The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1987/02/181. ~1 The regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman McBurney at 9:00 a.m., February 18, 1987, in the Council Chamber, a quorum being present, and the Commission reviewed plans of the items on today's agenda. RECESS: 11:30 a.m. RECONVENED: 1:33 p.m. REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION PRESENT: Chairman: McBurney Commissioners: Houas, Fry, Herbst, La Claire, Lawicki, Mesr;e AB:3ENT; Commissioners: None ALSO PRESENT: Annika Santalahti .1oe1 Fick Malcolm Slaughter Jay Titus Paul Singer Debbie Fank Debbie Vagts John Poole Linda Rios Greg Hastings Leonard McGhee Edith Harris 7.oni.ng Administrator Planning Director Deputy City Attorney Office Engineer Traffic Engineer Assistant iraEfic Enyineer Ceasing Supervisor Code Enforcement Supervisor Assistant Planner Senior Planner Associate Planner Planning Commission Secretary AGENDA FOSTING_ - A complete copy of the Planning Commission agenda was posted at 8:30 a.m,, February 13, 1987, inside the foyer windows and in the display case located in the lobby of the Council Chamber. PUBLIC INPUT - Chairman McBurney explained at: the end of the agenda an,y member of the public would be allowed to discuss any matter of interest within the jurisdiction of the Plannin~~ Commission, or any agenda item. ITEM NO_. i EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2853 (READY DV.). WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND OWNERS: ADA I. HIGDON, WELLS b~ARGO BANK NA TRUSTEES, 960 Santa Monica Boulevard, Beverly Hills, CA 90210. AGENT: DENNIS WILLIAMS, 221 N. Beach Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92801. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.57 acre, 221 South Beach Boulevard (Angelo's). To permit a drive-in, drive-through restaurant with car hops with waiver of minimum distance of a drive-through lane. Continued from the meetings of December 8, 1986 and January 19, 1987 87-90 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18 1987 87-91 There were two people indicating their prenence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Michelle Reinglass, attorney, 391y Westerly Place, Suite 202, Newport Beach, stated they are seeking a drive-in and drive-through permit for the Beach Boulevard facility; that the drive-in operation had existed for at least a decade before it was purchased by the new owners and the City and ottrer agencies were aware that it had been operating in that manner; specifically, Code Enforcement Officers were tt•~ere in 1985 and took photographs showing the drive-through sign and noting certain violations; and that the Orange County Health Department made over 30 visits to this sate and on each of their reports indicated a drive-through restaurant, and L•hat soPefoomtaestaffdceporr: affected the drive-through window. She referred to a pag dated March 1966 to the Planning Commission indicating thz development plans submitted by the petitioner were for a 40 foot by A5-Foot "Big Bun" drive-in restaurant to be constructed on L•his site. She presenHealthtDepartment,tand 1966 staff report, and reports from the Orange County reports from the Code Enforcement Officers. Ms. Reinglass stated it was not until February 1986 that Angel.o's took ever this restaurant which was about to be closed by the Health Department: and while they were in the process of cleaning ttre restaurant, they were gi•~en a Notice of Violation oL various items that were not evr;r in proyre:~s, including the drive-in, drive-througtr restauranCithiof Anaheimetookanoticec'ofithistil Angelo's operated the site, that the Y drive-in, drive-through restaurant which has been operating Eor years. She stated there was reference i.n the staff report concerning revocation of the existing permit and that after 3 days of lengthy tpr~onsnacross thedstceet did show that there were s~bstanti.al crowds of young p- 's and the and also, that this did occur concurrently with the closing cf Zody opening of Angelo's, and there were young people who were loitering around the empty parking lot, and that certain measures were tal:en'rardshe Sheestatedtsome property, including the posting of signs and securitdid not and they went of the people patronized Angelo's, but the majori_y across the street because they were allowed to go there and after the owners posted the signs, law enforcement officers did enforce those signs and when they did, the people left. She added to attribute that situation to Angelo's is inequitable and defies logic; and as to having complaints about crowds and noise at Angelo's, nobody complained to Angelo's, and the first they knew about it was at the first public hearing of the Planning Commission She stated efforts were made to respond to those 8oitemsnoE complaints,sand/thosea meeting was held a few months ago addressing complaints were acted upon. She stated the evidence showed in those revocation hearings that the complaints really have nothing to do with Angelo's. She stated they have hired security guards and are monitoring their lots and have a clean-up crew. Ms. Reinglass stated one reason fir denial of previous permits involving both the patio and the sale of beer and wine was based on the lack of a permit for a drive-in, drive-through restaurant; and comments ware made that a permit could not be granted when it was already an illegal operation; and that they 2/18/87 ^ MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIONI FEBRUARY 18, 1987__ 87-92 are trying to legalize that operation and satisfy the Commission and to put in place a permit for that which has been operating there f.or many years. She stated the drive-throragh lane is not creating any problems and the people who drive in and then drive out could not be causing any more problems than is already existing on Reach Boulevard and would not be the same people who are allegedly lingering in the lot and not the people eatir-g in their cars. She added there is no logical reason to deny the application for this use. Ms. Reinglass referred to a traffic report submitted by Weston Pringle which indicates the property is virtually dead and there is no problem or traffic and any impact would be minimal or non-existent and the study also finds that the drive-through lane is perfectly adequate; however, the City Traffic Engineer stated in the staff. report that the lane was inadequate. Betty Lookabaugh, 311 N. Beach Boulevard, presented a petition signed by people who could not come to the meeting. She stated traffic has been much lee, recently, but wanted to point out that this is winter and riot the best weathers and that during the spring and summer there i.s a lot more traffic on Beach Boulevard and that Angelo's does attracL• extra people. She stated the Ralph's parking lot was packed before they opened and now L•he crowds have moved across the street, but the cars squeal out of the parking lot and they have loud music on the radios and the situation is very dangerous for people who mighL• wanL• to cross the street to the shopping center. She stated the drivers of the cars leaving Anyelo's don't seem to care iE there is sameone walking because they have to hurry to get in front of the traffic on Beach. She stated trash is also a problem and it does attract rodents which is a health hazard and at present Angelo's is clean and they do not have as many vehicles, but she thought that is because of the weather which has been cold and that in the spring and summer it will start again. She stated she did not think Beach Boulevard in that area is a good place for a busy drive-in restaurant. She stated the attorney indicated they had never talked to Angelo's, but that Mr. Miller and several others had talked to them and nothing was done. She stated the attorney for Angelo's did say that after the election when the new Council people get. in, they will be able to get this settled and will not have much trouble. She stated the suggestion was made to put latrines cut to take care of their customers, but she did not think that would be a good location to have latrines. Ms. Lackabaugh stated they live in a recreational-vehicle park and that the people who signed the petition stay there, but do move out for 24 hours and return and they do pay the bed tax to the City of Anaheim and they do abide by the rules and regulations and are there indefinitely. Bill Miller, 3l1 N. Beach, stated the City of Anaheim knows the problems well because he t~Ss called them many times. He stated if the City grants the permit, the problems would return and they would have to have 24-hour police patrols; and that he did not think there was any way this could work because the problems have been on-going since Last March. He stated there was a gate between their property and the restaurant and he originally thought the restaurant would be a good use of the property and the gate was left open in the beginning for access between the two, but now he locks it and his property has been misused and it is a terrible situation. 2/18/87 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PT.ANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18 1987 87-93 Ms. Lookabaugh stated they did have some damage and that someone threw a bottle onveoitore aired.thShe exPlainedathat leakawasndiscoveredraboutt2 weeks $40 to ha p ago when it rained. Michelle Reinglass stated the comments from the opposition are not new; however, the drive-in, drive-through restaurant has nothing to do with these problems and t'~e people who use that lane will be driving through and exiting the property a.~d will not stay there. she stated Angelo's does not sell beer, so the beer bottles are not from Angelo's; and that Angelo's has security yuards to monitor what is going on and khose were probably isolated incidents. She stated the present conditions are there now and the comments regarding the election did not come from any of their representatives and added everything has been calm recently because of actions taken by Angelo's. She stated the radios the neighbors are heAring are from cars driving along Beach Boulevard and they would be driving there even if Angelo's was not there. She stated she is sympathetic to the neighbors, but they have chosen to live in this commercial area and it is a busy street with noise and it will always be elo's willecontinuentoAtryland controlothelprob,lemstwi.thrsecurityShe stated Ang guards, etc. THE PUBLIC HEAk.ING WAS CLUSED. ~ominissioner Messe asked Ms. Reinglass her interpretation of a drive-in, dr:tve-through restaurant. Ms. Reinglass responded she thought it is a restaurant where cars drive in and drive up to lh~~ drive-through window and then drive through to the street with their orders. Commissioner Messe added he wouiu consid^' that a d*_ive-through restauranl• and not a drive-in. Malcolm Slaughter stated a drive-in restaurant provides car hop service where people are served food in their cars and in this case, the car hops wear roller skates, and a drive-through restaurant is where a patron drives up to the window and is handed his order and he can either eat it on the premises or take it away. He stated a walk-up restaurant has been a typical restaurant where a customer walks to the 'window and takes the food either to his car or walks away and a sit-down restaurant has seats or chairs where the patrons are served. Commissioner Messe stated the carp do stay because the customers are being 4erved outside. Ms. Reinglass stated they do have a car hop set~:ice where someone can order from their vehicle and those are not the same customers who would be using the drive-through lane. She stated the definition is very vague in the Anaheim Municipal Code. She explained they are asking for a permit that wo~~'.d include all the services that are currently being offered. Chairman McBurney stated maybe the words "drive-in' should be deleted from the petition. Michelle Reinglass stated they are both included because of the ambiguity of the Code, and it was not clear to her what the Code means. Reinglass referred Commissioner Herbst stated the information submitted by Ms. to a drive-in restaurant in 1964 and he did not remember one being built; and in 1966, he voted for a walk-up restaurant which was approved and that approval is what is being violated. He pointed out the Commission has nothing 2/18/87 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18 1987 87-94 to do with inspections by the Orange County Stealth Department and stated there are a lot of Code vlolations in Anaheim and unless someone calla them to the attention of the City, they continue. Ms. Reinglass stated she was told by John Poole in February 1986, when the Notices of Violation were issued, that the Health Department had suggested Code Enforcement inspect the sites and that Mr. Poole had also told her that It was a common practice fur r:h~ two agencies to communicate. She stated the 1966 staff report was submitted to show that a drive-in restaurant was contemplated at that. time. Commissioner Herbst explained a property owner can request anything they like on the property, but that doesn't mean they wit. get it and in this instance, the Planning Commission voted for and approved a walk-up restaurant. Ms. Reinglass stated Angelo's purchased the property as it is presently developed as a drive-in with a drive-through window and it liaa existed that way since 1966. She added the Code Enforcement records will also show that their officers have been to the site and taken photographs of the facility as a drive-through restaurant and it was not until Angelo's purchased the property that a Notice of Violation was issued. Commissioner Herbst stated for many years the City of Anaheim had only one Code Enforcement Officer and it was difficult to Eind all ttte violations, but now the department is much larger. Chairman McBurney referred to the EIR Negative Declaration status and noted the staff's finding that tt~e traffic and congestion were not adequately addressed. Ms. Reinglass stated the drive-through lane does not create any additional traffic or congestion and it is common knowledge that Beach Boulevard is a very busy street, but Angelo's can not do anything about that situation and that the traffic study indicated the site is more than adequate to accommodate the people using the drive-through lane. Responding to Commissioner Messe's question regarding the dates the traffic counts were taken for the study, Ms. Reinglass stated they had no input to that study. She stated currently there is virtually no traffic and Angelo's business has substantially diminished. Malcolm slaughter stated Ms. Reinglass has indicated the drive-in had been operating for some period of time prior to Angelo's and in prior hearings there was no testimony presented to indicate that the food service to the cars was permitted with Angelo's. Ms. Reinglass indicated that was correct and stated the drive-in, drive-through definition in the Anaheim Municipal Code was ambiguous and to her knowledge, there was no car hop service prior to Angelo's. Malcolm Slaughter stated there was previous testimony that the drive-through window was added about 1978 or 1979 without proper building permits and Ms. Reinglass .tndicated that was correct as Eac as she knew. 2/18/87 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 18, 1987 87-95 Commissioner La Claim slated when this issue was previously before the Commission that she had suggested the petitioner take time to clean up the problems and let the issues die down and then come back to the Planning Commission and City Council for the proper permits= that unfortunately, the problems are still there and according L•o testimony, there Is also a traffic problem. She added there was even testimony from the Police Department concerning the traffic and added she did not know whose fault l•he traffic problems are, but admittedly they were not there before Arrgclo's. She added she realizes they can't control the people off the premises, but there is obviously still a problem. Commissioner La Claire staked according to the staff report, staff does not feel the traffic study is adequate and she was concerned about approving a negative declaration and would recommend that an Environmental impact Report be prepared for this site. She added she is not happy witty the Weston Pringle study submitted and that she has not been happy with several of their reports recently. Commissioner Herbst stated he would agree that an Environmental Impact. Report should be prepared and thought r_he traffic study was probably conducted on days when the establishment was not that busy and he felt during the summer when school is out, the problem would re-occur because that street is used by the young people a lot for cruising and that they will gather in planes like this. He added the Traffic Engineer has been extremely firm in his recommendations regarding drive-through lanes because there have been problems in the past with carj out into the street. He suggested there should be a plan in conformance with Code because all the studies conducted by the City to date have determined that the length of the lane should he 120 Eeet and it would be a hazard to have it any shorter esp~:cially with a busy drive-in restaurant such as this o+. a busy street. He added the petitioner has indicated that this restaurant has been operating there for many years and it has been there illegally and should be brought up to Cade. Ms. Reinglass stated she did not heat any evidence to indicate that the drive-through lane would affect traffic on Beach Boulevard and the complaints related to young people congregating at different locations and ttiC loud nc.ise. Concerning the traffic st+.idy, she stated they selected this cancslkant based on information from the Planning Department staff so that the report would have credibility with the Commission. She asked what substantial evide~~•a the Commission is referring to regarding the traffic hazards and range=,': j cm. Paul 5i.ncN;-, Traffic Engineer, stated the traffic <:onsultant, Weston Pringle, is a re~~~~t:-.b le traffic engineer and the report he prepared was based on a time constraAnt within which he had to prepare the report. He staked tie has heard evidence of rather high congestion at this location and during previous hearings sa,»+ videos of the high congestion and would highly recommend that if the Plar.ni.ny Commission authorizes a drive-through restaurant on this propeLty, that the drive-through lane meet the minimum Code requirements of the City because those standards were developed based on a great deal of research of drive-through restaurants. 2/18/87 . ~' MINUTESy,ANAHF.IM CITY PLANNING COMMtSSION, FEBRUARY 18, 1987 87-96 Mr. Singer stated a parking varir~nre would be necessary in order for Angelo's to provide a drive-through lane in conformance with Code. He stated he believed the site could be developed to legally accommodate the 160-Foot long drive-through lane; and that it should be provided because peach Poulevard is one of the heaviest arterials in Oran~7e County. tie stated the volume on Beach Boulevard will he increased because it was selected by the County t•o be a super street with about a four million dollar improvement that should improve the capacity and it would not he advisable for the City of Anaheim to aPP• variances which would adversely affect the capacity of that street. Chairman McBurney pointed out an enviromnental impact report will be prepared on the entire site and not just for the traffic. Ms. Reinglass stated the problems and traffic have decreased substantially since last March when this issue was First discussed. She stated this decrease in traffic and problems have occurred because of the actions taken by Angel.o's and others in the area. Commissioner Fry referred to the petition signed by lickingsonsAngeloas,nbut there are problems. He stated he is not personally p that the facility is causing problems in the area and the problems do have everything to do with Angelo's. He state~9 he was the Commissioner CpVea~ked the City Attorney at the public hearing if the CommisHeostatedditpis known variance for something that is operating illegally. thal• there is a problem and he did not think granting this request would solve the problems and perhaps Angelo's is doing everything they can to correct the problems, but obviously, it has not been enough. He stated the evidence as presented by staff and neighbors indicates there are problems, even though they may not be as large as before. Commissioner La Claire stated the environmental impact report would show if there are problems and how they can be mitigated, if they can be mitigated. She clarified her comments relating to the traffic study were because the traffic report indicated there were nu problems and that is not consistent with what has been said today by the neighbors and staff. Commissioner Bouas stated the request today is Eor a drive-through restauranL• and pointed out khe Commission has not granted this waiver to other drive-in restaurants and there is no reason to grant it to Angelo's and that drive-through lane should he constructed in conformance with Code. .john Poole, Code Enforcement Supervisor, stated building permits have not been obtained Lor al.r.eri~tions which have been done to the property and he would strongly recommend that prior to gcar:i.ir~~; :.n~ za~~ing a^-!-loan Lor Subject property, the applicant be required to obtain the proper permits f~i l,t~e construction which has already occurred. Malcolm Slaughter stated the Planning Commission is here to consider the usE of the building and whether ar not this is a drive-in, drive through walk-up restaurant and apparently, there is some illegal construction which has occurred, but the building permits are required for any construction whether there is a zoning action or not and ttre building permits should be obtained whether this request is granted or not. 2/18/87 ,, MINUTE5- ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIONS FEBRUARY 1.8,_19.81 _ 87-97 ACTION_ Commis^+oner La Claire offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki and MOT. :l CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit a dcivr.-in, drive-through restaurant with car hops (Angelo's) with waiver of minimum distance of adrive-through lane on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.57 acre, having a Frontage of approximately 150 feet on the went side of Beach Boulevard, and furtehr described as 221 North Beach Boulevard (Angelo's); and does hereby disapprove the Negative Declaration on l,he basic that it has considered the proposed Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public hearing process an~9 finds there is substantial evidPr.ce that the property does have a significant impact on the area with additional tra"fir, noise, etc. Ma~colm Slaughter explainer since the Negative Declaration has been denied, the Planning Commission can not approve the request and suggested the petitioner be given the opportunity to request a continuance in order to submit an Environmental impact Report. He added the matter would have to be readvertised when -;he date is estab'_ished, it it i.s concir~ued indefinitely. Commissioner La Claire asked if the petitioner would like to request a continuance in order to have an Environmental impact Report prepared oc if. they would prefer to withdraw the request. Michelle Reinglass stated she would prefer to continue the matter to determine whether or not they want to have an Envirnornentol Impact Report prepared. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst of.•red a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MUTION CARRIED that consideration of the afocernentioned matter be continued indefinitely ~rntil a Focused Environmental Impact Report, particularly relating to traffic and congestion is submitted, and further that the request be ceadvertised when it is ready for a naw public hearing. ITEM N0. 2 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3626 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: F. J. HANSHAW ENTERPRISES, INC., 10921 Westminster Avenue, Garden Grove, CA 92643. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.93 acres located north and east of the northeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Brookhurst Street, 1112 Nockh Brookhurst Street. Waiver of mini~~rum number of required parking spaces to construct a 3750 square foot addition to an existing commercial shopping center. It was noted the applicant was riot present. Continued from the meeting of January 19, 1987. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki and M~~TION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby remove Conditional Use Permit No. 2853 from the agenda on the basis the applicant was not present at ttiao public hearings; and in order for the matter to be placed on the agenda again, the applicant must pay fees for readvertisement. 2/18/87 _s,~ MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 18,__1987 87-98 ITEM N0. 3 h:IR NEGA~ TIVE DECLARATIONS RECLASSIFICATION N0. 86-87-22 AND VARIANCE N0. 3636 ^UBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: HARTMAN CORPORATION, 536 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805. AGENT: [1ENC0 DEVELOPMENT GRUUP, 4201 Long Beach Doulevard, Suite 403, Long Beach, CA 90807. Property describer] as an irr.egularl.y-shaped parcel of land consisting of. approximately 2.86 acres located sough and east of the southeast corner of Katella Avenue and State College Boulevard. ML to CL. Waivers of. (a) minimum number of required parking spaces, (b) maximum numbu~ of freest»nding signs, (c) permitted location of. freestanding signs and (d) minimum distance between freestanding signs to construct a commercial center. Continued from tl~e meeting of February 2, 198?. There was ono person indicating his pre::ence in opposition to subject reque:~t and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Floyd Farano, lU0 5. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, explainer] waivers (b, c and d) have been deleted and they would like L•o withdraw those and stated the sign^ would conform to Code. Slides were presented and Mr. Farano explained the property is located on the southeast side of State College and Katella Avenue and contain 39,664 square feet of space and the center is basically designed to cater to commercial office and Industrial users and approximately 20,965 square Eeet is devoted to space f.or uses such as copy machine repairs, cleaners, etc. He stated this center is not dedicated to serving residential shoppers. He stated because the property is located in the Anaheim Stadium Area which is currently under a great deal consideration, they wanted to be sure the project blends in with the surrounding area. Slides were shown of comparable commercial areas which have been constructed by the same developer.. Mr. Farano stated the most significant problem is the parking requirement and explained the non-food related uses proposed will be a printer, 1-hour photo, zerox repair, dry Ilea:+ng, stationary store, computer businesses, software, etc., bookstore, mini-drugstore and a clothing store and those uses will utilize approximately 53$ of the total center and they are providing 155 parking spaces and 264 are required by Code. He s+.atPd a traffic survey w~is conducted by Weston Pringle and Associates which concluded that 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet would be satisfactory to serve the site and uses proposed. Mr. Farano stated the staff report compares shopping areas in the East Anaheim area and Ball Road and State College to this location regarding parking and thev do not agree with those comparisons because of the type of uses in those areas which cater more to the residential shoppers and that this center will be almost business oriented uses. He stated they submitted a letter dated February 17th to the Traffic Engineer outlining the types of use proposed which are less intense and do not require the same number of parking spaces as those uses in the other locations. 2/18/87 .1 MINUTEST ANAHEIM CITY_Pi,ANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 18, 1987 87-99 Mr. Farano stated they have leased 60 additional. parking spaces from the Anaheim Stadium; however, those will not be available to them during Stac]ium events on certain days and it is mart of their arrangement that those 60 spaces must be vacated 3 hours before an event and Ftaff has advised them that those spaces, which are subject to cancellation on 30-day notice, can't be counted towards the requirement. He stated they have done some additional surveys and studies to find out what problems would b~: created i.E they use the Stadium parking spaces except Eor those 58 event days a year when parking would be restrictedt and that 9 of the 5ti days they could use the parking spaces until 4:30 p.m. He added those parking spaces leased from the Stadium would be used for employee parking only; and that they are willing to sign CC6t`s agreeing to condition their lease so that non-f.ood t;er.vices would close at 5:00 p.m. on those days when the parking is restricted at the Stadium. Mr.. Farano stated they had a cost benefit study undertaken which :~h ows the ratio of revenues to cost of 9.1 to 1 or approximately 57,000 per year income ag~~inst a 6,000 expense. Don Kiely, representing Kayco, owner of property immediately adja~-~.~nt to the east of subject property, 2110 E. Katella, presented a letter f~~c the record and stated Kaycc Plaza has heen on that site for about G ye~irs and it was "long understood that subject property ~aoul.d be developed for office professional uses] however, they have no objection to the proposed commercial center, except they ~~~~ have serious concerns about the parking. He stated according to the staff c ~r', the Commission needs to make two findings in order to grant the varian~a and he did not think those findings could be made. He stated the parking Codes were established to assure the health, saf Pty and welfare of the citizens and that they have worked in the past and there is no justification fur restoring the parking requirements. He stated t he applicant stated, with the exception of the stand-alone restaurant, the uses are going to he business-oriented and also that there would be a clothing store and a book store and those do not appear to be exclusively industrial applications. Mr. Kiely referred to the 60 parking spaces at Anaheim Stadium and stated they had also previously had an agreement with Anaheim Stadium to utilize parking spacas, but no longer ha~'e that agreement because it is very difficult to have tenants park in that area because access .is very difficult and the gate has to be locked and controlled so that it is not used for Stadium events. He stated their parking is right around the edge of this facility and it would be much more convenient for *he employees to park there and he was concerned that they would be using their parking. Mr. Kiely stated there are ~~ecial circumstances since the property is immediately adjacent to Anaheim Stadium; and that currently on days when events are going on, they have a parking problerr aid this proposed center with food uses would certainly make a situation where people going to t he Stadium are going to be lingering longer in the area. Mr. Farano stated they have represented a number of property ownars in the area who are developers of hiyh-rise office structures and one of the fa~tocs is that there are very few or almost a total lack of any type of services in that area. He stated one of the clients who is working on the development of a high-rise building is having a problem leasing space because of the lack of 2/18/87 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 18, 1987 - 87-100 places for. an employee to ev Pn have lunch. He stated the only facilities in that• area for eating are Char ley brown's, ~:,asa Maria or the Catch and there is no place for someone to pure haee a small item such as reference books, maps, etc, at a bookstore or stati~~naty store. He stated the sole purpose o t this center is to serve the businesses that are going to be there. Rega:din g parking, he stated the parking spaces to be leased from the Stadium are not being counted towards tl~e requirQments and that they were discussed simply to show that they are trying to mitigate any parking problems f.or employ a ea. tIe stated they intend to have a controlled parking arrangement whereby the entrance to the parking .lot will be controlled by their clients and they w i 11 be happy to review the system with the Traffic Engineer. He stated they h a ve considered a system similar to what Charley Brown and Casa Maria are cur rently doing whereby the patrons are charged a substantial Eee for parking which can be redeemed in food items in the restaurant. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSE I). Responding to Commissioner B puss, Mr. Farano explained they do not have any leases signed as yet, but wo~ild be willing to accept a c;ondition restricting the number of restaurants a n d s~~mitting a list of proposed uses. He stated they are proposing to have 18,700 square feet of food service uses, including one larger restaurant with a bar. Commissioner Herbst stated he sees a Problem rezoning the property to CL because then the City would have no control over what could go in. He stated he recognizes ttie uses would service the industrial area, but does not like the rezoning to commercial because there would not be any control and the parking waiver i.s so large and this would set a precedent. He stated it appears they are just overb wilding this property; and also he did not like the parking proposed on the Sta diem parking lot. Mc. Farano stated his clients would be willing to accept the condition concerning the uses to go o n to the property. Regarding parking, he stated he has not heard from Mr. Sing er regarding the parking spaces. Commissioner Herbst asked if that could be controlled with the recordation of a covenant. Malcolm Slaughter stated o n ce the property is rezoned, the owner is entitled to use it, and that the own er could record a covenant in favor of the City to further restrict the property, but it would be extremely difficult to enforce such a covenant. He refer r ed to the opposition's concern regarding the findings the Commission must make in order to approve the request and pointed out those findings as indicated in the staff report ace not the proper ones. He stated Mr. Farano refer red to 58 days when they might have to close during Stadium events and assumed that relates to the City's present obliyations to its present tenants and did not know if the City would be willing to grant long-term parking commitments because additional tenants will have significant parking needs. Patti Singer stated approximately 508 of the square footage will be utilized for restaurants, and parking is required for a restaurant at 8 parking spaces per 1000 square feet which means 144 parking spaces are required for dust the 2/18/87 MINUTES. ANAIiLIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 1987 87-101 restaurants and that would leave only 11 spaces for the other uses and that is why he had a problem with the traffic report. He stated this is essentially a spec building and there is no way of knowing what the uses will he. He stated parking variances are usually granted when a specific use i.s known in ~~ specific building, but with a vacant building, which is a shopping center, a different Code is applied. He stated he knows there Ls a need for restaurants in that. area and it is known that at least 508 of: the floor space will be taken up with the restaurants, and t~ia recommendation was not to grant this type of variance. Commissioner Masse stated he would agree and that the applicant is talking about employees .leaving the employee parking lot at 4:30 in the afteznoon when there is a game and then coming back to close their businesses at 5:~0 p.m. Mr. Farano explained they are not asking the Commission to create a pHec3tated by granting them a waiver based on the uses of the Stadium parking. they think that 155 spaces are adequate for the uses propos~dofndseSdedH~hey are willing to accept a condition shat will contro] the typ. explained they expect to serve the people in the office area and there are nut a lot of. people wtio live around that area. Responding to Commissioner Messe, Mr. Farano stated the businesse:~, except the restaurant, will ~e closed on Saturday and Sundays. Commissioner E~ouas asked if the center would be constructed i.f restaurants were not allowed and pointed out par'cing would be adequate without restaurants. 19r. Farano stated th? absence of restaurants in the area is a oroblem and it has been a problem in leasing ofEict space in that area. Commissioner !ierbst stated this area is currently known as the "Platinium Triangle" an~i in the ner.t 20 years hopefully, there will be 50,000 to 60,000 employees in the area and the restaurants are needed, but if there was ~ very successful restaurant on this site, there would only be 11 parking spaces left for the other businesses. He pointed out the restaurants in the area now have full parking lots at noon and suggested that perhaps the project can be redesigned to provide more parking, and possibly it could be two stories with some of the small uses upstairs. He stated he could not vote for the project the way it is designed because these buildings will be there for 50 years and in the future that area could become really congested and there would not be enough parking. Commissioner Fry stated there is no way he would vote for another little shopping center in that area, especially without adequate parking. Commissioner La Claire stated for a period of time she had an office in that area, and trying to find a place to eat was a problem, and pointed out there is nothing between a restaurant such as the Catch and a Naugle's fast food restaurant and she would urge the petitioner to look for a restaurant that is between the fast-food and the full sit-down restaurant. Mr. Farano stated his clients feel they have worked very hard and lointingtout plan and asked the Commission to reconsider the traffic analysis, p the traffic study shows that 155 parking spaces are adequate. Commissioner La Claire asked if the Traffic Engineer is disagreeing with the results of the traffic study prepared by Weston Pringle. 2~1g/87 _ .., , MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY. PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 18, 1987 87-102 Mr. Singer stated he is not disagreeing with the traffic report but that it addresses itself only to what could be happening there, subject to some of the uses, and making assumptions based on the letter submitted by Mr. Farano. He stated, there will be nott~iny to limit the uses on this property that would not permit restaurants in all oc the square footage and it is possible that this i.s a shopping center that could have more than adequate parking spaces, but that is not known until the specific uses are known. He stated the ordinance was written to allow granting a variance upon proof that the parking is not going to be required and that proof has not been brought forth because there are too many unknowns at this time. Mr. Farano stated they would be willing to accept a condition giving the City the right to review and approve ind.tvidual uses as they come in. Commissioner Fry stated he did nol• think the City should be involved in that process. Mr. Farano Stated he did not want. a continuance because he did not think they could revise the plans. Annika Santalahti stated the staff report should be corrected on Page 3-e concerning the parkiny as compared to two other centers and that the conclusion is not quite correct as it pertains to the Ball. Road site which shows a total of 680 parking spaces wo~ild be required under the current regulations, and that 549 exist as a result of waivers, so that center does have 618 of the required parking which works out to about 5.23 spaces for every 1,000 square feet; and that this proposal has about 4.5 spaces for every 1,000 square feet. Ms. Santalahti stated if this is approved, Condition No. 19 should be modified to read: "That prior to the issuance of building permir_s, the owners of the property shall require a recorded covenant for mutual access across subject property and the property at the immediate southeast corner of Katella and State College, and this r_ovenant shall be satisfactory to the City Traffic Engineer, and in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney. Annika Santalahti stated a new condition should be added, Condition No. 20 and explained the exhibits shows a landscaped area at the immediate southeast corner of the property, as well as a utility room, and since the building is built immediately on the property line, they would be required to obtain access easements from the property owner to the east and possibly to the south; and that Condition No. 19 requires the easements to be satisfactory to the City, and if they cannot acquire those easements, they need to redesign the building to eliminate the need for any access along the south or the east; and that the final Condition No. 21 as discussed in Paragraph No. 11 of the staff report regards the landscaping along State College and Katella and they shall provide 27 feet of landscaping which after the critical intersection would be 15 feet fully landscaped and the landscaping should include trees at a ratio of 1 per every 20 feet of street frontage. Commissioner La Claire stated if this is denied and appealed to the City Caui~cil, they should review the landscape plans carefully since this is an important entrance `.o the area and one of the most important in the City because of the types of uses we want to attract to that area. She stated she hoped the City Council would look at the landscape plan very closely and that the developer would propose something very special for that area. She stated 2/18/87 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 18L 1987 87-103_ the only problem she sees is the large packing waiver and tnece are a lot of fast-food type services and if the ratlo for parking was batter, she would vote in favor, but felt with her experience in that area, the gap is just too wide. ACTION: Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner 3ouas and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to reclassification subject property from the ML (Industrial, Limited) Zone to the CL (Commercial, Limited) to construct a commercial center with waivers of minimum number of required parking spaces, maximum number of freestanding signs, permltted location of freestanding signs and minimum distance between freestanding signs on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 2.86 acres located south and east of the southeast corner of Katella Avenue and State College Boulevards and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comm~:nts received during the public review process and further finding on the balls of the Initial. Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Fry offered Resolution No. PC87-42 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny Reclassification No. 86-87-22. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the followiny vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Commissioner Fry offered Resolution No. PC87-43 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny Variance No. 3636 on the basis that the parking waiver will cause an increase in traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity and adversely affect any adjoining land uses and granting of the parking waiver under the conditions imposed, if any, will be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote AXES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. RECESSED: 3:25 p.m. RECONVENED: 3:35 p.m. 2/18/87 MINUTES, ANAFFEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 18~ 1987 87-104 ITEM_N0. 4 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION] WAIVER_OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2883 PUBLIC NEARING. OWNERS: HARTMAN CORPORATION, 536 W. Linro.ln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805. AGENT: BENCO DEVEt,OPMF.NT GROUP, 4201 Long Beach Boulevard, Suite 403, i,ong Bea~•h, CA 90807. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land cone+isting of approximately 2.86 acres located south and east of L•he southeast cornet of Katella Avenue and State College Boulevard. To permit construction of a drive-through restaurant with waiver of minimum number of required parking spaces. There was one person indicating his presence in opposition to subject request. and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Floyd Farano, agent- explained his comments would be the same pertaining to this item as to the previous item. Don Kiely, representing Kayco, owner of property immediately adjacent to the east of subject property, 2110 E. Katella, indicated his comments would also be the same. T'IE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ACTION: Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit construction of a drive-through restaurant with waiver of minimum number of. parking spaces on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 2.86 acres located south and east of the southeast corner of Katella Avenue and State College Boulevard; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MO'PION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny waiver of Code requirement on the basis that the parking waiver will cause an increase in traffic congestion in 'the immediate vicinity and adversely affect any adjoining land uses and granting of the parking waiver will be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Commissioner Fry offered Resolution No. PC87-44 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anahelm City Planning Commission does hereby deny Conditional Use Permit No. 2863 on the basis that the use, as proposed, could create parking problems and have a detrimental effect on the peace, health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. 2/18/87 MTNUTESL ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CUMMISSIUN, FEBRUARY 18, 1987 87-105 On roll call, the Foregoing resolution was passed by the Following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY, FFERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to tFie C.it.y council. ITEM N0. 5 F.IR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, RECLASSIFICATION N0. 86-87-24 AND VARIANCE N0. 3638 PUBLIC iIEARING. OWNERS: HUGO VA7.UUEZ, 2240 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92804. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.34 acre located at the southeast corner of Broadway and Philadelphia Street, 302 East Broadway. Waivers of (a) minimum building site area per dwelling unit, (b) maximum structural height and (c) maximum site coverage ko construct a 14-unit affordable apartment complex. 'Phere was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Hugo Vazquez, owner, explained this would be a 14-unit apartment complex on the southeast corner of Broadway and Philadelphia and these will be 2-bedroom, 2 bath units ranging in size from 825 square feet to 885 square feet. He pointed out there will be a lot of amentities and each unit will have a fireplace and also an intercom system and any visitors would have to be allowed in by a tenant. He stated ttre downtown area is demanding quality units and there was a big increase in costs beginning in January 1987 with the passage of the school fees of approximately $1200 to $1300 per unit for building permits. He stated a lot of the current tax incentives will be gone in 1987 and he th,~ught people will build projects that make sound economic sense and with designs compatible with the surrounding area. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Responding to Commissioner Bouas, Mr. Vazquez stated rents would average 750 per month. He stated he has never built a complex with fireplaces and does not know what they will do to the rental market. Debbie Vagts, Leasing Supervisor, explained the rents for the affordable units will be 414 per month and 108 of the units will be rented in the 50e income ~~r low income range. Mr. Vazquez responded to Commissioner Lawicki that he has signed an agreement with the Houhing Authority. Commissioner Herbst stated he has discussed before where he thought these affordable units should be located in Anaheim and he thought this is the wrong location for increasing the density from 12 to 14 units because it does impact 2/18/87 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18 1987 87-106 the small lot. He stated he thought the dev~-toper is using affordable units as a crutch to get more units. Mr.. Vazquez pointed out to Commissioner Messe that the area on the L•irst floor above the garage level is open space and would be considered the eentra.l courtyard and it is just open space with some landscaping and there is not a play area for children where they could play ball, etc. He stated the units are designed for young adults or an older person. Commissioner Herbst asked if children will be permitted to live in these units, pointing out children of 3 and 4 years old cannot yo to the playgrounds in the area. Mr. Vazquez stated he thought the courtyard would s?rve that purpose well. Commissioner herbst stated he would disagree with the ordinances and did not think there is enough usable area necessary for people who have children because the children do not gave a place to play. He suggested the affordable units be deleted and a recreational area provided. Mr. Vazquez stated there are a lot of businesses coming into Anaheim because the City carries a strong and powerful name and there is a need for quality units and it is extremely difficult to meet everyone's needs in one complex. He stated he is trying to acquire more properties and assemble them for development. Commissioner Herbst stated this does impact the neighborhood and is the wrong place for this density. Commissioner Messe stated if this project was dropped 5-1/2 feet below grade, there would be no waivers necessary, except density. Mr. Vazquez stated to go down 5 feet is very expensive and he did not think it could be accomplished because of the size of L•he lot, but he would be willing to drop it if the Commission feels that is acceptable. Commissioner McBUrney stated he likes the project and would be willing to vote in favor if the project is dropped to eliminate those waivers. Commissioner La Claire stated she likes the project and wants the affordable housing, but was concerned about the height particularly on that lot. Jay Titus, Office Engineer, stated because of, the small size of the lot, if the project is dropped half a story below grade, they would have L•rouble ramping down to get the parking. Mr. Vazquez stated it is very difficult to provide the parking at 2-1/2 spaces per unit and that is the biggest problem in developing a project today and is what sets the tone for the design of the project. He stated there are new complexes being framed now with flat roofs and no amenties. Commissioner Herbst asked if Mr. Vazquez would like a continuanr:e in order to redesign khe project. Mr. Vazquez stated he could not ramp the project down; however, he could design a 12-unit complex to Code without a public hearing but felt there is a need for affordable units because there is a waiting list 2/18/87 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOyFEBRUARY 18, 1987 ___ 87'107 in the Housing Authority. tie stated there is no one to speak on behalf of the affordable housing families and the building would not change cosmetically if he changed it from 12 to 14 units. Commissioner Fry stated he is listening to what Mr. Vazquez is saying and realizes the waivers are minimal and that he is impressed with L•he project. He stated because of. the site being on the corner with the alley on the south, and being on Broadway, it is acceptable and it is providing the two affordable units, and there are no parking waivers. He added he would vote in favor of this project. Commissioner La Claire agreed and stated she realizes there is parking underneath, but the property is located across from the Freedman Forum which has a 3-story parking structure and she did not think it would be detrimental to the residential structures in the neighborhood. Debbie Vagts stated the Council policy is for a 10-year term unless otherwise stipulated by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Messe indicated he would like the affordable agreement to be Eor 20 years. ACTION: Commissioner Fry ot:Eered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to reclassify subject property from the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone to the RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zone and to construct a 14-unit affordable apartment complex on subject site under authority of Government Code Section 65915 with waivers of minimum building site area per dwelling unit, maximum structural height and maximum site coverage on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.34 acre located at the southeast corner of Broadway and Philadelphia Street; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon Finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with, any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Fry offered Resolution No. PC87-45 and moved Eor its passage and adoption that the Anaheir~ City Planning Commission does hereby grant Reclassification No. 86-87-24 subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, t4ESSE NOES: BOUAS ABSENT: NONE Commissioner Fry offered Resolution No. PC87-46 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Variance No. 3638 on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicinity; and that strict application of the zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. 2/18/87 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, E'EBRUARY 18, 1.987 81-108 Commissioner Herbst stated the Commission does set pcecPdents with the approval of requests like this and other developers do research the records and he thought the building could be designed to conform to Code without waivers. Chairman McBurney stated the affordable units warrant the variances and he did not think this would impact the area as much as in a strictly residential neighborhood. Commissioner Lawicki stated this is a unique property and he could vote in favor of this request. Commissioner La Claire stated she could support this because it is right across the street from the Freedman Formar, with a 3-story parking structure and she did not think this project would impact the surrounding neiyhborhood. She added this does not mean she would vote for oiie of these in any other part of the City. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AXES: FRY, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC GURNEY, MESSE NOES: HERBST, BOUAS ABSENT: NONE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision ~•~ithin 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0. 6 EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 5 AND VARIANCE N0. 3637 PUBLIC FTEARING. OWNERS: RICKI L. AND SHERRY I,. ~rARBi.E, 375 Via Montanera, Anaheim, CA 92807. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.45 acre, 375 Via Montanera. Waiver of minimum required sideyard to construct a room addition to an existing single-family residence. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is reEerr.ed to and made a part of the minutes. Rick Darble, owner, presented photographs of the house. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Responding to Commissioner Messe, Mr. Darble stated he has spoken to all his neighbors and none of them had any opposition. It was noted the Planning Director or his authorized representative has determined that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 5, as defined in the State Environmental Impact Report Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered Resolution No. PC87-47 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby 2/18/87 t MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 18J 1987 __ __ 87-109 grant Variance No. 3637 on the basis that there ace special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicinityt and that strict application of the 7.oning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone an9 classification in the vicinity and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written riyht to appeal the Planning Commisslon's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0. 7 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARA'ION AND VARIANCE N0. 3639 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: KENNETH KEESEE, 1928 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805. AGENT: ARTHUR GARABEDIAN, 1928 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.50 acre, 1928 South Anaheim Boule~~ard. Waiver of permitted type of sign to retain the existing roof mounted signs. ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki and MOTION CARRIED that the petition f_or Variance No. 3639 be withdrawn at the request of the applicant. ITEM NO. 8 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT P.ND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2881 PUBLIC EIEARING. OWNERS: FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF ORANGE COUNTY, 770 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90017 AND EII~EEN G. HERTFELDER, TF.USTEE S'PEINBRINK TRUST, 511 S. State College Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92806. AGENTS: ANTHONX STRAMMIELLO AND DENNIS WILLIAMS, 511 S. State College Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92806. Property described as .~n irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 3.9 acres located south and west of the southwest corner of Santa Ana Street and State College Boulevard. To permit on-sale beer and wine in a proposed outdoor patio area in conjunction with an existing drive-through resta~irant with waiver of minimum landscaping requirement. There were three persons indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Michelle Reinglass, Attorney, explained this is a request to permit an outdoor pa~io eating area at the State College facility; that she believed the wording of the advertisement is very misleading and seems to imply that they are seeking on-sale beer and wine and that was granted in 1981; and that this 2/18/87 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY R[,ANI~ING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 18r 1987 87-110 request is simply to have the outdoor patio area approved and to be allowed to carry on all the services. She stated this is an enclosed patio area and the only means of access would be through the interior of the restaurant and it is as controlled as the interior. Ms. Reinglass stated there is reference in the staff report that there is no alleged permit on file for the drive-in/drive-through, but that she has been representing Angelo's since 1982 or 1983 with criminal prc~eedings filed by the City of Anaheim, specifically for failure to have a permit for a drive-in/drive•-through, for the car hops, and a number of other things, and those charges were ultimately dismissed. She stated during tha': process a number of steps were taken by Angelo's to satisfy all the concerrs pertaining to noise and crowds. She stated this operation has been on-going since 1981 in its present form with a drive-in/ drive-through at that site. Ms. Reinglass added there were concerns about trafF.ic congestion and citations were referenced which were alsu mi.sl.eading since they did not occur. on Angelo's premises, but in the vicinity. She added she thought the number of citations would have been quite similar, 1E compared with prior years. She stated adding a patio will not affect that and it is there and this application came about because some patio tables and chairs were placed out in fronh• by Angelo's in June 1985, and they were not aware a permit was necessary and were issued a Notice of Violation telling them to start the process for a conditional use permit at thak time. She added they have had various problems with the lessor of the praper.ky and when they sought his approval as required by the City, he increased the rent, and the City was fully aware of what was going on. She stated this is not a situation where they were flagrantly violating the law and pointed out they have not been ordered to remove the patio and it is still there and she is bringing it up because there has not been any significant detrimental effects since the patio was initiated and it has not affected parking, traffic, etc. She stated they feel the concerns mentioned in the staff report have no bearing on this request. She stated they would agree with the majority of the conditions, but would object to Conditions 1 and 2. Nan^y downer, 531 S. Revere, Anaheim, stated she has lived there for almost 14 years and what started out as a nice business has turned into a horrible situation. She referred to petitions from the store owners, homeowners, teachers, etc. saying that they do not wart this any mote; that property has been damaged and that they cannot even park their cars on the strEet on the first Friday night of the month and it has gotten progressively worse. She added Ghe is not saying that Angelo's is at fault, but it is the situation that has continued to get worse and she feels if this is allowed, it would appear that they are condoning it. She added they get beer bottle thrown over the walls and the yards are full of trash and the church had to put chains across the driveway because on the first Friday night of the month, people would drive on the lawn and leave beer bottles and trash on the site. She stated it needs to be stopped and the police are kept busy on that night and they have trad to post "no parking' signs ~n the lawns. She stated the manager of Ralphs is on the board of East Anaheim Center and will discuss the situation with the Commission if desired. She stated granting another liquor license is going to just make it w,or3e. She presented the petition and added she only got her notice ~, Sf':r+-i°" .and these petitions were obtained in six hours and more could b:: ~:° ..• 2/18/87 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARX 18, 1987 87-.111_ Chuck Downing, 530 S. Revere Street, stated he il~iderstands this request is to allow them to expand the Bale of beer and wine to include the open patio in front and that he is opposed to expanding anything at that establishment beca::se the existing problem has grown from a minor nuisance to ~. major prob~em. He stated obviously the establishment is not hurting for business and noted the Police Department is there for one night every month and they have had to post the residential streets in the surrounding area and the residents are not allowed to park in front of their home on that night and they cannot nave company at their house unless they can park on the driveway and the residents also have to pick up the t~~~h from their property. He stated one eveniny while barbecuing with Er.iends in the back yard, they had to take the meat inside to finish <:ooking i.t because ane of tics neighbors was almost hit with a beer bottle. He stated the applicant nays they cannot control the people once they ace off their property, but it is their operation which is drawing those people to that area and i[•. is not fair that ttie residents have to atop at Ball and State College and show their driver's license and car registration in order to go home because of. a promotional activity further up the street. He stated if it was a once-a-year civic event, they could tolerate it, but it is not, and the residents in the area dread the first Criday night of the month and granting permission to increase the area in his, opinion, is only going to increase the crowds which will increase their. problems. He stated on Saturday morning, after the first Friday night, the cleaning people for Angelo's were cleaning up using street sweepers at 6 a.m. and they also use the hand blowers and he does not appreciate them cleaning up their. lot at that time of the morning. Mr. Crobber,1826 E. Chelsea, stated his property i.s four houses off State College and he has lived there for 8 years and these people are reall}~ just like hoodlums, and that the Police Department does a good job, but. they are just overwhelmed; and that the traffic is just horrible, and they tear the signs down and throw beer bottles and trash in their yards and urinate on the fencEa and even park in his driveway, and he is cursed when he says anything to them, and this only occurs o ':he first Friday of the month. Michelle Reinglass stated Angelo's is not unsympathetic to tie complaints that have been made, but the consensus is that this is on the first Friday of the month and the inconvenience that is experienced once a month is substantially less than what is experienced by residents around the Anaheim Stadium which is more frequent, and its during the week and the weekend, and it is consistEnt. She stated the traffic and other citations that have been cited in the staff r=port are probably nothing compared to the ones around the Stadium, yet the Stadium is not to be faulted for something it generates, and Angelo'3 isn't doing anything to promote that type of business and it is something that has become tradition and has been on-going for several years, and law enforcement in that area haU done a fine job in trying to curb these people from going onto other people's property. Ms. Reinglass stated this request is for a patio and it has been there and has not yenerated any further problems and has not increased business, and ire fact, business has been decreasing for the last year. She stated approval of this permit is only going to be maintaining a status quc ~,~' denying the permit is not going to decrease the crowds. She stated o~c.:asing the crowd 2/18/87 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18 1987 87-112 is going to be up to law enforcement and that Angelo's is duing everything it can, and the steps taken by Angelo's have been taken on their own initiative. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Responding to Commissioner Herbst, Ms. Reinglass explained the activity that happens on the tirst Friday night of the month originally ^tasted when a classic r_ar club held its mer_tings there, and they no longer meet there, but people come to the drive-i.n and nothing is tieing promoted by Angelo's and the people just continue to show up on the Eirst Fridays. Commissioner Herbst stated it appears that this has been getting gradually worse and worse and that whatever is happening is happening at Angelo's and it seems to be becoming a very attracl•ive nuisance and does aEEect the health and safety of the whole community and residents cannot use their awn back yards and streets because of Angelo's. tie stated it would appear Angelos is in viol~+tion of other people's rights. He stated they are assuming they Weermit right in expanding their patio, but they were not right and a building p was required and was not obtained, and now they are saying because it is there, it's okay, but in this case, it certainly is causing a problem. Commissioner La Claire stated Angelo's has become a very emotional issue, but there is a lack of logic to both sides and in this case, she thought it was on Angelo's side because Ms. Reinylass was already their attorney in 1985 when they put the tables out Eront and they already have problems with the City before and she thought Angelo's would be extremely careful to make sure that they did have the proper permits, but even if they did not have the proper permits, by their own admission, the patio has not increased their business. She stated there are a lot of problems in the neighborhood, and they are asking for something that they know will rile the neighbors and the whole thing does not really make too much sense to her, and added if she was on Angelo's side of the table, she would`handle thiswathotheiCityeandydonataseed if they arQ doing it just because Cher are angry that this is the wrong time to ask for these things. Ms. Reinglass stated she could assure Commissioner La Claire that there are no emotions involved, at least not on her pact, and she is representing a client and the charges previously were d~.smissed in 1983 and she was not involved until new criminal charges were filed in 1986 and that occurred when there was the placement of same tables and chairs. She stated whether or not they should have been placed there and necessitated a conditional use permit is not something she could answer, but there is a question as to whether or not that should have warranted a conditional use permit and perhaps that is the reason they were not ordered to remove them. Commissioner La Claire stated by their own admission the outside tables has not improved their business and they must Expect the beer and wine sales outside to improve their busines3. She stated already there is a problem with the beer and wine, whether it comes from Angelo's or not and she thought it is extremely stupid for anyone to ask for these things at this time. She added they have the right to ask, but in her opinion, this is ridiculous and she would like to offer a motion for denial. 2/lii/a7 r ~~ MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, EEBRUARS.' 18. 1987 87-113 Ms. Reinglass stated the statement was made that the' patio was not an improvement to the business, but her statement was that it was not increasing their busineast that customers are happy and enjoy i ~, especially during good weather and it has not caused any ad. itional problems. She stated driving down Anaheim Boulevard today, ahe passed George's East Burgers and had previously researched that site to Eind that it did not have permits. Commissioner La Claire stated she does not mind the nutdoor service, but does mind the beer and wine sales to the outdoor patio which is a parL• of. this application. She stated if they want to remove that part, then she would have no problem with the patio tables outside, but she did not want an extension of the beer and wine license. Commissioner Messe stated he did not think that could be enforced because tt~e restaurant opens onto this patio and people take their beer outside. He stated this is a very successful restaurant and the re is a problem with overflow and this property is just too small for th is establishment, at least one night a month. He stated it is not normal for a small restaurant that serves heer and wine to employ security guard ~ or to have the police have to issue these citations, even though they may not all be on Angelo's premises; and that many of them come from Angelo's. Eie stated tie thought the owner was asking the Commission to approve expansion of somet ping that is causing a problem now and he did not think he could not vote to increase the use of that property. Commissioner Lawicki asked what Angelo's does to di scourage thisfiasco that happens once a month, noting the, stated they do not encourage it. He asked if they have put out any notices pro;~lbiting hose activities to their customers. Ms. Reinglass stated they have posted signs to prevent any display of vehicles and are trying to maintain a constant turn-over with parking limitations on the lot so people will not ;niter and no loud music is allowed. she stated regarding the security guards, that is something they have i-•.~tiated to try and handle the situation. Stz a stated they have large guard dogs to try and maintain some semblence of or der, but can only control so much. Commissioner Messe stated increasing the size of t h e restaurant would increase the problems. Ms. Reinglass stated she understands the point being made and that the Commission is looking at this as an expanded use and she has raised the fact that it has been there not to show they have flagrantly been keeping the patio without permits, but to show that it has been there and how it got taere and what it has not increased the problems. Ms. Reinglass stated granting the patio is giving permission for people to sit outside and if the Commission desires to deny the sale of beer and wine in the patio area, but still improve the patio, she would confer with her clients on that issue. Commissioner Messe stated he did not think that would be enforceable. Ms. Re'_ng lass stated she thought that could easily be monitored. John Poole, Code Enforcement Supervisor, stated the Police Department issued the citations listed in the staff report and they were on the public street. He stated there have been some problems in the commercial areas adjacent to Angelo's where arrests were made. 2/18/87 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITX PLANNING COMMISSION~E'EgRUARY 18, 1987 _ 87-114 Commissioner Herbst stated he would have a problem approving a Negative Declaration on this request because of the traffic problem and thought an EIR should be prepared to address a.ll the issues for the health, safety and welfare of= this comtnunit;-. Chairman McButney stated he would disagree with the preparation of a Eutl EIR, but one f orused on the traffic concerns would be warranted. Commissioner La Claire at aced an EIR would address the mitigating measures and that has never been addr asstd. She stated there are problems with traffic and the neighbors cannot ev en park in front of L•heir own homes and they should not have to put up with t'rrat. She stated if they cannot mitigate the problems, an EiR would show that and the Commission would know that for sure. Commissioner Herbst stated if. these problems continue, he thougYit it would behoove t tie City to look at this as an attractive nuisance and proceed nn that basis. Commissio ner t.a Claire stated when there is a business with all r.hese problems not only with Code Enforcement, but with law enforcement Ind the neighborhood, someY.hin y is wrong and the Planning Commission cannot approve anything more because it is impacting the neighborhood. Malcolm Slaughter stated the action before the Planning Commission is to expand a n existing use and an Environmental Impact Report would relate to that issue on ly, but the problems relating to the existing use would not be covered. He pointed out the use includes the sale of beer and wine and that was appr oved by the Planning Commission under a prior conditional use permit and he t!iought the Planning Commission had taken the final action and would have the authority to schedule a hearing to consider revocation of that permit. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Masse and MOTI ON CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposa I to permit on-sale beer and wine in a proposed outdoor patio area in conjunct ion with an existing drive-through restaurant with waiver of minimum landscape requitement on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 3.9 acres located south and west of the southwest corner of Santa Ana Street and State College Boulevard; and does hereby approve the Negativ P Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is substantial evidence that the project will have a signifi cant effect on the environment, particularly traffic. Commiss 3oner Herbst stated he would offer a motion to deny the waiver of Code requirement. Malcolm Slaughter pointed out the Commission can either deny the request or offer the petitioner an opportunity to prepare an Environmental Impact Report. Ms. Reinglass stated they would like to continue this matter until a n EIR could be prepared and submitted. Commiss loner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued indefin Italy in order for an Environmental impact Report to be prepared and submit t ed and that the matter should be readvertised. 2/18/87 MINU'CES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, rEF3Rr.)ARY 1©, 1987 87-ll~i Commissioner Masse ask•a lF they can continue the urge o[ the patio in the meantime. Malcolm ;laughter :stated if theia is a violation, the Clty has all ita enforcement powers avallable whethar ~~r not anything further. occurs. Ile sr.ated the fact the hearing wan continued in order [or them to proceed to possibly have the activity legit:imi~ad i.n the future, does not rnaKe the activity legitimake at this time.. Mr. Poole ntatecl all. the business must tin concluctr'd innide the !structure. Commissioner Masse pointed out the unc of the pat•.to is not legal an? nhould be discontinued. Commissioner Herbst ntatecl if the EIR dnrn not provldo adequate mitigation mr_asures, he will offer a motion to net. a public heariny to consider revocation of the conditional Ilse permit no the problems can be rstol~ped. Malcolm Slaughtr_r ntatecl this mattr_r will. have to be readvertined when the environmental impact report is r~ubmltted and notices will be sent to the :)ame people as today's hearing. Responding t:a Comm.issioner Herbnt's yuention, Mr'. Slaughtr..c ntatecl the Planning Commission was the final authority on Conditional Use Permit No. 2260, to permit on-Hale beer and wine in the dining rornn of. an existing drive-through restaurant granted on December 14, 1981. TT EM N0. 9 EIR NF.GA'fIVE DEC LARATION~_WAIVER OP CODE I2EpLUIREM[•;NT ANU CONDITIONAL USf•; PERMIT N0. 2866 PUEiT.iC HEARING. OWNERS: GF.7.A JULIUS 5ZAYER, E'I' AL, .1160 N. Armondo Street, Anaheim, CA 92806. AGENT: NICHOLAS ROGERS, 300 E. Owens Drive, 1100, Santa Ana, CA 92706. Property de3cribed as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.4?. acre, 554 South Atchison Street. To permit an automobile paint and body shop with waivers of (a) minimum number of parking spaces and (b) minimum front landscaped setback. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a pars of the minutes. C. M. Thompson explained this is the relocation of a paint shop Erorn downtown Anaheim to Atchison St[~eet by the Redevelopment Agency. Ile stated the owner of the building is not too happy about having to take out some blacktopping to put in landscaping because none of the other pr.o~c~rties in the area have landscaping. Ele stated the biggest problem is '!,•~ parking requirement and explained there are not very many people coming to this facility and a s-.rdy was done on the existing operation which showed 9 to 12 spaces are needed and that packing will be provided i.n the rear and they feel the number of spaces is adequate. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner [.a Claire absent) that the Anaheim City 2/18/87 87-116 MINUTES, ANAHRIM CITY PLANNING_COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 18, 1987 Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit an automobile paint and body shop in the ML (Industrial, Limir;ed) Zane with waivers of minimum number of packing spaces and minimum front landscaped setback on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.42 acre, having a frontage of approximately 139 feet on the east aide of Atchison Street and further described as 554 South Atchison Streets and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review gCOeceiveddthattthereiisino substantialsevidencelthatathetp(roject will comment have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki and MOTIUN CARRIED (Commissioner La Claire absent) thaL• the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant waiver (a) on the basis that the parking waiver will not cause an increase in traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity nor adversely affect any adjoining land user and granting of the parking waiver under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim and granting waiver (b) on the basis that there are special circlocationsand applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, surroundings which do not apply L•o other identically zoned property in the same vicinity; and thal• strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity. Commissioner HF~rbst offered Resolution No. PC87-48 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Osthroumht18~03?030.U354andrsubjecthtomInterdepartmentaleCommittee 18.03.030.03 9 recommendations. On poll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AyEg; BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, L~WICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: LA CLAIRE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to Council. Cit h appeal y e the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to t ITEM N0. 10 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMI'P N0. 2887 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: CHINESE BAPTIST CHURCH OF ORANGE COUNTY, 1275 100 S. Anaheim ND KIEVIET ^ E. Blvd., , ARANO A Broadway, Anaheim, CA 92805. AGENT: r ibe rLOYD FARANO. ProP #340, Anaheim, CA 92805, ATTN: 6 acres roximately irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of app located at the southeast corner of Broadway and Olive Street. To construct a church sanctuary, including classrooms and offices with nd max waivers imum of minimum structural setback, minim~.;n number of packing spaces a number of compact spaces. 2/18/87 i MINUTE: ANAIlEIM CITY PLA_N_NING COMMISSION LFEBRUARY 18, 1987 87-117 There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was ~~ot read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Joan Allen, attorney with Farano and Kieviet, stated in 1984 the church applied for a conditional use permit for a multi-purpose room which was approved with a waiver of minimum landscaped setback and now they are seeking a conditional use permit. to build a second phas^ which is a sanctuary, classrooms and offices and three waivers are ne~:essary. She stated the first waiver is minimum structural setback and this would put the building in line wil•h the existing building and the waiver is necessary for reasons of dedication. Concerning the parking, she explained the parking study showed the number of spaces required to be 156 spaces based on .39 space per fixed seat in the sanctuary and there will be 400 fixed seats and they have 129 spaces. She explained the school district has an ITV studio adjacent to the packing lot and they have discussed the possibility of using these 21 parking spaces nn Sunday mornings, and the, have indicated that the application has to go before the Board of Education, but there is a good possibility it will be approved. She stated the church would ask that if this ronditior.al use permit is granted, that they might have the alternative of reducing the seating capacity if the fees ar.e too high to lease the parking spaces from the school. Concerning the number of compact spaces, she explained they have the existing approved waiver for those spaces. Concerning conditions, Ms. Allen stated they feel i.t would create a dangerous precedent to widen only their portion of the street, but are willing to post a bond to widen it when the rest of the street is widened. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Jay Titus stated Condition tto. 2 is not a condition to widen the street, but there is damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk in that area which should be replaced. Ms. Allen indicated they would be willing to comply. Chairman McBurney clarified that if an agreement cannot be reached with the school district for the parking spaces, they would be willing to reduce the size of. the sanctuary. Ms. Allen responded that is corr'.ect. Commissioner La Claire asked about the 20-foot setback required with 9 to 10 Eeet proposed and asked if that setback will remain the same after the dedication. Ms. Allen responded the plans show the setback with the proposed dedication. Responding to Commissioner Masse, William Ames, Associate Pastor, stated the preschool facility will take care of children when the adults are attending services and is not a preschool operation during the week and the classrooms are used for church programs, but they do not have a school there during the week. ACTION: Commissioner La Claire offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has 2/la/a7 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CUMMIS~ION, FEBRUARY 18, 1987__ 87-118 reviewed the proposal to permit the construction of a church sanctuary, including classrooms and offices with waivers of minimum structural setback, minimum number of parking spaces and maximum number of compact spaces on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.6 acre located at the southeast corner of Broadway and Olive Street and further described as 412 E. Broadway] and does hereby approve the Negative Declar.ati.on upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner La Claire offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant waiver (a) on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicinity; and that strict application of t•he Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity and granting waivers (b and c) on the basis that the parking waiver will not cause an increase in tr.aEfic congestion in the immediate vicinity nor adversely aE'Eect any adjoining land uses and granting of the parking waiver under the conditions imposed, if any- will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim; and further subject to the stipulation by the applicant that if an agreement is not reached with the school district for the parking spaces adjacent to subject property on Sund~sys, that the number of sanctuary seats shall be reduced proportionately. Commissioner La Claire offered Resolution No. PC87-49 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2887 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Cade Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. On roll. call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the Following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0. 11 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATIQN WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2888 AND REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL NO. 87-01 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: FRED A. BAKER, CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIS'P OF LATTER DAY SAINTS, 50 E. Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah 84150. AGENT: FARANO AND KIEVIET, 100 S. Anaheim Boulevard, X340, Anaheim, CA 92805 ATTN: FLOYD FARi4N0. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 11 acres, 441 Fairmont Boulevard. To permit a church with waiver of maximum structural height. 2/18/87 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CdMMISSION FEBRUARY 18 1987 87-119 Request for approval for the removal of 145 specimen trees. There were approximately 30 persons indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staL•f report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Floyd Farano, Attorney, stated an application was previously submitted and that a Negative Declaration was not approved in connection with that request and they did not file an Environmental Impact Report on this project because they felt the studies submitted adequately address all the environmental concerns. fie stated the concerns of ':he nelghbor.s were studied and were basically mitigated with the redPSign of the project. He stated the property after dedication consists of 11.31 acres and will be occupied by a 24,864 square foot church on approximately •SNPaatatedrtherefwas the entire property, and the church will be 32 feet high. previous concern about the visual intrusion and in redesigning the project, the location was changed on the property and the building was more or less tucked into the hillside so that it does nat rtepresent a visual intrusion. Mr. Farano ref.e[red to a series of photographs displayed taken on a 360° vision standing approximately on the location of the church about 30 oc 40 feet frorn Fairmont. He referred to tl~e site section presented which shows there is one residence from which the church can be seen and in reviewing videos taken full circle, they have determined that the church itself cannot be seen from any other surrounding residences because the residential properties are at a slightly lower elevation than the church. He stated the church site is almost- completely surrounded by a double cow of Eucalyptus trees which will not be removed duriny the construction, and the only trees to be removed are the trees located Ln the immediate area of tt~e church structure itself. Mr. Farano stated the applicant is willing to work with the owner of the one residence who can see the church and will plant. trees or whatever i3 necessary to shield the church from their view. He stated they do not believe the church will be offensive to their view and that house is 'orated approximately 225 feet from the nearest driveway and approximately 430 felt or about 1/10 mile from the church itself. lle stated the church will be earthtone colored stucco with a the roof. He presented a photograph of a rendering showing what the church will look like. Mr. Farano stated the closest residence is 140 feetand the closest residence construction, including driveways and landscaping, to the church structure is 460 feet away. He stated 3.55 acres of the property will remain in its natural state, and landscaping and parking will take up 3.75 acres, for a total of 7.03 acres. Mr. Farano stated a noise study and a traffic study was conducted which indicates that approximately 214 vehicles will. be on the site from approximately 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. Sunday; that the sound study indic~.tes that the decibel reading ruse from 57 to 57.3, and the sound engineer indicates that is negligible. He stated during the week on certain evenings, throximate1be20oto Scouts, ladies auxiliary meetings, etc., which would bring app Y 2/18/87 _...,e MINUTES L ANAHEIM CI'PY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 18, 1987 87-120 30 cars, and on Saturday there will be indoor sports such as basketball, volleyball, etc. with approximately 25 to 30 vehicles and there will be no spectator sport activities. He stated the hours of worship on Sundays and the other activities in the staff report are as indicated, except the quarterly conference referred to is actually a semi-annual conference which would involve approximately 300 vehicles on the premises twice a year on Sunday for about 4 hours. Mr. Facano stated if this 11 acres was developed as 20 residential units, it would have a higher traffic count with 150 to 265 trips per day over the 7-day week, which indicates between 1000 and 1855 trip ende per week, and also the lot coverage would be much greater. Mr. Facano presented an il]ustration showing why this church is needed in that area and pointed out the red dots on the exhibit show where families live who belong to the Mormon church. He explained this denomination builds churches in accordance with the population and noted 5 to 7a of the population will become members of this denomination. He pointed out: currently there is a Mormon church at Royal Oak and Nohl Ranch Road and the people who will go to the proposed church are those who live easterly of imperial i~ighway and stated the church is needed now because those people shown on tFie exhibit are going to the smaller church. Mr. Facano stated Fairmont is a very dangerous road and needs to be reviewed very carefully and they have been working with the City Engineer, and il.• was determined that whether this property is developed with a church or any other project, FairmonL• will have to be considered very carefully. He stated two points of ingress and egress were added since the last project and that during the Interdepartmental Committee meeting, Mr. Singer had suggested eliminating tl~e middle driveway originally proposed to prevent "u" turns. Mr. Facano stated they want to be good neighbors and think this facility will be beautiful and will be a credit to the neighborhood. He referred to Condition No. 4 and stated they do not feel it would be applicable and the church is exempted from the corridor fees; and that they are willing to comply with Condition p20 pertaining to dedication and improvement of the riding and hiking trail, but could not comply with the requirements of Condition No. 21 requiring upkeep and liability of the trail and do not feel that is a prudent request since they have no control over who uses the trail or their capabilities. Sherry Jenson, 7133 Mockingbird Way, states her property is approximately 3/4 mile from the proposed new church and that she presently attends the church at Royal Oak and Nohl Ranch and it is crowded and she is in favor of this facility. Kelly Sims, 972 Caun*_ry Hills Road, stated Ise has been a resident of Anaheim Hills for over 9 years and he thought the overcrowding situation at their present church is only going to worsen with the projected growth. He stated he is a real estate appraiser by profession, working primarily in Los Angeles and Orange County, and can truthfully say that, generally speaking, churches do not decrease the value of the surrounding residen~ial properties, and in some cases, churches have actually upgraded the community. He referred to a 2/18/87 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18 1987 87-121 property in Cypress abutting the parking lot. of a Mormon church much closer than this and that property solc9 for 205,000 which set the upper limit in that neighborhood. He stated he thought this would be an appropriate and compatible use of the site. Richard James, 7015 Blackbird Lane, stated he is in favor of this request because he currently attends the church at Royal Oak and it is getting more crowded Query year. He skated he drives Fairmont two or three times a day and has anticipated having a church in this area for a long time and had actually sought a home site next to the church. Bob Jones, 6650 Canyon Hills Road, stated the Country Hills development is immediately adjacent to the proposed church site; that he is President of the Country Hills Homeowner's Association and represents 40 homeowners and they are opposed to the granting of this conditional use permit to permit construction of a church and the removal of 145 specimen trees. He stated the proposed church and parking lot with lighting, sidewalks and stairs is not consistent with the designation of residential, single-family, hillside (Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone) (RS-HS-22,000); and that the effect of a project of this magnitude must be considered of commercial scale and does not belong in the middle of their community. He stated this is the same parcel as the one presented in October 1985 and at that time area homeowners expressed their opposition and after lengthy testimony, the petitioners withdrew their request before a vote was taken. He stated the same concerns still exist, although they have been modified to make them more acceptable. He stated the request for an EIR Negative Declaration is not appropriate and any development of this scale will certainly impact the environment during construction and after completion, and removing the majority of trees and re-grading the property will have irreversible physical and aesthetic impacts on the land; that 25~ of their homeowners will have a significant vista right into a new parking lot with lights and will be able to see and smell 200 cars at a time. Fie read the supplement to the petition for this conditional use permit and stated the existing zoning does not create problems with existing properties and 15 to 20 single family homes would be far more desirable to the homeowners than one community center type church. Ha stated a member of the Planning Commission said in October 1985 that this is the wrong project in *_he wrong place and they would ask that that same decision be reaffirmed today. Sharon Achs, 395 Old Bridge Road, President of the Oid Del Giorgio Homeowners Association, representing 46 homes, stated they are all opposed to this request. She stated the depiction as shown is totally inaccurate and there are homes with backyards right on Fairmont Bouelvard. She referred to the staff report and the findings the Planning Commission must make before granting a conditional use permit and stated she thought the traffic congestion is a problem now and will be worse and that is a safety factor and there are a lot of children with no sidewalks in tt~e area. She stated this is a rural area which was not meant for this type development. She stated she thought there is a need for an EIR because there are a lot of issues which would require the preparation of an BIR. She stated the homeowners will be looking at something very different than what is shown and are concerned about the noise level, dust, fumes, etc. and the fact that while it was stated 428 cars per weekend will be parked on the lot, it does not 2/18/87 MI_NUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIONS FEBRUARY 18, 1987 87-122 account for the number of care that will be accessing the property and they do not Eeel this is the appropriate project for that area. Sonja Greywal, 400 S. Canyon Ridge, stated her house is adjacent to this proposed church and she sent a letter to the Commission and that she feels many of things in their application is understated and some are incorrect because there are protected birds of prey in those trees and the applicant has indicated there isn't; and that she feels this is being talked about as a church, but it is actually a facility which separate groups of people will be using and there are three bishop offices shown on the plans which implies that there will be three congregations using it. She stated she felt the usage as written is understated, and also the most intense time of usage is weekends when residents like to have the most intense use of their property in their backyards, etc. She added the noise from this facility with three different groups using it will be much greater than from residential uses, and L•he traffic would be all at once rather than coming and going at different times like residents. She added they do not agree with the removal of specimen trees and almost every homeowner spoke against the tree removal at the previous hearings, and this plan calls for the removal o£ more trees. Frank Terchan, 6587 Via Arboles, stated there are Z47 homes along the ridge and quite a few overlook this property. He stated he has lived there for 10 years and has served about 7 years as either chairman or a member of the architectural committee of that association and during that time stressed very strongly to all their members that this is a Scenic Corridor and it is very important to maintain the aesthetics o.f that area and adhere to all the rules and regulations of the CC&Rs and of the City. He stated now they are faced with the possibility that this area could go into a major change from its present residential character and change the entire environment; and that it would be difficult to tell their members that they have followed all the standards and now there has been a change, but they still have to maintain their standards. Judy Palmieri, 445 Bridgeview Drive, Anaheim, treasurer of the Old Bridge Homeowners Association, explained their homes are directly in back of the proposed church and 7 or 8 homes are directly on Fairmont Boulevard and Fairmont. does impact them in a lot of ways. She stated just yesterday there was a traffic accident and presented a traffic study through November 1986 which shows fatalities, injuries and accidents on that road and noted there have been 32 accidents, with 3 fatalities. ~"ne stated people like to come off Canyon Rim and look at the view and take the road for granted and Fairmont is one lane up and one l+~ne down and is very dangerous and she did not think that it could be redesigned to handle more traffic. She stated since last year, they have had some changes to the area with a shopping center on the corner of Fairmont and Santa Ana Canyon Road which has only been open for two or three months and is building up traffic and it doesn't have adequate parking; and up the hill is a new Presbyterian church just beginning construction which will share parking with the shopping center and with limited access, if there was a tragedy, they would have no way to get down the hill. She stated recently the traffic was monitored by the Traffic Department and the fiyures are 5000 vehicles on a Friday, 5000 on a Saturday and approximately 4300 on Sunday, and last week was a long weekend with some people out of town and on Sunday it rained and a lot of people stayed home, so she did not think that was a proper weekend to take traffic counts. 2/18/87 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FE[iRUARY 18, 1987 87-123 Ms. Palmieri stated sire hoped the Commission will see the wisdom of staying with the General Plan for. the area and retaining the natural rural beauties that are there.Jack Fisher, 6573 Via Arboles, stated he lives where the trees are and will. look down where the ci~urch will be= that he has been there Eor 10 years and is presently the Vice President of Br.oadmoor Association and represents 227 homes along with Frank Terchan and his objection is to the noise; and that they presently can sit in their backyards and only hear the birds, etc. and the area used to be rural, bra L• now hn looks at t_he back of a house and if the church is built, he will be looking at a church to the right and every time a tree is cut, they can hear sounds because sound travels up. He stated he is more concerned •,bout traffic on Fairmont Avenue, and thought stop signs and traffic siynals wiles ~e necessary and also regrets tl~e removal of 145 trees where same of the wildlife lives. tr'orman Wozniak, 7361 Stonecr.cek Lane, which is about 150 yards from the proposed church site, stated the main opposition is safety because Fairmont Boulevard is not designed to handle that volume of traffic. He stated the applicant has compared the traffic from developing that 11 acres with homes and the traEEic that would be generated by the churr.h, but all the traffic from the homes would riot be leaving at: once. He stated residential traffic would be staggered and not affect Fairmont that much, but 300 cars in that parking lot, even two or three times a year, trying t~.~ empty al• once will create a tremendous load. He added the hours of the new church at the bottom of the hill and this church will be coinciding and that will force a lot of people to use Old F3ridge Road and th~~se homes have no sidewalks and there are a lot of children in the area and it would be very dangerous. He stated when they purchased their property, they realized there were no sidewalks, but the area was zoned residentially and they did not expect to have to contend with something like this. He stated 11 acres is a large parcel and even though they will only be using 58 of the property, last year during the hearings, the church representatives admitted there was khe possibility of adding more in the future, and also they mentioned they were concerned about establishing in an area and being good neighbors, but he felt tE they were sincere, they would not have presented this plan because it does not show anything accurately and he feels they are deliberately trying to mislead khe Commission into believing that this is not going to affer,t the area, but it will, and they hope the Commission will consider the opposition's concerns. Brent Jones, 7380 Stonecreek Lane, stated his property is not shown on the plan, and he would be looking right on the top of the church and that he was raised in Salt Lake City and knows a lot about the Mormon church activities and knows the difference in a church and a stake. He stated he resents them calling this a church because it is a stake; and that it has a gymnasium and they do use their gyms and all the facilities, but it needs to be in a location where the traffic can be accommodated. tie stated he feels their presentation understates the usage. He added he is vehemently opposed to this request. David Carr, 7450 Stonecreek, stated his home has a backyard directly across Fairmont from the proposed developed and one of the changes that has occurred since 1985 is the recent posting of Fairmont and 1-ton vehicles are not allowed on the street and there is an additional posting prohibiting commercial vehicles which is an indication of how dan.~erous the street really 2/18j67 MINl1TES ANAHEIM CI'PY PLANNING COMMISSION. FEBRUARY 18. 1987___ _87-124 is. lle stated his house is probably one that will be able to see the church and that he and his wife are only home on weekendsl and that they bought in tl-at area in order to be able to take advantage of the tranquil setting on weekends and to have that destroyed is distressing to them. lle stated he Eelt a packing lot that Large would create a lot of noise and felt the church putting itself in this neighborhood was completely disregarding their interest. Mr. Farano stated there will be na additlonal buildings in the future because the site would not accommodate any further development. He stated they are removing 145 specimen trees- but will be replacing those with 450 specimen trees. lie referred to photographs and stated all the trees shown on the hill will remain and only the trees on the site pad itself will be rertioved. He sL•ated the eucalpytus trecn shown in the photographs are on the perimeter of the property and that only 58 of the property will be develoFed with any structures and that the landscaping plan has greatly improved over the previous plan and the parking is on three different levels with a lot of landscaping. He stated the structure was relocated and recessed so that it will not tie a visual. intrusion. Mr. Farano stated the opposition has indt~a4ed this is something that should not be permitted in a residential area, but the Commission knows that churches are a permitted use by conditional use permik fn residential zones. Mr. Farano stated there will be 42 feet of paving on the west side of Fairmont Boulevard and that he has driven Fairmont and it is not the best for safety, but this church will not cause it to be any worse and that a residential development would probably contribute more traffic khan the church, and he felt the traffic situation will be improved with this development. He stated the stake meetings will take place semi-annually and this church will be a place of worship for two subdivisions within the church which are called "Wards" in the Mormon church, and there will be staggered services Sunday from 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. He referred to an exhibit showing where the people that will be going to this church live and stated when this church reaches capacity, they will request to have another church approved and that this site will not continue to grow. Mr. Farano stated he cannot respond to the emotional issues regarding tranquility, etc., and that there is nothing that the church i.s doing that is offensive to the Hill and Canyon Area, and, in fact, the manner in which it is proposed will enhance the Hill and Canyon Area. THE PUBLIC HEAI:ING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Messe stated this is a much better project than previously proposed, but there are some concerns `rich were not addressed and one was the usage of the facility which the opposition felt was understated or misrepresented. Mr. Farano stated the uses as described i.n the staff report are accurate and the church is made up of two "Wards" which is called a 'Stake", and they have certain activities; that there are two multi-purpose rooms which will be used for the Sunday school, teachings of the church, and the children will be there while the adults aro attending their services, and those same rooms will serve 2/18/87 ANNING COMMISSION, FEFiRUARY 18, 1987 87-125 M 1 NU'f E S r AN AH F. I M C I TY 1? 1, ~--...-- as the meeting rooms for the day groups and Study gc Duper and those meet several times a month. He stated the usage is not g rerrlr:r than represented and the artivities and number of vehicles were shown [tom past experience by the church. Comrnissione~ Herbst stated he drives Fairmont Every ~yt and that Mr. Farano is correct in stating that churches arF allowed in residential areas with approval of n conditional use permit, and the ceaso n for the conditional use permit is so that the Commission can review the irnpac;ts it will have on ttre area. He stated he had felt there should be a full Environmental Impart Report prepared on this project because of. t.ho traffic problems, etc.r and that he is bottrered because the trafr.ic is still bottlenecked ~-t both ends and increasing t~~e traffic is naturally going to impact the area. Concern...3 the eucalyptus trees, he stated thr~y were put there by rnan !n order to protect the orange groovr..~• t:rom wind, er_c. and he doesn't narticularly ,ike eucalyptus trees and the 140 trees to be removed will be r~~nla red with 400+ trees, but no mention was made as to the length of time i": would take for those trees r_o grow to whore r.hey would be acceptably beautiful and screen the area. He stated he Eeels this is the wrong place fur a church and that there are many areas in the Anaheim Hills area where a church cou 1 d be appr 'd without such an impact on the neigtrborhood, and that this prot~~er ty is suitable for RS--22,000 residential homes, and he didn't think h wouldwhelscatteredthe traffic as much as this chinch would because they throughout the day. He stated the shopping center does not impact. that road going up as much as this would, and the church at theotner end does not. impact it, however, both churches meeting at the same time would have a extremely heavy impact ~~n Fairmont. Ffe stated unt it Fairmont is improved in its entirety, this t~~pe impact rould not be accommodated. Mr. Farano stated assumi.rrg that is all true, he did not understand how this church is mote of an impact that anything else and he thought RS-22,000 homes would create the same problem. Commissioner Herbst stated there are about lOC hom es in the area where he lives and when he leaves in the morning, he never runs into m~>r.e than 2 or 3 vehicles at a time, but putting more than 100 cars at a time on the road would be a tremendous impact. Mr. Farano stated according to the traffic study, there will be i14 vehicles leaving at one time because there are two different church services on Sunday and only twice a year would there be 7.50-300 vehicles, and th,~t is when they would have their Stake meeting. He stated this i s the lowest density development thaw could be on that property. Commissions La Claire stated the impact is Great ed on Fairmont because all the vehicles ace leaving at one time. She stated there are other pr~~blems, however, with this project, and one is that this is a single-family area and everybody there had the right to expect single-family homes and churches are allowed by conditional use permits in residentia 1 areas, however, there are sinyle-family homes all around this property, and pointed our that is not true on Santa Ana CG~yon Road where the other chur:.h is lucated. She stated homes could be built on this property for a profit. S h e stated the Commission has triad to keep to the plan for that area and she didnat feel this use would be 2/18/37 MINUTES, AN AtIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 18, 1987 87-126 compatible to that neighborhood because it intrudes in too many ways. She stated just whan all these property owners would be coming home Eor the evening, trying to relax, i s whan the church activities would begin, and on the weekends when they would want to just relax is when the church activities would be the heaviest. She stated tha t people have aright L•o enjoy their serenity when they come home in the evenings a n d on weekends. She ntated the Commission just denied a residential project on Fairmont because of the high density and she thought this could be considered more a commercial use, and it has a lot of commercial elements, and is not the aam a as the littlo church on Royal Oak and Knoll Ranch Road. Responding to Commissioner Bouas Mr. Farano ntated the church has owned this property for approxima~ely eight years. Commissioner La Claicra stalr.d L•he church purchased the property eight years ago as residentia 1 property and they can still make a profit from selling the property, and polnte d out that any ~ers~n runs a risk when they purchase property, especially when i.t is zoneu si~igle-family, and then having the Planning Commission say that ir_ has to be deve.lo}ed single-family. She stated she felt the m would be an impact on the hom^^wners and a church is not suitable in that particular area. Commissioner Messe :~tatcd he was not sure that he could agree entirely, and thought any development on that property would impact the area, and private homes could potentially have 12 or. 13 driveways coming out on Fairmont, and traffic would be increasing with any development and the landscaE~e would be chanyed with any developmer,r•. He stated churches have lived in peaceful coexistence with single-fam ily communities forever and that is the place to put churches. He asked the Traffic Engineer how the church traffic ~.~il.l impact Fairmont. Debbie Fan k, Assistart TcaEfir, Engineer, stated traffic counts were taken on Fairmont the past weeken~9so that weekday counts and weekend counts by hours are available and presented r,hose to the Commission. Commissioner Messe asked if the Sunday counts show that ~o be the lowest, and Ms. Fank responde6 Sunday's count was r.he lowest ar~d the hours of services as proposed on Sundays would not crear.e a significan t increase. She stated the difference is that the traffic is a peak or mass entra nce and exit and residential traffic is staggered. She stated at 8:00 a.m. on Sunday, ti~~~re were 40 cars on Fairmont wiY.-~out the church. Commission er Messe stated i.f evr.n 150 cars arrived at that time- he did not think that would be the heaviest use . Commission cr Bouas stated Fairmant needs to be improved because it appears to be a very dangerous street, church oc no church, homes or no Boras, and it needs to be changed and whoever had the say ori,inally on how the street was to be designed was not t h inking of th.:future de•~elapment of the area. She stated she did not think the church is going to make that much di_ce:en~:e and that it would probably improve a n d they would probably push towards having FairmonL• improved and that that shoo 1 d be Fhe goal of everyone in the area. Commissioner Fry left the meeting and did not return. Commissioner Messe stated cert3 Fairmont is a bad street, but wanted to 2/18/87 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 18, 1987 87-1 27 point out that all. three of the fata.litles reps. led were in single ~~~hicle accidents. Commissioner La Claire stated she was on the Commission when Fairmont was originally designed and that it was a mess and originally a different alignment was proposed end it was wider and a loo safer, but there wrre some people in the area who •~^hted it to be left two lanes, etc., and the Planning Commission did not agree, but the Council approved it and then those people moved out of the area, and now the Pl,innincl Commission and the people i n the area are stuck with Fairmont in its present configuration. She stated in order to approve this project, Fairmont needs to be widen, at least on one side. She stated the density on Fairmont should be kept low because it will never be a completely safe street because of she grade. Jay Titus, Office Enginaer, responded to Commissioner La Claire r_hat t h e incline of Fairmont is 12A Mr. Farano stated they would propose, if this application is approved, to improve Fairmont along the frontage of their property and all the way t o Canyon Hi11s Road so there would be 42 feet of paving in front of. L•he church property and all the way to Canyon Hills and that would certainly be t h e beginning of the improveme~~,, of Fairmo~~rt. He stated throughout their discussions with staff, no one evidenced any dissatisfaction that they were snaking the road more dangerous and that they have tried to make it more safe. Jay Titus staf:ed the Engine~r-ing Department realizes there are problems with the alignment, grade and width of Fairmont and proposes to take the improvement of Fairmont to the City Council as a policy decision to be discussed in the next two-year. budget, so There will be some input from Council as to whether or not they want to proceed with the widening of Fairmont. He stated it is possible that within the next couple of yea z;~ that street could be improved with the ultimate to he four lanes from Canyon Rim to Santa Ana Canyon Road. Commissioner Lawicki asked if the church would be willing to record a covenant restricting the development of their property so there would not be any expansion plans on ttr:.t property in the future. Mr. Farano stated they would be willing to make that stipulation. Debbie Fank stated the Engineering Department would lik.a to add a cond ition requiring that the developer redesign and r~aplace the median island landscaping to improve sight visihility. Commissioner La Claire stated the Commission should not lose sight that the impacts are more than just traffic and that there is an impact on a way of life of the people in the area and it has always been felt that they bought there because it was zoned for homes and they have always known that perhaps some homes would he developed, but have never prepared themselves for a church and had a right to expect the Commission to look at the impacts; and t~rat they will suffer from some noise on weekends and evenings when they least want it. She stated they will suffer from some noise and fumes from the cars wh ich they would not ordinarily encounter and it will impact them a lot more than sin4:e 2/18/6 7 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING C,OMMTSSION, FEBRUARY 18, 1987 87-1l8 family development on that property. Commissioner Herbst stated he is very familiar with sound attenual•ion and recognizing that the amt~ient level in that area is in the 50's, the noise from dust the slamming of. a car door would raise the ambient level to the 80's, and noted the ambient level in 'she hills is a lot different than in the downtown area, and he felt there is more involved than just the traffic. He stated trains can be heard at certain times in that area and they are four miles away, and agreed this w!11 change the whole concept of the area. Mr. Farano stated the prevailing w.~ds are from the south and west and noise would tie blown away from the top of the hills. Commissioner Herbst stated the winds have nothing to do with it and the concern is the ambient level which is there and the change this would have on the area. Commissioner Bouas stated certainly houses would raise the sound level with radi~u, dogs barking, televisions, etc. Commissioner. La Claire stated when she walks in that area at nighr it is very quiet in the whole area aid the people want to be able to enjoy tl~e qui~:t evenings and that he realizes this is a wonderful church and can understand why they want to develop in that area, gut she could not vote f.or something that wo~ild impact the area this much and Eelt any church on that property would impact the neighborhood. Chairman McBurney stated there were 23 people present in opposition and 9 people spoke in opposition and at least 50 letters were received by the Commission from homeowners in opposition to this request. Commissioner La Claire stated she had received numerous phone calls. ACTION: Co~~missioner La Claire offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbsl• and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner McBurney voting no and Commissioner Fry absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission teas reviewed the proposal to permit a church with waiver of maximum structural height on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting ~f approximately 11 acres having a frontage of 1,050 feet on the southwest side of Fairmont Boulevard, and further described as 441 Fairmont eoul.evard; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner La Claire offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Messe voting no and Commissioner Fry absent;3 that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny the request .° waiver of code requirement on the basis that there are special circumstan.es applicable to the property such as size, shape, tapogcaphy, location and surroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the ...~me vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code aeprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in ttie vicinity. Commissioner La Claire offered Resolution No. PC87-50 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Co;nmissfon does hereby 2/18/87 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CI'PY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 18, 1987 87-129_ dQny Conditional Uqe Permit No. 2888 on the basis that a church would be the wrcng development for the area because it is substantially developed with single family homer and increased traffic on Fairmont Boulevard would create a very dangerous traffic hazard and would be detrimectal to the peace, health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anahelm. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed hey the fo:lowing vote: AYES: BOUAS, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC DURNEY NOES: MF.SSE ABSENT: FRY Commissioner La Claire offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner He• ~t and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Messe voting no, and Commissioner ['ry absent) ~,,at the request for. the approval of the the removal of 145 speclmen trees (Specimen Tree Removal No. 87-U1) be denied on the basis that reasonable and practical development could occur on the property without the removal of the trees; and the characte• of the neighborhood with respect to forestation will matecial.ly be affected by the removal of the trees. Malcolm 51ai.~ghter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 27 days to the City Council. RECESS: 6'50 P.M. RECONVED!Rn: '/:UO P.M. Commissioner Herbst left the meeting and did not return. ITEM N0. 12 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2889 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: ANA[1EIM MEMORIAL HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, 1111 W. Lia Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92802. AGENTS: PROJECT DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION INC., 2885 S. James Drive, New Berlin, WI '3151, ATTN: DAVID G. SUAREZ. Property described as an irreyularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximaL•ely 11.0 acres located at the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and West ;Treet, 1111 West La Palma Avenue (Anaheim Memorial Hospital). To permit the expansion of a hospital complex to include a Magnetic REsonance Imaging Center with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. There was no one indicating their. presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of th.: minutes. Commissioner Bouas declared a conflict of interest as defined by Anaheim City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC76-157 adopting a Conflict of Interest Code for the Planning Commission and Government Code Section 3625, et seq., in that she has been involved with this hospital for twenty-five years and may be prejudiced and pursuant to the provisions of the above Codes, declared to the Ct,airman that she was withdrawing from the hearing in connection with Ct~ditional Use Permit No. 2889, 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 left the Council Chamber. 2/18/87 MINUTES, ANAFlEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 18, 1.987 87-_130 Chris Van Gocu~~r stated the hospital proposes to build a freestanding building on the easr,ern po~.ion of their property to house a Magnetic Resonance Imaging Center for diagnostic testing. He explained a parking study was conducted which indicates there is an excess of at least l00 spaces at• their peak hours. THh. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Responding to Cfrai~man Mceurney, Mr. Van Gorden explained magnetic resonance imaging is done with high intensity magnetic fields which realign certain atoms and radio frequencies are used L-o beam an image tc a computer. He explained it is done without. any radiation; and that there is only one other similar fixed site in Orange County. Commissioner La Claire stated she understands these cent~~[s have to be insulated very carefully and t~.l~•~t people with pacemakers rannot go into them. Mr. Van Gorden stated they would like to have this center inside their. present facility, but that would 1',e very expensive and the building has been deslgned for this use and they have tested the area Eoc signals and int.ecference and those areas were someone with pacemaker. should not be will be clearly marked. Commissioner Masse asked about the: parking 1E the hospital census were to increase to 708. Mr. Van Corder stated the hospital census averages 51 to 52$ and they actually have one floor oC the hospital closed at the present time and do not anticipate the use going up. Responding to Commi:»ioner Masse, Mr. Van Gorden explained this building will not interfere with the main entrance of the hospital. ACTION: Commissioner La Claire offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Herbst, Bouas and E'ry absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed to permit the expansion of a hospital camalex to include a magnetic resonance imaging center with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 11.0 acres located at the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and West Street and further described as 111:. West La Palma Avenue (Anaheim Memorial Hospital}; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and Further finding on the basis of the initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner La Claire offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Bouas, Pry and Herbst absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant waiver of code required on the basis that the parking waiver will not cause an increase in traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity nor adversely affect any adjoining land uses anu granting of the parking waiver under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safeky and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Commissioner i.a Claire offered Resolution No. PC87-51 ;.nd moved for is passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant 2~ .8/87 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 181 1987 87-131 Conditional U3e Permit No. 2889 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Section 19.03.030.030 through 18.030.030.035 and subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommer,dationa. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was Massed by the Following vote: AYES: I.A CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC GURNEY, MES5E NOES: NONE ABSENT: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal tl~e Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. Commissioner Bouas returned to L•he meeting. ITEM N0. 1.3 F:IR NEGATIVE DN:CLARATION AND CONDI'PIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2890 PUBLIC NEARING. OWNERS: MAHMOUD R. ELKANAWY, P. 0. Box 260y, Mission Viejo, CA 92690. AGENT: TALAT RADWAN, P.O. Box 2609, Mission Viejo, CA 9'1690. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.42 act, 1725 South erookh'rrst Street. To permit truck display and rentals in conjunction with an existing gas station and conveniece market with waiver. of minimum number of parking spaces. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Talat Radwan, agent, was present to answer any questions. Commissioner Messe asked if this facility will have one way rentals. Mr. Radwan responded it will have one way ~r two way rentals. ACTION: Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Fry and Herbst absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit truck display and rentals in conjunction with an existing gas station and convenience market with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces (delecoximatel 16u feet on rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of app Y the west side of Brookhurst Street and further described as 1725 South Brookhurst; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no subs=antial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Messe offered Resolution No. PC87-52 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2890 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.03.030.030 through 18.030.030.035 and subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations. 2/18/87 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING C~MMISS ON, FE9RUARY 18, 1987 87-132 On roll call, the foregoi.;~g re:rolution was passed oy the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC GURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: FRY, HERBST Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0. 14 EIR NEGATIVE DECGARATIUN AND CONDITT.ONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2892 PUBLIC HRARING. OWNERS: SHLOMO SFADIA AD DORON DABACH, 16311 ventura Boulevard, Suite .1205, Enclno, CA 91436. AGENT: RAYMOND LEE, 5555 E. Santa Ana Canyon Road, Anaheim, CA 92807. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 5 acres located at the northwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon itoad and Im[1Prial Hiyhway, 5555 East Santa Ana Canyon Road (Mandar.in Taste Restaurant). To permit on-sale alcoholic beverages in an existing restaurant. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the mtnute~. Ray Ar.than representing the center owner and Raymond Lee, agent, were present to answer any questions. THt PUBLIC FEARING WAS CLOSED. Responding to Commissioner Messe, Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, explained the parking waiver was previously granted on this property and ttre change in use to add on-sale alcoholic beverages is not one that is generating an in~~rease in parking demand. ACTION: Commissioner I.a Claire offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas ana ;"~T.ION CARRIED (Commissioners Fry and Herbst absent) that ttie Anaheim C?ty Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit on-sale alcoholic beverage° in an existing restaurant on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 5 acres located at the northwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and imperi~~l Highway and fuc,..,er described as 5555 East Santa Ana Canyon Road (Mandarin Taste Restaurant); and does r~:~reby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evi~7Pnce that the pro}ect will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner La Claire offered Resolution No. PC87-55 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim .:lty Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Pecmit No. 2892 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.03.030.030 through 18.030.030.035 and subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations. 2/18/87 MINUTES, ANAHE_IM_GITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEGRUARY 18 1987 87-133 On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: AOUAS, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC GURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE AGSENT: FRY, HERBST Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written tight to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0. 15 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. ?24 PUGLIC HEARING. INITIATED GY THE CITY OE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION, 200 5. Anaheim Goulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805. Property described as in the vicinity of Weir Canyon Road and Monte Vista Road. To consider an amendment to the Land Use Element of tt~e General Plan proposing tl~e designation of a police station. Greg E;astinn~;, Senior Planner, explained a continuance was requested by the consultant representing the developer of Wallace Ranch and that the Police Department, out of courtesy, concurred with that request. He stated actually the request for continuance was not made by the Police Department but rather by the consultant and th,~t tree Po1icE Department had requested that this matter be clarified before the Planning Commission. ACTION: Commissioner douas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Meese and MOTION CARRIED (^.ommissioners Fry and Herbst absent) that consideration of the aforementioned r~~:ier be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of March 16, 1947. ITEM NO. 16 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: A. PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT - Request from Robert J. Sklar (Phil 6 Jim's) to amend Chapter 18.61.050 of the Anaheim Municipal erode to permit retail sales (liquidation outlet) in :onjunction with a permitted primary use in the ML (Industrial, Limited) Zane, subject to approval of a conditional use permit. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, explained staff is not recommending approval of this cods amendment; that the applicant is interested in a specific site and it is in the industrial area near Ball Road. Commissioner La Claire stated she would not like to see an ordinance permitting this because it would open the door to all kinds of uses. Annika Santalahti stated the various zoning actions taken by the Commission have generally been uses that can be related to industrial whether it is that the people there will want to buy the prod~~ct and this is an open retail activity that would be allowe9 in commercial zones in Anaheim. Commissioner Gouas asked if this was originally their waretxouse although 2/18/87 MTNUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANN:~+3 COMMISSION, FEBRh~+RY 18, 1987 87-134 they did not sell from this location. Commissioner La Claire stated if they want a liquidation outlet, ~~hey should come in and make that rey~~est, but a ordinance should not be gran;:~d to permit ti~is use. Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, stated there is no zoning vehicle by which the Commission could approve a retail ou~:let in the induatri.:l zone unless it meets ttie criteria of being indu=trially related. Commissioner Messe stated if L•his is approved, it would open the gates for thr_ Pleasure Boutique, etc. ACTION: Commissioner Messe offer. e6 a motion, seconded by Commissioner La Claire and MUTTON CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council L•hat no a^~endment to Subsection 18.61.050 to permit retail sales in conn ~t ion with any permitted primary use in the ML Zone be approved. B. VARIANCE N0. 1529 - Pequest from Jonathan T. Y. Yek (Arena.l Motel) for termination of Variance ;io. 15'1.9, property located at 420 South Beach Boulevard. Commissioner t.a Claire offered Resolution No. PC87-54 and moved fot its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby terminate all proceedings i.n connec_ion with Variance No. 1529. On roll call, she fc~egoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, ME;iSE NOES : NONE ABSENT: FRY, HERBST Mal olm S~.aughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to app°al the Plan~~ing Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. C. VARIANCE NOS. d76 an~3 3407 - Request from Ralph Kazarian (Cinderella Motel) for termination o~ Variance Nos. 876 and 3407, property located at 1747 South Harbor Boulevard. Commissioner La Claire offered Resolution No. PC87-55 and moved for its passage and adoption *_hat the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby terminate all proce ngs in connection with Variance Nos. 876 and 3407. On roll call, the foregoing rescl~..;.ion was passed by tine following vote: AYF,S; BOUAS, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKL, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: FRY, HERBST -~alcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorneys presented the wri.cen right to appeal the P:ann:,tg Commission's decision within 22 days t-o the amity Council. 2!18/87 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, N'EBRUARY 18_, 198'] _____ 87-135 D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2862 - Request for nuns pro tuns resolution to amend certain portions of Resolution No. PC86-291, property located at the northwest ~~orner of Katella Avenue and State College Boulevard. 1.,:TION: Commissioner La Claire offered Resolution No. PC87-56 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does Hereby grant punt pro tuns resolution amending Resolution No. PC86-291. On roll call, the focc~yoing resolution was passed by l•he following vote: AYES: BOUAS, LA CI,AIRF., LAWICKi, MC BURNEY, MFSSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: FRY, HERBS'P Malc~'.,n Slaughter, Deputy city Attorney, presented L•he written tight to app•~al the Planning Commissi~~n's dfrcision within 22 days to the tit; Council. OTH1:R DISCUSSION: A - 'r~osed General Plan Amendment Stuff Area. Commissioner La Claire stated she would like to have r.he area between Lincoln and La Palma, east of Anaheim Boulevard, conaider.ad for a General Plan Amendment similar to the one just completed on the west side (General plan Amendment No. 216 and Reclassification No. 86-87-23 - 21 acres bound• :~y La Palma, Lemon, Wilhelmia Street and ^ublic alley westerly of Anaheim Boulvard). :;he stated part of that area is ^oneci for single fsmily and there are a lot of bungaloo~ an.1 people are remodeling; and that part of the area is zoned RM1200; ant tt-at one of the most rece~-t apartment project approved by the Commission in that area does not look good and is really dense. She stated that ar'a is unique, with a lot of open space and there are some RM2400 apartment units and then several large complexes and it would be nice to preserve some of these things we have in Anaheim. C~ceg ;!astinys, Senior Planner, stated Commission should direct staff to conduct a G^nreal Plan Amendment study of that area and that it will be placec9 on the next agenda for such action. ~~~mmissioner La Claire asked if there is any way for someone to develop at ' '•1-1'200 while the area is under study. Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Atorney, stated if a project conforms to Code, the only thing required would be building permits a~ the manly way to prevent that is to ha~~e a moratorium on building denst* projects. B. - OAK H:CT.GS RANCH TOUR. Annika Santalahti stated there was trip to Oak Hills this morning, and will prohably request a continuance before that item is heard, and that in writing. ;ome slight confusion regarding the field that staff has learned that the petitioner and that a field trip will be arranged staff will notify the Planning Commission 2/18/87 i MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 14, 1_ 987 87-136 ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion- seconded by Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED that the meeting be adjourned. The maeting was adjourned at 7:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~ °°~~„' Edith L. Harris, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission 0244m 2/18/87