The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1987/12/07 MaN1JT.~,~ ~R MEET1t1G OF,~',HE ANAHEIM CITY PLA~.~IING COMM S~SION pg~@~,e r 7 ,_ 19.$1 The regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Messe at 10:00 a.m., December 7, 1987, in the Civic Center Council Chambers, a quorum being present, send the Planning Commission roviewod the plans of the items on today's agenda. RECESS: 11:30 a.m. kECONVENE: 1s30 p.m. PRESENT: ABSENTS ALSO PRESENT: Chairman: Meese Comrnissi.oners: Bouas, Boydstun, Feldhaus, Herbst, McBurney Commissioners: Carusillo Joel Fick Annika Santalahti Malcolm Slaughter Paul Singer Arthur L. Daw Jay Titus Greg Hastings Leonard McGhee Debbie Vagts Edith Harris Planning Director Zoning Administrator Deputy City Attorney City Traffic Engineer Deputy City Engineer Offic© Engineer Senior Planner Associate Planner Housing Operations Coordinator Planning Commission Secretary ~~NDA POSTING - A complete copy of the Planning Commission agenda was posted at 4:30 p.m., December 3, 1987, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chambers, and also in the outside display kiosk. PUBLISHE¢ - Anaheim Bulletin - Friday, December 30, 1987. p~LIC INPUT: Chairman Messe explained the procedures for the public hearings and also that any member of the public would be allowed to speak on any item within the Planning Commission's juzisdiction or on any item on the agenda at the end of the meeting. Chairman Messe explained Item No. 5 would be heard following Item No. 10, since Items 5 and 11 relate to the same location. 87-918 12/7/87 ^ 1~N~,T.F;S. AN~F,I.M. CITY PLANNING COt~MAI~SION~_...I?.FSEM@~B 7, 1987 -~.Z.~,1~ ~.TFM~341.-~. EI#i_~3FiGA~.LF~2Fifi~1.ARATIO~LAI~ V.A~ANCE L~0_•..~1..~@L PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: PERAI~TA LTD „ 3150 E. Birch, Brea, CA 92621. AGENT: SOGAR CONSTRi1CTI0;i INC., 1650 N, Glaasell, Suite H., Orange, CA 9266'1. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.5 acre, having frontage of approximately 1.36 feet on the north side of Copa de Oro Drive, approximately t~~ feet north of the centerline cf Nohl Ranch Road and further described as 5091 Copa de Oro Drive (Lot 29 of Tract No. 12576). RoquesL•: Waiver of maximum structural height to construct a 30-toot high, two-story single-family residence. There were three persons indicati~ig their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Chairman Messe declared a conflict of interest as defined by Anaheim City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC76-157, adopting a Conflick of IntereaL• Code for the Planning Commission and Government Code Section 3625, et seq., in that the property owner is a customer of his firm and pursuant to the provisions of the above Codes, declared that he was withdrawing from the hearing on Variance No. 3718 and that he would not take part in either the discussion ~~ the voting thereon and had not discussed the matter with any Planning Commissioner. Thereupon, Chairman Messe left the Council Chamber. Chairwoman Pro Temporo Bouas assumed the Chair. Miles Folsom, agent, explained this is to be a large house built on a smaller site and because of the nature, size, design and charactec of the house, they need a higher roof profile and they are aware of other variances which have been granted in the area. Don Piliero, 411 Brook Lane, referred to the balloon tests done on the site and asked if the results have been presented to the Commission, whether or not they have been made available to the pudic, and whether or not the Commission has had time to digest the results. He indicated he has a copy, and Chairwoman Pro Tempore Bouas stated the Commission has read the report. Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, stated those test resull:s were given to the Commissioners in their packets on Friday and they have been presented to the City Council. 12/07/87 .,, ~y~~., ANAHi~M G3Z'Y PL~NN~.itS~_G91~S~~Q~i,~EC~h~ii~?~_~9@.Z~~.W._.._____~Z-4~?SZ Mr. Pilioro explained he represents adjacent homeowners on the eastern slaps and they nre concerned about increasing the height of the roof because of thR impact on their homes. He stated 2 of the 51 homes in the osed tovan pment will bo impacted by this development: and that they ac•e opp Y variances being granted on Lots 29 through 41. Ho stated they are also concerned about a precedent being set with approval of this request and pointed out this developer asked for approval of this variance based on the fact that other variances wore granted and if no precedent is being set, why do developortt always also make that statement in their presentations. He stated he failed to see a hardship, except as created by the developer. He stated they are only concerned about the eastern slope and they will be impacted by Lots 29 through 41, and particularly Lots 34, 35, ?5 and 37. He asked how the Commission could deny other requests, if this is granted. Mr. Piliero stated based on the balloon tests, their lots would be impacted with a maximum height of 25 feet. He stated a homeowner in this tract made the statement that the developer should not have built those lots up to this height and they should be 10 feet lower. He stated Lots 34, 35, 3G and 37 are filled lots; and that when they purchased their properties, they were not told that land would be filled. He added 25-foot high homes would have an impact on the quality of their lives, and that they are requesting a continuance in order to really study the results of the balloon tests to determine the impact on the eastern slopes. Ann Hien, G673 Paseo del Norte, stated the balloon tests wore prepared by L-he developer and that the cover letter submitted with the test results ind.i.cated the consultant had concluded that there will be no impact on the surrounding area; however, the report indicates there has to be an impact on certain homes and she felt there needs to be further study before making any decisions. Donald Van Hop, 520 ccolling Hills, stated he is also concerned about the balloon tests because they wore done by the developer and cameras can take pictures from different angles to show whatever needs to be shown, and also there was wind blowing the balloons around on the day the tests wore done and he thought *..he tests should be redone and some realistic pictures taken to show the true impacts. He stated he felt there will ~e a tremendous impact on his property and the 30-foot height should be reduced to 25 feet. He added he is on?; concerned about the east end of the tract; and that they had to sign an agreement when they purchased their homes not to block views and that they were told that the area was to be a wildlife preserve. Mr. Folsom stated he understood the balloon tests were done by the developer at the request of L•he City and that he did discuss L•he results with the consultant to determine whether this lot would have an impact and was assured that it would not. He stated whether the tests were properly conducted should not be a factor in this request and his client does not think it is fair to take another continuance and would like to get this matter resolved. He stated they never intended to infringe on anyone's views. 12/07/87 ..... M7~tI1I~FiSi.BI3}l~h1CITY PLI+~ iNING C4~~'iI.&&.I.S?.TI.._...D.Fi~FiMflFi~Z._34.~7 ~.~.7~1~ THE PUALIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Responding to Commissioner McBurney, Greg Hastings, Senior Plannor, stated less than 15~ of the roof is more than 25 feet high and there is a peak and chimney which exceod 30 feet. Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City AL•tor.ney, stated the decision on tho variance being considered by the Planning Commission will be based on the merits of the project as presented at this hearing and on the evidence presented on this particular application aL• this hearing. He stated the required findings are spelled out in tho Coda and granting a variance f•or a particular project on a particular parcel does not establish a precedent for granting other variances. Don Piliero asked what the merits of this project are and stated he did not think a person wanting a larger house should be considered a merit. Commissioner Feldhaus stated he was present at the City Council hearing last Tuesday when the balloon tests were discussed and the Council decided they could not address 41 individual lots at one time and would proceed on an individual basis. Ho stated Lot 32 was addressed specifically on Tuesday by the Council and after hearing all the evidence to be presented today on Lot 29, the Planning Commission will attempt to make a decision on Lot 29, and that the opposition then has the right to appeal that decision to the City Council. Chairwoman Pro Tempore Bouas stated when the Commission talks about the merits, that means whether or not the views will be obstructed, et;.. and that is a decision the Commission will have to make. She stated the Commission is concerned about people's view~a, but today they are concerned about this particular lot. She stated the Commission has felt all along that each lot would have to be reviewed and acL•ed on separately, rather than giving a blanket approval; and that 25-foot high structures have been approved in the canyon area, but have been locatdd where they would not be detsimental to other people's property. She added she realizes the neighbors thought that area would remain natural. Mr. Piliero stated he was told that area would be a wildlife preserve and no one could develop it; and pointed out that property was sold by Luak last year. He stated he wanted to thank the Commission for their concern, but that he thought the neighbors have a long hard fight on their hands to preserve their view. He stated he has been there about 15 years and did not see any need for a waiver because the homes could be lowered and not block any view. 12/07/87 .» C MZ~F~.`..~N1~3F.IM CITX_P~.It~N.J~IS~_C.QI~M~~i.__~~.~4DE~7_. 1.~.~Z_____._____.__$Z~~2. Commissioner Feldhaus asked if some of the pictures of the balloon testa were taken from Mr. Piliero's backyard, Mr. Piliero clarified one picture was taken from his yard. Mr. Piliero stated he would like to see the houses restricted to 20 feet highs and responded to Commissioner Bouas that a 25-foot high structure would block hie view] and that Lot 29 is about 300 feet from his home. Greg Hastings stated it appears the property is about 600 feet from the eastern boundary. He pointed out a correction should be made to paragraph 3 of. the staff report to show that the consultant indicated that Variance Nos. 3709 and 3718 (the staff report says Conditional Use Permit Nos. 3709 and 3718) would have no visu~+l impacts/intrusions on the surrounding area. Mr. Piliero stated he would invite anyone to come out and sc-e what the impact would be L•o his groperty because there will be a dramatic ir~ipact. Commissioner Herbst asked about the calculations and dimensions in the report. Joel Fick, Planning Director, stated in rho slide presentation made to the City Council, all measurements were taken from the center of the pad and the elevations do vary. Commissioner Herbst stated there are four lots abutting the Lusk tract, (Lots 34, 35, 36 and 37), and they are shown below the pad and explained he is trying to put this lot into the proper visual prospective uitt~ the existing lots and it appears this to t• is higher. Malcolm Slaughter stated these questions should be directed to the developer and the consultant who made the study, and if the Commission has a problem with interpreting the results, the consultant should be present to answer the questions. Joel Fick stated from the backyard of the homes on the east looking west, there is an elevation drop and then a bowl that sweeps back up to a plateau area, and then drops down again, so you would not be able to see the pads below that point. Commissioner Feldhaus questioned the pad differential to Nohl Ranch Road which is shown as minus 23 (-23) and asked if that moans the rooftop will extend visually 40 feet above Nohl Ranch Road. Mr. Folsom stated he submitted a section showing the heights above Nohl Ranch Road. 12/07/87 MI,~I1.~~.S.,__ANbHF..IM.S.~TX_PI~~t3.i23~C9k~~.S.&.IS~1.~._AFS.~:MHF~.Z~..19..~.7 _____...~..._._. B.Z~23 Cammissioner Herbst stated hd thought this hearing should be continued until the Commission can find out oxaatly what the ~uncil will do with the lot next to this ono. He agreed with the oppoaitian about setting a precedent because developers do ask why they can't have the aam© things and that legnlly the Commission does not set precedent, but it is hard to deny something a neighbor was granted. He stated tie is concerned about the four lots that will abut this tract because whatever is put on those lots will impact the neighbors. He stated the Commission cannot guarantee anybody a view; and the Commission has to look at land use and the ordinances. He atat4d this lot has a large pad size and he thought a house could be built without a variance. He stated he realizes they have a problem, but that he has seen 9,000-square foot houses which are single story and that ho could not aeo a hardship dust beta+lso this is going to be an exclusive tract, and a lot of houses have begin built without variances. Mr. Folsom stated those are very expansive lots and require anyone p~~rchaeing them to build to the maximum potential and that this is to be a 9,000-square foot house and they have to construct a house compatible with the community. He stated it can he clearly aeon what the setback requirements are and that it would bo impossible to build a one-story smaller residence because of the lot and that they have to look within the sales perimeters. Chairwoman Pro Tempoze Bouas asked if this house is to be built to someone's specifications. Mr. Folsom stated it is to his client's specifications. Commissioner Herbst stated the Commission does not get involved fn the price of the land, but considers land use within the ream of the City ordinances, and the Commission should continue this until the City Council makes their decision. He stated he still feels there needs to be some firm studies, particularly on the east lido where there will be an impact on the Lusk homes. Malcolm Slaughter stated the Commission is permitted to continue the matter for additional evidence, but technically the hearing has been closed and should be reopened in order to take additional testimony; and that since they have closed the hearing, tt:ey have 40 days in which is make a decision. 12/07/87 Commissioner Feldhaus at~sted he felt the Commission has a responsibility to make a decision based on the beat evidence they have And should no ~ wait for the Council to make a decision on an entirely different property. He stated if the applicant doesn't like the decision of the Commission, he has the right of appeal to L-he City Council, and he thought the Council would pr ~Eer for thn Cor,mias:lon to make a decision. Commissioner Herbst stated the Comrnisaionera received the results of the balloon tests on Friday night and that he has belicantito mai~evtha astudyefor reports and that he was the one who told the app everybody's benefit and if he were to vote on this request today, it would be a "no" vote because he did not feel there is a hardship. He stated ho has been on that. site several times and felt there ie definitely going to he an impact. Commissioner Foldhaus stated Chore is no questfon but that there .rill be an impact and that the City Council alluded to the fact that there would be an impact no matter what is put there. He stated the Council did s ay that no one should be the scapegoat because of the previous problem, and this developer has had onol~gh time de?:yR trying to get this house built. Mr. Folsom stated if the decision hinges on the results of the balloon study, and a continuance is necessary is order to give the Commission enough time to study the results, that would be acceptable. Commissioner Herbst stated he would like to continue this to January 4, 1988, and reopen the public hearing for further information and that he would like for the consultant to present the Commission the same elide prese~rtation given to the City Council. Commissioner Feldhaus stated the City Council continued their he wring until December 9th on :.ot 32, in order far a full Council to be present. He asked if the Commission would like for Mr. 5chwart2e, the consultant, to come to the meeting and give his presentation or whether a letter of clarification would be adequate. Chairwoman Pro Tempore Bouas stated she would like to have him present. ACTIO Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mc$urney and MOTION CARRIED (Chairman Messe and Commissioner Carusillo absent) that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the meeting of January 4, 1988, in order for the balloon test consultant to be present to provide additional information. Malcolm Slaughter stated this matter will not be readvertised and the opposition should be present. 12/OT/87 djNUTE$1 ANAHEIM.. C~_PI~ANNING COMMISSION.,.J~~C.E~-$F~Z._12~Z_._.-_----~-~~~~ Chairman Messe returned to the meeting. p~~T~~N~Q~.y~.~~T./~r~.ET/~q..~,}~.CATp.~~V._.p~p.~.E.~L.bRA7T'3 `~'~l..p._T.~~.Fy ~+~+ ~A7.I^~~~~}~.p2~?M~~~.~.~, \Y1sblL3~i.1~-S16-i.~Sr~d.~U[i_...!`QI_.1..L--SLV~~K~.L~a~•J.!!~-~e.k'' ~`SLL.fi1~8.Si.4 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: FAIRMONT LTU., 13632 Hazel Stret, Garden Grove, CA 92642, AGENT: LORREN A. BELL, 2520 S. Fairview Road, MP, Santa Ana, CA 92704. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 2.97 acres, having a frontage of approximately 843 foot un the northeast aide of Fairmont Boulevard, approximately 1080 feet south of the co:~terline of Santa Ana Canyor, Road and further described as 220-226 South Fairmont Boulevard. GPA - to change the current Hillside Estate Density Residential designation to Hillside Low-Medium Density Roafdential. Reclassification - RS-HS-22,000(SC) to RS-5000(SC) or a lesu intense zone. Variance - Waivers of required lot frontaga, minimum building pad area, (deleted) maximum number of bedrooms (deleted), minimum garage setback and minimum rear yard setback (deleted) to establish a 17-unit single-family subdivision (revised to 12 units). Contlnued from the meeting of November 9, 1987. There were ten people indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and rlthough the staff report was nat read, it is referred to and made a part of t.h~ minutes. Lorr.en Bell, agent, explained a correction should be made to the staff report, Paragraph 4, which indicates the study area consists of five lots and there are actually only four. He stated the staff report also indicates tY.e property is currently developed with a single-family residence to be removed if subject request is approved and the single-family residence is on the adjacent property. Mr. Bell stated he became involved in this property over four years ago when they planned to develop single-family hillside estate typa residences; however, their financing source felt development of expensive homes would not be feasible because of the slow market at the time and location of the property and recommended they do a pre-sale and build custom homes suited to the purchaser. He stated they listed the property for sale with realtors and were not successful and the comments were usually that the homes were too big and expensive for that area, that there were no views and it was too close to the commercial area, on a busy street, with schools, church and shopping 12/07/87 M1,NSITES.__ANAii~.i.M~iT~Y..J'~+bNN.Il3~ ~S~1IS.S.I_QN~_A~~.~M~$YZ.._1.4.~_T ~...~_9.Z-~Z~St cantors. Ho stated last Yost thero was an int:ereated party wha wanted to combine this proporty with the adjacent property and a plan far 72 condominiums was aubmi ttodi howevor, the homeowners were opposed and thoy took the advice of the Planning Commission at that time and came up with a more realistic compromise far 17 single-family homes at less density, but after meeting with the neighbors, have revised the plans for a 12-unit, aingle-family subdivis ion. Mr. Bell stated the owner of the adjacent property wanted to keep his 1/2 acre and it did not work out to put the two properties toget2ier, and also that that property has a more se vote terrain and would be more difficult to develop. He stated after several c ourtesy meetings with the homeowners, thoy realized the neighbors would not be happy with the plan for 17 Homes, so requested a continuance and revised the plans for 12 large homes, (1940 sq. ft. to 2800 sq. ft.), or 4 per ac r ~, with larger lots. He stated they are also dedicating 16 feet of frontage to the Catty foL• street widening and a 10-foot easement far the hiking and equestrian trail. He stated they did listen L•o the Commission and neighbors and feel this project will compliment the neighborhood and be a nice buffer between the commercial, school, substation, and the church and the aingle-family homes an Donna Court. He added they feel they have a hardship because of the location, size and irregular shape o f the property. H. W. Abraham, 13E~32 Ka2e1 Street, Garden Grove, owner, stated they have made a diligent ef':ort to market the property. bath with custom homes and just the proporty itself, but .rate not successf u'1 because of the substation, shopping center, school and church, and also because when the parcel map was approved, one of thb conditions imposed was that no street widoning be done at that time and would be done at a later date as determined by the City, and they had to sign a statement ogre Bing that the improvements and curbs and gutter and widening of the street would not be accomplished and purchasers of the property in the future would be assessed per lineal foot of improvement, when it was decided that i t would bo done. He stated it is hard to market a property when the pu r chaser has a possible 510,000 or 520,e00 surprise coming up in the future. Mr. Abraham stated Page 6 of the staff report, last portion of Paragraph 18 states subject study area is a portion of the ~.argest uninterrupted estate density designated r esidential area in the entire canyon area, and that is not true; that the corner of Mohler Drive just north of the E1 kancho High School was rezoned to RS-10 ,000, and across the street .6 acre which complied with the General Plan was split into two .3 acre lots, and ono is still for sale. He stated there are 10,000 sq. ft. lots on Donna Court and the average size of those lots is 10,853 sq. ft. He stated they did not want to see the 12/07/87 originally proposed condominiums, but were told the interested purchaser of the property had the right to make the request and that did create some problems with the homeowners in the area) and that they tried to alleviate that through several courtesy meetings to show them what they are planning and that the neighbors did not want the 17 smaller homes, so they have increased the pad sizes, and created 12 lots. Mr. Abraham stated there are elovaL•ions available for viewing and referred to Page 4 of the staff report which states, "The Anaheim Genera]. Plan is not a precise plan and does not show, nor intend to show, the exact land use pattern which will in fact occur....." Leonard McGhee, Assuc~ate Planner, explained the exhibits and stated the adopted General Plan calls for Hillside Estate Density, and Exhibit A was the owner's original request fer Hillside Low Medium Density and Exhibit B is for Hillside Low Density which would permit up to 5 uniL•s per acrd. He pointed out the applicant is requesting approval of 12 units which is more consistent with the Low Density designation as shown on Exhibit B. Sonja Grewal, 400 S. Canyon Ridge Drive, Anaheim, speaking f•or the Anaheim Hi11s Citizens Coalition and herself as a homeowner within walking distance of this property and a board member of the Homeawner's Association, sL•ated she felt this proposal violates the goals and policies of the Canyon Area General Plan and the General Plan Amendment, Reclassification, Variance and Negative Declaration should be denied. Sho added it seems recently the Canyon Area General Plan has been forgotten; and that she agrees the General Plan is meant to be flexible and is not a precise plan for development, but trat any changes made should be consistent with the goals and policies. She stated the policies are described as measurable items where attainment of concrete short term implementation can be evaluate8 and one policy is that development should follow the natural contours of the land and the character of hillside areas should not be altered by extensive technical operations. She stated the developer indicated to her that they would not really know how this plan will work until they start the grading, and she felt this plan does violate the policy of keeping grading to a minimum. Ms. Grewal stated a goal in the General Plan is described as an ideal for an ultimate desire to be obtained; and that one goal is to consider the land a resource for current and future generations, (a resource, not a commodity); and that the owners knew this was a difficult parcel to develop and to say they need rezoning to sell the property is putting the Planning Commission in the role of a broker. She stated the General Plan states the residential densities are based on the hillside nature of the area and the unique geographical features of the canyon area which constrain the carrying 12/07/87 .». capability of the land, and the developers are planning to exceed the carrying capability of the land by modifying it to their own specification and developing as many dwellings as they feel are necessary; and that one goal is to encourage and maintain living areas which preserve the amenities of hillside living and retain the overall low density, semi-rural uneongested character of the Santa Ana Canyon area. She stated this proposed development and the two which are certain to follow, will be the last area of the hills which just about has attained the goal of being u:zcongested and a semi-rural living area, and to allow a higher density without the benefit of a counter area of open space is not in keeping with the Generai Plan. She stated the owners have given a vary modest description of the project and its impacts on the environment and the envirorunent's impacts on their project and in their Initial Study for the environmental assessment, they did not mention the noise from Fairmont; and that there is a drystream bed running through their property and it is located close to three significant landslides. She stated the reshaping of the land is definitely going to affect the neighborhood. Carol Geronsin, 321 Old Bridge Road, Anaheim, explained she lives quite near subject property and is a member of the Board of Realtors and specializes in the sale of residential homes in the Anaheim Hills area. She stated she knows the owners of the property and unfortunately is sgeaking against them because she believes in "principles". She stated in 1983 she was approached by the developer to perhaps be a limited partner in this property, and she declined because she knew the property was on Fairmont; and that the people involved have been in the Anaheim Hills area for many years and knew the constraints of the property. She stated t~iey purchased the property in 1983, according to public record, for 5159,000, and that included the 3 acres, to develop 4 custom homes in a gated community and one of the owners was going to have one of the homes; but those plans were changed. She stated she works for Merrill Lynch Realty and their office was approached in 1985 to aL•tempt to sell the homes, but they were not shown any plans so were trying to market something they could not show the potential buyer, and also it could not be put is the multiple listing service. She discussed the real estate activities on this property and stated they did a land listing at a total price of 5575,000 for the property which was purchased for 5159,000. She stated developers try to prove a hardship based on land and any property that is extremely overpriced will not be sold and that property was extremely overpriced. She stated there were three sales in the area of homes which back up to Fairmont Boulevard, (445 Bridgeview, 5582,500, 7440 Stonecreek, 5482,000, 465 Bridgeview, 5542,000). 12/07/87 a ,., ~NUTF;S, A~jAHEIM CITY .~L~lN~1,jNG COMMIS$~ON. DECEMBFa~~e_._a.9~Z. Ms. Goronnin atatad the only 10,000 sq. ft. tract is directly across from this property and everything else around there is zoned for half-acre hillside estate and if that property is allowed to go to the smaller 5,000 sq. ft. pads, there is an adjacent property on which the owner will make L•he same request; and that the property owners across the street will also make that name request. She stated they have fought long and hard and will continue to fight to keep the zoning and asked that the rules not he changed in thA middle of the game because it is not fair to the ones who live there and they want to keep their environment the way it is. She pointed out that the substation, school and commercial area were Chore when the property was purchased. She asked that these developers not be allowed to change something so it is economically feasible for them, at khe asst of those who live there. Robert Zemol, 7330 Stonecreek Road, Chairman of the Anaheim Hills Citizens Coalition, stated he is also a neighbor who will abut this project and is a Board member of the Old Del Giorgio Homeowners Association, and in addition to the violations to the goals and policies of the General Plan which this development would create, he will be impacted by this project. He stated this proposed project is between his property and Fairmont Boulevard and he can view this project from his backyard which has afforded his family a quiet enjoyment of life in the hills. He stated when they purchased theiY• home, they checked the General Plan and found that anything that would bo built on that site would be low density hillside homes on 2,2,000 sq. ft. lots. He stated properties along Stonecreek, Old Bridge Road and Old Del Giorgio will be impacted by this development with sound, viewshed, traffic, safety, etc. He added other people north on Fairmont, as well as the entire hills, will be impacted by the continuation of granting variances which are undeserved. Mr. Zemel stated they do acknowledge development and that there should be development on this site, but they want it to be according to the General Plan. He stated it seems prudent that a builder would check into the zoning, and noted one oc: the builders is an dmployee of the City's Building Department, and that because the developer in this case made a bad decision, he did not feel the neighbors should have to pay for it. He stated at a meeting with Mr. Bell, he asked where the Coalition was when the substation, the Hughes Market, and the church north on Fairmont, etc. were approved; and that he had asked Mr. Bell where he was and Mr. Bell responded that he does not live there, and that he feels that sums it up exactly. He stated developers don'L• generally end up living in the projects they build. He stated developers in Anaheim FIills should look at the Zoning and the General Plan prior to purchasing and then there would not be so many waivers requested; and that approval today would just further the message to the developers that they can have what they want in the hills and that changes can be made to the General Plan. 11./07/87 ~. ,~ Responding to Commisaionor Feldhaus, Mr. Zemel pointed out the area of his property on the Erhibit displayed. Mr. Bell stated the grading plea would be essentially the same as it was for the parcel map which required about 12,500 cubic yards of excavation. He stated the quesL•ion of building into the ravine does ..ot affect this property, because it has a slope down and is not a part of the ravine; and that they could not give exact dimensions of the retaining wall because that had to be engineered based on the terrain when the final grading plan is done. He stated the traffic noise is addressed in the staff report, and also Council Policy No. 542 regarding sound attenuation for residential projects within 600 feet of an arterial highway must be complied wi.tti. Mr. Bell stated some erroneous statements were made by Ms. Geronsin; and the quoted price is not right; and that plans were available for potential buyers to review; that there was a concern rogardirq the commission to be paid and the 5575,000 price was for each home and was an estimated price to give potential buyers the price of a finished big custom home on a half acre lots and that the prices were set in accordance with what was given to them by the Merrill Lynch office as an appraisal. He stated the reported comparable sales do not really relate because they were not on Fairmont, even though they may back up to Fairmont and they are higher and have views. Mr. Bell stated the General Plan was implemented in 197' and before that time, 5 to 5-1/2 units per acre were allowed, and obviously when those goals and policies were established, everything could not be foreseen and changes do take place and they are asking that this project be looked at individually. He stated there are a lot of problems with the property, but they feel they can compliment the area with a fine development. Mr. Bell referred to Mr. Zomel's comments regarding impacting his backyard; however, his backyard is about 20 or 30 feet higher and there is a ravine between and there is a circular diameter on the plan showing the 300-foot radius, and Mr. Zemel's property is outside that area. He stated this project would not obstruct any views. He stated he does not live there, but would love to and has built a number of homes there, and hopes to live there someday. Mr. Abraham Stated the property was misquoted in the listing and it included all the lots for that one price; and that it was his desire to live there and it is a loss not being able to have a home there; however, one requirement was that the other three had to be sold before he could have his home and that was not possible. He stated the designer of the project has already chosen one of the houses and feels that due to the very nice design, they will compliment the area. 12/07/87 L~.I&,._, j~AH E I M C.I TY _ P ~ANti I N.S. G9r~~.S.~.9_~i.._..L.~ EMR~.6_3~_1.2~3_..__.r._---a i - a ~ THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst stated originally when the condominiums were proposed, both properties wore included. H© explained he is concerned because of the property to the rear of thin property and it appears there is only one access to that property on a slope. Mr. Bell stated the adjacent property is 4 acres and they wanted to develop 72 units, but that he did not want that many units. He added he thought the Christensen property doss have access at the current time to kheir dwelling from Fairmont, and it appears from the site plan, their property mill be between this property and the schools and they felt for the sake of density, it was not compatible with the adjacent property and thought about 35,000 cubic yards of earth will have to be imported to make that a buildable area at the bottom of the ravine. He stated there was a comment about that ravine being a natural waterway, but it is actually where the storm drain gods through, and they were required by the parcel map to bring a 42" storm drain down the east side of the property, about 2/3 down the slope and out onto the other property, but because of the change in circumstances, they did not pursue the proposal including bath properties. Commissioner Herbst stated he has been involved in the General Plan for Anaheim Hills since it was conceived and when the plan was adopted, he made the remark at the time that there was too much estate density near Santa Ana Canyon Road and that has turned out to be true. Concerning grading, he stated to the people on Old Bridge Road, that their lots were graded for development and every lot in the hills has had to have grading. Ho stated this plan calls for only 12,000 yards of dirt to be moved and the development of 0~~1 Bridge Road probably took close to half a million yards. He stated Anaheiii Hills has become a beautiful area because the Planning Commission has watched the development, but changes have to be madei that he does not like the. RS-5000 Zone for this property and felt RS-10,000 would be more suitable, pointing out there is RS-10,000 zoning in the area. Commissioner Herbst stated he would be in favor of rezoning to RS-10,000 because it is near the substation and church and throughout the canyon area, there is RS 22,000 abutting RM 10,000, etc. and he did not think anyone's property values have been decreased. Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, stated the most important difference between RS-10,000 and RS-5,000 would be the density and in the RS-HS-10,000 Zone, only 3.4 dwelling units per acre are ,permitted, and this proposal would be 4 units per acre and in order to comply, they would need to reduce the project by two units. He stated in addition to the General Plan, the Zoning standards have to be met. Responding to Commissioner Feldhaus, Leonard Mc Ghee Mated the General Plan would permit up to 5 units per acre. 12/07/87 .. Chairman Mosae stated Commissioner Herbst has indicated he would prefer to see Exhibit H approved, and reclassification to RS-NS-10,000. Commissioner Feldhaus stated he would agree. Responding to Commissioner Herbst, Mr. Hell. stated he thought they could develop to the RS-HS-10,000 standards. Commissioner Herbst stated he would move to approve tY~e GPA, Exhibit H, and the Reclassification to RS-HS-10,000, and then they would have to develop to those standards. Mr. Hell pointed out, the staff report indicates approval. of Exhibit B would permit 4.4 units per acre. Leonard Mc Ghee responded it would be 4.4, dividing 43,560 sq. ft. by 10,000 sq. ft. Greg Hastings stated the Zoning Code specificallf restricts RS-HS-10,000 to 3.4 units per acre, but it could be waived if readvertised. Commissioner Herbst stated he is concerned about parking acid the project has to meet the requirements because there would be no place for the residents to park because they will have a private street. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated parking can be taken care of by providing a minimum of 4 on-site parking spaces for each dwelling unit and that can be accomplished by either 25-foot wide driveways preceding the garages or by 20-foot driveways with roll-up garage doors. Mr. Bell r©aponded they can live with the RS-HS-10,000 aonfng. Responding to Commissioner Herbst regarding action on the Variance, Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, explained the Commission may wish to amend the General Plan, grant the reclassification to RS-HS-10,000, if that is their intent, and then deny the variances and that staff has requested the Commission recommend City Council review these items, and then if the Council agrees with the Commission's action and approves the request and the applicant comes back with a request for a waiver, L•he Commission will know the Council's desires. Commissioner Herbst stated there will be additional waivers to be advertised with the zoning at RS-HS-10,000 and if they present another tract map, he would like the opportunity to review it. Malcolm Slaughter explained the Commission will get the tract map for review. Commissioner Feldhaus asked if there is a way to continue action on the Variance. Malcolm Slaughter stated there is only 22 days in which to appeal the Commission's decision, and the Council will probably have heard the General Plan Amendment and the Reclassification before the Commission can get the variance readvertised. 12/07/87 ,.. ~, L(I.NtIT~,~t3ANET~. CITY P,~~.N~Z~OMMISSION, D~.C.~M~~.H~T....~ 8.4 7__.._ -~ g4lurv.i: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by CoIMliasioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Caruaillo absent) that thn Anaheim City planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to change the current Hillside Estate Density residential designation to Hillside Low-Medium Density residential on the Land Use Element of the General Plan and to reclassify subject property from the RS-HS-22,000(SC) (Residential, Single-Family Hillsi,de((Scenic Corridor) Zone to the RS-HS-5,000(SC) (Residential, Single-Family Hillside) (Scenic Corridor) Zone and waivers of required lot frontage, minimum building pad area, maximum number of bedrooms, minimum garage setback and minimum rear yard setback to establish a 12-unit (previously 17 units) single-family subdivision on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 2.97 acres, having a frontage of approximately 843 feet on the northeast aide of Fairmont Boulevard, approximately 1080 feat south of the centerline of Santa Ana Canyon Road and further described as 220-226 South Fairmont Boulevard; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has con3idered the Negative Aeclaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any aommenta received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC A7-251 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission dons hereby recommend adoption on General Plan Amendment No. 232, Exhibit B. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following voter AYESs BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, FELDHAUS, HERB5T, MC GURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSF.NTs CARUSILLO Commissioner Herbst offered Resolutioa No. PC87-152 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission daps hereby grant Reclassification No. 87-88-21, as modified, to RS-HS-10,000(SC), and subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC GURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: CARUSILLO Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC87-153 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny Variance No. 3719, on the basis that Reclassification No. 87-88-21 was granted for RS-HS-10,000, prohibiting subject development; and further on the basis that there are no special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, locatioa and surroundings which do not apply to other 12/07/87 ~+o x. identically coned property in the same vicinityt and rivilegescenjoyedcbyion of the Zoning Code does nor, deprive the property of p other properties in the identical zone and c:lasaification in the vicinity. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: CARUSILLO Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Carusillo absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend City Council review of Reclassification No. 87-88-21 and Variance No. 3719 in conjunction with General Plan Amendment No. 232. Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Cnuncil. ~R NEGATIVE ~.S~e~.~AT~QN~.~F~~~4S1.,~~~Y-~-i'-g~-Fn~ ND V R7ANC .~1Q~ ?'r~M NO 3` 3680 (REVISIQCT~IA_~3L.~$F.~-V.F~#i~~~?1~. PUBLIC HEARING. PHILIP W. GA.NONC, ET AL, 2307 Myrtle Street, Bakersfield, CA 93301, ATTN: JANET GANONG. AGENT: SAND DOLLAR DEVELOPMENT, 17802 S'Kypark Circle, Suite 109, Irvine, CA 92714. Property described as an having irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 5.8 acre, frontages of approximately 230 feet on the east side of Lakeview, and 300 feet on the north side of. Hightree Circle and being located approximately 145 feet south of the centerline of Orchard Drive and further described as 1770 North Lakeview Avenue. Waivers of minimum garage setback and minimum length of driveway to construct 22 single-family residences. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Tony Chavez, Vice President of Operations, Sand Dollar Development, explained this a request for approval of a change in floor plans and six of the lots will regaire a waiver of minimum garage sE"back. He added after meeting with the Traffic Engineer, they are willing to provide a roll-up garage door on all units. 12/07/87 ;:.;~; I'~I~1jLTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLAN[ 1~S~QMMjSSION, ~~MpF.~..T~~~.L__________.~~~`~ THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. It was notod a Negative Declaration was previously approvod in connection with this project. ~TION: Commissioner Bouas offered Resolution No. PC 87-254 and movod for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approvod revised plans submitted in connection with Varianco No. 3780 (Revision No. 1), on the b,sis that there are spocial 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 vicinitys and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other groporties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity and aubjoct to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYESs BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC RURNEY, MESSE NOESs NONE ABSENT: CARUSILLO Malcolm Sl.a~•ghter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. RECESS: 3:34 p.m. RECONJENE: 3:40 p.m. STEM NQ,~. ~,TR NEGATIVE AECLA~i}~TION__j~1_~.~C.~,~'tEN TREE _.F$I~i4_Y~N~L 87-06 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: TY VAN HUISEN, 13445 Estelle Street, Corona, CA 91720. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.76 acre, having a frontage of approximately 164 feet on the east side of Country Hill Road, approximately 250 foot east of the ;:enterline of Bridge View Drfve and further described as 380 Country Hill Road. Request for approval for the removal of thirteen (13) specimen trees. Ty Van Huisen, representing the owner, Jeff Smith, was present to answer any questions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSEn. ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, se~unded by Commissioner by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Carusillo absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal for removal of thirteen (13) specimen trees on an irregularly-sr-aped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.76 acres, having a frontage of approximately 164 12/07/87 A ~,,~5. ANA~Xb__C~TY PLANZ;ING COM~I_S~4r1._..A~.CEM4E.$~~~Z 87 -;,3~ feat on the east side of Country Hill Road, approximately 250 foot oast of the centerline of Bridge View Drive and f~:rther described as 380 Country Hill Road= and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Bouas offored a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mc Burney and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Carusillo absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 87-06 on the basis that principles of good forest management will beat be served by the proposed removal; and that a reasonable and practical development of the property on which the trees are located roquirea removal of the trees whose removal is sought and further that any specimen trees removed shall be replaced with the planting on the same parcel of an equal number of trees from the specified list in the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone. Malcolm Slaughter, Doputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0. 5 WAS HEARD FOLLOWING ITEM N0. 10. ITE N~6s~g.)J~GATIVE DEC~~$ATION. WA1V~R OF CODE RE UIR~M IZ.~A~-Q cONDITIO!Nl~ tiCF PERMIT ~jiO 296_Z• PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERSs EDGA ENTERPRISES, 1990 Woatwood Blvd., 3rd Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90025, ATTN: Les Lederer. AGENT: JOHN 5CHROEDER, 1490 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.95 acre located at the northeast corner of Cerritos Avenue and Anaheim Boulevard, and further described as 1490 South Ana~ieim Boulevard (Zzap, The Nightclub). Request - To permit an entertainment facility for persons under 21 years of age with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. John Schroeder, 1389 Bayless, Anaheim, referred to a letter from Dr. John A Hart and asked if it was included in the Commissioner's packets and it was noted by the Chairman that the Commissioners did receive that letter. Mr. Schroeder stated this teen nightclub was formerly called "The Sensations", and the name was changod in October of Chia year to ZZapp; that a variance was approved in 1985 and then teen nightclubs did not have a very good name, and there was heavy media attention on problem teen nightclubs. He commended the 12/07/87 +.. MIILtI.T1:8~ ANAHSxtLCITYvP1+AN.t3INSi..~.QM~I~.S.~.~L'L~~E.b~E~~~._.~.4~3.. _.~.$.Z=~? Commission for taking a chance on him at that time and granting Conditional Use Permit No. 2672. He stated security has been a very strong paint for the club and drugs and alcohol are not a pert of thA lifestyle of the young adults who regularly attend Chia crib and there hove bee•~ no arrests or citations that he was award of attributed to this location and this exemplary record will continue because of his commitment and the commitment of his staff. He pointed out the contributions they have made to the community include scholarship contest for seniors, much like Star Search, where winners are determined by performing before a public eudience, numerous programs sponsored in the fight against alcohol an8 drug abuse. He pointed out Dr. Hart's letter tells of that support) and that the club has been a source of revenue for many high school booster pr. trams, raising money by holding dances, etc. He stated this is his lth year of. being involved in this business and he has had the pleasure of watching nervous kids turn into mature adulL•s and his club has had a tremendous influence on those young adults. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Messe complimented Mr. Schroeder on the type of operation he has been running since the conditional use permit was granted. He asked if Mr. Schroeder teas any problems with the proposed conditions. Mr. Schroeder stated these was a question regarding the damage to the drainage system outside tha club and L-hat he would feel responsible for repairing that i€ iL was his patrons who had actually done the damage, bait the problem is a gas station on the sr+me lot which has diesel trucks comirq in acid it was damaged because all those trucks driving through his parking lot are cutting too close and the back wheels collapse the drain. He stated he will repair it if required to do so by the Commission, but that he was not responsible for the damage. He explained the damage is on the Ane`~eim Boulevard side right whore the driveway is located and it will cost a few thousand dollars to repair it. Chairman Messe stated the mutual parking agreement expi:^es in June of 1992 and suggested the conditional use permit be granted to coincide with that date. Mr. Schroeder stated the same owner owns the adjoining property, and there would be no problem with the permit eapiring at the same time. Commissioner Mc Burney asked if the driveway will have Co be changed. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, responded he thought that had bean taken care of an he was not sure if the driveway on Anaheim Boulevard was changed and Mr. Schroeder responded the Traffic Engineer had recommQnded a 10 and 20 foot radius and it was changed with CUP 2G72. Mr. Singer stated the driveway on Cerritos has already been close3. 12/0?/87 fi G .,p~ANNING ~..~IS~_~E.~FM@~.Ei_1.... 1987 ~.~.~@ MSNIJT&~ •,..~t~AH.~ M Jay Titus, Office Engineer, stated the normal policy and procedure has been that the petitioners have been required to repair any dnmago to street facilities within the Frontage, as a condition of the zoning action. Chairman Mesae asks d if there is another driveway in front of the gas station. Mr. Schroeder responded there is, but the turning rHeiadded they large enough and the trucks prefer to come in his driveway. also park there and thedi.esel spills are causing considerable damage to L•he asphalt. Chairman Masse stated that is certainly something he could talk to the owner of the property about and that ie the owner's responsibility and maybe the gas station could be isolated so the trucks are forced to use anoL•her entrance. Commissioner Felcihaus thanked Mr. Schroeder L•or his contributions to our society and also for the fact that there have bran no problems over the past two years. Iie asked iE the building is aprinkler9d, indicating his concern about a fire wit1+ the young adults gathered there. Mr. Schroeder responded tY-e facility does not have sprinklers and that he did met with the Fire Department representative and complied with all their requirements, inc7.uding a stipulation that there would be no cooking taking place inside the c lub Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, stated the original conditional use permit required plans to be subr++.tted to the Auildinq Department prior to opening, and he assumed that had been done since they were granted a business license. Commissioner Foldhausasked for verification that they did comply with the Fire Department regulations. Mr. Schroeder responded to Commissioner Mc Burney that they have three fire extinguishers more than required, additional exits, and the facility is monitored. Greg Hastings stated the Fire Department representati~~e was present at the IDC meeting and did not indicate any concerns and did not request any spACisl conditions, so ne would assume it was satisfactory to the Fire Department. Mr. Schroeder stated he has had three fire inspections since that time, one when they were not open and one when they were open, and there was no problem. ~~_r.~t: Commissioner Mc9urney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Carusillo absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposs~l to permit an entertainment facility for persona under 21 years of age with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces on anirregularly-shaped parcel of land consibtinq of approximately 0.9 5 acre located at the northeast corner of Cerritos Avenue and AnaYieim Soulevar d, and further described as 1490 South Anaheim Boulevard; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has 12/07/87 ii considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review proress 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 McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Com:nisaioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Carusillo absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant waiver of minimum number of parki::g spaces on the basin 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 r~~,.+nq waiver under the conditions imposed, iL any, will not. be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of ~he City of Anaheim. Commissioner McBurney offered Resolution No. PC87-256 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission floes hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2967, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 for a period of approximately four and one-half years to expire on June 30 1992, and subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, FELDHAUS, HERBST, :+(C BURNEY, ME5SE NOES: NONE ABSENT: CARUSILLO Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM ~7_. EIR NEGATIVE DEC[~$AT_ISZN A.*TD CONDITIONAL ~1~F,,. PERI~.IT NQ, 2968 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: BETTX A. WHITFIELD, 710 S. C_audina Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 and AGENT: JAMES N. KAPKO, 703 S. Philadelphia Street, Anaheim, CA 92805. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 557 square feet, having a frontage of approximately 50 feet on the west side of Philadelphia Street, approximately 340 feet north of the centerline of South Street and further described as 703 S. Fhiladelphia Street. Request: Ta convert es single-family residence to a granny unit. It was noted the petitioner has requested a cant nuance to the meeting of January 4, 1988, in order for a variance to be advertised. ACTION: Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commiss.ioner Carusillo absent) that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting o!' January 4, 1988, at the request of the petitioner in order that a variance can be advertised. 12/07/87 ,~,; I'CEM No. 8. CEO~_T3lkGA'~V_E.._LES~eB~IIf2I.4lLAt[~ 3ffl~. N('~. 1. ~1 /, PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERSt EVERETT H, MILLER AND F.LMA M. MILLER, 270 ROYCROFT AVENUE, LONG BEACH, CA 90803. AGENTt RICHARD SCIiUMACHER, 12683 l~ERNDALE CIRCLE, STANTON, CA 90680. Pr o porty described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of app roximatvly 0.44 acre, having a frontage of approximately 110 feet on the e a at side of Brookhurst Street, approximately 570 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road and further described as 920 South Brookhurst Street. Requests To construct a drive- through lane addition to an existing fast food restaurant. There was no one indicating the 3r presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not road, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Ricnard Schumacher, 12683 Ferndale Circle, Stanton, agent, referred to Paragraph No. 14 of the staff r pport and stated they agree with staff's concern regarding noise from th E ecpeakor~ and explained the distance to the nearest living area is approximately 150 feet and that combined with the existing and proposed physical barriers will mitigate the problem. Ho stated they intend to limit the sound at the source with volume control. Mr. Schumacher referred to Cond ition No. 2 requiring an irrevocable offer of dedication of a strip of land along Brookhurst as a part of the critical intersection and explained the property owner has already agreed to dedicate the property necessary to meet that condition, but wanted to clarify that that condition pertains to this particular application at 920 S. Brookhurst and not the entire parcel of land from the intorsectio~ north of Ball and Brookhurst. THE PUBT,IC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner McBurney stated he thought only about 30 feet of this property would be affected by the dedic alien. Jay Titus, Office Engineer, stated the dedication is required 600 feet from the right of way 1i:~e, but only this parcel would be affected. 4 ~ -ri Commissioner McBurney asked about relocating the speaker to the south by about one car length in a southeaste rly direction, and Mr. Schumacher responded they would be willing to do that as long as it meets all the requirements. Commissioner McBurney stated t.]~e throats to the drive-through should be increased by five or six feet becaurse the cars would have an awkward turn trying to get in on an angle and asked if the landscaped area could be reduced to provide that extra room. Mr. Schumacher responded they would be willing to comply with that request. 12/07/87 MItL~.,_~H~,IM GITX._Py~~.~4L~SI6.;~3.4~T.~__.ILE_C~MD.~R 7. 19.~Z_..~.___._~ZJ~~ ACTIQ~: Commissioner Bouas o fEerod a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mc Burney and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Carusillo absent) that tkie Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to construct a drive-through lane addition to an existing fast food restaurant on a rectangularly-ahapod parcel o f land consisting of approximately 0.44 acre, having a frontage of approximately 110 feet on the east side of Brookhurst Street, approximately 570 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road and further described as 920 South Brookhurst Streets 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 o n the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no su2~stantial evidence that tho project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Souas offered ReFOlution No. PC87-257 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim L'ity Planning Commission dons hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2 969, pursuant to 1.naheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.030 _030.035 and subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations, i acluding a condition that the spoakers shall be relocated approxfmr.tely 20-f eat (ono car length) in a southeasterly direction and that the volume of the speakers shall be controlled and maintained at a level not to disturb the res 3dentit,l neighbors to the east. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, FE L. .:lS, IIERBST, MC BURNEY, MF.SSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: CARUSILLO ITEM N0. 9. EIR NEGATIVFL.DECLARATI0.~3, GENER$L PLAN AM NDME~ N0. Z~7, RECLASSIFI ATION N0. 87-88-2 4, CONDITI N b USE pE_ Mg IT N_ 2970~1JD WAIVER. JF COUNCIT.~ PO~,ICX NU1 543 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: A2dG5L0 BRUTOCAO, 2240 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801. AGENT: TERRY BRZJTOCAO, 2240 W. 1'~incoln Avenue, Anaheim A 92801 and HUGO VAZQUEZ, 2240 W. L i rcoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801. Property described as a rectangularl y-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 5.7 acres locar_ed at the nor thwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Muller Street, and further described as 19 2 5 W. Lincoln Avenue. GPA - Amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to change the current designation of General Commercial to Medium Density Residential land uses. Reclassification - CL to RM -1200 12/07/87 MI.ffii'~~,5_._ASE.~.M~.I~1'_.P.LANNS~S..4.Ir.~[IS~S3S?.I~ DE.~.EM~ER .Z~..^.$Z eL~-~ Waivers of maximum fence height, minimum structural setback adjacent to Lincoln Avenue, minimum building site area per dwelling unit, maximum structural height, minimum structural setback adjacent to Muller Street (deleted) and minimum distance between buildings to construct a semi-enclosed restaurant and retail uses in conjunction with a 243-unit, 63-foot high, 4 to 6 story "affordable" complex. There were approximately 75 porsona 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 L•he minutes. Leonard McGhee, Associate Planner, explained this is a property owner initiated amendment and it is the intent of the developer to construct a 243-unit apartment complex with a semi-enclosed restaurant and other retail useaf that the subject study area is currently developed with a bowl3.nq alley and is zoned CL; that circulation is proposed via Lincoln Avenue and currently Lincoln is carrying approximately 28,200 vehicles per day in that area. He explained the maximum number of dwelling units is based on density ranges permitted for given land use designations and average daily traffic tripe have been generated based on Citywide averages for associated land use types. He explained the applicant's proposal is for the medium density residential designation which typically takes the form of apartment complexes, and in addition, condominiums, townhouses and detached single-family dwellings not exceeding the maximum density range of the General Plan and Zoning would be permitted and this designation is typically implemented by the RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zone. Mr. McGhe3 stated the study area is located adjacent to Lincoln Avenue, ane of the City's primary east/west arterial highways and. the General Plan text briefly addresses development adjacent to arterial highways as follows: "To encourage the grouping of complementary commercial uses adjacent to arterial highways." Recr 4:05 p.m. Reconvene: 4s10 p.m. Following a five-minute recess to set up the slide prujoction, Hugo Vazquez, agent, explained he contacted residents of the single-family homes on the west abutting the property and felt their biggest concern is privacy. Ernie Vasquez, agent, presented slides of similar projects in Indian Wells (3 stories) and Huntington Beach He stated City staff considers ba:~ement parkiny as a story and most other cities do not mike that interpretation. He presented slides snowing the proposal and explained they are attempting to create a European flavor with retail along Lincoln and landscaping back to Muller, with 3 levels of units directly over one level of retail. He stated they designed the project with centralized access and the vehicular entrance 12/07/87 .. :. Mlt~u~E.S..__B~i1~H~.I~C~'.2~EL~ZLII~Si~.4L~1.~S~3.~D1r,~.EMBEIt 7 , _~~!}~__~ @~=~~ off Muller is the central point of orientation for tenants acid guests, with the motor courL• at the center of the project that would segregate the parking for guests and assigned parking= and the direct access off Muller right-in/right-out only its located along the quest parking area. He stated they are proposing a fully secured apartment development which has effectively 243 units in two separate buildings, and a 5000-square foot recreation facility as the theme building entering off the Muller motor court entrance. He stated this is to be four levels of units over two levels of parking, and they will create a centralized courtyard ti~rough a lobby in the garage, and a landscaped passive courtyard. Fie stated the courtyard is completely landscaped with 2-1/2 feet to 4 feet of landscaping over the concrete deck to provide a resort-like setting, and will allow natural light and ventilation to units on both sides. He added the courtyard will only be accessible to the tenants. Mr. Vasquez stated there was concern that the site has opportunities to create a very pedestrian-oriented street and there are opportunities to do something other than a surface parking lot in the front and they are proposing to develop a softened retail type environment with the restaurant. and create the European influence, with residential over retail. He stated there is no guidance in existing zoning ordinances for this type development; and that they wanted to allow Lincoln to become an amenity for the pedestrians; and the garage entrance for retail is totally segregated from the residential; and the restaurant is of high quality and all service, trash, etc. would be built into the building and there would be a separate mechanical system for that area so it would not be a problem for the tenants on the second and third floor. He pointed out there would be an arcade along Lincoln, set back 30 feet and the units are set back further arad they purposely projected the residential units further back to allow privacy and not have the potential of people sitting on the ground level plaza entertaining or talking and creating a problem for the second and third floor. He showed a slide of the elevation on Lincoln with awnings, signs, etc. to identify the tenant on the ground floor, and explained the signs would be l2 feet above the ground and there would be no signs on top of the building. He stated they are proposing a fountain on the corner of Muller and Lincoln to enhance the corner. He stated they have stair-stepped the elevations to bring it down to a two-story, 5,000-square fook recreation facility which will be the center point, and they propose two racquetball courts, a lounge area, weight room, etc. 12/07/87 MINUTES. AN EIM CITY PLANNI~ C__~ISSIO~I~f,.~,~[pER 7. 1~9.B_Z. _._~$Z.~4.~. Mr. Vasquez stated High density projects do not have to b@ ugly and they have provided a high quality project. He stated they have brought the building as close to Muller as possible in order to create the highest point of the building at the furthest point away from the existing single-family homes and the setback is from 75 to 89 feet from the propert}~ line of the adjacenL• single-family residences and there is a differenL•ial in the grade and they have requested an 8-foot high wall, and would like to propose intensified landscaping with trees, which would be about 20 feet high upon installation b@CAUSe of their concern for the privacy of the single family homeowners. He stated this is not a 6-story building up against that area, but. is four levels over one level of parking in Building 2 and over two levels of parking on Building 1. He stated they have measured c:o the highest point of the roof and effectively the first floor of• units is 6 feet above the street and 9 feet up, so the highest floor is 3'a feat above the street. He stated they have created an interesting elevation by breaking the building up into further components with a guest pavilion, with guests entering through the pavilion, phoning the residents and being admitted, to provide the security. He stated they have proposed divided lights on the windows for privacy for the tenants and the residential community in the adjacent area and they are proposing trellis areas and high rails. Steve Brown, 206 Dalhia, stated the developers made a very professional presentation, and that the people he has talked to are not against development of the propdrty but they think the developers have total disregard for the neighbor's privacy. He stated the developers keep saying they are going to pt-t in some trees and that the building is not six stories high and is only 54 feet high and that it will be moved back, but he thought a 60-foot high building looking down into his yard would not make him very happy and he has not seen anything like that in the surrounding areas. He stated they presented sflides of projects in other areas, but did not show the adjacent homes. He stated he felt they are trying to maximize their potential profit, but thought there are other ways they could do it without building high-rise buildings in his back yard. Mr. Brown staL•ed they would like to know how this will affect their schoolsi that there is a potential for 500 children that could be living in this units and the schools are overcrowded now, and also concerns were expressed about their television r~;ception. Mr. Brown stated he thought they could present other plans to build nice eloquent apartments or condominiums which they would really prefer and they feel this plan does not give any regard to their neighborhood and they are there for a long time and want to keep their privacy. Mr. Brown presented petitions containing approximately 440 signatures of people opposed to the project. 12/07/87 .p, C.~ Elizabeth Gerlach, 2170 Hiawahta, stated she represents the south side of Lincoln property owners and they feel the traffic is already too congested and this would be an addition of approximately 500+ tenants and 300 automobiles. She stated they foal a 4 to 6 story apartment building will not fit into their single-family neighborhood, which has 2-story fourplexes and one and two-story light industrial buildings in the aroma. She added they are also concerned about the potential increase in crimp and the potential overcrowding of schools and urged the Commission to deny the proposed rezoning. She presented a petition containing 150 signatures. James Halbrook, lOG N. Carol, stated he is not opposed to developing the but property, but four to six sL•ories invades the privacy of not only Dalhia, Carol and possibly Bernice and they have talked about the aesthetic value of the project end on page 3, section 23 says residential projects adjacent to arterial highways require sound attenuation measures which may include a six to eight foot high block wall adjacent to Linco.in Avenue and he did not think thaL• that would bo very aesthetic. He stated also a 243-unit complex, with three people per unit, would put 769 people into a 5,000-square foot recreational facility, realizing not everyone would use i.t at the same time. He stated the units would generate another 100 to 150 children into a school district that is already overcrowded and that they have checked with the schools and the teachers do not want any more students at this time. He stated they are requesting six waivers of City codes and he felt the plan constitutes six buildings, not two as indicated by the developer, and that is too much for the area. Robert Schmahl, 540 Eleanor Drive, Fullerton, stated he owns the property at 233 Carol, which is ttio residence of his parents. He stated the proposal is quite attractive, but wanted to present some technical issues that should be addressed by the Commission. He stated he would request reconsideration of the Environmental Impact Report in view of the total impact on current and future city planning, as well as the impact on the existing residential areas. He stated traffic flow has been estimated for average commercial zones and the RM-1200 zone, which is the proposed zoning change, and this traffic flow describes average per day traffic, but does not address the traffir_ and parking during early morning and night hours. Mr. Schmahl stated the second concern is structural height and the structural height at 63 feet cannot reduce or reflect emitted noises from these units or limit the invasion of privacy of the established residRnts; that the requested height is about 3 times that allowed in the RM 1200 zone and there was an issue earlier over 5 feet and this about 40 feet which is significant and this building height is about twice that of 3 standard ~celephone pole at 35 feet. He pointed out the Civic Center is seven stories and this proposal to close to the same height and views from the windows and balconies certainly would invade their privacy. 12io7ia7 t~jNU;~,~,S,~NAHEIM C.I~X_PL~NING CQ~Q1I.&.S.L41i~~A1a.~7_.~@.Z-----------~3=-~'~¢ Ho stated he understands a 150-setback .ia required for RM-1200 adjacent to single-family for a single-story building, and allowing a 60 foot-high building within 60 feet of the property line certainly is a significant deviation. Ho stated the size of the building and number of units, plus the reduced distance certainly increases population denaityt that he thought the project was 234 units, in addition to the commercial portion and that appears to be 32~ more dense than allowed in the RM-1200 zone and even though 10~ would be designated for affordable housing, that does not justify approval of this density. Mr. Schmahl stated the Anvironmental impact report does not address the affect on schools. He stated he would request reconsideration of staff recommendation to change the zoning from CL to RM 1200 in order to accommodate this projects that this project is clearly a totally different development than that intended by the Planning Commission of what medium density residential projects should include. He stated high densities have been discussed today and he would propose that this is a very high density compared to what has been seen today. He recommended the City develop a land use plan that accommodates the high density and very high density apartments, including those more than two stories and mixed with commercials and that there is probably a place for very high density in Anaheim, but permitting this without the proper study could cause a lot of regrets in the future. Mr. Schmahl stated he would recommend the Commission reassess the benefit of adding eighteen low income agartments at the cost of setting precedent for significant greater population density than any place in Anaheim, and that the proposed zone change be re-evaluated because he felt RM-1200 is clearly unsatisfactory. He recommended the Commission not approve this request. Commissioner McBurney stated Mr. Schmahl recommended reconsideration of staff's recommendation to change the zoning from CL to RM-1200, and wanted to clarify that staff is not making a recommendation that the Commission approve phis request.Philip Case, 1249 E. Imperial HigY-way, Placentia, stated he has been a builder for about 25 years in the City of Anaheim and develops and keeps the properties he develops and is concerned with the direction developments are going and this project is like a "last straw"; that he has two properties under construction today at 36 units per acre and is constantly ou! looking for properties using those guidelines and always assumed that was the Commission's guidelines. He stated this type development just blows the lid off and this density is 47 units per acre, a substantial increase over what he is trying to accomplish and when he tries to purchase property for development at 36 units per acre and sorneono else is offering to purchase it for development at 47 units per acre, he will not do very well buying the property. 12/07!87 Mr. Case referred to the affordable percentage of only 7~ (18 units of 243 units) and that does not include the commercial bonus. He added thla is a substantial deviation from what has been done and added he is not against density per se, but would like to see everyone have a fair chance at it and study the problem. He stated he would be very happy to participate in such a study so guidelines can be established. Mr. Case stated his second concern is as a property owners that seven years ago he completed a building about 1,000 feet west of this situ with 170 units on 6.8 acres. He stated he worked with these same owners to come up with a plan with no waivers and adhered to the 150-Foot setback with single story adjacent to their property lines and that he did that in good faith and today in .looking at this type of development, he wondered if he should not have tried to do things in conformance with Code because this is a far departure from that development. Commissioner Herbst stated it seems the people have the opinion that the Planning Commission has already approved this projects that this staff report was received by the Commissioners on Friday and this is thH first time he has heard of this type development being proposed in Anaheim. He explained this is the reason for having public hearings and everyone has the opportunity to speak in a public hearing and anyo:ie has the right to come before the Commission and request what they want on their property, but that doesn't mean it will be approved. Virgins Milaki, owner of the property at 213 W. Carol, stated this area was taken into the City in 1960 and they have always been very proud of the growth of the city and do not want to see the area change with this many people added to the area and do not feel they will be safe with all these other people coming and going. Hugo Vazquez stated ha thought the major concern is privacy and he did not think the neighbors are as opposed to the project as they are to the loss of their privacy; that at this p~iblic hearing they wanted to identify and narrow down specific concerns of this project. He pointed out his architectural costs were increased by five Limes over what he would normally have with other projects. He stated he would meet with the neighbors after this public hearing and give them a tour of the other projects in Huntington Beach and Costa Mesa, pointing out l.e .ins taken a few Council members and a few other leaders from Anaheim to show the quality of living which apartment living could become in the future. Mr. Vazquez stated the architect will address the privacy issues and how they propose to mitigate those concerns. He stated with the existing Code standards, a developer is penalized when the driveway is not covered beyond 120 feet and building costs are increased substantially to go to a concrete structure with two stories of parking 12/07/87 MIffiLT~,SLAN~~~S.S~X~'S~~ItIINSt_.C.99.~I SS IOit,_..P~MP.~B~_19.~.Z $1~ underneath the building and they cannot rent the units for more with par.kinq underneath. He stated this project ie 36 units to the acre, with a density bonus of 25~ for affordable housing. He stated they can accommodate 243 units with one level of parking and two stories of unite and meet the minimum code standards of. livable area for two bedrooms. two bath of 825 sq. ft. or one bedroom one bath at 750 sq. ft. He added lie feels this project adds a higher standard of living with 1225 sq. ft. of livable area and the smallest two bedroom unit is 945 sq. ft., with washer and dryer hookups, and central air and heat in each unitt that the ceilings will be 9 to 10 feet ht.gh, and there will be a full intercom system. Responding to Commissioner I'eldhaus, Debbie Vagts, Housing Operations Coordinator, stated he has signed an agreement to provide 4 one-bedroom units at 5388 per month, 7 two-bedroom units at $466 and 8 three-bedroom units at $518. Mr. Vazquez stated average rents in the marketplace when these units are completed, provided tl^.ey obtain approval in the appropriate time span, will be 51,000 per month. Ernie Vasquez stated they were very concerned about the quality of life and have proposed to take advantage of as much consolidation in 'the parking structure as possible and in the utilization of the first building and basically consolidated as much as 1-1/2 to 2 full parking levels underneath and Building 2 which is further north on the property is 1-3/4 decks parking structure which allows more land area for planting trees, and as much open area for recreation as possible, and have created 20,000 to 30,000 sq. ft. of landscaped area. We stated they were concerned about the roof activity and providing mature landscaping to give .it a sense of having been there for awhile, and will provide mature trees and the photographs shown are within 90 days of the opening of. the project, and they will plant minimum 20-foot high trees because he felt creating a landscaped buffer for the single-family residential area is very critical. He pointed out the third and fourth floors are stepped back. Mr. Vasquez stated they have deleted two of the variances and are only requesting four; that the variances being requested are for an 8-foot high privacy wall, minimum building site area per dwelling unit, maximum structural height and minimum distance betweeh buildings and that the two deleted were minimum structural setbacks adjacent to Lincoln Avenue and Muller Streets. He explained they are building over two levels of parking structure and that is the foundation and in their interpretation, that is one building] and the ordinances views it as 35 feet between buildings, but effectively, they have dimensions which relate tq privacy. He stated apartments over retail is not really a new concept and is something that has been in the history of architecture in many European areas and in some cities in this country. 12/07/87 ~~.TES, AHAHE;.t~~ITY._~.~~I~S't_.S~4ML~II~.SI9.I~__12Fr.~,.FrASIfFi.$_7r~.~.$~..-_ ._._$3~-~~Q Responding to Chairman Meaao, Mr. Vasquez the issue of privacy for the neighbors relaL•es to the landscaping. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. (:ommissioner Feldhaus stated he thought it is premature l-o request a General Plan Amendment s3.nce the Zoning end Genor.al Plan do not provide for the mix of commercial and residential uses and that he would like Y.o ask staff to initiate a study for a possible General Plan Amendment and Zoning Codes to establish this type development. Commissioner Herbst stated several years ago this type development was discussed and he thought this would be a beautiful development, but that this is the wrong location and a project like this belongs downtown. Ho stated he has seen buildings with some business or commercial below, but not next to a single-family area. HN stated there is a large commercial area right across the street and this area should be studied. He added he did not know if the developers actually talked to the neighbors to find out if they would want an 8-foot high wall behind their house, but he would be concerned about ::hat since it is encroaching into a single-family area which has been there for years. He stated a bowling alley with parking next the fence would not be approved today, but he would not bo in favor of buil8ing something like this next to a residential area. He stated the people in those homes would be looking at a monstrosity if this was developed and it would be out of place in that area and they do not deserve this kind of encroachment. He stated he felt there is a place for this in the downtown area. Commissioner Herbst stated he thought the area should be reviewed to determine whether it should remain as commercial property or whether the General Plan should be changed. Ho stated there is RM -200 across the street, and industrial propert}• on the other side which is not a heavy industrial use. Chairman Meese agreed and added he did not know how staff figured the density and asked if the square footage of the commercial and restaurant were included. Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, stated that was a problem for staff since City ordinances do not address this type project and staff took the whole project area including the commercial, and if these were two separate projects, they would have calculated the density on just the residential portion. Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, stated these are separate issues and one of the items is whether to change the General Plan from its present commercial designation ~o residential and as it sands now, if the bowling alley was removed, the owner can establish a commercial project on this site by right and there would be no hearings because that is the zoning on the property. 12/07/87 Commissioner Herbst stated before changing the General Plan, he would like to see some studies to determine exactly what should be dons. Chairman Meese stated our Code doesn't even address the combined uses and that is the first thing to be studied. Commissioner Roydstun asked how high the properly could be developed with a commercial use as it is presently zoned. Greg Hastings explained there is a. 2 t~ 1 setback, and the maximum height would be 75 feet provided it is 150 feet .rem the single family property lines. Hugo Vazquez stated Commissioner Herbst's concerns can be properly addressed; that before these plans were processed, they mot r~ith staff two or three times, and at one point staff recommended II special study, and Commission is now going through that same thought process and he would not expect them to resolve it in just two hours when they have worked with it for over four months. He added he realizes there is no code to address the mixed uses, and that is why they requested a conditional use permit under c:he special section of the code and if this project has to go to a special study, they would have to eliminate the retail on the front and the only reason they offered it was because of their studies and it was felt there was a tremendous need for its that they are currently building apartments on Lincoln Avenue, half a block down the street, and adjacent on the other side of these single-family homes, is Mr. Case's apartment building with a nice greenbelt buffer area and they were attempting to establish that with this project and after looking at different projects, they thought this would create a unique situation. He stated when staff mentioned the special study, they could not afford that time and determined to eliminate the retail portion and just provide the greenbelt. Mr. Vazquez stated if Commission feels a special study is required, he would request a continuance to remove the retail portion and provide a greenbelt. He stated he feels they can provide the privacy elements far the single-family residents. Commissioner Herbst stated he is looking at the mass of buildings next to Wino homes. Mr. Va2que2 stated they can remove that mass and will bring in an alternative plan. Commissioner Herbst stated he wants to review the property to see if it should remain CL or be rezoned to RM-1200. Commissioner Bouas stated while Commission is studying the property, the developer can bring in another plan and added she hopes the day will come when this type project can be built and she thought it is fantastic, but this area is L•oo highly populated, and the other projects in Newport, etc. were not adjacent to this type development. 12/07/87 • ~; t~.N}ITE.S~~i~.T.rL'J~]L~~_~t3ti~NS..~..OM..,ill.&&IQN.._D~.CEM&EB_...7~_.~.481 ~Z~~1 Mr. Vazquez stated the projects they presented were j~iat being completed and are surrounded by single-family homes. Commtasionor Feldhaus stated even if he brings back a residential plan, there are a log of other concerns such as the impact on schools, aesthetics, traffic congestion, etc. Chairman Me^se stated he dfd nut see a hardship to oven request the 10'! above the density bonus. Mr. Vazquez stated basically this public hearing was to establish the concerns. Chairman Messe stared in the meantime the Commission should risk staff to look at a mixed use code because it has to be discussed at some time in the future. Malcolm Slaughter atat~d staff can undertake a s hady and prepare an ordinance but hie concern is with Mr. Vazquez developing a residential project and bringing it back for consideration and the Commission then decides commercial is the beFt use of Lhe property. Commissioner Herbst stated the neighbors should be aware that the property is currently zoned for commercial uses and the owner could develop an intense commercial use without any public hearings by right ti~ith businesses open until midnight, etc. He added this is a prime property and it has been there for almost 3U yearn, and times are changing and maybe the Commission should he looking at it as to what would be the use most compatible with the people who live there and that this project is not compatible and he did not know if r+ncther apart~rAnt project or condominium project would bo more compatible. Ct,airmar, Messe stated the Commission is rot saying 'no' to mixed commercial and residential. Hugo Vazquez stated they can design a project to mitigate the concerns and if they can get through some studies 3n time to sti?1 consider t`'^~ commercial center, he would be happy to develop it and he thought the pri.~cy issues can be mitigated, ,ind one comment from the neighbors was that these `,P condominiums, as it is designed right now. He stated when you cover tl,e driveways, there is a whole different quality of living. Malcolm Slaughter stated he was not sure what would be resubmitted, but if there are Ait:forent waivers required, the matter would have to be readvertised. Greg Hastings stated if the retail is deleted, the project would be readvertised as a Variance. Mr. Vazquez stated they will submit two sets of plans, one with retail and without the retail. 12/07/87 ~~~~~~j~_~~y.,~(,~ANNING CQ.~$SIS.S3.SZZIe.. DEGEMEFe$.._Ze~.~_ ____..~.2:.~.~. ~T.LQ~It Commissioner Douaa offered n motion, seconded by Commissioner Mc Burney and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Carusillo absent) that consideratioa of the aforementioned matter be continued r.o the regularly-scheduled meeting of January 18, 1988, at the request of the applicant in order to submit revised plans. Linda Nalbrook stated those developers do not live in their neighborhood and they have five children and they have to fight to keep their schools sound because they have so many students and bringing something like this into the area is harming all those people. Chairman Messe stated the Commission has listened to the neiyhbor's concern and the developer is going to revise the plans and there will be another public hearing. The different schools were discussed and Chairman Mesae~ asked staff to get further information from the school district.. Commissioner Mc Burney stated the school issue should have been discussed in the environmental assessment. Hugo Vaaquea stated they pay X1.50 per sq. ft. to the school district. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Adm!.nistrator, stated the school districts are notified of these hearings, and when they feel there is a problem, they respond. Chairman Messe asked that a special effort be made to contact them regarding the schools in question. Ms. Santalahti responded staff wo~~ld contact them. It was Hated the neighbors would not be renotified unless new waivers are advertised. ITEM NO 10. E_~°~N~QATIVP. DECLARATION, RE(~SSI~i.Q.B~~.Q~~4.,_~7~.~~.$• WAIVER OF CODE RE4U,T,.$~F~L't.~C1~ND CONDIT~.QN~L USE PE~iMIT _.R.Q. 29Z~.,_ PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: BHIRHUBHAI U. PATEL, ET AL, 4 Harrisburg, Irvine, CA 92720. AGENT: MAYtJR PATEL, 4 Harrisburg, Irvine, CA 9?720. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land couaistinq of approximately 0.68 acre, having a frontage of approximately 100 feet on the west side of Harbor Boulevard, approximately 400 feet south of the centerline of Orangewood Avenue and further described as 2141 South Harbor Boulevard. Reclassification CG to CL Request: Wavier of minimum structural setback to construct a 79-roam, 4-story motel. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. 12io7ia7 C~ MINUTES. ~AHEIM,•~J~TX PLANNI~,.,~Q.T'[MI~$IQ2i... DFLCF~BR?.~._1.9.9T.-_ __.____~?,~~.3 John Swint, 707 W. North Street, Anaheim, agent, stated Condition No. 10 requires a 6-foot high block wall and there is already a wall there, and explained the waiver fs necessary because of the fourth floor and there is a power pole on the west property lino and the setback required is 12 feet for the third and fourth floor. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Feldhaus stated he was concerned about the parking and indicated he realizes the parking meets the Code, because they are assuming an 80i~ vacancy factor with only two employees on the rroperty, and it was noted there will be 8 employees. At~•Q~: Commissioner Bouas offec•od a motion, seconded b} Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Carusillo absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Corunission has reviewed the proposal to reclassify subject property from the CG (Commercial, General) Zone to the CL (Commercial, t,imitod) Zone to construct a 79-room, 4-story motel with waiver of minimum structural setback on a rdctangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.68 acts, having a frontage of approximately 100 feet on the west side of Harbor Aoulevard, approximately 460 feet south of the centerline of Orangewood Avenue and further described as 2141 South Harbor Aoulevard; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any continents 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 Bouas offered Resolution No. PC 87-258 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Flanning Commission does hereby grant Reclassification No. 87-Bb-28 subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYnSTUN, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: CARUSILLO Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and Mf'TION CARRIED (Commissioner Carusillo absent) that the Anat,eim City Planning Commission does hereby grant waiver of code requirement on the basis on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicinity; and that strict applicat_on of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity. 12/07/87 Commissioner Bouas offered Resolution No. PC and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Conditional Use Permit No. '1971 pursuant to 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035, subject Recommendations. 87-259 and moved for its passage Commission does hereby grant Anaheim Municipal Code Secti.ona to Interdep artmontal Committee On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, FELUHAUS, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MES5E NOESs NGNE ABSENTS CARUSILLO Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, preser:ted the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. RECESS: 5:40 p.m. RECONVENE: 5:50 p.m. gCTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Carusillo absent) that the Anahefrn City Planning Commission dons hereby instruct staff to study the property at the northwest corner of Lincoln and Muller to determine what type commercial uses could be developed and the maximum height and setbacks and still :~~ay withf:. the Codet and also to ask the school district to gave the staff information regarding impacts of projects such es this o n the schools. Greg Hastings asked if Commission skill wishes for staf f to study Lhe mixed use issue and stated at one time a study was started and it is very complex as to floor ratios, etc. and it would mean a drastic changes to the CodRS. He asked if it was the Commission's desire to have that study available before the January 18th meeting because it wo••ld take several months to complete such a study. The Commissioners responded that is acceptable and they did not expect it to be completed by January 18. STEM N0. 5. EIR NEGATIVE DE~.LARATION AND GENERAL PLAN A2~~I~~FNT N0. 236 PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY OF A2iAHEIM, 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805. Subject study area consists of apr~r oximately 6.8 acres (23 parcels) of land located on the east and west sides of East Street between La Palma Avenue on the north, Wilhelmina Street and Eastwood Drive on t2ie south. To consider an ~nendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan proposing a redesignation from Medium Density Residential land uses to Low-Medium Density Residential land uses or I,ow-Medium Density Residential and General Commercial Land Uses. Leonard McGhee, Associate Planner, presented the Goners 1 Plan Amendment staff report noting this is n Planning Commission initiated General Plan Amendment to consider alternate land uses from the currt~nt designation of Medium Density Residential to Low-Medswn Density Residential end General Commercial land uses. 12/07/87 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION,_p~•.$.._Z,..~1987 @?. He stated staff recommends the Planning Commission determine whether the current adopted General Plan designation of Medium Density Residential is appropriate for the study area or whether the land use designation should be amended to Low-Medium Density Residential (Exhibit A) or Low-Medium Density Residential and General Commercial (Exhibit B). There were 25 persons indicating their presA~ce in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Trent Wilson, 1001 E. North Street, stated he urderatands the property is zoned R5 7200, except as there are hearinga before the Planning Commission to make changes, and the commercial that is already established there became such through public hearings befo a the Planning C~•~mission, and the apartments that have been established on East Street presently have also been approved after a public hearing. Chairman Masse responded thaL• is correct. Mr. Wilson asked if the General Plan is changed from the currant designation of Medium Density and the Zoning is RS 7200, except where it has been specifically changed in front of a public t~earing, would each case still come before Commission for a public hearing. Leonard McGhee stated most of the properties are single-family homes developed in the RS -7200 .e and any changes to allow apartments at even a lesser density under the Low Medium Density Residential designation would still require a public hearing. Mr. Wilson stated ho wanted it to be understood that even though the General Plan changes, it does not change the actual zoning a:~d each case would still be heard in a public hearing. Bill Chisholm, 1227 Eastwood Drive, Anaheim, asked what prompted this hearing. He stated he did not think high density should be developed because there would not be room next the nursing home. He stated the medium density would not iit. Chairman Mes~e stated the Commission has an application to consider after hearing this General Plan Amendment. Mr. Chisholm asked what has prompted the change from medium to low medium density on that street. He stated East Street is jammed with traffic and it is congested and putting more apartments would just contribute to those problems. Commissioner Feldhaus state) it is medium density now and that allows 36 units to the acre and low-medium density would only allow 18 units to the acre. Mr. Chisholm stated even that is too much. He recommended single family residences only be permitted because there are single family residences there now. 12/07/87 Ma] lm Slaugh'er, Deputy City Attorney, stated the General Plan whether it is me~•~im or low.•medium talks about a density from one to 18 units per acre, up to and not necessarily 18, and 3 units an acre would comply with that requirement. James Ehrbar, 1250 Eastwood Drive, Anaheim, stated he is opposed to rozoning of East Streets that there is nothing really definite as to what this rozoning would consist ofi that there could be wai•~ors of the height restriction making 3 or 4 story apartments possible, and L•hey would like to know something more definite before this is approved. He stated also the daily traffic is over 18,0001 that they agree the traffic is seriously bad and i:hat would constitute over 800 cars an hour and at certain hours of the day, that makes it 1200 or more and it is getting to be a serious situation. He stated that is a main artery from the freeway to the commercial area and it is going to be used, but putting in condominiums or apartments will increase that traffic making it more serious. Chairman Messe stated that is one of the reasons for considering this General Plan Amendment. Mr. Ehrbar Rtated at the present time the people at the nursing home need to get out and get a little exercise but they cannot cross the street because there i.s too much traffic and their only access is Eastwood or East Street on the sidewalks and that is commercial, and it will more difficult for them to walk in the area. He stated they agree the commercial at East Street and La Palma is no proalem and is essential. (Chairman Messe pointed out that is what is shown on Exhibit B). Mr. Ehrbar stated the recent single-story apartment complex was p~~t there legally and no nne objects seriously to ghat, but putting in a series of large apartment complexes is not acceptable. He stated a lot of residents wore not able to attend this meeting because they thought it was to be at 1:30 and if it is continued to a later date, more people might be able to attend. Leonard McGhee stated on the east side of East Street there are two or three prop3rties which currently have resolutions of intent to RM 1200 approved through public hearings by the City Council, April 30, 196A. so those property owners could finalize that zoning to RM 1200, but the 8-unit apartment project on the east side of East Street is one story, at a density equal to low medium. Commissioner Feldhaus asked if those resolutions are valid until remaved by Council or if they have a time limitation. Annika Santalahti stated some reclassifications were established as resolutions of intent and as long as the General Plan remains the same, it is valid, but they do have to satisfy all the current standards. Lloyd Lassley, 738 N. Rose Street, stated he knows the Commission has already made a study of East Street and have probably already made up their minds to rezone it, but his house is just one block off East Street, and backs up to 12/07/87 MINUTES, AHAH~~L_S~~ PL~_~~tiSz C~t~U.S,S~9~.~._..P.~L~.y~~.~9$..~--_~_~-~Z~57 the apartrnenta that will be built there if that is what is zone~9 for and when apartments are constructed it makes it miserable for anybody living there ai,a the v:~lue of their properties has gone up very slowly during the past years and it should be evident from t-he apartments that have been put in the area already, t}iat they are not going to remain nice apartments and L•hat apartments built there now were not built shabby, they become so in later years. He stated developers build nice apartments and then sell them to somebody else and they soon become slums and in the meantime, their property values qo dawn and it is almost impossible to sell them ~r they have to be sold at a lower prices thai: these were single family homes when they purchased them and he did not see any reason to change; that there are plans to widen the street to help take care of the traffic if apartments do gc~ in and stated they would like to see that street cleaned yip too because it .s a messi and the people who live there should be made to take care of their properties and not build something else that is not going to be taken care of as well. He stated there are apartments three blocks over from East which most people don't even want to drive by and asked why something can't be done to make them clean those places up. Commissioner Feldha~~s slated the Commission has not made up its mind at this point. Malcolm Slaughter stated the Code provides that basically a rezoning action becomes null and void after a period of either one year or the time established in the resolution that granted it, and normally there is no time limit in the resolution; however, the City Council does have authority ~o grant extensions of time and unless they are extended, they are r_ern+tnated•. Tim Foster, 710 N. Bush, Anaheim, stated there is only way to get into their tract where you don't have to ga right by an apartment complex; that the•~ are surrounded by apartments and the area was planned for single-family a residences; tYiat when they purchased their home, the rea';tor told them there was only one drawback and that was *.hat there are: apartments down the street and now they will have houses in the middle of apartments and it doesn't make sense to him end he thought it should remain single-family residences. Elizabeth East, 734 N. Rose, Anaheim, stated she spoke before the Commission at the last hearing regarding the traffic. She asked if there is a shortage of housing in that area; that she has seen two very large complexes go up on La Palma, just east of East Street and also units next to the day care center on East Street and duplexes on north Street and that she sees flags all the time advertising units for rent. She stated she thought the City should determine if there is a shortage of housing and not the developers and Chairman Messe stated the marketplace really determines that. Commissioner Feldhaus stated he was informed today that the Housing Element is examined every seven years and is due to come up in 1989 for a study to update it and at that time we will know the buildout of apartments. Ms. East stated that +-ould be too late far this issue. 12/07/87 ~,, MINUTES, AH~HFI"' Ms. Earct stated her son and family just found an apartment they could af[ord last week and it is very costly for young people to got into an apartment and she understands that, but did not think more apartments are needed in tY~at area. Commissioner Bouas stated it isn't up to the Planning Commission to say if the City needs more apartments or nett that there is free enterprise and if people want to build apartments, they have the right, and also if more apartments are available, the rents would be less. Chairman Messe stated he would assume the developer would not build apartments if he did not feel he could rent them. Commissioner Feldhaus stated he also sees banner ac.rosP the front of apartments indicating the first two months are free, etc. and felt there is a concern. Ms. East stated she is concerned about this ax•ea and the apartments that were there when she moved there were very nice, but they have changed and she thought there could be eight people living in a one-bedroom apartment, with, eight single adults all contributing t2ieir portion to pay the high rents and the apartments are not well kept and she was afraid we will see more of that situation. Commissioner Boydstun stated in this General Plan Amendment study, the Commission is considering reducing by one-half what a person could build on that property, compared to what it is today and the Commission did this because at a previous meeting, they felt the neighbors were very much against the density and that is the reason for this hearing; that new the General Plar. allows basically RM-1200 and the change would be to RM 2400 if approved. Ms. East stated she was confused and thought this was to make L-he area more dense and allow more apartment units. Commissioner eoydsrun stated developers would still have to come in and get approval because this is just a General Plan designation change and the zoning is not going to be changed. She explained developers use tt~e General Plan as a guideline for what they can develop on the properties. Jim Bcrras, 12631 Newport Avenue, Tustin, stated he has had meetings with the community and some of the people are present and their effort is to try and do something not only compatible with the neighborhood, but that sill become an asset to the community and not become a nuisance. He stated it seems the biggest objection to leaving the existing designation is traffic and referred to a meeting on October 26 where Commissioner Herbst asked the maximum capacity of the street and the Traffic Engineer, Paul Singer, responded he did not think apartments in he area would affect the traffic that much: that it seems the traffic on East i.s mostly north and south ar~d is through traffic 12/07/87 .. F 5 , At~AHE I M_.~.L~_.P~~ 1~C~7~ fib. ~F~h~~T.~~9Z,_ @.Z~. rather than local residential traffic and that he also stated it would make no differencA whether the property was developed RM-1200 or RM-2400 and when the street is reconstructed to its maximum width, it will provide for tho proposod units and through traffic and left turns could be accomplished. He ataL•ed if the current designation is retained, developers will be able dedicate property so the street can be widened and left '.urn lanes provided. Commissioner Feldhaus stated there were concerns other than traffic raised on October 26th such as parking, vi~:ation of the single-family area, low income rental units, etc. Mr. Borras stated those issu~:~ will be covered during the next hearing. Carrie Beeson, 1219 E. Wilh©lmina Stroet, stated she has lived there since 1954 and she does not want to sell and she has been contacted by these developers and they want to buy her property and She is not the only one. She stated there are several neighbors who will not sell because they like their property; that her property is single-family residential and it is a lovely neighborhood and she does not want high density with so many people and so many cars because it would just spoil the neighborhood. Roland Davos, 725 N. Bush, stated he is in agreement with the change to low-medium density. He asked if there is a way the people living in the area can request low density because they would like to see this remain a single-family area. Mr. Slaughter stated that can be accomplished if the property owners fila an application and pay the fees, or the Planning Commission or City Council could direct staff to initiate a goneral plan amendment, or this hearing could be continued to consider that alternative. Susan Farm, 731 N. Rose, stated there are a lot of apartments in tho surrounding area and asked if is possible to develop condominiums because individuals owners would take better pare of their properties. Frank Guevara, 753 N. flush, stated most of these people want single-family dwellings because they have experienced all the apartments surrounding them and all the experiences have been bad. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Messe stated East Street is in a period of transition and referred to the request for maintenance of the single-family residences in that area and stated he doubted those single-family residences could be recycled because the street is heavily traveled. He asked Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, to describe East Street and its capabilities. 12io7iB7 ,:,. :...,,: .., ..~.., _ a ;,,_. ~~. ~_ ,... ,.., ~ _ _ 1 TES, ANAHEIM ~•j•~ ~'I,~Nl11NG_S„~MML~,~-3.QN,..~~-~e~~.M@.FBrZe_~7 f -,'~Q Paul Singer stated East Street is used as a north/south arterial to servo the residential areas and the commercial/industrial areaR on South East Street and Lewis Street and also it is nerving commuter traffic and it is a heavily used secondary arterial t.ighway. He stated, tt.erefore, the change of use from a single-family to apartment residential use would add traffic without a doubt, but the traffic. volume would be negligfble compared to the traffic demands already on that street. t1e stated the areas where apartments could be bvi:t along East Street are very small and he did not see apartments contributing a great deal of traffic and it is the commuter nature of the street which is the problem and it has to be widened to accommodate a continuous left-turn lane. Commissioner Herbst asked for a show of hands of those people who actually own property on East Street. (f.our people raised their hands) He asked if they were the ones who want the area to remain single family. He stated the Commission fs trying to reduce the density and Item Na. 11 is a request far RM-1200 and he would like to see the density lowered because of the traffic. He stated he recognizes that homes fronting on an arterial street become less desirable as single-family dwellings and the Traffic Engineer wants to make East Street an arterial street which will happen someday, and if it remains designated for single-family homes, that will never happen, unless tP~o City condemns the frontage and widens the street. tie stated if the area is allowed to be developed with apartments or condominiums, it would then be the developer's responsibility to pay for the widening of the street. He stated it would also be necessary to assemble land to build apartments and oven though the density is lowered to low-medium, the zoning will remain on the property and when proposals are made, there would be a public hearing and the neighbors could give their input. He stated lowering the des.:gnation to low-medium will help the City get the widening or it will romai,n the way it is until somebody wants to widen it. He stated he would be in favor of lowering the density and then if khe neiyhbors want i.t lower, them can request it. Commissioner Mc Burney agreed Exhibit B should be approved and lowering the density from the possibility of RM 1200 to RM 2400 will givo latitude and the developers will have to put the parcels together and widening the street will negate ':he possibilit~f of single-family residences. Commissioner Feldhaus stated it will help protect the singl•~-family residences that are in there row and is a pasitive~ step. Fie asked where the traffic count was taken. Paul Singer responded he did not Y.now, but probably between Lincoln and La Palma. He stated traffic counts are accurate only to their last significant numbers and the closest 100 is really a very fine grade nd traffic on East in this area at 18,000 is really some place around 18,500 •t and traffic counting is really not that accurate from day to day, and volumes between Lincoln and La Palma are fairly constant. tie stated there is a detour now and the traffic count on East Street is quite different, and this count was !aken before the detour. He added, in fact, traffic on East Street has dropped since rho detour. 12/07/87 Gam' ~~.jLTF„~. ANAHEIM Cam. PLANNjH~ COMMIS~~QN, D$~@F~1._~.4.PZ~-_.. e1=~{sc~ ACTIU~. Commissioner Harbat offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mc Burney and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Caruaillo absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Comrnisaion has reviewed the p:.~opose~. to consider alternate lan(t uses from the current assignation of Medium Density Rusidential to Low-Medium Douaity Residential and General Commercial land uses on an area consisting of 5.8 acres (23 parcels) located on the east and west sides of East Street betwoeu La Palma Avenue on the north, Wilhelmina Street and Eastwood Drive on the southi and loos hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considArc~d the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received tYiat there is no substantial evidence L•hat the project will have a significant effect an the enviro:vnent. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC 87-255 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt General Plan Amendment N~•.. 236, Exhibit B. On roll call, the L•aregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOI;AS, BOYDSTUN, FE:.DHAUS, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOESs NONE ABSENT: CARUSILLO Commissioner Herbst explained this will reduce the density by about one half and the geople in the area can request that it be even lower, if that is their desire. Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to repeal the Planning Commission's decision with?.n 22 days to the City Council. ITEM X10, 1.~. EI~NEGAT~VE E ARATIQ~1`RE L~~iFI,~~_QN_~..,,._.~}7-QB~.$~ ~~~ A~N.~~NO.3 710 . OWNERu: SPIROS GIANNOL'TSOS, 1469 Alabama Lane, Pittsburgh Pennsylvania 15216, WILLIAM T. G MELANIE C. BRAND, 10712 Ha~tinga Driv3, Vila Park, CA 926b7, AND RAYMOND JAMES AND ELSA PARADA LEINHAN, 741 N. Et~ot St.., l-naheim, CA y2805. AGENTS: NARAYAN DL,VELOPMENT COR~JRAT:ON, 12631 Newport Ave:,ue, quite 204, Tustin, C', 92680 ATTN: lTanjit NARAYAN Pr~•nerty described as an irregularly-shaped parcel c+f land consisting of approximately 0.7 acr@, having a frontage of approximately 0.7 acre. having a frontage of approxima'~ly 223 feet on the west side of East Street, approx~:-ately 100 feet south of the centerline of North Street, and further dey~ ibed as 741, 747, and 755 North East Street. Reclassifcations RS-7200 to RM•-1200 Request: To construct a 3-story (including a below-grads parking level), 25-unit apartment complex with waiver of maximum structural height. 12/07/87 a. l~ M~~,~;S,~BIiFa.IM__C.lTY PLANNING CO~I~&~Qti~.~ECEM~R.7.1. 1982.~~._.~Z-,~~~ There were 25 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. Mr. IIaha>.•, architect, 3861 S. Main, Santa Ana, stated unfortunately Decausa of the previous action, the size of this project has to be reduced and requested a continuance in order to consult his client to determine if he wiShen to continue with this proposal at a reduced number of units. Commissioner Herbst recommended if they plan to present a new c of plans, they should meet with the people in the neighborhood to geL• their input. Mr. Behar stated he would meet with the neighbors. gr,~Q~is Comfssioner Mc Burney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Carusillo absent) that consideration ~t the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of Janvary I8, 1988, at the request of the applicant. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, stated the General Plan Amendment wi.11 go to the City Council for public hearing and she did not believe it would be heard prior to January 18, but they residents wilt be getting a notice ~f that hearing, and wanted to be sure the neighbors realize this particular project is still before the Planning Commission. ~.;"EM N0~ 12. _~~.~_ ND COMM ATI ~. A. VARIANCF_N4L~5.3Z ~..S~P~-4f--~-Q-~'-~-~-~~-~bstantial ~onforma c~i~h creviouslx. ~prgved vlans Bob Dewey, Lincoln Property Company, 2415 Campus Drive, Irvine, explained ;.,sere are three variances approved on this property and it was formerly used by Pier I Imports but they have since vacated. He stated have restriped the parking lot and added additional parking and removed a diesel tank aad would like to stay within that previously approved parking waiver ratio which would allow additional offi.;e space in that building. He explained it is an industrial building and there were some loading facilities, but they were able to lease the building and the existing tenants did not have a use for those loading facilities. TI N~ Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Carusillo absent) the*. the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find that the revised plans are substantially in conformance with previously approved plans in connection with Variance No. 3557. 12io7i87 ~ ~ a .. ~,. c" (~j,~~,~,~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CO~ISSION1 DECEMBER, 7, 1987 _____$,Z B. ~~~._4Q7 - @~g~eat for te~a,.Q.~n vroves;ty loc~tes~ at 1.734 S. Ha ,~_~}oulevard. The staff report noted t.ha applicant has requested termination of Variance No. 4C7 in ardor to facilitate the constr~,sction of a new motel on the property. ACTIO~s Commiasicner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC87-260 and roved for its passage ar~d adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby terminate all proceedings in connection with Variance No. 407. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes AYESi BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC BiJRNEY, MESSE NOESs NONE A~iSENTs CARUSILLO C. ~OTJCE OF APPLI~A.TION FROM THE COUNTX 0~ ORANGE. nFFICE OF TEIF~TAX ~4b~FS~T.4.S=T~3.FeILS.yB~$i. 't was noted the Orange County Office of the Tax Collector has submitted a notice that they have filed an application regLesting separate ta:. bills for property located at 7615 and 7625 Silver Dollar Lane. Zoning Division staff has notified the Engineering Division of this s:otification in order to ensure compliance with any agplicable subdivision regulations. No action was required by the Planning Commission. ADJOURNMENTS There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~ J Edith L, Harris, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Cosssmissi.on g0041m 12/07/87