Loading...
Minutes-PC 1988/11/07 I E ~~.~ tLEGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAAEIM CITY PLANNING COMMI I N Date: November 7, 1988 The adjourned meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to order at 8:30 a.m., November 7, 1988, by the Chairwoman, a quorum being present in the Council Chambers, in order to tour the Scenic Corridor with regard to height standards. Following the tour the Commission returned to the Council Chambers and reviewed plans of the items on today's agenda. RECESS: 12:15 p.m. RECONVENE: 1:35 p.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairwoman Souas Boydstun, Carusillo, Feldhaus, Herbst, McBurney, Messe COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Joel Fick Carol Flynn Arthur L. Daw Paul Singer Greg Hastings Mary McCloskey Leonard McGhee Linda Ribs Edith Harris Planning Director Deputy City Attorney Deputy City Engineer Traffic Engineer Senior Planner Senior Planner Associate Planner Assistant Planner Planning Commission Secretary AGENDA POSTING. A complete copy of the Planning Commission agenda was posted at 10:00 a.m., inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chambers, and also in the outside display kiosk. Published: Anaheim Bulletin - October 28, 1988 PUBLIC INPUT: Chairwoman Bouas explained At the end of the scheduled hearings, members of the public will be allowed to speak on items of interest which are within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission and/or agenda items. #0126m l MSN[iTES ANAHEIM CITY Pi LNNSNC COMMISSION *T^'•°^•b~r 7 1988 PTeP No 2 ITEM NO 1 CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3064 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: METTLER ELECTRONICS CORP., ATTN; Stephen Mettler, 1430 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92801. AGENT: FAR WEST BANK, 2825 Walnut Avenue, Suite "B", Tustin, CA 92680. PROPERTY LOCATION: ia~^ South Anaheim S1 Request: to retain an automobile storage lot with waivers of (a) minimum front setback and (b) required screening and enclosure of outdoor uses. Continued from September 26, October 10 and October 24 1988, Planning Commission meetings. A T N: Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and tdOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of January i6, 1989, at the request of the petitioner in order to submit revised plans. ITEM NO 2 CEOA NEGATIVE nFrraRATION AND C,.QA~I'rIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3076 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: EX}CON CORPORATION, 1200 Smith St., Houston, Texas 77210-4415. AGENT: TAIT AND ASSOCIATES, 800 N. Eckhoff, Orange, CA 92613. PROPERTY LOCATION: 279 East Lincoln Avenue REQUEST: To permit a convenience market with gasoline sales, fast food sales and off-sale beer and wine. Continued from the meeting of October 24, 1988. ~TION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned mattes be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of November 21, 1488, at the petitioner's request in order to submit revised plans. 11/7/88 MTNiiTFC LNLAFTM rTTV PTLNNTNr COMMISSION November 7 1988 Paae No 3 TTEM NO 3 CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 3075 (READVERTISED) PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: EXXON CORPORATION, 1200 Smith Street, Houston, Texas 77210. AGENT: TAIT AND ASSOCIATES, INC., 800 N. Eckhoff St., Orange, CA 92613 PROPERTY LOCATION: 1198 S. State College Blvd. REQUEST: To permit a convenience market with gasoline sales, fast food sales and off-sale of beer and wine with waiver of permitted enclosed retail sales area. Continued from the meeting of October 24, 1988. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Commissioner McBurney declared a conflict of interest as defined by Anaheim City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC76-157 adopting a Conflict of Interest Code for the Planning Commission and Government Code Section 3625, et seq., his employer's profits co+?ld be affected by this use and pursuant to the provisions of the above Codes, declared to the Chairwoman that he was withdrawing from the hearing in connection with CUP 3075, and would not take part in either the discussion or the voting thereon and had not discussed this matter with any member of the Planning Commission. Thereupon Commissioner McBurney left the Council Chamber. Robert Fiscus, 800 N. Eckhoff Street, Orange, agent, explained this is a request for a self-serve convenience store and that they concur with all the recommended conditions, except No. 12 requiring that separate men and women's restrooms be available to the public. He explained they are proposing one unisex restroom facility and the problem is strictly space, and that space is limited because the Orange County Health Department requires a dressing room in this facility, in addition to the amount of storage area shown on the exhibit; and that they have several other requirements to meet. He stated the unisex restroom meets Title 24 requirements and is large. He added they comply with all the parking requirements and have provided the additional five spaces. Mr. Fiscus stated Exxon is basically proposing a very clean operation and it is their company policy to not allow any video games or allow pornographic magazines to be sold. He stated for .a long time they did not allow their dealers to sell beer and wine, but with today's competition, they are basically being forced into it. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Messe stated the Commissioners did not get a justification form for the waivers. Mr. Fiscus responded the original building was 1043 square feet and they enlarged it to 1143 square feet, and with the size of the site and the 12-foot dedication required, it is too small to make the building lli7/88 >_~ ~, lggg_ Paae No. 4 larger and still comply with the parking requirements and provide circulation, especially for the tanker trucks. Commissioner Messe responded the site just might be too small, and Mr. Fiscus stated the standard site is 150 feet by 150 feet, but they had to dedicate 12 feet for the critical intersection standards, and provide 5 additional parking spaces. Chairwoman Bouas pointed out they would not need the additional parking spaces if they did not wish to serve hot food, and suggested perhaps he should review that matter with Exxon to see what can be done. Mr. Fiscus stated ha was willing to request a continuance to try and discuss alternatives with Exxon. Commissioner Herbst stated he has not voted for the sale of beer and wine in a service station facility because it just makes it too convenient to purchase the beer or wine and drive away and perhaps drink it in the vehicle while driving; that there is a liquor store nearby and it is not needed at this facility; and that the site is too small and this use would violate the City's ordinances. He stated there are other 135-foot wide sites where it has been allowed but it is just too much for this lot. Commissioner Feldhaus agreed and added if they cannot allow for two restroom facilities, then perhaps the square footage should be reduced for the retail sales area. He statod it sounds like this is too much for this site and he would not oppose a continuance in order for tho petitioner to talk with Exxon representatives. He stated he would want to have that extra restroom and also suggested a condition requiring that they be properly cleaned, maintained and supplied. Mr. Fiscus stated Exxon has a history of maintaining their facilities and forcing their dealers to take care of things and that he would like to have the condition modified regarding the restrooms because they do plan to keep the restroom properly cleaned, maintained and supplied. He stated he would speak with Exxon regarding the separate restrooms, however, and also about the sale of fast foods and perhaps resolve these issues and conform to code. He added it is not a situation of too much activity oa the site, but the motoring public has come to expect these things at a service station. Chairwoman Bouas added he should also discuss the sale of beer and wine with Exxon because it is not looked upon favorably is Anaheim by the Planning Commission cad probably would not be approved by the Commission; however, she would not speak for the City Council. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated he would like an opportunity to work with the applicant to design this site so that they can have the needed square footage and provide restrooms and good circulation, and was sure it can be done. Chairwoman Bouas stated she thought the earliest continuance would be to January 4, 1989, and Mr. Fiscus indicated he would like to have it earlier. Chairwoman Bouas reopened the public hearing. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Mc Burney absent) that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the meeting of January 4, 1989, at the request of the petitioner. .:~ ^~} ~ih~tTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNZ1tG COMMISSION November 7 1988 Paae ,7~. ~ TTFta NO 4 CEQA N T VE DECLARATION SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL NO 88-11 AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO 13716 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: MARIE CHP.ZSTENSEN AND ELBERT F. CHRISTENSEN, 200 S. Fairmont B7.vd., Anaheim, CA 92807. AGENT: HILL WILLIAMS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, ATTN: Gary Schuthles, 5500 E. Santa Ana Canyon Rd., #251, Anaheim, CA 92807. Property location: Property is approximately 7.03 acres on the west side of Fairmont Blvd. approximately 1,120 feet south of the centerline of Santa Ana Canyon Road. Petitioner requests approval of Tentative Tract No. 13716 to establish a 13-lot single-family (RS-HS-22,000) subdivision and remove 50 specimen trees. It was noted that subject petition should be continued to the meeting of November 21, 1988, in order to correct as advertisement error. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mc Burney and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Feldhaus absent) that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the meeting of November 21, 1988, in order to be readvertised. TEM NO 5 CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION GENERAI PLAN AMENDMENT NO 248, RECLASSIFICATION NO 88 89 14 AND CONDIT~nuat USE PERMIT N0. 3077 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: VICTORINA SOTELO, 3107 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801. FRANSLIN EUGENE RRAAT2 AIiD SOYCE LA VAUN kCRAAT2, ''»~11 W. Lincoln, Anaheim, CA 92801. DAVID NEGRON AND DIANA NEGRON, 3115 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheia:, CA 92801. AGENT: NEWPORT PACIFIC REALTY AND INVESTMENT, 4400 DfacArthur Blvd., 9th Floor, Newport Beach, CA 92660 PROPEi;TY LOCATION: 3107. 311 and 3115 West Lincoln Avenue REQUEST: RS-7200 to CL. Petitioaes requests an amendment to the Laad Use Element of the General Plan to redesignate subject property from Low Density Residential to General Commercial. To permit a 9-unit, commercial retail center with waivers of (a) mazimum structural height and (b) minimum open landscaped setback abutting residential zone boundary. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Al Marshall, Newport Pacific, developer, explained this is to be a strip commercial center for cantinuaace of the commercial uses along Lincoln and this is the first phase of what is intended to be a total purchase of entire properties along this street. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. 11/7/88 MINU'T'ES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION November 7. 1988 Pave No. 6 Commissioner Herbst asked for clarification about the continuation of this project is that entire block on Lincoln, and asked staff if a General Plaa Amendment should be processed for the entire block, rather than just this portion. Mr. Marshall stated they have two other parcels under contract, but they are separate, and these are the only parcels under their control, and that they are working diligently to purchase contiguous parcels. Commissioner Herbst responded a General Plan Amendment for the whole block can still be processed rather than just "spot zoning" these parcels is the middle of the block. Magdy Hanna, agent, asked if a general plan amendment can be done on properties they do not own without the legal property owner's authorization. He explained there are over 20 properties and it would be difficult to get all of them at:. one time, and L~Sded he is in favor of changing the whole block to commercial. Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, stated the City would be required to have either authorization of all affected property owners' or the Planning Commission or City Council could initiate the amendment. Chairwoman Bouas stated the plans do not show the entire block. Mr. Marshall explained the design is modules repeated and the one in the corner would be open L-shaped, and that each would have a return. Paul Siaqer, Traffic Engineer, stated the plans do not reflect what has just been stated and in order to provide circulation to adjacent properties, a parking waiver would be necessary; and that the plan should reflect circulation with adjacent properties and especially the property to the east which would not have access to Lincoln Avenue. Commissioner Bouas stated this property would not have a lot of access to Lincoln and the City Traffic Engia er does not want driveways out of each commercial strip. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated he felt some advanced planning should be done so that adjacent properties will share access and circulation. He stated the plan as presented isolates adjacent properties from each other and it would require a separate access point. Commissioner Herbst added he thought ir. some General Plan Amendments, the City has stipulated there could only be so many access points, and Mr. Siaqer responded those acce.ls points could be established with an overall plan. Mr. Marshall asked if they could request that the Commission initiate a General Plan study of the whole block and then they will return with the overall plan and work with the Traffic Engineer to make sure the acxesses are is accordance with the City's wishes. Commissioner Messe asked if the lots to the north across the alley are viable for commercial and Mr. Marshall responded they were hesitate to veer into that single-family area because the alleyway backs up to their property and creates a separation. 11/7/88 1 ?. 1988 Paae No. 7 Commissioner Carusillo asked if they are considering the property adjacent to the east or to the west. Mr. Marshall responded they are interested in the property to the west and right now there is a property between theirs and another one they have under contract; however, they are also interested in the property to the east. Commissioner Carusillo explained his concern is that the one to the east would have flowed better with the three under consideration and added one concern the Commission has is that that property would be landlocked and that perhaps easements would be necessary in order not to isolate that property. Mr. Marshall responded they will certainly incorporate that into their overall plan. Greg Hastings responded to the Commission that a General Plan Amendment could be heard on December 5th. The public hearing was reopened. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED that the Planning Commission directs staff to prepare a General Plan Amendment to consider redesignatinq all properties on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, between Western and Grand, to commercial and further that consideration of the aforementioned matters be continued to the meeting of December 5, in order for staff to conduct a general plan amendment study. Mr. Marshall stated they will still be needing the height waiver. 11/7/88 ~' 1 --- ~ PLANNING COMMISSION November 7 1968 Paae No. 8 ITEM NO 6 CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATT^** ~'ENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 247. aFrr.accrFICATION NO 88-89-15. AND VARIANCE N0. 3856 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: SCHROEDER-GRIMM ORANGE ASSOCIATES, 2411 E. Coast Highway, 1!300, Corona Del Mar, CA 92625. AGENT: THE SCHROEDER COMPANY, ATTN: WILLIAM W. RICE, 2411 E. Coast Highway, #300, Corona Del Mar, 92625. PROPERTY LOCATION: ~Sia 2528 2532 2540 W. Orange Avenue REQUEST: RS-A-93,000 to RM-1200 or a less intense zone. Petitioner requests an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plaa to redesignate property from Low Medium Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. The Planning Commission will also consider redesignating the property at 2810 West Orange to Medium Density Residential to construct a 73-unit, 3-story apartment complex with waivers of (a) maximum structural height and (b) maximum site coverage. There were eighty-four persons indicating their presence in opposition to subjec!: request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Bill Rice, 2411 E. Coast Highway, Suite 300, Corona del Mar, representing the Shroeder Company, applicant, was present to answer any questions. Ae explained their company owns and manages about 1000 units in the grog and have their own management company. He added they currently own the property directly behind the proposed development (The Evergreens). He added he did meet with many of the neighbors gad a couple of letters supporting the project have been submitted. Bill Phelps, agent, stated one of the main objectives was to protect the people to the north and he felt that has been done because there are no patios facing the residential area either oa Velare or Orange gad the project has interior courtyards which gives it a one-story effect. He referred to the line .~f sight exhibit which shows the westerly end has a 125-foot setback to single-family, the easterly end has 144 feet and the only apartments that face north are 150 feet away from the single-family property. Mr. Phelps referred to the General Plan Amendment request and pointed out there is RM-1200 zoning immediately adjoining the southern boundary and those era the RM-1200 units which are shown as RM-2400 units in the staff report chart. He stater! they are surrounded on the east and west by the same type unit they are requesting. He stated a main concern is the 3 stories and that would be disturbing if they were really building 3 stories, but the parking is 6 feet down and the overall height is 10'4" gad the project appears as one story and added they have made every effort to adhere to the responsibility of protection for the people to the north. TAE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. 11/7/88 m.a~.£S ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION November 7 1988 Paqe No 9 Maurice Abrams, 2549 Runion, stated he has been a resident there over 28 years and his primary concern is traffic and this plan will replace four families with 73 families. He ea'plained he is representing 23 families and pointed out there are several schools in the area and also that there is an overflow of parking from the Holiday Health Spa which is located 1-i/2 blocks away. He stated there is currently an issue before the City regarding the widening of several intersections throughout the city at considerable cost to relieve traffic Congestion and this seems to be a complete contradiction to that effort, and if that proposal to widen the intersections does not pass, the situation will be even worse and this is not a desirable project. Steve Young, 2506 West Clearbzook, stated he has been a resident since 1975 and has three children at Maxwell School and his concern is traffic which is getting terrible. He added he is a Boy Scout leader and has spent many nights on these streets counseling children who have been thrown out of apartments and that he is tired of apartments and does not want any more apartments in the area. He stated he is currently having his house appraised and was told by those appraisers that the value of the property would go down with more apartments. Bob Carter, 513 S. Aron, directly adjacent north, stated he is the Neighborhood Block Captain and they asked him to present the petition oa their behalf with 463 signatures of homeowners in the immediate area; and he also presented 17 letters of opposition to the project. He stated they are not just opposing the 3 stories, but the density in the area, traffic and crime. Mr. Carter stated they did not know about this until last Tuesday and he felt they could double the number of signatures of people opposed if they had known earlier. Joseph Vanderwou3e, 517 S. Hampton, stated he has lived 21 years on this gracious and lovely street and he wants it to stay that way. He ezplained he is a crossing guard occasionally at Magnolia and Orange and there are a lot of children there and this project would mean an additional 100 vehicles and that apartments are usually occupied by a two-income family and both need a car. He stated the Planning Commission is asking the property owners to jeopardize their interest in their homes. Cheryl Tewell, 2549 W. Orange, stated she lives almost directly across from the proposed project and that she has lived there for 12 years and her concerns are many; that currently the transient rate at Maxwell School is over 504 and this project would contribute to that factor and it makes it more difficult for her children to get a good education; that traffic in this area is heavy and there are accidents often on Velare, and getting in and out of her own driveway is a challenge, and she sometimes has to wait 15 minutes to get out. She stated she understands there are additional properties owners on Velare who are currently being approached by developers wanting to put in apartments and the concern is what could happen in the two block radius. She added she understands there is a plan by the City for a general plan amendment to convert many single-family homes located east of Velare to condominiums or 11/7/88 ""'r 1 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNIN• COMMISSION November 7 1988 Page No 10 traditional apartment conversions; and that the church located on the corner of Magnolia and Orange has been approached by buyers and also the California Preschool and the nursery. She stated she opposes any long term plan to convert these properties to apartments and increasing the density. Tina Lirette, 2562 Rowland, stated she has lived there since 1968 and is opposed to construction of apar~lnent units and replacing single family homes. She added it seems the entire City has lent itself to that during the last few years with the downtown redevelopment area and now it is encroaching into their neighborhoods. She stated the develoger mentioned that the surrounding properties have had waivers in the past and it seems all the problems the City is facing with transportation were all created by the density changes which have been approved and that is no reason to allow the waivers. She stated it seems if they really want to build a quality project, they should be able to do it without waivers and stay within the Codes. Richard Hallmark, 2545 Hefron Drive, stated the only access to the south is down Velare and Hefron and they have been fighting to get stop signs because of the speeding traffic and have been allowed one stop sign; an3 that just recently there was a car accident with the vehicle coming across his front yard because there is no traffic control. He stated they do have apartments in that area which have caused traffic and parking problems, and there are a lot mo-e crime and drug problems. He added thero are a lat of children in the area and they do not need more apartments, more traffic, and no more accidents or deaths. He stated a neighbor across the street had a car through his living room a couple of years ago and more families will contribute to traffic and speeding problems. He referred to Magnolia High School on Ball Road, just east of Velar®, and stated a lot of students travel the streets and asked how many of these students will be in more apartments. He stated he likes the aei.ghborhood and wants to keep it single-family. Beverly Lukens, 2541 W. Orange, directly across the street, stated she is against three stories. She explained she bought tier home about one year ago because she thought this was a good neighborhood but now there is a lot of vandalism, pointing out her new car has already been keyed, and asked what happens to the quality of life the homeowners work hard for by allowing these transient occupancy apartments. Robert Rueha, 2515 Barrow, one block down Hampton, stated he did not get a notice of this hearing and was not notified when the density was changed to permit 36 units an acre and he thought those people is that residential area should be notifiedi. He stated when the preschool was allowed to enlarge their facilities he appeared and discussed the traffic problem on the corner of Aampton and Orange and that situation has not improved at all and there are still accidents frequently because there are no traffic controls. 11/7/88 y~ MI ~'~'SS A_NAHEIM GZTY PLIiNNING COMMISSION November 7. 1988 Paae No. 11 He stated this proposal is to take two acres with four residential properties and convert them to 73 units and that is extremely high density. He stated he would oppose 36 units to the acre, and felt the quality of life is important; and that the traffic is heavy. He added he felt approval of this project would create a very dangerous situation and that he did not see any reason not to put some quality units there; and that this project would not be compatible with the property to the east because there is a preschool to the east and there is heavy traffic to and from that preschool. He stated he felt this would be a real encroachment on a beautiful single-family residential neighborhood. Robert Warmouth, 2656 Crescent, one mile north of the proposed project, stated he is pastor of the church at 2550 W. Orange, directly across Velare, and has a long list of concerns: and that there is a junior high school on their church site which has not been brought to the Commission's attention, and that during the last 1-1/2 years, the church has been vandalized about 10 times, and at least 3 of the vandals lived in the apartments directly behind them, and in the apartme3~ts managed by the applicant's company and the apartments off Webster. He stated they are very concerned about this increase in pressure on the community. He added they have a very active youth program all the way through high school and they try to work with the children, but when those children are in the area with no supervision and very little recreational area, they have nothing to do and they find something to do, and unfortunately, it is the church property where they find things to do. Pastor Warmouth referred to the Artist's rendering which shows a nice lush green area between the front row of buildings and the next row; however the plans show that is 25 feet wide and that isn't much room for landscaping. He stated with the City's requirements for no more than two children per bedroom, there could be approximately 250 children added to their community, and he believed there is going to be a lot of pressure on the tone and lifestyle and living quality of the area and the recreational fac:i~~ties in this area; and that there is not adequate child care for the chil~_ in the area right now and there are many latch-key children in the community. Pastor Warmouth stated the zoning proposed presents a drastic change for •che residences on the north to the medium density on the south of Orange and he believed the existing zoning is a good buffer zone between those two areas and to change the zoning to medium density would make a further encroachment oa the single family residences. He stated the developers who take other dwellings and refurbish them should take over the existing a~artments and improve them and also improve their own reputation in the community and then maybe the opposition would stop. Donald Wiese, 307 S. Beechy Place, stated Anaheim is very congested with apartments today and the issue is the appropriateness here of maintaining the character of an area which he searched for before selecting his home. He 11/7/88 MINC*_*R,$ ANAHEIM CZTSC PLANNING COMMISSIO`7 N2 her 7 1988 Paae No 12 stated the height is an issue because It takes away from their privacy and destroys the skyline which they enjoy as a single-family characteristic; that utilities will be adversely affected, and just too much is being put into a small area. He stated there is a conu'nunication problem already because they were promised by the develops' of the project at 2545 Broadway, that there would be certain desirable attributes which they have not seen, but the apartment is an eyesore and certain pr~:`..ections to the neighboring communities were not provided and they have chil~ren jumping the walls and running across their property. Dr. Robert Lamb, 2784 W. Haven, stated he has been in Anaheim since 1959 and lived at the same address since 1966 and that he is tired of seeing the area around him turned into a slum. He stated the developer indicated that the density is similar to surrounding properties on the east and west and the staff report shows that isn't true and that it is surrounded by RS-A-43,000 zoning on the east and west; and that the development propose:. is compared with the RM-2400 requirements which is not what is in affoct now, but is what they are requesting; and they are requesting further reductians. He stated page 4 of the staff report tells how many bedrooms there would be and if this is appr~: c•r::, they are planning to have a covenant that there could not be any more th,e~. ,:: people in each bedroom, except children, and that means 134 bedrooms ~, "168 people and if each couple had two children under two, it could accommodate up to 356 people and asked who monitors the number of occupants. Dr. Lamb stated there is very Tittle protection in that Y_ind of covenant and there are other areas where there are older homes on properties large enough to be developed as apartments and they are overpopulated and he thought it was time it was stopped. Don Cratalic, 302 S. Gain, stated he has lived at this address for the last seven years and that they were told there would be professional people living is the apartments at 2500 Broadway and that he has seen a scenic tour bus parked in front of his house every night and two Atlas moving vans and trailers park in front of his house weekly and the traffic congestion cannot be over-emphasized oneugh; and pointed out that 1-1/2 years ago his son was struck by a car. Keith Bird, 329 Gain Street, stated he has lived there for approgi;aately 10 years and has been in the area over 30 years. He presented additional letters of opposition. He stated traffic, density and lack of ownership are the important issues and there was a recent traffic study on Gain Street which indicated there were 700 cars in a 24-hour period and two were clocked at faster than 48 to 50 miles per hour and Gain Street is directly across from the proposed development and it would get the bulk of the traffic. He stated Mr. Rice indicated that nobody wants to live on Ball Road and he believes these apartments will turn Gain Street into another Ball Road. He stated this is a 100gb increase in density and is not acceptable ko the community and asked that the request be denied. 11/7/88 t~ "s: MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION November 7 1988 Paqe No. 13 Richard Pile, 509 Aron, stated he has lived there since 1979 and felt by doing this, the developer will turn their neighborhood into another Lincoln Avenue or Ball Road and stated there are quite a few apartments to the north and there are a lot of transients coming through their area and a lat of children going to school which does contribute to the traffic and crime problems. Bill Rice, agent, stated they did not make the rules or come up with the General Plan designation and did not make the decision that there would be apartments in the area. He explained they are owners of the four properties. He stated they did research the records to see what could be done in that area prior to purchasing the property and they knew the General Plan designation and that Orange was designated as a commuter street. He stated he talked to the Engineering Department and found out that Orange Avenue is not only designated as a commuter street, but it is currently under capacity; and that the G:~neral Plan calls for apartments; that the street is designed to carry apartment traffic and they knew they could design something residential in nature and it is a single-family environment with wood siding, etc. He stated he could not comment on the concerns that apartments contribute to crime and that tenants are not good citizens and cause problems in the area. Concerning overcrowded schools, he stated he had to talk to the school district and he did meet with Mr. Earl Butler, Business Manager of the school on Orange and he sent a letter and seemed to be looking forward to the fact that there would be a few more kids in the neighborhood, and that he got the impression from him that enrollments were declining in the area. THE PUBLIC EiEARING'WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Carusillo complimented the developer for the Shroeder Company's fine reputation and stated he has a couple of concerns and one is the density of the project; that the developer is asking the Commission to allox a waiver of building site coverage of 77~ and the maximum is 55~; and also he was concerned that there is no recreation area for the children who might live is the complex, other than the pool and spa area. He stated the Commission is becoming increasingly aware that there is a traffic concern in that area and on that basis, thought there is too much density proposed and that he would nit be in favor of the project. Mr. Rice stated the building site coverage relates to the fact the pas::ing area is part of the site coverage and if thoy did not do the underground parking, they could get cars off the street and provide more than ample parking; however, they would probably end up with fewer units and much more open parking and that isn't counted as building site coverage. Commissioner £eldhaus agreed that the density is too high and that the site coverage is increased by 22~ and that is probably because the units are proposed larger than normal whi~:h is providing more comfortable living space. He stated oa Saturday he could ;.~t even park for very long and when he was sitting there, he saw that traff~.~ there is a problem and all twelve people speaking in opposition indicat.~d that was a major concern. He added he feels 11/7/88 V1. MINUTES, ausuvIh, TTY PLANNING COr T7N November 7 1988 Pace 2IO. 14 there is just too much density aL3 that the project would have been more palatable at 18 units to the acre in the RM-2400 zone; and that he did not realize there would be that many people opposed to the project. Responding to Commissioner Herbst, Mr. Rice stated they did check the General Plan when they purchased the property, and the designation was for low medium density which is the RM-2900 zone and explained they are making this request after looking at similar properties on Orange and Webster and Velare. Commissioner Herbst stated the Commission has been downzoning properties recently; and in 1969 this property was rezoned to RM-2400 and probably some mistakes were made because it was thought some of the older homes would be removed and apartments built, but now it turns out, the owners are remodeling or rebuilding and they are remaining single-family residences. He stated he is drastically opposed to increasing density in the City of Anaheim because there is a traffic problem and he thought since the developer purchased tae property as RM-2400, it should be developed as RM-2400 in conformance with Code requirements. He added also, the property could be developed at RM-3000 or RS-5000, but the density should be kept down so the health, safety and welfare of the citizens are not affected. Responding to Chairwoman Souas, Mr. Phelps stated this is the first project he has been involved with where staff has declared the parking as part of the coverage and no consideration was given to the open area on the deck and 54~ is the actual coverage of the land. Commissioner Messe asked how the recreation area will be developed. Mr. Phelps responded the landscape plan showed a lap pool which serves as a reflection pool, fountains, a spa and ten 24" box trees and all the appearance of the project is to that courtyard and it is open and explained the material on the deck is fiberglass in three different tones. Commissioner Messe agreed this project seems to be much too dense; and that the General Plan calls for RM-2400 and he would like to see the property developed in that fashion. Commissioner Herbst stated the Commission viewed some of the apartment projects built in Anaheim recently with these same features and they really look bad and it is a disgrace. Chairwoman Houas stated this plan does not reflect those poor qualities and that she would rather have this than what is being built and felt this is a good product, but agreed the density is too high. Mr. Rice stated he would like to request a continuance to review the project. The public hearing was reopened. 11/7/88 jgrNU'~'ES ANA~IM CITY °T "^'i:'^v COMMISSION November 7 i 988 Paae No. 15 A TI N: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED that the aforementioned matter be continued to the meeting of the January 16, 1489, in order for the petitioner to submit revised plans. Chairwoman Bouas stated she felt the property owners should be notified of the continued hearing. Commissioner Boydstun suggested the developer look at RM-3000 or RM-2400. Commissioner Carusillo stated the 100 below grade parking was discussed and there was some sympathy towards not considering it as a story and Mr. Rice responded they went out of their way to make it single story. RECESS: 3:10 p.m. RECONVENED: 3:25 p.m. ITEM NO 7 CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION RECLASSIFICATION NO 88-89-19 VARIANCE NO 3862 AND TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 13760 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: ROGER L. WILLIAMSON AND BONNIE S. WILLIAMSON, 3450 E. La Palma, Anaheim, CA 92806. AGENT: SALRIN ENGINEERING CORPORATION, 1215 East Chapman Avenue, q2, Orange, CA 92666 LOCATION: Property is approximately 30.7 acres on the south side of Avenida De Santiago, approximately 650 feet south of the centerline of Tamarisk Drive. REQUEST: RS-A-43,000 to RS-HS-22,000. To establish an 11-lot single-family subdivision with waivers of (a) required lot frontage and (b) minimum lot frontage. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and althaugh the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. George Kerns, agent, explained this is a request for an eleven-lot subdivision and zone change and waiver; that this zone change is to RS-7200 and the development is similar to adjacent property and that density will be considerably less than what is existing; that the waiver is for the private street which will be built to public street standards; and that it will be a gated community and that he concurs with the staff report. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. T t: Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to reclassify subject property from the RS-A-43,000(SC) (Residential/Agricultural - Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone to the RS-HS-22,000(SC) (Residential Single-Family, Hillside - Scenic Corridor Overlay), to establish an 11-lot (plus 1 private street lot) subdivision with waivers of required lot frontage and minimum lot width on an irregularly-shaped parcel os ;.and consisting of approximately 30.7 acres, 11/7/88 '~ ~ IM CIS PLANNING COMMISSION November 7 1988 Paae No 1 having a frontage of approximately 315 feet oa the south side of Avenida De Santiago, and being located approximately 650 feet southwest of the centerline of Tamarisk 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 is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner McBurney offered Resolution No. PC 89-307 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Corsnission does hereby grant Reclassification No. 88-89-19, subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, HOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC HURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Commissioner McBurney offered Resolution No. PC 88-308 and moved for its passage and adoption thr:t. the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Variance No. 3862 on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. O:i roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: HOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC SURVEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ACTION: Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find that the proposed subdivision, together with its design and improvement, is consistent with the City of Anaheim General Plan, pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5; and does, therefore, approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 13760 for an 11-lot (plus one private street lot), residential subdivision subject to the following conditions: 1. That plans for the water system shall be reviewed and approved by the City Water Engineering Division. 2. That a water flow test at the westerly terminus of Avenida De Santiago shall be conducted to the satisfaction of the City Water Engineering Division. 11/7/88 ,~ .~: MTNIiTES. °rIM CITti' PLAN 7ING COt~+~ISSiON November 7 1988 Paae No. 17 3. That all private streets shall be developed in accordance with the Engineering Division's Standard Detail No. 122 for private streets, including installation of street name :.igns. 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. (Private streets are those which provide primary access and/or circulation within the project). 4. That prior to f3.na1 tract map approval, street names shall be submitted to and approved by the Zoning Division. 5. That pricy to any occupancy, temporary street name signs shall be installed if permanent street name signs have not been installed. 6. That no public or private street grades shall exceed ten percent (10~) except by prior approval of the City Fire Department and the Engineering Division. 7. That gates shall not be installed across the private street in a manner which may adversely affect vehicular traffic in the adjacent public streets. Installation of any gates shall conform to the Engineering Division's Standard Plan No. 402 and shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 8. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engine~sz. g. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. 10. That the legal 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 legal property owner's expense. Said agreement shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract map and is not to be subordinate to any recorded encumbrance against the property. 11. That prior to final tract map approval, transmission and terminal storage fees shall be paid to the Water Utility Division in accordance with Rule 15C of the Water Utility Rates, Rules and Regulations. 12. That prior to final tract map approval, the original documents of the covenants, conditions, and restrictions, and a letter addressed to the developer's title company authorizing recordation thereof, shall be submitted to the City Attorney's Office and approved by the City Attorney's Office, Public Utilities Department and Engineering Division. Said documents, as approved, shall. then be filed and recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder. 13. That the sanitary sewers shall be maintained by the homeowners association and included within the covenants, conditions and restrictions. 11/7/88 _f ~rr..nrrrc ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION November 7 1988 Paae No. 18 14. That the approval of the Tentative Map of Tract No. 13760 is granted subject to the approval of and finalization of Reclassification No. 88-89-19 Variance No. 3862. 15. That prior to final tract map approval, special facilities fees shall be paid to the Water Utility Division in accordance with Rule 15B of the Water Utility Rates, Rules and Regulations. 16. That prior to final tract map approval, residential underground electrical fees shall be paid to the City of Anaheim, and a faithful performance bond shall be posted with the City of Anaheim in an amount approved by the Public Utilities General Manager. 17. That the Orange County open space easement located on proposed parcel numbers 6,7,8,9 and 10 shall be clearly indicated on the final map. Any uses within said easement shall be subject to and consistent with the covenants, conditions and restrictions described in grant of easement (recorded April 7, 1981, County of Orange) located within the Planning Department's file for Tentative Tract Map No. 13760. 18. That prior to final tract map approval, appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in as amount as determined by the City Council. 19. That any specimen tree removal shall be subject to the tree preservation regulations in Chapter 18.84 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, the "SC" Scenic Corridor Overlay zone. 20. That in accordance with the requirements of Section 18.02.047 of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to the initial sale of residences in the City of Anaheim Planning Area "B", each buyer shall be provided with written information concerning the Anaheim General Plan and the existing zoning within 300 feet of the boundaries of subject tract. 21. That prior to final tract map approval, Condition Nos. 1,2,4,8,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17 and 18, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. 22. That prior to final map approval, Che requirements set forth in Condition Nos. 3,5,6,7,9,19 and 20, above mentioned, shall be set forth on the face of the final map in a form satisfactory to the City Engineer. 23. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any ottser applicable City regulations. Approval does not • include any action ~r findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other -a_p1:icable ordinance, ruqulation or requirement. Carol Flynn, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal tl:e Planning Commission's decision regarding the Reclassification and Variance within twenty-two (22) days and the Tentative Tract within ten (10) days. 11/7/88 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 7. 1988 Page No. 19 ITEM N0. 8: CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION. RECLASSIFICATION N0. 88-89-04 AND VARIANCE N0. 3812 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: WALDA EMERY AND STEPHEN EMERY, 716 N. East Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 PROPERTY LOCATION: 716 N. East Street REQUEST: RS-7200 to RM-2400. To construct a 5-unit affordable apartment complez with (a) waivers of maximum structural height and (b) minimum building site area per dwelling unit. it was noted the petitioner re,uested a continuance. TI N: Commissioner Herbst offersd a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of November 21, 1988, at the request of the petitioner. ITEM N0. 9. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION, RECLASSIFICATION NO. 88-89-20, VARIANCE N0. 3865 AND TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 13705 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: JAY BURROWS ANA HELEN BURROWS, 1949 Ninth Street, Anaheim, CA. AGENT: CATHERINE LIN AND WILLIAM LIN, 193 W. Viking Avenue, Brea, CA 92621 PROPERTY LOCATION: 1949 Ninth Street REQUEST: RS-A-43,000 to RS-700 or a less intense zone. To establish a 7-lot, RS-7200, single-family residential subdivision with (a) waivers of required lot frontage and (b) minimum lot width. There were three persons indicating their presence in opposi:.ion to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Bill Lin, agent, explained the request and pointed out the surrounding land uses include single-family residential in all directions. Mary Ellen Williams, 2012 Waverly Drive, stated her property backs up to this proposal, and she has been he:~.e before fighting apartments and when they received notices of this hearing, she thought the project would be fine, but after reviewing the proposal, felt that is a lot of homes in a small area; that her house backs up to Lot No. 2 and it looks like it will really be close to her back wall and also the staff report refers to RM-1200 zoning and she would like more information to make sure it will not be a problem. Barbara Erkkila, 2018 S. Ninth Street, stated she did see a map, but when the apartments were proposed, there was a road coming out in front of her house and the access will be on Wakefield. She stated she wanted to know how high 11/7/88 :~ J Ilnt'f'~S ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION No Trier 7 1988 Paae No. 2 the wall at the rear of her home will be. She stated there is a lot of traffic now on Wakefield and it is very fast and the street narrows from four lanes to two lanes right in front of her house. Evelyn Frisbie, 2006 Ninth street, directly across the street, stated her car has been hit and in 1979 there was a accident in her front yard. In rebuttal, Mr. Lin stated he believed there will be walls all around the property. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Concerning the private street, Mr. Lin responded to Commissioner Messe that he did not know if the City accepts the street after it is fiuished, but that they will be developing at public street standards. Greg Hastings stated the street will meet the private street standards, and that it has been calculated into the lot area and if it becomes a public street, the lots would be too small. Commissioner Herbst asked if they will have CCSRs for maintenance of the streets and Commissioner McBurney stated there could be a condition included in the CC6Rs restricting the street from becoming a public street. Chairwoman Bouas asked what the setback is to the house next to Lot No. 2. Greg Hastings explained that would be consiuered the rear property line and ~~:•he house could be as close as 10 feet with 6 foot high wall. Mr. Lin responded they could make some adjustments and meet the City's requirements. He responded that he would like to construct a two-story structure and Mr. Hastings stated it would make no difference according to Code and Mr. Lin stated he did not think two stories would harm the neighbors. Commissioner Herbst stated these lots meet the RS-22,000 standards except for the cul de sac which has been allowed in other locations. Mr. Hastings stated this project meets the density requirements and lot area requirements. Commissioner Messe asked if there is any dedication required on Ninth Street and Commissioner Mc Burney stated the plans call for a 45-foot half street. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated a condition should be added that Ninth Street shall be dedicated to its ultimate width. ASTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to reclassify subject property from the RS-A-43,000 (Residential: Agricultural) Zone to the RS-7200 (Residential, Single-Family) Zane and to establish a 7-lot single-family residential subdivision and to construct a 7-lot, 7-unit detached single-family residential subdivision with waivers of required lot frontage and minimum lot width on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.4 acres located at the southwest corner of Wakefield Avenue and Ninth Street, and further described as 1949 South 11/7/88 ~r MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. November 7..1988 Paqe No. 21 Ninth Street; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Herbst offere-' 1?esolution No. PC 88-309 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Reclassification No. 88-89-20, subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, SOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS.; HERBST, MC SURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ASSENT: NONE Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC 88-310 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Variance No. 3865 on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical none and classification in the vicinity and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations, including an additional condition requiring that a 6-foot high well be constructed and maintained along all property lines in conformance with City Codes, and subject to approval of the City Traffic Engineer. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commission McSuraey and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Conm~ission does hereby find that the proposed subdivision, together with its design and improvement, is consistent with the City of Anaheim General Plan, pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5; and does, therefore, approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 13705 for a 7-lot single-family residential subdivision, subject to the following conditions: 1. That prior to final tract map approval, appropriate Dark and recreation in-lieu fees shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an amount as determined by the City Council. 2. That the legal owner of subject property shall irrevocably offer to dedicate a 15 foot radius corner return at Wakefield Avenue and 9th Street. 3. That the vehicular access rights to 9th Street, .:hall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim. 4. That the esistinq most westerly driveway on Wakefield Avenue shall be removed and replaced :rith a standard curb, gutter, sidewalk and landscaping. 11/7/88 t MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING C0A4dICSrnx u ~ ~ lggg p t 22 5. That all private streets shall be developed in accordance with the Engineering ivision's Standard Detail 2IO. 122 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 iaclude3 with the building plans prior to the issuance of building permits. (Private streets are those which provide primary access an~9;or circulation within the project). 6. That prior to final tract map approval, street names shall be submitted to and approved by the 2oaing Division. 7. That prior to any occupancy, temporary street name signs shall be installed i~ permanent street name signs have not been installed. 8. That prior to final tract map approval, residential underground electrical fees shall be paid to the city of Anaheim and a .faithfu's performanc8 bond shall be posted with the City of Anaheim in an amount approved by the Public Utilities General Manager. 9. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. 10. That the le~.sl 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 legal progerty owner's expense. Said agreement shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract. 11. Thac prior to final tract map approval, a water main plan for subject property shall be reviewed and approved by the City Water Engineering Division. 12. That prior to final tract map approval, the original documents of the covenants, conditions, and restrictions, and a letter addressed to the developer's title company authorizing recordation thereof, shall be submitted to the City Attorney's Office and approved by the City Attorney's Office, Public Utilities Department and Engineering Division. Said documents, as approved, shall then be filed and recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder. 13. That the approval of the Tentative Map of Tract No. 13705 is granted subject to the approval of and finalization of Reclassification No. 88-89-20 and Variance No. 3865. 14. That the sanitary sewer shall be maintained by the homeowners association and included within the covenants, conditions and restrictions. 15. That prior to final tract map approval, Condition No. 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. 16. That prior to final map approval, the requirements set forth in Condition Nos. 4, 5, 7 and 9, abovemeationed, shall be set forth on the face of the final map in a form satisfactory to the City Engineer. Carol Flynn, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days on the Reclassification and Variance and within 10 days oa the Tentative Tract Map. 11/7/BY.. '~: 1.:~t+~rrES. ANAHEIM i.TTY PLi1w,N'ING QQM"~SION November 7 1988 ____°~.A ha• 23 ITEM N0. 10. „QE'2A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: ANAHE:.~~ C€NERAL HOSPITAL L.T.D., 3350 W. Ball Road, P.aa~:eim, CA 92804. AGENT: :?~'~•.Li) A. JEFFERY, 3950 W. Ball Road, Anaheim, CA 92804 P£cOPERTY LOCA:lION: ~.W.. 83~~.~°c~.iZ4 SgQUEST: To construct a 30,000 s~;~•.sre-foot, 3-story medical office building with waiver of minimiun niunber of rt3uiscd. parking spaces. Theri^ were eleven (11) persons indicating their presence in opposit:iaa to subject request and although this staff report was not read, it is re.ferrpd to sad made <~. E:a.rt of the minutes. Walgang Hack. 1'15 22nd Street, Newport Beach, CA, Architect, stated Page No. 1 of the staff report shows 9~4 parking spaces are proposal and that should read 634 spaces proposed as shown in the traffic report. He explained the traffic report which was prepared in Fp~~~ary and submitted in March dealt with the present condition and was done from ob:;erving the utilization of parking spaces for the existing hospital and e~aistinq medical afficl buildings to establish a base upon which new requi:^.ements would be added. He explained the additional traffic information was submitted to staff oa Eiednesday as requested by staff. Co~mni~sioner Messe explained the Planning °Commissioners'cave not had an ~,.,• . opportunity to caview the traffic study is its entirety. 'Hack e~plaine.: the infor:natioa submitted was a su.Tmsry of what was alr•:.nsl in the document. Commissioner Feldhaus stated he visited the site over the we~ker.,l think3.Ly^ ::he number of spaces proposed was 424 =nd Leas just learned today chat the number was dif`erent. Larry Greer, 2323 W. T.iacoln avenue, stated they are traffic: consultants to the Anaileim Gene:cal tde9ical Cea~ter which is a partnership which owns the ~,~:~dical office bui1din~I o++ ~~a southwest corner of Ball anti ~:astors Lane, and c~:~+y gave expressed r. ~Tre'at deal of concern about what will be happening to the parking that is presently in front of the hospital when the~inew building is constructed. He staked they did conduct a week long parking study to ,ew what tJ.~e current conditions were and whether their analysis agreed with the Runzman zepor.•t submitted by the applicant and also to an;,iys>s what the projected narking condition would be. He stated the ~rigiaal report submitted by Run~man dealt with the existing conditions and not what ti-e projected conditions would be with the new office building. He stated he has not seen the new supp?.ementa3 report. He added 'the primary conca,rn idevti.fied in their analyst°:s was not the total number oc parking spaces; that the. Runzman report i.dentiLied ~~hat the T.>arkiag demand would be axe the number of spaces and with the spaces 'chei• are ~ddinq, they will be over the 9emand par;.iaq. 11/7/88 w ES, ANAHEIM C1S'.1~~A~ZNG CO2•CdIS5I0N"r~9~"~eY 7 He stated the study did not talk about Cede requirement ' ': purely the parking lemaad, but they have n major concern ab~~ut distribution the parking and were it is 1,~_etct+3 ~:~ the parcel. He explained tyR.ically for an office building or a Fhopp~=~, Dente r; it is not desirable Co have people walk more than 200 .: se.°"~ feat s+~:. *~t.1s is ,a n;edacal office build'?.nq and if parking is added behi~.~ con hospital, as propo3e~;, patients would be walking 550 to 700 feet which is well is excess of what t,~+1 would like to see. tie stated cw rently the parking that is in front :` she hospital is almost fully utilizA~a at peak tames, and the surfacF par:ing lot is about 85~ utilized. Ha stated 21 existing spaces will bE. removed and the parking demand is added for the new office build ng and about 44, spaces will be added to .serve this officfl building, based on demand, not code requirement. He explained L•here is no visitor entrance at• all presently from the rear parking into the hospital; and many hospital employees park in front and the doctors need t~ be convenient to hosF~ital access and are in the front parking lot near the emergency room parking and i.f the doctors and employee parkiraq could be relocated with now pedestri.n accesses and entr•~es into the hospital to the rest, that would open an additional 3S parking spaces in front whi•~h could be used for the medical :+ffice building and the hospital visitors. He stated it :oreaas Rome visito. might use the rear entrance, but .east would be partiing in frcn:'.. He stated t::eysaave identified the seed for 298 spaces out front Lo serve the medical, building and a portion of the hospital visitors and that means moving the doctor's parking to the rear and enforcement anfl control of the hospital employee parking in the rear. :dr. Greer staLad their concern is thc~ 56~ reduction iu Code parking and with the plan they have prepared, they feel they need to add 68 spaces out front. He aided he thought the only way to get that many spaces would be with a parking deck and he would suggest that go in on the easternmost parking lay:. lie addeii they Could also provide some compact spaces, pozFibly redesign top ;~.rking layout and get more spacRS, but he did not think that wo::id provi~;z 68 additional spaces. Joyce Niko'_su, 1240 Masters, stated she has three children, and whoa she takes them t~• school a~ 8:30 a.m. before the doc'tors' offices arp even open, cars are parked all thr way from Ball Road ever~r day, except Wednesdays, most of the time on *Gth sids^ of the street. She stated people do oat park in the rear of. tY.s~ hospital be~t~ause it is not convenient. She stated this plan is to build a 3-story building and there era no 3-story structures there now, and they would be looking right daxi Gantrivac band she yard. She added they beuyht their house because they P Y did ~;~:'t see how another bu~lldi:g could be added with no more parking. Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, stated a waiver should have been advertises regarding the structural height, and explained the height allowed adjricent to the west property line is a maximum of 12-1/2 feet at the 25-foot setback and this is proposed at '6 feet. 11/7188 `!~ `..1 rIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSjON' ~lovember 7, I9$$ Paae No. 2 Larry Horowitz, attorney representing Aaatteim General Medical Center, suggested this matter be continued, and explained he was only given a copy o£ the staff report this morning and would like a couple of weeks to understand the it. He stated he also did not get a chance to review the most recent Runzman supplemental report and that the the staff report does not consider the the recent Runzman report or the implications of the Greer report and that is the distribution problems discussed in that report. He added it was not clear from the staff report what the staff recommendation was. Mr. Horowitz stated he reviewed Government Code Section No. 54957.5 which provides that obviously the Commission needs to make findings of fact and that the documentation providing the basis for the Commission's decision be available. He stated the traffic study did not talk about Codo requirement for parking but purely the parking demand and there was concern about distribution of the parking and where it is located on the parcel. He stated the connection between Anaheim General Hospita'_ and this proposed building is important; that they have the right to 124 parking spaces and if this request is approved, this building would be built in those spaces closest to Anaheim General Hospital and patients going there would have to walk an additional 500 or 600 feet to get to the doctors. John Trongon, 1331 S. Oak Haven Drive, stated his back yard will be directly behind the proposed parking lot behind the hospital. He stated on several occasions, homes c].~sest to the hospital have been vandalized and burglarized becattse the p3ople can park in the parking lot and go right over the wall, then take everything right Lack over the wall and into their cars and drive away without being seen. He stated he realizes they have security at the hospital, but it bothers them that there is a chainlink fence separating the property from the railroad tracks and on several occasions, he and his neighbor have had to patch that fence because the kids cut holes and come through. Mr. Trongon stated they would not mind the parking lot being behind their homes, provided several things are done for safety: 1) a brick wall or block call separating the railroad tracks from the parking lot; 2) recess the grade and allow the neighbor's wall to be higher for more protection; 3) and e~p.lained he had not seen the plans, but they have a col de sac called "Oak Lawn" and that he would like to know if it will remain as a col. de sac or be opened into the parking area. He stated if it is opened, it will cause a lot of traffic on Oak Haven. He stated they would like the doctors and employee's parking in the rear, if they would put in a gate so they would need a card to park there, and then the neighbors would know that only the doctors and employees are parking there behind their homes. He stated also, 4) they would like to eliminate overnight parking in that particular parking lot. 11/7/88 '3~ ) MINUTES ANAHEIM CZTY P xxTUr rnr~rccrnw ** -, 7 1988 Page No 26 Michael McFadden, 1280 S. Masters Lane, stated the hospital is directly east of his back yard and he.could not understand why they have to put a 3-story building in their back yards, which will be looking right down on them. He stated there seams to be a lot of property is the south portion of the hospital and thought they should put it there. He stated he has Jived there since May 1979 and 3 years ago, the hospital put a chiller unit in to air condition the rooms, and the noise level is rather high and the hospital did put a sound wall, but it was still very loud, and Code Enforcement measured the noise level from the upstairs bedroom in the back and it was 53 decibels, and in Orange County, anything over 50 decibels is not legal, but Anaheim accepts 60 decibels or above. He stated now building this new building there, is just pushing the residents a little too far. Richard Jenkins, 1281 Masters Lane, stated he would concur with Mr. McFadden and that he is directly across the street from Mr. McFadden so the building would not be impacting his back yard like it will Mr. McFadden's; however, he thought having that large structure there, would severely financially impact his property. He referred to tho parking and stated if the staff report is correct, 953 spaces are required and they are proposing 424 spaces. Mr. Jenkins stated there are some small children on the block and that his grandchildren come to visit, and they do play in the cul de sac and he was really concerned with that kind of traffic there constantly. He added he felt this would reslly be a detriment to their neighborhood. Chairwoman Souas stated she would not close the public hearing since the matter is going to be continued. Mr. Hack, the agent, representing Anaheim Memorial Hospital, stated the number of parking s~,aces reflected is the staff report just represents what is presently on the site is improved parking spaces serving the present hospital needs and the needs of the present medical office building; and that the newly proposed structure will have the code required 6 spaces per 1000 square feet is addition to the ones presently there, and they will replace the stalls lost by the footprint of the building. He explained the net A3~?ition of parking spaces amounts to a total of 210 spaces, plus the existing 424 spaces. Regarding the cul de sac, Mr. Hack stated that cul de sac is not proposed as an access and they will rely on the existing ingress and egress pattern from Ball Road; that it is further proposed to introduce safety gates and control points which restrict the access and use of the rear parking lot to the people who are actually designated to use it, such as staff and doctors or visitors with passes. He stated is addition, the improvement plans for the rear entry to the hosgital are already is process and will provide a central access point from the rear parking lot, which allows for the relocation of the parking lot to the back. 11/7/88 .t i °.~ f MILIIITES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNIN rnrtr.tTCCTnx x,,.,o ha 7 1988 Paqe No 27 Chairwoman Bouas referred to prohibiting overnight parking, and stated a hospital operates 24 hours a day and there are employees there 24 hours a day, and the doctor's Barking would be used 24 hours a day. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated there are some problems with this plan; that if the building is to be constructed as shown oa the plans, the related parking to that building and the displaced parking for all of the uses would be remotely located in the rear of the property between 500 and 700 feet away and he believed that is unacceptable. He referred to the narrow space between two rows of substandardl7 parked cars that provides circulation to the rear of the property and noted that is definitely substandard parking and can not be counted because it will be the main aisle to reach the parl:inq lot, and that adds to the parking deficiency. Mr. Singer stated the Runzman report also included on-street parking as part of the hospital parking and that is also unacceptable. He stated he is making a recommendation that if a building is added to this facility, that it he added in the rear of the property, adjacent to parking, or conversely that a parking structure be constructed to offset the parking shortage on this site. Commissioner Messe stated he would suggest that if the matter is continued and if there is any further movement of structures and of parking areas, that the Commission be given copies of both the Greer report and the new Kunzman report. Mr. Singer stated he got the report Fri3ay morning and that is the reason the Commissioners did not get it. Commissioner McBurney asked about an easement for off-site parking oa someone else's property. Mr, Singer stated that easement is with the medical center which is adjacent to this and they have a right to park here and that parking would have to be replaced and obviously it cannot be replaced two blocks away. Commissioner Herbst stated he has worked with hospitals regarding parking and there is an overlap of parking when the shifts change at a hospital and double parking is needed for at least an hour and asked if that was considered in the traffic study. Mr. Greer responded he did not consider double parking and that will add to the demand. He explained they have done parking studies at LA County General, USC Medical Center, Harbor General, UCLA Medical Center, etc. and that is a common problem. Paul Singer stated the combined cities requirements in Orange County average about 6 parking spaces per 1000 square feet; and that this particular facility only provides 2.24 parking spaces per 1000 square feet, and the industry standard country-wide is 3.1 spaces per 1000 square feet, and there is a severe problem with parking, especially the distribution of the parking as it is located. 11/7/88 ~_ MINUTES, A2:AHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. November 7. 1988 Page No. 28 Commissioner Carusillo stated until the Commission gets the reports, he thought time is just being wasted. Chairwoman Bouas asked how long the continuance needs to be; and asked if "-lsey want to bring in new plans. Commissioner Messe s"rated it seems this would have to be totally redesigned and buildings may have to be moved and there have to be new waivers and suggested denial of these plans. Commissioner Herbst stated starting over would cost the applicant more money. He stated he is not in favor of a 3-story building looking down on people's back yards. Mr. Hack requested a continuance. Greg Hastings stated the fee for readvertisement is about 5210 which is about half of the original fee. ACTION: Commissioner Feldhaus offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the meeting of January 16, 1989, at the request of the petitioner, and further that the matter be readvertised. ITEM N0. 11. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND VARIA;I~F N0. 3863 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: MELVYN LANE HENKIN AND FAITH HENRZN, 10951 W. Pico Blvd., 8201, Los Angeles, CA 90064. AGENT: SPESCO C/0 MARK FRANK, 735 Lakme Avenue, F7ILLMINGTON, CA 90744. PROPERTY LOCATION: 5640 East La Palma Avenue RE4UEST: To construct a freestanding and two-wall signs with waivers of (a) permitted wall signs and (b) permitted freestanding sign. The following action was taken at the beginning of the meeting. ACTION: Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter 'be continued to the meeting of December 5, 1988. 11/7/88 - ^^^S A_NA_~IM CITti' PI,Lttt7YNG COMMISSION xnvnmber 7 1988 Paae NQ• 29 ~ NO 12 CEOA NEGATIVE Dzi.LARATION WAIVER OF COPE RFOtt>'REMENT. AND ~ONDITIO*IAL USE PERMIT NO. 3085 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: R. H. SIEGELE AND THEODORA R. SIEGELE, 919 E. South ~rrtret, Anaheim, CA 92805. AGENT: DALTON ENTERPRISES, 929 S. South Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 PROPERTY LOCATION: ~~ East South Street REQUEST: To permit an expansion of an existing recycling center with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. John Dalton, 20475 Regal Oak, Yorba Linda, stated prior to moving to Anaheim, they lost their lease in Fullerton, and purchased another recycling company, Orange County Scrap and Recycling, and it has been located for 10 years at 919 East South Street; and when they moved in, they were asked to change the address to 929 East South Street. He stated they chose that business because of the location and the clientele level, and they also investigated very carefully the problems that company had had in the past. He stated they read the conditional use permit granted in 1981, and were aware of some of the problems they have had with the City of Anaheim, and they concluded based on what they read that the conditional use permit under which they operated would serve very well for their company, so they opened business in September 1987. He stated since that time then have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to upgrade the recycling center for the benefit of the public; that they have installed two large 70-foot sca~es, and this is probably the only center which has two side-by-side scales, the purpose of which is to get the people in and out within a five-minute time period and that is their goal, and it also eliminates any potential parking problem since the customer will drive in, get weighed and drop off their goods and go out the exit scale, and be paid at that point from a scale house, and because of that, they have very little parking problem. Mr. Dalton stated they are proposing to improve the center in any way they can and many people have alroady indicated the improvements have been well taken. He added one of his concerns is why they are required to file for a new conditional use permit; that under the old permit, there was a difference in the entrance and exit to the center and he understood entrance was from the east (Rose Street) and the exit on South Street. He explained they now use the North Street entrance which is at the corner c£ Rose and water Street and that entrance has always been there and has always, been used, not necessarily for entrance and exit. L1e stated because they arr i;rinq a new entrance, he assumed that is the reaso~l they were asked to file,.':nr a new CUP, and also because part of the origia~l CUP indicated there was recreational vehicle storage located there, and he understands it was never used for RV storage, but mainly for storage of materials. Ae stated they are trying to comply with the Ci.ty's requirements, and have filed for the CUP and agree with a majority of the conditions, except for the fees and dedications, but would comply with ce~nditions regarding signs, storage above the wall height, etc. He stated Condition Nos. 1 through 6 on page 5 are not acceptable to him or the owner of the property. 21/7/88 i MINUTES. ANA]iErM e^r~rv vr.nrrxrxG COMMISSION November 7. 1988 Page No. 30 Marilyn Curtis stated they have a business adjacent to this recycling business and they would not have a problem, if the business was run the way Mr. Dalton has indicated. She stated Mr. Dalton has solved some of the problems by putting up signs indicating "no parking" in certain areas, but when they have a big flow of traffic, the people get their load weighed and then they get a ticket and are told to exit the premises and park outside and come back in to get their money, and this creates a problem for other businesses in the area because they all have limited space. She stated that business has very limited space and in order to conduct a business, there should be adequate parking for that business, and people just don't park inside and if the business is expanded, it will only become increasingly more difficult. She added the petitioner has worked out an agreement with the building owner next to hers and they are allowed to park there on Saturday and that has helped alleviate the problem. Mr. Dalton stated he has spoken with Ms. Curtis regarding this problem. He stated Saturday is without a doubt their busiest day at the recycling center; that generally they can handle the majority of the cars that come through with the entrance and exit scale, and they have an agreement with the immediate neighbor, Anaheim Manufacturiny, to park in front of his location if there is an overflow. He stated at times his clients have parked in front of Mrs. Curtis' business and they have had a portable sign made up in four different languages and each Saturday morning they have put out large barrels with rope between them with "no parking" signs on them directly in front of her business, and until now, he thought that had solved the problem. He added they are willing to do whatever they can to resolve it. He stated they try to keep all their clients inside the recycling yard until they have been paid and then they are on the public street and, after they have been paid, if they park outside, they can only ask them not to park there, but it is a public street and they cannot control their customers. He stated they are trying to co-exist with the neighbors; that he has written letters to each of the neighbors and has received very few complaints. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Carusillo stated Mr. Dalton seems anxious to do whatevez he can to be neighborly and asked what else he could do. Ms. Curtis stated if she had a business with more clients than parking spaces, she could not take up his spaces; that if the man next door who gave him permission to use his parking spaces sold his property, the next owner might not want to agree to that, an& then this business will be there and he will have been given permission to increase without having to keep his clients inside. Ms. Curtis stated after his clients drive through and get weighed, they unload their goods and are given a ticket, aid they are told to go outside and park to keep things moving inside and then to some back in to get their money. 1]./7/88 } V M~hJ'1'ES ANAAEI1~ CITY PL1~h^.7ING COMMISSION November 7 1988 Paae No. 31 Ms. Curtis explained her business is C. J. Engravers and is nett to Anaheim Precision located in the cul de sac. She stated Anaheim Precision has given this company permission to park is front of their building, but their spaces are limited as well. She added Mr. Dalton does try diligently to keep this business clean and numerous times the winds blow papers all the way down the street and they do send people out to pick them up, and that she realizes every business is going to have negative aspects, but the parking just gets out of hand. She explained they have had problems is the past with people turning on their water and not turning it off, etc. Commissioner Carusillo stated it seems to him that Mrs. Curtis doesn't really have a problem right now, but her concern is a potential problem. Ms. Curtis stated they did have a problem, but it was solved by putting in those barrels with rope between them, but some people will still park there and get very indignant when asked to move. Ms. Curtis stated she did not know where Water Street is; that that there is a long aYleyway, from South into Rose, and that is a tall wall and they could put single parking along there, but there are "no parking" signs posted there too. Chairwaman Souas clarified this property goes clear through to South Street, and Mr. Dalton stated their lease is for approximately 400 feet north and south and the whole parcel is approximately 800 feet, and they lease the northerly 400 feet. Chairwoman Souas stated that is why they need a conditional use permit. Mr. Dalton explained the front of property has RHC Enterprises and originally had a recycling business and that part cf the property has not changed at all. Mr. Dalton stated he thought Ms. Curtis' concern is on Saturday and not on weekdays. He stated very seldom during the week do they have any overflow, and they are not planning to enlarge this particular use and they do not want people outside that gate. He stated to his knowledge, they do not have that many clients who park outside and come back in to get paid, except on Saturday when they may have 500 customers, and there may be times when someone would have to park outside to reduce the number of people inside, but they are trying to avoid that. Commissioner Carusillo stated the corrective measures seem to be working as far as discouraging parking in front o€ Mrs. Curtis's business, but she is concerned about it getting further out of hand and the potential problem which is a little vagua. Mr. Dalton stated it has been a whole year and that problem has not occurred. He stated he did not believe it will get any worse and he did not think it is bad right now. 11/7/88 _~ ~ MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION November 7 1988 Paae Na. 32 Commissioner Carusillo stated he is getting the impression the traffic may get a little heavy on Saturday, but it sorts itself out before too long and as far as he is concerned, he thought this petitioner has done what he could to appease his neighbors and has the right to enjoy his business. Chairwoman Bouas stated Ms. Curtis is concerned because even though they may not be parking on her property, there may be other people in the car and those people would get tired of waiting, get t,`~irsty, etc. and those people are wandering around and are not staying in their car because the wait is too long. Mr. Dalton stated they have a water fountain on their property and it is in open view and he was not sure how to control that and can't tell people not to leave their car. Chairwoman Bouas stated she realizes that, but that she thought they have to have enough people working there to get the customers through and pay them so that they are not waiting around or having to come back in and stand in a line to get their money. Mr. Dalton stated they will do their best to make sure people are not loitering around there. Chairwoman Bouas stated this would be a conditional use pernit and if there are problems, it could be revoked. Commissioner Carusillo suggested a booth be installed where the people would be paid, with the computer determia.iaq the weight and amount they are to be paid and asked why it is necessary for the cars to go out and then the customer come back in to get paid. He suggested some method, whereby the customer could be paid right at the exit. Mr. Dalton explained occasionally because there are so many cars there at one time, to eliminate the congestion, they ask the customers to park outside, but that is only on a Saturday, and added he could probably hire another employee just on Saturdays. Commissioner Feldhaus skated it is 72 feet from the entry Co the ezit gate and when the vehicle is weighed, the computer gives a receipt and he did not understand why it takes so Iong to collect the money and that it would be longer to have them come back. Chairwoman Bouas stated she thought that was true, but Ms. Curtis is concerned xith people getting out of the parked cars and walking around the area and she had the faucet removed so they could not turn on her water and leave it running. Mr. Dalton stated he can not tell people they can not walk in the area and that they have been there for a year and the problem has not grown and he did not think it would grow. 11/7/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION November 7 1988 Paae No 33 Commissioner Feldhaus stated he is assuming this is being considered one parcel and that the Commission did not receive a copy of the traffic study, although one was made, and that the Traffic Engineer has not commented in the staff report as to the adequacy of the parking Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated they submitted a letter stating they have 33 parking spaces available and that since this is one parcel, it has to be considered as a single parcel. He stated he was not aware that there had been any problems on Saturdays; that a staff member did go to the site and found ao problem with parking and traffic was moving through the facility in an efficient manner. He added only at this hearing did he hear testimony that there is a parking problem, therefore, he would withdraw his recommendation that the parking waiver be approved. Chairwoman Bouas asked if Mr. Singer thought a parking study should be submitted and Mr. Singer responded he thought a detailed parking study is mandatory to show how traffic is processed through the facility. He added he thought not only the whole question of parking, but circulation and processing of the customers through the facility should be evaluated. Commissioner Feldhaus stated Ms. Curtis was the only one opposed to this and her concern is that if Precision sold their business and moved, the problem might return. Paul Singer stated he has heard that barrels and ropes are being put on a public street to prevent parking and thet indicates that there is a parking problem. Commissioner Messe stated there is no justification for granting a waiver for parking. Responding to Commission Messe, Mr. Dalton stated they }cave 18 employees, and Mr. Siegel has 4 employees, and that would mean 14 cars. He also explained they have 7 trucks which have a space to park at night. Commissioner Feldhaus stated from his experience, this is a much improved facility and he does not see cars parked there. Mr. Dalton stated they do not want clients parking on the property sad want them is and out quickly for obvious reasons and explained they spent 5100,000 for the scales to accomplish that goal. He added he did not realize they were still parking on the street and thought that had been eliminated. He stated he cannot control people parking on the public street, but would indicate to them that they should not stop oa the street. Commissioner Carusillo stated there is a cul de sac then the alley and then 'dater Street and with trucks turning around, they have to park oa private property and if people were not parking there, the barrels and ropes with "ao parking" signs would be necessary. 11/7/88 ~` MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMI ION Nove hpr 7. 1988 Page xn_ ~a Commissioner Messe stated he would be in favor of continuing this matter until a parking study has been done. Ms. Curtis stated if this property had adequate parking, they would not have to park on her property. She explained they just pull in and park in front. Commissioner Souas agreed a traffic study is needed. Ray Siegel, 832 N. West Street, Anaheim, stated the reason for this application for a conditional use permit has never been made clear to him, other than a difference in traffic flow. He stated the access is the same with the north gate and when he ran the business, they used the east gate. He stated he is not involved in the business any longer; and that he thought this whole thing is an exercise in futility in that the use is addressed in the existing conditional use permit and he did not think it is appro riate to have P two CUPS on one property. Mr. Siegel stated they are operating a recycling business; and tthat he had three different businesses and only one conditional use permit. Commissioner Herbst stated he understood a part of this property was used for trailer storage and that is what was listed on the permit and added that property has had a lot of problems over a long period of time. Mr. Siegel stated there has never been an espaasian of that use and they are using the same area as the recycling center and it is really the same operation. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, stated the orflgiaal conditional use permit shows it was for a recycling center on the front portion and an recreation vehicle storage facility on the rear of the property and that staff felt it would be more appropriate that a new permit be processed in order to expand this business; and that technically, they would have been in violation of the original conditional use permit. Mr. Siegle stated that is a misinterpretation; that everything is in existence that was there already and that is what was approved and they have already P:~ gone through all the hearings, etc. He stated they have met engineering requirements and that no curbs and gutters will be done until the property is redeveloped. Commissioner Messe noted if the fees have been paid, they will not be required again. ACTION: Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Feldhaus and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the meeting of January 16, 1989. 11/7/88 r~,r J } 1.:rNtrrFS ANAFEIM Ci *ccrnu *7nvam}~er 7 1988 PeCe NO. 35 ITE'•' Nn iz rFnA NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT• AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3086 PROPERTY OWNER: JAMES PERUI~AN, 21882 Vacation Lane, Huntington Beach, CA 92646. AGENT: JOHN HARGRAVE, 1440 N. Daly Street, Anaheim, CA 92806 PROPERTY LOCATION: X440 Dalv Street To permit a truck body manufacturing/painting and installation 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 read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. John Hargrave, agent, explained this business is manufacturing truck bodies from raw sheet metal and installing and painting them and that about one half are installed on local trucks and others are shipped to northern California. Concerning the parking, he explained they will be restripinq the parking lot to get the maximum number of spaces. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Messe stated the rear parking area was being used completely with storage o'f their products and with their employees parking there. Mr. Hargrave responded their operation is going through a change and the washing and maintenance operation moved into the building, but now they have refinanced the business and are putting materials inside nox. Commissioner Messe stated trucks were parked outside, and that the truck materials are stored in the parking spaces behind the gate. Mr. Hargrave stated that is unusual and the customer's trucks rarely park outside. He clarified that all work is done inside and that the trucks would not be stored until they have been worked on. He explained they have 20 employees and. would need 10 spaces for vehicles coming in and employees. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated he has discussed the truck storage xith the applicant and was assured that the there is no material stored outside and that the gates would be opened during all business hours so that parking would be available to the general public. iCom:nissioner Messe stated very little parking would be needed for the general public. Paul Singer stated there seems to be adequate parking provided the areas are not being used for storage of materials and that once their remodeling has been completed, there will be adequate parking on site. 11/7/88 •~ ~ ~. ) OG COMMISSION. November 7 TI N: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit a truck body manufacturing/painting and installation facility with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces on property located at 1440 Daly Street; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial. Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant affect on the environment. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED that the D.aaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant a 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 gran.tiag of the parking waiver under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental 'to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens ~of the City of Anaheim. Commissioner Herbst offered Resoluticn No. PCBB-311 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 3086 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035, subject to subject to Interdepartmental Committee recortmendations. Prior to voting, a time limit and the gate being open was discusnied and Mr. Hargrave indicated they kept it closed because customers tend to walk through it when it is open, and closing it forced the customers to come in the front door and that the gate is not locked. Commissioner Herbst stated there has been ao problem, and if there is a problem, the Commission can review it at anytime. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the folloxing vote: AYES: SODAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Carol Flynn, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appoal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. 11/7/88 '~f. ,~~~ vrwrrrre ausvrTUt rTTV Pi.aNNTNf: Cnt.tMTCC7f1N_ NnvPmhnr 7 1988 Pave No. 37 ITEM NO 14. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERM N0. 3087 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: WESTSIDE BUILDING MATERIAL CORP., P.O. Box 552, Anaheim, CA 92805. AGENT: PCSTC, INC., 1870 S. Chris Lane, Anaheim, CA 92805. PROPERTY LOCATION: 1213 E. How@11 Street REQUEST: To permit a tour bus transportation terminal. There was ao one indicating their aresence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Jerry O'Connell, President, was present to answer any questions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Cormissioner Messe clarified the passengers are picked up at hotels in Anaheim, Buena Park, etc. and they purchased their tickets for the attractions and are picked up by the tour buses and then bused back to this location. Ae explained they have 25 regular coaches. He explained they have facilities right behind this facility oa Cerritos; and that their lease is for five years. Commissioner Messe suggested a five-year time limit on the conditional use permit so the Commission can make sure the use fits into the area. g~~Qg: Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit a tour bus transportation terminal at 1213 E. Howell Street; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declazationn together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the Dasis 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 Messe offered ResoT.ution No. PC88-312 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 3087 purcuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035, for a period of five (5) years, subject to interdepartmental Committee recommendations. Oa roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by *_-he foJ.luwing vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC BURl1EY„ MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Carol Flynn, Deputy City Attorney, presented the writtoa right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. 11~7~ea ~> _ f MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION November 7 1988 ,p;lge No. 38 15 CEOA NEGATIVE p~,CLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT~1O X88 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: BEACON MAGNOLIA PARTNERS, 23766 Mercury Road, E1 Toro, CA 92630. AGENT: DONALD W. MUELLER, 30131 Town Center Dr., /170, Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 PROPERTY LOCATION: 1270 th*~++^h 1332 South Magnolia Avenue REQUEST: To permit the expansion of an existing commercial retail center. The following action was taken at the beginning of the meeting. ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBuraey and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby accept the petitioner's request to withdraw subject petition. ITEM NO 16 CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PEk:dIT N0. 3093 P:TBLIC HEARING. OWNER: HIGHLAND PZNETREE, 1010 E. Chestnut Street, Santa Ana, CA 92701. AGENT: MICHAEL CHOI LEE, 715 Palomino, Anaheim, CA 92iS07 PROPERTY LOCATION: 916 S. Euclid StregG. To permit oa-sale alcoholic beverages in conjunction xith an enclosed restaurant/public dance hall with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. There were four (4) persons indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Dotty Williams, Anaheim Junction Diner, representing the owner, explained they are leasing the facility to Mr. Lee and questioned the requirement to dedicate land to the City of Anaheim since the building has been there fer many years. She stated they do not object to the use for a restaurant, but do object to the 12-foot land dedication. Commissioner Feldhaus referred to the critical intersection requirements recently approved by the City Council and stated certain intersections were designated as critical intersections and any variance rpplicatioa triggers that requirement. Ms. Williams stated she would request a continuance and discuss this with the owner since she just received this information today. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated this requirement was discussed at the interdepartmental Committee meeting. He stated there is a parking problem there, wT.:ich has nothing to do with the critical intersect»n. Ri:eben Beutsch, 1658 Beacon Avenue, directly east four buildings, stated he did not care about the restaurant or the serer±na of alcoholic beverages, but did not :+ant +t~:em to have dancing there because they have had tro::ble with this landlord Lefore; that he has lived there since 1955 or 1956 and it was 11/7/88 ... .__.__..__.~..~~.....-...~.r.~_ -_ ___ _,w~nlww.pN,1K Il~VO^3YIflY.T.iADiffiMANM1W~Y~~ 9^ } MINL?'~'ES ANAPEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION November 7 1988 Page No 39 nice and then they put in apartments and now they want to put is a business; that there is a alleyway there from Euclid through to anorher alley, so there is a double alleyway; and that parking and noise are big concerns; that a lot of people are living in those single-family homes and there are 70 homes in the area and all are on the same side of the street as this property. He stated widening Ball Road would mean less parking in the area and that is where a lot of customers are parking now. Bill Adams, 318 Vista, Redondo Beach, CA., stated his property is located directly behind this property at 933 and 937 S. Roberts and has 18 apartment units, and that he has reviewed the file and was concerned about having had adequate notice of this hearing. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, stated notices are sent to property owners within 300 feet of subject property and the property is posted an3 a notice is advertised in the newspaper. He stated the minimum requirement is 10 days, and that is what was given. He explained the sale of alcoholic beverages in the restaurant is allowed and the waiver of minimum number of parking spaces is what was advertised. Mr. Adams stated usually this type of business does not close at 1:30 a.m. and that it would generate more traffic and affect existing parking and creates a demand for new parking and that he would request that an EIR be prepared or some mitigation added to the Negative Declaration. Concerning parking, he stated 254 spaces are proposed on site and 371 spaces are required, so 117 spaces are needed. He stated considering the surrounding neighborhood, they have enough liquor sales already and asked the number of occupants allowed for this business. Commissioner Herbst responded that would be up to the Fire Department. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division, stated the building permits would not be issued until the limits are known. Mr. Adams asked about other similar operations nearby. He stated the parking study seems inadequate and thought they would have studied comparable facilities of similar size and is the same area and during peak hours. Ae stated it seems this wound be an inappropriate use and inadequate and conflicting parking problems may be created. Ms. Rousoulas stated her property is nest to the proposed restaurant and dancing facility, and that she is opposed to the permit for this type of business. She stated a waiver was given five years ago for the shopping center and that thore is very limited space right now. She stated they have had a lot of problems before with the fitness center; and that a lot of people come in to shop and if they cannot find parking spaces, she thought they would be parking in front of her property and cause a lot of congestion on Euclid. She stated traffic is very fast and that some elderly people and children walk in the area and she was concerned abcut their safety. She added in addition there is the concern with a facility for dancing, the sale of alcoholic 11/7/88 ~,: Ib 1TEa ANAIaEIh, CITY PLAN^dING COMMISSION November 7 1988 Paae No. 40 beverages and drinking because that type of. facility invites more crime, more drug activity, prostitution, etc. and they would not like to have that type of facility in their neighborhood, and do not want their children exposed to that type of facility. She stated they would like to see some of type of business go into this facility and would like to have that center full and people could come there to shop and not cause any more problems. She added a lot of the businesses have people who party in the back now and they would not like to create more of that type activity. Carol Reese, 1670 W. Beacon, just behind Foodland, and the Foodland alley is private, and the cars come ths•ough there very fast and hit the speed bumps and thought a dance hall and restaurant would make that worse. She stated the Dairy Queen is right next door which they patronize and their children go there after school and she thought allowing alcohol sales nest door would not be good; and pointed out the Dairy Queen is open until 11 p.m. during the summer months. She asked how the delivery trucks would get in and out if they do not use the Foodland alley; and noted they have had fences knocked down about five times by big trucks. James Y.ousoulas stated many times he has been there at night and recalled three or four times during the last year when he has had people approach him and offer to sell him drugs, and that he felt if that type of restaurant with dancing and alcohol is allowed, that type activity would increase. He added there would be more and more people there and more people on the street offering to sell drugs. He stated there are a lot of young people there who might go to the dairy queen and be temptt~ to purchase the drugs. Mr. Le, agent, stated one concern xas the type of business and stated it is not hard to find a restaurant with dancing and alcohol sales is Anaheim and explained this will be an eating facility, with cocktails served and a dance floor and the door charge may be what is not understood and that sometimes on a weekday (Thursday or Friday), it is crowded and thought it would be good for business to have a three or four player band. He referred to the garking study conducted by a local traffic engineering consultant (Weston Pringle and Associates) which indicated that some of the tenants' business hours and days are generally weekdays sud they are not open when this restaurant has its busiest hours. He skated they compared it with fast food restaurants which has a very high parking ratio which is 18 spaces per 1000 square feet and the general use is for 6 spaces per 1000 square feet, and a fast food restaurant would have only a few tables and it rshowed they need 139 spaces at peak demand on Thursday and Friday at 6 p.m., and also they are proposing 25 spaces not occupied at all and the conclusion o~ the study was that 215 parking spaces should be adequate. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. 11/7/88 ~~~ ~NUTES, ANAHEIM CITY Pr.axerTxG COhAlIcSrnx November 7 Mr. Le responded to Commissioner Feldhaus that there is a similar facility in his community, the Fozfire on Imperial, and explained they did not expect the door charge to cause a problea, so they would dropt that part of the request and that they would be serving oriental food and the hours would be from 12:30 and they would stop serving dinner at 9 p.m. and be open until 1:30 a.m. Mr. Le stated they would be open from 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. for lunch, and from 5:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. for dinner, but people who ordered food after 9:00 p.m. would be served. Commissioner Messe stated the basic concern is whether there is enough parking in that center for this use, and added he lives near this center and patronizes it, but it is a problem center and he did not think there is adequate parking or adequate egress and ingress. He added he did not receive a copy of the Weston Pringle parking study. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated there is an obvious parking problem as it stands without the restaurant with the building closed and that he did make a personal visit to this site. He stated the area around the intersection at 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m., was fully parked; that the market has a very small area and its parking overflows into there remainder of the shopping center and at 2 p.m. he observed about 15 vacant spaces in the middle of all of these businesses and in the morning about 25 to 30 spaces were available and during the lunch hour or evening hours, there would be none. Mr. Singer stated there are additional parking spaces accessible from the alley and are never parked on. He stated the area is not lighted and at night employees would not park there and use the customer parking area. Commissioner Herbst stated there have been dance halls that back up to residential areas in Anaheim and invaribly that becomes a problem and they seem to create noise, and there will be a band here and he did not know if they have sound attenuation in the building. He stated in every such facility backing up to residential, there have been problems and some had to be revoked. He added he would not be in favor of a dance hall in this area and this appears to be the wrong place. He stated he could not vote in favor of such a use in this area, right next door to a business that is going to be serving children and that they will be serving alcohol. He added typically a lot of teenagers will congregate in the parking lot of a facility like this even if they can not go inside and it becomes a place for them to congregate. Mr. Le stated they have operated many restaurants with dance floors and cocktails are served and sometimes it could become a problem. Commissioner McBurney asked if the Weston Pringle traffic report considered the widening of Ball Road and Euclid and 20 spaces that would be eliminated oa Euclid and Ball. Mr, Singer stated an irrevocable offer to dedicate cannot be considered in the parking. He stated any use that goes into that facility will cause a parking problem unless it was something like a furniture store or something that would have a Iow volume of traffic. 11/7/88 iy _f MINUTES. AN' *~*~` nnwrrcrnv un. emhar 7 19$8 Paae No. 42 Commissioner Feldhaus stated there are four types of dance halls described in the ordinance and the one that charges a fee is only one definition and asked if dropping the fee changes the number of spaces required. Mr. Hastings stated the parking is based on the restaurant and dropping the cover charge would not change the required parking. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit on-sale alcoholic beverages in conjunction with an enclosed restaurant/public dance hall with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces oa property located at 916 S. Euclid Avenue; and does hereby disapprove 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 substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and on the peace, health and safety of the citizens. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny waiver of Code requirement on the basis that the parking waiver will cause an increase in traffic congestion is the immediate vicinity and adversely affect any adjoining land uses and granting of the parking waiver will be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC90-313 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny Conditional Use Permit No. 3093 on the basis thal• the location is not proper and the use would adversely affect the health, peace, safety and welfare of the citizens. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: SOUAS, HOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Carol Flynn, Deputy City Attorney, gresented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. 11/7/88 IT M NO 17 REPOQT TO PLANNING COMMIS~QN_: crFrrrC CORRIDOR SINGLE-FAMILY kESiDE'3TIAL ZONE HEIGHT STANDARD REVIE~1 AND STUDY Continued from meetings of September 26, 1988 and Octobez 24, 1988. Commissioners McBurney and Feldh:xus indicated that they had reviewed tapes from the previous meeting. Commissioner Carusillo declared a conflict of interest and left the Council Chambers. Joel Fick, Planning Director, stated staff looked at other jurisdiction's standards as to how they measured structural heights and also staff met with citizens in the area and -axamined the ezistinq Codo standards and found a a amber of discrepancies. He stated the Commission has taken a lot of public testimony and several o': the Commissioners have gone out to look at the hill and canyon area and th+: Heights of buildings which exist. He stated the option, available to the Planning Commission are on Paqe 9 of the staff report anc: range from maintaining the existing standard to raising it or amending it i.n specific sub-communities. He stated there was discussion at one of the meetings Y.C~ permit projections above the roofline in the Hidden Canyon area, which is a unique area; and finally to amending the Zoning Code to provide clarity and consistency. He stated certainly staff would recommend that, in any instance, the Zoning Code be amended to clarify how heights are measured. He stated pu'~lic testimony has shown that the current manner in which the Code is interpre'ced which isn't really specified verbatim, isn't consistent and the current in+~erpretation is really the most conservative, and that is to measure from the )iighest point on the roof to directly below at the finished grade level. He explained there are existing homes which have been constructed where because of varying topography, they are split level homes which actually conform to the landform, and that the strict interpretation is very restrictive in measuring the building heights and in part, some of the variances submitted are indicative that the problem exists. Chairwoman Bouas asked what the difference would be if the structural height was measured to the floor level rather than the finished grade. 1dr. Fick stated there are varying conflicting terms in the current Zvaiaq Code and staff uses the finished grade. He stated there would be a difference between finished glade and floor level and most other jurisdictions use either the finished grade or an averaged finished grade point. Be added, however, there are two difficulties using the floor level and the first would be that there could be false floor levels with stair steps up, or tri-levels, or bi-levels within the homes and one concern expressed by the residents was looking across canyons at homes, and if a floor foundation was used, some of the homes may be literally multiple stories or very tall. 1117188 }1 5 ~` ~rvrf•rrrc ~ .tn, nr avvrvr rnvutecrnv u 1, 7 1988 Page NO 44 He stated staff thought a finished grade level is certainly easier to measure and is very simple to analyze and in instances were the topography is radical, there would be grounds for individual examination and approval of a variance. Commissioner Messe asked if the finished grade is knows from the preliminary drawings. Mr. Fick responded that is one of the problems; that the current code doesn't provide a mechanism because in some cases there isn't a pad elevation and some homes have been built into the hillsides. Commissioner Messe stated all the Commission sees is a footprint of the structure and does not know how it is going to come out in finished grade. Mr. Fick stated the Building Department also has difficulties when homes are being constructed and the finished grade isn't there yet as buildings are being inspected, so there are some moderate difficulties with that, but when homes come in for building plan check, staff has not hnd a problem analyzing the plans from heights of buildings to finished grades. Chairwoman Bouas asked if the 25-foot from finished grade would make it more restrictive than it has been sad added that many of the homes which are there could not be built today, unless a provision of five feet os something like that for architectural features for an uninhabited area, is added so that roof areas could be above the 25-foot high limit. Mr. Fick agreed and stated there are homes which exist today in the hill and canyon area which have been approved based upon the highest finished grade concept or some other topography in the past which today could not be constructed with the stricter interpretation. Commissioner Herbst stated there could be several finished grade levels and a Building Inspector could really have a problem with that interpretation. Commissioner Meese asked if the meas~:remeat would be from the highest point to the grade directly below, and Commissioner McSuraey stated that is open for another interpretation, and added it doesn't chaaye taking the highest point of the roof to the lowest finished floor. Commissioner Herbst stated the lowest finished floor, going down a hill, could be different. He suggested from the highest point, directly to the highest finished grade, or to the slab directly below that, and added he did not think it could be to a raised floor, because it could be over a garage and that would give the wrong interpretation. Joel Fick .stated is most instances of raised floors which Staff has seen is because of topography and either a floor is actually constructed out over a canyon area with stilts below or there has been an underground garage underneath two floors of house. Commissioner Meese stated that usually happens on a hillside and there is evidence of a variance in that instance, and Mr. Fick agreed sad added he thought that is an example of some of the testimony heard. 11/7/88 7 Commissioner Bouas stated a house with a foundation instead of a slab would be two feet higher and the measurement would be from the finished floor level and not the foundation. Commissioner Herbst stated measuring from the finished floor level, with a house built on a raised floor with a foundation like houses used to be instead of a slab, it could be 27 feet high on the same plan. He suggested measuring from the footprint from the highest grade to the highest possible grade from the highest part of the roof straight down, and if it has a raised floor, there would be a problem. Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas to allow a 5-foot non-inhabitable encroachment into the 25-foot high limit standard for not more than 20~ of• the total roof area for architectural purposes, except for the Hidden Canyon Area, which would have a 35-foot high limit standard; and that the method of measuring this structural height will be from the highest peak of the roof to the finished floor directly below. Commissioner McBurney stated he would agree with most of the motion, except the 20! non-inhabitable portion. He stated the whole purpose of those variances that were granted for any 2ieight limitation in the canyon was because of the topography, but some slipped through with the architectural features. He stated, consequently, he did not feel that it is as imposition on the house or the architecture and thought there is more allowed for the ground on a case by case basis. Commissioner Messe stated he wanted to see the Commission loosen the architectural capabilities of the hill and canyon area. Commissioner Feldhaus asked why the Hidden Canyon area was the only sub-community mentioned. Commissioner Messe stated he thought the feeling was that the Hidden Canyon area has already had a number of variances permitted and they all wanted it and there did not seem to be any objection from the neighbors, but for the rest of the area, he is saying leave the 25-foot height limit standard, ezcept to allow certain S~foot encroachments for architectural "gingerbread". Be added he did not think that would impact the area at all and that is what we have now and he did not think it would be changing anything. Commissioner McBurney asked about the 20~ limit mentioned and Commissioner Messe clarified that is 20~ of the roof area, with the 5-foot encroachment. Commissioner Boydstun stated from what the Commission reviewed this morning, l0i would give the desired decor. Commissioner Messe stated he picked the 209 as an arbitrary number and it seemed to allow for a couple of the homes the Commission saw which actually had a roofline slightly over the 25 feet, plus any towers or turrets, etc. 11/7/88 ~~ ~~ MTr ~ Bx~aFIM CITY PLANNIH 0 I ION No emb r 7 1988 Paae No. 46- Commissioner Feldhaus stated people who are going to be developing in the future will be requesting more than what is existing and he did not know what the magic nut.ber would be for the limit. He suggested leaving the limit at 25 feet, as it is today. Chairwoman Bouas stated they can still ask for a waiver, but at least a lot of them could be developed without coming before the Commission. Commissioner Boydstun stated the way that 25-foot limit is measured has to be determined so there is not a controversy. Joel Fick stated one criticism by the community has been that variances that have been requested by a number of property owners really have not pertained to a physical hardship on ttie land. He stated the analysis and the opportunity that exists today is really for the Planning Commission to take a step back from having a development proposal on the table and looking at what a reasonable standard would be for the hill and canyon area, recognizing that there certainly will be specific hardship proposals submitted, based upon topography. He stated, hopefully, with a reasonable standard for regular building permit activity, which is an acceptable standard is the canyon, the citizens and land owners should not be submittirq variance requests. Commissioner Feldhaus stated a person with a one-acre lot sitting all by itself, with no hardship foz height variance, but wants to build higher and is not creating as intrusion on anybody else, could not build his home and develop his own property the way he wants to. Conmtissioner Messe stated that is why he offered the motion to loosen the standard a little bit with the 5-foot encroachment, but right now, variances are being granted by the Planning Commission, Zoning Administrator or City Council because there is no impact on adjacent properties. He added the Commission has reviewed the area many times and there are more trees which intrude on views than anything else. Commissioner Herbst stated that 5-foot encroachment could enczoach upon somebody's view. He stated this 25-foot high limit ordinance has been in effect for years and asked how much area is left to be developed in this area. Chairwoman Souas stated the ordinance hss been there, but staff has not measured in the manner which is being discussed, therefore, some of the houses are 30 feet high, and the people thought they had 25-foot high houses, but they really have 27, 28 or 30-foot portions on the houses which today would not be allowed. Commissioner Herbst stated the Commission saw houses is Peralta Hills and on Mohler Drive but that 90~ of the rest of the land there is Anaheim Hills, and there is very little land left to be developed. He stated this ordinance applies to the whole canyon. Commissioner Messe stated there are requests for five variances at every meeting. 11/7/88 -. ~' MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 7. 1988 Paqe No. 47 Chairwoman Bouas stated she is talking about custom homes and not a tract of houses. Commissioner Boydstun stated the Chief Building Inspector explained today that measuring from the peak to the floor would eliminate a lot of the variances. Commissioner McBurney stated the extra 5-foot encroachment is not needed. Commissioner Messe amended the motion and Chairwoman Bouas amended the second and MOTION CARRIED FAILED TO CARRY DUE TO A TIE VOTE (Commissioners Boydstun, Herbst and McBurney voting no, Commissioners Bouas, Feldhaus and Messe voting yes, and Commissioner Carusillo absent due to a conflict of interest) to allow a 5-foot non-inhabitable encroachment into the 25-foot high limit standard for not more than 10~ of the total roof area for architectural purposes, except for the Hidden Canyon Area, which shall have a 35-foot high limit standard; and that the method of measuring this structural height will be from the highest peak of the roof, to the finished floor directly below. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney to maintain the height limit in Peralta Hills and the rest of the canyon area at 25 feet, except for the Hidden Canyon area which should be 35 feet, with the method of measuring thi: structural height will be from the highest peak of the roof, to the finished floor directly below; and added in order for a variance to get granted, the hardship must be specifically or. 'he land. Joel Fick stated based on that interpretation, a garage which has a floor, with two floors of dwelling structure directly above it, constructed in hillsides, would require a variance. Commissioner Herbst stated the 25-foot high limit could be applied to the living area, rather than the garage, and the hardship would have to be on the land itself. Commissioner McBurney added he thought that interpretation might open "Pandora's box" and they could build a garage and then close it and puC living area there later. Commissioner Feldhaus suggested wording that there is a provision for evaluation of the height limitation on a case by case basis where a visual intrusion would not occur such as as isolated location or a grade differential, or otherwise, he could not support that interpretation. He stated there has to be property out there still where somebody will want a waiver, and that a hardship has to be defined because grade levels can be built up, and then they could go up 25 feet from there and intrude on their neighbors, and these have to be evaluated on a case by case basis. Joel Fick stated if a provision which is actually not a variance could be added to the ordinance to review these on a case by case base such as a conditional use permit procedure which would determine compatibility for homes above 25 feet, or non-view obstructing, or whatever the criteria was desired 11/7/88 4 .:~`~,:~cji}S ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION November 7 1988 Paae No 48 to be associated with that review. He added one of the criticisms received on an ongoing basis is that we are receiving a lot of proposals, even that are non-view impacting and are actually supported in some cases by immediate neighbors which are not consistent with the 25-foot high standard. Commissioner Messe stated he thought our present standards are too limiting architecturally and loosening that a little with the 5-foot encroachments might help, and Commissioner Feldhaus agreed with that statement. Commissioner Feldhaus a standard is merely a standard and a starting point and there are going to be exceptions to the standard and there has to be a mechanism to reviex those. Commissioner Messe stated a person might have a flat pad and want to build a house on a nice big lot with a turret or something of that nature and if the current standards are imposed, a variance could not be granted because there is no hardship on that land. Commissioner Feldhaus explained he voted against the motion because it did not address the sub-community concept and only addressed Hidden Canyon. He added maybe there should be special districts for particular areas and that a person purchasing raw land is different than one buying a house with all the restrictions in place already and then wants to remodel. Commissioner Herbst explained his motion was to leave the Code as is in the whole canyon area, except for Hidden Canyon which is 35 feet, and changing the method of measuring from highest point of the roofline straight down to 'the finished floor, as long as the finished floor is a slab and is not a raised floor. He ezplained a floor could be built up over an area and the house would be two or three feet higher. The MOTION FOREGOING FAILED TO CARRY CARRY (Commissioners Herbst and McBurney voting yes, and Commissioners Bouas, Boydstun, Feldhaus and Messe voting ao and Commissioner Carusillo abseatl. Chairwoman Bouas explained she voted against the motion because everybody doesn't have a slab and some people have a foundation under the house. Commissioner Herbst stated he would change the motion that the 25-foot limit be measured to the finished floor, which is what the Building Official had discussed and that would be standard way of measuring, and there were very few houses existing which would have passed. Commissioner Messe asked if that would really loosen the standards to allow for the different types of architectural features mentioned. Commissioner McBurney stated the motion added a 5-foot encroachment over l0i of the roof area and that would open the door for developers to go to 30 feet, and then request a variance because of a hardship oa the land, and then the house could go to 45 feet high. He explained he did not want to give the developers that opportunity. Chairwoman Bouas added that is penalizing the owners on the flat lots. 11/7/88 `~ ,~,. _., ES, ANAHEIM_C~TY PLANNING COMMISSION November 7 1988 Page No. 4 Commissioner Boydstun stated if the lots are large enough and there is a hardship, there is a procedure is place to review that plan. She stated most of the houses the Commission looked at today would not have needed a variance if the measurement had been from the floor instead of the pad. Joel Fick stated there are two issues associated with this and that is that there are the existing architectural styles, but the proposals coming in now indicate architectural styles are changing, houses are larger, and the styles are different. He stated basing the standard solely on permitting only what is there, may address a small segment of the problem, but not the projects currently being submitted to the City for consideration and they would not be addressed by changing the Code to allow six inches, a foot or 18 inches, based on a slab definition alone, or measuring from the highest point to the finished floor. Commissioner Herbst stated he would change his previous motion because the Building Official stated that most of the houses would not have needed a variance is the measurement had been from the floor level, and he saw all different types of architecture existing, and very few would have been over the 25 feet and most of them had variances. He added he thought this would give the flexibility, but did not agree to adding the 5-foot encroachment previously discussed. Commissioner Feldhaus suggested changing the height limit to 30 feet and not allowing the 5-foot encroachment, adding there is no way to blanket anything like this. He stated there is already a procedure for allowing a variance. Commissioner Messe stated the hardshig has to be against the land and if the owner has a fairly level acre, he could not have a variance. Commissioner McBurney stated he would second the motion to maintain the 25-foot high limit, keeping the variance procedure in place, and measuring the 25 feet from the highest point of the roof, directly below to the finished floor level. THE MOTION FAILED TO CARRY DUE TO A TIE VOTE (Commissioners Bouas, Boydstun sad Feldhaus voting no and Commissioners Herbst, McBurney and Messe voting yes and Commissioner Carusillo absent due to conflict of interest. Commissioner Herbst there is very little developable residential land in that area and driving through the Mohler Drive area, he sees very few properties that are even level and there are some on slopes in Peralta Hills, and there may be 18 or 19 variances in Peralta Hills and the rest are all 25 feed high and it appears almost everybody there have lived within the Code. Commissioner Messe stated times do change and people want to build different types of houses. Joel Fick stated looking at the existing homes and recognizing that some of them might be a foot or two different and saying those could be eliminated based upon the terrain differences and those could have been constructed if the standard was different, as opposed to the variance applications that are being received now because the heights are substantially different. 11/7/88 ":a ~t~rTFs ANAHEIM CITY Pr nxxrrrG COMMISSIO-- moer i i9o8 Paqe No. 50 Commissioner Herbst asked if the motion offered by Commissioner Messe would solve the problem because based on the applications being received, most of them are even higher. Mr. Fick stated staff has not checked every variance to see what the percentage should be (10~, 12~, or 8~), in terms of the roof structures that have ezceeded given thresholds of varying cliff elevations, but a very high percentage of the variances that have been submitted to and approved by the City, or determined to be acceptable, either by the Zoning Administrator, the Planning Commission or the City Council, a number certainly would not have been submitted to the City. Commissioner Messe reoffered a cation, seconded by Chairwoman Bouas, and MOTION FAILED TO CARRY DUE TO A TIE VOTE (Commissioners Bouas, Boydstua and Messe voting yes, and Commissioners Feldhaus, Herbst and McBurney voting no, and Commissioner Carusillo absent due to a conflict of interest) that the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council amend the Code to allow the 5-foot non-inhabitable encroachment into the 25-foot high limit fez not more than 10^s of the totai roof area for architectural purposes only, except in Hidden Canyon which will have a 35-foot high limit, and that the method of measuring the structural height would be from the highest peak of the roof to the finished floor directly below that point. ACTION: Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Chairwoman Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Feldhaus voting ao, and Commissioner Carusillo absent due to conflict of interest) that this matter be forwarded to the City Council without recommendation due to tie votes. COMMISSIONER CARUSILLO RETURNED TO THE MEETING. 11/7/88 6+: tt ~1 ~' _ 1 ~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION November 7 1988 Paae No 51 18. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2169 - Dick Rogers of Safaris International Inc., (leaseholders) requests review of revised plans for recommendation to City Council. Property is located at 4060 East La Palma. (Continued from the meeting of October 10, 1988). A TI N: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIER that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the meeting of December 5, 1988. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 2773 REQUEST FOR RETROACTIVE TIME EXTENSION TO COMPLY WITH THE CONDITION~4F APPROVAL Applicant, Hill Williams Development Corporation, requests approval of a one-year time extension (retroactive to May 12, 1987) to expire on May 12, 1989. Property is located at 175 Riverview Avenue. A TI N: Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant a one-year time extension (retroactive to May 12, 1987) to expire on May 12, )^89. C. VARIANCE NO 2069 - RE0UES1 FOR TERMINATION: Applicant, Pazk/Abrams Development, requests termination of Variance No. 2069. Property is located at 1717 S. Stat: College Boulevard. ACTION: Commissioner Messe offered Resolution No. FC 88-314 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby terminate all proceedings in connection with Variance No. 2069. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, SOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MESSE, MCBURNEY NOES: NONE ASSENT: NONE D. ~QNDITIONAI 11 E PERMIT NO 2861 REOUEST FOR RETROACTIVE TIME EXTENSION TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Applicant, Phillip Martin Associates, requests approval of a one-year time extension (retroactive to January 19, 1988) to expire on January 19, 1989. Property is located at 2249 West Lincoln Avenue. ACTION: Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant a one-year time eztension (retroactive to January 19, 1988) to expire on January 19, 1989. 11/7!88 '' MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION November 7 1988 Paae No. 52 E. REQUEST FOR CODE AMENDMENT PERTAINING TO BOWLING ALLEYS IN THE "ML" ZONE. James W. Ray, General Partner, Sanderson Ray Development, owner of the land and applicant, explained this is a review of their request that bowling centers be considered in the industrial zone and not to discuss the merits of a particular bowling center. He stated they hope bowling centers can be considered the same as health clubs, spas, restaurants, hotels/motels, banks, fast print shops and metal smelting. Regarding bowling centers in Anaheim, he stated few bowling centers have been constructed in Orange County for years, especially central and north Orange County. He stated none have been constructed in Anaheim during the last 20 years and today there are two remaining bowling centers in the city and they are over 25 years old, and are inferior in many respects and functionally are obsolete. Mr. Ray stated bowling has not disappeared as a recreational sport, and today it is the largest, most popular participatory sport is the United States, and the number of bowlers today is greater than the number 10 years ago. He stated the problem in Anaheim and other north Orange county cities is that bowling centers cannot afford the rent for traditional commercial land, most priced at S25.00 a foot or higher. He stated those bowling centers being constructed in the Southern Calfornia marketplace today, provided they are well located with good access, good traffic, good demographics and most important good management, have proven to be extraordinarily successful. He stated the code change being requested would allow bowling centers to be included among those uses which could be permitted subject to approval of a CUP in an M1: Zone. He stated bowling centers like athletic clubs and health spas serve as an amenity in an industrial district; that upwards of 40~ of the patronage of their proposed facility would consist of industrial league bowling; that a bowling center should serve to stimulate additional quality industrial development in Anaheim and retain that which presently exists. He added assuming this request is approved and a subsequent CUP is approved, it is unlikely or impossible that additional requests would be submitted because the economics of bowling centers do not support additional facilities in this marketplace; and that the bowling center they propose is "state of the art" - new, clean, and unlike what is seen today in existing bowling centers. He stated this proposed facility would have professional management. He stated economics is a source of concern in any community and the sales tax revenue which this facility should generate would approach between 51.3 and 1.5 million a year; and is addition, the property tan revenue, iacludia;* the personal property component, should be approximately twice that which would be produced from a traditional industrial development on the same land area. 11/~/s8 ~M ~, MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. November 7. 1988 Page No. 53 Mr. Ray stated they ask only to be given the opportunity to discuss details surrounding what they think can be an exciting project. Bart Rainone, operator of the proposed bowling center, 3201 Mac Arthur Boulevard, Santa Ana, explained he is a partner of an existing bowling center in Riverside, and iadicatod he was present to answer any questions. Commissioner Messe asked what comprises a bowling center, particulrrly whether or not most have coffee shops, restaurants, bars, video games, child care, etc. Mr. Rainone stated it is different than it was in r_he past; that Anaheim Bowl on Lincoln used to have night club shows, etc. and they realize today that they cannot compete with night clubs and they want to provide a very clean, recreation-oriented bowling center. He added the restaurants are really a scaled up snack bar a.nd the bar is really downplayed and is in an open area and they do not have dancing, and the billiard rooms are no longer is the bowling center and basically they are catering to a very clean, family-oriented recreation/bowling facility. Commissioner Messe stated the brochure seemed to actually spotlight the restaurant and bar portion of the facility. Mr. Rainone stated he Thought they alluded to it and more or less talked about the senior's league, the. junior's league, the adult's league, the Vegas league, etc. and brought to attention that they have a good clean restaurant which highlighted pizza. He added in the past, the restaurant and bar were a big part, but today it is very scaled down, and in the past large areas were wasted dead banquet areas which were not being used. Commissioner Messe asked why this scaled-down version of the bowling alley will not work in a commercial center. Mr. Rainone responded the basic reason is the cost of the land; that there has been 10 centers built in Southern California in the last 10 years, none of them in Orange County, and they have been in Simi Valley, Upland, Rancho Cucamonga, Morena Valley, Norco, basically oa $5.00 per foot land. He added they are not a large corporation, but can afford to take a chance and pay a little more for land in order to be here in Orange County and explained they paid S15 a foot which is S10 per foot more than the others are willing to pay. He explained commercial land is S25 per foot, creating a S3 million difference in land cost. Mr. Rainone responded to Commissioner Messe that it. is not just a matter of financing rather than servicing the industrial area, but a major combination of both. He stated today with only one major employer in their area is Riverside with 3,000 people (Rohr) almost 20~ of their leagues are industrial and are from 3:30 p.m. to 6 p.m., and 11:30 to 1 a.m. with swing shifts. He stated in the Anaheim Canyon Industrial Area with Autonetics, Rockwells, Hughes, and major employers, they are looking at 40~ industrial leagues. Commissioner Messe stated with 40~ from the industrial area, there would be 60~ from outside the industrial area. Mr. Rainone stated they would not necessarily be from outside the area, but could be. 11/7/88 rru rr~rv ar.nuuiua rnfntiSSiDN. November 7.,_ 19$8 Paoe No. .~4 Commissioner Messe stated his concern is that the use would not service the industrial area; that he has a fast printing business which does service the industrial area exclusively, and that a bawling center does not provide jobs, and that he was worried about the inventory of industrial land and sees it being depleted. Mr. Rainone stated there are commercial types uses there now such as fast print shop, sandwich shops, floor covering, computers which is literally retail type computer stores and they are not just catering to the industrial area, and did not feel this use would be nay more of a commercial use not benefitting the immediate area than some of the uses which are already there. Commissioner Messe agreed those uses are there and are not servicing the industrial area. Commissioner Feldhaus stated bowlers bowl for beer frames and bowling centers traditionally sell beer, wine and liquor and this Commissian frowns on the sale of alcoho?.ic beverages. Mr. Rainone stated like some of the hotels that have been permitted i.n industrial areas which have restaurants, cocktail lounges, and bars, they would also have their bar and also they have religious leagues and the bowlers do not drink at all. Commissioner Feldhaus stated requests which have come before this Commission where they wanted to sell beer and wine in the industrial area, the Commission has traditionally denied those requests because they do feel it is good for employees working around machinery, etc. Mr. Rainone stated some of the sandwich shops on La Palma is the immediate area sell beer 6 wine. He added it is different ruw and people Cake a 1/2 ~unch hour and it would be difficult to have a Meer in the half hour and if people want to drink at noon, they will drink wh~ths'r it is in a restaurant, or in their car ~~nd he thought the 112 hour lunch hour has made the big difference. Commissioner Carusill.~ stated the issue is whether a bowling center belongs in an industrial area and !~e personally did not think so. He stated the hardship, as stated by tns petitioner himself, is the cost of the land and generally the Commission does not get involved in that aspect. He stated there will always be the problem of opening a "can of worms" and thought there are better locations for bowling centers and it would generate the same sales tax in a commercial area. Mr. Rainone asked how the hotel with the same situation in the industrial area is any different. Commissioner Carusillo stated some of those businesses are permitted in the ML Zone and bowling centers are not permitted. Commissioner Herbst disagreed that a bowling center is in the same situation as the hotel or health spa and stated the hotel business has been allowed out there and they service the industrial community, the people who come into the area to meet with the industrial people the following day and that is why the 11/7/88 .. ;~ MINUTES ANAHEIM CT'~"r PLANNZN COMMI ION Nove hwr ~ 1988 Paae No 55 conditional uses have been allowed in that area. He added some commercial uses have bees allowed there, but not by the Planning Commission, and because the City Council has allowed certain uses, somebody else comes along and says since they are there, that they should also be allowed. He stated a recreational facility does service the needs of the industrial people who work there, but questioned whether or not it belongs in the industrial area. He stated he has fought to conserve the industrial area, probably more than anyone else and it has deteriorated. He stated continuing to allow other uses because we have allowed the ones previously will destroy the area. He added this will use up about 3-1/2 to 4 acres of land and will not service the area and the inability to get access to the site they are considering could create problems; that they indicated they would start leagues at 3:30 and that is when the industrial people go home from work; and that there may be other areas in the industrial area where this might fit, but did not think this one does. Mr. Rainone stated those 3:30 leagues would consist of those same people trying to get out of the industrial area at night. He added he they have looked everywhere for a location. Ee stated bowling is a recreation that almost everybody enjoys. Responding to Commissioner Messe, Greg Hastings stated there are parts of that area which are not part of the Redevelopment Area. It was noted this is not a request for a specific site. Chairwoman Bouas stated she thought this request should be reviewed by the Redevelopment Commission to determine if it is a use they would recommend be permitted. Mr. Rainone stated with the price of land, it is not possible to consider commercial land for the health spa or bowling centers and they just would like to be able to make the request and noted bowling centers are a different situation in that it is a 40-lane facility with only 200 people there at s time, and that limits the income for any given day and it cannot be increased because of the constraints. Chairwoman Bouas asked if the downtown area was not a consa.deration because of the costs or because there was no land available. Mr. Rainone stated anything available was $25 per foot. Mr. Rainone stated bowling centers need a certain population and certainly the exposure in order to work and no centers have been built in Orange County because of the cost of the land. Commissioner Herbst stated just in case this was allowed with a conditional use permit and then there was a condition imposed on the CUP that they would only be allowed to operate during certain hours in the ML Zone and it could be very restrictive and asked how that would affect their business. Mr. Rainone responded then he did not think it would work. Commissioner Herbst stated they will be bringing in morning leagues and afternoon leagues, etc. and he did not think that would be compatible with the traffic patterns in that area and it would not be compatible with the industrial area. 11/7/88 MI~1STlE5. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION November 7 1988 Paae No 56 Mr. Rinaone stated he would like to come back if they are requesting a conditional use permit and talk about traffic and those things, and that he would like to come back with recommendations from Rockwell, Hughes, etc. saying that is what they want in the area; however, he could not do any of that until the first step was taken to be permitted is the ML Zone with a CIIP. Commissioner Herbst stated he had suggested they do their homework before and that means before he would want to make a recommendation for a conditional use permit, he would want to see information from Rockwell, Hughes, etc, saying that they want this and need this in the area, and possibly then it would change the complexion of this Commission, and if the industrial people want it there, he would be more inclined to recommend approval, but would rather have their support before voting. Greg Hastings suggested this request be denied and then it could be brought back up again at a future date. Commissioner Messe suggested no action rather than denial. Chairwoman Bouas stated the Commission would take no action and they could bring back any information they want, and Mr. Rainone agreed. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Chairwoman Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission will take no action on the request for a code amendment to allow bowling centers in the ML Zone, subject to approval of a conditional use permit, until the applicant has has submitted additional information from industrial users in the area indicating their support of the requ~ast. It wan explained the matter will come back to the Commission as a Report and Recommendation matter when the information has been prepared and submitted to staff. Greg Hastings stated staff will need another letter asking that the matter be placed oa the agenda. 11/7/88 ~~' --~ ~rurrrFC aNAAEit~ CITI PLAN 7ING COh;riISSION November 7 1988 _ Paae No. SL E R A R T N 27 P V HL IAHEIM HILLS SPECIFIC PLAN (SP87 1) FINar cTTE PLAN REVIEW FQ~ PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED RESIDENTYAL SINGLE-FAMILY. AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO 12701 (125 UNITS) Property is one (1) previously-approved vesting tentative tract totaling approximately 47 acres, located northwesterly of the intersection of Canyon R:lm Road and Serrano Avenue and further described as The Highlands at Anaheim Hills Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 12701. Petitioner requests approval of final site glans for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 12701 in compliance with Condition No. 47 of said tract which reads as follows: " That prior to recordation of the final map, final site plans indicating unit layout, minimum building and front-on garage setbacks and building coverage for each lot shall be submitted to and apgroved by the Planning Commission." Frank Elfend, agent, explained the lot sizes oa this tract are larger than on the tract maps. Steve Riggs, Senior Project Manager, was prosent to answer any questions. Linda Rios, Assistant Planner, explained the plans submitted are in conformance with plans submitted for the Highl.aads. I N: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that Environmental Impact Report No. 273, previously certified by the City Council on June 23, 1987, for T.he Highlands at Anaheim Hills Specific Plan (SP87-1) is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for Final Site Plan approval for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 12701. Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Final Site Plans far Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 12701 as being consistent with The Highlands at Anaheim Hills Specific Plan (SP87-1) 2oninq and Development Standards. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at ?:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted~,~~~ ~~ EditY. L. Harris, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission 11/7/88