Loading...
Minutes-PC 1986/10/13REGULAR MEETING OF THE nNAHEIM CITY PLANnING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING The regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to crdec by Chaicman McBUrney at 10:00 a.m., October 1J, 1986, in the Council Chamber, a quorum being present, and the Commission reviewed plans of the items on to~iay's agenda. RECESS: 11:30 a•m. RECONVEhGD: 1:33 p•m• PRESENT: ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: Chairman: McBurney Commissionecs: Fry, Herbst, La Claiie, Lawicki Commissioner: Bouas, Messe Norman Priest Annika Santalahti Malcolm SlaughtPr Joseph Fletcher Jay Ti.tus Paul Singer Leonard McGhee Edith tiarris Executive Director of Community Developmenk/Planning Assistant Directoc for Zoning Deputy City Attocney Deputy City Attorney iI Office Engineec Traffic Engineer Associate Planne: Planning Commi.ssion Sectetary AWARD PRESEN'PATIONS: Notman Prizst, Executive Directoc of Community Development and Planning pcesented awards to the following Planning Department Pecsonnel: Jake Pettosino 25 yea[s John Andecson 15 years Jeanne Brooks 10 years Pamela Stacnes 10 years Don Yourstone 5 years Shirley Moynihan 5 years Cacol F[aziet-BUCton 5 years It was noted Ruth Koga and Rosemary Lynch were nok presen~ to receive their awards. Mt. Priest and the Planning Commission congcatulated these employees for their fine service to the City of Anaheim. APPROVAL OF IdINUTES: Commissionei Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissionec Lawicki and MOTION CARRIED (Commissionet La Claite 3bstaining and Commissioners Bouas and Messe absentl that the minutes of the meeting of Septembez 29, 1986, be appcoved as submitted. ITEM N0. 1 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATIOI~, RECLASSIFICATZON N0. 86-87-7 AND VARIANCE N0. 3594 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: JANET K. GANONG~ ET AL, P.O. Box 2347, Bakecsfield, CA 93303. AGENTS: VAIL SPECK ASSOCIATES, INC., 3140 Rad Hill Avenue, Suite 270, Costa Mesa, CA 92626, ATTN: STEVE SPECK. Pioperty desctibed as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisti-ng of approximately 2.29 acres located at the southwest cocner of 5hoct Stceet and Kellogg Dtive. 66-675 10/13/86 ; . 86-676 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ OCTOBER 13 1986 RS-A-43,000 to to RM-2400 or a less intense zone. Wai.vers of (a) maximum peccent of small cac parking spaces, (b) mi.ni.mum building site area per dwelling uni.t, (c) maxi.mum steuctural height, (d) minimum stcuctural setback and (e) mi.nimiam area and dimens.ions of ptivate patios to construct a 2-story, 36-unit apartment complei. Continuad from the meeting of Septembec 15, 1986. It was noted the petitioner has requested that subject peti.tion be withdrawn. ACTION: Commissi.one[ ria=bst offeced a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki. and MOTION CARRIED (Co~~~m?ssioners Bouas ar.d Messe absent) that the petitions for Reclassification 86-87--r aad Variance No. 3594 be withdrawn at the petitioner's cequest. ITEM NO. 2 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERI4IT N0. Z~74 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: HOLLY WADE DAVIDSON, ?. O. Box 325, Holualoa, HI 96725. AGENTS: ORANGE COUNTY STEEL SALVAGE, INC., 3200 E. Frontera Street, Anahei.m, CA 92806, ATTN: GEORGE ADAMS. Prope[ty described ds an itregularly-shaped parcel of lan~ consisti.ng of apptoximately 6.4 acres, 3200 East Fcontera Street (Ocange County Steel Salvage). To permit a private helipoct in conjunction with a resource cecovery operation (Or.ange County Steel Salvage). Continued from the meeti.ngs of March 31, May 12, June 9 and August 4,1536. It was noted the peti.tionec has cequested that subject petition be withd[awn. ACTION: Commissionec Herbst ofEered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki and MOTION CARRIED (COmmissioners Bouas and tAesse absent) that che petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 2774 be withdcawn at the peti.tioner's tequest. ITEM NO. 3 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE NO. 3597 ~- PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: HUGO A. VAZQUEZ AND TAK WATANABE, 2240 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801. Pcopecty described as a cectangularly-shaped paccel of land consiF.ting of approximately 6,695 square feet, 202 South Oli.ve Stceet. Waivers of (a) maximum structucal height, (b) maximum site covetage, (~) minimum receeational-leisuce areas, (d) minimum acea of pcivate recreational-leisu[e areas and (e) mi.nimum wi.dth of pedestcian accessways to construct a 3-story, 5-unit apartment building. Continued from the meeting of Septembet 15, 1986. 10/13/86 86-677 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 13~ 1986 It was noted the petitioner has requested that subject petition be continued in ocder to meet with the Neighbochood Advisory Committee a~d the Redevelopment Commission in order to review the revised plans. ACTION: Commissionet La Claire offeced a motion, seconded bl Commissioner Lawicki and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Bouas and Messe absent) that consideration of the afotementioned mattet be continued to the regularly-scheduled meetin9 of October 27, 1986, at the petitioner's request. ITEM N0. 4 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATIO[d, RE~LASSIEICATION N0. 86-87-11 AND VARI U. 3601 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: FUNBUS SYSTEyS, INC., 1825 S. Mountain View Ave., Anaheim, CA 92802, ATTN: MICHAEL VALEN and CLARENCE D. AND RHEA L. MEDDOCK TRUST, 1428 F,. Katella Ave., Anaheim, CA 92805. AGENTS: WILLIAM GUSTAFSON CO., INC., 17842 Mitchell, #200, Icvine, CA 92714 and DE REVERE PARTNERSHIP, 4631 Tellac Ave., Suite 100, Newpo:t Beach, CA 92660, ATTN: CINDY FLEMING. Property described as an itregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approxi-mately 1.77 acres located at the south and west of the southwest cornec o£ Katella Way and Mountain View Avenue. CG, CH and RS-A-43,000 to CR or a less ir,tease zor~e. Waivers of (a) minimum numbec of parking spaces, (b) maximum stcuctural height and (c) mi.nimum stcuctural aetback to consttuct a 5-stocy, 152-toom hotel. The~e was no one indicating thcir presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff teport was not [ead, it is teferced to and made a part of the mi.nutes. William Gustafson, agent, was present to answec any questions. Cindy Fleming, agent, explained the pcoje~t and stated *_hey need a parking agreement between the owners of subject property and th^ owner of the two parcels directly to the south; and that agreement will be recocded prior to the issuance of buildi_ng permits; and also they ace currently attempting to pu~chase those two parcels. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSF•~D. Commissionec La Claire asked how the widening of the freeway an3 the changing of the Katella off-ram~ would affect this hotel. Ms. Fleming stated with the freeway widening there would be an ovetpass on Katella Way which could cut off access to this site; hoaevec, they have designed the project so it has access also fcom Mountain View and in B to 15 yeats the hotel would tem.odel and add a new lobby oriented tcwards Mountain Vie•rr and even though the cutrent window fot the hotel, in terms of visual access, is towacds Katella Way, they believe in the future it could be tdountain View. ~ 10/13/86 86-678 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER i3 1986 Commissioler Herbst asked what their plans would be if the recipcocal parking agreemer~t is not obtained or the ptoperty is not pu~chased. Ms. F].eming cesponded in that case they woul.d have to ceduce the number of rooms, and would al~o consiuer a parking structure as an alternative. Commi.ssioner Fry s~ated he would havP difficulty approving a vaciance for packing ftom 152 soaces requi~ed t:o ~4 spaces proposed. He ~ ked if this variance would still be necessary if they do purchase the pt;~erty to the south or if they have a record~d parking agreement. He added he is concerned that if the variance is gcanted and Lhey do not purchase the property or if the agreement is not r.ecorded, they could still build the hotel structure with only 74 parking spaces. Leonard l4cGhee explai.ned there is a cundition included that before building permits are issued, the parking agreeRent would have tc, be recorded. Ms. Fleming stated as of this m~rning, the owner has a wtitten .~;reement to pu~chase khe adjoining pcopecty. ~~,, ;,;~.is r,.ked that Condition No. 13 of khe Variance be included in the p~ ~;. a; :, ~, ,. ion requiring the dedication of vehi.cular access. Comu•.•~~i~~~~:' 8ecbst s~•,yested waiver (a) be denied since they w~= ~- purch3sing tna propecty next door or will be cecording the eas?ment. ACTION: Commissi.oner Hecbst offered a motion, seconded by Commi.ssionec Fcy and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Bouas and Messe absent} that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the ptoposal to construct a 5-story, 152-room hotel a~ith waivers of minimum numbec of parking spaces, maxiinum structucal height and maximum stcuctutal seLOximate13n1.77 acres ;.:~~ irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of a~p located south and west of the suuthwest cornet of Katella Wa; and Mountain View Avenue and furtner described as 300 East ~ha~lit has~considecedhthebY approve the Negative Declacatiori upon f:.ndinq Neyative Der,laration togethec with any co:~~ments received during the public review pcocess and further fir~ding on the basis of the Initial Study and yay comments ceceived that thece is no suhstantial evidence that the projeck will have a significant effect on khE environment. Commissioner Heebst offered Resolutinn No. PC86-257 and moved foc iks passaye and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does heceby grant Reclassification No. 86-87-11, subject to Interdeparkmental Commi.ttee tecommendations, including the condition ..'khat pcior Yo issuance of building permiks, the ownec of subject property shall irrevo~abiy offer to dedicate v~hicula~ access tights to Katella Way foc I-5, Katella Avenue teali9nment and imp~ovements." On toll call, the focegoing cesolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: FRY~ HERBST~ LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI, MC BURNEY NOES: NONE ABSENT: BOUAS, MESSE 10/13/86 86-679 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, OCTOBER 13 1986 Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC86-258 and moved fot its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does heteby gcant Variance No. 3601, in part, denying waiver (a) on the basis that the petitioner stipulated at the public hearing to either pucchase the pcoperty adjoining to the south or to record a reciprocal parking and access agreement with the pcoperty owner of the pcoperty to the south and granting waivers (b) and (c) on the basis thai there are special circumstances applicable to the ptoperty such as size, shape, topo9raphy, location and surroundings which do not apply to other idenfically zoned propetty in the same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the propecty of privileges enjoyed by other oroperties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity and subject to Interdegartmental Committee tecommendations. On coll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: FRY, HERBST, ~A CLAIRE~ LAWICKI, MC BURNEY NOES: NONE ABSENT: BOUAS~ MESSE Malcolm Slaughter explained the Code permits the property owner of any non-residential uses to ptovide pa*king on contiguous propecty oc within a reasonable distance of the property as long as the Planning Director finds thete are unusual circumstances concerning the preperty. t9alcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attocney, pcesented the wri.tten cight to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the Giky Council. ITEht N0. 5 EIR NEGt~TIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE NO. 3604 OWNERS: MR. & MRS. RANDY FERGUSUN, 836 S. Philadelphia St., Anaheim, CA 92805. Ptoperty described as a cectangularly-shaped parcel of land r.~nsisting of appcoximately 0.16 acres, 836 South Philadelphia Skreet. Waiver of minimum bui.lding site area per unii to construck a k[iplex. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not zead, it is referred to and made a pact of the minute~. C. M. Thompson, agent, was present to answer any questions. THE PUBLIC HEARINC: WAS CLOSED. ACTION: Commissionec Fry offered a mution, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Bouas and Messe a~sent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the ptoposal to consttuct a tciplex with waiver of minimum building site are per unit on a cectangularly-sha~ed paccel of land consisting of appcoximately 0.16 acte, having a fcontage of a~pcoximately 45 feet on tne east side of Philacielphia Streek and futther described as 836 South Philadelphia Street; ar.d ~!oes hereby approve ttie Negative Declaration upon finding that 10/13/86 86-680 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CCMMISSION OCTOB£R 13, 1986 it has considered the Negative Declaration togethe~ with any comments ceceived during the public review process and further finding on the basi.s of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that t:he project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commi.ssioner Fcy offered Resoluti.on No. PC86-259 and moved fo*_ its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planniny Commission does he[eby grant Variance No. 3604 on the basis that there are special circumlocation and agolicable to the propecty such as size, shape, topogcaphy, surroundi.ngs whi.ch do not apply to other i.dentically zoned property in the same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privi.leges enjoyed by other properL-ies in the i.dentical zone and classification in ~he vicinity and subject to Interdepartmental Comr~iittee recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resoiuti.on was passed by the following vote: AYES: FRY, HERBST~ LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY NOES: NONE ABSENT: BOUAS, MESSE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy Cir.y Attorney, pcesented the wcitten right to appeal the Planning Commission's dPCision within 22 day~ to the City Council. ITEM _NO_6 EIR NEGATIVE DSCLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 36G6 PUBLIC HEARING. OP~ ERS: AP7DREW C. SCHUTZ, c/o STATE COLLEGE PARTNERS, 28 Btookhollow Dcive, Santa Ana, CA 92702• AGENTS: PAULETTE ALEXANDER, c/o KRAFT ARCHITECTS, 2955 S.E. Main Streef., Sui.tea[cel ofVland consisting of Propecty desctibed as a rectangularly-shaped p approximately 7.6 acres of land located at ttie northwest corner of Orangewood Avenue and State College Boulevard. Waivers of (a) si.gns permi.tted in commercial zones and aggregate area of business signs to construct 8 freestanding signs and 12 wall signs. Ther.e was no one i.ndicat.:.ng their presence in opposition t.o subject tequest and although the staff rEpott was not cead, it is ceferred to and made a part of the minutes. Robert Kraft, representing StatE College Pactnecs, presented a study model showing the signs as pcoposed on the site and explained the different locations and si.zes of signs. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission teviewed the submitted model and Mr. Kraft explai.ned the signs would be in conformance with the sign otdinance in the City of Costa Mesa for their Town Center. 10/13/86 8b-681 MINUTES,_ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, OCTOBER 13 1986 Commissioner La Claice stated ditectly ac[oss the street from sub;ect site, the City of Orange willtoebeldevelopedmforecommercialsofficecusess and that whole acea is going with a lot of signs; howevec, she did not think r_his plan looks that bad fot that many buildings i.n that location. Commi.ssionec Fry stated he does not have any p~oblem wit.h the inteznal signs, but the 60-foot long sign with 2-foot, 6-inch hi.gh lettets would be a p~oblem. Chairman McBU~ttey stated the aggregate sum i.s quite severe and he would ptefec to see a major tenant identification sign with each user having some sort of identification on that sign. Leonacd McGhee stated ~one of the intecnal Seg~tionerinols~epulatehrhac petition. He stated he would like for the p onlthegexhibit9pcesenteda oMcrhKraftestatedetheylarehexactlyarhehsameshown Commissionec Herbst staked he thought these signs would be an 'over-kill" with State College Plaza on the street_ sign and on the buildi.ngs. Mr. Kzafk stated a person would only see rhe name "State College Plaza" once, and that the signs across the building aLe rimeltenantstwho buynsign 9rhec high-rise buildings foc identification of p cights on the bsilding, and that the size and magnirude of the signs will be consistent with othec office buildings throughout the caunty. Commissiuner La Clai.ce asked if the signs identifi.ed as 'A" could be reduced and noted the sign would be 60 feet in lengr_h. Mc. Ktaft stated most of the ler.r.er sizes were developed as a reandtthe distance~fcomtthero visibility, how fast_ the cars would be moving, vehicle to the si.gn surface, er.c. Commi.ssioner I,a Claire statebu~hisaconceonedawith pp.bleMcw'Kraftgstated i.dentified as "B, C and D', if the "A" sign is the issue, they could be faitly spec~.£ic about that sign and agceed it could ptobably be reduced. Pauler.te Alexandet, Kraft Architects, explai.ned the sign identified as. "A" is a monument sign that is going on an existing landscaping cetaining wall and the wall itself is 60 feet long and the sign letters which read "State College Plaza" are 10 inches in height• Commissioner La Claire stated that is a big corner and she really doesn't have a ptoblem with the proposal because the signs will be needed fot identi.fication to compete. She statsd she is againsk signs normally, but in this case she thou9he bui.ldingsbaceXarcangedimportant because of the location and the waY Responding to Commissioner Hetbst, Ms. Alexandet stated the signs on the building wi.ll be illumi.nated and the low-monument signs will nor be illuminated. 10/13/86 86-682 MINUTES, ANAflBIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ OCTOBER 13, 1986 Commissioner Herbst stated he sLill feels this would be 'over-kill' with too nany signs and zhought they ate ceally looking for fxeeway advectising with the size of the signs on the buildings. Chaicman McBu[ney asked if the petitioner will be able to present something showing similac sic,ns for the Commission to review. Ms. Alexander stated they could pcesent photogcaphs of some existing buildings with similar signs. Ghairman McBUrney stated he does not have a problem with r_he low-monument signs, but the problem is with the si2e of the signs on the buildings and he thought having photographs to look at would tre a help. Ms. Alexander stated she di.d not know wlio the tenants are at this time and they could have a shorr_ name and the dimensions proposed are 'not to exceed". Leonacd McGhee sta~ted Code allows up ~o osOngqno etoeexceed 275e of building wir_h street fronr_age and *hey are p P aquare feet, but that the aygtegate area is the problem. Chaizman McBUrney sugyested the intecnal signs have major tenant identification, cather than havi.ng so much signage on the buildin9s faces. Mc. Kraft star_ed the pcoblem is freestanding pole signs or freestanding monument signs and in a complex of this natute with three different buildings, there would be a series of pole and monument si.gns along the street and he felt that would be less deoip~esenthpho ographsooflsi.milar stated they w~uld like the opportunity signs and not~ad the Stadium aeea is developing m~~ce into a commetHeastated office aeea a,id the signing is vecy impotta~t fo:: the b~ilding. they would lik~ a t~ro-week continuance. Malcolm S'.aughtec stated the applicant seems to have analyzed r_heir signing progcam on the assumption that this was a single patcel of property and he thought a paccel map was in pcocess ro subdivide thelicant pcoperty ir.to fout separate patcels and if that is the case, the app has to analyze the si.gn program for each parcel in questi.on or alternatively must make the election to combine all four pa~cels for signing purposes and an agreement tc that effect wou:d have to be made available to the City. ACTION: Commissi.oner Hetbst offe[ed a motion, seconded by Commissionec Lawicki and MOTION CARRIED (Commissionets Bouas and Messe absent) that consideration of the ~for.ementioned mattee 1986onatnthe request of the cegularly-scheduled meeting of October 27. petitioner. Malcolm Sla~ghtec left rhe meeting at 2:15 p.m. .and did not retucn. ~useph Fletchet assumed h Chair. ITEM N0. 7 EIR N:.`:i1'~'TJE L. :LARATION~ WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONDITIONP.L USE PERNiIT N0. "Lo47 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: JOSEPEi N. AND JALEH J. MAKABI AND HOURI'r: HOURIANI, 3333 W. Ball Road, Anaheim, CA 92802. AGENT: HUGO ~i~86ZI 86-683 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, OCTOBER 13, 1986 2240 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92802. Propecty desccibed as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consi.sting of approxi.mately ~.74 acre, 3333 West Ball Road. To consttuct a 94-bed skilled nursing faci.lity with waivers of (a) m9.nimum landscaped setback, (b) maximum structural height and (c) minimum side yard setback. There wete three persons indi.cating their presence in opposi.ti.on to subject reqnest and alth~ugh the staff report was not read, it is referced to and made a part of the mi.nutes. Hugo Vazquez, agent, explai.ned the request is for a 94-bed convalescent home at 3333 West. ~all Road. He referced ko Eden Roc which is a 3-stocy nuesing home facility approximately 50 feet from si.n~le-family resi.dences in the area. He stated they monitored that facility as to their packing and there did not seem to be a large amount of parking needed. George Bcott, 3306 W. Glen Holly, stated 'ne is reptesenting some of the neighbors in t.he area and he has a deep concern about thi.s project and they have told the ownet of subject ptoperty that any development should be limited co 1-story with no underground parking and then the nei.ghbors would not have any opposition because they do not want to see anything over one story because there would be people looking down into their backyards and swimming pools, etc. He stated the last building proposed for this p~ooerky was an apartment complex whi.ch was to be 29 feet hi.gh an~ that was denied. He added if necessary, the neighbors will take time off work to oppose this project and present the same oUjections ko tFe City Council as pteviously pcesented. He stated Anaheim seems to be becoming a City of waivers. He stated he undetstands the developer di.d try to get in touch with some of the neighbors, but appacently has not met with th2 neighbors on the north. Mc, Vazquez stated any 2-story development adjacent to single-family homes always ptesents a problem, even if it is a single-family home. He staked he would agree a projecL fot a more acti.ve use, such as an apartment, would be a ptoblem, but the patients in this proposed facility would not be geY.ti.ng cut of bed to leok out the windows i.nto the nei.ghbors' yacds. He stated he would structure the windows so the residents would not be inclined to look out and he would be happy to work wi.th the nei.ghbors. He stated with the new requi~ements, undecground patking ~tructuces would be considered a stoty and it would be very di.fficult to develop a 1-skory bui.lding on this pcoperty. He stated Eden Roc facility does not present any problems to the surrounding neighborhood even though it i.s 3 stories. THE PUBLIC HEARING W.AS CLOSED. Chairman McBurney stated personally, he di proposed for each room, even though he was fot this type facility, and thought there into that building and felt it would just also acchitecturally it could be improved. d not like to see two persons not aware of the requirements would be ~. ~or. of people c*ammed be ove[-ctowding. He staL•ed 10/13J86 86-684 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ OCT03ER 13, 1986 Mr. Vazquez stated they had reseatci~ed several convalescent homes and there is really a tcemendous need for this type facility and that Medi.-Cal and Medi-Care patients cannot affoed pci.vate cooms. He stated there are very few faciliti.es which even have a vacancy. Commissionet Herbst suggested teducing the reat of the project to sin9le story, and then there would be no need for the waiver in khat area. Mt. Brott responded to Commissioner La Claire that he also represents the residents of Deetwood and they ace opposed. Paul Singer, Ttaffic Engineer, pointed out this ty~e facility has a serious problem and t.hat the City has experi.enced problems wi.th the Eden Roc facility; that eldetly people in that typ~ complex do walk in the neighborhood and they want to be able to cross the street; and i.n th?.s location, there is a hospital across the stceet; and that there are constant requests from t.he Eden Roc residents for a ccosswalk in that area across Ball Road because they say they are too feeble and old to walk to the corner and use the ttaffic signal. He stated he feels that. would be a p~oblem wikh this location also and did not think any crosswalks should be permitted in that location and that there should be some other type protection provided for those residents befoce the building is construcked for the whole area. He stated there was a fatality in front of the Eden Roc facility where an eldecly gentlemen was disori.ented and walked in front of traffic. Chairman McBUrney asked if the City has consi.dered the possi.bility of these facilities donating towards an overcrossing at one central location. Mr. Si.nger stated an overcrossing would cost approximately $800,000. Commissioner Herbst stated he thought in addition to the problem just menti.oned by r.he Traffic Engineer, it would still be overbuilding this site and would be encroaching on the people who own homes in that acea. He stated he thought this developee does not consider the neighbors. Mr. Vazqsez stated he would disagtee and that he just recently met with the Buena Park residents over six times and has a signed compromise which is the result of working with the neighbors. He stated he would agree this would be ovetbuilding if these were to be apactments, but not for a convalescent hospi.tal. Commissioner La Claire stated the second story needs to be reduced in the reac, which would probably not be too mur.h reduction in the size of tnr~ p~oject. She stated there is a n~ed for convalescent hospi.tals i.n th_:~ City and also, there is a need foc housing for the elderly; and that s::e would have no objection to a convalescent hospi.tal in that location; howevec, the neighbors have to be orotected. Commissionec Lawi.cki stated he agrees the need is there and noted his mothet-in-law has been in a nu~siny home for 3-1/2 years and it is very expensive and there are constant baktles. He stated "big" does not necessarily make zight and he k!ZOU.ght the project should be fucther researched and that he felt persona2ly, the project is too large for this 10/13/86 86-685 MINUTES, A~AHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, OCTOBER 13 1386 ptopetty. He stated the need is not only for the home itself, but for those who work at the facility and *hose who ma~~age and marker_ it and r_hey should be providing the care that should be there and that is the greatest need and unr_il the problems of the i~idustry ate recr_iEied, wi.th the lack of proper management, the facilities should not be constructed. He stated he feels this property is too small fot a pcojecr this big. Mr.. Vazquez stated if the Commission could agree that there has to be a 2-stocy element to the project, he would like to request a continuance i.n order to work with the neighborhood. He stated maybe he could cedesign a 2-story structure ocien~ated i.n a di.ffecent fashi.on, so the point of v9.ew fro~ the second story would not enccoach upon the neighbo~s privacy. Commissioner L'nwicki stated dicectly behind his block wall, ~here is a 111-unit apartment complex and when the units went in they were given t.he same stocy about the screeni.ng on the windows, but r_he resi.denr_s of those apactments can still wave at him when he is in hxs pool. Chairman McBurney stated a[equest for continuance should be 4r~orectso Mt, Vazquez can meet with the neighbors and alsa, he felt the p 7 should be scaled down wirh the 2-story units in the rear reduced. Leonard McGhee pointed out the Octobee 27th agenda is extensive with apptoximately 21 i.r_ems already ~cheduled. ACTION: Chaicman McBUZney offe~ed a motion, seconded by Commissioner He~bsr. and MOTION CARRIED (COmmi.ssioners Bouas and tAesse absent) that consideration of the afocementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of November 10, 1986, at the request of ~.he petitioner. ITEM N0. B EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND C^NDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2850 PUBLIC HEAkING. OWNERS: KNOTT & BALL ASSOCIATES, 3737 Birch - 3rd Floor, Newpoct Beach, CA 90630. AGENTS: STEVE BUTZ, KEITH ENGINEERING~ INC., 2900 Beistol, Suite B-205, Costa Mesa, CA 92626. ProXimatelys9r9bacces yn irtegularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of app locar.ed at the southweste~ly corner of Ball Road and Knor_r_ Stceet, 1241 South Knott Street. To permi.t an automo*ive lubricating secvice center (Mini.t-Lube) in the CL Zone. Thece was no one indicating theic presence in opposition to subject cequest and although the staff repo~t was not cead, it is refetred to and made a part of the minutes. St_eve Bowie, agent wa5 present to answer any questi.ons. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ACTION: Commissi.onec F[y offered a motion, seconded by Commzssioner La~:icki and MOTION CARRI£D (Commissioners Bouas and Messe absent) that the 10/13/86 t i 86-686 MINUTES, A[4AHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, OCTOBER 13 1986 Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the pcoposal to pecmit an automotive lubricating setvice center in the CL Zone on an itregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 4.9 acres located at the southwest corner of Ball Road and LovettherNetativefurther described as 124 South Knott; and does heceby app 9 Declsration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration togethet with any comments received ducing the public ce~~iew process and fucthec finding on the basis of the Ini.ti.al Study and any comments received that tY,ere is no substantial evidence that the project will have a signifi.cant effect on the environment. Commissioner Fry offered Resolution No. PC86-260 and moved for its pian~9e and adoption that the Anaheim Ci.ty Planning Commission does hereby g Conditional Use Pecm.it No. 2850 putsuant to Anaheim Mun~cipal Code Sections 18.03.U30.030 through 18.03.030.035 and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. On roll call, the foregoi.ng resolution was passed by t.he followi.ng vote: AYES: FRY, HERBST~ LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI~ MC BURNEY NOES: NONE ABSENT: BOUAS~ MESSE Joseph Fletcher, Deputy Ci.t.y Attorney, presented the written righr. to appeal the Plannina, Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. RECESSED: 2:50 p.m. RECONVENED: 3:00 p.m• ITEM N0. 9 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2851 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: D~NN PROPERTIES CORPORATION, 28 Brookhollow Drive, Santa Ana, CA 92705. AGENTS: THOMAS N. T1ACE AND WILLIAM D. BORDEN, 28 Brookhollow Drive, Santa Ana, CA 92705. Propecty described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of appcoximately 9.33 acres located at the northeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Kellogg Drive, 1300 North Kellogg Drive. To peemit a church in the ML Zone with waivet of minimum number of parking spaces. It was nuted khe petitionet has requested that_ subject petiti.on be withdcawn. ACTION: Commissioner He~bsY. offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner p[y and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Bouas and Messe absent) that petiti.on for Condi.tional Use Pecmi.t No. 2851 be wi.thdrawn at the petitioner's request. 10/13!86 86-687 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLAI~NING COMMISSION, OCTOBER 13, 1986 ITEM N0. 10 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND REQUEST FOR SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL NO. 86-OS PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: EAST HILLS DEVELOPMENT, 26300 La Ai2Z1aE. Due[e 330, Mission Viejo, CA 92691. AGENT: GREINER ENGINEERING, Y Road, Suite 101, Santa Ana, CA 92705, ATTN: ANN MONZON. Properky described as an ir.cegularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of apptoximat.ely 31 acres generally located south and east of the int°rsection of Santa Ana Canyon Road and the southerly extension of Weir Canyon Road, 8600 Santa Ana Canyon Road (Bauec Ranch). Request fo[ the removal of one California Live Oak specimen tcee and one Califocni.a Pepper speci.men tree to faci.litate construction of 292 apartment units. There was no one indicaY.ing kheir presence in oppo~ition t_o subject cequest and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a pazt of the minutes. Michael Murphy, representing East Hi.lls Development Company, stated they are requesting approval for the removal of two specimen trees on the Bauec Ranch. iie explained the Planni.ng Commi.ssi.on ceviewed the si.te plans and conceptual grading in February and the grading plan has always contemplated the removal of *_hese trees, but they were cemoved in ercoc by the cont~actor befo~e pecmits wete obtained. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner La Claite asked how t:~e treeserationestactedlafter September permits. Mr. t4urphy stated the grading op 26th and the contractor removed the trees. He stated they aece nut awate of that activity as engineers of the project, however, they were awace of the tequirements for permits and had filed the appli.cation for tree removal on Septembet 9th. Commissionec La Claire noted i.t would take 100 yeacs for the replacement trees co ~each the size of the ttees removed. Annika Santalahki explained the Code ci~es not have a mi.nimum requi.rement for the size of the ceplacement trees; however, the Commission may cequire lacgec trees. Commissioner La Claire stated she would like ro require larger trees because this pcopetty is abutting s;~gle-fami~y residential development and she would li.ke to see their privacy protected and she would like to have a fee established in ordec for the developers to be fined when they go shaad and remove the trees prioc to receiving approval. She stat~d she would also like some Live Oaks around the pecipheral of the pcoperty because this was a dense project and there were a lot of problems in the nezghborhood. Chairman t9cBUrney stated he thought it would be helpful ~o have some additional tcees on the Santa Ana Canyon Road side of the propecty and ~ 10/13/86 86-688 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, OCTOBER 13 1986 maybe the developec should be required to present a landscaping plan. Mr. Murphy skated he believed they could have a plan into staff by Friday in ocder to have a twa-week continuance. Commissioner La Claire stated she wa> just handed a copy of the Code and since this is the Scenic Coccidot, removal of specimen t~ees without ptior apnroval is a mi.sdemeandor wi.th a possi.ble fi.ne of ~500 or a 6-month imptisonment or both. Leonard McGhee suggesr_ed a continuance to the meeting of November 10, 1986. ACTION: Commissionec La Clai[e offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawi.cki. and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Bouas and Messe absent) that considecation of the aforemenlioned matker be continued to the regularly-scheduled meet:i.ng of November 10, 1986, at t.he request of the petitioner in ordec to submit landscape plans. ITEM N~• 11 EIR NEGATIVE DE~.LARATION~ TENTATIVE TRACT OF MAP N0. .12854 AND REQUEST FOR SPECIMFN TREE BSMO~AL N0. 86-06 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: GOLDIE G. MONTGOMERY AND CLAYBURN G?AVES~ namics Lakeview Avenue, AnahPim, CA 92207. AGENT5: 0 6 O SERVICE, 1345 Dy SLreet, Anahei.m, CA 92806 and RAAB ~NGINEERING, IvC., 1700 E. Lincoln Avenue, Suite 201, Anaheim, CA 92805, ATTN: HA~ RAA9. Property desceibed as an ittegularly-shaped par.cel of land consisring ~f approxi.mately 8.5 acres located at the southwesk cornet of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Lakeview Rvenue. To establish a 7-lot, RS-HS-43,000(SC) single-family residential subdivision. Request for the removal oE 118 specimen t:e•~.°,• Thete were six pecsons indicating their pc~sence in apposition to subject. request and although the staff report was not read, it 9.s refereed to and made a pact of the minutes. Ma~k Oden explained subject propecty is currently developed witY Orange trees which no longer produce and he woold like to develop the property into a custom home pri.vate community. Donna Kovatch, 130 S. Lakeview, stated she is not opposed to development of the property, but is opposed to the temoval of the trees because they have a tremendous amount of noise from the freeway traffic now. She also questioned whether o~ not the trees to be removed a[e actually located on het pcoperty. Bill Sho~t, 4820 Santa Ana Canyon Road, stated his property i.s di.rectly in line with the freeway ttaffic noise and they can barely stand it on thei.r patio on Sun@ay af.ternoons because of the ttaffic noise~ He stat.ed two pcoperties have been developed sznce k~e purchased his property and the noise level has increased 1 to 2 de:ibels ebut thou•htHlos~ngathe trees~~r object to the development of the propecty, 9 10/13/86 tl6-689 MINUTES, ANAHEIM C7TY PLANNING COtdMISSION~ OCTC%EA 13, 1986 would be a tremendous loss and he woulci object to tcees oi a~:t ':ind being removed. eernard Sulli.van, 160 Lakeview, stated it appear~ hi.s honse will. be directly across from the pr~posed stteet and h~F murcha~edethi.snptopeotyhe removal of the trees. He st:.ted they oriqinal.ly p because of the beauty of these tr.ees and c:~ thouaht ever;(body in Petali~a Hills should have beEn noti.fi.e3 of. tl~is meetia9 beca~s~ ~~~ ~rees are immediately seen upon entering the ~•c~ee~ and ,;l~n these trees shade his house. He noted they have 65 Orzage trees on the~~ pcoperty whici• do well. He stated the trees gi.ve him a lot of nois,: abatement and temoving the trees wi-11 a.ncrease the noise from the freeway. Shicley Adder, 170 S. Lakeview, :ctated the map shows r.n~: :c•e,3 is fai:ly straight, but it i.s very wi.nding and Y.he Post Office agr.~ed wi_th her abaut .l year ago that the tcafEic had beco~r.~ so heavy that nez mailbox should ~e moved across the street. She added this development will bring even more traffic and the street cannot handle it. She added the homeowners have been krying ko get theic area gate:. because of the traffic off the Ereewa.y using that stceet instead of ImpeL~oblem and thereyis ~no sD9na1•at$Y.his added the traffic ,~as been a big p freeway oEf-camp. Ms. Adder stated she did not understand how theyncouad °ovalnto haveatheir community when the existing community could nok ,~~ pP area gated. She stated she ebjects to the trees bei-ng remv:cd because of the noise. She stated if they build the stceet, thece is a requirement for curbs and sidewalk~ u~id this is a rural community aith no sidewalks or cucbs and they do not want st~.Pet i:.~;ht.s or :,idewalks. She tefetred to the Hiki.ng and Equesttian Tra:l mentioned and atat?d she does not know where that is and she has lived there for 7 years a:~d there is a ~°oV;o~~~~ ob.ligating the homeowners' associat~.on ±oUme~~tacov.ideberdevelooE9 withou` insurance. She stated she thought the p P Y disturbing theit ecology and lifestyle and thought it could oe developed more in accordance with khe way Pc•,.alta Hill: h~s been develooed. She stated also, removal of the Ocanye teees wili deetiease the~r pto'ce~tion f~om the noise. Me. Oden stated he agrees with the adjacent propetty o~!ners about the freeway noise. He stated about 25 of the t.rees being removed 3re either dead o~ diseased and thought anothee 25 trees could ~~eesbbeing ~°moved which would enhance their development and also, any would be ceplaced around the pecimetec. He stated they would li.ke to get permission to leave about every third tree in that one cow of trees along Lakeview and still have a good view of the coad, and would leave as many as possible. He stated they will pcobably ceplace about double the number of trees removed. Paul Singer stated he would tecommend that the access Foint from La!;eview to this ^ite be taken from a diffecent point which wil.'.. tequice hacdly any tree cemoval along Lakeview ~ould provide good access ~;nd would substantially enhance the visibility of traffic from the pcoposec:. development. He infotmed the neighbors that the signalization of Laiceview 10/13/86 86-690 MINUTE:ir ANAHEI:M !:T'PY PLANNING COh7MISSIONr_OCTQBER 13 19f36 _,__ and t~e fteeway of'f--camp at Santa Ana Canv:,n Roa~3 ~a, delayed due: to tne apptovals tequice~9 f[om CALTRANS; but that the C°_ty Council .i~r~~"` an ante:;:~~i<nt wst.~ C,ALTRANS la~t Tuesday and within about ~ ~•< 3 m`~'"•` `'. cnn:~tsuction ~i•11 begin of that :sigual. He stated th~>r:e is no objectior. from the City.Je~ thehmamnte!iance[,o:Ptheita Hills suhject to the prope~Cy ownecs takin9 streets, whi~:h ace now Fublic i>treets hecauae they would ~ve to bec~me p~i~;ace stre:ets and the pzopert.yFoW~e~s.moroaemenksk~ He,,statedha publi... maic~~enance: costs of those st~r:c=.- ~treet can.not be gated. Mr, C,.ler. stated they only plan ;;idewalks o. cur.bs inside the gated comm~~n~.ty and not on Lakeview. He stated the ~oad was placed in its proposed location Necause that :is the best acea to enter theic projeck witt~ the nicest !ook anu also, it was placed thf~~e at Mr. Singer's =equest when they fi~~c s.:'~mi.tted their. plans. Jay Tikus statE.. ehe City stand.°rd ~^* pri~ate or public st[eets in the Peralt•.- S.3i11s area does not reyui:e curbs, gutters cc si:~ea«lks to be con='ccucted ani] if a developer '..~ants to constrbu~ ~`~eLe ispnota~i~tYs wikh.ir his own community, that is his opY.ion, tequite:~e~.c, Idr. Titus stated `~ would likE to acd ano*_Y~et condition as r~.~l~~'='. ''That the pcivate stcee~5 Within thc tracr be con.st-:ucted in iccordance M~~h the City of AnaY:~i.~~.. st~ndards for pei.vate ~~tceEts in the p~r:ralta Hi?.ls acea". T:iE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Annika Santalahti stated regatding skreet :~iyhts, that the ccndition requires scceet lights on Santa A~:a Canyon ROid at the ?.ntecsection only which is a safety issue. Commissioner La Claire s~ac~d she liv?d in Pera:.ta Hills fcom 19She~otated ap~9 is familiar with thi: pcope~t} and the neighbors property. she is ve[y concerned because this is the kind of ptoject which does not e;;ist in Pecalta Hills. She added she i°. cc;:~ern~~~ abouk thA removal of the tc~es and felt the one cow alon~;~ I.akeview should ue cetai:?ed because that is t}se ent[ance to the enti~:e a~ea. 5he stated Sh~' Ver°RSev~°~,ands to the entrance ::eing on Lakevi.~~.~ be^.•ai?se the trafEic the~e is no reason •.+h~ they cannot have access Etom Cerro Vista. Mr. Oden stated the e~~tance otf. Cetea Vi.sta is not teally desiratle because cF the appearance of the homes in that area. Cammissionec La Clatire stated t~ose ace hali million dol*at humb~~ tne^baekyacdstaf thoseWhomes arenlakeyweed half m5.llior, ~ollar ~es~ icked the putches with un;::nished houses and fencES. He added they p enrt~nce as shown because it is the nicest lo~k of tne neighborhood and any other 1~~~~tiun was noL acceptable. Commissioner La Claire ~tated she does nut agree with that comm~nt because t4ie homes in Peralta Hills wi11 sell and will coniinue ta sell and in her apbusynstteet a~~i3~he a~alnor. seeea~realtreason whyatheyecould noteenteris 10/13/86 MINUTES, ANAHF.IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ OCTOBER 13, 19R6 86-691 of£ Cerro Vista. She staLed the developers could still create the same type atmosphece and thought the project will really be a good one, but did not th°_nk they would lose any money by putting the entrance on Certo Vista and it will impcove traffic for the entire area. She stated if that was the only access availabie, she would not be opposed. Mr. Oden stated if they enter from Cecru Vista, there would be an equal amount of kraffic on Lakeview. Commissioner La Claire suggested the Planning Commission go out and view the site and the area and stated she would nok voke £ot the pcoject with the entrance on Lakeview and with all the tcees being removed. She stated the developer could still do what he wants and give the neighbors some~hing too. Chairman McBUrney asked if the ~~veloper would like a continuance in order to considet revising the plans, hr. Oden statPd he did not think it would be in Yhe best inL•erest. of the project to ent?r off Cerro Vista and he felt the Commissiilners should louk at the propecties on Cerro Viska and whaY. would be viewed from khe proposed pcoject. He stated the City requirements for the cul-ue-suc would also create another oroblem and change the whole image of ::is project. Paul Singer stated if the entcance stays whe~e it is shown on the plan, i.t would be quite hazardous b:~cause it causes a blind ir.tecsec~ion and he would tecommend mavin9 it. Mc. Oden stat.ed he ~:ould tequest a continuance in otder for the Commissicners to take a look at the area. ACTIUN: Commissic~er 13etbsk offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner La C1aicP and MQTION CARRI6D (COmmissionecs Bo~as and t4esse absent) that coasirjeration of the sforeme~t~oned rnatter be continued to the regularly-scheduled mee~~zg of Nov.:mber 10, 1986, at the request of the peLitionec. 7TEM NO. 12 12EPORT~ AND RE;:C3MId'e;NB~ ~IONS A. CONDITIONAL US° PERMI't N0. 2773 - Request fcom the Plauning Commissio^ Secz~~_tary for a Nunc Pco Tsnr, resolution to amend the legal descrigtion of Resolution No. PCBo-1~?. ACTION: ~ommi.~°ioner Herbst effeced Rc:;olution No. PC86-261 and moved fot ic:; passaa : ar.d udopti~n tnat the A:!.:heim City Plann.ing Conunission doea hetety gra ;C n:it;r,c Pro Tunc cesolution co amend Resolution No. PC86-119 in con,~2cti~n with Condikional Usa Permit No. 2773. On roll call, the fote9oing eesolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: FRY~ HERBST, LA CLAIRE, :,AWICKI~ MC BURNEY NOES : [~ONE Aii.~'iENT: BOUAS ~ MESSE 10~13/86 . _ .no ANAxEIM CITZ r~--"-` alvatose F• Gottuso 4INUTE~ 2595 - ReQuess, from S petmlt Nocated L USE PERMIT NO. ~onaitional UsetopectY of time f°~ of app~oval, P B, CONDITIaNA txve ex~ension tions for a tettoac to comP1Y w}th cor.di 2595, in otde= ve. y y~. 505 S. Villa Real Dt~ seconded Y a Messe offe[ea a motion~ 5 go'1as an getbst gIED i~~~'s"~SSionet rant Commissione[ Commission does heteby 2 95, to AC~ Lywicki and MOTION ~~ ~ity Plannin91tiona1 llse Permit No. Commissi.oner Anaheim Cond' absent) that the of time fot tetroactive extension expice on July 9r 1987. ission Seccetaty fot icom the Ylanning No 4 of Planning 3587 - Request ~ondition n~ cesolution to amend VARIANCE L~0• ~• pLO T"- pC86-191• and moved a Nunc o~86-262 ission ission Resolution No• Psolution No• ~omm ~omm ofFeted R. ~itY Plannin9 4 Hecbst Anaheimto amend Con9ition No. Commxssandeadoption that the with A~~N~ assage Pro T~lnc resolution in ~onneacion fOr lts P tant a Nunc pCg6-197 does heteb~ 9 ~SSion Resol1tion No. of Planning ~ 3 a~• assed by the followin5 Vatiance l~o• resolution was P On toll cal.l, the =ore7oin9 vote: uAWI~KI, MC BURNEY FKX~ HERBSir LA CLAI~E~ AYES~ NONE NOES: MESSE seconded bY uas ABSENT: BOUASr moti.onr offete0TI0N CARRIED lCommissi~nets Comm~-ss~onet Herb'~ ano M be ad7ouLned• URNMENT~ Commissioner Lawicki meetin9 ADJO that the and MeSSe absentl The meetin9 Was ad]ou=ned at 3:35 P•m• RespectiullY submitted' . . ~ /~~~ .~ ^'~ ecretarY ~ L, g y5 ~ S ~o~ission Edith CitY planning Anaheim ELH:lm 0225m 10/13I86