Loading...
Minutes-PC 1998/06/08SU ARY ACTION AGENA CITY OF ANA EI PLANNING CO ISSION iVIETING MONDAY, JUNE 8, 1998 11:00 A.M. • STAFF UPDATE ON RS-A-43,000 ZONED PROPERTIES IN WEST ANAHEIM AS REQUESTED BY COMMISSIONER HENNINGER (Information will be presented to the Planning Commission in their packets) • STAFF UPDATE TO STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION OF VARIOUS CITY DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES (AS REQUESTED BY PLANNING COMMISSION) • PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW 1:30 P.M. I~UBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: BOSTWICK, BOYDSTUN, BRISTOL, HENNINGER, NAPOLES, PERAZA _ COMMISSIONER ABSENT: HENNINGER- - STAFF PRESENT: Selma Mann Greg Hastings Cheryl Flores Tom Engle Alfred Yalda Julie Kunze Dick Wilson Melanie Adams Margarita Solorio Ossie Edmundson Assistant City Attorney - Zoning Division Manager Senior Planner Vice Detail, Police Department Principal Transportation Planner Deputy Fire Marshall Environmental Services, Public Utilities Associate Civil Engineer Acting PC Support Supervisor Senior Secretary 06-OS-98 Page 1 ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: None REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. a) CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 3 b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 107 -REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE: Karen Frerking -Zion Lutheran Church and Schools, 222 N. East Street, Anaheim, CA 92805, requests determination of substantial conformance to construct two shade covers for a play area in conjunction with an existing church with school facilities. Property is located at 222 N. East Street -Zion Lutheran Church. Continued from the Commission meeting of May 27, 1998. ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Peraza and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Henninger absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby accept the petitioner's.request for withdrawal of this item. Withdrawn SR1047JK.DOC This item was not discussed. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1855 -REQUEST FOR Terminated TERMINATION: Thomas J. Vogts -Taormina Industries, P.O. " Box 309, Anaheim, CA 92815-0309, requests termination of (Vote: 6-6, Conditional Use Permit No. 1855 (to permit a car leasing facility Commissioner with waiver of required enclosure of outdoor use), Property is Henninger absent) located at 1071 North Blue Gum Street. TERMINATION RESOLUTION NO. PC98-90 This item was not discussed. 06-08-98 Page 2 C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. X-2.1414, 3344. 3791. Terminated 3834 AND VARIANCE NO. 4162 -REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: California Drive-In Theater, Inc. 120 North (Vote: 6-Q, Robertson Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90048-3102, requests Commissioner termination of Conditional Use Permit No. X-2 (to permit adrive- Henninger absent) in theater), Conditional Use Permit No. 1414 (to permit the expansion of the existing drive-in theater with waiver of required screening of outdoor uses), Conditional Use Permit No. 3344 (to permit an outdoor swap meet with waiver of minimum landscaped setback adjacent to Lemon Street), Conditional Use Permit No. 3791 (to permit an outdoor roller hockey facility in conjunction with an existing outdoor swap meet), Conditional Use Permit No. 3834 (to permit amulti-screen theater and entertainment complex including 2full-service restaurants and 1 drive-thru restaurant with waiver of minimum structural setback, maximum number of freestanding signs, minimum distance between freestanding signs, required parking lot landscaping and minimum number of roof signs) and Variance No. 4162 (Waiver of required improvements of setback areas and required screening of parking areas to establish 30 additional parking spaces for an outdoor swap meeUdrive-in theater). Property is located at 1520 North Lemon Street. TERMINATION RESOLUTION NO. PC98-91 This item was not discussed. 06-08-98 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARIPIG ITEMS: 2b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4015 ~ Withdrawn OWNER: Hanford Hotels, LLC, 4 Corporate Plaza, #102, Newport Beach, CA 92660 AGENT: Pagenet/Marmac, Attn: Peter Yune, 15621 Red Hill Ave., #200, Tustin, CA 92680 LOCATION: 201 North Via Cortez -Hanford Hotel. Property is 2.93 acres located on the west side of Via Cortez, 930 feet north of the centerline of Santa Ana Canyon Road. To construct aroof-mounted te{ecommunication (paging) station with a maximum of five (5) 6-foot high omni type antennas and one (1) dish type antenna. Continued from the Commission meeting of April 27, 1998. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO.. _ SR7142TW.DOC "~""' ~ ~" FOLLOWING'IS`q$UMMARYtiOFTHE~P,LANNINGICOMMISSIONACTION:~~ `"~' OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Peraza offered a motion, seconded by Chairman Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Henninger absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby accept the petitioner's request for withdrawal of Conditional Use Permit No. 4015. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Henninger absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 06-OB-98 Page 4 3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3b. VARIANCE NO. 4339 (to be withdrawn) Withdrawn 3c. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 3d. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.4037 OWNER: Weir Partners, Ltd., 14642 Newport Avenue #108, Tustin, CA 92780 AGENT: Brett Marchi (Architect), 1119 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 LOCATION: 791 South Weir Canyon Road -Sycamore Canyon Plaza. Property is 11.9 acres located at the southwest corner of Weir Canyon Road and Serrano Avenue. To permit an automated teller machine (ATM) kiosk in the parking lot of an existing commercial center with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. ` Previously advertised as Variance No. 4339. Continued from the Commission meeting of May 27, 1998. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. S R7141 TW. ``'FOLLOWING~ISA'SUMMARYiOFTHEPLANNINGCOMMISSIONACTION.--,,. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Henninger absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby accept the petitioner's request for withdrawal of Variance No. 4339 and Conditional Use Permit No. 4037. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Henninger absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 06-08-98 Page 5 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 4b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2471 (READVERTISED) OWNER: Tony Noggin Vu, 10571 Rodeo Drive, Anaheim, CA 92804 AGENT: Boa Dinh, 6951 Fairman Street, Lakewood, CA 90713 LOCATION: 2604 West La Palma Avenue -Arco Gas Station. Property is 0.42 acre located at the southwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Magnolia Avenue. To permit the expansion of an existing 1,275 square foot automobile service station with automotive vehicle repair (two bays existing) by constructing one additional 500 square foot service bay for a total floor area of 1,775 square feet. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC98-92 Denied Denied request for expansion.. SR1046JK.DOC ~~ - ' ~' -. F,OLLOWING,I$1~1;SUMMARYOF THE P,LANNING.COMMISSION ACTION; ,~' - Applicant's Statement: Tony Vu, owner: Stated they have been operating their business for approximately four years and recently purchased the property. They are requesting to permit an expansion of the existing automobile service station with automotive vehicle repair. They have two existing bays and are requesting to construct one additional service bay for smog checks. The reason they are requesting this is that they are required to comply with the ADA's handicap regulations by the end of this year and are increasing employees from 4 to 6. There was a complaint made against them because the restrooms did not comply with the Federal Code regarding handicap regulations and therefore they are requesting to modify the property to bring it up to Code. By the end of this year Federal Code is requiring that they upgrade the tanks by removing the old underground gasoline tanks and upgrade to a new tanks and clean up the existing contamination. Kathy Watson: Stated she is representing her father, Frank R. Krogman (who is deceased), the owner of the shopping center behind this gas station. She feels this additional bay will block the view of their shopping center. There is an existing block wall around the gas station which boarders the parking lot of the shoppjng center and it has not been keep in repair. It has been hit several different times.. They have asked them to repair the block wall but they have not done so and it is an eyesore. Applicant's Rebuttal: Tony Vu: Stated they do not have a problem with repairing the block wall. If approved, they will repair the block wall as well as maintain their property. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Bostwick: Asked if the applicant had read the staff report? Staffs recommendation is for denial because there is contamination in the ground and that needs remedial correction before the applicant can do anything on this site. 06-08-98 Page 6 Tony Vu: Responded that was the reason for requesting approval to remodel the building. At that time they will be installing the new tanks. The contamination is located at the existing tank location and the building portion that will be added on is not on that location that is contaminated. Chairman Bostwick: Asked if the applicant has had someone survey and drill the site to determine where the contamination is located? Tony Vu: No. Commissioner Williams: if there has not been a geology report completed then there is no way of knowing exactly where the contamination is location. Tony Vu: The contamination is only located at the tanks, not at the building. Commissioner Williams: Has he had a geologist survey the site? Tony Vu: They have worked with the Utilities Department. He knows that the contamination is located northeast of the tank location and they are adding onto the southwest which is away from the tanks. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked if he will be removing the tanks where the pumps that are no longer in service, to the south of the lot which use to be the diesel pumps? Tony Vu: Yes, they will be removed. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked where the diesel tanks are located? Tony Vu: At the diesel pumps. Completely removed with nothing put back in its place. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Stated there are two billboards on the property. One of those are permitted by the conditional use permit shown in paragraph 5(b) of the staff report. The other one is a non-conforming land use. Thee is a section in the Municipal Code that states while non-conforming use exists on any lot no other use shall be permitted even though such other use would be a conforming use. In paragraph 11 under the Environmental Impact Analysis, another reason for denial is that staff feels that the intensification of this would be an intensification of something that is already contaminated on the site. That the neighborhood and the surrounding streets would be impacted by the additional traffic and circulation on the site. Julie Kunze, Deputy Fire Marshall: Referenced a corrective action plan that was submitted to the Utilities Department, dated April 1998. It would appear that the diesel tanks are set away from the other tanks and indicated she could show the Commission a picture of this, if needed. She introduced Dick Wilson, from the Utilities Department, in charge of the clean-ups. So far they have the contamination itself partially delimited at the La Palma/Magnolia corner of the intersection. However, there is nothing that has been done at the diesel area that they know of. There could be contamination where the diesel tanks are but they do not know that for a fact. Chairman Bostwick: Asked whether there has been geological testing done in that area, to determine how extensive this contamination is? Dick Wilson, Environmental Services, Utilities Department: Stated they have taken some soil samples around the site and also groundwater wells. The groundwater is contaminated at the site but the soil contamination appearjust on the northwest corner of the property where the gasoline tanks are now. Julie Kunze: She has a diagram that shows what they do know at this time regarding the extent of the contamination. 06-OS-98 Page 7 [Julie Kunze and Dick Wilson then walked over fo Commission to show them the diagram. This followed discussion amongst the Commissioners.] Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney: Stated they need to provide a copy of that for the record. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked when the applicant was planning to have the tanks pulled and asked how long it would take to accomplish that? Tony Vu: Responded by October or November 1998. It takes from 30 to 45 days to complete. They are trying to completed that before the deadline of December 12, 1998. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked if it would not be easier to take the tanks out and get that problem out of the way before they proceed with any additions? Tony Vu: Responded that is not very reasonable. They are trying to do it at the same time when they close the business and install the new tanks, remove the old with the cleanup as well and do the construction at the same time. Commissioner Bristol: Asked Dick Wilson about the contamination area and indicated that it has been contaminated and commented about diesel fuel being detected. Dick Wilson: Responded yes, they were in the groundwater samples that were taken at the site. Diesel fuel was detected. Commissioner Bristol: At the same time that these gasoline tanks have to be removed, do the diesel tanks need to be removed as well? Dick Wilson: Yes, both gasoline and diesel tanks will be removed by December 22nd deadline. Commissioner Bristol: Will they know at that time how contaminated that soil is? Dick Wilson: Yes, the Fire Department will take samples when the tanks are removed and that will give them an idea of how extensive that problem is. Chairman Bostwick: Stated there are a number of problems and he thought if this is denied today then Mr. Vu needs to start over again. It might be that Mr. Vu may want a continuance long enough to pull the tanks and return a plan for this station that reflects an improvement to the community as well as the gas station. He could not see doing this small addition at this time without the clean up first being taken care of because that would result an intensification of the property which will be adding to the problem, creating additional traffic and congestion in the neighborhood. Commissioner Boydstun: If it is going to be enlarged the Commission needs to see landscaping plans to see what exactly the finished product will look like. - -- Commissioner Bristol: Stated he was at the property yesterday afternoon and there were two bays which were both operating. Someone was working on a vehicle outside the bay which was not a smog check job. They were taking things apart on an engine and there was fluid drippings on the asphalt without a pan. He drove to the back and tried go get through one of the islands with his car, it was hard to get through there. He agreed with the staff report regarding the intensification. The environmental issues are a concern. What he saw yesterday is a violation of the original conditional use permit because they are not allowed to work on vehicles outside the bays. Asked what the barrels located on the west side by the trash containers are for? Tony Vu: Responded they are barrels from the company doing the clean-up. Once the tanks are replaced then that company will return to complete the job. 06-08-98 Page 8 Commissioner Williams: Asked the applicant if he was storing any oil or chemicals in any of the barrels outside? Tony Vu: Responded those barrels have contaminated soil. Julie Kunze: That is probably accurate. It is either sampling dirt or sampling water. Cheryl Flores: Staff would recommend against a continuance due to all of the issues identified: There are several things to be resolved and reasons for denial. Greg Hastings, Zoning Manger: Stated even if the contamination is cleaned up staff is very concerned with the size of the property not being able to contain the service station plus additional auto repair. This is a very small site . Therefore, staff would probably still recommend denial of the project even if the contamination was cleaned-up. Chairman Bostwick: Asked if the applicant redesigned this with a new building at the back corner, similar to what has been proposed at other service stations in the area, where they have moved the building portion to the back and put the tanks at an angle with the bays. Asked if that would work? Greg Hastings: Yes, if the proposal was for a tear down and rebuild rather than an addition on to the building, then staff could review a plan to see if that would work. Chairman Bostwick: It would be better to have a plan to tear it down and rebuild rather than just trying to add on to the existing building. Greg Hastings: The other issue is the billboard. They do have the Code requirements that would require that they come into compliance with Code which would require a conditional use permit for the billboard. Commissioner Bristol: Asked Mr. Vu his thoughts on the recommendation of a complete tear down and redesign the building. Tony Vu: At this point he was not certain but he thought it was a good idea for them to tear down. He was concerned about the tanks which need to comply with the Code. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked if it would be better to deny this request, close it out and have Mr. Vu get his tanks taken care of, then return with plans of what he would like to do. Tony Vu: It is very difficult to try to figure out where to place the new tanks while they put in a new building, and relocate the tanks again which will be very costly. Commissioner Williams: If Mr. Vu is considering a new building it would seem that his architect would design the tanks in the proper location so he would not have to move them again. Chairman .Bostwick: Stated Mr. Vu is better off to look at the entire site to see where to put the tanks back in relationship to a new building which would better serve and give him a better operation and accomplish all the things that he wants. Tony Vu: It is very difficult, when they purchased the property they were sued because the restroom did not comply with federal regulations, His lawyer tried to settle. He would like for it to remain the same only remove the tank. Chairman Bostwick: Stated Commission is saying that they need to rebuild the building rather than just adding on to it. When he rebuilds, he will obviously then take care of the restoom protilem and meet the ADA requirements for not only the office but restroom and the entire station, rather than patchworking this together. Commission wants to see a complete plan that shows everything. When the clean-up of the tanks is taken care of, then return with a plan that shows the design and gives the applicant what he 06-08-98 Page 9 wants while also provide better service to the neighborhood, environment and the City. Put it all together into one plan and bring it back before Commission. Tony Vu: Asked what if they just remodel and not add any structure to modify the restroom? He was not certain how he would build a new building because now he does not know if he can get a loan.; First they need to remove and install the new tanks and also handle the situation regarding the handicap.. restroom. Commissioner Bristol: Is he stating that he is going to be removing all the tanks and not going to have to do anything on his existing building? Tony Vu: Yes, it will not affect the new building, when they remove the old tanks and install the new tanks at the southwest of the property. It is away from the new building if it is approved. Chairman Bostwick: But the contamination problem is underneath the building and all around the tanks located on the corner. Asked how the applicant is going to remediate that without removing a portion of the building? Ton Vu: They are going to clean-up the contamination completely before starting the new construction. Chairman Bostwick: He thought that the building would need to be taken down when the applicant does the clean-up. Commissioner Bristol: Stated the diesel tanks need to be removed which are at the rear of the property. That would completely eliminate circulation by his bays which is already congested. There could be contamination there because Mr. Wilson indicated that they saw diesel contamination but do not know the extent of it. So that would be to the northeast and southwest area which is on either side of his building. Cheryl Flores: As far as compliance with ADA requirements she was not sure what would trigger compliance with the current ADA requirements in this case. Commissioner Boydstun: The applicant stated someone was suing him over compliance with the ADA requirements. Chairman Bostwick: Asked if he was being sued from an agency or from an individual? Tony Vu: Responded from an individual. Chairman Bostwick: If there has been no building additions or construction then it should not trigger the ADA requirements. After the vote: Commissioner Boydstun: Asked whether there are plans to designate the comer of La Palma and-- Magnolia as a critical intersection? Alfred Yalda, .Principal Transportation Planner, Traffic Engineering Division: Responded no, that is not designated as a critical intersection. OPPOSITION: 1 person spoke in opposition tp subject proposal. ACTION: Determined that the previously approved negative declaration is not adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Denied the request to expand the existing service station based on the following: 06-08-98 Page 10 (i) The size of the property is not sufficient to support the full development of the proposed use without causing a detriment to the surrounding area due to lack of landscaping and the unsightly nature of the operation. (ii) Previous Code Enforcement violations indicate repeated maintenance violations on this property and excessive signage. The proposed addition would further exacerbate the problem by increasing the intensity of the auto repair operations. (iii) Intensification of an existing use on this property which already appears to be insufficient to support the existing operation may lead to further congestion on the site and cause additional burden on City streets. VOTE; 6-0 (Commissioner Henninger absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 33 minutes (1:39-2:12) 06-08-98 Page 11 5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Continued to 5b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 6-22-98 5c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3124 (READVERTISED) OWNER: Sanderson J. Ray Development, 2699 White Road, Suite 150, Irvine, CA 92614 AGENT: Bart Rainone, 3364 East La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 3364 East La Palma Avenue -Concourse Bowling Center. Property is 4.87 acres located on the south side of La Palma Avenue, 250 feet west of the centerline of Miller Street. To permit and retain an arcade, a day care center for up to 30 children, and accessory public dance hall in conjunction with an existing bowling alley (with accessory and incidental sales of alcoholic beverages for on- premises consumption) with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. o ® e o ® e Applicant's Statement: Bart Rainone, general partner of the Concourse Bowling Center, 3364 East La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA: Stated Code Enforcement came in and initially said that he did not have permission to have a bar, restaurant, game area and play room. He was very surprised because the operations has been existing as it is now for nine years, This went on for approximately one month, finally Code Enforcement returned and said they did find that the bar and restaurant had been approved but could still not find the approval of the game room arcade and play room day care. At that time, he showed her (the Code Enforcement Officer) the building plans that were stamped by the Building Division. Three or four nights out of the week they have had music at the bowling center for the past 7 or 8 years. In the past there was the Anaheim Bowl and Wonder Bowl Anaheim which were both quite a facility. Both of those places had literally night clubs in them and were entertainment facilities. Originally they were very focused on bowling and everything else was to service the bowlers. Unfortunately, in the past nine years bowling as a league activity has dwindled tremendously. They have had to look at other options as far as bringing in revenue. The theme nights have helped out considerably. He would not be considering doing anything other than bowling if it was like the "old days" when they had league bowlers from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight, 7 days a weeks. It is not that way anymore. He needs to have some options to make the business a viable business for himself and for the City of Anaheim. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Bostwick: In reviewing this request at the morning session, it was brought to Commission's attention that his request for a public dance hall can not be permitted in this area. Bart Rainone: It is not a public dance hall. Staff is referring to it as a "dance hall" O6-OB-98 Page 12 Commissioner Boydstun: He is in an industrial area. If he was just having entertainment and not charging at the door then they could approve an entertainment permit, but by charging the public as they come in the door that puts him into the night club classification. The zoning is not there so their hands are tied. Bart Rainone: Stated he charges the public at the door to come in to bowl Commissioner Boydstun: But he charges them so much per game, Bart Rainone: On theme nights he charges a flat fee of $10 which includes listening to the music, the shoes and 3 hours of unlimited bowling. Commissioner Williams: Where dancing is involved, it is consider a cover charge and that is where the problem is. Bart Rainone: Does he have to consider calling it differently when he charges at the door? They are not a dance hall -- they are a bowling center. Commissioner Boydstun: Stated he listed in his letter that it is three hours with bowling and line dancing, Bart Rainone: Yes, they get charged a flat fee for bowling and line dancing. Commissioner Boydstun: Line dancing is the problem because it is not allowed in the zoning. Commissioner Williams: He suggested Mr. Rainone could charge a fee far bowling and post a sign that they can dance for free. Bart Rainone: That is the other option.. They are making an observation of something that is not really happening. For instance, the past two Sunday :nights he has had 62 bowlers and 41 people that only came in to play darts, sit in the bar, and socialize. During the whole evening there were 7 or 8 people dancing. They are not just dancing. The cover charge is strictly to eliminate loitering. There are 16 or 18 year olds where this is only one of the few places that they are allowed to go to. Commissioner Bristol: What if Mr. Rainone leaves and the next person that comes in is not a good business owner? Bart Rainone: He suggested giving him a one year permit to see how it goes. Bart Rainone: If the problem is charging at the door, what can he do at a door to eliminate loitering? Asked if he can, for example, sell customers soda for $3? _. Chairman Bostwick: Sure. His security staff should be able to keep the loitering down. Bart Rainone: Asked how he can control it if he does not have some sort of policing abilities? He can not just leave it open to the public and not charge a fee. Commissioner Williams: He could say that there is, for example, a 3 or 4 soda minimum at whatever he wishes to charge and everything is free. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney: Stated she can read the definition of a public dance hall. Possibly one suggestion is to continue this matter to give the applicant an opportunity look with staff and see what the actually use is, in a cooperative manner. Before she read the definition of a public dance hall she wanted to clarify the reason that this requires a CUP for an arcade is that there is an arcade permit that is pre-existing but it is for fewer machines than what is proposed now. That is why that particular requirement was triggered. 06-08-98 Page 13 Obviously, Code Enforcement has come across the issue before where there can be other ways of looking at a fee requirement. That is not something that is actually encouraged by the City because the idea is that the type of use that something becomes when you are charging for coming in primarily for the entertainment. The definition of a public dance hall is defined in Section 4.16.010 as, "A place open to the public upon the payment of an admittance fee wherein music is provided for patrons to dance which is open at regular intervals or on regular days of the week." He needs to speak with Code Enforcement and their enforcement in this type of use in determining whether this falls into that. It certainly appears to fall into that regardless of the amount of money that is being paid when you enter. They have come across this before with a restaurant use where an admittance fee would be "all you can eat" and yet nobody eats. He seems to hedge more on what the purpose is for than what the establishment is charging the fee for. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked if there are 35 machines in there now? Bart Rainone: He has one room as he has from the beginning. Commissioner Boydstun: The Code changed a few years ago and it goes by number now. At the time he received the CUP he specified 25, so that is the problem. How many does he have now? Bart Rainone: It varies from 25 to 35 devices. He does not think he has 35 in that room now he may have 28. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked if they modify the CUP to go up to a certain number rather than another CUP, that way it would be covered? Cheryl Flores: In February 1992 an arcade permit, was issued. Permits were issued at that time rather than conditional use permits and it was issued for the game room that was shown on the plans, for 25 devices. This conditional use permit would be to retain and expand an arcade for up to 35 devices. Bart Rainone: He never left that room. There is not a game anywhere else in the bowl except in the room. Commissioner Boydstun: She was on the Commission when that was approved. She recalled that room was there and there were some machines allowed but the Code changed about five years. That is why they now have to specify a number. Bart Rainone: He has taken offense to Code Enforcement because for the last month and a half he has been told that he has never had a permit for that game arcade. Now he was told that he did have one. Commissioner Boydstun: Well they were probably looking in the building permit files and this-happen to be back in the old file with the Planning Department. Bart Rainone: He felt it is a little unfair for Code Enforcement telling him that he was never permitted to be there. All of a sudden, it was found that he had been permitted to be there. He takes offense to that. Chairman Bostwick: Asked if the dart games are consider arcade games as well? Greg .Hastings, Zoning Manager: He believed that they were electronic devices and they are considered arcade games. Commissioner Bristol: Asked if there was any reason the arcade needed to be open past 12:30 a.m.? Their operation stated that it is open until 3:00 a.m. Bart Rainone: On Friday and Saturday nights he has bowling from 12:p0-3:00 a.m. called ".Rock N' Bowl" and he has patrons in there from 12:00-3:00 a.m. 06-08-98 Page 14 Commissioner Bristol: Could they close it down at 12:30 a.m. on Friday or Saturday night? Bart Rainone: Asked why would he close it down, what is the reasoning behind it? Commissioner Bristol: What is the average age in the arcade? If he stated that kids are in the'arcade at 1:30 a.m. or 2:00 a.m. That is loitering in his opinion. Bart Rainone: Most of those kids from 12:00 through 3:00 a.m. pay a fee to be in there to bowl. If they get bored at 1:30 or 2:00 am. and they want to play a pinball game for 10 or 15 minutes as a break. He does not have a loitering in the bowling center. He does not allow people in the bowling center unless they have paid to be inside at night times. Bart Rainone: He is not allowing people at 1:30 in the morning to come in to play the arcade. The arcade is open for the kids that have paid the fee to be there from 12 to 3:00 a.m. with bowling and they want to go to the arcade to play a pinball machine. He does not know what the problem would be here. He is trying to get approved to prevent a possible loitering problem. Chairman Bostwick: Stated the staff is suggesting that the applicant take a iwo week continuance and meeting with staff to try of come to an agreement to word this so that the applicant can operate and have it fall within the laws of the City of Anaheim. Bart Rainone: They have spoken a little about this, once you start referring to it as a dance hall that is where the initial problem lies. He is talking about 30 to 40 kids standing in front of the concourse area dancing, twice a week for three hours. This has gone beyond reality in this instance. Commissioner Bristol: He disagreed because at first the applicant stated that he was going to expand his uses and when he expands his uses, the only other uses besides bowling is public dance hall and arcade until 3 a.m. His first inclination is that the applicant is going to have a public dance hall. They are trying to decrease loitering at the same time. The applicant is trying to increase the use in the diversity of the site and they are trying to figure out what he is doing at the site because the applicant stated that from 12:00 to 3:00 a.m. kids are allowed in to play in the arcade. Bart Rainone: Or to bowl, the premises is always bowing. Commissioner Bristol: He was at the site yesterday and was told that they close the arcade at 12:30 and shut the machines down due to problems, because there is too much going on other parts of the facility. Bart Rainone: They have done that a times to control it. Commissioner Bristol: Asked Mr. Rainone if he saw a need to close past 12:30? _. Bart Rainone: They have done it on occasion. As long as he is self policing and control ing it himself. The kids are there until 3:00, two days a week and asked that he be allowed to have the arcade open for those kids. The facility is about birthday parties, families, kids and that is what he has tried to develop there. Commissioner Bristol: He knows the problems that the police have at La Palma and Orangethorpe at night time on the east side. Bart Rainone: Actually that is a misprint. You don't have to be 18 to go to the "Kick and Bowl" There is no age limit for Friday and Saturday night. If a parent allows his 13 year old child to come to the facility until 3:OOa.m., he is fine with that because according to the city ordinance as long as a minor is in the facility and not outside then they are allowed to be out during those hours. He is fine with kids being at his facility which is a safe place during those hours. He is very proud of what they have accomplished for the youth in City. That is why he feels it is sad for them to look at shutting it down the during those hours. 06-08-98 Page 15 Chairman Bostwick: Asked Investigator Engle for his comments. Investigator Tom .Engle, Vice Detail, Police Department: Stated there were some problems in the past, as Mr. Rainone is fully aware. The problems started because they did not have the permits that the police officers were looking for. After the one incident that happened with the Police Department there have been no further problems there with him. However, they are also concerned about 16 year old kids being out at 3:00 a.m. at any location. He agreed with Commissioner Bristol on that. Mr. Rainone has not had an exorbitant amount of problems there compared to other locations in the City. He ran the calls for service and there was nothing too extreme there. Mr. Rainone is going to have some calls just because of the type of business he does but it was not an extreme amount. That is why the Police Department recommended approval of this plan. They still believe it is a viable plan if they can get it to work within their system. They wish him to remain open as a bowling center. Cheryl Flores: The suggestion for a continuance is well taken by staff so they can work out with the applicant how this applies to other facilities, how fees are looked at with other like facilities and to try to work out some of the details. Chairman Bostwick: Moved for a two week continuance to June 22, 1998 Bart Rainone: Asked to be allowed to bring up one more issue. When he requested a day care center, he was not requesting that strictly for the use of the patrons. It goes back to the problem of utilization he does not have league bowlers 3 days a week in the facility, that is how bad the league has become. His thought of the play room was for outside charging of a day care facility. He has facilities that use him for their recreation. He has a complete facility for food, restrooms, etc. He is asking for a permit to now go to the State of California and obtain a day care center permit for the facility. Commissioner Bristol: Asked for what ages? Bart Rainone: He does not know at this time, he is assuming preschool children. Greg Hastings, Zoning Manager: Stated there are issues that arise in using this as a preschool and staff misunderstood the intent of what this was. This goes back to some of the things Council has asked them in recent preschool hearings. One is the fact it is in the industrial zone. Secondly, there is a requirement for an outdoor play area if it is a commercial type of facility -that is a State requirement. The other concern is regarding the alcoholic sales in an area where they also have day care facility. Those are the types of issues that would come up with this type of request. Chairman Bostwick: Restated his motion for a two week continuance, to June 22nd, in order for the applicantto work further with staff, seconded by Commissioner Peraza and motion was carried. OPPOSITION: None - - ACTION: Continued subject request to the June 22, 1998 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to meet with staff. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Henninger absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 27 minutes (2:13-2:40) 06-OS-98 Page 16 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Continued to 6b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 7-20-98 6c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3676 (READVERTISED) INITIATED BY: City Anaheim, Redevelopment Agency, 201 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 1003, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 411 West Broadwav. Property is 5.28 acres located on the north side of Broadway, 150 feet west of the centerline of Clementine Street. To consider reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation to retain temporary classrooms and office space within the ground floor retail space area of an existing parking garage with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR7143TW.DOC ~° F,OLCOWING IS />,,SUMMARY;OF„THE,PLANNING~COMMISSION ACTION: „,~; - -- - ~-... Chairman Bostwick: Asked if there was anyone regarding this item. There were a few people in the audience that were present but agreed to return on July 20, 1998. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the July 20, 1998 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to prepare a revised parking study and to allow time to readvertise the proposed reinstatement to include an expansion. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Henninger absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 06.08-98 Page 17 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 7b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.4014 OWNER: First Southern Baptist Church of Anaheim, 1275 East Broadway, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: Father Joseph Boules, 20575 Easthill Drive, Yorba Linda, CA 92887 LOCATION: 1275 East Broadwav - St. Verena Coptic Church/Southern Baptist Church. Properly is 2.45 acres located at the northeast corner of Broadway and Fahrion Place. To permit a private elementary school (kindergarten through 2nd grade) with a maximum of fifty (50) students and a day care facility within an existing church facility. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC98-93 Approved Granted SR7133TW.DOC ® a ® ® ® e Applicant's Statement: Father Joseph Boules, 20575 Easthill Drive, Yorba Linda, CA 92887: Stated they are requesting approval for a private elementary school, grade kindergarten through 2nd grade. He agreed with staffs recommendations. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked if he has made arrangements with Lincoln School regarding cooperative use of the outside playground? Was the school district contacted? Father Boules: Responded yes. They will try to work it out so they share the recess time. They did contact the school district and are working with a consultant from Sacramento that the school district utilizes. They have an agreement in progress. Commissioner Bristol: Stated a question came up in the morning session regarding the satellite dish. Asked Father Boules if he had thought about screening or relocating it? Father Boules: Responded they are only leasing the property for their church use and they will also be leasing it for the school use. He understands the owner has plans to remove the satellite dish altogether because it is not'being used. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked if there is anything that is going to be done with the trash enclosures? It appears they need two bins there rather than one and with a school use they will need more. Father Boules: They will construct that after the restrtping of the parking lot. During the voting: .Father Boules: Stated he did not know for a fact what the owner's plan is for the satellite dish. Asked if that will be a requirement for the CUP? 06-08-98 Page 18 Commissioner Boydstun: She felt that if the satellite dish is not being used then it should be removed. If the owner wants to keep them as a tenant then it should be moved. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Stated on Condition No. 5, the requirement for trees is that they be maintained adjacent to Broadway and Fahrion Ptace. Commissioner'Boydstun: The State will not license the applicant without a playground area. There is no place on that property for a playground is there? Father Boules: There are some areas on the back of the building that are enclosed with the fence area. Commissioner Boydstun: Stated she thought there is a square footage per child requirement and asked if there was enough space to use if they do not receive an agreement with the school? Commissioner Bristol: Asked where exactly the area he is referring to is located. Father Boules: Behind the church building there is a fenced area. Commissioner Bristol: Asked if the children are going to play strictly on asphalt? Father Boules: Responded no, it's a grass area. (There was further discussion with Commission and the applicant explained actually where the grass area was located while they are reviewing the plans.] Commissicner Boydstun: Stated Father Boules is referring to the 15 foot strip behind the building.. George Benaman, project architect: Responded exactly. They have an existing 15 foot grass area which is used for as a playground whenever they have Sunday school outdoor activities, They have other options also. They can surround some of the front area with necessary fencing so they can also use the front area, but they are not going to use it as an open area they way it currently is. So they have plenty of solutions for this area and they can work with the Planning staff to come up with a solution. Cheryl Flores: Stated she is not certain that the side yard area which is the 15 foot setback area from the school property has a residential zoning. The Code does not allow for play or parking in this area. She did not believe it would be an option for a play ground area. Asked the applicant if there was a reason why the grassy area at the corner of Broadway and Fahrion Place would not be an option for a play area. George Benaman: He thought Commission could condition it to be approved as long as the proposed school is there then they can use this area as a playground. - -- Chairman Bostwick: Recommended a condition be added that the applicant return to Commission-as a Reports and Recommendation item either an agreement with the school district for the utilization or plan for the playground showing what they are intending to do. Cheryl Flores: Agreed. There may be some confusion that even though it is residential zoning and is not developed with residences but Code states for institutional uses adjacent to residential zones. It does exempt the fact that it is not built up as residential use. George Benaman: Stated he understood what she is saying but there are two schools and they can not use the area between the two schools at this time but will work with staff. All that they are asking is to be given permission to work with staff instead of returning to the Planning Commission. 06-08-98 Page 19 Chairman Bostwick: They would return as a Reports and Recommendation item where they would bring either an .agreement with the school district pr a plan for the playground equipment for Commission to review and approve. George Benaman: Asked about the satellite dish. The applicant is leasing and does not own the property but the applicant knows, for a fact, that the owner is planning to remove the satellite dish because it is not being use. Chairman Bostwick: Then this action will hurry the owner along in removing the satellite dish. Commissioner Bristol: Stated they are discussing a play area at the corner of Broadway and Fahrion but it looks like a future building of a seating capacity of 1,000. Father Bowles: He is not the owner of the property but understands that those plans have been abandoned by the present pastor of the church. George Benaman: He did not feel that there would be an future extension of the existing buildings because of the fact that they are very short of parking spaces. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked whether they area could be used for the play area? George Benaman: They might be able to use part of it but not the whole area. They are going to take what is necessary to meet the minimum required by the State or by the school district. Commissioner Bristol: Stated he is not going to vote for this proposal unless they are going to use some of the front area for the play area. He did not feel that there is enough on that side of a 15 foot setback because they can not play on asphalt. George Benaman: Asked if they wanted them to remove the word "future extension"? Commissioner Bristol: No, he is referring to put children in the 15 foot setback or put them out in the asphalt. They have to utilize the front area and so it should be discussed now. George Benaman: They are definitely not going to use the asphalt., Commissioner Bristol: Asked why the whole area can't be discussed. George Benaman: Not the whole area. They are going to work with the church. The problem is that accessibility to the back portion is very practical :rather than going through the classroom alt the way through the church or the corridors to the playground. This area he is referring to is immediately accessible by doors from the classrooms themselves. If this is not enough then they are going to add some of the front area for the play area. Father Boutes: The negotiations with the school district are moving along and the school district installed a gate between their playground and their parking lot. So those plans are going through and so this discussion may not be necessary. Commissioner Peraza: Stated that gate has been there for a long time. Father Boutes: No, there is a second gate. There is already an existing gate between both properties, but they installed a new gate that directly leads into their playground which is fenced from the rest of the school. He really believes that they are very close to reaching an agreement with the school district. Father Bowles: Asked for a clarification regarding the satellite dish? Commissioner Boydstun: Suggested that the satellite dish either be removed or screened. 06-08-98 Page 20 After the action: Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney: Stated she wanted to clarify that the authority to place conditions on a satellite dish are somewhat limited by federal law. She did not make an issue of it because it appears that this satellite dish is one that has been abandoned. What the issues are with it are not as a satellite dish but rather as a structure that is not aesthetically pleasing that has been abandoned on the property. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 4014 with the following changes to conditions: Modified Condition No. 5 to read as follows: 5. That minimum fifteen (15) gallon sized trees, planted on maximum 20 foot centers with appropriate irrigation facilities, shall be installed .and maintained adjacent to Broadway and adjacent to the west property line (Fahrion Place). Added the following conditions: That the trash enclosure shall be repaired when the parking lot is re-striped. That the existing satellite dish shall be screened or removed from the property. That the applicant shall submit either (a) an agreement with the Anaheim City School District for the utilization of the Lincoln School playground or (b) a playground plan for review and approval by the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Henninger absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 9 minutes (2:41-2:50) 06-08-98 Page 21 8a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to Sb. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4024 6-22-98 OWNER: Melinda Grubbs, Attn: David Grubbs, 2 Civic Plaza, #240, Newport Beach, CA 92660 LOCATION: 309 East'Ball Road -Yamaha Golf Carts. Property is 1.24 acres located on the north side of Ball Road, 480 feet east of the centerline of Technology Circle. To permit an automobile (golf carts) sales lot within an existing 28,047 square foot industrial building with outdoor displays. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR7140KB.DOC OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the June 22, 1998 Planning Commission meeting in order for the petitioner to meet with staff regarding the outdoor display of golf carts. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Henninger absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 06-08-98 Page 22 9a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 9b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Denied 9c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4029 Granted, in part 9d. DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE Denied OR NECESSITY NO. 98-03 OWNER: Ken G. Doi, Trustee of the Doi Trust, 6971-A Lincoln Avenue, Buena Park, CA 90620 AGENT: Panaite Resmerita, 2960 West Lincoln #I, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 2960 West Lincoln Avenue. Suite I and J. Property is 1.12 acres located at the northwest corner of Laxore Street and Embassy Avenue. Conditional Use Permit No. 4029 - to permit a 2,480 square foot convenience market with sales of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption within an existing commercial retail center with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 98.03 -for the sales of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption in conjunction with a convenience market. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC98-94 DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR.NECESSITY RESOLUTION NO. PC98-95 SR6566DS.DOC FOLLOINING,IS 7A SUMMARYOF THE PLANNINGCOMMISSION ACTION: "" ,,` Applicant's Statement: Panaite Resmerita, 84512 Palais Rd., Stanton, CA: Stated when he started the business he was selling general merchandise but it did not do very well. Since December 1997 he has changed the business to food store. Chairman Bostwick: Asked Mr. Resmerita if he had read the staff report. Panaite Resmerita: Responded he had read some of it. If some improvements need to be done then they will work with the owner. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Peraza: Asked for the Police Department to comment on the proposal. Investigator Tom Engle, Police Department: Stated the Police Department has written a recommendation of denial for this permit. The area is an extremely high crime area, 229% above the average for the City. In the Police Department's opinion, this is an area that should not have any alcohol and let alone another license. There are currently five licenses in the census tract and one pending. They are only allowed 4 by the population. There is no way the Police Department could consider a recommendation for this O6-OS-98 Rage 23 project, regardless of what they do to improve the building. That reporting district is probably in the top five crime rate areas for this district. Panaite Resmerita: There is another liquor store across the street, which must be in the same reporting district. He did not agree with Investigator Engle that it is going to create a burden on the crime rate. Investigator Tom Engle: Stated the licenses that are there now have been there for a long time. If he is referring the business across the street, on'Lincoln, it is in a different reporting district, in a difference census tract and the crime rate is lower. Panaite Resmerita: He heard that the owner of the liquor store said that he put another liquor store out of business that was close to him because he had "connections". Chairman Bostwick: There are not connections. It is just the fact that they are not going to permit that number of permits within the area with that high crime rate. There is no way they can justify granting him a permit for sales of alcoholic beverages. Cheryl :Flores, Senior Planner: Recommended deleting Condition Nos. 8 through 16, except Condition No. 11. Also on Condition No. 21 that the time period for compliance with the conditions that are appropriate for that section be 90 days rather than 60 days. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Denied the Waiver of Code Requirement on the basis that the proposed waiver was deleted following public notification. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 4029, in part, denying the request for retail sales of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption based on the high crime rate and the over-concentration of Alcoholic Beverage Control licenses in the immediate area. Made the following changes to the conditions of approval: Deleted Condition Nos. 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16. Changed Condition No. 21 to read as follows: 21. That prior to the commencement of the activity, or within a period of ninety (90) days from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 19 and 20, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Denied the request for Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 98-03 far a Type 21 ABC license for retail sales of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption based on the following: (1) That the Anaheim Police Department indicated that an additional ABC license in Reporting District 1716 would create an undue over-concentration of licenses in this area (4 permitted; 5 currently issued), and further that the subject property is located within a reporting district which has a crime rate 229% above the City average. (2) That the petitioner did not demonstrate that this request would serve to benefit the public in terms of convenience or necessity. 06-08-98 Page 24 VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Henninger absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights, DISCUSSION TIME: 15 minutes (2:51-3:07) O6-OS-98 Page 25 10a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 300 *(PREV: APPROVED) Continued to 10b. AMENDMENT NO. 3 OF THE ANAHEIM HILLS FESTIVAL 6-22-98 SPECIFIC PLAN (SP90-1) 10c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.4030 OWNER: TWA-Anaheim Limited Partnership, 200 East Long Lace Road, #300, Bloomfield, MI 48303 AGENT: American Housing Partners Inc., Attn: Robert Zamora, 19700 Fairchild, #170, Irvine, CA 92612 LOCATION: 135-185 South Festival Drive The Anaheim Hills Festival. Property is 17.1 acres located on the south and west side of Festival Drive, 762 feet south of the centerline of Santa Ana Canyon Road. Amendment No. 3 of the Anaheim Hills Festival Specific Plan (SP90- 1) -proposal to amend the Anaheim Hills Festival Specific Plan (SP90-1) to conditionally permit senior citizen apartments within Development Area 4 (Business Commercial Area). Conditional Use Permit No. 4030 - to permit a 259-unit, 3-story senior citizen apartment complex within the Anaheim Hills Festival. ' Advertised as Environmental impact Report No. 256. SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR7139KB.DOC m • e a Applicant's Statement: Jeff Farano: Stated they have a slide presentation to present. This is an application for 259-unit senior citizen housing project on 17 acres of land. The land which the project is to be built on twc undeveloped parcels that are part of the Festival Shopping Center (Specific Plan) that was built in 1990. The parcels are located on the south edge of the Festival property, behind the movie theater. - -- The existing permitted use on these parcels are office buildings which are allowed at 50 feet in height. Due to the economy and market changes over the past several years, these proposed buildings were not built and it is not foreseeable that any other project retail or office buildings are going to be built back in this parcel. Essentially, the project is a down-zpning of what is currently allowed. What is proposed is to amend the Specific Plan of these parcels to allow senior citizen housing as part of the amended Specific Plan will be a conditional use permit which contains all of the specific design standards for this project. They are requesting for an amending the Specific Plan to include the conditional use permit and then request for approval of the conditional use permit at the same time. The design standards of the senior housing project meets or exceeds all design standards of this project. To discuss the project with a slide presentation is Robert Zamora, vice president, the developer of American Housing Partners. Sergio Alvarez, president of American Housing Partners, is the architect of 06-08-98 Page 26 the project, who will describe some of the details of the project as well. David Ware, with The Taubman Company, the developer of the Festival. Gene Heish, the consultant that assisted in the drafting of the Specific Plan, who is also operating the slide presentation. Once Mr. Zamora and Mr. Alvarez are completed with their slide presentation, they will then be available to answer any questions on the project. They are in agreement with all the conditions and recommendations of the staff report. Robert Zamora: Stated American Housing specializes in multi-family developments, the principals have combined 55 years of experience in development multi-family that encompasses approximately 12,500 units of which 2,500 were senior housing units. Approximately a year ago they completed a project in the immediate area known as "Victoria Woods -Yorba Linda". This project will be very similar in design and operation, In the marketing of this project they confirmed that there was a tremendous demand for senior housing in this immediate area, Currently there are 185 on their waiting list. A large percentage of those seniors seeking housing were from the Anaheim Hills area. Unable to meet that demand in the Yorba Linda area, they concentrated in identifying a suitable site in Anaheim Hills. They are seeking the approval of the "Victoria Woods -Anaheim Hills". In identifying a suitable site, there is certain criteria necessary in order to be a successful senior community. It has to have proximity to shopping, public transportation and to medical facilities. All these ingredients are found in the immediate area of this proposed site. They feel that this project would be a "natural buffer" between the existing land uses with some nature landscaping which has been there for approximately nine years. To the south and southeast of the site are single-family homes. The current existing permitted uses includes: an office building, a conference, conventional centers, or corporate headquarters. It allows for up to 240,000 square feet. The building height can be 45 feet and it also allows for an additional 5 feet of roof-mounted equipment. The proposed use would be 259 senior citizens apartments totaling approximately 140 square feet, Less than 60% of the allowable existing permitted use. It's housed in 39 individual buildings. The buildings are duplex and triplex., thus eliminating the massive concentration of single buildings. Approximately 70% of the site is open landscape area. 27% of that will be concentrated and considered recreational open space. To summarize, the proposed use is 140,00 square feet, it is 60% less than what is allowed, there will be smaller buildings which will create 70% open space. The project will provide the same character or similar character jn appearance. The shopping center elements of the "Santa Barbara Colonial Theme" will carry throughout this project which would include the arching and banding on the building. Special detail to the architecture will include: arches for window treatments. Window treatments will be future accented by shutters and using crowns and details for arching, The walkway will be designed with massive stucco columning throughout and spanning with attractive wrought iron. - -- The project will offer three floor plans with 1 and 2 bedroom units. Each unit will have it's own individual hookups for wash and dryer connections. The carports will have the roof. The trash enclosures will be made out of stucco covered with a nice heavy trellis. The following is a comparison of the standards that are being proposed: The proposed building height is 35 feet versus 45 feet permitted. o Roof-mounted equipment is not going to be provided or allowed, even though it is permitted up to 5 feet. 06-08-98 Page 27 m They are proposing an improvement setback of 30 feet of landscaping from the street. The current permitted use only requires 10 feet. o Parking will consist of 379 parking spaces. 132 of those spaces will be covered which meet the parking requirements and Code. ® Minimum floor size is 700 square feet fora 1 bedroom unit. 850 fora 2 bedroom. ® The Leisure Recreational Area provides 750 square feet per unit. Sergio Alvarez: Stated the presentation showed the details that they are proposing. They worked very closely with the developer of the Festival Shopping Center to pickup the "Santa Barbara" style and tried to incorporate that throughout their design. Jeff Farano: They believe their proposed project is going to be a very good addition to the area. On the line-of-sight when looking at the neighboring residential properties, they are a substantial distance from the.property. There is a substantial buffer zone from their backyard, from the end of the hill. When Mr. Zamora went to introduce the project to the neighbors they were very excited about it. They received many positive comments about the proposed project. This is not the "institutional" housing that is in other parts of Anaheim Hills area, this is more non-institutional with a much nicer appearance. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Boydstun: She was very impressed with the proposed project. The project will create much less traffic compared with other types of permitted developments. Commissioner Bristol: His concern was with the line-of-sight with the carport. Jeff Farano: Stated when they meet earlier, Commissioner Bristol was correct so Mr. Zamora went back to revise the plan and added file roofs on the project to make it more attractive. (He reference the slide of fhe simulated view from the street.) From Festival Road looking at the project essentially none of the carports are visible from the street. As you look at the site plan, the carports are spread throughout the parking are which are towards the back but the carports will not be seen. They would be visible if standing the edge of the hill from the top but then you would be looking down on file roofs. The building themselves would block the carports. Aside from that there is landscaping and an elevation difference which essentially makes the carports not visible. 50% of the parking spaces are carports. Chairman Bostwick and Commission Bristol both agreed the file roofs looked very good. Commissioner Napoles: Stated he lives near the project and feels it isa wonderful project for the community. ChairmarrBostwick: All the Commissioner would agree that this project is well done and appreciate having a quality project brought into the area. The only problem they have is with the affordable housing units, density. Brent Schultz, Redevelopment and Housing Development Manager: Stated at the morning session they went over the affordable rent levels that are required in Chapter 18.94. The rent levels the applicant is proposing are not consistent with Code. However, they realize the applicant is doing a specific plan and requested a deviation from that as justification. Commissioner Boydstun: Stated they did a tot of senior housing a few years ago, when she was first on the Commission. At that time, they gave lots of things to get that affordable housing and this applicant is not asking for those bonuses, parking waivers, etc. She felt the applicant is building a quality project and filling a read need. The affordable housing that the applicant is agreeing to will work with the project. Chairman Bostwick: Asked staff if they wanted some time to draft the resolution so it would be clear on what is being proposed and what they are actually changing the ordinance to? 06-08-98 Page 28 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney: Stated there are two things are that taking place here. The first is a specific plan amendment. The second is a request for a conditional use permit that would be permitted pursuant to the amendment, if that is the recommendation of the Commission. She suspected what is being envisioned is that all the limitations and requirements would be put into the conditional use permit and possibly a line item that would add the senior apartment projects as a permitted use in the'specific plan. However, the adding of the senior citizens apartments, as a permitted use, take with it Chapter 18.94 with it's affordability requirements, the density and all other incentives that would then become a part of the specific plan. She was gathering from the discussion that this was not what the applicant necessarily wanted but they need to know precisely what portions of Chapter 18.94 are being amended so that the City Attorney's office can :prepare the ordinances and resolutions that would then be presented to the City Council and be ready prior to their meeting on the project. She felt they need more specifics of exactly what it is in Chapter 18.94 that would be changed and whether they do that today or whether that is something the applicant could do over atwo-week period, pending the next meeting of the Planning Commission. It would be whatever is deemed appropriate by the Commission. Jeff Farano; Stated their expectations were to amend the specific plan to allow the residential senior housing use. There is a senior housing Chapter 18.94. They are not developing specifically under that ordinance. They are going for a specific plan which Commission may consider the design criteria and other matters of the senior citizen housing ordinance which includes affordability. There is the specific plan, they are asking not for a deviation of that but asking for a senior housing only, not bringing over the entire Chapter 18.94. They actually exceeded all the design standards of 18.94 and are not designing under the specific plan as opposed to a conditional use permit under 18.94. Chairman Bostwick: What the City Attorney has said is when senior housing is incorporated into the specific plan it does bring Chapter 18.94 with it. As a result it needs to be amended in specifics to this specific plan. It can be done by either the applicant working with the staff over two weeks or if, for instance, the chart on paragraph 9 (page 3] of the staff report is the adoption that is going to be used then it could be adopted and asked Ms. Mann if that was correct. Selma Mann: Probably, but it depends on how specific this chart turned out to be when they actually sit down with Chapter 18.94 and to what extent are the issues that come up. No one is arguing with what the substance of the specific plan would be. It is just that it can not be done simply by naming it as a senior apartment project that the specific plan is the actual zoning for the property and the zoning needs to be specific. Chapter 18.94 is a specific zoning scheme. The applicant like some of the items of 18.94 and not others and will actually perform some things that are not required that exceed the requirements of 18.94. The Commission is giving up some affordability from 18.94, in exchange, would be locking in some of these things that the applicant is willing to do so that there are requirements of the specific plan itself. If this projects sent away with the specific plan being left amended to permit senior projects someone else could not come in with a more intense project requesting a conditional use permit with the standards of Chapter 18.94 minus the affordability. It all comes as a package. Jeff Farano: As the have mentioned, the specific plan is very specific as to what the standards are. What they are requesting to be approved would be all the standard that is seen today. If someone in the future wanted to changed it then they would not be allowed to because the specific plan does not allow them to. They need to return to Commission to request an amendment of the specific plan. Selma Mann: Unless there has been something that has been submitted by the applicant, that she has not seen, she needs a document that translates what it states in the staff report into language that is going to be appropriate for the City to adopt in an ordinance consistent with Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. It can either be a separate section of the specific plan itself that has the zoning and development standards for senior apartment projects or it can be adoption of Chapter 18.94 with certain exceptions that are not applicable and those exceptions would include the different development standards and the 06-08-98 Page 29 different affordability requirements. What is in the staff report is not a specific plan amendment as it could be just added to the Anaheim Municipal Code. Jeff Farano: It is his understanding that a document has been submitted to amend the specific plan. He did not know whether Ms. Mann just did not receive it. They could forward a copy to her if thafis the case. It was in the bound volume of an amended specific plan which contains all the design standards that they are proposing. Selma Mann: Stated she would be happy to work with the applicant but she has not seen that document and therefore did not had an opportunity to review anything that has been submitted by the applicant with regards to a proposed ordinance. Jeff Farano: They could go through that process!but he did not know why she did not receive it. They have been working on this for approximately a year and therefore to ask for an extension. The design standards that are in the staff report are, in fact, what is in the specific plan has been amended and submitted and so it should be in the files and if that is true, then they should be adopted. if it is not true then they would have to look at it later. Selma Mann: The ordinances and the resolutions are going to need to be prepared before it gets to the City Council. If there are ambiguities between what is stated in the staff report and the actual preparation of the ordinance then it would need to return to the Planning Commission for clarification by the Commission. So she did not know whether there really is much time that is actually saved by going forward today. It is not going to permit scheduling any more quickly because it is not going to be scheduled for City Council consideration until those resolutions and drdinance are completed, Chairman Bostwick: Offered a motion for a two week continuance to June 22nd, to allow the applicant to work with the City Attorney's office in the preparation of the wording for the ordinances and resolutions. Jeff Farano: Asked if they were to retum in two weeks would that be as a Reports and Recommendation item or would it be a public hearing item? Chairman Bostwick: It will be a public hearing but it is not necessary to return with their full slide presentation, boards, etc. Jeff Farano: Assuming that the specific plan is amended to include the conditions that they are asking for, they have a conditional use permit before Commission pursuant to those specifications. If Commission would perhaps approve that and in assuming that the specific plan is adopted accordingly then that would be an approval. The other part would already be done and they could be moving forward on that project. Commissioner Peraza: Also agreed that there be a two week continuance. Commissioner Bristol: He also agreed and therefore, seconded the motion for a two week continuance and motion was carried. Following the motion: Selma Mann: On a conditional use permit a portion of the recommendation would be for the Planning Commission to call it's own action on the conditional use permit up for consideration by the City Council. So the CUP will be considered in conjunction with the amendment to the specific plan and could not move forward on it's own. OPPOSITION: None 06-08-98 Page 30 ACTION: Continued subject request to the June 22, 1998 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to meet with the City Attorney's office and work out the wording for the ordinance pertaining to the specific plan amendment. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Henninger absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 42 minutes (3:08-3:50) MEETING ADJOURNED AT 3:50 P.M. TO TUESDAY, JUNE 16, 1998 AT 5:00 P.M. IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS FOR A JOINT CITY COUNCIL .MEETING PERTAINING TO THE VIIEST ANAHEIM COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Submitted by: ©.~o~.aJ Ossie Edmundson Senior Secretary 06-08-98 Page 31