Loading...
Minutes-PC 1988/05/09i L _ ~~ MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION May 9, 1988 The regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission vas called to order at 10:00 a.m., May 9, 1968, by the Chairman in the Council Chaobers, a quorum being present, and the Commission reviewed plans of the items on today's agenda. RECESS: 11:30 a.m. RECONVENED; 1:35 p.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Hesse Bouas, Boydstun, Carusillo, Feldhaus, Herbst, HcBurney COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: NONE ALSO PRESENT: Joel Fick Planning Director Annika Santalahti Zoning Administrator Joseph W. Fletcher Deputy City Attorney Arthur L. Daw Deputy City Engineer Gary Johnson City Engineer Paul Singer Traffic Engineer Debbie Fank Associate Traffic Engineer Debbie Vagts Housing Operations Coordinator Greg Hastings Senior Planner Mary McCloskey Senior Planner Leonard McGhee Associate Planner Edith Harris Planning Commission Secretary AGENDA POSTING - A complete copy of the Planning Commission agenda was posted at 10:00 a.m., April 30, 1988, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chambers, and also in the outside display kiosk. Published: Anaheim Bulletin - April 30, 1988. PUBLIC INPUT: Chairman Messe explained at the end of the scheduled hearings, members of the public will be allowed to speak on items of interest which are within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission and/or agenda items. MINOTES FOR APPROVAL: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and NOTION CARRIED (Commissioner McBurney abstaining) that the minutes of the meeting of March 19, 1986, be approved as submitted. 88-640 5/9/88 1~~ { ,f MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLA?INING COMMISSION, May 9, 1988 88-641 ITEM N0. 1. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPF.CT REPOP.T N0. 281 (PREVYOOSLY CERTIFIED),TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 13266, 13512, 13512, 13513, 13514, 13515, 13516 13517 AND 13518 AND SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT N0. 88-03. PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: BALDWIN BUILDING COMPANY. 16811 Hale Avenue, Irvine, CA 92714. AGENT: DIANA HOARD, VICE PRESIDENT, THE BALDWIN COMPANY. 16811 Hale Avenue, Irvine, Ca 92714. Property described as approximately 108 gross acres, located within the southwestern portion of The Summit of Anaheim Hills to the south of the future northerly extension of Serrano Avenue, bounded on the west by The Highlands at Anaheim Hills, and bounded on the south by Irvine Company property. Request for approval for removal of specimen trees and the following tract maps: A. TENTATIVE TP.ACT N0. 13266, 14-lot, plus one open space lot, single-family residential detached subdivision. B. TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 13512, 37-lot single-family residential detached subdivision. C. TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 13513, 31-lot plus two open space lots, single-family residential detached subdivision. D. TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 13514, 28-lot plus one open space lot, single-family residential detached subdivision. E. TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 13515, 28-lot plus txo open space lots, single-family residential detached subdivision. F. TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 13516, 38-lot, single-family residential detached subdivision. G. TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 13517, 28-lot, single-family detached subdivision. H. TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 13518, 14-lot, single-family detached subdivision. Continued from the meetings of April 11, 1988, and April 25, 1988. Chairman Messe noted the petitioner has just submitted a letter requesting a two-week continuance. ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McSurney and MOTION CARRIED than consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of May 23, 1988, at the request of the petitioner. 5/9/88 . , ,f MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 9, 1988 88-642 ITEM N0. 2. PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 285. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 210 - CIRCULATION ELEMENT AND RECOMMENDED CODE AMENDMENT. INITIATED BY THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, to designate the folloxing as Critical Intersections: Anaheim and Ball* Anaheim and Cerritos* Ball and Beach Ball and Brookhurst Ball and Euclid Ba11 and Harbor Hall and Lexis* Ball and State College• Beach and Lincoln Brookhurst and Katella Brookhurst and La Paima Cerritos and State College* Convention Way and Harbor Convention Way and Haster Euciid and La Palma Euclid and Lincoln Harbor and Katella Harbor and La Palma Hester and Katella Noxell a:~d Katella Ratella and Lexis* Ratella and State College• Kraemer and La Palma Kraemer and Orangethorpe La Palma and Imperial Highway La Palma and Lakeview La Falma and Lakeview La Palma and Hagnolia La Palma and State College La Palma and Tustin Lincoln and Magnolia Orangethorpe/Imperial Highway Orangewood and State College* •Previously adopted as critical intersections in General Plan Amendment No. 214 on March 17, 1987. This General Plan Amendment proposes to enhance the intersections by up to 12 feet for a distance of 600 feet from the corner right-of-way line. The intent is that prior to issuance of building permits, Conditional Use Permits, Variances or other related zoning and building actions on the adjacent properties, the property owners make an irrevocable offer to dedicate such additional right-of-way as required. The cost of widening xill be borne by the City or other responsible parties. Continued from the meeting of April 11, 1988. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated this amendment could possibly be a part of the solution to traffic congestion in the City of Anaheim, and is one solution staff has been pursuing in concert xith the Vision 2000 program. He stated it is obvious that something has to be done in this city to bring some relief to traffic congestion, and one of the solutions is the critical intersection concept which vas discussed at the last meeting and xhich entails xidening just at the critical intersections rather than widening the entire streets. He explained these are the locations where the greatest congestion is occurring at the present time and which without relief will be a serious impediment to normal business in the future. He explained this will be a widening at the approach to each critical intersection to two left turn lanes, three through travel lanes and a separate right turn lane with services and space provide for bus areas in order to serve the public that is going to have to travel on buses and also get the buses away from the travel lanes while they are loading or unloading passengers. 5/9/88 ~_~ MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 9, 1988 88-643 Debbie Fank, Associate Traffic Engineer, presented slides showing the different critical intersections; the existing roadway configuration and ultimate right of way and lane configuration that exists in Anaheim; and explained the primary intersection xould have a maximum of 106 feet of right of xay and a major would have 120 feet of right of way, 3 through lanes and each leg has one left turn only lane. She explained approximately 20% of all the traffic is turning at the intersection and the critical intersection vas designed to handle that traffic and it has dual left turn lanes and a separate bus lane. She presented slides of the traffic taken from a helicopter to show examples of what could be prevented with the critical intersection design at the intersections of Ball and Harbor and Haster and Katella. She explained the critical intersection design will reduce congestion by approximately 22%, Paul Singer stated there are two options and one is widening the entire street which in his opinion is not necessary, but it is necessary, however, to increase capacity at the intersections because that is where the time and space are not available to accommodate the turning vehicles. He explained the critical intersection design would incre.sc the capacity on the streets end thereby reduce congestion and prevent gridlock and bring the Circulation Element into closer conformance with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and be in concert with the Vision 2000 Strategy. Mr. Singer stated this has been introduced to the Transportation Committee of the Chamber of Commerce and they support the concept of the Critical Intersection plan. He stated there are two distinct parts to this plan and the Planning Commission may adopt the Circulation Element incorporating the 24 additional intersections and recommend to the City Council a methodology for implementation of the Critical Intersection General Plan Amendment. He stated Method A is the dedication of right of va}• at the time the conditional use permit, variance, zone change or building permit takes place, and at that time the city could ask the developer to make an irrevocable offer to dedicate the property. He stated Method B would be an irrevocable offer to dedicate only in case there is a zoning action and a hearing before the Planning Commission such as a conditional use permit, variance, or zone change and not automatically with a building permit. He stated there is no cost in either case for improvement relocation to the adjacent property owners and that cost Mould have to be borne by the agency doing the widening such as the City, or perhaps as a condition of a large development that is impacting traffic at that location. Mr. Singer stated should this amendment not be adopted, congestion will continue to be increased, the Circulation Element would be completely out of sync with the Land Use Element and as we increase densities in the city, the circulation element has to keep pace and be consistent with development, or the business climate will deteriorate and it is going to be very difficult to access adjacent businesses at these critical intersections because congestion viii not permit entry of the traffic into the street and some of the adjacent property owners are already experiencing difficulty exiting onto the street from their property, and this will get worse. He stated also the quality of life xill be substantially impaired and delays at these intersections will be continually increasing and the direct cost of this delay is then the public's burden. 5/9/88 r; MINIITES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION May 9, 1988 RA Fi44 Mr. Singer stated traffic has been rated the number one concern by the citizens of Anaheim, and this proposal is a long-range plan and the City will not make any demands for dedication; and that this general plan amendment will make it possible for the City to preserve the right of way for the future widening of the intersections and it will also create a priority listing of which intersections should be improved first. He added this type of improvement is the futureaandhthevCitythas establishedtactargetawith theoVision 2000p1an for Mr. Singer stated in order to alleviate the current congestion and prevent future gridlock citywide, 24 intersections have been proposed to be constructed at the critical intersection standards and the cost is about ;1,50G,000 per sntersection; however, that varies and some could be as little as ;750,000. He explained those figures do not include any relocatrovalfofaaiconditional use private property and without teiofdzoninglaction~, that cost will double and permit, a variance or some typ probably make the realization of this improvement not possibestiongwilllworsen curtail it. He stated to delay this program means that cong neater and while the cost to implement the critical intersection later will be g traffic is nat going to decrease. He stated this is only one of the plans to remedy the situation; and the Traffic Engineering staff is working on other alternatives such as the interconnect of traffic signals, and working closely with the State on the widening of the Saanc Avehiclewlanesoon6the 57 freewaynd also working with CALTRANS on high occup Y and the widening possibility of the Riverside Freeway. He stated Ms. Sylvia Selenez from P b B Technologies will address concerns mentioned at the last hearing. Sylvia Selenez stated the implementation mechanism is a separate action from the general plan amendment to adopt the t;ritical Intersection as an overlay to the Circulation Element. She stated in the interest of being as consistent as possible with the City's current requirements for dedication alloying for implementation oresentedrforttherCommission's considerationerthaticurrentlytthe mechanisms are p City requires dedication of land to the current Circulation Element right o way width and payment for the cost of ultimate improvements for all building permits except interior modifications and additions of less thwhen~000can bet within a peric~s of two years; that variances are gtanted only shown that the public's health, safety or welfare will not be adversely affected or where the costs of the improvements are disportionate to the value of the project for which the permits are sough~ovementstaredcurrentlyirequired dedication and payment for the cost of the expand conditional use permits. She for all general plan amendments, zone Chang stated recognizing that the critical intersection designation requires dedications on valuable corner parcels, some of which are rather small in size, the City Attorney has proposed two possible nays to amend the Municipal Code to provide for implementation of the critical intersection designation: the first states that the irrevocable offer of dedication of land WOOStsbofrthelred just as it is now for the cubeeim osedtforftheyexisting Circulation Element width improvement would only P and not for the additional 12 feet of wida~e aov.eXShetstatedntheasecondsoption these requests would be *.he same as they 5/9/88 ~~.. 1 . MINUTES ANAAEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 9 1988 RA-Fa5 proposed by the City Attorney eliminates the requirement for dedication beyond the Circulation Element right of way xidth, but does require that setbabks for new construction be measured from that ultimate right of way width, so the second option requires that the City both purchase the right of xay and pay for the improvement and it does require, however, that any new construction on the site be behind the critical intersection right of way. Ms.selenez stated one of the issues raised at the last meeting vas that the citizens felt that the proposed amendment constituted a taking without compensation and they do not feel that is the case; that the City does have an overall responsibility to provide an adequate circulation system as part of its role in providing for the public's health, safety and welfare and as seen from the slides, there is not an adequate circulation system. She stated the system has to be compatible with the General Plan and, therefore, the City's action to amend the Circulation Element is not unwarranted and the means to implement the designation do not constitute a taking since the two options presented are far less stringent than current dedication and cost of improvement requirements under the Municipal Code for implementation of the existing Circulation Element. She stated the proposed amendments to provide for the CID provide for a special case to benefit the property owners by reducing the normal requirements. Ms. Selenez stated there vas some earlier concern about how the intersections were chosen and explained they were all crossings of major and/or primary arterial streets which currently experience levels of failure. Also the effect on the small corner parcel vas a concern discussed, and stated again no change would occur at those locations unless the property owner decided to change the use or expand the use on the property, or the City decided to implement the critical intersection due to an overriding need to improve the traffic situation. She stated in the case of a request for a change or exiansion in the use, such as a general plan amendment, zone change, variance, or conditional use permit or a building permit for a significant expansion, the implementation options that were presented would apply. She stated if the City decided to implement the critical intersection, the City would have to acquire the property and pay for the improvements and construct the street and a full environmental review xouid be required. Ms. Selenez stated there vas a concern mentioned that the CID would discourage reinvestment and pointed out that interior modifications and renovations are not affected by this program based on the Code Amendments suggested and expansions of any structures which amounts to less than 1,000 sq. ft. over a two year period do not trigger the requirement for dedication and one of the implementation mechanisms requires no dedication and neither require payment of the costs of improvements. Ms. Selenez stated another suggestion vas that the City use signal coordination rather than CID to improve the performance and it vas mentioned that the City will be developing such a program; however, it is clear that because of the magnitude of the turning movements, that would not work, and explained signal coordination works best where turning movements are very minimal because it tries to alloy a lot of "green" time for the major through movement and doesn't alloy for the turning movements as yell ae the critical intersection solution. 5/9/88 ~..? ~ MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 9, 1988 ___ 88-646 She stated another suggestion was reduction of lane widths but the critical intersection is an amendment to the General Plan and must conform to the standard lane widths provided by the city's arterial standards in the Circulation Element and because it is a General Plan designation, it is non specific to a given location and each intersection design would be considered on a case by case basis and the configuration which best meets the capacity needs while minimizing other adverse environmental issues would be determined at the time of implementation. Ms.Selenez stated there was a concern that this would affect home resale values and stated sales could occur with no requirement for dedication, as long as there was no change in the residential use of the site or no change in the building greater than 1,000 sq. ft. a:•=r two years and the other possibility is that the City might initiate it in an effort to improve a critical intersection xhere residential properties might be involved and in that case the City would have to pay for the property and the environmental process would have to be folloxed. She added the City does not xant to take residential property and that would be a last resort only if it was determined design could not be achieved which would avoid acquisition of residential property and that would also be on a case by case basis. Ms.Selenez stated several individuals stated they xould be concerned about who would pay for the relocation of existing signs and it should be made clear that those signs that are currently within the critical intersection right of way would be relocated by the City under both of the implementation strategies; however, xith the CID adoption, nex signs constructed in the right of way would only be alloyed if the property owner obligates to pay for its relocation at the time the CID is implemented. She stated there is no priority list or schedule at this time and there are no funds set aside for CID projects and the implementation of CID is viewed as a long term proposition. Ms. Selenez stated there xas a question about the displacement of residents as identified in the environmental impact report and pointed out an EIR has to identify the "worst case" scenario and basically full buildout of the CID vas considered; however, 91 of the 128 properties affected are located at the Convention Way/Raster Street intersection and that Convention Way does not yet exist in that location and xould have to disturb an existing residentially developed area (The French Quarter) to accommodate its construction and another 12 xere located at Magnolia and Lincoln; however, it now appears that impact could be avoided since the current right of xay includes a 10-foot bicycle lane which has been eliminated from the City's General Plan. It vas noted the staff report needs to be corrected to shoe that location as Hagnolia and Lincoln, rather than Harbor and La Palma. 5/9/88 HINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COI4fISSION, Hay 9, 1988 Paul Singer stated staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the General Plan Amendment and recommend that one of the proposed Code amendments be adopted by ~,he City Council. Chairman Messe reopened the public hearing since there were 5 or 6 people present who wanted to speak. Joseph Weinberg, representing Frank Cozza, owner of property at the corner of Hrookhurst and Hall, stated he is totally amazed that the City is considering something that will cost approximately 1-1/2 million dollars per intersection for physical improvements alone, recognizing that relocation costs have not been estimated and that there is no money allocated. He stated the cost of this compared to the benefit should be reviewed again by the Traffic Engineering staff and they should be told to find an alternative. He referred to a comment that this is not considered as a taking of property without compensation, and he did not agree since 12 feet of property is being taken for the public good without payment to the property owner. He stated the question as to what happens to the traffic once it goes through the intersection has not been answered. He stated there is no question that there is a traffic problem, but all the questions have not been answered. He asked if this is the moat cost effective solution and asked if this is inverse condemnation by stopping property own=rs from properly using their property and asked how the retail business owners will be reimbursed for lost parking and will the City say they will do those improvements without those businesses having the right amount of parking. He referred to a report available to the public, "Questions and Answers", with a question whether or not this would discourage a property owner from improving the property. He stated of course it will discourage improvements. He added whenever private propety is taken for public use, there has to be just compensation. He stated he would like the Commission to reconsider this especially in light of the costs. Howard Sachar, 1732 W. Ball Road, stated the benefit of this plan seems to be the improvement of level of service at each of these intersections and the question of cost is another interesting aspect of a no-cost or low-cost program; and the biggest problem he finds is that if this is an effective plan, why hasn't somebody else tried it, noting the City Engineer at the last meeting indicated that the County of Orange and City of Irvine have done it, and that he investigated both of those and found that the County of Orange has not done it and that they have a plan in a limited area of Ei Toro to implement approximately 50 intersections and there the developers are going to pay for it. He stated Irvine has completed over 50 intersections in which the developers paid for the implementation, and the results in Irvine is that within a matter of months, the level of service vas bask to what it vas before at each of those 50 critical intersections, and it vas only a matter of months, not 10 years like suggested by the consultant here. He stated the plan ignores the basic engineering principle of traffic equilibrium and this plan will not work. He stated the Anaheim arterial traffic is determined by the freeways and the State has now starte3 planning for the widening of I-5 and other freeways, the 55, 57, the Eastern Transportation Corridor designation to the south and east which will dray industry and change all of the traffic patterns. He stated this is a plan which Anaheim proposes to spend over j36 million and take 15 to 20 years to implement when the conditions are totally different. 5/9/B8 ~. ~= MINIITES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION May 9, 1988 88-648 He stated the Irvine situation is unique and the traffic in Irvine origfnates in Irvine and ends in Irvine and they do not dray from the freexays. He stated this plan increases the floe rate and that will increase the number of cars and this will mean traffic rill be 10 times xorse with the same level of service at each intersection. He stated this plan will lead to more cars, more noise, more pollution, more congestion and higher street repair costs and it seems incredible that the city would be xilling to spend over ;36 million to achieve that objective. He suggested xaiting to see what happens with the widening of I-5 and stated the South Coast Air Quality Management Disttict is planning to put teeth into commuting and into carpooling plans and that will change the traffic patterns in Anaheim. He stated the traffic is regional and is not Anaheim traffic. Mr. Sachar stated it will be devastating to property oxnezs to have this hanging over their heads which would reduce property values and urged that this plan be rejected in its present Form. Clarence Kroll, owner of property at 9922 and 9952 Ball Road, explained he owns 250 feet on Ball Road and that it is in Lhe County of Orange and asked what gives Anaheim the right to take something from him. Chairman Messe pointed out he xas probably notified because he owned propt:zty within 300 feet. Paul Singer stated this is not intended to include any property that is not xithin the City of Anaheim. Mr. Kroll stated he has an offer on his property for almost ;20 per sq. ft.or about ;55,000 to ;60.000, and with this requirement for improvements xhich would be about ;15,000, is about 25% of the value. He stated he thought the staff was supposed to rewrite the ordinance and he did not see any changes. Chairman Messe stated an alternate ordinance has been included in the staff report. Gary Jaquith, attorney representing Angelo, Carl and Tommy Sadi, owner of property at the corner of Katella and Harbor, referred to Government Code Section 65909, which provides that no local governmental body may condition the issuance of any building, use permit or zone variance on the dedication of land for any purposes not reasonably related the use of the property for which the variance, building or use permit is requested. He stated he thought a very good argument could be made that the City could not require the dedication as a result of the use of the property, and it seems the City has already taken the position that the dedication of the property is for the benefit of the millions of other people. He stated also he thought it is inherently unfair to require 600 property owners to make a substantial or incur a substantial burden, which for some would be ;600,000, for the benefit of the other people who would get the benefit. He stated the City should spread the burden by condemning the land and paying the reasonable value. 5/9/88 ~.. MINUTES, ;,i?; ~,°. ~• ~ ~), .'': i^kt,3•i:VING COMMISSION, !!ay 9, 1988 88-649 Julie Araiz~;, t"+~i'~ s. (tall Road, stated at the previous meeting two people spoke and seemed to be saying that they have already been required to sign an irrevocable offer to dedicate and she would question that because she did not see how a govenment can enforce a law that has not yet been established. She stated in December 1987 she received notice of this issue and at that time she tried to get a sign permit for a 6'x3'sign and vas told that if this vas passed, she could not get a sign unless she signed the offer. She stated she vas told that for any improvements on the outside, the requirement could be imposed and suggested the Commission should be very careful because in the future should the City get enough land and combine this with a bond issue, it could become effective regardless of what is being said today about this being a long range plan for the future. Bill Reynolds, representing Atlantic Richfield, stated they have businesses located at five of these critical intersections and he is present today applying for a conditional use permit for one of those properties and is being asked to hand over approximately 45,000 sq.ft. of property at a cost of about ;50 sq.ft, or almost 1/4 million dollars, and also to do off-site improvements at that location He stated they havF already dediczted at La Palma and Imperial Highway for this purpose and thought it is totally unfair and their properties are being reduced to a size that is unfit for the type of. business they want to conduct there. Joe Bellt,s, Tait b Associates, representing Unocal, stated the}• have a number of sites affected in the City, and asked the effect of pedestrian traffic on these intersections. Helen Payne, 1406 Castle, stated in talking with the Traffic Engineer, she learned there would definitely be no parking and she notice9 on Ball Road there are many apartments and thought that would be problem. David Chavez, owner of property at the corner of Lakeview and La Palma, stated the traffic problem needs to be solved, but it is all over Orange County and not just Anaheim. He stated he agreed that Freeway 91 and other freeways should be widened and most of this congestion is from freeway traffic. He stated the amity should do something vi t:: the monorail from Disneyland and use it to relieve traffic congestion and suggested one way streets be considered. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Paul Singer referred to Mr.Cozza's property and stated unless he changes the property, no dedication will be required. He stated Mr. SaChar suggested that this is not a solution and the levels of service will continue to get rozse and if nothing is done, the situation is going to become impossible. He stated regarding carpooling, that it vial only affect 2096 of the traffic and congestion will grow. Gary Johnson, City Eagineer, stated normally estimating the costs for relocation is not done when processing a General Plan Amendmeat; that it was suggested ve wait to see what happens when the freeways are widened, and noted that is not likely within 10 years. 5/9/88 MINDTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION May 9, 1988 $$-65Q Mr. Singer stated Mr. Rroll's property would not be affected. He stated there xould be no requirement for dedication unless it vas clear that the use or expansion of use on the property would have an effect on the traffic which would answer the question about the government section quoted. He stated it is not true that a property owner could not put up a sign or would lose their building. Concerning previously signed offers of dedication, he explained those have been made on the basis that if this amendment is passed, they would affected. He added he did not understand the question about pedestrian traffic. Concerning parking on Ball Road, he explained parking on Ball Road would not be affected by this CID whatsoever. He stated parking on an arterial street is removed by ordinance and would be a separate public hearing before the City Council. Concerning Mr. Sacher's comments, he stated this is one solution along with the xidening of the freeways. Concerning the people mover, he stated that would probably be limited to the commercial/recreation area. Regarding one way streets, he stated that would work fine in cities with 600-foot grade streets, but unfortunately Anaheim does not have 600-foot grade streets, and businesses located on a one-xay street would not like that solution to the problem. Commissioner Feldhaus asked Mr. Jaquith where he got the figure of $600,000 to X700,000 as the cost to the landowner. Mr. Jaquith responded that was assuming the landowner had a corner parcel with 600 feet affected and that price was for a property located near the Disneyland area. Concerning the issue of taking property for the benefit of other people, Gary Johnson stated he thought that is a Iegal issue and ;.at a:. cagineering one and the question of using the City's police powers is also a legal question and has nothing to do with the technical merits of this General P]an Amendment. Commissioner Carusillo asked if staff had any information regarding the comments made about the effect this plan had on the City of Irvine intersections. Mr. Singer responded that the City of Irvine vas experiencing the same thing and their General Plan vas not consistent xith their Circulation Element, and their plan vas implemented with the cost to the developers, and that is what is proposed here. He stated that is one way to keep up xith development. He stated the objective is how much traffic can get through an intersection during one period of time and that will increase the businesses, but if traffic is not improved, the quality of life will go dove. Gary Johnson stated a statement vas made that traffic begins and ends in Irvine, but the greatest problem Irvine has is bringing their work force in from Riverside County because Irvine is greatly dependent upon people outside Orange County. Responding to Commissioner's Feldhaus regarding the comment that there would be 20% improvement in the level of service, Aebbie Fank, Associate Traffic Engineer, explained that means 22% of the capacity of Level Service D could go through the intersection; and that Service Level D is acceptable, but E and F are nct. 5/9/88 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Ma 9, 1988 Mr. Singer stated the level of service is measured by the percentage of vehicles making it through, determined by the capacity of the intersection; and that 100% of the capacity when taken up means the intersection is filled. He explained the levels and stated at Level E a vehicle would have to wait through two or more cycles. HP used Ball and Harbor as an example and stated that intersection can be backed up all day. Commissioner Bouas stated all of these intersections are not operating at capacity all day. Mr. Singer responded if nothing is done, that is what will happen. Commissioner Bouas asked how the priority of these intersections vas set and whether the priorities x111 change over time as conditions change such as freeway widening, etc. Mr. Singer stated the priorities were established by the traffic volume and other criteria such as hours of demand and the pace of development and that also includes the freeway widening and many other improvements that take place. Commissioner Feldhaus stated everybody agrees that something needs to be done and he thought it is the manner of implementation of the dedication which is the problem and he thought some of the concerns have been ansxered in Exhibit No. 2 for the Code Amendment. Concerning the number of intersections identified, Mr. Singer stated there are 24 proposed and that 9 nave already been designated. Commissioner Herbst stated he travels many of these intersections and they are busy for 1 to 1-1/2 hours a day and there is a bottleneck; however, he did not think all of thin is necessary. He stated he felt taking property will mean a loss of property which means a loss of money and that he would .like to see another traffic study conducted and a report on every one of these intersections and the results of how many hours a day each one is blocked. He added he knows there are problem areas and he did not think the City should ask citizens to pay for something that is caused by through traffic and not by tb° citizens of Anaheim. He stated he would like to see xhat this is going to cost and that he thought Exhibit No. 2 should be the implementation ordinance recommended to City Council which would require that the City pay the property owners for the property. Concerning the General Plan Amendment, he stated he has been on the Planning Commission for quite a few years and if this amendment is adopted and somebody wants to change something on their property, and the street needs to be widened, the City will demand that they dedicate their property. Gary Johnson stated the criteria used for selecting the intersections was to include those intersections which were currently over capacity and if this is adopted, of those 24 proposed intersections, the ones experiencing the least congestion would be the last to be improved, and that may be 15 to 20 years. He stated basically those intersections which are exceeding capacity were selected and staff viii be getting information as to other causes to present to the City Council since they are the body which will determine priorities for financing transportation improvements. He stated it is true that in some instances, the City will be required to purchase the full parcel and then have to sell the remainder after the improvements are made and that is a legitimate concern and that the City Council will be asking for the entire perimeters and will have to determine whether this is affordable or not. 5/9/88 MINIITES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION May 9, 1988 88-652 Commissioner Herbst stated approval of this general plan amendment would actually be placing a black mark against those properties for a long time and if they wanted to sell or improve th^ properties, that will be a stigma vhlch could lover their property values and if scr~ething is not going to be done for 20 years, he did not think this should be put over the owner's head. He added he would like to see a complete study of the hours that the intersections are impacted during the day. Commissioner McBurney asked at what. point the City xould say that Tn intersection should be improved and Commission Herbst suggested maybe this needs to be a phased program, and that he thought there are some intersections on the list which do not need to be there. Chairman Messe stated the critical intersections establish themselves by the circulation. Commissioner Feldhaus asked how Mr. Kroll's property was included since it is not even in the City. Mr. Singer explained that the other three corners of that intersection are in the City; however, obviously the City cannot go outside the city limits of Anaheim. Commissioner 5aus stated he realizes this is to be a long range plan; hox2ver, c gets the feeling it could all of a sudden become an immediate problem. He referred to Page 5 of the staff report which indicates that the dedicztion would be required for building permi±s or a significant modification +rnd asked who determines what is significant. Mr. Singer stated the proposed ordinance would clarify that criteria and explained this doesn't change the existing policy and that all the dedication would still be required on arterial streets. Responding to Commissioner Feldhaus regarding taking of residential properties, Mz. Singer explained the French Quarters complex would be affected, and if the Fugishigi property develops and Convention Hay is extended to the stadium, there x111 be quite a fex homes taken, and they are almost all apartments and two industrial buildings, and also there are some condominiums on Magnolia close to T,incoin xhich have a 10-foot bike lane and some scattered single family homes; however, the City will try to avoid them if at all possible. He explained again this is a general plan amendment. Commissioner Feldhaus stated most likely taking of residential properties would only occur if the City initiated the implementation of a critical intersection and then the City would have to compensate the homeowners at fair market value of their land and improvements, and asked who would determine what is fair market value. Mr. Johnson explained there are regulations regarding condemnation of private property. Commissioner Feldhaus asked how a business would be compensated xhich has been in business for a long time and then loses some of their parking and as a result suffers a loss of business, and how that loss of business would be calculated. 5/9/88 7 1 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Mav 9 1988 88-683 Mr. Fletcher stated there are legal provisions which determine the business loss evaluation and the value of the taking. Mr. Johnson explained in a widening such as Anaheim Boulevard where hundreds of parcels were involved, the City would do its best to negotiate with the property oxners and compensate them for the losses, and condemnation proceedings would be initiated only when they could not negotiate a settlement. Mz. Fletcher explained if the City initiates the project, they would make the offer to purchase and all portions of the loss and the value of the property are included under the provisions of the condemnation laws, and only if the City fails to reach an agreement would the condemnation proceedings be used and attorney fees are only awarded when the court finds that the offer was unreasonably low. Mr. Fletcher explained the staff report discusses the implementation ordinance and alternative and general plan amendment and recommended if the Commission is interested in adopting the critical intersection designation requiring no construction of improvements or right of way dedication, they should recommend adoption of the general plan amendment and code amendment to Section 18.04.080 of Chapter 18.04 of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to Improvement of Right-of-Way at Critical Intersections. Commissioner Herbst stated he is not ready to recommend the general plan be amended on all 24 intersections and felt they need more study, and until he felt satisfied that all 24 are needed, the environmental impact report is not correct. He stated he is not satisfied with what he has read and he felt this would put a stigma on the properties for many years. Commissioner Carusiilo stated he thought there are too many questions not answered, especially in terms of compensation to the property oxners. Chairman Messe asked if those properties xhich have already been offered for dedication would be eliminated if the City Council doesn't adopt the general plan amendment. Mr. Fletcher responded irrevocable offers to dedicate cannot be xithdravn, but the City does not have to accept them. Commissioner Herbst stated this could be l,S to 20 years in the future and as a Planning Commissioner, he would want to he sure that this is the right thing to do and at this time, he felt this would be overdoing it and felt this should not be hurried through and staff should provide a study on each of these corners as to the times of day the intersection is over capacity. Commissioner Bouas stated she thought the City Council would ask for that information. Commissioner Feldhaus asked if the City could negotiate with the property owners prior to this General Plan Amendment. Joe Fletcher stated the City has the power to negotiate, and if the general plan amendment is adopted, but implementation procedures are not adopted, the implementation would be on a case by case basis. Commissioner Feldhaus stated it may be possible to negotiate with each owner without a problem or without having to blanket approve this xhole list and going through the long process, and there may be people looking to sell their properties. 5/9/68 {, , HINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 9, 1988 88-654 Chairman Messe stated this has been under consideration far over 1-1/2 years and an environmental impact report has been prepared and traffic is not getting any better and we could study this forever and it would not shoe anything different. He stated ve have problems and know that next year they are going to be worse and that he is ready to move ahead with this since the property owners can be compensated. ACTION: Chairman Hesse offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Carusillo, Feldhaus and Herbst voting no) that the Anaheim City Planning Commissior. after considering Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 285 for proposed General Plan Amendment No. 210 and after reviewing evidence, both xritten and oral, presented to supplement Draft EIR No. 285, does hereby find that EIR No. 285 is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the State and City Guidelines; and that EIR No. 285 identifies the following impacts which are considered to be both unavoidable and adverse in nature and not fully mitigated to a level of insignificance: a. Noise levels at certain locations may exceed CNEL 65 dB(A) exterior noise standards for abutting noise sensitive land uses. b. Residential uses encroach within the proposed right-of-way at 9 of the 24 intersections, resulting in the potential for approximately 128 displaced households (or approximately 346 people) at critical intersection buildout. Residential properties for which no City approvals are sought would experience no impact, unless implementation of a critical intersection is City-initiated. c. There will be short and long-term diminution in the usability of many parcels, due to the dedication or acquisition of additional right-of-way and ultimate street widening activities, resulting in smaller usable lot areas. This could serve as a deterrent for property owners to improve upon their land in order to avoid City reviex of permits and requirements for dedication; and, for those who do seek to make improvements, the size of their s'_te will be reduced. d. Although certain inconsistencies with site development standards associated with the zoning classification of those properties fzonting the critical intersection approaches may be eliminated by the granting of Variances and Conditional Use Permits, the relocation of structures, and the consolidation of adjacent yard areas, inconsistency with the original intent of the site development standards may still occur. and further that the Planning Commission does hereby find that the benefits of the General Plan Amendment outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts and recommends that the following Statement of Overriding Considerations be adopted: 1. Economic, social and physical considerations make it unfeasible to eliminate all of the significant environmental impacts xhich have been identified in the final EIR. 2. Such environmental impacts will be reduced by compliance with City codes, policies and procedures. 3. The project will improve the level of service at the 24 intersections, the majority of which currently exceed the capacity and standard design criteria LOS "D". 5/9/88 i ~_ MINUTES. ANAI:EIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 9, 1988 88-655 4. The project will assist in accommodating the land use, transportation and Vision 2000 goals of the City. 5. The project will increase traffic safety and improve traf flow at the critical intersections. 6. The project will reduce dela}• at the critical intersectic therehy reducing air pollutant emissions. 7. The project wiil minimize disruption at each intersection dedications will occur primarily as land use changes are implemented. 8. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the proje reduce the majority of. environmental impacts to an accept level. and, therefore, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the Council certify Environmental Impact Report No. 285 and Statement of Overriding Considerations for General Plan Amendment No. 210. Chairman Meese offered Resolution No. PC 88-117 and moved for its pass~~y~ and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt General Plan Amendment No. 210 - Circulation Element - to incorporate 24 additional Critical Intersection designations. On roll call the foregoing resolution vas passed by the folloxing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOUAS, HOYDSTUN, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Chairman Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun that a code amendment be adopted which eliminates the requirement for dedication beyond current Circulation Element right-of-way widths, but that setbacks for new construction be measured from the ultimate right-of-va}• including the Critical Intersection standard; and that no changes are made to current exemptions or •iariance requirements. Chairman Messe explained it is his intent that property owners would be compensated for all right of way and no expense would be involved, and the City would purchase the right of way and pay for all improvements of the critical intersection and business owners would be compensated for any loss of business. Commissioner Houas stated if the property owner puts a sign on the property in the critical intersection right of way, they would have to agree to move it at their oxn expense and Mr. Singer explained at the present time the setback requirements at most arterial streets are greater and they cannot build there anyway; and that the canopy at a service station on the corner is an overhang and that is different. Mr. Fletcher stated Paragraph 14 of the staff report talks about only the requirements of dedication and he xould assume the motion is to eliminate the requirement to pay for the improvements as yell, and explained currently the Code requires both. He asked if the intent is that this proposed amendment would prohibit the City from imposing the dedication and improvement requirements on certain projects xhich may, in fact, havg~~~88 `. ~ MINQTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 9, 1968 ~_fyry6 justification for those requirements. He suggested the motion be that, where required be law, that the City be required to acquire the property and that no automatic dedications and improvements be required. He referred to large projects in the stadium area near corners which create significant impacts and the widening requirements would be justified. Chairman Messe stated he would amend his oration as suggested. Responding to Commissioner Carusillo, Mr. Fletcher explained compensation would be handled as currently required by state law as to what the value of the land is and what compensation is under the law of eminent domain, but if there is no current requirement in the Code to dedicate the property as a condition of a building permit, the only way the City could require it is either by purchasing the property or making it a condition of approval of a particular project. Commissioner Feldhaus stated he wanted to be sure it is included in the ordinance that a business owner is justly compensated for any loss of business or loss of use of the property. Mr. Fletcher recommended against any definitions in our Code about what just compensation is or what should be compensated for, and Chairman Hesse stated he would like to see the draft ordinances before they are presented to City Council. Mr. Fletcher explained he understands the motion is to recommend to the City Council amendments to the Municipal Code relating to required dedications and improvements of right of way to eliminate any requirement to dedicate aad/or improve the right of way frontage of any properties affected by the critical intersection beyond xhat is currently required by the Code, so that on any critical intersection widening, the City would either have to acquire the right of way and pay just compensation as required by state law, az impose conditions of approval based upon a particular project's burden on the traffic congestion; and that the draft ordinance be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission prior to presentation to City Council. Chairman Messe explained there will be a public hearing at the Council level and a first and second reading of the ordinance. The foregoing motion was passed with Commissioners Herbst and Feldhaus voting no. RECESS: 3:35 p.m. RECONVENE: 3:50 p.m. ITEM N0. 3. RECLASSIFICATION N0. 87-88-52 VARIANCE N0. 3782. OWNERS: MOHAMMAD RIAFAR AND PARVIN RIAFAR, 300 N. Tustin Avenue, X201, Santa Ana 92705. Property is approximately 0.33 acre located at the southeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Anna Drive. Continued from the meeting of April 25, 1968. Reclassification - CL to RM-1200 5/9/88 i" ms's y MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Hay 9, 1988 88-657 Waivers of minimum building site area per duelling unit, maximum structural height, maximum site coverage and permitted encroachments to construct a 14-unit, 3-story affordable apartment complex. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report vas not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Mr. Riafar', agent, explained the property is presently zoned for commercial uses and there is an existing old house which would be removed and he thought this xould be a nicer project for the neighborhood and a better use of the property. He explained the property is surrounded by apartment projects. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Messe stated he thought there would be a problem with the access o.: La Palma with vehicles turning either way from Anna Street and suggested the access be relocated to Anna. Mr. Riafar stated the access on Anna would mean a loss of parking spaces. He stated there is another project which vas constructed on the west side of Anna and they have access from La Palma and this project was designed in a similar manner. Commissioner Bouas stated maybe making the project affordable is creating the problem, with the density being too high. Commissioner Carusillo stated the driveway seems to be a problem with people turning right on Anna to go east, and also with people turning left. Mr. Riafar stated there is a setback and he thought there is enough room for vehicle visibility and he did not think there would be traffic hazard and the traffic is very light on Anna Street and the Traffic Engineer did not think there vas a problem. He stated there are only 14 units proposed and there are 2-1/2 parking spaces per unit. Commissioner Feldhaus stated traffic at peak hours is very heavy. Commissioner Herbst stated there is a bad traffic situation on La Palma and putting a driveway there would be a hazard. He stated the project should be redesigned with the driveway on Anna and that he would not vote for a project in this manner when it could be designed more safely. Mr. Riafar stated it was not brought to his attention that there would be a safety problem and that he could redesign the project. He asked for a two-week continuance in order to redesign the plans. Commissioner Carusillo suggested the project be approved subject to redesign if the architect feels it can be done. Phil Martin, Architect, stated he tried to design this project in several different ways and the first one xas with the driveway on Anna but the owner wanted to get as many units as possible on the property and this vas the best design. He stated they did discuss this with the Traffic Engineer. He stated there are other projects along there with access on La Palma. 5/9/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Hay 9, 1988 88-658 ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mc Burney and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the meeting of May 23, 1986, at the request of the petitioner, in order to redesign the project with access on Anna Street rather than La Palma Avenue. ITEM N0. 9. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 240, RECLASSIFICATION N0. 87-88-46 AND VARIANCE N0. 3787. PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: RUTH MARIE MOUNT (SIGLER), et al, 929 North Citron Street, Anaheim, CA 92805. AGENT: THE AMERICAN COMPANIES, ATTN: BRENT NERGUI2IAN, 18300 Von Barman, Suite 6120, Irvine, CA 92715. Property is approximately 1.2 acres, having a frontage of approximately 270 feet on the west side of Citron Street, approximately 550 feet south of the centerline of La Palma Avenue, and further described as 929, 931, 537 and 943 North Citron Street. GPA request - Redesignation from the current Lox-Medium residential designation to a Medium Density residential designation. Reclassification - RS-10,000 to RM-1200 Waivers of minimum building site area per dxelling unit, maximum structural height, maximum site coverage and maximum number of bachelor units to construct a 1 to 3-story, 47-unit "affordable" apartment complex. It vas noted staff has requested that subject petitions be continued to the meeting of May 23, 1988, due to an advertising error. The following action vas taken at the beginning of the meeting. ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CAP.RIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the meeting of May 23, 1988, at staff's request. ITEM N0. 5. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 287 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3010. PUBLIC HEARING. OhT7ERS: SANTA FE LAND IMPROVEMENT COMPANY, 3230 E. IMPERIAL HIGHWAY, SUITE 100, HREA, CA 92621. AGENT: PHILLIPS BRANDY REDDICR, 18012 SKY PARR CIRCLE, IRVINE, CA 92714. Property is approximately 48.4 acres bounded by Hunter Street to the north, Kellogg Drive to the east, La Palma Avenue to the south and Manessero Street to the west. To permit industrially related office uses in conjunction with a proposed industrial complex. It was noted the petitioner has requested a two-week conP.inuance. The following action vas taken at the beginning of the mee*.ing. ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mc Burney and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the meeting of May 23, 1988, at the request of the petitioner. 5/9/88 ,i MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MAY 9, 1988 88-659 ITEM N0. 6. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION, RECLASSIFICATION N0. 87-88-47, WAIVER OF CADS REQUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL DSE PERMIT N0. 3005. PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: MARGOT M. DUKLETH, 804 E. Buchanan Court, Brea, CA 92621. AGENT: CHIEN-FENG CiiEN, 804 F.. Buchanan Court, Brea, CA 92621. Property is approximately 0.9 acre located on the north aide of the Riverside (91) Freeway, vest of the centez•line of the terminus of White Star Avenue. Reclassification from RS-A-43,000 to AlI, Waiver of maximum structural height to permit a 66-unit motel. There were two persons indicating their presence in opposition to subject request; and although the staff report to the Planning Commission vas not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Loxell Dukleth, applicant and developer, stated this is a remnant parcel xhich was purchased in 1976 and vas originally described as being landlocked and after about 8 years of cork, it is nox ready to put back on the tax rolls. He explained the proposal is a motel in the medium price range t~ serve the industrial area along the Riverside Freeway. He stated the property formerly xas shown as having a frontage road right through the middle of it and about two years ago they vent to the City Council and Area Development Flan Pio. 108 vas amended, with Exhibit G which shoes that the connecting road to La Mesa can be connected in a number of different nays and since they have access to White Star Avenue, they do not need the connection at the other end. Mr. Dukleth stated the staff report indicates that the height will be 28 feet, and the parking is proposed underneath with two stories above and that comes to 28 feet, but there is no room for the roof, and the draxings actually indicate 33 feet and he thought that 28-foot figure relates to the RS-A-43,000 requirements which is the present zoning. He stated they feel the architecture would suffer considerably without the additional height for the roof. He stated the ML zone permits a height of 100 feet. Lew Overholt, attorney, 300 S. Harbor Boulevard, representing Jessie Coykendall and his son, Harold, evners of the 15-acre parcel to the north of subject property, explained his clients have owned that property since 1922 and Jess Coykendall still lives on the property at age 94, and they objected to the height variance which is required for the structure to be even 28 feet from the property line, and now he understands they are going to 33 feet. Mr. Overholt stated that would be on the property line contiguous to the Coykendall's property. He stated they also objeci to the conditional use permit primarily because the property is totally inadequate for this use as proposed. He stated the Coykendalls' property is 15 acres to the north and this remnant will really dictate the development plan for their property. He stated they presently have their property in strawberries and have a oil 5/9/88 extraction operation going on. He explained Harold Coykendall indicated that his dad is 94 and wants to live on the property for the rest of his life; and that he will then develop the property. He stated whatever is permitted on subject property xill indeed dictate how the Coykendall property rill be developed; and that th^ staff: report indicated I,a Mesa xould be extended through the Coykendall property, even xith this application and the applicant said they have absolute a^cess from the east to White Star and asked if that means they will no': impac~. the Coykendall's property by an extension of La Mesa? Chairman Messe explained the plane shox that La Mesa will be eventually carried through, but that it will be knuckled at their property line and go on up to White Star. He stated they have an easement to White Star. Mr. Dukletli stated the subject property is on the southern extension of La Mesa and by developing subject property, the lnxer extension is wiped aut and the only way La Mesa could be extended is through the Coykendall property. Paul Mager, Traffic Engineer, stated the general plan amendment has several. options and one is paralleling the freeway through this property and the other adjoining the next intersection or going further north and all the circulation would then be on the Coykendall property and if this project is approved, La Mesa could not be put through this property, and La Mesa could never be connected. He stated the General Plan indicates La Hesa to continue pa z+:~lel to the freeway. Mr. Overholt stated this will essentially eliminate La Me ;a from going parallel with tl:,e freeway. He stated at one time there was a question about the adequacy of this easement and imposing an implied easement over a neighbor's property is an arbitration order and asY.ed if there is any question about the adequacy of the easement that eliminates the landlock situation. Mr. Singer stated the parcel is not landlocked and there is access by a private easement to this proposed development; however, how the guests will get there will be quite tricky because the City Council does not permit directional signs on public right of way for private property. Mr. Overholt stated then the adequacy of the easement is the ability of people in finding the access. Joseph Fletcher stated as long as the applicant has brought evidence that there is legal access to the property, the Commission's review should be limited to whether the driveway length meets the City's standards. Mr. Overholt referred to the findings the Commission has to make in order to approve this and stated they do not object to the reclassification, but that the proposed use definitely will affect the property to the north and this is going to affect the future development of that property. He added they do not feel this remnant parcel is adequate for this motel because they have to build right Co tl~e property line, and that they do not feel the Commission can make the finding that the use would not adversely impact the traffic in the area and noted White Star empties onto La Palma. r~ MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COtiMISSION Judy Hill, Koll Company, Property Manager for the 18-acre parcel to the north of White Star, stated their concern is the traffic floe and also inappropriate use and do not feel it is consistent with the present neighborhood. She added that neighborhood is currently developing into quite a nice area and they oppose this request. Mr.Dukleth stated staff has recommended that they dedicate the westerly pointed end of this property for the first 150 feet which is about 2200 sq. ft. pointing out it is about 30 feet vide at that point and that property would go toward the future right of way of La Mesa Avenue; and also staff has requested a cash bond to pay for La Mesa on that portion whenever it develops. He added they really don't need access at that end and stated this has been a tough parcel of develop, but it is very adequate for this purpose and this will not be a large motel, and it will not be very high. He stated a #45 a night motel is needed in that area. He pointed out the Embassy Suite Hotel in that area is 7 stories high. He stated he understood that the ML Zone will permit a 100-foot high building. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Feldhaus stated he would question the waiver for maximum structural height because the property to the north would be directly affected by the height and asked if that could be mitigated. He added the request is for quite a large number of units on that small parcel. Mr. Dukleth stated he had to come back 25 feet from the freeway entrance for the structural setback and they can have parking and circulation within 10 feet of the freeway fence and the Traffic Engineer required room for the fire engine to turn around which is reasonable and they have held the structure to two stories with parking underneath and he felt it will have a nominal impact. He added he realizes it is between the Coykendall property and the freeway, but he could not put the parking underground because of drainage problems. Commissioner Herbst stated this is a remnant parcel and is a hardship parcel and it probably never should be developed. He stated this would have impacts on the industrial area, and stated Anaheim has very little industrial area left and this is one of the prime parcels left xith freeway exposure. He stated he Sid not think this use should be in this area and he has always favored La Mesa fronting the freeway because it would give some industries frontage on the freeway, but this use for a motel has very restrictive access and he did not think guests would be able to find it without a lot of trouble. He stated a.motel might service the industrial area, but felt this is just the wrong place and because it is a freeway remnant it should not be allowed to downgrade the industrial area and impact the freeway frontage. Chairman Messe stated he would agree, and if this property vas at an access point or at a ramp, he would feel differently, but this would mean that a guest would have to wander through the industrial area to find the entrance and that it does not maintain the integrity of the industrial area. Commissioner Feldhaus added 25 units would be overlooking the Coykendail's property. 5/9/88 ;" , MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AQ-~~~ Judy Hill, Koll Company, Property Manager for the 18-acre parcel to the north of White Star, stated their concern is the traffic floe and also inappropriate use and do not feel it is consistent with the present neighborhood. She added that neighborhood is currently developing into quite a nice area and they oppose this request. Mr.Dukleth stated staff has recommended that they dedicate the xesterly pointed end of this property for the first 150 feet which is about 2200 sq. ft. pointing out it is about 30 feet wide at that point and that property would go toward the future right of wa; of La Mesa Avenue; and also staff has requested a cash bond to pay for La Mesa on that portion whenever it develops. He added they really don't need access at that end and stated this has been a tough parcel of develop, but it is very adequate for this purpose and this rill not be a large motel, and it xill not be very high. He stated a ;45 a night motel is needed in that area. He pointed out the Embassy Suite Hotel in that area is 7 stories high. He stated he understood that the ML Zone will permit a 100-foot high building. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Feldhaus stated he would question the xaiver for maximum structural height because the property to the north xould be directly affected by the height and asked if that could be mitigated. Hz added the request is for quite a large number of units on that small parcel. Mr. Dukleth stated he had to come back 25 feet from the freeway entrance for the structural setback and they can have parking and circulation within 10 feet of the freeway fence and the Traffic Engineer required room for the fire engine to turn around which is reasonable and they have held the structure to two stories with parking underneath and he felt it will have a nominal impact. He added he realizes it is between the Coykendall property and the freeway, but he could not put the parking underground because of drainage problems. Commissioner Herbst stated this i.s a remnant parcel and is a hardship parcel and it probably never should be developed. He stated this xould have impacts on the industrial area, and stated Anaheim has very little industrial area left and this is one of the prime parcels left with freeway exposure. He stated he did not think this use should be in this area and he has always favored La Mesa fronting the freeway because it would give some industries frontage on the freeway, but this use for a motes has very restrictive access and he did not think guests would be able to find it without a lot of trouble. He stated a motel might service the industrial area, but felt this is just the wrong place and because it is a freeway remnant it should not be alloyed to downgrade the industrial area and impact the fzeexay frontage. Chairman Hesse stated he youid agree, and if this property vas at an access point or at a ramp, he would feel differently, but this would mean that a guest would have to wander through the industrial area to find the entrance and that it does not maintain the integrity of the industrial area. Commissioner Feldhaus added 25 unite would be overlooking the Coykendall's property. 5/9/88 i t MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MAY 9, 1988 88-661 Commissioner Herbst stated there would 'nave to be a lot of sound mitigation because of the truck traffic on the freeway so that people xould be able to sleep in the rooms. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a mc.ton, seconded by Commissioner Mc Burney, and NOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim. City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to reclassify subject property from the RS-A-43,000 (Residential/ Agricultural) Zone to the M3. (:industrial, Limited) Zone to permit a 66-unit motel with waiver of maximum structural height on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.9 acre located on the north side of the Riverside Freeway and being located vest of the centerline of the terminus of White Star Avenue; 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 reviex 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 Herbst offered Resolution No. PC 88-118 and moved for. its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Reclassification No. 87-88-47, subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations. On roll call the foregoing resolution vas passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARU5ILt0, FELDHAUS, HF.RBST MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Commissioner Herbst offered a aotion, seconded by Commissioner Mc Hurney and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does heteby deny waiver of code requirement on the basis that there are no special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned properties in the vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code does not deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in identical zoning classification in the vicinity. Commi@sioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC 88-119 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny Conditional Use Permit No. 3005, on the basis that the motel use would not maintain the integrity of the industrial area and the access to the site is very difficult to find and guests would be wandering through the industrial area looking for the entrance, and the use xould be detrimental the surrounding industrial area. On roll call the foregoing resolution vas passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Houas, Boydstun, Cazusillo, Feldhaus, 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 the City Council. 5/9/88 i. ~ • J MINUTES. ANAHEIM CZTY_PLANNING COMMISSION, MAY 9, 1988 88-662 ITEM N0. 7. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION, RECLASSIFICATION N0. 87-88-48 AND VARIANCE N0. 3788. PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: RAYMOND A. MASCIEL AND CONNIE V. MASCIEL, P.O.Box 4241, Anaheim, CA 92801. AGENT: MASCIEL DEVELOPMENT, P. O.Box 4291, Anaheim, CA 92801. Property is approximately 0.6 acre located at the southeast corner of Cypress Street and Coffman Street, and further described as 220 North Coffman Street. Reclassification from RS-7200 to RM-1200 Waivers of maximum structural height and permitted encroachment into required yard area to construct a 3-story, 18-unit apartment complex. There were two 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. Gary Masciel, agent, explained the 18-unit project will have a large green belt area and two courtyards; that the lot coverage is 39.7% and the guest parking will be located on the east side of the property with a 42" fence for screening and covered parking would be on the east and south side of the property. He stated the structure will be 32 feet high, two stories over one level of parking and access to the parking is off Coffman and Cypress Street, and there will be 25% tandem parking spaces. Cruz Sandoval, 229 Evelyn Drive, stated the neighbors have asked him to be here because they are on vacation. He stated they have made remarks on previous occasions to the Planning Commission regarding other properties being developed on Coffman. He stated the last time they opposed the density and t;3lked about a ghetto there facing Center Street, and nov they have a brand new ghetto at the very end of Coffman on the corner behind this proposed development. He explained that project has 27 units and there are no green areas at ali. He stated the neighbors on Evelyn Drive have talked to the City Council before and the street vas supposed to be closed, and that it is closed nov with chains on yellow metal standards which are constantly being cut which they don't feel is acceptable. Mt. Sandoval continued that the apartment project he referred to has 27 units and this is a request for 18 more units and is a three-story structure and others that are proposed and they feel this area is going to turn into a ghetto. He stated as the Planning Commission responsible for planning our city, they should not alloy this project. Mr. Sandoval stated density has been discussed many times and referred to the reclassification on Lemon Street and stated that is going to be a community again; and that he was born in Anaheim and likes it in Anaheim and feels it is going to become beautiful again. He stated Evelyn Drive l:as been ruined by the trucks. 5/9/88 ^ ° MINUTES, ANAHEIH CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 9, 1988 88-663 He stated he is here to present the views of his neighbors and ask that the Commission please not give any waivers because there are too many people there already and the density should be kept down. Richard Mendenhall, 1836 E. Almond Drive, stated these properties back up to their homes and all his neighbors on Almond Drive are concerned about the way these properties are being developed and a three-story building will be looking right down onto their houses. He stated he did not see where the children would have a place to play and noted there is a lot of development going on there now; and also they are concerned about where the cars would be entering and exiting and parking and they are concerned about the height and density. Chairman Hesse pointed out the zoning of the property that would back up to Almond Drive is RM-2400 and that is about one-half the density. Greg Hastings responded that property has a resolution of intent to RM-2400, and is presently zoned single family. It vas noted the units would be less than 150 feet from the homes on Almond Drive, and that the Commission is just reviewing the one property on the corner of Coffman and Cypress and not the whole area. Commissioner Bouas stated the east side of Coffman is RM-1200 and the west side is RM-2400, as is the north side of Cypress, and the Planning Commission tried to maintain RM-2900 on the east side of Coffman, but the Council changed it to RM-1200. Mr. Masciel stated they plan two accesses, one on Cypress and one on Coffman, and there are two greenbelt areas and two courtyard areas and there is more open area than the other projects, and the lot coverage is 33% and Code alloys up to 55%, and that they feel this project will definitely be an attribute to the area. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Boydstun pointed out the developer is not asking for any density bonus and this project would not be as crowded as the ones referred to. Commissioner Bouas stated the Commission agrees with Mr. Sandoval about the other apartment project and it really is a disgrace, but this project will help to provide a buffer. Chairmar. Hesse asked if waiver (b) could be eliminated, and Mr. Masciel responded those are open guest parking spaces and they wanted to keep to 25% tandem and there really wasn't any way to eliminate it, but it is screened with a 32" high fence. Commissioner Bouas asked if the}• would have any objection to a "no parking" restriction on the north side of Cypress. Mr. Masciel responded he did discuss that with Engineering and they felt it would be best to keep the parking on the street, and pointed out they do have adequate parking on site and no parking waiver is being requested. He stated they talked to the neighbor to the north and that vas one of his concerns and wanted to see parking remain at least on their side of the street, and they also wanted to see the sidewa~k, curb and gutter installed. 5/9/88 MINOTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 9, 1988 88-664 Commissioner Boydstua stated taking the narking away would affect the homeoxners and they have to compete for the spaces on the street anyway. Commissioner Carusillo stated the request is for a reclassification to RM-2400 and he understood the general area is zoned RM-2400. Greg Hastings stated the last General Plan Amendment vhich vas approved by the City Council basically designated RM-1200 to this particular block vhich is south and east of Coffman and Cypress and the remainder of the area vas to be left RM-2400. Commissioner Carusillo asked the zoning of the projects already started and Mr. Hastings responded he thought al]. those projects are RM-1200 on the east aide and RM-2900 on the vest side. Commissioner Bovas stated at one time there vas a restriction to 15 units per acre, but somewhere along the way, the City Council changed it, and 8 units were originally approved on this same property. Commissioner Carusillo stated this project drastically violates the policy of 150-foot setback for more than one story, and Mr. Masciel stated it doesn't violates xhat is on the General Plan for that area. Mr. Hastings stated it is more of a technicality because the area has been redesignated on the General Plan; however, the zoning has not been finalized on certain properties and they are still zoned for single family. Commissioner McBurney stated even with the parking and one story, the project is in violation and with the parking completely underground, it would still be in violation and he did not think that is a viable reason in this case. Commissioner Carusillo stated he thought we are being casual regarding the density and did not know why the neighbors are not objecting and he personally thought it is too much density. Chairman Messe stated the applicant has presented a project in conformance with the General Plan the way it is now written and has done a good job. Commissioner Feldhaus asked how Evelyn Drive will eventually be blocked. Chairman Messe stated he understood it would be a permanent closure and Greg Hastings stated there is a potential project coming in vhich would propose the abandonment of Cypress Street and incorporate part of that into the project and wherever Cypress Street ends up, probably at Coffman, there would be a modified cul de sac. He stated if Cypress Street is used as part of a project, there would have to be at least a 6-foot high block wall. Chairman Messe stated the closure was a condition of the condominium project at the other end, and Commissioner Herbst states that could be a long time and suggested a chainlink fence be required which vouid be better than the chains. 5/9/88 f 4 ( .' . ~ MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MAY 9, 1988 88-665 ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviexed the proposal to reclassify subject property from the RS-7200 (Residential, Single-Family) Zone to the RM-?.200 (Residential, Multiple-Family) zone and to construct a 3-story, 18-unit apartment complex xith waivers of maximum structural height and permitted encroachment into required yard area on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.6 acre located at the southeast corner of Cypress Street and Coffman Street and further described as 220 North Coffman Street; 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 comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project xill have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Hoydstun offered Resolution No. PC 88-120 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby granted Reclassification No. 87-88-48, subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations. On roil call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: HOUAS, BOYDSTUN, FELDHAU5, HERBST, HC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: CAROSILLO ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NON£ Commissioner Hoydstun offered Resolution No. PC 88-121 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Variance No. 3788 on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which do not apply to other identically zoned properties in the vicinity; and further granting waiver (b) on the basis that it relates only to the guest parking area, and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in identical zoning classification in the vicinity and subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations. On roil call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOUAS, BOYDSTON, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC BURNEY MESSE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: CARUSILLO ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 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. 5/9/88 ( ~. ~ ' MINIITES, ANAHEIH CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 9, 1988 88-666 ITEM N0. 8. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3768 (READVERTISED) PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: KATHERINE WESOLOSKY, 705 West Victor Avenue, Anaheim, CA 42801. AGENT: MARK KIAFAR, 300 North Tustin Avenue, Suite 201, Santa Ana, CA 92705. Property is approximately 0.3 acre, having a frontage of approximately 60 feet on the north side of Victor Avenue, approximately 1,000 feet on vest of centerline of Harbor Boulevard, and further described as 705 West Victor Avenue. Waivers of maximum structural height, minimum side yard setback, minimum site area per duelling unit, maximum site coverage to construct a 5-unit, 2-story apartment building. There vas no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request, and although the staff report to the Planning Commission vas not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Mark Kiafar, agent, xas present to answer any ouestions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Messe stated this approva:~ would be contingent upon the abandonment of what was at one time the cul de sac terminus of Victor Street. Arthur L. Daw, Deputy City Engineer, stated to his knowledge, there has been no request for abandonment. Mz. Kiafar stated if this application is approved, they xould apply for the abandonment and explained he did discuss this with the neighbors and there vas n°_; opposition. Commissioner Carusillo stated this is quite an improvement over what was originally proposed and he would like to move forward with approval. ACTION: Commissioner Carusillo offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas, and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to construct a 5-unit, 2-story apartment building with waivers of maximum structural height, minimum side yard setback deleted), minimum site area per dwelling unit and maximum site coverage or, a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.3 acre, having a frontage of approximately 60 feet on the north side of Victor Street, approximately 1,000 feet vest of the centerline of Harbor Boulevard and further described as 705 Victor Avenue; 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 comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project xill have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Carusillo offered Resolution No. PC B8-122 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Variance No. 3768 on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which do not apply to other identically zoned properties in the vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in identical zoning classification in the vicinity and subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations. 5/9/88 Y ~ ~~' ~ MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MAY 9, 1988 88-667 On roll call the foregoing resolution xas passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, HESSE, MC BURNEY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0. 9. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0.3790. PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: JOSEPH M. URIAS, 1224 E. Katella Avenue, Orange, CA 92667. Property is approximately .16 acre, having a frontage of approximately 46 feet on the west side of Ohio Street, approximately 22D feet north of the centerline of Broadway and further described as 213 South Ohio Stree". Waivers of minimum building site area per dwelling unit, maximum structural height and maximum site coverage to canstruct a 3-story, 5-unit apartment building. There were four 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. Joseph Urias, owner, presented photographs of the property to shoe its relationship to adjacent properties. He stated they are proposed an upscale 6-unit apartment complex, 3 stories, with extensively large units of 1200 sq. ft. Sally White, 809 W. Broadway, stated she opposed the apartments at Citron and Broadway and the apartments on Ohio Street and that she will continue to oppose apartments as long as they are infringing on the single-family residential area of Anaheim. Sh. stated they are trying desperately to keep Broadway a single-family residential area and people in her neighborhood feel that there is no need for any additional apartments. She stated many apartments built within the last two years still have "for rent" signs out and she would like to know why xe need more units in that area. Chairman Hesse clarified there are no affordable units being requested in this project. Susan Kocsis, 206 S. Ohio, stated this building would be directly across the street from her house. She stated mostly because of the existing 24-unit building and the variance that was granted to give it that density, she has learned to be very teary of density and has noticed that it is apparently taller than Code permits and there are a number of 3-bedroom units and one uait more than permitted by Code. She stated she would like the Commission to consider very carefully the density before permitting this request. She stated she does not object to the developer building an upscale building and knows this area is zoned for apartments, but she wants to be sure everyone is careful about the variances required. 5/9/99 i a _••t ^/ MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MAY 9, 1988 Michael Roloski, 825 W. Broadvx•y, referred to vehicles parking beside his house which is on the corner of Broadway and Ohio. He submitted photographs taken from his house to shoe that he has already added two feet to his wall to provide some measure of privacy from the 24-unit apartment project. He stated his problem with this project is the design and density. He stated the developer is proposing five three-bedroom units and they will probably be occupied by families with children and there is absolutely no place for them to play. He stated currently there are 5 to 20 children playing in the street in the evenings and on weekends. He stated Broadway has a lot of traffic now, but that his personal concern is the loss of his privacy and he did not want strangers looking into his property. He stated the three-story units especially with balconies along the south end, and the living areas along the east will provide continuous platforms for the tenants to look into leis back yard, and there is no way to restrict their view. He stated his second concern is parking, especially with all these new apartment units and stated there are approximately 50 units already constructed on each side of Broadway, and added he x111 have no place for his guests or relatives to park when they visit in the evening or on weekends. Mr. Koloski stated there is no true special circumstances applicable to this property; that the size of the property is too small for the number of units proposed; and that if it 1s constructed, it will contribute to his lack of privacy and contribute to the likelihood of the tenants parking on the street; and the balconies will eliminate all privacy for his single family home. Joe White, 809 W.Broadway, stated the developers have been getting all these waivers and variances and at one time they were only granted for a hardship; and referred to the car wash which was granted a waiver and is creating t-ash and traffic problems in the neighborhood. He stated he is not opposed to apartments, as long as they are not granted any waivers. He stated the granting of the waivers is ruining the property values ad the property owners are selling their properties at inflated prices and the developers are constructing more and more units. Mr. Urias stated this apartment project will help alleviate some of the parking problems on the streets because the tenants will have more parking spaces end would not be parking on L•he street. He stated the size of the property would permit 6 units per code, and noted there is a minor mistake in the staff report and this property is 46.5 feet vide, by 155 feet, and according to Code, six units would be permitted. He stated he has oxned this property since 1985 and actually lived there for 1-1/2 years and he is not just buying this property cheap and trying to get the maximum number of units on it. He stated this property is at a disadvantage compared to the property to the north which vas recently developed with 24 units and got a 25% density bonus. He stated they are strictly trying to adhere as much as possible without compromising the trend setting structure and the architectural outlook of the project. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. 5/9/88 ~ .} .~ MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MAY 9, 1988 88-669 Chairman Messe stated he does not agree with Joe White very often, but in this case he would agree about the lack of hardship for granting a 74% maximum site coverage waiver. Mr. Urias stated there is an alley on both sides of the property and some dedication has been made for widening the alley; and also the high density alloyed next door to the north limits redevelopment of this property. Responding to Commissioner Feldhaus, Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, stated according to the City maps, taking into account any alley dedications, the property is 46 feet ride. Commissioner McBurney stated even at 46.5 feet, only 5.7 units would be allowed. Commissioner Boydstun stated xith 3-bedroom units, there yiil be children in the units and asked where the children xill play. Mr. Urias stated the property has a disadvantage because it is situated between alleys and a 24-unit apartment project. Commissioner Boydstun stated if they were not covering the lot with 74%, maybe they could provide a play area. Mr.Urias stated they would not be able to offer as much recreational space without that coverage and pointed out there are open areas in the balconies and a spa area downstairs. He stated this property is compromised by the development of some of the other praperties in the area and he had hoped to York out something with the owner of the property where the 24-units were developed. Commissioner Feldhaus stated that is not the Commission's concern, and that should have been worked out before he purchased the property and it is true that every developer that comes in asks for waivers and in this case, the project is very close to meeting the codes. Mr. Urias stated he is presenting this project and request for waivers because he is trying to maximize the benefits for the tenants. He stated reducing the project by one unit would basically be making a good project into a bad project. Commissioner Feldhaus stated he would be willing to offer a motion for continuance if the developer would like to redesign the project. Mr. Urias stated he xould like to appeal to the Commission's good judgement and regarding the waivers and density, he added they are trying to stay within City codes as closely as possible. 5/9/88 ;. 4+ MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MAY 9, 1988 immissioner Herbst stated the General Plan designation for RM-2400 zoning is shat permits this uni~c to be built within 150 feet of the single-family homes on Broadxay and suggested those property owners should appeal to the City Council to change that designation to maintain their single family residential area so that apartments would not be permitted to abut their properties. He added he will not vote for this project because he would not want this three story building to abut single family homes. He added the Planning Commission is considering reviewing the density all over Anaheim because it is becoming a serious problem and that he xould like to see the General Plan re-evaluated and these areas dovnzoned to keep from gridlocking this xhole town. He agreed with Joe White thai these projects should stay within the ordinances and that he could still build there, but without all the waivers. M.r. IIrias stated he would like to stand on this item and referred to the staff report which indicates that denial xould deprive the property of privileges being enjoyed by other properties and stated by not allowing this property to be developed in the form submitted, it would basically be denying the property certain privileges other properties are enjoying, and it would be compromising the area terribly in aesthetic value, as well as comfort of living for the possible tenants. He responded to Commissioner Herbst that he would like a continuance to try and work with the neighbors to reach a compromise. Greg Hastings stated if the revised plans have no waivers, the variance would not be necessary. Commissioner Carusillo stated the petitioner stated that it is not fair that this project would not enjoy benefits that others in the neighborhood have already, and that he thought each parcel stands on its own and agreed about the density and in reviewing a 3-story, 6-unit apartment on that property, the quality of the lives of the people who have live there for along time has to be considered by the Commission rather than the bottom line of the developer. Mr. Urias stated he has owned this property for over three years and has seen the area developed and feels the same frustration as the rest of the neighbors, but that is progress. ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of July 6, 1988, in order for the developer to submit revised plans. Greg Hastings stated if there are new waivers involved, the matter would be readvertised. 5/9/88 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MAY 9, 1988 ITEM N0. 10. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3791. PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: LEDGER SMITH, 1715 N. Ross Avenue, Santa Ana, CA 92706. Attn: Security Pacific National Bank, P 0. Box 7120, Nevport Beach, CA 92658. AGENT: GERALD M. GRECO, 2225 E. Ratella Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806; THOMAS R. CANNON, 27665 Foches Road, Suite 204, Laguna Niguel, CA 92677. Property is 5.48 acres located southwest of the southvest corner of Ratella Avenue and Novell Avenue, and further described as 2225 E. Katella Avenue (Stadium Motors). Waivers of maximum number of freestanding signs, permitted location of freestanding signs, minimum distance between freestanding signs and minimum sight distance requirements to construct 2 additional freestanding signs. There vas no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request; and although the staff report vas not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Roy Castanon, 2225 E. Katella Avenue, vas present to answer any questions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst asked why they did not coordinate and have combined signs on the property for all the businesses. Mr. Castanon stated there is a combined sign already and there is no way to combine signs because of the franchise. Commissioner Herbst stated he is concerned about the sign ordinance-and Anaheim's proliferation of signs and that he would not vote for additional signs when they are not necessary. He stated shopping centers have combined signs and this center could do the same thing. Commissioner Feldhaus added this is a heavy request for signs and the City Council has been very concerned about the proliferation of signs and thought they may they have asked staff for a study. He added he xould like to review the present sign odinance and that he realizes the Commission has taken a stand on signs and the proliferation of signs and this request is not for a simple relocation of the sign and they want an additional freestanding sign for a total of five sisns on the property and he xould not want to create another Harbor Boulevard like around the Disneyland area. Mr. Castanon stated right nov they are only selling four cars from this line a month and they should be selling 40 and that is because they can only advertise in the newspaper and a person driving by can not see the cars. Mr. Castanon responded that he plans to stay in this location. He responded to Commissioner Bouas that right now they have the GMC sign, the Peugeot sign and an Alfa Romero sign and want to add a Dihatsu sign at the Novell entrance and to rebuild the entrance sign which says "service". 5/9/88 ~i ~ i , MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY_PLANNING COMMISSION May 9, 1988 88-672 Commissioner Bouas stated they have to be able to advertise these cars and that is not the type of signs the City Council is concerned about and this sign would promote this business and help the sales tax revenue. She stated she could understand the need for this sign. Chairman Messe stated that could be said about every sign cn Harbor Boulevard. Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, stated there seems to be some confusion; that the rea_uest is to relocate one sign ac.rc~~ *he driveway and in that space, there will be an additional sign. He explained the exhibit shoes one on each side of the driveway. Commissioner Bouas stated she thought one sign on one side of the driveway would be adequate, and Mr. Hastings responded if that sign is relocated, the only waiver would be the distance to the property line. Chairman Messe stated it is a tnuah property and asked how many signs are being discussed. Mr. Hastings stated there are five, two new ones, one of which would be placed in the location where there is a sign nox and that one will be moved to the other side of the driveway, so it is actually two new structures. Mz.Castanon stated they are removing the sign by the driveway and adding one sign there and adding the Dihatsu aie.n and would only have four signs on the property, not five as indicated Greg Hastings stated the submitted plans shoe three existing signs and according to the plan he was going to replace the one that he plans to move across the driveway. Mr. Castanon stated they just wanted to move the sign and are not putting another one in. Greg Hastings asked if the driveway on Howell is one being referred to and Mr. Castanon responded to Chairman Messe that the Alfa Romero sign is on Katella. Chairman Hesse suggested combining that• sign on Katella since that is the best exposure. Mr. Castanon responded they could not combine the signs because of their franchise agreement. Ee stated he was not sure the other two dealers would permit him to put the sign next to their sign, and it is very difficult to get his company to agree to a to a combined sign. Commissioner Herbst stated hn did not want the automobile companies try to make the City modify the sign ordinances and if this is allayed, every other dealer would want the same thing and the City is trying to reduce ttie number of signs, and suggested the applicant inform his company the sign will not be alloyed as requested. 5/9/88 ~; ~~ MINUTES, ANAHEIH CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOr'_May 9, 1988 88-67 ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McDurney, and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to construct two additional freestanding signs with waivers of maximum number of freestanding signs, permitted location of freestanding signs, minimum distance between freestanding signs and minimum sight distance requirements on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 5.48 acres located southwest of the southwest corner of Aatella Avenue and Novell Avenue, and further described as 2225 E. Rateila Avenue (Stadium Motors) 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 comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Bouas offered Resolution No. PC 88-123 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Variance No. 379I, in part, to permit a total of four (4) signs, on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which do not apply to other identically zoned properties in the vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in identical zoning classification in the vicinity. On roll call the foregoing resolution vas passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOUAS, HOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, MC BURNEY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: FELDHAIIS, HERBST, MESSE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Joseph ir. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. 5/9/88 .~ ~, ~: MINDTES ANAHEIM CITY PTANNING C0~41ISSION MAY 9, 1988 RR-~-~~ ITEM N0. 11. CEpA NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ~ • CC-~.~~-*"+~~ ~"- ho PDBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: GEORGE GEMAYEL AND OSNA WARTAN, 1061 N. Grove ~ ~C7 Street, Anaheim, CA 92806. Property is approximately 0.5 acres, located on the vest side of Grove Street, approximately 270 feet south of the centerline of La Palma Avenue, and further described as 1061 N. Grove Street. Request: Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to permit an automobile conversion facility. There was no one i:~dicating 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. Susan Banker, agent, stated the request is to permit a European automobile conversion facility with a waiver of parking spaces, noting 37 are required and they are providing 26 which is adequate according to the traffic study submitted. THE PDBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Messe stated the Commission received a letter of opposition from R ~ G Management Company and they own 5 buildings on North Grove Street and their concern vas the parking and they feel their properties will suffer a substantial hardship in the event the parking xaiver vas approved. He asked if the business is already in operation, pointing out that in driving by, he sax a terrible parking problem, with cars parking on the driveway and the rear of the car out in the street, double parking in front of this facility, etc. Ms. B..nker ntated the owner of this business has a European car conversion facility and their Santa Ana facility xas closed and they thought the existing conditional use permit which was already ir. effect on that property xould be adequate for this use; however, there has apparently been a lot cf problems there before he purchased the property. Responding to Chairman Messe, Ms. Banker stated the wholesale automobile supply business is already there in a separate portion of the building and this business markets to other companies all over the Onited States and they have dealers. She responded to Chairman Hesse that there is no retail sales out of this facility and she responded to Commissioner Bouas that they have eight employees, including mechanics, etc. She responded to Commissioner Bouas that these are conversions to foreign cars and presented a brochure describing the business, and stated all work is done inside and that no vehicles are stored outside and Commissioner Bouas asked about the cars that are parked all around the property. Ms.Banker stated she did not know the answer, but when she has been there, there has been no parking problem. She added the traffic study indicated 19 spaces xould be used and they have 26 spaces. 5/9/88 t r '. MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Ma 9, 1988 68-675 Chairman Messe responded other businesses are contributing to the problem and that he will ask Code Enforcement to take a look at the situatiandbthereeis a there is a lot of outside storage that is using up the parking problem on that street. Ms. Banker stated there is plenty of parking on the site. Commissioner Boydstun asked if all the vehicles are serviced for dealers and if there is any personal service done where people would be coming and going, and Ms.Banker stated their market is for the conversion of European cars which are converted from the European standard to conform to our standards. ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a moL-ion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney, and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit an automobile conversion facility with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately .OS acre, having a froximatelf 270 feet southeof west side of Grove Street, and being located app Y the centerline of La Palma Avenue and further described as 1061 N. Grove Street; 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 comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant waiver of code requirement on the basis that the parking waiver vial not cause an increase in traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity nor adversely affect any adjoining land uses; and granting of the parking waiver under the safetyiand general,welfare,ofl thencitizenstofmtheaCity ofeAnaheim,health, Commissioner Bouas offered Resolution No. PC 88-124 and moved for it=an~ssage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby g Conditional Use Permit No. 3004, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035, subject to InterdepartmenL•al Committee Recommendations. On roll call the foregoing resolution vas passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Bouas, Boydstun, Carusillo, Feldhaus, Herbst, Messe McBurney NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. 5/9/88 1 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION,_MAY 9. 1986 88-676 ITEM N0. 12. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OF CODE REQIIIREMENT AA'D CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 30G6. PIIBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: PAUL J. MARASCO AND FANNIE J. MARASCO, 2285 N. Via Puerta, Laguna Hills, CA 92653. AGENT: DHIRENDRA SHAH, 13149 Caravel Street, Cerritos, CA 90701. Property is approximately 1.9 acres, having a frontage of approximately 334 feet on the east side of Beach Boulevard, approximately 900 feet south of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue, and further described as 212 S. Beach Boulevard. Request for a 3-story, 196-room motel, including an enclosed restaurant, with waivers of minimum number of parking spaces and permitted encroachments into front, side and rear yards. 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. Dhirendza Shah, agent, was present to answer any questions. Mr. Parikh, partner, stated i,e talked to the Engineering Department about Condition No. 5 regarding the sever in Beach and Lincoln and he is required to pay for a sever i/2 mile long and asked if that condition can be modified. Chairman Meese stated that is done with an reimbursement agreement. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Responding to Commissioner Bouas, Arthur L. Dav, Deputy City Engineer, stated this motel would increase the use four times and he did not think the existing sewer system could be relieved. Commissioner Bouas stated the only other property which might be developed and included in any reimbursement agreement is at the northeast corner of Lincoln and Beach and Mr. Dav responded City staff would have to analyze the area and determine which properties could be i::tensified and included in any reimbursement service area. Commissioner Bouas suggested this matter be continued until that determination has been made. Commissioner Herbst stated the motel can not be built unless something is done about the sever because there is not adequate capacity. Mr. Parikh stated a cost of $500,000 vas discussed and that he has agreed to post a bond for their share. Mr. Dav responded to Commissioner Feldhavs that his staff has not made an estimate but a ballpark figure would be about X350,000 total cost. Responding to Mr. Parikh, Chairman Meese stated the existing sever is at capacity and that this motel would be tripling the population on that property. 5/9/88 ~. ' ' NINIITES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MAY 9, 1^88 SS-677 Commissioner Herbst asked why this property is not reclassified to commercial, limited zoning. Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, stated a motel would be allowed by a conditional use permit in this zone as well as in the CL Zone. Commissioner Herbst stated the RS-93,000 zone vas the "holding zone" and this property should be rezoned to conform to the General Plan and if it vas CL zoning, the waivers could be eliminated. Mr. Hasting stated the parking waiver would still be needed. Mr. Hastings stated the fee for a reclassification would be ~450.0~0, plus ;20 an acre, in addition to ttie fee for the conditional use permit. Commissioner Herbst stated other developers would look at this action and not know the zoning and want to get approval of the same xaivers and he felt xhen there is something like this, it should automatically be reclassified to the underlying zone on the General Plan. Chairman Messe stated he would not want to grant a conditional use permit for this motel without some resolution of the sewer issue. He suggested a continuance in order to see if it can be resolved. Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, stated if the sewer issue is not resolved, it could affect the CEQA compliance since the Negative Declaration approval assumes there is adequate sewer capacity. Commissioner Carusillo asked if the applicant is aware of the Traffic Engineer's proposal that they pay for the widening of Beach Boulevard to the corner of Lincoln in order to create a right turn lane. Mr.Shah stated they were aware of that condition and understood they would be paying for only 600 feet of the widening. Debbie Fank, Associate Traffic Engineer, stated the right turn lane is only at the intersection and that is not his property frontage, but his traffic study indicated that that intersection is at level of service F and to mitigate that, a right turn only lane is needed. Commissioner Feldhaus stated Page 4, #16, says the traffic generated by the pr~aosed use xill not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways ~iee+igned and improved to carry the traffic in the area. ,,mmissioner McB~irney stated he could not go along with imposing that .:ondition on this property because it is too far away from the intersection. Commissioner Carusillo agreed. Mr. Shah stated he vas not aware of that requirement and added he could like to know about the requirement to install street lights, Condition No. 7. Chairman Messe stated if that fee has been paid, it will not have to be paid again and that is a standard condition which is imposed on ail properties. Commissioner Carusillo suggested the petitioner request a continuance in order to find out about the sever condition and the right turn lane requirement, adding it seemed to be the consensus of the Commission not to require that because the property is so far away from the corner. 5/9/88 ~•~ t MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MAY 9, 1988 88-678 Commissioner Herbst stated he xould like for the applicant to request a reclassification and Greg Hastings stated if the matter has to be readveztised for a reclassification, the continuance should be for four weeks, rather than txo. He asked if the Commission is initiating the reclassification, or asking the applicant to do it. Commissioner Herbst stated the applicant should do it and it should have been done in the first place. ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby continue consideration of the aforementioned matter to the regularly-scheduled meeting of June 6, 1988. ITEM N0. 13. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3007. PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY, P. 0. Box 6411, Artesia, CA 90702. AGENT: W. F. REYNOLDS, 24785 La Grima, Mission Yiejo, CA 92602. Property is approximately 0.51 acre located at the southrest corner of Katella Avenue and State College Boulevard, and further described as 1801 S. State College Boulevard (Arco Service Station). Request: Permit an automatic car wash in conjunction with an existing gasoline service station. There xas 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. Hill Reynolds, agent, explained they have been trying to get this property developed and now are being asked to dedicate a lot of property for the critical intersection program; that they lost the chance for an AM/PM there because of the dr:dication and the loss of property means they could not meet the parking requirements and now are proposing a small drive-through car wash. He stated the facility is currently closed and they would like to get started. He stated they are being asked to give up 19 feet on State College and 12 feet on Katella and also L•hey are being asked to make the improvements on that same property, and pay for the traffic signal relocation and the telephone pole relocation. He stated the 4,500 sq. ft. is probably worth about $225,000 since that is a prime corner in this city. He stated they are willing to give the property, but should not have to pay for the improvements around it for the benefit of the City of Anaheim. Mr. Reynolds stated they presently have four drivexays and have been asked to close two and that they submitted plans shoring the driveway entrance on Ratella to begin approximately 75 feet from ~he corner and Mr. Singer initially wanted 110 feet and agreed to 90 feet and they could still like to have it at 75 feel; and also they could like to have the driveway to be 40 feet ride instead of 30 feet as suggested by Mr. Singer because 40 feet is safe for people to enter and exit the same drive. He explained cars xould come in off Ratella, go through the gas pumps and if they purchase a car wash, they would drive through the car rash from south to north and then exit back 5/9/88 -. ~ ~ ~ ,1 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MAY 9, 1988 88-679 to Katella. He suggested the beginning of a 40-foot wide driveway be moved 75 feet from the existing curbline, and that they be allowed to have the proposed parking as submitted.on the plans. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Debbie Fank, Associate Traffic Engineer, stated Condition No. 3, page 3, refers to the critical intersection dedication and it doesn't really state that in the condition, and that should be an irrevocable offer to dedicate and would become null and void if the General Plan is not amended by the City Council. Slie stated they would need to pay for improvements for 7 feet on State College, but not for the addition 12 feet that is to be dedicated, unless that 7 feet includes the relocation of the traffic signal pole, and then they would need to pay for that. Chairman Messe stated when Hanover came in, they xere willing to improve this corner. Debbie Fank responded they were going to widen one leg, and the Benco developer vas going to do the southeast corner, and thought possibly Hanover was going to do the southwest corner. She added the Hanover development is phased and after they develop a certain number of square feet, they will do some improvements and then after more development, will do more improvements. It vas noted that provision is included in the Development Agreement with Hano•.er and it has a very specific time schedule based on the buildout of square footage. Mr. Reynolds responded to Chairman Messe that they would like the driveway to be located right where it is shown on the plans. He stated because of the loss of property, they are having to remove a complete end off the canopy and one island. Chairman Messe stated that puts it close the corner of that intersection. Mr. Reynolds stated the only problem they see is making sharp turns if the drivexay was zest of where it is and right now they can go through the property xith no problem. He stated he vas not aware of any problem with the tankers. Commissioner Herbst stated maybe the decision should be delayed until the City Council acts regarding the critical intersection program. Mr. Reynolds stated they need to get started as soon as possible and Ms. Fank stated this is the standard in the existing General Plan for this intersection. Ms. Fank stated basically there is only right turn in and right turn out for this corner and did not think a 40-foot driveway is conceivable on Katella because two cars would try to exit at the same time turning right. Mr. Reynolds stated the driveway located as shown on the plans would alloy a smoother access into their pump islands and also four parking spaces are proposed at the top where they can dry off the cars coming out of the car wash facility. He added if there are cars waiting to exit, it would try up traffic stopped on Katella waiting for thaL• person to get out onto the street. He explained the width of the drivexay will leave more room for the cars to maneuver around each other and a 30-foot driveway is really small in this business. 5/9/88 `, \ f ~ MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MAY 9. 1988 - Responding to Commissioner Feldhaus, Ms. Fank stated xith a 40-foot driveway and cars turning right in and right out, there is enough width for two cars to try and exit at the same time, and they x111 be getting in line on the site to exit, and added there is going to be a median on Ratella. Responding to Chairman Messe, Mr. Reynolds stated the other driveway is 30 feet aide, but is strictly an exit driveway, and Chairman Messe added they could go doxn State College, and Mr. Reynolds stated that is possible, but there are no problems there, and their concern is the safety of the people in setting up the car wash and the safety of the L-rucks making the turn onto the property. Ms. Fank stated there is equal traffic flow on State College and Ratella and both would be turning in right. ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun, and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit an automztic car wash in conjunction xith an existing car wash in conjunction with an existing gasoline service station on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.51 acre, located at the southxest corner of Ratella Avenue and State College Boulevard and further described as 1801 S. State College Boulevard (Arco Service Station): 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 reviex 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 Bouas offered Resolution No. PC 88-125 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 3007, pursuant tc Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035, subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations except to permit a 40-foot wide driveway as regl:ated by the applicant, 75 feet from the intersection, and Condition No. 10 __ rg deleted, and a condition added requiring termination of to the billboard conditional use permit. On roll call the foregoing resolution xas passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Bouas, Boydstun, Carusillo, Feldhaus, 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 the City Ccuncil. 5/9/88 f ~ MINUTES, ANAHBIiK CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MAY 9, 1988 88-681 ITEM N0. 14. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATIOPj AND CONDITIONAL DSE PERMIT N0. 3008. PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: OLYMPIA STATIONS INC., 405 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10022. AGENT: GARY ENGINEERING INC., 2207 Garnet Avenue, Suite G, i San Diego, Ca 92109. Property is approximately 0.5 acre .located at the northeast corner of Beach Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue, and further described is 100 N.Beach Boulevard. Request: To permit a convenience market with gasoline. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request; and although the staff report xas not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Bob Faudoa, agent, stated this is currently a two-bay station built in 1960 and Unocal is proposing to demolish that station and build a new self-serve station with a snack shop and that the shcp will not sell any alcohol or fast food items. He added the landscaping currently is about 2% of the site and they will increase that to about 16%. He otated they viii dedicate the property and agree with the cons'*.ions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSEL'•. Commissioner Boydstun asked about the restrooms, and odded the Commission would l.tke two restrooms, one for each se ;c. Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, explained that is not a code requirement. but a policy established by the City Council and they have asked staff to include it as a condition of approval. He stated that is included as a condition, No. 10. Mr. Faudoa stated they would comply. Commissioner McBurney stated he was glad they are including planters on the north and east property lines to alloy no ingress or egress from Circuit City. ACTION: Commissioner Carusiilo offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas, and NOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit a convenience market with gasoline sales on a rectangularly shaped parcel consisting of approximately 0.5 acre located at the northeast corner of Beech Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue, and further desc.?bed as 100 N. Beach Boulevard; 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 comments received that there is nt substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Carusiilo offered Resolution No. PC 68-126 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does Ytereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 3008, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035, subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations. 5/9/88 ^ i MINDTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MAY 9, 1988 88-682 On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Bouas, Boydstun, Carusillo, Feldhaus, Herbst, Messe McBurney NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the right to appeal the Planning Commissions decision within 22 days to the City Council. 5/9/88 ,~ ~. MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNIPIG COMMISSION May 9 1988 88-68~ ITEM NO 15 CATEGORICAL EXEMPT CLASS 3 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: JERRY L. MADREN AND JUDY A. MADREN, 503 S. Vicki Lane, Anaheim, CA 92804. Property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.14 acre, having a frontage of approximately 53 feet on the west sidz of Vicki Lane, approximately 200 feet north of the centerline of Orange Avenue and further described as 503 South Vicki Lare. Request: To construct a 640-square foot "granny unit." There were seven (7) persons indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and 10 persons indicating their presence in favor of subject request; and although the staff report to the Planning Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Judy Madren, owner, explained the request is for a granny unit to help take care of her parents since her father is ill and to provide a smaller place for them so they will not have so much upkeep. She stated she worked at Rockwell for 21 years and has resigned so she could devote more time to helping her mother. She stated the granny unit would provide a smaller place where her mother would not have to worry about the upkeep and that she would be right there to give her more help and would not have to be going back and forth. She stated also this type of unit would give her mother the privacy she needs to care for him. Ms. Madren stated whin she started planning to do this, she talked to some immediate neighbors and got tha impression that everything was fine, but last Thursday found out there was a petition going around opposing the request and she couldn't understand why. She stated she did talk to some of the neighbors and there seemed to be a lot of misinterpretation and misunderstanding of what a granny unit is, and that after she explained the restrictions and what it is and why she was doing it, a lot of those people signed a petition she had in favor o£ the request. She explained she did submit that petition this morning. Ms. Madren stated some neighbors were told that she was building an apartment unit to rent out and that there would be a lot more cars, and that would bring down the value of the neighborhood; and that once they did it, other neighbors would want to do the same thing; and that as she got further down the street, some had been told that she was building a nursery school and one neighbor even said that they heard she was building a nursing home. She stated she tried to explain the restrictions the City imposes and that she was doing this to help her parents and to keep her father from having to be put in a nursing home and also to take some of the strain off her mother. She stated a lot of money will be put into this project to make it architecturally beautiful so that it will fit in with the rest of the neighborhood which has two-story homes already. She stated her parents have no car, and neither one drives. She stated some people were concerned about ~. ~~ MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COt~4dISSTON Mav 9 1988 88-684 what happens if she moves and that she has no intention of moving, but if she did move, she did explain to the neighors that the new owners would have to have the same restrictions or covenant. She stated some people thought this would bring down the value of the neighborhood and she did not think it would. She stated they want to stay in the neighborhood and she really did not want to create any animousity between the neighbors and told them that if anybody wanted to talk about it, or had any suggestions, they would be willing to listen. Ms. Madren explained they have two teenage children and they also help take care of her father and the granny unit would be a lot more convenient and they could help more and it is just t'he best solution for her family. She stated unless someone has been faced with disease, they cannot understand the tragedy and it is really hard to face. She stated she hoped the Commission will be understanding and realize that the granny unit was created for situations just like this. Jim Wallace stated he lives about 200 feet from subject property, at 435 Sheilds Drive, the northwest corner of Bridgeport and Sheilds. He stated when he heard about this, it seemed like this is a family with a tragedy on their hands and they are trying to cape with it the best way they can. He stated with the restrictions that are imposed, it appears it will be limited to a couple of adults, at least 60 years old, and he did not see how this is going to have that much effect on the value of the property, or how a couple of senior citizens living out the twilight of their lives is going to wreck the quality of life is the neighborhood and even if it dropped the value of his property a little, he .is willing to maY.e that sacrifice to help some good neighbors. He stated he would recommend approval of this request. Duane Perkins, 507 Vicki Lane, directly south of subject property, stated he approves of this wholeheartedly and did not sea any reason for it to depreciate their property or cause any problems in the neighborhood. Pricilla Atkinson, 437 Vicki Lane, stated she can see no reason to oppose this project; that the unit is being built to Code as required and it will not affect or cause parking problems because there are no additional vehicles involved; and that the deed restriction prohibits this unit from being used for any other purpose than a granny unit and she recommended approval of this conditional use permit. OPPOSITION: Don Lowe, 941 Vicki Lane, stated his house is just to the north of subject property and explained he had presented a petition containing signatures of people in opposition, and also that he had submitted a map showing the location of the people who signed his petition in opposition. He stated the first 'thing they said was, "It will downgrade our property, and it just opens up the floodgate of granny apartments." He stated they have a flood of 4 ~~` Y_,3 MINUTES iaNAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION May 9 1988 88-685 apartments in their neighborhood; that their homes were beautiful and that he talked to the builder of the homes and he was proud of the way he arranged the houses so that they did not look like tract houses and they are custom built homes. Iie stated the first thing people say when they come into the area is that these are beautiful homes. Mr. Lowe stated another neighbor who signed the petition, Mr. Gould's mother had Alheimzer's disease, and that he talked to Mrs. Gould and she said no matter what they do, they will still end up having problems. He stated there is an alternative, and explained they have a big 13' x 26' rumpus room on the rear of this 4-bedroom house and that could be extended and the kitchen and bathroom added because there is room in the back yard and thsn they would not have to go up and down stairs. He added he is 71 years old and going up and down stairs is not the answer for any older person. He referred to the map and stated he could not show all the people who signed the petition, and that they all said, "no more apartments." He stated they bought their homes as single-family units and they want to keep them that way and that there are not very many left in the City and if a person drove down Vicki Lane, they would see what he is talking about. Jean Mann, 2776 Bridgeport, stated she was the first to move into the neighborhood in November 1968 and that it was a single family residential neighborhood and she objects to the granny unit and thought that it is an apartment and she would hate to see their neighborhood change. She asked who will monitor the restrictions placed on this unit, especially if and when this family should leave. John Milne, 425 S. Vicki Lane, stated he is opposed to this because these houses were developed as single-family residences and should stay that way, and he did not think anything should be added. He stated as far as the family is concerned, they have ample room to take care of their parents, if they want to, and he did not think they have to add onto the residence, especially upstairs for people who are ill. He stated there is to be a covenant that will be recorded against the property in the event they sell the property, but he was concerned about that and felt the request should be rejected. Don Lowe explained the parents live about 600 feet from the petitioners at the present time and it is only about 1000 feet or less to `.he paramedics if they were needed. He stated he has known the parents all these year3 and they were the first people he met when they moved in and they have been ovar to their home and their lawn and home are well maintained. He stated as people get older, they have to give up a lot of things and taking care of the lawn and house so meticulously should not cause them to have to move. fir.,, ' ...1 'x'' ~ ,' MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Maw 9 1988 88-686 REBUTTAL: Ms. Madren asked that her brother be allowed to represent her. William Centobene, Sea 8 Surfside, brother of the applicant, stated he teaches at Cypress College; and that he was brought up on Shields Drive since 1955 and his parents have lived there all of his life and his sister chose to purchase a home close to them. He added as their parents have gotten older, his sister has seen fit to care for them; that his father is in great physical condition, but has Alheimzer'~ disease now and his sister has made this application to provide the care for them within the Codes the City has provided for a granny unit and he saw no reason to have them move anywhere else. He stated they have loved this city for as long as they have been here and he would like to see them stay. He stated he hopes the Commission sees the rationale in that kind of thinking. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst stated he had no questions and thought from looking at the plans that this particular addition could be built exactly as proposed without the kitchen and it would meet all the Code requirements and they could have an exit stairway, etc., and they are putting the kitchen in for the parent's convenience. He stated also the granny unit process was given to the cities by the State of California and the State did say this could be done within the City's zones. He stated there are a lot more elderly people now than there used to be and they are trying to keep the families together and this is one way to do it and the State has told the cities they can vary from their Zoning ordinances to allow granny units under certain conditions, for people of a certain age, and there has to be a covenant that protects the neighborhood. He stated there will not be a proliferation of this type unit because most people cannot afford to do it. He stated this is one of the finest granny unit developments he has seen in the City of Anaheim and he is definitely in favor of this particular request and saw no detrimental effect on the neighborhood. Chairman Messe stated a question was asked as to who will monitor the use of this unit and he believed it is the neighorhood that can do that and there is Code Enforcement in this City and if this home is ever sold and the unit is rented to younger people, then the neighbors can call Cade Enforcement and it will be reviewed. Commissioner Feldhaus stated also this is a conditional use permit request and there is a provision allowing that permit to be reviewed at anytime, if the conditions of the conditional use permit are violated. It was noted the Planning Director or his authorized representative has determined that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 3, as defined in the State Environmental impact Report Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare a?a SIR. ~.. ~ '; .1 MiivuiES Ai'AnET i ^rnw or a~xurur_ rro„n.,trec7nia Mav Q. 1 QRA 88-6a7 A^TI N: Commissioner McBurney offered Resolution No. PC88-127 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit Nu. 3009, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035, and subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Josep'' W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. Chairman Messe thauked the neighborhood for showing their concern in favor and in opposition and added he thought for those neighbors who were questioning the use and perhaps are opposed that they will find that it is going to be a good development and will certainly look good and that it won't impact the area at all. Ms. Mann asked if the unit was approved with the kitchen or without the kitchen. Chairman Messe responded it was approved with the kitchen. Commissioner Herbst explained he had referred earlier to the fact that they could build this unit without the kitchen and not even have to come before the Planning Commission. ~` f 16. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: A. TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 12655 (REVISION N0. 1) - P.equest from Trider Corporation for approval of specific plans. Property located at 270 S. Mohler Drive. (Continued from the March 28, Aprii 11 and April 25, 1988 Planning Commission meetings. There were four (4) persons indicating their presence in opposition to subject request. Phillip Schwartze, agent, representing Trider Corporation, explained the plans have been modified and the height to the ridgeline on all of the units is 25 feet or less and any protrusions above the 25 feet are the chimneys, and explained by the Fire Code, chimneys are required to be several feet about the roof line. Mr.Schwartze stated in the tract there are 11 lots and all of the lots with Plan No. 1 are belov the 25-foot limit. Paul Simpson, 241 Wildan, stated he understood that this proposal vas denied previously and he thought there should have been another variance hearing since this came up again. He stated no one was informed in the neighborhood about this and all of them are going to the City Council meeting tomorrow xhen they discuss this same issue. Commissioner McBUrney stated this matter vas continued in order for the plans to be revised in order to comply vith th.e 25-foot height requirement, vhich they Lave done. Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, explained this was originally a variance vhich included specific plan approval and the variance was denied by the ?lanning Commission and has been appealed to tl~e City Councii and will be heard tomorrow at a public hearing. Hovever, they are still required to get approval of specific plan. Commissioner IIouas stated the revised plans reduce the heights and the only thing over 25 feet is the chimneys r•hich are required to be higher than the roof according to the Fire Code. Commissioner Carusillo stated initially it was rejected because the building rooflines were above the ~5 feet and now that has been modified and the rooflines are at 25 feet, with only chimneys above that height. Mz.Simpson stated he understands that, but also that the City Code says 25 feet maximum. Chairman Mease pointed out that the Planning Commission will be discussing that same issue later when they discuss Item 16-D, and will be taking some action trying to straighten out the ambiguity involved in the codes. He stated originally the Code xas for a 25-foot height, and in 1980 he Building Code changed requiring the chimneys to be two feet above the roof. Commissioner Bouas stated this matter was continued in order for the neighbors to be present. t • Responding to Commissioner Feidhaus, Mr. Simpson stated rules are made to be obeyed and to have an individual ask for a variance is not really good and he did not think anybody should have different rights than any one else. Ae stated this property is fairly level and he did not think there is reason for a variance to be granted. Mr. Simpson stated this will affect his house to a certain degree and that he looks right down the street and all the houses there will be affected. He agreed that this is a very small area, but felt the Codes should be appliel to every property owner. There was 8 discussion whether the chimneys are 2 feet or 2-i/2 feet above the roof line. Commissioner Carusillo asked if there are going to be any walls are fences along Mohler Drive. Mr. Schwartze responded there will be wrought iron fences with pilasters. Gary McCann, Trider Corporation, stated the fence will aeet Code and is 6 feet high and going up the slopes will be wrought iron and next the homes, there will be block walls, and there would not be anything on Mohler Drive. Mr. McCann stated he will be planting 287 trees on the property and any views that get t1ocY.ed will be blocked by those ;trees, more than fences and also noted that pooperty has been lowered in t2ie grading and people living there probably have a better view now than before the grading. Commissioner Carusillo stated this property has no impact on his property whatsoever. Carol Simpson, 241 S.Wildan, stated they were not notified about this meeting, but were notified about the meeting tomorrow, and asked if there is a meeting tomorrow. It was pointed out treee is a hearing before the City Council tomorrov and that L•his is a report and recommendation matter and not a public hearing. Ms. Simpson stated some of the trees have been removed and Chairman Messe responded the Commission has looked into that and there was a tree surgeon's report that showed the trees that were removed were either diseased or dead. Commissioner Carusillo stated he understands from Mr. Sc;~wartze that if this matter is approved that there might be a request to cancel the hearing tomorrow. Phil Schwartze stated the request before the City Council tomorrow is for zn appeal of the variance an3 based on discussions with the applicant, he understood that since the City Council will not have had an opportunity to hear xhat the Commission did tonight, that they will either withdraw the petition or continue it to a later meeting. ~~ r~' .! Commissioner Carusillo asked if there are more than one chimney on any of these structures. Mr.Schvartze stated on same there are as many as 3 as shown on the plans. Greg Hastings stated he has been informed that the Buildir:g Code requires 2 feet. ACTION: Commissioner Hezbst• offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve specific plans for 11 single-family residences as required by Condition No. 9 of Tentative Tract No. 12665 (Revision No. 1). B. N.OHLER DRIVE/CANYON AREA DENSITIES - REVIEW OF APPROVED DENSITIES IN THE MOHLER DP.IVE ANNEXATION AREA AND IN THE CANYON AicEA OVERALL Report submitted for Planning Commission information only and no action vas taken. C. VARIANCE N0. 3734 - REQOEST FOR WAIVER OF COUNCIL POLICY N0. 542 - SOUND ATTENUATION - To Instruct 3 single-family residences adjacent to the Santa Ana Freeway and to retain the existing 10-foot high noise barrier adjacent to the freeway. Commissioner Herbst asked liov the applicant will attenuate the sound from the freeway. Kent Justice, one of the principles, stated the existing wall will be left. Commissioner Herbst added he realized it would take.a 20-foot wall to attenuate the sound, but there are things that can be done to the wall, and that the windoxs can have double-paned glass, etc. to help attenuate the sound. Mr. Justice stated he understood that has been done. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve waiver of Council Policy No. X42 to construct 3 single-family residences adjacent to the Santa Ana Freeway and to retain the existing 10-foot high noise barrier adjacent to the freeway. D. WAIVER OF HILLSIDE GRADING ORDINANCE - TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 12576 - As it relates to the location of the lot lines at the top of the slopes within Tract No. 12576 for the rear lots (19, 15 and 16). ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, s?conded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED tY.at the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council approve the request for xaiver of•the Hillside Grading Ordinanr_e as it relates to the location of lot lines at the top of :lopes within Tract No. 12576, for Lots 14, 15 and 16. MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MaK 9 1988 88-688 ITEM N0. 16 - REPORTS j~tD RECODfMENDATIONS E. REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION INTERPRETATION OF SECTIONS 18 04 030 18 84 020 AND 18 84 042 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANA~j$~ MUNICIPAL CODE AS TO WHETAER CH7~~EYS ARE A PERMITTED PROJECTION ABOVE THE MAXIMUM SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING STRUCTURAL AND BUILDING HEIGHT IN THE SCENIC CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE. Mary McCloskey, Senior Planner, presented the staff report and explained the applicant has requested Planning Commission to interpret Sections 18.04.030, 18.84.020 and 18.84.042 as to whether chimneys are a permitted projection above the maximum structural and building height in the Scenic: Corridor Overlay Zone. She stated as presently administered by staff, the Code provides that chimneys are not a permitted projection above the maximum 25-foot high structural building height for single-family dwellings in the Scenic Corridor. She stated, further, that the General Provisions Section under Structural Height Limitations permitting chimneys as a permitted projection does not supersede the requirements of the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone. Ms. McCloskey noted that as of January of this year, 18 requests for waiver of the maximum 25-foot structural height limitation ha•~e been considered, wherein the Code has been interpreted Co include chimney heights is determining the maximum structural height. S'he stated also staff feels that if the General Provisions Section superseded the Scenic Corridor requirements, other provisions of that general section would cause problems or result ~n undesirablc± applications of the Code in the Scenic Corridor. She stated the Building Code does require that chimneys extend a minimum of two feet above the roof and the i~ighest elevation at any point of the building within ten feet of the chimney; therefore, in order to be in compliance with that chimney clearance, the maximum height of any structure within 10 feet of the chimney .^,ould not be higher than 23 feet and that seems to have caused design problems. She stated the Code provides that if ambiguity exists with reference to height requirements, it shall be the Planning Commission's duty, by resolution, to set forth their findings and refer them to the City Council and added that staff would be supportive of clarifying the Planning Cortnnission's intent in this issue. Frank Elfend, Elfend and Associates, agent, stated they are requesting ;larification of an item which they have discussed with staff for several months and the question is whether or not the chimneys are included within the 25-foot structural limitation. p0067b 5/9/88 MIN rl'ES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOts Ma~9 1988 sia_68q__ He stated however, before ad~:z'FSa~inq the speci•fiFS yf eheir proposal, he wanted to pre^,;.,~ pest communi~at'~ons with staff dc:ring the last few moat*s L•o giv» the ::ommission some background. He stz`.ed this ma.'t.rr nes been discussed with Joel Fick and Mary McCloskey, as •k6a7, ar.•oihnr members of the Pl,~,nning Departrren*., as well as Jack wh.~te az;a Joe Fletcher of the City Attorz:ey° ?. Office, and recent]y i•n a meeting in the City Attorney's Office, the decision ras;tned2 to bring this to the 1`la.,:ding Commission for clarificath'e, He stated previously is working with staff during the processing of the Sp^.c if~i,c Plar. and TentaL•ive Maps for both the Hia,hlands and Sycamor~_ C-;yan projects, there was some uncertainty zeyarding exactly what the Code said and during these discussions staff presented them with varie. opinions and different interpretations of whether or not this was, in fact, an issue which it now is. He stated in conrrast, he has alwa;5 reviewed this as a simple uncomplicated matter, not t'.:e type oi' issue which has repeatedly come before the Planning Commission with reguz•d to structural height requirements. He stated in both of their projects, they Lave carefully planned the developments to complement tt:~: surrounding environment from the view standpoint, and in doing that, they have relied on their understanding that the chimney heights were permitted projections above the rooflines. Hn explained tha_: made that detemination by reviewia~ the :~,~`+,.~:•',~? Code which provides the following deductive conclusions: 1)' :'.'rat general site de•:elopment standards clearly permit chi~aneys abover rooflines; 2) that this provision by its own terms clt:arly is applicable to all zones, including "thee Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone, and stated again that tt:e amoral provisions say "that this provision is applicable .to a]] zones" and the Scenic Corridor is a Zone. He stated ti;~y also det'.ermined that tha scenic Corridor Overlay Zone does nor:, iaval•!da,te the general structural height ,provisions and .furthermore, t:*c- Scenic Corridor Overlay ?sac •cxpz'~ssl'y proh•,bi*_s certain roof projections but not chimneys .and if it has been the intent to prohibit chimneys, it would have t~eea a sir•sle matter to have included it in the actual overlay zone. He sated based on those factors and not those stated in to staff repot, it was their understanding thtC chimne~+s were ~rmitted above the ropflines. He stated with regard to any prior interpretatio:r.s, they believe those interpretations were offered on projections where the actual roofline exceeded 25 feet any that he aeteaded a prblic hearing last week 1:>efore the City Council and theg rev'=exe8 two items, and as well, h~a kna•~~~• the .tiackornund or. some of L.he projects that came before the Plam:ing Commi.ssian sad City Council and, _~~ fats, the roofs wera~ 25 ~aet and above and 35 feet in the Peloquiii tra~:t. 5/'9/88 ~. ~~E „~; MINtT'''FS ?~+NAHEIM CITY PLAT:^.FING COMMfsSION. Maw Q- 1988-_- AR-F9~-- He stated based an !''he abov. f.netors, he woul~ suggeset this matter br cr.:,olveil ;s., acec~donta with Recommendation ;. on page 3 of the st~~=f~' ~eFort by a.:i;Yiing a r.°aolution permitting chimneys to bP arectied ebb:+. the 25-foot high roof?~u~ limitation. Mr. Elfend stated Ms: McCloskey indicated iTC her comments that the minimum clc ranee is i feet and on the Highlands L•roject, the chimneys ~:~r; from 2-1/2 fee*. to 3 feet. F'.e v,dd~;Cl they have nev~sr found chimneys to be view obsti ctive. Commissioner McBurney stated i;s felt all a].o*.'.=3 that the chimneys were just an appendage above the• roof line and that the roof line was the top of the 25 feet and that he has mo problem with this r~aquest. Chairman Mersa statod he thought the .intent of the Overlay Zone was fo; a 25-foot high home and *_hen tr.r Building Code required that the ci:imn~y bye a certain height ..3uve that and he thought. that intergri~t.ation could 'ue .nude. Commissioner celahaus stated he i.s ready to offer a motion inst~:uctin, a:~fL' to draft an ordinance. Conu,issioner Carusillo stated he thought this should be examined a little more and that he did got see a problem in a nww development where the develog9r is concerne!1 w?:h the aesthetics and views, and the neighbor's views, but Ltiau~nt it could be a problem in an existi.ro neighborhood, especially if there is ao control over how ma.^.~~ chimneys are allowed. Co~anissioter McBurney stated staff is ~:oricing on a new ordinance -ith regard to the height limitation in the Scenic Corridor snd stated he did not think the intrusion of a chimney is that ~~uch of an impact, unless you are sitting right next t'~~~* ~nai the chimney is right outside your window. Commissan~r Carusillo stated he has that situation with a neighbor a_hd that developing something 100 feet away with a 4-foot wide chimney on top o: a roof could block quite a bit of the view that someone else has L.~en enjoying fcr a long time. Commissioner Herbst stated ::e thought this had been the intent of the ordinance all along any inasmuch as chimneys above the roofline havtr been allowe~•o throughout the City for years, he thought probably when the ordinance was written na one foresaw this as a problem and that he has not viewed chimneys as part of the roof line since he has been on the Commission and thought this 5!9/88 Y, MINUTES ANAFEIM CITY PLANNING COh4~SISSI0~7 Mav 9. 1988 88-691 should have been allowed in the first place in the ordinance. He stated he thought the chimneys should be allowed and that they will not block anyone's views. ACTION Commissioner Feldhaus offered a motion, directing staff to prepare an ordinance to amend Title 18 to provide for the chimney projection and to clarify the present Code provisions. The motion way seconded by Commissioner McBurney. Commissioner Feldhaus stated he would amend his motion to include that the Code be amended to permit the chimneys at 2 or 2-1/2 feet above the roofline. Joseph Fletcher stated the motion should be to revise the Code to permit chimney projections above the roofline, as required by law. Commissioner Carusillo stated he thought there should some mention of the width because he has seen some chimneys that are 3 or 9 feet wide. Chairman Meese stated this is a request for an interpretation and this discussion actually relates to a code change. Mr. Elfend stated their request was for an interpretation which does not require an amendment to the Code and they are requesting the Commission to interpret the ambiguity. Chairman Masse responded the request will be addressed, but there is no reason nat to do both. Commissioner Feldhaus stated he still wants to amend the Code in order to eliminate these interpretations in the future. On roll call, the foregoing motion instructing staff to draft an ordinance to amend the Code to permit chimney projections above the roofline at a maximum height of 25 feet, as required by law, PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Co.~nmissioaer Herbst stated the City spent many years getting the state to approve the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone and it is a specific area in the amity and it should be separated. Joseph Fletcher clarified the motion is for an amendrent o Chapter 18.84 pertaining to the Scenic Corridor Overlay zone to address the chimneys. Joseph Fletcher continued that the Commission needs to identify the ambiguity in the Code, and then clarify it and the applicant has phrased it in the context as to whether the Scenic Corridor 5/9/86 2.F ._ ~~ MIiItJTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Ma~9 1988 Overlay Zone does or does not supersede the general provisions for building heights. He pointed out as in the staff repor*_ that if the Commission takes that approach which is really more of a legal interpretation than an interpretation of the language of the Code, they may be opening a lot of ambiguities in the future, as opposed to focusing on Section 16.84.042 which is the building height section of the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zore, and read that section of the Code as follows: "The maximum overall height of any building er mobilehome shall be twenty-five feet measured from the highest portion of structure to the highest finished grade lovel at the foundation." Mr. Fletcher stated there is a question as to what the structure means in conjunction with building, and he would recommend that the Commission stay within that Code Sr~tfe: and clarify the ambiguity without having to come back in six months with a lot more ambiguities based on that interpretation. Chairman Meese stated there is some ambiguity and it has been pointed out that the Scenic Corridor Overlay zone prohibits other roof projections and doesn't mention chimneys and therefore the intent of the SC Zone was never to prohibit chimneys as projections above the roofline. Joseph Fletcher stated the applicant has addressed the issue in a much broader term. Commissioner Herbst stated he did not think the Commission wants to open the doors to future requests and definitely there is an ambiguity here. Mr. Fletcher stated the Commission needs to adopt a resolution and identify the particular Code section and identify the ambiguity as being in Section 18.84.042.010 through 18.84.042.012 which does not talk about chimneys and that the maximum point of the structure means the maximum point of the roofline. ACTION: Commissioner Feldhaus offered Resolution No. PC88-128 and moved fur its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby interpret Code Section 18.84.042 of the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone to permit chimneys as permitted projections above the maximum 25-foot height limitation. 5/9/88 `.,. MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION May 9 1988 88-693 On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following dote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDIiAUS, HERBST, MC GURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, explained this interpretation does not become effective and binding until the City Council accepts it and that the normal procedure would be that this matter will automatically be included on the City Council's consent calendar in 22 days. F. ~QNDITIONAL UsE PERMIT N0. 204 - Request for termination from Farano and Rieviet, Attorneys, representing Phil and Jim's for property located at 712 E. Ball Road. ACTIQ~i: Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC 88-129 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby terminate Conditional Use Permit No. 2044. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLIO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC GURNEY, MESSE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE OTH~ DISCUSSION: Commissioner Feldhaus reported the Economic Development Board had discussed redevelopment of the Anaheim Plaza and the possibility of designating that area as a redevelopment area, excluding any residential properties. Commissioner Feldhaus reported they also discuss~u the p.coliferation of signs, especially in the Disneyland area and tailed the discussion to find out if there is any possibility that the City will ina~truct staff to conduct a study. ADJOURNMENT: The meeeting was adjourned to 1C:00 a.m., May 10, 1985: to meet with the City Council is a joint session. The meeting was adjourned at 7:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted ~"~~~ ~ ~ 'acs/ Edith L. Harris Secretary 5/9/88 ~y