Loading...
Minutes-PC 1986/09/15REGULAR MEETING OF THS ANAHEIM CI;CY ~L'1A~Li; NG COMMSSS?O:l '~cEGULAR MAE7ING 'ri.z regul.zr meeting c_` ti._ 7;naheim c.~'cY ?iannin? Commission was calieo tv orde.i by Cha.irman McBUtr.ey a*. 10:00 a.m., September 15, 1986; in the Council Chamber, a yuorum being presenc, and the Commi:;sion reuie~ed plans of the ~`ems on toc:ay's agenda. RECESS: 11:30 .a.m. RECONVENEll: 1:35 l~.m. PRESENT: Chaicman: McBurney Commissioner:~: Bouas, Fry, Herbst, La Claire, Lawicki, Messe ABSEr;y; Commissioner: nor!e R':SG PRESENT: No[man Ptiest Execu;:ive Directot Communi:y Development wnd Flanning Lisa Stipkovich Fssistant Exec~ ive Direct~[ i,nnika Santalah'ti ?ssxstant Directac for Zoninq Joel Fick Assistant Dicector for Pla~~ning Malcolm Slaughtes ?::puty City Attorney II ,Ias Titus City Office Engineer .a~l Sinaer Traffic Engineec Debbie Fank Assistant Traffic Engi~eer Lucy Ysager Associate Planner t~,acy McClo~skey Assuciate Planner Leonard McGhe° Associate Plannee Pamela S*.~t:~es Planning Commission 5eccPta*.y Pro Tempore APPROVAL OF FIINUTES; Commis~icner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Pouas and MOTION i)P.S3IED (Commissioner Lawicki absent.) that the minutes o~ the mectir,~3s of \ugust 18 and September 3, 1986, be approved zs submitte?. IT£M NO. 1 EIR NEGATIVE DEr.LARATSON.;READV.1 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2785 (READV.) ^ PU'~LIC HEARING. OWNEr~: SEY~tOUR AD~ER, i6609 Parkla~~ DCive, Lo5 Angeles, CA 90049. A~EtJT: LE:: C. HUNTER, 1807 N. Raym:.~nd Avenue, &^at,eim, CA 92801e Property described as a rectangulatly-shaped parcel of land consi.sting of apptoximately 3.2 acces, .1807 Notth Rs,ymc^d Av?nue. To permit ~~ales ocfice in conjun~.:.on with an existing wh~l~sale carpet b~~si:~ess. Continuec3 fr~m the meetings of July 7, August 4 and September 3, 19$6. There was no one indicating theit pcesence in oppo^ition to subject request and although the staff report was not. read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. 86-620 9/15/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANI~ING COMMISSION, SEPTEMBER 15, 1986 86-621 Frank Lowry, attorney cepresenting applicant, stated on September 9, i986, City Council adopted Ocdinance No. 4760 (effective 30 days after adoption) allowing retail and wholesale carpet and/or petroleum based floorir,g businesses in the ML 2one. He said he was available to answez any question.s. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ACTIOtd: Commissione: La Claire offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Lawicki absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commissicn has reviewed the proposal to permit a retail and wholesale carpet and petroleum based floor covering ~usiness on a rectangularly-snarad parcel nf land consisting of approximat.ely 3.2 acres, having a frontage of approximately 205 feet on the west side of Raymond Avenue, approximate~.y 610 feet north of the centerline of Grangethorpe Avenue and fuGther described as 1807 North Raymond Avenue; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments ceceived ducing the public review proce5~ and fucther finding on the baais of the Initial Study and any comments ceceived that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Ls Claire offered Resolution No. PC86-233 and moved foc its passage and adoption that tf,e Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2785, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sect~ions 18.03.030.030 through 1E.03.030.035 and subject to intecdepartmental Committee recommendations. On roll caI!, the foregoing resolut.ion was passed by the following vote: A.:'ES: zGiJAS~ FRY~ HF.RAST~ LA CLAIRE, MC BUHNEY, NIESSE ;VOES: i~ONE ABSB,7'f: LAWICK't P:alcolm S.laughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appea'1 the Planning Commissi:o.~'s decision within 22 dsys to the City Council_ ITEM :20. 2 EIR NEG?:TIVE DECLARATION (PREV. APPROVED)~ WAIVER OF COD£ REQ.DTREt1FN7' (pRFV. APPRQ~FD) AND CC:~~ITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2341 (REF~D~. LRTISED ) PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPROVAI: OF RF.VISED PLANS. REQUESTED BY: CITY OF ANAHEIM, 200 S. A:iaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805. AGENTS: WESTERN NATICNAL PROPERTIES, P. 0. Box 6348, Orange, CA 92667, ATTN: KELLY CAMPBELL. Ptopetty desccibed as an irregularly-shaped pa[cel of land consistin, of approximately 4.4 acres, 730-810 North Loara Street. To permit a 100 unit senior citizens' apartment complex with waiver of rtiaxim~m structural height (previously approved). Continued fr.om the meetings of August 4 and Septenber 3, 1986. 9/15/86 MI~UTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ SEPTEMBER 15~ 1986 86-622 These was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a pact of the minutes. Charles Rowan, with the architectural firm of Corbin, Yar.iafuji and Pactners, was available to answer any questions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSGD. Commissioner La Claire noted the revised plans resolved all of Commission's pc~:iious concerns. She felt it was a good pcoject and would be a benefit to our senior citizens. ACTION: Commi.ssionec La Claire ofLered Resolution No. PC86-234 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Per~it N~. 2341, purs~.~ant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 13.03.030.030 thcough 18.03.030.~35 and subject to Interdepartmental Committee cecommendations. On roll call, the focegoing resolution was gassed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE~ MC BURNEY, MESSE N9ES: NONE ABSENTC LAWZCKI Malcolrt~ Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Co~mission's decisi~n within 22 days to the City Council. COMMISSIONER LAWICKI ENTERED CHAMB~R AT i:40 p.m. ITEM NOS. 3 AND 4 WERE HEARD AFTER ITEM N0. 7 ITEM N0. 3 EIR NFGATIVE DECLARATION, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMEN_T N0. 220~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. 86-87-8~ VARIANCS N0. 3595 AND REQUESP FOR CITY COONCIL REVIEW OF 3c AND 3d PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: MR. AND t'.RS. RUEBEN DE LEON, 11095 Meads, Orange, CA 92667 AND MRS. MARGARET ENNIS, 29165 Furtune, E1 Toro, CA 92630. AGENTS: ^lERCO DEVELOPFIENT, I[~C., 14771 'G', Plaza Drive, Tustin, CA 92680. Subject propecties are rectangularly-shaoed paccels of land totaling appcoximately 1.1 acres, haviny a fcontage of apProximat•ely 241 feet on the east side of Coffman Street, approximately 260 feet north of the centerline of Centec Street and futthez desccibed as 118 thtough 186 North Coffman Stceet. GPA - To considec an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan redesignating subject study atea fcom low-medium density ~esidential designation to medium density residential designation for an area of apptoximatEly 6.3 actes north of Centet Stteet extending on both sides of Coffman and Cypress Streets. RS-7200 to RM-120U or a less intense zone 9/15/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLAtdNING COMMISSION, SEPTEMBER 15, 1986 86-623 Waivet of maximum structural height to construct a 3o-unit apartment complex. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff ceQart was not cead, it is zeferred to and made a pact of the minutes. Gceg Iiascings, Assoc?ate Plannec, called Commission's attention ostedeon maps of the existing General Plan foc the COffman Stceet area, p the bulletin board. He said the General Plan designation was low medium density ~esidential, nol• to exceed 15 dwelling units per acce. He stated applicant had submitted Exhibit "A" which shows 36 dwelling units per acre or medium density; and that Exhibit "B', that was prepared by staff, shows medium and low medium den~ity at 36 units and 18 units per acre. Richard Pierco, 14771 Plaza Drive, Tust:+., said they wish to construct a 36-unit apartment comp.lex. He felt that ~;~ost of the owners on Cuffman Street would like to have their ptopecty rezeseoftconstruction~thatesomee added Coffman Street has not enjoyed tk~e typ r,f the other areas have enjoyed. He stated Coffma.~ Street had stocage areas and vacant lots, some of which were being used as dumpsites. He said for these eeason~ '.hey felt this type of pcoposed construction would enhance the a:ea. He ..lid he wa~: availabin to answer any auestions. Rubin De Leon, ownec, stated he had 5 lots on Coffman Street which included the storage areas; and 4ie felt it was tim~ they clea~~ed up tfe neighborhood. He noted that tes:idents on Evelyn D[ive, did not need to be concerned about tcaffic from Coffman Street, because it was actually easiet to ent?r Center Street from Cof£man than f~om Evelyn Drive. He ad~ed he would like to sec 'no parking" permitted on Coffman Street. THE PUBLIC HEARItiG WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst said he ielr_ that 4offman Street would not be able to handle the increased tcaffic genecated by this pcoposed development. He said the surcounding property currently has a ~esolution of intent to RM-2400, and that owners could use t.hat zoning to develop their propecties. He noted Commission has held many public hearings on Coffman/Cypcess Streets, and the decision rPached is always the same, that the appropriate use should be RM-2409. AC^2ION: Commissionec Hert~t offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki and MOTION CARRIED tnat the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewe8 the p~oposals to considet an amendment to the Lar~d Use Element of th~ General Plan, tedesignatilg subject 6.3 ac~e study atea from low-medium density residential designation to medium density tesidential designation oc a combination of low-medium density and medium density; and to reclassify subject ptopetty fcom the RS-7200 (Residential, Single-Family) 2one to the RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zone to construct a 36-unit aga~tment complex with waiver of maximum stcuctural height on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land totaling approximately 1.1 acres, ha•:ing a ftontage of aQp~oximately 7,4~ ~eet on the east side of CofEman Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 189 feet and being 9/15/86 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIUN, SEPTEMBER 15, 1986 BE 624 located approximately 260 feet nocth of the c~nterline of Center Street and further described as 118 through 186 North ~offman Street; and does heceby disapprove the NegativP Declaratior, fcam the tequirement to prepare an environmental impact report on the basis that tl~ere would be significant individual or cumulative adverse enviconmental impacts involved in this proposal. Commissioner Herbst offezed Resolution No. PC66-235 an~ moved for xts passage and adoption that the Ar.aheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny Genecal Plan Amendment No. 220 on the basis that the proposed design~tion would not be compa~ible with the existing residential land uses currently existing in the area; and that the current street systen would not be able to handle increased traffic; and that the cucrent designation should not be changed. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOVAS~ FRY~ HERBST~ LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY~ MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. Pc~6-236 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny Reclassification No. 86-87-8 on the basis that the Anaheim General Plan designates subject propecty foz low-me~ium densi:y residential land uses, which does not permit Rtd-1200 residential densities and reclassification would have an adverse impact on surrounding residential uses and on the basis that Genecal Plan Amendment No. 220 was denied. On roll call, the fotegoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI~ MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC86-237 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does t~ereby deny Va~iance No. 3595 on the uasis that there are no special circumstances apYlicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and sutroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned propecty in the same vicinity; and that stcict application of the Zoning Code d~es not deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by othec ptoperties in th.e identical zone and classification in the vicinity. On toll call, the focegoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOL'AS~ FRY~ HE~BST~ LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI~ MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Malcolm Slaughtet, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. 9/15/86 ;. 86-625 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLAP1_ N_ ING ~OMMISSION SEPTEMBER 15~ 1986 ITEM NO. 4 WAS r~Er:RD AFTER ITEM NO. 7 ITEM NO. 4 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND RECLASSIEICATION N0. 86-87-5 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: LEROY B. SHULTZ, ET AL, 1431 Damun Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805. AGENTS: JEROME R. DRUKIN, 1280 E. Flower Street, Anaheim, CA 92805. P~~oximatelyC0121aaccesn havinglarfcontageaofa~cel of land consisting of aPP roximately 190 yppcoximately 85 feet on the west side of Walnut Street, aPP feet nocth of the centerline of Broadway and fucther described as 213 South Walnut Street. RM-2400 to RM-1200 or a less intense zone. There wece three people indicating theic pcesence in opposition to sub;ect request and two people :r.dicating thei~ desice to speak and although the staff report was not cead, it is cefecred to and made a patt of the minutes. Jerry Dtukin, agent, i280 E. Flower, Anaheim, was pcesent to answet any questions. Mr. Drukin stated he was req~~PSting a ceclassification from RM-2400 to RM-1200 in ordee to co~~stcuct a two-stocy~ 7•-unit apactment complex. He said the Genecal Plan designated the acea for medium density. He noted surtounding land uses injaidethecelweoetsevetal singleafanilysdwellings to Stceet to the eask. He the south. He stated the ptoposed development was compaWabvecs,tand had sut~ounding area. He said *_hey wece not ~equesting any provided more packing than othec developments on ~9alnut Street. He noted he had made every attempt to meet site development standatds, and felt he had designed an attcactive p~oject. p~:.gusrine Pinedo, 217 S. Walnut, Anaheim, stated he was speL~yn9 MLr himself and two othec nei9hosed to~thiseproject becausetaPpacking problem Pinedo stated they were opp already exists on Wz~lnut St~eet. He stated it was difficult for frien s and celatives to find a place to park wh~n visiting on weekends. He said they have a quiet neighbo[hood and woulo like to keep it that way. Leona Mossey, 110 S. Walnut, stated the apartment complex across the street ftom hec pcoperty was an "eyesore' and she felt putting in anothec apattment would be a mistake. Mr. Drukin noted the pcoposed pcoject had adequate packing and would not add to the packing problems of the sucrounding community. THS PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. 9/15/86 MSNUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ SEPT~MBER 15, 1986 86-626 Chairman McBUrney asked if the General Plan for this area was medium density. Leonard McGhee, Associate Planner, responded that was correct. Chaitman t9cBurney said he felt this was a well designed project and noted that Code requirements had been met. Commissionec Bouas asked how many units the applicant would be permitted if the zoning stayed at RM-2400. Leonard Mc~hee ceplied probably 3 oc 4 units. Commissioner La ~laire noted the project would fit into the neighborhood vety well, since the majority of the surrounding area was zoned RM-1200. Commissioner Messe asked Paul Sin9ec if he had a tcaffic count for Walnut Stceet encompassing the area from eroadway to Lincoln. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, replied he did not. Paul Singet stated the driveway should be peroendiculac to Walnut Street, rathe: than at an angle. Mr. Drukin agreed to redesign access to the project, reflecting this change. ACTIOt~: Commissioner La Claire offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the praposal to reclassify subject pcoperty from RM-2400 (Residential, I~ultiple-Family) Zone to the RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zone to construct a 7-unit apartment complex on an irtegularly-shaped paccel of land consisting of approximately 0.21 acres, having a frontage of appcoaimately 85 feet on the west side of walnut Stceet, and being located appeoximately 190 Eeet north of the centerline of Btoadway and furthec described as 213 South Walnut Street; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Neyative Declawation together with any comments r2ceived during the public review pcocess and fu~ther finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments ceceived that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner La Claire offered Resolution No. PC86-238 and moved for ita passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does heceby grant Reclassification No. 86-87-5 subject to interdepartmental Committee tecommendations, and with the petitioner's stipulation that the driveway access will be petpendicular to walnut Street. On coll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS~ FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LA:9ICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE 9/15/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SEPTEMBER 15 1986 86-627 Dialcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, ptesented the written cight to appeal the Planning Commissior.'s decision within 22 days to the City Council. Ti.IE FOLLOWING ACTION WAS TAKEN AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING. ITEM N0. 5 EIR NEGATIVE DBCLARATION, RECLASSIFICATION N0. 86-87-6, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERF;Z'r N0. 2839 PUSLIC HEARING. OWNERS: CARL N. AN~D MARGARET M. KARCHER TRUST~ 120C N. Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805, ATTN: HORST SCHOR. Pcoperty, described as an irregularly-shaped paccel of land consisting of apptoximately 1.2 acres located at the noctheast corner of Romneya ll~ive and Harbor Boulevard, t~aving appcoximate frontages of 230 feet on the north side of Romneya Drive and 210 feet on the east side of Harboc Boulevard, and further described as 1200 North Harbot Boulevard (Carl's J[.). CG 6 ML to CL or a less intense zone To permit a drive-thcough cestaurant with waivers of maximum number of f~eestanding signs, maximum height of freestanding signs, minimum number s type of parking spaces s minimum length of dcive-through lane. Commissioner McBUrney declared a conflict of intecest as defined by Anaheim City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC76-].57 adopting a Conflict of Interest Code for the Planning Ccmmission and Governmu~Juante Section 3625, et seq., in that he is employed by Cacl's Jr. and p to the ptovisions of the above Codes, declared to the Chairman that he was withd[awing from the hearing in connection with Reclassification Na. g6-87-6 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2839, and would not take part in either the di.scussion or the voting theceon and had not discussed this mattec with any membec of the Planning Cemmission. Theeeupon Commissioner McBUCney left the Council Chamber. It was noted the petitioner has requested a continuation. ACTION: Cortimissione[ Bouas off2[ed a motion, seconded by Co~nissionet Herbst and MOTION CARRIED (Chairman McBU~ney abstaining) that consideration of che aforementioned mattec be continued to the tegularly-scheduled meeting of September 24, 1986, at the request of the petitioner. ITEM NOS. 6 AND 7 WERE HEARD AT THE BEGINNING OF THF. MEETING. ITE__ M____N~• 6 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATIQN RECLASSIFICATION N0. 86-87-7 AND VARIANCE NU. 3594 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: JANET K. GANONG~ ET AL~ P. 0. Box 2347~ Sake[sfield, CA 93308. AGENTS: VAIL SPECK ASSOCIAPES, INC., 3140 Red Hill Avenue, Suite 270, Costa Mesa, CA 92626, ATTN: STEVE SPECK. P~opecty is an ircegulatly-shaped paccel of land ~onsisting of approximately 7,.29 ac~es located ac cne southwest cocnet of Sho~t Street and Kellogg Drive, having appcoximate frontages of 233 feet on the south side of Short Street and 210 feet on the west side of Kellogg Drive. 9/15/86 MI[JL~TESr ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SEPTEMBER 15, 1986 86-628 RS-A-43,000 to to RM-2400 oz a less intense 2one. Waivers of maximum percent of small car parkxng spaces, minimum building site area pec dwelling unit, maximum structural height, minimum structural setback and minimum a:ea and dimensions of pcivate patios to construct a 2-stoty, 36-unit apattment complex. It was noted this request will be heard ficst on October 13th, since the~e were several people attending this meeting who were opposed to the request. ACTZON: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissionec 8erbst and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the afo[ementioned matter be continued to the reguiarly-scheduled meeting of October 13, 1986, at the request of ths petitioner. ITEM N~. 7 EIR NEGATIVG DECLARATtON AND VARIANCE NO. 3596 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: R. DURBIN, ET AL, A. BELLARD, ET AL, A[7D M. BEACH, ET AL, 2240 W. Lincoln, Anaheim, CA 92801. AGENT: HUGO VAZQUEZ, 2240 W. Lincoln, Anaheim, CA 92801. Property described as a rectanyularly-shaped paccels of land totaling approximately 0.40 acres, having a frontage of approximately 153 feet on the east side of Lemon Street, approximately 260 feet nocth of the centecline of l~orth Street and fucthe[ desctibed as 818, 822. and 828 North Lemon. Waivec of minimem site acea per dwelling unit to constr~ct a 17-unit affordabie apactment complex. Thete were approximately eleven people indicating their presence in opposition to subject cequest and three people indicating their desire to speak and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Hugo Vazquez, agent, called Commission's attention to the colored rende[ing of the 17-unit apactment complex on the bulletin boacd. Commissioner Lawicki asked if the proposed request included the three addtesses on Lemon Stceet and Mc. Vazquez ceplied it did. Applicant said there were two bachelor units; thirteen, 2-bedroom/2-bath units; and two, 3-bedroom/2-bath units. He stated there was a tcemendous need in this location for new apartment housing. He noted the west side of Lemon is zoned RM-2400, and the east side (whece his project is located) is zoned RM-1200. He said they offered affordable housing in the complex, and he had executed an a9reement which is ready to be taken over to the Housing Authotity. He said there wece two alte~natives; eithet to have 108 affotdable at a much lower tent, or 258 acfocdable at a little higher cent. He noted they were dropping their garage area down 5 feet below natural gzade to reduce the size of the building. He said the project would be called 'The Orchar~s". He said he was available to answer any questions. 9/15/86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SEPTEMBER 15~ 1986 86-629 Bill Erickson, 301 E. North Street, Anaheim, noted that in many instances, gacages were not beina used for parking, but were basically being used for storage. He said this necessitated street and lawn parking. He added thece were plenty of units in tne area; noting there were 169 units going in ~~ext t~ the central library, and 32 units under completion at East an~ Lincoln. He felt multiple-family development should not intrude on nei;ht~rhoods that have expecienced yQars of single-family living. He stated he placed his confidence in the P~anning Commission to prevent this intrusion. Dr. William Koon, 821 N. Lemon Street, showed slides depicting sin9le-family dwellings and apartment buildinys curcently in the neighborhood. Dr. Ko~~n quoted those portions of the Zoning Cade ne felt the ptoposed apartmer~t complex would be violating. He added time was not of the essence in this issue, noting Mr. Vazquez had delayed the opening of the project because he had acquired additional pcoperty. He said th~~y were asking Commission to deny this request because there Nas no need foc additional affordable housing in this neighbochood. He stated they already have apartments with affordable rent in the neighbo~hood, that have been vacant foc some time. He said the pcoposed apartment complex would totally change the character of the neighborhood, decrease the property values, and deccease the quality oi their lives as well as the lives of those who might move into the ca~plex. He added the proposed complex was 4008 latger and 5-feet highet than any other structu[e in the neighbo[hood. He also expressed concern about the increase in parki.ng, traffic, and crime tnis project would b~ing. Dr. Koon presented a petition containing 150 names of neighbors who were opposed to the project. He said Anaheim had a higher vacancy rate than surrounding cities, according to the Federal Home Loan Bank. He said he felt the Plannin9 Commission st~ould deny this ptoject. Keith Pepper, 817 N. Lemon, stated he would like to address the EIR, noting he felt 36 cars in an enclosed parking structure would cause an increase in noise, and in addition, the odor of exhaust fumes would have an advetse effect on the health of tesid?nts and plants in the environment. He added he felt the project would definitely consume si9nificant amounts of energy, since there is no conservation plans included in this ptoject. He said the congestion caused by the additional 36 cars would be a traffic hazard, and circulation on Lemon Street is already a problem. He noted the historical significance of several homes in the neighbochood. He said since there was substantial drilling fot oil and gas back in the 1920's and 1950's, they should do a geological sucvey in the immediate area. He added an environrtiental impact teport ~hould be done for the project. 19•:. Pepper stated he spoke to two developers who estimated that 9 units, given the same specifications as this project, could earn the developet a 258 profit, which is standacd for the industry. He also noted the artist's rendecing of the project appeaced different from the plans. He stated the plans did not shoN guest par~iny, or the appropriate landscaped aLeas. 9/15/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SEPTEMBER 15, 1986 86-630 Mr. Peppet said he went door-to-door contacting tesidents, sol~.citing their views on the neighborhood, and suggesting they get together and apply foc a General Plan Amendment and reclassification of the neighborhood to RM-2400, a less intense zone. He said the neighbors were in agceement, and ducing the last week, he had acquired 24 notarized signatutes of property owners designating him to act as sgent, and to submit a petition for a Genecal Plan Amendment and reclassification of this acea. He stated this action would in no Why jeopacdize projects that had been pteviously a.pproved. He felt any projects coming into an estab].ished area should harmonize with that neighbozhood. He said they ace urging the Commission to deny this pcoject, He also requested Commission to postpone any action or decisions regarding constzuction in the entire 600 to 900 b~ock of North Lemon for 60 days, to allow the reside~ts to file a£ozmal petition for a General Plan Amendment and reclassificati~n. He staced they were asking foc this length ~f time because 30 to 40$ oi the owners do not actually live thete, and it will take some time to contact them. Mr. Vazquez asked Jerry Drukin to speak cegarding the design of the project. Jercy Drukin, 1280 E. Flower, Anaheim, noted he had prepared the plans foc the ptoject. He said he tried to conform ta all the site development standards pertaining to the RM-12U0 Zone. He stated that in designina the buildings, he tried to take into account the location of the buildings on the property, keeping as much space between the buildings as possible, and maintaining as much ptivacy as possible foc the sutrounding neighbars. He noted the building would appear as it does on the rendering with some added enhancemenks. He said they we~e dedicating an additional 2-1/2 feet to widen the alley which would help vehicula~ traffic flow. He also noted that 36 cars would not be startin9 up simultaneously in the parking structure. He said an EIR aas done by staff, and he felt it was satisfactory. He noted that Anaheim staff was one of the fir.ero ecthadHe worked with. H~ stated they had Soils Reports done on every p 7 added guest parking had been allotted and he would note that on plans in tht F!iture. He said he would be happy to addcess any questions. T~E PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Considecable discussion ensued with Commissioners exptessing theic concern about uvetbuilding of the pcoperty, the packing situation, the tecreational atea, and the impact on the nei9hborhood. Commissionets were also concecned about the fact the General Plan fc~r this atea dated back t~ the 1950's and sccongly felt a new studi of the area should be dor,e. They ncted they would like to hold a heari.ng to rec:eive input fcom citizens in the neighbochood. Commission directed staff to do a study to see if the General Plan ::hould be amended fot this area to a less intense zone. Petitionet asked for a 60-day continuance. 9/15/8~6 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMP7ISSION, SEPTEMBER 15~ 1986 86-631 ACTION: Commissionec La Claice offe~ed a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fry and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the afo~ementioned mattec be ~~ ~:~Sln~ t~ the tegulatly-scheduled meeting of Novembec 24, 1986, at the request of the petitione~. RECESSED: 2:55 p.m. RECONVENED: 3:05 p.m. ITEM N0. 8 EIR NLGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3597 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: HUGO A. VAZQUEZ A1~D TAK WATANABE, 2240 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801. P~opecty is desccibed as a tectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of aaproximately 6,695 squace feet, havin9 a frontage of appcoximately 50 feet on the east side of Olive Stteet, appcoximately 350 feet north of the centerliiie of Broadway and furthet described as 202 South Olive Street. Waivecs of maximum structuzal hei9ht, maximum site covecage, minimun recceatior.al-leisuce areas, minimum area of private recreational-leisure aceas and minimum width of pedestrian accessways to construct a 3-story, 5-unit apartment building. There were two people indicating their pcesence in opposikion to subject ceqnest and although the staff report was not cead, it is refecced to and made a pact of the minutes. Hugo Vazguez, applicant, said he is trying to make the best use of the property, and noted it is difficult because the Width of the lot is only 50 feet. He stated the tenants in his projects on Melrose and Olive Streets have been very pleased, except for the vacant land surrounding these projects. He said he has been unable to find out how the vacant pcoperties are going ~o be developed. Mt. Vazquez stated a property ownez in the atea had contacted him cequesting he add Victocian t9uches to his p~opo~ed ptoject and he had agceed. He noted these wauld be added at a later date. Jacquelyn Frahm, 119 S. Olive Street, stated this project is in a historical distcict. She stated it was known as Atea 4; and tuns fcom Lincoln to Bcoadway, and Philadelphia to the caileoad tracks. She added it was one uf the fitst neig".borhoods in ~naneim to be placed i.n the National Register. She said the neighbochood had a set of active guidelines, which were adopted two years ago, stipulating conformity of design relating to historic homes. She stated the proposed plans did not blend with the nei.ghborhood. She noted the Project Acea Committee had turned down this pcoject because it was too intense for the paccel. She stated the RedevelopTent Agency had also rejected the pcoject because it did not comply with theiz design plans for the area. She said they wete working to retucn the neighbochood to a cha~ming, beautiful place of value. Donna Berty, 511 E. B~oadway, Anaheim, said she had pessona:.tp canvassed the neighbothood, and ehtainEd signatuces of propecty owners in 1985, for the putpose of adopti~9 the historic design guidelines. She said the list also ~f15/86 MINUTES ANAHEIN CITY PLANNI?~G COMMI'~SInN~ SEPTEMBER 15~ 1986 _86-633 included Mr. Vazquez's signature, stipulating he was interested in upholding these standards. She added the document discou:age•d the different variances that Mr. Vazquez is requesting. She said she would like a continuance of this mattec in order to notify ~+enbers of hec neighborhood, so they would be able t~ exNress their opi~ions at a f~tuce hearing. Mr. Vazquez stated he was aware of tlie concerns. He nated he had uisitea Ms. Frahm's lovely home and they had shared ideas about the neighborhood. He sai~ thece was a great demand in this area foc multiule-family units. He said he was willing to look ac desi9n features that would lend itself to the neighbothood. Mr. Vazquez said they had deleted the two waivzrs pertaining to the recreation area. Leonard McGhee said staff waa given revised plans on Friday, indicating changes in the square footaye of kh~^ "loor ,plans. He said the plans .~ow reflect 218 square feet per unit in :ecceational-leisure areas, and noted there was not enough time to include this int~rmation in the staEf teport. In response to yuestions from the Commissioners, ~isa Stipkovicii said the pr~~osed pcoject is located in the Neighbochood P~esetvation area. She noted anything pcoQosed for that area is to be review~d by the Neighborhood Advisary Committee. She said their innut would be given to the Project .'.~ea Committee, the Redevelopment Commission and the Redevelopment Agency, a~ well as the Planning Commission. She said that t9r. Vazquez's pcoject did not gn thco~gh this process. Mc. Vazquez staced he ~ould like to know when the vacant properties on Olive and Philadelphia Streets were going to re developed. Liza Stipokovich said there is no specific develo~ment plans for the area at this time, other than to develop housing that will blend into the neighborhood. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Lawicki said Commission did not have a pcoblem in gcanting affordable housing, but did have a problem with overbuilding uf property. Commissionec Messe suggested Mr. Vazquez might want to meet with Lisa Stipkovich in otder to discuss the Redevelopmelt p~ocess. Mr. Vazquez request~d a 30-day continuance in ocder to submit revised plans. AC'fION: Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissionec La Claire and MOTION CARRIED that considetation of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regulacly-scheduled meeting of October 13, 1986, at the cequest oE the petitioner. Malcolm Slaughter said the Redevelopment plan was readily available to the public and noted it was the develo~et's obligation to meet the cequired criteria. Commissioner La Claire left lhe Chamber at 4:05 ~.m. 9/15/86 MINUTES Af7AHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION SEPm~MBER 15 1986 86-b33 ITEM N0. 9 EIR NEGATZVE llGLLA CONDITIONAL USE P6RMIT N0. 284 AND PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: KEE WHAN AND KYUNG HEE t.A, 173R ti. Whitley Avenue, Hollywood, CA 90028. AGENT: MICHAEL J. MULQUEEN, 7484 McKinley Ciccle, Buena Park, CA 90620. Ptope~ty desccibed as a rectangula~ly-shaped paccel of land consisting of approximately 0.80 acre located at the northwest corner of Orangetho~pe Avenue and Orangethocpe Patk, having app~oximate frontages of 162 feet on the north side cf Orangethorpe Avenue, and 215 feet on t.he west side of Oranaethorpe Pack and fucther desc~ibed as 831-83~ East Orangethorpe Avenue. To pecmit an automo'ive repair school with waive[ of minimum numbec of cequired parking spaces. There was no one indicating their pcesence in opposition to subject cequest and although the staff report kas not read, it is refcrred to and madQ a part of the minutes. Michael Mulqueen, 7495 McKinley Ciccle, Auena Park, agent, stated they wanted to open a computer auto-tca:ning center. THE PUBLIC FIEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissionec Hetbst said he was concerned about the packing, noting thece were 65 spaces cequired, and only 28 spaces pcoposed. He asked applicant if he would be willing to open the fence area in the back, and pave and testrip the area which would add an additional 17 parking spaces, bringing the total to 45 parking spaces. Applicant said 'yes',. Commissionec Messe stated the front atea of the ptoperty was in bad condition. Applicant stated he would cepair the fence and put in the p~opec landscaping. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst otfeced a motion, seconded by Commissione[ Messe and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner La Claice absent) that rhe Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit an automotive repai[ school with waiver of minimum number of requiced packing spaces on a rectangu.larly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.80 acte located at the northwest cornec of Orangethorpe Avenue and Orangettiorpe Park, having approximate frontages of 162 feet on the no:th side of Orangethorpe Avenue, and 215 feet on the west side of Orangethorpe Park and f~*th?r desccibed as 831-837 East Orangethorpe Avenue; and does heceby approve the taegative Declaration upon finding that it has conside~ed the Negative Declacation togethec with any comments teceived during the public review pcocess and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments teceived that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Co~nissione~ Herbst offeced a motion, seconded by Ccmmissionet Messe and MOTION CARRIED (Commissionec La Claice absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Co~nission does heceby grant waiNer of Code requirement on the 9/15/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY Pf,ANNING COMMISSION, SEPTEMBER 15, 1986 86-634 basis that the parking waiver will not cause an inccease in traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity nor advecsely affect any adjoining land uses and g~anting of the packing waiver under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welface of the citizens oE the City of Anaheim. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC86-239 and moved foc its passage and adoption tha': the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2840 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations, and with the added conditions that the :ront fence shall be repaired and proper landscaping provided; and that the back fence shall be opened and said acea paved and [estriped to provide an additional 17 spaces foz a tot~l of 45 parking spaces. On roll ca21, the £oregoing resolutio~ was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY, NERHST, LAWICKI, NC BURNEY~ MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: LA CLAIRE Malcolm 5lauyhter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0. 10 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER C'r CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2841 PUBLIC I3EARING. OWNERS: A 6 F NANAGEMENT AND D^c4ELOPMENT CO.~ ET AL, 6920 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 110, Los Angeles, CA 90028. AGENTS: FARANO AND KIEVIET, 100 S. Anaheim, Suite 340, Anaheim, CA 92805, ATTN: FRANK LOWRY. Property desc~ibed as a cectangularly-shaped parcel of land co~.sisting of approximately 0.85 acres located at th=: southeast corner of Katella Avenue and State College Boulevard, having a frontage of approximately 257 ~eet on the south side of Katella Avenue and a frontaye of 130 feet on the east side of State College 6oulevard, and further described as 1810 South State College and 2020 East Katella Avenue. T~ Fermit a dcive-through fast :ood restaurant with waivers of minimum dimensions of vehicle accessways, maximum number of small car spaces, minimum number of parking apaces and minimum structural set~ack and yard requirements. THE FOLL0~9ING ACTION WAS TAKEN AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING. ACTION: Commissioner Messe offeced a motion, seco~:ded by Commissi.oner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED that the aforementioned matter be cuatinued to the cegularly-scheduled meeting of September 29, 1986, at th~ request of the petitioner. ~Commissioner La Claire retucned to the Council Chamber. 9/15/86 MItiUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 15, 1986 86-635 ITEM N0. 11 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATTON AND CONDITIONAL 'JSE PERMIT NO. 28?2 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: ORANGETHORPE PROMENADE, P. 0. BoX 15005, Santa Ana, CA 92705. AGENTS: INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, 1495 E. Wa[nec Avenue, Santa Ana, CA 92714. Propetty described as an i~tegularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of apptoximately 4.1 acres located at the southwest cocne~ of Orangethotpe Avenue and Placentia Avenue, having approximate frontages of 610 feet on the south side of Orangethocpe Avenue and 325 feet an the west side of Placentia Avenue and fucther desctibed as 2378 East Orangethotpe Avenue. To petmit a sandwich shop with off-sale beer and wine. Thete was no one indicating their peesence in opposition to subject request and althouyh the staff repoet was not read, it is referzed to and made a part of the minutes. Mt. Lee, 145 Sunflower Street, Brea, stated he would like to open a sandwich shop with off-sale beer, wine and soft dcinks in an existing industrial complex. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chaicman McBUtney sai.d the plans did not show any tables, and asked if thece taould be a place provided fot eating inside. Applicant responded they would be providing take-out secvice only. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that this eequest presented ptoblems similar to off-sale beec and wine in coRjunction with self-service gasoline stations. Applicant said he did not believe he would be able to make any money if F.e did not sell beec and wine along with his sandwiches. Commifisionets stated that they could not vote to pecmit ofE-sale beer and wine in an industrial area, noting that said consumption could cceate a dan9er to indust~ial employees ope~ating heavy equipment or machinecy. Commissionec Herbst stated he would be willinq to vote fot the sandwich shop without the sale of beer and wine, and the other Commissioners agreed. ACTION: Commissioner H?rbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and IdOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim ~ity Planning Commission has teviewed the ptoposal to permit a sandwich with off-sale beer and wine in the ML (Industrial, Limited) Zone on an irreyularly-shaped paccel of land consisting of apptoximately 4.1 acres located at the southwest cocnet of Orangethotpe Avenue and Placentia Avenue, having approximate frontages of 610 feet on the south side of Oran9ethorpe Avenue and 32S feet on the west side of Placentia Avenue and furthet described as 2378 East Orangethocpe Avenue; and does hereby appcove the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has consideted the Negative Declaration together with any comments ceceived during the public review ptocess and fucthet finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. 9/15/86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLA[~NING COMMISSION SEPTEt4BER 15~ 1986 86-636 Commissionec Hecbst offeced Resolution No. PC86-240 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2842, in part, petmitting the sandwich shop; and denying the request foc off-sale beec and wine, on the bLOi~iate that the sale of beer and wine in an industcial area is not an app p use and said use could create a dangee to industcial employees opetating heavy equipment ot machinery, and also cteate a dan9er to other employees in the sa~e vicinity, pucsuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 and subject to Interdepattmental Committee recommendations. On toll call, the foregoing cesolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST~ LA CLAIRE~ LAWZCKI~ MC BURNEY~ MESSE NOES: NOtJE ABSENT: NONE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, pcesented the writtan cight to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0. 12 EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 15 AND VARIANCE NO. 3593 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: JOSEPH M. AND AURORA KERLEY, ET AL~ 5141 Ccescent Dcive, Anaheim, CA 92806. AGENTS: RAAB ENGINEERING, INC., 17000 E. Lincoln Avenue, Suite 201, Anaheim, CA 92805, ATTt3: MIKE L. RAAB• Propecty described as an ircegularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 2.44 acres, havin9 a ftontage of approximately 450 feet on the north side of Crescent Drive, apptoximately 560 feet west of the centerline of Royal Oak Dtive and furt,hec described as 5141 Crescent Drive. Waiver of minimum tequired setback to establish a two lot, RS-HS-43,000(SC) 2one single-family residential subdivision and retain a stotage shed. There w~s no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the starf repo~t was not read, it is refected to and made a part of the minutes. Mike Raab, 1700 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, agent, stated he was available to answer any questions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner La Claire asked if the lot line was designed because of the topogtaphy. Mr. Raab responded it was actually designed around the shed. He noted there was a block wall between the shed and the piivate drive. He stated the same people own both lots, as well as the lot across the street. Commissioner La Claite asked if that was j~st a storage shed or also used as a stable, arsd applicant indicated it was just a stocage shed. Commissionec Messe said it looks like a stable~ and the applicant ceplied it was a stable at one time, but will no longei be used for that putpose. 9/15/86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 15 1986 86-637 Commissioner La Claire noted that most oi the homes in Peralta Hills adhere to the 15-foot setback. She said, however, this case is an esception because of the topography of the lok, and the i~ct both lots are owned by the same people. It was noted the Plannir3 Director or his authorized cepcesentative has determined that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 15, as defined in the State Environmental Impact Report Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the cequi[emer.t to prepare an EIR. ACTION: Commissioner La Clai[e offered Resolution No. PC86-241 and moved foc its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Variance No. 3593 on the basis cnal there ace special circumstances applicable to the propecty such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings which do not apply to othe~ identically zoned pcoperty in the same vicinity; and that strict application of the Toning Code deptives the pcopetty of pcivileges enjoyed by othec properties in the i.dentical zone and classification in the vicinity and subject to Inte~departmental Committee recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing cesolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY~ HERBST~ LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI, MC BURNEY~ MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Malcolm Slaughtec, Deputy City Attorney, pcesented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City ~ouncil. THE FOLL047ING ACTION WAS TAKEN AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING. ITEM NO. 13 EZR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3591 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: JESUS GAitCIA, 326 S. Phi?adelphia Street, Anaheim, CA 92802. Pcoperty Zescribed as rectangulacly-shaped paccel of land consistin9 of approximately 0.16 acres, having a frontage of apptoximately 50 feet on the east side of Philadelphia Street, havin9 a maximum depth of approximately 155.17 feet and being located aFpcoximately 325 feet south of the centecline of Broadway and futther described as 326 South Philadelphia Stceet. Waivecs of (a) minimum namber of packing spaces, (b) minimum floo~ acea of dwelling units and (c) minimum yard requirement to consttuct 1 additional unit and r.etain 2 units foc a total of 3 apattment units. Continued f~om the meetin9 of August lti, 1986 ACTION: Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that petition Eoc Variance No. 3591 be withdrawn at L•he applicant`s tequest. ~/15/86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ SEPTEMBEP. 15, 1986 86-638 ITEM NG._ 14 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND AREA DE~IELOPMENT PLAN N0. 108 PUBLIC HEARING FOR AMENDMENT TO AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN. REQUESTED BY: WATTSON COMFANY, 840 Newport Center utive, ~655, Newport Beach, CA 92660, ATTN: R. PHILLIP RAMMING• Propecty desctibed as an irtegulacly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 50.0 acres bounded on the north by La Palma Avenue, on the east by hraemer Boulevard and on the south and west by the Riverside Freeway. Petitioner ptoposes an amendment to Acea Development Plan No. 108 (Exhibit D) to delete a poction of La Mesa Avenue, wes~ of White Star Avenue and north of khe Rive:side Fceeway (Exhibit F) in ordec to develop pcoperty with an indust~ial complex. There wece two people indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff cepor~ was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Phil Ramm~'g, 840 Newport Centet Dcive, p655, Newport Beach, stated they propose t~ combine two irregularl,y-shaped pa~cels of land, with two sepacate owners, in otder to develop an indust~ial complex. He felt this complex would fit nicely into the area. Mc. Ramming noted they had met with Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, several times but have not been able to cesolve the tcaffic ci[culation issue. He stated if La Mesa Avenue is eve~ extended, these two pa~cels will be undevelopable. He called the Commission's attention to Exhibit 'F' displayed on the bulletin boatd, depicting the pcoposed req~est to delete a portion of La Dtesa Avenue, west of White Star Avenue, and no~th of the Rive~side Freeway. Bob Mickelson, 3823 Casselle Avenue, Oran9e, agent for La Palma Business Park, stated that La Palma Business Park is located on a triangulat parcel, bounded on the north by La Palma Avenue and on the southwest by White Star Avenue. He noted in 1980, a proposal to amend the Area Development Plan to delete a portion of the requiced freeway frontage coad (La Mesa Avenue) west of White Star Avenue was denied. He dist~ibuted a zecoxed exhibit of the acea showing whete La Palma Business Park is located. He said the southetly pottion of the bu~.iness pack was designed to take advantage of freeway exposure. He stated it is a well-designed, well-kept park. He said if this road is taken off the Atea Development Plan, it will cceate quite a problem for this ptoject. He also expressed concetn that the next step wouid b~ to request an abandonment from that poction eastecly of White Staz Avenue, to its current tetminus to the east. He stated, on that basis, the owners wish to encourage the Commission to retain the current Axea Development Plan. He stated he would be happy to answer any ques~?ons. g~~-old Coykendall, 289D E. La Palma Avenue, stated he owns the 15-acre p3rc~1 of bare land. He noted in the near future they plan to develop their parcel. He said the applicanL cequesting the amendmen9/15/86t his MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 15~ 1986 86-639 land five or six yeacs afte~ La Mesa Avenue was established as a primary road. Mr. Coykendall said the buildings on La Mesa look good and are nicely landscaped. He stated to construct biaildings right up against the fc~eway would det~act from the acea. He added he is willing to cooperate with the City of Anaheim to complete La Mesa Avenue at its present alignment, but asked Commission to deny this request. Applicant stated he agreed that La Palma Business Park is a very nice p~oject; however, he does not agree that their proposal to alter La Mesa Avenue to the west of White Star Avenue, would have anything to do with te[minating it to the east. He stated this is the first time anyone has tried to tie the two parcels together with a consistent development plan. Lowell Duclass, 2312 San Clemente Avenue, Vista, stated he was the ownec of the central parcel of the two long narrow parcels, that the Wattson Company wishes to consolidate into one buildable parcel. He said he acquiced the parcel about- 1576, and was not aware of Area Development Plan No. 1~8 which was enacted in 1971. He noted the lots were only 100 feet wide at the widest point, and if a cight-of-way easement of 64 ot 60 feet were permitted to cun thraugh the property, thece would be no available land left for development. He said he felt it would be difficult for the City to pcove they needed to condemn this land. He stated he failed to see why hugging a freeway fence would be a desirable route. He said he felt it would be better to bcing a roa6 out at La Palma onto White Star. He added he was a Civil Engineer, and familiar with ttafiic circulation. He said he would be happy to answec any questions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commissioners asked Paul Singer, Tr.affic Engin?er, to respond. Paul Singet stated there was ~ definite need to improve tcaffic circulation in this area. He stated traffic on La .4alma is anticipated to become much heavier with new growth developing in the area. He said he felt La Mesa Avenue should eithee continue along its pcesent alignment, or in some manner, go through the Coykendail ptoperty onto White Star. He added he did not see how they could achieve the desired circulation in this area without La Mesa Avenue huggin9 the fceeway or veering nocthe~,ly to 47hite Star. Commissioner Herbst referred to the meeting held in 1971, on permitting access roads in the industrial conmunity to allow traffic circulation in the industrial area. He felt lookin9 at the back of buildings from the freeway was not appealing. He said the fcontage road was installed foc the pu~pose of fceeway exposure to the front of buildings, with landscaped areas developed in a manner that would complement the industrial acea. Ele stated he felt this proposal would not complement the area. He suggested the people who owned these two parcels should try to get to9ethet wi~h tl~e ~e:son who owns the 15 acre parcel and develop something in common. Commissioner Messe agceed, and added he feels we wi21 cteate a more pleasant atmosphere if we keep the front of buildings exposed to the freeway. 9/15/86 MItiUTGS, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING GnMMISSION SEPTEMBER 15, 1986 86-640 ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offeced a motion, seconded by Commissionec F~y and MOTION CARRIED that Anaheim City Planning Commission has r~eviewed the proposal to amend Area Development Plan No. 108 (Exhibit D) to delete a poction of. La Mesa Avenue, west of White Sta~ Avenue and north of the Rivetside Fceeway in ozder to develop p~opecty with an induscrial complex on an ircegularly-shaped patcel of land consisting of approximately 80.0 acces bounded on the north by La Palma Avenu:, on the east by K[aemer Bouleyard and on the south and west by the Rivecside Freeway; and does h~reby appcove the Negative Decla~ation upon findin9 that it has considered the Ne9ative Declar.ation togethec with any comments received during the public review pcocess and Lucther finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments eeceived that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the envizonment. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC86-242 and moved for its passage and adoption that the A~aheim Ci~y Planr.ing Commission does heceby recomr~iend to the City Council denial of Exhibit "F' for Amendmenwest ofey Development Plan No. 108 to delete a po[tion of La Mesa Avenue, White Stac A~enue and nocth oi the Rivecside Freeway, on the basis that subject Area Development Plan has been approved since 1971, and other property ownecs have developed theie properties in accordance with said plan, and fucther, recommending that no change be made to Area Development Plan No. lOd at the present time. On roll call, the focegoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS~ FRY, HERBSx~ LA CLAIRB~ LAWICKI~ M~ BURNEY~ MESSE NO~S: NONE ABSENT: NONE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attotney, presented the written tight to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM NO. 15 REPORTS P.ND RECOMMENDATIONS: A. HILLSIUE GRADING ORDINANCE - Request ftom I4ar.k Johnson, subdivider, for a waiver of the requi[ement of the City of Anaheim Hillside Grading O:dinance as it celates to the location of manufactuced slopes within residential lots in Tentative Parcel Map No. 86-158, located souL•h of Santa Ana Canyon Road and west of Fairmont Boulevatd. Commissionec La Claire declared a conflict of interest as defined by Anaheim City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC76-157 adopting a Conflict of Intecest Code fot the Planning Commission and Government Code Section 3625, et seq., in that applicant had made a donation to her campaign and pursuant to the pcovisions of the ahave Codes, decla[ed to the Chaicman that she was withdtawing fcom the heacing in connection with Hillside Grading Ordinance (TT86-158), and would not take part in either the discussion or the voting thereon and had no~ discussed this matter with any membet of the Planning Commission. Thereupon Commissionet La Claire left the Council Chamber. 9/15/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY DLANNING COMMISSION, SEPTEMBER 15 1986 86-641 ACTIQN: Commissioner He[bst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki and MOTiON CARRIED (Commissioner La Clai[e absent) that the Anah?im City Plannin9 Cor,unission does hereby recommend to the City Council appcoval of the Hillside G^ading Ocdinance as it telates to the location of manufactured slopes within cesidential lots in Tentative Paccel Map No. 86-158. Commissione~ La Claire retucned to the Chambec. B. KATELLA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA - Request from the Planning Department to focmulate and adopt Pceliminary Plan through tesolution selecting Project Area, establishing boundaries and authorizing transmittal of same to Community Redevelopment Commi.ssion and Redevelopment Agency foc Qtepacation of the Project Redevelopment Plan. Norman J. Priest, Directot of Community Development/Planning Depactment, gave a bc:ef presentation of the proposed Preliminary Plan f.or the Katella Redevelopment Project Acea. Infoemation contained in his presentation can be found in the staff repoct, Page 15-b (1) and said teport is on file in the City af Anaheim Planning Depa~tment's files. Mary McCloskey, Associate Planner, narrated a slide ptesentation depicting s~tuctural and social blight in the proposed project area. Lucy Yeager, Associate Planne[, presented the Pzeliminacy Plan, highlighting impoctant points for the Planning Commissionets, and recommending favotable action. Information contained in her ceport is on file in the City of Anaheim Planning Depact~ent's files. The Planning Commissione[s thanked staff for its excellent presentation. Norman Priest noted this was one of the most comprehensive and thorough research jobs evet done on a project by staff. Commissioner Herbst asked if the tax-inc~ement retutned undec REdevelopment, on the high-eise buildings, would help with the installation of infrast~uctuce that is going to be proposed foc the atea. Mr. Ptiest replied that was cocrect. Commissioner Messe asked if we had exoanded the housing in Ptoject Alpha, and Mc. Priest replied we had. Commissioner Bouas said she ~~~ conce[ned about what the citizens might think about tedevelopmer.t in the p~oposed area. She added people have been unhappy about so many buildings being demolished and the land left vacant in the downtown acea. 9/15/86 !'.I"~3`-~r r' ~ ~ T. ' .r~ f MINUTES, AND9ETh CITY PI,ANNING COMMISSION, SE?TEMBER 15, 1986 _ 06-642 ltr. Fciest stated red~velogmenC in the downtovn area has moved at a slower pace than anti:ipated because of some economic pcoblems. He noted the pcoposed acea xould be nandled moce like Project Alpha in thP Sluctheant Industrial Asea in which citizens have taken a great deal of pride. 8e noted they would be doing a substantial amount of public improvement work in the proposed Ratella Pcoject Area and said the[e would be some clearance of land, but not a gceat deal. Commi.ssi~nec Nesse asked uhat the plana were far traffic mitigation. He said he realized this was a Pzeliminacy Pl.an, but was concerned about the OraageNOOd owercroasing iasue, and the xatella gsidlock problem. Mr. Prieat saa.d the majoc advantages oE this p~oject is to impcove tcaffic circulation by doing a substantial reconfiguration o~ the traffic syste~a. CommissLonQr Hease said that Disneyla~d and the Convention Centec were pcobab2y looking to expand, a~ad it would be difficult unless soccething Was c~onE about thP traffic situation. Nr. Priest noted staff has been working closely with Disneyland :+nd t.he Conve~tion Center. ~ammission briefly discussed the Anaheica Plaza project. Mr. Pciest stated he fe2t that the Katella projs~ct uill mov~e along at a much Easter pace th3t the Anahe~m Plaza project. ACT~~~N: Co~missioner Herbst oEfeced Resolution No. PC86-24~ and moved for i~a passa3e and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does he~~by ap~.~ave and adopt the Preliminary Plan foemulated for the Katella Re;levelo~ment Project Area, pursuanC to Sectior, 33325 of the L+ealth and S3fety Code does hereby suthocize the Planning Directoc of the City of Ar:aheim to su~mit said Preliminary Plan to the Redevelopment Ayency. On toll call, the foragoing ressolution xas passed by tt;e folloving vote: AYES: BOUAS, 3ERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWZCKI, MC BURIiEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAINI: YRY Commissioner Pry noted he was abatai;-ing because he felt the plan enccmpassed Coo large an area. Commisaioner La Claire asked how soon they Would get started. tlr. Priest responded they plan to have the project adopted by late June. C, PROPOSED ~CODE AMEt2DFf6NT - Aequeat f[ow Dale T. Pa!asco, Newpo=t West Ptopertie~s, to amend Subsection 18.61.050 of the Anaheim Municipal Code to include self stocage as a conditional uae in che CL (COmmeccit+l, Limited? Z~ne. ~/15/86 MINUTES, ANP.HEIM CITY DIs1+NNSNG COMMISSION, SEPTEN,BER 15 19tiv 86-643 ACTION: Commi~sioner 8erbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fcy and MOTION CARRIED that the Anahei~ City Planning Commission does heceby cecommend to the City Council that Subsection 18.61.050 of Title 18, Anaheim Municipal Code be amended to include self stotage as a conditional use in the CL zone, and, further, recortunending CitY Council dicect City Attorney to prepate an otdinance amending subject Code. OTHER BUSINESS: Commission received e~etter, from the Community Development Block Gcant Progtam Committee, requesting a representative fcom the Planning Commission to setve on their committee foc the 1986-87 fiscal year. The Committee also thanked Commissioner Messe fot se:ving this past year. Commissione~ Fry offe[ed a motion, seconded by Commissionec Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that Cha[lene La Claire ~'ill be the Planning Commission representative. Crairman McBUrney directed the Planning Commission secretaty to notify the Block Grant Committee that the new ceptesentative would be Cha~lene La Claite. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissionec Fry and MOTION CARRIED Y.hat the meeting be adjourned. The meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~tiZi~''l!~ ~ Pamela H. Starnes. Sec~etary Pro Tempo[e Anaheim City Planni~ig Commission PHS:lm 0219m 9/1S/86