The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1992/01/13 (2)•`7~zt x ` ~ f ~"r x ~ ~._ i ~~ e~'°Y' `' `: MIN r~~ .,~,,,tik, REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Date: JANUARY 13, 1992 • Nr~ .~p.., ~; ;.7 The regular meeting of the Mahetm City Planning Commission was called to osier at 10:00 am., ~;~:~ January 13, 1992, by the Chaimnan in the Council Chamber, a quorum being present and the ~~'~ ==: ' Commission reviewed plans of the items on today's agenda. wJ>::;; . f~ •:',, RECESS: 11:45 a.m. RECONVENE: 1:30 p.m. h d '. ~~, COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Hellyer r~t,= . ~,~tf ° , , Bouas, Bristd, Henninger, Messe, Peraza, Zemel r~~~z •! " COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None ~~ ALSO PRESENT Greg Hastings Zoning Division Manager Selma Mann Deputy City Attorney Jonathan Bon'ego Senior Planner Melanie Adams Associate Civil Engineer Alfred Yalda Associate Traffic Engineer Greg McCafferty Assistant Planner J.+anet L ,lensen Senior Secretary Margarita Solorio Word Processing Operator AGENDA POSTING: A complete copy of the Planning Commission agenda was posted on January 10, 1992, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chamhers, and also in the outskJe display kiosk. Pubifbhed: AnahRim Bulletin .January 3, 1992 PUBLIC INPUT: Chairman Hellyer explained at the end of t6~e scheduled hearings, members of the public will be allowed to speak on items of interest which are within the Jurisdiction of the Planning Commission and/or agenda items. PC011392.wp 1/13/92 ,. •fk1§ X r:.:: ,~:~< t r ~ :~'!V d 7 tom. ~g ~ . ,. _ 'ES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 13, 1992 an ~ _ nFna NFGATlVE DECIJIRATIQN. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT. CONDi 2 u PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: THOMAS J. TALBOT AND YOLANDA M. TALBOT, 5 Cypress Tree, Irvine, CA 92715. ~}~ ~ AGENT: HAHMERICA INC., 616 E Ball Road, Anaheim, CA 92805. PROPERTY LOCATION: 616 East Bail Road. ~-=~ ~ Property is approximately 0.92 acre located on the south skle of Ball Road and approximately 220 feet east of the ~, „~ `;- r.- centedlne of Allec Street. ~ "'` l: To permlt motorcycle sales in conjunction with an existing motorcycle repair facility with waiver of minimum `>=} ~~° number of parking spaces and permitted encroachments into requireE! yards. -. ', A:i. -There was one person indicating his presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was ~~ ``~ not read, lt is referred to and made a part of the minutes. ~, ~ . ~-' ~: `~ ~' ~ Peter Hahn, representing Anaheim Yamaha, stated they agree wlth ail the condltlons. „~t.~ ~,~.c.~r-;~ Richard Carter, t46 E. Orangethorpe Avenue, engineer for Bryan Industrial Properties, stated their comments remain the same as presented at the last meeting and that they had submitted a letter. Chairman Hellyer stated the Commission dkl receive the letter and lt is a part of the record. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Messe stated Mr. Carter's letter talks about the existing shed structure and suggested a condition requiring that the shed be Improved to meet the City codes and a building permit required. Mr. Hahn agreed that condltion would be acceptade. Commissioner Messe asked ff the petitioner could justffy the request for the new waNer so they can put the motorcycles on display and explained the Commission has to make a finding before approving a waiver. Mr. Hahn stated the business is dassffied by the DMV as a motor vehicle dealership and all the other dealerships have displays in the front and in order to be competltive, they need to have the motorcycles displayed in front. Ha " stated the Yamaha company also makes musical instruments and people drNing by would not see this as a motorcycle dealership, plus that is not a retail area. Commissioner Messe stated this business being in the wrong zone does not justify the waiver. He read the required findings in order to approve the waiver and explained he would have a great deal of dffficulty making those findings. Mr. Hahn stated because they are in the light manufacturing area, people just drive by and do not see them as a retail business wfth everything inskfe the store. He stated the plans show that 1/3 of the while building is retell space and 2/3 fs storage and repair. He explained they cannot be in a retail area because of the noise from the repair facility. He added the motorcycles would only be displayed during business hours. 1/13/92 .~ ~ t~ ~~2 ` ~-yM ~~ ..~ man Hellyer darffied that the applicant considers it a hardship because ff this business was in the retell area, pair portion of the business would bfa a problem to the other businesses because of the noise. ~~~u~=~ ; c:- CnmmLcainner Bristd stated flue nr shr meterovrJes take un nne of the narkinn snaraa aryl than there are five nr aM A":Riotorcydes or other vehicles on the sidewalk and the plans show that they are going to move the vehtdes off the '=.'°sidewalk to the front of the parking spaces. ~~ Mr. Hahn stated they plan to put the motorcycles next to the parking space so people can park in the spaces In front of the doorway. Commissioner Henninger asked ff the parking calculations included the spaces where the vehicles are displayed. "`' Jonathan Borrego, Senior Planner, ~axplained it appears those two parking spaces which they are designating for ``display of the motorcycles were included in the parking count and as a result, there would be a loss of two 'additional spaces which would br!ng them down to 42 spaces being provkfed rather than 44. Alfred Yalda, Traffic Engineering, stated one less parking space should not be any problem because this type use usually generates a lot of motorcycle traffic, rather than automobiles. A N: Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Peraza and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bouas abstaining because she had not listened to the tape of the previous hearing) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit the sale of motorcycles In conjunction with an existing motorcycle repair facility with waivers of minimum number of parking spaces and permitted encroachment into required yards on arectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.1 acres having a frontage of approximately 204 feet on the south side of Ball Road, and being located approximately 220 feet east of the centerline of Aliec Street, and further described as 616 East Ball Road (Anaheim Yamaha); and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that the declaration reflects the independent Judgement of the lead agency and that it has zonskfered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further ftnding on the basis of the Inftial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a signfficant effect on the ernironment. Commissioner Henninger stated he visited the sfte twice today and that the store ~e directly behind the sidewalk for the ten motorcycles was not offensive and he felt it was appropriate and that he does t:nderstand the argument that most motor vehicle sales establishments do have some outdoor display and that these motorcycle establishments are unique and not quite like a car dealership in that the motorcycles can be stored inskie at night Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Peraza and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Messe voting no and Commissioner Bouas abstaining) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant waiver of Code requirement, in part, allowing 43 parking spaces and permitting the display of ten motorcycles in the parking space directly behind the landscaping adjacent to the right of way on the basis the majority of traffc to this type of use is by motorcycles rather than automobile, requiring less parking, and that the parking waiver will not cause an increase in traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity nor advers4ly affect any adjoining land uses and granting of the parking waiver under the conditions imposed, ff any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim; however further denying the display of flue motorcycles in the second row of parking spaces; and granting the wab~er of permitted encroachment into required yards on the basis that this type of use tradftionally has some outdoor display and 1/13/92 S ~ .~f.. ~a~~ ~-~~ ~ ~ ° ~t ~: X /fit t ' F •.. f i3' iS; ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING _~~ • ^, ~ SF 5,,.`,t .yjj. ~.\ '..h: JANUARY 13, 1992 4 ~ ', Yj~. >?%, the~aare.special dreumstances applicable to the property such as ;;ixe, shape, topography, location and 'groundings which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicinity; and that strict application offle,Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the kfeMical zone and .,;~ . '"~"classfftcaElon in the vicinity. ~,~a fix; .. '~ ~ {y. r ,-~ ` =_ Commissioner Messe stated h9 would vote against this'waNer because he did feel this use is consistent with the ~~` rest of that area and allowing this use would be premature and added he realized the Commission would be z ~.~k~x reviewing the zoning on gall Road in the future, but h is not zoned for this use at this time and he could not Justffy ~,~~k m: this variance. Commissioner Henninger offered Resolution No. PC 92-01 and moved for its passage and adoption that the ~7 . ; Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permft No. 3476, fn part, pursuant to ' ,+ Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.030.830.035, and subject to Interdepartmental =.~ .:-~:, ,Committee Recommendations, and including an addftional condition that the display of motorcydes ar+.d/or Jet akfs r# ` 'y` shall be limited to a maximum of 10; and another condition requiring that the shods on the property shall be ,inspected for building permits and brought Into conformance with Codes, or shall be removed, and that ft should be determined within 90 days whether or not they conform to Codes, and ff not, should be brought Into conformance within sbc (6) months; and that all waste flukis shall be handled In strict conformance wfth Health Departmern standards; and that the signage in front shall be repaired s'o there Is no evidence of the previous sign. Jonathan Borrego stated Condtion No. 21s not applicable to this permit because the property's zoned industrially, and is exempted from the street tree fees; and that Condition No. 14 should be modifled to read: "That prior to the commencement of activity authorized by this resolution, or within 90 days, whichever occurs first, ....' On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BRISTOL, HELLYER, HENNINGER, MESSE, PERAZA, ZEMEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: BOUAS Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ADDITIONAL ACTION: A I N: Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe, and MOTION CARRIED requesting that staff present a report at the next corner+.ient work session regarding motorcyde uses to determine ff ft is appropriate to provkle for motorcyde sales wRh outdoor display by conditional use pennff. 1/13/92 i; JANUARY 13, 1992 5 ;~s:_ - «. A n,.,~„ .~ ITEMNO 2 - CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION VARIANCE N0.4155 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. ~=14185: REVISION N0.3. SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NOS 91-10 AND 91-11 Z',IA -. 'Jy- ~l?UBLIC HEAR{NG. OWNER: ROBERT D. and HAROLDENE WIENS, 7536 Vista Del Sd, Anaheim, CA 92808. PROPERTY LOCATION: Property is approximately 11.4 acres located on the east side of Country H01 Road artd approximately 830 feet east of the intersection of Country Hlll Road and Vista Del Sd. ..~,~.~~ Waiver of required street improvements on Country Hfll Road, to establish a 13-lot, RS-HS-22,000(SC), single-family reskleMial subdivision. ~,:~ ~Y~ To remove ninety-five (95) specimen trees (including 5s dead trees). There were five (5) people indicating their presence in opposltlon to subject request and although the staff report ~~~,' was not read, lt is referred to and made a part of the minutes. ~` f ~` ~ DavkJ Tanner, 223 62nd Street, agent, stated they have revised the plan to reflect a minor correction on Lot No. 10 j~u , in response to a comment from Commissioner Henninger regarding a split level lot; and that there are na other corrections to the plan and the continuance allowed staff to bring the current M~~ frrto conformance with the prior staff report. He stated they have requests for minor modifications to several condltions. Commissioner Messe asked ff the conditions have to do wlth Country Hill Road and Mr. Tanner stated a couple of the conditions refer to the payment of fees at recordation and they would request that a couple of those be pakJ at issuance of a building permit He referred to Condition No. 5 and stated lt relates to Condtion No. 32 and tl,~t condition asts those conditions which are to be finalized prior to recordation of the map and they concur with the first part relating to the bond, but would like an addition on the first Ilne to read: "bond for and prior to Issuance of building permits, pay a per lot service connection fee for the installation'. Responding to Commissioner Messe, Mr. Tanner stated inltially their time frame was for a porlod of ten (10) years, but they are accelerating that and are indicating they will build the protect out as the market will bear. He added they think lt is appropriate to pay the fee when the service is rendered or immediately prior to lt rather than when the map is recorded. Commissioner Messe recommended that condiion read 'prior to the first building permit' and Mr. Tanner agreed. Chairman Hellyer stated review of the conditions is going to require more time and he would like to wait until after the public hearing is closed. Ann McMillan, 7530 East Vista del Sd, stated her first concern Is the density, the second is the wkfening of Vista del Sol and the third is concerns of the property owners. She stated regarding the density, that Mr. Wiens owns 11.4 acres and in November the homeowners concluded that of the six lots, only four have access to Vista del Sd; that the lots were researched back to 1944 and the lots that do have access dkJ belong to the Wilcox family and Mr. Wiens agreed wfth their findings and a plan was prepared showing the actual acreage that does have access to Vista del Sd. She explained the original map dated the 5th of December shows 8.4 acres and that was because at that time Mr. Wiens was seeking sixteen lots, and that he included his own home to get the sixteen lots and if that was subtracted, there would be seven acres and using the Hillside density of the General Plan, at 1.5 units per acre, which is more in keeping with the area, ten homes could be built on those seven acres. 1/13/92 '', ; . t ~~~ P~~.,:; ~,...,.......... ~~ x x ~; ;~. ~.;. r.' z~ TES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 13, 1 Page 6 s ated on Page 2 of the staff report, the total square footage of the 13 lots is 492,814 square feet for 11.3 acres r.Wiens ignored the recopied easements and is using his total land to Justify the density. She stated once p (s recorded, all the old lot lines cease to exist and his etrtire parcel has access to Vista del Sd at that time. }t;•Y.,. ,~:;.~c. ~;'~ She`stated using the 22,000 sq. ft. requirements, there could be 13 lots on the severe acres; that prior to the last December meeting, and one reason staff dki not get the information the week before, Mr Wiens deckled to lower t~f:~+.-:.. .... ` ~ ,=;<:• < -the density from 16 homes to 13 homes and that was partly because of the homeowners' Input. ~~ r ~ ' She stated in a sense he was not showing good fafth and had no other choice because he could not come up with ` eny easements showing he had a right to the full 11.5 acres and in reality, 13 lots can not be built on the 7 acres. ~~~ She stated he gave access to the Harpers' property four years ago and he had no legal right to do that and has ~z ..: ` ~: = ~r .admitted that to the homeowner. She stated he was asked at the last hearing to bring the cul de sac back to his `-"' ~,~-~;:'` property and he has not done that, so there could be potentially one or two more homes added to the density. e~~i' " ~. > She stated the portion that abuts the Harper's property (s part of Mr. Wien's property which he does not even have access to at this time. She stated she realized that the Planning Commission cannot rule on this information, but she felt these things needed to be a part of the public record. She addeu' the Harpers do not have access to the street, but they have access to Mr. Wfen's property until his map is recorded and at that time, that will change. She stated regarding the density, that ff the lots are granted, she would like to see a deed restriction on all the lots and in particular, Lots 10 and 12, and that would run with the land to permit these lots from b.~ing divided again. She stated originally there was a request for 23 or 24 homes on this parcel and the homeowners or. Vista del Sol would like to know that future property owners might nut come back and try again to divide the property. She stated she was sure the argument will be that this could never happen to these lots because they are hpiside and not buildable and that is probably true, but ff that is the case, there is no reason not to put a deed restriction on the property. Regarding widening of Vista del Sol, Ms. McMillan stated when the area was annexed in 1971, one of the terms of the annexation was that the road through the area be accepted by the City as is, similar to the Peralta Hills Annexation; and that the intent was to keep the area rural in character. She added there are road easements, but • these are private streets and they own the street and ft is part of their property and f< is part of their lot and they pay the property taxos on the entire lot and the roads were in before the houses and the houses conform to the existing street and the roads only ~•~erve the owners. She stated most of the streets in the Mohler area are F~rivate send they have been allowed to retain the rural character in spite of development. She stated Coyote Lane goes from 12 feet to 10 feet and Timken is 12 feet, Porto is 12 feet, Cook's Comer is 16 feet, Via Vista is 16 feet, Eucalyptus from 12 to 16 feet, and Vista del Sol is 15 feet at its narrowest. She stated there has been mention of fire trucks and they have not have a problem with fire trucks getting up their street In the past, and the narrowest part !s straight. She stated they are asking that the Commission not change the rural ctsarecter of their neighbofiood and treat Vista del Sol in the same manner as the other private streets in the Mohler OrNe area. ~` ~w: 1/13/92 i~,w' t 5~, r ... ti ~ w4 ~•. ~~ ~ •• _ ";, .. ;$;`ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 13, 1992 Page 7 ~i ~~~ -~-:~ Stie'stated she would like to have a condition added arior to approval, and that it should read: 'ln the e'rent of any .~:F •;v ;.~. .; ., properiy_damage to trees, landscaping or structures which might occur as a result of development, that the ,;~.~;~devidoper would be required to repair or replace that damage to the origins condftion or to the owner's satisfaction ~~. ~arxJ that prior to construction, the developer be required to obtain a bond so that any repairs will be made in a ''~ <:;:;,timeiy fashion". a~„ ~, ~ Site thanked the Commission for this public forum and stated she resized that withmrt h, this project may have ~,f;K , : been granted a year ago and could have been much dffferent than what it would be ff granted today. ~, 7~ ~^'^~h+~s - .Gene Wilson, 7511 Vista del Sol, stated originally when this tract was proposed, thore was talk of 5U,000 yards c; ;;,x *~;2~r.;.... ~ d(rt that had to be moved with 7200 truck trips, etc., and that they understand now that the dirt balances and there ~ r (s no need for export of the dirt. He asked ff the process would require an action ftom the Commission or ffty ~~ ,' ~ Council ff this tract is sold to somebody else and they deckle they no longer can balance the dirt. ,~' ' Melanie Adams, Assistant Clty Engineer, stated any grading greater than 100 cubic yards in the hillside area ti~T,','-' requires a grading permit and requites a public hearing before the City Engineer, and that when the final grading t., ; ~ plans are prepared, notices will be sent to all the property owners within 300 feet of the boundary of this tract and h will be advertised in the newspaper. She stated everyone will be able to make comments about the grading and be able to review the final figures in terms of cut or fill and ff there era any discrepancies, there is also a condftion (No. 7) which Public Works has requested to be included requiring that the grading plan be In substantial confomtance with what is presented to the Planning Commission with the trac! map. Commissioner Henninger stated the condftion not to mc+ve dirt off the site was a mftigation for the environmental impacts and that would be a condftion of the negative declaration. Ms. Adams stated the mftigation is that they redesign the protect to eliminate Import/export of dirt and ff there Is a deviation, it would be brought back to the Commission for review and reconsideration of the tract. Greg McCafferty, Assistant Planner, stated ff they change the grading concept, ft is a change to the project, and therefore, staff would have to reevaluate the CEQA issues, but as long as they balance the dirt, there is no problem. Mr. Wilson referred to Condition 31 c on page 14, and stated f< talks about having the private roads paved and that is prior to the final building and zc,ning inspection and stated he thought it would be inappropriate to allow the number of trucks required to construct 11, 12 or 13 houses up and down ttrat hill with the street in its present condition. He stated he would like to see the street improvernents completed prior to Oral grading inspection and ". that would at least give a somewhat safe road for the trucks and workers. Chairman Hellyer pointed out that would leave them with a wide street when the cansiructian is complet~xf. Mr. Wilson stated regarding the Harper tract access, they agree with Ms. McMillan and that may end up being a civil Issue. Steve Cooper, 341 South Coyote Lane, stated ho did net see anything about requiring that shrubs be planted Nong Vista del Sol so that he would not have to ses the headlights of the cars coming down the hill. He added ff trey are going to plant something and it dies, the developer should be required to replace h. 1/13/92 `` 3w ... iS ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 13, 1992 Pat °~Flatper, 22480 Wlage gray, Canyon Height, stated she dropped off a packet of information for the nmissionars and that ft included the map and an easement agreement between she and Mr. Wiens regarding ess to her lot and also that she supports Mr. Wien's project. She stated she lnduded a letter to Mr. Wiens from In'the packet, and that she is here to be assured that she does have access to her lot. ,~ ,., s Mr. Martinez, 7540 Vista del Sd, stated he agrees with Ms. McMillan and Mr. Wilson and referred to a meeting this "'~'~~,, , rrioming with Mr.Wiens. He stated he dkl not hear anything from Mr.Wiens since the last meeting and deckled to contact him and added his property would be the most affected. He stated there is an 18 to 20-foot retaining wall 3(~~ proposed and that his trees are in the mkldle of one Of the 18-foot walls and he thought less than 18 feet might be acceptable for a shorter distance, maybe 20 to 30 feet. ~~'~ Qave Tanner stated regarding the widening of Vista de! Sd, that Mr. Wiens would abkle by the standards set by the ~t.'~? ; - 'City, and thought the current plan does not reyufre the removal of any off-site trees on Vista del Sd an:l that h has Y`~, a couple of short lengths of retaining wall on the McMillan and Martinez properties. He added those plans have not changed since the last hearing. Responding to Chairman Hellyer, he stated their preferred altemathre would be the 18-foot wkle street, klentffled as A-2. Mr. Tanner elated the property owner would accept responsibility for any damages, but would like that to be monitored by the City rather than the property owners. Responding to Commissioner Messe regarding deed restrictions, Mr. Tanner stated they would comply with any condition that is Imposed on everyone uniformly and he did not believe the McMillan property has the deed restriction; that ft was not their intention to do that and he dkf not know why they should be singled out. He stated they have no plans to come back in the future and subdivide this property. He stated regarding grading, that they have a balanced plan and have to comply with the conrfltion for substantial conformance and thought that would address those concerns. He stated Mr. Wilson brought up a valkl concern about the Vista del Sol improvements and stated Mr. Wiens has proposed making same interim improvements to the road, making ft passable for construction equipment, but will defer final improvements until after the majority of the work fs done so that those improvements are not damaged by the construction equipment. He stated they had previously agreed to putting in the shrubs on Vista del Sol, and Mr. Wiens will guarantee their st:rvival for a one year period, and added he did not see that listed as a condition. He stated they will honor all agreements they have entered into with the Harpers. Mr. Tanner stated they do not believe, based on their plan which has not changed, that there will be any trees removsd from the Martinez property. Greg Weller, Attorney, 2603 Main Street, Irvine, CA, stated both Orange Coast Title and their office have determined that there is access to this subdivision via Vista del Sol, and Orange Coax-t Title will Insure that access. He stated r ~~.. if aasr 1/13/92 l y,p~~ fj ~ ~f,.', ` b'QI it k fr ~ ~~ ~~, 'I i`._ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 13, 1992 1, j. 9 '.' the~title wfth all the easements is extremely complicated and they have researched it and found there was actually iW~??,F:n,~ ..: ,. access.for;the previous subdivision at a higher density, but Mr. Wiens was willing to meet the concerns t e °Commission and the neighbors and agreed to lower the density, so there is no question at this point about access. ~~ .. ~r He,stated Mr. Wiens has provided an easement to the Harpers and Intends to honor all his commftments to the ~~,., ~ ~``~YHa'rpere, -and he though ft was the Comm'~sk~n's policy not to get irndved in Issues between property owners. ~~,f~ ,~~, = He stated Ms. Harper indicated concern about the density and also that ff a subdivision is approved, h somehow creates access rights which were not there before. He stated the recordation of this final map will have absolutely ~fr~; z ~ rio :Impact on existing easements and the additional rights which are not already there can not be created, and this i~ri~ w;~. i , _.. ;: ,~` ;,;,, > ; subdivision will not alter, expand or limit existing easement rights. s~; ~ ~, ~ , ~ He stated there are no plans to further subdivide any of these parcels, but he dki not think Mr. Wiens would like }~fiz S ~~ his property to be encumbered to any greater extent than any other normal subdivision. ax , Concerning bonding for damage, he stated certainly Mr. Wiens Is going to be responsible and post the bonds, but '' ~ `` they would not want to be treated any dffferent or be singled out. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Hellyer asked the size of the property, and Commissioner Henninger asked ff Mr. Wiens' horse is included. John Reiker, Hunsacker & & Associates, responded the property is 11.5 acres, exdusfve of Mr. Wiens' existing house and explained when they originally filed the map, they assumed Mr. Wiens owned an easement for access and 'hat there was no Iimttatior, as to what property that easement served, so the four parcels he owns at the end of that easement were included in their map and the map has now be scalei down because of the questions raised by the adjacent property owners, and at that point they conskfered including that house to maximize the number of the units which could be served from that easement. He stated now they are back to their original tentative asap buundary and are talking about two parcels that have access to that easement and h is 7.4 acres which would serve 14.6 units and they are asking for 13 units on this map. Mr.Relker further explained they induded the two parcels which have access ro Vista del Sol and induded the additional acreage which Mr. Wiens originally purchased which has acx~s to Country Hill and combined h Into one and reduced the number of lots to 13, so are below the projected maximum allowable. Chairman Hellyer pointed out the staff report indicates 11.4 acres, and asked ff that is the correct size. ::;'~;; -:~{ Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, stated the map that was submitted shows 11.4 acres. Mr. Tanner referred to Condftioi~ No. 1, widening of Country Hill, and stated they would suggest that condition be deleted because their current plan does not involve that street. Regarding Condition No. 5, he stated ft is covered in Condition No. 32 which Indicates a number of conditions are to be done prior to flnaiization of the tract map and they would I!ke Condition No. 5 to be reworded to allow the applicant to actually pay the connection fees at the time of issuance of the first building permit rather than at the time of recordation because those services will not be used until the first building permit is obtained. 1/13/92 ~ V '. 4 r S, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMIS5lON, JANUARY 13, 1992 Page 10 :Hastings stated staff was not able to contact the Electrical Divisbn, and suggested since this condtolon may requirement of tho Anaheim Rates, Rules and Regulations, pertraps ft could be worried that this condition Is uhless the Anaheim, Rates, Rules and Regulations allows other cdlection. ar r;,, ~~ ': Commissioner Henninger asked what that fee is for and Mr. Hastings responded he thought ft was for the actual '~ ' > construction costs tho City Incurs and that is oudlned in the Rates, Rules and Regulations. Mr. Tanner stated ft appears that they are to bond for the Installation of the in-tract underground electrical system and that there is a fee in addftion to that; and that they are willing to bond and install the underground system wfth their final map, but are asking to defer payment of the connection fee. Mr. Hastings suggested the condtoion remain as written unless a deviation is allowed by the Rates, Rules and Regulations. He added this condition has been required for quite awhile, an3 that Condition Nos. 8, 9 and 10 all ;.` relate to tract development. Mr. Tanner referred to Condftion No. 15 (Park & Recreation fees) and Condition No. 16 (sewer fees) and stated they would like those payments deferred to issuance of the building permits rather than recordation of the map. Concerning Condition No. 21, pertaining to Country Hlll, he stated ff this applicant is not required to construct Country Hill Road, they think that condition can be deleted. Mr. Tanner stated Condition No. 22A (widening of Vista del Sol) refers to a minimum of 24 feet and deper+.ding on the Commission's decision today, they would request that an appropriate number be Inserted and that their proposal is for 18 feet. He stated Conditions 24 and 25 refer td accepting discharge from Corto Road and this condtoion reflects a concern presented by Mr. V'/illlams regarding the owner accepting runoff from his property and they agreed to accept runoff ftom the Williams property, but this condition says from Corto Road. He added they would request this condition be modified to read from the Warren Williams' property. Melanie Adams stated the Engineering Department would request that the drainage provision not be restricted to one property and added there are a few properties at the end of Corto Road which would be appropriate to drain In the direction of this development. She added the Issue of proper drainage goes together wfth the grading plan and she would request that that condftion remain in place and any other deviations be brought before the Cfty Engineer when they have the final drainage plans prepared. She stated ff the applicant is not agreeable to the City Engineer's decision at that time, the matter would be brought back to the Commission as a revised map for further consideration. Responding to Commissioner Henninger regarding the sewer condtoion, Ms. Adams stated the sewer condtoion should not be modffled because there are several lots to have sewer access and that sewer connection should be made through Mr. Wien's property. She added ff they are dissatfsfled wfth the decision regarding the sewer, they could bring the matter back to the Commission. Mr. Tanner stated their intention was to provide an easement and a stub where a sewer could be constructed across their property ftom the end of their sewer line to Mr.Williams' property so he would be able to provide sewer to his lot and they agreed to that. He added Mr. Williams also Indicated that he had some drainage which 5 ~f.:tF ~ ...._. 1/13/92 ,.- 5 i.. { R -~ c ..5:.. _ .. •~ ~~~ :fit, . t 7/ h c i ANAHEIM CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 13, 1992 Page 11 ~:;.; ;;. parently,goes under his lot from some source and comes out on this property and they have no problem picking ;;any. drainage which outlets onto their property and intend to handle h appropriately, as long as they don't have do any offsfte Improvements to someone else's property. He stated in order for the sewer to serve other ~per<tes, they would have to go through Mr. Wiens' property. ~* Commissioner Messe agreed and stated he dkl not see how they could design something when they dkJ not know ;::~ r the size. ~. r ~Ms. Adams explalned "designing to accommodate" means placing the sewer line at the proper elevation to a'ooommodate other properties wfthout use of a pump and there is a basic minimum sizing and a few additlonal units do not Increase the size. She explained also that Corto Road is about 1500 feet long. ~ ~ ;~ ', Mr: Tanner suggested some wording be added to the condition requiring reimbursement and Ms. Adams agreed ~, ~ i ! "'that would be appropriate. She stated Engineering is looking for them to provide a stub at the boundary of their ~~•. ; property and not to extending it up Corto Road, so that in the future if there are connections for Corto Road, they "`''~~ `:would be made without redesigning any sewers on Mr. Wiens' property. :rr~_ , ~`"° ,Chairman Hellyer stated he would rather leave the language the way it is until they found 'out what needs to be done. ' Mr. Tanner asked that Condition Nip. 27C (street lighting) be deleted because they have no street lighting; and that Condition 27E refers to Country Hin. He stated they previously had discussed with the Commission the installation of irrigation for the replacement trees and have requested that it be 60 days after the completion of grading, and they would then either provkJe a permanent irrigation system or a temporary line, and they don't know that they could complete the grading prior to the time that they would be required to replace the trees. Commissioner Bristol referred to Revision No. 3, A-1 and A-2 (widening of Vista del Sol) and asked the impact on the existing residents and added he dki not see how they could make K 18 feet without removing some trees. Mr. Tanner stated the critical areas are in front on the McMillan and Martinez properties and pointed out the Improvement on the exhibit. John Reiker, Engineer, stated Aitemative A-1 provides a 20-foot road all the way to the tract boundary, except for a 19-1/2 foot area by the pilaster on the McMillan property; that there would also be a requirement fora 1-12-foot high wall along the N'cMilian property and a 2-1 /2 foot high wall along r~ortions of the Martinez property. He stated Ntemate A-2 provides a 20-foot road which varies to 18 feet and back to 20 feet and the 18-foot alternative would eliminate the need for the retaining wall across the McMillan property and reduce the wall height adjacent to the Martinez property. He explained the road has an angle and they are not proposing the removal of any trees. Commissioner Bristol stated he has measured h and can only see 15-1 /2 feet and asked how h could be angled so nothing would be removed. Mr. Rleker stated when they raise ttie grade of the road two feet on one side, it Is Into the slope and gains 21/2 to 3 feet. ~s4r ~~ '. ~~. ~ ~:~,w~_ 1/13/92 ~~~; r 3„ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMIS' ek , '' ~ ~ T I JANUARY 13, 1992 12 Issloner Bouas asked the wklth agreed to by the Fire Department. ,~ ~,~Melanie Adams stated the Flre Department reviewed the plan for access for a fire truck or a paramedic unit and r~ have. found that although the road proposed on efther alternative is narrower than what their standard calls for, h .e. ~ s,~~~,, wAl not substantially delay their response time. She stated Public Works is looking for the street to serve marry ~~~ :- purposes. and the first priority Is emergency vehicles and that is why they would want the Fire Department to review r ~ r ~- the revised plans. She stated the road does need to serve several purposes, including emergency vehicles, and e ~~~~ two riehicles need to be able to pass and it should provide enough flat area where a pedestrian can walk and not be in the roadway, and neither alternative provides that space; and a road should provide for proper drainage and the drainage will be compromised on this road and the owner should be aware of that issue. She added the eking road does not conform, but Engineering is looking for every opportunity available to make a safe condition. 3~ ~ Commissioner Zemel stated it appears that something is going to 6e done to that road, and suggested a condition be added that no trees would be removed and have the homeowners most directly affected tell the Commission whkh alternative they prefer. Chairman Hellyer stated what is going to happen with the trees Is part of the plan and part of the record and if there are any alterations, the applicant would have to come back before the Commission. Mr. Recker stated at the previous meetings (September 23 and October 21) this was an area of significant discussion and at the November 4th hearing, they asked to get direction as what the wkJth was going to be for the street so they could continue their discussions wfth the property owners and the Commission's direction was for 20 feet which is Alternative A-1 and they have also presented Alternative A-2 which they believe is preferable to the reskents over the 22-foot wide road preferred by the City. He agreed this Issue has not been resolved. Commissioner Zemei stated he thought the Commission is leaning to one of these alternatives and he wanted to know which one is more acceptable to the residents most affected. Chairman Hellyer stated the Commission has the most recent letter ftom Attorney Hayes representing the Mc MAlans and he has indicated that AftematNe A-2 is the more desirable altematNe. Mr. Reeker stated he believed the property owners would prefer that the existing road remain the way it is and maybe be resurfaced at the existing width and the Fire Department has indicated to the neighbors that they could stAi serve the area. Diane McMillan, 7530 East Vista Del Sol, stated of the two alternatives they were presented, A-:`would be their preference because h is narrower, but they have measured h and it will not work without having trees die. She stated in some areas, the distance between the trees is 18 feet or less. ;, Chairman Hellyer asked if the Commission does approve A-2 at a width of 18 feet with no trees to be removed, and - then the developer finds that they can't do ft, would they have to come back before the Commission. Greg Hastings stated if that is a condition of approval, then staff would hold them to ft and they would have to come back before the Commission and that the Commission may allow them to come back under Reports and Recommendations, but he thought that would be a public hearing. 1/13/92 ~a4 ~: ,~ c ~: nT-ni~r^ ~~ _ ~ s ~. ,~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 13, 1992 ~,~ ~.,; ,a. 13 ~;~`Dfir KAartinez stated he does not want any of his trees to be removed now, and he dkl not want any of th® trees to ~~ ,;;~ -...die";later end that he would go along with the 18-foot wkie road, but dki not know how they wou d a e to rte,;:.,.-, .: -. ;r ,i., put, in a retaining wail to the mkJdle of the tree. ,..; ~~- ' Commissioner Henninger stated there have been a lot of hearings regarding this project and the plans are greatly $;,. '',`; ': unproved and he though the developer had gone the extra mile and to ask anymore at this time would probably ~~~ ,go beyond the bounds of fairness. t~,6 {; f.;ommissloner Messe referred to the location where Vista del Sol takes a sharp angle turn, and asked if that {~: ~. roadway now is 20 feet wide, or ff h is going to be widened to 20 feet and added he thought K should be tapered prior to that turn. r f; ~ Mr. Tanner stated right now the edge of pavement on both skies of the road in the mkfdle of the turn is at the -~~ ~ `:.. - same location as their proposed road. ,,,~; , ' ' Alfred Yalda, Assistant Traffic Engineer, stated Traffic Engineering would prefer the road be 24 feet wide, but that fs ' ~. = 'the Commission's decision. Commissioner Bristol stated he would Ilke to see the road width remain as is today. II ` ` Melanie Adams stated that aftemative has not been reviewed by the Fire Department. Mr. Rleker stated they did speak wfth the Fire Department and they have exhibfts showing those roads and the Fire Department does provide service to many lots on 12-foot wkle roads and they dkl not say less than 18 feet would be a problem. He suggested a modified condition which would Indicate that wherever feasible the road would be wktened to a minimum of 18 feet, provided no trees have to be removed. Chairman Hellyer stated the Commission is not going to redesign this project today and either Alternative A-1 or A- 2would have to be approved today. Alfred Yaida stated after the tract is developed and the developer has moved away, theTraffic Engineering Department gets the calls from the residerrts about the dangerous roads and suggested one of these aftematives be approved, and at least provde enough room fortwo-way traffic. r 1 Commissioner Henninger stated he thought the developer has gone the extra mne on this and that he is reminded that there is an easement underlying here and the proposed road fs substantially smaller than the easement and he thought it is a minimum road for safety purposes with one very narrow lane in each direction. A i N: Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and A~OTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to establish a 13-lot, single-family resklential subdivision with waiver of private street standards along Vista Del Sol, and waiver of required street improvements on Country Hill Road, and the removal of a total of ninety-five (95) specimen trees; and does hereby approve a mitigated Negative Declaration and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program pursuant to Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code on the basis that the declaration reflects the independent judgement of the lead agency and that the Planning Commission has considered the proposal wRh the mitigated Negative Declaration and Montoring Program, together wkh any commants received during the public review process and further finding, on 1 1/13/92 '` H4i.S t rraF } ., ,\ ~,-, ES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSII JANUARY 13, 1992 14 1 .~ ~ ~~~ s of the Inftial Study, that there is no substantial evkfence that the project will have a significant effect on { ~ ,; Commissioner Henninger offered Resdution No. PC 92.02 and moved for Rs passage and adoption that the i `, Anaheim Clty Planning Commission does hereby grant Variance No. 4155 on the basis that there is no reasonable `~"_ relation§hfp between the need for the required dedication and Improvements and the type of development project *.h~`, -. on which such requirements are imposed; and further, that vehicular access rights to Country Hills Road are relinquished and subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations. :;; ~~ hn roll call, the foregoing resdution was passed by the folowing vote: AYES: BOUAS, BRISTOL, HELLYER, HENNINGER, MESSE ,;,,. ~ ~ , PERAZA, ZEMEL ~;~.,4~;~~:;-:: NOES: NONE ~`~ ` ":` ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE Selma Mann stated the Code (Section 17.08.270) specifically requires that park fees be pakf upon approval of the final tract; that Section 17.08.40(' requires fees be paid prior to the approval of final map and the variance procedure has not been followed here and specific findings would need to tie made wfth regard to reasons applicable to this particular development and it Is questionable whether those could be made in any event. Commissioner Henninger asked if those two condtions could be amended to read that those fees would be paid at final map or the developer could file for a waiver. Commissioner Henninger stated Condition No. 21 should be deleted; and that the road shall be reconstructed as shown on Exhibit A-2, and modifying the sewer conditions requiring reimbursement M this line is used by others. John lifeker stated he understood Conditic~s 15 and 18 would remain as is. Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED, that tho Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find that the proposed subdNision, together with its design and improvement, is consistent vrith the City of Anaheim General Plan, pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5; and does, therefore, approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 14185, Revision No. 3, fora 13-lot, single-family subdNision, subject to the following conditions, (amending Condition No. 1 to require installation of the specimen trees within 60 days after compleilon of the grading; modiflcailon of Condition No. 5, requiring compliance prior to issuance of a grading permit or as otherwise required in Anaheim Rates, Rules and Regulations, Condtion Nos. 15 or 16 should be appropriately collected at issuance of the building permit: 1.* 2.* 1~ ~ That any specimen tree removal shall be subject to the tree preservation regulations In Chapter 18.84 of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to the "SC Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone. That the legal owner of subject property shall dedicate and improve a ten (10) foot wkle riding and hiking trail easement as shown on the Trails Element Map of the General Plan and as approved by the Parks and Recreation Department The easement shall be irrevocably offered to the City of Anaheim on the final tract map. Bonds shall bo posted prior to final tract map approval, in an amount and form satisfactory to the 1/13/92 ~~ ~ .: ~ , f ad NAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 13,1992 n ~.3 _ s. ;- k` ~` ` City of Anaheim, to guarantee trail Improvement and maintenance. The trail Improvements shall be shown on the grading plan. ~~~ #_ , , 3 * That subject subdivision shall be served by underground utilitles. Y r 4. That the legal property owner/developer shall bond for and pay a per lot service connection fee for the °' ~'"`t~' ' Installation of the in•tract underground e~te~rical systems prior to final map approval or as othervvise y~ ~ ~' provided in the Anaheim Rates, R..les arni Regulations and Electrical Engineering Construction Standards. S. That the legal owner of subject property shall provide public utility easements for on-site existing or proposed City of Anaheim electric facilities on the final tract map. Other public utility easements shall be ~~ ~ submitted on a separate document prior to energizing the new facilities. ,~,_ ^; `. 6. That final grading plans shall be In substantial conformance with those preliminary grading plans submitted i''' -`;°: for Planning Commission consideration. Substantial changes to saki preliminary grading plan shall t~ subject to a pubtlc hearing for revision of the tentatNe tract map. 7. That the legal property owner/developer shall provide and install underground conduits, substructures, and related material per City of Anaheim Electrical Engineering Dra~n9ngs In accordance wfth the City of Anaheim Electrical Rates, Rules, and Regulations for Underground Une Extensions. t3. That the legal property owner/developer shall pay a fee in accordance wfth the City of Anaheim Electrical Rates, Rules, and Regulations for the installation of cables, switches, and related material to be ins"called in developer-provided conduit and substrucUres. 9. That the legal property owner/developer shall be responsible to pay a fee to rearrange/modify existing ~ electrical facilities which will be affected by Improvements to complete the development. 10 * That prior to commencement of structural framing, on-site fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and approved by the Fire Department. Ai; all-weather road shall be provided to the hydrants at all times, as required by the Fire Department. 11 * That an adequate, unobstructed fire truck tum-around area, as required and approved by the Fire Department, shall be specifically shown on the final tact map. Said tum-around area shall be permanently marked and maintained to the satisfaction of said Department. 12. That as required by the Department of Maintenance, all necessary National Pollution Discharge and Elimination System (N.P.D.E.S.) permits shall be obtained prior to grading plan approval. 13. That the vehicular access rights to Country Hill Road shall be released a~xl relinquished to the City of Anaheim o~ the final tract map. 14. That prior to final tract map approval, appropriate park and recreation In-lieu fees shall be pakl to the City of Anaheim in an amount established by City Council Resolution. 1/13/92 ~. t Ct1~J - iIf1Y.4a ~. .. _ ~~;: ~~ ~~, ,.,-1 ,a . 1b: That `prior to ftnal tract ntap approval, the appropriate sewer assessment lees shall be paid to the Cfty of Y ` ~ Anaheim in an amount established, by City Council Rhsolutlon. `1~ 16. That prior to final tract map approval, the appropriate drainage assessment fees shall be paki to the Clry of - Anaheim in an amount established by City Council Resdutlon. l~~fx~r:.;, 17. r~E~~ :~. ~` ~ '18. ~~~.~ , W~~ a ~} dY' y ~~~, ~w~ 20. I That prior to fnal tract reap approval, a grading plan shall be submitted to the Subdivision Section. That prior to approval of the grading plan, a Save Harmless Agreement for grading on adjacent properties and aocepting drainage .a; r~ adjacent properties shall be approved by the City of Anaheim and recorded in the Offtce of Orange County Reccrder. That prior to approval of the grading plan, an erosion and dust control plan shall be submitted to the S~ubdlviston Section. 'The erosion and dust contrd plan shall be approved concurrently with the grading plat.. The erosion contrd plan shall be updated during construction as required by the City Engineer. Thai prior to ftnal tract map approval, pri\rate street plans shall be submitted to the Subdivision Sections showing: a. That the existing street improvements along Vista Del Sol, from Country H81 Road to the tract boundary, shall be reconstructed as shown on Alternative A-2 to provide a minimum 18 foot wide roadway and as approved by the City Engineer. b. That the private roads within the tract shall be constructed in conformance with Public Works-Engineering Standard Detail 118-0, except that type F curb shall be permitted, or as otherwise approved by the Ciry Engineer. c. That new curie-sacs must have a minimum 38' radius as required by the Flre Department. 21 That prior to final map approval, all lots shall be addressed from the new pnvate streets. Street n~riies for the new private street shalt be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department. 22. That prior to final tract map approval, sewer improvement plans shall be submitted to the Subdivision Section. The sewer wthin the tract shall be a public sewer. A fffteen foot wide sewer easement shall be irrevocably offered for dedication to the City of Anaheim along the east and south property line of lot 5. The sewer within Vista Del Sol shall be designed to accommodate a future connection from Corte Road. The developer of the property may claim appropriate reimbursement tt the sewer line is used by others, as provided by Section 17.08.430 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 23. That prior to approval of the grading plan, a drainage stud~>> and storm drain improvement plans shall be submitted to the Subdivision Section. The drainage study shall include provision for accepting drainage from Corte Road. 1p 4 ~~b k 'i ~~ v. ~. . 1/13/92 24 That,the legal property owner shall famish a Subdivision Agreement to the City cf Anaheim, in a form to he ,~~'. approved by the City Attorney, agreeing to complete the public improvemettts re~auired as conditions of this ti'" map at the legal property owner's expense. Said agreement shall be recorder! ;,bncurrently with the fnal ,~~ map. ~ +'' , ,i 25. That prior to fnal tract map approval, a maint~enanc^ cc~enant shall be submitted to the Subdivision ~ . Section and approved by the City Attorney's Office. The approved covenant shall be recorded concurrently -~ ~ z''.'` ' .. with the final map. The covenant shall include provisions for maintenance of the following elements: n Trail ,, ,, .,~: a. Hiking arm: Equestria 1 _;,; - b. Slopes ~~' ~ c. Private Streets `~~ ' d. Private Drainage Facilities +,. ` . F +26. That the developer shall be responsible for compliance and any diroct costs associated with the Mftigation %:~4~' Monftoring Program established by the City as required by Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources e ,~ ~ „` .' ,, to ensure implementation of those mfl(gation measures kientffled in the Recommended Condftions of '' `~'' Approval for the Mitigated NegatNe Declaration. 27. The petitioner shall site heavy equipment staging areas ar~d building material stockpiles away from ~ adjoining single family resklences to maintain construction noise at ecceptabfe levels. A rote to this effect shall be included In the grading plan general notes. 28. Prior to grading plan approval, a comprehensNe slope landscaping, irrigation and fuel modification plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. Saki plan shall incorporate recommendations made by the geotechnical engineer responsible for the project. Native slopes adjacent to newly constructed hcmes shall be hydroseeded with a low fuel combustible seed mix. Such slopes shall be sprinMered and weeded as required to establish a minimum of one hundred (100) feet of separation between flammatie vegetation and any structure. The first 30 feet from the structure must be irrigated. The remaining 7C feet must be low fuel/fire retarciant landscaping. 29. That prior to the first final building and zoning Inspection, the following items shall be completed. - a. All slope shall be graded. b. All slopes landscaping and irrigation shall be completed and certified by the responsible landscape architect. ~,~ -, c. All private roads sha11 be paved. j d. Building pads that do not have foundations built shall be hydroseeded, sprayed with a pofybinder adhesive, or other erosion and control method as approved by the City Engineer. 30. That prior to final tract map approval, Condition Nos. 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 24, and 25 above-;mentioned, shall be complied with. if13/92 ~.~ . ` ~~.. .. Y~•. ;. 18 <~_, .,,. •. ~ ~~. n~¢F 31 * That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the e~dent that ft ~ compiles with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal F~ 'regulations. Approval does net include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of'che request ~~:, ; regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. Conditions marked wfth pan asterisk =r,.,,~ . (*) are required by established laws, codes, regulations and agreements and are, therefore, not subject to negotiation. f ~F. ` r'. Prior to voting on the removal of specimen trees, Jonathan t~orrego explained staff would renuest that the ~r ~~M installation of those trees be tied to something other than the finalization of the grading because that could take ~ ~ ~; .. - some time, and suggested the Commission require replacement of the trees prior to the Issuance of any building r? r { ~:, .permits and that the trees can not be removed until after the grading permit has been approv A 'lu' ~~ ~~" i - R Commissioner Henninger stated fn cases where there is grading and a building permit is not issued promptly, the _~.~ .<_:::; condftion should say "the sooner of the issuance of the building permft or 60 days after completion of the grading F., ` and that removal of the trees not take place until after Issuance of the grading permh.' ~, . Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconder 1 by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that pursuanx to Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.84.038.050, the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve Specimen Tree Removal Permit Nos. 91-10 and 91-11 to remove ninety-five (95) specimen trees on the bests that a reasonable and practical development of the property on which the trees are located requires removal of the trees whose removal is sought, and that any specimen trees removed shall be replaced wfth the planting on ' the same parcel on a ratio of 2:1 from the specffled list in ire Scenic Corrk'or Overlay zone and subject to the following conditions: 1. That prior to the issuance of a building perrr!it or wfthin 60 days of completion of rough grading, whichever occurs first, the developer shall replace each tree removed along Vista Del Sol with two (2) 241nch box trees (chosen ftom the replacement list In Section 18.84.038.O~i0 of the Municipal Code) to be located on the same parcel of land ftom which the specimen tree was removed. The developer shall be responsible for replacing any trees which do not survive the first year. No trees shall be removed prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 2. Tha developer shall provide the Plann!ng Department with documentation, (to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney's Office) chat he has the authority to remove trees not located within one boundary of property owned by the developer. 3. That the developer shall be responsible for compliance and any direct costs associated with the Mitigation Monitoring Program established by the City as required by Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code to ensure implemerdation of those mitigation measures identified in the Recommended Condftions of Approval for the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 4.* , ~J~~'i .~ That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that h complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal 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. Conditions marked wfth an asterisk (*) are required by established !aws, codes, regulations and agreements and are, therefore, not subject to negotiation. 1/13/92 ~p ~ ~ ~ ~ 'r~ t 1 \ : ~ 2 ~. ..~:~ C t": 1, y„S ~~yy ~'?p ~ -t. r` ~ ~- ~.. S, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 13, 1992 Page 19 ts~Y"~. sue. <,'~ :' ~. ' i -~ 3.Mann referred to Item 19 on page 9 and stated h indicates the ftndings that need to be made for that kind of K`and asked for dar'rfication. Aann stated the Commission should indude the proper ftnd(ngs in their motion. `~ 'Commissioner Henninger stated the reason for approval of the Specimen Tree Removal Permit is that reasonable ~:_.; and, practical development of the property on which the trees are located requires their removal; and that the finding regarding Vista del Sd is tha' the existing development and topography combined with the layout of the existing mature trees prevents a wkfer street. M~ Z ~ r Seima Mann presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within ten (10) with regard to ~` ~" `~~ ~' ' ~ the-tentative tract map and within 22 days on the rest of the actions. -A: , ,~~: ~;"= , ` RECESS: There was a 10-minute recess. '~~~: ,.,,.. ~~, . .. ITEM NO 3 CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT. CONDITIONAL ~° I USE PERMIT N0.3451 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: MILTON JOHNSCN, CARLA BEATRICE JOHNSON, MILTON E. JOHNSON, JR., HAZEL C. JOHNSON, 1214 W. Katella Ave. Anaheim, CA 92802. AGENT: FARANO and IQEVIET, 100 S. Anaheim Bivd., #340, Anaheim, CA 92805 PROPERTY LOCATION: 511 - 521 South Manrhacrpr Ave.: 500 - 520 South Walnut Street. Property Is approximately 2.1 acres located at the southwest comer of Manchester Avenue and Santa Ana Street. To retain an auto repair, towing and dismantling facility (including the storage and retail sale of used auto parts) and a temporary offtce trailer with waiver of required Improvement of parking and outdoor storage area, minimum structural setback ~:~nd Improvement of setback areas. IE was noted there was a request that this matter be continued to the meeting of . hbruary 24,1992. Commissioner Messe asked staff to notify the applicant that if this continuance request is granted, R will be last continuance. ACTION: Commissioner Hellyer offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED that conskieration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of February 24, 1992, at the request of the petitioner. ~~~} ,. ~~ Ir. 1/13/92 Y, o{~ 8, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 13, 1992 ~'? 4$~ ~~.~[ Paste 20 U WA- d - ~~~~~ PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: FRANK H. GREINKE, P.0 Box 4159, Orange, CA 92613 AGENT: SOUTHERN 34~;~ COUNTIES OIL CO., P.O. BOX 4159, Orange, CA 92613 PROPERTY LOCATION: 1431 North Ravmond Ave. °~~'== Pioperty is approximately 0.61 acre located at the southwest comer of Orangefair Lane and Raymond Avenue. ~r To permft an automobile service station with waiver of minimum structural setback. ~s'';.ti T There was one person indicating her presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was pY~ not read, K is referred to and made a part of the m(nutes. ;~. ~~~ :Don Greinke, agent, stated they believe this is the best location for this building due to the size of the property and ~ the restricted access and there Is a one-way traffic pattern through this property and h is the best way for the ti ~ ., applicant to monitor the process. He added there is a similar buffding on Raymond with similar setbacks. ..w ' Carol Rudat, 281 Old Bridge Road, stated they own the two adjacent properties to the west, 1100 and IIIO Orangefalr, and there are two industrial buildings and they have never been notffied of this project until last week; and that they are upset because this is a major change. She stated they are not opposed to having the gas station remain, but there has to be changes. She stated she thought the process is wrong and people should be notified earlier and explained she received her notice last week. She stated they have owned these two buildings for 13 years and when they first purchased the property, it was under an all inclusive trust deed contract of sale and during the frst seven year period, Southern Counties Oil took over the leasehold of that property and '. explained Arco had the ftrst gas station facility on that property and the owner dkJ not forward the card to them when Southern Counties requested the sale of diesel fuel. She stated the oil company has caused a major traffic problem on that comer. She stated they don't want any other ramfficatir+as with the owner because he is leasing part of the facility. She stated they have a strong and sound background when h comes to environmental issues. She stated the sale of the diesel fuel at this facility has caused major problems with the dual rigged trucks and when they stop, their rigs are not empty. She stated their seven tenants ronstanUy contact them regarding these problems. She asked ff there are any diese! tanks proposed on the plans, that they can not be for rigs and can only be for cars which use diesel fuel. She stated Union 76 is closing 76 stations in Southern Caiffomia due to the environmental requirements and Exxon is also starting to close some stations because they do not want to deal with the 1992 requirements. She stated this is going to create additional traffic at the gas station. She stated the way this is designed means Avery vehicle must turn onto Orangefair Lane in order to turn into the gas station and then exft onto Raymond and that comer is going to be heavily used. She referred to the proposed coin and cash collection on ttie comer and stated that can not be located there and also they are against the trash bin Iccation right next to the frort of their building and there is a sbc-foot wall along her building and that means there will be only Inches between his vwdll and this building. 1/13/92 yg ~~ ~~'-'a . _ _~ ~• AHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ~~ nary 13,1952 Page 21 ~~ r x Jar: . r ~j ~s °•`~;:•;:. - .;, y y 9 P Pr PAY P PertY P PertY Stie~stated:the alr~d have a drains a roblem from his o onto their ro and his ro fs about ~.. _:.., one; foot higher than theirs and uMH he finally put in concrete, the weight of the trucks would crack the asphalt and 'BRTutl.. - .. wheritfey had heavy rain, the water was coming up in their bu0ding. ~~~ ,~ .. ,;+ She stated the concrete is cracked ftom these trucks and the concrete that has been poured for this new facility Is ;.,~ ,,, ~ ~~ not deep enough because ff ft cracks, and they have spills, it will go into the soil. She added they have ha sp s and the gasdine was going Into the gutter. °` ~ She stated per the Flre Department and through their insistence, they were able to get this company to install the "sump cdlectors next to the trash bins. She stated they have transients in the area and she did not think K is a good ides to have a 24hour gas station and that h should be monftored and ff there is a problem in early momfng or late nigh hours, they should be {`'~ aired to close ff. ~ ~ ~~ , , '~ She stated when the tanks are remo~/ed, they want reports on the soil condftlons and ff the soil Is contaminated, .they want the report and they waM testing on their property. She stated they were told originally that they would not have automotive repairs there but they do have repairs There now and ft looks trashy; and that they do not want anything that would devalue their property. She added they will not permit anything to devalue their property and they feel this whole plan has to be revised and that they need to be consulted on this before anything moves forward and ff not, they are going to have to seek legal counsel. Mr. Greinke stated regarding the diesel, the operations are already fn place. He added they will be placing a new containment system which will be required in the future, so would be eliminating the risk of contamination. He stated there is a containment system around the fuel islands and ff there was a spill, it would go into a containment system and back to a holding tank. He stated they are planning to be able to handle eight vehicles on the lot itselfi; that currently they have the ability to fuel two at one time and in the past others have waited In the street and now they will be able to come off the street onto the property. _ He stated they feet this is the best location for the building on the lot and people will not have to walk back and forth between vehicles and there will be straight access ftom the fuel island over to the building. He stated he thought most of the requests by the neiglioor are reasonable and there will be concrete throughout the lot rather than asphalt. He stated adding the restriction that there will not be any rigs allowed would not be acceptable. He referred to the 24-hour monitoring of their access card facility which allows their customers to access the pump from a card reader, and he did not think ff Is necessary to monitor that because their customers are trained to operate the equipment and understand the procedures and they might come in when they are closed and they could access the pumps. He explained that fs going on right now. t~ ' 1/13/92 4 '; •J J >: i4HEIM~ CITY PLANNING r,~MMISSIOf+I, January 13, 1992 Page 22 =r. Y~ . He~explalned~they have 60 other locations throughout the state with similar operations. He stated the trees are a k~requiremen<of the City and they would like to change that requirement; that there is no wall between the two ,.propertlee; that they did what the City recommended and he was not sure what the concern is about the treas. s j x~ Contieming Condftlon No. 15, Variance No 2007 pertains to a sign and they would like to continue to have that ~~ .u~,°stgn there for freeway acxess and they are visible from the freeway. He added there is nM going to be arty repairs ;t~''' 'done at this location and no mechanical work will be done whatsoever. Ms. Rudat stated when they took over this facility and were leasing it, they did not have diesel fuel permits and that ~" `'~ ' : ` is the reason for one notice. She stated they were functioning there without the diesel fuel and without the rigs and they do not have two rigs wafting at a time now. She stated those rigs at that location, along with the way they have the egress/ingress, she thought would be a catastrophe. She stated primarily she does not want the trash "~' container up towards the ftont of her building and that is where ft Is located right now. Plus, she thought the x~ ::v . . r cashier's factliry is In a very unsafe location. ,.,.~ ` Mr. Greinke stated the trash facility certainly can be moved to the other skis of the property. ' He stated in the past they have had diesel rigs parking in the street, wafting to get in the drhreway and that is tho purpose for the line, to allow 4 to pull fn and 4 behind ft, so they can have 8 rigs on the site. He added the vehicles would no longer have to park in the center median waiting to enter the property, which they are presently doing. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Hellyer asked ff the City has the right or obligation to Issue the permit for diesel fuel. Mr. Hastings responded there is no City Zoning Code requirements pertaining to the grade of gasoline or fuel. Commissioner Messe referred to the Fire Department's requirement regarding the attendant to supervise the sale of gasoline at all times and asked ff that (s required by ordinance. Mr. Hastings responded that is a requirement of the Unfform Fire Code and the Planning Commission has no jurisdiction over that requirement. He added he would have to find out ftom the Fire Department ff they are violating that requirement at the present time. Mr. Greinke stated that has never been brought to their attention and they have had inspections of the facility by the Ffre Department, and noted this procedure is quite common throughout the state. <Mr. Hastings suggested rewording that condition to read, "unless otherwise authorized by the City Fire Marshal just fn case there has been a change in the Unfform Flre Code. Chairman Hellyer asked ff there is another location on the site where the office could be located. Mr. Greinke stated it would have to be pushed back. Commissioner Bouas asked ff the Fire Department had recommended this location and Mr. Greinke responded they had made that recommendation for the visual benefit of the cash paying customers. a 1/13/92 ,y ,.' • r ~ 1 Y`{ EIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 13,1992 ~ Page 23 ~_ ~,` ;~~: :, titian Borrego, Senior Planner, stated the representative from the Flre Department had actually masfa that `~~mmendation at the Interdepartmental Committee meeting but that he was not sure iF ft had to be in tt>at cular location. He added >f it could be achieved by relocating that building, h would meet the Flre Department ilrements and eliminate the waiver at tha same time. Greg McCafferty asked the need for the cashier kk~sk if there is a cam access procedure. Regarding the tank 4 ~ removal, he stated when the tank is removed, the Flre Department Inspects the sfte to make sure that if there is any soB remediation required, that h is done in conjunction wfth the removal. 1 ix ~ ~ Chairman Hellyer stated with this proposal, the City is better off regarding the tanks and possible contamination, '~~°' Y P 9 ogy, and Greg McCafferty agreed. ;,~,;;, ~; because the are uttin in the new technd ' -~ ~ Chairman Hellyer stated he has a problem with the office/kiosk location and both signs. ~^ S~ ~,~~ , ,, Commissioner 8ouas stated there Is a lot of travel through our area and h does help to have signs to help people c,,~~: get to where they need to be. °~ Commissioner Messe asked about resurfacing and if h will all be concrete. Mr. Grelnke stated that is correct and 'T'AY-`' added currently the n>ajority of the property is paved with asphalt and R will be repaved with 6-Inch reinforced wfth steel concrete. Chairman Hellyer asked why they did not contact their neighbors. Mr. Grelnke stated they were available arxi that this was advertised through the proper procedures with the City. Commissioner Bristd referred to the two islands to the southeast and asked ff those are for premium leaded gasoine, with the rest of the Islands are all diesel. He stated in coming off Orangefair Lane and clarified they do not anticipate coming in off Raymond and Mr. Grelnke responded there will be signs indicating Raymond Is an exit only. Commissioner Messe stated it would seem that building could be moved further down Orangefalr, and noted there would be no big rigs using t;~e far island so they could squeeze it ln. He stated his other concern is the signage. Chairman Hellyer referred to the trash enclosure and stated h seems to be possible to move the office to where the trash is currently proposed and move the trash over towards the freeway, the southwest quadient, away from the neighbor's office and it would be a lot less offensive than Rs present location. He explained he is talking about the islands closest to Orengefair where regular gasoline and diesel are opposite. Mr. Grelnke stated the four islands towards the freeway are diesel and the multi-product dispensers are closer to the building on Orangefalr. Commissioner Zemel indicated he had the same concerns mentioned by two Commissioners and Chairman Hellyer stated he would not vote for the waiver, and it is the applicant's responsibility to redesign the project and also that he would not approve the signs as proposed. Mr. Grelnke stated there is a condition pertaining to the sign in the front which appears to be a recommendation to change it to a monument sign, and it was stated that it is conforming. He added the company would ultimately like to have sfgnage similar to their other establishments. 1/13/92 ,• ~ h~ ~.a ~ I :~ l~ ~ ~~ •e x hIIJTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 13,1992 Page 24 s ~~, Commmissioner Masse explained K has been the City's pdicy to change service station signs to monument signs anil Mr Greinke stated ff they remove the sign in the rear, they would be eliminating all freeway access signs. ~~C Chalrriran Hellyer stated he thought the clientele already knew where they are located, and that they service local r~is',5 clientele. Mr. Greinke stated they service both; that they have their own commercial accounts which use their ~rti, •z, ., , :and then they sell for cash to other customers who might be driving down the street. c ~w~ , :~ Chairman Hellyer stated their argument probably would be persuasive ff this was a new business, but that he '" ~ ,recognizes they have been around for awhile and people already know where they are located. Mr. Greinke ~ ~ ~~'. responded for those customers traveling on the freeway, they would be a new business. ' ~^~~ Commissioner Zemel stated he drives a diesel motor home and he knows where all the diesel fuel is located, and was sure professional truckers know where diesel stops are as well. He stated, additionally, he thought Caltrans or ~ _ DMV put up signs notffying drivers where the next available diesel facnfty Is located. ~; • ` Commissioner Masse stated it is the Commission's policy to ask for two restrooms in facilities of this type. I>Ar. ' ~,' i Greinke stated they proposed one restroom because of the vandalism that takes place and the maintenance " gin; ' required, but they would entertain Instaliing another one ff desired. Mr. Borrego stated urffortunately the existing sign was not shown on the plans, so whoever reviewed them may not have been aware of fts ex(stence, but In reviewing the proposed freestanding sign on the comer, he thought there was an earlier sign variance granted on the property and it appears a portion of that variance pertained to the minimum distance required between freestanding signs, aid they are bringing the existing sign out on the comer even closer to the existing freeway sign and as a result, that is !Mensfiyr~g the waNer which they previously had granted and In that case, they would also need to advertise a waiver pertaining to minimum distance between freestanding signs ff they want to retain the freeway sign. Mr. Greinke stated he understands, but thought h would be the Commission's recommendation that h be removed and ff that is the case, they would comply. He stated the canopy shown on the plans is listed as illuminated and in ' the report, it appears to be non-illuminated. Chairman Hellyer clarified the only variance for signs is Nu 2007. He suggested a condftion be included ff this is approved, that there be a termination of Variance No. 2007. Commissioner Masse stated he did not think the Commission is ready to act on this request and that the applicant - has to come back with some revisions, especially wfth regard to the specffic location of the building and the trash ' containers. He asked ff the applicant would Tike a continuance. Mr. Greinke stated he would request a continuance and Mr. Borrego stated staff would recommend a minimum four-week continuance to the February 10th meeting. Commissioner Masse stated that would give she staff an opportunity to check with the Fire Department regarding the unattended gasoline sales. - ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED that conskieration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the meeting of February 10, 1992, at the request of the applicant. 1/13/92 "; ~;;`, ' _: ~" Y'~:' My, ...:. ~ 4 xc ~} ~y ~ ~• ~. IAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 13,1992 Page 25 ~'s: ~, ~~4. MY ...' +, ~3;~::_ , :Y : .. PROPOSED DUAL SINGLE-FAMILY (DSF1 OVERLAY ORDINANCE. Jonathan Borrego, Senior Planner, explained the proposed ordinance is the result of several zone changes which occurred in the central Anaheim area within the last four years. He stated originally this area was primarily zoned RM-1200 which is amultiple-family zone, permitting apartment units at a density of one unit per 1200 square feet of lot area. He steed subsequently lt vras rezoned to RM-2400 which Is also a multiple family zone, but permits a lower density of one unlt per 2400 square feet of lot area. He stated effective January 15, 1991, the area was further downzoned to RS-5000 which is a single-family residential zone, primarily a result of several resklents In the area who ware concerned about the number of apartments being constructed in that area. He stated at the hearings which consklered the last downzoning to RS :5000, there was some concern by both property owners and the Commission regarding the large number of existing duplexes and as a result, lt was suggested that staff look at some type of overlay ordinance which would permit two detached single-family reskences on certain single-family lots in that area, provided they meet a criteria which would serve to protect the nature of the area in terms of the older single-family residences, which are typically one-story homes. He stated the Commission had several work sessions and this nrd!~•-r.=y is a result of those work sessions. He stated the ordinance would allow the second units to be butlt on those lots zoned RS-5000 if they also have a minimum lot area of 6000 square feet and provkled that the lots have alley access. He presented an exhiblt showing lots which do meet that crlteria and explained the lots colored 'orange' would meet that 6000 square foot and alley access criteria; and the ones coored 'green' would not meet that criteria. Margarita Solorio Interpreted the above information for the Spanish-speaking audience and explained that those present would be allowed to speak and ask questions or present whatever testimony they I~ad to offer. Hertha McLaughlin, 219 E. North Street, stated she is opposed to the proposed ordinance which would establish an overlay zone permitting construction of two detached single-family residences on certain parcels of the land in the area generally bounded by La Palma to the north, Union Pacffic Railroad right-of-way to the east, Cypress Street to the south and Anaheim Boulevard to the west. She stated she has not seen the map, but that side INes In the 200 block on the north skis of North Street and the three blocks from Anaheim Boulevard to Olive Street have always been zoned RS-7200, for single-family, and have never been included in any of the zoning changes which have taken place in the area and she felt they should be deleted and left as they are. She stated after more than 5 years trying to get the area downzoned, last year they got the downzoning to RS-5000 and now this has come up again and that lt is again the developers who are asking for this change. She stated fn most cases the developers do not live in the area or in Anaheim and are only concerned about the profits, not the people, nor the neighborhood. She stated this area has enough problems wlth overcrowding, with two or 1/13/92 N^ '• ~• IEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 13, 1992 Page 26 - - ,. ~„i ~~' more families in one house or apartment or living in a garage wfttsout proper sanitatbn, ,~ ~. , 9 Pa 9 P 9a 9s. pe, graffiti, stabbings sand shootings sand ~'~~"'` cousin ~ rkin roblems, as well as n do >f-. _ klliings. ~~ She asked ff we want another Chevy Chase or Jeffry-Lynne area or have to have a pdice '~: officer attend a Code Enforcement Officer in hls daily work. She stated Coda Er~fiorcemeM ';,` and the Pdice Department cannot keep up with h and asked why add more to what we are ~'" already dealing with. She stated she has lived in this area for 32 years and has sears all the `~ changes take place. She stated as one example - a few weeks ago she woke up at 2 a.m. to find seven pdice vehicles 1 /2 block ftom her house and this kind of activity is naR uncommon in the area and she has seen and experienced all of this firsthand. ~,=, ,' ~~~, f L, '~ 4 ti F~ r `~'~:~:; I ~~ ~ ...., She stated the area Is part of the downtown area, adjoining Heritage Place and all the new redevelopment downtown; and that wfth the wkJening of Anahelm Boulevard, site thought everything that can possibly be done to Improve the area should be done; but that crowding more houses and more people will not do iL She added that would only benefit the developers. She stated she is opposed to the overlay and asked that the Commisslon leave the three blocks on the north slde of North Street, ftom Anaheim Boulevard to O11ve Street, zoned RS-7200. Chairman Hellyer stated those blocks are not affected by,this ordinance. He explained only those blocks marked in orange would be affected. Jonathan Borrego stated the overlay zone can only be applied to those properties which are zoned RS-5000 and the property where she lives is actually zoned RS-7200. Ms. McLaughlin stated she went to the Zoning Department and was tdd that ft that was included. David Bailey, 742 North Claudine, Executive Vice President and co-owner of Dbcon Design at 292 Wilshire, stated the Chairman has indicated that Ms. Mclaughlin's property is not affected, but everyone who INes in that area (green or orange) is affected by anything that happens. (Chairman Hellyer stated he had corrected that from affected io included.) Mr. Bailey continued it may not be included in this proposed change but ft is definitely affected and Chairman Hellyer responded he agreed. Mr. Bailey stated it has assn shown and he thought he could fill the Council Chamber with people who are fed up with the developers coming into the area and totally changing the whole community. He explained they have had several incidents with people putting in duplexes which seems unimportant on the surface, and they are supposedly 'low income' housing and rents are about $1000 per month and the majority of that rent is paid by HUD and ft appears to r::any of the residents that HUD regulations take priority over City Codes. He stated since they have put in several duplexes on Claudine, they have noticed a number of inoperable cars which are dust sitting there and they get a lot of push carts ftom grocery stores. He stated the Code Enforcement offices close at 6:00 p.m., so ftom 6:00 in the evening until the next morning, they are without any kind of protection and they only see the police in that 1/13/92 ut FIM~GITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 13,1992 Page 27 r,~ .r 5 ~*3F,~; ,; , ~~ e ~~; ;;. ; He stated they do not deserve this kind of treatment; that they have worked hard ind in all the places he has lived in Calffomia, he has never been to City Council meetings or any kind of meetings as many times as he has had to come here. He stated he has elected representatives and that he expects them to represent him; and that his property Is not paid for by HUD and he cares about his property and did not think anyone who has no vested interest in the community will do anything good for the community and the only vested Interest any of these developers have is, `how many ddlars they can make". He explained across the street from him, a house was bough the house for $130,000 and that would have been affordable to almost anyone for $1000 a month, with a nice home and yard and a decent place to live. He stated that person bought ft for $130,000, borrowed $70,000 and is collecting $3000 a month and makes a $700 a month loan payment and that is the reason these developers are doing this. He added they do not Ifve here and the people who are renting these units don't care about the propp" .y or the community. ,~~;<' ,~ ~~ . ~~~'': ,~1 neighbofiood when they come out with their guns drawn and their red lights on and they do :', ~ not patrd the area regularty and there are numerous parking vitiations on a daily basis. y {a.' He stated, two elderly people used to live next door to them and they were nice neighbors; ~~~s. - `that the house was sdd and new owners came (n and immediately a granny unft was '`~"`'`= ` constructed to the rear which was rented and he though there were three dffferent families s:'.:`,` there at different times. He stated they have no one to tum to about this and they have parking problems at that same house and there are eight vehicles there now. He stated they finally got the police to ticket them for parking across the drNeway and skfewaik and on the lawn and they had an attitude that that was their property and they could do with it whatever they wanted. He added the problem with that is that ft affects his property and property values and affects the integrity of the neighborhood. He added the Northgate Market is filthy and it stinks and now they want to put more into that area and that means more vandalism and more trash and the City of Anaheim cannot support their needs now. He stated they need more Code Enforcement Officers and Police Officers and they Head police patrd on a regular basis and do not need any more development in that area. He added ff anyone wants to see the area, he will personally take them to talk to some of his neighbors who are e!deriy and could not be here today. He stated it is a hardship to take time from his business to continually come here and say the same thing over and over again and that is that the City can not take care of what we have now and he dki not think anything should be added. Rosa Togel, 760 N. Zeyn Street, stated she is speaking as a concerned citizen and is dismayed to hear the Commission is consklering the overlay area consisting of the 96 acres under discussion today and she cannot see the logic of making this change. She stated Anaheim has great plans going for expanding Disneyland to the south and she is all for that, but her problem is understanding the downgrading of this area after the long extensive and expensive stt:dy to downzone many areas of Ar.4heim including this 96 acres. Ms. Togel stated the area is already crowded with parking space at a minimum and asked where the children will play, and asked ff that is in the alleys and streets. She stated Anaheim used every angle possible to keep a prison from being built here and yet they will 1/13/92 ~ { ~ ' T. v ;~ • °_IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JF - _•5 .t ~S~~yMN I ~~. Hoary 13, 1992 Page 28 ' f , ~r~ ~ , ~~., ~, , be practically building a crime factory to manufacture crime in this eastern ~rt of the city N n;,h~ higher density fs allowed. ~ -, ~~~~>- ? She stated the Pdlce Department and Code ErrforcerneM say they cannot cover the area >~~-;,~, properly as ft is; that hearing the sirens of the emergency vehides is commonplace; and that - crowding more and more structures into the area unsupervised, will cause friction and rebellion as people and families and children resort to drugs and violence to assert their identfty. She asked H we can afford to encourage an atmosphere for the expansion of gang activity. .k ~ She stated she feels very strongly that we should be more concerned about Anaheim and ~~ ; also its cftlzens, especially the young with whom we will be dealing for many years to come. ~~ ,,. She added if the higher density is allowed, the area and conditions can only deterkxate and ~~~ she was sure those in dally contact wfth the sftuatlon are even more aware of this than she -- is. i ~~':-' f.:~_+. ~;~~, : She slated the "Anaheim Beautiful' organizz::on is working very diligently to Improve the t' appearance of all parts of the City and everyone should Joln to help achieve that goal and ' _~~~ not destroy on the one hand what others are making every effort to improve. '-~~ ' ~ Agnes Erickson, 301 E. North Street, stated sh~a has been up here several times, and that she has to fight this; that she is not doing ft for the three blocks they live in,and that she _ belongs to Anaheim Beautiful and works with Code Enforcement and they are very good to them, but they don't have enough help and that a few of them have worked very hard to clean up all of Central City, not Just North Street. She stated it has gotten worse the last several years and noted there was a killing right around her comer on Olive Street and r<ght after that a car went through the living room and they have people who added onto their garages and that with the deep lots, the Commission should have allowed them to build onto the house, but Instead they allowed addition to the garage of a recreation room and a bathroom and she felt that will be another living unit She added that spoils the view for the neighbors and that there was a nice block wall, but they have added a wire fence above the 5-foot stucco fence and then added green slats so there is actually a 7-1 /2 foot fence between the yards. She stated another neighbor had a nice brick fence and the neighbors put a wooden fence on top of it, and her neighbor painted it so it would blend in better. She added these are examples of things that go on in that area. She stated ff there Is large lot left, it should be cleaned up so the kids can play there Instead of in the streets and alleys constantly. ' a'; She stated they have a lot of properties for rent or for sale in that area and there is not a shortage of units. She stated they have a lot of emergency sirens and also helicopters flying ovefiead disturbing them. She stated she has come to Commission and Council meetings many times and has information of how they wanted to make Anaheim beautiful and that is what they are trying ' to do and letting anyone add another unit on their lots, will mean 10 or 12 additforral people living there and Code Enforcement cannot keep up with ft. She stated they wodc on 1/13/92 AS l ~~ "'.3~ ~ ..... .~ ; ~,~~, ,~.. FIEIM CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, January 13, 1992 o :~` 'age 29 ~,~ ~~ 4 c, - ~,M ~ ~ -J _~ a~~t ,~'. ..i' ~~ ~;~Y Saturdays and in the evenings and her husband has gone with them and showed them .~~ , ' some of the problems in their area, especially from Olfvb to Topeka and there are shacks . ~ buih in the back yams, and people sleep anywhere. ~, ,~,~. She stated they have worked so hard to keep the area nice and they watch what is going on and h is dose to downtown and it is really bad, referring to North Anaheim Boulevard as an ~"~ example: and referred to the red, black aril whfte checkerboard fronts because they could 5 ~~: _ not get any guklelines. r--%~ ~~ '-t `~~ ~;~<;` N:~ `=. ~;:~ ~~'; f, ,,,,,; "~`:: Keith Oeleson, 321 N. Philadelphia, stated originally when this overlay zone was proposed, it was with the kiss that downzoning this area was a necessity to try and maintain h at a certain level and it is already overcrowded in enough places. He added they were suggesting that ff a lot was big enough so that a front unft could be owner-occupied, and rehabilitated with a unft behind it, which is allowed as a granny unit, h migh~ be an acceptable way to save some of these large lots with smaller homes on there now. He stated part of the kiss was that the existing house remain and be rehabilitated and he thought that had been left out of the ordinance. Commissioner Messe stated the ordinance indudes rehabilitation and Mr. Oeleson stated h just says that the granting of any conditional use permit authorizing the construction of a second dwelling unft may be contingent upon renovation.' Chairman Hellyer stated the owner would have to apply for a conditional use permit and Mr. Oeleson responded that leaves things open and from past experience, they are not usually taken care of. He stated variances are granted because there is some hardship on the land, and ft is known that variances are granted far too often in this city. He added they have teamed that by bad example and these seven Commissioners may not all be here next year and wording like that needs to be stringent enough to not be open for that kind of shift. He stated he read the proposed ordinance carefully and referred to the maximum height allowed in a RS-5000 Zone which is a two-story home and the original Intent in this area was to match any new construction to existing densities. He added f[ is possible with this proposed ordinance for an existing home to be demolished and then two-story structures could be built. He added he dki not think the proposed ordinance is restrictive enough with regard to matching the existing conditions, as opposed to Just qualffying them to the RS-5000 standards. He stated what really ends up happening is that those orange lots are almost zoned RM3000 and that is what they are trying to avoid by going to RS-5000. He stated the original intent was to allow an owner-occupant to buy an existing small home on a large lot and add an acceptable sized unit in the rear and make it an affordable possibility and not just to allow two units ff the lot was big enough and had alley access. Chairman Hellyer stated the spirit of this ordinance was to provide the opportunity for those lots which exist in that area to be redeveloped and the original house to be rehabilitated to help build up the area and also to assist that homeowner wito would rehabilitate an existing structure by allowing one additional unit ff all the requirements were met, in that the lot was the size it needed to be and ff everything else was accomplished in 4his ordinance. He stated that is included in the ordinance, in the first two paragraphs, Description and 1 /13/92 ~~ '_. IEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 13, 1992 Page 30 ~~<. _,..\ J. Purpose, and that the language may not be tight enough but is in the spirh of what they are ~~;~~ trying to accomplish whkh is to allow the private sector to rehab that house ff it is needed and the incenWe would be that they would be allowed to add a unff. He stated that unit is not going to be a unit which would be used for "low rent because the requirements in this • ordinance would not allow an owner to construct K cheaply and it will have to ba nice. He -~ ' `' `~' ~ ^ stated those two paragraphs require that K show a sensRivlty to the nelghbofiood. a=~:_' . ,,:., ~,Y ~ He stated the language may have to be modffled and explained ft Is not the Commission's r~F. _ ~' purpose to Increase the density arbitrarily in that area, but to bring up the standards of Ifving ,:. '" ' on those opportunity lots. ~~=',~J , ` Commissioner Henninger stated there was a long series of public herrings reganiing the ak downzoning of this property and it was originally zoned RM-1200, then RM-2400, and the -- - ~ RM•2400 proved to be a problem and the though was that ff RM-24001s not the proper ' ".; ~r ~~~ ' zone, then what zone is the proper one and the answer to that was RS-5000, with this k~z.,,- ''i overlay. He stated he thought maybe somewhere along the way, the purpose got misplaced ~'`~'' in this ordinance and the concepts of archftectural scale, character, style and compatlb0ity , probably need to be echoed a little more strongly in the she development standards. He ~ agreed that the basic concept stemmed from the concept of some incentive to preserve and renovate some of the existing residences and he thought it might be appropriate to say that these second dwelling units shall be contingent upon the preservation and renovation of the existing reskience. Mr. Borrego stated that Issue w'as discussed at one of the work shops and he thought the _ reason that wasn't included was because ff someone had a vacant lot, they would not be able to come fn for two units. Commissioner Masse stated that would be covered with the last two sentences indicating, as determined by the Planning Commission. He added he thought the language should be changed to 'shall". He stated the purpose of this was to have the ability to rehabilitate some of the property that has declined and is aging to improve the area. Chairman Hellyer slated the concem is that this Commission's present members know what they want to do, but there is no protection in this language to echo that sentiment. Commissioner Masse agreed that maybe the language should be modified and stated when he read it, he knew what the Commission wanted to do, but thought maybe there is a concern. Chairman Hellyer stated he would agree with those present who are, indicating they agree, that they do have reason not to trust the Planning Commission or tl~e City tracause of past experiences, but that the spirit of this is to Improve t:.e area and do the right -hing by the property owners and not to intensify the density. Commissioner Bouas stated the reskients don't think a second unit is going to !morove fhsr area and they do not want anymore units. 1/13/92 Y: 5 r. ; l Shy .t ' .k. .` i' vj 'AHEIiU CiTY PLANNING COMMISSION, ' '• 13, 1992 Page 31 i r r 5 4~ x r '~'. ` 7 `'FS ~. ii: ~' rki. -. .. t ~ Chairman Hellyer added the Commission recognized that the; a are going to be opportunity ;~ tots which In the absence of arty kind of Incertive for rehabtlitatlon will remain and ft may be that they are owner-occupied and someone bough them back in the days when they were zoned RM-1200 wfth the plan to put in multiple units and now they would have the opportunity to add one unit. Ha stated ff they came to the Commission now and asked to ~~,`'',° do that, they would have to make major improvements to the existing property. ti= _-- _ Commissioner 2emel stated he wasn't around when this was previously voted on, but '~`,'- concurred and added it was his hope that future Planning Commissions and the City Council ~> , .. would not take a step backwards. Commissioner Masse stated no developer came to the Commission wfth a suggestion for this overlay zone and K was the Commission's Idea for a way to Improve the area. Ms. McLaughlin stated the problem they are having Is with two or three families living in one house, wfth a!i their vehides; that the kiss is good to improve the area, but wfth more than one family in a single house, there is a major problem. "`4'`~" Chairman Hellyer stated the Commission does not have the right to rontrd the number of ~~, people living in one house and that happens everywhere. Ms. McLaughlin stated she realized that but h has been very very bad in this area. Mr. Baley stated he thought maybe there were good intentions, and that the people most affected were left out and that he was not asked to participate and the first thing he heard about this was the post card regarding this hearing. He stated the area shown in orange is . a large part of the RS-5000 and that is not anything any of the owners anticipated. He stated they did not want more density, but v-anted a dean, safe, peaceful place to live. He stated h was saki the City did not have the fight to say three or four people could live in a particular house and he would say that they do have the right, but do not have the ability. He added the City does not have the ability to take care of what is in that area right now and noted there are houses in there which are substandard right now. He stated as a homeowner and business owner in this community, that this proposal is issuing them out of the situation. Chairman Hellyer stated those same properties referred to which are substandard are the same properties which he referred to as opportunity lots which should be cleaned up and the city is not going to do it, but would like to offer an incentive for the owner to do it . Mr. Baley asked ff the City considers'deaned up" as demolishing one of those craftsman homes and constructing a stucco cracker box. Chairman Hellyer suggested Mr. Baley read the proposed ordinance and Commissioner Masse stated he knows the fear is that the Commission is going to approve some more projects similar to others approved in the past which were not good projects and that is not the Intent of the ordinance. a :~,.~: , . ~~sr~; ~" 1/13/92 E~~ ~ ~r `b tnt r ~ z a .°~.. . U4HEIt+A CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 13, 1992 Page 32 ~t~ ~3f.: ~~ 1 ~' Chairman Hellyer suggested continuing this hearing so the language can be modified as ,reviewed. ~a,a,,, ~~~ , Cc~mmisstoner Bouas suggested these homeowners be invited to a future work session so ~•`i:~.: - that they can understand it and so they can participate. `vc;: <.is''; ~~~`~ Chairman Heliyer suggested an evening hearing so the people who want to be (rnoNed can attend without taking off work. '~'~~`~~ "' 1 It was noted the current proposed ordinance is attached to the staff report. • i~ r ~ Borrego stated before this is heard before the Commission, it could be discussed at their Mr y _ ~xo-;:, ~"" " . meeting at the Wash!ngton Community Center so they could understand what is being done ~" and if that is preferred, he would be more than happy to present the revised draft ordinance ' ~r " ` at one of their meetings. ~}F t ~' ~ ~ ~ ` Mr. Oelesons stated their meetings are held on the 4th Thurafay of the month, (the 23rd of this month and the notices have already gone out.) He suggested K be discussed at their ~~`s~~', meeting on the 4th Thursday of March. Mr. Borrego suggested continuing the Commission's action to the March 9th meeting so he would have an opportunity to present to the citizens. A I N: Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner eristd and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the meeting of March 9th, 1992. B. ~NDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 3084 - REQUEST FOR RETROACTIVE EXTENSION OF TIME: Melissa Arrabaca requests a one year retroactve extension of time to comply with condftions of approval. Property is located at 1314 South Iris Street. A I N: Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Henninger and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve a one-year retroactive extension of time (retroactive to November 21, 1991) for Conditional Use Permit No. 3084 to expire on November 21, 1992. 1/13/92 1EIBll CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 13, 1992 ,Y , I 3 'I- J '~.. '~ . i • .~ ~ F •:J ",i .,7 Page 33 ~:,~ -~:::. ts. r~'. C - yARtANCE NO 2862 - REQUEST FOR RETROACTIVE EXTENSION OF TIME: Dwight °~,~°'' ~ Belden (HOlman Properties), requests s one-year retroactNe extension of time to comply wfth ~ condftions of approval. Property is located at the northeast comer of Santa Ana Canyon u- 2, Road and RNerview DrNe. ' ~'' ~ ACTION: CommissioneE Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve a .. " one-year retroactNe extension of time (retroactNe to December 19, 1991) to expire on ~~" December 19, 1992, subject to the compact parking spaces being redesigned as standard s size spaces, to the satisfaction of the Tratfic and Transportation Managers. ~ ~~ ` Dwight Belden stated that condition regarding the parking spaces was brought up and they '~' .r. ` compiled with that one year ago. t; '£^~~ ~ s~ '' D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N 1009 AND 1312 - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Davk1 µ :: ' E. Lewis has requested termination of CondiUonai Use Permit Nos. 1009 and 1312 on `°:~ property located at 641 South Western Avenue. ~: ~ ~ ACTION: Commissioner Henninger offered Resoution No. Pr~2-03 and moved for it.~, ~~~ ' ~ passage and adoption that all proceedings in connection v h Condftional Use Permit Nos. ' 1003 and 1312 be terminated. On roll call, the foregoing resouton was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BRISTOL, HELLYER, HENNINGER, MESSE, PERAZA, ZEMEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE E. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 3423 -REQUEST FOR A NUNC PRO TUNC RESOLUTION TO AMEND RESOLUTION NO. PC91-84.: That the Planning Commission adopt a nunc pro tunc resolution to amend the Resolution No. PC 91-84. Property located at northwest comer of Weir Canyon Road and La Palma Avenue. ACTION: Commissioner Henninger offered Resolution No. PC92-04 and moved for it.5 ' passage and adoption that the Planning Commission adopt a nunc pro tunc resolution to amend Resolution No. PC91-64. On roll call, the foregoing resoution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BRISTOL, HELLYER, HENNINGER, MESSE, PERAZA, ZEMEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Melarle Adams, Assistant City Engineer, stated the last five conditions should read, 'prior to the approval of the grading plan.' 1 /13/x2 A CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 13, 1992 ' ~ A ~ •±L~ ro +~~ ' Page 34 ;?, .y~,. ; . •~ -_ ~ OPOSED GORE AMENDMENT PERTAINING TO AMUSEMENT DEVICE ARCADES ,F,,. ; .~ ~~~, ' ' ' nr'°TED 1N COMMERCIAL ZONES. ~~~ „" Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and MOTION '~ ` °' CARRIED that the Planning Commission direct the Cfty Attorney's Office to prepare a draft ~' ~ ordinance incorporating wonting contained in the staff report (as fellows) and/or any changes requested by Commission, and that the draft ordinance then be referred back to Planning Commission for recommendation for adoption by the City Council. ~G ' recommends the fdlowing wording to amend Section 4.14.045 therefore Staff % , , "AMUSEMENT DEVICE ARCADE PERMITS' in its entirety: F ;: ;~ ~ . "In the event said application is for an amusement device or devices which, together ' ; . ' rfy with any other such devices on the premLses, are of a sufficient number to qual ;,~ ~ :~. ~` , saki premises as an amusement device arcade, said application shall be . , ~ accompanied by an amusement device arcade application fee in an amount as t h ~.~,-. ~ ~ ''~ erm e established by resolution of the City Council. As used in this chapter, t _ ("~~:~- - "amusement device arcade' means any premises containing fNe~, or more "~~°`' ' " ~;~ . a ` amusement devices, or any premises wheraln not less than twenty five percent floor area Is devoted to amusement devices, whether or not saki bli h ` c e pu 296 of t devices constffute the primary use or accessory use of the premisr.1s. In addition to the approval specffied in Section 4.14.040 hereof, saki appi:catia,~ shall be referred to the Planning Director or his/r-er desitt~ by the License Collector for the purpose of review and irnestigation. Upon receipt of said application, th Planning Director or his/her deal n~~@ shall examine saki application and determine whether the premises are properly zoned for saki proposed use. The premises shall be deemed properly zoned for said use ff zoned commercial or ff said use exists pursuant to a conditional use permit within any other zone. If the premises are not properly zoned for said use, the application shall be denied. If the premises are properly zoned for said use, the Planning Director or his/her deal nee shall mail written notice of such application to each business or resklence located within a radius of three hundred (300) feat from the particular-ryFer~tses buMd1~1 wfthin which said arcade is proposed. A •+~1r~meD and a Nat of mellr~ addresses for the UR r wtw .... .. .~ _-_ __ _ ~ o~ ~,~,te~nd aCf.~~te by ach appNoent Or his/i-er deskX~. Saki notice shall be mailed postage prepaid and may be addressed to "resident" or "occupant". Failure of any person to receive saki notice shall not affect the validity of the proceedings pursuant to this section. Saki notice shall specffy a date and place, not less than ten (10) days from the date of mailing of said notice, within which occupants or reskler+.ts may, in person by teleDhor-e or by mail, protest the approval of said pemft. All such mafled protests must be received by the Planning Director or his/her desit~ on or before the date specified in the notice to be valid. Immediately following expiratio Planning date for protests specified in said notice, the Director or his/her deskxx~ shall approve or msv corditionaNv atxiro~ saki Permit ~j; `. 1/13/92 >~~~ ~A ~^ JiEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, r := ~.~ ~ 13, 1992 -~~ 35 - - unless a protest has been receNed from a-raaJerftty- .>~y 1Ne oeroert i~57i) or ~ of the businesses and/or residences located within a radius of three hundred ~- " ~ t :, (300) feet from the particular ~1e~~ within which said arcade is , , - ~:; ' proposed. In the evert of a ~ twenty 1Nep~,rt ~) or gt~t~r Protest, <<' '' said permit shall be denied. The decision of the Planning Director or his/her desianea shall be made in writing and a copy thereof ma8ed or personally served upon the applicant. /-fNk~-a-wriEtea x. ; `~~_ :~,: G. more members of the Ckv Oour-cN. The City Council shall hold a hearing upon any such appeal and notice thereof shall be gNen to surrounding businesses and reskfences fn the manner herelnabove provided. The City Council shall approve said permit unless it finds and determines that eiti~ (1) said application fails to conform to the requirement of this chapter, or (2) the property on which the use is proposed is not properly zoned for said use, or (3) approval of saki permit would be contrary to the public interest, health, safety, morals or general welfare. The decision of the City Council shall be final " PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT PERTAINING TO PERMITTED ENCROACHMENTS INTO ~JV'TERIOR SETBACK AREAS IN THE "CR' COMMERCIAL RECREATION ZONE. Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Henninger and MOTION CARRIED, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the proposed draft ordinance relating to permitted encroachments into the interior setback areas in the "CR" Commercial Recreation zone be adopted. H. rONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3253 - REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLANS FOR APREVIOUSLY-APPROVED FREESTANDING SEMI-ENCLOSED RESTAURANT. ^roperty is lo~.~ted north and west of the northwest comer of La Palrr+~ Avenue and Imperial Highway. -`. ti;.~,.'`- Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that the Planning Commission approve submitted plans based on the following: •:;. ; (a) That the size and location of the proposed restaurant are consistent with Revision No. 1 of the previously approved plans. (b) That all roof mounted equipment will be screened from view, by the use of - equipment :veils and screening walls. (c) That the proposed signage will conform with current Code requirement unless separate application for variance is approved by the Planning Commission and/or City Council. '~'; ' cxi~ ..; ~•,. 1/13/92 EIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. IY~ ~^J S~ #~rM1y ~~ fix? ~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 3258 - REQUEST FOR REWIEW OF CONDITIONS OF l:s :`Y ~r APPROVAL PERTAINING TO A VACATION OWNERSHIP RESORT. PhA Schwartze (PRS Group) requests Planning Commission review of conditions of approval for a previously approved vacation ownership resort Property is located at 1240 South Walnut Street. Phil Schwartze, PRS Group, stated the conditions placed on Conditional Use Permit No. 3258 required that they come hack to the Planning Commission and explain how they would respond to the various issues. He referenced their letter dated December 20th that goes through all of the various conditions and provides the response. He stated they have provided Information as to how the building looks; how they propose to handle the various sales; the Issues on parking and all of the other ftems. He stated they were also asked to check with the Engineering Department and the traffic engineers and others to make sure that ail of their plans conformed. He stated this information was originally provided back in August. He added they are anxious to proceed with the activity and are looking to move forward. He stated whoever else is irnolved on this project would only be a sales agent for the time share and the ownership would continue to rest wfth the Conestoga Partnership which is Del Heil. He stated there was a variance which they were asked to terminate and they have forwarded that termination request. He stated one hem that is outstanding and 1s not being requested at today's meeting is the subordination agreement which is on the tract map and some other things that they are working wfth in the City Attorney's office to get the details completed. He explained ft is their intent(on to get the demdftion/building permit ftom the City within the next few weeks or as soon as they can and then proceed wfth ft in order to get as much accomplished prior to the summer as they can. He stated they will start wfth the demolftion rehabilitation c" the existing building which is the Conestoga Hotel and that is the first phase. He explained subsequent to that, the two larger buildings and the demdftion of the Cattleman's Wharf Restaurant will take place. He stated the name has changed from the Coral Reef and is now the Pacific Palms and depending on who ends up as the sales agent, ft may have two other names before this is completed. Chairman Hellyer asked if the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) is an Issue? He stated he believed that Mr. He0 and his attorney are still reviewing the City Ordinance and they have not made any indication one way or the other about h. 13, 1992 e -~ . ~4,:,~:, Page 36 1/13/92 aMy EIM;CITY PLANNING COMMIS810N, January 13,-1992 Page 37 F'~ H ss~ ~ :: ~ + . ~ Mr. Schwartze stated for Instance, if one of the units is a time share unit and is used as ~' hotel unit for half of the year and then it is sdd, then a Transient Occupancy Tax is a .' ` ~ ;.. . collected as ff tt were a hotel room. ~~~ ;a;~, He stated he has not personally read the new Transient Occupancy tax ordinance and x.;;~n''`' ,~~' had no further information. ti~> ~~<_`~ Selma Mann, Deputy City Attomey, stated at the time that this project was approved, there was one ordinance that was in place with regard to Transient Occupancy Tax and 4,<`~,~ ' the time share units. She stated shortly after the project was approved, that ordinance was revised to lndude sil time share units and not Just those that were being occupied as hotel units subject to TOT. ' Commissioner Messe asked how do you cdlect TOT on n ownership unit? ~.~4r Chairman Hellyer stated it is real ownership and they hdd a Grant Deed and it is Fee ~~- :;-, Simple title and they pay a pro rata of the taxes. He added ff the unit Is being occupied ;:•r,;•,.,. there should be no tax charged, however, ff ihat same unit is by the fee simple owner , being occupied by someone else, then it Is a hotel room and should be charged accordingly. Commissioner Henninger stated this Is not a Commission issue and Chairman Hellyer responded that item no. 6 makes it appear to be an Issue. Commissioner Henninger stated that we are not the body that passes taxes around. Commissioner Messe stated they are just locking to see ff they have complied with condftion nos. 25, 26 and 27. Commissioner Henninger asked Selma Mann, Deputy City Attomey, ff she was happy wfth the ownership setup? Ms. Mann stated the disclosure and biryer protection aspects of this type of approval are really handled b1+ the Department of Real F_state and the~~ are much more sophisticated In looking through :he documents and trying to determine what the best protection for individuals are than the City Attorney's office. She stated they can look them over, however, they could look fine to them, and that it Is a sale of a fee interest fn the property, or fractional share, to occupy the property for a certain period of the year and added there is nothing wrong wfth the structure that is set up. Commissioner Henninger asked ff she was satisfied with the information that was sent to her and she indicated she was. Commissioner Messe asked the Engineering Department ff they had an opportunity to review those reports associated wfth the conditions In terms of the engineering Issues such as electrical and building? =; 1/13/92 ~ ,~ , , a 4 ~~~.. f IAHEIM c~TY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 13,1992 T + = r. ter ~~~ "f~` ... ~ ~ '.:1~Y Page 38 - ~~• ~t.j''r, ~_ ~ ._ Melanie Adams, Publk: Wa~ics-Engineering, stated she would not be able to speak to those matters as far as the structure is concerned because that would be under the ~~;%1 !: ~ ° supervision of the buiding official. Commissioner Messe stated they saw the reports and they are supposed to say that they are adequate to comply with the conditions and wanted to know if anyone in the ,,. City has looked at the reports? Ms. Mann stated she dkl not mean to suggest that there was anything questionable about what was submitted in this protect. She stated they were certainly professionally prepared documents, CC&Rs, a condominium plan, etc. and a structure is there in place for a time share protect. Jonathan Borrego, Senior Planner, orated there was a statement made in some of the documentation that he had read that they had been submitted to John Quan in the Building Department. Mr. Schwartze stated In order to get the first buiidfng permft, there is a document that was prepared by the archftect which is Architects of Orange and that was a description of the building as it exists. He stated this was the first time share in the City so a lot of the conditions were really more applicalle to a condo conversion, therefore, they just took the condtions and proceeded. He explained that new plans have to be submitted and then they must go through all plan check and brought up to the current code, so the new building has to meet whatever Uniform Building Code (UBC) is and the Building Department is responsible for that. He stated in addition, those plans have been reviewed and approved by thz Building Department and they are ready to pull building permits as soon as the other conditions have been met and the fees have been pakf. A TION: Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner BQUaS and MOTION CA'r'~RIED that the documents submitted demonstrate compliance with Condition nos. 25, 26 and 27. No action was taken with regard to the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT). ~~, ~.;. ~~ °- 1/13/92 S~~ 1 r, , q ~ ~'~.. ANAHEIM CITYPLANNING G`OMMISSION, January 13,1992 Page 39 ~., J;. ~` " : ~ PROPOSED DENSITY BONUS ORDINANCE AND RELATED CITY COUNCIL POLICY. 'r Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Peraza and r MOTION CARRIED that the Planning Commission has reviewed the Density Bonus ~~~ ~ Ordinance and Poicy and, therefore, recommends approval to the City Council. The i"'~ following changes were read Into the record by Eric Nicoll, Community Development: s,. 1. To expand the description of applicant under the Density Bonus Policy to be more InclusNe regarding subsequent owners/developers or even current owners/developers. 2. To expand a category of conveyance which would cause tine affordability note to be due and payable on a for sale condominium type protect with the density bonus to include hems such as a contract sale or a change in occupancy. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SENIOR CITIZEN'S APARTMENT ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO REQUIRED NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE UNITS AND PROVISION OF DESIGN REVIEW PROCEDURES. A I N: Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Masse and MOTION CARRIED that the Planning Commission has reviewed the attached amendment to the Senior Citiaens Apartment Ordinance (Amending Section 18.94.040 and adding Section 18.94.025 to Chapter 18.94 of Tide 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code) and recommends approval to the City Council. Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, stated tf•~at there will be a correction on the Senior Citizen's Apartment project, just in the numbering. Lao ~. ,~ ~ ~ -.'. 5'e''t"i ~' ~_ REVIEW OF RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES TO BE UTILIZED WITH FUTURE AFFORDABLE RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS. Commissioner Henninger stated he would like to delete the reference to one of the goals referencing hiring professional architects. He added their goal was to have good design regardless of who does iL Commissioner Masse indicated he brought out another matter concerning the width of the corridors. Eric Nicdl ;;fated he has three changes to the Design Guklelines that will be Incorporated Into a recommendation to the City Council as follows: 1. Change the minimum width of walkways between rivo walls without windows from 4 feet to a minimum of 8 feet. It was noted that they would check with the Planning Department on this issue. 2. To remove'professlcral consultant' ftom the listing on page 3 under objectives. 3. To correct a typographical error on page 9 to end of parentheses. 1/13/92 i~ r =3 NUTE6; ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 13, 1992 'Page 40 ` ~.L. kt': -.. ~~~ 2 :'~ ACTION: Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner '' Peraza and MOTION CARRIED, that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Residential Dosign Guidelines for Affordable Housing to the City Council subject to the above listed changes. L VARIANCE NO 4035 -REQUEST FOR A NUNC PRO TUNC RESOLUT(Oll TQ CORRECT THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION CONTAINED IN RESOLUTION I .O. PC90-59. ACTION: Commissioner Henninger offered Resolution No. PC92-05 and moved for fts passage and adoption that the Planning Commission adopt a nunc pro tunc resolution to correct the legal description in Resolution No. PC90-59. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BRISTOL, HELLYER, HENNINGER, MESSE, PERAZA, ZEMEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ~~ ~ `6. DI SION: ':~,,;: None. ADJOURNMENT: The Planning Commission adJoumed their regularly scheduled meeting of January 13, 1992, to a public hearing to be held January 21, 1992, regarding Cypress Canyon at 9:OOa.m. in the City of Anaheim Council Chambers. There boing no further business, the meeting was adJoumed at 5:25p.m. Respectfully submitted }:... E ., ~, 4 Prepared by: -~~-~~~ ith L Harris, Planning Commission Support Supervisor for Janet L Jensen Senior Secretary .ti . k}~ {•~' ;.: 1/13/92