Loading...
Minutes-PC 1986/03/17f REGULAR PfEETZNG OF 4HE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COM'i'iISSION R~GULAR t4EETING The cegular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairwoman La Claire at 10:00 a.m., March 17, 1986, in the Council Chamber, a quorum being pcesent, and the Commission reviewed plans of the items o^ today's agenda. RECESS: 11:30 a.m. Rk:CONVENED: 1:30 p.m. PR~;S~NT: Chairwornan: La C:laire CorunissioneLS: Bouas, Fry, Herbst, Lawicki, Messe, McBurney ABS~NT: Commissioner: None ALSU YkESENl: Norm Priest Director, Community Development/Planning Department Annika Santalahti Assistant Director for Zoning t4alcolm Slaughter Deputy City Attorney Jay iitus Office Engineec Paul Singer Traffic Engineer Leonard McGhee Associate Planner Edith Harris Planning Commission Secretary APPRUVAL UF MINUTES: Commissioner Hetbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissionec Bouas and I•1UTION CAP.RIEp (Commissioner Lawicki abstaining) that the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting oi March 3, 1986, be approved as corrected on Page 86-164 to indicate that Commissioner Messe returned to the meeting tollowing Item No. 8 and was present and voted in favor of Stem No. 9-A. THB FULL06~ING ITEt•SS WERE HEARD FOLLOWING THE RECESS AT 4:00 P.M. Cwnmissioner F]cBUrney did not return to the meeting following the recess until aiter the hearing on Item No. 1. ITz[9 NO. 1 EIR NEGATIV~ DECLARATZON WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NU. 2760 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: HAVADJIA HOLDINGS, INC., 4320 W. 171 Street, Lawnda].e, CA 9G260. AGENT: ROBERT G. JENKINS, 23041 Diill Creek, Laguna Hills, CA y1665. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.41 acre located at the southwest corner of La Palma Avenue and xichfield Road, and further described as 4150 East La Palma Avenue. To permit a drive-through restaurant with waiver of maximum number of small car spaces (deleted), minimum number of parking spaces, and minimum distance of a drive-thr:~ugh ?ane (deleted). Continued fcom the meetin9 of February 3, 1986. 86-1b7 3/17/86 REGULAR MEETING UF iHE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION RtiGULAk MEETING The regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairwoman La Claire at 10:00 a.m., March 17, 1986, ~n the Council Chamber, a quorum being present, and the Commission reviewed plans of the iL=ms on today's agenda. RF.CESS: 11:30 a.m. R~CONVENED: 1:30 p.m. PR~S~NT: Chairwoman: La ~laire Commissioners: Bouas, Fry, Herbst, Lawicki, Messe, McBUrney ABS~NT: Commissioner: None ALSU YRESENT: Norm Priest Director, Community Development/Planning Depactment Annika Santalahti Assistant Director for Zoning [dalcolm Slaughter Deputy City Attorney Jay Titus Office Engineer Paul Singer Traffic Engineer Leona[d McGhee Associate Planner Edich Harris Planning Commission Secretary AYPROVAL UF MINUTES: Commissionec Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and I~tOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Lawicki abstaining) that the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting of March 3, 1986, be approved as corrected on Page 86-165 to indicate that Commissioner Messe returned to the meeting following Item No. 8 and was present and voted in favor of Item No. 9-A. THE FOLLONING ITE-•1S W~RE HEARD FOLLOWING THE RECESS AT 4:00 P.P1. Commissioner Mcburney did not retuxn to the meeting following the recess until atter the hearing on item No. 1. ITEt9 N0. 1 EII2 NEGATZV~; DECLARATION WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONDITZONAL USE PERMIT NU. 276U PUBLlC HEARING. OWNERS: HAVADJIA HOLDINGS, INC., 4320 W. 171 Street, Lawndale, CA 90260. AGENT: ROBERT G. JENKINS, 23041 Mill Creek, Laguna Hills, CA y1b65. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consist.ing of approximately 0.41 acre located at the southwest corner af La Palma Avenue and xichiield Road, and further described as 4150 East La Palma Avenue. To permit a drive-through restaurant with waiver of maximum number of small car spaces (deleted), minimum number of parking spaces, and minimum distance of a drive-through lane (deleted). Continued from the meeting of February 3, 1986. 86-167 3/17/86 a- MINUTES ANAHEIM CTTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 17 1986 86-168 There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request ana although the staff report was not cead, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. kubert Jenkins, agent, was ~resent to answer any questiona. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chaitwonian La ~laire stated ~he thought tearing the old house down and building a new facility was a good idea and she was not concerned about the parking since most of the business would be the drive-thcough. Commissioner Messe stated the traffic study used a Carl's Jr. on Katella for comparison ana asked why a drive-through in an industcial area was not used. ~hairwoman La Claice stated the Traffic Engineer was satisfied with the report. ACTIUN: Chairwoman La Claire offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki and MOTION CARRIED (L'ommissioner l4c6urney absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit a drive-throuah restaurant with waivers of maximum number of parking spaces on a rectangularly-sh~pPd parcel ot land consisting of appioximately 0.41 acre located at the southwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Richfiel~ Road, and fuz~the[ described as 4150 East La Palma Avenue; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis oP the initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant etfect on the environment. Chairwo~an La Claire offeced a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fry and MOTION CARkIED (~ommissioner P1cBUrney absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant waiver of Code requirement on the basis that the parking waiver will not cause an increase in traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity not adversely affect any adjoining land uses and granting ot the parking waiver under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens ot the City of Anaheim. Chairwoman La Claire offered kesolution No. PCBb-60 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Yermit No. 2760 pucsuant to Anaheim btunicipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 and subject to interdepartmental Committee recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing cesolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI~ MESSE NOES: NUNE ABSENT: MCRURNEY Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. Commissioner McButney returned to the meeting. 3/17/86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 17 1986 86-169 ITEM NO. 2 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PEkMIi NO. 2768 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: LA PALMA - LAKEVIEW ASSOCIATES, 1805 E. Garry Street, #11U, Santa Ana, CA 92705, ATTN: CHRISTOPHER J. BATES, GENERAL CUNTkA~ioR. Property is described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.3 acres located at the northeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Lakeview Avenue, 4501 E. La Palma Avenue (under construction). q~o permit industrially-related offices in a 2-stocy building in the ML(SC) 2one. Continued from the meeting of Pfarch 3, 1986. There was no one indicati.ng their presence in opposition to subject request and although the statf report was not cead, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. ~hris Bates, owner, stated they ace requesting approval of this permit so they will know what type of uses will be allowed in this industrial zorie and that tt,e proposed list is the same as several previously approved by the City. THE PUBLIC NEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst stated he voted against some of these uses in the past because there are too many offices in that area and noted that uses pecmitted in the industrial zone should be compatible with or service the industrial community and asked what will happen in the future when this area is over-built with this type of office. Mr. Bates stated they would have a problem then, but felt they could be competitive with this location. ~ommissioner Herbst stated it really bothers him when developers build an industrial building foc office uses in an industrial acea and then come in and request approval oY office uses; and that it is really down-grading the industtial commu~iity, even though the City Council has allo~ed it in th? past. He added he felt it is time to draw the line. Mr. Bates stated they purchased this property and some xedevelopment property which was an extension oY Lakeview and were coordinating this through the Redevelopment Agency and have found there are a number of uses which could go into that area, such as R b D, which means differe~t things to different people and thought it would be beneficial to provide a guideline. He stated as they discussed different uses with the staff, they were told that different developers have provided lists of the uses proposed and they felt it would be beneticial to have 7ust one list. He stated a similar list of uses was submitted with the othec four which have been approved previously, and they feel this is gettin9 close to a coordinated a9reement. Chaitwoman La Claire stated for years the Planning Commi~sion has tried to uphold the industtial acea and has tried to keep as much of it as possible for industcial uses; howevec, Iately the City Council has been allowing a different list or uses which can be permitted and she cealizes the price of land is so high that it almost prohibits any indu~trial uses. She added she 3/17/86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 17 1986 86-170 thought it was probably too late and it looks like the whole Canyon Industrial Area will pcobably all go for commercial office uses and perhaps at the detciment of the Stadium Area Development. She added, however, a precedent has been set. ACTION: Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit industrially-related offices in a 2-stoty building in tne ML(S~) (Industcial, Limited, Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone on a irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.3 acres located at the northeast cornec of La Palma Avenue and Lakeview Avenue and further described as 45U1 E. La Palma Avenue; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of rhe Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the enviconment. Commissioner Fry otfered Resolution No. YC86-61 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does heceby grant Conaitional Use Permit No. 2768 pursuant uosuanteto thelattacheddlistcogons 1~.03.030.030 tnrough 1b.03.030.035 and p proposed uses and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. on roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS~ ERY~ H~RBST, LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI~ MC BURNEY. tdESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NON6 Malcolm ~laughtec, Deputy City Attorney, presente~ the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. Annika Santalahti stated a condition asking for cecordation of the pcoposed list of uses was omitted from the staff report and asked if it is Planning Commission's desire to have the covenant recocded against the ptoperty. Commissioner Fry offeted a motion, seconded by Chairwoman La Claire and motion carried that a condition be added to the resoiution requiring recordation of a covenant. Commissioner Herbst stated he would like to instcuct staff to reauest a joint meetin9 with the City Council regarding the area between Tustin Boulevard and Impecial Highway because he has information which indicates leasing fees are up to .75 to $1.10 per squace foot as of Februacy 1986. He stated it i: definitely getting out ot the reach of the industrial user and if the City is going to be competitive with the Stadium Industrial Area, a meeting should be held with the City Council to find out exactly what their intentions are. He stated this higher rent will not permit any further industrial development and any manufactuting will be in Riverside, San Bernardino, etc. He stated if this area is going to be foc office use, then the pcopetty should be rezoned so public t~earings fot variances will not be necessacy. 3/17/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CUMMISSION, MARCH 17~ 1986 86-171 Commissioner Messe stated he would like to include the area to Kraemer and agceed 1U08 with Commissioner Herbst's comments. Chairwoman La Claire stated, obviously, thece has been a change in philosophy at the City Council level which the Commission was not aware of. Norman Priest, Director of Commu~ity Aevelopment and Ylanning, stated he feels a meeting would be very much in order. Mr. Priest stated he was listening ducing the last hearing and heard the comm2nts that there had been coordination with Redevelopment and the inference was made that somehow there was a loss of coordination. He stated the last developer was, in fact, part of an owner/participation agreement on that cornez and the uses are called out in that agreement as R& D and the list of uses submitted was not a result of the Redevelopment staff pressuce, but simply recognizing the facts of life that it is happening on other developments in the area, and it has already ootten to the point that if the industcial owner or the developer doesn't go with these type uses, he is at a disadvantage. He stated he only wanted to clarify that there was not any coniusion between the Redevelopment Agency and the Planning Departments land use issues, because the Redevelopment Agency was quite clear on what the agreemenc calls out. Chaitwoman La Claire stated that area needs to be reviewed because we are losin9 industrialists like Warner-Lambert and other truly industrially-oriented users and we need co look at the tax dollars bein9 lost and at least there needs to be some in•~.c~.t about the philosophy of the City Council. Norman Priest stated the economic appLOach is probably the correct one because thar is essentially what is happening in the Stadium Area; that as the economics begin to shift, they begin to dictate the land use and that may be what needs to be talked about in the northeast industrial area and also, that the uses may be transitioning to sometl~ing more lucrative and it may not be all bad. He stated staff would be happy to schedule a meeting with tNe City Council, if that is their desire. ITEM N0. 3 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3542 PUBLi~ HEARING. OWNERS: GARY L. KAHLER, 2725 Gietta Lane, Anaheim, CA 92806. AGENT: YEFIM HOFFMAN, 2725 Gret~a Lane, Anaheim, CA 92806. Property is descrited as an irregularly-shaped paccel of land consisting of approximately 0.~6 acre, 2715-2725 Gretta Lane. Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to construct an industrial storage building. Continued from the meeting of March 3, 1986. ACTION: Commissioner Messe offeced a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MUT10N CARi2IED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regulacly-scheduled meeting of March 31, 1986, at the petitioner`s cequest. 3/17/86 86-172 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 17 1986 THE FOLLOWING ITEM WAS HEARD AT TdE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING. IZgM _Np, 4 EIk NEGATIVE DECLA:::^_'?UN AND VARIANCE NO. 3539 PUBLIC HEARI[JG. OWNER.S: MIE48018.HIAGENTEVEDOUGLAS M~CCORKLE31263001LaWay, ~2U1 E. Farmington tiills, Alameda, Suite 330, Mission Viejo, CA 92691. frapecoximatelyc3lbacres an iccegularly-shaped parcel of land consisting PP generally located south and east of the intecsectionLOximatelyA1800afeet east and the southerly extension of Weir Canyon Road, app of the centerline ot Weir Canyon Foad (Bauer Ranch "Acea 6'). Waivecs of requiced type of parking spaces, maximum structucal height and required site screening to construct a 292-unit apartment complex. Continued from the meeting cf March 3, 1986. There were appcoximately one hundred people indicating ~heir presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is ceferred to ano made a part of the minutes. Commissioner Bouas restated her conflict of interest as defined by Anaheim City Planning c:ommission Resolution No. PC76-157 adopting a Conflict of Interest Code for the Planning Commission and Govecnment Code Section 3625, et seq., in that her husband does cont~act work for the developer and purs~ant to the provisions of the above Codes, declared to the Chairwoman that she was withdrawing fcom the hearing in connection with Variance No. 3535, and would not r.ake part in eithec the diseussion or the voting theceon and had not discussed this matter with any member of the Planning Commission. Thereupon Commissionec Bouas left the Council Chamber. Doug ~icCOrkle, agent, stated he net with ten to fifteen of the residents on Macch 5th and discussed the project, but there was no opportunity to meet with the residents again. He stated some of the residents' concern is beyond their company's control and he had no futthec invitation to meet with them. P1c. McCOrkle stated there are three issues invoived: (1) theandn(3)SCertain, (2) an ownership issue between condominiums and apactments, allegations cega[ding Kaufman s Bro~d, the developec of the Bauer Ranch. He stated the request is for a site plan review of the proposed development, approval of a density transfec oi 58 units and ce~tain variances consistent with the Code, specifically, a covered parking variance, structures height variance and a site screening vaciance. Concerning the owner versus rentec, or apartment issue, Mr. McCorkle stated the lana use otdinance as adopted by the City of Anaheim does not specifically address ownership within the multiple-family zones. He stated a condominium owner has the cight to rent his condominium unit, just as a single-family owner would have the right to cent his unit, and many developers develop lazge condominium pcojects specifically as rentals. He stated theix company invests in real estate and income Qroperty and normally does not invest in condominium projects and would like to convince the neighbors and o~he~°COndominiumat what they will develop will be equal to or bettec than any development. 3/17/86 ~ MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CGidMISSION~ MARCH 17~ 1.986 86-173 Concerning the cesidents allegations regarding cectain representaticns made by Kaufman 6 Broad, he stated East tlills Development Company does not feel they should -address those issues. Mr. McCorkle stated they anticipate a tenant mix in their project, more or less consistent with the existing neighborhood, and the tenants will have similac incomes, similar family styles and family status and they really expect them to be in the last step before they become homeowners and in fact, may want to become a homeowner in the exi~;ting houses in that neighborhood. He stated they will develop a luxury pro7~ct and believe the market in that area is sufficient to expect the market rental rates to be between $750 to $1,OOU per month. He stated they aie proposing 2y2 units over the developable acreage, resulting in .lb units per acre, which is consistent with condominium density; and that typical apartment density is 20 units to the acre or more and the overall density, including the undevelopable land, on this pCOject is 9.4 units per acre; aud that the existing unaerlying zonin9 prior to the adoption of the Bauer Ranch Development Plan allowed 655 units and this is a substantial reuuction. P1r. McCOrkle stated the other issue beiore the Ylanning Commission is the density transfer ot 58 units from Area 7 and that density tcansfe~ is allowed within the Bauer kanch Genecal Plan of Development and requires approval by the Planning ~ommission. He stated Area 7 is designated as a multiple-family site, but there will be no chanye in the overall density of 545 total dwelling units allowea by the Bauer Ranch General Plan of Development. Regaraing the coveted parhing variance, Mr. McCOrkle pointed out the ex.hibits on the wall and explained they are not asking for a variance that will reduce the overa.ll packing reyuirement on this project and are only asking for a reduction in a specific area for some of the covered parking spaces to be alloweo as oYen ~arking spaces. He explained the t.ode requires two covered parking spaces for each 1-bedcoom unit and that this ceduction hould be to 1-1/2 spaces for the 1-bedroom unit, and they feel it would create a more open feeling in the project, especially in the entra~ce areas to the buildings and allow them to provide a more co~ventional design than normally seen in a multiple-fa~ily development and it will reduce the garage roof areas. He stated certain buildings have carports in the front and with the 2 to 1-requitement, in some areas they will be required to extend the caroorts to covec two spaces in a tandem configuration. He added they have sufEicient parking spaces in various areas, not dicec~ly in front of the Luilding, to allow covered parking and will be able to eliminate the standard covered stall in tront of the building. He stated anott~er issue is the two-stery stcuctuce height or three stories as reterred to in the staff report. He stated there is considerable resident concerr. about the height ana pcinted o~t the three-story height comes as a cesult of the topography because of the slopes and that the building does provide roc tuck-under parking. He reierred to the exhibits displayed showing the elevations, noting the two-stocy elevation is on one side oE the building with three stories on the other side with only two floors of living area in each unit and with the lower floor being a carport area. He stated all the buildings that face up to the existing single-family neighborhood are twc story. ~/17/RF MIhUTES ANAkEIM CZTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 17 1986 86-174 Mr. [4cCOrkle stated the variance of site scceening is the cequirement for the 6-foot high block wall because of the ?ar9e slope. He stated the two exhibits, Site Section A and Site Section B, show the relationship between the finished pad elevations of the existing single-family residential area and the finished floor area of the units and the top of the coof cidge. H^ stated from the pad elevation to th2 top of the roof ridge, there is a 2S co 3~-foot vectical diffecence. Mr. McCorkle stated staff did not feel thece was a specific need f~r an environmental impact repo:t on any specific matter; however, there is a speciYic requirertient to review the traffic impacts with the density transfer from Area 7 to Area 6 and he felt the existing Bauer Ranch EIR does cover those issues. Mr. McCOrkle presented slides showing their existing developments in Arizona and explained they have a commitment to high quality, luxury-type projects and currently they have over 5,000 units. He presented a bcochuce of their projects also. Mr. McCorkle stated this development will be consistent with the proposed Kaiser, Fieldstone and Republic Developments. He stated the neighbors wece concerned with design features and one was for providing a significant barrier between the single-family homes and this proposed multiple-family development and there was signiticant concern regarding the roofing materials. tie presented a revised exhibit and explained the change is shown on the display as 'B'. He explained the revised plan as not been reviewed formally by the City staff and he has not had an opportunity to review this plan with the residents because he did not think it would be appropriate to discuss it with them until he knew it would be acceptable to the City staff. He explained the request would be to have the City consider abandoning Meadowridge Road right-of-way and, in return, they will provide a pcivate access and a large circular turn-atound and will provide a 20-foot wide paved easement for emergency vehicles. He stated this would block that main access into the resiaential area; and that they would want the City to design what is needed at the end of Meadowridge Road for an emergency turn-around area; and that they would pcovide the utility loop services; and agreed that a traffic study would be pcovided acceptable to staff. He stated in return for Commission's appcoval, the developer will commit to a condition specifying lightweight concrete tile roofs on all sloped roof areas over occupied sltuctures. He stated the developec would like to see a vote on this issue today, if possible. Responding to Chairwoman La Claire, six people indicated they would like to speak in opposition. Craig watkins, 8460 E. Saratoga, Anaheim, expiained the homeowners have all met and organized and that everyone present would like to be able to speak in opposition, but undecstand that is not possible. He stated he would considec himself as a spokesman for the group; that Mr. McCorkle did meet with them on Macch Sth and that he has called him since that meeting to see if thece was going to be anotnes gtoup meeting; and that the group did review the plans pcesented by Mr. McCorkle; however, they are surprised to see this revised plan pcesented today because Mc. MeCockle did not tell him a3/17/86• He 86-175 MINUTES ANAHEZM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 17 1986 stated the developer has indicated they did not feel they were in a position to discuss this altecnate; that four of the six residential aceas in the Bauer kanch ace complete oc near completion, and now L-or the past two yea==o ectfand & Btoad has been selling that area as condominium attached housing p J a single-family detached development and at no time was apartmentsZOve1983, discussed. He stated he ceseacched the tract map file and on MaCOmmission ~rosby ~ngineering submitted a letter to the Mayo~ and Planning stating thece would be 234 units and a letter dated, June 20th in response to Kaufman &~road and the minutes oi the June 13, 1983, Plannirg Commission meeting indicate that Commissionec La Claice motioned that the tentative tract map based on 234 condominium units be approved and that xaufman s Broad was infocmed oi that approval in a letter and it specifically stated condominiums and it cectainly shows a firm intent thata~tneoshipuwitheKaufmannbeBroadthwho time; and that the developec, who is in p is the sellec oE their homes, is requesting thave readatheSBauectRancnePlanyof transfer relative to Acea 6. He ~tated they kransfer. He stated Development and it does allow for this type of density tt~ey have some vecy definite pcoblems and concers~illthavePmajorlconcerns they have had several homeowners meetings and, they celative to this issue. Mr. 4~atkins stated they are strongly opposed to the requested density transfec of 5~ units from Area 7 to Area 6 because the shift of the density is from the second highest density area to ~he highest density area; that 11.04 units per acre would be the maximum density in the area and a transfec wouldroblemaseHe the oensity to 13.78 units per acre and the concentration is the p statea the transfer is not in the best interest of the residential acea. He stated the tourth revision ot Kaufman ~ Broad's original pcoposal included a quute relative to the commercial office area in Area 3 and stated: 'This would provide tt,e pcotessional service needs oi the cesidents and provide additional job oppottunities fot the ranch residents", and the residents feel the Planning ~ommission neetis to add[ess what would be best foc theic community in the long run since Kaufman & Broad sold their ociginal concepts un that basis. Mc. WatY,ins statea the increased densitieWOaid upktoaaa$Sf000 premiumlforaview the units have high coofs and some peop p lots. I9r. Natkins statetl the residents are concecned about the cequested waiver of maximum stcuctural height because of the view obstruction and after reviewing th~ elevations p~esented, they still feel the coot lines would obstruct their view and also, the waivet of covered packing will add clutter to the view from their adjoining lot. Conce~ning the separation wall, he stated it asa[tmentebuildingrandlhis home putposes and a 6-foot wall between a 3-story P e of h sical would not give him much screening, but it does pcovide some typ P Y sepacation. He stated this also addresses the fact that because of the topogra~hy of the site, these two uses were not intended to be next to each other. Concerning the traffic study, Mc. Watkins stated a tcaffic signal was installed right aftec the last meeting, but it has not been coanected as yet; howevec, he detinitely feels a traffic study needs to be done. 3/17/86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 17~ 1986 86-176 Concerning the roofing materials, he stated if this pcoposal isn't approved and the original plans are reconsideced, rocfing materials should be carefully reviewed. He presented an additional 187 signatures to be added to the previously submitted petition in opposition containing 280 signatures, making a total of 467 signatures in opposition. Mr. Watkins stated subject property was sold to the Bezteck ~ompany before they applied for any of these variances or density transfer and he thought that is just putting everyone in the position of having to sympathize with the buyer as the third party and accept things that they would not otherwise accept from the original land develope~ and noted that Kaufman & Broad is not willing to stand up and address their issues with the property owners. Mc. Watkins referred to Pacagraph 22 of the staff ceport concerning special circumstances requised and stated the special circumstances apply to the pcopetty ownecs in this case and not the developer and he did not see any hardship relating to these requests and there are no other developments of multiple-family rental units in the vicinity. [~r. Watkins stated the pcoperty owners are askina the Commission to deny all che waivets and density transfer cequested and if apactments are constructed, they should be constructed within the legal gui.delines. Esther De Simone, 8417 E. Ambe[wood, stated sr.~ is a real estate broker and when she purchased her home in this area, ~he +as told by Kaufman 6 Broad that this area would be developed for condominiums and now they are requesting apartments. She stated she has been in the real estate business for many years and having rental units next to a residential acea will bring the property values down and that is basically because of the pride of ownership issue. She statea she had a hard time getting into her home and when an apartment complex goes in next door, she felt it will be a real detriment. Ralph Rolnicki, 84y5 E. Frostwood, stated ~~is proFecty overlooks subject property and that last week he was asked to go through his cecords from when he pucchased his property to determine if any representations were made specifically in writing cegarding the condominiums and that he had searched all the documents and could not locate any. Ne stated he did find a plan showing the Bauet Ranch Plan of Development and it indicates Area 6 designed in 1982 foc condominiums. He explained when he purchased his propec•~y, he asked what would be developed on that property specifically and the gentlemen who sold him his property pointed to these units and said that is what would be developed. He presented the plan to the Commission for their ceview. Chairwoman La Claire noted the plan does not actually say condomir.iums and Mr. Rolnicki stated the plan indicated a configuration substantially different than what is being proposed now and stated he purchased his home in 1984, and that this map was hanging in the sales office at that time. Steve tlowell, 8508 E. t~eadowridge, explained his pcoperty is at the end of bieadowridge on the top side of the street and is in a pocket and is lowec than the other properties; and that his concecn is with the view line and after reviewin9 the elevation of his home and the apartment pads, he thought he would be looking at coof tops. He stated he pecsonally paid a$5,000 premium foc a view lot and his neighbor across the street paid even moce and they feel their views will be substant:ally obstructed and that that area was iisted as an open area when he pucchased his home. 86-177 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 17 1986 Steve Williams, 8505 E. Meadowridge, stated he lives right actoss the street from Mr. Howell and that he paid $7,500 for his view lot. He LhomeLandtstated elevations displayed and Yointed out th=efe~redito1bytMC.SHowe11, and that the elevation does not show the valley standing in his backyard, thece is a 15 to 17-foot elevationartmentuandhMr. pcoperty looking aicectly on the cooY cups oi the 3-story ap Howell is 5 oc 6 feet below his level and he thought approval of the variances would just destroy their view. Bill Heffner, 84b7 E. Amberwood, stated his view will not be impaited by this development, but the developer had ~aid thece were thcee issues involved hete: (1) the land use, (~) ownecship and (3) K& B representations;o °lifeCin~terms developec did not bring up the key issue which is the quality ot the community in a planned nature. He stated the request is for a 25$ inccease in density and he was not suce whose staff indicated that an enviconmental impact eeport would not be necessary. He staten the apactments talked about the income levels of people ~~ho will be living which woula be approximately the same as the people who purchaseHehstatednd asked why they would not be buying homes, rather than renting. pcide of ownecship should be consideced because peopie do take better care of properties they are purchasing, whethec it is a car, a house, etc. He stated property value is most oE the property owners concern because of the ownership issue. He stated the developer talked abautrofit~issuerkiHe stated theyVWOUIdPlikeng and he thought that was strictly P foc the Commission to deny the requested va~iances because there is no reeson for grantin9 them. He stated when they p~echased their home in Anaheim, they thought the City of Anaheim had done an outstanding job directing the growth where they wanted it to go and have consistent~y provided a high quality living standacd in that area and thece was a lot of time ana effestinhaa Went into the original planning. He stated now the devcloper is sugg 9 cnange which would impact the density, and the homeowner versu~ centec issue is a significant deviation from the original plans. Renee' Guyer, 120 S. Bicchwoud, stated her propecty is on the perimetec right above the proposed site and when she purchased het property, thece was a $5,000 pcemium Yot a vi.ew lot in ordee to have a view of the canyon, and that they installed wrought iron to preserve that view, and she was told there would be condoniniums in that atea and theih buildinglwould definitelyted at all. She stated she felt a 37-1/2-foot hig obstruct the view she paid for and was promised. Mr. McCotkle presented a wcitten outline of his request indicatin9 they would commit to specifying lightweight roofing materials on sloped [oof aceas on occupied structures if the Commission will consider the modifications which would include approval of the revised site plans, Scheme B. abandonsub'ect to condition requicing dedication of Meadowridge Street right-of-waY~ ~ the requiced loop se~vice, emergency police and fire access on a 20-foot paved access easement with access barcicades, placement of turn-around capability at the end of the existing Fleadowcidge Street, subject to the City Traffic Engineer, Fire and Police llepartment appcoval and subject to the traffic study acceptable to the staff. He explained the residents wece 3/17/66 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 17 1986 86-178 not made awa~e of this proposal because he did not feel it would be appropriate to discuss it with them until after he had found out if it would be acceptable to the City and he ceally did not have that final staff review until Friday afternoon and did not have an opportunity to meet with the neighbors. He stated the Seclion line plans pcesented were not intended to present vertical differences or horizontal differences throughout the entice tract and pointed out the areas ceferred to on the plans displayed. He stated the opposition discussed the building height and density with some relating to the vaciances requested and noted it is hard to separate the technical issues and land issues from the design, aesthetics and also, from the political concerns. He stated the density tra^sfer is allowed on the General Plan of Development for the Bauer Ranch and that Kaufman b Broad is to transfer 58 units irom its existing zoned multiple-family area, Area 7, which is generally acouna the library site, to this area. Mr. McCockle stated the existing zoning there is for 73 ~nits and they will be transferring 58 units from that area, leaving 15 units and it is unlikely that Area 7 would be developed as multiple-tamily units, but he is not speakir,g for Kaufman 6 Broad in that tegacd. He stated that density has now been focused ir, a concentrated area wnich is more or less removed from the other single-family areas. b]c. McCOrkle stated there is a lot of confusion concerning the 3-story structures ana explained the basic residential structure is 2 stories and under the Unifocm Building Code definition, this would be defined as a 2-story sttucture; however, for Zonin9 Code purposes, it is a 3-story structure because there are three stories, even though only two are occupied. He stated the 3-story elevation faces of the tuildings wo~ld face away from the residential area, so anyone lookin9 down on the project from above would see a 2-story ~:°~~~rion which would be no different than a 2-story elevation in a single-family Uetached home. Mr. McCOrkle stated the variances requested addresses specific site issues and will allow them to accommodate the slope conditions and design carports and parking aceas in relationship to the existing buildings and in their opinion, this project will enhance and contribute to the community. He stated there are significant needs for housing in this community and they are presenting a type oP ho~~sing that has not been provided in the Bauer Ranch area and they Yeel this quality development would be a significant addition to the community. Mc. McCOrkle stated after the last Plannin9 Commission meeting he went strai9ht to Kaufman & Broad's sales office to see exactly what was displayed and they have a lighted display 9raphic showing this area as multiple-family and it is shown that way on theit sales documents. TH~ PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ommissioner Fry complimenr_ed the homeowners for probably one o_° the best organized ptesentations he has ever se~n, and explained that doesn't mean he agrees with them. He stated he has a problem with the homeowners' comments regarding the height and he did not doubt that they paid premiums for some of theic view lots, but if they knew condominiums were going to be developed there, why they did not think that the condominiums could go in as designated, and would be the same height as this development. He stated3/17/86aid a [~1INUTES~ ANAHEI~1 CIiY PLANNING CUMMISSION, MARCH 17, 1986 66-179 premiurtifor a view lot, knowing full well it could be developed with condominiums on this site and it could be the same height without any oroblems. He stated the second concern is regarding the maintenance requirements and the depreciation of values of the properties and he could understand their concerns, but with an apartment complex, if something has to be repaired or changed, there is only one owner to deal with and with a condominium complex, there are many owners and an association which may at times be a problem. He stated he heard a realtor speak today and it is sad to say, but is a fact, that a person should never take a salesmen's word foi anything in purchasing whether ir is a home, car or whatever. He added, however, he feels enough of the homeowners have pointed out the fact and perhaps there is valid merit to their comments regarding what they were told migt~t be develoE~ed on this pcoperty when they purchased theic property. He stated the Co~nission has to look at land planning and is not permitted to consider the economics or market changes, but enough of the homeowners have indicated they were tol.~ th.is would be condominiums, and although in the past, he has not considered that a valid argument, he felt he may have to deviate a little trom his usual thinking and consider this as a valid argument. He stated perhaps it is time that some of these sales people stand up and be countea and when they say something, they had bEtter be sure that what they say is true. He stated he is taking the homeowners at their word that they were told this would be condominiutns and believed they are telling the truth. He stated he doesn't know how he will vote as yet, but appreciates what the homeowners ace saying. Commissioner Herbst stated he agrees regarding the height and did not think the homeowners understand what building on those slopes means, and with garages underneath the structures, the roof would still be the same height and this is a technical variance and it hs~ been done in many hill and canyon areas. He stated even if 2-story homes were constructed, the coof height would be the same. Concerning the uncovered parkin9 spaces, he stated the Planning ~ommission has been quite concerned for many years about what people would Ne looking down on and he thought the people above would be looking down at landscaping, rather than a flat garage structuce. Concerning the density transfec, he asked if the developer would build apartments there if he could only build the 234 units. Mr. McCOrkle stated they have not really addressed that issue from an economic point of view. Commissioner Herbst stated he is concerned with moving aensity in a planned community by reducing one area to 15 units next to the regional shopping center when 73 were originally proposed there and thought it would make more sense to put apartments next to a shopping center, rather than next to single-family homes. lar. [4cCorkle stated they came into the picture substantially after the Bauer Ranch plan was adopted and lo~ked at what was available to them and are not interested in a 73-unit site, but are interested in a site where they could get somewhere between the 234 units and 292 units. He stated their interest, as owners, is to develop 292 units and he could not answer whether or not they would still be interested in development if they had less unit~. Commissioner llerbst stated he has no problems with the variances, but does have a problem with the increased density because the people who purchased their homes there purchased them with that understanding. Mr. McCOrkle stated if the 58 units are deleted fxom this area, they will be located in Area 7, as pceviously approved, and it is a choice between multiple-family development in two separate areas, rather than concentrated in one area. He state8 the reduction 3/17/86 MINUlES ANAHEIM CZTY PLANNING CUMPIISSION MARCH 17 1986 Q6-180 of 5~ units in Area 7, leaves 15 units, and provides a density in the area consistent with the single-family detached units. Paul Si~ger stated he briefly looked at the revised plans; however, he did receive notification that he would receive a revised plan and he thought it would work as long as emergency access is provided to the single-family residences in this area. He stated there should be a condition g~laranteeing that the ~esidential area will hook up eventually with Monte Vista Road to the east of Weic Canyon, as originally planned, and all that would have to take place on the Wallace Ranch, and that would pcovide two access points to the single-family residential area. He stated the emergen~y access will serve until Monta Vista is extended and he thought the plan would work. He stated a traffic signal is going in on Santa Ana Canyon Road and will serve the single-family area well. He stated the proposed development will genecate 2,550 trips. Commissioner Hecbst stated he has a problem with changing the plan in the middle of a heacing without staff input to the Commission and the property owners t~ave not had a full chance to review the plans and to respond. Mr. McCOrkle stated last week he di~ have an informal staff ineeting, called by Jay Titus, to review this proposal, but did not seek any commitments from staff, and left it up to the staEf to make a~,propriate comments to the C:ommission. He stated tie did recognize there was a significant concern cegacding ttaffic and he did have a traffic consultant ceview this in a preliminacy manner, but did not have a formal report to suppoct the staff position; however, that could be provided and should be included as a condition of approval as staff has already suggested. Commissionez Eierbst stated the developer asked for a two-week continuance at L•he last meetiny and the people in the area wanted one month and now chan9es ace being proposed at the last minute and the neighbors have not had a chance to review them and he fe].t the changes are significant enough that some of the owners minds might be changed. He stated the developer has asked for a vote today ano he was not sure he could vote tecause he does not have adequate information from staff. Chairwoman La Claire stated she is concerned about closing Meadowridge Road because oY the way Santa Ana Canyon Road is sloped and the way it turns to the east below this development and it is difficult to see cacs that might be coming out of subject pcoperty. She added she is concerned about what traffic would be like in 20 years when development is further down the road and it would be extremely hard to get out on Santa Ana Canyon Road ar.d if that road is closed thcough the developtne~~t. people may not be able to get out to Santa Ana Canyon Road. Paul Singer stated the intersections and the configuration of Santa Ana Canyon Road were thoroughly discussed and approved when the Bauer Ranch plans were approved and each one of those streets has a decelecation lane which provides and enhances visibility at the intersection. Ne stated a focused traffic ceport is cequired at this location to determine if a traffic signal is sti.ll going to be required and without the connecting toad, thece is a question that perhaps a tcaffic signal will not be tequired, but if this road is put through, a tcaffic signal would have to be installed because of the additional 3/17/86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 17 1986 86-181 traffic generated to the south. He stated those questions have not been answered because the ttaffic report is not available, but he did not foresee that as a problem. He stated the circulation is going to be greatly changed. He stated the main purpose for this coadway was to provide emergency access and he could not foresee the residents of th2 apartments needing to drive south through the single-family development, so thcy would not be impacting that single-family development, and the only ceason to close the access is so the single-family residents would not be able to entec the multiple-family area. He stated he believes there would be adequate circulation in the long run and obviously when the Wallace Ranch develops, they will be required to continue the extension of the stubbed out streets to the sauth. Chairwoman La Claire stated she was concerned bec~use she had tried to turn acound and could not see traffic beca~se of the curve and elevation. Paul Singer stated the condition will continually improve as Santa Ana Canyon Road keeps improving and extension of Santa Ana Canyon Road will have to take place pcior to occupancy of any of these units, so the conditions will improve zather than deteriocate. Commissioner Messe stated he agreed with Commissioner Fry on the "buyer beware" statement, and whether or not the sales people from K~ B did make reptesentations to the buyers is moot at this point; that all the maps on file with the City and probably hanging in the sales office show there will be 234 units in that acea, and now the cequest is for 58 moce units and he did not think he has heard good enough reason to move those 58 units to this area. 14r. McCOrkle stated their request is for the density and the Commission has to consider that if the 58 units are not transfecred, there will be 73 units in Area 7, so whatever is done here will impact another area. He stated apptoving the density transfec will not result in a reduction of units in the entire ranch. Commissioner Messe stated those 73 units would be abutting a commercial develop~ent. Commissioner Hecbst stated building 234 units would probably provide moce open space and more landscaping for these people to look down on and added he has ne pcoblem with the height waiver, and with less units, there could probably be moce cove:ed parking. He stated he does not think it is a good design to construct the carpocts with tandem parking as proposed and he has not seen such a development in Anaheim. Malcolm Slaughtet stated staff has not analyzed in detail the revised plans submitted and felt the Planning ~ommission should be aware that the conditions as p~esently drafted in the staff report do not obviously contemplate changes presented and would have to be substantially revised and the Commission has 40 days aftec closing the public hearing to make a decision and they may wish to request staff to do further analysis of revised plans and report back to the Commission with furthec recommendations. Commissioner McBurney stated he agrees with Commissioner Fry and could not see moving those 58 units to this area, but he does believe the structures proYosed are in symphony with what was planned there originally and the type of units and height of structures would have been basically the same if the condominiums had been developed. He stated the petitioner h3/17/g6evise MINUT~S ANAHEIM CITY PLANNSNG COMMISSION MARCH 17 1926 86-182 Exhibit B, and he thought it might be good to provide another exhibit, Exhibit C, for 234 ~nnits. Chairwoman La Claire stated she could see some benefits and some problems with this development; and that one of the things that disturbs her is that a tract was approved for condominiums and she was sure if any of the property owners had come to City Hall to see what was goin9 to be built on that propecty, they would have seen an approved tract for condominiums, and that. is what she would suggest any perspective buyer should do; howevec, anything is subject to change. She stated she and Commissioner Herbst were on the Task Force which helped plan that area, and the Commission tries to see that development adheres to the General Plan and that the integrity of the area is upheld. She stated there are some apartments on Canyon Rim Road and they have not affected the property values in the area because they are high quality rental units and she did not think these proposed units would detract from the property val~es in this acea eithec if they are high quality development which they could be. She stated this project would be taken care of by the CC&Rs and the requicements placed on Kaufman 5 Broad and this developer and closing that street might benefit the property owners in the area so they would not have through traffic. She stated whatever is developed would take away part of the view, but looking at the view from the acea, she thought a lot of the project area will be graded down. She stated this is a hard decision and if she lived there and looked down on that area, sh? would want a high quality development and noted there could be a low quality condominium development. Chairwoman La Claire stated she is quite angry with Kaufman b Broad for not providing specific information and explained the Commission has tried many times to get developers to provide specifics in writing. She stated the General Plan is genecal and not specific and thece are proposals currently being considered by the City to require developers to provide specific plans which might help eliminate theic problem in the futute. Commissioner Fry stated he has no problem with tt;e requested waiver of type of parking spaces and maximum structural height or the site screening, but does have a problem with the transfer of density and did not think it is acceptable in this area and would offer a resolution foc denial of this request. ACTION: Commissioner Fry offered a motion, secor.ded by Commissioner Mr_BUrney and P1U7ION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to construct a 292-unit apartment cortiplex with waivers of required type of parkin9 spaces, maximum structucal height and requiced site screening on an icregulacly-shaped parcel of land consisting of appraximately 31 acces genecally located south and east of the intersection of Santa Ana Canyon Road and the southerly extension of Weic Canyon Road (Bauer Ranch 'Area 6'); and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has consideced the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public reviea process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comrnents received that there is no sutstantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Gotnmissioner Fry oYfered a resoluti~n for denial of Variance No. 3539 on the basis that the transfer of density is not appropciate for this acea and a~+artments in this area would not be compatible with the existing single-family residential units. 3/17/86 SION, MP.RCH 17, 19 Commissionet Herbst stated the developet should be offered the opportunity to request a continuanc~ unless he wants a vote today because if this goes to the City Council and is .nied at that level, he would have to start ovec and if he is interestea ir providing a cevised plan for fewer units, he should be g~ven the opportunity. Annika Santalahti stated the staff repoct heading should have included the density transfer issue cequiring a vote by the Planning Commission and that was omitted by er~or. Commissioner Messe stated the vaciances would pcobably change with fewer units. Annika Santalahti stated if tne variance is granted, at best it should be granted in patt, with a lower ~init count. Responding to Commissioner He~bst regarding a continuance, Mr. t9cCOtkle askea ex lained his if the p[oposed cesolution was for denial. Commissioner Fry licant ~imarily on the density tcansfe[. Chaicwoman cesolution foc denial was based p anted, would the app La Claire asked if the cesolution foc denial is gz have to teapply. Annika Santalahti stated if the Commission denies the variance, the deve oPez Council will get the can appeal that action to Whechlis thenone reviewedCtoday• She added she statt report tor Scheme A intecested in the number of units would suggest if the Commi.ssion is seriously deleted, so he can take a being reduced and the density transfec being positive action to the City Council, cevised plans should be submitted so the staYf repo~t can be modified to reflect the lower unit count. She stated t e lans and that City Council could want the Commission to review the revised p they gene~ally preter to see the exhibit the Commission has ceviewed. She added she thought the developer would be bette~ off to ask for a continuance P ublic could have an opportunity to and present the revised exhibit so th_ P review it and then, if everyone is satisfied and the resolution in favor is there would be no need fot further action ty the City granted, hopefully, Council. want a two-week continuance. ChauiLedaandaMr1aMcCockleestatedtheuwould onlymonth continuance should e ceq Commissioner Hecbst staeCSOnall.y ncern of the Commission is the density does nat have a pcoblem with apartments transfer and added he p is reduced, and noted the General Pian vecsus condominiums, if the density Whether it is apartments or designates this pxoperty fo~ this density contlominiums and the Commission cannot contcol what the K~ B sales people have tepcesented. with Mr. McCOrkle asked if it is possible to approve the site plan, Scheme B, c~nditions subject to staff ceview with the decision on ti~e density ttansfec and variances being separate. 3/17/86 86-184 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 17 1986 Commissionei Herbst stated probably some of the variances could be eliminated if the unit number is reducea to 234. Mr. McCorkle stated they probably would not be able to reduce theWOUld sim 1 parking, height waiver o~ the required height screening and they P Y remove 29 stacks and that there may be be some other deviations. Chairwoman La Claire stated she would be willing to go along with highe: density if these were condominiums: but not for apactments. Commissioner Lawicki stated condominiums are not selling. Mr. McCorkle stated they would not develop condominiums on this site. He stated he would request a continuance and felt a one-month delay would not be necessary because the opposition knows the developec is interested in responding to some of thei~ concecns and felt they can meet and cesolve those issues quickly. Commissioner Herbst stated he likes Plan B because it takes the traffic off Santa Ana Canyon Road and eliminates tcaffic through the residential tract, but he is concerned about the density transfer. Mc. McCOrkle statea they have a site plan available and could be ready in two weeks. Commissioner McBUrney stated that plan shows 252 units and the Commission is looking for 234 units. He stated a delay would be preferable to allow them to present it to the residents and Mr. McCorkle stated he would like a two-week continuance. Chairwoman La Claire stated that was what was gcanted the last time and it was not enough time. She added these people have to take their time and come to these meetings and felt it was not fair to ask them to come back in two weeks. Paul Singer stated he would recommend a t~affic study be conducted. Commissioner Fty withdrew his motion for denial. Malcolm Slaughtec suggested the public hearing be ceopened so that additional testimony could be taken at the next hearing. ACTION: Commissionec Hecbst offeced a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRI~D (Commissionec Bouas absent) that consideration of the afocenentioned matter be continued to the cegularly-scheduled meeting of April 14, 198b. Commissioner La Claire stated this item will be set as Item No. 1 on the April 14th agenda. RE~ESSED: 3:50 p.m. RECONVENED: 4:00 p.m. Commissioner Bouas ceturned to the meeting. ITEM N0. 5 EIk CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIOh-CLASS 1 AND CONDZTIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2769 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: TINA cn~NKO, 1881 West Chateau AvenueC [onae1CA CA 92804. AGENT: STEVEN J. STIEMSMA, 135 Maple Shaeed/ arcel of land consisting 91720. Pcoperty desccibed as a rectangularly-s P P of appcoximately 10,000 square feet located at the northeast corner of Chateau Avenue and 1JUtwood Street, 1881 west Chateau Avenue. To construct a second-family (granny) unit. 3/17/86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 17 1986 86-185 There was no one indicating their ptesence in opposition to subject request and although the staff repoct was not read, it is ceferred to and made a part of the minutes. Steven Stiemsma, agent, explained the proposal is to demolish the existing house on the pcoperty and construct a new residence with a granny unit attached. THE PUbLIC HEAHING WAS CLOSED. Mr. Stiemsma responded to Commissionec Herbst that he understands the rules and regulations pertaining to a granny unit concerning age limitations, etc. and explained the owner's mother will be living in the unit. it was noted the Planning Director or his authorized representative has determined that the proposed pcoject falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1, as defined in the State Environmental Impact Repo~t Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt fcom the requirement to prepare an EIR. ACTION: Commissioner McBUrney offeced Resolution No. PC86-62 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does heceby grant ~onditional Use Petmit No. 2769 under the authority of California Code Section 65852.1 to constcuct a second family (granny unit) subject to Intecdepactmental Committee recommendations. Un roll call, the foregoiny cesolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BUUAS, FRY, HERBSi, LA CLAIRE, LAWICY.I~ MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NUNk~ Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Plannin9 Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM NO. b EIR NEGATIVB DECLARATION AND iENiATIVE MAP UF TRACT NO. 12642 PUBLIC: HEARING. OWNERS: MOHAMMAD H. 1:E2AZADEH, 12910 IIerkhamsted, Cerritos, CA y0701. Property described as an ir:egula[ly-shaped parcel of lard consisting of approximately 0.32 acre, having a frontage of approximately 6Q feet on the south side ot La Palma Avanue, approximately 870 feet east of the centecline of e:ast Street and furthec described as 1262 East La Palma Avenue (vacant). io establish a 1-lot, 7-unit, RM-3,000 (Residential, Multiple-Family) condominium subdivision. There was no one indicating their oresence in opposition to subject request and although the staff cepoct was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. AI;TIUN: Commissionec Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to establish a 1-lok, 7-unit, RM-3,0003/17/86ential, MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PI,ANNING COMMISSION MARCH 17 1986 86-186 Multiple-Family) zoned condominium ~ubdivision on an irregularly-shaped parcel of and consisting ot approximately 0.32 acre, having a frontage of approximately 60 feet on the south side of La Palma and further described as 1262 East La Palma Avenue; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that thece is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the enviconment. Commissionec Herbst offeced a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBUrney and MOTION CAHRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find that the ptoposed subdivision, together with its design and improvement, is consistent with the City of Anaheim General Plan, ~ursuant to Government Code Section b6473.5; and does, thecefore, approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 12642 for a 1-lot, 7-unit condominium subdivision subj~ct to the following conditiuns: 1, That the owner of subject propecty shall pay to the City of Anaheim a fee for stceet lighting along La Palma Avenue in an amount as determined by the City Council. 2, That the owner of subject prcperty shall pay to the City of Anaheim a fee foc tcee planting purposes along La Palma Avenue in an amount as detecmined by the City Council. 3. That prior to issuance of a building permit, primary wate: main fees shall be paid to the City of Anaheim, in an amount as determined by the Office of the Utilities General Managec. 4. That pcior to issuance of a building pecmit, appropriate park and cecreation in-lieu fees shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an amount as detecmined by the City Council. 5. That prior to issuar.ce of a building permit, the appropriate traffic signal assessment fee shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an amount as determined by the City Council for each new dwelling unit. 6. That all en9ineering requirements of the City of Anaheim along La Yalma Avenue, including preparation of impcovement plans and installation of all improvements such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks, water iacilities, stceet gcading and pavement, sewer and drainage facilities, or othec appurtenant work shall be complied with as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with specifications on file in the Office of the City Engineer; and that securzty in the form of a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or cash, in an amount and fotm satisfactozy to the City of Anaheim, shall be posted with the City to guarantee the satisfactory campletion of said improvements. Said security shall be posted with the City p~ior to final tcact map approval, to guarantee the installation of the above-cequired improvements prior to occupancy. 7. That drainage of subject ptoperty shall be disposed of in a mar.ner satisfactocy to the City Engineer. 3~17~86 MINUTES, ANAHEIDI CIT~ PLANNING COMMISSION, MARCH 17, 1986 86-187 B. That shuuld this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. y. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities. 10. That prior to commencement of structural framing, fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and determined to be necessary by the ~hief of the Fire Department. 11. That trash storage areas shall be pcovided and inaintained in acco~dance with appzoved plans on file with the Street Maintenance and Sanitation Division. 12. That the vehicular access rights to La Palma Avenue except at approved access points, shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim. I'PEM NU. 7 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV. APPROVED), WAIVER OF CODE R~~UIREPIENT AND CUNDITIONAL USE PERMIT NU. 2750 (READVERTISED) PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: SSP PROPERTIES (JOHN SCHANT2~ ET AL) 20100 Brookhurst, Huntington Beach, CA 92646. AGENTS: THE ROBERZ' P. WARI9INGTON CO., 305U Pullman St., Costa Mesa, CA 92626, A1TN: MARK KNORRINGA and J.P. KAYP, 158y2 Pasadena Ave., Tustin, CA 9268U. Property described as an irtegularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 2•5 acres located southeast at the Riverside Fceeway on-ramp and Imperial Highway, having a frontage of appcoximately 593 feet on the southeasterly side of the eastbound Riverside Frec':t~y on-ramp, having a maximum depth of approximately 230 feet. (vacant) To permit a 46.3-foot high, 171-unit motel with waivers of required site screening, maximum stcuctural height, minimum structural setback and minimum landscaped setback. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Mack Knorringa, agent, explained they are cequesting approval of revised plans to permit the construction of a 46.3-foot high, 171-unit motel; and that the hei9ht is 3-1/2 feet higher than what was previously approved. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr. Knorringa stated the revised plans are generally the same as previously approved plans except there are less units, and parking more than meets Code, and that the height is 3-1/2 feet higher. Responding to Commissioner Bouas, Annika Santalahti stated the additio~al 3-1/2 feet in height will not obstruct anyone's view because the property is located adjacent to a shoppin9 center and there is a hillside with a gradual upgrade towards Santa Ana Canyon Road, so there would not be any significant change in view. 3/17/86 MINUiES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 17 1986 86-188 Responding to Commissioner Herbst, Mr. Knorcinga stated the emergency access lane will have a crash gate for access; howevec, pedestrian access will not be prohibited. Regarding the signing, Annika Santalahti stated the petitionec would have to comply with the SC cequirements in the commercial zone and the Zoning Ordinance is designed for signs that are visible off the property or from adjacent streets, so they could have a sign confined to their property for direction. She stated the Scenic Cocridor Commercial Zone sign requirements are fairly restrictive. Mr. Fnocringa stated they might like to discuss an off-site sign and noted it would net have to be a very large sign because the site is behind an existing shopping center and there is a view corridor at the Impetial off-ramp. Annika Santalahti stated the pecmitted signing is one wall sign equaling not more than 108 of the building wall, so with a large building, there is a lot of square iootage permitted, plus a low ground-mounted, three-foot high sign that would identify the use on a public street. It was noted the negative declaration was previously approved. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC86-63 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby gcant approval of revised plans in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 2'/50 to permit a 46.3-foot high, 171-unit motel with waiver of required site screening, maximum structural height, minimum stcuctural setback and minimum landscaped setback, and subject to modified conditions. On coll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BGUAS, ERY, HERBST, LA CLAIna, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE AESEIJT: NUNE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. Chairwoman La Claire stated she voted in favoc of this request because this property is somewhat lowet than the adjacent praperty. ITEM NU. 8 EIR NEGATIVE DEc:LARATIGiV RECLASSIFICATION NO. 85-86-25 WAIVER OF CODE kE UIREMENT AND C:ONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2771 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: HOWARD D. GARBER, P.O. Box 6048, Anaheim, CA 92806. AGENT: RON S. GARBER, P.O. Box G048, Anaheim, CA 92806. Pcoperty described as an irre9ulacly-shaped paccel of land cansisting of approximately 6,880 squate feet located at the southwes~ corner of Chelsea Drive and State College Boulevard, 1840 c:helsea Drive. RS-720U to CL oc a less intense zone. To permit the commercial use of a residential stcucture with waivets of mi.nimum rumbec of parking spaces, required parking location and minimum landscaped setback atea. 3/17/86 MINUiES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MARCH 17~ 1986 86-169 Thece was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staif teport was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Ron Garbez, ayent, explained the request is to convert an existing single-family residence to light office uses and the majority of the building will be f.or a non-pcofit organization with a maximum of four to five employees. THE PUBI,IC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Responding to Chaicwoman La Claice, Mr. Garber stated the non-profit organization will not be holding any large meetings at this site. Commissioner Herbst stated the major problem is with the parking in the front acea on State Coilege 6oulevacd because that is a heavily travelled street. c;ommissioner McBurney suggest~d some sort of decorative screening wall in front of the parking spaces. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated very shortly parking will be prohibited on State College Boulevard. Mr. Garber stated the two spaces on the street are not included in the required space count. Mr. Garber responded to Commissioner Bouas that no medical offices are proposed on this site. Commissionec Lawicki stated because of the high traffic count and the noise, this site would not be desirable for residential uses and this would probably be a better use. Responding to Chairwoman La Claire, Mc. Garbec stated they are planning to put shrubbery and bushes in the front and generally upgrade the planters. Commissionec Fty stated this is certainly not a residential area and unfo~tunately there are no alleys. Commissioner Herbst stated there should be screening in front of the parking spaces. Mr. Garber stated the structure is identical to one previously approved, facing State College across the street; however, the lot configuration is different. He stated the block wall is complete in the rear of the propecty and has been extended to the side 40 feet towards the front. Responding to Commi;sioner Herbst's comment regatding the screening, Paul Singer stated a wall would create a hazard with the view of oncoming traffic obstructed and noted traffic on State College is very fast. ACTION: Chaicwoman La Claire offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fry and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to reclassify subject property from the RS-7200 (Residentiul, Single-Family) Zone to the CL (Commercial, Limited) to permit commeccial use of a residential struc~ure with waivers of minimum number of parking spaces, required parking location and mirimum landscaged setback on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consistin9 of approximately 6,880 square feet located at the southwest corner of Chelsea Drive and State College Isoulevard, having appzoximate frontages of 70 feet on the south side of Chelsea Drive and lUl feet on the west side of State College Boulevard and 3/17/86 MINUTES, ANAHcIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MARCH 17, 1986 ___86-i90 further described as 1840 Chelsea Drive; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration togethet with any comments received during the public review process and fur~her 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. Chairwoman La Claire offered Resolution No. PC86-64 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Reclassification No. 85-86-25 subject to Interdepactmental Committee recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AY~S: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNPY, MESSE NO~S: NONE ABSENT: NONE Chairwoman La Claire offeted a motion, seconded b~+ ~ommissioner Fry and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission u.,as hereby grant waivers (b & c) on tl~e basis that the structure is existing and 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 properkies in the iaentical zone and classification in tne vicinity and further granting waiver (a) on the basis that the parking waiver will not cause an increase in traffic congestion in tt~e immediate t~icinity nor adversely affect any adjoining land uses and granting of thr parking waivec under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the cit:zens of the c:ity of Anaheim and subject to the stipulatien to provide a low-growing hedge to provide screening of the parking, as approved by the City TraYfic Engineer. Comtnissionec La Claire offered Resolution No. 86-65 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant c;ondit~onal Use Permit No. "1771 pucsuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.03.030.03U thr.u+:` 18.03.030.035 and subject to Interdepactmental Committee recommendations _. ~ding an additional condition requi~ing a covenant be recordea on the pc ,erty prohibiting any medical office uses and an addition condition that the petitioner shall provide a low-growing hedge to screen the packin9 subject to the Tcaffic Engineer's approval. Un roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS~ FRY~ HERBST~ LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI~ MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NON~ ABSENT: NUN~ Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attocney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. 3/17/86 86-191 DiINUTES ANAHEZM CITY PLANNING COMDIISSION MARCH 17 1986 ITEM NO. 9 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAIVER OP CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONUITIUNAL USE PERMIT N0. 2770 PUBLIC H~AkING. OWNERS: BAY COkPORATE CENTER ASSOCIATES, 19600 Fairchild Avenue, #200, Irvine, CA 92715, ATTN: BURREL D. MAGNOSSON. AGENT: NATIONAL UNZV~RSITY, 4141 ~amino del Rio South, San Dieg~, CA 92108, ATTN: TODD BRADL~Y. Pcoperty described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consi:~ting of approximately 2.9 acres located between Santa Cruz Street and Anaheim Boulevard, 208U South Anaheim Boulevard. To permit a pcivate university with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is ceferred to and made a part of the minutes. Frank Lowey, attocney, l0U S. Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 340, Anaheim, agent, explained this is primarily an evening use for a university and the main problem is the commencing operating hour at 5:30~oblem withteveningfuse is at Engineer indicates the key intersection to th~ p State College and Otangewood which is already cunning at a traffic flow level (B), and as development takes place at that intersection, the traffic flow will be downgraded to level (D) in several yeats, and. when oCttthePtraffichat intersection of State College and Orangewood would not supp He stated at that time they would be willing to convert to a 6:00 p.m. starting time and would make that a stipulation of approval. Responding to Commissioner Fry, Paul Singer, 'Praffic Engineer, explained traffic is nieasuced by service levels ranging fcom A through F, depending on the comEoct level of using an intersection, with (F) being the level of failure when traffic cannot be han~led. He stated it i5 his recommendation that the startiny time at 5:30 p.tn. could be maintained until the capacity at that intersection at Orangewood and State College reaches service level (D) and then the houc should be changed to 6:00 p.m. Commissioner Messe stated thece is an additional question of Qarking with people not leaving the office until 5:15oo~,'that the•averagesuserdishfrom problem was addressed in the tcaffic ceP 8:00 to 5:00 and the packing lot starts to thin and the university use would inccease as the evening goes on. He stated there ~ill be a constant flow of traffic in and out with packing available constantly for this use. He explained that has been National University's experience in their other lo~ations. Mr. Lowry elacified foc Commissioner Bouas that the traffi~efecdtorstarteaded the classes start at 6:00 p.m., but the univecsity would p 5:30 p.m., at least in the beginniny, because traffic flow is acceptable at this time. Commissioner Bouas stated the report takes parl:ing into consideration, in addition to the t~affic flow at that intersection. Paul Silger stated level of secvice and packing situations were considered and they ate vety closely interrelated . 3/17/86 86-1°2 DIINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 17 19$6 Commissionec Hecbst asked how this situation would be controlled. Paul Singer stated the Canyon Plaza (Rinker Development) had a similar threshHeastatedhen that threshold was ceached, they were notified to do something. hour when the[e should be a condition requicing the change of the commencing necessary. Fcank Lowry stated they would be willing to make that stipulation. t9alcolm Slaughter stated there is no requirement in the staff report for the [ecordation of a covenant to that effect in the event National University might sell the ptoperty, and suggested that condition should be added. Frank Lowry stated National University is a tenant and could not transfer the cights to anothec university. Malcolm Slaughtec ststed the owner could invite a new school in under this Cu~ =nd the new opecato~ would have no notice of this condition and he thought a covenant could be cecorded against this property, signed by the owner, to give notice of any future usezs. Commissioner Fry stated the covenant should be pcepaced to a.pply only to this school. FranA Lowry stated th? numbec of studaces availabletedHeystated they available packing because they only have 41 sp will have to control it thcough admissions to the school. Chai~woman La Claire notea that National University has multiple campuses so they could just transfer students to another school. She added she does not see a p[oblem with this ~equest. Nnnika Santalahti suggested an additional condition requiring the payment of traffic signal assessment fees foc the difference between the industrial and commercial uses for the specific square footage of this school. Frank Lowry stated they would stipulate to meet that requirement. ACTION: Commissioner Fcy offered a mation, sec~nded by Commissioner Bouas and MoTION CARRZED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed a pcoposal to Yermit a pcivate univecsity aith waiver of minimum number of parking spaces on an irregularly-shapea paccel of land consisting of approximately 2.9 acre located between Santa Cruz Stre~et and Anaheim Boulevard and Sanfotd Court and Ocangewood Avenu=ove therNegativecDeclaration80po~ul-h Anaheim Boulevatd; and does hereby aPP finding that it has considered the Negative Declarati~~n tugether with any comments received ducing the public review process and furthe* finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments teceived that there is no substantial evidence that the pto7ect will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Fry offered a motion, secoiided by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Plahning Comm;ssion does hereby grant waiver of Code requirement on the basis that the packiny waiver will not cause an inc[ease in traffic congestion in theof~thelaarkinglwaiveroundecethe y affect any adjoining land uses and granting p eace, health, conditions imposed, if any, will not be detcimental to the p safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. ~ommissionec Fry offered Resolution No. PC86-66 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby gcant ~onditional Use Pecmit No. 2770 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 thcough 18.03.030.035 and subject to interdepa3~17~861 Committee MINUTtiS, ANAHBIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MARCH 17 1986 86-193 recommendations including an additional condition requirin9 recordati~n of a covenant against the property 9uaranteeing that the commen~~ement of classes will be changed to 6:00 p.m. when traffic reaches secvice level of (D), as determined by the City ~raffic Engineer; and furthe~ that a condition be added requiring payment of the traffic signal assessnent fees for the difference between the indust~ial and commeccial uses. Un roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AY~S: BUUAS, FRY~ HERBST~ LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI~ MC BURNEY~ MESSE NU~S: NONE AdS~NT: NONE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. REC~SSED: 4:55 p.m. REC:ONVENED: 5:00 p.m. ITEI•1 NO. lU EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE NO. 3536 PU~LIC HEARIN~. OWNERS: JAMES I. AND SUSAN G. SWENSON, 1231 N. Simon Ciccle, Anaheim, CA 928U6. AGENT: GERALD R. BUSHORE, 721 N. Euclid St., ~Z~Z. Anaheim, CA 92801-4116. Property described as an icregulacly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 10,541 square feet, 1231 North Simon Circle (Details, Znc.)• Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to retain an outdoor storage yard. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not cead, it is re£erred to and made a part of the minutes. Gerald R. Bushcre, agent, stated there are ten packing spaees on the property and they will be losing eight with this storage. Ne presented photcgraphs of the large storage vats which will be sto~ed outside because of the requirements to stoce chemicals used in the operation outside. He stated this will become a problem in many of the industrial areas because owners of manufacturing operations which have some sort of chemicals will be required to store them outside. He stated they have submitted information showina where the chemicals are stoced, what is stored and the materials handling iniormation. He stated they are complying with all regulations. He stated the storage vats are designed so that if there is a leak, it overflows into an outside area which is bermed to handle the spillage. He stated in addition to the chainlink fence, there is a storage building which can be locked £or the storage of the chemicals and a cemznt berm has been constructed. He stated the chemicals are hauled away by a licensed disposal firm. Mr. Bushoce referred to the condition cequiring a parking agreement, and stated they would hope this variance and the zeciprocal parkiny agreement would apply to this particular user and it should not be transferced to diffetent owners. Mr. Bushore stated he did not realize this ptoperty is in the Redevelopment area and thought it would have been to the applicant's 3/17/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COPfM;SSION, MARCH 17, 1986 86-194 benefit to have attended the Redevelopment Commission meeting and, although the Redevelopment Commission recommended approval subject to conditions, there cot:ld have been a recommendation foc denial and the applicant would not even have been present to defend the operation. He stated ou~door storage of chemicals should be c~~sidered because it will be a requirement for a lot of industrial users. Inspector Mendez, Anaheim Fice Deoartment, stated she inspected this site and the Fire Department's concern is the chemicals and she will be mailing a letter to the owners regacdin9 the Fire Department's recommendation and requirements for the building. She stated diking is very important because there are several chemicals which are not compatible with each other and tY~at they ~ill be given a thirty-day extension to come up with a way to separate the chemicals. She stated they ~o have two drums of hazardous waste and some of the chemicals can be recycled and a lieensed contcactor does ~ick up the waste. She stated the Fire Depar~ment wants to know how thev are going to protect their place of business, who the hauler is and where th~ :;aste is taken. She stated the Anaheim Fire Department will have a 704m system which will tell the fire fighters what is inside the bui" ~ and storage yard aud they will be working very closely with this compar.: 5ze stated inspections will be done lwice a year.. h1r. Bushore stated they will comply with all Fi:e Department r~~commendations. He added there have r,ot been any problems in the past and the; have been very caoperative in providing the necessary infotmation. Inspector Mendez statpd the Fire Department works very closely with the County Health DeYartment and ii• there is an emergency, the Anaheir~ 'rire Department is the first to know. She stated they do not work closely with any Toxic Waste Management Section; however, the operator uf tt~e business does and the was~.e disposal contractoz has to work closely witr~ them and lhat information should be kept on the premises at all times because there are times when the fire inspecto~s ask to look at that infocmation. Responding ~o Ct~airwoman La Claire, Mr. Bushore stated the company they have a contract with is Chemical taaste Management and they ace licensed by the State, Fedecal oc whatever ~ther agencies are required and when they have waste that ha~ to be transpo~ted, this company hauls it away. Commissioner McBUrney ascertained the petitioners own the property and the parking agceement would stay with the property. Mr. Bushore stated he did not think the agreement should stay with the property because the pcoperty could 5e sold and the parking agreement should be terminated with the variance. Malcolm Slaughtec statea if the applicant is willing to stipulate tnat Lhe variance will ter:ninate upon the sale of the property or discontinuance of the use, there wou].d be no problem and also tl~e covenant could be cecorded against tha property. Mr. Bushore stated the owner would be willing to comply. Commissioner Lawicki asked about the check valve to prevent any spillage from seeping into the City sewezs and asked if tnere is a backup o~ ala~m system foc that valve. 3/17/86 86-195 MINUTgg, ANA~EIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 17 1986 Inspectoz Valdez stated in the event of a spill, the bermed area is large enough to accommodate it, except in a situation where evetything is spilled, then there would be an ove~flow, but that is not a likely event. ACTION: Commissioner idcBUrney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CAT.tRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to retain an outdooc storage yard on a irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of appcoximately 10,541 square feet, having a frontage of approximately 114 feet on the west side of Simon Ciccle, and further described as 1231 North Simon Circle (Details, inc.); and does hereby approve the l~egative Declacation upon finding that it has consideced the Negative Declaration together with any comments received ducing the public review process and further finding on the bas~s of the Initial Study and any comments received that thece is no substantial evidence that the proj•;ct will have a significant eff.ect on the environment. Commissioner McBUtney offeced Resolution No. PC86-67 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning ~ommission does hereby grant Variance No. 3536 on th~ basis that the parki~g waiver will not cause an inccease in traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity nor adversely affect any adjoinin9 land uses and granting of the parking waiver under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfa[e of the citizens of the City of Anaheim and subject to interdepartmental Committee recommendations, including an additional condition to record a covenant against the pcoperty limiting this vaciance and parking agreement to the present ownecs. On coll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: pygg; BOUAS~ FRY~ HERBST~ LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI~ MC BURNEY~ MESSE NOES: NONE A~SENT: NON~ ~hairwoman La Clai.re stated she would like to see any information the applicant has available pectaining to the disposal of hazardous waste. l4alcolm Slaughte~, Deputy City Attocney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 'l2 days to the City Council. I'PEM N0. 11 EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 11 AND VARIANCE NO. 3544 PUBLI~ HEARING. OWNERS: CITY OF ANAHEIM, 20U S. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA J28U5. AG~NT: J. R. H. INC., 5101 E. independenr.e Blvd., Charlotte, NC 28'L12. PzoperLl described as an ircegularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 9.3 acres located at the northeasterly corner of La Palma Avenue and Weir Canyon Road, having approximate fcontages of ~10 feet on the north side of La Palma Avenue and 758 feet on the east side ~. ~eir Canyon Road. Waivecs of maximum number and type of signs, maximum sign area and disolay surfaces and limitations ~n sign lighting to construct 3 freestandiny signs and 3 wall signs. 3/17/86 F1INUlES AIJAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSZON MARCH 17 1986 86-196 There wec~ two persons indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff repoCt was not read, it is referred to and made a patt of the minutes. William Riddner, owner and operator of the proposed Canyon Honda facility, explained they are in a lease situation with the City of Anaheim and they have been working on this development for some time with the idea that they would have adequate signage for a tetail automobile establishment; that both corners of Weic Canyon and La Palma intersection will be developed and the northeast cornec is under construction at this time for the Honda facility and a Subaru dealership will be developed on the same corner in the future. He stated he rcalizes the City's concern that this will become a'Las Vegas' situation with a lot of signs and realizes also that this area is designated as a Scenic Corridor with more restrictions; that they are surrounded on three sides by the City of Yocba Linda and when the conditional use permit was approved for the automobile dealership, it did not permit the signs. He stated the signs shown include a freestanding sign that will be en Weir Canyon Road and is about 40 feet tall and that will be the identifier at this time for the dealersliip and the auto center that will be developed in the future and the other signs are individual dealership signs and are more directional signs and there is a monument sign on the puint between Weir Canyon Road and La Palma Avenue wnich is considered an identifier. Regarding the sign identified as (C) on the plans, Mr. Riddner stated they need the 40-foot high sign primarily fot freeway identification. He stated they will be the first tetail operatiun in that area and a sign is very important to their operation for bringing people off the freeway. He stated as the area develops and people start coming to it as a regional shopping center for automobiles, the Honda sign could be changed to identiYy the auto centec in general. Jim Lazaro, 8136 E. Woodsboro, stated his property backs up to La Palma and tnat he represent> the residential tcact dicectly behind weic canyon Road and they strongly object to this request because a 40-foot high sign in this location would end up beir.g a 70-foot high sign oveclooking their homes. He stated Caliber Motocs on L~~ Paima just south of Imperial has a low monumental sign that is not readily visible from the fceeway; and that Canyon Honda has residential homes on two sides. He stated i.f this sign is approved, it would set a precedent foc future developers in this newly developing area, and the surrounding hills are being filled with residential complexes including apartments and condominiums and the surrounding residents stron9ly oppose any waiving of er.isting Zoning restrictions and feel, if allowed, this will have a direct affect on the Canyon Scenic Corridor anc their property values. Mc. Riddnec explained the Calibec Motors establishment referred to by Mr. Lazaro has just recently gotten approval for a freestanding 40-foot high sign and it is in an industrially-zoned atea. He asked if the one 40-fool• high sign is the only problem. Tk~ PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairwoman La Claire ~tated it seems that Weir Canyon Road is higher than the subject p~operty at this location. Mr. Riddner stated the pcoperty is on the northeast corner just over the Santa Ana River where Weir Canyon P.oad starts to go up the hill. He statea the railroad is to the rear of this property and Esperanza is behind the railroad and the pro~erty is much lower than Weir 3/17/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MARCH 17~_1986 86-197 Canyon Road and is one oY the reasons they need the 40-foot high sign so it can be seen fcom the freeway. He stated the sign identified as (A) is the 40-YOOt high sign on Weir Canyon Road and explained there is a hill and towec that blocks ttie whole view of the entire corner. Annika Santalahti explained the Scenic Corridor signing regulations are quite testrictive and were designed ociginally in anticipation of being used in connection with neighborhood shopping centers and were not expected to attract anyone at a distance. Regarding the Caliber Motor sign, she explained that propecty is in an industrial zone and that they also argued that they need the freeway visibility and were planning to install a Mercedes Ber.z logo, but she did not think it would be visible from the fce=way. She stated in this instance, the Commission may wish to consider something hi9her than 3 feet, but not as high as 40 feet because anyone else who wants a sign in this general area will want the same thing oc somethin9 higher. She pointed out thece is CL(SC) Zoning across the street to the west separating the cesidential tract where the opposition lives and Weir Canyon Road. She stated also lighted signs at nighc should be considered and that is a part of the proposal. She responded to Chairwoman La Claice that a wall sign is permitted for each tena^t at lU8 of the face oE the building, so they could have a large wall sign. Responoing to Chairwoman La Claire as to the size of th? wall facing the f~eeway, Mr. kiddnec stated the building signs are desigr.ed to be about the same size as the monumental sign which is shown as (B). Annika Santalahti stated the plans show a 10-foot lon9 wall sign, 24-inches high, which is detinitely less than 108. Commissionec Hecbst stated approval of this would set a precedent and he has a problem with that because a lot of requests for signs have been denied in the 5cenic ~orridor and pointed out the City owns the property and is leasing it to the petitioner, He added with other developecs going into the area, everyone wi11 want a sign as large as this and he looY.ed at this property and it is guite visible from the freeway and he did not think a 40-f.oot high sign is needed. Chairwoman La Claire stated Keno's, the savings & loan, the nursery, the Anaheim Hills Motel, etc. are all requiced to comply with the ordinances and they have worked it out quite well. She added she knows this facility will be there by itself for awhile, but not for long. Mr. Riddner stated this w:ll be more like a shopping center for vehicles rathec than an individual dealer and asked if that would make any difference. Commissioner Herbst stated that s~me request has been denied to other shopping centers in that atea and Chairwoman La Claire stated she is not opposed to some signin9, but everyone w~~!~ld want a bigger and taller sign. Responding to Mc. Riddner, Annika Santalahti stated the Caliber Motors opPration is in the Scenic Corridor, but it is in an industrial area and does not have the same cest~ictive regulations. Commissioner ::e,:~st pointed out that they also just have an insignia. 3/17/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MA.~CH 17 1966 86-198 Norman Pciest, Executive Director of Planning and Community Development, suggested continuing this matter for two weeks in ocder for the petitioner to work with staff. to come with a more suitable sign because the p2titioner is on a tight time scl~edule. Commissioner Herbst stated they are pouring concrete on the site now and suggested they cor.sidec meeting the Code on the wall sign facing the freeway with lighting. Mr. Riddner stated the building is a triangularly-designed building with the pact facing the freeway being very narLOw with no real frontage~explaining the roof slants back to cover the a~r-conditioning and equipment on the roof so it would be difficult to put a sign on the building; however, he felt they could make some adjustments. Commissioner Herbst stated some lacge monumental signs have been allcwed, but not this big and dicectional signs are no problem. Mr. Riddner stated he would like a two-week continuance. ACTIUN: Commissionec Fry offered a~otion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MUTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the cegularly-scheduled meeking of t4arch 31, 1986, at the request of the petitioner. IT~M N0. 12 REPORiS AND RECU61MElJDATIONS: A. CONDITIONAL USE PERPIIT NO. 2529 - Request f[om G[egory Villanueva for an extension of time for ~onditional Use Permit No. 2529, property located at 871 South Harboc Boulevard. ACTIUI~: Co~nissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Comr.issioner Fry and MOTION ~ARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve a one-year extension of time retcoactive to February 6, 1985, to expire on February 6, 1487. h. CONDITIUNAL USE P~RMIT NO. 2595 - Request from Salvatore F. Guttuso for an extension of time for Conditional Usc Permit No. 2595, pcoperty located at 505 South Villa Real Drive. A~TION: Commissionec Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant a one-yeac exr.ension of time to expice on July 9, 1986. C. CGDB AMENDMENT TO ALLUW PROCESSING "SPECIFIC PLANS" - Request Prom Elfend and Associates, Inc. to develc~~ a pcocedure for appcoving and adminis~ ~ing specific plans. An.~ika :. ~alahti stated this is an introductory submittal to the Planning :.:or::aissioii and explained a dtaft ordinance was pcepared by the City Attorney's Office. She siiggested the Commission listen to the pcesentatian by Mr. Elfend and study L•he proposed ordinance and review the staff teport and then continue the mattec for fucther consideration. She explained the dcaft ordinance has not been reviewed by the Planning Department staff. 3L17/86_ __ ------------~-__ ~y9 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION NARCH 17 1986 Frank Elfend stated he appzoached staff about ane yeac ago to di=cuss a project they would be working on in the Anaheim Hills area and determine the best appzoach to pcocess it thcough the City; and that a speciEic plan otdinance was discussed to permit the preparation of specific plans on unique parcels. [3e stated they want to cteate a type of ordinance which all the pa[ties involved could be comfortable with; andLOVideshforhthe four.d the existing ordinances for a planned community p preparation of several documents which they iPel is a piecemeal fashion and one aocument which addresses all the issues would be much better. He statecl a specific plan would include such information as environmental concerns, physical impacts, public facility limitations, zoning, development standards and other mattecs which are unique to the site involved. Chairwoman La Claire clarificd that this is a voluntary typ2 situation with Mr. Elfend cesponding it would not cequire anyon2 to utilize it unless they so desire. Annika Santalahti stated staff sees two different uses for this ordinance; one being the City utilizing it for the Stadium Area or the Canyon Industrial Area ot specific ateas which have specific needs and the~e could be special zoning standards added or a variety of land uses which ate not allowed by any existing zones. She stated her concern is with any developer trying to use it to get around the Zoning standards and staff is interested in making it difficult for anyone not interested in improving what is thete to use it. Malcolm Slaughtec stated the ordinancelan unlessdityishconsistent with the pcohibits the adoption of a specific p City's General Plan, so approval would have to be within the confines of the Anaheim General Plan. Los AngelesSCOUntyta~nd thecdcaftlsubmittedeis onelof theOmostecompleteahe has seen. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, secon~ed by Commissioner Bouas and MOTIUN CARRIED that considezation of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of March 31, 1986. D, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2716 - Rc;uest from Planning staff fot a Nunc pro tunc resolution amending the legal description for Conditional Use Permit No. 2716, pcoperty located at the noctheasterly corne~ of the proposed easterly extension of La Palma AvEnue and Wei~ Canyon Road. ACTION: Commissionec Hecbst offered Resolution No. PC86-68 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby amend Re~elution No. PC85-222r nunc pro tunc, in connection with Conditional Use Pe~mit No. 2716, am~nding the legal description. On coll call, the focegoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST~ LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI~ P1C BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE A~.SENi: NONE 3/17/86 _ _ i ' -. 86-200 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINC, COMPlZSSION MARCH 17 1986 ADJOURNMgNT: Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissionec IIouas and MOTION CARRIED that the meeting be adjourned. The meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~~~ .~/~~.." __ _ Edith L. Haczis, Sec~etary Anaheim City Planning Commission ELH:lm 0178m 3/17/86