Loading...
Minutes-PC 2001/01/03• `'~'HEIM C,,`I ~° z CITY OF ANAHEIM ~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~~~NDED \ey1 DATE: WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 3, 2001 ~ C~ MORNING SESSION: Chairperson Koos called the Morning Session to order at 11:00 a.m. at the field workshop on telecommunications. 10:00 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 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge Allegiance was ied by Commissioner Boydstun. CHAIRPERSON: JOHN KOOS COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: BOSTWICK, BOYDSTUN, BRISTOL, KOOS, NAPOLES,VANDERBILT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: ARNOLD STAFF PRESENT: Malcom Slaughter Greg Hastings Greg McCafferty Don Yourstone Alfred Yalda Melanie Adams Randy West Ken Marsh Ossie Edmundson Danielle Masciel Deputy City Attorney Zoning Division Manager Senior Planner Senior Code Enforcement Officer Principat Transportation Planner Associate Engineer Police Sergeant Code Enforcement Officer PC Support Supervisor Word Processing Operator AGENDA POSTING: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at 9:30 a.m. on Friday, December 29, 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, December 7, 2000. H: 10301. 01-03-01 Page 1 JANUARY 3, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ • • ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: Receiving and approving the Minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of Continued to December 4, 2000. (Motion) January 17, 2001. Chairperson Koos requested that the tape for pages 16 and 17 of the minutes be reheard by staff for necessary corrections and resubmitted to Commission for their review. Receiving and approving the Minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of Continued to December 18, 2000. (Motion) January 17, 2001. 01-03-01 Page 2 JANUARY 3, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. a) CEQA EXEMPTION SECTION 15061 (b)(3) Approved b) CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2001-00007: City-initiated (Planning Department), 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805, Request City staff-initiated request for the Planning Commission to request the City Attorney's Office to Attorney's Office to draft an ordinance to amend various Chapters of prepare ordinance Title 4 and Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to the to be reviewed by requirements for freeway-oriented signs. Planning Commission prior to ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by consideration of the Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Arnold City Council. absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby Vote: 4-2 concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of a (Koos and CEQA Exemption Section 15061 (b)(3), as defined in the California Vanderbilt voted no) Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare additional (Arnold absent) environmental documentation. ~~ L J Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Arnold absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby request the City Attorney's Office to prepare an ordinance incorporating the following code amendments for review by the Planning Commission prior to consideration by the City Council to protect and enhance the visual aesthetics of Anaheim's freeway corridors: • Lower the maximum height from 70 to 60 feet. • Maintain the maximum sign area of 250 square feet. • Allow freeway-oriented signs only on properties that abut freeway rights-of-way or freeway frontage roads (currently, freeway-oriented signs are permitted on properties located as far as 660 feet from freeway rights-of-way). • Require property owners to choose between freeway-oriented wall signage (permitted by right, but otherwise limited to 250 square feet) or freeway-oriented freestanding signs (subject to a conditional use permit) to eliminate duplicate business identification and to address the actual need for a freestanding sign versus the adequacy of a wall sign. • Upgrade landscaping standards to require that effective screening (i.e., shrubs) be planted at the base of freeway-oriented signs to visually screen the sign supports. • Amend the Northeast Area Specific Plan (SP 94-1) development standards, which are currently more permissive than the recommended citywide sign standards specifically related to size, height and eligible uses. • Add provisions, if applicable, to ensure compliance with Caltrans standards for Scenic Highways along the SR-91/Riverside Freeway. • Amend Chapter 4.08 to be consistent with Chapter 18.05 related to SR7850CF.DOC1 freeway-oriented signs. ~ 01-03-01 Page 3 JANUARY 3, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner, addressed the Commission with City-initiated proposal for freeway oriented signs. The City does feel that the existing sign standards have been good along the freeway and well served. We would like to suggest the amendments to the current code, which are identified in paragraph 18 of the staff report. Applicant's Statement: Mike Neben, President of the Chamber of Commerce. Stated that the Chamber is the City's primary business organization representing nearly 900 businesses and over 100,000 employees. There is a letter in the packet that relates to the proposed ordinance and I would like to add several points of clarification. He congratulated planning staff on the process by which this ordinance is being brought before the Commission. By assuming an open and inclusive position from the outset, they have made it possible for the business community to respond in a positive manner with a clear understanding of the intent of the proposed ordinance and an opportunity to represent the business point of view. They hope this open communication will continue into the future. Second, one of the focal points of the Chamber's work is economic development. This translates into assisting the City of Anaheim in attracting and retaining businesses. The fundamental element of effort is the need for the City to send clear and concise messages to the business community regarding planning and zoning issues. It should not be necessary for any business, whether they are interested in moving to Anaheim or are already here, to second-guess the Planning Department, the Planning Commission or the City Council. To suggest to a business that an ordinance is restrictive but they can apply for a variance does not send a positive message that there is fairness and consistency of policy. It puts • them into a guessing contest requiring payment of fees and drafting of documents before they know whether a particular aspect of their business is going to be permissible. On the subject of signage, they have made several suggestions and asked several questions. They feel that the 25-foot high restriction is arbitrary and would recommend that it be amended to allow signage that is visible above the prevailing obstacles. While they would not suggest the allowance of overly high freestanding signs they believe signage should be easily visible. The suggestion that a sign would be useful if visible from only on direction is not acceptable to the business community. They have also opposed reducing the distance from the freeway because in this area of the state there are insufficient informational signs on freeways to guide motorist to gas stations and restaurants, etc. The concept of branding comes into play here. While many motorist are willing to take a chance that randomly getting off at an exit will produce a gas station, they may have a brand preference that cannot be satisfied without adequate visible signage. The concept of branding brings up another issue. It is their understanding that an existing sign can be refaced without undergoing additional approval or review. However they also understand that any transformation of that sign must undergo a complete new CUP or Variance. Looking at Example No. 61 in the packet showing the Texaco sign, assume for a moment that the property was sold to Shell Oil. They could not change the sign even if they kept the original dimensions or downsized it if they changed the shaped to the oyster shell design of the Shell Oil Corporation. If we were to understand how this process works they would hope such a situation would not prevail. He thanked the Commission for assisting in making Anaheim the best place in Orange County to live and work. 7hey will continue to advocate for a business friendly environment in Anaheim and appreciate staff s cooperation in that effort. • 01-03-01 Page 4 JANUARY 3, 2001 ClTY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Boydstun felt that 25 feet was too low and that a 60-foot limit is more acceptable before they have to apply for a Variance. Stating that this is a turn off to any new business that wanted to come to Anaheim because they will find out that they have to do several other things to get their business approved. The other thing that concerns me is removing the 660-foot requirement. Sometimes a gas station is a block from the freeway, it isn't exactly connected. We should consider somewhere around 300 feet which could put them across the street from the connecting property still in close enough range. It is when you are traveling you need to know whaYs there and we aren't marked like the north part of the state and other states who show what is at every intersection and off ramp. Commissioner Vanderbilt regarding "Branding" it brought up an interesting point regards to companies selling. It might be more likely as a merger such as Texaco merging with Shell perhaps and that they would go with the Shell logo to suit their need at this location. So I am in agreement with Mr. Neben in that aspect of his remarks that perhaps the CUP process might be excessive in that sort of instance. He asked if there was any possibility that staff would consider those kinds of circumstances in developing this policy. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, explained that if it is just simply a change of sign copy there is no requirement for any type of Planning Commission action or any type of other Variance or Conditional Use Permit needs. Typically, unless the Planning Commission specifically ties to certain sign copy, there should not be any type of problem with changing the brand name on a sign provided that there isn't any type of structural change beyond the face of the copy. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked in terms of the example that he cited where there is a . likelihood that the shape of the sign would have to change to match the text. Greg Hastings stated that typically they do not see the shape of the sign change because most of the signage is actually squared off and the panel itself would be dark and the symbol would be lighter so that would work. Chairperson Koos concurred with Mr. Hastings added but there might be some instances where there could be some items that slip through the cracks. Greg Hastings stated that any structural changes would have to conform to the code. r ~ L_J Commissioner Boydstun asked if it were a corporate change, could something be built into the code to state the exception. Chairperson Koos concurs with Mr. Neben on that issue. He further added if we could incorporate some sort of allowance of square footage if it only exceeds the original approval by 10% or if it could be done administratively as opposed to a new CUP. There could be some leniency on these kinds of things. Greg Hastings referred to the change in Code to the City Attorney relative to any type of state laws pertaining to signage that would be grandfathered in. Malcom Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, stated that we would have to review that in attempting to draft such a provision. We would have to look at the drafting of it, but I'm not prepared for that question at this time. Chairperson Koos stated Commissioner Vanderbilt wanted to sort of look at that. 01-03-01 Page 5 JANUARY 3, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Bostwick stated that most Corporate businesses could fit into the same framework of an existing sign. He further disagreed with the change to the code by lowering the sign heights to a maximum height of 25 feet. During the morning session, I thought it might be premature in making wholesale changes to the code due to the fact that the 5 Freeway and part of the 91 Freeway has not been finished. The landscaping is not in and they do not know what the ultimate look of those freeway enhancements will be once that is completed. Another comment made was that Anaheim is unique in that they have 3 freeways that run through the City. They need to utilize them to the maximum extent that we can to enhance the business community in this City rather than penalize it. How it should be done is not clear. They should look at ways to improve the business community in the City and make it easier for them. He would go along with the 60-foot high signage requirement rather then the 70-foot high maximum. There should be something in the Code to instruct the applicant to show a line-of-sight drawing to justify the need for a 60-foot high sign. Also increasing the wall signage usage as a trade off to the pole signage. You can't have both together. IYs either a pole or wall sign. He suggested the City could work with the applicant to relocate and give them more credit if they co-located a cell tower along with a pole sign. Perhaps combining two purposes is the trade off of reducing one cell tower. As an example, he referred to the cell tower on the Business Center on Cerritos and Anaheim Boulevard. If they put up a new sign there they could co-locate that cell tower within it. Or the one up on Lincoln Avenue and the 5 Freeway where it is standing out in the middle of nowhere. If that goes into some sort of auto dealership or something else maybe they could co-locate there, by that have a taller sign than code requires. ~ Chairperson Koos inquired about the statement by Commissioner Bostwick regarding the use of either a wall signage or a freestanding sign but not both, can you clarify that. Commissioner Bostwick clarified it by saying that if they get the increased wall signage then they can not have the higher pole sign. It's either one or the other, but not both. If they stay with the standard signage then they can have the pole sign. Chairperson Koos asked what Commissioner Bostwick's allowance would be for the increase in pole signage height. Commissioner Bostwick stated that the current code allows for 10%. Commissioner Bristol asked Cheryl if it was the wall sign of 10% not to exceed 125 square feet. Cheryl Flores stated that it would be 250 square feet or 10% of the building wall whichever is greater. Some buildings would not benefit if it were a large building, 10% might give them 300 square feet so there are some cases where they won't get an incentive from that provision. However, smaller buildings definitely would. Chairperson Koos commented on the height issue. He had no other problems with staff's recommendation. The height issue is problematic. It is determined by CUP regardless. At the morning session the discussion was if there needs to be a limit and staff felt comfortable that there be a limit to send people some kind of inessage. Cheryl Flores stated that the City's intent was that there should be some sort of height for best case scenarios where you have a flat property at grade level with the freeway. Other • 01-03-01 Page 6 JANUARY 3, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • heights could be determined though the conditional use permit process and through the information brought to us by the applicant to justify the actual height needed. Chairperson Koos stated his concern. Many of the newer communities emerging are seen as master plan business communities. Many do not have freeway oriented signs like these and did not think their business community is being held back by a lack of freeway sign programs. He feels that this code proposal left much room for inequity. They cannot afford to be more conservative on these heights. If they set it at 60 feet then they will probably have proposals for 60 feet as a matter of routine. Then they will be knocked down by staff or the Planning Commission but it sort of puts it on us to constantly justify why they think it needs to be lower and it will all be a discretionary case by case basis. It will not be much different then having to justify why a variance occurred on one site as opposed to another site. At the morning session they discussed what a good sign height would be assuming all grades are equal and I got the impression that 60 feet was an acceptable height. He wondered what makes Anaheim so unique to need 60-foot high signs when other cities survive without any signage at all? Why wouldn't a 25-foot high sign work instead assuming the freeway grade and the property grade is level. The exception would be a sound wall or berm. Staff seems to justify that 60 feet is a good height with all things being equal while no other cities are allowing anything. Commissioner Bristol does not feel that an absolute comment can be made on this issue. For instance, the Toyota Dealership had requested a 100-foot high sign and as it turns out 60 feet of the sign was visible on part of the freeway and on the other side. His interpretation of what Chairperson Koos stated was if you take the 57 Freeway, it is elevated. What is the distance with the elevation of the freeway compared to the pads that • are adjacent to the freeway. 91 Freeway by Euclid, Harbor, parts of those areas go down. Now you have just the opposite effect. In the east area near the 91 Freeway they are prohibited. They are only referring to a certain stretch of the 91 Freeway and the 5 Freeway where they have a lot of pad and equality. The 57 Freeway and 91 Freeway are not level at all in the stretch we are discussing. He remains in favor of reviewing each individual area of the freeway and determining if 60 feet would be sufficient. For example, the Fry's sign is 25 or 30 feet sufficient, yes. Would 60 feet be necessary, no. However, it may be necessary in another area of the freeway. Greg Hastings stated that the Toyota Dealership's original proposaf was 100 feet and they came down to a 60-foot high sign. Chairperson Koos does not want to limit sign height but also does not want to set an automatic standard. They need to look at it on a case to case basis because Anaheim is not flat like Irvine. Maybe they can have it completely discretionary and develop some guidelines that the Planning Commission and City Council establishing a maximum of signs not exceeding 25 feet above the freeway grade. Commissioner Bostwick added that they need to go back to the beginning to look at what it currently is and what we will ultimately allow. They are only allowed if they are there for lodging facilities, restaurants, service stations, regional shopping centers and large auto dealerships. So they are not going to get a lot of these signs, and those they currently have, are going to go away because they are not allowed. Therefore, the small business is going to have a hard time. Chairperson Koos stated the he does not feel fhat what he stated is contrary to what • Mr. Neben indicated. Mr. Neben said 25 feet above the prevailing obstacles. 01-03-01 Page 7 JANUARY 3, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Bostwick interjected that the Anaheim Auto Dealership is going to have a 25-foot sign. If you built a new auto mall at Anaheim Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue would they buy that today? No he did not think so. Irvine has a taller sign then that. Santa Ana Dealership has a huge sign up in the air and so does the Tustin Car Mart. And that is all you are allowing for here. It does not apply towards the "mom and pop" businesses or the "card shop" on the corner. It is specifically designated for certain types of businesses. Commissioner Boydstun stated that these are just guidelines to go by because we have to have some set rules to avoid leaving it wide open. When a business comes in to set the place up they want to know what is permissible by code which helps them in their projections of cost involved in opening their business. Also they can know whether or not any variances or conditional use permits will be needed. We have to give them something that is workable so they can do without the extra expenses and extra time, Chairperson Koos stated that maybe he was being more business friendly by saying without setting a limit and it is all case by case, then you would not have any variances on signs. Commissioner Boydstun interjected that it would still require a CUP and if there is no height limit then there is no guidelines so how will it be determined what property can have what height limit set forth. Commissioner Bostwick stated that his understanding was that staff would prefer to have a number placed on the height rather than nothing to have some guidelines to work with the client when they come to the counter. If you do not put any limit on it then it is tough for the business to know where to start. ~ Commissioner Boydstun added that it is tough and expensive for the businesses to get plans made without knowing where to start. Chairperson Koos felt that the businesses would know anyway because if they come in with a 60-foot proposal we can still say 30 feet is the limit. However, under Commissioner Boydstun's system if they say 65 feet then they are applying for a variance. Commissioner Boydstun informed the Commission that there are a lot of signs in the City that are 35 and 40 feet high and they wouldn't have to get a variance. Not everybody wants to spend the money for a 100-foot high sign. In the businesses that we would be dealing with it wouldn't be like every business in town would want to come in and decide what the height would be. Commissioner Vanderbilt specified that the general type of business that would use this type of sign code would be the ones described in the staff report such as hotels, gas stations, regional shopping centers, etc. He did not know if those types of businesses are generally corporations with individuals that know how they are going to market the site within limits that the City gives them for the signage that they can use. He asked staff to explain how they arrived at a height limit of 25 feet. Greg Hastings stated that 25 feet is the general maximum height of signage elsewhere in the City other than a monument sign. Also it is the approximate height of a building next to a freeway. They also compared the sign requirements in other cities in Orange County. It was very close to what the average was. That was the number that was looked at by staff. • 01-03-01 Page 8 JANUARY 3, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Vanderbilt asked if there was any consideration to the economic impact. When other cities were asked about their sign requirements were there also inquiries about the impact in terms of the location of businesses in their city? Greg Hastings replied no, that question was not asked of other cities. Commissioner Bostwick asked Mr. Alfred Yalda how hard it would be to get Caltrans to put the signs on the freeway to read something to the affect of, "gas, restaurant, lodging" at the next exit. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, stated that Caltrans has a very specific guideline for signage. One of their requirements is that this area is an urban area and it does not need to identify where a gas station is located or a hotel. That type of signage is used at the freeways that are located outside of urban areas. I-5 Freeway is almost all in an urban area, therefore they do not put any sign in stating where a gas station or hospital is located, etc. They are very strict about that. Their office has requested that several times and Caltrans has denied it. They expect that people know that when they are in an urban area such as Anaheim and all along I-5 Freeway that there would be a gas station or a hospital or a place to eat. They only use the guide signs in rural areas where it is not clear what is at the end of the off ramp. Commissioner Bostwick stated that this explanation increases the reasoning for why we need to keep the freeway signs in our present code and still feel that the 60-foot high requirement is sufficient. Anything higher should need a variance. Commissioner Boydstun added that she felt that the signs could be located as far as a one- block distance away from the freeway. • Chairperson Koos stated that he was not opposed to various sign heights if that was needed to advertise the types of businesses that the City allows. I don't want the 60-foot high stated in the code to imply that it is the standard that the City wants to see when they can supply us with 20-foot high signs. Commissioner Bostwick wants the applicant to have a line-of-sight drawing to justify the height desired for the business's sign height. Commissioner Bristol stated some of this can be eliminated by driving down the 91 Freeway which is below grade. Looking back at Carl's Jr's sign would you say that is a 60- foot sign? No it is a 110-foot sign. So logic dictates that a 25-foot maximum would have been needed there. That would eliminate the guesswork of an applicant coming to the counter, they know now there is no way they are going to get a 60-foot sign. Going to another section of the freeway off of Euclid where we are way above grade with a sound wall, with this freeway you can't see anything by looking over to see the roof sign. So they have agreed that they want to do a 60 or 70-foot high sign. Well, it would not work there so now logic dictates is it possible for them to get a 60-foot sign. Yes, on that segment of the freeway. If we don't prohibit freeway signage for an automobile dealership at that location then 60-feet makes sense. Therefore the applicant comes to the desk and they aren't turned away by the 25-foot restriction. By considering the freeways that we have to deal with then we can eliminate a lot of the guesswork before the applicant comes in and still have the conditional use permit. After listening to what the gentleman said from the Chamber of Commerce, and thought he was correct, they have an opportunity here because of the freeways going in we are going to have some more changes. Perhaps they can make some fairly accurate observations instead of having to guess the 57 Freeway, which is above grade. He stated that he supports a height limitation but for different • 01-03-01 Page 9 JANUARY 3, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . segments of the freeway where it makes sense. Perhaps there is more they can do prior to drafting an ordinance. Cheryl Flores stated that it may be difficult to craft proper wording in a code standard to know where the elevations are and to know which properties have what height. Commissioner Bostwick would rather review it on a case by case basis. Chairperson Koos stated that if we need to put a height limit then he would rather have something lower than 60 feet such as 40-foot maximum which would be closer to staff's recommendation. Commissioner Bristol would like to eliminate some of the guesswork in putting in signage. Suspected that this proposal by staff is coming from a directive from City Council. Therefore, they need to review this on a reasonable basis based on the level of the freeway whether it be below grade or above grade level. Discussion went on further to reiterate Chairperson Koos, Commissioner Bostwick and Commissioner Bristol's points regarding freeway sign height requirements. Commissioner Bostwick believes that there are going to be some major changes along the freeways, for instance, properties along the 5 Freeway that can be redeveloped. There are some smaller industrial parks that may change use as time goes on. So we have to have some forethought to what is being discussed. I would support lowering the maximum height to 60 feet and leaving the maximum sign area at 250 square feet rather than reducing that to 125 square feet. He then referred to recommendation 18(b) in the staff report which states "currently, freeway-oriented signs are permitted on properties located ~ as far as 660 feet from freeway rights-of-way". He stated he would leave the 660 feet currently in place because we have areas that are not right up against the freeway and yet the need is there for those types of signs to identify the properties. The landscaping underneath the signs is very appropriate for today's standards. Also make sure any signs in the scenic highway comply with code. Those would be my recommendations which consist of the first two recommendations in paragraph 18. Chairperson Koos asked Ms. Cheryl Flores how she arrived with 125 feet square footage. Cheryl Flores stated that it was an average they arrived at from surveying 10 other city's standards. All of the cities were leaning towards lower and smaller signs. Commissioner Boydstun asked if all of the cities that were checked in south County, were they planned communities. Cheryl Flores replied that the cities surveyed were Irvine, Tustin, Santa Ana, Orange, Garden Grove, and Buena Park. There were 10 cities total. Commissioner Bristol asked what the difference was between the freeway signage and the wall signage. Asked if they had the "either/or" stipulation. Cheryl Flores responded that the other cities did not have that requirement. This was something that Anaheim came up with in our study just to eliminate duplicate signage. Commissioner Bristol asked if it was possible that the cities that were looked at have both wall signage and possibly a smaller freeway sign. ~ Cheryl Flores concurred. 01-03-01 Page 10 JANUARY 3, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commissioner Vanderbilt stated his comfort level with having the business owners to choose between a wall sign and a freestanding sign. He thought perhaps there may be instances when someone is going to build a 4-story business office. There could be future development along the 57 Freeway. The factor for businesses could be the consideration of either designing a building or a fac~ade to allow maximizing their wall sign height to exceed the 25-foot maximum if it is more than a couple of stories tall. That would be their choice. Commissioner Boydstun added that with this an office building does not have the choice with the freeway signage, which is one of the things approved. Commissioner Vanderbilt was referring to a hotel development. Commissioner Bostwick stated that the hotel that is currently being built at the corner of Katella Avenue and the 57 Freeway has the choice of utilizing more signage on the building rather then putting up a 70-foot sign. Cheryl Flores informed Commission that that particular hotel is in the Sports Entertainment Overlay Area, therefore subject to those set of requirements. Chairperson Koos asked Commissioner Bostwick about his feelings regarding 125 square foot sign. Commissioner Bostwick did not feel that a 10x12 area is a big enough area for signage. Chairperson Koos asked Mr. Greg Hastings how large was the Home EXPO sign. ~ Greg Hastings indicated that staff could verify the information at a later time. Discussion during the Action: Cheryl Flores asked for the Commission to discuss the Northeast Area Specific Plan sign standard and eligible uses before a motion is made. They have a recommendation to the code amendment to delete the big box users. Those are a minimum of 50,000 square feet, which are now eligible for a freestanding sign from the list so that it would match the citywide requirements. In other places within the City the big box users are not eligible for a freeway-oriented sign. Commissioner Boydstun clarified that staff would like Commission to amend the condition to read, "amend the Northeast Area Specific Plan to the recommended citywide sign standard specifically related to size and heighY'. Cheryl Flores included eligible uses. By that staff means the deletion of the big box retail. They would not be revising the standards for the auto dealerships in the Northeast Area. Those would remain like they are. She mentioned that the only place that they are allowed in the Northeast Area is in Development Area 3, which is roughly on the north side of the 91 Freeway between Tustin and Kraemer. Action: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion to recommend approval on the CEQA Categorical Exemption Section 15061(b)(3), seconded by Commissioner Boydstun. A motion was made to request the City Attorney's office to prepare an ordinance incorporating the ~ following code amendments for consideration by the City Council to protect and enhance 01-03-01 Page 11 JANUARY 3, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ the visual aesthetics of Anaheim's freeway corridors and on the list presented in Paragraph 18 Section B first bullet point to lower the maximum height from 70 feet to 60 feet and removing the second bullet point. Leave the remaining bullet points as written. Chairperson Koos indicated he would have eliminated the height requirement by applying for a conditional use permit they must have additional justifications and findings for their individual need for signage, which would go to a line-of-sight drawing or photo simulations from several different vantage points. This would eliminate variances for a sign above 60 feet but it also does not send a message to those who only need a 30-foot high sign that they could go for 60-foot signs. Motion passed with 4 yes votes Commissioner Bostwick, Commissioner Boydstun, Commissioner Bristol and Commissioner Napoles. Commissioner Vanderbilt and Chairperson Koos voting no. ~ C~ 01-03-01 Page 12 JANUARY 3, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • • B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 3924 AND 3675 (CUP TRACKING NO. 2001-04305) - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: David R. Jackson, Fairmont Private Schools, 100 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 125, Anaheim, CA 92805, requests termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 3924 (to permit a private educational facility (gymnasium/auditorium and classroom) with waiver of minimum parking lot landscaping, minimum number of required parking spaces, maximum structural height and minimum landscaping adjacent to residential zones)) and Conditional Use Permit No. 3675 (to permit a private educational facility (9th through 12th grades) with a caretaker's unit with waiver of minimum parking spaces)). Property is located at 2212 and 2200 West Sequoia Avenue. TERMINATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-1 Terminated • Vote: 6-0 (Arnold absent) SR1000CW.DOC 01-03-01 Page 13 JANUARY 3, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 1612, 2262, and 2919 (CUP TRACKING NO. 2001-04304) - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: David R. Jackson, Fairmont Private Schools, 100 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 125, Anaheim, CA 92805, requests termination of: Conditional Use Permit No. 1612 (to permit a church and planned unified industrial service center with waivers of maximum structural height, minimum structural setback, required improvement of setback areas and required site screening). Property is located at 2200-2400 West Sequoia Avenue. ' Terminated Vote: 6-0 (Arnold absent) Conditional Use Permit No. 2262 (to permit on-sale alcoholic beverages in a proposed Moose Lodge) and Conditional Use Permit No. 2919 (to permit an automobile repair facility). Property is located at 2232-2240 Sequoia Avenue. • • TERMINATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-2 SR1000GK.DOC 01-03-01 Page 14 JANUARY 3, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CJ D. a) CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 Approved b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 244 AND 564 (CUP TRACKING Approved retroactive NO. 2001-04319) - REQUEST FOR RETROACTIVE EXTENSION OF extension of time TIME: Shu-Chen Whitworth, 1800 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801, requests a retroactive extension of time to comply with (To expire 12-6-2001) conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit Nos. 244 and 564 (to renovate an existing 52-unit motel). Property is located at 1800 Vote: 6-0 West Lincoln Avenue - Executive Inn (formerly Ha Penny Inn). (Arnold absent) ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Arnold absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of a CEQA Exemptions, Class 1, as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exemption from the requirements to prepare additional environmental documentation. Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Arnold absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the request for two (2), 6-month retroactive extensions of time to expire on December 6, 2001, based on the following: s (i) That the proposed use remains in conformance with the current zoning code and General Plan land use designation, and that there have been no code amendments that would cause the original approval to be inconsistent with the zoning code. (ii) That since the original approval in December of 1999, the petitioner has demonstrated that significant progress has been made on the renovation of the motel units and the exterior of the property. Further, the property appears to be adequately maintained and there is no additional information or circumstances that would contradict the findings made at the time of the original approval. (iii) That this is the first request for an extension of time for this permit, and the extension does not exceed the two permitted extensions of time permitted by Code Section 18.03.090.0301. SR2052DS.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is a request for an Extension of Time to comply with Conditions of Approval for Conditional Use Permit Nos. 244 and 564. It is for a previously-approved 52-unit motel. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission grant two, 6-month extensions of time which would approve this to December 6, 2001. u 01-03-01 Page 15 JANUARY 3, 2007 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • E. a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4149 (CUP TRACKING NO. CUP 2001- 04322) - REQUEST FOR SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE: Phil Gallegos, 7720 East Evans Road, Suite 101, Scottsdale, Arizona 85260, requests determination of substantial conformance for modifications to previously-approved exhibits for a large equipment storage, repair and rental agency. Property is located at 3030-3040 East Miraloma Avenue. Approved Determined to be in substantial conformance Vote: 6-0 (Arnold absent) ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Arnold 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 (Commissioner Arnold absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine in part, that this request to modify exhibits for a previously-approved large equipment storage, repair and rental agency is in substantial conformance with plans and exhibits approved in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 4149, with the stipulation that the screen wall shall be reduced to 3 feet and painted green and that landscaping shall be used to screen the backflow equipment at the northeast portion of the site, the equipment shall be painted green, and fast growing, minimum 5 gallon size shrubs shall be planted on maximum 2-foot centers surrounding the equipment. SR7884KP.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this a request for Determination of Substantial Conformance for modifications to previously-approved exhibits for large equipment storage, repair and rental facility, located at 3030-3040 East Miraloma Avenue. Following action of this item: Mark Boner, Hurtz Corporation, West Coast Project Manager. He stated there was a requirement for additional landscaping where the backflow preventer was as opposed to having a wall which was initially indicated on the plans. He explained that the wall has been bolted. Also what was asked for was that the backflow equipment be painted green. That is up to the Fire Department to determine what color it would be painted. He reiterated that it's two items, the wall has been bolted and they can put landscaping around that particular wall and the painting of the backflow equipment is up to the Fire Department (Condition No. 10). Greg McCafferty stated if iYs stipulated on the plans and the Fire Department concurs with it, he doesn't believe the applicant has a problem with it in terms of painting the backflow preventer. Mr. Boner replied that he did not have a problem with that. Greg McCafferty stated the reason for the recommendation that the wall not be included is that staff thought if it was painted green with landscaping around it that it would appear as part of the landscape scheme for the front setback and less visible to the public which is why the recommendation was made. • Mr. Boner asked for clarification whether the wall is to be painted green or be removed. 01-03-01 Page 16 JANUARY 3, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Greg McCafferty indicated it is staff's recommendation that the wall be removed and for landscaping to be put around the backflow preventer and painted green. Chairperson Koos asked if the original approval required the wall. Greg McCafferty replied the original approval required the wall, but it has already been constructed. Therefore, staff did not have an opportunity to comment on it. Commissioner Boydstun asked if it was a condition in the original approval. Greg McCafferty explained that normally there is a standard condition that requires that the backflow preventer and other utilities devices be screened but the condition does not specifically state how that is to be accomplished. He did not know how it evolved to have a wall at the subject site. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, explained the original condition required the water backflow equipment to be outside of the street setback area and it was put in the setback area which allows a 3-foot high wall which would not screen the 4-foot high equipment. He suggested to bring the wall down to 3 feet with landscaping around it. Mr. Boner was in agreement. • ~~ 01-03-01 Page 17 JANUARY 3, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 2c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04272 Continued to January 17, 2001. OWNER: Ellas Properties, Attn: Don Bering, 5395 East La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92807 Canyon Commercial Center, Attn: Mark Poochigian, 5000 Birch Street, #510 East Tower, Newport Beach, CA 92660 LOCATION: Portion A: 5375 East La Palma Avenue. Property is 1.1 acre located at the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Brasher Street. Portion B: 5395 East La Palma Avenue and 1370- 1400 North Brasher Street. Property is 5.02 acres located at the northeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Brasher Street. Portion C: 5401 East La Palma Avenue * Property is 12.2 acres located on the north side of La Palma Avenue, 270 feet east of the centerline of Brasher Street. • To permit an expansion to an existing automotive dealership facility with waiver of (a) maximum number of monument signs (deleted), (b) minimum distance between monument signs (deleted), (c) maximum floor area ratio and (d) permitted encroachments into required yards. Continued from the Commission meetings of October 23, November 6, November 20, and December 4, 2000. * Originally advertised as 5401, 5403 and 5405 East La Palma Avenue. Continued from Commission meetings of October 23, November 6, November 20, December 4, and December 18, 2000. • CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR7876KB.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this a request for Conditional Use Permit No. 4272 for several properties generally located on the north side of La Palma, on both sides of Brasher Street. The request is to expand an existing Mercedes Auto Dealership. ApplicanYs Statement: Don Bering, Chief Financial Officer of Caliber Motors, 5395 East La Palma Avenue, Anaheim. He stated the Conditional Use Permit application is for the expansion of Caliber Motors Mercedes Benz on La Palma Avenue. He explained that there are there major components to the expansion: They are requesting to demolish approximately 20,000 square foot, consisting of a 2-story office warehouse building and replace it with a vehicular repair facility that would include a parking lot on the roof. They 01-03-01 Page 18 JANUARY 3, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • would like to expand their existing repair facility to include a technician break and restroom area, a vehicular detail area, and a carwash tunnel; and lastly, relative to the adjacent property which they have leased approximately 20,000 square feet in a light-industrial facility that they would like to use the majority of the facility for part sales and storage with a small percentage used for vehicle sales and office space. In addition, they are requesting to display in front of the property for sale or inventory vehicles that could be seen by people traveling on La Palma Avenue. He stated that they have reviewed staff's recommendations and that generally they did not have a problem with the recommendations, but explained that there are four items that would put a significant damper on their business if they were to be implemented. He referred to Recommendation No. 4 on page 10 it states "that no required parking area shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed for storage use". They feel it is not practical to implement because the majority of their existing facilities at 5375 and 5395 E. La Palma Avenue are already fenced. He indicated that behind the fence area they do use it for required parking for customers, employees, service vehicles and inventory. They have been doing that for 16 years and it hasn't caused any problems, therefore they are concerned about the said recommendation. Relative to Recommendation No. 12 on page 11, he stated the item causes a great deal of concern as "it requires that there be no parking at any time on Brasher Street in front of their property'. He stated currently there are no such restrictions on Brasher Street. Such parking is available to their customers and visitors and to the customers and visitors of the other businesses on Brasher Street, as well as parking being available to their employees and the employees for the other businesses. They feel the subject recommendation would not be in the best interest of Caliber Motors as well as the neighboring businesses. Relative to Recommendation No. 13 on page 11 it states, "it is a requirement that vehicular storage or • overnight parking of vehicles be confined to the interior of buildings or the new parking garage," which would prohibit washing a vehicle outside of any building. He feels that this requirement is extremely impracticable and explained that they need to store inventory vehicles as well as the vehicles belonging to their customers that are at their facility for repair as well as for employee vehicles. They don't have enough room in buildings or the proposed new parking garage to cover anywhere near the number of cars that need to be parked. They would hope that the subject recommendation be eliminated from the staff report. • Relative to Recommendation No. 24 on page 12 which refers to the installation of sidewalks along La Palma Avenue. He stated with respect to the property that they leased at 5401 E. La Palma Avenue that their lessor with agreement to the landlord does not provide for the installation of any sidewalks in the area. To the best of his knowledge he feels the landlord would not permit the recommendation. The landlord is the same landlord that owns the adjacent`facility that is currently being used by Land Rover and they don't have any sidewalks along La Palma Avenue. He feels that this requirement would not be appropriate. He stated their new car facility located at 5395 E. La Palma Avenue that there is a nice grass area there that sets off the building and that they would hope they would not be required to install sidewalks. They do not feel there is a use for sidewalks with the property to the east not having sidewalks. He would like Recommendation No. 24 to be eliminated. Relative to Recommendation No. 2 on page 10, which refers to installing gates across any driveway effecting vehicular traffic. He stated currently there are one or maybe two that would be proposed and would hope that the Traffic Engineer would not propose any solution that would make it difficult to do their business. Chairperson Koos asked if anyone else was here to speak on the subject item. 01-03-01 Page 19 JANUARY 3, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mark Poochigian, President of Canyon Commerce Center, Inc., 5401 East La Palma, Anaheim. He stated in reviewing the staff report they have a question relative to the parking ratio calculation that is shown on Item No. 14 on page 5. They have talked to Caliber Motors for their property is in the inclusion of the entire property of Canyon Commerce Center, Inc., in the parking calculation. They are not sure if staff has utilized the entire parking count of Canyon Commerce Center, which is about 615 stalls. to go towards the parking calculation that has been performed by staff. Therefore, they are requesting clarification prior to a vote being taken. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, indicated that he has talked to the applicant regarding a condition that did not get in the staff report which is the driveway they have on Brasher Street as it does not meet the required minimum standard for today. They are requesting either they close the driveway or move it to meet the standards which is a minimum of,.110 feet from the curb return. Since they are intensifying the use of their property and traffic will increase, it is staff's responsibility to ensure public safety. Therefore, staff recommends closure of the driveway or move it 110 feet from curb return. He also stated regarding to the "no parking anytime" condition. Generally, they get numerous calls from the public because they are not able to see when exiting the parking lots. That puts a burden on staff to go out and spend money by putting the red curbs. Staff is requesting that you remove that, by this addition they will have more cars coming in. They should really not rely on on-street parking for employees that is why there is City code and employees should park on site, not on a public street. We can work with them to have them pay for additional red curb next to the driveway so they could enjoy their parking on the street or limit the parking to their customers to 2-3 hours. The concern is that it not become employee parking for 10-12 hours a day. If you visit the subject site right now, you will see that the street has cars parked back-to-back to the edge of the driveway, which is not safe. • Chairperson Koos asked Mr. Yalda to comment relative to the 615 parking spaces mentioned by Mr. Poochigian. Mr. Yalda stated he believes that the Planning Department will address that, but generally they calculated only the parking for their own site and not for the Canyon Center. Greg Hastings indicated since it is all one property, the entire property is analyzed based on the uses in the particular center. The number of parking spaces that staff identified as being existing parking spaces were those that were on the plans presented by the applicant. Mark Poochigian stated they calculated all the parking spaces on the entire site plan, which would include the property where Land Rover is located. It is part of the 945 spaces as identified in the staff report. Combined between those properties there is 945 parking spaces that are there and 854 are required. He wants to clarify to ensure it is clear to him because the granting of the conditional use permit could adversely affect the value of Canyon Commerce Center. He asked staff if they are including all the parking stalls of Canyon Commerce Center and asked for clarification if another tenant came into the property of a higher use, full office build-out as opposed to an office warehouse component, there might not be sufficient parking at Canyon Commerce Center. Therefore, a property that is owned by a separate corporation from Caliber Motors might not be able to put that higher use tenant into their property. Greg McCafferty replied that was correct. Mark Poochigian stated then they are not in favor. Greg McCafferty indicated when the planner calculated the parking for the subject project including all the other tenants in the property, the assumption was based on the uses in the Canyon Commerce Center • being industrial and portions being office which is how the parking was calculated. For example, if 01-03-01 Page 20 JANUARY 3, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • someone came in and said instead 30% office I want to build all the way up to 46% office within my tenant space then obviously that starts incrementing increasing the parking requirement. Mr. Yalda explained that there is a process to apply for a parking variance and because this is such a big site with a diverse type of use, sometimes when a parking study is done it determines that the parking may be sufficient. If there is any changes in the use, you could always come back and revisit the parking requirement and the City has a process for the parking variance. Mark Poochigian stated there is a difference between having excess parking "which is the asset of the corporation" that they own. Chairperson Koos asked if they own the land. Mark ~'oochigian replied yes, that they own the land, the building, the entire property. But, for some reason staff is saying that the land is owned by Canyon Commerce Center, Inc., which is owned by Orange County Employees' Retirement System. It is now being utilized in a calculation for another owner. The land is owned by another company other than Caliber Motors. Chairperson Koos asked if they are separate lots. Mark Poochigian replied that they are separate lots, but that all the lots are owned by Canyon Commerce Center, tnc. He said to them it does not make sense that an owner of one piece of property can have its land and parking utilized by another owner. Commissioner Bostwick asked if they entered into a lease with Caliber Motors. Mark Poochigian replied yes, but it is not conditioned upon the issuance of a conditional use permit. , Commissioner Boydstun stated that there are 91 extra parking spaces for whatever else they would use. Mark Poochigian clarified for whatever else they would choose to use the property for. Greg McCafferty explained it is his understanding that the site planned was looked at and the way the case planner has calculated the parking with regard to Portion C, which is the gentleman's property. The only extra parking that was calculated towards Caliber's Auto Campus is the portion they are leasing. The balance of the Canyon Commerce Center is for Canyon Commerce Center parking. Mark Poochigian replied if they are saying that just the 64 stalls attributable to approximately 21,000 square feet that Caliber Motors is leasing from them be included and that lease is for a period of 3 years. If that is the only component then they do not have a problem with staff's recommendation. He indicated in the staff report that the recommendation did not appear that way and he wanted to be certain as it could adversely affect the value of the property by limiting the ability to bring in a higher use tenant. Malcom Slaughter stated he is unclear as to what their company has granted to Caliber Motors and asked if they leased only the right to occupy portions of the buildings or have they actually leased the land. Mark Poochigian repfied they have not leased the land, they have leased them two buildings at approximately 21, 000 square feet. Malcom Slaughter asked if the 21,000 square feet is 64 parking spaces. Mark Poochigian replied it would be approximately 3 to 1 parking. Alfred Yalda stated that there should be clarification relative to what will happen after 3 years for the 64 • parking spaces if Caliber Motors is still using them. 01-03-01 Page 21 JANUARY 3, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Greg McCafferty indicated relative to the lease area~that Caliber Motors is leasing, on Portion C, it would require 11.5 parking spaces just for the floor area. He is unclear if in addition to that if Caliber Motors is also leasing display space area which is taking up other parking spaces. Mark Poochigian stated he was not certain, but that he knows they are leasing two buildings, two addresses at the subject property and the parking that comes with that is in front of the property which is adjacent to their existing premises and to La Palma. However because there is no reserve parking at Canyon Commerce Center, anybody can park anywhere in the property. There are no specified parking arrangements. Chairperson Koos asked Melanie Adams if staff required Land Rover to construct a sidewalk Melanie Adams, Associate Engineer, she stated that the applicant is increasing the square footage of the building. Therefore, it is actually required by code to install the sidewalks (Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.04.080.020). If the applicant wishes to ask for a temporarily sidewalk waiver, the actual approved method is to put a petition to the City Engineer, but she explained for the applicanYs information that temporarily sidewalk waivers haven't been granted by the department for the last seven years. She stated they are actually working to recall temporarily sidewalk waivers that have been granted in the subject area, it will be done on a phase basis, in conjunction with work that OCTA is doing to upgrade their bus stops to comply with American with Disabilities Act requirements. The neighbor's temporarily sidewalk waivers will be recalled and the applicant can feel confident that sidewalks will be occurring at their neighbor's property. She reiterated that the sidewalks are required as a code requirement because they are expanding the building square footage. Commissioner Boydstun asked how long have they been withdrawing the waivers. • Melanie Adams replied they are in the preliminary stages, and have not yet recalled any waivers. But, for the last six to seven years, as new projects are coming in they are required to fully comply with the codes and they are not granting any additional sidewalk waivers. Commissioner Boydstun asked why Land Rover did not do the sidewalks. Melanie Adams stated it is her understanding that Land Rover was going into an existing building and they were not increasing the square footage. Alfred Yalda responded to Commissioner Boydstun that they have recalled a couple of the properties to install the sidewalk along La Palma Avenue which has been done in the last ten years. Commissioner Bostwick asked if the post office has been done. Melanie Adams replied that the post office installed their sidewalks when they went for the whole rehab of the facility. Mark Poochigian addressed the issue relative to the sidewalk, he said staff indicated that since Land Rover space was not increased in size and it was an existing building that that was the reason for the waiver. He stated that they also are not increasing the size of the building, the building is staying exactly as it is. Therefore, he would think that the same waiver would be granted to them as was granted to Land Rover, for consistency. Melanie Adams asked for staff s clarification relative to Building B being expanded. Kevin Bass, Planning Department, he clarified that Building A is not being changed, Building C they are • leasing 3, 880 square feet and Building B is where the increase is incurring as they are adding 01-03-01 Page 22 JANUARY 3, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • approximately 10,000 square foot to the rear of the building. They are taking down a 20,000 square foot o~ce building and they are building a two-story parking structure/parking service area, which is approximately 60,000 square feet. Chairperson Koos asked if the parking structure is counted as part of the sidewalk. Kevin Bass replied because it is not used as parking, but is used for inventory storage, that they do count it. Commissioner Boydstun asked which Parcel is B. Commissioner Bostwick explained they have their used car dealership to the west as Parcel A and their main operation is Parcel B, and then the portion they're leasing from the Commerce Center is Parcel C. Commissioner Boydstun asked if Portion B would be the only one needing the sidewalk. Kevin Bass replied that's correct. Chairperson Koos referred to Condition No. 93 relative to the storage of overnight parking of vehicles. He asked if it is a standard condition for car dealerships. Greg McCafferty stated there are three different type of vehicles: customer/employee parking; display vehicles primarily along La Palma; and storage vehicles (inventory). The condition is stating that the inventory should be stored in the parking garage. Commissioner Boydstun pointed out that the car center on Ball Road do not have their cars inside. • Chairperson Koos indicated that not all dealerships would be able to do that. Commissioner Bostwick stated that the last part of the condition should remain "that absolutely no vehicle body work, painting or other business-related activities, or storage of vehicle parts or materials shall be allowed outdoors" and that the first sentence is to be deleted. Commissioner Boydstun asked relative to Condition No. 12, if they have a choice of red curbing or putting a time limit on the parking. Alfred Yalda stated thaYs correct, they will work with the applicant. Commissioner Boydstun indicated that would give their customers time to park and they can make it a 2- hour parking. Chairperson Koos also stated it would ensure that employees don't park there. Commissioner Boydstun asked the applicant if that would work. Don Bering replied, no. He stated relative to the number of employees they have and the amount of parking that is required that they still need some on-street parking for employees, vendors, etc. He feels that the other businesses along the street also need the on-street parking for their employees. He explained that the expansion would significantly increase traffic on the subject street. They are talking about a facility to repair vehicles, the vehicles will come in to them off of La Palma Avenue on the eastside of their building through their service drive. Then taken to the new repair facility, not on the public street but within our property. He doesn't contemplate any significant or major expansion of traffic on Brasher Street. He feels this requirement is unduly restrictive and not necessary. • 01-03-01 Page 23 JANUARY 3, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • He further explained that some of their customers park longer than 2 hours, for example a customer may bring their car for service and leave it there for an extended period while they do errands, etc. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked the applicant if it is his opinion that there is not a safety issue relative to cars parking close to the driveway which limits the visibility. Don Bering replied if it is parking within 25 feet of a driveway or some standard as such that he doesn't contemplate any major problems. Chairperson Koos pointed out whether he disagrees with the Traffic & Transportation Manager or not, that the applicanYs testimony indicates that he is using the public right-of-way as a necessity for his business, you cannot do with out it. He explained if the case is a car wash or a restaurant that the Commission doesn't allow the public right-of-way to be counted as part of the operation. He indicated the fact that the applicant is suggesting to green stripe it as sort of a concession rather than an extra hardship compared to what they do with other businesses. Mark Poochigian stated that there are many businesses in the City of Anaheim where the customers and employees utilize public right-of-way to park, they are not asking that for all of the customers and employees but are asking for a limited portion. He indicated that he believes no other streets in the general area have similar parking requirements and he felt they would be singled out, unfairly. Alfred Yalda relayed to Chairperson Koos that they have to visit each case. They are increasing it and they should not be relying on employee parking. There have been numerous complaints from the employees. The employees don't want to identify themselves by complaining to their employer, but instead they complain to our department. The employees state that they are asked to park on the street and not on site. • He explained that they want to work with them to assure public's safety. Currently, there is a visibility problem that exists. By right the City could put the red curb out there to make it safer, it is a public street and does not belong to the dealership. However, staff is trying to work with them to make it safer, not only for them but also for the citizens of the City. Commissioner Bristol pointed out that there are 5 driveways that might be impacted. He asked relative to the red curb how much distance would be necessary to make it safer to exit the driveways. Alfred Yalda replied that in some residential areas that are not used, 5 feet is sufficient. But, for commercial sometimes they request 20-25 feet, and sometimes less, but generally between 10-25 feet. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked if he is suggesting to red stripe. Commissioner Bristol stated there are two issues, one is safety and the other is that he has never been to an auto dealership where there was no street parking. But since there is a safety issue here that the applicant and staff need to compromise. Also, he feels that the public street should not be used for employee parking. Malcom Slaughter indicated that he was informed by Planning Department that staff has not counted any on-street parking as part of the required parking requirements for the use. They are not in effect using the public street as a required parking space. Chairperson Koos explained that is understood, but according to Alfred Yalda's testimony there is a problem at the subject location, which cannot be ignored. Malcom Slaughter stated relative to another issue the parking signs are not enforceable until such time • the City Council passes an ordinance or according to Mr. Yalda, when the Police Chief signs an order. 01-03-01 Page 24 JANUARY 3, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Therefore, he suggests that if the provision is left that there be added to it, "if said signs are required by the Chief of Police or by ordinance of the City Council" to make it clear that there will be an enforceable sign out there. Alfred Yalda replied that is the process they always do. Greg McCafferty stated if Commission wants to discuss the driveway at Brasher and La Palma that the Traffic & Transportation Manager is requesting relocation. Don Bering asked if he is referring to the one not in the staff report. Greg McCafferty replied, yes. He explained at the morning session the Traffic & Engineering staff indicated to the Commission that it is their recommendation that the driveway north of the northeast corner, Brasher and La Palma, be relocated 110 feet north of the corner. Chairperson Koos asked the applicant if they would be in support of a continuance to allow discussion pertaining to the driveway and parking issues. Don Bering stated relative to the driveway it would be another problem, since he didn't come today to address that issue. Chairperson Koos indicated that is why he's asking if he supports a continuance. Don Bering asked if they are referring to one driveway. Alfred Yalda replied, yes and stated iYs the driveway closer to La Palma Avenue that was discussed yesterday. , Don Bering stated that one is right in line with the door of their facility and it has been there for many years. They haven't had any problems. He feels it would be tough to relocate it since they have not produced any drawings, it will be expensive and hard to do. Commissioner Bostwick addressed Mr. Yalda and stated the driveway on the other side of the street is located a little closer than the said driveway. He asked why couldn't they work out a compromise to leave the driveways as is rather than incurring extra expenses. If they paint the curb red from the driveways to the south, towards La Palma Avenue, to prevent anyone from parking on either side then that portion of the street would obviously create a problem with visibility for people turning the corner. Alfred Yalda stated that he believes the dirt side, curb return is wider so you turn with a higher speed than on the west side of the street. The only difference is the curb return radius. Also, the people going east bound on La Palma, making a left turn, may immediately choose to go to that driveway that may create a hazard. He stated staff can revisit the area and can work with the applicant. Commissioner Bostwick stated it makes more sense to him, he understands staff is saying they are intensifying the use but their sales are up front where they are not intensifying that area. If they painted the curb from both driveways, on both sides of the street it would give you a better line-of-sight and a safer access, ingress and egress to the street. Alfred Yalda stated they could work with the applicant relative to that. Don Bering stated that the west side of Brasher Street may be a problem as it is next to the used car facility. If it were to be converted to red all the way to the corner their customers would not have much of a place to park. They don't have easy access for customer parking on the west side. He hasn't thought about it from a safety stand point and he's not aware of the required distances, but for people turning in • going east on La Palma there isn't an issue of hitting a parked car as may be for cars going west. 01-03-01 Page 25 JANUARY 3, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Alfred Yalda stated he does not believe they are putting a red curb on the west side of the street. He reiterated that staff would work with the applicant. Chairperson Koos offered a motion for a continuance to January 17, 2001, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick, vote taken and motion carried. Following Action: Commissioner Bristol asked Mr. Bering if there is a reason why the used car dealership is parking on the grass. Mr. Bering replied that he is the Chief Financial Officer and is not the proper person who handles the vehicle displays. Commissioner Bristol asked Mr. Bering if he could address it to the appropriate person to have the vehicles removed from the grass on the used car fa~ility area. Mr. Bering replied, yes. Chairperson Koos suggested the applicant to work on getting their employees off the street. Don Bering replied that a lot of customers would rather pull up on the street even if there is room because they feel more comfortable and less pressured. • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • ~ OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the January 17, 2001, Planning Commission meeting in order to allow time for the applicant to address parking, traffic and safety concerns. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Arnold absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 42 minutes (2:38-3:20) , ~, ~ , ~, ~, ~, ~, ~ , ~, ~, ~, . ~, w, ~, . ~, ~, ~, ~ , ~ , . ~ , . ~ , ~ , . ~ , ~ ~ , ~, ~ , e ~ ~ , ~, ~, ~ ~ ~, ~, ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~, ~, ~ , ~, ~, ~, ~, ~ ~ ~ , ~ , ~ , ~ , ~ ~ , ~, ~, ~, ~, ~, ~, ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ , ~, ~, ~, ~, ~, ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ , ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~, ~ ~ ~, ~, ~, . ~ , ~, ~ Chairperson Koos announced that Item No. 7 would be heard following Item No. 2 since it was a continued item. , ~ ~ ~, ~, ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~, ~, ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~, ~, ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~, ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~, ~, ~, ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,. ~, ~, ~, ~, ~, ~, ~, ~, ~, ~, ~ ~ ~, ~, ~, ~, ~, ~, ~, ~, ~, ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~, ~, ~, ~, ~,. ~,. ~, ~, ~, ~, ~, ~, ~ ~. ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ u 01-03-01 Page 26 JANUARY 3, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES u 3a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 321 (PREV.-CERTIFIED) Continued to (EIR TRACKING NO. 2000-00325) January 29, 2001. 3b. VARIANCE NO. 2000-04417 OWNER: Tejas Partners, Attn: Mr. Michael Moore, 1748 West Katella Avenue #206, Orange, CA 92867 AGENT: Robert Jacques, Architect, 11757 San Vicente Boulevard #4, Brentwood, CA 90049 LOCATION: 1501-1551 South Douqlass Road. Property is 7.25 acres located on the west side of Douglass Road, 690 feet north of the centerline of Katella Avenue. Waiver of minimum landscaped setback abutting a freeway, and approval of Final Site Plans to construct one (1) two-story and one (1) four-story office building. Continued from Commission meeting of December 18, 2000. • • VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. SR1084TW.DOC Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion for a continuance to January 29, 2001, seconded by Commissioner Napoles, vote taken and motion carried. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the January 29, 2001, Planning Commission meeting in order for the petitioner to provide staff with additional time to analyze and readvertise this request to include a commercial parking lot. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Arnold absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 01-03-01 Page 27 JANUARY 3, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Continued to 4b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4155 January 17, 2001. (CUP TRACKING NO. 2001-04320) 4c. FINAL ELEVATION AND SIGN PLANS REVIEW 4d. EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OWNER: Devtech Inc., 1812 Fairford Drive, Fullerton, CA 92833 AGENT: WCDS, Inc., Attn: Roger Watson, 1820 East 1St Street, #550, Santa Ana, CA 92705 LOCATION: 500-528 South Beach Boulevard - Sav-on Druqstore. Property is 1.91 acres located at the northeast corner of Orange Avenue and Beach Boulevard (500-528 South Beach Boulevard - Sav-on Drugstore). Request to amend or delete a condition of approval pertaining to the number of units permitted for this commercial retail center, review and approval of final elevation and sign plans, and approval of an extension of time to comply with conditions of approval for a previously approved commercial retail center including a drug store with drive-through lane and sales of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption and retain an existing convenience market with sales of beer and wine for off- premises consumption with waivers. • CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR7881 KB.DOC • Commissioner Bristol offered a motion for a continuance to January 29, 2001, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun, vote taken and motion carried. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the January 17, 2001, Planning Commission meeting in order to notify surrounding property owners of subject request. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Arnold absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 01-03-01 Page 28 JANUARY 3, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 5a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 5b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3790 (CUP TRACKING NO. 2001-04296)* Concurred with staff Approved with modifications to expire 07-03-2001. OWNER: Bobby and Toni Gilbert, 17300 17th Street, Tustin, CA 92780-1955 LOCATION: 1514 West Broadway. Property is 1.05 acres located at the southwest corner of Broadway and Adams Street (B and J's Tree Service). City-initiated (Code Enforcement Division) request for the modification or revocation of Conditional Use Permit No. 3790 (to permit a tree service contractor's storage yard with a modular office building with waivers of required screening of outdoor uses and minimum yard area abutting a local street). " Advertised as CUP Tracking No. 2000-04296. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-3 SR1083TW.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item for a City-initiated request by Code Enforcement for Commission to consider relocation or modification of Conditional Use Permit No. 3790 for property at 1514 West Broadway, B& J's Tree Service. Code Enforcement has been working with the property • owner to try to get them to comply with conditions of approval as well as the Code. After several inspections and attempts to work with the owner, the property is still out of compliance. Code Enforcement recommends that this permit be revoked. ApplicanYs Statement: Mr. Bobby Gilbert, owner of B& J Tree Service, has been there for 5 years without any complaint from neighbors in the vicinity. He and inspectors have different interpretations of his paperwork. Everything he did on the property was approved 5 years ago. Code Enforcement indicated he couldn't have barbed wire, mulch or compost on property. He does not mulch or compost on property due to process needed to complete this activity. He has approval to store equipment on property and the Code Enforcement Officer is counting roll-off containers which they put mulch in, which was never been an issue. He did not realize that he needed to get permission to expand his business. He has done a lot of work for the City, every Disney project approved the demolition was done by him. His property has never been detrimental to anybody, no public ever goes there and it is hardly visible from the roadway. He has no signs and doesn't want anyone to know they are there. He feels the recommendations staff is asking for is out of line. Chairperson Koos stated the only person Mr. Gilbert has spoken to is Mr. Ken Marsh, Code Enforcement Officer, who has written letters to him. Chairperson Koos asked staff when this first began. Ken Marsh, Code Enforcement Officer, explained it began on February 9, 2000. Mr. Gilbert was notified by mail on February 29, March 15, and met with him at subject property on three occasions to discuss the violations. They met on March 20 in the Planning Department and gave him the paperwork to get in compliance, but he never turned the paperwork in. • 01-03-01 Page 29 JANUARY 3, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Bostwick stated that the permit states a maximum of 4 shipping containers shall be maintained on site and Mr. Gilbert needs to get rid of the rest. Mr. Gilbert stated they are storage shipping containers and Mr. Marsh is counting roll-off containers used to haul the chips. Commissioner Bostwick explained there are only 4 approved containers regardless what they are for. If the business is different from what it was approved for then Mr. Gilbert would need to file a new CUP and request what is needed. Condition No. 9 states, "truck maintenance consisting of routine oil change and routine tune-ups can take place from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m." It doesn't include heavy maintenance work, therefore, it needs to stop or return to Commission requesting a full maintenance on vehicles. Commissioner Bristol stated landscaping is in total disregard to the westerly neighbors. Compost is higher than the fence and the landscaping has not been taking care of and doesn't screen the property as it is supposed to. He specifically remembers conversations on this 5 years ago. Commissioner Boydstun recalled when this was before the Commission that they did comment on the infringement of the neighbor's view on to this proper~y. She feels the Commission should only grant this for 60 days to see if there is progress and check it again. Chairperson Koos asked him if he looked over the conditions on page 4 and 5 for new CUP. Mr. Gilbert stated he did. He stores two wave runners on property which he didn't feel was a problem. Mr. Marsh stated it is not part of the business which the Code calls for. Also, there is a compact trailer, and discarded flatbed trailers. There are shipping containers and 1 or 2 that are not identifiable. Mr. Marsh informed him that this Conditional Use Permit only allowed 4. ~ Commissioner Bostwick asked what he was storing in the containers. Mr. Gilbert stated steel shipping containers hold the tree trimming equipment, chain saws, climbing gear, parts and tools. Mr. Marsh stated some of them have been empty when he has inspected the property, however, they could be full at night. Nuisance activity such as discarded axles, car parts stored behind storage containers, car doors and other automobile parts are also on the property. Greg McCafferty showed Commission the exhibit ap`proved with the original Conditional Use Permit that shows 4 storage containers as well as an 800 square foot office building. Commissioner Boydstun stated if he was going to use containers to store equipment, he should have asked to include those. Mr. Gilbert stated he owns 8 containers, but they are not all on the property because some are on job sites and that landscape acquaintance rents 2 of them. He then responded to Commissioner Bristol's question about the gate and said the gate is to the east and does not face the residents. Commissioner Boydstun asked about discarded auto parts. Mr. Gilbert stated there is nothing discarded on his property. He has recently purchased newer trucks from another company, but has saved some spare parts from old trucks. There are a couple of car doors on the containers because he will use them in the future. ~ Commissioner Bostwick stated they are visible from the homes. 01-03-01 Page 30 JANUARY 3, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. Gilbert disagreed and stated he is not guilty of any of these things. Just because they are listed doesn't mean that he has done them. He stated he needs to be able to repair his vehicles, his next door neighbor does the same repair work. He wants to do the same as his neighbors. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated the neighbor might have a permit for major car repairs. Commissioner Bostwick stated the neighbor has a CUP for a garage that is all inside the building. Mr. Gilbert has it outside and they don't allow work outside so he would have to build a building. Mr. Gilbert stated the neighbors operate on their trucks outside on their property everyday, in the front, back and side. They can't get all the vehicles that they work on inside the building. He will build a building or awning if he has to so that he can work on his vehicles. Commissioner Bostwick stated Mr. Gilbert needs to come back to Commission for a CUP and a plan for a building. This business has changed from what was presented when originally applied for and needs a plan and new CUP. Mr. Marsh stated some of the mulch and piles of dead plant debris has been on the property for a minimum of 4 or 5 months. He put a milk container and paper on the property to monitor it and they were there for up to 4 months. Mr. Gilbert stated he had 2 trucks out for a while and it took them a while to get back in shape. There~re . no chips on the property that have been there for more than a month. They have moved out all old things and they are working on cleaning everything out. ;. Chairperson Koos asked when the CUP was to expire. He agrees with Commissioner Bostwiek in a sense that he wants to propose a new use that is not described in the original CUP. He is leaning • towards modifying this CUP to expire in 6 months. Mr. Gilbert would then have time to make a proper submittal to City staff and go through the regular process. Commissioner Bristol stated that he doesn't think what the owner is proposing is going to happen and says that because of the concerns with just the mulch, now he has to work on machines and things like that. He thinks it is highly improbable at this site. The owner needs to pay attention to what the conditional use permit states. Mr. Marsh stated that there is no time limit on it and that is why it is here for revocation. Greg McCafferty asked if Commission was considering modifying the existing CUP with the existing conditions and just extending it for six months, or taking the new conditions and extending it until July. Commissioner Bristol stated he is going to propose that they do that. He offered a motion for CEQA Categorical Exemption Class 21, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick, vote taken and motion carried He offered resolution for Conditional Use Permit No. 3790 with staff's recommendation on 13c, that 1 through 22 be adopted with any changes that the staff might have. This resolution modifies the conditional use permit and would end on July 3, 2001. Greg McCafferty explained that modifications to the conditions are as follows: Condition No. 7 indicates "responsible departments and agencies that would monitor that, so it is Fire Department and Orange County Health Care Agency with regard to waste, oil and other fluids"; Condition No. 18 indicates "walls of the storage area" and staff wants to insert "if said storage areas are visible off site, they shall be protected from graffiti opportunities by use of plant materials'; add to Condition No. 21 - Condition Nos. 1, 6, and 17. Commissioner Bristol stated Mr. Gilbert has rights as a property owner, but everyone around him has • similar rights and he hopes he pays attention to what is being done. If he has any questions, Code 01-03-01 Page 31 JANUARY 3, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Enforcement can help him. He explained his conditional use permit will end in July and he will have to come back to Commission for a new permit. Malcom Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, states that the applicant is to understand that if the Commission approves this with item 19 having an expiration date of July 3, 2001, that means this use of this property will no longer be permitted after that date. If he wants to continue it on and after that date, he has to apply and have his new permit in place before that time. Without that new authorization, the use of the property for this purpose stops on that date. He will have to make his application before then and leave plenty of time. Mr. Gilbert stated Commission approved the barbed wire fence 5 years ago. Malcom Slaughter replied it is illegal under the City Code and nobody can approve it if the law prohibits it. Greg McCafferty stated they checked the exhibit to see if there was razor/barbed wire and there was none. Code specifically states, "barbed wire that is visible to the public right-of-way or non-industrially zoned property is prohibited by the Code". THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ;,: ACTION: Concurred with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 21, as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) • Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare additional environmental documentation. Modified Conditional Use Permit No. 3790 (CUP Tracking No. 2001-04296). Amended Resolution No. PC95-120, in its entirety, and replaced it with a new resolution, as follows: 1. That only equipment, trailers, and vehicles incidental to the tree trimming business shall be stored at the praperty. 2. That a maximum of seven (7) shipping containers and/or roll-off bins shall be maintained on-site. 3. That all site-screening materials shall be maintained free of tears, holes, rips, and separations. 4. That all existing barbed and=razor wire visible to the public right-of-way or residentially-zoned properties to the west shall be removed from the exterior fencing, and that no further barbed or razor wire shall be permitted. 5. That the sorting and transfer of tree trimming and dead plant debris shall be limited to debris retrieved in the normal operation of the subject tree trimming service and no further on-site processing shall be permitted. 6. That tree trimming materials shall not exceed the height of the required perimeter fencing. • 01-03-01 Page 32 JANUARY 3, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 7. That any oil, fuel or fluid waste products shall be disposed of in compliance with Fire Department and Orange County Health Care Agency regulations. 8. That no retail sales of firewood shafl be permitted on-site. 9. That all major engine, equipment, and truck repairs and/or overhauls shall be prohibited at the property and only oil changes and tune-ups shall be permitted between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. 10. That the property owner shall pay the cost of Code Enforcement Division inspections once each month for the duration of this permit, or as deemed necessary by the City's Code Enforcement Division to gain and/or maintain compliance with State and local statutes, ordinances, laws or regulations. 11. That the existing chainlink gate shall remain unlocked and open during business hours to provide vehicular and pedestrian access to required on-site parking. 12. 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. 13. That the on-site landscaping and irrigation system shall be refurbished and maintained in compliance with City standards and Exhibit No. 1 of Conditional Use Permit No. 3790. 14. That all existing mature landscaping shall be maintained and immediately replaced in the event that it becomes diseased or dies. • 15. That plant debris incidental to the tree trimming service shall not be mulched or allowed to compost on-site. Plant debris shall be removed on a weekly basis and shall not be visible above the fence line. 16. That signage sha41 be limited to existing and approved signs. Additional signage shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item. 17. That no requi~ed parking area shall be used for outdoor storage uses. 18. 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 fi4e with said Department. Said storage areas shall be designed, located and screened so as not to be readily identifiable from adjacent streets or highways. If said storage areas are visible off-site that they 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. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for Planning Department and Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division approval. 19. That subject use permit shall expire six (6) months from the date of this resolution, on July 3, 2001. 20. That subject property shall be developed and maintained substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the • 0~-03-01 Page 33 JANUARY 3, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit No. 1, of Conditional Use Permit No. 3790 and as conditioned herein. 21. That Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 13, 17, 18 and 20, above-mentioned, shall be completed within a period of 30 days from the date of this resolution. 22. 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 ~ndings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Arnold absent) Mac Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 34 minutes (3:41-4:15) ~ ~ 01-03-01 Page 34 JANUARY 3, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY 6b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4106 (CUP TRACKING NO. 2001-04295) Withdrawn OWNER: Jack and Nancy Culp, 6614 Oceanview, Carlsbad, CA 92009 LOCATION: 2898 East Miraloma Avenue. Property is 0.86 acre located on the south side of Miraloma Avenue, 620 feet west of the centerline of Red Gum Street (Ideal Equipment Rental). Request for reinstatement of this permit which currently contains a time limitation (originally approved on July 19, 1999 to expire on December 1, 2000) to retain an outdoor construction equipment rental and storage facility including washing and maintenance of equipment. • • CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR7874VN.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this a request for reinstatement of previously-approved outdoor construction equipment rental and storage facility at 2898 East Miraloma Avenue, Ideal Equipment Rental. ApplicanYs Statement: Jack Culp stated he wishes to cancel the request for Conditional Use Permit No. 4106 for a rental yard because the tenant just notified him that he will not be renewing the lease, since he cannot operate the business with restrictions that were placed. He spent over $26,000 retrofitting the building at City's request. He is being forced to go back to Conditional Use Permit Nos. 2510 and 2059. He submitted photos showing improvements that have been made to the property. Commissioner Bristol clarified that the tenant is moving due to what is in Conditional Use Permit No. 4106. Jack Culp stated yes, this conditional use permit was set up just for the tenant. The tenant has cancelled the lease because he cannot function with the restrictions. One example, the gates have to be closed when there is no tra~c coming in and out, so that means he has to have a gate man there at all times to open and close the gate. He stated he spent a lot of money putting in sidewalks and landscaping, but over 26 properties between Blue Gum and Kraemer have no sidewalks. Commissioner Boydstun asked if the neighbor to the left has sidewalks? She suggested that the concrete and brick he has be used as sidewalk, the sidewalk condition seems ridiculous to her. Mr. Culp stated no and pictures show it, the one to the right that has sidewalks. Melanie Adams, Associate Engineer, stated the sidewalk issue for this application would be at Commission's discretion, but the owner should be prepared in the near future to install sidewalks. Commissioner Boydstun asked if she looked at it because it looks like he has sidewalks. Melanie Adams asked if it is brick pavers, there are safety issues if its used as a public sidewalk. She has not seen the pictures. 01-03-01 Page 35 JANUARY 3, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. Culp stated this is inlayed brick. Commissioner Vanderbilt indicated the requirement for the gate has been in existence for 18 months Mr. Culp stated the original requirement was that tenant put up screening and when gates are closed you can't see to the back. During business hours gates would have to be opened and closed every time someone comes in. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Boydstun stated she has a problem with the gates too. This is an industrial area and can't understand why they have to be closed during business hours. Greg McCafferty stated this is consistent with outdoor storage yards that have come in along Miraloma and elsewhere where Commission has required that. Commissioner Bostwick asked the City Attorney if they can do that on his verbal request or do they need a written request. Malcom Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, stated a verbal one for the record is sufficient. Melanie Adams referred to the photographs and stated they show that decorative work starts beyond the public right-of-way so she would have to review the drawings that the public right-of-way that extends 13 feet from the face of the curb. It appears that pavers are on private property. Public Works Department does not extend onto the private property so whatever Zoning determines is appropriate for that area is what would govern. We are only talking about what is in the public right-of-way. • Malcom Slaughter stated they cannot make those determinations at this time, seeing he has withdrawn his application, there is nothing for the Commission to concern itself with. He may later be faced with sidewalk issues if he comes in with a substantial reuse of his property. Commissioner Boydstun clarified that he still had the other finro CUP's. Commissioner Bristol offered a motion to withdraw Conditional Use Permit No. 4106, seconded by Commissioner Napoles, vote taken and motion carried. • • ~ ~- • ~ • ~ ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Planning Cvmmission accepted the petitioner's verba{ request to withdraw this petition. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Arnold absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 14 minutes (4:16-4:30) • 01-03-01 Page 36 JANUARY 3, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 7b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 7c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04286 Continued to January 17, 2001. OWNER: Nader S. & Zahra M. Safaie, 13741 Clinton Street #46, Garden Grove, CA 92843 LOCATION: 2235 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is 0.18 acre located at the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Kathryn Drive (Piua Town). To permit on-premise sales and consumption of beer and wine and outdoor seating in a sit-down restaurant in conjunction with an existing take-out restaurant with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Continued from Planning Commission meeting of December 4, 2000. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR7849VN.DOC (Item No. 7 was heard following ltem No. 2 since it was a continued item.) Greg McCafferty indicated that Item No. 7 is a continued item, Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04286 for property located at 2235 West Lincoln Avenue and the request is to permit on-premises sale and consumption of beer and wine and outdoor seating in a sit down restaurant with waiver of minimum ~ number of parking spaces. Chairperson Koos asked Mr. McCafferty for the record if he could summarize the changes of staff's recommendation. Greg McCafferty indicated the petitioner requested a continuance to work with staff on two issues, one was parking and the other was the request for on-sale beer and wine. The applicant submitted a revised parking study to the Traffic & Transportation Manager and that was reviewed. The Traffic & Transportation Manager is recommending that the Commission approve a maximum of 40 seats for the project. He indicated with regard to the beer and wine that staff received further clarification from the Police Department. The area has above average crime and an over-concentration, they are not comfortable with outdoor beer and wine. He asked Sgt. Randy West, from the Anaheim Police Department, to address the issue. Sgt. Randy West, Anaheim Police Department. He stated he wanted to clarify relative to the staff report on page 8, Condition No. 15. They discussed at the last meeting, that it should read, "that the gross sales of Beer and Wine should not exceed 40% of the gross sales of all retail sales". He explained that the Police Department had a meeting with the applicant and they discussed the over-concentration and the high crime area. The applicant was comfortable with a one-year condition on the subject CUP, with the license. He seems to be a responsible owner based on the conditions, if he accepts the conditions that they are recommending along with the conditions that ABC would place on the license. He stated he feels staff would be comfortable with that. Chairperson Koos asked if there are any concerns relative to patrons taking beer and wine outside. Sgt. Randy West replied, yes and that they oppose the outdoor seating. He explained when they met with the applicant they discussed that issue and at that time it didn't appear to be a problem with the ~ 01-03-01 Page 37 JANUARY 3, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • applicant. He stated within a year they could see if the applicant has. been responsible with the sales of alcoholic beverages. Commissioner Bostwick explained that he finds it difficult to see how it would be monitored Randy West addressed Commissioner Bostwick's concern and he stated after speaking with the applicant that he feels the applicant would monitor his property. He explained that they have many licenses in the City to be monitored, and that they do rely upon the licensees to be responsible and to monitor their own businesses, especially on on-sale licenses as the subject item. He stated after meeting with the applicant he feels the appficant will make an effort to be responsible in monitoring the area, to maintain the alcoholic beverage restrictions on the license including maintaining the alcohol inside the property. Commissioner Boydstun asked if it would be possible to require the applicant to put a sign by the door going out to the patio, stating that "no beer or wine allowed outside". Randy West replied that was a very good idea. Commissioner Boydstun stated she would like to add a condition pertaining to having a sign. ApplicanYs Statement: Nader Safaie, Pizza Town. He stated he appreciates the efforts of the Anaheim Police Department and he will comply with the recommendations. He appreciates that the Police Department doesn't have any objections relative to serving beer and wine inside the business. He feels he is a very responsible person and he can control the application. , He explained that the parking study shows that his site can be approved for 50 seats. Therefore, he is ~ requesting Commission's approval for 50 seats and approval for the beer and wine permit, according to the conditions the Police Department imposes. He stated the Commission's decision is very important for survival of the subject business. The survival of the business depends upon the Commission's decision. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bostwick stated that the size of the property is insufficient and the parking is insufficient for the use that is being requested. He stated he is sure the owner is willing to police the alcohol outside and putting a limit on the percentage. But, he feels it goes with the land and they have set up something that will backfire. He stated he is concerned about the expansion of the subject use. Commissioner Bristol stated to be in favor of the use of alcohol on the subject site would be contradicting everything he has voted on in the last few years. He stated there are too many licenses, the crime is above average not only in the particular area, but also in the surrounding census tract. He explained that bringing beer and wine sales will not eliminate graffiti, dumping, gang, drugs, prostitution, etc., it is contrary to everything they have been going through the last few years. Alcohol does not promote good activities. He stated he concurs with the Police Department that the applicant is a great operator, but it runs with the land. Therefore, he stated he can't support the alcohol use. Commissioner Boydstun concurred with Commissioner Bristol. She stated she would recommend a condition added that, "no beer and wine is to be taken outside". She explained that she feels they are protecting themselves by putting a year on the CUP, so if there are problems it will not be renewed. She stated if the Police Department did not feel it would work that she would definitely vote no. s 01-03-01 Page 38 JANUARY 3, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Chairperson Koos concurred with Commissioner Boydstun if it wasn't for the Police Department's confidence and the fact of putting a year on the CUP that he may have opposed it. He stated relative to the last few beer and wine cases, liquor related cases that he has been trying to differentiate between on- sale and off-sale. If you have ten liquor stores or ten places that sell beer and wine, he feels it is another category to have a restaurant. He does not have evidence that states there is a lot of crime generated from the subject activities. The applicant shouldn't be penalized for the proliferation of off-sale establishments within the vicinity. He has concerns about the enforcement of the outdoor beer and wine issue. If customers challenge and ignore it and he fails to enforce it, Commission can deal with it in a year. Commissioner Vanderbilt concurred with Chairperson Koos. They are going two steps to decide whether there is a relationship between a business that is operating in spot that is a contributor of crime. They will find out within the next 12 months because there are a lot of other factors involved that Commission is not considering or does not know about. He is still undecided, but his preference would be to go with the increased seating without the beer and wine. Greg McCafferty explained that staff has modifications to the conditions. If Commission is going to deny the request to serve beer and wine on the patio, staff recommends deleting Condition 8 that pertains to alcohol in the outdoor area. With regard to Condition No. 15, as Randy West indicated, the gross sales of beer and wine shall not exceed 40% of the gross sales of retail sales and continues as written. With regard to Condition 30, staff wants to add Condition 6 to that. Action: Reso{ution failed to carry and, therefore, Commissioner Vanderbilt suggested a continuance of this item. Chairperson Koos offered a motion for continuance to January 17, 2001 seconded by Commissioner ~ Bristol, vote taken and motion carried. ~ • ~ ~ - ~ ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration (Vote 6-0 (Commissioner Arnold absent) Approved Waiver of Code Requirement (Vote 5-1 (Commissioner Bostwick voting no) Commissioner Boydstun offered a resolution for approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04286 with changes to conditions of approval and THE RESOLUTION FAILED TO CARRY with the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOYDSTUN, KOOS, VANDERBILT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: BRISTOL, BOSTWICK, NAPOLES ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ARNOLD Chairperson Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol to continue item to the January 17, 2001 meeting in order for all Commissioners to be present. DISCUSSION TIME: 19 minutes (3:21-3:40) ~ 01-03-01 Page 39 JANUARY 3, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ ~ ADJOURNMENT AT 4:40 P.M. TO WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 17, 2001 AT 11:00 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. \ J ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION: ommissioner oy s un as e staff about Item No. 4(Tentative Tract Map No. 14429, Specimen Tree Removal No. 2000-0005) action from the Planning Commission meeting of December 4, 2000, whether there was something in the conditions that required the developer to repface and repair the road when construction is completed on the subdivision in the Canyon. She did not feel it should be the homeowner's responsibility, but rather that of the developer should be required to complete any necessary repairs. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, advised that it was discussed but it was determined that it was a matter between the property owners. Since it was not a public right-of-way it was up to the property owners to work together on that. However, he would check the record. He advised Commission that the Specimen Tree Removal portion was appealed and the Tentative Tract Map was not appealed. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, advised if that was a condition placed on the motion approving the map, it should have carried over. Respectfully submitted: ~n~~c~ ~.Q~jt, tLN G~U Elly Fernandes Senior Word Processing Operator ~ '1~~~~.~.Q.P Danielle Masciel Word Processing Operator ~ ~ P ~~~~ ~~~ ' ~ ~ ~-1~_p~ . ~ 01-03-01 Page 40