Loading...
Minutes-PC 1992/05/18~ t; ~ ~.. ~~ t y~ 5 ~ .,5tx } T w4 i "" ~~;~IICM IYV. O- VCWN MIIIl7NICY 19C17MIIYC Y~(iJ1N111V1Y. nCVV'1~IrIVN11V1919V. :f 1-`JC-ZU. ' ~'>~" ~, VARIANCE N0.4181. TENTATIVE TRACE MAP NO. 14541 AND SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT ;rte N0: 92-02 ,;:!: ` ~' ' ' ' PUBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: M.Y. PELANCONI ESTATE, C/0 BERNARDO M. YORBA, EXECUTOR, 300 S. Harbor Blvd., Sute 912, Anaheim, CA 92805. AGENT: MORGAN DEVELOPMENT INC., r ` ATTN: MAX MORGAN, PRESIDENT, 20341 Levine Avenue, Suite D~, Santa Ana Heights, CA 92707. G '~ ' LOCATION: fr5.40 East Sarrta Ana Canyon Road. Property is approximately 12.38 acres It~cated on *.he ~~ ~` south side of Sarta Ana Canyon Road and also having frontage on the north skis of Avenkla Margarfta 7 ,,; and approximately 1,211 feet east of the centerl(ne of Royal Oak Road. ~ ~~~ ,fir Petitioner requests redassiflcatlon of a portion of the subject property from the RS-A-43,000(SC) r (Residential/Agricultural -Scenic Corrkor Overlay) Zone to RS-5000(SC) (Reskential, Single-Family - r Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone to establish a 40-lot, single-family reskientiai subdivision with waivers of ~, .;;. ' required lot frontage and required location of bugdings. Petltioner further requests to remove 75 existing y } specimen trees from the subject property. y.µ,., ~" Continued from the May 4, 1992 Planning Commission meeting. ~`. There were 13 persons present in opposftlon to subject request and one person indicated their presence in favor of subject request, and although the staff report was not read, ft is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Eric Harrison, 24451 Alicia Parkway, Suits 7G103, Mission Viejo, CA 92691, representing Morgan Development to briefly present the 38-i,,: reskiential subdivision located (n East Anaheim. He explained this proposal consists of a redassiflgtion to rezone the property from RS-A-43,000 to RS-5000 wlth waivers of required lot frontag~a due to the private streets; required location and orientation of buildings adjacent to Santa Ana Canyon Road and a specimen tree removal permit in con{unction with a 38-lot subdvision. He stated over the past few months they have worked directly wfth staff to incorporate their comments Into the project design and they think that the project now meets all of the concerns that were previcusly addressed. The proposed home design that they have incorporated is a unique zero lot Tine which provides for gi;9ater useable skis yards which range from 12 to 18 feet. Furthermore, their proposed RS-5000 Zoning allaNS for the ability to duster in conformance wfth the General Plan for the hill and canyon area The hill. and canyon area General Plan encourages the dus'sring which they think the RS-5000 Zone provides the ability. In addftion, tho RS-5000 gives them the abiifty to isrov(de lots that are consistent with similaar developments surrounding the proposal. The majorfty of their pad sizes exceeds the pad sizes of the surrounding existing developments. He stated all in all they feel that this proposal, in conjunction wfth staffs recommended conditions of approval, conforms to the General Plan and is consistent wfth the pattern of existing single-family development in the area. ~/l~~ 9 ~~ ~i l S - C~2/ 7- ~ P~_.l }'` ~ • ,t~ p•'° ..~.r,mirnu:~a. n:vu:c~m vi: ~ riru~:~mu uvmmi.~a:u:~. mnt :o.:xu rays c ~:,. _ ~ '?F ~, p~ ' ~~'~ He stated in the staff re staff has noted some inconsistencies in the S amen Tree Removal Permit. , They,' have' provided an exhibit that they wNl submit today that w81 hopef~ly rectNy the issues on the E ;~,~~::~; .number of trees being removed. {~' ~~ .r.1 D:y ", .: OPPOSITION: Charlene Krieg, 5311 Suncrest Road, Anaheim, CA. She is a member of the Shadow Run Homeowner's Association and Is here today to represent them. She stated they have 7 Issues that they would like to address. ~~~,~ :,: 1). What precautions will the developer take to mitigate any possible damage to lots 113 through lots }~ ='': 119. Those are on their tract. As a result of slope faiuure, what studies have been done to insure `'' ~ " stability during grading? ~'fi~4r~(F-, t ~~~.~~,~,, Chalmtan Hellyer asked where these lots were located? r isva ' Ms. Krieg stated they are located on Avenkla Margarita, right above the protected development. :S+ } '!. J,1i: ~, Ms. Krieg explained that during 1979 and 1980, they dkf have surface slkies on these very same slopes. 2). What protection will their association have in the event the retaining wall or the cribwalls fail resulting in any damage to either the slope or the homes? She asked if a long term bond was an option? Is h possible to require all 2 to 1 slopes rather than 1-1 /2 to 1 ratio slopes due to the history of slope failure In this area. It is her understanding that 2 to 1 slopes provkle more stability then cribwalls do. 3). if cribwalls are inconsistent with the surrounding area, as well as undesirable, why are they being built? Nearby developments, Shadow Run and Classic and Royal Oak, for example, have not used these wails. 4). If these walls are built, wql they, at Shadow Run, have a new easement recorded? In the pas. they have shared the 25-feet of adjacent hlliskfes to lots 113 through 119 along with local residents who live on Avenida Margarita in order to access and maintain the common areas and the slopes. Regarding the cribwails, will there be any safety ratii~ ~s built on top of them in the event that their landscape contractor has an accklent or falls? 5). What measures will be taken to Incorporate Into the design, adequato drainage from the toe of their slopes? If the cribwalls go ~, where will the water that naturally flows off of the hlllskie during the rain, be diverted to? 6). What specific measures wD! be taken to eradlcz.te the rodents prior to grading the propertyt We know that the developer says he wnl take care of the rodent problem-they would Just like to know specifically what he has in mind. 7). i ne davaoper proposes to plant some trees, so they would i'.ke to know how tall the new trees will grow and ff they will eventually block any views from the existing homes on top of the hill on Avenkla Margarita specifically. - ~3). What are the plans for a staging area, construction hours, access gate and washing down streets to contrd the dust. '' t ; ~~ ~ 'X: ~ ~ -~", ~ F" -. ~ • ~,S , Ji 1TES_ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18. 1992 Paae 3 '~~.: ''` Terry~Campbe11,105 Avenkfa Felipe, Anaheim, CA, from the Felipe Homeowner's Association. He stated ~"x;" 'heels located on I.ot 9 which is backed up to the new development with the easement for the cquestrian `' nature treU which was proposed in the master plan. ~~.~' `` He stated he dkl not believe they should go below RS-10,000 because the general area is zoned at that ~4s: ,, .. -> level. ARhough they are RS-7200, most of their lots are around 10,000 square feet. He asked what `' Parks and Recreation are planning on doing with the easement for the equestrian trial? There was some discussion about putting up walls and causing a corridor. He stated that would be detrimental to the property values for the people on both skies. He expressed his concerns regarding transients. ~s~~.i TJ~~Z :- ?t ~. He was concerned about the traffic going onto Avenkfa Margarita. They Just installed speed bumps on AvenkJa Margarfta in order to slow people dawn. They are going to have 2 cars per househdd and that is another 70 cars on Avenkla Margarita. He added then there Is the traffic problem with Santa Ana Canyon Road, especially on Thursday and Fridays. He explained the Felipe homeowners would like to have 2 exits out of that development. He reiterated that they would like to have larger lot sizes in order to reduce the density. He referenced his lot (Lot 9) and stated they are projecting 3 lot Ifnes backed up to his piece of property-that is 3 homes backed up to his one piece of property. He stated he dkl not want to look at 3 homes. He does have a view through the canyon and the way that the development is being developed, he wpl lose any view that he has. His property is required to have the wrought Iron fencing because it Is a view lot. Lauren Gauthier, 101 S. Avenkla Felipe, Anaheim, CA, Presklent of the Felipe Homeowner's Association which is the tract of homes located directly east of the development. She stated she represents 21 homes. She stated they are very concerned about a number of Issues concerning this development. They feel that the site is physically unsuitable for that amount of density. Forty homes in that area would definitely propose a burden In several ways. It is their belief that the tract will not be compatible with the other tracts in the neighbofiood; the design of the subdivision will cause substantial damage to the wildlffe in the area due to the density. The homes are going to be very dose together. It does not look like there will be room for trees or the wildlife. She was curiaus about the Ernironmental Impact Repart as she dkf not see one. She stated they were worried about the subdivision creating public health problems as far as increased traffic. She expressed her concerns regarding children crossing the street to a bus stop. She stated several homes (about 9) back up to the development and they are worried about the slopes coming down. They already have a water problem coming through there. They want to know what route the water will travel. She stated ff the horse tre0 is left in, they will have a corridor in between the two developments and thby are already having a little bit of a problem with people in the area. There is a bus stop in her area and they have had people who have slept in the trees. They do not want the horse trail to create another problem with people. Sho stated the project was designed with only one entrance and only one exit They feel that should be looked into as ft will overbunien Avenkfa Margarita. She stated the Homeowners Association would like to know which trees are going to be removed because they have quite a few of them. a I~;`.,x. ~,; '"r 1. ~7;' c ,~ 's ~, She stated they would like to have this meeting to the evening when more of their homeowners could be present. ';r~" ~ She stated they would Iikt the tract to be redesigned to fit the eras. '^,~ Ron Domres, 115 S. AvenkJa Felipe, Anaheim, CA He stated he owns Lot-7 adjacent to the proposed new subdivision. The property has not been used In any type of agricultural business, lt has developed into a natural habitat for wild animals such as hawks, eagles, owls and rabblts. He dkl not know what environmental studies have been done to-~rotect some of these species. He dkl not know how they yr ' were going to be affected during constnN;tlon when the animals will be running wild onto the property . that they have. He was also concerned about the corridor fa' tho, equestrian trail; there is a natural underground creek that is behind his property. There was water overflowing during the last rain storm. He was very concerned what the new construction would do to that and how the grading will affect the runoff and what protection he will have in the future from heavy rain and runoff that comes down oMo his property. The density of the housing is not consistent wlth the property around lt. The zero lot line leaves him cold. He was not sure exactly what a zero lot Ilne is. Ttie trees are a concern of his as tFrre are many behind his home. He was not sure which ones they were proposing to cut down and which ones they ware proposing to leave up. No one has explained that to him at this point. There was talk about 75 trees and then he saw something that referenced 92 trees. He asked the Commission not to approve this for the density of housing that has been requested. Ron Graske, 301 Avenkfa Margarlta, Anaheim, CA. He ovens Lot 113 which would border the southeast boundary of the development. He was concerned about the added traffic on Avenkfa Margarita. They get some of the bypass traffic ftom the Riverskle Freeway. He was also concerned about their view. Many of them purchased their property for the views. He was concerned about their property values of this development goes In. He pointed out the zero lot lines. His main concern was the possibility of further erosion or tandslkles ftom heavy rains. They had a severe problem early In the development He is the original owner and they are right now burdened with a disaster loan so they would want to be assured that they would not have a problem wfth landslkles or water runoff. IN FAVOR: B. J. Helyer, 5317 Ouail Rkige TPrra%e, Anaheim, CA. She has reskJed there for 17 years and Is a member of the Shadow Run Ho~~ieowners Association. She stated she is very excited about the project and that lt would be good for the area SF~e stated her profession is real estate and knows the area extremely well. She stated currently lt is a fire hazard. She has reviewed the plans and the roofs will be tile. The gated community is great She discussed the acxevsibility. Ms. Helyer referenced the zero lot line development in Orange (Villa Park), and lt fs exquisite. The plans she has looked at will over shadow that development. -t 7 r 4 ~ I ... xc q' ..- ~. . 1. ~. .• i. ,_ :.k~ , (15 .t ~x~`," OPPOSED. arx ~7' SBnt Lee, 5305 Suncrest Road, Anaheim, CA. He stated at the May 4th contlnuatlon, he left 42 letters ,. `~,, ~ from homeowmers that reskfe on Suncrest and the streets around Suncrest. He stated the reason they ~4~ ~,, presented the letters was because K came to their attention that some of the homeowners off of Avenida 2~;, ` ' Margarita and others to the adjacent areas were going to submit some options to the access to this ~~~, F `community off of Avenkfa Margarita. tl e' ' ~~`~~' ~ . He explained as ft is currently planned, h Is a single access, a gated community to all of the homes ~ ~ except for one. The dd Yorba property will retain Its access off of Santa Ana Canyon Road. He stated ,~~~T ~ Suncrest will actually be completed as a cul~de-sac so you have tum-around for the trash trucks which k~~1~~N. he believed was a requirement for the City now. . ~:;. ::; ~.~'~~ He stated they are not objecting to the two homes as a cul~de-sac ending to Suncrest Roed. They are ~, '~~~ 1 objecting to a couple of options that were presented to them. One option was to put a second gate at ~~'i 1 Suncrest Road and, therefore, continue h into the tract. The other optbn was to eliminate the gates at ~"~'~~~ ~ both Avenkla Margarita and put an opening in at Suncrest Road and cxMtinue that into the tract. ~,. Chaim>an Hellyer Intervened and darffied that this would not be an issue that would be before the Commission today. Mr. Lee indicated he brought this up Just in case this does in fact become an Issue. He added the streets were not designed to handle a large vdume of tragic. He elaborated. He stated they do sympathize wfth the homeowners in the Avenka Margarita area arx! suggested that the Traffic Department or the Planning Commission look at some way of a°~ner decreasing the traffic on Avenida Margarita with the new development going in or approaching K so it becomes a much safer street. He suggested a number of options. Wendell Mowen, past name not spelled for the recorcl), 279 AvenkJa Margarita, Anaheim, CA. He owns Lot-117 and stated he is especially affected because he not only has the traffic problem on Avenka Margarita, he has the slope problem backing up to the proposed project. He referenced to a map he had. He stated their biggest problem Is the traffic aM the speed of the traffic. He stated the speed bumps were effective for the first couple of weeks and now people have teamed how to take them on an angle and drive Into the gutter and they have become ineffective. He elaborated about the average daily traffic trips. They have nothing against the builder or the type of homes he is proposing to bund. He does, however, dislike the zero lot 11nes. The value of the homes are in the price range that their homes are in. He expressed his concern that the gated community would take approximately ?.0% value off of the homes on Avenkfa Margarita. He did not think that would be fair. He stated he hoped the Commission would vote against this and have the builder come back and put this out onto Santa Ana Canyon Road rather then Avenkla Margarita or even Suncrest. Unda Keller, 195 S. Avenkia Felipe, Anaheim, CA. She is not opposed to the development going in. f th eon her street. Her two meetln sat her home with Mr. Mar n with most o e he has had S P~ PI 9a 9 biggest concern Es that she paki approximately $30,000 more for her home. ~{ 4 t A 1It } ~ ~'" , ~: *' f F • Y 18. 1992 Pace 6 r,' ~~ She explained she has the first home on the lot (No. 1). She bough that particular home because there ':±~~ yvRe no slope behind K and according to their proposal, she is going to end up with a 12 to 20-foot ''~ • slope behind her home. She bough that piece of property because she dkl not want anyone looking ~: _ down on them. r~ ,~.-~',. ppege. If they do develop a slope, she is concerned about it `~Y° She was very concerned about the sli ~~ ~• '; coming down and the damage h would cause. She expressed her concerns regarding the amount of traffic that would be generated. Sometimes their house shakes because of the speed of the cars going by. She stated her son has to cross Avenida Margarita daily in osier to get to the bus stop and there are no ~ ' cross walks or stop signs. She explained K Is very dffflcuft for them to see ff thoy pail out onto Avenkla Margarita because there is a blind spot. She added K is very dangerous to cross at that location. r'r~i ~~jy-, ~, , She expressed her concerns regarding the access proposed onto Avenida Margarita. She elaborated. r She further expressed her concerns regarding the proposed corridor aJcng the equestrian trail. She x explained they have already had problems with graffiti on the outskie of their fences along Avenida ,Y`°' Margarita which they pakl Sd00.00 to have h removed. She was concerned about vandalism to the homes. . She stated she was concerned about cutting down the lot sizes-ff it is nat equivalent to their lots she feels Ilke ft wpi cut the value of their homes. - She stated they are having a severe rodent problem and ff there is grading, she was concerned what would happen and wanted to know what could be done to protect them ftom that problem? Tom Owen, 190 S. Tablerock Place, Anaheim, CA. He explained most of his concerns have already been addressed, so he will not repeat those. He stated his main conrem was that he dkf not want any additional access through Suncrest Road. He stated the road is blocked off now, but he was assured when he boi~M his home on Tablerock that, that road would be extended as a cui-de-saa Therefore, he would object to a second entrance. Bob Wekfler, Vice Preskfent of the Anaheim Htils Park View Estates Association consisting of 25 homes. He resides at 111 S. Panorama Drive, Anaheim, CA in Anaheim. They are located adjacent on the west sloe of this project. They have approximate{y 5 homes backing up to it. He submitted a letter for the files. He stated many, many of their concerns have been addressed. The noise and dirt have been mentioned. They are more concerned wRh the heavy equipment; they have a lot of areas around them that have slope slippage. He stated he was quite amazed with the Planning Department that they feel they are able to do this. It is an dd wash aril it is very deep. It has underground springs and he cannat (mega what Is going to happen when they try to cover it up. In addftion, it is very deep sc they are going to have do a great amount of covering which means a lot of fill and great possfbURies for slippage. They are also concerned about adjacent slopes; they have irrigation systems and they want to know what kind of protection the City is going to give them in this situation. He elaborated. 4 raw wF~ r '` +~ 5 ~ ' ~ ~ r-'~' ~ A}r t >>t a, (: E r t ~ ~ ,f' s '~'%~ r G ~r t. - f r~ t t .Ar t- < r ~ ''y 'IwS~IAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. MAY 18.1992 Paae 7 ~ " ~: ,;.. ` Suncrest which is another Issue in their tract, Into be ended in a cultle-sac which they ~ ~PPY to .hear about and, they would be very much against any other decision. There are 2 lots that are to be atlded, and their associatbn le concerned because they do monitor all of their homes and they certainly ~"~ would went to montor those two homes. He asked ff the two homes would subsequentty be Included ,~1 Into their aesocletlon so that they could be nwnitored? jf~~qq~~~tt,, 1 s~ <;::Nr:. ein,. yYb F. - . ;.. ', ! s ~t.. ,xR':,i% ~• ~~ r i:i ~., They are c~ncemed with the tree removal. Tnis has been a wAdlffe area and there are a id of dfifererrt ~~ types of animals, some of whk:h are rare. He has yet to see the report on this. He also understands ~~~~~ that,they. have infected trees whk;h means they have beetles. H(s concern Is that h may infest their ~:,.; ~ plants and trees. He wanted to know which trees would be taken out and H they would be replaced. ~`" He requested that they see the ecology repots, and asked tt~e Planning Commission if they would ~} consider a continuation on this matter as their association nerds time to go over this wRh their lawyers. ~'~; `~' ' Chairman Heilyer asked when he mentioned "monRoring' dkl he mean accessing for dues, etc. and ~i~° '. Mr. Wekiler indicated that was correct. ~w Lori Hu1en, 180 S. Avenkia Felipe, Anaheim, CA. She submitted a letter for her neighbors, Ed Miller and Janet Takahashi, 155 S. Avenkla Felipe. She read the letter into the record regarding an underground ~;??; ; ~_ - water problem. y She stated she was also concerned abut the project. He hEd two very small children, a one year dd ~3 and a 5 ear old. She stated the bus stop is across A~~snkla Margarita and she was very concerned Y ~~` ' about the welfare of her children in relation to the traffic. She elaborated. ~.,r ;: . St;~ asked for some kind of sdution other then the traffic goicg down Avenkfa Felipe. She is afraki to let her children play in the front yani. They worked hard to get the home they have and they try to keep it up. in addition she voiced her concerns regarding the corridor, graffiti, zero lot lines, rodents and that their property values may fall. She stated there fs a lot of wildlife in the a:ea. They have seen raccoons, peacocks, coyotes and hawks and that needs to be taken into consideration. EB A Max Morgan, 20341 Irvine Avenue, Santa Ana Heights, CA. He stated he met wfth the Avenkla Felipe Homeowners Association twice and met with Shadow Run Homeowners Association on one occasion. u He went to the exhibft board to make his presentation. He stated the homeowners seem to be confused about tie zero lot line. He referenced the exhibit and explained the Id sizes. He stated Mrs. Keller, Lot-1, is Impacted the most d any of these lots. He explained there is a 12-foot slope in the back of her home. He explained he changed the house around and relocated the master bedroom ftom upstairs to downstairs where the master bedroom would not be looking down on the Kellers. There are 2 bedrooms upstairs that will be children's bedrooms. He stated the average lot is approximately 8,600 square feet, but the pad size on most of them are over 8,000 square feet. The zero lot Ilne affords the use of an area that is only 31 feet that Is on the zero lot line. In most of these houses, it gives them anywhere ftom 12 to 18 feet of a side yard. Some of the back yards are 60 and 70 feet deep and these houses are 3,000 to 2,800 to 2,600 square feet. There are only 8 of them at 2,600 square feet and 15 at 3,000 square feet. The price range of these homes are $360,000 to $410,000. 4F nF ~'• .~ - '' -,. k¢ ,~ `r `~ ,._ _ The hom~oVVners on Avenida Margarita have an 80-foot slope coming down on them and they have had "~ a slope faYure. They received the Sods Engineer's Report and they have drilled bade Into these slopes ' '~ erid put a pipe in there called a canrwn. If water is back in there, h can come forward out of that slope. s~ They w81 have a bench area In back of the 80 foot elapse. He explained they have to put In a drainage .system to take water as there was no measure made to take their water away. They are draining on -them right now. The balance of them made a drainage system that came down and then K drained right "'. onto them. He referenced the first 4 lots and oxplained they have to make provisions to take their drainage down a draining system that wfll go underground. He stated they wanted a cribwall because they did not want a 35-foot backyard and then have to look at a retaining wall. The crib~wall would have landscaping on ft and ft also is an Improved retaining vsn~ll in the State of Calffomia. l~` ~ F .~. Regarding the trees. He told the Shadow Run Association that there are 6 trees (he referenced the area on the eochlbft) and that he would trim the trees and cut them down and that way they woukl be taken care of. They would be maintained in their associatbn. The two lots in question that they mention should 9o IMo the other association-the only association they would go into would be their own association because they are part ofi their tract. He explained the reason they have 2 cul~e-sacs is because the City of Anaheim walled the one cul-de•nac for the trash tn~cks to have a tum-around area and also for the fire trucks to come in. He explained that Is why they had to put the 2 houses to the outskle. He referenced the animals and stated there is an orange grove the referenced the onznge grove on the exhibit) and stated h has not been maintained for approximately 5 or 6 years, but h is still an orange grove and it is producing oranges that are not picked, but are there. He referenced the exhibit and discussed the water drainage problem. He stated a builder put in a 12 inch private storm drain that was never used and is there today. They are going to eliminate that drain and put the water back into a storm drain where i< belongs sa they will not have any kind of water coming dcmm their way. He referenced 40 trees in the San Felipe Hrmeowner's Association and stated they tdd them that they would trim and shape the trees-they are huge and wild looking. He was not sure ff they would allow them to do that or not. There are 18 trees that are Into the hiking trail area. They wanted to leave those trees aril he tdd them that they will maintain them, cut them back and leave them there. The 75 trees really ends up to be 66 trees that they will be removing and there are 3 oak trees that wUl be moved to Yorba Estate. They ass Completely deanfng up tha Yorba Estate; they are cleaning up all of the brush, trimming the trees, etc. They will have wrought Iron fencing around the Yorba Estate onto the Santa Ana Canyon area arxi they will completely landscape the area that must be provkied for by the City of Anaheim. The Yorba Estate will be coming in off of Avenkla Margarfta into the site. There is no access that can be taken onto Santa Ana Canyon because that is an arterial highway and that will not bo allowed by the State of Calffomia or the City of Anaheim. ~1 `~ s ~~~~ ~~~ t. '~r .,. ,~ _ ~ Q{ ~~ os ~~ +• .. 1. , `. TES. ANAHEIM CiTY PLANNING_COMMI_$SLQN 11LAY 18. 1992 Pane 10 r, a ~`~ ` "He referenced the exhibit board and pointed out the access. He explained they wante~J the gated 5 t. community because of the security that k affords into an association. He dkl not think they deferred " ~ ~,~. 1696 more valuation to their project and deferred 2046 more off of Avenkfa Margarita because Avenida ,~ ;,,".. Margarita Is being used to the utmost today on traffic actxxtsing to what the Traffic Department Is telling ~~ ~ him here at the City of Anaheim. 5,:;, He explained that L`le street is much larger and can handle the flow of traffic. He drove there Saturday night aver she speed bumps. He slowed down for speed bumps and was very surprised to see that they are as Large as they are, but he dkl not have a problem going over them. ~~ He stated the rodent problem currently exists and even when they complete building the coder:; ,.~~biem 3''~z~'';` will still be there because there are 80-foot slopes with Ivy plant which is a haven for roderrts. He stated '~ '~ they cannot go into those areas. He referenced the oxhibit ~ ~ He stated the people think that a zero lot line is a townhouse project It is not. There are many zero lot ~~, , " Ilna properties in Irvine. It affords a family 12 to 16 feet on a side yard. They have utNized the area off `~~ - of the dining area onto an arbor area with an access coming out of the dining room. There are patios in ,r the back of these homes. Eight of the smaller homes have 2-car garages and the other 30 are 3-cer garages. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Dick Mayer, Park Planner. He stated there were several questions that were brought up concerning the trail. He stated the trail will be an asset to the area because it would be designed In such a matter that h will open up the area to a lot more visual inspection then occurs at the presFnt time. Thoy have 3 dffferent types of trails in the City. Regional traps, backbone trails and feeder t-alls. He explained this Is a feeder that feeds from a backbone trap along Santa Ana Canyon Road that ties Into Pelanconi Park. (It is on the master plan of Riding and Hiking Traps). Some of the concerns expressed involved gang use and the possibility of vandalism. They have had graffiti on some of their traps and through some creative design between the City and the applicant, they nt t the will robabl o e ffiti. He added fencin that would minimize the ra 9 could work out acceptable g 9 Y P Y away wfth not having any graffiti because it is so prevalent today. He stated the homeowner's association is responsible for the maintenance of the trap and In that part(cular instance they would probably be responsible for maintaining the graffiti on the trail. He stated there was also concern expressed regarding a development tunnel and he though that could be resobed by some creative design. He stated he thought it would open up the system and it would be a lot better then what it is now which is basically unsupervised and overgrown with trees and other plant materials. Chairman Hellyer asked ff there ware ar, alternatives for the placement of the trail because he was not happy with the location. Mr. Mayer stated he suggested an option to the applicant which was to run the trail along the west side _ of the property along the dirt road that is up through the bamanca leading off of Sarrta Ana Canyon Road. He indicated he never really received a response back other then from one of their consultants stating that would not be feasible. F~ R }~ } ~~ FL~ ~.l i ~ +i M. Y 18 1992 Pane 11 ?;,. ,~ . ,~ ± ,; ~" Mr :Morgan stated he was not addressing the hiking trail today because tt takes a General Plan '~ `Amendment to do arrything with this hiking trafi and, therefore, did not include tt in this agenda. He ~Y ~ ' stated:the hiking traA should be moved off of that area and put back onto Santa Ana Canyon. He ;thought they should be allowed to Improve Santa Ana Canyon rwmpletely with hiking trails, sklewalk, ~ ~;,:: ciirtia and gutter and beneftt the City of Anaheim rather then putting the hiking trail in behind the two ~~`,;~ pieCea of property. The equestrian trail was not a question today bemuse he did not think there were '''° ' ' horses in the area. ` Chairman Hellyer asked ff there was any conskferation gl~.en to the trail running along the existing dir! road that backs up to Avenkia Margarita. ~;~ ;~ , ;r,. ~~, ; , 1 ~.~ 4 ryy. .....,.. ': Mr. Morgan made reference to the exhibit and explained he dkl not feel they could have the bench and a hiking trail as well. He stated he dkl not think that the people IrnoNed were Informed of that and he was sure they would not like that klea. Some discussion took place regarding the options between Mr. Morgan and Chairman Hefiyer while referencing the exhibit. Chairman Hellyer asked why he needed to put in a bench? Mr. Morgan dki explained they needed to put in a bench in order to maintain the water that is coming down off of the slopes onto them. Chairman Hellyer asked ff they could provide drainage and incorporate ft onto the trail and Mr. Morgan stated he dkt not think so. Melanie Adams, Public Works-Engineering, stated a bench directly for grading and drainage would be required, and then the trail would have to be in addition to that. Mr. Morgan stated that is why they dki not get irnolved in that. He elaborated. Chairman Hellyer asked about the trees and Mr. Morgan stated the ones are along the property line stay. Commissioner Zemel stated 1-1/2 to 1 slow is a major concern for hirm. It !s obvious ff yov ;o from 1.1 /s to 1 slopes you Increase the density and chat leads to another problem-traffic, etc., etc. Mr. Morgan stated the slope ratios will be 2 to 1. He explained that 1-1/2 to 1 fs acceptable on a cribwall, but the public voted for 2 to 1. Commissioner Zemel stated the 1-1 /2 to 1 that he has seen is going to requl a additional studies. He asked Ms. Adams ff that was correct and Ms. Adams indicated it was. Commissioner Zemel stated ff they receNe a positive study then they could go forward. If the study is negative, i.e., 1-1/2 to 1 it is not adequate because of the sops report, etc., what would happen then? ~, a ~ r Y } ,r ~. • J ? a°''' I '. 5 ~~~~ :: .. ~~ ~,mINUTES ""'"~~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MAY'18 1992 Paae 12 tt~3r .k~:. 'R. i ii. r~ ids. Adams stated at that point the tract would need to be redesigned to acr~mmodate flatter elopes. In ~'`' this case the development has several long elopes and any slope greater then 200 feet in length must be ~ ~. ''contour graded in accordance with CouncB Pdicy 211 and Chapter 17.06 of the Code, therefore, ff 1-1/2 ~~~ to 1 slopes were not allowable, they would need to be varying from 2 to 1 to at least 2-1 /2 to 3 to 1 ~_'~ -which are much flatter scopes and which would potentially reduce the number of lots that they could "`` develop on the site. ~y;:. Commissioner Zemal asked staff ff It would be pnxlent to get the results of that study first before they i~~ ~:~ apprrn-e this? t~ Ms. Adams stated staff is willing to allow those final reports to come in prbr to the grading plan hearing ~~,~, . by the City Engineer, however, ft is at the Planning Commission's discretion ff they would like to see those reports now. In order to support the Commission in making their findings, they can request them ~k, . now. If that is the pleasure of the Commission, the Public Works Department would support them on ~~~ that recommendation. ~ ,. Commissioner Zemel stated wftFrout those studies and not knowing exactly what they are voting on, he ,.' would have a hard time supporting the project the way ft is. He personally would be looking for this information first. Chairman Hellyer asked Ms. Adams ff they nominally go ahead before the grading information comes In and then ff R is not appropriate, K comes back to them? Ms. Adams explained they do this on a case by case basis based on how comfortable both the Commission and the Public Works is on the amount of information on hand and the sensitivity of previously developed lots, so there are no strict gukielines. On some cases they have required some additional Information at the Tentative Tract stage and then fdlowed it up with more Information at the final Tract Map. She stated In either case, ff they deckled not to require the infomration at this stage, it wAl be required prior to a hearing before the City Engineer. Chairman Hellyer stated they were not going to go ahead without the Information. Mr. Morgan stated they have given Ms. Adams a plan of the contoured slopes within the Cfty of Anaheim. That contour can have a 1-1 /2 to 2 slope area. Ms. Adams agreed ff h is supported by evkience by the soils or geotechnical engineer. She explained the geotechnical report on file by Harrington, Geotechnical Engineering, only gives a recommendation for 2 to 1 or flatter, ft does not appear as thou!: line has reviewed the contour grading plan or has any opinion on 1-1 /2 slopes and they would need Lei opinion prior to going forward. Commissioner Zemel stated he is not saying this is not allowed, but they need the additional studies. To get his personal support, he needs to feel comfortable with an Issue that Is so vdatAe as slope failures and gedogicai problems. Mr. Morgan explained they went to the City to obtain the soil: report of the other two tracts that are adlolning them. The one tract is in litigation of some type because they dki not want to give them a soils repoR They then peasuaded them to let them look at that report and they got into the area that there was failures there. 3~ j, J.tt~M"i E #,'~~Fletitther explained when they got i'~et report back, they found out that they placed the red day onto ~ ' f3en Yorba's property. lien was gone for 6 months when this property was being developed. He was .1 rat in the area and dki not know about this untN he got bads. ~~ , a .,~. ~ They are not against the slope areas of contouring and taking them from 2 to 1-1 /2; they do not really think that a 1 to 1-1 /2 slope contour is going to work in this area and he "minks it wNl bear k out that in `~ - Mr. Harrington's report, he Is saying that he wants to go to a 2 to 1 cunta~red slope. f ~ Commissioner Zemel asked for darfflcation ff he is making the change to z~ 2 to 1 contoured slope right ~ 1 ' now? ,i~~ ` .' Commissioner Zemel pointed out ff the slopes are going to be 2 to 1 then t;`+eir pad sizes cannot be accurate. He asked Ms. Adams to help him out on this. ,~r ,;,~ Ms. Adams stated the areas shown with 1-1 /2 to 1 contour grading indudes Lots 10, 11, and 16 through approximately Lot 23 and on the south skJe of Lots 27 through 38. If in these cases, the developer Is ~3~ stating he wNl go no steeper then 2 to 1, and in these cases where you see them varying from 1-1 j2 to 1 to 2 to 1, he would need to vary them from 2 to 1 to 2-1/2 to 1, so that there would be flatter slopes and fir'"' ' smaller pad areas. Commissioner Zemel stated then less buildable area. Ms. Adams explained to Mr. Morgan that the 1-1 /2 to 1 needs to be supported with evidence from the sops engineer that, that is a stable sftuation. !f he cannot make those flndings, then they cannot go any steeper then 2 to 1. In that case they would need to vary them to flatter slopes-at least moving ft to 2-1 /2 to 1 in some areas. Mr. Morgan stated there was no problem whatsoever in going to a 2 to 1 slope in that area. (He referenced the exhibit board). Ms. Adams explained it Is not the case of 2 to 1, K would be the case of extending it out to 2-1/2 to 1. Mr. Morgan stated they are talking about something that calls for a 6-foot retaining wall on Santa Ana Canyon Road. Commissioner Zemel stated he was talking about the south end of the project as well. - Mr. Morgan stated ftrequires a 6-foot retaining wall where Ms. Adams fs talking about. He stated if you take the retaining wall up to 8-foot, K completely resolves the question of the slope area. He referenced the exhibit and elaborated. Ms. Adams stated raising the wall or the pads would be one aftemative; the other altematNe Kould be to eliminate lots and extend out slopes. Ms. Adams explained ff it meets Zoning Code, they have no problem. The only thing that is coming up, is do the Commissioners have before them an accurate plan that they feel comfortable with. Commissioner Zemei would like to see the actual lot area that will be developed. ,k Mr. Mayer stated in addition to what Ms. Adams Is talking about, where the retaining wall is located, is also suppose to be an Ingress and egress point for the riding/hiking tra11. Therefore, the wall cannot be there ff the riding/hiking traN ties into Santa Ana Canyon Road. `~" ~w~~. _~ ~. r` ,• -, <,; Vii-;,""-'~ M - ~~ ~ $r .v74'~M, Li Mr. Morgan stated that could be provided for e~ctremely easy Chairman Hellyer stated they wpt have to get those answers obviously before they take action on this. Terry Campbell. He referenced Lots 101 and 105 on the very end of the cu4de-sac on Avenkla Felipe, 105 and 101. They have wrought iron fencing there because they were vk~w lots. They were suppose to have view lots and nothing was to obsWCt that view. The equestrian tra8 for the first 4 or 5 lots going up from Santa Ana Canyon Road have easements on Avenida Felipe and on Ben Yorba's property. Up at the end where the fence makes a diagonal, that is where the easement ends as far as the Felipe homeowners are concerned. He stated fencing has been put down the center of the equestrian tra8 from those homes all the way up to Avenkia Margarita. Chalm~an Heltyer stated he is not in support of this and commented that he was not sine what the attitude was of the rest of the Commissbn. He explained he was not happy with the rlacement of the trail due to security reasons. Also, there is a grade dffferen'.lal. There is a disadvantage for having ft thore and that is why he asked the question ff h has to be some place then why could K not go over to the west skis of the property because those homeowners are already use to people walking back there. He stated ft should Impact this new project more then the existing project as it was not really dear that it was going to be there. Mr. Campbell asked who was going to bear the expense of putting up a block wall up on his property? Chairman Heilyer asked Mr. Morgan ff h was his plan to build block walls on both skies? Mr. Morgan stated he tdd the association that they would put in a slumpstone 5-foot wall all the way down on their skis. They probably would not pur, it on their skis, they would probably leave the wrought Iron because they would not want a tunnel vision effect. Mr. Campbell sated Parks and Recreation says there is not a problem, but they already have transients living in the uses. Chairman Hellyer stated he agrees wfth him and does not agree wkh Mr. Mayer. Commissioner Zemel asked for the studies to be done and to have a Tract Map in front of them. Chairman Hellyer stated they do not have the axed informaton about the trees either (the Specimen Tree Removal), so they could not take an action on that. He added they do not want to do tt in a piece meal fashion. Allred Yalda, Traffic Engineering, stated he dkl not think that 78 cars would impact the street. Because tt Is a street that is local, it should carry the traffic and he dki not see any problem. He could not discuss the level of service right now because he dkl not have the information in front of him. He explained they usually do not take any traffic courts on local streets because they dki not think h is impacting the area. Because speed bumps were Installed, he was sure there was a study done and he needs go back and take a look at iG Chairman Hellyer stated they were going to continue this and to please have that information at the next hearing. Mr. Yalda Indk~ted he would. ~.~ '1" 1 ~~ ~ " ~ - - ~• ~ -~.d}9 till ~~ ~/~. ~ Ms. ArJems stated the Puak: works Department is aware of potential dretr>ege problems on Lots 1 .through 4 on Avenida Felipe. She has heard some other persons descriang drainage proaems. She `~ asked. before they dose today, could they have addffional and more specific testimony regarding ..s , cJrainege: proaems on any other lots, and further, would Ilke to get more specific testimony regarding „~~ .,9. slope faAures to the property to the south. r,.r ~_ sj,,~,, Ron Domres, 115 S. Avenkla Felipe (Lot No. 7). He stated in the center of the hAl during the last rain storm, h was just gushing water out to the point where it was flooding the back yard and he was fearful that the water would come Into the house. 3„`'° Terry Campbell, 105 Avenkla Felipe. He referenced Lots 4, 5, and 7. (He dkl not state his lot no.) He ,~ ;;;_. stated he was need to Mr. Domres' lot He stated they also get drainage off of the top of Ben's slope ~} where the eucalyptus tree line fs. ~i~,, Jonathan Borrego, Senior Planner, stated gNen their new noticing system which they have Just begun -~ ' using, ff this does not need to be readvertised, then they would need a minimum of 4 weeks. If R does " ~' °~ ' ` need to be readvertlsed for some reason then ft would need to be a minimum of 6 weeks. .`~~' ` In regards to the Specimen Tree Removal Plan, he suggested that the arborist and the dvA engineer get "~~``"' together once again and use a similar kientiflcation system so that they do not have dffferences In the way trees are numbered; and in addition, in looking at the Specimen Tree Removal pion, that there are some other oak trees an the property which were not klentfffed on the plan and they are a little bft haul to spot Mr. Morgan stated the only reason they brought In an arborist is because they asked staff how they determine a dead tree. The engineer went out and tdd them that the tree is dead and that h is completely brown and almost falling over. They tdd him the only way they can determine ff the tree Is dead is to bring In an arborist. They never would have brought in an arborist on this project, but they were trying to save $22.00 a tree. They could pay the $22.00 a tree and eliminate the arborist and go back to the engineer. Mr. Borrego stated ff he were to do that, it would be the opposite. The arborist is a specialist and a cNil engineer may not be aae to kfentffy a diseased tree. The beetle infestation begins below the bark and a cNil engineer would be much less qualfAed to klentffy a sick tree. If it had to be one or the other, they would definitely require an arborlst It is also required by Code that a certified arborist be the one to make that determination. Mr. Morgan stated the arborist tdd him today that the detem-inatlon of an oak tree, the size, whether it comes under the Cade or the City is at shoulder height and it is 8 to 10 Inches in diameter, then ft does come under the dassfffcatlon of a specimen tree. " ~. Mr. Borrego stated K is measured at a distance of 4 feet above grade level and as far as the circumference, he believed anything beyond 12 Inches in diameter above that 4foot level would be consklered a specimen tree. lie explained In taking a look at the oak trees, they are larger then 12 inches in diameter above that level and do need to be accounted for. Mr. Morgan stated they sent out an arborist and 2 engineers and they dkf not come bade with either one of those figures. He stated they have no proaem wfth continuing this and answering all of the questions. He stated they could resolve the issue of the trees the first part of the week 1, - ~ ~ ~{ rrcr` er.ieue~u ~trv o1 euurNr. f`1)MMISSI~N: MAY 18. 1992 Pane 16 ,~ yN ~~ Commissioner Bouae offered a mottos. seconded by Commissioner Masse and MOTfDN { ~~` -ad~eduled ~.` CARRIED that r~r+sideratlon of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly ~+.'.~s5k ~ - ~. meetinp;of.Jurie 15, 1992, !n order for the applkk~rrrt to discuss and work out inconsistencies between u ~tfie letter from the- certified arborist and the spedmen tree removal; work out contour and grading Issues Y a~ ~' ; , _ arid, to provide additional testing on Lots 1 thorough 4 whk;h tie Into drainage problems on Avenida 'E`.. 'Felipe. r~ -~ `- Mr. Morgan referenced Lots 1 through 4 and stated It states to the sops report that they are going to go ;;,,, ' in and completely dean out that area before they come bads and do any type of tract gmding. When ~'~~`:;~~° they get Into that area they wql know exactly where they are takng the water. They are taking the water er ~ os their property down to the storm drain. { Ms. Adams stated in the report he only stipulated that he would remove all uncompacted fill material and %~~,r. ~ that he would further analyze the engineered fUl in proposed Lots 1 through 4.