Loading...
Minutes-PC 2000/08/28'. y '~P~{EIM C,`~= CITY OF ANAHEIM = " ' PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AOVNDFD ~Sy1 DATE: MONDAY, AUGUST 28, 2000 MORNING SESSION: Chairperson Koos called the Morning Session to order at 11:00 a.m. in the Council Chamber. 11:00 A.M. • Staff update to Commission of various City developments and issues (as requested by Planning Commission) • Preliminary Plan Review ~'~ PUBLIC HEARING: 1:30 P. M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Chairperson Koos called the Public Hearing to order at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber and welcomed those in attendance. Public Hearing Testimony The Pledge Allegiance was led by Commissioner Bristol. Arnold, Bristol, Koos, Napoles, Vanderbilt Bostwick, Boydstun Selma Mann Greg Hastings Greg McCafferty Kim Taylor Don Yourstone Linda Eaves Rob Zur Schmiede Alfred Yalda Melanie Adams Margarita Solorio Ossie Edmundson Assistant City Attorney Zoning Division Manager Senior Planner Associate Planner Senior Code Enforcement Officer Senior Code Enforcement Officer Redevelopment Manager Principal Transportation Planner Associate Civil Engineer Planning Commission Secretary Senior Secretary AGENDA POSTING: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at 9:30 a.m. on Friday, August 25, 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, August 3, 2000. ', H:\DOCS\CLERICALWIINUTES~AC082800.DOC planninqcommission(c(c~anaheim.net 08-28-00 Page 1 AUGUST 28, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES '. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: None RECEIVING AND APPROVING THE MINUTES FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 14, 2000. (Motion) ACTION: Commissioner Napoles offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bristol abstained and Commissioners Bostwick and Boydstun were absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the minutes for the Planning Commission meeting of August 14, 2000. Approved (Vote: 4-0, Commissioner Bristol abstained and Commissioners Bostwick and Boydstun were absent) REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ', A. REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF CONFORMANCE WITH THE ANAHEIM GENERAL PLAN NO. 2000-00007: County of Orange Public Facilities & Resources Department, Attn: John D. Pavlik, 300 North Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048, requests determination of conformance with the Anaheim General Plan to renew a parking license agreement. Property is located at 10852 Douglass Road. Determined to be in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan (Vote: 5-0, Commissioners Bostwick and Boydstun absent) ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Bostwick and Boydstun absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find that the County's proposal to renew the parking license at 10852 Douglass Road (Katella Yard Facility) is in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan. SR001 KT.DOC '. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, stated this is a request to determine substantial conformance for the renewal of a parking lease agreement for property located 10852 Douglass Road. Staff recommends that the Commission, by motion, find that the County's proposal to renew the parking license to be in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan. 08-28-00 Page 2 AUGUST 28, 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 Approved Granted Approved Granted, in part OWNER: Charles Hance, 828 West Vermont Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805 (Denied truck rental facility) AGENT: Vaili 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 alley, 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 freeway and (b) required interior setback adjacent to any residential zone boundary. Continued from the Commission meetings of June 19, and July 3, and July 17, and August 14, 2000. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-96 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-97 II SR7761 KB.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, stated that this is a continued public hearing item. It was continued for two reasons: 1) To provide a line-of-sight drawing from the freeway to the proposed Building A. 2) To modify the exhibits to indicate Building B to have consistent building materials with the Caltrans wall along the I-5 Freeway. Both of those items have been completed. Staff recommends approval of the self- storage facility provided that from the freeway view that the first level roll-up doors cannot be seen from the freeway and also recommends that they approve the revised elevations to indicate the Orco blocks that are used on Building B. Commissioner Bristol stated for the record he was not present at the previous public hearing but listened to the tape regarding this item. '. 08-28-00 Page 3 AUGUST 28, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Applicant's Statement: ', Chuck Hance, 828 West Vermont Avenue, Anaheim, stated that at the last public hearing they discussed about keeping the two properties separate because he needs to do that for loan purposes, etc. He thought that they had agreed on that but it is still appearing on the staff report and asked for clarification. Melanie Adams, Associate Civil Engineer, stated Mr. Hance was correct. She suggested modifying the end of Condition No. 2 under the reclassification conditions, on page 12 of the staff report to read, "to combine all existing parcels south of Vermont Avenue into finro parcels:' The intent is for one parcel to be for the Coast Corvette business and the second parcel for the self-storage facility. Chuck Hance continued that the second item discussed at the last meeting is still in the staff report (paragraph 14). It states there is a 6-foot high gate that faces the Citron alley, but it is actually a 10-foot gate that matches the same height as the wall. Caltrans built both of those that are existing. He wanted to clarify this so he is not asking to reduce it down to 6 feet. He does not feel it would look good to have it drop down. Greg McCafferty advised whatever the existing conditions are then staff would concur with that. They are trying to indicate that there are existing sound walls and gates, but the applicant is also proposing additional walls and gates adjacent to the alley. Chuck Hance indicated that it is an existing wall but the gate will change to a motorized gate. The existing 10-foot wall shown on the plans is an existing wall that Caltrans built. Paragraph 4 of the staff report states this item was continued in order for the applicant to submit line-of- sight drawings to show that the garage doors could not be seen from the freeway, which he provided copies to staff. Despite the submittal, staff is still recommending a higher wall. He felt if they only require ', one foot of landscaping in order to hide the top 6 inches. Staff suggested the elevated planter in order to solve the visual problem of seeing the landscaping from inside and from the freeway to comply with the Code. He is now proposing installing a hedge because a concrete wall cannot be seen through like a hedge. He would prefer not to build a large concrete wall and felt an elevated planter would look like a "prison yard" and would be too high. Chairperson Koos asked staff if they are concerned with the appearance of the perimeter landscaping from the property itself, as the applicant suggested. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, responded not at all. There is no visibility of that landscaping unless you are on the property. Staff's concern is simply the visibility of the doors from the freeway. If there is some landscaping that will shield the wall then that will resolve the issue. Chairperson Koos' impression was that the major concern of staff was views from the public right-of-way. Chuck Hance explained it was actually his concern because he is spending too much money on the aesthetics of this building. Once in the complex a wall would hide the landscaping. He would have to install two planters, one on the outside and another on the inside but there is not have enough land to do that. Greg Hastings suggested vine pockets on the inside so that there is no lost property. It would also create greenery on the wall, if that were his concern. Chairperson Koos explained that Commission wants a comfort level that the investment in the Resort Area is going to be maintained in terms of its aesthetic appeal of the area and the block is more of a guarantee than landscaping. If the property is sold perhaps the next property owner will not be as diligent in caring for the property. '. 08-28-00 Page 4 AUGUST 28, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSlON MINUTES Chuck Hance indicated that he did not know how high it has to be because the staff report states 3 to 5 ', feet, which he assumes, is measured from the ground level inside. Greg McCafferty stated that was correct. Historically, that wall would not be needed and the applicant would simply have landscaping, which would look nice from the inside of the property as well as along the freeway if the doors were interior, but the applicant has chosen to have the first level doors exposed to the freeway. When staff met with the applicant they informed him that if this was the proposed design then perhaps that would be staff s suggestion to solve the issue on the first floor from the property site. Chuck Hance stated that staff informed him last Wednesday that they were recommending a wall instead of the elevated planter as agreed to previously. He would not have done the elevated planter and had his architect do it differently had he known there was going to be a wall. He thought he could live with it if they could compromise and agree on 4 feet because he thought he could get the landscaping to totally hide the concrete wall so it cannot be seen from the outside. The staff report indicated that he had an illegal sign and was recommending a Code Enforcement inspection every 30 days at the appficanYs expense. He thought it may no longer be an issue since the two properties were being separated and suggested deleting Condition No. 20. Greg Hastings explairaed that Condition No. 20 indicated that the Code Enforcement inspections be monthly until the violation is remedied. Chairperson Koos suggested staff reword Condition No. 20 for Commission's consideration. Chuck Hance stated if the hedge ends up having to be one foot higher then he could simply grow it, which it would take little time to grow. This would provide him some flexibility. '. There is another provision on page 15, Condition No. 22, it states that he would have to re-landscape along Vermont, but indicated that it is actually new. Greg McCafferty stated that he went out prior to the last public hearing and noticed that Mr. Hance has done a good job along that stretch of the right-of-way. He felt Condition No. 22 should actually be deleted. Chuck Hance asked again whether he needed to install the concrete wall to replace a few feet of landscaping. He thought it should be done from the line-of-sight drawings, which indicate that it needs to be raised approximately one-foot. Since it is a two-part application the other issue is the truck rental. The truck rental as it currently exists operates on his property at 828 West Vermont Avenue. He asked that the request for the truck rental facility be withdrawn at this time. He wanted to return at a future time and address it is on its own merits. The reason he indicated that is because he thought that the way the staff report was written encompasses the two. Chairperson Koos thought the staff report separated the issue well. Public Testimony: Lori Hulen, representing VermonUCitron Association, 180 South Avenida Felipe, Anaheim, stated that they are not opposed to the storage facility as long as there is not a vast amount of traffic generated from it. However, they are still opposed to the U-Haul business. She submitted copies of photos taken in the past two weeks that show U-Hauls being parked out on the street. Included in the photos are two pages attached that show that there was a car show which generated traffic and parking all over the City streets, which makes it difficult for the residents to park. '. Applicant's Rebuttal: 08-28-00 Page 5 AUGUST 28, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES '. Chuck Hance explained that they have that car show once a year and raise approximately $7,000 to $8,000 a year for children's charities. They obtain an event permit from the City. The photos were actually taken the day of the car show. The trucks that were on the street, as shown in one of the photos, were only there from 8 to 9 until it went out on a rental. They have the car show only once a year and has been going on for the past 19 years for a good cause. Scott Peotter, 41 Corporate Park, Suite 210, stated he is representing U-Haul. They are proposing to be able to continue the truck rental business from the inside of Coast Corvette, which they been on-site there for approximately one year. There are two objections that staff has to the truck rental business. One of which is the aesthetics to the site as viewed from the freeway. The other concern is the increased traffic generated to the commercial area. That property has been zoned commercial for many years and in comparison with other uses allowed they would generate less traffic. He felt staff has not justified that the traffic is going to exceed what would normally be allowed. He disagrees with the five findings. He indicated that there was no traffic study performed for this site or for this use or any comparison to other uses. Commissioner Arnold asked staff to respond to the comments that were raised. Greg McCafferty stated that if there are concerns about the other potential commercial land uses that could occur on the site then perhaps the rezoning to the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone is inappropriate for the site. Staff thought that with regard to the self-storage portion of it that the trips were relatively {ow in frequency that they could support that, but no other intensification of that lot. Staff felt with regard to the trucks that this introduces additional trips that further contribute to the tra~c through the neighborhood as well as the compatib+lity next to residential. They felt that the self-storage was a relatively benign use and that it is primarily going to be residences that avail themselves of those units. Introducing the self- '~ storage was too much for that site. Scott Peotter explained that the existing Coast Corvette site is already CL Zoned and they are proposing to leave all the vehicle rental and storage of those vehicle rentals on that property. He felt self-storage is a great use for all those same reasons. Commissioner Arnold asked clarification that he is not suggesting replacing the Corvette parts and supplies portion with the U-Haul. There would be two different activities on the property, which has been occurring in an illegal non-conforming way for the past year. Greg McCafferty explained that the Code requires a conditional use permit for a truck rental facility and therefore have been operating without a permit. Commissioner Arnold stated it appears they are justifying the truck rental facility because the Coast Corvette is there. Scott Peotter responded that he could not explain why they started operating without the property permits. His understanding is that the direction they received over the counter was that it was allowable. He felt it is a compatible use with automobile sales and service to have vehicle rentals. Car dealerships do it all over including in Anaheim. Coast Corvette and U-Haul have some overlap with their customer base. It is a way of fully utilizing counter space, staff and parking availability that is on-site to enhance the business. Commissioner Arnold asked about the evidence of repeated parking of U-Haul vehicles on the street. Scott Peotter responded that he would have no problem conditioning that because it should not be happening. They would be in agreement with whatever enforcement or fines that would be necessary. '. 08-28-00 Page 6 AUGUST 28, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Bristol asked Code Enforcement to address the issue of Code violations in regard to the ', current property that is in consideration. Linda Eaves, Senior Code Enforcement Officer, stated that at the moment there is an illegally operating business that does not have a conditional use permit approval on the southern portion of the lot. At the moment, there are three U-Haul vehicles parked to the south of Unit C at the moment. Residents have informed Code Enforcement that there are problems on the weekends with vehicles parked on the street that impacts their parking and access, which she has not personally observed. There are other Code violations on the Coast Corvette property that can be addressed through Code Enforcement issues. These are refuse and waste outside of the permitted storage area. There was an area where vehicles or other types of storage that would not normally be permitted in the public view have been allowed to occur. There is also currently a vehicle that is approximately 29,000 pounds being stored there that is not permitted under the conditional use permit and noted in a memorandum submitted to Commission. There is also a significant amount of refuse and waste between the fence, on the east side of the property on the alley off of south Citron and barbed wire, but these can be addressed through Code Enforcement which is under the other CUP in existence. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bristol stated that the major issue is line-of-sight. In the staff report it indicates 3 to 5 feet. There appears to be 3 feet of Mr. Hance's pad elevation between the road bed, the parking lot and Mr. Hance's side, which makes it a difference of 18 inches in grade. ~Mr. Hance shook his head in agreement from the audience.] Commissioner Bristol stated if Mr. Hance uses the interior line then he only wants to go up to 4 feet, which would be a compromise between staff's recommendation of 3 to 5 feet. He wondered whether 4 '~ feet would cover the line-of-sight. Greg McCafferty advised that staffs intent is not have the large wall but to simply have a wall high enough to cover the line-of-sight. Measuring from Mr. Hance's side it needs to be 5 feet from the parking lot grade. Commissioner Bristol asked if there are types of hedge materials that would grow significantly in a few months in order to fill in completely. Greg Hastings thought there could be something, however, it would have to be monitored and staff is only in agreement with this proposal if it is screened from view. If it can be totally screened from view of the freeway then that is staff's intent. They feel strongly that a wall with some landscaping would accomplish that. Chuck Hance submitted photos that he took that morning. In those photos he indicated there was one that showed a picture of a hedge that totally obscures a concrete wall which took 6 months to fill in. He also has a photo of a concrete wall without a hedge to show a comparison. Commissioner Bristol stated that he understood both the applicant and staff's position. He wondered how to make the wall attractive from the view without duplicating the cost. Mr. Hance currently maintains the landscape but wondered what would happen if the use was changed. Commissioner Arnold emphasized that in order to have this U-Haul rental facility they need a conditional use permit; it is not permitted by right. A conditional use permits may or may not be appropriate depending on the impacts of that particular use on the neighborhood. They already have a Corvette dealership and to add a truck rental facility, even though it has been operating this past year, increases ', the impact of the surrounding neighborhood. The fact that it is zoned CL does not answer the question 08-28-00 Page 7 AUGUST 28, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES whether those impacts are appropriate. There is substantial evidence on the record that the impacts '~ during the past year are extensive and harmful to the surrounding neighborhood. He thought there could be one or the other but the combination of the two together is simply too much traffic. There maybe some overlap in terms of customers, but it is not a complete overlap and the types of vehicles that come in would differ. It is an awkward situation where they have a piece of property up against a freeway, but nested in a residential neighborhood. It simply seems too much to have both uses occurring on the same piece of property. Commissioner Bristol asked Commissioner Arnold which he was in favor of the truck rental facility or the self-storage. Commissioner Arnold responded the self-storage. Staff is comfortable with that on the basis of the number of trips, design, and the residents are comfortable. He felt that the U-Haul facility at this location is too much of a burden for the existing neighborhood. During the Action: Commissioner Bristol suggested deleting Condition No. 22. Greg Hastings suggested a correction to paragraph no. 31 on page 10 by deleting the word "monthly". Greg Hastings stated for the record on Condition No. 28 that the 5-foot high wall is because of the exhibit that the applicant provided and is displayed on the wall exhibit, which demonstrates the need for the 5 feet. Following the Action: ~, Chuck Hance asked about clarification regarding the Code Enforcement inspections. Greg Hastings explained that the condition actually does require the property owner to pay for any inspections on the property. Commissioner Bristol added but that would not be on a monthly basis. Greg Hastings verified that his statement was correct. Once they are satisfied there is no fee required. Commissioner Arnold stated that he understood that if there are no problems then there are no further inspections nor cost. Commissioner Bristol added that typically anyone who comes before Commission who has ever been in violation of Code this would occur, but typically it would occur on a periodic basis. Mr. Hance is not being asked to do it on a periodic basis, he is being asked to pay for the Code Enforcement visits, but if he is not in violation then it will not happen. Greg Hastings advised that Condition No. 20 actually does require the applicant to pay for any inspections. Chuck Hance stated that he has no control of how many times the Code Enforcement officers are sent out there and it could cost him considerable. Greg Hastings explained that it is only if the property is not in compliance. The condition reads, "enforcement inspections as often as necessary until the subject property is brought into compliance." ', Chairperson Koos suggested that Mr. Hance discuss this and any further questions with staff. 08-28-00 Page 8 AUGUST 28, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ', ~ FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: 1 person spoke with concerns related to the truck rental portion of the request. Pictures were submitted. ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Granted Reclassification No. 2000-00025 with the following change to the conditions of approvaf: Modified Condition No. 2 to read as follows: 2. That a lot line adjustment plat shall be submitted to the Subdivision Section (Development Services Division) and approved by the City Engineer and then recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder to combine all existing parcels south of Vermont Avenue into two parcels, one for the Coast Corvette business and the other for the self-storage facility. '. Approved Waiver of Code Requirement Granted, in part, Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04224, denying the truck rental facility, with the following changes to the conditions of approval: Deleted Condition No. 22 Modified Condition No. 28 to read as follows: 28. That plans submitted for building permits shall incorporate a 5-foot high wall as measured from inside the property on the property side of the planter adjacent to the freeway to effectively screen the roll-up doors from the view of motorists. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Bostwick and Boydstun absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 53 minutes (1:37-2:30) ~~ 08-28-00 Page 9 AUGUST 28, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES '. 3a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 3 3b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04237 Concurred w/staff Granted for 1 year OWNER: Anaheim Memorial Hospital Association, 1111 West La (I (To expire 8-28-2001) Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 AGENT: Taylor and Associates Architects, 2220 North University Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660 LOCATION: 1111 West La Palma Avenue. Property is 11 acres located at the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and West Street. (Anaheim Memorial Hospital). To permit a temporary modular building for urgent care services in conjunction with an existing hospital. Continued from the Commission meeting of July 31, 2000. '~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-98 SR2034DS.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is a continued public hearing for 1111 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim Memorial Hospital. This was continued in order to explore amending the site plan to allow an additional drive-way on La Palma and to look at a parking waiver previously approved by the expansion was further intensified by this current request. Staff feels it will not intensify the parking waiver. They are also proposing an additional driveway, which should be discussed by Traffic Engineering. Applicant's Statement: Richard DeCarlo explained the new driveway placement and configuration. Commissioner Bristol stated staff was concerned about people knowing that it is a one-way and how would it be remedied. Richard Decarlo advised there is signage and they can add additional signage. They have also improved the parking with a variety of enforcement methods. There are 133 spaces available, 57 are allocated for services in that area so there are 76 remaining. They have sent letters to surrounding services that use that area, sent enforcement to all of the employees and hired additional security guards. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Arnold thanked applicant for providing more information to Commission. He asked staff their thoughts of adding a condition about appropriate signage and other control mechanisms that would promote the one-way flow of traffic. Greg McCafferty responded that Mr. Alfred Yalda, from Traffic Engineering, could not be at the meeting, however any directional signage that directs customer would be helpful to prevent confusion. The issue for Traffic Engineering is whether the temporary driveway should be 15 feet or 30 feet. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, requested the set of slides used during the applicant presentation be provided for the record. ~J Eric Gresser with Taylor and Associates Architects, spoke with Mr. Yalda about the driveway and Mr. Yalda was under the assumption that because they striped it horizontally and not angled that it was going 08-28-00 Page 10 AUGUST 28, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES to be two-way tra~c. He wanted a two-way drive because he anticipated that they were going to have ', two-way traffic. He did not seem to mind the 15-foot drive knowing that it was currently one way. It is one way now, but it will be a smaller driveway that still meets the width requirement for one-way traffic. Commissioner Bristol clarified that this was temporary and it will be re-addressed a year from now. Richard Decarlo confirmed it was temporary for trailers only. The driveway will be built to Code. • • ~ ~- • ~ • ~ ~ ~ OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Concurred with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 3, as defined in the State EIR Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare an EIR. ' Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04237 for 1 year (to expire on August 28, 2001) with the following changes to the conditions of approval: Modified Condition No. 7 to read as follows: 7. That plans shall be submitted to the City Traffic and Transportation Manager for his review and approval showing conformance with the current version of Engineering Standard Plan Nos. 436, 601 and 602 pertaining to parking standards and driveway locations. That the new 15-foot wide temporary drive shall be constructed on La Palma Avenue between the temporary building and the porte-cochere. Directional signage shall be placed at the interim driveway indicating "One-way Only" and "Do '~ Not Enter" at the easternmost driveway on La Palma Avenue to inform patrons regarding the one-way circulation pattern. Subject property shall thereupon be developed and maintained in conformance with said plans. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Bostwick and Boydstun absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 11 minutes (2:44-2:55) A BREAK WAS TAKEN AFTER THIS ITEM (2:56-3:07) ~. 08-28-00 Page 11 AUGUST 28, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~. 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 4b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Continued to 4c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 830 October 23, 2000 (CUP TRACKING NO. 2000-04197) OWNER: Yie Sang Yoo, 1845 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 AGENT: Amy Lee, 3600 Wilshire Boulevard #1905, Los Angeles, CA 90010 LOCATION: 1845 West La Palma Avenue. Property is 0.30 acre located on the north side of La Palma Avenue, 225 feet west of the centerline of Onondaga Avenue (Happy Day Preschool). To increase enrollment at an existing preschool with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Continued from the Commission meetings of May 8, May 22, June 5, and July 3, 2000. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. II SR2029DS.DOC ~J Commissioner Arnold offered a motion for continuance to October 23, 2000, seconded by Commissioner Bristol, vote taken and motion carried. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued applicant's request to the October 23, 2000 Planning Commission meeting in order to readvertise this permit due to the recent acquisition of the adjacent property to the east to allow for an expansion and reconfiguration of the preschool. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Bostwick and Boydstun absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ~~J 08-28-00 Page 12 AUGUST 28, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (. 5a. CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 5b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2000-00376 (READVERTISED) (GPA TRACKING NO. 2000-00383) 5c. CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2000-00002 AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18 "ZONING" (READVERTISED) (ZCA TRACKING NO. 2000-00003) 5d. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2000-00023 (READVERTISED) (RCL TRACKING NO. 2000-00033) 5e. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF 5d REQUESTED BY: City of Anaheim (Redevelopment Agency), Attn: Rob Zur Schmiede, 201 South Anaheim Boulevard, 101h floor, Anaheim, CA 92805 Recommended adoption of Exhibit "B" to City Council Recommended adoption to City Council Granted Approved LOCATION: Subject area consists of approximately 430 acres located along, and surrounding, Anaheim Boulevard between Broadway to the north and the Santa Ana (l-5) Freeway to the south. Review of prior Planning Commission actions related to the following items to consider modifications initiated by staff subsequent to the Planning Commission's actions: '. General Plan Amendment No. 2000-00376 - A proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to: a) redesignate properties from the General lndustrial, General Commercial, Medium Density Residential and Low Density Residential designations to the Low-Medium Density Residential designation; b) redesignate properties from the General Industrial, Business Office/Mixed Use/Industrial, Commercial Professional, Medium Density Residential and Low- Medium Density Residential designations to the General Commercial designation; c) redesignate properties from the General Commercial, Medium Density Residential, and Low Density Residential designations to the Commercial Professional designation; and, d) redesignate properties from the General Commerciaf and Medium Density Residential designations to the Special Park Site designation. Code Amendment No. 2000-00002 - To amend Title 18 by establishing the South Anaheim Boulevard Commercial Corridor (SABC) Overlay Zone which would serve to: a) permit new land uses in the Overlay Zone area in addition to those allowed under existing zoning; b) establish a design review process for future development projects within the Overlay Zone area; c) adopt, by reference, a Master Plan for public and private landscaped areas; d) restrict establishment of additional locations for off- premises sales of alcoholic beverages, and; e) adopt a sign amortization program which would require the removal of freestanding signs not in conformance with the sign regulations contained within the Anaheim Municipal Code after a 15-year amortization period. Reclassification No. 2000-00023 - To reclassify subject area by combining the South Anaheim Boulevard Commercial Corridor (SABC) Overlay Zone with each parcel's existing underlying zoning designation while removing certain properties located north of Katella Avenue, east of the Santa Ana (I-5) Freeway, south of the Southern California Edison Easement and west of the Southem Pacific Railroad right-of-way from the Sports Entertainment (SE) Overlay Zone. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-99 '~ f I RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-100 II SR7778JB.DOC I 08-28-00 Page 13 AUGUST 28, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . Rob Zur Schmiede with Community Development Department, stated the last time the Commission ~ reviewed this item was in May of this year. It is the South Anaheim Boulevard Overlay Zone. They are returning with some modifications and refinements to the plan. The hearing advertised today is on the General Plan Amendment, the amendment to Title 18, the reclassification that is proposed and the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. When the Commission reviewed the Corridor in May of this year, it included land use recommendations that allow for optional land uses that are in addition to the underlying zoning of the parcels. The overlay zone would not change existing zoning. They have amended the Master Landscaping Plan that is a part of the overlay zone. Generally, the changes that were required or requested by the Public Works Department propose to eliminate a number of left-hand turn movements on South Anaheim, thereby creating additiona) landscape median. The Master Landscaping Plan, is a concept that would be implemented over time as funding were to be available and as projects come before the Commission and are approved for construction. It would allow for in-filling of parkway trees along either side of Anaheim Boulevard in addition to the median locations proposed in the plan. That constitutes the changes in the Master Landscaping Pian. In addition, due to the time that has elapsed and certain activities in the real estate market along the street involving both the Redevelopment Agency and the Anaheim City School District, they are proposing some modifications to the land use plan. Referring to the AIJK land use map, in the area just south of Broadway there is a change in land use from the Boulevard Residential land use designation to Neighborhood Commercial. They felt that the Neighborhood Commercial use in this area would be more appropriate than the Boulevard Residential. The main reason being the problems associated with residential uses being built next to existing commercial uses. The most striking example of that would be the southwest corner of Broadway and Anaheim Boulevard where the mini-mart/service station/car wash was recently developed. (~ Proceeding southerly at the intersection of Anaheim Boulevard and Santa Ana Street, both the northeast and southeast corners are proposed to be changed to Neighborhood Commercial in lieu of Boulevard Residential. The reason for this change is that both of these sites are slated for consideration tomorrow evening in a City Council Redevelopment Agency closed session for acquisition by the Redevelopment Agency. They see that as an historic preservation, adaptive re-use project, and are suggesting that they should be designated Neighborhood Commercial as opposed to Boulevard Residential land use. Proceeding southeriy in the vicinity of Revere School, the previous proposal had shown this area as Neighborhood Commercial and since the Commission's last consideration in May, they met with the Anaheim City School District and were informed that they are in escrow to purchase a portion of this frontage. They have a lease option on another portion and their master planning calls for an expansion of Revere School, basically pushing it out to the frontage along Anaheim Boulevard. Since the overall plan for the corridor is a vision for the street over an extended time period, an Open Space/Educational use designation woufd be more appropriate. The other major land use change did not result from a change in an existing condition, but it resulted from a suggestion on the part of the Agency Executive Director and a re-evaluation of this area and this neighborhood. Previously, the Commission had approved, for certain neighborhoods, an overlay designation of Neighborhood Residential. Neighborhood Residential allows for three different residential land use types. It would not be advisable to allow for a piecemeal aggregation of lots to allow either the small lot single-family or the attached townhome projects to be built in those areas. Along these same lines they added, to the Boulevard Residential portion of the zone text, a requirement that a project assemble a block-face. They have advertised both the hearing before the Commission today along with a hearing at City Council tamorrow evening, so they are asking for favorable consideration of these modifications today. '. Jonathan Borrego, Senior Planner, stated in response to the recommended revisions to the land use plan, they have prepared a second alternative to the General Plan Amendment shown as Exhibit B, which is displayed on the exhibit wall. There were two changes made from the last General Plan alternative. 08-28-00 Page 14 AUGUST 28, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Those two changes are to reflect the change which Mr. Zur Schmiede had mentioned on the northern ', most portion of the overlay area, and that is to redesignate areas that were previously designated for Low-Medium Residential to General Commercial which reflects the amended land use plan, and also, to slightly change the location of the school site slightly to the northeast to reflect some of the recent developments that Mr. Zur Schmiede mentioned in terms of the School District now looking at expanding the school site all the way out onto Anaheim Boulevard. They went ahead and moved the symbol for that location as well. Questions from Commission: Chairperson Koos asked, in the area where they are suggesting to maintain as single- family, what is currently the existing land use. Rob Zur Schmiede replied it is a real mix and indicated he had a large exhibit of existing land use should Commission like to review it. Chairperson Koos asked with regard to the existing attached housing, does it go through Redevelopment to acquire them and try to encourage single-family development? What is the plan to make it all consistent? Rob Zur Schmiede explained the overlay zone would not change that underlying zoning. What the overlay zone is indicating is that the predominant land use in that neighborhood, the vision for the future, should be single family. It may result in no change with those apartment buildings. Chairperson Koos asked if an overlay zone would have any impact on a property owner's motivation to change things? Rob Zur Schmiede responded the one thing that does change with the series of actions is the General '. Plan which does put limitations and would prohibit subdivision of land that would be in conflict with the new General Plan designation. There is really no incentive, absent an acquisition, for the property owner to do anything other than maintain the existing use that he has. Chairperson Koos felt that they are putting in an overlay zone and this is sort of saying what we might want to do. It does not seem like it is going to change much without real proactive steps. Rob Zur Schmiede explained they believe it does establish what the vision is for the corridor. They are also changing the General Plan land uses to conform to the land uses proposed in the overlay zone. The approach that they have taken on this allows them to do those two things, gives the Redevelopment Agency the ability to participate in projects, get a project developed that is in conformance with this plan, and allows that to be implemented successfully so that people can point to those projects and begin to see how the street could change. The other thing is that, without participation by the Agency or Housing Authority or some governmental authority, the economics for some of these multi-family uses are }ust not there. The private market would not, and they did do some studies with respect to that. The land values for the commercial uses that exist today are in excess of what a residential project could pay, given what sales prices would be and costs would be to develop residential projects. Particularly with the Boulevard Residential, these will be projects that will involve Redevelopment Agency participation through an affordable subsidy. Over time that can change, values on these units can change. It could be that a few years down the road sales prices are higher than they are today and you may see some interest being shown on the part of owners to convert them to what would then be a higher and better use. It is the least invasive way, in terms of personal property rights, that they can approach this kind of corridor and the vision that they are proposing. It is at that end of the spectrum. ~, Another option would have been to go through and propose a whole series of re-zonings and rendering a number of these existing commercial uses legal non-conforming. They deliberately chose not to follow that path. 08-28-00 Page 15 AUGUST 28, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Bristol stated, regarding the Boulevard Residential District, Mr. Zur Schmiede indicated a ', minimum 2,400 square feet density with minimum one-acre project size, and minimum one block frontage with 30-foot height limit. Is that all of those combined or is it one acre and or one block assimilation? Rob Zur Schmiede responded it would be minimum one acre and one block face. Commissioner Bristol stated his assumption is in looking on the map above Water Street, a couple of these have a gap, 4 lots, it is white then two more tots, those would not fit that assimilation. Also, above Vermont you have Neighborhood Commercial District-Mixed Use then you go on with the Boulevard Residential up to South Street. Rob Zur Schmiede explained that they would be looking at a project, if there was a project that proposed to assemble those. Commissioner Bristol stated he liked the way they are putting it in a block and or minimum of an acre. Rob Zur Schmiede indicated they were concerned that if they had a half a block and there was an automotive repair use next door, it would create a lot of problems that would be tough to overcome from a design standpoint. Commissioner Bristol stated not only that, but hopefully it will be the same developer. Commissioner Arnold stated as he understands it, they see this as largely a fairly flexible, perhaps even "stop gap" type of ineasure designed to provide opportunities for development patterns to change for which the vision could change over time depending on the particular conditions changing, that may become less necessary as they go through some comprehensive reconsideration of the existing code. He asked if that was correct? '~ Rob Zur Schmiede replied that was correct. They, in cooperation with the Planning Department, have been trying to respond to the desire on the part of the Council and people in the community in different sub-areas of the City to develop land use strategies and implement them. That is one of the things driving the South Anaheim Overlay Zone. It is intended to be a flexible document. If circumstances were to change, which would render this problematic in some way, they would come back to the Commission and ask for an amendment of the overlay zone. The other thing that can happen is that the Commission is about to embark on a multi-year process of updating the City General Plan and Zoning Code and the shelf life of these overlay zones, however many they end up with, could be fairly short. They do not have a problem with that. They would encourage more efficient tools that they can bring to the Commission and Council. They are proposing this now because it is something that felt can be implemented, perhaps while they are doing the General Plan update and it can provide a lot of good input to that process. Commissioner Arnold stated he wanted to reiterate the point that a variety of non-zoning, non-regulatory activities will be necessary to achieve the vision contemplated here. It is a little unclear exactly what the vision is because they have left it purposefully flexible. In order to achieve what one can glean from this is going to require some efforts beyond the Zoning Code and Mr. Zur Schmiede acknowledged that. One point discussed at the morning session was the transportation patterns and how people are going to be moved around. Especially to the extent that this overlay zone connects to the downtown area which hopefully will see some further revitalization, further development, and become a point of destination. For people to get there, there is going to have to be consideration of how transportation patterns are going to work through the South Anaheim Boulevard Area. He also asked about 18.56.020 - Sign Variance. He was assuming the bold language is new language and not certain what the prohibition on granting of sign variances is aimed at and how this fits into the proposed revision. Rob Zur Schmiede deferred the question to Ms. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney. ', Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated the Planning Department views signs in two ways such as the wall signs or the monument signs for the property which are considered to be structures and variances are certainly appropriate from that type of sign requirement. There are others such as 08-28-00 Page 16 AUGUST 28, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEfM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES billboards, which are considered a use and in instances where a use is prohibited, the Anaheim Municipal Code prohibits use variances. The concern was that the general way that the provision had been " phrased suggested that any type of variance would be appropriate including a use variance. The purpose of that is to clarify that a use variance is not included. Commissioner Arnold stated his concern is the term "use" or "activity", which he was not sure if they are talking about a sign as a use. The point at which it is an activity, does that suggest that a structural variance would not be permitted? What exactly is the meaning of the word "activity"? If it is designed to prevent a use variance, would the language "sign use" itself be sufficient? Selma Mann explained deletion of the words "use" or "activity" would be appropriate. This is the general language in the Code that prohibits use variances and it is more general. Commissioner Arnold asked if it states "use" or "activity". Sefma Mann confirmed that was correct. ft states use or activity. In the instance where they are talking strictly about a use, she would not have a problem deleting the "or activity" aspect of it. Commissioner Arnold thought it could lead to some confusion about the availability of structural variances. Selma Mann indicated that is a good point. At the beginning of this chapter there are some general provisions for the overlay zone that are going to be generally applicable to the area, not in addition to, but in some instances, instead of. There is the requirement that projects lying within the over{ay and the boundaries of the Commercial Industrial Redevelopment Project Area need to go through a design review subject to some requirements that are going to be set up. Rob Zur Schmiede advised that is not a change from May, that was included. ~~ Selma Mann stated it is not a change, in terms of the discussion that seems to suggest that all of these changes are in addition to what's presently permitted. The same with off premise sale of alcohol. The only off premise sale of alcohol that will be permitted is as in the Brookhurst Overlay Zone, which was pretty specific with regard to markets or grocery stores with off premise sale of alcoholic beverages having and interior building floor area of greater than 30,000 square feet. Commissioner Arnold asked Mr. Zur Schmiede if he was saying these are at least two zone-wide regulatory constraints as opposed to additional opportunities that are flexible. Rob Zur Schmiede explained when the Commission considered this in May, it was Commission Arnold that made the suggestion that they had some permissive language in the earlier version with respect to the design review provisions and they changed that to a mandatory "shall". They will be returning to the Commission with some design review guidelines for anything that lies within the Redevelopment project area boundary. Commissioner Arnold stated the point of that was that there be established guidelines the applicants could take a look at so that there would not be unfettered discretion to reject any particular proposal purely on the basis of design without there being some standards to guide them. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated that given the amount of discussion earlier this morning and now, it appears that this particular item is large scale, far-reaching and important. He appreciated the chance to participate, but felt there is some pressure to move forward on this because of the timing of the City Council's decision. It has been set up for discussion tomorrow and did not know that there is any room to add anything or give staff enough time if that were the pleasure of the Planning Commission. It does not seem as though that were the case. He did not know if staff was anticipating that this was going to be an '~ item that really would not create as much discussion as it is, or whether timing is so crucial to get it in. Rob Zur Schmiede stated they advertised both hearings at the same time because they anticipated that the changes they were bringing to Commission were essentially a wholesale modification of what 08-28-00 Page 17 AUGUST 28, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commission had seen before. If the Commission has suggestions or recommended modifications, they (, would be more than happy to take those forward and communicate those to the Council. Commissioner Vanderbilt was impressed with landscaping because it is a big difference. He has lived in the downtown area for seven years and spent a lot of time on Anaheim Boulevard and has been glad to see the improvements. He has already discussed it this morning as to the specifics of that and did not think it is important to summarize now. They are moving in the right direction. Although it would be helpful in the future if the Commission has opportunities to provide input in a setting that has the hearing spread out a little more so there is a chance to "jump on board" sooner and not feel the pressure of a decision by City Council the next day. It feels like they are somewhat pressed. Chairperson Koos agreed. There was no public testimony today but there might have been and if someone giving testimony had raised a valid concern that needed to be continued, then they would be up against a City Council hearing the next day. That is not normally how they operate and it is unfortunate. With respect to being brought in earlier, he thought it is disjointed and it is still vague as to what the overall goals are of the plan. He is not going to oppose it. He supported it once and will support it again. Although he cautioned Beach Boulevard is forthcoming and an overlay zone is being prepared for it and there might be a lesson to be learned here. Perhaps the Commission could be brought in earlier in the process. Rob Zur Schmiede agreed. That will be the message that he will take back with respect to West Anaheim. He appreciated the level of scrutiny that the Commission had given to these modifications. He did not anticipate the extent of it. They saw these as adjustments and refinements that they wanted to bring back. Since they had been delayed on the review of the landscaping plan by the Public Works Department, it gave them another opportunity to take care it all. Chairperson Koos stated there was a considerable amount to review all at once back in May. He was caught off guard and did not assimilate the information as quickly as he wished. '~ Rob Zur Schmiede responded they had conducted a workshop with the Commission prior to the May date. They are always open. When they have a Commission that is interested and would like to be brought into that process, then they are open to hearing what that is and trying to accommodate it. He agreed it is a long stretch of commercial boulevard. There are two major portions of it, the north of Ball Road and south of Ball Road, there are two different areas. There is a lot to digest. With respect to West Anaheim, they will certainly schedule it and present it to Commission in whatever manner they feel is the most effective in their role as decision-makers. Commissioner Bristo{ stated this has changed somewhat and part of it has do with the Centerline activity. Rob Zur Schmiede stated the changes that they are proposing have not arisen from the recently publicized proposed changed to the Centerline project. Their reaction to the Centerline at a staff level has changed. When the Commission saw this in May, the Centerline project at that point was an at grade system that was going to travel up Anaheim Boulevard in the middle of the street and felt that that - proposal was compatible with the plan, whether they built it or not. The most recent proposal for an elevated system along that same line on Anaheim Boulevard, they do not see it as compatible with this land use plan and have begun discussions with the Planning Department and Public Works Department staff. Public Works has the lead on the Centerline project because it involves transportation improvement. They do not see it compatible with the currently publicly announced proposed alignment. The elevated alignment along the corridor with two-story loft townhomes _~ facing it is not a good idea. Commissioner Bristol stated the point he is trying to make is that the median landscaping, if it had a Centerline, would be different and if the Centerline did become any kind of reality, the land uses might '~ change again, so this is ever evolving. Rob Zur Schmiede agreed with an at grade system they feel that this would work as has been shown. 08-28-00 Page 18 AUGUST 28, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Arnold summarized by stating what they have here are some changes evolving to an ~ overlay zone that is an imperfect mechanism for achieving some goals that are going to take some other ( efforts and the may or may not achieve what they are hoping. As a mechanism, it is something that may promote or help achieve these goals and it is probably going to continue to evolve over time. The Commission is hoping to be more involved up front in the early stages of some of these overlay planning efforts so that they can identify some of the issues they see coming up on a regular basis that need attention and be involved all the way along. Obviously, there are a variety of various inputs, not just the Planning Commission, but the local neighborhoods and City Council. • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Mitigated Negative Declaration Recommended approval of GeneraV Plan Amendment No. 2000-00376 (Exhibit "B") to the City Council. Recommended approval of Code Amendment No. 2000-00002 to the City Council with the following change: Modified the second paragraph on page 14 of the Ordinance as follows: 18.56.020 VARIANCE FROM SIGN REQUIREMENTS: No person shall install or maintain any sign in the SABC Overlay Zone except as permitted herein; provided, however, that any requirements or restrictions may be waived in whole or in part upon such conditions as may be imposed by the Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission, or the City Council by a Zone Variance ~, processed and approved in accordance with all procedures, requirements, and restrictions established for variance pursuant to Chapter 18.03 entitled, "Zoning Procedures-Amendments, Conditional Use Permits an Variances" of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a varlance shall not be granted for a parcel of property which authorizes a sign use ~ which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zone regulations governing the parcel of property. Granted Reclassification No. 2000-00023. MOTION: Commissioner Arnold offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Bostwick and Boydstun absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that they consider Reclassification No. 2000-00023 in conjunction with the Mitigated Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment No. 2000-00376 and Code Amendment No. 2000-00002. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Bostwick and Boydstun absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated this item will be considered as a public hearing at the August 29, 2000 City Council meeting. DISCUSSION TIME: 44 minutes (3:08-3:52) ~r ~$_28_~0 Page 19 AUGUST 28, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ , 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 6b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved, In Part 6c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04244 Granted, in Part OWNER: David R. Jackson, 100 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92802 AGENT: Paul C. Bunton, AIA, 4615 Enterprise Common, Fremont, CA 94538 LOCATION: 2220-2240 West Sequoia Avenue. Property is 5.6 acres located on the south and west side of Sequoia Avenue, 180 feet east of the centerline of Siesta Street (Fairmont Private School). To expand an existing private school with waiver of (a) required number of trees, (b) required parking lot landscaping, (c) minimum number of parking spaces and (d) required landscape setback abutting a local street. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-101 SR7759KB.DOC '~ Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is a request for 2220-2240 West Sequoia Avenue, Fairmont Private School, to expand an existing private school on an adjacent northerly lot. Staff recommends approval of the expansion as conditioned and recommends denial of Waiver A because there is no justification, deny Waiver B and D because they have been deleted, and recommending approval of Waiver C based on approval of traffic study. ApplicanYs Statement: Paul Bunton gave brief ovenriew of project. They agree with all of the conditions except for the pole mounted sign and lot line adjustment. They would like to leave the 3 property lines as they are instead of making it all one parcel. They want to refurbish pole-mounted signs in their current positions. David Jackson stated he owns the Vots and a lot line adjustment would be expensive and cause many problems with the banks that he has the loans with. It also takes away some of his options for further financing, and the option of selling some of the commercial property in the future, even though he has no intention of doing that. Greg McCafferty indicated it can be deleted. The intent is that since it is one campus, that it be held together as one campus for purposes of maintenance and management. It can be handled through a Maintenance and Management Covenant. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked if there is a possibility that he may make the improvements on the property then sell it. David Jackson responded that he doubts he would ever do that, but if they are faced with keeping that campus full in future years because it is not in a high-income area, then they may find it necessary to sell part of it. He never thought of doing anything like that until he saw the lot line adjustment request. He wants to keep his options open. '~ Commissioner Arnold asked whether the problem is what he wants to do in the future or is it that he has different loans on different parcels and it would be difficult with their security interest in the property to combine them to one. 08-28-00 Page 20 AUGUST 28, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISStON MfNUTES David Jackson explained he has two different banks and two different loans and if he wanted a small loan ', in the future on part of the property, he would not have to tie it all up. Commissioner Arnold asked whether a covenant would be acceptable. David Jackson stated he had no problem with that. They need the signs to help build the enrollment at the campus because they are not full. Signage is one of the top three advertisements to help attract new students. He asked for a five-year permission to keep both signs for advertising and directional purposes. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bristol explained that the City Council has established a policy on signs. He does not feel City Council would pass this one because it is actually advertising. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked if landscape was no longer an issue and is the new landcaping going to tie into current landscaping. David Jackson explained they have agreed to additional trees and will tie into the rest of the property. Chairperson Koos asked Mr. Jackson if he had to choose one sign, which one would he choose. David Jackson stated he would choose the smaller one. Greg McCafferty advised the CUP for the larger temporary sign on the existing campus cannot be retained at this public hearing, that CUP would have to be advertised again to delete the Condition of Approval that requires that one to be removed. '~ Chairperson Koos stated the City Council recently overrode a Commission denial for a Home Depot sign. They established policy by granting them a temporary approval because they recognize the I-5 Freeway is confusing and Brookhurst is under construction. He felt Commission should consider it as a basis for how they should handle this sign. Commissioner Vanderbilt: stated Home Depot erected the sign after it was constructed. Staff is suggesting that the Trinity sign come down before the building permit is issued. Greg Hastings stated Home Depot had a variance for the sign that happened the same time they opened. Regarding the "Trinity Racing" sign, the intent is that the use it advertises is no longer on the property. Chairperson Koos thought since the City Council established precedent with the Home Depot sign then he felt the Fairmont sign can be erected for 8 months, but it should then come down early next year. Commissioner Bristol felt it is a lot of money to spend for 8 months, but the applicant knew the restraints on the sign going from the beginning. The sign is now being cut down to 24 feet. Greg McCafferty stated staff is considering amending the Code to reduce the height of freeway oriented signage based on input that the City Council and Commission have provided. Greg Hastings stated they are considering lowering freeway signage from 75 feet to 25 feet. Chairperson Koos asked when the I-5 Freeway is to be completed and Ms. Melanie Adams, from Public Works Department, responded it would be some time early next year. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked if temporary canvas signage is feasible. '~ Greg Hastings stated they do not typically permit that, but it does happen on occasion when the sign has been damaged or there is a change occurring. 08-28-00 Page 21 AUGUST 28, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~. G~eg McCafferty stated staff is proposing that the Trinity sign along Sequoia be removed and the one on Melanie Adams, Associate Civil Engineer, stated the I-5 Freeway is to be completed by December 31, 2000 and Home Depot will be putting in traffic signal within 90 days following that. Chairperson Koos stated the sign on Sequoia has their name on it anyway, so it is not a real cost. The other sign has to be removed anyway. David Jackson indicated that is the issue and asked whether they can obtain approval for at least 3 years. Commissioner Bristol stated he will not support more than a year. Commissioner Arnold pointed out that the problem is there is one sign guaranteed to be there until January 2001, but it does not freeway visibility. Greg McCafferty stated staff is recommending that the Trinity sign be taken down prior to issuance of building permit. the southerly portion of the existing school site is already conditioned to be removed. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked what the visibility was from the freeway north and southbound. Greg McCafferty responded the Trinity sign can be seen traveling southbound. David Jackson stated you cannot see it northbound and just barely from the northbound Brookhurst overpass. '~ Commissioner Arnold is not willing to support anything longer than March of 2001. There is a need for a sign only until the freeway is completed. David Jackson advised Caltrans provides a directional freeway sign only if there is an enrollment of 1000 students or more. Commissioner Bristol stated it has to be tied down to an event and the City Council will probably conclude that the event is the completion of the freeway. During the Action: Greg McCafferty advised regarding Condition No. 31, that an unsubordinated maintenance and management covenant shall be submitted, reviewed, approved by Zoning Division and City Attorney then recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder and filed with the City Attorney. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Approved, in part, the Waiver of Code Requirement as follows: Denied waiver (a) pertaining to required number of trees on the basis that there are no identified special circumstances which are applicable to this property, and that granting this waiver would have the effect of granting a special privilege not shared by other similar commercially zoned properties in the vicinity; and, that at the public ~~ hearing, the petitioner agreed to provide the required number of trees. Denied waivers (b) pertaining to required parking lot landscaping and (d) pertaining 08-28-00 Page 22 AUGUST 28, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES required landscape setback abutting a local street on the basis that they were ', deleted following submittal of revised plans. Approved waiver (c) pertaining to minimum number of parking spaces based on the parking study findings in the staff report dated August 28, 2000, and that the City Traffic and Transportation Manager reviewed the parking study and determined that there is an adequate supply of parking spaces for the expanded private junior and senior high school. Granted, in part, Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04244 with the following changes to the conditions of approval: Modified Condition Nos. 13 and 31 to read as follows: 13. That the existing 30-foot high pole sign located at the northwest corner of subject property shall be removed prior to March 31, 2001, and that the existing 60-foot high po{e sign adjacent to the east prope~ty line shall be removed by January 8, 2001, and may be replaced by a maximum of two (2) monument signs in compliance with Code requirements. These monument signs shall be submitted to the Zoning Division for review and approval. Any additional signage visible off-site shall be subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Division. Any decision of the Zoning Division regarding this signage may be appealed to the Planning Commission and/or City Council. 31. That prior to issuance of a building permit, an unsubordinated maintenance and management covenant shall be submitted to the Zoning Division and approved by the City Attorney's office. The covenant shall include provisions for maintenance, reciprocal access and parking, architecture, landscaping and ~~ signage to ensure that the separate parcels are integrated for these purposes. The form of said covenant shall be approved by the City Attorney's Office and shall be recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder. A copy of the recorded covenant shall be submitted to the Zoning Division. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Bostwick and Boydstun absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attomey, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 35 minutes (3:53-4:28) ', 08-28-00 Page 23 AUGUST 28, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ J 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 7b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2000-00031 7c. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 7d, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04246 Withdrawn OWNER: William and Patsy Keough; Eugene and Marie Pardella; Fred and Yoshiki Kimura; Vito and Josephine Bucaro; Allen M. and Kathy J. Wattenberg; Richard and Enriqueta Wattenberg; Attn: Allen Wattenberg, 15234 Matisse Circle, La Mirada, CA 90638 AGENT: Mercy Charities Housing California, Attn: Dara Kove, 500 South Main Street #110, Orange, CA 92868 LOCATION: 2240 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is 1.92 acres located on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, 515 feet west of the centerline of Brookhurst Street. Reclassification No. 2000-00031 - To reclassify subject property from the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone to the RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple Family) Zone. '. Conditional Use Permit No, 2000-04246 - To construct a 3-story, 46-unit affordable apartment complex and day care center with waiver of (a) required setbacks in special areas, (b) minimum number of parking spaces, (c) maximum structural height, and (d) maximum residential density. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. ~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR2032DS.DOC Chairperson Koos stated that there was a requesf for a withdrawal for this item but asked a representative from Community Development to speak regarding housing issues, before withdrawing this item. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, advised that Brent Schultz, from Community Development, indicated he would be present. [This item was initially trailed and later heard after Item No. 2.J Chairperson Koos stated that this has been an interesting process on this property. He understood this was the second request for withdrawal for the exact same project. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, confirmed that was correct. Chairperson Koos indicated that the applicant proposed the project and then withdrew it. They then applied for the same project and are withdrawing it again. He understood that the applicant is going to return with a proposed senior project at this site. Brent Schultz confirmed that was correct. Mercy Charities went throughout the City looking for sites and found the site at 2240 West Lincoln Avenue and presented a proposal. They met with Planning and Community Development staff and also went out and met neighborhood groups in the community and 08-28-00 Page 24 AUGUST 28, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ultimately submitted to the Planning Department for the entitlement process. Unfortunately, this property ', was within the Brookhurst Overlay Zone, which limited the density for multi-family to 13 to the acre. Therefore, Mercy Charities has pulled the appfication. Before they pulled it they started discussions with staff on what else could be allowed at that site. The Brookhurst Overlay Zone allows senior project at 36 units per acre with a density bonus it came to 45. There are thousands of Anaheim residents looking for multi-family residents and there are funds at the County for affordable projects. Two agreements were taken to City Council three weeks ago for up to 82 senior units subject to getting financing and entitlement approvais and a multi-family project. Chairperson Koos stated they did find a site and were recommending approval until they found out it was within the Brookhurst Overlay Zone. There are two issues, the land use and recommendation to City Council to enter into a loan agreement. If this property was one parcel to the north, south or west it would not have been inside the Brookhurst Overlay Zone. Given how far along they were in the process he was disturbed that the applicant had to withdraw such a high quafity project. This applicant has a good track record of building high quality affordable housing. He commented that he would be surprised if the Community Development Department recommends anything west of Euclid for affordable housing and was concerned about the type of inessage conveyed by not supporting an affordable housing project at this site. He thought it would have been better to make a recommendation to allow City Council to enter into an agreement with Mercy Housing Charities and take it through the entitlement process, and felt this project would have had a good chance of being approved at this site. Brent Schultz feels confident that both Planning staff and the Redevelopment staff have good quality people with good help in the community who can help find sites. Mulfi-fami(y is more difficult especially with low income. It drives up the gap loans and they are very expensive, but there is a need for it. They just purchased Jeffrey Lynn and started construction and are working with Mercy Charities and thought they can find a site. ~. Chairperson Koos concluded by stating that at the last Planning Commission meeting he asked staff to start working on some of the housing at the Planning Commission level because they are the ones that have to send a housing element to City Council, and not the Redevelopment and Housing Commission. He felt this proposal would have helped the affordable housing problem for families. Commissioner Arnold agreed with Commissioner Koos that this particular project raises two issues. One is how to ensure that the process in the City of Anaheim is of the highest quality and that they are not having projects get to this stage and then fall apart because of things that could have anticipated and worked out in a better manner. Secondly, in the continuing pressures that they are receiving from a variety of economic and demographic forces and outside governmental expectations about a housing element, Commission is going to have to develop political will to deal with housing issues such as density, and affordable housing. Chairperson Koos is correct in emphasizing that this particular project and the request for a withdrawal raises these concerns that are going to have to occupy this Commission's focus and the City Council's focus. Commissioner Vanderbilt added that when they reviewed the plans, it was not just housing that was involved, there was also a childcare center that was proposed that would have serviced individuals outside of that project. He pointed out that there is a loss at two ends in terms of services to the community. Commissioner Bristol offered a motion for withdrawal, seconded by Commissioner Arnold; vote taken and motion carried. ~ 08-28-00 Page 25 AUGUST 28, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold and MOTION CARRIED (Bostwick and Boydstun absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby accept the petitioner's request for withdrawal of Rec(assification No. 2000-00031 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04246. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Bostwick and Boydstun absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 12 minutes (2:31-2:43) ~` ~~ 08-28-00 Page 26 AUGUST 28, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES '. 8a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEI 8b. VARIANCE NO. 2000-04405 Concurred w/staff Granted OWNER: Fahed A. Jaber, 3671-A Bear Street, Santa Ana, CA 92704 LOCATION: 5055 East Short Street. Property is 0.51 acre with a frontage of 320 feet on the north side of Short Street and a frontage of 40 feet on the east side of Kellogg Drive. Waiver of (a) permitted encroachments into required yards and (b) dedication and improvements, to construct a 6-foot high block wall within the front yard setback area of a proposed single-family residence. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-102 SR7807VN. DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating is a request for property located at 505 East Short Street. The request is for a waiver of permitted encroachments into required yards and required street improvements. Chairperson Koos asked if the applicant was present. ~7"here was no response.J Commissioner Bristol stated he visited property and felt line-of-sight was fine. ~~ Commissioner Arnold stated for the record that the City Engineer noted that given the fact that a sidewalk would not connect on the other side into Yorba Linda, and that there does not appear to be the same pedestrian patterns, and this property is significantly different than they found in other properties where they required that sidewalks be installed. • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Concurred with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorica! Exemptions, Class 5, as defined in the State EIR Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare an EIR. Granted Variance No. 2000-04405 subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Bostwick and Boydstun absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. ~i DISCUSSION TIME: 1 minute (4:29-4:30) ~8_2$_~~ Page 27 AUGUST 28, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 1~ 9a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 9b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2000-00380 September 11, 2000 9c. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2000-00029 9d. VARIANCE NO. 2000-04406 9e. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16128 9f. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL REVIEW OF 9c. 9d, and 9e OWNER: Polygon Development c/o David Evans and Associates, Attn: Walter Clendenon, 23382 Mill Creek Drive, #225, Laguna Hills, CA 92653 AGENT: David Evans and Associates, Attn: Walter Clendenon, 23382 Mill Creek Drive, #225, Laguna Hills, CA 92653 LOCATION: 8200 East La Palma Avenue. Property is 16.27 acres located at the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Weir Canyon Road. General Plan Amendment No. 2000-00380 - To redesignate this property from the Commercial Professional land use designation to the Hillside Low-Medium Density Residential land use designation. Reclassification No. 2000-00029 - To reclassify subject property from the CO(SC) (Commercial, Office and Professional; Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone to the RS-5000(SC)(Residential, Single-Family; Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone or less intense zone. Variance No. 2000-04406 - Waiver of (a) minimum lot depth adjacent to arterial highways, (b) minimum lot area, (c) minimum lot width, (d) maximum lot coverage and open space requirements and (e) maximum structural height, to construct 88 single-family residences and 4 lettered lots. Tentative Tract Map No. 16128 - To establish a 92-lot detached single- family residential subdivision with 88 residential lots and 4 lettered lots. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. SR7762KB.DOC Commissioner Arnold offered a motion of continuance to September 11, 2000, seconded by Commissioner Bristol, vote taken and motion carried. OPPOSITION: None ~. ACTION: Continued subject request to the September 11, 2000 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow additional time for the developer to finalize information regarding the development of this project. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Bostwick and Boydstun absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 08-28-00 Page 28 AUGUST 28, 2000 C1TY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES '~ 10a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 10b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2000-00030 Approved Denied OWNER: Margaret Yarema, 1212 Soutn Western Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92804 AGENT: Brian Yarema,1212 South Western Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92804 LOCATION: 1212 South Western Avenue. Property is 0.27 acre located on the east side of Western Avenue, 165 feet south of the centerline of Ball Road. Reclassification No. 2000-00030 - To reclassify subject property from the RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) Zone to the RM-2400 (Residential, Multiple Family) Zone or less intense zone. ~~ RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-103 SR2033DS.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is a request for Reclassification No. 2000-00030 for property located at 1212 South Western Avenue. The petitioner is requesting a reclassification from the RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) Zone to the RM-2400 (Residential, Multiple Family) Zone. Staff recommends approval of rezoning the property consistent with Low-Medium Density Residential designation of the General Plan. As indicated at the morning session, there is a density range implementation zone of RM-2400 up to RS-5000. Chairperson Koos announced for the record that there were letters and petitions received objecting to this proposal and are on the file for public review. ApplicanYs Statement: Brian Yarema, 1212 South Western Avenue, stated he is representing his mother. They want to add on a 936 square foot addition to the current house, and propose adding two new units in the back of subject property. He explained that there will be no need to do any additional work such as sewer, electrical, etc. He met with the WAND (West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council) group, which they are opposed to apartments of any type. '. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked if the front building was occupied. Brian Yarema responded he is in it now because he is adding on the addition. Chairperson Koos stated in the photos it appears there is storage of some type in the back yard. Brian Yarema explained he is currently cleaning out the back yard due to previous tenants who moved out. Chairperson Koos questioned whether Commission want to allow a zoning reclassification, which allows a certain amount of attached units, or whatever else may go in a particular zoning. He wanted to know about the existing setback. 08-28-00 Page 29 AUGUST 28, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Greg McCafferty stated that when this permit was issued in 1997 the Code permitted an 8-foot high wall 1, when there was a property that fronted on an arterial highway, which is fhe case here. Since that time the Code requires an Administrative Adjustment up to 8 feet in height and a 10-foot landscape setback in front of that wall. Technically, what he has there as the block wall complies under old Code. When the permit was issued, it did not require a landscape setback, but it does now. Chairperson Koos asked what happens if the applicant wants to build something that is permitted by right in the back of the property, does he have to conform to the new Code? Greg McCafferty advised the wall is not considered a use, it is a structure, so whatever else he wants to put on the property from this point forward would have to comply with current Zoning Code. As long as he has kept his permit active for that wall, he can leave it there. Chairperson Koos asked that if someone has an existing use and permits and then wants to propose something else on their property, would they need to comply with new landscape setbacks on the existing portion. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, replied yes. If there is a zoning action such as a conditional use permit, staff would generaily look at that and perhaps condition conformance. In this particular case, it is simply a building permit, what has been permitted there can continue to remain. Greg McCafferty stated there is nothing in the building permit record file that indicates that there is a final inspection for that wall. Brian Yarema stated he has a building card with inspector's signature on it. Commissioner Bristol stated this is a mixed area, and asked how many units could conceivably be built ~, on the property. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, responded the RM-2400 Zone would allow 18 units per acre and the applicant is proposing 4.8 dwelling units. Commissioner Bristol stated he has an issue with traffic if another 8 or more cars are added to this site. Commissioner Arnold was concerned and asked if it is appropriate to have that kind of density on such a small lot. Chairperson Koos stated he is a supporter of quality apartments, but found that the four-plexes can be potential problems, most are not something you want to encourage. He does not like encouraging a zoning classification that will grant that type of entitlement by right. The Building Division will look at zoning and say it can be done, plan check and there is not much control you have over quality. It is not going to go through a scrutiny and departmental review. He does not want to vote for encouraging that type of development. Greg Hastings pointed out the existing RSA-43,000 Zoning is one of the implementing zones of the current General Plan, it is the lowest density of all of the choices that are for residential. Chairperson Koos asked if this area has gone through Community Planning. Greg Hastings responded it has already been done. At the time it was a single-family home with a single- family zone and complied. Commissioner Arnold was not persuaded by the citizen comments received because they are not well designed to address this particular issue. The City of Anaheim has to deal with density and affordable ', housing and an influx of population. However, given the size of this lot, it is not appropriate for a higher level of density. 08-28-00 Page 30 AUGUST 28, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES '~ FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: 12 letters were received in opposition to the proposal. A petition with 31 signatures in opposition was received. ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Denied Reclassification No. 2000-00030 on the basis that this lot is too small for development at the RM-2400 (Residential, Multiple-Family) density. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Bostwick and Boydstun absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 19 minutes (4:31-4:50) ~r I~J 08-28-00 Page 31 AUGUST 28, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ', 11a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 11 11 b. VARIANCE NO. 2000-04404 Continued to September 11, 2000 OWNER: Watt Commercial Companies Inc., 2716 Ocean Park Boulevard, #3040, Santa Monica, CA 90405-5218 AGENT: San Pedro Electric Sign Company, 701 Lakme Avenue, Wilmington, CA 90744 LOCATION: 5729-5799 East La Palma Avenue - Canvon Villaqe Plaza. Property is 9.9 acres located north and east of the northeast corner of Imperial Highway and La Palma Avenue. Waiver of prohibited signs to construct roof-mounted signs on a new parapet building wall. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. SR7813KP.DOC Commissioner Arnold offered a motion for continuance to September 11, 2000, seconded by Commissioner Bristol, vote taken and motion carried. '~ OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the September 11, 2000 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to be present. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Bostwick and Boydstun absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. '~ 08-28-00 Page 32 AUGUST 28, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~. THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:55 P.M. TO MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2000 AT 10:30 A.M. FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001/2002 CDBG FUNDING REQUESTS AND A PRESENTATION ON URBAN FORESTRY. ~. " Respectfully submitted: ~ ,,~.~ ~ ~., ~ Ossie Edmundson Senior Secretary ~~.~~-a-x~nJ 7~C2~,v,u~c.~ Simonne Fannin Senior Office Specialist Received and approved by the Planning Commission on q'" ~' d~ 08-28-00 Page 33