Loading...
Minutes-PC 2007/06/25p,EiE1M c : ~~ ~~r CitY of Anaheirn ~ o~ o • • ~ _ ,~ ~ Planning Cornmission ~ ~ Minutes ', .~a~ ~ :. ° ° , Mondav, June 25, 2007 ' , ~o~ `$~~ NDED Council Chamber, City Hall ' 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California CHAIRMAN: GAIL EASTMAN CommissionersPresent: KELLYBUFFA; STEPHEN FAESSEL; CECILIA FLORES, JOSEPH KARAKI, PANKY `ROMER4 . Commissioners Absent: PAT VELASQUEZ Staff Present: Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney Elaine Thienprasiddhi, Assoc. Planner Dave See, Senior Planner Kimberly Wong, Assistant Planner , Della Herrick, Associate Planner Jamie Lai, Principal Civil Engineer • Scott Koehm, Associate Planner Elly Morris, Senior Secretary Agenda Posting: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at 11:00 a.m. on Thursday, June 21, 2007, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chambers, and also in the outside display kiosk. Published: Anaheim Bulletin Newspaper on Thursday, May 31,-2007 • Call To Order • Preliminary Plan Review 1:00 P.M. • STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION ON VARIOUS CITY DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES (AS REQUESTED BY PLANNING COMMISSION); • PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW FOR ITEMS ON THE JUNE 25, 2007 AGENDA •, Recess To Public Hearing • Reconvene To Public Hearing 2:30 P.M. Attendance: 27 : JUNE 25, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Anaheim Plannin Commission Meetin - 2:30 P.M. 9 9 Public Comments: None ` Consent Calendar: Commissioner Faessel offered a' motion, seconded by Commissioner Flores and ' MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Velasquez absent), for approval of Consent Calendar Item 1-A as recommended by staff. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED Min , 1A. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Approved, with Commission Meeting of June 11, 2007. (Motion) modifications to pages 5 and 7 • Consent Calendar ~-pProved VOTE: 6-0 -. Commissioner Velasquez absent Page 2 JUNE 25,'2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • P u li H rin I m: c ea s 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 2b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT July 23, 2007 2c. RESOLUTION OF UNCERTAINTIES 2d. <CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2007-05209 Motion: Owner: Brandon Rainone Flores/BufFa Outer Spring Volcano LP 3364 East La Palma Avenue VOTE: 6-0 Anaheim, CA 92806-2814 Commissioner Velasquez absent Agent: Brandon Rainone 3364 East La Palma Avenue Anaheim, CA 92806 Location: 3364 East La Palma Avenue: Property is approximately 2.7 acres, having a frontage of 252 feet on the north side of the Riverside (SR-91) Freeway, a maximum depth of 524 feet, and is • accessed via a 652 #oot long, 32 foot wide ingress/egress easement on the south side of La Palma Avenue, 1,240 feet east of the centerline of Shepard Street. Request to remodel an existing bowling facility including an expansion for a management office and to permit telecommunications towers with waivers of (a) minimum number of parking spaces, (b) maximum letter height, (c) maximum floor area ratio, (d) required landscaping adjacent to a freeway, and (e) maximum size and quantity of freeway oriented wall signs. Continued from the May 30, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. Conditional Use Permit Resolution Na OPPOS{TION: None • DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. Project Planner.• ethien@anaheim.net JUNE 25, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - • 3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 2007-00460 3c. RECLASSIFICATION>N0.2006-00190 3d. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 3e. ` CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-05175 `' 3f. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. ''17139 Owner: Natalie Tran 3100 Lindacita Anaheim, CA 92804-1715 Quyen Tran 237 South Beach Anaheim, CA 92804=1815 Agent: Mertco Attn: Roy UVard 2614 Ocean Blvd. Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Location: 237 S. Beach Boulevard and 3100 W. Lindacita • Lane: Portion A: Property is approximately 0.27-acres, having a frontage of 47 feet on the southeast side of Lindacita Lane and a maximum depth of 142 feet (3100 W. Lindacita Lane). Portion B: Property is approximately 1.68 acres, is a land-locked parcel and is located north across - a flood control channel from 3067 and 3079 West Orange Avenue and is located 175 feet south of the centerline of Grand Avenue (237 S. Beach Blvd.). General Plan Amendment No. 2007-00460 - Request to redesignate Portion A from the Low Density Residential designation to the Low-Medium Density designation. Reclassification No. 2006-00190 - Request reclassification of Portion A from the RS-2 (Residential, Single-Family) zone to the RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family) zone, or a less intense zone, and Portion B from the T(Transition) zone to the RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family) zone, or a less intense ~ zone and to remove the Mobile Home Park Overlay zone. JUNE 25, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • construct an 11-unit detached single-family residential subdivision with waiver of improvement of private street for Portions A and B. Tentative Tract Map No. 17139 - To establish a 12 numbered and 1 lettered'lot, 11-unit detached single-family residential subdivision for Portions Aand B. Continued from'the June 11, 2007 Planning Commission Meeting. General Plan Amendmenf Resolution No. ` Project Planner.• Reclassification Resolution Na kwong2@anaheim.net Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. OPPOSITION: None DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ~ JUNE 25, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 4a. ' ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 2006-00335 4b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 2006-00446 4c. AMENDMENT TO THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE MASTER LAND USE PLAN (MISCELLANEOUS PERMIT N0: 2006- 00162 4d. ZONING CODE AMENDMENT N0. 2007-00054 - 4e. ` CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2006-05134 4f. ' DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO: 2006-00004 4g. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP N0. 17089 Owner: Drew Singer ' AMB Property Corporation Peir 1 bay 1 San Francisco, CA 94111 Agent: New Urban' West, JNC. 1733 Ocean Ave, Suite 350 Santa Monica, CA 90401 _ i Location: 1969 South State Colle4e Boulevard; This ~ property is a 17.5-acre site at the southwest corner of Gene Autry Way and State College Boulevard within the Gene Autry District of The Platinum Triangle in the City of Anaheim. The site has a frontage of approximately 1,210 feet on the south side of Gene Autry Way and 600 feet on the east side of State College Boulevard. ' • Environmental Impact Report No. 2006-00335 - Request for certification of Environmental Impact Report No. 335, including adoption of a Statement of Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 143 for the Gene Autry Experience project. EIR No. 335 has been prepared to serve as the primary environmental document for GPA2006-00446, CUP2006-05134, SUBTTM17089, DAG2006-00004, ZCA2007-00054 and MIS2006-00162 and subsequent actions related to implementation of the project. lmplementation is intended to include, but not be limited to, the approval of subdivision maps, grading permits, street improvement plans, final site plans, and other related actions for the Gene Autry Experience project. Future actions related to the Gene Autry Experience project that require additional discretionary review will utilize this document for CEQA purposes to the extent possible, consistent with Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines. 06-25-07 Page 6 JUNE 25, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • General Plan Amendment No. 2006-00446 - Request ta _ amend the Land' Use Element of the General Plan to increase the maximum number of dwelling units permitted in The Platinum Triangle by 699 dwelling units, Miscellaneous Permit No: 2006-00162 - Request to amend ' The`Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan to increase the maximum number'of dwelling units in the Gene Autry District from 1,000 to 1,699 and the total number of dwelling units in - The;Platinum Triangle by 699 dwelling units. ' Zoning Code Amendment No. 2007-00054 - Request to amend the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone to ` increase the maximum number of dwelling units in the Gene Autry Disfrict from 1,000 to 1,699 and the total `number of dwelling units in The Platinum Triangle by 699 dwelling units. Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-05134 - Request to permit building heights over 1 OO feet (up to 300 feet proposed) for ' the proposed Gene Autry Experience project. ~ Development Agreement No. 2006-00004 - Request to adopt a Development Agreement between the City of Anaheim and AM6 Property, L.P. and New Urban West Land, L.L.C. for a mixed use development. _ Tentative Tract Map No. 17089 - To establish a 21-lot, mixed use subdivision with 1,208 residential units; 100,000 square feet of office; and, 50,000 square feet of commerciaL General Plan Amendment Resolution No. Miscellaneous Permit Resolution No.' Zoning Code Amendment Na Conditional Use Permit Resolution Na Development Agreement Resolution Na Project Planner.- skim@anaheim.net OPP~JSfTION: None • DISCUSSION`TIME: This item was not discussed. - _ D6-25-07 : Page'7 JUNE 25, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION , Faessel/Buffa A roved pp 5b. GENERALPLAN AMENDMENT N0. 2007-00459 Faessel Recommended City Council Approval 5c. RECLASS{FICATION N0.2007-00203 Faessel `Granted 5d. 'RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2007-00204 . Faessel Granted ' Agent: Planning Department City ofAnaheim VOTE: 6-0 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Commissioner Anaheim, CA 92805 Velasquez absent Parcel A: 2000 South State Colleqe Boulevard: This triangle-shaped :07-acre property isJocated in the City of Orange and has a frontage of 26 feet on the north side of Orangewood Avenue, a maximum depth of 350 feet and is located approximately 480 feet east of the centerline of Rampart Street and is further described as 2000 South State College Boulevard - Anaheim Stadium Parking Lot. ~ Parcel B: 2337 South Manchester Avenue: This rectangularly-shaped 394 square foot parcel is located in the City of Orange and is a landlocked parcel with a maximum depth of 26 feet and located 172 feet north of Compton Avenue and is within an existing mobile home park. General Plan Amendment No. 2007-00459 - City-initiated amendment to the City of Anaheim General Plan to redesignate Parcel A from the Open Space to the Mixed Use Land Use designation and to designate Parcel B for Medium Density Residential in the City of Anaheim in order to facilitate finro boundary line adjustments between the City of Orange and the City of Anaheim. Reclassification No. 2007-00203 - City-initiated request to reclassify Parcel A to the PR (PTMU Overlay) (Public Recreation, Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay) zone, or a less intense zone. Reclassification No. 2007-00204 - City-initiated request to reclassify Parcel B to the T(Transition) zone, or a less ~ intense zone. ' _ 06-25-07 , Page 8 JUNE 25, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ General Plan Amendment No. PC2007-61 Project Planner.• Reclassification Resolution No. PC2007-62 dnerrick@anaheim.net Reclassification Resolution No. PC2007-63 Chairman Eastman opened the public hearing. Della Herrick, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. No one from the public wished to addressthe Commission. Chairman Eastman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Faessel offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Buffa, to accept ' the CEQA'Negative Declaration.- Motion passed. Commissioner Faessel offered a resolution to approve General Plan Amendment Na 2007-0459. Elly Morris, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with 6 : aye votes. Commissioner Faessel offered a resolution to approve Reclassification Na 2007-00203. ~ Ms. Morris announced that the resolution passed with 6 aye votes. Commissioner Faessel offered a resolution to approve Reclassification No. 2007-00204. Ms. Morris announced that the resolution passed with 6 aye votes. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 17, 2007. DISCUSSION TtME: 5 minutes (2:38-2:43) JUNE 25, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 6a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 Concurred with staff Karaki/Romero 6b.' CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04451 -Karaki Approved ' (TRACKING NO. CUP2007-05218) reinstatement for 2 years (to expire on Owner: Richter Farms Trust June 25, 2009). ' 5505 Garden Grove Boulevard #150 Westminster, CA 92683 ' Added a condition of Agent: Gerard O'Donnell approval 5505 Garden Grove Boulevard #150 ' Wes4minster, CA 92683 VOTE: 6-0 ' Commissioner Location: 1084 and 1086 North State Colleqe Boulevard: Velasquez absent Property is approximately 7 acres, and is located north and east of the northeast corner of State College Boulevard and La Palma Avenue. Request reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time iimitation to retain a previously-approved restaurant with on- ~' premises sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages and` public entertainment. Project Planner.• Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2007-64 dherrick@anaheim.net Chairman Eastman opened the public hearing. Della Herrick, Associate P{anner, presented the staff report. Thomas J. Borchard, Attorney for J.C. Fandango, 1086 North State College Boulevard, - Anaheim, CA, stated he and Hector and Marco Castellanos were present to answer questions. No one from the public wished to addressed the Commission. Chairman Eastman stated the only question that came up in the Commission's preliminary meeting was where the business was going to move to since Commission had heard they were leaving the City of Anaheim. Jose Marco Castellanos, 1086 North State College Boulevard, Anaheim, CA, • responded that #hey were trying to stay in Anaheim and were currently (ooking at different sites. ' < : 06-25-07 ' Page 10 JUNE 25, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Chairman Eastman stated that in the relimina meetin , staff recommended no time p rY 9 limit on the request; however, the Commission received a letter from the neighborhood. Mr. Castellanos stated they just`received an extension through'January from the landlord and were now seeking: an extension through this time'next year so that they would have enough time to find another location. ' Chairman Eastman stated the only concern she had is that Commission received a ietter from the' neighbors on Whittier Street and she recalled complaints that some of the customers were parking on their`property and littering and their concerns needed to be " acknowledged. Commissioner Faessel stated that ConditionNa 9 states that on-site security officers shall periodically monitor the rear of the property and assure that no loitering or legal dumping occurs and that Condition No. 10 states that loitering shall be prohibited. He stated that he too is concerned about the facf thaf residents in the area took the time to submit their concerns to the Commission in regards to the operation of the subject business and he would think that if they were a good neighbor he would suggest that ' they do whateVer actions necessary to mitigate some of the points broughf'up. Mr. Castellanos responded they have finro to four automobiles policing every night. Commissioner Buffa stated that she has a concern about issuing a permit for this type ~ of use that would have no time limit. She stated that although this operation has done a good job and there were no complaints, no one knew who might move into the space after the use and with the Conditional Use Permit they could have the same kind ofi operation; therefore, she would like for there to be a time limit. She suggested that the time limit not extend one year from when the permit expired but that it expire one year _ from today's hearing. In that way the applicant would have time to relocate but the next ' operator would have to come in and demonstrate that they understand the operational characteristics of the City. Mr. Castellanos responded that the location would not be another restaurant club. Commissioner Buffa explained that if the CUP (Conditional Use Permit) existed another operation could move in so the Commission wanted to make sure that the City was protected. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Karaki, Mark Gordon, Deputy City Attorney, responded that the CUP would run with the property so if the Commission were to approve the request without a time limitation and this operator were to leave the premises, a new operator could start a new business consistent with the permit without any other entitlements from the Commission. If the permit were in place, it would run with the land and apply to subsequent owners, successors, lessees or transferees. • ' 06-25-07 Page 11 ` JUNE 25, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Karaki referred to the applicant and asked if a one year extension was acceptable. Mr. Castellanos responded they would like to have two years'because if it took a year and 4 months to relocate, he would not want`to be in trouble. : Chairman Eastman stated there had been no issues until the complaint from the neighborhood received today; therefore, she would not have a problem with a two year extension. : In response to a question posed by Commissioner Flores, Mr. Castellanos indicated they have not found a new site but are considering four (4) or five (5) sites. They are all in the City of Anaheim. Mr. Borchard stated they take the complaints of the concerned citizens very seriously : and he would be sitting with the Castellanos to ensure they could address the issues within their controL Chairman Eastman stated that they have proven good faith to this point in abiding by , the'conditions. : Chairman Eastman closed the public hearing. ~ Commissioner Karaki offered a motion seconded b Commissioner Romero, to , Y determine the project is Categorically Exempt - Class 1. Commissioner Karaki offered a resolution to approve the request #o reinstate Conditional Use Permit 2001-04451 for a finro year period. Elly Morris, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with 6 aye votes. Mark Gordon, Deputy City Attorney, clarified that the resolution was for a period of two years from today's date (June 25, 2007) to expire on June 25, 2009. Ms. Morris announced that the resolution passed with 6 aye votes. OPPOSITION: A petition was received prior to today's meeting with 18 signatures in opposition. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 17, 2007. ~ DISCUSSION TIME: 11'minutes 2:44-2:55 ~ ) JUNE 25, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 7a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION = CLASS 3 Concurred with staff BufFa/Faessel : 7b. .WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Buffa/Faessel Approved 7c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 940 Buffa Approved ~ (TRACKING NO. CUP2007-05215) amendment Deleted Condition Owner: The Salvation Army Na 10 10200 Pioneer Road Tustin, CA 92680 VOTE: 6-0 Commissioner , Agent: : J7 Architecture, Inc. Velasquez absent 1470 Jamboree Road, Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92660 _ Location: 1515 West North Street: Property is ' approximately 3.2 acres and is located at the ' northeast corner of Loara Street and North : Street. ~ Request to amend exhibits to permit a worship center addition to an existing Salvation Army Community Center ' facility with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Project Planner: ' Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2007-65 (skoehm@anaheim.netJ Chairman Eastman opened the public hearing. Scott Koehm, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Michael Freeman, representing The Salvation Army, 2207 West Orangewood Avenue, Orange, CA, stated they have owned the property for quite a while and are looking forward to having a nice renovation that wiU suit the community weU and be more : effective for them to maintain. Chairman Eastman stated there is a church facility operated by the Salvation Army not too far from the subject location Mr. Freeman stated that the one she is speaking of is Spanish speaking only. • Chairman Eastman asked if this one would be an English. speaking congregation. ; 06=25-07 Page 13 JUNE 25, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Mr.-Freeman res onded that it would be. p Commissioner Faessel stated the property goes back to the YMCA days in 1967 and he asked if they would do any additional updates to #he building or the landscape. Terry Jacobson, J. T. Architecture, 1470 Jamboree Road, Suite 200, Newport, Beach, CA, responded the intent is to improve thefacility,both in terms of its'outward - appearance and its inward function; there would be additional landscaping. Commissioner Flores stated she was on the property this morning and observed what , the applicant calls a`storage shed appeared to be a finro car garage and she asked about their intentions for the structure. _ - . Mr. Jacobson responded their intent is to clean it up and paint if but leave it on'the property as a storage facility. Commissioner Flores asked if they would paint it the same coloration as the subject . building. Mr. Jacobson responded they would definitely want it to appear in the same coloration . as #he main building and also there would be landscaping immediately around the ~ structure. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Flores regarding landscaping, Dave See, Senior Planner, responded that staff recommended that new trees be installed to bring the site up to Code because the current landscape is not in conformance with the Code requirements. Also, staff feels there are new additions that are fairly substantial that will intensify the site and the addition of new trees would help beautify the street frontages. The applicant would not be required to construct new planters, only install new trees. Chairman Eastman posed a question regarding the proposed community center. Kevin White, representing The Salvation Army and also responsible for the youth centers of The Salvation Army in Orange County, 5246 W. 190,th, Torrance, CA, stated they deal with a great population of seniors as well as youth. Across'the streetthey have Adele Price School as well as Westmont School and the facility functions in a large capacity, doing programs for youth as well as seniors and adults, so this project will benefit the youth and seniors. He stated their basic operations include an adult and senior program for their pool and therapy session early in the morning until approximately 2:00 p.m. They do an after school drop-in program. When they were operating at their highest capacity they had on their books up to 600 seniors, but on ' average there would typically be no more than 50 to 75 on average per day that would use their facilities. Additionally, they had 550 after school students on their rolls as • members, averaging befinreen 80 to 200 youths daily, making their capacity total ' approximately.120 to 150 youths every day. He reinforced the crossover between the ' _ 06-25-07 ' : Page,14 'JUNE 25, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ church and the community center. The community center programs wou~d run Monday through Friday and possibly a special event on a Saturday morning but never at the same time as their church operation. The church would use the facility Friday night and Saturdays and Sundays. There would not be a crossover or dual use of the facility at all. Chairman Eastman asked since they have the pool and recreation facilities if it was run similar to Jim's`(a recreation center) or the Downtown Community Center. Mr. White responded their program is similar to the YMCA's, and the main difference is an after school drop-in program which allowed them to scope their ministry for seniors as well as children. He stated #hat they do not have a conflict with any licensing requirements from the state as far as child care and they'are not inclined to move to 'child care mode: It would particularly be drop-in as they have functioned for the last 10 years or so. _ Commissioner Flores asked if they would provide meals. Mr. White responded they have usually had an after school feeding program. At 3:00 p.m. they have provided snacks, sponsored by Second HarvestFood Bank; however, : they do not wish to run a structured feeding program because they have a social service program that does that separately. Therefore, they will have snacks :available to all of ,~ their members which they wiU run from their kitchen but will not put in a feeding program for the community center. Chairman Eastman stated it sounded like a distinct asset to the community. Mr. White responded that they are excited because this project is going to increase the services they can provide to the community. Commissioner Flores asked if they had contacted the school district. Mr. White responded that Superintendent Sandra Berry is on their advisory council as well as both the principals from Adele Price and Westmont Schools, and that they all work together very nicely. He indicated they even share parking for special events. Their relationship has been and continues to be very strong and if they have ever had an issue they have managed to resolve it very quickly. No one from the public wished to address the Commission. Chairman Eastman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Buffa offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Faessel, to approve CEQA Categorical Exemption - Class 3. ~ Commissioner Buffa offered a motion, seconded b Commissioner Faessel, to approve Y the waiver of minimum number of parking'spaces. , 06-25-07 Page 15 JUNE 25, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Buffa recommended a resolution to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 940 (Tracking No. CUP 2007-05215).` EIIy Morris, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with 6 aye votes. , OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at _ - 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 17, 2007. DISCUSSION TIME: 14 minutes (2:56-3:10) ~ ` JUNE 25, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • _ 8a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 Concurred with staff Romero/Flores 8b. CONDITIONAL' USE PERMIT N0. 2007-05217 Romero Approved Owner: 'Amin and Hasina Lakhani , 13336 East Alondra Boulevard VOTE: 6-0 Cerritos, CA 90703 Commissioner Velasquez absent Agent: Peter Morris 2019 West Orangewood Ave Orange, CA 92868 'location:` 2198 South Dupont Drive: Property is approximately 1.1 acres, having a frontage of 188 feet on the south side of Dupont Drive and is located at`the southern end of the bupont Drive loop 860 feet south of the centerline of : Orangewood Avenue. Request to permit a physical fitness training and indoor ~ batting cage facility. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2007-66 Chairman Eastman opened the public hearing. Project Planner.• (ethien@ anaheim. net) Elaine Thienprasiddhi, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Peter Morris, 2015 West Orangewood Avenue, Orange, CA, stated that they are an existing business looking to relocate to the City of Anaheim. In response to a question posed by Chairman Eastman, Mr. Morris responded they have read the staff report and agree with the conditions of approval. No one from the public wished to address the Commission. Chairman Eastman closed the public hearing. JUNE 25, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commissioner Romero offered a resolution to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05217. - Elly Morris, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with 6 aye votes. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22=day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 17, 2007. DISCUSSION TIME: 2 minutes (3:11-3:13) ~ JUNE 25, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 9a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Buffa/Flores Approved ' (READVERTISEDI 9b. ' VARIANCE N0. 2007-04728 Buffa Denied 9c. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP N0. 2007-144 ': BuffalRomero Denied Owner: Juan"Castaneda Franco - VOTE ON CEQA: 6-0 1774 Canterbury Circle Commissioner Anaheim, GA 92802=2806 ' ' Velasquez absent Agent: - Bob Suleimani - VOTE ON VAR AND 9582 Hamilton Avenue TPM: 4-1-1 Huntington' Beach, CA 92646 Commissioner Flores 'voted no, Location: 1774 South Canterburv Circle: Property is CommissionerKaraki approximately 0;37-acre, having a frontage of abstained and ' 137 feet on the east side``of the cul-de-sac on Commissioner Canterbury Circle and is located 67 feet'north of Velasquez absent the centerline of Katella Avenue. . Variance Na 2007-04728 - Request to construct a single- family residence with waivers of (a) minimum lot size, (b) minimum lot width, (c) minimum lot depth adjacent to an arterial highway, (d) minimum front yard setback, and (e) minimum dimension of tandem parking spaces. Tentative Parcel Map No. 2007-144 - Request to establish a 2-lot, 2-unit detached residential subdivision. ` Project Planner.• - Variance Resolution No. PC2007-67 (kwong2@anaheim.nef) Chairman Eastman opened the public hearing. Kimberly Wong, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Rudy Franco, 1774 Canterbury Circle, Anaheim, CA, stated he would be happy to answer questions if necessary. Commissioner Buffa stated it is her understanding that he acquired the property fairly recently, subsequent to the lot line adjustment occurring. ~ ' Mr. Franco responded that they bought it approximately;a year aga ,- 06-25-07 Page 19 JUNE 25, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES i Commissioner Buffa asked if his title report showed a record of the lof line adjustment and that he owned only one lot. Mr. Franco responded that honestly they did not know anything about the property. When they bought the property the owner said that it was finro lots and that he was using the alternate lot to park an RV (Recreational Vehicle). They bought the property with the intentions of building a house for their family. They were unaware the property was one lot: Commissioner Buffa stated that the plans he submitted to the City showed the property as two separate 1ots; therefore; she asked Mr. Franco when he asked a surveyor to come out to survey the property and determine#hat it was one or two lots. Mr. Franco responded that he called the surveyor when staff informedhim that there were problems and a neighbor was complaining. However, at that point, 95% of the framing was finished and they were planning to put on the ceiling and tile. He was told - by staff that someone had made a mistake by approving the drawings and issuing permits to them because it was only supposed to be one lot. They in turn asked staff what they could do and were told that they needed to obtain a survey and file paperwork and that it would'take approximately 6 months. He told John Ramirez ofithe Planning staff that they did`not have 6 months and John Ramirez offered to help file the ~ paperwork to try and cut out some time. Commissioner Buffa asked if he hired a surveyor after John Ramirez called him: Mr. Franco responded that John Ramirez told him to hire a surveyor. Gommissioner Flores asked when they did the framing of the foundation, if he noticed , that the setback to the front property line was less than the 20 foot setback stated on the plot plan. Mr. Franco responded that the general contractor went by the plans and they did believe they met the setbacks. When they measured to the front, they thought they had over 24 feet, but they did not know that the City was taking it in a different way; but if measured from the edge of the streef - the corner line, it is over 24 feet. He believes it is acceptable because it is the last house and there are no sidewalks along any of the houses. There is an 8 foot wall on the last property and no one can drive through'and their family is in the house next door. He does not believe there would be an issue that warrants them to take the house out. Commissioner Karaki asked if he hired a general contractor to build a house for him. Mr. Franco responded that he hired Surrounds Construction. ~ CommissionerKaraki asked if he ever established property lines; if he put the corner on the property before he built it. 06-25-07 Page 20 JUNE 25, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Mr. Franco responded that he had. Commissioner Karaki asked if it was not the surveyor. Mr. Franco responded that the surveyor was not hired until John Ramirez told him to hire a surveyor. Commissioner Karaki asked if the contractor measured from where he perceived to be the;property line. Mr. Franco responded that he had. CommissionerKaraki asked if he did not check to see if it was a real established _ property corner. Mr: Franco responded everybody that builds goes by the drawings. There was not a house next door and there was a fence thaf had been there for a very long time and therefore, that is how the contractor measured. Commissioner Karaki stated in the old days they used to have fences randomly set and sometimes they would enter one property or the other and asked if he ever bothered to ~ establish property lines. Mr. Franco stated if he was told when he submitted the drawings that he needed a survey, he would have done it. Commissioner Karaki stated a general contractor should have known to establish property lines whether the City asked or not, for his own protection, because he would not want to put:the building on the next door property or on the street. He asked if the general contractor was present. Mr. Franco responded he was not. tn response to a question posed by Commissioner Romero, Mr. Franco responded they bought the property with the intention of building a house for their family and it was finro lots. He stated that when they bought the property the owner told him that there used to be a house there. - Commissioner Romero asked if he bought only one parcel number. Mr. Franco responded that he had. Chairman Eastman called for testimony from the opposition. s of '~ : Rita Mann, 1774 Norfolk Lane, Anaheim, CA, stated that they are the original owner the property east of Canterbury,:and when they bought their lot the house was in 06-25-07 Page 21 ' JUNE 25, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • construction, and they received a deed that said the City of Garden Grove and finro - months later they received a revised one that said the City of Anaheim. Anaheim had : annexed the property from: Garden Grove and maintained the quantity of,the lots. She explained thaf during that time in' Garden Grove you could only build on a quarter of an acre; therefore, all of the lots on their street are a quarter of an acre, so when the City advanced to Katella Avenue for the purpose of widening it the citizens formed a group and'met weekly with the engineers and worked on getting the housing antl fence repaired in good condition. When the beautiful fence was put in they"discussed what was happening to the partial lots, and the City said that they were going to have 'a developer build houses and if anyone wanted to buy a lot'it would cost $55,000 (5 years a o. Then the Cit came back`and said the could not build houses because the lots 9) Y Y were smaller than a quarter of an acre. Some of the neighbors did homework and ` found that the clause was still on the bo'oks in Anaheim.' So`what were they to do with the small lots that they couldn't sell to constructors? The City finally decided that the citizens could buy the adjacent lot for$10,000, and most of the citizens bought the lots and were told that they could not build a house but perhaps a small sfudio; not a two- story house or multiple living - the address would become one lot. Hence, the citizens built beautiful things on their properties because everybody was aware that they'could not sell it. She stated that the man who sold the subject property to the applicant attended every meeting that the citizens and contractors had and he was aware of all the rules; therefore, the citizens would like to regain their peace and nice scenery'once again. : ~ Ma Artea o 1773 Norfolk Lane, Anaheim, CA, stated their property is directly behind rY 9 ~ the house in question (she submitted a photograph taken in her back yard of the - structure built on the applicant's small lot). She concurred with the testimony of Ms. Mann and stated thafithe City originally sent them a letter asking them to buy the leftover land for $45,000, which they thought was a ridiculous price for land, especially, when they made sure at every juncture that it would not be possible to build on the lot. They found their own appraiser who tried to find comps but it was a unique property and hard to da She agreed that they had several meetings with the representatives from the City engineers and at every juncture that were informed that the City wanted them to understand that it was a lot line adjustment, and exactly what that meant was that they were making the finro lots into one and it would not be a buildable lot. They could, however, put a swimming pool, garage, etc. on it, but not a separate address or separate living unit. The City put in a sidewalk and a driveway; therefore, the citizens thought perhaps they were trying to shoehom something there on the little lot. In 2000, she discussed the $45,000 offer with a neighbor and they concluded that it was too much and perhaps $10,000 would be more likely; and not long afterwards the City offered them a price of $10,000. There are no sidewalks in the community and she was told by a realtor that they wanted the rural feel in the neighborhood. She referred to the photograph mentioned earlier and stated that if was taken from the middle of her back yard and that the building looms over her back yard by a considerable amount and would definitely impact their property values. She asked the Commission to keep in mind that the project is continuing all the way up to Gilbert Street; she feels it may be ~ setting a precedent. : She stated that'it is a small lot and there are no easements around 06-25-07 Page 22 JUNE 25, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ it; it is very close to the fence line and the front; and everything is just as mentioned in the staff report; it is shoehorned into the property and is reallyJarge. ' Barry Gilbert, 1774 Ninth Street, Anaheim, CA, stated his the most left lot of the group and the property has had a history since they first bought it. He stated as mentioned in earlier testimonies the City went one way and then decided to go another way so that eventually they,wrote a letter to the City saying that being that the property is so smaU , the community did not wanf the property to be developed :as a single house. He submitted to the Commission three pages of signatures, including the wife of the owner thaf sold the property to the applicant; and people on Holgate Drive and Katella Avenue. He stated that the letter was written in March of 2000 and was given to Greg Hastings. It stated that the citizens wanted to be notified if anything,ever happened. At one point, there was a rumor that people were looking at the property on the other end but he discovered it was basically Redevelopment. He further stated that when he initially : - discovered something being built on the property he thought the City was building a small building but after further observation he determined that it was the foundation for a large house and he stated fhat the citizens do not wanf that and added thaf`the zoning ; is low density, minimum of 7,200 square foot lots and currently they are at 40 something and the City acknowledges that the lot is too small; the width is 53 feet but should be 70 feet, and the frontage setback is obviously wrong as well as parking. He feels if this request is approved he cannot see any reason why the rest of the citizens could not receive'the same privilege. ~~ Chairman Eastman stated that each a lication has to be considered se arately on a pp p case-by-case basis based on each one's special need. Mr. Gilbert stated that if this small group is allowed to change the zoning = join finro lots and make three out of it - and change the neighborhood - why couldn't everyone else get the same privilege. The requested project would be inconsistent with the intent of the zoning. He further stated that the staff report uses the word nonconforming; however, he disagrees with the Planning Department on its definition explaining that nonconforming basically looks like a grandfather clause in its primary purpose - it is not to add new things but to allow things that have existed before the new law came into effect. Robert Eger, 1423 Holgate Drive, Anaheim, CA, stated he has been on the corner for : 40 years and they have done improvements to their home and their neighbors have done improvements to their homes and they have all been approved by the City. He noted 1) there is a Planning Commission,' 2) there is a Permit Commission and 3) there are inspectors, so he asked who has the balL He further stated that because somebody dropped the ball the City is asking the citizens to support or object to the variance; however, he feels there should never have been a variance and that there would not be a need for a variance had somebody in the City not dropped the balL He clarified that he does not dislike any race of people and that is not his point but rather the point is that they are a community and he feels it is time for somebody to speak up and that : • everyone should live by the law. He believes variances are'okay occasionally, and ' added that he personally dropped his second addition a foot and a half because the 06=25-07 Page 23 JUNE 25, 2007 PLANNING COMMISS(ON MINUTES ~ Planning Department #old him that too much of his lot would be covered. He stated that his point is that somebody screwed up and somebody deserves to straighten it out, and he feels straightening it out:should not be with a variance. He further stated that#he contractor is supposed to get permits but did not or either'he went ahead and did what he wanted ta He believes that the citizens have a legal righf to get a bulldozer and push the structure down because somebody within the City or groups within the City want a variance to cover their tracks; therefore, he objects wholeheartedly and states `' that he will until the day he dies. ApplicanYs RebuttaL• Mr.' Franco apologized to all of the neighbors. He said he never wanted to upset anyone but only desired to build a house to live close to his family. He explained that they went to the City because he believes it is the appropriate manner to handle the request. They received the permits and did everything by the book and therefore, if the neighbors are upset, he is sorry but they did everything in their power to do things correctly so that they could build their home. He further stated`that he does not want to take the house down and if'there are any changes to be done everybody should have to do it, because they,have inspectors to correct the general contractors. Therefore, if there are any changes he is willing to work on it and as he told staff, if theywere telling him that hiring a surveyor and paying $10,000 would correct the problem he was willing to do it. He stated that staff confirmed that if he hired the surveyor and submitted all the ~ paperwork they would help him go through the pro6lem and that is what he did. He reaffirmed that fie did not build'the house to upset the neighbors but only did it because they want a home and want to be next to their family. Therefore, he hopes they can finish the house. Kathleen Presta, 1773 Canterbury Church, Anaheim, CA, stated in the beginning she was against the home being built but as they watched and saw the people go through the process, in all outward appearances it looked as though they had done everything in order. They saw the people from the City drive through. She stated that she knows from the experience of her husband talking to the Planning Department that just because one person is allowed to build a house it does not mean that everybody is going to be able to turn around and build in the same area; therefore, to her it is not a threat in that way. She stated that she cannot see anything wrong with the structure being built, and added that it might be off a little bit in the measurements, but she feels that it was not anything intentional and is no longer in opposition to the project. Ms. Arteago returned to the podium to note that the day she saw the contractors putting up the first sticks of the second floor is the day she came to thePlanning Department: The applicant went ahead and got the second story on, so she does not understand why it has taken so long and why the City let them go ahead and put the roof on to protect what they had already built. • Commissioner Faessel stated the first four people that spoke in opposition to the project all seemed to refer to a CC&R that stated there was common knowledge that something could not be built on the site, so he asked where the CC&R's were. ' 06-25-07 Page 24 JUNE 25, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION' MINUTES ~ , ; Jamie Lai, PrincipaLCivil Engineer, stated when the City negotiated with the applicants, they disclosed that they did not want houses built on the lot and that houses affected the value of the lot as an adjoining parceL That is when the City sold it the parcels at $10,000; but it was under the assumption that it would be for a lot line adjustment. Commissioner Faessel asked if when the lot was sold to the applicant, the document would have been visible. Ms.'tai responded that the iot line adjustment would be the only thing that would be a requirement for the property owners. ' Commissioner Flores stated that she is`finding it hard to understand who's to blame because-the applicant came to the Planning Department, pulled his permit and _ submitted the plans. She asked the architecf if he thought about how he could reduce the project to conformance as opposed to tearing the entire structure down. : Dave See, Senior Planner, responded that there are finro types of waivers; one relates to the front setback and the length of the driveway, and the other addresses the size and ' ; depth of the lot. The waivers address the physical layout of the lot, not the actual building: The project does not comply with the lot size. `~ Commissioner Flores asked if the Commission would have to deny the project to allow , the applicant the opportunity to come back with a new set of plans or continue the hearing. : : Mr. See responded that the best the applicant could do is increase the lot size of parcel ` 2 but that it still would be far short of the 7,200 square feet that is required in the RS-2 Zone. Commissioner Buffa stated that Mr. Eger asked who dropped the ball and she feels he deserves an answer because clearly the ball was dropped and perhaps more than once. She stated it was clear in the City's negotiations that the parcels were not separatelegal building sites, and she believes if the property owner went back and looked at his deeds it was clear that he was buying one lot. She further stated that the City's map had not been updated and that is where the City dropped the ball. So the City staff who looked at the building plans did not realize that it was one large lot but believed that it was still finro lots; that was the City's error. Beyond that, the plans were not correct and the house did not get built according to the plans. She explained that what the Commission is being asked to do is to create a legal nonconforming lot. She stated that Mr. Gilbert stated something that was exactly on point in that the nonconforming legal provisions in their code were created to grandfather in former conditions that do not meet new standards. However, that is nof what they would be doing today; they would be creating a legal nonconforming lot and currently do not have : a nonconforming situation. Instead, they have a house that was built in the wrong place ~ where there is not a legal'Iot. Regardless of any errors, she stated that she cannot get pasfithe map provisions that do not allow finro houses to'be built on one lot;,it is'not a' 06-25-07 Page 25 , JUNE 25, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ legal lot, and she does not see how the Commission could say that they are prepared to create a lot that does not meet #he City's Code. Therefore, she is not prepared to approve the parcel map. - Commissioner Faessel stated that he agrees with Commissioner Buffa because he feels if you are going to do a lot division of some sort you would need to get a map adjustment before anything could be done, and in this case it seems like the cart was put before the horse. He stated #he blame could be put on the City or whoever, but the fact remained that it is the responsibility:of the owner. He suggested that when someone is doing a project he would need to find a contractor who has knowledge of what he'could and could not do, 'and also they should have hired a surveyor to come out and see that the development could have been done and then proceed with the building permit. Therefore, he stated he could not approve the,variance because he does not agree with the map. Commissioner Karaki stated that it is a very tough situation and he feels for the owner who is coming 6efore Commission today to get the house permitted in the proper way. He stated that he always has the view to compromise with the neighbors but at the same time agrees with Commissioner Buffa. He saw that the applicant was trying to achieve in building a house next door to his family, etc., but he had a problem with the - size of #he house. He understood that the applicant did not want to tear it down but one way or another he would have to pay the price, whether in the size of the house or not to get a house. He believed that the applicant could still get a house if he complied with ~ certain setbacks - building a 2,800 or 3,000 square foot house where he would not have to get a lot of variances. He stated since the City issued him permits, if is clear that somebody dropped the ball twice; however, they still cannot blame anybody, but at the end of the day either the applicant would get a house or he would not get a house. ; Therefore, he would like to propose that maybe the applicant could reduce the house to one story. That way the neighbor's privacy would be maintained and the applicant's - house would not stand finro levels above everyone and everyone would be happy at the end of the day. He stated that he concurred with Commissioner Buffa, and also the neighbors are correct but the situation is that the applicant has spent a lot of money on the house and he wants to be there in good faith. Chairman Eastman stated that she was concerned that the applicant's contractor did not feel the issue was important enough attend the Commission meeting because she would have questions for him. She stated that the contractor was somewhat remiss on the issue in relying on everybody else to cover his basis in laying out a house that did not comply with the actual property lines. So if indeed the applicant thought that his lot was legal, he should have been able to rely on his contractor to measure correctly for placement of a house because that's the job of a contractor. She stated that she understood why the neighbors had a concern, but they could not compromise on the applicant's request and would have to make a ruling on what was before them. Mark Gordon, Deputy City Attorney, stated the Commission has a proposal before them ~ that they have been asked to make a decision on. With deference to Commissioner Karaki, if the property owner were to revise the proposal and request that the matter be ' 06-25-07 Page 26 JUNE 25, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • stayed or continued while that proposal was being.revised, he could not see why the ' property owner could not make that request. He stated that others have made similar kinds of request when faced with a dilemma of this type, but as'it stood #he Commission had a matter before `them that they had been asked to rule on and they had not heard anything from anyone that would suggest that they do anything different. Therefore, if the Commission had the need for more information or if something was left unanswered, the Commission could move to continue a.matter'so that questions can be resolved before decisions are made. Commissioner Faessel stated that it was quite disturbing from the standpoint that the Commission is faced with an applicant who, in good faith, did what he felt was the correct thing to`do. He contacted the City Building Deparfinent and ended up again, in ' good faith, building what he thought was correct. However, due to a dropping of the ball in'at (east one or two]ocations, all within the City government, he hac! gotten himself into an' unfortunate situation where he has built on a lot that was substandard. He _ concurred with Commissioner Karaki and stated he would love to see if there was some way to come up with other options for the property owner if possible. He also agreed with Commissioner Buffa thaf by approving the project on a substandard lot, a further problem would be created. Chairman Eastman asked the applicant if he was interested in achieving some type of compromise. For instance, had there been any consideration given on his part in ~ making alterations in the design of the house to make it less intrusive to his neighbors by possiblyreducing the second story to a single story home? Mr. Franco responded if he reduced the house to a single story it would be a one bedroom house. He built the house so that he could have all of his family in one house. Chairman Eastman stated the Commission had not seen a plan for the house and asked him how many bedrooms were in the house. Mr. Franco responded that the downstairs included a family room, garage, kitchen and living room and three (3) bedrooms were upstairs. : Chairman Eastman asked him if he currently lived next door, and if he was going to move into the new house while other family members remained next door. Mr. Franco responded that currently his brothers and cousins lived next door and they , ' also have family living in Los Angeles who would be moving to Anaheim and that is why they are building the house. He stated that he is willing to work with the Commission because he wanted thehouse to be finished, so if the setback is a problem hewould be wi(ling to work on the setback and the garage but that is the only change he saw possible. He stated that his architect was present and could explain it better. Bob Suleimani, 9582 Hamilton Avenue, Huntington Beach, CA, stated the garage is ~ 17.6 #eet to the property line (driveway) and they can increase that to 20 feet by reducing the garage inside: He`stated`that if'they had to they:could make the garage 06-25-07 Page 27 JUNE 25, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ inside 20 feet 6y moving the foundation deeper and taking space from the family room ` and the haQway: They could reduce the living room by 2 feet because there is a balcony on top and that way they would have the 20 foot minimum. He noted they cannot change the lot size and the width. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Karaki, Ms. Wong responded that the total building area was 2,759 square feet, including #he first and second floors and the garage. She indicated the garage contained 435 square feet and Code requires a : minimum interior of 20 by 20 feet: Without the.garage, the'first floor is 1,079 square feet. _ Mr. Suleimani stated that the family room could be converted into a small bedroom and the rest of the space on the firsf floor is for the living room, dining and kitchen. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Romero, Mr. Suleimani responded : that the owner came to him with a request to find out if he could build a house on the lot. The #irst thing he did was to go to the Building and Safety Department and ask the pertinent questions. He stated that he went to the Planning Department three (3) times and asked if he could build a house on the lot, and three (3) times he was told yes. He found out the setbacks, the size of the lot, the height limits, etc., and he was told specifically where he had 100 feet on the side of the lot. He indicated that where it stated 95.3 feet on the site plan, the original dimension was 100 feet which is ~ information that he received from the Planning Department. He stated that they measured with their computer and it came to 100 feet, and the line above is 100 feet so they came up with 100 feet and that is what he was working with. However, when the survey was done, they saw the parcel map from the County showing 95.3 feet and that changed the front setbacks. He felt that is where the problem came up; the garage, driveway. and the setback of the building were 18 feet instead of 20 feet. He illustrated that some cities require a survey to be done and they would stake the points, but Anaheim did not do that so they were working with a lot that had walls and went off of that. He stated that they had a permit that was checked by Planning, finrice, and it was not caught; everything was fine, everybody was working, the structure was built; and then all of a sudden it turned up that the 100 foot dimention is really 95.3 feet, and instead of having two lots they had one lot and they had no clue. He stated that they were working under the assumption that everything was fine, as was planned; they got a permit, the building was up, 100 percent framed, and yet here they stood. Chairman Eastman asked where he got the second AP number. Mr. Suleimani responded that the County records showed finro lots. . Commissioner Buffa referred to staff and stated that the City's GIS data map had not _ been properly updated, and she asked if the City's GIS data base still showed two APN numbers. ~ , 06-25-07 Page 28 JUNE 25, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Ms. Lai responded that there was a lot line adjustment recorded at the County on March 7, 2001, which should be in the County records. She noted #hat the title report showed that it is one lot.` ; Mr. Suleimani stated that when he wenf to get information about the survey and ' received the records he saw that the line showing separate lots was still there and he had no idea that it was one lot instead of two. Therefore, he stated whatever he needed to do he did because he had no clue that it was one lot. Commissioner Flores stated that somebody dropped the ball and she apologized to the . residents for the big building but stated that as much as she hated to admit it, the City ' dropped'the ball, and she belie~ed the owner did everything he was supposed to. She stated that unfortunately somebody should haVe done a survey, and it was not done, but a lot of money had already been put into it. She concurred with Commissioner Karaki that maybe they might want to reduce the' height. She stated that she would allow the building to stay. Ms. Arteago stated that she wanted to point out that the applicants purchased the property approximately a year and a half ago, and when they purchased the property it had to have been made clear to them at that point or there would have been two escrows, or finro title insurance policies or something, if it was indeed two lots at that time. She stated further that all of the houses around there are only approximately ~ 1,200 square #eet, not 3,000 square feet. - Chairman Eastman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Buffa stated that if the Commission could find a compromise and find a way to reduce the height of the house maybe they would all be on board with the request, but in the absence of that she believed they should make their decision, and she pointed out that the applicant should pay special notice to the fact that there were appeal rights. Additionally, she stated that there had been errors made but certainly the property owner shared in that responsibility. The applicant was given bad information based on the City's GIS map, but still he bought one lot, and his title and escrow documents revealed that. She suggested that if other people represented to him that he could build a house on the lot when he acquired the property, he needed to go and talk to them. She stated the contractor should have built the house where the plans showed the house was going to be built. She noted that the City made errors but so did the property owner; therefore, she could not, with confidence, approve the project absent some significant redesign of the project. - Commissioner Buffa offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Flores, to approve the CEQA Negative Declaration. Commissioner Buffa offered a resolution to deny Variance No. 2007-04728 for waivers (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e). ~ 06-25-07 Page 29 JUNE'25, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES :'. Eily Morris, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution for denial passed with 4 aye votes; Commissioner Flores voted no and Commissioner Karaki abstained. Commissioner Buffa offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to deny Tentative Parcel Map No. 2007-144. Chairman Eastman called for a voice vote. Commissioner Romero voted to deny, Commissioner Buffa voted to deny, Commissioner Faessel voted to deny, Chairman Eastman to deny, Commissioner - Karaki abstained, and Commissioner Flores voted against deniaL OPPOSITION; 4 people spoke in opposition to the subject reguest. 2 letters in opposition and a photograph were received. IN SUPPORT: - A person spoke in favor of the subject request. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights for the ~, . Tentative Parcel Map ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 5, 2007, and presented the 22-day appeal rights for the Variance ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 17, 2007. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour and 16 minutes (3:14-4:30) JUNE 25, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 10a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 10b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTNO. 2007-00455 July9, 2007 ` 10c. RECLASSIFICATION N0: 2007-00198 '' 10d.'CONDITIONAL`USE PERMIT'N0. 2007-05200 10e. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP N0. 17116 ' Motion: Flores/Romero Owner: La Vue LLC 30622 La Vue Sfreet VOTE: 6-0 Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 ' Commissioner Velasquez absent Agent: Mehdi Ebrahimzadeh 30622 La Vue'Street ' Laguna Niguet,`CA'92677 . Location: 1556 West Katella Avenue: Property is approximately 0.78-acre, having a frontage of ' 130 feet on the south side of Katella Avenue and _ is located 170 feet west of the centerline of ` Bayless Street. General Plan Amendment No. 2007-00455 - Request to ` amend the land use element map of the General Plan ~ redesignating the property from the General Commercial - desi nation to the Medium Densit Residential designation. 9 Y Reclassification No.2007-00198 - Request reclassification of the subject property from the T(Transition) zone to the RM-3 (Multiple-Family Residential) zone. Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05200 - Request to ' construct a 14-unit attached residential planned unit development with modification to development standards and waiver of setback between buildings. Tentative Tract Map Na 17116 - To establish a 1-1ot, 14- unit airspace attached residential condominium subdivision. General Plan Amendment No Project Planner.• Reclassification Resolution No. kwong2@anaheim.net Conditional Use Permit Resolution Na ~ OPPOSITION:' None DISCUSSION TIME: 'This item was not discussed. 06-25-07 page 31 MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:33 P.M. TO MONDAY, JULY 9, 2007 AT 12:30 P.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. RespectFully submitted: ~ ~~ Pat Chandler Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on ~~ ~ , 2007.