Loading...
Minutes-PC 1986/11/10REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION C't Planning The cegulac meeting of the Anahelm 1 Y REGULAR MEETING was called to o[ae~ bY Chaitman McBU[neY at a Commission 1986~ in the Council Chambetr 10:00 a.m.r November 10, quocum being present, and the Commission reviewed plans o the items on today's a9enda. FRESENT: RECESS: R£CONVENED: Chairman: Commissioners: Commissioner: No[man Priest 11:30 a.m. 1:30 p•m• McBUCneY Hecbst, Bouas, Fry, La Claire, Lawicki, Messe none Executive Director of Community Development/Planning Assistant Dicectoe foc Zoning Deputy City Attocney Office Engineec Ttaffic Engineet Housing Rehab. Supetvisot pssociate Plannet Associate Plannec Planning Co~'~ission Sectetaty ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: Annika Santalahti Joseph Fletchet Jay Titus Paul Singet LattY Cabcera ~Leg Hastings Leonacd McGhee Edith Ha[[is pppROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissiunet Hetbst offeted a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki and o~e~ a~~submiDtedat the minutes of the meeting of Octobet 27, 1986, be appr __ ~~~~ D~,nnTREMENT AND ITEM N~ EIR NEG[+'rivL L••.,-•-- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. Zs4~ JOSEPH N. AND JALEH J. MAKABI AND HZZ4~EWHOLRn oln PUBLIC HEARING. O~dNERS~ CA 92802• AGENT: HUGO VAZRUEZ~ sha ed Anaheim, aescribed as a cectang~l~rlY- P 3333 W. Ball Road, erkY Avenue, Anaheim, CA 928~Z• P=~ptoximately 0.74 acre, 3333 West Ball Road. patcel of land consisting of app To cos~struct a 94-bed skilled nursing facility with waivets of (a) minimum landscaped setback, (b1 maximum stzuctucal height and (c1 minimum side yatd setback. Continued itom the meeting of October 13r 1986' etitioner tequested a continuance in order to meet with owners anc considet cevisions to the plans. It was noted the p surrounding prdPerty seconded by Commissionec Lawicki f the aforementioned mattera~ethe ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motlon'of Decembet 8, 1986, and MOTION CARItIED that conschedulednmeeting continued to the tegularly- =equest of the petitionec. 11/10/86 86-724 4 REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAflEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING The regular meetir,g of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to otdet by Chairman McBurney at 10:.00 a.m., November 10, 1966, in the Council Chambet, a quorum being oresent, and the Commission ceviewed plans of the items on today's agenda. RECESS: 11:30 a.m. RECONVENED: 1:30 p.m. PRESEPIT: ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: Chairman: McBurney Commissioners: Bouas, Fry, Hecbst, La Claire, Lawicki, Messe Commissioner: none Norman Ptiest Annika Santalahti Joseph Fletcher Jay Titus Paul Singet Lacry Cabrera Gceg Hastings Leonard McGhee Edith Hatris Executive Director of Community Development/Planning Assistant Directo[ for Zoning Deputy City Attorney Office Engineet Traffic Engineer Housing Rehab. Supervisor Associate Planner Associate Planner Planning Commission Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner He[bst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki and MOTIUN CARRIED *_hat the minutes of the meeting of October 27, 1986, be approved as submitted. ITEM N0. 1 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2847 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: JOSEPH N. AND JALEH J. MAKABI AND HOURIE HOURIANI, 3333 W. Ball Road, Anaheim, CA 92902. AGENT: HUGO VAZQUEZ, 2240 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92802. Property described a~ a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of appcoximately 0.74 acce, 3333 West Ball Road. To construct a 44-bed skilled nursing facility with waivecs of (a) minimum landscaped setback, (b) maximum stcuctural height and (c) minimum side yard setback. Continued from the meeting of October 13, 1986. It was noted the petitioner requested a continuance in ordet to meet with suctounding propecty owners and consider revisions to the plans. ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of December 8, 1986, at the r2quest of the petitioner. 86-724 11/10/86 86-725 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 10 1986 ITEM N0. 2 EIR NF.GATIVE DECLARATION AND REQUEST FOR SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL NO. 86-OS PUSLIC HEARING. OWNERS: EAST HILLS DEVELOPMENT, 26300 La Alameda, Suite 330, Mission Viejo, CA 92691. AGENT: GREINER ENGINEERING, 1221 E. Dyec Road, Suite 101, Santa Ana, CA 92'05, ATTN: t+NN MONZON. Property described ac an irregularly-shaped paccel of land consisting of approximately 31 acres generally located south and ea~t of the intersection o~ Santa Ana Canyon Road and the southe~ly exten~ion of Wei[ Canyon Road, 8600 Santa Ana Canyon Road (Bauec Ranch). Request for the removal of one California Live Oak specimen tree and one Califocnia Pepper specimen tcee to facilitate construction of 'l92 apartment units. Continued from the neeting of October 13, 1986. There was no one indicating their ptesence in opposition to subject request and although the staff repoct was not read, it is refecred to and made a part of the minutes. Michael Murphy, agent, explained the two teplacement t~ees will be on Santa Ana Canyon Road nea~ the enttance to the project. Fle refer.red to a letter dated November 5, 1986, from the developec explaitiing they will be spending several hundred dollars on a tree planting progcam as part of the landscaping and most likely there will be 200 to 300 t~ees planted. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Responding to Commissior.ec La Claire, Mc. Murphy explained the final landscape plan will not be available foc another 4 to 6 weeks. Commissioner Bouas asked the si2e of the teplacement tcees. Mc. Murphy responded the plans indicate the trees will be 48' box Sycamore trees. Commissioner La Claire stated she had requested the landscape plan because several developers have accidentally camoved specimen tcees and originally the~e was a stipulation that matute trees would be planted at the entcance, so obviously those are not co make up for the pcemature cemoval of these t[ees. She stated she would like a continuance of this matter until a landscape plan is submitted. She stated the City has been vecy lax with people removing specimen t~ees and then asking fo~ permission and a fine of ~500 pec tree could be levied or a prison term imposed. Mr. Murphy stated the current schedule calls for a landscaping plan to be available in four to six weeks and requested a continuance. ACTION: Commissionec La Claire offeced a motion, seconded by Commissionrc' Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the afocementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of January 19, 1987. 11/10/86 ! 86-726 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ NOVEMBER 10, 1986 ITEM N0. 3 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION TENTATIVE TRACT OF MAP N0. 12854 AND REQUEST FOR SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL NO. 86-06 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: GOLDIE G. MONTGOMERY AND CLAYBURN G~AVES~ 175 S. Lakeview Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92807. AGENTS: O& 0 SERVICE, 1345 Dynamics Street, Anaheim, CA 92806 ar.d RAAB ENGINEERING, INC., 1700 E. Lincoln Avenue, Suite 201, Anaheim, CA 92805, ATTN: HAL ~B• Pr~roximatelcr8b5aactesn irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of app Y located at the southwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Lakeview Avenue. To establish a 7-lot, RS-HS-43,000(SC) single-family residential subdivision. Request fot the removal of 20 specimen trees (ociginally reyuested removal of 118 trees). Continued from the meeting of October 13, 1966. There were two persons indicating theiz presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff cepoct was not tead, it is refer[ed to and made a part of the minutes. Mark Oden, ayent, explained their plans were ~esubmitted with corrections. He stated the Traffic Engineer came out to the site and reviewed theic access location. Clayburn Graves, 175 S. Lakeview, owner~ stated he has lived in this area since 1947 and during that time there have been a lot of changes in the area and he is asking the Commission to approve anothec change; that he understood two concerns discussed at the October 13th meeting wece the enttance on Lakevie~d and the removal of the Eucalyptus tcees, but the primaty objection was to the tcaffic on Lakeview. He stated on October 15th his sistet counted the cars going north and south on Lakeview and thete was a total of just over one car per minute and he understands about ter. cars per minute is considered a high traffic condition. Mr. Gtaves explained the City Traffir_ Engineer had come out to the site on Occober 29th and reviewed the line-of-sight ftom the pcoposed entrance and it had ve*y good visibility from both north and south on Lakeview. He explained entranceCOnoCerronVistaawouldWbeotoo closegto his bedtoom and wouldabe an the invasion of his privacy. Mr. Gtaves explained the trees wete planted in 1917 and ace about 100 ieet tall now and he tops the ones around his house about every five years because he is afraid they will fall on his house. He stated the objection to the temoval of the trees was that they provide sound attenuation; however, he has checked with the Sound Engineer for the County and a Sound Engineer in his own business and they both told him a row of Eucalyptus trees would not ptovide sound attenuation. He stated they have decided to remove only 20 trees ins~eadeditoleliminatelthelhazardeofethemufallingeonloaegoftthe houseshave to be topp 11/10/86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMDSISSION, NOVEMBER 10~ 1986 86-727 Bill Short, 4820 Santa Ana Canyon Road, stated he represents about five neighbors and they all object to the heavy traffic in and out of Lakeview and also, object to the cemoval of even a single tree. He stated the acre right below his property was developed about 2-1/2 years ago and trees were temoved and ~he noise level at his house has increased tremendouci;~ and he would invite ar,}• planning Commissioner to come out on a Su~day after~.ioon and listen t!~ th~ traffic noise from his patio. Shicley Addec, 170 S. Lakeview, stated she is appalled to hear Mr. Graves talk about his privacy being invaded when he does not really care about the privacy of his neighbors or for Pe~alta Hills. She explained Mr. Graves told her they would remove only 20 trees and she appreciates that, but that he told her he could not settle for having the entrance on Cerro Vista because the road would be too close to his bedroom and he could not sleep. She stated she had suggested he keep one lot behind his house and he did not like that suggestion. Concerning tcaffic, Ms. Adder stated even one car per minute on a road that is supposed to be a quiet country road is too much. She referred tu heavy trucks and equipment using their driveways to turn around because there is no room on Lakeview for them to turn acound and they do ruin their driveways. She stated the neighbors have all called her about their objections. She stated she could not go along with Mr. Graves' concern that he could not sleep and did not think that is a valid reason for the Commission to not grant an entcance on Cerro Vista. She pointed out he has another bedroom upstaics and could move into that bedroom. She stated she did not know when the traffic count was taken and there are days when it is quieter than others and wondered if the count was taken at 7:00 a.m. when there is a lot of traffic. She stated she would be happy to take a traffic count if the Commission desires. Mr. Oden stated they plan to plant 125 project. He stated most of the cacs in the enttance was on Cerro Vista, 908 0 order to get to the freeway. trees around the perimetet of the that area tcavel to the freeway and if f the cars would go left to Lakeview in THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner La Claire stated she has lived in that area and knows theee is a lot of traffic on Lakeview; that she reviewed the site again this morning and as a land planner, still could not see why there could not be an entrance on Cerro Vista. She stated this morning there were four cats behind her going up and that was not even during the peak hour. Commissioner Messe stated he thought the traffic would be the same on Lakeview with the entrance on Cetra Vista or Lakeview and 958 of the cars will have to go to Lakeview no matter where the entrance is located and he did not see anything wcon9 with these plans. Commissionec Herbst agreed and stated he travels on Lakeview every night and that traffic on Santa Ana Canyon Road is getting very heavy, but the traffic on Lakeview is nothing compared to elsewhece in the City. He stated he recognizes that people who live in Peralta Hills want the narrow winding streets, but he did not want to penalize a p~opecty owner who has property 11/10/86 pIINUTES~ ANAAEIM CITY PLANNING C~MMISSION, NOJEMBER 10, 1986 S6'72g left to be developed and is going to develop in accordance with all the other standards in that area. He stated the p~opecties across the stteet have driveways for every lot on Lakeview and this tcact would have a gated entcance with one driveway and this would be the safest way to develop that property. Commissioner La Claire stated if the pcoperty could not be developed any othet way she would agree, but in this instance he could develop it in many other ways without affecting anyone else. She stated it would be a lot safer if the cacs exited off Cerro Vista onto Lakeview because the view is better. Commissioner. Bouas stated exiting off Cerro Vista would give the cars more time to build up speed and she did not think it would be any safer. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated he did meet with the applicant and where the access is shown on the plan, there is a double ceverse curve in Lakeview and it was agreed if they take that access point on Lakeview, the street will be widened and the curve substantially dimensioned and visibility would be greatly improved. He statQd access to Cerro Vista could be accomplished by improving the intersection of Cerro Vista and Lakeview, but the visibility at Lakeview and Cerro Vista is not as great as it would be at the location on Lakeview. He stated he did not know how many tcees would have to removed to straighten that curve as discussed. He pointed out the area of Lakeview that would be widened on the exhibit. Chairman McBUrney stated it appears fcom the plans that an additional 8 trees would have to be cemoved, for a total of 28 rather than 2Q as indicated. ~aul Singer stated most of the teees that would have to be temoved ate on Lakeview. He stated the widening of Lakeview would not cceate a deceleration lane because the existing paving would stay and the centerline would move and Lakeview would only be widened in that a~ea which would just eliminate the cucve. He added he did not believe it could be done until he had reviewed the site pecsonally. He stated any walls would have to be S feet from the property line in o~der to provide visibility. Chairman [dcBucney stated straightening those cutves would help Lakeview considerably, not only for this developec, but the people who live thece an~ actoss the stceet. He stated Cerro Vista is a much nacrowez street and adding more tcaffic at this time would inctease the possibility of more accidents. ACTION: Commissionet He[bst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRZED that tne Anaheim City Planning Commission has ceviewed the proposal to establish a 7-lot RH-S-93,000 (SC) (Residential, Single Family) subdivision and the removal of 28 specimen trees on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of app~oximately 8.5 acres located at the south~~st corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Lakeview Avenue; and does hereby appcove the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declatation together with any comments received ducing the public review pcocess and fucther finding on the basis of Ehe Initial Study and any comments teceived that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Leonard McGhee asked about the applicant's stipulation that 125 ttees will be planted on the gerimeter upon completion of the project. He stated the cequest was for the renoval of only 20 trees which would requice replacement 11/10/86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, NOJEMBER 10, 1986 86-729 of only 20 trees. He explained originally the cequest was to replace 118 trees and that has been changed to 28. Mr. Oden stated the landscaping plan shows approximately 100 tcees to be removed and n~w they are only requesting to temove 28. He stated he just made a general comment about the numbec to be replanted and the actual number will be reflected on the landscape plans. Commissione[ Messe asked that a stipulation be made that Lakeview will be straightened in the manner suggested by the TraEfic Engineec. Mr. Oden stated they are in full agreement with that recommendation. Leonard McGhee responded to Chaicman McBurney that staff would like to teview the landscape plans. Mr. Oden stated the walls will be open metal with landscaping being used to close it ir~. Paul Singer stated a condition should be added that any plants oc landscaping or walls in the line-of-sight area stiall be reviewed by the City Tcaffic Engineer so the landscaping and walls do not obstruct the view of traffic. Commissioner Rerbst offeced a motion, seconded by Commissionec Messe and MOTION CARRIED (Commissionec La Claire voting no) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find that the proposed subdivision, together with its design and improvement, is consistent with the City of Anaheim General Plan, putsuant to r,ovecnment Code Section 66473.5; and does, therefore, approve Tentat.ive Map of Tcact No. 12854 for a 7-lot, RS-HS-43,000 (SC) zoned single-family residential subdivision subject to the following conditions: 1. That prioc to issuance of a building pecmit, the appropeiate major thoroughfare and bridge fee shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an amount as specified in the Majoc Thoroughfare and B«~ae Fee Pto9tam foc the Foothil2/Eastecn Transpo~tatiun Cocridor, as approved by City Council Resolution No. 85R-423. 2. That pcior to final tcact map apptoval, appropciate park and recreation in-lieu fees shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an amount as detecmined 4y the City Council. 3. That prior to issuance of a building permit, the appcopriate ttaffic signal assessment fee shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an amount as detecmined by the City Council. 4. That the vehicular access rights to Lakeview Avenue except at the approved access point, shall be dedicated to ttie City of Anaheim; and that all access rights to Santa Ana Canyon Road shall be dedicated to the ~:ity of Anaheim. 5. That the owner of subject pcoperty shall irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of Anaheim a 25-foot pcoperty radius at the intecsection of Cer~o Vista Drive and Lakeview Avenue fo[ street widening purposes. 11/10/86 86-730 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, NOVEMBER 10, 1986 6. That all engineering requi[ements of the City of Anaheim along Cerco Vi~ta Drive which shall include widening Cecro Vista Drive on the north side of centerline and the construction of the full width street fcom a point apptoximately 300 feet westerly of Lakeview Avenue to Lakeview Avenue as cequired to bring the street within the existing dedicated right-of-way and in compliance with the City of Anaheim standard foz a public stceet in Peralta Hills, including prepacation of improvement plans and installation of all imptavements such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks, water facilities, street gradinq and pavement, sewer and drainage facilities, or other appu~tenant work shall be complied with as required by the City Enginee[ and in accordance with specifications on file in the Office of the City Engineec; and that security in the fo~m of a bond, ce~tificate of deposit, letter of credit, or cash, in an amount and focro satisfactory to the City of Anaheim, shall be posted with the City to guarantee the satisfactory completion of said impcovements. Said security shall be posted with the City prior to final tract map approval, to guarantee the installation of the above-required impeovements prioc to occupancy. 7. That the existing curve on Lakeview Avenue in the vicinity of the proposed access street be reali9ned and that additional right-of-way be dedicated and that the street be reconstructed per City Engineerin9 standards and subject to appcoval by the City Traffic Engineec. 8. That any landscaping plants or walls in site visibil~ty areas shall be appcoved by the City Traffic Engineer. 9. Thai pzior to final tcact map approval, street names shall be appcoved by the City Planning Department. 10. That temporary stteet name signs shall be installed priot to any occupancy if permanent street name signs have not been installed. 11. That no public oc private stteet grades shall exceed 108 except by prioc approval of the Chief of the Fite Departmenc and the Engineeting Division. 12. That gates shall not be installed across any driveway or private street in a manner which may adversely affect vehiculac traffic in the adjac2nt public streets. Installation of any gates shall confocm to Engineecing Standard Plan No. 402 and subject to the review and aporoval of the City Traffic En9ineec. 13. That drainage of subject pcoperty shall be disposed of in a mannet satisfactory to the City Engineer. 11/10/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION_,_ NOVEMBER 10, 1986 86-731 14. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. 15. That the property owner shall furnish to the City of Anaheim an agreement in a form to be approved by the City Attorney agreeing to complete the public improvenents requir.ed as conditions of this map at the owner's expense. Said agreement shall be cecorded concurrently with the final tract map and is not to be subordinate to any recorded encumbrance against the property. 16. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. 17. That prioc to commencement of structural fzaming, fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department. 18. That all cequirements of Fire Zone 4, otherwise identified as Fite Administrative Order No. 76-01, snall be met. Such tequirements include, but are not limited to: chimney spark arrestors, pcotected attic and under floor openings, Class C or bettec roofin9 material and one hour fice resistive constcuction of horizontal surfaces if located within 200 feet of adjacent brushland. 19. That fuel breaks shall be provided as determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Depa:tment. 20. That native slopes adjacent to newly constructed homes shall be hydcoseeded with a low fuel combustible seed mix. Such slopes shall be spcinklered and weeded as ~equired to establish a minimum of 10~ feet of separation between flammable vegetation and any structure. 21. That all lockable vehiculac access gates shall be equipped with a'knox box• device to the satisfaction of the City Fire Matshall. 22. That prior to final tract map approval, the owner of subject pcoperty shall pay the appropriate drainage assessment to the City of Anaheim in an amount as determined by the City Engineer. 23. That stteet li9hL•ing facilities along Santa Ana Canyon Road shall be installed as required by the Utilities General Manager in accordance with specifications on file in the Office of Utilities General Manager, and that security in the form of a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or cash, in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim, shall be posted with 11/10/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, NOVEMBER 10, 1986 86-732 the City to guarantee the satisfactory completion of the above-mentioned improvements. Said security shall be posted with the City of Anaheim prior to final tract map approval. The above-required improvements shall be installed prior to occupancy. 24. That prior to the prior to issuance of building permit, the appropriate fees due for pcimary, secondacy and fire protection shall be paid to the water Utility Divisiun by the Developer in accordance with Rules 15A and 20 of the Water Utility Rates, Rules and Regulations. 2~. That prior to final tract map approval the developer shall show on said map the location of a hiking and equest[ian trail ~s shown on the General Plan to the satisfaction of the Planning Department and the parks, Recreation and Community Service Department. 26. That the owner of subject propezty shall execute and record a covenant obligating the Homeowners Association of subject tract to: maintain and repaic the hiking and equestzian trail, indemnify and hold the City of Anaheim harmless for damages resulting therefrom, and maintain liability insurance for said trail naming the City as an additional insured. The form of said covenant shall be approved by the City Attorney's Office and shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract map. The developer of the sub~Nct tract shall improve and maintain the hiking an9 equestrian trail as shown on the tract map, including providing the above soecified insurance, until such time as the Homeowners Association becomes leaally obligated therefor as hereinabove provided. The ~eveloper shall post a bond in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim to guarantee petformance of the developer's obligations herein described. Evidence of the required insurance and bond shall be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney's Office prior to approval of the final tract map. 25. That in accordance with the requirements of Section 18.02.047 of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to the initial sale of cesidences in the City of Anaheim Planning Area •e•, the seller shall provide e:ach buyer with written information concerning the Anaheim ~eneral Plan and the existina zonin9 within 300 feet of the boundaries of subject tract. 26. That prioc to final tract map approval, the original documents of the covenants, conditions, and restrictions, and a letter addressed to the developer's title company authorizing recordation thereof, shall be submitted to the City Attorney's OfEice and approved by the City Attorney's Office and Engineering Division. Said documents, as approved, will tt;en be filed and recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder. 11/10/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSZON IdWEMBER 10 1986 86-733 27. That prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall ptesent evidence satisfactory to the Chief Bsilding Inspector that the Yccposed Project is in confocmance with Council Policy N~'~mber 5~12. 'Sound Attenuation in Residential Projects' ~nd with Noise Insulation Standards specified in the Caiiforr~ia Administcative Code, Title 25. 28. That subject propecty shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file witri the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit No. 1. 29. That pciot to the issuance of a building pecmit, oc witnin a period of one yeac from the date of this resolution, whichever comes first, Condition Nos. 4 and 5, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 30. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 9, 10, 11, 14, 17, 18, 19, 27 and 28, above-mentioned shall be complied with. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED (COmmissioner La Claice vot~o enthethat the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby app removal of 28 specimen Eucalyptus trees on the basis onaWhich the reasonable and practical de~relopment of the property ttees are located requices cemoval of the tcees and shall be replaced with the planting on the same parcel with an equal number of trees from the specified list in the Scenic Corridor Overlay zone. Joseph Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presente3 the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decisiun within 10 days to the Ci_y Council. ITEM N0. 4 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND V~RIANCE N~• 3597 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: HUGO A. VAZQUEZ AND TAK WATANABE~ 2240 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 6,695 squate feet, 202 South Olive Street. Waivers of (a) maximum stcuctu~al hei9ht, (b) maximum site coverage, (c) minimum recreational-leisure areas, (d) minimum area of pciva*_e recreational-leisure ateas (deleted) and (e) minimum width of pedestcian accessways (deleted) to construct a 3-stoty, 5-unit apartment building. Continued f.rom the meetings of September 15, Octobec 13 and 27, 1986. 11/10/86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, NOJEMBER 10, 1986 86-734 It was noted the petitioner has requested a continuance in order to submit revised plans. ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offeted a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the afocementioned matter be continued to the regula~ly-scheduled meeting of December 8, 1986, in o~der for the applicant to suomit revised plans. ITEM NO. 5 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE NO. 3606 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: ANDREW C. SCHUT2, c/o STATE COLLEGE PARTNERS, 28 Btookhollow Drive, Santa Ana, CA 92702. AGENTS: PAULETTE ALEXANDER, c/o KRAFT ARCHITECTS, 2955 S.E. Main Street, Suite 310, Irvine, CA 92714. Property described as a cectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 7.6 acres of land located at the no~thwest corner of Oranaewood Avenue and State College Boulevard. Waivers of (a) signs permitted in commeccial zones and aggregate area of business signs to construct 8 fceestanding signs ano 12 wall signs. Continued from the meetings of October 13 and 27, 1986. 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. Floyd Farano, atto~ney, 100 S. Anaheim Boulevacd, explained the apolication is for an overall sign plan for three buildings containin9 593,000 squa~e feet of office space. He stated there were questions about the si9ns on the tops of the buildin;s. He presented an exhibit showing examples of other buildings with simila: signs. He pre~ented photographs showing a computec conception of the three buildings with the signs. He stated he undecstood the Commission was mostly concerned about signs identified as "F' and "G' and noted exarples of those signs are shown on the photo9raphs. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chaitman McAurney stated he had asked to see what the signs would look lik~ up in the air and a sign on a 6-story building does look entirely diffecent than a sign on a 1 ar 2-story building. Commissionec La Claire stated she does not see any problem with the proposal, but felt the entire Stadium area needs to be studied and also, the sign ordinance needs to be reviewed as it relates to the Stadium area because this will ~e a different kind of development and there will be a lot of requests for signs. She stated she does not want an in-depth study, but would like to discuss what other cities a~e doing. Mr. Farano stated his office has prepared a draft ordinance and discussed it with City staff; and that it was theic feeling that there will be a number of large parcels developed in that area and the sign ozdinance, at this time, is not adequate. He stated they ace willing to discuss the sign ordinance 11/10!86 85-735 MINUTES,_ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, NCNEMBER 10 1986 further, but the time cequired to p~ocess an ordinance is becoming a critical issue fot his client since they have a tenant foz Phase 1 and the signing is causing se[ious delays. Commissioner La ~laice stated she has toured other areas and it appears these signs ace similar to what is petmitted in other cities. Commissioner Herbst indicated concern with the wocding in the staff repoct because developets review past actions of the Planning Commission and he felt the height of the building should be mentioned in the tequest, so a person proposing a 2-stoty building would not request the same variance. Annika Santalahti stated that is a good point and suggested that wotding be included in approval of th~s cequest. ACTION: Commissionet La Claice uffE~ed a motion, seconded by Commissionec Lawicki and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to construct 8 freestanding si9ns and 12 wall signs with waiver of signs permitted in commercial zones and aggreaate area~oximatelys7.6 signs on a rectangulatly-shaped parcel of land consisting of app acces of land located at the northwest corner of Otangewood and State College Boulevard; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration togethe~ with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments ceceived that there is no substantial evidence that the ptoject will have a significant effect on the environment. Com,~tissionec La Claire offered Resolution No. PC86-273 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Vaciance No. 3606 on the basis that there areospachal locati naands applicable to the propecty such as size, shape~ top g P Y, surcoundings which do not apply to other identically zoned ptopetty in the same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the ptopecty of p~ivileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity and subject to Interdepattmental Committee recommendations. On coll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS~ FAY~ HERBST~ LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI~ MC BURNEY, MES3E NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Joseph Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written tight to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0. 6 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, RECLASSIFICATION N0. 86-87-1A AND VARIANCE N0. 3611 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: HUGO A. VAZQUEZ, ET AL, ZZ4~ W~ shacedn(landlocked) Anaheim, CA 92801. Pcopetty desczibed as a rectangularly- P paccel o£ land consisting of appzoximately 0.76 acres on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, having a width of approximately 176 feet, and being located approximakely 532 feet east of the centerline of Brookhurst StLeet and furthec described as 2240 West Lincoln Avenue. 11/10/86 86-736 SSION, NWEMBER 10, 1986 M CL to RM-1200. site atea pec b minim~~ building S deleted) and Waivers ~unit, (~)uminimumtdistanceebetween pLOPosed building ( dwelli-ig rivate recceational-leisu~e atea (deleted) to ~a) minimum dimension of p consttuct a 34-unit affocdable apartment complex. Continued fcom the Reeting of Octobe[ 27, 1986. Thete was nu one indicating their ptesence in opposition to subject tequest and although the staff ceport was not cead, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. owner, pcesented a rende~in9 of the pto]ect and explained this Hugo Vazquez, a~tmen,t complex wete deleted pceviously. is 223~eWest4Lincolnpandmnoted waivetsd(cCand a~ a 46-unlt ap at actments cause owners o Mr. Vazquez stated that construction of new aP ect and they aint and clean up their pco]ects. He stated 25$ of existing apartments to p the units have been set aside as affordable units le`tmonthro]He stated his have a signed agceehecuCrent2ma~kettrentslat ~750~prented as affocdable at ~538 pet month, wlt eaLS. agreement is for a period of ten y designed to have the ga[age Mr, Vazquez skated this complex was oziginal y tade and he felt that is an unnecessaty cost to fout feet below natu[al could be better spent to add amenities to the excavate and that money ftom Lincoln Avenue and he thought it was advettised this wa complex. He stated the complex is set aWaY arage Was it would be bettet built at gtade level; howeVeC/did not considet it as a and staff felt it may have to be rea~~~hatStame,He stated the g designed under9tound because Code~changed. He stated he would leave it up to stocy; want the building at gcound level oc below however, Co~e has recently the Commission whethec oc not they grade as otiginally planned. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr. ~ayquez stated the Commissionet Bouas asked the height of the building• building would be 35 feet high at gtade level and undecgcound it would be 32 feet high. Mt. ~ayqueZ re~ponded to Commasun°~e~oWa[ds thetreacdWhich had access to the distances between buildings, ether. outside was changea so the units are tied t~g e g~5 uare feet. He Responding to Commissionec Messe, Mt. Vazquez stated the units aveX square feet pe[ unit; however, there ate some units at 8andsthe second level stated the lo~ec level units have a 9-foot high ceiling and that does has a vaulted ceiling at about 19 feet high. He stateetcn~addition, the[e is centcal aic conditioning/heating, an in'~~~om SYstem, create a serure feeling for the tenant.s• 11/10/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION NCNEMBcR 10 1986 86-?37 Commissioner Herbst asked how the height could be only 35 feet at gcade level when it is 32 feet with the gacage underground. Mr. Vazquez explained the gatage ceiling would not have to be 10 feet high at grade level. Commissi~ner Herbst asked if the nroject would look entirely different than the cendecing. Mc. Vazquez explained the rendecing depicts the 9arage at grade level and the plans submitted ate foc 5 feet below grade. Paul Singer explained the aarage clea[ance has to be 7 feet minimum and obviously some vehicles would not be able to go into the garage, but they are very limited. Larry Cabrera explained the developer can eithec designate lOB of the units for families below 50$ of the median income oc 258 of the units for families below 80$ o£ the median income. He explained in this case, the developet has elected to designate 25$, but would like to consider the 108 option in the futute. He expiained in this ptoject that would mean 7 units designated for affordable which is about 268. Respondin9 to Commissionec Herbst, Larty Cabrera explained in the past it had been City Council policy to have a 10-yea~ agreement. Commissionet Herbst explained the Planning Commission asked for 20 years and that he could not vote foc an affotdable project foc just 10 years. Hugo Vazquez stated othec projects, which wece not his, have come in at 10 years, and the City Council established the policy fo~ 10 years. Commissioner Herbst stated if the density bonus is gcanted, the affordable units should be affocdable as long as the units ace thete and there should not be any other variances. ACTION: Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to reclassify the northetly 128 feet of subject property from CL (Commeccial, Limited) Zone to RM-12Q0 (Residential, Multiple-family) Zone ko construct a 2-1/2 story, 34-unit affordable apactment complex with waivers of requested lot frontage, minimum site area per dwelling units, minimum distance between buildings (deleted) and minimum dimension of private recteational-leisure areas (deleted) on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.76 acres on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, aQproximately 532 feet from the centerline of Brookhurst Street and further described as 2240 West Lincoln Avenue; and does hereby apptove the Negative Declacation upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review pcocess and further finding on che 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 envi~onment. Commissioner Fty offered Resolution No. PC86-274 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does heteby grant Reclassification No. 86-87-14 subject to Inteedepartmental Committee cecommendations. 11/10/86 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, NOVEMBER 10, 1986 86-738 On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS~ FRY~ HERBST, LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI~ MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Commissioner Fry asked whether the 9arage should be underground or at gzade level. Chairman McBurney stated he thought good use of land is to have the garages below the structure and thought the Commission should see another plan. Commissioner Ery stated he did not see any reason to have it underground. Leonatd McGhee explained the petitioner is referring to two different ptojects, the one is already approved at 2230 West Lincoln, and subject property is at 2240 West Lincoln and Commission has not seen a plan showing the patking at grade level fot either project and staff feels history has shown that many times when revised plans have been submitted there are ott~er things that have to be addressed. Commissioner Bouas asked if the project next door has the parking structure underground. Mr. Vazquez stated it was approved with the paikin9 underground, but they have noE broken ground as yet. He stated it depends on what happens to this request whether or not they will go forward with the parking at grade level and if the Commissio~ did not feel it needed to be readvertised, both would be at grade level. Commissioner Bouas stated she would like to see the plans fot both. Mr. Vazquez stated because of the time schedules of the Planning Department staff~i.f the Planning Commission did not feel the matter needs to be readvertised, staff could accept the plan and request a two-week continuance so the Commission may look at bokh projects with the structure at 9rade level. Commissioner Herbst stated the criginal plans show the buildings connected. Mr. Vazquez stated they do have a common driveway. Commissioner Herbst stated he thought Commission shoula review the plans and he would like to see the affordable agreement for 20 years. Leonard t4cGhee stated the staff recommendation is that if the applicant brings in revised plans for subject request and for the project at 2230 West Lincoln; the project at 2230 West Lincoln should be advectised as a new project, and also for revision of the plans, there should be a four-week continuance. Commissioner Fry offered a resolution to grant Variance No. 3611 with the affocdable units to be designated as affordable for a period of 20 years. Hugo Jazq~ez st,ated he would not have a problem with a 20-year agreement if everyone was required to have the same term; and also, he questioned whether or not the Planning Commission could waive ~he advectisement for the parking sttucture at grade level. He stated he would request a two-week continuance in ordec to brin9 in a plan of this structure at grade level, and without an advertisement, and then he could accept the 20-year agreement. He stated it costs about $200,000 to excavate. Commissionec Hecbst stated the continuance should be for four weeks or the Commission could vote on the ptoject as proposed today. Hugo Vazquez stated he would request a four-week continuance on this project for the 34 units. He 11/10/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMIdISSION, NOVEMBER 10, 1986 86-739 explained he is agreeable to the 20-year agreement if the parNing is at grade and then could go forward with the 34-unit project right now. Commissioner Bouas stated if the project is at grade level, the plans would have to be approved again. Mt. Vazquez stated the building is not changing, except the parking will be at gcade level. He stated the 46-unit project was appcoved five feet undergcound and was appcoved with a 10-year affordable agreement. Commissioner La Claire stated the project next door is not before the Commission today. Leonard McGhee stated when revised plans ate requested at a public hearing, the continuance should be for one month, in order to give staff adequate time ro review the plans and to advertise new waivers if necessary. Chairman McBurney pointed out the eeclassification has been approved and asked if the whole matter would come back if the one-month continuance is granted. Joseph Fletcher suggested the ceclassification should be rescinded so that both matters are considered together. Commissioner Fry offered RQSOlution No. PC66-275 and moved foc its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby rescind Resolution No. PC86-274 previously adopted and grantiny Reclassification No. 86-87-14. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the followiny vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY~ HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI~ MC BURNEY~ MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Commissicner La Claire offered a mocion, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki and AfOTION CARRIED *_hat the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby continue consideration uf the afo~ementioned matters to the regularly-scheduled meeting of December 8, 1986, at the petitioner's request. Commissione[ La Claire left the meeting. ITEM i70. 7 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION (READV.) GRNERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 222 (READV ), RECLASSIFICATION NO. 86-87-13 ~READV.)~ V_ARIANCE N0. 3607 (READV )AND REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF 7c AND 7d PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: JAFAR JAHANPANAH, 520 N. Rexford Dtive, Beve[ly Hills, CA 90210. AGENT: MAGDY HANNA, 4000 MacArthur Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92660. Property described as a rectangulatly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.35 acces, 1585 West Katella Avenue. To consider an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan, proposing a redesignation from the current commercial pcofessional designation to a designation of either medium density cesidentia2, low-medium density r2sidential or low density cesidential. RS-10~000 to RM-1200 or a less intense zone. Waiver of ma~imum structutal height to construct a 47-unit apartment complex. 11/10/8b MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, NWEMBER 10, 1986 86-740 Continued from the meeting of Octobec 27, 1986. There were six people indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff repoct was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Myron I9eyers, 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Los Angeles, attotney, indicated he would like to request a two-week continuance in order to consider a different project for this property which possibly could be more in keeping with the neighbor's opposition and indicated he would like to hear the input ftom the neighbors. William H. Van Natta, owner of property at 1597 W. Katella, which is now occupied by the Children's Fairyland Pre-school, stated he is opposed to the change fo[ commercial, protessional in this area; that the City has shown marvelous foresight in the development of Anaheim and he believed the current zoning would be bettec in the long run. He stated he felt this change would be inconsistent with the highest and best use of the properties. Dorothy Purdue, 1782 S. Cacnelian Street, presented a letter from her next door neighbor, Barbara P?ck, who is also very strongly opposed. She stated she is against the apactments because the area cannot handle any additional tcaffie; that on Friday night tcaffic past hec house is so bad on Cacnelian that they cannot sleep in the ftont bedroom and in the summer there have been a lot of lacge tcactoc-trailer trucks L•urning right off Katella, going past their hou~e to Euclid. 5he stated they have lived there foc 11 years and the traffic has gotten wo~se every year. She stated the children would c~oss Katella to get to the stores and that would be very dangerous. She stated she is also concecned about the drug dealers coming into the area and in3icated they have had similar pcoblems in the past from tenants in rented houses in theit neighborhood. Rick Landrum, 1398 W. Su~ac, stated he can app~eciate the ownecs trying to develop the property and that he has talked with the owner and his representative and he would not object to development of the pcoperty, but would object to this type development; and that his property could be viewed from the balconies of the apartments. He stated he is concerned about allowing this pcoperty to be developed in this manner because the property where the nursery school is located would be the next one to be proposed foc development. He stal•ed he discussed redesign with the deveJ.oper and also for the apartments to be for senior citizens and he thought that could be accomplished into something the neighborhood could accept. He stated there may be some merit to having some future discussions with the developer. Joe Bcyan, 1582 W. Sumac, directly nortri of subject property, stated this is his fourth time to appear before the Planning Commission or City Council regarding development of this pxoperty and he really would like to see the property developed because it has been a police problem and a noise ptoblem, but he is opposed to the apartments proposed. He stated he has met with the ownecs and just a few minutes ago, they asked him what he would like to see developed there and he indicated he would like to see it stay commercial with Katella being widened to 6 lanes, but this is an expensive p~operty with no development and he understands the owner's desire to develop. He stated he 11/10/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, NOVEMBER 10, 1986 86-741 represents about 25 owners, and they are all against apartments, but personally, he would not be opposed to a complex for senior citizens. He stated he is not speaking for the other 25 people, but when the developer discussed less units fot senioc citizens, he was willing to listen and might be able to change the other neighbors' minds. M[s. Van Natta, owner of Fairyland Preschool, stated she objects to the property being rezoned from commercial to tesidential. Mr. Meyers stated as the Commission can see, there is a great deal of concern from the neighbors and he wo~1d like the opportunity to meet with them. He added commercial developmen,t is not reasonable on this long, narrow oropecty. He stated he wauld like to consider cevising the plans to see if they can provide a project that is feasible to the developer and be an enhancement to the City of Anaheim and meet the ceasonable objections of the surrounding homeowners. Chairman I~cBurney suggested a four-week continuance. Commissioner Herbst suggested that if they ~re go?;ig to consider apartments in that area, they should consider developing not just to the minimum standards, but should provide a high-quality project. He stated all the packing is tandem and suggested the density be reduced and the variances elimznated. ACTION: Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and I90TION CARRIED (Commissione~ La Claire absent) that consideration of tne aforementioned matter be continued to the re9ularly-scheduled meeting of December 8, 1986, at the request of the petiFioner. RECESSED: 3:05 p.m. RECONVENED: 3:20 p.m. Commissioner La Claire returned to the meeting. ITEM N0. 8 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. 86-87-15 AND VARIANCE N0. 3616 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: FRED J. AND OLIVE E. SEDLAK, 2648 W. Ball Road, Anaheim, CA 92804. AGENT: PHILLIP H. CASE, 1249-A East Imperial Highway, Placentia, CA 92670-1799. Propert~ desctibed as a tectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.84 acres, 2648 West Ball Road. RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200 oc a less intense zone. Waivers of (a) maximum fence height, (b) maximum structucal height and {c) maximum site coverage to construc': a 66-unit apartment complex. There was no one indicating their pcesence in opposition to subject request and although the staff repott was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Phillip Case, agent, stated thirteen yeats ago he developed 113 units on the property next door; and that the last couple of years his developments have 11/10/86 EI 10. 1986 _86-7 all met the Codes in the City of Anaheim an~ ceferced to the projects he has developed at 1464 E. La Palma and 2333 W. Lincoln. He explained those pcojects had underground packing S-1/2 feet bandWStated•this isplaandd2tstocy ptoperty is 132 feet wide and 607 feet deep; arage is fully units above a complete packing garage and noted the patking g sptinklered and will affocd a secure building. He explained the variance is necessitated because of the Code change cegarding the definition of a'stoty"; that site covecage from the position of the automobile is 708, but site covetage is 338 ftom view of the tenants on the concrete deck. He stated it wasn't the intent of the Code change to limit this type of quality development. THE PUBLIC HEARING ~AS CLOSED. Commissionet Fry asked how much ext[a the 5e~~luckytand someonelwantsuto buy cost. Mr. Case stated occassi~nally Wanted to afford the neighbors maximum the dirt, but in thiG instance, they uested, and ptivacy which is also the reason foc the 8-1/2 foot tiigh wall [eQ tequested the rest of the perimeter would have a standard 6-foot hi9h wall. He stated if the garage is lower and the 8-1/2 foot wall is provided and trees ace planted, the neighbors' privacy would be pcotected and explained all two-bedroom units have both bedrooms upstairs and the neighbocs would only e alternative to exposed to eight windows. He stated he neve~ consideced any having the patking underground. Commissandethatrthe Codeechange regarding undecgroundppacking hashcreated a today, ptoblem and he thought the Commission needs to sestedWUSinghtheeheightCOfnthe to work out a solution to this problem. He sugg buildingr tathec than stories as the detecmining Eactot. Commissioner La Claice stated in anestedrthe~Planning Commissionac me~uplwith problems have been created and sugg =esent to the City Council and noted some suggestions or cecommendations to p the difference in the height of the building is only one oc two feet with the parking underground ot at grade level. Responding to Commissione~ Messe, AnnikoWnetsawithin 300afeet,nnolmattet what public heating wete mailed to pcoperty city they lived ir.. Leonard McGhee explained a notice was sent to the City o Stanton Plannin9 Depa~tment. Mr. Case stated they contacted the City of Stanton and did set the project back 75 feet from the south pcoPetty line. ACTION: Commissionet Hecbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissionec Lawicki and MOTION CARRZED that the Anaheim City Planning COmmission has ceviewed the proposal to teclassify subject p~opetty ftom the RS-A-43,000 (Residonc nstcuctlau66uunit apartmenthcom~lexowithewaivecsaof maximumefencely, Zone t height, maximum sttuctarcelhof5landnconsistingsofeapptoximately 1.84 ac~es, cectangularly-shaped p 11/10/86 M 1 having a frontage of appcoximately 132 feet on the south sidOVefthe1N gataVend furthet described as 2648thatBit1hasaconsideaedSthetNegative Declaration Declatation upon finding together with any comments ceceived during the pubiic ceview pcocess on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments teceived fucther finding that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significan effect on the enviconmenk. Leonatd McGhee asked thatthec!Eiae Depactmenteastnotedpinntheir lettebeof installed as cequired by Octobec 22, 1986, addressed to Steve Wise. assage Commissionet Herbst offeced R.esolution No. PCBb-276 and moved fot its p Commission does hereby grant and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning artmental Committee Reclassification No. 86-87-15 subject to Interdep cecommendations. pR toll call, the focegoing ~:esolution was passed by the following vote: BOUAS~ FRYr HERBST~ LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI~ MC BURNEYr t'1ESSE AYES: NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE assa e and Commissionec Fry offeced Resolution No. PC86-277 and moved for i~ant Vaciance adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby g No. 3616 on the basis that thece ace special ciccumstances applicable to the such as size, shape, topogtaPhY~ location and sucroundings which do pcoperty in the same vicinity; and that not apply to other identically zoned pcopetty of privileyes stcict application of the Zoning Code deprives the ptoperty enjoyed by othec proPeLties in the identical~~lo~teenrecommendationsn in the vicinicy and subject to Intecdepattmental On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: *SOliAS, FRY~ HERBST', LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI~ MC SURNEY~ MESSE AYES: NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ht to appeal ,7oseph Pletche,., :puty City Attorney, presented the written cig the Planning Con;...ssion's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0. 9 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION RECLASSIFICATION N0. 86^87-16 AND VARI'~' pN~g N0. 3617 PUBLIC HEARING. OFINERS: CARL KARCHER ENTERPRISES~ INC.. P•0• BoX 4349~ Anaheim, CA 92803, ATTN: THOMAS C. PINE, VICE PRESIDENT, REAL ESTATE FINANCE. AGENTS: HARBOR-PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT CO., 4040 MacArthur Boulevac , BRENT R. OGDEN~ JR.~IJULES SWIMMER. $314, Newpoct Beach, CA 92660r ATTN~ shaped parcel of land consisting of ptoperty desctibed as an irtegularly- a~proximately 1.1 actes of land located at the southeast corner of Romneya Drive and Harbor Boulevaid. 11/10/86 86-744 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNZNG COMMISSION NOJEMBER 10 1986 Waivers of (a) required dedication and improvement, and (b) minimun intecior site boundary line setback to const~uct a shopping centec. There was no one indicating theit presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff cepoct was not cead, it is referced to and made a part of the minutes. Chaitman McBUCney declared a conflict of interest as defined by Anaheim City P1aG~ning Commission Resolution No. PC76-157 adopting a Conflict of Intecest Code for the Planning Commission and Government Code Section 3625, et seq., in that he is employed by the property ownez and pursuant to the provisions of the above Codes, declared to the Chairman that ha was withdcawing from the hearing in connection with the above-mentioned item, and would not take part in either the discussion ot the voting the~eon and had not discussed this mattet with any member of the Planning Commission. Ther>upon Chairman McBucney left the Council Chamber. Commissioner Bouas declared a conflict of intecest as defined by Anaheim City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC76-157 adopting a Conflict of Interest Code for the Planning Commission and Govetnment Code Section 3625, et seq., in that she owns stock in the company which owns the pro~ecty and pursuant to the provisions of the above Codes, declared to the Chairman that she was withdtawing from the hearing in connection with the above-mentioned matter, and would not take part in either the discussion or the voting theteon and had not discussed this matter with any member of the Planning Commission. Thereupon Commissionec Bouas left the Council Chamber. Jules Swimmer, 9040 tdacArthur, Suite 314, Newport Beach, explained they will be required to dedicate 3,000 sauace feet af theic property for the widening of Harbor Boulevard and Anaheim Boulevard which limits theic buildable area and rhat a driveway off Harbor.BOUlevatd is ccucial to this project. Brent Ogden, agent, stated they have a9reed to all the conditions, except one, and they would like to go ahead and make the street improvements on Harbor, cather than bonding for them and thought they could meet the Ttaffic Engineer's conce~ns about the two-way driveway on Harbor; and that they would like to put an entrance and exit on Harbor and felt by widening the street now and designing it in such a manner that a vehicle coming south on Harboc could not turn into the property would be acceptable. He stated this is only on a temporacy basis and wren Anaheim Bouleva~d i~ widened, they would be permitted to have an in-and out-driveway on Harbor. THE PUBLIC HEARING SQAS CLOSED. Responding to Commissioner Fry, Jay Titus, Office Engineer, stated they would be eliminating waiver (a) requiring the dedication and imp~ovement of Harboc and that the City would not object to puttia9 in the ultimate improvements at this time. paul Sin9er, Ttaffic Engineer, stated he met with the applicant prior to the time he knew they wanted to widen Harboc Boulevatd, but thought that would only improve the situation. He stated theic a9reement was that thece would be an 'enttance only" driveway which in the futuce would have to be relocated in 11/10/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ N4JEMBER 10~ 1986 86-745 order to provide two-way access when Anaheim Boulevard is celocated; and that the one-way driveway would have tire busters to prevent anyone from exiting the wcong way on Harbor Bouleva~u; and the petitionet would constcuct a temporary median on Harbo~ between Romneya and Anaheim Boulevacd to facilitate the turns and prevent the possibility of anyone turning into the driveway on Harbor. He stated he discussed these reco~nendations with the applicant and thought they had agreed. Commissioner Messe stated someone going south on Hacboc would utilize the Romneya Drive. Mr. Singer stated they would have two dri.veways to access, either left-turn at Romneya or a left-turn at Anaheim Boulevard. He explained someone going north on Y.arbot would have all three driveways availabZe. He explained Anaheim Boulevard will appear ultimately as a driveway with curb returns to access the street between Hacbor and Lemon Street and will have 90 degree parking and will be eliminated as a throu9h-stceet and most of the traffic will be redirected to La Palma and Harboc and that will eliminate one traffic signal. Mr. Cgden stated they would request that they not be required to install the tire busters on the one-way entrance, and are asking to be able to design the driveway at such an angle that there would be no possible way for any person on Hacbor to turn left because of the median. He added they thought by installing the median .~nd widening the street by 15 feet, they would eliminate the problem. He stated he has a couple designs and would be happy to discuss them with the Traffic Engineer. He stated they would post 'no exit" signs also. Paul Singer stated he has had expecience in installing driveways designed to direct traffic and people actually make U-tutns; and he felt if there is an access on Hacbot Boulevard, there has to be tire busters. He stated there is ve[y little space fo[ a driveway between Romneya and Anaheim Boulevard and the only acceptable way is to make sure no one ever exits that driveway. He referred to the driveway at Canyon Plaza on imperial and indicated initially there wete a couple of tires busted, but since then there has been no serious problem. Mr. Meyers stated many retailers do not like that type of obstacle and dciveways must be convenient Eor theic customers to get in and out. Commissioner La Claire asked why zveryone feels there needs to be three driveways for this project. Mr. Ogden stated the ptoject is facing Harbor Boulevard and they will have Harbor Boulevard addresses and there is no access or exit fru~ that major street. He stated one concern is that the driveway is directly across from the dcivewa,~ to Carl's Jc. across the street. He stated he wants to separate that ttaffir. and divide it so it is not a big congestion at that one point; and Anaheim 6oulevard is a secondary dciveway. He stated the 15 feet they will be dedicating will pcovide an area foc traffic to slow down and get out of the main stream of traffic. Commissionec La Claire asked if they ate willing to install the tire busters. Mr. Ogden stated they are cequesting not to have to install the tire busters; and that he has nevec seen them wotk well and has seen a lot of resistance from the tenants. 11/10/86 86-740 M CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ NOVEMBER 10, 1986 Commissionec FrY stat2d a dciveway on Hatbo~heoelWeiedthceeecucbmcutseforathe den stated pteviously those three and tire bustecs. Mc. Og will be closing two businesses which we~e thece and they making one enttance and the tcaffic is less than it was when those businesse wete there. Commissionet La ~isliesssthan 100ffeethfrom1theaAnaheim BoulevardRCU[b retu[n Singec stated it ht in tye middle; and to the Romneya cucb cetucn and that entcance will be [i9 that deiveways have venbmeetOthattcrite~iae cornec for a service station site and this would not e driveway on Harbor, paul Singet stated initially he cecommended against an ro ect would not be viable without the but because the applicant felt the p 7 he came up with this altbu~athat he~is not1happYdabout the access on Hacboc, 'entcance only" access with tire bustecs, dtiveway on Harbor at all. uality proj~ct. Mr. Ogden stated theeeofltenantseVandtthatnthislwillebeaa high q cation depending on the typ Commissionec La Claire stated she could not vote for a dciveway on Elacbor and thought the PrO~eallowedaaneaccessesuchhastthist aShesstatPdnthesesareltWo ood p she thought it would be stations are not busy corners and in the inL•ecest of g lanning, very dangecous and would be a privilege not granted to othecs• ect with the w~dening of Titus stated it could be Commissionet He[bst stated he could vote fo~ the pro7 the stceet and the driveway with tice bustecs. Jay five to ten yeacs before Hacboc Boulevard is widened. Conmissionet Hetbst stated thece need~lre busterscaresinstalled~atnaicpocts~~etce and]the pe ple viable, and that to vote in favoK of are getting used to them. He stated he WOden statedlhe ~ould have to accept the project with the tire bustets• Mr• ~9 the "tire buster" condition. on that poction of the Leonatd McGhee stated tree feaid anddalso,etheSGenec~facilities neeueto be property which has not been p Utilities Division has indicated the stceet lighting installed as re~uited in accocdance with specifications on file and tha ave to be posted. Mc. Ogden stated this is tbe first time he secu~ity would h has heacd of those fees and that thete ate street lights on the stteet in t e acea. Jay Titus stated ~8•00 pet lineal foot is the figure used for bonding ar but he did not knoWill bearelocating the lights onSHacbochlbut street lights, instance. Mr. Ogden stated they stteets. thete are existing lights on the suttounding artment reviews the Annika Santalahti stated sometimes when the t)tilities e include that conditiun and when final plans ate submitted, the plans, they 11/10/86 86-747 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNi~G COMMISSION, NOVEMBER 10, 1986 decision is nade as to wi~at is needed and appacently, the[e is something needed in this instance, and su3gested it could be discussed with the Dtilities Department, and normally, that condition would have been included in the staff report. Commissione: Herbst stated he would add that condition to the app[oval and i•` the petitioner has a pcoblem with it. he can discuss it with the City Council. t4r. Ogden clarified that the condition requiring all utilities be unde[gzound, cefers to the interior, of the pcoPerty and not the ovechead utilities. paul Singer stated ona condition should be added cequicing the devei~per to install a 4-foot wide tempocary raised median island on Hacbor Bouleva~d and the dtiveway permitted will be with tire busters. Mr. Singer cesponded to Commissioaez La Claire that the median would not be requi~ed if the.~ do not have aceess on Hatbor. ACTION: Commissioner Hecbst offeted a motion, seconded by Commissionec Fry and MOTION CARRIED (COmmissioner Bouas ~" oBosalYtobceclassify subjectheim City Plar.ning Ccmmission has ~eviewed t, ' p Dis`rict) Zone pcoperty ftom CG (Commetcial, General) c..,." and P~-~lnPacenter with waivers of to the CL (Commercial, Limited) to constcuct a shopp 9 required dedication and improvemer~ts; minimum intecior site boundary line setback on an irregulariy-shaaed parcel of land co~~isting of app[oXimately 1.1 acces located on the southeast corner of Romnei~ Dtive and Harbot Boulevard; and does heceby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has consideted the Negative Declaration together with any comments recei~~e~. during the public cevicommentsJreceivedtthat thecenis~no substantial evidence initial Study and any that the project will have a significant effect on the enviconmen . Commissioner Aer.hst offered Resolution No. PC86-278 and moved for its passage and adoption thak the Anaheim City Planning Commission does heteby grant Reclassification No. 86-87-16 subject to Intecdepactmental Committee recommendations. Jay Titus asked that Condition No. 2 be modified and Conditiun No. 3 be deleted to tefJ.ect the changes with the develope~ ins'calling the street impcovements at this time. Mt. Ogden stated he would have no problem with the changes sugqested. On roll call, the foregoing resolvtion was passed by the following vote: AYES: FRX~ HERBST, LA CL~IP.E~ LAWICKI, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: BOUAS~ MC BURNEY Commissioner Hetbst offeced Resolution No. PC85-279 and moved for its passage ard adoption that the Anaheim City Plannin9 Commission does heteby gcant Vaciance Nc. 3617 on the basis that thec~ raohyP~location andtsurroundingsable to the propecty such as size, shape, top 9 which do not apply to othez identically zoned property in the same vzcinity; 11/10/86 MZNUTES~ ANAH':IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, NOVEMBER 10~ 1986 56-~48 and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileaes enjoyed by other ptoperties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. On roll call, the forego~n9 resolul-ion was passed by the foliowing vote: AYES: HERBST~ LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MESSE NOES: FRY ABSENT: BOUAS, MC BURNEY Joseph Fletcher, Depiity City Attorney, presented the writte~ right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. Commissioners McBUrney and Bouas retucned to the Council Chambec. ITEM NO. 10 EIR [4EGATZVE DECLARATION AND RECLASSIFICATION N0. 86-67-17 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: STEVEN W. AND PAMELA S. HALL, ET AL, 15161 Van Buren, Midwa} City, CA 92655 and AhOTONIA. MARIE LESHER, ET AL, c/o T.A. JONES & ASSOC., 485 E. 17th Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Property is desccibed as an icregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of appcoximately 1.55 acres, 22:5 Loaia 3tteet. RS-A-43,000 to RS-5000 oc a less intense zone. There were three persons indicating their ~resence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is ceferred to and made a part of the minutes. Lar[y Jones, agent, stated this is the second time he has been berore the Commission on this ptoject and ori9inally requested a zone change for a 37-unit apartment complex. He stated this site has a 66-foot access off Lo~ca Stceet and they are surrounded by sinyle-family and multiple-family uses and at that time the Commission denied the zone change request because of the opposition from the s~~rounding neighbors to the density. He stated Commission indicated it would be easiec to support a single-family development on that propetty, so they are requesting approval f.ot 7 single-family homes with access on Loara Street and that all units will be two stories with three and fouz bedrooms. Robert Ro.~s, 2206 Della Lane, stated his property is directly west of subject property ard agreed this is a much better pcoject and he is not opposed, but speakin9 foc three homeowners directly to the west, they would like to request an 8-:oot wall to provide them moce pcivac} and also, that they be notified if there are any bailding changes. He stated there are no doors, windows or patios on the west side and if the developer shoula ^_hange those plans, the neighbors w~ant to be notified. He stated the[e is s::re confusion about the property line between Lots 3 and 4 and the nucse_y and noted he has brought that to Mr. Jones' attention. On behalf of the Noel Garr family who live on the nocth, a gentlemen stated the presen~ tenants of the nucsecy have attached 4 x 4 boards with bolts to 11/10/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 10, 1986 86-749 their block wall fot temporary planters and it has cracked the wali in four different places. John Wiseman, 2221 S. Loa[a, stated he does not object to this project, but if they change the plans, he e~ould like to be notified. He thanked the Commission foc thei~ help. Chairman McBurney stated if the plans chartgP, the Commission would see the new plans and if there was a drastic change, there would be a new public hea~ing. He exolained if the project is approved today, it would be in accordance with these plans. Mr. Jones stated he did speak to Mr. Ross and that he was basically conce~ned about a pottion of his pcoperty to the east and also was unclea~ about the depth of his property and he had some legitimate concecns about the devalopec using bis pcoperty. fle stated they are not planning to use any portion of that pcoperty and that this property will have a full boundacy survey. He stated regarding the block wall, that the existing tenants have drilled some holes and cracked the wall, but that is between the present nursety ownecs and the homeownets. He stated they are planning to stay with the plans presented, however, there may be some minoc architectural chanyes. Commissioner La Claire asked about landscaping along Loara and who would maintain it. Mr. Jones stated the parkway on both sides of the screet will have to be maintained and the City has indicated they will not maintain i" so obviously, the homeowners will have to focro some sort of association to maintain that planting strip. Commissioner La Claire stated she would want that as a pact of the conditions. Annika Santaianti stated this pcoject will have a t~act map before the Commission in approximately two weeks and it would be appropriate to include that condition in the approval of the tract map. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLGSED. Commissioner Messe stated he would agree this is a much nicer project. Commissioner Bouas asked about the cequest for an B-foot wall. Mc. Jones stated he was not awace of that concern, but on behalf of the company, he would state they do want to be a good neighboc and was suce it could be cesolved. Chaicman McSurney stated that co~ld be addressed in the approval of the tract map also. ACTIOI~: Commissionec Mes~e offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas an MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to reclassificatxon subject propetty ftom the RS-A-43,000 (Residential, Agricultucal) Zone to the RS-5,000 (Residential, Single-Family) Zone to petmit a 7-lot, RS-5,000 single-family subdivision on an irre9ularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of app~oximately 1.55 acres, having a maximum depth of appcoximately 350 feet and further described as 2215 Loara Stceet; and does heceby appcove the Negative Declatation upon finding 11/10/86 86-750 MINUTES ANAIiEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, NO'JEMBER 10~ 1986 that it has consideced the Negative Declaration togethet with any comments received during the public teview pcccess and futther finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any con~ents received that there is no subP;vironment. evi.dence that the pcoject will have a significant effect on the Commissioner Messe offered Resolution No. PC86-280 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does nereby grant Reclassification No. 86-87-17 subject to Interdepactmental Committee tecommendations. On roll call, the fote9oing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS~ FRY, HERBST~ LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI~ MC BURNEY~ MESSE NOES : NOLdE AESENT: NONE ,ioseph Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right tu aFpeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. Commissionet Fry left the meetiti~g at 4:15 p.m. and did not retucn. ITEM ND__11 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARZANCE N0. 3615 PUELiC HEARING. OWNERS: NEVADA INVESTMENT HOLDINGS, INC., 220 Congtess Park Drive, Suite 230, Deltay Beach, Florida 33445, ATTN: JOHN E. SIMONS. AGENT: PETER GENOVESE, 23211 South Pointe, Laguna Hills, CA 92653. Property is described as a rectan9ularly-shaped paccel of land consisting of apptoximately 10.5 acces located at the nozthwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Crescent Way, 1811 West Lincoln Avenue. Waiver of minimum n~!mbec of packing spaces to add 5,000 squace feet of cetail space to an existing commercial centec. There was no one indicating theic presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not cead, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Pete Genovese, agent, explained he owns the lease interest on the propecty in question. He stated Conditioa No. 1 could be a pcoblem because he could not modify all the driveway:: on the pcoperty, but has no problem in changing tt~e five dcivewayQ pertaining to his portion of the propetty and will be eliminating three dciveways and co*recting two. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner La Claire atated this is just an application by the lessee and that the owner of• t!oe pcogerty is not applying fo~ the variance and is not in favor of it. Mr. Genovese stated the owner cannot apply with him in this instance, because he has a lease with the Target store and cannot ~ecluce the parking. Commissioner La Claire stated she has not seen a pack:ng pcoblem on this site. 11/10/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY P~ANNING COMMISSION, NOWEMBER 10, 1986 86-751 ACTION: Commissioner La Claire offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Fry absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to add 5,000 square feet of retail space to an existing commercial center with waivez of minimum number of pazking spaces on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 2.5 actes located at the notthwest cotnet of LincoZn Ave;u._ and Crescer:c Way and furthec described as 1411 W. Lincoln Avenue; and does hereby approve the Negative Decl.aration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments ceceived durin9 the public review process and fucthec 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 eEfect on the environment. Commissioner La Claire offeced Resolution No. PC86-281 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planniny Commis.ion does heceby grant Variance No. 3615 on the basis that che patking waiver will not cause an increase in traffic con9estion in the immediate vicinity noc adve:sely affect any adjoining land uses and granting of the packing waiver unde~ the r,onditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, healti~, safety and genecal welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim and subject to Inter•~epartmental Committee recommendati.ons, clacifying Condition No. 1 pertains only to the five dciveways affecting subject propecty with three dciveways being eliminated and two driveways being modified. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS~ HERBST, LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI, MC BURNEY~ MESSE N~E~: NONE ABSENT: FRY Joseph Fletcher, Deputy City Attocney, presented the written cight te appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM NQ. 12 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANC£ N0. 3619 PUBLIC HGARING. OWNERS: KATHLEEN 0. HOWARD, 2404 N. Ftench Street, Santa Ana, CA 92706 AND FRANCES H. JUENGER, 2720 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA 92706. AGENT: HUGO A. VAZQUE'L, 2240 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, C~ 92805. Property described as a rectangularl;•-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.53 acre, 300-322 South Claudina Stceet. i9aivers of (a) maximum structural height, (b) minimum building site area per dwelling unit and (c) maximum site coverage to construct a 3-story, 24-unit affordable apa~tment complex. There were four petsons indicatiny their presence in opposition to subject r• ~iest an~ although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made c ct of the minutes. Hugo Vazquez, agent, explained this ptoject has five differer.t floor plans with units ranging from 825 square feet to almost 1000 square feet which the tenants can chose from and it ia a secucity building with undecground parkin9 and it has a ceritral couttyard with a spa, etc. He stated he did a ptoject vecy similar to this at Ball and Western. 11/10/86 86-752 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLAI~NING COMMISSION, NC7VEMBER 10, 1986 Keith Pepper, 817 N. Lemon, stated he was ver.y impressed with a couple of other projects which were considered today and the developers were able to build accotding to Code and please the neighbors. He stated this neighborhood has mixed uses with strongly single-family homes across the street and he felt a project such as this would not fit in uith that type neighborhood. Ruth Hilgenfeld Harty, 8661 S. Matjan, stated she is co-trustee of the adjacent property and is opposed to t:ie structure, because of the parking situation and ceferted to other uses in the area with no parking and to the new theater which is to be opened soon. She stated when they have funeral services at the moctuary, there is a parking problem; that she realizes they plan to provide parking under9round, but thete is a vacant lot on the property next door and they have had to ha•r° cars towed away from that lot. She refecred to Condition No. 1 requicing the removal of sidewalks, cucbs and gutters and stated there is a flood problem in the area right now and she wondered if adding these units would increase that problem. She referred to Condition No. 12 and ~sked where the t~ash storage areas would be so that they will not b~ an eyesore to their business. She stated they have had to install poles and chains to protect their parking. Wallace Harty stated during the day all street packing on Claudina i.s filled with City employees vehicles. He stated the proposed access to their parking spaces is through the alley and there is anothet apartment complex on the alley with parking spaces accessing from the alley, so this would mean 50 parking spaces would have to be accessed from an alley which has access from anothec alley. He stated that would be a tremendous amount of tcafEic into that east/west alley off Claudina. He stated the height of the building is also a concern in an area where there aee no similar structures. Mt. Vazquez stated he was not able to pecsonally meet with the Hilgenfeld family, but his brother did meet with them cegarding purchase of the va~ant lot to the notth of subject property, but they were not intetested in ~e.lling that property because they have a parking pcoblem themselves and need more parking foi their services. He added this projecl• meets all the parking requirements and will provide affordable housing. He explained the tenants will pack in the garage and there is no reason for them to patk on the street. He stated the 2.5 packing spaces pcovided in othe~ ptojects seems to be adequate. He explainad they will be improvin9 the stceet and puttin9 in one-half of a new stceet, sidewalks, curbs and gutters and to the ceac they will be putting in a new alley. He stated he would stipulate to pavin9 the vacant lot on the nocth to ii~~Yrove the neighborhood and impcove M[. Hacty's parking pcoblem. THE PUBLIC HEARIP]G WAS CLOSED. Responding to Commissioner Herbsz, Larty Cabreca, Housing Rehabilitation Supe[visoc, explained Me. Vazquez was given the option of providing 108 of the units to families with 508 of the median income o[ 258 of the units with families below 808 of the ~e3ian income and under the 108 option, the two-bedroom units would re;:E'~ for ~411 per month and with the 258 option, the units would rent for ~537 pec month and in this case, the tetm is for ten yeats, but the Housing Depattment would be glad to go fot 20 years. 11/10/86 86-753 MINUTEB, ANAHEIM CITY YLANNING COMMISSION, NOJEMBER 10, 1986 Responding to Commissioner Herbst, Hugo Vazquez stated this project is at gcade levei and explained th?y have 15 packing spaces off the alley. Commissioner Herbst asked why they were proposing a bathroom off the dining room and explained that is not permitted. Mr. Vazquez stated the bedroom has wouldVhavebtohgoothrouyhfsomeoneashbedco matoagetstotthehbathtoomm~ HeVaddedr that could be changed. Commissioner Lawicki stated he is £or affocdable housing, but felt this is over-impacting because of the size of the lot and that he could not vote foc this project. Mr. Vazquez stated affordable housing cannot be provided unless the City looks at other altecnativ~~ and added the downtown a~ea needs housing and even by putting moce parcels together, the density fa~tor would be the same. He added there is no pcoject which provides affordable housing without density bonuses and that the building costs do not change for the units just because they ace affordable. Commissione~ Lawicki stated maybe the cost of the land is toc high and Mr. Vazquez stated he is not including the cost of land in the buildi.ng costs. He stated the neighbo~s just had a problem with parking and not with tY~e complex itself. Commissioner La Claire stated the state mandates the city to give a 25B density bonus, but the Commission does not have to give additional waivers. She stated this area is in a period of transition and there are some areas whece this pcoject would be acceptable, but she wculd not want to see this density in this area. She stated the projects ar.e just gettin9 more and more aense; and that maybe this propecty isn't suitable foc affordable and she could not vote for all these variances. She stated an RM-1200 project with no variances would be a lot bettec. Commissioner Herbst stated if the patking was below grade, the lot coverage would not be as high, but at grade level it is counted in the maximum site covera9e. It was noted the height of the project is 30 feet. Hugo Vazquez stated the area above the gacage is used as open space. He stated wiCh the new Code there is no benefit to the tenant ot the neighborhood to putting the paeking underground. He stated the project approved earlier today, (Item No. H) had the same site coveraqe as this project, but the courtyacd in this project creates the same atmr,~ohere as a project built at grade. He stated with the parking undergro4..d, tne maximum site coverage would be well below 508. Commissionec Herbst noted the project mentioned eaclier did not have tandem parking like this project, and that this would be ovet-impacting the acea. He stated he wants to meet with the City Council to eliminate some of these problems fcom the new Code definition. He stated he feels thcee stories in this acea would definitely impact the nei9hborhood because it is "massive". 11/10/86 86-754 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, NddEMBER 10, 1986 Commissioner Bouas stated the open acea is in a courtyard and is not seen. She stated the ordinance needs to be reviewed and if it is open space which the people can use, it is a different situation, but felt this pcoject would impact the area and would look like it does not belong in the area. ACTION: Commissioner He[5st offeced a motion, seconded by Couunissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner F[y absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has zeviewed the proposal to construct a 3-story, 24-unit affordable apactment complex with waivers of maximum sttuct~ral height and minimum building site area per dwelling unit and maximum site covecage on a cectangularly-shaped parcel of land consistin~ of approximately 0.53 acre, having a frontage of approximately 135 feet on the east side of Claudina Street and futther described as 300 to 322 South Claudina Street; and does hereby aQpreve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declacation to9ether with any comments received during the public review ptocess and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substancial evidence that the ptoj~ct will have a significant effect on the enviconment. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC86-283 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Plrnning Commission does hereby deny Variance No. 3619 on the basis on the basis that there aze no special circumstances applicable to the prope~ty such as size, shape, topography, location and sur[oundings which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicinity; and that strict application of the 2oning Code does not depcive the property of privileges enjoyed by other propecties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity and on the basis it w~uld be impacting the area and three are no other 3 story buildings in the area. On roll call, the foregoing resolutzon was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS~ HERBST~ LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI, MC BURNEY NOES: MESSE ABSENT: FRY Chairman McBUrney stated he voted for denial because he thou9ht the numbet uf units is excessive and it does have a very bulky look. Mc. Vazquez stated this action rin9s a cleac bell to him that the Commission feels the~e is no need for affordable housing in this location. Commissioner Lawicki stated the assumption that the Commission :i•~es not want affordable housing in this area is not a ttue statement. Mr. Vazquez stated he does not know of another project which has pcovided affocdable housing at 36 units per acce and this action indicates to him that the Planning Commission does not look at affocdable housing lightly. He stated he can redesign the project without affordable housing, but cannot afford to continue to redesign the projects to provide affordable housing and he thinks there is a need foc affordable housina and once the units become affordable, Housing has a list ~f people who need affocdable ho!ising. 11/10/86 86-755 MINUTES~ ANAHF.IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, NOJEMBER lOr 1986 Commissioner Lawicki stated this statement has been made that a lot of tenants ace being attracted to these new units from the older units and that that could iead to some af those units being adaptable for othec types of housing needs. Hugo Vazquez stated the vacancy factor foc apactments in Anaheim is l.ess than 38. He stated he can take the dicection of the Planning Commission and go to the City Council and ask tnem if they want affordable housing or he can provide less units. Commissioner La Claice stated the problem is the location and the pcoject at Ball and Magnolia is a very different location and the Planning Commission has granted a lot of affordable housing ptojects and if this project had no vatiances, then the Commission would probably vote in favor of it. Annika Santalahti stated she thought ovec 90$ of the affordable ptojects have been approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Joseph Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0. 13 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OE CODE REQ~~IREMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2857 AND REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF CGUNCIL POLICY N0. 593 PUBLIC HEARING. ~:~1NERS: EDGAR A. DOEKING~ CALIFORNZA LUTHERAN HOMES~ 2312 S. Fremont Street, Alhambra, CA 91803. AGENT: FRANK DE LUNA & CO., INC., 18019 Sky Park Circle, Suite E, Irvine, CA °.2714, ATTN: TOM MILLER. Froperty is described as a rectangula~ly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 10.6 acres located west of the nocthwest cocner of Ball Road and Walnut Street. To permit a 3-story, 121-unit seniot apactment complex with waiver of minimum building site area per dwelling unit. There was ona person indicating his presence in opposition to subject [equest and although the stai-f report was not read, it is teferred to and made a ratt of the minutes. Frank De Luna, agent, stated a 134-unit senior citizen project was previously approved on this property by another developer 15 feet from the single-family zone to ~he north, and that this project is at 75 feet and they have ceduced the size of the project and the subte~ranean patking has been eliminated. He stated if this ptoject is not appcoved, they will be furced to constcuct the previously appcoved 134-unit pcoject. James Lee, 914 S. Hampstead, Anaheim, stated his street bordecs the west side o£ the project and he represents about 25 neighbocs who signed a petition iast yeac opoosing the consttuction of any apartment over two stories high. He stated they are not opposed to the development of thia property and are not opposed to senior citizens as neighbots, but ace opposed to three stories. He stated there is a density waiver requested and if the density is not waived, the project could not be thcee stories. He compared the number of people pcoposed for the property to the number of people in the ex.isting homes and the Walnut Manor and stated that would be a high tatio for that ptoperty and it is out of line with the neighbo~hood and with what Walnut Manot currently 11/10/86 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, NCVEMBER 10, 1986 8ti-756 has. He stated senioc citizen units are being constructed close to the Police D~partment and they are two stories and they ate making a profit there and he could not see why it could not be done here. He stated Walnut Manoc's success depends on the neighborhood and if they are not good neighbors, they will not be successful. He stated he added on to his house about two years ago ~nd inspectors came out to inspect the electrical, plumbin9, etc. and he learned that_ the inspections are to protect the City, neighbors and the ownec from himself and he felt the rules regarding density are for those same thKee teasons. Mr. De Luna stated the 134-unit project is already anproved and if this pcoject is not approved, that larget more dense ptoiect , will be conGtructed and he thought the objections and questions wece answeced during the first process. Ed9ar D~ering, representing California Luthe[an Homes, stated they have talked with Mr. De Luna and like the new p~oject and will be managing it in conjunction with their oti~er project and the opecation will be vecy similar with the existing Walnut Manor. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner La Claire stated she has visited Walnut Manor Yuite often in the last few months and it is a well-cun facility and everyone is well taken care o£ and there are a lot of activities and she did not think this project would impact the neighbochood if it is operated in the same manner. Mc. Lee stated he did not know the othe~ project i~ad been appcoved and Commissionec Bouas stated this project is less dense and smaller and moved fnrther away from single-family homes. Commissioner Messe stated about 1/4 of an acre seems to be lost in the calculations. John Wells, architect, sta:ed the difference is due to the manner which the Planning Depaetment uses to calculate the area and the driveway is longet than on the original project an9 that means 20 feet times the length of the driveway is ieducted. ACTION: Commissionec La Claice offeted a motion, seconded by Commissionet Aerbst and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Fry absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has ceviewed the proposal to permit a 3-stocy, 121-unit senior citizen apactment complex with waiver of minimum building site ~tea pec dwelling on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of lund consisting of approximately 10.6 acres located approximately 500 feet west of the northwest cocner of Ball Road and Walnut Sticeet; and does heceby ape=ove the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declacation together with any comments received durii;g the public review process and further finding on the basis of the initial Study and any comments received that thete is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. 11/10/86 MZNUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 10 1986 86-757 iarry Cabrera stated the staff report calls for 47 affordable units; however, the agreement with the Housing Department as signed with the applicant, calls for 30 units for a period of thirty years and they have agreed to lower rents ~f about $60.00 per month less than originally pr.cposed and the Housing Departr:ent is well satisfied with the agreement. Commissianer La Claire offered a motion, seconded by rommissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED (COmmissioner Fry absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant waivec of Code reqnirement on the basis that there are special circumstances apQlicable to the pcoperty such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vici:~ity; and that stcict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of. privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classii?.cation in the vicinity. Commissioner La Claire offeted Resolution No. PC86-283 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grz;~t Co~ditional Use Permit No. 2857 pursuant to the Anaheim Municipal Code Secticns 18.03.030.030 thr.ough 16.03.030.035 and 5tate Goverriment Code Section 65915 and subj=ct to Interdepartme.^tal Committee recommendations. On roll call, the foc~go?ng resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS~ HERSST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE RBSENT: FRY Joseph Fletchet, Deputy City Attorney, presented tha written right to appeal the Flanning Com~nission's d~cision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0. :4 GIu NF.GATIVE DECLARATION~ WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONDITIUNA'L UsE P~RMIT hG. 2658 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: TOM TALBOT, 5 Cypcess T[ee, Irvine, CA 92715. Property is described as a rectangulacZy-shaped parce~ o£ land consisting of approximately 0.32 acre, 518 East Ball road (Unit "B•). To retain an existing auto repair facility in the ML Zone with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. There was one petson indicating his presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is refe~red to and made a part of the minutes. Glen Gorman, 1131 Blue Gum, Anaheim, agent, referred to Condition No. 1 sequiring sidewalks and stateG looking up and down the street from his pcoperty, there are no sidewalks in the area and his business does not generate any foot traffic. Tom Talbot, owner, stated he would be 4appy to install sidewalks when they go in on that street. 11/10/86 i~~t''r I - - -- - - . .. ... .. ~ . _ _ .. ... :.,..., ,N. ~; MINUTES, ANAHEIM C_ `PY PLANNING CGt4MIS5I0N, NOVEMBER 10„ 1986 66-758 Richard Carte.r, 2700 Associated Road, Apartment C•-G1, Fullerton, stated ~e has no objection c~ the conditional use oermit; tha~: :~-~ ;ep~esents Bc.y~•a Industcial P~uperties which owns propec~y ju~:. t~ the west ~f subject pcoperty and tha~ this property has had som2 aul~mooile cle~r,:.n~ ap~>iations and the was*_2 runs down the alley ceeating a problem and ;:'_].i i?es~!-~y the asghalt in the alley and +:i:~y would lika a condition in.cluded requi~~ing ~ispo~al of waste in a prcP~~r mannet, Leonz.rd McG~~ee state~9 B;yan Industrial ?zopertie~ subm:tr_ed a letter indica^:ing their conce~ns which is in the file. Mr. Gorman stated his waste ia s~~red in certif.ie~ t:ontainers znd he i= regi.stered with the Environ,~~e~, ai Protect.ion Agency and someone comes evecy three months to take the wast~ containers away to refineries. Chairman McBUrney stated it seems there has been an existing problem and it was clarified that is anothee business in the samP complex which cleans automobi7.e parts. Commissioner Bouas sta~ed tha uwner o,' the properL•y should see that that problem is resolved. THE PUBL•IC HEARING FiAS CLOSED. Jay Titus, Office Engineer, stated the City has been working ko get siderialk~ installed on all major h~_~s routes throughout the City ~nd Bail Road is a mtjor bus route and as G~roperties come ±^ for permits, thair c,ft•ice has been requiring that sider~alks be installed. He stated there is a lot of area ~::.r.h does not ha'~e sidewaiks. He clarified that Ball Road i.s not scheduled tc be widened. Res,pondir.g to Chairman Mc3urney, Mr. Gorman staCed th?re may be a time aftet a car is paini.e~~ t+nd is waitin9 foc cu~tomer E~i..k-up when it would be outsid~ in an en~losed area. Commis~ioner Messe ask.ed if '_h~>re had been any co:?iplaints abcut parking anc. it was noted thec~- ~+ill ba a fence to separate the uses. Mr. Gor:nzn exp'ainE~ ir. response to Comm.iss~oner La ~laite that he nas just t~ad four SU-galion drums of waste pic!<ed up by a private firm registered with the Enviconmental. ProteccYOn Agency at a cost of about ~700. Mr. Talbot cesponded to Commissioner La Claire that he is worV:ing with t:i~ City to cesolve existing waste problems and ~here was a complaint filede Commissioner La Claice stated she is very concerned a~c~?t the disposal of waste and it is the property owner's obligation c~~ sAe tha" it is taken care of. Chairman MeBUZney stated ther-~ is a gate I~caacsed which would pcevent parkin:3 concerns. He added he could ,3n ~'.,on9 with t:t:is pruj~.ct. t4c. Gorman responded to Commiasianer Souas that he would stipulate to doing all the work inside. Jay Titus stated concerning the installaticn of sidewalks that they are not all installed at one time an.d there ace sidewalks existing on Ba.ll Road ~nd that sidewalks would be required across the frontaye of the proparty on Ball Road. 11/1G/86 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM l'_ITY PLANNING COMMISSIC~i~, NOJEM@SR 10, 1985 BE-~59 ACTION: Chairman McBu~ney of~ete~' a r,ic:ic~1~, secaaued by Commissio~:er Lawicki and MOT70N CARRIED (COmmissi.c;~?: Fry abs~~?~`.~ t~~at Ene ;~naheim City Ylanning Commi.,sion has reviewed the p:.~r~sal to eetain an ex;sti~ig automobile repair facilir.;y i.n the tdi, (Indu~~rial, Limite:i! Zone with waiver af s;~ininum number of parking spaces on a rectangularly-shaped oarcel of land consis,tin~ ~f arptaximately 0.32 acre, havin9 e frontag~ of appraximately 224 ~`ee*_ ~n the south side ~f Bal:. Road and fu,c•,..er descrited as 618 East Ball Paud; ~'~~i~ B; and does hereby sporove the Neyative Declaca~ion upun fin~ing tnat i~ iias consi~ie~'P~? =::e Neqative Declarati.~n togethec with ai .- comments cere; ~ed during the p~-~lic review pi:ocess and furthcr finding on the basis of the ir.i.tial Study and any comrt.ents received that thece is no sucstantial evi..;ence that the project will havc• a significart effect on the enviro~;ment. Chairman ycBu~ney ~i£faced a motion, seconded by Commissione: Herbst and MOTION CARRIF,D (Commissioner °ry absent; that the Anaheim City Plan.ning Commission dees !;.ereby grant waivei of Code requir~~r~enL on the bas±s ~t~.at the parking waiv~:c will not cause an incr?ase in t:.~affic congest.ion in the .immediate vicini!.y ~~c~ advtcsely af£ect any adjor.nin5 land :~ses and granting of the pa.rkii~g vaiver under the con~'t:ons i^~posed, if ,. y, ~dill no~ be detrimental to thE oesce, health, ~afe_y and s~':n~ral welfare of the citizen: of the City nf A :zheim. Chairman Mceurney otreced ~cesolutS.on No. PC86-284 and movec3 for its passage and ado~,*_:,~~; ~:hat the A.naheim City Planning Commission does heLeby gtar.t Conditicaal Use Pecmic No. 2858 pursuant to Anaheim Muni:~ipal Code Section~ 18.u3.030.0'0 throuan 18.03.030.035 aad subject to I~te,tdepartmental Commlrtee recommer~dations. On roll call, t:~e foreg~ing resolution was passed by the iol~cwing vote: AYES: 30UAS. HEh9ST., LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI~ MC BURNEY~ !4CSSE NOf R: NONE Au: EN'i : Fli: Joseph Ftetcher, Deputy City A~torney, presented the writter, cight to appeal the Planning Cor.~.ni ~:,;.or.'s decisioa ~si.thin 22 days to the Cit}' Council. ITEM NO.. 15 EIR NEGATIVE DECLA:~TION, WhtVER OF CODE REQUIREhLNT AND CONDITiONAL !~~~ PBTtMIT NU. 28y9 PUBLZC HEARING. OWNERS: RICHF+:?ll H. PEBLE't AND FLORENCE M. PEBLE~, 32100 Auld Road, Winchester, CA 92396, AGENS: HUGO A. VA20tinZ, 2240 F7. Linccln Aver.ue, Anaheim, CA 92805. PcopPtty is described zs a tectangulatly-shaped }~accei of land co:isisting of appci.,cimately 0.35 acre 3ocated at the southeast corner of Philad<:lphia St~eet and Broadway Street. To permit a 24-uni.t congcegate cace facility in conjunction with on-sale alcoholic bevecag,~s in a propesed restaurant with waivers of minimum sttuctutal setba~k. It was noted a continuance has been tequested in order to readvertise additional waivers and in order £or the applicant t~ ~ubmit revised plans. 11/10/8F, ; 86-760 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ NOJEMBEk 10~ 1986 ACTION: Commissionec Bouas offerpd a motion, ~e~onded by Commissioner Lawicki and MOTION CARRIED that considecation of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regulacly-scheduled meeting of November 24, .1986, at the applicant's request. ITEM NO. 16 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2860 PUBLIC HEARTNG. OWNERS: TERRA FIRMA PROPERTIES, INC., 1240 S. State College Boulevatd, Anaheim, CA 92806. AGENT: HARBOR AUTO CF.NTER, 1745 West Katella, Suite B, Otange, CA 92667. Propetty is de~cribed as an irregulatly-shaped patcel of land consisting of approximately 0.9 ac~e on the south side of Wilken W3y, approximately 430 feet east of the centerline of Harbor Boulevatd. To permit an automotive service center. Erick Chernick, 1745 W. Katella, Orange, asked the amounts of the fees required in Conditions 1 and 2. Jay Titus stated the tcaffic signal assessment fee is levied on all new construction and ~oes into a fund and is ~~ed for installation and modifi~ation of existing s_9nals throu4hout the City. Annika Santalahti stated the euilding Department can ptovide the amounts. Responding to Mr. Chernick, Annika Santalahti stated the fee for tcee planting fees is $1.10 p2r lineal foot and that the fee go~s into a fund and there is no [ecord that it nas been paid on this pcoperty. THE PUALIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr. Chernick explainad the opecation of the center and explained all work will be done inside the Eacility and there will be a clause in the ~ease to that effect. ACTI9N: .•m:n~ssioner Hech•3t offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner La Claite an? MC.PI~N CARRT_ED (COmmissione~ Fty absent) that the Anaheim City F~lanning Cot~tsission has reviewed the ptoposal to permit an automobi].e service center ~n ait irr~gularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of apptoximately 0.9 ac~e, having a 1_'conta•~e of approximately 182 feet on the south side of Wilken Way; and dees i~ereby anprove the Negative Declaration upon finding t.hat it has conside~ed the Neqative Declaration together with any comments received during ':.he ptablic rPView ~irocc^s and furthec finding on the basis o£ the Initial Study and any comme~ts received that there is no substantial evidence that the oroject uill have a significant effect on the environment. Comm;.ssioner Herbst offeced Resolution No. PC86-285 and moved fox its passage and adoption that• the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby gtant Conditional Use Pecmit No. 2860 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 thcough 18.03.030.035 and subject to Interdepa~tmental Committee recommetidations. On roll call, the fore9oing tesolution rras passed by the followin9 vote: AYES: SOUAS~ HERBST. LA CLAIR.E~ LAWICKI, MC BURNEY~ MESSE NOES: NONE ABSEt]T: FRY 11/10/86 r MINUTES, ANAHk~IM CITY PLANNING COMMZSSION, NOJEMBER 10, 1986 86-761 Joseph Fletcher, LEputy City Attorney, presented ti,e written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0. 17 EIR NF.~r~TIVE DECLARATION~ RECLASSIFICAT.ION NO. 85-5E-35 (READV.) AND VARIANCE N0. 3'.i65 (REAllV.) PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: RASUL MOHAGHEGH, ET AL, 12652 Huston Street, North Hollywood, CA 91607. AGENT: HADI TABATABEE, 14935 Av2nida San Miguel, La Mirada, CA 90638. Property is described as a rectangularly-shaoed parcel of land consisting of appcoximately O.L2 ~cce, 314 West Elm Street. RM-2400 to RM-1200 or a less intense zone. Waivers of (a) minimum building site area per dwelling unit, (b) maximum structural height within 150 feet of single-family resi~ences, (c) minimum landscaped setback and fd) minimum sideyard setback to consttuct an eight-unit affocdable apartment complex. I't was noted tt~e applicant has cequested a continuance in order to submit revised plans. ACTION: Commissio~er Houas offered a motion, seconded by Cammissioner Lawicki and MOTION C~R~IED that cansideration of the afo[ementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of November 24, 1986, at the request of the applicant. ITEM N0. 18 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMECiT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2855 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: RICHARD G. 6 BAR9ARA L. SAYLOR, 804 West Broadway, Anaheim, CA 92805. Property described as a rectangulaciy-shaped parcel of land consisting of: approximately 0.32 acre located at• the southwest cacner of Broadway Street and Citron St_*eet. To permit a bed an~i breakfast inn with waiver of maximum area. of fteestanding signs. There were three persons 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. Richard 3ayloe, owner, stated he purchase~ this proFerty with the idea of opening a bed ar~d~breakfast inn and noted they do have adequate parking and he would be livina on the premisas with three overnight guest rooms; that the rooms would be rented to businessmen and they may be there as many nights as they like. He referred to Condition No. 2 regacding an irrevocable offer of de9ication for 10 feet from the r,enterl:n,e of L•he alley, conditioned on the removal for any reason of the interfetring structures f~r alley widening purposes and indicated concern that the City could come in at any time and tear down the sc.ructure. He expleined he has already lost 15 feet at the southeast e9ge of the ptoperty due ta t::at alley and would like to have that condition delete6. 11/10/86 MZNUTES, ANAHEt~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ NOJEMBF.R 10, 1986 86-762 Jay Titus explained the intent of that condition is that if the stcuctures are ever removed fo~ any teason, the dedication would become effective. He explained if the property owner has alteady dedicated 15 feet: he would not be r.equired to dedicate moce. David Alexand~r, 314 5. Indiania, Anahein, stated he has thcee pcin~acy objections to the bed and breakfast inn, the ficst being commercialization of a residential area and felt it would open the door for other people with large homes to do the same thing. He stated also a bed and bceakfast inn wauld bcing people into the neighborhood who they are not £amiliar with and impose on the Neighborhood Watch Program. He stated also he would object to the additional traffic in the alley and noted they ace pcoposing to have thcee parking spaces which would be an imposition on the neighborhood. Mr. alexander stated three years ago on J~ne 13, 1483, the Pla~~ing Commission con:idered Con~itional Use Permit t7o. 2454 for a bed and bteakf~~t inn at 904 East Broadway and he spoke against that request and the real estate agent who sold this property to Mc. Saylur knew about that request wnich was ycanted by the Planning Commission, but later denied by City Council, because it up~~t the neighbors. He stated they pcesented 95 signatures against that request at that time. William Poemoceah, 312 W. Broadway, st~ted thec~ is a parking problem in the area now anZ he did not want a bed and beeakfast inn and did not think one i~ needed because there are vacant hotel and motel rooms in the area and this would just open the dooc for businesses in a resider.tial neighborhood. Barbara Gonzalez, 32b and 330 S. Ohio, stated she has the same concPrns and felt a bed and breakfast inn weuld impact thP ~esidential neighborhood. She stated there is a lot of tra~fic already there. St~~= stated she is also concerned about people coming and going in the neighborhood who are not known and that the clientele in a bed and breakfast facility may not be of the same caliber as the neighbors and added there are young childce:~ in the neighborhood and she was concerned about them. Mr. Saylor stated he put parking on the alley so it would not be seen from the street and thought having cars parkeo on the propecty would be detrimenal to the lawn and ttees. He stated this property is a landmark in the area. He added he does have a long driveway in the front. He stated khe guescs at this iacilty would not be arriving or leaving during peak hours and noted that Broadway would be Widened. He stated rooms would rent fcom $65 to $95 per night, so ttansients would not Se able to affocd to stay there. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Responding to Commissone~ Bouas, he stated his wife will be serving a goucmet breakfast as part of the service provided. Commissioner Bouas asked how the check-in time could be tegulated since Mc. Saylor had indicated the gue~ts would arrive a~out 3:00 p.m. and check out by 11:00 a.m. Mr. Say.loc stated the guests ate reg;stered before they arrive and they always know who is coming. 11/10/86 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM Ci'CY PLANNING COMMISSZON N(NEMBER 10 1986 86-763 Commissioner Messe stat2d signs ate not necessary because people would not be driving by and stopping in. Commissioner La Claire stated she would agree there is no need for a bed and bceakfast ~nn in this area and cefecred to the one located on Wa1nuC which seems to be almost always empty and noted there are a lot of empty rooms in the area for guests to tent. She stated this is a cesid~ntial neighbochood ard the owners want to ptotect it. Mt. Saylor stated there are apartments going in acr.oss the street and the owner right behind his house wantsto demolish his house and build apartments. He explained he could open this as a boarding house, but wanted to open it as a bed and bceakfast so the guests would be staying for ocily a few days at a time. Annika Santalahti stated the stcucture could be con~ected into apartments in accocdance with Code standards, but the parking is a significant standacd which must be met and it would be hard to meet the parking requirements without removal of the existing stcucture. M~. Saylor stated he plans to r°store the building to its ocigi.nal condition both inside and out. Commissioner La Claire asked if Mc. Saylor had discussed thi~ pcoposal with his neighbors and Mr. Saylor responded he had not. Mr. Alexander responded to Commissioner La Claire that he would like t~ see the property to remain as it is, and did not want to see it tutned into a bed and breakfast facility. He added he did not know whethe[ Mc. Saylor was informed by the realtor of the pcevious denial for a bed and b~eakfast in that a[ea, and the tealtoc was aware of the neighbors' opposition. He stated he would be willing tu contact all the neighbors again to let the Planning Commissioners know what they want .and stated the Commissioners and Ccuncil ate appointed to cepresent thP cesidents and listen to their needs and desices. Commissioner La Claite stated the Commission is listening. Chairman McBucney stated the Commissioners are lxstening to the neighbocs and to the pcoperty owner who wants to develop this property and has to weigh both sides of the issue. Mr. Saylor stated he did know about the other request before the Planning Commission and that one was fot a home fo~ wayward mothers and the other was for a bed and breakfast inn. xe stated this building is not in the middle of the block and has apartme~ts going in on the cocner which will affect the nei9hborhood much moce than this bed and tceakfast inn would. He stated he was planning to have an open house so the neighbots could see what he is doing. He stated he will be goin9 around the neighborhood to meet the neighbo[s. Commissiener Herbst asked if he would like a two-week continuance in order to meet with the neighbors. He stated the Commission has studied bed and bteadfast facilities and the house must meer cectail criteria in order to qualify for a bed and breakfast inn in Anaheim. He stated he has stayed at 11/10/86 86-764 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ NOVEMDER :0, 1986 bed and bceakfast ~acilities throughout Califo~rv~a and the problems the neighbors se.em to feac, just are not there. He stated allowing bed and bteakfast facilities is one way to preserve some of the older landmark homes in the acea and in the right location, they would be very acceptable. Mr. Saylor stated he would request a two-week continuance in order to talk to the neighbocs and Mr. Alexander responded he would be willing to walk Citeon and Ohio Streets with ~im. ACTION: Chai~man McBUrney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner La Claire aitd MOTION CARRIED (Commissionet Fty absent) that consideration of the• aforementioned matter be continued to the regulatly-scheduled meeting of Novembec 24, 1986, at the requ~st of the petitioner. ITEM NO. 19 EIR N0. 258 (PREVIOUSLY CF.RTIFIED)~ WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT (PREV. APPROVEB) AND CONllITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 271E (READV.) PUBLIC HEARI[JG FOR SPECIFIC PLANS. REQUESTED BY: CZTY OF ANAHEIM, 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805. AGENTS: J.R.H. ZNC., 5101 East Independence eoulevard, Charlotte, N. C. 28212. Property is described as an irzegularly-shaped paccel of land consisting of approximately 9.29 acces located at the noctheasterly corner of La Palma Avenue and Weir Canyon Road. Request for approval of final specific plans for P:iase II of const[uction to pecmit the construction of another automobile sales facility (Canyon Subaru) with waiver of maximum fence height (pceviously app~oved). There were three persons indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not tead, it is refecred to and made a part of the minutes. William Reute~ann, owner of the Honda Dealership at 8323 E. La Palma, was present to answer any questions. Sharon Lazzaco stated she is present to ceptesent hec neighborhood and voiced her oppo:ition to the plans for the Subacu dealecship; that when Canyon Honda was proposed, they did not feel it would directly affect thei~ homes, but since then they have been told they plan several other dealerships on t~at propecty and they feel that would affect propecty values and the natural beauty o£ the Canyon. She stated allowing this dealershio willosedetohanyite moce appEaling for future dealetships and they ate stcongly opp more dealerships in theic neighbothood. Vickey Stevens, 1290 Juniper, stated since the Honda lights went on she has lost the flight of thcee owls ovet her house every night. She stated the view fcom her yard was with no lights, but now they have the Honda dealership lights. She stated they waited to see the three owls fly over their hous~: every night and she feels the loss will affect the envitonment. She stated she was concerned that there eventually will be a lot of car dealerships on La Palma and also that will affect the unique view coming into Anaheim. She stated the,~ moved from downtown Anaheim to get away f~om cat dealerships and to be in a rural a~ea, but it is goin9 fast and also, the wildlife is going fast and it is really sad. 11/10/86 MiNUTES, ANAHEZM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, NOJEMBER 10, 1986 86-765 Joyce Ostheimec stated she is opposed to the tcaffic and transients this will bring to the area. She stated when she moved there the area was totally open and very rural and thece is still some wildlife, but tris will create population and this is a totally residential atea until recently. She stated she thought the auto center is against the whole residential system and the number of cat dealerships will just multiply. She stated thete is an cpen lot to the reat of their homes which is very close and she is concecned that it will be developed. Chairman McBUrney stated this auto centet has alceady been appcoved and this heating is just to consider the specific plans znd thought the oppusition's concerns relate to the other cocner and noted this dealership was considered at the same time the Honda dealership was approved. Mr. Reutemann stated the concerns are with the lights which create a glow in the sky; that the people who live in the area are on the other side of F7eir Canyon Road and the Honda dealet~hip is actually in a hole. He scated he was drivin9 on the freeway recently and the lights from the baseball field actually gave off more light than their sign. F3e stated another concern is the PA system and they do turn them down at 7:00 p.m. and it is turned off by 10:00 p.m. and the lights are all off by 12:00 midnight and they intend to do that same thing with the Subaru dealership. He stated they want to be good neighbors. THE PUBLIC HEARIt7G WAS CLOSED. Responding to Commissionec La Claire, Mr. Reutemann stated they close between 9:00 and 10:00 and that not evecyone is always out of the building when they close and they do not turn the liyhts off until everyone is gone. He explained one light on the pole is left on for security. Commissionez La Claire suggested half the lights be turned off by 11:00. She stated she was real].y concerned about the lights when this was pcoposed because she has lived neac something similiar to this and the 91ow in the Canyon does bothec her. Responding to Commissioner Bouas, Mr. Reutemann explained the Subaru dealership has been appcoved on the noctheast cotner and the northwest corner will be developed in 12 to 18 months and there will be a maximum of thcee additicnal dealerships. He stated there is a lot of vacant property that is not usable because of the steep hill and could probably only be used for stotage. Commissionet La Claire stated this property is owned by the City of Anaheim and it was sold to these developers and when it came to the Planning Commission it was already sold for the purpose of the car dealerships; and that thete is some question about the other propeety and what will be developed there, but in this case, the dealecship has been appcoved and the only thing that Can be done is to ask them to keep the lighting doMn. Vickey Stevens stated there ate five cul-de-sacs in their tract of 35 homes and she is located on the second one closest to the Honda dealership and is not concerned so much about the Honda dealership, but is concerned about the vacant proPecty which has been sold and which backs up to theit fences and want to let the Commission know they are concerned about theit homes; and that 11/10/86 86-766 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, NOVEMBER 10~ 1986 some people in the neighborhood want to move because with cat dealecships all a[ound, the acea will look iike Anaheim Boulevard. She stated a friend just purchased a new car and went to five different dealerships and all the salesmen are planning to move to this area because the dealerships are planning to move. She stated they know the dealetships a[e coming and they want to stop them fcom building up to theic fences. She stated the Honda lights are really not a problem, even though the owls have changed their flight di~ection, but she could not live with three more cat dealerships in the field by her home and also the lights and PA systems will be a problem. She stated thei[ concern is the othec 6 ot 8 dealerships which might be moving thece and they feel this will destroy their neighborhood. She stated this is a beautiful scenic route into Anaheim and a lot of car dealerships is not the impzession that should be given, especially with the tiverbed and regional park in the area. Annika Santalahti stated the other site has CL zoning and cucrently is more or less a hole in the ground and the dirt is being dumped there illegally and not by tkie City and in order to approve any car dealerships~ thece will have to be anothet public hearing. She stated staff is aware of the neighborhood concerns and there is a lot of discussion at staff level regardiny anything commercial which might go in there; and that it is difficult to get to the site and it is very visible for the neighborirtg azeas. She stated by the time a conditional use permit is cequested, hopefully, staff will have a solution and will have talked to the neighbors. She stated both sites ate leased property; however, the west side has not been leased and the ptoperty is owned by the City of Anaheim. ACTION: Commissionet Hecbst offered a Totion, seconded by Commissionet La Claice and MOTION CARRIED (Commissionec F:Y absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby appr~ve final specific plans for a Phase 2 to petmit construction of anothet automobile sales facility (Canyon Subaru). ITEM N0. 20 REPORTS AND R£COMMENDATIONS A, PROPOSED COD~ AMENDMENT - Request fcom Glen A. Malkin and Dennis McLaten (Metropolitan Marketing, Inc.) to amend Subsection 18.61.050 of the Anaheim Municipal Code to include indoor swapmeets as a conditional use in the ML (Industrial, Limited) Zone. ACTION: Com~:.issioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED (COmmissioner Fcy absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission dces hereby tecommend denial of the proposed Code amendment to permit indoor swapmeets as a conditional use in the ML 2one subject to approval of a conditional use permit. 11/10/86 ,i ~'I . 66-767 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, NU~IEMBER 10, 1986 AA70URNMENT: Commissione[ Serbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissoner Messe and MOTION CARRIED (Commissionec Fry absent) that the meeting be adjoucned. Adjoucned at 6:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~/~~~~ L~~~.G~ Edith L. ~arris, SecretatY Anaheim City Plar.ninq Commission ELH:lm 0229m 11/10/86