The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 2000/07/17~ o , . _ t'~'~a'MC,`,o CITY OF ANAHEIM " ' PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES A°vNOCO ~s''1 DATE: MONDAY, JULY 17, 2000 MORNING SESSION: Chairperson Koos called the Morning Session to order at 11:00 a.m. for Preliminary Plan Review in the Council Chambers. 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 Koos called the Public Hearing to order at 1:30 p.m. in The Council Chambers and welcomed those in attendance. 1:30 P.M. • Public Hearing Testimony C~ PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge Allegiance was led by Commissioner Bristol. COMMtSStONERS PRESENT: Bostwick, Bristol, Koos, Napoles, Vanderbilt COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Arnold, Boydstun STAFF PRESENT: Selma Mann Greg McCafferty Don Yourstone Alfred Yalda Melanie Adams Kerry Kemp Michele Irwin Margarita Solorio Ossie Edmundson Assistant City Attorney Senior Planner Senior Code Enforcement Officer Principal Transportation Planner Associate Civil Engineer Community Development Department Police Department Planning Commission Secretary Senior Secretary AGENDA POSTING: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at 8:30 a.m. on Thursday, July 13, 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, June 22, 2000. ~ H: DOCS\CLERICALWIINUTESWC071700. DOC planningcommissionCc,~anaheim.net 07-17-00 Page 1 JULY 17, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • M: ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: None REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF POTENTtAL REAPPOINTMENT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES AND ALTERNATES FOR THE FOLLOWING: ~~ ~J • ANAHEIM TRANSPORTATION NETWORK BOARD OF DIRECTORS (Current representative: Chairperson Koos) ACTION: Chairman Koos nominated Commissioner Tony Arnold, and Commission concurred, to serve as the Planning Commission representative on the Anaheim Transportation Board of Directors. • ANAHEIM UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL FACILITIES TASK FORCE. (Current representative: Commissioner Bostwick) ACTION: Chairman Koos nominated Commissioner James Vanderbilt, and Commission concurred, to serve as the Planning Commission representative on the Anaheim Union High School District School Facilities Task Force. • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD (CDAB) FOR THE BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM (Current representative: Chairperson Koos) (Current alternate: Commissioner Vanderbilt) Appointed Commissioner Arnold Appointed Commissioner Vanderbilt Reappointed Chairman Koos as the representative and Commissioner Vanderbilt as the alternate ACTION: Chairman Koos nominated himself as the representative and Commissioner James Vanderbilt as the alternate, and Commission concurred, to continue to serve on the Community Development Advisory Board (CDAB) for the Block Grant Program. • PARKS 8~ RECREATION COMMISSION (Current representative: Commissioner Boydstun) ACTION: Chairman Koos nominated Commissioner Phyllis Boydstun, and Commission concurred, to continue to serve on the Parks and Recreation Commission. • UTILITIES UNDERGROUND CONVERSION SUBCOMMITTEE (Current representative: Commissioner Bostwick) (Current alternate: Commissioner Napoles) ACTION: Chairman Koos nominated Commissioner Paul Bostwick as the representative and Commissioner Steve Bristol as the alternate, and Commission concurred, to serve as the Planning Commission representatives on the Utilities Underground Conversion Subcommittee. Reappointed Commissioner Boydstun Reappointed Commissioner Bostwick as the representative and appointed Commissioner Bristol as the alternate • 07-17-00 Page 2 JULY 17, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~• RECEIVING AND APPROVING THE MINUTES FOR THE PLANNING II Approved COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 3, 2000. (Motion) ACTION: Commissioner offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol (Vote: 5-0, and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Arnold and Boydstun absent), that the Commissioners Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the minutes for the Arnold and Boydstun Planning Commission meeting of July 3, 2000. absent) 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. (a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV.-APPROVED) (b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4125 (CUP TRACKING NO. 2000- oa23a) - REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF FINAL PLANS: Howard CDM, Attn: Denise Scribner, 2161 Gundy Avenue, Signal Hill, CA 90806, requests review and approval of final fencing and landscaping plans for a previously-approved outdoor swap meet facility with waiver of required parking lot landscaping. Property is located 2150 South State College Boulevard (former Orange Drive-In Theatre and Swap Meet). . Approved Approved final plans (Vote: 5-0, Commissioners Arnold and Boydstun absent) Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Arnold and Boydstun absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve final fencing and landscaping plans for Conditional Use Permit No. 4125 (CUP Tracking No. 2000-04234). SR7794KP.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced the item by stating that this is a request for review of final fencing and landscaping plans for a previously-approved outdoor-swap meet. Staff recommends approval of the final fencing and landscape plans as submitted. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked about the size of the required trees and the types that had actually been installed. Applicant' Statement: Dan Michelson, landscape architect, stated that the contractor had indicated that he was having di~culty trying to find that type of species of trees. They then checked with various nurseries and found that the size was what was available at the time, noting that they were • small. They drove the job site earlier today and found that they have grown considerable. They were indeed 24" boxed trees. ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Arnold and 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. 07-17-00 Page 3 JULY 17, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES '. ~ J I• B. (a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV.-APPROVED) (b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4128 (CUP TRACKING NO. 2000- oa22s) - REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF FINAL PLANS: Milestone Management, Attn: Dan Schultz, 21196 Jasmines Way, Lake Forest, CA 92630, requests review and approvaf of final floor plans for a previously-approved drive-through fast food restaurant. Property is located at 600-626 North Brookhurst Street (Carl's Jr. Restaurant). ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Arnold and 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. Approved Approved final plans (Vote: 5-0, Commissioners Arnold and Boydstun absent) Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Arnold and Boydstun absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the final floor plans for the fast food drive-through restaurant on the basis that the proposed final floor plan is consistent with exhibits previously-approved by the Commission. SR7797VK.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item by stating that this is a request for review of final floor plans for a previously-approved Carl's Jr. restaurant. Staff recommends Commission approve the final. floor plans. Commissioner Bostwick asked if this is the only thing to be developed at this site. Greg McCafferty, responded that the entire landscape plan and elevation plans for the rest of the shopping center would be on the next agenda. He indicated that Ms. Selma Mann had noticed that paragraph no. 8 of the staff report indicates that it is "an extension of time" but should be a"review of the final floor plans" for the CEQA Defermination. 07-17-00 Page 4 JULY 17, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ C. (a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV. APPROVED) (b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4156 (CUP TRACKING NO. 2000- o42ao) - REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF FINAL PLANS: John A. DeFrenza, 20301 SW Birch Street, #101-E, Newport Beach, CA 92660, requests review and approval of final landscape, lighting and sign plans. Property is located at 5445 East La Palma Avenue (Land Rover Auto Dealership). Approved Approved fina! plans (Vote: 5-0, Commissioners Arnold and Boydstun absent) ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Arnold and 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 Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Arnold and Boydstun absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve final landscape, lighting and sign plans as proposed with the stipulation that the display vehicle pads shall be limited to a maximum height of 3 feet above the ground. SR7751 KB.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item by stating that this is a request for review of final landscaping, lighting and sign plans for the Land Rover Auto Dealership. Staff recommends ~• approval of those plans with the stipulation that the vehicle display pads be consistent with the Caliber Motors Mercedes Benz dealership, limited to a maximum height of 3 feet above the ground. Chairperson Koos asked if the applicant was in agreement with the staff report. The applicant responded from the audience that he was in agreement with it. ~ 07-17-00 Page 5 JULY 17, 2000 CITY OF ANQHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES I• ~• D. (a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV. APPROVED) (b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1981 (CUP TRACKING NO. 2000- 0423~) - REQUEST FOR SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE: Richard Bond of Coast Landscape Maintenance, 1418 North Hundley, Anaheim, CA 92806, request for determination of substantial conformance for modifications to a previously- approved sign program. Property is approximately 4,300 acres generally bounded by Santa Ana Canyon Road to the north, the Anaheim City limits to the south and east, and Meats Avenue to the west (Anaheim Hills). ACTION: Chairman Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Arnold and 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. Chairman Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Arnold and Boydstun absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that this request to modify the previously-approved sign program for Anaheim Hills Planned Community in order to permit and retain the three (3) freestanding monument signs is in substantial conformance with plans and exhibits approved in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 1981. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item by stating that this is a request for determination of substantial conformance for a previously-approved sign program for the Anaheim Hills Planned Community. The proposal is to construct, but there are actually signs out there now, 3 signs in place of the 10 monument signs that were previously- approved. Staff recommends that Commission determine that these 3 new signs are in substantial conformance with the originally approved plans with the stipulation that the word "association" be deleted. The intent when the sign program was approved some time ago was to identify the boundaries of the planned community and not necessarily the association, which would be staff s recommendation. Approved Determined to be in substantial conformance with previously-approved sign program (Vote: 5-0, Commissioners Arnold and Boydstun absent) SR7753KB.DOC Commissioner Vanderbilt was concerned with the impact of this Reports and Recommendations Item because the area of Anaheim Hills is often perceived to be larger than the boundaries of this association. He is not comfortable with the idea of defining association boundaries and then insisting that it be titled "Anaheim Hills". According to the staff report the boundaries are everything south of Santa Ana Canyon Road and yet the city publication he was reviewing earlier makes reference to the Santa Ana River being located at portions in Anaheim Hills which technically would not be the case if they were going to stay with this particular boundary. He agreed with the applicant to leave the word "association" on the signs for that reason. Greg McCafferty stated that the distinction here is not necessarily Anaheim Hills, it is the planned community boundaries that the old Texaco property encompassed and the original intent was to identify the Anaheim Hills Planned Community as constituted by that property but if Commission feels that it would be appropriate. ~ Commissioner Bristol asked Mr. McCafferty to state again the reasoning staff is recommending the word "Association" be removed from sign no. 1 and 2. 07-17-00 Page 6 JULY 17, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Greg McCafferty expiained that it is essentially advertising for the association as opposed ~~ to what the original intent was which was to identify what the planned community was, which was originally Texaco's property in Anaheim Hills; recognizing that Anaheim Hills is a larger geographic area than the monuments signs are intended to address. It is intended to address that property formerly owned by Texaco Anaheim Hills. Chairperson Koos stated at the time the area was not referred to as Anaheim Hills prior to this planned community, It was more Santa Ana Canyon and Anaheim Hills as a larger geographic area and people started calling everything there Anaheim Hills. He understands what Commissioner Vanderbilt and the developer are stating that they want to go back to setting themselves apart from the larger Anaheim Hills. So they need a qualifier to indicate that the association is different from the Hills at large. Commissioner Bostwick agreed with Mr. McCafferty. It would really not have a great impact on the area. Chairperson Koos stated he did not like the fact that the applicant actually built the signs prior to Commission's approval. ~. ~ 07-17-00 Page 7 JULY 17, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~~ • E. (a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Approved (b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3381 (CUP TRACKING NO. 2000- Determined to be in oa23s) - REQUEST FOR SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE: Ken substantial Self, NewMark Merrill, 18801 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 300, conformance with Tarzana, CA 91356, request for determination of subsfantial previously-approved conformance with previously-approved elevation plans for a plans. remodel of an existing commercial center. Property is located at 2134 East Lincoln Avenue (Anaheim Town Square). (Vote: 5-0, Commissioners ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Arnold and Boydstun Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Arnold absent) and 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 Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Arnold and Boydstun absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that this request to modify previously-approved elevation plans and the color scheme for the commercial center is in substantial conformance with plans approved in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 3381 on the basis that the proposed modifications are an enhancement to the overall architecture of the commercial retail center and the original layout of the site is maintained. SR1156JD.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item by stating that this is a request to determine substantial conformance with previously-approved elevation plans for the East Anaheim Shopping Center (now known as the Anaheim Town Square). Staff feels that the proposed renovations to the elevations are an enhancement to the center. Staff recommends that Commission find that the plans are in substantial conformance, however, Commission may wish to determine whether the parapet extensions that they are proposing as part of the elevation plan could be used for wall signs. Currently at the center there is a mixture of signs that are below the roof line and those that are on the parapet itself, with this it would be advisable from staff's perspective that Commission give the developer some guidance as to how they should approach their signage for those new parapet extensions. Chairperson Koos stated he does not mind when an architectural feature is added as opposed to just raising the parapet across the entire development and then adding signs to that. Absent any true architectural enhancement in terms of a vertical enhancement he does not approve of that. ApplicanYs Statement: • Mr. Sandy Sigal, President of NewMark Merrill Company, the owners of the shopping center, he forwarded to Commission a colored elevation board. They are proposing to take what is there and try to bring it into a level of consistency across the board. Currently the center has a mix-match of signs that are up on parapet and signs that are a little lower in different location. The majority of signs are going to remain where they have been except for some that will be moved for purposes of consistency. Chairperson Koos stated in reviewing the renderings he sees opportunities, such as the Warehouse, which could easily be moved to the lower portion of the awning, as well as Supercuts. 07-17-00 Page 8 JULY 17, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Clearly there is space as there is space on the existing signage for a variety of lower signs and it '~ seems that all the others could be brought down to be consistent with the development. Sandy Sigal stated that they do not necessarily have the right to move the signs overall. What they are proposing is over the long term as they introduce new tenants they wilV have designated places of where these signs would go and would enforce them over the long term, unlike what has happened in the past where signs were installed at different levels. Commissioner Bristol asked Mr. Sigal to verify that the current signage does not appear and that even with the new elements, elevations and increasing the height in certain areas, and that the signage would be a foot higher than it is currently. Sandy Sigal confirmed Commissioner Bristol was correct. Chairperson Koos asked whether that is the program that they are implementing and would it be subject to review by the City. Greg McCafferty explained that the review would be over the counter and that would be the reason for the direction now from Commission so that if the signs do come in for approval then they can apply that consistently throughout the shopping center. Commissioner Bosfinrick stated as long as they have a roof line that is consistent across the entire center, it may be a little above the tiled roofing and the roofing may go to that point but it is fairly consistent. As long as the signs are below that perceived one line of the roof line, that there would be wall signs. As an example, Suzies Deals store is probably the closest to falling out of it because it should be lower down on the fascia. Everything should stay below the perceived roof-line. '. Chairperson Koos stated that the general guideline would be that they would like one perceived roof line and those signs to come down when they can. Sandy Sigal stated that they have the same idea. They are looking for a specific reason why a sign should be elevated or it all stays in one place, which is their goal. Chairperson Koos stated that the vertical elements break up the center and actually makes it look nicer. Commissioner Bristol stated there are only a few occasions on the elevations where they would have more above the parapet line. For example, the Ralph's sign might be middle of the parapet, equal amount of the sign below versus equal above. It should be stipulated that it be on the line. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, advised that the City has policies of what constitutes a roof sign. There have been instances where the Commission has determined that some structures are actually appropriate to have a sign on. If the applicant is working with staff in order to determine in advance what that policy is and what types of elements can be correctly incorporated into the ultimate sign plan for the property, it will be something that is consistent. She wondered whether, in an advisory mode, that Commission could really be advising or waiving a policy on something that is really not even before Commission. To the extent that they are providing some guidance that is useful to the applicant, but in terms of actually developing the sign program, it would be appropriate to be working with staff on that prior to bringing it to Commission. Chairperson Koos asked Mr. McCafferty to elaborate on what type of guidance staff was requesting from Commission. Greg McCafferty indicated that what Ms. Mann stated is that they can only evaluate this against the ~~ existing policy. At the point where the petitioner is ready to come forward with a comprehensive sign program, perhaps that is the point where staff returns to Commission for guidance on that sign program. 07-17-00 Page 9 JULY 17, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES '. Chairperson Koos asked if the signs on the parapet itself conform with the City's policy on signage would they be out of conformance. Greg McCafferty stated that there have been a couple of projects that have come before Commission, namely fast food uses such as a Jack-In-The-Box and a Del Taco where Commission had the same issue before them, but he was not certain without looking at the record how Commission determined that, because they were above the true roof line, and whether those were in fact roof signs or wall signs. Perhaps it would be appropriate to defer that to when the applicant is ready to come forward with a sign program. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated in trying to understand the project he noticed there was the use of many palms in terms of the elevations that do not exist currently and asked the applicant if that was the direction that they will be going towards when fully developed. Sandy Sigal explained that they will probably not plant palms at the sidewalk line but will put palms at the planter line. The reason they will not be planting them in the sidewalk line is because they are trying to maintain a certain width of sidewalks. Currently the site has an incredible array of species of plants. They are going to be planting some palms and changing the landscaping plan. They have had preliminary discussion with staff regarding the landscaping. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated they have different types of trees in the parking lot area and some are rather mature. Many of their customers take advantage of them to park their cars, and would like to see if they could preserve those trees. Sandy Sigal stated that they are trying to get some consistency there. They are not getting rid of all of the plants that are there but his sense was that they are going to plant palms along the front in ', front of the building because they do not want to obstruct the visibility of the signage. ', 07-17-00 Page 10 JULY 17, 2000 C1TY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ , F. (a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV.-APPROVED) (b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4163 (CUP TRACKING NO. 2000- oa2a3) - REQUEST FOR SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE: Allen Golden, 2888 East Walnut Street, Pasadena, CA 91107, request for determination of substantial conformance to amend floor plan and site plans. Property is located at 321 North State College Boulevard. Approved Determined to be in substantial conformance with previously-approved plans. ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by (Vote: 5-0, Commissioner Vanderbilt and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Commissioners Arnold and Boydstun absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Arnold and Boydstun Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved absent) negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Arnold and Boydstun absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the proposed modifications are in substantial conformance with plans approved in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 4163 based on the following: (i) That the proposed revisions to the floor plan and site plan represent an improvement to the facility which will assist in its operation. ~i (iii) That the proposed revisions to the floor plan and site plan will not result in an increase in the traffic generated by the facility and will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area. SR1054TW.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item by stating that this is a request to determine substantial conformance to modify floor and site plans for a previously-approved substance abuse recovery center. Staff recommends that Commission find the revised plans in substantial conform to the previously-approved exhibits. '. (ii) That the size and shape of this property is adequate to allow the development of this facility as proposed by the revised site and floor plans in a manner which is not detrimental to the surrounding residential and commercial area, nor to the peace, health, safety and general welfare. 07-17-00 Page 11 J U LY 17, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2000-00025 2c. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 2d. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04224 OWNER: Charles Hance, 828 West Vermont Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805 ~~ AGENT: Valli Architectural Group, 81 Columbia, Suite 200, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 LOCATION: Portion A: 828 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 (Coast Corvette). Portion B: 800 West Vermont Avenue. Property is 1.1 acre located on the west side of a public aifey, 315 feet south of the centerline of Vermont Avenue (Formerly A-1 Body and Paint). Reclassification No. 2000-00025 - To reclassify Portion B of subject property from the RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) Zone to the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone. Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04224 - To permit and retain an existing unpermitted truck rental facility and permit a self-storage facility with waiver of (a) required setback adjacent to a f~eeway and (b) required interior setback adjacent to any residential zone boundary. Continued from the Commission meeting of June 19, and July 3, 2000. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Continued to August 14, 2000 SR7754KB. DOC Commissioner Napoles offered a motion for a continuance to August 14, 2000, seconded by Commissioner Bristol, note taken and motion carried. OPPOSITION: None '. ACTION: Continued subject request to the August 14, 2000 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow additional time for the petitioner to submit revised plans for staff review for the proposed self-storage facility. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Arnold and Boydstun absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 07-17-00 Page 12 JULY 17, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~. 3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 3c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04221 Continued to August 14, 2000 OWNER: Evergreen Royalle, 12631 Sunswept Avenue #1, Garden Grove, CA 92843 AGENT: O'Neal Communications Group, Attn: Saied Naaseh, 18500 Von Karman Avenue #870, Irvine, CA 92612 LOCATION: 1919 East Center Street. Property is 3.1 acres located on the north side of Center Street, 310 feet west of the centerline of State College Boulevard (Evergreen Motel). To construct a telecommunications monopole with waiver of minimum interior yard setback. Continued from the Commission meeting of June 19, 2000. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR1053TW.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item by stating that this is a continued public hearing for Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04221. The request is to construct a telecommunications monopole . with its accessory equipment and the waiver of interior yard setback has been deleted. Staff ~ recommends that Commission select an option that the applicant proposed, which is a flag pole installation. If Commission concurs staff is recommending that this item be continued to redesign to reflect the flag pole and to relate that flag pole to the front setback of the motel. Applicant's Statement: Saied Naaseh, stated they followed Commission's direction to eliminate the variance, reconfigured the lease area and relocated the BTS cabinets. They also forwarded to Commission a revised design solution, which is a flag pole with the same height. They would like to have a higher pole to get the same coverage but the photo simulations shown in their packet is for a 55-foot high flag pole. They would still prefer the palm over the flag pole design because it gives them more flexibility. They contacted the shopping center owners at State College Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue. They had a telephone conversation with the management and said that they have been approached by other carriers previously and could not make a deal with them because of economic and design consideration. Subsequently, they sent them a letter of interest and they have not responded to their letter of interest. They have placed numerous phone calls to the management company but they have not returned their phone calls as of today. He requested Commission to approve their proposal for a monopalm with 5 additional live palm trees. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Koos asked the flag pole needed to be increased. Saied Naaseh responded that the flag pole shown on the photo simulation is at 55 feet. To get the same coverage they would need 70 feet. '. The applicant forwarded copies of the photo simulations to Commission for their review. Commissioner Bristol stated that staff would probably prefer this towards the front of the property and asked Mr. Naaseh if he had addressed that issue. 07-17-00 Page 13 JULY 17, 2000 CITY OF ANAHElM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 5aied Naaseh indicated that they have not addressed that issue and had just received the staff report late last week. The property owner is not very cooperative and that is the only location they were directed to be, and he does not want them to be in the front of the property. Chairpersor~ Koos stated that Mr. Naaseh is indicating that the sacrificing of the monopalm forces them to require a high elevation. Saied Naaseh indicated that at the frequency that they operate they would like to have the flexibility of down tilting which would increase the height. Commissioner Bristol suggested a continuance. Commissioner Bosfinrick stated that he would be in favor of the flag pole if it can be out front and could be on an equal height with the motel sign in order to give it conformity and could possibly give them extra height. Chairperson Koos stated that he would also support a continuance, to revise the site plan and speak with the property owner informing him of Commission's concerns. The approval may hinge upon the location of this flag po1e. Commission would support something closer to the street frontage. He suggested revising the photo simulations to reflect the new height. Chairperson Koos offered a continuance to August 14, 2000, seconded by Commissioner Napoles, vote taken and motion carried. ~. OPPOSI710N: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the August 14, 2000 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to redesign the monopole as a flag pole and relocate it to the front setback of the motel. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Arnold and Boydstun absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 12 minutes (2:07-2:19) '. 07-17-00 Page 14 JULY 17, 2000 C1TY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~~ 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 4b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04233 August 14, 2000 OWNER: Sanderson J. Ray Development, 2699 White Road, Irvine, CA 92614 AGENT: SBA Inc., Attn: Steve Stackhouse, 3151 Airway Avenue F-120, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 LOCATION: 3364 East La Palma Avenue. Property is 2.79 acres located on the no~th side of Riverside (91) Freeway, and is accessed via a 652-foot long, 32-foot wide ingress/egress easement on the south side of La Paima Avenue, 1,240 feet east of the centerline of Shepard Street (Concourse Bowling Alley). To construct a freestanding "monopalm" telecommunication antenna facility. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. ~~ SR7792KP.DOC \, Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item by stating that this is a request for a Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04233 to construct a freestanding monopalm telecommunications antenna. Staff recommends denial of this request. Chairperson Koos stated for the record that they received correspondence dated from Nosmeth, Knox and Elliott, legal representation for Sprint. Applicant's Statement: Steve Stackhouse, SBA Inc., 3141 Airway Avenue, Suite F-120, Costa Mesa, CA 92626, stated he is representing the applicant, Sprint PCS. There is a request for a conditional use permit to allow them to erect an unmanned wireless communication facility. He addressed the following issues that have come up as a result of the staff report and why they are in difference to staff's recommendation. He has been working on this proposal since November 1999 and has been meeting with staff in an effort to try to resolve the various issues that the City's expectations are when it comes to this type of submittal. Since it is in an industrial area this brought in the prospect of having a monopole. They were actually looking to co-locate with the existing AT&T tower that is there on the property. Staff brought it to their attention that in order to do that that the tower would have to be brought into conformance as well as, a 5- year limitation on a CUP as well as likely having to take that tower down and changing it into a monopalm or monopine, with co-locations that would almost dictate that it be monopine. They presented it to AT&T and they were not in agreement that their tower was working fine for them as is. With that in mind they began exploring other possibilities as well as other locations of which he provided a map to staff that shows the location of those other alternative sites. Regarding 1010 and 1030 Grove Street, 1010 did not work because they could not obtain the necessary setback of 1,000 feet from the 91 Fwy. 1030 Grove Street did not work out such as the building itself and/or parking lot and so there was no way to implement the monopalm or monopines that staff explained would be necessary in order to received an approval. ', At one point they did consider a flag pole, however, it was determined by their RF Engineers that a flag pole did not have the necessary capacity to include the sort of antennas that would be needed to have the coverage that they needed in the area nor would it allow them any in the field adjustments or 07-17-00 Page 15 JULY 17, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ inclination of the antennas to obtain the caverage that they needed. A flag pole facility was deemed insufficient in this area. The William Self Storage location is not a site that they looked at. However, the people who owned that site wanted too much for their month to month lease. That also was not a realistic alternative. At staff's suggestion they looked into the Camelot Fun Center. The only structure on that site that would be sufficient in height would be the water ride. With the children being the primary users it put them too close in proximity to where their antenna locations could have been and it would not have been consistent with the NEPA safety regulations. It did not meet the necessary setback requirements from the 91 Fwy. and it falls outside of their search ring area which did not lend itself to an alternative location either. There was the Home Expo but it was too far east than what their search ring would allow for placement of the type of antenna that they are looking for. The Fry's Electronics building never returned their calls and they decided that there was no +nterest on their part. They are proposing a 48 foot top of antenna monopalm. The staff report indicates that they should not have their antennas higher than 40 feet but he thought it is a typographical error. The actual height of the fronds to the monopalms would be 58 feet, 4 inches or 58.33 inches. They are also proposing the inclusion of 3 additional live palms, which was at the suggestion of staff. Sprint PCS is willing to implement those 3 live palms, however, they would like to place those at a maximum height of 35 feet. At 40 feet it would not allow for very many years of growth before the trees themselves would have to be either trimmed, topped or cut-off to where there will not be the prospect of having the masking affect. If implemented at 35 feet in height then they can provide the grouping affect that staff is looking for. The lease space is only 420 square feet in area. It is a modest 10 feet 6 inches in width by 31 feet length. It is a lease area that is immediately adjacent to the west side of the building, northwest corner of the building. `. The staff report references 2 of the 4 ficus trees that will need to be removed. It is only because the canopy of the ficus trees completely encroach into the areas where they tooking at implementing the cabinets and the monopalm itself. That is why it is going to necessitate the removal, otherwise they would be leaving those in place. The existing AT&T tower was approved in 1993 or 1994 when the property was zoned ML, a CUP was not required at that time. Since then both the zoning of subject property has been has been changed as has the requirements for unmanned wireless communication facilities requiring a CUP. They are willing to abide by those, however, they do not see the "nexus" or connection between their request being on a different lease area and the existing AT&T tower being on a separate and different lease than what they have. They believe that in no way does their request influence the AT&T site and visa versa. The AT&T tower was approved by right a number of years ago, and they are willing to abide by the current conditions and requirements at this time. He indicated that Commission received a letter from Mr. John Flynn, NGK&E (Nossaman, Guthner, Knox & Elliott) that draws attention to some of the disparities that they are perceiving in staff's position on this matter. He pointed ~ut that they are failing to see the connection of staff referring to the AT&T tower being a nonconforming use as opposed to being a nonconforming structure because it was erected by permit, by right, in 1993 or 1994. Mr. Flynn's letter regarding the nonconforming use versus the nonconforming structures states: Point 2, being that they do not understand how staff could conclude that the existing monopole constitutes a nonconforming use. tf the use is permitted with the CUP then it would not seem to fall within a definition of nonconforming use but rather the use proposed by Sprint would not in any way increase a ', nonconforming use of that location again, he points out again the separate locations. 07-17-00 Page 16 JULY 17, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISStON MtNUTES ~ Point 3, the nonconforming use created by SprinYs competitors is situated on a different lease property. ' Their lease property in no way is the same as the AT&T's lease property. Under Code Section 18.02.058.014 if read and interpreted literally states, "While a nonconforming use exists on any lot no other use shall be permitted even though such other use would be a conforming use. If it is to be literally interpreted then even the Concourse Bowling facility should not be in use, nothing else in the property should be in use as it should not be in any other property that already has a pre-existing nonconforming use if this is to be interpreted literally. Regarding the concrete masonry wall replacing a screening fence, which they are not opposed to, and would be happy to submit an alternative block wall that would be textured around the cabinets. He asked whether the Commission and or staff could provide clarification as to what type of material the gate itse{f can be made of. Regarding staff's position on the 5 live patm trees, if it was not for the fact that they have to remove the existing ficus in order to clear an area suitable for the implementation of their facilities they would be leaving those 5 ficus trees in place. Only after receiving the staff report late Friday afternoon did they realize that the number of live palm trees went from 3 to 5. They have a landscape architect reviewing the matter as to whether there is sufficient area to implement the 5 live paims as opposed to the 3 that they are proposing. He has not yet heard back from Pete Mills (architect), but from a previous request that he worked on with Mr. Mills, which was very similar in area at that time, he indicated that there was not sufficient room to have more trees than the 3 trees that were being requested at a location in Lake Forest. With the respect to the indication that Commission has previously approved 4 other CUP's for monopalms in the area, Commission approved CUP 4072 on November 23, 1998, approved CUP 4076 on April 26, 1999, CUP 4036 was approved on July 7, 1999, and CUP 4142 approved by Commission on October 11, '. 1999, which is down the street from their proposed project, he pointed out those past approvals because Regarding staff's position on the proliferation of monopalms and the fact that they do not add any aesthetic value to the streetscape. They feel in this particular location a monopalm would be the best means of stealthing it. from the beginning they have worked with staff and in their opinion it would take a monopalm or a monopine to get the matter approved. While they did not submit that initially, they did when it came time to make a formal submittal. They did submit a monopalm and feel it is consistent with their original direction. Because the Concourse Bowling building and site have a number of existing monopalms on the property that to come in with a monopalm, in their opinion, provides the greatest degree and extended stealthing that could reasonably be expected. They are requesting a monopalm and staff is recommending deniaf of it, but they feel that they are consistent with what is most suitable for the site and consistent with Commission's previous approvals for other monopalms in the area and in the City. Regarding an alternative design such as tower, steeples, and church towers other facilities of that nature. While they might be more consistent and appropriate in other locations they still feel that a monopalm is the best means of stealthing an unmanned wireless communications facility at this site. Regarding a tower or something at the entryway of the drive that provides access to this site. The height that they would need to potentially locate at that location would be significantly higher than where they are at currently. It would be required to be able to see over the other existing structures in the area and to be able to maintain the type of coverage that they are looking for along the 91 Fwy. and for in-building coverage. To relocate to the entryway of subject property also would be a less desirable alternative. He addressed the following conditions of approval that they have concerns with: ~, • Condition No. 4. Due to the space limitations and the fact that they do not feel they can implement 5 palms and have any success of them living; they request only 3 live palms be required and at a maximum height of 35 feet to allow for some growth versus 40 feet. 07-17-00 Page 17 JULY 17, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ • Condition Nos. 6 and 7. These appear to be Code Enforcement issues and go beyond the up rview of ' their request. These instead should be made directty to the actual user of the property and not be made a condition of their CUP. • Condition No. 8. They do not have a problem with a 7-foot high block wall other than they would like direction on this as to what types of materials can be used for the actual gate portion. • Condition No. 9. Requested a clarification that the antennas need to be up to 48 feet top of antenna and the 40 feet specified. • Condition No. 13. As per the letter from the law firm Noosaman, Guthner, Knox & Elliott, LLP, they do not feel it is a nonconforming use. They feel that it is a nonconforming structure if that and again it should not be tied to their CUP given the detrimental affects that it would have on their ability to bring for a phone and wireless communication. • Condition No. 14. Pertaining to no. 13, the fact that they would not want any action that the City may need to take or want to take on the AT&T tower that is already existing to hold up the issuance of their Building permit or 1 year from now. It should be a separate case other than their submittal to them and their CUP. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Koos asked the City Attorney to speak on the issue of the AT&T pole. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, responded that if their office is consulted in regard to an existing legal nonconforming use such as the AT&T use that is coming in for some type of change to its use then their office would not advise placing a time limitation on something that currently does not have one, ', where they are voluntarily coming in for a conditional use permit. They would identify a problem in that type of instance. It may be that there was some advice that should not have been given earlier in the process but that is simply for information of the applicant. Regarding the letter received from Nossaman, Guthner, Knox and Elliott, the first point made is that they do not understand how staff could conclude that the existing monopole constitutes a nonconforming use. Section 18.02.058.012 indicates, "nonconforming uses as, "Any lawfully existing use which does not conform with the use regulations of the zone in which it is located." The existing monopole was at one time permitted as a primary use without a conditiona{ use permit; it now requires a conditional use permit. It no longer conforms to the use regulations of the zone in which it is located. Point 2 of the letter is actually related and saying the same thing; that they do not see how the existing monopole, that while it may constitute a nonconforming structure, it is not cfear how it could constitute a nonconforming use. She has not looked at whether it is a nonconforming structure but under that definition would constitute a nonconforming use. Point 3, indicates that the nonconforming use created by Sprints competitors is situated on an entirely separate lease property and that there is no nonconforming use situated on the lease property that is the subject of Sprints application. Section 18.02.058.014 indicates, "While a nonconforming use exists on any lot no other use shall be permitted even though such other use would be a conforming use." The word used in the Code is "IoY' and not "lease" property. So, they are looking at the entire {ot and determining if there is an existing nonconforming use. Regarding the objection that the letter indicates with regard to the condition, that provision is actually fairly clear that while a nonconforming use is there that no other use to there shall be permitted. So the Commission has the authority to deny this use completely. She thought it is actually a compromise by ', staff in recommending an alternative to permit the use so that it would not have to come back for another approval and to see if some other solution could be worked out with AT&T and possibly more favorable if they were to understand that they could revert to their previous legal nonconforming use. That it would only be any change that would be subject to a time limitation. She indicated that if there were any 07-17-00 Page 18 JULY 17, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ additional comment that the application would like regarding the Telecom Act then she felt that she would need more time to take a look at that. AIi the other items she feft she could reference to the Anaheim Municipal Code. If there is a request for dual use and there is an existing monopole that has no time limitation and then the secondary use comes in, it would be her recommendation that the secondary use could have a time limit imposed upon it. By requesting the secondary use the primary use did not subject itself to a time limitation absent any other problems with the use. Commissioner Bostwick indicated as Ms. Mann stated that by actual interpretation of this they are making an accommodation to even permit this because in past issues where there have been, for instance, sign boards they have not been able to change the use on the property because there was another nonconforming use there. He wondered how they can give a permit when this other monopole is a nonconforming use. That it is a stretch in his mind. This has been an issue with other types of uses on properties where other nonconforming uses were. The precedent they set is wrong if they put another use on that nonconforming use. Commissioner Bristol stated that it appears the applicant has done a lot of work on this according to what they stated. This has been a revolving issue. He asked whether there was any way for two to exist or would rather see the CUP return first on a monopole. Commissioner Bostwick explained he could not see putting one on top of a nonconforming use. He asked Ms. Mann what prohibits Commission from asking for that CUP for the existing monopole to return to Commission for review. Selma Mann responded that there was no CUP. It was installed at a time prior to the City's requirement for a CUP for this type of facility. Steve Stackhouse stated there is within the Subdivision Map ACT a provision for separation of land lease ~, hold areas even though it might be on the same property. AT&T has developed a modest area of this property which is under their lease and their lease control. It is his understanding that the Concourse Bowling Alley has a separate lease with the property owner. They are a third and different lease hold on a separate lease area of subject property, separate and apart from AT&T. They do not have any jurisdiction or any relationship to the AT&T leasehold area, they are in a separate area. That is why they feel that their permit should not pertain to theirs and visa versa. Chairperson Koos explained that the connection between them is the property owner, who can make requests of AT&T. If Commission goes with staff s recommendation then it would take the applicant going back to the property owner to ask them if it is worth it to them to go to AT&T and have them agree to apply for a CUP in order to get this one built. He sees this as the applicant not only representing Sprint but also representing the property owner in terms of this CUP application. He has spoken with the applicant's agent over the last 6 months. Asked if the original proposal was a co- location of the AT&T. Steve Stackhouse explained that originally that is what they attempted to do when they learned that the City was going to impose current CUP requirements (time limitations) taking that pole out and replacing with a monopalm or monopine. Sprint was willing to do that but when they took that back to AT&T, they were opposed to it. Chairperson Koos stated that they put the pole on the property the City Attorney is advising them to require a CUP. Given that he asked Mr. Stackhouse what is the preferable project for him. Is it to go back on the poles and to have to do it anyway or is it to develop their own facility as proposed. Steve Stackhouse stated the fact remains that SprinYs desire as it has been since day one was to get this ' tower approved and under construction and online before the end of the year, to compliment the , coverage in the area and make their network work the way that they are wanting it to. At the 11t'' hour to now tie this into their approvat is going to disrupt their entire programming and getting this tower online in a timely manner. He could not speak for what AT&T is or is not willing to do. They have no control over 07-17-00 Page 19 JULY 17, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ AT&T's posture on the matter. They could go to AT&T and indicate to them that the City is forcing them i to either have AT&T's tower into conformance and have them collocate with the applicant or the applicant collocate with AT&T and bring it all into compliance. AT&T may or may not want to go through all those steps. Chairperson Koos stated that it is a given that they are going to need a CUP on that pole if the applicant goes on this property. He realizes that the applicant does not want to concede to that but it appears that they have to put a CUP on AT&T's pole if Commission approves anything that Sprint wants to do on this property and asked for Ms. Mann to verify this. Selma Mann responded that she is not saying that it would be a given that AT&T could receive a CUP, and whether it did or not, it could continue its underlying operation. Chairperson Koos clarified his question by indicating that assuming it is a given that for the applicant to get something on this site AT&T would have to be brought into conformance. From there what would be their preferable design. Steve Stackhouse responded that it is extremely difficult for him to respond on that realizing that they do not believe that there is the connection to be made. He indicated that Adan Madrid, with Sprint PCS, would like to make a few comments. He emphasized that he does not feel comfortable that there is the connection befinreen the AT&T requiring a CUP and the applicant making that a part of their CUP approval. Adan Madrid, indicated that he wanted to discuss a few things that have not been fully explored. They would prefer a continuance as opposed to a denial but would obviously prefer an approval. They discussed nonconforming uses. He understands that the existing AT&T pole is being classified as a "nonconforming use" simply because of how it was permitted several years. It was permitted as a matter ', of right versus through a conditional use permit. He asked if that is enough of a reason to classify an existing use as nonconforming. He understood that nonconforming uses are those uses that are no longer permitted in a zone. It seems that this use would stilf be permitted, however, it would be permitted through a conditional use permit, which seems to be a"gray' area. He thought it would merit additional investigation. He questions whether that pole is in fact nonconforming simply because it was permitted as a matter of right versus having gone through a conditional use permit. This is something that needs to be further explored. They have failed to look at what the State has to say about nonconforming uses. According to Livingston, Rock and Gravel Company versus the County of Los Ange%s, "A zoning ordinance may not constitutionally operate to compel immediate discontinuance of an otherwise lawfully established use of business unless it constitutes a public nuisance". So it seems that they would have to first determine that the existing AT&T pole is a public nuisance and he does not see that that has happened yet. It goes on to say, "however, according to the Metro Media lnc. versus Cify of San Diego, a nonconforming use can be illuminated with a proper amortization period which weighs public gain and private loss". It seems that they would first have to declare it a"public nuisance" then determine a proper amortization period weighing those two factors, which does not seem that has happened either. The condition of approvaf gives them two options. It gives them the option to either have AT&T obtain a conditional use permit, or that the pole simply be removed. That would be no different from that saying that the AT&T pole has to be removed. He does not see, based on the Commission's inclination and how projects have been approved in the past, that the existing AT&T pole would ever have a chance of coming back as is. It seems that by having that condition as part of their approval that, in essence, the City is saying that that AT&T pole can no longer exist and not take into consideration what the State has to say about nonconforming uses. " Commissioner Bristol agreed with a continuance in order to determine legally what is before Commission. Selma Mann advised that there is a Map Action Exclusion for the leasing or licensing of a portion of a parcel for this type of a facility. It means that they do not have to get a separate Subdivision map or 07-17-00 Page 20 JULY 17, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ parcel map in order to lease it. She could not speak as to whether the lease for the Concourse Bowling ~ Alley or AT&T facility is in compliance with the Subdivision Map Act because that exclusion is talking about if the project is subject to discretionary action by the advisory agency or legislative body which would mean that this particular type of lease would be exempt from the Map Act. But she did not know if there were such discretionary approval. Commissioner Bristol offered a continuance to August 14, 2000, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick, vote taken and motion carried. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the August 14, 2000 Planning Commission meeting in order for staff to fu~ther evaluate the project and determine if the existing AT&T pole is a nonconforming use. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Arnold and Boydstun absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 42 minutes (2:20-3:02) A BREAK WAS TAKEN FROM 3:03-3:06 (. I• 07-17-00 Page 21 JULY 17, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1. 5a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 Concurred w staff 5b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3400 Approved reinstatement (CUP TRACKING NO. 2000-04230) for 10 years OWNER: Lederer - Anaheim Ltd., 1990 Westwood Boulevard, 3'~ (To expire 7-17-2010) floor, Los Angeles, CA 90025 AGENT: Farano & Kieviet, Attn: Thomas Kieviet, 2300 East Katella Avenue #235, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard. Property is 14.74 acres located north and east of the northeast corner of Cerritos Avenue and Anaheim Boulevard (Anaheim Indoor Marketplace). To request reinstatement of this permit by modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (originally approved on July 23, 1991, to expire on April 22, 2001) to retain an indoor swap meet. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-89 ~~ SR2030DS.DOC (i ApplicanYs Statement: Commissioner Bostwick announced for the record that he would be abstaining from this item since he owns property within a 1,000-foof radius of subject property. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item by stating that this is a request for reinstatement to retain an existing indoor swap meet (Anaheim Indoor Marketplace). Staff recommends reinstatement for 2 years as conditioned in the staff report. ApplicanYs Statement: Tom Kieviet, Farano and Kieviet, 2300 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, CA, stated he is representing Lederer Anaheim Ltd., owner of subject property and also Subleasing Corporation of America, which operates the Indoor Marketplace. Staff is recommending an extension that is much shorter than what the applicant is able to reasonably live with. They are requesting a reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 3400 for the Anaheim Indoor Marketplace. It was initially granted for 10 years, which is currently set to expire on April 22, 2001. They have had various discussions and meetings with the Planning and Redevelopment staff which have expressed concerns about the granting of a long term extension of the CUP, because they view it as an interim use that will ultimately be redeveloped to a higher and better use. ~ Staff is recommending a two-year extension even though staff acknowledges that the Marketplace is an acceptable use in the CL Zone and that the use has been exercised in substantially the same manner and in conformance with conditions and stipulations originally approved in 1991. Staff has also acknowledged that the use is not detrimental to the local area or to the public peace, health safety, or general welfare. The property has been under the same ownership since 1973 and Mr. Kieviet gave a brief history of the property. 07-17-00 Page 22 JULY 17, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~~ He reviewed the Planning Commission minutes of the Commission and City Council at the time that the CUP was initially approved. Staff s and the applicanYs concern at that time was to determine whether this use would be appropriate for the area. Mr. Kieviet was present at the Commission and City Council hearings and recalls that a time limit was being considered primarily because the City was not sure if an indoor swap meet would work in the area. It was ultimately approved with a 10-year time limit and a 5- year review. To their knowledge, there were no serious concerns of the City at the 5-year review period. Less Lederer took an active, hands-on approach at the Marketplace and quickly addressed any problems, thereby preventing the Marketplace from being shutdown. Over a relatively short period, Mr. Lederer increased the number of vendors to over 175. There are currently 182 stores in the Marketplace. The store owners have substantial investments in their businesses and depend on the Marketplace to provide an affordable outlet to make a living. They provide job opportunities for hundreds of local people. Many families who operate their stores at the Marketplace would have a difficult time finding employment or establishing a business anywhere else. Limiting the time limit will have a serious adverse affect on over 150 families as well as many people that their businesses employ. Mr. Lederer and the management of the Marketplace have cooperated with the City and are responsive to Code Enforcement concerns. They oversee the vendors to make sure that they are in compliance with Code requirements. Business license fees alone generate at least $16,000 or more to the City, and, they follow-up on Health Department inspections of food vendors to assure compliance wifh health code requirements. There is also substantial sales tax revenue generated by the vendors of the Marketplace that provide additional revenue to the City. The use of the word "swap meet" in the CUP has apparently caused concern that a"flea market" operation has existed on the property but this is not the case. The Marketplace does not fall within the definition of a flea market or swap meet because it does not charge admission, does not sell used goods, ~, does not conduct outdoor sales, and does not have fly-by-night tenants because that is prohibited by the current CUP. The Marketplace is not materially different than a department or variety store which sell many of the same products. A department or variety store is a permitted use as a matter of right in the Cl. Zone and would not be subject to time limits. Therefore, there is little justification for retaining a time limit in this case as long as it complies with the conditions of a CUP. The Marketplace provides licensed, private security force of 4 to 6 peopfe; 2 full-time repair people; continuous janitorial and cleaning service for the interior; and regular parking lot sweepings 4 days a week. The Marketplace also provides 2 full-time people to generate business for the vendors and has 4 shuttle buses to bring in tourist on an hourly basis from the Resort area to shop At the morning session, there was discussion regarding a shooting incident this weekend at the Marketplace. To date, the information that they have is that it was not Marketplace related. It occurred after business hours at the Marketplace parking lot area, and to their knowledge, there have not been any similar incidents since this Marketplace has been in operation. The Marketplace has been an active and involved member of the Anaheim community by providing and sponsoring various civic and community events. Within the past year or so, vendors at the Marketplace have been solicited by other indoor swap meets and other cities to come to their location because our time limit will soon expire. It will be increasingly difficult to attract new vendors and maintain existing vendors without a long-term extension of the CUP. It will also be difficult to maintain and upgrade vendor facilities in the Marketplace if they have no assurance that they will be able to remain there to recoup their investment. The $1,132,000 in improvements that the City Building Division records having been put into the building. ~. That is probably a low figure because many building permits did not include estimated value which he detailed in a list entitled, "Valuation on Various Building Permits for Anaheim Indoor Marketplace". Copies forwarded to Commission containing valuation of items that were contained the Building. 07-17-00 Page 23 JULY 17, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES '~ The staff report is recommending a 2-year extension of the CUP which would expire in July 2002. This is actually 1-year, 3-month extension from its current expiration date of April 22, 2001. He had the following concerns with the staff report: • Condition No. 1, pertaining to the time extension. They strongly believe that the time limit on the CUP for the indoor swap meet should be removed. If it cannot be removed, then the time limit should be extended for at least 15 years or certainly no less than 90 years. The inability to obtain longer term financing will jeopardize continued investment and upgrade of the property. All the necessary conditions exist for allowing the indoor swap meet to continue on an interim use for ionger than staff recommended time limit. • He requested that Condition No. 16, pertaining to the existing nonconforming freestanding electronic readerboard sign adjacent to the building, be permitted to remain. • Condition No. 19, pertaining to the 60 day time limit for resurfacing the parking lot, requests be extended to 12 months rather than 60 days. Circumstances have not changed to cause the indoor swap meet to no longer be a conditionally permitted use in the CL Zone. Facts exist to support finding that the indoor swap meet does not adversely affect adjoining land uses and growth and development in the area. Over the last week they submitted various petitions and statements to the surrounding property owners. He forwarded to Commission a list entitled "Surrounding Property Users StatemenY' that was signed by 33 users (some were owners and others were tenants of the facilities) that stated that the Anaheim Indoor Marketplace is not adversely affecting adjoining land uses, growth and development of the area and they ', do not view the Marketplace as a detriment to the area or surrounding land uses, nor to the public peace, health, safety and general welfare. He forwarded a petition entitled "Communiry Petition" from customers (580 signatures), as they entered or exited the Marketplace over a couple of days, indicating that they view the Anaheim Indoor Marketplace as providing unique and valued consumer and business opportunities and want the Marketplace to continue its operations. Vendors and employees signed the "Vendor Petition" that was submitted to Commission with 141 signatures. Street dedications and improvements were paid for by the property owner after the CUP was initially granted. There is adequate flow to keep traffic generated by the indoor swap meet from imposing any undue burden from the streets and highways of this area. These facts support the necessary findings for issuance of a CUP under the Code. The indoor swap meet is being operated in the same manner and in conformance with its original conditions of approval. The property is within the proposed South Anaheim Boulevard Overlay Zone and the owner has been assured by Redevelopment staff that the existing use of the property conforms to the proposed overlay zone. While they recognize that there have been substantial improvements mainly to the Resort Area, the owner's property is not in the Resort Area and has not been a direct recipient of such improvement. They also recognize that the widening of the 5 Fwy. will ultimately benefit the surrounding area but it has been very difficult for the Marketplace and its vendors to survive during the construction period. There have been improvements to Anaheim Boulevard, however this property made substantial contributions to the critical intersection improvement at Anaheim Boulevard, Cerritos, Haster, and Katella when the use was first approved. Other than the proposed overlay zone, there are no specific City plans to cause or encourage . redevelopment in the area. To their knowledge, there are no immediate plans by private developers to ( provide new development in the area. While there was some speculation that the business park across Anaheim Boulevard at the southwest corner of Anaheim and Cerritos would be redeveloped with a different use, recent activity indicates that it would be refurbished to continue as is without being 07-17-00 Page 24 JULY 17, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES redeveloped at this time. It has also come to their attention that the RV Repair Facility owned by " Commissioner Bostwick has recently been leased to the school district primarily to serve as a bus repair facility. Mr. Lederer feels that efforts to force redevelopment prematurely by imposing a short time limit on the Marketplace could backfire because there would be little incentive to maintain the property and vendors would be reluctant to stay if there were no assurance that the use could continue for only a short term. It would also eliminate the ability to refinance the property based on its current use. The Community Development memo attached to the staff report asserts that a time limit beyond 2 years would reduce flexibility and option with respect to encouraging other potential land uses and development in the area. He disagrees. Removing the time limit or granting a long term extension for the Marketplace would not prohibit properties from being developed to other uses. Property owners would still be free to take redevelopment action when the market is right regardless of the use time limit. The City should not attempt to force a property owner to redevelop their property by putting in doubt a reasonable assurance that its current use can continue. It would be more appropriate to remove or extend the time limit for a longer period of time and then allow the market to determine when redevelopment should occur or establish programs that will provide incentives for property owners to redevelop. He noted that the Commission recently approved a 7-year extension of a CUP for the Calvary Church and School which is north of the Marketplace. The church is a nonconforming use that is not in sync with the existing or proposed zoning for the area and would create minimal jobs or revenue for the City. If a nonconforming church and school receives a 7-year extension then a conforming commercial retail use that generates jobs and revenue should get an even longer extension. To address concerns about appearance of the landscaping and parking area along Anaheim Boulevard, Mr. Lederer has indicated that he will refurbish and replace the groundcover along Anaheim Boulevard with more plants, double the number of junipers trees along the north fence line to shield the view of the ', industrial business facing the parking lot, plant an additional 10 trees in the parking lot area nearest to Anaheim Boulevard, patch, slurry seal and restripe the entire parking area within the next 12 months. , ;The;fol,loriv~ng d~scussion was° taken fro~n staff natesx,;., ' Public Testimony: Raul Cantu, 1440 S. Anaheim Boulevard, stated he represents over 198 vendors and they all support the Marketplace to stay in business as long as possible. The Marketplace is where they can start, maintain and develop their businesses. If it did not exist, then they would not have their businesses nor would local residents be able to take advantage of the great savings they offer. They employ many people and they have built a relationship with the surrounding community. They do not want to move anywhere else. The Marketplace is helpful to the vendors in assisting them to obtain the proper business licenses. It is a clean, fun, and safe place to operate and has been good for the City of Anaheim. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked about the hours of operation. Les Lederer, 1990 Westwood Blvd, 3~d floor, Los Angeles, property owner, stated they are open from 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., daily and closed on Tuesdays. Commissioner Vanderbiit asked about the vacancy rate. Mr. Lederer responded he has no vacancies at the present time, on the contrary he has a waiting list. He is very particular about who they choose to fill vacancies. For example, he feels he has enough ciothing, ', shoes and jewelry spaces, therefore, at the time of selecting from the list, he would select a different use. 07-17-00 Page 25 JULY 17, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commissioner Bristol stated he has been on the Commission for over nine years and recalls that the ' large sign did not come down due to a cost issue, but the applicant wanted to get it removed. He requested input from Code Enforcement and the Police Department. Don Yourstone, Senior Code Enforcement Officer, stated over the years, they have not had many problems. Once the owner is notified of Code violations, the problems get corrected. In his most recent inspection of the Marketplace, he found some deterioration of the parking lot, but overall Code Enforcement has not had major problems and the owner is very cooperative. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, visited the site and noticed that the awnings are torn and fading, and that the asphalt needs to be resurFaced. He stated these are maintenance issues which the applicant should be doing on a regular basis. Michele Irwin, Anaheim Police Department, stated their records indicate that there have been 17 assaults, 5 drunk in public, 3 ABC violations and 32 gang related calls, but felt that there has not been an overabundance of problems. This weekend there was a shooting at this site and the details of that incident are not yet known. There is not an overabundance of problems, but there is a concern and therefore a recommendation for a time limitation. Tom Kieviet explained he had some information regarding the shooting this weekend: someone was playing loud music and another person asked that person to turn down the music and as a result was shot. Commissioner Bristol stated this use has done much better than anyone had expected. The parking lot is in poor condition and needs to be upgraded. The landscaping proposed by the petitioner is a good idea. He believes the use should be allowed to continue for the same time limitation that they recently imposed on the Calvary church. He asked if the pole sign is legal. +. Greg McCafferty responded that the electronic readerboard is not permitted. Commissioner Bristol noted that the readerboard is not electronic. Mr. Lederer explained that sign was installed in 1973, six months after they installed the electronic readerboard which did not work and it has remained that way ever since. Commissioner Bristol stated he is in favor of extending the time limitation and felt 2 years is too limiting. Chairman Koos concurred. He felt a five-year time limitation would be more appropriate. Greg McCafferty stated when he visited the site, he noticed that the parking lot was full and questioned a vendor if he knew why it was full. He was informed that it is being used for construction parking for the Disneyland Resort Area. Mr. Lederer explained that Disneyland asked for permission to use their parking lot and it does not have any impact on their parking lot use. In return, Disney promotes the Marketplace. The construction workers park there early in the morning until about 1:00 p.m. The agreement will expire in November 2000, so as to not conflict with the Christmas shopping. He further explained that they have the right to terminate the agreement within 72 hours. If it becomes an issue, they can terminate it. Commissioner Koos stated the business needs to provide a certain amount of parking spaces for employees and customers. Mr. Lederer explained their parking lot is not used to capacity. The property is required to have 1,200 parking spaces and they have 1,400 spaces. They are closed on Tuesdays, and have a designated area (, for construction workers to park. It has no impact on the business or parking. 07-17-00 Page 26 JULY 17, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . Aifred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, stated they have not received any complaints regarding ' the parking on this site and the Marketplace has always been cooperative. Chairperson Koos asked about the trees blocking the sign. Mr. Lederer explained that the trees were required under a condition of approval. He stated this is an unused sign. If you look at the pictures of the property, the pole sign does not look very big. It is set back very far from the street. Any other type of sign will be blocked unless you are on the property. Chairperson Koos wondered when would this use would no longer stop being considered an "interim" use. Commissioner Bristol does not feel that will happen right away. He would like to see the proposed tandscaping return as a Reports and Recommendations item. He suggested nine months for the slurring of the parking lot. He does not like the existing pole sign and questioned the idea of a monument sign. Mr. Lederer requested that the existing pole sign be reviewed in 15 years. He stated he currently has a loan pending for the property. He added, for a 7-year loan he would need a 5-year conditional use permit. The market conditions will dictate best property use and he pointed out that the current use is better than the prior commercial uses. Greg McCafferty emphasized the point that the property is 100% leased. He hoped that the suggestion of having ongoing maintenance is considered. Commissioner Vanderbilt was concerned that the striping of the parking lot needs to be done at the very least. He felt this is a safety issue and hoped it could be done sooner than the nine months suggested. I. Mr. Keiviet stated with a 15 or 10-year CUP, they could get those improvements done within three months. Chairperson Koos felt this use should not go longer than 6 years, but if it is not an interim use then they should examine the proposal. However, if the sign comes down, then he would consider a 10 year extension. Greg McCafferty stated that the applicant can only have one sign on the property. He can relocate it so as to be more visible, but he is allowed only one sign. Commissioner Bristol suggested they be allowed to keep the pole sign for one year, but at the end of the one year period, they should comply with sign code requirements. The improvements on the property should be completed within twelve months. He felt a 10-year time extension was appropriate. Chairperson Koos stated he would support Commissioner Bristol's proposal. During the Action: Kerry Kemp of Community Development stated that the July 12th memorandum refers to property being located within the South Anaheim Boulevard Corridor sub-area of the Commercial Industrial Redevelopment Project Area. Two goals are to improve physical appearance of the project area through rehabilitation of commercial and industrial buildings, and through the creation of a comprehensive urban design and plan signage program. The other goal is to establish modern, convenient industrial/commercial areas to serve the needs of the City. Community Development feels that this use should be interim and if it continues for more than 2 years, it is not helping achieve those goals. This is part of the overlay zone and part of that overlay zone is highlight to this property and surrounding area as a regional commercial district. This type of use is not what they would envision as a regional commercial ~~ district. 07-17-00 Page 27 JULY 17, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Chairperson Koos asked, assuming Commission followed staff recommendation and allowed only a two- '~ year CUP then decided not to reinstate it after finro years, would the goals of the Community Development be achieved to have the property vacant, sitting there, doing nothing? He agrees with Redevelopment and sees a future, higher and better use for this property; has a vision of a major retail center as a gateway befinreen downtown and the Resort Area. He is very supportive of that, yet at the same time, some of the goals that were mentioned seem to ~t this current use if it were cleaned up. It is serving a niche and fits right into those goals. It is serving residents of Anaheim, is successful, and he is not sure whether the current use, especially if it is cleaned up, is not inconsistent with the plan. He asked where it is specifically inconsistent with the plan. Kerry Kemp stated in the current condition, it does not conformed with the plan. At a meeting a few weeks ago, the applicant did not express any willingness to improve the property. If the property were improved with parking lot, landscaping, and signage, then it would be more attractive. Chairperson Koos stated that the resolution on the table proposed by Commissioner Bristol seems like it is a great improvement over the existing condition of the property. It falls in line with the intent of the plan. Kerry Kemp stated, on an interim basis, a 10-year extension would create an impediment to ultimately development to its highest and best use, but that is up to the applicant. Chairperson Koos asked about staff's intentions with respect to implementing the plan. Asked if there is an action plan that is being formulated to actually approach property owners and developers with the goal of achieving these "higher and better uses" that the plan outlines, or are they leaving it up to the market to hopefully achieve that end. He asked if a City plan was taking place. Kerry Kemp stated there is the proposed overlay zone and the next step is to work on a case by case basis with South Anaheim property owners. The goal is to come up with urban design objectives and ', work with property owners. Community Development and Planning has a certain amount of tools available to work with property owners. It takes public/private partnerships to further the objectives of the plan. A 10-year limit will not be an interim use. Commissioner Bristol stated it is no different than what was done with the outdoor swap meet on Lemon. Chairperson Koos stated that when conditional use permits are extended for only 2 years, past experience has shown that conditions are not met because owners do not feel they have a long-term commitment to the property. With Commissioner Bristol's proposal on the other hand, the City is getting the improvements up front. Is it better to continually approve something that does not meet our planning standard every other year, or to actually go the extra mile, get the improvements up front, and make it easier to implement the action plan later? Kerry Kemp stated that Community Development would agree with the Planning Commission's recommendation, subject to review by departmental management. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, asked that the landscaping condition be numbered as 21 for clarity and that it be added to condition 19 that need to be completed within a year. This way, it gives it a date for the installation. Commissioner Bristol stated that was good and that the applicant had requested no time restriction other than 15 years or 10 years from this time. He has nine months left and asked if anyone had a problem with extending the CUP for 10 more years. Tom Kieviet advised that actual expiration would be 2011 and the applicant would be willing to take that on the conditions outlined. , Commissioner Bristol offered a resolution of a 10 year CUP extension from date this resolution (July 17, ' 2010) which was voted and approved. 07-17-00 Page 28 JULY 17, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ • • ~ ~- • • ~ • • ~ ~ ( OPPOSITION: None SUPPORT: 1 person spoke in favor of the proposal. Petitions were submitted totaling 841 signatures in favor of the proposal. ACTION: Concurred with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1, as defined in the State EIR Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare an EIR. Approved reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 3400 ~cuP'r~tF a,cKiN~ No. 2000- oa2so) for 10 years. Amended Resolution Nos. 91 R-165, 91 R-239, 92R-182, and PC92-95, in their entirety, and replaced them with a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval: That this permit shall expire ten (10) years from the date of this resolution, on July 17, 2010. 2. That the parking lot shall be resurfaced and restriped in accordance with City standards. 3. That the parking lot shall be maintained and repaired when necessary to prevent potholes, cracks, and uneven surfaces. 4. That trash storage areas shall be provided and maintained in a location acceptable to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division '. and in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. Said storage areas shall be designed, located and screened so as not to be readily identifiable from adjacent streets or highways. The walls of the storage areas shall be protected from graffiti opportunities by the use of plant materials such as minimum 1-gallon size clinging vines planted on maximum 3-foot centers or tall shrubbery. 5. That the applicant shall be responsible for maintaining the premises free of litter at all times. 6. That the proposal shall comply with all signing requirements of the CL (Commercial Limited) Zone unless a variance allowing sign waivers is approved by the Planning Commission. 7. That the property shall be maintained in accordance with the current version of Engineering Standard Plan Nos. 436, 601 and 602 pertaining to parking standards and driveway locations. 8. That there shall be no public telephones on the property that are located outside the building. 9. That no banners, pennants or balloons shall be permitted unless a Special Event Permit is first obtained. Roof balloons shall not be permitted at any time. 10. That no vending machines shall be visibte from any public right-of-way. 11. That the parking lot serving the premises shaA be maintained with lighting of (, sufficient power to illuminate and make easily discernible the appearance and conduct of all persons on or about the parking lot. Said lighting shall be directed, positioned and shielded in such a manner so as not to unreasonably 07-17-00 Page 29 JULY 17, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . illuminate the windows of nearby businesses. f 12. That the tenant spaces in the subject indoor swap meet shall be leased for periods of no less than one (1) year each. 13. That there shall be no outdoor sales, display, or product demonstrations. 14. That this swap meet shall be considered one business for purposes of Special Event Permits. 15. That any tree planted on-site shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dies. 16. That the existing nonconforming freestanding electronic readerboard sign adjacent to the building shall be removed. Any new signage shall be submitted to the Zoning Division of the Planning Department for review and approval of the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item. Once approved, the signage shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with approved plans. 17. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion by providing regular landscape maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty-four (24) hours from time of occurrence. 18. That subject property shall be maintained substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit No. 1. (. 19. That within a period of twelve (12) months from the date of this resolution, Condition Nos. 2, 4, and 16, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. 20. 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. 21. That within a period of six (6) months from the date of this resolution, a final landscape plan showing the following improvements as described in a letter submitted by the applicant dated July 13, 2000: (i) The addition of sixty (60) juniper trees along the north fence line of the property to create a green shield that will obscure the view of the back of the industrial properties adjacent to the Marketplace; (ii) The addition of ten (10) trees interspersed throughout the parking lot area adjacent to Anaheim Boulevard; and (iii) The refurbishing and replanting of the ground cover along Anaheim Boulevard with plants that are less subject to being trampled down; shall be submitted to the Zoning Division of the Planning Department for review and approval by the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item. Said landscaping shall be installed within a period of (, twelve (12) months from the date of this resolution.T"" VOTE: 4-0 (Commissioner Bostwick declared a conflict of interest and Commissioners 07-17-00 Page 30 JULY 17, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Arnold and Boydstun absent) _ ( Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22 day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour and 32 minutes (3:07-4:39) ~. ~ J 07-17-00 Page 31 JULY 17, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 6a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 5 Concur 6b. VARIe4NCE NO. 2000-04401 Denied OWNER: Richard L. Johnson, Trustee of the Richard and Gene Johnson Trust, P.O. Box 1759, Blue Jay, CA 92317 LOCATION: 516 West Chestnut Street. Property is 0.17 acre located on the south side of Chestnut Street, 220 feet west of the centerline of Harbor Boulevard. Waiver of (a)* minimum number of parking spaces (b) required screening of parking areas, (c) minimum building site area per dwelling unit and (d) design of vehicular parking areas, to construct an additional two-unit apartment building in conjunction with an existing duplex. 'Note: Waiver (a) pertaining to minimum number of parking spaces was not advertised. If Commission wishes to approve this waiver, a two-week continuance would be necessary. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-90 II SR7801 KP.DOC ~. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item by stating this is a request for Variance No. 2000- 04401 to construct an additional two-units to an existing two unit apartment complex at 516 West Chestnut Street. Staff recommends denial because there is no justification for the waivers that are requested and that the property owner is not being deprived of privileges that are enjoyed by surrounding properties. Applicant's Statement: Richard Johnson, applicant, 516 West Chestnut, Anaheim, stated he felt he can control the number of people/families in the units, the front property is more than adequate than what is required by Code, variances are no different than if this was a single-family residence. Appearance will still look like it is a single residence and will be compatible with neighbors by using an older style home. He elaborated on how he came to select this design and how it will now fit into the neighborhood. Residents submitted a petition to Commission, but those signatures were actually obtained last November when he proposed a totally different proposal. Regarding the comments in the staff report: • Item 2 states that there is an existing duplex on the property and he clarified that it is a small, one- bedroom duplex at the rear of the lot with a 2-car garage and no changes will be made to that building. New structure requires 5 parking spaces, but only 4 parking spaces fit, so a variance is being requested. He elaborated on the Code related to his requested variance and parking. • He called attention to item 7 and that the plan meets all setback requirements. Emphasized that the recreation and leisure area in item 9 meets and exceeds Code. • Item 12 states there are no architectural features but he pointed out what the plans show. In 1989, the neighborhood was reclassified from the RM-1200 Zone to the RM-2400 Zone. Noted that on item 17 there was no construction prior to 1989 and this was the only property that had any space left to build anything on, therefore the change that was made in 1989 almost singufarly affected this property. . He pointed out that all driveways in the RM-2400 Zone and RM-1200 Zone have to back out, but two of ' his proposed parking spaces are going to be able to drive out forward. He again elaborated on sizes of other properties in the area and parking spaces. 07-17-00 Page 32 JULY 17, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Chairperson Koos asked that Mr. Johnson focus on his concerns or new information that is not in the staff ' report. Richard Johnson stated that virtually every other area between Broadway to the south and Lincoln to the north that goes west is RM-1200 Zone (elaborated on the zoning). He produced ten reasons for approving this project which included that this will be the first and only property on this Chestnut Street block to have iYs electric power service underground, have interior fire sprinklers, meets City code on covered off-street parking spaces, and close to having off-street parking spaces. Richard Johnson was unclear whether a couple of items in the conditions are a direct condition of approval. He does not know why Condition No. 1 is listed, since the Sanitation Division informed him he did not need an on-site trash truck turn-around. They are using barrels for recycling and does not understand what kind of a plan for solid waste storage needs to submitted for approval. On Condition No. 5, the only gate on there exceeds 20 feet from the street. Public Testimony: Bruce Hoffstetter 534 West Chestnut #1, stated he has lived there 12 years. All of the multiple residences do not have to back out onto the street because there is room in back of the property to turn cars around. Being that this is a dead end street, there are kids that play in the streets next to the applicanYs property and it would be hazardous if they back out onto Chestnut from his property. Also, trash trucks do not have room to turn around because it is a dead-end street. They back out the entire length of the street. The street is used a lot by people thinking it is a throughway to get to Broadway. Also, with the Computer Learning Center there, there is a parking problem. Katherine Griffith stated there are no parking spaces during the day due to overflow from the Computer Learning Center, St. Boniface Church and other activities. They did a survey and residents have 62 vehicles on the streets, there are a lot of children and more vehicles endanger them. She has not seen (, plans with the new design, but is against project due to increased traffic and privacy for her neighbors. Kay Marie Kooter 525 West Chestnut Street, stated she lives diagonally opposite the subject property. Mr. Johnson knew the problems with the property when he purchased it 3 years ago. There are too many multiple units on the street and parking is a problem. Michelle Leverman, 512 West Chestnut, stated she lives east of property. The 1989 rezoning affected other properties on street, not just Mr. Johnson's property. Parking is at a premium and there are many children on the street. She is opposed to a two story building for privacy reasons. ApplicanYs Rebuttal: Richard Johnson stated Ms. Leverman also has a two story building and therefore should not object to a two story. He has taken photos on different days of the week and at different times and the photos only show the street being half parked but agrees that the vehicles on the street can be a problem. A great deal of the congestion on the street is due from people who do have driveways, but park on the street and it is proven when the street sweepers come because there are no cars on the street. His property will have plenty of room to park without putting cars on the street. He agrees that backing out is a problem, but 90% of all residences in Anaheim have to back out. These units will be on the more luxurious side and will attract upscale type of tenant and will not bring the value of the neighborhood down. Code requires that even a single-family home have four parking spaces and that is what this provides. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bosfinrick agrees that a single-family home would be more appropriate. He can not see parking more cars and people on that street. Commission found it was a mistake to allow apartment (, buildings to go in throughout the City and the zoning code was changed and it should not be reversed. 07-17-00 Page 33 JULY 17, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . Chairperson Koos stated he reviewed the Planning Commission minutes from the last public hearing on , the property on November 8, 1999. His comments are still valid and prefers to go farther than Commissioner Bostwick and prefers to see a single family with demolition of existing apartments with a "granny flat" at the most for this area. It would be more consistent with the neighborhood and with what the City has been trying to do in the Anaheim Colony area in the last decade. He does not see much difference between this proposal and the last. All parking variances are related to the request for additional units. Parking is one thing, but he can not get past Waiver C, which is the number of units for this area. That is why he is going to remain consistent with his previous vote on this being a multi-family property. Commissioner Bristol agreed and looked at his comments from the last hearing. Mr. Johnson has done a lot and keeps working to do something on this site. He was at site in the morning and there was very little parking available. Parking and density remains to be an issue with him. He disagrees that this multi- family and carport is compatible with the neighborhood. Greg McCafferty stated for the record that the lots adjacent to this have a similar width and depth, therefore the applicant is not being deprived of privileges his neighbors enjoy. • • ~ ~ - • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: 4 people spoke in opposition. A petition was submitted with twelve (12) signatures in opposition. ACTION: Concurred with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 5, as defined in the State EIR Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare an EIR. (. Denied waiver (a) pertaining to minimum number of parking spaces on the basis that it was not advertised. Denied Variance No. 2000-04401 based on the following: (i) That there are no special circumstances applicable to the property consisting of size, topography, surroundings and building location, which do not apply to other identically zoned properties in the vicinity to justify these waivers (ii) That the proposed 4-unit apartment complex would not be compatible with the scale, style, and character of the surrounding historic neighborhood. (iii) That the proposed density would not be compatible with the allowable density as set forth in the General Plan. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Arnold and Boydstun absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour and 4 minutes (4:41-5:45) I~J 07-17-00 Page 34 JULY 17, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~, THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:45 P.M. TO MONDAY, JULY 31, 2000 AT 11:00 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVlEW AND PRESENTATION ON THE PRELIMINARY BROOKHURST CORRIDOR ACTION PLAN. Respectfully submitted, ~ ~a--~2~ C.~w Ossie Edmundson Senior Secretary ~1LJ ~~''~'~iv~ '~ Simonne Fannin Senior Office Specialist ~~ Received and approved by the Planning Commission on July 31, 2000." * Please note: Page 28 was revised and approved by the Planning Commission on August 14, 2000. 07-17-00 Page 35