Loading...
Minutes-PC 1988/08/01 ~~ REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY p1,A[aNING COMMISSION Date: August 1, 1988 The regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to order at 10:00 a.m., August 1, 1988, by the Chairwoman in the Council Chamber, a quorum being present and the Commission reviewed plans of the items on today's agenda. RECESS: 11:30 a.m. RECONVENE: 1:40 p.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairwoman Bouas Boydstun, Carusillo, Feldhaus, Herbst, McBUrney, Messe COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Joel. Fick Joseph W. Fletcher Malcolm Slaughter Annika Santalahti Arthur L. Daw Paul Singer Greg Hastings Debbie Vaqts Janet Botula Brent Schultz Edith Harris Planning Director Deputy City Attorney Deputy City Attorney Zoning Administrator Deputy City Engineer Traffic Engineer Senior Planner Housing Operations Coordinator Associate Planner Assistant Planner Planning Commission Secretary ~ENDA POSTYNG. A complete copy of the Planning Commission agenda was posted at 9:45, July 29, 1988, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chambers, and also in the autside display kiosk. Published: Anaheim Bulletin - July 22, 1988. P[TBLIC INPUT: Chairwoman Bcuas ezplained at the end of the scheduled hearings, members of the public will be allowed to speak oa items of interest which are within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission and/or agenda items. 0113m, 0390m, 0278m 08/01/86 i ,oaa pace No. _2 ~TNUTES ANAHEIh, CITY PLANNING COMMIS ~N• RECLASSIFICATION NO 87-88-53: ITEM NO 1 CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARAT~ VARIANCE NO. 374 PTBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: HERBERT F. BERGER A1+"D BETTY JEAN BERGER, 2240 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801. AGENT: HUGO VA2QUE2, 2240 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 PROPERTY LOCATION: X188 N West StreeC Request: RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200 or a less intense zone. To construct a 3-story, 12-unit apartment compluxredtcoverages ffparking permitted encroachment of carport eave, (b) req spaces, and (c) maximum structural height. Continued from the ~.reetings of May 23, 1988, and June 20, 1988, and July 18, 1988. There were two persons indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Brent Nerguizian, 2082 Nickelson /212, Irvine, indicated this request had been continued in order to make some design changes they felt would make the project blend into the community better. He noted there had been an objection to the height of the building because the design of the roof structure made it appear that the building was higher and they had been able to cut that down by 2-1/2 feet; and the overall height is 32 feet 6 inches above grade. He noted one of the waivers i.s necessary because the carport eave encroaches into the minimum setback area and they removed that from the site plan; however, that had not been noted on the agenda. He stated the other reason for the continuance was to submit the exact landscaping proposed for this project and that has been done and is the second sheet of their drawing. He stated they will provide astro turf on the open sgace areas because 'the Commission did not feel that what has been done in the past for similar projects was acceptable; and they will provide barbecue areas, picnic benches, and an 18-inch planter box on the perimeter of that open space/recreational area with 5-gallon trees on 4-foot centers. He stated he would be happy to plant those trees in the planter bax rather than potted plants, if that is what Commission would like. OPPOSITION• Susan Rocsis, 206 South Uhio Street, stated she owns property at 1152 North West Street, which is directly south of the proposed project and that she recognizes the applicant has basically met Code requirements, or exceeded them in a number of areas, including density and parking. She stated she was happy there is ao tandem parking and that they have done a number of things which are very nice, but her objection stands on the fact that there will be people living on the third floor of the proposed project looking down into the privacy of the people is the one-story buildings across the street. She acted the Code allows a maximum height of 2 stories and this proposal is for 3 stories. 8/1/88 ". ~; MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION August 1 1988 Paae No 3 Pearl Nazarian, 1152 North West Street, across the street from the proposed project, stated her objection is not how many parking spaces, trees, etc., but is to the whole concept of allowing a 3-story complex to be built on what is now a single-family parcel. She added that is being done throughout Anaheim and that she had seen at least 10 complexes over the weekend where this was done, and referred to items on the agenda later where there are more of these petitions requesting multi-family dwellings on what was formerly a single-family property. She stated reducing the building height by 2-1/2 feet does not eliminate the people on the third floor looking over into the first floor of the condominiums adjacent to the proposed project. REBUTTAL• Mr. Nerguizian stated the code waiver to allow 3 stories within 150 feet of a single-family residential zone, pertains to the RS-A-43,000 property which is located directly to the east of the proposed project, developed with a single-feimily residence and is a very deep lot, and one of three properties owned by a landlord who has a reclassification to rezone the property to RM-1200 and rents the property out and intends to develop it sometime in the future with a similar project. He stated Ms. Nazarian is afraid this would lead to a lot more of the same type of development in an area that is already overdeveloped. He noted most of the properties which have been developed as RM-1200 in the City of Anaheim, have been older single-family units that have been removed in order to put in apartments and there are no opportunities to do that in this area, since it is already developed with apartments and condominiums. Mr. 2erguizian stated he felt this project would add a lot to the community, and that the community has declined in recant years. Chairwoman Bouas noted the oppositions' main concern was people looking into their dwellings from the third floor of the proposed project. Mr. Nerguizian noted only two units are actually set back 20 feet from the street, and with a 64-foot street, and another 15 or 20 feet which was the Code requirement for those one-story buildings across the street, altogether there would be a 100-foot distance and he did not think people would be standing and looking out their window into the adjacent property and he did not see that as a problem. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Carusillc asked if Mr. Nerguizian could elaborate on the visual intrusion from tha north and the east. Mr. Nerguizian stated the primary concern was from the south, across Lodge Street; and to the east there is a vacant lot, and beyond that there are other apartment buildings built under the RM-1200 guidelines; and to the south are older condominiums. He stated two units would face north, but he did not feel that would be as intrusion; he stated he had talked to the owners of both properties across the street and they had no problem with the proposal. 8/1/88 l 1 .~.~re ay~~rv rrmv nr auurur COMMISSION Auaust 1 1988 Paae No 4 Commissioner Carusillo asked if Mr. Nerguizian had spoken with any of the neighbors to the east and whether they are planning any multi-family development; Mr. Nerguizian responded the three properties to the east are all owned by one individual and the property to the east is undergoing a reclassification to RM-1200; but the owner did not want to sell at this time but does have intentions to build an RM-1200 project there in the future. Mr. Nerguizian responded to Commissioner Messe that traffic will enter the parking structure from Lodge. Commissioner Messe asked if any type of security gate is planned across that parking area and the reply was no. Chairwoman Bouas asked if there is a gate on West Street and Mr. Nerguizian stated there is no gate on West Street, however, there is a trash enclosure there. Mr. Nerguizian noted, they had removed an aesthetic treatment in the roof which appeared to be windows. Commissioner Feldhaus stated the landscape plans show there will be mostly lawn area and trees and asked if there are any plans to put in any other plants, etc. Mr. Nerguizian said they had wanted to put grass and trees in, but the plan submitted was not the final landscape drawing and when he submits his landscape drawings to the City, he will retain a landscape architect who, along with the conceptual ideas submitted now, would add his own ideas and additional plantings at various locations. Commissioner Feldhaus indicated he thought the Commission had asked for a landscaping plan at the last meeting. Mr. Nerguizian stated he could specify what would be planted and Commissioner Feldhaus stated he would like to hear Mr. Nerguzian's word or commitment of what he would agree to do. Mr. Nerguiziai stated he could provide a 1-foot ring around each of the trees, to be covered with ground cover, and an 18-inch bed along the perimeter of the building r~ West Street and Lodge Street with ground cover hedges or shrubs. Commissi~, r Feldhaus said he would like something that would aesthetically improve t:~ie looks of the project besides just the trees and lawns. Mr. Nerguizian suggested an 18-inch planting of shrubs along the building on the perimeter of West Street and Lodge Avenue. Commissioner Carusillo said whatever the case was, Mr. Nerguizian would be dealing with the Commission time and time again and would want to leave them with a favorable impression as to the aesthetics of the project, so Commission would leave it in his hands but he has been given some guidelines as to what Commission would be looking for. Commissioner Feldhaus noted that Mr. Nerguizian has stated he would be hiring a landscape architect and he assumed Mr. Nerguizian would defer to the architect's recommendations, even though it may be more costly. 8/1/88 ~. c, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION August 1 1988 Pace N4~.t` Commissioner Feldhaus stated the Commission will be taking a harder look at landscaping in the future gad trying to accomplish a more aesthetically pleasing environment. Mr. Nerguizian stated a commitment as to what he would do in terms of landscaping could be included is the minutes, and that he would put in an 18-inch wide, landscaped area, to be planted with shrubs along the perimeter of the building at West Street and at Lodge Avenue, except for the driveway entrances, and this would be in addition to the trees and plants included oa the landscape plan before Commission now. He stated he had 13 eucalyptus trees and nine pine trees on a grass landscaped area, and in addition he would include shrubs along the perimeter of the building. A TI N: Commissioner Carusillo offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED L•hat the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan and to reclassify subject property from the Current RS-A-43,000 (Residential, Agricultural) zone to the RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple Family) or less intense zone to permit construction of a 3-story, 12-unit apartment complex with waivers of permitted encroachment of carport eave, required coverage of parking spaces, and maximum structural height oa a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.37 acre located at the northeast corner of Lodge Avenue and West Street, and further described as 1188 N. West Street; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Carusillo offered Resolution No. PC88-196 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby GRANT Reclassification No. 87-88-53, subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC GURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ASSENT: NQNE Commissioner Carusillo offered Resolution No. PC88-197 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby GRANT Variance No. 3796 on the basis that the parking waiver will not cause an increase in traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity nor adversely affect nay adjoining land uses and granting of the parking waiver under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim; and 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 8/1/88 t/ + i \ .~ /dTNiT1'FC ANAIiEIM CITY PL NNT2vv ..~~"Tecrnu a.,n„+nr i t988 _~Aae No. 6 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 roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, SOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, BERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES : :LONE ABSENT: 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. 8/1/88 ~. MINUTES ANAFEIM CITY PLANNING COMMIS~TON Auaust 1 1988 Paae No. 7 ITEM NO 2 CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION• WAIVER OF CODE REOUIREME~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3031 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: ORANGE COUNTY STEEL SALVAGE, 3200 East Frontera Road, Anaheim, CA 92816 AGENT: 91 FREEWAY AUCTION SALES, P.O. BOX 6258, Anaheim, CA 92816 PROPERTY LOCATION: Ea ~ rlv terminus of Frontera Street Request: To establish a retail automobile auction sales facility with waiver of maximum area of freestanding sign. Continued from July 6, 1988 meeting. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Commissioner Messe declared a conflict of interest as defined by, Anaheim City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC76-157 adopting a Conflict of Interest Code for the Planning Commission and Government Code Section 3625, et seq., in that applicant is a customer of his business and pursuant to the provisions of the above Codes, declared to the Chairman that he was withdrawing from the hearing in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 3031, and would not take part in either the discussion or the voting thereon and had not discussed this matter with any member of the Planning Commission. Thereupon COMMISSIONER t~SSE LEFT THE COUNCIL CHAMBER. Philip Anthony, 3400 East Frontera Street, Anaheim, stated they had made modifications since they last came before Commission, basically bringing sll of this use together in one location at the east and of tie property and noted they no longer have a satellite parking lot or se,aration of the uses. He stated all of the other features had been maintained and the layout now looks very functional and a lot safer, since all the parking is immediately adjacent to the purposes for which it is used, including the auto sales auction. Mr. Anthony stated there was an error in their application, regarding the sign Code waiver and as the staff had clarified, they really are requesting• 350-square foot sign, as would be the normal sign for the same use if it was in the ML or CL zone. Mr. Anthony stated they were really in agreement with basically all the conditions, with only one really serious exception; and that they have a little concern about the 60-foot street dedication (Condition 2io. 4) because that really is not yet a street on the City maps and this will be an interim use and they are looking forward still to a pz•oper development of the entire property within the next few years. He said he understood the City Engineer has still requested that offer to dedicate and they really would not object to doing it but he did not see why it is necessary now. Mr. Anthony stated they had also submitted a landscaping plan, as requested last time, and they had endeavored to follow the guidelines for low water use landscaping as much as practical; but he believed it was a reasonable landscaping for the entire area along the frontage as well as the parking ]ot. He stated he would appreciate Commission's comments on that. 8/1/88 MINLt'-'ES ANAH~%;Z riTY PLANNING COMMISSIO" a^'^'°r i lggg Paae No. 8 Mr. Anthony stated they were seriously concerned about Condition No. 14, because they had not expected it, which sets the time limit on the use. He noted they had more or less agreed to that in discussions with staff, but it turned out that setting a limit had really caused them difficulty in getting commitments for the necessary short term financing to do the capital improvements and that len^.ers get apprehensive when they see the use coming to °n the ead at a certain time. He noted they agreed with the thought of doing whatever is necessary to guarantee that this use does not in any way get out of reason and they did agree to the thought of an annual administrative review but the City Attorney had recommended that that approach is not recommended for some reason. He suggested,. as a compromise, that if some time limit is necessary, they would like it increased to three years. He said he felt with this new location, and the parking aad traffic being less of a possible concern, that perhaps the time limit is not quite as sensitive as before. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst asked what type of landscaping was planned along *_he freeway side and also along the rear porCion away from the buildings, and asked if Mr. Anthony could provide a landscaping plan that actually shows what would be planted. Mr. Anthony stated he had subml~.ted a landscape plan today and presented a copy to the Commission for their review. He skated the plans were detailed, and they tried to follow *aaheim's quide7.aes for low water usage and plants. He stated the plans do use some rock sc~;.~e, some ground cover, large oleanders along the Freeway frontage and lower shrubs aad bushes in the spaces between the parking aisles. Commissioner Herbst stated he was more concerned about the view from the Freeway in both directions, and asked how big the oleanders would be. Mr. Anthony said they would be six feet high to start with, because they understoo3 the problem of getting something up there right away. Chairwoman Souas asked if they would provide an automatic sprinkling system ead Mr. Anthony replied they would. Mr. Anthony responded, the Chairwoman Bouas that not all the cars always sell, but if the auction is reasonably successful, he would predict that 851 would sell aad the cars that are left would be carried over at least one weekend to see if they would sell again. Chairwoman Bouas asked i.f the cars not sold would be stored there. Mr. Anthony responded there would be cars, varying from a few up to a full load, sitting on the storage lot during the week. Chairwoman Bouas asked if these were all sold retail and Mr. Anthony replied that tf,ey were and the buyer would have to pay sales tax, and their license was issued for retail so the City would have the benefit of sales tax oa every sale. 8/1/88 ~". ., MST ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMM'lSSION Auaust 1 1988 Paae No. 9 Chairwoman Bouas asked if any of the cars that were left would be dismantled on the premises, and Mr. Anthony responded they would not, and that is included in the conditions, and Commissioner Feldhaus noted the condition did not specifically state dismantling and it needed to be added. Commissioner Carusillo noted the Traffic Engineer had concern about left turn signalization on Glassell and asked if Mr. Anthony had a problem with bonding for a study to see whether or not there is a need for that as part of a condition of approval. Mr. Anthony said they agree and would share some of the responsibility, but this use is so small and temporary compared to that entire traffic problem that he would not to obligate this particular project to more than its fair share of either the study or improv~.ments. Commissioner Carusillo said it Could be worded such that the Traffic Engineer would establish the proportionate fair share, if the need arises. Mr. Anthony said the? had discussed this with Mr. Singer and they agree in principle that they do share a part of it, but obviously those intersection improvements are expensive and they are needed for the entire area, so at some point they will have to be done and he agreed they would share as much as they possibly could but they were pretty small compared to the total input there. Commissioner Feldhaus asked if the auctioneer was hired by the company or if the auctioneer bought the cars at a wholesale lot and transported them to this site. Mr. Anthony stated the company runs the operation in tk:e sense of acquiring cars, storing them, owning them temporarily for sale, and thou hire an expert auctioneer to do the auctioneering job on the day of auction. Commissioner Feldhaus asked what happened to the 15i of the cars that did not sell is a week or two. Mr. Anthony noted the 15~ was just his guess as to what would not sell and stated that if the cars did not sell after a couple of weeks, they would send them to one of the large wholesale lots or send them for scrap, but normally the cars would be much too good to be scrapped. He noted cars have several different lives they go through and if they did not sell there, they would be sent to a wholesale auction at some place else. Commissioner Feldhaus stated he did not want them going down next door and being shredded. Chairwoman Bouas stated she would like to see a condition added to post Frontera with no parking, so everyone would have to come into the parking area and would not be able to park on the stra~+tt because there are ao sidewalks. Mr. Anthony stated he did not believe ~~:'~t could be conditioned here because they were discussing that with staff and Mr. Singer planned to present a separate proposal on the parking through normal channels. 8/1/88 J ~TtnrrFC ANA_~ZM CITY PLANNING ^ ^T"" }"^"`r 1 1988 Paae _No. 10 Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated there are no plans to present anything on a separate matter to restrict parking on Froatera, but parking is restricted now from approximately Newkirk to Glassell, in front of the hotel. Chairwoman Bouas asked if it would be better if there was no parking permitted along Froatera in front of the auction, so patrons would have to qo into the parking area to park. Mr. Singer responded it would be better if the street was restriped for a continuous left turn lane to have separate left turns since there would be quite a bit of traffic traveling oa Froatera. Mr. Anthony said on the days of the auction that would be fine, but as part of the plan they had taken the entrance for the auto parts yard off Froatera; and that entrance will be closed anu they have reduced the ingress/egress on Froatera. Commissioner Herbst asked the size of the sign allowed legally on this property and Mr. Hastings responded the allowable sign area is 20 square feet for the residential, agricultural zone, which this is, and if this was a commercial zone, it would be 350 square feet. Commissioner Boydstun asked if the sign could be held at 350 square feet and Mr. Anthony replied it could and said it was their intent to stay within Code for the same use in the other zones. Commissioner Herbst asked Mr. Anthony to explain the type of sign proposed and Mr. Anthony responded the sign would be a plain, lighted sign, with no flashing or moving lights. Commissioner Carusillo asked about the height of the sign indicating he was concerned about distraction to the Freeway traffic. Greg Hastings noted the RS-A-43,000 Zone does not make mention of a particular height for the sign; and if this was a commercial zone, he thought a sign could go up to 75 feet. Commissioner C:.crusillo asked why the sign was not a part of the conditions, subject to approval. Commissioner Herbst stated the plans show the height is 22 feet, so they could still maintain the 350 square feet at 22 feet high, and Mr. Anthony agreed that it would 22 feet high or less. Chairwoman Bouas asked about parking on Froatera, and Paul Singer stated they had discussed the whole area of Froatera to be posted for no parking for several reasons and noted there are a number of trucks that are regularly parked on that street, constraining traffic and visibility. He stated it has always been his recommendation to take the parking off that street and noted the way the dismantling yard is situated and the way the gates are arranged, it was very difficult to do that in the past; but since they have added the parking area for this project, he felt the parking could be easily removed, the street restriped, and that would facilitate traffic much better and safer. He stated the Planning Commission has the prerogative of making that a condition. Chairwoman Bouas stated she wanted to add that as condition. 8/1/88 MIh °S ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION anm,st 1, 1988 Paae No. 11 Mr. Anthony said he believed the, basic thought of having no parking oa Frontera, on auction days, was acceptable and Chairwoman Bouas stated she was thinking seven days a week. Commissioner Feldhaus noted that would restrict the auto parts business activity. Mr. Anthony noted that on the other days there would be normal business activity there which would make it awkward not to have any street parking at all in front of the business offices and that stated he felt the real problem would only be on auction day. Commissioner McHurney suggested allowing parking in front of the building, on that one side of Frontera, for the salesman and visitors, with the remainder of Frontera to be designated "no parking". Commissioner Feldhaus stated the City is taking the dedication of 60 feet of property for the future extension of Frontera Street and asked if the parking restriction would remain when Frontera goes on through. Mr. Singer stated it all depends on what type of use went in there and if it is a high intensity type use, they would have to take the parking off because the street has a limited capacity and the more traffic put on the street, the more constrained the capacity becomes. Commissioner Herbst suggested allowing them to start their business and evaluate the parking within a period of three months because we do not know whether this will impact the area or not at this time. Mr. Singer agreed. He also said if the conditional use permit is for three years, the situation could be evaluated at that time. Chairwoman Bouas asked if the "no parking" restriction pertained to auction days only and the street was posted right now, then in 90 days, it could be reevaluated and if there was a need to post it for seven days a week, they could be posted or, conversely, i.f the posting is not needed, they could remove it. Mr. Anthony stated he believed that Mr. Singer could, at any time he felt the need, bring forth a parking proposal through the normal channels. Mr. Singer agreed. Commissioner Herbst asked who would do the posting on the weekends and Mr. Singer stated the street would be posted by permanent standard signs, and that the developer or owner would pay for it and that should be included as a part of a condition of approval. Commissioner Carusillo asked Mr. Siaqer about bonding for a traffic study to detezmine the necessity of a left turn signal on Glassell. Mr. Singer 2esponded there could not be a bond for a study. He stated the uses currently oa Frontera Street do not require separate left turns, and if this development creates the need for separate left turn indicators, then it is the responsibility of the applicant to lay for that because the existing uses do not require it. 8/1/88 __ .. ... . _~...,~ „,,,..,.We„ ~~ _ ~ x. f MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 1. 1988 Page No. 12 Commissioner Carusillo said that suggestion was made in the evaluation by staff, but was not specified as a condition and asked how to accomplish that so there is no vagueness involved. Mr. Singer stated the Commission has the prerogative of adding a condition requiring a bond, equivalent to the cost of modifying the traffic signal at Frontera and Glassell, and once the modification takes place, the City will conduct a study to determine the need for left turn indicators based on the new traffic volumes, and if there was an indicated need for the left turns, then they would be installed as covered by the bond; and the City would request that the applicant pay for that study, then they would release the bond. He stated he did not believe that a separate left turn will be needed at this location because he anticipated that all truck movements to that property would be done at off peak periods. Mr. Anthony said they limited the auction days to only Saturday or Sunday so it would not conflict with the normal weekday traffic. He noted the traffic volume there was really fairly light anyway and he believed, as Mr. Singer said, that it did seem almost all of the traffic that would be noticeable would happen at non-peak times. Commissioner Carusillo asked Mr. Anthony if he would have any problem posting a bond equivalent to the cost of the study. Mr. xnthony said he did not know because he did not know how much the study or bond would cost, but a whole new signal system, would make a difference. Mr. Singer said two new poles would have to be put in and additional indicators, pi:obably in the neighborhood of 535,000. Mr. Anthony said they would rather not commit to that but if Commission felt it was necessary, they would do it. Commissioner Carusillo stated his concern was that if the traffic started building up there and became a hazard for everyone, if applicant was creating the hazar3 or responsible for the traffic increase, it would have to be the applicant's burden. Commissioner Feldhaus brought attention to Condition No. 12, on Page 8 of the Staff Report, with respect to flags, banters, balloons, etc. and stated he believed an addition should be made stated the words "unless a permit is obtained first." He stated ho thought there may be an occasion where they may want to do a one day event and would need to obtain a permit. Chairwoman Bouas asked if Condition No. 17 should be modified to read that the hours of the auction operation shall be limited from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m., Saturday and Sunday, because there would be other activities going on other days of ~_he week. Mr. Anthony stated he had mentioned that before and that they feel it really should specify auction operation because there may be clerical or business operations going on at other times. Commissioner Feldhaus stated he did not feel they needed any hour limitation and Chairwoman Bouas stated she felt they did. 8/1/88 ~~ 'Y Ltn rrrg ANAH EIM CITY PL raxNING C OMMIS S~ Aaaust 1 1 Pane 986 No 13 Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, pointed out that the Engineering Division had asked that Condition No. 1 be deleted. Commissioner Carusillo asked Mr. Anthony if he was aware that was an old dump site out there and Mr. Anthony said he was very much aware of that, and Commissioner Carusillo clarifie3 he was thinking in terms of compaction. Mr. Anthony stated the portion of the property was one of the least used, or shallowest of the dumps, and *_hey did not expect any problems which is one of the reasons for this type cf surface use, and it is fairly safe. A TI N: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McSurney and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Messe absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to establish a retail automobile auction sales facility with waiver of maximum area of freestanding sign on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 9.23 acres located at the easterly terminus of Frontera Street, having a frontage of approximately 90 feet at the easterly terminus of Frontera Street and having a maximum depth of approximately 956 feet 3400 Frontera and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Messe absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby GRANT waivers of code requirements on the basis that there area special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location or surz•oundings, which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the vicinity; and tha= strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in identical zoning classification is the vicinity, subject to the condition that, as stipulated to by the applicant, the proposed sign will be reduced in size to 350 square feet and will not exceed 22 feet in height. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC88-198 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does heursuant~to Conditional Use Permit No. 3031 for a period of three years, p Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035, subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations with the following additions and modifications: that applicant will post a bond equivalent to the cost of installation of a traffic signal to be installed subject to the Traffic Engineer's approval at the corner of Frontera and Glassell; that Condition No. 1 of the Staff Report will be deleted; that Condition No. 4 of the Staff Report will be modified to read that if and when this applicant has decided to accept this condition as written, or will submit a redesign, it will be subject to the Engineering Department's approval; that Condition No. 12 will be modified by adding, unless a permit is obtained; that Condition No. 16 be modified to include that plantings of oleanders along the Freeway side and the eastern side shall 'sp, no less than r feet in height, and that there will be included ground cover; that Condition No. 17 be modified to read that t*e 8!1!88 ~~ ^ TSSION Auwst 1 1988 Page No. 14 ~ ~ auaurtld ('ITY PLi i I hours of operation shall be limited to 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturday and Sunday during public sales; that Condition No. 24 will be modified to include that there will be no automotivelicantrwilllclosesthetgateway oatFronteraain condition will be added that app front of the dismantling operation; that a condition will be added that applicant will pay for the posting of street signs which will indicate that there is to be no parking on Frontera Street on Saturdays and Sundays on auction day, with a reevaluation of this condition to occur in 90 days. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: i AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARU`i3LL0, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC BURNEY, NOES: NO:iE ABSENT: MESSE Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to apgeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. COMMISSIONER MESSE RETURNED TO THE MEETI2IG 8!1/88 I~r y MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNIN COMMISSION Augur ~ 1988 Pave No 1 ITEM N0. 3. - CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION• WAIVER OF COD R£OUIREMENT; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 3028 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: GILBERT MEDICAL PARTNERSHIP, 925 South Gilbert Street. Anaheim, CA 92804 AGENT: S 6 M DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, P.p, Box 3868, Mission Viejo, CA 92690 LOCATION: 925 S. Gilbert S Peet Request: To permit a 3-story, 31-unit Senior Citizen apartment building with waivers of (a) minimum building site area pPr dwelling unit, (b) maximum structural height, (c) minimum front setback and permitted encroachments and (d) minimum recreation/leisure area. Continued from the meeting of July 6, 1988. There were three persons indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. PRESENTATION• Chairwoman Souas asked if the applicant was Present and there was no response. This item was trailed until after Item No. 6 and the following action was taken at that time: ACTION Commissioner Messe offered a motiop, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has determined that consideration of the aforementioned matter will be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of August I5, 1988, in order that the applicant may be represented. 8/1/88 i ..._ ~.: MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Aum~°* 1 1988 Paae No. 16 ITEM NO 4 CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATZON• TENTATIVE TRACT NO 13692 piJBLIC HEARING: OWNER: DANNY LIAO ET AL, 12 Rippling Stream, Irvine, CA 92715, AGENT: J. M. DEVELOPMENT, INC., 7442 Coho Drive, No. 111, Huntington Beach, CA 92648. PROPERTY LOCATION: 6401 6403 6405 and 6407 Via Arboles Request: Petitioner requests approval of Tentative Tract Map to establish a 9-lot RS-5000(SC) Zone single-family residential subdivision. There were three persons indicating their presence in apposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. PRESENTATION• Jim Morton, 7442 Coho Drive, Huntington Beach, stated the Tentative Tract Map was consistent with all the zoning in the surrounding area. He noted their average lot size is 7709 square feet and their houses are proposed at 2534 - 3050 square feet, and they meet the General Plan requirements of 6 lots per acre, with 5.6 lots per acre. Mr. Morton noted there are two phases. He stated they are purchasing this property from the present owner and at the present time 'the property looks as seen on the exhibit. He stated the present owner is in the process now of removing the dirt to the elevation shown on the exhibit and has a mass grading permit for this; and that was started back in 1980; and that they are going to take it about 7 feet below this elevation. Responding to Commissioner Carusillo, Mr. Morton pointed. out the grade level relative Co the street level on his exhibit. He explained they could not go lower due to grading Dehind, which would drain all the water from the adjacent property onto theirs; that the grade level, relative to the street level, at the high point is 5.77. He stated the highest pad elevation is 5.84 - seven feet above the street at the highest point in the center of the street and that is three lots and then it tapers back down to basically zero on the ends. Mr. Morton stated upon completion, the edge of the progerties above would be approximately 75 feet from the front of his property and 50 feet higher, and they would gain 10 - 12 feet of view to the north. He said at the present their highest point of the hill is 6.22 and they would be down at about 6.12 6.14. He noted they would gain view not only over the house but between th9 houses also. He stated they agree with all the conditions proposed and th~st he believed they had made the best use of the property and they had lowered the elevation tremendously from the original 1980 version. 9PPOSITION• Margaret Bannar, 6440 Via Arboles, Anaheim, submitted a letter expressing concern on behalf of the homeowners and members of Broadmoor Northridge Community Association, whose property includes Via Arboles on the south side 8/1/88 r ... e M2NtTTR&, LNAAETM CrTY PLA_T?NING COMMISSION. August 1. 1988 Pagd No. 17 and east of the subject tract; that it appeared there would be extensive excavation necessary to remove prominent land form to create 9 pads, aLd photographs were submitted which show the prominence of the site to be clearly higher than any of the surrounding areas, and is 70 feet above street level; and that the statement in the Initial S':ay of the environmental impact under Item No. 19 was in error, in their judgment. He added the letter stated they were requesting that the Planning Commission make a site inspection prior to any decision in favor of this petition, and concerns were basically about drainage and increasxd traffic. He explained the author of the letter was Edward M. Bannar, Pr.~sident, Broadmoor Northridge Community Association. Margaret Bannar stated that Item 7 on Page 4 of the Staff Report should include Via Arboles, as well as Ramsgate. She stated also, twat the grading permit that was issued on May 31, 1986, No. GP 1754, was only for four homes. Patricia Armstrong, 6459 Via Arboles, stated she had lived there for 6 years and the north side of Via Arboles from the site of the construction east is also Broadmoor Homeowners Association membership. She stated she lives in a 1-sL•ory home which she is remodeling and she hates to think of 9 homes, that would be up 7 feet, which is almost a story, and then 2 stories above that, so that even walking down her street, she will have 9 huge 3-story edifices her planned community that she moved into. She noted the property owner has a right to develop his property, but it was originally sold as fear lots and now the owner wants to make 9 lots that will be up 7 fast. She asked that Commission come out and look at the site before making a decision. Sonja Greywal, 400 South Canyon Ridge Drive, stated she lives in the tract adjacent to the proposed project; that Item 7 on the Staff Report states that the land use north of the project is undeveloped, but that it is approved for homes and they are being built now, a tract of 49 - 51 homes. She noted there was a grading plan approved for the four lots as they were originally and she did not understand the elevations on the map (exhibit) in relation to what is there because there has to be an impact on the environment with the applicant removing the entire hill. She stated their concern was that the hill being removed goes straight down and needs to be engineered properly. She feels there is an incomplete picture being presented to the Commission. She stated the tract, as originally approved, had green belts which would have softened the effect of the number of homes, but now thay are absorbing 9 homes with ao green belt. REBUTTAL• Mr. Morton explained the present grsdinq would be 15 feet above with a 2-story house oa top of that which is with the approved grading plans; and that after thin is done, he will come back and finish grading the lots down to where they should be. He stated that they have minimum retaining walls, two to three feet, which are designed so they would look nice, with wrought iron to the rear so everyone has a view and that they are trying to keep everything as low profile as possible. 8/1/88 ;1- Paa~ No . 18 raTh2rrES. ANA?EIM CITY PLAh':7ING COMMIS._~OH• Au?ust-1• 1988_. Mr. Morton referred to Item No. 7 in the Staffresentl aunderaconstruction and approved 49-home tract to the north which is p Y the highest pad on the tentative tract map is right in the middle and that pad is 3 1/2 feet above this plan. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Carusillo indicated he was curious as to the ezistinq height of the hill before it was graded. Mr. Morton stated it was at 622 feet and the street level is at 576 feet and that is the way it is right naw. He stated the hilwhich islaa easement shown back side first to relocate the existing oil line, on the plan, and the oil line is being placed on the property fain hto improve homes directly north of them, with an agreement that they are g 9 Ramsgate down to their private community, down to their private gate. He stated they had an agreement to give them a avetthemotheoeasementlt pputethe due to the turn around and in return, they g oil line on the back sidade so everyonehsywater flows in thekpropertdirection developer to keep the g lowerobut then theyuwould hav la problemhwithHdrainage atetheorearlike to go Commisszonez Carusillo stated he was trying to get some feel for the belief that this project would inhibit the views presently enjoyed. He askrdO otoe corrected if he was xronq, but believed Mr. Morton was saying that p any grading, that nffitural hill was about 44 feet up from the street and, in the center of apglicant's project, the height above the street is about 7 and taFering downward, plus 25 feet height (of houses) which is to Code, so then the highest the neighbors would see, would be roughly 32 feet, or roughly 12 feet lower than what was enjoyed there several months ago. Mr. Morton respon2:ed this was correct. Commission Feldhaus informed those in opposition who suggested that the Commissioners go to the site to see it, that most of the Commisso aroundlonnot all, had been out to the sites to inspect them. He noted they g their weekends to look at the sites on each project. Commissioner Feldhaus asked the applicant to ezplain where those in opposition would find an obstruction in the view from their properties, because directly across the way is another high hill. Mr. Morton stated it sits oa a 2a1 slope, and three property owners sit on top of the property, and when they remove the hill, the projecnotilesse 1Hefnoted below what is seen right now, so there will be more view, will have some the people down the street, who have no view at all right now, view on the end lot wYrn the hill is removed_ Commissioner Herbst stated the property owner has rights and the apartment project approved earlier today was one the Commission had studieenedzto be for carefully for several -seeks and the zoning on that property happ 8/1/88 MINUTES. ANAHFIj~t'ITY PLANNING C~"' aSSION :.ua++tr 1 1988 Paae No ~9, apartments, and the Gene_a:. Plan says they can build apartments there. He stated the Commission tries to get the best tF.ey possibly can id'• the people surroun3ng the project. commissioner Hefrbst stated this particular pr~Kr:PI io zoned RS-5,000 and the slopes are being changed and they are gra.:?rr], hug the lot sizes are 11,180; 9,680; 7..754; 7,211; 6:178; 6,389; 6,755;. 0,'_03 and 7,132; which are prcibably larger lots than iL Lh1 Broadmoor Homes area eight >~ow. He said it is very difficult for him, as a Commissioner, to tell an ;gpp~:icant who meets the lot r~•quirement on t'.;e General Plan and the co6e ra'tair~..~~ents that he cannot build there. He stag:=:G the area where Broadmoor was l;~tiilt was zoned for 5,000 square foot lots. He stated in looying at the design of the homes that the applicant is going to hui].~1 hers, and with the lot sizes, it would certainly not be detrimental t~: Y`^~? Brea and he believed it would lc~k better khan it does now. Commissioner McHurney agreed that the project would help the area as opposed to hindering it and it will open views that some of the people did not have before. Co^missi.onEr Carusillo stated he wanted to infccm the neighborhood of the builder's intention to ask for an admin?.strative adjustment allowing him to create a height of 26-1/2 feet and if there is ao opposition, it woul:i be automatically granted; so they may want to keep an eye on tha;c. HEM stinted he is a believer in keeping the height at 25 feet :in the Scenic Corrid<;r. Commissioner Messc noted Condition No. 1, Page 3, should be change. =.. 'prior t:? approval of final tract map." Mr. Morton stated he had no prot•.•Y~m with any of the conditions. g~TION: Comnissi%~aer McBuraey offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Meese and MOTION CARRIER that the Ana,`~eim Pity Planning Commission has reviewed the request for approval of a Tentative Tract Map to establish a 9-lot RS-5,000(SC), Siag1E-famil}', Resi2~ential subdivision on an irreqularli•-shaped parcel o,E .land consisting of approzimately 1.59 acres located at ~,,.n nartheast corner of Via Arbol$s anal Ramsgate Drive., having agprozinst:e 8ron"eges of 538 feet oa the aort2i side of Via Arboles and 153 feet on the east Bide of Rams~,iate Drive, and further described as 6401, 650."„ 6405 and 6407 Via Arbales and doss hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that. it has considered the Negative Pe::laratioa toge~.b~r with da},~ comments received during the public review process and further finning on the basis of the Initial Study and sny comments received that '.here is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant affect on the environment. Commissioner McBurney c,ffered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Meese and MOTION CARRIED that tkse Ana]aeim Czty Planning Commission does hereby find that the proposed subdivision, tagether with 9.ts design anE impravemen*• is consistent with the ~;ity e" Anaheim t3eneral P1aa, pursuant to Goverr,meat Code Section 66473.5; aa~i doss, therefore, apgrovki Tentative Map of Tract No. 1369I? for a 9-lot RS-5,OC0(SC), Single family, Residential subdivision subject to the following conditions: 8/1/88 ~...' ~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING ~a~T~SION• 8u~~..~,~@.$--- Paae No 20 6 1. That prior to approval of a final tract map, the apptopr,ate traffic siq:.al assessment feE' shall Le raid to the City of Anaheim in an amount as d~~ °rmin2~ ;.,y Citp' C~uacll, resolution. 2. That ~:mess proof u~ exemption is subrt~itte: iL compliance with City Cov.:~cil Resolution Na. 95R-423, the apgx~~p~'iatL major thosos:7hfare end bridge fRp shall Le paid to the City of A.gaheim i.n an amount as specified in `he Major :'hoioughfare and Brid9a Faye ~xogram for the Foothill/EaSte~rn Transportation Corridor, as apcr:;;;ed by City Council Resolution No. 85k-•423. 3. That siiaiuld this subdivision be developed Ss !^nre than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall bye submitted in tentative form for approval. 4. That the legal property owner shall furnish to the City of Anaheim an o,7reement in a form to be approved }y the City Attorney agreeing to complste the public improvemen*_s required as conditions of this map at the iags_. pr~~perry owner.'s expe:.se. Said agreement shall he recorded corcu'rrently with th final tract parcel map and is not to be subo~rdiaate Po nay recordeC encw•nbrance a~~sinst the property. 5. TY~at r;treet 11~':ting facilities along Via Ari,oles and Ramsgate Drive shall be instal~ed as required by the Utilities General Manager in accordance with specifications on file in the Office of Utilities General Manager; or that security in the form of a bona, certificate of d3posit, letter ~f credit, or caet,, in an amount an,d form satisfactnr:• to the City of Ana'_+gim, shall be posted Frith the City to guarantee the satisfactory comp.:ation of the above-mentioned i.;npr~'vements. Said security shall be posted with the City of Anaheim prior to final tract map approval. The above-required improvements shall be installed prior tc' occupancy. 6. 'ihat curbs and gutters shall be remove6 and/or reconstructe~? along Via Arboles as required by the City Engineer itr'~ +~ accordance with standard plans and specifications on file in the Office of the City Engineer. 7. T-hat paving shall bo repaired along Ramsgate Drive as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with standard plans and specifications on file iia the Office of the 'City Engineer. 8. That roll-up garage doors st;~~ll be installed a:~d maintained for all lots with a garage setback of less rhea twenty-five (25) feet. 9. That all grading shall be performed is accordance with the City of Anaheim's hillside grading ordinance. 10. That the sidewalk along Via Arboles shall be widened in accordance City of Anaheim Standard detail No. 113. 11. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. 8/'1/88 '_ MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITX PLANNING COMMISSION, August 1, 1988 Paq~NO. 21 12. That all lots within subject tract authorized by this resolution shall be served by underground utilities. 13. That the legal owner of subject property shall dedicate and improve a riding and hiking trail easement as shown on the Riding and Hiking Trail Component of the General Plan and as approved by the Parks and Recreation Department. Furthermore, that the owner of subject property shall execute and record a covenant obligating the Homeowners Association of subject tract to maintain and repair the trail. The form of said covenant shall be approved by the City Attorney's Office and shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract map. The legal owner/developer of the subject tract shall improve and maintain the trail as required by the Parks and Recreation Department, until such time as the Homeowners Association becomes legally obligated therefore as hezaiaabove provided. Ia addition, a bond shall be postod in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim to guarantee performance of the legal owner/developer's obligations herein described. Evidence of the required bond shall be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney's Office prior to approval of the final kract map. 14. That prior to final tract map approval, appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in as amount as determined by the City Council. 15. That prior to final tract map approval, street names shall ba submitted to and approved by the Zoning Division. I6. That prior to any occupancy, temporary street name signs shall be installed if permanea.t street same signs have not been installed. 17. That in accordance with the requirements of Section 18.02.047 of the waaheim Municipal Code pertaining to the initial sale of residences in the City of Anaheim Planning Area "S", each buyer shall be provided with written information concerning the Anaheim General Plan and the existing zoning within 300 feet of the boundaries of subject tract. 18. :Chat, as specified in Anaheim Municipal Code Section No. 18.84.042.012, no roof-mounted equipment, whatsoever, shall be psrmiiY.~9. 19. That prior to final tract approval, the oziginal documents of the covenants, conditions, and restrictions, and a latter addressed to the developer's title company authorizing recordation thereof, shall bG submitted to the City Attorney's Office and approved by the City Attorney's Office, Public Utilities Department and Engineering Division. Said documents, as approved, shall then be filed and recorded in the Office of the Oraaqe County Recorder. 20. That prior to final tract niap approval, Condition Nos. 4, 5, 13, 14, 15 and 19 above-mentioned, shall be complied with. 8/1!88 21. That prior to final map approval, the requirements set forth in Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, B, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17 and 18, above mentioned, shall be set forth on the face of the final map in a form satisfactory to the City Engineer. 22. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoaiag Code and any other applicable City regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. Joseph Fi. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision xithin 10 days to the City Council. 8/1/88 ~;: 2aINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Au_~++Gt 1 1988 Paoe No. 23 ITEM NO 5 - CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION• RECLASSIFICATION NO 88-89-06: VARIANCE N0. 3826 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: LESLIE W. GARDNER AND VELVA A. GARDNER, 400 W. Vermont, Anaheim, CA 92806 AGENT: JERRY JACKSON, 2751 E. Maverick, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATI027: 4Q(? W. Vermon'c Avenue Request: Rfi-7200 to RM-1200 or a less intense zone. To construct a 3-story, 14-unit apartment building with waivers of (a) maximum structural height and (b) maximum site coverage. There was no one indicating their presence is opposition to subject request anti although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part. of the minutes. PRESENTATION• Dale Cexton, 825 South Western Avenue, Anaheim, stated they are proposing a 14-unit apartment project in an area where he had done work before. He stated in 1985 a similar project vas approved by the Commission for 15 units; and that they had readdressed some of the conditions or issues at hand that have changed over the years; that they are trying to generate a little more landscape-recreational areas and keep the density at a minimum and are not taking advantage of the affordable housing process, and are trying to create a str:;.cture with architectural appeal and maintain it. He said he has a new developer who has indicated they intend to do more wor}: in Anaheim, so they want to do a good job. Mr. Cexton stated they are proposing 3 stories and the buildings oa the street now, by the latest code, are actually classified 3 stories; even though they are actually 2 1/2 stories. Ae stated the first level is underground parking and the 2nd and 3rd levels are residential. He stated they are asking a variance for the setback to single-family zones, one being 8 feet away, which he believed was the last lot on that street which is still left at the lesser zone. He stated he believed the density was actually a little heavier than it was supposed to be, but the owner has indicated the intentions were to clean that up. He stated they are aware of the units across the street, and they had tried to soften the approach of the project by the use of landscaping and setting back the third story structure a little bit further than normal. Mr. Cexton stated they were able to get a landscape plan at the very last moment, to indicate at least what the landscape intention was, but they do not have any sizes called out because they were unaware what was going to happen, but can clarify that for the Commission, if desired. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Carusillo, stated Mr. Cexton had indicated he would taper back the third floor xith the people on the north side of Vermont in mind and asked Mr. Cexton to elaborate. 8/1/88 r° ~.. Pane No 24 d,i n~ia~ 7AHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Auau 1 1088 Mr. Cexton stated the third floor would start at least one unit back, approximately 25 - 30 feet from the second floor portion. He stated they started out with basically a 2-story building in the front with the first floor being parking, the second floor being a manager's unit and then behind that is an open courtyard, then the other units would start behind the courtyard. He stated they had terraced the building back to keep away from a very stand-up look from the street. Commissioner Carusillo mentioned the second lot to the east, which seemed to have this same configuration and Mr. Cexton said it was very similar. Commissioner Soydstua asked if the parking would be submerged at all and Mr. Cexton responded it was all on grade because recent changes in the Code had made underground parking very difficult. Commissioner Feldhaus noted that if the building was set back further from the street, the applicant would be able to grade dorm for some subterranean parking and eliminate some of the height. Mr. Cexton responded they could do that but would lose more valuable space in the rear yard, and they were trying to provide more recreational space in that rear area. He noted they had developed a spa area and reasonably large sized greenbelt which could be used for private recreation, and he felt that was more important than trying to put it all is the front yard where the tenants would not get much use out of it. He noted they are offering 3-bedroom units, which would mean there would probably be some families and they would like to offer recreational area away from the street. Commissioner Messe asked Mr. Cexton if he had reviewed all of the conditions and found them acceptable and Mr. Cexton replied that they were. Commissioner Carusillo stated he appreciated as effort to get more recreationalJleisure area in the back which seemed to be a big space which the occupants will enjoy, rather than some of the projects Commission had seen. ~TION: Commissioner Soydstua offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to reclassify subject property from RS-7200 to RM-1200 or a less intense zone to permit construction of a 3-story, 14-unit apartment building with xaivers of maximum structural height and maximum site coverage on a rectangularly-shaped parc®1 of land consisting of approximately 0.39 acre having a frontage of approximately 75 feet on the south side of Vermont Avenue having a maximum depth of approximately 224 feet, being located approximately 311 feet east of the centerline of Harbor Boulevard and further described as 400 W. Vermont Avenue; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the initial Study and any comments receive3 that there is ao substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. 8/1/88 t i ~jjrJTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION August 1 1988 Page No 25 Commissioner Boydstun offered Resolution No. PC88-199 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby GRANT Reclassification No. 88-89-06 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, ME5SE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Commissioner Boydstun offered Resolution No. PC88-200 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commiss'.oa hereby GRANT Variance Na. 3826 oa the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the followi~lg vote: AYES: SOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ASSENT: 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. 8/1/88 t nIhJ'-'ES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Aug••°~ i- X988 Paae No. 26 ITEM NO 6 CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION• VARIANCE NO 3814 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: THE BALDWIN BUILDING COMPANY, A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, 16811 Hale Avenue, Irvine, CA 90630, AGENT: DIANA HOARD, VICE-PRESIDENT, THE BALDWIN COMPANY, 16811 Hale Avenue, Irvine, CA 40630, PROPERTY LOCATION: Property consists of approximately 108 acres lo..ated south of the future northerly extension of Serrano Avenue, bounded on the west by the Highlands at Anaheim Hills, on the south and southeast by Irvine Company property and further designated oa the The Summit of Anaheim Hills Planned Community Zone Land Use Plan (Reclassification No. 86-87-19, Amendment No.l) as a (Residential, Single-Family) RS-HS-10,00~D(SC) zone development area, and further described as Tentative Tract Nos. 13266, and 13512-18. Request: Petitioner requests waivers of (a) permitted signage in residential zones to construct two entry monument signs and (b) maximum height, location and type of walls to construct view and solid walls varying from 6 to 6 feet, 6 inches in height adjacent to residential lot lines and building pads. As part of final specific plan of development review for previously-approved Tentative Tract Nos. 13266, 13512, 13513, 13514, 13515, 13516, 13517, and 13518. Said Tentative Tracts comprise a total of 153 single-family detached dwelling units subject to RS-HS-10,000(SC) zone development standards. There was no one indicating their presence is opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. PRESENTATION• Diana Hoard, with the Baldwin Company, 16811 Hale Street, Irvine, stated this item is a variance request to allow the neighborhood sign monumentation in the area of their 10,000 square-foot lots; to put the walls adjacent to property lines instead of the tract boundary so that the slope areas are more open and visible and along the Serrano area, and to put the walls at 6 feet 6 inches for sound attentuation purposes, per a noise study they had done by VaaHooten and Associates. She noted this is identical to plans they had seen for the tract La the north. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Messe noted the Commission had discussed this before and had approved something similar. Commissioner Herbst stated his oal~~ question was concerning the VanHooten sound attentuation study on the sia;-foot, six-inch high wall, and asked if they are grading Serrano Street quite a bit lower to give the height at that particular point. 8/1/88 i- ,~: M E ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Auaust 1 1988 Paae No 27 Ms. Hoard said the 6 foot 6 inch height was not required there and actually, in this tract, there was only one lot that was on Serrano, so it did wrap that entire lot from the back and around the side, and at that location, Serrano is pretty much at grade. Chairwoman Souas clarified that Mr. VanHooten felt the 6-foot, 6-inch wall would take care of it and Ms. Hoard stated that was per his recommendation. Commissioner Feldhaus asked Ms. Hoz~rd if she knew the size of those monument signs, She stated the community sign was 22 feet by 6 feet and the neighborhood sign was 4 feet by 12 feet. ACTION: Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the Initial Study, as prepared and submitted by the applicant addressing the waivers of permitted signage in height, in order to construct two entry monument signs adjacent to Serrano Avenue and view and solid walls/fences adjacent to residential lot lines and building pads as part of final specific plan of development review for previously-approved Tentative Tract Nos. 13266, and 13512-13518, and finds no significant environmental impact and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with nay 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 McBurney offered Resolution No. PC88-201 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby Grant Variance No. 3814 on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicinity; and that strict application of the 2oninq Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity 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 Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. RECESS: 3:15 p.m. RECONVENE: 3:30 p.m. 8/1/88 ~j~T~E~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION August 1 1988 Paae No.~ TTF.M NO 7. - CEOA NEGATIVE DECLA2:''TT^u WAIVER OF CODE REOUIREMENT• CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3042 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: THE ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF LOS ANGELES, 2811 E. Villa Real Drives, Orange, CA 92667, AGENT: JOHN BARTLETT ASSOCIATES, ATTN: JO ANNA STRADA, 250 W Colorado Boulevard, Suite 290, Arcadia, CA 91006. PROPERTY LOCATION: '800 E Santa Ana Canyon Road Request: To permit a parish center expansion to an existing church with waivers of (a) minimum number of parking spaces and (b) mazimum structural height. There were two persons indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was nest read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. PRESENTATION• Jo Anna Strada, with John Bartlett Associates, 250 W. Colorado Boulevard, Suite 290, Arcadia, stated the project is an expansion of about 11,000 square feet, and a portion of it is additional office space for the parish. She stated the site is generally developed as far as landscaping and parking and they are pr.oposiaa to add 19 additional parking spaces; that the church seats about 886 persons and they have, with the additional 19 parking spaces, a total of 258 parking spaces and that this generally has been enough, except on special occasions, and it is not unusual for parishes to have non-conflicting uses between their various structures on the site, and the main sanctuary is their largest use. She referred to the staff report, Page 2, which said the plans indicate that the previously-approved rectory will be an open lawn area; and explained although they are not proceeding with that at this time, it is still certain]y is their overall scheme of things. She also noted on Paqe 3 in the parking requirements, that they had included parking for a future school building, which is still a future project, and she believed it should not be included at this time which would bring the total parking requirement down to 483 spaces. Commissioner Messe said he thought the application for the waiver showed the correct number. Ms. Strada agreed. Ms. Strada said Page 4 pertains to the waiver of the minimum number of parking spaces and Code requires 572 so that would become 483 at this time. She said they generally had no problems with Conditions 1 through 3 and 6 through 27; however, they want to address Conditions 4 and 5 which are off street improvements and dedications. Jeff Smith, 6296 East Via Ribazo, Anaheim Hills, said he understood there was a new ordinance in effect pertaining to xaivers for off-site improvements and he thought they would have to qo through the appropriate waiver procedure. He stated the church had been there appzozimately 8 years and he was sure the City felt the off-site improvements were 8/1J88 ~..` *~*'~'ES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Auovst 1 1988 Paae No. 29 necessary, but that the church felt the cost for said improvements would be disproportionate to the cost of the improvements of the structures; that based on preliminary estimates, their costs range from 5225,000 to 5235,000 and the costs for culverts, electrical for the relocation of transformers, curb, gutters, sidewalk, etc. are in the neighborhood of 3650,000, about 35`! of the total cost. He stated they received the regort Friday afternoon and have not been able to do exhaustive studies pertaining to those costs, but those are rough numbers and he just wanted to mention that they would be coming back hoging to obtain a variance of those improvements. Mr. Smith responded to Commissioner Messe that 5650,000 way his own estimate and was based on 3I5 linear feet of frontage along Santa Ana Canyon Road and calculating the square footage cost of concrete, as well as talking with the various departments within the City as to what would be required. Ms. Strada stated Item No. 13 of the staff report says that there shall be no roof-mounted equipment whatsoever, and they do propose a kitchen and they would have to have equipment mounted on the roof. He stated larger sites are at a premium, especially in Anaheim Hills, and they did put the equipment on the roof of the existing hall building, but it was screened and they worked with staff and everyone has been quite satisfied with it; and that they have not had any complaints that it is visible and they would propose to do the same thing hare. Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, pointed out it would be acceptable, at least to staff, if the mechanical equipment is constructed as an intergal part of the roof and is not visible at the roof level. Ms. Strada explained they propose a parapet that will be adequate to cover it, then if necessary, they can later put a wood screen, which is what they did oa the other project so that it is not ezposed at all and will not be unsightly to the neighboring housing. Mr. Hastings pointed out that is a code requirement and staff would work with the applicant. Doug Cook, 257 Calle Diaz, a member of the parish staff, stated he was representing the pastor who is on vacation is Ireland. He said the project, as proposed, is really a double project, and it is to provide office space and a parish center and is consistent with their long-range overall plan for this site. He stated the office space is needed, because some people, including himself, have not had an office since they have been part of the parish, and that he has been there since 1979. He said they only have 3 offices for the entire staff and then the parish center is for parish projects and receptions, etc. B/1l88 ~ NA~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION August 1 1988 Paae-No. 3Q OPPOSITION• Roy Brown, 140 Calle Diaz, Anaheim Hills, homeowner of the property adjoining the subject property, stated he is a Roman Catholic and that this request is with a Catholic Church, so he knows the meaning of having quality church facilities.. He added, just so no one misunderstands his intentions, that he is strictly talking about the value and use of property. Mr. Brown stated he has read the traffic report and there were some basic problems with it he felt, some inconsistencies. He stated first, with regard to a CEQA Negative Declaration, he did not think a single parking count is the appropriate measure for the environmental impact on the surrounding properties. He stated the homeowners would like to request an average daily traffic count for the peak operation of this church on the surrounding streets. He said they conducted th4ir own little private traffic/parking count gad they were nat quite sure why the parking count submitted with the application was so low, but that he has copies of his numbers, if the Commission would like to look at them. He pointed out at the Saturday afternoon mass, this past Saturday, there were 173 cars parked in the church parking lot and that is a 73~ usage of the facilities and there was one fire lane blocked, in addition to a trailer which is permanently parked on the facility and another semi- trailer that is approximately 35 feet long which is garked, from time to time, blocking an additional fire lane on that lot. Ae said on Sunday there is an early mass and they counted approzimately 192 cars at that time, an 81~ usage, with 39 vehicles parked on the street, and another fire lane was blocked at the early mass. He stated at ,the second mass, there were 234 cars parked in the parking Sot, that is a 98i usage of the spaces, with 7 vehicles parked in fire lanes. He added the number of cars that were actually garked in the parking lot was over 1000 usage of that lot on Sunday morning, and there were also 57 vehicles parked oa the street and several of them were parked illegally, too far down to Santa Ana Canyon Road, so actually they pose a traffic hazard. He added at the late mass on Sunday, there were 205 vehicles in the parking lot, or an 86~ usage, with 37 vehicles parked on the street and four fire lanes blocked. He said if they looked back at the parking counts originally submitted, ha thought the Commission could see that there was some discrepancy here about really how much usage is taking place of that parking lot. Mr. Brown said he lives in an adjoining neighborhood and when the various activities and events take place, many times when they are over, the traffic streams out through the neighborhoods and it would appear the logical way of getting nut of a parking lot would be to go on Solomon and tarn left or right on Santa Ana Canyon, but with all the traffic, people don't see it that way and instead they ezit out through whatever little side street they can find and the result is a literal parade of vehicles in the side streets. 8/1188 ir, i 1~ j vrlarrTFC ANAHEIM CI'CX ar arr-rTxr rgMMISSION Horn+at 1 1888 _ Paoe No He said he has photoaraphs that not only show the property but show a stream of traffic pouring through their neighborhood. He explained the point he was trying to make is that he thought this was not a situation where a CEQA Negative Declaration is appropriate. He added he thought 3n EIR was definitely required in this particular situation to fairly balance out the burdens between the homeowners and the church. He said there was no mention of how the parishioners would deal with exiting in the dark and there have been several horrendous automo'~ile accidents on Santa Ana Canyon Road in the last few years; that just a couple years ago, an elderly couple was killed crossing the street iu the same section of Santa Ana Canyon Road. He said, as a homeowner, it is not wonderful to hear the sirens at night and the helicopters coming and wondering whose child or whose wife they are taking away. He said they have enough traffic congestion as it is; and that vehicles are moving through that intersection, legal or illegally, at 60 m.p.h.; and that it is an uncontrolled intersection at Santa Aaa Canyon and Solomon. Mr. Brown stated he also thought there was a discrepancy in the parking report, in that there was no offering in the parking report to show that there is any statistical validity in the mathematics that have taken place, in the testing that has taken place, or in the sampling that has taken place, and that is reason to consider that perhaps this parking report is not just biased, but heavily biased in favor of the petitioner. Mr. Brown stated he would like to address the issue of the building height being requested, approximately 31 feet. He noted there have bees other structures built on this property, namely, he thought a steeple and some bell towers, which are, in his opinion, a minor intrusion on the properties that surround the church; and that this will be a very large building, doubling the size of the ezistinq buildings. He stated it is difficult to wade through the petition because many of the questions are not directly answered, and added he thought the gist is from the parish that they need this new building because they have scheduling cc+nfl.icts with their facilities, yet the schedule that was supplied with the application, shows no scheduling conflicts. He stated the schedule left gout the parish fiesta, and that he cannot imagine how many cars that brings in and there are cars parked bumper to bumper for neighborhood after neighborhood surrounding this church when they have their fiesta in September or October. Mr. Drown said he had bxen in the Orange County Diocese for a long time and they do not build 10,000-square foot buildings just to make meetings more convenient, and he would seriously questioned whether the usage was going' to stay the same or would they suddenly see a substantial increase in t2fie use of this property; and that he thought it is very reasonable to question the church as to why they would build a 10,000-square foot building just to make meetings more convenient. 8/1/88 MINLrSES ANAHEIM C7"'Y PLANNING COMMISSIQN August 1 1988 Paoe No• 32 Mr. Brown stated there are some overall impacts on the neighborhood such as noise, lights, the decreased property values in this area and that is decreased revenue to the City of Anaheim by way of tazes. He added there is a dreadful security problem, and the neighbors have been unable to come to any compromise or agreement with the church and at approzimat,ely 21:00 p.m. all the lights of the church are shut off. He said they have very nice lights there, and they are dorn-lighted and don't bother anybody, but the lights are all shut off at that time and it poses a tremendous security problem; that there is drag raci*.g and partying in the parking lot at night, and they have been unable- to eliminate that, dealing with the parish or making requests of the !~olice Department, and they have requested from time to time that the parish consider having locked gates on the facility at night to prevent these people from coming in and literally drag racing is the parking lot at night. He said they would like to see the lights left on a.ll night; and that may seem unusual, but the pitch black darkness behind the homes will do nothing but increase the security risk to their property; that they have had burglary after burglary, and the home next to his has been burglarized three times, and he did not think it was unreasonable to -ask that gates be installed and the lights left on all night. Mr. Brown stated he felt in this case it is appropriate to :~.c~kual.ly reviex the application for variance and waiver because some of the answers oa the application are absolutely unintelligible and they had not answered the question. Iie said he realized they have a right to bring this before the Planning Commission, but on the applicant's statement of justification for variance or waiver, Item No. 1, the question is posed whether this property differs and that question is not answered; that there is no statement in this application to show how the property is different, and there is nothing different about this property than any other property in the area to warrant the variance or waiver that is being requested. He noted the second question asked was if reasonable use could be made of the property, and it is not enough to say 'yes', but it is necessary to ezplain how. Mr. Brown referred to the application, No. 6 Item (a), and they are to indicate how the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining uses, etc., and it was simply stated that it was necessary for the ezpansion due to express community need or demand; and added xantinq a bigger building does not entitle a property owner a Conditional Use Permit, Variance and Waiver. He stated a variance is warranted when there is something very distinct and unique about that property which would prevent them from enjoying that property to the same extent their neighbors do. Mr. Brown stated there is a serious question here as to what the real present use and what the future use is going to be of this property. 8/1/83 s . ~,.' MINUTES. ANAAEIM CITY PLANNING COb;rlISSION Augy~r ~ lggg pave No. 33 Barbara Moore-Brown, 140 Calle Diaz, Anaheim Aills, said her home overlooks the church parking lot and she was concerned about the height of the building, and she did not see why the building needed to be taller than the other buildings in the neighborhood. She said she was also concerned about the safety factors; that Calle Diaz is directly behind the church, and is the access road to the traffic signal to Santa Ana Canyon Road which is why people turn right out of the church parking lot and come around onto Calle Diaz and out onto Via Cortez. She said they have had experiences on Sunday mornings when they have had to wait 20 minutes to cross over onto her side of the street. She added while they know what to expect on Sunday mornings, she was concerned about a building large enough to have the kinds of meetings they are talking about and the neighbors will not know when that stream of traffic is going to come through the neighborhood and when to keep children off the street. Ms. Brown stated, is addressing the issue of the parking lot and the lights, she thought an additional building, especially of that height, will create extra darkness and an extra path through which will encourage rather than. discourage whoever is drag racing in the church parking lot every single night from 11:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. She stated it has been reported and there does not seem to be much being done and if an additional path of darkness is created, it will only encourage that type of thing. She said additionally she is concerned about the resale value of her home when a building is built which will create quite an obstruction when looking out the upstairs window. R_eFBUTTAL• Ms. Strada stated part of the need of this new structure is that the existing building has about an 8 foot 6 inch ceiling; that it was intended to be used for religious education after school and is r.ot adequate for 200 - 300 people once or twice a year who get together for their New Years or special Christmas functions. She explained now when they are having religious education, there is a group of adults standing outside. She said they have kids in one room and they have partitions because it is a multi-use roc+m and the intent is to keep that in the future, but it would be strictly for the classroom type use or the nursery, and they would have the separate hall that could be used for the larger functions. She explained it would have a much higher ceiling and is approximately 7,000 feet or 7,900 feet in the meeting hall area, then there are a couple of conference rooms, and one of those is a youth room. She stated reg&rding their original proposal on this project, they have not built, out entirely and they are at this point dealing with 10,000 square feet less than what was originally intended. Ms. Strada stated regardiu~ the fiesta, that is a once a year event and it happens in various parishes, but it also requires a special permit from the City and if the City has enough complaints from the surrounding neighbors and wishes to restrict -`.heir parish, then they have the right to come before the Commission and say they do not want anymore fiesta permits for special events. She added she did not think there are a lot of people who would agree with that, and she felt it is not too much of an inconvenience for one or two days. 8/1/88 a` ~N'T'I'E~ ANAHEIM CITSt p1,ANNING CQ ,ON Auvust 1 1988 Paae No 34 Ms. Strada stated as far as the signal, a lot of people would like to get out on Santa Ana Canyon Road; that the church has paid assessment fees twice and pays each time they add on to the squares footage of r,:.e parish and would love to see a signal there, and more people would probably g~o out that way. She stated it was not their parish that opened up the through road at the other end of the community, so she did not think they could be held liable for the added access. She said they are all going to v.se that access, and that some people eves live up in that direction. She said there is the church acrorls the street which does not generate quite as much traffic as San Antonio, but there is the impact with two parishes on this corner. Commissioner Herbst asked staff about the parking study, noting it was not in the Commissioner's packet. Commissioner Messe noted the Commission has no*_ received that report and the only comment in the Staff Report was that the City Traffic Engineer had reviewed the study. Keith Harris, 1450 North Tustin Road, Santa Ana, said they had prepared the parking study for the church; they had sampled two random Sundays. He said there were no special religious events at the time and they found a peak Barking accumulation of 140 vehicles, which included 20 on-streot parked vehicles, and that was well below the number of spaces provided which he believed was 229. He said it is quite possible that there are days when there is a bit more parking; however, parking standards are not made to accommodate the very highest peak, such as the fiesta, Christmas, or Easter, and he did not feel there was anything wrong with their methodology. He said their findings showed that at the times they as~ssed the parking situation, there was quite a bit of parking available. Mr. Harris responded to Commissioner Herbst that he had counted the cars is the street, and that at the time of the peak parking, there were 120 in the lor., and 20 on the street. He noted they counted all of those as being San Antonio, rather than the church across the roE!d. He stated those counts were done on the 12th and 19th of Juae, which are Sundays, and the 11th and 18th, which are Saturdays. Responding to Commissioner Feldhaus, Mr. Harris stated there ware vacant spots in the parking lot when he counted the cars parked on the street, and added there were quite a few and that is rather typical, and that some people find it morn convenient to park on the street rather than in the parking lot. Mr. Harris said he would be willing to review any other numbers, and that he was not s_re of the dates of the other counts, but as far as he was concerned, they had picked two average Sundays and these were their finding:, oa the matter. Commissioner Herbst stated on July 31, Mr. Brown had couate8 234, with 57 in the street. 8/1/88 Jam, ~~ i MINUTES I~NAFiEIM CITSt PLANNING COMMISSION Auauat ~ 1988 Paae No. 35 Commissioner McBurney asked if Mr. Brown could verify that all of those cars were from the Catholic Church. Mr. Brown responded that is not possible because they are there at the time the other church also has services. Commissioner McBurney stated actually Mr. Brown's count had opened up his eyes to the fact that under normal conditions the parking is handled adequately, but under extreme conditions there might exceed be a problem. Mr. Brown stated there is no reason to believe that the count the consultant made on Saturday and Sunday is typical and there was a very large discrepancy and for that reason he believed as EIR is required to look into this further aad to have a more statistically valid parking count taken. He added they are talking about building an 11,000-square foot building that holds 500 people. He said if the parish wants to be able to have concurrent uses and there are events going on mid-morning and fire lanes are blocked, he was concerned about what will happen when the other building is filled with almost 500 people. Commissioner Messe stated he did not know that the church was going to use the two facilities, the sanctuary and the new facility at the same time. He suggested a ccndition that during services, the new parish house would not be used. Mr. Brown responded a compromise is possible, aad noted that no one had approached the homeowners with anything. Mr. Brorru responded to Commissioner Messe that the concern is that the two buildings would be used simultaneously; therefore, the impact would be so much greater. Commissioner Messe said he thought the petitioner is saying that these buildings would not be used simultaneously. Mr. Brown stated that may be, but they have no assurances. Mr. Cook stated he wanted to address some of the points that have been brought up in opposition. He stated the usage of the proposed parish center is in no way intended to be used simultaneously with services in the parish church, and they did not have the staff to possibly do that anyway. He said this would be used for activities that would be away from the peak religious service time, which is at 5:00 p.m. Saturday and then on Sunday morning, concluding about 12:30 - 1:00 p.m., and that this structure would noC add to the usage. Ae pointed out even looking at the parking numbers the opposition presented, they were never full. Ae said the peak service, as indicated, is 10:00 a.m. aad thnt is when they are the fullest. Ae noted this past Sunday there were extra places even at 10:00 a.m. 8/1/88 jnIhJ'j'ES ANAHEIM CITY PANNING COMMISSION Auq++er ~ _ Hoag Paae No. 36 He said they are going to add 19 spaces over and above what they currently have today, as stated is the repozt; and that the trailer and a semi truck mentioned are not permanent vehicles. He stated the trailer is used for relief-time education where they take a trailer and go to the schools in the area to provide religious educa~!ion during the day. He said that is a program that was developed by other churches and they had proposed discontinuing it because of the cost, but he said it would be unfair if the other churches provide this service and his parish was not r.llowed to, and added that trailer does move around. He said on the weekend they bring it back to the facility to get it away from the school,. He stated the semi-truck that was on the property this weekend is there on the last Sunday of each month for the youth paper drive. Mr. Cook said he also lives on Calle Diaz and is axere of the traffic is the neighborhood, and a lot of it is because of r„he difficulty in crossing Solomon and people do go out through Cortez. P.,e said this facility will not change that, and the only way to change ~t is to tear down the building. He stated they have prid them share for a traffic light on Santa Aaa Canyon at Solomon a couple of times, and that the Lutheran Church has also contributed and that would be a tremendous asset to the neighborhood. Mr. Cook stated the problem with kids driving through the parking lot late at night when no one is there is also a concern to them, and that they have had considerable discussion with Anaheim Police Department. He said they have had breakins and damage, but again, he did not see the new building affecting that. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner McBurney asked if a portion of Santa Ana ~'anyon Road supposed to be developed or widened because of the new homes in the hills. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated there is a study underway at the present time to come up with a equitable assessment fee for every property owner for the widening of Santa Ana Canyon Road between Imperial and Weir Canyon. He said, however, this particular property is generating demand for a separate right turn lane, and that there is a deficiency to get to this particular facility under discussion at the present time, therefore, he believed that Condition No. 4 should definitely remain because the property itself generates traffic necessary to make the needed improvements and those needed improvements would be a direct need to mitigate traffic to and from this facility. Commissioner McBurney asked about their proportionate share up for the traffic signal at that intersection, and Mr. Singer said the traffic signal is being handled through the normal channels of the traffic signal assessment fee. He responded to Chairwoman Bouas that the traffic signal would is on a priority list and whenever the priority gets there, it xill be put in. He responded he aid not know where that is on the priority list, but it xould not be this year. 8!1/88 ~~ MI ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION August 1 1988 Paae No.~ Commissioner Messe said he would like to hear Mr. Singer's assessment of the traffic studies since the Commissioners did not receive it until just a moment ago; and in addition, the staff report only said Mr. Singez had reviewed it. Mr. Singer responded he did not believe the traffic study really addresses the heart of the problem and that is that there are 884 seats in the sanctuary and there are only 259 parking spaces, and that calculates to 3.4 passengers per vehicle, which is as extremely high vehicle occupancy and is probably not achievable because obviously, the children are not is the sanctuary at the time, so you have to discount any children. He said if the sanctuary is actually fully occupied, there is no way there is adequate parking on the site and was not addressed or mentioned in the parking study. He stated the parking study conforms to the City's methodology of doing the study, and he understood why only two or three weekends wore counted, and it is not practical to count an entire year and he did not even suggest that the parking should be provided for the highest day of the year, but he did feel there is a definite lack of adequate parking on the site because there is an overflow every Sunday. Commissioner Carusiilo said is conjunction with Mr. Singer's scenario, the question would also have to be asked, "how often is the congregation at its capacity of 800+. Mr. Singer said the normal design date he would use for a church is the 10th highest date and a specific study should be conducted if the Planning Commission so chooses to address the 10th highest day. He noted Easter Sunday is the highest. Commissioner Carusillo compared this the situation to when the Yankeos are in town, the stadium overflows and creates quite a big hazard, as opposed to when the Texans are in town. Chairwoman Bouas asked how the 10th highest day is fi.qured, and Mr. Singer stated that is something that a Traffic Engineer figures out gad that should be included in the proper study. Commissioner Messe explained the traffic study said they intended to provide dedicated space for various activities gad relieve the conflicts in scheduling multi use spaces, which indicates to him that they need that room to carry on concurrent activities. Mr. Singer stated his concerns are that if the sanctuary should b~e full at any one time and any other activity takes place, it would become an impossible situation. He said he could understand it during the highest day of the year but not on a continuing basis. Commissioner Messe asked the applicant if he would stipulate to no use of the new parish during services; and added he would like that stipulation added as a condition. Ms. Strada responded that would be fine with them. 8/1/88 ~`:: Commissioner Carusillo asked about a wedding in a saactua.ry and then some kind of activity in the center; and Chairwoman Souas added she would like a stipulation that they would not be having something else in the center, if they xere having that size wedding. Commissioner Carusillo stated he thought the Commission is being too restrictive by saying that if they had something going on in the sanctuary, then nothing should be going oa in the center. Ms. Strada stated in the past she thought they had agreed that if they were caught in the circumstance of the facility being used to maximum and if both facilities were being used and they did not have adequate parking, then they should at that time limit themselves to the one facility. She said she knew the church was well aware that they do have an overflow on Christmas and they could restrict themselves in that wa•• and say they are not going to use the other facility and not double up r things. Commissioner Messe stated it sounus from what he is hearing that they do intend to double up somewhat. Ms. Strada said most of the children go to church with their parents, however, they do have smaller groups, maybe 8 or 10 smaller children and generally they are the 2 - 3 year olds who do not sit still well enough and they would go over to the hall and they have ono or two women there taking care of them through the mass. Commissioner Messo asked if they are using the present building for that, and Ms. Strada explained that is what the existing hall is used for on Sunday mornings. She responded to Commissioner Messe that the new structure would not be used on Sundays. Commissioner Messe stated he is looking for that stipulation, that it would not be used concurrently. Ms. Strada stated she would stipulate to that. Ms. Strada referred to the Code regarding the size of the seats and that even though it says 884, the City has taken the worst position, and she di3 not thick this is not a realistic number for regular every day seating. Chairwoman Bouas asked the height of the present church was, and Ms. Strada said the existing church is 36 - 37 feet high. She also ezplained the floor elevation slopes down at that point so this building will be about 2 - 3 feet lower than the church is now or the other center. She said they have stair and ramps to get around from one end to the other. Responding to Commissioner Messe, Ms. Strada said this is one large parish center, with two meeting rooms, and it will have a kitchen. She said it is probably 22 feet high, inside dimension. She said there is a large span, then beams and structural members and air conditioning equipment, etc. which they had to compensate for and required the height. 8/1/88 ~,. j~jr~g~. ANAHEIM CITY prAtrxiNC COMMISSION Ault,°=* s_ rggg Paae No• 39 Commissioner Messe asked if there is nay way to avoid some of the cruising in the parking lot at night; and asked if they could put in speed bumps. Mr. Singer suggested that the parking lot be closed by gates, and they could be arms or chains, but if they chose chains, they would have to be well marked. He added he would recommend gates that could be swung in place with appropriate reflectors so ao one could enter the parking lot after a certain time, but they would have to be open during normal use hours. Ms. Strada said they would be willing to comply with that condition. Commissioner McBurney said since they are so close to residential, he thought gates are warranted. Chairwoman Bouas stated if anything was going on in the church, the gate would be open. Commissioner Herbst stated the plan shows Santa Ana Canyon Road centerline marked at 12 feet, which he assumed was the divider, plus there is 50 feet, and asked the ultimate width of Sauta Ana Canyon Road oa one side. Mr. Singer stated the right of way is already there but Condition No. 4 refers to the improvements required to Santa Ana Canyon Road. Commissioner Herbst explained he wanted to be sure it did not go into their esistinq parking area, and Mr. Singer said it did not encroach; that the existing right of way is adequate to accommodate all travel lanes, curb, gutter, and sidewalks. He stated no additional right of xay is being required but the improvements are necessary is order to facilitate safe movement of traffic in this area. Chairwoman Bouas said she really did not think this was going to add traffic to the church, but it is going to give them better use of their facilities and let them spread out a little bit so that they can have offices and the things they need. She said maybe they could encourage their people to park in the parking lot, rather than on the street. She added it seemed to her that they have the parking spaces needed, but maybe their people are just not using them, plus they are adding more spaces. Commissioner Carusillo referred to the conditions and noted Condition No. 13 has been resolved, regarding the roof-mounted equipment; but that he was concerned whether or not Condition Nos. 4 and 5 are disproportionate to the expense of the building. Commissioner Messe stated if the applicant is going to come back and ask for that as a separate waiver, he did not think the Commission should gat into it now. He added at this point, the request would have to be approved, with Condition No. 4 included. 8/1/88 ^~. ,•noc aNAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A^^„ar ~- 1088 Paae No. 40 Commissioner Herbst said he realized the Commission had granted a height waiver on the church itself, and this is abutting a residential area (it is not commercial which allows 35 feet) and they are deviating from the code, and he thought that was one of the things in opposition the Commission has heard from the audience and he did not think the applicant had really identified the hardship for granting the variance from the code, except that the Commission had allowed the church to build a building higher than this; and that in his opinion would be allowing a continuation of a more massive structure which he felt needs to be addressed. Ms. Strada responded the dimension is to the very top of the parapet of the central area and with the ai: conditioner ducts and other things that have to go into the ceiling area for the building and the structure, they are using 8 - 9 feet just in the upper portion of this structure primarily due to mechanical systems. Commissioner Messe stated a building of this nature which is going to serve the function of housing a lot of people fcr whatever use just has to be pretty massive. Commissioner Herbst stated the Commission has had quite a few hearings on the height of homes in Anaheim Hills recently, and the 25-foot height has been deviated from some, but the people out there are really saying stick to the 25 feet. He said he realizes this is not a home, and is a massive structure, but it does abut a residential area. Ms. Strada said the building is not right next to the property line, and is quite a way over; explaining one of the directives they received from the City was to keep things away from the property line. She stated the church also put up an entire block wall separating tlse residential area from the church area, and that the church site is about 3 feet lower, and the portion that is at the upper end is the office which is goita:q to be at 11 foot 8, the same as the little accessory building xhich is fi:here now, then the site drops down about 3 feet. Commissioner Herbst stated he wanted a know the hardship, and not a reference to the structure or the bu,ildinq. Ms. Strada said if they lowered the ceiling considerably, then there is no reason to even build this building and might as well just have the same lowered ceiling they have now in the existing structure. She said the whole idea was to make it a more comfortable space. Commissioner Carusillo said he understood that presently they are looking at a 22-foot finished ceiling, and if they bring it down 6 feet they are down to 16. Chairwoman Bouas said is that high enough for the size of the building. Ms. Strada pointed out the ceiling was probably 20 feet. 8/1/88 a„m,st 1 1988 PaaP No. 41 rI~ tTES ANAHEIty CITY PLANNILaG COMMISSION Chairwoman Bouas said it probably was and they needed that. Commissioner Herbst said because they do have r~djoininq buildings at that height, would be a hardship for granting the waiver. Commissioner Carusillo agreed. A TI Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit a parish center expansion to an existing church with waivers of minimum number of parking spaces and maximum structural height on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 6 acres located at the southwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Solomon Irvine, having approximate frontages of 316 feet oa the south side of Santa Ana Canyon Road and 993 feet on the west side of Solomon Drive and further described as 5800 East Santa Ana Canyon Road (San Antonio De Padua Catholic Church); and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby GRANT waivers of code requirements on the basis that the parking waiver will not cause an increase is traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity nor adversely affect any adjoining land uses and granting of the parking waiver under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim, and structural height waiver is granted on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable tc 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. Commissioner Messe offered Resolution No. PC88-202 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby GRANT Conditional Use Permit No. 3042, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035, subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations and with the modification of Condition No. 13 to read that roof-mounted equipment will be permitted if it is not visible; with the addition of a condition that gates are to be installed at the parking lot entrances, and the stipulation that the parish center expansion to the existing church will not be used concurrent with services in the sanctuary. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILL~, FELDHAUS, HERSST, MC GURNEY. MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE 8/1/88 Mrxtr~Fc ANAHEIM CITY PL.~A'NING ~OA,,.,ISSION Auvust > 1088 Pave No. 42 Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commissi~~n's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ~rther Discussion: Commissioner Herbst asked Mr. Singer if there is anything that can be done to expedite a traffic signal at the corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Solomon. He stated he believed that is one intersection is Anaheim Hills which does create a problem. Mr. Singer stated staff could review it again, and that it is on their priority list, but that the City can only afford to build two new signals per year. Chairwoman Bouas stated the applicants have paid their fees for the signals and that is why they would like to have them. Mr. Singer pointed out that they have paid the signal assessment fees, which are very low; and that a signal costs well over 5100,000. Commissioner Carusillo stated Mr. Singer had mentioned earlier that the need for a right turn lane was created by this church and asked if anyone else might contribute to that. Mr. Singer clarified the turn lane "was required" due to the impact of this particular expansion, and we keep adding to the traffic impact volumes at that intersection, and this particular use is putting it over the edge, therefore, the additional trips attributed will be generated by this use. Chairwoman Bouas stated she did not believe this would increase traffic that much. Mr. Singer stated any expansion on a building will increase vehicle trips. Commissioner Messe said it would not increase the trips during peak hours. Commissioner Carusillo stated this is basically a redesign of what was already there. Chairwoman Bouas stated traffic would not increase during peak hours; and traffic at peak hours would increase as more homes go in out there. Commissioner Messe agreed the number of trips will increase, but he did not believe the peak hour trips would increase because of this facility. Mr. Singer stated this realty falls under Condition No. 4 and he would like to look at that a little more before that particular waiver comes before the Commission. 8/1/88 ie: MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISST~JN August 1 1988 88-43 TEM NO B. - CEOA NF vz ~~rranamrnq rnNOITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 3037 ptJBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: LEO FREEDMAN, 468 S. Roxbury Drive-Penthouse, Beverly Hills, CA 90212. AGENT: GROUND SYSTEMS INC./PINETREE, 201 E. Broadway, Suite 35, Anaheim, CA 92805. PROPERTY LOCATION: 1660 S. Harbor Boulevard Request: To permit a transportation terminal. There were two persons indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Commissioner Feldhaus declared a conflict of interest as defined by Anaheim City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC76-157 adopting a Conflict of Interest Code for the Planning Commission and Government Code Section 3625, et seq., in that he provides services to a user of the proposed project and pursuant to the provisions of the above Codes, declared to the Chairman that he was withdrawing from the hearing in connection xith Conditional Use Permit No. 3037, and would not take part in either the discussion or the voting thereon and had not discussed this matter with any member of the Planning Commission. Thereupon Commissioner Feldhaus left the Council Chamber. Keith Murdoch, 516 Wedgewood Drive, Anaheim, representing the property owner, Jim Woodin and Mr. Allee, president of the Airport Coach Company, were present. Mr. Murdoch stated they propose to provide for the operation of a scheduled bus system, connecting Anaheim with Vise Los Angeles Airport, Joha Wayne Airport, Long Beach Airport gad ultimately Ontario Airport. He stated the service would provide for passengers and luggage to be delivered from the various hotels and motels through the terminal, taking them from the hotels by van to the terminal, transferring them to the scheduled bus system, and reversing that for the return trip, which would provide quite a service to the various visitors in the area. He said none of the bus traffic would utilize Harbor Boulevard for this procedure and one of the particular advantages of the proposed terminal location is that the buses come into the facility from Freedman Way, make a turn on the property and exit on Freedman Way, avoiding the Harbor Boulevard congestion. He said he felt two features of this operation would be particularly helpful in reducing the traffic congestion in the very concentrated area in frost of Disneyland, 1) that the vans are the connecting link between the terminals and the various hotels and motels, 2) and the buses do not utilize Harbor Boulevard; and in addition, none of the operations will include nay curbside or on-street loading and unloading, and all of that activity takes place either on the hotel or motel property. Mr. Murdoch stated he felt this was an ideal location because of its proximity to the hotel and motel properties of the so-called "commercial- recreation" hub. He said actually there are about 102 properties which need to be served 811/88 ~"•~' MINUTE~t;,,,.~:':.~+~fi;;~;~_ ,~„t;, P&B3~NG COA*.~SISSION August 1 1988 88-44 for the visitor and convention center, and only about 40 of these have their own systems and very few of them hive terminal facilities oa their property. He stated this facility and this system would serve those which are not currently served directly. Mr. Murdoch, referring to the map (Exhibit), stated that shows the future location of the permanent building with a small rendering indicating what that would be. He said with Freedman Way at the bottom of the drawing, the buses come into the driveway just east of the terminal, come over to the front of the terminal anti either load or unload at that point. He said they make the turn on the property, utilizing the driveway again to exit the property, back to Freedman Way. Mr. Murdoch, referring to exhibit, pointed out a red line indicating the temporary building which is currently being used. He stated the permanent facility will actually be a little smaller than the temporary building there now, which is a double trailer. He said they are not particularly proud of the double trailer, but it ra a temporary building, and they would love to dress it up some, but wanted to be sure that the utilization gets a favorable response from the community and the Commission. Mr. Murdoch referred to the rendering and noted the top portion of the building is a parapet and would screen the air conditioning and electrical equipment. He said the canopy is provided primarily to protect the travelers from the intense sun or rain. He stated they do not have, at this point, the detailed plans for the future building, primarily because Mr. Freedman, the owner, will be taking over the responsibility f~_~r the Hyatt Hotel very shortly and he does have plans to expand. Mr. Murdoch stated all of the functions they propose are presently conducted on the property and will continue to exist in t'•a hotel itself, but bacause this happens to be a separately-described property, they had to apply for the necessary permits. He said loading and unloading of buses takes place at the hotel at the present time, as well as loading and unloading of vans, movement of luggage and passengers and the sale of tickets take place in the lobby. He said the only thing left is supervision and communication which takes place anywhere you have a business activity, so they are really not asking to provide additional functions since the functions are all there currently, but they do want to get some of those activities away from the most congested part of the hotel operation which is the lobby and main entrance, and put together some of those which are transportation items is an appropriate location acting as a terminal. He said a terminal, under the provisions of the zoning code in the CS Zoae, does require a Conditional Use Permit. He noted they are asking for no waivers, but for utilization of the property as a terminal. Mr. Murdoch referred to the staff report and stated he noted some minor discrepancies in the development proposal; that Item No. 8 of the development proposal indicates the request was for a period of two years, and that actually was a maximum, and they really expect this permanent facility to be constructed within a year. He also noted the temporary trailer. was really only 800 feet, not 1200, unless they are counting the platform that is adjacent to it. 8/1!88 __.. _ ____ ._._.,.... ,. .r..,.: .~ ~~ MT NiiTFS LNARFTM f TTV Pi.LNNTN(~' ('QM~~jI $$jON ALigtlst 1 1988 88-45 Mr. Murdoch noted people coming from Los Angeles Airport (LAX) may come in at a later time than 10:00 p.m., so they would need a time limit to at least midnight, possibly a little after that. He noted there are major flights which come into LAX between 10:00 and 11:00 p.m.. Mr. Murdoch said they were too restrictive on themselves indicating there would only be four employees, and it looks like they might need as many as six, which would require two more parking spaces, which they have adequate room for in the center of the turnaround area. He said it is in approximately the center of the parcel but it would give them a problem if they would have to indicate those as reserved parking spaces because if there are cars parked there, the tendency is for somebody to come in and use up the other spaces, and that is not the purpose of the terminal. He said there is no need for passenger parking at this location, nor do they anticipate nay walk-up trade. He said occasionally someone may want to come in to Disneyland and only stay for the day, and might utilize this bus service, but that would be a rarity. Mr. Murdoch stated on Item No. 10, for clarification regarding movement of the traffic, that he had indicated the buses do not come in from Harbor or exit onto Harbor, and explained the buses do not utilize Harbor Boulevard and the driveway which goes out to Harbor Boulevard for either entrance or exit and the buses strictly use Freedman Way. Mr. Murdoch stated, regarding the 1-year time limit in providing the 15-foot planter area, that there are 5 feet there now, so that would be an additional 10 feet and they are having to bring the 5 feet back into good condition. Mr. Murdoch noted regarding Condition No. 3, that there is only one driveway, which is the one on Freedman Way, and the one on Harbor is not on this property, but is on the hotel property. He stated he did review that driveway and would certainly want to work with the hotel owner to see if that driveway could be improved too, but that they do not have the right to do it. Mr. N.urdoch noted there are a couple of the problems which may make it a little difficult putting in a 10-foot return, but they will work with the engineers. Mr. Murdoch stated that Condition No. 6 requires a fee for street lighting, and actually the street lighting does exist on Harbor. He said he understood, in discussion with staff just before the meeting, that some of t2lese fees may have already bees paid, and he suspected that many had been since there is a pre-existing structure, and that the condition is therefore met. He said if that is the case, then they have ao problem with it, but if was not, xanted to point out to the Commission that ornamental lights exist on Harbor Boulevard, completely across the property, including this portion, and that they ezist on the south side of Freedman way, but it looked like perhaps one street light should be added at this particular property, and they have no problem with that. Mr. Murdoch noted Condition Nos. 10 and 11 are duplicates, so one needs to be eliminated. B/1/88 ~y, MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMIScrON August 1. 1988 88-46 Mr. Murdoch said they have a problem on the timing and actually they would like to have the timing for the various improvements tied into the construction of the permanent facility and they would request that Condition No. 16 be worded in such a way that the timing of these items would be either with the building permit or with the actual construction of the facility. OPPOSITION• John Conway, 1310 Ateca Place, Anaheim, stated he is employed by Funbus Inc., as Traffic and Planning Manager, at 851 East Cerritos, Anaheim. He stated Funbus does not have a great deal of objection to construction of a permanent structure, except for the fact that it is on a quarter of an acre land and they would question the parking facilities, and turning a bus around inside, etc. He said they do object because they have a facility on West Street and they operate a bus system to and from the airport gad they had spent a considerable amount of money putting that facility into operation and they have spent a considerable amount of money maintaining it and object to a bus company starting up and operating out of two trailers across from the entrance to Disneyland, which he did not think is really good for the environment of the City of Anaheim. Mr. Ccnuay said recently the Register carried an article regarding the blight in the Anaheim area, and the Disneyland area particularly, gad he thought this should be considered as adding to that blighted condition. He said as far as the traffic situation on Harbor, that Freedman Way's traffic condition is somewhat in excess of the traffic on Harbor and on a Saturday or Sunday morning, traffic is backed up all the way to the freeway. He said if a plan had been submitted, then a Conditional Use Permit would be in order, but due to the fact that one has not been submitted, through their own admission, he felt a CUP should not be granted for the simple reason that a permanent structure p?an has not been submitted to the City. He said this is a situation being created in the City of Anaheim which is not bettering the environment in the Bisneyland area and he thought granting it for two years to put up a permanent structure was completely unreasonable, and even six months is unreasonable. He said if they wanted to build a permanent structure, they should submit the plans, and start building it as soon as they are approved. He added he feels strongly that the CUP should be denied. Mark Murphy, President of Funbus Systems, 851 East Cerritos, stated from Funbus' standpoint, they have no objection to the building of a facility, but they have objections to the operation for two years out of two trailers, especially given their significant investment in not only as attempt to maintain City codes, but enhance the environment of the Anaheim/Disneyland area; and he did not want to see a competitor operate from temporary facilities for that length of time. He added if the Commission feels it necessary to grant this, the time limit should be changed to 6 months rather thaw 2 years. 8/1/88 ~.:~ rT*~'~'ES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION August 1 1988 88-47 Mr. Murdoch said they do need to work with the owner of the hotel property who does plan considerable improvement on the property and asked Mr. Woodin to explain the hotel owner's position. He said they are perfectly willing to move ahead just as fast as they could, but they have some constraints. Jim Woodin, 7436 E1 Centro Way, Buena Park, said he did not know whether he could speak for Mr. Freedman, but that he did have a letter on file with the City Attorney stating he could sign provisional conditions, etc. He said the Hyatt management would be leaving the operation adjacent to this piece of property in less than 30 days, at which time Mr. Freedman would personally take over the management of the hotel which he built originally, which is going to be called the Anaheim Plaza Resort Hotel. He said their long-range plan has been, for the last 5 years, to put a tower on that property. He said there had been a Conditional Use Permit granted by this Commission about 8 years ago for that project, then it got put on the back burner, but is now back on the front burner and they are working on it, and this terminal would be redesigned as part of the overall complex to blend in with the new structure, and that is. one reason for the request for a 2-year period. He stated they plan to approach the Commission before the end of this year, with the plans for that structure. He stated there are two other things they wound like to address very quickly, and one is the trash; khat the trash is right next to the terminal in a closed storage area and the two properties could .,hare that with no major groblem because the trash from the buses is not handled at that location. He said he does have a problem with the driveways; that 2Qr. Murdoch had explained to him that they were talking about curbing th.e driveways that were there originally for the gas station and they are no longer being used and in fact, they are blocked off. He said he walks that property every day and had never seeL them. He said the gentleman from Funbus does use that property daily and they had no problem with that on either side. Mr. Murdoch stated regarding heavy traffic on Freedman Way, that his experience has not been the same as had been illustrated and that they had had no problem utilizing Freedman. He noted Freedman Way gets a little congested making the left turn at the intersection of Harbor and Freedman and they do not go that way; that they make a right turn out of the property, and they make a left turn onto the property coming west. Mr. Murdoch stated regarding the sensitivity of the Disneyland area, that for many years his feeling has been strong for Disneyland and the Disneyland influence and particularly the appearance of that particular area. He said they certainly do not want to downgrade that is any manner and would do everything they possibly could to qo along with the committee and they would like to work hand in hand with them so any design they come up with is in concert with the theme of keeping that area as beautiful as it can be. He said he recognized it could not be perfect because they still have to operate, but they would eliminate any of the features that are objectionable. 8/1/88 ~~ j~hi't'ES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION August 1 1988 88-48 Mr. Murdoch stated they recognized the utilization of the temporary facility is not what they would like to have, but they would like to go ahead with whatever screening they could in the interim period which they hoped Commission would allow them to utilize. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Carusillo stated with Mr. Murdoch's last statement in mind, he was sure Mr. Murdoch would not have any objection to widening the planter along Harbor to 15 feet immediately. Mr. Murdoch responded they would like to tie that into the construction program; that, if necessary, they could go ahead on the 15 feet, but they would like to put in a berm and that involves a little more construction than just putting in some surface landscaping. He stated they could perhaps put in surface landscaping there now and when they go ahead with the rest of the construction, build the berm, because that includes a wall gad things of that nature. Commissioner Carusillo said there is a concern with the blighted appearance in the general Disneyland area and that he thought this landscaping would go a long way is improving that, so he would like to see some consideration for that immediately. He said regarding the two year time limit, he welt that property has been somewhat in a transition period for a long time and has really done nothing to help with the aesthetics of the general area, so he personally was not in favor of waiting that long. He said he felt Mr. Woodin's comment as to the concept of the hotel blending with the terminal was a good one, but he did not know if waiting another two years to coincide with the hotel design was legitimate. Commissioner Messe asked how the buses get onto Freedman Way and how they leave Freedman Way in order to go north oa the Santa Ana Freeway to LAX. Charles Allee, 5324 Via Apolina, Yorba Linda, President of Airport Coach, stated the Freedman Way access is used coming northbound from the John Wayne Airport into the Anaheim Disneyland area; that they come off the Ratella off-ramp and turn north on Haster/Anaheim Boulevard and then left on Freedman Way, west Y.o the terminal. He said upon ezitinq from there to return to the same airport, the reverse of that is simply to make the turn at the terminal and go eastbound oa Freedman Way to access the 5 Freeway. He said buses arriving from the west, from LAX or Long Beach Airport, the motor coach arrives coming southbound down the 5 Freeway, exiting at the Harbor off ramp, but most often at the Ratella off ramp, where they then access onto Haster Street and turn onto Freedman Way, west to the terminal. Commissioner Messe said that would send them protty far out of their way. Mr. Allee said Harbor is usually congested and the route is a discretionary matter of the coach operator, but usually, which is the majority of time, they will go southbound on the 5 Freeway onto the Ratella off ramp, which is Ratella/Freedman Way. 8/1/88 6 MrN[TTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Au~st 1 iQ88 88-49 Commmissioner Messe said it was stated here that those buses would not be using Harbor, and Mr. Allee responded that was correct and when they do access Harbor, they do not stay on Harbor because they go around through the turn around by Howard Johnson, go down Clementine to Freedman Way again west. He said they try to avoid in all cases, Harbor Boulevard, even that far away from the hub, but certainly right near the hub with Harbor and/or Ratella west of Clementine, or in between. Mr. Allee said they reverse that going north, they qo eastbound on Freedman Way to Clementine, north on Clementine to Manchester, then around and access the Harbor on-ramp to the 5 Freeway and northbound out to the 91 and on into LAX. Mr. Allee said from the standpoint of proximity, that is right in the center of the best proximity to all the properties, and by using the motor coaches only to that one point in and out, without them traversing around the hub, that facilitates the movement of the passengers into the vans and the vans to the light system, then that accesses right ento, into and out of each and every property. He said, in fact, that system was designed in response to the City Ordinances with regard to buses loading and discharging passengers on Harbor/Ratella, so they could avoid that altogether. He said before the ordinance was adopted, but was being formulated for sightseeing companies and other transportation companies, with the one exception of the Orange County Transit District, to be loading and discharging passengers on the major streets; so this way they have the ingress, egress at all properties and while some vary, their vans do leave the streets for the engagement of passengers in all cases. Commissioner Herbst stated the Commission saw the plans eight years ago, and he thought it did include part of this property, and if the developer is waiting to see what the hotel plans are, he would like to know if this facility will be relocated oa some other portion of the property; or will they be tearing down some of the old facility. Mr. Woodin said the terminal would be basically in the same area, but it would probably sit on the hotel property, more offset to the extreme corner of Harbor and Freedman Way. Commissioner Herbst asked if this building then would not be built and the other one designed as part of the hotel structure. Mr. Woodin said the preliminary plans he had seen showed that it was attached to the tower; that the tower would start where there is a garage right now, the garage would come down. Commissioner Herbst asked if there would be any bus storage on the site, and Mr. Woodin resgonded the storage of the bases is off-site at this time and there are ao plans in the future for any bus storage oa that property. He responded to Commissioner Messe that the van storage would be off site also at Orangethorpe and Melrose. 8/1/88 "'~'i°iM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION August 1 1988 88-50 Commissioner Messe stated he was by there the other day and there wets about 7 - 8 vans parked in the parking lot so it appears to be storage. Commissioner Herbst stated they have to have operational vans during the day and asked where they are kept. Mr. Allee stated the vans are only is the terminal for brief periods for dropping passengers or picking up passengers with reservations or assimilating reservations to go out and pick them up from the community. He said the storage in the beginning was a coordination problem and they had a temporary situation where they had the buses coming is for the expansion of their service, without the depot being readied for them at Oraaqethorpe and Melrose. He said they were really unaware of the fact that to store vehicles there overnight would create any kind of problem because it was their property; however, immediately, within about 2 weeks, they got the depot open and they removed the van and bus equipment. He said subsequent to that, they keep all vehicles off the property, with the exception of those picking up and dropping off passengers at the terminal, or picking up paperwork they have to do as coach operators in the terminal itself. He said there are no buses or vans stored at the terminal; and there may be a standby van there for a moment, or a supervisor's van, but those are vans parked there for the functional purpose they have. Commissioner Messe said that meant there was an employee associated with each one of those vacs and on Saturday there were no fewer than 6 vans parked in the hotel parking lot. Mr. Allee said they only had three vans assigned on Saturday and that they have eight vans in their entire fleet and only three were assigned. Commissioner Messe said he saw six there and at least three of those vans were just parked over toward the east end. Mr. Allee said it could have been on a shift changeover because the coach operators are ferried in from Placentia in vans for the shift change in the afternoon, aid that would only have been for a temporary few minutes. He said the drivers are brought is from Placentia then the vans return to Placentia. He stated the policy and practice is that they are not to be at the terminal. Commissioner Iterbst asked if the vans are constantly making a periodic tour around through the motels during the daytime. Mr. Allee said they would be responding to go pick up passengers who have called in or have reservations or have bought return trips on their prior trips from the airports, or from local people who have reservations to go out. He said actually the van system was pretty well contained right oa the Disney hub so far; but they are starting to take local people from their residences and corporations as well; and explained each van can handle a multiple of 2 or 3 properties in their drop-offs. Commissioner Messe asked if the temporary facility has both men's and women's restrooms. 8/1/88 :~; MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION August 1 1988 88-51 Mr. Allee stated the facility has provision for a restroom in it, but it is not hooked up and not utilized at all. Commissioner Messe said he noticed they do not plan for one in their permanent structure gad asked if people would utilize the hotel's facilities since this was a public building,. with people getting off the bus after a long ride. Mr. Allee said yes, unless that would be a requirement, because restrooms there again would utilize more space and that sufficient restrooms are provided in the hotel. He stated the terminal at the Disneyland Hotel has no public restrooms in it either. He said they have no need for the employees to have restrooms in there necessarily, but if it is required by the Commission that they have the facility there for the public, then one for employees would be provided. He stated there is the probability that this terminal may be shifted somewhat with the hotel development and become a part of the major hotel development, and then it would be a redundant facility. Commissioner Messe said it appears Commission is being asked to approve a CUP for a long period of time, based on some non-ezisteat plans for some hotel that may or may not be expanded. Mr. Allee said they could make this separate from the hotel development; however, the owner of the property is the owner of the hotel and does have future plans and in their lease with him, he does have the absolute control, by mutual agreement of both parties, as to design and function of the terminal. Responding to Chairwoman Bouas, Mr. Allee stated they have a 10-year lease, with the first right of refusal to renew as additional 10 years. Commissioner Messe said maybe this should be done as a temporarily use to that hotel as they are doing, until such time as the plans finalized. Mr. Allee said Airport Coach has never used the hotel property itself, and they had only used the temporary terminal commencing May 1, with the expansion of service in Orange County and the impact of that on the hotel gad they were attempting to fill the void between Airport Coach and the hotel to minimize the congestion in the area. Chairwoman Bouas said she was really concerned about the way the terminal looks gad she felt it has to be landscaped. She said this is their the tourist's first impression of Anaheim, whether it is temporary or not, and maybe their impression is that Anaheim is temporary, or if they are leaving, it is their last impression, and she thought they have to make it look like it is permanent and part of the surroundings, even though it is temporary right now. She stated she hopes Mr. Freedman goes ahead with plans for the hotel, but sometimes those kinds of things become delayed, and she felt the applicant has to move ahead with something that, at least gives it a permanent look with landscaping, etc. and that can certainly give it a more permanent appearance than it has right now. 8/1/88 ~.:' MIhJTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Au;xst 1 1988 88-52 Mr. Allee said they are not pleased with the appearance of the trailer at a11; and that he had not seen it until he arrived for the opening of their service on May 1. He stated he had advised that it was to be upscale and single-wide, not double-wide, and it was a little late at that time to start trying to shift it around because it was put down by another member of their organization. He said they had been concerned about it because of the timing, and that they started to beautify it, and put is the canopy, etc.; and that they changed the color of it; and that Mr. Freedman had asked them initially that whatever they put up there, should tie in with the hotel is terms of the color scheme. He stated he is a long-time resident and involved with the community tremendously and with Disneyland and everything that emulates from that, and to exemplify the environment of this area. He said he was a little embarrassed that they had to be cited on this because there is no stronger proponent of the visibility than he is personally. Commissioner Carusillo asked if Mr. Allee had any objection to starting the 15-fooL• planter immediately. Mr. Allee said he has no objection at all; and if it is a condition of the Commission, he has no problem in recommending that to his Board of Directors and he was sure they would not have a problem with it either. Commissioner Boydstun asked why they could not berm it now since that 15 feet has to be dose eventually, one way or the other, and suggested they go ahead and do it now and make it a nice looking corner. Mr. Allee responded he did not have a particular objection to that, and they could budget for it and work with the committee and be sure that i~ will compliment everything. Commissioner Boydstun said she did not think the berm and landscaping was going to have much effect on the terminal, as far as giving it a finished look, and added it can be done and used Ratella and State College as a prime example, where McDonalds bermed their setback and added the landscaping. She said with the berm, people passing by do not look at a parking lot. Mr. Allee said he had no objection to that. Commissioner Carusillo asked if it would be a hardship to ask that they get that terminal constructed within one year since it seems that is the desire anyway, and added that he would like to put a time limit on it so it does not fade. He said this was prompted by Code Enforcement. Mr. Allee said from the standpoint of going forward, the one year is no problem at all, and the only worry is in the preliminary plans to be sure that everything is sequenced correctly, and that it is implemented and they have the right kind of timetable, because they had been embarrassed by this and how it had landed there without a lot of them knowing exactly what it was going to be and after the fact, trying to make amends and trying to straighten it up now. He said they did not want that to happen again and they are trying to give themselves room to make it right. He stated they would stipulate to a year and will make every effort to do it. 8/1/88 ~i.> MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION August 1 1Q88 88-53 Commissioner Carusillo said be agreed with Commissioner Messe as to the passengers getting off the buses and having some restroom facilities available there, and that he would like for them to agree to two public restrooms, both men and women. Mr. Allee said that would be fine and they simply want to be very careful and work within codes with regard to what is required for handicap, size, etc. Chairwoman Souas said she did not think, at this point, they needed that in the trailer, and depending upon whether this terminal will be connected with the hotel, maybe they would not have to have it. Commissioner Boydstun said she wanted 15 feet of landscaping and the berming on both streets, not just Harbor, included in the conditions. Chairwoman Bouas added she would like to see planter boxes, or something, right around the facility with a little color to make it look dressed up. Mr. Murdoch said they would like to utilize some of the setback area for some of the landscaping and explained there is a 50-foot setback requirement and he wanted it to be clear that they would like to use part of that to provide the landscaping. Commissioner Herbst said there is no problem with landscaping in the setback area. Commissioner Carusillo asked about the property description in the staff report, and Greq Hastings, Senior Planner, answered it should say 100 feet on the east side of Harbor and 134 feet on the south side of Freedman. Joel Fick, Planning Director, stated based on the discussion and potential adjustments to the conditions, that since there are presently no plans for the permanent building, it would be staff's suggestion that prior to issuance of a building permit for the permanent facility, that plot plans, floor plans, elevation and signing plans be submitted for review and approval by the Commission. He added staff concurs that landscaping should be initiated right away and that was one of the conditions the Commission has addressed, and the interior landscaping as well, and basically that refers to a minimum of three tree wells on the interior of the site which would be consistent with Commission's request for landscaping around the trailer. He suggested also that the landscaping be initiated immediately and be completed within 30 - 45 days, whatever would be a reasonable time limit. He added also, there has been some concern and difficulty with the bus and van storage on site which was addressed by the Commission, and suggested a condition be added that there be no bus or van storage or repair on site and that any individual bus or vau not be present on that site for longer than a 10-minute period. Commissioner Messe felt 10 minutes might be a little severe. Mr. Fick responded whatever the Commission considered a reasonable time limit, would be fine, and pointed out is staff discussions with the applicant, it has been that literally that site was used only for loading and unloading. 8/1/88 ~- BSI,"'iTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION August 1 1988 88-54 Mr. Allee said 30 minutes would be a reasonable time limit for that, but there are other times when it could be longer because of off-loading of baggage and onloading, and that is done in conjunction with the driver's lunch break, which is 30 minutes, so there could be times that would require 50 minutes. Commissioner Messe said he felt 30 minutes was adequate, and it would cover the lunch break and someone else could unload the van. Mr. Allee said they would make the system work with that restriction. Mr. Fick stated, additionally, the Commission had addressed the time limit and the restroom issue for the permanent construction; and that an additional suggestion is that the only signing that is indicated on these plans is a wall sign on the temporary building; and that since City Council has directed staff to examine signs, the Code Enforcement staff is curzently evaluating literally every parcel on Harbor and Katella and the staff is going ahead with specific plans for the commercial/recreation area, and suggested that no signs be approved with this Conditional Use Permit, unless something is specifically submitted for review and approval by the Commission. A TI N: Commissioner Carusillo offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit a transportation terminal on an irregularly-shaped parcel of laud consisting of approximately 0.28 acre located at the southeast corner of Freedman Way and Harbor Boulevard, having approximate frontages of i34 feet on the east side of Harbor Boulevard, and further described as 1660 South Harbor Boulevard; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Carusillo offered Resolution No. PC88-203 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby GRANT Conditional Use Permit No. 3037 for a period of one year, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035, subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations, with deletion of Condition No. 10, and modification of Condition No. 7 to read 30 days; and subject to the added conditions that: provision of a 15-foot planter and berm adjacent to Harbor Boulevard and the 5-foot wide planter and berm adjacent to Freedman Way will be initiated immediately upon approval of this Conditional Use Permit and completed within 60 days; that construction of the permanent transportation terminal be completed within 1. year of this approval and that the terminal will contain two public restrooms, for men and women; and that the terminal will be for the purpose of loading and unloading passengers only and there will be no storage or repair of vehicles allowed on-site; that there will be a time limit of 30 minutes for any individual bus or van to remain on the site; and that prior to the issuance of a building permit for the permanent facility, the plot plans, floor plans, elevation and signing plans will be submitted to the Planning Commission far review and approval; that there will 8/1/88 ~ ANAIiEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Aum+ar i 1988 88-55 be provided interior landscaping around the temporary building presently on the site and will include a minimum of three tree xells on the interior of the site, to be initiated immediately and completed within 60 days. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed bp' the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOY-u-a'ruN, CARUSILLO, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: FELDHAUS Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision xithin 22 days to the City Council. 8/1/88 P iA ~' :; g. =r .. rlik~v"~'FS ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Aurn~st 1 1988 88-56 ITEM NO 9 CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION• CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 3038 CONS+IISSIONER FELDHAUS RETURNED TO THE MEETING PUBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: CC6F LA PALMA INVESTMENT COMPANY, 2390 E. Orangewood, 8380, Anaheim, CA 92806. AGENT: JEFFREY C. SMITH, 2390 E. Orangethorpe Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806. PROPERTY LOCATION: 4155 East La Palma Avenue Request: To permit an industrially-related office use. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Jeffrey Smith, 2390 East Orangewood, Suite 380, Ana:ieim, stated they are currently requesting a Conditional Use Permit based oa Planning Staff's recommendations; that they have a tenant who has a wholesale business but the office exceeds the maximum allowed of 49~. He said the tenant they are proposing for the building is a mechanical and plumbing wholesaler and this facility happens to be a computer facility where they process all the paperwork. He said he read the staff report and does not have any problem with the conditions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Responding to Commissioner Herbst, Mr. Smith said there net be public involvement since this facility would just be for processing orders. Answering Commissioner Messe, Mr. Smith said the product at this facility would be minimal; that they have some warehouse facility in the back, but it is predominantly to stage for local deliveries and then paper storage for the computers. ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit an industrially-related office use on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 3.4 acres, having a frontage of approximately 34 feet on the west side of Richfield Road, having a maximum depth of approximately 680 feet, being located approximately 570 feet north at the centerline of La Palma Avenue and further described as 4155 East La Palma Avenue; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is ao substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Boydstun offered Resolution No. 209 and c^.wed for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby GRANT Conditional Use Permit No. 3038 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Soctions 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035, subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations. 8/1/88 p~NI~QEIty CITI PLAhdING CO IT~R SS?ON _AuQU~t 1 1988 _ 88-57 On roll call, the foregoing resolution xas passed by the folloxiag vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSZLLO, FELDHAUS, HEEBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: 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. 8/1/88 3yP1 Vh. MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 1, 1988 88-S,Q_ ITEM NO 10 CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION• CO'IDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 3039 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: DR. R. S. MINNICK AND JAN W. MZNNICR, ATTN: STEVE MINNICR, 12269 Sky Lane, Los Angeles, CA 90043 LOCATION: ~Q East Orangethorpe Avenue Request: To permit a 1,058 square-foot ^onveaience market. There was no one indicating their priest±nce in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was nut read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Mr. Hendessi, 11475 Via Vista, Anaheim Hills, said he was proposing a convenience market at 30 East Orangethorpe, Anaheim. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Messe noted the staff report indicated they would be operating a self-contained deli as part of the convenience store and asked Mr. Hendessi to describe the operation. Mr. Hendessi said he would have a deli, to make cold sandwiches, and that more than 60~ of the business would be the customer calling to place the order, then picking it up. Cotr~nissioner Messe asked if the customer might walk into the store and ask them to make a sandwich up there, and Mr. Hendessi said they might, but more than b0~ would be call-in orders. Answering Chairwoman Souas, Mr. Hendessi said they would sell beverages, soft drinks, coffee, etc. Chairwoman Souas asked if there woc.ld be other convenience items in the store and Mr. Hendessi said there would be no grocery things. He said it would not be like a 7 - 11, but more like a snack shop. Chairwoman Bouas asked if he would be making the sandwiches on the premises and Mr. Hendessi said yes, and responded to Chairwoman Souas that there would be no sit-down area. He answered Commissioner Boydstun that they would have salads with the sandwiches. Commissioner Messe said not too many weeks ago the Commission approved a fast food facility for this particular building site and he thought one of the stipulations was that there would be no further fast food uses in this building. Commissioner Herbst noted this was advertised as a convenience market and that does not fit. He noted there is a beverage cooler, a deli bar, then a counter, and it concerned him that someone would come in, get a sandwich and a cup of coffee, then they would sit in their car and eat it. He added this particular site does not have enough parking to take care of this kind of business and that it is not a convenience market. 8/1/88 x 1 .~. M. ,n.rtc auavrru rTmv orLNNINC COMMISSION Au;'~ r ~ lggg 88-59 Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, informed the Commission one solution might be to include this as part of the 2,000 square feet that is allowed for fast food oa the property. He explained this was purported to staff as a small market and staff's definition of a small market would be anything that sells any type of food items, but that this really could be considered as fast food. Chairwoman Bouas stated it is really a fast food operation and Commissioner Messe said the applicant, at the previous Commission meeting, said they had two fast food uses in mind. Commissioner McBurney said that would have been Units 4 and 5. Steve Minnick, 12269 Sky Lane, Los Angeles, the developer and owner of the shopping center, informed Commission that this was one of the two fast food uses intended for that site. He said when they originally applied for the 2,000 square feet, Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, designated this convenience market as number one, and the chicken store next door as number two and that was all they had. He said number three was a flower shop, number four was a check cashing and number five was unknown then but now it is proposed for a video arcade. Commissioner Feldhaus noted that number one is a convenience market, then numbers four and five are fast food. Mz. Minnick said that was a mistake and was not from his plans. He said they had not contemplated any fast food in four and five. Greg Hastings presented a copy of what the applicant gave the Commission at the last meeting which showed the potential uses. Commissioner McBurney said if this was part of the 2,000 square feet, he did not have a problem with it, but the Commission definitely should know what. the other uses are because he did not want something else to sneak in. Mr. Minnick stated as he recalled, when he appeared before the Commission on July 6, he asked for four fast food uses and listed four conceptual fast foods, including a French Restaurant, a Japanese, and a Pizza. He said the Commission restricted fast food uses to 2,000 square feet, which was what Paul Singer had recommended and at that time, it was his intention to appeal the matter to City Council oa the basis that it was his opinion that the traffic would bear comfortably on the property, based oa many other centers he owned. He said, however, he decided that was not a constructive thing to do a~td instead went to Traffic Engineering and asked i`_ they would be willing to study the operation after these two fast food uses were in, to determine, in their judgment, if that was all the traffic could bear, and if not, if they would consider the possibility of recommending that they be entitled to further fast food use. He stated they thought that was an excellent idea and that was where it was left. He said, at this particular point, they are committed to only two East food uses, of which this project is one. 8/1/88 Commissioner Messe asked if this is number two of the fast food markets. Mr. Minnick said this was number one of the fast food uses. He said it was a convenience market with fast food, and that is the way he conceptualized it. He said it is 1,058 square feet, Suite No. 1 Commissioner Messe stated it is really a sandwich shop, and Mr. Minnick said it could ae called a sandwich shop; and that the tenant has a whole side wall of canned soft drinks. He explained one reason he supported it, was because there is a bus bay in front and there would be people out there all the time asking where they could get a cold drink or a bite to eat; plus, right behind this area, there is the Tune Up Master with people waiting there, asking for a place to get a cold drink. Chairwoman Bouas said this would be fine as long as it is part of the East food usage which has been approved, and Mr. Minnick said he xould made that stipulation. Commissioner Feldhaus asked about the Video Rental and Mr. Minnick replied that was never proposed. Commissioner Messe stated he believed it had been applied for, but then withdrawn. Mr. Minnick said Uait No. 5 was a possible arcade, if City Council approves it. He said the arcade people wanted suites four and five but they put a partition between four and five and so they would be limited now to suite number five. Commissioner Feldhaus clarified fast food in No. 1, fast food is No. 2, flower shop in No. 3, check cashing in No. 4, and a possible arcade in No. 5, but it is not yet leased. Paul Singar, Traffic Engineer, stated Mr. Minnick was essentially correct and that Unit No. 1 was designated for a convenience market with fast food, and the parking does reflect that. ACTION: Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit a 1088 square-foot convenience market/fast £ood in an existing commercial retail center located on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land cocsisting of approximately 0.43 acre locate3 at the southeast corner of Orangethorpe Avenue and Lemon Street, having approzimate frontages of 140 feet on the south side of Orangethorpe Avenue and 135 feet on the east side of Lemon Street and further described as 30 East Oranqethorpe Avenue; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. 8/1/88 ,f. 88-61 nom. n,•rc aNAHEIM CI~ PI+A~`'NING COMMI i s 14* 1 1988 Commissioner Messe offered Resolution No. PC-88 205 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby GRANT Conditional Use Permit No. 3039, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035, subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations, with a change in the designation of requested use to read convenience market/fast food. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOyDSTUN, CARUSILLO, Fgq,DHAUS, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MES5E NOES: NONE ASSENT: NONE Jose~~h W. Flotcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. Furtr D;cr„csion: Greg Hastings, Senior Plannez, informed Chairwoman Bouas that the code does require that markets under 15,000 square feetart ofathisdatmarket sitpshould so if the Planning Commission considers any p be a classified as market and a fast food. Commissioner Feldhaus asked about beer and wine sales. Mr. Hastings stated beer and wine sales are typically permitted in a convenience market, without gasoline sales. 8/1/8E } MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 1, 1988 88-62 ITEM N0. 11. - CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION; WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3041 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: INNER CITY EQUITIES, 1880 Century Park East, k300, Los Angeles, CA 90067 AGENT: EL POLLO LOCO, ATTN: RON CONTRERAS, 1402 East Firestone Boulevard, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670 LOCATION: 299 South Euclid Street Request: To permit a drive-through restaurant with waiver of minimum number of par;cing spaces. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject requwst and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Ron Contreras, 16700 Valley View, LaMirada, 90637, said he had read the staff report and they had worked with staff very carefully developing this particular site plan for the location and they do concur with the conditions as listed is the staff report. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner McBurney asked Mr. Contreras if he could live with the turning radius around that restaurant. Mr. Contreras respondE;d they could, and it is somewhat standard for them since they normally have the driveways a little bit wider because they have had some situations where pickups trucks which have the large tires need a little bit wider driveway in order to come through the drive-through lanes. Commissioner Messe asked if the signing is to code. Mr. Contreras stated they did not submit anything along with this CUP because they did review the sign ordinance and they can comply with the regulations. Commissioner McBurney said he could justify the parking because at this particular facility, he knew they did not have that number of people who used the facility nor do they sit in their cars and eat this type of product because of its nature. ACTION: Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit a drive-through restaurant with waiver of minimum parking spaces on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.46 acre located at the northwest corner of Broadway and Euclid Street having approximate frontages of 150 feet on the north side of Broadway and 135 feet on the west side of Euclid Street and further described as 299 South Euclid Street; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding oa 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. 8/1/88 ~~ T~. ~'~'4S ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Au;•.:~~ ~ 1988 88-63 Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby GRANT waiver of code requirement on the basis that the parking waiver will 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 conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Commissioner McBurney offered Resolution No. 206 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby GRANT Conditional Use Permit No. 3041, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035, subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOi7AS, SOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC SURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: 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. RECESS: 6:00 p.m. RECONVENE: 6:30 p.m. 8/1/88 •~ }" 2~YNCTTES ANAHEIM CITY PLAN2•JING COMMISSION August 1 1988 88-64 ITEM N0. 12 - CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION; VARIANCE N0. 3823 P BLI ;HEARING: OWNERS: ANAHEIM VILLAGE THREE OWNERS ASSOCIATION, 2082 Mickelson, 8212, Irvine, CA 92715 AGENT: BRENT NERGQIZIAN, 2082 Mickelson, 8212, Irvine, CA 92715 LOCATION: znsn West Greenleaf Avenue Request: To construct a 47-unit apartment complex with waivers of (a) maximum structural height and (b) maximum encroachment into front yard. There were three persons indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Brent Nerquizian, 2082 Mickelson, 8212, Irvine, stated the 47-unit apartment complex is townhouses units, 2-bedrooms stacked flays and 1-bedroom units; that the site is zoned RM-1200 an3 they are proposing a project with gross density of 28 units per acre. He said this was the most difficult site he has ever attempted to develop and it is a hatchet-shaped property. He stated they had tried to design the project in such a way to take into account the single-family development to the north by providing a 20-foot landscaped buffer area and a driveway with a building setback of a minimum of 49 feet. OPPOSITION• Don Silverman, 2034 Catalpa West, said his property abuts the rear portion of this property and that it frightened him to think he was going to have to share his backyard with 47 other families. He said he considers that an invasion of his privacy and it seemed to him the zoning laws were designed to protect the residents from a change is the nature of the neighborhood. He stated he is also looking at potential noise pollution which would not be covered by any wall from second and third story residences, and not just one or two neighbors on either side but several. He stated he xould like to see this addressed by the people who are planning this project. He said he would also like to note that instead of a light density area, it becomes a medium density area, which is also what the zoning law is all about. James Emerick, 2051 Catalpa, said he lives directly across from the project, and felt variances should not be granted to allow a two or three story apartment complex which would not conform to the neighborhood. He said he would have families in these apartments looking down into his living room and he would have to look out at this large building. He said he talked this over with several neighbors in the area and presented a petition with 15 signatures of people opposed and stated some were working and could not be here and he took off work to represent them. Paul Melanson, 503 North Harcourt, Anaheim, stated he owned the property at 2060 Catalpa West. He said the apartment complex in question would only separate his property from them by a block wall fence. He said originally that area was used as a recreational area for the Gramercy Park apartments and the children used to come there and stay while their parents went to work. He said he has owned his property since 1970 and does not want to see a 3-story complex come in and destroy the privacy of that particular property. 8/1/88 "~ u MINUTES, ANAvOIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. August 1. 1988 88-65 He said there is a nice buffer zone but any item that is thrown into the air ends up in their backyards. He said it seemed to him that the Commission would seriously consider that the single-family residence does have a precedence here; that he realized the owner is entitled to develop his property, but- he should also give the residents there the privacy they have had in the past. He said also under consideration is CalTraas widening of the freeway. He stated there has been a rush of development right on Catalpa, and further to the west, there has been 3 family homes under construction, and that had been nothing more than an empty lot, and also this property behind him has been empty, except for recreational use for the children. He said now they want to develop something skyward and he did not believe that is a fair assumption for the property he bought in 1970, and that they can do what they want and ignore what he would like 20 have. He said if any one of the Planning Commissioners owned the property and these developers came in and said they were going to put three stories there and they would be looking down in the backyard, he thought they might look at it more seriously. Commissioner Hoydstun read the following letter from Shirley Statten, Treasurer of Gramercy Park ZI and III, into the record: "Z am writing to request an extension of this scheduled hearing. I personally made 26 phone calls this morning to residents on Glenoaks Avenue, including the president and vice-president of Gramercy Park II and IZI and the president, vice-president, and treasurer of Anaheim Village I. No one of the 26 called received any notice of this public hearing. As you can see (copy enclosed) my notice was post marked July 25, received July 26, six days notice before your meeting. Again, I request we have a chance to be heard. Please give an extension." Commissioner Boydstun said Ms. Statten called her that morning and her concerns were the traffic on Glenoaks, one of the few resideat~.al streets that has a white line down the center, and also all the other apart*.~nts is the area are 2-story, and that CalTrans is widening and taking in a great deal of this property. Mr. Nerquizian stated regarding any issues about this being a recreational open-space for the community, that when the original developer filed a tract map on this property, it was the intention at that time to make this recreational open-space, as stated is the staff report. He said, however, the property was not developed as a planned community and parcels adjacent to this property have been developed as apartment b~xildings and sold to third parties, at various times over the years. Fle said the condominium community that owned this particular parcel has had the property since its inception in the early 60s, and in excess of five years the property has not been utilized in any way. He said there was an Olympic size swimming pool on the property and about seven years ago they had so many problems with skateboarders riding the swimming pool, that they punched holes in it and filled it with dirt. 8/1/88 ~'. T`^.ITES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNI2IG COMMISSION Auggst 1 1988 88-66 He said the rest of the property is completely overgrown with weeds, rubbish, trash, garbage and there is a preschool building which is boarded up and has been vandalized. He said this property is nothing but a liability to the people who own it. He stated he spoke with several of the owners that past week who are adjacent to the property and they told him they were glad someone was going to develop it. He said there were vagrants sleeping on the property who climbed over the wall and stole things from the resident's back yard and want something done about it. He said they had spent a great deal of time developing and designing the property to provide as best they could a 20-foot landscaped buffer area for the entire 650-foot length of the property. He said it was very difficult to develop in terms of meeting all the requirements. He said they are asking for two variances, the first one being height, and this is a property in an area which is all RM-1200, developed with condominiums and apartments and it is only 90 feet wide adjacent to single-family residential, so a variance is needed. He stated there is three story in the area, in the 1900 block of Greenleaf. He stated they have provided a lot of recreational open space, swimming pools, and recreation buildings and that the owners he spoY.e to have an existing 6-foot wail on the north boundary of this property line and they would like an 8-foot wall, which he would be happy to provide. He noted the last waiver they are requesting is something that came up after their last interdepartmental Meeting and they found out they were encroaching into the minimum setback in the front yard and if that becomes an issue, he will be happy to eliminate it. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner McSurney stated he noted in the report that one of the structural heights is 2 stories within 49 feet of the property line and asked staff where that is located. Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, stated it appeared to be the area just opposite the driveway toward the east end of the project. He said it was a little hard to tell on the plans, but it was 45 feet to the bottom level, and the upper levels may be set back a distance. Commissioner Herbst said he b4lieved this particular parcel i~ a hardsr'_p parcel, but that is also why the density should be less. He stared ;:hey have put as much on this property as they could get on it and it looks like a long train of apartments, with balconies all facing in both directions, which would not eliminate any people on the third level from looking into the yards of those properties adjacent. He stated recognizing that the Santa Ana Freeway is going to be widened shortly, he would be drastically opposed to approving this type density on this property and then the tazpayers having to buy it back; and that is what could happen very shortly. He said with the density of this project, and the height and length, it would certainly block any breeze. 8/1/88 `~..`. MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Auq,~~s_t 1 1988 88-67 Commissioner McBurney said, by the same token, it would be a buffer from the freewa~• noise also. Commissioner Herbst stated he did not think it would buf~er it very much and stated the thing that bothered him is that the Commission would be approving a very dense project right up against the freeway, and there is very little distance from the edge and the sound attenuation for those people living in the apartments would be difficult to obtain. He stated this parcel was originally planned for recreational area and now they want to put 47 apartment units on it that is going to impact that street more than any of the rest of the apartments that are there. He added this project is too dense for that parcel and he could not vote for it. Commissioner Messe said he was concerned about the height, and the 35-foot height is really a pretty massive structure to be putting up against all single story homes, except for one lot which had a second-story addition to the north. Mr. Nerguizian said the•1 had provided a 50-foot setback and a very dense landscape buffer area, with 78 eucalyptus trees, along with many other kinds of pines, etc. He said they are proposing as 8-foot wall, if Commission finds that appropriate. He said he did not think other properties in the City which have been approved, have a 49 or 50-foot setback and they considered that a matter of minimum policy to maintain that 50-foot setback and it turned out to be 49 feet, but he did not think this project would dramatically impact the single family to the north is a negative way. He said they are only proposing 28 units per gross acre, and that they could put subterranean parking and come in at a higher density, have more setbacks, etc. but were trying to cut down the density. Mr. Nerguizian stated this property was extremely difficult to design and they had to have a 600-foot long drivexay which takes away some property. Commissioner Messe said he thought they had done an excellent job oa maximizing a really tough piece of property, but he was trying to point out that the standard is a maximum standard, and they really did not have to come in at that maximum, and that the Commission does approve proposals under the maximum. Mr. Nerguizian said the point is well taken, however, they are in the business of building buildings they feel will be a profitable venture and if they wanted to cut back the size of the building, he could do that by reducing the roof height, since their top plate is only 27 feet high, and added he would be happy *-o cut down the roof structure. Commissioner Messe asked Mr. Nerguizian if he knew an 8-foot wall would required readvertisement for another public hearing. Mr. Nerguizian asked if that could be done as a separate item and Chairwoman Bouas informed him i* ::ould have to be readvertised, and this matter would have to be cont:~ued. 8/1/88 'a~'; MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING C9MMISSION, August 1. 1988 88-68 Mr. Nerguizian asked if the entire project would be subject to a new public hearing or just the item of the wall. Mr. Hastings said if the Planning Commission was willing to approve this, they could approve it without the wall and the developer could come back later for a variance on the wall; however, there would be no guarantee that the applicant would be coming back in. Chairwoman Bouas said her concern is how long it would be before CalTrans widens the freeway Mr. Nerguizian said in the beginning, they had made numerous telephone calls to every department at Caltrans they could fiyure out to call, asking what requirements, if any, they would like them to incorporate into the design of this project to be able to comply with any future widenings. He said that was about four months ago and they told him that they did not have any requirements that they could hold him to; that they were still in the design stages, and they had not gone to public hearings to determine what design they would go to. He said his feelings, at the best case, the widening would be maybe 5 - 7 years away. Chairwoman Bouas asked if the project would then be torn down; and Mr. Nerguizian responded it would be 5 to 7 years before they would begin condemning properties, tearing them doxn, raising adequate funds to do all these things. Commissioner Boydstun said this is only 49 feet from those RS-7200 lots, with 3 stories, and she felt they would have to reduce this to 2 stories where they are that close to those properties because they would be looking right into their backyards and windows. Mr. Nerguizian asked if Commission had a copy of the landscape drawing, noting they had put a very dense landscape buffer there. Chairwoman Bouas asked how high the trees are, and noted there are trees growing there right nox and it would be seven years, just when CalTrans is ready to take over, before the trees are dense enough. Mr. Nerguizian said there are a great deal of trees oa the property right now and his intent is to preserve as many of those as he can, and there is no need to tear down the trees. He said the trees may not comply with what their landscape drawing shows, but they xould like to keep as many of the full size trees as they can. Commissioner Carusillo stated he felt the consensus of the Commission is that the density seems appropriate, but the concern is the visual intrusion into the back yards of the properties along Catalpa and he understood what those people were saying. He said they have enjoyed a low profile for many years and now they are going to look at three stories, which is a violation of code and the balconies face north. He said Chairwoman Bouas made a good point, that they have a lot of foliage but by the time it matures, they would be ready to tear it down again, so that does not make much sense. He said he 8/1/88 ... '~;~ _'~ MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Aum~st 1 1988 88-69 believed they would like to see the property developed, because it is an eyesore right now, but with a lower profile project and certainly it should not violate that 50-foot limit and they seem to be getting closer and closer to the adjacent RS-7200 properties. Mr. Nerguizian said he would be more than happy to reduce the roof structure, and it is also possible to reduce the grade level of the property and that he would rather explore those avenues, than take off an entire story. Chairwoman Bouas asked if applicant would like to have a four-week continuance and Mr. Hastings pointed out the neat meeting has a 20-item agenda. Mr. Nerguizian responded he would rather it be two weeks. Chairwoman Bouas said it would have to be four weeks and staff has to readvertise for the wall anyway. Mr. Hastings said staff could readvertise if they have the plans in by this Wednesday, which is the filing deadline for that meeting. Commissioner Feldhaus said if these plans are going to be changed signifi,antly, he thought applicant should have to qo right back through and start over again. Commissioner Herbst said that was a point he was going to make; that the applicant has 3 stories and Commission has allowed some garages and called it 3 stories, but as far as having this this close to single-family homes, it would have to be dropped to 2 stories and eliminate the balconies facing into those back yards and come up with a lot less density. He said he would suggest they try to redesign it so that the taxpayers are not going to be stuck 5 - 7 years from now, whenever CalTrans gets to taking all those properties along the freeway. He suggested the applicant redesign the project so it would be there for 20 years, in a manner that does not affect the property that much. Mr. Nerguizian said CalTrans is not in a position to tell them what exactly they are proposing, and that he has asked them numerous times. He said no one there could tell him what they are doing and suggest what they wanted him to do to work with them. He stated he would rather drop the building down three feet into the ground and reduce the overall roof height than continue the project. Commissioner Carusillo noted it is the intrusion to the north he is mainly concerned with. Mr. Nerguizian said he could angle the windows is such a way that they do not face directly out. Commissioner Feldhaus stated he would not be is favor of a continuance oa this because applicant has a major redesign coming and he thought he should start right back through the plan check process all over again. He added this project has too many units and is too high. 8/1/88 ~..<' Th*~fTFS ANAHEIM CITY DLANNING COMMISSION Auaust 1 1988 88-70 Commissioner McBurney stated it could still be continued and it would have to take just a little bit longer. Chairwoman Bouas asked if a 4-week continuance is acceptable to applicant. Mr. Nerguizian responded that would be fine, but that he wanted a better idea exactly of Commission's expectations, so he would nut have to go through another continuance after that. He said he did not want to spend the time and money redesigning a project that is not going to be acceptable; that he would like to reduce the height so it approaches what a 2-story building would be and make some type of compromise by dropping the building down 3 - 4 feet, and thought that would begin to accomplish what the Commission wants him to do. Commissioner Messe said that would begin it, with some reduction of the roof line also. Chairwoman Bouas added also there should be no intrusion into the back yards of the people behind it. Mr. Nerguizian said he would reduce the roof height along parking space numbers 57 - 95; that he could reduce the height of the buildings and depending on how the grades work out, he would reduce the buildings in those locations by 3 feet. He said he would drop the grade, bringing it down 3 feet into the ground, and if he cut his roof height 4 feet and dropped the building 3 feet, it would reduce the overall height of the building to the roof peak to 28 feet. Commissioner Boydstua asked about the buildings on the front which are only 49 feet from the single-family residences and Mr. Nerguizian said those are the ones he was talking about. Commissioner Feldhaus stated he is not going to try to figure that out here right now, and the applicant would have to come back in with another design. Chairwoman Bouas asked about the balconies that would be impacting, looking into the back yards. Mr. Nerguizian said that is a corridor only, and the balconies are along the back of the project, and the only thing along the front of the building is the entrance to the unit and a window, so there are no balconies there. He said there is a patio oa the 1-bedroom units, but those are all located around the pool and face the pool area and have no view into the single family. Commissioner Carusillo asked if applicant could address the issue of the 49 feet to the RS-7200. He said the feeling is that the Commission has given and given and they are pretty much taking a stand at 50 feet. Mr. Nerguizian said he could accomplish that and make it 50 feet. Commissioner Carusillo said he did not mean to give the applicant the impression that his suggestions would carry through with some altered plans, but that he is giving his personal guidelines and just the feeling of discussions he knew prevailed to some extent. 8/1/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION August 1 1988 88-71 Mr. Nerguizian stated they had intended to keep a 50-foot "no man's land" and it just turned out to be 49 feet, but if it must be 50 feet and he is being instructed to make it 50 feet, he would comply with that. Chairwom.aa Bouas stated the height has to be lowered and Commissioner Messe noted applicant has agreed to do that. Mr. Nerguizian said the rest of the project which is 3 stories is set back 93 feet from the single family residential. He said they had a variance for the encroachment of their stairwell at the entrance to the property, which they were not aware of until they came out of tho meetings and it had come up at a last minute, partly because of the curvature of the cul-de-sac where the street ends. He said if that is something Commission would feel unhappy about, then he could modify it. Chairwoman Bouas said she believed that should be modified also, because she thought the fewer variances they have, the better they would be. A TI N: Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Herbst and Feldhaus voting no because of the density of the project and because the redesign will substantially be a whole new project which should go through profile procedures again), that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of August 29, 1988, at the applicant's request, is order to redesign the project and submit new plans. a~,;;r;nnal Discussion: Commissioner Herbs noted that he is opposed to the project because of too much density and that he would be opposed to the project when it comes back for the same reason. He said that will overload that street until it impacts the whole neighborhood. Commissioner Carusillo said the code allows 47 units and acknowledged that it is a hardship parcel. Commissioner Herbst stated the density there is 36 units to the acre and they are right at maximum; and that most developers want to develop to maximum or minimums. Mr. Nerguizian said if the Commission is taking into consideration the driveway areas, he would have to agree; but if they put a subterranean parking structure in, then that driveway area would not be counted against the usable square footage. He added regarding subterranean parking structures, they decided to put all of the buildings on grade, reduce the density, and take the consequences of having the driveway subtracted, and are coming in at 28 units per gross acre. He said true, on a net acre basis, they are at maximum, but in looking at the whole project, it is a better project than with subterranean parking and 60 units, which is what he could propose. 8/1/88 .~ ~ti; rL rI~ pLl~hdING COMMISSION August 1 1988 88-72 Commissioner Herbst said applicant does not seem to understand that he is opposed to this density, and if he proposes 60 units, he would be doubly opposed to it. Commissioner Feldhaus inquired about the 26 people mentioned who were not noticed or were noticed late. Commissioner Boydstun said those units may not be within the 300 feet, but the people called around when one of them got a card, because they wanted to be able, if it was postponed, to present their thoughts on this. She noted most of them were on Glenoaks, which is the street with so many traffic problems. Chairwoman Bouas r~3ed the traffic is one of the concerns and with the density pc•oposed, that is a concern. Mr. Nezguizian noted the traffic generated by this project would not go through the residential neighborhood that there is a continuous block wall running all the way down to Euclid. Commissioner Boydstun stated the traffic would go through Gramercy Park with all those condos and they have a traffic problem now. She stated those condo units are as close to single-family residential as you can get. Mr. 27erguizian said he could not address the people in Gramercy Park because he did not know who they are, and they are not within the 300 foot radius, but the single-family properties to the north are not affected in any way by the traffic generated from this project. Commissioner Boydstun informed the applicant that the Commission has to look at the traffic overall. Commissioner Carusillo stated he did not think the Commission could get everything they want; they have an eyesore there now and everyone agrees something has to be done and he felt if the applicant addresses the height and visual intrusion, and takes down the profile a little bit, then it is better than leav~nq it the way it is. Chairwoman Bouas said applicant has a centiauance for four weeks, and it would be readvertised because of the wall, so the people will be notified again. Mr. Hastings asked if the Commission wished to have it readvertised, even if the wa1L is not brought in. Chairwoman Bouas said, yes, so everybody would be notified. Mr. Hastings said staff xould have to have plans in this week, in order to determine if there are any further waivers to advertise. 8/1/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Augpst 1 1988 88-73 ITEM N0. 13. -• CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION• RECLASSIFICATION N0. 88-89-07; VARIANCE NO. 3822 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: SPIROS GIANNOUTSOS AND CATHERINE GIANNOUTSOS, 1469 Alabama lane, Pittsburgh, PN 15216. AGENT: MASSOUD MANSHI2ADEH, 1524 Victory Way, Placentia, CA 92670. PROPERTY LOCATION: 741-474 North East Street Request: RS-7200 to RM-2400 or a less intense zone. To construct a 2-story, 14-unit apartment complex with waivers of (a) minimum building site area per dwelling unit, (b) maximum structural height and (c) minimum front setback. There were nine people indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. C:".sairwoman Souas asked that the opposition and applicant try to cover both Stems 13 and 14 to the best of their ability, since most speakers would be addressing both agenda items. She stated both would be heard at the same time but voted on separately. Ronald Crowley, 1700 Raintree Road, Fullerton, stated they had recently acquired sir parcels in this immediate vicinity, and they had recently built five projects along LaPalma Avenue; two condominium projects and three apartment projects. He said he provided Commission with a picture of the latest projects completed on LaPalma Avenue, which is a nine-unit project completed about a month and one-half ago and is fully rented at this time. He said this apartment will look very similar to the one they would see. He stated he would like to draw Commission's attention to the existing conditions of the properties that are in this area, and at the present time, there is an accelerated deterioration taking place in the entire vicinity and in acquiring these parcels, they found three of the sir parcels were owned by absentee landlords and they were rented to tenants who were not taking care of the property. He said it is their opinion this is ao longer a viable area for single-family residences. Victor Hiqhfill, 719 North East Street, said he is trying to see somethi,ag done on East Street that would essentially make better use of the street. He said he is talking primarily of one block, the 700 block of East Street, where the zoning presently is single-family residential. He noted it is the last block on three miles of East Street that remains single-family development primarily, with some tens of thousands of automobiles per day crossing in front of this property, and he felt that is no longer conducive to single-family development. He stated he did not believe any of the Commissioners would want to build a house there. He stated he has a half-acre lot which xould hold a 4,000 to 5,000-square foot house and he did not believe anyone hare, or a developer would build a home of that consequence oa that street, and he did not think anyone who is opposing the project presently, would want to live in his house on that street and call it his future home for the next 20 years. 8/1/88 .~: MIh~TES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, r~ "'` 1 1988 88-74 He noted at the meeting of December 7, Commissioner Herbst made the basic statement that if they were to leave the zoning as it is and leave it single-family residential, that the widening of the street would never occur, which is badly needed because of the safety hazard; and that developers would not be interested is the property, therefore, they would not buy it and the City would more than likely never condemn the property to get the excess easement they need to widen the street. He said once the street was changed to a secondary street and made a 4-lane avenue, the traffic has increased and make it basically very difficult to manipulate into the driveways and a person has to slow down to 3 or 4 miles per hour in order to get in and they no longer have any curbside access to get out of the lane of traffic. He noted he has a U-shaped 3riveway and can come in and go back out frontwards, but his is the only lot which has that type of access and he would not want to go out of a driveway backing into the street the way it is now. Ray Linehan, 741 North East Street, said his home is one of those which is being considered for conversion into apartments. He said he just wanted to concur with what Mr. Highfill said; that he has to bacY_ out onto East Street and it is like backing out onto a freeway at certain times of the day. He said he did not know what the traffic flow is, but was curious to note that Commissioner Messe had noted it is about 14,000 cars a day - and towards LaPalma it gets to be 19,000. He said he wanted to get out of there just because of the traffic, and the area is no longer suited for single family dwellings. OPPOSITION• Addressing Agenda Item No. 13: Tim Foster, 710 North Bush Street, said in looking at the existing conditions, then at what they propose to do, the existing problem is all the violation of codes, and not a density problem. He said his feeling is Chat taking a problem and replacing it with a larger density is not fixing the problem, which is code enforcement not being done, and it could come back many times greater since there is more density. He added he is against the project on 741-747 North East Street. Addressing Agenda Item No. 14: Mr. foster said his problem with the project at 1014, 1020 and 1028 East North Street (Item No. 14 on the agenda) is, again, density, and he wanted to note that Commissioner Herbst had pointed out in the last meeting regarding North Street, that there is too much density and he would like to see something like about six units and that he would concur with that number. He said that would fall right under the existing code, not requiring any waivers or variances, but to put 15 two-story units in there is asking too much. He stated they are getting bombarded with the existing condition and cleaning up the area is a code enforcement function. He asked that the Planning Commission vote against this project bnd help them clean up the area in another way, not by adding more. Addressing Agenda Item No. 13: Frank Guevara, 753 North Bush, stated the boundaries of Wilhelmena and North East Street are his buffer from the other apartments. He said these are the last boundaries before the apartments are on their backs and that is why it is so important for him. He said there are more single-family homes between Vine, Bush, Rose, and North Street and he represents those people. 8/1/88 E Mai. aIh^t'~'ES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION August 1 1988 88-75 - Addressing Agenda Ztem No. 14: Mr. Guevara said he is not against condos but is against the number proposed here. He said he is also against the number of stories. He stated he did not get a card for this hearing, but the neighbors are so well-organized that the people around him notified him and told him about the hearing. He said he also wanted to know if they are on staff's mailing list. He said he is within 300 feet of the project but did not receive a card. He said his objection is that North Street is so congested already and 15 more families living there would make it more dangerous, and ;;e cited two recent accidents there. He noted that on weekends, North Street is like a freeway and if Commission allows this develogment, it would get worse, not better. Addressing Agenda Item Nos. 13 and 14: Trent Wilson, 1001 East North Street, stated, in addressing both Agenda Items No. 13 and 14, he had a petition which was circulated and lists the names of the people and their comments regarding the proposals. He stated the cards they received indicates that on East Street the change from RS-7200 to RM-2400 is as indicated on the General Plan. He added, however, the three additional waivers are also listed as it relates to minimum site area, maximum height, minimum front setback, and that is a 14-unit, 2-story apartment oa .76 acres on East Street; likewise, the General Plan for North Street presently is RS-7200 and the request is that it be changed as a General Plan Amendment and a Reclassification to RM-3000 for attached condominiums, medium lox-density with three waivers, maximum height, minimum landscape setback and minimum recreation areas. He said he understood that the minimum recreation area had been pulled from the plan and, therefore, is not a waiver but still, they are talking about a change in the General Plan, which does significantly change an established single-family residential area to higher density, even if it is ownership. He stated there is a significant question as to that ownership, because of the situaY,ion of it becoming rental investment property. He noted this is very much an invasion of a block of single-family residents who have continued to come before Commission and Council gad noted this is his 19th time and that he has, in addition to this petition, four others which are already in the files, and they are repeating the same names for the most part. He noted they get the same people saying no, again and again, and in this particular case, they have 69 signatures which they had gathered just yesterday. He said previously they had more than a 100 who said no to basically this same thing, changing the single family residence to something else. He concurred with Mr. £otter that these back yards are being presented as the absolute negative, are private proper*_y, owned by someone who should have the responsibility and courtesy to make them acceptable to the neighborhood. He said they do often protest to Code Enforcement, particularly concerning the 4-plex unit at East and North, and it is still very much the same as it has been for the past three years. He noted absentee ownership, is some cases out-of-state ownership of these properties, and that the infractions are continuing every day and they are told that their only solution is to wipe it out and build apartments or condominiums where there is now only three homes across the street from other single family residences. The petition was presented to the Commission and entered into evidence. 8/1/88 v r rn,,,n~TCVTnx August 1 1988 88-76 iBIh^J'I'ES ANANEIM CITY PLANNIN Addressing Agenda Item Nos. 13 and 14: Vickie Tuggy, 1015 East North Street, said she lives directly across from the three properties proposed in Item No. 14. She said she hoped the Commission is not going to give much weight to the pictures displayed, as to the existing conditions oa 1014 - 1018 East Nozth; that she lives across the street from these houses and those pictures do not depict the true situation, and that at the last Planning Commission meeting, she had submitted pictures which she felt did not slant the situation like these do. She noted she had no idea where they took one of the pictures in the exhibit; that the three properties, especia}.ly two of them, are well taken care of and are not an eyesore gad more important, the people who live there are not a source of trouble to the neighborhood. She said secondly, the safety factors on North have been discussed quite extensively, but she would add that she could not get out of North Street, to make a left turn onto East Street any longer, because the left turn lane going into LaPalma blocks the street. She said the traffic probleMithutheosamebe increased for those trying to turn right onto North Street, problem of getting rear ended. She said thirdly, the design of the condos that are proposed is the same as the ones that are crammed onto the south side of LaPalma right now, and as far as she is concerned, they look like boxes and she would never want to live there. Addressing Agenda Item Nos. 13 gad 14: Katherine Lingle, 715 North Bush Street, said she took exception to the comment that their area is very very distressed. She stated she would really like to have known that the existing conditions exhibit was going to be brought here because she would like to have taken pictures of the existing conditions of the apartments around her, which is what is causing all of their problems. She said they live in single-family homes and take care of them the best they can, and have raised their children there, and she did not appreciate someone saying that if they put apartments in there things would be better. She stated the people who are in favor of this are saying the area is no longer goad for raising children there oa East Street and she wanted to know what would happen when these people rent these apartments with children. She stated there would be more children and more congestion. She said apartments are not compatible with single-family dwellings; that privacy, personal safety, traffic, and a decent environment for an existing neighborhood are all compromised or destroyed when apartments are developed. She said self-serving developers always point out proposed apartment sketches and say how nice it will be when completed, which of course, misses the point; and that the City is apparently unable or unwilling to limit the multiple-family use, plus use of single-family homes. She said some of them are being smothered by numerous people and they throw their debris and trash all over. She said people who don't live in their area do not appreciate what they are going through and do not have their understanding of what the problems are. She stated she felt the City had acted irresponsibly and is the root of the cause of a lot of the deterioration by allowing these apartments to be built. 8/1/88 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Aµgust 1, 1988 88-77 Addressing Agenda Item Nos. 13 and 14: Reith Oelsea, 321 North Philadelphia, stated he is here primarily as Chairman of the Central City Neighborhood Council and a board member of the Anaheim Neighborhood Association. He said all their members are very concerned, many who just spoke, and that he really has just been here for half of those 19 meetings and is not as hardcore as Trent Wilson, who stuck it out since the beginning. He said the things being requested seem to be slight variations of everything that has gone on before; and that the list in the staff report reflects denial after denial. He said the density has changed a little, but the fundamental problem that needs to be addressed is the density and all the other problems that everyone else has come up with, code enforcement, traffic, etc. which are really a reflection of the density involved oa the properties. He noted in looking at the General Plan Map that it is exactly designated as single-family, primarily down North Street and then to the west of the East Street properties on East Street for Item No. 13 and that this is one of the inconsistencies that led to the questioning and the downzoning of the downtown. He said it is al;;o the main factor that led to the proposed review of the General Plan citywide, or at least west of State College. He said that inconsistency is being addressed, and the properties on North Street is where the GP said RS-7200 and the zoning said P.S-7200 and that is reason enough not to change both the zoning and the General Plan, and it just seems to be going exactly a~.a's~;st everything that is beiny done for these areas. He said in ::1wer~Fsing existing conditions, that if something is in such disrepair, it may need to be torn down and rebuilt, but that is probably as much personal conjecture as anything. He said he has been involved in a lot of rehabilitation dor+ntowa, and has seen houses you would be afraid to walk into, and they have been rehabilitated into beautiful homes. He said no one is against redevelopment but against increase of density in those areas, and that is the primary issue. He said for developers t;o look at an RS-7200 zone and request RM-2400 or RM-3000 and then still ask for waivers for setbacks, height, and building site per dwelling unit, tells ouo that it is just not the appropriate use. He felt putting a higher density along either of these sites would really accomplish nothing but an intrusion int~~ ~ predominately single-family area; therefore, they are opposed to botY. item Nos. 13 and 14. Addressing Agenda Item Nos. 13 and 14: Thomas Gelker, 1025 ~3st North Street, said it is true there is a lot of traffic on East Street, but he is opposed to these apartments and condominiums because he heard a traffic engineer on a previous item estimate 10 trips a day per unit. He said if there are adding 14 apartments and 15 condominiums, that would add 290 cars/trips per day to an already bad situation. He said they always get this song and dance about they are going to build nice apartments and it will be an improvement, etc., but it does not work that way; and it has not worked that way on Mavis Street. He said they have four apartments on the corner of North and East and it has not worked that way there either. He noted those four apartments have nine cars, two trucks and a motorcycle and none of them use their garage to park their cars, and keep the garage for another use. He said this is a fairly nice area now and if this were to happen, it would completely ruin a neighborhood. He said it is now zoned RS-7200 and he felt it should stay that way. 8/1/88 :~;; r~IhJ'~'ES ANAHEIM CITY nr ~~.i:I•+G ~nttM7CS70N Augg~t 1 1998 88-78 1Qr. Crowley said he believed the main issue with the neighbors is they did not like the idea of having apartment buildings on East Street and he did not see that there is any viable alternative. He said he would be glad to discuss the variances and give explanations as to why they have proposed that. He r:ferred to the first variance, for minimum building site area per dwelling unit, Item No. 1, and stated the site area is ,76 acres, 33,140 square feet, and like the project before, they had eacluded from consideration the driveways, which reduced the size of the allowable land down to .56 acres and it is on that basis on which the density is being calculated. He said they has built five projects in the City of Anaheim, and in no case have they had the driveways excluded from the p<operty, but that is the way this one was done. He said he would also like to point out that they are dedicating, on as already relatively narrow parcel, 12 feet to the City of Anaheim for street widening. He said in addition, they had been talking to Planning Staff and had indicated that directly north of them is the four-plea and the improvema::~~~ have not been made on the street at the present time. He said he has agrer :;~ go ahead and make the improvements all the way to North Street so that t,::..:': would be a much better corridor, and that ultimately the street is going to be widened all the way down, but they would start here. He said there have h-een funds set aside for some of the development for things such as utilities, and they would like to work it out so that the utilities would be taken care of by the City hnd then they would take care of all the street widening. He said xith respect to the structural height, the rules and regulations are that you could not have more than a 1-story structure within 150 feet of single-family residences and they are 25 feet on the south of single family residences; however, the General Plan calls for that area to be changed to RM-2400, so that very likely this would not remain residential for very long. He said they own this land and the land on which they are proposing the condominium proiect, or they are acquiring it; and that to the north is the four-plex; and there is the full 50 feet setback, or in eacess of 50 feet, everywhere else. He said they are meeting the letter of. the law the best they can. Mr. Crowley said with respect to the minimum front setback, they have an average of 16 feet, and Code calls far an average of 20 feet, with a minimum of 15. He said they have the minimum of 15, but only an average of 16 feet. He again stated they did have to dedicate 12 feet to the City and that is a fairly major step, so the total distance is quite a bit is eacess of what they had previously. Massoud Manshizadeh, 1524 Victoria Way, Placentia, stated regarding code enforcement, that when they went to take the pictures and were talking to a couple of the neighbor, that he and ]iis friend who was taking the picture 8/1/88 ~}~! TM i;~ ' :~~. +r ~~1yFS A_NA_hGIt~ CITSt PLAN^~7ING COMMISSION Ava~+eY 1 1488 _ 88-79 counted 11 children in one house. He said he did not know what kind of enforcement the City has, or if they could enforce this, but it so happens that the City is renting from the owner and giving the rental to the family living there. He stated he felt only six units on the property was unreasonable; that regarding the person who said he had not received his notice, that he had called him twice himself and talked to him on Sunday and once before, and he knew that he would be here today and said he would see him here. He said he went to Mr. Guevara and told him that he realized he represented a lot of people, that he organized them, although they did not know what was happening, and that Mr. Guevara got signatures from the neighbors without explaining wha~ was happening. Mr. Manshizadeh stated he asked what Mr. Guevara wanted and Mr. Guevara had said they would accept condominiums, and he said fine, and then after talking to a few people, they decided to present the condominium project, and now Mr. Guevara is talking about the number of condominiums in the project. Mr. Monshizadeh stated they have dedicated 12 feet of land to make the traffic situation more safe. He clarified the location of houses from the photographs submitted. He stated he took down a building, and moved the trash, which was a condition when he appearrd in front of the Planning Commission a year ago, and that they are proposing a quality building, Mr. Manshizadeh said he would be glad for anyone to contact him regarding where the pictures were taken. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Feldhaus asked the developer why both of these properties which are contiguous are not both proposed as condos instead of apartments on one. Mr. Monshizadeh said they would like to propose apartments on both but another developer had proposed apartments and the neighbors were against it. He noted the previous proposal on East Street came before Commission as 24 units, And the Commission changed the zoning from RM-1200 to RM-2400, and the 24 units were too much density. Commissioner Feldhaus said the zoning was changed to RM-240:: and the developer came back in with apartments at RM-2400, but the other one came back in with RM-3000, under 2400 code. Mr. Monshizadeh interjected that they are going under the RM-3000 code. Chairwoman Bouas stated it is, however, zoned RS-7200. Mr. Monshizadeh staC++d he saw the sensitivity of the neighborhood toward apartments; that to cl:P north is apartments, and at the end of the street, which is about 50': teat long is apartments, so they still think the townhouses are needed. He said he had spoken to some of the Commissioners and City Council and they are concerned for the need of affordable condominiums, so they concluded townhouses are needed. 8/1/88 .f ~TLJTES At71LREIty CITY PLAhdING COMMISSI"" ~ ' +eaA 88-80 Chairwoman Bouas asked Mr. Guevara to comment on his notification and his concern about the single family on East Street. Mr. Guevara stated Mr. Monshizadeh indicated that he had asked for condos when, in fact, Mr. Monshizadeh had asked him a direct question, "if they did not put apartments there, what would the neighbors like to see?" and that he had responded, "maybe condos." He stated Mr. Monshizadeh showed him the plans for the condominiums at a later date, at which time he had asked how many condos and how many stories and when he was informed that there were 15 units, 2 stories high, he said that was not acceptable. Commissioner Carusillo said he wanted to qo on record to say that it is inevitable that East Street would qo RM-2400,, and xith the exception of the density on Item Ne. 13, 14 units instead of 13, and the location of the trash, he thought it was a fine project. He said East Street is destined to become RM-2400; and that the street needs to be widened. He stated, however, as to North Street, he agreed he would like to see that stay single family. Commissioner Messe said he agreed with Commissioner Carusillo; that they are over code on Item No. 13, the apartment complex, and there is no reason or no hardship, that would make him vote for an over-code project on that street. He noted they have trash right next to a single-family dwelling, which is not acceptable. He said if they eliminated a unit or two and added some amenities, noting there is no place for children to play or recreation area and that the recreational area is on an individual basis. Commissioner Herbst said in looking at the plans, there is a driveway connection between the two parcels and for trash pick up and fire access, if one project was approved and one denied, there would still be a problem with circulation, on Item No. 13 and the trash truck would have nn way to turn around. Mr. Monshizadeh stated they could move the trash to accomplish the needed circulation. Chairwoman Bouas asked what the Fire Department had to say, regarding access for fire equipment. Mr. Monshizadeh said almost to the intersection of North and East Streets, there is afire hydrant which reaches this building very well; and they have already talked to the Fire Department and if Item No. 14 is not approved, therW is a fire sprinkler or another way to do this, and that is to have another fire hydrant. Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, said Item No. 14 could. stand on its own, according to the Interdepartmental Committee, because it has circulation. He said Item No. 13 has a problem with the Fire Department, and they may accept the fire sprinklers or on-site fire hydrants, but the Sanitation Department, as he recalled, had a problem with the trash if there is no circulation through there because they did nat want to stop on East Street. 0/1/88 ~, Mrr^rrEC ANAHEIM CITSC P~ NA~IN` , 1988 88-81 Mr. Monshizadeh stated they have a 5-foot wide, 8-foot long trash enclosure on the corner, and they could move that to fit. He said another way would be to reduce one building by one foot and make a 6-foot wide trash enclosure. He said there are other ways also they could fix it. Commissioner Carusillo said that would require the trash truck to stop on East Street which is a very hazardous situation. Mr. Monshizadeh stated it does not matter what they do, the truck has to stop somewhere, and it would be better to stop off East Street, which when widened would be three lanes. Commissioner Carusillo asked about the density, noting if the applicant removed one unit, they could have a turn-around area perhaps. Mr. Monshizadeh said he would like to take the sidewalk all the way to North Street in exchange for .2 unit, and if the Commission liked, he could provide that to the low income families. Commissioner Aerbst said there is a place for affordable housing, but if it increases the density in an area where density is the problem, it does not fit. He said he did not agree when a project affects the living of other people by putting in more units to get the low cost housing so the developer could have more density. Mr. Monshizadeh stated he would qo along with eliminating one unit, going with 13 larger units and provide, if Item No. 14 is not approved, the trash bin there. Commissioner Herbst said he would not go along with that; .`..hat the applicant needs to provide a "hammer head" for the trash trucks and be could do thak by taking a unit off the back. Commissioner Feldhaus said the Commission needs to discuss Item No. 14, to see if that will be approved. Chairwoman Bouas stated regarding Item No. 14, that: one of the major concerns with the people who have appeared before, which was not heard tonight, is that North Street is such a busy street that to put any more traffic on it for apartments is dangerous. She noted the Commission has all agreed and said that is one of the main reasons they would not approve apartments in the past on that property. She noted the reason it is so dangerous on Nortn Street, is because it is so close *-o LaPalma and if East Street is widened, then the flow of traffic will be better. Commissioner Feldhaus said the real danger coming out on North Street is the left turn. Commissioner Herbst noted the people could go out from the aparc.~ant houses, through the complex, onto North Street and down Bush to Sycamore and visa versa, so they have to look at that both ways. 8/1/88 ~~.. MINUSES ANAHEIM C TY PLANNING COMMISSION AumfQr ] 1988 88-82 Commissioner Feldhaus stated he believed there is as answer to the left turn problem and he understood from the Traffic Engineer that they are scheduled for signalization to be upgraded is that LaPalma - East Street intersection. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, noted that is a federally-funded project and hoped it would be done this year. Commissioner Feldhaus said he believed Item No. 14 impacts what happens on Item No. 13, because if those two properties were both approved, contiguously, the applicant could redesign the whole project for trash to come is one and out the other, then he would not have to redesign No. 13. He added on the other hand, if Commission turns down No. 14, they have to worry about deleting the one unit from Item No. 13. Chairwoman Bouas stated she could understand why the neighborhood wanted to keep the area single-family, but those lots are so large that people would not build single family homes there. Commissioner Carusillo asked idr. Wilson if he had a feeling of what the group's attitude might be if there was no egress from the North Street project. Mr. Wilson said single-family homes are built on those three large properties already and :ie objects to forcing this recycling on this neighborhood, either from this Commission or the developers. He said if the owners are going to expand their properties by making them larger than would be appropriate, but to tell him that a single family home on a large lot must be recycled to something other than single family is not acceptable. He stated the Planning Commission has the General Plan, and it is RS 7200 and it should be left at RS 7200, why change. Commissioner McBurney said the only comment he has on Item No. 14, is that he could see nothing else there but condominiums, and did not believe that anyone would build a single-family residence there. Chairwoman Eouas agreed there is probably not a market for a single-family home in that area. Commissioner Carusilla said he agreed with the people there, that it is single-family residential now and asked why would the Commission would mandate that it has to be changed. Commissioner McBurney said the Commission is not mandating it, just considering the request. Commissioner Carusillo sa_d the Commission has made the suggestion that perhaps if there was no egress from the North Street proposal, xould that satisfy the group, and that answer was no. He said he sympathized with their crnceras as to why single family there should have to qo. Commissioner Feldhaus noted the owners of the single family wants it to go, and they want to se~l their property. 8/1/88 ~;r INUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION August 1 1988 88-83 ~TION: Commissioner Carusillo offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to reclassify subject property from RS-7200 to RM-2400 to construct a 2-story, 14-unit apartment complex with waiver of structural height and minimum front setback on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.76 acre, having a frontage of approximately 235 feet on the west side of East Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 160 feet, being located approximately 100 feet south of the centerline of North Street and further described as 741-747 North East Street and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together ~iith any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study gad any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Carusillo offered Resolution No. 204 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby GRANT Reclassification No. 88-89-07 subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations, with the added conditions that the trash area be relocated to allow for circulation of the trash trucks, subject to the Sanitation Department's approval; and that the project's density be reduced to code, which is 10 units; and with the modification of Condition No. 3 that the applicant will either make a cash payment to the City for improvements or will construct all of the improvements up to North Street, with ao ezpense to the petitioner as to removal of the telephone pola.. or electricity, beyond his property lines, negotiable with the Electrical Division. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSEL7T: NONE Commissioner Carusillo offered Resolution No. 205 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby DENY (a) minimum building site area per dwelling unit and GRANTS (b) and (c) structural height and front setback of Variance No. 3754 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 Codo deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in identical zoning classification in the vicinity. 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 Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presentP9 the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within :. Says to the City Council. 8/1/88 T "Ih^J'i'ES A_NAAEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1 1488 88-84 ITEM NO 14 CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 246, arrrASSIFICATION NO 88-89-05. AND VARIANCE N0. 3824 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: JAMES R. NEEDHAM AND SHIRLEY A. NEEDHAM, 1028 E. North Street, Anaheim, CA 92805: SANTOS BECERRA AND ROSA BECERRA, 1014 E. North Street, Anaheim, CA 92805; DONALD R. SMALLEY AND JERI M. HOLLINGSWO$TA, 1020 East North Street, Anaheim, CA 92801. AGENT: MASSOUD MONSHI2ADEH, 1524 Victoria Way, Placentia, CA 9267C LOCATION: 104 1020 and 1028 East North Street GPA Request: Amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan proposing a redesignation from the current Low Density Designation to a Low-Medium Density Residential Designation. Reclassification: RS-7200 to RM-3000 or less intense zone. Variance: To construct a 2-story, 15-unit condominium complex with waivers of a) maximum structural height; b) minimum landscaped setback abutting single-family residential developments; and, c) minimum recreation/leisure area. This item was heard in conjunction with Item No. 13 above.. Chairwoman Bouas asked if there were any questions regarding the 15-unit condominium project. Commissioner Messe stated his only concern is that approval of anythiaq other than RS-7200 on North Street would start development down that street and that he voted against RM-1200 and RM-2400 because he didn't want to just open the flood gate to more requests. Commissioner Herbst stated there are 4 deep lots right across the street. Chairwoman Houas pointed out that the people across the street are the ones here complaining and they do not want anythiaq other than single-family homes. Commissioner Carusillo stated those four lots also are inhibiting La Palma Avenue a little, but agreed that turning the corner will open tho flood gates. Chairwoman Houas asked Mr. Monshizadeh if there was any way they could build single-story condominiums ou that property. Mr. Monshizadeh stated not oa La Palma, and pointed out from the east to the west, there are 3 homes which do not have any sidewalks and that if it is riot changed today. •:y'.Nll be changed tomorrow. He stated at the beginning of East Street on 'ch2 north, there is a condominium or apartments and at the end there are lots of a;~artments, and this essentially has to be a mixed use. He stated there is a need in this City for condominiums to provide some housing for people with incomes above 540,000. He stated 5250,000 is the average cost of a home in this county, and these three houses collectively pay real estate taxes of about 55,000, and this would be about 530,000 just in real estate taxes and it would upgrade the area. He stated these are 1200-square foot houses on very big lots, and it has to change. 811/88 ~..' ,.,.nrc JiN1~HEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISCION. ~wj~"~ST ~ 1988 88-85 Commissioner Boydstun stated she understands about the tax base but that she is not concerned about the tax base. She slated she is concerned about the homes which side up to and back up to this property, and that some of those people have lived there since the day those homes were built, and :;he knows those lots are dinosaurs in today's standards, and people aren't going to put a single-family house on one of those lots, but she thought there has to be a compromise, and that she did not see anything wrong with condos if they were single story. Chairwoman Bouas stated there are 2-story houses across the street. Commissioner Boydstun stated those 2:ouses are a long ways off and they are big older houses, and that those two-story houses across the street were there when there were orange groves, and those people have got apartments on Mavis, and they have surrounded that whole area and she doesn't think it is fair to put two stories there right into their back yards. Chairwoman Bouas stated one of the major concerns was not only the density but the traffic problem coming out of North Street and making left turns. She stated to address that problem, she would ask Mr. Monshizadeh if he would agree to put a median 3 feet wide on La Palma from North Street all the way back up to the property on Item 13, which was just approved, with a 3-foot wide median to prevent people from turning left out of North Street. Mr. Monshizadeh stated that is no problem and he would agree, with the approval of the Traffic Engineer's office. Chairwoman Bouas stated traffic then couldn't go across North Street and try to turn left and back up traffic. Commissioner Carusillo stated he thought that needs more study and he would feel uncomfortable voting on it at this point. Commissioner Feldhaus stated he thought it is ar. answer and that he has talked privately with the Traffic Engineer about it and he also thinks it is a good idea to address the traffic problem out there and the Commission could condition any approval based upon that. Tim Foster stated the only problem he can soe with that is living on Bush Street, and that would force everybody to go out his street, otherwise, they are going to have to turn and make a U-turn down *_he street. Commissioner Feldhaua stated it is one or the other, and because they are contributing coming off Bush onto North and trying to turn left there too, he thought it is a trade-off and they have to do something to eliminate the problem and the danger of Crying to get out of there. Trent Wilson stated the Commission is proposing to change the direction of the street which would change the entire traffic pattern of all those streets, (Bush, Rose, Wilhemina, and even Sycamore) and the purpose is to get these condominiums approved to replace the 3 single-family homes which are already there. 8/1/88 c ~iaaarru rrmv or afrurN(^ ('l1MMTSSSON AUGUST 1 1988 88-86 ~11.V Commissioner Feldhaus stated it has been stressed many times during this meeting that the existing traffic egress from North Street is dangerous. Trent Wilson stated that i,s not being forced upon them, but the additional cars and traffic that these 15 homes will generate will be forced upon them. Commissioner Carusillo stated he didn't knew hox many cars they are talking about, possibly 30, and Chairwoman Bouas stated 150 trips. Commissioner Carusillo stated he understood Mr. Wilson's frustration, but that if a median is going to resolve the problem, he did not understand why the City doesn't put that in. Chairwoman Bouas stated she would like to get Paul Singer's comments. Mr. Wilson stated he would lime to make a quick comment about the two-story house which is his house and it has been there since 1906 and the next closest building is probably 90 feet away. Frank Gueuera stated if these developers want their property so much, they should just give them a fair offer, and that he knows a lot of people would sell, but this way, the Cicy is forcing something they don't want. Commissioner Feldhaas stated 5e thought the neighbors wanted to keep siagle- family homes in that area, and Frank Gueuera responded that is what he wanted to keep, but it seems the Commission wants to change things around. Chairwoman Bouas stated the Commission is just discussing it at Y.his time. Paul Singer stated obviously there has been concern expressed about the intersection on North Street and East Street, and the major problem with that particular intersection is left turns. He stated putting a median island down East Street would precluding left turns and the neighborhood would have safer access through Sycamore, if they wish Co make left turns. He stated if they are making a left turn from North Street to East Street, they eventually wend up at Sycamore, so making the same turn from North Street onto Rose or any one of the parallel streets is the same move and it will take some of the cars out of the way, but will provide a safer traffic pattern through there, and it will cause some inconvenience, of course, for traffic to go north on East Street. He stated he thought it is a trade-off of safety opposed to convenience. Responding to ~:hairwoman Bouas, Paul Singer stated it wa•rld be possible to put a median in, once the street is widened from the southern property line of the apartments, as they are proposed, all the way t~ North Street. Commissioner Feldhaus stated the developer has offered to do that widening in connection with the units oa East Street, as well as L•o take the median all the way down to the end of his property line. Paul Singer stated they still have to have t2;e access, and he can not block that driveway. 811/88 .. ........ .~.... .. . r w~.:.,~,.,.,,,~:,~,;:~ .{ ~: MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSI01~. AUGUST 1, 1988 88-87 Commissioner Carusillo stated the petitioner stated if he gets the condominiums he'll provide the median and, if not, he's not interested. He stated if the median is the solution, he did not see why do xe have to force the condominiums into the residential area. Paul Singer :,rated he is not forcing anything, but the question is how to make the traffic safer, and that is an alternative; that East Street has to be widened in order to accommodate the median island, but since the widening does not go past the driveway oa East Street, the median cannot be up to that point. Ray Linehan, 791 North East Street, stated he lives on East Street, but North Street is around the corner. He stated his concern was safety and the properties just across the street from this property do not have sidewalks. He stated his concern is all the Yids who go to school and have to walk on the street to meet the bus, and that is a busy street. Greg Hastings stated there is an error in calculations as to the number of units permitted in Item No. 13, sad there are different calculations is the report, one subtracts the driveways and one doesn't, and it appears the actual number of units that would be permitted is 10 because the driveway needs to be subtracted. He stated since the Commission approved the project, a waiver is needed in order to build this type of project. Commissioner Herbst stated Commission approved RS-2400 and denied the variance, and he voted for RS-2400 because they have to dedicate property. He stated he still thinks the Building Department will want the hammerhead for trash pick up and he did not think they are going to want it done on East Street, so he thought that project would have to be redesigned. Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, stated since the Commission denied the variance, obviously the developer is going to have to meet Code and if there was as error in calculation, that is unfortunate, but Code requirements will still govern, unless a waiver is granted either by the Commissian or by the City Council in the normal course of business. He stated the developer does have appeal rights available. Commissioner Carusillo stated the Commission .is standing by the Code, and whatever the Code permits is ail that would be allowed, unless a variance is granted. He stated if the Code only permits 10 units, that is all the Building Department would be authorized to permit. Chairwoman Bouas stated, otherwise, the developer would have to Dome in for a density bonus and would have to provide some affordable units and qo through the variance process. Commissioner Herbst stated the Commission has reviewed that property a number of times since he has been on the Planning Commission and it has been turned down for anything but RS-7200 and he did not agree with the plans submitted since they are backing up to within 8 or 9 feet of single-family homes wit two stories. He stated he thought this is the wrong time, but there is going to be a time when it is going to change but not now. 8/1/88 r ~w j_. ,, MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1 1988 88-88 A TI N: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan changing the current Low Density Residential designation to Low••Medium Density Residential and to reclassify subject property Erom the RS-7200 (Residential, Single-Family) Zone to the RM-3000 (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zone ani3 to construct a 2-story, 15-unit condominium comglex with waivers of maximum structural height, minimum landscaped setback abutting single-family residential development and minimum recreational/leisure area on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.08 acres having a frontage of approximately 210 feet on the south side of North Street, and being located approximately 100 feet west of the centerline of East Street and further described as 1014, 1020 and 1028 East Horth Street; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PCBB-209 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim Planning Commission Department does hereby deny General Plan Amendment No. 246. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Boydstun, Carusillo, Herbst, McBurney and Messe NOES: Feldhaus, Bouas ABSENT: NONE Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC-89-210 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny Reclassification No. 88-89-05. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: Boydstun, Carusillo, Herbst, McBurney and Messe NOES: Feldhaus, Bouas ABSENT: NONE Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC-89-211 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny Variance No. 3824 on the basis that there are no special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned property is the same vicinity; ani that strict application of the Zoning Code does not deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity. Oa roll call, the foregoing resolution was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Boydstun, Carusillo, Herbst, McBurney and Messe NOES: Feldhaus, Bouas ASSENT: NONE 8/1/88 ~. :~_: ~; MINUTES, ).NAF{EIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, A5'i~'~a, 1. 1988 _,3'$.F!!? Commissioner Herbs L• stated he still thinks North Street going o;n to cast S:`reet is probably one of the mos'k dangerous corners in the City of Anaheim and there is ~m~re traffic clear mn'through from Ball Aoad to thin freeway. F(e stated if s.ec= ahiag happens sr€t':h the signalization, it might improve, but until som~ching is' done for safety on that corner, he did not ::Wink '_?asth Stet ~t should :;+! ,3welcped any more than it is today. Responding to F:m~ Crc~+ley, Malcolm Slaughters stated he has heard it said that there are differs=:~t interpretations by the ~^lanners, and whether that :iu factual or not, t?+e interpretation of the Code, is vested in the F~l~enni.nq Comnei.ssioa, and he .aid not think the Commission h~:a been asked ~ interpret the code by anybody and secondly, if the staff di<! not properi;: evaluate a project which the Commission heard a month and a half ayy^n, t:ie evzlurition should still stand and if tkiere is a pro'~lem, it will be lookzd at by staff. Greg Hastings read from the Code; '...for purposes of this Section, Building Site Area ::s a total development site, minus the square footage ~f all vehicular rights of way or accessways is excess of 120 feet in length". He stated two years ?sgo this issue was brought to the City Council and they decided to 1>ave it tiie way it was at the time and felt that, this was a limiting factor for density purposes. Responding Lo Chairwoman Bouas, he stated at this point staff ha3 taken a literal interpretation of the Code, and ar~y driveway over. 120 f..tl~ in length, regardless of how it is dr!signed, is de9ucted. ti~ stated szsff Goe'1C bring a request for the Commission's irterpretatlon of that Codes Sec:,on. Commissioner Messe offered a motion, ss•=.,r,do3 by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Car,anission does hereby request discussion of that particular Code sec;:ion at ts.e nest meeting. Malcolm Slaughter stated the applicant is supposed to knew the Code and what he is applying :or and staff is there to check it but that does not relieve the applicant of the responsibil=ty. He stated they have <he right to appeal what has beet done. Mr. Mo.nshizadeh stated' there is an interpretation of that Code and it is 120 feet and they do 'not have a 120-foot driveway. He asked to bring the project back to the Planning Commission without goinct tc City Cuunci3. 8!1/88 Q :°" ;? ~, s~ ,,,' S~'iZ~i ANAHEIM CITY PLA1,~t27INy COMMISSION AUGUST 1 1988 88-90 ITE NO. 15 - CEO ?7A EGATIVE DECLARATION '-'CLASSIFICATION N0. 87-88--50. AND V~iR7.~... E N 37 94 $yJ'dLIC ~ct~,1NG: OWi:ER: .JOSEPH H. MAR73I ANU JALEH J. MAKABI, ET AL, 3333, ;335 and 3335-1/2"W. 5s11 Road, Anaheim, CA 92843. AGEitT: MAGDY HANNA, 9.~^ 'oacArthur Boulevard, k680, Newport Beach, CA 92660. LOCAlI~~N: va~3 3335 & 3335- 12 !~'?~, Ba?.l 'Road ReclassiFication: RS-A-43,OC~t)' tc nN,-2400 or a less intense zone. Variance: :CO co*~truct a 2-stc~rv, 16-unit affordable condominium complex with r•aivers of aJ minimum building site area per dweYliaq unit:; b) maximum structural heighi:; c) maximt~r., site caverage; d) minimur+ structural setback; and, e) minimum recreational/leisure area. Continued from May 23, 1988 an3 •Jttly 6. 1988 meetings. TherEr were 5 people i:3i.aating their prei:c~ce is ogpoaition to subject request and adthaugh the staff report was not read, it is referreii to and made a part of the rt.inutes- all Marshall, 4400 MacArthur, Newport Beach, stated this is a very unique and awkward property to design, and they have done their best to mitigate surrounding circumstances and to appease as many geople as possible. He stated the issues are the height ~:~strictioas and lot coverage, but they are offsetting that with homeownership .n a higher quality project. He stated the issue at the '.asz meeting was the possibility of putting the street through and he tcougk.t they pointed ot:t very clearly their position that it vas impossible fir them to develop un@er those circumstances. Mr. Marshall stated they realize they are asking for some ti~w distinctions in the Code and that this is a request that Cem!nission eorsic'.c? scrongly the balance between an apartment and a condominium. Mr. Marshall stated Mr. Makabi :,;i owned the property for 9 yews and he bought it knowing it was across from the hospital find part of a commercial street and the property next to it was to be developed at some ~wiat, and hie ae•ught it as a future investment. He stated Mr. Makabi is most concerned that he is losing the value of his financial investment. George $ratt, 3306 West Glen ,Holly Drive, stated he has lived in his home for 32 years a.nri has been a State registered industrial engineer in the State of California.foi a number of years and retirod in 1973 but kept at this registration valid until 1976. H.~ stated his field was construction of buildings, .factories, offices, etc., and he was also a member of the original Charter Study Committee for the City of Anaheim in the emrly o0's. He stated the report i:1 an insult to his intelligence with every restriction and every waiver and violation of the City Codes. He stated the number of units, plus the affordable is strictly against any common sense of construction and would be jamming them altogether in a small 3/4-acre parcel. 8/1/88 ~:. MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. AUGUST 1. 1988 88-91 Mr. Hrott stated on May 23rd, Commissioner Herbst wisely stated that he thought this property should not he developed at this time but should be considered in a greater package including the 3 acres next door and the nursory. He stated Commissioner Herbst asked the neighbors to have meetings with Mr. Hanna and t_5e very first meeting was over a year ago and Mr. Hanna asked what the people would like and they told them what they would like, but he completely ignored what was discussed and requested. He stated three years ago another developer, Mr. Ross, wanted to put apartments on this property, less than what this developer is asking, and he was turned down; and about two years ago Mr. Vazquez wanted to build a lot of apartments here, and that was also turned down by the City Council. He stated it is an insult to come here and have developers ask for a7.) these waivers and that he would recommend this thing be delayed entirely r~~,il the study fur the west end of Anaheim has been completed, or instead le>-. ;.hem build to Code. He stated all contractors say they build marvelous units, well constructed, well designed, but the one that was just finished at 3161 Hall Road is the biggest monstrosity he has, ever seen in his life and that was built by the same company and that he believed the same thing will happen here. He stated now is the time, to stop this type of thing entirely before something goes in which they have to live ~r.ith for the rest of our lives. Mr. Brott stated there is nothing but single-family residences surrounding this property and the people who live in the adjacent property are not going to see daylight or sunshine until 11:00 or 12:00 in the morning. He stated if built to Code and the second story eliminated, the neighbors would go along with it. He seated any children who move in there should have some place to play and right now it is going to be a garbage pit, regardless of what Mr. Marshall says. He stated i:his area is not a ghetto and they don't want it to become one, and they have hrmes in the neighborhood valued up to 5200,000 which are being sold now. Nida Roberts, 3332 West Glen Holly Drive, read a letter from June Lenc, 3312 West Glen Holly Drive, who couldn't be here, indicating her concern with the developer being granted numerous continuances and she felt there was adequate time for plans to be finalized. That the developer presented the plans to the neighbors and the neighbors objected to the waivers, density etc. The letter requested the Planning Commission to consider the building codes and this type of projects being approved in this area. Ms. Roberts stated she did not wish to be redundant but would like to mention that when she received this card, as she has received several ~n the past couple of years, she started spreading and was surprised by the number of waivers requested. She stated she feels that is excessive and is asking neighbors is the community to be willing to give up their privacy for this kind of building, and she thought that is too many waivers to ask for. 8/1/88 ~. ~` MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COhL~SISSION AUGUST 1 1988 88-92 Lou Cornett, 3347 Deerwood, one lot from the subject property, stated her father was born within a mile of this property and she was born within a mile of this property and 20 years ago she worked at two jobs, and still does, to afford a home in the area she knows and an area which she saw developed from orange groves. She stated she bought her property as her home; and that she is self-supporting and it is not easy, and she is insulted by the fact that these developers come in and want this many waivers within 100 feet of her property. She stated she has lived there 20 years and is the new kid on the block, since everybody has been there since the houses were built. She stated she is concerned because they want to put a cut-de-sac into that streeC and this is the first she has heard of that and it is a little dead-end street, with six houses, and they do not need a cut-de-sac :here. She stated she is very concerned about traffic in that area and there are not enough places to park on their street for the people who live there and she put in a 3-car driveway to get her cars out of the street. She stated if that property is developed, and there isn't room for parking on Ball Road, they are going to come right around and park an that cut-de-sac. Gordon Metcalf, 3353 West Glen holly Drive, stated he has resided at that address for 25 years and that he bought that property 25 years ago as an investment for his retirement. He stated his concern is traffic at the corner of West Dale and Ball Road and they have talked to the City before about a traffic signal at that intersection, but it has fallen on deaf ears. He stated there is a hospital there and many doctor's offices, several convalescent homes, and this request to put 16 condominiums there is an addition of probably 32 cars a day moving in and uut of• =hat intersection. Jim Puck, 13341 Deerwood, stated none of the opposition have spoken out against development, but have just asked that it be done within the Code so they can protect their homes that they have lived in for 30 years. He referred to page six of the staff report, Item No. 4, which say's a "modified cut-de-sac" and stated last week he saw a City Engineer measuring the street and he asked him what it was about, and at that time the engineer told him they would ha~~e to pt~t in a cut-de-sac if they develop this property. He stated there are only "s houses on that street and if a cut-de-sac is put is there, the engineer told him they could legally take out the curb and sidewalk and he did not know where they are going to park if anybody comes to visit. He stated the driveways are all double driveways, and asked the reasoning for the cut-de-sac and what the sizr. and length will be and how far i~ would extend toward West Dale Street. Art Daw, Deputy City Engineor, stated it has been the policy of the Engineering Department that when streets ~^e b1ocY.~d by changing development, a modified cut-de-sac is required and that is a cut-de-sac which is constructed within the existing :•ight-of-way and would normally have about a 25-foot radius on curb face, with provisions for a four-foot sidewalk in back of the curb. He stated the reason for this is to provide an arez for street sweepers to turn-around, because dirt collects and streets are not cleaned the way they really should be. 8/1/88 ;y ,; .. ES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1 1988 88~~ Mr. Puck stated they are clean there now because he and Mr. Ledesne get out there after the street sweeper leaves and clean out the corners which the sweeper can't get to and that they would be happy to continue doing that to keep them from putting in a cul-de-sac. Henry Ledesne, 3342 West Deerwood Drive, stated he lives right next door to subject lot and that he struggled to buy his house 27 years ago, and still hasn't paid it off. He stated he has kids over to his house to play, and if. these condominiums are there, he won't see the sun rise, or get any sun until 11:00 and won't even see the llisneyland fireworks. Al Marshall stated they did come in with a number of plans and, of course, one of the previous plans, which Mr. Vazquez had was for a 96-bed nursia7 home. He stated they did ~ssk what the neighborhood would like, and they re::>~~n3ed 16 units and in later conversations, one of the discussions was they wou:d prefer homeowner units, so that is what they come back with and, of course, homeownership of 16 units requires a lot of waivers. He stated he thought homeownership was a superior product to a 16-unit apartment project, and disagreed that they would be blocking Mr. Ledesne's sun or fireworks show, since there is not 2-stories adjoining him, explaining the 2-story is to the other side of. the property and the one story is to the very back of the property which then blocks any views from the 2-stories to any of the single-family residences. He stated they have provided for parking on their property and, of course, being on Ball Road, people would not drive around the corner to Deerwood to park. Maqdy Hanna, 4000 MacArthur Hlvd., Newport Beach, stated this was a difficult property and they have been trying to work with the neighborhood for over a year, and have had approximately 4 or 5 meetings with them. He stated they started with 26 units and have reduced that number to 16. He stated he is willing to work with £he community, and never imposes any project on the community and, therefore, would like to see what the Commission would like to see developed an this property. He stated the property is only 100 feet wide by 322 feet deep, in the middle of single-family homes and no matter what you do, you have to have a driveway and an area to build, and they are trying to find out how it can be done. He stated they tried to combine the two parcels together but the owner is not willing to sell at this time. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Boydstun stated. :t bothers her that they are asking for RM-2900, but then say they are building RM-3000 and nut even meeting requirements for RM-2400. Mr. Marshall stated they are looking for some way to make the 16 units work with a high quality condominium project. Commission Boydstun asked if the Commission approved this and then they didn't build condominiums, could they come back with RM-2400 apartments and meet Code without having to come before the Commission. 8/1/88 ' ~'. ~+ - 4 AN E M ZTY P pZ7NIN MMI I N' A T I E Mr. Marshall stated their intention is to build the project before them as condominiums and not as a rental, and that is a very expensive development and it would not be possible to rent the units without losing an awful lot of money. Commissioner Boydstun stated RM-3000 allows 10 units andlviny six unitsgasor 16 units, and they are getting sin extra units and not g~ g affordable. Mr. Marshall stated they would certainly modify the agreement to read 6 units. Debbie Vagts, Housing OptcachangeCitrtoa6tor, stated they agreed to 4 units, but they would be happy Commissioner Messe clarified whether or not they are asking for a reclassification to RM-3000 with these waivers, or RM-2400, and noted the first waiver says 3000 square feet required. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, stated the developer presented this to staff as a request for rezrovidedothey2use,thedRM--3000 standards,allows condominium development, p Commissioner Boydstun asked if the zone is changed to RM-2400, could they be held to building RM-3000. Greg Hastings responded, "no", that they could build RM-2400 apartments. Commissioner HerbsermitsecondominiumslonlytifttheyemeetdRM13000sstanaardseand and that RM-2400 p this doesn't do that. Greg Hastings responded that is why they are asking for the waivers. Commissioner Herbst stated he realizes what they are trying to do, and he realizes condominium developments is Orange CountyeStedstoldowngradersomelof so evidently it is a good thing to build. He sugg the RM-3000 with maybe a mix of something like 50! at RM-3000 and coming down to a 2-bedroom or 3-bedroom or something like that to make it work•haveel-2-3 stated he knows there are condominiums in Orange County where they bedrooms and he thought maybe there could bewa mt,hrough fbutnhe didenotaagree wouldn't have to stick with RM-3000 all the Y en and with the with changing this to RM-2400, because something could happ zoning in place, somebody could build apartments and the Commission would not have any say about it. He stated with the RM-3000 Code, they coarcelulbutlthiscpropertylowner owned that he realized it is a very hardship p it for 10 years and he knew what the zoning was when he boughC it and he bought it knowing it was single-family homes, and also at the time, the General Plaa probabuld haveda verwosm lluparcelatheree but wxthugood landtated he realized they Y planning, the possibility of the front being CL and then the back part 8/1/88 ~. t MT NitTFS ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING C•~4u?'^rT CCrnx_ att(:t~cT 1. laAB .,.,, H8-95 remaining RS-7200 should be c,r:~;idered, knowing that there would be some hardships involved. He stated when the nursery was there, this road was _~ntended to go through. He stated this project would put a lot more homes than the people xant there and he thought there is a way to do it, and possibly the Commission could look at RS-3000 and stay with 10 units and there would be no intrusion, but it would be a different type of condominium, and that they should be separated more so they look more like a single homes rather than apartments, and they would have the space to do it, and the units could be single story toward the RS-7200 homes and tiered back toward the end of the property, with more separation looking more like individual homes. He stated the developers have asked what the Commission wanted there, and he thought there should be single-family homes, or condos that look more like homes because it is a hardship parcel; that the road is in on both sides with the intentia:.s of it going through and this particular parcel tied to the parcel in back. Commissioner McBurney stated he thought that would cut this property up like a piece of pie, and would be trying to force somebody to purchase a piece of property they might not have any need for and he did not think that road through there will do any good. He said the Commission has to deal with it the way it is, and thought RS-3000 is probably the way to qo, but they should be allowed the bonus. He stated that is what the Council is trying to strive for, but he did not think they should be allowed a 60~ bonus, but possibly 3 or 4 units would be in keeping with the intention of the condominium Code. Commissioner Messe stated he thought it is a little premature to try to out-guess what the new standards for condominium development are going to be, but thought giving them the affordable bonus for the condominium project is appropriate, but not more than that. Mr. Hanna stated they talked to the neighbors and they didn't want to see Deerwood go through. He stated he thought if the Commission would like to see a RM-3000 project with a small density bonus, he would redesign this project, and maybe develop single-story toward the single-family homes and 2-story toward Sall Roar',.. Chairwoman Bouas asked why the bathrooms are off the kitchen, and stated she didn't think it makes sense and certainly not for a condominium, and thought they should reconsider that in t2ie new design. Mr. Hanna stated they can try to design something in the RM-3000 with a density bonus of 25~, which will allow them about 2 more units and Chairwoman Bouas clarified that would be a total 12 units. Mr. Hanna stated he would never develop any project that would impose against the community, and if the community is against the project, most likely he would drop the project and that he has done that in the past. Commissioner Feldhuus stated it is unfortunate that the Planning Commission meetic~g becomes t!ie meeting place between Mr. Hanna and the community. 8/1/88 ~ ~- , ; r~ ~; ~~ vc nunpFTAt CITY PUNNING COtz ISS1ON AUGU ST 1 1988 88-96 Mr. Hanna responded they have met with the community on several occasions but will go back and talk with them again. He stated he would like to continue the project for 4 weeks if possible, which would give them enough time to redesign the project and bring it back. Greg Hastings stated he thought the Commission could handle it in 4 weeks, however, just to make sure there are no other waivers to be advertised, staff would like to have the plans by this Friday. Mr. Hanna stated they need a waiver for height in any case because of the width of the property which is only 100 feet and if they develop 2 stories there, they have to have the waiver. He stated there would be no additional waivers. Greg Hastings stated he would also like the othroblemsr etcts Responding toe plans to make sure there are no trash picy: up p Chairwoman Souas he stated the plan should go through the Interdepartmental Committee meeting. Action: Commissioner McBurney offered a motion second by Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of this aforementioned matter be continued to the meeting of August 29, 1989• Malcolm Slaughter stated he has heard a lot of concern from the neighborhood about the modified cul-de-sac which is recommended as a condition of approval, if this is to be approved, and there may be some misunderstanding as to what a modified cul-de-sac is. Hs stated there seems to be some apprehension that it would affect existing driveways and be did not think that is the case, but suggested they contact the Engineering Department for specifics as to exactly what would be done in that regard. Commissioner Herbst stated the design could be so that one or two of these condominiums would actually ezit on Deerwood, and that would make it look nice at the end of the street and make it look like single family homes. Chairwoman Souas stated they are talking about RM-3000, with the density bonus not to ezceed 25~, so that is 12 units. She added she hates to have these people hear the word "continuance" one more time, but if they don't work on this, there is going to be somebody else doing the same thing and if Mr. Hanna is willing to go down to 12 units, at least they are making great headway. 8f 1f 88 ,s MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLAN27ING COMMISSION, AUGUST 1, 1988 88-97 ICAL EXCEPTION AND V PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: ALLEN R. LOISELLE, P.O. Box 4161, Garden Grove, CA 92642. LOCATION: 1551 Nortn Miller Street. Variance: Petitioner requests approval of a 2-year (retroactive to 8-20-86) extension of time under authority of Code Section 18.03.093 and deletion of Condition No. 6 of Resolution No. 70-114 pertaining to required extensions of time to retain outdoor storage for a pallet repair service. Continued from the meeting of July 18, 1988. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request, and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and make a part of this minutes. Greg Hastings, Zoniaq Division Manager, staff had contacted the applicant and Code Enforcement went out and checked the property and the pallets have been reduced down to a height below the fence line which was one of the concerns. Commissioner Feldhaus responded they weren't below the fence line Sunday when he was out there. ACTION: Commissioner Messe offered a motion seconded by Commission Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the meeting of August 29, 1989. Commissioner Feldhaus asked if 'the Commission is being asked to grant a 2-year time extension retroactive to August 20, 1986 to ezpire on August 20, 1990, noting that is really four years. Greg Hastings responded it is retroactive to a certain date, but it would be 2 years from today. Responding to Commissioner Boydstun, Greq Hastings stated he would have Code Enforcement check the site again. Commissioner Boydstun stated the pallets were stacked right up against the building to the south and she would think with the type of things they are working with, they shouldn't be on top of that building. She stated she would also like to knox xhat that big building is in the back with the side out on their property. 8/1/88 ~. :~: Ih ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1 1988 88-28 ITEM! NO 17 CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAIVER OF CODE REOUIREMENT_AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 2995 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: CHEVY CHASE ANAHEIM PARTNERS, ATTN. SACK MCCOSH, 200 North Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805. PROPERTY LOCATION: Subject property consists of 4 lots (916 Bluejay Lane, 1015 Brewster Avenue, 916 Robin Place, and 931 Chevy Chase Drive). Request Approval of revised plans for previously approved conditional use permit to add 4 lots to a previously approved "Planned Residential Development." There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Commissioner McBurney declared a conflict of interest as defined by Anaheim City Planning Commission Resolution No. PCT6-157 adopting a Conflict of Interest Code for the Planning Commission and Government Code Section 3625, et seq., is that his employer is a partner in this project and pursuant to the provisions of the above Codes, declared to the Chairman that he was withdrawing from the hearing in connection with Variance 2995, and would not take part in either the discussion or the voting thereon and had not discussed this matter Witt any member of the Planning Commission. Thereupon Commissioner McBurney left the Council Chamber. Commissioner Messe stated he didn't have any problem with this and they're adding the four lots which they've obviously acquired since the last meeting. ACTION: Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED the the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find that the previously approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation in connection with this request. Commissioner Messe offered Resolution No. PC 88-212 and moved for is passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby amend the legal description contained in Resolution No. PC88-87, and amend Condition No. 10 to read as follows: "That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications oa file with the City of Anaheim marked Revision No. 1 of Exhibit No. 1 and Exhibit Nos. 2 through 22; provided, however, that 6-foot high block walls shall be constructed along the west property lines separating subject property from the adjacent RS-7200 zoned single-family residences." On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, HOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERHST, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: MCHURNEY. 8/1/88 ~. .•,Ih iTES 1L*IA_Ta'EI1~ CITY PLANNING COMMISST^*T atTr_ricT ~ 1988 88-99 ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION: Commissioner Herbst stated he would like far staff to review the RS-3000 zone, and coeisidor allowing 50~ RS-3000 with 3-bedrooms, and dropping down to 2 bedrooms at RM-2400 and then 1 bedroom. He stated that could possibly be something the Council is looking for in reducing some of the cost of condominiums. He stated developers would have to come up with some kind of miz for 1-2-3 bedroom an3 50~ would have to be under the RS-3000 zone and the other 25~ would be 2 bedrooms. He stated the reason for condominium ordinances is to separate them from the apartments. Chairwoman Bouas stated she would like to see that they are required to have garages. Commissioner Feldhaus stated if staff doesn't do the study, it will be done for them because the City Council is going to relax it down to apartment size. Greg Hastings asked if it is Commission's intent to have this as part of the multiple-family study which is currently under way. Commissioner Feldhaus stated not necessarily, depending on how it can be worked out, but that he would like to make a recommendation to City Council as soon as possible, because he keeps hearing them say they want single-family or ownership condominiums and they want them smaller and they want them cheaper priced, and they do not want them coming in with all 1 bedrooms units and it should be mixed to meet this type of requirement. Commissioner Messe stated with regard to the low-income bonus, it seemed giving the builder a bonus for including lox income provisions is pretty much gone after 5 years and he wondered if it can be mandated that the low income units be retained longer. P_+I J~-.^a7ING COhd,ISSION REPRESENTATIVE TO TFiE PARK AND RE REATION COMMISSION. Chairwoman Bouas appointed John Carusillo as the Planning Commission representative to the Park and Recreation Commission. ADJOURNMENT' There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m. Respec/tf'ul/l/y submitted, `p GYa%~ill~ ~ ~~'J~ Edith L. Harris, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission 8/1/88