Loading...
Minutes-PC 1992/06/15rn,< _.~ r.~° 2 :,,~ 4 _ r. ... ._ ;; r ~~; ., -. MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM Ci fY PLANNING COMMISSION ;~_ .~ Jurre 15, 1992 ;The regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to order at 10:00 z' ., ra m., June 15, 1992, by the Chairman in the Council Chamber, a quorum being present and '`the Commission reviewed plans of the items on today's agenda. r. RECESS: 11:50 a.m. RECONVENE: 1:30 p.m. • •`COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Hellyer Bouas, Bristol, Henninger, Messe, Peraza, Zemei 'COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None '~ ALSO PRESENT: Greg Hastings Selma Mann Melanie Adams Alfred Yaida Jonathan Borrego Greg McGaffc:•~'y Debra Fank Eric N(coil Richard Bruckner Dick Mayer Margarita Solorio Edith Harris Zoning Division Manager Deputy City Attorney Associate Clvil Engineer Assistant Traffic Engineer Senior Planner Associate Planner Associate Planner Housing Development Manager Redev. Economic Development Mgr. Park Planner Word Processing Operator Planning commission Secretary AGENDA POSTING. A complete copy of the Planning Commission agenda was pasted at 8:00 a.m., June 12, 1992, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chambers, and alsoin the outside display kiosk. Published: Anaheim Bulletin -May 22, 1992 PUt3LIC INPUT: Chairman hlellyer explained s' the end of the scheduled hearings, members of the public will be allowed to speak on Items of ~ntemst which are within the Jurisdiction of the Planning Commission and/or agenda items. CM061592.wp -1- 6/15/92 •s; r r°,c~. I" SeFYsr! K, S ~~~r ~, a s ~. ~}~~ .. ~jK / 7 A~~ :MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 15, 1992 Page No. 2 Q ITEM NO. 1. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 21 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. ,''' `' 3226 fREADVERTISEDI Fr • ;~?' INITIATED BY: CITY OF ANAHEIM, 200 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92803. OWNER: • +r."= WOODCP.ST DEVELOPMENT, 17911 Mitchell Avenue, Irvine, CA 92714. LOCATION: Property is aoproximately 3.9 acres located at the northeast corner of Weir Canyon Road_and Canyon J~,~y k Drfv ~~~.-. ~ Pursuant to Code Section 18.03.091 the Planning Commission has initiated a public hearing in '' ~ order to consider termination or modification of Conditional Use Permit No. 3228 that permits ,, gasoline sales, auto repair, a car wash, a convenience market and a 10-unit, 6,700 square-foot, 1. - commercial Detail center. 4~$~ ~4~ Continued from the May 18, 1992, Planning Commission meeting ~~~~ ~',- ,, ,' •~; It was noted a regtaest was submitted to continue consideration of this matter to the meeting of ~ ~.; uuly 27, 1992. ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Henninger abstaining) that consideration of the " ~ aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of July 27, 1992. ITEM N0. 2- CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, RECLASSIFICATION NO. 91-92-20. VARIANCE N0. 4181. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP N0. 14641. SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT fJ 2- 2 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: M.Y. PELANCONI ESTATE, C/O BERNARDO M. YORBA, EXECUTOR, 300 S. Harbor Bivd., Ste. 912, Anaheim, CA 92805. AGENT: MORGAN DEVELOPMEDIT INC., Attn: Max Morgan, President, 20341 Levine Avenue, Ste. D-3, Santa Ana Heights, CA 92707. PROPERTY LOCATION:- 5540 East Santa Ana Canv~• R approximately 12.38 acres located on the south side of Santa Ana Canyon Road and also having frontage on the north side of Avenida Margarita and approxirately 1,211 feet east of the centerline of Royal Oak goad. To reclassify from the RS-A-43000 (SC) to RS-5000 (SC) Zone. I ~~ ~. ~~, p :~~Y! ~.. _._ Waiver of required lot frontage and required location and orientation of buildings To establish a 40-lot RS-5000 (SC) and RS-A-43,000 (SC) single-family residential subdivision (Including the construction of 38 single-family residences). To remove 51 specirien trees. Continued from tha May 4, and May 18, 1992, Planning Commission meetings. 6/5/92 3 ~:. ~ r fNINIRES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIdN, June 15, 1992 ~. Page No. 3 ~X ._ a~ ;.. There.were seventeen (17) people present in opposition and six (fi) people in favor of subject request; and although the staff report was not read at the public hearing, It is referred to and .made a par! of the minutes. '"'~'~'~`'~ ' Eric Harrison, agent, 23842 Lindley, Mission Viejo 92691, stated they met with staff and have ~t ~ `' revised the plans to resolve the issue of the slopes which were proposed at 1 1 /2:1 and now a " are 2:1. ~, ~ ~ He stated there was also an issue about the number of specimen trees to be removed and they ~~ ~, Y'' have met with staff to resolve that issue. He stated they have met with several homeowner's `"`'`~~' associations surrounding the project to try and address their concerns and he thinks they have '~ a project now that is consistent with the area and is ready for approval. '~f ~,i~ ;;` , Larry Kizer, 285 S. Avenida Margarita, stated he is opposed to this project because the only r::` - access is on Avenida Margarita and that street currently handles about 9996 of all the traffic that "`> comes through their development and putting this additional traffic on that street is iii-advised. He stated where that access is proposed, there is a curve and the average speed is in excess of 40 mph and he thought it would be unsafe to have only one access and they would rather see at least two entrances as shown on the original plan for that area and that it was planned to have that area open onto Suncrest, as well as Avenida Margarita, so they could share that traffic. He explained he lives four houses from where that proposed access would be and getting in and out of his driveway is a problem now. He stated the speed bumps recently installed on Avenida Margarita have helped further up the street, but when the traffic gets to their portion of the street, it is very fast and the street is also curved and going up the hill, so there is almost no visibility. Roger Robbins, 5339 duailridge Terrace, stated they support the project as it is proposed at this time. He stated there was some controversy about the access to the project but those who Ilve in the Parkview Estates support the project because Suncrest is supposed to have a cul de sac and they do not want through access from Suncrest and want only one access on Avenida Margarita. He pointed out they have the speed bumps on Avenida Margarita and that has probably taken care of the speed problem. Mr. Robbins stated having Suncrest as a through street would not eliminate whatever problems may exist on Avenida Margarita, but would only compound the problem by adding traffic to Suncrest. Dr. Ralph Hickman, 369 Avenida Margarita, stated Avenida Margarita is probably in one of the most dangerous areas of Anaheim Hills; that there are no houses across the street, but there aro houses above and he was concern about safety if there was a fire with a downwinu, chat they are sitting on a ridge and these proposed homes will be In this dangerous area. He stated __ there could be a problem if they needed a fire truck or ambulance since 4here is one way in and 6/15/92 y ; ~ '~ ~ I}` bx~ 1' -.. t 4 • f: MlNLRES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 15, 1992 ~'• Page No. 4 z~' -~ one,way out. He stated there is a lot of traffic there now and the speed bumps have not ;~..~ ~:~ : stopped the speeding cars. FS1 ~`~re ;,- Tom Owen, 190 S. Tablerock Place, stated he supports the project. He presented two petitions ~"` ` ' "with 89 signatures to be added to the previously submitted petition with 41 signatures. He also xJ:~`- presented photographs and diagrams of the area at Springhill, Tablerock and Royal Oak Drive ~"~ for the record. Me read letters from the following people who could not come to the meeting. (Copies are in the Planning Department files.) i..,_. ~ F~~' (a) Richard L. Downer, 5330 Suncrest Road ~~y~ (b) Ben Wyler, Parkview Estates (c) A.K. Nadi, Suncrest ;~~,, (d) Dan & Linda Brown, 5340 Suncrest Road ~ ~'~ : (e) Dennis & DebPa Green, 5370 E. Suncrest Road. ~.' .~~ Mr. Owen stated he is in favor of .he project; that this area has been a mess for many years and .,,. ~~~"' he thought development would Improve it and keep vandals cut of the area. He stated the exit ~'~- ~ . ~~"' they use from Springhill onto Royal Oak is dangerous because downhill traffic is extremely fast <,,.~ . ~`~'"' and there have been a lot of accidents. He stated they feel an access through there would be far worse that anything on Avenida Margarita. Lauren Gauthier, 4101 San Felipe, stated she opposes the development and would like to see it revised to fit the community. She stated she is president of the 21-Member Felipe Homeowner's Association and they are directly affected by this proposed project; that they have several major concerns and the first is they feel the project is far too dense for that area and would nat allow for wildlife and the development would crowd out all types of birds and animals. She stated the second concern is the access to the project and explained she lives off Avenida Margarita and that already has a problem and they have a hard time getting in and out . on the street and they feel a second access would help. • She stated she is very worried about the traffic now because she has five (5) children and it is hard for them to cross the street. She stated there is a school bus stop across that street and ,• with additional traffic, if there are no provisions to make it safe to cross Avenida Marg,~irita, there will be many accidents. She stated there is alsr~ a shopping center in that area. She stated she would Iiko to request a safety check on that street and would like to have atop signs or crosswalks Installed to allow for pedestrians. She stated the th;rd concern is for any slopes that may be heading towards their homes and they want to make sure that they are safe and not unusually high. She stated they are also concerned about how the development will look and they do not want high retaining walls,. She Presented a letter she had written for the record and also a letter from a neighbor. Jonathan Borrego, Senior Planner read the letter from Grace Chan, 125 S. Avenida Felipe, dated June 12, 1992. (A copy of the teller is in the Planning Department files.) 6/15/92 4 ~~%:: r. ~, r;-:.. ~~~E ~~MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 15, 1992 ~ - Page No. 5 '~ o , '~~'; Euiwon Chough, 315 Avenida Margarita, stated he has 1(ved there since 1976 and that he is ~~ •~; opposed to this project. He stated the City has put in double lines on the street and has ~,~ installed speed bumps because the traffic is ever increasing. He stated people coming down •~s from Nohl Ranch Road to the aJhopping center are going very fast and he was concerned about ,~~'~`.,` '. the safety of the traffic on the street. ~4Qu .u ~ He stated he understands there are 40 houses to be built next to Santa Ana Canyon Road and yt~~'~'` ' suggested access be provided on Santa Ana Canyon Road. He stated he also understands there could be a second access onto Suncrest and he would suggest that be done because the traffic has been maximized on Avenida Margarita. = Tom Tice, 131 S. Panorama, stated he is in favor of the project but has a couple of major concerns about traffic; that Suncrest is Improved to proper collector street standards but at Royal Oak, it narrows to 32 feet and that is a problem. He presented pictures taken today +` showing cars parked on both sides of the street and stated only one car could get between them. He stated he would be in favor of the initial proposal for that to be a cul de sac with a gate for emergency access. He stated if it Is going to be a through street, then the area where it is only 32 feet wide would have to be improved. Stephen Hulen, 180 S. Avenida San Felipe, stated he is opposed to !I~is project. He presented a letter and pictures for the record and read the letter regarding the{r major concerns about traffic on Avenida Margarita. (A c~~py of the letter and photographs are in the Planning Department files). The letter indicated concerns about additional traffic on Avenida Margarita; that it is posted at 25mph, but cars are still speeding and that speed bumps were recently installed, and there is a blind curve (photographs 1,2,3 & 4); a school bus stop across the street and they are concerned about the safety of the 37 children who live on the street and noted there have been ," accidents; that they would like to see a second entrance from Suncrest and that it was originally designed to go through when tho area was developed and was shown on the General Plan as going through (Photographs 5 & 6); and having a second entrance would serve as a compromise and there would be a gate so that only actual residents would be using it; that the - entrance road from Springhill to Suncrest is at the same width as Avenida Margarita (Photographs 7 & 8) that Springhill then empties into Nohl Ranch which leads to the school and ' park. He stated they would like to see double stop signs Installed on Avenida Margarita adjacent tc Avenida Felipe because of the blind curve to slow down speedsters in both directions and to discourage motorists from using Avenida Margarita as a shortcut. He stated last week they studied the Intersections of Suncrest and Avenida Margarita for stop signs and these are no stop signs at any of the intersections leading into Avenida Margarita (photographs 9 & 10) but that the Suncrest tract !.as stop signs throughout (photographs 11 & 12). He referred to Summit Ridge in Orange on Meats and stated that street had become everybody's shortcut until the stop signs were installed and they were told by residents in that area that the stop signs helped Immensely. _ He stated they want to be sure the hiking and hone trail is moved far enough away from the rear of their homes because they have experienced graffiti recently (photographs 13 & 14) and feel having the trail directly behind these homes will escalate the crime in this area. ~', 3 ~1 6/15/9< F? ~_". 1 { b . p.4 .. 4? Y ~ ~ • +C _5 ~~- 4 ~~~ s, ._... . ~.. .. .MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 15, 1992 Page No. 6 Mark Liu, 319 Avenida Margarita, stated he moved fn about a week ago and has already experienced the traffic congestion and unsafe conditions; are that he lives right next to a speed bump and often observes cars trying to bypass the speed bumps and it is very dangerous for the people in the area. ' F, ~ ; Mr. Llu referred to the staff report on Page 5, and stated the environmental impact analysis does not mention a traffic study and he would advise that a revised environmental analysis he '' done by an expert on traffic flow. h ~~r He stated he saw a traffic measuring device the other day, but a neighbor told him that it was `~~•, tampered with twice, so there was no data. He stated the Commission should request another ~- ' study of the traffic and determined the direction of the flow, etc. and more important, the cx Impact of this additional traffic from 40 additional homes. r ~r ~~' Charlene Chin, 5360 E. Suncrest Road, stated she is opposed to making Suncrest a through :fir '- street; and that she is concerned about the safety on the street where her daughter will play. She stated they purchased this home on a cul de sac for the safety and were told that the street would remain as it is now and during the last three years, the number of children living on that street has increased. She presented a letter from her neighbor. Larry Hogan, 323 Avenida Margarita, asked if the Commissioners have ever considered making Avenida Margarita a cul de sac and stated that would solve the problem of everybody taking it as a shortcut to the shopping center. He stated the traffic on Avenida Margarita is increasing and that the speed bumps have helped. Linda Keller, 195 S. San Felipe, stated she is opposed to the development and presented a letter. She stated she wound like to see two entrances and added that Suncrest was designed to go through ano that obviously Avenida Margarita was not meant to go through and is already developed with curbs, etc. She stated traffic is already heavy and is a hazard and their children have to cross it twice a day to go to the schoolbus stop and the nark. She stated none of those streets have stop signs and she has assured by John Lower that they can probably get stop signs and that she is also asking for stop signs on Avenida Margarita at San Felipe because of the blind curve. She stated they have been told the hiking trail has been moved away from the rear of their homes, but wanted to make sure that has occurred. She stated it looks like there is a 14-foot slope next to her home and they purchased the!r home because there was flatland behind it and she is asking that the slope be reduced. She stated with the slope, she loses her privacy ar:d the view from the back of her home which will reduce her property value. She presented photographs of the view she will lose. 6/15/92 ~~ ~~ t~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ 1: ~ ~~ ~r t M ~,S ~ ~ . r ~f~~ MINUTES_, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 15, 1992 Page No. 7 ,,,. -•: ~~~r-~: 3hea2ated she is concerned about the number of homes and pointed out San Felipe has four homes per acre and she thought this proposal is for 4.3 homes per acre. She added she is also concerned about the 0-lot line and did not think there are any homes like that in the area. Larry Campbell, 1005 San Felipe, stated he wanted to correct the letter he sent to the Commission and that his lot is No.fi Instead of lot No.9. Mr. Campbell stated the revised plan Is more acceptable but he thought there are some modifications that need to be made. He referred to the revised plans and the pad elevations next to his property, and pointed out it is from 10 to 27 feet higher and that there will have to be a lot of fill in order to get those elevations. He stated he has a view lot with wrought Iron fencing so he doesn't block his neighbors' views and now he will have block walls blocking his view to the canyon. He stated losing property value concerns him. Concerning traffic, Mr. Campbell stated the traffic counted was above San Felipe, so the traffic study does not consider the traffic in and out of San Felipe from Santa Ana Canyon Road, so he d#d not understand how they could get an accurate analysis of the impact on traffic. He stated also there needs to be a study of the Impact on the intersection of Avenida Margarita and Santa Ana Canyon Road because traffic backs up past the entrances to the two commercial areas. He stated Suncrest was originally designed to be a thoroughfare and not a cul de sac and the people could see that when they bought their homes and having access to Suncrest would mitigate some of the Impact on Avenida Margarita. He stated he is also concerned about property values and noiad a lot of industries are leaving Southern California because of the P,ir Quality Management District's restrictions. Wendy Copely, 343 Avenida Margarita, stated she lives an equal distance between the two recently Installed speed bumps and she still feels like she lives on a freeway because everybody speeds. She stated she is very concerned about the traffic on that street and she did not feel the Ingress and egress on Avenida Margarita is safe. She stated her lot goes between Avenida Margarita and Springhill and she sees the traffic on both Suncrest and Avenida Margarita and there is almost no traffic on Suncrest and she thought It only fair that the additional traffic from this new development be split between both streets. She stated she travels on Santa Ana Canyon to go home, but on most days she has to detour and has noticed that most motorists do detour up to Royal Oak, through Avenida Margarita anti down to Santa Ana Canyon Road because the freeway is congested. She stated she agreed Avenida Margarita should be a cul de sac and it that is not possible, she would like whatever is necessary to reduce the traffic on that street. a.r~w ., 6/15/92 a ~~ t 1 ,.§~ ~'~c iYS: ~ ~~ • ~ ~'~ r 1,. ~. }~l.. ~'+3 'v 1. ~ ~~x~2~, ..MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 15, 1982 Page No. 8 .. ~5.: Ms: Copley stated most of the houses in the Shadow Run tract have large distances between s ~ them and she did not like seeing a development go in which appears cluttered and the 0-lot line ~;;~ ,; does riot open the area and they have a cluttered appearance. She stated also they would have '~ huge walls and she thought that would lower property value in that area. :~~: Lori Hulen, 180 S. Avenida Felipe, stated there are two birds in this area which are on the endangered species list, the California gnatcatcher and hooded oriole, and she hoped that was considered in the environmental review process. ~~~~ She stated she (s concerned about the scopes and bringing in fill, eliminating the open space. She stated Springhill from curb to curb measures exactly the same as on Avenida Margarita. She stated she is also concerned about the 0-lot line. ,' ~~ u; ~`~ Wendell Molten, 279 Avenida Margarita, stated there are 29 homes on that residential street; r, x , however, there are 99 homes above which have access to Avenida Margarita today and it is not ~~~''' safe. He stated he understands the frail has been moved from behind the Felipe homes but now it is located around the tract and impacts his property because it is directly behind his house. He stated nobody wants this trail, including Mr. Morgan, and asked why they have to h,ve it. He stated he understood Mr. Morgan has agreed to put the trail where it was originally proposad along Santa Ana Canyon, down to the corner of Santa Ana Canyon and Avenida Margarita. Ray Doria, 5375 Suncrest, stated he just moved there last week and that he has three small sons and just found out about this on Saturday. He stated he feels the speeds on Royal Oak are much worse than on Avenida Margarita and this will be very dangerous. Sonya Grewal, Ansheim Hills Citizens Coalition 6312 E. Santa Ana Canyon Road, Suite 157, stated it appears there is a 10-foot high wall over 200 feet long on Santa Ana Canyon Road. She asked how much space there is between the wall and trail easement and what type of planting area is proposed next to the wall. Ms. Grewal stated it appears the reason for RS-5000 zoning is the concept of clustered housing ' and it also appears that there is little direction as to what clustering means and how it is applied other than the way it reads on the Anaheim General Plan which says, "To cluster homes in one area, while allowing a larger open area elsewhere.' She stated she understands from the staff report in this case, the larger open area is the Yorba property. She stated she did some research and the best definition of clustering she could find and as it was probably handed down to the people who made up the General Plan in t977 was in EIR No. 80 certified in May 1973 which was used to start development in the Anaheim Hills area, Section III Land Development -there is a discussion regarding the means by which that area could be developed because of the topography. etc. She continued that some methods of development were summarized as follows: 1. Conventional lot padding which would be stepping up the slopes, :. 6/15/92 I~ ~- ; ~~~ ~aR yC _ .. _ _ ~ T .'. 3 7 j~ {7. rte; y, r~"~,, i .. . .:~4 fir, ~r . , ~,. ~'~'~' MlfJIfTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 15, 1992 ,, ,. r Page No. 9 ~< f ,: . ~~ ~ 2. large lots utillzhg neutral topography with minimum grading, similar to the Hidden Hills `YA''~ ~ Brea. ;iy ~ 3: Cluster development - 'Rather than spreading development avenly throughout the area, individual locations such as hilltops would be selected. Large pads would be graded and ;r,. ~ . , ,~ r max; ~ development concentrated on these pads with the Intervening areas being left In their F natural state. This would require some mass grading however, the maximum neutral ''~ condition would remain consistent with higher population densities. The street system ~~~;~ could be Ilmlted to adequate access to the various pads and clusters, with access within ~~~ the clusters Ilmlted to reasonable access and parking. As compared to Method 1, this ~~" ' s stem would accom Ilsh a roximatel half the radln and half the street s stem, 1F: Y P PP Y 9 9 Y ,. ~~r_„ , leaving the remaining areas In their natural state. The maximum preservation of the natural conditions would result from utilization of methods 2 and 3.' ~ Sire stated 1f one uses that definition, plus In looking at projects approved since the 1970's ~, ;' which used the clustering concept, there Is a pattern. She referred to the Broadmoor tract, a single-family project near Fairmont and Canyon Rlm, and stated that was not originally on the - General Plan for RS-5000, but an RS-5000 zoning standard was allowed becausa of the clustering on slopes with large greenbelt areas between. Ms. Grewal gave several examples of clustering with open areas. She stated in each of the examples the open area Is commonly owned and all the owners have access and legal control to the common open area; and that the area was not already developed. She stated In this case, the homeowners do not have ownership or any jurisdiction over the open area, other than coming to a public hearing like this to address a General Plan Amendment. She stated Planning Area B was developed because of the topography and to give people a chance to develop and yet retain the semi-rural uncongested atmosphere of the area. She stated aaplying the cluster concept to this project does not seen to fit the intent of the defiftlLlO;; as given lrr 1972 and as interpreted in the past. She stated It fs not clustered and there is no natural area, and the area retained is a developed homestead and the owners have no control over the disposal of the tract. She stated the plan is not Innovative In concept development and uses retaining walls at both ends. She stated another concern they have is that the zoning standards are not consistent with surrounding properties being developed as RS-10,000 and RS-7200 and it Is not compatible with existing homes. Jim R!gley, 269 Avr~nida Margarita, stated the project particularly impacts his property; that he has been a resident ther•:~ since 1986; that he feels this project is overbuilding and Is a deviation from what was planned for the area; that In 1990 the Yorba's Indicated they wanted to build 2,3 or 4 luxury homes, to be valued In excess of a1 million. He st>:ited now Mr. Morgan wants to build 38 or 40 homes and the 0-lot line concept maximizes space and sacrifices the lnteg~lty of the area. He stated he is particularly concerned about the traffic flow onto Avenida Margarita primarily because the ingress\egress will directly impact his property. He stated he is also concerned t, :~ 6/15/92 e F ~UL ~ ~ .. ' ~ • ~ .. v VLITE3, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 15, 1992 ~~ ~ • n11 L Page No. 10 ~.< -- ~ ~~ about:parking on Avenida Margarita because he did not beileve all the residents would elect to ~ , park with!n the ~or}flnes of the project and might park on Avenida Margarita. ~~`,. ~~~~ He stated he felt a second access is in order and suggested tho Commission contact the public ~~~~'''' agencies which fund these types of improvements to see if something could be done about an ~~ ~ ~~ ' entrance onta Santa Ana Canyon Road. ~~:~~~~ m~ He stated he felt little or no consideration was given to the preservation of the Integrity or ~~, quality of Iffe in the area with regard to the desirable wildlife and thought the overall Integrity of the area is being compromised with the overbuilding. F ?x~,t . ' Max Morgan, owner, stated the main topic seemed to be about traffic; that he went to the City 1~~~~: , _ Traffic Department and they gave him two traffic studies, one dated 4-18-91 which was before `~~' the speed bumps were installed and it shows all the different counts over a 24-hour period and ~y`~t~ - there were 1,473 cars; and that the second stud was done on Ma 20, 1992, less than one ~n ~. Y Y month ago, after the speed bumps were in and there were 1,310 csrs. He stated the present 39 homes and the Yorba residence generate 160 trips per day, and that would be the figure ~~' from last year, and that the Traffic Department says 1420 trips per day are acceptable. He stated the people are talk(ng about the lot sizes, the slopes, etc., and pointed out the pad sizes and slopes on several of the homes in the existing tracts where the people who spoke in opposition live. He stated the proposed lots are narrower, but the pads are larger and this project would not degrade the area. He stated he went to all the homeowner's associations and pointed out the horse trail and stated he did not like the idea of the horse trail behind those two tracts because it would create an alley effect which would be a problem and that he said he would try to get that removed. He pointed out the trail which they want now will impact the Suncrest people. He added that trail is there today and has been there for 15 years and it has not been taken care of. He stated they told the people on Suncrest that they would not open that street, but there is a possibility that he will have to open it. He stated he did not really think it should be opened, and also that entails almost 600 lineal feet more of hiking trail. He stated regarding the density, he did not think that is an issue because if they do not Include the Yorba property, Shay are at 4.3, and without the Yorba property, they are at 3.3. He stated ' eight houses in this tract will have a lot line on the side of their house of 12 feet, and 'i8 will have 16 feet and they felt a 16-foot side yard would be usable, and the houses could have private entrances on the side; and that eight of the houses have two-car garages and the balance have 3-car garages. Regarding wildlife in the area, he stated the Yorba property is maintained in a state that he was sure the animals are down in the barranca area, and across the street, there is an 18-acre natural habitat which is a nature park, so these are places for wildlife. r ~ ' '' ~~sf~~ 6/15/92 t : , ~` y,~ i s 7 ~' ~~ ~ ~~1: I•~ - 1.'. n _ ~} '~ ~' "MINUTES, Af!1AHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Juno 15, 1992 ~~~ -' `- Page No. 11 r iw~~ " He stated he felt the houses, after they built, will not stop the possums, rats, etc. from coming ~G - in grid they are requesting to remove 51 trees which are possibly d!seaaed, but they are also -" planting 142 trees. ~;;. ~. He stated the wall proposed is a regular retaining wall and he had agreed to reduce it to six feet and put another 4 feet, making it a tiered layer which would look very nice. Chairman Hellyer stated the concern was with the length of the crib wall and the planting. Mr. Morgan answered the crib wall is 230 feet long and they want to plant something that will grow over it very fast and also they will paint it with anti-graffiti paint. ~~~'~~" Commissioner Zemel asked the distance between the wall and the trail e; cement. Mr. Morgan ` respo~ided he thought it was either 7 feet or 10 feet and that the tra+l easement is also planted z on both sides. He stated the trail Itself is 1-foot wide and there is landscaping on both sides, " "_ and a 7-foot wide public sidewalk. He added they are also widening Santa Ana Canyon Roao in that area. He explained the houses are meterranean style and they can not have shake roofs, and the young people do not want a ranch style house today . ' He stated there was a concern voiced about emergency vehicles and explained they have four gates, two in and two out, which could handle any type of emergency vehicle, and stated the entrance is 1 SO feet wide. He referred to the slope and stated Ms. Keller is the most impacted owner in the area and that the slopes are going to be safe. He stated the neighbors asked how they would guarantee that the slopes would be safe; that the slopes are from 30 to 65 feet and pointed out there is a 65-foot slope coming down to subJect property and they will have to take all the water and drain it to the storm drain. He stated they will be maintaining those slopes. He pointed out the location of the trees to be removed and noted the trees will be removed where they have to grade. He stated this is going to be an upscale project that will not take away from the existing homes. He stated he thought they could ask the Orange Unified School District to make that a safer place for the children to catch the school bus, pointing out they are paying them a large fee. He stated he was not sure a stop sign could be installed there because it might be too close to the signal at Santa llna Canyon, but that he is in favor of anything that is going to tho slow the traffic on i,venida Margarita. 6/15/9 < ~` :~: a~ ~„ ~~ ', ~ s` .. 4 `5 ~ ~ ~ ~ - • ~l; ,~ MINUTES,-ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 15, 1992 ~' - Page No. 12 ,~ . ~~ ..' He, stated he has resolved all the problems of the homeowners and knows that he cannot please ~~,^: :everyone but is willing to try and work out any situation that helps and that he does not want to ~~ create a problem for them and that he is not building low-end tract housing. Concerning cluster ~` housing, he stated his idea of cluster housing is townhomes and these are single-family homes, and they do not want any part of cluster housing. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. 'i ~ Dick Mayer, Park Planner, Parks & Recreation, stated, staff has worked quite closely with the r ~~' property owner and felt that he has come up with a good proposal. He stated it will be fenced -', - so that the trail users will be contained within the trail right of way, and he theught it will assist ,~ ., in keeping .ne semi-rural atmosphere and that is one main reason they are insisting upon ~~' ' putting the trails into the Anaheim Hills area. He added he is happy with the proposal. I~ ,. Greg McCafferty, Associate Planner, stated the gnatcatcher was mentioned and that to his >~~::; ~; knowledge the State Department of Fish and Game and the Ua Fish and Wildlife Service have ~;- those species under study, but it is not yet on a threatened or endangered species list. _: Ho stated this area is surrounded by two tracts on one side and Santa Ana Canyon Road on the other side and a collector street to the south and thought it is sufficiently fragmented to not _ _ - really retain any habitat value so he did not think in terms of biological significance that there are any really relevant issues relating to wildlife. Commissioner Bouas asked about the traffic study. Alfred Yalda, Associate Traffic Engineer, stated a count w:;s done before the speed bump was installed and one after the speed bump was Installed and he thought there was a decrease of 173 vehicles within that one year which is probably because of the installation of the speed bumps and also thsre was a lower level of traffic throughout the City within the last two years. He stated they did install a counter on the weekend for a count on, Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday and somehow someone moved it and the count was destroyed. He added in his opinion, the counts they have are sufficient to determine the traffic flow on that street. He stated he would be happy to rneet with the property owners to take care of ail their concerns. He stated he would not promise to inst?!; stop signs all over the place, but will listen to the neighbors and do whatever they have ~~ ~o to improve their traffic problem. He stated the neighbors have not called the Traffic Department so he was not aware there was a problem, but they will do whatever they can to reduce the speed on that street. Commissioner Henninger asked why a number of the Intersections have no stop sign controls. Mr. Yalda responded the City does not really Install stop signs at T-Intersections and that is covered by the California Vehicle Code; and that usually when they receive complaints from citizens, they will install them. ~~:. e _,...,...... ~~_ 6/15/92 i c r S~ t-7d~"~,a+.. r, ® ~ _ .~ t., AiIINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 15, 1992 f~a 1s ,_ i %otnmissioner Bouas &sked if the figures taken on lday 20, 19~5~., are valid and Mr. 'Yalda ,answered that is a 24-hour count and is typical of r~hat they do :nroughout the city. "ia stated ' in t~is opinion there would only be a minor adjustm~snt for a weskend count. a`~ ttt':i![ • s~<`': He explained he thought it was about two weeks ago when they -.~'4;f to gat a count and ~, was v: ~N ,,s ;; ' • tampered with. ,~,~; s~ Commissioner Messe asked Mr. Yalda to explain to the re~sldents why !t Is not feasible to open a, this new development io Santa Ana Canyon Rosd. 3'~~ ~ Mr. Yalda stated Santa Ana Canyon Road Is designated as a c.,:anfc Highway and there Is an ordinance by the City Council which prohibits any access to Santa Ana Canyon Road and if ~'~~ they want access, an application has to be filed with the City Council and they would have to ;~ approve any access to Santa Ana Canyon Road. ~~~ . a, ` Commissioner Peraza asked how much traffic is on Avenida Margarita. Mr. Yalda stated the !r~=~~?:~,' - amount of traffic shown on that street is about 1300 trips and that is a Level of Service A for t ` overall traffic and explained Level A is the best level of service with Level F being congested. Commissioner Zemel stated the concern was about where the traffic is going to go and the • second concern was the amount of traffic. He stated the amount of traffic relates to the density and this project as proposed would be an island surrounded by RS7200 on one side and RS-10,000 on two sides and there is no RS-5000 anywhere around it. He stated the applicant stated that economic conditions dictate that the project needs to be RS-5000 and In his opinion, economic conditions do not necessarily correlate with zoning laws. He asked . about compatibility. Greg McCafferty stated the intent of the General Plan in Planning Area B is to minimize grading and to preserve as much open area as possible and the follow-up policies for that is the clustering concept, as well as substitution of implementation zones within the same residential categories. He added it is at the Planning Commission's discretion whether or not they feel this meets that goal. Commissioner Messe stated there is no dedicated open space inn this protect and ther9 is no real clustering, and Mr. McCafferty agreed. Commissioner Zemel stated the reason for RS-5000 is to maximize the number of lots and it is not providing any benefit. Chairman Hellyer stated the reason for requesting RS-5000 is because any lower density, does not enable the developer to use a common wall effect. Mr. McCafferty stated the guiding principle here is the density and the density is in conformance with the General Plan, but the implementation is the Issue, whether It is RS-7200 or RS-5000, and there are different lot standards, etc. :. >~ aS.Sa`~- ~ , 6/15/92 ~xxSryf n .ryj r. •~ .`Ai ~ MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 15, 1992 Page No. 14 '~` , ~r : Commissioner Henninger stated he would be tempted to see this property developed by taking _ " Suncrest and extending it as a cul de sac, to the edge of the remaining Yorba property, at RS- H$-10,000 Zone and then running the one cul de sac out of Ava^Ida ~Aargarita at RS-7200, with ~_~`' _ public roads and eliminate the various retaining walls, provide wider lot;:, and take the slope out with natural slopes between the lots. ~g ~ Commissioner Messe asked if that means bringing Suncrest through, and Commissioner Henninger stated it would be extending the cul de sac to inside this tract. ``' Commissioner Messe stated with the proposed plan, they could take six houses out that way. Commissioner Henninger stated this plan doesn't seem to fit and seems to be an island of higher density surrounded by lower density developments. Commissioner Bouas stated she understood that the pad sizes were larger than some of the other existing lots in the area. Commissioner Henninger stated he thought tics Qad sizes are larger, but thought the lot width has a lot to do with how people relate to the sense of density and that the lot width is Incompatible. Commissioner Zemel stated basically the standards are different and at RS-7200, the lot frontage makes a difference in the number of lots. Jonathan Bo,~rego stated in this situation, the two major differences between RS-5000 and RS- 7200 are that the RS-7200 Zone does not have a provision allowing 0-lot Tine in the sideyard setback and they would need to maintain a minimum setback of five feet and in addition, the RS-7200 Zone has a minimum !ot width requirement of 70 feet. Commissioner Zemel stated he understood the difference between RS-5000 and RS-7200 is about 7 or 8 lots, or 2096 approximately. Chairman Hellyer asked the net yield between RS-5000 and RS-7200. He asked if the staff report identifies which lots are less than 7200 square feet. Mr. Borrego stated there are three lots which are less than 7200 square feet and he thought if this property was developed at RS-7200, the biggest impact would be based on the lot width; that the RS-5000 has a minimum lot width requirement of 50 feet and the RS-7200 has a minimum lot width requirement of 70 feet. He stated it would be a little difficult to come up with a net yield without a plan because there are a lot of different factors to consider. Commissioner Henninger stated he did not think the difference is just three lots, and it would make a substantial difference because of the way the property is laid out. 6/15/92 w Kf ~ °'.%. =i, s No. 15 c~,; ~ .Commissioner 2emel stated the measurement tool is the street frontage and he thought there would be 7 or S lots which could not be developed. He stated he thought there is a traffic f problem there and all the efforts need to be made to meet those concerns. Commissioner Bristol asked what the deveioper thinks about the suggestion made by Commtssioner Henninger to bring Suncrest through as a cul de sac and bringing it further east and then leaving the other street the way it is, limiting the Impact that it could ever have on that street. ~$ Mr. Morgan stated two of those lots go out onto Suncrest already. He stated the people in the 1'~-;y;'°': Parkview homes have 63 home going out one entrance right now. j'i.pp~~.~ Commissioner Bouas stated there is a maximum length allowed for a cul de sac. ,;~;,,; :: Mr. Morgan stated It means taking that cul de sac Into the middle of the project would cut off a lot of those lots and that is a rest problem and the idea of doing this project with the 50-foot wide lots, but some are 180 feet deep which affords people a big back yard and a nice sideyard, and a RS-7200 lot would look nice for people who drive by, but they would have 10- - foot backyards and he did not think that is a fair trade-off and that the tradeoff is with a 50-foot lot, they would have a nice usable backyard and all those lots which look down onto the Yorba property will be view lots. Commissioner 2emel stated density is the issue and not the size of the backyards. Commissioner Bristol asked if the cult de sac is too long and Melanie Adams responded In general, Public Works recommends that cul de sacs be no more than 700 to 1000 feet long; however, In this case, looking at the site specific nature of the traffic flow, Public Works would not be opposed to Commissioner Henninger's suggestion to bring the cul de sac at least as far as the current Yorba estate, and they would not be opposed at all to Suncrest being the only access to this project. Commissioner Bristol asked what the developer and the opposition think about that proposal. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS RE-OPENED. Roger Robbins, 5339 Quailridge Terrace, stated that would not eliminate the problem on Avenida Margarita; that everybody here agrees there Is a traffic problem on Avenida Margarita, but opening Suncrest does not eliminate that problem, but would create new problems. Commissioner Henninger stated he was not suggesting op»ning Suncrest, but extending the cul de sac further so the Suncrest cul de sac would be longer, but it would reduce the flow out onto Avenida Margarita. He explained it is probably no more than fifteen lots. Mr. Robbins stated the engineer had noted that Springhill is only 32 feet wide and with cars parked on both sides of Springhill, just off Royal Oak, two cars can not pass. He stated Springhill would have to be widened, and then it becomes Suncrest, before any additional traffic 6/15/92 ~: ~ i ~~ .~ .~. Y v MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 15, 1992 No. 16 ' 1 r.;- . °~ 'can be accommodated. He stand he did not know if extending the cut de sac to the east would .~.,1 .. ~M°~ be any great problem, but that he thought it would just create problems some other place. ;t;, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSEp. ~ Chairman Hellyer stated he thought the proposal as suggested by Commissioner Henninger ~~ would mean two fewer units on Suncrest ff the lots were enlarged to 10,000 square feet. He ',~ pointed out the cul de sac would end at the tree line marked in red on the plans and the suggestion was to keep the original design wfth entrance on Avenida Margarita for the rest of .~ ~ the project. ~:~;.- ~, 4 ~ >~ V Mr. Morgan asked if the cul de sac off Suncrest would be a private street or a public street, and Chairman Hellyer answered it would be a public street. Mr. Morgan stated a public street would probably take another 12 feet and would cause a problem because the people want a gated community. He stated he would rather lose three units from the submitted plan, and take it back to an RS-7200 project. Commissioner Zemel stated he did not think it is the Commission's duty to redesign the project and they should Just give the applicant direction. Commissioner Bouas pointed out the applicant has stated he would rather consider going to RS-7200 and it would be better fur him to consider that and bring back a plan. Commissioner Zemel stated he agreed and Commissioner Henninger agreed a RS-7200 proposal would be reasonable. Mr. Morgan slated they realize that with RS-7200, some of the lots would be up to 16,000 square feet and noted on Avenida San Felipe, Lot No. 8 has about a 45-foot frontage and he did not think it is fair to put 7200-foot frontage on a new tract when adjoining tracts don't have that on the cul de sacs. Commissioner Henninger stated he did not think the frontage requirement goes right to the street with a cul de sac. Mr. Borrego stated the lot width is actually measured from the closest portion of the front property Ilne on which there could be developed a structure, which is actually a fancy way of saying, the front setback line. Mr. Morgan stated the front footage of the lot Is in back of the sidewalk. He stated going back 20 feet, the width is probably 60 or 65 feet. He stated he thought Lot No. 8 which 3s at the end of the cul de sac should make it because It has the overall square footage. Chairman Hellyer stated he thought the project works the way it is, and there may be some tuning needed with regard to an ancillary exit/entrance at the cul de sac, gated only for the residents, and he was not sure about that; however, ho lives In that area and recognizes that the market is not really supporting large lot homes right now and he thought the developer has 6/15/92 f ~3b}L~ ~{ ytr t _ a+HiN _ „55} r' . "~i ~ Ir, ~ , ~ iK t • ~ • 4~ L - ~' ,~J ~ T. ~~~ MINUTES, ANAHEIM Cf1Y PLANNING foMMISSION, June 15,1992 a~~v ~ Page No. 17 ~k~ f a. offered a quality design which also takes reality of the marketplace into account. He stated the Commission could vote today, or the applicant can request a continuance. ~~, ~`'~`~ : Mr. Morgan stated he thought he has to ask for a continuance and consider a redesign and see if he has to lose lots; that he has to consider economics of the hiking trail and has to put it back id its original location and save the footage on the side. ~~. r.;': ti:?iyiifi ~~ ;:~r~ , s? `~ ~,, x~ ~ ti ~:L:'.,K:,:'i Chairman Hellyer stated he recognizes the lot sizes are quite large comparatively. Mr. Morgan asked about having an exit only onto Suncrest, and with no ingress there. Chairman Hellyer asked the difference of that and a gate that would be only for the residents of the gated area. Mr. Morgan stated they could not come in that way, and Commissioner Zemel responded that would cut the traffic flow in half. Mr. Morgan stated he did not want to impact those people on Suncrest. He stated he thought he should take a continuance and redesign the plan with possibly RS- 7200, and added that he did not want to eliminate the 0-lot line because he thought that Is the house of the future and it affords the buyer a complete recreation area around it. Commissioner Messe stated he thought if this had been an application for an RS-7200 development, with waivers requested for lot frontage and 0-lot line, It would have given a different aspect to this same plan. He added he thought the lots are fine and they are large and they are adequate and he would probably nut be opposed to an RS-7200 development with some waivers. Chairman Hellyer stated possibly the applicant could accept a condition requiring a 7200- square foot minimum lot size and have a vote today. Mr. Morgan responded he did not know what that would mean to the project. He stated he could probably reduce the plan by four lots and still have the same configuration, pointing out the zoning standards for RS-7200 do not allow the 0-lot line. Mr. Morgan stated the issu3 is :he lot frontage, and it was noted the lot frontage would have to be 70 feet. He stated he could accept a condition today that evory lot would have 7200 square feet minimum and keep the same configuration and stated he would probably lose three or four lots. Commissioner Zemel stated he wanted to clarify that to the north across Santa Ana Canyon Road and to the east, the zoning is RS-7200, and to the south and west, it is RS-10,000, and this property is completely surrounded by those zones with regard to the compatibility issue. Commissioner Messe stated these lots could be compared to the IOt sizes surrounding it, but the zoning standards are different. (:/15/92 I ,r ~ - (~< 7 ` .~ •.. ~ ~ ~ a '"' ~' NOTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 15, 1992 " ``. Page No. 18 ,~: °_ y Cheirmen,Heilyer stated the Commission should consider the dynamics and the changes to the ~s marketplace, and that is responsible planning. He stated the homes that were built fifteen years ~~- ;ego should not be the benchmark for the area. „~ ~~' Chairman Hellyer asked staff if they could add a condition that the minimum lot size wculd be ~ 7200 square feet. Mr. Borrego stated he did not see a problem with that, but wanted to understand tf the Chairman was concerned about the 70-foot minimum lot width and agreed the lot widths are fine as proposed right now. - Chairman Hellyer stated that is his opinion because the developer will have to live with what the market dictates, and the Commission has to be concerned with just the density of the parcel. w~,` Commissioner Henninger stated he does have a concern with the lot width and would Tike to `~ ~' ' see it meet the RS-7200 zoning standard. He added he is not persuaded that the existing lots in ,~ the area should not be the standard; and that this is an in-fill development and should fit In with ?~~~` the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Morgan stated by deleting four lots, the lots probably will be very close to the 10,000-square foot lots, and noted the average right now is 8372 square feet. Commissioner Henninger stated he understands the lots are big and also that in many other subdivisions, they have smaller pads than proposed here, but he thought also these lots are fairly big and they have a lot of slope in them and the spaciousness provided by those slopes provides vertical and horizontal separation from the adjacent houses. He stated he did not think they would have that with the narrow lots being proposed here and it just does not feel right to him in this particular location. Commissioner Zemel stated the zoning standards for RS-7200 areaway of policing the density and a way of reducing the impact on the existing neighbors and he was not sure it is fair to change that zoning for economic concerns. Chairman Hellyer asked the minimum lot frontage in the RS-7200 Zone and Mr. Borrego responded !t is 70 feet. Mr. Morgan stated he would like a continuance for two weeks. Jonathan Borrego stated the minimum needed by staff is four weeks in order to properly analyze revised plans, and noted other things have to be considered such as grading, and added that is assuming no other waivers become necessary. f~lr. Morgan responded the grading impact would be less. Commissioner Henninger asked the Traffic Department to bring back an analysis of the stop sign situation along Avenida Margarita. 6/15/9..'' ~ ,. r ..ISYC.: f J 1 ~ • 11~ t~ - Y~ ~ ; II~fJUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 15, 1992 ` „ _ - - - Page No. 19 -- .: ,f ` Mr Yalde responded they would comply and also that they would like to meet with Mr. Morgan end_ mayGe he could pay his fair share of the cost of any traffic improv~emerrts required by the ~~ Commissioner Henninger stated there is a street in Orange where people were, shortcutting and :~ ~- they have installed a number of stop signs there to prevent that shartcutting. . kph I N:~~ r ~; 3, Mr. Yalda stated the City of Anaheim strictly follows the Department of Transportation Caltrans ~,~,~ Traffic Manual, and that was directed by City Council and if the traffic situation meets any of the ~, warrants, they will be happy to install a stop sign. ~~ ` ~~ Commissioner Henninger suggested the City Traffic Department contact the City of Orange and '~~t find out how they came to their determination. ~ r.' . *~"~'~ '' Mr. Morgan stated the Traffic Engineer said they would want him to part[cipate in paying for the °"~~~~'~' Traffic study, and asked what is wrong with the traffic study that the City of Anaheim did about ~, 2B days ago, and asked what has changed. ~+~ f' ~# ~, Commissioner Henninger stated the change is that there has been substantial public controversy and the Commission needs to address those concerns. Mr. Morgan responded he did not see why they should be Involved in paying for that study because the City of Anaheim has had the problem for years. Mr. Yalda stated this development will add additlor~~l traffic to that street and they should be responsible for some of the costs that may be Incurred by Installing ?he new signs or speed bumps or whatever is determined to be necessary. Mr. Morgan asked if they are to come back with an RS-5000 development with the 70-foot frontage. Commissioner Zemel stated he is personally saying that the RS-7200 standards are Just as important as the lot sizes for compatibility, etc. Chairman Hellyer stated he was the one who said an RS-5000 development w(th 70-foot frontages might be acceptable. He asked if the developer wants a vote today or a continuance. Mr. Morgan stated he would like a continuance. Chairman Hellyer stated he was going to offer a motion to approve this with a condition requiring the minimum lot w(dth of 70 feet and a minimum lot size of 7200 square feet. Mr. Morgan stated he would agree to those ;,tandards and stated that fs how he was planning to redesign the plans. 6/15/92 4 ~~ , . ~.f "•'c, I .; `, T^ - 3' ~ mo. ~C, ... ~ ' Y {~3 _ ~ y ;~ MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 15, 1992 ~ Page No. 20 '`" ~ Commissioner Messe stated he would agree with that proposal and that some lots would qualify >° ;' fot a variance, and that a 0-lof line would be acceptable f M1~' ;.a ~ `Commissioner Peraza stated he would also support that type of proposal. ;, , ''~~-~ Commissioner Zemet stated he thought it is equally important to look at the other zoning tA,,.. ~;'„' standards. ~:, ~. :~~,~~,; ,~ Commissioner Peraza stated he would like to see the plan on paper and Mr. Morgan stated he wants a continuance so he can put it on paper with 70-foot frontages, 7200-square foot minimum lot size, with 0-Ict line and keep the present configuration. ~ ~; Commissioner Bouas stated the street should not be opened. ,,., w ~~r~'; "s~:. s r [_ „ems?-~ri. BSIL4L'. Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the meeting of July 13, 1992, at the request of the applicant in order to submit revised plans. RECESS: 3:55 P.M. RECONVENED: 4:05 P.M. (Commissioner Peraza did not return to the meeting.) 6/15/92 y '. ,~? ~ ' ~. ~~;, ~ ~ - - ~ .. ran MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 15,1992 ' ~."~~ ~' Page No. 21 ~ ,. 'ITEM NO.3. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 328 ~w~ - - ~, ; . ~; fjUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY: The Clty of Anaheim, 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard., Anaheim, CA 92805. An amendment to the Housing Element of the City of Anaheim General Plan incorporating an analysis and programs to preserve assisted housing at risk of converting to non-low-Income uses per SB 1019. a ~~~ ~r , ~, r ~.. ~:~~ °~:~~; Eric Nicoll, Housing Development Manager, explained the Community Development Department prepared an amendment to the Housing Element and it addresses new legislation that requires cities to review potential expiration of affordable housing units; and that assessment has been completed indicating resources available and developing quantified objectives and programs to address expiration of affordable housing in the City and they are all contained within Appendix D to the Housing Element. He stated they are asking the Planning Commission to approve the a CEQA Negative Declaration and recommend that the City Council approve the Housing Element Amendment. THE PUBLIC NEARING WAS CLOSED. ACTION: Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Peraza absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to amend the Housing Element of the Anaheim General Plan by providing an assessment of the preservation of assisted housing developments in the City of Anaheim which are at risk of converting to non-low-Income uses during a ten year planning period and establishes a program to preserve existing low income housing, shown in Appendix D; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that the declaration reflects the independent Judgement of the lead agency and that It has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Messe offered Resolution No. PC 92-70 and moved for Its passage and adoption that the Anaheim Clty Planning Commission does heresy recommend approval of General Plan Amendment No. 328 -Appendix D, Housing Element Update, on the basis that ft is consistent with the current Housing Element and supplements it by adding an analysis and program for preserving low income housing at risk of being converted to market rate housing. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BRISTOL, HELLYER, HENNINGER , MESSE, ZEMEL NOES: NONE ABSENT:PERAZA Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, explained this matter will be set for public hearing before the City Council. 6/15J92 x~ ,.. .y ' ZiC'.:-:':J'... f, ~ Q J SbF:i • •;)Z e.'s,' .. t,, _ ,~ MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 15, 1992 Page No. 22 READVERTISEDI. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14611 fREADVERTISED~, PI~BLIC HEARING. OWNERS: NEWPORT PACIFIC REALTY & INVESTMENT 4400 MacArthur Boulevard, St®. 900, Newport Beach, CA 92660. LOCATION: 2861-2863 West Lincoln Avenue ,(~gj Air Manorl. Property is approximately i.8 acres located on the north side of Lincoln Avenue and approximately 300 feet east of the centerline of Bel Air Street. Reclassify from RM-1200 to RM-2400 Zone. To permit the conversion of an existing 65-unit 'deck-type' apartment complex to a 65-unit, 'affordable', 'deck-type', condominium complex with waiver of minimum building site area per dwelling unit and required elevators. To establish a 1-lot, 65-unit, RM-2400, air-space, condominium subdivision. Continued from the March 23, and May 18, 1992, Planning Commission meetings. There was no one Indicating their presence in opposit(on to subject request and although the staff report was not read at the public Nearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. AI Marshall, Newport Pacific Realty, 4400 MacArthur Boulevard, agent, stated they have provided a great amount of documentation and covered all the items pointed out to them. He stated they intend to provide 65 units, all to be sold within an affordable housing price range; that 5296 of the project would be under the Housing Department's control and seven (7) of those units would be sold at a very low price. He stated Item No. 3 on the agenda today was the replacement issue for affordable housing, so it is not difficult to see how valuable affordable housing can be when presented in the proper light, provided that the quality of life can be proven. He stated the cost per unit for replacement today, according to Housing, based on this density, would be 5106,000 per unit and they are offering units between 570,000 and 5115,000. He stated affordable housing is very difficult to produce and with Disney providing 28,000 new jobs in a very short time span, it is Imperative that the City approach these issuos and look strongly in the face of an overwhelming burden. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Alfred Yalda, Assistant Traffic Engineer, asked if they have a gate and whether they got the gate approved by Traffic Engineering. Mr. Marshall stated they did not get approval. 6/15/92 ~1T~tYS~.~'.: _,.:1 ~ 1„~'~" n~~~ tr; ( i~ _ ~ s ~ ~,a. .. ~r +',,rYSn,, i 7[' k. ~1 _ i beti n ' r Xx q7 ~5 ~ Y F ~` ~. ~- _ _ _ ~r~ T _. ,;~MINUTE$, ANAHEIM CITti' PLANNING COMMISSION, June 15, 1992 9= `- ~ Page No. 23 ~.,: ~_ -. ~ `Commissioner Messe stated he has a lot of questions and asked why the 15-gallon trees are `' ' - beln~ referred to as gifts the developer will be giving to all the new owners. }~-': M'r. Marshall stated that was a suggestion from Mr. Wright, the consultant for Housing, and that '•u;~~~`- ` they had pointed out to him that it was difficult to put a tree in a pot on a deck in a t. ~:;;°~' condominium and have it taken care of because there is no !rrigatton, pointing out they are ~ns`- ` providing irrigation and drainage in the planters. He explained Mr. Wright had indicated he ''' really wanted to see a tree in every courtyard and suggested that they be made gifts and then the owners would adopt them and take care of them. Commissioner Messe stated if it is a gift and dies, then it wUl be Just a pot sitting there, unless the CC&lis say that it has to be watered and if it dies, they would have to replace it. 4 ~`' Commissioner Messe asked about signs. ~;~ .. ~ Mr. Jamshid, Architect, explained he had submitted this sign plan to Cheryl Flores in the Planning Department, and she had one comment that they exceeded the 20 square feet and r ~'` they had a difference of opinion on the calculations. He stated she also wanted to know ff the ' sign would be more than 120 feet from the west property line. He stated they will decrease the size of sign by 1046 which was over according to her calculation. He stated the plan was '~ ~ ~~ submitted six or seven days ago. ~. Commissioner Henninger stated this conversion is being proposed as a means cf providing affordable housing in the City and asked the current distribution of affordability in terms of the rental use. Eric Nicoll, Housing Development Manager, Community Development Department, stated they requested that the developer survey the existing tenant profile and of the current residents, 54% are very low Income, 2696 are low Income and 20% are moderate or above, so that is about 80% low and very low Income of the existing tenants. Commissioner Henninger noted this proposal will displace low and very low Income families. Mr. Nicoll responded it appears that could be a likely result and that is their primary concern with this type of project anc~ explained It may substitute some very low Income with low income families and that the Housing Department doesn't have restrictions on the whole project and they like to do mixed Income projects. He stated their primary concern was that this type of project will displace quite a few families who are already meeting the affordable housing ' requirements. Commissioner Messe clarified that 80% of tenants now are in the very low and low Income bracket. '' Mr Marshall stated those people are paying a higher rent by living in their project; that they have the highest rents in that neighborhood for apartments and the lowest vacancy rate. He stated it sounds to him Ilke they could be prime candidates and would definitely qualify for 6/t5/'92 i, ~~ r ~~;~~ .~,~ rl ~'- • VOTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION June 15 1992 x,,. F a,,_ , Page No. 24 M ~V.., ~~, ,`purchase of these units. He explained the actual mortgage on this will be at or below the A``:V`` "'monthty rate they are currently paying for rent. "; .Commissioner Messe asked if he is saying they would purchase at the market rate, pointing out 8Q96 of the existing tenants are in the low Income bracket. Mr. Marsha!! stated they are at the low and very low Income bracket, but they are paying rents similar to what a mortgage payment at a higher rate than the very low affordable would be monthly. He responded to Chairman Hellyer that the actual rental range right now is $725.00 to 5750 per month and the normal rentals there are $850 to $875 per month and they have been dropped to get the occupancy rate up, so they are currently paying $725 which is the least expensive unit. He explained their manager has talked to the other apartment managers in the immediate area and determined that their rents are higher. He explained the complex diagonally across the street is in great distress because of the rents. He stated they have replaced their management a numbs; of times and the last two have been effective managers and as a result their occupancy rate has gone up and their rentals have stayed the same at $725 for almost a year. He stated although a lot of the people here are in the Income range of very low, they are paying relatively high rents and there are a lot more units available at much lower rents right now in the area. Mr. Nicoll stated when a person makes a choice to buy, there are other requirements such as qua{ifying credit-wise, and the question is not if they can make a $750 per month rent payment, but do they qualify fora 5750 per month mortgage payment. He stated there are also points associated with originating any real estate loan which the current tenant may or may not have as liquid assets available to them and the developer as yet has not suggested any assistance in the down payment. Mr. Marshall responded they have and noted the proposal submitted today also brings with It some offer of owner-financing for those who don't have the credit because credit is a big issue. He explained they have seven units at the very low income range and they were laid by other developers not to do that because it is so hard to get people qualified in the very low range. He added the problem is not necessarily that they cannot make the payments, and not necessarily that they cannot give a down payment because it is allowed ss a gift through FHA/VA programs, but their credit won't allow them to qualify. He stated they are offering some additional developer/owner financing that will Ignore to an extent credit problems because it is a homeownership situation and when people work very hard to get in, they often will do above and beyond what they have done in the past; which their credit history may misrepresent and they will work very hard to stay in. He stated that is part of the package they are offering and that is not going to be found in most proposals brought before the Commission Ilke thrs. Commissioner 2emel asked how many loans could be made and Mr. Marshall responded they could sell all seven at the very low under an owner-occupied loan. 6/15/92 ~~ J_ A(: b~, 3. 4~t1~" .~~. . ~ ~- _ ~ ~~~~ ~ ® • ~r` fy~ ~~ t: Y GY~ ~a1~" , '~~ ~ 'MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 15, 1992 ,,,N, ,, Page No. 25 ~... , J Commissioner Zemei asked ff that would apply to these existing tenants and Mr. Marshall responded 'yes' that the existing tenants could qualify for the very low Encome. He stated the °^'" credit Issue is very cr(tical, as well as the tenant being able to make tha down payment and - monthly payment. ~~ e~~ ~,h . a a v~#s ...~ ,..;; ~~< _:. ~,~ . ~, ny ,,~~e~-_ Commissioner Henninger stated the staff report indicates there fs a problem there with the .guest parking and apparently there is a place where people can park and then call the owner . and have the owner open the gate for them to get into the parking. He asked If it would be feasible to have an Intercom system and a remote ability for the owners to open the gate to the parking structure. Mr. Marshall stated they could add a second Intercom system if that is appropriate. He explained their concern was that they pull fn and then try the intercom system and then not be able to back out and would then be blocking access and even though they have done a turn- around, it is still awkward. He suggested If they provide a second Intercom that it be placed In a different location and explained right now, people drive up front and park on the street and then buzz to get in and visit their friends and if they are staying, they then bring their car around and Into the garage. He stated the residents are very adamant about keeping that gate and that is why they have maintained it and requested a variance for it. Commissioner Henninger stated currently there fs no ability for the owner to open the gate from their unit. Mr. Marshall responded they cannot open the parking gate, but they could install that lust like the gate operator on the entry. Commissioner Messe asked if the hammerhead plus an Intercom would meet with the Traffic Engineer's approval. Mr. Yalda responded that is fine as long as they get the Traffic Engineer(ng approval and they should not Install it first and then come back and request a variance. He responded to Chairman Hellyer that he would work with the applicant. Mr. Marshall stated they have gone to Mr. Yalda with their varianco request and have outlined it and he had suggested the back turnaround and he did work very hard to find a way to make this work. Commissioner Henninger stated there is a condition included pertaining to rental relocation. Mr. Marshall responded they are most concerned with that because it Ignores state law; that there is one of the residents who did not want to move yet, and they offered to relocate that tenant and pay the moving expenses, but would like to do it on a case by case basis, rather than Just having a blanket $1500 f~y:!re which they would become exploited for because their experience has been that if someone offered something even slightly better to their package, the residents will move out. He stated they are willing to work with people who need relocation assistance and have no problem with that but do not 11ke a flat fee of 51500 per resident being 6/15/92 .y' ~ f ~ ~,: ~,~. !` ,~ .~~ x, ~ < r ,~.,__ r „~ ,.~ • . _ ~a~s.,~. `MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 15, 1992 r ~~ Page No. 26 >~~ ~~Imposed. He stated they are willing to abide by the state law, but thls is far and above any laws .r"`,"they have seen. ,. .1~~~`_V Commissioner Messe stated it is not far and above anything the City has done on other •?%;'. conversions. ' ~ Commissloner Bristol stated this is also a request for the City to allow something that has not +~ ~~ ~ ~'~ been allowed before, and noted this is hefty density. >~s: ;; '~'~' Mr. Marshall statad they will do what the City says and they always have. `^, e Commissioner Henninger asked if they currently require a security deposit from the tenants and ;;;;; a'`~;;. ` Mr. Marshall responded they do require a security deposit of 5400. He stated they modified the ~,,fo,~,;;, security deposk to make their package very marketable and vc y attractive and it is a minimal ,;, ,~, _ deposft, and that would be refunded. Commissloner Bouas asked if the conversion would be done over a period of time. Mr. Marshall responded they had planned a three stage development; that they have 13 people on their list asking to stay and 2 other possible; that they would ask those who want to stay what unit they would like and they would begin that unit first. He stated the tenant would have their choice of color of carpet and the paint and they are giving those tenants some immediate preferences. He stated if they don't live in that unit and it is available, they would do it first and move them Into it; and if it is not available, then they will work around them in their unit tf they so choose. He explained there is only a day and a half when they could not actually be in their unit and that is when they take out the sink and the plumbing and when they paint. He explained for the people who move out immediately, those units would be done next and people who stay to the end would be the last ones to be done. Commissloner Zemel clarified there is a 5400 security deposit on file for every tenant. Commissioner Henninger asked if a security deposit is typically equal to one mo+~th's rent. Mr. Marshall responded that is normal, but in these times, people are offering half a month's rent free ff they sign asix-month lease and sometimes it is in the beginning, sometimes at the end and sometimes it is spread out over the lease, and that they reduce the rents accordingly and there are some creative methods being used to entice tenants. Responding to Commissioner Henninger, Mr. Marshall stated it costs 5200 or 5300 for a small operator to move a tenant from one complex to another. Commissioner Zemel stated the applicant has offered to refund the 5400 security deposit, and pay the 3200 to 5300 moving expense. 6/15/92 4 , + ;C _. ~ti~ %Y i , MINIiTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 15, 1992 Page No. 27 ~,: r~ x~ M Mr Marshall responded that was basically the agreement, except the 525.00 fee for transferring w syt`- ' ttielr electrical. ~T :. ~ _~ ` . . Commissioner Henninger stated the developer indicated that for people ptanntng to purchase a ` unit, they would minimize the amount of time they would need temporary housing and asked if ^' ` . they would cover the cost of the temporary housing and Mr. Marshall responded they would aw` .,over the temporary housing, either by allocating a finished unit for their use of that night or by putting them in a motel locally. j';a Commissloner Henninger stated he knows every complex has deals on security deposits right ~~ ~~ z~-,. now because of the market. He stated he would be tempted to ask the developer to provide :~~`r,_ ' ' them w(th a relocation assistance that would be equal to their current one month of rent, minus ~~;-~-;. , the security deposit. ~~' ~ .~ ~L~Y, Mr. Marshall responded that is acceptable. ~~3, ,r- ,,,~~ ,.. Commissloner Henninger continued the timing of the benefit is Important because they need it before they leave so they can make a security deposit some other place and typically the security deposft is held for 10 days. Mr. Marshall agreed. Commissloner Messe asked if all of staff's concerns have bean addressed such as the dyer vents, drainage, etc. Eric Nicoll stated they have reviewed the plans In detail and there are certain areas which are not addressed at this time and they are still in the conceptual design phase and those really need to be looked at by both the Engineering staff and the Building Department and they have not gotten Into construction drawings with these modifications and he felt the answers would not be known to a lot of these concerns until the construction drawings are developed and they can review them. He stated the second story balconies show a gutter coming out, but no • downspout and the question would be do they drain off into the lower decks of the unit below or do they go to an outside dra~~n. He stated also they do not know if the planter boxes are draining to the surface drains that are in existence now or if those planter boxes would drain into a subterranean or sub-deck drainage system and a lot of ambiguity remains on the plans as to how they are going to Implement some of these recommended changes. Commissioner Messe stated there is a condition Included which says that Community Development would be able to review those construction drawings. Mr. Nicoll responded that is correct and stated through the design review process, under the design guidelines, they could continue to do the review work through the construction phase as well as monitor the project through the construction phases, and if significant differences occur from the conceptual plans today and the final working drawings, they would recommend that come back to the Planning Commission for their review and approval under general conformance. 6/15/92 ;._::::` ~ ~'` . . y a ~ `Chairman Hellyer asked ff the developer agreed with that condition. ~~ , ~f, Mr. Marshall responded he did agree and wanted to make sure Mr. Hanna, the owner, understands. ~~ , MINUffS, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 15, 1992 F ,~ ~ ~ ~~ . ~ Page No. 28 ~` `'= Commissioner Masse stated this complex was built as an RM-1200 project and after the conversion, ff it happens, it will still be an RM-1200 project and he thought that is Just too dense for ownership. He stated he certainly feels that ft implies that this Commission is approving RM-1200 standards for ownership and he did not feel he could be in favor of this proposal. 1~' _ I ~~ r~ Commissioner Bristol stated this is not an easy decision; that he reviewed this on an individual basis and as much as he thought this would be better, he agreed with Commissioner Masse that this Is too dense for ownership units on this site. He added he is definitely in favor of homeownership, but cannot support it on this property. Commissioner Zemel stated he shares the same concerns and has wrestled with this Issue arw his background dictates that he lean to home-ownership opportunities, especially for low Income families and a chance to own their own property. He stated he is hopeful that If this is approved, a good number of the existing tenants would purchase. He stated there is no way he would vote for this if it was not already built, but that he Is looking at this as an opportunity to make the very best of a very difficult situation. Commissioner Henninger stated he is still worried about the concept of this setting precedent; and that we may see a flood of these RM-1200 conversion requests. He stated this does not really fit the normal density bonus criteria and the density is well beyond that and he would like to see something more. Ha stated the developer has indicated that 10096 would be sold as affordable and that is something that should be considered. Commissioner eouas stated this decision Is about as tough as anything that has come before the Commission because she agreed in part that It is a great thing and something that we need, but was concerned that this is going to set a precedent and there would be many more wantiseg to do this and she did not feel comfortable with this density for homeownership. She added she realized this would be a tremendous improvement for this facility. Chairman Hellyer stated this Is new for the Clty of Anaheim and Commissioner Masse has always had the opinion that this density is not right for ownership units and pointed out right across the street from this development, there are about 500 apartment units. He stated ft has been a long time since Anaheim has offered any ownership opportunities around the X100,000 range and It would be a real advantage If it could be done. He agreed that it is a tough decision and stated he would not vote for this if it was rough land, but this is a way for the Cfugl to use the private sector money to Increase the affordable ownership stock and to repair a bad situation. He stated he willing to take the risk. He added he does not recognize the precedena value in this because the Commission weighs each case individually. He added he thought tfrits is a good blend and it is not all affordable. i 6/15//2 ~, J ., . _ ~~~fi. 'Y 1 _ `yr 5,!~ ~ ~., • • sE° s ~,~,t t~ .. Fi ~.~ r` MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 15, 1992 ,z .., Page No. 29 ~= Commissioners Mssse and Bristol were concerned about what the Commission would say to the owners of the 500 units across the street when they come in for the same thing. ~` ` Mr. Marshall stated he would like to request atwo-week continuance in order to have all the Commissioners present for the vote. `M~ Eric Nicoll stated he would request that the developer provide in writing the proposal he offered ~;~, ~ ~-'. ~ today, which staff had not previously heard, regarding assistance to the low and very low Income purchasers. ~'~ ~ Commissioner Henninger stated there was a commitment also regarding temporary housing, '"~=" relocation benefits and assistance to the low and very low income purchasers and the proposal ~kx~~. ; , would be to Include the three Items recommended by staff. P'` ,..~~,~~-.5: Mr.Nicoll responded to Commissioner Henninger that those are Issues they are trying to work k;, . out at staff level, but their overall policy Issues remain the same and they still feel that the RM- `:x. 2400 Is satisfactory density to meet with ownership housing and it is also available for rental housing and that the long-term investor renting the unit is a very big concern, as well as the 5096 vbry low Income residents who may be relocated out of the project. Chairman Hellyer stated he talked to two residents who live right behind this project on Polk Avenue and they asked why the Commission would not approve something Ilke this because ownership Is better than rental. Commissioner Henninger stated the investor is an Issue that has not really been discussed. He asked if there is any way to guarantee that these units would not be purchased by absentee Investor landlords and would be rental units again. Mr. Marshall stated the requirement of their financing, FHA/VA, requires that 7096 of the project be owner-occupied and it cannot be a investor dominated project. He stated as such, every FHA or VA application must qualify as owner occupied and since 5296 of the project would be affordable, they know immediately that those are owner occupied and that leaves 2596 which must be owner occupied and that is easy to monitor. Commissioner Henninger asked how that balance is maintained after they sell the project. Mr. Marshall responded that is under the CC&Rs and added it is very difficult to do. He responded to Commissioner Henninger that he would accept that as a condition of approval. Mr. Nicoll added he thought that would have to be a condition in the CC&Rs because the primary financing goes away after the first sale and those restrictions of tha additional 2596 would go away upon subsequent sales, unless a loan was assumed and he thought I< is appropriate to have that in the conditions. Commissioner Henninger stated he did not understand the rationale that says it Is o.k. to have renters at RM-1200, but people should not own at those standards. s/ts/s2 ~' ~x ,;~ ~ ^ ~,. . . r.,4:. ' ~~ a +~ ~`~'" ~• ,~~.~ ,P; - ,~.; ~~ 4 r ~ !~. ~ .. ~,; fs. ~~,~1.,, ~' ~: • ~ CI N 7S~ {.'Zt ~ rym 7 • "MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 15, 1992 ~'' ", .. Page Na 30 Mr.:Nicoll stated their argument essentially is that when there is a RM-1200 project at 36 units p'.'er, acre and there are 65 units, they are still under one owner and if there are problems with oa=going maintenance or management, Code Enforcement goes after that one owner, but if a project such as this divides up Into an association, there is Board and there are multiple owners which Code Enforcement has to deal with. Commissioner Henninger asked how that differs on RM-2400. Mr.Nicoll responded from a land use standpoint, the RM-2400 can offer more open space, ma ~• amenities and more enhancements to the people who are buying the property. He added the deck housing project with minimal landscaping and small units, doesn't seem to lend itself towards long-term ownership. Chairman Hellyer stated his opinion is completely opposite and stated when there is a higher density, there Is more protection with ownership and the people who own it will maintain it better. He stated he thought the City should recognize that if we are going to put people in this kind of density, ownership is better than rental. He added this helps to stimulate the economy by getting the first buyer in, and ft affords them the opportunity to build equity and move up. Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, stated requiring owner-occupancy is something the Commission can put in as a contractual type of thing and include it fn the CC&Rs, but the enforcement of that is only going to be as valid as the vigilance of the homeowner's association, and to the extent that It becomes something that is commonly done by the owners, it is not enforced and there are problems with the right to rent your property and the alienation of property rights; that the lender may require that, but as a governmental entity and requiring ft in the CCBRs, it may not be a reality. Chairman Hellyer stated tl5~t is correct and it would not be right to expect any kind of grant deed restrictions or anything else on the association to enforce that; that this is a beginning opportunity and we can be assured that at least over one half of the units would be owner occupied because of the affordable loans, but it would not be possible upon resale to use any kind of assistance Instruments if the owner occupied use is out of balance. ACTION: Commissioner 2emel offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Peraza absent) that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the meeting of June 29, 1992, at the request of the petitioner in order to have a full Commission present. ITEM NO. 5. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION. RECLASSIFICATION N0. 91-92-18. WAIVER Oi= CODE REQUIREMENT. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3517. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14672. PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: WILLIAM SHEA, C/O Paul Kott, (Steve & Jui Ching) 504 N. State College Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92806. AGENT: ANDREW HOMES, 4400 MacArthur Blvd., #900. 6/15/92 ~~ y, .:~~xr ,;.~, Noe . t .. ~ ~. 21 ',~F ~~~ • !{ ~~ ri - ~ , ~T~ MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 15, 1992 .~~~ Page No. 31 :., ~±~-, ~~~,. j. .Newport Beach, CA 92660. LOCATION: 842 South Knott Street. Property is approximately 1:08 acres located on the east side of Knott Avenue and approximately 350 feet south of the `~<~'.~`' centerline of Rome Avenue. To reclassffy from RS-A-43,000 to RM-2400. '~f r ?? t fix, . ~~~. To permit a 19-unit condominium complex. To establish a 18-lot, 19-unit, RM-2400, air-space, condominium subdivision. Continued from the March 23, April 20 and May 18, 1992 Planning Commission meetings. There were three people indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and three people Indicating their presence in favor of subject request and although the staff report was not read at the publl;, hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Mo Mohanna, Agent, Andrew Homes, 4200 MacArthur, Newport Beach, CA, stated the~Y mado every effort to consider staff's recommendations and to incorporate the Commission's direction and to address the neighbors concerns regarding privacy. He stated there were four waivers and a concern about the future potential development of the L-shaped parcel. He stated the first two waivers were for the 20-foot setback and the maximum height allowed within the first fifty feet and they have revised the plans to provide a full 20-foot setback on the south property Ifne where they are contiguous to single-family homes, and do not have any structures more than one story high in the first 50 feet and at the point where the second story commences, they have provided high pitch roofs without any visual Intrusion Into those single- family homes to the south. He stated the third waiver addresses site coverage, so they have reduced the total unit count from 19 to I units in order to reduce the site coverage to 39.9%, and are still able to retain 3-car garages for three of the units. He stated by eliminating one unit from this project, they were able to provide a tot lot with playground equipment which was not previously provided and have relocated the pool from the southeast corner Into one centralized location to centralize the entire leisure-recreation in one area, and pointed out most of the leisure area is located right across from the open space being used by the day care center. He stated the portion closest to Ynott is asingle-family residence and the portion where the pool, spa and tot lot are presently located is directly across from the playground area so any noise would bet card fire playground area. Concerning the private driveway, he stated they have maintained the private driveway and created stamped concrete to differentiate between the pedestrian accessway and it can still be used as access to garages. He stated they have also provided a secondary pedestrian accessway for the southerly buildie~ which is basically accessed through the backyards and they understand in the past the Commission has not been very receptive to that type of secondary pedestrian access:~:ay. 6~1SJ'S2 -~. Y' ~"# ~ ` UTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION June 15 1992 k~ a~'-~: .. >, ~` ,i .;~i; _ _: Page No. 32 1., _ N. ~ ' Concerning the L-shaped parcel, Mr. Mohanna Atated staff has carefully reviewed that and found ..Y„r; thatahe General Plan designation for the L-shaped parcel at this time is low medium and also that he existing use is commercial office and therefore, the maximum struct r I h ^ u a elgh. and setback requirements would no longer be waivers. Regarding the east elevation which overlooks the relatively narrow portion of the L-shaped parcel which is 60 feet, he explained ~ r r previously there was one balcony with a possibility of visually intruding into the backyards of ''~~ the single-family homes and they have completely eliminated any balconies or any windows in '~~ ' - the second story to assist in mitigating completely any visual intrusion. ~~,~ `~~`'` ~ Mr. Mohanna stated they did make every attempt to negotiate with the owner of the L-shaped _ parcel to purchase chat property, but to date they have not been successful. ~~ :: ~~"~.,,.. ; ^ He stated they attempted to have a neighborhood meeting and d!d not have a great number of .people show up, and their main concern there was to allow the neighbors to take a look at the plans and discuss the efforts they have made in reducing the waivers and mitigating the visual intrusion and reducing the density. He stated there was a concern mentioned by the neighbors about the traffic on Knott Street and that was addressed and clearly identified by the Traffic _ Engineer as to the number of trips and the maximum that could be accommodated on that street. He stated the Traffic Engineer said It has not reached Its ultimate at this time. He added taking that traffic into consideration, they feel that single-family residences c-~ such a busy street is not the best solution and that this multiple-family complex on Knott would be a buffer between a busy street and the single-family homes. He stated many of the neighbors are concerned about the other multip~e-family reskiontial developments further north on Knott, and that he has driven down that street and sees what they are talking about and that he has asked the neighbors to go look at some of the protects they have developed, mainly on Ball and Western. He stated the price range for these units will be, 2-bedrooms $150,000 to $155,000 and 3-bedrooms, $175,000 to $195,000, and stated they know they will be able to sell these units and they feel the prf~;es will be up $5,000 by the time it is fully sold. He added they do not feel they a:e seriously impacting the value of the nelghbors' properties and if a multiple-family type product is selling from $175,000 to $195,000 in their area, 4hey believe they are improving it from a vacant piece of land with an Incredible record of Code Enforcement violations since 1983. Arthur Royer, 855 S. Canoga, stated the real question is whether this development really meets with the comprehensive plan fcr their neighborhood; that they are fighting to maintain their visibility e.s asingle-family community, low-density, RS-5000. He stated they presented a siflned petition bearing 83 signatures at the last meeting in protest of this development. He stated ft is clear that the developer has made an effort to purchaise the L-shape property and has eliminated the waivers and that fs appreciated. However, they would Ilke for this property to be developed Into single-family units which will maintain their neighborhood's integrity and their property values. ~~ ., _ ~. s ~.. . 6/15/2 Y; • No. 33 HB sugflested encouragement from the Planning Commission fc~r these type developments at Knott Avenue and Bafl Road, on the northwest corner, which is ideal. He stated that would s allow the structure to fit in with the building theme on the west side of Knott and north of that ` property and provide unlimited expansion capabilities and provide for another arterial traffic ' ~:~~', route for the residents at that location entering into and exiting onto Ball Road. He added that ` ~ f'-? would also relieve the already overburdened traffic route on Knott Avee,ue and asked why their z ~~~% neighborhood should be targeted for this project. He stated they realize the rights of eminent ~~'~ domain and the property owner's right to self his property to whomever he wishes, bui It is --- ~. apparent that this property is being sold to maximize Its peak cash profit. ss ,~. Mr. Royer stated he wished each Commissior+sr could accompany them back to their t neighborhood and personally see what they are actually arguing about. He stated If the µ_ ; ; , Commission approves this development, they believe It will end up a nuisance for the property owners who reside nearby snd especially those who border the development and the buffer ~~ aone which he would call 'nightmare alley'. He stated there is no way t~ project what will happen to this undeveloped property and he was sure none of the Commissioners can assure them or give them a written guarantee that this will not turn into a nightmare for them when the real estate owner approaches the City for a motel or uses this condominium project as his '' precedent for medium density. He asked how this momentum would be stopped. He stated he would Implore the Commission to listen to the residents who are here today and the ones who are not here now and had to leave and consider the signed petfti;: that they don't want this development and added the power rests with the Commission and asked if they will be here next year when they ~ aturn to voice their complaints and will there be someone here who can reflect back upon their efforts to stop Yhis, or will there be a new panel of Commissioners who know nothing about it. He stated be believes ±nat if any one of the Gommissioners was one of their neighbors, they would be sitting here waiting to speak against the project. He stated the developer sent the residents a letter inviting them to a meeting for last Thursday at 6:30 p.m. and the letter was addressed to. 'Neighbors'. He added he elected not to attend berause he was sure it was a misprint and was sure the developer, the propbrty owner and the attorney representing them will not be living in these units upon their completion, so wanted to clarify that they are not his neighbors. He stated it is time the resident's voices are heard snd not the pocketbook and the people representing the project have no vested Interest in their `~~ ` community once this is developed and they have left. nennis Glowniak, 845 S. anoga, stated the question is not whether this plan conforms to Cfty Codes, but whether amultiple-family project belongs in this neighborhood. He stated it was explained at the last meeting, that any need the city had t~• provide concentrated housing in West Anaheim has been more than adequately satisfied ~; the number of units between Bali and Lincoln on Knott. He stated the neighborhood between Bail and the drainage ditch Just north of Ball Road and east to Western are all single-family homes and it fs a single-family community and the lot In question on the far right is bordered on three sides by single-family homes with a long narrow strip on two sides that is not part of the project. He stated when they 6/15/92 ~~~ •~~a x•' v ~ 4 ti }},RC~J,fTy7 fir., ~ ~~ - i JLfTES. ANAHDM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 15, 1`92 `` Page No. 34 1 ~_: AST;': ~., ~ . 4~~ 4~ .. - n ,,, 'all purchased their homes, it was because they were in a nice well-kept single-famAy home neighborhood and part of the value Is tied to that belief. He stated ff this project goes In, It will ` change the identity of the area they live in. ~:: ~; Y- He stated he would Tike to take exEeptian to the developer and say that the appearance of the ~> project is not attractive; that he personally went to the project they developed on Ball Road and :K;- ,~ the third picture shows a couple of trees to the entrance and driving down Ball Road, looking Y into that project, you see two Tines of buildings with two stories going straight up with a narrow kr ~ "'~ road between, with no curbs to separate the road and the walkway and it looks like an alley. ~e ,~-, _ , ; He stated the next problem is the L-shaped lot and the developer was told to negotiate with the - = owner of that lot, but obviously no agreement was reached and as the Chairman pointed out at 1 ~3 ., ~'.: the last meeting, the owner of the L-shaped lot is holding out because he thinks he is sitting on ~~`'"~` - a gold mine. He asked what that lot could be used for; that It is 60 feet wide at the bottom and ~~ 89 feet wide along the side. He stated townhomes could not be built on that property, but e ~ apartments with parking and storage in the back could; that the precedent for multiple-family units would already be set by this project if it is approved, and asked about the isolated single- I ~;; ', family structures that are Just to the south of the current project. He stated if the two lots are approved for multiple-family thoso large single-family lots will undoubtedly be rezoned to multiple-family, with the possibility of apartments being developed there. ~'. ` ~ = _ He stated there may be a question as to ~±ihether single-family homes can be built on ' ~` ro ert rofitabl He stated the ma he dls la ed shows at Oran a and Knott lust ! ~ ie rl ht, P R Y P Y• P P Y 9 9 there is a new development of single-family homes and in talking to the developer today, he said the last one was just sold this past weekend and those houses are two-story and they are . over x300,000 in value, so single-far,,^ily homes can be put in this area. He stated at the last meeting most of the Commissioners believed that this project could threaten their neighborhood, but Commissioner Zemel stated the developer's Interest should also be considered. He stated the developer sees this as just another project to make a profit on and move on. He stated ttre homeowners don't have their property as Investments, but as homes and that he has lived there 15 years and some neighbors have been there 20, 30 and 40 years and they have seen from the LA riots what happens when there fs no ownership and roots _ in a community. He stated they work hard to maintain their community; that the developer's Job is to be at this meeting, but the homeowner's are taking vacation time or unpaid time to present their side of _ the Issue and, they would ask the Commission to consider the rights of the people who live In this city as being the Important issue. He stated it is within the Commissions power to change •he General Plan to low density which wcauld allow ftS-5000 zoning and that would show future potemia! Investors that this area is for single-family homes only. He slated the developer stated these 3-bedroom units would be sold at a price of 5175,000 to x195,000 and there fs a house across; the street on the market for x205,000, so he would question the ability to sell a townhgme for only SI0,000 less. 6/15/92 `;~~;. ': ' -~,:, J~,~, _.,,.1.'._ _, t_ • 7 t j w" ~y . 3 ti • ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 1:,, 1992 .~~ ~ ` Page No. 35 ~~„,,, -~~.: Bob. Campbell, 825 Rome Place, Anaheim, stated the developer said this lot has been a Code ` a:nforcement problem and that is true, but all those problems won't ga away because of this development; that the L-shaped parcel will be semi-enclosed ff this project goes in. He stated he has had a problem with graffiti on his fence and when he called the Police, they told him iii ~ `.they. knew where it was coming from and stated there are gangs down Savannah in the ,', apartments, past the ones on Knott, about 1-1 /2 miles further. He stated they have people jump over the back fence of his neighbors and the Police helicopter was flying overhead and ` .~~ that type of helicopter activity has Increased over the last 10 years. He stated people who live -^~,r ',~„- , on the other side of the fence say transients stop in there. He stated now that area is upon to '~?," ' ' Knott and the Police going by could look in, and there is some visibility, but if this development goes in and that is semi-enclosed, undesirables will soon learn that they can get in there '~}~, practically without observation and he thought they would have a lot more of that unwanted ~k ,•..~ a^~ivlty. He stated he has Ifved there 32 years and they are against this project and would like K to see single family homes maintained in this area. ~~~` ~ Mr Campbell stated a few people had to leave the meeting and he wanted that on the record. :~~~ ;': Mr. Mohanna apologized for the inconvenience to the neighbors who had to come to this meeting. He stated they think this plan conforms with the comprehensive plan for that area and • that he understands that is Anaheim's General Plan. He added these units are not the same type of product as those on Knott Street referred to and they do not believe they will jeopardize the integrity of the neighborhood because of the pricing. He stated they have just completed a similar project less than three months ago so they are familiar with this product and are successful in selling the units and believe this is the right price. He stated they did not consider single-family residences because of the location and the traffic on Knott. He stated this is 1 /2 the density of standard apartments and they feel this project would be a reasonable buffer between Knott and the single-family neighbors. Regarding the L-shaped parcel, Mr. Mohanna stated that property is currently zoned RA-43,00 and if the owner wishes to develop apartments or a motel, he would have to come before the Planning Commission and there has to be a public hearing and all the neighbors would be notified. He stated the General Plan designation for the L-shaped parcel is low medium der-s:9- and if this project is approved, it is doubtful that owner could request RM-1200, and in order t~s develop it for commercial uses, he would have to come before the Commission. Mr. Mohanna stated the LA riots were mentioned, and that they are offering ownership in the ~; community at the prices mentioned. He stated they do not own the L-shaped parcel, but did '_ f, try tc ourc~ase it; and stated if this project is approved, the owners in this project would be j~ as concerned about what Is happening on that L•shaped parcel. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. 6/ta~2 _:. . ~ s ,. FJ , pf~IUTES, ANAHEIM CiTY PUUJNING COMMISSION, June 15, 1992 ~~~ t ~ :'t t~. r~.j ~a ~, Page No. 86 .~~' ~~~.. " Commissioner Messe stated the developer did exactly what the Commission requested, except ~~' purchase that adjacent parcel. •. ;: ~c . i~~ ~ Mr. Mohanna stated there was a question regarding the pedestrian accessway in the rear. ~~ ~~ . Commissioner Messe stated they have actually eliminated those and that would become part of ;` the backyards and he, thought that is better. ~f~- Melanie Adams statad If the Commission approves this project with the 25-foot wide private ~ street, ft will be they narrowest private street approved to date. She stated several °'~':F;;`_, condominiums have been approved with 28-foot streets which is narrower than standard. i~ A 11-- P ; Chairman Hellyer stated he thought the street was consistent with other approvals and ~~ ~ Commissioner Fiouas asked if it was consistent with their project on Ball Road. ;; ~:~;, __ Ms. Adams stated at the last hearing, it was configured similar to the Ball Road project, but the :~ ~ -. plans have been revised and they show a 25-foot wide street now. Mr. Mohanna stated the previous plan had a 28-foot wide street available, with lour-foot sidewalks on each side, so the pavement was only 20 feet wide; however, in order to provide, pedestrian accessways, they revised the street to 21 feet of pavement and a 4-foot pedestrian accessway and put the 5-feet in the rear. Commissioner Messe clarified that 5 feet is I~eing used as part of the 20-foot setback. Ms. Adams responded it Is off that reap wa'Ikway and that guests would be able to buzz or ring from the gate to the units and that would not be bed, but she wanted to be sure the • Ceimmissionero realized that so otl-~er developers would not be requesting 25-foot strFiets without any other consideration and it seems we are just continually getting narrower and nairrower. Commissioner Messe stated It would be a real problem if s car parked on that private street IAr. Mohanna stated these private rj;reets are fire lanes and no parking is allowed; however,, that i~s a violation unfortunately only e~iforceable by the ho,mowner's association. He stated in ~additlon, they are providing 3.5 parking spaces and guest parking is located conveniently !gin the center. He stated no parking on the street is always in the CCIf~Rs ,end is a violation from tft~ Association and there is a fine Involved. Melanie Adams stated the fi~~dings required for approval were omitted from the staff report; a<nd that (t is Code Section 17.68.650 and there needs to be a finding made that there are special) and exceptional circumstances applicable to the property which is preventing them from conforming to the standards. ,:~ ~:, ~:~ ~r ~F~ .', ~..: ,:: , ut ~~~. , ,,; ;~;,. ~. i ~: o ~s ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 15, 1992 ~ ~:.a: .. Page No. 37 Commissioner Henninger stated the waiver was really off the RS-5000 property to the rear and suggested moving the buildings closest to Knott Avenue to the south and taking the whole five feet. Mr. Mohanna stated that is what is necessary to get the 28 feet; that they have contacted the property owner, which is the day care center, and they have written a letter that they are not concerned. He stated they can move the buildings to the south four feet with no problem. Jonathan Borrego stated there is a 20-foot setback requirement along the property to the south, which is the day care center, because it is still zoned single-family residential. He stated a waiver was previously advertised to allow encroachment into the 20-foot setback, if the Commission wishes to approve it. Commissioner Messe stated the structures to the west then would come closer to the Glen Holley Drive homes, and Commissioner Henninger clarified he was thinking only of the structure to the west, closest to Knott. Chairman Hellyer asked if three (3) feet could be eliminated from the 'A' units in the rear and Mr. Mohanna responded they are willing to comply with that suggestion. gf^ I (~: Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Henninger and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Peraza absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal for reclassification of subject property from the RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) Zone to 4he RM-2400 (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zone and to permit an 18-unit condominium complex with waivers of maximum structural height (deleted), minimum landscaped setback adjacent to single-family residential zones, maximum site coverage (deleted), and private street improvements, fora 1-lot, I-unit air-space, condominium subdivision on arectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.08 acres, having a frontage of approximately 160 feet on the east side of Knott Avenue, and being located approximately 350 feet south of the centerline of Rome Avenue and further described as 842 South Knott Avenue; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that the declaration reflects the independent judgement of the lead agency and that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Messe offered Resolution No. PC92-91 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission and does hereby grant Reclassification No. 91-92- 18, subject to Interdepartmental Comm(ttee Recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BRISTOL, HELLYER, HENNINGER, MESSE, ZEMEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: PERAZA 6/15/92 T~ 4 4 ~" Y~ 9 ' 4' ~ r 3~ F ~ . h? J~ 1 ~ •~ ~~ i.~ F _ _ S yyl* ~ ~ i • MINUTES; ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 15,1992 Page No. 38 ~` : , ~K~ .Commissioner Masse asked >f all four waivers should be denied, with a stipulation that the ~=' 'f =„ `, private street will be 28 feet wide. yti . fn , ~;. Jonathan Borrego stated waiver (d) is necessary, in part, allowing a 28-foot wide private street :<... with 24 feet of pavement and a 4-foot wide sidewalk on one side. He explained ff waiver (b) is dented, the developer could not move the building closer to the south property Tine because they need to provide the full 20-foot setback as shown on the revised plans. ~~ Chairman Hellyer explained the Commission is suggesting that three feet be eliminated from the ' 'A' plan and that a 28-foot wide private street be provided. K~ ~ ,, ~~~` Mr. Mohanna stated they would like to reduco the 'A' plan by two feet and provide a 27-foot wide street. ~~,~ , ~, = ACTION: Commissioner Messe a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION ,:,;, _ CARRIED (Commissioner Peraza absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny waivers (a) and (c) and grant waiver (b) and waiver (d) in part, requiring a 28-foot 'f'. `' wide steep, Including a 4-foot wide walkway on one side; that the structure next to the west property line sha11 be moved to the south, with a 17-foot setback required, and that revised plans shall be submitted showing a 3-foot reduction from the Plan 'A' units; on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity. Commissioner Masse offered Resolution No. PC 92-72 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim C(ty Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit N:~. 3517, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.030.030.035, and subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BRISTOL, HELLYER, HENNINGER, MESSE, ZEMEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: PERAZA Commissioner Masse offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Peraza absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find that the proposed subdivision, together with Its design and improvement, Es consistent with the City of Anaheim General Plan, pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5; and does, therefore, approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 14672 fora 1-lot, t8-unit, asv- space condominium subdivision subject to the following conditions: 1. That prior to final tract map approval, appropriate park and recreation in Ileu fees shatfl tie paid to the City of Anaheim in an amount as established by City Council Resolution. 6/~u=,/e2 ~~%'hk ~_,. -.~ Kes+~ j fF : s~ a t~ f i ' ,~N. r c r:_ : 4 ~" ; ~ ~ ~t L` , ` ~ ~ a Nwt . • '.~ z. IUTES, Af~AFfEIM C11Y PLANNING COMMISSION, June 15, 1992 Page No. 39 w~ 3. ~,: ,, .- That prior to fins! map approval the appropriate sewer assessment fee shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an amount as established by Clry Council Resolution. That prior to final tract map approval, a maintenance covenant shall be submitted to the Subdivision Section and approved the City Attorney's Office. The covenant shall Include provisions for maintenance of private facilities (including front landscaping, block walls, and private road) and a maintenance exhibit. The covenant shall be recorded concurrently with the final map. 4. That street lighting facilitlas along Knott Avenue shall be installed as required by the Utilities General Manager in accordance with specifications on file in the Office of the Utilities General Manager; or that security In the form of a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or cash, in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim, shall be posted with the City to guarantee the satisfactory completion of the above-mentioned Improvements. Said security shall be posted with the City of Anaheim prior to final tract map approval. The above-required Improvements shall be Installed prior to occupancy. 5. That the legal property owner/developer shall bond for and pay a per lot service connection fee for the installation of the in-tract underground electrical systems in accordance with the City of Anaheim Rates, Rules, and Regulations, and Electrical Engineering Construction Standards. 6. 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. 7. That prior to final tract map approval, Condition Nos. 1 through 6, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council with regard to the Reclassification and Conditional Use Permit and within 10 days with regard to the Tentative Tract Map. 6/15/92 .1,, - ~t«n ~ITEfiA N0: 6. CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION. AND RECLASSIFICATION NO.91- 92=19 ax",.~' M~~~~ PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: THE FLUOR FAMILY TRUST, 4521 Perham Road, Corona Del Mar, :~'~,.. `' CA 92625. AGENT: CECIL C. WRIGHT, 265 S. Anita Drive, Ste. 205, Orange, CA 92668. LOCATION: 1320-1382 Auto Center Drive. Property is approximately 7.98 acres located at the southwest corner of Auto Center Drive (formerly Taft Avenue) and Sanderson Avenue. `~ To reclassify from the ML to CL Zone and to construct a 2-story, 5J,000-square foot, medical office building. ,;~? :;;; Cecil Wright, agent, 265 South Anita Drive, Suite 205, Orange, referred to *.he recommendations of pages 4 and 5 of the staff report, and stated a similar restrictive covenant was recorded on the property Just to the south of this site; and that the reason for t(~e covenant was quite proper because of the occupancy and the covenant allowed that type of use on the property which is now being occupied by the Phoenix Club. He stated they would like to suggest that the Commission give them the same privilege. He explained they are not interested in building an office structure for speculation and renting It out to office users, but are Interested in something that may happen on this property, in addition to the CIGNA use which they hope to have on that property soon. He stated Kraft Foods has approached them to build a 50,000-square foot building on the part of the property not being used by CIGNA and in addition, General Electric Is approaching them to build a similar building and It would be a single tenant use. i-ie stated if the Commission adopts staff's recommendation, then it is not possible for them to qualify those two uses. He stated he asked the City Manager to send him a letter as to what he wanted them to do to amend the CC&Rs to allow the Phoenix Club to go on that site and presented an original letter dated June 1, 1990, and in that letter Mr. Ruth sold, '..as you are aware the City of Anaheim is seeking your services in obtaining the signature of your client, the Fluors, to the first amendment to the CC&Rs affecting their property in the general vicinity of Ball Road and the 57 Freeway in the City of Anaheim.' r ~,. s,;~ h YQ Continued from the May 4 and May 18, 1992, Planning Commission meetings. There was one person indicating his presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Mr. Wright stated Mr. Ruth also says In the letter that this action is to provide the City with the security that the CC&Rs have been amended to allow the Phoenix Club on this property; and that further on in the letter, he says 'as you know, this commercial potential would include retail sales of automobiles; therefore, the City staff could support the second amendment to the CC&Rs which would allow both industrial and commercial, including automobile sales applications; and that further it says that this Is a zoning entitlement he cannot guarantee because, of course, he could not contractually dissolve away the Planning Commission's r6q~rts to support zoning. 6,B'1~/92 }K~j lit ~ _ S .`414 wS ,!~a t • • S~ -,. ~~ ~~ ~ MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 15, 1992 $ Page No. 41 u„ ~- . fiAr. Wright stated he asked for further clariffcation from the Ciry and received a letter on June 6, 1990, and to that letter, signed by Ron Rothschild, it states that the City of Anaheim staff would rt* have no objection to and would be supportive of a further amendment to the CC&Rs to state ~,,.., that the development standards relative to the subject property would be no more restrictive ',~ than that provided by the City of Anaheim Zoning Ordinances. He added that was an Indication ~rx to him that when they came back to the City for a change in zone to commercial, they would not Impose a more restrictive use on the commercial zone, subject, of course, to the Planning Commission and City Council approval. He added Mr. Rothschild is saying that staff would support that and that he made it very clear that he was not committing the City. Mr. Wright stated to further support the fact that maybe this is something the Commission should consider, that he received another letter from Ron Rothschild in which he stated that the communication was to inform him that the proposed second amendment to the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions governing the use of the Fluor property and properties to the immediate south would be submitted to the Anaheim Ciry Council for approval at their regularly- scheduled meeting on July 10th, under the City Manager's Consent Calendar to be addressed at approximately 5:30 p.m. He stated a provision of the CC&Rs was approved by the City Council and did amend the CC&Rs and allowed unlimited commercial usage on the Fluor site, as well as the Phoenix Club site. He stated, however, the Commission wants to word It in their restrictive covenant, that they would be willing tt~ sign and commit the property to a restrictive covenant, as proposed by the Planning staff, and they would suggest that It be enlarged Just enough so they can bring In those types of uses suggested earlier so they won~i have to come back to the Commission if they get that typo of offer and ask for furthc r ~si~ 3f. He clarified one use was Kraft Foods and they want to bring their employees Into one single building and it could be as much as 50,000 or 100,000 square feet, and it would be office use (not manufacturing) and not rented to multiple office users. Jonathan Borrego stated that if the applicant is Interested fn bringing in that type of use on the remaining portion of the property, the Commission does have the option of only rezoning the western portion of the property for the uses described for CIGNA, and there is a provision in the ML Zone, which the property is currently zoned, allowing them to locate a corporate headquarters there by right, provided the site is a minimum of two acres in size and that it is a single-user tenant. Mr. Wright stated this is one parcel and has not been split and it would be almost impossible to split off three and a half acres and just rezone that separately from the rest of the property. He added they do not know exactly what the use will be and since the property to the south has that privilege, they feel in conveying the communications they received from Ciry staff, that is something the staff said they would support. ~~,: ~~ ti ~ :c„ Dick Basil, 1918 West Chapman, Business Agent for the Carpenters Union, stated his main concern is for the CIGNA project and that he would like to see it developed since there area {ot of their members who live in Anaheim who are out of work, and this project would be very s/15/x2 .i ?' s ~a ~ I'fJlll'E5, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 15, 1992 Page No. 42 advantageous for them getting work. He stated CIGNA happens to be one of their HMO'S and a lot'of their members do need a good medical facility in the area. He stated of all the projects he thought the Commission has heard today, that this CIGNA project is needed for their membership. Dennis Hardin, owner of two dealerships in the City of Anaheim, one at 1300 South Anaheim Boulevard and the other at 1381 South Auto Center Drive in the Anaheim Auto at tho intersection of Ball Road and the 57 Freeway, stated they have been in business on Anaheim for 35 years and are the largest single generator of sales tax revenues in the City, over 5400,000 last year. He stated the City is having a problem balancing the budget this year and one of the main shortfalls is the lack o`. sales tax revenue; that sales tax revenue fn Anaheim has bean declining for several years at a rate much steeper than other cities In the County. He stated Anaheim is a great place for tourism, but unfortunately, has not focused their attention on retail business; and that the auto dealer population is a prime example. He pointed out that sbc dealerships have closed in the last three years, which is more than Anaheim's fair share, even considering the current economic conditions. Mr. Hardin stated during the last several years, there has been a trend developing in the automobile industry towards consolidated auto centers where a number of dealers congregate together. He stated a number of advantages are that in today's automobile marketplace, wRh the proliferation of models, the customers seem to prefer being able to shop (n one stop where they can look at all the models and then make a decision, rather than having to drive all ove>; town. He referred to successful automobile centers in Los Angeles and Orange Counties such as tf~ Irvine Auto Center, the Tustin Auto Center, the Buena Park Auto Center, Cerritos Auto Cerrtan. etc. and stated the Cerritos Auto Center generates over 520 million in sales tax for the Cfty off Cerrtos; that It accounts for more than one-half of their general budget; and that the City of Cerritos goes out of their way to accommodate auto dealers because it Is such a large part a>f the economy in that city. He stated he and his father Invested 54 million in their Honda dealership a little more than omr' year ago on the premise that the properties located at Ball Road and the 57 Freeway would lbe developed Into an auto center, but unfortunately It looks like this is a very ill-conceived use mri the land presented here. He stated he thought if this project goes through, ft will be the beginning or continuance of the end of automobile dealers in the City of Anaheim. He stated this is the only auto center in this city and there Is probably room for three more dealers on subject parcel being considered for rezoning; and that with some other surrourr.~ling properties, 3 or 4 more dealers would probably fit in that area, generating a great deal of s~~s tax for the City of Anaheim. He stated it would also give the residents a place to buy their cars locally so they don't trance tto drive to other centers to shop. Ho stated if this project is allowed to go through, it will be ~ death mill to the auto center; and that the other dealers in the auto center who rare hanger mn by their fingernails would probably slip away. a ~~h ~ m S;_ s _. ~,~'L ~-p yfvR4i Lr ~ .. ,~ ~ ~ k f O M1 ~.~ ~l'_ :. ~: ~~:sv. _. '~.'. ,.~ ti~MINLfTES; ANAH[IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 15, 1~ Page No. 43 ~: :~ ~' He stated as President of their advertising association in the auto center, he speaks for the `='' . other dealers in the center and expresses their opposition to this project also; that they also felt ''' µk, that this would be a legitimate auto center when they Invested their money in their automobile kF `' dealerships. He added there are some proposals going forth now to move other automobile ;,' dealers into the auto center. He added he was sure that those dealers, once they learn that the auto center is going to be home for an HMO, will withdraw and that the other dealer; ',n the auto center, seaing that the long-term prospect for the center will be very dismal, will probably also withdraw. "'`"'' He stated Anaheim Boulevard as a place to do business for auto dealers is dead aid it fs Just a '~` ~ matter of time before the rest of the dealers on A~;aheim Boulevard have to relocate to another area and where they relocate to depends a lot on what the Planning Commission does; that if ,; : there is no auto center to relocate to In Anaheim, they will be forced to relocate to another city, ~~~ `' - and after 35 years in the City of Anaheim, that is oery distressing to him. He stated the City of Anaheim was able to find a place to relocate the Phoenix Club when that became necessary for the Sports Arena and he would propose to the City Council 9nd Planning Commission and to the Redevelopment Commission, or whoever may be responsible, that the Fluor property be traded for another property of equal or exceeding value so that the City can obtain this piece of _ property which is so valuable in the future for automobile dealerships and the generation of substantial sales taxes revenue for the City of Anaheim. He stated he (s afraid that if this Is not done, the erosion of sales tax revenue in the City of Anaheim will continue and our budget crisis will continue to escalate and vie will isolate ourselves as a cite, eliminating a vast source of revenue, and not balancing the General Fund. Mr. Hardin stated this is a very poor use of land considering the other alternatives that are available in automobile usage; that it is probably true that the development of that parcel as automobile dealerships may take a little bit of time; that some have come forth and negotiated and tried to develop there, but right now economic tim9s in the car business are pretty tough and h may take awhile in order to have that property c:eveloped; that they ~ ave an Interest in moving their Oldsmobile/GMC and Suzuki dealerships to another location and they would like tr. move to the Anaheim Auto Canter, but if this project goes forth, they cannot move there, and they will have to relocate outside the City somewhere. He added they are not prepared to make that move at this precise moment. He added with the franchises they have, they do not have sales to support the additional overhead that would be Incurred by the building of another dealership, adding he knows what those expenses are having done it with the Honda dealership. He stated the Honda dealership will probably survive for awhile, even i3 the other dealers don't because Honda is the beat selling car in Southern California right now but he did not know how much longer they can hang on there. Mr. Hardin stated he is asking the Commission to find a way that this project will not go forward so this land can be preserved for its most logical and best use and that Is an auto center. Mr. Wright stated this is a very strange request to get Mr. Fluor to trade hl~o property and added he thought that was beyond the Commission's authority, even if they wanted to and if It was possible. s/15/~ v ~ ~,;:. ~ k iJ J r }~ - `x , ~`,' ~ O ~;''}~`~ ~ _. a4. ' '-MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Juna 15, 1992 `~`~ zy°' r r ? ~ `r?+, ~ Page No. 44 ;,., t He: stated they ware vitally interested in expanding the auto center; that Mr. Fluor used to own ;twenty. acres on that site and he sold about one half of k to Mr. Ray; that Mr. Ray constructed } ~~~ two buildings adjacent to the first site which is now proposed for rezoni~tg; that there were '`some CC&Rs imposeo, not only on this Fluor site, but also where the Phoenix Club is located; and that those CCC&Rs included the restriction that automobile dealerships were not allowed; that at that time Chrysler Dodge and a couple other dealers were wilting to go on that site and he fried to get Mr. Ray to amend the CC&Rs to allow automobile dealers and he refused; that he heard later that he had sold part of the site to Newport Federal; and that he asked Newport Federal to amend the CC&Rs and they refused. `~ He stated in 1990 the City of Anaheim acquired the site where the Phoenix Club is now located and said they were going to sell it to the Phoenix Club; and added that is the transaction that ': killed the expansion of the auto center. He stated there is no way to expand an auto center on ~''', r just 8 acres and 15 or 16 acres are needed. ,._ ~r = r`'~ Pf Mr. Wright stated they were still interested in trying to get Ford on that property (Roger Miller) ~~`'~~ and they agroed to go on the Fluor silo with a ground lease and that he went to the ' Redevelopment Agency with the proposal; that he prepared a ground lease and submitted h to Roger Miller and he refused to sign and wanted to buy the property with $10,000 down on a $6 million property and he wanted them to hold it for a couple of years. He stated h~ also went to Mr. Hardin and asked if he Hras interested in the site and he was not because of the economy. He stated they have done everything possible to move that auto center along and now the Fluors are tired of Just waiting and they have been raising strawberries on a $6 million property and Mr. Hardin is now asking them to hold again. He stated they have a eery good use and are going to bring in at least 200 employees to this City and if they are allowed to go forwanf wfth the Kraft and General Electric facility, there would be another 400 employees coming to this City. Ha stated he wanted the Commission to consider what that means to the City not sitting on some ~~roperty that may never enjoy sales tax revenues which they would bs bntitled to If the auto center was expsnded. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Zemel asked what commitment was made to that area by the Ciry; and pointed out that the street is called Auto Center Drive. Richard Bruckner, Community Development, stated he has been involved on this parcel for about i-1 /2 years; that he does agree with Mr. Wright that it Is a sad tale; that the City's intention was and still is to complete the auto center in that area and provide for viable auto dealers; and that one of the City's objectives is to increase Its revenues through :;ales tax. He stated the City, however, a few years ago had another objective and that was to build the arena and it certainly committed a piece of land to the arena, understanding that the remainder of the land in the area was in excess of seven acres and would provide for several major auto dealerships. 6/15/92 ~,. ss •t ~ i. ~ n+. -~ F za ~ ~111ES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 15, 1992 ,~~, '- Page No. 45 ~`, . He adder" they are at this point distressed that the Pluors and ti;e City and other auto dealers could`not come to terms, although not through lack of trying and they did sit for several hours ~,;F,,, , _:, it several meetings to try and come-ic some agreement that would bring additional auto dealers to this site and unfortunately, no deal was struck. "c'F.; ~~~` - Mr. Brickner stated they are very concerned about the use and the orientation of the proposed use allowing views Into the remaining auto dealers; and that thr~y are very concerned about the remainder of the site and uses for the remainder of the site. He stated they did not know until very recently that the .-3mainder of the site was not availoble for auto uses and wore of the understanding that approximately one half or one third of the site was proposed to be dedicated to non-auto uses, but understood that the remainder of the site would be available for additional major auto dealers which would fill out the rest of the auto c~snter. He stated it is the City's Intent to continue to work with the Fluors to bring auto uses to the rest of that site and create a vlablsi aute center. He stated they have negotiated at several meetings over many hours and with a variety of auto dealers to bring auto ust•~s to that site and unfortunately, were unsuccessful. He added again, they are concerned abd~t the new use coming Into the site, about Its orientation, about the views Into the rest of the site and are very concerned about theso additional uses they are hearing about now for the balance of the Fluor site. i~reg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, stated the only thing before the Commission today is the rezoning and by (commission policy, staff has always asked that a project accompany a rezoning to see if a project can be developed on that property before the Commission goes forward with the rezoning; and that the plans before the Commission are simply conceptual of a uee that could go on the property. He stated there is not actually a site plan before the Commission today that would be tied to the ¢~proval, if they decide to go forward with this request. Mr. Wright stated in the restrictive covenant, Paragraph 6, it does not permit automobile dealerships on the remaining portion of the site and a covenant was Imposed on the Phoenix Club site which does not allow automobile dealerships. Mr. Hastings stated that Is because it would require a conditional use permit and the list shown in the condition would be permitted uses. Mr. Wright stated they would be willing to incl;~de specifically that it would be a permitted use on the remainder of the site that is not being developed by CIGNA. Mr. Hastings stated that would be a violation of the Zoning Code unless there is a Code Amendment that specifically permitted automobile dealerships. Commissioner Messe stated the automobile dealership would be allowed with a conditional usr; permit and these are Just the permitted uses. Mr. Wright responded he understood. ':~ 6/15/92 ~~'" y ~ _ ;t ? ~ Y f • .` ~ ~. a ~,,~ ;.; },, n ~ . sir;. ~ `r,~ fdINLITES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 15,1992 Page No. 46 ~~ Commissioner Messe stated he agreed with Mr. Hardin that the Ciity's direction was always to po forwaM wtth an automobile center and this action is the first Hall in the coffin. Chairman Hellyer stated he did not r~alize'the history of this site and he would have to agreed with Mr. Hardin and the last thing he wanted to do is make a decision that Is going to seal the fate of that auto mall. Mr. Bruckner stated when this application came forward, they had several discussions about it with City Attorney's staff and they are very concerned because the appilcarit is asking for a reclassffication consistent with the City's General Plan. He stated Community Development's objective was to reserve that land for auto uses but they could not make an economical deal on that site, so their thinking then, was that the second best opportunity was to preserve the remainder of the site for auto uses. Commissioner Henninger asked why a commercial overlay zone was not conskiered when it was determined this area sho;:ld be preserved for automobile dealers. Mr. Bruckner stated that is an excellent suggestion and they have all come to the same conclusion recently. Commissioner Henninger asked if staff could bring something like that forward now so the Commission could compare that with this proposal. Commissioner Messe stated maybe the Commission needs more time to study this project. Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, stated there seems to be quite a bit of history on this site, including the history of the condition regarding the permitted uses and the Commission ready should look at that; that the only thing being requested is the rezoning which conforms with the General Plan, but She would like to review the matter after she has more information on the background and what the recommendations have been from the City Manager's Office, etc. Commissioner Henninger stated he would like to hear more from the auto dealers regarding what sort of commitments they felt they had when they located in this area, noting it is called Auto Center Drive. Chairman Hellyer suggested a 60-day continuance, and added he would like to have this discussed at a work session so the Commission can get Input from everyone. Greg Hastings stated it could be reviewed on one of the Commission's regular meeting dates. He stated the next work session is on Juty 6th, but it could be a discussion Ism in a mornatig session, probably at the next regular meeting on June 29th. Mr. Wright stated a continuance means they would Icse CIGNA and it would be a severe economic loss to Mr. Fluor. He stated the Phoenix Club would not be building on that site today if it was not for the Fluors and in good faith they moved along with the change In the CC&Rs and that he had Jim Ruth assure him that he would get commercial zoning; that the 6/'t5J92 ~ • ,~ ,'~;. ti' k ~ ~' • q~ , °'~'~"? f~AINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 15, 1992 ~~' ~;-`~ Page Na 4T .~; ~: ~ _ ~`~~ Commission has rezoned the adjacent property to commercial aid all ih9 zoning laws would +'~_`s, indicate that they are entitled to commercial zoning. He stated the Ciry does not have a zee -~`° ~ ' that accommodates and restricts property to one single use which he did not think would be 'F supported under the Zoning Laws of the State of California, therefore, the economic loss they "~°~_'~ would sustain would be complete and further continuances are going to be a serious economic `~°~'° catastrophe to the Fluors. s; Selma idann asked if the applicant would consider atwo-week continuance so the Commission ,;.,F.,•.... would st least have a more thorough picture, rather than a 60-day continuance. tilb'r° ~'~' Mr. Wright stated he received from CIGNA by fax today their insistence that this zoning be completed In accordance with what they thought the hearings were going to be today and when ~~~~~' ~ the Ciry Council changes the zone by ordinance subsequently. He stated if he goes back and _~~;~ .. . ~''?~~~~ tells them that there is somo waffling and the Commission wants to Impose some overlay zone '~_"~' on this property so It is restricted to a single use, he was confident that they will loose the :h7~.5'-::- . '`~~° ` opportunity to lease this property to CIGNA. ~_ Commissioner Henninger asked why they would agree to commit themselves to something y-;- :,. which they understood, based on Mr. Wright's public testimony today, was not guaranteed and that they knew ft had to come through this Planning Commission. He stated they placed themselves at risk and now they will have to bear some of consequences. He stated he feels like Mr. Wright is threatening him. Mr. Wright responded that he is nsi threatening, but Is just telling the Commission that n is a economic loss. Commissioner Henninger stated there isn't any loss at all because the property is zoned ML right now. Chairman Hellyer stated the letter referred to from Mr. Ruth is a couple of years old. Ha addeG it is good evidence though end the Commission should have to take that Into conskieration but they need time to do that. Commissioner Messe stated he did not think atwo-week cont!nuance Is unreasonable in order for the Commission to study the history of the site. Commissioner Buuas stated the applicant had delayed this request a couple of times himseff. Mr. Wright stated they did not delay it, and explained the Cfty asked for a traffic study at the last minute and he was not even aware one was required. Commissioner Zemel stated he and Commissioner Bristol are both at a loss because they are new on the Commission and `rod no knowledge of the background and ha needs to personally update himself on the facts. 6/15/ ~',: ~ . Y ':l !.~ . 'ua. +~xr• tat ~ • s .v a i fin' vt= MINLfTES, ANAIiE1M CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. June 15,1992 ~. - Page Ko. 48 filly. Wright referred to the property for the Phoenix Club which had a restrictive covenant placed on ft when ft was rezoned anc~ that automobile uses are not authorized, and noted that property Is fully developed. ~'~°° Chairman Hellyer stated the Commission wants to make un informed decision and do the right ~ thing and a~b Qoing to take a couple of weeks to hear from everybody and that fs not ~-''~~~ - unreasonable. iie added he understands that h is Mr. Wright's job to try to now position the Commission Into doing what they want, but he is not inclined to do that right now because there ~': ~, Is way too much at risk for thr~ City. r, .:. s ` ' Mr. Wright stated they may lose the opportunity to lease this to CIGNA In the next two weeks and that is a S6 million loss, Chairman Hellyer responded that is regrettable. Mr. Wright ~; - continued that he did not think that property should be held in abeyance for some dealer, ?'~ ' noting he has called every dealer in this county. ~~ Commissioner Zemel stated he Is saying that he does not completely understand this Issue ~d would Ilke to get some background information. BCTION: Commissioner Zemel offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Henninger aspc9 MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Peraza absent) that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the meeting of June 29, 1992, in order for the Commission to review Stye background of this site. Chairman Hellyer asked that this matter be placed on the work session agenda for the mon~img and asked that everyone be available who should be involved. He suggested the work sessiivre begin at 9:00 a.m. 8/,tt'',.~3 ' r,. ~;~.f r .._ ~'' s ~~i ... (F f: •~ NOTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 15, 1992 `fY .,. 3 e'.,,~, }~ ~. Page Na 49 ~~~Y`.` fTEM NO. 7. CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Previously aoorovedl. TENTATIVE s ,:` TRACT MAP NO. 14§~ OWNER: JEROME MARKS TRUST, 1080 Park Newport, Newport Beach, CA 92660. AGENT: DAVID T. Mac ARTHUR, P.E., 831 S. Lantana, Brea, CA 92621. LOCATION: 2144 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is approximately 6.47 acres located on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and approximately 102 feet west of the centerline of Empire Street. Petitioner requests approval of tentative tract map to establish a 1-lot, 108-unit, air space, RM-2400 condominium subdivision. There was no one indicating their presence ~in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes ~- David MacArthur, agent, was present to answer any questions and responded to Chairman ', " Hellyer that they are fn agreement with the proposed conditions. THE Fi1BLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Henninger questioned the information fn Paragraph 12 of the staff report regarding setbacks. Jonathan Borrego, Senior Planner, explained he did review the file and that this matter did go on to the City Council and was finally approved with a 20-foot landscaped setback adjacent to the east property line and a 16 to 20-foot landscaped setback adjacent to the south property line and both those setbacks are reflected on the tract map. Commissioner Henninger noted a mitigated CEQA Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monhoring Program No. 004t have been previously-approved and are adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, stated a letter was received from the Anaheim Ctty School District with regard to this project and although the letter does express concerns regarding the cumulative impacts; and that as previously analyzed, the City is limited under the School Facilities Act to the specific statutory fee, so that additional environmental review at this point would really be a moot act and CEQA does not require a futile act and that is exactly what it would be in this Instance. She added the only reasons for dental of the tentative tract map are those expressed In the staff report, and it would be up to the Commission to analyze 'rf any of those are applicable. ACTION: Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and ' lAOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Peraza absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find that the proposed subdivision, together with its design and Improvement, is consistent with the City of Anaheim General Plan, pursuant to Government Code Section 56473.5 and is also consistent with the previously-approved condominium project; and does, ,: ~ ~ .y ,_ 6/15/92 4. ': y:. 24~ - ~. ., i a3y.:~4, • ;;r~ :MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMIaSION, June 15, 1992 1if~K Page No. 50 ~~. ~.: wherefore, approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 14697 fora 1-lot, 108-unit air space, RM-2400 ~`~ : ''." condominium subdivision subject to the following conditions: ;• a: ~ 1., .That prior to final tract map approval, appropriate park and recreation in Ileu fees shall be ~~,~~ ,.- paid to the City of Anaheim in an amo~~~t as established by City Council Resolution. a'~kh 4 _ 2. That prior to final tract map approval a fee in the amount of x350/unit, shall be paid to the ~:~,~: ' City of Anaheim for sewer capacity mitigation. ~.~~ ~~ ~ 3. That street Improvement plans; to modify the existing median Island on Lincoln Avenue to ~ accommodate the tract entry; shall be submitted with the final tract map. 4. That the legal property owner shall furnish a Subdivision Agreement, in a form approved ~, by the City Attorney, to the Clty of Anaheim agreeing to complete the public 3`~~~' Improvements required as conditions of the map at the legal property owner's expense. Said agreement shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim and shall then be recorded concurrently with the final tract map. All public Improvements shall be constructed within 18 months of recordation of the final tract map. 5. That prior to final tract map approval, a maintenance covenant shall be submitted to the Subdivision Section and approved by the City Attorney's Office. The covenant shall Include provisions for maintenance of private facilities (including private streets, private sewers, private storm drains. perimeter block walls and fencing) and a maintenance exhibit. The covenant shall be recorded concurrently with the final map. 6. That the legal property owner shall provide the City of Anaheim with a 5-foot wide public utility easement along the south property Ilne and the southern section of the east property line. The location of said easement shall be approved by the Electrical l~tilit(es Division and shall be shown on the final tract map. 7. That a loop water system between Lincoln Avenue and Archer Street shall be provided wilh minimum 20-foot wide easements for said system provided on the property. The location of said easements shall be approved by the Water Utilities Division and shall be shown on the final tract map. 8. That prior to final map approval, all condominium units shall be assigned street addresses by the Building Division. Street names for the new private streets (if requested by the developer or required by the City) shall be submitted to and approved by the Building Division. 9. That the developer shall be responsible for compliance and any direct costs associated with the Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 0041 established by the City as required by Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code. 10. That prior to final tract map approval, Condition Nos. 1 through 8above-mentioned, shall be complied with. 6/15/92 . , ': t-~ - j ,,.~ '~~: MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 15,-1992 k .-;`~,. Page No. r1 ~~` t~. ~ That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the ~'~~ extent that ft complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and. any other applicable .=,. ,;,; ~. Cfty, State and Faders( regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as ~~`-'"' to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, ,:~.. {ti regulation or requirement. ~ ~, Yv 41 y N ~ 5 :7,._,~. P;; 7'i ._`4.- '. I Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 70 days to the City Council. 6/15/9 ;:, ;i~~. ~,yi '~: >r,;' }.- ~ r. - - 'r ~ t r INUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 15, 1992 Page No. 52 w:> ~l _ ~~-: ,~, ~~? rz~.a N~i+.: ,. ~ ,. 'Y:, ~~. ~~~ ITEM NO_ a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3499 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: BRAOMORE REALTY, LTD., 721 Santa Monica Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 90401. AGENT: VAIL SPECK ASSOCIATES, 4 Executive Circle, #r150, Irvine, CA 92714. LOCATION: 270 East Palais Road. Property is approximately 4.69 acres boated on the south side of Palais Road and approximately 710 feat east of the centerline of Anaheim Boulevard. To permit an auto leasing facility with 16,000-square feet of auto preparation and outdoor storage of 144 vehicles. Larry Park, agent, 633 S. East Street, was present to answer any questions and responded to Chairman Hellyer that he had read the staff report and agreed with all the conditions. THE PUBLIC HEAP'~IG WAS CLOSED. Mr. Park referred to Page 2 of the staff report and stated after the Interdepartmental Meeting, they Increased the office space to 5100 square feet and reduced the vehicular preparation space to 4900 square feet. Jonathan Borrego, Senior Planner, responded to Commissioner Messe that the revision actually reduces the parking requirements. ACTION: Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Peraza absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit an auto leasing facility with 6,000 square feet of auto inspection/preparation area and outdoor automotive storage area for a maximum of 144 vehicles on an Irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 4.69 acres, having a frontage of approximately 80 feet on the south side of Palais Road, and being located approximately 710 feet east of the centerline of Anaheim Boulevard and further described as 270 East Palais Road; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that the declaration reflects the Independent judgement of the lead agency and that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Messe offered Resolution No. PC 92-73 and moved for Its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 3499 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.03.030.030 through 1.030.030.035, subject to the petitioner's stipulation at the public hearing to increase the office space area to 5200 square feet and reduce the preparation area to 4900 square feet; and further on the basis that the use is compatible with surrounding land uses and that adequate parking is being provided as Indicated In the traffic study as approved by the Traffic Engineering Department and subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations. 6/15/92 ~~2:~;i {{t • - AM1 .. ,'J . _~ j ~'~ `MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 15, 1992 Page No. 53 On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: =~' L AYES: BOUAS, BRISTOL, HELLYER, HENNINGER, MESSE, ZEMEL . i ' '" NQES: NONE ~ - ;.;,~,, ABSENT: PERAZA 'xs Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning ;~,~Y'! Commission's decision within 22 days to the Clty Council. ~~, ,,.;;,Y ITEM NO. 9. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION.WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3500. ~~ ` - PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: C. DARLE HALE REVOCABLE TRUST, 3910 E. Coronado Street, 's'~';' Unit B, Anaheim, CA 92807. AGENT: DARLE HALE, 3910 E. Coronado Street, Unit B, Anal~efrcc. CA 92807. LOCATION :4001 E. La Palma Avenue. Property is approximately 0.95 acre ion at the northeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Van Buren Street. To permit an Industrially related office building (including training seminars) with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. It was noted the petitioner has requested a continuance io the meeting of June 29, 1992. ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Peraza absent) that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the meeting of June 29, 1992, at the request of the petitioner. ITEM NO. 10.ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 300 (READVERTISEDI AND SPECIFIC PF3+ik 90-01 fREADVERTISED), PUBLIC HEARING. OWivER: CHEVRON U.S.A. Inc., Post Office Box 2833, La Habra, CA 90632-2833. AGENT: GREER ENGINEERING, 2050 S. Santa Cruz, Suite 2100, Anaheim, t,x 92805. PROPERTY LOCATION: Anaheim Hilis Festival Center. Property is approximately e~ acres located at the southwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Roosevelt Road. Petitioner requests a review of plans pursuant to Code Section 18.74.030.030(a) to determiire: whether the proposed location of the ground monument signs for the previously approved service station is in substantial conformance with Specific Pian No. 90-01 (The Festival). There was one person indicating his presence at the public hearing in opposition to subject request; and although the staff report was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to acre made a part of the minutes. Bob Fiscus, 2050 South Santa Cruz, Suite X2100, Anaheim, stated they are requesting to relocate the sign that was approved under Specific Plan 90-1; and that (tern No. t2A , Repo and Recommendations, pertaiMng to the colors and materials is also a part of this request:.=~ fi('~/B2 ~{` ~~ }~ ... . 1 jY ~ '~ 7. "~ ' -. ~'r '~ ~: _ ~' t ;,MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 15, 1992 n"•., _ Page No. 54 ' stated .originally when they came before the Commission for tho CUP, the sign was already ~,}, ` ' . "'` located on Festival and the drive aisle right off Santa Ana Canyon Road; that they had proposed _~ with. the rendering and the plans to move the sign down onto Santa Ana Canyon Road; that the ~3"~ elevations of the station at that time proposed a 4 or 5 foot difference in grade from Santa Ana '~ Canyon Road. He stated the elevation of their pad, as shown in the exhibit, is actually 12 feet '~ from Santa Ana Canyon Road. r`~ - ~i • r Ha explained they are not asking for any additional signs but just to move the sign from the approval location on the Specific Plan down onto Santa Ana Canyon Road. He referred to the rendering which shows what they are proposing, and explained it is a price sign with a logo and 4 h Is harmonious with the architectural treatment of the Festival overall. He stated they are working with Taubman Hour end their representative Is present, as well as the ~~L, ; . representative from Chevron. ,.r t~ He exp wined this is a 6-foot high monument identification sign and that some of the other major stations do have signs on Santa Ana Canyon Road, specifically the Shell station, and the Mobil SKr station also has a price sign on the main street at Weir Canyon. Mr. Fiscus stated they have looked at alternatives for this site but all the alternatives they considered would be a problem; one of v(sibility, one of location, etc. He stated he thought the proposal on the slope integrates the sign into the landscaping nicely and gives it a much better look than locating n in any other area. He explained they are asking to move the sign because of the marketing situation and to make this site competitive. He explained in talkin~7 with Chevron, they have learned that to the very near future there are going to be some very significant changes to gasolin6 with additives, etc., and that Is going to cause the price of gasoline to fluctuate. He stated their site does not have access from Santa Ana Canyon Road and the only access is really quite res-rtctiva so they really need the sign on Santa Ana Canyon to let the people know that they are there. Michael McKinney stated he is representing three different groups, the Anaheim Hills Citizens Coalition, 6312 E. Santa Ana Canyon Road. X157, the Board of Directors for that Coalition and also the Board of Directors for the East Hills Homeowner's Association of which he is a member and also the Board of Directors of the Anaheim Homeowner's Association and those two associations represent 653 closest single-family homes to the Festival Shopping Center_ He stated they have to voice their concerns about the movement of the sign from its original location; that there is a picture of the Shell station; however, the sign at the Shell station is ore a service road down to the station and is not directly on Santa Ana Canyon Road; that at the tirne the Shell station was being built, cne of their requests was for an opportunity to put a Shell sign on Weir Canyon and that request was dented. He stated also on Anaheim Hills and Nohl Rae~cn Road, there is a Texaco station which does not have a permanent monument sign on a maf~ thoroughfare and that's the nearest other station. He state.' other tenants in the Festival Center are not permitted any freestanding sign alonry Santa Ana Canyon, or anywhere else in the center and the revised location of the monumea;¢ fi/~`tt~/62 „?* .r `.~*.. •wi~. ;_ '~;; -,~ '~' a rdl.~, . ~ - ~ '~ ~'`~ • VOTES, ANAHEIM CITi PUWNING COMMISSION, June 15, 1992 Page No. 55 ~;-: :~r.~'? sign appears to be in direct contrast with the immediate surrounding area because of the . '`~{i_ ' colors, (red, white and blue) and seems to conflict with the earthtone colors of the existing ~•~i~Y~ ~~:~;::~'. , signage that would be on the Santa Ana Canyon Raad and the shrubby and greenery slang the r.:. ~r `~'. ;' slope. that is currently there. He stated at the proposed intersection of Festival Drive and Santa ~~ ~ Ana Canyon Road, there is a 24-foot or 30-foot major tenant sign on the southeasterly corner '~ ~.- ~ and on the southwesterly corner, there is a theater marquee currently proposed and in their op(nion, they do not feel the Chevron sign is necessary. ;;,~.,_ He stated between Festival Drive and Roosevelt Road, approximately two blocks long, there are six major signs along Santa Ana Canyon Road end the addition of another sign, or relocating the Chevron sign to Santa Ana Canyon Road, would add the seventh sign and perhaps the possibility of other Festival Center tenants wanting to do something comparable. ~,' He stated the original location of the service station monument sign was specifically tdentffled in the Specific Plan and many people, including the Planning Commission and City C'uuncil, worked very hard especially in the area of the signage, and added the; appreciated that opportun!ty. Mr. Fiscus stated there was a reference to six signs along Santa Ana Canyon Road in a twa-block area, and stated this lot is not two blocks long, 5ut it Is a considerable distance; and that two of the signs are low identification signs for the center at the main entrance. He stated certainly the red, white and blue is different, but those are Chevron's national colors. He stated they have talked with Taubman about the major tenant identification sign and they have talked to Taubman abau4 moving that down further and added they have almost 200 feet of frontage on Santa Ana Canyon Road and they moved that sign and kept the monument sign closer to the intersection. He stated durincJ the signage process, if one of the major oil companies had been Involved, this would have been brought up and he thought since the developer probably did not know service station's marketing requirements, he did not have a problem going on Festival, and the theater marquee was allowed because the theater owners knew they had to have their sign out on Santa Ana Canyon. Ha stated he understands the opposition's concerns, but thought the sign is compatible wish the architecture of the signs approved for the Festival and thought it would work and that it is not sign pollution. Brad Geier, Taubman Company, stated he want to speak in support of what Chevra~ is requesting and added he thought from the beginning they have tried to present a clean and tastefully done signage program for this shopping center. He added this is a600,000-square foot Improvement and the concern is the economic viability of a service station and the necessity to present their pricing to a public roadway which is Santa Ana Canyon Road. He stated there Is a total of six signs and three of them are actually below shopping center identification signs and are basically wall signs and they are restricted to :wo 24-foot high major tenant signs. He stated he thought Chevron's proposal io tasteful and reasonable and they have 1600 lineal feat of frontage on Santa Ana Canyon Road. 6/15/92 +t ~~, '~ ` .`rm MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY f CANNING COMMISSION, June 15, 1992 d. ~. .. Page No. 56 ~:- 4~sr THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. '4~x Jonathan Borrego, Senior Planner, stated staff's primary concern is that the signs are part of „.:r the Specific Plan process and the developers are required to bring in a sign program, not only ~'- to Insure that there are not too many signs proposed. ';ut also to get an idea which tenants will r ~' be identified on the signs and the overall number of signs proposed. He stated one concem is y~, ~ setting precedent for other individual tenants to want a freestanding sign. He stated this `` ~ - ' property is located in the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone, and staff is particularly concerned '~~ about sign proliferation and that the sign was alv:ays indicated as being offset from Santa Ana '~ "•' Canyon Road and staff did offer some alternatives, and one was to Incorporate the sign perhaps r on the southeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Festival Drive Into the slops, rather than being freestanding which kind of jets out from the slope and in this situation and in looking ~,~ at the site and location of the service station, that particular attention should be given to ~x eastbound traffic which would have a harder time seeing the service station . ~~. a.. I~rx'~ ` He referred to the other service stations in the area and stated those really were not a part of r~t> any specific plan ar~J the other signs which exist are in those retail centers on Santa Ana Canyon and Weir Canyon Road and also in the Sycamore Canyon Plaza, and there is really a Limited amount of freestanding signs, other than service station signs, and this sign is fairly close to the theater marquee sign and also to the 20-foot high shopping center identification sign. Commissioner Henninger stated he is tired of going Into the Texaco service station and being disappointed with their prices; that when the signs are out on Santa Ana Canyon Road, a person can read the price, and it Is real easy to just drive by ff their prices are higher and that he thought having the prices out there is a real benefit. He stated comparing the sign to the Carl's Jr. request Is unwarrar :~d and that he did not have any problem with the sign as proposed, being integrated into th8 slope, and It looks to be pretty close to Recommendation No. t. Mr. Fiscus responded to Chairman Hellyer that the setback distance for the monument sign is 4 feet back from their property line which firom curb face is about 16 feet. He added they could move it back a Iittlo further. Commissioner Henninger asked how far it is from the next sign up the road. Mr. Fiscus stated the plan shows the other major identification sign in the middle of the property and If they move It dawn to the very edge of the Chevron property, it would be almost halfway between Festival and the main entrance so it would be at least 140 to 150 feet. Commissioner Messe stated right now it loo.•s like that identification sign Is just about right where the Chevron sign is proposed. Mr. Fiscus responded that is correct. s/~s~2 ,. Y,, ,: :7." ~~;> j ` +~ 'Y ;F ~ '::. _ ty ., ~' '" ;'''Coir-missioner Messe asked If the Commission will be seeing another Specific Plan Amendment =1 when the other sign is removed. ~~f. •'~" Mr. Geier responded he hoped they would not have to do another amendment to move that same sign off the corner. rx;: Commissioner Messe stated it would come back to the Commission for approval as to conformance. -:. , Mr. Geier stated they would like to Incorporate that Into this request. He stated they have discussed with Chevron moving that sign down about 100 feet off the corner of Santa Ana Canyon and Festival and the signage that is going to be on the major tenant Identffication sign will be up higher so that it doesn't sit directly behind the proposed Chevron sign. He stated the revised location for the major tenant identification sign would be approximately 100 feet further '` ' to the east and that is still actually on the Chevron property. Commissioner Henninger asked ff there is any possibility ofi moving it further to maybe the center of the two driveways. ~;. "; . ~~: ~; cy ~~ Ib~jl.J;.~ ~... Mr. Geier stated he would not want to move It too much further to the east because that particular major tenant identification sign is intended to Identify those major tenants in Area 2 of the shopping center and in order to get to Area 2, they need to make a turn onto Festi~~al Drfre, and he did not want to confuse potential customers. Chairman Hellyer asked if the grade of the road is going to be redone; adding that he noticed as he approached firom the west going eastbound, there is a dip in the road as you approach the driveway where a driver loses sight of the sign and he envisioned the sign being closer tcs the top of the grade. Alfred Yalda, Assistant Traffic Engineer, stated he is not aware of any plans to change the grade of Santa Ana Canyon Road. Mr. Fiscus stated the photographs show the visibility. Chairman Hellyer stated he thought It would behoove their client to consider raising that sign and added ha definitely has a problem with it being only four feet off the sidewalk, and also there is an opporttinity there for vandalism and graffiti, etc. Commissioner FiLnninger agreed the sign should be raised so that the top of the sign is levei+ with the top of slope. Jonathan Borrego stated they would need to the balld they grade at the base of the azign becaUffie the sign cannot exceed six feet (n f:eight as measured froir~ grade. Commissioner Zemel stated raising it means it will be more of an eyesore to the community which doesn't want it anyway. s/t~/»z `~4 >~tk • 1 • s;V ~ h+ '°%~~ ~> _- - ~~- ~s x' MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, .ions 15,1992 5'~. Page No. 58 ,SF :Fred Stein, representing Chevron USA, stated they had actually spotted the sign in several ,e different locations to see where k would work best and it placed it in mid-slope but there ,~' conae:n there was the theater sign which is going to be on the other corner and they wanted to ~.:r~~"~~a get tt closer to the street. u ! '~ ' Commissloner ZemE A~~.ed if the sign is the one recumme~~ded in Paragraph No. i5, option No. ~ 1, and Mr. Borrego responded that it is. He stated the appropriate motion would be that the ~,, ~ .sign in its proposed location is in substantial conformance with the specific plan. ~~ ~.;'~- ACTION: Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissloner Messe and ~ MOTION CARRIED (Commissloner Peraza absent) that Environmental Impact Report No. 300 ? . has been certified by the City Council on March 27, 1990, in connection with the specffic plan ,~` approval and In adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for this pro)ect. ~4 Commissloner Henninger offered Resolution No. PC 92-74 and moved for Its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find that the sign in Its proposed location is in substantial conformance with the approved Specific Plan. (SP90-01) The Anaheim Hflls Festival Center. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BRISTOL, HELLYER, HENNINGER, MESSE, ZEMEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: PERAZA Selma Mann, Deputy Cite Attorney, stated the Planning Commission's action will be considered final unless an appeal to the City Council is filed within ten (10) days. She added the reference on page 2, Item 9, of the staff report and stated the reference there should be to Code Section 18.74.030.040. Commissioner Henninger stated he meant to include the movie theater sign relocation 100 feet to the east of this sign. ~~~., ~~ 6/15/92 ~~ tf ~~ ~C 1 e • ~~ .. ~ ,~., ?~ ::Y - - '"'~MINUTES, ANAHEIM CiTY PLANNING COMAAlSSION, June 15, 1992 '~ ,: . , , Page No. 59 :, y.,~_.,.,..,~ `ITEM NO 11 CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Previously Aoorovedl. AND CONDITIONAL ~{ :USE PERMIT N0.3421. (READVERTISEDI "`~°` PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: ANDREW Y. LUI, 500 North Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, CA *~'~~~ ' 92701. PROPERTY LOCATION: 500 North Brookhurst Street. Property is approximately 1.2 ~ ;, s+~: ,~ , , acres located at the northeast corner of Alameda Avenue and Brookhurst Street. iT ~~ To amend or delete conditions of approval pertaining to the time limitation and off-site parking ~+~ agreement for apreviously-approved public dance hall. Andy Lui, 215 N. Brookhurst, Anaheim, stated he has read the staff report and will fully comply with the conditions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Henninger asked if the conditions included in Item No. 14 are to be added. Chairman Heltyer stated he would like to see atwo-year time limit on the approval. ` ACTION: Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Peraza absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find that the negative declaration approved in connection with Conditional Use Permit N0. 3421 is adequate to serve as the required env(ronmental documentation in connectton with this request. Commissioner Henninger offered Resolution No. PC 92-75 and moved for Its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby amend the conditions of approval pertaining to time limit and off-site parking agreement In connectton with previously- approved Conditional Use Permit No. 34, in part, (deleting Condition Nos. 3 and 6 of Resolution No. PC91-89) on the bass that the existing restaurant/bar use has been in operation for approximately 15 years without imposing an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry traffic In the immediate area, nor creating a negative impact on the surrounding properties; and that deletion of Condition No. 3 of Resolution No. PC91-89 requiring a parking agreement to provide an additional forty-four (44) off-site parking spaces will not cause an Increase in traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity nor adversely affect any adjoining land uses nor be detrimental to the peace, health, safety or general welfare of the surrounding community; and that the existing public dance hall use has been in operation for less than one (1) year without creating a detriment to the surrounding community, and subjer~ tc the following additional conditions, Including a condition that the use is granted for a period of two (2) years, to expire on June 15, 1994. (a) That a landscape and irrigation plan be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department for the replanting and permanent maintenance of the 3-f+ooc wide landscaped strip between the parking lot area and the public rights-of-way along Brookhurst Street and Valley Street. Said plan shall be submitted to tf~ Planning Department within thirty (30) days from this resolution and the 6/t5J"~ i ~ ~ al ~ .., ~ P• • "il - €~ MINUTES, ANAHnM CITY. PLANNING COMMISSION, June 15, 1992 ,z Page Nd 80 ~, xty (60) days from the date of this `' landscaping shall be installed within si resolution. ~~- : _ , z -- ;;: X~~-< i~:: y' 'e'~:<> (b) That .he broken and/or missing docrs servicing the trash enclosure bs repaired within ninety (90) days from data of this Planning Commission resolution. (c) That the parking lot area be restriped wfthin ninety (90) days from the date of this Planning Commission resolution in accordance with the plans and specifications on file in the Planning Department for Conditional Use Permit No. 3421 marked Exhibit No. 1. (d) That this request is granted for a period of two (2) years, to expire on June 15, 1994, with possibility of extension. Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission decision within tweE~ty-two (22) days to the City Council. 6/ ~~lB2 ~ '"`~f 5 ~ S ~.7! ~(ir • *~+` ~~i' Z~4 a l ~ ':,~ 1-' ' ", ~AINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 15, 1992 Page No. 61 '" 12 (j,EPORTS AND RECOMMENDATION,: . ~~ A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3333 -FINAL 31TE PLAN REVIEW OF ROOF MOUNTED ~ ~ ~, ,;~ '~ EQUIPMENT. SIGNAGE PLANS AND EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS AND MATERIALS FOR A ,~ ,~a~ . PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED SERVICE STATION/CAR WASH FACILITY: Greer Engineering ` ~` requests fur final site plan review of roof mounted equipment, signage plans and exterior +~"~~ oievations and materials for apreviously-approved service station/car wash facility. '~" Property is located approximately 85 acres on the south side of Santa Ana Canyon Road ~~f west of Weir Canyon Road. ` Bob Fiscus, agent, stated the file will match the existing center tile, etc. .1 Jonathan Borrego, Senior Planner, stated the only thing that the Commission is approving under 12A is the material and not the location of the sign. .. ' ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Peraza absent) that the Anaheim CIty Planning - Commission does hereby find that the final plane and exhibits as presented by the petitioner are in conformance with the design guidelines established within The Anah~ Hills Festival Center Specific Plan (SP90-01). B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3372 -REQUEST FOR A RETROACTIVE EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND REQUEST FOR SUBSTAAI7]AiL CONFORMANCE REVIEVII: Richard Winn (Anaheim Olsposal, Inc.) requests a ons-ye®r retroactive extension of time to comply with conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 3372 (to permit truck parking with maintenance and fueling with waiver of minimum front yard setback) which expired on December 17, 1991 and if approved, to expire December 17, 19912. Property is located st 1231-1235 North Blue Gum Street: Richard Winn, applicant, stated the last paragraph on Page 2 of the staff report discuses the existing truck and paint booth and it should read, 'truck wash' and not Just truck A TI N: Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ba~mas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Peraza absent, and Commissioner Messe - cam of interest), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve eons-year retroactive extension o? tone for Conditional Use Permit No. 3372 to expire on Decessxtbes 17, 1992, and further finds tits revisions proposed in substantial conformance wi:h ttse originally approved exhibits based on the following: ~: ,'<i ~..,,~€..u..,.. a. That the additional s4uare footage proposed is a result of the need for locker rs and additional office space for operations functions. b. That the parking layout now provides a better site circulation than previously approved. ~~~1'~Y ~ 7 ! • • ~~~~. NUTES;'ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 15, 1992 x~._ ~i `,°f ~ ~ f(' .. Page No. B't ~~® c. That the requested conditional use permit remains consistent with the Anaheim General Plan and the surrounding area. C. EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND BEQUEST FOR SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE REVIEW: Richard Winn (Anaheim Disposal, Inc.) requests aone-year retroactive extension of time to comply with conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 3359 (to permit the expansrar~ of a recycling/resource recovery transfer facility with waiver of minimum numbed of parking spaces) which expired on December 3, 1991 and if approved, to expire December 3, 1992. Property is located at 2751-2781 White Star Avenue. Richard Winn, applicant, responded to Chairman Hellyer that the fence referred to on Page 4 of the staff report was actually removed; however, the old plan was submitted which included the fence, but that fence is no longer there. He explakasd that fence surrounded their employee parking lot and they have noted with some dismay that people have been going through the parking lot and vandalizing their employees' cars. He stated they are not requesting that be deleted as a conditia~m, but wanted the Commission to consider it. Jonathan Borrego, Senior Planner, stated the applicant may consider a 6-foot hie~tf wrought iron fence on that site by right. ACTION: Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Peraza absent, Commissioner Mew - conflict of Interest), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve a one year retroactive extension of time for Conditional Use Permit No:. 3359 to expire on December 3, 1992, and further finding that the revisions proposed are in substantial conformance with what was originally ~~proved baseul on the following: a. Even with an Increas, of office space which was previously designatedl as warehouse/storage space,.the building modifications result In less building area than what was originally proposed b. The building revisions have reduced the parking requirements by 5 parking spaces over the original proposal. c. The requested conditional use permit remains consistent with the Anaheim General Plan and the surrounding area. 6/75y~ 7~„.r ~' '~' p t' - . K - ~ • 1 •~ ~~ L .N~y .~} I, tij~.~t MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 15, 1992 . Page No. p ,~, n, ' " and further requiring that the 5-foot high chalnlink fence located along the ~ '~ - southeast portion of the property be removed in conformance with the prevfously- z,-~_ ~~'~`"' denied Code waiver considered in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 3359. E~~t~~ , ti~. D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1142 -REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Richard ?,n .,; Winn (Anaheim Disposal, Inc.) requests termination of Conditional Use Penmit No. 1142 (to permit the expansion of an existing truck service station and storage yard including the future development of a restaurant). Property is located at 1231-1235 North Blue Gum Street. TI Commissioner Henninger offered Resolution No. PC 92-76 and moved for Its passage and adoption that all proceedings in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 1142 be terminated as a condition of approval adopted in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 3372. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: gOl1AS, BRISTOL, HELLYER, HENNINGER, ZEMEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: MESSE, PERAZA E. QEQUEST TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE MOST RECENT ENVIRONMENTAL RENEW AND MAKE CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH CONSOLIDATED VOLUME TRANSPORTERS' RF:~UEST FOR A REVISED STATE SOLID WASTE FACILTfiES PERMIT. A TI :Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTIAN CARRIED (Commissioners Peraza and Masse absent (Masse declared a conflict of Interest) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby acknowledge the most recent environmental review in connection wffh the CVT request for a revised State Solid Waste Facilities Permit; and further fuxis that the Consolidated Volume Transporters' resource/recycling recovery facflity is consistent with the City of Anaheim General Plan. Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, stated that Karen Freeman from the Planning Department really did an outstanding job coordinating everything that needed to be done here and ft wasn't an easy job to pul! together the information and coordinate with the agencies and get ali the findings and make everybody happy, and ttrat site . did a line job. ;: ~~~~~i< 6/15bJ2 •~~,lw ~iif'ffp Y/: 6 y ., ~)r ~. Page Na 64 ' `-F. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 3404 - REQUEST FOR A RETROACTIVE EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVALi Myde Holloway (Rodsffer Investments) requests aone-year retroactive extension of time to comply with conditions of approval for Conditionat Use Permit No. 3404 (to permit expansion of a commercial retail center to Include auto repair, drive-through restaurant and self storage facility) which expired on April 22, 1992 and If approved, to expire on April 22, 1993. Property is located at 919-959 S. Knott Avenue. Myrle Holloway, agent, stated they need a one year extension in order to meat some requirements and got a lot split and go forward with the project. Chairman Hellyer stated Code Enforcement has a history of problems ~n that property and it is not really being maintained. Iltr. Holloway stated they are not the owners of the property and are purchasing the rear portion of the property. He stated the problems are on the front portion of the property which is presently owned by Larry Smith and there have been no violations on ttie portion where their building is located. He added Mr. Smith is not really interested in this portion and the sale of his property is par[ of a Judgement they have against him. ACTIQN: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Peraza absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve eons-year time extension {retroactive to April 22, 1992) to expire on April 22, 1993, based on the following a. That the requested conditional use permit remains consistent with the An3heym General Plan and surrounding land uses. b. That no new information has been presented to the staff that would cause concern beyond any discussed at the April 22, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. G. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 143Fj,~ - REQUEST FOR AONE-YEAR TIME EXTENSIOt_WI OF TIME TO GOMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Thomas Tyo requests a arae- year extension of time to comply with conditions of approval for Tentative Tract Map? No. 14353 (to permit a 6-lot, 55-unit, air space condominium subdivision, and a 1-IaII single-family parcel) which expires on July 16, 1992 and if approved, to expire on Jaiiy 16, 1993. Property is located 1560 feet south of the centerline of Santa Ana Canyorn Road. A T :Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Peraza absent), that the Anaheim Cityy Planning Commission dohs hereby approve the time extension request for Tentative Tract Map No. 14353 to expire on July 16, 1993 based on the following: 6/x/92 i h "'~ i :3 ,w#~:. _ ~x n~INUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 15, 1992 ~ w''~ ~;`, Page No. 65 y~rr . "' _ a. That the proposed subdivision, together with its design and improvements, remains ~'~~' ; •_ Y' consistent with the Anaheim General Plan. ~i rv~ b. That no new information was presented to staff that would cause concern beyonc! `~"y' any discussed at the July 16, 1990, public hearing. ~, „- r1¢ '_ ~~ H. PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT PERTAINING TO THE ACCESSOav wren sal E OF TILE FLOOR COVERINGS AND WINDOW COVERINGS FOR PAR ELS 70NE~ ~~ WHICH AR's3 ON STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD BETWEEN BALL ROAD AND KaT~i i AVENUE: Commissioner Messe asked If the list should be expanded to include things like pa?nt, draperies, wall paper, etc. Jonathan Borrego stated staff would ask that ff the Planning Commission wishes to expand that list, they should be very specific about the types of uses which they would like to see. He explained staff constantly gets people coming in trying to stretch the definitions. Commissioner Henninger stated some of those uses would be allowed by CUP. Commissioner Zemel stated he would like to have more time to discuss this and maybe k should be continued. ACTION: Commissioner Henningt~r offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Peraza absent) that conskieration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the meeting of June 29, 1992. I. SPECIFIC PLAN fSP90-011 REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION REb9EW OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE ANAHEIM HILLS FESTIVAL: Taubman Con~pany (John Burroughs) requests Planning Commission review of proposed amendment to conditions of approval for the Anaheim Hills Festival Specific P?an (SP90-01) located at Anaheim Hills Festival. ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Brfstal and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Peraza absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Condition Nos. 6 and 13 of Ordinance No. 5110 and the associated mitigation monitoring program be amended as follows: '6. That the most westerly access on Santa Ana Canyon Road shall b~ signaiized with separate left turn phasing and the access road shall be as follows: provide a 2U0 foot long and 12 foot wide deceleration lane for eastbound traffic on yenta Ana Canyon Road; a 120 foot transition lane for eastbound traffic. Provide a westbound left turn lane approximately 200 feet long with a transition lane 44 v~ 6/15/92 ,,i ' ~~ '`MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLMININGCOMMI,SSI~DN, June 15,1992 . " .. Pale No. 86 °n`, ;. .. approximately 120 feet long. Provide a 58 foot wide access road at Santa Ana'. 4' Canyon Road, 200 feet long (one right t3 feet, ri~o left 11 feet for north bound and twro southbound 13 foot and 11 foot). This access road is known as Festival Drive. ~": '13. That Roosevelt Road and Monte Vista Road shall be signalized. Festival Drive shall is be 40 foot wide with striping approved by Traffic Engineering. The s~ipin® and ~"' Island at the Intersection shall be approved by Traffic Engineering. The cievelar~er shall Incur the cost of interconnecting the signal to the City's traffic signal ucordination plan. ADJOURNMENT: I ~~ ~ The meeting was adjourned at T:25 p.m. to 9:00 a.m., June 29, 1992, Council Chamber for tfre ~''~ ~ morning work session before the Commission meeting. '>>": Respectfully Submitted, Edith L. Harris Planning Commission Secretary