The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1986/10/27a REGULAR MEETING OF T8E ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULI+R MEETING The cegular rneeting of the Anaheim Ci~y rlanning Commission was called to order by Chairman McButney at 1C:00 a.n., October 27, 1986, in the Council Chamber, a quorum being prQSent, and the Commission reviewed plans of the items on today's agenda. RECESS: 11:30 a.m. RECONVENED: 1:30 p.m. PRESENT: ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: Chairman: McBUrney Commissionets: Bouas, Fry, Herbst, La Claire, Lawicki, Messe Commissionec: none Norman Priest Annika Santalahti Malcolm Slaughter Jay Titus Paul Singer Debbie Vagts Greg Has: -.~s Leonarc: Mcvhee Edith Hazris Executive Director of Communi.ty tevelopment/Planninc,~ Assistant Dicactor fur Zonin9 Deputy City Attorney Office Enq~neer Traffic Engineer Leasin9 Supetvisor Associate Planner Associate Plannet Planning Commission Secretary APPROVAL OF MINU^.ES: Commissione,: Fry offe~ed a motion, seconded by Commissionet Lawicki and t90iI0N CARRIED (Commissione[s Bouas and besae =oved abstaining) that the si:utes of the meeting of October 13, 1986, PP as submitted. ITEM NO_1 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION (READV.), WAIVER OF CODE RCQUIREMENT (READV.) AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2797 ~READV.) PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: LUCO D. AND MADELINE D. CALIANO, 16055 Gallarin, Fountain Valleyr CA 92708. AGENTS: ELIZABETH HALAHAN OR MARK CALIANO, 1379 N. Jasmine, Anaheim, CA 92801. PcoPertY described as an ir~egularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 5515 square feet located at the southwest cornec of Co~onet A~enue and Jasmine Place, 1329 Jasmine Place. To expand a board and care facility for a naximum of 10 developme~tally disabled persons with waiver of maximum fence height. Continued itom the meetings of May 12, August 4, September 29, 1986. There were five people indi.cating theit presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff repott was not sead, it is referred to and made a pact of the minutes. 86-693 10/27/86 ~ ~ ~ .y 86~ 094 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, OCTOBER 27, 1986 Commissioner Lawicki decla~ed a conflict of interest as defined by Anaheim City Planning Commission F~esolution No. PC76-157 adopting a Conflict of Interest Code for the Planning Commission and Governmen* Code Section 3625, et seq., in that he owns pcoperty in the immediate vicinity and pucsuant to the provisions o£ the above Codes, declared to the Chairman that he was withdrawing from the hearing in connection with s~bject petition, and would not take patt in either the discussia:. oc t.he voting thereon and had not discussed tha.s matter with any membec of the Planning Commission. Theteupon Commiss?oner Lawicki left the Council Chamber. Elizabeth Halahan, petitioner, stated they are attempting ro expand a board and cace facility and ociginally requested a maximum of 10 per~ons, but are changing the request to a maximum of 8. Gary Perez, 1323 N. Jasmine, stated he lives next dooc to subject property; and tt~e individuals in this home are allowed in the front yard area; and that on one occasion, he was in his back yacd with his sons and r~ne of his sons noticed a man with a gun ovec the fence and with the man's hands ovEr the fence, it looked like a small revolvet and it was ver.y upsetting. He stated last night, two of the younn men were atguing and he was not sure the person there to tak~ care of them could handle the situation because the men ace between the ages of 20 and 30 years old, but mentally L-hey are not matuce and he fel'c things could get out of hand and did not know how the individuals could be contcolled. He stared there has been a change in supecvision of these individuals over the past few months. Mc. Perez stated the pe`itionec had asked the applicsnt to acquaint the neighbochood with the operation, but to his knowledqe, there ha~ been no door-to-door contact, howevec, there was a sign in the ftont yard of subject propetty regarding a two-day open-house. He stated the same afte~noon he teceived notice of the meeting, the one posted on the property was removed. He stated he was teally concecned about zhe care and noted this is a business opecaring in a zesidential neighborhood zoned fo~ cesidential uses and he did not think an increase in the nuTber by two would help the individuals living there. He stated if Ms. Halahan made moce of an effort to be on the premises on a consistent basis, theee might not be the same concerns. He stated the ttaffic problems have been resolved. Edmond W. Harder, 1309 N. Lotus, Anaheim, stated he has been a taxpayec at this location for 31 years. He stated this business wa~ established with taxpayec's money and was thrust upon the neighborhood and they had no voice in it. He stated the last continuance was granted in otdec foc an attotney cepresenting an association of this type home to be present and the petitioner indica*_ed no furure continuances would be requested. He state@ the taxpayers in the community are c~ncerned and a list of names was submitted to the Planni.ng Commission askiny that the ptobiem not be compounded. He stated he teceived s~me infotmation that that acea had been classified as a multiple-family atea, instead of single-family, and no one was notified of that change. He stated tne Commission represents the whole community and they would like foc the Commission to ccnsidec that the petiti~ner was aware of the financial obligations of running a home like this when they purchased the ptopecty and if they can~ot make it financially wi.th six indi.viduals, he did not see whete two could help the situation. 10/27/86 86-695 MINUTES F,NAHEIM CITY PLANNING CON.~ISSION, OCTOBER 27, 198G He stated the petitioner did c:ot establish contact with the neighbots as suggeste~ by the Planning Commission and noted he was concerned about the small children in the neighborhood and alsa about the pcoperty values. Ms. Halahan stated adding more people in the hame would obviously genecate more funds; however, she stated she is also faced with the pcoblem of having a aair.ing list of young men wanting to get into the home and she cannot accept them, even though she has the space. Sh~ stated at the last me?ting there was appcoximately five people present in cpposition and she met with them outside the Council Chamber and asked them to visit the home and Mr. Harder, the gentlemen who spoke in opposition, stated he really did not cace what the operation was, he was still opposed. She stated another gentlemen on Jasmine said he would not visit the home and that he had small children and was cencerned about that. She stated only one person in the neighborhood came to the open house on the 26th and 27th. She stated if Lhe i.dea is totally negative to the neighbors, she did not think she could chan9e their minds. She presented a map showing her home and noted tF~e bulk of activity is through the side facing Coconet. She stated she visited the doctoc behind the house who has a pool it~mediately adiacent to het property and he signed a lettec in support, and explained she visi.ted othec neighbors and has signatures in support. She stated one neighbor told her the family who lived `.here before had seven children and did not understand why she was being hassled. She stated the lady across the street stated shz appreciated r_he way they had upgraded the house and the way they are keeping it in good condition. She stated the residents in this home a~e not ceally out in the neignborhood vety often because they are involved in activit:ies most of the time and t.hey do wock on a daily basis. She presented signatuces in support for the file. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Responding to Commissioner Bouas, Ms. Kalahan stated thece is a gentleman staying at the home who has had 3 years experience in one of Ocange County's comprehensive behavioral-type environments. She explained she is bringing that to L-he Com~nission's attention because of concerns exp[essed at previous meetings and that he is very familiar with what could happen with violent type behavior. She stated he is thece whenever the men ate home. Ms. Halahan stated one of the neighbors who can see into het home, told het that it is possible that the other neighbors ace not aware of th~ am•ount of time that she o[ Mark are ptesenr in the home because they cannot se~'t~~'LOximately9251toe30 they park on Coronet. She stated she or Mark is there app hours a week and she is on call 24 houcs a day. She stated she is there whan the men are thete st times, but at times she is there when they are gone. She explained r.he men a~e being taught to prepare thei~ own food and thece is a gentlemen who does cook for them and she explained the men wotk at different hours. She stated they are full r_ime involved and on Tuesday and Thursday evenings, they attend Cypress College for classes and are back about 9:30 p.m. and on Fciday nights, they a~e eithec at the Anaheim Recreational Center or Fullerton Recreational Center attending activities sponso[ed the[e. She stated there is a little more flexibility on Sundays and they are home more hours of the day. She stated the gun incident happened once, but those have been taken away. Responding to Commissi.one: Messe, Ms. Halahan srated thece ate five bedrooms and she would not be adding any bedcooms; and thaL the request was changed to a maximum of 8 individuals. 10/27/86 86-696 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 27, 1986 ._._-- Joyce Peterson, 1330 Jasmine, responded to Commissionar La Claire that she has lived at this address since 1965 and explained she did go to the~open house and the house was nice and ~lean and there wete a couple of residents pcesent. She stated she d~d make a statemenr that thece had been a couple of fights and she could hear the men fi~hting and she was very concerned about that and did not know who to call if there was a problem. She sr.ar.ed she has no children in her home at the pcesent time, but the neighbots do need a person to call immediately, and explained Ms. Halahan had given hec her home phone and business pho~ie numbers. She stated they understood that Ms. Halahan had decided to leave the home as it. is sincetheeboysaSbut that itpisn't every She stated thete is a lot of fi~hti.ng among day. She tefetred t.o the ptevious family who lived ~here explaininbeating the children wece vety good, but that t.he father did cause problems by family. She explained t.o Commissioner La Claire tha~ she and her husband are retired and ace gone a lot, but they have heard fights a couple of times whi.ch really distucbed ~hem. Commissioner Bouas s~ated she felt six cesidents are ptobably enough for this home and moce would requice moce supecvision. Commissionet Hecbst stated with the size oi• the house, he t~°uhh}and alsoe he~undecstandsbthecexpensesed and noted six are permitted by 9 involved in running a home such as t;his and did not r.hink two more of this type pe[son could be offens.ive to the neighbothood. He explai.ned th~scanl~ebe a conditional use pezmit, and if t.here are ptoblems in t.he fur.ure, teviewed foi revocation. He stated he would like to see the aperators given the opportunity ro prove it can be done. Comm~ssione~ Fcy agceed. Commissioner La Claice stated she is concecned because she thought 10 people in that. size home would be roo many. Commissionec Fry sta*ed they ace nor rhete 24 hours a day, and basically, just sleep there. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a mot.ion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED (Commissionec Lawicki absent) that the Anaheim Ciky Planning Commission has ceviewed the pcoposal to expand a board and care facility fot a maximum of 8 developmentally disabled pecsons with waivet of maximum fence height in the fronr. yard on an ircegulacly-shaped parcelro~neLnd consisting of approximately 5515 square feet located at the southwes_ of Coronet: Avenue and Jasm=oveptheANegativetDeclarationeupon findingsthat it Place; and does hecebY aPP has consideted Y.he Negat-ive Declaration together with any commenrs ceceive duting the public ceview process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comment:s received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Hecbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissionec Fry and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner iawicki absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does heceby graat waiver1icableetoetherptopectY suchbas~sizeat there ace special circumstances app to or,het shape, topography, loca'ion and sucroundings which do not apply identically 2oned propecty in the same vicinity; and that stcict application of the Zoning Code deprives the ptopetty of ptivileges enjoyed by other propetties in the identical zone and classification in the ~io~2~~86 86-697 MINUTES ANA6EIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 27, 1986 Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. 85-263 and moved foc its passage and adopt;.on r_har. the Anaheim C:ty Planning Commission does heteby grant: Conditional Use Petmit No. 2797 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 for a maximum of eight developmentally disabled petsons and subject to Interdepactmental Committee cecommendations. On coll call, the foregoing resolu~:ion was passed by the following vor.e: AYES: FRY, HERBST, MC BURNEY~ MESSE NOES: BOUAS~ LA CLAIRE ABSENT: LAWICKI Malcolm Slaught.ec, Depury City ~t.torney, presented ±he written !~.9ht to appeal the Planning Com~ission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. Commissioner Lawicki cer.urned to the Council Chamber at 2:20 p.m. _____.. ,~~~., novnnvFnl. CONDITIONAL U5E PERMIT ITEM N0._2 E PUBLIC HEARING FOR AMENDMZ~O WestOLDncoOnSAvenuePRAnaheimOwCAR92805LLEAGENT: LOBEL-CANEX INVESTMENT&, JEFFREY FRIEDEN-SUNWEST MOTORS, 619 - 631 N• Ashaeed Batcelaof,landhc~nsisting 92805. Propecty described as a ~ectangularly- P P of approximately 0.6 acres located at the southwest corner of Wilhelmina Stteet and Anaheim Boulevard, 619-631 N. Anaheim Boulevard. Request foc an amendmenr to the conditions o: approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 2029, in conjunction with Conditional Use Pecmit No. 2849 to permit aur.omobile repair in conjunction with an existing automobile sales agency. Continued from the meeting of Septembe~ 29, 1985. Leonard McGhee explained the petitionet has withdrawn the request for Conditional Use Permit No. ~849. There were four persons indicatin9 theit presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff tepott was nut read, it is teferred to and made a part of the minur_es. Jeff~ey Frieden, 2161 Chalet, Anaheim, explained they withdrew the request for the repaic facilities because they do nave aOfa~heloriginallc nditionsountil locar.ion. He stated he did not have a copy the Code Enforcement Officec gave it too him; and that they did install a PA system and were not awate it wa~ pzohibited; however, it ha~ since been disconnected. He stated he read the conditions and will comply with all of them and the only question he would have regards the definition of "tepairs' and added they sell approx.imately 70 to 80 vehicles a month at that location and would like to be able to change the bar.teries or tires oc change the oil and asked if that would be possible with the zecommended condi=o lem in the staced r.hey have 12 employees on si.te and have had a parking p past, but do have ample patking spaces on the site and they have nevet had any cats foc sale on the street. He stated he will submit the site plan as zequested, showing the parking. 1~~2~~86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, OCTOBER 27, 1986 86-698 Phyllis Bo~~dston, 728 N. Janss, stated her business is at 723 N. Anaheim Boulevard, and if this faci.lity does not have any automobile repair work and they do provide off-street parking, she would not have a ptoblem with the use at this locat.ion. She explained she has a parking lot on the side of her business for her parking and has had to have vehicles towed away and has had to ask them to move their vehicles because f.hece is no off-street parking. She added they have noticed the PA system is no longer being used. Ms. Boydston stated fhere is a requirement in rhe conditions for a planter on Anaheim Boulevard and she did not think they should be required to go ~o that expense when the City is i.n the process of buying the properties for widening of Anaheim Boulevard. Jay Titus, Office Engineer, stated he thought that condition was probably on the original conditional use permit was left in and stated the Eity is presenr.ly acquiring rights-of-w~y along Anaheim eoulevard for street widening purposes, but it will be a few years in the future and the Engineering Depattment has no problem if rhar. condir.i.on is deleted. Leonard McGhee stated the Zoning Code still requires the 5-foot planter at the ulr.i.mar.e loca*ion. Ms. Boyds~an stated t.he planter should be required ar, the time the street is widened because :f it is put in now, it would cruate a dead space between the currEnt and ultimate rights-of-way. Ms. Boydston referced to the Code tequirement for the 10-foot dedication foc the alley and stated that alley has already been imp~oved in r.hat location. Chairman McBurney stated the conditions are subject to review by the staff and some of r.hem are sr.andard conditions and some will never be complied with because they ate not necessary, but are included for the City's protection and that those would be eliminated, if n~t required. Jay Titus stated the CiLy is acquiring 47 feet of [ight-of-way which is an additional 7 feet over what is existing now and the sr.reet will be widened in 1989 and 1990. Ms. Boydston stared when she started construction, the street widening was scheduled for 1987, so there is a dead space already on Anahei.m Boulevard and she did not think the problem should be compounded by adding moce dead space before the street is widened. Fred Colvin, 626 N. Zeyn Street, read a let-rer from Larry Munsey, 630 N. Zeyn, indicating his opposition. (Said letter is in the Planning Department files.) Lois Colvin, 626 N. 2eyn, stated the original permit was granted in 1979, and there were no serious problems with the operation until about one year ago when this operator took over. She presented picrures taken during 1986 showing a light shining into hec yatd and house, cars parked on the street and the oil in the alley. She stat:ed the nois< from the PA system has been eliminated; however, there was a bad problem with that noise before it was disconnected. She stated approximarely one year ago, when they took over this facility, she offeced to give them a copy of the original conditions and was told they already had a copy and she pointed out they were not abiding by the 10/27/86 86-699 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 27, 1986 conditions. She stated they have inszalled high in9ensatLesponse foa Stheral shine towards her property and after she could not tesolution to the peoblems from the petitionec, in January of 1986 she contacted the City. Mr. Frieden stated they ~id have a problem wi_th oil spillinq and being washed into the alley; however, t_hey did corcect that problem as soon as it was brought t:o their attention and the holes have been plugged in that wall. Regardin9 the cars pa[ked on the street, Mr. Frieden stated they could not tell their customers not to pa:k on the s*reet, but there would be no reason for their cars to ever be pa~ked on the stceet because they do have storaye facilities at another location. He stated they previously 5ad 22 employees at this site when they had the rep:ir facilities, and that could have been a problem with them parking on the street, but r.hey now have only 12 einployees because they no longec do tepairs or ser.vice at this site and explained they wece not aware rhere w4s a parking problem until r.hey were informed. He stated the lights which would shine into Ms. Colvin's pcoperty aze tu-ned off at 9:00 p.m. every night., excepr two which are on the lot to provi.de security. He explained theic vehi.cles are broken into almost every ni.ght and they now have privare securi-r_y and have to have the light.s to provide security. He stated he has spoken to Ms. Colvi.n sevecal times and has tried to be very cooperar.ive. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Conmissioner La Claire stated this business is causing a problem i.n the neighbothood and noted she has been there and has seen the problems on numerous occasions and has been in r.he rear of the business and has seen the lights shining into the neighbor's property because even though they are directed down, they are high enough *o shine into *.heir wi.ndows. She st:ared she was on the Commission when this permit was originally approved and it would appear this business needs to be cleaned up or they should move to another site. She stated there should not be any automotive repairs allowed and all the ].ights should be shieldeC and should not be seen from any residential ptoperties. She stated since thece are approximately 50 parking spaces on this site, there should never be moce vehicles there for sale than can be accommodated in those parking spaces, including the parking foc employees and customers. She stated when she was at rhe site rhere were cars parked evecywhere and thi.s business should not be permitted to impose these problems on the ne~ghbors. Mr. Frieden responded to Commissi.oner La Claire that he does have a copy nf the original conditional use permit. He explained no one evet told him how many spaces he needed and he would not have a problem providing spaces on r.he lot because they do have other locations where they can store the vehicles. He stated r,hey nave never parked a car on r_he stteet for sale and if there was one packed there, it would have been parked thece by an enployee and would be waiting t:o be moved. Commissioner La Claire stated rhey are nor. supposed to park any of the vehicles on the stteet. Mr. Fcieden stated he understands and will submit the site plan as requested and does no` want to have any of these problems. 10/27/86 86-700 MINUTES_ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMI5SION OCTOBER 27, 1986 Commissioner La Claite stated the o~iginal conditions r.ead: 'That any parking acea li.ghting proposed shall be downlighted for a maximum height of 12 feet, and said lighting shall be directed away ftom the ptoperty lines to protect residential uses in r.he area". M. Frieden stated the lights are downlighted. Commissioner La Claire stated she :ealizes that, but t.hey are at a height wherYO have lighrseonnforMsecurity Colvin's windows. She added if ir is notesuitable for this use. Commissioner purposes, then maybe this propetty Fry agreed and st.ated if it is hazardous wi*_h the vandalism, then maybe they should look fot another prope[ty; and that maybe the Commission made a mistake in granti.ng this in the fitsr place. Mr. Frieden stated rhis is a good location for this business and it is vecy Profitable. Commissioner Bouas asked to ~edicectrthemuif someonerwould•r.ell•hFmtexactly stated he would be happy what needs to be done. Comm~ssi.oner La Claire st.ated the Commission is not going to design the lights for him ar.d that other businesses seem to be able to get the i.dea thar. the lights should not shine into the residential neighborhood. She stated the conditions will be included, if this is appcoved, requiring rhat, the ligh~s not. shine into any residenrial area and also, that the~e will be no more than 50 vehicles packed on the site, if 50 is the number of spaces available, and that would include patkin~roximatelyY335 and customers (12 employees and 5 customer spaces) leaving aP_ spaces for displayed vehicles. She added all rhe ori.ginal condi.tions would have to be complied wir.h except with the changes as just mentione~. She stated there shall not be a PA system and also, that. thece shall be no holes in the £ence for oil to d~ip through and there will be no automobYlhasebeen on the premises, which means no changing of oil because obvi.ously, 8umped into the gutters. She added changin9 the batteries and tires could probably be allowed. Responding to Commissioner Bouas, Mr. Feieden st_ated they have a service thar. picks up and disposes of batteries and oil. Commissioner La Claire star.ed she wnuld also like to include a r.ime limit for only 6 months since no changes will have to be made to the proper.ty. She stated she wanted to see this request back befo[e the Planning Commission in 6 months to make sure evecything has been accomplished and that the lighting has Shenaddedgsheadoeshnot caaelwhetherstherplantertisgd nennow otrlater0 days. Malcolm Slanghter stated the Commission can delete the conCity Council or desices, because staff cannot waive conditions imposed by Planning Commission. Annika Santalahti st:ated that condition had been met in the pa~t and thete was concern with the maintenance of the planter. Ms• Boydston stated r.here is ground cover in the planter area and they do have a gardenet taking care of it and it is watered and maintained. ~ommissioner La Claize stated she t.houghr. th~y should meet that condition when the stceer is widened. Mt. Frieden stated they do sell 60 to 74 cats pec month and have about 60 or 70 cars for sale on thaL pcopecty now. Commissionec La Claire stated the 10/27/86 MINUTES, ANnHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSZON~ OCTOBER 27, 1986 __ 86-701 aerial photog[aph taken in 1979, indicated the n~mber of packing spac2s and they do not really have enou9h space for that many cars and that is one of their problems. Malcolm Slaughter suggested the numbers should not be imposed in the app[oval and referred to staff's recommendations that thece should be no pa_*king of display vehicles in front ef private residences and also that the petitioner shall submit a site plan showing the requzced customer and employee parking spaces. He stated the spaces required by Code are 1 space for each 10 displayed cars and 5-1/2 spaces for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. Responding to Commissioner La Claire, Annika Santalahti stated the 17 spaces should be marked for customers and employees and would have to be the proper siz~ and the other spaces could, in fact, be smaller and should be clearly ~arked for the displayed vehicles and it is possible to pcovide more than 33 spaces atter the site is redrawn. Commissioner La Claire stated as long as the spaces for employees and customers are marked, there would be no problem and it was noted 19 spaces would be required according to Co~e for custome~s and employees. She added the lighting should be changed withi^ 60 days. Mr. Frieden stated the lighting is facing down and is not shining into those people's windows. Commissioner La Claire suggested Mr. Frieden go there in the evening and ask to go into their 5ackyar.d to see what is happening. Commissioner Messe stated thete may be a different type of ligh_ which could be used and stated whatever has to be done, should be done. Mr. Fcieden stated he will take a look if the neighbor will allo~i him to come into their back yard and he will do whatever is necessary to correct the lighting situation and wants to make evetyone happy. Commissioner La Claice stated the petitionec is lucky to be given another chance because of all the problems caused in the neighborhood. ACTION: Commissionec La Claice offered Resolution No. PC86-264 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby amend Conditions of Approval for Conditional Use Petmit No. 2Q29 subject to the condition that all lighting shall be directed down with no lights shining into anN residential structures, and no automotive cepair work shall be done on the site, except chan9ing of tires and battezies, and that the parking spaces shall be designated for customers and employees in conformance with Code and the use shall be limited to a period of o months to terminate on April 27, 1987, and subject to the original conditions of appcoval, included in Resolution No. PC79-218, except that no ad~itional planter areas shall be required adjac:ent to Anaheim Boulevard until the street is widened. Commissioner La Claire explained this permit will teeminate in 6 months and the petitioner wxll have to reapply and that the ligltting shall be corrected within 60 days and a site plan shall also be required. On roll call, the focegoiny resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOJAS, FRY~ HERBST, LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE 10/27/86 a6-~oz MINUTES ANAHEIM CIT': PLANNING COMMISSION OCTaBER 27 1986 Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attotney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. Commissioner La Claire stated she will be checking on this use to make sure it is being conducted pcoperly i.n compliance with staff's tecommendarions and the petitioner's stipulations. It was noted the tequest for Condikinnal Use Petmi.t No. 2849 has been withdtawn by the petitioner. RECESSED: 3:10 p.m• RECONVENED: 3:20 p.m• ITEM N0. 3 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 221, RECLASSIEICATION NO. 86-87-10 AND REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF 3c PUBLIC HEARZNG. OWNERS: FAIRMONT LIMITED, 13532 Hazel Avenue, Garden Grove, CA 92644 and ELBERT F. 6 MARIE CHRISTENSEN, 200 S. Fai:mont, Anaheim, CA 92807. AGENT: DEFT DESIGN, INC., 1850 E. 17th, $113, Santa Ana, CA 92801. Property desecibed as an itcegularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 6.2 acres on the east side of Fai.rmont Boulevard, approximately 1080 feet soutti of the centetline of Sanra Ana Canyon Road. GPA - To considec an amendment to the Land Use F.lement of the GeneraZ Plan, ~edesignating ftom hillside estate residential designation to ei.ther a hillside me~ium densi.ty resi.denti.al, hillside low-medium density residential or hillside low-density residential designation. RS-HS-22,000(SC) to RM-3000(SC) or a less intense zone Continued from the meeting of September 29, 1986. THE FOLLOWING ACTION WAS TAKEN AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING. it was noted the petitioner has asked for a continuance in orde~ to revise the plans and meet with r.he local ~esi.denrs. Chaitman McButney stated he felt notices should be sent foc the continued public heari.ng. ACTION: Commissi.oner La Claire offered a motion, seconded by Cummissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED, that conside[ation of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of November 24, 1986~ at the applicant's tequest, and futther that residents shall be renotified of the continued meeting and that the item be placed as lare on fhe agenda as possible. Commissionet La Claire suggested r.he opposition check with the Planning Department on November 24th to determine the time of the heacing and whether or not it is still scheduled for that date. 10/27/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMIS~ION OCTOBER 27 1486 86-703 ITEM N0. 4 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION RECLASSIFICATION N0. 86-87-12 AND VARIANCE NO. 3602 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: 2000 DEVELOPERS, ZNC., 1850 17th Street, $115, Santa Ana, CA 92701. AGENTS: IRAJ EFTEKHARI, 1850 17th Street, #113, Santa Ana, CA 92701. Property descri.bed as an i.rregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.66 acres located at the southwesterly corner of Elm Stceet and Helena Street, 402, 415 and 419 South Helena Sr~eer.. CO to RM-1200 or a less intense zone. Waivec of mini.mum buildi.ng si.te are per dwelli.ng unit to construcr a 24-unit apartment complex. Continued from the meering of September 29, 1986. It was noted the petitioner has cequested a continuarce to the meeting of November 24, 1986. ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a mo*ion, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the afocementioned matter be continued ro the meeting of November 'l4, 1986, at the petition~r's tequest, ITEM N0. 5 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3597 PUaLIC HEARING. OWNERS: HUGO A. VAZQUEZ AND TAK WATANABE, 2240 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801. Property desccibed as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 6,695 squace feet, 202 Sourh Olive Street. Waivers of (a) maximu~ structural height, (b) maximum sire coverage, (c) minimum tecreational-leisure areas, (d) minimum a[ea of private recreational-leisure ateas and (e) mi.ni.mum widr_h of pedestrian accessways to construct a 3-story, 5-unit apartment building. Continued from the mee*.ing of September 15, and October 13, 1986. It was noted the petitioner has requested that subject petition be continued to ~he November 10, 1986, meeting in order to submit plans. ACTION: Commissionet Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki and MOTION CARRIED that c;onsideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of November 10, 1986, at the applicant's request. ITEM NO. 6 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE NO. 3606 PUBLIC HEARING. OWN~RS: ANDREW C. SCHUTZ, c/o STATE COLLEG~ PAF.TNERS, 28 BcookholloW Drive, Santa Ana, CA 92702. AGENTS: PAULETTE ALEXANDER, c/o RRAFT AFcCHiTECTS, 2955 S.E. Main Street, Suite 310, Irvi.ne, CA 92714. Propecty desccibed as a cectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximar.ely 7.6 acres of land located at the northwESt corner of Orangewood Avenue and State College Boulevatd. 10/27/86 86-704 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSTON, OCTOBER 27, 1986 Waivers of (a) signs permitted in commercial zones and aggcegate area of business signs to consttuct 8 fteesranding signs and 12 wall signs. Leonatd McGhee explained staff had ceceived a letter requesting a continuance to the meeting of Novembec 10, 1986. ;,CTION: Comm~ssioner Bouas offered a moti.on, seconded hy Commissioner Lawicki and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementione~ matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of Novembec 10, 1966, at the cequest of the applicant. ITEM N0. 7 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 222 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 86-87-13, VARIANCE I:O. 3607 AND REQUEST FOR CIT ocvrFw nF 7c AND 7d PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: JAFAR JAHAN'PAt~AH, 520 N. RexfoCd D~ive, Bevecly Hills, CA 90210. AGENT: MAGDY HANNA, 4000 c7acAtthut Boulevard, Newpo[` Beach, CA 92660. Property described as a rectangulatly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.35 acres, 1585 West Katella Avenue. To consider an amendment to the Land Use Element of the Genecal Plan, proposing a redesignation from the curcent commetcial pcofessional designation to a designation of either medium density iesidential, low-m2dium density residential or low density residential. RS-10,000 to RM-1200 or a less intense zone. Waiver of maximum sttuctutal height to construct a 47-unit apartment complex. It was noted the applicant has requested a continuance to the meeting of November 10, 1986, in order to readvertise to include additional waivers pertains to maximum site coverage and maximum height. Joe Btyant, 1582 W. Sumac, Anaheim, asked to speak and stat~oximately 30~perty ditectly behind the proposed develoPment and tep~esents app homeowners in the area who are opposed to this groject; that he has reptesented his neighbors ac previous hearings; and that he cut h-s vacation short to be present today because opposing this project means that much to him. He stated this same developer had a project for 4B units denied on this propecty aoout 3 months ago and now, this project i.s for 47 units and that the neighbocs are still opposed and the City Council had instcucted the developer to work with the neigriborhood and they have not heacd fcom him and they do not feel he is sincece i.n working with them. ACTION: Commissioner Bouas off2ced a moi.:~^: seconded by Commissioner Lawicki and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matte~ be continued to. the regularly-scheduled meeting of Novembec 10, 1986, at the petitionec's sequest and furthet that subject petition shall be [eadvettised. Commissionec Bouas stated she thought it would behoove the develope~ to get in t_ouch with the neighbots. 10/27/86 86-705 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTQBER 27, 1986 ITEM N0. 8 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATIa~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. 86-87-14 AND VARIANCE NO. 3611 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: HUGO A. VAZQUEZ, ET AL, 2240 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801.. Propetty desctibed as a rectangularly-shaped (landlocked) parcel of land consisting of apptoximately 0.76 ac~es on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, having a width of aputoximately 176 feet, hav±n9 a maximum depth of app[oximately 193 feet and being located appcoximately 532 feet east of the centecline of 3zookhurst Street and further described as 2240 West Lincoln Avenue. CL to RM-1200. Waivecs of (a) [eq~ired lot frontage, tb) minimum site area pec dwelling unit, (c) minimum distance between buildi.ngs and (d) minimum dimension of private recreational-leisute acea to constcuct a 34-unit affordable apartment complex. 1'hete ~rer~ three persons indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and alth~uah the staff report was not cead, it is refec~ed to and made a part of the minutes. Hugo Vazquez, agent, refetred to the colored tendering of this project and explained this is to be a 34-unit apartment complex adjacent to a 46-unit complex which they are just b~eaking gtound on this week. He stated he could elimi.nate waivers (c and d) with some minor a~justments to the plans and added they will be providing 7 affordable units with a 10-year agreement with rents at approximately $530 pet month as opp~sed to market cents of $750 per month. He stated they feel this is an excellent location for this type pcoject. Chairman McBUrney asked if the Housing Authocity has been contacted. Mr. Vazquez stated they did contact Hous~ng, but he does not have a sig~ed agteement as yet. Chairman McBUtney stated maybe this matter should be continued in ~~rder for the developer to get signed affordable housing ag~eements and added he thought Housing has a numbec of affordable units in mind. Commissione~ Bouas stated she thou9ht she would li.ke to hear from the people in opposition. Mr. Vazquez suggeste~ approval being conditioned upon the agreement beinq signed. Sally Van Horn, 22~5 W. Lincoln, stated there is no lot frontage on that property and the waiver is incorrectly stated and they feel the waiver for minimum distance between buil@ings will be hazacdous and weuld affect the health of the people and reducing the private recteational areas by :68 wosld be a problen because the chi.ldren would not have a place to play. She added ceducing the distance between buildings could also be a fire hazard and stated Lincoln is a busy streeC and this would add mote tcaffic to that street and would be very dange~ous. She stated thete ate vacancies in othe~ apartment complexes in the area and thece is no need fot these units. Mr. Vazquez stated 200 squace feet of tecieational-leisure area is required by Code and they are providin9 245 squate feet. 10/27/86 86-706 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PL•ANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 27 1986 Regarding the distance between buildings, Mc. Va2quez sta*_ed he would delete that tequest for waiver. He added a commercial development will generate more traffic than any mulriple-family use and that the vacancy factoc in Anaheim is less than 38 for apartments and is mote than 20$ foc commeccial units. He stated ownets of the older apattment complexes ate tiaving to dig deeper into their pockets because complexes ate being pcovi.ded aith courtyards and interior landscaping which give an open feeling and a lot of tenants in oldet complexes ace going into the new complexes. Mr. Vazquez stated there is a ceal opportunity to provide affocdable housing without having a major p~oblem from suctounding neighbors and indi.cated he felt the opposition of one person vecsus seven families who will get affotdable housing should be considered. He stated this complex will be in keeping with the adjacent complex an,3 they will compliment each othet. THE PUDLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Responding to Chai.rman McBucney, Debbie Va9ts, Leasing Supervisor, Housing Department, stated the peoceduce in the past has been that the affordability has been agreed upon prior to Planning Commissi.on appcoval; however, that was not followed in this instance and they have had no contact with Mr. Vazquez on this project and would prefer to see that taken care of ptior to any zoning actions. She statedr for example, for the adjacenr_ pcoject at. 2230 West Lincoln which M[. Vazquez mentioned, Housing has not yet been able to get back the formal development agceements which Council will execute and that she has tequested those from Mc. Vazquez several times. Paul Singet, Ttaffic Engineer, explained thece is a conditi~n ~DLovaldfo~at final plans have to be submitted to the Tcaffic Engineer for ap, access because the dciveways do not align with the garages. Chai.Lman MCBurney stated he thought the agreements with the Housing Authority should be accomplished befoce the Commission approves this project. He stated he likes the project. Commissioner Messe stated the agreement foc the project next door should be signed as well. Commissioner Bouas asked how many affocdable units are in the ptoject next dooc. Mc. Vazquez responded he thought thete were 10 affordable ~~nits and added they did execute and notarize the agreement and he delivered it to the Housing Authority himself, and they lost it oc misplaced it, and sent him other documents one month later saying the previous ones were misplaced and asked him to sign and teturn the new agteements. Mr. Vazquez stated he will be more than happy to request a two-week continuance in order to meet with the Housing Autho~ity and get the agreements before.anHeaadded waivers (caand d)SShould be deletedtftom this~Lequesth them ACTION: Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissione[ Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the afocementioned mattet be continued to the regularly-scheduled meetin9 of November 10, 1986, at the request of the petitioner. 10/27/86 86-707 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTO~ER 27 1986 Chairman Mcaurney stated this matter will not be cead~ettised. Commissior~er ~eebst sug9ested the petitioner should review the circulation. Mr. Vazquez stated the Fire Department indicated tWell benattemptinghto put Interdepa~tmental Committee meeting and that they hammet-heads on each dtiv~way in otder for the Eire Department to get to the teac of the property. He stated he did meet with the Traffic Engineer in designing the ingcess and egcess. Leonard McGhee stated cevised plans should be in to staff by Wednesday for consideration on the lOth. ITEM N0. 9 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3b08 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNEkS: ANAHEIM LAND LIMITEA PARTNERSHIP, 450 Newpoct Center D[ive, Suite 304, Newport Bea:h, CA 92660, ATTN: KERRY W. LAWLER. Property desctibed as an izregulacly-shaped paccel of land consisting of apptoximately 8 acres located at the southwest cotner of Katella Avenue and the Ocange (57) Freeway and being located approximately 190 feet east of the centerline of State Coilege Boulevacd and fuzther descri.bed as 2430 East Katella Avenue. Waivec of requiced lot frontage to establish a 3-parcel subdivision. There was no one indicating thei.r pcesence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not r.ead, it is cefezred to and made a patt of the minutes. Keccy Lawler, agent, stated he is requesti.ng a variance to allow for zhe subdivision of 3 parcels on 8 ac~es and the configucatio^ of the pcoperty is the reason fot the tequest. He stated they plan to build two ].2-stocy office towers in two phases and a parking structuce. He stated two of the lots would not have i~~ediate access to the public street. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman McBUrney clarified the reason foc the cequest is for financing purposes. Commissioner Herbst indicacantalahtinstatedbinlorderatoaconstcuct structure on a separate lot. Annika off-site packing, the developer ~ill have to execute an agceement that is bindi.ng on all who would need to use the parking. Commissioner La Claice stated when the 12-story office building is developed, the packing will be needed. Mr. Lawlec explained the first 12-story office tower will utilize the sucface parking and the pa~king sttucture will be developed along Hith the development Phasee2 andnthe parking structure will the first tower is at 508 occupancy, begin. ACTION: Commissioner Hetbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner F[y and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has teviewed the pcoposal tio establish a 3-lot subdivision with waivet of requiced lot frontage 10/27/86 86-708 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLAtiNING COMMISSION OCTOB°R 27. 1986 on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of app[oximately 8 acres located at the southwest corner of natella'Avenue and Ocange (57) Fteeway and fur.ther described as 2430 E. Katella Avenue; and does hereby appcove the Negative Decla~ation upon finding that it has co:isidered the Negative Declaration together with any comments ceceived durir.g the public ceview _~coce~s and fu~ther finding on *ne basis of the Ini.tial Study and any commen*_s received that there is no substantial evidence that the pra]ect will have a significant effect on the environment. Leonazd McGhee stated anothec condition should be included as Condition No. 4 and should read• "That in the event a paecel map is recorded on subjec*_ propecty, a tecipcocal access and patking agceement, in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney.ofh~he recocdedaagteementhshalllbe submittedatoetheuPlanning Recotde~. A copy Department.' Commissione~ Hecbst offered Resolution No. PC86-265 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby ;cant Vaciance No. 3608 on the basis that there ace special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topogcaphy, location and succoundin9s wriich do not apply to other idenrically zoned propec~Y in the same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the pcoperty of privileges enjoyed by othet propecties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity and subject to Interdepa~tmenral Committee recommendations including Condition No. 4 requiring the recipeoCal patking agreement. On roll call, the focegoing cesolutior. was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS~ FRY~ HE~BSZ'~ LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI~ MC BURNEYr MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Malcoim Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the wcitten cight to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0. 10 EIR NEGATIVE DECLnRATION AND VARIANCE NO. 3610 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: GRADY HANSHAW, 519 S. Bcookhu[st Street, Anaheim, CA 92804. AGENT: DAVID RECUPERO, 15052 Springdale, Suite 1, Huntington Beach, CA 92649. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.72 acce, located at the northwest cotner of Orange Avenue and Brookhurst Street, having appcoximate fcontages of 140 feet on the north side of O~ange Avenue and 223 feet on the west side of Brookhurst Street and further described as 519 South Btookhutst Stceet. Waivers of (a) minimum number of tequired packing spaces, (b) maximum structutal height and (c) minimum landn~conjunctionkwithcansexisting auto 3900-square fo~t commercial building re~air garage. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject tequest and although the stai•f ceport was not tead, it is ceferred to and made a patt of the minutes. 10/27/86 86-709 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 27 1986 David Recupero, agent, was pcesent to answer any questions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ACTION: Commissioner La Claire offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has ceviewed the ptoposal to construct a commetcial building in conjunction with an existing automotiVe repair garage with waivers of minimum number of required parking spaces, maximum structu~al height, minimum landscaped setback on a rectangularly-shaped patcel of land consisting of approximately 0.72 acre located on the northwest coXnec of Orange Avenue and Bcookhurst Street and furthet desccibed as 519 S. Brookhutst; and does herehy approve the Negative Declatation upon finding that it has conside~ed the Negative Declaration togeth~r with any comments received during the public review process and furthec finding on the basis of the Initial Study a~d any comments received that thece is no substantial evidence that the pcoject will have a significant ecfect on the environment. Commissioner La Clai~e offered Resolution No. PC86-266 and moved foc its passage and adoption that the Anahei.m City Planning Commission does hereby grant Vaciance No. 3610 on the basis that thete are special circumstances apolicable to the propecty such as size, shape, topogtaphy, location and sucroundings which do not aQply to other identically zoned property in the same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the propezty of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity and subject to :nterdepartmental Committee recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing tesulution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKZ~ MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NON~ ABSENT: t:ONE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, p:esented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days r.o the City Council. ITEM N0. 11 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2848 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: NORBERT A. WATERS AND RUTH M WATERS AND DOROTHY R. Mezey, 12132 Mocrie Lane, Ga~den Grove, ~A 92640• roxPmatelaelc91actess an irregulatly-shaped parcel of land consisting of app Y located at the northeasi cocnee of Ball Road and Sunkist St~eet, having approximate frontages of 543 feet on the north side of Ball Road and 150 feet on the east aide of Sunkist St~eet and fucthec described as 2503 East Ball Road (Nibecino's Pizza). To permit on-sale alcoholic bevetages in an existing restaurant. There was no one i.ndicating their pcesence in opposition to subject request and although the staff teport was not tead, it is referced to and made a part of the minutes. 10/27/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOH, OCTOBER 27, 1986 86-710 Norbert Watets, owner, was pcesent to answer any questioas. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chai.rman McBUrney asked if there will be a bar where people can just have a cocktail and not eat. Mr. Waters stated the service of alcohol will be in conjunction with food secvice and there will be no off-sale alcoholic beverages. ACTION: Commissioner La Claite offered a motion, seconded by Commissionec Herbst and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit on-sale alcoholic beverages in an existin~ cestaurant on an irregularly-shaped pa~cel of land consisting of approximately 1.9 acres located at the northeast corner of eall Road and Sunkist Stree~ and further desccibed as 25U3 East Ball Road; and does heceby apptove the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the publi.c review pror..ess and further 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. Commissi.oner La Claice offered Resolution No. P~86-267 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Com~ission does heceby grant Conditional Use Pecmit No. 2848 pursuanr. to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 thtough 18.03.030.035 and subject to Intecdepartmental Committee tecommendations. On roll call, the focegoing tesolution was passed by tlie following vot2: AYES: BOUAS~ FRY~ HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY~ MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NOyc Malcolm Slaughtet, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision wi.thin 22 days to the City Council. ITEM NO. 12 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2852 PUELIC H6ARING. OWNERS: EUCLID-BALL ~.S.C. LTD., 1324 S. Euclid Street, Anaheim, CA 92802. AGENTS: RUSSELL C. STEELE, 1507 W. Yale Avenue, Orange, CA 92667. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisti.ng of approximately 0.86 acre, havin9 a frontage of approximately 145 feet on the east si.de of Euclid St~eet, apptoximately 850 feet south of the centetline of Ball Road and further described as 1314 South Euclid Street. To permit a three bed inpatient care facility with an outpatient sutgical centec with waiver of minimum number of tequired parking spaces. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. 10/27/86 MINUTES~ANAHEII~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 27 1986 86-711 Dr. William Loskota, Medical Director of ~'ie surgical centec at 1324 S. Euclid Street, which is adjacent to subject p~operty, was psesent to answec any questions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Dr. Loskota stated the patients at this facility will be those who need to be watched overnight for complications after surgery, parients who would not have at-home care available, and young or elderly patients and they are not patients who cequice hospital~care. He stated they do transfer pati.ents to hospitals if necessary and this facility will prevent that expensive overnight stay in the hospital. He stated thece will be a nurse in attendance to monitor the patients and this will be a 3-bed overnight facility. He stated they anticipate giving the pati.ents o~ange juice or something light and they would be dischatged in the morning. He explained he had checked with the Department of Health Setvices for the State of Cali.focnia and no other licenses are required, as long ss it is not a skilled nursing faci.lity. He ~larified these patients would have minor surgical proceduces and explained their transfer rate to a hospital is less than 18 and they have about 100 cases pec month. Commissioner Bouas asked a.f they plan to have more than thtee patients. Dt. Loskota stated he did not anticipate the use would inc[ease substantially. Commissionec Bouas indicated concern with people needing to be fed and that she felt this is opening a small hospital. Dr. Loskota stated they do not want this to be a hospital and want it to be an out-patient surgical centec and the State has recently initiated a~ilot study to study freestanding overnight cace facilities, (Senate Bill 1957). Commissioner Messe asked if there ace any other such facilities in the County. Dr. Loskota stated there ace ovetnight cace facilities available in Itvine, but that pcesents a transportation problem. ACTION: Commissioner La Claire offeted a motion, seconded by Cor,imissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaha:m City Planning Commission has teviewed the proposal to permit a three-bed inpatient ca:e facility with an outpatient su~gical center with waiver of minimum number of parki.ng spaces on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.86 ac~e, having a f~ontage of approximately 145 feet on the east side of Euclid Stteet and futthec described as 1314 South Euclid 5tteet; and does hereby appcove the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration togethe~ with any comments received during the public teview ptocess and furthet finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that thece is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the enviconment. Malcolm Slaughter clarified this stcucture will be under the jurisdiction of the City Planning Department and not the State Architect's Office and the condition recommended by staff requices permi.ts fiom the City of Anaheim and the City does not issue permits for hospitals. 10/27/86 MINUTES, ANABEIM CTTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OCTOBER 27, ).986 ~6-712 Dr. Loskotas stated he was not sure about the jutisdiction. Commissioner La Claire stated if it was under the jucisdiction of the State Codes, the facility would ptobably be termed as a hospital. She stated thE building is existing and there ate no changes. Commissioner La Claire offeted a motion seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does heceby graat waiver of Code requi[ement on the basis that the parking waiver wil.l not cause an increase in traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity nor adversely affect any adjoining land uses and gcanting o£ the parking waivec undec the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the ci.tizens of the City of Anaheim. Commissionet La Claire offered Resolution No. PC86-268 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does he~eby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2852 pu~suant t.o Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 thtough 18.03.030.036 and subject to Inteedepartmental Committee cecommendations. On roll call, the foregoing tesolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS~ FRY, HERBST~ LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Malcolm Slaught.er, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written tight to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council ITEM N0. 13 EIR NEGAiIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2854 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: MARION C. HENRY AND ELAINE J. HENRY, 1212 Westmont Drive, Anaheim, CA 92801. AGENTS: MICHAEL DICKREN, P.O. Box 608, Atwood, CA 92601, BREA TIMES PARTNERS, 18514 Yocba Linda Blvd., Yocba Linda, CA 92686 AND LARRY HOFFMAN, 4939 Glenwood, La CtescenYa, CA 97214. P[operty is described as an icregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.53 acre located at the southwest cotner of Ball Road and Gilbert Stzeet. To permit an automotive service facility. There was no one indicating thei.c presence in opposi.tion to subject request and although the staff repott was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Larcy Hoffman, 4939 Glenwood, La Cr~scenta, CA 92714, was present to answet any questions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairmar~ Mcsurney asked if there Was some yuestion about the driveway entrance off Ball Road. Mr. Hoffman stated he has worked with the Traffic Engineer and made the necessary corrections and the revisions have been shown on the plans and the dimensions will be added as discussed. 10/27/86 86-713 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, OCTOBER 27, 1986 Chaicman I4cBUrney stated it is possible to app[ove this project subject to the Traffic Engineet's approval. Leonard McGhee stated tevised plans showing fully improved deiveways on Ball Road and Gilbert Stceet to the satisfaction of the Traffic F.n9ineec should be submitted to the Planning Department. Mt. Hoffman stated he did not ceceive the conditions; and a copy of the staff cepo~t was given to Mr. Hoffman for his review. Leonard McGhee stated staff understands that with the new revision to the plans, Condition Nos. 10 and 11 should be deleted. Mr. Hoffman stated he would concur with all the othec conditions. ACTION: Commissioner F~y offeced a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the prcposal to permit an automotive service facility on an icregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.53 acres located at the southwest corner of Ball Road and Gilbe[t Street; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon findin9 that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that thete is no su4stantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the envi~onment. Commissioner Fcy offered Resolution No. PC86-269 and moved for iianpassage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby g ConJitional Use Pecmit No. 2854 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.U30.030 through 18.03.030.035 and subject to Interdepartmental Committee tecommendations. On roll call, l•he foregoin9 tesolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS~ FRY, LF. CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: HERBST Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, pcesented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the Gity Council. ITEM~ N~~_14 EIR NEGP.TIVE DECLARATION WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONDZTIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2856 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: GEORGE CHRIS HEED: HEED FAMILY TRUST, 7122 Westminster Avenue, Westminster, CA 92683. AGENT: JERRY DEMING, 1830 S. Anaheim, CA 92804. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of agproximately 0.47 acces, 1830 South Anaheim Boulevard (Pleasure House Boutique). To pecmit retail sales of applicant's product line in conjunction with applicant's primary permitted uses with waivets of (a) dedication of ci9ht-of-way, (b) minimum dim~nsions of vehicle accessways, (c) minimum number of parking spaces, (d) pecmitted accessory uses, (e) minimum structural setback and yard tequitements, (f) cequired improvement of parking areas. 10/27/86 86-714 MINUTES, A.NA@GIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOs~,.;.~:.::` ':;;-._,_'~„• 1986 It was noted the petitioner has cequested a continuance for at least two weeks. ~.ommissioner Fry asked if gzanting a continuance would be giving approval of a use which he felt ~aas illegal. Malcolm Slaughter stated until there is an approptiate zoning action granted, the use would still be ille9al, assuming it is pcesently illegal. Commissionec Bouas asked why they are cequesting a continuance. Robert Sarno, attocney, 433 North Camden Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90210, stated the applicant is going to be out of town ~n the lOth and llth and would like the Planning Commission to consider that in theic continuance. He stated since the request was otiginally submitted, the aFplicant has decided to change the natuce of the use and is pcoposing a dramati.c reduction of the ptoposed retail use, the expansion of the permitted manufactuting and stocage areas, and the deletion of certain areas of the business. Malcolm Slaughtec stated he did nut know what cevisions wi].~ be made to the proposal; however, it is possible if they come in with something different than what is proposed, other sections of the Code will be involved and the matter would have to be ceadvertised. Commi.ssioner La Claire stated this business has been operating there foc quite a while, and she did not think a conti.nuance would be a problem. ACTION: Commissioner La Claire offered a motion, ~econded by Commissione[ Herbst and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be conti.nued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of Novembet 24, 1986, in ordec for the applicant to submit revised ptoposal. Commissioner La Claite explained this mattec has been continued for ~ne month and the opposition will be given a chance to speak when the matter is heard at the public hearing. She explained the neighbors will not be notified again and they should call the City Planning Depattment on the 24th to make sute the matter is going to be heacd. ITEM I~O. 15 EIR N0. 235 (PREV. CERTIFIED) TENTATZVE TRACT N0. 10974 (REV. N0. 2) ~READV.), EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION VARIANCE NO. 3605 AND REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLANS PUBLIC HEARING. OWNEAS: TRIDER CORPORATION, 1421 N. Wanda Avenue, Suite 100, Villa Park, CA 92667, ATTN: GARY McCANN. Ptoperty described as an itregularly-shaped parcel oi land consisting of approximately 16.5 acres located on both sides of Camino Gtande westerly of the intersection of Camino Gr.ande and Nohl Ranch Road. Request that Condition No. 25 pertaining to shared drive~ay be deleted and request for appcoval of specific plans for Tentative Tract No. 10974 (Revision No. 2)• Waivecs of (a) minimum sttuctucal setback and (b) requi~ed site screening to construct a 23-lot attached condominium subdivision. 10/2'7/86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBEF. 27 1986 86-715 There was one petson indicating her presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff tepork was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Richard Bowman, Engineer, was present to answer any questions. Debbie Schmidt, 6401 E. Lookout Lane, Anaheim, stated she cepcesents several owners and their homeowner's association in that area, and they just received the notice of the hearing and feel they do not have enough information and would like a continuance. She stated the majority of dwellings in the Anaheim Hills atea are single-family and they are woreied about their prope[ty values and how they would be affected with a condominium subdivision and they also do not feel additional condominiums are necessary because currently there are thcee townhouse developments in the area and there are a number of vacancies in those developments and the coads ate heavily traveled. She stated this is the first they have heacd of this and would like additional information. Chairman McBUtney stated the tentative map was approved in 1980, and this revision deals with the arcangement of the lots. Leonard McGhee stated there is really no revision to the tract and it was approved with the requirement that specific plans be approved by the Planning Commission. He explained because of the location of the buildings, waivers wece necessary and that is the ceason for the cequesL-. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commi.ssione~ Fry agreed a 6-foot high wall would not be necessary and asked how many structures are involved in the setback waiver. Mc. Bowman stated those are the rear yards which ace affected. Commissioner Herbst stated bel;~nd Lots 13 and 14, there is a steep slope and he was concerned about floeding with heavy rains. Mr. eowman stated they did submit a hyd~ology study and it was approved with the original tcact and the original drain would catch the water. Commissioner La Claite stated now that the Engineering Depa~tment is aware of the concern, they should make sure the study is adequate. it was noted the cequest for deletion of Condition No. 25 of Tract 10974 was withdrawn. ACTION: Commissione[ La Claire offeted a motion, seconded by Commissione[ He[bst and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the ptoposal to permit the construction of a 23-lot attached condominium subdivision with waivers of minimum structural setback and requiced site screening on an irre9ularly-shaped patcel of land consisting of agproximately 16.5 acres located on both sides of Camino Gcande west of the inte[section of Cartiino Grande and N~hl Ranch Road; and does heceby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has consi.deced the Negative Declaration togethet with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a sxgnificant effect on the enviconment. 10/27/86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 27 1986 86-716 Commissioner La Clai.te offered Resolution No. PC86-270 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Variance No. 3605 on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the pcoperty such as size, shape, topography, location and sucroundings which do not apply to uther identically zoned property in the same vicinity; and that strict applicaticn of the 2oning Code deprives the ptopecty of privileges enjoyed by other ptoperties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS~ FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI, MC BURNEY~ MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NOD?E Commissioner La Claice offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fcy and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve specific plans for Tentative Ttact No. 10974 (Revision No. 2). Prio[ to voting, Jay Titus cesponded to Commissioner Herbst that the original condition pertaining to drainage would apply to this cevision. t~alcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attocney, pcesented the wcitten cight to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0. 16 EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 3 AND VARIANCE NO. 3613 PUBLIC HEARING. OWN~RS: TOM AND CONNIE HAWTHORNE, 1776 Partcidge Stree~, Anaheim, CA 92806. AGENT: LOUISE BALLBNTINE, 1775 Partridge Street, Anaheim, CA 92806. Ptope~ty is descri.bed as a ~ectangularly-shaped parcel of land ~~nsisting of approximately 5,742 square feet, 1776 Pactridge Stteet. Waivet of minimum teas yatd setback to retain an existing patio covec in an RS-5Q00 Zone. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject tequest and a.lthough the staff cepoct was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Louise Valentine, agent, was present to answer any questions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. It was noted the Planning Director or his authorized tepresentative has determined that the otoposed project falls within the definition of Categotical Exemptions, Class 5, as defined in the State Envitonmental Impact xeport Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the ~equirement to prepare an EIR. ACTION: Commissionet Herbst offered Resolution No. PC86-271 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby gcant Variazce No. 3613 an the basis that thete ate special citcumstances 10/27/86 86-717 MINUTES AIiAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 27 1986 applicable to the propecty such ~o other identicallygz ned~ptopectyninnthe surroundings which do not apply Code depcives the same vicinity; and that stcict application of the 2oning property of pcivileges enjoyed by othei properties in the identical aone and classification in the vicinity and subject to Interdepartmental Committee tecommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS~ FRYr HERBST, LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI~ MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City A::torney, p~esented the wcitten right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM~ ~ EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 11 AND VARIANCE NO. 3614 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: UNITED SUITES Or' AMERICA, INC.~ 450 Newport Centec D[ive, i420, Newport Beach, CA 92660, ATTN: MICHAEL R•EscondidoD•CAA92025, COMET NEON & PLASTIC SIGN CO., 611 Rock Sptings, Road, sha ed atcel of ATTN: JERRY t4URDOCK. coX°matelya9sacresdlocatedtatetheasoutheast cocner of land consistin9 of app Glassell Street and Ftonteta Street, 3100 East Fconteca Stteet. Waiver of maximum area of fteestan@ing signs to construct one freestanding changeable copy sign. Thete was no one indicating their pcesence in opposition to subject request and although the staff repoct was not read, it is cefec~ed to and made a part of the minutes. Jerry Murdock, agent, was p~esent to answet any questions. T8E PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSGD. ResQonding to Commissionec La Claire, Mr. Mu[dock stated the messages will be public setvice messages and messages pectaining co conventions, etc. Responding to Commissione~ Hetbst, Mr. Mucdock stated they did take a line-of-sight down the freeway and explained the height meets Code and they are requesting an inccease in the maximum size because the freeway off-tamp blocks the sign going from west to east and a junk yacd next dooc pcohibits the view €zam goin9 from east to west. Commissioner La Claice indicated concern with the lights from the sign at night because of the cesidential area. Mc. Mutdock exaluensaaanlesshsteely the letters would be seen because the background is op q painted bronze and it would be low-density lighting. Commissioner Herbst stated due to the size of the building, he did not think this would be out of olace. 10/27/86 MItiUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 27 1986 86-716 It was noted the Planning Director ot his authorized representative has detecmined that the proposed pcoject falls withi.n the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 11, as defined in the State Environmental Impact Report Guidelines and is, therPfore, categorically exempt from the requitement to ptepare an EIR. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC86-272 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planni.ng Commission does hereby grant Variance No. 3614 on the basis that there ace special circumstances applicable to the ptoperty such as size, shape, topography, location and sutroundings which do not apply to othec identically zoned property in the same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zonin9 Code deprives the pcoperty of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity and subject to Interdepartmental Committee tecommendations. On toll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS~ FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NO~E ABSEL~T: NONE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Counci.l. ITEM N0. 18 REPORTS AND RECOMMEI~DATIONS A. RECLASSIFICATION N0. 84-SS-42 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2702 - Request from Eatima Stevens for tettoactive extensions of time for Reclassification 84-85-42 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2702 to permit a spicitual psychic palmist, property located at 1570 West Katella Avenue. ACTION: Commissioner Hecbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissionet Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve extensions of time for Reclassification No. 84-85-42 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2702, to expire August 5, 1987. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERt4IT N0. 1b58 - Request from Ottis E. Pittman for cet[oactive extension of time for Conditi.onal Use Pecmit No. 1858 to permit a cat kennel and maintenance storage yacd, property locaked at 1401 N. Jeffecson Stteet. Ottis Pittman, applicant, 1621 N. Lindendale, Fullerton, explai.ned there is s preblem with the propetty next door and it is necessary for him to cequest an extension of time so they can proceed to carry out the programs mandated by the State of Califotnia. Leonatd McGhee stated there are a numbec of conditions which have not been met and exp'ained the pe~mi.t was approved by the Planning Commission in 1978 for a cat kennel and storage yard for heavy equipment fot a period of 5 years and another extension of time was granted by the Planning Commission for an 8-month period to expire on October 9, 1986. He stated due to some atoblems outside the petitioner's contcol, he is 10/27/86 86-719 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 27 19fi6 requesting anothec extension of time for one year and staff feels Condition Nos. 1, 6 and 8 and they should be complied with within 60 days. Mr. Pittman stated he would have no pr.oblem complying with Conditions 1, 2, 5 and 6, but 4 could be a slight problem, and he would have a problem complYin9 with No. 7 because of the short peciod of time imposed and asked why it did not coincide with the time limi.ts on 1~ 6 and S. Leonard McGhee stated Condition Nos. G and 8 cequire oayment prioc to the issuance of bui.lding permits. Annika Santalahti stated the watet and drainage fees a=e based on acreage assessments and typically, would not be cequested the second time and that the square footage of the propecty does not make a difference. Malcolm Slaughtec stated the fees are required prior to the issuance of building permits and he did not know if a buildi.ng permit is required and was not sure when the•; would have to be accomplished. CO~thelfees are stated the conditions indicate if no petmits are required, not tequ:'•'~~ Mr, Pittman stated he is in khe process of selling the property and thete maybe a cloud which cemains on this propetty and the attotneys are meeting very shortly to try and resolve the problems. He statea he still has a further problem with the equipment and thece are contingencies which might affect the outcome. Commissioner Hecbst suggested conti.nuing the matter for a couple of weeks in order for the applicant to meet with staff to determine what needs to be done. Annika Santalahti suggested a 60-day conti.nuance. ACTION: Commissionec La Clai.re offered a motion, seconded by Commi.ssioner Fry and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of Conditional Use Pecmit No. 1858 be extended foc a peciod of 60 days to expire on Decembec 27, 1986. ~, RECLASSIEICATION N0. 85-86-9 AND VARIANCE N0. 3513 - Request f[om George E. Jones for extensions of time for Reclassification 85-86-9 and Variance No. 3513 to construct a 204-unit "affordable" apactment complex, propecty located at 801 East Otangewood Avenue. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner gty and MOTION C1~RRIED that Anaheim City Planni.ng Commission does he[eby approve extensions of time fot Reclassification No. 85-86-9 and Variance No. 3513, to tecminate on Octobe[ 28, 1987. D, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2724 - Request from Albect G. Giegele for a [et[oactive extension of time foc Conditional Use Permit No.=o7e~tto pecmi.t a 152-unit senioc citizen congcegate care facility, p P Y located at 200 W. Freedman Way. ACTION: Commissione[ Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissionec Bouas and MOTION CAEtP.IED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does heteby approve rettoactive extension of time fot Conditional Ose Permit No. 2724 to expite on October 14, 1987. 10/27/86 86-720 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOB~R 27 1986 Chairman McBUtney left the meeting at 4:35 and Commissionec Messe assumed the Chair. E. GPA STUDY AREA - Request ftom Plar.ning Di.vision for concucrence concerning General Plan Amendment Study Area Boundacies - acea bounded by La Palma Avenue, Lemon Stceet, h'ilhelmina Stceet and alley westecly of Anaheim Boulevard. Greg Hastings, Associate Planner, presented the staff teport and explained the area inclu3es about 100 parcels of various sizes and the area is developed basicall~~ with medium density surrounded by low density and commercial. Reith Peppet, 817 N. Lemon, was present to answer questions and stated 58 people had signed in suppott of thi.s request and appcoxi.mately 558 of the ownees ~n the atea who are in favoc. Commissionec La Claice stated most of that aeea is developed witer stated single-family residences wiLh some RM-2400 pcopecti.es. Mr. Pepp thete a~e a couple of six-plexes, but they a~e strictly single-story and 65$ of the atea is developed with single-fami.ly homes and noted, in Septembet when he first approached the neighbors, thece was a lot of unPasiness; and that they moved into thi.s particular neighbo~hood because i.t is older and established and there was no heavy density; and also the younget people bought theit older homes because they wanted that chatacter i.n the nei.ghbochood and want to pceserve it now. Commissionee Hetbst szated staff is anticipating setting a public heasing for November 24th and he felt thece would be a lot of people present for this issue. Mt. Pepper stated there were 11 people pcesent initially: and 6 more came latet and he feels he has been successful in getting the _ authocizations from the prope~ty o~ners because most of them work and he is able to appea~ on thett behalf during the afternoon meetings. Commissioner Hecbst stated he thought this would be a lacge hearing because of the area b=ing considered and suggested it might be set for an evening and pointed out thece will be a latge agenda on that day anyway. Gteg Hastings stated thete are a lot of pcopecty owners and a 1ot of different land uses in that area and thought it might be a good idea to have an evening hearing. Commissionec Bouas pointed out the opposition would like to have an evening heacing on GPA No. 221 and Reclassifi.cation No. 86-87-10 fot the pcopecty on Fairmont Boulevard~em~~forSan eveningCsessionuonethea24th. scheduling both of those big Commissioner Messe pointed out Mr. Pepper WOCo~bssioner1He~bst statedpi.n and maybe i.t could be held during the a~here could be a lot of people i~:.ntiing at the size of the study acea, ptesent. Mr. Pepper stated he concentrated on the area cecommended by staff which does not presently comply with the General Plan designations and that it would basically be the a~ea including the 700 block of Notth Zeyn and the 700, 800 and 900 biocks o£ Lemon. 10~27~86 86-721 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, OCTOBER 27. 1986 Greg Hastings stated a portion of the study area is alteady zoned RM-2400; howevec, thece is potential for eezoning to RM-1200, if any of the ownezs so desire. Commissioner Herbst stated there are pros and cons to be pcesented, patticularly from the owners who might want to sell. Mr. Pepper stated when he initially approached the ptoperty owners he explained the Planning Commission had indicated that single-family was the way they wanted to go and the RM-2400 Zoning could be ptoposed; and those owners in the 700 block of Zeyn indicated that atea is almost all totally single-family and they would like it to remain that way; however, they felt it wou.id be nice to have the eption to put another unit on the reat of their propecties as a selling posed~tonmultiplehfanilvlresidences 700, 800 and 900 block of Lemon are opp and those three alternatives wece all proposed to the pcoperty ownecs. meeting1couldHbebmadetaftertthedNovembetWlOthemeetin9twhenhthe lengthnof9 the agenda is determined. Mr. Pepper explained there is a pcoPosal on the agenda for the 24th for apartments in this area and that is the ~eason for having the concu~rent hearings. Commissioner La Claire stated the two big heacings sho~ld be scheduled fot the evening on the 24th because Commission will need a bceak. Commissioner Messe asked if Mr. Vazquez's project should be held aftec the GPA. Annika Santalahti stated that hearing was continued to that date and will appeat on the agenda only because that is the policy, but thece is nothing to say that it has to be heacd until aftec the GPA h_aring has been held, which could mean three heacings in the evening. She stated they could continue it to the following meeting. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner La Clai[e and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the afotementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of November 24, 1986. OTHER DISCUSSION: p, Norman Priest asked the Planning CommAdminist~atormeositionsewhichnwase ~,ro~osing the creation o.. the Zoning p ptesented to them at thE morning review meeting; and that he realizes the Planning Commission would like to have more time to study it and suggested they call him later in the week because it is his intention to have Commission's input and he would appreciate any comments by Thursday evening. B. Commissionec Fry indicated his conce~n about what happened du~ing the heating on Item No. 8 pertaining to something that happened between Hugo Vazque:. and the Housing Authority; that during the Commission's work session in the morning, it was related to the Commission that Mr. Vazquez had not applied foc the Affordable Housing Agreement on this item and had had no contact with the Housing pecsonnel, and it was also passed over or alluded to that he had not even applied for an agceement on the project 10/27/86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CIT't PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 27 1y85 86-~ZZ next door; and then at the public hearing in the afternoon, the same things were repeated and that he was just getting ready to ask Mr. Vazquez some questions as to why he had not signed the agteenents when he was told by Mt. Vazquez that he had applied to the Housing Authocity and the documents had been signed and were lost somewhere in the Cxty and he had to reapply. He stated it could have been a very embacrassing situation and that he does not like to be misled and did not feel the Commission had been told the whole truth., t~r. Priest stated he was not sure what Commi.ssi.oner Fry was refecting to, but would find ouF and it is not staff's i.ntention to mislead the Planni.ng Commission, Housi.ng Commissi.on, Redevelopment Commission or anyone else. Commissi.onec Messe stated he thought i.t was indicated the Housing Authori.ty had never received signed agceements on the project next door and i.t was very defi.nitely misleadi.ng. C. Commissioner Herbst stated 'ne would like for staff to make a study concecni.ng apartment densi.ties and noted thece should be changes in what is allowed for t:he recreational-lei.sure area and it should be determined whethe~ or not a lot of developers are using the landscaped areas or any open space as lei.sure area. He stated thece should be some areas speci.fically set asi.de for plaY9r~unds for child:en, etc. and none of those things are being provided i.n today's projects. He added the densi.ty should also be reviewed where 1:andem packi.ng has been allowed and stated there has never been this Y.9.nd of densi.ty approved for apa[tments until tandem parking and under9round packing wece allowed and this is really eceating high densi.ty in some very small aceas and the develope~s are just meeting the m9.nimums. He stated the recreational area should be actual usable recreational spaces instead of alloaing ce~tain landscaped areas to be counted. Anni.ka Santalahti stated she felt some of the problem is the undeegcound parking. Commissioner Herbst stated when underground packing is done right, it could be acceptable, but with these densities, we could be creating some slum areas. Mr. Priest stated he thought Commissi.onet Herbst was referring to the tcends and some cumulative i.mpacts. Commi.ssioner La Claice stated in some areas these densiti.es may not be too high, but in other aceas, like on Lemon Street, it would be too dense. She agceed there is a concern and a study should be made. Commissioner Lawi.cki stated these are supposed to be family units and the parking lots and walkways should not be counted as cecreational areas because the children will be playi.ng in those areas. Notman Pciest stated he hoped the Commission would give staff some time to review this because he would like to have them look at some standatds whi.ch will zequice some tesearch time. 10/27/86 ; ; 86-723 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 27 1986 Commissionec Herbst stated in some high density pcojects, they have provided tennis courts, recreation rooms and swimming pools on the roofs. Commissioner La Claire stated some of the hi.gh density pcojects should be toured by the Commission on their own. Commissionec Herbst stated he thought this City is getting lax in appcoval of these high density apartment projects. Annika Santalahti stated the Ci.ty Council mentioned this same issue about 1 or 2 years ago and consa.dered changing the Code, but the response was that we aze still seeing some ptojects coming in under Code and if construction does go underground, they need the density to balance the cest of the site. Commissioner Hetbst stated aftec the study is done, the Commission should cequest a joint meeting with City Council to go over this type change. Annika Santalahti stated staff could provide a list of projects whi.ch the Commission could review. Chairman McBU~ney stated putting parking underground is one of the best uses of land he could think of, but that tandem parking is teally a conce~n. AnJOURNMENT: Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and MCTION CARRIED that the meeting be adjourned. The meeting was adjourned by 5:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~C~ ~C- ~~~ Ed th L. Harris, Secretacy Anaheim Cit.y Planning Commission ELH:lm 0227m 10/27/86