Loading...
Minutes-PC 1986/02/19REGULAR MEETIi~G OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMZSSION REGULAR MEETING 9he regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Co~;mission was called to order by Chairwoman La Claire at 1U:00 a.m., February 19, 1986, in the Council Chamber, a quorum being present, and the Commission ~evi~~ed plans of the items on today's agenda. xECESS: 11:30 a.m. RECONVENED: 1:35 p.m. PkE5E1~T: ABSENi: ALSO PRESENT: Chairwoman: La Claire Commissioners: Bouas, Fry, Herbst, Lawicki, Messe, Mcaurney Commissioner: None Annika Santalahti Malcolm Slaughter Jay Titus Paul Singer Dan Schiada John Poole Sqt. Jim Brantley Greg Hastings Edith Harris Assistant Director for Zoning Deputy City A~torney Office Engineer Traffic Engineer Associate Traffic Engineer Code Enforcement Supervisor Police Department Associate Planner Planning Commission Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Fry o£fered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIEU that the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting of February 3, 1986, be approved as submitted. ITEM NU. 1 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND RECLASSIFICATION y0. 85-86-22 PUBLIC HEARZNG. OWNERS: NANCYANN LAUDER, 1636 Catherine Drive, Anaheim, CA 9'L801. Property described as a cectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.27 acrP, located at the southeast corner of Catherine Drive and ~uclid Stceet, 1636 Catherine Drive (Kidde Kotner Nursery). RS-72UU to CL or a less intense zone. There was one person '.ndicatir~g his presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not cead, it is referred to and made a part oi the minutes. Robert E. Laudec, 1754 Catalpa Aven~~e, Anat~eim, explained they have been operating this business at this location since 1958 and wish to upgrade the propecty, and that the use will remain as a nursery school after the improvements are made, and they feel this school makes a good buffer for the neighborhootl. 66-120 2/19/86 86-121 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19 1986 Frank Reitzel, 840 N. Euclid Street, Anaheim, explained he owns the adjacent commercial propecty to the south and his structure is developed on the ptoperty line; and that his p[oblem is being able to maintain the north wall ot his property because he does not have access and he has not been able to communicate with tne petitionet. He pcesented photographs of the property. He stated he has no problem with the rezoning and thought being able to maintain his building would upgtade the nurser.~ school pcoperty. Mr. Lauder stated they developed their pcopecty 28 years ago and there was no development next dooc, and that the property next door was developed just prior to the requi.rements for setbacks. He stated the 4-foot fence was thete and has been left thete and that on a Sunday in the past the fence was taken down and not put back togethec vecy ~ell by the neighbor so he could put fiie-proof paint on that side of the building. He stated the fence is needed because there are 2 and 3 yeac old children in the yacd. He stated they have done this three times and ibuthhe hastnotthadlanysgenuinercontacthbyWthem,be willing to wock with them, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissionec Fr,y asked why the fence is needed because he thought it would be a hazard and suggested that it be removeu. Mc, Lauder stated that 'l and 3-year old childcen need a fence~aintingainlthat needed to pcotect the other building because the childcen do p area. He stated 2 year old children cannot climb the wall, so it would not be a hazacd. ~hairwoman La Claice stated, evidently, maintenance of the neighbor's building has been an on-going problem, and she thought in the interest of being good citizens, they both should be able to get together and work out the problems because it could become a fire hazacd with leaves and trash accumulated behind the fence. Mr. Laudec stated if the neighbor had requested pecmission and agreed to teplace the fence aftec the impcovements had been made, he would not be opposed. He stated they could do the maintenance on Saturdays and Sundays, when the childten are not there because the school is not open. F1c. Reitzel responded to Chairwoman La Claire that t~e has owned his property si:ice 1981, and that he was not the ownec who did the things Mr. La~der had indicated. He stated he did tcy to tcim a bush on a Sunday and Mr. Laudec had ordecea him off the pcoperty. Co[mnissioner Messe stated Mr. Lauder has just indicated that he would work rrith the neighbor. Commissioner Lawicki asked about the possibility of removing the fence between the building and the neighboc's pcoperty and noted the concern was that the ckiildren could paint on tne building. Mr. Reitzel stated removing the fence 2/19/86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLP.NNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19 1966 86-122 would help eliminate the leaves accumulating on the ground and he would have to face the pcoblem of children writing or painting on the wall if the fence was removed. He stated he would be willing to work with Mr. Lauder on replacing the fence, if he could be allowed access for maintenance. Responding to Chairwoman La Claire, Mr. Lauder stated he would be willing to work with his neighbor to resolve the pcoblem. Chairwoman La Claire stated she would rely on both gentlemen's goed faith to work together. ACtION: Co:nmissioner idcBUrney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to reclassify subject property fcom the RS-7200 (Residential, Single-Family; Zone to the CL (COmmerciaoximatelea0.27nacre a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of appz Y located at the southeast corner of Catherine Dcive and Euclid Street and further described as 1636 ~atherine Drive lKidde Kocner Nursery); and does heceby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding ~R the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no ~ubstantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner McBUrney offered Resolution No. PC86-47 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Plannin9 Commission does hereby grant Reclassitication lJo. 85-86-22 subject to interdepartmental ComTittee recommendations. On coll call, the fotegoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HY.RBSL, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, P1C BURNEY, b1ESSE NUES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attocney, presented the written tight to appeal the Flanning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. I'r'M NO. 2 EIR NEGATIVt DECLARATION AND VARIANCE NO. 3538 p~~ ,IC HEARING. OF!NERS: CRAIG S. MILLER AND EVEDEAN MILLER, 7688 Calle Duzango, Anaheim, CA 92808. Property is described as an irregulatly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.4 acres located at the northwest corner of the westerly terminus of Martella Lane and Martin Road on the southeast side ot Santa Ana Canyon Road, 111 South Mattin Road. Waiver of maximum structucal height to const~uct a 2-story, single-family residence. ACTION: ~ommissioner Bouas offeced a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matte~ be continued tu the regulacly-scheduled meeting of Macch 3, 1986, at ~he request of the petitioner. 2/14/86 86-123 MINUTES ANAHEIDI CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19, 1986 ITEM N0. 3 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE YERMIT N0. 2761 PUBLIC tiEAItING. OWNERS: JACK BENNETT, ET AL, 1230 S. West Street, Anaheim, CA 92802. AGENT: SOU'Pti COAST BUILD~RS, 647 Camino de los Mares, San Clemente, CA 92672. ATTN: BOB KRAUSE and DANIELSON DESIGN GROUP, 31732 Rancho Viejo Road, San Juan Capisttano, CA 92675. Propecty described as a rectangulacly°shaped parcel of iand consisting of approximately 4.62 acres, 1230 W. West Street (currently Anaheim Junction R.V. Park). To permit a fast-tood and dinner house complex with waivers of minimum landscaped setback and minimum number of parking spaces. There was no one indicatiny their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staft report was not read, it is referred to and made a part ot the minutes. Roy Nunn, 31U11 Paseo Valencia, San Juan Capistcano, architect, stated the waiver of minimum landscaped setback is requested because they wish to be able to allow parkiny in the setback i.n order to maintain a lacger setback for the building and pcovide par'r,in9 near the main entrance. He explained they are pcoposing the building at 78 feet fcom the pLOperty line, and if they do not have the packing in the setback as proposed, the building would only be 20 feet fcom the ptopecty li~e, and they would have to move all the parking to the rear of the building. He stated besentedaphot graphstofstheVSite and the encroachments into the setback, and p adjacent properties. Concerning the packing waiver, Mr. Nunn stated they have revised the squace footage of the building on the plan to reflect 258 compact spaces and presented copies of the ce~ised plan. Ne stated originally th~y had intended to have 35$ compact spaces, but are providiny 258, in conformance with staff's cecommendation. He stated their peak traffic is during lunch time and that West Stceet is designed to handle the traffic when Disneyland closes and their peak traffic is at a different time; and that they have heavier traffic at the dinner houc, but it is more spread out, and that information is all contained in the traffic report. He stated the tcaffic study shows that their packing is adequate and noted that this ~s a unique use and there is nothing in the Zoning Urdinance that ~eally addresses this type use. He explained they will have two full service cestaurants, similar to a food-park type use, with several small restaucants with a common dining acea and that they are considering having bands and live entertainment. Peter Nozero stated he is the current owner of this propecty and wanted to make sure that is undecstood since the notices did not indicate that, and that he also wanted to be suce tha.t any lettet cequesting termination of the existing conditional uFe permit is signed by him. Annika Santalahti stated the termination of the existing conditional use permit is cequiLeownecbshouldsnake thatrrequest.1SShenexplainedlthe ownerits and the propecty shown is Jack Bennett, et al. Mr. Nozeco indicated the title report does not st~ow him as owner, but he has a zecotded memotandum indicating he is the owner at the pre~ent time. 2/19/86 i MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, F^zBRUARY 19~ 1986 86-124 Mr. Nunn stated otiginally the petition was submitted in Mr. I~ozero's name; however, the title of the property shows Mr. Bennett, et A1, as the owner and staff requested it be changed. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED, The 5-foot landscaped area was discussed, with Commissionec McBUrney pointing out there is moce landscaping proposed foc this property than on the property next door. Commissioner Herbst stated he telt this lack of landscaping would hurt their own business and felt the building needs beautification in the fronk, He stated with the size of this parcel, it would be hard for him to justify such a variance. Mr. Nunn stated they could either put the building at 78 feet from the property line with the cars in front or put the building at 20 feet with the landscaping. He explained the~• do not want a lot of parking in the Eront, but would like a little parking to i~:dicate the property is being used. Commissioner Iierbst suggested a driveway without parking and then the driver could drop off his guests and drive around and park in the rear, similar to what is done in othe~ restaucants in town. He stated he thought eliminating all the landscaping in the front will make it look like a large black-topped parkin, lot. Commissioner McBUrney stated they would lose moce parking by using that area as a drive-through in front of the restaurant. Mr. Nunn stated they would have to move the building to the 20-foot setback in order to obtain adequate parking. Commissioner Bouas stated the walkway takes away some of the landscaping. Commissioner Fry stat.ed he would ratl~er have the building set back as propusec~ and Commissioner Bouas agreed. It was noted there is 5 feet of lan~°~aping adjacent to the building. Chairwoman La Claice stated the Commission has denied similac requests and referced to the McDonald's request to encroach into the setback in that area and they were denied and not even allowed to have their playground equipment encroach into the setback. Commissionez eouas pointed uut the Disneyland Hotel and Emerald Hotel have parking adjacent to West Street. Commissionec Fry stated the precedent has been set in the area and he did not think this request is too far out of line and Lasically, every business on that street has parking in front. He stated again he would rather have the building set bac~c and noted aZso, there is 5 feet of landscaping in front of the building and he felt that was adequate. Mr. Nunn explained there will be two entrances, one in the front and one in the rear and at lunch, tcaffic will be entering the rear. Commissioner Bouas stated she felt the main concern is the lack of landscaping. Mz. Nunn stated there is 8 feet of landscaping in the rear and front and they could reduce those to 5 and by moving the sidewalk, will add an additional 6 feet to the landscaping setback. 2/19/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 19, 19a6_ 86-125 Chairwoman La Claire stated variances are supposed to be granted on the basis of the size, shape and topography of the property and she did not see justification because this is a large area and suggested maybe the restaurant is just too big. Mr. Nunn stated they have reduced the size of the building twice in order to comply with the 258 small car space criteria. Chairwoman La Claire suggested the 5-foot landscaped area and 3-foot sidewalk area in the rear be moved to the front, with Mr. Nunn stating they would like to have the 5 feet of landscaping in the cear where most of the people will be entering. Chairwoman La Claire stated she would like to see the Disneyland acea upgraded as buildings are torn down in the future and that that area is being improved by the elimination of signs, etc. and pointed out a lot of the tourists come to this area of the City and she would like to see more landscaping in the front and does not want the building to be any closer to the property line than proposed. Ftr. Nunn stated they could eliminate the sidewalk, reduce the landsc~ping in the rear and increase the landscaping in t.he front. He stated again, they have reduced the squace footage of the building by about 500 square feet. Commissioner Herbst asked if there would be a hang-over of the cars into the landscaped area. Mc. Nunn responded they are proposing full-size parking spaces and do not anticipate over-hangs and that they would have to install wtieel stops. He stated they can provide at least 10 feet of landscaping across the front. He stated they want the landscaping because that is part of the design of their building. Commissioner Herbst- stated they have just overbuilt the project fcom the very beginning. Commissioner Messe stated revised plans were submitted at this meetii~g and asked if there were any changes other than the reduction of the squace footaye. t9r. Nunn responded that was the only change and asked if thece~- .d be a problem in the future moving the building to the 20-foot setback line if they cannot wock out the landscaping. Chai~woman La Claire stated she wants the landscaping in the front because of the tourists coming into the area .•~d the need to upgrade that area and added she does not really care what happens in the cear because she was sure the petitioner would take care of that area. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offe~ed a motion, seconded by Commissioner McHUrney and [90TION CARRIED that. the Anaheim City Planning Comrnission has reviewed the proposal to permit a fast-food and dinner house complex with waivers of minimum landscaped setback and minimum number of packing spaces on a rer,tangulacly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 4.62 acres, havin9 a frontage of approximately 325 feet on the east side of West St:eet and further dESCribed as 1230 W. West Street; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the ~7egative Declaration together with any comments received ducing 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 en the envirenment. 2/19/66 ~ ~ t4INUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING C~MMISSI~N, FEBRUARY 19, 1986 86-126 Malcolm Slaughter ref.ecred to an earliec discussian pertaining to the legal owner of subject property and ex~lained accordir.g to the title report submitted by the applicant, the title report only insures a lease-hold interest and that shows the owners to be Tuttle and Ber.nett, subject to certain exceptions which purp~rt to be an assignment oi the lease interesc from Anaheim Junction Assaciates to Anaheim Limited Partnership and anothe: lease between Anaheim Junction Campgrounds and Web Service Company, Inc. He stated he does not know who those pacties ace and that according to the Tax Assessor's OEfice, apparently the person b:ng billed for taxes is a Mr. Schl4nd trom Pecalc.a Hills. ye stated t•1r. Nozero's name doesn't show up on any of the records; however, that doesn't mean he doesn't own the property or pay the taxes. He stated obviously if the person applying for the permit doesn't have the right to the usE of the property, he cannot execcisP the rights ytar.ted by the Plannir,g C:ommission. C:ommissioner -9esse suggested making tltis approval subject to verification of ownership. ACTIUtJ: (:ommissionec Herbst offered a motion, seconc3ed by Cummissioner t4cFiurney and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning c'or~Tission does t~ereby grant waiver ta) on the basis that 15 feet of la.ndscaping wi.ll be provided in the front setback adjacent to West : et with 10 feet between the paLkiny area and street and 5 feet adjacent to ~uilding; and granting waivec (b) on the ba~is that the parking waivet :~.11 not cause an ?~crease in tratf_c con9estion in the :mmediate vicinity nor advers~;:ly affect any adjoining land uses and granting of the parking waiver undr: the conditions itnYosed, if any, will not be decrimental to the peace, he~!th, safety and general welface of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Commissioner Herbst ottered kesolution No. PC86-48 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission u~es hereby grant Conditional Use Permit Nu. [7b1 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.U3U.030 thcough 18.03U.030.035 and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recoinmendation~. On rcll call, the foreyoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AY~S: Y;1UAS, FRY, tiERBST~ LA CLAIRE, LAWICIiI, MC BURNEY, MESSE NO~S: NUN~ ABS~idi: NONt Malcolm Slaughter, D~~gu~y City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Plannin9 Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. Annika Santalahti suggested modification cf Condition No. 8 to read: 'That the property ownec shall furnish the City proof of ownership.." so that when the termination letter does come in for Conditional Use Permit Pn~. 1317, there will be valid pcoof showing that the same person signing the letter is the ownet. Chairwoman La Claire offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mcl~urney and MOTION CARRIED that Condition No. 8 be modified as suggested. ~/15/86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CIZY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 14 1986 86-127 Malcolm Slaughter stated the present structures on the pcoperty will have to be temoved befoce any facilities can be constructed and demolition of any building requires building permits for the demolition. Commissioner McBUrney asked if staff would accept a Lot Book Report instead of a Title Report be~ause a Title Report can be very expensive. Annika Santalahti explained the condition will read: '...acceptable proof will be required° and a Lot Book repo~t may or may not be acceptable, and that will be determined by the City Att~cney's Office. ITEM NO. 4 EIP. NEGATIVE DECLARATIUN RECLASSIFICATION :~0. SS-86-23, WAIVER OF COllE REUUIREMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2763 AND REQUESi FOR WAIVER OF COUNCIL POLICY NU. 543 YUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: CHANDULAL K, PATEL, 2170 Carly Court, Rowland _:eights, CT 91748. AGENT: ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, 76 S. Claudina, ~300, nnaheim, CA 92705, ATTN: LISA STIPKOVICH. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.7 acre located at the northeast corner of Center Street and Philadelphia Avenue, 261 E. Cente~ Stteet (vacant). CG (COmmercial, General) Zone to the RM-1200 (Residential, Multi?le-Family) zone. To permit a 10-stocy, 75-unit senior citizens "affordable" apartment complex undec the authority of State Government Code Section 65915 with waivers af minimum number of parking spaces, minimum building s±te area per dwelling unit, minimum floor area, minimum recreational-leisure aceas, minimum recceational-leisure activity space, minimum structucal se~back and required site screening. Request fac waiver of Council Policy ido. 543 pertaining to residential density bonuses. There was one person indicating his presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff repor~ was not read, it is ceferred to and made a part ot the minutes. Commissioner Fcy declar.ed a conflict of interest as defined by Anaheim City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC76-157 adopting a Conflict of Interest Code for the Planning ~ommission and Government Code Section 3625, et seq., in that Anaheim Memorial Hospital will be the sponsor uf this project and he is Chairman of the Buard for Anaheim Ftemorial Ho~pital and pursuant to the pr.ovisions of the above Codes, declared tu the Chairman that he was withdrawing irom the hearing in connection with Reclassification No. 85-86-23 and Conditional Use Petmit No. 2763, and would not take pa:t in either the discussion or the voting t.hereon and had not discussed th::~ matter with any membec of the Planning Commission. Thereupon Commissioner .':y left the Council Chamber. Commissionec eouas declaced a possible conflict of inter.est as defined by Anaheim City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC76-157 adopting a Conflict oE lnterest ~ode foc thE Planning Commission and Government Code Section 3625, 2/19/86 MSNUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19 1986 86-126 et seq., in that she has been vecy involved with Anaheim Memorial Hospital and could Y~ave prejudice and pursuant to the provisions of the above Codes, declaced to the Chairman that she was withdrawing from the hearing in connection with Reclassification No. 85-86-23 and Conditional Use Permit No. 27b3, 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 Bouas leEt the Council chamber. Lisa Stipkovich, Assistant Executive Director of Community Development cepresenting the Redevelopment Agency, and the acchitect Cliff Allen, were present to answer any questions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Ms. Stipkovich ex~lained this is a l0U$ aEfordable 10-story, 75-unit senioc citizen apactment complex; that the Redevelop~nent Agency has a Disposition and Development AgreemEnt with Anaheitn t9emorial Hospital, which is the non-profit sponsor, for a 202 Section 8 Housing Project. She explained a 202 Section 8 Pcoject is a federally-funded and subsidized project which means that the 75 units will be housing for people who are over 62 years of age and they will be receiving a direct subsidy fcom the federal government for their rent; that the sponsor is a non-pcofit entity and the Agency has an agreement with them giving them cights to the site and alsu, the Agency will add cectain amenities to the project• ovec and above wfaat HUD pays for; and that, basically, HUD pays for the basic rectangulac-shaped building and the Agency has cequested that balconies be added and that an exterior skin be built beyond the balconies to add a different material and more of an architectucal interest to the building, and the Redevelopment Agency has agreed to add cectain enhancements such as landscaping and other minor improvements to make this a more livable and attractive project in the downtown area. Commissioner Herbst stated he is conc2rned because the parking spaces will not be assigned, and he felt senior citizens who do have vehicles need a specific space to park a~d that their pcoposal is for them lo have parking in the structuce next door which is se•ieral stories in height and he would like to see spaces definitely assigned for individual units. Ms. Stipkovich stated they had not planned to assign tt~e spaces in the structure because it is a public parking structure and at the present time, it is under-utilized and there is no packing problem. ConMissioner fie~bst stated in the future ti~~ parking stcucture will become full, and a parking vaeiance is being r~quested on this project with spaces being assigned off-site in the structute, and he was concerned that if there was a concert or something going on in one of the other facilities downtown which have use of that structure, the structure would fill and then the people who have a space to which they would be entitled would not have a place to park when they get thece. Lisa Stipkovich stated there would be 41 spaces assigned foc this project in that structure and in ttie Euture when those problems arise, spaces will have to be assigned; howevec, it is a difficu]t polieing and monitocing problem and the Agency prefers to avoid that as long as possible. She stated when it get~ 2/19/86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19. 1986 86-129 to the point where there is insufficient parkir~g in the structure and there are complaints fcom any of the use[s with signed leases, they would then have to assign the spaces. She stat~d at the present time it is a first-come, first-served situation. She clarified that the 19 spaces proPosed on-site was all that could be accommodated and also, that is all that is required by HUD. She stated the parking lease is part of the immediate Disposition and Development Lease which specifies that they do have 41 spaces leased to them in that structuce and that they will be assured that 41 spaces are available. She stated the agreement has been executed and is in effect and has been approved by the Agency. Commissione~ Hecbst stated he would want a statement included in that approval that if and when thece is a need to assign parking spaces in the future, tt:e Agency wiil have to take care of that. Ms. Stipkovich stated the Commission can also include a condition that there is a signed lease with the Agency for 41 spaces and that 41 soaces will be provided. Commissioner Hecbst stated it bothers him that a senior citizen living in the building next door woulU have to lock for a parking space in a 4-story structure, and then have to cacry their grocecies or whatevec they have next aoor trom Wherever they can tind a space and he felt spaces should be assigned on the ground floor. Lisa Stipkovich stated assigning spaces on the ground flooc would be a problem because the businesses who lease spaces would also want their spaces assigned on the ground tloor because oi the customers who would be coming in and out an~ not staying as long as the senioc citizens. She added when they get into assigning the spaces, the Agency will have to wotk with everyone who has a lease and work out a plan that is agreeable. She stated there ace two elevators and the one on the east will be very convenient for the people living in the proposed complex. She stated she does not have the authority to guarantee that 41 spaces would be assigned on the first floor and that would have to be taken back to the Agency and Redevelopment Commission and all the leases would have to be reviewed. She stated there will always be 41 spaces available to the senior citizens, but whece they would be located would be somethin9 that would have to be worked out. Commissioner McBucney stated the condition should read: '...that spaces would be assigned as conveniently as possible, closest to the east elevator'. Ms. Stipkovich stated when spaces ace assigned, people will not pack in their assigned space, but will look for a more convenient space, so the assigned spaces ate not used and it becomes quite a problem to monitor. Responding to Commissioner Messe, Ms. Stipkovich explained the sponsor is bas?.cally the developez and in order to be a developer in the 202 Pro9ram, which is a direct l.oan from the Federal Govetnment, the sponsor mnst be a non-profit developer and in tli~s case, it is a joint venture between Anaheim Memorial Hospital and tt~e ~ational Retirement Foundation, and the loan is a 40-yeac loan from HUD. Chairwoman La Claire stated she has always wondered why high-rise pcojects are not being built and felt this would be a way to provzdc some affordable units. Sne stated she would like to see this project bu~lt, and that she 2/19/86 MINUTES, ANAHEII4 CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ FEBRUARY 19~ 1986 86-130 definitely feels the parking situation should be reviewed carefully because senic~r citizens need to know whete they are going to park. Lisa Stipkovich stated right now there is a tremendous number of senior citizen~ using the packing structure, and one of the reasons for the parking structure was the overflow of parking in the existing seniors project and theze ase many senior citizens in that project who have cars, and she was not aware of any problem. She stated about one-half of the cars parking in there now belung co senior citizens and they do pull into the first availahle space and many park near the east elevator. Commissioner Herbst stated he is in favor of this project, even though it is going to be dcastically subsidized by the taxpayers, and felt the people have the right to know this is being developed on City property that was bought and paid foc by the Redevelopment Agency and any building that was to go on that pcoperty was supposed to be a tax benefit to help rebuild downtown Anaheim, but noM this property will be taken completely off the tax rolls. He stated he thinks this is a good project and it gives the senior citizens a chance to be in an area where they need to be, but the people need to know that all of Anaheim will be subsidizing that project. Commissioner Lawicki stated the same people who will ba benefitting from this project probably have contributed over the years by paying their taxes to the ~ity and thought it is a trade-off. He stated he has no problem with the parking not being assigned at this time because when the need arises, it will be addressed. He stated he would have no problem as long as it is specified that the spaces will be located in the most convenient spot nearest the east elevator on whichever floor. Commissioner Messe stated he teels it is a good project and one that is needed bacause of the number of people on the waiting list and stated it was known for yeats that high-cise development was coming to downtown Anaheim and felt a high-rise ordinance should be developed for the Commission to use to make sure the development proceeds in order. He asked about staff's review of the EIR. Annika Santalahti pointed out the standard paragraph celating to the negative declaration was omitted trom the staff report; however, an Initial Study was prepared. Lisa Stipkovich res~~onded to Commissioner Herbst that in order to qualify to live in this project, a senior would have to be 62 yeacs of age or older and be a low income senior citizen, which is 508 of the median income for the area of appcoximately $11,000 for one person or less and once a person qualifies tliey will receive a rent subsidy and they would pay 308 of their income for rent and HUD would pay the difference between ~he 30$ and the actual rent. A~TIJN: Commissionec Herbst offeced a motion, seconded by Commissionec McBurnNy and MUTION CARRIED i~ommiss~oners Bouas and Fry absent) that the Anahei 'ity Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to reclassify subje ropecty from the CG (Commercial, General) Zone to the RM-1200 ;i~esiu~. =ia1, Multiple-Family) 'LOne to permit a 10-sto~y, 75-unit senior c:cizen'S `affordable' apartment complex with waivers of minimum number of parking sYaces, minimum building site acea per dwelling unit, minimum floor 2/19/86 86-131 MINUTES 4NAHBIM CITY PLANNING COMb1ISSION FEBRUARY 19 1986 acea, minimum recceational-leisure areas, minimum recreational-leisure activity space, minimum structural setback and requiced site screening on a cectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of appcoximately 0.5 acre located at the northeast co~ner of Center Sandedoesdhe[ebydapptovestheet and fucther described as 261 B. Centec Street, Negative Declacation upon findcomments received ducingethehpublictreview Declatation together with any process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments ceceived that there is no substantial evidence that the pcoject will have a signi~icant effect on the environment. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner MrSucney and MUlIUN ~ARRIED (~ommissioners Bouas and Fty absent) that the Anaheim City Planning ~ommissi.on does hereby grant waivec of Code requirement waiver (a) on the basis that a lease agreement :or 41 spaces off-site will be executed and that the spaces will be asso the easthelevatocsWClosest toetherproposedareas as convenient as possible project and granting waive~s (b) through (g) on the basis that there are special ciccumstances applicable to the pcoPerty such as size, shape, topogzaphy, location and ~urroundings which do not apply to other ±dentically zoned propecty in the same vicinity; and that earb~totherlpropertiestin theing Code deprives the pcoperty of pcivileges enjoy Y identical zone and classification in the vicinity. Commissioner He~bst offered Resolution No. PC86-49 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anatieim ~ity Planni~g Commission does hereby gcant Conditional Use Permit tJO. 2763 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.U3.OSO.U3U thcough 18.03.03U.03~ha~aWhen7the r.eedharisestinnthesfuture, the stiYulation at the public hearing structure will be specifically 41 off-site parking spaces in the parking assigned to tenants of this comglex in a location as convenient as possible to the east elevators; and tucther that appcoval is based on the findings ~ocer~ tt~e project is reasonably accessible to necessacy services, including g stores, tcansit stops, medical facilities and banks; and further yranting waivers (d) and (e) on the basis that the Anaheim Senior Citizen Center and Washington Community Centecs are located nearby (just north and northwest of subject property) and subject te Interdepartmental Committee cecommendations. On roll call, the tocegoing resolution was passed by th~ following vote: AYES: HERBST~ LA CLAIRE~ LAWICY.:, MC BURl7EY~ MESSE NOES~: NUNK AfiSENT: BOUAS~ FRY Commiss;one[ Hecbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and :•tUTIUN CARRIED (COmmissioners Bouas and Fry absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby cecommend to e[tai~in `to residentialedensity requested waivec of Council Policy No. 543, p 9 bonus, should be granted on the basis that this pcoject is 1008 affordable as identified in Government Code S;rr.•.ion 65915. RECESSED: "L:SU p.m. RECONVENED: 3:00 p.m. 2/19/86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNIN~ COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19 1986 86-132 Commissionez Bouas and Fcy ceturned to the meeting. IlEM N0. 5 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3537 PUBLIC H~ARING. OWNERS: LENA TRAPANI AND RUDOLP[I W. BLANCHARD, 1280 E. La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805. AGENT: MASSOUD MUNSHIZADEH, 795 Victoria Way, Placentia, CA 92670. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately ~.43 acre, 1260 East La Palma Avenue. Waivers of maximum stcuctucal height, minimum landscaped setback, minimum stcuctural setback and required type of parking spaces to construct a 10-unit apactment compler.. There was no one indicating their pcesence in opposition to subject request and although the staEf rep~-: was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Massoud Monshizadeh, 795 Victoria Way, was ~resent to answe[ any questions. Dr. Ronald Ccowley, 1700 Raintree Road, Fullerton, explained this is a lU-unit, 2-story project witn eight 2-bedcoom, 855-square foot units and two 3-bedroom 952-square foot units. He explained the first waiver for maximum structural heiyht pertains to the 150-foot setback r.o single-family zoning and is necessary because of the narrowness o~ the site. He stated the actual landscaped area will be ~~inimum of 16 foot 6 inches to 25 feet and felt that it within the standard averaye of 20 feet. He stated the waiver of maximum structural setback is necessary also because of the narrowness of the property and a waivec of required type of parking is necessary because they propose one enclosed cacport Loc eactz unit and the remaining parking is left open. Dr. Cto~•ley stated they endeavored to discuss the plans with the neighbors on evety boundary and have come to an agreement with everyone they talked with. He stated one of the concerns is with the 2-story structure and the invasion ot the privacy of the single-family homes which are to the east and south and it was requested they screen the windows and they have provided 6-foot high balconies and thought it would be very difficult for a pecson to see over those balconies. rie stated they have talked to the neighbor~ on the east side and pceserted a signed statement of concurrence from the neighbors on the east and indicat2d their pcimar,y ~oncern was the location of the enclosed parking, so they will shift the enclosed parking approrimately one space so they will provide the maximum amount of privacy. He stated they talked to the neighbors to the south ard they would like to build a 7-Eoot high fence to the south because tha~ ..s wiiat the neighbor wants. He staced that neighbor was also concerned tt.at ~he individual parki,~g spaces shoul~ be screened, and they have agreed to the s~~reening of the packing on three sides from the roof down to approximately 50$ or 3 or A f.eet from the base, so that they will not have pcoblems with people backing into the wall. He stated the greenbelt area to the south will have large trees which will obs~ure any visibility of ~he 2-story str~cture. Rudolph Blanchard, owner, 515 Century Drive, Anaheim, stated he is in favcc of this cequest because this has been the only developer to show any interest in 2/19/86 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 19, 1986 86-133 coming before the Planning Commission to develop that property and that area is deteriocating very rapidly. He stated this will put more tax benefits into the City. Leo R. Coda, 712 Yoplar Place, stated he has lived at this address for over 30 years and he is objecting to this development because it will be a major deviation Lcom the General Plan and will compl.etely negate the General Plan for the whole area. He stated this is about the third time he has been before the Planning C:ommission concerning development of this property. He stated the City Council has granted extens:ve variances on all these parcels along La Palma and he felt if this vatiance is granted, other awners will refer to it when developing their property. He stated the owner of the property is interestpd in the ability to make a profit; that these are minimal apartments, obviously designed for the economically disadvar.taged people in the community; and that there will not be enough parking spaces pcoposed and this will encourage over-occupancy. He stated prior to this, the developments have beer~ Yor condominiums and this will be the first apartment project and in his opinion, the owner soon will forget the building and just worry about the rental income and he was concerned what it will loak like in 3 or 4 years. Fie asked ttie Commission to deny this request. Mr. Monshizadeh stated he and Dr. Crowley discussed the project with Mr. Coda last night and M[. Coda told them there were thcee different families living in one house across the st~eet; and that his house is approximately 250 feet away from the proposed project. He stated the last time he met with Mr. Coda, his concern was whether or not thece was a request for a parking variance and he had indicated he would not object since there was not to be a waive~ of parking requested. Dr. Crowley stated housing is needed for the disadvantaged, but thes~ units will not be affordable. THB PUBLIC HBARING WAS CLOSEll. Chairwuman La Claire stated she looked at this property and the surrounding pcopecties and she feels La Palma is being developed very nicely. She stated the house next door to this lot is in really bad condition, with weeds actually growing over the top of the roof and suggested the Code Enforcement Otticers should :investigate to see if there ?s a safety hazard at that location. She st•ated all the condominium and apartment pcojects along La Palma have upgradetl the area and she felt this developer hti~ gone out of his way to make sure everyone is protected and the variances requested on this property are not as great as others that have been granted in that area. She stated there is no one on either side of the property objecting to the request. Commissioner Fry stated there are 3-1/2 homes adjoining this property on the east side and not one person is objecting and that is wnere the 150 foot setback has the most effect. Commissionec Herbst asked about storage in the parking structures. Mr. MonshizadQh sta~ed they will provide storage cabinets in the carports. Dr. ccowley responded to Commissionet Hetbst that the cazpozts will be enclosed on all three sides, but not all the way to the g~ound and that storage cabinets 2/1°/86 86-134 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19 1986 could be put in, but he wanted to keep the bottom po~tion open if possible. He stated the existing wall on the south is 6 feet high and he was not sure the neighbocs would want to change that wall. Commissioner Herbst stated the 6-foot wall wou.ld not buffet the sound. Dr. Crowley stated he would make the wall 7-feet high, but thought it would be difficult to match the existir,g walls in the neighborhood and there are r~o objections to the proposal. Commissionec Herbst stated the back wall of the carpocts should be solid to b~ock off noise and fumes from the vehicles. Dr. Ccowley stated they would like to leave them open so people do not drive into the walls and they would also allow a clear view oftheicgexisting fences. He stated he thought the neighbors would prefer to keep Annika Santalahti stated if the ~ommission is considering approval of this subject to a 7-foot fence, the matter should be readvertised. She stated in the past, in some instances, where plans were s~bmitted signed by the neighburs, staff has allowed fences over 6 feet, but it takes 1008 concurrence by all the pcoperty owners. She stated there snould be a condition that the wall to the rear of the carpocts be solid. Dr. ~cowley stated they would be willing to provide solid walls on the cear of Lhe carports. Commissioner Herbst stated there ate 13 parking spaces which are open with only 4 enclosed and s~ated he is concerned about the vehicles backing up to thcse homes and he did not think the neighbors ace aware of the noise and fumes that will be created. Annika Santalahti stated there will be one enclosed space fot each unit and that is much less than the Commission is used to seeing. ~ommissioner Herbst asked about thh fenceng Drr Crowleyestated they willlot being built up making a 4-foot hig guacantee that the fence will be 7 feet fcom the hig~est gcade. Commissionec Lawicki stated dicectly behind his block wall thece is a 111-unit apartment complex and dixectly abutting the wall thece is a lo*_ of automobile parking and thece is no buffec and those apattments have been there for 10 yeacs and in his opinion, it does not create a ptoblem fot him or his family. Carl Zylstra, 714 Poplar, stated he is not really in favor of 2-story apartments, but these developecs have pcesented something he can accept and they have agreed to construct a 7-foot high fence and stated maybe l~e would cathet have an 8-foot fence. He stated he has a large yacd, but wasn't sure it could accommodate an B-foot high fence. Chairwoman La Claire stated there will be carpocts with a solid wall, with the 7-foot high fence adjacent to that. Mr. ZylstandSthatdis1why~heewouldllike to than the wall ana he looks down on everything have a highec fence. He stated he wants to hide as much of that 2-story st~uctuce as he can because he ceally does not want it there. 2/19/86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FESRUARY 19 1986 86-135 Annika Santalahti explained undec the Zoning Code, a detached carport with a solid wal: on the back could actually be constructed on the property line, but Commission has not looked favorably on a wall like that next to single-family zoning and that is the reason for the setbacks. Commissioner Herbst stated he still thinks sumething should be done about the 6-foot wall fronting those three homes and the developer should work with those propecty owners to the east to do whatevec is possible for them. Annika Santalahti noted if the developer obtains approval Erom all the adjacent propecty owners for construction of a 7-foot block wall separating the two uses, it would be acceptable to the staff. Commissioner Fry asked if the plans indicate that there is an existing block wall on the east. Commissioner Bouas askea if the neighbors to the east were aware of the conditions and asked if the higher wall was discussed with those neighbocs. Mr. Monshizadeh responded that a higher wall was not discussed. He explained there will be landscaping next to that wall and that the neighbors were concerned about the size of the trees and he has agreed to plant 15-gallon trees. ACIION: Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTIUN CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the p~oposal to constcuct a lU-unit apartment complex with waivers of maximum structural height, minimum landscaped setback, minimum structucal setback and reyuired type of parking spaces on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approxinately 0.43 acre, having a frontage of approximately 94 Yeet on the south side of La Palma Avenue and further described as 1280 East La Palma Avenue; and does heceby approve the Negative Declara~ion upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments rec~i:~e~ during the public review ptocess and iurther finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that t'ere is no substantial evidence that the ptoject will have a significant effect on the enviconment. Commissionec Hecbst offered Resolution No. PC86-51 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Variance No. 3537 on the basis that there ate special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topogzaphy, location and surroundings whi.ch do not apply to othec identical2y zoned pcoperty in the same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommend~tions. On roll call, the Lore9oing cesolution was passed by t.he following vote: AYES: BOUAS~ FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOE.S: NUN~ ABSENT: NONE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy C:ty Attorney, oresented the written cight to appeal the Flannin9 Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. 2/19/86 p(:NUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19 1986 86-136 1TEM NO. 6 GIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTZON-CLASS 21 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 6!.7 (R~ADVERTZSED) PUBLI~~ HBARING. OWNEFS: LARRY R. SMITH AND JUDITH I. SMITH, 17046 Marina Bay Drive, Huntington Beach, CA 92649. Property described as an irregularly shape~ parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.6 acres located north and west of the northwest corner of Ba~l Road and Rnott Street, 919-959 South Knott Street. Pursuant to Code Section 18.03.U91, the Police Department and Code Enforcement section of the Planning Depactment have initiated this public hearing in order that the Planning Commission may consider modification of Conditional Use Yermit No. 617 to terminate one of the two existing restaurants established in connection with said conditional use pecmit. There was no one indicating their pcesence in favor of the requested revoca*_ion ar~o seven persons indicating theic presence in opposition to the revocation and althou9h the staff report was not cead, it is referred to and made a part o~' the minutes. John Poole, Code Enforceme~t Supe~visor, City ~f Anaheim, explained this hearing was scheduled aftec the City received a petition signed by 63 tenants who live in the apart~~nts immediately north of the subject property and also a letter from the owner of the service station locaced on the cocner of the same shopping complex. He pce~ente~ r.he petition and letter fot evidence and also a memorandum from the Chief of Palice of the City of Anaheim concerning illzgal activities of that business. Mr. Poole stataa Cond;tional Use Permit No. 617 was granted by the Plannin~ Commission on septem~er 22, 1964, to establish one Italian restaurant with on-aale beer at 9~5 ~. Knott Street, which is cucrently Radio City, and a second restautant wirh or:-sale Iiquor at 919 S. Knott and a third cequest for a Hof•fbrau with beer was denied. Sergeant Jim Brantley, representing the Anaheim Police Departmer.t, stated the ABC license for Radio City was issued about Match 1981, and at that time, the Police Depart~ent protested the issuance of thac license at that location; that in the same complex a similar business called "Woodstock' was opened in ly7y, and that Woodstock was the victim of an arson and was closed in 1983, puzsuant to actions by the City of Anaheim and also, Radio City was the victim oi arson in tJOVember 19b5, and that the Police Depar.tment feels the operation ot Radio City during the time they have been in that iocation has been detcimental to the health and welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim and it has attracted people, particulacly un the parking lot areas, directly to the south ot the business and adjacent to the business, which makes it a nuisance and that there have been apo:.oximately 87 police contacts over the 4-1/2 years they have been in that locatien, with 35 in 1985, and the Police Department feels the conditional use permi.t for that particular business should be revoked. John Poole stated since the fire and Radio City has been closed, there have not been any police contacts or Code enforcement complaints, and in contacting the tenants, their concern is that the business not be allowed to re-open. He explained the business has been clased for about 3-1/2 monthZ~19~86 86-137 PZNU^1ES ANAIlEIM CITY PLANNIN' CUMMISSION~ FEBRGARY 19r 1986 Pete Williams, one ot the pcincipals of L~lE ~~D Corpocation Yhbehanuthishe business known as Radi~o City at this locatirn, explained 9 business ia early 1931, at thi.s location and since that ~~Tc ~hey have developed a reputction in the ~ommunity for being a venue f~r loca' artists to perform, and r.ow it is the oniy venue which has :heJ'nti~~c~sc~i-%~a y~~00nti1 where locai musicians can pecform and tk~ey were in the fite in ivo'?oit~bet. He stated durin~? the operzt•ion, he ~~"°ean~'onversations contacts with t.he ;:eighbor.s, both ~io~ci~ nnd south, and also~^~ ~r,~` he has with the Police De~.artment, :.n:.'.~idin9 ~he Watch Commander, written letter:. to the Police Da-=artment and ths City Council mc:.bers and a letter to the Planning Commissiun about the use. He presented exhibits to the Commissioners roc their review. He stated when he opened Aadio City, there was an establi:,hment next door call~~d "9loodstock" and historically, thi~ location has e~cperienced problems oan~`F,~ose prublemslwerelgenerally vanoalosm the north, the Del Amo Apactments, and noise and they wece aware of the pr.oblems when thty upened and the neighbors were contacted. t4t. Williams cefecred to the exhibits submitted ati~d st~ted the f~tst page is a list of r~].ice contac*s aed in just two days, there were thicteen contacts associated with Woodstock and that Sgt. Brantley and John Poole seem to feel that 87 pvlica contacts in a period uf five yeacs is out of the urdinary and he is not sute that is out of the oCdinary, even though he realizes it is not perfect and not good, but that about h5,000 people a year use rhat establishment. He stated, un*urtunatPly, the problems that weie there through the years tainted their reputation. M=,, ivilliam:~ stated he does not want to blame weiihseti$y~~r businessponbfire; because sum_ti~^,CS =F Y~u blame too natd, they howe~ec, al! the pr.oblems wece not caused by their establishr~1ent,. and the Woodstock establishmenC was denie~ permission to rec,pen b~ :. ° City, and at that time a petit.ion wa~ circulated amcne the neighbo~= ~•r.d they intercepted e copy of that petition and stated he sent ~ copy c~f thar, petition wi~h a cu~e~ leel-er which is Exhibit h~. 3 and rEad the ge~ition as follows: 'We, the unuecsig~:Pd are iesidents of, or have businessesn~e~hetP~riodner ot Knott and Ball Road in T^aheim and we have b2en enjoy' S since Septembe~ lst,. since the establi:~hment kWeWWill encourage you not closed. since the atmos~~here is so 9ood now, to renew any li.cer.~~es for that establishment so we can roblemseace t~iecy the peace and auiet that presently exist_,. The major p noise from the location and the rowdiness af the Woodstockhetendan,ere~3 believe the current situation is excellent and should nc~ 9 by reopening Woodstock". He added their business was in full c~peration at tiatSt`.romdthe~Losr~rge:les Exhibit No. 'l which consisted of 10 Fages of cli~p 9 Times about various a~tists more articles~i.nath_apaPereandttheakina~of•music stated there have been many they present is quite varied. Mr. Williams stated they did not get the information a1•out this h2acing until 2/19/86 , 86-~38 ~N7.NUTES ANAHEIFI CITY PLhNNING COMMISSZON FBBFJARY 19, 1986 _ :.ate Thucsday and atated ci~e whole hearing was instigated by a petition signed by 63 people in the Del Amo :partments. ~f= ~t",ed Randy Lewis, re[~orter from the LA Times, interviewed Nancy Morton, ";ja~ jPer`a~i~:htha~~r~manked her whytshe called h::r hin~.~;~ and th~~t she is u ti~°w 9 cir~ulated the petition; ar~d that e:~e c:: ~p~~ ~~d thai: the tenz•ncothadlmgdho~ou.c calls in one night to the Poli~e Depactrient ami she wris jus_ p - tenants and i:hat when she cailed the C:ty: sk:e ~as told to circulatc: j petition, tl~=_ atated tha 'couc calls tha• came wer~ after Radio City was closed. He :,tated scaff :~as indicatea Lrat there have been no p~oblems at that locatioi eince Radio :ity closed; hvwever, that there ~re four or fi.r~.: police ~atrol= thtough that location on a nightly basis, t: stated the opecator oY the Y.actoons and Kapers esta5lishment feel.s ~he police go thrvugh there because of the ptof~lems at the Rehearsal Studio which is not subje:~t to the condition,~l use permit and is an establishment where uns~oervised bands zehearse and t.hat they sit outside and drink and their cliente;e is hard to dif~erentiate fcom Itadio City's clientele, except xadio Ci~y's c.lientele i ;upervised. He stated among the 87 police cont.acts, 35 are for r~~in~rs in possession et alcohol and tha~ h~:- occucred in the parkiny lot. He stated M:. roaci~ has been in the riqi~t clut.~ busine~s ''~r 16 yeats and has only been cit~~a ~nce tor serving a mit,oc( Lki~ `hlotsand`thosescitatior~aswould po:;session of ~lcohol were madr i:i the p"~ 9 prov~ they do aot serva mi.nors. he st~~EC? he did not think the same thiny could be saic'. ~-^-= ~aheim Stadiur becau~e minors can drink beer thece and can go to a co^F• =orcecc at the Stadiw~~uess if~Disneyland'~s,parking~lotaandt do that in t.~iis iJCd\.lOR and :~e would g the Stadiur.~'s parkir.g ~ots ~.rece patrohadd87 policeycontacksginlriveryea~sla He 87 ar~ests a we2k and that they have roblem, but tnat the pi^^.lem tias been stated he is not saying tnecP is no F exaggerated by the stafE anti t!ia Pulice Department. He stated the Po:lice Depar~me!;t has been directlY cunpecSadultsoinrthelaeea. nume~ous clubs which are 5c:erally patrcnized by y g He state~ whil~ they we~e ~`p~n and Woodstock and theSWatch~Commanderhhad2said Commander and as~..~d hoW everyth:ng was going thin9~ were bea:~r.iful. He stated ihey have an armed secucity guacd they H:.Y to pacrol thei: parl:ing lot durin~ peak hours and t~e is responsibl? for a lot of the Police contacts hinself bec,.;use he works very closely with tne Pol.ice Aepartme~it. H~: acideG 59~. Brantley d?d :...~ e:~en know they had an a~med guard. H? ~tated the ~taff reFo~'.: indicates thece have be•~n rio problems at th~ location, t,ut sound consultants were sent to thei:~ :ocat:ioa after thFit' operation was closed to check the noisc. level. He sta`.~ad the sound peo~:le tested *_he rehearsal studio and the level was 87 deci.~.~ls; that ;:wo jears ago, they erYeared :,efoce the Commi~.'ion requesting a condi~ional use pelannin to probably No. 2212, to permit a cocktail license because they Wererade it which temodei the facility and spend one-quarter million do.lla~s to upg would hGve made the clientele older and tt~e Commission recommendeci the pecmit be gcanted, but the Cit,y Council denie.: it becVaneHouteneASSOCiatesatandetheir io~ation and that soun~ tests were ordeced by but when the establishment tested at 56 decibels which is iiormal conversation, noise consultants moved to other locations in the same complex, the noise levels wece loudeF. He stated theyWhpcht~onsistedeofaadspecialewallerbaffle, recomrtiendations o_ the sound study saund-pLOOfing, etc. Z/19/66 MINUTES, ANAHEIt9 CITY PLANNING CUMMISSZON~ FEBRUARY ly~ 1986 86-1~9 He ceferred l•o a lettec he sent to tt~e City Attorney, aated January 27, 1982, indicating that they had asked for shared financial responsibility from the neighboring establishments with negative results; that it was their intention to have their officers patrol the e~tire parking lot, even though they were paying foc it alone. He stated the letter also pointed out that they had insulated the entryw<-•y as recommended in the staff report and had contracted to have one rear door completely sealed for sound reduction and they had put in a complete new wall benind the bandstand. He stated no one has contacted him about ar.y problems and the first he learned was when he read in the newspapee about Mcs. Morton's petition. He noted none of the signers of the petition are present and he felt maybe they were not that much against the establishment. Mr. Williams stated he called Mrs. Morton and the subject property ownec, Mr. Smith, and offereo suggestions for resolving the problems; that Mrs. Morton indi~ated that the r.oise level had not changed at all since Radio City had been closed because of the tire and she had indicated she was trying to protect hec tenants, but did not want to put anyone out of busi~ess and that the var.a:lism maybe had gone down somP and indicated they are willing to cooperate with anyone who is willing to coopecate with them to cesolve the proLlems. He stated he had talked to her eaelier and asked her to call if there were any Yroblems and t~rs. Morton l:ad said she could ~ot pinpoint Radio ~ity as bPing the cause of any problems, but the City had told her the petitio~ was the way tu go to gek the matter resolved. Mr. i~illiams stat.ed the:e is a 12-foot high fence behind the Radio City ?stablishment which was desigr.ed to go all the way to the end of the property tu Mnott Avenue; and tt~at the apartments are north of that wall; however, once thF: wa~.l gets behind the other businesses, it. deteriotates and is not 12-feet hi.gh and that some ~f the patrons of the Rehearsal Studio and Kartoons and Kape:~. a~parently jump the wall and cause various problems, but that doesn't hap;~:~ whpre Radio City is located because tk~e wall is 12 feet high at that ~oint, lie statee `1,r~ have discu~sed the problem with the owner of subject pcoperty and the ~wn~r of the apartments and they have agreed to share the Financial burden ol rebui].dino ttaat wall behind the establishment to 12 L•eet oll the way. He added or;e problem is genera~ed hy traffic and that the ap~rtment ownec is cons;.derir,g pueting up a w[ought iron access gate which wiil kee,p all the trafii~ Aut ?xcept tenants who are issued a p:astic card for f~cess. He addea t4rs. Moi~ton has his telephone numbec and can contact him if chere ar~ any other problerns or requests. ~r. William stat~d stafi has recommended that the permit be modified to terminate their use, but he did not think, legally, they are affecting the health and s~fety of the ~eighborhood. He stated the question is wnether. or not their business is wocth the extra trouble with police patrols, etc. that it causes, and added theirs is the only establishment in that location which lias made an attempt daily to be coopecative with the neighbors and has reached out to the neigt~bors, the City Council and Planning Commission to do whatever is necessary to help tesolve the pcoblems. Lar.cy R. Smith, 17046 Marina Bay Drive, Huntington Beach, California, owner of si~bject property, stated he has faith in his tenants and that the tenants of Radio City are extremely cooperative and will do almost anything to resolve a~y problems. 2/19/86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CZTY PLANIiING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 19, 198u __ 86-140 He stated he as the ownet is willing to do anythir.g that the Planning Commission and ~'ity Council recommends regarding the wall, or the parking lot, etc. He stated in the past, Radio City has had an armed ~,3uard in the parking lot and he would indicate that if additional armed guatds are needed and Radio ~ity is not prepared to ~ay Foc them, that he, as the landlord, is prepared to pay ~or an additional guard and will do whaL•ever needs to be done to the wall behind the recording studio. Malcolm Slaugnte~ asked the length of the lease Mr. Smith cesponded Radio City has 3 or 3-1/2 years to go on tY~Cir lease and he has not found a rsason not to extend their lease, depending on the outcome of this revocation haaring. Malcolm Slaughter stated foc the recotd that there was a letter of protest submitted as evidence by the Code ~niorcement Supervisor from xen-Kurt's, an adjacent business opecator. He stated there is a minor error in the staff report on Page b-d, Page 12, SubFaragraph (Ei, last line which should *ead: 'health oc satety, or so as to constitute a!~u:sance". THE PU~LI~ tiEARING WAS ~LUSEll. Responding l-o Chaitwoman La Claire, Sec~eant Scantley stated the 35 police contacts in 1y85, are not necessarily calls to the Police Depa~tment, but are incidences which have occurred on the property on which Police raports have been tiled in the City of Anaheim and most of the 35 incidents in 1985, a~parently did occur in the packing lot aajacenC to Radio City and the arson is their o~an fire. He stated without the reports to review in fcont of him, he did not know whethec or not Lhe calls wece made by their own seeurity guard. Chairwoman La Ciaice ~tated the last sentence in the memo from the Chief of Police indicates the contacts were made at Radio City and asked if there is anyway to really tell whether oc not they Nere actually at Radio City or just the common parking lat. Secgeant nrantley stated without ceviewing the individual repocts, he had no aay of telling if t}ie calls were initiated by the Pul_ce Department or whether they wece calls for service from Radio City or someonP else; that there a~e two ABC Licenses existing at that location, one is foc Kartoons and Kapers, which is a Type 48 License ~ahich means that no one under 21 years of aae is allowed in the establishment; and that the ABC License fot Radio City is a Type 47 License, which allows anyone, under certain circumstances, to ent~c the establishment and once inside, there are rules and r~9ulations, and a Type 47 License requires thet they have a bona fzde restaurant and that has been a concern to the Police Department. He added he spoke tu hen Kelly, District Administrator for tht Alcoholic Beverage Control Board in Santa Ana, and apparently there i~ an uncesolved administrative action against Radio City because they have nut been co~~plying with the 47 License by not having a bona fide restaurant on their premises. Cummissioner Fry stated if he is to take I4c. Williams' testimory at face value, then he must apply those same principles to the testimony and letters that. were subm'.tted and he would take it for granted that the people who si9ned the petition probably ~id sa believing that if they signed tne petition, they would not have to appear and he will accept that as being sinr.ere. He s~ated also he must considec the lettec wcitten by the adjscent propecty owner, Mc. William Sammons, and he is vecy concerned about the comments made in that letter in that Mr. Sammons states he d2~19/g6realize the MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19 1986 86-141 extent to which they have been inconvenienced until Radio City closed its doors several months ago; that their property is free of broken glass and debris anu he no longer employs two peoyle on the night shift for safety and security. He statea it would appear to him that this establishment has created a ve~y serious problem in that location and maybe they are not 1008 responsible toc the problems that are going on, but they are certainly part of it and this location has been a problen and has been reviewed at least once a year and he thougi~t it was time for tha Commission to do something about it. Commissionec Messe asked if City staff or the Police Department reptesentative would like to respond to a~y of the comments. Jonn Poole stated that property has beer~ a continual problem for the last 4 or 5 years since he has been ceviewing it; that atter Woodstock did leave, the problesas wece fewe~; however, he would cornpa~e that with two people speeding ~own the stceet and if one gets stopped, the other one slows down; and that complain~s from this location did slow down after Woodstock left, but last year the numbec of c~~mplaints went up again and the complaints have only been about Radio City. Sergeant Btantley stated the records ceflect that Woodstock closed in 1983, with y inciden~es occuc~ing at Woodstock in 1583, 13 occurring at Radio City in 1963, and i2 in 1964, and 35 in 1985, and even with the employment ~f a security guard, which t1r. Williams addressed, the problems seemed to increase. ~hairwoman La Cla?re asked Setgeant B.:tley if he felt thece is a problem with the Kartoun and Kapers establishm~nt and the Rehearsal Studio. Sergear.t Brantley responded that he is primaril~ responsibllity for the enforcement of ttie AE~'s laws, but it is his opinion that because Kartoons and Kapers caters to the over-age-2l-crowd, tne~ cectainly do not have the problems that Radio City seems to generate and that his unit does not become involved in t~e Rehearsal Studio operations. Commissioner Herbst stated this property has been hefore the Commission numerous times and usually becaus~~ ~f probl~ms and at one time, the applicant wanted to put in a cocktail lounge and the City Council denied the request and he asked if Conditional Use Permit No. 617 was discussed at that time with Council being made aware that there must be a bona fide restaurant in operation at that location. Iie stated probably Conditional Use Permit No. 617 should never have been allowed to continue at that location. Annika Santalahti stated when the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit ~lo. 2212, which was ultimately denied by City Council, appacently because of th~ puclic input regarding the noise problem, Commission made a recor,Niendation th~t a sound study be pcepared; and that the sou~~d study ~as prepaced; however, the City Council denied CUP No. 2212. She added the Council minutes reflect that it was noted the Council approval for beer and wine was in conjunction with a testaurant; and that there was a lot of public testimony taken on July lh, 1981, and it was noted that that location aas a problen acea and there were indica~inn; from the Folice Department that they knew it was a problem area; that thee< :~ere residents and business owners who testified of r_hose problems. She stated it was noted at that time that there was a possibility that it some of the problems were no°resolved, the Council coi~Id also hold a hearing to show cause why the permit shoul~ not be revoked, and that meant Woodstock and French Quarter at that time. She added the Council did not discuss the resta.urant aspect, altt~ough it was specifically brought up to them and it was clarified that there was to be on-sale beer and wine in conjunction with a bona fide restaurant. ~~14/R~ .y MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSZON, FEBRUARY. 19, 1986 86-142 Commissioner Herbst asked if a dancing permit wa~s approved for this location by the City. Annika Santalahti stated dinner dancing is permitt?d in conjunction with a bona fide restaurant. Mr. Williams stated they have a dancing permit; th~t 258 of their establishment is the kitchen area and that there is an unfinished administrative hearin9 with the ABC regarding the restaucant. He stated the dancing permit was approved prior to 1978 and possibly in 1964. Responding to Commissioner Bouas, Mr. Williams stated the menu includes spaghetti, rigatoni, pizza, ravioli, ling~ine and crab legs. Responding to Commissianec bouas, Mr. Williams sta`ed the security guard is used at peak houcs from about 7:30 p.m. to about 1:00 a.m. and when there was a special engagement. He added one of their proposals is to increase the security guard's hours. Commissioner Hecbst stated most of the information presented by the applicant was 3 to 4 years old. Mr. Williams explaineo he was t:ying to show t~.he difference when Woodstock was there and when it wasn't there and the r.lippings from the newspaper were just a few of the ones available. He pointed out the colur,inist who wcites those articles, Por the L.A. Times, P~r Beat column is present if the Commission has any questions. Commissioner Lawicki asked if there was a sepacate dining area when the establishment was operating with a menu and meals being served by waiters. Mr. Williams responded there was that type of operation and that tt~e kitchen represents 258 of the floor area and the dining area represents 30 to 40~ of the floor area. He explained the layout of the facilities with the dining area being raised and that the chairs are moved from the dining area down to the stage area when t.he patrons have finist~ed eating. He stated the dinner hours are from about 6:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and the kitchen is closed at 10:0U p.m. Commissione~ Herbst stated he has been on this Commission for 20 years and this location has probably caused more problems than any other in the City and he did r~ot believe they have been operating a bona fide restaurant and that he would re~ommend that the City Council revoke Conditional Use Permit No. 617. Malcolm Slau9hter stated the ~ommission may be the final acting body on this matter, unless it is appealed to the Council and the Commission should go on record with the proper _*indings as set forth in the Code on which they are basing their decision to either tecminate or modify the conditional use permit and that the staff's recommendation has not been to terminate the entire conditional use permit, but only thak poction relating to Radio City at 545 South Knott. Commissioner Herbst stated that would be his intent. Mr. Williams stated he agcees that that area has been a problem but he di~ not think it has been all Radio City's fault and they have ~ffered to work with th~ aeighbors behind this location at the Del Amo Apartments. He asked if they could be allowed to continue on good Yaith for possibly one yeac foc review at the end of one year to see if the problems can be resolved. 2/19l86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMI~ISSION, FEBRUARY 19, 1986 86-143 Chairwoman La Claice stated she understands Mr. William's concerns; that obviously irom :.:~e testimony from the Code Enfarcement Officec and the Police Department, there is a problem at this location and that the Commission did not know th~re was a problem before, but obviously the Police Department did know there was a problem because there were 35 incidences in 1985, and even if everything t9r. Williams has saia is true, there is still a problem and she was concerned about the incidences of minors in possession of alcohol and drunk in public; and that she is not against rock music, and music is not the issue, and a lot of young people are atttacted to music, and maybe the operation, is being conducted in the manner as presented and that it is on the "up and up' and maybe they have been duing everything they can to make it that way, but in this case thece is ss:.ill a problem. ShE stated she believes Radio City is at least partly respor.sible for the prublem and that the al-her businesses are partially responsible and that the City will be 1~oRing at those othec uses. She states she would agcee with Commissioner Hetbst and in the meantime the operators of Radio City have a chance to go over their material and appeal this decision to the City Council. A~TION: Commissioner Herbst offered l:esolution No. PC86-52 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby modify Conditional Use Pecmi~ No. 617 to tecminate the portion of the permit allowing the opetation of the Radio City (one of the two restaurants approved in connection with said conditional use permit) located at 945 South Knott Stceet on the basis that the use for which the approval was granted has been su execci~ed as to be detrimental to the public's health or safety or so as to constitute a nuisance. Commissioner Hecbst sug9ested the propecty owner continue with his plans to inccease the height o£ the wall behind tne other establishments in this center ana tt~at the other uses might have to be reviewed for modification or termination if the problems continue. Chairwoman La Claice as~.ed iE a Police Report was submitted for the other uses at this location and on the activities since this establishment has been closed. She asked the Code Enforcement Officer to get some input from some of the neighbors, and added, she in~ends to go out and speak with them herself. Chaicwoman La Claice stated the use has been detrimental to tne public health, safety and welfare of the citizens o,`. the City of Anahein as evidenced by the ~stimony and documentation presented. Un roll call, the foregoing resolution ~ras passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HEkBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY NOES: PSESSE ABSE[VT: NONE Malcolm Slaught.ec, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. Commissionet Messe explained his negative vote was because he ~id not feel there was enough infotmation given by the Police Department and that the petition in question ceally addcessed as much the recording studio as it did Radio Cj~ty's establishment. He states he would have voted in favor of a 6 or 12 month extension af the permit and then watch it very closely. 2/19/86 86-144 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMZSSION FEBRUARY 19 1986 Mr, williams stated they were not given a copy of the petition and were not allowed to look at it and were not give~eaarepwhen someonelis accusing you of stated it is really unfaicear atythe meetin9. something and does not app ITEM NO• ~ REPORTS AND RECOMMENDAiIONS: p, P05SIBLE CODE AMENUFI~NT - Request from T. Steven Rolland, president of Straight Shooter, Inc., pertaining to 'indoor shooting ranges and training facilities" in the Canyon ".ndustrial Area. Annika Santalahti, Assistant Directoc foc Zoning, stated this is a request for a shooting cange lnot a riflestablishing possiblylaashooting cequested from the Commission regacding range in the NorLheast Industrial Area; and that the use is not permitted in any zone in Anaheim, either conditionally oc by right. She stated the applicant is looking at a pcopecty in that area and staff was very concecned ~hethet the1COmmission felt this aodin bothecanon industrial because of ~ommission s concerns voiced ceg 9 ~ses. She stated staff has oftered three choices: (1) that the use would appcopriately come in under Section 18.03.030.010 of the Municipal Code, which specifically discusses uses not oth~helCanaon~IndustrxalhAreacto Commission may wish to considec amendin9 Y include shooting tanges as a special conditional use or (3) whether Commission feels that this use is enr_icely inappcopriate in the Northeast Industrial Atea. Annika Santalahti stated tdunicipal Codimitstand if3a.conditionaltuseiring or discharge of firearms in the City roved, the conditions of that Code permit is filed which is ultimately aPP ara ra h which Section will have to be satisfied. She added thece is a p 9 P tefers to recreational facilities app[oved by City Council. Steven Rolland, p=esident of Straight Shootec Inc. was also present. Commissione[ McBurney stated unless thiinuointawhereoitdwouldrbe allowede zoning, it would be very difficult to p P Annika Santalahti stated Mr. P.olland's letter did discuss why industrial property is favorable foc this use and it was staff's feeling that this is not a self-evident kind of land use. Commissionets Fcy and McBurney stated they have no problem with this cequest. Chaicwoman La Clai*_e stated she has a Shebstatedtpeopleswho ownggunslate conjunction with the shooting range. accustomed to having to drive some distance to a fiting range ar.d she was not sure this type use belongs in the City. ShE added she could pzobably go along with it, if it did not have the sale of handguns. 2/19/86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CZTY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19, 1986 86-145 Annika Santalahti stated a petition for a conditional use permit would have to be filed ana that Would have to be included. Chairwoman La Claire stated she thaught better use should be made of that property because of the area and noted there ace commercial offices, dealetships, etc. being built there and that is some of our most expensive industrial land. Commissioner Messe stated he is also opposed to this type use and pointed out the information submitted by the applicant indicates less than 108 of the gross cevenue will be from retail sales and he thought if that was the case, they would not be in business very long. He stated he is opposed to the retail sale of handguns. Commissioner Hecbst stated he realizes they need a large building and thete might be a place Yor it, but the use must be compatible with or service the industcial users in the industrial zone. He statea this use does nothing to service the industrial community. He stated this is a prime industrial area and should be put to a better use. A~TIOtJ: Chairwoman La Claire offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIEU (Commissioners Fry and McBurney voting no) that the indooz shooting ranges and training facilities should not be permitted in the Canyon Industrial Area because this is one of Anaheim's prime industcial aceas and this use does not service the industrial users and is not compatible with the industrial co:nmunity. ADJOURNMENl: Chairwoman Le Claice ofYered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fry and MOTION cARRIED that the meeting be adjourned. The meeting was adjourned at 4:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ,~~~~ ~ Edith L. Harris, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission ~LH:lm 0172tn 2/19/86