have a buildable parcel uf 20 feet. Commissione- Bouas statetl she still does not see the difference between this one and the denied one on South Srteet. Leonard McGhee, Associate Planner, explained the ficst £loor of the building is appcoximately 13 feet from the prope~ty line, but the second floor is approximately 10 feet because it hangs over. Commissioner La Claire asked i£ parking spaces would be assigned to individual units since they are proposing tandem spaces and Mr. Ulloa responded they would. ACTIUN: Commissionec Fcy offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has teviewed the 8/18/tl6 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, AuguSt 18, 1966 86-594 proposal to constcuct two additional units for a total of thL?p units with wai~srs of minimum structural sstback and yard requirsment and mi~imum cecreation-.leisure area on a~ectangulacly-shaped parcel of land consisting of. approximately 0.16 ac~~ located at th= no*thwast corn~r of. Elm S~f?Pt and Clementin? Street, and further described as 327 South Clementine Street; and does hs*eby approv~ the N?qative D~clarati~n upnn f.indinq that it has considered th? Negative Declaration together with any comments ceceived ducinq the public ceview proc?ss and further f.indinq on the basis of. th> Initial Study and any comments ceceived that there is no substantial evidence that th~ project will hav~ a siqnificant effect on the snvi*onm~nt. Commissioner gry offered R°solution No, PCSb-223 and moved for its passage and adoption that the pnah~im City Planninq C~mmission does hereby qrant Varianc~ no. 35tl9 on the basis that there are special citcumstances applicable to th? pcoperty such as sizj, shape, topoqraphy, location and surroundinqs which do not apply to other id?ntically zoned property in the Same vicinity; and that strict application of the Z~ninq C~de deprives the property of. privil~qes enjoyed by other proper.ties in the identical zor,e and classification in the vicinity and subject to Interd~pa*tm~ntal C~mmittee recnmmendations. pn roll call, the foregoing resal~*..ion was passed oy the following vote: AYES: FRY~ HERBST~ LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY, MESSE NUES: BUUAS, LAWICKI ABSENT: NONE Malcolm Slauqht~r, D°puty City A~r^rn?y, p~°sented th~ written riqht to app~al the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ZTEM NU. 11 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3590 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: REMO AND ANTONIETTA GIZZI, 21752 Qu>ensbury, E1 Toro, CA 92630. AGENT: RANDY McFARLAND, H413 Garden Grove Boulevard, Garden Grove, CA 92b44. Property d~sc*ib?d as a~ectanqula~ly-shaped pa~cel of land consisting of approximately 0.45 acce located at the northeast corner of Katella Avenue and Nutw~od Str~?t, having approximate frontaq~s of. ].24 feet on the north side of Katella Avenue and 124 feet on the ?ast side of Nutwood gtreet and furth_r dAscribed as 1895 W~st Katslla AvAnue. Waivers of minimum number of ceyuir?d parking spaces, maximum building height and minimum landscaped s~tback to construrt a comm~~cial shoppinq cent~r, There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject r~quest and althouqh th? staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Randy HcFarland, aqent, sxplained they propose a small shoppinq cent~r at th= corner of Nutwood and Katella, approximate>~ B,000 sq, f.t., and are c?questing a parkinq waivs*, with 45 spaces requir>d and they are proposinq 23 spaces. HE stated they ar? pcoposing a 0-setback to single-family pcopecty on the north and think th? buildinq will be ba~rier to traffic nois?. H~ stat~d they did circulate a petition along with photographs to the neighbocs and had no neyative ~esp~nses to thP p~oject. He stated there is a 5-foot ~asement on ~/18/66 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 18, 19tlb 86-595 the northe[ly side and if they cannoL• abantlon that easement, they would build five feet from the pcoperty lin?. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr., McFarland stat~d th~y w~uld have a problem with younq p~ople drinkinq and partying in the rear. Responding to Commissioner La Claice tegarding the type of uses propos~d, he stat~d they will limit the uses L•o one f.ood service and th? cest r?tail stoces and offices and about 1/3 of the complex will tie rented to Auto Dent, Respondinq to Chairmi~ McBu~n?y, Mr. McFarland sta*_?d he operates oth?r shopping c?nters with another company, one on B?ach and Cerritos in Stanton and several in Lns Anqel~s and San p~rnand~ Valley, Commissioner La Clair? stated sh? was concerned about the par.king waiver, Mr. McFacland explained th?y had a traf.fic study conduct~d usinq d p*oject on Orangethorpe for. comparison. Commissioner La Claire stated it d?pends on thA uses in th? complex whether or not the~e would be enough parking. Mr. MeFarland staled the B?ach and Cercitos pro~ect has a ma7ocity of. fooa s?rviee stores and a dentist of.f.ice, and the parkinq demand study cam~ up with a 2.2 per 1,000 figur~, Commissinn?r La Clair? statAd ths City has be?n abidinq by th~ parkinq codps Eor a long time and they have been sufficient and now all the experts are saying the calculations are nnt riqht and almost every proj~ct needs a parkinq variance, and those same experts are the onNs who recommended the City's standaras. Mr. McFarland stat?d also a reciprocal parkinq ag*eement will b~ made with Auto Dent and that would provide mor? parking. Respor,ding to Canmissioner Messe, Mr, McFarland stat~d th~y cannot af.ford t~ qive an aqr~ement with th? current reyuirements and they alr.eady have an access agreement and want to revise it. He r?spond~d to ~hairman McBu*ney that the Utilities D?pactment told them today that iL• would be very difficult to abandon that easement because they are going to have a p*oblem servicinq th?m. Chairman McBurney stated he did not think he couZd act on this project becaus? having to r?locate th? buildinq miqht rtiean losing a couple of. parkinq spaces. Mc. McFarland stated they would reduce the square footage of the building. He stated he was told today that th?y could not abandon it, but according to the Commission's decision, they would look at it again, and he thought he could take that as a"no" answer, Chairman McBUrn~y stat~d h~ would ?~equest a two-week continua~ce so they can revise the plans showing that easer.ient. Commissioner La Claire stat~d she would also lik> a list ~f the t~na~ts, and it was clarifietl a list of proposed uses would be appropriate since the tenants are not known at this time. He stat?d the tr.af.fic study was done based a complex vecy similar! with only one food service store, Co~~issioner Messe stated this is on Katella Avenue which is a very very busy street, as oppos?d to the other compl?xes mentianed. 8/lti/H6 S - ^ MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CO[4MISSION, August 18, 1986 86-596 Cammi.ssioner He~bst stated h? did not believe our parking cod?s ate this far off and approval of this could be op~ninq a"Pandora's Box" with thes~ vacant service station sites. Commission~r H°rbst stated if this project is allowed at 50$ of. the par.kinq code, ther? will be a lot mo[e requests. Mr. McFa[land stated when they r.educe th? Si24 of th? buildinq~ they will b? lr+sinq 700 squdre feet which would br.ing tne packing up substantially. CommissioneC Herbst stated tflP_LF! is just too much on the site. Chairman McBurn=y asked if th~ applicant woutd lik~ to r~qu~st a continuance and submit revised plans. M~. McFacland stated he could have it done by F[iday f.or a two-w~~k continuanr,o, but did not s~~ wh~~e t•hey ^ould 9°t anymore parkinq. Mc. McFarland r.eyu?st?d a rwn-week cnntinuanc?. C~mmissioner La Claire asked if othe~ types of uses have been consiaered, such as offic? spacA. Mr, McFarland stat~d the first p~ojact r_nnsid~r=d was f~r ofEice space, but ~n Katella there ar.e yuite a f?w empty oEEices, and there is a demand f^r r?tail. space. ACTION: C~mmission~r H°rbst of.f?red a moti~n, sec~nd~d by C^mmissioner Messe and 140TI0N CARRIED that consideration of the aforemention?d snatter be contir.u?d l•o rh? ~eqularly-schedul.ed mePtinq ~f. S~prpmbar 3, 1986, at th~ [eyuest of the pel•itioner. ITEM NO. 12 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3591 PUIILIC HEAR7NG. OWNERS: JESUS GARCIA, 326 S. Philad?lphia Str<et, Anah~im, CA 92802. Prop4~ty describ?d as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting ~f approximate].y 0.18 ac~es, havinq a. f.rnntaqe of approximat?ly 50 fe?t on the east side of. Philad?lphia S~reet, app~oximately 3'l5 feet south of th? centerline of B*~adway and furthe~ d?scribed as 326 South Philadelphia Street. Waivecs of. minimum number of parking spar?s, minimum floor area nf. dwellinq units and minimum yard r.equiremer.t to const~uct 1 additional unit and ~etain 2 units f.or a total ~f 3 apartmQnt units. The[e was no one indicating tfieit presence in opposition to subject CPC;U?S~ and although the staff r.eport was not read, it is csf?rred l-o and made a pa~t of L•he minutes. Doyle liu941ns, 1431 Avenup Alva~ada, P].ac?ntia, was present to answ°r any yuestions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Re~pondinq to C~mmissioner 'La Claire, M~. Duqqins stat?d ther? is an ?xistinq convetted garage which was on the propecty when the owner purchased it and it is a 3D0-squa*e foot one-bedrnom unit and is about three 4eet f~om the norther.ly property line. He stated th? property to the nor.th also has a 8/lri/d6 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 18, 198ti 86-597 garage three feet from th? propetty line which has not been converted at this point. H° stated the proposal is to use that as a bachelor unit, ~ven though it is less than 500 square feet, and to construct a two-bedcoom unit between the gar.age and existinq hous~. C~mmission~r Bouas clarif.ied the owner wants to r?tain the house and the converted garage unit. Commissioner Fry stated the bachelor was probably not done with proper permits and is probably 50 y?ars old and is probably not up to codes and he would not vote for a 300-squar~ foot bachelor unit in a conv~rted qaraqe; howsvAr, if. the applicant is willing to remove the bachelor unit and go ahead with the plans, hs wnuld ~ot havs an obj~ction and would ancouraqe it. Mc. Duggins stated the buildings wece existing the way they are prior to th= Gar.cia's nurchas~. C^mmission~r Fry suqq~sted removinq the convert?d qa~aqe and constructinq a n?w unit, he could approve it, but could ~ot suppo~t the convetted garay?. Mr, llugqins stated Mr. Ga~cia would really prefer to retain the existi~q unit, but if it cannot b~ approved, h? would r.emove it. Commission?r La Claire statea l•hA own?r is not p~esent a~d he should make r.hat decision himself and she would suggest a continuance in ocder for him to b? p~es?nt and in order f.or revis~d plans to be submiL•ted. M~. Du4qins stat~d the owne~ would be back this week. ACTION: C~mmission~r La Claire offered a molion, second?d bX C~mmission?r Messe and MOTIUN CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned maL•ter be continued t~ thP reqularly-scneduled meet-ing ~f September 15, 1986, in ocder for the owner. to be p~?sent and in or.det fo[ r.evised plans to be submitt?d eliminatinq the conv~rt~d qa~aqe. ITEM NO. 13 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 283~ PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: LEDERER-ANAHEIM, LTD.~ ATTN: LES E. LEDERER, 1990 Westwood BlVd., Las Angeles, CA 90025-4614. AGENT: STEVE ZARIT, 333 E. Cer.ritos, Anaheim, CA 92805. Prop?rty describ?d as an irrequta~ly-shaped par.cel of land consisting cf approximately 12 acces, located nor.th an~ ea5t of. the northeast cornec of Cer.citos AvenuA and Anah~im B~ulevard, havinq approximate frontages of 72S feet on the north side of Certitos Avenue and 500 feet on the east side of Anaheim Boulevacd and fur.ther aescribed as 333 East Cerritos Avenue (Vineyard Chcistian Fellowship). To permit a r~tail book store in conjunction with a~ existinq church with ~~aiver of minimum number of reyui~?d patking spaces. There was no on? indicatinq their presence in opposition to subjAcl requ?st and although the staff r?port was not read, it is cefect?d to and made a part of the minutes. 8/18/86 ~ J MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY YLANNING COMMISSION, August 18, 19ki6 86-598 Ken Fish, [epr.esenting th? agent, Steve Zar.it, stated this warehous? buildinq is being used as a chur.ch, with som~ of.f.ice space, und« permits p*eviously issued and they wish to install book shelv?s and use part of the ofEic? space as a book shop; that the hou~s of nperation will be Wednesdays and Sundays from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and at pcesent two employees are working in that offic~ space and they will retain two employe~s in the bookstore so the n=t ~ffect on th~ employee population would be negligiole; and that ther? ar= several hundr.ed parkinq spar_es su*raundinq th? wa!'?house and h~ did nnt think that would be a concecn. THE PUdLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. C~mmissi~ner Mess~ ask~d who is rAsp~nsible for the landsr_apinq alonq the southern boundary on Cerr.itos. Mr. Fish r.esponded the church is jointly r.esponsible and Commissioner Messe asked them to ?xercise some joint responsibility and g?t it cl?aned up becaus? it really looks pcetty bad, not so much r.ight in front of the easterly section, but towards the wsst after the building, betw?en the nightclue and the building, Leona~d McGhe?, Associat? Planner, asked l'nat Conaition N~. 4 be modif.i~d to read that Condition No. 3, above-mentioned, shall b? compli?a iaith, cather than No. 4 as shown. ACTION: Commissioner La Claire of.f.ered a m~tion, s~cond~d by C~mmissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that the qnaheim City Planning C~mmission has review•~d rhF proposal to pertnit a bookstore in con~unci:ion with an existing chur.ch with waiver of minimum numoer of parking spac?s on an icr.egularly-shaped pa~cel of land consistinq of. approximatsly 12 acres, located nor.th and east of the nor.theast corner of Cerritos Avenue and Anaheim Boulevard, and further describ?d as 333 East Cerritos Avenue (Vineyard Chr.istian Fellowship); and do=s hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered lhe Negative D~clar.ation ~ogether with any comments ceceived ducing the public ceview proc~ss and f.urther. finding on the basis of. th? Initial Study and any commsnts received that thece is no substantial evicience that the pro~ect will have a significant effect on the enviconment. Cortunissioner. La Clair.e ofEered a motion, s?cond?d by Commissionec Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does her.eby grant waivec of Code requirement that the pzr.king waiver will not cause an increase in traff.ic congestion in the imm?diate vicinity noc advecsely affect any ad7oining land uses ana granting of the parking waiver under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and gene[al welfar.e of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Commissionet La Claire offered Resolution N~. PCt36-224 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does h>reby grant Conditional Use Per.mit No. 2835, pucsuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.U3.U3U.03U thcough 1Fi.03.030.035 and sub~ect to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations, with Condition N~~. 4 being modified. On roll call, the foregoing r.esolution was passed by the following vote; AYES: BOUAS~ FRY~ HERBST~ LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI~ MC f3URNEY~ ME5SE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CUFiMISSION~ August lb~ 19~6 86-599 Malcolm Slaughter, D?puty .~ty A~:torney, pCesented the writ•ten r.ight to appeal the Planning Comnission'~ aecisinn within 22 days to thA City C~uncil. ITEM N7. 14 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARA'PION, WAIVER OF COUE REQUIRE[4ENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2tl37 POBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: kUBERT F. ANU llAPHNE I. WEI5S, 1608 Buena Vista Avenue, Anaheim, CA 9'1802. Proper.ty des^.~ibed as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of apptoximately bUUO squar.e feet• located at the southeast corner. of Sumac Lane and Euclid Stce?t, having approximate frontages of 60 feet on the south side of Sumac Lane and 10U feet on the ?ast side of Euclid Str.eet and further. desetie~a as 1720 South Euclid Street. T~ p~rmit a dental office and laboratory in a conv>cted resiaential structuce with waivers of minimum number of packing spaces, C?~U1C?d loeation of parking spaces and r.eyuiceo .landsca~ing, Th?ce w?re two pe[sons indicating their. presence in opposition to subject r?quest and although the staff report was not r.ead, it is r.eferred to and made a part of the minutes. Rob?r.t W. Weiss, ag?ni:, stat?d f.our yea*s ago h? purchased lhis tesid?nce which hatl th[ee fam':lies living in it and converted il• to a knit shop, but that did not wock out financially so they are in l•he process o£ selling the property and a dentist wants to ~urchase it. Mr. Weiss stated th?y had a par.king stuciy perform?d and thete ace five spaces and there is coom between the wall and the house for two cars to park, and the dentist and one employee could patk thece. COMMISSIONER FRY LEFT THE MEETING AT 6:U5 P.M. AND DID NUT RETURN. genley Hunt stated he is located on the northwest cocnet of Euclitl and Sumac and their interest in this reyuest relakes to the reyuested waiver of parking spaces because of the street sweeping program which oegan in 1979 and is on Thucsday afternoons between 12 and 4 p.m. in this ar.ea and that has restr.icted theic street parking accommodations f.oc patients and staff and they hav= been unable to obtain a waiver fr.om that parking restriction; that they have been given ve[bal pertnission for thei[ staff to par.k in the Green Mansion medicat co~rplex, adjacent propecty to the north, and they feel if this conditional use permit is gcanted, they would lik? to obtain a waivec fcom the parking [estr.iction on Thursday aftecnoon in the event they are unable to pack at the Green Mansion facility. H? stated when they considered purchasing Dc. Roth's dental practice, they could see the par.king availability was limited and was told by th? Planning and Zoning sta£f thaL• they did not anticipate any changes to Euclid Stteet in the foreseeable future, but last March there was a proposal initiated, Genecal Plan Amendment No. 21U, which would tak? some vf theic pcopeety and four packi.^.g spaces fcom the street, and that pcoposal has been dtopped. He stated of great conce[n to their husiness is the stceet sweeping and/or widening of Euclid 5tceet in the fut;:re, Monica Pietson, 1715 W. Sumac Stteet, stated their parking situation is ceally S/1$/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. August 18, 1986 86-600 bad and they do not have enough pa[king and have the overflow parking from all the medical centers and did not think they aeed anothec medical center in th? a[ea. She stat?d she is not the only one who feels this way, but the othe[s would not come to the meeting. Mr. Weiss stated in running the knit shop, his wife hatl thcee to fouc stua?nts at a tim~ and there was never a par.king p[oblem and n?vec had a complaint fcom the neighbors and they were not bothered by the Thursday aftecnoon restr.iction because thece was sufficient parking on their p~opetty. He addeo he was sure they have not created a par.king ptoblem and if the~e was a problem, it was fcom other people parking on their lot. He stat?d the d?ntal office directly across the SrCP?~ only has five spaces. He r.espond?d to Commissionec lierbst that th? dentist proposing to have one nur.se and ~ne doctor. at this facility; and explainAd he ~pecializes in dentur.?s and does his own laboratory wor.K. H? srated the parking consultant sp?nt two days at his present plac? of eusiness observing the patients, etc. and deter.mined that five spaces will ne ample. Commissioner Her.bst point?d out lhe application shows three operating toems, a pr.ivatA waitinq r.oom, reception room and a business offic? ana it looks like he could have three oc f.our. employees. Mr. Weiss stated thece is one privale [oom where a patient can reCOVer. CUM[4ISSIONSR LA CLAIRE LEFT THE MEETING AT 6:15 p.m. ANll DID NOT RETURN. ~ommission?t Hecbst stated he would like to hea[ from th? dentist himself as to the numb?[ of employees, etc, and that a condition would have to be included r.estr.icting the number of employees because if this is appr.ov?d for a dental offic? and this dentist moved, another one could tak? over and Lh?re ar.e thr.ee oper.ating cooms, a recepLionist area, a wa?ting room, ana a business off.ice, and there could ee lU employees there very easily. Mr. Weiss stated the peCmit for lhe knit shop r.estricted the use to a knit shop and suggest•ed this ne appr.oved subject to a limit of h=s employees. Commissionec Her.bst stated he would n<>t ob~ect to the dentist offica, but seeing how many employees could de on this site, he could want a covenant cecorded limitinq the number of employees. Leunar.d McGhee pointed out the applicant has indicated that Chece woultl be one docto~ and one nurse operating the business. ML. Weiss stated he would not object to that cestriction. Malcolm Sldugrit?C~ lleputy City Attorney, SuggeSted d Coldition that the owner./tenant pcovid? a covenant to be record?d against the p~oper.ty to notify potential purchase~s of that p~opecty of the cest~iction. Mr. Weiss ag[eed he would record a covenant against the pcoper.ty cestricting the operation to one dentist and one nurse. ACTION: Commissioner Hecst offe~ed a motion, seconded by Conunissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED (Commissionecs Fry and La Clai[e absent) that Anahei.m City Planning Commission has ceviewed the proposal to per.mit a deB~i~/~6fice and 86-501 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CUMMISSION, August 1~, 19~6 proposal to pecmit a dental off.ice and laboratory in a converted residential structure with waivecs of minimum number of parking spaces, requiced location of parking spaces, re~;uired landscaping and required trash enclosure on a ~ectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting oE approximately 6000 s~uare feet located at the southeast cornet of Sumac Lane and Euclid Street, and ~urther describ~d as 172U South Euclid Street; and does hereby approve the Negative Declatation upon finding that it has considered the Ne~ative Declaration tcg?thec with any comments ceceived during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the pro7ect will have a significant effect on the enviconment. Commissioner He~bst offered a motion, seconded by Commission=c Lawicki and MOTIUN CARRIED that tne Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant waivers (a) and (b) on the basis thak the parking waivers will not cause an increase in traEfic congestion in the immediate vicinity noT adversely affect any adjoining land uses and g:anting of the packing waivec under the conditions impos?d, if any, will not be detrimenta.l to th~ peace, health, safety and general welf.are of the citizens of the City uf Anaheim; a~d granting waivet {d) on the basis that thec= are special circumstances applicable to th~ pcoperty such as size, shape, topography, location and surcoundings which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicinity; and that stCict agplicdtion of the Zonir.g Code deprives the property of privileges enjoy~d by other properties in the identical zone and classif.ication in the vicir.ity; and denying waivec (c) on the basis that said variance was deleted on revised plans. Commissioner Hecbst offered Resolutio~ No. PC~6-225 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anatieim Cily Planning Commission does he[eby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2837, in part, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 1~.U3.030.03D through 1d.03.030.U35 and subject to the restriction that the opetation will be limited to one doctor and one nurse, and subject to jntecdepactmental Cor.unittee Recommenaations. pn roll call, the foregoing cesolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY~ HERBST, LA CLAIKE~ LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOE5: NUNE ABSENT: NONE Malcolm Slaugrtet, DPputy City Attorney, presented the written right Lo appeal the Planning Comtri:sion's decision within 22 days to the City Council. Commissioner Bouas stated the Planning Commission has no authority t•o waivet the stteet parking testriction on street sweeping days. ITEM NO. 15 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONllITIONAL USE PERMxT N~• 1'l62 (READV.} PUBLIC HEARING FOR EXTENSION OF TIME. OWNERS: EVA L• T~6U5EESTFOUrthLStceet, Chalet Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92~02. AGENT: JACK BAUMAN, Santa Ana, CA 927U1. Propetty descti~ed as an itregulatly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 9.34 acres, located south and west of the B/1S/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CUMMISSION, August 18, 1986 86-602 southwest corner of Ball koad and West Street, having approximate frontages of 410 feet on the south side of Ball Road and 40U feet on the west side of West ytreet and further desc[ib?d as 1221 S~uth West Street (Anaheim Kampgcound of pmecica). ReYuest to amend Condition No. 3 of xesolution No. PCBU-233 (to petmit the app[oval of [evis?d plans (R°v, i~o. 1) for a church in the ML(SC) Zone). Thete was no one indicating theic presence in opposition lo subject cequest and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a par.t of the minutes. Jack eowman, 1606 East Fourth Stte?t, Santa Ana, stated the only question KOA has pectains to the potential costs of street improvements and stre?t lighting and what the perfotmanc? bond might be. Jay Titus, Office Engineec, asked that Conaition No. 1 be modified to read: 'That th? owner/developec ~f sub7ect property shall as determined by the City Engineec either post a faithful performancs bond with the City Engineer to guar.antee the retnoval of existing str.eel improvements along West Street and ~econstruction at the ultimate location, or mak? a cash payment tio th? City of Anaheim for the cost of said removal and reconstruction as deter.min?d by the City Engineet, said stceet improvements shall include installation of street lights on West Stceet as reyuieed by the Pudlic Utilities Department.' Mr. Bowman asked if that modification limits the option in ter.ms of the perfor.mance bontl versus the cash payment. Jay Titus responded that it is the City Engineer's decision wh?thec to take a o~nd or cash depending on when the widening o£ West Street might be. Mt. Bowman stated one of their questions is how far in the futur? that wid?ning might be. Malcolm Slaughtet, Deputy City Attorney, stated accor.ding to the Code, if it is known when that widening will oe, the developer/ownec posts the bond, and if the City doesn't know when it will be, they make the cash payment. Jay Titus stated he doesn't know of anything plann?d in the current five-yeac plari for widening West Stceet, so is pcobably beyond five years and they will probably be ceyuired to tnake that cash payment. Mc, Bowman stat?d they would oppose the modification to th? condition leaving it up to the City Engineet to dete~mine whethec or not to post cash or a bond, pointing out the lease they ace n?gotiating f~r is only 10 years and it would not seem faic to have the applicant deposit cash with l•he City for a lease that is only lU yeacs when it appears the City has no specific plan that the improvements will occuc during that 10 year period. Chairman McBUrney stated the Commission can take an action ~ete and the applicant can wock out tFe details with the City Engineec. Malcolm Slaught?r stated in the normal circumstances, the City simply says, "Do it now", and the code says that when l-he City Engineet determines the improvements should not ne~essa~ily be done at this particulat time, then insteaa ~f having the obligation oi actually having to physically make the improvements, the ownet S/18/Sb MINUTF.S, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Auqust 18, 19H6 86-603 can post a bond, if it is known wh?n the improvem?nts ace r.o go in, t~ guarantee ihe owner will do them at that time, oc alternatively, if it is not known when they are to be put in, the developer simply pays the cash, in lieu of making the improvements and it is the obligation of th? developer/owner and it is just a question of how it is accomplished. Mr. Bowtnan stated KOA is L-he tenant of the prop?Cty and is the applicant her.e. Malcolm Slaughtec stated th? City does not cate and it is between the owner and tenant to d?termin? how th? condition is to be complied with. Mr. Bowman stat=d they would reyuest the right Lo post a bond rathec than depositing cash. Chairman McBurney stated lh? C~mmission can tak? an action on th? ceyu?st before them, but the condition has to be worked out separately with th? City Engine?r.. ACTION: Commission?[ Herbst offec?d a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki and MUTION CARRIED (Commissionecs Fry and La Claite abs?nt) that the pnaheim City Planning C~mmission has [eviewed Lhe proposal to yrant an ?xtension of time in complianc? with Condition No. 14 of Conoitional Us? permit N~. 1262 t~ p?tmit a 221-spar_e L•ravel trailer par.k on an icr.eqular.ly-shaped parcel of land consisL•ing of approximat?ly 9.34 acres, located south and w?st of the southwest corner of Ball Road and West Str.eet, having appcoximate £rontages of 41U feet on the south side of dall Roaa and 400 feet on the west sia? of W~st Street and furthec descrieed as 1221 South West Street (Anaheim Kampground of Ame~ica); ana aoes hereby approve the Negative Declacation upon finding lhat it has considerea the N°9ative Decla[ation tooethe[ with any ~~anarents r.eceiv?d during the public review pr.ocess and further finding on tt~e easis of l•he Znitial Study and any comments received that thece is no substantial evidence that the pr.oj?ct will hav? a signi£icant effect on the environment. Commissioner Hecost ofEered Resolution N^. PCd6-226 and movea for its passaqe and adoption that the Anah?im City Planr,ing Commission does hereby grant an Pxtension of time foc Conditional Use Pe~mit No. 1262, to ?XPl~P ~~ Ma[ch 5, 1997, on th? basis the existing use has had no atlverse impacts on the sur.~ounding area nor the peace, health, safety and general welface of the citizens of the City of Anaheim, and subject to Interd?par.tmental Committee ~ecommendations, with Condition No. 1 being modified as recommend?d by th? City Enginee[. On roll call, th? focegoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, 6EHBST, LAWICKI, MC BUkNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: FRY~ LA CLAIRE Malcolm Slaughte[, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written cight to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM NO. 16 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION IPREV. APPROVED) AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2155 (READV.) PUBLIC HEARING FUR REVISED PLANS. OWNERS: NAZIH NADER, ti331 E. Via Arboles, ~/ltl/86 MIN~TES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMM7SSION, August 18, 1986 86-604 pnaheim, CA 92807. AGENT: EUCLID STREET BAPTIST CHURCH, 1408 S. Euclid Street, Anaheim, CA 92~U2, ATTN: BRYAN L. CROW, PASTOR. Request to amend Condition No. 3 of Resolution No. PCSO-233 (to permit the appcoval of revised plans (Rev. No. 1) fot a chucch in the ML(SC) Zone). pnnika Santalaht~ stated the applicant was present earlier, but left because the Commissipn cannot act on this matte[ since last week City Council introduced an ordinance to permit church applications in the Canyon Industrial prea, but it was not actually adopted. She asked that this matter be continued for two weeks, until September 3, 19H6. AC'PION: Commissioner ,;Qrbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissionec Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissionets Fry and La Claite absent) that consideration of the afoCementioned-matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of September 3, 1986, at the reyuest of the staff. ITEM NU. 17 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIUNS: A. TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 10y74 - Reyuest from Ri~hard Bowman, VTN Consultants, Inc., for an extension of time in ordec ro comply with conditions for fina.l cecocdation of sub~ect tcact map, prope~ty located on the south side of Camino Grande, southeasterly o£ the centecline of peridot Place. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offe~ed a motion, seconded by Commissionec Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Fry and La Claire absent) that the Ana~eim City Planning Commissiqn does her.eby gcant an extension of time to Tentative Tract No. 10974 to expire on Auaust 22, 1987. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Hecbst offer~d a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CAItRIED (Commissioners Fry and La Claire absent) that the meeting oe adjourned. The meeting was aa~ourned at 6:30 o.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~~' c~~, ~ ~ 9~I - Edith L. Harris, Secretacy Anaheim City Planning Commission ELH:lm 0215m 8/18/86