The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1987/10/12~' 8~Si1I.4AB. MEETING .9~ x1i~._BAH.E.IM.S.xTY...PL$~IH.T~i~-.~4h.S'.'1~~S3.4H 4~Q]~er 1~..._~.4Z The regular meeting of tho Anaheim City Planning Commission the Councdlto order by Chairman Messe a~Q80nto and'thecCommisaianlreviewed plans of the Chamber, a quorum being p items on today's agenda. RECESS: 11:30 a.m. RECONVENED: 1:35 p•m• PRESENT: Chairman: Commissioners: Messe Boydstun, Carusillo, Feldhaus, Herbst, McBurney ABSENT: Commissionerss Bouas ALSO PRESENT: Annika Santalahti 7,oning Administrator Planning Director Joel Fick Joseph Fletcher Assistant City Attorney Jay Titus Office Engineer Paul Singer Traffic Engineer Leonard McGhoe Associate Planner Wayne West Chief Building Inspector Greg Hastings Senior Planner Edith Harris Commission Secretary ~NUA p4sxING - A complete copy of the Planning Commission agenda was posted at 8:3C a.tti., October 9, 1987, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chamber, and also in the outside display Kiosk. pg~N~~ FAR APp~~: CommissionQr Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bouas absent and Commissioner McBurney abstaining) that the minutes of the meeting of August 17, 1987, be approved as submitted. ACTIOtt: Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Carusillo and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioneroveduasesubmitted,that the minutes of the meeting of August 31, 1987, be agp Chairman Messe made a correction to the minutes of the meeting of September 14, 1987, on page 652, line 8 shows him being absent and he was present. ~r,~ION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bouas absent and Commissioner McBurney abstaining) that the minutes of the meeting of September 14, '987, be approved as corrected. 87-747 w M~i3ll.T~~.~1>~t~.I~ _~~~.ALP.~I~.~_KG__~.9MMJG~_~9~,__S?.C~Qb~R_~.~..-~_4~.7____ ..~. ~.7_-74.~ I~~LtL4.~...1 SIR.~.~.ia,A~'~YF...~?FQGAB.AT~4N_AN1~ ~A~~t~.L~.QF__~?Q.~_~39~t PUBLIC HEARING. OWNF.RSt ONINERSt PERALTA G'TD., 3150 E. airch, Brea, CA 92621. AGENTt VIC PELOQUIN, 3150 E. Birch, Brea, CA 92621. Property described ae approximately 40 acres on the north side of Nohl Ranch Road, approximately 300 feet northeast of the center of Old Bucket Lane. Waiver of. maximum fence height: to cnnstruch 7 foot., 3-1/2 inch high pilasters to go on top of a 6-foot high solid block wall. Continued from the mooting of September 20, 19137. Chairman Masse declared a conflict of lntera5t as defined by AnahRim City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC7fi-157 adopting a Conflict of Interest Code .`.Ur the Planning Commission and Government Code Section 3;25, et seq., in that the p6titioner is a customer at I•,is business and pursuant to the provisions of the above Codes, declared to the Chairman that he was wi':hdrawing from the hearing in connection with Variance No. 3706, and would not take part in either the discussion ur t•.he voting thereon and had no c. discussed this matter with any member of the Planning Conunl.ssion. Thereupon Chairman Messe left the Council Chamber. Commissioner Mc Burney assumed the Char . There were approximately 10 people indicating kheir presence in favor of subject request and approximately 27 people indicating their rresent in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Vic Poloquin, agent, explained the ~.ilasters for •+hich the variance is being requested are 1S inches higher than'the decorativ.. wall; and that he feels the w311 is a noisR and sound barrier for their entire ;cveluoment and in order t~~ comp up with a more decorative and more aesthetically pleasing wall, he would like to have approval of a heig}~t waiver for the pilasters. He stated the City and Planning Commission asks developers >:ring in very architecturaly ples~sirg projects; that staff reviews landscape plans, color swatches of building exteriors, etr.. and developers have to subm~.t elevations of buildings and no e5aipment i.s allowed on rooftops, so this City is very much aesthetic»lly conscious. Iie stated straight block walls have beau done for economic reasons in a lot of the other developments, but he has nut done that and has presented a wall with a nice brick cap and pilaster decoration that enhances its beauty. .~~.ian Chuchua, 290 S. Mohler Drive, stated after reading about this wall, he went out and looked at it and it is a very beautiful wall and he did not think the pilasters art' distracring and a person cannot see over the wall anyway at six feat and the pilasters will not make an}• difference; that he noticed there is a wall of approximately the same height to the east and there are other walls further east which are also hlo~king views which have been there for a long time; that he has a 6-foot wall around his ho~ise on Mohler Drive and it is blocking his view of the canyon, but itgivos him privacy; that driving to work Lhis morning he noticed on Santa Ana Canyon Road, the wall east of Solomon on the n,~rth side, blocks the view of the Santa Aua River, but it is there to give the people privacy and he has no objection to that. 10/12/87 d MisTIITF.S.. AN~HEIM_ CITY P.LAN~IiIS_~4MMI&,S~9.Ii.~.4~~98~8..1~.... 1987 r~Z3.4.Q Jim Beisner, 474 S. Old Bucket Lane, stated he has been a resident of An:>>>oim far nearly 25 ynara, the last 4 at this address; that his home is one of nano homes that border the Poralta Hills Eaat project on the west and he is in favor of granting this variances that he has been following this development for nearly a year and has received notices of several public hearings, but this is his first appdarance on any manner concerning this developments that he did have concerns but they were cleared ttp by contacting members of the developer's staff, City staff and members of, the work crewss and that he is pleased to see this development for the following reasons: 1. Safety - Nohl Ranch Road .is a heavily-traveled road and often is a speedway, and he has witnessed three accidents and has given court testimony on tho~a accidents end this fence should have been built long before now. 2. Fird - Prior to grading by the developer, this area had the potential for a disasteroua fire which would h;~vo most certainly included the homes in the Presley and Lugk de ~elopments. 3. Coyotes - H® no 1o:rger has to listen to the terr~:fying cries of the neighbors cats an~i dogs as they are attacked and devoured by coyotes; because once this was graded the coyotes have no place to hide and it appears th4y have left the res. 4. Security - This development will provide additional security for those homes along Old Bucket Lane; because prior to this development access to their properties required only a short hike through the gulley and easy access, easy escai,e was very appealing to the criminal element. 5. Noise - Noise from the freeway has always boon there and always will be and it is affected by wind direction, atmospheric pressure and spend on the freeway. Noise from Nohl Ranch Road will be mitigated by the wall and pilasters. Entrance to Nohl Ranch Road from Andover and Old Bucket Lane have to be among the most dangerous in the City of Anaheim and this noise was there before the fence was built and thA danger at these two intRrsections was there before the fence was built; that these two problems could be greatly reduced by lowering the speed limit 10 miles per hour and installing traffic lights to help reduce the speed and make this a community road rather than a fast shortcut for the commuters from Chino, Corona and other points of Riverside County who get off at Imparial to avoid the interchange. He stated the grading did a create a problem for those on Old Bucket Lane with car lights shining into their homes and he went to the developer and the Citl+ Building Department and wts~ assured that a 6-foot decorative fence would be built. He stated this hearing is for a variance to allow 7'-3-1/2" pilasters; that at least a dozen pilasters at Hillczest's entrance are over 8-feet tall and at Cangon Height's entrance there are four pilasters over 9 feet tall. 10/12/87 ~t Ml,~ll~~~.~ ANA EIt4 ~.z.TX..,P.~rA13~~HSi ~9CP1I.fiS~QI1..__Q.~TO~#~Ii_ ~,~..__,L9~Z _-..~.----__$._7~3,5Q 6. View - This is a view Chet w»s created by the grading that made this development a reality; and people driving Nohl Ranch Ro~+d fool thoy arc being denied their viow. He stated while driving on this hi" y road, the attention of the drivora should be d.troctod to the rc. and not. to the views that those who have made considerable investments ir, their homes must bo considered and those homes ahoulcl be free of noise and shining lights. {lo stated he does not have the signatures of 1000 people, but Boos have support of 100 of the nine homeowners c,n Old Bucket Lane, each having a substantial investment in their property, and these are the peol:'a who spent 24 hours a day in their home, as opposed to those who may spend a fow short moments as they drive the 3000+ feet Aloi..l the fence and they clo have a right to fool secure in their homes and a ri.gh~. to privacy which is provided by the fences an3 that they have a right to bo free of car lights shining in their home and a right to safety which the fence provides when they drive on Nohl Ranch Roads and that the publl.c also has a right to that safety. Mr. Weisner asked the Commission not to play Into the 1-ands of the proponents of the jail in their arse by fighting amoaq thems9lvest that the pecmits havt~ been issued and there is going to be a wall, and asked that it be an attractivo fence, lle urged the Commission to grant the variance, and get on with the battle of Y.eeping the jail out of Anaheim Nills. D. J. Helyer stated she has lived 11 years in Anaheim 'lills and is also the agent selling this propertyi that as a resident stie thought the Issue today is the added height of the decorative pilaster and si~o viewed this as an added beauty to the wall; tt.at as the agent selling the product, she thought the Anaheim hills residents must realize what they all will gain by having these lovely 41 homes on this property; and that they will add tax dollars to the cumrnunit;y. Sho stated she hoped the Commission will view this in a positi~-e fashion. Paul Williamson stated he presently lives at ?283 Columbus Drive, Anz~heim, and he is speaking in favor of the pilasters because he thought it was going to bn a nice product. Ho Stated that he bought one of the lots and did not know he was buying into a community with this kind of problem. He stated he thought the wall will be a real attraction to the City and adds a lot to the street. He stated he has lived in the area for a long time; and that he b~iilt a house across the street at Hillcrest and was requireu to build two p.ilastsrs 7'6" tall next to a wrought iron fence, but part was next to a 6-foot high block wall, and he thought it was very attractivo. He stated the brick was brought in especially for that project and he thought this wall is a very sharp looking, and is a nice attractive wall and ahoulc~ remain. Robert Zemel, Chairman Anaheim Hills Citizens Coalition, 7330 Stonecreek, Anaheim, stated Mr. Williamson just represented that he did not know there was a problem in the comm~lnity, but that he just closed escrow a fow days ago, after the public hearing two weeks ago at which he was present. Atr. Zemel thanked the Commission for the opportunity to allow the developer and citizens a chan.;e for a compromise and r.:gotiations and a hope for some sort of meeting of the minds and thanked the Comrnis~ion for their appreciation 10/12/87 MT;NSi~F~.......N~AH~1. 5;.~~Y__PS~A~N.~~?G.~4.~.~.,~~~1.,_9~T9.B~R .13~___~.4~Z_.____ ____~~5.1 of the magnitude of the wall which is probably the single mast destructive piece of constrtictioti against the 'General Plan. He stateQ after the continuance was given to negotiate, the meeting of the minds did not take i>lace for almosL• the full two weeks. He statod the Coalition asked for the denial of the variance and for the actual tearing down of the t wall, and the developer was busy selling the wall to the Commission and the citizens who lost their view and their environment and a piece of Anaheim Hills. He statod the meeting was held on Saturday, October 10 and the Coalition brought wit)^ them some ideas for compromise; however, the meeting was just a mere continuance of the September 28 Planning Conunission moet,ing which was a salsa presentation. He staL•ed instead of a compromise, the citizens were offered blackmail and the developer is saying, not only that they mus r_ accent the wall. but should accept it with his enhancement, or the wall --ill not be beautiful. He stated he personally feels and ttie p~aple of A:~aheim Hills feel violated and the developer has danced, c:oaved and maneuvered his way through the system and mayically his 5/8th mile long wall has appeared without so much as a public hearing and now he is showcasing his illegal pilasters and has, in effect, made Anaheim Hills hies own personal showroom floor and if this Variance is approved, the Commission is saying that is o.k., and if the City's Legal Department does not take legal action, which ho date to his knowledge, they have not done, they also say it is ~~.k.; and that i~ 'he City does not require an EIR or at least. a public hearing on the well, eve n at this late dat©, the message is clear that the developers can build in Anaheim Nills and ask questions later. He stated is this case, the researcher .,rho researched the file could not find plans for a wail on file. Mr. Zemel reviewed the Initial Study subioitted by the applic az~t with his response to most environmental question3 being "No." He stated it appears the City needs something to sink their teeth into and make a call for action becauset a. The developer has obviously perjured Himself in his Negative I)a~claratfon. b. The developer has, through media and personal commu a icat~.ons, and also via those Planning Commission meetings, given t.aatimony that the wall cost 5650,000 which is too prohibitive. to be just knocked down. He submitted the }~tilding Hermit which states the purpose is the construction of a block wall fence and the valuation was 576,000. He stated maybe this explains how the City employee was duped Into issuing a permit for that f e nce. He stated in reality, that employee issued a permit for a 5650.000 structure which impacts 20,000 residents a.nd the liability of such an act re s to with the developer. He stated this is not just a block wall fence, and because of this failure to properly inform the City, he believed CEQA can and should be enforced; that the CEQA legislation intended to be .interprets d in such a manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language; that one of the basis purposes of CEQA is to inform governmental decision-ma!cers and the public about significant envirnnmental effects of proposed activities, and the Negative Declaration constitutes an integral part of this act; that CEQA effectively imposes upon every public agency a duty to disapprove a project if it will have significant effects on the environment as proposed; and unless and until the agency has considered i-3sible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will void or substantially lessen significant affects, the adoption of a Negative Declaration operates tc, dispense the duty because i.t is 30/12/87 rsu~~.~~._.r~.~x~.ire.~~.~.x~..i~n~.c~~~z~s~4n.~cz~~a.~~_~,~._~9 ez------____~.~ ~~.~~ a deciaion that the propasod project will not affect the environment involved; that its effects on the environmental process moans thet it is vitally important to the purp~ae of CEQA; and that the opportunities to protest it and he hoard before its finality are conaequyntly important to that purpose as well. He stated finally and the moat important reason for the City to take action is the poop]o want some~hinq done, and after a"11 thin is their city too. Mr. 2ome1 stated Mr. Peloquin has apparently decided that in order for the lots to be worth the price ha is axking, he would have to build this wall; that they find it exceptionally arrogant that h© found a way to charge more for the lots at the expense of all the other citizens. He stet©d that the developer simply made a bad business deciaion, end these .iota are worth what the buyer is t.',lling to pay whu all the laws are followed; and the ~lrvc~lopor can not price something on the basis that he is planning to circumvent the lt+w. He stated the developer has stated the wall cannot be altered physically and they obtained an estimate from Flat and Vot~tical of approxlmately $20,000 to simply cut and remove portions of Lhe wall in order to install traditions] wrought +ron. Mr. 7eme1 stated they are not a disgruntled f.ew and submitted an additional 1,000 signatures calling for the denial of the variance and for further action an;•znst the wall. Mr. Hemel stated this variance and the wall itself is not for a hardship upon the land, but rather a self-induced personal chance for economic gain. Ho stated h.~ personally believes that t±a,_t+ person has .+ chance to do better in America and should be rewarded for his efforts, but not whop ht, act-,ieves his desserts by walking on our system and the citizens who founded that system. fie asked the Commission to listen -^ the citizens, follow the ]aw and challenge the wall and deny the variance. Raymond Fico, 541 Westbird, Anaheim, skated he is President of Canyon Terrace and represents 99 homeowners, and !-as lived there five years; thbt before the wall wa3 built, he could sit in his backyard :rit.h very little noise, but since the wall has been built, he cannot sit in his backyard because the noise vibrates up and everybody in their area is complaining about the noise that comes from kohl Ranch Road. Ho stated 1,000 signatures were presented and they feel they have a right to expect the noise be stopi.ed. He stated they picked Anaheim Hills because they want:od a p.laco to retire and a place where they could sit in their backyard without noise and asked the Commission to take that into consideration. He stated he felt a wrought iron fencA would step a lot of the noise coming up into their area and explairod ho lives at the rim and his backyard faces the fence, and stated r,hey were there before the gall. Bill Nussbaum, Rocky Pointe development adjacent to the wall, stated Rocky Pointe includes Old Bucket Road and st the direction of the Hoard of Directors, which includes fiv. people, two of whom live on Old Bucket Road, by unanimous agreement, wish to protest the wall, the pilasters and anything else that will interfere with views in terms of height; that one of the problems with the pilasters is one more attempt to raise the wall. He stated they have already had notice that they wish to increase the height of the houses to 39 feet in the tract, and by raising the wall as high as possible, they will be 10/12/87 MII?u~,~._~?Ali.~INLC~.TX___Pb~~~~.N_G.~Q~ST y~_IQN ~__~C.T.4AF R_~.,~.._..14 8Z_~.__ __~? =? 53 ..bla to maintain privacy. He stated by lowering the height of the houses, they can retain privacy and not have need for the high wall, kie aL•atc~d many of the residents in their tract are not jt-st drivers on Nohl Ranch Read, but use the road for jogying and walking and do look at the view and fool that is a practical approach. kio stated he gave his opposition two weeks ago and does reconfirm that opposition. Olinda Tan, 671 Andover, Pointe Quisaotte, directly across from the wall, st.nred they just recently moved to the area and had they known in advance Lhat the wall was going to be built, they would got have moved there because there am other beautiful places to move to, but unfortunately they are there and have to dual with it. She stated she has no objections t;o a wall, but she felt a wroughL• iron fence should have been put up, ar-d if the developer is so into putting In these beautiful pilasters, ho should compromise and put in wrougt-t iron fencing with the pilasters. She stated aho realizes the people in that development want their privacy, and sugyoatod they could plant shrubbery behind the fenr_e and those is slope going down, so a person would not be able to look directly into the houses; and that she wanted the Commission to know that st-e objects to it. DSolinda Franklin, Pointe (kuissotte on Nantucket, stated t:-is is a fight between really who has the rights to privacy and the opposers are nok a small community, but Peralta kSills East is just a small portion of the Anaheim Hills community and aftei listening to the opposition's arguments, most of them pertain to blocking traffic noise, getting rid of r.oyokes, privacy of those homes and adding beauty to the community and that is for less than 50 homes, compared to over 1000 homeowners. kie stated generally democracy is the majority of the people's right that are of t"a main concern and she understands these people wanting privacy for tlie3r homes, but did not see how the Commission could compare 41 homeownor.s to over 2000 opponents who have lived there for years whose views have been blocked and the noise also is a consideration. She stated as far as adding beauty to the city by building this wall, she found it hard to justify the wall being morn beautiful. than the view itself; that she really feels it comes down to a majority decision and who this will hurt more or who it will help more and felt the Commission should consider all aspects of the people and not just one specified group.Ma:y Lou Rovers, 10'i Orange Hills Lane, Anaheim, stated when Peralta Hills knew that the Lusk homes were coming in, Choy were concerned, and the Lusk homes were developed with fences that to preserve as much of the views and open feeling of the whole area as possible, and they are wrought iron with block pilasters. She stated fouiA B. Nohl who owned all this land at one time allcwod Lusk to begin the development because they agreed to see that the views were preserved and the area was developed in a way to preserve all the view as much as possible of the mountains, the river, etc. She stated she has lived there for 19 years and the developer cannot tell her L•hat they graded that property and created the view, because she has been looking at the view. She stated she would appreciate it if a compromise could be reached; that compromise is a nice word and it is not a loss for either side. She stated she learned about this late and wasn't aware of the opposition and her name is not on the list of opposition, but she would like it to be added and a lot of people on her street feel the same way because they did not get notice since their property does not border the project. She stated if somebody wants over a wall, it can be nine feet high with spikes on top and they will 10/12/87 ~ ~ ,~ w. MI~IlJT~.~,_II~A~IrINL..~JT.X_ k~~ANNZ~Sz.S9-_~I~.&I4N._QCT4f~E1~~Z,~9.QZ .._._.___2?-1~.4 get over it and wrougt-t iron fencir-g would give 'lust as muuh protectior-. She atatod a wrought i:•on fence would add beauty to the homes in L:^at tract and not make a "win/lose" situation for tt-e community. Vic Peloquin atatod one issue was the sound on the opposite aide of Nohl Ranch Road to ttie south and stated they have had a so±-nd study done on the pilaster caps versus no pilaster caps and also the wa'.1 versus no wall and that was presented to the Planning Commission. He stated the sty-d}~ on the cape shows the difference is absolutely negligible at .005, with 3 decibels being the closest a person can hear from one audible sound to the next. He stated although the wall itself is not an issue today, he authorized an industrial noise control engineer, ,+~~~~ nee been in the business for 20 years, to do a stud• on the wall, and a test vehicle was used at 10 p.m. when there was less traffic involved to create dfsr.repancies between the teat ve2'-icle and ambient noise in the general area, and ho ct~me up with a factor of .5 of 1 decibe as the differential in sound versus the 100 feet where there is no wall and -e portion where there is a well, with the same test vehicle used, at tt~e same speed, with the same driver, and the t~2ata were averaged out over many tests in both locations, so virtually there was no audible difference in the noise and traffic on the residences above. Mr. Peloquin stated regarding safety on Andover Street, that he has driver- the site himself personally and asked the City Traffic Engineer to do a study regarding the safety with the entrance heading west off Andover onto Nohl Ranct- Road, and the Traffic Engineer finds that there is no safety factor regarding he entrance and existing at Andover on Nohl Ranch P.oad. He stated ono person spoke about the rights of individuals, both pro and con, of people driving by and 1000 signatures versus a few people in the Peralta Hills Easr. Estates. He stated the time it t.7kes for the person traveling arross their proper~~y, approximately 310E feet at the speed limit, is approximately 35 seconds, and the maximum a person could look to their left or to their right, depending on the direction they are traveling, would be approximately 5 to 7 seconds, to basically get a glimpse of whatever there is to see, and their Nhole involvement is a total of 35 seconds an the view corridor is approximately 7 seconds. He added he is not saying that there were no views before, and at certain points there were views, and there were certain gullet's and valleys behind the hills where they removed the earth. He staL•ed he has pictures to show the progress of construction and in five locations the hills went from 20 feet up to 35 feet above the road and there were no vista views from cars driving at certain angles, but if a person was able to turn 9xtremely to the right or left, there were valleys and views through there. He stated the trip takes 30 to 35 seconds and they have to consider the rights of the property owners that would be immediately impacted, that being Peralta Hills East or Lhe people on Old Bucket Lane, next the project, and these people have certain rights given to them when they buy into a certain location. He stated the people who drive along Nohl Ranch Road are in then vehicles and they are the polluters and are not affected by the noise, but these people in the residences 24 hours a day, have a substantial investment into that residence, and are subjected not only to that one person, but inunediately after that, another person, etc., and they are trying to have a pollution free environment within the given rights of their property environment, without having that noise in their back yards. 10/12/87 r~ ,; „~HIIT~.~__ANAIi~JJ~M_4I~Y...1?I.ANk.IN.C~ C.41~I.fiS~.ON. ~QST4AER_1~..~9s?_ _.~_._ Q7r7.5~ Concerni.nq light pollution, ho atatod they have rights nut to have light pollution and by virtue of the wall, those people are not subjected to light pollution which wrought Iran or a lower fence would allow. He stated also these people are entitled to as much safety as practical and no one would dispute the fact that a grouted wall with footings with rebar ak 4 and 6 foot centers is a stronger impaaso for a car careening off the highway and coming down an embankment, both f.or the safety of Cho driver and also Cho resident bolow. He stated they hope with people having to concentrate on tk~eir driving traveling at relatively high speed, that fewer people would hp likely to run off that road than if, in fact, they are glancing away from their driving as they traverse the road to look at whatever is there to see. Mr. Peloquin atatRd the privacy and security that this wall proaents to the people is moat importants that tho peoplo driving by i.n thei.r car are not necessarily concerned with security because their windows are rolled up and doors are locked, but the people who gave nn investment in this project and their private residence down below are Chore 24 hours. He stated visibility is a crime deterrent, and without the wall Chore would be visibility of people's back yards and homes, be it a vacant house, a lady home alone, money laying on a table, or just virtually an expensive home, and criminals looking down into their hack,~ards and heinq able to canvass their neighborhoods could increase the crimp, and people have the right not to haze their privacy invaded, and moat important to these property ow~iers and least important to the people present in opposition is the aesthetics and these people are also entitled to the finest r,uality wall and decoration and also if the wall stays, all the people above in `*+e residential community are entitled to the most beautiful wall Choy can ptac;•.+cc,. Mr. Peloquin stated the people 9riving by don't Have to worry about security, light pollution, noise pollutta~, or anybody looking into their back yard and they should be worried about the aesthetics of L•he pilasters, but these people are there 24 hours a day and are investing many thousands of dollars in their environment. He stated people driving by virtually drive to Lheir residence and being secure within the righ~s of their own home and not having light pollution in Choir yards and witl. no noise, and they can chose to be on a col de sac or on a busy street, and the taople down below don't have tht~t choice and they are up against Nohl Ranch Road and it is a very busy and highly traveled street. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst stated the sound study was conducted at a time when noise was at its lowest ambient level and it should have, been taken when noise is the worst and asked where the equipment was placed to test the sound. He added he recognizes the pilasters themselves are not going to reflect much sound and wanted to discuss the wall and the pilasters. Mr. Peloquin stated for the pilasters, the equipment was across from their entrance where there is no wall, about 3/4 of the way up the hill closer to the residences on top of the hill and the sound study was done when there was no general noise because there cculd not be a true average with the general ].0/12/87 w traffic driving by because that would not give a true statement of the reflective noise. Commissioner Herbst stated a good test would have been to test an area where there is a wrought iron fence and then along the area of this wall to get a comparison from the bact~yards up the hill with sound instruments down below and up above, and th~r would have given the bounce of the sound and where it real]y goes, but ju~;_ putting it in front of the entrance did not give a true test and also test~ng at the lowest ambient would nat give the same noise level as there w~ tld be cat other times. Mr. Peloquin ~.ated in order to get a true reading of the reflective sound he asked the sot td engineer to do exactly what Mr. Herbst :gad suggested and he said that could not be done because the average sound dons not reflect what the actual sound reflection is of a given vehicle and the differential of sound from that ono vehicle is wh~+t they were looking for; and that ho took a study up on the hill near the resiUences and there was no wall for approximately 150 or 200 feet and hearing there was no difference in the noise whore there was a wall and where there was no wall and he took an average far the differential. Commissioner Herbst asked why the decibel readings wore not given. Mr. Peloquin stated there is a full study, but the engineer was asked to give just a letter of commentary and the letter gives the .005 differential. He stated the decibel reading averaged approximately from 65 to 75 decibels, depending on the location up or down the hill, but not as far as the sound versus a wall and or wa1l.Commissioner Herbst stated sound over G5 decibels at the property line is breaking the City ordinances. Mr. Peloquin stated tkie 65 decibels does not change as far as the wall is concerned and the wall does not add that much more noise. Commis•;inner Herbst stated t`~at was his concern because they o-zly tested in a short area and they could have tested further down the street where there is a wrought iron f^nce for quite a distance. Mr. Peloquin stated they got the test whore there is no wall acid in areas with a wall. Commissioner Feldhaus stated the Commission keeps discussing the wall anu he moved for a continuance at the last meeting predicated on Commissioner Carusillo's comment about the dedication and the question whether or not the wall was legal. tie stated staff measured the dedication and found the wall was quite legal and wanted to discuss the pilasters; and that the wall is not going down and the Commission is not in any position to tell him .o take the wall down because it was put up with a permit. Cortunissioner Carusillo stated two weeks ago Mr. Peloquin mentio~•ed it was cost prohibitive to modify the wall and the modification everyone would like would be a consideration of perhaps 3 feet of block and 3 feet of decorative wrought iron and a cost estimate was mentioned of X20,000 and asked if ths.t is possible. Mr. Peloquin stated he did not think that it is possible; and that he has not gotten a co study, but the fact that these is a possibility that °t can be saw cut ar oved, does nc., tell him that the City Building Depa.tment would 10/12/$7 ..• ~- ,. ~_ ~} M•I.1~SITF.s._~I8131;jM C1TY_ PLAI~NI_~G C4P411 S_~__I~N•..~S.~OBEIi_12, 19@Z~.~.~-$?_.•Z.~7_ accept bond bonm block or no grog+ting of that wall or if. it includes all dump charged or any costs for more material which they would have Lo put in. He atatecl as far as he is concerned, it is not realistic. Commissioner Carusillo asked if a compromise such as a i-foot block and 3-foot wrought iron could bo a possibility, respecting the rights of the future residents of this new development and the safety, noise, light pollution, privacy, security, etc. factors. Mr. Peloquin stated not only residents of their project but residents on Old Bucket Lane would be negatively impacted with such modification. He stated after the hill was taken down, Mr. Beisner was concerned about the light pollution and noise during their grading which he did not have before because the hills were there and he came to their personnel and asked what would be done about the light pollution acid was assured by both the Building Department and their crew that they would be putting a wall up and they have Bono t'~-l and he is happy with it. H© stated he felt they have an obligation to those people, as well as the residents of the new tract, to not add to the light, noise and security, and those people driving by do no*. have those problems. Commissioner Carusillo stated Mr. Peloquin has made some good points. Fle referred to Mr. Nussbaum who lives in the same tract with Mr. Beisner who implied that the majority of homeowners are opposed. He st~+ted he thought the wall is good and ft will enhance the neighborhood, but that wall is totally blocking any vistas enjoyed by everyone in the area. Commissioner Feldhaus stated two weeks ago Mr. Nussbaum made a statement during a period of high emotion that if Mr. Pea~quin was not willing Lo compromise, than he was not wi].linq to compromise either and did not want the caps, and asked if he is the spokesperson for the people in that area. Mr. Nussbaum stated he is a duly elected member of the Board o. Directors of Rocky ~inte Homeo~rners Association and by direction of the Board of Directors, all members voting in favor, he was asked to attend the meeting and represent their thoughts and also two of the five members reside on Old Bucket Lane; and apparently he is not speaking for ali 186 property owners, but does speak far at least two of the nine property owr9rs on Old Bucket Lane. He stated no one has reflected to the Board of iirectors any positive comments about ~•.he wall. Commissioner Boydstun stated to Mr. Fica that the City staff has indicated the Planning Commissi<n has nothing really to say about the wall and it is a legal wall, so the question is whekher the residents want plain wall or do they want the pilasters on it for decoration, and asked h their gc•oup feels. Mr. Fico stated they realize this is about the pilasters, but the wall should have had a public hearing t~ofore the residents before it was built because the noise has increased. He stated at 5 or 6 p.m. the noise is tremendous and they live on top and the noise study was taken at 10 p.m. and he did not think that is fair, and it should have been taken at the time people are going to r•ork and coming home. He stated he respects all these people's privacy, but wants them to respect the 1000 residents opposed. Iie stated he realizes the Commission has no jurisdiction over the wall c:`1d felt if the wall had some 10/12/87 ~: Y MINUTES. ANAHSIM~,IT~~(,B~I~.II~St~QI~ALI,S,~Qd.._.~TQHFR..]~2. 1987 ,.~.T.~S) wrou7ht iron, the noiaa would not bounce up to them and the residents would like that much better. Commissioner Boydstun asked if the residents would want the pilasters, if they were happy with the wall. Mr. Fico stut.eJ they are not against the pilasters, and are only against the wall. H® stated the wall should have been put before the residents. Commissioner Carusillo stated the Commission is indicatir-g that the wall is legal at six feet and the question is only the additional height of the pilasters and it has beer proposed that either the Commissior- approve that or take what is there. Fie responded that the pilasters would be about 15 inches higher than the Wall, a h.otal of 7'3", and Mr. Fico asked why it can't stay the way it is. Chairman Pro Temporo Mr.Burney stated the pilaster is thA area between the sections of the wall where the openings are currently, and they are mr.de out of a red colored brick. Mr. Peloquin stated they only have two choices, one is to add the pilastern as an integral port of the wall, or remove them and add bricks to the openings. Commissioner Herbst stated a vari,~nce requires the finding of a hardship and asked what the hardship is for the approval of these pilasters. Mr. Peloquin stated the hardship is the aesthetics and the beauty to the City. He stated if they stick to t}ie .hardship imposed on the land, then t'-e wall would have been 25 to 30 feat above the road in certain areas and the hardship is the removal of the soil. He stated he has beer a resident here since 1972 and the Plann?nq Commission has always looked for beautificatiun for the City and for nice• projects and has made exceptions for aesthetics. He stated the hardship is the land, the topography an~1 the comp^ction of the soil and the dedication they had to give the City for the right of way. Commissioner Herbst stated there is a negative declaration proposed and he still feels there is an environmental proble-;- wit2: the wall, but this action pertains to the pilasters. Acxzo:': Commissioner Herbst offered a mcr.ion, seconded by Commissioner 3oydstun anA MOTION CARRIED ~Commiseioners Bouas and *~esse absent) that the Anaheim City Planning CommisRio~~ har reviewed the prof sal t:o complete construction of a 6-foot high •~olid block wall with ?-foot, 3-1/2 inch high pilasters with waiver of maxi -m fence height on an irregularly-shaped parcel of laced consisting of appro: .nately 40 acres, having a frontage of approximately 3,230 feet on the north side of Nohl Ranch Read and being located approximately '100 feet northeast of the centerline of Old Bucket Lane; and dcas hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together witr. any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. 10/12/87 ,, MT.t31L~ES_~N EIM ITY p~e~.I~.~411b.~SSL4N. OC~OB_ES~~.L98~ ._._ .~7-759 Commissioner Herbst offered Reaolut'.on No. PC87-209 and moved for its passage and adoption L•hat the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny Variance No. 3706 0-: the basis the applicant has not shown a hacdah.ip and the design of the wall created the hardship and there are no special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned properties in the vicinitys and strict application of the Zoning Code does not deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other prop~srtios in identical coning classification in the vicinity. On roll call. the foregoing resolution was pas. the following votes AYES: CARUSILI.0, I;ERBST, MC GURNEY, NOESs BOYI)STUN, FELDHAUS ABSENT: $OUAS, MESSE Joe Fletcher, Assistant City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the city Council. RECESS: 2:45 P.M. RECONVENE: 2150 P.M. CHAIRMAN MESSE RETURlIED TO THE MEETING. ITEM l1_Q~Z. EIR I~AT~V.S DEC~9IIA~QLI..S.P~y~_..A~.ROVEU) . WAIVER QF CODE $F,QUiREMENT (.~tk~V. ~P.~QY.~..L~nS9.N~I~I~~AL USE_~.S,g~,'~NO, 2695 ($.Ev~._N_Q,_~ (READY ,~ t PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: THRIFTY OIL CO., 10000 Lakeview Boulevard, Downey, CA 90240. AGENT: CIRCLE K CORPORATION, 17781 Cowan Street, Irvine, CA 92714 ar,d TAIT & ASSOCIATES, INC., 90U Orangefair Lar.e, Anaheim, CA 92801. Property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of Iand consisting of apgroximately 0.56 acre located at the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Dale Avenue, 2801 West Lincoln Avenue. Request for approval of revised plans (Revision No. 1) to permit a convenience market with gasoline sales and off-sale beer and wine. Continued from the meetings of Aug st 31 and September 14, 1987. It way noted the petitioner has requested a continuance in order to prepare revised plane. ACTION: Commissioner Feldhaus offered '+ motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bouas absent) that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to thr~ meeting of November 24, 1987, in orde:• for the petitioner to submit revised plans. ITEM N0. 3 SIR NEGA~VE DECLARATI N (READY.). WAIV~it OF CQpE R UIREMEI~ ,~READV ) SIP CONQITIONAL USE PE M Q~ 2,Q~5 (READV,~ PUBLIC HEARING. OW27ERS: LARRY R. SMITH AND JUDITH I. SMITIi, 17046 Marina Bay Drive, Huntington Besc;h, CA 92649. AGENTS: SHELDON L. POLLACK CORP., 3938 10/12/87 .M MIS.T~~~.8~3F.Irf~1~TY__.PItA~L.Z.NS:_..~Q~~IQ~.y._S?S3'4~F~.~,._19~2._____.__.__ ti? ~.Z.~9 Wilshire Aoulevard, Lee Angeles, CA 90010 ATTN: ALVIN Y. LEE. Pro,porty described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of ]and consir..'~g of approximately 3.5b acres located north and west of the rrorthwASL' cor.,er of Ball Road and Knott Street, 919-959 Knot Avenue. To permit a drive-through, walk-up restaurant in conjunction with a commercial center expansion with waivers of (a) minimum number of parkiny spaces, (b) minimum drive-through lane dimensions, (c) minimum distance between buildingR and (d) required site screening. Continued from the meetings of July 20, August 17, September 14 and 28, 198?. There were three (3) persons indicating their presence in oppusition to subject request and two (2) persona indicating their presence in favor of subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Larry Smith, owner, stated since the last meeting he has had his architect speak with staff and change the plans and that he did speak with his neighbors and at least left messages and his phone number with the three neighbors w.,o were concerned about the problems. He stated it appears the -nain problem is an existing tenant and not necessarily the proposed development and that he would like to work closely with the owner of the property where the gas station is located and the City to Cry and resolve the problems. He stated a sound study will be implemented which w2~ required by the City several years ago ana that the mitigation measure-suggested in that study should take care of the problem. He stated he has contacted the tenant directly at Kartoons and Kapers and informed h:m that if he is in violation, he could lose the lease. Alvin Lee, 429 Santa Monica Boulevard, Santa Monica, architect, stated a sound study was previously done as required by the City and that he has reviewed that study and agrees with the mitigation m~asuras and that is included as one of she conditions of approval and they will. comply with all the requirements and also if there are any other suggestions to mitigate the sound problems with the existing tenant, they will implement those. Mr. Lee stated the second issue was thEt parking study and they have reviewed that study; and that there was a question about the number of spaces allocated to the racquetball facility and they r.e~iewed the conditional use permit and interpret it to mean that the racquetball facility was granted two parking spaces per court which would mean 40 spaces. He stated they will maintain existing ratios for high intense uses and the only variance was for commercial which is 5.25 spaces per 1000 sq. ft. and they have asked for a waiver to 4.0 which has been granted previously. Ho stated they propose 30 spaces for the racquetball facility. He stated previously it was suggested the parking count be done on Friday and Saturday evenings and on weekends for the racquetball facility and the overall parking study takes into account the medium load on the entire center and when the racquetball facility would have higher requirements, the other facilities would have lower requirements. lo~lzis~ :~. M~LTE.S.,_~lAk1.~T.M Ci~Y.L~NI~II~SzS9~~~IS?t3. OCTODER ~2~_.~3,.2.~1._~_ .~7~Z_~~ Ho states they will work with the owner r,nd Code Enforcement to police the existing tenant and if he is in violation, that is the best way to terminate his ease, and the owner will have to work within the law in r_lealing with the tenant. Charley. Hohl, 23165 Vista Way, E1 Toro, stated ho is not opposed to rede~elopmont of tho shopping center an•a he has been in that center for six year• and has gone through a lot of problemss that Y,e recoivea a permit to oper~.te his busic~oss six years ago and he has developed a good business and n11 he wants to d~ is continue to operat his business as he has been doing and somo of the char,gea being requested gill definitely hurt his business. He stated the parking reduction will hurt his business and stated the owner has no concept of his business and as suggested by the Planning Commission, he has not heard from Mr. Smith and that he has tried to sot up a meeting with hi-~. He stated since h~a is in a lawsuit with him, he wanted to have the meeting in his attorney's office and Mr. Smith originally agreed and then cancelled it and said he would only meet him in his attorney's office. He stated he sent a letter to Mr. Smith requesting a meeting. He stated they suggested 30 spaces for his facllity and his current conditional rise permit gave him the use of 80 parking spaces and that number has worked very nicely. He stated his busiest times are not Friday nights anQ Saturdays and ace when the rest of the shopping centec is open. He stated he wants that center to be successful, but that he has gone through a lot of problems it the last six years trying to operato his business and stick with the rules and has gotten nothing in return and would like the right to operate his business as he has been operating it for six years and would like to have the parking which his permit gave him and would like to have circulation so that his business is not pushed back into the corner and wanted his center to be included as a part of the shopping center. Ho stated the parking configuration will not work with cars parked behind other cars ~171d people not being able to get out. He stated he has advised Mr. Smith that he wi?.1 meet with him at his attorney's office. Joyce Keeter, '116 S. Kenmore, Anaheim, stated she wanted to go on the record as being overjoyed with the prospect of a new beginning far this beleaguered property; however, she recognizes there are some problems that must be addressed before that can be accomplished; that she did not believe that one man's dream needs to be another man's nightmare and believed that any groblem can be overcome if the effort is genuine and done in good faith. She stated the Planning Commission, at their August 17th meeting, gave a clear and precise request to work out the many objections that came from several sources and those suggestions were ignored. She stated on August 17th, the first of three plans was submitted and the Planning Commission felt the project would overbuild the property and cause inadequate parking and also the plans were in violation of the terms of Deed of Restrictions and the applicant was advised to revise the plans and to get together with adjacent property owners as is noted in the staff report. She stated revised plans were submitted on September 20, 1987, and the secon9 revision on October 5th. She stated her first conversation took place on October 7th at approximately 5 p.m., two days after the 2nd revision was filed, and that was too late for her to have any input. She stated during the conversation, Mr. Smith infozmed her that he did not have a copy of the deed of restrictions and pointed out that document has 10/12/87 ~IT~$, AN~1tiFi~.M CITY PI+~.~?I~IS S4MM.i.S.;~..i.S2N..~C~O~~fi...l~.._..],s-~7 - -~Z~?~~ been public information since May ~, 1964 and it was mentioned several times In the title report dated June 29, 1987, and waa entered into the record at khe August t7th meeting and a copy was given to the Planning Department. She stated she called the owner on fbr..tober 8 at 11 a.m. and informed him that a ropy was being mailed by cArtifis~d mail that date and it was sent. Ms. Keeter stated Paragraph 3 of that documents states: "No fencpn, bumpers, obstructions or barriers of any kind shall bo allowed upon or in close proximity to the proporty line separating Parcel 1 and Parcel 2, as horeinebove described". She stated a building just 12 feet from her northern boundary, further cornpounded by curbing, plus creating a traffic flow the full length of her property and the concrete island shown are indeed barriers and in violation of this document and there is also curbing on the property line. She stated this document is a contractural agreement between Parcel 1 and Parcel 7. and must be addressed before proceeding with this matter and that she understands that it takee precedence over all other actions. She stated Paragraph 3 of this agreement status this agreement can be annulled, waived, changed or modified by dual consent and duly recorded and she thought that might take some time and asked if she should continue with her criticism of the plans. Chairman Messe stated she should continue because the Deed of Reatrietio-~ issue would become a civil m:,tter ff Mr. Smith is in violation of the document. Malcolm Slaughter, Assistant City Attorney, agreed that document is not binding on the City and is bcstween the property owners and not a~mething the City would consider in determining what uses may or may not ho appropriate. Ma. Keeter stated the Planning Commission felt the plan would overbuild the property and it was suggested the plans he revised; however, this new propose 1 would still grossly overbuild the site and whatev9r is donA on this property will have an effect on adjacent properties for years to come. She stated the y have haA years of trouble generated by lack of concern and she hoped this upgrr;de will be c success and an asset to the area, but as the plans stand, any future developer of her proporty would be adv.:rsely affected, if not put in jeopardy; that changes between the years of 1988 and 1991 will be seen on her property and she wants to see the surrounJing area developed in a prudent. and sensible manner. She stated the name of the game has to be "intelligent planning of land uses" rather than impacting the site with more than its ability to absorb. She stated overbuilding doe•• have a negative affect on the success of arty future developments as seen by the vacancy factor in many smal 1 shopping centers in Orange County and too many walls bock the view from the street and most successful centers have goad visibility and onc3 a shopper turns .into a center, there has to be convenience, roominess, availability, sad maneuverability for the parkins spaces and the majority of the parking in th xs proposal is facing the smaller building on the west snd the drive-through restaurant shown on the east side of the parcel, directly north of her property, uses all the existing parking for the Karto~ns and Rapers, except a few directly in front of thg building. Ms. Y.eeter stated the proposed Restaurant No. 1 also Llocks a clear view of the development from Rnott Avenue and the stores that will be occupying the 10/12/87 MINSI'TFfi.... ANAHE~t C.Ii.'LX..~'~A~NIN~ ~4t~4.'L~.S~QI~_ Q~~.9fi~r.$_..7,~.._.~9.~Z____._-_.__QZf1.~3. now proposed building on the west and has the greatest impart and adverse eflFrct on her property and she believed it is a violation of the deed restrictions; that adequate parking is a ma.~or concern to her and the lack o[ it has caused 1~er tenants untold and very serious problems when Radio City and Woodstock, as well as the French quarters and Kartoon and Kapers, were all in business; and that when the existing buildings were full, the parking was inadequate and asked what will happen with loos parking and more buildings. She stated she dreads facing similar problems and feels her property should not be ao burdened again; that any overflow is always hers to absorb as on-street parking is almost non-existent; that contrary to the field survey shown on page 3 of the tra[fic report dated October 8, 1937, she found by direct observation to be inadequate and that she has been on that corner many times and observed more cars parked than shown in the reports that on October 10th of this year, at G:45 p.n.. there were 23 parked automobiles in front of Kartoon and Kapora; and that she returned at 10:45 p.m and counted a total cf 77 vehicles parked directly in front of and using the land whore the proposed restaurant No. 1 will be located, as well as westerly of this establishment facing the empty building, not counting the three cars parked on the street directly along side this business; however, since there ware vacancies on the street in Lront of the apartments to the north, she assumed these cars were not tenants or visitors parking for the apartments. She sL•ated she wondered when the parking study was done, as the dates shown are from October 29 through November 19. She stated, in summary, she noticed a lack of additional lighting shown for the area on the west in front of the new building, that the positioning of Restaurant No. 2 seems awkward and ill-khought out and since crime has been a factor on this groperty in the past; that dark and narrow walkway in the northwest corner seems ill-conceived. She asked whether the existing buildinys will be remodeled to blend with the new addition which is a different type exterior and suggested rethinking of the proposal. She stated s2~e felt Restaurant No. 1 should be deleted, parking restored, more lighting designaCed, the narrow potentially dangerous walkway revised, and parking be made more convenient and easier to traverses and pointed out the two parking stalls in the upper northwest corner of the plan are useless if one is being used, and that she did not understand tandem parking, and asked where it will be located and if it is applicable in an area this size. Ms. Keeter stated she will welcome and support a nice commercial strip that will be asset to the surrounding cortununity, both residential and commercial, and hoped it will in:orporate sensible hours of operation and be an open, inviting, safe and pleasant place to work and shop. She noted the petitioner did leave several messages on her answering machine on Sunday, October 11, stating he wanted to talk about his new proposal, but unfortunately she was out of town and returned at a late hour and left home very early this morning any has not had an opportunity to return the calls. She stated unfortunately this is a perfect example of an exercise in futility, and an "after-the-fact" effort will not do in this case. Mr. Smith stated he did contact Mr.Hohl Humorous times on the phone after both previous meetings and Mr. Hohl was going to forward him some information showing the peak hours beiny different than the peak hours the traffic engineer used, but that information never came and that he g10/12/gply from ,., MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY .~'IeB~ILI~ISt.S91! "I~,~.S.LQIi.,. Q~OBER..~~..~.9.QZ__~__._.__$.Z~Z.~4 Mr. Hohl's secretary on one occasion that Mr. Hohl had left a message that he could not speak to him without his attorney being present. He stated Mr. Hohl has been in violetion of his lease in the past and he has had to sue him and was awarded a judgement in Orange County Courts against Mr. Hohl, and there is currently another case where there is a lawsuit for back rent and common area charges, and that case is still pending. He stated he did make notes of his comments here, and in fact, changed the drawings trying to accommodate some of the neighbors objections. He stated they reduced the size of the shoppiny center by over 5000 square feet directly relating ro Ms. Keoter's objection. He added one of Mr. Hohl's main objections was the fire lane in tiie roar because fire engines could not get to his building and they moved that wall and left the fire lane and now the rear alloy is as it is they are currently, allowing the fire trucks to completely circle around his buildings and that was also an objectior- from the apartment and he has spoken with the Association and the Manager and hoped that is the reason for their presence today. He stated one objection was that the shopping center rear wall would be moved 12 feet closer to their property line and that has been change:d. Regarding Ms. Ketter's comment that he did not contact her, he ytatH~l he hsd been trying to contact her for over a week prior to that date aucl all he ever gut was an answering service and he finally left messages asking her to call him. He added he wanted to speak to her before the plans were finished and was not able to do that, but wanted to discuss the revised plans and find out if there were any other objections and what they were. He stated he called her this morning and left a message on the answering service anG hoped any objections can be worked out far the benefit of the whole neighborhood. Mr. Smith stated the tandem parking was not included in their parking calculations as part of the allocated parking. Mr. Leo stated from the architect's point of view, he would like to discuss the m,rits of the planning issues and leave the problems with the neighbors out siLCe they are between the applicant and his neighbors. Concerning the parking, tie stated they have just had some revisions returned to them by Mr. Singer and *_hought they had accommodated all his requests; that they feel the ratios are fair because they have been granted in the past and they are keeping the more intense uses at those ratios. He stated there are 22 conditions proposed in the staff report and they agree to all 22, however, Condition No. 2 pertained to a dual driveway on a previous request and a median was required in the street and khey agreed to eliminate the dual access and have a single-lane drive-through, so Condition No. 2 should be eliminated. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED, Chairman Messe stated Commission did receive a communication from IPS Managemenk Company, manager of the Del Amo Apartments, locaL•ed just to the north, and basically their concerns are: 1) elimination of nightly rock music until 2 a.m., 2) opposition to the establishment of a billiard parlor; 3) on sale beer which attracts undesirables; 4) opposition to the extension of the present building farther into the existing alley, bringing it even closer to the apartment bedrooms,(noting, that has been taken care of); 5) opposition to the proposed drive-in fast food restaurant which will be nothing more than a teenage hang out; 6) opposition to L•he limited parking facilities within the 10/12/87 a. •es ,, Mi~.iIITF~.. ~t3A~?M..S..~~]LP.ItAN~IIIiSS.Q~,S.~.~Q~~_S2~TQ.~iaE~..~2.~__7,4~7_____..___._~?-?~.~ developments 7) and request immediate action regarding the present and fu:ura outside maintenance of Kartoons and Kapers with photos are enclosed. Chairman Messe presentee! the letter and photograp}is as a part of the record. Chairman Messe asked Mr. Smith about. the tandem parking spaces, and clarified they have not been counted and added he would like to see those spaces eliminated and replaced with landscaping. Mr. Smith stated he would not have a problem eliminating those spaces and pointed out the location of those spaces on the plan, and stated they would increase the greenbelt. Chairman Messe r•eferrod to the parking study and stated the date of the stud~~ was also a question he had and asked when the traffic counts were taker.. Mr. Smith stated the traffic report was done many months ago and after the last meeting or about one month ago, there were objections and he had the traffic consultant do a new study anQ this study is brand new and is only a few weeks old. Chairman Messe stated the consultant probably used data accumulated previously which has nothing to do with present occurrences. ML•. Smith stated they gave the traffic engineer the concerns of the neighbors and asked that the study be redone and that he should meet with the City Traffic Engineer and do whateve r needed to be done to update that report and this study was just received. Chairman Messe stated Code Enforcement has indicated sii average of 70+ spaces are used by the bar and the traffic study taken on Friday night, October 14 at 6:15 p.m. and at 9:25 p.m. shows 5 parking spaces and 8 parking spaces, respectively, and that is quite a difference. Mr. Smith stated the traffic engineer was recommended by the City. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated he did not knew when Qxactly these traffic counts were taken; that the greatest part of the parking spaces are used at a time when the other stores are already closed. He stated there will be a shared parking condition and that was not even addressed in the study. He stated although the study indicates there is quite an underutilization of the parking, he has nothing else to rely on because he has not taken counts. He added he does not see that there is a conflict with parking because the time of heavy usage at the bar corresponds with light usage on the rest of the center. Chairman Messe stated he i.s questioning the entire study because of the unrealistic data used. Mr. Singer indicated he would make a telephone call and find out the dates of the traffic counts. Mr. Smith stated even wit}~ 77 parking spaces used by t}ie bar, the rest of the stores would be closed and there are over 200 parking spaces. Chairman Messe asked Mr. Hoh~ his peak usages with regard to time, days and months. Mr. Hohl stated he has 11 similar facilities and Monday through Thursday is the busiest, but winter (January, Eebr.uary March and April) is the peak season and the business doubles, so the busiest times are 5 to 10-11 10/12/87 MIH~~.~ . ~~L~3~Y_ P.L~~113~~iC~S.4h~S.I&~.L4~s_.2~.TS?.@~R_~...~.4~Z.-._~._._._~Z~~.4 p.m., Monday through Thursday, except January, February, March and April when Friday and Saturday business increases, so basically January through April are the busies t months, Monday L•hruugh Thursday are the busieRt days, all year long, and during the period from January through April, the business doub]os, and Friday and Saturday are also busy during the January through April period; and that the h;,urs are 5 to 11 p.m. Mr. Hotel stated over the last six years there were a number of situations with the other bars and they were definitely in conf 1 ict. Commissioner Carusillo staked Mr. Hotel had mentioned his original permit allowed h im 80 parking spaces. Mr. Hotel sL•a~ed thal• was the number invoked. Commisaio ner Carusillo stated this plan would reduce the number to 30 parking spaces. Mr. Hotel skated 80 parking spaces has worked well for tYiis business and to take that away is definitely affecting the business. Responding to Commissioner Carusillo, Mr:. Hotel stated he feels he would be isolated with the proposed changes; and khat he is paying 54~ of the expenses of the shopping center now and this plac.is pushes his business to the back corner and he is not getting any benefit of the circulation and visibility. H® added he listened to Mr. Smith earlier and one reason he does not talk to him anymore is because things get turned around. He presented copies of every recorded telephone messages from June until last Friday, which he has received at his office, and there are four messages from June B to Friday from Mr. Smith and the first two do not relate to the shopping center. He stated he also has copies of letters sent to Mr. Smith requesting a meeting, etc. and is bringing this up because Mr. Smith indicated tie tried hard to get together with him. Chairman Masse skated that information should not b© given to the Commission because it would have to be retained. Commissioner Carusillo staked he was sure the neighbors appreciate lho efforts to enhance the shopping center and that he also feels it is long overdue; that he has some concerns regarding Mr. Hotel's investment in his business being ignored to some extent; that his original conditional use permit allowed him 80 space s and this plan indicates he would have about 30 and be isolated to the was t end of the center; and also the sacu:r.itl of the walkway which is 50 feet to r_g, and 5 feet wide is a concern and seems to be a mugging waiting to happen. Mr. Smith stated the walkway can be eliminated; and that he thought it tied the center together. He stated in reference to the racquetball facility being isolated, they have a wrikten contract with Mr. Hotel, which has been upheld in court, wherein he approved the building in that location, and that he got that approve 1 ahead of time Ro they would not have this problem. Regarding parking, Mr. Smith stated they have a copy of Resolution PC81-73 wherei n Mr. Hotel requested two spaces per court and it was approved for a total of 40 parking spaces and they are requesting the 40 be changed to 30 because his peak hours are different than the rest of the shopping center and according to the traffic study, the parking is not required because it is a coin-operated facility. He stated the spaces directly in front of racquetball facili ty are not exclusively for their use and currently there are 46 spaces 10/12/87 M~LiSiT~~_~?A~i~~kLS.~~X_~L+.Nfl~.NS_.~Q1~t~S i~QIi~9.~T9~EB..~~.._~QQZ~._._..~___~L-Z4~ there and the new plan increases that to 49 so he will have more spaces in front of the facility than he currently has. He stated if the tandem spaces are eliminated, he will have 42. Commissioner Herbst asked if there will be storefronts on both sides, Mr. Smith stated there will be glass on both sides, and it will be a single store with glass an both aides. Commissioner Herbst stated the overlap of parking was referred to and if the shopping center is successful, a lot of stores stay open until 9 p.m. Mr. Smith stated the entrances to the akores will De off the main shopping center and not off the racquetball area. Commissioner Herbst that the employees could park fn the roar and then the racquetball facility would not have parking spaces near the facility and normally employees would park iri the rear. Mr. Smith stated the entrances would be off the main shopping center. Commissioner Boydstun asked if the Fire Department would require a back door. Commissioner Herbst stated the plans do not show the design or how the stores will be developed and a lot of retail stores have entrances in the rear and if those parking spaces were utilized by the employees of the commercial operation, which they possibly could be, the racquetball facility would be morn limited. Mr. Lee stated the elevations submitted show only windows in the rear and there are no doors, Chairman Messe stated then Mr, Hohl is being isolated quite a bit from the rest of the shopping center since the rear would be against his racquetball facility. Commissioner Carusillo stated there is no provision for the public to enter the west end of the building, Mr, Lee stated there will be windows to let in light and if there is a Fire Department requirement, they would comply, but thought the only requirement is that it hbs to be sprinklered. Commissioner Boydstun asked if the store will qo all the way through from front to back with one store of if there will be a small store on each side, Mr. Smith stated the plan right now is for a single store. Responding to Commissioner Carusillo, Mr. Smith stated at this time there are no plans to have a restaurant in the center; and that they are trying to upgrade and are trying to get all retail stores and are unable to attract those kind of tenants with the current condition of the shopping center. He stated Kartoon and Kapers is on the existing tenant and doesn't fit into the center which they are striving for, but there is an existing lease and once that leases expires, they would try to replace it with a retail store, rather than a nightclub. Commissioner Boydstun referred to the recent request for a billiard parlor. Mr. Smith stated the rear corner is the hardest area to rent and the billiard parlor had approached them about having a family billiard center in that location and he had indicated that if the City approved it, they would consider it. Commissioner Herbst asked if they had considered a plan that would not block off the racquetball facility. Mr. Smith stated they are not blocking off the 10/12/87 s; ~- ,: MI.N~ITES, ANAH~IM_(~ITlL.~~A.I~L_ItI~ ~~MM.I.~~~.5?~._.2C~.4~R.._..~~_,._.i.~~L ._..~3.=Z.G.Q. racquetball facility, but making the existing center into an "L" shape to makU it conducive for. retail stores and they did contact Mr. Hotel pr;.or to getting started to be aura this would be approved by him and Choy hAVO that approval in writing. Commissioner Boydstun agreed that walkway is not ideal but an access is needed there and asked if something wider and lighter caul.d be put there. Mr. Smith stated the walkway would have skylights. Mr. Lee stated they would be amenable to redesigning the walkway, maybe opening it for 10 or 15 font. Ho stated the Lilliard parlor request was denied and the parking ratio is for retail, so any use other than retai'. would have to have a packing waiver. Chairman Masse pointed out the conditional use permit to permiL• the sale of beer in the billiard parlor was ifonied, buL• not the billiard parlor itself since it care go in by right. Commissioner Boydstun asked if the whole "L" could be moved closer to ttie railroad tracks. Mr. Smith stated they looked into that but it would block the racquetball facility and the store fronts would be facing the racquetball facility rather than facing Knott and pointed out they can be seen from Ball. Commissioner Boydstun explained her. suggestion would bo moving it to the southeast so it would be across from where it is and not across from the racquetball facility, and the operators could have signs on the rear facing Ball Road. Mr. Smith stated then the fronts of the stores would not be visible from Knott and Ball, and his advisers stated those could not be rented and advised him not to build it that way, and if that is the option to just leave it the way is. Paul Singer, Traffic I;nginoer, stated ho has found out the traffic study is more than a year old and the counts are not current and he would not feel comfortable with approval and was under the impression khat it was a new study and was not aware Code Enforcement had found 70 parked cars there which is substantially more than he thought possible and asked how many of those might belong to the adjacent apartment complex, because they do have a shortage of parking. He stated he would like to have a sew sttiidy. Commissioner Mc Burney stated he thought this is very inadequately parked and is overbuilt and the circulation is severely impaired through the center and did not feel this change would he an asset to this center at all and would be a detriment, especially with the two drive-through restaurants and thought that would impact the center and the intersection. Chairman Masse asked if the applicant wants to continue this and get a new traffic study and look a new design. He added he would not accept this traffic study. Mr. Lee stated they would like to be able to remove this from the agenda and look at revisi:.y the plans. Malcolm Slaughter stated the Commission does not have a procedure to take an item off calendar and, unfortunately, they have to request that it be withdrawn and then the applicant has to reapply and a new hearing advertised, or alternatively, continue this to a date certain. Greg Iiastings stated November 23 would be the date of the third meeting from 10/12/87 ..,. M7.L~IlTES. ANAHE.LMS~~.P4~2~N~~1S~._.~~1LS~.1<4.~.._9S~Fiii...~Z.~~QZ_______.__ 87-769 today and if a revist,d plan had any additional waivers, the matter would have to be advertised and anything that noels to bo readvortised aho~:ld be submitted as soon as possible, at least two we~riks prior to the 23rd meeting. Commissioner Faldhaus asked why no site screening was provided adjacent to the railroad tracks and if L•he racquetball building was supposed to sorva as a buffer. Mr. Lee responded no wall is required on the current conditional use permit and it is adjacent to a railroad right:-af-way and they are supposed to have a berm and then a crest at the kop of the track and then the screening wall. of the confer could not be seen. Commissioner Faldhaus stated no screening was proposal and he would like for that issue to be addressed in the revised plans and also the minirnurn distance for the drive-tlirouyh lane as proposed would not be acceptable to him. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated the drive-through lane issue could be Laken care of in the new plan; and he did not believe the applicant has a problem complying with that requ.i:ement. Mr. Lee responded to Corrunissionar Faldhaus that they have two tenanGS lined up for the drive-through restaurants and the plans were based on their standards. Commissioner Faldhaus asked if the tenants for the drive-through restaurants would want to be open 24 hours a day. Mr. Smith explained Wienerschnitzel is one and the other one would be a hamburger stand similr,r to an in-and-out-burger called "Cozy Nook". He stated he did not belic}ve either tenant would want to be open 24 hours a day. Commissioner Faldhaus asked if they had considered a co:r~non theme throu~3hout the shopping center with architecture. Mr. Smith stated he has discuss~,nd this with L•he architect and they were talking about a modern look similar t~~ the Pavilion on Beach Boulevard with pastel colors and awninys. Commissioner Herbst suggested the problem with the adjacent property awners be resolved, even though legally, the Planning Commission is not involy«d. ACTION: Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded Dy Commis:;toner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bouas absent) that conside~;ation of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of November 23, 1987, in order for the applicant to submit revised plans and an up to date parking study. Malcolm Slaughter explained unless there are additional waivers to be advertised, there will be no new naticr3s. ~,.~E_M N0. 4 SIB NEGATIVE~F~.~ARAT~QN~~tE~.~.~iSIFI AT QN NQ,,~_,~7~$~,(~7_. VA~xANCE ~Q, 3 6 8 5 ~N_~A Iy~S2.~GQ.u~S~ L i' I.~~'~Y N'4.,_.~2? PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: ROBERT D. SCHAFER, 292 Wilshire Ave, 8107, Anaheim CA 92801. AGENT: MASSOUD MONSI]IZADEH, 1524 Victoria Way, Placentia, CA 92670. Property described as 4n irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1 acrd located betwP.n Broadway and the northerly terminus of Gilbuck Drive, 1500 Wast Eroadway. 10/12/87 MIN.I1.TFeS. _AHAHEIM SCI.'~Y....~I~~,L~.SLS.~I.~QN._~CTQ~~~__~.~~~~.~7 _.__~~__.~Z=Z_ZQ Portion A from RS-5000 to RM-3000 or a leas intense cone. Portion H from RS-1~-43,000 to RM-3000 or a less intense zone. Waivers of (a)minimum number of parking spaces, (b) minimum structural setback adjacent to Arterial Highway, (c) minimum structural and parking setback adjacent to local street, (d) minimum structural setback (e) minimum structural and parking setback adjacent to single family residences, and (f) minimum recreational-leisure area to construct a 15-unit condominium c~~mplex. Waiver of Counci] Policy No. 542 pertaining to proximity of residentit.~~l units to a railroad track. Continued from the meetings of August 17, Septembe:• 14 and 28, 1987. There were appraximately four persons indic,~king their presence favor of the proposed project and approximately forty-two porsons indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and a1tF,ough the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. It was noted thirty-two persons indicYF~' their presence in apposition before the discussion on Item No. 3 wha had leave the meeting and were not sure they could return. It was noted sr'~ hid 1©it and not returned. Massoud Monshizadah, agent, expla~~~-- ;~..r~, :_hanged the plans for this project three times and changed the entra~4:- `rc,^ c~:~ibuck to AroadwHy and have blocked all access from Gilbuck. Ho star-: -hr r+ ~~s a 6-foot high wall which would be 8-foot high Pram the Gilbuck s,t.~-. w.th .,Rr. emergency access gate for the Fire Department. Ho staked the gre,a. •.>•+s 2~•hind the wall was not included in the calculations, so when it is aci~!~- ~ '~?~e.~ will be more than 1000 square feet and the only waivers pertain Yc •~,•-:r~nq, except the setback to the railroad track. Ha stated these waiver, °~avr t7een granted in the City many times and that they did move the trash e~,~•~:*~.~•.^e area to Broadway and the Sanitation Division they will either pro~•.:!~s :, nick-up service or a trash bin. Chairman Masse asked if the pick-up sere.=:;~«= wrvuld be inside the project and Mr. Monshizadah stated the occupan*~~ w<~~u?d bring the trash to the entrance for pick up. Mr. Monshizadah stated the land cr~µsists of 46,000 feet which is just over 3000 square feet per Iot and the :-equfrement is 3000 square feet; that the City allows a maximum 40~ sitA c~J~teragP and they are requesting 384e and 53 parking spaces are required nn~i tihey a e requesting 53. He stated he has built quality projects in Amatteim and this will be a quality building. He pointed out the people in favor of the project are not present today because he did not think they would h~~ve a full hearing. Henry Davidson, 1504 Alexis, presented photo~~raphs highlighting this reside~stial area and stated Pacesetter, the develops of the original tract, really wanted to keep this a quality residential area. He stated earlier in the herarings today, it was mentioned there was not a :lordship to approve the project and they do not see any hardship in this project, and they do not see any reason to allow "spot zoning" for this project. He referred to the request for s waiver of Cauncfl Policy regarding the 100-foot setback required from the residential property to the railroad track and noted these units are 10/12/87 ~. MILT.~.S~~~~iMS.~~Y.~_LA~it.~N..Sz.S_9k~~~I9~..._.4~~.4~~8_.~.~_._1.4.~~ ____~w.._.._____..~ZLI proposed at 41 feet and the houses in the area are no closer then 80 foot and ho did not think they should bo any closer. He stated this should be residential property and the community does support that concept and at least t1.ey would like to ask the current property owner to clean it. up. John Medlin, 1511 W. Elm, stated they had a meeting with Mr. .James at his house attar the last meeting and these plans were submitted. Ho stated he did not think this is a good project to put in this neighborhood. tte referred to tT~e exhibit Aisplayed on the wall and pointed out the developer asked for .16 units and the Planning Commission auggASted he reduce it back to 15 and that ho simply removed the corner unit where the driveway was originally proposed and he thought in the future, that would be a good place for them to propose a new driveway when they have problems getting out onto Broadway. He stated he lives 3 houses horn that area and there is a raiJ.roacl track across the top of thl+ project and just a few yards from that there is another railroad track and everytime a train passes, traffic backs up and people living in there will rot be able to get out onto Broadway. Ho stated they propose a fire gate with a faro hydrant on their street and that is because no fire vehicle could get into the project and asked if there is an emergency with paramedics, would they be able to get into the project, since many times the fire engine goes with the paramedics. Mr. Medlin stated the Pacesetter homes are 8-feet from the railroad tracks and they era all single story and these are proposed at 41 foot and are two story and he thought they would shake tremendo~~sly when the train passes. He stated also the play area is very small for 15 units. He stated the developer proposes walls except next to their area, so it would be open to their tract, and he felt that it is a bad design. J1e stated the problem with this project is parking and even though they have proposed 53 spaces, they belong to each condominium unit and he did not think people would park both cars in their garagcl and noted soma people might have 3 vehicles and he did not know where they would park. Harry Lister, 420 5. Gilbuck, stated the whole problem is greed of the landowner and he wants to sell the property for 15 or 16 units when it should be sold for 8 or 9 homes. He stated it will create a problem which the City is trying to eliminate at. Walnut and Cerritos of overcrowding, but this will be worse, and he thought the homeowners would revolt and maybe try a lawsuit which is not needed in the City. He stated many of the original homeowners would not have bought if they had known there could be a condominium project like +this built on that property. Peggy Timanus, 1571 W. Elm, stated she is the mother of two eons and there are appro:simately 28 children and they do play in the street. She stated people will want to take short cuts and the occupants of this condominium project will sooner or later learn that this will be a short cut to Gilmer and to Alexis and on to Loara and bypassing the crossing guard and children. She atate~d from Gilman to Manchester there are 5 railroad tracks to cross and in the morning the buses to Fairmont School use Mab1e Street and they also bus children back and forth to Loara Elementary School. and this is a high travelled area and putting in a left-turn lane does not seem reasonable. She stated she is a realtor and there are over 100 condominium units which are not sold and she did not see a big Haab for an additional 15 units. She stated 10/12!87 .. hllLlliTE~~ A~'18~IMS.~Y P.LA~.u1.~t.~QL~SB-SIQd.e OCTOBER 12._.L.293. ...._$?~1.?~ they have threatened the homeowners to put in apartments or low income housing and there are a number of apartments being built within 1/2 mile of this and within another 1/2 mild are the Waterscape condominiums which were built and then could not be sold and were rented until they were sold. Sho stated she sees the unsightliness of this property now and it bothers her, but not as much as a two-story condominium proje~:t would where people will bo storing their bicycles and grills on their terraces overlooking their neighborhood. She stated she did not know what the best use of this property is, but would like to see single-story residences and thought the people who live in the area should have the right to made that request this. Aetty Larson, 308 S. Gilbuck, three houses from the proposed project, stated she and her husband purchased their property in the tract when it was new and she now lives there alone since her husband passed away and if this project gods in, she would be afraid for her property and herself. Ms. Aston, 400 S. GilbucY., stated Gilbuck .•.s a street with a railroad track in the back yard and she just found out that a variance was gc~anted 12 years ago for the construction of their homes on Gilbuck at 80 feet instead of 100 feet and it would be nice if a variance had not been granted because BO feet is just too close; that the pictures on her walls are never straight because of the vibrations when the trains qo by and *he cement work in the yard has been cracked because of the vibrations and 40 feet is entirely too close. She stated they want single-family homes in this area and if they have to have condominiums, they do not want any access to Gilbuck, including the fire access. Michael Parks, 1500 W. Elm, stated he lives at the corner of Elm and Gilbuck and is opposed to this project because of safety, too much traffic and property values. He stated he is concerned about the safety of his children and presented pictures of his house and the view from his house to the are, where the condominiums are proposed. Mr. Parks stated he purchased the property three months ago and was not aware of any proposed projecL• and learned about it three weeks ago and he felt the value of the properties in the neighborhood should be a concern. He stated many people had to work and could not attend this meeting to speak in opposition. He stated at the last hearing Mr. Monshizadeh stated the buyers would be highly educated people who would use this as their primary residence; however, he thought they would not live there long as their primary residence because they are so close to the railroad tracks and it would be too noisy and shaky and he was concerned that the units would be rented out in 3 to 6 months and their property values would decrease. He stated this is all because of a greedy serer and developer and they would leave the area and the neighbors would be left with the noise, traffic and safety concerns. He stated he objects to the mu1L•iple-family unit condominiums and would not want a fire access in the wall and they would rather see the land vacant than to see multiple-family units on that property. Richard Kadolgh, 1564 Alexis, stated he has lived in this neighborhood for 10 years and is now retired and wanted to retire in a nice neighborhood and it has been nice for 10 years; and that he was a postman and had seen problems in neighborhoods where condominiums were built and he agrees with everything that has been said. 10/12/87 MINSIT~~.._~L~~IMS.I TY_~E'_LA~IIiI.NS:~4Ml.J~~~L4.~~.SZC~Qt~4 B._.~Z.. _]:2~Z__._._.._~._@..7.~73~. Victor Maloof, 1551 W. Tedmar, stated he has lived there for three years and has seen traffic build up now and a lot of people drive through that area and whon he comes out Broadway, traffic is backed up from the signal frog Manchester and he did not see how they could possibly build homes especially with L•rains that close. He stated he did not see how tho Planning Department could say there would riot be an environmental impact and thought it was ridiculous how the developer gat this far and thought there must be a pay-off. Mr. Monshizadeh stated the opposition has made the same points and several speakers have talked about the train vibrations and stated tney do not want condominiums there because of the vibrations and there would be 9 single-family homes instead and asked if they thotrght single-family homes would r.ot have vibrations. He stated they do not want condominiums to vibrato at a value of $130,000, but want X200,000 homes to vibrate. !te stated he did not think single-family homes could be sold in that location. He stated that land will be developed with condominitms or apartments. He stated !~e presented a plan to the City for a 6-foot high wall, being 8 feet on the Gilbuck side, which would completely block Gilbuck, so this project would not have any impact on Gilbuck and this project will be completely isolated from that neighborhood. He stated the fire access gate is a requirement of the Fire Department ar_d it would be locked at all times and could only be opened by the Fire Department if needed. He stated he did not understand the one neighbor.'s concern about the safety for the children because the block wall will isolate this project and there would be no traffic in that area. He stated he did not know anything about tho lawsuit referred to and he did not know why the one ledy would be afraid if this is developed and thought she should be more afraid now because it is all open. He ste~tF~d one person is about 600 feet from the project and he did not understand those concerns. Eie stated some people indicated they were concerned about the property values ar-d he thought this project would add value to the property and explained if he could only develops 8 or 9 single-family homes, the value of this property would go down and as a result their proi...rty values would also go down. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Messe explained the wall is to be a 6-foot hinh block wall :.ith 2 feet of wrought iron on top. Mr. Monshizadeh stated there is an existing 2-foot high retaining wall acid the 6 feet he is proposing would make it 8 feet high and it would be a decorative wall. Responding to Chairman Messe, Mr. by the Fire Department in case it far the neighborhood in case there Monshizadeh explained the gate is required is needed and the gate would make it safer is a fire, giving them better access. Chairman Messe asked about the statement that a fire truck would not be able to enter the project. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, the paramedics could get in from Broadway, but there would be a knox box on the gate and only the Fire Department could open the gate. Chairman Messe stated he wanted the opposition to know fire vehicles could get into the project. 10/12/87 ,~; ~~.N~T~~.~-21.11iti~~M..S.i-~')C~..X'itAN(l~-L~~i_C4L'~'S.i.S_S~.Q_l~. Q~~QAFrR _1-2..._).4~Z_______-,.___ ~Z-7•Z4- Commissioner Boydstun stated this street is 25-feet wide as proposed. Mr. Singer stated a private street has to be 28 feet wide. Mr. Monshizadeh stal:ecl they have 28-toot wide driveways and only the entrance is 25 feet, wide. Commissioner Boydstun stated that is the most important one and Mr, Monshizadeh aL'ated he has 3 teat for landscaping, but it could be removed, making this a 28-foot wino driveway. Commissioner Boydstun asked how wide the setback has to be from the building and Grog Hastings stated Code does discuss the minimum distance between buildings, but not to the str~aet, Commissioner Boydstun stated it could bo paved right up to the b~lilding. Annika Santalahti stated whore Code discusses the setback, it relates to front-on garages and parking spaces and they have to maintain certain back-up space and other than that, just the view of the project and any line-of-sight that could be cut off by any building being too close to the driveways for pedestrians or vehicles, but technically, they could pave right to the edge. Chairman Messe stated the applicant has done a fairly good job in answering some of the neighbor's concerns by getting the entrance off Gilbuck, but he is still concerned about the number of variances being requested and khat rested only mean the project would be overbuilding the rroperty and ho had sugg the number of un;.ts be roducnd. Commissioner Herbs L• stated probably this is an area ho would consider "spot zoning" because it is RS-5000 and originally that zone was meant for a multiple-family units. He stated since then t:1e concept has changed and RS-5000 ~w means singles-family zone, but it has not bean cleared up on the General Ylan and this whole area is designated for multiple-family units on the General Plan and it should be changed. He stated this property is zonf~d RS-A-43,000 which is a holding zone and since the surrounding area is all RS--5000, this should be RS-5000 and the tract could be continued very easily and a portion of this property is already zoned RS-5000. He stated this is the wrong project for this area and the price of the land is not an issue with ':he Planning Commission; however, they do understand, but he feels this area is not. good for the project such as this and thought it would be dangerous with the railroad track that close and he thought a single-family project could be developed with a small cul-de-sac street with access to Gilbuck for f; or 7 units, but he could not vote for anything less than RS-5000. Commissioner Boydstun stated parking is right at the entrance off Broadway and. within or.o foot of the property lino of the property next door. Mr. N,onshizadeh stated there it is 3-1/2 or 4 feet and it was noted the plans show 1 foot and Greg Hastings explained the difference could be the overhang of the automobile putting i.t within 1 foot of the property line. p~T~Q~i; Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bouas absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to reclassify Portion A of subject property from the RS-5000 (Single-Family Residential) Zone to the Rtd-3000 (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zone and Portion B from RS-A-43,000 (Residential, Agricultural) to RM-3000 (Residential, Multiple-gamily) to construct a 15-unit condominium project with waivers of minimum number of parking spaces (deleted). minimum structural and parking setback adjacent to an arterial highway, minimum structural and parking setback adjacent to a local street, minimum structural setback, minimum parking se 10/12/Adjacent to ., MINA.~S• A~1~H~FiIM ITY_P,SiA)3NILiS._.C9.~~S.&.I.Q..Ni.Q5~T4.@E~1?~l_94'L_. __..._Q.Zr.Z7~. a single-family residoncer and minimum recreational-leisure area ~~n Rn irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1 acre between Broadway and the northerly terminus of Gilbuck Drive, approximately 250 feet east of the centerline of Gilbuck Street and Further described as 1500 W. Broadway; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received daring the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there i:: no substantial evidence that the project will rave a significant effect c,n the environment. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC87-210 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny Reclassification No. 87-88-07 on the basis it would be "spot zoning" in a single-family residential araa, Malcolm Slaughter stated a portion of this property is presentll zoned R5-A-43,000 and the commission could grant the reclassification to RS-5000 rather than RM-3000 since it was advertised for a less intense zone. Commissioner. Herbst changed his resolution to read: "That Reclassification No. 87-88-07 is hereby granted, as modified to RS-5000 (Residential, Single-Family) Zone on Portion B". On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC GURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: BOUAS Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution tie. PC87-211 and moved for its Massage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny Variance No. 3685 on the basis that there are no special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code does not deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical none and classification in the vicinity. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, @'ELDHAUS, HERBST, MC GURNEY, MESSE NOES ; t7ONE ABSENT: BOUA5 Commissioner Herbst stated he resents the cc:.~nents about pay-offs and that everyone in this City has the right to request what ever they wish for their property and he would protect that right. There was an outburst from the audience and Chairman Messe asked that the opposition please refrain from any outbursts. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MUTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bouas absent) that the request for waiver of Council Policy No. 542 be denied. 10/12/87 jjjNL1TES ANAHEIM CITY~~II~.G_.~..QMMa,~,~.QZL.~2~,.TQ~Fi~I.~.._~.$~-.--.. --•-~-"i-=-~~ Mnlcolm Slaughtdr, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. Commissioner Herbst left the Council Chamber. ix.FM_.HS~,~. E~C~A~Y_~Q~~.4~SA'~Q~,.~~sIYf~9.~~.4n~R~4Il.~B~L~I~~.~?P 5~4.~~~4N.A~SI.~E~.~.~M~TL4_.__~~.44 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: 'TURNER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, 1200 Quail Street, Suite 160, Newport Beach, CA 92660, ATTN: MARK G. MURRE[.. AGENT: DONALD L. NELSON, 940 Mathewson Avenue, Placentia, CA 97.670. Property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0,6 acres, located at the southwesterly terminus of Wesley Drive, 4730 East Wesley Drive. To permit an automobile repair facility 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 road, it is referred to and made a part of the minutRa. Donald Nelson, agent, explained he presently has a business in Garden Grove and has besn there for 17 years and wants to relocate to this site. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr. Nelson responded to Chairman Messe that this operation would occupy the entire building. gQTION: Chairman Messe aff.ered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bouas absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit an automobile repair facility with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces oa an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.6 acres located at the southwesterly terminus of Wesley Drive, approximately 500 feet west of the centerline of Hancock Street and further described as 730 E. Wesley Drive; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there fs no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Chairman Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bouas absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant waiver of Code requirement on the basis that the parking waiver will not cause an increase in traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity nor adversely affect any adjoining land uses and granting of the parking waiver under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the Gity of Anaheim. Chairman Messe offered Resolution No. PC87-212 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant 1oi12ie•; ,, .,a,. ~' .... MS.~ILT.Fi&s~ANAHEIM CITX._P~~IS~~.QI41I.fi~.L41~._.9SZ4IiFR1?,~_._1.9.Q.Z___.._ ~Y-777 Conditional Use Permit No. 2948 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Co do Section 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 and subject to In t ordepartme rital Committee recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYESt BOYUSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, MC RURNEY, MESS(: NOES: NONE ABSENT: BOUAS, HERBST Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City C o uncil. Commissioner Herbst returned to the Council Chamber. ].T~~- ~I~.~Ca~~I~~P~S~6t~?8~.~4L~. W~~~.~.._9.~~QP~~~Q~z~3.E_M~~~?~ rsQN,_p.~.~Q~T~U_.S_E_~~~t~.~ N.4.,_.~..~.4 a PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERSs MANA.Ic.M HAKIMI.l0O, ET AL, 1900 E. La Palma Avenue, Suite 101, Anaheim, CA 92805.. AGENT: FRED GUNZALES, 8639 Gree nleaf Avenue, Buena Park, CA 906?.0. Property is described as a re ctengularly -shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1 acre located a t ttie southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Laxore Street, 2940 Y7est Lincoln Avonuo, Suite "I". To permit on-sale beer and wine in a proposed restaurant with ...liver of minimum number of parking spaces. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to aubject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Fred Gonzales, agent, explained this is to be a Mexican delicatessen with on-sale beer and wine. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Masse asked if this would be a take-out type restaurant and how many people could be seated inside. Mr. Gonzales stated there would be a coupld of tables to accommodate 8 to 10 people. Chairman Messe stated the plans show seating for 18 to 20 people and Mr. Gonzales stated that number has been reduced. Commissioner Herbst stated the one concern would be that this could turn into a regular beer bar. Mr. Gonzales stated that is no t a concern and stated he hope to open at the end of this week or the first o f next week. Malcolm Slaughter stated the restaurant could operate without the beer and wine, until the permit is final. ACTION: Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, serconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bouas absea t) that th:e Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit on-sa 1e beer and wine in a proposed restaurant with waiver of minimum number of par king spaces on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximat i lOyl?/87re located ~. Mi~TES~_at~i~L9 (',ITY_ PLAN~l~LG~.4L~1.~.S~.I9~.~._.9C.~Q~~$..~..~.._~9.$7 _~. ~$Z11.@ at the southoa at corner of Lincoln Avenue and Laxore Street and further described as 2 940 W. Lincoln Avenuet acid does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received duriny the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that tYaere is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commis sioner McBurnoy offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bouas absent) that the Anaheim City Planning does hereby ,rant waiver of Code requirement on the basis that the parking waiver will not cause an increase ~n traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity nor adversely affect any adjoining land ::sea 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 Ana}tieim. Commis sioner McBurney offered Resolution PC87-213 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City lanning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Uso Permit No. 2949 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommAndations. On ro 11 call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOYD STUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONF. ABSENTS BOUAS Malc o 1m Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within t2 days to the City Council. STEM NO~~ EIR NEGATIVE D.~~.A~.A_~.9~~_-L~I_V~F3 Q~ SODE REQUIRi~M~tI~.~B ~QNDITIQNAL USE PERMI~.~14,~9~4 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: POMONA FIR5T FEDERAL SAVINGS b LOAN, 350 S. Garey Avenue, P.O. Box 1520, Pomona, CA 91769, ATTN: KENNETH E. FOWLKES. Property is described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.76 acre located at the southwest corner of Almont )-venue and State College, 1177 South State College Boulevard. To permit a drive-through restaurant with waivers of minimum number of parking spaces and required screening of parking area. Comm issioner Mc Burney declared a conflict of interest as defined by Anaheim City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC76-157 adopting a Conflict of Inte rest Code for the Planning Commission and Government Code Section 3625, et seq. in that he is employed by the competitor and pursuant to the provisions of the above Codes, declared to the Chairman that he was withdrawing from the hear ing in c onnectiun with Conditional Use Permit No. 2950, and would not take par t in either the discussion or the voting thereon and had not discussed this matter with any member of the Planning Commission. Thereupon Commissioner Mc Burney left the Council Chamber. 10/12/87 ~ ,,~' .. MINSITF~S. ~3~iE.~.M_.S~TJC_..~~C.Nlti.Sz...~S~l4l~~.SLt~QC~R~~.F~l~.._~9.~Z_~_ ~Z=Z?_4. '.f here were twelve (12) persons indicating thdir presence in opposition to subject. request and although the staff report was not read, it is refor~red to and made a part of the minut:os. Ken Salveson, 1300 Dove Street, Newport Beach, agent, stated they are requesting a conditional use permit for e. fast food restaurant and a parking waiver from 57 to 49 spaces, and they have requested a 3-foot high landscaped berm which they felt would be aesthetics 1 ly more desirable than a block wall. Jack Campbell, 1908 E. Cliffpark Way, st a tad his backyard Tacos the proposed project and that ho understands they plan to build a Circle K, plus the restaurant. Chairman Messe stated that is correct. Mr. Campbell asked if the Circle K will be 18 feet high and stated his master bedroom is in the rear part of the house on that side and he was concerned about lighting and noise; that there will be a 3-foot wall on that side, with a 6-foot high block wall next to Carls Jr's.; and that there is an apartment complex with about 109 units which access on Almont and there will be quite a parking problem and parking is becoming a problem on State C ollego, with buses parking ther©. He stated they do maintenance on their buses out on the street and when there is a game at Anaheim Sladiwn, he cannot get out on State College and people coming to the stadium will stop at this fast food restaurant causing more problems. He stated he has to qo to Eas C Street, down to Lincoln to Ralphs and he should not have to do that and is opposed to this because of the traffic it will create. He suggested a traffic signal at Cliffpark Way and a • fight limit on the buses. He stated he is not against progress but would ike some help fn the neighborhood; and that they have small children in the area and the buses are dangerous. Dr. Azer, 3810 Katella, Los Alamitos, owner of the adjacent 10$•-unit apartment complex, stated he thought the creation of a fast food restaurant that will be open for almost 24 hours a day adjacent to an apartment complex will almost surround the property on two sides, and the people who live there will not be able to rest and there will be a lot of noise and activities that are undesirable and also there is a possibility they will encroach on the parking in the area. Ho stated this area is zoned residential and can be developed into an apartment complex allowing the same pattern of living to continue, rather than creating a problem for peep le who intend to live there. Connie Collins, 6534 Rutland Avenue, R i verside, property manager of the building owner by Dr. Azer directly beh find Pomona Bank, stated they do have commercial development on the Ba11 Road side and they are constantly repairing block walls due to the use by the comma r.cial operators for storage or parking; that she is representing 10 terra •s who could not come to the meeting and they did not count the number of tenants who oppose this; that the rents are high in this complex and it is above average and the tenants arP very upset about the possibility of a Circle K and Jack in the Hox restaurant on this property. She started they now have problems with diesel fumes and noise from the transmission repair facility on Ba 11 Road and the damage to the block wall. She stated the driveway onto Almont Street is combined and their entrance is right off the entrance to the apartment complex and thought without the required number of parking spaces, they will be parking at their complex and they would probably throw the trash on the ground and trash from fast food places is a problem all eve r the city. She stated it is very hard 1oi12~s7 ~ ~ ~, ; MINIdT.~&.._.~tiBkiF.bL~L~~T.X_.P~.A~~IN_Cz_~ 4MMZ,S~I9~QC~Q~~.l ~ .. ~@? ._ _..._. __ _ _ ~..~.7~.7_~_Q to make a loft turn onto State Gollego, but Auring rush hour, you cannot get in nr out anc` she thought the plan for the area is to be residential and in 1976 it was rezoned to light commercial uses and they like having the bank there bur going to a fast food restaurant and Circle K market is a quantum leap from residential and thought it fs just too much. She asked why retail etandarda were used to determine the parking, if the area for consuming fast food within Circle K is indeterminate and wl~y not call it another restaurant because they will he all over the store, in the parking lot and on the street consuming the food and they should provide 18 parking spaces per 1000 squarer feet. She stated the other main objection is the quality of life with the nois©, car horns and her tenants are really upset about this. Stan Viall, 938 S. Chelsea, property owner of a 4-unit complex immediately across the street from the proposed project, stated there are families living there and objected to the raqueat for a Negative Declaration, khe Waiver of Code Requirement and the Conditional Use Permits because there will be problemn with traffic, noise, trash and also a problem of down coning, and going from residential to financial is not so bad because that wan a day time use and did not bother the residents, but two fast food restaurants will bother them, stating Circle K is no more than a fast food restaurant, and is a teenage hang out and a trash producers. He stated they already have to pick up trash from Carle Jr and they do not complain about Carls because they were there first- but did not think they need more of that typo in that area, but the City does need mores housing. Mr. Viall stated he :.as witnessed 9 accidents -. several of those occurred ar_ross tie street at. Carle Jr. between ..15 ~ nd 7:45 a.m. because people attempted to drive irto Carla Jr. from the .... •n4, which is the lane a person wc:~eld make ~. ri.gh~ turn fror however, .. ~ very high speed traffic in that perking 1anA alongside the :.f:ee traffic lanes and people decide to make a right turn inlcr Carle Jr. ar+•: he thought this would bo just as bad, if not worse. He stated on Thursday he went to the Planning Department to reveiw the papers and the papers which were presented to the public for review contained an error of fact and referred to Question No. 7 of Negative Declaration about traffic and parking, which stated there would be two egress/ingresses on Almont Avenue and said nothing about State College. He stated in terms of noise and light pollution, this is a residential area basically and agreed that on State College and Ball Road there should be cornmejrcial uses, but this is a residential zone and they should not be subjected to adverse noise and light pollution, trash and the down zoning is not necessary and we do not need more commercial, but do need more houses. Violet Gandy, 1138 S. State College Boulevard, almost diagonal from the bank, stated they have lived on that corner since 1960 and were surrounded by orange groves at that time, and theirs was the initirl tract built north of Ball on State College. She stated she did not think her neighbors were aware of this b$cause she did not understand the notice she received, and the neighbors were very incensed because they have a problem getting out now. She stated she hay a letter from her next door neighbor in opposition. She stated they have Car.ls Jr. and Mr. T's Frosty Freeze, a 7-Eleven and Circle K on Ball Road before Sunkist which is not very far away and that is a long block with na 10/12/87 rp rr ~, ~.~ Mxnu~.,..~a~~~r~..s.>`x~g~c~~~.~.~~x~s.~.,~.Q~~s.~~~~1_~.9~ ...~ a~-x~.x, cross streets and there is no way around and sloe felt they do not need another convenience afore or fast food rostuarant since there are 7 f.aat food restaurants in that general area. Lauren Chase, Su Casa Apartments, stated 57 parking spaces are required for the Circle K and Jack in the Box combined and they are requesting only 49 and that will interfere with the parking at their apartment complex; that they have 1 space allowed for each unit and then there is some open parking and as it is now, it would be aevecly limi.tod because the open parking is near the entrance and people stopping at the restaurant or Circle K would probably use those spaces. She stated she did not undorsr.and why they only want 5.5 spaces per 1000 sq. ft. for the Circle K because they are just like a 7-Eleven, and they state it is a retail rise and she would not consider a Circle K retail and did not tiiiiik 5 parking spaces are adequate. She stated a Circle K has fast food and she did not see how they could say only 10 people are going to be parking there; that them is 2600 sq. !'t. For the Circle K and she did not think 10 people parking there is correct and they will be parking on their streets. Ms. Chase referred to the staff report which indicates L-he Commission cannot grant this iE the traffic congestion is going to be greater; and that it is great. right now and she can't get out to go to the store unless she makes a right turn, goes through the light and back around and thought it would be worse, and did not see how the people will be able to get into their apartments. She stated most of the people work full time and that is why they are not here today. She explained tt-ia apartment complex allows the tenants L•o havR animals and that she is single and wantRd a secure place to live and feels very secure there now and lately them has been a lot of trash coming over their wall from Carls Jr. and there will be increased trash from the Circle K and the Jack in the Box; and now there are young men s''..ting on top of the wall at night making comments and she does not feel vec ..^,afe and there is going to be an increase of young peoples and almost all thn pc~+ople there have to walk their dog at night. Ms. Chase stated this area fs zoned for medium density residential land uses and they want to change it to commercial and about 10 years ago it was rezoned from medium density and before that it was single-family residential and it seems we keep pushing and soon they will be surrounded on n!1 s.ides by commercial uses. She stated the Commission should look ~' ~: number of people who will b~ affected by this and it is not only t! G car 13 people present today, and stated they were not given very much n~~-~d, and she did not think the Pomona Bank personnel knew about this, and this was sudden and a lot of people cannot take vacation time to come to this meeting on the spur of the moment, and it would be nice to have a hearing like this at night so mare of the residents can give their opinion. Sh9 stated if this does go through because the city thinks they will make a lot of money from these p~opl®, she would like the Commission to note that the 3-foot berm they wan L• between the properties will not be very effective and usually a 6-foot high block wall is required and she would prefer a 6-foot wal]. to a 3-foot berm because she thought the teenagers would just sit on the berm and throw their trash over. She stated she realixes this is not her property and she mig::t not live there for 10 to 20 years, but it will affect 10/12/87 MI.H1iT~.~.5~._.ADIAEi~.Its.S~.T.~L.~i~.l~.I~C_C.41~1LS,~1~2L~..~5T4~~@.~,2.~].987 __.`__.~.Z:1@~ her and will affect the person who lives there after bor. 5ho stated she chose this project because she felt safe there and it was a quiet place to l.fve, but with a restaurant right in front of them, it might not b9 quiet any more and the people who live there in the future ;nay not be as selective. Mr. Salveson stated they are requesting the variances because with the way the property is situation, they fool they era in a 'double-dip' situation with the City dedication of 12-foot on State College, plus an additional three feet of landscaping, which took away t:wo rows of parking which they would have had in front of the property and they would have met Code without the dedication, but they cannot double-load that front area. He stated that also dictated how they are going to develop the property with regard to parking requirements and they had to look at what uses could be developed on the property. He stated with the Circle K and Jack in the Box, thorn is only a 15~ site coverage which is extremely low and most developers would not attempt a project with only a 15~ site coverage. Ho stated currently there is a 4000 sq. ft. bank building on the property and they are proposing a 4,900 sq. ft. development for both uses, and they have provided a tremendous amount (15'b) of interior landscaping. He stated they had a traffic study done which shows parking requirements most likely will not exceed 18 spaces, and a Circle K typically requires 5 spaces, and a Jack in the Box normally requires between 12 and 17 spaces. He stated the City indicated the traffic consultant who conducted the study was a reputable consultant and the study indicated a maximum peak time parking requirement of only 30 spaces acid they are providing 47, or 17 more than the traffic study recommended, and he would not view parking as a problem and did not think the parking will encroach onto anybody else's property. He stated they feel they are 50~ overpacked. Mr. Salveson stated currently Pomona Federal Savings has a drive-in window and pointed out the existing driveway and explained they feel the traffic flow onto the property and adjacent streets would not cause traffic accidents and thought also for cansideration if the project is permitted, the City will be getting the 12-foot dedication and their property will be the first portion of that dedication, and when the other properties develop, they will give that dedication, and the intersection of Ball Road and State College will become loss impacted which is the reason for the dedication, and to deny L•he parking waiver would defeat the purpose of the dedication. Fle stated he did not feel they will have a noise problem and will provide a 6-foot wall and if required, they would have made it higher and they will provide a 6-foot high wall along Almont, if required by the City, but they did not think a block wall would be an attractive entrance to their project and would not be attractive to the apartment tenants behind it. Ho stated this is a somewhat difficult property to develop and one thing that disturbed him wt;s Dr. Azer's property manager indicated concern about parking in the apartment complex and he felt,. if anything, the situation is reversed and the parking at the bank is used by guests of the apartments at night. He stated Dr. Azer did try to purchase this property and protested that they would sell it to this developer and not him; and he did not feel it appropriate to try and do a "land grab" because you want to develop on the site next to your property. Mr. Salveson stated they have agreed to put blinds on any of their light standards and to face them into the property and to accommodate the residents 10/12/87 M~.~ITFcS._.ANAHEIM CITY ~~jT.1~G C~~,.$.~4.~.t QQ.T,Q}}~i.~..~.~,1._.~..~Q.~___.~._~~_Z_3$~ the beat they can and not have light into their bedroom window, and none of the lights would face residential uses. He stated this would be a clean use and these are national credit tonants and they are known for maintaining their properties and he did no* chink their uses will trash up the area and if they did and there were complaints, they would certainly work to ta:ce care it and make sure that Circle K and .lack in the Box do not create a trernondous amount of refuse. He stated the issue is not that they are doing something negative for the community, and they view it as doing something positive and it is bringing in approximately 32 permanent jobs and 20 to 22 !ernporary jobs in the form of construction and those provide ontry level jobs for young people living in the area. He stated he did not believe this project will caus~• additional accidents and that is a matter of safe driving and they have worked with the Planning Department and the dedication will go toward making that v circumstance that will occur less often. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr. Golish asked to spoak representing Pomona First Federal. THE PUBLIC HEARItiG WAS REOPENED, Robert Golish stated fie has heard soma of the concerns about the type of use and in fact, a financial institution may be a good neighbor, but that site simply will not support a financial institution and they ~~ave looked for financial institution buyers for Lhat site and it .is just not the proper site for a financial institution and it will not be a financial use and the site is zoned for commercial limited uses and not residential uses, and it will not stay a financial institution very Song whether this request is approved or not. He stated with the test of the property, they do not believe it will support any type of residential use and he stated :.t is on a n-ajor thoroughfare designated by the city as a critical intersection and thought this is a good use for that site. THE PUBLIC HEARING WA5 CLOSED. Chairman Meese concurred with Mr. Golish that the property is zoned commercial and not residential. Commissioner Boydstua asked if tl,~ Circle R will sell. beer and wine and Mr. Salveson responded they have requested it. Commissioner Herbst asked the hours ~:f operation and Mr. Salveson responded he understands their hours will be approximately 8 to midnight. Commissioner Kerbst stated normally Circle R is oi•ti^ ''4 hours a day. Mr. Salveson stated they have discussed that with them anti they have not reached a firm commitment with them and they are trying to limit khe hours, Chairman Messe asked if they will stipulate to those hoses area and Mr. Salveson stated he would if that is the tradition. lo~l2is~ ~- ""~` ~ ~~ M.I.~Ili~~fi..._~~f~E.iLi_.~~_T~C_.F.LI~I~SNS.~!~~Z&.S~.4N._~9STq~liti_1.2~.__.1Q 8 Z____,__.__ ___~Z=? ~ 4 Commissioner Horbat stated when this property was rezoned, from residential for financial instituations, it was probably approved because of the light use that would he going in and he thought if somebody had proposed a project like this, it would have been denied. fie stated most financial institutions go into the commercial, office zone. lie referred to the plan and an exit driveway and stated he did know how they would keep people for entering that driveway. Mr. Salveson stated both driveways provide for ingress and ogress. Commissioner Herbst stated someone cominy in off State College wanting to go through the drive-thru lane could not do it because tiiore is a curb prot~ibitng access, and the driver would have to back all the way out. Mr. Salveson staL•ed that was requested by the City's Traffic Engineer. Commissioner Herbst stated he did not think it will work knowing people take the line of least resistance and he could see a bottleneck. Mr. Salveson stated their parking is substantailly more than required and if the City pleases, they can eliminate some of the spaces next to the Circle K ao there is alwagya a turnaround area. Commissioner Herbst stated there ie a parking shortage now and agreed that Circle K and other convenience stores are getting into fast food and they do not meet the same parking staridarda as a fast food restaurant and that is something the Commission is reviewing and will be looking more seriously at in the future] and they are all doing it and advertise on television and also there is an apartment right next to the wall and all the traffic will go right down next to the apartments and he did not think that fs a good layout for the people who are already there. Mr. Salveson stated regarding the possible bottleneck where the curb is located, they can eliminate the entire row of pT~kiny spaces and make it a red (no parking) zone which makes it easy to turn around there and that would not be a problem and noted their parking study requires only 30 at the absolute peak hours and they have 47 or 49 provided for right now, Commissioner Boydstun stated Code requires 57 and l4r. Salveson staled they only have 15'~ land area used and this is a very low density and they could Fut about 8,000 sq. ft. of retail spare wiL•h hours thak are less controllable khan a Circle K and Jack in the Box. Fie referred to the traffic flow and pointed out the apartment building location and the parking, alley and driveway and noted they have a 10-foot setback form their property line and a 10-foot wide cizculation pattern and they felt that was generous and an adequate distance between the apartment units and thought their bathroom areas are along the rear of the building which would limit the amount of noise getting into the building. Commissioner Herbst agreed the apartment romplex is set back a ways but the developer should loo Y, at the layout and the speaker system f.or ordering is right next to that area, and that will send the noise right straight to the apartment complex and those are his concerns. 10/12/87 ,~' ""' ~. .. h1I.ZLi1T~S.._AN~tiF~fS?.~Y...~I~ALZ1It3~SQI~II.~~I.O~._.__Q.C~T9.8f~3..~3.~.~293___._ ..!!? -? 9~ Mr. Salveson atated that problem .is a matter of speakor volume and the volume would be limitAd. Commissioner Herbst stated it teas to be really loud to bo heard over the motor running. Mr. Salverson atated if it was a problem, traffic would have to curtailed on State College and he thought• these people are not reeving thei:~ enginos and are not racing and noise would bo minimal. He stated it is 40 to 50 feet to the building, plus another 10 feet and then the rear of their apartmont project with the bathrooms in the rear portion facing their project. Commissioner Herbst skated after 10 p.m., the ambient noise level drops and people are going to bed to try and sleep and with a spoaker going right next to their building, it could be a problem and he did not think they could control. it. Mr. Salveson stated they have that now with Carls Jr. and no one has complained. Commissioner Carusillo asked the distance to the nearest residence from the speaker. Mr. Salveson re:~ponded about 80 feet, and explained there is a wide alley, plus parking, ar~d the packing stalls are 15 feet with a minimum alley of 25 feet, and that is 40 feet and there are some additional space between the alley and t:he pnr:•Y.ing area with a sidewalk and they are back 10 feet. Cornmiasioner Carusillo stated he did not see whaC other kind of use could be developed on that property becauso it is restrictive and he could not see a housing tract. Chairman Messe stated he did not think it would be developed for housing on that busy sr_reet and asked Mr. Singer about the suggestion relating to the turnaround area. Mr. Singer stated the whole problem revolves around the drive-through lane because it has to be 160 feet long and in order to tuck it out of sight, it is going behind the Circle K building, therefore, requiring a physical separation from t1'~e parking area to behind the building and actually forcing all drive-through traffic behind the Circle K building. He stated the only way it could be remedied would be to reorient the drive-through lane and bend it around the building towards State College, thereby losing about 6 or a parking spaces and already this project is requesting a substantial parking waiver and taking more parking away is really not recommended. He stated the drive-through lane is going to be awkward at best. Chairman Messe stated the plans show Circle K has such things as hot chili and hot dogs and if he brought hot chili, he would not get back into his car and leave and felt it really is a fast food establishment and yet it is considered retail. N,r. Salveson stated the actual floor area f.or fast food consists of a cooler where some prepared foods are kept and a microwave oven for heating the food. Chairman Messe stated the plans show a chili pot and that is fast food. Mr. Salveson stated the fast food is very Iimiteil and it is approaching a grey area perhaps in that it is hot food, but a candy bar can be purchased at a drug store. loil2ia~ Mi13SLT~&, .~B~i.FIM CITY .ELAN.1.135._CS~Z4~[I.S~S39.~~_S2CT4~_.~~.~._.19~3..._._.. Q.Z-.Z$4 Chairman Masse stated he thought if a person buys hot food, they wi.il not got right into their car and drivR away and wily sit there to eat it or sit on somebody's car or inside their car, or on the 3-foot berm. Mr. Salveson stated he did not see that as the cases that Jack in the Box is a drive through and many people do drive through, order their food and drive away and a lot of peoplo going into Circle K would purchase the food and go away. Chairman Messo stated it is a grey arer~ but wht,n a person goes to Jack in the Box, they know Choy are going there to i.~urchase food and when they go to Circle K, they might spot the hot chili and decide to buy it. Commissioner Feldhaus asked if they plan to put in gasoline pumps. He asked if some of the problem pertaining to the distance for the drive-through lanewould be alleviated if the entry driveway was moved further south toward Ball Road. Mr. Singer responded the reserve right of way is for a future overcroasing of the railroad and that is eventually going to be a grade segarakfon and he did not think the driveway could be moved either way and the City owns access to this property, except at this driveway. Commissioner Carusillo agreed with the developer that an overflow parking problem would be onto this property and not onto the apartment parking. Ho stated the lights would not face into adjacent properties. He stated, however, he fe]' the hours the sale of beer and wine and the confusion getting to the Jack in the Box must be addressed. A gentleman in the audience stated a person could stand on the J-foot high berm and look right into his bedroom window, Commissioner Carusillo stated one of his concerns was also that 3-foot berm and he can understand the neighbor's concern and asked about a 6-foot high wall and Mr. Salveson responded they would provide the block wall, but suggested a berm with a hedge to make it look nice, or a 3-foot berm with a 3-foot block wall, which he thought would achieve all the purposes. He stated they would have signs showing how to get to the drive-through and it was the City's recommendation to put in the curb to force the traffic to the drive-through and perhaps the Traffic Department would allow two spaces to be eliminated to provide a turnaround area. Commissioner Herbst stated he realizes this property is zoned commercial, but thought it probably should be zoned commercial, office and stated theca have been too many problems with drive-ins and this type of convenience store abutting homes and there are always complaints. He stated he thought this is just the wrong use for that location. He stated he cealizes it is a problem parcel, but something more comgatible with the residential uses could be developed. Commissioner Feldhaus stated he feels there is some way to work this out and the nearest residence is about 60 feet away and that is quite a distance and with block walls there shouldn't be a problem and there is already a restaurant to the south. He stated he would like to see the developer discuss 10/12/87 ,~, ~ r{j~,~A_AHAHEIM CI~._PL~NHI~S ~.4MMT.,iS34N...~C.T9..~B 12, 19.8.Z.._._.____.___.._~.Z_2Q.7_ the problems with the Traffic F.nq~neer before he makes a decision because he does not want to discourage anybody from being able to do busineaa ir. this city if. it ,:an be worked out between all parties concerned and the developer nooda to have a chance to address those concerns. Commissioner Carusillo stated the plans show a trash bin in front of the Circle K and asked if. there are any others. Mr. Salveson stated they had a tight requirement for parking. Commissioner Carusillo stated the Jack in the Box requires a trash container and Mr. Salveson stated they can provide one towards the rear of their building. Commissioner Carusillo stated he agrees with Commissioner Feldhaus that if they can satisfy the concerns and also the 3-foot berm issue because the gentleman was concerned about somebody standing on the wall and looking into 2tis property. He stated some of the neighbor's concerns have been mitigated. ~~~iQ~l: Commissioner Herbst atfered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bouas absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit a drive-through restaurant with waivers of minimum number of parking spaces and required screening of parking area on an irregularly-shaped prcel of land consisting of approximately 0.76 acre located at the southwest corner of Almont Avenue and State College Boulevard, and further described as 1177 South 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 rev.few 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 Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bouas absent and Commissioners Feldhaus and Carusillo voting no) that waivers of code requirement be denied on the basis that the parking variance will cause an increase in traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity and adversely affect any adjoinfnq land uses; and that the granting of the parking variance will be detrimental to the peace, health, safety or general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC87-214 and moved for its passage and adop`ion that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny Conditions: Use Permit No. 2950 on the basis that the proposed use is too intense for this area adjacent to residential uses, and would be detrimental on the public's geace, health, safety and general welfare. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOYDSTUN, HERBST, MESSE NOES: CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS ABSENTS BOUAS, MC BURNEY Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. 10/12/87 ~.~~. _., F~,~._AN HEIM CITE PLI~N ING COMM~$.jQ~., OCTOBER _~,~.~._.~,9~7. Q7-78.$ j,~j,~„~,,~ E;$ NEGATjy~,_(~yA,gB~.LN (PQEV. APPROVED) AND CONDITIONAL USE ~$M~.T~4,~~.2_.~B.E.~ILY..1 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERSs DARLE HALE, 3910 E. Coronado, Unit• B, Anaheim, CA 92807. AGENTS JAMEa KINDERMAN, 3910 Coronado, Anaheim, CA 92807. Property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.63 acres, having a frontage of approximately 207 feet on the south aide of Coronado Street, and further described as 3910 East Coronado Street (Units F, H, I AND J). Request for deletion or modification of Condition No. 1 pertaining to payment of traffic signal assessment fee of Resolution No. pC87-10A. The applicant w~ss not present. It was noted this request is to delete the condition requiring paymenmt of the traffic signal assessment fee and Chairman Messe stated the decision would be based on whether or not she definition of his uco is that it is commercial or industrial. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated when the signal assessment fee was established, a traffic study was conducted and that study lumped certain uses together, with all residential uses put together, including hotel and motel uses, all retail uses were another category, institutional and affico type uses another category and industrial uses another category, so there wre five different rates for fees and auto related uses were put in tine retail category and there is a difference in traffic generation. Chairman Messe asked if this petitioner was aware that the fee would be based on retail uses and Mr. Singer responded that was included as part of the conditions. Malcolm Slaughter, Assistant City Attorney, stated the Commission could act on the request without the applicant. being present. It was pointed not Mr. Kinderman was present earlier in the meeting and had an emergency phone call and left. Commissioner Herbst stated tie has been to the site and reviewed the use and he felt a percentage of the business is manufacturing. Ho suggested this be continued so the Commission can find out what actually is being done L•here. Paul Singer responded to Commissioner McBurney that the difference in fees on this particular application would be about 5600,00. Chairman Messe asked that staff advise the applicant if the matter is continued. There was a brief dizci~ssion regarding the type of usb and what is actually being done on the premises. Chairman Messe stated he did noL want to set a precedent because then every automobile related ua.e will be asking for the same consideration. 10/12/87 I1~~L~I~..__.A~Bf1~3M_S.I.TY,...PkAt3~.I.~iS C9.t~.IS.&.IS?I3.L_4~T4~E$.~..?~_~.l~Z._... __~Z.-~~Q ~~,Qpjs Cf;airman Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissoner Carusilla and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Douas absent) that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of October 26, 198?, in order for the applicant to be present and answer questions. ~~M NO,~ F~.~NEGATIVE DEC~g~,~.ION ANA TENTATIVE MA~.4~ TRACT ~.3.~,.~.9 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: PHILIP W. GANONG, ET AL, 2307 Myrtle Street, Bakersfield, CA 93301, ATT.Ns JANET GANONG. AGENT: SAND DOLLAR DEVELOPMENT, 17802 Skypark Circle, 8109, Irvine, CA 92714. Property described as an irregularly-shaped pascal of land consisting of approximately 5.8 acres, having approximate frontages of. 230 feet on the east lido of. Lakeview Avenue and 300 feet on the north aide of Hightree Circle, and further described as 1770 North Lakeview Avenue. To establish a 25-lot, 22-unit RS-5000(0) zone subdivision. Th9re 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. Commissioner Herbst asked if a Negative Declaration has already been approved on this. Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, responded a Negative Declaration was approved in connection with the variance, but this tract was not considered. Tony Chavez, Vice President, Sand Dollar Development, 17802 Skypark Circle, Irvine, explained they propose 22 single-family houses in this area and will comply with the condi::ions. He stated they will finish an existing cul de sac and dedicate it back to the City and the project will be surrounded with block walls and these will he high quality houses. He stated this project does have three oil wells and their company has done a tremendous amount of work with the oil companies in 3evelopment of other tracts surrounded by oil wells. He explained they plan to take out the existing lines and coordinate them to a single trench down the middle of the street and they plan to build an 8-foot high decorative wall. He stated the CC&Rs require maintenance of the walls, irrigation, landscaping, etc. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner McBurney asked if they will be doing anything to the oil wells such as removing the derricks and putting them below grade, or adding any covering, ar if they will just leave tham as they are. Mr. Chavez stated typically they construct a decorative wall around the wells; that these are not the high type wells that are visible and more than likely they will disappear behind the wall and they will put in decorative landscaping. He stated they are required by Texacc to turn one of the oil wells for better access, but they will not be visible and they will not be lowered. ~, r- ~ ,~; t~LT.IiuT~.S.._..A~iAEiEI.M....~3.TIC...x.1~BN.dill.G_.~91~hiIB~.~4L1,,QC.TQ.@~.Ei_l3_.~9~7~ _. 62..799. Commissioner FAldhaua naked who will bo ke:sponsihle for the future maintenance of the linen which will bo placed in trenches in the street. Mr. Chavez stated that will be a private street and the o: lines have to be accessible. H® stated the CC6Rs provide f.or the str~At and wall maintenance and lendscapin<.I, but the oil lir:ea and oil wells are maintained by Texaco; and Texaco now has a maintenance program and actually petrol every oil well evert hour, 24 hours a day. Commissioner Feldhaus asked if Texaco would be responsible far an eruption of: the linos or anything that would cause damage within this project, and indicated his concern was the liability. Mr. Chavez stated the lines are all located in single ditches and hey will know whore those are, whereas, in a lot of areas, it is not known who they belong to or whore the lines are located because L•hpy cross eacr other, etc.. Commissioner McBurney stated putting in new lines will reduce the possibility of rupturing. Mr. Chavez stated the requirement of new lines is very substantially by Texaco and they iravu to be coded and of heavy scheduled pipe. a~TION.L Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED (Conunisaioner souse absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to establish a 25-lot, 22-unit RS-5000(0) Tone subdivision on an irregularly-shaped parcel of .land consisting of approximately 5.8 acres, having approximate frontages of 230 feet on the east side of Lakeview Avenue and 300 feet on the north side of Hightree Circle, approximately 115 feet south of the centerline of Orchard Drive and further described as 1770 North Lakeview Avonuo; 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 substantia]. evidence that the project will have a significant effect an the environment. Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bouas absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find that the proposed subdivision, together with its design and improvement, is consistent with the City of Anaheim General Plan, pursuant to Government Code Section 6b4'13.5; and does, therefore, approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 13129 far a 25-lot, 22- unit RS-5000 (0) single-family subdivision subject to L•he following conditions: 1. That the owner of subjec~ property shall pay to the City of Anaheim a fee for tree planting purposes along Hightree Circle and Lakeview Avenue in an amount as determined by the City Council. 2. That prior to final treet map approval, appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an amount as determined by the City Council. 10/12/B7 w QI~9..~ M~.~F.~l A~BH~C.r~ ?L1~NN~LG ~QI~.S.S.~S~K._~.T~~.E)i....i~.._._i.2@_Z_... 3. That piiar to issuance of a building permit, the appropriate traffic signal assessment fee shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an amount as determined by the City Council. 4. That prior to final tract map approval, the owner of• subject property shall pay the appropriate drainage assessment fees to the City of Anaheim in an amount as determined by the City Engineer. 5. That the owner of subject property shall irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of Anaheim a strip of land 5J-feet in width from the centerline of the street along Lakeview Avenue for street widening purposes. 6. That the owner of subject property shall irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of Anaheim an additional strip of land 12-feet in width from the centerline of the street along HigY~treH Circle and variable as required to complete the standard cul-de-sac at the easterly termimvs of HighL•ree Circle for street widening purposes. 7. That all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim along Lakeview Avenue and Hightree Circle, including preparation of improvement plans and inate,llation of all improvements such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks, water facilities, street grading and pavement, sewer and drainage facilities, or other appurtenant work shall be complied with as required by the City Engineer and is accordance with specifications on file in t2~e Office of the City Engineer; and that security in the form of a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or cash, in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of J.naheim, shall b© posted with the City to guarantee the satis:actory completion of said improvements. Said security shall be posted with the City prior to final tract map approval to guarantee the installation of the above-required improvements, prior to occupancy. g. That all private streets shall be developed in accordance with the City of Anatieim's Standard Detail No. 1.22 for private streets, including installation of street name signs. Plans for the private street lighting, as required by the standard detail, shall be submitted to the Building Division for approval and included with the building plans prior to the issuance of building permits. (Pr.ivate streets are those which provide primary access and/or circulation w'th?n the project). g. That prior to final tract map approval, street names shall be approved by the Zoning Division. 10. That prior to any occupancy, temporary street name signs shall be installed if permanent street name signs have not been installed. 11. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. 10/12/$7 ,. M~.~T~.S.~_8ti~i~~M.S.I~___.~kAN1~3.t3G_~QI~1I.~Q.tI,__45.~4~~8~Z..~~Z ~._.~?~_~. 12. That should this aubdiviaion be developed as mor~+ than ono aubdiviaion, each subdivision thereof shall be at.bmittod in tentative form for approval. 13. That the property owner shall furnish to the City of Anaheim an agreement in a form to be approved by the City Attorney agreeing to complete the public improvements required as conditions of this map at the owner's expense. Said agreement shall bo recorded concurrently with the final tract and is not to be subordinate to any recorded encumbrance against the property. 14. That street lighting facilities along Lakeview Avenue and Hightroe Circle shall be installed as required by the Utilities General Manager in accordance with specifications on file in the Office of Utilities General Manager, and that security in the form of a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or cash, in an amount and form satisfactory to th9 City of Anaheim, shall be posted with the City to guarantee the satisfactory completion of the shove-mentioned improvements. Said security shall be posted with the City of Anaheim prior to final tract map approval. The above-required improvements shall be installed prior to occupancy. 15. That all lots within subject tract shall be nerved by underground utilities. 16. That prior to commencement of structural framing, fire h./drams s.: =: '. be installed and charged as required and determined to be necessary by the Chie`. of the Fire Department. 17. Thaw prior t~ final building and zoning inspections, "No parking for street. swoepi~ig" signs shall be installed as required by the Street Maintenance and Sanitation Division and .in accordance with specifications on file with said division. 18. That gates shall not be installed across any private street in a manner which may adversely affect vehicular traffic in the adjacent public street(s). Installation of any gates shall conform to Engineer.a~l Standard Plan No. 402 aad shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 19. That prior to signature approval of the water system improvement plans by the Water Engineering Manager, the appropriate fees due for primary, secondary and fire protection shall be paid to the Water Utility Division by the owner/developer in accordance with Rules 15A and 20 of the Water Utility Rates, Rules a.nd Regulations. 20. That as required by the State Division of Oil and Gas a minimum 8-foot high concrete block wall separating the oil well lots from the residential lots shall be constructed and maintained. 10/12/87 i 7~' w% ~IT"JTES1 ANAHEIM ~T'CY .~?L]~I3I~I_N_G CQ~~,$ION OCTO_BF~~.?u 1987 87-ZQ.~. 12. That should thla subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shell be submitted in tentative form for approval. 13. That the property owner shall furnish to the City of Anaheim an agreement in a form to be approved ty the City Attorney agreeing to complete ttie public improvements required as conditions of this map at the owner's expense. Said agreement shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract and is not to be subordinate to any recorded encumbrance against the property. 14. That street lighting facilities along Lakeview Avenue and Hightree Ciz~cle shall be installed as required by the Utilities General Manager in accordance with specifications on file in the Office of Utilities General Manager, and that security in the form of a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or cash, in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim, shall be posted with the City to guarantee the satisfactory completion of the above-mentioned improvements. Said security shall be posted with the City of Anaheim prior to final tract map approval. The above-required improvements shall be installed prior to occupancy. 15. That all lots within subject tract shall be served by underground utilities. 16. That prior to commencement of structural framing, fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and determined to be necessary by the Chief. of the Fire Department. 17. That prior to final buildi--g and zoning inspections, "No parking for street sweeping" signs shall be installed as required by the Street Maintenance and Sanitation Division and in accordance with specifications on file with said division. 18. That gates shall not be installed across any private street in a manner which may adversely affect vehicular traffic in the adjacent public street(s). Installation of any gates shall conform to Engineering Standard Plan No. 402 and shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 19. That prior to signature approval of the water system improvement plans by the Water Engineering Manager, the appropriate fees due for primary, secondary and fire protection shall be paid to the Water Utility Division by the owner/developer in accordance with Rules 15A and 20 of the Water Utility Rates, Rules anal Regulations. 20. That as required by the State Division of Oil and Gas a minimum 8-foot high concrete block wall separating the oil well lots from the residential lots ehall be constructed and maintained. 10/12/87 '~ '`" Mil3Ii~F.u~.._~Iil~i~IM..SIT]LP~+_$dtli.~iS~S4.~Mx$~39.N.`-Q~T4~~3...~?u 19.~Z.___- 87 3..4.x. 2l. That prior to issuance of a building permit, the appropriate major thoroughfare and bridge fee shall be paid to the City of A~iaheim in an amount as specified in the Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Feo Program for the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor, as approved by City Council Resolution No. 85R-423. 22. That the vehicular access rights to Lakeview Avenue shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim. 23. That prior to final tract map approval, the original documents of the covenants, conditions, a.nd restrictions, and a letter addressed to the developer's title company authorizing recordation thereof, shall be submitted to the City Attorney's Office and approved by the City Attorney's Office, Public Utilities Department and Engineering Division. Said documtnt:s, as approved, shall then be filed and recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder. 24. That .he approval of the Tentative Map of Tract No. 13129 is granted subject to the approval of Reclassification No. 87-88-04 and Variance No. 3680. 25. That prior to final tract map approval, condition Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 13. 14, 22, and 23, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. 26. That prior to final map approval, the requirements set forth in Condition Nos. 1, 3, 8, 10, 'l 1, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21, abovementioned, shall be set forth on the face of tha final map in a form satisfactory to the City Engineer. Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 10 days to the City Council. ITEM NO•~Q Fit CATEGnRicAL E E7~ MPTION~CLA,S~_ ANn 5~43?DITIO AN_L USF PERM~T_ NO,~ ~q0 (R~ApVERTISE~ PUBLIC HEARING FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME. OWNERS: FRANK R. KROGMAN, 1507 Buena Vista, San Clemente, CA 92672. AGENT: SIiENG YUAN L. LU, 3424 Olinda Lane, q8, Anaheim, CA 92804, Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 2.7 acres, located south and west having of the southwest coraer of La Palma Avenue and Magnolia Avenue, approximate frontages of 105 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue and 457 feet on the west side of Magnolia Avenue, being located approximately 185 feet south of the centerline of La Palma Avenue and 185 feet west of the centerline of Magnolia Avenue, and further described as 2610 West La Palma Avenue. (China Bowl Restaurant). Request for approval of a 2-year (retroactive to September 25, 1984) extension of time under authority of Code Section 18.03.093 or deletion of Condition No. 2 of Resolution No. PC 78-227 pertaining to required extensions of time to retain on-sale beer and wine in an existing restaurant. 10/12/87 'N' <~ 7 r Ml.t~iT~.~HaHE~MwC,.i.T7C.._P~I~NN.~NG__C4.MME.S.~~,4t3..~9~T4~~i~1__?~~T_____ ..~~L-Z.24i Ernest Geo, 1261 Williams Strout, Buena Park, interpreter f.or Mr. Lu, explained Mr. Lu wants to buy the China Bowl restaurant which has been in operation for over n decade and they Head a two-year retroactive extension to sell wine and beer; and that it has been a peaceful operation and he would like to have the two year time limit deleted. Marlene Chicoine, 935 N. Magnolia Avenue, two doors from the center where this restaurant is located, stated the restaurant, the China Bowl, is the only docent place in the whole center, but wanted to present evidence to the fart that this center is selling a lot of alcohol and they have two bars, two liquor stores, three restaurants selling beer and wing already and it has become an uncontrollable situation for the whole neighborhood. She stated they do not have enough bathroom facilities and the China Bowl is the only establishment that furnishes restrooms for their clients. She presented pictures for the record and stated she is not here to complain, but to make a request. She reterred to a latter signed by 52 residents which was submitted and stated this is a nice area with a city park at the end of the street and there is an elementary school right there and those areas ace being affected by the low class typo bars in this canter. Ms. Chicoine apologized for bringing this up in connection with the China Bowl because they keep their property clean and they provide restrooms. She stated the bar clientele is using L•he alloy between their homes and the restaurants for a restroom and that includes the lio-nes along Magnolia and Felizidad Circle where the residents can see them. She stated her neighbor, Mr. Xoung, is awakened faithfully b;~ midnighk with the partygoers who get tired of paying the bar prices and move their party to the alley and sit on the 2-foot high fence between hie home and the center and party until 3 or 4 in the morning. She staked the staff report says there is no adverse impact and r.he police are called three or fear times :+ night on Thursday, Friday and Saturday, to try and maintain this problem and the homeowners on Felizidad are really upset because it is so bad. She added this used to be a nice center but it desperately needs upgrading; that it has no trash cans t-nd the first three neighbors pick up three barrels of trash from their front yards every weeks and that Mr. Yo+ing has contacted the owner. She pointed out the pictures show the trash he has to pick up every Saturday morning. She stated the owner is fighting what is going on in his renter, but he needs to spend the money to upgrade this center so a nice clientele will return, including the people from the neighborhood who supported that cen:.er for 25 years. Shu stated this was a nice area and the other businesses in the area have nice trees and keep their properties clean. She stated the plumbing and electrical need to be looked at because the store operators are having a bad time also. Ms. Chicoine stated Mr. Young, her next door neighbor, is present fn opposition to the activities at the center, but did not wish to speak. THE PUBLIC HEARING WA5 CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst stated it '~e health, safety and welfare of the community is involved. Ms. Ch •*.ated they have called the ^ity to complain through the years. 10/12/87 ~r •~r +k (~~~;$, ANAI{EIM S~X~LA~t~.ItiG COMMI~~._ 4~.ZOBER 12.~1,~Q'L _..QZ:,,Z,2~ Commissioner Herbst stated mayho it is time to get Mr. Krogman in to find out why he has not been able to control this, and maybe some of the parmits of the business them can be reveiwed for revocation. Ms. Chicoine stated the store owners arc now turning off all the lights because of the activities at night and it fa a totally dark area for all this activity. Commissioner Feldhaus stated the staff report indicates there have been no complaints and it was noted that relates to the China Bowl only. Ma. Chicoine stated the China Bowl faces La Palma away from the residences, and that it has always been clean and they always close early, and their clients don't use khe alley for parties attar that restaurant is closed. Malcolm Slaughter, Assistant City Attorney, stated the comments the Commission ;just heard do not directly relate to this application and the Commission can take action an the request. He suggested the Commission instruct staff to review the past conditional use permits to determine which ones were granted by the Commission and which ones may have been granted by the City Council; and then the Commission, under authority of the Code, can set those for hearings to consider possible revocation or amendment to add conditions to alleviate the problems, under a number of different conditions, depending on what the evidence might show or what ma}• be gathered at the hearing and through investigation by the City staff. Commissioner McBurney clarified the Commission can grant this extension and then review the other conditional use permits for businesses in this center. He asked if this petitioner could still operate the business if this request is continued in order to review the other conditional use parmits. Mr. Slaughter stated the Commission can go ahead and grant this and then review the other permits separately for possible revocation. Chairman Mesae stated he would not want to delete the time restriction on this use. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED ~C~mmissioner Bouas absent) that Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant a 2-year extension of time (retroactive to September 25, 198A) to expire on September 25, 1989, on the basis that said permit is being exercised in a manner not detrimental to the particular area and surrounding land uses, nor to the public's peace, health, safety and general welfaxe. Mr. Lee stated China Sowl is strictly a restaurant and they serve lunch and dinner and the beer and wine is sold with the meals and they close at 10 p.m. and the people mentioned who are causing problems are not from this restaurant. Chairman Mesae stated t}~e Commission understands that because this center happens to be a problem area right now, but does not want to delete the time limit. 10/12/87 w u~, :~ MS.N.IITES.~._.A~iF.IM_S~I~C._P.L~L~Ni2i~S~t~-?S~~t~2CT.4~E~.~.___~.4.~ __.~-~L:.Z.9~ Commissioner Feldhaus asked about the retroactive extension. Greg Hastings responded it is retroactive back to tt:e date that it last expired and an additional two years is approved from today. Greg Hastings stated an old eL•aff report indicates that Chore throe actions on that property, one for on sale beer and wino in another restaurant on the property app~'oved by the Planning Commission and conditional use permit was approved in 1962 by t1:e City Council for a cocktail lounge an '. that could be the ore presenting the problems. Chairman Mesue stated Commission would like a report from Planning staff and Code Enforcement and the Police Department regarding activities going on there. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, stated that report will be placed on the agenda when it is ready. Malcolm Slaughter stated if there are to be any revocation proceedings, there will be notices mailed similar to one for today's he.xring. Commissioner Boydstun stated Code Enforcement should be contact~~ to investigate the problems, so that it is on the record. ~M N0. 11 REPORTS ANp~~OMMENDA~39.~~ A. ~.~VIS PRO D,I~R~S FOR, R~~C1•ASSI~ FICATI.Q~1...~~Q i~T~4.N.~.Ia~-~--~MS.T.~~ VARI CE PP IC-T~ INNS - Request from the 7.oninq Division for a directive to implement the appropriate revisions to application procedures for Reclassification, Conditional Use Permit and Variances. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bouas absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby instruct staff to implement the appropriate revisions to application procedures as outlined in the staff report for Reclassifications, Conditional Use PermiL•s and Variances. B. ANALYSIS OF ~~~L~~-~~TIONS IN SC£NI(' CORRIDOR - Request from Planning Department staff for the Planning Commission to initiate a study ko examine fencing regulations in the SCQriiC Corridor to enhance viewshed protection. g~Q~1: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Cornmiss'•oner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bouas absent) that, the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby instruct. staff to initiate a study to examine fencing regulations in the Scenic Corridor. 4THFR DISCUSSION: Commissioner Herbst stated he would like for staff to review the property on which the Jack in the Box was proposed to see if CO would b© a better zone than CL. He stated the use on it right now is CO, but it is zoned CL. 10/12/87 w'h .. .....ymM~+ntaivt...y_,yfv:....~ . ....,. , , ~._ ._ -.. u..~..~:1.tr yl.:..lia~~~::~:i+. ...y:;r...lw-> 4w_~v;l!HJ(.1.~/'eAYFnSn+ - _~ ~. - ~ w Mi3311TE.S~.B~IA~i~.IM..S I TY PL At~L Ili~.~9~~~.I.~.~.T4l~.H~.~..~Q~Z_.__r_....~__~Z=.Z2Z Malcolm Slaughter asked if the Commisson wishes to initi~~te that zoning or bring back a study. Commissioner Herbst stated he would like for staff to review it and see if it is feasible, and then if it is feasible, Commission might want to initiate they r~xoninq. Commissioner Mc.Burney statati a comment was made by Commissioner Herbst about the requirements for these type uses being the same as a fast food restaurant, and added he thought the Commission should review the parking requirements for convenience-type markets which sell fast foods. Chairman Masse stated the petitioner actually mentioned at the hearing that it is no different than people driving into Jack in the Box to purchase food. i'SZ~~I~_.I_L~~~ Jacelyn Jarrett, 1550 W. Tedmar, stated she has been concerned since the discussions began on the Schafer propArty that they era proposing two-story units and the homes that would be to the south and thQy are the homes given the variance for 80 feet instead of 100 feat from the railroad track. She stated she was concerned that with two stories, they will end up with the same noise problems. She asked if staff could revsow the original approval for the Pacesetter tract to see if they had a variance for the homes against the railroad tracks acid added those homes should not be two stories so the neighbors will not have to come back and fight the same problem again. She added they have CC&Rs for t1~e Pacesetter homes, and nobody enforces them and there is no committee to see that they are enforced. She stated when someone mentions having CC~Rs to solve problems in the future, that is a concern because that doesn't take care of the problems, and it comes back to haunt all the homeowners later and she would appreciate it if the Planning Commission would keep that in mind. Chairman Messe stated in most cases, the CCbRs do take care of the problems. Ms.Jarrett stated from her experience in a tnwnhome in Anaheim, the Parkdale development adjacent to Buena Park, the CC6Rs did not take care of the problems and that she owns units on Sunkist and there were supposed to be CC&Rs to keep a park maintained, but it didn't; and thrt there was a fee in the townhomes and they did have problems working with the City of Anaheim because they were surrounded on three sides by Buena Park anri they had poor police service, road service, etc. Commissioner Herbst stated a lot of the developments are planned communities with private roads and they have to maintain them and the City has no obligation to maintain the oil wells. Ms. Jarrett stated in the previous case, Texaco was going to maintain all of that or the CC~Rs would and in ten years, the homeowners could forget they had to maintain those roads. Commissioner Herbst stated h~ lives in a condominium project and they pay a fee every month for maintenance of the streets and it is well taken care of and if that is not done and if the people don't pay fees, there is no money to take care of it, but if this development approved today, there will be a private street and the City will not be maintaining it and they had hatter take care of it. 10/12/87 i~i.~lLTE~,~~.iM CI.TX_.?.k N~N_ING coMMISSION. OC~.Q@.~i3~..~~@_7_ ~__._~.Z=Z9~ Ms. Jarrett stated in the first development 4he was in, they did pay a fee and they did have problems, but they worked them out; but she owns an apartment unit and the CCbRs have gone defunct and wore dissolved before she purchased it; and that the manager has bought 25 of the 40 units and eventually when he awns them all, wants to have the CCbRs re-established and then ask all the owners to put money in so it pan be brought up to par. She stated her concern is that in the develcpment of the Pacesetter homes where she lives, there is no board and no money being paid into anything and they are now seeing all the antennas go up in that area and all the neighbors accept and believe that no ono should be telling them what to do, but they are willing to come here and tell this developer what to do. She stated she did not like what the developer was going to do either, but realized there were restrictions when she purchased the property. Malcolm Slaughter stated a fundamental misconception of CC6Rs is that somehow it requires an association to enforce them, and that is not true, and if a person owns property that is subject to and benefited by CCbRs, and if they want to spend the time and money, they can get them enforced by the appropriate legal action and normally people are not aware they can do that or do not want to spend the money, and an association with a broad are simply some other parties whc enforce those same regulations that normally the individual homeowner can do and the obligations are still there and it. is just a question whether they are enforced. He stated the RS 5000 zone which the Commission approved today on the Schafer property permits two-story houses as a matter of. right and if somebody wanted to develop a two-story home, it would be permitted. Ms. Jarrett stated there is one two-story home there, but it is closer to the street and she wanted to know if the variance for the 80-foot setback required single-story residences. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, stated City Council Policy 542 which the Council would have had to approve if the Commission had approved that project actually has two parts; one is that there is not supposed to be any residence closer than 100 feet and that Pacesetter got that waiver to 80 feet; however, the other part says that if there are residential structures within G00 feet, there is to be a sound barrier providing line of sight shielding from a point S feet above the tracks to the save of the structure, so if there was a two-story structure, the barrier is suppos~ad to be earth and berm with a 6-foot high wall and the developer was asking for that waiver, as well. She stated technically if the waiver is granted for the railroad that close, there would have to be a really high fence and that stye noticed in the staff report, only the 100-foot setback was discussed and that is for all residential structures. She stated the one that comps to mind easily is at Imperial Highway and was built after the EIR regulations and those units have the large berms and walls. Commissioner Carusillo stated he is concerned how that reference to the berm just slipped by the Commissioner. 10/12/87 MII~SLT~.~IA~dE~LC_I.TX_YbI~t1.~.N~~~t~sS.~Q`3.....~ST.Q~.~.ti~1..~.__3~4~3.._ ~.Z-39.4 Annika Santalahti stated she would assume the dev9loper is going to app~+al this to City council and she will provide khat information. She explained the neighbors will get a new notico similar to the one they received on this hearing. Ms. Jarrett stated there would have to be ovor an 8-foot fence if the units are over two story. Annika Santalahti stated tho berm could not be used so a 20-foot wall would be required. Ms. Jarrett asked if there is any chance that the City would buy that property and turn it into a park because they really have a problem with the children in that area. Chairman Mosse stated the only possibility of that happening would be if somebody donated it to tho City. He thanked Ms. Jarrett for her input. 4 T Fi~LA_3.~GU&~ i.4N : Commissioner Feldhaus asked for a redefinition or interpretation cf fast food restaurants so that tt:ese issues will not have to be re-discussed by the Commission from timo to time, such as the preparing of food in conjunction with mini-markets and also the sound attenuation for speakers at ordering devises. He stated these are things that have come up. Malcolm Slaughter stated their office works with Planning staff to formulaL•e Codo and the definitions of restaurants are numerous and came about as a result of months and months of work by staff and the Commission and it would be very difficult for him to start working on those definitions and most of the inpuk comes from the planners. He stated regardless whether it is his office or the planners, there should be some direction from Commission, as to the problems and how they want them addressed. Chairman Mosse stated this has been addressed several times in public hearings and there is a problem with tY,is very definition of a fast food restaurant- and whether the Circle K with the hot chili pot available is a fast food restaurant. Commissioner McBurney stated technically therA are three different types of restaurants - a sit-down restaurant, a drive-through/drive-up restaurant and a carry-out restaurant. Commissioner Feldhaus stated there are all kinds of restaurants mentioned in the Code: walk-up, semi-enclosed, drive-through, fast foods, etc., and the problem is the interpretation of the preparation of the food. Commissioner McBurney stated if food is prepared, served or in anyway taken from the premises, it has to be a carry-out restaurant. He added he wants the Commission to get together and address tY,is problem. Malcolm Slaughter stated just from the conversation between two Commissioners, there are six different restaurants defined in the Code and when they were adopted in 1967, they all addressed specific issues and tried to distinguish various types of uses and maybe there should be some refinements. 10/12/87 ~IJ~E,~.~~AHEI~TY PLANNING COMM~~Q~,_QS,~J~~ 12~~~~_` 87 gQ,~ Commissioner Herbst stated one question is at what point does a place like Circle K become a restaurant. Annika Santalahti stated when they were doing the convenience markets and discussions at Commission level had more to do with the off sale of alcoholic beverages, Arco stated they sold han-burgers,otc. and the City Council discussed the question as to when it becomes a restaurant but chose not to deal with it and it has arisen on a few other cases and now all of a sudden everybody seems to be doing it. Chairman Messe stated Ralphs has a deli~bar with sit down facilities and that probably doesn't matter because they have a large amount of parking, but when it is a Circle K, that is a different situation. Commissioner Herbst stated service stations are now getting out of the service end of the business and going into fast foods. Commissioner Feldhaus asked that some time be sat aside on the agenda to discuss this and come up with some definitions. Chairman Messe stated that can be done at a morning session. Malcolm Slaughter stated he is not disagreeing with Commission, but staff has to have an idea of the Commission's concerns and how they want them addressed and staff needs to start from a common ground, and it takes time to come up with the definitions. Chairman Messe stated they were done in 1967 and things have changed. Commissioner McBurney stated it is more the use than the definition. Chairman Messe asked if a time should be established now. Annika SanL•alahti stated prior to scheduling the discussion, staff can try to collect some information. She added she assumed perking is the ultimate concern and maybe changing the parking codes. Commissioaer Feldhaus stated on several occasions there has been an associated problem with respect to off-site improvements and widening of Harbor Bouelvard and other streets where cash payments were required in lieu of bonding, etc. and that particular issue was referred to Planning Commission for a report by the City Council on July 21st and referred to their minutes. He asked what mechanism the Commission has to get that feedback. He noted that matter is scheduled to go to the Council tomorrow and they have not gotten any feedback from the Commission. Annika Santalahti stated she has a copy of the ordinance that will be submitted to City Council l-omorrow which she can give the Commission and she can relate to rho Council that Commission received the ordinance at the same time they got it. 10/12/87 -. "' ~ .,5. MIffiiT$,S• AHJIHF,~SM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCT,QBE~, 1 1987 87-80,~ ^~m,niaaioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by CommiaBioner Boydatun and MOTION CARRIEb (Commissioner Bouaa absents that the meeting be adjourned. The meeting was adjourned at 6:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Edith L. Harris, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission 0027m 10/12/87