Loading...
MIN 12 14 2015_Item 8DECEMBER 14, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES Page 1 of 6 ITEM NO. 8 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2015-00280 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05804 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17882 (DEV2015-00057) Location: 1609 and 1615 West Cerritos Avenue Request: To rezone the property from the Single-Family, Residential (RS-2) zone to the Single–Family, Residential (RS-4) zone and to permit and establish an 11-unit small–lot single family residential subdivision. Environmental Determination: The Planning Commission will consider whether to find the project to be Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and Guidelines as a Class 32 (In-Fill Development Projects) Categorical Exemption. This item was continued from the September 21, 2015, October 19, 2015, and November 2, 2015 Planning Commission meetings. Resolution No. PC2015-102 Resolution No. PC2015-103 Resolution No. PC2015-104 (Henninger / Seymour) Approved VOTE: 6-1 Chairman Lieberman and Commissioners Bostwick, Dalati, Henninger, Ramirez and Seymour voted yes. Commissioner Caldwell voted no. Project Planner: Amy Stonich astonich@anaheim.net Amy Stonich, Contract Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated December 14, 2015, along with a visual presentation. She indicated that residents from the surrounding neighborhoods continue to express a variety of concerns regarding the proposed development, and staff has received written correspondence both in support and in opposition to the project which has been provided to the Commission. She relayed the following concerns and opposition that were received related to: • The requested zone change • On-site parking • Missing sidewalks along Cerritos Avenue • Traffic concerns Ms. Stonich further stated that staff has considered the concerns raised by the residents, and she then provided responses made by staff: • Related to the requested zone change: The proposed RS-4 zone would be unique to the subject area, the density of the proposed development complies with the site’s existing low density residential general plan land use designation. • Related to on-site parking: The parking significantly exceeds the city’s parking requirements; as the zoning code requires 44 parking spaces and 61 parking spaces are proposed on-site. DECEMBER 14, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES Page 2 of 6 • Related to missing sidewalks along Cerritos Avenue, and traffic concerns: Ms. Stonich stated that Rafael Cobian, Associate Traffic Engineer would be providing a detailed summary. Rafael Cobian, Associate Traffic Engineer, provided a slide presentation related to the project’s estimated trip generation, and stated based on the estimated trip generation that it was determined that a traffic study was not required for the proposed project, since it does not meet the city’s threshold of 100 or more peak hour trips. Furthermore, he stated the traffic generated by the proposed project is consistent with the city’s general plan, and would not create a significant impact. He then referred to the sidewalk gap closure, and stated that the project’s applicant is proposing to install full sidewalks and a parkway in front of the proposed project’s frontage along Cerritos Avenue. He also provided information related to a grant funding that Public Work’s Department has secured for part of the sidewalk gap closure, and it will ultimately provide a continuous sidewalk on the south side of Cerritos Avenue, between Walnut Street and Euclid Avenue. He explained that a remaining gap would remain on the north side. He further stated that a traffic study was conducted in 2008, and when compared to the current traffic counts provided by the applicant, that the traffic increased by about a half percent over the course of 7 years. He indicated that the city has received two traffic calming petitions, and Traffic Engineering Division staff will be meeting with the residents to address their traffic concerns through the city’s neighborhood traffic management program. Commissioner Bostwick asked what the threshold is that would require a traffic study. Mr. Cobian responded that it would be 100 or more peak hour trips. Ms. Stonich stated that the proposed project is designed in a manner that would provide a quality living environment, and is compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood. Furthermore, the project is similar in design and quality to other in-fill projects that were approved by the Planning Commission and that have been successfully developed. Also, it is consistent with the general plan low-density designation, and it does comply with all zoning code requirements. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the proposed project. Commissioner Seymour asked if the property remains RS-2, is it accurate to say that it appears to be about a one house difference. Jonathan Borrego, Planning Services Manager, responded if the property were to remain zoned RS- 2, in terms of the way the lot is sized and configured, most likely you can have eight residential lots. If it was subdivided with a straight calculation, it would actually yield about ten residential lots. Chairman Lieberman opened the public hearing. Jeff Weber, Silveroak Investment, 19600 Von Karman, Suite 400, Irvine, CA, applicant, stated he had reviewed the conditions of approval and was in agreement with the staff report. Commissioner Henninger asked what the impact fees are for the proposed eleven houses. DECEMBER 14, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES Page 3 of 6 Mr. Weber responded approximately $250,000. Commissioner Dalati asked the applicant if he has met with the neighbors regarding their concerns. Mr. Weber responded yes, they conducted a community meeting at the Brookhurst Community Center. Pauline Ferree, 1360 S. Gilbuck, Anaheim - Expressed her opposition to the project. Robert Brunette, 1581 W. Lullaby Lane, Anaheim – Expressed his opposition to the project. Douglas Cooley, 1575 W. Cerritos Avenue, Anaheim – Expressed his opposition to the project related to the number of the proposed houses and to traffic concerns. Julie Brunette, 1581 W. Lullaby Lane, Anaheim – Expressed her opposition to the project, and relayed concerns related to traffic on Cerritos Avenue and to the subject area being more and more congested. She expressed her disagreement with staff’s comments on the traffic study conducted related to the number of trips generated by the proposed project because it doesn’t seem accurate. Ruth Jorgensen, 1536 W. Harriet Lane, Anaheim – Expressed her opposition to the project, and stated there are already a lot of people coming and going in the subject area. Nicholas Blethrow, 1504 W. Cerritos Avenue, Anaheim - Expressed his opposition to the project, and relayed concerns related to traffic on Cerritos Avenue especially before school starts in the morning hours. He expressed his disagreement with staff’s comments on the traffic study conducted related to the number of trips generated by the proposed project because it doesn’t seem accurate. Linda Owen, 1602 W. Buena Vista Avenue, Anaheim - Expressed her opposition to the proposed rezoning, and she asked that they deny the rezoning request for the safety of the residents and for the safety of the children who walk to and from school. She stated that she provided to the Planning Commission a petition with over 500 signatures in opposition. She urged that they not sacrifice the integrity of their neighborhood for the proposed rezoning of the property. Cheryl Blethrow, 1504 W. Cerritos Avenue, Anaheim - Expressed her opposition to the project, and relayed concerns related to traffic on Cerritos Avenue. She expressed her disagreement with staff’s comments on the traffic study conducted related to the number of trips generated by the proposed project because it doesn’t seem accurate. Stephanie Burglin, 1408 S. Adria Street, Anaheim – Expressed her opposition to the proposed rezoning, and she relayed concerns related to traffic on Cerritos Avenue and to the subject area already being over populated. Frances Noteboom, 1700 S. Norfolix Lane, Anaheim – Expressed her opposition to the proposed rezoning, and she asked that they deny the rezoning request for the safety of the residents and for the safety of the children who walk to and from school. Furthermore, she expressed concerns related to the over population of the subject area. DECEMBER 14, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES Page 4 of 6 Ethel Halpern, 1666 W. Chanticleer Road, Anaheim – Expressed her opposition to the project, and relayed concerns related to traffic on Cerritos Avenue and to the over population of the subject area. Furthermore, she expressed her disagreement with the estimated number of trips to be generated by the proposed project. Sherida Ruiz, 1640 W. Chanticleer Road, Anaheim – Expressed her opposition to the proposed rezoning related to the number of houses. She stated she agrees with the concerns raised by the residents, and she is also concerned about school overcrowding. Xavier Ruiz, 1640 W. Chanticleer Road, Anaheim – Expressed his opposition to the proposed rezoning related to the number of houses proposed. Milton Boomsma, 1565 W. Lullaby Lane, Anaheim – Expressed his opposition to the proposed rezoning related to the number of houses proposed. Terry Palmer, 1614 W. Buena Vista, Anaheim – Expressed his opposition to the proposed rezoning of the subject property. Chairman Lieberman closed the public hearing. Mr. Weber, applicant, addressed the issues raised and he expressed the following: • The project does comply with the general plan, and the reclassification does not change the density allowed under the general plan, but it will accommodate the setbacks for the larger homes; • With regard to the traffic and sidewalk issues, he stated that during today’s public hearing it appears that the city is stepping up to address some of the concerns raised by the neighbors with regards to the existing traffic issues and the sidewalk gaps in the area; • With regard to parking issues, he stated that they are over parking the project and have been sensitive to the orientation of the homes, the setbacks, the distances and there are some homes that have a tighter rear yard, but they still meet the code; In concluding, Mr. Weber asked for the Planning Commission’s support of the proposed project, as it meets all the requirements that the city imposes on a development. Commissioner Seymour asked Mr. Weber to address the concerns raised by a few of the residents related to the proposed two-story homes overlooking into existing properties. Mr. Weber responded that this is a common concern amongst existing homeowners when it comes to new development, and he stated there is a “flip-side” to that issue and he indicated that the adjacent neighbors also have the right to build a two-story home. Further discussion amongst Mr. Weber and the Commissioners took place related to the original plans submitted and the size of the proposed backyards versus the current proposed backyards, and related to eliminating the parkway on B Street in order for the backyards not to be further reduced. DECEMBER 14, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES Page 5 of 6 Mr. Borrego addressed an earlier question raised, and stated as part of the city’s housing element which is a required element of the city’s general plan, they do receive allocation of housing units that were required by the state to accommodate. They city’s current housing element includes the planning period between the years of 2014 and 2021. As part of that they received an allocation of 5,702 units, and when they provided the state with their last update in March 2015, they had constructed 1,401 of those units. And, since that time they issued approximately 800 permits, and therefore currently they are about over 2,000 units of the 5,702 unit total. Chairman Lieberman asked Mr. Cobian to provide further details related to the traffic counts and the trip generations in order to clarify the issue. Mr. Cobian provided further details and clarification related to the traffic counts and the trip generations reported for the area. Commissioner Seymour stated according to all the testimony presented today it appears that the traffic on Cerritos Avenue is highly impacted, and he asked what is in place for the city’s traffic management plan in order to help resolve the issues in the area. Mr. Cobian responded that he did observe congestion on Cerritos Avenue during the school hours, and stated staff will be working with the neighbors in order to try to make necessary improvements in the Bayless Street and Cerritos Avenue areas. Commissioner Henninger stated it appears that the majority of the testimony presented today is not about the proposed project, but are about the existing issues in the neighborhood. The project has very similar characteristics of many other projects that have been approved in the city. He indicated that it now appears that the residents have the attention of the city in order to address some of the concerns, along with the applicant’s cooperation in addressing some of the concerns related to sidewalks and the street frontage. Commissioner Caldwell referred to Lot Numbers 4 and 8, and he expressed concerns with those lots looming over the adjacent homes. Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Seymour and the motion carried, recommending that the Planning Commission adopt the resolutions attached to the December 14, 2015 staff report, determining that a Class 32 Categorical Exemption is the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving Reclassification No. 2015-00280, Conditional Use Permit No. 2015-05804, and Tentative Tract Map No. 17882 (DEV2015-00057). Eleanor Morris, Secretary announced that the resolution passed with six yes votes. Chairman Lieberman and Commissioners Bostwick, Dalati, Henninger, Ramirez and Seymour voted yes. Commissioner Caldwell voted no. OPPOSITION: Fifteen persons spoke in opposition to the proposed project. Seven pieces of written correspondence were received in opposition, along with a petition in opposition to the proposed project. DECEMBER 14, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES Page 6 of 6 IN SUPPORT: A piece of written correspondence was received in favor of the proposed project. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour and 32 minutes (7:21 to 8:53 p.m.)