Loading...
Minutes-PC 1988/09/26'~' MI E REGULAR METING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Date: September 26, 1988 The regv.lar meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to order at 10:00 a.m., September 26, 1988 a.m., by the Chairwoman in the Council Chamber, a quorum being present and the Commission reviewed plans of the items on today's agenda. RECESS: 11:30 a.m. RECONVENE: 1:35 p.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairwoman Bouas Aoydstun, Carusillo, Feldhaus, Herbst, McBurney, Messe COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Joel Fick Joseph W. Fletcher Carol Flynn Arthur L. Daw Raren Urman Debbie Fank Debbie Vagts Greg Hastings Linda Rios Lori Duca Cheryl i4estbrook Edith Harris Planning Director Deputy City Attorney Deputy City Attorney Deputy City Engineer Associate Traffic Enqinee: Associa~,:e Traffic Engineer Housing Operations Coordinator Senior Planner Assistant Planner Assistant Planner Planning Aide Planning Commission Secretary A ENDA POSTING. A complete copy of the Planning Commission agenda was posted at 10:00 a.m., September 23, 1988, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chambers, and also in the outside display kiosk. Published: Anaheim Bulletin - September 16, 1988 PUBLIC INPUT: Chairwoman Bouas explained at the end of the scheduled hearings, members of the public will be allowed to speak on items of interest which are within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission and/or agenda items. MINUTES FOR APPROVAL: Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED, that the minutes of the meeting of June 6, 1988, be approved as submitted. 0122m/0121m ~~ ~f "`JTES DLANNING COMt`ZSSION *SEETING SEPTEMBER 2fi 1aRA 2 ITEM NO 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO 283 (PREV CERT ) REO EST TO AMEND CONDITION NO 96 OF SYCAMORE CANYON SPECIFIC PLAN (SP88-1) VESTING TENTATIVE TRA T N S. 12987, 12988, 12989 12990 11991 12992. 12993, 12994 12995 12996 13153, 13154 AND 13155 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: WOODCREST DEVELOPMENT, ATTN: James Highland, 17911 Mitchell Avenue, Irvine, CA 91714 AGENT: FRANK ELFEND AND ASSOCIATES, 4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 660, Newport Beach, CA 92660 LOCATION: Subject property comprises 13 Vesting Tentative Tracts totaling approximately 328.9 acres, located southeast of the sov.therly terminus of Weir Canyon Road and southwest of Santa Ana Canyon Road, bounded on the northwest by the East Hills Planned Community, on the southeast by The Summit of Anaheim Hills Planned Community, and on the southwest by The Highlands at Anaheim Hills Specific Plan development and further described as Sycamore Canyon (SP88-1). Request: Amendment to Condition No. 96 of Vesting Tentative Tracts. 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. Frank Elfend, Elfend and Associates, 4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 660, Newport Beach, stated the request is that one of the conditions oa the Sycamore Canyon project, for the Tracts that are mentioned is the agenda, be extended and set at a later date, as indicated is the attachment provided to Commission from the Planning Department. He said they concur with the wording and support staff's recommendation. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ACTION Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find that Environmental Impact Report No. 283, previously certified by the City Council on February 9, 1988, is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the request that Condition No. 96 of Vesting Tentative Tract Nos. 12987, 12988, 12989, 12990, 12991, 12992, 12993, 12999, 12995, 12996, 13153, 13154 and 13155 be amended. Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and .`.:~:iiON CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council amend Condition No. 96 of Vesting Tentative Tract Nos. 12987, 12988, 12989, 12990, 12991, 12492, 12993, 12994, 12995, 12996, 13153, 13154 and 13155 to read as follows: "That prior to the sale of the first residential lot or the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for a residential unit, (excluding nay commercial, lots within Vesting Tract Nos. 12991, and 12996), whichever occurs first, the original documents of the covenants, conditions, and restrictions l'CCbR's), and a letter addressed to the developer's title company authorizing recordation thereof, shall be submitted to the City Attorney's Office and approved by the City Attorney's Office, Public 09!26/88 MINU"'ES FLAN2iING ~O'~L'~iZSSZON MEETZNG~~SEPTEMBER 2(~, 1988 3 Utilities Department and Engineering Division. Said documents, as approved, shall then be filed and recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder concurrently with the final map unless the City forms a maintenance district which assumes the full duties under the CC6R's." aa.d further that the following condition be added: "Additionally, prior to or concurrently with the recordation of the final vesting tract map, the owner/developer shall record against the entire tract a covenant, in a form approved by the City Attorney, imposing against each and every lot in the tract the obligation to maintain all slopes, open space, private streets, and private utilities, as -,cell as Lot A of Vesting Tract 12991 and Lot A of Vesting Tract 12996. The slopes and areas to be maintained under this covenant shall be those determined by the City Engineer as required by the Municipal Code. The obligations of the covenant shall survive unleNS and until the aforementioned CCbR's are recorded, or the City forms a maintenance district which assumes all duties required under the covenant." Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission': decision within 10 days to the City Council. ITEM NO 2 - CEOA '"ATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 11: VARIANCE N0. 3843 (This item trailed Item No. 5 due to non-appearance of applicant) PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: ROPBSHAN INC., ATTN: ROBERT E. WOOLEY, 5215 N. O'Connor, Suite 1820, Zrvine, CA 75039; AGENT:BRILLZANT SIGNS INC., 1640 N. O'Donnell Way, Fullerton, CA 92667 LOCATION: 480 N Glassell Street (Andrevcci's Pasta House), Request: To construct a 213-square foot freestanding sign with waivers of (a) maximum area of freestanding sign in the parking-landscape area. 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. Robert Sell, 2907 East Barrington Court, Fullerton, 92631, said this restaurant cannot be seen because there is a hill and the project is sunken somewhat. He stated it is just not seen from any of the roads and they were looking for a pole sign that could be seen from the Freeway, since it is on the corner of Glassell and the 91 freeway. He said they would also have to have an encroachment permit, and after talking to the City Engineer, determined an encroachment permit would take another 50 to 90 days, and cost another 5600. He explained this has been going on for three or four months, so the owner of the restaurant wants to know, instead of going for the encroachment permit, if they could just move the sign back another 11 feet. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. 09/25/88 t.. -` MIN't'~'ES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING crwrr~tnira ~R lggg 4 Commissioner Feldhaus stated he xas going to suggest that the sign be moved back within the 25-foot setback and then they could qo higher. He stated he would not be in favor of allowing it to extend into the right-of-way. Commissioner Messe asked if he was talking about moving it halfway between the right-of-way and the building itself. Mr. Bell said the sign from end to end was 22 feet, so they would move that halfway ':ack. Commissioner Feldhaus said he would also like to see it reduced in size and they could move it back the 11 feet, but right now they are asking for about double the size permitted by code. Chairwoman Bouas asked the height it could be without a waiver. Gre, Hastings stated this would be the same as is a commercial zone, and they would take the distance from the centerline of the street to the actual sign but he did not have the information as to where the center line of the street is, in terms of the property line, but it appeared to be quite a distance. Commissioner Bouas said there should not be any prc.blem with the height then. Commissioner Carusillo stated he did not have a problem with the height, but the other issue was the square footage of the sign, and the request is for twice that permitted. Mr. Hastings explained the reason for the variance is because this area is in the industrial zone and t:he sign is located in the parking/landscape area. He added if this was zoned commercial, the sign could be 304 square feet. It was noted the Planning Director or his authorized representative has determined that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Ezemptions, Class 11, as defined in the State EIR Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. ACTION: Commissioner Carusillo offered Resolution No. PC88-265 and moved for its passage and adoption thst the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby GRANT Variance No. 3843, 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 application of the Zoning Code deprives thb property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations with the addition of a condition that the sign is to be moved back 11 feet from its present .Location as shown on the submitted development proposal, and is not to exceed 44 feet in height, subject to approval of staff. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYi. BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ~' M7 NiiTFS, PLANNING C~i!•ir'+ISSION ME°TING SEPTEMBER 26 1988 5 z 3 CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 11• VARIANCE NO 3894 Pt~3LIC HEARING: OWNERS: HAMPTON INNS INC., 6799 Great Oaks Road, Suite 100, Memphis, TN 38138 AGENT: JOHN H. MARSDEN/MAISON ELECTRICAL SERVICES, 340 N. Juanita Street, Hemet, CA 92343 LOCATION: 700 East Ratella Why (HAMPTON ZNN) Request: To permit two (2) freestanding signs with waivers of (a) maximum area of freestanding sign, (b) permitted location of freestanding signs and (c) maximum height of freestanding sign. 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 Marsden, 340 North Juanita Street, Hemet, said they are proposing two freestanding signs for Hampton Inn, at 300 Ratella Way, one would be 30 feet in height and the other 70 feet in height; and that they would like to get a variance because there are some special circumstances that involve this property. He said the General Plan has this zoned CR but they do have some residential (apartment houses) in the back. He stated the buildings are about 30 to 35 feet in height and with a 70-foot high sign located right near there, it would be much higher than the apartments. He explained the base of the sign would be constructed of material that would not be excessively bright at night, and it has a blue face that does not put out a lot of candle power. He stated the property is an irregular, L-shaped property which does not afford enough frontage on the street to be able to put the sign the 40b back from the property line required. He stated they xould like to be able to attract the attention of the people on Interstate 5. He said he heard there was some concern about the sign ordinance currently being reviewed for the City of Anaheim, and that he honestly felt sign ordinances are always in review and the representatives for Hampton Inn felt they could not wait until all of that was settled; that they did not know how long that was going to take and they needed to get the signage up there since they are nearing completion and the projected date of completion is November. He said if they got the approval from the Commission today and then waited for the appeal period, they :could then be putting the signs up relatively close to the opening date. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED: Commissioner Feldhaus asked staff how long before the study of the CR zone would be ready for review. He stated he would like to know what kind of time frame they are looking at. Commissioner Messe asked if the Biqa on Katella could be moved. Mr. Marsden said the sign was going to be located in the corner on the side of the driveway sad if they were to move it, they could move it closer to the freeway, but they would likr.; co be able to have the people on Ratella able to 09/26/88 t ~_. MINIITES PLANNING COMMISSION 2wETZNG SEPTEMBER 26 1988 6 read the sign. He said with the location and the way the street with Katella Way coming off Katella, most of the drivers' vision is pulled away from that area. Responding to Commi:>sioner Feldhaus, Commissioner Messe stated moving the sign in the westerly direction could eliminate one waiver. He asked how many feet it would take to bring that sign on Katella into conformance. Greer Hastings responded they would have to move it 58 feet from the wes~, property line. Mr. Marsden stated that would put it just about in the center of the property where the access is in front of the hotel, and to put it in that area and keep it from extending into the public right-of-way, it would be within the black top area. He explained on the side, they could move it back far enough behind the property line and they would not have to encroach over the public right-of-way. chairwoman Houas sai3 she could see the reason for these signs, but the sign ordinance is being reviewed, and added the ordinances are not always reviewed in Anaheim, but the signs is this area are being reviewed because of the illegal signs that have gone up. She added there is nothing offensive about these signs and they are not the kind which the City would be reviewing and saying they are not wanted, but it would be difficult for the Commission right now to be giving any kind of approval on something that was not to code, when they are in the process of this review. Mr. Hastings explained he had just received word that the request for approval of the study would be completed next month and the study is anticipated to last approzimately six months, so there should be something before the Commission in approzimately May and that the study would include the signage program, as well as other development standards. Chairwoman Houas said that is really too long for them to g9 without the signs, and there certainly are reasons they need the signs rather than sticking to code because of the location, and that the height of the one is important so that it could be seen from the Freeway. Mr. Marsden said Katella is an overpass for the freeway, and the hotel sits below that and that they had driven by it and there was not that much visibility. Commissioner Carusillo asked Mr. Marsden if he was aware that code allows 25 feet for the sign which they propose to be 70 feet. Mr. Marsden responded "yes", but because there _s t?1e residential property in the back, and on the General Plan, it is a CR za:~e~. He stated they had heard that a lot of that property in the back had been eo:,.,9emaed gad every time he had tried to get specific information on that, he had not been able to do so, and that the property is for sale now. 09/26/88 `. ~ '1 MINUTES, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 26, 198$ 7 Commissioner Carusillo asked if the 70 feet was requested for the visibility from the Ratella overpass, or if they did not need that height to attract the attention of the I5. Mr. Marsden stated they did need the height and they had photos showing the hotel from the freeway northbound and the only thing they could see, through the other tall signs, buildings, etc. in the area, was just the parapet part of the hotel. Mr. Marsden explained there was no place on the side of the hate! which would be facing the east towards the freeway to put any signs. He responded to Commissioner Carusillo that they needed the 70 feet for visibility going either direction on the freeway. He said the height of the hotel itself is SO feet from grade, and the sign is at 70 feet, and would be 15 feet taller than the hotel. Commissioner Feldhaus stated standing on the east side looking west to the hotel, it was hard to get a line of site vision of what a 70-foot high sign would look like and asked about a sign on the hotel itself from that angle. Mr. Marsden answered that was an option they had considered, but there was no location on the hotel itself to put a sign that would be visible. Chairwoman Houas asked about putting a sign on the roof and Mr. Marsden stated there was nothing in the Hampton Inn procedures that would allow roof signs on their hotels. Commissioner Herbst said he did not believe there are very many hotels that have 70-foot high signs trying to reach freeway advertising in the Disneyland area. He stated the sign ordinances are trying to eliminate proliferation of signs in the area, and that he thought this would be an impact. He added he did not believe it was necessary to violate the ordinance just to reach the freeway traffic. Mr. Marsden said he took quite a few photos of a few locations on the freeway and the motels that are geared toward the overnight customer in the area, and there were quite a few which had extremely high signs. (Photos presentad into evidence). He noted some of these signs are fairly new. Commissioner Hoydstun asked what the height of the sign could be if there was no residential left in that area. Mr. Hastings said the way the code is worded, it is either 70 feet or the distance from the centerline of the street to where the sign is located, and that it appears the distance from the centerline of the street to where the sign is located, is approximately 33-1/2 feet; therefore, 33-1/2 feet would be the maximum height allowed. Commissioner Boydstun asked if it could qo higher if it was set back on the property further, and Mr. Hastings said it could go up to a height of 70 feet. 09126!88 .. '~_.t MINUTES. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. SEPTEMBER 26. 1988 8 Mr. Marsden said they ran into a challenge of setting the sign further back on the property, is that it would require taking up one to two parking spaces, needed for the hotel. Commissioner Feldhaus stated before he learned it would take seven months to get the study back, he was going to ask for a continuance until staff had a chance to come forth with something definitive from the height study, but now has to rethink this to figure out how to get the applicant some signs which are visible and possible. Commissioner Carusillo stated ma~b~ the solution would be to find a place for the sign, further back from the street, where they could qo higher than 33 feet. Commissioner Messe stated it looks like they had some areas going back off the property line from N,ountain View Avenue where they could consider placing it and 'dr. Marsden said that area was inadequate in size to take in the foundation required for the sign. Commissioner Carusillo asked if there was a problem with parking and if they have ample parking, and perhaps they could lose a couple of parking spaces for the sign, to move it back to get the height needed and stay within the code. Mr. Hastings said there was a variance requested, which was denied, for the number of parking spaces in 1986 and they are to code with parking spaces. Mr. Marsden stated it was his impression that Hampton Inn had to acquire those two extra parcels to obtain enough parking for the hotel. He said the plan shows required parking as 111 spaces and they have a total of 128 spaces. He asked if it would be permissible to bring the sign on Mountain View back the adequate distance of 70 feet. Mr. Hastings stated if the Planning Commission made the condition that the sign be set back 40 feet from the property line, to the centerline of the street is 30 feet, then staff could review it to make sure that is complied with. It wLa noted the Planning Director or his sutllorized representative has detormined that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 11, as defined in the State EIR Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. ACTION Chairwoman Bouas offered Resolution No. PC88-266 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby GRANT Variance No. 3844 oa 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 application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations, subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations with 09/25/88 i MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 26 1988 9 the added condition that the subject sign on Mountain View be moved back 70 feet from the centerline of Mountain View Avenue (40 feet from the property line) subject to approval of staff. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0. 4 - CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION• WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3064 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: METTLER ELECTRONICS CORP., ATTN: STEPHEN METTLER 1430 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92801; AGENT: FAR WEST BANK, 2825 Walnut Avenue, Suite "B", Tustin, CA 92680 LOCATION: 1430 South Anaheim Blvd. Request: To retain as automobile storage lot with waivers of (a) minimum front setback and (b) required screening and enclosure of outdoor uses. 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 pant of the minutes. Tom Prenavost, 2020 East First Street, San~a Ana, attorney appearing oa behalf of Far Western Sank, lessee, and Christine Braun, Assistant Vice President with the bank, were present to answer questions. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. Commissioner Messe asked the hardship which is the basis for approving these waivers. Mr. Prenovost said this property had been owned by Mettler Electroai.cs and the original tenant oa the property was Dial Leasing. He said his client went into a lease agreement with Mettler, not knowing the property had been cited in the past. He said they are here today to clean up the property and the process as far as the City is concerned and that they might possibly remodel the building. Commissioner Messe stated they have a rent-a-fence sitting on that property right now whi::i is pretty unsightly and they are required to have eiP.her a block wall or a slatted fence. Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, further explained they can either have a slatted fence, landscaped berm six feet high, or block wall. 09/26/88 -„ . ~_~ o.rrur SEPTEMBER 26 198_ 10, ~ t~NUTES PLANNING COMMISSION ME ~ Commissioner Feldhaus said he would rather see landscaping there than a block wall. Mr. Hastings responded iC would be almost impossible to put a six-foot high berm in that area. Commissioner Messe noted they would have to have some security also. Commissioner Feldhavs said they could plant 15-gallon trees on 10-foot centers instead of 20-foot centers. Mt. Prenovost said he believed the reason the waiver was first proposed then recommended by staff was because the fence was there and the property had been there for awhile. Commissioner Herbst stated they were cited because it is illegal; that it has been there quite .some time, and was noticed and brought to the attention of staff. He added it just does not fit on that street in Anaheim. Commissioner Carusillo stated the other properties there also have landscaging which softens that main boulevard. Dfr. Prenovost said landscaping is part of the conditions of approval. Corn~nissioae~r Feldhaus asked about the 50-foot setback required by code. Mr. Prenovost stated it is h.is usderstandinq that if that is the requirement, then the property could not be wised. Commissioner Garusillo suggested for security a four-foot high block fence with wrought iron and landscaping in front. Mr. Prenovost responded this comes as a surprise because he understood that staff was prepateJ to waive that requirement. Commissioner Messe suggested a continuance to reviea this matter, and Mr. Prenovost requested a continuance is order to make some plans. ACTION: Commissioner N.cSurney affered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED that the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of October 10, 1988, in order to present a landscaping and screening plan. 09/26/88 t ' f MINUTES PLANNING COMti1I1;,`,I N MEETING, SEPT~,tBER 26, 1988 11 ~M NO 5 - CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATIO;Q; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3066 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: U.S. INVESTMEiVT LIMITED, ATT,.K: TMR REAL ESTA%5 MANAGEMENT 2070 Seuth Park Place, Suite 150, Atlaz~-~_ Georgia 30333; AGENT: F. EARL MELLOTT, 1035 Armanda St., Suite "S", Anaheim, CR 9180b LOCATION: 1000 N. Rraemr•r Place. Request: To perm:: a mobile racip .installation/offir^ fac::~lity. There was no O1.P_ indicattnr their presence in opposition '•.o ::w~',ect request and althougb the staff reooat was not read, st is referred i.; and made apart of the minutes. Earl Mellott, architect, referred to Condition No. 2, and noted Kraemer Street is basicnl'ly a 3ead-end street, aJ~:'_si. a cul-da-sac, so the traffic generated there would be quite minimal. He said also this is an existing building which has been there for 12 years and the driveways are an perfect condition. He asked that Condition No. 2 be deleted. Mr. Mellott stated another Condition in question is izo. 3; that there are some gates in the back parkiaq lot, approximately 15 feet from the property line and h:i~e been ~ttere siuce the building was constructed. He stated they were at the edge of the parking lot itself and if they were to move the gates back 60 feet, z:s requested, that would put approximately 3 to 4 parkiaq stalls on each side, or a total of about 8 parking stalls outside the enclosure. 13e said he did not see any advantage in doing that since it is the .ear of the property. THE PUBLIC HE,iRING WAS CLOSED. Chairwomar~ :aOL'$b asked if the rear gate is used as an ent::ance, and Mr. Mellott ~:esponded it is just for the trucks and the pe.~'_~ who work there and it is left open duri::.g the day. Chairwoman Bouas stated if it is left open, then it would be all right the way it is, and that it just has to stay opera so that trAfyic does not stack up to get out. Commissioner Feldhaus asked Y:e;:~ many empl<>yees are on site aE that facility. Mr. Mellott responded tie believed it is YS to 20 total, and t'i.~tat they ;lave another 5 salesmen w)zo come in and out occasionally, but they essentially work off site. Ron Domres explained they are in the business of comm~~nications anti electronics, providing two-way radios such as for the State and Local Governments use, the police, as we1.1 as other general businesses. He explained from this facility, they do tltt sz~let, an% ehe work is done normally at the customer's location, and installation and mainte~aa.ce are also done at customer's locations; and that t-uey hav.i mobil vans. He said if the customer's vehicle has a broken antenna os fuse and they are in the area of this facility, they may stop i1~i, and those ark types of repair done very quickly by an unskilled technician. !.19/26/83 ~~_ ..~ MINUTES. PLANNING COMZ•IISSYON MEETING. SEPT~~:R 26. 1988 I~ Commissioner Messe st,~ted the concern is ailvartising and marketing the services and product., and bringing a wholes bunch of people intro the industt~ial area. ' Comn:•ission,: ~'.cBurney asked about: the 'li:civeways, cafi i;: stiff is asking that they pu¢ i:n 10-foot radius iT a1T these driveways or were th..y a'.agcate. Rarer Unman, Deputy Traffic Engineer, said tl~e radius is not requir,~sd on cY~at street, and that sue believed the :ply reason thz:t condition was inc!ude.a :+as to be sure that if tke driveways wer! cracked, they would be replaced. Commissio^er Herbst sucgested Condition No. 2 be ri.lete.l. Commissioner Mci3urne~ suggested it should leave in so that if they are cracked, 'they should be iceplaced and if not, then they de not have to do anything. ACTION Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Crmm.issioner McBuruey t;nd MOTION CARRIED irat tfie Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewe(A the nr~pasa7. to permit a mob4'le radio installation/cf,ice facility on an irre<*~~'.arly-shaped parcel of idnC roasii.stiag of proximatel-~ 1.E9 acres, having a `rootage of approximately 3CS feet on the east side of Rrzemer Place, having a rr._`ximum depth of ~pp•cozimate~ty ?31 feet and being located approximately 770 Eeet south of the centerline of La Palma Avenue sod further described :.~ 1000 N. Kraemer Place; asd does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declai•atioa together ::ith anp comments, received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is ao sul~sta.ntial evidence that the project wail have a significz,n~: effect an the environsneat. Commissioner Herhsi: affere:b Resolution No. PC88-267 and moved for its passage and approval that the Anaheim City Planning Commission foes he-eby GRANT Conditional Use Permit No. 30G6 purssant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.:30.030 through 18.03.030.035, subject to InterdeparYme;:tal Committee recommendations, including modification of Condition No. 3 to delete r`~•~ re•7~:irement of the relocation of the back gate with the stipulatiaa that it be kept open during business hours. Oa rall call, the for~ROing resalutio*~ was passed by the following vote: AYES: B~UAS; HOYDST[iN, CARUSYLLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC BUP.NEY, K,ESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presente3 the written right to apieal t~•e i~lanninq Commission's decision within F2 days to the City Council. 09/26/88 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 26 19^8 1~ ITEM NO 6 CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION• WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT: ~nNDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3058 PUELIC HEARING: OWNER: ELLWING E. ASHWILL AND ALICE RENAE ASHWILL, 1805 E. Garry Ave., #110, Santa Ana, CA 92702; AGENT: ASHWILL, HAWRINS, INC., Attn: TAD GARA BEDIAN, 660 N. Diamond Bar Blvd., Suite 205, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. LOCATION: 1081 N. Grove Streg~ Request: To permit an auto body repair and paint facility with waivers of (a) minimum number of parking spaces and {b) required improvement of right-of-way. 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 minutPS. COMMISSIONER MESSE DECLARED A CONFLICT OF INTEREST as defined by Anaheim City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC76-157 adopting a Conflict of Interest Code for the Planning Commission and Government Code Section 3625, et seq., in that one of the principals is a customer of his and pursuant to the provisions of the above Codes, declared to the Chairman that he was withdrawing from the hearing in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 3068, and would not take part in either the discussion or the voting thereon an~i had not discussed this matter with any member of the Planning Commission. Thereupon Commissiaaer Messe left the Council Chamber. Charle:c Tharp, 1709'_. Santa Rita Street, Fountain vallay, explained the request is for the parkir.3 requirement for the paint and body shop, Maco Paint and Bc,dy, a fran~hiso, and tY:st they have a great deal of experience in this business. He said the code requires 73 parking places and Maco requires 20 to 25, xhich they fsind to be adequate to run this kind of business. He explained the±• had a parking study made by Daniel. Benson and Associates which indicated the number of spaces required is 30 and they will restripe the parking lot to haa9le 30 cars. He stated they felt they had a maximum need of 27 parking places. Mr. Tharp stated '•'::e sucond request is a waiver of the 10-foot radius driveway, and ex~laiaed they could very easily put in a 10-foot radius curb on the left side of the, driveway, but the right side contains a huge 17 inch telcphoae pole, whi.c;i would interfere with the 10-foot radius. He said the City informed him i+_• would cost over 58,000 to move that pole two feet, so they are asking for a waiver which would permit them to use a 6 foot 5 inch radius on that side. li.~ poi.nted out that those coming into the facility would 3.ev2 the benefit of the 10-toot radius and those leaving might have to wait a few more minutes with the smaller radius. Mr. Tharp stated he had noticed, Condition No. 7 in the staff report requires that no outdoor storar,:. of, display of, or work on vehicles be permitted. He said he did not have a problem with work on vehicles outside, and they did not intend to do that, but there are 14 parking places along the side of the building where he would like to store cars waiting to be taken inside to be worked on, or even occasionally overnight. He said there is a chainlink fence and they can put snots in it to mitigate the appearance. He explained that 09/26/88 ~. ; `"~ MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 26, 1988 14 would save moving a bunch of cars at the end of each day inside the building, then out again the following morning. He asked that Condition No. 7 be deleted. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner McBurney agreed with regard to the driveways that not much would be accomplished by having the applicant move a utility pole at that ezpense, just to obtain another 2-1/2 feet radius on the driveway and that would only affect the egress situation. He stated the outside storage is more of an issue in that allowing a lot of cars to be stored there, opens the door for them to put cars there continually, which is what needs to be avoided. He added, however, if they could 'imit that to 14 cars, he would be more comfortable with approval. Responding to Chairwoman Bouas, Mr. Tharp said that area is enclosed by a chainlink fence on the back, which borders on the back of another business; and on the front there is a chainlink fence with a big rolling gate, which could be slatted. He stated occasionally they would have a car towed in which might be a car which could not be moved readily, and if they have to wait 3 to 4 days before someone says they could go ahead and work on it, it would not be possible to move it is and out of the building. ACTION: Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eoydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner MessP absent due to conflict of interest) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit an auto body repair and paint faci'ity on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.6 acre, located at the southwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Grove Street having frontages of approximately 125 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue and 200 feet on the west side of Grove Street and further described as 1081 North Grove street, with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces and improvement of right-of-way; sad 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 '.he Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, noted that Kaiver (A) is no longer necessary, since the driveway situation was cleared up and :Taren Urman of the Traffic Department agreed. Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Coamissiaaer Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Messe absent) that tJ~e Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby GRANT waiver of code requirement (B) on the basis that the parking waiver will ;got cause an increase in traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity nor adversely affect any adjoining land uses and granting of the parking waiver under the conditions imposed, if nay, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety sad general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. 09/26/88 ~. ~~ '~" INUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 26 1988 - 1 Commissioner McBurney offered Resolution No. PC88-268 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does heret,y GRANT Conditional Use Permit No. 3068, in part, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035, subject to stipulations and Interdepartmental Committee recommendations, includi:~g a modification of Condition No. 7 to read that no work an vehicles or vehicular parts shall be permitted, that there will be no more than 14 vehicles stored outdoors at any one time and that the front of the chainlink fence enclosure around said storage area shall be slatted to screen vehicles from public view. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC BURNEY NOES: NONE ASSENT: MESSE Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM NO 7 CATEGORICAL EXEMPT CLASS 3 AND 5• WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3067 p3]BLIC HEARING: OWr7ER: ENRIQUE BASURTO AND ANTONIA SASURTO, 1515 E. Broadway, Anaheim, CA 92805; LOCATION: 1,15 E Broadway Request: To permit a S36 square-foot "Granny Uait" with waivers of (a) minimum side yard setback, (b) minimum rear yard setback and (c) 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 apart of the minutes. COMMISSIONER MESSE RETURNED TO THE MEETING. Antonia Basurto, 1515 East Broadway, explained she wanted the permit for a "granny unit" to be used for her father. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Baydstun asked if the workshop which they are going to convert was done with permits. Ms. Basurto responded everything that is there was existing when they bought the property. Commissioner Herbst asked Ms. Basurto if she realized that the work would have to be inspected by the Building inspector and she said she did. Commissioner Meese asked if she had read the canditioas and understood them and she said the only one the had a problem understanding was Condition No. 8. She said everything else was agreeable. 09!26!88 PLANNIN3 COMMYSSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 26 1988 1 Commissioner Messe asked if she understood the restriction of age and everything else oa the people who were going to occupy that unit and she said she understood. Yt was noted the Planning Director or his authorized representative has determined that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 3 and 5, as defined in the State EYR Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIA. ACTION: Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby GRANT waiver of code requirement on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings ~+hich do not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity and that the parking waiver will not cause as increase in traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity nor adversely affect any adjoining land uses and granting of the parking waiver under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Commissioner Messe offered Resolution No. PC88-269 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby GRANT Conditional Use Permit No. 3067, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035, subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, HOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERHST, MC HURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Plaauinq Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. 09/26/88 ....... ~. _t_,,:...,. ~.::,,~..:.;..~,~ f i MINUTES, PLANNING COIQ~SiSSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 26 1988 17 ITEM N0. 8 - CEQA„YS ATIVE DECLARATION; WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT; CONDITIONAL USE D•LRMIT N0. 3062 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: THP.IFTY OIL COMPANY, 1000 Lakexood Blvd., Downey, CA 90240; AGENT: TAIT AND ASSOCIATES INC., ATTN: RICHARD TAZT 800 N. Eckhoff St., Orange Ave., Anaheim, CA 92613 LOCATION: 3101 East La Palma Avenue Request: To permit a convenience market with gasoline sales, fast food service and off sale beer and wine with waivers of (a) permitted encroachment of trash enclosure into required front yard area and (b) minimum landscaping adjacent to interior boundary lines. :'here xas one person indicating her presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report xas not read, it is referred to and made a par} of the minutes. COMMISSIONER MCBURNEY DECLARED A CONFLICT of interest as defined by Anaheim City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC76-157 adopting a Conflict of Interest Code for the Planning Commission and Government Code Section 3625, et seq., in that he is an employee of as interested party and pursuant to the provisions of the above Codes, declared to the Chairman that he xas withdraxinq from the hearing in connection xith Conditional Use Permit No. 3062, and wauld not take part in either the discussion or the voting thereon and had nct discussed this matter with any member of the Planning Commission. Thereupon Commissioner McBurney left the Council Chamber. Carl Korndoerfer, Tait and Associates, 800 North Eckhoff Street, Orange, CA, said this was a proposal for Thrifty Oil to completely rebuild their facility at the northeast corner of LaPalma and Kraemer. He said they are going to remove all the existing structures for the canopy and the existing 3-bay automotive repair facility, which is not being used. He said they are putting the new foodmart structure in the rear corner of the property and the gasoline island at a 45~ angle at the corner. He said they have worked with City staff to develop this plan; and that they maximized the oa-site circulation and funC:tionality of the site, and are also providing for a much more aesthetic site. Mr. Korndoerfer said they complied with the City's critical corner plan by offering a dedication of 12 feet on both streets, plus the corner return, xhich will require a lot of the items on the street to be rebuilt now, at considerable expense. Mr. Korndoerfer said they had discussed the beer and wine issue with the staff and had been made axare of the City's policy. He said his client had chosen to stay with that request and keep it in the proposal, due to the enormous expense of redoing this project tyae way that was important to him and for the City to :lave a better project. He said the beer and wine xas s very important factor and they wished to maintain it. He said most of the cc.aditions are items 'Thrifty Oil concurs with, and they feel with the management and those conditions, any problems with beer and wine sales at that site would mitigated. 09/26/88 { t ~rP V '~: MINU'T'ES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 26 1988 18 Mr. Rorndoerfer said they were asking fir two waivers, one for the trash enclosure and another for the trees which they would normally put on a plan like this. He said between the planters by the driveways, and the area by the building, that was a change to their plan which came about after the parking code was increased by five for the fast food items, and also because of the unusual amount of dedication oa this street. He said it was a question of parking backing up into the trees, or not haviuq the trees. He said if the waiver is granted, he believed they could work out grouping of plantings in the planters they do have and screening of the trash enclosure, which is by the planter, to effectively get rid of the problems and still have the required parking for the City's new code. OPPOSITION• Gloria Hale, 3111 East LaPalma~, Anaheim, said she owned the glass and mirror shop directly adjacent to this site. She said they have an ongoing problem with teenagers is this parking lot on the weekends, drinking and loitering; insufficient parking at this coraor; abandoned vehicles; and there is also a litter problem from the teenagers. She noted Carl's Jr., across the street, hired a security guard which prevented the teenagers from loitering oa their premises, consequently, the teenagers come across the street. She said it has been a terrible problem for her and the neighbors. REBUTTAL• Mr. Rorndoerfer said he believed their proposal would help solve the problems Ms. Hale was concerned about. He stated the insufficient parking on-site now, due to the repair activity going on there, xill be resolved; that the proposal for the food mart has a lot of parking and without the repair facility, the parking requirements are much less for the site. He said the loitering oa the site is a problem behind the facility and their plan is laid out to get rid of that area and that everything is set up so that the cashier fn that front corner is surrounded by glass 'and can supervise the entire site from that position. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairwoman Bouas asked how many employees would be oa the site at one time. Mr. Rorndoerfer said they xould most likely have two employees oa site at all times; that the facility could be run by one, but they could have txo. He sai:3 the facility is set up so that one person can operate all the controls for the food mart and the gasoline, leaving the second employee to take care of any other problems outside the building. Commissioner Boydstun asked if he would specify that there would be two employees there at all times and Mr. Rorndoerfer said, yes. Commissioner Feldhaus asked if the automotive repair facility is a leased facility right now and how much longer tL':t had to go and Mr. Rorndoerfer: said it was, and that he believed it xas a month to month rental. 09/26/88 INUTES. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 2 Commissioner Feldhaus asked how soon the automotive repair facility would be •removed and Mr. Roradoerfer said they had a two to three month period to develop final plans and process through the City for permits, and they would vacate the site prior to issuance of the building permit. Commissioner Feldhaus asked about providing separate men and xomen's restrooms and Mr. Roradoerfer said they would comply with that condition. Commissioner Feldhaus said he wanted to see that added in the staff conditions of approval and that those restrooms be open to the public and properly maintained. Commissioner Herbst stated he was concerned about the wise and beer sales in an industrial zone; and that, in his opinion, it should not be made convenient for employees working in as industrial community to obtain wine and beer, particularly during lunch hour; and that he believed it was dangerous. He stated this has been presented before and denied since one was denied across the street from this site. He added this is not the proper place, and it is unsafe because of the equipment those employees operate. Mr. Roradoerfer stated this particular area, even though it is general planaPd for industrial, has recently developed and most of the industrial buildings appear to have retail operations; that he knew there was some industry further down LaPalma, to the east, but he was not sure how close that was. He said it would be a question of the limitation, hox far away from a factory are you going to keep someone from having beer and wine. He said up further north of Kraemer, a couple of blocks, there is a restaurant which serves alcohol, so that is available to the people is the neighborhood already. Commissioner Herbst said he disagreed, that usually the people who want a sandwich, qo out and get a sandwich and wine or beer, and do not qo to a restaurant, and it is just a quick pick up, and he thought that would be detrimental to the area. Commissioner Meese said the Code states that sales, businesses, and office uses, which primarily serve and are compatible with industrial uses may be permitted, subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit; and the question he had was, is the sale of beer and xine compatible with industrial uses and he agreed with Commissioner Herbst that it is not. He said he believed they have done a great job of cleaning up a bad corner and. agreed with Ms. Hale about the condition of the corner right now, and added he did not mind the convenience store, but not the beer and wine. Mr. Roradoerfer said they felt strongly that this particular intersection has developed is a retail/commercial nature, just due to the nature of being a busy intersection, and that is why there is retail activity in that area which transitions back to the industrial. He added he finds, as a mired use concept of planning, it is compatible to have some of the retail is the overall industrial, office, or residential area and he felt at the corners like this, it is an appropriate use. 09/26/88 ~,_" `~.~ MINUTES, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 26, 1988 20 ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner McBurney absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit a convenience market with gasoline sales, fast food service and off sale of beer and wine with waivers of (a) permitted encroachment of trash enclosure into required front yard area and (b) minimum landscaping adjacent to interior boundary lines on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approzimately 0.7 acre located at the northeast corner of LaPalma Avenue and Kraemer Boulevard having approximate frontages of 175 feet on the north Side of LaPalma Avenue and 175 feet on the east side of Kraemer Boulevard and further described as 3101 East LaPalma Avenue; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public reviex process and further finding oa the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is ao substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Feldhaus voting N0, Commissioner McBurney absent due to a conflict of interest) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby DENY the waiver of code requirement on the basis that the proposed use, which includes beer and wine, is not compatible with the industrial area. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC68-270 and moved for its passage aa~? r,~_aoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby DENY Conditional Use Permit No. 3062, on the basis that the proposed use is not compatible with the industrial area. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, HERBST, MESSE NOES: FELDHAUS ABSENT: MCBURNEY Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. 09/26/88 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 26 1988 21 ITEM N0. 9 - CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARAT'ION• WAIVER OF CO_DE_REOUIREMENT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3065 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: RAISER DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 2121 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 201, Carlsbad, CA 92008; AGENT: WESTPORT PROPERTIES 3090 ?ullman St., Costa Mesa, CA 92626; LOCATION: 191 Old Springs Road Request: To permit a day care center for 318 children with waiver of minimum building setback. There was no one indicating their presence is opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. COMMISSIONER MCBURNEY RETURNED TO THE MEETING. Phillip Schwartze, Westport Properties, 3090 Pullman Street, Costa Mesa, explained the request is to permit a day care center comglex at Monte Vista and Old Springs Road and they are seeking a waiver on the setback. He said they have a substantial amount of green space located in the front but due to the nature of this facility, by having children there, they wanted to screen that area for the children; also, that the ingress/egress point had to be substantially back on Old Springs Road in order to make a proper ingress and egress, plus an underlying large MWD water easement. He said it has more to do with the nature of the facility than the proper building location. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Messe said he believed this was an excellent proposal, but he did not think roof-mounted equipment should be permitted in that area, There there are new homes going in all around it. He asked the applicant if he had read all the conditions and agreed with them. Mr. Schwartze responded they had and added if the Commission desires, they would meet the requirements of as roof-mounted equipment in the Scenic Corridor area. ACTION: Commissioner Soydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit a day care center for 318 children with waiver of minimum building setback on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.42 acres located at the northwest corner of Monte Vista Rand and Old Springs Road, further described as 191 Old Springs 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 oa 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. 09!26/88 i .. i~ MINUTES, PLANNING COMMISSIOtd MEETING SEPTEMBER 26 1988 22 Commissioner Boydstua offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby GRANT xa~ver of code requirement 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 sar..e vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity. Commissioner Boydstun offered Resolution No. PC88-271 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby GRANT Conditional Use Permit No. 3065, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035, subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendation On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, SOSfDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDAAUS, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. RECESS: 3:10 p.m. RECONVENE: 3:20 p.m. 09/26/88 N MEETIN ITEM NO. 10 -~EOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION• WAIVER OF CODE REQUIR~NT• CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3069 ~JBLIC HEARING: OWNER: CALIFORNIA PROPERTIES FUND, 245 Fischer St., Hldq., D-1, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 AGENT: CHANDULAL R. PATEL, 17595 Almhurst Rd., Ste. 208, City of Industry, CA 91748 LOCATION: Propgrty is aooroximately 1 35 acres on the east side of State Csolleae Boulevard ~pprox 280 feet south of the centerline of Orangewood Ave. Request: To permit a 4-story, 164-room hotel with waiver of (a) minimum number of parking spaces. There was 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. Jerry Ramsey, 130 Newport Center Drive, Suit: 230, Newport Beach, said they had worked closely with staff and felt they, xere presenting a fine addition to the community with this hotel; and that the main item they wanted to discuss was the waiver of parking requirements. He said the only reason that came up was due to the supposed restaurant/bar requirements which were in the hotel. He noted they do not have a restaurant or bar, and this is a complimentary breakfast and bar area for hotel quests only. He ezplained that is part of the Quality Suites concept, and there will be no food oz drinks at al.l for sale to the genez~al public. He stated if the eztra requirements for a full restaurant and bar were removed, that would reduce it back dower to 151 parking places required and they have provided more than that. He said they are quite willing to sign any type condition regarding never converting to a restaurant or bar is tho future. He said, also, they show parking for 20 staff members and the operation usually has five or less. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst stated that would solve all the problems if they stipulate that they are not going to have a restaurant or bar open to the public and will not convert it at any time. Commissioner Messe asked what they intended to do with the banquet/meeting rooms and Mr. Ramsey said those xere strictly for hotel quests also and t2sat tkiey are very small. M:~. Ramsey said usually the Quality Suites is more of a business hotel than a tourist hotel. He said this is more in association with the office development going in there. Commissioner Carusillo asked if the property was sold, would that condition reegarding conversion to a public restaurant carry over to the new owner? M:'. Ramsey stated as far as they are concerneiS it should. 09/26/88 ING COt~-+ISSION MEETING SEPTEMB R 26 1988 24 Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, responded as a condition of the permit, the right to the Conditional Use Permit runs with the land and, likewise, to exercise the permit they have to meet all of the conditions. He said, as an additional provision during the period before the hotel is constructed, the Planning Commission could require recordation oi` a covenant against the property putting any purchasers oa better notice of that restriction, but he did not think it would be legally required to keep that restriction enforceable. A TI Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by CommisRioner Boydstun and A'ATION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Coranission has reviewed the proposal to permit a 4-story, 164-room hotel vi.rh waiver of minimum number of parking spaces on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.35 acres, having an approximate frontage of 289 feet on the east side of State College Boulevard, having a mazimum depth of. approximately 202 feet and being located approximately 280 feet south of the centerline of Orangewood Avenue; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby GRANT waiver of code requirement, subject to the condition that there will be ao restaurant or bar facility open to the general public nor will there ever be any conversion of any part of this facility to a restaurant or bar open to the general public, and further oa the basis that the parking waiver will not cause an increase in traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity nor adversely affect any adjoining land uses and granting of the parking waiver under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Commissioner Messe offered Resolution No. PC88-272 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby GRANT Conditional Use Permit No. 3069, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035, subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendation, with the added condition that there will be no restaurant or bar facility open to the general public nor will there every be any conversion of any part of this facility to a restaurant or bar open to the general public. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: SODAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC GURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NO>AE Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. 09/26/88 v _ JLL MINLiTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 26 1988 25 ITEM NO 11 CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION• VARIANCE NO 3842• P_jjLBLIC HEARING: OWNER: L AND J ANAHEIM ASSOCIATES, 1050 N. Western Ave., Saa Pedro, CA 90732; LOCATION: 1221 South Harbor Blvd (Travelodge Hotel) Request: To expand an existing 260-room hotel with the addition of 76 quest rooms and 5,000 square feet of meeting/conference room area with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. There was no one indicating their presence is opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Larry Jett, owner of the property, 1090 North Western Avenue, Suite 204, San Pedro, CA 90732, explained they built the hotel 3 to 4 years ago and provided approximately 350 parking spaces, which met City Code parking requirements at that time. He said since the hotel has been open, they have been operating at approximately 80~ occupancy, having many nights when the property was full and all of the parking was not utilized. Iie said they want to add an additional 76 rooms and a 5,000 square-foot meeting room facility, and that they went to the company which specializes in parking requirements and gave them the records they were keeping indicating the amount of parking they were using over about a 2-year period. He said they did a study of what the parking requirement would be with this addition and they said the need was for 305 parking spaces, and they are proposing 320 parking spaces, of which approximately 35 are tandem. Mr. Jett referred to Page 4 of the Staff Report, Condition No. 4, which deals with trash storage. He explained they now have a trash enclosure area that is in a loading dock area along Ball Road on their property, and they presently have trash picked up six days a week and there are four bins in that enclosure, which would allow for four larger bias. He said according to their general manager, excess trash is not a problem and they would like to keep the trash is that one particular area. Mr. Jett referred to Condition No. 7 and stated when they had the two previous staff meetings, he did not recall the condition for fee payment for tree planting being there. He said he would have thought if there was a tree planting fee, that would have been paid when they built the hotel. Mr. Jett referred to Condition No. 8, regarding undergound utilities and added he assumed that means that would be seeded if they need additional power for the new improvements on-site. Mr. Jett clarified on Page 2, Item No. 8, that they understood the proposal was a 1-story conference room, plus the additional rooms that is a 5-story structure. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. 09/26/88 4 +.. Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, said Condition Ho. 4, regarding the trash storage area, is a standard condition and whatever is acceptable to Street Maintenance and Sanitation Division would comply with this condition. Concerning the fee for street tree planting, he stated according to the records that were checked, that fee was not paid with tho original construction, but if they have a receipt, staff would be glad to honor it. He said the construction of the utilities underground is only for that new construction and does not include anything off-site. Commissioner Carusillo stated he t:nderstood that the parking was inadequate, and that Mr. Jett is saying there was a parking study which indicates 305 parking spaces are acceptable and they are proposing 320. Mr. Hastings explained the difference is that there are some tandem spaces and those are not calculated, since the Commercial Zone does not allow tandem parking. He said Mr. Jett's figures would be correct if they were allowed to include tandem. Mr. Jett explained there is one area near the Santa Ana Freeway and Ball Road is the corner of the property, which could be used for employee parking and that approximately 20~ of the required parking is for employees. He said at those times when the property is 100• full, they have the parking required to appropriately handle the guest's automobiles, and they can control whes~e they have employee parking, and they can tandemly park in that area, using it for employees. He said Caltrans is putting the Sall Road overcrossing is and some of that parking would be underneath the overcrossing. He added a good portion of the parking requirement is for the mooting rooms, which they could handle with a valet system, if the lot was full. He stated it would not behoove them not to be able to handle quest parking. Commissioner Herbst stated if the Santa Ana Freeway is widened, it looks like they would lose 110 parking stalls, and if that happens, they would be way underparked. Mr. Jett stated that has come up before, so they had ongoiay talks with Paul Singer (Traffic Engineer) oa this proposed addition. He said initially they had intended to add the rooms where presently located and Mr. Siaqer met with him at the site and after he presented the plan, Mr. Singer thought they should add the addiY.ional rooms by continuing the tower which fronts along Harbor Boulevard, and by double-loading the tower, they could get the same number of rooms, and keep an area to build a parking structure. He said they had discussions with Caltrans about where the road improvement would end, and when they lose some of that parking, they will put is the parking structure, which is an issue betxeen CalTrans and them. Commissioner Herbst asked if Cdr. Jett had an architect look at this to see if they could get a parking structui~ ^*+to that piece of property and Mr. Jett responded, at this point he had not. He said, as as architect, he had a feel for what he needed to do and he felt within that area, they could build a structure which would absorb the loss of parking. 99/26/88 {? ~i6 p ~n u~.crccrc~N MEETING EPTEMBER 26 1988 - 27 vturrrFC PLANNING CO Commissioner Messe stated he did not receive a copy of the traffic study and wanted to ask the Traffic Division to make comment. Debbie Fank, Deputy Traffic Engineer, stated there was a traffic study dose in April, 1988, by Linscott Law and Greenspan which Mr. Singer did approve; and that they zgreed 305 parking spaces were adequate for the proposed expansion. She stated the study indicated the tandem parking would be for employees. She said all tandem parking must be assigned parking. Commissioner Messe said it does not seem to be controlled at all; Commissioner McBurney said the permit could be conditioned that the employees must park there; Commissioner Herbst said the drawing showed it as valet parking; and Commissioner Messe said, if he understood correctly, that if the parking lot began to get full, they would ask the employees to park there. Mr. Ramsey said he thought they had the privilege to do it both ways. He stated they would have parking spaces is spacifiec: areas for employees and if they needed additional parkir:3, they could use valet parking for special instances. He added a large portion of the parking requirements is the result of the banquet/meeting room area. Chairwoman Bouas asked if the tandem spaces are going to be used for employees or if they are going to use it for valet packing. Mr. Ramsey responded if it would make the Commission comfortable, they could require them to provide "x" number of stalls is a tandem manner for when employees. He said, however, he would like to have the freedom to have, necessary, employees park there on a tandem basis, or if they need to have valet parking, use it for that. Commissioner Herbst said he would prefer to sea it stared that it was going to be used for employees; that they can use the buddy system, according to shift, (one,goes ia, the other out) and if they have to have a car moved, they know who to get to to get their car out. He added, however, for the public, it has to be controlled. Commissioner Carusillo suggested a condition that the applicant will duplicate the parking lost by the widening of the freeway by Caltrans in a manner satisfactory to t:2se Traffic Engineer. Mr. Ramsey said maybe some of the parking can go under the second bridge that will be constructed; and they would bring that to the Traffic Engineer and it might be less expensive to park oa grade, rather than buildzng structures. Commissioner Feldhaus stated he did not see how the Commission could approve a CEQA Negative Declaration, when adding 76 more rooms and more cars in there is bowed to have an impact oa that critical intersection. He said there is also s bus turnout that also blocks and stops traffic, so that critical intersection, which is fully widened right now, is, in fact, already a problem. Mr. Ramsey said with widening of Ball Road, there is additional street footage going in there. 09/26/88 MINUTES, PLANNING COMMZSSION_ S~EFTING, SEPTEMBER 26, 1968 28 Debbie Fank said on the north side of Ball, and on the west side of Aarbor, the State is going to be taking about 40 more feet of right-of-way from the Shell Gas Station and widening that section because they are going to put an additional overpass there, to parallel the existing rne. Mr. Ramsey said they are going through right now with the widening of Ball Road, and the gas company has already been on site doing some improvements to accommodate this. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst affered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to expand an existing 260-room hotel xith the addition of 76 guest rooms and 5,000 square feet of meeting/conference room area with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 4.8 acres, located at the southwest corner of Ball Road and Harbor Boulevard, having frontages of 720 feet on the south side of Ball Road and 610 feet on the west side of Harbor Boulevard and further described as 1121 South Harbor Boulevard (Travelodge Hotel); 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 ao substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC88-273 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby GRANT Variance No. 3842 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 application of the Zoning Coda deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification is the vicinity and subject to interdepartmental Committee recommendations, with the added condition that if and whoa CalTraas does remove a portion of approximately 110 parking stalls from the subject property, the petitioner will construct or replace that parking to the satisfaction of the Traffic Engineer, and that the tandem parking will be used primarily for employee parking and if it is used for public parking, it will be valet parking. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BGUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. 09!26/88 ~-~ MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. SEPTEMBER 26. 1988 29 ITEM N0. 12 - CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION; RECLASSIFICATION N0. 88-89-12 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: SOPAC PROPERTIES, INC., ATTN: JOHN W. JAMESON 4685 Mac Arthur Ct., Ste. 450, Newport Heach, CA 92660; AGENT: ELFEND AND A:,SOCIATES, INC., ATTN: JIM HUNTER, 4675 MacArthur Ct., Ste. 660, Newport Beach, CA 92660 LOCATION: Property is approximately 95.0 acres located oa the north and south sides of Oueens Drive approximately 750 feet southwest of the centerline of Hackamore Lane Request: RS-A-43,000(SC) to RM-3000(SC) and OS(SC) To construct a 26-lot, 24-unit. attached single-family residential complex. ACTION: Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant the request by petitioner to have the aforementioned matter continued to the regularly scheduled meeting of October 10, 1988. 09/26/88 ~_ t MINU'S'ES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 26 1988 30 ITEM N0. 13 - CEOA NEGATIVE AECLARATION (READVERTISED); WAIVER OF CODE RE IPrME~?T= CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3057 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: HR PROPERTIES PARTNERSHIP, 450 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660 LOCATION: PrQp~rty is approzimate~Y 3 5 acres located at the northeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Riverview Drive Request: To construct a 3-story, 52 foot high office building xith waiver of (a) required site screening, (b) minimum structural setback adjacent to Freeway and Scenic Ezpressway, and (c) location of mechanical equipment. Continued from meeting of August 29, 1988. There were two persons indicating their presence in opposition to subjec~ request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Tom Lynch with BR Proporties, 450 Newport Center Drive, Newport Heach, ezplained the request portains to the site screening which they understood was a requirement of the zoning, but preferred not to put it in because they consider freeway visibility very important to the marketing and success of the project and they did not do it oa the first building to the west of this proposed project; and it was not an issue at that time either. Mr. Lynch said with respect i:u the setback, there were no specific issues oa that and they are willing to accept the terms as proposed. Mr. Lynch said the mounting of the mechanical air conditioning oa the roof was something they would like to have considered as part of the proposal; that the first building was constructed with roof-mounted equipment, and it was screened using the same materials as the eaterior facade of the building, reflective glass, and they propose to do this project the same by using a!aterials to make it the same appearance as the building. He said if top screening was an issue, which it really wasn't on the first building, it shouldn't be here. He said they would put some louvers or something to screen the view from the top. He said the view study shows that none of the houses anywhere in that tract can see into the top of that roof-mounted equipment; plus, they feel the primary view orientation of this project is to the east, not really in the direction of that building. He said most of that tract of homes, southerly of this site, are easterly of their project. Q,gPOSITION• Marie Rizzo, 8475 Amberwood Street, Anaheim Hills, said she would be east of this building and it would block the whole view that she paid eztra money for and this would devalue their property. She stated there were too many buildings there right now, and this would impact traffic, which is pretty bad now. 09/26/88 ~" ~ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 26 1988 31 Ursula Smith, President of East Hills Homeowner's Association, said she was there on behalf of the homeowners and the neighbors on Amberwood. She presented a letter to the Commission from a neighbor who was unable to attend asking that this project not be approved because it would obstruct their view and devalue their home. She said she had talked to the people of the neighborhood and they were upset that the buildings continue to get higher and higher out there. She said there is a height ordinance, and it should be observed. She noted the people who bought the property knew what the codes were when they bought there. She asked that Commission deny this proposal. REBUTTAL• Mr. Lynch said the concern was that they would increase the overall building height by mounting the air conditioning equipment on the roof, thereby potentially obstructing more view than if they had not done that. He said the only con:=ideration was that if they had to put such equipment on the ground, he wondered if it might be more of a visual obstruction. Chairwoman Bouas said the Commission did have a call today from a Mrs. Donald Walters who lives on 8499 East Amberwood, and she said her living room looks onto the proposed building site, and that she was requesting a continuance so the neighbors could provide input. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Carusillo asked if the proposal at 52 f~det, 3-stories, included the roof-mounted equipment; and Mr. Lynch responded it did, and that is the overall building height. Commissioner Carusillo said when they last talked, the applicant was going to give the Commission some reference as to what impact the building might have of any view blockage to the south. He stated he cannot really determine if that really impacts the view or not. Commissioner Herbst said there is view blockage for the people on Amberwood; and even the third story does some blockage. Dir. Lynch stated the houses currently have a 6-foot high wall along the northerly property lines along Santa Ana Canyon Road and a person sitting in their living room would not be able to see over that wall and will probably not be able to see anything but sky. He said they addressed themselves primarily to second story views and in most cases, they look over the top of the building. Chairwoman Bouas asked if there is a height restriction out there, for any structures other than houses. Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, responded in this particular zone, the limit is 35 feet, however, a Conditional Use Permit could be granted for anything above that. 09/26/88 S~~i q~9 32 MINUTES PLANNING COMMIS$I N MEETING SEPTEMBzR 26 1988 Commissioner Herbst said he disagreed with the line of site study and the view. He explained the Commission asked for a line of site view from the houses. Ae said that air conditioning units are not supposed to be on the roof in the Canyon area. Commissioner Carusillo stated he felt this does impact views, which people pay a premium to have, and he felt it is too high and should be redesigned within the code. A TI Commissioner Carusillo offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to construct a 3-story, 52-foot high office building with waiver of required site screening, minimum structural setback and location of mechanical equipment on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 3.6 acres located at the northeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Riverview Drive, having approzimate frontages of 855 feet on the north side of Santa Ana Canyon Road and 340 feet on the east side of Riverview Drive; 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 Carusillo offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby DENY the waiver of cede on the basis that there are NO special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned property is the same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code DOES NOT deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity and that roof mounted equipment on this property would impact the view of the adjacent property owners. Commissioner Carusillo offered Resolution No. PC88-274 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby DENY Conditional Use Permit No. 3057 on the basis that the proposed use will adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the granting of the Conditional Use Permit with waivers would be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Gn roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, presented the xritten right to appeal the Planning Corr~nission's decision wit'.1ia 22 days to the City Council. RECESS: 4:30 P•m• RECONVENE: 6:15 p.m. 09/26/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 26 1988 3~ ITRttS HEARD AFTER 6.00 P.M. ITEM NO 14 CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION• RECLASSIFICATION NO 88-89-1 INITIATED BY: PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF ANAHEIM 200 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92804 Request: RM-1200, RM-2400 and PD-C to PD-C/RM-2400 LOCATION: (1) Subject properties are comprised of certain lots (see attached map) flanking those commercial lots fronting on North Anaheim Boulevard between La Palma Avenue and Cypress Street and further described as follows: (a) 31 lots oa east side of 2eyn Street, beginning 2 lots south of La Palma Avenue and extending to Wilhelmina Street (currently zoned RM-2400). (b) 2 lots on south side of Sycamore Street just easterly of intersection of Zeyn Street and 1 lot immediately south of the 2 lots, which fronts in Adele Street (currently zoned PD-C). (c) 4 lots oa north side of Cypress Street located between 2 alleys between Anaheim Boulevard and Lemon Street (currently zoned PD-C). (d) 8 lots on west side of Claudina Street, beginning 1 lot south of La Palma Avenue and extending to a public alley plus 1 lot facing Mills Drive, which is 1 lot west of the intersection of Claudina Street (currently zoned RM-2400). (e) 1 lot on south side of Mills Drive, immediately east of the lot facing Anaheim Boulevard (currently zoned RM-2400). (f) 15 lots on west side of Claudina Street between North Street and Wilhelmina Street (northerly 12 lots currently zoned RM-2400 and southerly 3 lots currently zoned PD-C). (g) 6 lots having frontage oa alley easterly of Anaheim Boulevard between Wilhelmina Street and Sycamore Street (currently zoned RM-2400). (h) 8 lots located between the southwest corner of Adele Street and Emily Street and the north west corner of Cypress Street and Emily Street (currently zoned PD-C). COMMISSIONER BOYDSTUN DECLARED A CONFLICT OF INTEREST as defined by Anaheim City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC76-157 adopting a Conflict of interest Code for the Planning Commission and Government Code Section 3625, et seq., in that she holds an option oa property in the subject area and pursuant to the provisions of the above Codes, declared to the Chairman that she was 09/26/88 ~~ MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMhSISSION. SEPTEMBER 25, 1988. 34 withdrawing from the hearing is conne.tion with Reclassification No. 88-89-11, and would not take part in either the discussion or the voting thereon and had not discussed this matter with any member of the Planning Commission. Thereupon Commissioner Boydstun left the Council Chamber. There were 80 persons, 14 speakers, 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. Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, pointed out the properties under consideration are along North Anaheim Boulevard, and the properties which back onto Anaheim Boulevard. He said the present zoning of those properties is PD-C (Parking District, Commercial) and allows either for parking lots or RM-1200 development (36 units per acre); and the other zone being considered is the RM-2400 Zune which exists on certain of those properties (18 units per acre). He explained the newly created zone being considered is PD-C/RM-2400, which would allow parking lots or multiple-family units at 18 units per acre, which is a combination of the PD-C and RM-2400 Zone. Mr. Hastings explained the Planning Commission selected the properties based oa the fact that they were not zoned single family, and that there were no commercial properties involved. He said they were only looking at the PD-C properties and those zoned RM-2400 as a result of a recent down-zoning in the area; and that it was the intent of the Commission to discourage RM-1200-type development, which is 36 units per acre, and at the same time allow for parking areas which could be developed in conjunction with commercial properties which front Anaheim Boulevard. Chairwoman Bouas said she understood the PD-C with the RM-1200 had been on all of these properties. She clarified that those properties had not changed into parking lots at this time. Mr. Hastings said the PD-C zoning had been oa a majority of these properties since 1951, which had enabled either a parking lot or multiple family development at 36 units per acre. He stated after surveying the area, there were only five of the 77 lots being considered currently being used for parking and the remainder are being used for a mix of single family and multiple family development. Chairwoman Bouas asked if this change mesas leaving the PD-C zone on the property, but changing the RM-1200 to RM-2400. Mr. Hastings responded there are two circumstances which exist; one is where there is PD-C, which allows parking lots and multiple family at 36 units per acre and those would be downzoned to a zone which would allow for parking lots, as well as 18 units per acre, rather than 36. He said the other circumstance, on the other properties which are currently zoned RM-2400, the properties would still be allowed to have RM-2400 development but introduced into those particular lots would be an allowance for parking lots, if they chose not to develop at RM-2400. Chairwoman Bouas asked if this would mean they had to make a change, or could they stay just as they are. 09/26/88 ~. MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 26 1988. 35 Mr. Hastings stated this change would only provide the opportunity for the property owner to choose between either a parking lot, 18 units per acre, or leave it as a single-family home. He also noted a single-family home would be allowed in any of these zones. OPPOSITION• Willi H R n, 821 North Lemon Street, Vice Chairman of the Central City Neighborhood Council and a member of the Community Development Block Grant Prioritization Committee, and also community member of the former North Anaheim Boulevard Property Owners Association before that group was absorbed by another group, stated during his tenure as an officer in the Central City Neighborhood Council, he had pushed for 5500,000 in federal funds for the North Anaheim Boulevard streetscape. He said he had tried for better police protection, better ABC laws, and grants for community service groups that are located on North Anaheim Boulevard. Dr. Roon said two years ago, his next door neighbor, Reith Pepper, and he and his wife spent hundreds of hours in getting rezoning of this area; and that they spent their private funds, they have appeared before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and the zoning was changed from PD-C on North Zeyn Street to RM-2400; and now they are back to fight the same battle again because they are being asked to have North Zeyn Street changed to a PD-C zone again. He said nothing has changed in the neighborhood since his appearance before Commission a little more than a year and one-half ago and the homes on North Zeyn are mostly single-family dwellings, in the 5150,000 to 5200,000 price range and the residents do not want a parking lot next door to them, or across the street. He said this would increase traffic and make life hazardous for the two main occupants of this street which are senior citizens and young families. He said this was one of the last areas of affordable housing in Anaheim. He said he was speaking particularly to the problem on Zeyn Street, but he also wanted to address North Claudina, as well. He said this would be invading their residential neighborhood with commercial uses; that oa both sides of the boulevard, they have stable, valuable neighborhoods which would suffer by this destruction with the change in zoning; and that it would cause a domino effect on Lemon Street, Clementine, and other streets to the west. Dr. Roon noted parking is already under utilized on Anaheim Boulevard; that in examining the parking lots at 1:00 p.m. last Monday, of the 198 sparcrere bein available in the rear of these businesses, only 95, less than 50i, 4 used. He stated they did not count parking oa the side or street parking, just the back parking. He said the City had conducted ao parking study to determine if North Anaheim Boulevard needs more parking and, is fact, after North Anaheim Boulevard is widened, there will continue to be on-street parking. Dr. Roon said they must demand and ask that an Environmental Impact Report be done, because if this rezoning passes, it would be impacting neighborhoods far to the east and west of the current district. 09/26/88 .,. _~ .t MIN(ITES. ANAHEIM CITY ''y~.~:;v~,_at~•_4;~~7SSION SEPTEMBER 26. 1988. 36 Mr. Roon said the current RM-2400 designation works as an effective buffer between the commercial properties on North Anaheim Boulevard and the RM-7200 properties which lie beyond it. He said this change was not initiated by the property owners, in fact to the opposite; and that they were not consulted and no parking studies have been done. He said the properties affected on both sides of the street are mostly single-family homes facing other single-family homes; and that by allowing this parking district, they would be destroying the neighborhood, which is composed of a very rich ethnic and age variety. He asked that the Commission vote no on the proposal to change North 2eyn Street and North Claudina to PD-C/RM-2400. In support of this, Dr. Roon presented a petition of over 160 residents on those two streets and the adjacent streets. Judy Olesen, 321 North Philadelphia, stated she was confused about what Mr. Hastings said; that she was involved with the dowazoning on the east side of Anaheim Boulevard and, as far as she knew, there was no PD-C taken out of that dowazone, so the property around the 700, B00, 900 blocks of Claudina and some of the streets, such as Alberta and Mills, where they are adding PD-C, have never been PD-C. Mr. Hastings responded most of what Ms. Olesen said is correct; that the majority of PD-C was on the west side, however, closer dower to Cypress Street, there is some PD-C which exists and the maps showing that are attached to the staff report. Mrs. Olesen explained she wanted to clarify that because she was speaking in favor of changing those areas which are currently zoned PD-C to the new PD-C/RM-2400, as intended, which protect those neighborhoods from RM-1200 development, while allowing for parking adjacent to Anaheim Boulevard. She added, however, she is very much opposed to any RM-2400 property being rezoned to include parking. She asked why these properties which the neighborhood fought so hard to protect are now being targeted as parking lots, at the request of a few Anaheim Boulevard property owners. She stated it just did not make sense to allow a parking lot in the middle of a resid+antial block and it was not the intent of the Planni•aq Com~nissioa to rezone single-family neighborhoods into parking lots, and yet this proposal directly affects single-family homes. Ms. Olesen stated it was not surprising that while circulating the petitions, no one she spoke to wanted to live next to, or across the street from any parking lot, let alone one behind Horth Anaheim Boulevard. She stated most people asked her why Anaheim Boulevard needed more parking; and that she thought to take this large area of residential property and say it was all right to make a parking lot anywhere within that area was outrageous. She noted this would also cause the neighborhood to deteriorate. She said any parking problems along Anaheim Boulevard do not require this an extreme a solution. Ms. Olesen said there was property on Anaheim Boulevard available for parking, which is zoned PD-C. She also asked if this PD-C designation included commercial property, as well as parking, so that this actually becomes a way to expand commercial businesses, not just a way to allow parking. She also noted some properties on Anaheim Boulevard, if they had parking problems, it 09/26/88 MixtJTES ANAHEIM CITY PLA~.7ING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 26 1988 37 was because they had ezpanded into their own parking areas. She said if a parking problem ezists, it should be investigated first and a reasonable and responsible solution sought, and this proposal was neither. earl Osterhoudt said he is an absentee owner of 746 North Zeyn and that he was opposed to this proposal. Ae said he did not think it was fair to those people on the West side of Zeyn. xeartha MacLa he lan. 219 East North Street, said she had a half interest in a home on North Zeyn Street; and that she is opposed to the rezoning of North Zeyn and North Claudina Streets to PD-C/RM-2400. She said in 1987 North Zeyn was rezoned to RM-2400 and in 1988, North Claudina was rezoned to RM-2400; and that it is incredible to her that within these few months, the same streets aze being considered for rezoning to PD-C. She said from conversation with some of the business people on Anaheim Boulevard, and background knowledge, it appeared to her to be a convenience measure by and for their interest to expand their property lines. She said this was not a legitimate reason, nor reasonable manner, by which to crowd current property owners from their homes. She said she saw this as an effort to downgrade the value of the entire residential area with parking lots. She said after this was accomplished, the lots would be bought up, rented for the time being until the completion of the widening of Anaheim Boulevard, then when downtown Anaheim is developed, those lots would increase greatly in value. She added she wanted the self interest of a few stopped for the benefit of those who, with good intentions, purchased these properties because they were good affordable homes in a goad residential area. She noted properties of many of the businesses on Anaheim Boulevard are not well kept up and widening Anaheim Boulevard would not improve that. John Heberlinq, 726 North Zeyn Street, said he moved there two years ago because they were looking for as affordable, residential, single-family home in which to raise their family. He said single-family dwellings are vanishing in Orange County. He stated granted, as noted this evening, this rezoning did not require anyone to change anything; however, it would allow any of the neighbors, or anyone they might sell to, to turn those residential properties into parking lots and that was not why he moved there. He added this action was unnecessary and unwanted. Sally Horton, 226 North Claudina, thanked Commission for hearing this after 6:00 p.m. so they could attend. She stated she was discouraged at having to be here to oppose something like this and did not think it should have even been brought up. She stated this property has just recently been zoned to RM-2400 with the condition that those which were PD-C would remain PD-C and then a new zone would be created to make them PD-C/RM-2400, and that this was agreed to several months ago. but they did not agree to add additional lots in single-family neighborhoods to that parking zone. She stated allowing a parking Toae in these neighborhoods would eventually allow the attitude that has run rampant in Anaheim heretofore, which was that there is a need to destroy in order to build or progress. She said they do not need to destroy homes in order to have parking lots. 09/26/88 ~.. __ ~' tLIi ^'°S ANAHEIM CZTY PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 26 1988. 38 She read a letter from Bill Taroc~ina, one of the major property owners on North Anaheim Boulevard which suggested for consideration that all alleys is the downtown area be abandoned to provide the necessary off-street parking which the City is trying to obtain and the dedication of certain vacant properties owned by the City, to be made into parking lots. Commissioner Messe asked staff to point out on the ezhibit which lots have been added which were not originally PD-C. Mr. Hastings stated the RM-2400 lots, which were not originally PD-C, included both the east and west sides of Anaheim Boulevard from Wilhelmina Street north. He said he believed the majority of the people are talking about the strip of land between North and Wilhelmina, and perhaps even going north from that, which was originally RM-2400. He said those lots from North Street to Wilhelmina on the east side of 2eyn Street were PD-C and the ones north of that are the ones which were RM-1200, downzoned to RM-2400, and they were not PD-C. Bob Renzo, 114 East Wilhelmina, said to his knowledge his house xas not zoned PD-C, and that it is behind the old church; that his property does not back up to Anaheim Boulevard, and noted it was stated properties backing up to Anaheim Boulevard are being considered for rezoning to PD-C. He ezplained the side of his property may back up to Anaheim Boulevard, but the back does not. He stated the Planning Commission may not consider his neighborhood paradise, but the people of the neighborhood do and they have repaired, created, and put up their homes there to reestablish the neighborhood and that he is against the rezoning. Chairwoman Bouas stated certainly the City is not wanting to build parking lots and ao one oa the Planning Commission had that in mind. She agreed at this point, parking lots are not needed oa Anaheim Boulevard and this proposal was not intended to enable establishment of parking lots at random, so the City could have parking lots. Susan Petersen, 757 Zeyn Street, said she felt she needed to emphasis that the residential area, from North Street and down to the Sycamore area, is one which was typically known as being old where there was a lot of prido, as far as it being custom-built homes from the 1930s. She said she certainly hoped it was not the intent to replace those homes with parking lots because, even though considering the environment on as economical basis, residents look at it as an environment for them in which they can take pride. She added the historical value cannot be replaced. She stated she felt there is so much growth and progress in Orange County as it is, that she would hate to see those particular homes lost, in that triangle where they are trying to instill people's interest in refurbishing. Keith Olesen, 321 North Philadelphia, said he was there as a member of the Central City Neighborhood Council, and deeply involved with the downzoning that did affect part of this problem. He said he felt there were a couple of major bits of confusion when they are asking what was originally PD-C. He said some of the areas that were being pointed out were originally PD-C two years ago before the downzoniag xent into effect, so there are not large 09!26!88 { ~~ ... ~1. iTFC ANAHEIM CITY PLANNI_L~G COMfdISSION CFATF1.tRF.R ~fi_ toAA 39 strips which were PD-C. He said the zones had been changed in both these areas, and as noted is the report, 77• of the lots under consideration are RM-2400. He said the references to the properties which were left out of the downzoning on the east side of Claudina, were left nut specifically at the request of Commissioner Soydstun to enable the Commission to come up with an RM-2400/PD-C zoning that would be attached to those very few properties in the meantime. Mr. Olesen said he felt obviously, it was someone's intent to at least suggest the possibility for all these properties to be parking, and that is why the residents are here. He said the original intent in the dowazoning was to recognize and protect the residential areas that had been there for a long time in spite of an RM-1200 zone. He said the Zeyn Street area is RM-1200 and PD-C and has remained low density, primarily single-family dwellings, and that was why the dowazoning was so overwhelmingly supported. He pointed out the General Plan Amendment was passed Yy the Planning Commission 7 - 0, as well as by the City Council 5 -• 0. He stated this would be a gigantic step backward, and going against everything the community groups and residents had worked so very hard for; that these parcels are not needed for parking and it did not make sense ~" make parking between Anaheim Boulevard that buffers residential, and that •••'.ld invade that residential community. Reith Peaoer, 817 North Lemon, said about two years ago, i.~a requesting a dowazone of Lemon Street, it had been brought to his attention that there was PD-C zoaiag existing in the 700 block of 2eyn Street and that perhaps they should talk with the property owners there. He said there was general outrage, and they did not like that zoaiag being oa their property, so they were included in the dowazone of Lemon Street two years ago. He said the RM-2400 designation has been in place there since then. He said last year when they came in through the Central City Neighborhood Council for the dowazoninq of the east side of Anaheim Boulevard, in discussions with the staff, there were the 18 PD-C properties that were originally included to be downzoned to RM-2400 but, recognizing that parking should be considered and not ignored for Anaheim Boulevard, those 18 parcels were specifically excluded from that downzone so the City could determine whether or not to change the PD-C zone or create a nev one. He said it was decided to create a new one and their understanding was that there would be 18 parcels rezoned, not 77. He said they were in favor of removing those 18 parcels at the time, but they are not in favor of the 77. (He offered a slide presentation, following the alleys down from the 900 block oa the west side of the street, crossing the street and heading up the back side). Wpb McCorkle, 607 North Zeyn Street, said he is the treasurer of the Anaheim Neighborhood Association. He said he was involved is supporting and working for the downzoning on Zeyn and Lemon Street, the dowazoning east of Anaheim Boulevard, and numerous zoning and variance matters which have coma before this Commission. He said he fully supported everything that had been said this evening. 09/26/88 -..5 $~ Mr. McCorkle stated he wanted to address a concern that he has had, which has culminated over several years of lobbying and speaking to this group and the City Council, because this is the second time it has come up for him. He stated two years ago, before Chairwoman Boydstun was a member of this Commission and when they were dowazoninq North Zeyn Street, she was the only person who spoke out against it. He said at that time, it was a matter of public record, that she was concerned about losing parking on teyn Street because there was a block there that was PD-C/RM-1200. He said he had numerous conversations with her, privately, about that same subject. He stated the next time he came in contact with her, she was a member of this Commission and he was lobbying against an apartment complez across the street from Pearson Park, which during the course of the hearing, a.s tonight, she excused herself from the meeting. He said her son, representing the developer, presented the case and there was strong neighborhood opposition; that the Commission suggested the developer meet with the neighbors and discuss the situation but that they did not talk to Reat Boydstun, but negotiated directly with Phyllis Boydstun and he thought that was an inappropriate action. He said he believed she and her business are directly involved. He stated during that same negotiating, she again brought up this PD-C/RM-2400 idea as being very important to her. He said the next thing he knew, they were working to downzone the 92 acres on the east side of Anaheim Boulevard and, at her specific request, the PD-C/RM-1200 was eliminated from that process. He said she has been very involved is this, and she has a business located oa the street, and has a personal interest in what happens with this PD-C issue. He said she is, to his knowledge, in any public hearing the only person ever to speak out against getting rid of these PD-C zonings and he really thought to have this happen, and have this kind of involvement, creates some question and doubt to his mind. $~ Sangiovanni, 242 West Simmons, Anaheim, said he lives on the other end of town and came for a different problem but would like to say he agreed with these people and felt strongly the way they did, because he thought the same thing might happen to their area eventually. He said they are getting built up around tY:em with not enough parking allowed for the construction that is happening. He said the plan should not be to get rid of the single-family homes and make them parking lots. Larrv Toraerson, 216 North Claudine, said they brought up an interesting point in that the City was not the one that wanted to build the parainq structures. He said unfortunately the best scenario for residents was that the City did want to ;Build parking structures, then they had some voice and control in their government, which they would prove on election day. He said the Commission is creating new zoning and laxs which provide opportunities for the private sector to come in anA build anything inside these laws, and that is what they are against, and they do not want the neighborhoods broken up by one or two parking structures. ty~r~orv_ Boothe, 125 East Wilhelmina Street, said she feels like all she does is come down to these meetings and she was promised the last time she would not have to come anymore, because the City was not going to do anymore in her 09/26/88 ~: ~: area: She said then she got all these papers telling her they were going to do parking lots, or more zoning for apartments. She added she felt it is unfair to the people in her area to be taking homes and putting in apartments and now the City wants to put a parking lot right behind her house, and that she was not is favor of that. Chairwoman Bouas asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in favor of this proposal and there was no response. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Carusillo stated he left this up to his fellow Commissioners, because he was not from the downtown area, although it is of an interest to him, but that he knew there was about 1S0 petitions against this and there seems to be about that many people here against it and he believed laws, ordinances, and zoning are made for the community as a whole, and since there is strong opposition to this- he is opposed to it. Commissioner Herbst said he was very much in favor of downzoning the property tc RM-2400; and that he has seen this property go from bad to better and t~~a;-~e have rehabilitated the area and many areas look a lot better than they dic; iS years ago. He stated he thought the Commission must look at what is happening and at many areas all through the city and must look at past zoning to see if it needs to be changed and upgraded. He stated a lot of the old PD-C was never used and that he would be in favor of eliminating all of it at the presen*_ time and try to preserve these areas. He said when the time comes, and Anaheim Boulevard is widened, then they could look at the problem to see what it would take to solve it. He said maybe they could solve it all along Anaheim Boulevard with more frontage, having the parking up front, rather than encroaching into the neighborhood. Commissioner Messe said he believed the motivation of the Commission was that businesses were going to be devoting a certain amount of space to the widening of Anaheim Boulevard, therefore, they would have a problem with parking. He added there are no business owners present and nose of the property owners are speaking in favor of this. He said the Commission decide to consider it out of concern for the business community and the business community did not seem to be concerned, so he agreed with Commissioner Herbst that this should be reviewed later. Commissioner McBurney concurred and added it is very evident that this has gotten the people interested in what is happening is their neighborhood. He said he thought they have shown ezactly what they want and he felt they should be listened to. Commissioner Herbst asked about the Reclassification and what the Commission needs to do to get rid of the PD-C. Mr. Hastings stated staff did advertise all of the PD-C zones north of Cypress Street, which is the redevelopment area boundary. He pointed out on the ezhibit the only PD-C zoned properties north of Cypress, and they flank Anaheim Boulevard. 09!26/88 ._ Ih i'f'ES A_NA~IM CITY PLA1.i7ING C02yi-iSSION SEPTEMBER 26 1998 42 He explained the Commission should determine which zone they would like to have those properties rezoned to and then staff would readvertise those particular properties. He said they are currently zoned PD-C and if the Commission wanted them zoned RM-2400, they would have to be readvertised. ~,ommissioaer Herbst said he wants to geC rid of the PD-C completely; that he was talking about the area along Anaheim Boulevard which the audience was concerned about. He added he knew there were some oa the other side of Lincoln, backing up to a commercial area, but those are not the ones under consideration. Mr. Hastings said it would be appropriate to direct staff to advertise perhaps a new reclassification for those PD-C zoned properties and notify the owners of those properties. Chairwoman Bouas suggested a resolution denying this reclassification, and that would leave those properties at RM-2400 and PD-C, which are currently zoned that way, and then advertise those other properties, separately, and have a hearing to change those. She explained she would like to take care of the concerns of these people present tonight, then have a hearing for the properties which are PD-C. Mr. Hastings said it would be appropriate then to deny this reclassification. A I Commissioner Llexbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McHurney and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Feldhaus voting NO) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to rezone RM-1200, RM-2400, and PD-C areas as specified is the staff report to PD-C/RM-2400 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 en P.he 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 Feldhaus said he has a problem approving this Negative Declaration, because 'there has to be some sort of impact, otherwise, the people would not be here. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC88-275, and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby DENY Reclassification No. 88-89-11. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC HURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: BOYDSTUN (conflict of interest) Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. 09/26/88 '3'~~ ~~ ES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby direct staff to proceed with the rezoning of the 78 parcels north of Cypress Street which are currently zoned PD-C, said reclassification from PD-C (Parking District/Commercial) to RM-2400 (Residential, Multiple-Family); and further, staff is directed to advertise said reclassification proposal and notify the property owners who own the existing 18 parcels north of Cypress Street zoned PD-C. RECESS: 7:10 p.m. RECONVENE: 7:15 p.m. COMMISSIONER BOYDSTUN RETURNED TO THE MEETING ITEM .NO 15 REPORT TO PUNNING COMMISSION SCENIC CORRIDOR SIxGr.E_FAMILY rtFSIDENTIAL ZONE HEIGHT STANDARD REVIEW AND S'~DY (Request for review and rprnmmendatlOn Lori Duca, Assistant Planner, presented the staff's report to the Planning Commission. Ms. Duca stated in the latter part of April, the City Council directed the Planning Department to submit a summary report on the height variances requested during the past two years due to the increase in number of variance applications made since the beginning of the year. She noted that in the latter part of May, the City Council directed the Planning Department staff to further investigate and pursue the height issue in the Scenic Corridor area. She stated during the last few months, the Planning Department has held two meetings with the Hill and Canyon area representatives, conducted telephone interviews with architectural firms, and contacted 26 cities and the County of Orange in a survey for input oa this issue. She stated before the Commission this evening is the report which integrated the collected information. Pmt BLIC INPUT• There were 50 people present, 25 indicating their wish to address the Commission concerning this item; although the staff report xas not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. pgi~r+cia Stowers (Mohler Drive area), said they had recently moved into the area and became acquainted with many of the brochures that had been put out about this issue. She said that when they were first purchasing the home, they were not informed that this was the Scenic Corridor aroa; that they checked with their Title Company, who said this was an unusual circumstance and indicated that this was usually put on the title. She said they intend to build that their parcel entails grade and they plan to build lower and qo up hpiaht restriction, which i.s 25 and *hev were concerned because of thg, feet.She said they xere not certain they would go over it, but there is the possibility, so they felt they neoded to be at this meeting and become involved. She said the committee involved was concerned with the rural beauty 09/26/88 t ~~ ;,; MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNIN MMICCrnx EPTEMBER 26 198. 44 but the rural beauty, in her area is not very pretty. She said there are trees that are down and the roads are unkempt and narrow. She said those xho are moving into the area are in the process of building custom homes and she was concerned that the Commission take into consideration the land and if they are detracting or blocking a neighbor's view. She said they should be concerned about their neighbors and not what was going on aesthetically all around them. Sonja Grewal said she was speaking on behalf of the Soard of Directors of the Anaheim Hills Citizen's Coalition. She referred to the percentage of variance requests in 1988 which appeared in the same proportion to the variance requests in 1986; that is the variance requests have increased in the same proportion, basically, are the amount of building permits being issued; howover, the increase of variancas granted seems to have focused residents attention on the cumulative impact. She said they request that the Commission consider evaluating the RM-3000 zone in whatever the decision is this ~venin5, because as she understood from staff, multiple-family zones are not included is the Scenic Corridor Height Development Standards. She said in September, 1987, they did support a tract of 49 homes in their request for a height variance because there was a real hardship related to the land. She said their input has consistently been that if the code is unreasonable, it should be re-evaluated and if it is not, it should be upheld, regardless how many people come before the Commission, and it should be set aside only when there is a true hardship on the land or a special circumstance. She said they are pleased this hearing has come about because decisions regarding the ordinance have been inconsistent to the point of being very unfair to the applicants and existing residents. She added she hopes the Commission agrees with staff that the intent of the Scenic Corridor is still valid and the fact they are almost fully developed, yet have still retained that semi-rural, uncoagested atmosphere is due to the additional development standards imposed on the area and in great part to the height standard. Ms. Grewal said they urge Commission to weigh each alternative because is several areas the type of construction that goes in will be the finishing touch to the area and needs to be consistent and compatible with what is happening there now. She said if the recommendation xould be to maintain the present standard, it would be accompanied with a clear policy statement, otherwise, the recommendation should accomplish little. She said presently the variance procedure is pretty much just a formality, and that architectural features are accepted as a hardship, so there is very little standard involved. She said if the recommendation is to increase the height standard throughout the corridor, she would ask that the Commission please evaluate the effect oa established areas over a period of time. She said the effect of height on reconstructions and remodels in established neighborhoods could easily result in a development which negates the intent of tha Scenic Corridor. She noted that in other view-oriented areas, remodels and reconstruction could effect homeowners by removing views tied to the value of their homes. 09/26/8E f "~ . ~1 x SEPTEMBER 26 1988 95 vr.nrrFg ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIO Ms. Grewal said if the Commission chose the alternative of amending the height standard in certain specific sub-communities, it is their opinion that the area of Hidden Canyon, warrants consideration and that is which is a clearly defined area and may truly be a special circumstance. She said there also appears to be an effectiveuardintetherviewepremiums oftezistingahomeownershin could assume the role of g g that area. Ms. Grewal said the input they had received from other committees indicates that ezisting homeowners agree that the 25-foot standard has created a community look which fulfills the intent of the Scenic Corridor definition and which they want to maintain. She said the alternative, in the height study, of allowing projections above the roofline seems like a very possible alternative to allow design flezibility: however, to make wouldaseemvlikena sufficiently specific, without being totally restrictive, fairly difficult task. She said their goal reoalnand oliciestof thatrplaalan for the Hill and Canyon areas. She said the g p were formed by and the ordinances which were set into place to implement it, citizens who cared about a total picture, and the result has been a community which many have chosen, and are choosing, to make their home. FrPder+ck Palmieri, 110 South Strada Place, Peralta Hills, said he respected the Scenic Corridor area, the topography. landscaping, trees, etc.; however, the height limits depend very much on the area of the particular tract, that is the area of the lot. He noted a 25-foot high residence on a 5000 square-foot lot would look completely different than a 30-foot structure on a one to five acre lot. He said there could not be an effective height limit without taking into account not only the land area, but the nature of the land. Mr. Palmieri said part of the Code limiting height says you cannot restrict a person's use of his property if other people in the area have similar exceptions and there are many homes is his area which are 3-story and 35 to 40 feet in height, so why then should people like himself, who came recently to the area, be limited. He said his immediate neighbars are in favor of his proposed structure; and the people who complained were people at least 300 feet away from his residence. He said he understood soma residents like to keep things status quo, but that is not what is happening; that the City Council voted to let a church be built on what was supposed to be a dedicated area for a park and there were about 135 Eucalyptus trees which were allowed to be cut down for a church which is a commercial usage in a residential zone. He noted land is going to be developed and sold; that in Peralta Hills those one to five acre lots are going to be developed and they would build structures which have to measure up, proportional to the land value there. He asked that the Commission consider height limits is portion to land area, to topography, and to the nature of the use. He said he felt they should support the standard but let it be according to the rrea, according to the architecture, and according to the topography. 09/26/88 r~ ;, i .. MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 26 1988 46 Bruce Daniels, 6940 Avenida de Santiago, said he lives in Hidden Canyon and is the president of the Hidden Canyon Homeowners Association. He said when the issue came before them, they did not reflect on the overall community, which is the Scenic Corridor; and that they thought immediately of their personal needs and wants in the area. He said this area is a primary one where concerns have been raised regarding variances. He presented some written letters from owners and a list of names of 26 who were contacted. He said 26 of the 32 home/property owners who own land in Hidden Canyon have spoken out that they desire to have the height limit changed. He noted one alternative set forth in the staff report stated that amending the height standard in certain specific sub-communities is a viable alternative and they desire the Commission to consider that alternative, if they elect to keep the standard the same for the remainder of the Scenic Corridor. He noted their homes do not impact the majority of the people in the Anaheim Hills area. He said they have an architectural review committee in place which has voted affirmatively and negatively on home plans, based on the architectural design. Commissioner Carusillo asked Mr. Daniels if he could give an approzimate parcel size of those 32 homes in Hidden Canyon. Mr. Daniels stated his lot is 1.3 acres and he believed they are alY at least one acre. Raren Rosch who is on the architectural committee of Hidden Canyon said the lots vary from one acre to five acres, with the average lot being 3.5 acres. Responding to Commissioner Herbst, Mr. Daniels stated the mazimum height at the present time he thought was 33 feet, but it possibly could be 35. Commissioner Herbst clarified their architectural committee receives any request for a height variance, and Mr. Daniels stated he thought they would do that before the planning process could go forward. Commissioner Herbst said the reason of this hearing is to try and eliminate some of these variances, if possible. Mr. Daniels stated half of the Names are already approved or under construction at this time in Hidden Canyon and he felt the way the lots are graded, and the way the lots are designed, they did not feel any of the lots dzrectly impact the primary view of the houses. Mr. Daniels stated they are working hard to let people exercise their personal freedoms, in terms of the design of the house, consistent with the style in the area and for the houses not to impact negati~•e7y on the neighbors. He stated they review those on a case by case basis. Raren Rosch, a lot owner of Hidden Canyon Estates, Lot No. 12 of Tract 10996, said she was also on the architectural control committee. She said they review every home individually, checking with the neighbors to make sure that every neighbor approves of the home. She said the majority of their 09/26/88 ~, ~: MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANItING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 26 1988 47 homeowners are in favor of increasing the height standard of the homes, according to the needs of each individual homeowner. She said they have neighbors who are waiting to commence building, who cannot do so because they have been denied variances. James Myers, 102 Eucalyptus, said he and his wife were new owners is that area and were in the process of firing their property up, which is about an acre. He said they did not know there was a restriction when they moved ia; and that they would like the opportunity to build a nex home in the near future, but if there is a restriction, it would cause a building problem for them because they intended to build a large home. He added he would like to give his support for a change in the height standard. Craig Miller, Anaheim Hills, said he is in support of the change in the height standard. He said he has three acres and he has to come before the Council and get a variance for 35 feet height for the home he intends to build. He stated his three acres ace on Santa Ana Canyon, at the corner of Mohler and Canyon Crest. Commissioner Carusillo asked Mr. Miller if he was aware the zoning was 1/2 acre when he bought the property and Mr. Miller said he was. ~gQrae Mills, 6475 East Stonebridge Lane, Anaheim Hills, said he has had an avid interest in open space, parks, and planning for some years; and that in reading the report, he had come to the conclusion that Anaheim was over restrictive in the Scenic Corridor, based on the fact that they are receiving so many requests f<;r variances. He said the standards for athez Orange County hill areas are not as restrictive as Anaheim. He also noted the architects surveye3 noted a design limiting nature of the height restric>ions in the Scenic Corridor. He said the Commission should either ia~:rease the height limit to 30 feet and pormit non-habitable projections above the roof line, or amend the height standards in specific sub-communities. Charles Suggett, 6017 Queens Drive, said he punned to Luild a home on Martella Lane and was having problems with the variance, and the topography of the lot is not acceptable to a flat graded lot. He said the house is only 25 feet high, but by putting garages underneath to fit, the lot, it comes up to about 35 feet. He said his lot is not really a view lot anyway and he did not see how they could really call it a view corridor down through there. Frank Currie, 7580 East Martella Lane, said he has owned his property in Santa Ana Canyon for about 30 years; that about 3 years ago they designed and built a new 5,000 square foot home within the 25-foot height. He said he has four sons and next to him, all sr.,aggered down, they have built three more houses, all 25 feet high. He said two of these houses are 2-stories and they are very attractive houses. He stated they are strictly against all the houses over 25 feet high. He said he resents having to come back all the time before the Commission to keep people who are building houses below him from blocking his view. Mr. Currie responded to Commissioner Feldhaus that his property is next to Mohler Drive, off of Martin Road. 09/26/88 ,.. a, ;~: MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. SEPTEMBER 26. 1988. 48 Commissioner Feldhaus suggested speakers give the area where their property or proposed home is located. Roland Krueger, 561 Peralta Aills Drive, said there seem to be a lot of people there is favor of raising the height limit and they all seem to be people who want to build in the future. Mr. Krueger read a letter in support of retaining the 25-foot height standard from Frank Liggett, 561 Peralta Hills Drive. He said building in that area should be encouraged to harmonize with the current landscape, rather than to dominate it; that he felt there was no reason to believe they could not manage a firm height limitation and that the solution is to stop granting waivers solely for architectural reasons and to insist on meeting the statement of justification for code waivers. Mr. Krueger said he was a member o£ the original task force that looked at the Aill and Canyon area and the members of that task force saw a precious natural resource which was unique in the City. He said the Hill and Canyon General Plan was designed to preserve the natural beauty of that area; and that the designation of the Scenic Corridor and the implementation of the site development standards gave the City tools to achieve this vision. He said with the exception of some scars from overly ambitious grading, the City for the most part, has been able to keep focused oa that vision. Ae said the 25-foot height limit was a key element in making homes that blend into the hillside; that people have been attracted to the area and want to build there precisely because of the environment created by the very features they say are too restrictive and to decide now to increase the height limit would be incompatible with thousands of homes in the eaistiaq developments. He stated they can build large homes on large lots and stay within the 25-foot height limit; that they realize the variance procedure has a purpose is the community and they support that, when the variance procedure rules and architectural or economic reasons do not fit into the picture. He stated it is not just a question of blocking someone's view, but whether you are changing the whole character and environment in the area. Bill St w r 116 South Eucalyptus, said they had been there about three months and have made many improvements; that they believe each person has a right, as long as it blends in with the community, not to be restricted and to be able to express themselves as individuals, and felt there needs to be some change, if warranted, and that each structure should be considered individually. Mr. Stowers also submitted letters to be taken into consideration. Phil Joujoa-Roche, 450 Via Vista, Anaheim Hills, said he has lived is the Mohler Drive area for 19 years, so he was there when the Scenic Corridor was defined. He noted the goal was to preserve and enhance the unique scenic or special visual resource areas along the highways for the enjoymt~nt of all. Ae said it is obvious Anaheim has made a commitment to its citizens to preserve and enhance the natural scenic elements in the Scenic Corridor. 09/24/88 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. SEPTEMBER 26. 1988. 40 He noted this is not limited to the view from houses, but also to the view toward the entire Santa Ana Canyon and the blending of the structure into the environment is necessary to preserve the scenic quality. He said eacessive height is an undesirable intrusion; and that the plan has worked fairly well so far, staying with the 25-foot height standard, with exceptions where hardship on the land is a problem. He said he xould hate to see this thing changed, hastily, just for styling sake. He added there is a need for a definition of the hardships and a more uniform enforcement of what hardships are; and that he thought encroachment on views should be considered also. He said, the Mohler area is fairly well developed and there are just a few lots left, which are fairly steep, so the Commission would be seeing a lot of hardship cases coming up on the remaining steep lots. Ae said the people at Hidden Caayoa, however, have a valid point due to the size of their lots. Sally Smith, 7370 cast Rite Drive, Anaheim Hills, said she felt the most critical issue facing the Scenic Corridor is that the City must decide whether the Scenic Corridor Overlay established in 1971, and the further defined boundaries and purpose of the corridor, which is to provide protection, preservation and enhancement of this resource, adopted in 1975 and establishing the 25-foot height restriction, is to be maintained or whether we may acquiesce to the vested interest of those iadiviuuals who would erode and destroy the natural beauty and resource presently maintained in this corridor. She said we must not permit these architectural inconsistencies to adulterate and obscure the hills, mountains, and city views, and clarify the definition of hardship as a reason for height waiver. She added she felt the standards should not be reduced to allow changes. She presented a letter and some newspaper clippings for Commission's consideration. Gilbert wiggam said he was presently trying to build a residence at 6860 East Avenida de Santiago. He said they had their variance approved two weeks ago for 31 feet, and the 31 feet was only because of their chimney and that was because they had a staggered lot, due to the street going up, into the Hidden Canyon area. He said most of the houses in Hidden Canyon have had variances over 25 feet height because of the topography and the way the streets qo up and down; and there are really no flat lots off the streets. He stated he was in favor of a change in the height standard to 30 or 35 feet. Christine Timoshuk, 6925 East Overlook Terrace, Hidden Canyon Estates, said she knew there was 'a 2~-foot limit, however, that was established when they were building track homes, close together on the hillside, and packed in. She said where they live, there is space between the homes and she felt they need to change the rules. tom Nicholson, 315 Black Oak Road, Anaheim, stated he has been associated with four projects so f.ar in Hidden Canyon; that they have two projects under construction now and a lot they will be building oa in the near future. He said on the first three projects they had to get zoning variances on every one of them and were successful, and if the code is not changed, they anticipate having to do that again and that taken longer to complete the design phase and 09/26/88 .~ .,. +~ ~'r MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 26. 1988. 50 adds cost to the developer and homeowner. He said when they design a home, they take a great deal of time and effort to be as sensitive to the surrounding areas, homes, and topography as possible, since it is in their best interest to do so. He stated he would be in favor of raising the height limitation to 30 feet overall, with certain exceptions to be made for specific architectural features on homes. Larry Ritter, 191 Possum Hollow, Anaheim Hills, s.xid he lives in the Mohler area; and has enjoyed a beautiful view for sorhR two miles away and one reason was because there were two lots next to him which had not been built on as yet. He said one is almost a full acre, which he had envisioned developed with another single-story rambling home; however, that homeowner has gotten a variance for a flag lot and is planning to build two homes and has also approached the Planning Commission for a variance to exceed the 25-foot limit. He said the next lot down has also petitioned for a variance because of hardship oa the land, and he agreed they probably did have a hardship on their land. He said, however, the acre nest to him did not have a hardship and the homeowner there has referenced other variances in the area, citing they had been given privileges he did not have. He stated what is happening is that each person asking for a variance, gets more and more, and have been getting them when there is no hardship on the lot, but only because they want to exceed the height limitation. He said it has been stated that a person could not build a 25-foot high home on an acre lot and have a decent sized home for the area, however, the four homes which have been built by the Currie families are beautiful homes and are under the 25-foot limit. He said the 25-foot limit protects the view from and to the hills. He said if the majority of the homeowners in Hidden Canyon want to changes that limit, that is something that should be looked at by itself, but it should not be removed for the entire area. He said he realized that if the height limit was raised, it would possibly reduce the number of variance requests, but he also believed that if the height ruling xas enforced, it would probably also reduce the number of requests. Sonja Grewal presented letters from Donald Puliero, 411 Brook Laae, and Mitzi Ozaki who were unable to be present, indicating they are in favor of maintaining the height standard. John Schaefer, 7630 East Pleasant Place, Mohler Canyon area, said his property overlooks the area where the Currie houses are, and Martella Lane which has been discussed that evening. He said there have been a lot of claims that the houses that are desired to be built is the area are going to be done for improvement of the area, that the 25-foot height limit was there for tract homes, and he would like to talk about alleged improvements. He said his own home is a split level home which works its way up on a natural slope and most of the homes on his road, Wildaa Road, are built in compliance with the height code and they are beautiful custom homes, not tract homes. He said he would like to speak in opposition to any relazatioa of any of the protective codes. (Submitted pictures into evidence, for Commission consideration). 09/26/88 ~~ MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSI^u SEPTEMEER 26 1988, 51 He noted in one picture there used to be a gentle hillside covered with trees and grass, and nine years ago a developer came in and improve2. the lot with 15 feet of fill dirt and was it never replanted or restored, and no owner of the property since then has seen fit to take care of it. He said the second picture shows grading for new houses beside Mohler Drive and there was another natural hillside, covered with trees and bushes and nicely sloped and sox there is 6 acres of bare dirt and you can see it from miles away and that scar would be visible for at least ten years. He said the third case is where a developer came in nine years ago with bulldozers and carved the top off the hill and took out the trees, and there is not a tree visible anywhere oa it now, and on the hilltop there is a big, tall, gray, stark house with a big round tower on one corner of it and that house sticks out oa that hilltop, without a bit of green around it, and can be seen for miles around in every direction as the single most eye catching feature in that Mohler Canyon area, and added that is what one house can do to the environment there. r.Pona Curtis, 569 Peralta Hills Drive, said she had designed her house, and it was not a tract house, and had 6 bedrooms, 3 baths, a huge living room, and is within the 25-foot height limitation. She stated she is is favor of keeping the 25-foot height standard. She said when they moved out there, it was not a tract area but one acre minimum lots. She said if they had built their home higher, they would be an eyesore and she felt it is wonderful to keep the area the way it is. carol Simpson, 241 South Wildan, Mohler area, said they have been here several times trying to keep the 25-foot high limit and she hated to see it change. She said she felt the homes they live is are very nits and they stayed within the limit and she felt everyone else could do the same. She said when they came into the area, they accepted this, and she felt new people coming into the area and building apparently do not want to go with what is there, and want to change. She said maybe those people picked the wrong area because what they have there is really nice and she would like to see it stay that way. Ton} Baxter, 6401 Nohl Ranch Road, said he has property at 7635 East Silve: Dollar Lane. He said he is also in the process of applying for a variance and that he is opposed to the 25-foot height standard because each situation is individual and they have heard that tonight, and if nothing else, there are all different and unique character decisions. He said the height is as arbitrary measure of rural character. He noted lots of rural areas do not impose a restriction on height. He said, at the same time, he did not feel neighbors should have their rights violated. He noted, as an example, a house could be built 150-feet wide that would block all of the viewshed down off of the hill into the canyon area, and be kept at the 25-fooC height level. He said the Commission should consider the topography of the land and density the house would to provide. Maria Ritter, 291 Possum Aollow, Anaheim, said she was in opposition to the height standard change. She said when they moved into the area they were aware of the half acre lots, the Scenic Corridor, and she felt there was a purpose in mind for the City of Anaheim to commit to the regulations being established in that area. She submitted into evidence a letter from Mary Strung, 241 Country Hill Road, Anaheim. 09/26/88 ~. ~., iv T'i'FS ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTE~3ER 26 1988 52 Sob Underwood, 7370 Nightingale Circle, Anaheim Hills, Stonegate area, said the height issue didn't bother him, because where he lives, they couldn't block his view. However, he said when they moved in 10 years ago, there were CC6R's, regulations and rules, and it bothered him that the same thing could happen here that happened at Canyon Lake where they bought a hilltop home then one day, instead of limiting 2-story structures to the top a hill, someone had built a 3-story structure just below their lot, effectively blocking their whole view of the lake. F.e said he hates to see that kind of thing and it seemed to him that there is a procedure to take care of someone wanting to build taller houses and it seemed to be working, and that it is costly and time-consuming, but that is one of the things you have to do when buying into an area like this. He asked what happens if someone else came along who had a few more dollars, and wanted to build a 40-foot high structure, and asked where it stops. He stated he was not in favor of changing the height standard. pave Martin, Canyon View Estates, president of the homeowner's association, stated there are nine homes remaining to be developed in their immediate area and the viewgoint of the 21 homeown~srs is that they would like to see those homes developed, conforming to the rest o£ the community and conforming to the 25-foot existing height ordinance. He said they realize larger homes xould increase the value of their 2rornes but he thought, from their viewpoint, they have a much greater contribution to make to the community and they wanted the development of this area to blend ia. He said he knew they had presented Commission with an awful lot of information and he thought clearly one decision on it would be difficult because there are several situations to study, such as the Hidden Canyon area, which is a unique situation, and he believed his area was unique as well requiring further study by the Commission. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Feldhaus stated he has heard everything coming from the residents in the hills which he thought be was going to hear. He stated he supports a standard height liritation based upon area, size of lot, and on a case by case basis; and that he still believes the Commission cannot set a height limitation for the entire area. Commissioner Herbst stated, with regard to the Hidden Canyon area, he thought those are very beautiful homes and they have been given variances; however, that is one particular area that is hidden and different from the rest of the Hill and Canyon area. He said it does overlook Weir Canyon but it cannot even be viewed from the bottom of the canyon. He added he would like to see that particular area set aside; that he has heard some areas want some flezibility, but there would have to be some standard to work with, such as 30 feet or 33 feet. Commissioner Herbst stated he feels the rest of the Hill and Canyon area should retain the 25-foot height standard. He stated there are certain areas where hardships have come about, but the Planning Commission has not been hearing too many of those lately, since they are handled differently. He stated he would like to see the Commission's recommendation to the Council be that the 25-foot height standard be retained, ezcept for Hidden Canyon, to be reviewed on a case by case basis. 09!:6/88 ~~ ~_ .~. S ANAHEIM CITY PLA~.dING COt~;d,ISSIOH SEPTEMBER 26. 1988 53 MT,LZ~ Commissioner Messe stated he thought that area should be given some consideration for non-habitable projections above whatever the height limit is. He said soon the architectural community and the people who want to live in the community, will want some variation in home styles; and that he did not think it would impact the community terribly to allow some eztensions in a tudor-style home or french provincial home. He stated he did not necessarily think the Commission should come to a decision tonight on this issue. Commissioner Herbst and Chairwoman Bouas agreed that the Commission has had a lot of input this evening and this is something they really need to digest an3 think about before making a decision. Commissioner Herbst stated 95~ of the housing in that area, except the new ones being built, were built under these restrictions; and now the hill and canyon area is built with beautiful homes and lots of landscaping, and because the area was built under these rules, it has enticed other people to come in and build there. He stated now people come in and then want to change the rules to suit themselves. Commissioner Feldhaus added even if the Commission and Council change the height limitation to 30 feet, there would be someone coming is wanting to go to 35 feet. Commissioner Boydstun said she thought the whole area is being built the same and people who go in there, see the whole area and know what is there; and they are there for the architectural design and there is no problem. Chairwoman Bouas stated she felt the height could he changed in those certain areas; that they would have custom homes in those areas and if they had a different height limitation, it would be helpful. She added the Commission really does need to look at this and come to a decision, but not necessarily this evening. Commissioner Messe stated he felt lot size does have something to do with the decision; and that several people had brought that up and some people were for it, and some against it. He said he agreed with everyone relative to justification of variances, and they should be based on the land itself such as the topography. He added he would like some time to digest what the Commission has heard tonight and think it through. Commissioner McBurney said the Commission should consider that each of thew communities looks at these houses more than anyone else and it irtipacts them more; and consequently, each communities should have some kind of say as to what might happen with the houses in the area. Commissioner Carusillo said there are two factions and he sympathized with both. He stated it seemed the issue is between the settled property owners and the newer residents, and the settled and newer tract areas, such as Peralta Hills compared to Hidden Canyon. Be added he would like to comment on a concern that he has heard many times and which he thought was valid, and that is that there has been a great inconsistency on this issue between the Zoning Administrator, the view of the Planning Commission, and the City 09/26/88 ._ ~.~` ; ~jINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 26 1988 54 Council. He said, in his view, an ordinance is an ordinance and an excuse that a tudor design has to go higher to look good, is not valid; and that the people in this City in decision making positions have forgotten that ordinances are made for the good of the community as a whole, and in the area of height variances, they have forgotten that variances are granted when a hardship is placed on the land, not architectural design. He added he agrees there has to be some standards in place, and that maybe modifications are necessary, and he has some sympathy for the Hidden Canyon area. Bruce Daniels, Hidden Canyon, stated in hearing the Commission review the subject matter at hand, he thought that many felt Hidden Canyon should be an exemption and before reaching a decision to study this further, he asked the Commission to consider the possibility of making a decision regarding Hidden Canyon at this time, since they have several homeowners awaiting variances or have plans, ready to build, which are on hold only because of this matter. He noted those people are undergoing financial hardship and dislocation from their future structure until this decision is reached. Chairwoman Bouas asked what Mr. Daniels would recommend, as far as Hidden Canyon was concerned. Mr. Daniels responded he felt they need 35 feet, without exemptions for towers and chimney structures, and that would be 35 feet, including uninhabitable towers. Commissioner Aerbst asked how the Commission could act on this partially. Commissioner Messe noted the people who are standing by, ready to build, do have the normal variance process; and that he did not want the Commission to rush into this and the normal process of variances is still open to them. Commissioner Herbst noted this has to qo before the Council anyway. Chairwoman Bouas asked if the Commission could pull the Hidden Canyon issue out of this item tonight. Joseph Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, stated the Commission could go to the City Council with a recommendation for a change is standards applicable to that area; that the Hidden Canyon area does not have its own unique zoning, and it does not have a specific plan, and there is no different cone or standard, so it would involve Dither some amendment to the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone to designate this property and distinguish it as having different standards, or create a new cone. He said an ordinance means about 60 to 90 days from today before it would become effective. He added the variance process still ezists. Commissioner Messe said he thought the definition of Hidden Caayoa was something the Commission could come up with easily, and that would be a study area, but he did not think the Commission should be rushing into things piecemeal. 09/26/88 .4. r :~/c MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SEPTEMBER 26, 1988, 55 Mr. Daniels noted that Mrs. Kathy Wiggam had a variance retracted, based upon this procedure. Re said it was his understanding that variances would not he granted until the City Council reached a decision, but if the variance procedure is still in place and active, he would retract his previous request. Commissioner Messe asked staff if there had been anything such as a moratorium on granting variances. Joel Fick, Planning Director, said, no, but that the City Council has eztended or set those matters for hearings for a meeting. date after tonight's Planning Commission meeting, in a couple of instances, and ene or two of the lots may be in the Hidden Canyon area. Commissioner Herbst stated the Council had already set aside the 1?eloquin Development, practically as a specific area, and this is a very similar situation with Hidden Canyon. He asked why the Commission could not make a recommendation, as the Planning Commissi.oa, that City Council treat the Hidden Canyon area on the same basis as they treated Peralta Hills East. He added he would like for the Commission to make that recommendation to the City Council and not hold up someone who is building. Mr. Fick concurred with what Mr. Fletcher said, that since the Commission is looking at several options, including establishing sub-communities and things like that, that really in terms of ordinance recommendations, they should consider that carefully and look at it as a package situation. He said, is the case of Peralta Hills East, that was done through the variance procedure. He added that could be done with Hidden Canyon, but iY would take the concurrence of every owner who was interested in the lots, to apply for a variance. He said if the P~.anninq Commission could make their feelings known, by motion or general comments and direction, and that staff, when these hearings come up before the Zoning Admiaist~ator and City Council, could make the general consensus or commentary known that that is the direction the Commission is giving staff, in terms of the ordinance consideration or preparation. Commissioner Messe noted there are issues other than the height, such as how to measure that height, the inhabitable area, and other things as to how the code was going to be written. Commissioner Feldhaus agreed other issues should be reviewed, as well. Commissioner Herbst stated the Commission could direct staff that when these hearings come up before the Zoning Administrator or City Council, to indicate to the Council that the Planning Commission is basically is favor of a 35-foot height limit in Hidden Canyon. He asked if that should be a motion. Mr. Fick said that would give staff the direction as to the way they were going to prepare the ordinance. He said he thought the biggest concern has been, in this interim period, until all the ordinances are finalized and sorted out, that what is being approved today would be compatible with those ordinances. He said if that is the direction, or recommendation, staff could then provide that input to the decision-making groups. 09/26/88 ~' MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. SEPTEMBER 26. 1988. _ 56 ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner N.esse and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission is in favor of having any new height ordinance being proLOSed to include a provision which will increase the 2:eight limitation in thg area designated as the Ridden Canyon area; and that the Planning Commission directs staff to convey this recommendation to the City Council and the Zoning Administrator, and also Commission recommends that variance requests in the Hidden Canyon area continue to be heard at this time. Further Discussion: Mr. Fick said he believed that direction is perfectly adequate because the Zoning Administrator does do a site inspection of each individual lot, and frequently talks to the adjacent neighbors on variances that are proposed oa these lots. Commissioner Herbst asked if it would be appropriate for the Homeowner's Association to submit a variance request for the resk of the lots, or would it have to be each lot owner. Mr. Fick responded the associations could make the request, but that the individual homeowners would have to agree. Chairwoman Bouas noted they have an architectural Committee which approves all of their plans also. Commissioner Herbst suggested Commission should take this under consideration for 30 days, and that it should be hoard at a 6:00 p.m, hearing again. Commissioner Bouas asked if it has to be a public hearing again, because the public hearing had been closed. Commissioner Carusillo stated he felt there should be a full Commission and that he believed Mr. Feldhaus was going to be absent on the 24th. Chairwoman Bouas indicated she would like for the Commission to discuss this at their morning work sessions. FURTAER ACTION• Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby continue the aforementioned matter to the regularly-Scheduled meeting of October 24, 1988, to be placed on the agenda as the second item after 6:00 p.m. Further Discussion: The audience expressed some concern about the variance procedure going ahead. Mr. Fick said, literally, absent there being a definitive ordinance in place, even if the Commission could decide today, it would have to go to City Council and have a first reading, second reading, and that would take about 30 days. 09/26/88 ~,..~~-~ ~7,NUTE5. ANAHEIM CIT7t PLANNING COMMISSION CffD"'~ER 2G 1988 Be said absent the City putting a hold oa everything, these items would have to be considered on a case by case basis, unless there was a moratorium on all of the variances. Chairwoman Souas said the Commission did not want a moratorium, and do want things to progress and go ahead; and that the Commission is recommending that the variance process continue until the Commission makes their final decision. Commissioner Berbst informed the audience this is a shorter way to go, rather than waiting for the ordinance. Joseph Fletcher asked for clarification on the comment earlier that Chairwoman Bouas would like to have this topic discussed at the interim morning work sessions before the October 24 hearing. Chairwoman Bouas said she would like it discussed sometime, but not necessarily at each of them. She stated sometimes the Commission does have time to discuss things and asked if it could be done that way, Mr. Fletcher responded any item to be discussed has to be an agendized item. Commissioner Messe asked if it has to be agendized for the workshop session in the morning; and Mr. Fletcher responded there is no distinction between the two, so it would be an agenda item for that meeting. Chairwoman Bouas suggested the matter be placed on each agenda so the Commission could spend a little bit of time oa it each meeting, rather than trying to devote so much time to it in one session. RECESS: 9:15 p.m. RECONVENE: 9:20 p.m. 09/26/88 }~ SMS Mlt~•"'~ iu7AHEIM ~.I'~T DT>\T\TTVf! f•/~WTCCTT1fT CIIDTFAfARD 7f. 1GQA 5A ITEM NO 16 SUPPLEMENT TO EIR NO 281• GENERAL PLAN AMENAME*1T NO 244• SPECIFIC PLAN NO 88 2 FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS• DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT N0~ 88-03 (AMENDMENT ti0. 1) P~JBLIC HEARING: OWNER: THE BALDWIN BUILDING COMPA2iY, A GENERAL PARTNER;HIP, ATTN: DIANA HOARD 16811 Hale Avenue, Irvine, CA 42714 Subject property is approximately 591 acres and is located approximately 1.1 miles southeast of Weir Canyon Road and the Riverside Freeway intersection, and is bounded on the north by Sycamore Canyon Specific Plaa development, on the west by The Highlands at Anaheim Hills Specific Plaa development, and on the south and east by Irvine Company property and further described as The Summit of Anaheim Hills Planned Community (PC)(SC). LOCATION: N0. 1): Petitioner requests adoption of a Specific Plan (including Zoning and Development Standards and a Public Facilities Plan), A General Plan Amendment (to consider an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan with proposals including but not limited to Hillside Low Density Residential, Hillside Low-Medium Density Residential, Hillsid~r Medium Density Residential, General Commercial, and General Open Space), a Fiscal Impact Analysis and Amendment No. 1 to Development Agreement No. 88-03 for the proposed "The Summit of Anaheim Hills" project to provide for the development of up to 2117 residential units, 5 acres of ~~mmercial uses, a 10 acre elementary school site, a 12 acre park site, and 169 acres of open space. (This action was taken at the beginning of the meeting) ACTION: Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRZED that the Anaheim City Planning Commissica does hereby grant petitioner's request to have the aforementioned matter continued to the regularly scheduled meeting of October 10, 1988. 09/26/88 t ~I; rrFg ANAHEIM CITY PLnr. 7IHG COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 26 ~ °88 59 - CEOA NEGATTvE DECLARATT^'~ WAIVER OF COUNCIL POLICY NO 543 IT ~~ WAIVER '";SODE REQUIREMENT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3049 (READVERTISED) pLrnrIC HEARING: OWNER: WILREN WAY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ATTN: RICHARD T. 3ROWN 6775 Airport Drive, Riverside, CA 92509 LOCATION: g00 West Wilken Wav Request: To construct a 1 to 8-story, 416-unit "Affordable" senior citizens apartment complex (formerly 1 to 8-story, and 440-units) with waivers of (a) maximum fence height adjacent to local streets, (b) minimum building site ar!sa per dwelling unit, and (c) maximum structural height. Petitioner requests waiver of Council Policy No. 543 pertaining to density bonuses. Coati.nued from Au;iust 15, 1988 There were 30 persons indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not rear'., it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Richard Brown, 6775 Airport Drive, Riverside, stated at the last session they were given some direction and information as to the Commission's feelings on things that should be looked into and reanalyzed, looking for potential answers to problems that were perceived. He said he thought they had gotten some good direction and had taken the opportunity during this sir xeeks to review it and thel+ have substantially answered all the items brought up. Mr. Brown stated they were asked to restudy and reconsider the density, the height of some of the buildings, to make provisions for a gated community, to determine whether they would have a shadowing problem oa adjacent properties because of the height of the buildings, and that they have also added a few things to that. FIe said although it was not specified in the minutes, Ehere was a question from somebody as to what wiadflow around the buildings could be. (Action Agenda and Summary of Actions of the August 15, 1988, meeting reflects opposition and Commission concerns about impact of height of buildings on airflow and sunlight). Mr. Brown said he would like to outline some of the changes that have bees made and then he was sure, the Commission would have some questions on technical details, and that they also had some experts present who would answer more specific questions. He said essentially there was a reduction in the total number of units by 24; that the 10-story building is now an 8-story building, which is a reduction in that particular building of 32 units; that some of *.he 3-story buildings are increased to 4-story, but since they reduced the total by 24 units, and the 10-story building had gone down by 32 units, the proximity of parking to the buildings had been mitigated to supply parking convenient to the people in that building. 09/26/88 1^ _1 MINDS ANAaEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 26 1988 60 He said they have provided a fully gated and fenced facility, which they had not done before, although it was something they had wanted. He said that brought up another question from the audience that if it was a gated community and there was not adequate parking outsidc± the gates so cars could come up and be rejected, then those people would be parking in the street. He said it had been redesigned so there is parking outside the gate, so there would be no necessity of street parking for those people not entering. He said there has also been a telephone system installed; and hopefully, this will be a personnel guarded facility, but at this time they have made it so it could be card entry and/or gate guard. Mr. Brown said they have eliminated Building No. 2 entirely, and that had to do with turnaround spaces and traffic flow; that they have changed the 1-story buildings around, which he thought would be favorable, particularly to the neighbors oa the easterly side of the property, in that they have located 1-story buildings all along that side, and instead of having the driveway and parking which would be adjacent to the back fences of the houses on the easterly side, they now have 1-story buildings with, in effect, back yards which are backing up to the residential, ezcept there is the fence, of course. He said, is addition to that, they have done the sunset line sight studies, and the windflow studies, and there were a lot of technical things that could come up there and he would prefer to have Commission's questions answered either by himself or by some of the experts present. He said some of the main concerns of the citizens on the original proposal, years ago when an apartment was going in there, was that they would overload the parks. He stated they now have more than double what is required by Anaheim Codes of open space inside the facility, as well as more parking than required. He said he felt they have pretty much of a security, gate-guarded facility, which is not going to impose itself on the neighborhood, and xhich he hopes is a good answer to many of the concerns expressed by the Commission and the neighbors. OPPOSITION• Ralph Sangiovanni, 242 West Simmons, Anaheim, stated he wanted to know what staff meant by "ao significant environmental impact" and added he felt 800 people would cause an environmental impact and that there would about 800 people living on that 10 acres and using their neighborhood. Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, stated the information is the staff report reflects the Initial Study given to staff by the applicant, which is a list of questions to be answered - yes, no, maybe. He ezplaiaed from that, staff determines if there is an environmental impact on the property. He stated staff would be glad to review that Initial Study with Mr. Sangiovanni, if he wishes to see it. Mr. Saagiovanni said he did not find that to be a real good answer, because he did not think the Planning Department staff has really looked into this; and that what it means to him is that Mr. Brown has looked into it and that he wanted to see it from the City's point of view. 09/26/88 ~:' ~}. MINU'S'ES ANA~'IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 26 1988 61 He said they could have a possible 800 people, with 800 cars, and a couple of trips a day could mean 2400 trips of people around the neighborhood. Be said he was also concerned about their sewers, water, fire hazards, garbage, etc. and he understood they were asking for a new light at Halter and Wilken, and he thought there must be some significant impact if a new light to accommodate more traffic is needed. He asked if staff had considered this in with other large complezes which are proposed for the area, and referred to a large complez planned for the corner of Halter and Katella, which is four large 10-story buildings with about 800 condominiums and offices. Mr. Hastings said he believed Mr. Sangiovanni was speaking of the Riviera Project; and that there may be some impacts, but those impacts are mitigated by the conditions of approval, such as the traffic signal. He said, therefore, staff is not necessarily requiring an Environmental Impact Report because the items that were identified can be mitigated easily by, in this case, a traffic signal. Mr. Hastings referred to the information in the staff report, and stated if there is any additionaY information brought up through a public hearing which was not brought up from the developer's Initial Study, then it would be up to the Planning Commission to determine if a Environmental Impact Study is required. Mr. Sangiovanni said the next problem relates to that being "affordable" senior housing and if the people could afford to live there. Ae stated they already have a 55,000,000 building on that property, which would have to be torn down and gotten rid of and someone has to pay for that, so ho wondered how much each apartment would cost for each of these senior citizens, which is supposed to be affordable, and where the extra 55,000,000 or so is going to be absorbed. He said be felt that absorption would be by each senior citizen renting an apartment there. Mr. Sangiovanni. said Mr. Brown was asking for too many variances; that a little might be all right to consider, but there are facts in the Planning Staff Report and it says there are supposed to be 18 units per acre and Mr. Brown wants 45, which he thought is quite a significant difference. He said if it happens in one place, it could happen a lot more and iu his mind this variance is xay out of line. He said Mr. Hrown wanted to reduce the site area per dwelling unit, that 1200 square feet is required and Mr. Brown wants 756 square feet, which is a very significant change. He said he also believes there are not enough parking spaces. He noted the California average of cars per unit is about 2.5, so just considering one car per person, would mean they would be short a couple of hundred parking spaces, not counting visitors or service people; therefore, he could see teat parking all being oa their streets. Mr. Sangiovanni said he was a member of the South Anaheim Neighborhood Council and they believed Mr. Brava would come to their meeting to show his plans, because that is what he had done before. He said the Neighborhood Council was very concerned about this project going into the area. 09/26/88 Ib ES ANA~Ih, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 26 1988 62 Mr. Sangiovanni said he read in the report that there are a certain number of apartments which are '.for very low income families and would be under some control for 30 years; and asked if that means the balance of those apartments have no control for some period of time. He asked if there is going to be some control over who could live in those apartments. He stated he is afraid of Mr. Brown's intent; and that in one or two years, it would not be a senior citizen' apartment complex but would be low cost apartments which do not meet the code and would create a real slum area in their neighborhood. He said he is not too familiar with density bonus talk, but noted Mr. Brown is looking for 59~ instead of 25~, which again means Mr. Brown is trying to jam more apartments into a small area. John Westenberger, 2385 South. Mira Court, No. 207, said the first knowledge of this project any of the people who live around him had, was on Friday when they found a hand printed paper put by their doors informing them of this project. He said if there were public notices placed on this property, or on the Smoketree Anaheim site, they were taken down immediately because he never saw them and he walks the property every evening. He added he could guarantee that more people from Smoketree Anaheim are not here because they did not know about it. Mr. Westenberqer said, as a resident, he did not care to go outside and have people looking at him from 8 stories up, and having 336 balconies with beach towels, etc. hanging over them. He sai8 the Smoketree property is a very quiet and lovely area; and that there is very little traffic. He stated he is totally against this project because the variances asked for are so far off from what this area was when he bought into it. He said he felt it was unconscionable that someone could come in and i~sk for this. He added he is concerned about his property being devalued. He also noted the surrounding area is plagued with crime, and is a very fragile neighborhood. He stated if the Commission does not make a decision tonight and it is continued, the people of Smoketree should know about this because an 8-story building will have a tremendous impact on Smoketree. Chairwoman Bouas asked Mr. Westenberger if he knew this was the second hearing on this and he replied that he had no idea, since this was the first they knew about it. Chairwoman Bouas informed him that this was the second hearing and asked if he was within 300 feet of the property. Mr. Westenberger said he is not directly within 300 feet, but as a condominium owner, he basically owns the wall, fence, and part of all the property that is around Smoketree, which is within 300 feet; and since this project will have a tremendous impact on all of the people in Smoketree Anaheim, they all should have been contacted. Chairwoman Bouas asked staff how that area was contacted. Dtr. Hastings said the owners were contacted if they had a unit within 300 feet. He said typically one of the members of the association will contact the Hoard and the Board would spread the word. He stated he has checked and staff did notify property owners within 300 feet of this project. 09/26/88 i t o,Ih i'f'ES ANA~IM CITY PLAN^a7ING COMMISSION SEPl'E S~FR 26 1988. 63 Mr. Westenberger said he called the people who handle Smoketree Anaheim and they knew nothing of this. He said he asked them to call the Board and let them know about it because they had no knowledge of this and they have a Board meeting the first of every month. He said this building, and this type of architectural structure, with this height, is inappropriate for the neighborhood. Marla Anghelone, 2231 South Oertley, said her property is directly on the east property line. Concerning notification to Smoketree, she stated the day after the original meeting on this, on August 15, she had called the City of Anaheim and asked if they had notified the property directly south. She said staff told her they had sent one notice to a man who lived in Glendale, who used to own that property 20 years ago; and that staff then promised her they would send a notification to each resident in that complez. He explained her argument was that part of their common area does fall within the 300 feet. Ms. Anghelone said there was a lady here earlier, who had a prior commitment, and asked her to bring up the point that there is a pedestrian walkway onto Willowbrook in the new plans, which means not only would there be people walking through that complex to get to the markets and Chapman, but there would also be people parking in the Willowbrook complex and walking through to get to that new development. She also noted the fastest way for an emergency vehicle to get into the proposed project, is through the crash gate off Willowbrook, because they come straight down Chapman and right up Willowbrook. She stated that will severely impact the area with sirens more frequently than in an ordinary neighborhood. Ms. Anghelone said she has been told that it has been declared uncoastitutiona~- either a recent decision or one that is in the courts currently, to have a senior's complex, unless it is a self-contained community like Leisure World. She asked what is going to happen if that law passes. She said it would be the same as what happened in the adults only situation; and the adults only apartments had to rent to families with children and she feared they might end up with the same situation sometime in the future. She stated she was concerned this proiect would not stay senior citizens. Commissioner Herbst eaplaiaed the State law sets the age limit for senior citizen projects and it could not be changed and the Housing Authority also has control of a certain number of these units. He said there are senior citizen apartments is Anaheim which are controlled, and this is controlled by the government. Ms. Aaghelone stated it can be changed if the Federal Government says it is unconstitutional. She stated even if it did stay senior citizen apartments, this project still does not provide adequate parking; that the plans have been changed nicely, but not enough; and they are asking for too many variances. Fern Call, 333 Wilken Way, Anaheim, 12221 Anzio Street, Garden Grove, stated she also is concerned about this remaining a senior citizen's complex. She indicated the did not trust the applicant because of the way the property is presently being kept; that the mini storage is being used by people to live 09/26/88 'T4 ~!? ~rn.T cRPTRMRER 26. 198fi 63 INUTES ANAHEIM CITY PTANNING """"'° Mr. Westenberger said he called the people who handle Smoketree Anaheim and they knew nothing of this. He said he asked them to call the Board and let them know about it because they had no knowledge of this and they have a Board meeting the first of every month. He said this building, and this type of architectural structure, with this height, is inappropr±,ate for tha neighborhood. Marla Anghelone, 2231 South Oertley, said her property is directly on the east property line. Concerning notification to Smoketree, she stated the day after the original meeting on this, oa August 15, she had called the City of Anaheim and asked if they had notified the property directly south. She swho usedito told her they had sent one notice to a man who lived in Glendale, own that property 20 years ago; and :.hat staff then promised lainedeherould send a notification to each resident in that complez. He exp argumeti:: was that part of their common area does fall within the 300 feet. Ms. Anghelone said there was a lady here earlier, who had a prior commitment, and asked her to bring up the point that there is a pedestrian walkway onto Willowbrook in the new plans, which means not only would there be people walking through that complex to get to the markets and Chapman, but there would also be people parking in the Willowbrook complex and walking through to get to that new development. She also noted the fastest way for an emergency vehicle to get into the proposed project, is through the crash gate off Willowbrook, because they come straight down Chapman and right up Willowbrook. She stated that will severely impact the area with sirens more frequently than in an ordinary neighborhood. Ms. Anghelone said she has been told that it has been declared unconstitutional, either a recent decision or one that is in the courts currently, to have a senior's complex, unless it is a self-contained community like Leisure World. She asked what is going to happen if that law passes. She said it would be the same as what happened in the adults only situation; and the adults only apartments had to teat ~o families with children and she feared they might end up with the same situation sometime in the future. She stated she was concerned this project would not stay senior citizens. Commissioner Herbst explained the State law sets the age limit for senior citizen projects and it could not be changed and the Housing Authority also has control of a certain number of these units. He said there are senior citizen apartments in Anaheim which are controlled, and this is controlled by the government. Ms. Anghelone stated it can be changed if the Federal Government says it is unconstitutional. She stated even if it did stay senior citizen apartments, this project still does not provide adequate parking; that the plans have been changed nicely, but not enough; and they are asking for too many variances. Fern Call, 333 Wilken Wey, Anaheim, 12221 Anzio Street, Garden Grove, stated she also is concerned about this remaining a senior citizen's complex. She indicated the did not trust the applicant because of the way the property is presently being kept; that the mini storage is being used by people to live 09/26/88 s t~ MINUTES. AN1,I~EIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIO" SEPTEMBER 26 1988 ~ in, with transients all around, and there is trash etc. all over. She added she is conce:-aed about Wilken Way having to be widened, and about the traffic, and the blockage of air current and sunlight. Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, explained a recorded covenant would keep it a senior citizen t~roject and, if there wa.s something current before the Supreme Court, he was not aware of it. The nest speaker Charles Dearborn of :!241 Oertley, expressed similar concerns about the neighborhood. Loren F. Petersen, 223 W. Tiller Avenue,. said the area is inundated with apartments; that his concern is that there is too much traffic, not enough parking, people from the apartments are parking on the streets in the residential neighborhoods, there are either no sidewalks or insufficient sidewalks for foot traffic, and it has a high crime rate and not enough police protection. He said they do not want apartments there and that the minimum size should be kept to 1200 square feet. He said only single-family homes, townhouses, or condominiums should go there. Paul Sloemgren, 225 South Oertley, said the elderly people would probably be relying on public transportation and walking to Harbor Boulevard, and with their Social SecuriY.~r checks coming in,he felt there is a danger for those people because of the criminal element there in the evening. He added he felt there is probably a better site for this type of project, and suggested the Project Alpha Area. He stated this will generate increased traffic by the owners, occupants, and visitors, with at least 800 cars a day coming in and out through the neighborhood. He stated he lives two houses away from the intersection of Oertley and Wilken Way and in the mornings, there are approzimately 200 children at that intersection waiting for buses and his concern is that there is a greater chance of an accident with more traffic coming in. Louis Anqhelone, 2231 South Oertley Drive, Anaheim, stated he has a criminal record as a result of the last time he complained about Mr. Brown's property. He explained he was cited by Code Enforcement for code violations on his property when he complained about Mr. Brown; that when they called the City about the substandard wall Mr. Brown was building in the back of his property, and about the materials being used and the wrong size, they got the run around with Code Enforcement saying it was the Building Department's problem, who then informed him it was a Code Enforcement problem. He said Code Enforcement finally came Jut and took a look at the wall, looked around his property, and started writing citations, and that he ended up with a criminal record and a $95 fine, without even knowing what it was he was charged with. He stated hE was told to appear in court and it took a lot to get the City Attorney to tell him what it was he was charged with and it was because he complained about Mr. Brown's wall. Mr. Aaghelone said he would also like Commission to find out about the Supreme Court case, because he was also concerned that since this is not a self-contained project, it may not remain a senior citizen complex. He said 09/26/88 ';. ~. ,~IhJTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 26. 1968 .~.`~ he was concerned about the size of these cages they are going to put these older people in; and that he felt the apartment sizes are too small for anyone to live in. He said they do not get any support from the City, and xhen they had a truck stop there, they called the City, who refused to come out because they did not want a confrontation with the truckers about the noise they were making. Charles Naughton, 118 West Cliffwood Avenue, the first street north of Wilken Way, stated he wanted to comment on the "S" curve which begins at Oertley, proceeding west; that there are signs posted there that the speed limit is 15 miles per hour, so that gives some idea of the hazard on that curve. He said there have been several serious accidents at that "S" curve, so it would seem if there is going to be a lot of traffic on that street, that "S" curve would have to be straightened out. He stated he also wanted to comment on the senior citizen's ages, which is stated as 55; that the staff report also talks about people who might be supporting that senior citizen, who could be 45 years of age, and also there can be people younger than that who cannot live there longer than 60 days. He stated he wanted to point out how difficulk it would be to get younger people out who live where it is supposedly restricted. Frank McCormick, 229 West Bluebell, Anaheim, stated he wanted to register their objections to this project. Dick Coz, 218 West Tiller, stated in the four hours he has been here, he has learned it pays to state your objections vocally. He stated the last time he was here, it was concerning something across the street from khis project, and there was concern about the people living in trailers being evicted from their single trailer residence and now there are multiple unit apartments there, so when t2.ey talk about trust in this senior citizen complex, he has none. He said waste is something he has objections to, and one day we will pay a terrible pr±-e for the waste that we do. He said talking about tearing down newly constLUCted buildings, he felt is a terrible waste of time and energy and money; and that he could not see the point to that. He said with building this type of apartments, he worries about what is termed "a blighted area". He said when there are low income apartments, crime rates increase; that there are '. ly:rge number of transients in the project area now and they will be aroi,,,' and that he has fear for the senior citizens who would be living there, .rith that kind of density. Derrick McGeorge, representative of Tarbell Realtors, said they service the area between Harbor and Haster, Chapman and Orangewood. He presented pictures to Commission showing the "S" curve and the bus stop which is on Wilken and Oertley. He explained the pictures were taken at 2:00 p.m. showing the traffic and wanted the Commission to notice that if there are cars on both sides of the street, there is not even access to put two more cars each going in opposite directions. 09/26/88 ', ' INUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 26 1988 66 Mr. McGeorge stated his main concern is property value, which is basically why people invest in property; and that the average home in the area is about 1500 square feet. He said these are very large lots is this neighborhood and although they look small from the front, almost all of them have additions; that the homes are selling now from about 3160,000 to 5185,000, which is not an insignificant sum. He said they have increased in value approximately 320,000 in four months and with this project, it will stop right there. He stated the traffic is going to be really bad oa Wilken and there are no sidewalks on Wilken, or what is there is only half way. He said he also noticed water pressure in the area is not adequate and that is a problem which should be reviewed. He said he i$ mainly opposed to this because of the devaluation of the property. Ralph Martinet, 2380 South Mira Caurt, Smoketree complex, said he also did not receive any notice, just a flyer in his mailbox that someone had put there. He said he moved there three years ago because it was such a nice area. He said there is a big greenbelt right is the center of the complex and a lot of children play there. He said he would have moved further south, but this was just what he was looking fo: and it is close to his job. He said they do have a problem with vagrants coming across from the storage units which are there now; and one of their main problems is people coming over the fence and he could just imagine whaC it will be like with apartments there. He noted now they only are putting a gate there at Willowbrook but asked what would stop them, at a later date, if they need acceaa from putting a road through there. He noted someone said the grocery store is 8 blocks away but it would only be 6 blocks if they walk through his complex, so that is what they are likely to do. He said his basic concern is what would happen with the overflow, with 800 people wanting access through the Smoketree complex. He said their complex area is well kept and very nice and he fears what will happen if this project is allowed. Paula Trigilio said she also lives in Smoketree Anaheim and also feels strongly about the possibility of Willowbrook being opened up for use by the people in this complex, which would totally destroy their condominium complex. She said she thought Willowbrook is a City/public street and that could very possibly be opened. Mr. Hastings informed her that it is a public street. Mickey Maltsberger, 138 Cyrus Avenue, said she is a homeowner there for 16 years and that most of the people there had built onto their homes. She said one thing the Commission should consider is limiting the building heights. She said an 8-story building would cut a lot out fur them. She asked about the passibility of cutting Wilken Way off and making it a dead end so people could not use it as a raceway. She said the traffic would be very bad; that people would not want to sit in a line waiting to get out and they would be cutting through and going down a lot of the other streets. She said there are a lot of children in the area since it is single family and they have a great concern for their children. She said she had planned on living there for years, but that Mr. Brown has certainly turned the area into a slum so far, as has also been mentioned, and she did not trust him. 09/26/88 i MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 26 1988 67 Elaine Bloemgrea, 2159 Oertley, said she lives two blocks from Wilken Way. She stated she wanted to point out the need to develop the sewer in order to supply the demand that is going to be needed. She said she has a concern for the additional construction that will need to be done, digging up the streets, in order to change the sewers. She agreed with what everyone had said and she felt, referring to the findings in the staff report, that this project could not justify any hardship in order to qualify for a variance and that none of the conditions exist that would qualify this project for a Conditional Use Permit. Harry Dewitt, 2314 South Cutty Way, Unit 110, said the postcard he received, dated September 16, and signed by the Chairwoman of the City Planning Commission, noticed this meeting tonight, and that he did not understand that there had been a meeting on this project prior to this, since he did not receive a notice of the previous meeting. He said this was the only notice he had received. He said the residents of Smoketree would fill this Council Chamber had there been adequate notice about this meeting tonight. Ae said he was not against senior citizen's completes but the reason he moved into Smoketree was because of the way the area was maintained and kept up. He said with this proposal, he did not feel the size of the units was adequate. He stated he is also concerned about the public right-of-way on Willowbrook and their ability to keep Smoketree well maintained. Ae said they do not want a t.'~oroughfare going through their complex. He said he was also concerned about blockage of air and sunlight and he hoped the Commission would not make a rash decision this evening on this. He stated he believed if this was continued, they would get a lot more input from the opposition. Mark Claffey, 2158 South Madrid, said he had bought his house 2 years ago and has added on 500 square feet. He said he had cleaned it up and that all the neighbors really take care of their property. Ae stated an 8-story building really does not belong in their neighborhood and he was sure the Commission understood that now. He stated it would not only block the sunlight, but the sun shining on a steel and glass building would reflect. He stated he was also concerned about the backyard privacy of their property; and that he would not oppose a 2-story senior citizen complex because it would not interfere with the neighborhood. He said he was concerned about the danger to the children during construction and the increase in crime that would come about because of this project. He stated he has bees waiting for the storage facility that is there now to open so he could utilize it and added he felt that was a good use for that property. He asked that the Commission please turn this project down. Pam Gilbert, 232 West Wilken Way, stated she really objects to this project. She stated they have too much traffic there now, and that there are buses going up and down there constantly now and she did not see how they could possibly handle any more traffic. 09/26/88 A, ~ .D MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 26 1988 66 Helen Runtz, 2375 South Mira Court, said she is a senior citizen, and lives is Smoketree because there is no maintenance and they have wonderful people who take good care of their yards, etc., and it is quiet. She said if they open Willowbrook to traffic, with people coming through there, it would be disastrous and they do not have the means to move elsewhere. Judy Coderre, 232 West Simmons, said she and her husband are both opposed to this project. She asked why they would need 8 stories. She referred to a 2-story senior citizen's complez on Citron and Broadway, and stated that is a very nice looking unit. She stated she could not understand the applicant wanting to put in an 8-story building there. She said last year they went to every redevelopment meeting with the City Council and they had received notice of eminent domain because they were in a blighted area, so she wanted to know if they are is a blighted area, why they would want to put senior citizens there. She said they have lived in their home almost 20 years and were the last of single family dwellings; that developers are building all around them and eventually they xill want to move them out as a single-family dwelling because they have already proposed multiple family dwellings for that area. She said she is asking that they be able to keep their home. She said she was also concerned about an increased crime rate and ezposinq the seniors to that, as well as themselves. Jetti Anqhelone 2231 South Oertley, said they abut on the east side of this property and she wanted to know why the storage facility which is already there could not be completed and used. She said she realizes money is a big problem but if what is there was completed, then they could find someone to buy it. RELt7TTAL Mr. Brown said there are some strong misapprehensions as to the eztension of Willowbrook and opening of this project into Willowbrook. He said it is not intended to be, nor if this project is approved will it be, an ACCesa street. He said there is only a crash gate there xith access only to th9 Fire Department and it would not be open for general traffic or pedestrians. Je said there had been a lot of reference to 800 people being in this cornylez and that the ezperts is the City would know the average tenancy, and the amount of tenants that would be expected in this project would be about 1.2 people per unit on the average, and that this is not intended to be occupied by 2 people per unit. Mr. Brows said they did a sunset line of site study and also a wind study to determine xhat effect that would have, if any, on other houses. (He made reference to the charts/exhibits on display). He said his answer to the question about parking is that they exceed the nex City demand for parking on this type of unit. Concerning traffic, ~e stated the Traffic Engineer has looked at this and he believed they complied in every way. He noted the storage units that are there now could not be occupied and, if they xere, that would create traffic, although not. a great deal of traffic, but neither would this project create a great deal of traffic. He noted any use that property is put to would add somewhat to traffic. 09/26/88 tiY MINUTES ANAHEIM CITX P APINING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 26. 1988. 69 He stated he hoped the Commission would consider this project on its merits; that he knew the neighbors are emotional, as they always have bean, because they do not want this or any other type of project there. He said they had tried the best they could, and as thoroughly as they could, to answer Commission's questions, the n~=ghbor's questions, and to propose a project which would be a good neighbor in a good area. He stated the most significant change, which was the Commiss~~n's suggestion, is that this is intended to be a high security, fenced, and gated area. Dennis Rasa, 1020 North Broadway, Santa Ana, referring to the exhibits, said they had prepared two wind studies; that one was based on the National Weather Service dis+~ction of wind for Southern California. He said they did an addition to that, and called the local Orange County Airport and asked them for their air traffic direction of wind which they used and that is based on prevailing wind direction of 193 degrees magnetic less 14 degrees. He said in order to accommodate, they prepared two charts based on each of those. He explained when the wind comes onto a positive structure, it creates a negative drag around the sides and back and it takes atcut the length of the building itself to recover and does not disrup*. anything beyond that, as demonstrated by the chart. He said the same tl:•.:::„ ;applied to both charts, and the wind recovers before it leaves the pro~~,_y. He said they had also prepared a graph to show how the wind comes up giver the building and recovers. Mr. Rasa referred to the exhibits on the shadt~.r studies, and stated they had prepared four studies taking different times ::f the year, at critical days when the most shadow would be developed. FIe said the first was March 21, at 5:00 p.m., the second June 21, at 6:00 p.m., the third September 22, zt 5:00 p.m. and December 22, at 4:00 p.m. He stated those are times when we have our last hour of sunlight. He explained the length of shadow had been calculated based on the height of the buildings. He said, as indicated on the charts, the shadow does terminate at the property line. and the density of shadows change from the inception at the building and becomes defused at the greater distance. He said they only addressed the sunset shadows. Mr. Brown stated there was an intention the tenants. He said he could not make there would be vans there, but it is a operation and that is to be followed. to have vans available to transport a promise that ten years from now general practice in this type of THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Messe asked staff about a traffic signal being proposed at Hester cad Wilken, yet there was nothing about the traffic study being approved. He said the Commission usually gets some word from the Traffic Engineer relative to his thoughts about: the traffic .study. Karen Urman, Deputy Traffic Engineer, stated the applicant did submit a traffic study and with that information, staff ealculated whether a signal was warranted because of the number of trips generated. Commissioner Messe asked what the Traffic Division felt about 555 vehicles on Wilken Way in that neighborhood between Madrid cad Hester. 09/26/88 ° '..~ ~~. MINUTES: ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 26 1988 70 Arthur Daw, Deputy City Engineer, stated Wilken Way is a local street and he believed the cross section of Wilken Way is 40 feet of roadreay, which is considered adequate for parking on each side find one lane of traffic each dir.ction. Commissioner Boydstun stated the traffic report from Weston Pringle and Associates indicated they planned on having 266 units for 55 to 65 year old residents and 174 units reserved for the over 65 age group. She stated it is her understanding that the State law mandates that if there are over 150 units in a complez, they have to allow residents from the age of 55 and up. She asked the applicant how they are going to make some of those units for only people 65 years old or older. Mr. Brown stated the plan has not been ;;o invite the 55 year olds, but they are allowed because of the State law. He stated the desire is, and the usual practice is, that the people far exceed the age of 55. He added, however, when the complez is 150 units, then they must permit 55 year olds. He said they could not do anything but comply with State law, but the usual practice is, and their desire is, and he strongly suspected that; this project would be occupied by people far in excess of 62. He stated, however, they would have to comply with the law. Commissioner Messe stated it seems that Mr. Pringle based his study oa a total of 490 dwelling unite, 266 units reserved for 55 to 65 and 174 reserved for over 65 and that was the project description and the basis for this study. Mr. Brown responded he believed that is a very conservative viewpoint and that the likelihood is that there would not be near that many cars and at the time this was in planning, the City regulations demanded far fewer parking spaces than what they have. He said because they have the advantage of the high rise buildings, they have more ground space and more parking spa e. He said all the information they could get indicates they will have far in excess of the number of spaces they actually need. Com:ri:~sioner Messe said he was not worried about parking so much as the wording which is misleading. Mr. Brown stated he believed they are concerned about the traffic. He stated when they went back in for the review, the first place they went was the architecture and engineering staff. He stated they worked directly with Mr. Singer who made some exceptions in his normal pattern in that he helped with the design as he saw it. He added he can't speak for Mr. Singer, but in his opinion, this complies with Mr. Singer's idea of how the design should be. Commissioner Herbst stated there is only one other senior citizen's complex in Anaheim which exceeds 150 units, and he knew they had parking problems there, which was before the ordinance was changed. t?e asked if there is any information as to the average age of the peop3;'~ who lived in that complez. Debbie Vagts, Housing Operations Coordinator, stated she thought it was about 65, but she knew it is well in excess of 55. 09/26/88 1, MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 26 1988 71 Chairwoman Bouas asked if Mr. Brown was planning to operate this project and keep it for himself; and Mr. Brown said yes, and that it is a corporate entity and he is the largest single stockholder. Chairwoman Bouas stated one of the citizen's concerns was the waste with the storage units which they now wanted to tear down. Mr. Brown said there is a crime problem in that mini-storage area ana they have made tremendous efforts to stop that; that some people feel they had rented those out, but that is not true; that they had guards, and the Police Department has been helpful in making sweeps through there, but it is a nuisance and an unhappy situation which they have no control over. He stated they could not totally keep people out, although they have made a very expensive effort to do so. He explained they did build that complex for an operator of that type of building and that individual thought he could make that large of a project work, but that he knew nothing about operating a storage facility, but that the operator was unable to use it, so they have made every effort to sell it to someone else, but it is simply too large and there is no market for it. He stated the real professionals like Public Storage, Linkletter, etc. would have nothing to do with it. Chairwoman Bouas asked if they felt the best thing is to demolish it and start all over. Mr. Hrown stated they obviously are going to try to sell the metal portions of those buildings to salvage what khey can and they could sell some of the parts, although not all is salvageable. Commissioner Feldhaus said he believed that was one of the Riost prime pieces of property left in the City of Anaheim. He stated he felt, personally, that this is too much on that property, particularly with the density proposed. He asked Mr. Brown if he had considered RM-3000 townhouse type units. Mr. Brown responded he had; that originally there was approved 143 - 140 units of townhouses, prior to the apartment project not being approved; that they bought the property with the agreement that they would finance the apartment project, but when the apartment project failed before the Commission, they asked if they could put 148 units in there, but there was no lender who xould undertake that project, with the cost, and they felt it was economically not feasible, and that it simply could not be done on an economic basis. Commissioner Feldhaus stated the:?t was in 1984 and that was for 250 units, and Mr. Brown said 250 units were deried at the time, and they were 2 and 3-bedroom apartments, as opposed to what they are doing now. Commissioner Herbst stated this was a 9-acre parcel of flat ground, and recognizing they are trying to get the density, the maximum structural height according to code is 58 feet, and they have eliminated some of the vision by going to 72 feet, and that could be eliminated; that they could reduce the size of those buildings to where they would not be impacting the neighbors. Ae said he was concerned about the density since they are asking for a lot over the City Council's policy. He noted he had no problem with the 25~ 09/26/88 ~'. ~L ;~ r' 1 ~in~ ~~ .u r ntmv nr *uuTrar rnufrTCCT(1N SFPTEMBER 26 1983 72 density bonus, because that is what. the State mandated; and that he has no problem with a senior citizen's complez, but they have overdone the density on this project. He noted they have gone a long ways in securing the project, but Commission had asked him to reduce the density and he did not reduce it far enough. He stated the height of the building encroaches on the people who live there and that should be reduced down to 58 feet so the applicant would not need that particular variance. Commissioner Herbst said the plans show a certain amount of recreational area that would make a fine development, but the parking is one thing he was concerned about; that 55 years of age to him is not retirement age and even though there may be some control over this, most of the people at 55, man and wife, would still work and they will have two cars. He said if the applicant brcke this up into segments where particular segments could be set aside for seniors 62 and over, and the complez was under 150 units; then break it up into another segment under 150 units for 62 and over, etc., then they could legally stay over the 62 age limit. He said right now they could not legally restrict certain units is this project and would have to allow 55 year olds. He said in looking at the size of the complez, it could be broken up into segments of less than 150 units each. He said it bothers him and he could not vote for the project because it could end up as very small apartments for people 55 years old. Mr. Brown said the experience of most of these projects is that they are not economically the kind of thing that you would want to bring a bunch of people in with two cars who are working. He noted 55 years old is not a senior citizen, per se; that it would be an almost impossible task to segregate this complex. He said if they broke it up into four segments, they would lose all the efficiency of the driveways and central recreation areas. He said he honestly believed they have a good plan and he did not think the suggestion Commissioner Herbst is bringing up, in practice, is the way it wov.ld go. Commissioner Herbst said he could not see this as a safe thing here for senior citizens with the size of this complez; that the applicant may be gone tomorrow and someone else may take over with a whole different attitude and they could rent these to people who are 55, and they would do it because they cou'.d not be stopped. Mr. Brown said they have more than complied with every request that had been built into the law to prevent that and that it is not truly suitable to younger people. Commissioner Herbst said 55, while not young, is still not old and his concern is that they would be working and they could not be denied rental. He said they could deny it as far as the few units for low low income, because the City would have some control, but, if someone 55 comes in, there are units available, and if they met the qualifications of the low income bracket, they could not be t;:rned down. Commissioner Boydstun asked if the Housing Di~~ra.sion waiting list for affordable, has any 55-year-olds. 09/26/88 ~V '~.~ ~3.7~LT~'$.q at~„*soTU CITY PL h dING C rnx ct: OMMISS a2'sMBER 26. 1988 73 Debra Vagts stated the 55 year old could be working, and that they have a very small waiting list of 55 year olds. She said the majority are 62 and over; however, they do have 55-year-olds who are working and below 80~ of median income. Commissioner Feldhaus clarified Mr. Dearborn's point about the property being forever dedicated to senior citizens, and explained that there has to be a covenant recorded that could not be changed. He asked if he meant ~hbt five years, ten years, or whatever, is the future, if they wanted to chsaa_oi t:~e complete use and cancel this CUP, would they be able to do that. Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, stated he does not know of a case where someone has asked the City to be relieved of the senior citizen restriction; that he thinks that would be very difficult to do because a lot of the site development standards are permissible only because of the age restrictions. He said he did not know how this project could be converted with some of the unit sizes and parking standards. Commissioner Feldhaus asked what would happen if they wanted to go back to a commercial use. Mr. Fletcher said if they demolished the project, of course, they could do that. Commissioner Herbst explained this property has a resolution of intent to RS-3000 which could be built there; that he was looking at this as people density and he knows that senior citizen complexes, with the number of cars and number of people living there, is the lightest use that could qo on this piece of property for the size. He said he still felt the density was high, but as a senior citizen complex, that is the lightest use for that area. He said the developer should take a good look at this project and if the building was reduced in height and the density lowered, then this would be a fine project. Ae said he is still concerned about keeping the age limit to no one under 62. Mr. Brown stated their goal is to have at least 50! of this project at the low low affordable and that is feasible if they kept the project as it was. He said he is willing to stipulate, instead of 35~, to have 50~ as very very affordable. He said they hoped to exceed that and that may be a good answer to same of Commissioner Herbst's hesitation. Commissioner Herbst said he has to consider the neighborhood; that Mr. Brown is asking for variances which would impact some of these people. He explained in order to approve a variance, there is supposed to be a hardship, which is the purpose of asking for a variance, and he wanted to know what the hardship is oa a 9-acre piece of property where they are asking for 72 €eet height vs. 58 feet. Mr. Brown stated the maximum height of the building is 71 feet and oa the original, they were allowed to go to 65 feet, and that is only a six-foot difference, to the best of his knowledge. 09/26/88 _' f~NUTES AND'~T~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 26 1988 74 Commissioner Messe asked if it would make a difference if they moved the building. Commissioner Herbst stated according to the staff report, they were not considering the Smoketree complex, because it is multiple family. Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, stated the distance from single-family is taken into consideration when calculating the height allowed and Smoketree is considered multiple-family condominiums. Commissioner Herbst said it would still impact them, even though our code says they don't have to take that into consideration. Commissioner Messe said he is having a real problem rcith the traffic on Wilken Way; that the trip distribution report in Pringle's analysis says there are 1255 trips going toward Haster, and that was not total trips, but just the trips going to and from Haster. He said they have approximately 260 of those trips during the two peak hours of the day which leaves 1000 trips for the rest of the 20 hours of the day; and that translates to abot:t 1 trip a minute down and back from Wilken. He stated that seemed to him to really be impacting the residential community pretty heavily. Karen Urman stated because the proposed project is for senior citizens, the trips during the peak hours are less. Commissioner Messe responded he understood that, but the others are spread out sad there is going to be a constant flow of traffic on Wilken Way. Ms. Urman said it would be less than any other type of multiple-family use and Chairwoman Bouas interjected it is also less than ff there was commercial there. Commissioner Carusillo said he would feel more comfortable, regardlass of what took place here, if when they are projecting 400 to 500 people, that an EIR is in order. Commissioner Boydstun asked if the project would work if the applicant just cut 2 stories off each tall building so it .could not impact the neighborhood; and then he could leave the other buildings alone. Mr. Brown said the more they reduce the number of units, the more they have to increase the price and leave fewer affordable; and that he thought they had answered that they are not going to have any line of site impact and not any wind diversion impact. He stated they did take off 2 stories; and that they could possibly take off another story of each high-rise and try to put them on some of the other buildings, and keen the number of units. He said he did not mean to say 460 units is an inviolatable number., but the closer they could stay to that, the better aff they are. He said if the Commission wanted him to take off a story from the higher buildings and equalize that among the other buildings, from the construction point, that makes life a lot easier. He added they have tttcd to ansxer th¢ Commission's original direction as best they could. 09/:16/88 ~~ ~ ~f MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SEPTEMBER 26, 1988, 7~ Commissioner Boydstun responded he did not reduce the project down to the height that was allowed and Commissioner Herbst noted the Commission had said he was to eliminate the height waiver. Commissioner Bouas stated the affordable units was a concern of the neighbors, and added maybe they would have to do away with a few of the affordable units to make it work. Mr. Brown stated he did not not know what the effect would be to reduce the height of the buildings, and whether it would effect one building, or two buildings, etc., but if it would help, he would suggest the Commission deny just that variance request and they would comply with the height restrictions. Commissioner Boydstun said they would have to reduce the density too. Commissioner Herbst said staff had calculated 328 units, including the 254 density bonus permitted by policy, and 416 units is a 594 density bonus, which is far in excess of 254. Chairwoman Bouas referred to the crash gate and any access out on that side and asked if it is closed off completely or if there is a walkway onto Willowbrook. Wayne Siu, architect, 1020 North Broadway, Santa Ana, stated thore are pedestrian gates at each entrance (Wilken Way as well as Willowbrook.) He said the gate. would be operated by cards; and that the same card or handset would operate the front entry gate as well as the back entry. Commissioner Carusillo stated he had a concern that the Commission was giving Mr. Hrown the wrong direction; that the Commission had talked about suggesting RM-3000, then there was some conversation about perhaps lowering this down to 58 feet, which might be permissible, but that he did not know if that was the consensus of the Commission. He stated he did not know what the answer is, other than everyone has expressed their views, mostly not in favor of the project, and he was concerned the applicant would qo away with some impressions about what is all right and that he did not knox if that is what the Commission would want to do. He stated several people have suggested different things to key in on and those people are making those as suggestions and he did not believe they were speaking for the wholts Commission. He stated he would like Y.o spare the applicant any more expense chasing down a trail that might not be acceptable. Commissioner Messe asked staff the number of units permitted if Mr. Brown was not asking for extra density over xhat x:T~alc',. be allowed. Greg Hastings said it would be 328 units. Commissioner Messe clarified that is 88 units over the permitted density bonus. Commissioner Feldhaus stated another concern is the walking distance to the necessary services. 09/26/88 l^ i ~...~ '.i MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 26 1988 76 Commissioner Messe asked the applicant if they could get this project down in density. Mr. Brown responded they could, and if they reduce the height of the buildings that would do it, but he would rather not to do that. He said they listened at the last meeting and have tried to come up wit.'i what they thought was suggested, and making certain corrections, would be considered favorably. He said the property is a real burden to them and they did not desire having the problems they are having and if there was nay other alternative, he would do it. He said he is trying to comply with what the neighbors and Commission have asked them to do. Commissioner Messe stated he did not think they have gone far enough in complying and other Commissioners noted they had asked that the height and density be reduced to code. Commissioner Herbst stated he would like to see in the reduction, some control over the age limit, indicating he was still concerned about having the 55 year olds there. Commissioner Carusillo stated the applicant should make an effort to meet with neighbors is the Wilken Way area and the Smoketree Association in an effort to mitigate some of their concerns. Mr. Brown said he had meet with those people several times, prior to the meeting, and went through the details of this and that he did not know how to solve the problem of the property much better than what they have done. He asked the Commission to approve this, except for the height variance, which would reduce the density also and increase the parking. Commissioner Feldhaus informed Mr. Brown that the minutes reflected that oa August 15, X988, when he left the meeting, the applicant was requested to eliminate the height waiver at that time. Chairwoman Bouas asked if he would like a continuance and if he could submit revised plans by Friday. Mr. Brown stated he would prefer not to do that because they have gone through a tremendous expense and he wanted to go ahead without the height variance. He said if they needed to reduce it by 64 units, at two stories, he did not know if they could build this project. Mr. Hastings said another option would be to set the building back from the property line. Commissioner Herbst asked if Mr. Brown needed more time to think about this. He stated he would not vote for it anyway, as it is, because as far as he was concerned, they could not control it so that tenants were 62 years of age or older and it would wind up being an apartment Complex, even though Mr. Brows says it won't. He sta~eci he does not consider people at 55 senior citizens and he thought if Mr. Brown was going to have new plans, then the Commmission should see them. 09/26/88 Iht'~'ES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25 1988 TT Chairwoman Bouas asked Mr. Brown if he wanted a two-week continuance and if he could have his plans in by Friday. Mr. Brown said the answer was yes, if the direction is that they go back and simply reduce the height, leaving the parking and everything as is. He asked if that is what Commission's direction was. Commissioner Herbst responded that was not what he was talking about. Mr. Hastings stated due to the complexity of this, staff would prefer a continuance of four weeks so the other departments could look at this as well. He noted staff. often finds that one change leads to another, which the departments need to review. Mr. Brown asked if they left everything the same as it is, taking 32 or 64 units off, however it works out, but not changing anything else, and parking would remain the same, if that would require that they go back through the mechanics of the staff. Mr. Hastings stated if those were the only changes, staff would not have to review it and Planning Commission could probably act or, that today. Commissioner Carusillo said they keep referring to the nust,ar of stories, and he thought [:he issue is that the Commission wanted the height limited to code, which is 58 feet, not just taking off stories. Mr. Brown said he is saying that they would comply with the height restrictions and would at leant take off one story and not ask for the variance. He said they would make no other changes except any which he did not know about previously, and that was pedestrian access to Wilken Way, and that unless there is some City Ordinance which mandates that they have that, they would eliminate it. (It xas noted the concern was about t13e access to Willowbrook, not Wilken Way). Mr. Brown said t,4ey would not have pedestrian or vehicle access to Willowbrook. Mr. Hastings said the only required access he was aware of, was for Fire Department trucks. Members of the audience asked if he was going to be required to get an Environmental Impact Report. There xas no answer. 3oseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, stated in light of the amount of public input received, he would recommend that the Chairwoman reopen the public hearing, then continue the matter. A T Conunissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Carusillo and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby reopen the public hearing on Conditional Use Permit No. 3049 (Readvertised) and Waiver of Council Policy No. 543, and that consideration of the aforementioned matter will be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of October 24, 1988, in order for the applicant to submit revised plans, to be reviewed by staff, and that this item will be heard first on the agenda after 6:00 p.m. (The meeting was adjourned after this item was beard, all other Agenda Items having being heard previous to Item No. 1T). '~ ~ ) MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SEPTEMBER 26, 1988, 7$ ITEM N0. 18. - REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: A. REQUEST FOR CODE AMENDMENT PERTAINING TO THEATERS IN Th'E "CO" 20NE - Request from Alan J. Tuntlanri, Davis Development, for a Code Amendment to permit theaters as a conditional use 3.; the Commercial, Office and Professional (CO) Zone. Continued from meeting of August 15, 1988. DISCUSSIQN: Commissioner Messe said he would moe8 to direct the City Attorney to prepare a draft ordinance. Commissioner Herbst asked if the Commission felt a public hearing should be held on this matter. Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, pointed out this would be city-wide, if allowed, in the CO Zoae by Conditional Use Permit; that it would be a code amendment and each individual CUP would come is separately and have a public hearing. A T : Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hezbst and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Feldhaus and Csrusillo voting h'0) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby direct the City Attorney staff to prepare a draft ordinance permitting enclosed theaters in the CO zone, subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit and further recommends to the City Council that said ordinance be adopted. B. RECLASSIFICATION N0. 88-89-2 AND VARIANCE NO. 3810 - Nunc pro tune resolution to correct Resolution Nos. PC88-176 and PC88-177 adopted in connection with Reclassification No. 88-89-2 and Variance No. 3810, property located at 603 West Broadway. ACTION: Commissioner McBurney offered Resolution No. PC88-276 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the amendment of Resolutions Nos. PCB;-17c and PC88-177, nunc pro tune, as shown on the draft Resolution. Oa roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, SOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC GURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE 09/26/88 ~^ r~ ~~ ~ .~,.~~ +y+~.-•rv rr•rv or.afnlT-lr COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 26 1988, 79 C, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 3028 - Nunc pro tunc resolution to correct Resolution No. PC88-213 adopted in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 3028, property located at 925 South Gilbert Street. A TI N Commissioner McBurney offered Resolution No. PC88-277 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the amendment of Resolutions No. PC88-213, nunc pro tune, as shown On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE D, rtF~r.nSgIFICATION N0. 87-88-~ - Nunc pro tunc resolution to amend Resolution No. PC88-148 granted in connection with Reclassification No. 87-88-55, property Yocated at 3826 West Lincoln Avenue. $C~IQN Co:r¢nissioner McBurney offered Resolution No. PC88-278 and moved for its pa:,sage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the amendment of Resolutions Nos. PCBS-148, nunc pro tunc. On roll call, 'the £oregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOiJAS, POYDSTLIIN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE i.HSENT: NONE E. ~,QND:TIONAr- USE gERMIT N0. 3042 - Nunc pro tune resolution to amen3 Resolution No. PC88-202 granted is connection with Conditional Use Permit tin. 3042, to ezpaad an ezistinq church, property located at 5800 East Santa Ana Canyon Road. ACTION: Commissioner McBurney offered Resolution No. PC88-279 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim Ci~y Planning Commission does hereby approve the amendment of Resolutions Nos. PCdB-202, nunc pro tune, as shown on the draft Resolution. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE 09/26/88 ~ ~= MINUTES. AN1L~'IM _C,F,7~}'T_.ANNING C~$v^•~ SEPTbriBER 26, I988. 80 COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Staff report regarding proposed Council Poliga ::,1c.~rdiaance apR3.Yzable to Board and Co::m~issio,~ meetings to request st;cf servfiees. This was approved by City C~nucil. Commissioner ?tesae asked if this meant, if Conahi~,s'ion. masks by resolution or motion that staff,'. give tbwm ~f report which wi12 t~i~e m:>re than four hours, the+, Ci cy 'danger haa~ ~o approves the request JoseF~n Fletcher, De~sa~:l City Attorney, stated that wSS the way he read it. Commissioner Messe said that. wr.r,. the way he read fit also. He asked if the Cormr,ission should ask the Ci}~* Manager to come down and listen i.a their request, or what. Commissioner McBurney asked if the staff has a list of things and if they know what would take less than four hours so the Commission would know whether the request fits in that category. ADJOURNME)!~ s There being no further business, Chairwoman Bouas adjourn9d the meeting at 11:55 p.m. Respectfully submitl:ed, ~~i ~~~ Edith ~. Harris, Secretary Anaheim City Plaoninq Commission 012im/O1?lm mm 09/26/88