Loading...
Minutes-PC 1988/10/24~9 , w~. it fl~3L1L8iJt REGUI,au ~., FTING OF THE ANasrcrt`a c'ITY PLANNING COMMISSION Date: October 24, 1988 The regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to order at 9:00 a.m., October 24, 1988, 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: 1:90 p.m• COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairwoman Bouas Boydstun, Carusillo, Herbst, McBurney, Messe COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Feldhaus ALSO PRESENT: Joel Fick Planning Director Carol Flynn Deputy City Attorney Paul Singer Traffic Engineer Mary McCloskey Planning Division Manager Lori Duca Assistant Planner John Poole Code Enforcement Manager Doug Faulkner Associate Planner Debbie Vagts Housing Operations Coordinator Edith Harris Planning Commission Secretary ~,r,FNDA POSTING. A complete copy of the Planning Commission agenda was posted at 9:30 a.m., October 21, 1988, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chambers, and also in the outside display kiosk. Published: Anaheim Bulletin - October 14, 1988 PU LIC 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. 0124m Disk 0102m i- ) MINUTES OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 24 1988 86-2 BEM N0. 1. CEOA NEGATIVE 1?ECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 3064 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: METTLER ELECTRONICS COPR., ATTN: Stephen Mettler, 1430 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92801. AGENT: FAR WEST BANK, 2825 Walnut Avenue, Suite "B", Tustin, CA 92680 Property location: X430 South Anaheim Blvd• Request: To retain as automobile storage lot with xaivers of minimum front setback, required screening and enclosure of outdoor uses. Continued from the September 26 and October 10, 1988, Planning Commission meetings. It was noted the petitioner has requested that subject petition be continued to the meeting of November 7, 1988, is order to submit revised plans. A TI N: Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Feldhaus absent) that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of November 7, 1988, in order for the applicant to submit revised plans. ITEM NO 2 CEUA NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 3076 PUBLIC HEARING. OWtIERS: EXXON CORPORATION, 1200 Smith St., Houston, Texas 77210-4415. AGENT: TAIT AND ASSOCIATES, 800 N. Eckhoff, Orange, CA 92613. Property location: 2791 East Lincoln Avenue. Request: To permit a convenie:~ce market with gasoline sales, fast food sales and off-sale beer and wine. It was noted the petitioner has requested that subject petition be continued to the meeting of November 7, 1988, in order to submit revised plans. ACTION: Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Feldhaus absent) that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly scheduled meeting of November 7, 1988, at the petitioner's request in order to submit revised plans. ITEM NO 3 CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 88-89-13 AND VARIANCE 3855 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: MARDI NAZARI, 1032 N. Acacia St., Anaheim, CA 92805. AGENT: SADEGH GHASHGHAIE, 7982 E. Sauer Rd., Anaheim, CA 92807. Property location: 1032 N. Acacia Street. Request: Reclassification from RS-A 43,000 to RM-2900 or a less intense zone. To construct a 2-story, 3-unit apartment complex with waiver of minimum width of pedestrian accessway. It was noted the request for waiver of minimum width of pedestrian accessway has been deleted and the applicant is requesting that the petition for Variance be withdrawn. 10/24/88 ~E~., Y M7xtrrFS OF ANAAEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 24 1988. 88-3 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 miautss. George Behman, 12410 N. Van Buren, Anaheim, was present to answer any questions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Responding to Commissioner Messe, Mr. Behman stated he had read all the conditions of approval and agrees to comgly. Responding to Commissioner Herbst, Mr. Behman stated they are providing covered carports which are pre-fabricated metal with wood facias and wood columns. Lori Duca, Assistant Planner, explained a landscaping plan has been submitted. TI N: Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Feldhaus absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to reclassify subject property from the RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) Zone to the RM-2400 (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zone on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land Consisting of approximately 0.2 acre having a frontage of approximately 55 feet on the east side of Acacia Street, and being located approximately 600 feet north of the centerline of La Palma Avenue and further described as 1032 North Acacia Street; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and 4urther 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. Variance No. 3855 was withdrawn. Commissioner Messe offered Resolution No. PC 88-295 and moved for iC:: vassage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission dies hereby S_ it Reclassification No. 88-89-15, subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: FELDHAUS Carol Flynn, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. 10/24/88 ~..~ , ~~ ITEM N0. 4. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 13744 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: JOHNNIE J. TUREK AND SHURLA B. TUBER and RUDOLPH L. DOLEZAI: AND JUN C. DOLEZAL, 1234 S. Western, Anaheim, CA 92804. AGENT: ANDREW HOMES, INC., 4400 MacArthur Blvd., Ste. 900, Newport Beach, CA 92660. Property location: 1226 and 1234 South Western Avenue REQUEST: Petitioner requests approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 13744 to establish a 1-lot, 18-unit, RM-3000 (Residential, Multiple Family) Zone air space coudominium subdivision. This item was heard following the hearing an Item No. 5, since the applicant was not present. 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. Mo Mohannah, agent, was present to answer any questions. THS PUBLIC HEARING WAS Cr^`~,ED. Lori Duca, Assistant P:.;:::;;?r, responded to Commissioner Messe that a site plan was submitted, but that r~o floor plans or elevations were submitted. Mr. Mohannah stated those plans will be submitted tomorrow morning. Commissioner McBuzney stated he w,~;:ld approve this request, subject to the plans being reviewed and approved by the Planning commission. Commissioner Boydstun asked how ~:lose the sximminq pool will be to the adjoining property. Mr. Mohannah stated there are three buildings and the pool is to the east side of Western, and there is a building separstinq it on the west and landscaping on the east. commissioner Messe asked the width of the buffer between the pool and the southern boundary of the project. Mr. Mohannah stated there is about 5 to 10 feet of landscaping. Commissioner Messe stated there are private residences adjacent and he thought their property could be impacted by noise gad asked if the pool could be relocated further to the north. Mr. Mohannah responded he thought that could be done. Chairwoman Bouas noted there will be an opportunity to review the plans, as required by Condit::on No. 23. Commissioner McBurney suggested rotating the pool 180 degrees. Mr. Mohannah responded they are flexible and will work with staff. 10/24/88 ~' ..~ MINUTES OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 24 1988 88-5 ACTIN: Commissioner Carusillo offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Feldhaus absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to establish a 1-lot, 18-unit RM-3,000 (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zone air space condominium subdivision oa an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.25 acres, having frontage of approximately 176 feet on the east side of Western Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 335 feet and being located approximately 400 feet south of the centerline of Ball Road and further described as 1226 and 1234 South Western 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 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 find that the proposed subdivision, together with its design and improvement, is consistent with the City of Anaheim General Plan, pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5; and does, therefore, approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 13744 for a 1-lot, 18-unit, RM-3000 condominium subdivision, subject the developer relocating the swimming pool further to the north away from the single-family residential area, subject to Planning Commission approval, and subject to the following conditions: 1. That a fee shall be paid to the Cfty of Anaheim for tree planting along Western Avenue in an amount as determined by City Council resolution. 2. That prior to issuance of a building permit, appropriate park and recreation is-lieu fees shall be paid to the City of Anaheim is an amount as determined by the City Council. That prior to issuance of a building permit, the appropriate traffic signal assessment fee shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an amount as determined by City Council resolution. 4. That sidewalks shall be removed and/or reconstructed along Western Avenue as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with standard plans and specifications on file is the Office of the City Engineer. 5. That the existing driveways on Western Avenue shall be removed and replaced with standard curbs and gutter, sidewalk and landscaping. That gates shall not be installed across the driveway or in a manner which may adversely affect vehicular traffic in the adjacent public street(s). Installation of any gates shall conform to the Engineering Division's Standard Plan No. 402 and shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 10/24/88 ~~ MINUTES OF ANAHEIM PLANNIY^ COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 24 1988. 88-6 7. That the driveway shall be constructed with ten (10) foot radius curb returns as required by the City Engineer. Existing broken or cracked driveways shall be removed and replaced as required by the City Engineer. 8. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. 9. That an ordinance rezoning subject property shall in no event become effective except upon or following the recordation of a final map within the time specified in Government Code Section 66463.5 or such further time as the Planning Commission or City Council may grant. 10. That should this subdivision be developed as more than ono subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. il. That a tract map to record the division of subject property shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim and then be recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder. 12. That street lighting facilities along Western Avenue shall be installed as required by the Utilities General Manager in accordance with specifications on file in the Office of Utilities General Manager; or that security in the form of a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or cash, in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim, shall be posted with the City to guarantee the satisfactory completion of the above-mentioned improvements. Said security shall be posted with the City of Anaheim prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject property. The above-required improvements shall be installed prior to adoption of the ordinance rezoning subject property. 13. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities. 14. That perpetual electrical public utilities easements for underground electrical utilities purposes shall be submitted to the City Attorney's Office for review and approval. The approved agreement shall then be filed and recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder. Proof of sidR recordation shall then be submitted to the Zoning Division. 15. That prior to issuance of a building permit, the appropriate fees due for primary mains and fire protection service shall be paid to the Water Utility Division in accordance with Rules 15A and 20 of the Water Utility Rates, Rules and Regulations. 16. That prior to Linal tract map approval, residential underground electrical fees shall ~e paid to the City of Anaheim, and a faithful performance bond shall be posted with the City of Anaheim in an amount approved by the Public Utilities General Manager. 10/29/88 i' _ ............__..._.._,..o..,,...,......_.................~.~..,o,,...,,,~,..~.., ? MINUT f4 1 ES OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 24, 1988. 88=L 17. That prior to commencement of structural framing, fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and approved by the City Fire Department. 18. That prior to issuance of a building permit a site plan showing an adequate on-site fire truck turn-around shall be submitted to the City Fire Department for review and approval. 19. That trash storage areas shall be provided and maintained in a location acceptable to the Street Maintenance and Sanitation Division and in accordance with approved plans on file with said Division. 20. That all air conditioning facilities and other roof and ground mounted equipment shall be properly shielded from view, and the sound buffered from adjacent residential, properties. 21. That plans i;hall be submitted to the Building Division showing compliance with the minimum standards of the City of Anaheim, including the Uniform Building, Plumbing, Electrical, Housing, Mechanical and Fire Codes as adopted by the City of Anaheim. The appropriate permits shall be obtained for any necessary work. Further, development plans shall ba in compliance with RM-3000 zoning standards. 22. That prior to issuance of a building permit, evidence shall be presented satisfactory to the Building Division that the proposed project is in conformance with Council Policy Number 542 "Sound Attenuation in Residential Projects" and with Noise Insulation Standards specified in the California Administrative Code, Title 25. 23. That prior to final tract map approval, final specific floor plans and elevation drawinys shall be submitted to the Zoning Division for Planning Commission review. 24. That the proposal shall comply with all signing requirements of the RM-3000 Zone, unless a variance allowing sign waivers is approved by the City Council, Planning Commission or 2oninq Administrator. 25. That a six (6)-foot high masonry block wall shall be constructed and maintained along the south property line ezceptinq the front sotback where the wall height shall be three (3) feet; and/or that a bond in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim shell be posted with the City to guarantee tlse installation of said wall prior to final building inspection. 26. That a landscape plan for subject property shall be submitted to the Zoning Division for review and approval. Aay decision made by the 2oninq Division regarding said plan may be appealed to the Planning Commission and/or City Council. 10/24/88 :~ 27. That the on-site landscaping shall be maintained in compliance with City standards. 28. That prior to final tract map approval, the original documents of the covenants, conditions, and restrictions, 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 Utilities Department and &ngineerinq Division. Said documents, as approved, shall then be filed and z•ecorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder. 29. That a covenant shall be recorded agreeing to provide the renter of each dwelling unit with written information obtained from the School District(s) pertaining to possible overcrowded conditions and busing status of the school(s) serving the dwelling unit. 30. That the approval of the Tentative Map of Tract No. 13744 is granted subject to the approval of and finalization of Reclassification No. 87-88-49 31. That alt private streets shall be developed in accordance with the Engineering Division's :?tandard Detail No. 122 for private streets, including installati.on~~f street name signs. Plans for the private street lighting, as required by the standard detail, shalt, be submitted to the Building Division for approval and included with the building plans prior to the issuance of building permits. (Private streets are those which provide primary access and/or circulation within the project). 32. That prior to final tract map approval, street names shall be submitted to and approvad by the Zoainq Division. 33. That the proposed parking structure design shall conform to the Engineering Division's Standard Plan No. 402-H pertaining to staadar3 details for parking structures and ramp requirements. 34. The developer shall provide a certified flow test report indicating that the water system will provide a flow rate of 1500 6PM with a residual pressure of 20 PSI. The test shall be conducted at the hydrant on Lane Rose Drive near the intersection of Western Avenue and the developer shall pay for upgrading the water system if flox test results are negative. 35. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit :Qo. 1. 10/24/88 36. That prior to issuance of a building permit, or within a period of one year from the date of this resolution, whi::hever occurs first, Condition Nos. 1 through 3, 14, 15, 18, 21, 22, 24, and 26, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Eztensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 37. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 4 through 8, 13, 19, 20, 31, 33 and 35, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. 38. That prior to final tract map approval, Condition Nos. 9, 16, 23, 28, 32 and 34, above-mentioned, shall he complied with. 39. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zaninq Code and any other applicably City regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as t:o compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. Carol Flynn, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal Lhe Commission's decision within ten (10) days to the City Council. 10/24/88 lINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 24 1988 Page No.10 ITEM N0. 5. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3063. PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: WONSON KiM AND HAESOOR KIM, 11443 E. Stapleton Court, Cerritos, CA 90701. Property Location: 1142 N. IIrookhurst Street. Request: To permit a 1,456-square foot convenience market. There vere four persons indicating their presence in opposition ~o subject request; and although the staff report vas not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Wonson Kim, owner, was present to answer any questions. Dan Lookabill, 2100 block of West Falmouth Avenue which is behind subject property, stated there seems to be an adequate supply of liquor stores and convenience markets in this area. He stated he believed a convenient^, store at twis location would contribute to a number of problems for him and his neighbors. He stated traffic is his first concern and pointed out there is only one driveway which meets Brookhurst right in front of the traffic signal and where the street narrows from three to two lanes. Mr. Lookabill stated he thought the lot is too small for the trash trucks to turn around and they would have to back up or park on the street for pick up. He stated he drove around and looked at other iiouor store sites and every one he saw had two points of access. He stated a liquor store at this location would be dangerous. Mr. Lookabill stated he objects to a liquor store at this location because it would attract transients to the area compounding the traffic floe and also liquor stores generate a lot of trash and that fast food establishments provide more trash receptacles. He stated he already has to pick up trash from his yard and that he felt hie neighborhood is under assault disguised as progress. He stated opening Falmouth vas the first assault and then there vas a two-story office building with second story windows and a two-story motel with air conditioners which vere denied and added he is aeY.ing the Commission to help the neighborhood again. Mr. Lookabill stated he has spoken with his neighbors and they have no objection to a general commercial development and that he and his wife vere visited by lie property owner and asked not to oppose this development and that he had told the property owner he would have no objections to anything but a mini-mall with a liquor store and that the owner had indicated that a liquor store would not be going in there, and nox he is being told the plans have changed. He stated this is his neighborhood and his home and he felt it is being threatened. George Arnold, 2178 W. Falmout%:i, stated he shares many cf the same concerns just expressed sad wanted to porn! out this property backs up to single-family residences and the houses are guilt on the very back of the property and are 25 feet from the black xall constructed around this property. He stated four or five houses back up to this property and four have school age children and ail of the houses have their bedrooms on the back and this use will not be 10/24/88 F"~ ~~ MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 24, 1980 Page Noll conducive to their area. He added people congregate around convenience stores and this will not be a good environment for their childrrii. He stated a six-foot high wall is to be constructed on tha property line, but due to the elevateion of the property, people viii be able to look right over that wall and into his kitchen vindoxs with their heads above the wall. Barbara Arnold, 2178 Falmouth, stated she is speaking on behalf of her neighbors and her family who have homes which back up to this property and it is only 25 feet from the xall and their homes are almost all glass on the rear. She stated they are mainly concerned about a convenience store that close to their private residences. She stated there is a convenience store which has been remodeled and it has become a haven for individuals of questionable character and another store would attract more of that type of individual. She stated this is close to their homes and to the school crossing and she felt people going in and out would cause congestion at that intersection with elementary school children crossing four times a day. She stated she is not opposed to the plans for the other establishments, but that a liquor store is only supported by individuals of questionable character which they do not want in their area. Ms. Arnold stated she has lived there for 15 years and has seen the decline and they have prostitution and drug dealing there now which will not get better by adding another convenience store. Mr. Rim stated they will dedicate 20 feet for Brookhurst and will pay for the traffic signal and that the residences are 56 feet from the building and it was all designed by Codes. He stated the opposition is to a liquor store and they are proposing a mini store similar to a small grocery store and added that a lot of people have complained about not having a convenient place to purchase just milk. He stated this property will have a 6-foot high block wall and also heavily planted trees which will provide a buffer to the residences and he could put in a higher wall, but this xill be a small grocery store in that area. He stated he will close at 10 p.m. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bouas asked the height of the wall as measured from their side. Mr. Kim stated it xould be measured from the highest grade. Mr. Rim stated he could put in a higher wall. Commissioner McBurney asked if he vou:.d be xilling to give up the beer and wine sales. He added he could probably go along with this for just a convenience store but not with the beer and wine sales. Mr. Kim stated he needs the beer and vine sales and it would be a convenience in serving the neighborhood and only a few people are complaining, but agreed to eliminate the sale of beer and vine. Commissioner Herbst stated that solves his problem. 10/24/86 '3 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 24, 1988 Page No. 12 Commissioner Messe stated when the Commission approved that commercial development, they thought it would be closed at night and not bring in that much traffic and that the Commission has to consider the peace, health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood. Mr. Rim stated they would construct the wall 6 feet high as measured from the highest grade and added the trees will cover the wall in five years. Commissioner Houas stated she thought the wall should be raised because kids could climb over it. ACTION: Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe, and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Feldhaus absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit a 1,456 square foot convenience market at 1142 N. Brookhurst Street; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration on the basis that it has considered the proposed 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 prcject will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner McBurney offered Resolution No. PC 88-296 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Ose Permit No. 3063, in part, ~arsuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035, subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations, including deletion of Condition No. 6 and No. 7, and adding a condition lisiting the hours of operation from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., and requiring that trees be planted along the northern property line; and prohibiting the sale of beer and wine, and including a condition that the wall be six (6) feet high as measured from the highest grade. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Houas, Boydstun, Carusillo, Herbst, Messe McBurney NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Feldhaus Carol Flynn, Deputy City Attorney, presented the right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. 10/24/88 t..% MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 24 1988 Page No.13' ITEM N0. 6. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3075. PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: EXXON CORPORATION, 1200 Smith Street, Houston, Texas 77210. AGENT: TAZT AND ASSOCIATES, INC., *)) N. Eckhoff Street, Orange, Ca 92613. Property Location: 1198 Sovth State College Boulevard. REQUEST: To permit a convenient Market with gasoline safe, fast food sales, and off-sale beer and vine. Zt vas noted the petitioner has requested a two-week continuance. ACTION: Commissioner McHurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Feldhaus absent) that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regul-~rly-scheduled neeting of November 7, 1988, at the petitioner's request. ITEM N0. 7. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 3 AND 5, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3078. PUBLIC HEARING. JAMES ALLEN CANNADAY AND BET'~Y BETE CANNADAY, 512 LAS RIENDAS DR., FULLERTON, CA 92635. PROPERTY LOCATI01•.: 701 South Lemon Street. Request: To permit a 634-square foot modular "granny unit" with waiver of minimum rear yard setback. There were four persons indicating their presence in opposition to subject request; and although the staff report vas not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Jaaes Cannaday, owner, stared they propose to put a 634-square foot granny unit at this location; that his daughter lives in the house at 701. South Lemon and her mother-in-law lives at 629 to the north and they want to provide affordable housing for senior citizens. He stated the unit viii be a manufactured modular house and it will be put on a solid foundation and have an attached garage. Seiteske Boettger, 628 S. Clementine, stated they are good friends of the owner and have been neighbors for 34 years; that they originally bought their property from the parents and that. she is objecting because she thought this would be opening "pandora's box^ and this is a single-family area and she objects to the waiver because it means putting the unit too close to the property line and their home is about 10 feet from the property line and their lot is 150 deep and there is no reason to put it that close to her house. She stated they have a four foot high fence in the rear and xould not like to have people looking into their yard. She stated she realized it is a granny unit and would have Lo be rented to a senior citizen, but codes change and there could be 10 people living there ill the future. She stated she realized this is a big lot but did not feel this should be approved. She added, however, if this is granted, she would like a block wall added to the existing wall to the highest limit possible. 10/24/88 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 24, 1988 Page No.l~ Debra Busch, 632 S. Clementine, stated their property backs up to subject property and their house is 5-1/2 feet from the property line and would be only 15 feet from the proposed structure. She explained her largest Concern is with fire and pointed out the owner resides in Fullerton so would not be faced with the daily adverse consequences of this action. She stated she and her husband have only been residents for 1-1/2 years and when they purchased the property, it was primarily because of the rear yards which gave them a lot of privacy. She agreed with her neighbor that if this is approved, she would like to have a higher wall constructed at the petitioner's expense. Cindy Stahlhut, 621 5. Clementine, stated she was concerned about this zoning; that there is one developer who is putting in a number of small units in the area; that he buys an older home and moves in four or five families and then when the neighborhood declines, he buys other homes and puts in an apartment complex and that causes older people to get upset. She stated she is concerned about the loss of privacy, traffic and a number of different things they have been fighting in this area and pointed out Lincoln has Leen torn up for a couple of years and the traffic is just terrible. She stated she thought the property owners should be considered and some of them hav~a lived there a long time and it would be a shame to have a granny unit yoin.g in behind them. N.z. Stahlhut stated she did some research on these modular units and they are not as sturdy and do not keep their value. Rick Busch, 63~ 5. Clementine, stated they are opposed to this because a real estate broker told them that the value of their property had gone up considerably but with a granny unit that close to their property, their pruperty value would be reduced by about 15 to 20~. ;icki Derieg, resident of Huntington Beach, stated she is a specialist in manufactured housing and explained they are built to Federal HUD codes and the exterior would be wood and match the existing house; that it has composition fiberglass x~ofing materiaFs and they are treated exactly as a site-built home, and meet tk~e Uniform Building Codes and even though a section is transported, it is not built of any less quality and perhaps has more inspections than a site-built home. She explained the applicant has provided privacy to the rear by not having any windows viewing into the neighbor's property, and only one dining room window is located on that side of the unit. Ms. Derieg stated they have eaves but the decision to add them has not been made at;d Commissioner Hoydstun stated she did not think Anaheim's Codes requires or covers eaves and without eaves, these houses do look like mobilehomes. Mr. Cannady stated the Bottgers are long time neighbors and friends and explained he has wade every effort to make this property look nice and plans to rent the unit to one or two elderly people as required by a covenant he will have to record against the property and that he would be willing to move it back 15 feet from the rear. He added there is a shed 10 or 15 feet from the property line now and added his family has lived there for many, many years. 10/24/88 MID:IITES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTtober 29, 1988 Pag,~ N^"-"•15 THE P-'3LIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Boydstu:. as;:,;d who xill live in this granny unit and Mr. Cannady stated he hasn't made a decision on tali yet, but would tre 'very selective. Commissioner Boydstun stated she underst•~c^d Chit a granny unit vas to be occupied goy a aember of the family. Mr•::~nnady state& '.he has a copy 'of the ~~`-ate law and did not interp;:et it that way anc: it say'_ ;=;o~le over 60 years G_d Hu stated he would not bF• renting it to a ,ve^.!ber of the family and that it ?roRad be rented. Carol Flync~, Deputy City Attorney, stated s'h.e did not- have a copy of the Government Code. Commissioner Me~e~. -ct.oted he understood it is anyone 60 years old and would not have to be a family member. Chairwoman Bouas stated she thought it had to be a family member because otherwise it would just be another rental unit. Commissioner Messe asked if the petitioner had indicated he would :,e willing to move the unit an additiora2 15 feet or tc 15 feet. Mr. Cannady responded he would move it an additional 5 feet, otherxise, he xould not .*.ave any room in front of the unit. Commissir~ner 'Herbst stated almost every gra;tny urit that has be .n bPforr tht' Commissoa has been i:l:~nded for a family member. Chairwoman Bouas stated she thought it should be denied becau:e it is really intended as a rental unit, and is just being called a granny unit became it rill be rentt'd to a senior citizen and she di~i not think that vss the intent of the law, ar.d that this vonld just br. :.,:pning the neighborhood up for more rectal units. Mr. Cannady stated there are apartments across the street and that he is not in favor of apartments either ar_~? z:a s is not increasing the dent,:t.y and traffic .gad ^..s just one small uTo-it. Commissioner i;oydstun stated this is a single-family neighborhood aad thjR xould be putting txa houses on one property. Commissioner Messe stated ft is just too close to the P•.auses on Clementine and the Codes requires a 25-foot setback and that he did not see env hardship iG grant a waiver on the property. He added i:2 petitioner is creatin3 the hardship himself. Mr. Cannady stated if he puts the house 25 feet f>:om tl,e property Nine, it would be too close to the existing House. Commissioner Ca.rusillo agreed and stated these neighbors ti,ave been th,~ere 4'or 30 years and this would rie adding a commercial endeavor into their single-family neighborhood at.d intrude on their privacy, snd that moving it closer to the existing residence mi3ht be t::Q solution. lfD.'~;~ ~,_ .` MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COTIMISSION, October 24, 19$a Page No. t~ Commissioner Herbst stated 'tie did noc feel thin meets the in*~r' of granny unit a'cdinance. it was noted the Planmi.n~ C:Lrs~ctor ur his authorized r=prESentative has determined that ~, :a vro;~~.,eiec ;=*oj~aa calls with.ln the definition of Categorical Exem-i::^_R,Ctass 3 and 5, as de:;.ned in the State EIR Guidelines and is, therefore, catego;:cally exempt from tihe regL~irement to prepare an EIR. )sCTICN: Commissic~n..r Herbst offered a motion, seconred b Commissioner Bouas and M.~TION CARRIEi: t':at the Anaheim ~^ity Planning l"am~ei~yion does hereby deny v?aver of Code requirement on the basib that there are ::o special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, xhich do not apply to oths% identically zoned prorerti,es in the vicinity; and that strict applica!cion of the Zonine, Code does not deprive the property o~ privileges enjoyed by other properties in iden*_ical zoning classification in the vicimit}. Commissioner Herbst offerecl Resolution No. PC 88-297 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim Ci`.y Planning Commission does hereby deny Conditional Use Per:ait No. 3079 on the basis that ~he unit is intended 20 be as a senior citl^e:: ~e:nt~l unit and ~t a liviny snit for a member of..ti.s petitioner's family ~-3 :•ould be bringing rental '1.*,Lts into a single-family neighborhood. Carol ,Flynn, L:eputy City Attorney, stated it is possible that a covenant be .-ecorded g,;aranteeing that the unit would be occupied by a ;senior citizen, and that the government code does seem to be raiher broad; hoxeve';, the City Couacii, although they da not have a po'icq, have felt that t,a allow it as a rental uniL• would tie defeating the intent of the granny unit ordinance and have 'requ'..red t?iat a con~'ition be imposed that the unit cou1~S not be rented. i:ommissione'r Messe stated the law says that the City may issue a conditional use pE~mi', for a granny unit, but• it does not say that the City ti•as? to lssuP the per::i ~ . On roll call the foregoing resolution vas passed by tt iolloving vote: AYFS: COMM7SSIONERS: 9ouas, Hoydstun, Caruaiilo, Herbst, Mc Bu±-ney, Messe NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENC: COMMISSIO!?'SHS: Feldhaus Carol Flynr,, Depu:.;~ City Attorney, presented L•he rig4t to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to *_::e City Gonncil. 10/24/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 29, 1988 Page No.l] ITEM N0. B. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 5 AND VARIANCE N0. 3854. PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: ATLP.NTIC RICHFIELD CO*IPANY, P. 0. Box 2679, TERMINAL ANNEX, LOS ANGELES, CA 90051. OWNERS. HENRY RING, 17315 Studebaker Road, Cerritos, CA 90701-1480. AGENT. Property located at 5700 E. La Palma Avenue (ARCO AM/PM). To expand a parking area for an existing service station/convenience market with waiver of improvement of required setback adjacent to Imperial Highway. There xas no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request; and although the staff report was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. 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 Ccmmission and Government Code Section 3625, et sea., and pursuant to the provisions of the above Codes, declared to the Chairman that he vas yithdrawing from the hearing in connection with Variance No. 3854, and would not take part in either the discussion or the voting thereon and had not discussed this matter with any member of tk,e Planning Commission. Thereupon, Commissioner McBurney left the Council Chambers. Aadreu Paszteiko, agent, explained there is a shortage of parking spaces and t.iat he would like to provide additional parking spaces but it would be at the expense o° the landscaping. '!'HE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairwoman Bovas asked if he could improve the la:~dscaping and Mr. Paszteiko responded he would comply with whatever staff requires. Commissioner HeHSe asked if they xould retain the Eucalyptus trees and Mr. P~~;zteiko responded he would like to keep the trees and they would stay in the a~ndscaped area. ~Sr. Paszteiko answered Chairwoman Bouas that he had read the conditions and agrees to comply. Commissioner Herbst asked about landscaping in the public right of way and F~aul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated the public right of way must be maintained by the property owner which is not used for the street and it has to be landscaped and Mr. Paszteiko agreed. Mary K~~loskey, Planning Division Manager, stated Condition No. 6 should be added requiring that all on site landscaping by installed and maintained and an automatic irrigation system be maintained including the public right of way. ~^,/24/88 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 24, 1988 Page No.7g It vas noted the Planning Director or his authorized representative has det2rmiaed that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions,Class 5, as defined in the State EIR Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. ACTION: Commissioner Messe offered Resolution No. PC 88-298 and moved for its pae$age and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Variance No. 3854, subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations, with Condition No. 6 modified to require automatic irrigation system be installed and maintained along with on-site landscaping, including the public right of way. On roll call, the foregoing resolution vas passed by the following vote: AYES: COI4dIS;'ONERS: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, HERBST, MESSE NOES: COI~fMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: FELDHAOS AND HC GURNEY Carol Fiynn, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right of appeal within 22 days to the City Council. 10/24/88 j ,"'_ . fyr% MINUTES, ANAHEIM Cl'TY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 24, 1988 Page No. ly ITEM N0. 9. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 11 AND VARIANCE N0. 3857. PIIHLIC HEARING. OWNER: LA PALMA BUSINESS PARR, THE KOLL COMPANY AND ROLL BUSINESS CENTERS, LA PALHA, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, 2970 E. La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, Ca. 92660. AGENT=JOHN BISHOP-FISCH BISHOP DESIGN, 220 Newport Center Drive, #220, Newport Beach, CA 92660. Property location: 2900 East La Palma Avenue. Waiver of minimum distance between freestanding signs to construct a freestanding sign. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request; and although the staff report was rot read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. John Bishop, agent, stated the proposed sign would be located 189 feet from another sign on the site; that they have 1500 feet of frontage of La Palma and a sign would be allowed every 300 feet; that there is a sign at the corner of Armando and La Falma and one at the bank which is too close. He explained the sign is needed for the furniture tenants who are located next to the freeway but when the customers see the furniture stores, they exit at La Palma and then try to find the store. He stated the sign xould list the tenant's names xith direction arrows toward the street where they need to exit. Commissioner Messe clarified the directional signs are for the tenants on White Star and Chairwoman Bouas stated that is why the furniture stores should not be in the industrial area. It vas noted the Plann?.ag Director oz his authorized representative has determined 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 frog the requirement to prepare an EIR. ACTION: Commissioner Messe offered Resolution No. PC 88-299 and moved 'or its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Variance No. 3857, subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations. Mr. Bishop stated he does not have the authority to agree to the conditions such a° dedication and Lori Duca, Assistant Planner, responded Condition No. 1 could ue modified to apply for purposes of the signage only and that Condition No. 3 should be modified to refer to Exhibit No. 1. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated there is a small sliver of land where La Hesa comes into this development at the south end and is a small triangle and dedication is for the street. He explained Redevelopment has authorized Engineering to construct La Mesa and that small parcel is outside their parking area and within the landscaped area and it is to be dedicated for La Mesa and is about 12 feet by 45 to 50 feet, 10/29/88 i ~ ._ MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 24 1988 _Page No. 20 Mr. Bishop asked if the owner also has to make the improvements and Mr. Singer responded "no". Commissioner Mess stated the Commission could approve this subject to the conditions and if the owner doesn't want to comply, then the sign could not be constructed. Commissioner Boydstun added that conditions Nos. 2 and 3 should be modified. On roll call, the foregoing resolution vas passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: HOIIAS, HOYDSTUN, CARIISILLO, HERBST, MC BIIRNEY, MESSE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: FELDHADS Caro]. Flynn, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision xithin 22 days to the City Council. 10/24/88 MINUTES. ANAAEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, i7ctober 24, 1988 Page 170. ~i IT°M NU. 10. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND RECLASSIFICATION No. 88-89-16. PLiil.~;C HEARING. OWNERS: RICHARD L. PIERCE, 15771 Plaza Drive, Ste. "G", Tuecin, CA 92680. Property LocatioN; 322 Sc::th Bush Street. Reclassification fr,~m RM-2400 to RM-1200 to construct a 2-story, 4-unit apartment compie:.. AND ITEM N0. 11. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND RECLASSIFICATION N0. 88-8S-17. PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: JUAN M. QUINOES AND MARIA QUIONES, 318 S.Bush Street, Anaheim CA 92805. AGENT: RICHARD PIERCE, 14771 Plaza Drive, Ste. "G", Tustin, CA. Fzoperty Location: 318 South Bush Street. Reclassification from RM-2400 to RH -1200 to construct ~ 2-story, 4-unit apartment complex. There were four people indicating their presence in opposition to subject request; and although the staff report vas aot read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Richard Pierce, agent, asked that Items 10 and 11 be considered together since they are contiguous and will be using the same driveway. He explained the two older houses would be demolished in order to construct two four-pi~x apartment complexes and pointed out there are apartments already in this area. Patricia Meza, 325-1/2 South Hush Street, stated this area already has a lot of crime and there are many apartments in this area and there is a lot of traffic on the streets. She stated they do not have access for these projects and they do not have enough parking and stated with all the construction going now, there is a lot more traffic and parking on Broadway and East Streets. Hs. Meza stated there vial be 3 or 4 families living in one of these units in order to be able to afford the rent. She stated she cannot leave her house now during the day because she is afraid it will be broken into and stated it has been broken into four times. She stated ahe has five children and the neighborhood is not safe and there have been murders in the apartments on Santa Ana Street and they constantly hear gunshots at night. She stated she has l:[ved there 34 years and a lot of the houses have been rented and they do not kaox who their neighbors are any longer and that she doesn't knnv what will happen in that area but that she does want to continue living ..here. Victoria Gonzales, 422 S. Vine, speaking for her mother at 324 S. Vz.a:sr asked how many bedrooms there xould be in these complexes and it vas noted there will be nine bedrooms. Ma. Gonzales stated they do not xant to see that high density because there will be too many cars a, .d not enough parking. She stated with tyo bedroom units, there are usua;.ly two or three dri~~ers living there. She stated they do not want high density with more peopi~: and they do not need any more people in that area because they are really overcrowded. Ms. Gonzales asked if the access would be through the alley or Evsh Street? She also pointed out she did not receive a card about the heariny~. 10/24/88 ~__.r MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 24, 1988 Page No. 22 Coaunissioner Messe stated the parking for this project conforms to Code. Ms. Gonzales added she thought people xould be driving from one alley to another alley and it will be really dangerous. She stated traffic is bad there nox. She explained there are about eight houses there now which use the alley and traffic is heavy and a lot of children use the alley going to school. She stated she was not prepared to oppose this properly but that she did not think they should be alloxed to develop at this high density. Ms. Gonzales stated there are other people present who are also opposed, but they do not speak English. Commissio~~er McBUrney left the meeting at 3:10 p.m. Maria Orozzo spoke in Spanish and it vas interpreted as follows: Maria L. Orozzo, 403 S. Hush, that she has lived there for 35 years and hopes to die there and is opposed because of the activities going on already xith people coming in; that their concern is there are so many children already living in the area and access from alley to alley is dangerous and children use the alley to go to school. She stated when one person moves into an apartment, and they cannot afford the rent, others xill be moving in with them and that means more children and more activities. Mr. Pierce stated he would hope the new units would encourage younger people and added he does not have a solution to crime in Anaheim; that he has 11 off street parking spaces and did not think there would be a parking problem on Bush Street and that he has been on Bush in the afternoon and has not seen very many cars parked on the street. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Responding to Commissioner Boydstun, Hr. Pierce stated he could change the driveway so it goes all the way through the property. Responding to Chairman Bouas, Mr. Pierce stated right nox there are 6 oz 8 men living in the house existing at 322 South Bush and Maria and her family live at 318 S. Hush. Chairman Herbst stated the access through the alley is a concern and Commissioner Boydstun suggested closing the alley and just having the trash on the alley and access off Bush to eliminate access from alley to alley. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated if there is an access onto Bush, he would recommend closing the alley so it would not become a through street. Commissioner Messe stated the two-story units would have to be redesigned. Lori Duca, Assistant Planner, stated if the plans are redesigned, Planning staff would like an opportunity to review them because there may be waivers necessary. Commissioner Boydstun stated there can not be more than tv~ adults per bedroom so that would limit the number of people living there and if there are more than the allowed number, the neighbors can call Cade Enforcement so they can investigate. 10/24/88 MINIITES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 24 1988 Page No ?3 Responding to Ms. Gonzales, Commissioner Carusillo stated he was not sure there is a way to monitor that, but Code Enforcement would have an officer come out and investigate. Responding to Chairwoman Bouas, Ms. Gonzales stated the project she had referred to earlier vas previously proposed for 20 bedrooms and it vas a bigger lot. She added again her concern was the number of people who would be living there. She stated also if one is given approval, there will be more requests. Commissioner Bouas stated the Planning Commission could approve this reclassification with a condition that only these plans could be developed so some one alse could not come along and change it. Ms. Gonzales responded that would not be fair if this was approved and then she wanted to do the same thing and it vas not allowed. Commissioner Herbst stated that whole block is zoned RM-2900 and the Commission is currently considering not alloying any higher densities; and added that he did not think reclassification could be tied to specific plans and after it is finalized, any RM-1200 project could go in. He stated he would like to see the zoning stay at RM-2400, and then possibly 3 or 4 units could be developed, as long as one unit was designated as "affordable". He added he realized L-here is RM-1200 zoning behind this property, but it is RM-2900 on both sides of the street and if this is approved, other property owners would want the same thing. Commissioner Boydstun responded to the applicant, that he could request a variance, xith a density bonus for affordable units, and at least one unit wouid have to be affordable. Commissioner Carusillo stated that doesn't solve the neighbor's concern about density, and Commissioner Boydstun clarified she vas thinking of four units rather than six. Commissioner Carusillo stated he shared Ms. Gonzales concerns about the density and felt if this is approved, others could not be denied. Commissioner Herbst stated the General Plan for the whole city is currently under study; that many people are refurbishing the older homes and what vas thought wouid be the case 15 years ago, is not what is happenings sad reclassification to a more dense zone means more people and more traffic and parking on the streets and that is what bothers him, pies access through the alley is a major concern. Mr. Pierce stated he xould like a four-week continuance in order to redesign the driveway. Commissioner Carusillo asked if the other Commissioners are considering approval if the driveway is redesigned and he did not think it is fair to send the developer back for redesign, thinking that the project is going to be approved. Commissioner Bouas stated there is no guarantee and he can redesign maybe with just three units, strictly to Code, and work with the Housing Department to provide affordable units 10/24/88 MINOTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 29, 1988 Pa a No. Commissioner Herbst asked why the txo properties were not combined and Mr. Pierce stated staff has asked if he planned to sell oae property and he had responded that he possibly would and Commissioner Herbst stated there would have to be one driveway, but there could be ar. easement. He stated land assembly is encouraged so better projects can be developed. The public hearing vas reopened. ACTION: Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Feldhaus McBurney absent) that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of November 21, 1988, in order for the developer to submit revised plans for Item Nos. 10 and 11. ~r:~ MINUTES OF ANAHEIM iyAxx7xr. rnrarrccrnx ~~r7xr. OCTOHFR 24. 1988, 88-25 ITEM NO 12 CEOA NEGATIVE DE^LARATION. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT, RECLASSIFICATION NO 88-89-18 AND VARIANCE 3858 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: CHARLES D. HOLERJACR AND DOROTHY A. HOLERJACR, 3625 Savanna Street, Anaheim, CA 92804. AGENT: MICHAEL R. FRA2IER, 18200 Yorba Linda Blvd., p201, Yorba Linda, CA 92686 PROPERTY LOCATION: 3625 Savanna Street Petitioner requests reclassification of the subject property from RS-A-43,000 to RM-x,200 or a less intense zone with waivers of (a) mazimum structural height, (b) mazimum site coverage and (c) minimum side yard setback to construct a 3-story, 12-unit apartment complez. 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. Michael Frazier, agent, explained this is a revised plan and they have increased the size of the units significantly, and that the request for waiver of minimum sideyard setback can be deleted. He explained the cabana in the rear as a recreational facility was sitting on the property line and it can be moved. He stated they are requesting the waiver of minimum site coverage due to the larger units and that they do need the waiver of structural height and the project could not be developed without this density. He stated they are no longer proposing affordable units. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Carusillo stated the Commission has a concern about the density and overcrowding in that area and the developer mentioned .be could reduce the size of the units and meet Code. He stated there is a concern because this would bring in more people and more traffic and the larger the units, the more people can live there. Mr. Frazier stated the reduction would be from 30-foot wide units to 28 feet; however, the larger units could not accommodate more people because the bedroom count would be the same. Chairwoman Houas stated she would prefer the larger units. Commissioner Messe asked if the site coverage waiver is due to the deck and Mr. Frazier responded it is not. Lori Duca, Assistant Planner, stated coverage should not include the deck unless it is above as inhabitable area. Commissioner Herbst stated in the last two years, there have been several hearings on this property and the one next door and the zoning should be RM-2400 because of the properties around it; and that the City Council did approve RM-1200 closer to the major street, but it should be HM-2400 in the rear. 10/24/88 l? ^ ^_' ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINS'r OCTOEER 24 1988. 88-26 _ He stated other requests to increase density have been denied because that is one of the busiest streets in Anaheim and there are more and more requests from increased density is that area and he disagreed with the City Council that the properties should be zoned RM-1200. He added the Commission has seen this property several times in the past and they have approved RM-3000 and RM-2400 and the City Council did rezone the front portion to RM-1200, but that is just too much of an impact. Commissioner Herbst stated also there seems to be a serious water problem in that area. Mr. Frazier stated some properties have been approved for RM 1200 and the property immediately adjacent is under construction for 81 units and there were comments made at that hearing that the additional traffic would not negatively impact the area, and also there was a traffic study certified by Mr. Singer. He stated they have not dose a separate traffic study but with the number of units, did not feel there would be a significant impact. Castoz Williams, Water Division, stated the water system can handle the needs of this project, but the system will not be able to handle additional development in that area. Concerning the water issue, he stated they will have to participate with another developer to extend a nex line. He responded to Chairwoman Houas that they would be willing to participate and pay their portion of the costs. Chairwoman Bouas stated she did not see how these 12 units would impact the area; and that she would be against any density bonus. Commissioner Messe stated he still felt that street should be zoned RM-2400 with the way it has turned out. Commissioner Carusillo agreed that the area is a disaster and the density should be RM-2400, and that it does seem unfair since RM-1200 has been approved, but it is just too overcrowded. Mr. Frazier stated he has the figures discussed for the project xhich is currently under construction and the proposed owner of this project and itss within reason and his portion could be amortized with this development but it is an expensive project because of the water services, fire hydrants, etc. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Feldhaus and Mc Huraey absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to reclassify subject property from the P.SA-43,000 (Residential, Agricultural) Zone to the RM-1200 (Residential, Mutliple-Family) Zone and to construct a 3-story, 12-unit apartment complex with waivers of maximum structural height, maximum site coverage and minimum side yard setback on as irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.35 acre having a frontage of approximately 65 feet on the north side of Savanna Street, and being located approximately 115 feet west of the centerline of Marian way and further described as 3625 Savanna Street; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding 10/24/88 i._ ..~ MINUTES OF ANauFrw pLaxurxr COMMISCrnx rrtF~rrxr OCTOBEQ ~a 1988 88 27 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 t+ny comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC 88-300 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny Reclassifcation 88-89-18, and subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recomendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, HERHST, MESSE NOES: BOUAS ABSENT: FELDHAUS, MC HUR1,tEY Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC 89-301 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny Variance No. 3858 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 in the same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code does not deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties is the identical zone and classification in the vicinity. On roll call, the foregoing resolution xas passed by the following vote: AYES: BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, HERBST, MESSE NOES: HOUAS ABSENT: FELDHAUS, MC HURNEY Commissioner Herbst stated the infrastructure, sexage and water is that area need to be re-evaluated oa the properties left in that area, including the triangle portion in Buena Park with access onto Savanna Street. Carol Flynn, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. RECESS: 3:40 p.m. RECONVENE: 4:00 p.m. 10/24/88 ~' H~NIITES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 24, 1988 Page No.28 ITEM N0. 13. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OF CODE REQIIIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL IISE PERMIT N0. 3082. PDHLIC HEARING. OWNER: JACK K. MANDEL AND JIIDITH M. MANDEL, 1301 Rfdgevay, Fullerton, CA 92631. AGENT: CHRISTOPHER HOSKINS, 100 W. 'Valencia Mesa Drive, Fullerton, CA 92635.. PROPERTY LOCATION: 1691 West Hroadvay. To permit a church facility within an existing office building with vainer of minimum parking spaces. There vas no one indicating their presence in opposition to ,subject request.;. and although the staff report vas not rea~'~ at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Chris Hoskins, agent, explained the plan is to use the let floor for a church. He stated a parking study vas done and the Traffic Engineer ,approved it. Timothy Thi, 10433 Egan Drive, Whittier, stated he came to this country 13 years ago and enjoys the freedom of xorship and that he would like for this permit to be approved. THE PITBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst stated he vas concerned about the parking, but since it would only be used on Sunday, he would not object. to a 3-year time BLit because churches do grow and parking does become a problem in the area. Mr. Hoskins stated by today's standards, an office use would require more parking than this church and he requested a 5-year time limit. Commissioner Bouas clarified the church is buying the property and if there is no problem at the end of three (3) years, the permit could be approved. Mr. Hoskins stated the 9-year time limit is accepCable. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun, and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Feldhaus and HcBurney absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit a church with a waiver of minimum number of parking spaces on -a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.4 acre, having a frontage of approximately 125 feet on the north side of Hroadvay, and being located approximately 205 feet east of the centerline of Euclid Street, and further described as 1681 West Hroadvay; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration on the basis that it has considered the proposed 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. 10/24/88 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY_PLANNING COMMISSION, October 29, 1988 Page No.29 Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Feldhaua and McBurney absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant waiver of code requirement on the basis that the parking waiver will not cause an increase in traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity 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 xelfarP of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC 88-302 and moved for its passage and adoption that L•he Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 3082, for a period of 3 years, 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 xas passed by the folioving vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Houas, Boydstun, Carusiilo, Herbst, Hesse NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Feldhaus, McBurney i;arol Flynn, Deputy City Attorney, presented the right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. Mr. Hoskins stated there is plenty of parking in the area and if there is a problem in three years, he asked if they could make arrangements with other property owners in the area to compensate. Chairwoman Bouas stated they could get reciprocal parking agreements. 10/24/88 ~; MINIITES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIONER, October 24. 1988 Page No.~0 ITEM N0. 14. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL DSE PERMIT N0. 3081 PUELIC HEARING. OWNER: BYUNG HWAH PARK AND DONG SOON PARK, 2712 Wykersham Place, Fullerton, CA 926334. AGENT: CHONG S. LEE, 4500 Campus Drive, X520, Nexpozt Beach, CA 92660. PROPERTY LOCATION: 1523-31. k'~ Katella Avenue. To permit a 7,160-square foot, 6-unit commercial retail center with xaiver of maximum structural height. 't`here were txo perFOns indicating their presence in opposition to subject request; and although the staff report xas not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Chong Lee, agent, referred to the statement on page 2 of the staff report which indicates this proposal does not include a convenience store or fast food uses. Lori Duca, Assistant Planner, stated Code requires additional parking for fast food and restaurant uses or fast food inside convenience markets. She clarified fast food would require 18 spaces per 1000 square feet and a regular sit-down restaurant would require 8 spaces per 1000 square feet and fast food in a convenience market would require an additional five spaces to the 5.5. spaces for retail uses. Commissioner Messe stated this does not preclude a convenience market uithcut fast food sales. Ambrose E. Roberson, 1771 S. Bayless, stated his property is located 80 feet from the proposed project and that he is not opposed to the building, but any type of fast food in that structure would be a problem and he did not know how they could have any sale of alcohol since They are adjacent to a school and church. He stated the fence height should extend over six feet. He stated this will create a iot of traffic in front of his house and a iot of parking. Mr. Roberson stated the City has a code (AMC 14.32.450) which alloys permit parking where there has been parking problems and he knows it has allevia±ed some problems in otter areas. He stated they xouid like to get those signs installed on Bayless to prevent over parking. He stated his neighbors have agreed they would like to have the permit parking. Mr. Roberson stated he would be opposed to any convenience market because it would bring too much traffic and trash to the area. He stated the homeoxners should not have to pay to have Bayless posted with "permii parking v.'._°" signs and the developer should have to bear that burden. He stated the parking would not have to be prohibited in front of the commercial building, but just in front of their houses. 10/24/88 ~~. r MINIITES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 24, 1988 Page No. 31 He stated they should not be permitted to have a 24-hour operation. William Remy, 1595 W. Ratella, directly xeat of subject property, stated he objects to the yeneral concept of this; that just three blocks zest, there are major stores sitting vacant, and a new office building at Ratella and Euclid xith only one or two offices leased and this just looks like the wrong thing to be building there. Mr. Remy stated he had better hopes for what would be developed on Ratella and did not want some "rinky-dink" small retail center. Mr. Lee responded his client has a dry cleaning establishment; that he shares the same concerns and will not build something that would become an eye sole, but will develop a nice facility. Regarding the concerns about people drinking and trash in the area, he stated his client will be doing his best to make a nice project. He stated a 6-foot high wall is the maximum allowed by the City and there is a 12-foot ride setback and landscaping to protect the privacy of the adjoining homeowners. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Messe referred to proposed landscaping along the northerly property line xhich backs up to single-family residences and added he thought the trees should be mature. Mr. Lee responded they vili provide whatever L-he City requires. Chairwoman Bouas stated the 6-foot high wall has to be measured from the highest grade. Commissioner Herbst esked about the loading area adjacent to one house. Mr. Lee responded for this size facility, the loading would be minimal and not very often. Commissioner Herbst added the Commission has found a market can have early morning deliveries creating problems for the neighbors. Mr. Lee responded they would comply xith xhatever restrictions the Commission imposes. Commissioner Herbst suggested 15-gallon trees on 10-foot centers along the back wall. He stated the hours of operation also have to be restricted because this is abutting a residential area. Mr. Lee responded he vasn't sure but thought the hours for most of the uses xould be between 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Chairwoman Bouas clarified the agent would ?.ike t9 have a convenience market and Mr. Lee stated his client does not have an operator for a convenience market and just wanted to clarify that it wasn't precluded. ?,0/24/88 r _. MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITF PLANNING COMMISSI~9N, October 24, 1988 Page No. 32 Lori Duca stated a convenience market with less than 15.000 square feet would require a conditional use permit, with or xithout the sale of beer and vine. Commissioner Hesse stated a convenience market without the sale of beer and vine xouid be alloyed and if the owner ]zad a client who wanted to sell beer and xine, they would have to request a separate conditional use permit. Mr. Lee stated he got the staff report this morning and wanted to clarify that a convenience market would be permitted and that the lessee yould be responsible for getting the proper permits from the City and the ABC. Chairwoman Bouas pointed out approval of the ABC license does not mean a conditional use permit would automatically be granted. Responding to Commissioner Boydstun, Hr. Lee stated there would be landscaping adjacent to the loading dock area. He added he would stipulate to 15-gallon trees along the gall. Commissioner~s~ta d he wanted it understood approval of this conditional use permit does not approve a convenience market. ACTION: Commissioner Hesse offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Feldhaus and McHurney absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to construct a 7,160-square foot, 6-unit commercial retail center with waiver of maximum structural height on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.57 acre located at the northeast corner of Ratella Avenue and Bayless Street, and further described as 1523-31 West Ratella Avenue; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration on the basis that it has considered the proposed Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the bass: 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 Mevsse offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Feldhaus and McBurney absent) 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, locatioa or surroundings, which do not apply to other identically zoned properties in the viciaity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in identical zoning classification in the vicinity and further on the basis that the petitioner stipulated to planting 15-gallon trees along the northerly property line. 10/29/88 3 i ! __ MINDTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 24, 1988 Page No. 33 Commissioner Messe offered Resolution No. PC 88-303 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional IIse Permit No. 3081, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal C~de Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035, subject to interdepartaental Committee Recommendations, including a condition that the hours of operation shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., and that there shall be no convenience market xithout a separate approval for a conditional use permit. Commissioner Herbst asked about the restricted parking as requested by the property owners. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated that is a separate issue and he vas not aware that vas something the neighborhood wanted. He explained there are specific conditions and requirements in order to implement permit parking, and noted that has been done in the area behind the convention center; however, he did not think this neighborhood vouid meet the main criteria required by the City Council policy in order to have permit parking approved. He stated there has to be 100;K agreement and that anyone can make the request and they would investigate it and make a recommendation to the City Council, but that is not a part of the Planning Commission hearing. Lori Duca stated the Commission may wish to add a condition that a 6-foot high xall be maintained along the north property line, except in the front setback along Bayless Street which has a maximum of 36 inches. On roil call the foregoing resolution vas passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMIE"+SIONERS: Bouas, Boydstun, Carusillo, Herbst, Messe NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Feldhaus, McBurney Carol Flynn, Deputy City Attorney, presented the right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision xithin 22 days to the City Council. 10/24/88 ~: MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 24 1988 Page No. 34 ITEM N0. 15. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3079. PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: DR. R. S. MINNICR AND JAN W. MINNICK, 12269 Sky Lane, Los Angeles, CA 90099. Property Location: Southeast corner of Orangethorpe Avenue and Lemon Street. To permit on-sale beer and wine in a fast food restaurant. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request; and although the staff report vas not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a pant of the minutes. Kent Hussni., 29546 Copper Cliff Ct., E1 Tore, agent, explained the request is for the sale of beer and vine in a fast food restaurant. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr. Hussni stated the vine and beer xould be served on the premises and not removed from the premises. He explained this is a chicken fast food restaurant. Responding to Comm ss~i,,o e~ Hesse, Mr. Hussni stated the other tenants are listed on page 2~1o"vSr shop, nail shop, print shop, etc. He stated the convenience market is no longer there. ACTION: Commissioner Carusillo offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun, and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Feldhaus and McBurney absent) that the Anaheim City rlanning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit on-sale beer a::d vine in a 920:s~uare foot fast food restaurant on _a -~ rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately p:y~3 acre . located at• the southeast corner of Oranaeshorpe Avenue and Lemon~S~reet; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration on the basis that it has considered the proposed 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 i.s no substantial evidence that the project x111 have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Carusillo offered Resolution No. PC 88-304 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 3079, 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: COMMISSIONERS: Bouas, Boydstun, Carusillo, Herbst, Messe NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Feldhaus, McBurney Carol Flynn, Deputy City Attorney, presented t11e right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. 10/24/88 r MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 24, 1988 Page No.35 ITEM N0. 16. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3084. PIIBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: CELISTINO ARRABACA AND MELISSA ARRABACA, P. 0. Box 280, Ora^3e, CA 92666. Property Location; 1314 South iris Street. To convert a 4-unit apartment complex to a 13-room senior citizen board and care facility with waiver of minimum cf parking spaces. There vas one person indicating his presence in opposition to subject request; and although the staff report vas not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Carl Mellott, agent, explained the owners would like to convert this four-unit apartment complex into board and care facilities with waiver of three parking spaces. He stated a parking study vas done and the request is based on the fact that the clients would not be allowed to drive vehicles. He stated the owners have a similar type facility adjacent to this property and they have had no parking problems. Mary Yost, Administrator of Pearl Mark Homes, stated there is a 4-unit apartment complex existing there and the outside exterior will not change and this xill not have an impact on the area with mere cars; that, the owner has a board and care home located next door and there are parking facilities there. She explained they have one or two persons who drive, one from 4 p.m. to midnight and another one from 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.; and that the residents are over 60 years of age and have Alzheimer's disease. She stated there is a great need for places for these patients. Mr. Yasuda stated he owns the fourplex at 1331 S. Anaheim Boulevard and came to speak in opposition at the request of his tenants about the traffic problem in that area. He stated right now there are four parkins spaces and one is for handicapped persons and it seems like that is not enough with the number of patients they are proposing. He stated his tenants call him frequently about someone parking in front of their garage ar.5 he has had to call the Police Department. He stated the reason he has to go so often is because of the overflox parking from the guest home end other neighbors. He stated he is going to request that the Police Department post Anaheim Boulevard for "no parking". Rent Barnheiser, Alzheimer's Association for Orange County, 420 west 19th Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627, stai:ed there is a tremendous need for facilities to care for Alzheimer's victims; that over 2-1/2 million people are affected and approximately 20,000 are in Orange County; that these victims need special care and do not need skilled nursing care; that most of them live at home for as long as their families can take care of them, and then they need other facilities available where they can be cared for adequately. He explained these victims not only loss their memory, they forget to eat and take care of themselves. He explained his organization trains people to take care of these people and to make them aware and that he is asking the Commission to really consider this proposal because it would make another place available for taking care of these patients. 10/24/88 f 4 MINUTES ANAHEIH CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 24, 1988 Page No. ~(, Melissa Arabbaca, owner, stated they own the third property from Mr. Yasuda and explained the number of parking spaces available for their business. She explained that property has been used for board and care for about 20 years and they have a license for 36 beds and stated they have been there several years and have not had a parking problem. Mr. Yasuda stated he would like to know how many employees they have for 80 patients and thought they must have more than four employees. It xas noted there are only four empioyees on duty at one time. Mr. Yasuda stated he thought a business in Anaheim would have to provide parking for their employees. He stated they use special buses to pick up the patients from this facility and they use the Freedom Furniture site and it is very dangerous; and the trucks which bring supplies were parking there also. He stated this is a big business and they park all over the public Streets anZ he thought it will be worse in the future if they are alloyed to expand. Mr. Singer stated each property owner is responsible for posting their own property for "no parking" and that the alley is not posted because no parking is allowed in the alley and the police could resolve that problem. THE PUBLIC HEARING HAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst asked where visitors to these board and care facilities park sad Mary Yost responded most of their patients do not have visitors and maybe half a dozen patients have visitors and one patient has family who pick her up and take her away for the xeekend. Ms. Yost responded to Commissioner Messe that they currently leave facilities for adult developmentally disabled persons on Hills Place and explained she did not know what parking problems he is talking about and the new facility is about one block from Mr. Yasuda's property. Commissioner Messe clarified they have about 100 patients in ail the facilities and there will be four staff members at each facility; and that there are programs fot the Alzheimer's patients and they will be in the communitp• and this new facility xill be secured. Commissioner Messe stated he has grave concerns about the parking for this facility because he has heard about therapists, doctors, etc. and he vas sure these patients x111 have visitors every weekend; that he does sympathize with this need, but just felt there is not enough parking and that would impact the area. Ms. Yost stated their experience is that once a client is placed, the family does not stay involved and they see very feu visitors and the biggest traffic on this street is from people who live in the apartments. Commissioner Boydstun asked how they could have 24 patients and 4 staff members and only three bathrooms. Ms. Yost stated it has already been licensed and they go by the State regulations. 10/29/88 d MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 24, 1988 Page No.37 Chairman Houas ciarifi~d that the applicant had indicated that they have extra parking now which is used by the neighbors and added she thought those areas should be posted so that no one else can use them and the abandoned vehicle needs to be towed away. Ms. Yost stated they have not done that because they like to cooperate with the neighbors and on Fridays the people who live in the apartments have no place to park for street sweeping day. She stated no one has ever approached them about a parY.ing problem and she would be willing to do whatever they can to help resolve the problem. Commissioner Messe asked if the Traffic Engineer had any figures relative to P.lzheimer patient facilities or places of that nature, Mr. Singer stated h2 does not have any information in the ITE traffic calculations for specifically Alzheimer patient facilities, but he does have some information on board and care facilities, but there are many different types of board and care facilities, and most of the patients do not have vehicles and the number of visitors vary from facility to facility and only a specific study could determine how many spaces are needed. Commissioner Messe stated he realizes there is not a parking need for the txo facilities this applicant already has, but he was not sure that this facility vou_d be the same. Mr. Singer stated the parking study submitted did use a comparative facility and ft indicated very few visitors. Commissioner Messe asked what a comparative facility would be. Commisioner Boydstun stated Hill Haven is a facility for Alzheimer's patients and there seema to be a lot of parking spaces and there seems to always be a lot of cars there. Ms. Yost stated this is a much smaller number of patients. Commissioner Herb~tsuggested redesigning the project and eliminating one or txo bedrooms to use as the dining room and the garage used as a garage; that f he could not go along with this use with only three parking spaces and added,{lR- thought this is overbuilding. Mr. Mellott stated they would like to request a continuance for four weeks. THE PUDLIC HEARING WAS REOPENED. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Feldhaus and McBurney absent) that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the meeting of November 21, 1988. 10/24/88 MINIITES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 29, 1988 Page No.38 ITEM N0. 17. CEQA NEGATI1fE DECLARATION AND_CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3083. PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: HrISTUL COMPANY, 865 Comstock Avenue, 17-D West, Los Angeles, CA 90024. AGENT: RENNETH L. BUTTS, 2133 Victory Boulevard, Canoga Park, CA 91303. Property Location: 2311 West La Palma Avenue. Ta permit retail sales in conjunction with an existing wholesale business. There vas no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request; and although the staff report vas not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Kenneth Butts, agent, stated he has a warehouse and would like to use 3,000 square feet as an area to display merchandise. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst asked how this business could service the industrial community with retail sales. He stated retail sales are allowed as long as they service the industrialists. Mr. Buts stated this would not increase the traffic into the area and that they do have adequate parking. He explained the operator does not intend to advertise to the general public for special sales and that he has four oz five businesses and this is actually the warehouse but if he has an opportunity to sell something, he xould not xart to be precluded from doing that. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun, and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Feldhaus and McBurney absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit retail sales in conjunction xith an existing wholesale business in the ML Zone on an irzegulariy- shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 3 acres, having a frontage of approximately 630 feet on the north side of La Palma Avenue, and being located approximately 590 feet east of the centerline of Gilbert Street, and further described as 2311 W. La Palma Avenue; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration on the basis that it has considered the proposed 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 viii have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC 88-~05 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commie.ion does hereby deny Conditional Use Permit No. 3083 on the basis that retail sales would not service the industrial community, and would bring undesirable traffic into the area. On roll call the foregoing resolution vas passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Houas, Boydstun, Caruaillo, Herbst, Hesse NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Feldhaus, McBurney Carol Flynn, Deputy City Attorney, presented the right to appeal. the Planning Commission's decision xithin 22 days to thy: City Council. 10/24/88 1 ~' MINIITES, ANAHEIM CITY CANNING COMMISSION, October 24, 1988 Pa a No.39 ITEM N0. 18. ENVIPONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 283 (Previously Certified) AND CONDITIONAL IISE PERMIT N0. 3091. PIIBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: WOODCREST DEVELOPMENT, 11911 Mitchell Avenue, Irvine, CA 92714. AGENT: FRANK ELFEND, 9675 MacArthur Court, Suite 660, Nexport Beach, CA 92660. Property is approximately 30.2 acres located north of The Summit of Anaheim Hills easterly of The Highlands at Anaheim Hills, southerly of East Hills and rest of the future extension of Weir Canyon Ruad southerly within the Sycamore Canyon Specific Plan Development Area. To permit a toxnhouse model complex site. The folloxing action xas taken at the beginning of the meeting. It xas noted staff has con~irmed that approval of a conditional use permit is not necessary to permit a model complex site and therefore, the applicant has requested to xithdrax subject petition. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a moti.o.:, seconded by Commissioner Hoydstun and NOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Feldhaua zbsent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby accept the applicant's request to xithdrax subject petition. ITEM N0. 19. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 283 (PREVIOIISLY CERTIFIED) AND CONDITIONIAL IISE PERMIT N0. 3092. PIIBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: WOODCREST DEVELOPMENT, 17911 Mitchell Avenue, Irvine, CA 92714. AGENT: FRANK ELFEND, 4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 660, Nevport Beach, CA 92660. Property is approximately 23.5 acres located north of The Summit of Anaheim Hills, easterly of the Highlands at Anaheim Hills, southerly of East Hills and southxest of the future intersection of Serrano Avenue and further described as Tentative Tract No. 12993 (Sycamore Canyon Specific Plan (SF88-1) Development Area 4). To permit a single-family model complex site. The folloxing action vas taken at the beginning of the meeting. It vas noted staff has confirmed that approval of a conditional use permit is not necessary to permit a model complex site and therefore, the applicant has requested to xithdrax subject petition. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hoydstun and NOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Feldhaus absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby accept the applicant's request to xithdrax subject petition. RECESS: 5:20 p.m. RECONVENED: 6:00 p.m. 10/24/88 MINUTES, ?,si't'--?;~~' '.e,•, ,~',°;aAINTNG COMMISSION October 24 1988 Page No1~0 ITEH N0. 20. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OF COIINCIL POLICY NO. 543, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3049 (READVERTISED). PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: WILKEN WAY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ATTN: RICHARD T. BROWN, 6775 Airport Drive, Riverside, CA 92504. Property Location: 400 West Wilken Way. Request: To construct a 1 to 8-story, 416-unit "affordable" senior citizens apartment complex (formerly 1 to 8-story, 440-units) with waivers of (a) maximum fence height adjacent to local streets, (b) minimum building site area per duelling unit, and (c) maximum structural height, and waiver of Council Policy No. 543 pertaining to density bonuses. Continued from the August 15, 1988, and September 26, 1988, meetings. There were approximately 133 people indicating their presence in opposition to subject request, and although the staff report vas not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and Tads a part of the minutes. Richard T. Brovn, agent, explained they have incorporated all the suggestions they possibly could into this second revised plan .and, hopefully, this will accomplish what is needed. He added this revision considerably changes the concept of the project and the affordability has been reduced to 25%; and that they leave reduced the density and the height of the project. Mr. Brovn stated the neighbors to the south were concerned that there would be traffic through Willoxbrook, but that vas not inte:_+ded as a vehicular access and the emergency gate xliich vas shoxn has been removed. He explained they have proposed more parking spaces than required and the recreation area is 2-1/2 times more than the minimum required. He stated the project will be gated and guarded. Dorothy Rehm, 233 Simmons Avenue, presented 328 signed letters from people opposed to the project is the immediate neighborhood and concerned citizens in the area and stated they are opposed to the density, and increased population with the increased number of two-bedroom units and i.he massive size of the buildings is not compatible xith the neighborhood. She added this would be an infringement on the visual appearance of their neighborhood and is not in the best interest of the residents of the community and aot consistent with the General Plan for the revitalization of troubled areas in the City. Hs. Rehm stated this neighborhood cannot support such an increase in population xithout a detrimental ~cffect on the property values; that the developer failed to provide evidence that the increased population will not decrease property values and that there are the necessary services for the additional residents and the streets cannot support this increased traffic. She added increased pedestrian movement in the neighborhood will increase their already high crime rate. Ralph Sangiovanni stated the developer said he has decreased the density, but that he vas talking in terms of the number of units, but the density of the population has not been reduced because with two-bedroom units, there would be 866 people. He stated their main concern is that this might be changed to regular apartments and not be maintained for senior citizens. 10/29/88 ~,_ MINDTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 24, 1988 Page No.41 Mr. Sanviovanni presented slides of the present storage units, the crowds at the nearest grocery store, a blind curve at the corner of Ortley and Whitney where the school bus picks up students, making it even more dangerous; a balloon being flown at what he thought xould be the height of the structure; 72 feet high and the structures will actually be 86 feet high, and that there are only one or two story structures in the area nox; and Willoxbrook as it is now and how their view viii be blocked with the height of the buildings. Ae presented a slide of the commercial development behind the storage facility. He also shoved slides of the Marriott to give an impression of xhat they will be looking ass a similar facility in Garden Grove with single-family homes around it; and added he felt they viii have people looking right down into their back yards. Michael Levezov, 232 W. Simmons, stated in reviewing the staff report, he found there are 29 senior citizen apartment projects either constructed or planned for construction in Anaheim and reviewed the number of stories for those units and noted this project is proposed at 8 stories, with some lover story buildings, and added that is not in line with other complexes in Anaheim and is not consistent with the City Building Codes. He stated it seems the other developers have considered that older people viii be living in those units but this developer just seems to want to get the most he can oa the property. He asked if the Fire Department could get equipment in there to rescue an elderly person in case of a fire and would the elevators stop in case of a fire and if they stopped how would these people get out. He added if the need for senior citizen housing is so great and this property is so right, then Mr. Brown should be required to develop the project with the 70-year old widow in mind. Commissioner Mesas stated it seems the comments just made were presented in a letter to the Commission and asked that letters not be read because all the Commissioners try to read any written comments prior to the meeting and it would save time not to have to hear them again. Ilene Young, 242 West Simmons, stated she is also opposed to this proposals that she feels Mr. Brown shoes a lack of pride of ownership on this property; that she has called Code Enforcement several times concerning trash on the property, etc. and there are needs there now which are 5 feet tall; and that Code Enforcement has indicated they have had a difficult time getting Mr. Brown to comply and it is her opinion that if he cannot manage to maintain empty storage uni~s, he could not maintain the Codes with 327 living units. She urged the Commission to deny this project. Lexis Aagheloae, 2231 S. Ortley, stated he also questions Mr. Brown's intentions to follow Codes, lays and regulations; that all his plans, including the units that are there now, shoe a property line which is 3 feet into his property and Mr. Brown claims it is his property. He added he understood the storage units were not picked up by the person who wanted them constructed because they were not built to specifications. Jetty Anghelone, 2231 S. Ortley, stated her property abuts the eastern border of subject property, and questioned the proximity of necessary services to this project and although there is a bank, stationery store, convenience store sad a discount store to supply a variety of needs, there is not a supermarket nearly 10/24/88 MINIITES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 29, 1988 Page No. 42 where they can find a large variety of food at reasonable costs. She stated the closest supermarket in Anaheim is 4 miles north on Harbor, and the only supermarket in their area is Vons, at Raster and Chapman in Garden Grove and walking through their tract, that market is 3/4 mile away and about 1 mile away going on Harbor, and that market is unable to expand in its present location and has no warehousing facilities on site and that market is very busy all the time. Mr. Anghelone referred to the letters signed and submitted by the opposition and stated their plans were to read those letters into the record so that the questions could be answered. Chairxoman Bouas stated it is not necessary to read the letters into the record because the Commission has read them and the opposition should just ask the questions they want answered and Mr. Brown will answer them all at the end of the public hearing. She explained the Commissioners have all seen the letters and also have the calls from thz Mayor's Aot Line. Harla Anglehone, 2231 S. Ortley, stated Mr. Btovn is interested in making money and she would question hie integrity; that if he vas truly interested in providing senior citizen lnouaing, he would have proposed it four years ago when he took control of the property. She added Mr. Brown develops sub-utandard projects and there is no guarantee at this time that what he says will come to pass. She stated if he says this project meets Codes, he should be watched very closely because he has proven in the past that he is not a man of his xord all the time. Ms. Angelehone referred to the required findings the Planning Commission must make in order to approve any conditional use permit, and her concern that each one of those findings is being overlooked and if. this project is approved, it would set precedent sad she urged the Commission to vote "no". Tricia Floyd, 222 W. Simmons, asked if these units could be converted to regular apartments now or in the future. David Beales,2369 S. Myra Court, stated one of the requirements is a new sever line in Willowbrook Lane and that construction rottid create traffic problems for the people in the Smoketree condominium project. Mr. Beales stated another suggestion was an additional signal on Raster. Ae stated Chapman and Halter are major through streets and carry thousands of people each day and are very congested already. He stated this project promises parking for 600 additional cars and their streets are already jammed and more traffic viii not help and a traffic signal will further congest the streets. Larry Coderre, 232 'K. Simmons, stated in 1984 a project for 2S0 unite vas denied on this property and asked why a project for 327 units is being conr;idered now. Judy Harris, 2321 S. Myra Court, stated obviously from all the opposition, they do not want an B-story building Covering over their neighborhood and they are opposed to the use of the gate. She stated she would like to see this project denied and either single-family homes or condominiums approved and added if this project is approved, she would like to see that gate moved to the vest side. 10/24/88 f~~ a_' MINIITES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CUPLR!ISSION, October 24, 1488 Page No.43 Chairwoman Houas explained there is no gate at Willowbrook, except an emergency crash gate and that is required by the Fire Department. Ms. Harris stated there is a gate indicated on the other side of this complex on the end of Myra Court. David Gnotta, Vice President, Smoketree Homeowner°s Association, stated they have 218 units and all the residents are vehemently opposed to this project. He stated there are opposed to the gate on Willowbrook, although they realize the need for it. He stated this neighborhood is already burdened by Harbor Boulevard and the Disneyland area and they are aware of problems that presents with increased crime, traffic, prostitution, etc. He stated the storage facility was not opposed by the neighbors because as proposed, they thought it would compliment the area and would not increase the population ar traffic, but through bad planning and development, the project vas a failure. Mr. Gnotta stated they are not trying to stop Mr. Broxn from developing the property, but are asking that it be developed properly with a project that can co-exist with their neighborhood; and that single-family homes or condominiums which were properly built, or a well-maintained storage facility have been mentioned. Judy Coderre, 232 W.Simmons, asked the Commission ease listen to the outcries of the people in the immediate area who w. id be affected by this development. She asked how a few people can decide on an important issue such as this and grant all this development without goin out into the area and talking with the neighbors. She asked why the Commissiun couldn't go out to visit the site during the peak times so they could see the area at its worst; that at 7:U0 a.m., cars are parked all along the street with the overflow parking from the apartments and the school children are boarding the bus, and the Commission would see the dangerous situation. She stated some people are complaining because this is described as an ^affordable senior citizen project" and they were not even aware of all the waivers requested. She asked what the word "affordable" means. Ms. Coderre stated she went to the Vons Market to do research and get input from the neighbors regarding this proposed project and that she talked to several senior citizens, and learned about one senior's facility which has small living quarters, and sometimes for two people; that she talked to one man who vas in his 70's and stated he lives in a mobiiehome park and that he indicated he vas just trying to survive because rents had increased from ;100 to ;500 per month and that he only gets X115 per aonth Social Security and even mentioned suicide and she felt that is a cry for help. She added that brought up the question, "xhat is affordability" because many senior citizens and working people are struggling to make ends meet. Ms. Coderre stated she is totally against more density and asked the Commission not to allox any mo*e people in the area which is already inundated xith people, traffic and crime. 10/29/88 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 29, 1988 Page No. 44 William Rehm, 233 w. Simmons, stated as a concerned resident in Anaheim, he is here to urge the Commission to deny this request for an 8-story complex in his neighborhood because this complex is not compatible, both in size and density, with the surrounding area and that this project will not integrate into their neighborhood; and that they are a iov density, one and two-story neighborhood and this complex is nothing more than an attempt to crowd as many unite as possible onto this property. Mr. Rehm stated earlier in today's meeting, the Commission promised to preserve the views of the residents in Anaheim Hills and to proceed carefully in approving requested variances. He referred to the conceptual plans for the revitalization of the downtown area and the statement that the City's zoning provisions should be reexamined to determine that the permitted densities are consistent with the preservation objectives and trat residential densities of new housing should be compatible with older housing and specific guidelines should be prepared to contral infill projects. Darren McGeorge referred to other planned projects in the area of Katella and Haster, including CUP Nos. 2460 and 2462, for two 180-unit condominium projects which means approximately 1000 additional people using the streets. He presented a map shoving the locations of those projects, in addition to other projects. Ae referred to the environmental impact analysis portion of the staff report and stated it appears only the impacts of this project were considered in the process and not projects in the surrounding area xhich cumulatively will have an impact on the environment. He stated the impact on the environment should include other projects proposed or being developed in surrounding areas including projects in the cities of Orange and Garden Grove such as: a. 327 unit apartment complex - 700 to 800 people - 1 to 8 stories b. two 14-story office buildings - 150 feet high c. two 19-story condominium projects - 240 feet high d. one 18-story hotel - 852 rooms - 252 feet high e. 12 story hotel - 105 feet high 200 rooms 6000 sq. ft. dinner house 2000 sq. ft. meeting room 1000 sq. ft. retail space f. two 9-story parking structures He stated factors to be considered include the relationship of the internal space to the street; building height; mass and width and type of building and building and landscape materials. He stated the City can not make special commitments to only certain residents in certain areas and single out people in Anaheim Hills or other areas to preserve their views and property values and they would request the same commitment to preserve their neighborhood and would request that the Commission deny this proposal on the basis that the complex xould not fit in with the other structures in the area and will discourage pride in the neighborhood and would be detrimental to the property values. 10/29/88 ~", MINOTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 29 1988 Page No.l~s Doug Rintz, 2012 Norma Lane, Anaheim, past president of the H.O.M.E. Group, stated he thought the Commission has to be concerned about the number of people present in opposition and that their reasons for opposing the project have been veil thought out and he xas sure the Commission would give this project very careful consideration. Fern Cali, 10251 Kingsley Place, Westminster, explained she owns the house directly across the street at 333 West Wilken Way. She stated Mr. Brown stated in 1984 that he knew exactly what he was doing when he put in the mini storage units, but that never came to be. She stated she did not think Mr. Brown is thinking about senior citizens; that the senior citizen projects she is aware of have small units and that the seniors do not want patios, but want more rooa inside the unit. She stated seniors do need shopping nearby; that Mr. Broxn talks about a cafeteria and that many senior citizens would not be able to stand in a cafeteria line to get their food; and that many seniors would not be able to afford these units. She stated crime is also a concern in that area and that the senior's project on Garden Grove Boulevard has to lock the gates to the alley and they have to have two people on duty in the lobby every night and they lock the daors at 6 p.m. and you have to have a key to get in. Mrs. Call stated there are many problems with senior citizen housing and if somebody does not take care of it, it will be a disaster and the xay Mr. Broxn has done business in the past, it doesn't offer them much security. Mr. Call stated they would also like to be assured that the project could not be changed in the future to apartments and indicated she xas concerned tecause she has seen things like that happen in Anaheim. She stated Mr. Broxn mentioned a swimming pool and tennis courts and added she did not think tennis courts would be used in a senior's project. Joey Guerra, 2154 S. Madrid, stated they have heard nothing about negative effects on sunlight, xind, traffic, crime, density and perhaps the most important issue is the violation of the Cfty and State Codes and asked if all those elements are going to be addressed and if Mr. Brown's lying, etc. will be accepted and stated he doubted Mr. Brown's sincerity and asked the Commission to deny this project. Nada Sairafian, 2010 South Savoy, stated he sympathizes with Mr. Broxn and the neighbors have been rough on him and that he xould like to see individual property rights exercised; however, this developer has shoxn bad faith; that recently he tried to get storage units developed there and he did not see hox he could not make money xith storage units because they are hard to find and rents are high. He stated Mr. Srovn comes in with different plans and then changes them when ]ie sees the opposition and is trying to get xaivers and then when he sees opposition, says he is going to be a good neighbor. He stated he would suggest Mr. Hrovn try to be a good neighbor and clean up his site and then present a project with decent standards and he would then face less opposition from the neighbors. He asked how the neighbors could trust him when he has not done anything he has said he would do in the past and what guarantee do the neighbors have that if this is approved, that he would construct the complex and use it as proposed and that obviously the neighbors need some guarantee from Mr. Brown and that he could start tomorrow by cleaning his property. 10/24/88 '~ e MINOTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 24, 1988 Page No. Frank McCormick, 229 x. Aluebell Avenue, stated he merely wanted to register his opposition to this project and wanted his name recorded as objecting to the project. Ralph Martinett, 2380 S. Myra Court, stated they would like assurance for the Smoketree condominium complex that the crash gate will not be eliminated and stated there would be 800 to 1000 people in this project and they would not want them to have access through their project and asked chat assurance they could have that would not happen. David Lake, 243 W. Cyres, corner of Cyres and Ortley, stated he bought this property because it vas a nice quiet residential property and is on a dead end street. He added a traffic signal was mentioned and the only reason for a signal would be for higher traffic density and he would object to that and a lot of people are raising their families in this neighborhood and they do not want that kind of traffic in that area. He added mr. Brown has been a bad neighbor and they have put up xith construction noise and problems in the area and thought that property was going to be a nice quiet storage lot which would not increase traffic. He stated unfortunately transients in the area have increased because that property has not been secured. Mr. Lake stated the last thing he would want to see is L-he sunset to the vest of an 8-story building. REBDTTAL: Mz. Brown stated he agreed that property has been a "bear" to keep up and they have had contractors there to fix the gates and there is no question but that it has been a problem with transients, and they have hired guard patrols, but obviously their efforts have not been enough and he does not disagree that the property could be kept better. Mr. Brown stated he has been accused of many things and that he has not made any promises and he thought many of the objections were due to a lack of knowledge or lack of understanding of xhat he is proposing; that the units will not be small and that lie is building a quality building and meeting all the fire and safety codes. He stated they are no longer requesting a height waiver and that the pictures presented were two buildings which were twice as large as the highest building they are proposing. He stated the original proposal was foz 10 stories and they have reduced that considerably, have increased parking, reduced the density and made an sincere effort to do as they were advised. THE PDBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner MessP stated he did not think all the questions were ansxered; L•hat one gentleman stated he felt that the number of units vas decreased, but not the number of people who xould be livi:g there; and added he personally thought this is just changing it to a regular apartment complex. 10/24/88 MINIITES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 24, 1988 Page No47 Mr. Brown responded it would be illegal to make this regular apartmentss that he has not made a count of the number of people and 440 were originally proposed and he thought it would be similar; that there is a requirement for additional parking, even though they have reduced the number of units and increasing them to two bedrooms increased the number of parking spaces required and they have adequately answered that concern. Ae explained in order to keep certain surface areas or recreation area, they have put some of the parking underground, and have more than double the amount of recreational service area per unit; and that the tennis courts were just an idea. Commissioner Messe stated he ie a senior citizen and plays tennis twice a week, so did not leave a problem with providing the tennis courts. He asked staff about the demand for two bedroom senior citizen units. Debbie Vagts, Housing Operation Coordinator, stated their experience shows that 95% of the tenants would be single elderly women xho would be interested in one bedroom units. She responded to Commissioner Hoydstun that there are 24 one-bedroom units and 58 txo-bedroom units proposed to be designated as affordable. She also pointed out that the senior citizen housing ordinance says a project shall have no more than 50% two-bedroom units, so the developer would need to apply for a waiver of that requirement. It was noted that of 327 unite proposed, 231 xould be two-bedroom units and 96 one-bedroom units. Mr. Brown stated he was called out of a meeting today and told that staff had overlooked that requirement and he had not known about it and that his archi~ect had not known about it and stated also no matter what the situation is, he would prefer to have ale the affordable units as one bedroom unite. Ae stated also there is question as to whether the way the ordinance reads, 25% of each type of units is designated as affordable, or 25% of the total. Commissioner Bouas stated it seems one bedroom unite are standard apartments because there is no demand for txo bedroom unite by senior citizens. Mr. Brown stated he vas taking guidance from the Commission and from statements made at an earlier meeting sad realized affordable units are required, but the whole philosophy cannot make it vorkr that they have larger unite, two-bedrooms over 1000 square feet in size and that means the prices have to come up. Ae stated they are talking about luxury unite for senior citizens. Responding to Commissioner Bouas, Mr. Brown stated the one-bedroom affordable unit would rent for ;;914 and ;500 for the two bedroom. He also explained the two-bedroom units not designated as affordable would rent for X1100 per month. Debbie Vagta stated all the units are designated for the very low income families and that is based on 50% of the median income. 10/24/88 MINIITES, ANAHEI?S CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 24, 1988 Page No.~+$ Commissioner Herbst stated he has a problem with the state mandating the City's senior citizen ordinances and the state alcove seniors at 55 years of age and they can have someone living with them who ie 45 years old; and that if this vas approved, it will be an apartment complex for people working and if they have to pay ;1100 a month, both would be working and there would be increased traffic. He added he does not agree with this state-mandate, but when the project is 150 units, the age limit is dropped to 55. Ae stated he had asked Mr. Brown before if he could break this project up so the age limit could remain at 60 or 62, and then it would be a true senior citizen complex. Y.r. Brown stated they were told very specifically at earlier meetings that they should try less hard to get affordaile units and reduce the density and they have done that. Commissioner Bouas stated the density vas reduced, but they have increased the bedrooms and that would increase the population density and that is the concern. She added they probably should have proposed a straight apartment complex meeting the Codes, rather than can ing it a senior citizer. complex. Mr. Hrovn stated they requested 250 uniL•s four years ago and that wan denied and it vas suggested they put in a storage facility. Chairman Herbst stated there is a resolution of intent on this property to RM-3000 and they could develop 142 condominiums which is xhat the property is zoned for. (Mr. Brown responded that is not possible.) Chairman Herbst continued that he agrees with some of things they are trying to do and disagreed with some of the oppositions' comments. He stated he has been through many senior citizen complexes and talked to the residents and they like the security of a high rise building, but this is a matter of where they are trying to put it and it doesn't fit here. Ae st,ated the Commission did suggest senior citizen housing and unfortunately there is the state law lowering the age limit, but that he would not vote for this project. Chairman Herbst stated he has been a Flanning Commissioner for more than 23 years and has never seen a senior citizen project this dense and he did not think the developer realizes the impact this would have oa the area and he would recommend that the Planning Commission stick to the RM-3000 zoning standards, sad added Mr. Brown can appeal the Commission's decision to the City Council. Mr. Hrovn stated he wanted to remind the Commission that particularly at the first meeting, they had suggested underground parking, and also the Commission had stated they would not object to a high rise development sad also suggested reduced density and that is what he has done. Chairman Aerbst responded he has not reduced the people density sad that he is making this a regular apartment complex xhich will impact that area more than a plain senior citizen complex; that with the age limit at 62, the project would not impact the schools and the area; and also that this does not have the necessary services and added there are senior projects in this city xhich do work, but lowering the age limit to 55 changes the whole thing. Mr. Brown stated they explored splitting the property and using the same number of units on different parcels, therefore, attempting to go around the state law sad that they did not think it was proper to try and put in phony property lines to circumvent the law. 10/24/88 MINO'TES ANAAEIH CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 24, 1988 Page No. 49 He added he could not see anything over three stories in that whole area and that he finds it hard to approve a request like this when he sees this many people who have a deep concern. He state: he has concern for the property owners' rights but not to the adverse effect on many people who have enjoyed their privacy for many years. Re suggesL•ed three stories only and apartments proposed to meet all codes. Commissioner Messe stated the first proposal xas for 440 one-bedroom units which would mean 880 people and the present proposal could mean three people in each two-bedroom unit and that means 885 people, so even with a decrease in the number of units, the number of people who could possibly live there is increased. Commissioner Boydstun stated this revision just moved the bedrooms around. Commissioner Messe stated he is not really against high rise complexes, but this revised plan really does not change the project. He stated there are too many txo-bedroom units proposed and that by taking away some of those, one of the stories could be eliminated,. Commissioner Carusillo asked is Commissioner Messe is suggesting that seven stories are acceptable and Commissioner Nesse responded he would not be opposed to seven stories. Mr. Broxn stated he did line of sight exhibits, and that there xere concerns about sunsets, wind floes, etc., and that he spent a lot of money for engineering studies to answer those concerns. Commissioner Bouas stated a 8-story building would be like a mountain to the neighbors. She stated if he had reduced it to six stories, that would have loxered the density and maybe the neighbors could have lived with it, but she did not see how it could r•ork the xay it is proposed now. John Pocle, Code Enforcement Manager, stated there have been problems over the last three years xith vagrants living on the property, trash, overgrown needs and vegetation; and that a fire vas set and that Mr. Hrovn has made efforts to alleviate that but that he has not done enough. Mr. Fools stated if Mr. Brown is going to continue vlth the storage units, he needs to clean up the property. He explained Code Enforcement staff has sent letters to Mr. Broxn regarding the complaints and the way the property is not being properly maintained. Chairwoman Bouas stated Mr. Brown should certainly have cut the weeds which are growing there now and no matter what happens xith this request andcertainly xhile they are waiting to find out what is going to happen, the property should be cleaned up and properly maintained and added that is no way to make friends and please the neighbors. She stated she thought this could be a fine project, but not with the number of txo-bedroom units proposed. She stated it is an improvement over what he started with and it xouid be a closed community and she thought the neighbors would be happy with it, but they don't feel they can depend on it because of past actions and she could understand that and that he should have shown them that he was sincere; and that also Code Enforcement has had a difficult time resolving the problems. 1OJ29J88 3~ HINDTES, ANAHEIH CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 24, 1988 Page No. 50 Mr. Poole stated a court date has been set on a criminal complaint for Mr. Brown in order to see that he does maintain the property in the future. Chairxoman Bouas stated she could understand why the neighbors are upset because of the mess next to their back yards and that has just been a disaster for them. Mr. Brown stated the fife full of complaints referred to by Mr. Poole were mostly before the storage units were there and that maintaining the property has been a constant problem. He stated they do not have permanent landscaping and it is unsightly but they have sent people in there to clean it up, but the trash and weeds are an on-going problem. He stated he had hoped to get this approval and expiained they were forced to take the property and the storage units should never have been developed. He added he wanted to put in apartments but 148 units is not economically feasible. He asked what is the highest and best use of this property. Commissioner Carusillo stated he sympathizes with Mr. Brown and thought he had been given wrong signals and that is a concern he has right nox because he has heard one Commission say he vouid agree with 7 stories, one said 6 stories, and that maybe RN-3000 condominiums would be the best project but that the problem he sees is the height. Ae stated an RM-3000 condominium project vouid be a good solution because it would alleviate the height issue and density concern but that he did not knox if it xould be economically feasible. He added he does not want to give the developer wrong signals again. He stated there was some concern that maybe an environmental impact report should have been required and that the Commission is trying to come up with a good solution to the problem. He stated there are a lot of people opposed to this request and that he does listen to the opposition and respects the fact that they do live there. Commissioner Hesse stated even though the Commission may have given Mr. Brown wrong signals, he has not responded to them and has not changed the project and actually increased the population density from a possible 880 people to perhaps 885 people. Commissioner Herbst stated he would have a problem approving a negative declaration. ACTION: Commissioner Aerbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe, and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Feldhaus and McBurney absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to consider a 1 t~ 8-story, 416 units "affordable" senior citizens apartment complex (formerly i to 8-story and 440 units), with xaivezs of maximum fence height adjacent to local streets, minimum building site area per duelling unit and maximum structural height at 400 West Wilken Wayj and does hereby disapprove the Negative Declaration on the basis that it has considered the proposed 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 substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment on the basis that the impacts on the area overall with traffic, eater, severs, etc. would adversely affect the area. 10/24/88 ~S Pa a No.S~ MIN[JTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 24, 1988 Commissioner Herbst offered a motion., seconded by Commissioner Mease and MOTION CARRIED {Commissioners Feldhaua and McBurney absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commieaion does hereby deny waivers of code requirement on the basis that there are ao special circumstances applicable to the proier~yo atherae size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which do not aFP Y identically zoned properties in the vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Ccu1e does not deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in identical zoning classification in the vicinity. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC 88-306 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Ccmruission does hereby deny the peacealhealthe1safety•and4velfare ofbthescitizensoofctheoCity ofeAnaheimffect On roll call the foregoing resolution vas passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Bouas, Boydatun, Carusillo, Herbst, Hesse NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: FELDHAIIS, MC HIIRNEY Carol Flynn, Deputy City Attorney, presented the right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. RECESS: 8:15 p•m. RECONVENE 8:25 p.m. ,~. ~: MINUTES OF ANAHEIM vrnxNING COMMMIScTnu ~.rFrrrxr OCTOBER 24 1988 8$-52 21a REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION ~~G17IC CORRIDOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE xFIGHT STANDARD REVIEW AND STUDY. Continued from meeting of September 26, 1988 THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS REOPENED. Commissioner Carusillo 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 conducts business in the area and pursuant to the provisions of the above Codes, declared to the Chairman that he was withdrawing from the hearing in connection with Scenic Corridor Single-Family Residential Zoae Height Standard Review and Recommendation, 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 Carusillo left the Council Chamber. Joel Fick, Planning Directcr, ezplained the Planning Commission held a hearing several weeks ago and took testimony from a large number of people and basically there was a split in the input from people who were in favor of amending the height standard and those opposed to any amendment. He stated several options the Commission discussed are identified on Page 15 of the staff report; and that several options are presented for the Planning Commission to consider. He stated the Commission discussed raising the height standards in the Hidden Canyon area, but no specific height was determined at that meeting and the decision was continued for further discussion, and he felt with the tremendous amount of input received from the public, the Commission just wanted time to consider all the input and review the comments offered. Chairwoman Souas asked if there was any further input regarding this issue. Mitzi Ozaki, 340 Timkin Road, stated she resides in the Mohler Drive araa; and that she had submitted a copy of petitions on behalf of the Santa Ana Canyon Property Owner's Association with signatures of 278 Mohler Drive residents who are opposed to recent height variances in the area. To support the integrity of the petition, she read the names of the petition gatherers and the streets they represented. She noted she had also submitted a long letter regarding this issue, and that she is back again to urge Commission to maintain the integrity of the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone. She stated the intent of the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zoae was to retain the natural features in the Santa Ana Canyon Area; and that the features in the canyon are as special to them as the seascape is to the people is the beach communities, which they want to preserve. She stated even more important to the Mohler Drive area residents a.. olutioa 70R-283 and is that the Planning Commission retain the integrity of the pre-annezation promise to protect and retain the residential integrity and their unique rural lifestyle. 10/24/88 _ J. MINUTES OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETII~, OCTOBER 24 1988. 88-53 Ms. Ozaki asked if they are seeing the City going bacY. on its promises today, 18 years after those promises were made, and they are going to be compromising the codes that have worked well for the past 17 years. She stated over 97i of the residents in the Mohler Drive area approached want to retain the current height restriction is their area. She noted only two height variances have been granted in that area, and those were granted before the area residents were aware of what was occurring. She said the Mohler Drive area is one of the two oldest residential areas in the canyon, along with Peralta Hills, and this area is now 80~ to 85~ developed. She asked that the Commission retain the integrity of their lifestyle by requiring that the remaining 15~ be developed in keeping with the Mohler Drive standards. She stated they like the rural standards which include no curbs, no gutters, and no street lights which encourages a very country-like and secluded lifestyle. Ms. Ozaki said there are those who claim the current structural height limit is too restrictive architecturally; however, it can easily be seen that the Mohler Drive area has every imaginable architectural style and structural size. She referred to the petition submitted with 278 signatures of residents opposed to height variances, and explained that is the third such petition to be turned over to the City opposing structural height waivers, which represents a clear majority of Mohler Drive area residents and asked that the Planning Commission decision today reflect the will of the majority. Sonja Grewal, 6312 East Santa Ana Canyon Road, Suite 157, Anaheim, representing the Anaheim Hills Citizen's Coalition, submitted a newspaper advertisement of a house in the area built to code. She referred to Joel Fick's statement that the testimony at the last meeting was split between raising and not raising the height standard and that information may be correct in numbers, but not in the areas of people testifying. She stated she believed 90i of those who were in favor of raising the height standard were from the Hidden Canyon area, and a clear majority were saying they wanted to move away from development which blends in and wanted the freedom to place emphasis on the development itself. However, she thought the input from those from 'the other areas which are affected by Commission's decision was the opposite, and the felt the standard has xorked, and asked why change it now when everything is being built out. She stated this may encourage inconsistency and disorderly development, which is not in keeping with the ordinance. Maria Ritter, 191 Possum Hollow, stated she is also speaking for her husband, Larry, and they wanted to voice their opposition to granting variances for waiver of the maximum structural height on single-family residences, thereby exceeding the normal limit of 25 feet imposed in the Santa Ana Canyon area by the existing Anaheim General Plan, and reaffirmed in Resolution No. 70R-283 adopted on April 20, 1970. She said the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone was established to provide the Planning Commission with a reasonable and logical framework for guiding the development of the hill and canyon area. Ms. Ritter said prior to the annexation of the Peralta Hills area, the City assured the residents that, unless justified by substantiating evidence, deviation would not be permitted; and that the same resolution stated this was an opportunity to get off to a fresh start in planning. 10/24/88 ._ ........... _, .,:~::.:...,,,w:.,,,r .,., ~ _ MINUTES OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 24 1988 88-54 Ms. Ritter added it is possible to build a large home on a half-acre lot and stay within the 25-foot height limit. She explained her home is located on such a lot and is approzimately 2500 square feet in size. She stated if they chose to add a second story to their home, they would ezceed 5,000 square feet of living space and still be within the 25-foot height limit. She stated across the street there are several recently constructed multiple-story residences which had been built whin the 25-foot height limit. She added they consider the building height limi•r; in the Scenic Corridor to be reasonable and it does provide each a§cending property owner some measure of assurance that preserves a portion o~" the scenic view, which is the real value difference attributed to this beautiful area. She asked that Commission please maintain and enforce the Scenic Corridor Overlay height limit of 25 feet. Roland Rrueqer, 561 Peralta Hills Drive, stated he was on the citizen's committee that provided input to the staff report, and that he was in the audience today when the Commission discussed this groposal and was a little disturbed by the general tone of some of the comments. He noted several of the comments related to the possibility of relazing the Scenic Corridor standards, which would mainly benefit new construction. Mr. Rrueqer stated it seems the only concern for the existing residents is to try and avoid directly blocking someone's view, and there did not seem to be much apparent concern expressed for maintaining the ambiance and character of ezistinq communities, which are almost completely built out to the Scenic Corridor standards. He stated in the ezistinq communities, a 30 to 40-foot high structure would certainly be out of character; and that it may be hard to visualize a 25-foot height sitting in this chamber, but out in the field a person can see what a 25-foot high building really looks like and it would be a very large structure. Mr. Rrueqer stated is long established areas like Peralta Hills and Mohler Drive, where 90i of the lots are already developed, he did not think the entire community should be fractured to benefit a few remaining lots. He reminded the Commission that when Peralta Hills annezed to the City in 1970, the City Council adopted a Resolution that they would maintain the one-acre lots and preserve the semi-rural character of the area, and they feel that same commitment should apply to the Scenic Corridor standards throughout the entire Santa Ana Canyon Area. He stated they feel a positive step was taken at the September meeting by suggesting that Hidden Canyon be considered as a special case for increasing the height, because of special circumstances there which relate particularly to that area. He said previously Peralta Hills East received a 29-foot blanket variance, with the exception of two or three lots and asked why it is necessary to increase the height limit is the rest of the area which is largely already built out, if both Hidden Canyon and Peralta Hills East are available to those people who do want to build beyond the height limitations. He stated they know from ezperience 5,000 to 10,000-square foot houses can be built within the 25-foot limit, and suggested that structures over 25 feet be restricted to the special sub-communities which have the blanket height waivers, allowing the ezistinq communities to retain the ambiance they have. 10/24/88 __ ~' ~a MINUTES OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 24 1988 BS-55 Mr. Krueger stated since the 25-foot height limit is a key element in the Scenic Corridor, increasing the limit would make the standards essentially the same as in the rest of the City and they felt it would destroy the concept of the Scenic Corridor. He stated if Commission agreed that the Scenic Corridor concept is an important asset to the City, then they should do everything possible to maintain these standards, while providing some relief in sub-communities such as the Hidden Canyon area. Phil Joujon-Roche, 450 Via Vista, said he has lived in the Mohler Drive area since 1959 and helped found the Santa Ana Canyon Property Owner's Association in 1970. Hu stated from that time until now, he felt the 25-foot height limit has served the area well, and they h:s::8 a mizture of 1-story and 2-story houses, with only a couple of homes over the 25-foot limit, much to their pain. He said he was at the hearing a few weeks ago and noted that most of the residents were for the 25-foot limit, with the exception of the Hidden Canyon residents, and agreed they have a legitimate reason to want a different height standard because that is a special area. He noted the two people who wanted the standard changed who were not from the Hidden Canyon Area already have their own plans on the drawing board which unfortunately ezceed the height limit; therefore, they are in the process of requesting height variances, and quite naturally they spoke against the present standard. He noted the vast majority of people, as witnessed by the number of signatures on the petitions, are clearly for the enforcement of the present height ordinance in the Scenic Corridor and since the areas are pretty much built out, he would encourage Commission to keep the present ordinance in place. Brian Day, 329 Timken, stated he has lived there for 20 years and has seen the area become developed and felt staying within the 25-foot limitation seems to make everyone happy. He added with most of the area developed, there is no reason to change and urged the Commission to maintain the 25-foot height standard. Leona Curtis, 569 Peralta Hills Drive, stated she was at the last meeting and had stated her opinion. She indicated when she moved into the area she investigated each property surrounding the area, saw what the standards were, and then planned their house accordingly. She stated, however, since the standards were set, they redesigned their house to conform to the standards and she thought anyone buying property in the area could design their house according to the standards, rather than violating the standard and then asking for a variance. She stated she did not understand why they would want to design something that does not fit the neighborhood, and then try to get everyone to agree that they could have a variance. THE PUBLIC BEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Messe asked staff ?hut Ms. Ozaki's statement that promises had bean made by the City, stating he has heard that on several occasions and wanted to know what those promises were because he did not think he would want to go back on any promises made. 10/24/88 ~t7UTES OF ANAHEIM PL~+-tNING CONQ.4ISSION MEETING OCTOBER 24 1988 88-56 , Joel Fick, Planning Director, responded that Ms. Ozaki did participate in a lot of the meetings that took place with the City, and he believed the resolution that was cited by a couple of the speakers pertains to the resolution adopted when the property came into the City of Anaheim, and there were specific standards set up for the area which addressed street lighting, curbs and gutter, etc. which are engineering standards. He added to his knowledge, at that time, height xas not an issue in anything he had seen or that staff has reviewed, and the height of structures, other than the discussions that took place when the entire Scenic Corridor regulations were adopted, was not specifically called out as as issue. Chairwoman Bouas asked how a home with portions of it at 30 feet high, would change the ambiance of the area. Ms. Ozaki stated the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone was in place in 1970, and Mohler Drive was annexed in 1973 and the discussions and some of the promises she referred to are is written form, and one is the resolution which addresses both the Mohler Drive and Peralta Hills areas. She said the goals and whole idea was to preserve the nature, the nakuralness, the scenic beauty of the hills and river, etc., and they all built their homes to blend in with that environment. She stated they looked at their land and made their plans to fit the land, rather than having their minds set on what they wanted,aad trying to work around the codes to build it; and that over the years they have fought to preserve this area; that they had seen to it that there was a grading ordinance, a tree preservation ordinance, and all of these things necessary to preserve rural climate which is attracting the people to the canyon area. Chairwoman Bouas stated she did not felt the houses could be designed and built to blend in with the environment, unless they specifically want ranch style houses. Ms. Ozaki stated the homes in the Mohler Drive area are not all ranch style homes; and `hey do have other style homes still within the 25-foot limit, and the owners can still build. She stated is recent months they had taken City Council members to the area and showed them the kinds of architectural styles that can be achieved, staying within the 25-foot height limit, and the visual impact of those structures that are not within that limit. Mr. Krueger stated he would agree that the best way is to offer to take Commission members for a ride through the Peralta Hills area so they can see how the houses which are built according to the standards blend into the landscaping, and then show them to picture what another 10 feet on top of those homes to see how that would be obtrusive, and in his opinion, not as asset to the area. Chairwoman Bouas stated she felt there could be a lot of houses which could be designed at 30 feet high, if they did not have to comply with the height ordinance of 25 feet, and a person would not even know the difference between a 25 foot and 30-foot high house, or if only portions of it were 30 feet. Mr. Krueger said a person could definitely tell the difference. 10/24/88 A ' ~ v MINUTES OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 24 1988 88 57 Mr. Fick pointed out that at every Commission meeting people talk about the building height requirements which exist, and there is a need to clarify the code. He stated there are inconsistencies is the Code between the zones oa the heights and the definition as to how the height is measured, and that is something that has been discussed in a lot of detail with the citizen's committee. He noted the results of those discussions are subject to interpretation, however. He stated the Code presently talks about from the highest finished pad elevation to the top of the structure, and theoretically, when there are varying pad levels or homes built oa slopes, that issue over the years has been interpreted differently; that presently staff, because of the focus on the height issue, has taken the most conservative viewpoint in defining the height standard, and staff's recommendation to Commission is to measure it from the highest point of the roof structure, to a point directly below, and that for the first time, would provide a clear guideline and standard to use to measure the height. Commissioner Messe stated the question is whether the zoning code correctly states it now and that he would not change a word, except maybe the wording "implementing local governmental agency actions". He added he would not change the 25-foot height limit, but that he would like to see maybe a 5-foot uninhabitable encroachment permitted, over a certain percentage of the roof area in order to relax the architectural standards a little. He stated he did not see that as being intrusive into the neighborhood from listening to the residents, the people who want to build, and the architects. Mr. Krueger asked why the City of Anaheim feels they should impose something other than what the residents want if the area is 90~ developed and the residents are happy with what they have and feel it should be maintained? Commissioner Messe asked why do the residents feel they should impose restrictions oa a person who owns property, telling them they cannot build some dream house they want to build. Mr. Krueger stated they have all lived within the standards and within the laws of the City of Anaheim until now, and -asked why should the people coming after them not live within those same laws. Commissioner Messe stated he felt the 25-foot height standard should not be changed but that some architectural encroachments (do dads) should be permitted. Commissioner Herbst stated he thought the height as measured from the peak of the roof straight down to the pad level below should be 25 feet, and as long as they follow the grade and do not do a lot of grading, that should be acceptable. Mr. Krueger stated in their discussions with staff, that is a good compromise as a way of measuring, and in a lot of cases, if people cut and fill and have a flat pad, they will try to go to 30 feet and that does not fit into the hillside. 10/24/88 .x L]~ ON MSETINr OCTOBER Z4 lean 88-58 cc nr JdiTaHEIM SIN Commissioner Herbst stated when the ordinance is rewritten, some of the ambiguities of the ordinance we have nox should be eliminated. Mr. Krueger referred to a house in Peralta Hills which is 3 stories and probably 35 feet high, but it is built into the side of the hill and fits within the variance procedures, which says the variance should be granted when there is a hardship or special circumstances relating to the lroceduresswhend they agree with that and are willing to go with the variance p there is a hardship with respect to special circumstances of the land itself. Commissioner Herbst stated he would like to see the standard for Hidden Canyon area at 35 feet high maximum, the Mohler Drive area 25 feet high maximum, the Peralta Hills area 25 feet high maximum, the Peralta Hills East area already has a blanket variance, the Highlands, at 26 feet, Sycamore Canyon and The Swnmit at 26 feet, and then all the rest of the canyon area would have a 25-foot height limitation. Commissioner Messe asked about allowinWhencsomeonerwantsasomething different, since we have the variance procedure, they can request it and have a public hearing and he felt that should suffice. Commissioner Boydstun stated she believed a specific way to measure the height, would give some flexibility for architectural design. Mr. Fick responded actually the definition the Planning Department staff has been applying is more a conservative definliedn aHe stated thereahavedbeenra the years as to how the code should be app lot of issues related to height which have come into focus recently and that certainly the interest in the Peralta Hills East Tract brought forth the issue of the chimney height and other things, and those issues were since discussed by the Commission and Council, but he just wanted to bring to the Commission's attention that staff does take a very conservative viewpoint toward the interpretation of that ordinance and, for that reason and because it has been a real problem for the development community, they are proposing that the ordinance be clarified once and for all. Mr. Fick said the code does not currently deal with how a house is measured if it is built oa a hillside. Commissioner Herbst stated there are some hardship lots in those areas and everyone recognizes it and if people are going to build oa those lots at some point, they would have to apply for a variance. Mr. Krueger stated he did not find the variance procedure objectionable, but the main question is whether to set different standards for different communities, but since we have a variance procedure, they should be willing to use it as it is written, with the justification as worded. He noted the justification does not discuss architectural style as a criteria for a variance, and the only hardship is on the land. He stated they have seen variance after variance approved fcr reasons that had nothing to do with a hardship on the land and that Las caused more people to come in for variances, and he felt if the Commission wGUld enforce the variance procedure, they would see a reduction in the number of requests for variances. 10/24/88 ((a -Ty' ^} MINUTES OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 24 1988 88-59 Commissioner Herbst stated the Planning Commission is a recommending body to the City Council, and when something goes to the City Council, they can do just about what they want. He stated Council sometimes has a different opinion than the Planning Commission; and that the Planning Commission has been adhering to the height standard more so than the Council. He also noted that many of these hearings are now going before the Zoning Administrator, rather than the Planning Commission. He added the Council has asked for a recommendation to help them with their decisions and he felt if they look at what has been done in the Specific Plan area and the Hidden Canyon area, and leave the rest of the area alone, it would give them a tool they could work xith, and then when the people know what they can and cannot do, they may want to buy in an area accordingly. Mr. Krueger stated when tho Planning Commission makes the recommendations for the height standards in the different areas, he would like to see them recommend to the Council and the Zoning Administrator that the variance procedures be applied as they are written and if that happens, the residents would be happy. Commissioner Herbst stated they would still have to hold public hearings for people who want to ask for a variance; that does not mean they will get it. Mr. Krueger said he felt when people find that variances are being denied because there is ao real justification, the requests will lessen. Joel Fick responded the parcels that may require variances do not trouble staff because the Zoning Code has specific provisions for those parcels and provides the grounds for granting a variance. He stated staff's focus has been on whether the standard is reasonable, since we are getting a lot of variance requests. Commissioner Messe stated he thought the standard is still too limiting architecturally, and felt allowing some unihabitable areas to encroach on the 25-foot height limit would be acceptable. Chairwoman Souas said she agreed sad did not feel it would change the ambiance of the area. She added she felt it is not the height of the house that makes the ambiance, but a lot of other things. Commissioner Messe stated he thought the method of measuring as staff suggested would be fine, and that he sax ao reason to change the statement of purpose for the Scenic Corridor. $ Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun, and MOTION FAILED TO CARRY (Commissioners Boydstua sad Herbst voting yes; Commissioners Houas and Messe voting no; and Commissioners Carusil"1 o, Feldhaus and Mc Burney absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission recommends City Council consideration of amending the Code and that the present standard of a 25-foot height limitation be maintained in the Scenic Corridor Overlay 2oae, except is the Hidden Canyon Area, which will have a 35-foot height limitation; and that the method of measuring structural height will be from the highest peak of the roof to the grade directly below that point. 10!24/88 :,. -T. 4` '...~ MINUTES OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 24 1988. 88-60 Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Chairwoman Bouas and MOTION FAILED TO CARRY (Commissioners Bouas and Messe voting yes, Commissioners Boydstun and Herbst voting no and Commissioners Carusillo, Feldhaus and Mc Burney absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission recommends City Council consideration of a Code Amendment that in the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone the present standard of a 25-foot height limitation be maintained, but to include an allowance for a 5-foot non-habitable encroachment for not more than 20~ of the total roof area for architectural purposes, with the exception of the Hidden Canyon Area, which shall have a 35-foot height limitation; and that the method of measuring structural height will be from the highest peak of the roof to the pad directly belox that point. Commissioner Messe offered s motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby continue consideration of the aforementioned matter to the regularly-scheduled meeting of November 14, 1988, without reopening the public hearing, for review and vote. (Commissioners Feldhaus and McBuraey absent, and Commissioner Carusillo absent due to a conflict of interest). Sonja Grewal asked if Commission would take a look at the Hidden Canyon area and the rest of the canyon area before they vote. She said she felt that would answer their question about what extra height does and that in the Hidden Canyon area, the focus is on the development but in the other canyon areas, the focus is on the area, not the product. She stated she has a couple of addresses she would like them to see. It vas noted she should give the addresses to Mr. Fick, and then the Commissioners could make the drive. 10!24/88 . } 22. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS• A. DIIaC4 1 Housigg Study I• Task 1 - Review of Condominium Development vs. Apartment Development B. Dha 1• Hous~na Studv I• Task 2 - Review of specific multiple-family site development standard including multiple-family deck housing developments. A I N• Commission Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Feldhaus and McBurney absent) that consideration of the aforementioned Housiaq Study 7; Tasks 1 and 2 be continued to a work session oa November 3, 1988, at 9:00 p.m. 22. C. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO 283 (Prey Cert ) Sycamore Canyon Specific Plan (SP88-1) final site plan review for previously-approved residential single-family Vesting Tentative Tract Nos. 12988, 12989, 13154, and 13155. Commissioner Messe pointed out there were some changes submitted, identified as Attachment A. Mary McCloskey, Planning Division Manager, ezplaiaed there were some changes to the lot sizes and those pages should be replaced xith the revised pages. ACTION: Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Feldhaus and McBurney absent) that the Anaheim City Planning commission does hereby determine that Environmental Impact Report No. 283, previously certified by the City Council on February 9, 1988, for the Sycamore Caayoa Specific Plan (SP88-1) is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for Final Site Plaa approval for Vsstinq Tentative Tract Map Nos. 12988, 12989, 13154, 13155. Commissioner Messe offered a motion, secoads3 by Commissioner Bouas and Motion Carried (Commissioner Fe:dhaus and McBurney absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Final Site Plans for Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 12988, 12989, 13154 and 13155 as being consistent with the Sycamore Canyon Specific Plan (SP88-1) zoning and development standards. 10/24/88 ~.~,, I D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 2845 nND VARIANCE NO 3603 - REQUEST FOR uFVIEW OF REVISED CONCEPTUAL PLANS FOR nF•rFRMZNATION OF SUBSTANTIAL SONFORMANCE: The Vanderbilt Group, applicant, requests review of revised Plans for recommendation to City Council. Prrperty is parcels 8 and 9 of Parcel Map No. 86-333 is a portion of 19.7 scres of land located at the northwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Weir Canyon Road. Mr. Savoy, Hutton Development, was present to answer any questions. Chairwoman Bouas asked if the setback area will be landscaped. Mr. Savoy explained there will be landscaping in the area from the sidewalk to the beginning of the parking area and that there will be exterior landscaping throughout the parking lot. ACTION: Commissioner Boystaa offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Feldhaus and McBurney absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commissioner does hereby recommend to the City Council that revised conceptual plans are in substantial conformance with p?,an originally approved for Parcels 8 and 9 of Parcel Map No. 86-333 in connection with Variance No. 3603 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2845. ADJOURNMENT' Chairwoman Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission adjourn this meeting until 4:00 p.m., November 3, 1988, for the purpose of a work session to reviex the multi-family recommendations by staff (Agenda Items 22A ~ 'L28). The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~ M E 'th Harris, Planning Commission Secretary 0124m 10/24/88