Minutes-PC 1986/03/03REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAk MEETING The regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning
Commission was called to order by Chaicwoman La Claire
at 10:00 a.m., March 3, 1986, in the Council Chamber,
a quorum being pcesent, and the Commission reviewed
plans of the items on today's agenda.
RECESS: 1.1:30 a.m.
RECONV~NED: 1:37 p.m.
PRESEN'i: Chairwoman: La Claire
Commissioners: Bouas, Fry, Herbst, Messe, McIIUrney
ABSENT: Commissioner: Lawicki
ALSO PRESENT:
Annika Santala hti Assistant Di[ector for Zoning
Malcolm Slaugh ter Deputy City Attorney
Jay Titus Office Engineer
llan Schiada Associate Traffic Engineer
Greg tiastings Associate Planner
Linda Rios Assistant Planner
Edith Harris Planning Commission Secretacy
APPxOVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Bouas offered a inotion, seconded by
Commissioner Mc~urney and MOTION CARRIED (ConMissioner Lawicki absent) that
the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting of February 19, 1986, be
aYproved as submitted.
IiEM N0. 1 E1R NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE NO. 3538 (READVERTISED)
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: CRAIG S. PIILLER AND EVEDEAN MILLER, 7688 Calle
Duzango, Anaheim, CA 92808. Property is described as an icregularly-shaped
paccel of land consisting of approximately 1.4 acres located at the northwest
corner of the westerly terminus of Martella Lane and Martin Road on the
southeast side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, 111 South Martin Road.
Waiver of maximum structural height to construct a 2-stocy, single-family
residence.
There were six people indicating their pcesence in favor and no one indicating
their presenca in opposition to subject request and although the staff report
was not read, it is cefecced to and made a part of the minutes.
Craig Miller, owner, stated they tiave been planning to build a residence at
this location for seven years and felt some of the information they are now
being given by L'ity staff was withheld. He presented a letter addressing
their concerns and explained thera are no curbs, gutters or street lights in
the area and they would request those improvements not be required. He
reviewed the proposed conditions,taking exception to Condition Nos. 4, 7, 8,
10, 13, 14, 15 and 16. A copy of the letter is in the Planning Department
Liles. He stated they will only be developing one of the three parcels and it
is not adjacent to Santa Ana Canyon Road.
86-14ti 3/3/86
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COt4MISSION,,MARCH 3, 1986 86-148
is a different situ4tion on Santa Ana Canyon Road because of the City's
liability and that is a heavily traveled street. She stated the Commission
plans to protect the cural areas and prohibit sidewalks and curbs and gutters,
but that does not apply to Santa Ana Canyon Road.
rlr. Miller stated they will not be developing adjacent to Santa Ana Canyon
Road. Chairwoman La Claire stated street li9hts are a standard requirement
L-oc all property in the City and is probably included in every staff report on
today's agenda and that the fees aze required based on the street frontage.
Annika Santalahti stated in this case the Utilities Department is actually
requesting the installation of the street lights, not the payment o£ fees.
t~alcolm Slaughter stated Mc. Miller is seeking rPlief from the Code
requirements and that the Zoning ordinance does impose the fees prior to the
issuance of building permits, and the applicant is also going through parcel
maY cequirements whicti impose some overlapping conditions.
Mr. Miller stated there are other developments going on on Santa Ana Canyon
Road and sLreet impcovements were nat required. Chairwoman La Claire stated
the Commi:~sion is jus*_ talking about the street lights now and not curbs and
gutteFS a~d to her knowledge, those have never been required and the developer
or person Wh.o builds along Santa Ana Canyon Road has had to pay for the street
imptoven;~~Y:: ~
t9r. Millez .•.U'ed ha has had the grading cone and additional dirt bzought in
ar.~ has act~a~_':i ::pent over 550,000 and that he would have planned differently
had he known ab::~~: c~ese requirements.
Chairwoman La Claire ~~:~~ed she built a home in that area at one time herself
and at rhat time the propti:=_'ty was in the County and she had to pay for the
installation of fire hydrants, street lights, easements, etc.; however, the
Commission is trying to require just th~se things that other people would have
to do and not anything more. She added unfortunately, there are some problems
with this ptoperty and one is that it is on Santa Ana Canyon Road.
Annika Santalahti stated they would probably be required to install one street
light, but that would be up to the Utilities Department.
Conunissioner Fry stated he has no problem with the approval of waiver (d) and
noted if there is a fire hydrant existing, an additional one would not be
required and agreed thece should not be curbs and gutters in that area, but
believed the street lights should be required. Commissioner Herbst agceed.
c:hairwoman La Claire explained that the condition requiring the fice hydrant
is simply included because that i.s a City requirement and if there is a fire
hydrant, there will be no additional charges; however, if ~ne is needed, this
condition guarantees it will be installed. She stated she did not think the
curbs and gutters will be necessary because there are none in the area and
that is a rural street. She stated the cequirement for the improvements is a
3/3/86
MINUiES ANANEIM. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MARCH 3, 1986 86-147
Mr. Miller referced to a 15-foot easement and a 10-foot setback fcom that
easement, and stated they will be very limited in what they can develop on
that property.
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, stated to his knowledge, setbacks
relate to the oroperty line and street right-of-way lines and never to a storm
drain easement, unless there is something unusual about this property. He
stated clearly the owner could not build any sttuctures over that easement,
but he did not believe there is a setback cequirement in addition to the
easement itself.
Kimberly Hughes, lbl S. Canyon C~est Drive, stated she is the neiahbor in
closest proximity to the proposed ceside~ice; and that this is one of the last
remaining residential paccels to be developed along Santa Ana Canyon Road
which is designated as a Scenic Corcidor. She stated the structure, as
proposed, will be a proud landmack in the years to come; and the addition of
this cesidence will increase and enhance theic pcoperty values in the area and
will cetain the current country-like atmosphere of the a~ea. She urged the
City not to require conditions which are unreasonable.
Gunner Mietch stated he lives in the old house on the corner as a rentec and
that community has beautiful homes which are beautifully landscaped and it has
a beautiful rural setting Mhich the Millers ace t~ying to retain. He stated
he thouaht street lights, sidewalks, etc. will not be consistent with the rest
of tt~e area. He stated he moved to this acea because he is a countty person
and is against street liyhts. Ne presented a brochure showing the proposed
structuce.
Paul Ehline, 12U S. Mohler, stated he owns pcoperty directly adjacent to
subject pcoperty and he did not want to see the curbs, gutters and sidewalks
requited because he wants the acea to retain its country setting.
Tony Barksdale, 181 Possum Hollow, stated he has lived in that acea for about
15 years and he supports this request. He cefecred to the 10-foot easement
which the petitioner will have to give up across 500 to 600 feet of his
oroperty Eor a horse tcail and stated there is also a noise problem from
traffic on Santa Ana Canyon Road. He stated there has been a drainage problem
in that area and Mr. Miller is trying to impcove the area with a single-family
cesidence. He stated he believes there is a fire hydcant within 350 feet and
that another one is not requiced.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Malcolm Slaughter explained the conditions proposed aie ir,cluded because they
are required by Code and must be complied with prioc to th~ issuance of
building permits and the improvements are needed to benefit the public. He
stated the conditions would have been imposed whethec or nat there was a
variance required foc this property, and even if the project had met all the
Code requirements, the conditions would still have been imposed.
Chairwoman La c:laire stated the street lights on Sant.a Ana Canyon Road are
requested by the Public Utilities Genezal Managec and the Commission has tried
to keep street li9tits out of the cural aceas in that neighborhoo~; however, it
3/3/86
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMPIISSION MARCH 3 1986 86-149
standard condition, but it doesn't mean the petitioner has to comply and that
waivers can be gcanted.
A~'lIUN: Commissioner Fry offe~ed a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBUrney
and MOTION CARRIED (COmmissioner Lawicki absent) that the Anaheim City
Planning ~ommission has reviewed the proposal to construct a 2-story,
single-family residence with waivers of required improvements of right-of-way,
cequirea street li9hting facilities, tequiced fire protection facilities and
maximum structural height on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting
of approximately 1.4 ac~es, located at the northwest cocner of. Martin Road and
Martella Lane and fucther described as 111 South Martin P.oad; and does hereby
approve the Negative Declaration upon finding ttiat it has considered the
Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public
ceview process and furthec finding on the basis oE the Initial Study and any
comments teceived that there is no substantial evidence that the project will
have a significant effect on the environment.
Commissioner Fry offered Resolution No. PC86-53 and moved for its passage and
adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Variance
No. 3538, in part, granting waivers (a) and (d) on the basis that there are
sYecial circumstances a~plicable to the property such as size, shape,
topography, location and surroundings which do not apply to othec identically
zoned property in the same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning
~ode deprives the properl•y of privileges enjo,yed by other properties in t-he
identical zone and classification in the vicinity and denying waiver (b ) on
the basis that Santa Ana Canyon Road is a designated Scenic Expressway which
is heavily-travelea and street lights are installed in other locations along
that street; and denying waivec (d) on the basis that if a fire hydrant is not
necessary, tt~e Chiei ct the Fire Department can waive the requirement and
subjeet to Intecdepartmental Committee cecommendations.
On toll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS~ FRY~ f1ERBST~ LA CLAIRE~ MC BURNEY~ MESSE
NU6S: NOtJE
ABSENY': LAWICKI
Malcolm Slaugnter, Depnty c;ity Attorney, pcesented the written cight to appeal
the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
ITEP1 NO. 2 EIR NEGATIV~ DECLARATION WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND
CONDITIOt7AL USE PERMIT NO. 2765
PUBLIC HEARTNG. OWN~RS: CLAUSEN-ENTERPRISES, 2795 W. Lincoln Avenue, #F,
Anaheim, CA 92801, ATTN: CRAIG M. CLAUSEN. Property described as a
rectanyularly-shaped pa~cel of land consisting of appcoximately 0.51 acre,
having a frontage of approximately 100 feet on the south side of Lincoln
Avenue, 27ts4 West Lincoln.
To construct a 2-story, 37-unit m~tel and manage~'s apartment with waivecs of
minimum structural setback, permitted location of fceestanding sign and
maximum structural height.
3/3/86
86-150
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING ~OMMISSION MARCH 3 1986
There Was no one indicating their presence in npposition to subject request
and although the staff ceport was not read, it is refecred to and made a pact
of the minutes.
Craig Clausen, owner, stated thece aee many other uses in the area with
heights such as they ace pcoposing•
Richard Chang, architect, 300 S. 3rd Alhambra, California, explained the
parking is proposed in the rear so it eliminates the .^.oise for the neighbors.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Chaitwoman La Claire pointed out the sign is proposed in the trash enclosure
acea~ M~. Clausen stated they decided to use the trash enclosure as a
monumental base for the sign.
Ac:".'ION: Commissioner McBuzney offexed a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Souas and MOTION CARRIED (COmmissioner Lawicki absent) that the Anaheim City
Planning Commission haartmentWwithhwaPverssof minimum~structuraltsetback~unit
motel and managez's ap Si n~nd maximum stcuctu~al height on a
pezmitted location of fceestanding 9 of a roximately 0.51 acte,
tectangulacly-shaped parcel of land consisting PP
havi~g a feuntage of approximately 100 feet on the south side of Lincoln and
fucthec eiesecibed as 2784 West Lincoln Avenue; and does heceby approve the
Negative Declacation upon finding that it has consideCedhehpublgctreview
Declacation together with any comments received during ~o~ents
process and furthec finding on the basis of the Initial S=oaeC~°WillYhave a
received that there is no substantial evidence that the p]
significant efYect on the environment.
Commissioner McSurney offeced a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and
MOTION CARHIED iCommissioan~ waivers ofSCOde requirementaonlthelbasisathat
Commission does hereby 9- licable to the propecty such as size,
there ace special ciccumstances ~PP s which do not apply to other
shape, topo9raphy, location and sutrounding lication
identically zoned ptopecty in the same vicinity; and that stea~bya~thec
of the Zoning Code depcives the property of privileges enjoy
properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity.
Commissione~ McSutney ~ffeced Resulution No. PC86-54 and moved for its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant
Conditional Use Permit No. 2765 pucsuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections
1b.03.030.U30 through 18.U3.030.035 and subject to Interdepartmental Committee
recommendations.
On coll call, the fose9oing resolution was passed by the following vote:
~1YES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST~ LA CLAIRE~ MC BURNEY~ MESSE
NOBS: NONE
ABSENT: LAWICKI
Malcolm Slaughtec, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written cight to appeal
the Planning Commi~sion's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
3/3/86
PIINUT~S ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 3 1986 86-151
ITEM N0. 3 EIk NEGATIV6 DECLARATIUN, W'IVER OF CODE REQllIREMENT_AND
CONllITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2766
PUBLIC H~ARING. OwNERS: KEN KEESEE, 204 S. West St[eet, Anaheim, CA 92805.
P[operty described as a cectangulacly-shaped parcel of land consisting of
dp~roximately 7750 squace feet, having a frontage of app~oximately 50 feet on
th•. ~. •_ side ot West St[eet, 208 S. West Street.
i'o pecmit a 6-unit senior citizen's apartment oroject with waivers of minimum
structural setback and minimum side ya~d setback.
'thece was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject cequest
antl although the staff repoct was not cead, it is ceferred to and made a pact
of the minutes.
Ken Keesee, ownec, was present to answec any questions.
THt PUBLlI' HEARING WAS CLUSED.
Responding to ~ommissionec McBurney, Mr. Keesee read a letter which had been
submittea to staff indicating the location of necessacy services.
A~'iION: ~ommissioner F'ry ofYered a motion, seconded by Commission~~r McBU[ney
ana h10TIUN ~ARRIED (~~~~issione[ LaWicki absent) that the Anaheim City
Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal co permit a 6-unit, senio~
citizens' apa~tment pcoject wich waivers of minimum structur.al setback and
minimum sideyaro setback on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting
of app~oximately 775~ square teet, having a frontage of appcoximately 50 feet
on the east side oi West Stceet and further described as 208 S. West Street;
and does hereby app~ove the Negative lleclaration upon finding that it has
consideced the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during
the public ceview process and furthec finding on the basis of the Initial
Study and any comments ~eceived that there is no substantiai evidence that the
;>coject will have a significant effect on rhe environment.
~ommissioner Fry oifered a motion, seconded by Commissione[ Houas and MOTION
CARRIED (Commissionec Lawicki absent) that the Anaheim City Planning
~ommission does hereby gzant waivec oY Code requirement on the basis that
there are special ciccumstances applicable to the ptoperty such as size,
shape, topography, location and surroundings which do not apply to other
identically zonea propecty in the same vicinity; and that strict application
of the ior:i~g tode dep~ives the property of privileges enjoyed by other
pcopecties in the iden[ical zone and classifir_ation in the vicinity.
Commissionec Fry oEfeced kesolutian No. PC86-55 and moved for its passage and
adoption that the Anaheim ~ity Planni~q Commis~ion does hereby 9rant
~onditional Use Permit No. 2766 pursuant tu Anaheim ~~~^icipal Code Sections
18.03.U3U.030 through 1~.03.030.035 and subject to Inte~departmental Committee
recommendations.
3/3/86
MINUT~S, ANAHEIM CTTY PLANNING COMMISSZON, MARCH 3 1986 86-152
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS~ FRY~ HEP,~ST, LA CLASRE~ MC BURNEY~ MESSE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: LAWICKZ
Malcolm Slaughtec, Ueputy City Attorney, presented the written cight to appeal
the Ylanning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
THE FOLLOWING ITEM IJAS HEARD AT THE BEGINNING 0° THE MEETING.
ITEFI NO. 4 EZR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2768
PU~LIC HEARING. OWNERS: LA PALMA - LAKEVIEW ASSOCIAiES, 1805 E. Gary Street,
#11U, Santa Ana, CA 92705, ATTN: CHRISiOPHER J. BATES, GFNERAL CONTRACTOR.
Property described as an irregularly-shape~ parcel of land consisting of
approximately 1.3 acces located at the northeast corner of La Palma and
Lakev~ew Avenue, 4501 East La Palma Avenue (undec construction).
To permit industrially-related offices in a 2-story building in the ML(SC)
Zone.
A~TION: Commissioner Hecbst offeced a motion, seeondPd by Commissioner Bouas
and MUTION ~ARRZED (Commissioner Lawicki absent) khat consideration of the
aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of March
17, 1986, at the request of the petitioner.
ITFM NO. 5~IR NEGATIV~ D~CLARATIUN AND VARZANCE NO. 3542
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: GARY L. KAHLER, ..'.725 Gretta Lane, Anaheim, CA
92806. AGENT: YEFIM HOFFMAN, 2725 Gretta Lane, Anaheim, ~A 92806. Property
desccibed as an irregulacly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately
0.86 acre, having a fton~age of approximately 107 feet on the nocthwest side
of the terminus of Gretta Lane, 2715-2725 Gretta Lane.
Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to construct an industrial storage
building.
Thece was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject reyuest
and although the st~.ff report was not :ead, it is referred to and made a part
of the minutes.
Gaty Rahler, pcesident, American Precision Hetal Works, was present to answer
any questions.
TH~ PUBLIC HEAP.ING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner McBUrney asked the type of chemicals to be stored at this
facility. Mr. Kahlec stated the Fire Depactment has required outdaor storage
of the chemicals and fire pcotection inside the building beca~se they have a
plating operation for their own manu£acturing Eacilities and that they have
trichlorithan~ and chcomium. He stated that the Fire II~partment requires that
the acids be kept separate from other certain acids and they have to have
dikes.
3/3/86
MINUTF.S ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 3 1°86 86-153
Commissioner Herbst st~ted he does not like the reference to the stocage of
chemicals, even though he has no problem with the type of chemicals to be
stored in this facility, but felt exact chemicals to be stoced should be
s~ecifically named because thece have been some problems with chemical storage
in Anaheim recently.
Chaicwoman La ~laire stated she would like an exact list of which chemicals
are to be stored thece, theic toxicity, what they are used for, quantities,
run-ott prol-ection, disposal, etc.
Mr. Kahler stated in discussing this with tY~~ FirA nPnartment, he did not
realize that such a list would be necessary, but he would be happy to submit
that intormation to the staft.
Chairwoman La ~lai~e stated the City should be in the process of trying to do
•focused' EIR's under cectain circumstances and in this instance, that is what
should be cequiced, but in the meanrirne, she would like the list of chemicals
as mentioned eaclier. She asked that this matter be continued for two weeks
so the list can be submir_ted. Mr. Kahler stated he would be willing to
request a two-week continuance in order to comply and could have brought that
inYormation with him if he had realized it was an issue. He stated owners of
this type of company have to be responsible and noked rnere ace new laws
adopted ana that this tity has a very good Fire Department because they really
check it out when they come in for inspection and he would invite anyone to
come out to see *_heic plating operation and they do have all the necessary
permits. He stated they have not sta~ted construction o1 this building.
ACTIOtJ: Commissionec M~BUrney offe[ed a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Bouas and MOTION CARRI~D (Commissioner Lawicki absent) that consideration of
the atorementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of
l9arch 17, 19b6, in ocder for the petitioner to submit additional information
pertaining to chemical storage.
ITEM NO. 6 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE NO. 3539
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: TNE EAST HILLS DEVELOPt9ENT CO., 31731 NW, Highway,
#201 E. Farmington Hills, MI 48018. AG~NT: DOUGLAS McCORKLE, 26300 La
Alameda, Suite 330, Mission Viejo, CA 92691. Property is described as an
icregularly-shaped parcel of land consistin9 of approximately 31 acres
generally located south and east of the intersection of Santa Ana Canyon Road
and the southerly extension of Weir Canyon Road, approximately 1800 feet east
of the centerline ol Weir Canyon Road (Bauer Ranch 'Area 6•).
Waivets of required type of parking spaces, maximum structural height and
cequired site screenin9 to constcuct a u92-unit apartment complex.
There was one person indicating his presence in favor of subject req~est and
twenty eight pecsons indicating their presence in opposition to subject
cequest and although the staff report was not read, it is referced to and made
a part of the minutes.
3/3/86
MINUTES ANA~EIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 3 1986 86-154
Douglas McCOrkle explained he is the authorized agent for the Development
Partnership of East Hills Development Company and that Kaufman & Broad is
limited partnec in that ownership.
Commissioner Bouas declared a conflict of interest as defined by Anaheim City
Planning Commission Res~lution Na. PC76-157 adopting a Conflict of interest
Code for the Planning Commission and Goveznment Code Section 3625, et seq., in
that her husband does work for Kaufman & Broad and pursuant to the provisions
ot the above Codes, declared to the Chairwoman that she was withdrawing from
the hearing in connection with Vaciance No. 3539, and would not take part in
either the discussion or the voting thereon and had not discussed this mattec
with any membec of the Planning Commission. Thereupon Commissioner Bouas left
the Council Chambec.
Douglas Mc~orkle stated they have substantial unexpected resistance from the
neighborhood and that he had an opportunity to discuss khe project very
briefly with the people pcesent in opposition before this meeting began. He
stated iY there is concern on the Commission's part, they are more than
willing to consider a continuance and would like to discuss their program with
the neighbors. He explained they nave not met with the neignbors officially
and this opposition was not expected.
Commissioner Fcy suggested granting tne petitione~'s request for a two-week
continuance to see if the developer can reselve the neighboc's concerns.
ResYonding to Chairwoman La Claice, the peopie present in the audience
indicated they had not seen the nlans nor discussed the plans with the
developec. 5he added st~e thought a continuance would be a good idea; however,
that these neighbors have come to the meeting today and maybe they came under
some misconceptions and that the Comnission could hear theic opposition today
and then continue the matter so the develope~ can discuss the pcojecc xith the
people in the neighbochood.
Mr. Mc~orkle stated they intent to build a 252-unit apartment complex with 92,
1-bedcoom, 1-bath units and 200, 2-bedroom, 2-bath units ranging from 75C
square feet to just aUout 1,000 square feet which is a little larger than the
typical residential unit. He stated the land use authorized under the Bauer
Rancli Master Ylan allows them to proceed with the development as proposed and
they ace operating within the allowed 13nd uses and there is a density
tcanste~ which does not increase density within the entice Bauer Rancti, but
stiifts it fcom one location to anothec and the highec density would be
concentrated into Sector 6. He staked in addition to the density transfer,
thete are thtee waivers requested and one is for the building height which is
necessitated by the slopes. He stated there will be a 2-story building on the
fcont and a 3-story building on the rear which means a tuck-undec parking
situation and that the pcoject, as designed, faces the 2-story portion of all
the buildings to the nei9hbocs' properties to maximize the benefit of the
topography and the aesthetic benefit to the sutrounding neighbors and the
neighbors would see a 2-story project. He stated there are substantial height
differences between the existing developed residences and this site and from
the building pads to the property line, there may be a distance of 120 feet to
180 feet and the elevation drops from 30 to 60 Eeet, so the site is
substantially below the common view-line of the cesidences above. He stated
part of the 3/3/86
MINUiES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMI4ISSI0~, MARCH 3~ 1986 86-155
request is permission to have the number of thP parkiny spaces required to be
covered reduced by 46. He added they are ask~ag for a rear yard setback which
is the property line which taces the bottom of the slope and there would be a
minimurn view effect on the property owners above in the single-family
residenti~^1 area.
Mr. McCorkle referred to Condition No. 15 regarding a traffic study. He
stated he thought that request was really for a traffic study to determine
when, in tiie future, a traffic signal would be necessary at the intersection
of Meadowcidge Road and Santa Ana Canyon Road; however, the condition includes
a requirement that if a traffic signal is necessary, the developer shall be
responsible foc the ~ost and installation of said s~gnal. as required by the
~ity iraffic Engineer and that he had thought the requirenent was simply for
the study to determine if a signal would be required; and that the traffic
signal asaessment fees would cover any future obligation for the cost of
improving that intersection with a signal.
Mr. McCockle stated they want to assure the Commission that their development
is within the Code and the commitments made by the Bauer Ranch in its Master
Plan and they feel that K& B has made disclosures to the residents throug}i
the N,aster Plan document of theit intent to deve'op this site.
Peter Scheckter, acchitect, stated the design took into account the slopes of
this property and one of the building types will gain elevation as it goes up
the hill and there will be a 3-story rear portion and a 2-story front
portion. He statea one half of the parking of the entire project is hidden
underneath the buildings so the rear height of the tuck-under parking will
have to be 7 teet taller than allowed by Code.
Craig Watkins, 8460 E. Saratoga, Anaheim, stated the notification of this
hearing was mailed on the 21st oi February and they received it on the 23rd
and apparently it only went to immediate adjacent property owners and some of
the other homeowners did not receive notification and that the homeownecs who
got notification read the notice and tried to understand the magnitude of this
project on their propest.y and explained he did not receive a notice and first
learned about this last night. He pres~nted a petition containing 2a0
signatures of people opposed to the project. He stated there is a great
concern in the community and they are still a new community and are trying to
get to9ether an Association Board o~ Directors to better represent the
homeowners. He stated the developer is represented very well at the beginning
oY a project like this and there is a transition period until the homeowners
gain their recognition and ttiat they will be meeting on March 20th and,
hopefull~•, place homeowners on the Board of Directors of the association. He
added they would like at least a one-month continuance due to that meeting.
He stated this development will affect a lot of areas that are common to them
and they do have a homeownec's association, and the homeowner's association
should have received notice.
Mr. Watkins stated a lot of the people in the community have very strong
feelings and are concerned about the variances; and that this is a new area,
and this development as condominiums was a part of the planned community as
p~esented to ~hem
3/3/86
MINUlES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION• MARCH 3 1986 86-156
whea they purchased their homes. He stated the pcoject was proposed as
2-story condominiums and that was made very clear to him, and as an engineec
he recognized how deve~.opments can change the community and was very
interested in knowing what would be developed en that prope~ty. He stated he
did not buy until the fourth phase because he wanted to make sure the Master
Plan was well undecway and well established and he felt secure with
condominiums and purchased his home with the assurance that they would have
increased land value and felt this apartment pcoject may decrease their land
values. He stated they feel the height restrictions are there to protect the
views of the people adjacent to the project and their view is of the orange
ycoves out aeross the fceeway and even though the waiver request is small, it
is still inYringing on their views. He stated there must be some problem with
condominium sales which is probably the reason the developer is proposing
apactments.
Regardirc the waivec ot site scceening, he stated the Code addresses the need
for separation anci that this developec is indicating the wall is not needed
because of the grade differences and they feel the separation is needed
because the project will be apartments a~d there will be parking congestion,
etc. and it will be a prot~lem even though the project is proposing the
requi~ed number of parkin9 spaces. He stated his CC&Rs restrict parking of
~oats, etc. on tt~e streets in their community which, hopefully, will encourage
people to yark tlieir cars in their garages. He stated they feel a traffic
study is needed at this time because of the increased traffic to and from
Riverside County.
Chaitwoman La Claire explained the City is eequired by law to advertise the
public hearing in two of three ways, 1) post the propects, 2) advertise in a
local newspaper and 3) to send notices to property owners within 300 feet and
those property owners' names are obtained from the Tax Assessor's rolls and
she apologized to those property ownecs who were not notified, but ~vanted to
assure them the City had done everything possible to see that they were
notified.
Responding to Chair~oman La Claice as to exactly what the General Plan called
foc development of this property, Annika Sant:ylahti explained the approved
General Plan of Development for the Bauer Ranch were appcoved for medium
density residential and there was a tentative tract map (No. 10985) approved
several yeacs ago for condo;niniums and that this action today, if approved,
would supeccede khat action. She stated the proposal does involve the
tcansfer oY d~aelling units from another location within the Bauer Ranch which
would lowec the density in that area and that the General Plan of Development
for the Bauer Ranch specifically makes pcovisions for this kind of density
transfers within the entire ranch, but that does take official action by the
Planning Commission.
Chaitwoman La Claire asked if there were any apartments pcoposed anywhere in
the General Plan of Development for the Bauer Ranch. Annika Santalahti
responded she believed the densities that were established under the Bauer
Ranch General Plan anticipated ownership units, but the General Plan of
Development does not specify whether it is going to be ownecship or rental.
She explained medium density in the flatlands of Anaheim would typically be
apartments, but in the hill and canyon area, it could be condominiums and the
3/3/86
MINUTES ANAHEZM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 3 1986 86-157
medium density tefecred to is not the same as the Zoning Code. She explained
medium density for the General Plan foc the Bauer Ranch approved was for 11.04
units per acre and the density proposed today is 13.78 units per acre and if
this was in the flatlar.ds there could be up to 36 units per acre.
Ralph Rolnicki, 8499 E• Frostwood, stated the underlying problem with this
request is that not one homeownec in that tract knew that an apartment project
was ptoposed a:~d representations were made to him that atea would be developed
with condominiums and if people had known that apartments would be developed,
perhaps they wu~ld not have purchased their homes. He stated his view is
going to be directly affected F~y this complex. He stated the builders should
have made the purchasers aware of what was proposed. He stated that a~ea was
planned tor medium density to include single-family homes, duplexes and
condominiums and should be developed as master planned. He stated the buildec
should be held to the oral cepresentations made to the purchasers; that the
purchasecs received a large package of papers when they purchased their
property and a lot uf people did not understand all the paperwork. He stated
they are not looking forward to having apartment complexes in the area; and
that Meauowcidge Road travels through Area 6 and the access coutes would be
through single-family areas. He stated no one had heard of this proposal
until one week ago and this was the fi~st time the matter has been brought up.
Chaicwoman La Claice stated the Planning Commission has addressed that
particular problem for the last 11 years chat she has been on the Commission
and has tried to get the developers, especially Kaufman & Broad, to post the
map and tell the purchasers of the zoning proposed because every time people
purchase homes, even it the map is posted, they really du not know what the
plans are. She stated something seems to get lost in the interpretation and
she did not know how it happens and asked if she could see the package of
papers provided to the purchasers. Mr. Rolnicki stated a better testimony
would be from the people who purchased the~c homes and their sales pecson told
them it was going to be cundominiums, regardless of what they may have signed
latec on in the negotiations.
Wenoy Limbock stated she is an architect with Hughes Aircraft and that she
does understand what multiple-density means and that was a point she discussed
witn the sales pecson she spoke with; that she previously owned a home in
Fullerton that was cight next to apartments and her biggest objection is to
the traffic congestion and higher population. She stated she is upset because
until yesterday she did not know what was going on and when she called the
Planning Department, she was told there would be a decision today and if the
people in the area had not taken it upon themselves to educate the property
owners, the decision would probably have made against them. She stated she
talked with the Board of Directors and was told by a person there that she
knew about this five months ago and when she asked if it doesn't serve the
intecest of the pcoperty owners to know about the lar.~ use changes, especially
since when they bought their homes, they were told the property would be
developed foc condominiums, and the person on the Board told her she di8 not
see the diffecence since it would still be multiple-family density. She added
the difference is one is ownership and one is not and that makes congestion
and extta people in the acea and they were told when they purchased their
properties that this would be condominiums. She stated also, the way they
3/3/86
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 3 1986 86-158
found out zeally upset hec and she did not think it was the City's job to tell
tl~em what was yoing on, but the Association should have told them. She added
two-thirds oY the people on the boacd are Kaufman and Broad people and she
aske~ if they did not feel that one of them should be pcesent today to
reptesen~ the homeowners and the pecson cesponded that would be a conflict of
interest.
Glen Maxfield, 898b B. Meadawridye, asked if the original ~ap for that area
speciiically showed condominiums. Chaicwoman La Claire stated the map showed
medium density.
Malcolm Slaughter stated when the City is talking about the Master Plan or the
City's General Plan, that is a general land use designation on the plan which
appa~ently in this area is medium density, and generally does not relate to
the type of ownership (rental or ownership)• Ne stated in addition,
concurrently with that designation, there was an application made £or a tract
map to subdivide that property in accordance with that land use designation,
and ii developetl, contemplated condominium development, however, the two do
not necessarily go hand-in-hand.
~hairwo~an La Claire stated Tentative iract No. 10985 was approved by the
Ylanning Commission for condominium development.
P1r. Maxtield stated evecy pcoperty nwner was told that it would be
condominiums and some owners even k~ave that in writing by the Kaufman and
Broad sales people. He stated it is very difficult to find a home with a
aciveway lac9e enough to pack a cac on and that was one of the reasons he
moved to that acea. He stated apparently they are meeting the density
requirements, but are moving a number of units from one acea to anothec and
putting r.hose additional units in this acea. He stated when he purchased his
home he particularly asked if there would be any cental property and wanted to
buy a ~nit foc rental purposes and was told specifically "no". He stated ik
is his understanding that apa~tment units ace obviously rentals and that is
again anothec conilict. He stated this is probably a legal issue between the
propecty owners and Kaufman and Broad and a second issue would be the Plannina
Commission's problem. He stated he would stcongly request that the waivers
all be disappcoved.
Jim Reynolds, 8405 Meadowridge, stated his is the second to the last house in
the development and when he purchased his home, he specifically asked the
sales pecson what was intended ~or that property and was told it wo~ld be
condominium units and he personally would not have bought t~is home if he had
thought it was going to be apartments. He stated he has lived in apartments
befoce and there are a lot of young people living together centing one
apartment and generally, that creates problems and he would be against the
appcoval of any of the waivers.
c:ommissionec Flecbst asked if the petitioner could build the apartments as long
as they met Code.
Annika Santalahti stated the overall zoning for the Bauer Ranch does rE;uire
specific plan approval in each phase, so even if the plan did not cequire
waivers, they woula have to have Commission approval; howevet, she was not
3/3/86
86-159
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 3 1986
sure a pub.lic hearing would have been necessary if the plan was 100~ in
compliance with the development standards.
Commissionec Herbst stated anyone who owns pcoperty has the cight to request
wtiat they want on their property, regardless of the zoning, and that he would
defend that right for as lon9 as he is on the Commission, and it also means
that the neighbors have the same ri9ht. He stated the ceason for having
public hearings is so the neighbors can express their opposition or opiiiions.
He added the neighbocs couWantedutot butmthatadoesn'tnmean itdwouldfbe granted.
residential block if they
Charies Tittle, 300 S. Blackberry Lane, stated he lives just off Area 7 and he
was told that propecty would bLicesewerednot a~ailalbleuat thathtimenand he buy
one for his daughter and the p
just moved into that house on December 20th. He stated if he had known these
would be apartments, he would not have bought his house in that area. He
stated thece is a noise pcoblem existing because of the traffie and he thought
putting moce people in that area would create more noise. He stated he
thought a traffic repoLt should be requiced ane ofStYehlandshoHeaSbated there
study of that acea because of possible slipp 9
is land slippage in his back yard now because the natural soil is not very
compacted.
Jim ~oo~. a4yb E. Meadow[idge, stated most of the points have been coveced,
but he got the impression from the notice he received that thete was nbein
question whether oc not the apartments would go in and the only thing 9
considecea was the variances. He stated he does not like the variances even
if the apa[tments are allowed, and wanted to have something to say about
whether apartments will go in.
Chaicwoman La Claire stated it does appeac that this hearing is only to
considec the vaziances, but thete is the question of the tract map that has
been approved with the General Plan of Development for the Baue~aufman &nBroad
those ace two separate things; and that one is an agreement by
with the City allowing them to transfer densities.
Annika Santalahti stated the tcansfec of densities would require official
action by the Ylanning Commission at a public hearing.
Chairwoman La Clai[e stated the approval of density tcansfers have not been
accomplished as yet and a decision will not be made today anosalewithlthebe
another public heariny so the nei9hbors can discuss the proP
developer. She stated when the people speak the Planioblemsmlikelthiseinlthat
listen, and alNays have and thece have been so many p
canyon area, the Commission is ceally atuned to it.
l4alcolm 5laughter stated iE it is the Planning Commission's intention to
continue this matter, it would be appsopriate to continue the public heacing
because if the public hearin9 is closed, they ace requiced to make a decision
within 4U days.
Mr. Cook askea iY it is possible to have the hearing at nia~t1b30ausChairwoman
difficult for people to take off ~ock to attend a meeting
3/3/86
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CZTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 3 1986 86-160
La Claire stated the Commission could not schedule the meeting at night, but
would place this matter as the first item on the agenda so it would be heard
exactly at 1:30. She clarified that approval has not been given for
apattments.
Doug McCorkle stated he is ready, wil.ling and able to meet with anyone, eithec
individually or as a group, to discuss the pcoject. He stated he would
encourage the Commission to consider a two-week continuance.
Chairwoman La Claire stated she felt a two-week continuance would be
appropriate because there is adequate time for the neighbors to meet with the
developer and holding up developecs does cost many dollacs pe! ~ay•
CoRJnissioner Messe stated the neighbors wanted a continuance so they could
have their own homeowners on the Board of the Association. Chairwoman
La ~laire stated she felt two weeks would be appropriate because that may not
take place.
AC'iION: Chai~woman La Claire offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
:~cBUtney and MOTION CARRIED (COmmissionets Bouas and Lawicki absent) that
consideration oL the afocementioned matter be continued to the
re9ulacly-scheduled meeting of March 17, 1986, in order for petitioner to meet
with the neighbocs.
RECESSED: 3:30 p.m.
RECOtJV~N~D: 3:42 p.m.
C~mmissioner Bouas ceturned to the meeting.
ITEM NU. 7 EIR NEGATIVB DECLARATION RECLASSIFICATION N0. 85-86-24 AND
VARIANCE NO. 3543
PUBLIC I~EARING. OWNERS: RUBERT E. FINLEY, SUCCESSOR 'PRUSTEE, 3520 W. Savanna
Street, Anaheim, CA 92804. AGENT: CAROLYN INGRAM SEITZ, P.O. Box 4321, Long
Beach, CA 90804. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parce2 of land
consisting of approximately 0.5 acre, approximately 250 feet west of the
centerline of Knott Street, 3516 West Savanna Street.
RS-A-43,OU00 to RM-1200 or a less intense zone.
Waivers of minimum building site area per dwelling unit, maximum structural
height, minimum sideyard setback and minimum dimensions of coveced packing
spaces to construct an 18-unit apartment complex.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas
and MO1'ION CARRIED (COmmissioner Lawicki absent) thal- the petition for
Reclassification No. 85-86-24 and Variance No. 3543 be withdrawn at the
request of the petitioner since they are in the process oE acquiring adjacent
property and will submit revised plans for consideration in the future.
3/3/86
MINUTES, ANAtiET29 ;TTY PLANNING COMMISSION t4Ahc:: ~.:, ti;:i 86-161
ITEM N0. 8 EZR NEGP.TIVE DECLARATION GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 209 REVISION
TO SANTA ANA CANYON ROAD ACCESS POINT STUDY-EXHIBIT NO. 7 RECLASSIFICATZON
NO. 85-86-19 VAI2IANCE NO. 3541 REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF SPECIMEN TREES .'~ND
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF 8c, 8d. 8e, and 8f
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: CHRISTIAN COMMUNICATION COMMISSION, INC., EVANGEL
CHURCH OF SO. CALIFURNIA, 925 Signal Ridge Place, Rockwall, Texas, 75087 and
JUDY WOODYARD, 1y15 Orangewood Avenue, OCange, CA 92668. AGENT: VICTOR
PELOQUIN/DENNIS CARDOZA, 3445 E. La Palma, Anaheim, CA 92806. Property
described as an irregulazly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately
3 acces, 7777 Santa Ana Canyon Road (vacant).
Amendment to the Land Use Element - To consider alternate pcoposals of
ultimate land uses including, but not limited to hillside low-density
resider,tial and commercial professional; and to consider revisi~~~ to Exhibit
No. 7 ot the Santa Ana Canyon Road Access Point Study in ocder ?~ provide
access from the northwest side of Santa Ana Canyon Road easteriy of Eucalyptus
dtive.
RS-A-43,OU0(SC:) and RS-720U(SC) to CO(SC) or a less intense zone.
Waivers of minimum structural and landscaped setback, maximum building heigh*_
and required site screening to construct a 2 and 3-story office building.
Request foc ramoval of specimen trees.
Thece was one pecson indicating his presence in opposition and one person
indicating his presence in favoc of subject request and although the staff
report was not ~ead, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Commissionec Messe declared a conflict of interest as defined by Anaheim City
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC76-157 adooting a Conflict. of Interest
Code for the Planning Cor,unission and Government Code Section 3625, et sea., in
that the developer is his landlocd and pursuant to the provisions of the above
Codes, declared to the Chairwoman that he was withdrawing fcom the hearing in
connection with GPA NO. 209, Reclassification No. 85-86-19 and Variance No.
3541, and would not take part in eithet the discussion oc the voting thereon
and had not discussed this matter with any member of the Planning Commission.
The[eupon Commissioner Messe left the Council Chamber.
Vic Peloquin, 280 Chtisalta, expiained this property has a lot of difficulties
with drainage, setbacks, etc. He referrec: to Condition No. 8 requiring
payment of water main fees and stated he discussed that with the Engineering
Department and as Condition No. 5 of the reclassification, they will be
required to provide the construction of the drainage facilities and that this
condition requires payment of both the fees and the constcuction, and it is
their understanding that they would be doing one in lieu of the ol-her.
Mr. Peloquin zeferred to Condition No. 10 of the variance concerning the
parkin9 area lighting fixtures and stated they agree with the 12-foot high
light standards adjacent to the property owners immediately to the west;
howevec, they c,et better coverage with higher lights, agproximately 20 feet
high, and that their building doesn't stact for 150 feet away from the
3/3/86
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 3 1986 86-162
residential area to the west and they would like to have permission to have
down-lightin9 at 20 feet high on the rest of the property, but would stay with
t'r,e 12-foot high standards with shields adjacent to the west. He stated when
he met with ~he homeowners immediately adjacent, they were concerned that they
would have some ligrting in the parking lot fot security.
Mr. Peloquin stated a landscaping plan was submitted in ordec for the
~ommission to see the landscaping proposed ir,unediately adjacent to the freeway
and they would like not to put in a 6-foot wall along that portion of the
property because the attractive building is in ikself a statement and felt
landscaping would detract from the building. He stated due to the
irregularly-shaped property, they have requested waivers of setbacks along
Santa Ana Canyon Road and the freeway.
Mr. Peloquin stated he met with the homeowners in the area immediately
adjacent to the pcoperty to the north and south on Camino Tampico and they
indicated they would like to see a 7-foot wal~ instead of a 6-foot wall which
is no~~ existing on their pcoperty line and he would be agreeable to doing that
because they have had some burglaries in that general area and all the
homeowners in that area were happy ~o see the block wall proposed to close the
cul-de-sac.
Bo~ Murris, 7020 E. Blackbird Lane, Anaheim Hills, stated he is representing
the Anaheim Hills Community Church which owns the pcoperty immediately actoss
th~ fzeeway and that they have been vecy anxious about the development of this
ptope•rty, wondering what was going to happen with it. He state~ they realized
it H~uJ.~ not remain vacant forever and were quite pleased to learn about the
pcoposed office structuce and that they have reviewed the plans and the
landsc~~e plans and have no objections.
Poc~tt~y ~:. Autry, 1726 Lake Street, Huntington Beach, stated she owns
approx.imarely 3-1/2 acres directly across the street at 7730 E. Autry Drive;
howevez, no ~ne approached her abuut this developnent. She stated she did not
want to see a 2-or 3-stocy pcofessional office building on that property
because it could be seen from her property at all times. She stated her
single-story residence is located high on the hill in direct view of this
pcoperty and by addiny another story, the building will be in her direct-view
line. She stated she did not think this office building will be compatible
with the area ana is not needed in the acea and that a 1-story day-care center
is needed in the area and she would probably not be able to sece it because it
would be a sin9le-story building. She stat.ed she felt there is enough traffic
and noise now irom the Santa Ana Canyon Road traffic and freeway. She stated
she did not object to the removal of the trees because they are a fire hazard.
Mr. Peloquin stated he was not sure whece Ms. Autry's property is located and
would have addressed her personally if he had known there was a concern or
question; however, he did addcess the honeowners immediately adjacent to the
pcoject. He stated theic proje~t is no higher than 28 feet above Santa Ana
Canyon Road which is basically consideted a low-rise building. He stated the
adjacent property owners concerns were whethet or not they could see the
mountains after the building was constr~cted and he had actually paced the
propecty with the homeowners and shown them that their view-lines would not be
3/3/86
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLAi~NING COMMISSION I4ARCH 3 1986 86-163
obstructed. He stated Ms. Autry's property is considerably higher than theirs
and there will be no visibility problems.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WnS CLOSED.
Mr. Peloquin [esponded to Commissioner Fry that the existing cul-de-sac will
be completely closed off with a wall that will match what is existing and if
the Ylanning commission has no objection to the 7-foot wall and no variance is
necessary, he would be agreeable to a 7-foot wall since both homeowners want
that foc security.
Annika Santalahti stated the Code says a minimum of 6 feet, but certainly
there have been a number of 7-foot ~alls whece property owners were all in
agreement.
Commissioner 1lecbst ceferred to the cecommendation that the driveway be
aligned with the proposed street for the ch~rch property across Santa Ana
Canyon Road.
Bob Morris, representing the chu~ch, stated they aze being pressured into
making a decision that they wece not quite ready to make, ~ut are proceeding
because if they do not make a decision, the driveway location will be decided
and they will have to align witn it or fight about it latec. He stated they
are meeting with representatives from Anaheim Hills Company on Wednesday to
try and definitely decide on a location foc the road, if thece is going to be
a road, and they expect to have that problen resolved within a week.
Jay Titus, Office Engineer, stated the condition is proposed requiring
deaication ot access rights to Santa Ana Canyon Road except at approved points.
Jay Titus responded to Commissioner Fry that he discussed the issue o£
drainage with Mc. Peloquin and that nermally both of those conditions are
included just in case something should happen, but the intent and the way it
has worked in the past is when the developer is to put in some drainage
facilities, they ace installed and the fee, if it is less than the cost of tne
facilities, is deducted and they don't have to pay both. He stated in this
case, obviously, the cost uf installation will be much greater than the fee,
so he would not have to pay the fee and put in the facilities. He stated whe~i
the reimbursement agreement is done and he is reimbursed for his excessive
costs, the fee will be deducted at that time.
Chaicwoman I.a Claire stated the Commission is not ignoring Mrs. Autry's
concern; however, this property has quite a history ar.d the City has been very
anxious to take care of the drainage problems with run-off from upstream
properties and this is the ficst proposal that seems workable. She stated no
one wants to build housing on that property because of the drainage costs and
the only other alternative would be commercial and there have been some
proposals for commercial development on this pcoperty, but this seems ta be
the least intcusive use that could be developed on that property. She stated
the height is kept at 28 feet fcom Santa Ana Canyon Road and 2-bedroom homes
would normally be 34 to 35-feet high, so even though it says it is a 3-story
building~ the property is lower and she felt of all the things that could have
been developed on tt~is property, this would impact the neighbors the least.
3/3/86
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CZTY PLANNING COMPfISSION, MARCH 3~_1986 86-164
Chairwoman La Claire stated she is really concerned about the lighting. Mr.
Peloquin stated the proposal shows they would put 12-foot lightiny in the
planter immediately adjacent to the w=~t with shields so it doesn't impa~t the
tesidences ar all and then on the rest of the building, they would have
20-foot high lights. He stated if the Commission and staff still feels that
the 12-foot high lighting is appropriate, he would nnt object and would comply
with that requirement.
Chairwoman La Claire stated she is concerned and wants to be sure the lighting
is down-lighted and will not shine into the bedrooms. She stated she would
not object to the 12-feet high on the west pcoperty line and suggested the
12-feet high li9hts be within 75 feet of the property lines with the rest at
20 feet.
ACTION: Comtr~issionec Herbst offered a motion, seconded Fry and MOTION CARRIED
(Commissionecs Lawicki and Messe absent) that the Anaheim City Planning
Commission has reviewed the proposal to change the General Plan designation
from the current hillside low density residential to commercial, professional
and to revise the Santa Ana Canyon Road Access Point Study, Exhibit No. 7 and
to reclassify subject property fcom the RS-A-43,000(SC) (Residential,
Agricultural-Scenic Corridor Uverlay) and RS-72U0(SC) (Residential,
Single-Family-Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zones to the CO(SC) (COmmercial, Office
and Pcofessional-Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone to construct a 2 and 3 story
office building with waivecs of minimum struct~:ral and landscaped setback,
maximum building n~ight and required site screening on an irregula~ly-shaped
pazcel of land consisting of approximately 3 acres, having a frontage of
approximately 156 teet on the north side of Santa Ana Canyon Rcad and fucther
described as 7777 Santa Ana Canyon Road; and does hereby approve the Negative
Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration
together with any comments received during the public review process and
further iinding on the basis of the Initial Study and any commenl•s received
that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant
effect on the environment.
Commissionec Herbst offered Resolution No. PC86-56 and moved for its passage
a~id adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the ~ity ~ouncil adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 209, Exhibit A.
Un roll call, the foregoing cesolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS~ FRY~ HERBSi, LA CLAIRE~ MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
ABS~NT: LAWICKI, MESSE
~ommissioner Herbst offered Re~olution No. PC86-57 and moved for its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commi~sion does hereby recommend
to the ~ity Council that the Access Points to Santa Ana Canyon Road as
indicated on Exhibit 7, City Council Resolution No. 66R-27 be revised to
provide access fcom the northwest side of Santa Ana Canyon Road easterly of
Eucalyptus Drive as shown on Exhibit B.
3/3/86
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNZNG CdMMISSION. MARCH 3, 1986 86-165
On roll call, the foregoin9 resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS~ FRY~ HERBS'P~ LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: LAWICKI, MESSE
Commissioner Herbst ~ffeced Resolution No. PC86-58 and moved for its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does heteby grant
Reclassification No. 85-86-19 subject to Interdepartmental Committee
recommendations.
On roll call, the fore9oing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS~ FRY, BERBST~ LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: LAWICKI~ MESSE
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC66-59 and moved for its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant
Variance No. 3541 on the basis that there ate special circumstances applicable
to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings
which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicinity;
and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the propetty of
privileges enjoyed by other propecties in the identical zone and
classification in the vicinity and subject to Interdepartmental Committee
recommendations, including modification to Condition No. 10 permitting
down-lightin9 20-feet high in areas located at least 75 feet from the pcoperty
lines on the westerly side.
On roll call, the foreyoing resolution was passed by the Lollowing vote:
AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: LAWICKI~ MESSE
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and
MOTION CARRIED (COmmissioners Lawicki and Messe absent) that the Anaheim City
Planning Commi~sion does hereby grant the request for removal of specimen
trees (86-2) for thicty-three (33) specimen Eucalyptus trees on the basis that
a reasonable and practical development of the property on which the trees ace
located require removal af the trees whose cemoval is sought and the
topography of the b~~ilding site make tree removal reasonably necessary and
that any tcees removed shall be teplaced on the same parcel with an equal
number of trees £cum a specified ttee list in the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone.
Commissioner Hetbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fry and MOTION
CARkIED (Commissionecs Lawicki and Messa absent) that the Anaheim City
Planning Commissio^ does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Reclassification No. 85-86-19, Vatiance No. 3541 and the request for removal
of specimen trees (No. 86-02) be considered in conjunction with General Plan
Amendment No. 209 and the Revision to Santa Ana Canyon Road Access Point Study.
3/3/86
86-166
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 3 1986
ITEM NO. 9 REPORTS AND RECOMI~ENDATIONS:
A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2636 - Request for approval of specific plans,
propecty located at 2790 East Ball Road.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
McBurney and MOTION CARRIED (Commissionecs Lawicki and Messe absent) that
the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve specific plans
labeled Exhibits 1 through 13, subject to City Council approval of a nunc
pro tunc resolution amend:ng Condition No. 13 of Resolution No. 85R-400,
requiring a minimum 200 foot distance between Ball Road ard the most
northezly dtiveway on Wtangler Tcail.
ADJOURNMEMT: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Fry and MOTIOI~ CARRIED (COmmissioners Lawicki and Messe absent)
that the meeting be adjourned.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
~~~ ~ /~~' _ " _ _
~~
Edith L. Hacris, Secretary
Anaheim City Planniny Commission
ELH:lm
0174m
3/3/86