The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1997/08/18SUM ARY ACTION AGEN®A ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION EETING MONDAY, AUGUST 18, 1997 1 1:00 A.M. PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW ® STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION OF VARIOUS CITY DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES 1:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: BOYDSTUN, BOSTWICK, BRISTOL, HENNINGER, MAYER, NAPOLES, PERAZA COMMISSIONER ABSENT: NONE STAFF PRESENT: Selma Mann Assistant City Attorney Annika Santalahti Zoning Administrator Greg Hastings Zoning Division Manager Cheryl Flores Senior Planner _ Linda Johnson Senior Planner _ Jonathan Borrego Senior Planner Greg McCafferty Associate Planner -- Karen Freeman Associate Planner Bruce Freeman Code Enforcement Supervisor Russ .Maguire Deputy City Engineer Melanie Adams Associate Engineer Alfred Yalda Principal Transportation Planner Tom Engle Vice Detail Edith Harris PC Support Supervisor Margarita Solorio Senior Secretary Ossie Edmundson Secretary P:\DOCS\CLEFICAL\MINUTES\AC091897. W P Appointment of a Planning Commission representative to the following Committees: 1. 'Utilities Underground Conversion Subcommittee. ACTION: Commissioner Peraza offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mayer and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby appoint Commissioner Robert Henninger to attend the Underground Conversion Subcommittee meetings. 2. Community wide CDBG Citizen Participation Committee. ACTION: Commissioner Peraza offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby appoint Commissioner Phyllis Boydstun, as representative, and Commissioner Julie Mayer, as alternate, to the Community wide CDBG Citizen Participation Committee far the Community Development Block Grant Program. Appointed Robert Henninger Appointed Phyllis Boydstun and Julie Mayer as alternate ITEMS OF PUSUC INTEREST: NONE 08-18-97 Page 2 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. a. CEQA EXEMPTION SECTION 15061/bl(31 b. CODE AMENDMENT NO. 97-10 -PROPOSAL TO AMEND Concurred w/staff Recommended PORTIONS OF TITLE 18 RELATING TO OUTDOOR adoption of the ADVERTISING: Staff initiated proposal to amend various sections draft ordinance with of Chapter 18.05 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to two additional outdoor advertising provisions. revisions to the City ' Council ACTION: Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mayer and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that subject request is exempt from CEQA. Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Brlstdl and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council the adoption of the draft ordinance attached to the Staff Report dated August 18, 1997 with the addition of the following: Added the following paragraph to Page 7 of the draft ordinance under "Signs Requiring a Conditional Use Permit": .040 Vehicle dealerships, individually or jointly, occupying a site .not less than 10 acres in size. Added the following provision: That approved signs that have not yet been installed, but whose zoning entitlements are still valid, shall be grandfathered in. SR6773JB.DOC Jonathan Borrego, Senior Planner: Presented a draft ordinance with recommended revisions to the City Sign Ordinance. Staff has worked with the Commission and the local business community over the past several months on the revisions to the Ordinance. Staff felt the changes will go a long way towards Improving the aesthetic value of future signs in the city, complimenting other neighborhood beautification efforts underway and providing a fair provision hat will continue to allow the business community to effectively advertise their - services. There have been several workshops addressing the issue detailing all the proposed recommended revisions. There were a few minor revisions that staff requested to be added to ' - the ordinance as part of the Commission's recommendation to the City Council. The first is relative to freeway oriented signs befog permitted by a conditional use permit along with a list of those uses which would permit such signs by a CUP. Staff requested language be added allowing auto dealerships individually or jointly occupying a site no less than 10 acres in size. In conjunction with the City Attorney's office, they will be coming up with language for a grandfather provision detailing those situations where a business that has had entitlements in the past which may not have been exercised but are still valid. Mr. Borrego stated there is a workshop schedule before City Council on September 12, 1997, to go over the revisions. OS-18-97 Page 3 B. a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Approved b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3953 -REQUEST REVIEW Approved final AND APPROVAL OF FINAL LANDSCAPE PLANS: Ware & landscape plans Holcomb Architects, Inc., Attn: Ken Wink, 18002 Cowan., Irvine, CA 92614, request review and approval of landscape plans for a previously-approved industrially-related office uses within an existing 394,629 square-foot former corporate complex. Property is located at 2411 West La Palma Avenue - CalComp. ACTION: Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal and does hereby find that the Negative Declarat(on previously approved in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 3653 is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation in connection with this request. Commisslaner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Peraza and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Tinal landscape plan with the following stipulation by the applicant: That the razor wire will be removed from the chain Ifnk fence adjacent to the northern property line. SR6769KB.WP Applicant's Statement: Beth Calder, Lincoln Property Company: Stated they have meet with staff on several occasions on their proposal and agreed to a compromise in terms of the spacing of trees (67 trees, 20 feet on center, with a shrub to be placed along the property line that will grow to 4 feet high withtn two years). Commissioner Peraza: Asked what the concerns were of the razor wire on the north property. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Stated staff was concerned wRh the appearance of the razor wire as well as any danger or liability. It may be a better solution to have wrought iron along that freeway frontage. That would be up to the Commission. Beth Calder: Stated they agree with staff's recommendations to remove the razor wire so they have every intention of doing that and replacing it wfth something more appropriate. It Is a 6 foot high fence and they are going to have a 4 foot high shrub so it is going to, for the most part, cover that fence. Chairman Bostwick: Asked 'rf they were going to retain the chain link fence along the freeway and remove the razor wire fence. 08-18-97 Page 4 Beth Calder: Responded yes. Cheryl Flores: Stated they would leave that up to Commission as far as the wrought iron versus chain link fence. Staff felt that, from the freeway, ft may look better being wrought iron. The applicant has agreed to plant the palm trees on 20 foot centers and 30 feet high. They are proposing major improvements for the buildings. C. a. CEQA EXEMPTION -SECTION 150611b1(31 b. SPECIFIC PLAN ADJUSTMENT NO. t TO AMEND THE Concurred w/staff Approved DISNEYLAND RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 92-1 ZONING AND amendments and DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (CHAPTER 78.781: Planning ' recommended that Commission-initiated request for a Specific Plan Adjustment to the City Council consider amendments to The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. adopt an ordinance 92-1 Zoning and Development Standards relating to standards prepared by the addressing permitted encroachments, screening requirements and City Attorney's height limitations. The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan area Office incorporating encompasses approximately 490 acres located within the Anaheim the amendments Resort area of the City of Anaheim and is generally located adjacent to and southwest of the Santa Ana Freeway (I-5) between Ball Road and Katella Avenue (with approximately 24.7 acres located south of Katella Avenue) and east of Walnut Street. ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim Clty Planning Commission does hereby approve the amendments proposed as part of this Specific Plan Adjustment No. 1 to The Disneyland Resort Specific :Plan No. 92-1 Zoning and Development Standards, and recommend to the Ciry Council that it adopt an ordinance incorporating said proposed amendments, with the ordinance to be prepared by the City Attorney's Office. AP7017LJ.WP Linda Johnson, Senior Planner: Stated this request was presented to the Planning Commission on July 21, 1997, asking the Commission to initiate the Specific Plan adjustment. It relates to adjustment of standards relating to permitted encroachments, screening requirements, and height limitations all set forth in the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan Zoning Development- Standards Section. There are 3 amendments relate to permitted encrcachments and they clarified that utility elements and screening walls and fences are permitted to encroach in the setback areas adjacent to Interior property lines and the amendment will also establish a procedure for the Planning Director to review and approve encroachments of utility elements and associated screening walls and fences and to the required setback area adjacent to the public street provided said encroachments are fully screened by landscape and are not visible from the public street. The balance of the amendments relate to the modification of height requirements to achieve more consistency between the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan and the 08-18-97 Page 5 Anaheim Resort Specific Plan. These amendments include deleting the sky exposure plane requirements for District A so that the district would have height consistent with the Anaheim Resort Speciflc Plan. The amendments would also raise the maximum height at the required setback for properties along Harbor Blvd. and Katella Ave. to 75 feet which is consistent with the heights allowed for neighboring properties. All of the .proposed amendments are described In detail in the staff report. 08-18-97 Page 6 D. a. CEQA MITIGATED NEG. DECLARATION (PREY: APPROVED) Approved b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3868 -REQUEST FOR Determined to be in DETERMINATION OF SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE AND substantial REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF FINAL LANDSCAPE AND conformance and ELEVATION PLANS: Alex Hernandez, The Olson Company, 3010 approved final Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 400, Seal Beach, CA 90740-2750, landscape and requests review and approval of final landscape and elevation elevation plans plans for apreviously-approved condominium complex. Property Is located at 1925 West Lincoln Avenue. ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal and does hereby find that the Mitigated Negative Declaration previously approved in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 3868 is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation in connection with this request. Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Peraza and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the requested modifications are in substantial conformance with the previously-approved exhibits, based on the following: (1) That the new location of the proposed pool building can better serve as a buffer between the pool activities and adjacent existing single-family residences. (2) That the petitioner agreed to add four (4) additional trees along Lincoln Avenue and submit the plans to staff for approval. and further, approved the final landscaping, fencing and window treatment plans. SR6765JK.DOC Applicangs Statement: Alex Hernandez, Project Manager for the Olson Company: Stated they were requesting review-- and approval of a determination of substantial conformance of their final landscape, fencing and window treatment plans.' They reviewed the staff report and were in agreement with staff's recommendations. ' Stone samples submitted are tiled/stored in the Planning Department Fie Room. 08-18-97 Page 7 Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Stated building plans have been submitted for permits that show enhanced window treatments both facing the residential properties to the west and as well as Lincoln Avenue and Muller Street as shown required by the Planning Commission. In addition to that staff would like to see if all of the trees shown on the conceptual plans could be required as well. That would Include four additional trees along Lincoln that are not shown on the plans before Commission for approval. Chairman Bostwick: Asked if there was a problem with that? There were 19 trees proposed and todays plans only shpwed 15. Alex Hernandez: The Initial plans were conceptual. The proposed plan which they developed exceeds the City Code requirements. They feel ft complies with Code and compliments the street frontage. Cheryl Flores: Reiterated that if the applicant could accommodate the extra trees staff would prefer that they be a part of the landscape improvement 08-18-97 Page 8 PUBLIC HEARING ITEIIflS 2a. CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION I Withdrawn- 2b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENTS 2c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3910 OWNER: CLAYTON EUGENE SCARBROUGH AND DONNA JEAN SCARBROUGH, TRUSTEES; CLAYTON EUGENE SCARBROUGH, TRUSTEE, P.O. Box 18957, Anaheim, CA 92817-8957 AGENT: JACK STANALAND, 1590-1o South Coast Highway, Laguna Beach, CA 92651 LOCATION: 1400 and 1474 South Douglass Road. Property is approximately 25 acres located on the east side of Douglass Road, approximately 1,080 feet north of the centerline of Katella Avenue. To construct an approximate 362,174 square-foot entertainment complex with sales of alcohol for on-premises consumption consisting of an approximate 95-foot high lighted obelisk tower, up to 28 retail spaces totaling approximately 42,200 square feet, up to 10 restaurants totaling approximately 72,750 square feet, up to 12 nightclubs totaling approximately 60,OOp square feet, an approximate 20,659 square-foot exhibition hall, approximately 5,000 square feet of office area, and a 7-story approximate 148,750 square-foot, 300-room hotel with waivers of minimum number of parking spaces, maximum structural height, permitted encroachments into required yards, required parking lot landscaping, permitted type (marquee), permitted number, permitted square-footage and permitted height of freestanding signs and permitted number and permitted square footages of wall signs. Continued from the Commission meetings of March 3, April 14, May 12, May 28 and June 23, 1997. - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. -- SR6768CF.WP FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None 08-18-97 Page 9 ACTION: Commissioner Mayer offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby accept the property owner s request for withdrawal of this item. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 08-18-97 Page 10 3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 3b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT September 3, 1997 3C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3957 3d. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 97-155 OWNER: CH ANAHEIM, LTD., C/O CROWN REALTY & .DEVELOPMENT, 20101 S.W. Birch Street, #260, Newport Beach, CA 92660 AGENT: CROWN REALTY & DEVELOPMENT, ATTN: FRITZ HOWSER, 20101 S.W. Birch Street, #260, Newport Beach, CA 92660 LOCATION: 2001 - 2221 East Katella Avenue and 1750 South State College Boulevard -Stadium Crossings. Property is 11..9 acres located at the northeast corner of Katella Avenue and State College Boulevard Request to establish an 8-lot commercial complex to construct a planned "mixed-use" center (Including a 140-room hotel with accessory sales of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption, adrive-through fast food restaurant, up to 4 semf- enclosed restaurants with sales of alcoholic beverages for on- premises consumption, retail, office, bank, and a fitness center with accessory sales of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption) and up to thirteen (13) freestanding signs with waivers of required lot frontage, minimum landscape setbacks, minimum parking lot landscaping, maximum aggregate area of signage in the CO Zone, minimum number of parking spaces, minimum structural setbacks adjacent to arterial highways and minimum structural setbacks adjacent to an interior site boundary line. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR6771 KB.WP FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None Applicant's Testimony: Robert A. Flaxman, President of Crown Realty and Development, 20101 S.W. Birch Street, #260, Newport Beach, CA, as agent for CH Anaheim, Ltd., the owner of the property: Stated they have been working extensively with staff for the better part of a year to arrive at this date and present the project to 08-18-97 Page 11 the Commission. They have presented to the Planning Commission an extensive outline of materials which details the project. Those items were also included in a slide presentation. The project was proposed as a "mixed use" project which is conforming to the commercial office zone as modified recently by Planning staff and adopted by the City Council. It is approximately 12 acres. It includes approximately 710 parking spaces and will consist of a hotel, a health club, the existing Community Bank, 5 Pads along Katella Blvd. that will predominantly consist of restaurants, retail and a fast food, and proposed 3 story office building. The project is located at the corner of State College and Katella which is a highly visible intersection and will be near several important projects that the City has adopted that will be constructed over the next several years including the current remodel of the Stadium Sportstown and a massive amount of public infrastructure improvements fn the future. In every possible way they have tried to incorporate in the project the Intent of the desires of the City regarding this area. Presented a slide presentation which included the following discussion of items: 1. Framing around a new intersection on Katella Ave. which will align Rself with a new intersection into the future Sportstown (currently the employee entrance and the entrance used for the Amtrak facility). Attempted to create a combined pedestrian and retail orientation which they suppose will be a growing demand in that area. 2. Overall conceptional layout of the project. 3. Showed a detail of the intersection on Katella Avenue where the future pads will be located for retail and restaurant concerns. Initially they are proposing to develop Pads "A" and "B" which will include users such as Starbuck's Coffee, Rubio's Fish Tacos, Juice It Up, etc. In the future, depending on how the orientation of the future health club works, Pads "C" and "D" would be developed as a mirror image. 4. Rendering of the proposed 3-story office building which will be located in the center of the site, 25,000 square footage footprint, 75,000 square feet overall. 5. Rendering of the hotel. The hotel will be a Marriott Town Place Suites. It has now been approved by Marriott and the co-applicant, Campbell Properties, which will be developing the hotel. The do not sell their hotels; they own and manage them. It is two four-story buildings with 140 rooms. 6. Proposed elevation of the fitness center. 7. They are going to be working with Community Bank to update the exterior architecture to conform with the balance of the project. _ _. 8. A sit down dinner restaurant is being proposed at the corner of State College and Katella. The market demand for that use has not "stepped up to the plate" so what they are proposing is a general architectural Idea and site plan so they have the ability to have an approved project and then take it out to the marketplace. They expect the ultimate architecture for this would be prototypical for the user that will present himself, whether it be a Black Angus and Outback Steak House, etc. They will generally have a prototypical design that will carry them forward. They have worked with staff to come back as a Reports and Recommendation Item once they 08-18-97 Page 12 have Identified the particular user. That Item will contain elevations, floor plans, and letters of operation regarding it's particular use. 9. Worked with Cart's Jr. fast food restaurant to design a facility that Is unique and addresses the impact that this type of use may have on it's environment. It will be located in the center of the site, away from the main project driveways so ft does not create a traffic Impediment, particularly on event days. Proposing along Kateila Ave. from Pads A and "B" to Pad "E" will be 4 to 5 foot landscape berm, with landscaping on top of the berm. The line of sight will be viable from the sidewalk to Kateila Ave. completely obscured the drive-through lane and the ordering facility. The architecture design will be either a "Southern California Theme" or "a more conservative theme". 10. Comprehensive sign program. They hired a professional firm to design a comprehensive sign program for the project. They asked the firm to design a logo for the property. Proposing 2 monument signs, one located at the intersection of Katella Ave. and second one located off the main project entry off of the main project entry off of State College. Again they have limited the sign elements to approximately 7 feet tall with the balance of the height of the sign, a total of 9 feet being taken up by the :project logo itself. They also developed a comprehensive sign program for building slgnage Including under canopy signs as well as building slgnage. All of which is contained in the comprehensive sign program which has been provided to Commission. 11. They submitted a list of likely users for Pads A, "B", "C" and "D". They have asked that they not be overburden to return to Commission every time they have a particular user. [Mr. Flaxman concluded the slide presentation and began addressing the staff report.] Robert Flaxman: Stated they received the staff report late Friday afternoon (August 15, 1997) and worked furiously over the weekend to understand and Identify what Issues, if any, they had with the report. As a result they prepared a memorandum which as been circulated to the Commission regarding their comments to the staff report. The following were what they felt were the most important issues: • Item No. 3, the developer of the hotel indicated it would be a Marriott Towne Place Suites. The waiver of required lot frontage has been deleted and he was not certain what the response is from Planning staff regarding that item. They feel one of their lots require a waiver. • Page 3, Item No. 10 - a clarification regarding the size of the health club. As well as on Item 11- a clarification regarding the setback on the railroad right-of-way fs actually a minimum of 5 feet and they have bisected that setback with a screen wall so they have 3'/s feet on one side and 18 inches on the other. • Page 4, Item No. 13 -some clarifications regarding the fact that the hotel may actually place their sign either on the east elevation or on the south elevation of building B as well as to the s(ze of the sign on the elevation was apparently scaled by staff. However, they would Ilke their sign program to prevail in this regard. • Page 4, Item No. 15 -Includes some references to architectural elements of the office building which were not, in fact, shown on the renderings that were previously submitted. Regarding the size of the slgnage on the office building, again, they would like that to be as reflected in the 08-18-97 Page 13 sign program as approved. ® Page 5, Item No. 16 -there is a reference to a metal drum which Is actually made of stucco. Chairman Bostwick: Stated at this point staff should be asked which they are in agreement with. Mr. Flaxman: Indicated that since the submittal of their memorandum this morning, they meet with some of their consultants and there are a few additional items that have been clarified. Public Testimony: Paul Sitzer, owns the property diagonally across this property on State College Blvd., across the railroad tracks. He stated he would be very happy to have the applicant take over the property and build something on it. It .has been a sore spot for a long time. Wade Godding, with Carl's Jr. Restaurants, Protect Manager for the Construction Division, 1200 North Harbor Blvd., Anaheim, CA: Stated regarding the staff report he wanted to address one area. Staff recommends the approval of the Southern California Theme. It is an unusual theme and they are happy to present that to the City and support building that, if approved. The cost is more than the standard building that they have proposed to the City in the past but they are willing to do that because it is an exciting development. Regarding the objection to their monument signs, although it is listed as 2 signs, they would like to emphasize it is a single monument sign split in half, two-faced, enhanced with the landscaping around it. Due to the unusual design of the building, Carl's feels very strongly that they need that item identification from the street level. Both monument signs are so situated that they address only the oncoming traffic and therefore, they feel it is not intrusive. Although staff is recommending dental they are hoping Commission reconsiders and approve their request. Mr. Flaxman: Stated Carl's Jr. Restaurant actually submitted some exhibits which give a more detailed view of what those monument signs would look like embedded into the garden wall. There are two different verslans. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Bostwick: Asked staff for their comments regarding the memorandum Greg McCafferty, Associate Planner: Stated the memorandum by the petitioner was submitted about 10:00 a.m. that day and staff tried to go through the memo in its entirety to make comments in time for the public hearing. Regardfng'the hotel, staff's concern in specifying the Marriott Suites is that it is an ident'rfiable name. They know its operation and it is a high quality hotel. Since the applicant is proposing it as part-of the request, they felt they would mention that in the staff report. Staff is in agreement with that. If the applicant finds another hotel that would better suit to the site, then the compromise would be that he would return to the Commission with as a Report and Recommendation Item. Mr. Flaxman: Agree on that should that change occur. Greg McCafferty: Regarding Pad E, staff's recommendation still stands that they would like the pad limited to one single sit down restaurant with a minimum square footage of 5,000 square feet. Since this 08-18-97 Page 14 is going to be a second phase to the applicant's project, 'rf he gets other tenants that are interested in that corner that he submft those back to Commission as a Conditional Use Permit. Staffs concern is not knowing who the tenants are up front and although he has submitted a list of restaurant users for the site, it is very difficult for staff to provide a recommendation without seeing who the actual tenants are, how they operate, and how they Integrate with the architecture of the restaurant. Commissioner Henninger: Asked if Mr. McCafferty was following applicant's item numbers (of the memordandum)? He suggested staff identify the items that are mutually in agreement with, then return to the items where there fs a difference of opinion. Greg McCafferty: Stated ® Item No. 3, page 1, they commented on. o Item No. 3-A, because it is on a private street, meets the standards. Staff has no comments on that. It is fine. o Item No. 3-D regarding the office or the maximum square footage of the sign program vs. the sign code, it is staffs position that they would prefer the office tenant to I(mii the square footage of wall signs to 10°~ of the face. Code currently only permits 250 square feet per frontage. Actually their sign program is more liberal and staff feels, in regard to the office tenant, it is not like Pad °A°, "B", "C" or "D" since typically an office is a destination so staff does not feel their request for 10°k fs unreasonable. ® .Item No. 10, page 3, regarding the extra square footage, it does not do anything materially to the parking study or the recommendations with regard to parking. It is, he thought, 1,500 square feet more. Mr. Flaxman: Stated actually this was already submitted in the revised traffic report. Commissioner Henninger: Part of the problem Commission has is their faxes were out of order. Mr. Flaxman: Stated if it would be of assistance they have additional originals if Commission would like to hand those out as opposed to the faxed copies. Commissioner Henninger: Stated this is a lot of comments to have to handle fn front of the Commission, he is tempted to request a continuance fora 2 week period. Mr. Flaxman: Stated he sympathized on their position. They have already been continued at least once. They are very concerned about getting the project underway. They understand that predictions are that the weather this year is going to be harsh due to EI NirSo conditions and they are very anxious to start grading the site. A two week delay at this point could make dramatic difference and a hardship on their project. They received the comments from staff at 5:00 p.m. on Friday afternoon and would-have wanted to have more time to review the staff report. They felt that additional time might have resulted in far less issues. -- [Copies of the memorandum were distributed to Commission since the faxed pages of their copies were out of order and therefore difficult to follow.] Chairman Bostwick: Stated Item No. 3 is okay, Item No. 3-A is okay, Item No. 3-D there is a conflict. Greg McCafferty: Stated on Item No. 3-D they are holding to their recommendation that they have regarding their sign program as modified (they want 10°~). Page 3, Item 10, has to do with one of their 08-18-97 Page 15 alternatives it takes the fitness club up an additional 1500 more square feet and staff does not have a problem with that. Alfred Yalda: Stated that was reviewed when the study was submitted. Commissioner Henninger: Asked for clarification of his comment. Was the 36,500 for the health club reviewed? Alfred Yalda: Responded yes. Greg McCafferty: On Item No. 11 regarding the setback, that is just a clarification with regard to where the wall is positioned. Chairman Bostwick: Asked if the applicant Is going to have a 5 foot setback? Mr. Flaxman: Yes., it is a clarification that there is a screen wall In the middle of the setback that put 3 %: feet on one side and 18 Inches on the other. Greg McCafferty: Page 4, Item No. 13, Line 9 -regarding the hotel slgnage. There is a difference of opinion. Mr. Flaxman: Suggested that later in the report staff has actually recommended changes to the sign program that they would like to see. He suggested wherever they come to issues of slgnage, maybe they can defer it until they get to the actual specific recommendations. Greg McCafferty: ® Item No. 14 they have no problem with that. • Item No. 15, Line 7 -they recognize the office is going to have a different architecture than the pad restaurant. So that is fine. ® Page 5, Item No. 16, Line 11, that just carries over from Item No. 15, so that is fine. • Item No. 17 -this should be deferred until they discuss the sign program. o Item No. 18 -staff already mentions that, in their recommendation. Robert Flaxman: They would be agreeable to return to Planning Commission as it relates to a single restaurant use at 5,000 to 8,000 square feet as a Report of Recommendation Item which would include elevations for plans and letters of operation as relates to that. They are not asking for any other approval today beyond that. The only difference he had with staff Is that staff suggested ff they wanted to come back and subdivide the building Into more than the more one user, it would come back as another conditional use permit. Their preference would be to come back as a Reports and - Recommendation Item as opposed to another conditional use permit. Greg McCafferty: Continued ® Item No. 20 is not a problem. ® Page 6 Item No. 22, Line 9, there is a correction on the height and the fact that they are recommending limitation on the number of tenant spaces far Pads "A" and "B". Robert Flaxman: Clarified in respect to Pads "A° and "B" they are in agreement with staff as to the number of users. There Is a separate Issue that they have also proposed the approval for on-premises sale of alcoholic beverages far four specific users. In the clarification, he did not want to confuse this 08-18-97 Page 16 approval for the four specific users with changing the number of total users there could be. For instance, they will have a Starbuck's in the building but that is not included in the four that they are requesting the approval for alcoholic beverages which would be the Rubio's, the Togo's and the other two users shown on the list. They are still asking for a total of seven users in those two pad buildings of which four they are asking for approval of alcoholic beverage sales. The other three they are not asking for that. He did not want it to have confused that the four somehow reduces the seven in terms of the total number of users. He indicated they were in agreement with staff on this. Greg McCafferty: Stated yes, the absolute number that they are recommending'is the 3 and the 4. The only added comment is that for those additional users that he has not identified yet, those come back to Commission as an R&R so they could review the floor plans and that they be held to the attached list of restaurants tenants. Chairman Bostwick: Asked why it needed to come back to Commission 'rf they are .not an alcoholic related use? For example if he has a Starbuck's and next door he has a toy store or a candy store, however, he subdivides those pads, do they really need to get Involved in that? Annika Santalahtl, Zoning Administrator: It is basically an Issue of the types of users that they have. For instance they may have a problem with T-shirts or toy store. It may depends. It is a user driven concern from staff. Staff would Ilke to see a quality development in square footage and other items that are not know with a generic Identification. Chairman Bostwick: He sees if there is a T-shirt shop selling Angel's T-shirts and some future football teams jackets and hats then it would be most appropriate, it would compliment the food uses and the entertainment. It is up to him to market their product. His product is the land and the building and he thought he would probably get good people. Greg McCafferty: He submitted a list of tenants that he is proposing. Mr. Flaxman: He felt it was a burden every time they had a user, whether an initial user or a replacement of an existing user, that they have to return to Commission. In a compromise, they submitted a list of users who they thought were the most likely to be at their center. Not that ft would become a limiting list but a suggested list of users they felt are most appropriate. As a compromise, iF Commission feels they need to side with staff on this issue, they would then suggest, in addition to this list, any national or regional or retail tenant that occupies or operates at least 5 stores in southern California be an appropriate user for the center without having to come back to Commission. They are in agreement, if they need alcohol sales they realize they need to return to Commission. Chairman Bostwick: Asked if Item No. 22 is alright? Greg McCafferty: Responded yes that item was fine. Item No. 23 is the basic disagreement between Pads "C" and "D" each on and applicant's request for three or four respectfully. It goes back to the .same comment staff made before. Phase 1, it is already known there are 4 tenants for "A" and "B". They do not know what the applicant is proposing for "C" and °D° off that list. Staff does not want to give a subdivision for four tenants without knowing who these tenants will be. They feel 4 tenants is enough space for the applicant to came in and sign leases with the tenants. If he needs more after that he can always come back to the Commission. Therefore, that is a recommendation from staff. Commissioner Henninger: Asked how big the Pads were? 08-18-97 Page 17 Mr. Flaxman: Responded Pad "C" is approximately 4,500 feet and Pad "D° is approximately 3,500 feet. They are a mirror image of Pads "A" and '°B". They share staff's concern. They are going to own this project and are investing a tremendous amount of money in developing this project. The archtecture of these buildings are not cheap to build. They are very expensive and as a result the type of tenants they are looking for are not only the type of tenants that could afford it but also will be there for the term of the lease. They think it is a burden to return every time a user presents himself. They are only asking for Pads "C° and "D" for the exact same thing that staff is agreeing for Pads "A" and "B" as a mirror image and to compliment the balance of the architecture they are creating. This is suppose to create a sense of activity and a sense of place. The types of tenants they are going to be proposing for this typically are not 2,000 to 3,000 square feet but tend to be more like 1,000 or 1,500 square feet. Greg McCafferty: Also responded to Commissioner Henninger's questions by stating Pad °C" is 4,000 square feet and Pad "D" is 2,750 square feet. Item No. 25 is a common notation and is floe. The last line, dealing with the signage program, page 10 Item No. 33, the waiver is not needed. Item No. 34, in reviewing the landscape plan the average spacing between the trees is about 40 feet. Staff's concern is the streetscape along Katella, looking forward when this area makes a logical connection to the resort in terms of the landscaping, etc. Staff's concern is that the proposal is a little to stark between the intersection going east to the newer section along Katella. Even if the applicant does not comply with the minimum number of trees, is their feeling that the applicant should provide more trees in that stretch of the frontage. It averages out to a spacing of 20 feet as opposed to 40 feet. Mr. Fiaxman: He stated he tried to address this issue in the exhibits. He is proposing fewer trees in the setback area, but when taken in context with new trees they are going to add to the new parkway. They will add a total of 104 trees. They feel they can not add 30 additional trees without obscuring buildings "A" and "B" or the fast food restaurant. They are limited to a very narrow area to put those additional trees and they fear it will have the effect of obscuring the intent of this project as a commercial development. This fs not an industrial center but rather a commercial project. When you look at the whole context of the landscape plan, it is comprehensive in nature and it does address the important Issue of making this a very aesthetic boulevard both on State College and Katella. Greg McCafferty: Continued by stating page 11, Item No. 34 Mr. Flaxman: They are willing to work with staff on a species basis so the new master plan for the Stadium Area is conforming with their project or visa versa. Greg McCafferty: Page 12 has to do with the sign program. Page 13, Item No. 38. It is staff's feeling regarding the signage that 3 monument signs should be adequate fora 12 acre sfte. Most of the uses towards the back are destination uses. The critical signage for this development is to identify Pads "E° and Pads "A ="D°. The monuments signs that they proposed on Katella and State College and the I.D. sign at the intersection are adequate for their request. They did a very good job with the architecture for Carl's Jr. that it is a sign in and of itself. Staff does not believe the need 2 signs. --- Mr. Flaxman: They developed a comprehensive sign program which they have submitted along with their application. He is aware that staff is concerned that the back part of the property appears to be destination, This does not negate the fact that they need to let the world know that they are there. They are proposing the office buildings to be in the middle center in the rear part of the site. The city of Anaheim and Central Orange County is currently competing with South County and the airport area for office tenants today. There is a tremendous absorption in those areas and a slow creep into the central county area particularly in Anaheim. This could be the first new project to involve the construction of a 08-18-97 Page 18 new office building in the City of Anaheim. They feel that is important and they think the types of users that they can bring to this site, if they get the approval, will be the types of users that want to identify themselves. They do not see this as a multi- tenant office building; they see this, ideally, as a single tenant office, possibly three users on each floor. For that reason they feel it is extremely important to be able to offer to potential users an identification which is unique and a reason to be in the city: of Anaheim. As far as the health club, it is a destination. It is a relocation of the existing facility at Katella and the 57 Fwy. They feel, again, because of the location on the site, it is important that they be able to identify themselves since the business will be 400 feet back from the street and it will be difficult to see the sign. Regarding Cad's Jr., they attempted to reach a compromise with Planning staff. They had originally proposed a monument sign for the hotel and 3 tenant identification signs for the corner I.D. sign. They suggested to staff that the monument sign be deleted for the hotel and limit the number of I.D. signs on the corner to 2 in exchange for allowing them to keep the 2 very tastefully done and understated monument signs/"garden" wall signs for Cart's Jr. which are part of the matrix Involved in screening the drive-through and they believe they are important. Therefore, they requested that staff adopt the sign program as presented with the changes. Greg McCafferty: Regarding the office tenant. They can come to some agreement with regard to the maximum areas. The only one they are concerned about is the south elevation which has the least area and as proposed it would be about 15°k slgnage. 10°~ would be about 447 square feet. They would agree that the office tenants could have a maximum 700 square feet per elevation which averages about 10% with the exception of the south elevation which they would still recommend to limit to 7%. Mr. Flaxman: Unfortunately that happens to be one of the most important elevations. Greg McCafferty: Item no. 40 (page 13) is a recognition of turning movement and it is fine. Page 15 (Item No. 46, b) the lot waiver is not needed so they do not need to approve that. Page 16, Item No. 46-C, regarding the sign program; staff agrees to disagree with the applicant on this item. Item No. 46- C, No. 5, again this is one we already talked about. We are recommending 1 tenant space for the freestanding restaurant and the Planning Commissioner will have the opportunity to review the operational characteristics in the floor plan. They .have not recommended any more than the tenant spaces. Mr. Flaxman: They are in agreement. If they need more than 1 tenant space they will come back. However they are suggesting it be a Reports and Recommendation item as opposed to a CUP. Chairman Bostwick: Asked if they have a problem with the alcohol usage. Greg McCafferty: The difference between Pads "A° through "E" is that "E" has no tenants and the architecture is not finalized yet. It really depends on the restaurant that they propose there because an Outback Steak House has a different architecture than a Daily Grill. In addition to that, connecting 2 or 3 more tenant spaces you can image how they will look on State College and 1<atella so staff's concern is that they not pre-entitle the applicant to have those spaces but come back especlaily for that corner under a use permR and have him argue the case that he can make it look nice. If it is done through an R&R, the presumption is that it is already approved and only technical modification need to be looked at. Annika Santalahti: Staff is concerned that the building at the corner of State College and Katella not become a strip commercial building with more than one tenant that could quickly degrade as happened 08-18-97 Page 19 at the northeast corner of Euclid and Katella. If it Is for multi-tenant use, the whole design may need to change to make it more site orientated. Perhaps oriented abound a courtyard that has a pedestrian sense about them. Chairman Bostwick: Do they need a CUP for the alcohol usage and will ft have an impact on whether Commission can adopt as amulti-tenant without having a Determination of Public Convenience and Necessity hearing? Annika Santalahti: That wouldn't necessarily be a hearing. If it were a sit down restaurant it would not automatically be that way with the approval that Commission gave the project. Investigator Tom Engle, Vice Detail, Police Department: Due to the over-concentration In the area, they are going have to have a conditional license for any ABC license that goes in that corner. They will not be able to get an unconditional license there. Mr. Fiaxman: If there was agreement on a single restaurant, are they approving alcohol use there once the actual user that is identified and subject to a Reports and Recommendation? Annika Santalahti: Yes, as a single user. Mr. Fiaxman: They really want this to be a single tenant restaurant and they are just trying to build some flexibility into their plan. If it turns out that the marketplace tells them otherwise, they will .return to Commission. Greg McCafferty: Page 17, Item No. 46, number 6, that has been discussed. Page 17, 46, number 7, that was also discussed. there is no number a so we presumed the applicant wants to add it. They are recommending approval of that so that does not need to be added. Page 18. Mr. Flaxman: Conditions in Item No. 6, page 18, requires that the private drive be constructed to Public Works Standard Detail No. 122. Their Engineers .had an opportunity to review this with Public Works this morning. It appears this is a detail intended for a residential subdivision where it appears like a public street but it is really in a private subdivision. The use of private subdivisions shall be limited to local interior residential streets not carrying through traffic. It .really is a private drive. They feel the standards being imposed are beyond the scope of the project. This would be a drive like ones you see in many commercial developments as opposed to what you would see in a residential subdivision. Therefore, they would request this condition be deleted and that they construct a drive as proposed in their site plan. Commissioner Henninger: Asked for a clarification. The next item did not coincide with what they discussed on page 18 regarding the sewer fees. Mr. Flaxman: Right, what they are suggesting fs ahead of that they have identified an additional item which references Item No. 6 on page 18. Annika Santalahti: One of the things staff are interested in the safe circulation of the pedestrians on the property and since the applicant is not saying what he means by not having a private street. 08-18-97 Page 20 Mr. Flaxman: Stated they are in agreement that there needs to be a sidewalk and that they need to comply with A.D.A. access anyway. That is why they are saying they would like to construct as shown on the site plan which indicates a full sidewalk from State College to 1Catella a sidewalk on the northside, but the balance of the specifications that are detailed in number 122 are beyond the scope of this project. Melanie Adams: Stated the dimensions shown on the site plan are wider than the minimum standards shown on the private street. What they are looking for in this is a street that has a crown on ft, not with a center V gutter. They are looking for one with a street quality to it. So the width the applicant is showing on the site plan is adequate. Commissioner Henninger: Asked, he has not shown across-section? So, the issue is whether it has a V gutter in the center or curbs on the outside. Melanie Adams: Correct, they want a crowned center Ilne with curbs and gutters on ether side. Mr. Flaxman: Stated .his civil engineers indicated to him this presents a problem for them because they are developing a comprehensive drainage plan for the property which is already an important issue and what his civil engineers are saying is, crowning on the street presents a conflict with overall drainage plan. As a condition they are agreeing to work with staff on their drainage plan so that it conform to all the requirements for the 10, 25, and 100 year flood. They reviewed how drainage occurs on all of the private drives as are opposed to imposing a specific item which works for a public street... Commissioner Henninger: Interjected by stating the d(scussion is not about drainage but about the look of the entrance of his project. Staff's concept is they want it to look like a public street with normal curbs and gutters and the applicant's concept is that he wanted to have a look of a private driveway. This issue really is an aesthetic issue. From his previous experience he knows they can drain either one of those. Mr, Flaxman: Stated his civil engineer pointed out that particular on the south side of the driveway there is no opportunity to put curb and gutter. This is not like a street or driveway, t is a parking lot and it operates Ilke a parking lot where all the drive isles going north and south are coming off what is a private drive. It is not like a public street with Intersections. This is all essentially the same grade. Melanie Adams: Stated they would be happy to work with the applicant during the process but the intent is that this would be looking more like a street. Chairman Bostwick: Stated Public Works would like It crowned with gutters on either side to look Ifke a street and the applicant is concerned with the sidewalk being along side of that? _ Commissioner Henninger: Stated he understands the curb and gutter on the two entryways but-when you get further into the project and are dealing with a parking lot, how would Public Works staff suggest that be handled? For instance, on the south side where they have the old parking area, what would they suggest there? Because the applicant is correct, a curb and gutter does not work there. Melanie Adams: Along the south side where you get into where the multiple exits are, you would have continuous cross gutter coming across the private street as it is on the south sides. On those portions, it would be a cross gutter on the south side. 08-18-97 Page 21 Commissioner Henninger: Around the landscaped islands would they suggest a curb? Melanie Adams: Responded that was correct, Greg McCafferty: Page 18, regarding sewer. Public Works had a condition requiring "fair share" impact fees. Melanie Adams: At this time they have not had an opportunity to complete their review of the sanitary sewer capacity study. This condition was crafted to cover any potential concerns of the Public Works Department as the applicant was anxious to move forward with the project. The last part of the condition about the "fair share" arrangement would be only in the event they find there is a deficiency when they review the full general plan. They acknowledge there is capacity available to serve this development. What they do not want to happen is that as they get to the last development in the area, they run out of sewer capacity and that the burden falls on them or falls completely back to the City. Upon completing their study they will determine whether or not there is a need for "fair share" fees. Commissioner Henninger: Asked her point was that they are not giving away sewer capacity in the existing systems on a first come first serve basis, but rather allocating it out on a "fair share" basis? Melanie Adams: Responded that was correct. Mr. Flaxman: Their concern is that the way this is written it creates some very serious questions. It is very Important to understand what they are talking about is the existing general plan as it Is today. that they are not subject to it in the future If significant changes to the general plan significantly increase density. Melanie Adams: Stated she was referring to the current general plan and that would be added for clarification. Mr. Flaxman: Another concern is within the general plan is there could be conforming uses, for instance, an industrial use. One industrial user may have a modest amount of sewer utilization whereas another industrial user can have considerable amounts of sewer utilization. What is Important is that they have prepared a sewer study and submitted it to staff. Their feelings are that they will work with staff to study the impacts of their project. If their project falls within the capacity limfts and provides a :reasonable amount of additional capacity for the general plan, then they should not be subject to additional fees. If a reasonable interpretation of the general plan would lead one to believe there is less inadequate capacity, then they would agree some reasonable fee be allocated to this project based upon a cognizant review of the types of uses that they have in comparison to the types of uses that might be built out in the general plan. - Commissioner Mayer: Stated that is what the term °falr share" indicates. If the study bears out that they owe a portion of the "fair share" then that is why it is in. Mr. Flaxman: Those are the ultimate words, "fair share". That it truly be applied faidy in the context of this project. His understanding from their engineering staff is there is more than adequate capac(ty, and they believe this is a mute point. Commissioner Bristol: It sound like they want their data rather than the City's data OS-18-97 Page 22 Mr. Flaxman: The reason for the technical study was that there was not adequate data to begin with to .make a condition so that is why they went ahead to make a study. Now that they have discussed it and all understand it is "fair share° then they could go along with it. Chairman Bostwick: Page 19, Item No. 6. Greg McCafferty: This is regarding the maintenance cost of the traffic signal (25%). Commissioner Henninger: Stated to Mr. Yalda they agreed to cap this at 25% of the maintenance costs. It that true? Alfred Yalda: 25% is what they told the applicant on Thursday. Commissioner Henninger: Does he want to add that to Condition No. 6 (of page 19)? Alfred Yalda: Responded they said °tair share" which they always meant 25°,6. Therefore, they will use that as a number on the condition. Chairman Bostwick: It will be changed to read, 'That the property owner or developer shall pay 25°,6 of ail traffic signal and maintenance costs". Mr. Flaxman: Asked Mr. Yalda for a clarification that this was referring to the new signal on Katella only. Alfred Yalda: Responded yes, that was correct. Mr. Flaxman: Stated regarding page 1 B, Item No. 10, the staff report is asking they prepare a report that defines the residual flood plain resulting from the deficient channel. The flood plain is a document analyzed by F.E.M.A., the County and the City. They, as an applicant, respond to them. Therefore, they feel that is beyond the scope of their project. What they feel is within the scope of their project is to analyze their project's drainage and ii impact on the surrounding areas. Whatever drainage they design must follow the guidelines of the City and the County. Melanie Adams: Stated this is a critical element of this project. The reason it is imperative that this flood plan is defined is that until it is defined the applicant does not know how high to put their building pads. They do have the option of waiting for that to be done, which would be several months, or they can proceed ahead with their own techn(cal team to define this flood plain. The option is their's but it is critical for a health and safety of the City. Mr. Flaxman: Disagreed with Melanie in that the flood plain is defined today. What they do ICnOW is that it is subject to change in the future as a result of improvements made to the Santa Ana River Channel. They are willing to live with the guideline which exist today which includes the Stadium property and the 100 year flood and their property Just outside that 100 year flood. They have to live with a more erroneous standard which exists today. Commissioner Henninger: Asked Russ Maguire (Public Works Department) ff in fact, there is a flood plain analysis today? Russ Maguire, Deputy City Engineer, Public Works Department: There are two specific problems. The main flood plain due to the Santa Ana River; the applicant is correct that it is being handled. This is a 08-18-97 Page 23 completely different subject that comes up now that the river is handled. The southeast Anaheim channel, which is also a flood control facility, has been determined by Flood Control and the City and put on written notice that it is a deficient facility and that a residual flood plain will result once the flood plain for the river is removed. That is in writing and has been recently confirmed with the Flood Control District. The District is now completing it's analysis of channel confirming it's deficient ThaYwill be completed In 1 to 2 months, however the flood plain analysis between the County and F.E.M.A. will take approximately another year to complete. Until that, residual flood plain is there. Before they can build a building, they have to certify an elevation and be above ft or they can not have a building permft. So the applicant's presentation is correct regarding the river but it is not correct about the southeast Anaheim channel. Commissioner Henninger: Stated the applicant is asking to work off the previous flood plain analysis. Mr. Flaxman's suggestion is that a new flood plain analyzes certainly has to be better than the old one so if he works off the bid one everything should work. Russ Maguire: The old one is for the river. They never did an individual analysis of the southeast Anaheim channel because the rNer in effect assumed a channel breakout and virtually wiped this area out. Commissioner Henninger: Does he think the new one will be worst than the old condition? Russ Maguire: No, but the problem is the applicant is virtually unbuildable under the old one. The other problem is that we have a change that goes through his project, not around it, .and Public Works has indicated this numerous times on that and the County has confirmed it. The City is on written notice from the County and because of that their flood plain ordinances go Into effect. The applicant either waits for the County to do the flood plain or they will need to do their own flood plain .before they will site building pad. Chairman Bostwick: Having gone through as many items as they have gone through, he did not feel that all of the questions will be resolved this afternoon. He would like the project to move forward but there still remain major issues to be further developed and therefore a continuance fn order bring this to a quicker resolution by working with staff. Mr. Flaxman: Stated the studies have been done and submitted. They went through a prefile and at that time it was identified that certain technical studies needed to be done. They thought they had worked out with staff a schedule for reviewing those technical studies in anticipation of this hearing. Unfortunately the Public Works issues always surface themselves as being difficult ones because of the technical nature involved in them. But for the two issues on sewer and drainage, he thought they were very close to being resolved. There are very few issues that separate them and staff. TheirLOncern (s timing. He asked that his civil engineer, who did the technical studies, speak briefly to clarify things for the Commissioner and then make a decision to proceed or not. _. Mr. E. Ashivone, EKN Engineering, 4665 MacArthur Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA: The issues of drainage concur with all the recommendations on Item No. 10. There is no substantive disagreement with respect to the approach that needs to be take to reclaim the site out of the flood plain and making sure that the structures are protected within a 100 year flood eventuality. It is really the wording of the statement with respect to the residual flood plain which needs to be defined by them as a result of the Southeast Anaheim Channel being deficient. Mainly because the Southeast Anaheim Channel is several miles of channel with several square miles of tributary areas, in order to really define correctly the 08-18-97 Page 24 residual flood plain it is not really their site alone but many acres of land within the city and tributary areas of that channel. Commissioner Henninger: Asked how he would define the flood plain on their particular property without looking at whole flood plain? Mr. E. AshNone: That was exactly what his point was going to be. The F.E.M.A. map defines their site as being outside of the 100 year flood plain and they are within the area of the 100 to 500 year flood plain. The City's requirement is to be 1 /2 foot, preferably 1 foot above their flood plain with their pads and they are proposing to concur with that. In fact, there is already a statement that says the grading and drainage system shall be designed to protect ail structures in a 100 year storm. With respect to meeting the criteria, they do not have a problem with that and they will work with staff to meet all of the criteria defined the section. Twenty-five year storm on the curb, 10 year storm needs to accommodated on site and the structures need to be protected during a 100 year storm. The only statement that they take exception to, because it is vague, is that it says the report shall define the residual flood plain resulting from the deficient channel. Since that channel is currently being studied, it's outside of their scope and they agree to meet all of the City's criteria with respect flooding and they Just want to make sure the ambiguity be taken out of this condition by removing that particular statement. If there is any other intent of that statement that they do not understand, they can clarify and address it. Commissioner Henninger motioned fora 2 week continuance (to Wednesday, September 3, 1997), seconded by Commissioner Mayer, and moticn carried. Mr. Flaxman: Stated their goal is to return in 2 weeks, hopefully by then the staff report will be revised to incorporate all of the items that were agreed to and he would encourage staff to continue to work with them to resolve those issues. He was concerned about Russ's statement. He did not think it is entirely accurate, he believes this project is buildable based upon the existing flood analysis by the County and Federal Gpvernment. Commissioner Henninger: He felt the only things they were agreeing to were things that were points of clarification, i.e., the number of units on the pads. Things like the signing, he did not feel there was agreement on that. The requirements on the liquor license, there was not agreement on that. Commissioner Mayer: Concurred, she still had many questions on those issues. Mr. Flaxman: Stated he was not suggesting that those issues had been resolved. He was merely suggesting that items that were clarifications and items that staff did indicate that they were in agreement with be reflected in the staff report. ACTION: Continued subject request to the September 3, 1997 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to meet with staff and resolve outstanding issues regarding the conditions of approval and other design aspects of the .project. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour and a half (1:50-3:20) 08-18-97 Page 25 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 4b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2090 (READVERTISED) OWNER: HARVEY S. OWEN, 1160 North Kraemer Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92807 Approved Approved amendment to conditions of approval ; (To expire 8-27-98) AGENT: ALISON SANDERS, 1160 North Kraemer Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: 1160 North Kraemer Boulevard -The Shack. Property is 0.9 acre located on the east side of Kraemer Boulevard, 242 feet south of the centerline of Coronado Street. To amend or delete a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation to retain an existing 5,400 square foot restaurant/public dance hall with retail sales of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption and live entertainment. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC97-115 SR6752KB.WP FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None Applicant's Statement: Alison Sanders, owner of The Shack at 1160 North Kraemer Blvd., Anaheim, CA: Stated her request is for extension of the conditional use permit for The Shack. Bruce Freeman, Code Enforcement Supervisor: Since the applicant has taken over the operation they have had no complaints regarding that location. Investigator Tom Engle, Vice Detail, Police Department: Concurred the Police Department also concurred The new owner has done everything she has promised she would do and they are very please with the operation of that premises at this time. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney: Stated this has been analyzed as being a legal non-conforming status of a particular location since it is in a specific plan which does not permft public dance halls. It has a condition that if is going to be approved it has to be done prior to any expiration, which is what the applicant did in this instance. Ms. Mann suggested language be added to Condition No. 10, page 3, to clarity after the August 27, 1998 (see under Action for verbiage). Commissioner Henninger: Explained to the applicant the Assistant City Attorney's addition to Condition No. 10. OS-18-97 Page 26 ACTION: Determined that the previously approved negative declaration fs adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved request. Amended Condition No. 10 of Resolution No. PC96-101 to read as follows: "10. That the public dance hall use shall expire on August 27, 1996. Any request for extension of time must be received and approved, prior to August 27; 1998, (n order to retain any legal non-conforming status of its location, or the public dance hall use shall no longer exist at this location. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 7 minutes (3:25-3:32) OS-18-97 Page 27 5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION I Approved 5b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3944 Granted OWNER: WfLHELMINA P. KEELE TRUST, CHARLES B. KEELE TRUSTEE, 27351 Avenue 196, Strathmore, CA 93267 AGENT: BRAD MILES, 10791 Los Alamitos Boulevard, Los Alamitos, CA 90720 LOCATION: 718 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is 0.32 acre located at the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Citron Street. To retain an automotive repair facility. Continued from the Commission meeting of June 23, 1997. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC97-116 SR6766KP.WP FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None Applicant's Statement: Brad Miles, agent for the owner: Requested clarification (on Condition No. 15, page 6) regarding the trash turnaround. They believe it means they can go in and back out as long as they do not back out into the street, is that correct? Greg Hastings, Zoning Manager: Responded that is typically what the requirement is from Sanftation Division. Brad Mile: Asked regarding parking, currently there are 12 parking spaces on the site. Under current ordinance it requires 21. Would their current 12 parking spaces be grandfathered in? Greg Hastings: Yes, that would be correct. He request one condition be added (see Paragraph No. 11, last sentence, on page 2) relative to the change in the landscape area (see .under Action for verbiage). ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 3944 with the following changes to conditions: 08-18-97 Page 28 Added the following conditions: That the planter in front of the building shall be extended an additional 12 feet to match the length of the building and the planter at the corner shall be eMended an additional 9 feet along Citron Street. That the twelve (12) parking spaces existing on this site are adequate far the proposed use, and shalt be maintained for customer/employee parking. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 2 minutes (3:32-3:34) OS-18-97 Page 29 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 6b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3952 September 3, 1997 6c. DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 97-11 OWNER: LEDERER ANAHEIM LIMITED, 1990 Westwood Boulevard, Suite 250, Los Angeles, CA 90025 AGENT: ANAHEIM INDOOR MARKETPLACE, Attn: Robert Weiss, 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard -Anaheim Indoor Marketplace. Property is 14.74 acres located .north and east of the northeast corner of Cerritos Avenue and Anaheim Boulevard. To permit a 6,809 square foot addition for a television studio and entertainment area and determination of public convenience or necessity for retail sales of beer for on-premises consumption and a second level, 1,209 square toot office area in conjunction with an existing indoor swap meet. Continued from Commission meeting of July 21, 1997. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY RESOLUTION NO. SR6762JKWP FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None [Chairman Bostwick declared a conFl(ct of interest, therefore, Commissioner Bristol conducted this item.] Applicant's Statement: Robert Weiss, General Manager of the Anaheim Indoor Marketplace: Stated this is a continuation of the hearing from July 21, 1997, when they had agreed to the requirements regarding the sale of alcohol .and also they have amended their plans to have bathroom access to be available to the public at their entertainment area. 08-18-97 Page 30 THE PUBLIC .HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bristol: Asked whether the bathroom was adequate for the size of the facility? Robert Weiss: There is a men's and women's restroom and there are at least 4 stalls in the men's restroom .and approximately 3 or 4 stalls in the women's. They will do whatever is needed to comply with the occupancy requirements. Commissioner Bristol: Asked If the bathroom was the employee bathroom? Robert Weiss: Stated there is a bathroom in the rear warehouse area that is not accessible to the public. They are going to refurbish it as part of their project and it will have an adjacent corridor from the entertainment area. The maximum allowed in the audience is approximately 670. Their average events may be 300 to 400. Cheryl Flores, Senior .Planner: Stated there are many variables involved with the Uniform Building Code for approximately 700 people. She thought there needed to be approximately 8 toilets for women and 6 for men. She suggested including a condRion of approval be included that the applicant apply with the minimum standards of the Uniform Building Code on the plans they submitted. Commissioner Bristol: Asked the Police Department for an explanation of their recommendation that the sale of beer not be approved. Investigator Tom Engle, Vice Detail, Police Department: Responded the Police Department was concerned with the access of the patron leaving the area to go outside. They still have the same requirements for public convenience and necessity because of the over concentration of licenses. He spoke with the Area Director of ABC (Alcohol Beverage Control) and he agreed that the patron will be able to wander off the swap meet area drinking alcoholic beverages. ABC would like to see a security plan or methods of containing their patrons inside the building. Commissioner Henninger: Stated the Police Department's concern is that people would purchase alcoholic beverages then take their alcohol out into the swap meet or parking lot. If the applicant had some sort of internal controls on the entrances and bathrooms, would their recommendation change? Investigator Tom Engle: Responded it would a recommendation with. conditions. Commissioner Henninger: Suggested a continuance for 2 weeks to try to work this out. Commissioner Mayer: Asked where the entertainers dressing rooms and restrooms are located? Is it a separate facility? -- Robert Weiss: Responded at one end of the facility there will be a "green" room which will have a bathroom facility and used strictly for the entertainers. That would apply when there is a musical concert but when there is wrestling or boxing the .actual ring would be in the center. Commissioner Mayer: Asked if he had plans that showed that? Robert Weiss: Responded they are amending the plans and that will be included. The main reason for 08-18-97 Page 31 the last continuance was the issue of the bathroom and, in the letter he submitted it stated they would post sufficient security at the entrance and exit. If alcohol is being served and there is only one door into the swap meet near the bathroom, a guard can be stationed there. There is a corridor between the building and entertainment area which is where the main entrance will be and there will also be security there. Commissioner Bristol: Asked how many boxing matches does he foresee they will have? Robert Weiss: They have had initial discussions with the boxing promoters and there is still nothing definite on this. For now they have wrestling every Sunday afternoon. They usually have concerts on Saturday afternoons and the size of the crowd depends on the pertormer. The main reason for having these activities is to attract customers while the marketplace is open so they can patronize the shops. Commissioner Napoles: Asked how they were going to control alcohol from being brought into the facility? Robert Weiss: Responded they could have customers searched as is done at other facilities. He stated the customers are more a family orientated crowd. Commissioner Henninger: Stated it would be very helpful to get the applicant's thoughts down on a plan which included the bathrooms, the interior bathrooms. where they are located, how the access works, changing rooms for the entertainers, and the security control points so the Police Department can understand how it was going to be controlled so they could develop conditions leading to their recommendation to approve this request. He thought that was the reason for the last continuance and unfortunately it has not happened yet. Commissioner Bristol: Complimented the applicant for doing a good job thus far but when alcohol and boxing are added, security concerns come into play. His willingness to try to work with the Police would make Commission feel more comfortable. Commissioner Mayer: Asked 'rf there are activities after the basic marketplace is closed. It appears that there will be no place to purchase food. Oniy beverages are available. Robert Weiss: Responded no, there will be food provided from a temporary food counter. He was not certain if it was on their current plans but it will be in the revised plans. 80 to 90% of what they would like to do would be so they can have larger concerts to support their retail shops. They also want to enclose the wrestling which has been occurring outside the building. Investigator Tom Engle: Asked if the applicant had contacted the Calvary Church nearby.since this is a new license? Commissioner Bristol: They have not heard anylhing from the church. Commissioner Peraza: Stated the school district is also contesting the license. Commissioner Henninger: Urged for a two week continuance so applicant could meeting the Police Department and the Planning staff regarding their plans. Les Lederer: Asked if they could approve the enclosure without the alcohol today so they could start OS-18-97 Page 32 their plans and table the alcohol portion of their application so they can return in iwo weeks? Commissioner Henninger: Slated there is a risk doing that because they have changes to the enclosure after talking with the Poilce Department. ACTION: Continued subject request to the September 3, 1997 Planning Commission meeting In order for the applicant to submit detailed plans and operation of the proposed addition. VOTE: 8-0 (Chairman Bostwick declared a conflict of Interest) DISCUSSION TIAflE: 13 minutes (3:34-8:57) 08-18-97 Page 33 7a. CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION. CLASS 11 Concurred w/staff 7b. VARIANCE NO. 4307 Denied OWNER: WATT COMMERCIAL COMPANIES, INC., 2716 Ocean Park Boulevard, Suite 3040, Santa Monica, CA 90405- 5218 AGENT: SIGN METHODS, 1749 East 28th Street, Signal Hill., CA 90806 LOCATION: 5711-5799 East La Palma Avenue - Canvon Village Plaza. Property is 9.91 acres located north and east of the northeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Imperial Highway. Waiver of permitted freestanding signs and permitted type of sign (deleted) to construct two (2) freestanding pole signs. Continued from the Commission meetings of June 9, July 21 and August 4, 1997. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC97-117 SR6770KP.WP --------------------------------------------------------- FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None Applicant's Statement: Dave Cordon, Sign Methods: Stated this Item was a continuance. They went back from the two 30 foot pylon signs to the 10 foot monument sign which was 10 to 8 feet as are some of the surrounding shopping centers In the Scenic Corridor. In reviewing the staff report, there was no mention of the wall signs. They still would like to have the new sign band above the roof line. They feel it has more visibility from the parking lot THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Requested the applicant submit another copy of the photograph that he submitted at the previous meeting regarding facia mounted signs for the tenants in the building in place of the previously requested roof signs. Regarding the freestanding signs he requested, staff feels they are significantly larger than any other sign seen in a commercial retail center in the Scenic Corridor. The petitioner submitted several photographs the previous week. Most of the tall., freestanding signs submitted in the photographs are actually located in areas of the City that area adjacent to the freeway and were zoned Industrial or were still zoned industrial at the time they were constructed. There is one sign in particular that shows amulti-tenant .sign for Lakeview Plaza that they have been unable to find a building permit for and will be looking into that further. Chairman Bpstwick: Stated they need to find a valid reason to approve a sign of this size. From the staff report, the property does not have deficiencies or problems that are not mitigated already. 08-18-97 Page 34 Therefore, staff's recommendation is to deny the freestanding signs. Dave Cordon: Stated there are other businesses that have signs much larger than the one he is proposing and he feels it is a justified request. Commissioner Boydstun: Stated he felt such a sign along Imperial Hwy. would be appropriate but he could not agree with having it at La Palma. In addition the signs along the facias are more appropriate than up on the roof. ACTION: Concurred with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 11, as defined in the State Government Code and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to .prepare an EIR. Dented Variance No. 4307 based on the following: (1) That there are no special circumstances which apply to this property for the approval of the requested 10 foot high, 227 square foot monument signs. This .property has more than adequate street frontage and visibility from two arterial streets. (2) That the strict application of the Zoning Code does not deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties under Identical zoning classification in the vicinity. No other significantly large freestanding monument signs with several individual tenant panels have been permitted for shopping centers in the CL (SC) zone. (3) That the petitioner agreed to withdraw his request for roof signage. VOTE: 5-1 (Chairman Bostwick voted no and Commissioner Boydstun declared a conflict of Interest) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 9 minutes (3:57-4:06) 08-18-97 Page 35 8a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 8b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT September 15, 1997 8c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3956 OWNER: PIONEER CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, 641 South Western Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92804 AGENT: RILEY F. MARQUIS, JR., 5772 Garden Grove Boulevard, #147, Westminster, CA 92683 LOCATION: 641 South Western Avenue -Orange County Christian School. Property is 4.78 acres located on the west side of Western Avenue, 220 feet north of the centerline of Stonybrook Drive. To permit an 11,736 square foot expansion of a private educational facility in conjunction with an existing church with waivers of minimum parking lot landscaping and minimum number of covered parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR6742KB.WP FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: 5 people spoke in opposition to subject request. Applicant's Statement: Riley Marquis, architect in Westminster, CA, representing the applicant: Stated he wanted to clarify that the school is the owner of the property and rents the property to the church.. He requested relief from Condition No. 14, requiring four covered car port spaces. They have been there for 20 years without this condition and it is not the same housing as regular residential housing in the neighborhood. They have worked out the parking lot problems with Mr. Yalda's (fro the Traffic Engineering Division) assistance and their plan already reFlects the change. Public Testimony: Ida Huff, 623 S. Western Avenue, Anaheim, CA: Stated she has resided at her property for since 1975 and so she knows this church has not been there twenty years. She has a problem with their proposal of building a parking lot 15 feet from her bedroom window and also .have traffic their 24 hours a day. The school is suppose to be the primary user of the property, however, they have used it for many other purposes. The properties in the back have been rented out every year for tourist who come in. When she approached them in the past about this, the school said this was in terms with the prior owners (which was the California Lutheran School).. It is a constant transient situation. They have activities going 7 days a week until 10:00 p.m. at night. She has had members of their Bible study classes make U-turns and drive across her lawn. She feels there is no courtesy issued by any member of this church nor the people who come to it. OB-18-97 Page 36 Chairman Bostwick: Asked if her property was to the north? Ida Huff: Responded correct. The existing fences .are hers. They have done nothing to maintain anything on that side of the property. Chairman Bostwick: Asked whether the parking lot is non-existent at this time? Ida Huff: Responded it is green grass area Ida Huff: Stated he has looked at their plans and she could not figure out what scale they are using for measurements. It indicates her driveway is 15 foot wide and their is a 15 foot buffer from her driveway over to-the fence, but she measured it as two feet. They started excavating and leveling the ground in March (1997) without permits. On April 17, 1997, she observed them moving in huge trailers and so she called Mr. Lewis and asked him to show her the permits for the construction on the project. She received no response from him. They have 10 or more mobile units on the property sitting while they are conducting school. They have also moved their fence forward. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked if a block wall outside of her property would help? Ida Huff: Responded absolutely not. Commissioner Boydstun: She thought that might help to buffer the noise. Ida Huff: Stated originally the California Lutheran School had told her they would put a block wall in there but it was never done. Donald McNuff: Stated his property borders the church at the west side. His backyard fence backs up to the church and he has been living at his property for 25 years. They had problems with the church in the past when the units in the back were built. They were to be dorms. When school Is in session traffic is a real problem. Within two blocks of his home there are seven schools in the area and wtilch creates traffic congestion at Knott and Western. He does not feel the church should be allowed to expand. Dick Wainwright 646 S. Courson Drive, Anaheim: Stated his property adjoins the school property. He submitted a bag of debris s was thrown over the wall separating their properties and hit him. It consisted of blocks of hard clay. There have been dead cats and pine cones thrown on his property. He does not blame the children but he feels that there is not enough control. They have two mounds of debris backed up against the wall, within a couple of feet of the top of the wall, and children keep throwing things onto their property. He feels the mounds of debris should be removed. He suggests that they build a continuation of the block wall all around the school's property to create a sound barrier. Joann Price, 628 Westchester, Anaheim, CA: Stated her property backs up to the side of the school property. She also is concerned with the current traffic congestion and also concern about the potential amount of increased traffic. She has also had trouble with debris thrown onto her property. ' Bag of debris has been filed/stored in the Planning Department Fie Room. 08-18-97 Page 37 Ethel Wainwright, 646 S. Courson Drive, Anaheim: Stated her property is located directly on the south side the school property. But she finds debris in her yard primarily during the late afternoons .and on weekends. She does not think it is the children from the school. She feels they are well control during the school day. She feels it is the children who live in the apartments that are rented out, more of a teenage group. They have .made a complaint through the schooPs secretary . They received absolutely no assistance from the school other than to say they have a management office and gave her the telephone number. Ida Huff: Stated she had forgotten to mention, when they wanted to expand the first time, they brought up to the City the fact of the driveway being moved and they wanted to put in a signal, etc. Applicant's Rebuttal: Riley Marquis: Apologized to Mrs. Huff and their other neighbors for the behavior of the children. He believed it was the children in the units in the back and parents need some admonition on how to bring their children up in the reverence of the neighbors. The problems brought forth regarding the parking lot, they are sensitive to. They are willing to put up some landscape buffering. They could consider some type of control so that a portloh of the parking lot would not be used during most of the time. They also owe their neighbors an apology about the piles of landscape mulch . It is being put on their planter beds around the apartments and the school and they will remove those pile and not have any close to the wall. They will also better supervise the children in the apartments. The attendance at the school is proposed increase from 245 to 350 and the preschool from 45 to 60. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Boydstun: Stated it .appears there are 16 units that are completed self contained .rentals. Riley Marquis: Responded they are single room units, two rooms share a kitchen and bathroom. They were built prior to the church being there. They have been there five or six years. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked if he was saying that one family occupies the two rooms and the kitchen? Riley Marquis: Responded he did not know if that was occurring. Most of them are not. For example, one tenant is a single man studying for the ministry, maintenance man who is a bachelor. They do have some units with children but he did not know if they are combining two of the sleeping rooms into one dwelling unit. Commissioner Boydstun: Stated they also have two other existing dwellings, the caretaker's home and another existing dwelling. So that would technically be 78 units total and asked where theypark? Riley Marquis: Responded they park in the car parking spaces that are provided along the driveway there and in front of the home. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked Alfred Yalda if Traffic Engineering allowed for 18 living spaces in addition to the church and school when they looked at the traffic? Commissioner Henninger: Asked if the 16 living spaces are actually dormitories as mentioned in paragraph four (of the staff report) since they were originally approved as dormitories? Riley Marquis: Responded they are not really dormitories OS-t 8-97 Page 38 Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Responded Conditional Use Permit No. 3450 approved to permit a church, two modular classrooms, a preschool, a private elementary and high school with employees, facility, and church member housing and two existing dormitories containing a total of 16 units and two detached single family homes. A waiver of parking was approved at that time. There were 152 spaces required, 20 of those spaces required to be covered. This was approved with two covered spaces then existing which were In a garage. The garage is still there but it has been converted as a book room. So the waiver for the dormitory parking was done under the prior conditional use permit In 1991. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked 'rf that still counted when they are not dormitories any more? Cheryl Flores: Responded that would be up to Traffic Engineering (Alfred Yalda). They did have a parking study submitted on this. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, Traffic Engineering Division: Stated he was not certain how the parking is being used. Overall there is enough parking there but probably not for this specific use. Commissioner Mayer: Stated rt sounds like they have a lot of mixed uses on a property the primary use of which is a church. That seems to be a very small part of the use considering it is also a private school, now there are apartments, families, etc. Commissioner Bristol: Stated on Saturday he was almost bitten by a dog belonging to someone who lives in one of the units. Riley Marquis: Responded that is the first he has heard of that. By the parking count that he made, he had allocated 24 parking spaces for the 16 dwelling units and two for each of the other two dwelling units. The one he calls the caretaker's and the other one that he erroneously (five years ago) called it the president's .home. That was through some misunderstanding on his part. So they have 24 parking spaces for the 16 units, 1'/z per unit. They are being used in a mixed fashion. Some with families, some with single mothers with children. Many, if not most, no do have cars in those units. That is one of the reasons they choose to live there. They do not object to the condition to removing the camper which is being occupied by a man who the church is helping. The church is actually the auxiliary use. The school is the primary use. They own the property. There are more people and buildings there for the classrooms and the church rents space from them. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked whether the CUP originally stated that the school was a auxiliary use that the church was a primary use. Commissioner Henninger: Asked Code Enforcement to go out and inspect the property. "Tfiat would give the applicant time to meet with his neighbors and perhaps work out a wall arrangements and_ operating arrangements that would mitigate some of the problems mentioned. Commissioner Mayer: Stated she has concerns about approving these plans submitted which show building used as apartments. They were actually not built as apartments they are suppose to be dormitories. Commission needs to know what they are and what they are being used for. Riley Marquis: Stated he is an architect and it seems to him they have a semantic problem as to what constitutes an apartment as opposed to a dormitory. Commissioner Henninger: Stated the permitted use was for dormitories and they do not have permission to use them the way they are using them. OS-18-97 Page 39 Riley Marquis: Stated Mr. Lewis, who was present but had to leave because he was ill, knew the answers to those questions. Conditional Use Permit No. 3450 cleady stated who was in living in those units and the concern at that time that residents be either associated with the church or with the school in some manner. Greg Hastings, Zoning Manager: Stated on Conditional Use Permit No. 3450 (approved fn 1991) there is a condition to allow the church, classrooms and preschool. There is a condition that states that the on- site residential structure shall only be occupied by facility, employees and/or members of the church and should not be utilized by the general public. So this was a condtion applied at the time the current church and school came in, however, they were pre-existing units. This condition legalized them to that specifically limited use. Commissioner Henninger: Offered a four week continuance to give the applicant time to meeting with the neighbors and try to work out a fencing and screening arrangements and for Code Enforcement to go and Inspect the property. Cheryl Flores: Asked for clarification whether they should readvertise a waiver for the minimum number of parking spaces since they are going to include required dormitory parking be considered? Not considering it approved previously there may be difference circumstances now. They probably should go ahead and readvertise the parking waiver for this new hearing. ACTION: Continued subject request to the September 15, 1997 Commission meeting for possible readvertisement to advertise a parking waiver; for the applicant to meet with nearby residents to discuss fencing and screening arrangements; and for Code Enforcement to inspect the property. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: 36 minutes (4:06-4:42) 08-18-97 Page 40 9a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 9b. VARIANCE NO. 4314 Granted 9c. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15500 Approved 9d. SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 97-01 Approved OWNER: THOMAS O. NICHOLSON, 1421 North Wanda Road, Suite 160, Orange, CA 92667 AGENT: SALKIN ENGINEERING CORP., ATTN: GEORGE KERNS, 1215 East Chapman Avenue, #2, Orange, CA 92866 LOCATION: 325 South Fairmont Boulevard. Property is 7.35 acres located on the west side of Fairmont Boulevard, 300 feet north of the centedine of Canyon Hiiis Road. Waiver of minimum loi area to establish an 11-lot single-family residential subdivision and for the removal of 24 specimen trees. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC97-118 SR6513DS.DOC --------------------------------------------------------- FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.. IN FAVOR: 1 person spoke In favor OPPOSITION: No one Applicant's Testimony: Bob Michelson, P.O. Box 930, Orange, CA 92856, representing Nicholson Land Co.: Stated the proposal is for 11 lots for semi custom homes. Mr. Nicholson has been building such homes for several years. His proposal is to build one model on one of the lots (either Lot 5 or 6) as a demonstration of what can be done and from that build semi-custom homes for the clients. The grading was designed to minimize grading as much as possible and to balance the project on-site. Most of the Pads are approximgtely at the current elevation of the land. The access was chosen at the mid-point because it was near to the same grade as Fairmont so there would not be a steep driveway going in. It is proposed to be a gated community. He felt the variances for this project are justified. -- [Mr. Michelson walked over to the artist depiction posted on the exhibit wall and continued his testimony.] Mr. Michelson: Stated after reviewing the staff report and conditions, they concurred with staff on all points except for Condition No. 17. They have had discussions with the Public Works Department They would prefer not to have a sidewalk on the private street, but would like to have a more rural character in that private gated community. Because three of the lots are very shallow, it would allow more landscaping in front, right up to the edge of the paving. Engineering agreed with that and that Condition No. 17 be deleted. Condition No. 19 refers :back to Condition No. 17 which would mean that would need to be revised. He stated Mr. Nicholson, the owner, and George Kerns, the civil engineer, 08-18-97 Page 41 were present Gloria Hale, a resident to the north in Canyon Hills Estates Development: Stated she was not present fn opposition. She felt they had done a very nice job from the photographs presented to their development on Saturday. The project will enhance the value of their properties. Her concern was with the 0.67 acre to be acquired to the southwest of their property. She was a little unclear 'rf that has been acquired or (s still to be acquired. She would like to see that ciarif(ed. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney: Stated the property was approximately 0.67 acres short of the acreage that would be required to meet the General Plan requirements for density. That adjacent property owner is not interested in selling that piece of property but is willing to grant a permanent easement for open space that could not be developed. What is rema(ning on the other property still meets the General Pian requirements and that easement would be a slope area (the applicant could confirm) that would be a part of the development functionally and would be maintained by the Association for the subdivision that is before Commission. With the 0.67 acre, it then meets the necessary finding that it is in conformance with the General :Plan. They have required that an insubordinated covenant be recorded to ensure that the easement remains permanent open space. Melanie Adams, Civil Engineer, Public Works Department: Stated that in the Hillside RSH-22,000 Zone, sidewalks are not required. So Condition No. 17 can be eliminated. In Condition No. 2, number 5, (page 9 of the staff report) should be deleted. Greg Hastings, Zoning Manager: Stated the following Condition changes: ® Staff recommended that tracts signage should be submitted to the Planning Department staff for approval prior to instaliatlon. ® Condition No. 2 In the Tract Map moved to the Variance. • Conditions No. 18, 19 and 20 moved to the Variance. Suggest a Tract Map condition requiring lettered lot A through C shall not be developed wfth dwelling units. o Two conditions under the Specimen Tree Removal Permit would be that, 1) Thls is approved subject the tree removal and replacement submitted. 2) If the pepper trees to be moved do not survive the transplanting, then two 24-inch box replacement trees be planted in to replace those trees. Selma Mann: Asked for clarification whether it was the intent of Public Works that Condition No. 5 be amended to add language that states prior to issuance of a building permit, excluding the model home lots, that a tract map to record the subdivision, etc. Melanie Adams: Stated that would be a good clarification. That is a requirement of the subdivision map act. Zoning wanted that condition added for clarification. Bob Michelson: Stated for the record those conditions are acceptable ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Granted Variance No. 4314 with the following conditions: 1. That any tract signage shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval by staff, prior to installation. 08-18-97 Page 42 2. That landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Zoning Division indicating type, size and location of the proposed landscaping and Urlgation in compliance with approved exhibits. Once approved, the landscaping shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the plan. 3. That the subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked F~chibft Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4. 4. That prior to the issuance of a building permit, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition No. 2, above- mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 5. That prior to final zoning and building inspections, Condition Np. 3, above- mentioned, shall be complied with. Approved Tentative Tract Map No. 15500 with the following changes to conditions: Deleted Condition Nos. 2, 17, 18, 19 and 21. Modified Condition Nos. 5 and 20 to read as follows 5. That prior to issuance of a building permit, excluding the model home lots, a tract map to record the subdivision of the subject property shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim and shall then be recorded fn the Office of the Orange County Recorder. 20. That prior to final map approval, Condition Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Added the following condition: That lettered lots A-C shall not be developed with dwelling units. Approved Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 97-01 with the following conditions: That subject permit is hereby approved subject to the tree removal and replacement plan that was submitted by the applicant. That if the Pepper trees that are going to be moved do not survive, then two 24-inch box trees shall be planted and maintained in replacement of each tree that does not survive. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights for Tentative Tract Map No. 15500 and the 22-day appeal rights for the balance of the actions. DISCUSSION TIME: 13 minutes (4:42-4:55) 08-18-97 Page 43 1Oa. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 10b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 97-98-02 Granted OWNER: MARK MC QUITTY, JAMES T. RAEDER, 608 East Broadway, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 602 East Broadway and 306 South Kroeger Street. Property is 0.22 acre located at the southeast corner of Broadway and Kroeger Street (602 East Broadway and 308 South Kroeger Street). Request for reclassification from the RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple- Family) Zone to the ML (Limited, Industrial) Zone. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC97-119 SR1006TW.DOC --------------------------------------------------------- FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None Applicant's Statement: Jim Rader, 608 Broadway, Anaheim, CA: Stated after reading the staff report he had one concern on Condition No. 2: the purchase of the Barrajas property behind them and the purchase of the railroad land to the east of them. They would like to propose that condition be removed until all acquisitions have been completed and they can do it all at once. Commissioner Henninger: Asked how long it was going to take to complete the acquisitions? Jim Rader: The Barrajas property has been taken back from the bank Just recently and they foresee a very quick purchase of that. The proposal to the Redevelopment Agency for the purchase of the land on the east probably within the next 30 - 40 days, should be in the works as well. Commissioner Henninger: Asked if ft would be adequate if they would condition that to be completed with the a 6 month period. Jim Rader: Responded yes, he felt they could do it within that time. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Stated regarding the same condtion, it should be an nsubordinated covenant. Jim Rader: Stated they plan on having the alleyway abandoned and on the street off Atchinson and also abandoned and moved for Firmenlch to move their gates forward so they can encompass the entire area. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked if they are going to eventually move down to Kroeger? Jim Rader: The Barrajas house that they intend to purchase will likely be renovated or used for parking also. Beyond that property there is an apartment complex. Their acqulsftion of that land will be OS-18-97 Page 44 completed. They have just recently purchased the Samuel Kraemer Building for further expansion. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Cheryl Flores: Stated on Condition Np. 1, which states if there is a variance requested in building the parking lot that it would need the approval of the Planning Commission. That could also go to the Zoning Administrator. It would probably go to the Zoning Administrator for one or two waivers. ACTFON: Approved Negative Declaratipn Granted Reclassiffcation No. 97-98-02 with the following changes to conditions: Modified Condition Nos. 1 and 2 to read as follows: That prior to the introduction of an ordinance reclassifying the subject property to the ML (Limited Industrial) Zone, the property owner shall submit plans indicating that the property will be developed as a parking lot in accordance with the development standards of the ML Zone for Zoning approval, or the petitioner shall submit parking lot plans in conjunction with a Petition for Variance to request review and approval by the Planning Commission or Zoning Administrator of any requested Code waivers to construct the proposed parking lot. 2. That within a period of six (6) months from the date of this resolution, either of the following shall be completed to address the :Issue that the existing building has been constructed across property lines in violation of the Building Code. A lot line adjustment shall be submitted to the Subdivision Section and approved by the City Engineer or an unsubordinated covenant to "Hold as One Parcel" shall be submitted to the Subdivision Section and approved by the City Attorney's Office to merge .lots 47 - 56 in Block F of the Hotel Del Campo Tract (i.e. all lots between Kroeger and Atchison Street, south of Broadway and north of the alley) Into one legal parcel. The lot Ifne adjustment or covenant shall then be recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder prior to introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject property. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 7 minutes (4:55-5:02) 08-t 8-97 Page 45 11a. CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to iib. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT September 15, 1997 110. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3959 OWNER: NATHAN OGINTS AND MARY OGINTS, ERNEST F. D'ANDRIA AND LEE D'ANDRIA, SARAH SVARDLOFF, NAT KALMAN AND ISADORA KALMAN, 3481 La Sombra Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90068 AGENT: FIESTA MEXICANA MARKET, ATTN: BEN BEOUER, 1221 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 1221 South Anaheim Boulevard -Fiesta Mexicans Market. Property is 4.0 acres located on the southwest corner of Ball Road and Anaheim Boulevard. To construct a 1,600 square foot addition for one new retail space in an existing commercial retail center with waivers of .minimum number of parking spaces, minimum structural and landscape setback and permitted encroachments Into required yards. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR6756JK.DOC FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Stated the applicant was unable to attend. He did not ask for a continuance. If Commission wants to act on this, it was alright with him. Item wasLOntinued to September 3, 1997. (Following Item No. 13, Bruce Freeman, Code Enforcement Supervisor, to return to Item No. l t.-He asked whether the item could be continued to 4 weeks, instead of 2 weeks, since he would like to be present when the item Is heard?] Chairman Bostwick: Granted the continuance for 4 weeks rather than the 2 weeks originally announced. 08-18-97 Page 46 ACTION: Continued subject request to the September 15, 1997 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to be present at the public .hearing. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: 2 minutes (5:02-5:04) OS-18-97 Page 47 12a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 12b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3693 (READVERTISED) OWNER: MARGARET ANN MITTMAN AND PAUL MITTMAN, 14501 Phillip Lane, Sonora, CA 95370 AGENT: CALVARY CHAPEL OPEN DOOR, Attn: Roger Stahlhut, 621 South Clementine, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 1011 North Harbor Boulevard -Calvary Chanel Open Door. Property is 0.75 acre located on the west side of Harbor Boulevard, 250 feet north of the centerline of La Palma Avenue. To amend or delete a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation to retain a church: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC97-120 Approved Approved amend- ment to conditions of approval (To expire 6-27-00) SR1009TW.DOC FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None Applicant's Statement: Randall Paultza, 967 Ferncrest Drive, Harbor City, CA, representing the applicant: Stated the church requested deletion of Condition No. 1 and that the subject use is hereby approved for a period of 3 years and terminated on June 27, 1997. They would like a total deletion of that Condition based on the fact that there have been no code enforcement violations within the past 3 years and also in the Interest of selling the property to the church. It is also in the .Interest of the property owner that the condition be deleted. The church has complied with the conditions of approval. It requesting, based on their good track record, that the condition be deleted and that staff's recommendation to approve ft for another 3 years be accepted. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked for the short or long term whether there was any intentions of changing their operation? Randall Paultza: Responded no not in the past three years of operation. All the food distribution and collection activities have been discontinued for a very long time. They currently have no on-site services for the homeless. 08-18-97 Page 48 Commissioner Henninger: Asked can Commission eliminate those conditions regarding food distribution and collection? Randall Paultza: Stated he has not been associated with the church since 1994, but he could safely say that they have not been doing those activities for a very long time. He indicated that the pastor of the church was also present. Robert Stahlhut: Stated at the beginning of the church project there was a concern primarily over use of the food distribution. Within approximately 10 months after they began the 2 operations separated. The food distribution went elsewhere and they remained as a church. That is why they are asking for both. Possibly in the future, they would be able to purchase the facility where they are now in the process negotiating with the water district for additional parking. If that occurs and the owners are open to negotiate, they would consider that. Otherwise, they are land locked and cannot move forward. In that case they would have to look far some place else to go. Commissioner Peraza: Asked staff the reason for the 3 year recommendation. Cheryl Flores: Stated typically for a church use in commercial areas they do keep a time Ilmit on It unless Commission advises them otherwise. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked if it was extended to 5 years would that help their situation? Robert Stahlhut: Responded if they were continuing to lease the property then that would be fine but if they choose to purchase a property, then that would not allow them to meet the obligation and the church might go under. They are not trying to created a problem fpr the Ciry but if they do not have the opportunity to move forward as a church then they have to make the decision to relocate so they have the option of continuance. Many things are up In the air because of the uncertainty whether they are going to be able to add additional parking. So both factors are very important for them. Commissioner Boydstun: Stated ft is bad timing until they hear from Fullerton. Robert Stahlhut: Responded they seem to be open to them and so now they are preparing to present a proposal to them. Commissioner Henninger: Stated if they can not get their parking and they move on and then Commission has permitted this use, it creates a dilemma since they do not know who is going to be there. Therefore, Commission should take the staff's recommendation but tell the existing church that if they can not find parking at Fullerton then certainly they are welcome to return and revisit this item. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked if they heard Commissioner Henninger's comments Jim Rader: Responded yes, they had. Commissioner Boydstun: Stated she had hoped they would stay, and hope they get the parking they desire then at that point Commission would look at it very differently. The concern is if they move on, then that CUP goes with the land and the next persons occupying that location may not be like them. 08-18-97 Page 49 Jim Rader: Stated they are fully aware of that. With his experience with City Planning and to have time limitations on CUP's in other cities are somewhat irregular as they run with the land. It was their hope that the Planning Commission would find an appropriate finding to delete the time limitation. Commissioner Boydstun: Stated they put a time limitation on all their churches. Commissioner Henninger: Stated more and more CUP's have faidy short t(me limitations because unfortunately there have been many bad experiences with CUP type activities. Robert Stahlhut: Stated the landlords they have been renting from .have been very supportive and their desire is to always remain a church. Even if they would leave, according to their wishes they prefer a church at the location. Commissioner Bristol: Gave an example of an item on the agenda today, According to testimony, the applicant was .not aware what his own facility was doing which is what Commission is concerned about. Robert Stahlhut: Stated he understood but he also knows that they have a record of credibility and wish to help the owners as best they can. But their Initial desire is that they remain at the location and possibility be able to purchase it In the future. ACTION: Approved request. Amended Condition No. 1 of Resolution No. 94R-207 to read as follows: 1. That subject use is hereby approved for a period of three (3) years and shall terminate on June 27, 2000." VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 10 minutes 08-18-97 Page 50 13a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 13b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT September 15, 1997 13c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3960 OWNER: BHUPESH PARIKH AND KUMUO B. PARIKH, 427 West Colorado, #201, Glendale, CA 91204 AGENT: JOHN E. BUTTERS, 27410 Laurel Glen Lane, Valencia, CA 91354 LOCATION: 212 South Beach Boulevard. Property is 1.93 acres located on the east side of Beach Boulevard, 900 feet south of the centerline of L(ncoln Avenue. To construct an 05,000 square foot, 2-story self-storage facility with one caretaker's unit with waivers of minimum landscaped setback adjacent to an arterial highway, minimum landscaped setback adjacent to a residential zone boundary and required site screening. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR6774DS.WP FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None Applicant's Statement: John Butters, .representing Mr. Bhupesh Parikh: Presented the following positive impacts of this proposal for the community and the City of Anaheim were as follows 1. This project would improve and reinforce the image of transformation to the City. 2. This project will increase the tax base of the City with a much better utilization of the land almost doubling the buildable area. - 3. Enhance street appearance with smaller stucco facade resembling that of an apartment building. 4. Lush landscaping and different level of grading and a system of irrigation which will matntaln the required level of humidity and freshness In summer and in winter. 5. Their storage facility Is a more convenient alternative for those residents that need extra storage space. The owner has ample experience managing this type of business. He already owns such a facility in Burbank. 08-18-97 Page 51 6. This project will not generate additional traffic, produce hazardous materials or impact the residents of the area in any negative way. The agreement specifies the type of items which can be stored and the rules are tightly enforced. This reduces the possibility of illegal use or activities. 7. The installation of new water hydrants in the proximity of the residential areas on both directions. 8. Extra street lights will also be installed. 9. The size of the storage lockers will vary but will be mostly small. This will avoid the traffic of large trucks or vans. Mr. Butters concluded by stating the lot has 7 or 8 trees and they are proposing planting more than 25 to 30 trees which is give enhance the look of the area. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner; Stated the Commission was give two letters, one from the West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council and the other from Hillcrest Heritage Estates. Both opposing development of this project and Mr. Butters was give a copy of those letters as well. Applicant's Rebuttal: John Butters: Stated regarding the letter from Hillcrest Heritage Estates which indicated in its letter that at the current time this is not the most aesthetically pleasing area and they would like to change it. This project is a good place to start. The letter from the West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council indicated they are concerned about the access to the proposed facility through the alley by way of 2 small entrances from the residential street (Luxure Street). Mr. Butters stated they are not going to use the alley as an entrance. The alley entrance is only for the purpose of the Fire Department in emergencies. John Butters responded to Commissioner Boydstun by indicating in the front they have more than 20 feet. Greg Hastings, Zoning Manager: Stated they are looking at the distance from the parking spaces to the actual front property Ifne. Those are not permitted to encroach In a landscape area. The building is setback. Commissioner Henninger: Stated that the waiver be eliminated by 2 of those 4 parking spaces. Alfred Yalda, Pr(ncipal Transportation Planner, Traffic Engineering Division: Stated Traffic Engineering has a concern regarding the gate. Ii does not :have adequate room. If a U-haul truck comes in, it can not get in. It will not be able to turnaround and it will then have to backup into Beach Blvd. which is a very busy street. They request that the applicant provide a turnaround area. John Butters: Stated the plan was revised to show a turnaround area. He though Traffic Engineering had an old plan. Alfred Yalda: Stated he has not received any revised plan. There are two concerns, one is that the gated area is too close to the street, it does not have enough room for turnaround and the internal circulation may not be adequate for a truck to go around the buildings. 08-t 8-97 Page 52 John Butters: Stated he hand delivered the revised plans on Friday. Commissioner Henninger: Stated this is not the best use of this property but it fs a possible use of this property. To make ii work at this location the architecture has to be improved a little more. Chairman Bostwick: Stated the building will be visible from both the south, over top of the mobile home park when coming north, and south of :Beach Boulevard so the sides need some archtectural relief. The two reliefs on either side could be enhanced in some way over the driveway to match the one on either side so that it has a total architectural unity to it. It should be reduced in size so there can be turnaround. He has the sense that this project should be done without any waivers. He suggested a 2 week continuance. Alfred Yalda: Stated he has already revised the plan regarding the gate location and the turnaround areas. It meets Traffic Engineering's requirements. Commissloner Henninger: Stated he thought Commission's concern was more architectural. He made a good start at trying to give ft a residential look. Recently In Urban Land Maoazine they had pictures of self storage facilities. Some of them did not look like self storage properties and he challenged the applicant to do a betterJob on the architecture. There was further discussion between the applicant and Commission regarding the architectural design, beautification of the sides and front, and proposed waivers. Commissioner Mayer: Was concerned about questions raised by the West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council and asked the status of the planning studies? Greg Hastings, Zoning Manager: Responded that he did not have the .answer. In the Community Planning Program which is going now, they are currently do(ng the inventory of the area and he thought there was approximately another 6 months to go. In terms of the Redevelopment effprt, he was not sure how far along they are toward completion. Commissioner Mayer: Asked if such a study would have recommended uses for parcels like this one. Greg Hastings: The Redevelopment will have some generalities pertaining to Beach Boulevard and the uses. He was not certain whether the Community Planning Program, as one of the action items, take a look at this specific property. Commissioner Mayer: Concurred with Commissioner Henninger that this was a start and perhaps it needs to be re-examined rather than granting numerous waivers. - Commissioner Mayer: Made a motion fora 4 week continuance (September 15, 1997), secondedby Commissioner Henninger. Commissloner Henninger: Urged the applicant to .meet as soon as possible with his staff planner and Planning staff to work on the items that Commission discussed. OS-18-97 Page 53 ACTION: Continued subject request to the September 15, 1997, Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to submR revised architectural plans and to reduce/eliminate requested waivers. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSIOfd TIME: 36 minutes Meeting Adjourned at 5:45 p.m. 4o Wednesday, September 3, 1997 at 10:00 a.m. for an update on the formation of the Anaheim Colony Historic District. Respectfully submitted, ~.iy.~..e-~ Ossle Edmundson OS-18-97 Page 54•