Loading...
Minutes-PC 2000/03/27o'~rNlIM~,`A= CITY OF ANAHEIM ~ ~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AO4NDE0 ~by1 MORNING SESSION: Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos called the Morning Session to order 11:00 a.m. in the Council Chamber. 11:00 A.M. • Staff update to Commission of various City developments and issues (as requested by Planning Commission) • Preliminary Plan Review PUBLIC HEARING: Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos called the Public Hearing to order at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber and welcomed those in attendance. DATE: MONDAY, MARCH 27, 2000 1:30 P.M. • Public Hearing Testimony ~ PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge Allegiance was led by Commissioner Bristol. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Arnold, Bostwick, Bristol, Koos, Napoles, Vanderbilt ABSENT: Boydstun STAFF PRESENT: Selma Mann Greg Hastings Greg McCafferty Linda Johnson Della Herrick Don Yourstone Alfred Yalda Melanie Adams Margarita Solorio Ossie Edmundson Assistant City Attorney Zoning Division Manager Senior Planner Senior Planner Associate Planner Senior Code Enforcement Officer Principal Transportation Planner Associate Civil Engineer Planning Commission Secretary Senior Secretary AGENDA POSTING: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at 4:00 p.m. on March 23, 2000, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chambers, and also in the outside display kiosk. PUBLISHED: Anaheim Bulletin Newspaper on Thursday, March 2, 2000. P: DOCS\CLERICALWI I NUTESWC032700. DOC • planningcommission(a~anaheim.net 03-27-00 Page 1 MARCN 27, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Receiving and approving the Minutes for the Planning Commission Continued to Meeting of March 13, 2000. (Motion) 4-10-2000 Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos asked staff to re-listen to ttem No. 2, from the Planning Commission meeting of March 13, 2000, towards the end of the hearing regarding the Arco Service Station at Ball and West (1037 West Ball Road). There were additional comments made regarding the resort staff, specifically his defense of the Resort staff when they were being criticized for spending time discussing the development standards. Commissioner Arnold offered a continuance to April 10, 2000, seconded by Chairperson Pro- Tempore Koos and motion carried. • 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. a) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 311 (PREV. CERTIFIED) b) FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 00-04 - REQUEST REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF FINAL PLANS: The Walt Disney Company, Attn: Doug M. Moreland, P.O. Box 25020, Glendale, CA 91221-5020, request review and approval of a Final Site Plan setting forth the landscaping design for The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan Hotel District setback area and a portion of the Theme Park District setback area adjacent to the north side of Katella Avenue. ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (Chairperson Boydstun absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-certified EIR No. 311 and its Addendum are adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved Approved (Vote: 6-0, Chairperson Boydstun absent) Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (Chairperson Boydstun absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Final Site Plan (identified as Exhibit Nos. 1 through 5 on file in the Planning Department), on the basis that the Final Site Plan is in conformance with The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1. SR7687DH.DOC Linda Johnson, Senior Planner, stated this item is a request for an approval for the Final Site Plan which sets forth the landscaping design for the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1 Hotel District setback area and a portion of the Theme Park District setback area adjacent to the north side of Katella Avenue between Walnut Street to the west and the Alpine Motel to the east. • Staff reviewed the plans and finds that they have been prepared in conformance with the Specific Plan. StafF recommends that the Planning Commission determine that the previously-certified EIR No. 311 and its Addendum are adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for this request. Staff also recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Final Site Plan based upon the finding that Final Site Plan is in conformance with the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1. 03-27-00 Page 2 MARCH 27, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • b) FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 00-05 - REQUEST REVIEW AND Approved APPROVAL OF FINAL PLANS: a isney ompany, ttn: Doug Moreland, 500 outh uena Vista Street, Burbank, CA 91521, (Vote: 6-0, request review and approvai of Final Site Plan Review for the Chairperson Disneyland Resort Specific Plan Parking District setback area Boydstun absent) adjacent to the west side of Clementine Street between Southern California Edison easement on the south and the Odetics facility on the north. B. a) EVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 399 (PREV. CERTIFIED) Approved ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Chairperson Boydstun absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-certified EIR No. 311 and its Addendum are adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the subject request Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (Chairperson Boydstun absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Final Site Plan (identified as Exhibits Nos. 1 and 2 on file in the Planning Department), on the basis that that the Final Site Plan is in conformance with The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1. SR7693DH.DOC • Linda Johnson, Senior Planner, stated this item is a request for a Final Site Plan for the Disneyland Resort Project. The Final Site Plan sets forth the landscaping design for the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan Parking District Setback Area adjacent to the west side of Clementine Street between the SCE (Southern California Edison) easement on the south and the Odetics facility on the north. Staff has reviewed the plans and has found that they were prepared in compliance with the Specific Plan. Staff also recommends that the previously-approved EIR No. 311 and its Addendum is adequate to serve at the required environmental documentation for this request. Staff also recommends that the Final Site Plan be approved based upon a finding that the Final Site Plan is in conformance with the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan. • 03-27-00 Page 3 MARCH 27, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES r~ ~J C. a) CEQA EXEMPTION SECTION 15061(b)(3) b) CODE AMENDMENT NO. 99-05: City-initiated (Planning Department), 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805, request to amend the Zoning Code requirements for parking lot lighting in order to enhance the safety and security of parking lots and parking garages/structures servicing commercial, industrial, multiple-family and institutional properties. Continued to April 10, 2000 (Vote: 6-0, Chairperson Boydstun absent) Continued from Commission meeting of February 14, and March 13, 2000. ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Chairperson Boydstun absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby continue this item to the April 10, 2000 meeting in order to provide Planning staff additional time to incorporate revisions. SR1008SK.DOC There was no discussion of the item. Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion for a continuance to April 10, 2000, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and motion carried. • • 03-27-00 Page 4 MARCH 27, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • ~ (iii) That this business would continue to operate as a bona fide full- service restaurant and that no public dance hall use would operate on the premises. (iv) That the Anaheim Police Department and Code Enforcement Division do not object to the proposed dance floor addition. SR2007DS.DOC • D. a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV. APPROVED) b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3877 - REQUEST FOR Approved Determined to be DETERMINATION OF SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE: Alex in substantial Perez, 470 South Anaheim Hills Road, Anaheim, CA 92807, request conformance for determination of substantial conformance to add a dance floor to an existing restaurant. Property is tocated at 470 South Anaheim (Vote: 6-0, Hills Road (Bella Cucina Italian Restaurant). Chairperson Boydstun absent) ACTION: Commissioner Bristol ofFered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Chairperson Boydstun absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Chairperson Boydstun absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that this request is in substantial conformance with the provisions of the original approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 3877 based on the following: That the proposed dance floor is accessory to the bona fide full- service restaurant approved for this location and will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses. That the floor area of the restaurant would be adequate in size for the accessory dance floor use while allowing the restaurant to operate in a manner that is not detrimental to the surrounding land uses. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, stated this item is a request for a substantial conformance to add a dance floor to an existing restaurant under Conditional Use Permit NO. 3877. Staff is recommending approval that the Commission determine substantial conformance. Code Enforcement Division and the Police Department were consulted and had no objections to the addition of the dance floor. 03-27-00 Page 5 MARCH 27, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES u E. a) CEQA STATUTORY EXEMPTION - ONGOING PROJECT b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 75 & 172 - REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE: Kerry Lawler, K.W. Lawler and Associates, Inc., 2832 Walnut Avenue, Suite A, Tustin, CA 92780, requests a determination of substantial conformance to allow the adjustment of various lot lines, deletion of an approved recreational amenity and to revise the parking space allocation for an existing mobilehome park. Property is located at 501 East Orangethorpe Avenue (Rancho La Paz Mobilehome Park). ACTION: Chairperson Pro-tempore Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (Chairperson Boydstun absent), that fhe Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby continue subject request to the April 10, 2000 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to submit additional information regarding the parking layout including a colored site plan identifying the new parking spaces proposed and for staff to determine if the requirement of 1 guest parking space for ever four mobile homes and guest parking located within 200 feet of each mobilehome served was a requirement of 1988 or of 1958 when the park was originally built. Continued to April 10, 2000 (Vote: 6-0, Chairperson Boydstun absent) SR7709VK.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, stated this item is a request for a determination of substantiat conformance for an existing mobilehome park located at 501 East • Orangethorpe Avenue, the Rancho La Paz Mobilehome Park. The petitioner requests a determination of substantial conformance to allow the adjustment of various mobilehome lot lines, the deletion of a shuffleboard court and replacing that with a horseshoe court and to revise some of the parking spaces within the park. Staff reviewed the request and recommends that the Commission determine that the changes are, in fact, a reduction in the number of mobilehome spaces, that it substantially conformances with the original approvals. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos informed the audience that this is not a public hearing item, but as an item before the Planning Commission the public has a right to speak on this item. He reminded the audience that the Commission can only act on issues that they have jurisdiction over. He asked a raise of hands of how many people intended to speak. (There were 3 people who raised their hands.J Public Testimony: Virginia Hawk, 53 Pine Villa, Anaheim, CA 92801, stated there is no jacuzzi in the pool area listed in the staff report. The pool and recreation room were mentioned but not the jacuzzi and wondered whether it is still going to be there or eliminated. They also would like to know why the petitioner is allowed to put the horseshoe court on the Walnut property, which she was told by the Planning Department. There is no guest parking on Walnut. In the new revised parking they will either have to park in the street or they will have to park in another resident's parking lot. Parking on the street is illegal and cars will be towed away. The nearest parking is 2%2 bocks down on Cypress Street to the proposed horseshoe court. They would also like to know why that can not be put where the shuffleboard court was • taken out, which was also public parking where the shuffleboard court was. They would rather see parking go in there than have a mobilehome put in that area and would like it as it was originally. If the applicant wants the horseshoe court then that would be fine but also include parking there which was deleted when the shuffleboard court was taken out. If it 03-27-00 Page 6 MARCH 27, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . was included in that area it would be more convenient to the many mobilehomes around that area. According to the plans, many of the 61 parking spaces in the park are in the outer perimeter of the park. Some of the people living in the park are in their 70's and 80's, have wheel chairs and walkers and can not get to those places because they can not walk out that far. It is going to be very inconvenient for them to walk with a relative out in the evening if they have to walk down to the parking area where they are required to park. They would like to know where the 61 guest parking spaces would be. She reviewed the map but it was difficult to see where they are supposed to be. She had photos taken where the applicant has unloaded lumber and materials in the street and in front of a mobilehome (on Orange Street). She was under the impression that until the approval that the applicant was not allowed to do anything related to construction. She indicated she would be speaking with the Code Enforcement Division on this. The residents at Rancho La Paz Mobilehome Park would like the applicant to know that from now on any construction in their park is going to be watched very carefully to ensure the Code is abided with or they will go to the City to report the violations. She thanked the Code Enforcement Division and Planning Department for their efforts in clearing up the many violations that were found at their park. They are concerned with the health and safety of the residents in their park. Don Dyer, 1051 Site Drive, Brea, CA, stated he works for Five Star Homes, which is involved in constructing new homes in this community. What is being proposed is to combine some small spaces. It is very hard to put a small home into these mobilehome parks. They are not taking anyone else's property or lot but combining two empty lots and place a nice 1,200 or 1,400 square foot homes, sometimes with a freestanding 2-car • parking space. In his opinion, it would seem to serve the purpose of providing affordable housing in Anaheim that is acceptable and making property much more attractive. There is not a conspiracy, but all they are doing is creating very attractive affordable housing. Public Testimony: Mary Merkel, 50 Via Walnut, Anaheim, asked that Commission reconsider what is being proposed today. This has been a very serious problem in their mobilehome park. People have had their cars towed away because they had no place to park. There are many other things that are being changed such as the lot lines, which she feels they need to look into before a final decision from Commission. Hugh Stanford, 57 Walnut, Anaheim, felt that Mr. Dyer is only concerned with Five Star Realty and the owners do not seem concerned about the other homes in the park. There are 70 and 80-year old residents who can not even pick up a horseshoe. He moved into the park in 1990 and from the beginning he thought it seemed more of a"concentration camp". He has no other place to go because he can not just pick up and move. He hoped that Commission considers what the residents are trying to do for themselves. When his sister comes to visit him she does not have a parking space to park. Commissioner Bostwick asked Mr. Stanford whether all the mobile spaces in the park have a carport for parking. Hugh Stanford responded yes they do. There have been cars towed many times. Commissioner Bostwick asked Mr. Stanford why he purchased there if he felt that it is like a concentration camp. ~ 03-27-00 Page 7 MARCH 27, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Hugh Stanford responded that it was all he had and when he moved in he did not know it was a concentration camp until two weeks after he was in there. He has voiced he opinion since that time. Commissioner Bostwick stated over the course of time there is going to be a change of tenancy in the park. It may not work for everyone, but perhaps the new people moving in may want to play the horseshoes. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos asked Mr. Yalda to comment on the state of the parking for this proposal. Applicant's Statement: Kerry Lawler, K.W. Lawler and Associates, in Tustin, stated they are civil engineers and were hired by the park owner to perform a survey of the park to determine the existing monumentation, to develop an aerial topography of the park, to determine the "as builY' condition of the park improvement and to prepare the site plans before Commission. There were 10 proposed guest parking spaces added to the plan as suggested by City staff for a total of 61 guest parking spaces. The "as builY' monumentation has been installed in the ground, surveyed and is shown on the plan. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, asked to clarify whether they were adding any units. Kerry Lawler responded they are not adding any units. They are reducing the total number of units and increasing the parking by 10 spaces. • Commissioner Bostwick asked if the new spaces that they are creating have two-car parking. Kerry Lawler responded based on visual observation it appears that every unit has or has the capability of having 2 parking spaces provided. In most cases, one covered and one uncovered. He could not say that out of 255 units that each unit has exactly 2 parking spaces, but many of the units have storage sheds and whether or not those get in the way of parking is possible. It appears, driving by each unit as he did, that the majority of the units do have a provision for 2 cars. Commissioner Bostwick asked about the new one being installed whether they have a 2- car garage. Kerry Lawler responded yes. Greg McCafferty advised anytime someone proposes to move on a mobilehome, it has to be checked against not only the parking Code but all the Title 25 requirements before it receives approval to move on the site. Commissioner Bostwick asked staff to confirm that the recommendation from staff is an added condition that ail proposed future lot line adjustments be approved in accordance with Title 25 of the California Code Regulations. Greg McCafferty confirmed that was correct. Commissioner Bristol stated Mr. Lawler indicated there are 61 guest parking spaces and • staff is indicating 64 guest parking spaces based on 255 units at 4 per unit of space. Greg McCafferty explained it would be one space for every 4 mobilehomes. 03-27-00 Page 8 MARCH 27, 2000 PL.ANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Bristoi wondered whether they were 3 spaces short. Kerry Lawler explained he noted that there are 90 garages on the site and not necessarily every one of those garages are used for automobile parking. It is very possible that a number of them are used for other types of storage. The 90 garages, which are not required for the Code, he thought it would be a fairly easy assumption to come up with the 3 additional parking spaces that were necessary. Greg McCafferty further explained the reason why staff did not call that out is because a variance from the Code is not the proposal before Commission. They are actually reducing the number of units and in fact increasing the number of guest parking spaces on the site, and therefore staff felt that it was an existing situation that did not require the variance. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated regarding the need for the parking spaces to be within 200 feet of the mobilehome, he did not see reference of those 64 spaces and wondered if there has been some consideration made of that. Kerry Lawler indicated that there are 4 sheets that compose the site plan. There are either existing or proposed guest parking spaces on each one of those sheets. There are more towards the front of subject property (i.e, towards Orangethorpe) but there are parking spaces in each quadrant of the development without making an attempt at the total number of one versus fhe other. If you divide the development into four equal quarters every portion of the development would have at least one of those three total combined parking space situations. • Public Testimony: Teresa Gargino. 21 Walnut Via, Rancho La Paz Mobilehome Park, Anaheim, stated she lives on Walnut Street that has no parking whatsoever. She wanted to know where the 61 guest parking spaces are located. When their relatives come to visit there is no place to park. She has two places in her driveway to park. There is barely space for 1%2 cars to park and most units are the same way. Some can get 3 cars and some can not. The garages Mr. Lawler was referring to are rented garages and in most instances there are no cars in them and are full of storage items. The homes were referred to as "affordable housing" but they are between $80,000 to $100,000, which she does not feel is affordable housing for senior citizens. Their rent has gone up every year. It has gone up $200 in the 8 years that she has been there and it is going to be increased considerably again as of July 1, 2000. They are fighting for rent control. She lives an Walnut Street and there are not many lights on her street. There are no fire hydrants on her street. She realizes that these are not Commission's concerns but she wanted to let them know that they are fighting to be able to get these things, but seem to be getting nowhere. She felt the shuffleboard court, which is to be etiminafed is much better than having horseshoes. In the past they had various activities in their clubhouse and now they have absolutely none of those activities, they are not even allowed to have a club there. She wanted to know why. They can not get resolution from the owners or management on-site. They need parking spaces and not more mobilehomes. Commissioner Bristol asked Mr. McCafferty about page 2, number 17, of the staff report where it states that the guest parking be located within 200 feet of each mobilehome served and asked if this site complies with that. Greg McCafferty responded the existing spaces he did not be(ieve comply with the • requirement but with the 10 new proposed spaces, it is difficult to determine that because of taking the 2Q0 feet from those units. It is very ambiguous in the Code of how that is 03-27-00 Page 9 MARCH 27, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • calculated. Regarding Walnut Villa there is a few parking spaces on the site but clearly not enough to serve the needs of the mobilehome park residents. Commissioner Bristol stated Commission's job today is to review two items, the parking spaces and the density that the applicant is requesting to see whether there is substantial conformance with the prior permit. It is obvious that there are other complaints but currently Commission can only review those two items. Greg McCafferty explained about Walnut Villa. The residents are correct. There are no existing guest spaces on Walnut Villa but there are some within 200 feet of the mobilehome parked on Walnut Villa. It is between Cypress Villa and Spruce Villa. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos asked Mr. McCafferty if he feels that the applicant complies with the 200 feet provision. Greg McCafferty responded in order to confirm that, staff would have to check. Part of the difficulty for staff and the Commission is that most of these spaces existed when the mobilehome park was approved and they have modified these spaces only for the additional parking spaces. Therefore, there is nothing to compare it to in the old exhibits. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos stated the existing situation was an approved site plan by the City and the changes are what Commission is considering. It appears whether the existing situation is adequate or not, there are more spaces per unit with the new proposal than there is with the existing situation. Greg McCafferty agreed. Probably not at the optimum location for the residents, but there • is an increase in guest parking spaces. Larry Weaver stated he is representing the petitioner. What they are proposing to do is to improve the situation because they are taking two vacant lots that formerly accommodated two smaller mobilehomes and are erasing the imaginary Jot line befiveen those two lots and making a bigger lot, so the one bigger lot can accommodate one home. They are actually reducing the density and the demand, but yet they have increased the number of guest parking spaces. The park is as it was built and as it was approved by the City. The changes of making two smaller lots into one is not having an adverse affect. On the contrary, it is helping to improve what may be a difficult parking situation in the park as it was built and approved by the City. Commissioner Bristol asked the City Attorney to clarify whether the Planning Commission is being asked to review the current use and determine if it is in substantial conformance with Conditional Use Permit Nos. 15 and 172 and whether this deviates from that use. Also that there is no impact to the potential variance on that use. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, responded that is what a determination of substantial conformance is. It is not quite as clear cut there because according to the discussion there are no plans that actually show what the "as builY' plans are. So there are no original plans fo compare it with. There also seems to be some disagreement with what the existing conditions are, which make it not so clear-cut as it might otherwise be. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos stated the survey shows the existing conditions, which are the baseline of the project. Larry Weaver agreed and explained that part of the process was to go back and put • together a plan for the City because the City never had such a plan on file. The only plan that the City has on file is an approved site plan for each individual lot as the homes were built. There was no overall approved plan to compare what is there today with what was 03-27-00 Page 10 MARCH 27, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • originally built there. The purpose in doing this exercise was to go back and create a plan for the City. Prior to 1988, the law allowed the lot tines to be moved and adjusted at the will of the park owner without City approval or without resident approval. The condition that the staff recommended that they comply with Title 25 prior to adjusting or approving lot lines is a requirement now of law pursuant to Title 25 California Code of Regulations. (n order to adjust or move a lot line they have to have both the approval of the City and any affected residents. In this case there were not affected residents because they were only erasing the imaginary line between two empty spaces. Public Testimony: John Porter, 29 Walnut, stated he thought the problem arose because there was no original plan for parking and until a few years ago they were parking in the street and that is why Walnut has no parking. He did not believe there was guest parking available within 200 feet of Walnut, the full length of the street. Until the "no parking ordinance" came about they had no problem with the guest parking. He has been in the park since 1963, which probably makes him the resident who has been living at the park for the longest period of time. Commissioner Arnold asked Mr. Porter to give some clarification about the discrepancy between what appears to be guest-parking spaces on the drawings and the testimony given that the guest parking spaces not really there. John Porter responded to his knowledge there has never been any guest parking available on Walnut. As he indicated, the parking in the street was not a problem until one or two managers prior. Since that time they have also restricted overnight parking in the park. As ~ long as there was street parking on one side of the street for the Fire Department access then there was never a problem with management. Commissioner Arnold asked if the plans conform to what is actually there at the site. Greg McCafferty stated the applicant had hired an engineer, Mr. Lawler, to conduct an aerial survey of the existing situation. He basically took a photograph of what was there and then he overlayed the proposed changes on that. Kerry Lawler stated regarding his statement earlier that there were 10 proposed guest parking spaces, which is incorrect. There are actually 18 guest parking spaces. That means that in order to have 61 there needed to be 43 parking spaces existing. He personally walked the site. On the plans it references the existing guest parking spaces as colored in red. This document is where the 43 guest parking spaces are that exist today and there are 18 that are shown on the plans as proposed guest parking spaces Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos indicated the question that remains regarding this proposal is whether or not there is truly a guest parking space within 200 ft. of each mobilehome served because that is a Code issue. He suggested continuing this item for two weeks to have the applicant work with staff and provide Commission information to show that. Larry Weaver pointed out that staff has already indicated that the guest parking that they are dealing with today is only that guest parking that affects the reconfigured spaces. Staff s statement was that there is guest parking for each of the reconfigured spaces. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos stated another alternative could be given the fact that it appears there are a couple of parking spaces short is that they could consider a variance ~ which would perhaps make this go another direction. 03-27-00 Page 11 MARCH 27, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Larry Weaver stated the few guest parking spaces that they are short does not account for the 90 garages that the residents have the use of. He felt some of those residents might be willing to give up those garages in order to have additional parking. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos stated he is not convinced that they have a full understanding of the parking situation and he does not see a major problem in continuing this item for 2 weeks for comfort level. Commissioner Arnold agreed. It seems that there is some discrepancy about the facts and they need to have staff investigate that to make sure that they know exactly what the facts are. It seems that it is difficult to make this determination at this time without greater certainty. Commissioner Bristol also agreed that there still remain questions that need to be answered and as a result would prefer this item be continued in order to get the facts. Commissioner Bosfinrick suggested that the applicant's engineer prepare a site map showing the present parking spaces and identifying the proposed parking spaces in order to make it easier to identify them. Asked clarification regarding the requirement of one guest parking per every four within 200 feet and asked if that was the Code when the park was originally built. Greg McCafferty responded he would need to check Chapter 18.06 to see when that was actually added. Commissioner Bostwick felt that when they hear this item again in two weeks that would be • an important issue. Commissioner Bristol referred to the action taken at this same site within a year ago where there was an expansion of the facilities front office and asked if that was a variance or conditional use permit. Commissioner Bostwick stated it was actually an administrative adjustment because they moved their office over to the driveway to match the traffic light for safety purposes. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos offered a motion for continuance to April 10, 2000, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and motion carried. ~ 03-27-00 Page 12 MARCH 27, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ ~ ~J F. a) CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 21 b) VARIANCE NO. 1229 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1043 Concurred w/staff Initiated a public - REQUEST TO INITIATE AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONS OF hearing to APPROVAL: City-Initiated ( Planning Department), 200 South determine Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805, request to consider compliance with modification to conditions of approval including the length of stay conditions of limitation for: approval and to Variance No. 1229 - To construct and operate a 70-unit mote! and consider coffee shop. Property is located at 823 South Beach Boulevard amendment to the (Covered Wagon Motel). conditions of. Conditional Use Permit No. 1043 - To permit a 129-unit, 3-story approval motel with waiver of maximum structural height. Property is located at 2748 West Lincoln Avenue (Lincoln Inn). (Vote: 6-0, Chairperson Boydstun absent) ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (Chairperson Boydstun absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 21, as defined in the State EIR Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare an EIR. Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (Chairperson Boydstun absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby direct staff to agendize Variance No. 1229 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1043 for public hearings to determine compliance with conditions of approval and to consider modifying said conditions including the length of stay limitation. SR7708GM.DOC C~ Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner introduced this item by stating this item is a request to initiate a public hearing to determine compliance with conditions of approval and to consider modifying conditions of approval including the length of stay, limitation for Variance No. 1229 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1043, the Covered Wagon Motel and the Lincoln Inn, respectively. Staff recommended based on direction from the City Council at their March 21, 2000 Council Meeting that the Planning Commission direct staff to initiate public hearings, tentatively scheduled for sometime in May for both of these permits. G. VARIANCE NO. 2699 - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION Terminated Sidney E. Bickell, 5585-B Via Dicha, Laguna Hills, CA 92653, request for termination of Variance No. 2699 (waiver of permitted uses and permitted number of parking spaces to expand retail (Vote: 6-0, bakery sales). Property is located at 633 South East Street (Quartz Chairperson Dealer Direct). Boydstun absent) TERMINATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-32 SR7701 VK.DOC There was no discussion related to this item. 03-27-00 Page 13 MARCH 27, 2000 PLANNiNG COMMISSION MINUTES i H. a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATtON (PREV: APPROVED b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4069 - REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF FINAL SIGN PLANS - Joyce Sehi, Quality Project Coordinating, P.O. Box 2653, Costa Mesa, CA 92628-2653, requests review and approval of final sign plans for Conditional Use Permit No. 4069 (to construct a service station with a 1,925 square feet convenience market with retail sales of beer and wine of off- premises consumption and a 920 square foot drive-through self service car wash with waiver of maximum structural height abutting a residential zone). Property is 801 South Harbor Boulevard and 510 West South Street. Approved Approved final sign plans ~ ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Chairperson Boydstun absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Chairperson Boydstun absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve final sign plans in part, with the following stipulations to be shown on plans submitted for building permits: (i) That the proposed canopy signs be modified to remove the light gray background on the canopy and replaced with a beige background with a blue band. The petitioner may choose either red or blue for the tiles for both the monument sign and convenience market. (ii) That only finro canopy signs shall be permitted. The petitioner may decide which two canopy signs to retain. (Vote: 6-0, Chairperson Boydstun absent) SR1150JD.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item by stating this item is a request for a review of final sign plans for Conditional Use Permit No. 4069. Staff is recommending approval, in part, of the sign plans with the recommendation that the applicant be limited to two signs on the canopies and that the actual color of the canopy match the convenience market. Specifically, that would be the thin red accent band in the middle of the canopy area with the beige background. ApplicanYs Statement: Joyce Sehi briefly introduced herself by indicating she is with Quality Project Coordinating and available to answer any questions. Commissioner Bristol stated he noticed that the "Ultramar" on the canopy is gray and the building is beige. He agreed with the staff report and wondered why the difference in color. Joyce Sehi responded Ultramar's colors are actually the gray that the sign company proposed for Ultramar. They were unaware that the building was going to be beige. . Apparently the building was proposed before the owner knew that there was going to be an Ultramar service station and had proposed the beige. The sign contractor is willing to make that change to beige as opposed the gray. 03-27-00 Page 14 MARCH 27, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Bristol asked if they wanted the building in gray. Joyce Sehi explained actually the whole building should have been gray but since it did not go through that way they will go ahead and make that concession to the beige. They will make the canopy panel beige instead of gray as proposed, because the whole site should have been gray but it is not. Commissioner Bristol asked if they were in agreement. Joyce Sehi responded they are in agreement, however, they would prefer to remove the red stripe on the building and keep the blue band on the canopies rather than remove the blue band or make it red on the canopies, as staff is requesting. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked if they would be willing to remove red stripe on monument sign. Joyce Sehi responded if Commission insists they will. Ultramar's look is blue and red and would prefer to maintain the blue banding on canopy rather than red stripe on the building. Commissioner Bristol does not feel red stripe is a major problem. Commissioner Bostwick stated that a nearby service station has gray panel on a beige building and felt it does not took bad. He did not have a concern with one color or another. Commissioner Bristol stated the applicant is in agreement with beige and is taking red stripe off of the building because staff is asking them to do that. He could not see any problem with keeping it on there. • Commissioner Bostwick agreed. Commissioner Bristol summarized by stating that the applicant is willing to go with beige on canopy to match building, with blue band, and there is no problem with red on the building or the monument sign. Greg McCafferty indicated staff prefers that it be one or the other, if it is going to be beige with the blue banding, it be incorporated into the tile accents on the monument sign and tile accents on convenience market so that it is consistent, but whatever the pleasure of the Commission is. Staff would like to see blue tile accents instead of red to match canopy. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos stated he did not see a problem with that and asked the applicant whether the color red is their corporation's preference. Joyce Sehi confirmed it is. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos agrees with staff and has seen concessions from corporate logos to accommodate aesthetic issues and thinks the more colors there are the more garish it looks, whereas a blue theme is more subtle, given the neighborhood. • 03-27-00 Page 15 MARCH 27, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ OWNER: Dali Travel, Inc., c/o Best Western Anaheim Stardust Inn, Attn: Mike Tono, 1057 West Ball Road, Anaheim, CA 92802 AGENT: TFN Architectural Signage Inc., Attn: Vince Vigil, 3411 West Lake Center Drive, Santa Ana, CA 92704 LOCATION: 1057 West Ball Road. Property is 1.86 acre located on the north side of Ball Road, 182 feet west of the centerline of West Street and 190 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road" (Best Western Anaheim Stardust Inn). Waiver of sign standards matrices, to permit two (2) Anaheim Resort freestanding monument signs (one per street frontage). PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 11 2b. VARIANCE NO. 4391 Concurred with staff Granted * Originally advertised as Katella Avenue. • VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-33 SR7703KD.DOC Linda Johnson, Senior Planner, advised Commission that applicant's agent was running approximately 1 hour late. She indicated Commission may trai! this item or staff is prepared to go forward with a presentation. (Commission had no questions of staff and, therefore, chose to go forward without applicant] OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Concurred with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 11, as defined in the State EIR Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare an EIR. Granted Variance No. 4391 subject to the conditions listed in the staff report dated March 27, 2000. VOTE: 6-0 (Chairperson Boydstun absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 2 minutes (2:35-2:37) • 03-27-00 Page 16 MARCH 27, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 3a. CEQA CATEGORICA 3b. VARIANCE NO. 4392 Concurred w/staff Granted OWNER: Ben & Mary Lou Hathaway, P.O. Box 634, Tillamook, Oregon 97141 AGENT: Tom De Sena, c/o Tiffy's Family Restaurant, 1060 West Katella Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92802 LOCATION: 1060 West Katella Avenue. Property is 0.40 acre located at the southeast corner of Katella Avenue and West Street (1060 West Katella Avenue. (Tiffy's Family Restaurant and Ice Cream Parlor). Waiver of (a) permitted signs and (b) sign standard matrices, to permit two (2) wall signs. ~~ VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-34 SR7702KD. DOC Linda Johnson, Senior Planner, introduced this item by stating that this is a request for a waiver of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Sign Standards. The applicant is available to provide a presentation and answer any questions. Staff recommends approval of this variance. Tom Steinke, representing Tiffy's Restaurant, stated in light of staff's recommendation he did not feel he needed to make a presentation. They are in support of staff's recommendation. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Concurred with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 11, as defined in the State EIR Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare an EIR. Granted Variance No. 4392 subject to the conditions of approval listed in the staff report dated March 27, 2000. VOTE: 6-0 (Chairperson Boydstun absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 2 minutes (2:37-2:39) ~ 03-27-00 Page 17 MARCH 27, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 4b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4182 (READVERTISED) Granted for 2 years OWNER: James F. and Marie L. Lavezzoli, 3523 16t" Street, San (To expire 3-27-2002) Francisco, CA 94114 AGENT: William O. Talley, 30442 Via Cantabria, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 LOCATION: 1215 North Fee Ana Street. Property is 1.41 acre located on the west side of Fee Anaheim Street, 199 feet north of the centerline of La Palma Avenue (Texan Truck Body). To permit and retain truck conversion facility and a truck storage yard. Continued from the Commission meeting of March 9 3, 2000. r ~ L J CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-35 SR7706KB.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced the item by stating the applicant is requesting to permit and retain a truck conversion facility and storage yard. Staff is recommending approval subject to the conditions in staff report. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Greg McCafferty recommended Condition No. 4 be deleted since Condition No. 5 is all inclusive. Applicant's Statement: Bill Talley, 500 North State College, Orange, CA, advised they are not in agreement with many of the conditions but will comply in order to get the license. They feel staff is creating a more unsafe condition in the yard by putting the slats in because the Police cannot observe the tot. Greg McCafferty advised Condition No. 21 also needs to be modified because it has to do with timing of conditions; to delefe Condition No. 4 and with the stipulation that on Condition No. 5 the fencing shall include the PVC slats. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Granted Conditionat Use Permit No. 4182, as readvertised, with the following changes to the conditions of approval: Deleted Condition No. 4. • 03-27-00 Page 18 MARCH 27, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ! Modified Condition Nos. 5 and 21 to read as follows: 5. That a fencing, landscape and irrigation plan for subject property, including PVC slats interwoven into the existing chain link fencing and chain link fencing for the outdoor storage area and, further, including vines and 24-inch box trees on 12- foot center where screening the outdoor storage yard, shall be submitted to the Zoning Division for review and approval and then installed in compliance with Section No. 18.04.049 (Required Site Screening in Industrial Zones) of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Any decision made by the Zoning Division regarding said plan may be appealed to the Planning Commission. Said plan shall be implemented within sixty (60) days of the plan's approval. The property shall be maintained in conformance with said plan. 21. That prior to the commencement of the activity authorized by this resolution, or within 30 days from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 1, 5, 13, 15 and 17 above-mentioned, shall be complied with. VOTE: 6-0 (Chairperson Boydstun absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 3 minutes (2:40-2:43) • • 03-27-00 Page 19 MARCH 27, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 5b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4002 (READVERTISED) OWNER: Roilins Properties, Inc., 1 Rollins Plaza, Wilmington, Delaware 19803 Approved Approved reinstatement for 2 years (To expire 2-18-2002) AGENT: Philip L. Anthony, 14101 La Pat Place #10, Westminster, CA 92683 LOCATION: 1801 East Ball Road. Property is 1.52 acres located on the north side of Balt Road, 490 feet west of the centerline of State College Boulevard (Hertz Equipment Rental). ~ To consider reinstatement of this permit which currently contains a time limitation (originally approved on February 18, 1998 to expire on February 18, 2000) to retain a previously approved large equipment storage and rental yard. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-36 SR7686KP.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item by stating readvertised Conditional Use Permit 4002, 1801 East Ball Road, Hertz Equipment Rental, is requesting reinstatement of the permit for 2 years, staff recommends approval as conditioned. . ApplicanYs Statement: Phil Anthony, 14101 La Pat Place, Westminster, stated he is the agent for applicant. Condition No. 9 states that the main entry gate in front should be kept closed during working hours. It should actually state closed when not in use to make sure there is no misunderstanding. Other than this, they support staff report. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Greg McCafferty recommended modification to Condition No. 9 to state, "That the chainlink gate shall remain unlocked and closed when not in use during business hours to provide vehicular and pedestrian access to required on-site parking." Commissioner Arnold advised that the previous CUP approved had an item regarding no painting, detailing, maintenance and washing outside and asked if that was needed here. Greg McCafferty read into the record the following proposed additional condition that addressed Commissioner Arnold's concerns: "That no work on vehicles or parts shall be permitted anywhere outside the building including detailing, painting, maintenance, washing, repair or other similar automotive related work." (See Condition No. 20 on page 22 for complefe verbiage.J Phil Anthony stated there is an existing wash area with a wash rack shown on the original site plan, under a canopy on the east side of the building, it is specifically for washing equipment. Melanie Adams, Associate Civil Engineer, asked if the wash rack discharges to sanitary sewer. • Darren Smith, Branch Manager, responded the wash rack has iYs own self-contained collection bin that is solely for collecting dirt and oil. It gets pumped out by an environmental company. 03-27-00 Page 20 MARCH 27, 2000 PLANNING COMMISStON MINUTES • • • ~ ~- • - • • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Determined that the previously approved negative declarafion is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request Approved reinstatement for Conditionai Use Permit No. 4002. Deleted the conditions of approval for Resolution Nos. PC98-25, PC99-88 and PC99-218 in their entirety and replaced them with the following conditions: That outdoor storage shall be (imited to equipment available for sale, rent or lease located in areas as shown on Exhibit No. 1. No other materials shall be stored outside. 2. That this conditional use permit shall expire finro (2) years from the date of this resolution, on February 18, 2002. 3. That signs for this facility shalf be limited to those ident~ed on the exhibits submitted by the petitioner and approved by the Planning Commission; and, that the proposed monument sign shall include minimum nine inch (9~) high letters identifying the address of the subject property in compliance with Code requirements. Any additional signs shal( be subject to approval by the Planning Commission as a"Reports and Recommendations° item. ~ 4. That no outdoor acctivities in the storage yard shall occur before 7:00 a.m. 5. That any tree planted on-site shaU be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dies. 6. That all vehicle and equipment repair shall be conducted wholly inside the building. 7. That no barbed wire shall be permitted where it would be visible to non- industrially zoned properties or to the public rights-of-way. 8. That the front loading doors shall remain closed when not in use. 9. That the chainlink gates shall remain unlocked and closed when not in use during business hours to provide vehicular and pedestrian access to required on-site parking. 10. That no required parking area shall be used for outdoor storage. 11. That a minimum eight (8) foot wide planter area shall be maintained adjacent to the north property line. Said planter shall be fully irrigated, planted and maintained with a minimum of finrenty-five (25), equally spaced, twenty-four inch (24") box, broad headed trees. 12. That equipment storage areas shall be limited to the areas designated on Exhibit No. 1, north of the "equipment staging" and ~loading° areas. Only small • fork lifts, aerial lifts and earth moving equipment shall be parked near the north property line. All other rental equipment shall be parked adjacent to the east and west property lines. No display of equipment, including mechanical lifts, 03-27-00 Page 21 MARCH 27, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES r~ ~_J shafl be visible to Ball Road. 13. That all equipment scheduled for eariy moming delivery shail be moved to the "equipment staging area" or the "equipment loading area" before closing time on the day before scheduled pick-up. 14. That large diesel tractors with traiters used to deliver rentai equipment shall be ioaded only in the "equipment loading area," as designated on Exhibit No. 1. 15. That the property owner shall pay the cost of Code Enforcement inspections in response to any complaints which are verified as a violation of Code requirements or the Conditions of Approval of Conditionat Use Permit No. 4002. The maximum fee shall not exceed the cost of one inspection per month. 16. That PVC (polyvinyl chloride) slats shall be interwoven into the chainlink gates; and that the gates and PVC slats shall be maintained in good condition at atl times. 17. That ctinging vines shall be planted, irrigated and maintained on maximum three (3) foot centers adjacent the block wall facing Ball Road, in compliance with Code requirements. 18. That this 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 the Planning Department marked Exhibits Nos. 1 through 4, and as conditioned herein. ~ 19. That prior to commencement af the activity author¢ed by this resolution or within a period of one (1) year, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 16, 17 and 18, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. 20. That except for the existing wash rack that shall either discharge into the sanitary sewer or on-site containment basin, no work on vehicles or parts shatl be permitted anywhere outside the building, including detailing, painting, maintenance, washing, repaic, or other simiiar automotive-related work. 21. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. ~ VOTE: 6-0 (Chairperson Boydstun absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attomey, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 6 minutes (2:44-2:50) 03-27-00 Page 22 MARCH 27, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 6b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 6c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4180 Approved, in part Granted, in part OWNER: Euclid Shopping Center, L.L.C., 8294 Mira Mesa Boulevard, San Diego, CA 92126 AGENT: Robert Eng, 12372 Brookhurst Street, Garden Grove, CA 92840 K.K. Chang, 14802 Beach Boulevard, La Mirada, CA 90638 LOCATION: 1626 West Katella Avenue. Property is 18.6 acre located at the southeast corner of Katella Avenue and Euclid Street (Burger King). To construct a fast food drive-through restaurant with waiver of (a) minimum distance between freestanding signs and (b) minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-37 SR7673VK.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item by stating the applicant is requesting to construct a • Surger King with two Waivers, distance between freestanding signs, and a waiver of minimum number of required parking spaces. Staff recommends approval of CUP, but recommends Commission deny Waiver A pertaining to the freestanding signs in that there is no hardship directly related to the property that would justify approval of that waiver. Applicant's Statement: Joyce Dery, 25511 EI Conejo Lane, Laguna Hills, stated she is the Burger King corporate representative who handles development for Southern California. The have a new image for Burger King, a fresh new look and are excited because Mr. & Mrs. Eng, the franchisee, will be among the first in the west region to have this new image building which they have worked very hard with staff to come up with a building that looks beautiful. She feels that the City of Anaheim will be proud to have one of the first new Burger King's. She is concerned with the issue of the monument sign. The pole sign that is existing in the shopping center can not be removed because of contractual obligations that the landlord has with existing tenants in the shopping center already. Nor are they able to participate in that pole sign because of those contractual obligations. They are surrounded by competitors, Arby's and Taco Befl, which do have beautiful monument signs in front of their buildings. Their concern is between the trees and the landscaping on the street and the setback requirements, that as consumers are driving east or west they are going to see the competitors monument signs before they ever see their building, especially with the existing pole sign which will block visibility for eastbound traffic to their building signage. They are seeking nothing more than what their competitors have in that shopping center, which is an attractive, new monument sign in front of their building. This would give their franchisee a fair advantage to compete with the Taco Bell and the Arby's. • K.K. Chang, project architect, referred to an exhibit he compiled showing the existing sign on the sides where you can see the Arby's sign and Taco Bell sign plus Western Dental, approximately 100 feet of the existing pole sign. ~Showed plans of fhe proposed sign.J 03-27-00 Page 23 MARCH 27, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MiNUTES • Gerald Unterkoefler, asset manager of Euclid Shopping Center and works for Arnold Construction, explained that years ago most City's had Zoning Ordinances which permitted signage, one sign for each lot. Therefore, people would parcel the buildings out to the street so that everyone had a sign. In this case, the sign that is immediately adjacent of this business is a pole sign that actually belongs to ~.A. Fitness. It is by lease and he has tried to take off the sign but L.A. Fitness did not let him do that. They have been making changes in the signage as they have lost the tenant when the lease is up, and are trying to do an overall sign plan, but due to past history it is somewhat difficult. He would prefer to see a series of lower monument signs than the tall pole signs that have historically been put in shopping centers. The ownership is supporting trying to cMange the signs out to monument signs and any help Commission can give them would be appreciated. Commissioner Bostwick asked Mr. Unterkoefler if he has tried to get all of the tenants listed on the pole sign to agree to a single monument sign. Gerald Unterkoefler explained the sign belongs to L.A. Fitness and they have in turn put other names on their sign which he thought L.A. Fitness was being paid for that signage space by the a couple of other tenants. He does not have the ability to negotiate with L.A. Fitness. There are only a couple of years left on the L.A. Fitness lease and they have moved out since they built a new facility outside of town. His hope is to be able to do a monument sign. Commissioner Bristol asked Mr. Unterkoefler if L.A Fitness owns the lease for the sign then the lease could be up in 24 months. Gerald Unterkoefler confirmed it would be approximately 2 years. • Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos announced, for the record, that he was abstaining from this item due to the fact that Arnold Construction has contributed to his campaign. (Commission Bristol then took over as fhe Chairperson for this item.] THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bostwick felt that the shopping center needs a uniform sign plan. The Arby sign is buried in the landscape and can not be seen. The large two-story building the fronts on the street is going to be very visual and within 2 or 3 years, the shopping center can propose a uniform sign plan that would include all of the tenants and get rid of all of the tall/large signs into one concise monument sign. Commissioner Arnold stated they have encountered this in recent months on a couple of occasions where they dealt with special circumstances applicable to the property, particular location, or surroundings that are of a temporary nature that would justify a variance on a temporary basis. Commissioner Vanderbilt agreed but also there have been instances when he had questioned what might happen with adjacent properties. The practice of some of the new fast food businesses is to increase the lighting of the outside to bring attention to it and asked if that is being proposed with the Burger King. Joyce Dery stated that their previous building design has a red lighted parapet band around the top which this new design that they are proposing does not have, which means it actually takes away some lighting from the top around the roof of the structure. It has instead a yellow element below the roofline. They have certain safety standards to maintain. Their lighting levels are based on their normal corporate standards of safety concern for their employees and consumers. Commissioner Vanderbilt explained the practice of some fast food businesses to have an abundance of lighting. Generally, they already have a white paint which adds to the reflectiveness. The type of lighting • he was referring to generally have a white painted building with light that gives off the reflection which adds to the reflectiveness. It has grayish elements to it. 03-27-00 Page 24 MARCH 27, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Joyce Dery stated it has a scored stucco finish on the building and referred to their architect for more specifics on the finished materials. Mr. Chin, architect, explained it is off-white and a light gray, very similar shade every two feet, a band around the building. It is not reflective. Commissioner Bristol stated the fact of another sign being there would be four signs within a certain amount of feet, which is cluttering. He did not know whether he necessarily agreed with the applicant that the pole sign would block this. He did not think so coming eastbound on Katella because it is a very nice looking building they are proposing. Gerald Unterkoefler stated he understood Commission's concerns. He thought there might be a condition that states that this shopping center needs to have the signage when it is no longer by contractual position to conform, which is what they are trying to do. He emphasized each of the pole signs are run under a different contract. The L.A. Fitness sign is the one he will not be able to do something about. There is another one further west, the Sav-On sign; he can not do anything about it for a while. Gerald Unterkoefler requested rather than issuing a monument sign, whether a logo could be placed on that existing pole sign, perhaps for a period of time, such as 24 months. Commissioner Bristol asked if he was referring to the sign directly west between the site and Arby's. Gerald Unterkoefler confirmed that was the sign. He referred to drawings of each of the signs (Mr. McCafferty forwarded the ~le copy to Commission for their review.J Greg McCafferty stated, for the record, the applicant provided those drawings at the morning session. ~ Gerald Unterkoefler pointed out on the corner where Western Dental is located that the building is a separate parcel and is separate parking, etc. which may have some consequence. Commissioner Bristol stated his understanding is that the applicant's question is regarding signage instead of a canopy, to put some type of Burger King logo on that sign for a specified amount of time. Gerald Unterkoefler confirmed that was their request. He explained that if there was a timeframe it woufd help the ownership do something about getting the sign changed to a new type of sign. Commissioner Bristol asked Mr. Unterkoefler whether he represented the owner of the property. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked staff if the applicant chose to put it on the existing pole sign wouldn't they have the authority to place any tenant they want on that. Greg McCafferty explained on legal non-conforming signs they are permitted to change the copy so they can put their sign on the existing "sign can" that is there. Commissioner Bostwick asked if it would change the recommendation on the staff report. It would be something they would need to work out through their own negotiations with the owner of the sign. Gerald Unterkoefler stated he does not have any room to add anything to the sign because the top part belongs to L.A. Fitness or whomever they sublease to. He was actually asking on the pole sign whether they can add the logo in addition to the sign can for a period of time, otherwise he would have been able to do that before. Commissioner Bostwick explained the applicant actually wants to add an addition to it, an expansion. • 03-27-00 Page 25 MARCH 27, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, advised the applicant could work within the size sign that he has already as a legal non-conforming sign. The applicant is in control of the copy that goes on the sign, the City does not control that, but if he is seeking to expand a non-conformity then that is something that he cannot do. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Approved, in part, the Waiver of Code Requirement, as follows: Denied waiver (a) pertaining to minimum distance between freestanding signs on the basis that the proposed restaurant is highly visible from Katella Avenue and that a hardship could not be identified for the requested waiver; and Approved waiver (b) pertaining to minimum number of parking spaces based on the analysis contained in the approved parking letter. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 4180 subject to the conditions of approval listed in the staff report dated March 27, 2000. VOTE: 5-0 (Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos declared a conflict of interest and Chairperson Boydstun was absent) • Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 20 minutes (2:51-3:11) • 03-27-00 Page 26 MARCH 27, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 7b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 99-00-18 7c. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 7d. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4184 Continued to May 8, 2000 OWNER: Charles Hance, 828 West Vermont Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: Portion A: 828 West Vermont Avenue * Portion B: 800 West Vermont Avenue ** Property is 0.9*** acre located on the south side of Vermont Avenue, 110*"`*" feet west of the centerline of Citron Street (Portion A); and a 1.1 acre parcel south of and contiguous to Portion A with no frontage on a public street (Portion B). Reclassification No. 99-00-18 - To reclassify Portion B of subject property from RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) Zone to CL (Commercial Limited) Zone. \ J Conditional Use Permit No. 4184 - To permit and retain an existing unpermitted truck rental facility in connection with an existing permitted auto sales deafer with waiver of (a) required number of trees, (b) required parking lot landscaping, (c) required landscaped setback adjacent to an arterial highway and (d) required landscaped setback adjacent to any residentia{ zone. " Coast Corvette. "* Formerly A-1 Body and Paint. *** Originally advertised as 1.29 acre. *"*' Originally advertised as 150 feet. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR7707KB. DOC Commissioner Napoles offered a motion for continuance to May 8, 2000, seconded by Commissioner Vanderbilt and motion carried. OPPOSITION: None • ACTION: Continued subject request to the May 8, 2000 Planning Commission meeting in order for to allow time for the petitioner to submit landscape plans to eliminate the requested Code waivers. VOTE: 6-0 (Chairperson Boydstun absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 03-27-00 Page 27 MARCH 27, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 8b. Concurred with staff Granted OWNER: Ahmad Douraghi, 7513 Pivet Street, Downey, CA 90241 LOCATION: 2516-2536 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is 1.1 acre located at the southwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Gain Street. To establish conformity with existing Zoning Code land use requirements for an existing commercial retail center and to permit the establishment of a convenience market. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-38 SR2006DS.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, presented the staff report by indicating this item is a request to establish a convenience market in an existing retail center. They are not going to be selling beer and wine. Staff reviewed this matter with the Code Enforcement Division and the Police Department which do not have objections to the proposal. Staff is recommending approval of this conditional use permit as conditioned. ~ Applicant's Statement: Ahmad Douraghi referenced page 6, item no. 12, and indicated that there is no liquor store existing at this time because it is closed. Condition No. 17 regarding the 3-foot high address number on the roof does not currently exist. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos explained to Mr. Douraghi that Condition No. 17 is to add 3-foot high address numbers to the roof so that helicopters overhead can identify the address of the site and is not meant to improve the existing letters which may or may not be there. It is a standard condition. Mr. Douraghi confirmed he understood the explanation. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos stated regarding Item No. 12, there is an existing CUP on the site and in order to clean up City records this new CUP will replace the old one but it needs to be officially requested to be terminated of the old Conditional Use Permit No. 2091. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ FOLLOWING 15 A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING C(~MM15510N AGTION. OPPOSITION: None • ACTION: Concurred with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 32, as defined in the State EIR Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare an EIR. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 4185 subject to the conditions of approval listed in the staff report dated March 27, 2000. VOTE: 6-0 (Chairperson Boydstun absent) 03-27-00 Page 28 MARCH 27, 2000 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 3 minutes (3:12-3:15) ~ • 03-27-00 Page 29 MARCH 27, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES C~ 9a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved r 9b. VARIANCE NO. NO. 4390 Granted, in part OWNER: Chibueze J. Dallah, 17380 Briardale Lane, Yorba Linda, CA 92886 LOCATION: 1429 East Lincoln Avenue. Property is 0.46 acre located on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, 160 feet east of the centerline of La Pfaza. Waiver of (a) minimum side yard setback, (b) minimum front yard setback and (c) required orientation of residence adjacent to arterial highway, to construct a single-family residence. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-39 SR1041TW.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, present the staff report by indicating that this is a request to construct a single-family residence with three waivers and waiver (b} has been deleted. Staff has reviewed the project and the conditions of approval and is recommending approval of the variance based on the fact that the property is irregularly-shaped and there is hardship for compliance with the Zoning standards. ApplicanYs Statement: l__J John Dallah, 17380 Briadale Lane, Yorba Linda, stated he read the staff report and is in agreement. He noted, for the record, that the address of subject property should be 1427 East Lincoln Avenue instead of 1429 as noted on the staff report. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked the proximity of the building to Lincoln Avenue since it appears that it is a very long backyard. He asked Mr. Dallah if there was some architectural benefit or plot preference for having the building so close to Lincoln Avenue when he has so much backyard space. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos further elaborated by stating that they noticed that there is existing commercial development to the west and residential development to the north and the subject property abuts the whole length of that and asked if there was any thought to perhaps pushing back the structure to be adjacent to residential rather than to be adjacent to commercial development. Asked if he had any plans for the back portion of the property. John Dallah responded he looked at the issue of moving it back which would mean he would have to have the garage facing Lincoln. In terms of the back, he would have to go through 5 feet as the entrance. In terms of appeal of the house, in having the garage facing outside and the way the lot is shaped, he thought it would be better the way it is, leaving it in front. You would not be seeing the front of the building and in the front of the building he wanted to install a bay window to make it appealing. • Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos indicated in the staff report location map there are two cul-de-sac streets, Birch and Cedar, and wondered if there is an alley between those homes. John Dalfah responded there is no alley. Commissioner Bristol asked what type of fencing he was proposing on the Lincoln Avenue frontage of the property. John Dallah responded there is not going to be a fence, but simply a 25-foot lawn and the driveway will be at the rear. 03-27-00 Page 30 MARCH 27, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos asked if he is making any impravements to the entire strip of the property. John Dallah responded on the back end of the property he would install a lawn from the alley towards the back, not all the way to the cemetery at this time but may eventually do that. Commissioner Bristol stated currently there is chain-link fencing. John Dallah explained when the improvement is completed the chain-link fence will be removed. Commissioner Bristol asked Mr. Dallah to confirm that there is a lawn, commercial building and a brick wa11 on the front elevation off of Lincoln. John Dallah confirmed that was correct. Greg McCafferty advised regarding the revised address that the applicant provided. All the fifes indicate that the applicant submitted 1429 East Lincoln Avenue as the address. He asked Mr. Dallah to explain what 1429 East Lincoln Avenue is. John Dallah responded it was the existing residence to the east. Originally the Building Division gave him finro numbers, 1427 or 1429, but when the deed was completed it was done as 1427 but it is the same lot. Commissioner Bostwick asked what is the number of the house to the east. John Dallah responded it is 1433. • Melanie Adams, Associate Civil Engineer, revised the wording on Condition No. 7 and stated it should read, "That the vehicular access right to Lincoln Avenue shall be released and relinquished to the City of Anaheim." Commissioner Bristol stated, for the record, that this is probably on of the oddest pieces of parcels that he has been involved with since he has been on the Commission. 7he applicant has a right to put this there because it fits as far as the zoning but it is almost spot zoning. He is going to vote for it but emphasized it is one of the oddest parcels he has seen because he does not feel that this fits there but does not know what does. He asked that these comments be included into the record for City Council's information Commissioner Arnold felt that the landowner is in a tough situation, given the fact that he has some property rights to do something productive with this property. • • ~ - % iiii~: • . e-- - •iiii •- e •- OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Granted Variance No. 4390, in part, as follows: Approved waiver (a) pertaining to minimum side yard setback on the basis that the 30-foot width of the property creates a special circumstance which prohibits the development of the propecry according to Code requirements. The proposed 5-foot setbacks would match the setbacks of adjacent residentia{ properties. • Denied waiver (b) pertaining to minimum front yard setback on the basis that it was deleted following public notification. 03-27-00 Page 31 MARCH 27, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Approved waiver (c) pertaining to required orientation of residence adjacent to an arterial highway on the basis that this would be on an infill project which matches the orientation of adjacent residential properties and because vehicle access to this property will be from the rear alley. No access will be available from Lincoln Avenue. Modified Condition No. 7 to read as follows: 7. That the vehicular access rights to Lincoln Avenue shall be released and relinquished to the City of Anaheim. VOTE: 6-0 (Chairperson Boydstun absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 12 minutes (3:16-3:28) ~ C~ 03-27-00 Page 32 MARCH 27, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: None MEETING ADJOURNED AT 3:30 P.M. TO MONDAY, APRIL 10, 2000 AT 11:00 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. C~ • Respectfully submitted: ~ v~aJ Ossie Edmundson Senior Secretary ~~ /" `_~e~x~~ ~~X"~~.1 >~v~~ Simonne Fannin Senior Office Specialist Received and approved by the Planning Commission oi ~_~`~l -~ ~~- Q O 03-27-00 Page 33