Loading...
Minutes-PC 1987/09/28r t M.x~SJ.~~S ~~.G1J_kAR.._M~~TING._Q~ _T.Ei~_..AI?AH~d_M__C.I~:X..PISAI~~?.I_~1~__~.OhQ1I~_S~?~~. &.t3g.~8!b~~ _.~.~~__~.9.9_Z Tho regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was callod to order by Chairman Masse at 1OsO0 a.m., September 28, 1987, in tho Council Chamber, a quorum boing present, and tho Commission revlewed plans of the items on today's agenda. RECESSs 11s30 a.m. RECONVENED: 1s35 p.m. PRESENT: Chairman: Masse Comrnissionera: Bouas, Boydatun, Carusillo, Felahaus, Horbst ABSENT: Commisaionars: McBurney ALSO PRESENT: Anni.ka Santalahti Joel Fick Joseph Fletcher Jay Titus Paul Singer LAOnard McGhee Wayne Wost Greg Hastings Edith Harris T~QENDp PO~TIN,S - A completo copy of the at 8:15 a.m., September 25, 1987, inside of the Council Chtunber, and also in the Zoning Administrator Planning Director Assistant City Attorney Offico Engineer Traffic Engineer Associate Planner Chief Building Inspector Sonior Planner Commission Secretary Planning Commission agenda was pasted tho display case located in the foyer outsido display Kiosk. ITENi~7Q,__7~ ~?R~~S.AT~~~A_>~~?~~.A._.~~,.P vB~A~~ ~41_~?.Q~ PUBLIC Hi~RING. OWNERS: OWNERS: PEP,ALTA LTD., 3150 E. Birch, Brea, CA 92621. AGENT: VIC PELOQI)IN, 3150 E. Birch, Brea, CA 92621. Property described as approximately 40 acres on tYie north side of Nohl Ranch Road, approximately 300 feet northeast of the cantor of Old Bucket Lane. Waiver of maximum fence height to construct a 6-foot high soli3 block wall with 7 foot:, 3-1/2 inch high pilasters. Chairman Masse declared a conflict of interest as defined by Anaheim City Nlanninq Commission Resolution No. PC76-157 adopting a Conflict of Interest Code for the Planning Commission and Government Code Section 3625, et seq., in that the petitioner is a customer of his bsisiness and pursuant to the 87-694 9-28-87 Ml.t~lZT~~.,__.h~AHFIkL~~Y EL~?~1.~ C9MMI.~~.~QN..__&~~~~~l~r;~._~.~,_~,9~Z-----.__.._.__@_7_-~.y.~ provisions of the above Codes, declared to the Chairman that lie was withdrawing [rem the hearing in connection with Variance No. 3706, and would not take part in either the discussion or the voting L•hereon and had not discussed this matter with any member of the Planning Commission. Thereupon Chairman Moase left the Council Chamber. Chairperson Pro Tempore Houas aastimed tine (:hair. There were seven persons indicating their presence in favor of subject request and approximately 50 people indicating t}'.oir presence in opposition to subject requests and although the staff report was not read, it is re[errecl to and made a part o[ the minutes. Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, explained this request is for a waiver to permit a 7'-3-1/2" high pilaster to go on a 6-foot. high wall. f{e explained a 6•-foot high pilaster would be permitted by Code. Vic Peloquin, 280 Chrisalta Way, Anaheim, applicaY~t, representing Peralta HIlls East, explained this request is for a 15" higher than permitted wall for the enhancement of the overall straight 6-foot high wa:.l continuously for 3100 foot along Nohl Ranch Roadi and that they feel the pilaster and brick cap would be an asset to the wall rather than a detriment. D. J. Helyor, 5317 Quail Ridge Terrace, stated she is the exclusive agent fur Peralta Hills East and a number of buyers are present and would like to speak. She read 'letters in favor of the wall from two buyerss Dr. Harrell Robfnsan and Mr. b Mrs. Wi.llian- Knight. Paul Williamson, ?283 Columbus Drive, Anaheim, explained ho is presently designing a home for Lot 32 in this tract and purchased the property because it is a private gated community and they felt it would be secure, very attractive and very nice. He stated they built a house in the Hillcrest development, kaown as Dove idanor, and they feel this will be one of the nicest communities in Anaheim and thought it will be very attractive with the wall. He stated they have been in this vicinity for 15 years and he has a business here and drives that road frequently and thinks this wall will be attractive and will be a benefit to the entire area. Danny Coelho stated his family purchased Lot No. 9 and they feel tl~e wall will add to the value of their investment in that project and to the whole aesthetic value and environment of the entire area of Peralta Hills and Anaheim Hills. He stated the wall adds safety because traffic could be a hazard to the homes below. He stated after reviewing several projects, they found this project would meet their standards and they would appreciate consideration of khe piasters. Philip Tratt stated he has lived in Anaheim for 20 years and owned a home directly across the street and they did have a serious problem with security and spent thousands of dollars to correct that problem and he felt this wall would save those people a lot of money and aggravation and it will provide a development the City of Anaheim will be very proud of. 9/28/87 '~: ~~R~Sr_i-M~J~!1!`I1F. M1_l:! 1~~~..k..__S.~Ln~•~.hA,~7__`s~~F..1~7J~7.h.QflL~fdki~~.N.M.h!51 ~1-~5t.~.._~Z~? -_~____...._~~~~~ Robert 2eme1, Chairman of Anaheim Hills Citizens Coalition, 6312 E. Santa Ana Canyon Road, St-ite 157, Anaheim, stated he live s at 7330 Stonecreek, Anaheim, and that the Convnissi.on will make a decision today which will send a clear message to Anaheim Hills as to their commitment to the General Plan t~s it applies to the hills and canyon area; and that the overwhelming majoriL'y of the people living in thin area, including their members, think the granting of this waiver is wrong. He stated additionally the people of Anaheim Hills desire that the builder tear down the wall at• the City's expense, if necessary. He stated it is their understanding that not all the people within 30G feet wore noticed of one of the early public hearings; and that because of the scenic vista and t:he possible geological implications involved in this project, the sphere of influence includes substantially more than the Homes on its immediate border; and that this project was not viewed in its entirety before it was approved and as of last week, the wall was not shown on x~ detailed landscaped plan on file with the Building Department; that the Tentative Tract leap was approved two years ago and the builder did not ask for a height variance for the wall and this pieceme sling of a project to ad~,i a feature is contrary to the intent of the California Environmental Qualir.y Act which aims to evaluate the impact of the project as a whole. Ho stated on Saturday they organized a "Walk o n the Wall Side" in tl~e a:ea of the wall, with two petition-signing stations, and thanked Mr. Peloquin for allowing this demonstration near his property. Fie at•akecl all the people he l-alked to were outraged that the City had allowed this wall because of the open-work fencing precedent set in surrounding planned communities and troy feel this wall is a violation of their property rights since they too border an arterial highway but were prevented from having a solid block wall. 1{e stated the wall has created an increase in noise that has hasenot ie~oss~.ble to enjoy their backyards and they cannot beliRVe the City Y challenged L-he developer's right to remove one of the public's scenic views of North Orange County for the benefit of one development. He stated this view was a trademark of Anaheim Hills. Mr. Zemel presented signatures of over 1000 people for the record as testimony of just a few of the people of Anaheim Hills who want the Cortunission to deny Variance No. 3706 from its EIR Negative Declaration; and want the Commission to apply pressure to require the developer to modify the wall and restore the panoramic view to the public. He stated the Anaheim Hills Coalition, whose membership consists of Anaheim Hills citizens, solicit for the undoing of the City's most outward statement of denial to the Anaheim Hills citizens, and to enforce their property rights by requiring an environmental impact report o n the "great wall", which the EIR could answer all the questions that need to be answered about the scenic vista and the noise throwback to existing residents. He stated he finds it appalling that the proposed homeowners feel the existing homeowners should take that noise and the new residents not be responsible for any of the noise, traffic problems such. as the new blind spots the wall has created for the drivers, especially for the drivers from thi s tract itself, and the fact that the alteration was being made near the Four Corners Pipeline, the alteration of drainage for the entire hillside above the tract and the9~Z8%c6? on ..~ ~~NV~.F~.~..._.L+~~H.S~M_C I~'Y.3_L~AN~1~~.~4.MMi S S x QN..__&EPT.~MTi~fi~,~..__ ~_9 @ Z_____.~.__87_~.9.Z established netyhburhooda surrounding the tract. Ho added he thinks it; is appalling a developer can be allowed to pre-build anything, whether its pilasters for show or removal of trNes, and it is not right fur the developer to build that as a showcase for the Planning Commission and City Council and the citizens of Anaheim }}ills to soo and they believe it is unethical, and the Planning Commission should look long and hard at that issue. Jim Blackwood, 5434 Spyglass Way, Anaheim, President of Westridge Homeowners Association, and member of the Coalition, presented a ~~ideo of the wall. He explained since they cannot stop the video, ho would like the Commission to look for certain things in the wall, and explained it was taken from a convertible and asked the Commission to listen for the noise as it bounces oft the wall and the view where the pilasters are not yet installed and the absence of. view whore the pilasters Dave already bean installed. Ho stated as far as protection of the property, ho did look through the wall and c,ther than on the south side whore ono Dome will be next to the wall, and on the north lido where there will be some homes, the homes will he really pretty far away and they are down a largo embankment and there is a street so it is quite a distance. The video was shown and a person in the video pointed au L• an area where the wall is over 8 feet high. Mr. Blackwood stated there will be 41 homes in the tract and the Cfty of Anaheim has a larger population and the surrounding cities have large populations and that is the first place he takes any visitors because he is proud of the view. He stated he would not say who is at fault and suggested maybe the City of Anaheim, the developer and the citizens of Anaheim can get together and correct this situatfon. Bill Nussbaum, 30 Sleepy Meadow, stated he was asked by the IIoard of Directors of the Rocky Point Homoowners Association, which is 186 homes located adjacent to the west of the wall, to speak and that they ware not properly noticed about the wall when the tract was discussed. He stated the loss of view not only affects people driving by the wall, but also the people who walk in the area will be exposed to fumes which will be trapped by the wall. He stated safety for the peop].o in the tract from vehicles going over is not a good reason for allowing the wall because that would not require a 7-foot higk'. wall. He stated they are extremely distraught about the loss of view and the increase in noise and one reason given for having the wall is to abate noise for the homes in the tract which is not legitimate because sound rises in the hills and the noise problem will be increased for the people who live in Pointe Quissette. Fio stated this tract is not in Peralta Hills. Mr. Nussbaum stated they find the wall to be environmentally and aestheti~ally undesirable and they would actually like to work with the developer. Ho stated they feel there is a middle ground and know that within that 5/8t}i of a mile one or two homes might have a privacy problem and certainly there might be a reason for certain sections of the wall, but most of the wall is not necessary because most of the houses face out. He stated they are not seeing good faith on the part of the developer based on hfs statements which do not represent the facts and they do not care whether there is a negative impact to his financial ventures however, all the people who live there have seen nothing but an increase in their property values and the tracts with wrought iron fences have doubled in value. 9/28/67 i~t3~~.S..~.i~~.ib_ ~i~P~.AN~? z.NS:.~~S~.LQN ~~~M~E~~~_._...~4 8 ~ _..__...._. ~T -x.44 Margie Phelan, 720 Pasoo Cumbre, stated tho peaple in favor of this wall are mostly motivated by purely privato interests whereas, the people against the wall are community-spirited and have lived thero and worked together and like to be good neighbors. She stated this wall rominds hor of the type wall used to barricade private property from the froeway. She stated it is gett:i~~g crowded in that area and they are gutting more traffic and now high walls and there is no room or air to breathe. She stated this wall could invite graffito and asked who will take care of that problem. She stated she could not ut-derstand anyone wanting to detract from such a beautiful area; and staL•ed her daughter lives in a similar area off Santa Ana Canyon Road and her property is down in a hole like this tract will be acid sho has a big wall in the re ar and it doesn`t stop any noiso and cuts off the air and is very hot. Virgene Walker, 410 Torrey Pines Circle, staked she was the first resident of that area in September 1972 and Nohl Ranch Road ended in her back yard; that they watched the area grow, and do realize that there will be growth and they do welcome people coming in. She stated they all knew they would be looking down in someone and the homeowner's associations asked them very readily to remember their neighbors and trim the trees so they can see. She stated the problem here is the view and that is something given us by a bl;~ssing of nature and is something for all to enjoy, and is probably one of the most valuable parts of the Anaheim General Plan that was adopted many years ago; and it is that unique difference that allows a person to come home and hive the peaceful serenity they are looking for, and it should be protected since it i.s a natural r9source. She stated television satellite dishes are not allowed in the Scenic Corridor and there are other restrictions within that area and they accept that and appreciate that, and this property is ever so slightly outside the Scenic Corridor, but the scene is the Scenic Corridor. She stated the other neighbors who bought there deserve consideration too and those people are now saying they cannot sit in their backyard because of the noiso that is filtering upward at a rapid pace. She stated they do not want the new 41 homeowners moving in to have that as their problem, but that is a possibility. She stated they would like to work with the developer in making something feasible for all of them to live with and still enjoy. N.s. Walker stated she has watched the traffic come and change, and that there is a new concern at Point Quissetto and a safe left-turn cannot be mrde out of Andover Street because of the wall, and traffic safety should be a part of the consideration. She stated they all appreciate Anaheim Hills and would like to welcome their new neighbors, but would like to see something they can all agree an and something they are praud of. Charles Supple, 4321 E. Valleygate Drive, stated as a former Planning Commissioner for the City of Manhattan Beach, he understands the unenviable position the Commission is in, but did not think that it is without remedy; that as a former Vice President of John D. Lusk and Son, he recalled years ago the painful process they went through to preserve the view that had been there since Louis Nohl first walked those hills and urged the Commissioa to listen to the neighbors and follow their conscious and remedy the situation. 9/28/87 +~ MI NUTE~.L._.A~AH~ ~M_S P~l~N.2i~.~C~4~S~.~Q~.~ ~~T~.~1~~.R_~.Q.._~.~.~._~...___'? -S~ 4~ Earl Rattenbury, 511 S. Gilbert, Anaheim, stated he does not resido in thn hills, but his daughtet• lives there, and they knew that wee a wonderful view and thought it would stay there and now, unfortunately, he hears people referring to it ea the "Groat Wall of Anaheim Hills" and that is not exactly complimentary. He stated he had never seen any~.hing built that fast before? and that he was very upset and it is hard to realire that f.or 41 homeowners, who have the option to buy or not to t~uy, that complete view has been spoiled and noise added up the 1ii11 for the rest of tho people. He stated two people in favor of the wall have said people pass by the wall real fast, but that i.s not the case; that he brings all his friends to that area and they stop and watch the fireworks, the stars come out, and the lights come on; and that the view is something that cannot be replacod. He stated in 1957 they discussed going to the City Council and making phis a scenic drive so no or-e could put up a fence, but unfortunately that was not done. Fte stated maybe a modification of the wall or something can be done to re~~tify this very bad situation. Roland Krueger, 561 Peralta Hills Drive, stated he is not directly impacted by this wall because he lives in Peralta Hills which is west of this property, but thought both sides should be weighed and that Y-e t-as known Mr. Peloquin for quite a few years. He stated lie has lived in Peralta Hills for almost 30 years and was also a member af. tho original Hil]. and Canyon Task Force which drew up the General Plan for the Hill and Canyon Area and their hopo back then was that they would be able ko preserve this rather ~;canic resource. He stated in addition to the Hill and Canyon General Plan, they adopted the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone, and their objectives were to try and preserve the view and that he does know that a block wall does reflect sound and that it could be a problem. He stated Mr. Peloquin started out to put in a legal six-foot high wall and gat the permits to do it and he has puL- a lot of money into this wall, and he can appreciate that, and that Mr. Peloquin has always tried to cooperate with the Feople in than. area and has a residence in Peralta Hills. He suggested since it is known that the developer has an interest in the community, that tho Planning Commission consider continuing this matter to allow the residents to meet with Mr. Peloquin to see if a compromise could be reached, realizir-g that he does have a very large investment in the wall and there may need to be some mitigating circumstances. He stated he would suggest using 3 to 4 feet of the block wall with wrouSl:t iron foncing above that and that would cost a lot of money, and he did now know where the money will come Pram. He stated he did not whether it could be said that Mr. Peloquin should bear the entire cost himself, 'gut thought it would be worthwhile to continue this because of the very emotional aspects. He stated they want to preserve what they have in the canyon ar~d to see if some compromise could bQ reached. Chairman rro Tempore Bouas reminded the opposition that the Planning Commission ;s only considering the pilasters. Mary Paul, 515 N. Cavendish, Pointe Quisette, stated their patios an: back yards face onto Nohl Ranch Road and they have heard the three issues - one is the aesthetics that have been diminished, second, a safety issue turning left off Andover onto Nohl Ranch Road, and third, the view has been diminished and pilasters would certainly diminish the view further turning left. She stated 9/28/87 Mi.~?~1~~~,_~.N.8j3~i.M.~i~X_._PI~hN~~~~_~O.MME.S~I4~~-~E~.~MAG.~i__Z.9.~.~~Z __.-.-----a.?-Z4Q her property backs onto Nohl Ranch Road, and that she lives a very hectic life day to day, working in do~,rntotvn Loa Ange~los, and looks forward to the weekends and reading in her back yard and relax.it.~g, Dut she can no longer go into hor backyard and read a book because it iE that noisy. She stated she did not believe giving the variance for the pilasters will diminish the noi:ge and will only further increase the noise level. She stated she was sure if an environmental impact study was clone or this whole issue, this hearing would not be necessary because the decibel rate has gone up dramatically over thc~ last few years and she would appreciate the Commission considering the neighbors who have investments in the homes and lots. Jan Lovett, 2161 Cavendish Lane, stated they back onto Nohl Ranch Road and the noise has increased dramatically and she felt an environmental impact study is necessary and oven if this is really to consider the pilasters, she did not know if the wall and pilasters could really be separated. She stated besides the noise and aesthetics, s:to has a son who is nearly old enough to drive and she, as an adulk, has a tough time getting onto Nohl Ranch Road, and this added obstacle is really going to cause problems and she did not wan L• her son or any one of their children in the canyon to give their life for thP.t wall. Dave Adams, 6554 Via Estrada,, stated he has lived t}tere for five years and referred to a Lotter from one of the persons in favor of this wall indicating that the plan for this community assured him of a wall; and added +.:.hat is really what is being discussed today, communities and plans fc.r c~~mmunit:ies and the way plans suddenly :seem to become meaningless down the road. Ho stated they want to protect what they have and want tl~e plan tha+. was on the record when they purchased their property to be meaningful, now .snd in the future. Sonja Grewal, 400 South Canyon Ridge Drive, member of the Anah;.Mim Hills Citizens Coalition, stated a lot of concerns have been expresr.~.~d today regarding the tremendous impacts on the environment which this, wall and the possible addition of the pilasters will have, and added the 1~ricks are imitation; that Nohl Ranch Road is considered a Scenic Exprea;sway and that should bo changed if this is ai~proved; that according to th+: correspondence in the file, t:•^ City has gone to great lengths to justify why the builder can have this wall and she did not understand why t}te City is not giving equal justification as to why the citizens should have to have i't. She stated there are justifications in the Code and in the Genera]. Plan and the description and purpose of the RS-HS-22,,000 Zone itself support denying this wall and the addition of the pilasters; that also the description and purpose of the specific building requirements far the Scenic Corridor Overlay support denying the wall and the addition of the pilasters; and the Canyyon Area General Plan further denies the solid wall because it adds the 'oss of a valuable and irreplaceable resource. Slim stated she feels the goals and policies of the General Plan have already been violated enough in this instance; and that not only have extensive +technical operations been accomplished to make this wall, but now this is adding insult to injury and taking a view which was there before and adding pilasterR to t~~icii it off. Ms. Grewal stated one of the General Plan's goals 'is to permit identification and visual quality within the canyon area among residents and visitors and she did not think the pilasters will accomplish that, 9/29/87 fi ~I~.NIJTES. ANAHE~L'(S"~T_~YY._~Lt,III.~I.~_~.~.~.~uS~.Q~ir._~.F~P.~,IaM~~+.R._2.@~...~,~~7 --- @~~Q_~: She statod it is confusing to her why the City did not quote any of these sections to the builder as a possibility for preserving this uniciue scenic vistas that she understands the City has in the past considered ~n emergency ordinance protecting the scenic vistas, but were concerned they might b© sued by the developer. She statod it is poasiblo for Mr. Peloquin tc, fulfill the architectural expression and also totally realize the economic value of this property without exceeding the height limitation and without the wall itself; that the homes in this tract are situated down a hillside with landscape plans which indicate a thick screen, and security could easily or even better be provided by wrought iron fencing. She stated in addition, individual homeowners will erect their own security fences around their 'individual lots; and that if the City made an error by not realizing that this was goi:,g to affect the sconic vista, it has a duty to right the wrong anet nt th.is time, there is a chance to require an environmental impact report ~+hi.ch obviously would point out what the citizens are saying. Ms. Grewal etated she understands ghat variances are to be an exception and not a rule and she felt if this ~t;riance is granted, it seems as though it is not an exception, but is allow+:_Yy the developer ko finish the wall and make it pretty and it doesn't have ju~~.:fLCation. She stated the staff's recommendation that there is ~~ -canificant impact from the pilasters is inappropriate and there is ,~~ s~riC~~i:; impact from the wall and the pilasters are a part of the wall and ~~i exc«~n.~' the impact even more and she felt an EIR should be required on rte.. *rtheyT k+!11 because of the significant modifications. She stated the Conunission ->~~ ~ ~•tiance today to send a message to Anaheim Hills that they really rte -+,:rn~~-: i*_ as a special planning area, and it has its own Planning Area Q beca~.~ ~~-~ topography is so different, and explained she is not saying that the}• r,~, ~p-..cial, but that the hills are special; and the General Plan made them t^.-.~~~: ~~ and tried to protect them. She stated she felt the Commission's deri~;~:~r: will point out their commitment to the General Plan. Vic Peloquin stated regar.dinp the height of the pilasters and the sound, that once sound is bounced off s~7++~thing such as the pilasters, it would go down or up and not necessarily bou~t~ in that direction. He explained the pilasters are irregular shaped so th~r sound doesn't just bounce directly off, and the pilasters all have rounrl c~:rves. He stated the opposition is saying the sound is coming from the traffic along Nohl Ranch Road and bouncing back into their yardst however, the landscaping is going to be quite denser lush and lavish along the wall as soon as the landscaping is put in, it will buffer the noise to their yards and the landscaping will be the mitir~ating situation that curtails the noise. h~ stated approximately 30 to 50~ of the area where the wall is c•+ad hillsides 3~igher than the road and would have had the same noise factor and probably in most instances a lot more noise than what is being attributed to the wall right now since the wall is only six feet high. He stated they created vistas of view by grading tl~e hills and moving approximately 850,000 cubic yards of earth, and there were no views into most of the areas before, and a person driving along Nohl Ranch Road and looking out the window, could not see past the Hill. He stated he has plans indicating the height of the hills before 9/28x87 ar• M~~u.~~....~~.u~__s.~.~~aNnx.x~co~~s~~N~..~e~.~~~~~,_~_~ ~..._~_._ _~=~zQ2 grading and in some cases they were 35 feet high and were 15 to 20 feet above the road in four different locations. He stated what the people have been used to is a panoramic vial•a that has been provided by him in the grading and those views were not always there. He stated one gentleman mentioned he likes to stop and look at the vi~aw and watch the fireworks, but no stopping is permitted along Nohl Rarch Road and traffic travels at speeds of 45 and 50 mr~h along that road and it is quite dangerous. He stated the turnouts are for emergencies only and there are no turnouts along his side of the street. Fie stated when the wall was measured by the gentleman in the film, the grading had taken place several days prior for the sidewalks and he was standing in a location that was approxirt:ate.ly 6 to 8 inches below final grade. He stated they have to elope the sidewalk 1/4 inch to 1-foot towards the street and more earth will be put in after the sidewalk is constructed. He added the wall will not be ovor 6 feet in height. Mr. Peloquin stated this propoi•ty was a geed-filled, junked-filled hillside with concrete rubble, used cars, abandoned trailer, rubbish, etc. and now it will be a gated community that will be an asset. He stated they had comments from neighbors who had drainage problems through this property and that has been mitigated rind they will trap 95i. of the water on surface styeeta and pipe it underground and bring it out into the City storm drains. He stated they have also had nice comments from four Peralta I~illa neighbors thaL• this property was a high fire hazard with weeds 5 or 6 feet high and that is mitigated with fully landscaped slopes. He stated all in all today the issue is the acceptance by the Planning Commission for the height of ~he pilasters and not for the height of the wall. He stated they went through three public hearings regarding the project and in every one of those public hearings, the wall was shown on the plan and they got proper permits and started construction. He stated he thought the system works, buL- some people don't get involved early enough to understand the impact and maybe that might be a fault, and he is sensitive to their needs but has invested a large amount of money into that project with the understanding that he would be able to construct this wall. He stated if he was told earlier that the wall could not be constructed., he would not have closed escrow because it would have a high financial impact and be a burden on these re::tidents to have wrought iron where people could stand and look in their windows and into their pools which would be immediately adjacent to the project. He stated the gentleman in the video mentioned that he peered through tine fence and the:•e are only three lots that are like that and the remaining 50~ back up again:~t Nohl Ranch Road with their backyards right. against the slope. He stated during a Planning Commission hearing on the original review, the former Chairmen said he was really worried about this property and that he know Lhis would be a nice project and he felt extremely impressed with the project and thanked him for bringing a nice quality project to the City of Anaheim. Commissioner 1'eldhaus asked if Mr. Krueger was speaking for the developer when 9/28/87 M.~.~~S..r~NA#i~~rL..~~L~\N.~.I~C. ~4~i~~.~.~Q~i._S~.P.~~b~F,R.?@_~_~4~.~ _____ ~Z~ZU3 he suggested a 4-foot wall with wrought iron. Mr. Peloquin stated he was not speaking for him at1d that Mr. Krueger is a resident in Peralta Hills. Chairperson Pr.o Tempore Aouas stated t6r. Krueger clid propose a continuance in order for the developer to meet with thA neighbors, and asked Mr. Peloquin to respond to that suggestion. Mr. Peloquin staked today the Commission is only hearing the pilaster height and that he has gone through the entire procedure and that is documented and it was legal to put the wall up. He stated today he would like the Planning Commission to act on Lhg added attraction of the pilasters. He added he was sure ho could not reao].ve the opposition's problems and he does have some time constrainL•s in getting this project completed and some financial impacts based on what the homeowners who purchased l~~ks in this project understood the project to be and changing it nt this time could be a financial disaster. He added a lot of these people paid more to yet views and these people are paying to get the privacy of a gated community and these are all going to be ~1 to ~2 million dollar homes and they don't want to have people looking into their backyards. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mc•. Zemel asked if the opposition could rebut. Chairperson Pro Tempore Bouas r.espondkd normally Commission does not allow the opposition to rebut, but that she would allow them to speak because of the emotions involved, but no one else will be allowed to speak. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS REOPENED. Mr. Zemel stated a lot of people in the room feel that their intelligence has been insulted; that he believed a lot of the people in this rcom have been in Anaheim Hills a lot longer than just the last few months and they do know what they are talking about and don't feel this should be jammed down their throats. He stated the value of the lots because of that wall is really the issue, and to increase the dollar amount of each individual lot at the expense of all the other homeowners in Anaheim Hills, he thought was truly a travesity and there is no reason why one person should be enriched at everyone else's expense. He stated he telieved t:he Commission can not only deny this request, but request that an environmental impact report be done to answer all the questions that are so necessary and if something diu pass through the cracks, the Commission now has the opportunity to fix it, and he urged the Commission to do that. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst stated he was on the Anaheim Hills Task Force studying the Anaheim Hills development shortly after Louie Nohl sold the property; and that the Task Force primarily looked at that 4,000 acres and if this particular property had been a part of that original Nohl property, safeguards were built into that so that a fence review would have come before the Commission; and Peralta Hills came into the City from the County on its own and this was a little property between those two properties and it did fall through the cracks with regard to coming back before the Commission for wa]1 review and, 9/2x/87 M~L1U.~1'e$~~IiFZ.hL~IZX_PLANNING CQMMISSI.SAN.1_..~S~E'T.~M~~.E3__?$_a_~_49_T_.__.~...-~~Z-Z0.9 of course, Code allows the well. He stated the developer said he came before the Planning Commission in public hearings, and the Commission did review the tract map only, but saw no houses and no design on the wall and all it showed was a dotted lire indicating a wall and khe Codes do allow a 6-foot wall without coming before the Commission. He stated this is the first time this wall has beer. before the Commission. Commissioner Herbst asked Mr. Peloquin when the wall was designed with 7-foot high pilasters. Mr. Peloquin responded it was designed approxi.matoly a month after they started the project. Commissioner Herbst stated the developer has been solliny the properties and telling people they would have t2iis wa12 and the building permits were to permit a block wall, per Cit}~ standards. Mr. I'eloquln responded that is correct. Commissioner Herbst stated the developer had this plan underway and an order was given to stop construction on the wall on August 13 because it was being built higher than City standards. Mr. Peloquin responded that is correct. Commissioner Herbsh. asked if the pilasters were included in that design and Mr. Peloquin responded they were. Commissioner Herbst asked why he did not come before the Planning Commission for a variance before he proceeded .ith the wall. Mr. Pelaquin stated they were in the process of mal.ing the molds for the wall, which has been done. Commissioner Herbst asked what the hardship would be for granting the waiver and noted the Commission must make a determination of hardship before taking action. Mr. Peloquin stated if the Planninr Commission chooses today to stay with the 6-foot wall, than is what would be done, but• to enhance the view of the wall for the duration of 31('G feet and for the ambiance that would be .:rested, then the 15" inch pilasters which are ornamental and placed only every a0 to 50 feet are necessary and he felt to have the pilasters as a break-;.p along the wall would not be a detriment, but an asset to Fhe community. Commissioner Herbst stated the Planning Commission likes to see something before the fact instead cf after the fact. He stated this hearing is only for the pilasters, but being involved in sound attenuation for over 20 years in his 'business, this wall has created an undesirable effect on the neighbors and the people below in this tract will not have the sound problem khat the people on top of the hill will have; that sound travels in a straight line unless it bounces off something, so the sound coming from Nohl Ranch Road through a fence would go over those houses. He stated he thought there is a very serious environmental problem here and he would agree with the opposition that this has cre;.~ed a situation for the people similar to what happens along freeways where they have to build sound barriers, and people who never had noise problems before now get the noise bouncing off that wall; and that the developer has created a monster. He stated he recognizes he has met City Codes, but would question his statement regarding three public hearings on this wall, because Commission never saw a design of the fence. 9/28187 ~' M~ILT.~&1._8ti~#ZS.IM_4.1~:Y PLANjia.,~S_SS?kSMI.~S.x._413..~.FPS.F~~g.3s4~.~.4~Z___.._._.43.Z_Z4.S Commissioner NerbaL• stated he could not vote for approval because there is na hardship and he knows it is a very expensive fencer that ha lives in Anaheim Hills and drives that road often and disagrees that the view was hiddor, by the 1~i1'.s that ware there before grading. He stated he felt the reveloper thoroughly planned this knowing there would be 7-foot high pilasters and he got the cart before the horse anu he should have been before the Cortunission with the design problems a long time ago and then these problems would have been resolved. Commiasior,er Carusillo stated there is no doubt this pc•oject is going to enhance that area and that is not the problem, and the problem is the walla that he 1~aa some concerns and the neighbors have suggested perhaps some discussion with other residents in the area at~d over 1,000 signatur~as were submitted of people who fee] that perhaps some compromise can bo made to get the privacy and security required for the project, yet allow the vie+w to stand. He stated he heard several times that perhaps a 3 or 4 fooL• wall with wrought iron on top would serve that purpose and asked iC that is a possibility. Mr. Peloquin stated they have spent approximately 5650,000 to date era that wall and have the right with their permit co do a standard wall along the enti^e right of wa}• and they could have used standard block which would have had +. stark face at 6 feet with no cap and without bricks, but traditr.onally he has always brought very nice projects to the City of Anaheim. Mr. Peloquin stated to tear the wall down would be far more costly than realized; that the bond beams in the wall will not allow the wall to just be taken down to 3 or 4 feet, and it would have to be taken down entirely and regrouted and the bond beams put at a lower elevation and reconstructed. HH stated they have a considerable investment in the wall the wall is needed for a walled community. He Stated they enhanced a standard block wall for the City and resident benefit. He stated people saw the wall going up and in its unfinished state, it was very stark but with trio addition of the very expensive brick cap and brick pilasters, and the landscaping, they wi'l1 create a very beautiful 3100-foot wall. He stated he is sensitive to the issue, but that tearing the wall down in not an option and if this Variance is not approved, he will leave the pilaster raps off and leave the wall as it is. Commissioner Carusillo stated it has been suggested that the wall is over six feet in height in various locations and also asked the Building Department representative if the 7-foot dedication required fo; sidewalks has been met. He stated it appears in many areas of that 3100 length that the width is less than 7 feet for sidewalk and landscaping purposes Wayne West, Chief Building Official, stated at the time the footing inspection fs made on any block wall throughout the City, it is the responsibility of the developer to identify the property linos and that is what was done; that the setbacks are not noted on the plan and if it is a required City dedication, that is something he will have to deal with and either remove it or relocate it. Mr. Peloquin stated the wall is set back considerably on their property and they are required to put in a 4-foot wide sidewalk along that street and that 9/28/137 N1~~L~~ At~AHEIM_S..I.~~_P..~A~lN~NS~~9.LB1~5.~4I~S.~P~.M~~.H~.~~..~99Z-_._._.~81.~Z4.~ is what they are doing and tha balance rill be landscaped. He stated they have notAd there are areas where there are vistas and views, and other builders have puL• standard slumpatone block walls right against the City's sidewalk with no landscaping and no amenities to enhance the wall., and in other Lreas were wrought iron fences or lower walls wore put in, the homeowners traditior.nlly have planted hedges, shc~aha, and trees in front of it and the wrought iron can't be seen. Commissioner Carusillo stated his concern is whether or not the approval was predicated on dedicating 7 foot to the City for sidewalk and landscaping purposes and it appeared just from visual observation today that we don't have that 7-foot width. Mr. Peloquin stated they have the survey that was done for the tract map and they are consider~~bly inside the right of way and the rest is all landscaping. Hg stated it was even suggested that in order to get mare landscaping, that they might consider cutting the ^idewa].k down to 3 feet., but they felt a 3-foot wide sidewalk might not be wide enough. Jay Titus stated the City right of way along Nohl Ranch Road is 7 feet from the face of the curb and the face of the block wall or the pilasters should be back of that right of way and the Building Officials would verify it. Commissioner Feldhaus stated the block wall is up and it is legal and the purpose of this variance is to permit the pilasters and that is the decision before the Plannin3 Commission today and to discuss whether or not the wall is legal or illegal just takes more time and is redundant. He stated he thought the Commission needs to got; back to Mr.Pelrquin'a variance and whether or not the pilasters will be allowed which exceed 15 inches from the top of the block wall, Commissioner Herbst stated the question is whether the pilasters are back 7 fast from the curb. Commissioner Carusillo asked the developer's feeling on approval subject to some modification of the wall, and stated he understands the concerns and was not aware that to modify the wall, would require taking it all the way done and asked if a couple of rows of blocks could be removed. Mr. Peloquin stated they could not do that; th-t thel' grouted the blocks every 32" on center and with the integrity of the wall, trying to remove that much of it would not hold and also there are bond beam blocks which have rebar running horizontal and there would have to be a bond beam in the lower portion. Commissioner Feldhaus asked the purpose of taking off two feet and putting in wrought iron. Commissioner Carusillo stated taking off three feet would allow a view and still allow privacy for the homes. Commissioner Feldhaus stated that is the view for people driving by since there is no foot traffic along there. (Thore was a response from the at+.dience that people do walk in that area.) Commissioner Boydstun asked Mr. 2eme1 if the residents would want the wall left the way ft is since City staff has represented that th9/28%87oot wall rtz~u~s.._.~~~M_E~~x__~~.~x~N~. cor_a~~s~.~.t~.__.~~~~t~~~.~_.~a.__ ~4~z___-------~~_-zoz. would bo permitted by Coda, and it .is legal, and the only question hofore the Commission is the pilasters. Mr. Zemel staked he was not sure how to respond to that because if he reapond~, that is admitting that that is a legal walls and ho thought C~mrniaaionoc• Caruaillo has a very valid point and he did not believe it was answered whether or not the wall is 7 feet from the curb and if it is not, this is not a legal wall and ho did not know how the pilasters can be discussed. Commissioner Caruaillo stated it is not known that it is not 7 feet back, but it just appeared to him to be less in certain areas. Chairperson Pro Tempore eouas stated Mr. Peloquin would have to go back and menaure the distance and she was sure he ;gels iL is 7 feet. Mr. 2ome1 stated they fool it is probably not a legal wall because there is no environmental impact report and the fact thaC he did obtain a permit does not satisfy CEQA requirements and the environmental impact issues and that responaibflity doesn't necessarily stop with the City and is also the developer's responsibility. He staled he believed their Coalition would be opposed to any further extension or blockage of the view and they are upset because this has been piecemealed. Commissioner Feldhaus stated when Commission could yeC a definitive answer on the 7-foot dedication. Wayne Weesr stated he intends to personally inspect the wall to verify the setback. Commissioner Feldhaus stated for that reason, ho would make a motion to continuo this until shot determination has been made. Chairperson Pro Tempore IIouas asked if a sound study has been done to determine if the pilasters would help the sound situation. Mr. Peloquin stated he has not done a sound study on the pilasters, nor the wall. Commissioner Herbst stated he was prepared to offer a resolution for denial just because of the environmental impacts, thereby requiring an F.IR, but if Mr. Peloquin would agree to a two-week continuance in order to get a sound e:lgineer out there to see if anything could be done to attenuate the sound, he would agree to the continuance, and added he did not think planting will help. He stated if the developer will not agree to have the sound study, he would not vote for the continuance and will recommend denial of the Negative Declaration because he thought it does add to the sound that is there. He stated he has been involved in some freeway walls for almost 20 years and felt this is a serious problem end how it will be attenuated is purely an environmental problem; and that the sound does not a~fect the people below. Mr. Peloquin stated the people above are approximately 50 to 60 feet above and there is landscaping on the hill and it was mentioned the sound goes straight, and thought that might be a very valid point. Commissioner Herbst stated the sound will hit the wall straight but will bounce up. He stated the sound would go right over the houses below with a wrought iron fence, and added the houses in this tract are way below and they have a buffer between them and the street. Mr. Peloquin asked if the Commission feels lowering the wall to four feet would mitigate the sound problem. Commissioner Herbst stated he would agree 9/28/87 -~ M~IiTiTES.__.1~!I~HF~M C.I,TY_..F~A~?NxL~~..S.92~~.&&1.5~~1..--~~P~~.M.R.~I3._~@..----.~9.9? ...__._..-_ _.~7.-74.8 with Mr. Krueger that lowering the well would create leas aound and would put the view back and Chis two-week continuance will probebly give him the opportunity to reconsider the wall. Ha stated he did not think the wall has to he turn down red it is just ~ matter of what. the developer wants to do or not to do for the community; and that he realiaoe the developer has a permit, but he knew he t-ad a problem back in Auguot. He eteted he saw the rrew almost double the next day after the atop work order and it appeared things happened a let faatec than usual.. Mr. Peloquin atated Choir crown work to chat eCCiciency all the time. He atated a sound study would only ha required for the pilaators, and that is Y.tro only iaeue today. Chairperson Pro Tempore Bouas atated the aound is an onviranmental concern and is a part of this request. Mr. Peloquin atated the repur.t would only pertain to the pilasters and he has already covered an environmental impact report on the rest of the project and i. f. the request for the pilaators is denied today, then he would just take the pilaators off and leave the wall as is becarrae it is permitted ana that is the option. Commissioner Herbsk stated Cho request is for Cho pilasters only but they might have to leave openings in the wall if the environmental impact report discusses the pilaators and the wall in its entirety. Mr. Peloquin stated they can remove the pilaster~a if that is the Commission's choice, and put biocke in those openings, but wanted to bring mere beauty and the beauty will be in adding the horrinybone design of th9 pilaster. Conunisaioner Herbst stated he realizes what the developer is trying to accomplish, but that• he had this wall planned a long time ago and knew ho had a problem and even built the wall higher than six feet for which the permit was granted and has been in violation all along, and when the wall was designed, it wan known the pilasters exceeded the height limit and the developer know the permit was only for a six-foot wall. He stated there could k-ave been a public hearing a long kime ago. Mr. Peloquin at~sted they showed Cho wall on All their plans that came before Cho Planning Commission, and explained thcs plena showed a standard block wall, and there was a picture drawn of a standard six foot high wall. He stated they would be allowed to construct a six-foot high block wall, but have chosen that instead of creating a flat top wall to increase the wall and improve the looks Dy putting on pilaster pups; and that is the option they are exercising today. Ne atated they are no` asking for anything but to put pilaster caps on a long wall to break it up for aesthetic purposes. Commissioner Herbst ptated he was there on Sunday and took measurements as he went along and did find the wall over nix feet in certain areas. Mr. Peloquin stated that t.•he grading was dare for the aidowalke and earth was removed in front of the wall, but he will be sure that the wall is six feet with caps by the time it is finished. Commissioner Carusillo atated he Y.nows Mr. Peloquin's initial thoughts on that wall were good, but he did not fully understand the impact on the neighbors in the Anaheim Hills areal and that he lives there and was amazed to see the view go. {~;[~j•~.&. ANAHEI~CITY_ PLAN~~~I~..S4hL1I,S&,'~4.K..._.~.'~_FM~F.$~~1_.1.897 .r.._.___@_Z~S?~ Mr. Peloquin stated they wont through a zone change, hiking and riding trail general plan amendment, grading plans to move 800,000 yards of earth and tract maps, and when those public hearings were held, no one came forward and no one thought to bring it to their attention, and everything was done above board. He stated he presented it fairly and openly through all public hearings and nobody mentioned the wall and it was on the plan from the beyinning. Commiasioner Herbst asked about the public hearings. Greg Hastings stated there was a public hearing on the tract map and rezoning, and there was the deletion of tr^ trail in *_hia area. Mr. Peloquin statod there was a public hearing on tl,,, grading, and it was noted the Planning Commiasion dons not have public hearings on grading. Jay Titus statod there was a public hearing by the City Engineer, b~rt they only consider the grading au_ not the walls. Commissioner Feldhaus asked when the artist's rendering was done. Mr. Peloquin stated three or fou• inths ago. Commissioner Foldhaus asked if the Building Department had this r~nderinq and Mr. Peloquin stated he did show ft to people in the Building Department at some paint. Wayne West stated when the permit was issued, there were no plans, renderings, etc. submitted and the permit was issued strictly for a wall to he constructed to minimum City standards and the developer was given a pictorial which is given to all applicants. Mr. Peloquin stated a 6-foot high wall was shown on their plans from the beginning; and that he was out there on Saturday and talked to several homeowners and +hey considered the wall beautiful, and although they would like to have the views, if, in fact, the views cannot be obtained because they were legal in building the wall, they had no objection to the pilasters going in and increasing the looks of the wall, based on the wall staying. He stated as far as he is concerned the wall will stay because they were permitted to do it and it is legal and he cannot tear it down, and he would like to have Commission vote to improve the looks and thought the residen~.s might agree that as long as the wall is there. Chairperson Pro Tempore eouas stated that is the question Commission Boydstun asked the Coalition and they t:nswered "no". Bill Nussbaum stated in view of the fact that Mr. Peloquin has shown absolutely no openness cr willingness to make any kind of compromise, speaking on their behalf, they are not willing to make any compromise either by allowing him to beautify a six-foot wall. Commissioner Carusillo asked if the cost of the sidewalk would offset the cost of modification of the wall if the sidewalk is required and a permit was given for the increased height of the pilasters, subject to modification of the wall• Mr. Peloquin stated that was addressed by the Building Department and personally he felt it would be a great detriment to the area no L• to have sidewalks because both to the east and west of their project there are sidewalks approact•,ing it and children and adults would not be able to traverse any further and would have to step into a busy street to cross and get to the other side. He added the cost of putting in the concrete sidewalk far 9/28/87 MIHI,fTEfi.._I~HM- G~.TY.~Gb~3NI~G_~.Q~tt~.~IQI~..~P,..~.EM.@.~-Ii-._~9_~..1.281.~__.J._..__@Z..:1~.9. outweighs the added lwr.dseapinq. He stated personally h© would like to have mare landacap inq, but it would be more advantageous to thQ City to have the sidewalk. Commissioner Caruaillo asked .if khere are any ereas of the wall which could bo lowered and not interfere with privacy or noise. Mr. Poloquin responded the majority of thou lots back up to Nohl Ranch Road, and most of the wall backs up against residential back yardsi and that the poopla who buy into this subdivision a'so hove a right to the security, loss noise and po 1lution and less light pollution from the liyhts of the veh.iclos coming around Nohl Ranch Road. Commissioner Herbst stated those lots don't back up to the wall because there is a 50-foe t slope before the building pad and the developer is trying to pull the wool over the Commission's oyes and he did not like it. Mr. peloguira stated that is not true and if a person stands at any place along the wall, they r_an look down right intu their backyards. Commissioner Herbst stated that is truce, but they are along way down and that is true in just about any p 1 ace in Anaheim Hills, and that is part of the hill and canyon area, Mr. Peloquia stated the lots are lower, but they don't~.+ant people looking into the backyards. Commissioner I~erbst stated he would second the motion for a two-week continuance in order for this devslope r to meet with the people and see if he can get some signatures from people in favor of this wall. Commissioner Feldhaus stated the wall is there and the Commission i.s talking about the p ilastera today and if the people say they don't want those pilasters, 2zo would would go along with that, but the wall is legal and is up. Commissions r Herbst stated he thought the people have a good ar,*umerc on t:he environment al impact report because the wall will be a nuisance to their living env ironment. Commissioner Feldhaus asked if Commissioner Herbst wants the developer to get an Environmental Impact Report, and pointed out there is a recommendation for a negative declaration. Commissioner Herbst stated he does not want an EIR, and seconded the motion for the tvi~o-week continuance. Mr. Peloqu in stated he does have a negative declaration for the six-foot wall, Joel Fick, Planning Director, stated it has been e~lleged a number of times that the Planning Commission saw this wall before and he did not believe the original tract map which was before the Planning Commission showed any wall and if th i a matter is continued, staff will examine those plans, Mr. Fick stated several people have mentioned that two weeks from today is the Columbus Day holiday weekend, even though the Commission is in session. 9/28/87 M,L.S1...~13A~~kLS~I~Y.~LD~N~NSrS.4.t~l.I~SSS~.~_~.~~xEM~E[i._~.____~9~.Z._...._ ~Z-.1_x.1. Commissioner Feldhaus stated sir-ce the questions cannot be answered, the matter has to be continued two weeks so ha can be comfortable when he votes. Commissioner Herbst stated a two-week continuance will give the Building Department a chance to check the right of way. ~,~;QN.L Commissioner Foldhaus offered Herbst and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner the aforementioned matter be continued October 12, 1987, a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney absent) that considerotion of to the regularly-scheduled meeting of. RECESSs 3:30 P.M. RECONVENEDs 3:40 P.M. ;T~~IQ.e._Z ~R NE~j±'~;.Y~ _[?.~1,rA~?A~3.4N_.~ ~.9NDI.~I~I~AI~.~1,5.~__~'Ei3.L4~~__~.~9~7 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERSt SANTA FE LAND IMPROVEMENT CO., 3230 E. Imperial Highway, Brea, CA 92621, ATTN: RICK DEL CARLO. Property is described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 10 acres located at the northwest corner of La Palma Avanuo and Manassero Street, having approximate frontages ~•f 809 feet on the north side of La Palma Avenue and 530 feet on the west silo of Manassero Street. Tp germir :aduscrially-ro:c*.ed off.ir~ ~~~ ~'•~s. There was no one indicating the ice in opposition ro subject request and al'l~~~ugh the staff port was ~~. ~ it is referred L•o and made a part of the minutes. Rick Del Arlo, agent, explained they are developing a 134,000 square foot, multi-tbc~ant industrial, complex in the Anaheim Canyon Industrial area and this project len3s ikself to small independent business users needing 1,000 to 4,000 square feet and it is part of their overall master plan called "The Santa Fe Corporate Genter" which is a 188-acre mixed use development. He presented a brochure describing the project and added this project is industrial in nature and will be an amenity to the overall project and they have had good success in attracting corporate users and it is their desire to maintain the industrial integrity of the industrial community. Ho stated the list of uses approved for prior applicants is acceptable. He stated because of the design they feel it is an applicable use with their industrial project and they see a lot of users such as secretarial services which are needed by the other corporate users in the park. He stated he was before the Planning Commission July 6th and there was a concern about too much office space in the area. Ke presented another exhibit showing the design for their building to illustrate they are not building another office building, but are trying to accommodate the other industrial users who will be in the parks that can be leased as office apace with some warehouse agate to store records, and they can offer those kinds of uses. He stated beca~-4e of the generous parking, they will be able to accommodate their induat~..rl users as they grows and that they have spent a lot of time with the Trafxa-: Enclineer and thought he had approved this project and the concerns of staff have been satisfied. He stated they are a major land owner in this %~wa and want to '_ ~ X8/87 ;+ . ~,,.. C4I.~`IIITF~_1~dAIl~Ib-_~l.~Y..3Ir~NG.~.~.0.11~S ION. S~E.~FMH~R~@i.~.9~Z__._ _..~Z~.Z~z. maintain the industrisl integrity and this use will bA applicabld to their overall project. John Eubanks, Loo and T+ssociates, 300 W. Owens Drive, Santa Ana, stated he is the exclusive agent far marketing this project and he teas leased and sold industrial properties in Orange County for over 6 years; that he has worked for over 1-1/2 years on this project and he exclusively markets multi-tenant, light industrial business properties. He stated their only concern is high-end business parks and they do feel this industrial-related office use will benefit from being on the first floor and having some identification and of 56 units, they are only proposing 5 for 100 office uses. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated Condition No. 2 should be deleted or amended to include+ the condition to :equine installation of• a traffic signal rather than the payment of fees at Ma:~assero and La Palma and that the findings as to when the improvement ahou'id be made and the requirements for bonding should also be included. Commissioner Feldhaus clarified thti developer has to install the traffic signal and Mr. Singer stated that was a prior condition of the tentative tract. Mr. Del Carlo stated ff he understands correctly, a condition on this conditional use permit is consistent with what was approved for a signal at Manassero within 4 years of map and within 1 year of recordation of the map of Kellogg and La Palma. He stated he just read the now condition, but that he does accept it. Commissioner Herbst stated he was the Commissioner who opposed the square footage of the office space at the previous hearing, and still feels that there is a lot of vacant office space in that areas however, he thought the design of tl+e building is fine, and this will be adding 64,000 square feet. He stated he will not oppose this project, but the actual uses being requested and the same ones everyone else has asked for, and that is a very competitive market and any office that goes in must service the industrial community. Mr. Del Carlo stated there was a conditional ~r E~armit approved recently for whitch was exactly the same design as this; an:i i~.c~t they are providing warehouse apace and this is not an office building. He stated if a person wants an office with a clown environment and exposure, and does not ne•~^• any war~3house space, he did not believe they would be able to provide than ambiance. Commissioner Herbst stated they will probably have a little gain on some of the other complexes because the spaces might be a little cheaper. He stated he tY~inks there will be a lot of offices going in which will bd contrary to the zoning requirements and will not be servicing the industrial community and that .he does travel La Palma everyday and will be watching. Mr. DEtl Carlo stated he understands and realizes there is a lot of vacant space, but felt with the product design, they will be able to capture a portion of that market. 9/28/87 ~, c~z.~u.~.`t~?An~z~..s.~~x..~~~~.a~~..cs~z.~s~ax~.s~~x.~~~.e~.a~.~.4~~_ __-~z~~. ~~,ZQ.~s Commissioner Bouas offeced a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED (Commissi.on~r McBurney absent) t1:at thn Anaheim City Planning Cosnmiasion has reviewed the proposal to permit industrially related office uses on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 10 acres located at the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Manasaero Streets and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has consi.dored the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and turtl~er finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial ~vidonce that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissionec• Bouas offeced Resolution No. PC87-198 ~7nd moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2922 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 and subject to Interdepartmenta] Committee recommendations with Condition No. 2 being modified to require the installation of the traffic signal at Manassero and La Palma. On roll call, the foregoing resolut.ton was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOIIAS, BOYDSTIJN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MESSE NOESs NONE ABSENx: MC $URNF.Y Josep}~ Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney II, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ~~.F~4, 3 EIR N~~r~.'~..iVS_i?E~irARg~.~.4.N._(~i~-D~.,1~ WI~..~v~R QF COP~~.4~J~APM~I~ ~.IIE.~L~~LA33D__S.~~~~~9~?A.~_ USE~.~iih1~.~ N4.~9~..-~ 17046 Marina Bay PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: LARRY. R. SMITH AND JUDITH I. SMITH, 3938 Drive, Huntington Beach, CA 92649. AGENTS: SHELDON L. POLLACK CORP., Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90010 ATTN: ALVIN Y. LEE. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 3.5G acres located north and west of the northwest corner of Ball Road and Knott Street, 919-959 Knott Avenue. To permit a drive-through, walk-up restaurant in conjunction with a commb;cial center expansion with waivers of (a) minimum number of parking spaces, minimum drive-through lane dimensions, (c) minimum distance between buildings and (d) required site screening. Continued from the meetings of July 20, August 17 and September 14, 1987. ~TION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Feldhaus and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner McBurney absent) the*_ consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of October 12, 1987. 9/28/87 M~11ZT.~~._.~~ti.~lt~~I.SX...PGI.~19Ii~_G_S.~t;: &.S~4IL,_~FP.~L~~~ii..~ gt,_.IQ.~Z__._._.~...BZ.-.Z~.4 ~,~L~~O.~. &.iR.x~.~a~~Y~.P_FS.L~.~AT~_s2~_(.~~iFY~1~_.~B~YE~QF CS~o.]~~QU~M~x~ ~IiFA2Y ~ ~ A~.~.4NQI.T~[.4L~Ii1~...U~_E._..P.~tiM~.~..~1Q~__~4.~.~ C~~~Y_~~. PUBLIC FlEARING. OWNERS CARRY R. SMITH, 17046 Mari:.- Bay Drive, Huntington Beach, CA 92647. AGENTS: BOB AND NANO; BAKER, 1046 N. Stern AvAnue, Westminster, CA 92687. Property dascr:bed as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 3.5E, acres located north and west of the northwest corner of Ball Road and Kr,ott Street, 919-959 Knott Street. To permit on-sale beer in a billiard center with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Continued from the meeting of September 1.4. 198; There ware tour persons 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. Bob Baker, applicant, stated they have not quite gotten all the paperwork together on the parking study and the one that was submitted was not sufficient and they are requesting a continuance. Chairman Messe clarified they are planning to get a parking study that really relates to the use of. the properky and suggesrgd the people present in oppositior. be allowed co spook so the applicant can know what his opposition is. Charles }Iohl, 23165 Vista Way, E1 Tore, present owner of "Pay and Play Racquetball" stated he has no problem with this being continued, but that seems to lie what is happening every two weeks and he flew in for the meetings twice that were continued, Ae stated he has tried to get together with the owner and Mr. Smith and he is not coopec~ating; that he is not opposed to the shopping center being developed, and referred to a billiard parlor which was there when he moved in, which later turned into "Woodstock". FIe stated he has tried everything passible to work with Mr. Smith and having to sit here every two weeks and then having the meetings continued is really inconvenient. Chairman Masse agreed and stated this particular matter was continued only once before. Maureen Moore, 906 S. K~tott, directly across the street, stated she has lived there for 35 years and his Seen hers several times objecting to this type of business because it is nothing brit noise, confusion and dirt and in the past tine noise would continue until Z:00 a.m. in the morning and she has called the Police numerous limas and finally tkie Police told her there is nothing they could do, so she stopped calling. She stated right now there is a lot of trash in her yard and she did not think anymore of this type of business should be allowed in that location. She stated that typo business does not bring in good people or do anygood for that part oaE the City. She responded to Chairman Messe that she has not called the Police in several years and stated she can still hear the noise even though she can not hear the music, but she can still hear the constant beat of the drums. She explained the only business left is the ono she can hear. 9/28/87 ~v ,K M~1!TF.~_.AN~i~~-M__Q.I.TY_P~.A2iN~N.4_~QN4i.~~~_IQN..__fi_~P~M~~R~~._~.2~7 ~7.~T.~.~ Commissioner Carusillo stated a parking study would probably take morn than 2 weeks. Shirley B. Grant, b09 S. Knott, resident manager ~f the apartments directly behind the Kartoon's and Kaper's establish,nenL•, stated they are constantly bothered by people from Kartoon's and Kaper's, and now they are requesting a billiard parlor with beer and that type of businoss just promotes morn trash and traffic; that that center noels to be cleaned up and some busi.nessos brought in such as retail shops or something that would bea~~tify the neighborhood and not ~3owngrade it. She stated these businesses do not promote anything but tz•ash and they have had vandalism, trash and all kinds of problems and a billiard parlor would attract more problems such as drugs and prostitution. Stye stated she hoped the Commission would not allow this to go in because they have not had decent, clean businesses. She stated the owner certainly knows about the problems because he has owned the property long enough and she hoped the Commission would be able to clean it up before it gets started again. Joyce Ki.eter, 716 S. Kenmore, owner of the property where the Union Service Station is located, stated st,e thought a continuance is definitely in order because Mr. Smith is supposed to come .in with a change that will upgrade this property and if it gives a better appearan:~ and is more open, it might attract a different type of businoss and that would be advantageous to the whole area. She stated they have one bar and that is one too many; and that the commercial center is surrounded by residences and it would be nice to have businesses next door that do not stay open until 2;00 a.m. because that just bothers everyone's sleep and f.2ie retsidents certainly should expect peace and tranquility in their homes and be able to get a decent night's sleep. Chairman Messe stated the applicant has requested a continuance and if a continuance is granted, the parking study that. is submitted to the Traffic Engineer should cover the final configuration of the entire center. He explained the Commission has seen several applications from the owner on that canter and it would b© difficult to address the parking for t';is use without looking at the whole center and tle proposed uses. Mr. Baker stated he would agree and part of the problem with the parking study submitted, was that it obviously had nothing to do with this use he is proposing. He stated he d:d not think the previous problems are his concern. Chairman Messe stated that property has a bad history. Bob Baker stated he did not know that when he went into this business and he and his wife will be operating the billiard parlor and it wi].1 be a family-oriented type business. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to withdraw this application and Item Nn. 3 from the agenda and stated it will be readvertised when the owner submits a plan for the complete center because the Commission has seen several preliminary plans for several uses and the owner was supposed to get together with the other property owners. Commissioner Feldhaus stated he would second that motion. He asked Mr. Hohl about his difficulty getting in contact with the property owner. Mr. Hohl stated he has met Mr. Smith on numerous occasions, but he i9~28~87ntly in the MI.NIIT~fi~ ANAHHIM CITY_.PS+I~N~.1.I.~S:...~4I1~1.I~S.~Q~I._.~.~ET~.M~.E~Z@.~_.~..9@.Z._..___.__ 81.~,~. process of a lawsuit against Mr. Smith and that his attorney contacted Mr. Smith and set up a meeting, but Mr. Smith cancelled it and said he would meet with him in his attorney's office. Commissioner Herbst stated this property has been beforR the Planning Commission several times and it ha;i been continued and he thought unL•il the applicant comes in with a plan for the whole center, it should bs withdrawn. He stated the Commission has seen plans for a drive-in restaurant and there are possibly two being proposed and a parking study needs to be submitted for the actual u,es being proposed. Joseph Flestchec•. I~ssistant City F.ttorney, stated according to the Code, the Planning Commission is rec;uired to set the public hearing between 10 to 40 days from the time the application is received and it would not be appropriate to junt remove the matter from tt~e agenda and he would recommend a continuance fox ore or. two months so it could readvertised. Greg Hastings explained the applicant of Item r~o. 3 has requested a continuance until October 12kh, but is planning to request another continuance to October 26th. Chairman Messe stated that is terrible when the public keeps coming to these hearings week after week and it is not fair to them and the Commission has heard these people before and they have to keep coming back. Commissioner Carusillo staked he did no t• see this situakion getting any better and that property has been a continual problem for the neighborhood with noise, trash, etc. and the element that Lrequent.s that center and asked if there is any way to say that until there is something definite to review, it would no* be on the agenda, rather than just continuing it week after weak. Mr. Fletcher stated the Commission can either continue the matter or deny the application or deny the request for a continuance which would give the applicant an opportunity to appeal the decision to City Council. Commissioner Herbst withdrew his motion for withdrawal. Hs suggested the applicant talk with John Poole, Code Enforcement Supervisor, to find out what the problems are on that property. Mr. IIaker stated he has already spent about $4,000 and he did not know about these problems and he does not want a continuance and would like to go ahead with what he is proposing. He explained he is not proposing any live entertainment. Commissioner Carusillo stated they are requesting to sell beer. Greg Hastings explained in this particular zone, billiard parlors are allowed by right and the only thing before the Commission is the request to sell beer. Commissioner Herbst withdrew his request for a continuance and stated he is ready to move on the application before the Commission; and that. if this request is denied, the billiard parlor could continue as a matter of right, but he could not vote for approval of the parking waiver. Commissioner Feldhaus withdrew his second. 9/28/87 MIPN?ES, _A~A~i~~I~..~.i-T;~_~A1iLI~S.~QM~1Z.S~,T.9.!?~._~E~'~)~.hi&~B_.~$~b4$7 _ 3}?~.~3 AQ~~,QZ3.: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Feldhaus and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner McBurnoy absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission hae reviewed the proposal to permit on on-sale: beer in a billiard center with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 3.56 acres located north and west of t;e ncrthwest corner of Ball Road and F'nott Street and further described as 919-959 Knott Street; and does hereby aFprove the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Nega~:ive Declaration together with anf comments received duri.nq the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner. Feldhaus and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Meeurney absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny waiver of Code requirement on the basis that there is adequate property available to provide Coda c•equired parking spaces and the waiver of Code would cause an increase in traffic congestion in the vicinity an adversely affect adjoining land uses and be detrimental to the public's peace, healtk:, safety and welfare. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC87-199 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby dopy Co~~ditional Use Permit No. 2944 on the basis that it would adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area and be detrimental to the area and to the public's peace, health, safety and welfare of the citizen's of Anaheim. Commissioner Herbst explained this area has been a problem and other businesses which have served beer and wine have ca~~sed trouble to the surrounding residential neighbors and a billiard parlor would be allowed by right without the sale of beer and wine. On roll cal]., the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES. BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: MC BURNER Commissioner Herbst stated he felt the Commission has the right to remove an item from the agenda after it had been continued ueveral times. Joseph Fletcher stated the Commission could deny the request for a continuance. Chairman Messe stated either that or the application could be denied. Joseph Fletcher Assistant City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. Commissioner Feldhaus stated maybe the situation would change as a result of this action by the Planning Commission and explained that does not deny the applicant the right to come back and make a request in the future fior a beer permit. Mr. Baker stated he did not know about these problems with Mr. Smith 9/2B/A7 MI.)?ILZE~.~~A~B~M...~1.T~ SAN.N~N~r...S9.`~4~.-S.~PT~MP~~3@.._~fl3~.r......__._ 87-_718 and after all the problems are resol•~ed, he will resubmit an application. Commissioner Herbst stated the walve. of parking has been denied, so before the permit is valid, the plans must show there is adequate parking to meet Code for this use. Paul Singer stated the use can not go in until the parking meets code and that can be accomplished by paving the vacant area. Commissioner Herbst stated there is no hardship for granting the waiver because there is adequate land to provide additional parking spaces and if that area is paved, then this permit could be exercised. ITSM NO,.._.~ ~ CA~Y~DECLA~A~?.91~ _~~S:~S.S~.~i_C.A~QN.~~__$_7_._$.$~Q~.` VA_RIAN~E 1.41_3685 ANn W~.~VER OF_S_4uNS~.~Y94~~N4s_.~4~ PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: ROBERT D. SCHAFER, 292 Wilshire Avte, N107, Anaheim CA 92801. AGENT: MASSOUD MONSFIIZADEH, 1524 Victoria Way, Placentia, CA 92670. Proper-y described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1 acre located between Broadway and the northerly terminus of Gilbuck Drive, 1500 West Broadway. Portion A from RS-5000 to RM-3000 or a less intense zone. Portion B from RS-A-43,000 to RM-3000 or a less intense zone. Waivers of (a)minimum number of parking spaces, (b) minimum structural setback adjacent to Arterial Highway, (c) minimum structural and parking setback adjacent to local street, (d) minimum structural setback (e) minimum structural and parking setback adjacent to single family residences, and (f) minimum recreational-leisure area to construct a 15-unit condominium complex. Waiver of Council Policy No. 542 pertaining to proximity of residential units to a railroad track. Continued from the meetings of August 17 and September 14, 1987. Chairman Messe explained the developer has ask the neighbors to meet him outside in the lobby because he has another set of plans and if they are acceptable, he will. request a continuance so the matter can be readvortised. There was a response from the audience that they had seen his plans and did not want to meet with him. Massoud Monahizadeh, agent, states there were three concerns expressed two weeks ago and he has presented two different glans and he did ask for their opinion. He stated some of the people indicated very strongly that they want t?`,e access to be on Broadway and ha did discuss that possibility with Mr. Singer and came up with a plan with access on Broadway, and made the determination they would request RM-2400 zoning. He stated he presented that plan to some of the people and some of them objected because they want single-family homes and nothing else. He explained this plan is for RM-2400 condominiums, fifteen 3-bedroom units and one 2-bedroom unit. Chairman Messe stated the neighbors don't seem to be very agreeable to meeting with him on this new set of plans and th~l Commission can act on the set of plans before them or continue this matter so he can resubmit. 9/28/87 MxK~E,~~LIA~~IL_ CITY PLAL~.N.I.~IS_.SRM~II~.S.~9~.~__S~.~T.~.Mt~.R_.~~.._.,12~1Z.___..___ QZ:?~.9 Mr. Manshi.zadeh str.ted he would request action on the plans in front of the Commission today, with access on Gilbuck. He stated eight or Wino people have aeon th9 new set of plans, but all of the people have not seen the plans. Jesse Jamec, agent, atrted one of the major objections at the l:,st meeting was the open apace requirement and they have gone from approximately 188 feet to over 933 feet per unit. (Greg Hastings clarified the staff report should be corrected to show 933 sq. ft. per dwelling unit, rather than 733 sq. ft.). Mr. James stated they have provided a playground area for the children, and that was the major change. Chairman Messe asked about an access onto Broadway. Mr. Monshizadeh stated there is a value on the property and with access from Gilbuck, they presented 15 units, but with access from Broadway, they will request more units due to the loss of value on the property, so economically it is not feasible to have access on Broadway. There were approximately 25 persons indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and 11 indicated a desire to speak and there will several people present in favor of. the project: and although the staff report was not read, it fs referred to and made a part of the minutes. Christy Peok, 2100-C Derrick Drive, Fullerton, stated she i~~ a native of Orange County, born and raised in Anaheim, and i3 a practicing pyscho-therapist and cancelled a lot of appointments in order to be here; and that she is purchasing one of the condominiums in this project and feels they will be bringing some contributing professionals to the community; and that the neighbors seem to be concerned about condominiums being built there, yet this is vacant land t::at is going to be developed and their concern was that there would be parties with parking in their neighborhood and she did not see that as problem because there will be guest parking in the condominium project itself. She stated some of the people who are going to be purchasing homes there have already contributed an investment towards this development and hope the Commission would consider this development favorably. Commissioner Peldhaus asked Ms. Peak if she had indicated she had a financial investment in this project. Ms. Peek stated she said she has an investment with the developer and contributed some money, and she has a financial investment in the development and intends to purchase a residence and live there, and has put money down in terms of letting him know that she is going to 5e purchasing one ~f the units. Commissioner Boydstun asked how she could have a financial interest in the project when he has nothing to sell Yet. Ms. Peek stated it was just letting him know that she has the money put away and that it is available, and right now she does not have any money invested, but it is available and has been checked on, and it is a for sure thing that she is interested. Commissioner Feldhaus stated he would like to know if she has a financial investment such as guaranteeing a loan. Ms. Peek responded she doesn't yet, but that is in the works. 9/28/87 MI~IiT~fi~.Ai3.F~.iM..S.I~.~P.L.Ai~~G..~.41~1i.~~4t~.....~~~~M.ti~ft_?~~_~2.~Z._ _~Z2.~.4 Bruce Shojaeddini, Financial Advisor fur New York Life Financial Services, stated they want these condominiums to be built and Co reserve their riyht to have one as soon as it is built, they have put down a certain amount of money towards purchasing the condominiums r+nd that they will be the residents and hi.s wife is a computer programmer and another resident will b~ ~ 63 year old businessman. He stated in talking to the neighbors outside, they see a problem with the quality of the people moving inL•o t}te condominiums and he did not know what quality they think the residents will be. He stated not adding ,~ , traffic is another way of saying, lot s close the town and not have any mire buildings," and these will be quality people moving to Anaheim and stayir~y in Anaheim and it is better for the economy. Commissioner Feldhaus stated he did not think the neighbors are complaining about the caliber of the people. Mr. Shojaeddini stated the neighbors indicated a concern about the residents of these units having parties and parking on their streets and they did not want thou children to get killed, but he did not think these condominium owners will be having very many parties. Judy Tsutsumiuchi, 9723 Puffin Avenue, Fountain Valley, stated she is a Certified Public Accountant and two of her friends have purchased condominiums from Mr. Monshizadeh on La Palma and she has been in the units and they are nice and would be an asset to the cotmnunity; and that she would like to purchase one of these condominiums and suggested the opposition look at the developer's o':her projects and maybe they would change their minds. Mona Toossi, 1212 N. Hilly, Santa Ana, stated she has seen Mr, Monshizadeh's projects and liked them and that is why she decided to buy one of his units. Walt Franklin, 400 South Gilbuck Drive, four houses from the proposed project, stated the zoning is currently RS 5000 and the developer is requesting that it be rezoned to RM 3000 to allow 15 units; and in order to accommodate the number of units, he is requesting a number of waivers and all of these waivers could be eliminated if the project conformed to the existing RS 5000 Zone. He stated allowing the zaninq change to RM 3000 and approving this project would set a precedent for all the developers is the City and it will have an environmental impact on this neighborhood; that it will increase traffic on the residential street which was designed in accordance with RS 5000 zoning and the amount of traffic is expected to exceed 50 to 60 vehicles per day, based on the minimum parking code; that safety is not being considered in this project and by creating i.nis additional congestion, it will endanger the safety of their families; and their children have to use these streets and sidewalks daily, not only for playing, but for going to school and to the local parks. He stated concern about increased parking problems on the existing residential streets is based on the fact that there is no street parking in the proposed project. for visitors, overnight quests, repairmen, or for deliveries, etc. He stated concern about increased use of exfsti..ig sidewalks by the children who live ir. these units is based on the fact that there are no sidewalks in the project and the required recreation area has been reduced to a point where it is almost non-existent; and increased foot traffic in the neighborhood could lead to higher van~i:;:°.sm and theft for all the above reasons. 9/28/87 '~' t~'~E~..~..BijAtl~.~.I~LS,.~~X_.P_L~~MIl3-ItiS _C.4N1Z1Ifi.S~.4I,~__.SF..PTFhtP_i~ R . ~.@..__121_»_..___ _. ~7.~~ ~.l He stated the area was coned RS 5000 in 1976 in ac cordnnco with the development of their neighborhood and it-3 zoning was denied ~y the Plenniny Commission end City Council in 1958, and-^t 2~ssays modifications8maydbehey don't want it now. He stated Paragraph granted to assure no propart.y be deprives of priv.ilegas commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zono and vicinity and all this does not apply because few, if any, of the above problems and wa ivera would exist if this property was developed as RS 5000. He stated he has met with the rieveloper on ,ovnra 1 occasions and discussed the so issues but the only issue he has addr esaod has been to increase the recreational area to a a.ixe of approximately 50 x 40 which means 50 to 80 residents will now be able to enjoy an area which is slighi:ly larger than his backyards that the developer stated ttio zone change is strictly a formality and that is not the case. tie stated if a zono change is allowed and ?.5 units are allowed on thin small property, ho would like to know why the access cannot be placedock walldwith nonnccesswbe inata<1ledtonhGilbuckhis amount of traffic and a b Mr. Franklin staked in summary they are asking that if the entrance is lowed on Gilbuck, that tl~e property be developed in accordance with the RS 50t,U zoning, and if thR zone is changed to RM 3 000, they would ask that the ar_cess be an Broadway and a solid block wall be c onstructod on Gilbuck and the trash located in the northeast corner and that they request t:tris for the safety of their children and to preserve their neighborhood the way it fs no~+ and the way it was designed to he twelve years aq o. Steve Shirley stated ho resides on Tedmar adjacent to this project aid ecC and lot of the same concerns and in his opinion, this is not a quality p j they intentionally put an opening onto Gi 1bucY, because they don't have adequate parking for guests and they intend ko have access so they can use their street parking. He skated they say they are using the access to get to a hydrant and it is his understanding that that project should stand on its own and fire hydrants and access for fire trucks should be provided for in the complex acid not use this private comrnuniCy'a streets for that purpose. He stated if they would rsduce the number of units, they would not need to park vehicles that close t•.o their homes and that should be addressed. Dennis Standrod, 1537 W. Tedmar, stated it was said they don't want to see a development there and he did not think that is true and they •~-ould all like to see a quality built project with correct densi ty; but that they are asking to park cars within a few feet of people's homes in that arQa and they don't like that; that with the RS 5000 zoning, they could build single-f amily homes, and did not think anybody would object to them coming in on Gilmer with single-family homes, but the way they have it now, he thought they are tryifig to overload the area. Gerald Schubert, 1542 W. Elm, stated he just heard about this developmrotosal recently and he did review the plan on the wall and also the revised p p and thought both proposals are not consistent with current development in the area and that tract was designed less than l2 years ago and it a good development and any future homes should be co nsiatent with the architecture and zoning. He :ztated any development ~rould affect their residential tract. 9/28/87 +r ~'Ir.._.~IAHFr.IM_.S~TTY.. PLAN~I~G 5.419~I.SAS'S.9~1r~i.FCT~b@FiR...~@.r..._,1.2~.~..__............~@Z1~.]. He stated the area was zoned RS 5000 in 1976 i.n accordance with the development of their neighborhood end R-3 zoning waa denied by the Planning Commission and City Council in 1958, and it waa not wanted in 1958 and they don't want it now. He stated Pacttyraph No. 27 says modifications may be granted to assure no property ba deprived of privileges commonly enjoyed by other properties in tha same zone and vicinity and all this does not apply br-cauae few, if any, of the above problems and waivers would exist if this property was developed as RS 5000. lie stated he has met with the developer on several occasions and discussed those issues but the only issue ho has addressed has been to increase the recreational area to a size of approxirnately 50 x 40 which means 50 to 80 residents will now be able to enjoy an a•ea which is slightly larger than his backyard; that the developer stated the zone change is strictly a formality and that is not tine case. He stated if a zone change is allowed and 15 units are allowed on this small property, he would like to know why the access cannot be placed on Broadway, since it was designed to handle this amount of traffic and a block wall with no access be installed on Gilbuck. Mr. Franklin stated in summary they are asking thE~t if the 9ntrance is allowed on Gilbuck, that the property be developed in accordance witYr the RS 5000 zoning, and if the zone is changed to RM 3000, they would ask that the access bo on Broadway and a so]id block wall be constructed on Gilbuck and the trash located in the northeast corner and that they request this for the safety of their children and to preserve their neighborhood the way it is now and the way it was designed to be twelve years ago. Steve Shirley stated he resides on Tedmar adjacent to this project and has a lot of the same concerns and in his opinion, this is not a quality project and they intentionally put ar opening onto Gilbuck because they don't have adequate parking for guests and they intend to have arcesa so they can use their street parking. Ae stated they say they are using the access to get to a hydrant and it is his understanding that that protect should stand on its own and fire hydrants and access for fire trucks should be provided for in the complex and not use th.ia private conxnunity's streets for that purpose. He stated if they would reduce the number of units, they would not nee to park vehicles that close to their homes and that should be addressed. Dennis Standr.od, 1537 W. Tedmar, stated it was said they don't want to see a development there :-::s he did not think that is true and they would all like to see a quality built project with correct densityt but that they are asking to park cars within a few feet of people's homes in that area and they don't like t)zat; that with the RS 5000 zoning, they could build singla-family homes, and d.id not think anybody would object to them coming in on Gilmar with :single-family homes, but the way they have it nuw, he thought they are trying to overload the area. Gerald Schubert, 1542 W. Elm, stated he just heard about this development recently and he did review the plan on the wall and also the revised proposal and thought both proposals are not consistent with current development in the area and that tract was designed less than la years ago and it a good development and any future homes should be consistent with the architecture and zoning. He stated any development would affect their residential tract. 9/28/87 ,~ `'d, MZ~~.~__At3.~H.~~MS,~T7~..Ek~Z~1~ ~Qh1.~C~S.ZS?~?,..__S)*P.~EM@ER.~.~~_.14~.T _~~ ~Z-2?~ Jane Stolaski statod :she lives about six :~~ouaea west of the project and on her way to the meeting today she counted 1.0 chi.ldron playing at tho corner of Elm and Gilmer which would be the entrance to this project, and that the care would comp in on Gilmer off Broadway and i.mmedi.ate+ly make a loft turn and could hit tho childron. Woa Smart stated a lot of the traffic to their tract enters and exits right along Gilbuck and out to Broadway and it is busy. He stated whop they purchased their home, at the end of Alexis theio were apartments and they all is not safe becauso park on the street and to come out of Aloxis onto Loara, of parked care along the curb. He stated the only way to aolvo that problom is t.o paint this curbs red and thon the people who live there would suffer. Ho stated he folt the same thing could happen here, and tho now pl+sns propose an entranco and exit on Broadway. Chairman Messo oxplained the Commission is not considering those plans today. Mr. Smart continued tho ontrance on Gilbuck is another Froblom. He statod the neighbors only knew about one meeting and the developer mentioned there were three and the neighbors have not been ko all those meetings. He statod the entranco on Gilbuck makes the situation much worse. lie statod a lot of the neighbors are taking off work to attend theso meetings, and Buggesred he get the plans L.inalized before presenting them again. John Medlin, 1511 W. Elm, three houses from the project. -,',,red he is representing all the people who could not attend this meet:~~~~ end presented a petition with a map showing the ho+isea of peoplo who signed the petition and explained there is also statements from other homeowners who could not attend indi sting how they feel about the project. He statod if he over wanted to buil~. anything, he would want this gentleman to be his salosman because he is doing a good job selling these units to people who saw the empty lot which is .lined on one side by a railroad track and Broadway on the other side, and is ~ull of weeds. He stated the units with the roar overlooking Broadway would be lnoking at an impound yard and the units by the railroad track will be overlooking an oil company. He statod they would like to keep their naighborl~ood, if possible, because that is what they invested in and that is that they want; that they had two meetings with Mr. Monshizadoh and there were no changes on the plans both times. He stateu they would like to keep this project out of their neighborhood and that is what they asked for two weeks ago and it got continued and now they have sat here for another four hours and they are here to keep their neighborhood and let them build the condominiums some other place. Hob Currier, lri47 W. Tedmar, stated ha just saw the plans today and the people who purchased them say they are nice unite, but he would not agree and stated a fire hydrant is proposed right next to tho driveway and there is already a fire hydrant across from the entrance and the hydrant will not last if it next to the driveway. He stated there are other problems with the plans, but basically they don't want that many people hero. Michael Park, 1500 W. Elm, just across from the proposed entrance, stated he has a 7 year eon and he loves the neighborhood; however, 1a9~28%87end was the ...-....c..bv~r.,~.y .+.... .. . .... vv~~: .~,.... ..~ '.c.'..~w,.~.:,'.~~.:+.:.~~.fv~w~..v i:.:. ':A fir. n~W .:Y.r ~.c.i'+~:sv.i~ «- MI' ~~E.S.,_AL~AI~.~IM._~I.T.7L.~L~IING CO1~Alx~S.LO~L~S.~P~Mii~R..~~.~.__i9_~T._~ @7=Z~~ first time he was informed that he is proposing thist that he signed the neighbor's pe3tition in opposition and the plan he showed totally ignored the neighbors con~erna and what they would like to have if h© wants the condominiums; and that he does not question the quality of work, but they can be built without entrance on Gilbuck with a minimum 4-foot high block wall. He stated the developer just wants approval and bui]d the condos, make tl~e profit and le ave the area, and the neighbors have to live there and raise their children there and Its would sincerely request the Commission to consider their proposal. Mr. Monahizadeh stated the people who spoke in favor of the project just wanted to exp ress their feelings about this project; that the opposition does not understand these people's intelligence and they would not be purchasing these units i f they did not understand. He stated the zoning is RS-5000 and he understands from the Planning Uepartmont that RM-1200, RM-2400 and RM-3000 is permitted: that one person said they did not ch:,r~ge the plt+ns, but they have cltanged the plans and increased the leisure arse and eliminated one story and moved the parking from the entrance. He stated }ie met twice with these people and explained to them that the dwellers would not park their car outside and c ould not park in their area. Ho stated no matter what he says, they said go to Broadway and qo for RM-5000 which allows 9 :nits and that is not possibler~ and no one will build RM-5000 Lhere. Mr. Monshiz adeh stated the neighbors were concerned about the development of this propert f; however, they knew it was vacant when Lney purchased their property and knew some day it would be developed and it was zoned for multiple-fam ily units. He stated he has met with the Tra:fic Engineer and Mr. Singer respo nded that he did not think a traffic count was necessary at this time and that he dial not think there would be a big impact from traffic at this time, but it might b© necessary in the future to have a traffic impact study. He stated another neighbor discussed apartments, but those units wore built a long time ago and they probably do not have enough parking and those tenants might be parking on the street, but this project w ill have 3-1/2 parking spaces per unit. He added he always builds quality projects. Mr. ,James stated a number of people have discussed ~~arking from the apartments on Loara and that those tenants do park on Alexis and when he was at that project, he had a hard time finding a way to get into it and so he could understand why people do park on Alexis, bat that this project is different and theoretically, the RM-1200 units could be developed o n this property, but they are proposing 15 units. He stated some neighbors indicated they would like to see the area remain RS-5000, and that would permit 9 units, so this request is 6 additional units, which the General Plan does permit; and that the parking will be on-site and not on the street and the concern for the additional number of vehicles 6 units would bring into the area is not significant and they also indicated concern that the children could get killed by a car and he did not see that as a problem. He stated they have ample on-site par )sing and anyone in the neighborhood could have a party at any time and their quests would be nllowed to park on the street. He stated the question is whether it is really the 6 additional units that they are opposed to or do the people have the misconception that condominiums bring less desirable people to have living in their neighborhood. He pointed out these units woul d probably sell for 5140,000 and the buyer woul d have to make enough money to qualify for a loan to buy units at that price. MI~ti1I~E.~~~i1~Ji~~M-..~.~?L_C&I~xN..~NG_CQMMI.&~~QL~..__~FET.~NfAf~B__~~ ,__~4~~.-_._.._.__._~3--_7.~~ THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst asked about t?-e colored map and the General Plan designation of the property Ahowed in green. Greg ?laatings stated the area for subject property to LoarA along Broadway is designated from Medium Density Residential, although is developed witl- single-family residences. Commissioner Herbst stated it is confusing when the area is developed with single-family residences and the General Plan designates .it for multiple-family unite and the ddvelopera do want to develop as many units as possible. Annika Santalahti stated the General Plan does not establish minimum and maximum together and yives the maximum density and the 7,oning Code establishes, in many cases, some really severe design constraints, one of which is the single-family residence, and compliance to the General Plan does not mean compliance with the Zoning Cade, and in fact, the developer complies with both at the same time. She staled there is not a property in the flatlands area that could not be developed with the full density shown on the General Plan because of surrounding land asps. Commissioner Herbst stated there are some areas which need to he c?-anged on the General Plan so that it shows exactly what is there and this is one of those areas. He statod this is one of the worst cases of. "spot zoning" h© has seen with a multiple-•family project in the middle of a single-family area and it would dump the traffic right into that single-fam°-ly area and the front portiot- of this property fronting on the residential street is zoned RS-5000. He stated this property could very easily be developed with RS-5000 residences with a cul-de-sac and he is not in favor of allowing multiplo--family right in the middl6 of single-family homes with additional traffic. Commissioner Herbst statod when a developer sees property zoned for multiple-family units on the Genera] Plan, they think that is what should be approved and they have the right to request it, but that doesn't mean they will get it. He stated ttie Commission is here to discuss the land use and not to discuss who will. be buying the units or value of the property and when all these waivers are necessary, something is wrong with the project. He stated it could be developed with single-family homes very easily. Commissioner Boydst:un asked what happened to the sugyestion that the entrance be off Broadway. Mr. Monshizadeh stated they studied it and decided they could not do it, but then later the Traffic Engineer said it could be done and he has come up with a plan with the entrance on Broadway. Commissioner Boydstun stated this matter was postponed two weeks ago so a plan could be submitted with the entrance on Broadway and this is exactly the same plan. but Commissioner Carusillo sta"_ed a plan with entry on Broadway was propose , it seems the neighbors do not want to discuss it. Commissioner Feldhaus stated he heard the neighbors say they would be more in favor of the project with the entrance on Broadway and that was one of their major issues. It was noted the neighbors do not want to discuss the plans today. 9/28/87 MI.N~.~S. _~.~I~i~~Lf-..5~~1__P.I~.K.L.~ ~QM~I.~~~.91Z._.&~P,~~M@F~i_~.@.w.~.2~? ._..._..__...._~?-~~ Mr. Monshizadeh stated he did discuss the plan with some of the neighbors and then asked the Chairman if ho could have a mooting with some of the homeowners and some of the homeowners did not want condominiums and did not want to listen to anything he had to say. Commissioner Boydstun asked if the project with an entrance on Broadway was for condominiums or if it was changed to apartments. Mr. Monshizadeh stated it was the same plan and the only thing mentioned was a 3-foot access in the wall which he told them would always he closed and that it was a fire access and he thought closing of the access could be included in the CCbRs. He stated 7 or 8 of the neighbors wanted the wall completely closed and he did check with the Fire Uopartment and they wank it as a fire access because there is a fire hydrant and it would bo a break-away lock in case of emergency. Chairman Messe asked ff the plans with access on Broadway are available for an RM-3000 project. Mr, Monshizadeh stated on this plan they have 16 units with an access on Broadway. Commissioner Bouas asked why they need 16 units with the access on Broadway. Mr. Monshizadeh stated since they are coming from Broadway and because of the railroad tracks, the value of the property goes down. Commissioner Bouas clarified that they can not sell the units for as much with the access on Broadway. Mr. Monshizadeh stated parking will be taken care of and there will be more green area. Chairman Messe asked if the condominiums are a RM-2400 apartment project. Mr. Monshizadeh stated RM-2400 is for condominiums. Greg Hastings stated the only coning standards that would apply for condominium projects is RM-3000, regardless if it is in the RM-1200, RM-2400 or RM-3000 Zone and if the petitioner wishes to add another unit, another waiver would be required. Mr. Monshizadeh stated if there is a problem, he would delete that extra unit and only have 15 units and would have the access on Broadway. Responding to Commissioner Carusillo, he state8 on the new plan, the recreational area would be more than 900 square feet per unit. Chairman Messe asked if the developer would like to come back with a new plan. Mr. Monshizadeh stated he understands the condominium zone is RM-3000 an8 he can provide 15 units. Commissioner Herbst stated he thinks this is purely "spot zoning" in a RS-5000 Zone regardless of the re:~ised plans and that this is the wrong place for this type project and he felt the opposition would appeal the Planning Commission's decision to City Council if this is approved. He stated it backs up to the railroad tracks and thought an access on Broadway is bad, but having an access in the residential area would be dumping that traffic into that area and it is not right. :ed 7 or 8 single-family homes could be developed on this property. Chairman Messe sc4ted the developer says he can provide condominiums and satisfy the neighbors' concerns. Commissioner Herbst stated he can not do that without a lot of variances. Commissioner Carusillo stated 9 single-family homes, as opposed to 15-condominium units, does not make much 9/28/87 1 _.i ~J MI~F~.$L.ki~.~.MStii~...~A~~~.S ~4i~~S,~~4N ~._.~~~~~~.~R _ ~ ~.._~.9.~7._.-------~-~=-~~~ ~ difference. He stated the main concern is traffic and more people and that would be about the same for either one and added single-fa-nily residencies could have 4 bedrooms with a lot more people. Chairman MessA stated ho thought the apglicant should be given the opportunity to bring in revised plans. Commiasianor Feldhaus stated on August 17th the concerns were the landscaping and recreational area and noise from the railroad tracks and the developer modified the plans to take care of those concerns and then the parking problems were discussed and the problem with access on Broadway and now the developer has submitted plans with access still on Gilbuck and the Traffic Engineer stated modified plans were brought in today with access on Broadway and additional footage would be necessary to satisfy his concerns and the developer insisted the Planning Commission go ahead and hear L-his project based on the plans with access on Gilbuck. He sL•ated if he had to veto on this project today, he could not approve it because of his concerns of the safety factors, but the neighbors did say they would not necessarily be opposed to the project, provided the access is on Broadway and that the Chairman is correct in suggesting a continuance in order to submit revised plans and suggested t;o the developer that the new set of plans address all these concerns. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Corranissianer Feldhaus and the MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to reclassify subject property on Portion A from RS-5000 to RM-3000 (Residential, Single Family) to RM-3000 and Portion B from RS-A-43,000 (Residential, Agricultural) to RM-3000 to construct 15-unit condominium project with waivers of minimtun number of parking spaces (deleted), minimum structural setback adjacent to Arterial Highway, minimum structural and parkinr~ setback adjacent to local street, minimum structural setback, minimum structural and parking setback adjacent to single family residences, and minimum recreational-leisure area on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1 acre located between Broadway and the northerly terminus of Gilbuck Drive and being located approximately 250 feet east of the centerline of Gilbuck Street and further described as 1500 3roadway; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together •~rith any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there .is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Herbst offered a resolution for denial of Reclassification No. 87-88-07 on the basis it is purely "spot zoning". Chairman Messe clarified that if this reclassification is denied, new plans would have to be readvertised as a new project. THE RESOLUTION FAILED TO CARRY WITH THE FOLLOWING TIE VOTE: AYES: BOYDSTUN, HERBST, MESSE NOES: BOUAS, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS ABSENT: MC BURNEY Joseph Fletcher explained the matter could be continued for two weeks for the 7th Commissioner to be present. He s*ated until the actions are taken the Commission can hear a motion to continue. ML~IItTE_z.._.A.t3AtLF M CIT~E~eB~I3lY3.~Sz.S~.~.~~M$~R._.~9~~.3_~..~ ._$7 _Z~Z Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution for denial for Variance No. 3685. Chairman Moase caked what the situation would be if this variance is denied. Joseph Fletcher explained the pt~titioner would have a variance without a reclassification and technically, would be moot because he could not exercise the variance. Commissioner Herbst stated he nife:ed the motion for denial because he is not in favor of these waivers. Cornmisaioner Bouas stated the applicant would then have to refile and pay all the fees again. Mr. Fletcher stated the reclassification has no action and is continued for a vote for the 7th Commissioner to be present or it could be passed to the City Council without action. Commissioner Bouas stated she would like for the developer to be able to bring in revised plans without having to refile. Chairman Messe stated the reclassification has not been passed and the applicant has an opportunity to bring in a new set of plans. Joseph Fletcher stated there are a lok of cross conditions between the reclassification and variance and the variance would have to be amended after the reclassification is passed. Mr. Fletcher stated the matter could be continued until the action is taken. Commissioner Herbst stated he did not want the developer to get a false impression that the Commission is going to approve a lot of waivers on this property. Commissioner Bouas stated that i~s right and Chairman Messe stated he does not want to make the applicant to starr_ over. On roll call, the foregoing resolution FAILED TO CARRY BY the following vote: AYES: BOYDSTUN, HF.RBST NOES: BOUAS, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, MESSE ABSENT: MC BURNEY Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Feldhaus and MOTION CARRIED {Commissioner McBurney absent and Commissioner Herbst voting no) that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of October 12, 1967, due to a tie vote on the reclassification and in order for the applicant to submit revised plans. Commissioner Feldhat:s suggested the developer meet with all necessary departments of the City to resolve all the issues. Commissioner Carusillo suggested meeting with the adjacent homeowners with the revisions, closing the access to Gilbuck and relocating the trash enclosures. Commissioner Bouas stated the project should not be over 15 units. ITEM N0._..¢, F,,~$ NEGA~'IV,F QE~LARA~.ZO,ZI" RE~)~ IF ATI~N_Q. 87-86-15 AND VARIANCE NO. 37QQ PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: J~.i~fES H. ELLIOTT AND GRACE E. ELLIOTT, 324 S. Earlham, Orange, CA 92668. AGENT: WALTER K. BOWMAN, 7926 Cerritos Avenue, Stanton, CA 90680. Property is described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 11,431 square feet, having a frontage of approzimately 72 feet on the west side of Leman Street, having a maximum depth 9/28/87 ~~1'ES. ANAti~EIM CIT`C~P~K1~.Zt3.G...~Q2$4LS.SION. SE~TFI:'S&~K~_~.--~.~-~.-._._..__._.$ZZ.~$ of approximately 158 foot and being located approximately 175 feet north of the centerline of Santa Ana Strout and further described as 415 South Lemon Street. CG to RM-1200 or a less intense zone. Waivers of (a) maximum structural height and (b) maximum site coverage to construct a 3-al.ory, 8•-unit apartment building. There was one person indicating his presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is ref.errod to and made a part of the minutes. Walt Bowman, agent, stated they are pruposing a none change to RM-1200 which is what the property is designated for on the General Plan and requesting a variance for height and maximum lot coverago for an 8-unit apartment project. He stated he was not aware there that there was a single-ftunily residence within 150 feet and that this project is 2 stories ti+ith subterranean parking. He stated they are providing 20 covered parking spaces and the waiver of maximum site coverage is the result of the architect thinking the site coverago was 55~ when it was really 59~. Esther Unger, 526 Lexington, owner of property next door to the south of subject property, stated she did not oppose apartments on that property, but thought they should be 2 stories, the same as the apartments on Helena and Elm Street. Commissioner Carusillo stated the units would only be 20 inches higher than a 2-story project which would be allowed. Mr. Bowman stated they are involved with nice buildings and designed the building at 1260 E. La Palma, referred to earlier. He stated there is a 2-story apartment project on Clementine that backs up to this property and he did not think the height would be any different and hoped the appearance of this building would be better than the existing building. He stated he thought apartments is the highest and best use of this property. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Responding to Chairman Messe, Mr. Bowman stated the building will be 33 feet, 8-inches high and if that is a problem, they could eliminate the gabled roof and have a mansard roof and possibly meet the Code. Chairman Messe stated he thought the gabled roof would look better and not i:.fringe on anyone. ~ q~IQN: Chairman Messe offered a motion, sACOnded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner McBurney abser:t) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to reclpssify subject property from the CG (Commercial. General) Zone to the RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zone fn order to construct a 3-story, 8-unit apartment building with waivers of maximum structural height and maximum site coverage on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 11,431 square feet, having a frontage of approximately 72 feet on the west side of Lemon Street and being located approximately 175 feet north of th9/28%87rline of f tb' 1 f Santa Ana Street and further described as 415 thatinikthastconsidered the by approve the Negative Declaration upon f~omments received during the public Negative Declaration together with any review process and furtheereiisino subatantialsevidencelthatathetproject will comments received that th have a significant effect on the environment. Chairman Meese offered Resolution No. PCCommission doesdherebitgrantsage and Planning Y adoption that the Anaheim CiL•y Reclassification No. 87-88-15 subject to interdepartmental Committee recommendations. On roll. call, the foregoi:~g resolution was passed by the following votes AYES: BOUAS, 80YDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MES~fi NOES: NONE ABSENTS MC BURNEY e and Chairman Messe offered ResolutiPlanninPCCosnmOssion doesdherebytgrantsVariance adoption that the Anaheim City g licable to the No. 3700 on the basis that the~eo aorrashecilocation andnsurroundings which do property such as size, shape, P 9 P y not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicofnprivilegeshat strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. On roll call, the foreyoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: MC BURNEY Attorne presenL•od the written right to appeal Joseph Fletcher, Deputy City Y the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. VF LARATION RECLAS~IFrrATION NO 87-88-16 D ITEM ~ EIR E T7~ 1~E Anaheim, CA PUBLIC HEARING. NEp,TpORT•PACIFIC CONS RUCTION9CORP.,N4000 MacArthur Boulevard, 92805. AGENT: 8680, Newport Beach, CA 92660, ATTNs MAGDY HANNA. Prroximatelyd19c250e as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of app square feet, having a frontage of approximately 95 feet on the north side of North Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 150-feet and being located approximately 715EasttNorth Street centerline of East Street and further described as 917 RS-7200 to RM-1200. Waivers of maximum structntrbuildingt and maximum site coverage to construct a 2-story, 11-unit apartme 9/28/87 ~~,_ANA_HErM CITY_~e,$~~.S~.S~_~~ON. SEP~FM@.~.~~~~~.$~ 8-~=~-~ There were sixteen persons indicating their proaence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of. the minutes. Magdy Hanna, agent, stated he did not realize he would have any opposition to this request and explained they are proposing a quality 11-unit apartment project and are meeting all the Code requirements, except sito coverage and they thought they were within Code on that. He stated the only other major waiver is the height requirement next to single-family residences and actually, the residence to the east is used as an office building or some kind of commercial use and he did talk to the neighbor on the west and he indicated no opposition and stated eventually, they plan to sell their property to be developed as apartments. He stated he actually tried to purchase their property, but they were not ready to sell. He sL•ated this is a transitional area and thore are actually multiple-family units in the area. Trent Wilson, 1001 E. North Street, stated his property is adjacent to subject property and he is opposed to the apartment project and other neighbors are also opposed and presented a petition containing a 107 number of signatures. He read the petition indicating their. opposition because of crime, noise, traffic congestion etc. and also because this area is zoned for single-family homes and he would like to keep it that way. Mr. Wilson stated Fast North Street is basically a cul-de-sac ending at the railroad tracks and dead-ending in East Street with no traffic signal and is very close to the 5-point intersection of La Palma and East Street and it has been a problem for a long time and the b-unit apartment building at East and North has added to those problems. He stated the congestion would be doubled with 11 units added to asingle-family residential area and this would also double the number of cars and people. He stated this plan is a 2-story structure within S feet of his property line all the way to approximately 10 feet from the back corner of his property and that is a large wall adjacent to his property. He stated the transient character is counter to the single-family identity of the area and they have had apartments in the area and hoped the Planning Commission can prevail in this instance because it is in the middle of the block and not at the eiid. He stated basically, he feels ho represents the general feeling of the single-family residents, who emphatically say "no". He responded to Chairman Messe that he lives on the east side of subject property. Frank Guevera, 753 N. Bush, stated he has lived Chore for about 22 years and they have their share of apartments in that area and that the 4-unit apartment is the reason they do not want any more apartments. He stated he has seen khe Police come there for noise and and staff report indicates no more than two adults can reside in a 1-bedroom unit and he would like to have someone go down to those apartments and prove there are no more than two people living in each bedroom. He stated it is easy to see there aze more because of the number of cars. Roldan Daves, 725 N. Bush, stated his property is approximately 450 feet south of subject property. He read a letter from a neighbor who could not attend the meeting and was one of the original owners. The letter indicated concern because of the apartments oa Mavis Street, just west of the single-family 9/28/87 r i homes, wY-ere there are a lot of problems with poople shooting other poople, cars careening through the neighborboodi and then the apartments on Bush have made it not safe to walk the streets with people gutting shot in that area; and a number of gas atrimenexlt forttheireareasehoweverorwhen LaaPalmaawasnput North Sl.reet was the p would not provide signal arms at both L•hrough to West, Santa Fe said they locations and a a result North was permanently blocked and traffic through t1i~s neighborhood has increased. He stated this is not a suitable area for apartments and the City would not be able to enforce the occupancy restrictions and there will be more people living in the units. Mr. Raves stated his personal fueling regarding the 4-fUVOna~orbeelittletmore that was the last tstraw for the neighbors and it has p than an eyesore; that sidewalks have been destroyed, and there is no off-street parking; and now there is a 9-unit senior citizen's project proposed and he did no L• think that would bu safe for seniar citizens abecause handicapped person would not have accass to the surrounding community of the broken sidewalks and that has bean caused by the apartments, and ho did not think an additional apartment complex would add anything to the neighborhood. Erian Peelle stated he lives at 1007 E. North Street and has been in Anahe'_m for about it years. He stated Anafni~hporsareae buteMavisdStreetidoesmhave areas, and there is singe-family apartments and they would not like to see more apartments come in tcontrastsh on the single-family residences. He presented photographs showing in the area and showing subject property and the apartment areas and single-family residences. He stated these apartments would split the single-family atharknthat wasmthetintent of thetZoningmlaws~e Into the area and he d.id not Mr. Gelker, 1025 E. North, stated he lives in the 4th house from subject property and this area is zoned for single-family residences and developers always say this will be a nice building, but it never. proves to be that way and that they have learned from bitter axperiunce with the apartments on Mavis Street; and that they do not want apartments in this area. He stated he would like for this areae~~ ccanlbeumaintainedgandithatyapartmentsacanronly the values of the prop Y deteriorate. Brent Nerguizian, representing the developer, stated the applicant is asking for zoning that is consistent with the General Plan which allows this type development. Mr. Hanna stated he was surprised that Mr. Wilson proposed this project for 2 stories because his property next door is 2 sc,ories and hroiosinlnthisechange property as an office building and that is why they are p p g on this property. He stated they talked about apartment dwellers bringing in more crime and he did not agree because these units would rent for about X750.00 per month and criminals could not afford this typo apartment. He stated the managers select the people who will live in this project and this is a quality development and his management style is excellent. He stated they will agree to limiting L•he number of occupants. He st9~?8/6? felt the I ~_~ .. - MIS..~N.AH~iMS~Y.._~~~!.t3~L~eS9MM~,S.&.LS2N..._&~P~FI~F~..._Z_@.. ~.~@? _.-._._..._._.~3~.Z3~. apartment would be an improvement for the area because it is a transitional area in a stage of transfer. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Feldhaus asked how the number of people in the unite would be enforced. Mr. Nanna stated that would be in the rental agreement and any violators would be evicted. Chairman Masse staffed that limitation is for 2 people per bedroom and not per unit. Mr. Hanna stated that is a requirement on all their apartments now because they do not allow more than that in the units. Responding to Commissioner Carusillo, Mr. Hanna stated they would retain ownership of this project and responded to Chairman Mess© that there would be on-site management. Commissioner Herbst stated apartment projects have been denied on that side of the street and even though the General Plan desinnation is for Medium Density, he could not agree that this is the proper location for apartments. He stated an North Street, coming from East onto North is probably one of the worst corners in Anaheim and he did not think North Street could handle the corgestion. He stated he felt approval would break the barrier and mean that whole side of the street would qo to apartments and the street could not handle the additional traffic. He stated he Lglt putting traffic from the 11 units on that street will not work and there are some nice homes in that area; however, he realizes the General Plan says it should be permitted, but he felt this is one area that should be cleaned up because developers are always looking for areas whore they can build apartments. He stated he did not think this area is ready for apartments. Chairman Meese agreed and stated putting the unit 5 feet from the neighbors' property lira is encroaching on the neighbor. Commissioner Feldhaus stated block walls on the east and west and north sides of these units would make it an island. Commissioner Herbst stated this is adjacent to single-far~~ily homes, but there is no variance for a setback to those homes. Greg Hastings stated the setback is 5 feet as long as there are no openings and that is a garage or blank wall.. Commissioner Herbst stated it is tl;e !all length of the property. He asked about the height cf the building and ;,sated it is confusing calling a garage a story and he felt an apartment complex should be 150 feet from a single-family home. He asked why no waivers were necessary for the setbacks to the RS-7200 Zone. Greg Hastings stated the setback is kept at 5 feet on the east n..l west sides and there are not openings and that they are next to a garage. Commissioner Herbst stated that is the full length of the property. He asked about the height of the structure and stated he knows the garage is not considered as story and a 2-story apartment project should be no leas than 50 to 75 feet from the single-family homes and there is a Commisa.tan policy actually for 150 feet. Greg Hastings stated they are meeting the setback with the height of 1 story within 150 feet. He stated Planning Commission l,as a policy, however, to require a 20-foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to a single-family cone and 9/28/87 i! i .. .,......t.,n_ rn-~t-,tTCR2f7N. SEPTEMBER 28, i9 $7 ~~-~~.~ 4' requiring that buffer on both sides would reduce the property to about one-half of its usable area. Greg Hastings stated he is confused about the reference to an offic~herelding next door because the land use maps do not shoroved forcthatiproperty which however, there is a conditional use permit app might allow part of it to be used as an office. Mr. Wilson stated he has an office there and it is a family business and it is a single-story buildinry; and has been there since 1952 and it has beenbuYono more thanu5ecarstereoevarde and there are 10 parking spaces on ai.. , there at one time. He s+.ated he lives in the 2-story house which has been there since 1907 and explained he has an advertising business and does art work at that location. Ho explained this is an office use, but is in a separate building. ~~.T.~~1: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commnissioner McBurney absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to reclassify subject property from RS-7200 (Residential, Single-Family) to R111unOt(apartmentacomplex with Multiple-Family) Zone to construct a 2-.tort', waiver of maximum structural height and maximum site roximatelon14,250 square rectangularly-shaped parcel of roximate1si951feetfonptho north side of North feet, having a frontage of app Y Street and being located approximately 715 feet west of the centerline of East Street and further described as 917 E. North Street; and does hereby approve the Negative Decl~r3tion upon findinct L•hat it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and furth~e isnnonsubstantialsevidenceethattthe project.willyhave ants received that the significant effect on the enviro~unenk. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC87-202 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny Reclassification No. 87-88-16 on the basis it would be spot zc,ning and is suzrou~a:..: by single-family residences. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MFSSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: MC BURNEY Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC87-203 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny Variance No. 3701 on the basis that the reclassification to permit said development was denied and further on the basis that there aretopographyl circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, location and surroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicinity: andrivilegealenjoyedlbytatherfgropertiesglnothe does not deprive the property of p identical zone and classification in the vicinity. 9/28/87 _, .... i ~~ ~~F,$,~.ANAHEIM ;QTY.EL,i~.~iN.~.S.9MM.~S,S_LQL.__S~PT~M@.~.K._..~~~.._14.~~._____~.~.:.i~4 On roll call, the forAgoing resolution was passed by the following votes AYESt BOUAS, BOYDSTI]N, CARUSIT.T.O, FELDHAUS, }IERBST, MESSE NOESt NONE ABSENTt MC GURNEY Joseph Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM NO. a ~.6_.3~~~_~Y..~_._PAC.~~A~T~QH_A~.~.R.~GkAS.~I~~~L4.~? N4_,__~Z~~.-_~: PI)PLIC HEARING. OWNERSt J05E A. FLORES, 9206 Brock, Downey, CA 90240. A~,dNT: TRANS AMERICA DIVERSIFIED, I}'C., 725 Brea Canyon Road, N3, Wa1nuL, CA ''.789, ATTNt Ml1STAFA Y.L. BUSTAMI. Property is described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.19 acre, having a frontage of approximatol}• 52 feet on the east aifle of Philadelphia Street, 742 North Philadelphia Street. RM-2400 ko RM--1200. There were two persons indicating their presence in support and twenty-four persona indicating ti:eir 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. Mr. Buatami, 725 Brea Canyon Road, Suite 3, Walnut, stated this property is in an area zoned RK-2400 and they are resquestinq reclassification to RM-1200. He stated they have designed a very decent project and it will not impact the neighborhood negatively and it will have sufficient off-street parking and the building will he properly managed after completion. He stated they are not requesting any variances and the General Plan allows RM-1200 and if this request is denied, that would be "spot down-zoning" and that would not be fair. Mr. Bustami presented signatures ~f 22 people in favor c the project living within 300 feet of the property and noted 20 other signatures are from residents in Anaheim. He stated this is permitted on the current General Plan and. until the elected officials, duly authorized by the people of Anaheim, have reachAd a conclusion that the General Plan should be changed, the project is in perfect harmony with the intent of the RM-1200 Zone. Mr. Bustami stated his architect made a comparison that the present zoning, which is RM-2400, would al).ow the some number of people as would be living in this proposed RM-1200 proiact aad the maximum number of people under thg proposed RM-1200 project would be 24 and RM-240U would permit a maximum number of people. Donna Gillespie, 312 N. Royal, stated she owns property in the Central City and is a realtor. She stated when looking for singles-family residences, they loo Y, for a different quality than when they are looking for multiple-family residences and this is a multiple-family zone and she thought the beat use for this neighborhood is multiple-family and she would recommend that the 9/28/87 ~1S.~ITES.._._P~t~A~3M CIS, PLANN~l3~~.91R~S~~IN.~.~'_~~M~F~?~~.._1~~.Z.___._._.^~.L•-Z3;~ Commission be very strict and impose aredehtheoCittionSheestatedyshe spokeain the prefect in a manner that wo u1d upg Y• with Keith Pepper and they Doth era interested in seeing this area of Anaheim improved and one resident said if the character of this neighborhood is not kept, it will be giving up Anaheim and many people do net want to move to Anaheim because of the Central City. She stated this will never be a single-family residential neighborhood, so with that in mind, it atiould bo developed the beat way possible with multiple-family residential units and this project does not require any waivers. She stated she manages properties in thin area and represents owners who do not reside there and in 2 years th~~t have never had any vacancy in t2~at area because people within the same neighborhood move into better units. She stated she does not feel constructing apartments would bring in more people because more apartments would just be used to divide some of the family groups living together allowing them a better living a nvironmei~t. She stated the Planning Commis s ion is the elected representatives of the whole City and the Central City Council has formed a special interest group to represent their neighborhood and they do not represent all the neighborhood because she ilas worked with a cumber of people who are just as adamant about keeping the RM-2400 and not al lowing rezoning to RM-1200, She stated the Commissioners are in a positio a to decide what is r..ight and she would ask that the down-zoning issue be carried through its normal channels; that a special study was undertaken by the Pl anning Commission in March 1987 and until those findings are presented and a f 5na1 derision made by the proper Commission and City Council, she would request that the standards we have be used and if the guidelines are changed, it she vld be done through normal channels and through khe elected officials. She stated she is prepared to accept any down-zoning once that decision is made and the matter is very complex and is being done by a group of property owners who do not represent the whole City. Sylvia Estrada, real estate b r oker in Santa Ana, stated she resides in Anaheim and sells a lot of homes in this area; that when she first heard there was opposition to this project and a petition was bein5 circulated, that she talked to a lot of people in the area and a lot of people were not aware of what was going in and must we ~e Spanish speaking people who had signed the petitioner opposing the proje ct, and she showed them the plans and explained the parking and after she ful 1y explained the plans and the parking, those residents signed her petition supporting the project. Ronald Dean Hickman, 714 N. O live, Anaheim, stated he has lived in his home for 17 years and there is an alley directly behind his home and he is against a 2-story apartment complex because the neigkiborhood is crowded with a 2-story apartment behind him, he would have people looking into his yard. He stated it would increase traffic and trash in the alley and he had lived here for 30 years and likes Anaheim and grew up in that neighborhood and the property is zoned for a duplex and they should come in with a duplex and it should be controlled. He stated now ttsere are 8 to 10 people in a 2-bedroom apartment and the City Enforcement off icials have been out there to check it out. He referred to a letter he rece ived from the property owner, Mr. Flores, regarding the number of tenants, etc. Mr. Hickman stated Mr. Flores has had people living in his garage and in a metal shed and Code Enforcement Officers have cited him many times. 9/28/87 ,n. '~! M.I~.S.~_-ALL~~~L.~~.~~.~G~~?N?NC _r,Qr~M~~~~4N.....5~~.~M~~~._.~@.._~a.QL_.________.._~_7_;?_3.~. Wil 1lam Koon, 821 North Lemon Stroot, stated he is Vice Chairman of the Cen tral City Council and a neighborhood member of the North Anaheim Boulevard Property Ownora' Association and is opposers to rezoning of the proper*y and wan to it to stay RM-2400; that 6 units would increase the density rQ80ri~hat they do not object to any development within the confines of the p zor~ing. He stated the request is in conflict with the Vision 2000 strategies and stated one of the strotegies is to maintain the integrity of the ne i ghborhoodsJ and "integrity" means: ridged adherence to a coda of behaviors state of being unimpaired; completeness and unity; ar.9 intogrity can not be maintained in that neighborhood with "spot zoning" and that is what they are requesting and a higher density would bo changing the character of this ne ighborhood. He stated the 6th strategy in that plan says to redefine land use patterns in Anaheim to balance and increase the density with open space and tearing down a single-family home and building a 6-unit apartment project is not maintaining the balance. He stated the area provides affordable homes; and another objective Vision 2000 has is to meat the needs of the aging c i tizens and noted there are a :.ot of senior citizens who live .in this ne ighborhood and some of them were present for this hoaxing, but had to 1 e ave. Ho stated another strategy 's to derive maximum benefit from a diverse neighborhood ethnic mix and stated this neighborhood is diverse and has an ethnic mix. He stated he would request that this zoning be denied and that the ideals of Vision 2000 be maintained. He presented a petition with 83 s i gnatures of neighbors who do not wish to have apartments in that neighborhood and also an additional 7 letters of neighbors opposing the request. Keith Olesen stated ho is a member of the Neighborhood Co~~n..l and Central C ity Committee and ono of the founders of the Anaheim Neighborhood Association, 32.1 North Philadelphia. He stated every developer says their development is going to be an asset to the community, but one of the main things missing is that the people who say that do nor live in the neighborhood and the people who live there do not think this is an asset. He stated one 1 sdy stated people do not want to ..eve in this area and that is not true; that he likes living in this area and knows people who have purchased homes in this area recently. He referred to the .letter from Mr. Flores and the statement that the area allows for rental units and stated no one is disagreeing with that and that many pr+ople purchased properties wanting to have a duplex, but that is quite different than having a 6-unit apartment complex. He stated RM-1200 zoning should not be allowed. He stated most of the statements made by Mr. Flores were references to Code Enforcement problems such as to the number of people living in garages, etc. He stated the owner mentioned he did not have any responses from people wanting to purchase this property and that several people bought homes recently and the problem may be the property itself. He stated the opposition is against "spot zoning" to RM-1200 for a 6-unit apartment complex and the citizens are tired of developers who do nut live in the area building apartments and then leaving. Ruth Siegle, 753 North Philadelphia, stated shE has been listening all afternoon and sees a very intelligent Commission read a statement that apartments generally lower property values and in place of 9~28~g ily living M~~.1iTE~..._~,~1kiM_~3~7C.SLAH~iIIiS_~9~:z&SS9~~_~~P~~Ii..~~.9~7.~__ __.~~-Z37 in one house, they would have 6 families living o n this small lot and asked where they would park and added if each family had 2 vehicles, they would have to park the vehicles on top of each other. She ss~atod the noise keeping her awake at night and sometimes she can not get into her driveway bdcause they have parked in front of it. Keith Pepper, 812 N. Lemon, stated they are not t2za ones requesting the zone change, the developer is. Ho stated the problems with overcrowding, etc, are Code Enforcement problemsi and that he is Chairman of the ConL-ral City Neighborhood Council txnd they help the City allo c ate 2-1/2 million dollars of Block Grant Funding for the Central City and currently are providing 3 Code Enforcement Officore for the downtown area He s fated the character of the Central City is changing and 5 years aye 60~a of the properties were owned by off-site owners, but today approximately 6U~ are on-site awnerss and that 25 of the 36 property owners surrounding this property are on-site owners. Mr. Pepper stated they initiated a survey in March and would like to officially change the General Plan for this area and that the property owners are 4 to 1 in favor of changing the General Plan and limiting the density of the area to :M-2400, ohich this property is currently zoned. He stated the issue is not the waivers or an in-fill project, Lout the size of this project and the Central City could be creating another Chevy Chase area. Ho stated on behalf of the City Neighborhood Council, they would urge the Commission to enforce the current zoning and deny this reclass iitcation. Mr. Kemkae, 726 N. Philadelphia, stated he has been living 1~ere for 3 years and he has been at this meeting since 1:30 and 1 istened to the pros and cons, but would like to know about the parking and sta tad if the families who move here could have children, there would be a lot more children in the area. He stated the next door neighbor, litrerally sleep i n thh corner with $ adults living in a single-family u,~it with only 1 bathroom and he did not think the G units would improve that situation. Mrs. Damerell, 739 N. Olive, stated she has lived in that residence for over 37 years and they have neighbors with nice home a in this neighborhood which may be older, but they are well kept and tt-e elderly people were mentioned and she felt the Commission should carefully consider the elderly people and asked where they would go to got away from the density. Bobby Hood, 732 N. Philadelphia, stated he has 7.ived in Anaheim for 50 years and at his present location for 27 years and does r.ot expec~ to move and the last thing he wants is a 6-unit apartment compl x two houses away from his property. Mr. Bustami stated among the letters of support. there are 23 from adjacent property owners within 300 feet of this property and the rest are from residents in Anaheim. He stated Mr. Hickman referred to the alley and stated if this project is allowed, the parking lot would be next to the alley so the people in those units could not be overlooking 2zis property. He stated the alley is 20 feet wide with the parking spaces and setbacks adjacent to that. He stated tiie second story is over the parking spaces and they have tandem parking underneath the building. He stated anyond building apartments would 9/28/87 ~' y:1~A1SL~1.Ylit._2]\].O~Wta~•~.~r.~618_.~CLT.itlll~l.-2]L ~1~_+i.-~!ty~_....l1.61PANl'lL/Jd~{L7tSCL~~Si7 ..__...._.- Q~~Y have management and definitely enforce the Codes and would not permit an excessive number of people living in the apartments and even 2 people per bedroom is sometimes too many. He stated these units are designed with 2 bedrooms to accommodate a family with 1 or 2 children. but 3 bedrooms would have more people. He stated these unite are not cheap and to have more people in one unit fa net realistic because that does ruin the apartments and that most of the duplexes in that area are very old and most of them have been neglected. He stated they can put in two additional units, but they would net be the same quality as he is proposing for this projoct and t}~e quality of people will be different. }}o stated they have 14 parking spaces on the projoct and if each family has 2 cars they would only use 12 spaces and most• of the people who live in these 8 units would work and not have company there every night and this projoct probably would provide 2 additional parkiny spaces for the next door neighbor. He stated he is not requesting a zone change, but a reclassification and that is different. He stated 5 additional property owners are putt•iny their properties on the market f.or sale ar:d all the buyers are investors and no single families will he moving into those unite. He asked what will happen to r.hose 5 if this is denied. He stated he would be happy to work with the neighbors and does not want to invest in a project the neighbors are not happy with. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CI.OSEU. Commissioner Herbst stated it appears from the people in favor that they have the impression that not approving this request would be considered down-zoning of the proF y, and it would actually be up zoning beca+~se the property is now zoned RM-2400. He stated every lot in that area is zoned RM-2400 and the property owners want,- to see it remain RM-2400 and allowing this RM-1200 zoning right in the middle would be considered "spot zoning". He stated the develogers want to crowd as much as possible on the properties and the people who live there what to keep it the way it is and that he resents it when people say older areas of town downgrade the people who live there, and some of these older homes ar.e very well kept and soma do need upgrading but that does not mean apartments should be built next door.. He stated they have a plan in progress to keep that area RM-2400 and the developer can do anyt}ping ho wants on that property within that zone and he has the right to ask for something else, but that area is not ready for apartments. Mr. Bustami stated the area is zoned RM-2400 and they are asking for the implementation o. the General Plan and cannot build an RM-2400 project on that property because of the price of the land. Mr. Herbst stated the Commission cannot consider the economics of the development and Mr. Bustami stated he did not think any developer will build RM-2400 units on that property. Chairman Masse asked what the developer meant when he said that if the Commission denies this request, they would consider that spot down zoning, as if he has the right to deg lop it to RM-1200 requirements. Mr. Bustami stated he meant that if the RM-1200 was approved, that would be spot zoning and compared to the General Plan, if it is denied, he would consider that spot down zoning. 9/28/87 ~. ""' ,: :,~` ,~ MI.~II~T~~,._ANI~H~IM..~~X_.E.L~ALL~.I1~._~4Nf~SIS~.3.9H..~E~EL"~~R.~.@~1.4.~?._~ _...._....~7~9 Commissioner Herbst stated the developer should always look at the zoning and not at the General Plant that the General Plan designates this property for multi-family residential units and thin proposal is for RM-1200 and the developer seems to feel he has the right to have that because the General Plan says multi-family. ACTIS)1: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydatun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner McBurney absent) that the Anaheim City Plenninq Commission has reviewed the proposal to reclassify subject property from the RS-2400 (Residential, Multi-Family) Zone to khe RM-1200 (Residential, Multi.plo-Family) Zono to construct a 2-story, 6-unit apartment building on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.19 acre, having a frontage of approximately 52 feet on the east side of Philadelphia Street, approximately 230 fast south of the centerline of North Street, and further described as 742 North Philadelphia Street; 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 there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commiss.oner Bouas offered Resolution No. PC87-204 and moved f.or its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny Reclassification No. 87-88-17 on the basis thaL• it would be spot zoning with RM-1200 Zoning in an area surrounded by RM-2400 zoning. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYESs BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, }iERBST, MESSE NOES: 210NE ABSENT: F'ELDHAUS, MC BURNEY Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N9. 9 ~1R NEG T~xyE 1~E~~,A~ATIQN,. WAVER QF~ DE E.QjLIR rENT1AND ~QNDI~IONAL~I~E?~~-MIT N 28Q7_ PUALIC HEARING. OWNERS: FAYE SPENCER BANNISTER, ET AL, 700 Grandview, Fullerton, CA 92632. AGENT: GEORGE GEORGAKOPOULOS, 16040 Leffingwell, q46, Whittier, CA 92605. Property is described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.5 acre, 1475 South Anaheim Boulevard (George's Best Restaurant). To retain a drive-through lane and outdoor patio area for an existing restaurant with waivers of minimum drive-through 'lane dimension and permitted encroachment into required front, side and rear yard areas. Tom Spencer, Park City, Utah, son of the property owner, stated a building permit was approved 3 years ago and also a site plan was approved and apparently there is a question about the procedure of that approval. He 9/28/87 ,1~ a" ~• . M.il:Iii.F~~~NI-.H.~SM.S~.X_.~S~~N~13~ ~QMr1~S~413._~F~PTEM@~R3.~.~9~.~_.__ g.?_-Z44 stated their problem is that after three years they are being rec,:ired to get a conditional use permit for something that they thought was previously approved. He explained they did not have a conditional use permit.. Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, stated the actual building permit was for a window and the Building Division may not have been award that it was for a drive-through and this is the result of catching up because of a complaint. He stated the complaint partainod to the drive-through, but when the plans were submitted, the matter of the outdoor patio was discovered and advertised. tdr. Spencer stated the plan does clearly show the intone of the drive through and it has n stamp of approval by the Planning DApartmont dared April ll, 1984, with someone's initials. He stated they have been acting in good faith based on whaF. they have been told in the past and this 3-year delay was not intonL•ional. He stated a permit was issued as a drive-through and that the City has had ample opportunity to catch .it before, although he understands another drive-through operator was denied a permit and that has caused this problem. He stated this request comprises of an additi~~ to the other use which has been there for many years and the addition does of amount to more than 5~ of the use. HA stated the property is part of a larger parcel which is under single ownership. Annika 5antalahtf, Zoning Administrator, stated there was a drive-through restaurant request which was denied and at that time the applicant checked the entire city and submitted a list of drive-throughs with no permits and staff did not find anything in the Zoning records and in some instances there were permits issued by the Building Division, but the Commission has always required a conditional use permit for a drive-through restaurant and every few weeks now the Commission will be seeing one or• two of these and staff knows they have been in existence for a long time. Mr. Spencer stated thou are not aware of any complaints during the last throe years since the drive-through has been in operation. Fle stated they have a question about the encroachments on the front and rear setbacks and asked if those requirements are exclusive to the residential zones and if they would be different for the commercial zone. Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, stated they would be different for commercial xoning, but this property is still zoned R5-A•-43,000 and is treated as a residential zone which requires setbacks and the encroachments are existing. Mr. Spencer stated if this property was zoned commercial, then the encroachments would not be a problem. Greg Hastings stated the property to the west is developed with a mobilehoma park and probably requires a setback because of Planning Commission's policy protecting residential uses. He staked if the vacant property or the property where the liquor store is located are developed, there would not be a problem because those properties are not used for residential purposes. Chairman Masse stated the staff is looking at the area across the street for a general plan ameadment. Greg Hastings explained originally that was considered, but the Commission instructed staff to come back with a reclassification for commercial use since the General Plan shows that area 9/28/87 ~ .~ '~ h ,.r ~IN3iTE~S.~ A~AH~I~_.~.az~L~~B~it~~.s~4t~S~~.4t~..~~PTE~~.s_..1~4a7 ____ _ ~ ~?41. designated for commercial uses already, but that roqueat was for the other sido of the street and to include this property in that reclassification would delay the other owner. Ho stated the whole area is designated for commercial uses on the General Plan. Mr. Spencer stated they would not object to rezoning of their property because it has been used commercially for 20 years. He stated they own the property whero the liquor store fs located and also the vacant property. Chairman Messe stated that property should be rezoned. Mr, Spencer stated some problems with the frontage dedication are a result of actions taken by the City and that they have owned the property for aver 30 years and !wring that 30 years, the City has taken right of way and increased the width of the street, possibly creating the hardship on tho property and the building has beon there 20 years. He referred to the condition requiring frontage requirements. He stated this request is very minor compared to what fa there and this condition would be rather excessive and not justified in this case. He stated if the Planning Commission has not jurisdiction over the conditions, the matter would have to be appealed to the City Council. Greg Hastings stated this condition is required by ordinance and City Council would have to relieve the applicant of this condition, perhaps by ordinance change. Mr. Spencer asked the number of the ordinance. Jay Titus, Office Engineer, r.sked if there will be a building permit issuod and Mr. Spencer responded the improvements have been done and are less than 5~ of the business and they have a building permit. Jay Titus stated if there is a building permit involved, the ordinance requires street improvements and that ordinance has been in existence far many years. He stated actually the length of the improvement required is not very much and is a small portion of the total frontage. Mr. Spencer stated it would be 230 feet, and would cost 20 times the cost of this request and that acts like an impact fee as well as some of the other fees, and is rather excessive. Chairman Messe stated the Planning Commission cannot relieve them of that condition. Jay Titus stated this condition is not for the foes, but the actual improvements; and that the City has actually improved a major portion of the frontage, and otherwise, the property owner would be faced with considerably more. Mr. Spencer stated the improvement is about 1/2 of the frontage of the entire property. He added he understood the improvements were a requirement of the business park to the south and thoy made those improvements, not the City. He stated it would appear the City did issue a building permit without requiring that condition. 9/28/67 ,. _,~ M1I3IIT~~,~S.MS~'tY~I~.NN.ItiG. C~QIA•l.J:~~I.4~.~__S~~~~M@F~~.4.~4~'i___.__`_@Z.7.4~ Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, stated the fart something was neglected in the past does not mean it should continue to be neglected. ~4~~Q~s Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Chairman Messo and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bouas nbaent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has r~viewAd the proposal. to retain a drive-through lane and outdoor patio area for an existing restaurant with waivers of minimum drive-through lasae dimension and permitted encroachment into reyuirod front, side and rear yard area on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 230 feet on the west side of Anaheim Boulevard, approxi~,ately 105 feet north of the centerline of Cerritos Avenue and Eurther described as 1475 South Anaheim Boulevard (George's Best Restaurant); and does hereby appro•re 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 there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner McBurney absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant waivers of Code requirement on the basis that the parking waiver will not cause an increase in traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity nor adversely affect any adjoining land uses and granting of the parking waiver under the conditions imposed, if any, will not ba detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citiaens of the City of Anaheim; and further on khe basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC87-209 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2897, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code SecL•ion 18.03.030.030 through 18.030.030.035, subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations. Commissioner Herbst explained following this action he would offer a motion recommending that the City Council review the condition requiring street improvements on Anaheim Boulevard since the Planning Commission has no jurisdiction over that matter. Chairman Messe explained this matter could bo passed on the consent calendar without that motion and the conditions would remain and have to be complied with. Mr. Spencer stated he does not object to the payment of street tree fees but would like to see the trees planted in front of this property. He stated he would object to the reconstruction of the most northerly driveway and would comply with the condition (No. 4) pertaining to the four parking spaces being relocated as long as it does not decrease the number of parking spaces. He 9/28/87 M.~NUT~,S~.~t3Ali~I.M C.~.TX.~T~IIiI1~.C~._S.9.MM.~.&.&~.2K~_.~.~E~~1~~_~$..~4~Z._._________..~.7_:3!1~ statod he did not know what the City standards are for the trash etor.age area and did not know what the plena are which are referred to in the conditions. Greg Haati.nga statod the Exhibit referred to would be the plena submitted by the petitioner . Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated ha has worked with the applicant regarding the driveways and the applicant 2~ad thought there was a real hardship to relocate all three driveways and the moat critical driveway is the one closest to the travel lane and that is one that should be relocated with 10-four radius curb returns in order to facilitate entering and existing t1~o parking area and the drive-through lane. Mr. Spencer statod he met with Mr. Singer and he previously approved the plans and this requirement was not mentioned. Annika SantaJ.ahti statod that requirement tied into the use and the street widening and the only driveway to be reconstructed is the one in front of t1~e area requiring the street widening. She stated when there is a zoning action, if it is considered that the activity involves an intensification of the .land use, staff's policy has been to apply conditions to make the use more reasonable in the area and this is a request for two waivers. She stated Condition No. 4 refers to the third driveway which services the parking area with no circulation other. than going back out to Anaheim Boulevard and it appeared some parking spaces could be relocated allowing on-site circulation to that parking area. Mr. Singer stated Condition No. 4 is not a problem and parking could be marked elsewhere and Code could be satisfied and there will be no loss of parking. Commissioner Herbst modifie4 Condition No. 3 requiring only one driveway to be reconstructed. Commissioner Houas asked if the driveway could stay as is if Council decided the street improvements ilo not have to be done. Commissioner Herbst stated the driveway would have to be reconstructed even if the street improvements are not needed. Mr. Spencer stated the request would involve modifications to Conditions 6, 7 and 8 and asked if the time limits would still be imposed while this matter is being heard by the City Council. Annika Santalahti stated the time limits do not become effective until the ratter is heard by the City Council. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOXDSTUN, CARUSILLO, HERBST, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: FELDHAUS AND MC BURNEY Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOtION CARRIED (Commissioner McBurney and Feldhaus absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby request that the City Council review 9/28/87 '~ MINUTES._~~E.YM_..~.~~X~k:L~33tiIL~S~ _~4MMT.fi~3.Q~_._.~~~T~L~~FB~~._~26~1.~___ @Z-?44 conditions of approval in connection wlth this request pertaining to street improvemenks along Anaheim Boulevard. Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's docision within 22 days to the City Council. .I~~ x_1.4 ~1.~~A~Y~_PFS.L.~.S~T..ION AND GuNF~A~_P3~.K...BaE.N~M~N~lL4_,_.~~~ PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, PLANNING COMMISSION, 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, A.zaheim, CA 92805. Property is located on the north side of Pearl Street between West Street and 170 foet east of Dwyer Place; and on the south side of Pearl Street between Carleton Avenue and 170 feet east of Dwyer Place. To redesignaL•e the area north and south of Pearl Street, west of West Street from Medium Density Residential to Low-Medium Density Residential. There were 24 persons indicating their presence in favor of subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and mado a part of the minutes. Leonard McGhee, Associate Planner, stated this is a city-initiated General Plan Amendment request to consider an amendment to the Land Use Element redesignating approximately 3.9 acres on ttie north and south sides of Pearl Street, west of West Street from Medium Density Residential to Low Medium Residential; and that the request was in response to a submitted petition signed by 53 Anaheim residents on August 3, 1987; and that Commission directed staff to initiate ttie General Plan Amendment. He stated subject properties are currently ^oned RM-2400 and designated on the General Plan for Medium Density Reside:ntial and surrounding Lands include single family residences to the north, multi-family land uses to the south, west and east and the current Medium Density designation typically takes the form of apartment complex and the Low Medium Density designation typically permits apartments; however, at a lesser density, and also permits duplexes and triplexes. He stated there is no proposal for development with this request and staff recommends the Negative Declaration be approved; and further staff recommends that the Planning Commission determine whether the current designation of. Medium Density iz appropriate for this area or whether the General Plan should be amended to Low Medium Density designation as shown on Exhibit A. Margaret Carter, 1229 West Pearl, stated they feel the proposed reduction in density from Medium to Gow Medium represents the best means for preserving their neighborhood as a desirable place to live; that while they realize with time, change raay come, they consider this amendment combined with the preservation of the RM-2400 zoning as the best means of insuring that what change does come will not have a negative impact on the neighborhood and that the essential character of the area will be preserved; that this feeling is widely shared by the residents of the area and some 50 of them signed a petition making the request and several are present today in support of this request. She stated they would like Pearl Street the way it is now and only ask that the Commission help them to keep it that way. 9/28/87 ~i~U,T~~._.~AH~JuM_...~1'~L.A13N.~,.tLG C0:4~.~.~~..~F~T..EM~~R_~..@...._1.9.~.L-----_-. @Z-34.~ Chairman Messe asked about the unknown petitions referenced in the staff report. Leonard McGhee stated basically those owners positions are unknown. p~~Q~: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Feldhaus and Mc Burney absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to consider an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to redesignate subject property from the current Medium Density Residential land uses to Luw-Medium Density residential land uses on an area consisting of approximately 3.9 acres (21 lots) located on the north side of Pearl Street between West Stree"_ and 170 feet east of Dwyer Place, and on the south side of Pearl Street between Carleton Avenue and 170 feet east of Dwyer Places and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that iL- has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding ors the basis of the initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence thaL• the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC 87-205 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission dons hereby recommend adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 231, Exhibit A, redesignating subject area from Medium Density Residential land uses to Low-Medium Density Residential land uses. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following voter AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILI,C, HF.RBST, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: FELDHAUS, MC BURNEY Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. A. COND,~TIQi1AL U E PESM~~~.4=. 2928 - Request from La puita Zynda for an extension of time in order to comply with all conditions on property located at 3603 Savanna Street (E.Z. Pickens R.V.) ANION: r:mmissioner Herbst offered a mr*.ion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner M Burney absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve a 120-day extension of time (retroactive to September 18, 1987) to expire on January 18, 1988. B, ~QN~~TIONAL U,S,~,_P RM T N~• 2113 - Request for a nunc pro tune resolution to amend the extension of time date on Resolution No. PC87-77. g~T~Q(i: Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC87-207 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby adopt a nunc pro tune resolution correcting the termination date of Resolution No. PC87-77 from September 22, 1988, to September 22, 1989. 9/28/87 ~~ ;; ~~~,~, ANA13~~~T}(~~ANNING COMM~SION SEPTEMB~$,~8. 1987 ,~7-'i46 On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by tha following vote: AYES: BOUAi, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERDST, MESSE NOESs NONE ABSENTS MC BURNEY C. ~ONDIT.~Q~IAG USF,,~.~;RMIT~LQ,~.9~ - ReSuest for a nunc pro tune resolution to amend the stipulations made by the petitioner at the meeting of August 3, 1987, for Resolution No. PC87-153. ACTIANs Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC87-208 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby adopt a nunc pro tune resolution incarporatinq the correct stipulations sa made by the petitioner in Resolution No. PC87-153 in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 2935. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYESs BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: MC BURNEY 9THER DISCt1SSI0Ns Commissioner Carusillo stated he would like to soe the Code amended prohibiting arbitrary approval of block walls in the Scenic Corridor or Hill and Canyon area and that walls and fences be approved on an individual basis, especially when views might be blocked. Annika Santalahti stated staff has discussed the possibly of identifying view areas in the City where fences ar~d walls would have to be approved by Planning Commission, and also where someone put in a wall not in conformance with Code, staff could enforce the Code. Commissior~~ Herbst stated Commission should review and approve all walls and fences in the Hill and Canyon area, particularly on street frontages. Annika Sankalahti stated staff would present some information for Commission's review. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was ad;ourned at 7:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~ . ~ E~~ ~~ Edith L. Harris, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission 0022m 9/28/87