The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1988/02/01. ~.. ~~ SII E REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION February 1 1988 The regular meeting of the Anahei,n City Planning Commission was called to order at 1:30 p.m. by the Chairman, in the Council Chambers, a quorum being present, and the Pianniny Commission reviewed the plans of the items on today's agenda. aECESS: 11:30 a.m. RECONVENE: 1:30 p.m. PRESENT: Chairman: Messe Commissioners: Bouas, Boydstun, Carusillo, Feldhaus, Herbst, McBurney. ABSENT: NINE ALSO PRESENT: Joel Fick Annika Santalahti Joseph Fletcher Arthur L. Daw Paul Singer Debbie Vagts Mary McCloskey Leonard McGhee Lori Duca Edith Harris Planning Director Zoning Administrator Deputy City Attorney Deputy City Engineer Traffic Engineer Housing Operations Coordinator Senior Planner Associate Planner Assistant Planner Planning Commission S ~~ .ry AGENDA POSTING - A complete copy of the Planning Commission agenda was posted at 8:30 a.m., January 29, 1988, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chambers, and also in the outside display kiosk. PUBLISHED - Anaheim Bulletin - January 19, 1988. P~SLIC INPUT - Chairman Messe explained at the end of the scheduled hearings, members of the public will be allowed to speak on items of interr.st which are with~l the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission and/or agenda items. MINUTES FOR APPROVAL - Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the minutes of the meeting January 4, 1988, as submitted. 02/01/88 MINUTF~ au~HF.TM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEERUARY ~ 1988 88-1 ITEM N 1 EIR NO 257 (PREV APPROVED)• TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 11600 .(REV NO 2)• SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL NO 87-07. PUBLIC HEARING: OWN;.RS - WALT TAMULINAS, 18431 Yorba Linda Blvd., Yorba Linda, CA 92686. AGENTS - NORFIS-REPKE INC., 507 E. First St., Tvstin, CA 92680 ATTN: Jack ttorris. Property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 8.3 acres, having a frontage of approximately 590 feet on L-he east side of Henning Way, approximately 1100 feet south of the centerline of Arboretum Road. REQUEST - Petitioner proposes to re-establish a 12-1~t, RS-HS-22,000(SC) subdivision (Revision No. 2 of Tent^tive Tract No. 11600) and requests approval of removal of 11 specimen tees. Continued from the meeting of January 4, 1988 and January 18, 1988, Planning Commission Meetings in order for the petitioner to revise engineering plans and for the Negative Declaration for tree removal to be advertised. There were seven persons indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Jack Norris, agent, explained thEt have made changes to the map and the road has been widened to reflect the requirements of staff to 28 feet, curb face to curb face, in a 32-foot wide level graded area; and they have revised the slopes to 1-1/2 to 1, rather than 2 to 1, and that the upper road profile has not been changed. He stated a couple of lot lines have been moved in order to maintain the minimum area because of the road widening; and the alignment of the road has been shifted all the way up and down Hidden drove Lane. He stated they have moved the entrance where it connects to Trail Drive, slightly westerly, and the centerline was moved about 7 - 8 feet westerly, in order to gEt further away from the Siegel's driveway. He pointed out he understands the easement can be widened and they could shift the road 6 - 7 feet further. Walt Tamulinas stated he did meet with the neighbors on Trail Drive, and essentially, anyone that was concerned from Arboretum to the south, and it has come down to several issues which they are getting close to resolving. He explained one issue was the adjustment of Hidden G.~ve Road; and that the Siegels are directly at the bottom of that road and it is a steep grade at 12~ and their concern was about a runaway vehicle going into their property. He stated they have shifted the road to the west 6 or 7 feet to align their eastern boundary with the western driveway boundary so that their road does not align with the Siegel's driveway. He stated the second issue is the dangerous blind curve which is tough to negotiate prior to getting to Hidden Grove, and is not a part of this project and is the road that immediately attaches to Hidden Grove at the bottom. He stated they have agreed to widen thul• road to 24 feet to the Wilson's residence and then continue to improve the roan down to Arboretum to 20 feet wide. 02/ol/as 88-136 INUTE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1,_ 1~$~__ Mr. Tamulinas explained he did pick up an agreement this morning from the Wilsons and Siegels' attorney, and has agreed to it and asked if it could be incorporated into this approval. He stated he just got this agreement 15 minutes ago, and added a stipulation that he would accept it, contingent upon the City's approval, explaining he did not want to get stuck agreeing to something he could not do. He stated aL• the meeting last night with the Siegels and Wilsons, he could not tell them exactly where the road would be; and that there is a 40-foot easement across the Siegel and Wilson properties and they are going to have to abandon a percentage of that easement and create a new easement, which is going to involve other people, and that he is concerned about moving the easement and working with Subdivisions and with other residents. Joseph Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, stated this agreema~~'ofathebapprovalhe developer and adjacent property e~~ers, could be made a p as part of the conditions of approval. Commissioner Feldhaus stated since the agreement has been introduced, as part of Mr. Tamulinas' presentation, it most assuredly becomes part of the record. Mr. Fletcher explained it would become a part of the record but tY.aL• would aot necessarily mean L-hat the parties couldn't, for some reason, not cr.-ry th-- agreement out and that the City could not prevent them from moving a:sead ~.~:l~iA the project, unless the project was conditioned upon their compliance with t::e terms of that agreement. Chairman Meese stated the Commission should hear the points of this agreement. Mr. Tamulinas stated the agreement essentially is to improve the road to 20 feet from Arboretum to the Wilson residence; improve the road on the curve to 24 feet from the Wilson residence to Hidden Grove; to abandon the easement an+~ create a new easement; and that any promises they have made will be transferred to any subsequent owners via a covenant. He explained the neighbors are concerned because they have had some bad experiences in the past with developers and r_he road is in poor condition in some areas. He stated they do agree to post a 510,000 construction bond to ensure completion and repair of the road after they complete the project. He explained he would be .,appy to give the original (of the agreement) to the City for review, as long as ha could get a copy. Gerald Bushore, Box 18581, Anaheim, stated he is not opposed to the project but there are certain things that need to be mitigated in order to make it a successful project. Se explained he bought his property knowing there was an approved tentative map and that this is the fourth time this map has been before the Planniug Commission and the neighbors are Leary, because the other three 'rimes the projects have not been completed, and nothing has been done. He stated the road was torn up the last time and the developer went broke and the road has not been repaired. 02/01/88 MIl7 TES ANAHEIM CITY ?CANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1. 1Q$Q 88-137 Hr. stated this developer has worked diligently with the neighbors and he thought there are 18 different things he has agreed to, not only to win the support of the neighbors, but because he realizes there are problems that need to be mitigated. He stated the agreement with the Wilsons and Siegels is a mitigating factor that should be included in the approval, as well as any of the other items the applicant has agreed to comply with. He stated he did not believe anyone had presented the Commission with a copy of the other promises he has made to the neighbors and that there are a couple of other concerns that the :iegels would probably be addressing themselves. He stated some of the promises that Lave been made are that there would be ao traffic on Henning Way and tha*_ posting of a bond for damages has not been discussed. He stated if anyone goes up there is a heavy truck, there would probably be damage and possibly a bond is something that should be considered. He state3 there should be a sign aY. the bottom of Henning day stating there would be no construction traffic allowed on Henning and also that it is not a thoroughfare. He added he did not remember whether Mc. Tamulinas had agreed to that sign, but thought he was agreeable. Mr. 9ushore stated originally at the midway point of Henning :-?ay, there was to be a crasYi gate an3 that Mr. Tamulinas had agreed to install that gate as quickly as possible to prevent further traffic from going up and down Hen•:.?.ng Way, but there is nothing in the staff report regarding the crash gate and also they were to provide t~ second emergency access, not only for tiie people on Hidden Grove and Fox Gleam, but for people on Henniay, because they would a.ll face the same predicament in case one or the other of those roads would be blocked, because it would only leave one way out. He stated the developer has also agreed to rough grade all 12 individual lots to their pad elevation and he thought that was important, otherwise, with the soil problems that are up there now, and some of the things they cou]d run into when grading, this would eliyninate 13 individual projects, and incorporate them into one massive project and he felt that should be a condition of approval. :9r. Bushore referred to the 20-foot wide public u~ilities easement, and explained it was to be engineered and constructed so that there was a stub for the residences up Henning Way far utilities; and that they would pay the appropriate fees and assessments to stub into that line. He stated right now there are no sewer or gas lines up that hill, and as part of the original tract which was approved, that was something the City had wanted to provide for those homes and this was the mechanism by which to do it; and that the developer in the past had agreed to it. He stated he has been researching that but, to date, no one has been able to tell him what was done. Concerning the environmental impact report (EIR), Mr. Bushore stated he felt to take no action on an EIR that was approved six years ago would be a mistake, and it should by recertified and he felt there are certain things that should be addressed and not addressing them violates nat only the intent but the actual statutes of the CEQA Act. 02/01/88 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 1, 1988 88=1~$_ Mr. Bushore stated he would like for the Planning Commission to take a close loot at, the 18 things which the developer has agreed to, and the additional things which he had just brought up, and added he felt if <ill those things are agreeable, this would be a workable project.. He added one concern of the neighbors is if the developer does not finish the project and sells it, the next developer may not be as agreeable to these promises and he felt it is very important that these are spelled out today in this approval, otherwise when someone else looks at it in three or four years, whether it is new staff members or someone else, it kould be hard to interpret the intent unless it is written very carefully. Commissioner Feldhaus pointed out that at the last meeting Mr. Bushore was also concerned about the potential for slides and had indicated the EIR had not addressed that issue and asked if that had been mitigated. Mr. Bushore stated no one has answered those questions he raised at the last meeting regarding the EIR and that is something the Commission would have to ask staff. Responding to Commissioner Feldhaus, Mr. Bushore stated he was at two of the neighborhood meetings and that he has not seen the agreement just presented to Commission, but that it is really between the developer and the people at the bottom of yhe hill who ace a~~•.~rned about the traffic potential into their front yards and living rooms, ~f the street does not have the proper curvature, and he felt there needs to be some type barricade set up for everyone's safety, because of the steep grade up Henning. He pointed out h~ was not a party to that agreement because acne of his property is affected. Susie Siegel, 6221 Trail Drive, stated her home is at the base of new Hidden Grove Road, and that tk,ey met with the builder last week and it appeared at times they red agreed in principle, Sh> indicated t2ae builder had failed to provide them with a map showing graphicatly th~9 changes he has promised, and they want to know where Hidden Grove will be situated and exactly where Trail Drive will be widened and when it is widened, what provisions will be made for grading and retaining the hillside. She sari the property owners where the easement exists have agreed to accommodate the road changes by granting easement changes to the builder. She said the map submitted to the Commission as Revision No. 2, shows Hidden Grove sti31 directly across from their driveway, and the developer has agreed to widen this road, but as a result, shifted it a couple of feet and the mouth ofi tkie road is 45 Eeet wide and still faces her driveway. She stated for all the safety reasons they have dliscussed, the road at its present location still presents the same hazards as they feared when they first came +:n to voice their objections. She explaixied i.he continuance was given in order for the developer to satisfy their concerns and that has not been done and they have no concrete evidence that the new road will clear their driveway. She asked that the spproval of this tentative 02/01/88 MINUTES,_ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CONM''SSION FEBRUARY 1 1988 88-1 tract map be withheld until a map showing the changes in black and whine can be provided to them, as well. as all promises alluded tc in the agreement provided this morning. She stated the new addition to this agreement, which was drawn up the previous evening, was presented to the builder this morning and the agreement still has not been signed and they do not have anything concrete to back up his promises. She said it is essential for them to have the amendment to the map provided in writing, clear and concise and binding, before approval of this project takes place. Chairman Messe indicated Mr. Tamulinas had signed the agreement. Ms. Siegel responded they had signed it with no changes made, but that the developer has made a change which they have not seen, and their attorney advised them that if there Here nay changes, they should initial them, so anything not initialed by them is not valid. Marty Wilson, 62201 E. Trail Drive, stated their main concern is the positioning of the road and that it be verified in black and wt.ite, with the dimensions to ensure maximum safety, not only for their famil~~ and property but for others who will drive on tkie road. She stated they o~rn the hill on the other side and would be concerned about slope stability an~9 they want written verification that if the slopes were to fall onto the read, they would not be liable aid would not be liaL~le if a truck came in and hit the trees, etc. Mr. Tamulinas stated he would have no problem putting a sign at the bottom of the hill, but did not believe it would be possible, with a 1.9~ grade for any contractor to use that road. He stated he has no problem agreeing not to use the road without written permission of the owners. Mr. Tamulinas stated the crash gate was one of the original stipulations and they would have no problem installing a crash gate immediately. He stated concerning the EIR, that the homes were there at least six months before the environmental impact report was done and that the configuration of the tract was only changed to satisfy the neighbors to the south and nothing else has changed. He stated they reviewed the environmental impact report and all the negative declarations have been addressed adequately by staff. He stated they were at a disadvantage by coming in without a hard line drawing; however, they are not asking permission to perrt.anently fix any lines for roads and realize they have to come back and ma::e provisions for those changes for the easements, etc. and did not see any reason for delay when they have to change the easement. He said they are willing to work with the neighbors and f2e1 it is adequate to say that they will improve the road to 24 feet and then the agreement clearly states that they are in mutual agreement as to where that road change is to be. He stated everyone affected by the road, except Mr. Homer, has signed the agreement and Mr. Homer indicated that he would work with them, and they will have to put the easement partially onto Mr. Homer's property and need his cooperation. Fie said ;ie would be happy to submit the list of 20 items which he has agreed to already and asked if the Commission would like to have those introduced into the record. 02/01/88 MI2nITrS, ANAHEIM C'""' nraxxrxr. rnMMIS~ION FEBRUARY 1 1988 88-14 Commissioner Carusillo stated them seems to be concern about promises not being fulfilled and asked how thrs:e could be incorporated with some guarantee that what Mr. Tamuliaas is saying is actually going to be implemented and passed on to any subsequent new owners. Joe Fletcher stated the City could be a party to that agreement but he would recommend against that option, or that the Commission could take portions out of the contract and make them straight conditions in the approval of this tract, or simply reference the contract, identify it and say that the developer shall meet all of the terms set forth is that agreement. He said either option would not permit the developer to move ahead with the project without conforming with the agreement, does rot want to build the tract. He stated approval could be conditioned on those items and that would not be any different than any of the other conditions which staff has come up with. Commissioner Feldhaus asked if the City has not been made a party to this agreement by the addition of the words "that it is accepted contingent upon City approval". Mr. Fletcher stated that just means he has to get the tract map approval from the City. He stated the City would only be a party to this contract if it was sent to the City Council and voted on and signed by the Mayor, and normally that would not be something the City would be interested in doing, except to the extent that it met the condition of approval of the project. Commissioner Carusillo asked what i; the best way to handle this and asked if the 3eveloper and neighbors should sit down with staff and draw up an agreement. Mr. Fletcher stated the best way to expedite this would be simply to add these stipulations as conditions of approval with aL additional condition identifying the contract and conditioning the project so that they have to meet all those specified terms in the contract and in that manner the City would become a party to the contract but would not have to enforce the private contractual rights or obligations of the other parties. Commissioner Feldhaus pointed out the neighbors are saying that the contract has been modified ~.nd that if the project gets his vote, it will be predicated upon the agreements that have been made and the 18 different promises. Chairman Messe stated it may be that Mr. Tamulinas would delete that modification. Mr. Tamulinas stated his concern is that ii hie agrees to that now and then cannot gain City approval for the road improvement, then he could not build the project. Commissioner Carusillo pointed out there is also concern about the exact location of where Hidden Grove intersects with Trail Drive. Mr. Tamuliaas stated that is covered in tHs agreement. 02/01/88 MINUTES.~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1 1988 88-141 Commissioner McHurney pointed out the neighbors are saying they do not have a map showing the enact location and Commissioner Carusillo asked if they could get a map showing the location and also showing the exact location where Quintana is going to blend in. Mr. Norris, the engineer, stated the proposed driveway as shown on the map now has the alignment such that the east side of Hidden Grove Lane, if it were extended, would align with the west side of the Siegel's driveway opening, give or take 1 foot. Commissioner Carusillo stated if the map is redesigned to show an actual location where Hidden Grove Lane ~;omes into Trail Drive and where the widening of Trail is going to be relative to Quintana; and if the issue of slope stability is addressed; and the neighbors all got together with the developer and staff to create some kind of a covenant, that would insure that all their problems are going to be resolved, and he thought the project would be acceptable. Mr. Tamulinas said part of the problem is that it is not easy to abandon an easement and create a new one because there are significant legal and title insurance policy issues to deal with and they will have to have an agreement drawn up by an attorney, reviewed by all respective individuals, etc. and that it will take a long time to get all the signatures. Mr. Carusillo asked if he could stipulate that the eastern perimeter of Hidden Grove Lane would be at least 6 feet from the west side of the Siegel's driveway and Mr. Tamulinas stated he could make that stipulation. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated it is difficult to answer whether or not this is acceptable to the City without seeing the drawings and he thought the map showing the exact location of the street would be required along with the driveway and the proposed widening of the existing street. Commissioner Feldhaus indicated he would make a motion to that effect but that he wanted to mitigate all these issues and tie them down and he did not want the neighbors coming back again unhappy and he wanted the developer to have a successful project. He stated, obviously, there was as agreement signed here but there has been some modification and there is a little concern and the agreement was done, apparently, five minutes before coming to the meeting today and that this is the first time he has seen it. Commissioner Souas asked if there is another property owner involved with the change of the road and moving it to align the way it does with the Siegel's driveway. Mr. Tamulinas responded they know that they do have a wide enough easement and know from research that it can be moved over 6 or 7 feet, and that it would work up against the hill and they are in agreement with that. He stated he is more concerned about moving the road and seeing what it is 02/01/88 MINUTES ANAHEIDI CITY PLANNING COMMI,~ION, FEBRUARY 1 1988 88-142 going to look like down at the bottom; that they are going to have an alignment problem with the easements down below and will have questions about the change in easements and where the road will curve. He stated that is the reason they stipulated in the contract that they are willing to cooperate and it states that they will be doing everything in their ability to meet with the neighbors and convince them that this is an acceptable way to handle the problem. He asked if the Commission could give approval based on him bringing the road alignment back to staff for their approval. Commissioner Carusillo stated the alignments and all the other things would also be subject to Mr. Singer's approval. He stated he thought all that needs to be done is to redesign the :nap,. get together with the neighbors and have the staff act as an arbitrator tc see that everyone is happy because it seems that everyone has basically agreei3 on everything and it is just a matter of tying it down in writing. Commmissioner Bouas stated there is a problem with the easement and asked if they thought they can work out those concerns. Mr. Tamulinas stated they are talking about maybe a 5 to 7 foot shift in the easement and that it is something they can handle, providing all the neighbors cooperate, and they have given the indication that they probably will. Chairman Meese stated stubbing for the sewer and gas lines has not been discussed today and the utilities have not been discussed. Mr. Tamulinas stated he would have no problem allowing anyone to tap in, as long as the; do it at their own expense. Commissioner McBurney asked about the environmental impact report and whether or not it has been adequately addressed. He pointed out they are asking to remove an additional 11 specimen trees and that was not addressed in the original EIR. Annika Santalahti stated a new tree removal permit is involved and if the tree removal permit had bees discussed by itself, it would have had to have a negative declaration and she thought this needs a separate action and needs to be readvertised. She suggested delaying this action on the tract and acting on it all at the same time since the original environmental impact report did not cover that cumber of trees. Chairman Meese asked whether or not the Commission should recertify the environmental impact report. Joe Fletcher staked CEQA requires that an addendum or an additional EIR be done for an EIR like this only where there has been changes in circumstances either in the environmental setting or the project and that he understands staff has reviewed that and neither the setting nor the project have been substantially changed. Therefore, the prior Environmental Impact Report which has already been certified covers this project. Chairman Meese pointed out there would be even less dirt being moved than before. 02/01/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 1. 1988 88-143 Commissioner Herbst asked about the hiking and horse trails shown on the map and whether the~~ are going to connect to anything. He stated he knows that these trails have been on our maps for a long time, but some have been abandoned and some go nowhere. He said he would like to see tha Parks and Recreation Department get involved in this sad determine if they are going to have horse trails through those areas or not. Annika Santalahti pointed out Parks and Recreation does review the maps before the Commission sees them and that is where the condition is initiated. She stated she would ask the Parks and Pecreation Department to prepare an update for the Planning Commission or make a presentation at an upcoming meeting to review the situation of the horse trails in the canyon. Commissioner Carusillo asked if there is a map around that would show the residents where the trails might be. Ms. Santalahti stated. the map that is easily available is the General Plan, but that does not necessarily reflect what physically exists; that basically right now we have to pick that up off each tract or zoning action to verify what has been done and she thought, probably, the Parks and Recreation Department has a map. Chairman Messe stated the Commission has already done some general plan amendments which have discontinued some of the trails. Chairman Messe asked about Condition No. 1 relative to the private street lighting and indicated he did not know what that paragraph means and asked if the city requires private street lighting and iE Mr. Tamulinas agrees to putting in street lighting. Mr. Tamulinas responded the neighborhood does not want street lighting and that is a touchy issue and he would prefer not to install them. Art Daw, Deputy City Engineer, stated the street light requirement is a standard condition, even on private streets, required by the Electrical Division but since all the neighbors oppose the installation, the Commission could leave that out as a condition. Chairman Messe stated all neighbors have talked to that issue and there are no street lights in that area. Susie Siegel stated she thought she spoke for all the neighbors and that they moved into that area because of its beautiful rural nature and the fact that there were no street lights is a significant part of that atmosphere sad they do not want lights put in. She stated she did not think approval should be granted before they have a chance to see a definite map showing the easement changes and the road location changes and that they are very uncomfortable knowing that they do not have anything to look at. Chairman Messe asked if there is a way to give approval of this project without everyone coming back to the Commission again. Commissioner Carusillo indicated he thought the Commission could approve a revised map subject to 02/01/88 ~- _. MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMI i^" FEBRUARY 1 1988 88-144 certain things being accomplished. Commissioner Bouas stated the Commission would make it contingent upon the Traffic Engineer's approval and that if it was not done according to the agreement they signed, it would not be valid. Ms. Siegel asked if they would have an opportunity to see the map. She stated the agreement is somewhat tentative on some very key factors, for instance, the distance Hidden Grove will be moved, and pointed out this was done at the last minute, and was not specific. She stated she wanted to make sure if they did not come back here for another hearing, that they will have an opportunity to give their input. Paul Singer stated he thought he could accommodate that very easily. Mr. Tamulinas stated there are some additional items that are not in the agreement with the attorneys and he would like to submit those to be incorporated into the record. Chairman Messe asked if there was anything different than included in the staff report because this is asking the Commission to look at something that is really fresh which they have not seen. Mr. Tamulinas responded he thought the staff report covered all of these items. Commissioner Carusillo asked Mr. Bushore if the conditions had incorporated all the concerns into the approval to his satisfaction. Mr. Bushore stated the agreement the Commission is talking about is between the people at the bottom of the hill and does not incorporate any of the other items that the developer has agreed to and suggested instructing staff to include those items into the conditions of approval and that would satisfy the other concerns that have been raised. Chairman Messe stated if he is talking tibout "no traffic on Henning Way," and a sign at the bottom of Henning Way, these have been discussed and approval would be contingent upon those items. He stated the Commission has not accepted the items joist submitted becav.se they need to review them. Commissioner Carusillo stated if approval is acceptable to the developer and the neighbors, and is subject to staff review and is acceptable to the City, then it should be approved. Mr. Bushore stated he is concerned because that is a different agreement and only encompasses a couple of people and that he has other issues which encompass the entire tract and everyone up there. He stated everyone is concerned with those promises sad they affect all the people and the developer has agreed to comply with them. Chairman Messe stated he would suggest Mr. Tamulinas stipulate to those items right now and asked him to read the new ones that have not been discussed. Mr. Tamulinas stated they will give an agreement and record it in the County Recorder's Office that the developer and future lot owners will be responsible for. road improvements, if so prescribed by the City of Anaheim, as a result of the impact of this development, i.e. if the City comes in and says this road is not any good, is not wide enough because of the additional twelve homes and 02/01/88 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBT2UARY 1 1988 88-14 they want it widener, then it xill be the future homeowners responsibility, per the CC6Rs, to pad for those improvements. He said they will post a bond to cover any road damage caused during construction and will. provide a glance barrier, and they are not going to make any changes to Henning Way or any additional tree removal or use Henning Way for construction traffic and agree to participate in the road maintenance agreement as it exists now. He stated the road to the bottom will be the road they will be traveling across and that they will initially thin the trees out at the curve for visibility and any commitments that they make here will be passed on by covenant to future owners and if they improve the road to 20 feet to the Wilson's driveway, and 24 feet around the curve, then they will shift the easement to accommodate that to the Siegel's driveway. He stated any import of soil and rough grading will be done in the same process so the construction vehicles are not there for years and when they go across Henning Way with the storm drain on the hack side, they will be sure to put plates over it so the owners can drive to their homes. He stated all these commitments are contingent upon the homeowners supporting them at the City level. Annika Santalahti stated the only condition that is straightforward is the 20-foot portion of 'the private street because that is the City standard and that 24 feet is different than City standards and is an issue the City would not be involved in. She stated Mr. Bushore spoke about three issues which she did not hear a clear answer to and one is that the developer was to install a crash gate at Henning Way. She asked if that means the westerly edge of the property where the utility easement comes out next to Henning Way. Mr. Tamulinas responded that is correct. Commissioner McBurney stated the crash gate is on the west side approximately 350 feet south of the northwest corner. Annika Santalahti stated there was discussion about grading the lots with the pad elevations prior to the sale of the lots and basically the City's control is the tract map and the Commission cannot condition the building permits because once the map has been recorded, the conditions of City interest will be tied into the approval of the final tract map. Concerning the issue about the sewers to stub into something, she pointed out the EIR on page 46 stated that there is an existing sewer at the Trail Drive intersection. She asked if Mr. Bushore was talking about something else to be installed through the tract down that utility easement to the crash gale. She stated at an earlier tentative map hearing the sewers were discussed and were to be installed to where the crash gate will be. Mr. Norri; stated it has never been part of the construction plans to take a sewer, lateral or main, beyond Fox Glen Drive and the easement is only the underground utilities and that will be for water, and that from the tract to Henning Way is downhill quite a bit. He stated at one time there was to be an emergency vehicle access which for some reason was deleted and that the City had required it to be deleted from the construction plans, and he thought it was a good idea to have that emergency access. 02/01/88 MINUTES,_ANA$EIM rITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRiJARY 1 1988 88-14 Chairman Messe stated the Fire Department has made several comments regarding this development and none of them included the crash gate. Mr. Bushore stated originally he had alluded to the fact that the Fire Department had asked for that previously and it has now been deleted. He stated also as part of the conditions of approval, the City wanted the Engineering office to design the plans to provide the sewers to capacity oa Henning. He stated he was not a party to that discussion and one of the conditions that has been left out dealt with the emergency access. Annika Santalahti stated an earlier version, prior to Revision No. 1, showed some kind of a street access through to Henning Way from the new private street and when Revision 1 was actually approved, that was eliminated and that only the public utility easement was retained which would not require any improvement to the grounds so that it could be driven over. Mr. Bushore stated there is no purpose to the easement other than to stub into and provide the proper sewer and gas up there; that the water comes up Henning but they do not want to engineer the sewers to come up because of the tremendous cost; and that six years ago the City saw this as the opportunity to get that done, and that was part of the approval. He stated the easement that is being asked for is totally worthless without doing that and without providing some type of emergency access. He said that access was not going to be an improved roadway because the intent was that it not be a thoroughfare and not be used as one and that area must be kept open whether it be grass or whatever so that the crash gate could be broken in case of an emergency, otherwise without the crash gate, without the easement and without the utilities going through, it is senseless to ask for that easement. Mr. Daw stated as far as the sewer goes, he has not or been made aware of the previous discussion referred to and that he could do some research but was not sure that he could get that information today. Annika Santalahti stated staff would have to look back through the minutes to see chat they can find on that subject; that the layout of the street has been modified and they had eliminated portions even five years ago; that concerning the specimen tree removal, that will have to be readvertised for the negative declaration so if the Commission decides to go ahead and continue this matter rather than act oa it today, they can be done at the same time. Chairman Messe stated since the developer is going to have to come back again for the specimen tree removal, perhaps a continuance would be in order so staff can get the answers to some of the questions that have not really been answered yet. Annika Santalahti stated the matter could be advertised for the next meeting on February 17. Mr. Tamulinas stated he would prefer to move ahead with this and come back on a separate issue on the 17th. 02/01/88 MILIUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1 1988 A8-147 Commissioner Bouas asked about the sewer and gas lines. Mr. Tamulinas stated staff was the one that asked him to remove that five years ago and that Mr. Norris could not remember why it was a condition of the final map and they would leave that up to staff. Commissioner Herbst stated he feels very uncomfortable with this the way it is and the Commission is asking staff to do something they should be doing for approval. He stated he recognizes the Traffic Engineer can approve certain things but he felt everyone would be more comfortable if they could see the plans. He stated the tree removal has to come back before the Commission and the street has to be moved and maybe another easement created and the Commission is not really seeing the whole picture and now that the sewer issue has come up, he thought maybe it should be readvertised. He said he thought the Commission needs to sit down and look at what is going to be done up there and that this has been to Commission before and it seems everything is getting muddier as we go along. He stated it needs to be clarified and the map should be provided for the Commission to review, so they caa see that it is going to be worked out to everyone's satisfaction and not leave any guesswork. He added he would like to see that map himself. ACTIQN: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Feldhau5 and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting on February 17, 1988, in order to advertise a negative declaration and get a clear definition of the map and the other issues discussed. Commissioner Feldhaus suggested providing a copy of the map to the Siegel's and the Wilson's so they can see specifically where the road is. ITEM NO 2 CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (READY ) WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT READY. LAND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2977 (READY.) PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: WORLD OIL COMPANY, 9302 S. Garfield, South Gate, CA 90280. AGENT: THOMAS J. SHEPOS, 9302 S. Garfield, South Gate, CA 90280. Property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.68 acre, located at northwest corner of Romneya Drive and Harbor Boulevard, having approximate frontages of 110 feet on the north side of Romneya Drive and 220 feet on the west side of Harbor Boulevard and further described as 1201 N. Harbor Boulevard. To permit a convenience market with gasoline sales and off-sale beer and wine in conjun,tion with 9000-square foot commercial center xith waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. It was noted the petitioner has requested that subject petition be continued. ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of February 17, 1988, at the petitioner's request. 02/01/88 MINUTES ANAT;EIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARX 1 1988 88-148 ITEM 3 CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3744 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: SAVI RANCH ASSOCIATES, 450 Newport Center Dr., $304, Newport Beach, CA 92660. Property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 44.7 acres located at the southwest corner of Old Canal Road and Weir Canyon Road, having approximate frontages of 650 feet on the south side of Old Canal Road, and 550 feet on the west side of Weir Canyon Road, having a maximum depth of approximately 3,300 feet. Petitioner requests waiver of the required lot frontage. It was noted that petitioner has requested a continuance to the next Planning Commission meeting. ACTION: Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boras and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of February 17, 1988, at the petitioner's request. ITEM CE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3747 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: PERALTA LTD., 3150 E. Birch, Brea, CA 92621, ATTN: Vic Peloquin. Property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of and consisting of approximately 40 acres, having a frontage of approximately 3,230 feet on the north side of Nohl Ranch Road, and being located approximately 300 feet northeast of the centerline of Old Bucket Lane. Waiver of maaimum structural height to construct 35 single-family residences at a height not to exceed 35 feet. Chairman Messe declared a conflict of interest as defined by Anaheim City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC76-157 adopting a Conflict of Interest Code for the Planning Commission and Government Code Section 3625, et seq., in that the owner of the property is a client of his business axi3 pursuaxit to the provisions of the above Codes, declared that he was withdrawing from the hearing in connection with Variance No. 3747, and woixld not tak4 part in either the discussion or the voting thereon and had not discussed this matter with any member of the Planning Commission. Thereupon Chairman Messe left the Council Chamber. Commissioner Bouas assumed the Chair. Dennis Cardoza, Agent, explained they are eliminating Lots 34, 35 and 36 from this request because those lots do have a potential view blockage. He referred to the staff report which indicates they are askixig for a 38-foot high waiver but they are only requesting 35 feet. He stated the staff report referenced other variances which have been granted and the findings that must be made ixi order to grant a variance and they feel they meet both of those 02/01/88 ?MINUTES ANAHEIM CITSC PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1. 1984 88-149 findings and these are unusually large lots with large pads on which large homes could be built and that the tract has been graded and brought down in height overall to mitigate any potential view blockages other than on L•hose three particular lots. He explained those lots are against the east and that is the lowest point between the existing homes and the lot pads. He stated according to the staff report and the studies they have done, there is no s:sbstantial view blockage throughout the tract other than those three lots. He stat~~~l f they cannot build above the 25 foot height, they would be restricted compared to other homes in the area and that they have mitigated most of the height and view blockages by regrading the tract and that there are homes in the area which have heights above 25 feet in many instances. Mr. Cardoza stated at the City's request they did complete a height study and have updated that study mostly with regard to the eastern side and, again, that is why they have eliminated those three lots. Donald Van Hoff, 5202 Rolling Hills Drive, Anaheim, stated the developer has just mentioned Lots 34, 35 and 36 and they would also like to ask that Lot 37 be included. He stated he is speaking on behalf of the homeowners who will be impacted on the eastern side of the Peralta Hills Development and those families, particularly next to Lot 37, have asked him to speak for them. He presented photographs made from the slide presentation shown on December 1, 1987; and explained that presentation was made on behalf of the developer. He stated the neighbors feel that the presentation did not fairly represent the adverse effects on the homes mentioned above, and complaints have been raised in conflict with the survey and they will continue to be raised and it was strongly argued at that time that a 3-foot balloon suspe;ded on a pole would in no way show the relationship of a home being built there 25 feet high or 35 feet in height and that is what is being requested today. He stated a home is 65 to 80 feet in length, not 3 feet wide as was a balloon. He stated the homeowners above are strongly urging the Commission not to approve the 35-foot height variance because they feel it will set a precedent and they will be continually arguing about this precedent that has been brought up throughout the meeting. Mr. Van Hoff presented photographs of the way the hills looked in February, 1979 and explained they were told that this rolling hill was blocking their view or was an obstruction to begin with and the developer has graded it and that they do not agree with that. He said he took the liberty to show the first slide which happens to be his backyard with the 35 and the 2S-foot high balloon and presented a representation of what it would look like with a 25 to 35-foot home be'~ind it and explained that is what he is going to see out of his backyard. He presented a photograph of his next door neighbor's home with a 25 foot and a 35 foot height balloon and stated it does not look like very must of an obstruction, but blocking it oat with a house that would be 65 to 85 feet long and 25 to 35 feet in heiyht mould totaily block the view. He explained the reason he complained with regard to the slide presentation is that it was not done in favor of the homeowners. 02/01/88 ,. MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1 1988 8~-1_ He presented another photograph of the view from his backyard as he has it today and another one with a house at 35 feet high. He presented a plot plan showing the four lots in question, 34 through 37, which they aro contesting. He said today Lots 39, 35 and 36 were being taken out of the consideration and that at the last meeting he heard the comment made that once the precedent was set, it continues to be cousidPred as a precedent and if another person has had a 35-foot height granted to them, it will create a stronger argument for the person who buys lots 39, 35, 36 and 37 that they too should have the same consideration for 35 foot heights. He stated they have sustained both visual and financial impact from this development, not to mention the dirt and noise which they have had to tolerate for the past year and will have to continue to tolerate for the next year or two while the canstructioa goes on. He stated the Commission has heard their pleas, yet they continue to hear about the problem, but they have taken the wilderness preserve and the peace and quiet along with their view and have given them dirt and the decreased value and told them to like it and they do not like it and would suggest 18-foot Y.igh structures would be more than plenty for lots 34, 35, 36 and 37. Mark Paqe, Canyon Heights, said he is on the association board and that they are opposed to the request, as well as the other owners who have asked him to speak in opposition for them. He said he lives on the rim above Nohl Ranch Road and agrees with the last speaker that there is no way they can look at a balloon and see how it will effect the view in the same terms as a whole house. He said he thought the Hillcrest Development in the City of Oran;e which is just up the street from him and which has a lot of million dollar homes only had height variances going up to 28 feet. He said it does not make any sense that they need to go up 35 feet and from a 25 foot height level all the way to 35 feet, is a dramatic jump, taking into consideration that this is a scenic corrider and that they are trying to keep it that way. He stated it is difficult for a lot of people to come down and fight this when the meetings are held in the middle of the day and that is why some have asked him to speak for them. He stated he did not know of anyone .in their association who is in favor of this request. Ha stated he regrets that two homes have already been approved on Lots 32 and 29 which are right in front of his home and he wished there was some way to still fight those. Robert Zemel, 7330 Stone Creek, Anaheim, Chairman of the Anaheim Hills Citizens Coalition, stated he would like to address the issue that they do not understand how the Commission can be asked to evaluate unknown products and that, in addition, this developer has no hardship, that he has leveled the land and simply finds the existing height ordinance a limitation. He said that Mr. Peloquia says t_iat other variances have been granted in tl~e area. However, none have been granted on unseen products and most have a hillside building problem involved. He said there are homes in the million dollar range in the area with 25 foot heigt-.t limitations. However, if for some reason this project is approved, they would request the following conditions: that any overall height. variance should be conditioned upon approval of the individual pleas when they are available; and that approval would be final or 02/01/88 MI TE,~, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1 1988 68-151 denied by the Zoning Administrator at a public hearing and at that point residents of Anaheim Hills East and the neighboring tract would have the opportunity to support or oppose the individual plans as each affects them, but if the Commission considers granting this request, Lots 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 should be limited to 25 feet because they back up to Nohl Ranch Road and if allowed to be built to 35 feet, the rooflines would protrude above the existing tract wall from 1 to 7 feet. He said Mr. Peloquin's height study shows that 35-foot high rooflines on Lots 18 through 22 will make, in effect, a vertical extension of the wall for 1,035 feet in length. He stated because these homes are so close to the existing wall, the rooflines will visually be as extension of the wall itself, eliminating the small amount of view that is left. He stated in December the Planning Commission postponed a hearing on one height waiver is this r.ract to wait for the City Council directive and at that City Council hearing a great deal of emphasis was placed on the before and after lot elevations; and the neighbors were told that since the developer had lowered the hill, they should not be upset; that they would be looking at a structure where the hill used to be and that since the before and after reasoning had been applied in at least two instances, it should be considered for the remaining lots. He stated 21 lots were lowered according to the height study and they have tentatively looked at the grade elevations of the lots which have the maximum impact or, the homes to the east, (Lots 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37) and if the homes had been built on the original topography, the existing homes on 3rook Lane would have looked completely aver the rooftops before grading, however, after extensive grading operations, the existing residences are now only 16 feet above Lot 34, 18 fret above Lot 35 and 16 feet above I.ot 36, and even a 25-foot high home on those lots r+ould tower in front of them replacing the sky with solid roof and miscellaneous towers. Mr. Zemel statsd they understand that nothing is forever and the homeowners should have realized that someone might build in the canyon behind their homes; that they understand Mr. Peloquia has rights as a property owner and that they Y.now he builds a quality product; that they understand, although they do not agree, that the interpretation of what is minimal grading is quite fluid in the City of Anaheim; however, it seems reasonable for existing residents to have assumed that any future building would have been at or near the general elevations of the natural land on the east side of the tract where major elevation changes were made. He stated the City has allowed this developer tremendous latitude and allowed an extensive technical operation on the land itself without an environmental impact report; that the City permitted a wall which impacted an entire community and called the decision an administerial task; and that the City has already granted height waivers using a purely discretionary basis to override clear guidelines for ordinance enforcemenl•. He stated they think it is time to show some deference to the rights of existing homeowners who rely on the General Plan and the City ordinances to assure orderly, planned development; and that the Commission should impose a condition restricting the heights on Lots 34 through 37 to 02/01/88 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COD4dISSION FEBRUARY 1 1988 88-152 single-story, not to exceed 18 feet and pointed out that such a restriction was placed on the lots in Tract No. 8418 recently in the immediate vicinity; and that would allow the homeowners on the east side to retain some of the enjoyment of the uncongested character of the canyon area which they sought when they bought their homes. He stated they feel another compromise is in order here and there has been no communication between the developer and the local citizens; and that their organization wants the balloon study to speak for itself and that there is an obvious view intrusion impact by Lots 34, 35, 36, 37 on the eastern rim next to the residences. He stated all the residents of Anaheim will be adverst:ly effected by 1,039 lineal feet of homes built on Lots 18 through 22 extending above and beyond even the wall itself. He stated if the Commission is going to blanket approve this variance for 93~ of the tract (38 out of 40 lots), now is the time to establish the destiny for all the lots. He stated it seems when people ask for something they should be willing to give something and to simply ask for 10 extra feet times 38 homes of intrusion into the environment and not offer one inch of compromise is a gross misunderstanding of right and wrong. He stated it is also a very effective power position and once the proposed blanket variance is in place, he did not know how effective the eastern neighbors would be in obtaining a satisfactory compromise and now is the time to settle these issues. He stated they are glad the Commission is referring to the balloon sty±dy and they are pleased the City requested it; however, it should be noted the researcher was paid by the developer which may explain why the findings and summary letter did not agree and the last paragraph of the first page of his cover letter stated "We report that all photographs taken are available and it would appear that no substantial impact on existing vistas will occur as a result of construction of the new custom homes within the tract." He stated that paragraph seems to be very contradictory to the actual study itself and in reviewing the study, the escape phrase is "no substantial impact" and asked Commission's definition. He stated the test clearly showed impact and that the Commission should try to address all the issues. Dennis Cardoza stated he did not have to pay for the report because it was recommended by the City and that the professional who did the work was recommended by the CiL-y, and he thought .they did compromise when they saw the report and the elevations and pictures by eliminating Lots 34, 35, 36 which do indicate potential impacts. He stated lots along Nohl Ranch Road will have homes that are up to 115 feet above the pad size and that he understood they would protrude above the wall, but the chances of ever seeing those rooflines from the street are slim. He stated they did eliminate Lots 34, 35 and 36 oa the east side and could restrict or eliminate Lot 37. Commissioner Carusillo stated it was his understanding that Lot 33 is a higher elevation than Lot 34. 02/01/88 M3NUTES ANAHEIM ITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 1, 1988 88-153 Phil Schwartss, Consultant with PBR, stated that he did prepare the height study and that there is a computer print-out ii the report of every lot in the tract and the height elevations. Commissioner Carusillo stated that specific question was discussed at the last meeting anc if Lot 34 impacts the view and 33 is adjacent and is 14 feet higher, it certainly would have a negative impact also. Phil. Schwartz pointed out the lots on the plan and explained Lot 34 is to the west, and that there is a height differential and it is shown in one of the graphics. Commissioner Carusillo stated he thought Lot 33 would have a worse impact than Lot 34 because of the difference in elevation. Mr. Schwartz responded that that may be true. Mr. Schwartz stated another thing to consider is the distance and he thought a house on Lot 33 probably would not particularly impair the view, but there is. a height differential THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Carusillo stated he is not in favor of a blanket approval for the whole tract, and that it has been discussed many times and he did not believe there is a hardship and that any blanket approval would be a special privilege given to this tract. Commissioner Bouas asked if they would be willing, if the variance was approved, to restrict the height of Lots 34, 35, 36 and 37 to 18 feet or single story. Mr. Cardoza stated he did not know if tlse house could be built at 18 feet on that large lot and Commissioner Houas pointed out a ranch style house could be built. Mr. Cardoza stated that there are many 1800 square foot homes which are two stories. Commissioner Bouas pciated out she is asking that the height be restricted to 1 story. Mr. Cardoza pointed out the City Council requested a height waiver for the whole tract rather than one at a time. Commissioner Houas stated she realized that but that did not come from the Planning Commission and the Commission does look at these things differently than the Council. He stated City Council does not want to see the lotP one at a time but she felt the Commission should be looking at what is g:ing to be developed on each lot in order to determine the impact and should not just do an overall blanket approval. 02/01/88 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNIDTC EOMIQISSION FEBRUARY 1 1988 88-154 Mr. Cardoza stated the biggest problem seems to be on the east side and that he would be willing to restrict those lots to 1 story, but was not sure of the exact height. He stated Lot 33 could be eliminated at this time and that there has been no protest from anyone about the obstruction on the balance of the lots. He asked that the Commission qo ahead and approve this variance with those four lots being eliminated. Commissioner Feldhaus stated Lots 18, 19, 21, 22 along Nohl Ranch Road with blanket approval for 35-foot heights would be 7, 8, 9 and 13 feet above the tdohl Ranch Road grade. He pointed out the developer has agreed to lower the bock wall to 3 feet in some areas and driving along Nohl Ranch Road, a person would still be seeing the tops of buildings, roofs and chimneys. Mr. Cardoza stated if there were openings in the wall in those particular locations, they could see the buildings. He pointed out that Mr. Zemel had referred to Lots 8 through 22, and that there would be five lots he could picture with roof ridges if they happen to go parallel with Nohl Ranch Road, but he did not think there would be an obstruction of view unless there happened to be an opening in that one spot. He stated because of the angle and the distance and the slope, the home will be placed quite a distance from Nohl Ranch Road, a minimum of 50 feet probably in most instances, and a person sitting in a car or standing on the street would be able to see in some spots. He stated going up higher a person would be able to see the differences, and the higher up the hill, the bigger the difference. He stated the slope goes up fairly steep on the opposite side of Nohl Ranch Road. Commissioner Feldhaus stated he would agree with Commissioner Carusillo and he would rather take a look at these on an individual basis, than to blanket approve all of them. Commissioner Herbst stated he would agree. He stated the developer keeps talking about the hill that was there before, but if they had built on that hill, they could not have built this many houses. He added owners all over Anaheim Hills have stayed within the restrictioa~. He stated his recommendation to City Council is that if they wish to have this tract have blanket approval, they should change the ordinance so that everyone ha.s the same privilege. He said the developer has not shown a hardship and that he does not like to see the Planning Commission put in the middle and have to violate ordinances they have complied with for years and give blanket app,,*oval when they have not even seen the houses that are going to be built on the lots. He said the Commission 'likes to look at each lot individually and some may or may not be approved. He said he Lhought the structures not only will impact the neighbors around them, but they are going to impact the people who are going to be buying those lots. He stated there has been discussion about changing the ordinance any? allowing everyone to go to 3G feet, but that if they are allowed to go to 35 feet in this tract, then it should be for 35 feet for everyone. He stated in his 22 years on the Commission, he has never seen a blanket variance granted to anyone and he is not about to start now. 02/01/88 w ;.:. MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 1, 1988 88-155 _ A TI N: Commissioner Carusillo offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and the MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to construct 35 single family residences at a height not to exceed 35 feet with waiver of maximum structural on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 40 acres having a frontage of approximately 3,230 feet on the north side of Nohl Ranch Road, approximately 300 feet northeasterly centerline of Old Bucket Lane, 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 finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Carusillo oY'fered Resolution No. PC88-36 and moved for passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby DENY Variance Na. 3%47 on the basis that there are no special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings and that granting a 35-foot blanket waiver constitutes a special privilege not enjoyed by others in the area. Commissioner Herbst added approval would set a precedent for every developer who wants to build in that area. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, iiERBST, MC BURNEY NOES: NONE ABSENT: MESSE Joe Fletcher, City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. BREAK: 3:30 p.m. RECONVENED: 3:45 p.m. Commissioner Messe returned to the meeting. 02/01/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COM,`IISSION Februar}• 1, 1.988 t36-1.56 ITEM N0. 5. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3748. PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: BALDS9IN BUILDING COMPANY, A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, 16811 Hale Avenue, Irvine, CA 92714. AGENTS DIANA HOARD, THE BALllWIN COMPANY, 16811 Hale Avenue, Irvine, CA 92724. Property is an irregularl}•-shaped parcel of land located at the northwesterly corner of the Oai: Hills Ranch, to the east of the Highlands at Anaheim Hills, anti to tl~~ south of Sycamore Canyon and further described as proposed Tentative Tract No. 13267. Request for waivers of mi~~?mum building site vidtlt, minimum building siL•e width for cul de sac and knuckle iota and permitted orientation of structures to establish a 156-lot, RS-5000(SC) zone, single-famil}• residential subdivision. There vas no one indicatir•g '~•i:.:rir presence in op,,.osition to subject request, and alti:ou3h the staff report to the Pl.annin~ Commission vas not read, it• is referred to and made a par L• of the minutes. Diana Hoard, agent, explained ti:e tr~.ct: map is presently being designed and is almost ready to be submitted and t!iat; they are stil] working on the park de::ign and fire access. She explained this request for variance is necessary because of the location of Serrano Aven~.e and the topography of the site. She stated they are also tryinq L•o be sensitive to the gzadiny in the desi;n and have been able to reduce it by over 1/2 million cubic }•ards in this first tract. THE ?UHLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner McBurne}• stated from revie::ing tl:e configuration of L•lie lots, lie can understand ::hy the variance is necessary and pointed out the cul. de sac narrows do::n and fife only exception would L•e the two flag lots, Lots 73 and 74, but with one access ~rivevay and ::ith reciprocal agreements between those ;:uo lots, he did not thin:: there :;ould be an}~ problem. ACTION: Commissioner McHurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Houas and MOTIO;: CARRIED thaC the Anaheim City P]anniny^ Commission has reviewed the proposal to establisl: a 156-lot RS-5000(SC) zone, single-famil}• residential suidivision ::itl: waiver of minimum i~uilding site width, minimum buil.din; site width [or cul. de sac and Icnuclcl.e lets and permitted orientation of structures on an irregularly-s::aped parcel. of land located at the northwesterly corner of the Oalc Hills Ranch, to the east of the Highlands at Anaheim Hills, and Lc tl:e south of Sycamore Can}~on and further described as proposed 'Cent:ative Tract No. 13267; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration en the l;asis that it has considered the proposed Negative Declaration toget•iter with any comment:; received during file public review process and further finding on the basis of t::c Initial Stud}• and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Mc Hurne}• offered Resolution l:o. PC 88-37 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City ?tannin^, Commission does hereby ;rant Variance No. 3748 on tae basis t;hat there are special circumstances applica!.1a to the property such as size, s!iape, topo,ra~.h~~, location or surroundin^,s, which do noL• apply to oL•har identically zoned pro?erties in the vicinity; and Cl:at strict application of the Zeninc Code deprives the ,property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in identical. zor.in^y classification in t•lie vicinity, and subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations. 2/1/88 _ ^ ••1 S!1 *lINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION February i, 1988 88-157 On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed !~y tl:e following vote: AYES: COhIDiISSIUNERS: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSII.LO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MESSE, MC BURNEY NOES: CO1•IMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Joseph t9. F1eL•cl:er, Deputy Cit}~ Attorney, presented the written right to appeal L•he Planning Commission's decision :;itl:in 22 days to tl:e Ci~}• Council. ITEM N0. 6. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3749. PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: L[lIS GONZLAES AND MARIA DEJESUS GONZALES, 2240 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801. AGENTS: DENNIS DIAMOND/HUGO VAZQUEZ, 2240 1.7. Lincoln Avenue, Ana!:eim, CA 92801.. Property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel. of land located at tl:e soiat:beast corner of Sycamore Street and Claudina, and further described as 426 N. Claudina Street. Request for waivers of required coverage of parking spaces and maximum structural. 1:eight to construct a 3-stor}', 4-unit apartment building. There was one person indicating l:er presence in opposition to subject recuest, and altl:ougl: tl:e staff report was net read at Ll:e public ]rearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Hugo Vazquez, 61.9 S. Live Oalt Drive, Anaheim, l:ninted out t:lris will he an elegant 4-unit: apartment project and that the hardship for the variance is that it is a corner lot and t;lre}' have to setback from Claudina and Sycamore :rich a 7.4 fool dedication on Sycamore. Sally Horton, 226 N. Claudina, representing herself and the Central City Committee, stated t•!:ere are several public hearings on t!re agenda today with developers asking for variances for new residential projects. $lre stated variances will not help to increase the quality of the individual project, the neighLorhood or even the Community of Anaheim at large, and these variances do not!ring but increase the dollars that go into the developer's pockets, at the expense of the neighborhood. Dls. Horton stated presently there is a general plan amendment study being done as initiated by the Planning Commission and fire Central City Neiglrborlrood Council to change the designation and to dorrnzone this area; and it lras been generally agreed that a zone change could be t~eneficial in upgrading tine neighborhoods and would lre more in keeping with the overall plan for downtown Anaheim. Sire stated allowing these variances in an already lax zone, RM-1200, would defeat the purpose of t:lre future pla::s and tine current codes. Slre stated fire planning consultant for the Anaheim Redevelopment A;ency !ras stated that t•!re new commercial developments downtown ::ill have to tre suprorted in part by residents outside the project area and she did not Lhinlc that the cuality of tae buildin,s on w!rich these Code waivers !rave been granted will attract the t•}•pe resident being souylrt Lo support the upscale commercial developments wiricl: rre are striving to attract to our new downL-o::n. Ms. Horton referred to recent workshops to update the guidelines for development: and as approved at this time b}• bot;ir t;re Project Area Committee and t•Ire Redevelopment Commission, t:he lowest density new residential developments will. be owner-occupied and directly adjacent L•o this neigir`.or;rcod along Cypress; and also units will be lacing Cypress so they will be inclusive of the neighborhood and will not be 2/1/88 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY FLANNING COMMISSION, February I, 1988 __ _ 88- 158 conceived as a separate neighborhood. She stated also an agreement has been reached between the Anaheim Neighborhood Preservation Committee and tine Redevelopment• Agency to initiate a program to create single-family in-fill into file neighborhood preservation areas of redevelopment and that is roughly two blocks south of both Items 6 and 7 on today's agenda, and allowing code variances will permit 17igh density, low-quality projects into these reigl~borixoods wiiicli defeats their future plans. She added it is ver}~ impcrtant that flee Planning Commission consider the older- resident; and other property owners in this neigliborliood. Ms. Horton stated slte was sure Mr. Vazquez will point out that tl~e area is not well maintained and that has too long L•een an excuse t•o pursue mediocrity is the guise that the new project will be better than what was there, but there is never an excuse for law quality or mediocrity. Slie stated slie leas no excuse for those prcperty owners who have not chosen to begin upgrading their propert}' and would suspect that the} have not yet seen a reason to upgrade. Sloe added file City leas certainly not supported the individual property owner and it is q~rte disconcerting to see the Young Lion Development Company signs cropping up all. over the neighborhood. She stated, However, there is an increasing number of }'oung families lilce hers wiio are moving intro these neighborhoods to rehabilitate ti~r_m and Community Block Grant funds have been made available. Ms. Horton stated this neigliboriiood is on Llie move upward and property owners leave invested their life savings, energy and sweab into bringing these older neighborhoods of Anaheim back to life and these developers leave no vested interest in flee City, and it i=_ the responsibility of the City planners to uphold file Codes ar.d standards of qualit}' ~Itey can be proud of, and Lliey would ask that these variances be denied for projects on Olive and Claudine. She read a letter from the Central City Neighborhood Council opposing this request because that area is proposed for RM 2900 development and they Dave iieavill' traveled streets and it is a congested area and flee property is only one block from Anaheim Boulevard and they will. be impacted when those properties are developed with commercial use; that a waiver for parking is reouested and there is alread}• a parking problem in that area; and tiiaL• waivers are permitted to allo~r oddly shaped property or otherwise unequal parcels to be developed with special consideration given to the uniqueness of the property and they acre oat meant to allow the overdevelopment of a standard residential. parcel. Tlie letter asked ti~at• no variances be granted for RM 7200 projects while this area is under consideration for a general plan amendment and zone change. Hugo Vazquez stated very lit•t:le development is going on in tl~e downtown area and there are ver}~ few rentals available and he thought there is a tremendous need. He stated a 2-story project developed in conformac~ce with Code would be less desirable than file proposed project. Commissioner Carusillo stated the general consensus of file Commission seems to be to wait- until t2~e general plan amendment study has beer. completed to make any decisions. Joseph Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, stated if the Commission wants to continue this matter unL•il after file general plan amendment, file public hearing should be left open for further input from the citizens and it should be continued t•o a date certain. 2/1/88 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 1, 14'`',°,..., ••,,~,=•}-_ 159 Responding to Commissioner 9auas, Mr.Vazquez stated this property is not involved in flee general plan amendment study and iL• is their intent to develop the parcel with multiple family units in accordance with the RM-1200 zoning wliicli is on L•he property regardless of the outcome of the GPA. Annika Santalaliti, Zoning Administrator, stated the development standards, except for density, are basically the same and he could probabl}~ develop 2 or 3 units in accordance with Code. Mr. Vazquez stated property on Lemon Street was rezoned to RM-2400 and lie would like to show flee Commission what that rezoning leas done to the neigliborl~ood and added lie thought there are ways and methods to redevelop these properties in harmony with the existing residences. Commissioner Houas stated maybe flee neighbors do not cant anything new and different and just want to restore and improve what is existing. She asked if ]ie would be willing to continue this until Marcli 28, 1988. Chairman Messe explained tl~e proposed general plan amendment will determine ii Llie general plan designation should be changed. ACTION: Commissioner Feldltaus offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Houas and MOTION CARRIED Chat consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeL•ing of March 28, 1988. ITEh1 N0. 7. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3750. PUBLIC HEARING. OI+iNERS: DENNIS DIAh10ND AND SANDRA DIAMOND, 2290 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801. AGENT: fiUGO VA2QUEZ, 2240 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801. Property is a recCangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.13 acre leaving a frontage of approximately 2 feet on L•lie east side of Olive Street, approximately 350 feet north of the centerline of Sycamore Street, and further described as 524 N. Oliva Street. Request:: 14aivers of maximum site coverage, minimum recreational-leisure area and permitl:ed access for parking to construct a 2-story, 4-unit apartment complex. It was noted flee petitioner has requested a two-week continuance. ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to flee regularly-scheduled meeting of hfarch 28, 1988, at the request, of flee petit•ioner.. 2/1/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COPSMISSIO'V February 1 1988 ___ 88-160 ITEM N0. 8. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3771. PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: VICTOR M. VAZQUEZ JR., 2240 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801. AGENT: HUGO VAZQUEZ, 2240 SQ. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 9,608 square feet located south and east of the intersection of the Santa Ana Freewa}~ and Center Street, and further described as 1310 West Center Street. Request for waiver of maximum strucL•ural setbactc t•o construct a 3-story apartment building. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition Lo subject request: and altliougl~ the staff report was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Hugo Vazcuez, agent, explained Clte project is adjacent• to tl~e Santa Ana Freeway, near the Lincoln off ramp. He stated the property is irregularl}~-shaped and the project will be a townhome style complex., with parking underneath. He stated tl~e only waiver requested is for the height. THE PUBLIC HEARING 14AS CLOSED. Chairman :tesse stated there was a question about the dedication of a 15-foot strip of laeid along the westerly property line for sewer and drainage and it appears these plans infringe on that dedication. Mr. Vazquez stated be did not think the sewer running underneath the ground is in conflict with the building above. Arthur L. Daw, Deputy City Engineer, stated no permanent structures are permitted in CiL•y easements and Chairman Messe stated some redesign is going to be required Mr. Vazquez responded lie did not think there would be a problem and that he will do whatever is required to satisfy Engineering's requirements and asked for approval subject to meeting tliuse requirements, and explained lie would nct• be able to get building permits without their approval. Commissioner Feldliaus asked if this would require a revision of the plans. Mr.Daw responded it will require a rather substantial revision and that the Engineering Department will work with the developer and it is just a question whether the Commission wishes to see the revised plans. Chairman Messe stated this involves moving the structure 10 feet and lie thought the Commissi^r•. should look at the revised plans. Commissioner Bouas asked if the applicant was aware that the property will be taken by CALTRANS for xidening of the off ramp. Mr. Vazquez responded they talked to CALTRANS and they did not indicate they were going to take anything off Lliis property. Chairman Messe asked if the plans can be ready by Frida}~ of this week for a two-week continuance on Wednesday, Februar}~ 17th. Mr. Vazquez responded that would not be a problem. ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and DSC,TiO!: CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularl}~-scheduled meeting of February 17, 1988, at the request of the petitioner in order t:o submit revised plans, 2/1/88 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 1, 1988 8F 161 ITEM N0. 9. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2982. PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER/AGENT: HEPHATHA LUTHERAN CHURCH, 5900 E.Santa Ana Canyon Road, Anaheim, CA 92807 Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel. of land consisting of approximatel}~ 4.2 acres located at the southeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Solomon Drive, and further described as .5900 East Santa Ana Canyon Road (Hephat;lia Lutheran Cliurcli). Request: To permit• a temporary modular structure for elemenL•ar}~ age day rare facility with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject• request; and altliougi~ the stafF report uas not read at t:l~e public hearing, it is referred Lo and made a part of the minutes. Diicliael Reinerston, 2656 Alden Place, Aral~eim, agent, explained they need to increase t;h~ capacity For the elementary school day care facility and this modular has L•een made available, He stated they will do i;hatever is necessary to keep the area looking nice. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst stated lie leas noticed tlie}~ still have a lot of unused area and ghat: he does drive by the property daily and it is well. maintained; however, in the future Santa Ana Can}~on Road will Have Lo be widened and in previous Bearings regarding this property, the} leave agreed to put in more parking spaces if required in the rear, and if they continue to ask for additional uses of the property, that pariting could become necessar}~. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated when the cliurcli was originally approved, a parking waiver eras granted, and in the future when improvements are made to the church an3 to Santa Ana Canyon Road, the parking will have Lo be re-evaluated Lased on a new sanctuary. He stated tiie parking is adequate, however, for ::lie school. Mr. Reinerston stated lie understands tlte}~ do need more parking. Respondinc to Chairman Messe, Mr. Reinerstor, stated Li~ey presently Dave 171 students in flee elementar}~ school and less than 1G0 in the preschool in the morning and less than 100 in flee afL•ernoon. He stated they will probably never reach an enrollment of 270 students, But it• would be nice to have that capability. ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst;, and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission leas reviewed flee proposal to permit a temporary modular structure for elementary age day ogre facilit}~ with waiver of minimum number of parl~inc spaces on an irregularly- shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 4.2 acres located at L•lie southeast corner of Santa Ana Can}'on Road and Solomon Drive, and further described as 5900 East Santa Ana Canyon Road (Hepliat:i~a Lutheran Church); and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration on the basis that it leas considered the proposed A'egative Declaration toget:lier with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on flee Basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will. have a significant effect on flee environment. 2/1/88 -r MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COI~L~7ISSION, February 1, 1988 88-162 Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and t4GTI0N CARRIED that tl~e Anaheim City Planning Commission does ]tereby grant waiver of code requirement on the basis that the parking Waiver will not cause an increase in traifir. congestion in the immediate vicinity nor adversely affect any adjoining land uses; and granting of the parking waiver under the conditions imposed, if an}~, will not be detrimental. to L•he peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Commissioner Boydstun offered Resolution No. PC 88-38 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does Hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2982, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Cody Sections 18.03.030.030 ti~rougl~ 18.03.030.035, subject, t•c In L•erdepartmental. Committee Recommendations. On roll. call Clio foregoing resolution bras passed by tiie fo.l].owing voL•e: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Bouas, Boydstun, Carusil.lo, Feldliaus, Herbst, Messe McBurney NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to tl~e City Council.. ITEM N0. 10. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 239, RECLASSIFICATION N0. 87-88-35 AND VARIANCE N0. 3742. PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: EDWARD b. MARGARE'C n. SAUBAN; 19ALTER J. b. DARLENE F. PETERS, RALPH L. b KATIiRYN L. BRADEN, HOMER D. b PATRICIA GRIFFIS, JOHN S GEORGENE HARDAWAY, JIM b VIRGINIA LEE SAUB. AGENT: MAGDY HANNA, 4000 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 680, Neti:port Beach, CA 92660. Properly is a rectangularl}'-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.8 acres, having a frontage of approximately 300 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, approximatel}~ 325 feet east of tiie centerline of Bel Air Street, and further described as 106, 107, 110, 111, 112, and il3 N. Teri Circle. GPA - Consider change in current designation from low density residential to medium density residential land use. Reclassification - RS-7200 to RM-1200 Waivers of maximum fence heigllL•, minimum structural setback (deleted), minimum building siL•e area per dwelling unit, maximum structural l:eiglit, and maximum site coverage to construct a 75-unit, 2, 3 and 9 story "affordable" apartment complex. There were approximately 27 persons indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and approximately 14 people indicating their presence in favor of subject request; and altiiougli the staff report was not read at tiie public Bearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Al Marshall, agent, Newport Pacific, presented slides of tl:e proposed project;. He explained the proposal is for a 75 unit, 2-bedroom, 2-bath project with 144 parking spaces; and that since the last meeting, they have investigaCed several. possible means of Dandling the sewage and will probably rebuild the Cit•}~ of Anaheim's facility where the Dale line comes in front on Lincoln which will provide adequate capacity, and they have also reviewed tl~e possibilities of. getting the service frcm the City of Buena Park. 2/1/88 ~ti { MINUTES ANAHEII.1 CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 1, 1988 88- 163 Mr. Marsltal.l stated t.ltey originally requested five waivers, but one Itas been deleted; and L•ltat one waiver pertains to site coverage witiclt ltas increased from 59% to 68% because of the open part:ing spaces in Clte center of the project. He pointed out complying with code requirements and providing 55% coverage actually detracts from tite 1.ivabil.iL•}• of the project. He stated covering the parking is a lot more expense, but; they would request that the Commission consider al.lowir~g them to cover the open area witiclt would increase the coverage to 75% and explained that would increase the recreational space from 224 sq. fC•. per unit to 304 sq. ft. per unit. Mr. Marshall. discussed L•!te Itardsitips Yur the other requested waivers (sL•ructural lteigitt, minimum building site area) and presented slides sitawing Clte relationship of the single-family homes Lo fire project and pointed out L•}tey are proposing an eight (8) foot ltiglt wall. He not;ed there are no windows facing the residences and the other buildings facing tl,e courtyard with the second level buil.diny and first level roof blocking an}~ possible views to the four single-famil}~ homes witiclt adjoin this property. A slide was shown of an apartment project currently under construction on Ball Road with fire distance from Clt~ building L•o fire wall being 25 feet and Mr. Marshall pointed out it will be furC•lter in this project. Mr. Marshall. explained they did meet with L•Ite neighbors and have changed the plans to move the rear building an additional. 5 feet towards Lincoln, moved t:lte pool to the center courtyard, relocated anoL•Iter building to the side and made it one story, so the line is complete across the rear. He stated none of the interior ccurtyard buildings would have a view C•a the single-famil}~ homes. Magd}~ Hanna, agent, stated C•Itey are presenting a nice project:; Cltat 30 years ago Lincoln Avenue was a good location for single-family homes, but: things have changed and Lincoln has commercial and multiple-famil}• units and these property owners want L•o sell. their propert}~ and move aa•a}• from fire traffic and noise. He added Lltere are a lot of mul.t;iple-family units on Lincoln and Cttis project would not be out of line and is compatible with what is there; and changing the zoning to multiple-family residential units rather C•itan commercial, •,•ill generate less traffic. He stated this project will also add affordable housing to the City which is needed; and thaC• the project will. be fully sprinklered and will not be a fire hazard and they will be paying over $100,000 Lo the school district so they c:an open new schools reducing the impact on the schools. John Hardaway, 112 N. Teri Circle, Anaheim, stated he is speaking for six property owners on Teri Circle wlticit fronts onto Lincoln Avenue and they would like L•o relocate away from the commercial. progress tltaC• ltas been happening on Lincoln for fire last 30 }ears. He stated the homes of Teri Circle were designed to be the model (tomes for the tract of (tomes on Bel. Air Street; and upon sale, iL• tras disclosed tltat- Lltese six homes on Teri Circle would someday be rezoned for commercial. use because they do front on Lincoln. He added Teri Circle was not really an Integra]. part of Cite tract and Itas il:s own entrance. Tom and Janice Morgan sL•ated they own one acre directly next; door L•o Teri Circle and Chat ]tas been their primary residence for 10 }ears and they err: in favor of rlte rezoning because Lincoln is no Langer a desirable location for single-Family residences because all the other properL•ies have been developed with commercial. uses. They stated Teri Circle is sandwiched between C•wo shopping centers and other than one other tract trlticlt is not; very well kept, llteirs is the onl}• single-family residences between Harbor Boulevard and Knot;C Avenue witiclt fronL• on Lincoln. 2/1/88 MINUTES, Ai1AHETM CITY •PLANNING COMMISSION, February 1, 1985 88-164 OPPOSITION: Dan Frane, 8681 Del Air StreeL•, sL•ated tiie project seems very well. designed, but there are several concerns; that Hel Air and that area of Lincoln has not yet been fully developed and more and more units are being added and t:liel~ are concerned because IIel Air is becoming a tiiorougitfare and is used as a short cut betiaeen Crescent and Lincoln from Beach. He stated also parking proposed for this project will not be adequate and poinL•ed ouL• because of all tl~e apartment units in L•hat area now, tenants are parking on all their residential streets. He sL-ated this projecL• would create an additional. 150 vehicles and add more children to tl~e school. system and puL• a L•remendous burden on oilier services such as fire, police, water, sewers, etc. and that lie is not so much againsL• tl~e projecL•, lout is against the density and felt L•he area would i;e better served bh a commercial development. Charles Carey, 2849 W. Polk, Anaheim, staled he did noL• believe t17e plans have keen changed since the lasL• meeting; that the developer made them look prettier and moved some buildings around, but end result is still 75 apartm2nL•s units ul-:ere there are no« sir, single-family homes. He stsated the neighbors are concerned thaC if the Commission permits them Lo demolish single-family homes and replace them with apartments, i. t• will lead to the erosion and }creak-up of stable attractive neigl~borl~oods and asked if tl~e people of tl~e :ieiglit:orlioods in Anaheim leave any say in what goes on in their neigiihorlioods. Mr. Carey staled they were also ~ ~~erned about the City giving the developer the area currentl}~ occupied l~}• Teri Circle which L•hey understand is about 25% of L•lie project and Llie land in front of those Homes on Teri Circle belongs to all Llie citizens of Anaheim and he did not think it should be yiver. away. He stated the developer has said the people who own this property chat L•o move away and L•hat is the first the neighbors kne« about that because there have not been any "for sale" signs and until. a few months ago, they had every indication that those neighbors were very much interested in taking care of and improving their property because they have been making improvements and those are quality Homes. Mr. Carey stated they feel it is a bad precedent to replace single-family licmes with croc+ded apartments in an attractive neighborhood and L•liis developer leas already been contacting other property owners attempting to purchase their properties. He added not long ago another developer wanl:ed to take a single lot and develop 20 apartments and L1~aL• proposal was denied and lie hoped flea Planning Commission will remember that decision. Nancy Brown, 324 Coolidge Avenue, staled she xas concerned about the impact of this project on tl:e schools, noting the schools are already overcrowded and also sire tliouglit an eighL• foot High fence at tiie back of leer property would tend L•o make l;er feel closed in and L•I~e three stories will cut off L•lie <:irculation of air for the people who live behind the project. DoroL•liy EgberL•, 2871 Polk, stated s3ie objects L•o replacing six single-family Homes wit;li 75 apartment units because t1iaL• property is just too small for a complex L•hat large and four stories would not conform to any of the nearby properties, and L•hat area bounded by Lincoln, Crescent, Dale and Del Air consists entirely of one-sL•ory, single-family homes and a single-story apartment project and single-story commercial units, except for L•I~e two-story ]souse built in 1.927 which is currently zoned for limited commercial uses. Sipe added L•lie single-family Dome Itas become an endangered species in Anaheim and developers leave built apartments on most of the vacant ].and and are no:+ encroaching into the RS-7200 zoned properties to build high density developments and they rarely ever build in conformance with Code. Slie asked if 2/7/88 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 1, 1988 88-.165 apartments are really needed at Cliis time and stated the Planning Commission is their first line of defense against this encroachment by apartment developers into the single-family neighborhoods. Slie state3 there is a limit to how many people can be crowded into an aria and t;lte Planning Commission leas a large part to pla}~ in maintaining a satisfactory quality of life in Anaheim. Theresa Dieriex, 2861 t4. Monroe Avznue, stated she agrees xith the other speakers and wanted to mention that calls Co the Police Department• are nob respondzd L•o for 95 minutes and adding more people uil.l increase that response time. S!ie added it also takes 5 t:o 10 minutes to make a left turn off Bel Air onto Lincoln because of al.l the traffic. Hal Redman, 2780 Polk, stated he leas been a realtor in Anaheim for 27 years, and for 25 of t;Bose }ears lie has lived at this address and that lie leas Beard developers say that the construction of apartments will enhance property values in the area, but• ChaL• is contrar}~ to his thinking and he has never known of an apartment complex raising the price of homes. He stated to the contrary, it decreases the price of the homes and the people who live Chis area are going to have their property devalued, and lie was sure those people Living on Teri Circle had theirs increased because there is no way most of those homes would bring $225,000 on the open market today. Pat Potter, 2857 Polic, stated liPr main concern is Clie proposed recreation area and she thought in a development of this size, there will. be children and asked where those children will play because the developer has not allo::ed for a playground and the property faces directly on Lincoln. Kathleen Egbert, 2871 Polk, pointed out scme of tale property ocrners on Teri Circle have 1i.ved there for a long time and she would question the reasoning that it is not a desirable place Co live. Lee Beck, 206 Bel Air, referred to a lary^e apartment complex: across Bel. Air oa Lincoln and st;aced since that• project was built, they have been boL•hered by traffic and parY.ing in front of their houses, and playing of loud music, and they have to clean up after the people who have L•een there every weekend and she thought i:ith more people coming into the area, t!~ose problems will be worse. Claris Turnquist, 2866 St.Pollc, agreed that apartments do not enl~arrce propert}~ values and Chat he moved L•irere years ago because of the junior high school which has been removed and replaced uit}~ Dousing and stated the area is becoming too over-developed. Sara Gibbons stated slie is a pa;t owner on Teri Circlz and moved 9 years ago and staL•ed there are no original owners on Teri Circle and that slie has watched tine area deteriorate because of the shopping centers. She stated these homes were never a part of the tract in the rear; and that there is a lot more traffic now and that she feels sorr}~ for anyone living on Teri Circle whc cannot take advantage of an opportunity to relocate. Ms. Gibbons questioned whzt:her or not the City has rights to the street and Chairman Messc pointed out it is Cik,y property nou. Mr. Hanna stated there seeris to be two tracts here, Teri Circle and Bel Air, and in essence they were one track.; L•hat concerning parking, Lhe}~ will. be providing 160 covered parkino spaces and 28 uncovered and lie did not think any tenant: would park on the streets because the project is designed with parking underneath. Concernin the street, he stated when the}^ develop propert}~, the City tells them how much land is needed for L•he streets and iC ~;',iould be the same when there is a street Clio City no longer needs. Concerning ta:e sale of the homes, he stated some of the homes were for sale already. 2/1/88 ' 88- 166 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COtdMISSION, Februar 1, 1988 Mr. Hanna stated the apartment vacancy rate in Anaheim is 3% right now and they would not be malting this request if ti~ere was no demand. Hetraffic,l1theyuwillobeanswer flee concern about Police response time and Lliat: regarding generatiJJg less traffic than a commercial development and explained a commercial project could generate 3 times as much traffic as a residential development. Al Marshall explained they are proposing about 50% mOrcoverinattheocenter arrea. He required and they would lil;~ to even increase that by ro ect, L•heir management stated when there is a certain number of cizildrenu=nosepofJt:liese units is not solely company puts in swing sets, etc. He stated Llie p p fo.r families with children, l:ut they do not discriminate in that regard. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Responding to Commissioner Bouas, Mr. Hanna stated the parking structure will lJe 3-1/2 feet below grade and the maximum heigh~ froaduates loing aoayl1frlomgLincolnrtion YJill C11 is on Lincoln is 35 feet:, and the lie ig it g g Responding to Commissioner Bouas, Anniica SantalaliLi, Zoning Administrator, stated the school district involved is always notified and that staff leas received no comments from them regarding this project. Monica Potter, 2857 Polk, stated she spoke with the principal of Lhe Schwitzer School and he said no one had contacted him and he did not think the Magnolia School. District uas notified. Chairman Messe stated the school district was notified. Ms. Santalahti corrected her previous statement and stated there is a letter in Lhe file from John A. Allison, Principal., Albert Schwitzer School, and noted it was presented at the previous hearing. She explained the letter was received after the staff report had been prepared. Commissioner Carusillo asked about t:lie recreation area where Lhe children can play. Mr. Dfarshali stated they want to cover Lhe central area to provide more area, but otherwise, there is a greenbelt• area along tl~e back. He stated L•hey would like to cover the open parking spaces with a deck and landscape et leavinglitoopenrdoesntton area, but L•liey could leave to count it as lot coverage, y enhance flee project. He responded to Commissioner Herbst that in this case they have requested a waiver any~ray and that tiie intent of flee requirement is to provide open area for livable space, cut flee uay iL is defined in the Code, it counts against flee project. Mr. Hanna staged ire hopes that is a section of the Cod? that can he charged because tiie Council agreed on flee 156-unit Savanna SL•rcet project• to al.locr L•lie parking to be covered in order to provide more recreational area. He stated tizat would provide a 6000 sq. ft. area where the children could play, but they cannot doolt, spa andll satisf}~ flee site coverage regLireme~e coverase,tleventtlioughmiL•ngspopen and he felt recreation area is considered as g ara es coming the Code needs to be modified because there are a lot of subterranean g 9 in and that L•he fooL•print of L•he building is what should be counted. 2/1/88 MINDTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING, COMMISSION, February 1, 1988 _ _ 88- Chairman Messe stated he would agree with covering that area and agreed with what Council did with the Savanna Street project and asked what type covering it would be and what type of recreation area would be provided. Mr. Hanna responded it would be concrete and then planted with grass and landscaped and there would be an area for a playground, with possibly some equipment, etc. Commissioner Carusiilo asked the possibility of changing the Code to permit the parking structure to be covered and not counted as site coverage. Annika Santalahti stated the problem is that this is a partially subterranean garage and it is a structure and that site coverage and recreational space are not the same thing; that looking at the property, site coverage is the mass of building to be seen; and in this instance, looking at the project, a person xould see the 5-1/2 foot high garage. She stated they are two separate issues and if the center is modified with a cover, the site coverage would go up and the leisure area would increase, assuming they did develop it with something valid and not just pavement. It was clarified if the Commission approved that proposal, the site coverage would be 79% with the deck and that the matter xould not have to be readvertised. Commissioner Carusiilo stated it seems ridiculous not to use that area. Responding to Commissioner Bouas, Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated commercial traffic is calculated based on the square footage of the building and a commercial development would generate 3 times as much traffic as a residential development and noted a commercial use such as a 7-11 xould generate approximately 300 trips pet day per 1000 square feet. Commissioner Feldhaus stated the developer had mentioned three alternatives to mitigate the sewer issue and asked if the matter has been resolved a;~d referred to Condition No. 6 on page 11 of the staff report. Mr. Marshall stated they have been given the information required to go ahead with production drawings and arrange foc the eolution; however, if there is no capacity, the building permits would not be issued, and they have been given the information that the capacity exists in the line on Lincoln, provided they rechannel it He stated they have also explored the possibility of getting service from the City of Huena Park. Mr. Hanna stated they have to study the most economical way to resolve the sewer issue and the project can be built and they have the capacity, but have to determine the costs. Chairman Messe stated two residents on Teri Circle indicated they are surrounded by commercial and asked if this area should be commercial or residential. Leonard McGhee, Associate Planner, stated the traffic generated from a commercial development would be more; however. it would not be at pea Y, hours like a residential use, and would be more spread out thoroughout the day and a commercial use would be closed at night and that a 7-11 type facility could be designed so that it would not impact the residents to the north, and a use such as a fast food restaurant would have to have a public hearing. Chairman Messe stated his concern is whether or not this project is proper for residential or commercial. Mr. Hanna responded residential uses exist on Lincoln between the commercial developments, so this would be nothing out of the ordinary. 2/1/88 MINOTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 1, 1988 88-165 Chairman Messe stated he is considering the fact that there are a lot of apartments on Lincoln and also the impact on those neighbors and asked to see the line of sight elide agaia. After seeing the slide, Chairman Messe stated the people that back up to Polk will be seeing more than the fence and the first level, and that they will see the mass of the second level. Mr. Marshall stated they cannot see the front line of units from their residences and that there will be a 8-foot wall. He pointed out the areas of the 18 foot high roof peak and the 26-foot hig-i area. Commissioner Herbst stated he has a problem with the density of this project and with removing six single family homes using the excuse that they are on Lincoln, and then proposing 12 or 19 of these apartment units fronting Lincoln, 35 feet away. He added if that location is not suitable for peopJ.e to live there in those single-family homes, he did not see lion it could be good e,:~ugh for the tenants of thuse units. Mr. Hanna stated the people inside those units would not be able to hear the noise from Lincoln because the project is set back 35 feet; and also that apartment dwellers are different than home dwellers and vould not mind the fact they are fronting on Lincoln. He pointed out there are many apartments facing Lincoln and Ball and Magnolia. Mr. Marshall responded to Commissioner Herbst that the patios and windows will be facing Lincoln. He explained the apartments are a greater density than the homes, but they do allow for security with controlled access which reduces the flagrant in and out passing, and that it does have the same noise level, but there is difference because of ownership and the commercial uses ar.d traffic and noise from Lincoln do affect the value of the single-family home. ffegarding the concern expressed about Police response time, Mr. Marshall stated thiF. pYR:ject vial provide a greater security than the six homes. Mr. Hanna explained they have a project on Bali Road with patios facing Ball, similar to this project, and the units on Ball are the first ones to be rented. Commissioner Mc Burney stated there are a let of apartments facing Lincoln betveen Magnolia and Dale. Commissioner Herbst respvnded Dale ;ls not the same and added he was concerned the density is getting out of hand and is impacting the traffic all over the city creating gridlock. He added he realizes there is a need far more apartments, but removing 6 homes and replacing them with 75 apartment unite just seems to be too much and that possibly the RM-1200 zone should be re-evaluated all over Anaheim. Commissioner Herbst stated even though the develop;;r has to pay fees to the school district, there is already a problem with overcrowding it the schools and any additional students will probably have to be h~ss:~d to same other location. He stated also this is a request for a variance for 2 stories within 39 feet of a single-family residence and that is something the Commission has not app~vved in the past. Mi. Hanna stated this Commission has approved projects at 2~ feet. Commissioner Herbst stated he feels too man; apartments are being developed and that this propert; is probably suited for apartments, but not this many. He stated the neighbors will be looking at a massive builbiF.g. 2/1/88 MINDTES, ANAHEIM CITY. PLANNING COMMISSION, February 1, 1988 88- 169 Annika Santalahti stated the Code was changed less than a year ago and prior to that it said if the bottom story of the structure was more than 50% belox grade and xas not inhabitable, such as for parking, then it would not be considered as a story. She stated a number of projects came in with one story above a basement garage and there xas a lot of dissatisfaction xith that, and nox the Code says that within a 150-foot distance of a single-family zone, it is going to be counted as a story, so that even if this xere fully belox grade, it xould be considered a story for the purpose of the xaiver. Commissioner Herbst stated tandem parking has had a large impact also and if it was not allowed. the deveiopers xould not be able to get• this many units and he thought that is another requirement that should be reviewed. Commissioner Bouas stated slie thought apartments are appropriate for this particular property. Commissioner Feldhaus stated there is RM-1200 all around it. Commissioner Bopdstun stated those RM-1200 projects did not have all these xaivers and that is what is increasing the density. Mr. Hanna stated the variance is created because of the affordable housing requirements and also that the value of the land which they are assembling is high and it is difficult to put together a project like this. Commissioner Herbst stated the Planning Commission has to look at the land use and impact this project would have on the surrounding area and not at the dollar value of the property. He stated in his opinion, this density is too high and is going to cause congestion on the streets. He stated the projects developed under the old RM-1200 standards do not have this much impact because of the parking situation. He stated he thought the City is going to have to make some drastic changes and this is a good place to start. Commissoner Carusillo stated that whole area is saturated with RM-1200 and he thought denying this would be denying this developer something other people have. Commissioner H~:rhst stated he could reduce the density to the number allowed which is what some of those projects are and pointed out the project at Tyler and Aale is developed as RM-1200 for about 88 units on a lot which is maybe 3 times as large as this property. It was noted the RM-1200 Zone permits 36 units per acre and the RM- 2400 zone permits 1F. units per acre. Commissioner Herbst stated there is a need for affordable housing, but if it requires this much density and this many waivers, maybe this is the wrong place for affordable units since it impacts everyone living there, and responded to Mr. Hanna that it does impact the area and the schools and that a variance is acceptable, as long as it doee not affect the neighbors. He stated the difference with a two-story single-family home versus an apartment complex with how many units across the back is the quantity of people. Comparing this project with a strip commercial development, he stated a strip commercial use is not as dense as far as traffic is concerned, depending on the type of commercial uses that could be put there. He stated perhaps a study of that area should be done. Commissioner Bouas stated in looking at the commercial uses and the apartments that have gone iz on Lincoln, they have certainly cleaned up Lincoln and she thought apartments would look a ]ot better 'than strip commercial which might nat succed and then become run down. 2/1/88 MINIITES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 1, 1988 88- 170 Chairman Messe stated he thought the problem is the density and that possibly an RM-2900 project could be designed that would not intrude on the neighbors to the rear. Commissioner Bouas asked if there is anyway to cut down the size of the project. Mr. Hanna responded no matter what, they would atilt have to request a variance because ~f the single-family homes. He added reducing the density would probably make the project not feasible; and also this would offer affordable units to people xho have been on a waiting list for six years. Chairman Messe stated he thought they had done an excellent job designing this project and its putting together this land assembly, but wished the project was less intrusive on the neighborhood to the north. Tom Morgan stated he has ;ieard people compare this project's height to the parachute ride at Rnott's Berry Farm; and that he lives next door to the shopping center to the west at the corner of Bel Air and it has 7 30-foot high structure and this project is only 5 feet higher. Commissioner Herbst stated most people are concerned about the density. Commissioner Feldhaus stated the visual intrusion was a concern to the neighbors on Polk and Its though that has been mitigated by the redesign and he did not think this developer should be penalized because of density problems creating traffic congestion because the City Traffic Engineer doesn't have any concern. He added also there is RM-1200 development completely surrounding the site and he thought it is a proper use and fits there. ACTION: Commissioner Feldhaus offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Carusillo, and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commissiir, has reviewed the proposal to change the current Generai Plan designation on the Land IIse Element from Iow-medium density residential to medium density residential, aZoneoto thesRMf1200 subject property from the RS-7200 (Residential, Single-Family) (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zone and to construct a 2 to 4-story 7`_.-unit "affordable" apartment complex on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.8 acres, leaving a frontage of approximately 300 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, approximately 325 feet east of the centerline of Bel Air Street and further described as 106, 107, 110, 111, 112 and 113 N. Teri Circle; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration on the basis that it has considered the proposed Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the initial Study and any co•,aments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project xili have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Feldhaus offered a resolution Zecommending that General Plan Amendment No. 238 be adopted, Exhibit A, for medium density residential land uses. Commissioner Herbst• stated the property next door is designated low-medium density residential on the General Plan and he thought that is how this property should be designated. 2/1/88 MINDTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 1, 1988 __ 88- 171 On roll call, the foregoing resolution FAILED TO CARRY by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: SOIIAS, CARIISILLO, FELDHAUS NOES: COMMISSIONERS: BOYDSTIIN, HERSST, MESSE, MC BIIRNEY ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC88-39 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend denial of General Plan Amendment No. 238, thereby leaving the designation for low-medium density residential land uses. On rol'_ call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOIIAS, HOYDSTIIN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERSST, MESSE, MC GURNEY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC 88-40 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny Reclassification No. 87-88-35, on the basis that General Plan Amendment No. 238 to redesignate the propety for medium density residential land uses submitted in conjunction with subject reclassification was denied. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOYDSTUN, HERSST, MESSE, MC BURNEY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: BOUAS, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC 88-41 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny Variance No. 3792 or. the basis that General Plan Amendment No. 238 and Reclassification No. 887-68-35 were denied, thereby prohibiting subject xaivers. On roll call, the foregoing resolution xas passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: HOYDSTUN, HERSST, MESSE, MC BURNEY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: SODAS, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend City Council review of Reclassification No. 87-88-35 and Variance No. 3792 i.n conjunction with General Plan Amendment No. 238. 2/1/88 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 1, 1986 88-172 ITEM N0. 11. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 235, RECLASSIFICATION N0. 87-88-32, AND VARIANCE N0. 3738. PULLIC HEARING. OWNERS: SANTOS BECERRA AND ROSA BECERP.A, 1014 E. North Street, Anaheim, CA 92805, DONALD R. SMALLEY AND JERI M. HOLLINGSWORTH, 1020 E. North Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 and JAMES R. NEEDHAM AND SHIRLEY A. NF,EDHAM, 1028 E. North Street, Anaheim, CA 92801 AGENT: MAGDY HANNA, 4000 MacArthur Bouelvard, Suite X680, Newport Beach, CA 92660. Property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.07 acres, having a frontage of approximatelyl10 feet on the south side of North Street, approximately 190 feet west of the centerline of East Street, and further described as 1019, 2020 and 1028 East North Street. Reclassification: RS-7200 to RM-2400 Waivers of minimum building site area per dwelling unit, maximum structural height, and minimum floor area of dwelling unit to conat•ruct a 29-unit, 2-story, "affordable" apartment complex. Continued from the meeting of January 4, 1988. Tt was noted the petitioner has requested a two-week continuance in ordez to readvertise a new waiver generated by revised plans. ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of February 17, 1988, at the request of the petitioner. THE FOLLOWING ITEM WAS HEARD FOLLOWING ITEM N0. 8. ITEM N0. 12. CEQA IEGATIVE DECLARATION {PREVIOUSLY APPROVED) AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1517. PUBLIC HEARING. EXTENSION OF TIME. OWNERS: ROBERT HOSTETTER, 21.29 W. Victoria, Anaheim, CA 92804. Property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 7,700 square feet, located at the northwest corner of Wilhelmina Street and Lemon Street, and further described as 703 N. Lemon Street. Request - Approval of a 2-year retoactive to May 28, 1987, extension of time to retain a board and care facility for the treatment of alcoholics. Continued from the meeting of January 4, 1988. Robert Hostetter, 2129 Victoria, stated he did receive the list of concerns on the 19th and has not had much time to do ali the things requested by today, but that he did give the Code Enforcement Officer, Don Yourstone, a good update; and concerning the dedication referenced in the staff report for street widening purposes at the corner of Wilhelmina and Lemon, he indicated he would have no problem complying with that request. He stated he could comply with the balance of the list in the next 5 to 7 days. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. MINIITES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION February 1, 1988 g8-173 Responding to Commissioner Herbst, Mr. Hostetter stated he had realized there were some violations, but was not aware of this list; and also that he has no control over the parking that is occuring on the street. He explained they have posted a notice to their residents that they are not supposed to park on the street and they will be happy to enforce that in the future. Commissioner Herbst stated he has no problem granting an extension of time for this uee but that he would be taking a closer look in the future because of the complaints. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC88-92 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant a 2-year extension of time (retroactive to May 28, 1987) for Conditional Use Permit No. 1517 to expire on May 28, 1989, ~n the basis that the permit is being exercised in a manner not detrimental to the particular area and surrounding land uses, nor co the public peace, halth, safety and general welfare. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOYDSTDN, BOUAS, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MESSE MC BIIRNEY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COt~A1ISSI0NERS: NONE Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision xithin 22 days to the City Council. MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION February 1 1988 88 -174 13. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIOliS Commissioner Carusillo left the Council Chambers. A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1218 - Review of Proposed Use (4-Wheel Drive Repair Facility) at 1401-1515 North Kraemer Boulevard. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, explained this applicant has a business license which is subject to the review of the Planning Commission to determine whether outside parking is adequate. She stated a general conditional use permit was granted a number of years ago and to include this use without the Commission making the proper determination would be stretching that definition. Eric Heiden, applicant, explained he has been in this location for five years and is just moving to a different unit in the same complex. He explained he specializes in four wheel drive vehicles and does not do general automotive repair. Annika Santalahti stated if the Commission is thinking of approving this request, a site plan should be submitted to identify the available parking spaces and the other tenants. She explained if this is considered as retail, parking requirements would be 5.5 instead of 2.5. Chairman Messe stated he thought this should be reviewed as a separate item and also the other uses in the complex should be reviewed to make sure the parking is adequate. Mr. Heiden stated a list of tenants was included in his submittal. Chairman Messe suggested this be considered as a report and recommendation at the next meeting with a list of the tenants and a site plan showing the square footages of the different uses. ACTION: Commissioner Mc Burney offered a motion; siaconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Carusillo temporarily absent) that consideration of the aforementioned-matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of February 17, 1988, in order for the applicant to submit a site plan showing the square footages of the units and list of tenants. Commissioner Feldhaus asked about the business license. Mr. Heiden responded he has a license and has had one for five years. Lori Duca, Associate Planner, explained the Business License Division mails a business license gut to the applicant but there is a statement on the license which says the business in question cannot be in violation of any ordinances or codes of the City and also that it may not have zoning approval. 2/1/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Februar~~,l 1988 88 -175 B. RECOMMENDED CODE AMENDMENT - Amend Subsection .020 of SECTION 18.06.040 pertaining to tha minimum width of the small car spaces. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, explained this requested Code amendment is the result cif an extensiv~a survey of existing parking which has been approved for apartments and commercial uses and it was found the 7-1/2-foot wide spaces are being abused which results in a net loss of parking spaces on the lot because vehicles will take up two spaces and a standard ;;ar cannot be parked in a 7-1/2-foot space and still be able to open the door. He stated this study was done to determine what the minimum size space should be for the Stadium parking lot and the recommendation is that the spaces be no smaller than 8 feet wide and 15 feet long. Commissioner Herbst disagreed and stated he has seen 7-1/2 feet wide spaces all over the United States which work very well and pointed out better than 50~ of the vehicles are small cars. He stated one solution is to paint double stripes for small car spaces which discourages larger cars from parking in them. He added his concern would be the cost of the additional land. He added he would like to see the double stripe lines included in the Codes. Commissioner Feldhaus stated he thought there would be an increase in the number of requests for parking waivers with this increase. Mr. Singer stated requiring the additional 6 inches does not make a tremendous difference in the number of spaces and he thought there is a net benefit to the public. Commissioner Herbst stated he would like to see tandem space requirements reduced to allow a lower percentage. Mr. Singer agreed 5e tandem spaces have been abused and should be reduced. Commissioner Mc Burney suggested tandem spaces be reduced to 50~ or perhaps 33~ of the total number of spaces. Mr. Singer stated he would like to proceed with this request for 8-foot wide small car spaces because the 7-1/2-foot wide spaces are just not working. ACTION: Commissioner Mc Burney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Feldhaus and Herbst voting no) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the accompanying draft ordinance be adopted amending Subsection .2G of Section 18.06.040. C. C~QNDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0 2 47 - Request from Leonard W. Gomez for a retroactive extensiau of time in order to comply with conditions of approval on property located at 140 West Ball Road. 2/1/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Febr~~~ 1 1988 88 -176 A TI N: Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Carusillo absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approved a one-year extension of time (retroactive to January 7, 1987) to expire on January 7, 1989. D. TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 12619 - :tequest for extension of time for property located southwesterly of the intersection of Silver Dollar Lane and Eucalyptus Drive. A TI N: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Carusillo absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant a one-year extension of time for Tentative Map of Tract No. 12619 to expire February 3, 1989. E. RECLASSIFICATION N0. 79-80-26 AND VARIANCE N0. 1264 - Request from Philip and Emily Porretta for a termination of Reclassification No. 79-80-26 and Variance No. 1264, property located at 700 South Magnolia Avenue. A TI N: Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC88-43 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby terminate all proceedings in connection with Reclassification No. 79-80-26 and Variance No. 1264. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MCBURNEY AND MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: CARUSILLO F. VARIANCE N0. 698 - Request from Richard R. Renna for a termis:;tion of Variance No. 698, property located at 510 South Euclid Street. A TI N: Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC88-44 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby terminate all proceedings in connection with Variance No. 698. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MCBURNEY AND MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: CARUSILLO G. VARIANCF. N0. 856 - Request from Mike Patel for a termination of Variance No. 856, property located at 2141 South Harbor Boulevard. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC88-45 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby terminate all proceedings in connection with Variance No. 856. 2/1/88 MIh~JTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Feb~uary 1 1988 88 -177_ On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: SODAS, SOYDSTUN, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MCBURNEY AND MESSF. NOES: NONE ABSENT: CARUSILLO H. VARIANCE N0. 950 - Request from Shirish Patel for a termination of Variance No. 950, property located at 631 West Katella Avenue. A TI N: Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC88--46 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby terminate all proceedings in connection with Variance No. 950. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MCBURNEY AND MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: CARUSILLO I. VARIANCE N0. 1070 - Request from Robert F. Baker for termination of Variance No. 1070, property located at 2172 West Orange Avenue. A TI N: Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC88-47 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby terminate a21 proceedings in connection with Variance No. 1070. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MCBURNEY ALiD MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: CARUSILLO J. VARIANCE NO 3652 - Request from Chris Quesada for termination of Variance No. 3652, property located at 1515 East Ratella Avenue. A TI N: Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC88-48 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby terminate all proceedings in connection with Variance No. 3652. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: SODAS, BOYDSTUN, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MCBURNEY AND MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: CARUSILLO 2/1/88 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION February 1 1988 88 -178 K, c'nNDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 787 - Request from Shirish Patel for termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 787, property located at 631 West Ratella Avenue. A TI N: Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC68-49 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby terminate all proceedings is connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 787. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MCBURNEY AND MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: CARUSILLO L. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1808 - Request from John R. Townsend for termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 1808, property located at 3174 West Ball Road. A^„TION: Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC88-50 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby terminate all proceedings in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 1808. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AXES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MCBURNEY AND MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: CARUSILLO M. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2228 - Request from Chris D. Van Gorder for termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 2228, property located at 1006 West La Palma Avenue. A TI N: Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC88-~1 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby terminate all proceedings in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 2228. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MCBURNEY AND MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: CARUSILLO N. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2758 - Request from Jupiter Business Corporation for a retroactive extension of time to comply with conditions of approval, property located at 1098 North State College Boulevard. 2/1/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION February 1 1 86 -179 ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner fierpst (Commissioner Carusillo was absent) and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commissian does hereby approve a 1-year extension of time (retroactive to February 3, 1987) to expire on February 3, 1989, for Conditional Use Permit No. 2758. 0. ORANGE COUNTY ENVIR0NMENTIL AGIiNC`~ - RE UEST TO DETERMINE CONF~RMAN E WZTH THE GENERAL PLAN The Orange County General Services Agency is proposing to occupy 36,666 square feet of leased industrial, space in a building located at 1985 South Santa Cruz Street in Anaheim. A TIQ: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Carusillo absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find that the repair and installation of communication equipment for governmentsl vehicles at 1985 South Santa Cruz Street would be conformance with the Anaheim General Plan. Commissioner Carusillo returned to the meeting. P. STATE OF CALIF RNIA - Notice of operation of Parole Office from State Department of General Services at 1400 N. Burton Place, northwest of the intersection of State College Boulevard and Freeway 91. Commissioner Herbst stated if the State wants to use that property, they should apply for a conditional use permit so the neighbors will be notified. John Pagliassotti, broker, representing the owner of the building, stated the State would like to put a parole office at this location and that the property has been used as an office for five years. He responded to Commissioner Herbst that he did not think it would be "out of order" for the State to go through the conditional use permit process. He stated the State has been made aware of the City's position. Joseph Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, stated generally the Mate and County are exempt from zoning laws. Commissioner Feldhaus agreed the adjacent property owner should be notified. Chairman Messe suggested recommending that the City Council notify the State that the City of Anaheim would like the owners in the area notified of their intent and recommended that they apply for a conditional use permit so there will be a public hearing. 2/1/88 zt - _: MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION February 1 1988 88 -1 A TI N: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McSurney and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Carusillo absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council inform the State Department of General Services that the operation of a State Parole Office at 1400 N. Burton Place, northwest of the intersection of State College Boulevard and the 91 Freeway is not consistent with the City's General Plan designation (General industrial) and Zoning (Indust;:ial, Limited) for the site. The Planning Commission further recommends that L•he City Council recommend to the State that shoult: they wish to pursue their proposal, they should proceed with a Conditional Use Permit application to provide an opportunity for the surrounding property owners to be informed and comment on the proposed use. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~ ~~iQ~ Edith L. Harris, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission 1-0696p 2/1/88